That's a lotta books
Without moving too quickly past my rant about Karl Rove, I will finally heed Russ' call and do the book thing:
1. How many books to you own?
Surprisingly, not alot. Maybe 150 to 200. I'm a big magazine guy, and I frequent the library a good bit. Plus my knees must be horrible seeing how I'll stand in Barnes & Noble and read half of a 400-page book in one visit.
2. Last book read?
Hmmm ... I'm toward the end of Ask Not: The Inauguration of John F. Kennedy and the Speech That Changed America, but not finished yet. I honestly don't know. I read like eight books at once, and skip around in my non-fiction ones, so it's really too difficult to say.
3. Last book purchased.
The Gospel According to RFK
4. Name five books that mean alot to you.
• The Bible - As Russ said ... for obvious reasons. I enjoy the books of Micah, Luke, Romans, Peter's letters and whatever book features discussion of the Year of Jubilee (forget which Old Testament book that is ... little help here).
• Friday Night Lights - Best sports book ever written, and much more than merely a sports book.
• To Kill A Mockingbird - As James Carville said, a must-read for any Democrat. Again, when you write the Great American Novel on your first try, might as well call it quits.
• Ethan Frome - My favorite book.
• Nothing To Fear: The Collected Speeches of Franklin D. Roosevelt - His 1936 acceptance speech to the Democratic National Convention is an intellectual, passionate and spirited defense of the New Deal. Awesome.
1. How many books to you own?
Surprisingly, not alot. Maybe 150 to 200. I'm a big magazine guy, and I frequent the library a good bit. Plus my knees must be horrible seeing how I'll stand in Barnes & Noble and read half of a 400-page book in one visit.
2. Last book read?
Hmmm ... I'm toward the end of Ask Not: The Inauguration of John F. Kennedy and the Speech That Changed America, but not finished yet. I honestly don't know. I read like eight books at once, and skip around in my non-fiction ones, so it's really too difficult to say.
3. Last book purchased.
The Gospel According to RFK
4. Name five books that mean alot to you.
• The Bible - As Russ said ... for obvious reasons. I enjoy the books of Micah, Luke, Romans, Peter's letters and whatever book features discussion of the Year of Jubilee (forget which Old Testament book that is ... little help here).
• Friday Night Lights - Best sports book ever written, and much more than merely a sports book.
• To Kill A Mockingbird - As James Carville said, a must-read for any Democrat. Again, when you write the Great American Novel on your first try, might as well call it quits.
• Ethan Frome - My favorite book.
• Nothing To Fear: The Collected Speeches of Franklin D. Roosevelt - His 1936 acceptance speech to the Democratic National Convention is an intellectual, passionate and spirited defense of the New Deal. Awesome.
posted by Jmac at 12:46 PM
12 Comments:
Jmac, what do you like about the Jubilee story? Or Leviticus in whole?
Is that the book you were referencing? I think only Lev. and Numbers has Jubilee mentioned.
I've just always found the references to the Year of Jubilee quite inspiring and fascinating. The notion of spontaneous debt forgiveness in order to stamp out economic inequalities, done so in the Judeo-Christian context on Leviticus, is a profound challenge in today's day and age.
Sojourners always has preached what they refer to as 'Jubilee politics' ... particularly with regard to the push for debt forgiveness for African countries.
Plus I like the references to the Sabbath, which often get overlooked when reading through these passages. One of the interesting concepts of Jubilee is that the ground itself, not merely the laborer, also must rest.
I've always just really enjoyed that particular aspect, along with lots of the Old Testament economic laws which we often forget or merely overlook.
I take jubilee as having more to do with tribal equity than individual.
Interesting Matt. I can see the sweeping notions of community in the passages relating to Jubilee, but specifically tribal is something I'm not aware of. Of course, it's quite possible we're saying the same thing here. Perhaps you could explain a bit more?
Land was divided out among the tribes under the Old Testament economy. So when Jubilee came around, all the land in Dan went back to the Danites who had had it originally ("originally," as in "when they took it as divinely-granted spoils from the wars against the Canaanites"). All the lan in "the tribe of Benjamin" went back to the original Benjamite owners, etc.
The intention of the law was almost certainly as a ritual of purity for the nation of Israel, that she might not become corrupted by foreign influences and foreign gods. Even if Heshobeth ben Judah fell into such financial desperation that he felt compelled to sell his land to outsiders, he could rest assured that his son or grandson would get it back in the end.
