Enjoy the Process

Blog

  • An Intractable Amount of Intractable Issues

    Intractable.

    “Not easily governed, managed, or directed. Not easily relieved or cured.”[1] “It is a hard word, and one we wish wasn’t. Whenever we find ourselves needing that word, we are in a miserable place. Sometimes marriages seem like that, and we can see no way other than more sorrow. … Then sometimes the issues are more social and political, even global, ones that pit people against people, histories against histories, and hopes against hopes.”[2] In the era of the information age and late globalization, we are forced to face an intractable amount of intractable issues. This makes it exponentially harder to respond to the question, “Knowing what you know, what will you do?”[3]

    What I know is that I know too much. Our society has access to a gluttony of information. While it initially seemed that the democratization of information was for the benefit of mankind, “most of daily news is inert, consisting of information that gives us something to talk about but cannot lead to any meaningful action.”[4] Not only is the amount of information leading us to inertia, but our habits shaped by the “info-glut culture” compounds this effect.[5] “When you’ve spent twelve, fourteen, or eighteen years in school, your habits form in a non-reflective way. And it isn’t school’s job to make us reflective. We need to learn information. We need to pass examinations and be able to read and retain. But most of us have never been taught to read and listen reflectively.”[6] Adding another layer to this dilemma is globalization. Our modern society has never had more access to information and the global society has never been more connected. Our societies have been able to engage with other cultures with increasing ease, thus inviting more people to this intractable amount of information adding even more to it along with even more issues. And every culture has its own issues and its own response. While cultures maintain a certain level of distinction today, one has to wonder how the narrative of cultural globalization will unfold.[7]

    There are currently 193 “cultures” who have agreed upon the most pressing global issues.[8] Known as the Sustainable Development Goals, they represent 17 intractable issues such as ending poverty, gender equality, sanitation, climate action, and peace and justice to name a few.[9] The United Nations states that each goal “interconnect and in order to leave no one behind, it is important that [they] achieve each Goal and target by 2030.”[10] However, how does a society and or individual prioritize or discern which issue needs their attention? It seems that most Westerners have dialed down the “barometer of their hearts” due to the gluttony of information and issues.[11] Millennials frequently say, “it is what it is” and have resorted to a “culture of whatever.”[12]

    It is not for a lack of capability to engage with these global issues, but rather the culture of whatever is faced with its own intractable issue of finding purpose and meaning. We are in “the battle of purpose in a world of confusion,” states Bruno Roche, Chief Economist of Mars Inc.[13] Professor Steven Garber phrases it, “The most interesting questions, the most important questions always are, ‘Who or what is our reason for being? Why do we do the things we do? What does it all mean?’”[14] Even acclaimed scientist and atheist Stephen Hawking acknowledges that people “have craved an understanding of the underlying order in the world. Today we still yearn to know why we are here and where we came from.”[15]

    The challenge of this search for purpose and meaning is how many voices compete for everyone’s attention. And for better or worse, it is not economists, scholars, scientists, or pastors who are heard first, but rather it is culture.[16] Modern culture consists of the FAANG companies—i.e. Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Google—who dominate their respective fields and represent the future.[17] They embody the importance of the social network, technology, consumerism, entertainment, and information, respectively. And the harrowing condition of our time is the speed in which values change. In the late 20th century, the elite and wealthy were the first to own and display their newest gadgets, such as the first Apple Mac. However, “What we are seeing now is the luxurification of human engagement,” said Milton Pedraza, the chief executive of the Luxury Institute.[18] “Screens used to be for the elite. Now avoiding them is a status symbol.”[19] The use of screen time and the effects of digital technology is another intractable issue altogether and all this developed just within a couple decades. A brief analysis of social media reveals our most common interests, which consist of sports, music, TV personalities, and entertainment.[20] All this to say, despite the amount of power these technological companies have or the clout of social media influencers, neither are a rich source for discovering purpose and meaning. Once again, our society faces an intractable amount of information, including content for purpose and meaning, that is consumed with little to no reflection.

    Knowing what we know—or what we may think we know—can we still believe in a gospel which claims to be true, in a society and world with an intractable amount of intractable issues?[21] Can we hear the gospel amidst all the noise? In light of what has been discussed thus far regarding information gluttony, it would only be appropriate that there would be multiple voices proclaiming various emphases of the gospel and in respect to globalization, the conversation only gets more complicated when examining theology in the context of world Christianity.[22] For those who have been “evangelized by truncated versions of the biblical gospel,” the dire effect is that they “have little interest in the world, the public square, God’s plan for society and the nations, and even less understanding of God’s intention for creation itself.”[23]

    Regent College, an innovative graduate school of theology, seeks to combat this grave danger by equipping students with the full biblical gospel narrative. The global mission of Regent College is to “cultivate intelligent, vigorous, and joyful commitment to Jesus Christ, His church, and His world,” and in doing so, “preparing students to engage with their culture as thoughtful and prayerful Christians, sharing in Christ’s creative and redemptive mission to the world.” [24] The challenge for Regent College and perhaps most other academic institutions is the amount of issues discussed and the amount of information disseminated. Some of the issues and topics may overlap with those of culture, however, many are matters relevant to a select few. The reality of our day is most students who step into academic institutions have already been shaped and formed by the aforementioned info-glut culture, non-reflective primary education, and pluralistic society, that when discussing issues with others, it seems we once again run into that intractable amount of now relativistic, intractable issues. This becomes even more problematic when the language of scholars is so far removed from the language understood by the majority of culture.

    It is hopeful that most teachers, by the words of Simone Weil, “teach what it means to know,” and in a school of theology, hopefully to know God, not just know about God.[25] “The problem of the academy in every generation,” is the tension of “getting all A’s and flunking life.”[26] It is this tension Regent College seeks to address, preparing students to tackle “the perennial challenge of the gospel and culture—in but not of.”[27]

    So now we have the difficult task of primarily determining what is the gospel and second if this gospel which claims to be true, is true to the intractable amount of issues expressed in various global cultures, including the culture of whatever. This is certainly no easy task and while the temptation may be to say, “it is what it is,” we are the “first generation who will not be able to say, ‘I didn’t know.’”[28]

    It may seem daunting to truly pay attention to the intractable amount of intractable issues. It is difficult to determine what is the purest, most authentic form of the gospel. And it is equally challenging to have a firm handle on an elusive, evolving culture. However, if we hold to the proposition that “the household is the basic unit of culture and society, where persons are formed and loved,” perhaps then we may have a universal starting point to engage gospel and culture.[29] It is certainly not a sexy solution in comparison to innovative companies making a global impact, but perhaps it is one that will make substantial, incremental change.[30] It is a way to “sing songs shaped by the truest truths of the universe in a language the whole world can understand.”[31]

    While many search for their purpose or “calling” in regards to their profession or occupation, few seriously consider the “calling of marriage.”[32] If one is called to marriage, perhaps this is one of the best examples of “living proximately.” “To have good lives, we cannot spend much of life talking about utopian fantasies, about ‘wouldn’t it be nice’ worlds. In the end they are fictitious, false fictions, and therefore have very disappointing ends.”[33] It is easier to turn down the barometer of one’s heart regarding work or peripheral concerns, but it is much more difficult to do that to someone whom you love, without having an issue quickly become an intractable one. “‘Nurturing trust and commitment is a hell of a lot more hard work, but what choice do we have?’”[34]

    When we take our vocation of marriage and household seriously, or what I call a vocational dishwasher,[35] can we then clearly demonstrate the truths of the gospel, directly engaging with the existing culture and possibly shaping it into a better one. The marriage between a husband and wife is the only comparison to the mystery of the relationship between Jesus Christ and His Church.[36] If we are called to marriage and take that vocation seriously, perhaps that will be enough to shine the light of Jesus Christ in a “globalizing, pluralizing, and secularizing world.”[37] Within a vocational household, the best formation and demonstration of love can take place. There is no textbook on hamartiology that can convict me to the core about sin than when my full self is revealed in the heat of what seems like an intractable fight. There is also no other tangible demonstration of grace than when my wife forgives me and accepts me despite knowing all of me. A vocational marriage speaks into gender issues without having to politicize the topic. It is easy to talk about heated issues that arise in news or other avenues, but much more difficult to step into a countercultural reality where a wife becomes the primary breadwinner. To live into that reality joyfully and peacefully speaks so much more into cultures without adding further polarization. As technology paradoxically aids and threatens much of society and culture, each vocational household can address this issue by limiting the use of screens allowing for rich engagement between couples and with children. Although it seems much easier to quiet a child by distracting him or her with a tablet, perhaps parents can live proximately into a child’s life so that the grip of technology may loosen over time. Creation care is another hot issue in the global culture and it is easy to get lost in the sea of plastic. While it is more convenient for a family with a seemingly busy life to disregard issues concerning recycling, composting, and reducing trash production, by being responsible stewards of the planet, each household can contribute to this global cause without leaving the matters to an abstract corporate entity.

    By focusing on one calling, one vocation, can we then take meaningful action on a multitude of now seemingly intractable issues. Two short caveats are warranted here. This is not to disregard some of the more complicated, systemic issues. It is also easy to turn any good thing into an idol, including family, and there has been ample warning in the biblical narrative. However, it seems the pendulum has swung the other way and the time has come that more wholesome and winsome marriages and families are evermore needed today.

    An intractable amount of intractable issues is the conundrum of the globalized, pluralized, secularized world. In the beginning, I quoted that sometimes marriages may seem intractable. Perhaps this is the most important issue of all to address first. If we considered mankind as our primary business, demonstrating “charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence,” then we would see that the “dealings of [our] trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of [our] business!”[38] Identifying, analyzing, and addressing the intractable amount of intractable issues was the easy part, simply adding more information to the existing conversations. Now the more difficult task is to sing the song that I wrote, beginning with and to my beloved wife.

    [1] “Definition of INTRACTABLE,” accessed April 14, 2019, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intractable.

    [2] Steven Garber, “A Terrible Beauty,” The Washington Institute, March 11, 2017, https://www.washingtoninst.org/12826/a-terrible-beauty/.

    [3] Steven Garber, “In but Not of—The Perennial Challenge of the Gospel and Culture” (lecture, January 15, 2019).

    [4] Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business (New York: Penguin Books, 1986), 68.

    [5] Steven Garber, “The Responsibility of Knowledge” (lecture, April 2, 2019).

    [6] Eugene Peterson, “Having Ears, Do You Not Hear?,” Christianity Today, quoted in Steven Garber, “Learning & Life in the Information Age” (lecture, February 26, 2019).

    [7] “Cultural Globalization | Anthropology,” Encyclopedia Britannica, accessed April 14, 2019, https://www.britannica.com/science/cultural-globalization. Cultural globalization “reflects a standardization of cultural expressions” and a “trend toward homogeneity.” While outside the scope of this paper, we cannot ignore the possibility of this phenomenon while discussing this topic.

    [8] United Nations, “Overview,” accessed April 14, 2019. https://www.un.org/en/sections/about-un/overview/.

    [9] “About the Sustainable Development Goals,” United Nations Sustainable Development, accessed April 14, 2019, https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/.

    [10] Ibid.

    [11] Steven Garber, “The Great Conundrum” (lecture, January 29, 2019).

    [12] Steven Garber, Visions of Vocation (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Books, 2014), 69.

    [13] Economics of Mutuality, Bruno Roche ZAOJIU Talk in China, accessed April 15, 2019, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfsaYFOf-Bw.

    [14] Steven Garber, “Words That Matter,” The Washington Institute, February 4, 2016, http://www.washingtoninst.org/10862/words-that-matter/.

    [15] Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes (Toronto: Bantam Books, 1988), 13.

    [16] Steven Garber, “Making Culture Matters,” The Washington Institute, November 22, 2016, http://www.washingtoninst.org/12308/why-making-culture-matters/.

