Why Christian Bookstores Bother Me
1. High prices. Christ paid a high price for your salvation, so you must pay a high price for this bible.
2. Customer service. I'm sure it changes from store to store, but why don't Christian bookstores stand out as the best for customer service? I think this is a poor reflection of the gospel. My wife dropped off my bible to get it rebound before Christmas. I just got it back and it was done poorly. However, the bookstore we've been working with doesn't seem to want to help. They debate me, in fact, telling me I should have had different assumptions. Anyway, this is one example, but customer service at Christian bookstores doesn't stand out to me.
3. They don't run like a business. Excellence in everything is a godly virtue (Col. 3:23). This goes in line with the first two complaints, but what does it say when, from an objective standpoint, I'd rather purchase my new book on theology from Barnes & Noble?
4. Compassion for the lost and/or for those in need. This is reflected in the prices, as well as the products that are sold. It's not necessarily wrong to sell $10 rubber bracelets, but why does the Salvation Army stand outside Walmart instead (I don't think it's just the traffic flow)? Perhaps this is more of an issue with the broader Christian subculture.
5. Exclusivity. Yeah, it's a Christian bookstore, I understand. But do they have to exclude other good books/media? Perhaps more of my concern is with the separation of Christians from the rest of the world (I Cor. 5:9-10, Luke 15), which again is a Christian subculture issue. Is it unchristian that I sometimes worship God with secular music? Hell no.
6. Superfluousness. Apparently, there is a need to wear 40 different God-fearing bracelets, while carrying my coffee and water in containers that remind me that God exists, and my bible in a multi-colored case that screams, "I'M A CHRISTIAN! TAKE THAT EVIL HEATHEN! I BELIEVE IN CREATION TOO!" And if you get to know me, you'll see that I mark all my bible verses with bookmarks with other bible verses on them, have paintings at home costing hundreds of dollars that also have bible verses on them, and drive home in my great-commission-car that shares the gospel with everyone I cut off.
7. Corniness. This is perhaps the worst offense in my book. Apparently, Christian culture is defined by fake plants, cliché phrases, cheesy music, and bumper stickers that let everyone know how "cool" it is to follow Christ.
Well, there are my 7 reasons - the biblical number for completion, in fact. Let me know what you think.
posted by Chris Hill @ 2/01/2007 06:12:00 PM
62 comments
62 Comments:
You are hilarious. I particularly enjoyed reading points 6 and 7. :) It is true though.
Honestly, I have always found myself disappointed in the quality of products within Christian book stores. I once bought a silver necklace with a fish charm on it and it tarnished within a few months. I think I paid $35 for it too! Also, I bought a small NIV Bible that has come unglued from its cover since buying it just over a year ago. Maybe I just have a skill at buying things that are cheaply made.
Chris,
This is an excellent post. As we discussed already, I have noticed the same problems in Christian culture. It might be something deeper, but I am not sure what it is. Why is my apostrophe key remapped I am angry. Anyway, ' ' oh now it works for some reason. Weird.'''' Anyway, I would much rather spend time with the atheist people at my lab than with mainstream Christians. I have heard others say similar things. Please figure out the underlying issue and let us know what it is. Obi won, you are our only hope.
Ha! So it seems as though Christian bookstores DO emulate the secular market in terms of creating products that they can make a profit on because the have their claws in the corner of the market.
lots of people who are "christians" aren't really at all, and if you can get them to try to reinforce their fake identity by consuming thomas "painter of light" kinkade prints at a 250% markup... well more power to you. more EARTHLY power that is, because i'm pretty sure God's not impressed.
although, i shall plug: i do not believe that any Christian bookstore should be attracting customers the way Walmart attracts customers. Christians should be excellent in their dealings, but not necessarily always the winner. in business the winner is almost always a soulless cheat.
not that Walmart is a soulless cheat, exactly... well... kinda...
I never go in bookstores, but if they are anything like the Christian section of half.com then they have too many books on the end of the world and how to make money and live a stress free life.
My football viewpoints seem to be the opposite...except for Dungy. I hate the bears because they are the bears. And despite being good and having Tony Dungy as their coach and not being the patriots..just the fact that Peyton Manning is Eli Manning's brother makes me want to root for neither team.
And here is something that you may find funny...related to the bears...but it's at the 3:45 mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5QFOZc8AaM
brian urlacher story at 3:45
Jordan,
That mid-thought-apostrophe-rant was absolutely hilarious. Thank you for making my day.
Renee,
Well, one of my problems is that they don't run like a business, with good customer support, good quality, etc. There certainly is competition, because you can buy most of the same stuff at any other major bookstore for cheaper prices. I think people shop at the Christian bookstores because they think they're doing something good by buying stuff there, plus the fact that everything they may want is in one aisle.
Walmart actually does run better than some Christian bookstores I've seen. They have good prices and good customer service. I agree with you, though, that a Walmart model isn't what Christian stores should emulate in all manners.
I think Christian stores need to run like a business, while keeping the other things I mentioned in mind too.
Jordan,
I'll think more about the underlying issues and get back to you (here or on the phone if I'm too lazy to type). Off the top of my head, I think it stems from the exclusionary point I made (read the verses I quoted there).
