Last night, President Bush addressed the nation concerning the financial crisis that is gripping the country. In case you missed it, you can watch the entire address above. In addition, here are two recent articles written by reliable Christians that attempt to explain what is happening from a Christian perspective.
“A Christian View of the Economic Crisis” â€“ by Albert Mohler (AlbertMohler.com)
“Thinking Biblically about the Banking Crisis” â€“ by David Kotter (Between Two Worlds)
With the little play icon, it looks like he’s uttering a profanity. Or curse. Or vulgarity or…..
Dr. Mohlerâ€™s article reminded me of a quote from Donâ€™t Waste Your Life:
At first, when I read it I thought it might be a joke. A spoof on the American Dream. But it wasnâ€™t. Tragically, this was the dream: Come to the end of your lifeâ€”your one and only precious, God-given lifeâ€”and let the last great work of your life, before you give an account to your Creator, be this: playing softball and collecting shells. Picture them before Christ at the great day of judgment: â€œLook, Lord. See my shells.â€ That is a tragedy. And people today are spending billions of dollars to persuade you to embrace that tragic dream. Over against that, I put my protest: Donâ€™t buy it. Donâ€™t waste your life.
BTW, whatâ€™s the over/under on the first comment of Complementarian/Egalitarian theology has caused this economic crisisâ€¦â€¦â€¦..
Here ya go, Brian.
Can you define “reliable Christian” for me? I can’t find it in my NKJV.
OH, man! I had it at 4. The bookies are screaming now….
Gim: are you referencing the video (I can’t watch it and I didn’t catch the speech)? Or what’s the reference, I should ask.
Anyone else catch Dr. Burk’s blatant pun (I hope it was intended) at the end of the comments (in JT’s blog)?
Gim was referring to Denny’s last statement in this post. He says articles from two “reliable Christians” and it just so happens to be people who think like he does, and by inference I assume there are “unreliable Christians” which are probably people that don’t agree with Denny. The phrase kind of puzzles me anyways, and just says more about Denny’s narrow-mindedness than anything (i.e. here are some reviews by ultra conservative, reformed, complementarians and they are the kind of Christian that is reliable, but if you don’t agree with one of the above then you’re not).
I just went to the links. Sigh. Thanks.
Gim (and John, I suppose): 2 Timothy 2 speaks of entrusting to faithful men (I think even the NIV translates reliable). Plus Titus 2 and 1 Thes 2 are all areas that speak of “sound” speech or doctrine, etc. (Sound=reliable I would say). I know there are others, too.
The distinction between reliable and (by extension) “unreliable” Christians is a biblical one. Paul spoke of leaving childish things behind, of growing up so that we are no longer “tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.” The writer to the Hebrews complains (if I can use that word) about having to review the basics with his readers. If those needed a refresher course in the principles of the gospel, would we consider them “reliable” guides to those with questions?
I wouldn’t read too much into Denny’s use of the term here. I believe he refers to men whose judgment he trusts based on his prior experience of them. These are men with a solid foundation, not likely to be found adrift and clueless. You may still read them with discernment, but going into such a reading you have a confidence that you would (or should) lack when reading something by, say, Fred Phelps or Sun Myung Moon.
Brian, what post are you talking about for Denny? I went on JT’s blog and couldn’t find what you’re talking about.
2 Tim 2:2 speaks of entrusting to faithful anthropois/people so they can teach others.
In JT’s blog, in the comments section. There is a comment permalink, but it doesn’t seem to work. It was the second to last or last comment or so.
Sorry about that Brian. I couldn’t resist after I saw your comment. It was the first thing that came to mind that might fit a complementarian/egalitarian economic debate.
No need to apologize (I was assuming you meant it as a lark). I laughed out loud, actually.
Oh, that the Lord would raise up some George Muellers in our SBC leadership!
I bet if a democrat were in office and this crisis happened, you would have some pretty harsh words for them.
However, silent about W….
There’s no bet to it, John.
There’s been no brow beating of McCain.
There’s been no mocking Palin for her comment about proximety to Russia = foreign policy experience.
In other words, guess what…DENNY’S A REPUBLICAN!!!!!!111!!!!!!
It’s his blog. If I had my own blog, there’d be plenty of stuff I wouldn’t talk about either.
I understand Paul. I just think we should be Christian before any type of political affiliation, and constantly criticizing one political party without one negative word about the other doesn’t seem very fair to me. If I had my own blog, I’m sure my biases would show from time to time, but I would strive to be unbiased and be critical of both parties. It just doesn’t strike me as something a citizen of the kingdom of God should do, that’s all. Of course Denny can do what he wants, I just expect more from a NT exegete who is supposed to go where the evidence leads.
