Economic Stimulus - Does it really work?

Lots of talk these days about the government providing "economic stimulus" to the economy. Ever since my first year economics class in university, I've heard that when the goverment spends money, its effect is multiplied across the economy and it provides great benefits. I always thought that logic was flawed, as it overlooked where the government got that money and the negative effects caused by it.

That idea was started by a British economist named John Maynard Keynes (pronounced "Kains") and has since become known as Keynesian economics. It seems to increase in popularity every time there is an economic downturn, and given the severity of this downturn, its popularity is really surging now.

Now someone named Dan Mitchell has explained the flaw with Keynesian economics much clearer than I ever could. He also explains the track record of this strategy since the 1930's.

Review of The Shack, by William P. Young

The Shack is a fictional story about a guy named Mack who unexpectedly meets God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit in a remote shack in the mountains. In the process, many of his ideas of God are completely overturned and he is able to overcome a great tragedy in his life which has been burdening him.

While I admire the intentions of William Young to try and make the concept of the Trinity accessible to a wide audience, there are some major theological problems with the book.

Before we get into theoogy, I first have to say that the book is just a bit weird! Mack goes to an abandoned shack in the mountains and it somehow transforms into an Eden-like setting where God lives. God the Father appears as a black woman whom Mack calls "Papa", the Holy Spirit is an Asian woman named Sarayu, and Jesus is just a Middle-Eastern man named Jesus.

If you can get past all that and continue reading, there are some clear and accurate themes that emerge, such as God's desire for relationship with mankind and his abundant love for us. But there are also some concepts that are questionable in their theology, and some certainly are contrary to the Bible.

Below are some theological errors I noticed:

1) The Members of the Trinity cannot morph into one another.

p. 96: Papa states that he was present on the cross with Jesus, and Mack notices the same crucifixion scars on Papa's hands that Jesus has.

The three persons of the Trinity are not interchangeable. They cannot take on the forms of each other. Jesus was the only person of the Trinity on the cross. God the Father and the Holy Spirit were not. Jesus was born of a virgin, God the Father and the Holy Spirit were not. The Trinity is not one person who takes on three different forms, but three distinct persons.

The theological term for this heresy is modalism and it has been around since the 3rd century AD.

2) God really did forsake Jesus on the cross.

p. 96: As mentioned above, Papa states that he was present on the cross with Jesus. Mack disagrees, in that Jesus said, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Papa says, "You misunderstand the mystery there. Regardless of what he felt at that moment, I never left him." [italics in original] Papa goes on to ask, "When all you can see is your pain, perhaps then you lose sight of me?"

The idea that God did not turn his back on Jesus when he was on the cross is contrary to Jesus' own words (Matt. 27:46). To disregard Jesus' statement is to propose that Jesus was somehow deceived because of his intense pain, that God the Father was actually still with him but Jesus was blind to it.

God did not forsake Jesus because he was in pain. God had to forsake Jesus on the cross because Jesus had become "a curse for us" (Gal. 3:13) and "sin for us" (2 Cor. 5:21). God turned away from the sin that Jesus was taking on our behalf so that we might obtain Christ's righteousness. Jesus got what we deserved (separation from God) so that we could be reconciled to God.

However, the point remains that when we are in pain, God does not forsake us like he had to with Jesus. We are not bearing anyone else's sin. God is present even in our greatest pain. It is just not acceptable to make that case by arguing that Jesus was deceived.

3) Jesus does not continue to choose to be human.

p. 110-112: Jesus explains to Mack that he is fully human and fully God: not in the sense that he was fully human while he was on earth, but still is. "I choose to live moment by moment fully human. I am fully God, but I am human to the core."

While Jesus was certainly fully human and fully God while he was on this early 2000 years ago, to argue that he is still choosing to be human daily is a strange proposal. The point that Jesus can relate to us because of his experience as a human is absolutely true, but stretching it to mean he continues to become human repeatedly after his ascension into heaven is peculiar and unbiblical.

4) God will condemn some people to hell.

p. 162: The book is a bit vague on this point, but it seems to strongly intimate that God is too loving a father to send anyone to hell simply for sinning against him. It completely ignores the justice of God. Hell was not originally intended for people, but rather the demons who rebelled against God. However, Rev. 20:10-15 is clear that everyone will be judged and those whose names are not in the Book of Life will be given the same punishment as the demons.

