On a Christian boycott of Black Friday
I’m predisposed to agree with arguments against participating in Black Friday. So I was prepared to nod my head to Aiden Enns’s essay in The Washington Post’s On Faith blog, in which he lays out reasons why Christians should avoid today’s madness.
Instead I found myself wondering how many people might be persuaded to take Christianity more seriously if the know-nothings who write under a Christian label would take up some other occupation.
There are plenty of reasons for a Christian not to participate in Black Friday. Most of these reasons are applicable to every human being with a modicum of good sense. If you value your time, for example, you don’t want to squander it in some of the longest lines of the year.
If you value your money, and you’ve been paying attention, you know that retailers are desperate. (Does anyone think it’s a coincidence that you could still smell the sunscreen on people when shopping centers started hanging wreaths and playing pseudo-Christmas jingles?) Which means the longer you hold out, the better deals you can get, unless your loved ones absolutely have to have whatever trinket is exceedingly popular and rare this year.
And they don’t, by the way, which means the power lies in your hands to teach them an important lesson about letting go of what they covet.
Finally, if you have any fashion sense, you know that black is out this fall season, making Black Friday terribly passé. What’s more, there’s no way to congregate with a bunch of sweatpants-wearing, bargain-addled shopping addicts who’ve been up since 4 a.m., and look good. No way.
These are all valid reasons to eschew Black Friday. What is not a valid reason is virtually any of the argumentation offered by Enns. “It’s not that there’s something more important than the economy,” he claims, “it’s that the economy needs to be refashioned.” By this he means we need committees of smart people to address “poor labor conditions, exploitative hiring practices, unfair monopolies, and irresponsible resource extraction.”
History shows that people who don’t really understand markets generally make things worse when they start monkeying around with them in the name of “social justice.” But there’s a deeper problem here, which is Enns’s tacit assertion that there is nothing more important than the economy. This is not uncommon among those in the social justice wing of Christianity, who are at their hearts first and foremost about economics over faith.
But the real howler is where Enns writes this: “It’s dumb to say it this way, but Jesus was like Gandhi before Gandhi was Gandhi. He came alongside the poor masses and gave them hope because he stood up to the enforcers of empire.”
Here’s a writing tip: If you begin your sentence with, “It’s dumb to say it this way,” that’s a real strong clue that what you’re about to say is, in fact, dumb.
Jesus was no Jewish Cesar Chavez. He didn’t just chose “solidarity,” as Enns asserts, “with people of the lowest ranks,” as at least one centurion and one powerful tax collector can attest. He comes as King, and He overthrows the power of sin and death, not passing economic monopolies and labor injustices. To write about Him otherwise is to cheapen Him, and cheapen Christmas.
So fine, fellow Christians, stay home on Black Friday. Heck, abstain from shopping during the entire Christmas season. But do it not because Jesus wants socialism; do it, if you choose, because Jesus has more important work, with you, me, and our neighbors, than fussing over whether that new spatula we’re about to buy meets a set of Fair Trade standards.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top79 Comments to “On a Christian boycott of Black Friday”
I don’t “eschew Black Friday” for socialistic reasons or for particularly Christian reasons “because Jesus has more important work”. I’m just not very competitive and there are precious few reasons that would compel me to camp out at a store’s entrance or to race for a product when the store opens. I don’t like lots of hubbub, noise and lines. The main reason, though, is I just plain don’t want to.
Report comment to moderator
Spend money at WalMart or Target? Humph! I have much better things to spend my money on, like, property taxes…
Report comment to moderator
[heavy sarcasm]
I don’t eschew black friday because black isn’t in fashion. I eschew it because I’m white and racist.[/heavy sarcasm off]
And speaking of accuracy and truth in reporting; black friday is about staying in the black instead of in the red- it ain’t about fashion or racism. Today makes or breaks the folks in retail… which means it makes or breaks the people who have jobs in retail…
So if what’s really important is the economy, then you oughta spend money today. I think that “dumb way to express it” sentence pretty much sums up this guy’s expression… It’s not just a dumb way to express it so much as just a dumb way to look at things.
You can’t really legislate social justice without causing a lot of social injustice.
Report comment to moderator
Jesus stood up to the enforcers of empire? Is that why he was silent before Pilate? Is that why he allowed himself to be led like a lamb to slaughter? I guess I have to agree with Mr. Enns – that WAS a dumb thing to say.
Report comment to moderator
I just posted this on WV:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/25/shocking-truth-about-crackdown-occupy
I think this has merit.
Black Friday? I was working, but I wouldn’t have gone anyway. Too many people. There’s just no dignity in it. And I resent that businesses and people think so little of family and Thanksgiving that they shop instead. We haven’t learned much in the past few years.
Report comment to moderator
What if real Christians went shopping on black Friday and got stuck in a line for an hour? Perhaps striking up a conversation with others could bring some good cheer and show the spirit of the season. Heck, I bet there are countless numbers of ways a Christian could help spread good news, or even the Good News on a day like this.
Report comment to moderator
I went shopping because my son needed sneakers and my husband needed cough drops. By mid-morning the crowds were gone anyway. (My husband said it was really crowded at 10 pm last night when the sales started, but cleared out by 2 am.) I didn’t go for the sales (I looked at coffee makers because mine needs to be replaced, but didn’t see anything I wanted), but I’m not going to stay out of the story just because it happens to be Black Friday.
Report comment to moderator
Meh. Similar story to Pauline. I shop at the one main store in town at which there were big Black Friday sales several times a week as is, this was just another one of those days; it just happened to be one in which I got 50% off socks and the kids’ stocking stuffers at 65% off. I didn’t wait in a line for a moment. Where’s the harm in saving some money? I guess I can see the difference, though, between this and staying up until all hours just to pepper spray someone so that I could get at least one of the new X-box games.
Report comment to moderator
Went into my neighborhood Walmart at 11 a.m. because I needed groceries.
It was literally like any other weekday morning at the same store — not sparse but not hectic. Less busy than a typical afternoon after the kids are out of school and people start running in for something to make for dinner. Same story at the supermarket two blocks away where I had to run for something Wally World was out of.
OTOH, it’s a small Walmart in the heart of the city, generally avoided by people from more than a couple of miles away, because there are bigger, nicer Walmarts (not to mention other stores) not that far away. You would have had to pay me a lot to go to anywhere near our suburban shopping district today.
Report comment to moderator
Tony: What is not a valid reason is virtually any of the argumentation offered by Enns. “It’s not that there’s something more important than the economy,” he claims, “it’s that the economy needs to be refashioned.” By this he means we need committees of smart people to address “poor labor conditions, exploitative hiring practices, unfair monopolies, and irresponsible resource extraction.”
You’re implying that Christians should be ok with poor labor conditions, exploitative hiring practices, unfair monopolies and irresponsible resource extraction.
Is that really what you meant? Because if it is, I have to wonder which Bible you’ve been reading.
Report comment to moderator
Does anybody else find it odd that most of the police brutality seems to be happening in traditionally liberal places; New York, Seattle, BERKLEY. It is also interesting that at first the mayors bent over backwards for the Occupy protesters and then their support started falling when the public started hearing about their bad behavior. Now they are going for sympathy, as they are being sprayed and knocked around. Pretty convenient. I’m wondering if these people are being used as sacrificial lambs for the cause.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, Conan, Jesus believed in unions, too. What Bible are you reading?
KBells, read the link above to the Guardian.
Report comment to moderator
NJL: I said nothing about unions. If you have to introduce irrelevancies to make your point, it’s a pretty irrelevant point.
Do you think Christians should accept poor labor conditions, exploitative hiring practices, unfair monopolies and irresponsible resource extraction?
Try to answer the actual question this time.
Report comment to moderator
12. Yes, I read it and that doesn’t make sense. The Occupiers were destroying themselves. They would have eventually just gone home. This crack down is helping the cause.