Also, not to be a complete wet blanket about this, but notice how this law really isn't very "progressive" at all. There is no guarantee that when Jubilee rolls around, IsriCom will have to return land to some poor Gadite. Rather, Jubilee appears to apply even if the person the land is being returned to is more wealthy than the person who has (relatively) recently purchased it. Joshua ben Isacchar gets his land back, no matter what--even if Joshua doesn't really "need" it. Even if Joshua himself is a big fat jerk who hates the poor.
Jubilee was, primarily, a law meant to protect the national identity (and purity) of God's covenanted nation of Israel. It really had very little to do with "economic justice". Though I know that Wallis, Sider, and the rest of the evangelical Left are saddened by this news. :-)
As to forgiving African debt, this is one of the cruelest things we could do to the people of these nations, who do not need their leaders to be granted any further disincentives away from financial accountability. It's like giving blanket amnesty to all illegal immigrants--but now you'd better stop coming over, this time we mean it--if Vincente Fox himself were driving people over the border with horse whips he couldn't encourage more crossings of the Rio Grande than amnesty would.
And if the idea is actually that we should just make it an open and regular policy that every few years we will forgive African debt, then we have exacerbated the problem even more.
Though I know that Wallis, Sider, and the rest of the evangelical Left are saddened by this news.
I'm sure they are deeply saddened seeing how a 27-year-old PhD candidate just 'undermined' their theological take on this passage. A tad presumptious aren't we young Hostetter? :)
I'm a tad confused, and also in some disagreement, with your assessment. For starters, you suggest there is no guarantee that the land will have to be returned to a poorer citizen. However, the passages appear to suggest otherwise:
- All debts were to be cancelled - releasing all Israelites from indebtedness and financial obligations in a return to the original order;
- All Israelites in bondage to their fellow countrymen were to be set free;
- And, what you alluded to here, a return of ancestral possessions to those who had to sell because of poverty or had to surrender their land to creditors in payment for their debts.
The final feature (the fourth requirement of Jubilee ... I left out the resting of the Earth stuff pertaining to the Sabbath) appears to be very progressive with regard to economic laws. If an individual either had his land taken by creditors because he couldn't pay for it, or had to sell his land to make a buck because he was losing money and almost broke, then he was to receive that land back with no questions at and be given a fresh start with said ancestral land.
In fact, Leviticus 25 lays out that if the man 'prospers and acquires sufficient means to redeem it, he is to determine the value for the years since he sold it and refund the balance to the man to whom he sold it' ... and then he can return to his property. If, however, he doesn't get the resources to pay the buyer back, he won't get it back until Jubilee.
So I'm a bit lost on your take. The passage seems to be very specific with regard to deriving economic benefits and rewards for the poor with regard to the return of ancestral lands. Granted, I don't have significant amounts of theological study under my belt, but the straightfoward interpretation I derive from this passage appears to be contrary to your analysis.
With regard to the forgiveness of African debt, I also don't see eye-to-eye with you. I understand your rationale that forgiving the debt of a nation that is poorly run by an crooked regime isn't the wisest course of action, but then what would you have us do?
The crooked regime is empowered by everything they do. Economic sanctions don't hurt them, nor does the crippling debt. Dictatorships find ways to live luxurious lifestyles while the intent of sanctions - or not forgiving debt - only further hurt the people living under them.
We have very little recourse - aside from our excursion in Iraq - when it comes to 'fixing' this problem. But I still fail to see the logic that debt forgiveness will further empower already empowered dictators. Rather, it's quite possible that forgiving debt, negotiating fair trade agreements and encouraging economic development in these countries can do more to empower the citizens of these nations than ignoring them all together.
Such a policy has paid great dividends with China, and heck we now owe them a lot of money. It's taken some time, and there is still much work to be done, but the China of today is better than the China of 30 years ago and the China of 15 years ago. A large reason for this is the warming of relations between the West and China, the opening of its markets, foreign investment and the watchful eye of the international community for human rights abuses (again, granted China has much work to do, but progress is being made).
I thought one of the major reasons China has prospered so much is the way the gov't monkeys with the exchange value of their money -- purposing fixing it to benefit them.
That's not at all what this post was about or what the discussion on Jubilee was for, so ignore that. Plus, I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about, really.
Working backwards through the topics...
"Rather, it's quite possible that forgiving debt, negotiating fair trade agreements and encouraging economic development in these countries can do more to empower the citizens of these nations..."
I agree with the latter two things you mentioned, though we might disagree (or might not) on what proper "encouragement of economic development" actually looks like. It is just the "debt forgiveness" that I am disagreeing with (vociferously).
I'm not advocating protectionism here--free trade, I'm all for it.
