Jesus is a Capitalist
“…and why that matters for you.”

We live in a day and time where the philosophy of Marx is ritualistically repackaged and distributed as the contemporary gospel of Jesus Christ.  As a result those of us who have been raised in a predominantly Christian culture have probably adopted some pretty dumb ideas, including some pretty devastating notions about God and His Son Jesus Christ.  Even worse, because we have these ideas — without much thinking — we are often determined to defend our views at all costs.  But what if those things that we’ve been trained, taught and educated to believe — aren’t quite true?

Consider — we live in a day and time where most people think that Jesus was against individualism.  Therefore, in our most noble sentiments we advocate collectivism.  But, is it possible that Jesus might not have taught us to value the group over the individual?

In our post-industrial age, most of us have come to believe Jesus was an altruist.  Therefore, as a sign of our devotion to higher thinking —without giving up our iPhones or air-conditioned automobiles — we are actually proud to be suspicious of strong willed, driven, producers who invent, organize, and develop the social, economic and political accomplishments that make the lives we live today possible.  But, is it possible that the fundamental teachings of Jesus were directly opposed to altruism?

Without questioning our day-to-day assumptions we (as a people) have generally come to view Jesus as the great teacher who admonished us to care for the poor.  Therefore, as a culture we celebrate the practice of devaluing, criticizing and sometimes even persecuting those who dare to set out on a course to deliberately prosper.  We decry those who consequently think its possible to “get rich quick” while at the same time secretly envying the supposed power of the wealthy.  “If they’d only be more generous,” we say to ourselves and then to each other.  But, is it possible that God’s plan might actually be that each of us individually should live so as to cultivate our own surpluses from which we care for ourselves, our families, our needs, our wants, and in principled ways – our poor neighbors?

In summary, we live at a time when the dominant social paradigm actually undermines the philosophical revolution that enabled us to become the most free, prosperous, and generous people in modern times.

The consequence of such uncritical acceptance of repackaged Marxism is that most of us live our lives in a constant quandary of contradiction.  We privately set goals, choose our paths, and grapple with our values and dreams – but publicly we make sure not to look like we want success too badly or that deep down we’re actually hoping that the American dream might still be possible  “for me.”  We watch television game shows, rooting for the “average Joe” to become a millionaire, but go about our political lives certain we know better than millionaires how to use their money for good and therefore lobby the government to do just that, saying to ourselves, “It’s only fair.”

Similarly, in a strange cult-like sense of obedience, we’ve been conditioned to regularly try and demonstrate our allegiance to the — Marxist, not Christian — concept that we are dedicated to producing everything we can while at the same time being contented with having only what we need or maybe just a little bit more or a little less.

Without questioning these kinds of assumptions we go to church and sing, “O Babylon O Babylon we bid thee farewell” while during the week we quietly search out the secrets supposedly taught by the Richest Man in Babylon.  We want to be good people but we desperately don’t want to be broke.  “Alas, if I wasn’t such a good person,” we tell ourselves, “I wouldn’t have any problems making more money.”

We want to care for the poor – but we look in our savings accounts and don’t see very much money – so we pass the buck and say to the government instead, “you should do it.” Practically, we advocate for free health care to help the poor and underprivileged, leaving unspoken the natural law of modern politics, namely that since we see ourselves as deserving, we’re secretly hoping to get some of that free health care for ourselves.  Is it possible that it’s not Jesus who taught the supposed virtue of “something for nothing?”

As many of you know, several years ago I started working on a book entitled “God is a Capitalist.”  It has since become the permanent project on my “drawing board.”  Rest assured, it will get published.  But so what?  Well, as I’ve worked on the book over the last several years, on occasion there have been a few people who have listened to me at Free Capitalist radio, or have read different articles here, and have taken issue with my characterization of “God” as being a “Capitalist.”  Imagine.

Most recently, a fellow who I don’t think I know, named Nick Boyer, sent me a few messages in the early hours of the morning, challenging me — in a very sarcastic way I might add — to explain myself.  You see Nick’s position is that if I were correct that God and His Son are capitalists, then the whole Bible story would be different.  Well, I don’t think Nick is very far from the truth.

You see, I have come to see the “whole Bible story” as much different than what is taught so casually in our modern culture.  The question I constantly ask myself when I hear someone talking about “what Jesus would do” is, “Are you sure?” It’s a healthy challenge, I think, to make sure that our ideas are indeed our own – that we’ve adopted them with purpose and through decision, rather than simply absorbing ideas – ameba like – uncritically accepting the philosophy of men or any individual man.

So why does this matter to you?

Answer.  In a nutshell, it means everything.  Your notion of God and what he’s like (or if he even exists at all) is an over-arching mental construct that influences—directly or indirectly—every thought you have.  The significance of this is that, as you know, “ideas have consequences.”  If you’ve adopted, intentionally or unintentionally, some of the dumb ideas I’ve alluded to above, you’re doomed to struggle with your own pursuit of happiness, your level of personal drive, passion and commitment, your determination to find salvation, and your own effort to live by sincere discipleship.

In short, bad ideas about such fundamental notions as God, his character and attributes, and his plan for you, create personal road blocks to living the best life you can be living, right now.  Is this you?

Do you ever struggle with these questions about your life, your happiness, and finding the motivation to live a passionate and committed life?  Are you focused on the definite major purpose God has revealed to you about the very unique and specific reason you are here in mortality?  I’m pretty sure these questions, and more like them, reflect a common condition for all of us who contemplate God and our place in this world.

Similarly, all of us have adopted ideas uncritically, and have suffered the result.  The question is, when we start to realize this, what will we do about it?

In the final analysis if we have uncritically and carelessly adopted ideas about God and his plan, ideas that form the basis of assumptions we make every day about politics, law, society, morality, neighborliness and everything else, then our own thinking is the reason we struggle excessively with feelings of negativity, fear, doubt, worry, frustration, cynicism, and a general feeling of victimhood.

The remedy to this is a correction of ideas.  Yes, I know that may come as a shock to some, but ideas sometimes – oftentimes – need correcting.

My purpose in advocating the notion that “God is a capitalist” is exactly related to this concept.  I am intentionally challenging the assumptions of our dominant Christian culture. Because, if we view God as a socialist, then the path we are doomed to follow is unpleasant in infinite proportions.

By advocating the idea that God is a capitalist, I’m intentionally setting out an argument that invites us to question our assumptions.  Is it possible, for example, that God — not the devil — is the one who inspires great architects, engineers, and innovative businessmen?

Is it possible that God wants us to be happy, for our own sake, rather than sacrificing our lives and our happiness for the supposed good of others?

Is it possible that capitalists feed more hungry, cloth more naked, and liberate more captives than all the well intentioned government officials, bureaucrats, and non-profit charities combined?

Is it possible that Jesus might be more unhappy with us when we give up and trudge through life than when we focus and pursue, with vigor, our desired course?

Lastly, is it possible that God wants us to value individual freedom more than we value the redistribution of society’s wealth?

When I advocate that “God is a Capitalist,” I’m intentionally challenging my audience to think—something my critics seem to think is only a virtue to be ascribed to themselves.  Well, call me what you will, but I prefer to do my own thinking, thanks.

With all this said, I’ve taken some time today reading through Mr. Boyer’s Facebook Notes including his criticism of my good friend Dr. W. Cleon Skousen.  I’ve read his “What if Jesus Christ was a Free Capitalist” and his selected excerpts from Eric Samuelsen’s Sunstone blog, and finally I’ve taken him up on the invitation to re-read Fourth Nephi and Moroni 7.

So, where does this leave things?

Well, my actual motivation for writing this entry today is to announce to my friends and readers that I’ve decided to take Nick up on his challenge, starting with his question, “How does Jesus Christ give us an example of the virtue of selfishness?” I’m also going to address his position that, “the Book of Mormon and Atlas Shrugged are not at all on page with one another.”  I’ll probably hit on a few more of his specific arguments as we go along, but the above two points will be my main focus.

Now, since I’ve heard that folks might be having a hard time plowing through some of my longer blogs, I think it will best to take three or four separate writings to address this challenge.  I’m currently working on an anticipated outline and I’m planning to publish it in the comments section of this entry here in the next day or so.

I’m curious if Mr. Boyer will make a conversation out of all this.  I hope so, it could be fun. My experience, however, causes me to doubt if we’ll hear much back from him after I get through with my response.  Its much easier for critics to just move on to their next target than to see an argument through to a conclusion.  So, Nick, here’s my invitation back at you – when I publish my answer, I hope you’ll stay engaged for round two.

For those who are interested, stay tuned.  I hope to publish my answer over the course of this next week.  Who knows, you might just get a few advance selections from this book of mine that I’ve been promising to publish for the last few years.

In the end, whether Mr. Boyer responds or not, I hope that all of this might help you to examine your own thoughts and you own beliefs.  At the very least I hope to demonstrate that repackaged Marxism isn’t any better for the soul today that it was a hundred and fifty years ago.   Remember, when it all boils down to it, it is our ideas — more than our intentions — that determine the correctness and virtue of our course.

If you liked this post, try these...

• June 18, 2009 -- The Betrayal of Ayn Rand
• May 29, 2008 -- Top 25 Influences on the FreeCapitalist
• April 12, 2008 -- Are You a Capitalist, by 1886 Standards?
• December 6, 2009 -- Is Rick Koerber really the “Utahn of the Year?”
• April 10, 2008 -- Carl Wimmer & Friends: Superheroes?

The Betrayal of Ayn Rand
An Open Letter to Objectivists

June 15, 2009

By Rick Koerber
Founder of the Free Capitalist Project

Long after her death, it’s sad to see so many Objectivists losing sight of Ayn Rand’s personal mission. Talking like an Objectivist, referencing the characters in her books, and using the vocabulary of her movement—are all poor substitutes for acting in accordance with the ideas of an Objectivist and working to usher forth the moral revolution she so passionately advocated.

