I haven't posted here in a while and I just thought I'd stop by to keep this thing somewhat active.
Grace and Peace,
Jared
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Thursday, July 26, 2007
I'm more adult than Rob!!!
This rating was determined based on the presence of the following words:
gun (2x)
murder (1x)
Monday, April 02, 2007
My thoughts of late (in books)
Lately I've had the opportunity to start reading several books. While I was in Uruguay I finished two of them, Tom Perrotta's Little Children and Samuel Wells Improvisation: The Drama of Christian Ethics. Other than that I've picked up
Rupert Shortt's God's Advocates
Kent A. Van Til's Less Than Two Dollars a Day: A Christian View of World Poverty and the Free Market
John J. Davis' Three Views on Creation and Evolution
Ben Witherington's The Problem with Evangelical Theology: Testing the Exegetical Foundations of Calvinism, Dispensationalism and Wesleyanism
Paul Wegner's A Student's Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods and Results
David E. Fitch's The Great Giveaway: Reclaiming the Mission of the Church from Big Business, Parachurch Organizations, Psychotherapy, Consumer Capitalism, and Other Modern Maladies
Hugh Laurie's The Gun Seller
Richard Baukham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony
I'm sure there are more that I just can't think of right now, but it seems that that's more than enough for now. I'll start with the two that I've finished.
Tom Perrotta's Little Children is the story of thirty-something parents reflecting on their suburban lives. In almost every case their lives are far from what they'd expected. There's Todd, the high school/college football superstar who's become a stay-at-home dad; Sarah, a once sexually ambiguous feminist, now mother of a three year old a girl, with a husband living a secret life on the internet; and Larry Moon, a police officer forced to retire because of mental stress, who is obsessed with a newly freed child molester living in his neighborhood. The thing to keep in mind with this novel is that the title is not merely a reference to the fact that the adult characters are linked to children because they have them or are obsessed with them. These suburbanites are children. There is a point when each character has to come to terms with reality, something they've all been avoiding in one way or another. For Sarah it's that she was not being the mother that she should have been. For Todd it's that he was still trying to be the prom king who pleases his wife in wholly superficial way while remaining ultimately unfaithful to her and their son. Not every epiphany is a clear or positive as those two, but I must say that the varying degrees of realization are a healthy representation of real people. Not everyone will be liberated by realization. In fact, things being as they are, many will never realize that their life needs some kind of scrutiny. I would recommend this novel, along with Perrotta's Election, which intersects with Little Children thematically.
Now Wells' Improvisation:
This is an interesting book on ethics by a man with pretty close ties to Stanley Hauerwas. In fact, Wells wrote the first doctoral dissertation on Hauerwas' work. Improvisation encompasses narrative in a considerable way, given that the book is a presentation of ethics using many terms and concepts from the world of improvisational acting. Wells begins by saying that improvisation is not "off the cuff". We, like improvisational actors, are not stranded on a stage with little or no preparation for the tasks. Improvisation is more about being obvious than spontaneous and unique. I suppose you could say that what Wells is recommending is that the church learn as much about its heritage, from scripture and history, as it can and establish a life that reflects that. This stands against the way that the church has dealt with ethics recently. In my experience people have challenged any and every ethically proposition with the most extreme challenge that can be imagined. Take for example the desire to be non-violent. When someone says that they don't want to commit an act of violence, even in self-defense, the response is usually, "Well what if someone broke into your home and tried to rape and kill your family?" I suppose that's a valid question on some level, but not in that situation. In fact, that's a terrible way to view ethics. If we sit around and imagine hypotheticals that would drive us into a frenzy, we'll no doubt come to the conclusion that there are no definite expectations put on us in certain situations. But, what Wells tells us is that if we commit ourselves to non-violent living and thinking when someone hasn't broken into our homes to murder our families, which is the majority of the time for most people, we will be prepared for the crunch situation in which we are challenged to do the right thing. As anyone who has interacted with other people should know, the hardest thing to make or break is a habit. And that is what we are called to do. The koinonia (shared experience) of Acts chapter two was not a spontaneous, heroic manifestation of the Spirit, it was a steady, dependable life-long manifestation of the Spirit's transformational power. Now, that's not to say that there are no spontaneous situations where we need the power of God, there are. What Wells is saying is that our responses to those moments is defined by the way we live day-to-day. It's the juxtaposition of hero and saint. Heroes thrive on those life-changing moments, saints live to serve and suffer over the long haul.