Mark,
I actually like both teams, so our votes sort of offset each other. You will be rooting that both teams lose, and I will be rooting that both teams win. That way, we both sort of win and lose together...
So Katie and I bought the same little NIV bible from the same bookstore *cough*Northwestern*cough* and mine came unglued in a week...in fact it still sits broken in my drawer and i never use it because I'm so annoyed I spent the money on it.
Also I wanted to buy my dad a new leather case for his Bible...nothing fancy, just a brown leather case cause his book is really old and needs protection...of course where else will I find a leather Bible case quickly in the Cities? Yes only the one Christian bookstore we all know and loathe...it cost me $50...for a case that covers your Bible...I kind of shed a tear when I purchased it, but knew it was all for the love of my daddy!
Wait... what bookstore was it? I couldn't tell cause you were coughing.
Renee,
I was rereading your comments: "in business the winner is almost always a soulless cheat" and must fully disagree. Although you've probably read it, I refer you to Jordan's posts on Capitalism.
Thanks Chris, I would have made the same suggestion. I strongly disagree with Renee's assertion regarding the winner of business transactions. Transactions will not take place unless both parties are winners by making it. And I know businessmen--successful ones who fear God and act wisely. There are bad ones too, but I doubt it's worse than the general population.
Perhaps the reason these stores bother you is because you have place a misguided expectation on them-- being a testimony to God ought to be their priority. However, they are a secular business governed by secular principles. Of course we would all like to see a bookstore claiming the title "Christian" to hold some sort of testimony to the things of God, to sell the things Christians really need and not just things that will sell, or to have charitable pricing schemes so disadvantaged people can afford a nice Bible. Unfortunately, this will not happen. The real problem here is that these two entities should not be combined into one. You cannot serve God and mammon. (Luke 16:13)
I like this post.
The christian bookstores that I have been to cannot claim in truth that they:
1. have good customer service.
2. have speedy service or service with a smile.
3. have competitive pricing.
4. have superior products.
5. have good products in general.
6. have good rapport with anyone that I know of.
7. have my consumer loyalty and therefore my business unless it is the only supplier of a product I want(and I have to want it desperately to shop there).
8. have good coffee.
and must I continue. So, why do people buy from them when they can order it for cheaper on the internet. Because...
...
...
...
poop. hahahahahahaha
Mike
Dominic,
I think you may have a point in terms of expectations. I've been thinking about this as it relates to the entire Christian subculture - perhaps we set up too high of expectations.
But I think you err when calling them a secular business governed by secular principles. The same problems I've seen with Christian bookstores I've seen with churches and with individual Christians. Again, this could be related to expectations, but by your assumption (of secular principles - or at least your implication that they are opposed to God), Christian businesses cannot exist. I disagree. Running a for-profit business is not "serving mammon." That's like saying that every time I eat McDonald's, it's gluttony. Certainly it can be, but in moderation with the right attitude, it's nothing but eating.
Mike,
Poop to you too. That was your best point of all.
Yes, good coffee would be nice. I know Northwestern has coffee stuff, but I don't remember if it's good or not. That would be important to me.
Dominic,
The free market is no more or less sinful than gravity: it simply is. Within that environment, one can choose to operate with evil intent or with good intent, just as one can choose to build a bridge or instead to drop one on someone's head. Gravity, thermodynamics, mechanics, and the free market are amoral. You aren't a gnostic, are you? Just curious. More than once you have seemed to imply that material or natural things are inherently wicked. I would be interested to know where you stand on that, because if we disagree at that fundamental level it might explain many other disagreements. Where are you at in the app. process? Any news from schools?
Mike and Chris,
I agree.
Love,
Jordan
Chris,
I don't understand what makes a business "Christian" (other than the fact that they may sell Bibles or something superficial like that). Explain to me the difference between a successful Christian business and a successful non-Christian business.
Jordan,
I've gotten a few rejections, one interview, and am waiting on about 12 other schools. Im also applying to some graduate neuroscience programs as a backup plan.
As far as your post, capitalism is A-O-K with me. I was talking about Christian bookstores, though, not the free market or agnosticism.
Dominic,
I think Jordan had some good points, though, about your critique of the free market (i.e., "serv[ing] God and mammon"). In answer to your question, I don't think there is much difference between a successful Christian business and successful non-Christian business. The differences are not as much in their successes as a business, but rather in their practice and how they advance the Kingdom of God as a result of their successful business (i.e., giving money to missionaries, etc.).
I would like to talk about this topic more but I don't want it to turn into a semantic argument. Play nice =).
You said there is little difference in how Christian and non-Christian businesses are run. (I agree) Because there is really no difference between the two, I say they are secular in nature. When I say secular, I do not mean evil. Look up secular in Wikipedia, that is what I understand secular to mean. I am attending a secular University; it's not inherently evil. More to my point, though, God doesn't attach His name to a business or government (at least not yet) like He does a scriptural church. Because a business is not, in essence, of God, there is a danger in subjecting yourself to its success (essentially idolatry) rather than to God. This is where Luke 16:13 comes into context (also Matt 6:24). Pursuing wealth and pursuing God cannot be a simultaneous action; they oppose each other. A bookstore is not intended to be a testimony for God, it is a business (I don't believe something that is suppose to be testimony for God should resemble a business either but that's for a different discussion). Mingling them together confounds them both, and God is not the author of confusion.