While there are notable and significant exceptions too many Objectivists that I come across on a regular basis seem to be using their intransigent atheism to justify abandoning the actual hard work of BEING real radicals for capitalism. I’m writing this criticism, not to be sensational or to attack, but to rattle a few rusty mental cages among a crowd I consider to be my friends—friends however, who seem to have succumbed to what Ms. Rand regularly described as the ‘sluggish inertia of unfocused minds.’

Before I go any further let me also offer two very distinct caveats at the outset. Number one, I am not an expert on Objectivism—though I do consider myself a diligent student. Number two; I do not mean to suggest that most Objectivists are not thinking. I mean instead to suggest that a large number of so-called Objectivists seem to be entertained and satisfied by their own thinking—in some queer sort of intellectual masturbation—rather than translating their ideas into marketable, articulated tools for ‘building a new culture on a new moral foundation.’

Somehow, almost three decades after her death, a large body of self-proclaimed followers seems to be attempting, and in large measure successfully, a tragic historical revision; namely, equating the title Objectivist (and the less used phrase ‘radical for capitalism’) with the much less diligent pursuits of being an isolated, libertarian leaning atheist. This intellectual abdication is no simple error in judgment. It is the hallmark of second-handers and amounts to nothing less than a betrayal of Ayn Rand and her philosophy. Even worse, this betrayal is being perpetrated by a significant portion of those very people who claim to be her advocates and defenders.

Alright. If I’ve gotten the attention of my desired audience, so far my remarks have been the equivalent of taking a stick and poking it violently into a previously docile beehive. Before I’m overcome with a multitude of now irritated bees intent on me as their new target—let me back up and create some context.

I read Atlas Shrugged for the first time perhaps five years ago. So, in the world of Ayn Rand fans and students, I’m certainly not an old timer. I did, however, find Atlas Shrugged to be, quite simply, earth shaking. I literally fell in love with the characters. It wasn’t because I was enjoying the fiction. I often found the reading long and arduous. Instead, I found in Atlas Shrugged, a systematic articulation of the main conflict facing the modern world, in a way that I had only been struggling to come to terms with previously.

Nevertheless, when I finished reading the book I found myself in a sort of depression. I had grown so accustomed to coming home from the office and sitting down to spend a few hours with Dagny, Reardon, Francisco and John Galt—eagerly plowing through pages to learn how they were dealing with the moochers and looters, that when the story ended, it was like saying goodbye to new friends. I actually experienced a real feeling of emptiness and withdrawal for the first few weeks after finishing the book.

It didn’t take long however, for me to realize that it was not her characters that I had actually fallen in love with, it was Ms. Rand herself–the mind behind the characters. This realization sent me on my own personal odyssey. Soon I was reading the Fountainhead and not long after I had ordered every book I could find online, authored by Ayn Rand. I read everything. I read Objectivist Epistemology, the Night of January 16th, the Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and on and on. I was like a starving man who had been invited to a banquet feast.

Oddly, while I was certain I had never read anything like Ayn Rand’s works, the material seemed somehow familiar. My own ideas were becoming more clear, and new related ideas were not hard to grasp at all. Ironically, I was so new to reading Ms. Rand that virtually no one around me knew enough to correct me when I would refer to her as “Ann Rand” rather than Ayn.

It didn’t take long before essentially every one of my seminars, every daily radio program, and every class that I was teaching had some reference to Ayn Rand or her books. For example, my recently completed four-hundred and forty-seven page student manual for my “13 Principles of Prosperity” course, contained forty-seven direct references and over one-hundred indirect references to Ms. Rand and her works. Some days I would talk about Comprachicos on the radio, during others I’d simply be quoting John Galt to one of my students. The bottom line is—I became a very sincere and diligent student of Ms. Rand and Objectivism.

Being a Mormon, and therefore a member of the larger “Christian” community, one of the most obvious contradictions in my new intellectual landscape was that Ms. Rand was an unapologetic, unwavering atheist. As time passed two related problems emerged. My religious friends and associates began regularly expressing concern about my unflinching advocacy of Ms. Rand’s ideas and at the same time so-called Objectivists would summarily dismiss me, my arguments, my ideas, and the movement I was building, because, in their words, I was a “God-believer.”

Nevertheless, I continued studying Ms. Rand and have also worked diligently to cultivate relationships and opportunities with people from all walks of life, including Objectivists. For example, a few years ago I was extremely excited to travel with an associate to southern California to meet Yaron Brook and a few of his colleagues at the Ayn Rand Institute. They represent, generally speaking, some of the exceptions that I mentioned earlier on.

Over time I’ve learned that while there exists an unfortunate camp of so-called Christians who just can’t stomach the idea that Ayn Rand, an unapologetic atheist might have known something worth studying—even more oddly and surprisingly, there exists a camp of so-called Objectivists who can’t seem to think past the possibility that there might be some of us “God-believers” whose beliefs do not necessarily clash with reason.

In 1963 Ms. Rand, in a letter to US Congressman Bruce Alger wrote:

In accordance with the principles of America and of capitalism, I recognize your right to hold any beliefs you choose—and, on the same grounds, you have to recognize my right to hold any convictions I choose. I am an intransigent atheist, though not a militant one. This means that I am not fighting against religion—I am fighting for reason. When faith and reason clash, it is up to the religious people to decide how they choose to reconcile the conflict. As far as I am concerned, I have no terms of communication and no means to deal with people, except through reason. If you find that your beliefs do not clash with reason and that your political views are rational—then that is the area in which we can communicate. I sincerely hope that we can.

I think it might do my Objectivist friends well to consider a few points drawn out by this quotation from Ms. Rand.

1) There is a difference in fighting for reason and fighting against religion. Ms. Rand’s mission was the former.

2) It’s possible for a religious person and an Objectivist to communicate and cooperate when they both agree that reason is the standard in any mutual communication or endeavor.

Much more could be said about brain-off tribalists, who are eager to exclude ‘outsiders’ as a means of self-preservation. But, relevant point to these considerations is that as ‘a radical for capitalism’ myself, I’m at a loss to explain why so many Ayn Rand followers evidently think such titles are merely a slogan or private label social tattoo of sorts. Or to put the matter even more succinctly, these days it’s hard to sort out the Objectivists who are fighting for reason from those who are simply fighting against religion. In my own experience, Objectivists have twice in this past month told me that they could not assist my Free Capitalist Project since we do not disallow religious beliefs as a standard of our membership. How irrational!

In the early 1960’s Ms. Rand wrote to Senator Barry Goldwater saying,

I regard you as the only hope of the anticollectivist side on today’s political scene, and I have defended your position at every opportunity…I am not suggesting that you should take a stand against religion. I am saying that Capitalism and religion are two separate issues, which should not be united into one “package deal” or one common cause. This does not mean that religious persons cannot crusade for Capitalism; but it does mean that nonreligious persons, like myself, cannot crusade for religion.

Ms. Rand’s willingness to have hope and confidence in someone, despite their differences in belief and opinion on a subject as significant as the existence of God—is far afield of the contemporary banter spewed forth by a large group of her followers today. Consider, I was just reading Jared Seehafer’s March 17, 2009 piece entitled, “Jesus Christ or John Galt? The Republican Party’s Identity Crisis” published by Capitalism Magazine (http://www.capmag.com), and thinking to myself—“He’s not advocating for reason, he’s fighting against religion.” It was this realization that caused me to go and dig up the two quotes used above from Letters of Ayn Rand.

In his essay Mr. Seehafer concludes,

Republicans who support capitalism need to understand that those who combine religion with politics are their enemies, and must be ostracized from the party. In order to be successful, they need to defend capitalism on ethical grounds, which means recognizing that their best pitchman is not Jesus Christ, but John Galt.

Mr. Seehafer, like many “quick-to-the-punch” atheists, evidently does not see the contradiction of his own position. He indicts Republicans for mixing religion and politics and yet he himself brings the two together in his self-created, albeit artificial and irrational dichotomy of Jesus Christ vs. John Galt. His, ‘purge through ostracization’ is the same conservative approach taken by Republicans against Objectivists over the last five decades. Perhaps even more ironically, Ms. Rand, the creator of John Galt’s character, has actually said that,

Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism—the inviolate sanctity of man’s soul and the salvation of one’s soul as one’s first concern and highest goal…

I suppose that Mr. Seehafer and my other friends like him would not want to throw out the Declaration of Independence because Jefferson was a “God-believer” and the document itself (being political) references “Nature’s God,” the “Creator,” and “the Supreme Judge of the world.” I suppose also that Mr. Seehafer is not interested in throwing out the Constitution of the United States simply because so many of its drafters were “God-believers” who invoked his name during the convention. Ms. Rand argues instead that;

The Founding Fathers were America’s first intellectuals, so far, her last. It is their basic political line that the New Intellectuals have to continue. Today, that line is lost under layer upon layer of evasions, equivocations and plain falsehood; today’s Witch Doctors claim that the basic premise of the Founding Fathers was faith and uncritical compliance with tradition; today’s Attila-ists claim that the basic premise was the subordination of the individual to the collective and his sacrifice to the public good. The New Intellectuals must remind the world that the basic premise of the Founding Fathers was man’s right to his own life, to his own liberty, to the pursuit of his own happiness—which means: man’s right to exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; and that the political implementation of this right is a society where men deal with one another as traders, by voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. The moral premises implicit in the political philosophy of the Founding Fathers, in the social system they established and in the economics of capitalism, must now be recognized and accepted in the form of an explicit moral philosophy…The world crisis of today is a moral crisis—and nothing less than a moral revolution can resolve it: a moral revolution to sanction and complete the political achievement of the American Revolution.

The point, being missed by Mr. Seehafer and so many of my Objectivist friends, is that the question of God and issues of religion have become their knee-jerk excuse for idleness, laziness, crassness and disengagement. The mission we have before us, all of us who love our lives, is to advocate for this moral revolution. The only required foundation for that, according to Ms. Rand, is a shared commitment to two essential principles: a) emotions are not tools of cognition; b) no man has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others. All other philosophical contradictions—including issues surrounding God and religion—will be resolved, in time, by a group of reasonable and thinking people.

