Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Celebrating our Country

    July 4 is a time to celebrate our country and the things that made it great. It will be a day of fireworks, parades, parties, picnics, and speeches. I believe it’s incredibly important that we learn to celebrate the values that maintain our freedom, and do so in a principled and consistent way. Too often freedom means permission to do whatever one wants, without consideration for the freedom of others.

    So I’d like to suggest some ways to celebrate the 4th of July in deeds as well as in words, sort of like a July version of New Year’s resolutions.

    Let’s try to:

    • Celebrate and support our troops, but also be careful to make sure that our politicians use them effectively and appropriately. As a veteran myself, I have always believed that a functioning democracy needs a non-political military to carry out the policy of the civilian government. The most important thing you can do for the soldiers is to see to it that the government uses them appropriately, allocates adequate finances to support them, pays them appropriately, trains them well, and provides them with effective command. Don’t stop sending letters. Don’t stop praying. Don’t stop writing.
    • Be effective citizens. Get to know about all the candidates you will have to vote for or against, and all the issues. Don’t be guided by political slogans. Study it out for yourself, and then vote. In 2004, only 60% of the voters turned out in a presidential election that was decided by less than 3% (statistics from the United States Election Project). In 2002 without a presidential election, the turnout was just under 40% of eligible voters. That’s not patriotism; that’s apathy.
    • Be more interested in what our symbols stand for than in the symbols themselves.
    • Become educated about what makes our nation work and what is happening to our freedom on a daily basis. Learn and do!
    • Be ready to fight, but also have the courage to forgive and to make peace.
    • Find a way to accommodate people who are different than you are, instead of demanding that they become more like you.

    Perhaps I could summarize with a national goal similar to what Paul suggested to the believers in Philippi: Don’t look just after your own interests but look after the interests of others (Philippians 2:4).

  • Comment Moderation

    I combined two errors in my moderation queue. On my Threads from Henry’s Web blog I only moderate comments that have certain indicators for spam. I have thus far only seen one valid comment sent to moderation. Unfortunately I wasn’t paying attention when setting up this blog and both turned on stronger moderation and entered an invalid e-mail address, so I wasn’t notified. There were a few valid comments waiting in moderation for a couple of weeks.

    I’ve corrected the problem and approved the waiting comments. I apologize for this delay. I have no intention of censoring comments other than for spam or for legal issues.

  • T4G: Salvation

    Articles VIII-XIII of the Together for the Gospel statement all deal with salvation, in this case with a strong focus on justification. (Note that the link above is to the final revision of the statement rather than the earlier form I have referenced in previous comments.) Those who have read my previous entries on this topic will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with the emphasis of these statements.

    My objections can generally be placed under two headings: 1) Elements that undergird Calvinism, and 2) Elements that constitute what I call “salvation by correct theology,” which I regard as an even more insidious version of salvation by works.

    Calvinism

    Let me first state that I do regard Calvinists as Christian brethren, but I do not think that Calvinism and predestination are consistent with the gospel. I cannot see how it can be regarded as “good news” that God has ordained that certain people will burn in hell. I understand that some find it comforting to have the assurance of election, but that assurance comes at the cost of the election of certain others to eternal punishment.

    I’m going to limit myself to these few remarks on this issue at this point, because this issue has been beaten into the ground. Some of my own thoughts on salvation can be found in my essay A Fruitful Faith.

    Salvation by Theology

    I want to give a bit more time to the second issue, what I call “salvation by correct theology.” While there are numerous statements that relate to this in the articles I cited above, the concept is best illustrated by this quote from Article X:

    We deny that there is salvation in any other name, or that saving faith can take any form other than conscious belief in the Lord Jesus Christ and His saving acts.

    Notice the elements involved in saving faith, just according to this one sentence:

    • Conscious belief
    • Acceptance of Jesus as Lord
    • Acceptance of Jesus as Messiah
    • Knowledge of the saving acts of Jesus

    Now I’m assuming that the T4G statement is written carefully, and that the authors actually intend all of these implications. It is still unclear, of course, just how much one must understand about each of these elements. What are included in the “saving acts?” How much must one know? It seems from the remaining articles that the authors of the T4G statement think one must know quite a bit, and some quite specific theology.

    All options such as a limited knowledge of God, such as described in Romans 2, are eliminated. One must consciously believe specific things in detail. One wonders how much detail Paul and Silas taught the jailer in Philippi before they baptized him, but they seem to have gotten done by morning. The possibility of salvation for those who have not heard the gospel is eliminated as well. Only conscious belief in details will do.