Dominic,
That's fine. I agree with how you use "secular," being as it is an amoral term (not immoral). However, you compared a secular business to the verse that speaks of serving God and money. Thus, you implied secular principles are immoral. I'm glad to see you don't think that.
But you just now said that you can't pursue wealth and God simultaneously. I must disagree with you on that point. That's like saying I can't pursue a relationship with my wife and with God simultaneously, which I hope we'd both agree is an absurd statement. I would also lead you to the numerous verses that speak of God materially blessing those who follow after him, as well as the many examples of successful people in the bible who follow after God and whom he commends. If wealth becomes a priority over God, then it becomes idolatry. But to pursue something isn't inherently wrong just because it is wealth or success.
One thing quick, your analogies are really only serving to confuse your point. An analogy that is over-simplified or poorly constructed becomes misleading because is doesn't accuratly reflect the reality. Loving your wife is a God given command, pursuing wealth isn't. Running a business "in moderation with the right attitude" doesn't necessarily preclude serving mammon. I can usually understand your point without these analogies. If I'm honestly confused I'll ask you for an example or something.
By pursuing wealth I don't mean working for money. There's actually a very concise verse in Col 3:22-23 outlining the proper attitude when it comes to working. The pursuit of wealth in the context of Luke 16:13 takes on a much deeper meaning. If our hearts are set on pursuing wealth we will not be able to serve God; He demands that every other ambition be cast down first. We may be making money and serving God at the same time but we can't pursue wealth, in the truest sense of the word, and serve God at the same time.
I think it might be easy to rationalize seeking wealth by saying to yourself that you're doing it simply to give back to God. However, God tell us how we should be led when it comes to giving. I Cor 16:2 says to give as God has prospered you. You're only fooling yourself if you think acquiring a ton of wealth so you can give it back to God justifies your work. God doesn't need your money to advance His kingdom. Give money as He prospers you, He's giving you the wealth in that case, you're not seeking after it.
If you still disagree, I'd ask you to show some scriptural precedent that would show how seeking after wealth could be a godly activity. I guess I'm not going to disagree that God blesses in material ways, however, the blessings a real disciple would seek after are of an unseen and eternal nature. Maybe refer to Matt 5:3-11.
Dominic,
Analogies serve to explain points. I think with them, and thus use them to attempt to be clear. They enhance what I'm trying to say in order to ensure clarity. Simplicity in analogies is important because it serves that purpose. I'm not trying to talk down to you.
That being said, my analogy about my wife is still relevant, especially to what you are saying. Pursuing my wife, money, etc. is not, in itself, pursuing God. I could pursue any of those things without pursuing God... and I can pursue any of those things with pursuing God. They do not preclude pursuing God, and are somewhat irrelevant (although regarding my wife, it is a command, as you said). The issue of concern is priorities of pursuit, not the pursuit itself.
I guess I don't think it's fair to compare pursuing a relationship with your wife to pursuing wealth but whatever, that's not really important. Focusing on analogies is partially what I mean by semantic arguements. I'm intersted on what you understand Luke 16:13 to mean and how it is correctly applied in our dealings in the secular world. Did you have some specific scriptural examples concerning pursuing wealth?
You keep throwing out my example. How does an analogy have anything to do with semantic arguments?
No, no specific verses, but I do believe I have a good understanding of Scriptural principles. Feel free to challenge my points, but I haven't said anything contrary to Scripture. Here, however, my primary arguments come simply from using reasoning and common sense (most of which comes from my understanding of the world, including a great deal of what I have learned from Scripture).
I've already explained my understanding on the passage from Luke, although not citing it as such. It means you can't serve money and God. In other words, one is going to become your first priority - they can't be shared in this position. As such, we must always make sure our first priority is God, and whenever pursuing God and money conflicts, we must always choose God. Pursuing wealth is not necessarily serving money, though.
I just need to say this.
To pursue something is not the same as being devoted to something. You can pursue something without making it the focus of your life. I pursued a bachelors degree through the dedication of my time, but I was not devoted to that pursuit like I am devoted to God. I did not act as a servant to my bachelors degree in the same way I am a servant, and "serve" (Luke 16:13), God. The Bible clearly says in Luke 16:13 that it is an issue of DEVOTION and priority not of pursuit. To define, devotion is an act of profound dedication or consecration to something.
"No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."
If you devote yourself to a life of wealth and make it a priority over God, then of course it is a sin. It would be wrong for us as believers to not "despise" serving money in the same way we serve God. Money is not our master. I don't think anyone disagrees on that. But, if God blesses us with money--say through a successful business, does that make it a sin to continue pursuing that business and gaining wealth from it? I don't think so. Not if that person's priorities are in check.
