I'm the Older Brother

Thank you for this.

How about, "I am my brother's keeper." Period. With humility, gratitude, repentence and caretaker-ship.

And the knowledge that when life feels "not-fair", we just might want to remember that grace is fundamentally not-fair. And we likely, more often than not, land on the lucky side of not-fair. At least when we look at all that's not-fair in the world. And especially when we consider grace.

If life loses that which is not-fair, then we lose grace. So, i'd prefer to live in the not-fair. Even when it hurts, or I really want to scream.

Oh, and God of Intimacy and Action- finishing that today. *Nice* work. Loved it. *Well done.*

A good word, I receive. But limited.

Any of us who live fairly sane, responsible lives confront this everyday. Someone pays for shoplifting, smoking, prisons, law enforcement, drunk driving, foster care, Bernie Madoff, littering, STD's, contracting fraud in Iraq, etc.etc. And that burden rests mostly on those who are productive and responsible. This is not a new tension.

The problem here is that many of us feel the father in the story is not receiving the prodigal with open arms and throwing a celebration. Rather, the father had run off with the son, eating slop in a hog pen, and is coming home with the son to grab hold of the last assets and borrowing the eldest son's inheritance.

The father wishes to take the eldest son's inheritance so as to pay off investors to buy bad debt from the local money-changers, so the local money-changers will extend more credit to the prodigal son and him so they can go back to the hog pen.

So challenging our hearts as the elder brother is well taken--but it might be oversimplifying what many are really reacting towards.

The other problem with Tony's analogy is that in the parable Jesus is talking about God's grace, which is unlimited, as ours should be. Material resources, which are what is being talked about in the bailout, are not unlimited. God can shower as much grace on whoever he wants for as long as he wants. You can't do that with material resources.

There is much talk, rightly so, on the God's Politics blog about fairness. Is it fair that the wealthy have so much stuff? Or is it fair that a particular person doesn't have the health care they need? These are important questions to ask. Almost always, we are told to examine the fairness of an issue and advocate accordingly. Does this not apply to this situation? If not, why not? When should Tony's arguments apply and when should they not?

Brother Tony,

I would appreciate it if, in the future, you would allow me and my conservative brethren to make our own confessions.

LV

Why? Conservatives already have their own blogs. (In the fall I was thrown off one for challenging the status quo.)

The "non-saving" son who left home did NOT get HALF of his father's wealth. He was the 2nd-born son.

That's because the first-born son in Israel and Judea always inherited TWICE what his younger brothers got.

Since there were just two sons in this parable, the younger son only got ONE-THIRD his father's wealth. (If there had been 3 sons in the family, the two younger ones would EACH have received ONE-FOURTH of their father's wealth with the 1st-born son getting half of the father's estate.

Because the father agreed to what the younger son asked, the older son became the owner of his father's real estate, meaning the farm on which they lived. But, the father, since he was still living, had authority over the older son and his son's property.

The older/1st-born son didn't have to ask his father for permission to kill a fatted calf while his younger brother was in that foreign country. The older son owned the animals on the farm anyway, even the goat he mentioned in Luke 15:29.

The older son tried to claim that his younger brother spent his inheritance on prostitutes. How did he know that? Or was he just making up lies to slander his younger brother? The KJV states that the son "wasted his substance with riotous living" and the NIV has "wild" in place of "riotous." But, the Greek word is "asotos" which merely means the opposite of "saving."

Well put. Thanks.

Well said. The father is free to do with his property what he wants, despite the seeming injustice done to the older brother. The President and Congress is not bestowing THEIR resources on the delinquent homeowners, who were "seduced into lavish living." They are using resources received under the threat of punishments up to imprisonment against the unwilling, to pay for these toxic mortgages. Additionally, they not only are gaining these resources from current generations, but imposing a debt obligation on children and unborn persons as well. Throw in the effort to generate inflation so that the dollars that will be used to repay debt to Chinese lenders will not be worth as much as they are today, and there are a number of moral questions to address.