I think the evidence leads back to Bill Clinton and Democrats, so Denny criticizing Bush for this problem would be wrong. See this New York Times article from 1999. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
The funniest part is Bill Clinton’s statement from yesterday. “I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”
Oh I don’t know….seems to be like a certain war & over-zealous borrowing from the Chinese may be causing a lot of these problems. And I’m sure there’s no connection at all between the current administration & some of the good ‘ole boys getting bailed out on Wall St. Honestly I’m to the point of anger when I see the above picture of a stumbling & bumbling president audaciously telling his nation that “we’re in a crisis!”
What does the Iraq war & Chinese borrowing have to do with any of this?
Chinese and petrodollars were pulling out of the mortgage investments they had made.
I ran across an interesting quote (speaking of economy):
Five years ago, billionaire investor Warren Buffett called [credit default swaps] a “time bomb” and “financial weapons of mass destruction” and directed the insurance arm of his Berkshire Hathaway Inc (BRKa.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) to exit the business.
I randomly (sovereignly) ran across the link from Jim Peet.
The only thing I could find regarding the Chinese mortgage investments was $24 billion in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That is nothing compared to $6 trillion of debt held or guaranteed by the two entities.
I couldn’t find anything regarding Arab holding of U.S. mortgage debt, so it must be miniscule. What would that have to do with the Iraw war anyways?
An example needs to be made of these billionaire CEO’s and senior staff who walk away with millions when the company fails and the government has to bail them out for the sake of the entire economy. (I think the bail out is a horrible precedent)
The DEA seized all the US assets of drug dealers and should seize ALL the assests (What they can and is not in off shore accounts) of these criminals.
In 2006, the OFHEO announced a suit against Raines in order to recover some or all of the $50 million in payments made to Raines based on the overstated earnings initially estimated to be $9 billion but have been announced as 6.3 billion.
Civil charges were filed against Raines and two other former executives by the OFHEO in which the OFHEO sought $110 million in penalties and $115 million in returned bonuses from the three accused. On April 18, 2008, the government announced a settlement with Raines together with J. Timothy Howard, Fannie’s former chief financial officer, and Leanne G. Spencer, Fannie’s former controller. The three executives agreed to pay fines totaling about $3 million, which will be paid by Fannie’s insurance policies. Raines also agreed to donate the proceeds from the sale of $1.8 million of his Fannie stock and to give up stock options. The stock options however have no value. Raines also gave up an estimated $5.3 million of “other benefits” said to be related to his pension and forgone bonuses.
An editorial in The Wall Street Journal called it a “paltry settlement” which allowed Raines and the other two executives to “keep the bulk of their riches.” In 2003 alone, Raines’s compensation was over $20 million.
It is overly simplistic (and unfair) to blame Bush for the financial crisis.
It is quite a pathetic anti-conservative ploy, IMO. But since the liberal/dem mindset is built on soundbytes and misrepresentations of actual facts when dealing with the issues, this is not shocking at all.
Jason, it takes YEARS for this stuff to play out. Who blamed Bush?
However, I do blame Bush for pulling an FDR on us with the bailout. It would be even better to let it crash and right itself. But politics won’t allow that for that to happen. FDR made the depression last for another 9 years with his experiments and government intervention. The people have to trust the market. And that means the market has to earn the trust of the people. With the bailout, it only means gov intervention with more stifling regulation and the same thing over again in another 10 years.
Very well said, Lydia.
Time says let the risk taking businesses fail.
I read a similar article this morning by a Harvard economist. You can find it on the Drudge Report.
Did anyone else read that the $700 billion is just a made up number? I think Paulson wants the right to spend money any way he wants. Bush should fire him.
I do not like the scare tactics of the bailout proposers. Why exactly is it the case that if the gov’t does not buy up the hyper fancy derivatives that the economy will suffer?
I think the people/firms that bought these derivatives might suffer, but that is the point of a market.
“Did anyone else read that the $700 billion is just a made up number? I think Paulson wants the right to spend money any way he wants. Bush should fire him.”
Yeah. The real number is closer to 1.2 Trillion.
However, Tom Hartman made a great point yesterday:
want to see the mortgage crisis go away? Instead of bailing out the banks that made bad paper and ARM’s that adjusted beyond people’s ability to pay, make a government mandate that ALL mortgages automatically adjust to 5% fixed.
Many people would be able to afford their homes again, and this crisis would see itself out of the woods.
Let’s face facts here. When these banks allowed for loans beyond peoples means (preferably 2x income, no more than 3x income), they were setting off a time bomb. And by structuring these loans as ARM’s, they were lighting the fuse even faster.
So what if some bank loses SOME money. That’s a lot better than banks and investors losing everything.
Extract from http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-democrat-fingerprints-are-all-over-the-financial-crisis-949653.html
“Cynical students of the American political system will note that the biggest recipient of campaign contributions from the munificent duo of Fannie and Freddie over the past 20 years was one Christopher Dodd, Democrat Chairman of the Senate’s Banking Committee.
Rather surprisingly, given that he has only been in the Senate for four of those years, the second biggest beneficiary was Barack Obama.”
On top of that he has spent $1 million each day he has been in the Senate on earmarks.