The Rise of ‘Micro Looting’: Are Moral Standards Collapsing?
Nathan (00:01)
Hello and welcome to Thinking Out Loud. I'm your co-host, Nathan Rittenhouse.
Cameron (00:04)
And I'm your co-host, Cameron McAllister.
Nathan (00:06)
We often use the phrase that we are sad, but not surprised. Cameron and I have recently come across a piece of writing that does surprise us. So here we go. ⁓ we want to talk about an article that appeared in the New York times called the rich don't play by the rules. So why should we, which is a pro theft and micro looting article. Yeah, we're going to wade through that. But Cameron, one of the reasons that this surprised me or is kind of just funny story. And I might've shared this is like two or three months ago.
My daughter who's in seventh grade was in a class discussion where the teacher asked, if you saw someone steal a candy bar, would you think that was wrong or would you ⁓ say something about it? And 21 of the 22 kids said, no, there's nothing wrong with it. Big corporation, they can handle the loss. This isn't a problem. And so my daughter being the one in absentia on that ⁓ argument, and you can go basic common soul on how the math of that works and plays out. ⁓
Cameron (00:50)
Hmm.
Nathan (01:05)
But anyways, it's an interesting conversation among 13 year olds, right? What we just have read and witnessed and watched, many of us, and this shows up on lot of different political commentary, theological and ⁓ social discourse platforms, is this article. ⁓ Can you kind lay out the basic argument that's being made and what you found to be, huh, well that's interesting.
Cameron (01:32)
Well, one thing that you'll notice in all of these discussions is you want to play with words. I have, I think the term micro looting is fascinating. So micro looting is a good way to rebrand stealing. And this is one of those instances, Nathan, where I think we have educated ourselves into imbecility comes into play. So that's a phrase that comes from GK Chesterton. So this is Gia.
Nathan (01:48)
Eerie.
Cameron (02:00)
Toledo from the New Yorker, know, yeah, Tolens, know, maybe, yeah, culture writer at the New Yorker. Yeah, so one of the big streamers out there. Also, an outspoken Marxist. It is a little bit funny to watch him in designer glasses, in business casual clothes, in this really, yeah, this really nice New York loft.
Nathan (02:02)
Tolentino maybe is it Toledo Tolentino? Yeah and Hassan piker
plush white chairs and yeah some people refer to
him as the Joe Rogan of the left except that Joe Rogan is the Joe Rogan of the left so he's maybe he's the Marxist Joe Rogan I don't know
Cameron (02:32)
Hey, that could work. What they're trying to do is reappropriate stealing. They'll use phrases like, what is it? The valence of property is changing. I think the conversation on stealing at least is being radically attenuated. These are snatches of dialogue from this.
The argument, if you actually tried, you have already kind of made the argument, Nathan, and it came from the mouths of 13 year olds. I mean, that essentially is their argument. They may dress it up with a few more terms that would appear on a GRD exam, but it's the same basic logic. massive corporations. So some of the places that they pick on, one of them is Whole Foods. Whole Foods would be an easy target.
Nathan (03:26)
Mm-hmm.
Cameron (03:29)
because it was, mean, Jeff Bezos is involved, their prices tend to be high, they're a high end kind of store. So they would say, these corporations routinely steal from their workers, so therefore, we're justified in stealing from them. so let's, the argument has also made that this is an active protest. I'm just gonna give you the arguments right now without adding any...
any commentary whatsoever yet, we'll get there. Rebranding, I think what people do with words is really important. Microluting is a term to replace stealing and then to try to infuse it with some sort of political significance saying, this is a form of protest and then invoking figures like Jean Valjean, Robin Hood. Yeah.
Nathan (04:23)
Robin Hood.
Yeah, it does have a different thing here in that this is not stealing because you're in need, which is still stealing. But, ⁓ this is a form of, they want to see social change in action. And so Hassan piker says, cause they do talk about the categorical imperative and say, well, what if everybody does this? And he's like, yeah, go for it. Try it. It'll, it'll crush everything. And then we will really have government run grocery stores.