Why is it that such a large number of so-called Objectivists like to write or speak, but few can demonstrate that they’ve devoted any significant thought whatsoever or any meaningful, sustained action to bringing about a veritable, tangible movement as described by Ms. Rand?

It was several years ago, after picking up a copy of For the New Intellectual for the first time, that I boarded an airplane and felt the challenge I’m attempting to convey today. I’m certain that I must have read the majority of that essay with my jaw literally gaping open. It’s probably the only flight in my life that I don’t remember uttering a single word to any other passenger. For the New Intellectual, is the most comprehensive and detailed call-to-action for those of us who value truth and love our lives – more than anything I’ve ever come across.

We reformed businessmen could benefit from the efforts of Objectivist intellectuals who can free themselves from their own irrational mental indulgences. Yet, I regularly meet so-called Objectivists who can quote or paraphrase—nothing—from that essay. How is this possible? How is it possible to be an Objectivist, or anything close, and not be committed to the revolution advocated by Ms. Rand?

Long before I had started reading Atlas Shrugged I was engaged in an effort to organize at least 300,000 members into a “free capitalist” cause. My organization, the Free Capitalist Project, advocates for capitalism as the foundation of a moral revolution to sanction and complete the political achievement of the Founders. I wonder how many so-called Objectivists even recognize that language.

The second-hander’s dream of tribal prestige is no substitute for getting on with the business of this revolution. This is no theoretical project and no amount of theoretical posturing will do.

In one of the most poignant sections of his radio address, John Galt challenges:

If you find a chance to vanish into some wilderness out of their reach, do so, but not to exist as a bandit or to create a gang competing with their racket; build a productive life of your own with those who accept your moral code and are willing to struggle for a human existence…raise a standard to which the honest will repair: the standard of Life and Reason. Act as a rational being and aim at becoming a rallying point for all those who are starved for a voice of integrity—act on your rational values, whether alone in the midst of your enemies, or with a few of your chosen friends, or as the founder of a modest community on the frontier of mankind’s rebirth.”

I am a radical for capitalism. While there exists any number of different groups who could use a healthy criticism, today, I’m challenging my Objectivist friends who have become complacent and disinterested. The hollow, righteous sounding bromides so often uttered by feigned intellectuals so lucidly able to describe our culture’s impending doom—is no substitute for a deliberate, strategic and organized effort put forth in defense of Ms. Rand, Objectivism, and capitalism.

This criticism is an open invitation from some of us, who like you, have stepped out of that dismal gray vacuum of a bankrupt culture and are committed to ushering forth the producer revolution advocated consistently by Ms. Rand.

We, who are NOT about to die, salute you.

###

If you liked this post, try these...

• April 2, 2008 -- Who is Les McGuire?
• December 2, 2008 -- Capitalism, Mormonism, and the Bible
• October 27, 2008 -- God is a Capitalist: Answering Ruble Fisher
• April 8, 2009 -- Rick Koerber Indicted? Schmucks, Grand Juries, & the Trials Ahead.
• August 4, 2008 -- Initiation into the Secret Brotherhood of Dads

As we were signing in church yesterday, the words to “Let us all press on” seemed to sink in deeper than before.  I thought I’d share a few sections, in this context, because some days music seems to say it best…

In the fight for right let us wield a sword,
The mighty sword of truth.

Fear not, though the enemy deride;
Courage, for the Lord is on our side.
We will heed not what the wicked may say,
But the Lord alone we will obey.

We will not retreat, though our numbers may be few
When compared with the opposite host in view;
But an unseen pow’r will aid me and you
In the glorious cause of truth.

If we do what’s right we have no need to fear,
For the Lord, our helper, will ever be near;
In the days of trial his Saints he will cheer,
And prosper the cause of truth.

>>> Full Version of the Hymn

If you liked this post, try these...

• June 18, 2009 -- The Betrayal of Ayn Rand
• December 2, 2008 -- Capitalism, Mormonism, and the Bible
• October 27, 2008 -- God is a Capitalist: Answering Ruble Fisher
• August 4, 2008 -- Initiation into the Secret Brotherhood of Dads

I originally published this essay several years ago and also included it in early editions of the FreeCapitalist Primer.  As I’ve had repeated requests recently I’ve decided to republish the essay here.  There is also a .pdf download version.

The Hero’s Life – The Power of Taking Deliberate Action
by C. Rick Koerber

Many of us admire heroes from a distance, yet we often fail to make the choice to live the hero’s life ourselves. There is no modesty in failing to take on the personal mantle of being a hero in your world. The challenge for most of us is that we simply fail to grasp the simple concept that choosing to be a hero is ours to make and is the only way to effectively change the world.  The individual who grasps this concept can live the life of a hero, starting today!

I’m convinced that each human being, even the very simplest, wants to live a life that matters. I would argue that herein lays the truth regarding all human beings’ craving for the feeling of importance.  Individual heroes are our mind’s projection of our own personal desire for living a life we love. It is for this reason that citizens everywhere might make exceptional progress in their own affairs by cultivating a respect for heroes of all kinds.

Most of us fail to realize that we can cultivate the life of a hero through our own daily choices, waiting instead for someone else to rescue us when facing life’s most difficult challenges.  Yet, through our own observation and study of those who have gone before us in time or accomplishment, we are actually able to get in touch with a personal and valuable portion of our own consciousness.  Or to say it more simply, by choosing heroes for ourselves, men and women we deliberately choose to admire and whose lives and accomplishments we purposefully reflect upon, we find ourselves able to recognize the power of a hero inside our own lives.

The realization in the mind of a man or woman that he or she can actually transcend the normal victimhood of life and become a hero-increasingly able to make a difference in the lives of loved ones, and in the community around them -is a realization that gives the mind and heart a source of courage, a reservoir of faith and hope, and an example of how to face the challenges of life.

“Ye Are Gods”
The Lord says he created man to act for himself rather than to be acted upon. To me, this means the difference between living life as a hero and living life as a victim. More poignantly, it is the difference between living life as a god and living life as a devil. When the Savior was accused of blasphemy for proclaiming himself the Son of God, he responded:

Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

All of us are the children of God, yet the devil would like us to be miserable, to forget our royal heritage, and to live life as a thing acted upon rather than as one with courage and deliberateness, who makes the world a better place.

Do we do the works of God? Do we choose liberty and life?

Five Minutes That Changed My Life Forever

There is a clear difference between acting for ourselves, and being acted upon. The difference begins with perception.

A few years ago, I was in a business meeting with three of my top executives. We were having an unplanned meeting to deal with some of the pressing business issues of the day. During the conversation, it dawned on me that none of us had spent any time deliberately preparing for our discussion.

I noticed that we were being acted upon by the pressure of expectations outside ourselves, a pattern, in hindsight, appears to be something to which we had become habitually addicted. This is how a person assents to perpetual victimhood.

As I pondered our situation, an idea flashed into my mind.  I said to each of my associates there in that meeting, “I’d like to take exactly five minutes to focus in complete silence on this one very specific issue.”
I asked each executive to write down any ideas that came to mind while we pondered that one simple matter-very deliberately, together and in silence. The challenge I issued to them was to think of a solution, or more than one if possible, to this very specific problem our company was facing. I asked them, “If this challenge was left entirely up to you, what would you do?”

I asked them to consider all possibilities, no matter how bold. Once I confirmed that each understood, I looked at the clock and said, “Okay, five minutes; please don’t make a sound.”

The seconds began ticking by. I’m not sure much happened in the first minute or two, other than three grown men looking occasionally at each other-acknowledging the oddity of the moment. After about two or three minutes, one of the men began to jot down an idea. A few seconds later another started to write. By the time there was only thirty seconds left, we were all writing quickly. At the end of five minutes, we all had a bright look on our faces. The feeling in the room was much different than the pressure felt just five minutes earlier.

I next requested that each of us share the ideas we had written down. One at a time we began to do so. By the time each of us had finished sharing our ideas, the power of deliberateness was evident. The amazing reality was that in just five minutes of deliberate acting (in this case our action was simply to think) we made more progress than we had done in many months of discussion previously, on that very same issue.
That simple five-minute experiment has changed my life forever.

Walking Down the Middle of a Busy Street
On another occasion I learned more about the power of acting for myself, of being deliberate and choosing the hero’s life.  I remember making the decision to take a walk down the double yellow line in the center of a busy downtown street in front of my office building.

Now, before you rush to conclusions, this wasn’t something silly, nor was it a decision I took lightly, odd though it may seem. I had been given the difficult church assignment to work with two single women in our local church congregation. They were both single mothers who didn’t regularly attend meetings, lived in very poor conditions, and didn’t seem to like the idea of receiving assistance from anyone in the church.
For months, I struggled with my assignment. It was difficult to even obtain their phone numbers. I prayed about my assignment and made token efforts semi-regularly to reach out to them. Whenever I reached out, my efforts seemed easily and quickly dismissed. It had been nearly six months since I was first given the assignment when I realized, very clearly, that I was failing to make any difference in the lives of these two women whatsoever.

I felt bad about the situation, but I didn’t have any idea of what to do. I attempted to justify myself by remembering each of the times I had tried to reach out but had been rebuffed; however, nothing seemed to quench the gnawing within me-that seemed to be saying, “You’re failing.”

I was being acted upon, by my own fears and doubts, and I didn’t realize then that there was an external force inviting me to get out of my own victim story and write a new chapter-the hero’s story.
Long ago I heard it suggested that the universe has a way of giving us exactly the trial required for us to grow and improve.  One day as I sat in my office, a very strange thing happened.  I didn’t know it at the time, but it was one of those moments in life, an invitation-to face a very real and future altering test.
Unannounced and out of the blue, in the middle of a weekday, as I sat in my office focused on the computer in front of me, both women came into my office at the same time asking to see me.

