Blind Spots
As I wrote in an early post, many conservatives have a blind spot when it comes to “Wall Street.” In the heat of battle it is understandable why this happens. When defending a position against attacks, there is a reluctance to accept any criticism of one’s position. To do so might be seen as a sign of overall weakness. But while understandable, such blind spots can lead one to defend what to others are clear errors, and thus undercut one’s credibility.
The conservative blind spot came up recently with Occupy Wall Street, and now Newt’s attacks on Romney and can be seen in Dennis Prager’s comments on Hugh Hewitt’s show attacking Newt Gingrich with comments such as “Free is Free… Freedom allows for inequality… sorry gang time to grow up.”
One huge problem in all of this is that not every criticism of Wall Street, or big business is a call for less freedom, at least in terms of Government regulation or new laws. This is what was particularly troubling about Prager’s comments given that he has often made the point in the pass that sometimes there is a difference between what is immoral and what should be illegal. I would argue that this is particularly true when it comes to picking the next President of the United States. One could easily argue that a particular type of behavior is, and should remain, legal; yet is not something we want in a President.
Frankly I do not see a whole lot of difference between Romney’s attacks on Gingrich and Gingrich’s attacks on Romney. It is what happens in a campaign. After all, these attacks, and a lot worse, will certainly be made by Obama and the Democrats later this year, so I would rather have them raised now to see how the candidates and the pubic respond. Next September is not the time to find out that a candidate cannot defend themselves. Those attacking Newt however, claim that his attacks on Romney are different in character, for they attack capitalism. Maybe they do, but maybe they don’t. This brings us to the blind spot of so many conservatives.
Capitalism, as an economic system, is driven by self-interest checked by two things: competition among the suppliers of goods and services, and real choice among the consumers of those goods and services. While capitalism does require a great deal of freedom, that freedom is not absolute, and while some of my conservative friends will cry heresy, capitalism can benefit from regulation, at least certain types of regulation.
Often the liberal-conservative divide is seen as those who want more regulation (liberals) and those who want less (conservatives). Yet while often portrayed as such, that is really not correct. The problem is not how much regulation, so much as the focus of the regulation. The key question should really be does the regulation promote competition and choice or does it limit it. Ask this question and most regulation would go away.
But the failure to make this distinction is troublesome, for combined with the conservative’s blind spot it means that conservatives cannot see what many voters see, and this allows liberals to falsely claim that conservatives only care about the rich. So let me risk an excursion into the land of heresy and point out a problem I see with “big business.”
A key charge by the left is that the rich get richer, while the poor get poorer, and they cite as evidence for this the “huge amounts of money” corporate executives get paid. While I reject almost all of this argument, I don’t completely reject it as there is a grain of truth here to which many conservatives are just blind. Real wages, wages adjusted for inflation, have declined over 16% since the 1970s, during the same period that executive salaries have exploded.
Now here I make a big distinction between those who own their own businesses, and management such as CEOs who ultimately are hired employees. When you own your own business you take the risks and should reap the lion’s share of the reward. But those in upper management are often not owners, they are employees, and I see no capitalistic reason they should get lavish and ever increasing compensation packages with golden parachutes, while other employees’ real wages decline.
Some of my conservative friends will claim that it is just capitalism, but is it? To me the comparison of executive pay is closer to union pay than pure capitalism. Many conservatives are right to see that there is a problem with unions, as they distort the market place, allowing unions to demand wages and benefits higher than the marketplace would otherwise support. I would suggest that the same thing is true with corporate pay. When it comes right down to it, executive pay is not set by the marketplace; it is set by the other executives. Given the intermingling of boards of directors, there is very little to incentive to hold the line on executive completion, certainly not the same incentive as there is for the compensation of average workers. In short there is in effect a sort of an executive union driving up executive compensation pretty much the same way workers unions have.
The knee-jerk reaction of many conservative immediately jumps to a condemnation of any government solution. There is probably a lot to condemn here, and in fact I would argue that previous government attempt to “fix this” have only made it worse. But condemning a solution and acknowledging a problem are two different things. To get a real solution, a problem has to be acknowledged and then analyzed. Unfortunately many conservatives will not even acknowledge that there is a problem, leaving it to the left to propose any solutions.
