To Conservative Faith Based Voters
I know I am not going to find many conservative Christian voters on this site. I am putting this out as a "Letter to the Editor" to several local papers, in my conservative rural Northern Michigan area. Do you know of any conservative Christian blogs that I could post this on?
To Conservative Christian Voters
As we are in primary election season and as another Presidential Election approaches, I would like to address this to the conservative people of faith or what is sometimes called the “values voter”. You have voted for conservative candidates in the last several elections because of abortion and Gay rights issues. I write to you as a fellow follower of Christ who respects your religious opinions, although I may not agree with all of them.
I am hoping and praying that as one after another “pro-life” ,”family values” politician has gotten busted for various misdeeds over the past several years, that you are beginning to see that not every politician who jumps and down, waving the flag, and screaming about Gays and abortion, is sincere or honest. The abortion and the Gay issue are tools to be used, to manipulate you into voting against your own self interest. How do you get Americans who need jobs in this country, who need Social Security, who need health care, who put American children’s education and health care before wars of choice over natural resources, and billions of dollars in military aid to thugs like Musaharaf in Pakistan, to vote against their own wants and needs? You appeal to fear and shout a lot about Gays and abortion. And some of those doing the shouting are picking up guys in the rest room after they did the shouting. Mitt Romney was pro-Gay rights and pro- Life when he was Governor of Massachusetts. Now that he is a Republican Presidential candidate, he shed that skin and he has been reborn as pro-life and anti-Gay rights. Those are the tools he needs to have to manipulate and use you and your vote.
Please, come to realize that there are multiple issues out there, not just Gay rights and abortion. In the unlikely chance that Roe v Wade was ever overturned, abortion laws would be a patchwork of laws, going state by state. If the law didn’t suit a woman who wanted an abortion in her state, she could go to a state where it did. You have to change people’s hearts on this issue. Can we work together to make abortion rare and as infrequent as possible?
Gays are still going to be Gay, not matter what your opinion of them is. Let go and let God be the judge. Taking care of the poor and widows are mentioned in the Bible thousands of time and homosexuality is mentioned a few times. Focus on the thousands of times that helping each other, and doing to others as you would have them do to you, are mentioned and consider the candidates who stand for education, Social Security, health care, peace, the environment and the common good, not hustlers who are using you, with hot button issues such as Gay rights and abortions.Our country is going straight down the tubes because it is being run by people who have used these issues to lie, spin, and manipulate you. Please, don't let them do it again.
- Jim Ramelis's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
Quagmire, quicksand, morass or battleground
Quagmire, quicksand, morass or battleground: Or how about amazement? The numbers here in the Crossleft Community are miniscule in comparison to the US body politic and I stand amazed at how quickly we begin to toss the antithetical viewpoints back and forth like a tennis ball at Wimbledon. We never seem to find a way to remove the net or in this case the enormous barrier separating us.
Phrases like “fighting for the unborn” or “no one knows for sure when personhood begins” will usually result in one avalanche after another of conflicting opinions. We can with almost uncanny predictability, guarantee the back and forth will splinter into such areas as science, life, legalities, choice, back-alleys and on through an endless list of related components.
If this were a secular community, we could use science to define biological life and in particular when it begins or engage in the psychological argument surrounding “choice”. In the realm of politics and legalities the discussion would tend toward rape, incest and should government rightfully decide on reproductive rights. Since the Crossleft Community is by definition a “Progressive Christian Community” shouldn’t our primary motives center on discerning the Will of God and again quoting Gary “no one knows for sure when personhood begins, not scientists or theologians…only God can answer that one”.
How does God answer that one?
Peter
Sorry Folks
Sorry, my reply above should have appeared after Gary's below entitled "Benj, That's not a silly question".
Peter
Quagmires
"How does God answer that one?"
Nu, you expect me to have an answer?
But, if you press me, maybe I could offer a mash-up of Intelligent Design and biological statistics.
First, statistics. It would appear that about 25% of all conceptions spontaneously abort in the first 6 weeks. (Another study says 31% in the first 12 weeks.) And, if I'm reading it right, that's not counting those that don't survive the few days that it takes to implant and to produce hormonal signs of pregnancy. And then there are the miscarriages after 6 weeks, which are estimated at 8%.