Now to the books I haven't finished yet:
God's Advocates- This is a series of interviews with some great minds in theology, philosophy, ethics, politics, etc. on the resurgence of the spiritual in the public sphere today (e.g. Rowan Williams, Stanley Hauerwas, Samuel Wells, Alvin Plantinga, Miroslav Volf, etc.).
Less Than Two Dollars a Day: A Christian View of World Poverty and the Free Market- This is a tremendous book that looks at what market economics is and how it effects the poor.
Three Views on Creation and Evolution- This is a multiple perspective book debating a topic that has become pretty divisive over the last few decades. I'm hoping to find something worth reading.
The Problem with Evangelical Theology: Testing the Exegetical Foundations of Calvinism, Dispensationalism and Wesleyanism- Witherington sets out to critique three of the most influential ideologies in American Evangelical circles. This is a call to these different traditions within the Protestant church to sola scriptura, a call that is much needed.
A Student's Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods and Results- This is a primer on Old and New Testament textual criticism.
The Great Giveaway: Reclaiming the Mission of the Church from Big Business, Parachurch Organizations, Psychotherapy, Consumer Capitalism, and Other Modern Maladies- I've only read a few pages of this book, but it seems like this will be a defense of post-Modernism in much the same vein as Carl Rashke's The Next Reformation: Why Evagelicals Must Embrace Postmodernity which was a good book but just didn't resonate with me because I think that, while post-Modernism detracts from Modernism, it does so in a way similar to a teenager pointing out their parents mistakes; they're right, but they have their own problems.
The Gun Seller- This is a fantastic novel. It's part spy novel part comedy. If you like the shows 24 and Scrubs you'll like this novel.
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony- This is kind of an extension of Kenneth Bailey's essay Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels (there's an abbreviated version of this in his Finding the Lost: Cultural Keys to Luke 15). Here's a link to the essay, which is very provocative: http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_tradition_bailey.html
That's all for now.
Grace and Peace,
Jared
Rupert Shortt's God's Advocates
Kent A. Van Til's Less Than Two Dollars a Day: A Christian View of World Poverty and the Free Market
John J. Davis' Three Views on Creation and Evolution
Ben Witherington's The Problem with Evangelical Theology: Testing the Exegetical Foundations of Calvinism, Dispensationalism and Wesleyanism
Paul Wegner's A Student's Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods and Results
David E. Fitch's The Great Giveaway: Reclaiming the Mission of the Church from Big Business, Parachurch Organizations, Psychotherapy, Consumer Capitalism, and Other Modern Maladies
Hugh Laurie's The Gun Seller
Richard Baukham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony
I'm sure there are more that I just can't think of right now, but it seems that that's more than enough for now. I'll start with the two that I've finished.
Tom Perrotta's Little Children is the story of thirty-something parents reflecting on their suburban lives. In almost every case their lives are far from what they'd expected. There's Todd, the high school/college football superstar who's become a stay-at-home dad; Sarah, a once sexually ambiguous feminist, now mother of a three year old a girl, with a husband living a secret life on the internet; and Larry Moon, a police officer forced to retire because of mental stress, who is obsessed with a newly freed child molester living in his neighborhood. The thing to keep in mind with this novel is that the title is not merely a reference to the fact that the adult characters are linked to children because they have them or are obsessed with them. These suburbanites are children. There is a point when each character has to come to terms with reality, something they've all been avoiding in one way or another. For Sarah it's that she was not being the mother that she should have been. For Todd it's that he was still trying to be the prom king who pleases his wife in wholly superficial way while remaining ultimately unfaithful to her and their son. Not every epiphany is a clear or positive as those two, but I must say that the varying degrees of realization are a healthy representation of real people. Not everyone will be liberated by realization. In fact, things being as they are, many will never realize that their life needs some kind of scrutiny. I would recommend this novel, along with Perrotta's Election, which intersects with Little Children thematically.
