Summer Reading Group: “Globalization and the Challenge of Religions”

This is the second post in a seven-part series for Spectrum’s 2016 Summer Reading Group. Each post will be drawn from chapters of the book Flourishing by Miroslav Volf. You can view the reading/posting schedule here.

We live in dark times. Wars and rumors of war are ever on the horizon. As economic globalization binds more and more people in a single garment of destiny, conflicts and struggles seem to proliferate. Environmental degradation, climate change, the instabilities of the global market place, religious intolerance, failed states, belligerent nationalism, and the mass migration these problems cause are among the hot-button issues no one can fail to notice. Even if we are not directly suffering the effects of globalization, someone we know is.

It is within this context that I think Miroslav Volf’s latest book is especially relevant. Volf begins the first chapter with Karl Marx’s prescient description of market globalization. Now, Marx is widely known to be a harsh critic of capitalism—an economic arrangement marked by the concentration of the facilities, tools, and machines of production in the hands of a few capitalists. However, few know Marx was also a great admirer of capitalism’s internal dynamism.

Marx celebrated market economy’s unprecedented ability to upset the old political status-quo, overturn outdated cultural values, and destroy archaic social hierarchies. The profit incentive is the energy behind innovation, expansion, and the will to transcend traditional morality and arbitrary social boundaries. The most revolutionary aspect of capitalism, for Marx, is its ability to generate new desires, desires that we do not even know we had: who would have guessed that smart phones would be consider a social necessity a mere decade ago? Volf rightly points out that regardless of what one thinks of Marx’s solution to the problems of capitalism, one could hardly deny that Marx was at least a great analyst of economic systems.

But as a good dialectician, Marx also knew that few blessings are without corresponding curses. Capitalism’s dynamics also generate tensions, struggles, and recurring problems. Problems that we are tired of witnessing today. In addition to the concentration of wealth and thus political power in the hands of the few—a possibility that even Adam Smith recognized—the primacy of market ethos is also “transmuting all values so as to place them in the service of monetary worth” (31). In other words, the market has the tendency to reach into places where it should not. Therefore, human labor and other non-economic goods, such as political power, risk being reduced to mere commodities with a price tag. This market impulse to commodify everything has, for Volf, tremendous implications for human dignity.

To demonstrate just how integrated the world economy is, Volf discusses the production process of an iPhone. An iPhone, he writes, is “designed in the United States…assembled at a furious pace in China in a factory of a Taiwanese firm…An international workforce of some seven hundred thousand in Germany, South Korea, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and the United States produces the parts of the device” (32). Again, there are two sides to iPhone’s success story: while the production of the iPhone generated many jobs and enriched a few people, it also made use of minerals collected by unprotected children working under shameful conditions in Congo, enriched the warlords that ruled over the same children, and created the largest sweatshops with cruel labor practices in China.

Market globalization is indeed connecting more and more people. It is generating a global civil society at an unprecedented scale. But Volf wants to remind us that this connectivity also comes with social, moral, and cultural costs. Costs that those who consider themselves religious cannot simply ignore.

For instance, Christians have been witnessing the trivialization of religious identities. Many churches are now organized like corporations and worship programs often produced in order to generate an emotional experience rather than to spread the Gospel. Church institutions seem to be more concerned about attendance than genuine discipleship. In short, religion is becoming a market commodity. Spiritual consumerism is rendering the gospel impotent and meaningless, precisely at a time when society is falling deeper and deeper into the abyss of consumeristic nihilism.

For Volf, the primary reason market globalization is creating these negative cultural and spiritual consequences is that the market is not morally neutral. He insightfully argues that the market, if separated from a broader moral framework that delineates its limits, also promotes a certain vision of reality that is incompatible with the vision of world religions.

For instance, the market’s operation encourages its participants to “organize human interaction through the calculus of costs and benefits.” It also presupposes that “human beings [are] acquisitive, insatiable in their thirst for both profit and consumer goods” (40). As theologian Stephen Long also points out in Divine Economy: Theology and the Market these anthropological assumptions are not simply natural facts, but value-laden claims that capture how people are expected to operate in the capitalist marketplace, barring other moral considerations. Human beings do not naturally make the acquisition of goods and wealth the final end of their ordinary activities; they are trained by the market culture to do so.

