Christian Economics

While I would not say that everyone should immediately cancel all of their insurance, since it is serving a useful purpose in many cases, I think that there are several potential dangers of relying on insurance that we should examine. One of the problems with using insurance is that it is expensive, sometimes too expensive for those who need it. I never had health insurance at my last job because I couldn't afford it. To many people, that might seem like a relative statement; sure, you could afford it if you really wanted to. But what I mean is, if I had purchased a family health care plan through my last employer, it would have cost more than I made some months. Even if I had saved up money in other months to cover this, that would mean I could have no other savings, couldn't have afforded to buy my house or pay taxes, and would have no chance to do anything with my life but work to pay for insurance I might never need. Maybe I should get a higher paying job, but remember, we can't have an economy where everyone makes $40,000 per year. Someone has to work in fast-food restaurants, milk cows, work in factories, etc. If we are designing a health care system, we need to think about how it will take care of the poor, not just those who have professional jobs with great benefits packages.

At one boring, tedious factory job I had, there was a woman who hated the place, but couldn't leave, because she had insurance through her job, and had some chronic health problems she needed it to pay for. If she had left, even to go to a better job, it would have been six months or so before she could get health coverage, and even then it might not have covered the "pre-existing conditions" she needed to have treated. So she was effectively trapped in that job because it provided her health insurance. I have always looked at a job as an exchange of some of my time and labor for money that I need, so I would rather not see systems that make us too dependent on jobs, and especially on keeping the same job. People should have the freedom to change jobs, or even to do other things and not have a job for a while, or start their own business. All of this is made more difficult if we need to keep jobs so we don't lose insurance or other benefits.

Just like the lottery, insurance is, on average, a losing bet. Since insurance companies need to make a profit, they have to collect more in premiums than they pay out in benefits. That means that, on average, a person would be better off with less insurance. Of course, it does help to cover disasters and losses that are not average, but we should not buy insurance to cover any possible loss we could afford to deal with on our own. That's why a health insurance policy that covers the first dollar of costs is a worse deal than one that has a high deductible. The insurance will pay you more if you have medical bills, but the higher premiums will cost more than the benefits are worth. If you buy insurance, you're paying someone else to assume risks you don't want to take yourself. There is no need to buy insurance to cover risks you can afford to take.

Because it makes health care more affordable, health insurance allows the cost of health care to rise. If you had a plan that would pay for all of your goceries, regardless of what you bought, or how much it cost, you would probably eat more expensive meals. You could enjoy lobster tails or caviar whenever you wanted. Even the price of bread would go up, since the grocer wouldn't have to worry about you checking prices anymore, and he could charge as much per loaf as he wanted. In the same way, health insurance allows expensive procedures to be performed more frequently, and removes the incentive for patients to compare prices or shop around for medical care. More spending on health care may sometimes result in better care, but not always. I had a friend once who was prescribed an antibiotic that cost $200 per bottle. He had a reaction to it, and the doctor prescribed the second-choice antibiotic, which worked just as well for $5 per bottle. The doctor had no idea what the price was for either of them, and the patient had no opportunity to compare prices before the prescription was given. I've often read about expensive procedures and tests being performed at high rates in America, despite a lack of evidence that they improve outcomes for the patients. If more of us were spending our own money on health care, rather than the insurance company's money, we might do a better job of controlling costs.

Insurance also makes medical care more expensive by increasing the paperwork that must be done. Imagine that you went to the doctor, and after your visit, you handed him a hundred dollrs, cash. Now, imagine that you go to the doctor, fill out insurance paperwork, which someone must submit to the insurance company, and then file, along with bills and payment plans, then the hospital billing department submits the bill to the insurance company, which has a whole team to analyse and approve the payments. The hospital has to deal with not one, but dozens of insurance companies, each with their own paperwork. All of the files must be kept for years, in case there is an audit. Add in the cost of malpractice insurance, government oversight of the doctor and the insurance company, etc., and for the doctor to end up receiving that same hundred dollars for examining you, someone will have to pay a lot more than a hundred dollars. It might not be you, directly, if you had insurance, but you will pay for it indirectly through higher premiums and higher taxes.

(not completed.)