More importantly, this is a problem that resonates with many people. Despite the praise of how much more productive worker are today, they see their incomes not keeping up with inflation, and they see the gap growing between workers and management. When conservatives refuse to acknowledge that a problem even exists, it rings hollow, and that only makes it all that much easier for Democrats to falsely portray them as the party of the wealthy.
The Epistles of John: Living in Truth and Love. 1 John 1:9-2:1
Week 16: Jan 8, 2012
We return to the study of First John. Having refuted the second claim, John now turns to the correct teaching.
Study
ii. Three Proposition Refuted (1:6-10)
1:9 – If we make it our habit to confess our sins, in his faithful righteousness he forgives us for those sins and cleanses us from all unrighteousness.
– confess here is present active, which indicates an ongoing process. Confession is not just something we do when we are saved; it is something that we continually do as we seek forgiveness for sin.
in his faithful righteousness
– The forgiveness that follows confession stems from both the faithfulness of God and his righteousness. He is faithful, and so forgives us because he said he would. That he is righteous shows that he can, as Jesus paid the price for our sins.
he forgives us for those sins
– Some see a significance in the word Forgives (ἀφῇ). It basically means “to leave” but takes on a variety of meaning depending on the context. In terms of locations such as a city, it means to leave that location. But when used of an object such as a book, it means to leave it in place. In reference to people it means to send them way or to let them go. For financial transactions it refers to canceling, or forgiving a debt. In terms of sin, it means simply to pardon or forgive. But his range of meaning does show why context is so important when determining the meaning of a word. One certainly would not want to use the meaning for objects, i.e., to leave in place, in this context.
cleanses us from all unrighteousness.
– The passage says that God not only forgives us, but that He also cleanses us. Most commentators see cleanse and forgive as the same. If so then the use of both in this passage is a form of emphasis
I, however, think there is a distinction here. John’s key premise is that God is Light and can have no darkness. God not only forgives us, he cleanses us and it is this cleansing that allows us to have fellowship with him. This is why confession of sin is so important.
I also think there is an implied argument here:
Since the opponents did not think that they had sin, there was no confession
Since there was no confession, there was no forgiveness
Since there was no forgiveness, they were still in darkness
Since they were still in darkness, they had no fellowship with God.
How does the teaching of Light and darkness line up with the modern Churches view of sin? This is one of those balancing acts. Sin is a serious matter, yet the ability to confess and be forgiven has lead some to the false belief that it is no big deal. Yet if we focus too much on sin, we miss the blessings of forgiveness. Only though constant pray can we keep the correct balance.
1:10 – If we say that we have never sinned, we make him a liar and his word has no place in us.
– John now moves on to the Claim #3 : we have never sinned
With this claim, it is unclear whether this is an actual claim made by John’s opponents, or if this is a summary of the other two claims. In support of it being a summary, the claim we have never sinned is very close to Claim #2 that we do not have any sin. On the other hand, it could be a response to the implied argument; I need no forgiveness because I have never sinned. While the distinction would have been important to the people to which John wrote, it is largely irrelevant to us. We are not caught up that particular controversy, and instead are looking for the universal applications that apply to us and this is the same for both understandings.
– Refutation #3: we make him a liar
The him here is God. To say that we have never sinned is to call God a liar.
1 Kings 8:46 When they sin against you—because there isn’t a single human being who doesn’t sin…
Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned, each of us, to his own way;
Rom 3:23 since all have sinned and continue to fall short of God’s glory
his word has no place in us.
– One cannot be in fellowship with God and deny his word. To deny sin is to deny the need for forgiveness and to deny the reason for Jesus’ death on the cross. For someone to do this, it is no wonder that John would say that his word (λόγος) has no place in them.
b. Expansion: Keep His Commandments (2:1-6)
i. Jesus the Messiah is our advocate (2:1-2)
2:1 – My little children, I’m writing these things to you so that you might not sin. Yet if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus, the Messiah[1], one who is righteous.