Volf explains that the scope and nature of the market is always socially determined. Cambridge economist Ha-Joon Chang made a similar point and famously wrote that “there is no such thing as a free market” in 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism. What Volf and Chang mean is that the market is always governed by norms and institutional consideration that go beyond the market itself. Consider the issues of child labor, labor rights, and the current debate of whether human organs should be objects of economic exchange. Markets are not given. They always exist within a social and moral context. But if the market and its ethos are allowed to colonize other areas of life, it would begin to corrode and chip away at the moral fabric of society, turning everything and everyone into a commodity.

Market globalization promotes a set of alternative norms that can come into conflict with that of Christians and adherents of other religious traditions. Therefore, Volf believes it is paramount for Christians and members of other faiths to jointly reflect on how market globalization might be undermining our humanity precisely in and through all of its blessings and curses. More important still, Volf believes the greatest contribution world religions can make to push globalization in a more humane direction is a vision of human flourishing grounded in a transcendent end.

Borrowing from philosopher Charles Taylor, Volf argues that a central organizing principle of market globalization is “the affirmation of ordinary life” (42). By the affirmation of ordinary life, Volf means that globalization enjoins us to devote all of our physical, intellectual, spiritual, and artistic energies to advance our earthly prosperity. Modern life is associated primarily with living a life of relative prosperity and freedom from illnesses and wants. According to Volf, this stands in sharp contrast with the vision of world religions and ancient philosophers, which subordinates the mundane world to a transcendent end. He states that world religions “are concerned with the good that goes beyond ordinary flourishing and contend that attachment to the transcendent realm is in fact the key to ordinary flourishing,” while market globalization is exclusively about ordinary life (44).

At this point, Augustine’s City of God comes to mind. For Augustine and, I suspect, for Volf, it is only by orienting ourselves toward God—who alone is truly infinite—can we overcome our tendency to treat worldly goods as final ends and so relate to them in twisted ways. Volf argues that human insatiability and mortality render the pursuit of worldly goods as final ends futile.

Market globalization promises that commodities and wealth would make us happy, but no matter how much wealth we acquire, we are never satisfied. Human desire is insatiable, precisely because it anticipates the transcendent. Pursuing worldly goods as ultimate ends thus “robs us of feelings of contentment and joy” and “subverts love and compassion” (53).

Intrinsic to this never ending pursuit of worldly happiness is the illusion that abiding meaning and significance is to be found in this world. But Volf argues that human finitude and mortality renders all human achievements meaningless. In death, all that we have acquired is lost. Therefore, it is by orienting ourselves toward a transcendent goal that “abiding significance” can be found (55).

I am largely in agreement with Volf’s analysis. But I am slightly uncomfortable with the way he treats the world religions as a unitary whole by assigning them a common denominator, namely being concerned with the transcendent—a category used in Western philosophies of religion. My discomfort notwithstanding, I think Volf is right about globalization and what Christianity might offer as part of the solution to globalization’s problems.

In short, Volf thinks world religions confront globalization with these two questions: 1) Does globalization affirm the human dignity of every person, or does it subject some to oppression while enriching the others? 2) Does globalization distort our vision of reality and encourage us treat worldly goods as the final end of life?

The answer to the first question is obvious, given Volf’s analysis so far. While he believes globalization brings many blessings and promises, he also acknowledges the injustice and conflicts that it generates. Here, world religions are to remind us that living well means living within certain moral boundaries, because life serves a higher end than the acquisition of power and goods. Volf calls us to therefore challenge the utilitarian logic of market globalization and imagine ways to foster more solidarity and love. To make his case, Volf draws from the social ethics of John Paul II and the Dalai Lama. Both, according to Volf, urges their audience to reach beyond the ordinary and toward a “mystery that transcends our ordinary experience:” God for John Paul II or the realm beyond desire for the Dalai Lama (50).

Although I admire Volf’s generous attitude toward other religious traditions, I am not certain we can treat every “world religion” as equal partners in the same mission without doing violence to them. I am worried that in Volf’s attempt to advance his ambitious project, he might be tempted to downplay the differences between religious traditions. There are significant tensions between the traditions he mentioned and some of them have incompatible metaphysical systems that might not support Volf’s overall moral vision.

John Paul II’s Christian personalism, for instance, is rooted in scholastic philosophy. His metaphysical belief that everything that exists has a purpose or telos is what enables him to affirm the intrinsic worth and dignity of every human being. However, in other traditions—some of which would be reluctant, to say the least, to acknowledge the very idea of objective purposes or ends—where might the moral principles of equality, dignity, and solidarity emerge? His framing of world religions as being fundamentally about a transcendent “goal” might not sit comfortably with these other less goal oriented traditions. Perhaps, this is the topic of a later chapter.