A reasonable estimate of all post-conception losses might be 40%, many of which are due to chromosomal abnormalities. So let's say it's 1/3.
So now let's bring in Intelligent Design. Would it be good design to waste 33.3% of all souls before they're born?
I don't know what THE answer might be, but soul or personhood at conception doesn't seem like a contender.
How does God answer that one?
While intelligent design and biological statistics are fascinating areas to explore; I was hoping to gain some insight or at least opinion on God's role in the process.
God's role
As fellow believers, I believe God would want us to openly discuss our differences, find a common good that we can work toward, unite behind that common good, and then show the world our love for each other. If you look at the prayer that Jesus prayed right before going to the cross found in John 17, you find that Jesus' desire was for the church to stay unified and show His love to the world by our love for each other. It is a fascinating prayer, especially when you consider what the American church has become.
I assume that is what you meant by God's role, maybe I am not addressing the question as you intended.
Ben
re: God's Role
Benj, it's interesting that you chose Jesus Prayer in John 17 and yes, your comments are "right on". In vs. 5 Christ prayed that He had accomplished the work God had given Him before He went to the cross. He even stated that "I glorified You on the earth".
Jesus unity with God was the result of knowing the Father and doing the things the Father has given Him to do. Verse 20 and our faith, then leads us to accept that Christ's prayer applies to us just as it applied to the first disciples. Knowing the Father through Christ, and doing His work brings Him glory and unity between God and us. Knowing God and agreeing with what He wants for us is the prerequisite to unity on earth.
The church must change perspective and begin to understand that we are literally the body of Christ on earth. When the secular world looks at the church today they see anything but unity. We have to start somewhere, so shouldn't we seek unity with Him first?
Always In His Service!
Peter
Body of Christ
I fully agree, Peter, that the Body of Christ is the key concept for describing the church and our relationships with each other.
How then do we go about seeking the unity you speak of? Do we find it in doctrines about God and Christ, by seeking an intellectually consistent spiritual unity? Do we find it by following in the Way, as best we can teach each other to recognize where it leads?
One of the difficulties is that the various members of the Body are called to do different things. In our pride, we tend to hold to what we individually believe we're called to do and disparage other callings. We need to discern the harmony that, in many respects, already exists in the actions of the members.
Bill
Now you are talking, Benj!
We like it when you start using words and phrases like, "common good", "love", and "openly discuss our differences", and "show the world our love for each other".You are an Okay guy after all.
Thanks for the nod
Our differences are still there but what brings us together is the love of Christ. If we can unite under that banner, then much can be accomplished.
re: God's answer?
I was hoping that you might have some insight or opinion.
I've had no personal insights and find no clear directives or suggestions from scriptures. If anything, the couple of passages that appear to refer to miscarriage or abortion appear not to support the idea of the personhood of an embryo or fetus. I don't have any clarity on how the teachings of Jesus might apply to this question.
What say you?
re: God's Answer
Sorry for the delay in replying, this has been one of those weeks spent unsucessfully trying to catch up with myself.
An interesting set of events unfolds in Luke 1 surrounding the birth of John the Baptist. While Zacharias was in the Holy Place performing proscribed priestly duties, he was visited by a messenger. The messenger brought news that Zacharias' petition had been heard and God would bless them with a son.
Verse 15, sets up a most interesting scenario: "For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother's womb".
What should we glean from Luke's account? Is it just a cute story concocted to bring something of the mysterious to John the Baptist?
Is literal interpretation appropriate? The messenger brought news of a son and his name had been chosen by God before conception and would be filled with the Holy Spirit prior to birth. Reading through scripture we can find numerous instances where person(s) are "filled with the Holy Spirit". This would infer John was more than a group of rapidly dividing cells prior to birth.
The words "Metaphoric Interpretation" float around on CrossLeft from time to time and even the most far reaching metaphor has difficulty dealing with vs. 15.
Is Luke's account a portion of the Good News or a cute story.
What say You?
Luke 1:15's answer
What I say is that even if it's taken to be "a cute story", it's still part of the Good News.