Dominic, you asked how Luke 16:13 can be understood and "how it is correctly applied in our dealings in the secular world". The answer is my previous point. You cannot be devoted to serving two masters. God must always come first. According to dictionary.com , one of the definitions of the word "pursue" is,
"to strive to gain; seek to attain or accomplish (an end, object, purpose, etc.)"
I do not think that pursuing something and being devoted to something are the same thing.
Chris,
God has blessed you with a wise wife.
Dominic,
I completely agree with you that God does not need our wealth. I would like to generalize your statement, however, by pointing out that God does not need our poverty either. In fact He doesn't need our love, our hope, our money, our devotion, our Christian ministries, or anything else we might deign to "give" to him since he is the source of all good things anyway. I know you are aware of this, and that I am not stating anything new or controversial, but I think it is important to bring up as a reminder, if only to myself. How many Christians have focused on "wealth as evil" and made vows of poverty, lived among the poor, forsaken all material things, and, with pride, thought that they are giving something to God. They delude only themselves with their martyrdom complex. In fact, many of these condemn wealth due to their envy for those able to produce something they cannot. We are all created for different purposes and ought to endeavor to find what that is and, in devotion to God, prosper in whatever unique way we were created to prosper. I'm sure you agree with these things, so I am not aiming this at you...just going off on a tangent of my own.
And just to clarify, I was not questioning whether you were "agnostic" earlier, but rather whether you are "gnostic". Those are two very different things. Not sure if what you wrote was just a typo or an actual misunderstanding.
Finally, the purpose of analogy is to provide clarity in roughly the same way as a figure in a textbook. While we should be able to understand everything from the text itself, analogies (and figures) serve to illustrate the same idea in a different way. He was certainly not insulting you by using one, nor was he inappropriately simplifying.
Keep me updated with what happens with the schools.
Jordan,
Yes, my wife is pretty much the awesomest woman ever ever. Thanks for your kind words.
Also, speaking of "ever ever," my next post includes a link to one of the best South Park episodes I've seen in awhile.
I'm really glad we can have a reasonable discussion about this. I've thought about issues relating to money and God often over the past year or so. This topic interests me particularly because there are so many verses in the Bible, especially the New Testament, that carry undertones of this verse, yet an increasing number of Christians seem to be dismissing the significance of its teaching. I value other intelligent perspectives, so thanks for that.
First, though, I don't think it's logically sound to use analogies to draw conclusions. They are helpful for introducing a difficult concept but you really can't stand behind them as proof the reality can be thought of in the same way. You still need other evidence and logical arguments to prove your point. It seems like questionable analogies are the main thrust of your arguments here. I think it's best to avoid them altogether because we end up speaking about the analogies instead of the actual topic. And don't worry, I'm not offended by your use of them =).
I think pursing wealth and serving money is the same thing. I really don't believe that striving to gain or seeking to attain wealth is a biblical teaching. I also don't think that the emphasis of this verse is really about placing priorities either. Serving mammon is not an acceptable attitude for a Christian even if it's their last priority. If any priority isn't aligned with serving God alone we ought to examine ourselves and ask God to help us correct it.
I hope it doesn't sound like I'm saying desiring to have money to pay of debts, provide for your family, or even to give to God is wrong, of course it's not. It is the desire to become wealthy that I believe has no place in scripture.
I agree, God needs nothing from us whether it is our wealth or poverty. But this does bring up a great point. We read in Phil 2:7 that Christ took on the form of a servant. We also read in 2 Cor 2:9 that he became poor for our sake. Paul counted all things as loss that He might know Christ more in Phil 3:8. Poverty was a result of absolute devotion to God. I find it very hard to believe that this precedent would change because times have changed. Although seeking poverty is not what God desires, I'm fairly certain we would be much nearer to Christ because of it relative to seeking after wealth. While I suppose it's possible some have actually sought poverty through pride and missed Christ, they are in the far, far minority compared to those who have sought wealth and missed Christ.
I understand gnostic to mean "salvation through knowledge" so I would definitely not consider myself to be a gnostic. I believe what the Bible say plus nothing.
"I don't think it's logically sound to use analogies to draw conclusions."
What about Christ using parables?
"It seems like questionable analogies are the main thrust of your arguments here."
They aren't questionable at all, nor are they the main thrust. My wife gave some other good examples, but the point that she, Jordan, and I have all made is pretty clear despite analogies: pursuit and "serving" are not synonymous, thus you can pursue money and not serve it, hence it is not inherently an offense to God.
Please stop criticizing technique of argument. You may not like it, but you haven't disproved anything I (or anyone else) has said - only tried to criticize our thought process. If you want to get into a debate on the use of analogies in argument, this is not the place. I will disprove you with analogies, because no good argument is without example or explanation. The only reason we're debating analogies is because you have a problem with using them.
Your point is that pursuing money is in opposition to God. We have shown, by example, that pursuit of things similar to money (prestige, other relationships, etc.) are not in opposition to God. Thus, there must be strong evidence to show that pursuing money is in opposition to God. [It seems as if you're not reading the posts of others thoroughly. Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but if you read this, please mention this note specifically.] But the verse you keep bringing up doesn't say anything to that point, only that you can't serve both God and money (as an aside, no one ever said you can serve money if it's the last thing you serve - serving money at any point is wrong). Again, we also logically infer that this means we can't serve God and... prestige, our careers, relationships, etc.