Labels: insurance

In 1996, I travelled to New Mexico with a group of hippies, and spent the winter there. Near where I stayed, there was an area of sagebrush and pine trees that had been divided into quarter and half-acre lots in some land scheme back in the 1930's. Apparently, people were sold these lots with their great view of the mountains, and later found out they were in the middle of nowhere. Other lots were said to have been given away as prizes at a world's fair. In one area we looked at, the map showed hundreds of lots, with streets and other rights of way carefully drawn up. In reality, it was a square mile of open land, with not one house, street, or other improvement evident. Apparently, most of these areas were like this until recently. Closer to Taos, however, there are several of these square miles that are now home to hundreds of people who might not otherwise have their own homes. Because no one wanted them, the lots often went up for sale at the county tax auctions. I went to one of these, and saw many lots sell for anywhere from $50.00 to $400.00. Some were bought by investors, but most were bought by people looking for a place to build their own home. Others were bought by residents who wanted to buy lots next to where they lived, to make their property larger. On the lots, there were now many houses. It didn't look like a suburban subdivision, but then, these people could never afford to build in a subdivision, even if they wanted to. Some houses started as old buses or vans, with more rooms added as the owners could afford them. Some were made from stacks of recycled tires. One man was building a castle, with a tower composed of wine bottles cemented together. Another had build an underground house that was constantly falling in and needing repair.

I'm sure that in most of the U.S., a building inspector or town zoning or planning official would have been horrified, and probably would have ordered all of these homes to be demolished. Neighbors would be horrified, and fear that these shacks would lower their own property values. Preservationists might object to the quarter-acre lots, which would allow houses to be built so close that it would disturb the natural look of the area. But for the people living there, I think it was a wonderful thing. They were able to have their own homes, which might not have been possible in other areas. One house I lived in while I was there was said to have cost $600 to build, and I'm sure others could have been built for less. Instead of needing a hundred thousand dollars and a full set of plans to begin construction, they could buy a lot, park their van there, and build on to it when they wanted to and could afford to. Rather than living on the streets, in homeless shelters, or even subsidised, low-rent housing, they could have something to call their own.

I think that sometimes, our desire to see everyone living in a nice house makes it more difficult for those who aren't rich enough or stable enough to have one. I am reminded of Habitat for Humanity's slogan, "No more shacks." That's great, if it means that everyone who now lives in a shack can have a nicer home. It's a tragedy if it means everyone who might have lived in a shack must be homeless, because shacks are no longer allowed. We often see problems of housing shortages in America. Many are homeless in our cities. When a hurricane strikes, many who had houses lose them. Many others live from paycheck to paycheck, and will probably pay rent their whole lives, never owning their own homes. This seems surprising to me in one of the richest countries on earth, where there is still plenty of open lasnd compered to most of the world.

While it is fine for people to choose to rent, because they might not stay long enough in an area to make it practical to buy or build a home, or because they prefer to live in a fancier home than they could build right now, I think we should try to remove many of the obstacles that make home ownership so expensive in much of our country. Minimum lot sizes are a popular way to keep an area looking slightly open, but they consume much more land per house, and make a building lot much harder for a poor person to afford. Building codes are supposed to ensure that we all have nice houses, but they are often manipulated to force people to have more expensive homes than they want. For example, I've heard of codes that would require Amish farmers who don't use electricity to still have a certain number of electrical outlets per room. Other codes try to encourage the use of certain building materials, to raise prices for important local industries. One of the older examples of this was the English law, encouraged by the brickmakers, that forbade the building of homes from unfired clay. Before that, anyone could build a wattle-and-daub house that might not be fancy, but would provide shelter. After that, you had to purchase your building materials from the brickmakers. A more modern example, which might be very helpful in disaster relief in areas like those hit by hurricane Katrina, is houses built of corrugated plastic. They may not be fancy, but in other parts of the world, they can be brought in quickly to provide inexpensive emergency shelter. Not here; they don't meet building codes.

In most areas of the world, there are traditional building methods that allow people to build their own houses. In the arctic, there are igloos; in the American southwest, there is adobe; In India, there are huts plastered with cow dung; here in eastern America, there are log cabins. Other areas build with stones, bamboo, thatch, felt, etc. I would propose that these building methods should not be prohibited, because they allow people to provide their own shelter, and have control of their lives, for a far lower price than many more "modern" techniques. While some people might feel strange living near neighbors who built such buildings, or fear that it would lower their property values, I would ask, so you really think you should have the right to prevent your neighbors from building their own homes, when it may force them into homelessness or into paying excessive rent?

I think that much of our housing shortages would be relieved if there were places throughout the country liek the one I saw in New Mexico, where lots were small enough that anyone could afford one, and where people were free to build what they needed and could afford, rather than what building codes and zoning officials thought should be built.