Yi Shen Ma is Assistant Pastor of L.A. Chinese Seventh-day Adventist Church and a Ph.D. candidate at Claremont School of Theology. Prior to this, he served in the United States Navy as a religious program specialist and volunteered as development director of Adventist Peace Fellowship.

If you respond to this article, please:

Make sure your comments are germane to the topic; be concise in your reply; demonstrate respect for people and ideas whether you agree or disagree with them; and limit yourself to one comment per article, unless the author of the article directly engages you in further conversation. Comments that meet these criteria are welcome on the Spectrum Website. Comments that fail to meet these criteria will be removed.


This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at http://spectrummagazine.org/node/7569

I see that Spectrum’s weird flirtation with Marxism continues apace. Quoting Das Kapital for anything is exactly as valid and exactly as morally salutary as quoting Mein Kampf. Except, of course, that Marx’s twisted ideology killed many millions more than Hitler’s, and has continued to kill scores of millions for 70 years after Nazism was dead and buried.

I agree with the author that globalism is by no means an unmixed blessing. In fact, by far the most interesting development of this year is the growing rejection of globalism, as witnessed by Britain voting to “Brexit” the European Union, and the sudden, violent, 180 degree turn of the Republican Party on internationalism. A year ago, the Republicans (the Bush Republican Party) were even more in favor of trade deals that ceded sovereignty to international bodies than the Democrats were. Today, the Trump wing of the Republican Party (apparently its largest wing) is extremely suspicious of such deals, and the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party (almost half the party except for “super-delegates”) is equally suspicious.

But the part of “globalization” that calls for free trade is relatively mild compared to the part that calls for open borders and free immigration. That latter part is based upon the assumption that anyone from anywhere speaking any language and believing any political and/or religious ideology is a perfectly interchangeable cog in the capitalist machine, a perfectly interchangeable labor input. It has become obvious to anyone who is not fatally in thrall to globalization and its justifying utopian ideology, multiculturalism, that this assumption is simply insane, a rabid madness that, just to cite one example, requires ever more herculean feats of denial about the incompatibility of Islam with Western values and modes of self-government.

1 Like

Yi Shen, thanks for this thoughtful reflection on Volf’s first chapter. As I have been reading along I too have found his references to “world religions” somewhat problematic, but in general I think he does a good job clarifying how he is using terms and justifying his definitional choices. I appreciate his spirit of generous openness and dialogue with non-Christian traditions while at the same time making clear that he writes from a particular perspective (namely, a Christian one) and does not think all faiths are simply different paths to the same truth. Volf’s contrast between the idolatrous and invasive logic of the market on the one hand (with its tendency to “colonize all times and all spaces of life” and to “turn all things into commodities, consumer goods to be bought and sold”), and religious faith at its best on the other (which he says aims at “curbing restless and competitive acquisitiveness and generating compassionate generosity in each person’s heart”) strikes me as owing perhaps a little to Marx but far more to the Hebrew prophets. It will be interesting to see if his account of flourishing becomes more tradition specific in the upcoming chapters.

In the meantime, if I can be even more “tradition specific”, hopefully our friend DCRead will spend some time contemplating the words of one Adventist pioneer writing about Jubilee economics in the Hebrew Bible. I trust he would not accuse her of having a “weird flirtation with Marxism” if he encountered a passage like this one and was unaware of the source:

“The Lord would place a check upon the inordinate love of property and power. Great evils would result from the continued accumulation of wealth by one class, and the poverty and degradation of another. Without some restraint the power of the wealthy would become a monopoly, and the poor, though in every respect fully as worthy in God’s sight, would be regarded and treated as inferior to their more prosperous brethren. The sense of this oppression would arouse the passions of the poorer class. There would be a feeling of despair and desperation which would tend to demoralize society and open the door to crimes of every description. The regulations that God established were designed to promote social equality…If the law given by God for the benefit of the poor had continued to be carried out, how different would be the present condition of the world, morally, spiritually, and temporally! Selfishness and self-importance would not be manifested as now, but each would cherish a kind regard for the happiness and welfare of others; and such widespread destitution as is now seen in many lands would not exist. The principles which God has enjoined, would prevent the terrible evils that in all ages have resulted from the oppression of the rich toward the poor and the suspicion and hatred of the poor toward the rich. While they might hinder the amassing of great wealth and the indulgence of unbounded luxury, they would prevent the consequent ignorance and degradation of tens of thousands whose ill-paid servitude is required to build up these colossal fortunes. They would bring a peaceful solution of those problems that now threaten to fill the world with anarchy and bloodshed.”

