ANALYSIS

Analysis of cultural events and philosophies

by

Mind, Worldview And Ideology

Worship the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. (Matthew 22:37).

Introduction

For a number of years, this site, Contemplations, revolved around my counseling practice. Since I’ve retired and have also retired my license, I do not focus that heavily on the profession of counseling any longer on this blog. I will write a piece every once in a while about the field of counseling, but it is no longer the main theme of this blog. However, sometime back I delineated some themes (here) and (here) for this blog which I want to form the core of what I write here. Post-retirement I also changed the direction I want to take this blog (here) and (here) whereby I hope to discuss more than just the field of counseling, including such areas as philosophy, economics, history, the arts, and what I call analysis of power. Although my desire to change the emphases on this blog was generated by my retirement, much of it came about due to my recommitment to my faith as a Christian. Hence my faith in Jesus, the Christ, is the foundation for all I write on these pages.

Two of the themes that I come back to intermittently on this blog are mind and worldview. I will discuss the importance of these themes in this month’s blog in the context of today’s culture, particularly as an analysis of power (AOP) related to our political environment.

How We Think and Act Shapes Our Worldview

We live in a postmodern age where everything is relativized, but ironically everything is politicized and about power and control over others. Individuals cannot consistently live out a worldview that claims everything is relative while also becoming politically active, embracing the pursuit of power and control over others. Note the direction that wokeism has taken us in terms of its assault on freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and the right to live out one’s spiritual beliefs as one sees fit. The first and second amendments to the Constitution are under constant attack. Business owners have been sued with the threat of losing their livelihood because they didn’t want to engage certain actions that contradicted their faith.

Living in a postmodern and politicized age means that we cannot help but experience a conflict of values when it comes to the way we want to live out what we believe in the world. Presently we see that the conflict of worldviews has led to violence, destruction of property, and loss of life. Such conflicts of basic core beliefs cannot be resolved by either embracing relativism or engendering the politicization of all things in life. Indeed, the Constitution and Bill of Rights aimed at severely restricting political power that could reach into people’s lives, whether that power be considered of the right or the left.

The conflict of worldviews we witness today, whether it be in our work environments, educational institutions, or on the streets is a conflict of ideologies. How we think about life and confirm our values shape our worldviews which contribute to our ideologies. Those who hold an ideology that they want established by political power over others may consider themselves relativists but they are absolutists in the most strict sense. Power makes right. Whether one considers him- or herself to be conservative or progressive, such a worldview is absolutist and totalitarian.

Can We Hold to Absolutes Without Being Totalitarian?

As one who holds to the Christian faith, I believe in absolute truth. Hence, I most definitely believe that it is possible to hold to the notion of truth as absolute without becoming authoritarian or totalitarian. Given human nature, it is easy to slide into desiring our worldview to be foisted on others. Yet that very desire is authoritarian in-and-of-itself. Simply because I do not hold to postmodern politicized precepts doesn’t mean that I think all worldviews are equally valid and worthy of being considered as true. I do believe that we should live and be at peace with others as much as that is possible. There are times when conflicting ideologies must be resolved where possible. There will always be those with whom we not only disagree, but with whom we also are at odds on the most core level. A civilized society finds ways for people to coexist with ideologies that are at odds. I will never embrace the acceptance a worldview that is opposed to my Christian faith that sees the Bible as the word of God. However, I will not call for political power to convert people to my faith. I will call on the Constitution that gives me the right to live out my worldview, fully knowing it is at odds with other belief systems.

The conflicting ideologies we face now are these. Many progressives call for an absolutist centralized power that sees individual liberty as suspect. Such an ideology, whether progressive or conservative, cannot allow individuals to live according to their own values and worldview. Thereby, such an ideology is authoritarian and totalitarian. Conservatives as well call on political power to have their way. We live in a political age that sees politics as an answer to life’s problems and dilemmas. Couple that with a postmodern age, then everything is about power, and power makes right.