Report comment to moderator
The crackdowns are happening for one reason: The protestors are threatening the continued enrichment of the 1%.
You guys can mock them all you like, but you can change two facts:
1. They’re right, you’re wrong;
2. They actually have a chance of succeeding in getting things to change.
Report comment to moderator
*can’t change
I really need to learn to type.
Report comment to moderator
Conan — I think he might be objecting to the idea of “committees of smart people to address….” There’s not a great track record on setting up committees of people who are smarter than everybody else to come up with ideas for what everyone else should do.
Report comment to moderator
Pentamom: Maybe. But I’m struck by how often these topics come up and some of the people you’d reasonably expect to be leading the charge to change are either rejecting proposed solutions, leaving them with nothing but a shrug and “too bad but what we can do about it?” … or refusing to even admit these things are moral evils because they’re afraid of seeming to agree with the hated liberals on anything.
Report comment to moderator
15. The protesters weren’t threatening anything. They were self destructing and looking like thugs, until they started creating martyrs for the cause.
Report comment to moderator
Poor labor conditions?
In any event, Jesus didn’t talk about that with or without unions. You, like most, miss the point. The Resurrection ain’t about nothin’ on this earth. All Christ talked about was The Kingdomm not being of this earth. You demean the earnings of Christ.
Report comment to moderator
The OWS has accomplished nothing. Has Congress changed? No.
Report comment to moderator
Kbells: I haven’t seen any video of protestors pepper-spraying police officers who were sitting on the ground and not threatening then. I haven’t heard any reports of police officers getting their skulls fractured by tear gas canisters.
There are people “looking like thugs,” but they’re not the protestors.
Report comment to moderator
NJL: All Christ talked about was The Kingdomm not being of this earth. You demean the earnings of Christ.
Oh, that was all he talked about, huh? Nothing about treating people fairly or the laborer being worthy of his wages, or anything else to do with money, work and equity?
I must be thinking of a different Jesus Christ then. My mistake.
Report comment to moderator
22. You did see protesters pooping on things, destroying things, killing themselves and killing and raping each other each other. They were looking pretty bad and people were getting disgusted with them. I’m not saying the police are justified. I’m just wondering who is controlling them since they seem to be helping the cause and it seems to be happening in liberal cities.
Report comment to moderator
Matthew 19:21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
- This is why I left Christianity, because it has no meaning. The most straightforward teachings are simply ignored by the church and most Christians, who feign pious aloofness whenever they’re confronted with any substantive commitment to compassion. Now we have an utterly dysfunctional political system in which every small act is construed as a zero-sum, and Christians simply retool all matters of faith to fit the pundit-bloated death-spewing nothingness. Nietzsche Christians in twelve different ways.
Report comment to moderator
“Do you think Christians should accept poor labor conditions, exploitative hiring practices, unfair monopolies and irresponsible resource extraction?”
To some extent we have to “accept” what is. However, Christians should be kind and fair in the way that they treat their own employees. Christians should encourage all employers to be kind and fair to their employees. Christians should be good stewards of the resources that God has provided–but also unafraid to exercise our God-given dominion over the earth.
As for unfair monopolies, I agree. But the way to get rid of them is by competition–which occurs only in a free market.
A free economy is a fair economy. Every other system favors one group of people over another.
Report comment to moderator
The whole idea of ‘taxing the rich’ just because they can afford it is not just foolish, it’s criminal. There will always be income disparity as long as there is a disparity in individual character and personality—which is to say, for as long as there are people.
But I agree with Conan about the monopolies. And I’d go a step further and say we shouldn’t permit ANY business to become so big that it can reasonably use its potential collapse and the resulting mass instability as blackmail.
The huge salaries that many are complaining about are only possible because we have permitted the artificial creation of behemoths and endued them with human rights which they use to crush their small business competition. These bipartisan monstrosities are an abomination and ought to be forcibly dismantled. We might then see the real virtues of actual competition. Until then, we’ll just talk about competition as though it exists. But it doesn’t.
Report comment to moderator
I’m for enforcing anti-trust legislation. I’m for changing back the way the banks invest, too. I am REALLY 100% in favor of not allowing Congress to benefit from insider information. That’s like the fox watching the hen house. That can be dealt with by the people forcing their legislators to do represent them.
What I find offensive is putting politics at Jesus’ feet. His goal was NOT to establish His Kingdom on earth. Conan wants to rewrite the Bible. This is Minogaade’s problem, too. Neither one can read.
Report comment to moderator
If anyone wants to sell all their goods and give the proceeds to the poor, let them. I find it interesting that although no one is stopping them, they never do it. They just complain that others don’t live their ideals.
Jesus never said that everyone must sell all they have and give it away: Peter didn’t sell his house, his boats or his business. But God will ask each of us to give up the idols in our lives, be they wealth (the rich young ruler) or a favored son (Abraham). He will not have anything between Him and us. I would find that a much scarier prospect if not for the unvarnished mercy that Jesus has extended to me. And the amazing thing is, he offers it to ‘whosoever will’ come to him.
There’s much in scripture we can learn about the practical aspects of justice (including not withholding wages, and not showing favoritism to the poor or rich in courts, not oppressing the poor) and how we should treat each other generally. But it must all start with: Thou shalt not have any other gods before Me. When it doesn’t we end up with infanticide, homosexual ‘marriage’, normalized pedophilia, and the man-made creation of monstrous entities endowed by their creators with human rights.
It’s apparently much more fun all the way around to reformulate scripture and recreate the Son of God than to follow either.
Report comment to moderator
Well said, Debra.
Report comment to moderator
“Stay there, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages.” Luke 10:7.
I’m not trying to “reformulate scripture.” I’m pointing out that Jesus, and pretty much all of the OT prophets for that matter, had much to say about treating people fairly and justly, in matters of employment as well as other contexts.
For Christians to say that exploitation of workers is ok because God’ kingdom is not of this Earth is near blasphemous, in my view. You’re turning the meaning of Scripture on its head and using it to justify the perpetuation of a power system that sets a few wealthy and powerful people above everyone else — pretty much the polar opposite of “deny yourself, take up your cross and follow me” or “the first shall be last and the last shall be first.”
I’m glad to see that Debra and NJL have some understanding of the harm of monopolies. Now if you ladies would join those working to try to reform the rules that permit them rather than mocking those people, we might get somewhere.
Report comment to moderator
We have more than “some understanding,” Conan. No Christian here said anything in favor of exploiting workers, so keep the insults to yourself. You, on the other hand, have lied about Jesus Christ. I’ve had enough of that.
Report comment to moderator
What have I lied about, NJL? Quote my exact words and explain how it’s not correct, please.
Report comment to moderator
What I’ve said about Jesus is that his teaching includes admonitions to treat people with justice.
Is that a lie about him?
Report comment to moderator
You lie about his mission. It was not political, and you know it. You should not use Christ for your own purposes. That is deceitful.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, Jesus was alarmingly apolitical – He had a Zealot and a tax collector in his close inner circle. This is because He knew the Kingdom of God transcends political or socio-economic systems. He told us not to busy ourselves with judging someone else but looking, with Him, into our own hearts. That’s why His message wasn’t concerned with making sure someone else does the right thing, but with making sure I do the right thing.
Conservative Christians tried to legislate sexual morality, and Progressive Christians are trying to legislate the morality of caring for the poor. When you take a good concept and beat people over the head with it, you wind up making those with a tendency to homosexuality feel hated; or attacking a mother who doesn’t have much money, for standing in a line until 2 a.m. to give her family the best Christmas she can give them. Or enabling militant gay rights advocates, or causing businesses to fail that have given people work and sustenance.
The form of government or economic systems may make life harder or easier, but the Bible’s stance towards these secular, finite systems is: Bless them and pray they won’t make it harder for us to spread the good news, which is this: the true King of the World is God, and He is good, and He is strong, and He loves us. Go from there. It’s alive, and it grows organically, like a bit of yeast in a lump of dough.