5) There really is authority within the Trinity.

p. 122-3: Sarayu says, "We have no concept of final authority among us, only unity. We are in a circle of relationship, not a chain of command .... What you're seeing here is relationship without any overlay of power. We don't need power over the other because we are always looking out for the best. Hierarchy would make no sense among us .... Hierarchy imposes laws and rules and you end up missing the wonder of relationship that we intended for you."

There are a number of presumptions in these statements that are misleading.

First, authority is not contrary to unity. There can be authority in a relationship and unity. That was modeled during Christ's life on earth.

Second, authority is not always synonymous with power. Authority can exist without forcing obedience of another. In the Trinity, authority works through submission as opposed to enforcement. The concept of submission is entirely lacking from The Shack, but is essential in understanding true Godly authority and relationship.

Third, authority must be legalistic and is therefore contrary to relationship. Legalism is deadly, and contrary to the new covenant. However, William P. Young seems to think that authority is impossible without legalism. Again, willing submission permits authority to exist alongside loving relationship without any legalism required.

Jesus clearly demonstrated that he was not in a "circle of relationship" with the God the Father. He did what his Father in heaven wanted. The Father sent Jesus to earth, and sent the Holy Spirit after Jesus ascended. Jesus asks his Father for things in prayer, but never commands his Father. There is clear authority in the Trinity, and it is not circular.

6) There really is the concept of "responsibility" in the Bible.

p. 205: Sarayu says "you won't find the word responsibility in the Scriptures."

That statement is technically true for the King James Version of the Bible, but the concept of responsibility is clearly there. The NASB has 4 instances of the word responsibility, and the NIV has 13.

The term is used in a few different situations:

• The responsibility of the Levitcal priesthood to oversee the tabernacle. (E.g. Num. 4:16, 27)


• The responsibility of the Levitical priesthood to oversee the temple. (E.g. 1 Chr. 9:26)


• The responsibility of the seven deacons to oversee the distribution of food to the widows. (Acts 6:3)


• The responsibility of church leaders to take care in the laying on of hands, so as to not "share responsibility for the sins of others." (1 Tim. 5:22)

The concept of responsibility is found in many more passages, even though the word itself may not. According to Merriam-Webster, responsible means "able to answer for one's conduct and obligations" and "marked by or involving ... accountability." Jesus' parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14-30) clearly shows that we will be held accountable for the gifts God has given us to steward during our lifetime. God commended Abraham because he "kept my charge" (Gen. 26:5 KJV and NASB), meaning he looked after that which God had placed under his care. Lastly, we will all be held accountable for our lives after we die and face judgment (Heb. 9:27).

Our relationship with God is certainly based on love and acceptance, but it is also one of stewardship. We will never hear God say to us, "Well done good and faithful servant" (Matt. 25:21) unless we have been responsible stewards.

Being in relationship with God is more than hanging out together, although that's part of it. It is a relationship with a purpose. Jesus' life on earth demonstrated what a purposeful life in close relationship with the Father looked like. Jesus did not just live to sit back and relax with a cold drink while experiencing the Father's love, but to fulfill the work the Father gave him to do (John 5:36). Our love for God is our motivation to be obedient to him and fulfill his purposes rather than our own.

We don't carry the burden of responsibility out of legalism, but out of our relationship of love with God.

Conclusion

Attempting to make difficult Biblical concepts easily understandable to the crowds is a worthwhile goal, but mixing error and heresy with truth is destructive. I would not recommend this book to anyone, except as a practice exercise in discerning Biblical truth from error.

I've asked myself how this book might have been improved. What if it were rewritten, avoiding the blatant theological errors?

The problem is, the entire premise of The Shack is part of the error. Presenting the three persons of the Trinity as humans is doomed to failure from the start. God the Father and the Holy Spirit are not and have never been human. Projecting human traits on them is not helping us understand their nature. Instead, it is making God to be in our image rather than the other way around.

A Democrat Journalist's Critique of the US Media

Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a jounalist in the U.S. and in a recent column he has strong criticism for both Democrats and journalists in regards to the causes of and the blame for the current financial crisis.