My secretary came in to interrupt my schedule and asked, assuming I would say no, if I would see these two young women. I was a bit surprised to see them, to say the least. I agreed to see them without hesitation.  As they sat across from my desk, the idea struck me-how odd it was to have both of them, two very specific souls who I had been so concerned over but had felt so helpless to affect-now sitting together, directly in front of me.

They proceeded to explain that due to some unforeseen circumstances they were both facing a situation where they would soon be homeless. As a matter of fact, one of them was required to be out of her house that very day. They had successfully secured a new apartment, planning to move in together, but the new place was a mess, needed cleaning, and required some minor repairs. In addition, they had no help for the move.

They had no pickups, no friends to assist, and no plans for making the move happen; yet they had planned the move for that very day.  Now, here they were, sitting in my office asking for my help.
At first I was more than happy to agree.  I had been pondering for months over how I might reach out to them and here was my opportunity.  I agreed to help but explained that since it was the middle of the workday it would be several hours before I could arrive.

As I thought about my commitment, I envisioned myself showing up at about 5:30pm, helping load boxes etc., but really nothing more.  They both quietly expressed understanding that I was busy and that I would take the time to come by and help them later that evening. They smiled briefly and then politely left my office.

After they were gone, I sat pondering the situation. “Certainly,” I thought to myself, “I want to help them, but I have a huge workload today.” I even remember thinking it was silly to expect to move so quickly, and to schedule a move with so little planning.  Of course, they explained, it wasn’t their fault; it was unanticipated, etc., but I had heard such excuses many times before.

As I sat there in my office, justifying to myself that there was nothing else I could do, a feeling deep inside again started to gnaw at my core. The feeling was direct and poignant, and I could not deny it. I knew for certain that all my rationalizations meant nothing. I knew I had been praying for months for a way to reach out to each of these women, and for months the only thing preventing me from making the world a better place for them and myself was my own lame pattern of excuses.

I acknowledged to myself that I was not acting like a hero, and I knew it. I also knew that I was of no matter in this situation to these women or to the Lord; I had not chosen to be a significant source for good in the situation. The more powerfully I went over this acknowledgment in my mind, the more powerfully I felt inspired to do something about it.

I suppose it had been fifteen minutes since I had escorted the women from my office. I sat by myself in silence, tortured by the idea that I had failed, that there was no excuse for the poor choice I had made, and that the bigger problem I was up against was my own self-deception about my own intentions.
Not comfortable at all with the conclusions I was coming to, I began thinking about what else I could do.  I started to ask very specific questions, in my own mind, about the possibilities-rather than focusing on rationalizations for my limitations.

I pondered and then got on my knees and prayed. I knew I must do something. The idea then came to my mind that I must act very deliberately. I felt certain my failure to deliberately chart a course forward was the same as deliberately charting a course to nowhere; so, I started looking for ways to act deliberately in a manner to appropriately rectify this situation.

I committed to myself to do something right then, without delay. I had no way to reach either woman. This was a time before cell phones were common. They had errands to run and were planning to meet me back at the home where the move was to take place at 5:30 p.m. that evening.  It was only noon and I knew there was no way that I could wait five hours to do something. Or better stated, I knew I could make a difference and that I would not wait another minute to do it.

As I sat pondering, a very strange idea came to my mind. It was as if a voice said to me, “Okay, if you want to act deliberately, go walk down the middle of the street.” I’m not kidding. That is the idea that came into my mind.

At first, I chuckled. I wondered if the source hadn’t been my own frustration and as an expression of that frustration I was now telling myself to go play jacks in the middle of the highway or something similar. However, I recognized the source of the idea and knew that I could not deny it. I knew that I was prepared to act and was going to act, so I got up from my office chair immediately and headed out the door.

On my way out of the office, my secretary, surprised to see me heading out of the office so quickly and without warning, asked me where I was going. Not worried how strange it would sound, I simply replied, “I’m going to go walk down the middle of the road.”

This I’m sure sounded curiously alarming. He got up and started following me out of the building. As I made my way quickly down the stairs and outside to the sidewalk, he again asked what I was doing. I looked out at the double yellow line in the center of road. I remember thinking to myself that this was a bit crazy and wondering what I hoped to accomplish. I turned to my secretary and explained that I was going to help the two women that I had mistakenly dismissed earlier. I told him the only way I could change what I did was to take deliberate action. I’m not sure how convincing I sounded, but I took off for the center of the road.
When I reached the double yellow line, I decided to start walking west.

My secretary walked with me (staying on the sidewalk paralleling my course). I stopped responding to his questions and just kept walking, paying close attention and keeping my feet, one step after the other, on the double yellow line.

I soon approached a busy intersection controlled by a traffic light. I paused, wondering to myself how much danger I was really willing to put myself in, in order to keep walking the line. As I stood there, wondering how this action was going to make a difference, a car came turning the corner and almost ran me over. Of course, I couldn’t complain since I was the one standing in the middle of the road.
The car swerved to avoid hitting me, and pulled over to the side of the road. To my great astonishment, inside the car were the two women I was looking for. The woman in the passenger side rolled down her window and with a somewhat astonished look on her face asked what I was doing walking down the middle of the road.

I responded with a sigh of relief by telling them that I had been inspired to do so, that it was the only way I was going to be able to reach them, that I had made a mistake earlier, and I wanted to take charge of getting them moved starting that very minute.

The entire story is too long to tell, but suffice it to say, the mood between the three of us changed dramatically. We all recognized that something was much different than only a short time before.

I went to work. I called over 25 men in the middle of the day without any warning. I simply requested in a rather pursuasive way that they all meet me with boxes, trucks, hand-trucks, dollies, etc.

I was only successful at reaching a small handful; for the rest, on each of their answering machines, I left a very deliberate and determined message. I had no idea how many would show up. For some reason, I had no doubt that I could orchestrate and accomplish the task.  But, I had no idea what I was about to witness.

I arrived at the house to help with the move (ironically, my soon-to-be wife was with me that day, but that is another story). At first, we were the only ones there; not even the two women who needed the help were present to witness the miracle that was about to take place. After a short time, men and women began to arrive from all directions.

Almost everyone that I had called came to help, and many brought friends who had received word of the project. In what seemed like less than thirty minutes, we had so much help I couldn’t count everyone. We had trucks, boxes, and lots of hands. Literally, in just a few hours, we had the entire home packed and moved, including having cleaned and made the needed repairs to the new apartment.

I had spent almost the entire time simply directing traffic, so to speak. I had never before witnessed such an effective and heartfelt response to any similar situation. The people who showed up to help had a unique spirit about them, and the work was accomplished almost as a by-product.

When the two women finally arrived to help get the move started, they were astonished to discover all the work had already been completed. They were moved, and everything was already accomplished. I remember a brief moment while standing in the middle of the living room in the center of human traffic watching all the work being done throughout the house, being coordinated by my basic directions. At that moment, the feelings I experienced were the feelings of a hero. Not a hero in the sense of being recognized by anyone else as such, but a hero in my own mind. I knew that I had finally stepped up to the plate and had accomplished something worthwhile.

Heroes: The Power of Being Deliberate
There is a power that comes with deliberateness. In both of my stories, which were actual occurrences in my life, there were clear, small but significant moments when I learned something amazingly powerful. I learned something of the difference between acting and being acted upon.

I felt the difference between being a victim of circumstance and a hero who had chosen to act deliberately. In those minutes, a brief glance through the mundane in life, I knew that I had chosen to be an agent, a hero, and even in a very meaningful but humble way, a god-who had in those instances acted deliberately to create a better world.

Much of life is about finding importance and making a difference. The answer to our search is unique for each of us, as unique as the individual situations and challenges we face each day. I have learned through my own experience something of the sacred and amazing possibilities that lay at the core of why each of us is here on the earth. Through many small moments like the two experiences, I have come to know that what I have accomplished as a result of being very deliberate in my efforts has enabled me to tap into the power of a hero, which is literally the power to change the world.

I am convinced that within the immediate grasp of anyone reading this essay is the possible choice of living the hero’s life, the choice of being a god-or perhaps more comfortably, the child of God. But it is a choice.
The individual who grasps this concept can begin living a new life, today!

If you liked this post, try these...

• April 8, 2009 -- Rick Koerber Indicted? Schmucks, Grand Juries, & the Trials Ahead.
• November 17, 2008 -- Updated: Some Things are Worth Thinking About
• October 27, 2008 -- God is a Capitalist: Answering Ruble Fisher
• August 4, 2008 -- Initiation into the Secret Brotherhood of Dads
• June 23, 2008 -- My Support for Congressman Chris Cannon

Its not uncommon for me to receive questions via Facebook or email regarding my convictions as a capitalist and my religious identity as a Mormon.  Recently,  a sincere Facebook friend posted a few questions on my Facebook wall and I thought I’d answer them publicly for the benefit of all who read here regularly and who might have similar questions.

My Friend Writes: “Rick, your religious beliefs intrigue me, I will say I am an evangelical Christian and believe the Bible and take it as literal.  I have never heard you say anything that contradicts what I believe (as far as principal goes).”

My Response:  Well, being a Christian (specifically a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) I too “believe” the Bible.  What this statement means to me, may be something different than it means to you.  So, to clarify – let me briefly explain what I’m attempting to express.  I will outline a few basic points that describe my beliefs regarding the book commonly referred as the Bible.

1. First, it’s important to clarify just what book is being referred to as “the Bible.”  Not everyone agrees.  Not even most Christians agree.  For example, the King James Version of the Holy Bible is much different than the New Revised Standard edition of the Holy Bible.  Also, the New American Bible based upon the Latin Vulgate is quite different in substance than most Protestant bible’s because it includes an additional set of whole books that includes Tobit, Judith, First and Second Maccabees, The Book of Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus (not to be confused with Ecclesiastes).  Also, when different language versions of these editions there can be many differences.  So, in summary, when someone asks me my opinion about “the Bible” if it is for a matter of specific discussion related to a verse or a chapter of a book within the Bible, the first thing that must be determined is, “What book, specifically, are we talking about?”