Now Wells' Improvisation:
This is an interesting book on ethics by a man with pretty close ties to Stanley Hauerwas. In fact, Wells wrote the first doctoral dissertation on Hauerwas' work. Improvisation encompasses narrative in a considerable way, given that the book is a presentation of ethics using many terms and concepts from the world of improvisational acting. Wells begins by saying that improvisation is not "off the cuff". We, like improvisational actors, are not stranded on a stage with little or no preparation for the tasks. Improvisation is more about being obvious than spontaneous and unique. I suppose you could say that what Wells is recommending is that the church learn as much about its heritage, from scripture and history, as it can and establish a life that reflects that. This stands against the way that the church has dealt with ethics recently. In my experience people have challenged any and every ethically proposition with the most extreme challenge that can be imagined. Take for example the desire to be non-violent. When someone says that they don't want to commit an act of violence, even in self-defense, the response is usually, "Well what if someone broke into your home and tried to rape and kill your family?" I suppose that's a valid question on some level, but not in that situation. In fact, that's a terrible way to view ethics. If we sit around and imagine hypotheticals that would drive us into a frenzy, we'll no doubt come to the conclusion that there are no definite expectations put on us in certain situations. But, what Wells tells us is that if we commit ourselves to non-violent living and thinking when someone hasn't broken into our homes to murder our families, which is the majority of the time for most people, we will be prepared for the crunch situation in which we are challenged to do the right thing. As anyone who has interacted with other people should know, the hardest thing to make or break is a habit. And that is what we are called to do. The koinonia (shared experience) of Acts chapter two was not a spontaneous, heroic manifestation of the Spirit, it was a steady, dependable life-long manifestation of the Spirit's transformational power. Now, that's not to say that there are no spontaneous situations where we need the power of God, there are. What Wells is saying is that our responses to those moments is defined by the way we live day-to-day. It's the juxtaposition of hero and saint. Heroes thrive on those life-changing moments, saints live to serve and suffer over the long haul.
Now to the books I haven't finished yet:
God's Advocates- This is a series of interviews with some great minds in theology, philosophy, ethics, politics, etc. on the resurgence of the spiritual in the public sphere today (e.g. Rowan Williams, Stanley Hauerwas, Samuel Wells, Alvin Plantinga, Miroslav Volf, etc.).
Less Than Two Dollars a Day: A Christian View of World Poverty and the Free Market- This is a tremendous book that looks at what market economics is and how it effects the poor.
Three Views on Creation and Evolution- This is a multiple perspective book debating a topic that has become pretty divisive over the last few decades. I'm hoping to find something worth reading.
The Problem with Evangelical Theology: Testing the Exegetical Foundations of Calvinism, Dispensationalism and Wesleyanism- Witherington sets out to critique three of the most influential ideologies in American Evangelical circles. This is a call to these different traditions within the Protestant church to sola scriptura, a call that is much needed.
A Student's Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods and Results- This is a primer on Old and New Testament textual criticism.
The Great Giveaway: Reclaiming the Mission of the Church from Big Business, Parachurch Organizations, Psychotherapy, Consumer Capitalism, and Other Modern Maladies- I've only read a few pages of this book, but it seems like this will be a defense of post-Modernism in much the same vein as Carl Rashke's The Next Reformation: Why Evagelicals Must Embrace Postmodernity which was a good book but just didn't resonate with me because I think that, while post-Modernism detracts from Modernism, it does so in a way similar to a teenager pointing out their parents mistakes; they're right, but they have their own problems.
The Gun Seller- This is a fantastic novel. It's part spy novel part comedy. If you like the shows 24 and Scrubs you'll like this novel.
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony- This is kind of an extension of Kenneth Bailey's essay Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels (there's an abbreviated version of this in his Finding the Lost: Cultural Keys to Luke 15). Here's a link to the essay, which is very provocative: http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_tradition_bailey.html
That's all for now.
Grace and Peace,
Jared
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Laziness at the movies?
A few days ago Laura and I were talking about the Harry Potter movies that have been released so far and whether or not they've represented the books well. Let me just start by saying that as far as movies go, they're very good and very well done. The directors have made wonderful decisions with regard to the visual effects that they have to represent in these movies. These men have, so far, not fallen into the trap of using CGI gratuitously, unlike the directors of quite a few popular films in recent history (e.g. George Lucas). That said, I think my biggest criticism of these movies stems from a problem endemic in the movie industry that has existed since as far as I can remember, which is impatience.