What it isn't, though, is a timeline for 'ensoulment'. The question remains, when?
"A group of rapidly dividing cells" is a description of the early embyonic stages. Once organs begin to form, the fetus is obviously more than rudimentarily organized cells.
Yet, Luke 1:15 says nothing about when the Holy Spirit will fill John in the womb.
Like other passages that refer to God's knowledge and actions concerning people before their births, this can also be taken as referring to God's nature and abilities rather than to the nature of people. Is John like everyone else before birth or is he special, specially chosen, and specially treated? The text doesn't support any particular conclusions.
Not all literal interpretations lead to the same results: there are always conflicting options.
Bill
When?
Bill,
Is it your contention that because there was no specification of the week or trimester of the pregnancy of when the filling took place, then we should just assume that all unborn do not contain a soul? Obviously John the Baptist developed a soul at some point in the womb or the Holy Spirit could not have filled it. So where do you draw a line?
I do not agree that the Bible and science does not tell us when life begins, but clearly that is what you and most here on Cross Left believe. But even with that belief, why do we err on the side of death? When a demolition team blows up a building, do they assume that there are no people inside or do they err on the side of life and walk through the building multiple times to make sure there is no life inside. They err on the side of life. I would ask that doctors, the protectors of life, do the same with the unborn.
Ben
When? I don't know.
Ben, I don't contend that all unborn do not contain a soul. Neither do I contend the opposite.
Regarding John the Baptist, the passage doesn't use the word "soul". It says he was filled with the Holy Spirit. Presumably, that presumes a soul. Did John "develop" it or was it a gift of the Holy Spirit? Or did being filled with the Holy Spirit not require the presence of a soul? The Biblical narrative doesn't prescribe any particular doctrinal conclusion.
Regarding the beginning of life, science does tell us when it begins -- and it's at conception. I've agreed with that, so I'm not sure how you got the impression that I dont. The issue, as I see it, is the slippery concept of "ensoulment", the presence of "a living soul". When does that developing life become a person?
That's where I see neither science nor the Bible giving a definitive answer.
Abortion isn't necessarily erring on the side of death. Sometimes it's on the side of life. In some cases, it's a matter of saving a pregnant woman's life. In other cases, it's about the enhancement of lives -- since more than 60% of women who get abortions have children, their concern is for the welfare of their existing children. Others, without children, are concerned that they are unable to provide adequately for the coming child. Poverty is a big factor.
In the absence of Biblical and scientific guidelines, and in view of the Biblical passages that appear to allow for abortion, my view is that it's a decision for the woman involved and whether or not to assist medically is a matter of conscience for the individual practitioners.
Truce?
I do not see how you can say that LIFE begins at conception but personhood begins sometime after that. Abortion always errs on the side of death because a life is lost - death. Less than 1% of all abortions are conducted to save the life of the mother. Since when is taking a life the best option to enhance someone else's life? Poverty is a big factor and a big problem. We can certainly unite behind efforts efforts to curtail the effects of poverty. Let's work to solve that problem without killing the life of the unborn.
Ben
Truce...
...although I haven't felt that there's a war between us.
The life/personhood distinction is an old one. I've had the impression that that's generally the way the issue has been presented. An analogy is acorn/oak: if you're asked for oak planks, you don't take a saw to an acorn. Or if you are asked to select photos for a photo-essay on Americans, you aren't going to select a fetal x-ray. (Yes, analogies are only suggestive and have their limits.)
While we unite behind efforts to curtail the effects of poverty, we can still discuss the underlying issues as analytically as possible.
For the sake of trying to get everything on the table, what do you consider the strongest Biblically based arguments against abortion? I would like to get as much clarity on this as possible, as we work out ways to discuss issues across ideological boundaries.
Bill
Truce misplaced
I put that subject in for another post and forgot to delete it. I also do not feel that we have been at war. A good healthy discussion is good no matter what the topic is and I appreciate one always.
You ask for the Biblical arguments for being pro-life. I have linked to an article that is not short but not too long either. It is full of Biblical justifications as well as an answer to your assertion that the fetus is a human life that began at conception but is not fully a person as recognized by God. The article does not reference every Scripture passage that I believe shows the personhood of the unborn, but you have already mentioned that you have read those and you attribute the statement to the knowledge and power of God instead of who the unborn is, so I will assume you have read most of those.