My little children
– John seems to mark transition/emphasis with such phrases, as he does here. Before going on to give the third counter teaching, he wants to make sure that he is being clear about the nature of forgiveness.
I’m writing these things to you
– Note the change from 1:4 – We are writing these things. While 1 John 1:4 referred to the writings of the eyewitness, i.e., the New Testament, here these things, is referring to what he has just written.
so that you might not sin.
– One possible conclusion of the teaching John has just given is that it is ok to sin; after all we can always seek forgiveness. Paul realized this as well after giving similar teaching to the church at Rome. Thus in Romans 6:1-2 Paul rhetorically asks, What should we say, then? Should we go on sinning so that grace may increase? Of course not! Likewise, here, John points out that forgiveness of sin is not a license to sin, and this would run counter to the teaching of God’s Word. We do not have forgiveness so that we can sin. We have forgiveness of sin, so we can have relationship with God.
Having clarified that this is not a license to sin, John proceeds on to Counter – Teaching #3 :
Yet if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus, the Messiah
– The word for advocate (παράκλητον) here is the same word as in John 14:16 referring to the Holy Spirit. It literally means to call alongside, to encourage, to exhort. It is one of those words for which there is no single English word. It can refer to a lawyer, but the concept here is far more than just legal counsel. It refers to someone who really cared for you well-being. It can refer to a counselor, or a comforter, or helper, but these are likewise too limited. You can think of this a as dear friend who is your lawyer, who counsels, comforts and helps you. In the context here, the lawyer/advocate part has the primary the focus. As Jesus will argue for our forgiveness before the Father
one who is righteous
– Jesus can take this role because he is righteous. We are unrighteous and have no basis upon which to ask forgiveness, but Jesus can ask on our behalf. Jesus died for our sins, and yet remains righteous because he is infinite. Regardless of how many people will have ever lived, or how much sin they have committed, it will in the end be finite amount. When heaven and earth pass away, there will have been a certain number of people who committed a certain number of sins. However big it will be, it will be finite, but Jesus is infinite. However big humanities sin, his righteousness will overwhelm it as drop of black ink, dropping in a white ocean the size of the universe. Thus he can bear our sins and still be righteous. It is on this basis that he will ask for our forgiveness and we can be assured that we will be forgiven.
Next week will pick up with 1 John 2:2.
If you have question or comments about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.
See here for references and more background on the class.
Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org
Note: Some places I have modify the text from the ISV version. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.
Footnotes:
1 2:1 Or Christ
After New Hampshire
While I have been of the opinion that, with the exception of Ron Paul, any of the candidates could beat Obama, I am no longer so sure. As the results from New Hampshire primary come in, it is becoming increasingly clear that Romney will be the Republican nominee for president. As I wrote in a previous post, given the timing of his surge, Newt was the candidate most likely to defeat Romney. “A surge for Bachmann, Santorum, or even Paul this late in the game, will most likely only muddle the returns from the early states” and this would only benefit Romney, which is exactly what seems to be happening.
The attacks on Newt, by Romney’s and Paul’s, super PACs and by the Republican establishment, successfully took Newt out. But they also had some unintended consequences that may come back to haunt Republicans. For one they unleashed a negative tone in what till now has been a surprising positive campaign, and this has generated a lot of anger, particularly at Romney. While this not unusual following a primary fight, Romney may have a somewhat more difficult time mending fences, as this is not a normal year.
For many conservatives Romney is the establishment moderate, who is only talking conservative to get the nomination, just like so many others before him. Given that the distrust of the Republican establishment is at records highs, many conservatives will be waiting for signs that Romney is “moving to the middle” as an indication that their fears about him were true. Still this is manageable, particularly if Romney campaigns as a conservative as strongly after he secures the nomination as before.