2.  As a Latter-Day Saint, I generally use the King James Version as the primary source of my own Gospel Study from the Bible.

3.  I believe that the bible, generally, is what it is set apart to be, an inspired collection of written testaments of the Gospel, including a record of God’s dealings with certain groups of people over thousands of years.

4.  I believe it is important to translate books correctly, and that there have been errors, omissions, and mistranslations of the book, but that generally speaking, it is God’s Word to man, through inspired prophets who completed the task of reducing God’s word to written form.

5.  Regarding the literalness of the Bible, I generally take the Bible at face value.  Where the text suggests it is allegorical or metaphorical, I take it as such “for example, I do not believe there was an actual physical dragon who chased an actual physical woman into the wilderness, as described in Revelation Chapter 12 – I believe that is symbolic language.  Where the text does not suggest as much, I take it as literal, meaning the stories of Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc.  However, it is also important to note, that I am not a mystic and I do not believe any text “speaks” without considering the intention of the writer.

6.  In summary, I believe the Bible to be an indispensable written work for all sincere disciples of Jesus Christ.  I am not a fan of Constantine or the councils that ratified or codified the existing text as “complete” but I do believe, in the context I’ve described, that the hand of God was instrumental in protecting and preserving the essence of the Book and as a central tenant of my faith believe it is a canonical text.

My Friend Next Writes:  What makes Mormonism different from other evangelical Christian faiths?  I understand this is likely a subject matter that would take more time then you have available and more space then is allocated for a single post on Facebook, but if you could at the very least give me some web links or recommendations for books to read, I would really appreciate it.

My Response:  Yes, you are correct his is an important, and deep discussion.  I will address it in two ways.  First, regarding the request for links.  I would start with http://www.lds.org and http://www.mormon.org.  Second, as a convert to “Mormonism” and a study of Christian history myself (I studied early Christian history at the University of Denver – which certainly, by itself doesn’t make me an expert, just an above average interest student), a short compare/contrast list between my faith and “other evangelical Christian faiths” is as follows.

1.  I believe in an active Priesthood directed by living Apostles and Prophets.
2.  I believe that living Apostles and Prophets have authority to continue reducing God’s word to man, in the form of an open cannon of Scripture and therefore I believe that there are additional, complimentary texts to the Holy Bible, as part of the Cannon – namely, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.

In my own judgment, I judge that all other significant differences boil down to these two.

While these differences are important, and the doctrine related to them is detrimental to the salvation of man, I will say that I believe the common ground that exists between Evangelical Christians and “Mormons” is more important and more detrimental.  Among these shared common beliefs are:

1.  I believe that Jesus of Nazareth, was the Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and is now a living, resurrected being.  I believe he is one of three members of the Godhead or Holy Trinity.

2.  I believe that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the most important message on Earth and that life’s most important questions and choices boil down to our individual quest for knowledge, truth and light.

In summary, I would simply conclude that religion is a cultural mixed bag, traditionally being filled so such a great extent with mysticism and oppression that all religious claims should rightly be viewed with careful discernment, and any who claim to speak for or by the power of God should not be given a pass on standards of truth, morality, or justice.  I am not a mystic, and reject all forms of tyranny over the mind of man.  My advice to all believers and unbelievers is to constantly “check your premise”, “keep thinking” and be always willing to admit that your mind has yet room to expand and your faith has yet roots to grow.

>>>Learn more about capitalism

If you liked this post, try these...

• June 18, 2009 -- The Betrayal of Ayn Rand
• October 27, 2008 -- God is a Capitalist: Answering Ruble Fisher
• April 12, 2008 -- Are You a Capitalist, by 1886 Standards?
• April 2, 2008 -- Who is Les McGuire?
• April 8, 2009 -- Rick Koerber Indicted? Schmucks, Grand Juries, & the Trials Ahead.

This past week a Facebook friend of mine, Ruble Fisher, wrote on my Facebook wall the following critique of my oft repeated observation that “God is a Capitalist.”

Rick, you definitely have not forgotten to suggest that God is a Capitalist, but I must say that this is not true. God’s economic system is Consecration, not Capitalism. Capitalism, Communism and Socialism all have the same flaw; they are man-made systems that ultimately lead to only one place, and that is destruction.

I answered Ruble on his wall, but since that time I’ve had several people who can’t access my post, ask about my response.  So, I figured I’d just post it here (with some minor edits and several additions based upon Ruble’s subsequent responses).

I wrote: Ruble, the error in your logic is that you’ve made my proposition a tautology. You choose to see the concept referred to in my statement, by the word Capitalism, as a man made concept. You then connect this choice with your choice—to see everything not directly made by God as doomed to destruction. So in essence what you are saying is that, “Whatever is made by God will prevail, whatever is not made by God will fail and whatever Rick says (including his choice of the term Capitalism) is made by Rick, not God and therefore it is self-evidently true that Capitalism will fail.”

However, here is the challenge put to you, that you ignore.  The concept I refer to when I use the term Capitalism (and this is not my choice uniquely) is the concept that the initiation of FORCE by one man (or group) against another (man or group) is immoral and unjust.

When I say that “God is a Capitalist,” I am making the argument that the concept of capitalism is NOT man made. This is the challenge you ignore by defining the proposition as a tautology and simply assuming through your restatement of your proposition that capitalism is “man made.”

Since it is an assertion inseparable from your tautology, if I want to engage you in rational discussion, I can’t respond without you claiming that whatever I say or whatever concept I uphold is “man made” since I (the one speaking) am indeed a man. Or, in other words, your position boils down to the claim that MAN can never understand God well enough to accurately label God’s truths or laws and subsequently communicate them to others.  While you don’t make this argument explicitly, its implied in your position.

Your stance, of course, is self-evidently false, when at the same time you claim that God’s system is consecration. You see, the word consecration is also a “man made” term and therefore—according to your position—our understanding of God’s truths or laws is always limited by our man made articulations or choice of terms.

Certainly, you would agree (and its consistent with the position you take) that someone using the term consecration is not necessarily doing so in a way that accurately conforms with or communicates God’s law.  Right?  Since any such communication is going to be limited by man’s inherent fallibility (the core of your position).

The consequence, therefore, of your position is that in order to be rationally consistent you have to abandon either the tautology or your claim that you know and have properly labeled God’s system as consecration.

I suspect you would choose giving up the tautology. If its possible for you to argue that you have an accurate conceptualization of God’s law, then certainly you are forced to admit the possibility that I might also have made an accurate conceptualization of God’s law, regardless of the term I use (which would therefore include my use of the term Capitalism).

Your only argument could be that since the “word” consecration is used in the scripture and the word capitalism is not, your word (and the conceptualization attached to it) is not man made, while mine is.  This, of course, would make any conversation between us on the subject meaningless, because I could just point out every word used in defense of your position, that is not scriptural, and that effort would become infinitely regressive.

On the chance that I’m right, and that you’d be willing to give up the tautology and actually engage in the discussion over WHY I contend that God is Capitalist, then let me advance the next stage of our intellectual exchange.

I would begin by suggesting that Consecration is NOT POSSIBLE without the foundation of CAPITALISM being established in place first. Or, in other words, a society must first accept and obey God’s law that to initiate FORCE (of either the body or the mind) against any man or group is unjust and immoral. (Notice, my not so subtle argument by articulation).

This would therefore fence out any participation in CONSECRATION by tyrants. Or more simply, CONSECRATION is only possible absent tyranny. Because, CONSECRATION is the surrender of all RIGHT to waste, to horde, to control for unproductive use and to gratify at the expense of value. YET, any attempt at CONSECRATION by any group of Christians is ultimately undermine without a fundamental respect for the tenants of CAPITALISM.

This is the premise for Apostle Stephen L. Richards (who was an attorney, grandson of Apostle Willard Richards and mentor to the late President Gordon B. Hinckley), teaching that CAPITALISM IS THE FOUNDATION OF GOD’S CELESTIAL LAW. He taught:

“Many people misunderstand and misinterpret capitalism. They think that because the word “capital” is used to designate the system that its chief purpose is to make wealthy men who are usually called capitalists and whose wealth, it is feared, is too often accumulated at the expense of poorer classes.

I admit that there are instances, altogether too many, where this comes about. But this is not the true concept of capitalism. The capitalistic system in its inner essence, is little, if anything, more than a man’s free right to work, to choose his work, and enjoy the rewards of his efforts. In my estimation, it is a most precious thing and it is indispensable to the liberty and freedom of which America boasts.

It is the only tried and tested system of free enterprise in this world and every other opposing system is built on an abridgment of personal liberty. For one I do not want to lose it.  But we will lose it if we do not understand it and recognize its virtues.  It is not the capitalistic system itself that makes some men rich and some men poor. The men themselves do that, again with some exceptions. The system merely offers the opportunities. “

Ruble then responded.  I’ll address his response, in line by line fashion, for clarity.

Ruble writes 1: Rick, honestly, I am really trying to follow your logic, but I am unable to do so. Capitalism was not inspired by God, nor was it made by you.

I agree I did not “create” capitalism, but I have argued that it is in fact God’s doctrine.  You don’t address my argument you just ignore it.  You see, I’ve defined Capitalism as, “the concept that the initiation of FORCE by one man (or group) against another (man or group) is immoral and unjust.” The basic premise of capitalism, justifying this moral position, is that man is free by right, and that all men have an equal claim to liberty.

Again, I suggest that this plan/system of men being “free” (Which I, and many others call Capitalism) is indeed authored by God.

• “…under [Christ's] head ye are made free, and there is no other head whereby ye can be made free.”  (Mosiah 5:8)
• “Wherefore men are free according o the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.” (2 NE 2:27)
• “I stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.”  (Gal:5:1)
• “Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” (2 Cor. 3:17)
• “…according to the Spirit of God, which is also the spirit of freedom which is in them.” (Alma 61:15)
• “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.”  (Rom. 8:2)
• “That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him…” (Moses 4:3)

Finally, on this I would also point out that you have completely ignored that excellent quotation I provided from an Apostle of the Lord who uses the SAME articulation of CAPITALISM that I have used and that is at issue here.