And it would be wrong to steal from the government run grocery stores because that would be the instilling from the taxpayer. Although I don't know where he thinks the tax money comes from for the government run stores that might come from corporations and business leaders. Anyway, like the math of it just doesn't. But actually we can't make this too soft work. So let's back up a second. Let's go Thomas soul here. Let's go back to the candy bar and work through this. ⁓ Because I think math is a moral issue. So let's say that you are ⁓
you're in Walmart or pick whatever wherever you do your shopping and there's a candy bar that's a dollar and that the sales margin on groceries is 2%. So the grocery store bought that candy bar for 98 cents and is selling it for a dollar and is making two cents per transaction. So if somebody steals a candy bar,
that store needs to sell 49 other candy bars in order to make up for the loss of the theft of one candy bar. I think that's why, yeah, so when you go back, I think it is Thomas Ohl who makes the argument that you only need a 4 % theft rate to close a grocery store down. You don't need a big number because the margins are so small. So the store then has two options. A, they can leave because the theft rate is higher than 4 % in which everybody starts screaming about the social injustice of ⁓
Cameron (06:00)
Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
Nathan (06:14)
food deserts or B, they can raise the prices to compensate for the loss. So I'm saying just at the very basic, like I can explain this to an 11 year old, the math on how this works. It doesn't work. But then even to get into the category of something like the rich don't play by the rules. So why should I? Is a, a weird title, Cameron, because since when did we start basing our morality based on other people's behavior?
Cameron (06:17)
Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
Nathan (06:43)
Like from, from the title, it's like, wow. And so you said, when I suggest this topic, you're like, yeah, Nathan, but like any sophomore level philosophy student could tear this thing apart. And I'm like, no, I don't think so.
Cameron (06:46)
Mm-hmm. Yeah.
Not anymore. Maybe in the 1980s.
Nathan (06:59)
Because they were pointing
out that like 41 % of Gen Z thinks that Luigi Mangione shooting the healthcare executive was justified because of the torture that the social murder being committed by insurance companies. Now, this isn't to say that there isn't corporate greed, that there isn't significant problems with the, we've all had our rounds with the healthcare system, but there was never any point in my mind, like, you know what, just go shoot somebody. This would really, you know, be heroic. ⁓
Cameron (07:07)
Mm-hmm.
Nathan (07:30)
solution is. So I'm not seeing the, there's a wild way in which other people's vision of other people's morality becomes the platform for their own decision making.
Cameron (07:40)
A couple of factors here that are worth pointing out. we have, you know, whatever you think of these publications, the New York Times is enormously influential. The New Yorker is enormously influential and an online presence like, what's his name? Hassan? Hassan Piker. So you have, you got two elite institutions right there and then you have a real populist kind of institution like on the very online world of the internet.
Nathan (07:58)
Hassan Piker. Yeah, he's massively popular.
Cameron (08:10)
So you have these three. these are all still cultural gatekeepers. So the fact that this kind of message is being disseminated in these places is interesting and worth paying attention to as well.
Nathan (08:22)
Yeah, it,
I mean, does it even, like, so I'm sure, so between the time that this article came out and the time we're recording this, I'm sure there was a New York Times reporter hiding on the floor at the White House Correspondents' Dinner because somebody charged him with a gun trying to kill people. I mean, that does seem to be the logical outworking of where this, like, seems internally contradictory.
Cameron (08:44)
So my point there is,
sure, well, no, my point there is just that this kind of sophomoric logic is now so widespread and it's coming through some of our main channels. But also you have a state of affairs. We've been on this trajectory for a long time where we've been immersed in basically power games in our culture. And now here's where I'm going to be an equal opportunity offender. It is...
So a certain type of person could point to this and say, here's a clear sign of the moral degeneracy on display in our society when people are trying to rebrand theft and valorize it as political protest or trying to rebrand murder in this case. So one article I'd read looking at this looked at the massive difference between civil disobedience
a sit-in for instance, know, this was part of the Martin Luther King Jr.'s whole push with the civil rights movement. There was a steadfast commitment to nonviolence and accepting the consequences of whatever civil disobedience was being perpetrated, right? So there were very powerful, strong moral principles animating that. And then this, which just looks like...
a bunch of kind of brats who don't really understand the implications of what they're doing in the first place. But before we go down that road though, know, ⁓ yeah, moral degeneracy and all of that. Yeah. So I think this stuff is pretty alarming. But for a long time, Nathan, when I mentioned some of just the vicious tactics across the political spectrum, so on all sides of the aisle, you know, and I...
brought up the childish adage of two wrongs don't make a right. He said, well, I just don't think people are thinking like that anymore. And they're not, they're thinking, they are asking the question, will this work? Not, is this right? Is this effective? Is this gonna get me results? Is this gonna get me what we want? And this is pretty widespread.
Nathan (10:54)
Mm-hmm.
