Socialism isn't passe, it has become the norm, like the thievery of Greylord. Social justice subverts true justice which entitles one to the fruits of his labor (Christ's cup?). Redistribution is a perversion of Acts 4. The article captures the discipline of Spiritual mindedness, but is weak on "law for the nonbeliever", a necessity given the City of God within the City of Man. And our traditional Common Law jurisprudence, developing similarly to the emergence of the Decalogue, is best suited for establishing law without infringing on right, something modern positivism has not avoided.

Thank you...

A Hermit and Roger McKinney, it looks like this discussion is headed no where. Feel free to continue in another place but at this point I think it's gone far enough away from the original article that we'll delete further comments in this discussion.

Hermit, you’re engaging in psychological projecting. I respond to all of your points. You ignore most of mine. No one in the US claims to be a socialist any more, but your characterizations of capitalism and you ideas are all pure socialist. In past posts I have defined socialism and communism; you just don’t read them. Jesus endorsed free market capitalism when he endorsed the Torah, from which the Church’s scholars at Salamanca determined that the only just market is a free market. You don’t need money to have capitalism. Capitalism can include barter.

@ RMcK: Failing to adequately respond to my posts, you continue to simply label me as a 'socialist', which I am not. Partnership between government and private industry is not 'socialism'- which is government control/ownership of the economic means of production. In past posts, you have shown you don't even understand what 'socialism' and 'communism' are, despite claiming to have a degree in economics. You do not refute that you believe in economic determinism. So where in the New Testament does Jesus commend 'free market capitalism'? Providing for your family is not capitalism. The Amish come together as a community and help each other build barns- an economic activity. No money is exchanged, and people are cared for. That isn't 'capitalism'. Communal ownership does include people having things that they use, whose ownership is to the community as a whole.

The military may have purchased the first electronic computer, but the principles behind it go back centuries. It was based on mechanical computers. The military always purchases cutting edge technology. So what? That doesn’t mean that without military spending the technology would never develop. The steam engine was far more important to Western development than the computer and the military had nothing to do with it. The computer would have been invented regardless of what the military or the government did. All you can say about military spending is that it might have speeded up the process. The transistor made modern computing possible and Bell Labs, a private company developed it.

Hermit, I don’t believe any of the things you attribute to me. Making those claims just proves once again that you don’t read my posts. You just regurgitate your socialist ideas. Yes, God gave us free markets. Study the Scholars of Salamanca. Free market capitalism is in the New and Old Testaments. The Church did not give us communal ownership of property. That’s a dishonest reading of scripture. Sharing private property is not anything at all like common ownership. Christ said to make your primary goal in life to please God. He did not condemn providing for your family and saving for hard times, which is capitalism. Capitalism did not invent greed; mankind did. Greed is far older than capitalism.

As to the military, government and computing: "From the beginnings of the computer industry, federal and military agencies promoted vital basic research into computing hardware and deployed early computers throughout the government. As economist Vernon Ruttan writes, "The role of the military in driving the development of computer, semiconductor and software technologies cannot be overemphasized. These technologies were, until well into the 1960s, nourished by markets that were almost completely dependent on the defense, energy and space industries." In fact, the ENIAC, the first electronic computer, was built in 1945 to crunch numbers for the Army Ballistics Research Laboratory." http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2009/04/silicon_valley_garage_or_gover.shtm l

@RMcK- You believe in free market, capitalist economic determinism. You have a harsher view of man- you believe that man's actions are determined by impersonal economic systems, rather than man's free will. God did not give us 'free market capitalism'- man did. There is no free market capitalism in the New Testament; in fact, Christ and the early church gave us communal ownership of property- which is different from socialist economics. Communal ownership was the norm in Christ's community of apostles, it was the norm of the early church as recorded in Acts. Christ also said do not gather up perishable goods in barns, where thieves break in- the very aim of 'capitalist economics.' Christ said love your neighbor- not seek to 'maximize profit' from him/her.

Hermit, profit is not greed. Like interest, profit is the God-given preference for the present over the future. In order to put off present satisfaction, humans naturally require some kind of compensation. It's also just common sense. Without profit we have the USSR and China where people starve to death. You judge you fellow man very harshly. You assume that because they don't share your extremist philosophy they must be greedy. Maybe they have examined things and found you wrong and your extremist environmentalism destructive. BTW, major oil companies are the largest investors in alternative energy. And the military did not develop the computer. That's urban myth. There is no contradiction in choosing Christ and freedom. According to the Church, God gave us free market capitalism.