There is one verse I would like to mention specifically. Psalms 51:5, from the NIV, "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." This verse clearly tells us that we have a sinful nature from conception. If we are not a person, how can we have a sinful nature?
Here is the link. Please let me know what you think. I would be particularly interested in your thoughts on the point the author makes about the Biblical silence on abortion which is towards the beginning of the article, since that seems to be a theme from multiple contributors to this discussion.
http://prolifetraining.com/Articles/Dead-Silence.htm#12
Ben
Ben, Back to this, finally. (Abortion)
Ben,
Back to this, finally. Sorry for getting distracted by other things, both here and in the outside world.
Re: Psalm 51:5. There are two issues. The first is the translation. The New American Standard, which is reputed to be very accurate, translates the verse as "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me."
If that's accurate, the first part refers to his sinful nature and the second part to that of his mother and, presumably, father.
The New Revised Standard Version, which also has a good reputation for accuracy, agrees wtih the NIV (which I have found to have taken liberties elsewhere to support their views on abortion).
If that's accurate, your argument is helped. But it's possible to think of "nature" and "soul" as separate elements, as it appears that Biblical writers did. The concept that the basic (animal) nature of humans is sinful is compatible with the idea that the early stages of development are pre-ensoulment, pre-personhood. The "image of God" idea is linked with knowledge and awareness -- which could be imputed at "quickening".
A logical next step to the embryo or the fetus as a person-who-is-a-sinner-from-conception interpretation is that those unfortunates who suffer spontaneous abortions are forever damned as sinners. That's somewhere between 30-40% of all 'products of conception'. I think this raises difficulties.
The article you linked is unconvincing to me on several points, including this last one. I agree that the argument from silence has weaknesses, but so does the argument from analogy as practiced by the author.
More on that later.
Bill
Dialog
Jim,
Please forgive my modifications to your piece below. My motive is simple: to find a way to communicate through a politically polarized minefield without stepping on a mine or reinforcing the polarization.
Please read it over and use perspective in your judgement; if a right leaning, yet well meaning person authored a similar piece, and posted it here, it is only human nature to become defensive when addressing the "other side".
Regardless of political affiliation, we're all in the same boat and we'll either sink together or swim together. So the intent is to use words that reflect that simple fact: We're all in the same boat here on planet earth.
Always in His Service!
Peter
Here we are in yet another primary season and we anticipate the approaching Presidential Election. Please allow me to address all people of faith. Many of us have voted for candidates in the last several elections because of abortion and Gay rights issues. I am writing as a fellow follower of Christ with respect for your religious opinions, although we may not entirely agree on all points.
As one politician after another has “gotten busted” for various misdeeds, it isn’t difficult to discern that many of these politicians are not sincere or honest. The abortion and the Gay issues are tools used by both sides of the political aisle to manipulate voters into voting for or against a party or candidate that otherwise supports the issues deemed crucial. Some of the more obvious issues are employment, revamping Social Security, addressing health care needs, and education. Considering party perspective, the US military is fighting a war of choice over natural resources or a war on terror; either way billions of dollars are consumed in this effort. Billions more US tax dollars are poured into countries like Pakistan or squandered on pet earmarks, yet the major political parties continue promote and encourage emotions based voting yet while doing little to address the real issues. Haven’t we been manipulated long enough?
There are a multitude of issues beyond Gay rights and abortion. Something to consider if Roe v Wade is overturned would be the patchwork of state laws which could vary to extreme from state to state. We must work to change people’s hearts on this issue and work together to eliminate the need for abortion.
Gays will continue to be Gay regardless of personal opinion, please allow God to be the judge. Shouldn’t our focus center on the care of the “poor and widows” as Christ directed; in other words do to others as you would have them do to you. Candidates on both sides of the political aisle utilize hot button issues to coerce votes, regardless of the status of education, Social Security, health care, peace, the environment and the common good. It’s our country and it’s up to us keep it from going down the tubes despite the dark motives of politicians willing to use polarizing issues to lie, spin, and manipulate simply to remain in office. Please, don't let them do it again.