More troubling is that taking down Newt did not answer the problems many conservatives have with Romney and that left a vacuum that has been filled by Ron Paul. It is still highly unlikely that Paul will get the nomination, however, his strong showing in Iowa and New Hampshire greatly increases the chances that Paul will run third party, thereby ensuring an Obama victory. While Paul was always going to stay in the race till the end, he would have been relegated to unimportance. Having come in second in New Hampshire, his campaign is now, not too surprisingly calling on the other candidates, “to unite by getting out of the race and uniting behind Paul’s candidacy.” Perhaps Ron Paul will get his chance only to be firmly and soundly rejected. On the other hand, Democrats and the MSM now have a clear and variable Operation Chaos candidate.
It is pretty clear that the Democrats have been planning for a long time to run against Romney. In fact it is highly likely that the entire Occupy Wall Street movement was created specifically for that purpose. Tarnish Wall Street as the 1% that caused our problems, pit the 99% against the 1%, and then tie Romney to the 1% because of his work at Bain. The fact that most of Wall Street supports Democrats is irrelevant, for in politics perception is reality. So you will have Obama, railing against the injustices of Wall Street, while putting Romney and the Republicans in the position of defending all the “greed” and “abuse.” This would be just one more in a very long line of setups designed to make Republicans look bad.
More importantly, many conservatives have a blind spot when it comes to “Wall Street.” They seemingly assume that since it is business, it must be capitalism and thus ok. The simple fact is that there are some pretty legitimate problems, problems that conservative not only fail to see; they mistakenly even defend. While the Left’s distortions of “the rich” and “corporate greed” etc., are mostly incorrect, mostly is not completely. There is just enough truth in them that conservative’s blanket defenses often ring hollow.
This is why the Democrats want Romney. They can at least see a path to victory through Wall Street. While I do not think such a strategy will be successful, it is at least a clear strategy, and it does have a chance, particularly if the media can get the focus off Obama, and onto Romney. If the election is about Wall Street and Romney, Obama will win.
But now Democrats have another option over the next several months. With Paul’s second place victory, they can build him up as the alternative to Romney. While it is almost certain to fail, from their point of view, it can do nothing but good. Paul makes Romney look more establishment, and thus easier to tie to Wall Street. In addition, the longer Paul remains a viable candidate, the more likely it is that he will run third party. Should a miracle occur and Paul gets the nomination, it would be the equivalent of Nixon getting to run against McGovern in 1972.
The best thing that can happen now is for the non-Romney forces to unite behind a candidate that can take second place and render Paul a distant third. Even if it happened, it is unlikely to keep Romney from getting the nomination, but a third place Paul, is less likely to run third party. Yet this raises the thorny issue of which candidate should be the non-Romney/non-Paul candidates to rally behind?
This is why I am no longer quite as certain about November.
The Epistles of John: Living in Truth and Love. 1 John 7-8
Week 15: Dec 18, 2011
This week we continued to unpack John’s arguments. While his teaching were largely aimed at addressing those who had broken away from the church, they have a lot to say about how we live our life today.
Study
ii. Three Proposition Refuted (1:6-10)
1:7 But if we keep living in the light as he himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.
– Having refuted the first claim, John now gives the counter teaching.
But if we keep living in the light as he himself is in the light
– Note the contrast between “If we say…” and “But if we keep living.” While those who had left were making claims about a relationship, it is what we do that is most important. In this case, we must live in the light. As was made clear in the Gospel of John, Jesus is our example of how we are to live. We should seek to follow him and do his will.
we have fellowship with one another
– The first result of right living is fellowship. It is the fellowship of believers that is in focus here, but all fellowship depends on “living in the light.” This is because sin damages our ability to have real fellowship with one another. This can most easily be seen in the bonds between a husband and a wife. The sin of adultery seriously damages that that relationship such that, even if forgiven, it can take a long time to heal. But the sin does not need to be as significant as adultery to cause damage. Lots of “little things” that seemingly could be brushed off can still have a cumulative effect and can keep a deeper relationship from ever forming in the first place.