@ RMcK No, I don't want the government to dictate anything. What I want is for people to stop being blinded by the capitalist values of materialism and greed in the quest for 'profit', look at the effects their 'consumption' is having on themselves and the biological world that sustains them. You continually lift 'free market economics' as somehow countering people's ignorance and sin. It hasn't, and won't. You also present a false dichotomy that economics must be free market or capitalist. I don't agree; the development of the computer industry came as the result of government defense spending and research to bear the costs until the product became profitable. You believe in economic determinism; I believe in mankind's freedom to choose 'in Christ'.

@ RMck: Individual actors take into account what the future price will be-only insofar as they deem to affect their profit, and their knowledge. The auto industry bailout was made necessary because GM and others continued to push short term profits and sell SUVs (which the market was pushing) at the expense of future research and blind to the long term price of oil. By your own logic, oil companies will fight alternative energy sources because they will affect their current and future profits. Fuel economy standards were started by the government in response to the oil embargo- 'the marketplace' has shown consumers actually increasing their energy use, and it is only the government mandated fuel efficiency standards that have kept consumption down.

Hermit, current demand and supply also take into account what individual actors think the future price will be, too. If individuals thought that oil would run out next year they would price it much higher today. The current price tells us that most people don't think oil will run out in our lifetimes. The market reflects the opinions of the majority of buyers/sellers. I'm sorry they don't agree with you or have your values. I'm sure you would love to dictate to the market what prices should be, but then we wouldn't have a market. We would have socialism. If you think oil should be priced higher, I'm sure producers will allow you to pay more. But just because the majority of people don't agree with your ideas doesn't mean the market is failing or is wrong.

@RMcK- Prices are determined on the basis of the current availablity of the good and the ability and willingness of individuals to pay for them. Today's prices for oil, for example, reflect only the current demand and supply; they do not reflect the value and price of oil when world supplies decline. The 'marketplace' therefore is not doing much to extend the life of those supplies; nor is it supporting solid investment in alternative sources. Money is going to where the profit is; more drilling, regardless of the envirnomental consequences. It has only been government manadated fuel efficiency standards that have kept consumption as low as it has been. Alternative energy sources have not been competitive in the 'marketplace', because there hasn't been the research to make them more efficient and because they have not been able to compete with cheap oil.

PS, having the SEC investigate Enron or Madoff for fraud is perfectly consistent with libertarian thinking. Both thrived because the SEC refused to do its job. That gave investors the wrong idea that there was nothing wrong with either. Enron and Madoff were failures of the state to do its God given role of protecting life, liberty and property. They were not market failures.

Carlos, we have never had unregulated markets, so how can you claim they do more harm than good? We have had nothing but increasing regulation since FDR. The Federal Register of new regulations has grown by over 50,000 pages every year since 1970. The problems we face today are the perfect storm of massive, conflicting regulations. Madoff and Enron thrived because the government gave them their stamp of approval. As Smith wrote, government licensing and regulation only provide cover for fraud. Of course, all libertarians in all times have insisted on the rule of law to protect life, liberty and property.

Hermit, markets do not “inadequately reflect the future value of the goods …” Greer only advertises his ignorance of price theory. He attempts to set economics back 150 years by advocating cost of production price theory. Economic science advanced only after economists discovered the principles of subjective pricing and marginal pricing. Greer denies both. And Greer promotes Marx’s nonsense that markets naturally lead to monopolies. Markets destroy monopolies; governments create them.

To politely disagree with McKinney, our modern interpretation of Smith as an "unrestrained Free Market" Libertarian is a far stretch from reality. Smith advocated free trade with respect to British Mercantilism, which was an economic reality that limited entrepreneurship. The difference is that free trade for Smith doesn't mean "no regulation" trade. For Smith the driving force behind capitalism was the individual desire to exercise an ambition that in the process of satisfying personal interests, also met the needs of society. Our current experience, however, is that unregulated markets result in more harm than good. So, a good market system is one that allows and provides the opportunities for individuals to be creative, while protecting the interests of the rest of society. Madoff, Enron, and corporate greed must be controlled and only the government can do that with a minimum harm to society, national security, and financial stability. Capitalism also has its limits.

@ RMcK: "Markets" is an abstraction for people making choices. Most people choose to abdicate their moral responsibility for the 'economic' choices they make to 'market' determinism and material gain. Markets are dependent on prices that inadequately reflect the future value of the goods that are being 'consumed', and future scarcity and availability of those goods, nor the role that (and value of) those 'goods' play in sustaining biological life. Markets do not prevent collusion between corporations and individuals who, with a large share of any given commodity, seek to solidify their personal gain at the expense of the general community. I strongly suggest you read "The Wealth of Nature: Economics as if Survival Mattered" (9780865716735)by John Michael Greer.