Here's where we get to the core Cameron, is that you and I, and I bet a bunch of our listeners think theologically and philosophically about society and culture. The underlying assumptions of this article are entirely in terms of power and economics. So let me make this point. Did you, you worked in a grocery store, good old Publix back in the day, did you feel that Publix was abusing you?
Cameron (11:26)
That's right.
No.
Nathan (11:33)
Could Publix have probably paid you 16 cents an hour more? Yes. So why did you not feel like that was a systemic oppression and you were a victim of your employer?
Cameron (11:37)
of course.
Nathan (11:48)
Because that's the argument that's being made, is these places are abusing their employees, so they're stealing from their employees by not paying them more. Therefore, stealing from the store is morally justifiable because you're on the side of the worker. So why did you not feel like you were being exploited?
Cameron (12:13)
Well, I'm not sure that, hold on Nathan, I don't really have an answer to that man. Let's put a timestamp here for just a second and then let you just answer your question. Yeah, because I'm not sure where you're, yeah. Just real, yeah.
Nathan (12:19)
Well, but, I'll answer it for you, because you did it.
My question, my statement is we are in a ⁓ new era in which you think your employer is abusing you if they aren't paying you as much as they possibly could.
Cameron (12:45)
Mm-hmm.
Nathan (12:46)
I'm saying, did that thought ever cross your mind? As a... Yeah. And the other thing is, like, you could have gone and worked at a different place. This was not a hostage situation at the time. So, I'm saying, they're seeing a power dynamic of abuse in what we normally would have called entry-level work.
Cameron (12:49)
No.
No, not at all.
Nathan (13:11)
And so we're looking at this in totally different categories. A, there's the power dynamic of corporation versus the individual. And then secondly, the economic factor of this is that they said, okay, in 1965, CEOs made 21 times as much money as the average worker. And now here in 2025, CEOs make 260, sometimes more than the average worker. Therefore,
Cameron (13:18)
Mm-mm.
Nathan (13:43)
there's oppression in the system. is there ⁓ imbalances in that? Sure, but it's math, it's numbers. I still don't see that as a, if the number was 5,000 to one, the moral foundation for theft doesn't become more clear because the numbers are different. You see where I'm coming at this of?
Cameron (14:02)
I mean,
think what makes this tough sometimes is that there are some significant issues obviously with the American, I mean, overall economy. Yes, I mean, I think increasingly the middle class is bearing the brunt of so much of this. Is there economic disparity? Yes, but I, yes, there is. Okay, yes, there is. But.
Nathan (14:15)
⁓ I'm happy to concede that.
Okay, but but is this
good?
Cameron (14:32)
Right, yeah, so I always come back to this throwaway section, which is so fascinating because it doesn't really belong in the rest of the book, but Michael Polanyi's masterpiece, Personal Knowledge, he has a little throwaway section where he's talking about reform versus revolution. And it kind of took my breath away when I read it because he was in a position to understand this. ⁓ Hungarian chemist had seen the second world, the ravages of the second world war and...
had seen firsthand the ravages of political revolution. But he talked about how when there is a need for reform, there is a real, people get antsy. And that's probably an understatement. People start to get real twitchy. People want change and they want it fast. And he said, the temptation is to try to push for very fast change and to go with, you know, full scale revolution. I remember in 2020, I heard the phrase, just tear it all down.
so many times. I heard it with regard to the institution that used to be our employer, our CIM. I mean, I heard tear it down all the time. It was a time of tearing down institutions. But, Polanyi councils, wisely I think, don't do that. That way lies chaos. What you want to do is the hard, slow, careful work of reform, rebuilding, repairing. It's so hard. It's so easy to tear things down and break them.
Nathan (15:35)
Mm-hmm.
Cameron (16:00)
It's so much harder to build something and it's worthwhile maintaining something, repairing it.
Nathan (16:07)
Okay, time out. But this is where there's
asymmetry here, because the destruction is easy. It is easy to sit around on a plush white sofa in New York City when you have a job about shuffling words around in the New Yorker compared to negotiating the import prices of avocadoes from Mexico that actually feeds people. Like, it's asymmetrical in the entirety.
Cameron (16:32)
Oh, and are
any of these people on this podcast in need at all? Do they represent the... Right, yeah. Are they the underlings? And by the way, who are the people who are going to pay when there's this massive uptick in shoplifting? Which there has been since 2020. Shoplifting has steadily been on the rise.
Nathan (16:38)
Do they run a mom and pop grocery store? No.
That's what I'm saying. Yeah.