Let me remind you that he clearly pointed out, “The capitalistic system in its inner essence, is little, if anything, more than a man’s free right to work, to choose his work, and enjoy the rewards of his efforts. In my estimation, it is a most precious thing and it is indispensable to the liberty and freedom of which America boasts.”

The reason this quotation is important is that it directly counters your claim that Capitalism was not inspired by God.  It does so in two ways.

1. Elder Richards clearly articulates that Capitalism is “a man’s free right to work, to choose his work, and…. is indispensable to the liberty and freedom of which America boasts.”
2. The Doctrine and Coventants makes clear that the Constitutional law of the United States which supports “that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges” was indeed inspired by him.

Ruble Writes 2: Capitalism is simply another economic system like Socialism and Communism that is helping the inhabitants of this Earth to know the difference between good and evil. Each of these systems are evil, and God has nothing to do with them.

I have already addressed the core of your argument above, namely that God did not create capitalism.  However, you now take the matter even further, so I’ll provide some additional insight regarding your claims that “Capitalism is simply another economic system like Socialism and Communism”, your claim that “each of these systems are evil” and you last claim that “God has nothing to do with them.”

RE: “Capitalism is simply another economic system like Socialism and Communism.”

1. Why?  You have ignored my arguments to the contrary.
2. You offer no analysis as to how these are similar, except to repeat, implicitly, your contention that they are all “man made.”  But certainly I’ve addressed that.  But, to be clear, TRUTH is not man made, and ideas either conform to the TRUTH or they do not.  I have argued that CAPITALISM conforms the the essential Gospel truth related to the agency of man.  I have argued that God has authored this system and provided an explanation and scriptural support.  But, you simply keep repeating your assumption.  My question to you is, what if it’s not true Ruble… what if God did indeed establish the “Capitalistic system.”  I’m presenting that case, and you are ignoring it completely, and ignoring the statement by a Latter-day Apostle on the subject without any explanation.
3. How are these systems alike, besides your claim that they are man made?
4. I suggest they are extremely different.  First, Socialism and Communism are Godless.  Second, Capitalism acknowledges the supremacy of individual rights (which are central to the American System established by God) and Socialism and Communism seek to eradicate these fundamental rights.Lest you think this is just my assertion, let me quote Engles to you from his “Principles on Communism” 1847,“Moreover, since the management of industry by individuals necessarily implies private property, and since competition is in reality merely the manner and form in which the control of industry by private property owners expresses itself, it follows that private property cannot be separated from competition and the individual management of industry. Private property must, therefore, be abolished and in its place must come the common utilization of all instruments of production and the distribution of all products according to common agreement – in a word, what is called the communal ownership of goods.  In fact, the abolition of private property is, doubtless, the shortest and most significant way to characterize the revolution in the whole social order which has been made necessary by the development of industry – and for this reason it is rightly advanced by communists as their main demand.”
   
5. Finally, I suggest that the Church has made clear distinction between these systems. Consider for example the following statement from Elder Albert E. Bowen who said,“The Lord must want and intend that His people shall be free of constraint whether enforceable or only arising out of the bindings of conscience. … That is why the Church is not satisfied with any system which leaves able people permanently dependent, and insists, on the contrary, that the true function and office of giving, is to help people [get] into a position where they can help themselves and thus be free.” (The Church Welfare Plan, Gospel Doctrine manual, 1946, p. 77.)

RE: “Each of these systems are evil.”

1. Why?  Same argument right?  They are all man made?  I’ve addressed that.
2. What would you say is actually evil about Capitalism?  We need not delve into the others because I’ll readily concede they are evil.
3. You’re still ignoring Elder Richards who directly contradicts your point when he says that the capitalistic system is “precious” and “indispensable to liberty.”  Is it your argument then, that he is simply mistaken?

RE: “God has nothing to do with them.”

1. I’ve already addressed this point above.
2. God is the author of man’s agency, certainly you would agree to that.  Capitalism is the name given to the philosophy of holding man’s agency sacred, as I’ve explained, so how can it be argued that God has nothing to do with it?
3. Do you really mean NOTHING?  Do you agree with the scripture that says not even a sparrow falls to the earth without his notice and sanction?
4. If I have not been convincing previously, perhaps you’ll consider President McKay’s suggestion in the Church News of 11/27/1954 that:The “Individaulistic, capitalistic, free enterprise system” has been the God inspired means of enabling men to raise to a level of prosperity unprecedented in “all historic time.”
   
5. Perhaps you’ll also consider Apostle Mark E. Peterson’s explanation and warning in the Church News of  April 16, 1950.“How many Latter-day Saints truly believe in the Constitution of the United States?  That Constitution stands for free initiative.  That is free agency.  In a business sense we have spoken of it as free private enterprise.  Are the Latter-day Saints as a people willing to accept the principle of free enterprise?  There are some among us who are teaching that free enterprise is wrong.  These same individuals would do away with the capitalist system, setting forth its many abuses.” He goes on to suggest that “Free Enterprise” generally and “Capitalism” specifically are both in a general sense “free agency—the principle to which Latter-day Saints are committed.”

Ruble Writes 3:  God’s economic system is Consecration.

1. Yes, but you do not define Consecration and at the same time have ignored my statement that, “Someone using the term consecration is not necessarily doing so in a way that accurately conforms with or communicates God’s law.”
2. Also, I argue that Consecration requires a group of men first committed to the fundamental principles of Capitalism, i.e, eschewing the initiation of force.  You ignore my argument and simply say you “disagree.”  But, why?
3. How could you ever consecrate something if a) you did not have it in your possession and b) it was not yours (by private property right) to give in the first place.  “How can we give if there is nothing there? Food for the hungry cannot come from empty shelves. Money to assist the needy cannot come from an empty purse. Support and understanding cannot come from the emotionally starved. Teaching cannot come from the unlearned. And most important of all, spiritual guidance cannot come from the spiritually weak.”(Marion G. Romney, First Presidency Message October 1984)
4. Any group of people who get together, as you later suggest, to live the law of consecration will suffer the same fate as that suffered by the early pilgrims who had to learn first hand how to overcome the evil of collectivism and institute the Godly inspired virtues of individuals rights, individual stewardship, and the protection of men’s individual liberty. Or in other words, how can this group ever consecrate effectively without capitalism?  You seem to believe their is some other way but you don’t elaborate.
5. You also ignore Elder Richard’s statement that the system of Capitalism, “Is the only tried and tested system of free enterprise in this world and every other opposing system is built on an abridgment of personal liberty.” Is it your suggestion that Elder Richards simply forgot about Consecration in his assessment that Capitalism (since he does not mention consecration) is the ONLY system that has been proven to protect our freedoms.
6. Perhaps you might say, “all these things are incorporated in consecration” but this would mean we agree because this is what I have said in essence, that consecration is not possible without Capitalism.  Whether you say it my way or say it like, “Consecration contains all the principles of capitalism” then you are agreeing with me that God is a Capitalist because for him to be a consecrationist he would have to “be” that by first “assuming all of the qualities of a true capitalist.”

Ruble Writes 4:  However, there are some good principles found within the Capitalistic system, one of which is private property rights.

1. You are contradicting yourself.  You have already said that you did not believe that God “had anything to do” with Capitalism.  Yet now you say it has some “good principles.”

• The scripture is clear that we should, “lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not..” and that the followers of Christ will “cleave unto every good thing…” (Moro. 7:19,28)
• The scriptures also clearly state that, “…every good gift cometh of Christ.” (Moro. 10:18) and that “Every good gift”, “cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” (James 1:17)

Ruble Writes 5: Your “claim” that the concept that “God is a Capitalist” is not man made is something which I agree with. The “God of this World” is the author of Capitalism, and the God of this world is the enemy of all righteousness.

1. Ruble, its hard to take you seriously when you get to this point.  Are you kidding?  Do you believe that the God of this world is Satan? The God of this World is JESUS CHRIST.  And, on this point, you and I will have to agree, that HE is the author of Capitalism, which was my argument in the first place.
2. Ruble, in all sincerity, Satan is a liar, and he is NOT the God of this world.  If you have been misled or deceived on this fundamental, core doctrine of the Gospel, perhaps we ought not be having this conversation yet.  Please consider,

• “My heart tonight is filled with thanksgiving unto the Almighty God. Through the gift of His Son, who is the God of this world, we have been so magnificently blessed.” — Gordon B. Hinckley, Feb. 2001
• “Jesus Christ is the God of this world. He has made it very plain in his many self-introductions.” — Spencer W. Kimball, Nov. 1977
• “His identity and his relationship to God, the Eternal Father, and as “the God of this earth,” was clearly explained when he as the risen Lord, following his crucifixion and resurrection, appeared to his people in the land Bountiful on this continent.” — Harold B. Lee, November 1973.

Ruble Writes 6: God is a consecrationist, not a Capitalist. That is simple and understandable.

It’s only simple and understandable if a) you do not define “consecrationist”, b) ignore my challenges to your definition and my counter definition—remember I originally argued that to be a consecrationist meant one who, “surrenders all RIGHT to waste, to horde, to control for unproductive use and to gratify at the expense of value.”  I would agree with you that God is a consecrationist, but I would argue that it first presupposes that he is first and foremost a capitalist, as I’ve been arguing.

Why do you think the two are mutually exclusive?  What about Capitalism or Consecration creates this dichotomy?

Ruble Writes 7: Your logic is not so simple or understandable.

Okay?  What exactly don’t you understand?  Where am I being unclear?

Ruble Writes 8: To be consistent Rick, I uniformly abandon the tautology, and I stand solidly with my claim that I know and properly label God’s system “Consecration”.

Great.  I thought we would agree on abandoning the tautology.

Ruble Writes 9: [Beginning by quoting my earlier statement] “Consecration is NOT POSSIBLE without the foundation of CAPITALISM being in place first. Or, in other words, a society must first accept obey God’s law that to initiate FORCE against any man or group is unjust and immoral.” Your connection here is faulty and illogical.