As to tyrants being "empowered" no matter what they do, yes and no kindasorta. But lets' just say "yes" for the moment. If it is really true that, no matter what, these tryrants and corrupt bureaucrats will be able to prosper as they have before (short of being deposed by a rebellion or by an Iraq Part Deux), then what makes us think that debt forgiveness will do any good? The corrupt governments will just take out more loans, and bend its use to their own purposes all over again. So, even if you are right that none of our economic decisions will have much of an effect on these warlords, this hardly proves that debt forgiveness is a good idea. Why throw money down that hole again?
I say there might be hope for reform in Africa, but that it cannot come by allowing African governments to evade their financial responsibilities. If someone else wants to say that there is no hope for reform in Africa (only revolution) at all, then it is still obvious that we shouldn't be spending more money on such a hopeless situation. Either way, debt forgiveness seems the wrong policy.
The only way to argue convincingly for debt forgiveness, imho, is to show that such a policy will benefit Africa in some way. But I don't see how it can. Free trade? You bet! Economic development? Absolutely. (Captialist! Capitalist! Don't you know that the answer to economically-driven oppression is to let these poor gentle societies return to their pristine pre-economic state? These poor people have very little compared to us! Let them return to that time when they had even less!) But not debt forgiveness. Such a policy has no hope to "End Poverty Now".
Re: Jubilee,
"For starters, you suggest there is no guarantee that the land will have to be returned to a poorer citizen. However, the passages appear to suggest otherwise:
- All debts were to be cancelled - releasing all Israelites from indebtedness and financial obligations in a return to the original order"
Yes, but the original order might benefit the richer man in some cases. That was my point. A wealthy Reubenite sells some of his ancestral land to make some short-term money (or something like this). He sells a small portion of it, let us say, to a poor Menassehite down the road. At Jubilee, he gets his land back. The poorer Menassehite must give back the parcel of land to the richer Reubenite. Again, the whole intent of the law is to preserve ancestral (and national) holdings, not to benefit "the poor." In some transactions, the poor may benefit, and in others the rich may benefit. At Jubilee, all returns to how it was before, regardless of who benefitted from the transaction since the last Jubilee.
Or let me say it this way: The "original position" of the Israelites was not one of absolute economic equality among ever family, clan, or trab. So a return to that position at Jubilee will benefit anyone who had lost some of their economic clout since the last Jubilee. This will include some poor folks, and some rich ones.
"The passage seems to be very specific with regard to deriving economic benefits and rewards for the poor with regard to the return of ancestral lands."
Again, not for the poor per se, but rather for anyone who had incurred losses since the last "Sabbath of Sabbaths."
Re: Wallis and Sider, I had said:
"Though I know that Wallis, Sider, and the rest of the evangelical Left are saddened by this news."
For which JMac jokingly chided me:
"I'm sure they are deeply saddened seeing how a 27-year-old PhD candidate just 'undermined' their theological take on this passage. A tad presumptious aren't we young Hostetter? :)"
The problems with trying to read socialism out of the Old Testament have already been demonstrated quite amply by theologians more able than myself. Ron Sider's academic reputation among evangelicals who care to read both sides has been essentially shattered for over twenty years now, ever since David Chilton published his rebuttal to Sider's Rich Christians in a World of Hunger.
On his end, Wallis seems to have become much more moderate (as has Sider, on those rare occasions you hear from him these days) since those halcyon days of the 1970s and 80s when greedy capitalist refugees were fleeing Vietnam on boats and evil contras were fighting cuddly Sandanistas in Nicaraugua. I don't think poorly of Wallis as a sincere Christian man at all, just his poor exegesis and political muddle-headedness.
Perhaps you could explain a bit more?
Just that jubilee returned land to whoever originally got it in the first place, not who deserved it most or something. If famine hit manasseh, and they lost 95% of their land to levi, then at jubilee that 95% would be returned to manasseh. This had the direct effect of preventing one tribe from dominating all the others, or preventing one tribe from being stamped out entirely. Economic justice wasn't really a factor, in my opinion because Israel had no real sense of economics and because they did not view the individual in the same way that we do in our (post?) liberal world. I don't have a wealth of theological background or anything to back that up with though.
I'm not saying that the old testament law in general or the jubilee thing in particular are part of some rousing biblical defense of laissez faire capitalism or anything, because they aren't. I just don't accept that they represent a biblical endorsement of progressive ideals either.
I still say your presumptious Xon. :)
We'll work in your order, not the reverse way.
Re: debt forgiveness
Fair enough, but I'm still equally torn on the notion of forgiving debt of all impoverished African nations. I understand your position, but I'm not sold yet. Primarily because I think you misunderstood my argument in suggesting that debt forgiveness wouldn't affect tyrants. As I said earlier, these tyrants are already in control of some of these nations, and I don't believe debt forgiveness will empower them any more than they already are.