If you want to get technical, the word "serve" used twice in the Luke passage is the Greek word "douleuo," which is defined by Strong's (yes, I looked it up in a huge reference book) as: to be a slave... be in bondage... "to serve as a slave, to be a slave, to be in bondage". The same word is used in places such as Romans 6:6. It is not synonymous with pursuit.
Let me try another point, but I'm going to have to use analogies... being poor is not a good thing in itself. Good things can come of it, but good things also come from being forced into slavery (hard work, discipline, etc.), which is certainly a bad thing. Being rich is a good thing, on the other hand. Bad things can come of it, but bad things can come from a nation at peace (most of Israel's sinful times were when they weren't being attacked by outsiders). Thus, the possible side effects have no bearing on the goodness of something. So I maintain that pursuing wealth (a good thing) is not opposed to God, whereas serving money (a possible side effect) is a bad thing.
Honestly, Dominic, I don't disagree with a lot of what you say. I think it's very easy for the pursuit of wealth to become the service of money, and believe that those who are poor (not by their doing) are often more blessed by God. You're missing the distinctions here, though, and again have criticized the arguments of others in a manner that seems divisive (whether intended or not).
The parables weren't used to draw conclusions about heaven; these things were already established. The parables serve to explain a difficult concept, a foreign way of thinking. Neither of us can really claim we know exactly what this verse means so we still need to draw conclusions. We can only use analogies to draw firm conclusions if the analogy can be empirically proven. E=mc^2 is an analogy. Given that our terms are defined properly, this analogy can be used to draw a conclusion about reality. I do understand the point you are making by comparing pursuing a relationship with your wife or pursuing a degree with pursuing money, however, this analogy models only one aspect of this verse. The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a grain of mustard seed. Because a mustard seed is yellow and grown in the summer can we also conlcude that about heaven? No, that is not how an analogy should be used. You still have "wiggle room" if you understand what I mean, so you need other arguments, and scriptural evidence in this case, to prove or disprove a point, the analogy isn't sufficient. It's easy to use analogies to rationalize improper behavior (I'm not implying that you are doing this simply outlining a possible danger). For example, if it's ok to take a penny from the penny jar if you don't have enough change, it's also ok to take a penny from the wishing fountain if you don't have enough change. I'm don't mean to criticize your way of thinking, I just like to keep these discussions as focused as possible since we're already being limited by interweb communications.
"But you just now said that you can't pursue wealth and God simultaneously. I must disagree with you on that point. That's like saying I can't pursue a relationship with my wife and with God simultaneously, which I hope we'd both agree is an absurd statement." That is an improper use of an analogy.
Your next point is that people in the Bible have been blessed materially by following after God so, therefore, it is acceptable to pursue this material blessing. Again, this in not a valid conclusion nor is it the teaching of the Gospel. God made some men kings, that in itself does not justify the pursuit of a position of great authority. (Refer to how Daniel and Joseph were brought into positions of authority, hint: it wasn't by their pursuit of them...)
Pursuing a relatioship with your wife is acceptable because an aspect of that pursuit is, in essence, pursuing God. Material possesions, wealth, and places of high authority are not things a God-fearing Christian has the authority to pursue, ever. Pursing a relationship with your wife, learning a trade (getting a degree), or paying off debts are scripturally justified activities when done in the right spirit; having the right priorities maybe one way of describing it. The idea that the former pursuits are ever acceptable is absent from the pages of scripture, they should never hold any priority in the Christian's life. This verse is not about priorities. Keeping this distinction in mind is critically important. The blending of the two has a very Babylonish feel to it which is part of the reason I feel so strongly about this issue.
If you desire to become wealthy or have lots of authority, don't read the Bible. The Gospel does not teach that getting saved will result in these blessings one bit, on the contrary. Read Luke 14:25-35, highlighting verse 33. Poverty is a true characteristic of a Christian much more so than wealth.
I went through all of the points you have brought up and offered my own opinion in previous posts. I'm glad we can have a mature discussion like this over the internet.
Dominic,
You don't read the posts of others thoroughly, indicating you don't take the ideas of others seriously (if you don't believe me, please read my previous post closely). Instead, you go straight to rebutting points without giving the other person the benefit of the doubt. I could say, "Christ is good" and you would debate me with the verse where Christ says that no one is good but God.
May God bless you. I just can't have an intelligent discussion with you.
Chris,
Come on now, don't play this card. I am absolutely giving you the benifit of the doubt, I'm honestly trying to have a level-headed discussion because I'm am very interested in discerning what the Bible really says about wealth and other such matters. I would sincerely like to see what kind of scriptural examples you can come up with to support your position. Perhaps the conflict is that I believe we should excercise more discernment on some issues and you don't think that's necessary?
When you use big talk like this:
"Is it unchristian that I sometimes worship God with secular music? Hell no."
"I will disprove you with analogies..."
"I just can't have an intelligent discussion with you."
sometimes you are going to get called to back your words up. You say "Let me know what you think," so I did. Like, go ahead and let your position be heard, I'm willing to listen. Just please don't make excuses when you are asked a legit question.