Okay, but back to Polanyi's thing Cameron, the foundation of... Polanyi's the philosopher here. He's going to be looking at the foundational principles by which you do reform. The outright implication of this article is nobody trusts the capitalist, so let's hand everything over to the government.
Cameron (16:58)
Mm-hmm.
Yes.
Nathan (17:12)
And you just closed your eyes and chuckled for anybody who missed it listening.
Cameron (17:16)
Well, the other part about this that's awfully rich, Nathan, is to watch these people. I'll put my cards on the table here and this will sound a bit cynical, but it's very difficult to see the sincerity in these kinds of commentators when they lead plush lives themselves. And they may...
use some Marxist language, but I'm also aware of people who craft online personas and who have a personal brand. Hassan Pike, that his name? Piker. Gosh, get his name right, Cameron. Hassan Piker, he's known in online spaces as the, he's the Marxist. So, he'll say things like, yeah, no, mean, if we get more chaos, that's great because then we can spur on the revolution.
Nathan (17:58)
Pyker.
Cameron (18:14)
How sincere is he? How committed is he? How much does he really mean that as he sits there with his designer glasses on? It's hard for me to take him that seriously. Same with this lady from the New Yorker, this cultural writer from the New Yorker. She's employed by one of the most snooty publications in America, famously snooty.
The New Yorker. is the magazine that publishes the cartoons that everybody pretends to find funny because they're so droll. So is she really a cultural revolutionary? Is she really so torn apart by the injustice of this world? Is she really very noble when she steals some lemons from Whole Foods for her sweet little neighbor? Notice that there's a good deal of virtue signaling that comes in on that podcast as well.
Nathan (18:45)
Tell us how you really feel.
Mm-hmm.
Cameron (19:07)
I'm part of this neighborhood group where I bring groceries to neighbors and, that's very altruistic of you. As I extol the virtues of micro looting, micro looting, I refuse to accept that as a term. It's just nonsense. Theft, stealing, we can just call it stealing. Even if you have to bring in, if you want to mythologize it, Robin Hood wasn't a micro looter.
Nathan (19:20)
you
Yeah, Cameron, just, just one thigh here. Cause I was, I was making this a reference earlier when I said we channel Thomas soul here. ⁓ is it, cause this whole thing about whole foods actually, have a, I have a copy right here. Look at this. Here's, here's John Mackey's biography on the, on the origin of whole foods and his whole fight with unions and from him going to be a bareback hippie into this whole.
Cameron (19:37)
I don't know. Yeah.
Nathan (20:02)
foodie crunchy. So it's very funny to me that Whole Foods was like the core institution of the left and like the Whole Foodie. Like just it's wild how things have changed. But when you go back and read the actual history there and then the whole thing of developing out of being bought by Bezos, the whole thing. But what Soul would say is Jeff Bezos, the Rockefellers, the Carnegie's, Walton Walmart family. The reason that the economy
Cameron (20:12)
My how things have changed. Yes.
Nathan (20:32)
rewarded them financially is they figured out ways for you to buy milk, steel, oil, and avocados cheaper than anybody else. So their success actually led to lower prices for the average person and the market rewarded them accordingly. So is there some weird stuff with Jeff Bezos' finances? Yes, absolutely. Does he probably have more money than he knows what to do with? Yes, absolutely.
But he also did build a system where most of the time within two days you can have any product delivered on your front doorstep for cheaper than you could go buy it at a local retailer. So if you're just looking at it in terms of convenience and economy, he is the revolutionary enabling and supporting the more impoverished masses more so than somebody like, can we just call a spade a spade here and say one of the like the fact that you can buy a gallon of milk for less than $5, not great for the dairy farmers.
but it is a modern ⁓ marvel of economics that that's possible.
Cameron (21:32)
Mm-hmm.
Nathan (21:39)
This is the world we live in.
Cameron (21:42)
the world we live in.
Nathan (21:43)
And some
people are going to make more money than others, but that being true doesn't mean that I shift the way in which I think about private property and theft.
Cameron (21:52)
I think also, I mean, if you see this kind of thing and it's alarming to you, let's move into starting to think more about asking the question, this right, rather than will this work? Because the will this work question is part of the logic that brings us to a place like this.
Because if we play that game, we end up in this kind of territory. And also, you just have, this is the full fruition of also people who are thinking in quite shallow terms. I mean, this is why Nathan, do believe, and perhaps naively so, but I'm not the only one saying this. I do believe we're going to have a return of interest in people trained in the humanities or in classic thought.
because of this kind of thing. When you have three adults in a room discussing this, micro-looting, none of them sense or seem to sense the irony that they are all cultural elites, none of them seem to grasp the irony that the people who shop at Whole Foods in the first place are generally not the downtrodden of society. This is a grocery store that sells vinyl, for goodness sakes.
