Wayne Grudem, author of the now ubiquitous "Systematic Theology" and its various slimmer offspring has recently written another volume - this time a very small book (90 pages) entitled Business to the Glory of God. It's a precursor to a longer tome that he is working on around the issue of Christians and business.
Christian churches in the UK have, historically, quite a mixed view of business. I think it would be fair to say that the Church of England, having strong roots in the landed classes, has probably historically thought that business is a bit vulgar and I suspect that view still holds in some quarters. The Brethren, by contrast, have produced many men of business - the result of the application of a protestant work ethic by intelligent men who often didn't have the then necessary social background to go to university.
Independent evangelical churches, I suspect, have probably for the most part thought that business isn't really spiritual enough and certainly doesn't compare to "ministry" or "the professions" for spiritual kudos.
Business to the Glory of God is a welcome break from such attitudes with Grudem commending ownership of property, productivity, employment, money, inequality of possessions, competition, borrowing, and lending as all being commendable in God's sight - and also, in each case, as capable of abuse and the possibility of sin.
For my money (ha ha!) though, it is the chapter of profit that is most interesting. Grudem argues that profit is good, demonstrating, I think helpfully, that the efficient use of resources to produce things that people need or want is best achieved through allowing individuals to make a profit on good or services they make and sell.
The place where his argument is inconclusive (at best) is when he talks about whether systems of profit are fair. Grudem acknowledges that great disparity in power of knowledge between the seller and the buyer can lead to the seller taking advantage of that and cheating someone.
But, he notes: "If profit is made in a system of voluntary exchange not distorted by monopoly power or dishonesty or greatly unequal knowledge, then when I earn a profit I also help you."
I think I agree with that - as far as it goes. The question is whether the systems of profit that we currently see operating in the western world actually ever meet those criteria. The sprawling global world of massive corporations and the huge banks and governments that work with them surely means that, to all intents and purposes, there is always massive disparity between seller and buyer?
It has turned out that in the world's biggest banks even most of the senior board members didn't have enough knowledge to stop themselves being exploited by people carrying out crazy transactions with credit default swaps. What hope for the rest of us?
It seems that the only people who have made a profit out of banks in the last few years are not shareholders, customers or staff but a very small number of senior managers and directors. I suspect that when I get my pension return this year I will discover that the only people who have made any money investing my money are the pension company staff investing it (and losing quite a lot of it)! These people know so much more than the rest of us that they can (largely) arrange things so that all the reward goes to them and all the risk remains with regular citizens.
Of course if I was a banker I'd probably be just the same - because the problem that they have is the same as my problem - a sinful, selfish heart.
It will be interesting to see how Grudem develops his thesis in the bigger volume when it arrives. But at present I can't help feeling that his conclusions show he believes that structural evil is more likely to reside in governments than in companys - and I can't accept that because I think the hearts of the people who make profits are just the same as the hearts of the people who pass legislation.
Wednesday, 24 June 2009
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Running and Cancer...
What's that got to do with running? Well I ran a 10k recently (52:39 for those who are interested!) and loads of the people doing it were being sponsored for some charity or another. I've always been reluctant to do that kind of thing, for several reasons. Firstly because when somebody asks you to sponsor them I always fear it seems like a kind of emotional stranglehold - you can't really say no without drawing into question the value of your freindship! Secondly, no doubt, because I am tempramentally mean and like to keep my money for myself (another area for regular repentance!). But thirdly because I sometimes wonder what difference it can all make. So will my mate Jon's triathlon, raising money for Asylum Link, really enable asylum seekers to be treated properly, rather than in the terrible way our society does at present?
The refreshing answer from Julian Hardyman is that we don't have to think we can solve the world's problems to try and do something about them...
"Surely God is pleased that child mortality rates have dropped enormously in the UK over the last 150 years - and would be pleased if we could achieve the same for developing countries today? Surely if we could reduce the number of abortions in the western world that would be worth doing, even if there were still some that happened? We may not be able to "Christianise" society but we can make it better."