Okay?  What is faulty about it?  Or Illgoical?

Can you consecrate without first having the private right of ownership?

Can you consecrate while resisting the idea that the initiation of FORCE is unjust and immoral?

Can any society live by consecration while tyrants abound who would mooch, or loot the wealth of the “order?”  I posit, that this is exactly why previous experiments failed, because men needed more time in our generation perfecting their ideas with regards to freedom, liberty, individual rights, and therefore CAPITALISM.

What logic allows you to counter my statement?

Ruble Writes 10: The connection between force initiation and Capitalism is strange to me. I read your explanation, but it simple does not logically hold up.

Hmmm, what do you mean?

I simply defined capitalism?  What about that definition is strange?

Stephen L. Richards also defined the system of Capitalism in consistent terms with my statements?  Did you misunderstand his statement as well?

Consider, “There are only two fundamental questions (or two aspects of the same question) that determine the nature of any social system: Does a social system recognize individual rights?  — and: Does a social system ban physical force from human relationships?

The answer to the second question is the practical implementation of the answer to the first…

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned…In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary.  Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate.” (Ayn Rand: “What Is Capitalism?” Nov. 1965)

Ruble Writes 11: [Again beginning by quoting my argument first] “CONSECRATION is only possible absent tyranny.” I don’t agree! There can be tyrrany everywhere. We only need a group of people who truly understand the power of the Priesthood, and they will overthrow the powers of darkness through their faith.

1. Okay, finally you’ve addressed my argument.  Kind of.  What do you mean that there can be tyranny everywhere.  Certainly that statement is true by itself, but my argument was that the presence of tyranny (i.e. one or more tyrants who do not respect the basic premise of capitalism, or for the sake of further clarity, any person who does not respect the agency of man) threatens any chance of consecration.  You don’t address this.  You simply make a counter assertion.How could any number of Priesthood holders live God’s law without first casting out the tyrants?  I think Rev. Ch. 12 sets the precedent.* Note, a capitalist does not believe that ALL force is tyrannical.  It is the initiation of force that is tyrannical, but it is morally just to respond to tyranny with force in self-defense (separate argument if you want to have it.)
2. When you say that this “group of people” would have to first understand “the power of the priesthood” what you are essentially saying is that they would have to understand the fundamental tenant of a capitalist.  Right?  D&C 121:41
3. I would go a step further and say they would have to voluntarily agree to be bound by the priesthood, and would have to enter into such an agreement through covenant (private agreement based upon individual rights, including property rights).  Or in other words, we are agreeing on this point, because you have no argument against what I’ve clearly defined as Capitalism.
4. It is dangerous and naive to think that because “a group of people who truly understand the Priesthood” will ever “overthrow the powers of darkness through their faith” if that is what you are advancing as the only requirement.The implication is that somehow faith alone will “do the trick.”  It will not.  Faith is essential, no doubt.  But, the fundamental agreement mentioned in #2 and #3 above is essential.  To suggest otherwise is to suggest that the current members of the Quorum of the Twelve and the Quorums of Seventy don’t “truly understand the Priesthood.”  I don’t think that is what you’re wanting to to do here. Is it?The Saints have been working at this for a long time, but the stumbling block has been the PRIDE of our members who accept the deceptions of the adversary, for example, rejecting capitalism through misunderstanding and mis-attribution.  Additionally, the brethren teach that in addition to UNDERSTANDING the Priesthood this same group would have to:a) commit to live by the principles
   b) have a legal right to do so and the ability to defend that legal right
   c) become temporally self-reliant and surplus generating and
   d) united through love and service to and with one another.

   These are just a few things.  I suggest that before ANY of this is affected the PRINCIPLES of CAPITALISM have to be established first, because once again TYRANNY through FORCE (of either the body or the mind) is the way Satan seeks to destroy the AGENCY of man and with that goes the chance of living in a united order.

   In modern history, neither Capitalism nor its higher, supplemental manifestation of CONSECRATION has yet been possible among any sizable group of people because no sizable group has yet established legitimate civil authority over the tyranny brought about by the members of that same society having their hearts so set upon the things of the world and gaining the the honors of other men.  It will take a moral revolution, lead indeed by those who understand the Celestial law and have covenanted to live by it, before the day of Capitalism and Consecration fully comes.  Thank goodness, God is a Capitalist—and that the revolution has begun.

Ruble Writes 12: In conclusion, Capitalism is not necessary in order to have consecration. Enoch had no knowledge of Capitalism and he created God’s consecrated society on Earth.

1. Ruble,  with respect, I suggest your biggest stumbling block is that you do not define terms.  Your argument is not against Capitalism but against some idea of what capitalism means “to you” that you have not been clearly defining.  You have yet to advance an argument against Capitalism as I have represented it—yet it is to my original argument that you’ve been intended to respond.
2. Your statement about Enoch not having any knowledge of Capitalism is to suggest that he did not have any knowledge of THE CONCEPT we’re calling capitalism and that suggestion, on your part, is without foundation.  My argument is that CAPITALISM is at its core based upon timeless truths and governed by eternal principles.  No one, Enoch included, can prosper without being mindful of these truths, and the degree to which we are mindful determines the degree to which we prosper.
3. Also, your statement about Enoch is also revealing because using the same logic I could argue that “the ‘Mormon’ Church isn’t God’s true Church because Enoch was a member of God’s true Churcha nd he never heard of it, or of the Book of Mormon for that matter.”The “NAMES” we use to define concepts do not bind the truth—in fact it is the other way around.  To the extent that we are not deliberate and diligent in educating ourselves, including taking responsibility for having a consistent rational framework for organizing our conceptual understanding of the world, we are blinded to greater truths.

My own conclusion is that, God is a Capitalist, Enoch is a Capitalist, I am a Capitalist, Jefferson is a Capitalist, Joseph Smith is a Capitalist, etc., …. you get the picture.  The men upon whom the light of truth has shined and from which social revolution has taken place to advance the eternal cause of liberty—these men are true Capitalists.

Now, with all due respect I’ve invested quite a bit of time and energy taking your casual “stabs” at an argument very seriously.  Before you answer would you please consider the following invitation of mine….

1. Read my whole argument before responding.
2. Read the references contained in my argument.
3. When responding make arguments, not just claims.  An argument consists of three essential ingredients.  First a claim (which you are good at already), second is data or an appeal to the factual basis that substantiates your claim (logic is suitable but so is reference to external realities) and finally a warrant or the “reasoning” behind why your data supports your claim.
4. Finally, will you spend some time refining your point?  I mean no disrespect when I say, you haven’t really begun to come to terms with what I’m saying when I say that “God is a Capitalist.”  You are simply launching random thoughts at a concept that seems offensive to you and it makes it a rather lengthy and cumbersome task to address all of your statements when we’re not diving very deeply into a very rich and rewarding subject.

I appreciate you taking the time to a) consider my statement, b) respond to it in a way that is both challenging and passionate and c) doing it without using techniques that are uncivil.  I look forward to further discussion… but again, I hope you’ll consider my 4-fold invitation.

Thanks for reading.

If you liked this post, try these...

• June 18, 2009 -- The Betrayal of Ayn Rand
• April 8, 2009 -- Rick Koerber Indicted? Schmucks, Grand Juries, & the Trials Ahead.
• December 2, 2008 -- Capitalism, Mormonism, and the Bible
• April 12, 2008 -- Are You a Capitalist, by 1886 Standards?
• April 2, 2008 -- Who is Les McGuire?

Dad with Marty and Bethany

This weekend, the two oldest kids and I averted tragedy on our four-wheeler, and I learned something about repentance and Godly sorrow.    Not bad for a weekend, I suppose.

So, it was Saturday afternoon and the entire family was bored. In a stroke of genius I decided it would be fun to take the two older kids (Bethany is three and Marty is two) on a four-wheeler ride. Behind our house is what seems to be an endless wilderness and its also fun to ride the four-wheelers, with the kids, up and down our driveway. So, we all got jackets on and headed out for the afternoon.

As you can see by the picture above, no comments about how fat I’m getting please , we have a green, rugged, four-wheeler that has a large passenger seat on the back. It’s just big enough for two small kids. Off we went. We drove around the back for a while, and then up and down the driveway a few times. After about twenty minutes the driveway and the grassy area you can see in the photo seemed less than adventurous to all three of us. Both kids kept laughing, and we were all having a good time. So, with their encouragement, I headed up a little higher on the hill behind our house, intending to show the kids a pretty fascinating view of Utah Valley.  We got to the top of the hill with very little problem; since none of us were wearing any real protection at all I think I capped the top speed on the four-wheeler at about 10 mph for our journey. Speed, was not our problem. It was heading back down the hill, very slowly, when we ran into a problem.  Having not been on a four-wheeler all winter, maybe my mind was just dull – or maybe I was just absent minded period, but I hadn’t dawned on me that going down hill might be a bit tricky. As we started down, almost immediately we were in a surprisingly difficult predicament. At least it was surprising to this dull-headed dad.

As you can see from the photo, when we set out, each kid had both legs off to either side of my body. This works great for flat surfaces and even going up hill. But, as you have probably guessed by now, I didn’t take long, going down hill, for me to become strikingly aware of a problem. Before I knew it both kids were sliding forward, right off the four-wheeler. We were headed down a pretty mild hill, but it was a hill nonetheless. I was using my left hand to ride the back brake a bit (in hindsight I should have been using the foot brake), and I turned to each side to take an inventory of the kids. Bethany had a panicked look on her face as she explained, “Daddy I’m getting off.”

Now, though it sounds like she was making a declaration, what she was really saying was, “Like it or not I’m falling, and there is nothing I can do about it.” She was on the declining side of the hill as well, so I was immediately concerned. At about this same instant, for some still unexplainable reason the brake cable snapped. I switched hands, using my right “front” brake to bring us to a complete stop. Taking my left hand off the handlebars, I reached to grab Bethany before she slid completely off the four-wheeler. Gripping the front brake with my right hand had consequences all its own. I turned to check on Marty and as a result of the rapid stop, he was headed, somehow, head first for the dirt. It was like he was in slow motion, sliding ever so slowly, but certainly, down. His face was towards me, and in a very calm way he said with a kind of matter of fact tone, “Daddy, help me.”