    [17] Will Kenton, “What Are FAANG Stocks?,” Investopedia, accessed April 14, 2019, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/faang-stocks.asp.

    [18] Nellie Bowles, “Human Contact Is Now a Luxury Good,” The New York Times, March 29, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/sunday-review/human-contact-luxury-screens.html.

    [19] Ibid.

    [20] Based on personal research of top influencers in Instagram, YouTube, and Facebook.

    [21] Adapted from a quote by Lesslie Newbigin, found in Garber, “In but Not Of.”

    [22] For an excellent discussion on this topic, see Timothy C. Tennent, Theology in the Context of World Christianity: How the Global Church Is Influencing the Way We Think about and Discuss Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007).

    [23] Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God’s People: A Biblical Theology of the Church’s Mission (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2010), Loc 5250, Kindle.

    [24] “Mission and Values,” Regent College, accessed April 14, 2019, https://www.regent-college.edu/about-us/mission-and-values.

    [25] Garber, “The Responsibility of Knowledge.”

    [26] Ibid.

    [27] Garber, “In but Not Of.”

    [28] Economics of Mutuality, Bruno Roche.

    [29] “Rebuilding the Household: Family & Church in the Technological Age,” Regent College, accessed April 15, 2019, https://www.regent-college.edu/course-listing/course-details/INDS.504.

    [30] Economics of Mutuality, Bruno Roche.

    [31] Quote in, Garber, “Making Culture Matters.”

    [32] Video interview with Kate Harris in Steven Garber, “Love in the Ruins” (lecture, March 5, 2019).

    [33] Garber, Visions of Vocation, 220.

    [34] Harry Stein, “The Big A: If You Want Frustration, Guilt, and Anxiety, Try Adultery,” quote in Steven Garber, “The Truth About Love,” The Washington Institute, February 27, 2013, http://www.washingtoninst.org/3517/the-truth-about-love/.

    [35] See Robert Lee, Theological Reflection of a Vocational Dishwasher (essay, March 1, 2019).

    [36] Eph 5:32 (NIV)

    [37] Quote by Steven Garber, Gospel and Culture class.

    [38] Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol and Other Stories (Pleasantville, N.Y.: Reader’s Digest Association, 1988), 33.

  • The Influence of Economic Prosperity on Religious Flourishing: A Case Study of South Korea

    The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism by Max Weber argues that “practicality has somehow received the sanction of modern religious understanding, so that what appears to be purely pragmatic and egoistic behavior is actually religiously motivated in some way; [and] religious understanding has somehow been debunked within modern culture in such a way as to give a free reign to practicality and pragmatism.”[1] In this paper, I will argue that economic prosperity—regardless of the root cause being of Christian origin—compounded by the effects of globalization,[2] will inevitably lead to a practical and pragmatic worldview that will impact people of all nations, including Christians. I will utilize Korea as a case study for this trend, which in turn can be analyzed as a signpost for the larger global society.

    The history of Korea is plagued with a tumultuous narrative of multiple, successful invasions from various nations.[3] While the prosperous footprint of South Korea can be seen internationally today, it has been only less than a century since the end of Japanese rule and the Korean War, leaving the nation to rebuild from its agricultural roots.[4] Since the war, South Korea has seen unprecedented economic growth, which has been coined as the “Miracle of the Hangang River.”[5]

    This miracle can be attributed to earlier forms of globalization with the involvement of Japan and Western nations. While the Japanese colonial rule of Korea in the early 20th century has been associated with much tragedy, it has also paradoxically aided in the development and modernization of Korea.[6] “Undeniable economic exploitation by Japan, especially in the agricultural sector, was balanced by the deliberate creation, often for strategic reasons, of the public works and communications infrastructure of a modern country.”[7] Following the Korean War, the 1965 normalization treaty “provided for a $500 million settlement in grants and loans which Japan promised to South Korea” and in turn greatly helped stimulate the economy.[8] As the economy of South Korea grew, it quickly attracted international attention and received investments from the United States and other Western nations.[9]

    As the external influences of globalization aided in South Korea’s miracle recovery, rebuilding with improved technology was also integral to the nation’s growth. Known as the Saemaul movement, this was a collective effort to improve the rural standard of living alongside the industrial development.[10] Improved agricultural technology and proper infrastructure has essentially rid rural poverty in South Korea.[11] The Saemaul movement continues to be an indispensable part of South Korea and its modernization and economic improvement.[12]

    The miraculous economic growth of South Korea cannot be examined without exploring a parallel miraculous growth of Christianity in the 20th century. In 1900, only 1% of the population of South Korea was Christian and by 2010, it grew to roughly 30% of the population.[13] This growth has been attributed to varying circumstantial and spiritual reasons. In the early 20th century, the “Japanese oppression of the Korean church… cast it as a champion of Korean nationalism.”[14] Christianity later provided various social improvements such as education, medical aid, and community engagement.[15] In regards to the spiritual climate of Korea, there was a natural attraction to the Christian ideas of salvation.[16] In addition, there was a strong emphasis on evangelism, prayer, and Bible studies.[17]

    At this point, one could argue that the growth of Christianity could have been a root cause of the growth of economic prosperity in South Korea, especially when considering what Max Weber explicated in the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.[18] While it is evident that Korea was influenced by Western culture and values,[19] I argue, it is irrelevant whether economic prosperity comes from a Christian origin or other means such as through globalization and improved technology. It seems once a nation reaches a certain level of prosperity, that nation will inevitably veer towards a form of secularization as seen in Western nations and now in South Korea.

    As discussed thus far, economic prosperity and Christianity has seen tremendous growth over the past century in South Korea. However, Christian growth has now somewhat stagnated, reaching a “saturation point” particularly for Protestantism.[20] Despite South Korea being considered one of the centers for global Christianity,[21] the plurality—i.e. 46%—of the country has no religious affiliation.[22] Economic growth, on the other hand, continues to rise—in 2017, South Korea ranked 12th in gross domestic product.[23] The technological development in South Korea has vastly improved and according to one study, ranks third in the entire world, just behind Japan and the United States.[24] The development and progress of South Korea since the Korean War has vastly improved “the material quality of life,”[25] however a former South Korean pastor argues that “the church faces the challenge of filling the spiritual void in Korea, which has been created by materialism and the obsession with economic development.”[26] (italics mine) Reverend Kisung Yoo, a senior pastor of a church in Seoul, also acknowledges that “the Korean church has achieved tremendous quantitative growth since the 1980s, but there has been too little focus on qualitative growth.”[27] He is seeking to battle the “challenges of secularization” through the Walking with Jesus movement, a combination of spiritual practices aided by the use of digital technology.[28]

    The story of Christianity in South Korea is still being written and perhaps it is too early to make any definitive conclusions. However, if the Western church is any indicator of its progress in light of its prosperity, it will be challenging to say the least. Son Bong-ho, a philosophy professor, criticizes the South Korean church having “a fatal lack of critical attitude toward the materialism of modern culture.”[29] And the spiritual void mentioned earlier could very well be a result of the “impact of revolutionary capitalism” and how a modern system creates a “cultural vacuum.”[30] While South Korea is not a Christian nation in the same sense Western Europe or North America was, there is a similar pattern developing even in its short history that aligns well with Weber’s critique that practicality and pragmatism will reign.[31]

    By utilizing South Korea as a case study, one can see the impact economic prosperity has on a country in a relatively short span of time. South Korea has had a unique experience, and despite its tremendous and rapid growth, it is facing similar challenges that Western Christians are addressing, such as materialism and consumerism. While most of the development of South Korea happened in the 20th century, a time period filled with massive innovation that fueled globalization,[32] the technological innovation happening in the 21st century is only compounding these effects. Take for example, the number of monthly active Facebook users in 2008 was 100 million and by the end of 2018, it had 2.32 billion monthly active users.[33] This accounts for approximately 30% of the world population.[34] Our global society has never been more connected than it is today.

    Despite the complexities associated with defining and placing globalization, it is a trend that will continue to progress, for better or worse. My focus is not to argue for or against globalization as some have attempted, but that it is an inevitable reality.[35] Technology and economy will progress, most notably now in the form of cryptocurrencies and digital money. This new technology offers a “gospel” to developing nations and is a practical means of lifting them up out of poverty.[36] When nations and their people are hyperconnected to the world and can make financial transactions with one another ultimately improving their standard of living, there is no need for any other gospel, [37] especially when they realize how poor Western Christians have responded to the needs of their global neighbors.[38] This is particularly concerning as Christianity has shifted to the Global South and is growing in developing nations. As globalization will exponentially increase the speed in which nations reach a certain level of prosperity, the global church should take heed with what is happening to the church of South Korea.

    When nations and their people are hyperconnected to the world and can make financial transactions with one another ultimately improving their standard of living, there is no need for any other gospel, especially when they realize how poor Western Christians have responded to the needs of their global neighbors.

    The key takeaway here is to recognize that this complex force of globalization and modernization may be the biggest competitor to any form of religious flourishing. The greater danger is that those who are engaged with globalization are making futile arguments for resistance, while the vast majority of Christians and non-Christians alike are either ignoring or fearing it.[39] Peter Heslam, who works from an interdisciplinary approach, may have stated it best: “The only substantial agreement is that this is a transitional period. Many of the values, assumptions and structures that once enjoyed broad acceptance have been set aside, but new ones have not yet fully emerged.”[40] While this temptation is nothing new to followers of Christ as he instructed that we cannot serve two masters, hopefully the global church will not follow in the same patterns as the church of South Korea.[41]

    [1] Taken from Craig Gay’s explanation of Max Weber’s thesis found here: Craig M. Gay, Cash Values: Money and the Erosion of Meaning in Today’s Society (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans and Regent College Pub, 2004), 27.

    [2] Globalization, defined for the purposes of this paper, is a process in which people of all nations are being evermore connected by means of technology, including but not limited to communication, manufacturing, and production, thereby making every decision and action interwoven and impactful on a global scale.

    [3] David Rees, A Short History of Modern Korea (New York: Hippocrene Books, 1988), 2.

    [4] Ibid., 64.

    [5] “The Korean Economy – the Miracle on the Hangang River,” Korea.net, accessed April 9, 2019. http://www.korea.net/AboutKorea/Economy/The-Miracle-on-The-Hangang.

    [6] Rees, 72.

    [7] Ibid.

    [8] Ibid., 148.

    [9] Ibid., 149.

    [10] Ibid., 151.

    [11] Ibid., 155.

    [12] Ibid., 154.

    [13] Philip Connor, “6 facts about South Korea’s growing Christian population,” Pew Research Center, accessed April 9, 2019. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/08/12/6-facts-about-christianity-in-south-korea/.

    [14] Donald N. Clark, Christianity in Modern Korea, Asian Agenda Report 5 (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1986), 36.

    [15] Ibid., 29-30.

    [16] Ibid., 36.

    [17] Ibid.

    [18] While outside the scope of this paper, this would be an intriguing proposition to explore as Protestantism constitutes most of the Christian population in South Korea. See Douglas G. Jacobsen, The World’s Christians: Who They Are, Where They Are, and How They Got There (Chichester, West Sussex, U.K. ; Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 190.

    [19] Clark, xi, 47-49.

    [20] Jacobsen, 191.

    [21] Ibid., 373.

    [22] Connor, Pew Research Center.

    [23] “Gross domestic product 2017,” World Bank, January 25, 2019, accessed April 11, 2019. https://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/GDP.pdf.

    [24] David Allouche, “Top 10 of the Most High Tech Countries in the World,” accessed April 10, 2019. http://www.young-diplomats.com/top-10-high-tech-countries-world/.

    [25] Clark, 16.

    [26] Ibid., 37.

    [27] Kisung Yoo & Paul Sung Noh, “The Korean Cyber Monastery Movement: Overcoming the challenges of secularization,” Lausanne Global Analysis Vol 7, Issue 5 (Sep 2018), accessed April 11, 2019. https://www.lausanne.org/content/lga/2018-09/the-korean-cyber-monastery-movement

    [28] Ibid.