How many arguments have you engaged in lately about the importance of the Zealot movement as opposed to those who go along with the Roman invaders?
Report comment to moderator
“Conan, Jesus was alarmingly apolitical …”
Thank you, ClayVessel.
Report comment to moderator
And I didn’t mock anyone either. OWS is not organized and it is not having an effect on business other than to discourage businesses around them. They have had NO effect on Congress.
Report comment to moderator
Very well said, Clay Vessel – good point about the Zealot and the tax collector.
I read Luke 12 recently, and that apolitical quality of Christ is very apparent there.
First, a man asked Christ to help him ensure he recieved his proper share of the inheiritance that his brother was, apparently, cheating him out of. Christ refused, point blank, to get involved (v. 13-14). So Christ was not all about social justice.
Then, just in case the cheating brother and others like him got all self-satisfied, Christ told the parable of the rich man who spent years accumulating wealth and then died before he could enjoy his spoils (v. 15-21). Therefore, Christ did not agree the pursuit of capital gain.
Then, Christ proceeded to instruct his disciples in a third way of living, the way of faith. ‘Take no thought for your life… The life is more than meat and the body is more than raiment… For all these things do the nations of the world seek after: and your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things. But rather seek ye the kingdom of God: and all these things shall be added unto you” (v.22-34).
Christ does not stand for a new political movement, but for a new heaven and earth.
Report comment to moderator
I never said his mission was political. You’re making that up.
What I am saying is that his teachings included quite a lot that pertains to the way people treat laborers.
If you’re so narrow-minded that you can’t hear that without assuming that it must be “political,” well, that’s neither my fault or my problem.
Don’t assume that’s what I meant if I didn’t say it. If I said it, quote me message number and exact words. If you can’t do that, then open your eyes.
Report comment to moderator
Oh stop acting like everyone else just fell off the turnip truck, Conan. Your political positions are only slightly more objective than those of Obama’s press secretary. And on the blog, just as well known.
Jesus never ever suggested or implied that it was a good thing to have committees to deal with unjust labor practices. On the contrary, in your quote @31, the worker was specifically told to take ‘whatever they give you’. Christians deal with these things by choosing to be just, and by demonstrating a difference in their own personal business practices—both as employers and employees. As officials of the courts, they should judge objectively—not according to the inherently unjust ‘deep pockets theory’ which usually decrees that if you have the money to pay—you should be forced to pay regardless of actual fault. As legislators, they shouldn’t spend money they don’t have, and they shouldn’t oppress people in their shops and businesses and home farms and vegetable gardens.
When you can’t even go to your own neighbor and buy a gallon of milk from his cow without running afoul of the ‘law’, or can’t make your own agreement to sell the labor of your own body at an agreed upon price without some Union wetting its beak in your paycheck or some petty bureaucrat shutting you down, something is seriously wrong. BOTH PARTIES guilty of this heavy handed, soft Fascist interference in basic human life and basic human rights. And they BOTH do this kind of thing at the behest of large conglomerates and corporate interests (including large union interests), and large bloated government. They BOTH take the money and entertain some of the very same special interests.
The answer some people have found to this dilemma, is to make their diverse voices heard en masse, peaceably and lawfully, at Tea Parties. And for their troubles, they have received much criticism from people like you, who would rather promote OWS—-which spawn crime-ridden mobs like those threatening to give Macy’s their comeuppance with molotov cocktails. Knock yourself out if you like; just don’t blame Christians who take a more Christ-like approach.
Report comment to moderator
Debra: The funny thing is, I agree with most of what you say — you’re just so certain you have me pigeonholed that you think you know my views a lot better than you do.
And I didn’t say he did. So what’s your point?
Sure. But Christians also very often refuse to sit still while companies exploit people in desperate need of work by hiring them at low wages and working them hard for it, secure in the knowledge that they really have no place to go.
Often on this blog the argument comes up that Christians were prominent in the abolition movement. But if those Christians had the attitude you suggest, they’d have said “I don’t own slaves myself, but it’s not my business to tell Mr. Jones what to do.”
The pro-life movement wouldn’t be out agitating and trying to change opinions and laws if they took your hands-off approach. Same goes for the traditional marriage activists.
So why, when it comes to poor treatment of workers, do you suddenly decide Christians should just live out their beliefs in their personal lives but shrug off what anyone else does?
I agree with this 100 percent. No argument.
What does it have to do with my point about Jesus?
You can’t fairly blame the Occupy movement en masse for the abuses of a few people. For the most part the protests have been peaceful. The ironic thing is the two movements are far more alike than they are different, and they’ve both latched onto very real problems to solve. But because most people simply can’t bring themselves anymore to admit that someone perceived to be the opposition has a point.
For the record, I haven’t criticized the Tea Party much, and my criticism is largely over one thing: They refuse to accept the private-sector role in the problems we face, preferring to pretend it’s solely the fault of government. It’s not, and you summed it up here much better than I’ve heard anyone prominent in the Tea Party do.
Report comment to moderator
sigh … I got interrupted in writing the above and left two points incomplete:
Sure. But Christians also very often refuse to sit still while companies exploit people in desperate need of work by hiring them at low wages and working them hard for it, secure in the knowledge that they really have no place to go. But the Christians on this blog by and large come from a different perspective and disdain that kind of speaking up for others.
But because most people simply can’t bring themselves anymore to admit that someone perceived to be the opposition has a point. … it’s unlikely that Occupy and the Tea Party will ever get together. They would be a powerful force if they could.
Report comment to moderator
#25 MinoGaade “This is why I left Christianity, because it has no meaning. The most straightforward teachings are simply ignored by the church and most Christians, who feign pious aloofness whenever they’re confronted with any substantive commitment to compassion.
It sounds like what you are saying is that you left Christianity because Christians are hypocrites and not doing what Christ said. So if you agree with Christ, then why not follow him despite what others do?
Now we have an utterly dysfunctional political system in which every small act is construed as a zero-sum, and Christians simply retool all matters of faith to fit the pundit-bloated death-spewing nothingness. Nietzsche Christians in twelve different ways.”
What does Christianity have to do with a dysfunctional political system? Christianity is apolitical as others have said.
And if you have left Christianity, then have you not become a Nietzsche non-Christian, since existentialism is the only alternative? Is a Nietzsche non-Christian better than a Nietzsche Christian?
Report comment to moderator
“This is why I left Christianity, because it has no meaning. The most straightforward teachings are simply ignored by the church and most Christians…”
If it is so straight forward, then it must have had a meaning.
So it is not for lack of meaning, but by Christian actions who fail to live up to the meaning?
As Xion points out Christ again to you, this is EXACTLY why Christ came, and bled, and died. For the men and women, who fail to live up to what they should.
So why would you ever use that as an excuse to leave Christianity?
And the stereotyping of Christians is ill founded. There are many christians who even you could not consider hypocrites, for they have given up everything for Christ and others.
Simply because you live in a pandered, materialistic society, does not speak for all christians.
Stop making excuses.
Report comment to moderator
“You’re implying that Christians should be ok with poor labor conditions, exploitative hiring practices, unfair monopolies and irresponsible resource extraction.
Is that really what you meant? Because if it is, I have to wonder which Bible you’ve been reading.”
Conan,
Why do you make a fuss over something that wasn’t said?
It really gets old.
“For Christians to say that exploitation of workers is ok because God’ kingdom is not of this Earth is near blasphemous, in my view. ”
I mean really, it just gets old. No one is saying to exploit workers.
The emphasis by say the Tea Party against the government, isn’t a cry to exploit workers.
We’ve been over this. Talking about the evilness of the Joker doesn’t give passage or discussion to Bane, or the Penguin, or Mr. Freeze etc.
“I’m pointing out that Jesus, and pretty much all of the OT prophets for that matter, had much to say about treating people fairly and justly, in matters of employment as well as other contexts.”
People. Rich men are people too, some even employed. Christ doesn’t distinguish. Why should you?