3 Likes

Yi,
I find it essential to divide “secular” from “religious” in many phases of life. I can accept pluralism and inclusivity in the “secular” realm but Not the religious. All religions do not lead to the same end or the God of the Old and New Testament. That God has a divine Son and His name is Jesus. No other religion but Christianity holds that NT fact to be true.Religious inclusivity would make that fact secondary to want to have a “secular/religious globalist spirituality.” Secular globalist desire this utilitarian use of religion to promote their ends. Perhaps “a woman riding the beast”?

Ronald,as to Jubilee, nowhere was it a redistribution of earned income but the return of land to the individuals in the allotted land to the children of Israel. Modern ideas of redistribution by progressive taxation, Marxism etc. are unknown in scripture. 10% tithe was not “progressive” depending on earnings.Losses in the “walled cities” was not returned at Jubilee.Debts were relieved every 7 yrs, Our 10 yr. and 30 yr. mortgages would be considered unbiblical. The progressive taxation and special interest deductions actually entrench the top 1% as did the bank bailouts and present Federal Reserve policy that does not allow the normal clearing of economic excesses but increased leverage by more economic excess. .

“Brexit” was an affirmation of the American experiment that realized rule by unelected foreign powers as the “globalization” model practices and envisions is unacceptable.David, you are correct that the Rep. party as led by Trump is anti-globalism as an agenda but it IS NOT isolation but simply demands equal rules for all parties. No more free rides into US unless the other party reciprocates. Likewise I agree with your thoghts on “illegal immigration” not allowed in any nation I have lived in or visited and presented my passport to…and the required visits to the immigration office for continuation of Visa’s.
Regards

PS. Ron, we may have both likely violated the 1 post but I will respond to your post to me and paste it to my 1 original post also.
I suggest you are imposing your own economic theory on the Jubilee principle as well as the 7 yr. release when you state “means cancellation of debt and regular redistribution”. Perhaps White was using a mere rhetorical argument about Jubilee now but indeed did insist compassion for the poor is called upon by Christians. She never suggested your premise of “regular redistribution” to apply to today…nor did jubilee apart from the land only but not earned income from land previously utilized before Jubilee…
To often there is the careless application of a “theme” in the OT to a “present day economic theory.” Neither is “Capitalism” as such taught in the OT but “free enterprise” is within the framework of Jubilee and 7yr. release etc.
Religious “globalist” often impose “their religious reasons” to promote globalization.
They also attempt to impose the idea of compassion to legitimize every false economic theory that fits their view. The papal encyclicals are a good example having to do with economics. Ludwig Von Mises in the book “Human Action” properly documents their views are primarily compatible to facist economics.
My complaint is not that compassion is not called for by Christians it is trying to create a view of economics imposed by some that can not be supported by scripture as a biblical application demanded by law in the present age.
No economic theory does justice to that. It is just that man made economic theory.
Interestingly Madison in Federalist Papers #10 says that a clamor for “paper money” and “redistribution of land etc, debt forgiveness” is a spurious evil.

The officiaI doctrine of the Roman Church is outlined in the encyclical Quadragesirno anno of Pope Pius XI (1931). The Anglo-Catholic doctrine is presented by the late William Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury, in the book Christianity and the Social Order (Penguin Special, 1942). Representative of the ideas of European continental Protestantism is the book of Elnil Brunner, Justice and the Social Order, trans. by M. Hottingcr (New York, 1945). A highly significant document is the section on “The Church 2nd Disorder of Society” of the draft report which the World Council of Churches in September, 1948 recom- mended for appropriate action to the one hundred and fifty odd denominations whose delegates are members of the Council. For the ideas of Nicolas Berdyaew, the most eminent apologist of Russian Orthodoxy, cf. his book The Origin of Russian Co7nmnim (London, 1937)~ especially pp. 217-2 18 and 225. It is often asserted that an essential differencc between the Marxians and the other socialist and interventionist parties is to be found in the fact that the Marxians stand for class struggle, while the latter parties look at the class struggle as upon a deplorable outgrowth of the irreconcilable conflict of class interests inherent in capital-

Ron Addendum–
Well, you are saying then she meant OT levitical law including Jubilee(ch 25) to be applied to today with land returning to the original family and 7 yr. release. If so she was wrong in placing OT law which would include foods, drink and meats on the NT church (Col.2) and “the times of the gentiles.” Take your choice. I find no such NT command… I suggest it was a rhetorical thought of how it could make a difference in the world with obviously no way to enforce or consistently apply it.
PS webmaster, Ron keeps his 2nd post, I cant? Am I missing something?