Adapted from Jim Ramelis' original piece.
Not bad Peter
Not a bad rewrite Peter.Actually I have been a bit angry and belligerent lately and others have noted it. I have been working out a lot, so maybe I am releasing too much testoserone and looking for a fight.I grew up pretty rough and have played sports, been a soldier and a firefighter, etc. I want to be a saint but haven't acheived sainthood yet.Maybe I need to meditate beofe I write a blog, I am usually peaceful after I meditate. Thanks for the gentle way you presented this.
Thanks!
I was concerned after posting the reply that I may have caused offense. Your grace is thankfully received.
As I have gotten older, I have discovered (the hard way) that it's far easier to find common ground even with the most polarized persons than we assume most times. Once some common areas are established we can then carefully move into the areas of disagreement. On some points, the only agreement is to agree to disagree honorably.
Peter
Original question
Jim - after all this discussion, I realized that no one has answered one of your original questions. Evangelical Outpost would be a good conservative blog to post something like this on. The author is actually on staff of the Mike Huckabee campaign right now. (This is not an endorsement of the Huck campaign, just an answer to your question.)
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss important topics. I do not find many progressives where I live - deep in the Bible belt.
Silly question
Can I ask a silly question? And this is probably the wrong post to do this on, but it is just bugging me. Why is the unborn not worth fighting for just as much as the unemployed, uninsured, and uneducated. I do not want this to turn into a big abortion debate, but if it is simply that progressives do not believe life begins at conception, then say that. But if there is another reason Progressive Christians do not fight for the unborn, please state it also.
I think this is a serious double standard on your side, as much as if not more than you think pro-life and pro-death penalty is contradictory. If there is any person that defines "the least of these" best, it is the unborn children.
I would be much more inclined to support a "progressive" candidate if there were ones that were pro-life. But there are none.
I really do not want to turn this into an abortion debate as there are better places on the blogosphere for that. But the posts in response to the original post all talk about helping and sharing our wealth, but the posts that mention abortion talk about it like it is a side issue. And I just want to simply know why fighting for unborn children is a side issue.
can we say "dittos" here?
benj,
I guess I wanted to agree with what the others have already said here and add a couple of my own observations about the nature of our conversation related to abortion has been over the last few months.
First, we share your concern about protecting the unborn and reducing the number of abortions. The question is how best to achieve that and, as Jim indicated, most of us have concluded that the political conservatives who identify themselves as "pro-life" are less concerned with reducing abortions than they are with other agendas.
We want real measures both for the unborn and for the mothers. Our desire for real justice is what compels us. We want to address the question about what it is that causes women to want an abortion in the first place. We feel that in large part the demand is created because of other injustices that exist in our society. We want to address those issues as well as working toward some acknowledgment of rights/protections for the unborn.
Think of it this way. Imagine a country where powerful men sold highly addictive drugs to people who didn't know what they were. The people partook of the drugs and were addicted before they could do anything to stop it. To support their habits the people turned to stealing. In my opinion, the conservative agenda on this issue might be analogous to stopping the problem of theft in this fictional country by cutting off the hands of people who were given the drugs.
Maybe this illustration is not the best, but when our culture is willing to pay CEOs hundreds of millions of dollars a year, while people on the bottom rung of society can't pay rent or buy groceries because they make an unlivable minimum wage, sometimes working 60hour or more work weeks, something is fundamentally out of line. The jobs and responsibilities of a corporate COE are not proportionally represented by the wages that earn relative to the people who clean their offices, make their coffee, change their oil, and bag their groceries. We want to help reduce the numbers of unexpected babies and to make keeping babies a viable option for women. We feel that addressing these concerns is the best way to show God's love.
David
Fighting for the Unborn
The unborn are worth fighting for. Lets do something about it.Voting for "pro-life" candidates election after election has failed.We need comprehensive birth control education and we need to foster a healthy spiritual respect for our bodies and others bodies among our young people.
Benj, that is not a silly question
Benj wrote, "I do not want this to turn into a big abortion debate, but if it is simply that progressives do not believe life begins at conception, then say that. But if there is another reason Progressive Christians do not fight for the unborn, please state it also."
