Enough

 It was over eight years ago when I first picked up John Naish’s book Enough: Breaking Free from the World of More.  I got as far as the first chapter “ Enough Information,” and thought, well, that’s enough.  I lugged the book during various moves, stored it in a box when I was in England, and finally kept it on my shelf collecting dust.  I liked the concept of the book, but never seemed to have enough time, or enough motivation to crack it open again.  Well, as I’m off work to recover from long covid, I’ve had a lot of time to read.  I thought about getting more books, but decided it was time to read Enough.  As I read Naish’s concepts about information, I was challenged not just to read, but to interact with the text.  I got out my pencil to underline word and comment in the margins. I hope to share a few thoughts from each chapter here.

This is a Google Ngram of word usage over the years. One could speculate about how the patterns relate, but I just included it for fun.

*Naish, John. Enough : Breaking Free from the World of More. London, Hachette Livre, 2008.

‌

Free Market System – Some Uneducated Speculations.

I say these are uneducated because I really don’t know much about the free market, but I learned some things today, and this is my push back:

Unprofiting endeavours

Children

Profit motivation

And workers.

There are some things which do not create a profit even though they are worthwhile endeavours.  I found out today that my uncle had a cancerous polyp removed so a thought that came to me is cancer research.  One could spend their entire life searching for a cure, find things that point other researchers in the right direction, but ultimate find nothing they can sell. 

A similar concern I have is with Children.  I think they should all get equal opportunities.  I hope they can all have quality education. 

I think in the ideal free market, teachers and researchers would be funded by donations of the people.  It would be neither force nor coercion that made people pay taxes to the system, but out of freewill and goodness people would donate to such noble causes.  Sounds great, but what if people don’t donate very much?  Is it right for a researcher to struggle to get by because people give him little support?  Or what if he takes a pay cut to get cutting edge technologies.  Worse even would be if the leading researchers and top teachers gave up their jobs to become dog trainers because it made them more money.

I think profit motivation is ugly.  It seems to suggest that more money brings more happiness.  I doubt this is the case.  I am not alone in this doubt:

(but how can one measure happiness?)
It seems criminal to me for a society to function by profit motivation.  Perhaps I am unrealistically optimistic in believing motivation could happen any other way.  However, Seeking more money is akin to seeking more stuff in a world of limited resources.  Th more I take for myself, the less there is for others.  As Walter Rauschenbusch wrote in Christianity and the Social Gospel, “The rule of trade, to buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest, simply means that a man must give as little to the other man and get as much for himself as possible.  This rule makes even honest competitive trade – to say nothing of the immense volume of more or less dishonest and rapacious trade – antagonistic to Christian principles.  The law of Christ, wherever it finds expression, reverses the law of trade.  It bids us demand little for ourselves and give much service.  A mother does not try to make as rich a living as possible, and give minimum of service to her children.  It would be a sorry teacher who would lie awake thinking how he could corner the market on education and give his students as small a chunk of information as possible from the pedagogic ice-wagon.”  I have a hard time meshing the profit motif with love, generosity or compassion.  Profit maximizing often leads to exploitation.

Two things were mentioned today that I have a hard time reconciling.  “No minimum wage” and “do no harm.”  Let’s face it, people in difficult situations will be willing to work for exceedingly little.  Humans enter into exploitative environments because they feel they have no choice.  Desperation will lead one to work 14 hours a day in unsafe conditions with the hope of feeding the children, even if nothing is left for oneself.  Just because someone, by choice, enters into an exploitative situation does not mean they deserve to be exploited.   Such situations are harmful.  If someone if doing valuable work, they deserved to be paid a minimum wage.  They deserve to eat and feed their family and have a place to live.  To pay them any less is harmful, it’s ugly.  While our system is not free today, such situations still happen.  A successful way of lowering costs (ergo increase profit) is to pay your workers less.  If people can get away with paying their workers less, they will, even if their workers are worth more.  In my estimation, a free market without regulations ensuring the rights of workers to earn a fair wage will exploit the poor for profit.

As mentioned above, I don’t know tons about the free market ideal.  These are just some of my hesitations based on my (mis)understandings.  Please, push back.

The Weakness of God - Does God Deny Power Pie?

            Weeping, moaning, begging for his life, but no.  He is taken, tortured.  Slowly, slowly he is killed, alone, abandoned.  This is the man called God.  Those were his last moments.  He did not fight when the soldiers came for him.  Silently he was led to his death, nailed to a cross, raised up as a spectacle and mocked.  Thirsty, he was thirsty.  If anyone, he had the right to ask the good God why there is evil, and he did.  God cried out from the cross “my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

            Christian philosophy requires a radically unique approach to the problem of evil.  It must account for the murder of its God, thus reconsider what it means for such a being to be all-powerful.  It seems evident, though some would disagree, that evil in the world is counter to the will of God.  If God is all-good and all-powerful, logically he would rid this world of all evil at once.  Unfortunately he does not.  Humans continue to perpetuate evil and suffering.  An explanation for this evil in the world is that God, in love, has abdicated power to his human creation so he could be in a self-giving relationship with them.  A god who gives power to humans becomes weak, because he has given humans control and cannot take it back.  This is the God whose weakness is ultimately manifested upon the cross.

            A good god will do what is good, always, regardless of the foreseen consequences.  While God made many rocks and trees, he needs not give himself to them.  They wouldn’t notice if he did, but God wants to give himself to his creation.  The Christian God is believed to be communal and eternal love.  Love wants to love relationally.  To do so, God needed to create beings that were like him.  He made humans creative, capable of love, and then shared his power with them.  Power, unlike love, is not infinite.  That is to say while giving love does not cause the giver to have less love, giving power results in the giver losing power.  If love is like procreation, an act that multiplies itself, power is like a pumpkin pie.  When God shared power with humanity, he had less pie for himself.  He did this because love, and therefore God, is relational.  In the same way that oppressed peasants do not seek friendships their relentless oppressors, humans would not desire a relationship with an all-controlling being.  God became weak so humans could become strong and a relationship between them could flourish.

