Social Isolation, Tribal Survival
It’s an odd article, on an odd situation:
“Inside an All-White Town’s Divisive Experiment With Cryptocurrency: In South Africa, a right-wing enclave turned to blockchain to cut themselves off from the black-majority state.”
Sure, they’re serving the wrong Lord, a false Source of the Law for their community: but that kind of error, I can find anywhere. What interests me is the on-the-ground results they have achieved, despite opposition and the harsh problems of the real world.
And how the Afrikaners have managed to survive without waving a “kill me now” red flag before a soft-Marxist, quietly disintergrating black-majority state.
Let it be noted: I have little interest in spending the time and expense to forcibly overrule what a given community does or does not do. Empires, regardless of their moralizing and their fine-sounding justifications, are just too expensive to run & maintain in the era of decentralization and increasing State bankruptcy.
That’s why Progressives prefer to have their political and social goals paid for by the masses, especially those gullible petite-bourgeois Christians.
Big Money, after all,
- supports the Progressives 100%, and
- somehow always escapes the tax nets.
Strange, how that works out.
Christian Reconstruction is rooted in an idea, rather than a bloodline or a shared history & culture. Our road will be different than the road to Orania.
We don’t know everything we need to get to our destination, though. There are things where we can learn from the pagans, and lessons to be gleaned even from committed antiChristians, like Muslims or Communists or Academia.
A certain level of humility is appropriate here.
Even to the point of business deals and contracts (NOT covenants) with the pagans.
Cooperating with the Pagans
(Core text: I Kings 5:4–11.)
—<Quote from Chapter 26 begins>–
Every offer to buy or sell is an offer to cooperate. Solomon wanted cooperation with Sidon. He planned to build the temple. The temple would be the most holy place in Israel. He wanted the temple to be constructed with the finest timber available. That meant timber cut in Lebanon, a pagan city. It would mean that covenant-breakers would transport the timber to Israel. This meant that the people of God would become dependent on the people of a rival god. He negotiated a price for the timber and the workers who would deliver it. But this was a two-way street. The king of Sidon would become dependent on the people of Israel to supply wheat and oil. This arrangement would be known to the people of Sidon. So, people in both societies would benefit from the transaction.
The exchange was possible because the king of Sidon wanted wheat and oil more than he wanted timber and labor services of timber shippers. Also, Solomon wanted the temple in Jerusalem more than he wanted wheat and oil. He was rich. The king of Sidon was rich. Neither of them needed the other for his basic income. They acted as economic representatives of their respective populations. A mutually beneficial exchange was possible because each of the kings wanted what the other possessed more than he wanted what he possessed. There was no equality of exchange: like for like. On the contrary, there was inequality of exchange. Each wanted what the other possessed.
This was a not much of a negotiation. The king of Sidon could have refused to accept Solomon’s offer. He could have asked for more wheat or more oil. But he thought the offer was a good deal for him as the economic agent of his people. Solomon was ready to make a long-term exchange at this price. No negotiating was required. There would be nothing like this: “‘Bad, bad,’ says the buyer, but when he goes away, then he boasts” (Proverbs 21:14). Both kings saw the benefits of such an agreement at the price Solomon offered.
This is an example of cooperation. In this case, it was cooperation between kings. But it was cooperation between the people who were represented by these kings. Most amazing of all, it was cooperation between the God of Israel and the god of Sidon. God allowed His temple to be built with timbers that were supplied by people of a rival faith. This leads to a remarkable conclusion: voluntary exchange is basic to kingdom expansion. It looked as though the deity of Sidon expanded his kingdom. But because of the progress of God’s kingdom in history, God safely shrugs off all such criticisms of economic cooperation. The god of Sidon is long gone. The God of Israel is still with us. God knew this would be the case. The god of Sidon was no threat to Him, confessionally speaking.
In a mutual exchange, both parties expect to be better off after the exchange. If they are, they may trade again. It will be cheaper next time. Trust will be greater. Uncertainty will be lower. Exchange costs will be lower. Here is a law of economics: “When cost falls, more is demanded.” Both sides prosper. Individuals on both sides can then pursue their goals less expensively. Whenever the exchanges were based on negotiations between kings, the political kingdom of each king expanded. In the ancient world, kingdoms were confessional. So, each had a covenant. Yet the expansion of Sidon’s kingdom was no threat to God. God knew who was in charge in history. So, the temporary expansion of Sidon’s kingdom was no threat to God’s kingdom.
This voluntary economic exchange was not based on a covenantal unification. The confessions were different. There was no covenant allowed (Deuteronomy 7:2). This means that an economic contract is not the same as a covenantal merging. It is not established by an oath to the same God. A promise to pay does not have the authority of a public oath to obey the laws of God: in marriage, church, or state. Jesus warned:
“Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil” (Matthew 5:33–37).
A contract is established by “yes.” It rests on the integrity of the contracting parties. In contrast, a covenant is established by a formal oath in God’s name. This rests on the idea of God as a covenant-keeper and a covenant-enforcer.
Solomon built the temple by means of a voluntary exchange. There was nothing immoral about this exchange. Despite the fact that covenant-breakers were involved in the construction of the temple, this in no way broke covenant with God. Cooperation economically is not the same as cooperation covenantally. A contract is not the same as a covenant. A promise is not the same as an oath. The division of labor does not extend through trade because of covenantal unfaithfulness. It extends as an outworking of covenantal faithfulness. The fact that covenant-breakers are better off economically after the trade is covenantally irrelevant. So are covenant-keepers. The increased prosperity of covenant-keepers is what matters in history and eternity. This is because the kingdom of God expands over time at the expense of the kingdom of man. What matters is confession, not economic prosperity as such. The kingdoms of men rise and fall. They last for a few generations. The kingdom of God compounds.
It’s quite true that everything belongs to the Lord, that in time everything that His enemies have on this world will be transferred to His friends.
But we are not Marxist or Muslims: there is no need to commit revolutionary injustice, or break God’s law ourselves and steal, kill, or rob the unbeliever to get what they have for ourselves (and so lay the road for our own damnation!)
The expansion of God’s kingdom is typically slow and steady, little by little.
Over time, with the occasional setback, those who are wise in the ways of God grow in wealth and numbers and authority.
Over time, with the occasional resurgence, those who despise the ways of God diminish in wealth and numbers and authority.
Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.Matthew 13:24-33, King James Version
Such is the Kingdom of Heaven.