Yi, I realize your response was to Zane.Globalization was a vision of the international banks. In the US Clinton’s replacement of Glass-Steagall in '98 put bank holding co.'s on steroids. Nafta and WTO with China created a special interest bonanza with China and our present trade imbalance.I’m sure thought tanks thought it would bring “peace.” Thought this insight might be useful in the present dilemma. Leave all you guys to yourselves now.
Regards

Reply

Pat, obviously it would be anachronistic to attempt to reinstate Jubilee principles in some kind of rigidly programmatic sense in the present, and obviously Marxism is not simply Jubilee economics. Yet White’s statement is just as obviously a quite searing indictment of runaway capitalism. It is interesting that she uses the terminology of class conflict and directly states that God’s purposes are to “promote social equality”. It is also striking that White directly appeals to jubilee as a solution to contemporary problems of crime and violence. She refuses to restrict biblical ethics to the Israelites and agrarian economies only. Jubilee, at its most basic core, means cancellation of debt and regular redistribution of wealth to prevent unchecked accumulation of wealth leading to oppressive inequality. White is far more radical in tone in her statements than anything I have so far read in Volf, who in fact condemns Marxism for its persecution of Christians. What a shame that more folks here on Spectrum don’t actually make some effort to read the books in our summer book series. It would be nice to have informed rather than simply reactionary conversation partners.

ADDENDUM

Pat, you are equivocating. There is nothing “merely rhetorical” about Ellen White’s statement. Her words are plain and so is their meaning: the world is in a state of social and political crisis because of “the continued accumulation of wealth by one class” and its refusal to follow jubilee principles of economic justice, which would “bring a peaceful solution of those problems that now threaten to fill the world with anarchy and bloodshed.” Does White think that the world will in fact abandon “this oppression” and instead follow God’s plans “to promote social equality”? Perhaps not. But that is simply a repudiation of the way of the world and “the terrible evils that in all ages have resulted from the oppression of the rich toward the poor”–not of God’s principles. Hence the early Adventist insistence not merely upon tithing or “charity” but upon a denominational pay structure in which the highest leaders would not be paid vastly more than pastors of tiny congregations or even manual laborers.

If I can bring this back to Volf’s book, White is clearly demonstrating (at least in this particular passage) how a sense of transcendence can lead to a “quarrel with life” (p.71) but in a way that invests ordinary life/the mundane with deeper meaning (contra the charges of Nietzsche, “who argued that a hidden nihilism with respect to the ordinary life attends the affirmation of transcendence” (p.72).

2 Likes

Well, you are saying then she meant OT levitical law including Jubilee to be applied to today with land returning to the original family and 7 yr. release. If so she was wrong in placing OT law which would include foods, drink and meats on the NT church (Col.2) and “the times of the gentiles.” Take your choice. I find no such NT command rather the Galatian heresy… I suggest it was a rhetorical thought of how it could make a difference in the world with obviously no way to enforce or consistently apply it.
PS webmaster, Ron keeps his 2nd post, I cant? Am I missing something?

Thanks for your post on the first chapter, Yi Shen. I especially appreciated you connecting Volf’s work to that of others I haven’t read. Like you, I agreed with much of Volf’s even-handed analysis. What I was left wondering about was praxis. What does it look like to “push globalization in a more humane direction,” especially if one is coming from a religious/Christian perspective? Consume less? Give more? Support certain kinds of legislation and policies? I remember how disturbing it was to read the reports about the production of the iPhone when they first came out…on my iPhone…and before I upgraded to the next model a few months later. For some reason, I kept thinking about this video clip. It seems that Volf pretty much takes the present arrangement of things as a given, and thinks that it is the duty of religious people to exist with or within it. While this seems “realistic”, I wonder if being “prophetic” might call for more.