It isn't as if we're forgiving their personal debt, it's the forgiveness of the debt of an entire economy. This will give the economy more capital and more resources to invest back into itself, rather than on loans and interest that suffocate them currently. This will help attract economic development into the regions which are most in need of it. So while we both agree with the concepts of free and fair trade along with economic investments in these nations, I think that these two things are most productive in an environment which isn't suppressed by debt.
Now I'm open to laying out guidelines for debt forgiveness for nations who do have corrupt leaders at their helms in an effort to develop some accountability, but I think most of those who advocate a policy of African debt forgiveness are as well (in contrast to the Bush administration, which opposes any discussion of debt forgiveness until those nations are totally cleaned up first). I think a policy which advocates a series of goals for these nations to meet while we begin the process of forgiving debt is the most constructive.
One approach I had read was a series of four steps of reducing debt requiring a 10 percent reduction in conjunction with meeting the first goal, then 20 percent and so forth up to total debt forgiveness.
I'm rambling now ...
Re: Jubilee
I've conceded that there are some elements of nationalism involved Jubilee, but I also still feel that economic justice is a very large component in its tradition. It's hard for me to see it any other way seeing how there are very specific regulations regarding those individuals who are poor and how to settle up discrepancies between someone who has prospered during the time span between Jubilees.
So while it's possible Jubilee is grounded in a nationalistic purity, it's rather odd to suggest there aren't some elements of economic justice at work in these passages. That would be, in my opinion, just suppressing a large portion of the entire passage. It just seems inconsistent, to me, to attempt to argue that the notion of economic justice isn't connected to the passage.
Re: Sider
Yeah, I've never heard of that guy. I ran over it when I read it the first time.
Look, there are really smart evangelicals on both sides of these issues (Jubilee, debt forgiveness, etc.). I'm not "presumptuous" for publically stating that my sympathies are with one side, any more than you are being presumptuous for publically stating that you like what Wallis and his ilk have to say. You and I are both small-time, granted. But we can still express our agreement with those who are more "big-time" if we want. And if this means that we are disagreeing openly with other "big-timers", then so be it.
I'm fine leaving the debt forgiveness discussion where it is at the moment.
As for Jubilee, "economic justice" is a buzzphrase for "progressive" or even "socialistic" economics these days, though I don't think you were necessariy using it that way. In any case, I am not denying that the Jubilee laws were in any way concerned with "economic justice." They certainly have an economic dimension. They also may mention the poor specifically in certain places.(Though you haven't actually shown that they do. Re-reading your comments here, nothing you have said so far establishes that the Jubilee laws were talking about the "poor" as a specific group of people. But they may; I haven't gone back and read them yet.) But these two things do not add up to "progressive" economic policy.
Progressive economic policy would, at the very least, single out the poor for benefits (probably supplied by the wealthy) not available to others. But the Jubilee was not something for the poor, it was for everyone. Which is what Matt and I have been trying to say.
Hey, my presumptious joke was just that, a joke (hence the smiley face). No hard feelings and no need to explain that it's 'OK' to disagree with those folks in bigger circles.
Regarding the Jubilee discussion, and your claim that I have to show proof about showing specific instances of economic justice toward the poor, I'm growing more puzzled by the second.
I thought I had highlighted some passages which focus on regulations and requirements for how the poor are to go about claiming their lands during the Jubilee. There's also the sheer concept of cancelling debts, which, in my opinion, has to focus heavily on those who are poor since they are the ones most hindered by said debts.
Plus, notice the sheer number of times the poor are referred to in Leviticus 25. There are very specific instructions for how to handle debt cancellation and the restoration of lands regarding the poor. Just one off hand is Levitcus 25:35-36:
If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. Do not take interest of any kind [a] from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you.
I don't think I ever once, however, suggested that the Jubilee laws didn't affect everyone. Cancellation of debts and the restoration of land, naturally, would help everyone. I figured that was implied by Jubilee itself. But it also is hard to argue that the poor wouldn't be most helped by this policy. It's equally hard to argue that God didn't have the less-fortunate of that society in mind when these laws where formed considering the careful detail that was taken with regard to the poor when forming these laws.
My original point in all of this was how fascinating the concept of Jubilee is. The whole notion of cancelling debts - and the strong themes of community that run throughout the passages - is, as I said, something quite profound in today's day and age ... and that's something worth considering whether or not you think Jubilee has primary roots in purity or economic justice.
I, for one, think they are grounded quite nicely by both concepts.
Post a Comment
<< Home