His main lament is that truth in journalism has taken a back seat to promoting one's own causes, in this case election outcomes.

His own honesty is a refreshing change from the typical election news stories.

A Funny But Accurate Description of the Financial Crisis

John Bird and John Fortune are a comedy duo in the UK who interview each other on various news topics. Here is their explanation of the financial crisis, which is the best I've heard so far.



Here is another one they do regarding the British Navy's planned construction of two new aircraft carriers.

Lessons on Conscience, from Hitler's Secretary

I watched a documentary called Blind Spot, which is an interview with Traudl Junge, personal secretary to Adolph Hitler. She worked for him for a few years during the war, right up until the Russians captured Berlin. In fact, Hitler dictated his last will to her in the bunker. She published her memoirs, and died in 2002.

After the war, Traudl was shocked to discover all of the atrocities committed by Hitler and the Nazis. She had always viewed Hitler as a kind, fatherly figure incapable of doing harm. In the decades following the war, she did much soul-searching to come to grips with how she had been so effectively blinded and deceived about the evil that had taken place all around her.

The interview begins with her discussing how the Nazi system dominated all of society.

[interviewer] People's consciences too?

Yes. You see, that's an area where Hitler did a huge amount of harm. He actually tried to manipulate the consciences of the German people. He convinced them they had a task to do, they had to exterminate the Jews, because the Jews caused all our problems. It wasn't Hitler's own idea, it had been put forward much earlier. That they had to make a sacrifice. And I can remember a writer, she interviewed a soldier who had been stationed in a concentration camp. He was a guard, and she asked him: "Didn't you feel any pity at all for the people you treated so badly there?" And he replied, "Yes, I certainly did feel pity for them, but I had to overcome it. That was a sacrifice I had to make for the greater cause."

And that's what happened to conscience.

After all, Hitler always used to say: "You don't have to worry, any of you, you just have to do whatever I say, and I'll take responsibility." As if anyone can take charge of another person's conscience. I do think you can make someone's conscience more sensitive or desensitize it, or manipulate it.

It is remarkable what evil Hitler could accomplish once people's consciences were desensitized. He actually convinced many in a society to ignore their consciences for a "good" cause.

Fun with Wordles

Another toy on the internet to play with.

Wordle lets you take any document and create a word picture based on the word counts. It's quite asthetic to look at, and sometimes seeing the most common words does give a new insight into the key concepts within. Other times, it's just a jumble of words!

Here's one I did based on the book History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom by Andrew Dickson White in 1895.



Here's another of the Book of Judges in the Old Testament.

Grace or Righteousness?

Terry Virgo describes a situation where a pastor is asked by an unmarried couple if he would baptize them. Terry uses it as a starting point for a study on grace and righteousness, and that grace is not an alternative to righteousness.

The situation Terry describes led me in a slightly different direction of thinking. What are the requirements for baptism? Is righteousness (Godly behaviour) a prerequisite for being baptized?

To Baptize or Not To Baptize?

In Acts 2:38 Peter says, "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." There is no time for a demonstration of righteous behaviour on the part of Peter's audience -- repentance was the only prerequisite.

In Acts 8, Philip asks the Ethiopian eunuch if he understands what he is reading in Isaiah. After Philip preaches Jesus to him, the eunuch immediately asks to be baptized in the nearby water. In this case, an understanding of what Jesus did for him was the prerequisite for baptism.

In Jesus' great commission, he tells us to "make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you." (Matt. 28:19-20) A decision to become a disciple of Christ preceeds baptism, but instruction on observing Christ's commands comes after baptism, not before.

So it appears from just these 3 passages that the requirements for baptism include:

1. A clear commitment to follow Christ;
2. Repentance of sin;
3. An understanding of what this commitment involves, and of what baptism signifies.

If a person meets these requirements, then there should be no objection to baptizing them. Baptism is a beginning, not an end, and we should not put a lot of hurdles in the way of a person beginning their walk with Christ.

There is no Biblical basis for us to insist that a person be disobedient to God by postponing their baptism in order to become obedient in another area first, such as marriage.

So What About Sin?

Getting back to the original situation of an unmarried couple wanting baptism, how do we address the fact that God intends for sex to be reserved for marriage? How do we address their sin?