So, I just, I think we need to restore a sense of thinking out the implications of ideas, understanding history, and being responsible as, mean, just thinking like responsible adults here. Boy, do I sound old, but it's true. I I watch this and it's just...
It's kind of humbling when you look at this. This is the nation I'm part of.
Nathan (23:50)
Okay, here's another thing though.
Yeah, but then you go back and you look at the Beatitudes, the Blessed's...
It's a different list. Would you want to trade lives with Jeff Bezos? I would not. And so, yeah, I mean, there's things you can put on the table because somebody could be listening like, well, those guys, you know, must really be rolling in it to be able to not care about these issues. Look, dude, I'm 39 years old, don't own any property. I rent a house in West Virginia, have a job with no benefits, and I have a fantastic life.
Cameron (24:01)
Mm-hmm.
have heavens now.
Yeah.
Nathan (24:29)
I'm just saying that the categories are independent of where... So, I don't see myself as a victim of corporations. I don't see myself... So, I don't need to... This is just whole realm of categories in which I don't feel like I have to play. The totality of my life is not about economics. Next question.
Cameron (24:31)
Yeah.
Yes, but you're describing what you've just described makes you a cultural anomaly. It makes you intriguing and that's part of what attracts people to you, Nathan, and why people want to come study in your backyard as well. But that is a picture of having your hope in Jesus Christ rather than earthly structures and earthly institutions.
Nothing wrong necessarily with being invested in earthly structures and institutions. It's good. Be a responsible citizen. Nothing wrong with making money. If you can do it, that's good.
Nathan (25:25)
Cameron and
I both think someday it would be cool to have a minivan that's newer than 10 years old.
Cameron (25:30)
That would be great. I would welcome that. But at the same time, if you just, you know, just going Augustine on this one, if you have disordered loves there and you come to a place where you sacrifice your moral convictions on the altar of either political expediency or economic expediency, then we have a problem. But if everything is reduced to power games, as it is for many in our nation, then...
Well, I don't have to say what will happen. You can see it. Look at it. I mean, the nation, a country where you have to lock up shampoo in little prisons and grocery stores so people don't steal it and shoplift it. It'll look a lot like a country that's made for infants. Everything's locked up. Windows are tinted. There's surveillance cameras everywhere.
Nathan (26:19)
You know, I hadn't thought of that. You put the little
latches on the doors under your sink so the babies can't get in there.
Cameron (26:27)
You have to baby proof a nation. And I mean, if you look at a lot of modern Western nations, go the city of London. mean, London is one of the most surveilled cities in the West. It's also one of the most violent. I mean, this is a picture of people who just have no self control. And it's been, it's, it's the sad thing is Nathan that we have, you have something like this, which is just
one sort of particular instance that you've pointed to here with this, know, micro-litting discussion. But you have many of these instances where people are actively praising adolescent behavior, grossly immoral behavior, juvenile behavior. Well, in some cases, I mean, they don't go outright in this particular podcast and endorse the murder of the healthcare CEO by Luigi Mangione. Yeah.
Nathan (27:21)
Mm-hmm. but they're comparing it to social murder. So it's
Cameron (27:26)
But they at least minimize it.
Nathan (27:27)
a kind of Yeah
Cameron (27:29)
So yes, if you have, I mean, this is the place we're in. It's a real, it's a welcome challenge to us as believers. See, I think another big challenge here, Nathan, is I was praying before we did this podcast. And my specific prayer, just to get vulnerable for a second, was, Father, help me, restrain me from lapsing into cynicism or any kind of
any kind of language where it makes people take away, where the takeaway is, I'm on the right side of everything here. Look at this horrible culture around me. Anything that tempts me to take myself off the hook here and say that this isn't my nation. I'm not a part of, I am a part of this. are all a part of this. So our challenge as Christians, the welcome challenge is, think about what Nathan just said about his societal and economic status.
Nathan (28:11)
Mm-hmm.
Cameron (28:25)
and then the happiness in his heart. See, that's a description of being salt and light. And the call is on it. Now, I'm not saying that we roll over and play dead or just accept all of this. are good forms of resistance. And some of us do find ourselves in influential or political sectors where we can do things that do make a difference. And we should do that. But we don't make the mistake of throwing out our morals to try to get what we want because then we're playing that game, that power game.