    [29] Clark, 25.

    [30] Gay, 42-3.

    [31] Ibid., 27.

    [32] Robert Angus Buchanan, “The 20th century,” History of technology, accessed April 10, 2019. https://www.britannica.com/technology/history-of-technology/The-20th-century

    [33] “Number of monthly active Facebook users worldwide as of 4th quarter 2018 (in millions),” statista, accessed April 11, 2019. https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/.

    [34] Calculated based on 7.7 billion people in the world from http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/, accessed April 10, 2019.

    [35] Peter S. Heslam, Globalization: Unravelling the New Capitalism, Grove Ethics Series ; E125 (Cambridge [England]: Grove Books Ltd., 2003), 25.

    [36] In reference to the remittance industry and digital money in smaller fractions than the US dollar. See Don Tapscott and Alex Tapscott, Blockchain Revolution: How the Technology Behind Bitcoin Is Changing Money, Business, and the World (New York: Portfolio, 2016).

    [37] Myers, 255.

    [38] See Ronald J. Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger: Moving from Affluence to Generosity, Reprint edition (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2015).

    [39] Myers, 4.

    [40] Heslam, 3.

    [41] Matt 6:24.

  • The Boundless Universe Proposal: Engaging Science and Theology

    An understanding of space and time is inextricably linked to an understanding of cosmology. Religions, philosophers, and the sciences are seeking to understand these concepts better. “Before 1915, space and time were thought of as a fixed arena in which events took place, but which was not affected by what happened in it. … It was natural to think that space and time went on forever.”[1] However, Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity shifted these prior conceptions. “The old idea of an essentially unchanging universe that could have existed, and could continue to exist, forever was replaced by the notion of a dynamic, expanding universe that seems to have begun a finite time ago, and that might end at a finite time in the future.”[2] Based on just these two scientific ideas, it is apparent how people can think about space-time in an eternal or finite sense. In this paper, I will argue that Stephen Hawking’s proposal on a no boundary universe may broaden our current understanding of cosmology and in effect, may provide a more robust eschatology.

    Before diving into Hawking’s proposal, I would like to investigate what happened in the seventeenth-century with the infamous trial of Galileo Galilei. I would like to frame this paper in this context so that Hawking’s proposal is not simply dismissed on the grounds of pure scientific inquiry. Galileo’s main proposal was to defend the Copernican system of heliocentrism[3]—a cosmological understanding that most take for granted today. A pre-Copernican cosmology assumed that the earth was static and the sun revolved around it. It was a “common popular assent” that was also accepted by those with ecclesiastical authority.[4] The Holy Office and ecclesiastical court “declared the motion of the earth to be ‘stupid and absurd in philosophy.’”[5] They “held that the immobility of the sun was foolish and formally heretical because it contradicted the literal meaning of the Scriptures.”[6] When Galileo published the Dialogue on the Two Principal World Systems, he was eventually “suspected of heresy” and condemned to prison for promoting the Copernican model.[7]

    They “held that the immobility of the sun was foolish and formally heretical because it contradicted the literal meaning of the Scriptures.”

    While this is an extremely brief snapshot of what took place, the intention of my investigation is to highlight the true tragedy that ensued. The “rejection of a purely scientific theory of the universe was a disastrous blunder for the church. It led not only to Galileo’s condemnation in 1633, but also to an antiscience reputation.”[8] We are now approaching nearly four centuries since this incident and while there have been some attempts to bridge the gap between science and religion, the two camps are still largely at odds with or simply have no relevance to one another. Theologians still argue that “theology is queen of all the sciences, [and] she need not bend in any way to accommodate herself to the teachings of less worthy sciences which are subordinate to her.”[9] And non-theologians believe that “science has replaced theology on the throne of Western thought.”[10] The main takeaway here is that the Church and Christians should not dismiss scientific theory on aiding in matters such as cosmology or we would still assume that the earth was static. Galileo understood the different roles science and theology ought to play in understanding the universe. By adopting his theological and scientific worldview, I hope the following presentation of Stephen Hawking’s proposal on the no boundary universe will not be read with a presupposed, antiscience posture.

    Stephen Hawking, interestingly, was born exactly 300 years after the death of Galileo.[11] He also interacted with an ecclesiastical authority during his lifetime when he and other experts were invited to attend a conference on cosmology hosted by the Catholic Church. The pope advised these experts “that it was all right to the study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but [they] should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God.”[12] Ironically enough, Hawking did not want to suffer the same fate as Galileo as his proposal posited “the possibility that space-time was finite but had no boundary,” thus could mean that “it had no beginning, no moment of Creation.”[13]

    The boundless universe proposal is Hawking’s attempt to formulate a unified theory on quantum mechanics and gravity.[14] Two features necessary for this unified theory is “Feynman’s proposal to formulate quantum theory in terms of a sum over histories” and “Einstein’s idea that the gravitational field is represented by curved space-time.”[15] Explaining these complex theories in detail are outside the scope of this paper, however, one very interesting concept Hawking discusses is the use of imaginary time. He likens the idea to the mathematical concept of imaginary and real numbers. In order to overcome the technical difficulties found in Feynman’s proposal, one must measure time using imaginary numbers, which “has an interesting effect on space-time: the distinction between time and space disappears completely.”[16] This creates a boundless universe where space-time would appear like the surface of the earth. “The surface of the earth is finite in extent but it doesn’t have a boundary or edge” as depicted below.[17]

    Source: Figure from Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (Toronto: Bantam Books, 1988), 138.

    Hawking argues, “There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. … The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE.”[18] He continues,

    “In real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to space-time and at which the laws of science break down. … So maybe what we call imaginary time is really more basic, and what we call real is just an idea that we invent to help us describe what we think the universe is like. … So it is meaningless to ask: Which is real, ‘real’ or ‘imaginary’ time? It is simply a matter of which is the more useful description.”[19]

    As demonstrated by this summary, the boundless universe proposal has some major implications, particularly with how people perceive time, that I will discuss later.

    Hawking sought to propose a new model for the universe not for simple aesthetic or metaphysical thought, but because this was important to explain the very existence of life in his way with his particular talents and language.[20] Interestingly, he saw limitations to the current theories on the origin of the universe from a scientific and mathematical perspective, including the “hot big bang model,” which is generally accepted by most in the modern West.[21] Hawking also does not accept a simple, relativistic approach such as the “anthropic principle” where we simply see the universe the way we perceive it to be.[22] And he does not leave it up to mere chance as that would remove all hope and understanding.[23]

    While most may not use the technical language above to describe their beliefs and thoughts on the origin of the universe, the contemporary sentiment and understanding of cosmology vastly ranges including these views. Most in the pragmatic West are not interested in these topics and give little thought to them, yet would probably borrow from a mixture of sources to formulate an opinion if probed. As evidenced earlier, religious leaders are not exempt from the broader cultural shaping as well. In the Middle-Ages, most of society acknowledged a “God-confidence” over self-confidence and did everything to the glory of God.[24] However, the prevailing thought on cosmology was the Ptolemaic model. Hawking critiques the adoption of this model by the Christian church because it fit with the reading of Scripture, “for it had the great advantage that it left lots of room outside the sphere of fixed stars for heaven and hell.”[25] Martin Luther also operated from a pre-Copernican cosmology. While he mocked those who placed God in a cosmological way, he reasoned that “because the visible heaven or sky is constantly moving, … this would mean that God cannot sit still for one moment.”[26] And now, Hawking argues, “With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws.”[27] Cosmology has advanced since Galileo’s time, however, it is still a large mystery now as it was then. While religious and university establishments may have overstepped their boundaries influencing Galileo’s trial,[28] the result now where science and religion have little to no interaction with one another is just as detrimental to a wholesome understanding of the universe and time.

    Considering the current understanding of cosmology, or lack thereof, what would a wholesome interaction between science and theology look like? That is, if Stephen Hawking’s proposal on the boundless universe was proven by observational evidence and advance quantum computing, how would religious leaders respond to these discoveries? Two major implications would be regarding the nature of creation and the concept of time. Hawking states, “If the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be.” He follows by questioning, “What place, then, for a creator?”[29] The knee-jerk reaction of most conservative Christians would be to judge this as heresy. It is very clear from one of the most famous Bible verses, “In the beginning God created the heavens and earth.”[30] However, what if this was not a description of the entire universe, as we understand today, but utilizing the anthropic principle, was how Moses and Jewish believers understood their cosmology? How would Hawking’s analogous description of the universe as a surface be compared to the darkness “over the surface of the deep,” and how “the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters?”[31] Either one would have to acknowledge this surface was in reference to the earth or the surface of the universe. On the other side of the coin, Hawking’s proposal would not necessarily negate the singularity of a moment of creation, particularly in real time. “When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities.”[32]

    It is the concept of time that will also face major challenges if the boundless universe proposal is proven to be true. As mentioned earlier, based on the classical theory of gravity, most assume that the universe existed for an infinite amount of time or had a particular beginning and thus may have a particular end.[33] This is not a new concept as most other religions or worldviews operate in a cyclical perception of time while a “linear understanding of time originated in the Judeo-Christian religion.”[34] The boundless universe proposal would appear to enrich this concept of time. It would not necessarily disprove any current understanding of linear time as this is what is perceived in real time. However, time would not necessarily end in the way a modern person perceives time as a chronological, historical idea.

    It is also this concept of imaginary and real time that I believe greatly aids one’s understanding of “spiritual time”.[35] The practical Western mind that has operated under chronological, linear time would find conversations about a higher form of time as something out of science fiction or the Marvel Universe. However, what if the distinction Hawking makes as real and imaginary time is what Charles Taylor defined as ordinary and higher time, or sacramental time? A modern individual, unfortunately, looks on antiquated philosophies with suspicion. However, if novel scientific discoveries can validate some of these seemingly antiquated ideas of cosmology and eschatology, perhaps there can be better explanations of the origin and eschaton of the universe and time.

    With any good scientific theory, there would have to be rebuttals. The first was already mentioned that Hawking’s boundless universe proposal is just that, a proposal. Also, quantum mechanics and computing are still limited even till this day. An argument could be made that Stephen Hawking is an atheist,[36] but to reiterate again, this posture will only be detrimental to all. Another rebuttal from a religious perspective would be on how to place the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. While space does not permit to thoroughly explain the various arguments, the biggest challenge for contemporary theologians in the West would be to suspend their interpretation of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo from a temporal perspective.[37]            

    This presentation of Stephen Hawking’s boundless universe proposal is not an argument to adopt this model, despite how it can enrich one’s understanding of the universe and time. With new discoveries in the sciences and a rich theological foundation, an interdisciplinary approach to understanding life may be beneficial to all of humanity. If both camps conversed with humble postures, perhaps we can continue to uncover the mysteries of the universe. Hawking attempted to convey “the basic ideas about the origin and fate of the universe” without using complex mathematical formulas, which most who do not have an advanced education would not understand.[38] He presumes that most “go about our daily lives understanding almost nothing of the world. … In our society it is still customary for parents and teachers to answer most of these questions with a shrug, or with an appeal to vaguely religious precepts.”[39] I believe the onus is on scholars of both science and theology to convey their messages in a language that the majority will be able to understand. “Ever since the dawn of civilization, people have not been content to see events as unconnected and inexplicable. They have craved an understanding of the underlying order in the world. Today we still yearn to know why we are here and where we came from.[40] Let us hope we do not make the disastrous blunder of separating science and theology to the point where leading intellectuals convince their people that the “Son” revolves around the earth.

    [1] Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes (Toronto: Bantam Books, 1988), 33.

    [2] Hawking, 33–34.

    [3] I.e. the sun is stationary and the earth revolves around the sun.