Funny you should bring this subject up. We are in the very beginning stages of undertaking a comprehensive research project on this issue. We will be addressing some of the questions you raise and you might be pleased with the final recommendations.
My personal view... no one knows for sure when person hood begins, not scientists or theologians..only God can answer that one. However, that is one point we are studying. When do you think life begins and why?
Also, I personally view reproduction and pregnancy in particular as a healthcare matter. A woman and her doctor must have privacy and confidentiality to decide how best to care for her health. I don't think politicians and preachers are generally qualified to speak with authority on this health issue any more than on cancer treatment, transplants, or stem cell research.
Glad to hear
You said, "Funny you should bring this subject up. We are in the very beginning stages of undertaking a comprehensive research project on this issue. We will be addressing some of the questions you raise and you might be pleased with the final recommendations."
When you said "we" do you mean Cross Left"? I am glad to hear this is being addressed.
You asked, "My personal view... no one knows for sure when person hood begins, not scientists or theologians..only God can answer that one. However, that is one point we are studying. When do you think life begins and why?"
I personally believe life begins at conception, and I believe there is many scientific and Biblical points that can back this position up. However, you are correct, no one can know for sure. So that said where in society do we error on the side of death? No where else except for in this debate. If a man is found unconscious with no pulse on the side of the road, does the EMS just shrug their shoulders and say well, we are not sure if he is alive or dead so let's just stick this need up his skull and scramble his brain or let's pull all his limbs off one by one to get rid of him. That is ridiculous, yet that is abortion.
You said, "I personally view reproduction and pregnancy in particular as a healthcare matter."
The underlining question that you have to answer prior to making it a healthcare issue is, "What are you killing?" Is it a blob of tissue or is it a person with its own unique DNA? Because if the answer is a person, then that person is entitled to the protection of the Constitution and laws of the country, which include laws against murder.
You said, "I don't think politicians and preachers are generally qualified to speak with authority on this health issue any more than on cancer treatment, transplants, or stem cell research."
Then most people that talk should not be. If you have to be formally educated and have a doctorate in the subject matter that you are speaking, that would put the blogosphere out of business.
on DNA and personhood
Ben
I used to hold your view on conception as the beginning of life. However, my own understanding has changed over the course of the last few years and I'll try to briefly explain why.
Your assertion that there is biblical support for life beginning at conception may be true, but there is nowhere in the Bible that outright states where life begins. Even if it did, I don't think that appealing to biblical passages for the purposes of determining legal criteria of any kind is ideal unless it is likely to be broadly accepted as fair and just. Our laws affect Christians and non-Christians alike. To me, the Golden Rule applies. I would think it unjust as a Christian to be subjected to the religious stipulations and beliefs that are held by another group. Imagine, for example, that there was a religious group that held political power and whose sacred text prohibited all consumption of plant matter. No fruit, no vegetables, no bread (maybe meatloaf) etc. We might object and say that putting something like a ban on vegetables wouldn't be comparable. But it would restrict liberty on some activity that we would expect the liberty and the denial of that liberty is based on a religious belief or faith in a religious text. I don't want that to be subjected to laws like that so I should not subject others to those types of laws.
Our laws generally (at least in theory) should have some objectivity so that we can say "this is the point at which lawful action ends and unlawful action begins and this is how we recognize or measure the difference." Abortion involves the rights of more than one person. The question is, what determines when the second person ought to have legal rights and protections? Where do we place that marker?
You are correct that a unique set of human DNA is a possible candidate for such a criterion for personhood. It is certainly objective and part of what makes us human beings. However, I would point to a couple of things. First, DNA is not always unique. Twins are individual persons and they have identical DNA. We would not take one twins death lightly because there was another copy. Another point that has been brought up is the fact that fertilized embryos sometimes split and converge. Was it a new person that was born after the first person in the case of a split? Was there a death in the case of the convergence?