I don’t see 1% in the Bible. So no reason to treat rich men, just because they have money, unfairly either.
“But Christians also very often refuse to sit still while companies exploit people in desperate need of work by hiring them at low wages and working them hard for it, secure in the knowledge that they really have no place to go.”
Who? Which Christians? Stop STEREOTYPING. Be specific.
If any business owner has committed a crime, charge him, bring him to court.
Report comment to moderator
Maybe. But as a Christian, don’t you sometimes find it unsettlingly convenient that the verses in the Bible most challenging to the secular culture we are called out of (hyper-individualism and consumerism) don’t really mean what they say, but have some abstruse, private, spiritual meaning deep in my heart but well out of my hands.
In other words: uh-oh, Christ calls the rich young ruler to sell all he has, give it to the poor, and follow Him. That’s extreme. Do I as a Christian need to do that? Whew. Ok, don’t worry. Christ doesn’t actually mean that, he only means that we have to put him first in our hearts. It’s a metaphor or something. Or maybe it’s just that wealth was that guy’s idol, so Christ was using hyperbole to point that out. But it’s not my idol, so I don’t need to worry about it, except to occasionally affirm, in a generic sort of way, that Christ must have first place in my heart.
But he says it is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than for a camel to thread the eye of a needle. Why is that? What is it about affluence that makes heaven so difficult?
Oh, nevermind. No need to worry. He’s only using metaphor and hyperbole again. He only means that in our own power, none of us can enter heaven, rich or poor. I agree with that. Easy enough.
My fear is that we so easily “explain away” exactly those passages of the Bible that are meant to challenge us. But what if Jesus actually means what he says?
After all, when Jesus speaks of the final judgment, he does not split the sheep and the goats by what they believed deep down in their hearts about his theoretical importance in our highly individualistic inward lives. He separates those who fed the hungry, filled the thirsty, and visited the sick and imprisoned from those who did not.
(And the apostles did give up everything to follow Jesus. Peter went back to fishing after Christ died, but after the resurrected Christ appeared to him, the next time we meet Peter it’s in Acts, and he has gone to Jerusalem to preach. Presumably, he has taken only his sandals, his staff, and one tunic but not two, and no money purse — as Jesus instructed.)
Report comment to moderator
JJF – You have a very valid point. I have no doubt Christ means those passages literally, although Peter probably did carry some money as per Luke 22:35-37. To every thing there is a season, and while Christians should not seek prosperity for the sake of prosperity, God does grant it for His purposes (Mark 10:29-30). Our job is to be content in whatever state we are placed in and do the work we are called to.
BTW, as one who has experienced poverty, I know there are Christians who help so quietly that no one else knows about it – I don’t even know the names of some of the people who helped me. Isn’t that the way it is supposed to be?
Report comment to moderator
JJF,
Do you do things for your spouse so they will love you, or because you love them in the first place, regardless of the return?
Was the rich man keeping the law to earn merit, or was he doing it because he loved Christ in the first place.
Christ offers another rule to follow, because it makes the motivation of the young man apparent. He hasn’t kept the law at all.
Nor have we.
Which is why we stand upon Christ for salvation. And why we do good works is not to earn a pat on the head, but because we love him in the first place.
Jesus does mean what he says. We do not live that out well, because we are SINNERS, constantly thinking that material security is more important or that our merit is worth something.
You can sell everything, give it to the poor, and still miss Jesus. There’s alot of “nice” people rich or poor, that don’t accept Christ.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t disagree.
But our notion of “accepting Christ” — a sort of private emotional assent that we can too easily divorce from his actual commands, especially the difficult ones — is not the way that Christ himself speaks of salvation.
I do not say that we earn heaven by our good works. But I am uncomfortable with the ways the easy theology of “accepting Christ” requires so little of us. Specifically, it excuses us in exactly those areas we want to be excused.
In other words, if I were going to invent a Christianity that allowed me to call myself a Christian while ignoring precisely those words of Christ that challenge my culture’s values, I would invent a system wherein one’s private inner assent is all that matters. When I wanted to fornicate or when I wanted to serve mammon, I’d assure myself that all that matters is that I love Jesus in my heart.
I sometimes unsettles me that modern evangelicalism is so close to that easy Christianity I’d invent for myself.
Report comment to moderator
“But I am uncomfortable with the ways the easy theology of “accepting Christ” requires so little of us. Specifically, it excuses us in exactly those areas we want to be excused.”
Salvation is not our work, which is why it requires little of us. Our work reflects our salvation.
Which is why if anyone who thinks that Christ gives freedom to sin then they are pretty much a moron. The liberty of the cross is not the permission to sin now. That would be self defeating. It’s like getting married just to commit adultery.
Christ didn’t die to make us independent. He died so that we can have the freedom again to live, worship, and enjoy our Creator as we were made to in the first place.
In a practical sense, inner acceptance is easy, and living it is hard because we are still sinners on this earth, at war practically against ourselves.
Yes, plenty, esp in response to legalism, have tried to go that route. But the Bible warns against it over and over.
We are new creations, grace is sufficient, the chains of sin are broken. So we should be who we were created to be. Christianity is close to other religions, but where it stands vastly apart is in the fact that salvation comes Christ’s work, not ours.
We do need to be careful how we judge others though. For we don’t usually know the whole story. For all we know, the rich young man could have been giving away 50% of what he had. Christ’s words aren’t harsh. They are a call, just like he did with Peter.
Which is probably why the young man goes away troubled. Thinking about it, worried, struggling, it’s not easy to give up oneself. Peter struggled with denial too. I’ve heard a few state that perhaps the rich man is the rich man later in the story that offers the tomb for Christ’s body. Maybe so, maybe not. Who knows.
Report comment to moderator
Conanthelibrarian,
Yep, you missed the point. Jesus is the one who sets the captives free, not the govt. That was the point.
Report comment to moderator
#50 JJF “I do not say that we earn heaven by our good works. But I am uncomfortable with the ways the easy theology of “accepting Christ” requires so little of us. Specifically, it excuses us in exactly those areas we want to be excused.”
Unlike every other religion, Christianity “requires” absolutely nothing of us. It required everything of Christ who gave it freely. We are “saved by grace, not of ourselves. It is a gift of God”. (Eph 2:8-10)
The uncomfortable feeling you have about grace is exactly right. Martin Lloyd Jones said that if you aren’t uncomfortable with grace, then you don’t really understand it. Obviously you are feeling its uneasy effect. Grace isn’t fair. Grace may encourage too much liberty. And so on …
People would rather have a list of things to follow to make them holy. That is how all man-made religions operate. If you were to create your own religion it would operate the same way. No one would create a religion that requires nothing.
If the rich young ruler gave away all of his possessions and offered his body to be burned but had not (God’s) love it would be worthless. (1 Cor 13:3) Obviously one can’t take Christ’s lesson to one man and ignore the rest of the teachings of the NT. Even you admitted that Jesus did not mean for the man to earn his way to heaven.
And so, the rest of Eph 2:8-10, explains what people who have been saved by grace are to do with this tremendous unearned gift from God. Out of abundant gratitude we should be overflowing with good works, i.e. being generous with our time and resources using the skills God has given us for his glory. However, it earns us nothing. We have nothing to gain other than the joy of being in God’s will.
Report comment to moderator
The uneasiness with grace is precisely why there is such a strong tendency to set aside the actual gospel (where Christ did it all) with a counterfeit gospel of “good works” so-called. This is what causes folks like Aiden Enns to lecture Christians on what to do with their money. The counterfeit gospel is all about money.
The Utopianism of progressives is an attempt to create heaven on earth by ruling with a rod of iron. Obama openly admitted that this was his purpose.
Whereas Jesus said that the Kingdom of God is within you, progressives increase the power and reach of government to enforce their idea of holiness at the end of a gun. When liberals create Utopia, people are shot in the back while trying to escape. Like Roger Williams, I prefer to advance the actual Kingdom of Heaven and stop empowering the counterfeit variety to love us to death.