    [4] Galileo Galilei, “Letter to Madame Christina of Lorraine, Grand Duchess of Tuscany,” Inters.org, accessed March 19, 2019. http://inters.org/Galilei-Madame-Christina-Lorraine.

    [5] Charles E. Hummel, The Galileo Connection: Resolving Conflicts between Science & the Bible (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 109.

    [6] Ibid., 108.

    [7] Ibid., 9–13.

    [8] Ibid., 112.

    [9] Galileo, “Letter to Christina”.

    [10] Hummel, 7.

    [11] Hawking, 116.

    [12] Ibid.

    [13] Ibid.

    [14] Hawking admits that this proposal cannot be deduced from other principles. “The real test,” he states, “is whether it makes predictions that agree with observation.” See Hawking, 136-7.

    [15] Ibid, 134-5.

    [16] Ibid., 134.

    [17] Hawking, 135-6.

    [18] Ibid., 136.

    [19] Ibid., 139.

    [20] Hawking, 13, 136.

    [21] Ibid., 116.

    [22] Ibid., 124.

    [23] Ibid., 133.

    [24] Hans Schwarz, Eschatology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 14.

    [25] Hawking, 3.

    [26] Schwarz, 401.

    [27] Hawking, 140. Also see Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2007), 325.

    [28] Hummel, 125.

    [29] Hawking, 141.

    [30] Gen 1:1 (NASB).

    [31] Gen 1:2.

    [32] Hawking, 139.

    [33] Ibid., 33-4, 135.

    [34] Schwarz, 7.

    [35] Taylor, 54-5.

    [36] Alan Boyle, “‘I’m an Atheist’: Stephen Hawking on God and Space Travel,” accessed March 18, 2019. https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/i-m-atheist-stephen-hawking-god-space-travel-n210076.

    [37] See Alan Torrance, “Creatio ex Nihilo and the Spatio-Temporal Dimensions, with special reference to Jürgen Moltmann and D. C. Williams,” Chapter 5 of The Doctrine of Creation: Essays in Dogmatics, History, and Philosophy, ed. Colin E. Gunton (Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark, 1997), 83-103. Torrance engages with Moltmann’s linear view of time as well as his possible suggestion of panentheism. He also engages with D. C. Williams who discusses the four-dimensional aspect of space-time from a philosophical perspective, which Hawking also argues from a scientific model.

    [38] Hawking, vi.

    [39] Ibid., ix.

    [40] Ibid., 13.

  • Book Review: Theology in the context of World Christianity: how the global church is influencing the way we think about and discuss theology

    By Timothy C. Tennent
    Zondervan, 2007
    295 pages
    ISBN-13: 978-0-310-27511-4
    $43.99 CAD

    In the era of late globalization, it is jarring that there is not a greater concern and focus on theological discussions with a global framework. Timothy C. Tennent’s Theology in the context of World Christianity is a much-needed work, particularly for theologians who still operate under the assumption that Christianity solely follows a Western narrative. As the tides of Christianity have shifted to the Majority World, it is important “to explore the implications these shifts are having in the formulation of theological discourse” (11). Tennent argues for the “mutual exchange” between theologians and missiologists (22), between Christians from old Christendom and new burgeoning areas of religious plurality, in the hopes that with humble collaboration, a beautiful church of Jesus Christ would emerge.

    Tennent unapologetically structures his book under major headings of systematic theology (19), which include, theology, bibliology, anthropology, Christology, soteriology, pneumatology, ecclesiology, and eschatology. He explores each topic within the context of emerging churches in non-Western continents, particularly those who have come to know Jesus Christ from an Islam, Hindu, or Buddhist background (21).

    Tennent seeks to bridge the gap between students studying systematic theology from a Western perspective and Christians who are from the Majority World asking questions rooted in their culture and traditions. He notes that while there may be some acceptance of cultural translatability—referencing Andrew Walls’ “pilgrim” and “indigenizing” principles (12)—there is a greater hesitancy to accept theological translatability, which he defines as “the ability of the kerygmatic essentials of the Christian faith to be discovered and restated within an infinite number of new global contexts” (16). It is upon this premise that he engages his readers in hopes that they will listen to the various theological questions that are being asked by a rapidly growing church. By structuring his book in this manner, Tennent is bringing this conversation to the forefront, highlighting the fact that it is no longer “mere squabble” among “Christians with strange faces from even stranger places,” but these new Christian voices are influencing what the West has viewed as essential truths and expressions (19).

    An example of the significance of this conversation is how Christians from an African heritage express their Christology—see Chapter 5. Tennent begins most of his discussions with a general background to the particular topic of systematic theology from a Western perspective. He then introduces the particular people group or religion and then provides a case-study on how these emerging Christians influence the theological discussion of the specific topic at hand. While many may be comfortable with their “Christology from the shelves of universities” (117), Christians from Africa are challenging Western Christians with a different “ontic expansion of God in Jesus Christ” (111). Tennent demonstrates that these are no longer peripheral matters, but are central to the developing Christology not only in Africa, but for Christians around the world and through time.

    In the concluding chapter, Tennent promotes for a “renaissance in Western theological scholarship” (250). He concludes with four key themes that may mutually benefit theological scholarship and missiological praxis, which then will serve “to pull the entire church forward into that great eschatological fact of Jesus Christ” (272).

    While a theological scholar may easily dismiss this work due to the brevity and treatment of each theological topic, Tennent is well aware and admits that this book is not exhaustive. Yet, it is “suggestive” of the “general direction of theological inquiry in the context of global Christianity” (271). Theology students studying in Western contexts simply may not have the experience or awareness of some of these matters discussed in Tennent’s book. He provides a broad background and technical language so scholars may, hopefully, engage with these topics and even more so, the people behind them (22).

    Tennent writes with experience as a pastor, missionary, and seminary professor (250), thus knowing the strengths and weaknesses of each vocation. While he has nearly twenty years of experience in India and with Hinduism (xxi), he gives fair weight to other regions and beliefs such as Africa, Japan, Latin America, Muslim nations, and China, to name a few. He assesses the complexities of each culture and or religion and the impact they have on theological reflection and practice. He asks in the conclusion of his chapter on theology, “Why do theological students in the West continue to spend countless hours learning about the writings of a few well-known, now deceased, German theologians whose global devotees are quite small, and yet completely ignore over one billion living, breathing Muslims who represent one of the most formidable challenges to the Christian gospel today” (49)? Upon reading this book, at the very least, students will no longer be able to plead ignorance.

    On the other side of the spectrum, Tennent also does not want to dismiss the importance of traditional systematic theology. He does not give in to mere syncretism or relativism, but defends against some of the emerging trends with strong biblical references. His posture though is not one of determining which train of thought is most correct, but again “to think more globally about the formation of theology and to expand our own understanding of what it means to be a Christian in the twenty-first century” (xviii).

    It is this very theme that interweaves from the beginning of the book to the end. And in doing so, Tennent’s work provides a refreshing critique of Western theological scholarship. During my own studies, I have found that much of Christian reflection is done in a “theological vacuum” (35) and many of the questions being asked have little to no relevance in a globalized, pluralized world. Global or World Christianity should not be an elective course or peripheral topic for students in the West, but rather be mandatory regardless if one ventures out of their comfortable Western lifestyles and thought. At the least, this book may equip Western students to converse with people of different backgrounds. Or with more hope, to humble ourselves to admit that our “experience and expression of Christianity” is not “normative for all Christians everywhere” (6).

    In my own reading, it was difficult to pinpoint any major issues with Tennent’s work. Perhaps at times he could be overly harsh on Western Christians, however, I believe his criticisms are warranted. His main audience is Western theology students. Thus, he still uses language, such as kerygmatic or preparatio evangelica, which is tailored to this demographic. However, he provides a glossary at the end of the book to ensure that this work can be used as a platform for all Christians to engage with one another. Another minor point of contention is Tennent’s use of Protestant or Evangelical interchangeably. It may have been helpful if he clarified what he meant by his use of labels, however, it may also reflect how muddy denominational affiliation can be.

    Tennent reminds us that “in the context of global Christianity we must first and foremost see ourselves as Christians proclaiming the apostolic faith and only secondarily as Reformed Christians, Pentecostal Christians, Dispensational Christians, or Arminian Christians” (269). With the aid of this book and more importantly with God being sovereign over all, we Christians in the twenty-first century can do our part and begin this long and complex process of being a people from every nation, tribe, people, and language (Rev 7:9).

    The author is currently undertaking a Masters in Theological Studies at Regent University.

  • Theological Reflection of a Vocational Dishwasher

    “You cook, I will clean,”

    I told my beloved wife. My wife and I agreed this would be a fair distribution of household duties while considering our natural preferences and desires. I do not mind cleaning and prefer doing the dishes. Cleaning dishes began as nothing more than a simple responsibility within the complex dynamic of a marital relationship. However, it has now evolved to be a mirror reflecting culture, theology, identity, vocation, and technology. Dishwashing has aided in the development of my personal theological foundation as well as of my understanding of how the gospel relates to (my) culture.[1] Dishwashing has helped me understand the overarching narrative of culture; pushed me to question what is the good news of Jesus Christ and its relevance to my role as a dishwasher; redeemed my understanding of identity and vocation; and guided my reflection on the impact of technology.

    “Can you please put away your dirty dishes,”

    my mom occasionally told me while growing up. Dishwashing and anything related to it was never something to look forward to or be inspired by. My experiences as a dishwasher began in my early childhood, when putting away the dishes and sometimes cleaning them was nothing more than a menial chore. If anything, both cooking and cleaning were the tasks of my mother—the kids simply put their dishes away once finished with the meal. Later into adolescence, the chore slightly evolved acquiring a small payment for doing the task and with rare glimpses of maturity, I did my own dishes perhaps to help out my mother from time-to-time or to establish some sort of illusionary independence. I also learned at an early age that cleaning in general was the only job I could get without requiring special skill sets or simply being older. It seemed my own childhood experiences were universal as I learned when I started living with roommates during my undergraduate years. No one enjoyed doing the dishes and they would frequently pile up in the sink, leading to a game of who can stack the dishes the highest without touching the spout. It seemed as if I frequently lost this game as I ended up doing them out of frustration. This general pattern persisted up until my marriage, where I voluntarily chose to be the primary dishwasher or dishwasher loader—more will be said about this later.

    My past experiences, including being the primary dishwasher for the past five years, has taught me much about culture. Dishwashing serves as a reflection on how culture views identity and what it values. Much of our cultural identity is shaped by what we do which further reflects what we value. And the role and function of a dishwasher is not on the high-end of what culture values. A simple job search easily reveals this notion and even more so, people do not attend university so they could obtain a degree in household cleaning.[2] Washing dishes as a function also does not “help pay for the bills” as the cliché goes. This challenged the deep-rooted narrative that had been written on my mind and heart for many years—the value of culture is largely determined by occupation and close behind that, money.[3],[4]

    The subtlety of this value taking hold of my worldview revealed itself once I became a dishwasher. Prior to marriage, I thought I genuinely affirmed the role of full-time, stay-at-home mothers, recognizing household duties as valuable and necessary work. However, once I was in the position to be a full-time, house husband, that genuine affirmation slowly eroded after realizing one of my primary responsibilities was to wash dishes. According to cultural standards, because I had no occupation and was making little to no money, what I did had little value and in turn, my very identity as well.

    Our occupations provide financial and social value. Thus, occupations that are high-paying or with significant titles generally hold more currency. There has also been a more recent shift or rather attachment to this cultural narrative, where personal fulfillment and meaning has become a major factor in choosing one’s occupation.[5] It would also be easy to assume that this cultural narrative is only a secular one. Particularly from a Western Christian perspective, there is an additional “religious currency” where the most valuable occupations or callings, to spiritualize the term, are ministerial roles such as pastors or traditional missionaries. Other occupations merely exist to support the institutional church’s agenda.[6] This false dichotomy between the sacred and secular and hierarchy of what one does plagues Western Christianity. In essence, so called sacred vocations are much more valuable than being a dishwasher. This version of the gospel of Jesus Christ has nothing to do with washing dishes, or one’s occupation, and more importantly, one’s vocation.