Conclusion

As Christians what does it mean to live out what Jesus said was the great and foremost commandment (Matthew 22:37-40)? For too long the church has given over the culture to the designs of those whose worldview is antithetical to God’s word and who God is as the most Holy One. There has never been a time when it’s unimportant for us as Christians to live out our worldview. But it is of extreme importance today in an age of postmodernism that politicizes every area of life. We have to show others that for sure, there is a battle and conflict of ideologies that we face in everyday life in all areas of life. And we will not shrink back from such a battle. Simultaneously, we have to show we represent not political coerciveness toward those of antithetical ideologies until they cross such a line with us. That means that we have to know what those lines are. In addition to what Jesus called the great and foremost commandment, He also said that there is a second commandment like it: love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:37-40). This doesn’t mean that we condone the evil in the world. What it means, however, is that we must truly beseech God to revive the churches and awaken this country. Regeneration is the way to bringing about the peace among people for which we hold out hope.

John V. Jones, Jr., Ph.D./ September 14th, 2023

ANALYSIS/CHRISTIAN THOUGHT/THEMATIC/Mind and Worldview

by

TakeAways/Book Review: Bylund’s Economic Primer

[Bylund, P. L. (2022). How to Think About the Economy: A Primer. Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute.]

Introduction

One thinks of a primer as an introduction to a field of study. Per L. Bylund has fulfilled what the title of his book states. Although this is a short primer, Bylund’s work is not an oversimplification. Readers will obtain a thorough introduction to how to think about the economy. The author writes within the framework of Austrian economics, so in his exploration of the economy he draws on such historical figures as Carl Menger and Ludwig von Mises, both to whom the book is dedicated. Some might think this is a bias, but how many economic textbooks are written from a Keynesian perspective for the purpose of describing the “economy”? The Keynesian perspective, along with historicism in the social sciences, floods the universities. This primer is theoretical, building on the axioms of Austrian economics put forth by Menger, von Mises, Rothbard, and others.

The Primer at a Glimpse

Bylund divides his work into three major sections: 1) Economics; 2) Market; and 3) Intervention. In each section he introduces readers to the major elements of economics, explicated from an Austrian perspective. The following takeaways I provide regarding Bylund’s work merely scratch the surface of this excellent primer. If I succeed in piquing interest in people to read the book, then I will have more than satisfied my goal for this blog. If you champion the free market and desire a clear understanding of how the free market works, then this is a good starting point for anyone interested in economics, both as laypeople and for those starting out their journey on the road to becoming professional economists.

Six Takeaways from How To Think About The Economy

Economic Understanding Comes Through Economic Literacy

We live in an age where everything is politicized. And that is most definitely true about the economy. One can overhear debates regarding the market, government spending, inflation, etc., but the question that never comes to the surface is: how do you understand the economy? Per L. Bylund sets as the goal for his work to provide economic literacy. He would be the first to tell readers that they don’t stop with this book, but I believe it’s an excellent starting point, and that the author has fulfilled the goal he set for his readers. Through the three sections that divides the book, readers will learn what economics entails, what the market as a coordinated process involves, and how intervention affects markets.

Economics Is a Body of Theory

To properly study economics, one approaches the economy and the market from a theoretical orientation. Economic theory aims at helping people understand the working mechanisms of the economy. Without a theoretical foundation, one is speaking of a subject matter while standing over an abyss. Any theory should be coherent and based on first principles. These first principles, if flawed, my produce a theory, but it will be one that is not accurate. As I stated in the introduction, Bylund writes from the perspective of Austrian economics because he holds that Austrian theory provides a correct understanding of economics. He, therefore explicates the axiom of human action proffered by Ludwig von Mises as a first principle for economic theory.

Economics Is a Social Science, Not a Natural Science

For quite sometime, and it is still true today in many circles, social scientists have experienced the step-child syndrome in relation to the natural sciences. Because of this feeling of inferiority, many social scientists sought to incorporate the methods of the natural sciences into the social sciences. Such methodological procedures led to the rise of scientism and positivism. Hence, the very notion of science became misdefined. Bylund makes it clear from his discussion that the social sciences, and thereby economics, require a different methodological approach than the natural sciences. Drawing on Ludwig von Mises, Bylund discusses the a priori method that fits the social sciences, thereby truly defining any science as that which describes reality.