Report comment to moderator
TuffOne: Conanthelibrarian,
Yep, you missed the point. Jesus is the one who sets the captives free, not the govt. That was the point.
That was not the point. That’s not even the subject at hand, TuffOne. I’m not talking about salvation. I’m talking about Christ’s call on his followers to serve the poor, deny themselves and to treat people justly.
A call that is widely ignored and explained away by conservative evangelicals who don’t want to be discomforted.
Report comment to moderator
“I’m talking about Christ’s call on his followers to serve the poor, deny themselves and to treat people justly.”
Respectfully, Conan, no, you’re not. You’re talking about corporations serving the poor, denying themselves and treating people justly, and us making sure they do it.
Report comment to moderator
Just saying.
Report comment to moderator
JJF,
My faith is not convenient. And there really is no substitute for learning to hear His voice and learning to obey it. That may involve mistakes and hard lessons, but how else can you know whether He is calling you to leave your business and follow Him (Mark 1:16,17), or to return to your family’s hometown and tell your friends what He has done for you (Mark 5:18,19)?
What I find much more convenient is the way the people who disagree with me politically usually want me to be a good Christian by giving everything I have away (often to the government) and wander the earth in sackcloth and sandals eating locusts and maybe a little honey. If that’s what God wants me to do, I’m up for it. He just hasn’t asked me to do that…yet…but you never know. I’ll try to keep you posted in case that changes. ;–)
Report comment to moderator
JJF,
One more thing then I’m gone for the day. Years ago I used to feel guilt about grand things, but at the same time I discovered that I wasn’t being faithful with the basic things either.
Before you contemplate giving it all away, make sure you’re tithing the full 10%. Then support a missionary on top of that. Then add a few orphans on top of that. You’ll find quick enough that you’ve given most of it away in spite of yourself.
You can also get these feelings when you’re trapped in the grind just to pay a big mortgage. There’s nothing that makes you feel more enslaved than crushing debt, and the desire to chuck it all can be overwhelming. The only thing that will help that is to downsize (or inherit billions from a rich uncle). And downsizing can be very messy and disorderly (been there, done that). The process can stress your family, and may even destroy your security if it’s forced. Been there, done all of that—and I wouldn’t go back—not for a single day would I go back.
When you sell your freedom, you sell a part of your soul. I will never get another mortgage. I don’t care if I live in a tent for the rest of my life—I will never sell myself that way again. Get free. Stay free. Then you won’t be having these self doubts. And Xion’s right about grace; giving it all away won’t save you.
Gotta run. Be well all.
Report comment to moderator
ClayVessel: Respectfully, Conan, no, you’re not. You’re talking about corporations serving the poor, denying themselves and treating people justly, and us making sure they do it.
Well, sort of. I’m actually talking about individuals who claim to be followers of Christ and yet don’t seem to be overly troubled when companies exploit their employees and rig the system so that no one can better their station except those whose are already well off, while everyone else struggles just to stay even.
Such people will pay lip service to it sometimes, but when push comes to shove, they won’t support actually doing anything about it, and they will make fun of or dismiss anyone trying to. The Occupy people may be naive and may have misidentified some of the problems (I think that’s not really the case, but even if it is…), but at least they’re trying to call attention to an unjust situation and hopefully get some things changed.
Report comment to moderator
“I’m actually talking about individuals who claim to be followers of Christ and yet don’t seem to be overly troubled when companies exploit their employees and rig the system so that no one can better their station except those whose are already well off, while everyone else struggles just to stay even.”
Christians oppose actual exploitation, but being employed is not exploitation. Noam Chomsky calls employment “wage slavery”, because your employer sets your wages. But your employer doesn’t actually set your wages, the market does. And it isn’t slavery since you are always free to earn more somewhere else.
Actual followers of Christ should think like Christ did. He did not call for an end to “wealth disparity”. He said one’s life does not consist in the abundance of things which he possesses. In other words, life is not about money.
Yet for liberals, money is the most important thing: who has it, how they got it, how much they have and so on. The gap between rich and poor is evil. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor is life’s greatest mission. This materialistic Marxist philosophy is exactly the opposite of what Jesus taught:
Wage slavery is not exploitation by an employer, but the endless pursuit of money. This is a heart issue, not something that needs to be corrected by government force.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: Christians oppose actual exploitation, but being employed is not exploitation.
Er … if the employer doesn’t employ you, he can’t exploit you. Employment isn’t always exploitation, but there is no exploitation without employment.
Exploitation is taking advantage of a poor labor market to pay people much less than their work is worth, or provide unsafe working conditions, require long hours, etc. because the employer knows the employees really have no choice but to accept it.
Actual followers of Christ should think like Christ did. He did not call for an end to “wealth disparity”. He said one’s life does not consist in the abundance of things which he possesses. In other words, life is not about money.
With all due respect, that’s pious crap. You use this line of argument as an excuse for shrugging off the kind of exploitation I just described.
Just admit it: You really don’t care about people whose choice are limited to not working, or working long hours for low pay in bad conditions. You’d rather people speaking up for them shut up and go away, and you use your religion as a cudgel to insist that people who do speak up for them are elevating material wealth to a higher place than it merits. Ironically, you do this in implicit defense of those who are already quite wealthy.
Yet for liberals, money is the most important thing: who has it, how they got it, how much they have and so on.
Ad hominem, and false.
No, liberals do not think “money is the most important thing.” We do think it shouldn’t be acceptable that people who are trying to work diligently to earn a living for themselves and their families are unable to provide even after working long hours, due to low pay and the indifference of people such as yourself to the injustices of the system.
You’re the only one talking about “the endless pursuit of money.” It’s your particular obsession. I’m just talking about fair treatment of honest people.
Report comment to moderator
“A call that is widely ignored and explained away by conservative evangelicals who don’t want to be discomforted.”
Conan, I really think you should get out more. Conservative, christians, christians in general even, they do get their hands into ministry to the poor.
Stop making judgements from ignorance and perception.
Do people struggle with helping the poor? Sure. But it’s not a conservative problem. That’s a human problem.
“The Occupy people may be naive and may have misidentified some of the problems (I think that’s not really the case, but even if it is…), but at least they’re trying to call attention to an unjust situation and hopefully get some things changed.”
The naivety is that not even Christ is worried about forcing the rich man to give up his money. He’s worried about the man’s soul, his heart, his mind.
Is OWS? Are you?
You realize that the 1%, gives 2/3rds of all charity? Where is the line? How much more do you want?
“I’m actually talking about individuals who claim to be followers of Christ and yet don’t seem to be overly troubled when companies exploit their employees and rig the system so that no one can better their station except those whose are already well off, while everyone else struggles just to stay even.”
Disagreement over how to fix a broken system, is not a lack of troubleness. Why do you continue to present that?
America, gives money. Practically no one starves to death in America <150 last year I believe. We give money to other nations. We give alll the time.
We've been redistributing wealth for the last 100 years. Europe has continually redistributed wealth even more so.
Yet we still have the same problem, don't we? Why? BECAUSE MONEY CAN'T FIX IT.
All the money in the world still comes up short. No matter how much you print, there will always be poor. It doesn't create utopia. It can't.
The main reason is because it divides people. You embitter the rich, while creating the tendency of more dependents. And over the years it lopsides more and more.
Christ is no more happy with those who don't give to the poor than those who do, who just stop with a check.
The point of giving is not how much. It never is. The point of giving is that it requires you to give up yourself and invest in someone else. To build relationships, and that goes not just for the poor but also for the wealthy. We can be just as bad for giving someone 10 bucks just to get them out of our face.
OWS won't change anything. It's just undirected rage, being rigged by the same riggers they dislike.
The tea party won't change anything either.
If you want to change the hearts and minds of men, you do so with the gospel.