    “Do you believe Jesus died for your sins,”

    would be the most common focus of the version of Christianity I knew. Where dishwashing reflects a broad cultural narrative, what is reflects about the gospel in most Christian narratives is the mere irrelevance of one to the other. Through my journey of becoming a vocational dishwasher, I have questioned what is the gospel. My prior understanding of the Christian gospel is my belief in Jesus Christ for my personal salvation. While there may be some truth to this, this solely individualistic perspective and “truncated version of the biblical gospel” has no relevance to the broader culture, society, and world.[7] While “it is gloriously true that sinners are saved through the cross of Christ, it is not actually the whole gospel or the whole achievement of the cross.”[8] If Christians continue to adopt this form of the gospel, there will continue to be this negative dualism and a complete insignificance to the burgeoning pluralistic culture. By redeeming the entire biblical narrative from the beginning of creation to the end of new creation, including themes of the value of one’s so-called ordinary work, being a blessing to other nations, and not only believing but knowing Jesus Christ who lived, died, and rose again from the dead, could there be a possible redemption of the relevance of the gospel to be just that—good news to culture.[9],[10]

    “I am a vocational dishwasher,”

    is the new mantra I now confidently live by. My recent and ongoing explorations of the gospel and the whole biblical narrative has helped me to understand vocation and redeemed my identity as a dishwasher. According to the biblical narrative, who we are is shaped and defined by our relation to God and who God is and what we do is shaped and defined by our relation to what matters to God and what God is doing.[11] This stands in stark contrast to a cultural narrative that says we are largely shaped and defined by the shaky foundation of what we do. “Work is a creational good, but the Bible is well aware of the temptation to turn work into an idol – when we live for what we can do and achieve, and then derive our identity and fulfillment from that.[12] Rather, when our vocation is the whole range of relationships and responsibilities, not just our occupations or our primary means of making money, can we then live a life filled with good news.[13]

    My vocation as a dishwasher is vital to the role I play in the relationship with my wife. As I am liberated by the narrative that I ought to be the primary financial provider, I can blossom in my responsibilities to provide a space and home that is clean, welcoming, and loving. As I am liberated by the notion that more is better, I can live simply within my means and truly be satisfied. This type of meaning and fulfillment had largely been elusive even when I was making a six-figure salary or doing impactful work. By living my life according to the biblical narrative, I can see how God is pure and “clean” and thus is in the job of cleaning up, not only my personal mess, but the entire world.

    Another beauty in becoming a vocational dishwasher is the amount of transferable skills and lessons I have acquired over the years. When people see dishwashing as a vocation and not just a menial chore, they can benefit from practical growth. Over the years, I have improved on my time-management, organization, and innovation skills, just to name a few. An early lesson I learned is to do a little bit at a time because once the dishes pile up, they are much harder to do. Procrastination can be a form of poor time-management in any occupation or aspect of life and washing dishes has helped me to be more diligent in this regard. I have also found that it is better to do big dishes, pots, and pans at the end when there is more room in the sink. By organizing in this manner, it is much easier to tackle the little dishes or easier tasks before attempting to finish more difficult ones. And being a vocational dishwasher can lead to more innovative approaches and solutions in achieving one’s goal. For example, by stacking dishes utilizing my “proprietary method,” one is able to save water, which in turn cuts down on costs and is better for the world. One final lesson I learned in this journey is the importance of communication. Dishwasher or doing the dishes can mean different things depending on one’s context and culture. It is important to communicate and understand what work means for different people.

    “Just put it in the dishwasher,”

    is a common instruction for the modern-day individual. While most discussions on technology surround digital innovations, one only has to look at dishwashing to see the impact of technology. The dishwashing machine was invented a little over a century ago. And now an Internet search for “dishwasher” returns results for dishwashing machines from major appliance stores.[14] Ironically, there have been more recent concerns for artificial intelligence (AI) and robots taking over the jobs of humans. However, this trend has already started long ago. Dishwasher is no longer a human who washes dishes, but for most in the modern world, it is a machine. While a discussion on the impacts of technology require its own place, my journey as a vocational dishwasher has reflected the trends of technology and its relation to or rather now its monopoly over culture.[15]

    In simpler times, there may not have been a question of who is in control—the human uses and has control of a tool or technology. For example, a construction worker uses and controls a hammer or a dishwasher is in control of the tools used to wash dishes. With the invention of the dishwashing machine, it is more difficult to discern who is in control. The machine has stripped the human the title of dishwasher and so now we have to wonder if the human is still in control and utilizing the dishwasher or is the dishwasher dictating to the human its own ideology? It is not difficult to make the leap to where society and culture is now with “scientific studies” explaining the harmful effects of screen time or how we lose our relationality with robots and the networked life.[16] Scholars are concerned with the impact of our existing digital technologies, yet the wave of innovation for new discoveries in AI or blockchain, for example, show no sign of slowing down. Washing dishes may seem to have absolutely no relevance to this more complex topic and in some sense it does not. However, if a culture does not have a proper framework and understanding of people’s vocation, something as simple as washing dishes, it is only a matter of time that titles and professions humans hold dear such as accountant or caretaker will be monopolized by technology. It is also crucial that society does not leave this topic on the periphery, but address it head on. It is crucial for religious institutions to be relevant in this sphere as well so that they do not make the same mistake by disregarding the vocation of dishwashers and in turn having no good news to share with culture.[17]

    “So, what is your vocation,”

    one may ask. My vocation is a dishwasher. Dishwasher relates to my wife who constitutes much of my life. Dishwasher speaks to my responsibility to wash dishes and by understanding my identity in light of a biblical narrative and Creator God, it also speaks of my responsibility to be a cleaner of all things, that whatever I touch, I can make the world a slightly cleaner and better place. The beauty of this vocation is anyone and everyone can do it. So,

    “Are you willing to wash some dishes?”

    [1] In the era of late globalization, it would be foolish to assume one culture is normative over another. When I use the term culture, it is from a modern, Western perspective and a middle-to-wealthy socioeconomic class.

    [2] Out of curiosity, I searched if something like this existed. The closest thing would be online certificates, material from an established institute for cleaning practices, and a questionable “university for maids”.

    [3] I must recognize that this is not the only value dominating the current cultural narrative, however it will be the one I will focus on. Other examples include consumerism or post-modernism.

    [4] See Craig M. Gay, Cash Values: Money and the Erosion of Meaning in Today’s Society (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans and Regent College Pub, 2004).

    [5] The influence of post-modernity is changing what people value in regards to occupations. I am mainly assuming that most in the modern West still value occupations that provide more financial and social currency.

    [6] Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God’s People: A Biblical Theology of the Church’s Mission (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2010), Location 206, 3953, 4191, Kindle.

    [7] Wright, Loc 5250.

    [8] Wright, Loc 824.

    [9] See Gen 2:15-16, Isa 65:17-25, Acts 4:1-22, Jer 29:7, and 1 Tim 2:1-4.

    [10] This is a very brief and elementary summary of the biblical gospel. Much more can and needs to be said in light of traditions differing from Western Evangelicals and more importantly the growth of World Christianity.

    [11] Steven Garber, Visions Of Vocation (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP BOOKS, 2014), 161. Also adapted from Christopher Wright, The Mission of God’s People.

    [12] Wright, Loc 4537.

    [13] Garber, 11.

    [14] Based on a search result from DuckDuckGo. Accessed on Feb 28, 2019. One would need to input “dishwasher job” to get results related to the human act of washing dishes.

    [15] I owe much of this discussion on technology to Neil Postman, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, Reprint edition (New York: Vintage, 1993).

    [16] See Sherry Turkle, Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other, First Trade Paper Ed edition (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2012).

    [17] My stance here is not an anti-technology one, as I am well aware of the tremendous benefits technology has brought to society, even the dishwashing machine, which I use. This excerpt is to highlight that the gravity of technology is much heavier than most probably realize.

  • Personal Reflection on Mission of God’s People by Christopher Wright

    Christopher Wright explores two primary questions in The Mission of God’s People: A Biblical Theology of the Church’s Mission—who are we and what are we here for? Which he answers, “We are the people (1) whom God has redeemed out of bondage and sin (past), and (2) through whom God is working to bring blessing to all nations on earth (future)”.[1] Wright argues for the need of the church to have a more comprehensive knowledge of the Biblical narrative in order to understand and answer these questions, what he phrases as a biblical theology for life. In doing so, Christians and churches will ultimately be the people of God which in turn will allow God’s people to do the things God has called them to do.[2] In essence, Wright is challenging much of the normative assumptions of the meaning of missions, from personal evangelism to the larger institutional initiatives and programs. He is challenging Christians and churches to reexamine their identity and character before embarking on a mission or agenda that has nothing to do with the mission of God.[3]

    One of the main methods Wright uses to achieve his goal is a broad study of the mission of God by examining both the Old and New Testaments, the former which would have been the Scriptures Jesus and Paul refer to in framing their perspectives on mission. I was deeply appreciative of this grander view of what encompasses the mission of God’s people. For example, my prior understanding of “being redeemed” was limited to the forgiveness of personal sins. However, God’s narrative initially defined redemption as the deliverance and liberation of Israel in a holistic sense—political, economic, social, and spiritual.[4] The implications of this “exodus-shaped redemption” is that it “demands exodus-shaped mission”.[5]

    Another insight I found very helpful is the fair treatment and weight Wright gives to the universal nature of mission, including creation.[6] By having a biblical theology for life, one cannot overemphasize any one aspect of mission. This may prevent an overemphasis on evangelism without character, proclaiming good news yet having no evidence of that goodness in the messenger.[7] It may also prevent the church from overemphasizing spiritual practices without having any relevance in the public square, living dichotomous lives.[8] This false dichotomy exists in the way different local churches view mission and church or evangelism and social impact.[9] The choice of words for the title of the book alone demonstrates how Wright is aware of the audiences he is trying to address and how to hold them in a harmonious tension.

    This tension has been a major theme of my journey with God. As I came to know more about God, I came to know God, who has thus challenged much of my prior assumptions and understandings. My prior understanding of the Christian narrative has been that the only thing that matters is Jesus Christ, his life, death, and resurrection through which and whom we are able to find our personal salvation and in turn are commissioned to go and share this good news. While this is still true, I would have to agree with Wright that “… although it is gloriously true that sinners are saved through the cross of Christ, it is not actually the whole gospel or the whole achievement of the cross – not according to the New Testament itself”.[10] I was troubled by the fact that there was such an emphasis on sharing my faith that the Great Commission seemed more like a sales commission, yet I had no idea nor confidence in the “product” I was “selling”. Upon further growth of my relationship with God, another major false assumption was that giving my life to God meant packing my bags, going to an unknown country to proclaim Jesus, and if “God-willing” die for his name sake. Yet when these doors did not open, the “next best alternative” was to become a pastor.

    Prior to Regent, it was a great joy to personally test and disprove these false hierarchies and dichotomies to Christian living. I was privileged to explore some of Wright’s themes in regards to my occupation. However, I had to battle once again to uncover much of the incomplete Christian teachings, that my work is not just an occupational mission field, but rather that the actual work I did was in fact worship to God. I have personally learned that “Christians are to be good citizens and good workers, and thereby to be good witnesses … All this is part of the mission of God’s people too”.[11]

    Now I am at another juncture of tension, having further discovered that occupation does not always equal vocation.[12] Upon reading Mission of God’s People, one theme I want to focus on is not only knowing the greater story, but remembering it as the days progress and the busyness and chaos of life happens. I believe there is an overemphasis on what we do, rather than focusing on who we are and who we ought to be. This theme has grounded much of my vocation as a husband and now as a recent father, which I am finding to be the hardest “missional field”. This is also another tension between the importance of discipling and leading my family well verse the interest in the globalization of not only secular spheres but Christianity as well. More than anything, as I know God in greater depth and intimacy, I am excited how I can play a small part in the beautiful story God is authoring. Wherever I am, whoever I am with, I hope to be a blessing from, through, and for God (Rom 11:36).