    I would suggest that this view stands against a number of texts, such as Romans 2, and the words of Jesus in Matthew 25:31-46, in which people who clearly do not realize they are saved are nonetheless received by Jesus into his kingdom.

    Why do I regard this as more insidious than salvation by works? At least good works are of some value in themselves. But more importantly, one who is not a deep thinker can understanding doing right and avoiding wrong. Loving one’s neighbor is accessible to the intellectually challenged as well as to geniuses. Theology, especially systematic theology, is only accessible to a minority. Salvation by correct theology limits God’s kingdom to certain people who can understand and be consciously convinced of a number of intellectual propositions.

    Worst of all, it equates “put your trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved” with intellectual assent to a set of propositions.

  • Interview with Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori

    Religion and Ethics has an interview with Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, recently elected presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church. I commend this article to you for an overview of how the new presiding bishop thinks about the world and Christianity.

  • Neither Male nor Female in Christ

    Jesus came to bring salvation, hope, and life. He crossed the gap between the infinite and the finite and gave us to call to equality and respect for all, exemplified by his treatment of the down and out in society. Paul expressed the Christian hope in community when he said that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female (Galatians 3:28). We seem to get the first two, but we miss the last one.

    This is underlined by a store on MSNBC titled Belief Watch: God’s Girls, with the following quote:

    Women make up 61 percent of all Americans who attend religious congregations, but they still struggle for their place in some denominations. A national study led by researchers at Hartford Seminary found that only 12 percent of the clergy in the 15 largest Protestant denominations are women. And some 112 million Americans belong to denominations that don’t ordain women at all, including Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Southern Baptists, Mormons, Muslims and Orthodox Jews.

    Now a number of those groups are not Christian, and I do not want to comment on their practice in this matter. But I think that Christians, by leaving women out of certain leadership roles in the church, are failing in fulfilling the ministry of reconciliation that was entrusted to us as a church. God has broken down many of our barriers to ministry over the years. We have had many excuses for why we should exclude certain people from ministry.

    In this case, we call upon the practice of the apostle Paul. But there is an odd thing about this particular attempt at obedience. It is pretty much an isolated case of attempting to keep the church rigidly with the practice of the apostolic age. We would be unaware of any practice of keeping women out of ministry with the exception of certain statements from Paul. Why? Because women are referred to regularly as part of the ministry of Jesus, especially in Luke. Women are shown leading in Acts. Paul even refers to one woman, Junia, as an apostle (Romans 16:7).

    People often avoid these references by pretending that the women referenced had some other roles than speaking, but the text says nothing of the sort. And those who read Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:33-36 as condemning public speaking by women entirely apparently miss the section in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 in which women are clearly involved in public speaking. We’re usually too busy trying to figure out the head covering thing to notice that the women wearing or not wearing the head covering are doing so while speaking publicly.

    My point here is not to review the entire scriptural record, which others have done more effectively than I have, but rather to point out that we find it easy to adjust Christian practice when society’s standards change, so that we now dress differently, meet differently, interact socially in a different way, and conduct worship services that don’t resemble the worship services of the early church, yet somehow when the topic is women in leadership, the men choke, and are stuck on the social practices of 2,000 years ago.

    God gave us the direction–in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female. We have gotten over slavery. When will we quit choking off the ministry of women in the church?

  • Science and Religion – Can they be Allies?

    PZ Myers has responded to an interview with Ron Numbers in a post titled I’m proud to be non-human. His main point seems to be that those of us who favor evolution need to go all the way and stick totally with the scientific evidence.

    He says:

    There is a strong cultural aspect to this struggle that is independent of the facts, I won’t deny that. But calling the science “irrelevant” is throwing away the sharpest tool in our toolbox. We are going to win people to the side of science and reason by promoting, well, science and reason. Stop running away from it! Stop being ashamed of the fact that the evidence is on our side! We aren’t going to win by engaging in theological debates, or by getting the right legislation, or by winning court battles

  • Genesis 5: Preservation of the Patriarchal Line

    Introduction

    Genesis 5 continues the priestly account of origins. Now I don’t want us to get the idea that there are two separate messages here, because the two sources (priestly [P] and Yahwist [J]) have been brought together with their own message. Nonetheless, we can get some additional breadth and depth to this message by noting how we might understand these passages if we had only one of the two sources.