Report comment to moderator
I think my post got eaten.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
You can just as wrongfully hand someone 10 bucks and send them on their way.
Christ isn’t concerned with how much money one has or gives.
He is concerned that we give of OURSELVES to others. That we build relationships and make disciples of all men. And all christians, whether conservative or liberal, struggle with that.
Why? Because money doesn’t fix class divides. It can’t build utopia by redistribution.
It never has. It never will.
The only thing that changes men, rightly, is Christ.
That is why OWS won’t change anything, and it’s why the tea party won’t do much either.
The answer is not the government. The answer isn’t to hate rich people. Nor is it to disparage the poor.
Real christian ministry, invests in relationships and discipleship. It doesn’t just give hand outs, it doesn’t just shout Jesus on the street corner.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: Christ isn’t concerned with how much money one has or gives.
He is concerned that we give of OURSELVES to others. That we build relationships and make disciples of all men. And all christians, whether conservative or liberal, struggle with that.
So how does that mean employers should treat their employees? Is it ok to hire people who are desperate for any work and pay them as little as possible while working them as hard as you can?
Would Jesus have kind words for the “job creator” who did that? If not, why are some of his followers so seemingly accepting of it?
Why? Because money doesn’t fix class divides. It can’t build utopia by redistribution.
Irrelevant. Nobody’s talking about that.
Well, the opponents of OWS are, because they don’t seem to be able to understand that that’s actually got nothing to do with what the protests are about. But the protests are about reforming the system so that people who work hard can benefit from their own labor more than they currently do.
The only thing that changes men, rightly, is Christ.
That is why OWS won’t change anything, and it’s why the tea party won’t do much either.
Nobody’s thinking that those movements will change the inner character and desires of others. We do think that better laws will ensure better treatment for the working people, regardless of whether the people obey the laws cheerfully or grudgingly.
Let me put it this way: I want my employer to pay me for my work. I don’t really care if he wants to pay me or just does it because he has to.
The answer is not the government. The answer isn’t to hate rich people. Nor is it to disparage the poor.
Real christian ministry, invests in relationships and discipleship. It doesn’t just give hand outs, it doesn’t just shout Jesus on the street corner.
The OWS movement is not a Christian ministry. It’s an effort to make life better for the people in America who aren’t in the 1%. It’s not presenting itself as a spiritual solution to all life’s problems, it’s just a group of people who are fed up with working hard and seeing the wealth they create go into other people’s pockets.
Report comment to moderator
“So how does that mean employers should treat their employees? Is it ok to hire people who are desperate for any work and pay them as little as possible while working them as hard as you can?”
It means they should treat them rightly.
We agree here. Where we disagree is whether or not the government can change that.
I think the last 100 years shows it can’t. We have mininum wage laws, labor laws, etc. Yet people still aren’t happy, the gap gets wider. Money isn’t good enough to satisfy.
Why? Because Scrooge only holds resentment, and if you think protesting his doorstep will change his heart, you’re mistaken.
Remember that carol story. Scrooge is won over because Bob Cratchet invited him to Christmas, despite him being Scrooge.
So long as OWS or any other movement treats rich men with hate or resentment themselves or expecting something extra. Nothing changes. Scrooge owns the government right? We keep electing Scrooges. They reflect our society. OWS clearly, doesn’t have the answer.
” it’s just a group of people who are fed up with working hard and seeing the wealth they create go into other people’s pockets.”
Who cares. Our hope, provision, and security is in Christ. If we really believe this, we won’t distinguish between rich or poor as men, we will love them first and foremost, knowing they need Jesus just like we do.
CHrist loved us while we were yet sinners. That is how we should treat even the rich. And I make that point, because OWS is vile toward the rich. And in so doing is not that we are disparaging the poor.
We need to minister to every man’s needs. And we need to do so, regardless of the return we get.
You do not marry or love your spouse on the basis of what they do for you. You do it because you love them in the first place, and you do it, independent of the return you get.
See the Bible, and Jesus, show US how to live. It does not show the government how to force us to live. If that were the case, Christ would not have told Peter to put down the sword.
So yes, a business owner should live like Christ in how he treats his employees, and an employee should love his boss, just like Christ would.
You make the same mistake that christians do by trying to change laws on the back end to support christianity. You can’t change society by force.
You can change it, living like Christ.
Report comment to moderator
“Exploitation is taking advantage of a poor labor market to pay people much less than their work is worth, or provide unsafe working conditions, require long hours, etc. because the employer knows the employees really have no choice but to accept it.”
A poor labor market means a poor consumer market, Conan. The worth of work is calculated on its return. A poor labor market necessarily drives down the worth of everything. Not only does the employee get paid less, the company gets less. That’s why so many companies have failed recently.
I can hear your head exploding with the word, “Wal-Mart.” Do corporate bigwigs sit somewhere far away and decide to throw away something like Thanksgiving, thinking they may make an extra buck? You betcha. Human beings can be greedy. Pray for the poor, hardened fellows. If our judgment is correct, they have Hell in their heart (insert here all the warnings against judging). But the OWS movement didn’t stop at Wal-Mart’s Holiday hours. They wanted us to go after the smaller businesses, who are struggling, who asked their employees to come in, long after the Thanksgiving dinner should have been cleared off the table, hoping to make up for this horrific economy. That’s overblown, imo, self-destructive (doing things that might destroy businesses, while crying for more jobs), and it shows a philosophical divide from my view of economic realities.
“…unsafe working conditions…” Wherever I’ve worked, OSHA rules were necessarily enforced, even when they seemed stupid and nitpicky. Do you know of any specific unsafe working conditions? If you do, please report it to OSHA. I don’t, so I can’t. You could tell us about them, if you like. Believe me, if there are unsafe working practices, the employers will be punished – if not by the government, then by the packs of hungry attorneys swimming around looking for blood.
“…requiring long working hours…” Are you talking about ER doctors? Or perhaps being expected to work weekends, evenings and holidays? Or maybe salaried employees, who usually get paid more to work until the work is done, no matter how long it takes? There are businesses who are trying to get by in this horrible economy, that are afraid, or unable, to hire five workers, so four do the work. Is that what you’re talking about?
You’ve likened your cause to that of the Abolitionists. I can get passionate about slavery. It’s just hard for me to get passionate about someone having to stand eight or twelve hours behind a cash register on a holiday. I’ve done it before. I chose to do it. We needed the money. I griped, and I was thankful for the check.
But this goes deeper than all of this, and I think that’s what makes these arguments passionate. I really don’t have any problem with you, Conan, even though I disagree with you. You seem to be an idealist, as I am, who cares about people. We just have two completely different ways of looking at economies. For instance, your statement: “…companies exploit people in desperate need of work by hiring them at low wages and working them hard for it, secure in the knowledge that they really have no place to go.”
I disagree that they necessarily hire “them at low wages.” I’m sure some hire at low wages out of greed. But I think almost all hire at the going rate, which is effected by the economy, wage laws, talent, skill, character, preparation, responsibility level, etc. I never had a high salary, because I never wanted to invest enough in a career to earn one. I wanted my main responsibilities to be elsewhere.
“…they really have no place (else) to go…” Until the economic downturn, of course, there were plenty of places to go for most every kind of work. There were more rewards for business owners, so more businesses began, and more jobs were created. But employees in more menial jobs were affected even then. They were hemmed in, not only by more “places to go,” but by the skill, ability, character, determination and preparation part. I am gifted, for which I thank God – some people are not – they’re just not gifted mentally, or they’ve been raised in a household impoverished by sin or ignorance and were never embedded with the skills necessary to do a good job. Or they’ve been dealt a hard blow by life, as I was, when my husband was hit by a car (God took care of us miraculously, btw). We need to care about these people, and I do. I just don’t think getting mad at businesses will help them. I think the root runs deeper, Conan. It’s only the seed of the Kingdom of God that will truly impact poverty. And, still, Jesus says, there will be poor. We need to see each person caught in poverty as our peers, because they are, and treat their circumstances with love and care, an opportunity to show our Father’s heart.