Here, here! So, with gratitude to Julian Hardyman, I'm going to do another 10k in September and try and raise some money for cancer research. Who knows what good it will do. But, in a fallen world that won't be sorted out till Jesus Christ returns, doing whatever good we can is clearly the way forward!
So... if you'd like to sponsor me click here. And I honestly won't think it undermines our friendship if you don't!
Tuesday, 16 June 2009
MPs expenses - a retrospective!
Now that it appears the Daily Telegraph have stopped serialising the MPs expenses soap opera ot might be possible to have some slightly more sober reflection on the issue. Here, for what they are worth, are my thoughts so far...
It seems to me that the vast majority of the cases "revealed" by the newspapers demonstrate administrative incompetency, forgetfulness or a lack of judgment as to how claims that were perfectly legitimate within the rules might be perceived by the public. those areas are matters for concern, of course, in a MP who one would hope would be administratively competent and, especially, have good judgment about the perceptions of the public. But they are a long way short of being dishonest or criminal. stupid, perhaps, but neither criminal or wicked.
Much has been made of the fact that it's not good enough for MPs to say that their claims were within the rules - because the rules themselves were flawed. I think that the rules certainly were flawed. But a few things are worth remembering:
Three final observations spring to mind.
The first is that, generally, countries get the kind of MPs that they deserve. So what does it say about our society that our many of our MPs, like many of our bankers, seem, for to be more interested in themselves than others?
The second is that I think we need to recognise that there are other people here with an agenda. The owners of the Daily Telegraph, in particular, are wealthy on a scale unknown to almost all MPs, and have recently been accused, with some legitimacy it seems, of trying to bully the electors of an entire country (Sark) into voting a particular way in an election. The paper they own sold more and more copies the worse the allegations seemed - so they had a clear interest to spin the story to make the abuses seem as bad as possible. The person who leaked the documents (which were shortly to be published in any case) made a lot of money out of it. No doubt many foreign governments in states with much less interest in democracy than ours and chief executives of FTSE 100 companies (whose pay increased to an average of around £4 million).
The third is that, whilst undoubedly MPs pay needs sorting out, you've got to ask whether it's really worth three weeks of front page news - global warming anyone? abortion? third world poverty? war in Afghanistan? the moral and spiritual decline of almost all of Europe?
It seems to me that the vast majority of the cases "revealed" by the newspapers demonstrate administrative incompetency, forgetfulness or a lack of judgment as to how claims that were perfectly legitimate within the rules might be perceived by the public. those areas are matters for concern, of course, in a MP who one would hope would be administratively competent and, especially, have good judgment about the perceptions of the public. But they are a long way short of being dishonest or criminal. stupid, perhaps, but neither criminal or wicked.
Much has been made of the fact that it's not good enough for MPs to say that their claims were within the rules - because the rules themselves were flawed. I think that the rules certainly were flawed. But a few things are worth remembering:
- Yes, the MPs themselves did make the rules - but we were the people who elected them again and again after they had made them. So we, the electors, bear some responsibility for what those rules were along with the MPs.
- The reason the rules were set up as they were, mostly by the last Conservative government it should be remembered for those who may be into political point scoring, was that it was deemed politically unacceptable to pay MPs bigger salaries than they currently receive. These salaries are significantly less than you might earn as a secondary school head, a GP, a senior officer in a local council or in a senior role in almost any company. I think we do need to ask whether we really think it's the best plan to pay, let's say, the head who implements the law on education in one school less than the people who pass the laws on education for all schools
- The MPs who passed the rules in the first place account for only some of the current MPs. The newer MPs, in particular, were encouraged to see the allowances as a part of their salary. That might have been naieve on their part but I think most people in their first day in a new job, especially in a place as intimidating as the Palace of Westminster, would be inclined to accept the advice of the "experts" deployed to advise them.