Dominic, this is pathetic:
"Perhaps the conflict is that I believe we should excercise more discernment on some issues and you don't think that's necessary?"
Chris,
[It seems as though you are making excuses for yourself, please include the code "i_1/2_no_^" in your next post if this is not that case, thanks!]
Jordan,
I would actually like you to elaborate more on this if you wouldn't mind. Of course feel free to comment on the the main issue here, too.
"How many Christians have focused on "wealth as evil" and made vows of poverty, lived among the poor, forsaken all material things, and, with pride, thought that they are giving something to God. They delude only themselves with their martyrdom complex. In fact, many of these condemn wealth due to their envy for those able to produce something they cannot."
In the event you feel reduced to deleting posts, I hope you remember this one thing:
"If you desire something bad enough, God will probably give it to you."
i_1/2_no_^
By the way, I do not believe in deleting posts except in extreme circumstances. Our words stand as they do. I believe we have both had ample time to make ourselves clear. You're not understanding what I'm saying, so we can't continue discussing this topic. I'm sorry. I'm not saying I don't want to discuss it; I'm saying it is in all actuality not possible for us to discuss it. We are not communicating.
In response to your critique of my comments:
1. Tongue in cheek remark.
2. Case in point/Irony.
3. Objectively truthful statement.
I did back my words up. You rejected that back up. I listened to what you said (although I don't recall asking you specifically, but yes, that would include you) and thought it had errors in it. I didn't make any excuses. You're pulling things out of thin error and not understanding what I am saying. I'm sorry if it seems I am attacking you. I just really think we cannot be clear with each other.
"Chris Hill said...
i_1/2_no_^ "
I laughed till I hurt, man. You made my day.... thank you for clearing that up for me.
I thought I'd take the liberty to point some potential areas of humor here. A few posts ago, you said I wasn't giving you the benefit of the doubt and then immediately made a false assumption about something you thought I would do. Funny. You then responded to my criticism about making excuses but proceeded to justify yourself in different area with more excuses. Really funny. And last but not least, you say that I'm not reading your posts "thoroughly" yet you respond to me by posting "i_1/2_no_^", apparently without understanding why I asked you to do it or what it means. Hilarious.
But anyway, I had an idea that might solve our communication breakdown. How about we try to summarize what we think the other person was trying to say, and whoever is the closest to what the other actually meant gets a prize from Northwestern bookstore! Katie can play too because she had some insightful things to say. And of course, Jordan can chime in with pithy one-liners or off-topic rants whenever he likes. I'll go first... (I apologize if it looks like I'm having too much fun with this but, I mean, this is a blog.)
Serving mammon and pursuing mammon is not the same thing. Pursuing mammon can be a godly activity as long as it does not usurp pursing God. One reason for this is that serve is most accurately rendered "to be a slave to, to be in bondage to," while pursuing means, "to strive to gain, to seek to attain or accomplish an end, object, purpose, etc." Pursuing mammon is acceptable because you are not in bondage to it and it is therefore not your master as Luke 16:13 warns. Another reason pursuing mammon is biblically justified is because other apparently similar activities are also acceptable to pursue as long as their priority is second to the pursuit of what God desires. A third argument you could use to justify pursuing mammon is that God blesses people materially so pursuing mammon is really pursuing a blessing from God. Pursing mammon is also rationalized because being rich is a good thing. It is not good nor bad in itself but good things can come from being rich so pursing this potentially good thing is acceptable to God.
(And as an aside, I will concede that it is incorrect to conclude that pursuing mammon is an unbiblical using only Luke 16:13.)
Dominic,
I have a masters degree in aeronautical engineering and am in Navy flight school, which includes memorizing numerous procedures and understanding multiple systems in great detail. I have sat here with my wife and still do not understand what "i_1/2_no_^" means. Is it "I have no point"? If so, that was a pretty dumb code... sort of like joining the pen fifteen club... Regardless, you completely ignored the point that you don't read other people's posts closely. I included the "code" in my next post because I was not making excuses for myself, which is what you asked for.
You have summarized my points somewhat, but I think you did a poor job of it. Regardless, it is not worth continuing this discussion (I keep saying this, but you keep responding in a way that requires a response).
I have a Bible and am Christian of over 4 years, however, I still cannot find any biblical teaching that would include pursing wealth as a godly activity. You have completely ignored the point that you need to have scriptural references if you are going to use the Bible to justify your way of thinking when it comes to the things of God....
And instead of simply saying my anagram was dumb, you made more excuses for yourself. I'm picking up on a theme here. It really wasn't even necessary this time because it was admittedly a stupid anagram I thought of simply to amuse myself. Thanks for playing along so well, though!
Here's what I think: you are avoiding taking an honest, objective look at my position because if you do you are likely to come across a real truth that conflicts with your way of thinking. You know this, too. It takes maybe 30 minutes to read my posts and summarize my position like I did for you, proving that I have read your posts and understand the gist of what you're saying. But like I have implied, you'd rather make excuses for yourself (it wastes my time, its pointless, you don't listen, I'm Chris Hill aeronautical engineer, etc, etc, etc....).
