exposure versus control

We all have our takes on Google. They [google] are either the anti-christ or the greatest thing since the latest toaster patent: the thing that 'pops' your bread up when done. Or, where most of us land, it is a little bit of both. I must say that I love GoogleEarth and find it fascinating, but I also find it a bit eerie. The world is becoming so small, I need only know the address of the forbidden city to view it from 15 feet in the air. Most of us cannot really articulate what makes Google so appealing, yet somehow strangely wrong. This article does a great job describing the battle going on between google and everthing else. As they describe it: Google represents exposure, everything else represents control. Exposure versus control.

If you think about it, this makes sense. Have you ever "googled" your name? It is at the same time the most eerie and exciting thing when you see your name exposed as such. You have no control over who views whatever there is to view online concerning your name. You are exposed. And as it goes, more and more information will be amassed, whereby Google, the great exposer, will enable all peoples to find and look and cut and paste.

This world is becoming flat, as Thomas Friedman says. No longer to people have a hold, or control, over certain things. The world is not top-down any longer, it is bottom-up. if there even is an up nowadays. We, the bottom-dwellers have access to information only top-dwellers had 10 years ago (i.e. GoogleEarth's sattalite imagery, how-to's on EVERYTHING via the web, amateur blogs which get to the breaking news quicker than cnn and fox combined, computer software that is free--both free to use and free to enhance, thus challenging Microsoft's top-down marketing, and even the encylopedia: the wikipedia online grants public additions and improvements to every article...and the result is a democratic encyclopedia for the people and by the people that organically corrects itself as people from all over ammend it hourly).

And I shouldn't even start on music. Which is better, control or exposure? Well, we all know this 'intellectual property' is heading straight to Google hell: exposure ad infinitum.

Anyway, this is a rant. Here is the great article that produced the rant.

the marketplace and the wizard to oz

Larry Reed says:

"In the West, however, the market has co-opted Christianity in much the same way that Constantine co-opted the church. Christians have become indistinguishable from any other buyers and sellers in the marketplace, and so our message has become increasingly irrelevant. The Kingdom of this world is ruled by scarcity and death. In such a world, greed and self-aggrandizement have become driving forces. Yet all of us sense within us the presence of another kingdom ruled by the love of its Creator...We can let the values of the eternal kingdom guide our choices in all realms of life, including our spending and investing...We need not fear the great and powerful market, for the market responds to us. Like Dorothy of Oz, we need to peer behind the curtain and recognize that the principle power the market has is our fear of it. Otherwise it must be our servant, responding o our values and desires. If we wake us and see the market for what it really is, a tool that must come under the stewardship of Christ, then we will realize that God has already given us the power to make the changes we desire."

In my last entry, I was challenged with the truth that some of the major underlying pre-commitments in our economic system are inherantly self-oriented, not Christ-oriented. Of course. However, with an already/not-yet kingdom mindframe, that does not mean that we should abandon free-enterpise, market economics simply because it has the potential to feed on our greed and often meaningless demand. (It is scary how easily the market can create demand, and as long as the money-holders buy it, it keeps growing.) I am guilty as any on this. Look at my checkbook and you will see my values. Someone mentioned that one's budget is not a financial document, but an ethical document-one that displays perhaps better than anything what the heart's values are.

Again, we can instead redeem market economy. Christians round the world have a total yearly income of 10 trillion dollars. The Gross Domestic Product of the world combined is 40 trillion. So, in other words, "the income of Christians represents one-quarter of the world's annual production." We do not watch the economy as Christians--the economy works to meet our demands. When we as Christians wake up to this reality, we will not simply sit around and talk (or type on a Blog) about how the market economy is bad bad bad. Instead we will, with Larry Reed, realize that we have the power to "make the market react to our values." This begins with the small things, the micro--personal budgets and what and who we spend money on (not merely how much money we give away). I am asking this question myself. Perhaps stewardship is not merely a matter of money-giving, but moreso one of money-spending. We can support companies that are building societies and employing the poor. We can give our money to micro-enterprise organizations that give small (sometimes 50 dollars) loans to poor folks so that they can get a start (they need a pool of money to account for dropping exchange rates). We can find out what companies are ecologically and socially responsible, and buy from them. etc etc.

All in all I am learning that our Christian faith has far reaching implications in the arena that we are most prone to neglect: the economy. These blog-thoughts are far from complete, but at least he is working within me, challenging my sordid complacency on such money-matters.

and what of jubilee economics?

There is something appealing to the whole Jubilee economics idea. The idea is that, just as God appointed an entire year of debt cancellation every 50 years in Israel, so we too should be striving to cancel the debt of the Two-Thirds World. We have all seen Bono advocate this, and I will admit, makes the endeavor all the more appealing. Plus, the entire scheme seems so counterintuitive, so grace-laden, so anti-thewaysoftheworld. I like it. Plus, the idea is birthed out of God's very Word to His people.

But there are issues with this economic picture. Brian Fikkert of Covenant College says it well:

"When one calls for an international conference to enable the Two-Thirds World to make a new debt-free start, we must precede with caution. Although I am in favor of debt-relief for these countries, particularly since many of their debt problems are the direct result of actions taken by the U.S. Federal Reserve Board, the design of a debt relief program must take into account the fallen nature of both the lender and the borrower if it is to truly help the poorest countries of the world. For example, what incentive will commercial banks in the West have to lend to the Two-Thirds World in the future if they know that there is a precedent for such loans to be "forgiven" by Western governments? A policy intended to help the Two-Thirds World could actually hurt in the long run if it causes self-interested bankers to withhold future credit. Similarly, what is the message to borrowers in the Two-Thirds World, many of which are corrupt governments, if they are not held responsible for those instances in which they have poorly handled the money they have borrowed? Does debt forgiveness [jubilee economics] in this case encourage future misbehaver on the part of the ruling elites, causing further harm to the poor living under their rule? I am far more comfortable with treaties that assume sinful motivations on the part of individuals and governments than treaties designed under the assumption that the relevant actors are cooperating as a result of "responsiveness to God's commands of justice and stewardship." We live in the "not yet," and our design of
treaties must reflect this."