Three final observations spring to mind.
The first is that, generally, countries get the kind of MPs that they deserve. So what does it say about our society that our many of our MPs, like many of our bankers, seem, for to be more interested in themselves than others?
The second is that I think we need to recognise that there are other people here with an agenda. The owners of the Daily Telegraph, in particular, are wealthy on a scale unknown to almost all MPs, and have recently been accused, with some legitimacy it seems, of trying to bully the electors of an entire country (Sark) into voting a particular way in an election. The paper they own sold more and more copies the worse the allegations seemed - so they had a clear interest to spin the story to make the abuses seem as bad as possible. The person who leaked the documents (which were shortly to be published in any case) made a lot of money out of it. No doubt many foreign governments in states with much less interest in democracy than ours and chief executives of FTSE 100 companies (whose pay increased to an average of around £4 million).
The third is that, whilst undoubedly MPs pay needs sorting out, you've got to ask whether it's really worth three weeks of front page news - global warming anyone? abortion? third world poverty? war in Afghanistan? the moral and spiritual decline of almost all of Europe?
Monday, 1 June 2009
What should Christians think about?
I always thought that Philippians 4:8 (Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.) meant that Christians shouldn't think about any "bad stuff".
Of course 10 seconds actual thinking about this would have demonstrated to me that that was a very silly way to interpret the verse! Nevertheless after labouring under an interpretive delusion for the last 17 years I have been brought to my senses by Steve Turner in his fascinating book "Imagine". He suggests, and he would know better than me about this, that Phil 4:8 has been used to deter many Christians from getting involved in the arts; because what if a Christian actor was acked to portray a scene of violence or adultery? Or a Christian painter required to spend days poring over a canvas depicting death?
As Turner points out if Christians were actually only supposed to think about "good " things then we would be prevented from reading much of the Scriptures themselves which portray horrific wars, injustices, suffering, rape, incest, cynicism, mnanipulation, idolatry and more!
So what should Christians think about? Well, and I know this counts as stating the blooming obvious, we can think about anything as long as we think about it rightly! So it's fine for Christians to think about murder as long as we think about it as a terrible thing that we shouldn't do. Christians can reflect on adultery as long as we judge it to be a wicked and destructive thing that undermines communities and devastates familes.
We live in a wicked and fallen world and we are wicked and fallen people. Thinking about that world and those people is fine, and a good job too because it's inevitable! What Paul wanted fromt he Philippians, and what God wants from us, is to think in a way that doesn't glorify that which is bad and, just as importantly, that doesn't make dull that which is good and joyful.
Of course 10 seconds actual thinking about this would have demonstrated to me that that was a very silly way to interpret the verse! Nevertheless after labouring under an interpretive delusion for the last 17 years I have been brought to my senses by Steve Turner in his fascinating book "Imagine". He suggests, and he would know better than me about this, that Phil 4:8 has been used to deter many Christians from getting involved in the arts; because what if a Christian actor was acked to portray a scene of violence or adultery? Or a Christian painter required to spend days poring over a canvas depicting death?
As Turner points out if Christians were actually only supposed to think about "good " things then we would be prevented from reading much of the Scriptures themselves which portray horrific wars, injustices, suffering, rape, incest, cynicism, mnanipulation, idolatry and more!
So what should Christians think about? Well, and I know this counts as stating the blooming obvious, we can think about anything as long as we think about it rightly! So it's fine for Christians to think about murder as long as we think about it as a terrible thing that we shouldn't do. Christians can reflect on adultery as long as we judge it to be a wicked and destructive thing that undermines communities and devastates familes.
We live in a wicked and fallen world and we are wicked and fallen people. Thinking about that world and those people is fine, and a good job too because it's inevitable! What Paul wanted fromt he Philippians, and what God wants from us, is to think in a way that doesn't glorify that which is bad and, just as importantly, that doesn't make dull that which is good and joyful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)