Labels: housing

I came across an interesting passage recently while reading Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews. It relates what happened after Cain murdered Abel:

"However, he did not accept of his punishment in order to amendment, but to increase his wickedness; for he only aimed to procure every thing that was for his own bodily pleasure, though it obliged him to be injurious to his neighbors. He augmented his household substance with much wealth, by rapine and violence; he excited his acquaintance to procure pleasures and spoils by robbery, and became a great leader of men into wicked courses. He also introduced a change in that way of simplicity wherein men lived before; and was the author of measures and weights. And whereas they lived innocently and generously while they knew nothing of such arts, he changed the world into cunning craftiness. He first of all set boundaries about lands; he built a city, and fortified it with walls, and he compelled his family to come together to it; and called that city Enoch, after the name of his eldest son Enoch." (Book 1, Ch. 2, sect. 2)

Josephus was a Jewish historian who wrote this shortly after the time of Christ. I thought it was interesting that he associated the wickedness of Cain with the desire for bodily pleasure and acquisition of wealth. He introduced weights and measures, which would have been essential to the beginning of commerce, and introduced the concept of private property, by defining the boundaries of land. He built the first city. Before this, we are told, all men lived innocently and generously. When no one had boundaries to define their ownership of land, or weights and measures to keep track of how much they gave each other, people were more willing to give generously to those who needed something. I don't imagine that we could eliminate private property, or commerce, but perhaps it would be helpful if we could at least try to use what we have in a more innocent and generous way, like all men did before the introduction of greed and wickedness.

I am making this page as a place to list other resources. If you know of any resources that might be helpful to someone exploring questions of Christian economics, please let me know. (you can send it as a comment to this post.)

Labels: resources

I am creating this page as a place to list book reviews.

Labels: book reviews

I just created this post to make a place to put a list of biblical references later; you can ignore it for now.

1 Cor. 10: 23, 24. Everything is Permissible.

While listening to the radio recently, I heard someone say, in regard to marriage, "It's a matter of spirituality; it's a matter of culture; it's not a matter of functionality." Marriage has always been regarded as one of the essential and central institutions in our culture. Has it now become (or will it soon be) an unnecessary, purely personal decision? Will it be fine to have intimate relationships, establish a household, be seen in society as a couple, and raise children without the commitment of marriage? I hope we can all think about what marriage means to us, and how we can maintain a witness, both within the church, and to the broader culture, that it matters, and that we should not form transient love relationships at our own desire and convenience, but the binding commitment before our friends and God that we call marriage.

Labels: marriage

"Everything is permissible"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"--but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others. 1 Cor. 10: 23,24.

Individualism has become one of the main principles of modern society. We are encouraged to pursue our own path, express our own style, seek our own pleasure. But in religious terms, individualism is the principle of Satanism, not of Christianity. As Satan rebelled against God, and sought to set himself up in His place, so does the modern principle of individualism. Each of us is our own master; each of us chooses our own path; each of us does what seems right in our own eyes; if we feel like doing what has always been regarded as immoral, it's fine as long as we don't get caught doing something illegal (and everything should be legal among consenting adults); "Do what thou wilt" is the whole of the law. Each of us is God. Everything is permissible.

Yet if we look at it from the perspective of Christ, we will see a different picture. God so loved the world, that he gave His only begotten son. Let this cup pass from me, yet not my will, but thine be done. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others. So then, what we might regard as permissible must be looked at not just from our individual, fleshly perspective, but in the light of Christ, and from the perspective of the good of others. Whatever we have is not our own, but a trust from God, to be used for His glory, and for the building of His kingdom. How we live, how we make and spend money, our work, our pastimes, our marriages and families; all we have and do is not for our own use and pleasure, and so cannot be judged from individual standards. We are called to be part of the body of Christ, and should seek to submit to Him as the head in all things. This means that we must often act in ways that do not reflect our immediate desires.

For example, self-interest might dictate that we should make as much money as possible, and spend it on our own pleasure. If the poor become troublesome, we can gate ourselves off from them, and enjoy life in our own way. Any luxury we desire can be ours, as long as we can pay for it. But Christ tells us we should give to anyone who asks us, and not expect a return. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Love your neighbor as yourself. And he tells the rich man, You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?