Volf’s overall argument is that we, collectively as a global society, are facing serious challenges, and that we need every resource we can get to meet them; religions, with it’s massive number of adherents is one valuable resource. On the one hand, I can see how religion makes a difference. I recall an analysis I read a while back when the economy crashed, claiming that this is what the free-market looked like without moral/spiritual agents that self-regulate themselves, as society becomes more and more secularized. On the other hand, I wonder if the faith of most adherents of religion plays out in any kind of robust way, economically. Monks and nuns unplug and take vows of poverty, but most of us are not monks or nuns!

1 Like

Ron, thank you for your thoughtful critique. I think you are right. Marx himself was influenced by both Aristotelian philosophy and Jewish thought. I think his contribution was not so much in the areas of moral philosophy or ethical criticism of the market–Christian socialists and others criticized capitalism long before Marx. Rather, Marx’s contribution lies in exposing how the prominent political economists of his time took the assumptions of capitalism for granted and thus naturalized them. I, too, am interested to see how Volf will be getting more tradition specific in the later chapters.

Thank you for your response, Zane. I assumed those issues would be addressed later on. I am also surprised to find out that Volf largely takes the current status quo for granted. After all, he begins the chapter by talking about the shortsightedness of Fukuyama’s “end of history” declaration. I think the problem with blaming the economic crash on economic “agents” is that it simply fails to take into account the structural features of the economy that tend to reward reckless behavior and concentrate wealth and financial power in the banks.

Yi, I realize your response was to Zane.Globalization was a vision of the international banks. In the US Clinton’s replacement of Glass-Steagall in '98 put bank holding co.'s on steroids. Nafta and WTO with China created a special interest bonanza with China and our present trade imbalance.I’m sure thought tanks thought it would bring “peace.” Thought this insight might be useful in the present dilemma. Leave all you guys to yourselves now.
Regards

Thank you, Yi Shen Ma, for your clear statement of Volf’s point that if economic globalization ties us into “a single garment of destiny,” all the world’s religions need to address its dangers. The point, repeated here, that Jesus Christ gives Christianity a distinctive point of view is certainly true, but it’s also true that every transcendent vision puts question marks in front of “what’s trending now.”

Adherents of every such vision, however, can overlook or abandon that vision’s own true soul. Globalization, and the capitalism that drives it, are trending now. As Adventist Christians we have a duty to submit Marx and Volf and others like them to criticism, but unless we do this in the spirit of the Hebrew prophets, our aspiration to be the Remnant is the purest sham.

The Hebrew prophets had no use for undisciplined desire and no use for wealth piling up in the coffers of the few. We may disagree on details regarding the solution to these evils, but unless we stand tall for economic justice we do not deserve to be called either Christian or Adventist.

Chuck

4 Likes

Is Spectrum Magazine AFRAID to post the Book Study in the Lounge???
Are they AFRAID there will be TOO MUCH “Round Table” Discussion enjoyed???

On This Side there can be ONLY one comment, which is useless to the Discussion
of the Book Study. It ends up being a Sermon, and that’s it. ONLY Yi gets to makes
comments about the Author’s work.
And he has some GREAT things to say. Within the Muslim Religion they see Jesus
as a Teacher. SDAs have “missed the boat” in Muslim Territories of the Middle East,
Central Europe, Africa, places like Pakistan and territories North, and in SE Asia by
not promoting the Red Letter Words of Jesus. The words about God. The Kingdom
of God has COME. The Kingdom of God is WITHIN YOU. YES! God IS IN His Heaven.
ALL IS right with the World. This is because Heaven begins at GRASS Level. Only our
feet are on the Earth. Our Bodies are in the Heaven of the Old Testament. God is WITH
US. He is surrounding our bodies in the atmosphere we breath.
Jesus gave Words on HOW to live with each other, to treat each other. HOW to Worship
God. We worship Him through the way we treat our Neighbors. We worship Him by not
being Greedy [think the farmer building bigger barns].
THIS is the Globalization Message that Volf has that can be shared with ALL Religions.
Be they Hindu, Buddhist, Islam, Jewish, Wickans, those of No Religion.

YES! The Seventh Day Adventists have failed to carry this Message to the World. And
we see the result in the Chaos in the Middle East, Europe, Africa, America South East
Asia, Russia.
We are TOO CONCERNED Who is going to be Authorized to Preach the Message, Who
might Accept the Message, Who will be sitting next to us in a Pew or Folding Chair and
singing with us to ONLY APPROVED musical instruments.
Yes!! This Message by Volf has a LOT to say to Seventh day Adventists, not just posters
on this side of Spectrum Magazine.