There are also cells with unique DNA floating around all over the place, in hair, skin cells, and blood that we lose every day. Corpses also have unique DNA. The EMTs from your example would not hesitate to save the life of the individual on the side of the road, but there is a point at which we believe life has ended. No one suggests that life ends only when the DNA code that belongs to an individual no longer exists. We have adopted legal and medical definition of the end of life. The criterion that we use is brain death. That is when an individual person's rights end. When the brain is gone, we don't seem to have any hope (in the natural world) of regaining the person we once knew. Other organs can fail, but once the brain is gone, so is the person.
It seems to me reasonable to apply the same criterion (the onset of brain activity) to the beginning of life. It seems to be more objective and consistent with how we recognize human life. It also occurs relatively early in fetal development, somewhere between 2 weeks and 2 months depending on the source.
But as we've said, that is one aspect of the issue. We can restrict access to abortion through laws all we want, but if nothing is done to help the women who want the abortions, we're not addressing the heart of problem. Desperate women will still find ways to end their pregnancies at their peril. We may also lose a souls due to women's perceptions of Christians as austere and unwilling to help them. We want to extend God's mercy to the born as well as the unborn, as Stephen has already suggested. I think most of us would prioritize efforts to reduce that demand before or at least at the same time as restrictions are being imposed.
I would also agree about your concerns about the nature of the abortion procedures. I would like to see some effort made to reduce the inhumanity of it. We would be very upset if our pets, farm animals, or even wild animals were destroyed in the manner of abortions. We can do better, I'm sure.
(so much for brief. sorry)
david
Too much
There is a lot there to reply to so I am going to hold my tongue (or fingers) and limit my responses to just a couple of your points. And because I did not really want to get into an abortion debate, though I am one that can defend it well, I will minimize my response as well.
You said, "Desperate women will still find ways to end their pregnancies at their peril. We may also lose a souls due to women's perceptions of Christians as austere and unwilling to help them."
Have you been to a Crisis Pregnancy Center (that is mostly what they are called)? Have you seen the care and concern that most of the VOLUNTEERS show the women that come into their facility? These places offer all their services for FREE. Can Planned Parenthood say that or is abortion BIG business? The CPC's services include (varies from center to center) pregnancy counseling, ultra sounds, medical care during and after pregnancy, parenting classes, opportunities to earn rewards such as baby clothing/diapers/etc, Bible studies, and some even have safe places pregnant women can live during the pregnancy. Again, all the services are free. Planned Parenthood charges for their services, big money too. So who is it that actually cares for the women and who is it that cares only about the money?
You said, "I would like to see some effort made to reduce the inhumanity of it. We would be very upset if our pets, farm animals, or even wild animals were destroyed in the manner of abortions. We can do better, I'm sure."
This is a very odd statement. If the unborn child is not a child or person, who cares how it is removed? No one cares how many pieces an appendix is cut into prior to being removed. It is not inhumane to slice a spleen into seventeen pieces prior to removal. It seems that by the very statement you are admitting that what the doctors are removing from the womb is a person that feels pain. I see the same oddity in the statement of many progressives that they would work to see abortions become rare. Why? If it is not killing a person, who cares how much it is done? No one is out there saying we have to reduce the number of tonsils being removed.
And finally, if we do not know for sure when life begins, why do we not err on the side of life as we do in any other situation in our society? Why is abortion the only time when we say, I do not know if the fetus is alive or dead, so it is ok to kill it? Our culture has a history of erring on the side of life in so many instances. Why has it changed with abortion?
Ben
planned parenthood and my main point
Ben,
No I haven't been to a Crisis Pregnancy Clinic. It sounds like they are doing some great work and I'm sure they have an impact on the lives of the women and children that they touch. I don't think that any of us here would say that such ministries are not good ways for churches and religious groups to reach out.
As to your concerns about Planned Parenthood, I don't think that you could justifiably call it big business even if they are not volunteer or nonprofit. I have been to a Planned Parenthood office as a client with my then girlfriend and now wife more than 12 years ago now. We were young and had made mistakes. Neither of us felt like we could go to our parents, we were at a conservative Christian college which would likely give us the boot if we were pregnant together and we didn't know where else to turn. We were given a free pregnancy test and counseling that emphasized ways we could keep our baby. Because of the help and support we received there, our son Isaiah is now sitting in his bedroom playing Tony Hawk on the Playstation. Am I saying that Planned Parenthood is perfect or that it has the best policies? No. But I know that my wife and I are very grateful to the Christian woman who was there that day, and to two professors at that college, and a few others who gave us support and showed us mercy in that time.