Self-interest, and often our modern culture, and even the advice columns we read, tell us that our relationships should be judged by our own desires, and not by any higher standards. If it feels good, do it. If you don't love him, leave him and find someone else. I've even seen a supposed minister say that to remain in a relationship without love is adultery. But from the perspective of Christ, and what is good for the whole society, our individual desires don't always win out above our commitments. Some things are right, such as faithfulness; and others are wrong, such as divorce and adultery. Love is not just a feeling we have, but a choice we make, and a commitment we keep. We seek to make our relationships positive and loving, but we don't just run away when things become difficult.

So, "Everything is permissible to me", but not everything is beneficial or constructive. Let us seek to make our lives conform less to the patterns of our own desires, and more to the pattern of Christ.

Looking over the old tracts about television that I posted in my last two messages, I have been thinking about what has changed in television and the church's relationship to it over the years. One objection that can now hardly be made is that "many of our spiritual leaders", or "the best of God's people" are opposed to TV. While there are isolated cases of individuals, or a few whole churches, that have rejected the use of television, this is so rare as to be considered an oddity, and many people, whether in the church or outside of it, are surprised at the idea of living without television. Many people recommend controlling what children can see on television, but few reject it altogether.
The strength of the moral objections has certaily increased over time. At one time, television and other media had to at least pretend to serve a valuable public purpose, and uphold positive values, but with the widespread sex, violence, deceit, disrespect for parents, and other evils so widespread on television today, I think it can clearly be seen as a corrupting influence. Much of what can be seen on television now would have been unimaginable a few years ago. I'm sure anyone reading this who sees television, even occasionally, will recognize this. What does not seem so ceratin any more, is that everyone will remember a time when our culture had not been so corrupted. Do you remember why "Gone with the Wind" was considered shocking? Compare that with the language that can be heard every day now on television, or in many other places. Do you remember when Elvis Presley could only be shown from waist up on the Ed Sullivan show? Compare that to what can be seen in music videos today.
Many parents may try to hide their children from the bad things that are on television, but this seems much more difficult than simply removing the TV altoghether. I remember when I was little, before my parents got rid of their TV, we were allowed to watch the Lawrence Welk Show, usually after we had our baths. We couldn't watch the next show, though, because my mother said it was bad. While that may have kept me from watching it, it also filled me with curiosity to know what that bad show could be. I think I saw part of it once, and I'm sure it was mild by today's standards, but at that time it was exciting to see what was usually forbidden. It must be even harder to shelter children (or ourselves) from objectional content and ads now. My wife and I sometimes watch TV while visiting my uncle and aunt, and she usually hits the mute button or turns the picture off when offensive ads come on. If there were children watching this, it might keep them from seeing most of the ads, but surely they would wonder what it is they aren't allowed to see, and they would see enough of them to have an idea what that is. Isn't there a danger that rather than protecting the children by selecting channels and turning off ads, we might make the forbidden seem more attractive? But if there was no TV in the home at all, the children might never know what they were missing, or at least would see it as something foreign to their experience at home.
In addition to the content which is clearly objectionable on moral grounds, there are other dangers associated with the presence of television in the home. One is its effect on attention span, and on habits of receiving information. It is commonly recognized that today's children often have problems with paying attention, especially for long periods of time. To counter this, schools, churches, etc., are encouraged to speed things up, change scenes frequently, and generally mimic the fast-paced entertainment most people have become used to on television. Wouldn't it be better to remove the TV, and train our children to pay attention to things happening at a more realistic pace?