The Market Is a Process, Not a Factory

The market is a coordinated process among many entrepreneurs. Economic theory in describing the market, seeks to explain not merely the existence of goods, but how those goods got to the market via production and the savviness of entrepreneurship. One firm does not stand alone. It depends on what other firms do so that it can produce its goods and get them to market. For example, the automobile industry manufactures automobiles. But it does not manufacture the steel, rubber, and glass that are needed for the production of automobiles. Other firms do that, not only for the automobile industry, but also for a host of other industries. Hence the market is a coordinated process whereby all firms produce to make the economy work. To have a sound understanding of the market, one must approach studying the market as a coordinated process among those who act to fulfill their goals. Otherwise, statements regarding the market will be inaccurate.

The Scarcity of Resources Is an Economic Reality

Production in the market takes place to meet people’s needs. Production is demanded for the very reason that resources are scarce. Hence, to understand the market, one must understand production, cost, prices, profit, and the role of entrepreneurs. To grasp the understanding of entrepreneurship, one must also understand the distinction between capital and consumer goods. In his section on the market, Bylund delineates through an Austrian theoretical framework not only these important elements of the economy, but also he provides a thorough introduction of the place that value, money, and economic calculation play in the market. This latter concept Mises developed in his argument against socialism.

The Free Market Must Be Understood Before One Understands How Intervention Effects the Market

The third and closing section of Bylund’s work addresses government intervention into the economy. Throughout the book, Bylund approached the study of the economy from a free market perspective. He did not do this simply to propagate a free market. Workings of the market apart from government and regulations must be made clear before we understand how intervention affects the coordinated process that makes up the market. Bylund explores two general types of intervention: monetary and regulatory. The major question that emerges regarding any type of regulation is how do bureaucrats in government know how to design and control for the “common good” the coordinated process that is the market? Bylund discusses the effects of these two types of regulation on the economy. In so doing he discusses the Austrian perspective on the boom and bust cycle in the economy. Additionally, he explores a major economic theme found in the Austrian economic literature known as the seen and unseen effects when regulators seek to design the economy. Carl Menger was one of the first economic theorists to write about the seen and unseen effects of regulations upon the economy.

Conclusion

As I stated in the introduction, these six takeaways from Bylund’s excellent primer does not do the book justice. This short 132 page-primer is packed in a well-organized and succinct introduction to understanding the economy. For those who are searching for a beginning foundation to economic literacy, they couldn’t do any better than Bylund’s primer. In addition to his introduction to the economy, Bylund collected a thorough bibliography that will serve as springboard into continued reading for those who want to build on Bylund’s solid foundation. I strongly recommend this excellent primer for those who want to know more about how the economy works, and for those who want to pursue their study of economics further. This work is Austrian economics. I would welcome seeing this framework for understanding the economy replace what exists in most universities.

[Per L. Bylund is a Senior Fellow of the Mises Institute and Associate Professor of Entrepreneurship and Johnny D. Pope Chair in the School of Entrepreneurship in the Spears School of Business at Oklahoma State University. He is also an Associate Fellow of the Ratio Institute in Stockholm. (This bio is from the Mises Institute at mises.org)].

John V. Jones, Jr. Ph.D./August 14th, 2023

ANALYSIS/ECONOMICS/BOOK REVIEW



by

Church & State

Introduction

Today we have reached the point of critical mass as to just how far we intend to let the State run roughshod over our lives. On one level, as people who live in a country, born of a revolution that established a republican form of government, all Americans face the challenge of how much power they are willing to grant the State to use in curtailing their liberty. As Christians, those who believe that Jesus Christ is sovereign King, Savior, and God, we have to ask ourselves what is the proper role of the Church in engaging the political realm. I believe that for far too long we of the Church have stepped aside from the fray, allowing the State to become the Leviathan that has overreached its proper and moral limits. As citizens the Church can and should speak to the legitimate limitations of the State.

Conflicting Views Within the Church

Those who believe in Christ hold conflicting views regarding the Church’s role in engaging political matters. Although there are many views and nuances, I believe there are three general positions commonly held among Christians. I designate them as passive observers, Romans 13 absolutists, and political engagers.