The choice between self regulation and government regulation is a false dichotomy. Adam Smith proposed a third option: market regulation. Smith was professor of ethics. His economics is his ethics applied to the market. He invented nothing. Everything he learned about market regulation of ethics came from studying the Dutch Republic. He discovered that competition in the market does a far better job of regulating greed than anything the government can do. Of course, he recognized the need of the state to prosecute crimes against life, liberty and property. We don’t have to rely solely on self-regulation. The Dutch Republic proved Smith’s point for 200 years.

"Bailey suggests that our government would be more faithful to our God and to our Founders if it would protect this character in the people against corrosive economic, cultural, and political influences, and promote it where it was lacking." Wow! That is one terrifying sentence! Can you imagine bitter bureaucrats determining what is economically, culturally and politically best for the character of the people?!!!! Wait a minute! That's what the OWS and Tea Partiers are attempting! That's what the socialists and conservatives are all about - mind control.

Social justice is relativism.

Insightful comments and good evaluation of the film! History reveals that sometimes our ultra-emotional Christian sensitivity to the needs of others impedes our ability to focus on the reality of the necessity of the Cross. While some emphasize right living (legalism), others stress good deeds (social gospel), ignoring or finding it difficult to accept that people either can’t do what is right of their own volition or can’t save the world through the improvement of social conditions. God created with one purpose in mind, the Cross. And the reason the Cross is pivotal is because through the Cross God purposed to eliminate, eradicate, and emancipate all of creation from the potential inevitability, certain probability, and existential reality of corruption (sin, evil, pain, and suffering). Clearly order, discipline, compassion, and responsibility play an indispensable role in the Christian life. However, when put in perspective, there is no Scriptural support for either the extremes of legalism or indiscriminate pity in the Christian Gospel. Just as Christ achieved a balance between condemnation and compassion, we too must strike that balance in recognition of the fact that the Cross is the ultimate and only dispensation for corruption and hope of redemption.

I'd have to agree with Johan. While you could argue that the biblical vision of the New Creation is 'self-regulating' (I would not, the regulating force in Jeremiah as in Romans 8 and 1 Corinthians 15 is the Spirit of God), in the current time between times, God consistently upholds governments and rulers the agents of justice, in Romans as in Deuteronomy. We will not need rulers to enforce justice when and only when Jesus is unequivocally ruling the renewed earth and every knee bows and every tongue confesses him as Lord through the power of the Spirit and to the glory of the Father.

What an incredibly ignorant take on things. How is the "social gospel" a "besitting sin"? The author's view sounds more like the "this doesn't involve us" gospel, written someone too cowardly to take a side. Someone trying to be neither hot nor cold, to quote someone. Here's the reality: one movement is about justice and liberty; the other is about not having to pay taxes. Want to know which is which, just look at their names. Hint: look up what TEA stands for.

Well said, Johan.

"the revival in the church for which she had been praying might actually come outside the church, when non-Christians hunger for justice. This is a strikingly political notion of revival and thus of the gospel. As she presents it, revival is something non-Christians are capable of experiencing while remaining strangers to Christ." That is a very common sentiment in Portland among Post-Modern evangelical Christians who want to "de-construct" (Derrida and Brueggeman) and "un-pack" the Bible. Tattoos on women, occupy Wall Street, social justice, the usual suspects. My concern is that what George Fox College, Multnomah and Western Seminary (Portland Christian schools) all call Post-Modern evangelical is actually a road stop on the way to apostasy. Again, we're leaders. As they say, Keep Portland weird.

Yes, it is a sunny outlook. Biblical realism says that all have come short. The ideal that we truly should aspire to, self-regulation, cannot be the basis of a Christian approach to politics any more than secular anarchism could. In the meantime, individual willfulness and limitations (crime, negligence, harmful errors, greed, racism, you know the list) and systemic sin require government. The Bible blesses government--and blesses petition, even civil disobedience when government goes astray. The question isn't whether regulations are needed, but whether the regulators, in a democracy, operate transparently according to due process. The ideal citizen may be self-regulating, but he or she must also participate in the building up of reasonable regulations for those who irreducibly are not. Neither government nor lack of government deserve romanticizing.

Nice sunny outlook Mr/Ms D.C. Innes. Wish I could have a similar hope that the Kingdom is possible now, in our government, in the human heart/character, without or before the second coming of Christ. I think the "documentary" proposed with two sincere and fine people was way too short to take much of anything substantial from it. Nice flash but a way too deep and serious topic for the time it was given. It didn't serve either view well...and may have even been unfair.