We should also be wary of spending too much time as passive receivers of information from a box. If, as science is now discovering, the brain can rewire itself to process the types of input we give it, isn't there a danger that we may be changing who we are in unintended ways, especially if we grow up with television as a constant presence in our homes?
While I was in the Philippines a few years ago, I saw a brief segment on television that showed chldren and adults playing various traditional games, such as spinning tops and throwing slippers at targets. I asked my wife about this, and she said that these were games children used to play. Before television. I thought it was so ironic that the television station was promoting itself by showing aspects of the very childhood culture it was destroying. Anyone who is old enough to remember a time before television became common has probably noticed this: Childhood games (in America, tag, hide-and-seek, jump-rope, kick-the-can, and many others might serve as examples) have rapidly declined or disappeared as all of the children have become used to staying inside and watching TV. The phrase "go out and play" has dropped from many parents' vocabularies as television has become the universal babysitter. Where childhood used to involve a lot of active exploring, physical games, and interaction with children from neighboring families, many children now prefer to sit in front of a TV. With the rise of video games, this has trend has been made even worse, and we now have an epidemic of childhood obesity.
Television has destroyed many aspects of local culture for adults as well as for children. Many families now eat in front of the TV, rather than sharing meals and conversations around the table. Family entertainment used to consist of telling stories, often about ancestors. Much of the local information that was passed on this way no longer is, and people know more about the personal struggles of the fictional characters on their favorite soap opera, crime drama, or other show, than about their neighbors, or even their own family.
The breakdown in communication often divides members of a family from each other. When people are watching a show, they are often not communicating, or if they are, only about the show, or brief comments. I've heard a wife describe how she wanted to talk to her husband, but the only time to do this was when he was waching TV, and she could sit there for hours, able to make only a few comments, and getting almost no response. The situation is made even worse now that many families have a TV in each room, so the individuals can be watching their own shows, and not interacting at all.
The time consumed by television and other media has grown over the years. The expense can vary enormously, depending on whether the household has cable, and whether they feel they need the latest huge flat screen TV. Perhaps more significant than the expense of the TV itself, though, is the impact of all the ads that are viewed, and the lifestyles that are portrayed. Many people aspire to have the latest gadgets, wear the latest fads, drive the newest flashy cars, and live like they see people living on TV shows. Such raised expectations are an essential part of what drives our economy, but they can be disastrous for the finances of an individual or family. And of course, TV spreads this message that we all deserve the good life to those in countries where few can afford it, making many there dissatisfied with their lives.
I think that if we desire to create a Christian culture, or any culture whose terms are defined by itself, rather than the TV studios and advertisers of the world, we should give up watching or owning televisions. Who do you want to educate your children: yourself, your church, or MTV, HBO, etc., and all of their corporate sponsors? While I am glad not to have a television in my own home, I would love to live among others who didn't have one, who got their values from their own community, who were not bombarded by sex, violence and advertising, whose children hadn't learned all the foul language and poor values portrayed on screen.
Of course, much of this critique could be extended to other media as well. Should we watch movies, listen to the radio, or use the internet? There are groups who get along fine without any of these things, and even though I use them at times, I still have misgivings. The internet is most troubling (even as I post this message on it), making available things that television doesn't usually portray, and potentially consuming as much time and attention. I suppose that we should ideally put limits on our use of it, at least. I believe it was Emerson who pointed out that even reading can waste our time, and divide us from our neighbors, if we do it too much.