They made the movies too soon. Only four of the seven books had been published when the first movie was released. Right now only six of the books have been published and we are several months away from seeing the fifth movie. I think that this has had an adverse effect on the way that the grand narrative, told in seven installments, is told by the film makers. There hands have been tied by not seeing the outcome of the greater story before they were able to make their representations. Much of a story's strength comes from the way that it is told. People were thrown for a loop by Chuck Palahniuk and then David Fincher when they find out that Jack (the unnamed character played by Edward Norton) was Tyler Durden. Despite the claims I've heard from a lot of people that they knew this was the case, they didn't. You, the reader or the viewer, are too immersed in what is going on right then to notice the clues. I suppose the best crystallization of my criticism is in the clues and events being together. The problem that I see the directors of these films having is that they are unable to place clues in their films with the events. If something new happens in book six that they could have alluded to in the second movie they would be crafting a better telling of the narrative.
That criticism aside, the laziness in film making is best exemplified in the brevity of movies today. Decades ago people went to movies that had intermissions. Now we go, sit for an hour and a half and then we go home. There's not real commitment on any one's part to do more than they have to. I think that the freedom J. K. Rowling and other novelists have, as story tellers, is one of the greatest appeals of reading over watching movies. though that may not be the popular consensus, I don't think we should take that as an indication of an inability on the part of people to sit in a theater for hours on end watching the same thing, despite the fact that the norm for most Americans is TV. I think that people can learn to move past their episodic adventures and appreciate stories no matter how long they are. About a month or so ago, I was listening to a podcast from Princeton University by Cornel West. The person introducing professor West made mention of his having attended a University at the age of 13. Why is that an extraordinary age for higher education? I remember when I was a child seeing the movie Parenthood and seeing a small girl who knew Japanese (at least I think it was Japanese). This was supposed to be a sign of her brilliance. Why is learning a language indicative of genius? For that matter, why is learning several languages a sign of great intelligence? In antiquity, especially under Roman rule, people with little or no education were often bilingual. And it was not uncommon for adolescents to attend Universities two or three hundred years ago.
I'm not trying to take away from West or anyone else who is a genius. The problem is that when I propose that movies be made longer to fit in the narrative that they should be telling, I told that people, especially children won't be able to sit through it. We're becoming so lazy that in another thirty years, if things continue to go the way they are now, the US will have either imploded from the strain of an ever growing economy or there will be absolutely no substance to culture. It, and the stories and art that form a large amount of it, will have been co-opted by corporations into fifteen minute cartoons surrounded by eight minutes of commercial ads. That's how I feel. I apologize for my thoughts not being organized.
Grace and Peace, Jared
They made the movies too soon. Only four of the seven books had been published when the first movie was released. Right now only six of the books have been published and we are several months away from seeing the fifth movie. I think that this has had an adverse effect on the way that the grand narrative, told in seven installments, is told by the film makers. There hands have been tied by not seeing the outcome of the greater story before they were able to make their representations. Much of a story's strength comes from the way that it is told. People were thrown for a loop by Chuck Palahniuk and then David Fincher when they find out that Jack (the unnamed character played by Edward Norton) was Tyler Durden. Despite the claims I've heard from a lot of people that they knew this was the case, they didn't. You, the reader or the viewer, are too immersed in what is going on right then to notice the clues. I suppose the best crystallization of my criticism is in the clues and events being together. The problem that I see the directors of these films having is that they are unable to place clues in their films with the events. If something new happens in book six that they could have alluded to in the second movie they would be crafting a better telling of the narrative.
That criticism aside, the laziness in film making is best exemplified in the brevity of movies today. Decades ago people went to movies that had intermissions. Now we go, sit for an hour and a half and then we go home. There's not real commitment on any one's part to do more than they have to. I think that the freedom J. K. Rowling and other novelists have, as story tellers, is one of the greatest appeals of reading over watching movies. though that may not be the popular consensus, I don't think we should take that as an indication of an inability on the part of people to sit in a theater for hours on end watching the same thing, despite the fact that the norm for most Americans is TV. I think that people can learn to move past their episodic adventures and appreciate stories no matter how long they are. About a month or so ago, I was listening to a podcast from Princeton University by Cornel West. The person introducing professor West made mention of his having attended a University at the age of 13. Why is that an extraordinary age for higher education? I remember when I was a child seeing the movie Parenthood and seeing a small girl who knew Japanese (at least I think it was Japanese). This was supposed to be a sign of her brilliance. Why is learning a language indicative of genius? For that matter, why is learning several languages a sign of great intelligence? In antiquity, especially under Roman rule, people with little or no education were often bilingual. And it was not uncommon for adolescents to attend Universities two or three hundred years ago.