First, we show them grace by allowing them time to become disciples of Christ before we expect them to live like Christ.

Second, once they are disciples, we begin teaching them how to live like Christ. We set expectations that their lives will look differently down the road, and that they need to be willing to let Christ show them areas that need changing. In this case, we show them that either they will get married or they will separate, but that they cannot remain in the status quo situation indefinitely.

Third, we do not presume which sins God wants to deal with first in the lives of new believers. There is no Biblical basis to assume that a couple in a common-law relationship is the most offensive sin before God and that it must be dealt with first. It may be the first sin God deals with for some people, but for others it may be second priority or fifth priority. We need to give God room to work within his priorities and not impose our own agendas on new believers.

For example, God may need to deal with a person's violent temper or their addictions or their chronic lying before marriage is even going to be a possibility. Rushing a couple into marriage before they are ready may just result in another divorce, and that is not God's desire either.

If there are children in the home of this unmarried couple, taking the father away until a marriage can occur may cause other undesirable problems in terms of family life. We want the children to see that their heavenly Father has changed their earthly father for the better, not that their Daddy became a Christian and suddenly couldn't live with them anymore.

A Year of Grace

At The King's Family Church, we talk in terms of a Year of Grace for new people who come to us. The idea of a year is rather arbitrary, but it seems to be a length of time that allows God to bring some significant changes, but not too long to seem indefinite.

If a particular sin is causing problems in the new believer's life, or in church life, we take the initiative to address it. Otherwise, we let God shine his light on different areas of the person's life and follow God's lead. As long as we see growth in at least one area, we know that God is at work and we can therefore be patient with the other areas of that person's life.

And when we see the fruit of righteous living in a new believer, even in just one little aspect of their life, we're grateful to God.

Human Rights or Human Responsibilities?

I hear a lot about people's rights these days. We live in an age and society where human rights are given not just important status, but preeminent status.

I hear very little about people's responsibilities however. Rights always bring responsibilities but I find that they seldom are discussed together. We have Human Rights Commissions, but no Human Responsibilities Commissions. Lots of protestors demand human rights, but very few protest the lack of personal responsibility that should be exercised along with those rights.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrines certain rights in our constitution. Interestingly, immigrants who become Canadian citizens are taught about both their rights as Canadians AND their responsibilities as Canadians. (Those of us who are born Canadians are never given that training!) For instance, the Citizenship and Immigration Canada website helpfully points out that our right to vote is not much use if we ignore our responsibility to vote. Similarly, our right to a fair trial comes with a responsibility to obey Canada's laws. Rights are always connected to responsibilities.

The focus on human rights can result in good outcomes, but it becomes unbalanced without any consideration of responsibility. A system of rights can only work when everyone understands their responsibility to honour the rights of others. Once a person starts thinking that their own rights trump everone else's rights, the system starts to breaks down.

One example:
In November 2007, a group of school children north of Toronto filed a human rights complaint demanding their school inspect every child's lunch bag for foods that cause them severe allergies. It caused a lot of media attention, and lots of letters to the editors. Fascinating that these students previously had the unusual priviledge of lunch bag inspections, which were stopped because the school board was trying to make their practices standard across the region. It was a loss of this special priviledge that caused the students to complain. From the National Post article:

Jane Farrell, a spokeswoman for Edmonton Public Schools, was surprised when told about the proposed lunch-bag inspections.

"I've never heard of anything like this," she said. "If it's a peanut-free school, it's a peanut-free school and parents are respectful of that. I've never heard of anyone deliberately violating that. Inspecting lunches? That's a new one."

I find it fascinating that the Human Rights tribunal, which was created to ensure everyone is treated equal, is now being used to provide a few people with preferential treatment. The complainants provided no evidence that the lack of these lunch-bag inspections has increased the prevalence of peanuts in the school, as the school policy prohibiting peanuts has remained unchanged. There was also no mention of any responsibilities of students who have a peanut allergy, such as having an Epi-Pen handy. And predictably, no consideration of the rights to "lunch-bag privacy" for the vast majority of the student population.

The time may have arrived for us to stop emphasizing human rights and instead refocus our society on human responsibility.