Labels: television

This is the other old tract on television which I found in a Quaker meetinghouse. After I have posted it, I will comment on both of them.

15 Reasons Why Television Is Wrong

Ecclesiastes 7: 29:
Lo, this only have I found: that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

1. Because many of our spiritual leaders, and mothers in Israel, of various denominations, have voiced their opinion against it. Read Ezekiel 33: 4; Hebrews 13:17.
2. It is detrimental to Spirituality. Statistics show that theater business has fallen off since TV became popular. This has caused some theater owners to quit business and go into the TV business. Obviously these facts indicate that TV has, to a large extent, taken the place of the Theater, by moving into the front parlor of many homes. Too many have used the feeble excuse that it is less expensive and a means of keeping our children at home. I believe the family altar is the answer. Read Col. 3:1, 2.
3. It is a proven fact that some persons who purchased a TV set while they were in an unregenerated state, after conversion were convicted of its evil influence, and disposed of same. a minister's unsaved son, who was in possession of a TV set, told his father that he was convinced that in order to become a genuine Christian, he would have to dispose of TV from his life. Read 2 Cor. 5: 17.
4. The fact remains that 80 percent of that which comes through the eye gate is remembered, while only 20 percent of what is heard. TV presents a much greater opportunity for the beer, wine, whiskey, and tobacco businesses, and the display of improperly dressed women. This is all sanctioned in many homes; and not only sanctioned, but has become a commodity in many homes. Read 2 Sam. 11: 2, 3, 4.
5. The best of God's people are opposed to TV. I feel many of them have confidence in my religion. Influence and confidence are very valuable things in the work of the Lord. I cannot afford to lose them. Read Proverbs 22: 28.
6. The beer, whiskey, wine and tobacco advertisements, improperly dressed dancers, Hollywood divorce evil, murder pictures and lustful scenes, are a long way from gracing a Christian home. Read Philippians 4: 8.
7. There was a day when a growing boy was not permitted to see a burlesque performance, but now Junior gets it served with his chicken dinner, and his breakfast toast. Read Proverbs 22: 6.
8. Television will warp and twist the mind of our youth. When there are so many crimes and murder programs shown on TV, I am inclined to believe the story of the little boy, when informed that Grandpa had passed away in the night, asked, "Who shot him?" Read Proverbs 22: 6.
9. Crime programs, such as pictured on television screens, won't make better boys and girls, but thieves, murderers, gangsters, prostitutes and bowery bums. Read Luke 17: 1, 2.
10. Television caters to the evil mind. One old codger in Pennsylvania said he had been hanging around stage shows for over 50 years without seeing as much female anatomy as he had observed on television shows. Read Romans 6: 21.
11. I have three children whom I want to see make it through to heaven. I refuse to place temptation before them. I have always taught them as a father should: that the movies were evil. I know they have confidence in my life, and appreciate my advice. I will never betray that confidence, or change now, since the devil has transferred the movie into the home. I would rather lift high the Bible standard, and pray for my children with a clear conscience, than to cater to this Satanic influence, and weep later because I failed them. 2 Timothy 3: 15; 2 Tim. 4: 3, 4.
12. I am told that TV sets cost from $300.00 to $500.00. This is a lot of money to spend foolishly, while souls are dying and going to hell, all because they have never heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They could be saved if our willing missionaries had the required funds to take the Gospel to them. There are some places where $300.00 would help to win 600 souls for Christ. Read Isa. 55: 2.
(NOTE: Since this tract was written, the cost of buying a TV set has been greatly reduced, but this does not lessen the evil, but rather increases the danger, since it makes TV more easily obtainable, thus increasing the temptation to have this "pipeline" from hell in the home. Beware of this old serpent that is entering your homes through this charming magic box. It carries poison from hell.)
13. 1 Cor. 10: 31: Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatever ye do, do all to the glory of God. God does not get glory out of lust pictures, prize fights, nude dancers, wrestling bouts, liquor or tobacco advertisement, crime promotion, Hollywood divorce evil, etc.
14. Time is valuable; we have none to waste. Statistics prove that children who have access to television spend an average of 30 hours a week before a television screen. Parents, read Ephesians 5: 15, 16.
15. It robs any individual of his spiritual strength. I am convinced no one (without exception) can look upon TV for long and be deeply spiritual, or carry a concern for lost souls. Any one who believs the Bible from cover to cover, cannot approve of TV. Read 1 Cor. 9: 27; 1 Cor. 10: 12.

Crime's School Master
A recent study of television programs revealed that southern Californians have plenty of blood and thunder drifting into their living rooms from Los Angeles stations. In just one week, they could have viewed on the television 91 murders; seven stage hold-ups; three kidnappings; 10 thieves, four burglaries; two cases of arson; two jail breaks; one explosion which killed a score of people; two suicides and one case of blackmail.
My friend, I am asking you the most important question of your life. Are you saved and ready for heaven? If not, you need salvation above everything else. If you miss heaven and lose your soul, all is lost. If you want to be saved you must repent, forsake sin, plead the blood of Jesus as the only covering for sin. God's Word plainly teaches: Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Luke 13: 3.
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved. Acts 16: 31.
Written by Huey Gillipsie, Evangelist.

Labels: television

I have two tracts on television which I found in an old Quaker meetinghouse. The appear to date from the late 1950's, and were originally printed by the Pilgrim Tract Society of Randleman, NC. I am posting htem here because i think it might be enlightening to look back at these warnings from the time when television was still new to American culture, and see if they have been confirmed by experience.

What Is Television Doing To Our Youth?
Oswald J. Smith, Litt. D.