As for companies wanting their employees to work hard, I’ve always kind of liked that my working hard enriched the companies for which I’ve worked.
So, two completely different ways of seeing the same thing. Your statement upset me, because it embodies a belief system that I’ve seen at work since the ‘60s and ‘70s, and I’ve seen what it’s done to America. I could argue for hours why I think it’s misguided.
But really, what’s the point (after all my blah-blah-blah)? Who knows who’s right and who’s wrong, what with our measly brains? And so, we come, as we always will, back to Jesus. Jesus Christ transcends it all. He transcends capitalism and communism, socialism and progressivism. He transcends money and governments and arguments, and anything else. If every citizen is a true Christian, no matter what form of government, the country will be blessed. People caught up in these isms will fight and become inflamed with them. I pray that I am able to resist that, because I believe that any system in which man is involved will have corruption, and it is God who raises up one government and takes down another, for His own purposes, even judgment. I don’t think what I think matters in the long run, and I think it can get in the way of the Kingdom of God.
Peter asked Jesus if they should pay taxes to a government that had invaded God’s holy land – pay money to enable pagans to lord it over his holy people! Hard question. Jesus’ reply was inexpressibly brilliant. “Render unto Caesar…” Let Caesar have his financial system and everything in it. Let God have what is His. I pray God will help me to do that.
Report comment to moderator
Clay Vessel: But this goes deeper than all of this, and I think that’s what makes these arguments passionate. I really don’t have any problem with you, Conan, even though I disagree with you.
If you think my concern is that employees have to work on Thanksgiving, you haven’t paid attention to what I’m actually saying.
Report comment to moderator
I quoted what I thought were your main points and talked about each one:i.e., “Exploitation is taking advantage of a poor labor market to pay people much less than their work is worth, or provide unsafe working conditions, require long hours, etc. because the employer knows the employees really have no choice but to accept it.” I brought in the OWS response to Black Friday, because that’s what started this discussion, and you have been defending it. I think it may be the only specific thing one can latch onto in your arguments. You may have mentioned lots of specifics somewhere in this long line of responses, but if you did, I’m sorry – I didn’t read this whole discussion. It is very long. I think if you think I think your main concern is employees working on Thanksgiving, you didn’t read my post. I don’t blame you. It’s very long too.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, I cheer Black Friday and all other efforts that detract from the faux religious aura surrounding the abomination of Christ-mass.
Christmas, as a religious holiday, is a clear violation of the regulative principle. Those who attempt to cloak Christmas in some kind of religious garb are no different from Nadab and Abihu.
Report comment to moderator
Christmas, like any other holiday (or day for that matter)is what you make of it. Don’t go in debt for the occasion. And don’t let the sourpuss’s of the world spoil it for you either.
Report comment to moderator
Clay Vessel:
A poor labor market means a poor consumer market, Conan. The worth of work is calculated on its return. A poor labor market necessarily drives down the worth of everything. Not only does the employee get paid less, the company gets less. That’s why so many companies have failed recently.
Yes. But it can often lead to short-term profits, as the costs go down while revenues stay the same or rise for a time. In today’s world, that’s often good enough for investors who plan to sell their shares when the price is up.
But the OWS movement didn’t stop at Wal-Mart’s Holiday hours. They wanted us to go after the smaller businesses, who are struggling, who asked their employees to come in, long after the Thanksgiving dinner should have been cleared off the table, hoping to make up for this horrific economy. That’s overblown, imo, self-destructive (doing things that might destroy businesses, while crying for more jobs), and it shows a philosophical divide from my view of economic realities.
When did this happen? I’ve not heard much from the protests about small businesses. They’re focused on the large too-big-to-fail corporations and most especially the financial industry, which is where most of our economic ruin lately has stemmed from.
“…unsafe working conditions…” Wherever I’ve worked, OSHA rules were necessarily enforced, even when they seemed stupid and nitpicky. Do you know of any specific unsafe working conditions? If you do, please report it to OSHA. I don’t, so I can’t.
And yet, OSHA regulations are often cited when conservatives complain about too much regulation stifling business, killing jobs, etc. And it’s true — it does cost more to run a business and ensure the workplace is safe.
I agree, truly unsafe working conditions are rare these days. But that is the case primarily because of two things conservatives detest: unions and regulations.
“…requiring long working hours…” Are you talking about ER doctors? Or perhaps being expected to work weekends, evenings and holidays? Or maybe salaried employees, who usually get paid more to work until the work is done, no matter how long it takes?
No. Those people (and I am one of them) are generally being paid enough to justify the time they put in. I am talking about people working for minimum wage or not much more, required to work long days for little pay, paltry benefits and no job security. It becomes exploitation when companies that are profitable enough that they could pay their employees more, or give them better benefits, or hire more people so that they can work them a bit less hard, choose not to because they know the employees really have nowhere else to go for better treatment.
There is no pressure from the market to offer better conditions when the supply exceeds the demand. On the other hand, we’re talking about human beings here, not widgets.
It’s easy to say they should just go get a college degree so they can find a better job. It’s much easier said than done, though, especially for people who can’t afford college or who have children or other family considerations that make it difficult to devote the needed time to study and class attendance.
Or they’ve been dealt a hard blow by life, as I was, when my husband was hit by a car (God took care of us miraculously, btw). We need to care about these people, and I do. I just don’t think getting mad at businesses will help them. I think the root runs deeper, Conan. It’s only the seed of the Kingdom of God that will truly impact poverty. And, still, Jesus says, there will be poor. We need to see each person caught in poverty as our peers, because they are, and treat their circumstances with love and care, an opportunity to show our Father’s heart.
I appreciate that, and I understand where you’re coming from with it, but I don’t think it really solves anything. I am not trying to turn people’s hearts here, because that’s a slow-going process with uneven results. I’m just looking for some reforms to the laws so that people are treated better regardless of whether the companies that employ actually want to out of the goodness of their hearts.
A few people on this site take the position that amounts to, only Jesus can change people’s hearts, therefore, we shouldn’t bother trying to change anyone’s practices. I think that’s just a way to express indifference for the people on the short end of the stick and wrap it in piety so it doesn’t smell like what it is. I don’t think that’s what you’re doing — you sound sincere in your concern — but I encourage you to think about whether there is value in requiring someone to behave better regardless of whether they’re doing it voluntarily. I’d say, the person whose circumstances are improved by it benefits regardless of the motivation.
As for companies wanting their employees to work hard, I’ve always kind of liked that my working hard enriched the companies for which I’ve worked.
I have no objection to people being expected to work hard. I’m a manager, I expect the employees who report to me to work hard. But we also pay them well for their hard work and give them good benefits. My objection is to places that demand their people work hard and then pay them a pittance and remind them that they should be grateful to just have a job at all.
Report comment to moderator
#73 “My objection is to places that demand their people work hard and then pay them a pittance and remind them that they should be grateful to just have a job at all.”
Conan,
Can you give some examples of laws you would want to see passed to address that problem?
Report comment to moderator
“BY MINOGAADE 11.26.11 AT 8:01 PM
Matthew 19:21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
- This is why I left Christianity, because it has no meaning. The most straightforward teachings are simply ignored by the church and most Christians, who feign pious aloofness whenever they’re confronted with any substantive commitment to compassion. Now we have an utterly dysfunctional political system in which every small act is construed as a zero-sum, and Christians simply retool all matters of faith to fit the pundit-bloated death-spewing nothingness. Nietzsche Christians in twelve different ways.”
So I guess my question is. Did YOU sell all you had?
Do you live in America? If you do then you are rich compared to the rest of the world. You missed the whole point of what Jesus was telling these people.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline: The problem is too entrenched for a couple of simple laws to change things. It has to be a mix of laws, broader economic policies, attitude changes on the part of business (nothing enforceable, that part has to be persuasion) and time.