    [1] Wright 2010, Loc 2076.

    [2] Ibid., Loc 2683.

    [3] Loc 206.

    [4] Loc 1654.

    [5] Loc 1711.

    [6] Loc 5161.

    [7] Loc 2273.

    [8] Loc 4512.

    [9] Loc 5292.

    [10] Loc 824.

    [11] Loc 4476.

    [12] As examined by Steve Garber in Visions of Vocation.

  • Ideology of Technological Money

    Introduction

    “Nothing is more persuasive and insidious than money.”[1] It impacts every person regardless of race, nationality, social status, or religion. And as globalization continues to grow, it is nearly impossible to discuss global trends without having a conversation about money. Simultaneously, technology has grown at blinding speeds. What was once defined as a tool used by humans, these tools are evolving to form a “technopoly”, as Neil Postman defines.[2] And for a modern person, technology has become synonymous with digital technologies. A broad review of history suggests that money and technology grew hand in hand, particularly during the Industrial Revolution.[3] However, what happens when money and technology become one in the same?

    In this paper, I argue that as money and technology marry to form what is commonly known as cryptocurrencies, the combination of these two powers will form a new ideology that people have yet to perceive. I will initially provide general overviews of both money and technology and discuss technological innovations surrounding money. I will then present what this new ideology could be and lastly provide a critique from a theological worldview.

    There are inherent limitations to my research as most scholars have the benefit of hindsight being 20/20. While it is important to learn from history, I believe it is an ever more critical time to apply and prepare ourselves for the future changes to come. My analysis is done in broad strokes, with the hope that this paper will just be the beginning of equipping both scholar and layperson to take money matters more seriously.

    Overview of Money

    The Merriam-Webster dictionary provides five different entries for the definition of money.[4] Most intriguing is the phrasing, “something generally accepted as a…” [italics mine]. This something is further defined as official coins or stamped metal currency, money of account, or paper money. The functions of money as defined by an institutional investor are a “1) Store of value, 2) Means of payment, and 3) Unit of account.”[5] While an average person may not consciously make these distinctions, one may very well behave in these patterns by opening savings accounts, using credit cards, or simply looking at products in a grocery store. What is more revealing is that no one would think twice about what money truly is or how it is used. For most, it is enough of a task thinking about how to obtain more. Yet, “Nothing, whether in human nature or in the nature of things, whether in technology or in reason, adequately explains the original act of creating and accepting money.”[6]

    Based on a modern person’s understanding of how money works, one would logically conclude that a barter system was the antecedent to money.[7] However this has recently been challenged as a myth by anthropologists such as David Graeber—rather, money was birth as an abstract ledger of credit and debt, or a unit of account.[8] Over time, money has evolved beginning with commodity money or specie currency, to a bullion standard, fiat currency, and now a possible transition to post-fiat currency. This current era of fiat currency largely began once the United States ceased to operate under the gold standard in 1971. The predominate form of money today is “sustained by a collective trust in [its] value rather than any intrinsic worth.”[9] “The fact that a central bank issues paper doesn’t make currency any more legitimate than any other vehicle or commodity that a community trusts or values for trade or commerce,” states David Birch, creator of the Digital Money Forum.[10] Whether from a sociological, economical, or historical view, the abstraction of money is complicated to say the least.

    The current form of money has developed certain ideologies during present times. Particularly for the modern West, it is the system’s exaltation of the monetary unit, or capitalism’s Money Metric, coined by Craig Gay, that has ultimately redefined or objectified value, reshaping and even diminishing traditional meanings.[11] Society has bought into this Money Metric, pursuing money as an end goal and whatever pleasures its fruits can provide. Clearly, money and its power has persisted throughout history in many different shapes and forms. Theologian and sociologist, Jacques Ellul argues, “Money is not a power because man uses it, because it is the means of wealth or because accumulating money makes things possible. It is a power before all that, and those exterior signs are only the manifestations of this power which has, or claims to have, a reality of its own.”[12]

    Overview of Technology

    Technology may be just as, if not more, complicated as money.[13] The definitions are muddling at best and I would argue most would not typically define it in scholarly terms. One crass definition asserts technology is, “Anything that has to do with computers. Often misused by stupid people and corporations that market to said stupid people.”[14] While an exploration of technology deserves its own space, I will briefly describe its evolution mainly borrowing from Neil Postman’s Technopoly. Postman frames his narrative by categorizing cultures into three types: tool-using cultures, technocracies, and technopolies.[15] In a very simple summary, cultures have evolved from a tool-using culture, where tools were used to serve a specific purpose[16] to a technocracy, where tools were “a central role in the thought-world of the culture,”[17] to lastly a technopoly, the complete totalitarian dominance of technology, where our so called tools are questioning and redefining all past traditions and social spheres such as government, religion, economy, education, and family.[18]

    It is in this current paradigm most of the developed world exists as well as developing cultures are headed. “In Technopoly, we are surrounded by the wondrous effects of machines and are encouraged to ignore the ideas embedded in them. Which means we become blind to the ideological meaning of our technologies.”[19] Two clear examples of this effect that is now coming to surface is the impact of social media and smart phones. When a major technology company creates an application to possibly limit the use of their own product, I would argue, is a pretty good indicator of a greater issue at hand.[20] The most harrowing effect of the growth of technology is how much trust we place in it, which I will expound upon later.

    Technology, similar to money, has a wide-ranging impact. While advances in technology has generally improved living for most, there are detrimental effects as well. Economist Raghuram Rajan best explains, “… technological advance is a good thing for everyone in the long run… But in the short run, technological advances can be extremely disruptive, and the disruption can persist into the long run if people do not have the means to adapt.”[21]

    Technological Advance of Money

    It is the technological advance particularly in the financial services industry that is of particular concern. PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), released a paper in 2016 highlighting ten technological disruptions the financial service industry ought to prepare for.[22] The authors are well aware that, “It is now becoming obvious that the accelerating pace of technological change is the most creative force – and also the most destructive – in the financial services ecosystem today.”[23] More alarmingly, 81% of banking CEOs surveyed are concerned with this pace of change more than any other industry sector.[24]

    One of the technological disruptions mentioned is the blockchain, the essential technology cryptocurrencies are built on. “Cryptocurrency,” as PwC defines, “is a medium of exchange, such as the US dollar, created and stored electronically in the blockchain, using encryption techniques to control the creation of monetary units and to verify the transfer of funds.”[25] What is interesting is how PwC compares cryptocurrency to the US dollar as a medium of exchange. While most cryptocurrencies are not currently backed by any major government, there is a clear interest in adopting or creating their own digital currency. Regardless, there is a difference between “government-based legitimacy or legitimacy based on law” and a market-based legitimacy, as Jon Matonis, Executive Director of the Bitcoin Foundation, argues. “Bitcoin doesn’t necessarily require the former to be successful or functional.”[26]

    Bitcoin was initially created as a peer-to-peer, electronic payment system. The mysterious creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, writes, “What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party.”[27] In essence, this is the culmination of the evolution of money, allowing strangers to transact with one another without the limitations of current forms and systems. This “Trust Protocol,” coined by Don Tapscott, is “a trustworthy global platform for our transactions.”[28] “Today thoughtful people everywhere are trying to understand the implications of a protocol that enables mere mortals to manufacture trust through clever code.” [emphasis mine][29]

    It is this disruptive technology, initially starting with bitcoin in 2009 to the countless cryptocurrencies, coins, or tokens constituting the crypto universe, that has the attention of all global powers. “In the sense that cryptocurrencies are an abstract unit that can be used as a token of exchange by anyone with a computer, they are, by most definitions, money. However, they do not cohere to the modern, global economic definition of the function of currency.”[30] It will be interesting to see how this narrative will unfold, especially as global powers such as Japan seek to create their own cryptocurrency.[31] If history is any indicator of what is to come, historian William N. Goetzmann best illustrates this point: “financial technology allowed for more complex political institutions, enhanced social mobility, and greater economic growth—in short, all the major indicators of complex society we call civilization.”[32]

    This review of the technological advance focused solely on the form of money or perhaps what it is evolving to be. Blockchain has only garnered the attention of media, unsurprisingly, when pegged to price fluctuations. The applications of this technology are much deeper, reshaping digital identity, supply chain management, and telecommunications to name a few. Other disruptors such as robotics and artificial intelligence are making significant headway in financial technology and other sectors as well. How all these changes will affect global society and humankind is another matter altogether.[33]

    New Ideology

    Based on the material discussed thus far, I will briefly attempt to forecast how these tectonic shifts may further impact our global society. I believe the most significant shift in ideology will be related to trust. Up until this point, society has not valued technology to the degree of trust. No one would hoard multiple iPhones or attempt to exchange software as transactional values. However, what seems to be happening is that global powers are looking for a new store of value in the form of technology, whether that be bitcoin or a different protocol (e.g. Ethereum or Ripple). It is already evident that cryptocurrencies are a valid and more effective medium of exchange. And lastly, the distributed ledger may serve as a global unit of account. Simply put, society has increasingly valued money, despite the abstract form that it has already taken today. Society has also put a certain level of trust and dependency on the various forms of technology. Now with technology marrying or perhaps even overtaking this abstraction of money and becoming money itself, it is evident not only how much trust we put in technology, but that it becomes the very value we seek to desire. This will naturally have a waterfall effect in all spheres of life. There is already a growing distrust, whether it be of corporations or governments. Search results for words of the year in 2018 are misinformation, toxic, and justice.[34] It is only a matter of time society will put their collective trust in technology and code than in any major institution, and perhaps even in other people and humankind.

    This technological change will have ecological effects—it will neither be additive or subtractive, rather “one significant change generates total change.”[35] As with all technological advance, there are immediate, superficial benefits. Taking one example, the remittance industry is plagued with archaic processes and high fees. Companies such as TransferWise[36] have begun to disrupt this industry, however, companies like Abra are utilizing blockchain technology and are envisioning “open access to the global financial system and drive greater financial inclusion.” [sic][37] There may be no need for remittances as this technology can be the catalyst in including those who are incapable of participating in the global economy. David Birch states, “…it’s not just people who are already fairly wealthy, or who are already fairly tech savvy, who can enjoy the benefits of money in electronic form, but actually we’ll be pulling more people into the economy and helping them with their finances and spending behavior and all of it because of these tools.”[38] While no one may overtly disagree with helping those in extreme poverty, these massive shifts will only fuel the narrative to trust in technology over any institution. As decentralization provided through technology proves to be a more effective method in governance and consensus, it will only exacerbate issues already created by digital technology.[39]

    Theological Response

    “Today, we live in a global community, one where commerce is now transacted in ways the Sumerians, Greeks, Chinese, Italians, and other early founders of our monetary system could never have conceived of.”[40] I would add that we live in a global community that the early church could never have conceived of. The universal church is no longer an abstract theological doctrine, but is now a reality. Financiers see the need for “Seeing the future clearly and developing a proactive, strategic response – rather than simply reacting to events,” which “will set apart the winners from the losers in a fast-evolving market.”[41] The leaders of the global financial system known as the Masters of the Universe are clearly preparing for these major disruptions.[42] Will the global church be proactive about these shifts rather than simply reacting to them?