Passive Observers

The Christian author, Francis Schaeffer, first coined the terms upper story and lower story, describing those Christians who compartmentalized their beliefs so that their spiritual life makes little contact with their day-to-day affairs. Some in the Church hold that our Christian beliefs have nothing to do with the daily struggles we face in life. This is especially true when it comes to politics. Apart from voting, such individuals hold that Christians should not engage the worldly confines of politics. Such engagement, they warn, defies Scripture’s indictment to be in the world, but not of the world. Worldliness, according to Scripture, entails living in alignment with the world’s values rather than those precepts found in God’s Word that speaks to the way in which he would have us live. The passive observer equates political engagement with worldly engagement. They accuse Christians who are politically engaged with seeking ultimate meaning and purpose in worldly politics at worse. At best, they simply believe that Christians who are politically engaged are wasting their time on things that are not eternal. This is a startling example of Schaeffer’s notion of the upper and lower story split. Things in this life simply do not matter. The world as we know it is going to pass away. To spend any time on making it a better place to live is a worldly affair, hence, not a spiritual endeavor.

Romans 13 Absolutists

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement (Romans 13:1-2).

At first glance, this passage written by the Apostle Paul appears straight ahead with no clarification needed. A closer look at its context, however, raises some questions, especially when applied to the political context today in America. Following these verses, Paul states that rulers are a terror not to good conduct, but to bad. Hence, if one does good, he doesn’t need to fear the authorities. If he does wrong, however, then rulers are servants of God to punish evil doers. So the question arises – what if governments reach the point where they call evil, good, and good, evil? In other words governing authorities pit themselves against God’s precepts and law. What is our response to authorities to be then? Moreover, we have Biblical examples where Christians did not simply bow to worldly power. The Apostle Paul, himself, appealed to his status as Roman citizen when wrongly accused and arrested. When a Roman centurion struck him, Paul replied, Do you strike a Roman citizen? Additionally, the Apostles in the Book of Acts when ordered to cease proclaiming the truth about Christ replied, We obey God rather than man. The early Christians defied worshiping the Roman emperor as a god as well as breaking Roman law when they secretly met in the catacombs to worship. Romans 13 absolutists claim that verses 1-2 mean that Christians should obey the government no matter the context. As such they have given a carte blanche to the State, providing it with absolute rule over the Church.

Political Engagers

The Reformed Presbyterians heavily contributed to the values that shaped early America and that eventually led to its break with England. Many of what I call political engagers, can be found today within the confines of Reformed Theology. The aforementioned Francis Schaffer falls within that theological persuasion. Many of those who strongly advocate that Christians should be politically active and savvy are Reformed postmillennialists. Although it’s not the purpose of this article to stake out an eschatological position, I find that I like the work and thought that postmillennialists proffer. To be fair, not all political engagers hold to a postmillennial eschatology. Schaffer held a premillennial position. Having said that I would point to theologians, pastors, and writers such as Doug Wilson, Joel McDurmon, Gary North, R. J. Rushdoony, and James White as examples of those who believe Christians should actively engage the political realm. Although I may not agree with every jot and tittle of what these individuals say, I do like their optimism and the conjectures they offer for ways that Christians can reclaim the culture that we seem to have handed over to those who are diametrically opposed to God’s law.

Conclusion: Engaging All of Life

Reformed Theology and the postmillennialists cited above do not dwell solely on the political realm. They call for Christians to engage all of life’s endeavors – business, education, science, the arts, technology, politics, etc. – and take all these spheres captive in the name of Christ. Indeed I don’t see that any particular millennial position is required to agree with such a notion. We have witnessed over the past several decades, and particularly the past few years, an unprecedented growth of the State and its interventionist strategies that snake inexorably through all the nook and crannies of our daily livelihoods. The attitude that as Christians we should stand idly by and let Statism and its anti-Christian philosophy take over the culture due to some pietistic notion of worldliness seems self-defeating at best and cowardice at worse.

By God’s providential hand, we live in a republic forged out to some degree by Reformed theology by which we are a nation ruled by law, not men – Lex Rex. The call for Christians to actively engage all spheres of life is a transformative one. None of us know when Christ will return. But to merely sit by and wait for his return, doing nothing about the corruption of this culture, while some may see that as an option, I do not believe such passiveness to be a Biblical option. We Christians today have to confront the reality that we will not necessarily witness during our lifetimes the changes in culture that can occur if believers enter all spheres of life and place all their endeavors under the Lordship of Christ. That’s an overwhelming proclamation. None of us know how it will work out. But that’s not a reason for the Church to remain invisible in the midst of cultural battles.