I’m not claiming this is an easy problem to solve. It’s not. It’s not going to happen quickly or easily.
I am saying I don’t think the status quo is good for anybody — not even the wealthy in the long run.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, how much is enough? Poor people in America as a rule are far “richer” than poor people in other countries. But the more wages go up, the more costs go up too. Is it really “exploitation” if a person works hard for 40 hours a week (not 100) and has enough for basic living expenses? Most of the world wouldn’t think so. Being without things most Americans take for granted (e.g., health insurance or a good car) isn’t enough to qualify as “exploitation” either.
Frankly it isn’t our “business” whether entry-level jobs pay as much as we’d like them to do. For most of us it simply isn’t our calling. None of us can be concerned about all the evils and problems in the world, and compared to serious issues (e.g., sex slaves, the marriage failure of someone we personally know and love), how much Wal-Mart or some other company pays unskilled workers just isn’t that high on the list of potential concerns.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
I really appreciate your answering the specific points of my post. It really helps me to see where you’re coming from.
I’ve been wrestling with whether to continue with specific points, because this is such a complex issue with so much history and so many talking points. So should we even try to discuss it here? I’m not sure, but I’ve really enjoyed this discussion. I enjoy getting to know where someone is coming from, and I think “iron sharpens iron, as one man sharpens another.”
I’m also very mindful that, arguments aside, only Jesus is what is important. I’ve seen what I think and what others think produce such chaos, and I’ve seen Him walk into storms and calm them. I loved the beginning of the play, “Godspell.” It begins with famous philosophers onstage, important movers and thinkers, talking, talking, talking, giving their brilliant views, and then, over the cacophony, a shofar sounds, and a voice begins to sing, “Prepare ye the way of the Lord.”
Beautiful!
That said, I’ll try to give a little more of my blah-blah-blah.
Conan: I agree, truly unsafe working conditions are rare these days. But that is the case primarily because of two things conservatives detest: unions and regulations.
This is a good point. I’m not sure what labor conditions were like before the unions and OSHA requirements. (My dad, whom I respected greatly, was a union organizer in the ‘40s but quit after a man was killed after one of his speeches.) In my mind, it’s a thing of degrees. There is union pressure for safety issues, which, as you’ve said, are rare these days. There is union negotiation and pressure for better salaries, benefits, etc. What sort of new laws are you looking for, in this age of OSHA, minimum wage, 40-hour work weeks and required benefits for full-time workers?
I’m guessing we see different things when we hear the term, “Union.” When I hear the word, “Union,” what I think of is this:
1. Union thugs bussed in to beat up Tea Party people protesting at a political appearance (which happened, more than once)
2. The carpenters union that gave my brother an unheard-of hourly rate and then allowed him to retire in his 50s at the same pay rate and with the same benefits as when he was working; the factory union that allowed my next-door neighbor to do the same. I’m glad my brother gets to do this, but this is not sustainable, and something in my practical heart asks, “Who’s going to wind up paying for this?” (BTW, my brother told me he often “spent $400 a night” on entertainment, but I’m not sure if that is because he didn’t have to worry about retirement, as we all did, or just his inability to plan, period.)
3. Jimmy Hoffa.
4. The NFL and Basketball unions.
5. Workers of the World Unite – a phrase Andy Stern has said he cherishes.
When I think of unions, I also think of intimidation and violence. I’m not saying every union uses these tools – my brother told me that if his did, he wouldn’t be a part of it. But look at the difference in the Tea Party and OWS movements, in which the unions are involved. The Tea Partiers protested big government and then went home, cleaning up after themselves before they left. The media screamed, “Potential violence!” The OWS, on the other hand, took over. They forced businesses to shut down and workers to be unable to work. They broke windows in banks and smashed up retail businesses. The press trumpeted, “Peaceful Triumph!” and “some vandalism against banks.” The ones who came in and did even more violence were dismissed as “not part of the movement.”
You can say you’re doing it peacefully all you want, but to me,
if you put yourself in my way and force me to be unable to live my life, that’s violence, that’s force. The people who shut down streets so that truckers couldn’t get past to do their jobs – in my opinion, that was violence.
Me: But the OWS movement didn’t stop at Wal-Mart’s Holiday hours. They wanted us to go after the smaller businesses, who are struggling, who asked their employees to come in, long after the Thanksgiving dinner should have been cleared off the table, hoping to make up for this horrific economy. That’s overblown, imo, self-destructive (doing things that might destroy businesses, while crying for more jobs), and it shows a philosophical divide from my view of economic realities.
Conan: When did this happen? I’ve not heard much from the protests about small businesses.
Perhaps this was just a local thing. It was asked that all stores doing anything on Black Friday be boycotted until Saturday morning. To me, it was overblown to denigrate stores opening Thursday evening at 9 pm.
Conan: They’re focused on the large too-big-to-fail corporations and most especially the financial industry, which is where most of our economic ruin lately has stemmed from.
Which specific actions do you see by the financial institutions that earned them “most of the blame” for our economic ruin today? Didn’t Janet Reno’s Justice Department force lending institutions to lend to people they knew would probably be unable to repay the loans? And then banks had to choose what to do with the failures? And the government decided to bail out the banks so they wouldn’t fail, and bankers used the money to give themselves big bonuses? And then the government bailed out the big auto companies? Are those the things you are alluding to here, or is there something else?
There is a lot of talk about economic justice. What does that mean, in a world in which people have different skill sets, different mental gifts, varying amounts of determination and drive, and different families of origin? For instance (using the most dramatic opposites), how does “economic justice” look, if you take a responsible, hard-working person raised in a hard-working, blessed Christian family and a person on welfare, raised by a Welfare mom who does drugs?
Report comment to moderator
Which specific actions do you see by the financial institutions that earned them “most of the blame” for our economic ruin today? Didn’t Janet Reno’s Justice Department force lending institutions to lend to people they knew would probably be unable to repay the loans?
No. This is a false claim repeated often on the right. The Community Reinvestment Act, passed under Carter in 1977, banned the practice of “redlining,” in which banks would refuse to lend to anyone from certain neighborhoods based on the general low-income nature of the neighborhood and regardless of the individual borrower’s qualification. Also, the CRA applies only to certain types of institutions, and the majority of the ones involved in the subprime crisis are not subject to it.
And then banks had to choose what to do with the failures? And the government decided to bail out the banks so they wouldn’t fail, and bankers used the money to give themselves big bonuses?
That part is true. Arguably, the bailouts were a bad idea. On the other hand, the phrase “too big to fail” means that the firms were so big that their failures would have been catastrophic for the economy, while the bailouts were merely disastrous.
But left out of that description is the action that led to the banks becoming that big in the first place: The 1999 repeal of the provisions of the 1933 Banking Act that prevented a company from owning both consumer banks and investment banks. Once that wall was down, the banks went wild with mergers and growth until a very few of them came to control most of the nation’s wealth. The government paved the way for that, but didn’t force the banks to do it. That’s how they got to be too big to fail. Had the subprime lending happened when the rule was still there, bank failures would have been relatively minimal in their impact on the overall economy.
There are other contributors. After the dot-com bust of 2000, the Fed lowered interest rates in an effort to stimulate the economy and help recover from that. That allowed the lenders to provide easy credit and spurred the rapid growth of demand for housing.
Other deregulation in the past allowed the financial sector to use a number of dicey products such as derivatives to generate revenue. There’s a lot that could be said, but the upshot it is that it was all paid for with debt — consumers holding mortgages, or financial institutions borrowing from each other, all in anticipation of future growth. This is fine as long as the future growth happens, but as soon as interest rates crept up and home buying slowed down, the growth stopped and reversed, and we’re still suffering the effects of that.
All of that except for the initial effort by the Fed to keep the economy moving in 2000 is a matter of private-sector over-reach. The only other role of government was the de-regulation that removed the safeguards that would have made it a much more limited impact.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!