    The priestly writer continues from the creation that is found good and moves to the patriarchal line. He mentions the curse in connection with Lamech, who believes that his son Noah represents some form of relief (see comment below), but he doesn’t mention the corruption of the world until Genesis 6:11, though the comment that Noah was found perfect in his generation suggests that there was something less than perfect going on. For P, the preservation of the patriarchal line is critical. We learn that the world became corrupt, but not how. More of the action is placed in God’s hands and less in people’s hands.

    J, on the other hand, emphasizes the human side. We have an explanation for the corruption in human action, we have a line of people who are in rebellion, and then, at the end of chapter 4, we have the simple statement that there was also a patriarchal line. Seth is born, then he has a son, and with that we are told that people began to call on YHWH.

    There is a certain elegance and simplicity to each of these source documents, but there is a depth that is provided by combining them. I’m reminded of the debate between Calvinists and Arminians, specifically about the sovereignty of God, and which view gives God more glory. By attitude, P could be a Calvinist and J an Arminian, as P puts all the focus on God, while J spends his time talking about the action of creatures. The redactor combines these into a story of God in relationship to people. This is one of the benefits I see in using critical methodologies. It is easy, however, to stop by observing the sources, as though identifying sources amounted to interpreting the text. It doesn’t. Sometimes it doesn’t even produce anything of real interest. But at other times it does help us get a bit closer to the author’s aim.

    There will be only a few verse by verse comments. Most of Genesis 5 is self-explanatory. At the end I will deal with an overview of the type of literature involved, chronological calculations, and ways in which the chapter has been understood.

    Genesis 5: Translation and Notes

    1This is Adam’s genealogical record. When God created humankind he created them like himself, 2he created them male and female, blessed them, and called them Adam (human).

    Note that Adam produces a son in his likeness as God produced Adam in his own likeness. I would imagine that those who support a physical likeness, i.e. that God physically looks like a human being, might use this verse for that purpose. I would see the reverse. The likeness is not primarily physical, it is in being a choosing, acting, moral creature. This was the foundation of the patriarchal line.

    The likeness of God must somehow be preserved, and as we can see in chapter 4, Cain’s clan is not doing so well at preserving it.

    3Adam lived 130 years and gave birth to someone like him, in his image, and he called his son’s name Seth. 4After he gave birth to Seth Adam lived 800 years, and gave birth to sons and daughters. 5His full lifetime was 930 years. after which he died.

    6Seth lived 105 years, and gave birth to Enosh. 7and Seth lived 807 years after he gave birth to Enosh, and he gave birth to sons and daughters. 8And Seth’s full lifetime was 912 years, after which he died.

    9And Enosh lived 90 years, and gave birth to Kenan. 10And Enosh lived 815 years after he gave birth to Kenan, and gave birth to sons and daughters. 11Enosh’s full lifetime was 905 years, after which he died.

    12Kenan lived 70 years, and gave birth to Mahalalel. 13And Kenan lived 840 years after he gave birth to Mahalalel, and gave birth to sons and daughters. 14Kenan’a full lifetime was 910 years, then he died.

    15Mahalalel lived 65 years, and gave birth to Jared. 16And Mahalalel lived after 830 years after he gave birth to Jared, and he gave birth to sons and daughters. 17Mahalalel’s full lifetime was 895 years, after which he died.

    18Jared lived 162 years, and gave birth to Enoch. 19And Jared lived 800 years after he gave birth to Enoch and gave birth to sons and daughters. 20Jared’s full lifetime wsa 962 years, after which he died.

    Thus far note the pattern. The phrase “and he died” is not likely to be accidental, as it is repeated throughout. We are noting physical mortality.

    21Enoch lived 65 years, and gave birth to Methuselah. 22Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah for 300 years, and he gave birth to sons and daughters. 23Enoch’s full lifetime was 365 years, 24but Enoch walked with God, and he was just no longer there, because God took him.

    We tend to focus on long lives in reading this passage, but the focus of the Bible writer is on the walk with God. Even those who have long lives are living on the ground that is under God’s curse. The one who is truly blessed is Enoch, who lives on earth a short time, and then is taken. The structure of the chapter points an arrow at Enoch because his story is missing that one phrase: “and he died.”

    Cain’s line goes seven generations, though the focus is on the sixth, named Lamech as is the ninth patriarch of Genesis 5. Lamech in Cain’s line is a murderer. The seventh in the patriarchal line walks with God and proves it is still possible. In Genesis 3 God walks in the garden, and Adam and Eve are afraid (Genesis 3:10). Enoch doesn’t have this fear of going for a walk with God. This passage affirms the possibility of a walk with God.