I have nothing to gain by "winning" this debate. In fact, if your position is correct I can embrace the big-time with a guilt-free conscience! You see, I'm really not easily offended but one of the few things that will always irk me is when people use the Bible to justify things it does not say. I can only interpret your continued decline to offer any type of scripture to back your words up as evidence that you have none and are simply avoiding this discussion because biting a bullet is more of a risk than you are willing to take. I'd imagine you'll still need to get the last word in but I heard this on the radio today and thought it would be appropriate...
"And so castles made of sand fall into the sea, eventually..." -Jimi Hendrix (I think he stole the lyric from Jesus)
Dominic,
Discussion over.
Dominic,
You have been rather disrespectful. Moreover, you have once again missed the basic ebb and flow of logical conversation.
Key: you are the only person who has made an assertion here (seeking to gain money is equivalent to serving money). The burden of proof lies with the person making an assertion. You demand we use scriptural support that denies your assertion--yet you have failed to do anything to prove your assertion from scripture.
In short, what you have done is equivalent to someone claiming "Martians drink tea" and then demanding "prove from scripture that that isn't true!"
http://www.broadwayworld.com/photos/2513baby_crying2.jpg
If Chris would take a running start off of a tall building, I would be willing to bet a substatial amount of mammon that you would be no fewer than two steps behind. It's cute and sad at the same time.
I really don't care if I was the only one making a clear assertion here, the facts remain: Chris made himself look like a bafoon, you have made absolutely no intellectual contribution to this discussion, my statements are objectively accurate, and most importantly, Chris really has no point.
I have read almost all of the posts, I thought about adding to this discussion turned wrong, but I don't really want to. But seriously, you wouldn't know a peice of art if it were standing out in the parking lot waiting to give you hepatitis in exactly 10 min. That's right, I did pretty well on those tests. I got and A, two B's, and a C on it.
Anonymous,
I get your joke, but not your point:
1) Who are you talking to?
2) Why the negative remark?
3) Who are you?
Thanks.
Hopefully you guys will be checking back on this post.
Jordan- I love you. I don't think you've actually written enough on this topic. I think it would be good to see you go back and review everyone's ideas in the beginning and give us a picture of what you think they were trying to say. I’m not kidding; this would be good for everyone.
Chris- I love you. I understand your confusion and frustration with this discussion but I hope this can clear things up.
Dominic- I love you too Dominic. Congrats too on pursuing medical school and for your role in an ER room. I pray that God gives you wisdom and the ability to reach others for Christ and heal their injuries.
I think your main misconception is the definition of 'pursuing'. I think Chris and Jordan didn't use the best term to convey their point. They are both mature Christians with their faith rooted in the bible and guidance of the Holy Spirit. I personally attest to this.
I'm not sure there is a good verb to describe the desire to 'make' money without it seeming to interfere with our Christian principles. I will discuss this later. But I think they were saying, and I agree, that trying to make money is not necessarily bad. In fact, God demands that we provide for our families and loved ones, all are in agreement on this. The problem is, how much. This unfortunately is a somewhat grey area b/c it depends on your job. I'm writing this as I go so I can't think of the exact scripture but the parable of the men with talents comes to mind.
Dominic you yourself, God willing (I’m using this not b/c I don't want you to it’s just a habit I’m picking up from Arabic) will be a doctor or some type of medical professional. These careers award these professionals with large salaries. I’m not saying that you're doing this for the money, but it is an inevitable consequence of what you believe your calling is.
Back to the talents parable, no matter how much you are given, or put in charge of, God asks us to use it wisely and for the benefit of his Kingdom. It is better as it says in the parable to at least put it in a bank and gain interest then to be too scared to use it. I fear I’m straying from my point.
As we serve God, we should do our best in what our chosen field is. Typically, b/c we will have secular jobs, when we do well we will be benefited materially b/c that is how the world rewards those who do well. Part of our witness to the pagan/secular world is being a shining light in the darkness, doing well at what we do and demonstrating to people that with God, we can do amazing things. Sometimes this results in more money, sometimes not.
But if we desire to serve God as best as we can, and we perform well at our jobs, most likely you will be blessed with a higher position in the company=more money
A performance bonus=more money
Transfer to a HQ=more money
Making partner=more money
The examples can go on. We do not seek money like we seek God, but we want it b/c indirectly it gives us the opportunities to do more things and reach out to others (volunteering, missions support, donating, sponsoring a child, building clinics in rural villages)
This should be the Christian motive for money. That, and for using it to provide and protect our families.
Money is a tool the world gives us that we can use to better the world in God's image. Therefore, we should be as efficient, as powerful and influential with it as we can be. More does not mean better, but with money it does help. I think what most of us are seeing with the 'wealth and prosperity' movement is people not seeking their calling from God. Instead they seek the security found in money and the church looks like a fast track to it.