I'm not trying to take away from West or anyone else who is a genius. The problem is that when I propose that movies be made longer to fit in the narrative that they should be telling, I told that people, especially children won't be able to sit through it. We're becoming so lazy that in another thirty years, if things continue to go the way they are now, the US will have either imploded from the strain of an ever growing economy or there will be absolutely no substance to culture. It, and the stories and art that form a large amount of it, will have been co-opted by corporations into fifteen minute cartoons surrounded by eight minutes of commercial ads. That's how I feel. I apologize for my thoughts not being organized.
Grace and Peace, Jared
Thursday, February 01, 2007
To buy or not to buy...
I'm in the middle of a pretty tough decision.
Laura and I have been watching the History Channel a lot lately (consequently I've learned that they have shows about things other than war) and there was an episode of Modern Marvels about alternative fuels. I'm really interested in the advances in this area, I'd love to use vegetable oil or natural gas to run our car or paint that acts as a solar panel to power your house. In fact, there's a part of me that would like to cancel the cable and by some stock in one of these companies. Which brings me to my quandary.
The purpose of buying stock is to provide a company with the capital to do what they do. In turn, providing the money for a company entitles you to a portion of the profits. This is both my motivation and deterrent for wanting to buy stock in one of these "green" companies. The idea of providing just a little bit more cash to people who are trying to establish a sustainable society excites me. I want my son to grow up not realize at some point that he's caused a portion of the earth's destruction. But at the same time the mode of thinking that corporations were birthed in is one of unmitigated greed and endless acquisition. That too is something that I want my son to grow up with as little exposure to as is possible.
Maybe it seems a bit hippie of me to take such a seemingly self-righteous tone about buying stock, but every time I pass a news channel on TV talking about business they reiterate to me the cancerous nature of our economic system. There's only so far you can dig a hole before you run out of dirt. There is also only so much commerce that can be done with the limited resources when you want to make more simply to make more. I suppose I feel like I'd be grabbing my shovel and jumping farther down into the whole we're digging (I say farther because I'm already in there).
I suppose, for now, that the best course of action is to wait until I can afford to power my home, car or whatever with ecologically sound fuels. But when that times comes I hope to see the manufacturers of those products don't conduct themselves in the same slovenly and inhuman manner that characterizes the vast majority of people selling me things as though that's what I were put on earth to do.
Grace and Peace,
Jared
Laura and I have been watching the History Channel a lot lately (consequently I've learned that they have shows about things other than war) and there was an episode of Modern Marvels about alternative fuels. I'm really interested in the advances in this area, I'd love to use vegetable oil or natural gas to run our car or paint that acts as a solar panel to power your house. In fact, there's a part of me that would like to cancel the cable and by some stock in one of these companies. Which brings me to my quandary.
The purpose of buying stock is to provide a company with the capital to do what they do. In turn, providing the money for a company entitles you to a portion of the profits. This is both my motivation and deterrent for wanting to buy stock in one of these "green" companies. The idea of providing just a little bit more cash to people who are trying to establish a sustainable society excites me. I want my son to grow up not realize at some point that he's caused a portion of the earth's destruction. But at the same time the mode of thinking that corporations were birthed in is one of unmitigated greed and endless acquisition. That too is something that I want my son to grow up with as little exposure to as is possible.
Maybe it seems a bit hippie of me to take such a seemingly self-righteous tone about buying stock, but every time I pass a news channel on TV talking about business they reiterate to me the cancerous nature of our economic system. There's only so far you can dig a hole before you run out of dirt. There is also only so much commerce that can be done with the limited resources when you want to make more simply to make more. I suppose I feel like I'd be grabbing my shovel and jumping farther down into the whole we're digging (I say farther because I'm already in there).
I suppose, for now, that the best course of action is to wait until I can afford to power my home, car or whatever with ecologically sound fuels. But when that times comes I hope to see the manufacturers of those products don't conduct themselves in the same slovenly and inhuman manner that characterizes the vast majority of people selling me things as though that's what I were put on earth to do.