    25Methuselah lived 187, and gave birth to Lamech. 26And Methuselah lived 782 years after he gave birth to Lamech, and gave birth to sons and daughters. 27And Methuselah’s full lifetime was 969 years, after which he died.

    Methuselah is the longest lived patriarch, but he is not the hero. He is more or less a footnote to his father, Enoch, who walked with God.

    28Lamech lived 182 years, then gave birth to a son. 29He called his name Noah, saying, “This child will comfort us as we work and toil with our hands as the result of the ground being cursed by YHWH.” 30And Lamech lived 595 years after he gave birth to Noah, and gave birth to sons and daughters. 31And Lamech’s full lifetime was 777 years, after which he died.

    32Noah was 500 years old. He gave birth to Shem, Ham, and Japheth. (Translation taken from my TFBV project.)

    Note that it can be presumed that Noah bore his three sons over the course of those 500 years, and that this is a summary. The 500 years note gives us some chronological data, and suggests that Noah’s call to build the ark may have come around this time, while the flood began, according to this chronology, when Noah was 600 years old (Genesis 7:6).

    Discussion

    The single most discussed and debated issue of this chapter deals with chronology, which was probably a secondary consideration of the author/redactor. He was more concerned with demonstrating the preservation of the patriarchal line, which then leads to the genuineness of the call to Abraham.

    But the simple fact is that on the surface, at least, it appears that one can generate some chronology from a genealogy like this. I have reproduced a portion of this chronology below.

    Name Age at Firstborn Remaining Years Age at Death Birth AM First Child AM Death AM
    Adam 130 800 930 0 130 930
    Seth 105 807 912 130 235 1042
    Enosh 90 815 905 235 325 1140
    Kenan 70 840 910 325 395 1235
    Mahalalel 65 830 895 395 460 1290
    Jared 162 800 962 460 622 1422
    Enoch 65 300 365 622 687 987
    Methuselah 187 782 969 687 874 1656
    Lamech 182 595 777 874 1056 1651
    Noah 500 *600 500 1056 1556 1556
    *Beginning of the flood. Noah’s death will be dealt with later.

    Looking at this from the point of view of known history, there are several problems. Around the time suggested for the flood (between 2300 and 2400 BCE, depending on how one dates creation), there was a flourishing Eblaite civilization, there had been a Sumerian civilization for around a thousand years, and Egypt was being ruled by its fifth and sixth dynasties. To put it quite simply, this chronology cannot be reconciled with what we know of ancient near eastern history. It is not simply a small discrepancy; the issue would be thousands of years. You not only need to move the flood prior to the advent of Sumerian and Egyptian history, you also need to leave enough time for the population to grow such as to form the people groups involved and produce an adequate population.

    There have been a number of solutions to this problem. One, of course, is to stick with the chronology as “God’s word” no matter what it may imply. This is often presented as the choice of faith. But faith in what? Actually the faith involved is in a chronology and in a particular way of reading the text. Is it truly honoring God to insist on reading the text of scripture, his written word, in such a way as to blatantly contradict his history as written in the natural world? I think we must consider the possibility that insisting that the form of chronology presented in the chart above is God’s word–the message God intended from this passage–is perhaps a bit arrogant.

    Old earth creationists, though they are particularly dealing with geological evidence and the age of the earth solve this problem as well by assuming gaps in the chronology. If you look at the structure of the chronology, however, it looks as though it was put together rather tightly. The father’s birth is recorded, followed by his age at his son’s birth, followed by the years he lived after that, and then the full lifespan. In response to this, old earth advocates would note that there is also a formal element in the number of patriarchs. There are ten here and another ten in Genesis 11; ten before and ten after the flood. In addition, if one had a longer list of patriarchs, one could remove individual names while leaving the remainder of the list unchanged. Thus if there was someone removed after Seth, we would understand “gave birth to” as “starting the genealogical chain that gave birth to” Enosh.

    There is a further option, which is the view that I have taken throughout these chapters. They are simply not narrative history. There is a theological point being made. There are two lines, or two categories of people: Those who follow God and those who don’t. The ultimate goal of those who follow God is to be with God (Enoch), while the ultimate goal of those who oppose God is to wind up like Lamech in further destruction. The chronology itself is simply a tradition whose form is maintained to hold together the full story that is being told–a story that teaches.