It can seem strange that numerous studies have clearly demonstrated that the more and deeper the relationships that a person has, the more joy they will have in their lives. And yet in recent years such relationships have been harder to form and harder to maintain. But it is only strange until one realizes that over the same period society as a whole has devalued and even ridiculed the notion of “living in the light.”
the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin
– The idea that we should be living in the light does not mean we will never sin. John realizes that we will fail, but that we can be cleansed of our sins. One question is why does John refer to being cleansed here rather than forgiven? While some see the concepts as synonymous, I believe they are different and that here John has a particular reason for referring to cleansing. The reason goes back to his starting premise: God is light, and in him there is no darkness. We cannot be in fellowship with God while we have the stain, or darkness, of sin. Thus, the fact that we are cleansed is key to John’s claim that we have fellowship. This is also a repudiation of those who left, for they were claiming that sin did not matter. In short, they were claiming that darkness could be in God.
1:8 – If we say that we do not have any sin, we are deceiving ourselves and we’re not being truthful to ourselves.
– Here we come to the second claim: we do not have any sin. In this claim it is easy to see a rebuttal to John’s refutation of their first claim. John countered their claim to fellowship by pointing out that those who had left were walking in darkness. So you can almost hear them respond, “I am not walking in darkness because I do not have any sin.” In later Gnostic writing there were different views of this, both of which could be covered by the Greek construction here. Some argued that sin had no hold over them. Others argued that sin was just physical and that only the spiritual mattered. But either way they were arguing that the way they lived was no a barrier to fellowship with God.
– John refutes this second claim by pointing out that if we make such a claim, we are deceiving ourselves. We, after all, know ourselves better than anyone else, so to think that we have no sin is first and foremost to lie to ourselves.�
The idea that we can lie to yourselves is at first blush a seeming contradiction. To lie, is to say anything with the intent of deceiving; but how could we deceive ourselves without knowing that we are deceiving ourselves? Yet while intellectually a problem, in reality the concept is so common place that it is not that strange at all. We deceive ourselves all the time. This is one of the key aspects of coming into a deeper relationship with God. A true relationship cannot be built on lies, so the first step in a deeper relationship is being honest with ourselves and with God about who we really are. Before we can really know God, we must first know ourselves. We must break through all the rationalization and self-justifications and see ourselves as God sees us. This can be a very difficult and even painful process, but it is important to remember that we can seek forgiveness and with God’s help become the person God wants us to be, a person who does not need to hide behind lies and rationalizations.
Questions and Discussion.
A lot of the discussion this week centered on the concept and value of true fellowship. True fellowship is a deep and abiding relationship, a relationship where one can be open about their lives, their struggles and their failures. While the amount of true fellowship in a person’s life is perhaps the clearest indicator of a truly joyful life, it is also difficult obtain and once obtained is easily damaged. True fellowship requires openness, and openness requires trust. At its core sin damages relationships, both with God and with each other. We also spent time taking about how societal pressures push toward casual swallow relationship, rather than true fellowship.
The class is taking a break for Christmas and the New Year, and will resume on Sunday January 8th 2012 where we will continue in 1 John 9
If you have question or comments about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.
See here for references and more background on the class.
Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org
Note: Some places I have modify the text from the ISV version. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.
The Newt Question
There is a huge gulf between the rank and file conservatives and Republicans leaders both in and out of Washington the over Newt Gingrich. As Newt has taken off in the polls so has the opposition from Republican leaders. So why are the rank and file conservatives ignoring the leadership? The reason is actually pretty simple. Republican leadership, particularly in Washington, have failed time and time again. Even at its best Republican leadership has been very weak. True this does not apply to all of Newt opponents, and in fact some of those outside of Washington have been very vocal in their complaints against the Washington Republican establishment. But the primary opposition to Newt is from a leadership who in the past have given us such stellar candidates as McCain, Bush, Dole and Bush. Time and time again Republicans have said trust us, we know what we are doing, only to start backtracking as soon as a negative editorial appears in the Mainstream Media (MSM).