Funny that people who are responsible with their finances are condemned for attempting to be appropriate stewards. Under this view, everything is God's blessings, not just grace, and we earn nothing ever. That being the case, why shouldn't I expect, nay demand, that my neighbor follow this Christian example and pay more taxes while I wait for a non-Christian entity, the government, to pay?

So how do the AIG bonuses from the Stimulus fit in this story?

I agree with the posts above.

If you had a child who stole not just from you, but went out and robbed entire neighborhoods, what would the appropriate response be? Apparently we are not allowed to be angry or to discipline the child but to just let them keep the money, and everyone they robbed are only allowed to show grace and love and mercy.

The gospel of Christ is one of grace, wonderful God-only-reliant grace. But we CANNOT remove repentance from the gospel or it cheapens grace and worships a false savior who did not pay for it with his life.

As individuals and organizations turn from greed, just as the younger son returned to his father's house then yes, let's band together and help out. But when individuals and organizations are just caught red-handed, and want enough bailout just to get back to how things were before, then we have a problem that will not be solved by showering them with grace and mercy.

I'm talking about Tony having an experience where he sympathizes with conservatives, then confesses it all as a sin. Especially when he concludes with the strong implication that he is still superior to us spiritually because at least he confessed his own sin.

Well, maybe Tony did sin, (again: maybe) because his resentment of the beneficiaries of the mortgage assistance program might have been based entirely on jealousy. That doesn't necessarily mean that conservative opposition to that part of the stimulus was sinful, because our concerns were based on public policy and the problem of moral hazard.

(Moral hazard means that when people are shielded too much from the predictable consequences of reckless actions, the result is more recklessness. Kind of like jumping off a cliff and expecting God to protect you. I seem to recall Jesus saying that wasn't such a good idea.)

I have my own failings, which I confess on a regular basis. As a general rule I try to leave my political opponents out of it. That's not what confessions are for.

LV

With all due respect, I think you're being a little touchy here. The truth be
told (and Tony may understand this), much conservative policy is indeed based
on such resentment, not at all on any "moral hazard." Since he's spent his
career in inner-city Philadelphia, I seriously doubt he's jealous because he
would certainly have the money to live wherever he wanted.

With all due respect:

1. It's a cheap trick to insinuate that someone is guilty ("or as you put it, "touchy") based on the fact that he chooses to defend himself from an accusation, however cleverly put.

2. Are you saying that there's no such thing as moral hazard? Or that we are misreading the risks? Or are you (as usual) simply assuming bad faith on the part of your opponents? I would ask you to consider if you need to confess bitterness towards brothers in Christ who disagree with you, but then you'd just say I was being touchy, so never mind.* Instead I'll ask you this: even if you disagree with us, don't honest disagreements ever happen in your universe? They do in mine.

3. I was not aware that Philadelphia was a jealousy-free-zone. Maybe they make up for it with other forms of mean-spiritedness? Philly is the town where they booed Santa Claus after all. Heck Philly-native or no Campolo himself admitted to resentment, so what I wrote wasn't exactly a huge stretch.

LV

*See, I took it back, so I'm not really accusing you of anything. If you respond to this, you're demonstrating that you are being touchy. This way, I can make all kinds of accusations and you can't defend yourself! Isn't this fun? -- LV

It's a cheap trick to insinuate that someone is guilty ("or as you put it, "touchy") based on the fact that he chooses to defend himself from an accusation, however cleverly put.

You just made my point in the way you chose to respond. The political right historically has been self-deceptive to a point that it doesn't even recognize where its attitude comes from, and that's why it has a hard time understanding what's actually going on right now. In insisting on ideological purity, it has found itself out on the street -- fueling even more resentment (which I see even in the church).

Are you saying that there's no such thing as moral hazard? Or that we are misreading the risks?

Well, "Reaganomics" was full of moral hazard when it was proposed, and its effects actually wrecked a major employer in my city. So I guess it depends on whom it helps, no?

Not sure how I made your point, but I'm willing to leave this whole line of discussion right where it is if you are.

As far as Reaganomics being full of "moral hazard" -- think you're getting moral hazard (promoting risky behaviour by protecting individuals from consequences) with Schumpeterian "creative destruction", in which outdated and ineffective firms are brought down and replaced by more up-to-date and effective ones, with a net improvement in productivity and quality of living for society. The first is to be avoided as much as possible, the second is regrettably necessary in a free society.