Nathan (28:53)
Well, here's what happens.
Yep. If you don't want to put the effort in to live under principles, then you'll have to live under systems of power.
Cameron (29:03)
Yep, much more efficiently said. That's it.
Nathan (29:04)
That's it.
You can live by principles or you can live by power. One thing I cannot for the life of me, Cameron, maybe you know this, I read this in the last week or two in some book. Somebody said that Marx's revolution failed not because he loved the peasants, the proletariat, but because he hated the bourgeois.
Cameron (29:25)
Yes. Yeah, I've heard, I can't remember who said it, but that's, that is such an apt quote. It's very true.
Nathan (29:26)
And...
That's a good
quote. So now we just got to figure out which book both of us have looked at in the last. But anyway, but there's a little bit that going on here also. That would be where I would be a tad cynical to say.
Cameron (29:35)
Yeah. ⁓
of her.
Yeah, did you detect
any real concern for the downtrodden in society in this conversation, Nathan?
Nathan (29:48)
⁓
So, so there's that. Let me, let's, can I loop this background? It'll seem like I'm changing directions on you Cameron, but here's something to think about.
You could say, why is it wrong to steal something? And the Christian is going to go, ⁓ 10 commandments because God said so. Let's push a little farther than that. Because it's going to make us think about, so my wife and I were talking about this article and then she was saying, no, the other side of this is to flip back and say, where do we have excess in our life? Where do we have extra? How are we using that to benefit the people around us? Are we making a contribution to society? Are we helping our neighbors? know, ⁓ and so
Cameron (30:09)
Mm-hmm.
Nathan (30:29)
The thing of it is, that if you have private property, it doesn't make you like, well that doesn't show up in the New Testament. No, hang on a second here. I think what we want to think about when we say that we have something or we own something is designated stewardship.
So think of your car or your bicycle or whatever, or just a book that you have. ⁓ Maybe a flower pot on your front step or whatever. Something that you own. Why is it wrong for somebody else to abuse that, misuse it, or to take it? And if you come back to thinking that the things that I have are gifts that have been given to me and I am responsible for taking care of and maintaining them.
It's a designated stewardship. the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof. Psalm 24. Does that mean that Cameron shouldn't have a deed to his house? No, but it means that Cameron has a little piece of paper that the, you know, the state of Georgia says he has a, he has a right to legally, but then morally as a bigger vision, as a Christian, he has a responsibility and obligation to care for in a certain way.
And so if he wants tulips in the garden and somebody drives their rototiller through there and puts potatoes, that's a violation of the designated stewardship. That's Cameron's space to decide what happens there. And he will have to give an account for how he used his resources in that area that's designated as his. So I think there isn't a direct all out New Testament case for private property, but I think the case for designated and specified stewardship very much is at play.
But what I like about that is then it throws a moral responsibility back on me to say that the purpose of me having something is not just a you remember the was it a shell Silverstein? Now I lay me down to sleep Pray the Lord my soul to keep and if I die before I wake I pray the Lord my toys to break so none of the other kids can play with them There is it having something is not just about keeping other people from having access to it. It's about thinking how do I use?
Cameron (32:30)
Yeah.
Nathan (32:41)
the bank account, the house, the good gifts that I've been given, but see that I have a responsibility to use them based on the principles that I have as a Christian to glorify God, to serve my neighbor, to love, to give, to share, to build, to develop, to bring beauty. ⁓ There's a more delightful way to think about having than there is to think about not having. And so I want the moral
Cameron (33:06)
Mm. Mm-hmm.
Nathan (33:09)
impetus to be put back on me on saying I have a designated stewardship of these things this is what God has entrusted to me right now and am I doing a good job with the things that God has given me and Then if he wants to grow that to a bigger slice of pie for some people than others, so be it But it doesn't matter. I'm supposed to be faithful with what's been given me and I go on from there
Cameron (33:32)
or way to end it on a constructive note. that's good. Thanks for sticking with us. Do check out some of these articles and for further commentary on this issue. It's an interesting story, but you have been listening to Thinking Out Loud, a podcast where you think out loud about current events and Christian hope.
I should have said.
Nathan (33:57)
If you like this
type of discussion, find this content helpful. You can like it, you can share it, you can subscribe to it. Talk about it, send us a question, info at toltogether.com. And certainly if you want to support the work that we do and like the idea of Cameron and I being loose in this world, you can support us financially by going to www.toltogether.com. Thanks so much.