The Christian ParadoxHow a faithful nation gets Jesus wrongBy Bill McKibben, Harper's MagazineOnly 40 percent of Americans can name more than four of the Ten Commandments, and a scant half can cite any of the four authors of the Gospels. Twelve percent believe Joan of Arc was Noah's wife. This failure to recall the specifics of our Christian heritage may be further evidence of our nation's educational decline, but it probably doesn't matter all that much in spiritual or political terms. Here is a statistic that does matter: Three quarters of Americans believe the Bible teaches that "God helps those who help themselves." That is, three out of four Americans believe that this uber-American idea, a notion at the core of our current individualist politics and culture, which was in fact uttered by Ben Franklin, actually appears in Holy Scripture. The thing is, not only is Franklin's wisdom not biblical; it's counter-biblical. Few ideas could be further from the gospel message, with its radical summons to love of neighbor. On this essential matter, most Americans

I liked McKibben's piece, especially its pricking of conscience on works of mercy as Jesus demanded in the parable of the sheep and goats in Matt 25. However, for the reasons set out here I did not consider the article got to the root of the American problem. It was especially surprising that the passage in the Bible he seems to ignore

How interesting to try to dismiss a well-argued article by citing only the Parable of the Talents as evidence of Jesus' support for the capitalist method, as opposed to the Sermon on the Mount, which effectively denies the exploitation of one person by another any purchase as the basis of an economic or social system.I used to attend a rich people's church in Sussex, where we had the Parable of the Talents preached about three times a year, the Sermon on the Mount once every two years, Paul almost every week, and James? Never! _________________________________________________________Il Sotto Seme La Neva

By no means was I trying to dismiss McKibben's article. I simply point out that his claim that Franklin's Calvinism is unbiblical is in fact misleading. The paradoxical tension between Christ's capitalism and his mercy is what I wanted to bring to attention. I hope you noted my comments on the American empire, which are far from dismissive of McKibben's views. I know the pain of fundamentalism leads many to a position of hostility to traditional theology, but I would simply ask that people try to retain the gold while identifying and removing the dross. The Parable of the Talents is not dross. And re the suggestion that Christ rejected exploitation, many poor people around the world, especially the 1.3 billion people living on less than US$1 per day, appreciate the chance to be exploited. A recent visit to Nike in Vietnam found the main complaint from the workers there was that the company has not expanded fast enough, as many of their relatives want to be 'exploited' by Nike as that is better for them than subsistence agriculture.

And Uncle Tom is happy in his slavery.... _________________________________________________________Il Sotto Seme La Neva

Comparison with Uncle Tom is misguided. It is wrong to compare modern investment with American slavery. The alternative for American slaves was freedom, whereas the alternative for people working in factories in poor countries is going back to be peasants. They generally much prefer the opportunity to work in factories. The original issue here was 'how a faithful nation gets Jesus wrong'. My point was that there is a paradoxical complexity in 'getting Jesus right', especially in the role of investment (and trade) in overcoming poverty. The difficulty of grasping this is illustrated by the response which seems to equate investment with enslavement. RT

I am astonished by your straight-faced assertion that people just love to be exploited! Unbelievable! Do you know nothing at all of the conditoins these very desperate people face, and which the rich countries & corporations are happy to take shameless adventage of for the sake of profit? Or perhaps no one could really be as ignorant and I am missing your satire. I'd be much happier to believe that was the case. _________________________________________________________Il Sotto Seme La Neva

Robert Tulip: They generally much prefer the opportunity to work in factories.C.P. Snow made much the same argument in his 1958 lecture "The Two Cultures". And looking solely at the job market in developing countries, I'd tend to agree. But I think that most of the peasants rushing to take exploitive factory jobs are likely making their decisions under a false set of premises. They see the opulence of the countries setting up these factories and believe that they can participate in that same wealth by joining the industrial system. And I doubt that there's much of an effort among factory foremen to inform the workers that it would be to the detriment of our industrial system if they could ever afford to stop being factory workers. Given access to the full view of their economic situation, I'm not so sure that you'd see the rush to factory employment that is so common in third world countries.

Thank you. Re your comment "it would be to the detriment of our industrial system if they could ever afford to stop being factory workers", economic theory suggests otherwise. 1. Factory work is part of the social evolution of economic advance. It will be better for the happiness and security of the currently rich world when more people in poorer countries can 'afford to stop being factory workers' and can do even more productive work. More manufacturing will then be automated. 2. Schumpeter's principle of creative destruction shows economic growth has overall benefit despite temporary hardship for those hurt by change: See - Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy www.econlib.org/library/E...peter.html - Marginal utility and general equilibrium theory www.econlib.org/library/E...alras.html- Johan Norberg on improved happiness from economic growth: www.johannorberg.net/?pag...icleid=139

Robert Tulip: It will be better for the happiness and security of the currently rich world when more people in poorer countries can 'afford to stop being factory workers' and can do even more productive work.I know enough about economics theory to know that that's a sound observation. The problem isn't that they couldn't be doing more productive work -- the problem is that we're not at the point where we can afford to have them do anything but what they're doing now. So while it's entirely correct to say that in some currently unrealizable utopia we would rather see them working better jobs and living fuller lives (though only because it benefits us), you cannot premise an argument that they are currently better off on that kind of foresight.Schumpeter's principle of creative destruction shows economic growth has overall benefit despite temporary hardship for those hurt by change:Be that as it may, our ethical concern is for the lives lead by those with "temporary" hardships. And much depends on what you mean by temporary. For many in developing countries, what you've referred to as temporary is the stuff of a lifetime. I can't help but think that they would make more informed decisions if they treated their situation as more or less permanent. It may very well be the promise that his is merely a transitional stage that draws them into the industrial system that benefits us far more than it benefits them. But for the majority of them, taken as individuals, there is no real transition.