Grace and Peace,
Jared
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Political Compass
You should take this ( http://www.politicalcompass.org/ ) test. It uses a very different means of idnetifying people's political orinetation than the almost rock solid red state/blue state distinction we hear in the US. They use a graph with two different axes: social and economic. On the social axis are libertarian and authoritarian. And on the economic are left (liberal) and right (conservative). Keep in mind that liberal and conservative are not the same as what we think they are here in the US. Liberals, under this system, would actually be Republicans and conservatives would be Democrats, economically speaking.
I've taken this test several times over the past few years and I have recently undergone a pretty drastic change in the place I show up on. I need to look up where I showed up the first time I took it. That'd be interesting.
I've taken this test several times over the past few years and I have recently undergone a pretty drastic change in the place I show up on. I need to look up where I showed up the first time I took it. That'd be interesting.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Voting is for dumbies
It’s hard to imagine that in less than a year we’ll start seeing the two major political parties in this country vying, once again, for their turn to make all of the wrong decisions in the executive branch of our nation’s government. I’m talking about the 2008 presidential election, of course. Since we’re watching the rapid approach of what will likely be another travesty, I decided to express my biggest concern with choosing the candidate for whom I want to vote.
I should start out by telling you that in the last election I voted for the Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik. In fact that is the only party that has ever received my votes. But not long after the election I started doing some reading and thinking and I don’t think that justice is nearly as important in any libertarian as it should be. I suppose I should qualify what I mean by justice before going on. in scripture the Israelites were commanded to show kindness to the those who were weak. The picture that is painted in much of the Levitical and Deuteronomic literature could best be summed up as an ethics of need. The reason that I can write-off a whole group of people in this regard is that Libertarians are notorious for their belief in human autonomy and social compartmentalization. In their view the government and private sector (everyday life) need to be separated or liberty is lost. They believe that it is the job of the private sector to care for people in whatever ways are necessary.
I suppose I could say that I do like their use of the term liberty but there’s just too much separation between what liberty is to them and what it is to me. While they maintain that liberty is simply autonomy I belief that the evil in us and the destruction that it causes means that liberty is not found in fewer boundaries. Liberty is found when I must serve and accept the service of others. And to be perfectly honest I’m not too terribly sure that government needs to be separated from that. In fact, it seems that the best examples of the private sector these days are corporations. It we remove restraint from many (if not most) of the large corporations, the result is hardly an elevation of the democratic franchise of all people. The needs of the people for good food, clean air and healthy communities are trampled on by the desire of stock holders to make profits. That is just tyranny in private hands. I think that there are much more acceptable and thoughtful ways of thinking of liberty than to say that as long as the government isn’t crossing any lines things are fine.
And there’s my problem, it’s hard to find a party that is saying that in the US. I hope to hear some thoughts on this subject.
Grace and Peace,
Jared
I should start out by telling you that in the last election I voted for the Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik. In fact that is the only party that has ever received my votes. But not long after the election I started doing some reading and thinking and I don’t think that justice is nearly as important in any libertarian as it should be. I suppose I should qualify what I mean by justice before going on. in scripture the Israelites were commanded to show kindness to the those who were weak. The picture that is painted in much of the Levitical and Deuteronomic literature could best be summed up as an ethics of need. The reason that I can write-off a whole group of people in this regard is that Libertarians are notorious for their belief in human autonomy and social compartmentalization. In their view the government and private sector (everyday life) need to be separated or liberty is lost. They believe that it is the job of the private sector to care for people in whatever ways are necessary.
I suppose I could say that I do like their use of the term liberty but there’s just too much separation between what liberty is to them and what it is to me. While they maintain that liberty is simply autonomy I belief that the evil in us and the destruction that it causes means that liberty is not found in fewer boundaries. Liberty is found when I must serve and accept the service of others. And to be perfectly honest I’m not too terribly sure that government needs to be separated from that. In fact, it seems that the best examples of the private sector these days are corporations. It we remove restraint from many (if not most) of the large corporations, the result is hardly an elevation of the democratic franchise of all people. The needs of the people for good food, clean air and healthy communities are trampled on by the desire of stock holders to make profits. That is just tyranny in private hands. I think that there are much more acceptable and thoughtful ways of thinking of liberty than to say that as long as the government isn’t crossing any lines things are fine.
And there’s my problem, it’s hard to find a party that is saying that in the US. I hope to hear some thoughts on this subject.
Grace and Peace,
Jared
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)