There was nothing I could do. His head was about six inches in front of the rear tire. My left hand had a hold of Bethany, and if I let go of the front brake with my right hand, the four-wheeler would roll forward with both of my hands off of the handlebars. So, I just watched my boy fall – helplessly, head first to the ground. My only thought at that point was related to keeping the four-wheeler from rolling forward and right over the top of him. In a panic, I stood Bethany up on the ground on my left, I used my left hand to grip the front brake, reached down and grabbed Marty and brought him up as quickly as I could. I think the whole ordeal lasted maybe two or three seconds all together. But, looking back in my memory, it feels like a full length motion picture. Bethany started to slip down the hill, not able to keep her balance, so I laid Marty across the gas tank in front of me, grabbed Bethany, and forcefully put her behind me in the rear seat. Of course, we were still pointing down the hill, which explained why her response was, “Dad, I don’t want to start over.”

After sitting there for a few seconds, making sure I was not in the middle of having a heart attack, I got Bethany situated behind me, facing forward with one leg to either side of me. I told her to hold on and I could feel her arms around my waist – that felt better. I had Marty straddle the gas tank, and I showed him how to use his hands on the tank to keep his balance. It had never before dawned on me that my kids just didn’t instinctively understand how to “hold on.” Nevertheless, now that we had it figured out, trying not to let the kids notice just how panicked I had been – I slowly let off the brake and we started back down the hill. Neither of the kids was saying anything. I realized that they were trying to figure out what had just happened. Worried that I might have scarred them for life, I forced myself to say something. “Wow, wasn’t that exciting?” I chuckled. Marty responded first by saying, “No, I hit my head.” Bethany, in a very sullen voice could be heard behind us adding her disapproval saying, “Dad, can we not do the scary part anymore?”

Once we were back in safe, flat territory, things lightened up a little bit. Marty actually asked if we could do it again because he didn’t want to go home. Bethany explained to Marty that we “half (sic) to go home,” because he had “bleed” on his head. When we got home, I took a minute and tried to clean Marty up. I was already thinking that I really didn’t want to explain to Michelle what had happened. But, there was no cleaning up the scrapes on his forehead. Fortunately, he wasn’t hurt. As we walked in the house I remembered the time when I was three years old and had returned with my dad from a similar motorcycle accident. Things didn’t go so well for him back then, when he had tried to explain to my mom what had happened, and I imaged things weren’t going to go so great for me as I explained our adventure to Michelle. Of course, she was right there to great us as we walked in. She couldn’t – according to the laws of the universe I’m sure – have been busy with the baby somewhere far away from the back door.

“Mommy, I fell off the furwheeler (sic),” was Marty’s first comment to his mom. Bethany once again explained that he had blood on his forehead. Michelle calmly asked me what had happened, but I stalled. I suggested that we just get the kids jackets off, Marty’s head cleaned up, and both of them seated at the kitchen table so we could all eat some lunch together. That didn’t work so well either – the kids told her everything.

Martin, with not-so-visable evidence on his head.

Well, as you can see from the picture, Marty is fine. Both kids can’t wait to go for another ride on the four-wheeler, but I can’t stop thinking about it. I can’t stop thinking about a) how fortunate we were and b) how darn stupid I was. I have been feeling like the worst dad on the planet. I couldn’t sleep very well last night as I kept replaying those critical seconds in my mind. Over and over, I searched. It wasn’t the general ordeal that haunted me as much as it was my son. Watching Marty hit the ground, his head bending towards his shoulder as his neck gave way to the weight of his body, is the moment I keep playing over and over again. He had the look of a child counting on his dad to save him. I was feeling helpless, unable to figure out how to help in any way. That is what has haunted me. When we woke up this morning, I full expected him to be mad at me. He wasn’t.

So, today in church, I sat there listening to a lesson about repentance and Godly sorrow – and something struck me. When we talk about repentance, one of the first things that usually comes to mind is the feeling of guilt. Guilt is accompanied by other related feelings of regret and remorse. These emotions combined to form what we could refer to generally as simply the “feeling bad” emotions. I was certainly having my bout with these feelings on Sunday morning. But, to any student of the gospel its obvious that simply feeling bad is not enough to truly repent. Now, on a side note, it wasn’t that I was particularly preoccupied with the idea of repenting for what occurred on Saturday, its just that Saturday was on my mind. Nevertheless, in order to repent, something has to happen inside which results in a rebirth – a new commitment to want to live differently. It is this change that eliminates the desire to sin, and it’s this change that allows repentance and forgiveness to actually take place. Unfortunately, many of us get stuck on the “feeling bad” part of the process. This “thing” that happens to create the change of heart is often referred to as Godly sorrow.

What is Godly sorrow? Well, I suppose that is a lecture for a different time, but the insight I had today has been poignant. Contrary to what many teach, I don’t think God has much interest at all in any of us getting stuck, “feeling bad.” Of course, that might be an essential “piece” of the process but it cannot be an end in and of itself. The self-loathers, the mystics, and the tyrants in the religious world have leveraged the “feeling bad” part of the process to the point of codifying it into doctrine in many faiths (closely related to the false notion called “the depravity” of man). No, us feeling bad – even to the point of mourning in “sackcloth and ashes” doesn’t make the world a better place (no matter how much authority rests with the person claiming that this is our proper position with regards to God). Lacking the conscience and the spiritual sensitivity to “feel bad” for sin is another problem entirely. But, past the point of feeling bad there is a place inside our hearts that can be called Godly sorrow, where our bad feelings and our regret for our actions fade into the background.

Here’s the insight and the connection with my four-wheeler incident.  No matter how many times I replay the four-wheeler incident in my mind, I can’t seem to come to grips with the “thing” that haunts me. I keep trying to find a way to “fix” the situation – to explain it in a way that doesn’t hurt so badly. As I replay the incident in my mind the temptation is to try and “fix” the problem. I want to blame the four-wheeler, the rear brake cable did snap and without that happening the whole incident would have probably been much less dramatic. This would mean, if I just fixed the brake cable, find out why it snapped, I will have fixed the situation. Right?

Problem is, brake cables or some other “thing” might go wrong at any time on a four-wheeler excursion. So, I’m tempted to argue, “If I would have just had the kids put on a helmet” then this wouldn’t have been as bad. Of course, that doesn’t change the fact that I was stupid on Saturday. I want to say, “Well next time I’ll just take one kid,” or next time this or next time that… but nothing soothes the pain caused by the deeper and much more important truth. The deeper truth is this. There will always be uncertainty – and there will always be unforeseen “accidents.” That is NOT the problem in this situation. The problem on Saturday has to do with the kind of dad I was being. I was not being the kind of dad that I want to be. On Saturday, I was thoughtless. I can’t change that, that is the kind of dad I was being then. That is the haunting truth, the ordeal with Marty hitting the ground was merely the consequence. I was not being attentive to the kids before the crises. I was not prepared. The consequence of the way I was being – the incident – is simply a reminder. It is an undeniable reminder that I was not living the life that the “dad” in my mind must live.

This is how it seems to be, when I think of sin. When we feel regret for our actions, that’s good for a short time. It’s an acknowledgment of the message that God is sending us about our actions – through natural consequences. Consequences are not punishments as much as they are reminders. Feeling guilt and remorse and regret is focusing on the consequence – as if the consequence of our action is the “bad thing.” Thinking this way makes us ever weaker victims as we confront so many of life’s uncertainties. If we only experience guilt or shame in the face of such circumstances our whole life can become consumed with our feelings of failure and inadequacy, and we can become hopeless. If instead, however, we focus on “how” we are “being” or how we were being in a given situation – and we compare that to our potential, to the God given potential that represents what we “could be” with God’s help – then we have a new feeling inside. Its not so much a feeling “bad” for our actions but it’s a longing for “being” a different person – a better person – the person God would have us be. Recognizing this difference, I think, has something very important to do with this idea of repentance, Godly sorrow and rebirth.

In a real way, I have repented for Saturday. Some laughed at me in church today when I shared this insight, thinking perhaps I was being a little melodramatic. But, what can be more important than repenting for being a lazy dad? What could be better for me, for my kids or for any dad than to repent of his absent mindedness and commit (not to his kids – that would be out of regret or remorse) but to God – and to himself – that he is going to live differently. Of course this commitment provides all the benefits to the kids that would be present if he were to make a commitment out of guilt or shame, but the difference is that HE doesn’t loathe himself in the process. This kind of recognition, of our desire to live a better life, when faced with an undeniable consequence of our previous actions – is at the core of becoming the “new man” spoken of in the scriptures. It, I believe, is at the core of finding hope in Christ and in his atonement. Well, for what its worth, I certainly think I’ll sleep better tonight – as a result of this insight. Maybe it might help you if you ever find yourself at some point in the future, stuck replaying in your mind, some scenario filled with regret when, no matter how many ways you look at it, there is a deeper truth that still haunts your soul.

I love my kids, and I love the fact that in the years ahead neither of them will likely remember anything from Saturday. As for today, I just hope that I can keep the commissars away (that’s supposed to be funny) while I work on overcoming my “Dumb Dad” of the year routine. I have much work ahead, but as a result of Saturday I think I’m a better dad already. When I took the picture of Marty with the scratch above his brow, I told him what I was doing and he responded – “I wanna go ride on the furwheeler.”

If you liked this post, try these...

• August 4, 2008 -- Initiation into the Secret Brotherhood of Dads
• November 17, 2008 -- Updated: Some Things are Worth Thinking About
• January 27, 2010 -- Government vs the Businessman
• December 6, 2009 -- Is Rick Koerber really the “Utahn of the Year?”
• November 3, 2009 -- Koerbers Divorce