    I would argue that the church has predominately been reactionary thus far. In his lecture turned paper, “Should We Listen to the Churches When They Speak on Economic Issues?”, Professor Anthony Waterman illustrates the differences between strong and weak utterances and how to speak on these issues in a free verse un-free society.[43] Weak utterances are broad, usually pastoral, and largely uncontroversial. I believe Craig Gay’s remark, “we are occasionally encouraged to reflect about the ethical implications of the ways that we spend money,” would fall under this weak utterance.[44] However, “the implications of assigning monetary values to things is not typically something that we worry very much about… Yet it is important to stress that everything — including even religious understanding — is indeed effaced in the alchemy of monetary commodification.”[45] While one can hope this is not true or disagree, it is difficult to see how most modern Western churches are not influenced by or operating under the Money Metric, where success is measured by false proxies such as attendance and finances.[46]

    Waterman also discusses examples of strong utterances, such as when Canadian bishops made their recommendation on unemployment verse inflation, where they “risk making themselves and their church look foolish or irrelevant if it turns out that they used their sacred office to recommend disastrous economic policies.”[47] Another example is Michael Schluter’s relational economy, where he acknowledges that “First and foremost, there has to be a change in worldview, where the dominant values of individualism and materialism are replaced by those of ‘Relational Thinking’. Unless people learn to think differently, and prioritise relationships over wealth for example, other changes will be cosmetic.”[48] Schluter’s critique is mainly regarding capitalism and while hopeful, it is still nonetheless a view looking through a lens through past and present situations only.[49] I do wholeheartedly agree with his conclusion that, “Rather than wait for these sinister alternatives to emerge, Christians need to read the signs of the times. To protect society for the wellbeing of our children and children’s children, the time to press for radical economic and social reform is not in 20 years’ time. It is today.”[50]

    I believe the other extreme response would be almost Platonic in nature—i.e. to dismiss or ignore the significance of economic matters and place an unbalanced focus on non-earthly ones. I believe the balance for a Christian is first to be faithful to God’s will. “Everything that tends to turn us away from this faithfulness (first expressed as recognition of sin, then as acceptance of grace, finally as personal commitment to personal action) diminishes Christian effectiveness, even if outwardly we do a great deal, changing institutions and mobilizing the masses.”[51] I would also agree that “What the churches have to say to us ‘when they speak on economic issues’, in other words, is far more important, far more truly radical, than any mere advocacy however well-meaning, however well-informed. It is simply that there are really no such things as ‘economic issues’ at all.”[52] Upon this foundation, do I believe it is critical to tackle the looming changes at hand. Regardless of one’s eschatology or theological doctrine everyone will have to face these changes on this side of heaven. Whether we simply and blindly adopt blockchain technology and use cryptocurrency once the greater masses start doing so, or think about these changes and speak into them despite its inevitability, is something individuals will all have to act upon and not rely on some vague collective response.

    Conclusion            

    This paper presents a broad scoping overview of the technological change of money and the potential it has in forming a new ideology and thus the ecological effects it will have on society. There is much more to address and much has been omitted, however my hope is that this paper will spark an initial interest to dive deeper into the complicated world of cryptocurrency and technological disruptions. My hope is that Christians would not be irrelevant to these broader changes and be rulers even over money.

    [1] Clive Lim, “APPL/INDS 564: Money Matters: Money, Mammon, & the Meaning of Life,” accessed Dec 21, 2018. https://moodle.regent-college.edu/course/view.php?id=714.

    [2] Neil Postman, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, Reprint edition (New York: Vintage, 1993).

    [3] David S. Landes, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some so Poor (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1999), 187.

    [4] Merriam-Webster Dictionary, s.v. “money,” accessed on Dec 15, 2018, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/money.

    [5] John Pfeffer, “An (Institutional) Investor’s Take on Cryptoassets,” accessed Dec 21, 2018. https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/john-pfeffer/An+Investor%27s+Take+on+Cryptoassets+v6.pdf.

    [6] Jacques Ellul, Money and Power (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009), 81.

    [7] Adam Rothstein, The End of Money: The Story of Bitcoin, Cryptocurrencies and the Blockchain Revolution., New Scientist’s Instant Experiment (Boston, MA: Nicholas Brealey Publishing, 2017), 115.

    [8] Ibid.

    [9] Rothstein, End of Money, 121.

    [10] Brett King, Breaking Banks: The Innovators, Rogues, and Strategists Rebooting Banking (Singapore: John Wiley & Sons Singapore, 2014), 120.

    [11] Craig M. Gay, Cash Values: Money and the Erosion of Meaning in Today’s Society (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans and Regent College Pub, 2004), 42–43.

    [12] Ellul, Money and Power, 76.

    [13] Some define money as a tool or technology. While there are certain aspects that qualify money as a technology, the distinction I will make is money from a digital technology.

    [14] Urban Dictionary, s.v., “technology” accessed on Dec 18, 2018, https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=technology.

    [15] Postman, Technopoly, 22.

    [16] Ibid., 23.

    [17] Ibid., 28.

    [18] Ibid., 48.

    [19] Ibid., 94.

    [20] See Apple’s recent Screen Time app. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208982.

    [21] Raghuram Rajan, Fault Lines: How Hidden Fractures Still Threaten the World Economy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010), 22.

    [22] PwC, “Financial Services Technology 2020 and Beyond: Embracing Disruption,” accessed Dec 21, 2018. https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/financial-services/assets/pdf/technology2020-and-beyond.pdf.

    [23] Ibid., 3.

    [24] Ibid., 9.

    [25] Ibid., 14.

    [26] King, Breaking Banks, 128.

    [27] Satoshi Nakamoto, “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System,” accessed Dec 21, 2018. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf.

    [28] Don Tapscott and Alex Tapscott, Blockchain Revolution: How the Technology Behind Bitcoin Is Changing Money, Business, and the World (New York: Portfolio, 2016), 6.

    [29] Ibid., 5.

    [30] Rothstein, End of Money, 130.

    [31] Arjun Kharpal, “Japanese banks are thinking of making their own cryptocurrency called the J-Coin,” accessed Dec 20, 2018. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/27/japanese-banks-cryptocurrency-j-coin.html.

    [32] William N. Goetzmann, Money Changes Everything: How Finance Made Civilization Possible (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016), 14.

    [33] I must reiterate at this point that this review has been done in broad strokes. Much more can be said about money and the various role it plays in different systems, as well as blockchain technology and the implications it may have. Matters such as decentralization, privacy, and ownership will all play a role alongside the technological shift in the form of money. The importance here is not to discuss what has passed nor what has progressed thus far, but rather what will come.

    [34] See Dictionary.com, Oxford, and Merriam-Webster, respectively.

    [35] Postman, Technopoly, 18.

    [36] See https://transferwise.com/.

    [37] To note, Abra initially began as an app to aid remittances primarily between the US and Philippines. See https://www.abra.com/where-is-abra-available/. Accessed Dec 20, 2017.

    [38] King, Breaking Banks, 133.

    [39] Due to the limits of this paper, I avoid bringing into discussion the works of previous scholars such as Peter Berger’s, The Homeless Mind. Berger discusses, much better than I can, the effects of technological production on the consciousness of mankind. I believe these new technologies will heighten some of these effects or birth new ones altogether, adding to the ecological effect of technological money.

    [40] King, 121.

    [41] PwC, 4.

    [42] Tapscott and Tapscott, Blockchain Revolution, 55.

    [43] Anthony Waterman, “Should We Listen to the Churches When They Speak on Economic Issues?” of Recent Developments in Economics and Religion, ed. Paul Oslington, Paul S. Williams, and Mary Hirschfeld (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2018), 351-62.

    [44] Gay, Cash Values, 60.

    [45] Ibid.

    [46] The idea of a false proxy was taken from, Dave DeVries, “Measuring Success in Your Church,” accessed Dec 21, 2018. https://www.missionalchallenge.com/measuring-success-in-your-church/.

    [47] Waterman, 356.

    [48] Michael Schluter, “Beyond Capitalism: Towards a Relational Economy” of Recent Developments in Economics and Religion, ed. Paul Oslington, Paul S. Williams, and Mary Hirschfeld (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2018), 258.

    [49] Note, Schluter’s paper was written in 2010 during the early inception of bitcoin, thus his views may certainly have changed.

    [50] Schluter, 260.

    [51] Ellul, Money and Power, 19.

    [52] Waterman, 361.

  • Power of Money, Ideology of Money, our Response to Money

    The three most important ideas presented in Jacques Ellul’s Money and Power, Craig Gay’s Cash Values, and Ron Sider’s Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger respectively are:

    1) Christians ought to recognize the power of money before anything else; 2) Due to this power of money, it has formed its own ideology reshaping the values of society, particularly in developed nations; and 3) Christians in these developed nations must be aware of the global consequences their money and wealth has created.

    While I have heard a few teachings on the stewardship of money or how the love of money is the root of all evil, I now realize how much more powerful money is compared to what society and the church regards it to be.[1] When Jesus was teaching his disciples and said “You cannot serve God and wealth,[2]” (Matt 6:24, NSRV) he was not getting “this idea from his cultural milieu.”[3] Rather, Jesus considers wealth as a sort of god and while wealth and money “is certainly God’s opposite in the area of behavior,” argues Ellul, it “enjoys no equality with God.”[4] It is this power that I think is often masked to most people, however most deceivingly to Christians. It seems that,

    “All that the church has been able to say about the exclusively personal nature of our use of money is no doubt true, but it is obsolete because of the character of the world in which we live… The church must not adapt to the world… The world itself once again seems to be God’s instrument in forcing the church to face up to its conscience… [the church] should not then take refuge in a new abstraction which has nothing to do with humanity today or with the structure of our times.”[5]

    This lack of attention, to say the least, or perhaps more significantly the lack of an active stance towards money may be the cause of how money has developed its own ideology, subconsciously influencing and shaping society including Christians, thus leading to the alarming statistics on the behaviors of Christians in developed nations. I believe I have been a byproduct of this lack of teaching and serious consideration of money and its power. My parents grew up in a Confucius society and partnered with the pursuit of the American dream, birth an extreme focus on studies leading to a well-paying job. Upon attending church and becoming Christians, their upbringing of me did not vary from this. This was not an uncommon narrative for other peers I knew. I would argue before anything else, that it is this power of money and its deception particularly over Christians, that has made our reflections obsolete, stance weak, and behaviors indistinguishable from the rest of our society regarding money matters.

    Clearly Ellul’s idea has impacted me the most, thus it has led me to revisit prior thoughts, assumptions, and motivations. Most interestingly about the timing of these readings is how it has intersected with a recent pursuit, i.e. to become a millionaire by the time I am 35 years old. This goal was not just a pursuit to obtain more money for consumerism or security, but was rather a challenge to test myself to pursue audacious goals. This past summer, I noted for myself a desire for “financial freedom”.[6] However, I now have to ask myself—why? Another interesting timing is how money as we know today is rapidly changing from a predominately fiat-currency to a digital-currency. I wonder what kind of effects this marriage of digital technology and money will have on the nature of this beast—or more accurately, on both beasts. While I am actively learning about cryptocurrencies, new technologies, and now a renewed Christian reflection on money, I still feel inadequate to respond well to why and what I am exactly pursuing, nor to the greater implications this money-technology will have. More concerning is the complete lack of knowledge concerning this topic for the vast majority. My concern is that due to the lack of dialogue and engagement with money as a whole and its new developments, the church as a whole is largely unprepared for any intelligent, thoughtful, or wholesome response. At best, most will probably only respond after the fact when this massive train of change will hit all of global society.[7]

    To provide a balanced response and fair treatment of the other authors, I must agree that Christians in developed nations need to take money more seriously.[8] If we acknowledge and accept what Gay defines as the Money Metric,[9] then we must also acknowledge that it is within this framework that Christians in developed nations are reflecting on money. Perhaps this is why Sider criticizes and calls forth rich Christians, simply because the Money Metric has already shaped the overarching narrative of their lives.