Having wealth or being good at ones job does not equate ungodly behavior. Many examples are seen in the bible. Joseph is one. The better he got at using his God given ability, the more influence and power and money he had. Daniel did the same within politics. He was revered for his performance. "Then the king gave Daniel high honors and many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon." Dan 2:48. Daniel knew by revealing the mystery to the king he would be receiving gifts; even with that, he prefaced the revelation by saying that it was through God that he did this (v.28). I'm sure afterwards he didn't discard what he was given, but instead used that as further testimony for God's existence in a land full of false idols.
These believers in God did their best with what God gave them to succeed and consequentially acquired wealth to spread God's message on earth.
Last point as this entry approaches 2 pages, we must not make the mistake of equating successful Christians that make money and profit with those that make money just to improve their standing in the world and buy more possessions. A godly man does not do this. He builds up his wealth for the benefit of making in impact on the world for the Kingdom of God.
Ok last point. Just b/c someone does not make a lot of money does not mean they are not doing God's will. On the other end of the spectrum, the one with few talents, or to stretch a bit farther, the blind man at the temple who Jesus says did nothing wrong to receive this disability, but only to glorify God so Jesus could heal him. God gives wealth to some to give testimony to the rich, and denies it to others so that they may give hope to those who have none.
This post was longer then I wanted and crappy but I hope it helps clarify some things.
P.S. I didn't get the whole i_1/2_no_^ thing either.
nevermind. It means 'I have no point' Well I did on that last post. I hope it comes out.
That sounds very reasonable, I'll read it more closely after I get home. I liked especially how you said money could be a consequence of seeking God. That's good, to objectify money is the danger.
Erik,
You are a beautiful man. Very well said.
love,
Chris
Erik,
Your response was well stated and it seems like you have a good perspective on this issue. There are only a few points I might object to, however, the general ideas you are bring forth are, in my opinion, very sound.
"Money is a tool the world gives us that we can use to better the world in God's image. Therefore, we should be as efficient, as powerful and influential with it as we can be."
I would stop short of claiming we can better the world in God's image by any means, much less through money. Good works that claim to do so are actually as filthy rags to God. But if by "to better the world in God's image" you meant something like "to support scripturaly based activities" I would agree. I also don't believe influence and power should be goal behind giving or using money either. Take Daniel for example, he was in an incredibly powerful position, yet many of the Israelites were still under bondage. Daniel could have reasoned within himself that he should use his power and money to free them, however, he waited for God to work instead. A powerful and influential use is not synonymous with a wise use.
"... acquired wealth to spread God's message on earth."
I know this wasn't your point, nor did you really imply it, but these statements sometimes hint at the notion that the extent to which the Gospel is proclaimed is limited in some way money. Money may be a vehicle that assists the spread of the Gospel just like a car or printing press may assist its spread but I don't think it is very reverent to imply that more money = more Gospel. That idea just doesn't sit well with me. I know that's off-topic but I just wanted to put it out there.
"He builds up his wealth..."
The wording here makes it sound like wealth is the primary object and the kingdom of God is secondary to the building of wealth. The kingdom of God is sought first, and these things may be added consequently. Building up wealth for yourself is building a castle made of sand. I'd imagine that's what you meant; it was a long post.
"...no matter how much you are given, or put in charge of, God asks us to use it wisely."
Right on.
But this:
" Chris Hill said...
i_1/2_no_^ "
is still funny.
Dominic,
Why must you be so disagreeable? Your complaints with Erik are mostly minor semantic points that have little to do with meaning and more to do with preference. That's like (yes, an analogy) the teacher telling you that when you multiply 12 by 8 you have to think of it as (6 x 8) x 2, rather than 10 x 8 + 2 x 8. It is preferential, but not consequential.
You say things like:
"I know this wasn't your point, nor did you really imply it..."
And after complaining about something and making your point, you say, "I'd imagine that's what you meant."
Why so disagreeable? It doesn't help the discussion, and comes across as narcissism (whether or not it's true).
Your other disagreements (with both Erik and others) are based on two things:
1. Not understanding what someone is saying.
2. Not giving the other person the benefit of the doubt.
Again, I reiterate, without these being present, there is no discussion to have with you.
Christopher,
Did you read my post? I also said
"Your response was well stated
and it seems like you have a good perspective on this issue...
the general ideas you are bring forth are, in my opinion, very sound.
Right on."
How is that disagreable? The three quotes I pointed out are actually poor statements, no matter what context they are in. However, I gave him the benifit of the doubt on two of them even if that's not what he actually meant. So I am being very reasonable here and you, son, are the one creating a pointless argument for no reason.
If you have anything with substance or on topic to share, by all means, contribute. But if you just want another argument I'm going to have to ask you to stop posting. Thanks.
Erik,
I'll ask you, did my response to your post seem reasonable? Maybe somewhat nitpicky, but was if fair?
Dominic,
I'm sorry, but this is just getting way out of hand. You don't know when to stop, and seem to have a very divisive attitude. I respect your zeal for Scripture, and as such, lead you to Titus 3:9-10, which I believe speaks to the manner in which you have acted here (I intentionally didn't include vs. 11, for the record, nor do I believe I can "have nothing to do with [you]" as we understand it. I do, however, believe this conversation must end.)
Erik, if you'd like to respond, please let me know, and I'll unlock this post so you can say something. I'll re-lock it afterwards.
<< Home