So then, how is one to think Christianly in the realm of economics? We must understand that we live in the "already, not yet." Yes, we with Kuyper assert that there is not one inch in this world that Christ does not already say, "it is mine!" But the full manifestation of His rule will not be seen by us until He comes again. So, if in our economic discussion we expect to land a perfect system, in which motives are pure and all people are released fully from every kind of bondage, we neglect the "not-yet." On the other hand when we simply throw in the towel and retreat from all public discussion, we are fatally ignoring the "already:" indeed Christ's rule is in full effect, we just dont see it's full consummation yet. Every knee will bow, but every knee is not bowed now. That is the framework in which any discussion, economic or otherwise, must take place. So, again, how should we think about economics? Again, Fikkert has good things to say:

"Turning our attention to capitalism for a moment, evangelical advocates of laissez-fair capitalism would so well to consider the basic philosophical presuppositions of capitalism's main proponents. As mentioned earlier, mainstream economic analysis-the neoclassical school of thought--claims that it is a value-free, morally neutral science that simply describes, in mathematical terms, the way things really are. In actuality, neoclassical economics implicitly applies an ethical standard called "pareto efficiency," which says that an economic exchange between two parties is "good" if it mutually beneficial, i.e., if it makes one person better of and the other person no worse off that he or she was before the exchange. The key point here is that the people themselves determine the extent to which thar are better or worse off in each situation...Relying on the ethical standard or pareto efficiency is unacceptable, for it is using fallen, autonomous individuals as the reference point for good and evil...Clearly, if Christ has claimed every square inch of the universe as his own, then he must be the standard by which societies consider how best to allocate their resources. This does not give us all the answers, but it does give us a different starting point."

So, I guess my thoughts on the matter land with the same slight ambiguity of Fikkert. The starting point for all effort in this "already, not yet" Kingdom of God, is indeed Christ, ruler over all. Economics as the Bible describes it (oikonomia) is literally "stewardship of God's house," not our house. Therefore, taking care of the poor and downtrodden, basic satisfaction with what we do have, and ecological responsibilty even when it lowers profit is not merely good ethics, but good economics. (that just doesn't sound economical does it?) So, I think we need to be discerning. Maybe the allocation of capital is not a passive, ethically nuetral, response to supply/demand charts--but a kingdom-oriented allocation.

So what? Does that mean socialism? No. We all know socialism does not work. Does this even mean an abandonment of capitalism? No. We live in the already, not yet. Capitalism, I think is the best of what we got in this fallen world. It, like everything else, is inevitably going to be abused. But maybe we can strive for Kingdom oikonimia within our capitalist framework. Fikkert goes on to say that the "alternative paradigm for economic life" is both micro and macro. Devising Macro efforts is easy, but if the micro is not fertile to accept the seeds then little is done. He suggest microenterprise development (MED), "a methodology that provides relatively low-income loans and vehicles for savings to low-income entrepreneurs."

I think he is right. But mostly, I am learning that the economy we should strive for will never be perfect (not yet), we can strive to implement God-honoring, effective, economic principles at work (already). This involves, above all, involvement. Involvement in prayer and in action.

'virgin territory': is this steward-speak?

4 or 5 trees

Study how a society uses its land, and you can come to pretty reliable conclusions as to what its future will be. -E.F. Schumacher

In the Western view resources [or land, for that matter] can be owned as well as exploited. Not only can the owned but thet can also be bought and sold. Land is a market commodity just like food and clothing. That might not strike us as very odd, but it is worth noting that the idea of selling land is a relatively new idea even in Western culture...The notion of private property which can be freely bought, exploited, developed, subdivided and sold is foudational to the contemporary market economy of capitalist countries. This is not just an economic concept. It is a fundamental way of seeing land. -Brian Walsh

A simple article in the NYTimes this morning created a stir in my soul. How are we as Christians to view the environment? What does a careful reading of Genesis 1-3 tell us? I have listed many articles (aside from gen 1-3 i suppose) to help us form a more faithful approach to the environment. Middleton and Walsh write, "The Biblical idea of stewardship, however, balances authority with servanthood. This strikes at the heart of our humanity. Although we are indeed lords of the earth, we are also servants of God. We are called to excercise out rule in oberdient response to Yahweh's ultimate sovereignty. Subduing the earth is an issue of covental responsibility."

There is that phrase covental responisbility. Covenantal, by definition, implies blessings and curses: blessings for covenantal fidelity, curses for infidelity. To make room in your worldview for environmental exploitation, as a culture or individually, is to break covenant. We know that Christ alone fulfill(ed) the covenant perfectly, and so those who are joined with Him by faith are morally acceptable to God for Christ's sake. But, I still must ask, what are the effects of generational/cultural covenant breaking in the here and now, especially in regards to environment? What are the curses? Have we evangelicals thought through this well enough?

Here are some good articles:

Genesis 1-3

A Biblical Perspective on Environmental Stewardship

Shining a Light in a Dark Place

Remember the Scriptures