It seems to me that television is the greatest menace of modern times, and how Christians are going to be able to make use of it I do not know. Anyone who has sen it must be convinced of its danger.
Television can be used for good. It has tremendous possibilities, but I am afraid it is being used for evil almost exclusively, and that it will do more harm than Hollywood to demoralize the youth of our country. It has been proven that the eye-gate makes a much greater appeal than the ear-gate, and while there will be good programs on television, there will be so many of the other kind that it is going to be most difficult to put on one and blot out the other.
I shall never forget how shocked I was when I visited homes where television had been installed. They told me about the lovely church services that could be seen, the concerts and other good programs that could be turned on. But no sooner were the parents out of the room than the children, boys and girls in their teens and those younger still, hurried to the television set, and when some of us returned we found them stretched out on the floor, fascinated by what they were seeing. and what was it they were looking at? A bloody wrestling match where two men were tearing each other to pieces, trying to gouge out each other's eyes! And as the children watched and listened to the groans and cries of the wrestlers they could hardly control themselves.
At still another time it was a night club show, women for the most part unclad, drinking and smoking, going through sensual dances, every action plainly visible, the entire scene revolting and demoralizing. Yes, they could have turned on another program, they could have looked at something else, but they turned on that in which they were most interested, the scene that fascinated them.
For generations we have refused to take our children to night clubs, theatres, wrestling matches and boxing bouts. Now these very scenes are brought right into the home and displayed before the children's eyes. It costs nothing to see them, except a loss of moral standards. In their early life they now can become acquainted with sin in its vilest form. No longer will parents be able to protect them from the awful things that go on in the world.
If you want to know how serious it is, read the article on Page 103 of the Reader's Digest for April, 1956. The other day a Salvation Army officer warned parents to turn off their television sets between the hours of four and seven. These hours, which are devoted to shows for children, are filled with the most brutal crimes imaginable, and it is these scenes that inspire our teenagers to go out in gangs to commit acts of violence.
A polluted diet of crime, violence, brutality and sadism, sponsored by cigarette companies, breweries and distillers, is now the daily menu for millions of boys and girls. The Theatre, with all its filth, that we as Christians wouldn't dream of patronizing, is now brought into our living rooms. Television may well be the final step in the complete collapse of the moral and spiritual life of our nation. Children will do what they see others doing.
I do not think television can be controlled. If it is in the home, it will be used. Children have been known to use knives on their parents when the parents insisted on turning it off. Your son will see what he wants to see in spite of what you do. I have never had a set in my home, and if my children were still with me, I would never dream of having one. I think that is the only safe policy.
These are the last days and we are going to the bottom. Soon we will be on the lowest rung of the ladder, and judgment will fall. Alcoholism has almost doubled since television began to feature liquor ads. Robbery with violence is increasing by leaps and bounds. Thirty killings a day have been shown on television in one city, and in another, forty-eight, and twenty scenes of violence in a single hour, according to the Reader's Digest. What kind of a harvest can we expect?
I do not know the answer but I am afraid, very much afraid. I always have looked upon hte movie world as the most demoralizing agency in existence. It alone has been responsible for the teen-age gangs of today and for the terrible things that children have been doing in this generation. But now something much more dangerous is upon us. The atomic bomb is bad, the hydrogen bomb is frightful; but television is going to be worse than either, and far more destructive. It will completely wreck the rising generation; and, before long, it will turn the Unitred States and Canada into a Sodom and Gomorrah, infinitely worse than the Sodom and Gomorrah of Bible times.
When that day comes, judgment will be inevitable. There will be no cure. God will have to send terrible judgment on the race, and it will be because of television and its diabolical influence on young minds. Science will have succeeded in wrecking civilization.
But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it NOT ONCE be named among you, AS BECOMETH SAINTS; neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. for this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God on the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them. For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: (for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. Ephesians 5:3-11.

Labels: Ephesians 5, television

The topic of insurance is one to which I've given ... The topic of insurance is one to which I've given quite a bit of thought. I can see how some people might use the argument that they don't need insurance--God will provide for all their needs. I believe this argument is flawed, however, as God provides for our needs in a variety of ways. It's akin to someone suffering an infection refusing to take antibiotics, instead proclaiming their faith that God will heal him. Is it not true, though, that God is already offering them healing by giving them access to antibiotics to kill the infection? Certainly one has the right to refuse medical treatment, but must accept the consequences and not blame God for not providing.
My husband and I take the approach of insuring necessities whose loss would be financially ruinous, and accepting some risk ourselves. For example, we have our homeowner's policy deductible set at $1000. If damage of $1000 or less were to occur to our house, while unfortunate, it would be a loss we could financially handle. However, if, God forbid, our house were to burn to the ground, that would be financially ruinous to us. So we have our house insured.
Certainly God does command us not to worry about the future. Some make take this to mean "don't have insurance." But paradoxically, having an adequate amount of insurance (adequate obviously requiring definition by each individual and his/her financial situation) lessens our need to worry. I believe that not insuring the necessities such as our home, cars, and health is to not be good stewards of the blessings God has bestowed upon us. The rising costs of health insurance premiums is a problem almost everyone faces at some point. Certainly we have the right not to have health insurance, but one must give careful consideration before making that decision. With some cancer treatments running into tens, even hundreds, of thousands of dollars per year, only the very wealthy or the well-insured could afford such treatment. Of course I believe it is not immoral to refuse such treatment. It is simply a decision that must be made with the utmost consideration not only for oneself but also one's family. And the decision to not carry health insurance must also carry with it the recognition of such a possibility.
On the subject of health insurance, I read an interesting article a few weeks ago about an organization called Medi-Share. Apparently it is a non-insurance alternative to healthcare costs in which the members all share the costs of each other's health care. The requirements for membership include not smoking, being under 65, living a healthy lifestyle, and being a Christian. I don't know the specifics of the plan (such as whether or not your membership be revoked if you do develop a costly and lengthy illness) but I do find the concept interesting.
Best of luck with the success of your blog.
(Kimberly G)