  • Christian Music at Skating Rink

    One of the many e-mail newsletters I get is from the Traditional Values Coalition. Often it seems that the most traditional value from their point of view is overreaction.

    Recently I got an e-mail from them telling me of the perfidy of the New York Human Relations Commission, which has apparently decided to investigate a skating rink (SkateTime 209 in upstate New York) for holding a “Christian skate.” Attached is a letter that Rev. Lou Sheldon sent to the Human Relations Commission berating them for their action.

    Now let me get something straight here. If the New York Human Relations Commission actually thinks playing Christian music for a period of time at a skating rink is discriminatory, they bring new meaning to the word “stupid.” It really wouldn’t surprise me if they did have such a problem. Unfortunately many people involved in human relations do seem incapable of relating to actual humans. I’m not acquainted with New York law at all, but I’m fairly certain that if New York law can be construed to state that playing Christian music for a period of time is discriminatory, then a federal court case would take care of them pretty effectively.

    One good result from all of this has been the inclusion of “all are welcome” notices on the SkateTime 209 web site beside the “Christian Skate” notices. That is probably a useful advertising option and is likely to improve their attendance. It is not, however, something the government can have a proper interest in.

    But what interested me the most about this was the Christian response. For some examples see: NEW YORK INVESTIGATES SKATING RINK FOR PLAYING CHRISTIAN MUSIC and TVC ASKS PATAKI TO STOP HARASSMENT. Instead of seeing some bureaucrats overstepping their bounds, or some of the stupidity that infects pretty much all government offices, Christians are up in arms. The anti-Christian conspiracy is in action! Christians beware! One commenter even mentions that we can have a special time for gays, but not a special time for Christians. Ignoring the fact that the two groups are not mutually exclusive, I would have to note that very often Christians are involved in trying to deny various legal rights to gays. Here in Pensacola there is a regular effort every spring to prevent gays from celebrating here around memorial day. Would it not be discriminatory should they be successful in preventing this event?

    I would suggest applying the same standard to both situations. It is certainly appropriate to have a skate time designed for a Christian audience, or for any other audience at one’s private business. But it is also appropriate, by the same standards for Disney, another privately owned company, to offer a gay pride day, or for Ford Motor Company to offer benefits to same-sex couples, both of which have been protested by the religious right.

    Perhaps it’s time we realized that doing nice things for a group of people does not necessarily harm the rest of us. The New York Human Relations Commission is displaying astounding stupidity in this case. Unfortunately, it’s a form of stupidy that is reflected by too many Christians.

  • Establishment Clause Suits

    Ed Brayton has an excellent post over on Dispatches from the Culture Wars on a bill currently before the U. S. House of Representives, H. R. 2679. He argues, successfully I think, that this is an attempt by the religious right to tilt the playing field in their direction.

    Because they have failed so often to prevail in establishment clause cases, they want to make it much harder to sue because of the cost. In addition, this will reduce the penalty against government agencies when they are found in violation of the constitution.

    We need to oppose this bill.

  • Progressives, Minimum Wage, and Strategies

    I receive regular newsletters from the Christian Alliance for Progress, and I really appreciate that organization for its work to reclaim Christianity from the religious right. Christianity is about moral and ethical values, and about caring for our neighbor, and not about making small numbers of people rich or about right wing politics. None of what I am about to write is intended to put down that particular organization. In fact, I suggest you visit their web site, and let their view of Christianity challenge you.

    But Christianity is also not about left wing politics. Christianity can be described as a faith, as a relationship, and as a religion. Following Jesus will certainly have political and social implications. But it is very easy for those on the right, on the left, and even in the center to equate particular political strategies with the fundamental principles of Christianity. Thus right wing politicians today try to use scripture passages favorable to social order and law enforcement as a justification for excessive measures in enforcing immigration, while ignoring other scriptures about helping those less fortunate.

    But left wing, or progressive theologians and politicians are by no means immune to this same problem. In my e-mail today from the Christian alliance I am urged to support raising the minimum wage:

    The Christian faith is not neutral when it comes to financial matters. There are over 2,000 verses in the Bible that deal with issues of money and wealth, and many of them concern the economic well-being of people at the margins of society. So it is important that in a nation in which more than 200 million of our citizens profess the Christian faith that we who are believers advocate a Christian ethic in the way that we compensate the people at the bottomof the wage scale.