    In closing, I must agree with Ellul about the complex nature of money. “Nothing, whether in human nature or in the nature of things, whether in technology or in reason, adequately explains the original act of creating and accepting money.”[10] Nonetheless, it has become a power of its own, a Money Metric, that will continue its reign as a counterfeit god.[11] Hopefully, Christians can be faithful to God’s will as we continue to tackle this problem of money.[12]

    [1] The sheer lack of teaching on this topic, despite its numerous references in the Bible, is evidence of the lack of recognition of the power of money by Christians.

    [2] In Greek, mammon.

    [3] Jacques Ellul, Money and Power (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1984), 75.

    [4] Ellul, 75, 94.

    [5] Ellul, 32.

    [6] This term has many definitions and viewpoints, most often coined by the wealthy elite class. It is interesting how the pinnacle of monetary pursuits is phrased as the freedom from it.

    [7] There is much more to be said on this topic and I will further explore it in a future paper.

    [8] Not just in the pursuit and acquisition of it, but asking themselves why and which master they are serving.

    [9] I.e. the system’s ‘exaltation of the monetary unit’. See Gay, 52.

    [10] Ellul, 81.

    [11] Ellul, 95

    [12] Ellul, 19.

  • Vuja De: gaining new insights into old problems

    Reflection Paper

    The three most important ideas in Entrepreneurial Leadership and Originals are: 1) The perspective one has is critical to entrepreneurship and innovation; 2) With this perspective or skillset, it is important to take measured risks; and 3) The sustainability of a novel idea is crucial to the long-term impact of an entrepreneur.[1]

    The first idea resonates deeply with me. In the past, there was always a pressure to conform with norms, yet it never felt natural. This applied to familial roles, pursuits in life (i.e. in education and work), and broader societal patterns, including religious and non-religious spheres. While Goossen, Stevens, and Grant emphasize the point that “the entrepreneurial approach to work and life can be developed, enhanced and improved”[2] and that “originals are far more ordinary than we realize,”[3] there is a consistent underlying aspect of vuja de.[4] It has been this vuja de perspective that has fueled me to challenge traditions in all regards, from simple fashion statements to cultural heritage, such as filial piety.[5] While there has been this pattern of originality in my personal or private life, this spirit has yet to be reflected in a public sphere.

    I believe most of the attention and literature on entrepreneurship is centered around business and economy particularly because of the ease of measurability of money, as Jim Rohn states.[6] However, I wonder how non-business and non-economic institutions and individuals can benefit from having this vuja de mentality and skill. I wonder how the church and its various aspects such as community groups, Sunday gatherings, perhaps even doctrine, can benefit from vuja de, not just for the sake of challenging norms, but to have a deeper understanding of God. While I no longer believe that being an original or entrepreneur ought to be confined to economic spheres, I do believe that one must display vuja de or adopt the perspective and exercise the skill to be considered one.

    Having recognized that I inherently have this perspective, I can now be free to utilize it not only in a personal and private manner, but perhaps take measured risks to disrupt more of the familiar for good. As mentioned earlier, some immediate aspects concern modes of operation the Western church has adopted, as well as making decisions on how to raise a family in this contemporary age. However, I am already very familiar that “[choosing] to challenge the status quo is an uphill battle, and there are bound to be failures, barriers, and setbacks along the way.”[7]

    The third major idea regarding sustainability deeply challenged my former understanding on this topic, which mainly revolved around operating individualistically. It is not sufficient to be an original with a novel idea—the importance of sustainability and long-lasting effects is just as, if not more, significant. Grant discusses developing sustainability regarding how an individual continues to foster originality as we age, by adopting what he defines as the experimental approach contrary to the conceptual.[8] Goossen and Stevens provide principles on how an entrepreneurial leader practices, sustains, and makes a difference. They pose a challenge from an institutional level, particularly critiquing Christian institutions. Unfortunately, many are not characterized as being innovative, creative, and forward-thinking, thus undermining their long-term sustainability.[9],[10] This aspect came to life as Paul Stevens shared his journey with the Institute of Marketplace Transformation (IMT). While Stevens’ vision and fresh perspective on faith and work provides much value to the Christian community, without critically preparing for his transition and the focus of IMT, this originality may have become obsolete within his circle of influence.

    While reading these books, they stirred some theological reflections as well. Grant discusses the difference of the logic of appropriateness verse the logic of consequence, which entails one’s character verse behavior.[11] The logic of appropriateness considers the character of a person, while the logic of consequence may separate behavior from character—one may drive home drunk but still think he or she is not a drunkard. This is interesting when considering the concept of sin and sinner. Often times I have heard of separating the sin from the individual, however this would fall under the logic of consequence, leading one to focus on their behavior. However, if the narrative shifted to focus and emphasize one’s character as a Christian (i.e. a child of God), perhaps this will help Christians shift from a mentality of “asking whether this behavior will achieve the results they want,” and rather “they take action because it is the right thing to do.”[12]

    Another very interesting aspect of vuja de is in the “kill the company” exercise. “When deliberating about innovation opportunities, the leaders weren’t inclined to take risks,” says Grant. “When they considered how their competitors could put them out of business, they realized that it was a risk not to innovate. The urgency of innovation was apparent.”[13] I wonder how much a “nothing will prevail against the church”[14] mentality prevents the current models of the church as an institution, particularly in the West, from innovating. While I believe nothing will prevail against the people of God as the body of Christ, I question the sustainability of current church models in a rapidly changing world with an increasing pace of change.[15]

    While there is much to reflect on the ever-changing field of entrepreneurship and much more critical thinking is needed, I believe it is more important to bear in mind the overarching context that “[the] ultimate goal for humankind in the Bible is righteousness—right relations with God, neighbor, and creation.”[16]

    [1] I will be using the term entrepreneur in a broader sense, not limited to an institutional vocation.

    [2] Richard Goossen and Paul Stevens, Entrepreneurial Leadership: Finding Your Calling, Making a Difference (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Press, 2013), 18, footnote.

    [3] Adam Grant, Originals: How Non-Conformists Move the World (New York, NY: Viking, 2016), 16.

    [4] Vuja de is the opposite of déjà vu, i.e. approaching something familiar, with a fresh perspective that enables one to gain new insights into old problems (cf. Grant, 7).

    [5] Filial piety is a very strong virtue in Asian cultures.

    [6] From Jim Rohn, Best Life Ever.

    [7] Grant, 212.

    [8] Grant, 109.

    [9] Goossen and Stevens, 168, 172.

    [10] While Grant discusses this from a business perspective, he shares a similar principle: “Once a market becomes dynamic, big companies with strong cultures are too insular: They have a harder time recognizing the need for change, and they’re more likely to resist the insights of those who think differently. As a result, they don’t learn and adapt, and don’t have better or more reliable financial results than their competitors.” (183) This may further explain why both businesses and churches “fail” within an average of seven years.

    [11] Grant, 170-1.

    [12] Ibid.

    [13] Grant, 234.

    [14] Cf. Matt 16:18.

    [15] “… intuitions are only trustworthy when people build up experience making judgments in a predictable environment… There’s a stable, robust relationship between the patterns you’ve seen before and what you encounter today… In a rapidly changing world, the lessons of experience can easily point us in the wrong direction. And because the pace of change is accelerating, our environments are becoming ever more unpredictable. This makes intuitions less reliable as a source of insight about new ideas and places a growing premium on analysis.” (Grant, 53-4)

    [16] Goossen, 102-3.

  • Useless, Frustrated, Sinful

    When people ask, “How is it being a father?,” I wish I can respond with these three words. However, because I want to avoid quizzical looks and long drawn out conversations, I would give in to the typical excitement and happiness that people have for our newborn.

    My daughter was born about one month ago and never have I felt time pass by so fast. It is only now in this brief respite of quietness that I am forcing myself to reflect and not vegetate with Brooklyn 99.

    Without a doubt, once our daughter came out of my wife’s womb, it had to be one of the most magical experiences ever—minus the brief moment of extreme frustration towards my mother-in-law for telling me to look at her phone camera a certain way.

    It is interesting how labor is mostly associated with the movie scene pictures of the woman yelling and screaming with her legs hoisted up. It doesn’t prepare people for the twenty hour process, perhaps a reason why the instant gratification culture prefers to avoid natural births.

    Nonetheless, whilst my wife labored laboriously, I could not help but feel useless for most of the early portion. In fact, at one point I felt quite bored just sitting next to her, waiting and resting with her until the next contraction and bout of pain. I refrained from trying to “capitalize” the time by reading a book or something and joyfully waited, massaged, and breathed with her.

    Then came the intense, active labor, where everyone had differing opinions to offer—take the drugs, go all natural, don’t look down there, watch the whole show, expect her to cuss her head off at you. Looking back, it took a lot of butt and hip massages, warm showers, deep breathing, water feeds, and a lot of encouragement, and then everything is instantly forgotten. The literal sweat, blood, and tears, agony, defeat, persistence, strength, courage, weakness, hope—all describe the amazing woman my wife is as she climbed through one of the toughest experiences of her life. And while I could not be more amazed by her, the existential thoughts going through my mind at the moment were something along the lines of this is not right and wow was pregnancy worth it?

    But as I said, then the magic happens and what seemed like a baby that refused to come out, all of a sudden slivers out and these thoughts and feelings are shuffled underneath the amazement, joy, awe, and wonder. And while most arduous journeys in life that are conquered have an end and come with a sense fulfillment, the extreme process of labor is quickly shuffled underneath taking care of a newborn.

    People’s responses are expected—precious, adorable, cute. And all the congratulations, smiles, gifts, messages, all the happiness and joy are genuine and true, however like with most things in the modern life the scale leans so heavily on a positive-only response, that it feels wrong to be frustrated and useless.

    And those sentiments are only the tip of the iceberg, trickling down from the labor mountain, while the real ugly stuff is festering underneath all the attempts to match people’s expectations of what it ought to be like to have a newborn.

    Society has taken some steps forward, such as offering the P.U.R.P.L.E. crying handbook and identifying and labeling a new mental health issue of postpartum depression. But what about dealing with things like a lack of love for the newborn? Lack of patience is probably a top-seller, followed up by a lack of gentleness thus the need for a handout to inform broader society not to shake their babies out of frustration. But rather than normalizing these “typical” responses, I am oddly aware of how evil I can be—or to Christianize it, sinful.

    When people hear on the news of abandoned children and are horrified, I have a small taste of understanding why individuals would do that. The amount of sacrifice it takes, the amount of love to pour on a newborn is not something anyone or any learning can prepare you for. And while some of this is understandable and “tolerable” sin, God and I know some of the even more wicked passing thoughts that cross my mind, and some of the fleeting anger, and as Jesus would say, is on a scale of murder.

    I expected this major life change would come with its challenges and hurdles. It is not the diaper changing and adjustments to our living that ever worried me. It was knowing that with every major challenge and struggle in life, comes a deeper awareness of self, comes with a deeper confrontation with values, personal and societal, it comes with new tensions on old and new relationships.

    There is no doubt that I love my daughter. There is without a doubt a deep sense of gratitude for her life, period, as well as how well-behaved and how happy she is. There is so much happiness and joy to see my wife becoming more whole and complete as she was meant to be a mother. There is without a doubt an immense love growing, beyond my own capacity.

    But it is challenging. There are many times frustrations if not checked quickly can fester into something much more toxic. There are many times where I feel useless, which I also understand can lead to depression. There are many times where my evil, wicked heart and mind is revealed, and damn it is ugly to have to face.

    It is difficult, but every new waking moment with my daughter comes new joys and I forget the hyper-selfish, gluttonous, dependent, whiney, needy, baby that she is. It is amazing that there is a capacity within me to love her in that regards. It amazes me even more that there is a God who does the same for me, for the world that continues to choose to live in that hyper-selfish, gluttonous, dependent, whiney, needy state.

    How I long for the day where there will be no more tears.