This year the establishment candidate is Romney. Not a bad guy. He might even be a little better than the last Bush. But then that is not saying much. Sure Bush did ok on the War on terror and got his tax cuts, but while he fought the war generally well, he fail to lead the country, leaving it to the Democrats to define our involvement. On the domestic front he ran up spending, nowhere near what Obama has, but he still increased it by passing new entitlements. In short, he is a prime reason we ended up with Obama in the first place.
So now the establishment wants us to sign on to a one time liberal Republican who now claims to be conservative. Perhaps now he is; but is it any wonder that rank and file conservatives are underwhelmed and looking elsewhere?
So they have tried Bachmann, who was immediately pushed to the side by the entrance of Perry, who fell flat on his face, to be replaced by Cain, who was driven from the race by a series of questionable accusations. While Paul has a enough money and organization to make an impact in states like Iowa, he is a libertarian posing as a Republican and thus can never be anything but a spoiler. That leaves Santorum and Newt, and perhaps a second look at Bachmann, who was more overshadowed by Perry’s entrance than actually falling from favor, though her initial attacks on Perry didn’t help her.
Of these three, it has been Newt who in all of the debates has best voiced a clear consistent defense of conservative positions. It was Newt who consistently made the points that resonated in days following the debates. He repeated showed an ability to take on the MSM, rather than play into their loaded questions.
In short he has run the type of campaign that conservatives have longed for: a solid critique of democratic policies combined with a clear, positive and forceful defense of conservative values. Newt is currently doing so well simply because in this race, he has done this far better than any of the other candidates.
In response, the Republican leaders both in and out of Washington have pointed to Newt’s past but so far with little success. Sure Newt has strayed into the tall grass from time to time, but he also has a pretty long and clear track record of conservatism. Trying to claim that Newt is really a liberal in disguise, is like Democrats trying to claim that Obama is a moderate because he has not already implemented all the left’s position. In addition, while the leaders point to Newt’s past as evidence that he is not a really a conservative, they also are saying that we should ignore much of Romney’s past as unimportant.
Perhaps more importantly Newt connects with people. Right or wrong you get the impression that he is expressing what he really believes, as opposed to Romney who comes across as someone delivering a speech, or saying the latest poll tested line. He does it well, yet one is never quite sure if it was the past Romney or the current Romney who was saying things he needed to say just to get elected.
As proof of his lack of conservative values Newt’s opponents claim that he lost the speakership when conservatives rebelled because he was too liberal. Perhaps, but it is really hard to make the case that the Post-Newt house, a house that ultimately had so discredited itself with overspending that they lost the majority in 2006, was a more conservative body than the house under Newt, which cut taxes, balanced the budget and pushed through welfare reform. Yes they were defeated in the budget shutdown, but frankly the conservative rank and file don’t have congressional seats to loose, and so would rather fight and sometime be defeated than the current strategy of never fighting unless victory is assured, and sometimes not even then.
The bottom line is that the rank and file wants someone who will stand up for them, and the Republican leadership as a whole has not done this. Frankly, should Newt get the nomination, his greatest danger will not be Obama, the Democrats, or to be redundant, the MSM. It will be the Republican leadership who will start attacking and undermining his campaign from the right, the way they did with Sharon Angle, and Christine O’Donnell. To be sure, this is not true of all of Newt’s opponents, but it is true of a number of them. These are the people who are the first to call for party unity following a primary victory of an establishment candidate, but who never see any obligation to reciprocate when the establishment candidate losses. For these people, it is far more important to be able to say “I told you so” than to say “We won!”
Since Romney will likely win New Hampshire, the way to defeat him will be to win in Iowa, beat expectation in New Hampshire, and then win big enough in the other early states leading up to Super Tuesday so as to win the majority there. While it is not impossible for Bachmann or Santorum to do this, currently Newt has the best chance.
A surge for Bachmann, Santorum, or even Paul this late in the game, will most likely only muddle the returns from the early states, dragging the race out. This would benefit Romney as he has the money, the organization and the backing of the establishment to go the distance. This is why Romney is still the mostly likely candidate to win the nomination. Newt has a shot, but even with his lead in the polls, the odds are against him as the establishment is hard to beat.