            Since nothing is impossible for an all-powerful God, could he not have created humans to have a relationship with him without limiting his own power?  Had he not given them power, or if he had given them the ability to make a few choices, but ultimately retained a trump card, he would have had a control based relationship with his creatures.  However, love is not controlling and God loves humans.  This required bestowing power upon them, even if they were prone to perpetuate evil.  The love God has for humans is a love that allows them to do as they please.

Since God was all-powerful, it would have been possible for him to have created humans with freewill who always chose goodness.  Freewill without creatures ever choosing evil is a logical possibility.  God, looking ahead, could have conceived how his creatures would act if he created them as he did and have created them differently.  If he was really good, why did he not create humans with freewill who never chose evil?  To address this valid concern, a distinction must be made between freewill and power.  An example from a common parenting technique will distinguish between the two.

            Poor Billy is sick.  His mom wants him to take medicine so that he will get better.  Billy does not want to swallow the pill, so his mom gives him a choice.  He can take the pill with milk or with apple juice.  Billy feels empowered, chooses apple juice and takes the pill.  Billy, however, does not have real power in this scenario.  He does have a real choice, but his choices are limited.  If Billy could knock his mom over and refuse treatment all together, he would have power.  Human power goes beyond freewill.  It is the ability to do things beyond the will of God.  God does not hold a trump card.  In giving power to the people he has emptied himself.  He is not in control.  However, if he was in control when the world was set in motion, couldn’t he have ensured that his creatures would do as he desired?  No.  God is not a controlling being.  It must necessarily be that the power God has given humans controls destinies and can act against God’s desired intent.  Humans can knock God over and refuse treatment all together.

            Many believe in situations like the one above the mother should force her son to take the medicine for his own good.  This may very well be the case if the son is three.  However, if he is thirty the social consensus seems to be that his mother should not take away her son’s power and force the pill upon him.  Though it is right to do that to a child, it is very wrong to do it to an adult.  In the same way that a mother does not have power over her adult son, God does not have power over his human creation.  He has given it to the humans, and does not have the ability to take it back.  Like a parent who must give power to their adult children and hope their relationship can continue based on love, so a loving God gives his human creations power and hopes they chose a relationship with him.

            Even though it seems impossible that a once all-powerful God could somehow become less powerful, this would not be impossible for the all-powerful being.  This is not to say that God still has complete power, but he has restrained himself from using it.  Contrarily, God has relinquished his power.  This is where the metaphor of a power pie comes in handy.  As God gave power to his human creation to rule over nature and themselves, he retains less and less of the pie.  It is not that he holds himself back from using certain powers, but that he no longer has those powers to use.  It appears that omnipotence is a trait which God possessed for a time and then gave away.  If God wished to retain his power, he could have created a different world, where his creatures had freewill, but God still had all the power.  As it is, I am not convinced that God likes pumpkin power pie all that much.  Though, when he was alone he held it, he never indulged in the pie; rather, he freely gave it away as he created.  Had God kept the power to himself, offering humanity freewill but hold the trump card, he would not have created beings in his image with whom he could have full relationships.  He desired such relationships so he could love, serve and give himself to the other.  Some may ask if a being who is not all-powerful is still a god.  However, a better question is this: is a being who is all-powerful still good? 

            Many humans cry up to the sky, hoping for a powerful, mighty rescue.  When their pleas are met with silence they cry out, “my God, my God, why have you forsaken me.”  Trapped in the midst of evil, humans long for a powerful being to take control and set things right.  In the face of violence, poverty and environmental degradation they feel helpless, alone.  But central to Christianity is the notion that God has not abandoned his creation.  One possible way to hold this belief in the face of evil in this world is to consider that God’s goal is love, and his means to that end cannot be power or control; rather it is love.  This is seen when in weakness, as a baby, God came down to his creation.  Though it may have been hoped that he would come with power and overthrow the Roman Empire, he chose a different way.  It was the way of forgiveness, material minimalism and self-sacrifice.  In his death he showed that there is influence in love, a different sort of influence.  Not one that is controlling, but one that is compelling.  It is an invitation to weakness; it is an invitation to love.

            A central Christian premise is that God is love.  It is the very essence of who he is, and so he made humanity to be creatures he could relationally love.  Therefore, he did not maintain control over them.  Rather he gave them power to control themselves and rule over creation.  Humans have held onto their power, using it for their own good and thus causing evil in this world.  While God hates evil, he no longer has power over his creation.  He cannot control them and so he seeks them out.  In ultimate weakness God embraces humanity, becoming one with them, serving them and being murdered by them.  The Christian God knows suffering.  He has felt the torment of evil and yet he was helpless.  He looked his murderers in the eyes, unable to do anything but forgive them.  In love God gave power to his creation, and in love he compels them to give it away. 
            “Come,” God beckons, “come.  Deny your power, embrace weakness and follow me.  Abandon control and seek mercy, justice and love.  Look, I am making all things new.  I am your hope, your servant, your lover.”

Peace

Some say you can get peace by desiring nothing.  I can understand that.
Others say you can get peace by believing nothing.  I can understand that.

Those sound peaceful but boring.

Jesus says people will hate you, you might not have a home, your mission is massive, and your belief actually matters, but I will leave you my peace.  I don't understand that.

I don't think it will be boring.