Labels: insurance

One of the most important aspects of a religious viewpoint is how our religion influences our relationships with other people. If economics is the study of how we live our everyday lives: how we produce or acquire the things we need to live, how we make, spend, and invest money, how we own land and other property, how we trade with other people, etc., then this ought to be a central aspect of our religious thought, since these activities are such a major part of how we interact with other people. At one time, it was considered impossible to talk about economics without including religion, and such matters were an essential part of church teaching. Now, however, these are often considered to be areas of our lives about which the church has little to say.
I am creating this blog as a site for discussion of economic issues from a Christian perspective. I hope to discuss money, property, banking, insurance, wealth, poverty, trade, hospitality, work, family, education, entertainment, and other issues that form part of our economic systems, and examine how our Christianity can influence our lives in these areas. I am not advocating a strictly capitalist or socialist, or any other worldly economic system, but rather, the development of a distinctly Christian viewpoint on economics.
I invite you to join in this discussion. This is not limited to Christians from a particular denomination or opinion, but is open to all who would like to contribute. If we are to develop more informed theories of Christian economics, I think it is important to listen to all opinions, and consider them in the light of Christ.

Labels: introduction

Then Jesus said to his disciples: "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear. Life is more than food, and the body more than clothes. Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds! Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? Since you cannot do this very little thing, why do you worry about the rest? Luke 12: 22-26.
If we are not to worry, but to rely on God, why should we have insurance?
Are there some times when we should have insurance? What should we insure, and for how much?
Are there times when we could use insurance, but shouldn't? What needs does insurance satisfy in our economic system? Are there other ways we could meet these needs?
What effects does insurance have on other aspects of our economic system? How can we, in our use or nonuse of insurance, help to make our world more like the Kingdom of God?

Labels: insurance, Luke 12, queries

If you would like to submit an article or letter you have written, and it is not a comment on a particular post, please submit it as a comment on this post (by clicking on "comments", below), and I will consider it for publication. Please do not copy items that were written by someone else, unless you have the permission of the writer, as they may be protected by copyright laws.

Labels: special

Even though I have lived in the same place for almost ten years, I still don't know very many of my neighbors. They do recognize my dog, though. Why is that? I think it is because he is not afraid to introduce himself. If he sees someone new, he wants to meet them; so he goes right up and sniffs them, barks, wags his tail, etc. If we go for a walk in the woods, and come near a house with people or other dogs, he wants to run up to them and find out who they are. I'm more likely to hide, and walk back the way I came, so that they don't see me. I would probably find them interesting too, but I'm afraid that I will be a bother. I don't want to interrupt what they're doing, or impose myself on someone who might not want to talk to me, so I often never speak to them. In fact, I have met several neighbors because my dog went to their house first, and they had to find me to return him.
I wish it was easier for me to approach strangers, and start conversations with them. Maybe sometimes I would be a nuisance, but other times I would make new friends. I usually welcome it when someone I don't know appraoches me, and introduces himself, and we can get to know each other, but I still hesitate to approach others. Perhaps if we were all more like my dog, and went up to strangers we see in the neighborhood, we would all know each other soon, and really be neighbors, not strangers any more.

Labels: neighbors

For several years, I have thought about starting a magazine, or otherwise writing about a Christian approach to economic questions. Since blogging now seems to be a good format for discussions of this type, I've decided to try it.
I've often been concerned that to many people, Christianity is not seen as speaking to how we live our daily lives. Economics has been defined as the study of how we live our lives: how we earn and use money, how we own property, buy and sell, etc. Since both the Old and New Testament have a great deal to say about economic questions, it seems that they should be a primary concern of our religious lives, rather than separated from them. Several times, I've heard sermons that start off by saying that Jesus said a lot about money, or about economic questions, but in most cases, this is just an introduction to a sermon on tithing. I think it would be useful for us to discuss the many other things Jesus had to say about money, and how we live our daily lives.
I will be adding more posts to this soon. I hope you find this discussion useful, and I invite you to comment on anything you find here.