    Yet none of those 2,000 verses in the Bible actually advocate a minimum wage. They do advocate economic justice. What progressives often miss is the steps between a good principle and its related goals–economic justice–and the process of both defining those goals in a realistic way and creating a strategy to accomplish those goals. It is a failing of politicians of all stripes to assume that the stated goal of a piece of legislation is what that legislation will actually accomplish.

    We have passed repeated laws on drug enforcement, and made our foreign policy hostage to drug policies in other countries even to the extent of invading another country to arrest its president, and yet we still have drugs on the street. As in Vietnam we counted the bodies (or even imagined bodies) of the enemy killed in battle and thus tried to paint a picture of accomplishment, so we now have press conferences in which drug enforcement officials show us the huge amounts of narcotics they have seized. They don’t talk about what’s left behind. Many pieces of legislation that were supposed to make the situation better have been passed, but where are the real results?

    We have passed repeated laws on immigration, claiming that they would solve this problem or that, or make things better. But for some reason–generally just because there are employers ready to hire and pay them–people keep coming across the border. The legislation has failed, yet we keep planning to do more of the same.

    And that brings me to the minimum wage. I’ve had people tell me that I’m pretty reactionary when I regard it as counterproductive to oppose a Walmart store moving into the neighborhood. The jobs are low wage! Who cares? There’s a comment on one of my earlier posts asking how many employees are going to get $12.00 an hour or better. Not many! But there will be people who were getting less before and are getting something now. That’s why people line up to get the jobs at Walmart–they’re available.

    And thus I come to the minimum wage issue. I believe in economic justice. I believe workers should get a fair wage. But my previous two sentences cry out for definition. What is “economic justice?” What is a “fair wage?” The problem is that the legislature can’t create those wages. It doesn’t create jobs. It doesn’t produce any additional money. It merely redistributes it. Now I’m not entirely against redistribution. I think it is quite appropriate that taxes are collected and that they pay for infrastructure.

    But every time you try to redistribute through legislation, such as by raising the minimum wage, you need to ask about additional consequences. How will this effect employment generally? Those who think that people would generally rather be unemployed than receive a sub-minimum wage job are generally people who haven’t had to live on very little. What about those forced into a sort of unofficial economy?

    The e-mail I received cites the following report: State Minimum Wages and Employment in Small Businesses. It’s interesting to note what is not covered here. What is the economic and population growth rate of those states as opposed to others? In other words, rather than “post hoc ergo propter hoc” what are the combined causes of economic growth in those states with the higher minimum wage? I’m not going to try to do a full analysis of this data, but I’d like to provide a couple of references, first Sense and Nonsense on the Minimum Wage, which deals with data before the above report, though in very similar conditions (1991), and second another report dealing with the number of those who are either not covered by the minimum wage, Below the Minimum Wage, which covers data after that time.

    My primary argument here is not against the minimum wage, though I do oppose any minimum wage, but rather simply that Christians can oppose the minimum wage as a strategy while nonetheless supporting Christian principles of economic justice. Believing that we are to take care of the poor and needy does not entail the notion that legislatures can somehow create money.

    In conclusion, let me quote Ludwig von Mises, from Human Action (p. 769-770 in my 3rd Revised Edition copy):

    The very essence of the interventionist politicians’ wisdom is to raise the price of labor either by government decree or by violent action or the threat of such action on the part of labor unions. To raise wage rates above the height at which the unhampered market would determine them is considered a postulate of the eternal laws of morality as well as indispensable from the economic point of view. Whoever dares to challenge this ethical and economic dogma is scorned both as depraved and ignorant. . . .

    The market wage rate tends toward a height at which all those eager to earn wages get jobs and all those eager to employ workers can hire as many as they want. It tends toward the establishement of what is nowadays called full employment. Where there is neither government nor union interference with the labor market, there is only voluntary or catallactic unemployment. But as soon as external pressure and compulsion, be it on the part of the government or on the part of unions, tries to fix wage rates <em at a higher point, institutional unemployment emerges. . . .

    I believe the second paragraph and I suffer from the attitude described in the first. I think the greatest economic justice is accomplished through free markets. No, Jesus didn’t teach free markets. He didn’t teach economics at all. But I think his principles will be best implemented through freedom at the governmental level, and through voluntary charity on the personal level.

    That’s why, while I am pleased with progressive Christian groups that are trying to reclaim Christianity from the religious right, I also must keep them at arms length. It’s too easy to be harmless as doves while failing to be wise as serpents (Matthew 10:16).