In fact, the two are to some extent mutually exclusive: protecting employers from the consequences of failing to adapt and improve (through bailouts, special government loans, etc.) creates moral hazard, encouraging companies to be slow about adapting new technologies or developing new products. When that happens what you get is Pittsburgh's steel industry in the 80's, or Detroit today.

LV

My point is that conservatism as practiced today is by definition reactionary; even the "new thinking" that it claims to be is based only on opposition to what was then present reality and thus simply cannot escape scapegoating, especially toward people at the bottom. Unfortunately, its acolytes have never talked with anyone who disagrees with it to point out any potential weaknesses because dissent even to this day is considered intolerable. That's why you see so many conservatives still swearing by President Bush despite political and economic reality -- they can't ever accept that they were fundamentally wrong about a lot of things.

As for Reaganomics, its basic tenet was that if you take restraints, whether regulations or taxes, off the "big man" he will invest and grow the economy. As a Calvinist, however (because I have a healthy respect for the doctrine of sin), I immediately recognized the danger in that approach -- that he would instead use his newly-awarded power to oppress the masses, and that's precisely what happened.

Two instances from 1984: Before I was hired there, the grocery chain where I worked for seven years strongarmed major wage and benefit concessions from its union workers. Earlier that year a bunch of union activists and some of their pastors disrupted my church's later Easter Sunday service amid complaints that church members who were executives with major steel companies were putting them out of work. (BTW, I live in Pittsburgh.)

Also happening was that, with the assumption that new office space would be needed, plenty of construction took place, which drove up the market for real estate -- and when those promised jobs never materialized the economy tanked (but this was during the first Bush presidency, so it wasn't directly tied to Reagan).

But conservatives were oblivious to all this and couldn't accept that their economic theories just didn't work, which is one reason why they resented (that word again) Bill Clinton so much for getting elected and cozying up to the business community -- part of the Reagan coalition -- in the process.

"God can shower as much grace on whoever he wants for as long as he wants and no one is harmed."

I am fairly sure that with a moment's deeper thought you will agree with me that this is not entirely so. God showered His grace on us - while we were still sinners / enemies of God, and He did this by becoming one of His lowly creations, living on earth (with all its poverty, heartache, etc), and then submitting to a shameful, painful death at the hands of His creation. All of this was so He could shower grace on undeserving us. Not only this, but Jesus remains human for all eternity, the first of us to rise and be seated in the presence of the Father, our eternal high priest at the right hand of the Father. While one surely cannot claim that Jesus/God was in any way permanently "harmed" by this outrageous outpouring of grace, one has to acknowledge the hugely, and permanently sacrificial nature of this outpouring of grace.

Have a look at what the Bible says about the resources at Gods, our Father's disposal. The whole point is that they are unlimited! However, I believe that the unlimited nature of the resources at our disposal via our Heavenly Father, is directly related to how we make use of those resources. I believe that as we are copy God in generosity, humility and love of others above ourselves, we will find that 5 loaves and 2 fish can go a really long way.

Brother Tony, you and Jim have helped me on my faith journey, which is why I logged in and found, with some disappointment, that your latest post was 7 months ago. I'm afraid I now agree with "There was a time you helped move me toward the truth, but ... I think you have lost your way. Let's get back on the journey." although I think Jim has fallen MUCH MUCH farther into conformity with the spirit of the times. The mortgage crisis is about a systemic failing, and I think your sincere sympathy for the dispossessed is missing the point both of the crooks (Democrats and Republicans) who caused the problem, and also the point of the parable. Tim Keller's "The Prodigal God" is a thoughtful, utterly non-ideological look at the parable from someone who "gets it"
Blessings,
Witness4Peace

this is such great information. thanks for the insight.

Nicely done, very impressive. Keep up the good work and of course, keep sharing your ideas.

this is telly awesome article.Thanks for sharing with us..

This is a great job! Well done. Thank you sharing your ideas and knowledge.

thanks for sharing with us.

this is such great information. thanks for the insight.