The most important thing to keep in mind is that all three of these camps as I’ve designated them comprise believers in Christ. Hence, regardless of where we land on this issue, we are brothers and sisters in Christ, and we should let unity rule rather than divisiveness. We need to learn how to agree to disagree, yet remain united.

We live in a republic by God’s providence. Politicians are not our authorities. We do not obey men. We obey the law. Perhaps the ones being disobedient to government are not the ones who draw Constitutional lines in the sand and say to politicians, you do not cross here. Rather it is those who do not engage the political realm and work to set it right.

John V. Jones, Jr., Ph.D., LPC-S/September 14th, 2021

ANALYSIS OF POWER/CHRISTIAN THOUGHT

by

Ideas Shape Our Lives

Introduction

If we truly desire the liberty to shape our lives as we see fit, then we need to take stock of the ideas we claim to hold. I don’t know if it’s accurate or not, but many see our culture today as living the logical conclusion of The Closing of the American Mind. Not only are people unaware of the core ideas they hold, but they also do not even care or believe that ideas carry weighty consequences for their lives. We all hold ideas about living whether or not we are aware of them. Moreover, aware or not, we act on the ideas we hold.

Last month’s blog linked to an article from the Mises Institute authored by Jeff Diest. I’m going to tap the wellspring of knowledge from that think tank once again, linking readers to an interview that Deist does with Tom Woods on the importance of reading books. Obviously, the interview is not merely about reading, but it’s about challenging people to think about what they read so as to clarify the ideas they have about living out their lives. Consequently, Deist and Woods discuss deep reading as opposed to mere pleasure reading. The links below take readers to the Podcast interview and a couple of short bios for Jeff Deist and Tom Woods.

The Case for Reading Books: Jeff Deist & Tom Woods (Mises Institute)

If individuals desire to clarify their ideas, then thought-provoking reading is a must. Deist and Woods make the case for what they call heavy lifting in reading. Below are links to the podcast discussion with Deist and Woods, followed by links that provide short bios for the two discussants.

Podcast Jeff Deis-Tom Woods Interview

Jeff Deist Bio

Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Bio

Conclusion

There are several key takeaways from this podcast. First, mindless reactionary activism will not form a pathway to reclaiming individual liberty for our society. Neither will simply showing up for national elections on election day. Second, if we want to reestablish individual liberty as a core value for our existence, then we need to think about and clarify the ideas we claim to hold. Such clarification can take shape through what Deist and Woods discuss as heavy lifting reading. Hence they make the case for reading books that will shape how we engage life, particularly for those of us who claim to value individual liberty.The ideas we clarify for ourselves become the foundation for actions we take rather than thoughtlessly reacting to events around us. Individual liberty must stand on solid ideas.

John V. Jones, Jr., Ph.D., LPC-S/February 14th, 2021

ANALYSIS OF POWER [AOP]

by

The Power of Ideas [AOP]

Ideas have consequences. Today we are engulfed in a culture of activism that possesses no foundation of thought or reason. So I thought I would kick off 2021 by providing a link from the Mises Institute, featuring an article by Jeff Deist, Welcome to Post-Persuasion-America. On Christmas and New Year’s days I published two short blogs about changes taking place on Contemplations. I thought Jeff’s article would be an excellent one to jumpstart 2021. The link to the article is below followed by a second link that provides a short bio of Jeff Deist.

Welcome to Post-Persuasion-America by Jeff Deist

About Jeff Deist

Conclusion

One far reaching takeaway from Jeff’s article for me is the vision he has for the Mises Institute whereby a few stalwarts are influenced by the Institute’s ideas, and those few begin to influence others within their own spheres. Albert jay Nock called them the remnant. There’s no save the world message here by populating Washington DC with the right people. Localism is key to reestablishing individual liberty one locale at a time. I encourage readers of this blog to visit, read, subscribe to, and support the Mises Institute.

John V. Jones, Jr., Ph.D., LPC-S/January 14th, 2021

ANALYSIS OF POWER [AOP]