You didn't address my main point. I argued that we should do our best to err on the side of life, but we should also strive to be judicious and fair in the placement of that legal marker. Back to your example, what criteria do the paramedics and medical professionals use to determine whether they have a living person? Say they found a body with no head on the side of the road. Let's say that they have the ability to keep the cells in this body with no head alive. Is it a person that has rights and moral standing? It is a living organism with a unique DNA sequence. It seems to me that if we applied the same standard you suggest ought to be applied to the beginning of life to the end of life, we would have some seemingly absurd consequences.
What do you think Ben?
David
Not big business?
How can you call a corporation that has revenues close to a Billion (with a B) dollars not a big business? Even if it is a good company, it is certainly a big business by any standard looking at their numbers. And every business is controlled by the bottom line, not the consumer.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/Annual_report.pdf
Ben
The point about DNA
The point about a fetus having its own unique DNA is merely that it is not a blob of tissue that is part of the woman's body. It is different than the woman's body.
Ben
FIrst reference to DNA
I went and re-read my first reference to DNA and it is poorly worded. I was not trying to say that because it has its own DNA, then it is a person. Unique DNA is one of the many factors in showing that the fetus is more than a blob of the woman's body as is often stated, "It's my body." If it was your body (being the pregnant woman's), then why does it not have your DNA?
I realize everything that has DNA is not a person, that was poorly communicated by me in my first reference to DNA.
re: "it's my body"
Ben, it seems like I'm dogging your footsteps tonight, but it's just that I, too, am reading through the recent comments and finding I have some quick responses.
In this case, my hearing of that phrase is that it's not the fetus that's "my body" but that it's "my body" that the fetus is inside, and thus it's in "my domain".
Which leads to a different point that comes to mind, though it's off the topic at hand: this life/death situation is unlike all others. Because of the "my domain" factor, abortion isn't analogous to euthanasia or capital punishment. It's sui generis. There's no slippery slope there. It's gotta be judged on its own merits or demerits.
My domain
Excellent point. I am glad you brought it up.
In what other areas of concern do we make a determination of life by the location of the "possible" life? Location never is an issue in any other area, so why is it concerning a fetus?
It is my house that my kids sleep in making them my domain. Do I have the right to kill them? It is my yard my dog plays in. Do I have the right to kill it? Just because something is mine, and there is another living being is in that something, does not give me the right to kill that something. The question is still, is the fetus a living person.
True abortion is unique in that the living thing is inside another living thing, but does that give us the right to kill just because of the location of the fetus?
Ben
Domains
Ben,
Acknowledging as you do that the domain in question is a living person rather than a house or yard, and that that makes it unique, makes your questions about the child in the house or the dog in the yard moot.
But those examples clarify the issue, nevertheless. It's clear that you have the right to kill your dog, although it must be done within the laws governing cruelty to animals. Taking it to the vet and having it put down is the nice way to do it. I've done that with both dogs and cats when they were ill -- and the vet took my word for it and didn't insist on making an independent diagnosis to make sure I wasn't just trying to get rid of the animals.
Obviously, you don't have the right in this country to kill your child. It's a person and is protected by law.
The location of the fetus, however, makes a difference. It's not counted in any census; it's not yet a citizen, not having been born in this country. It's the responsibility of the woman who's carrying it. Any rights that we endow it with have to consider the woman's rights as well. And will also have to take into account some legal consequences that might be contrary to common sense and justice, as in dealing with wills and estates. (Eg: the father dies, leaving his estate to wife and children, but the fetus-child miscarries, dying intestate, so its estate owes estate tax on the assets left to it by its father.)
So the question boils down to: as a living entity, is it a person within the meaning of the law? And within the meaning of the Bible?
Non-living entities (corporations) have certain rights appertaining to personhood -- which I think they shouldn't, but they currently do. So we can certainly give some rights to living non-persons.
How far should we go? I don't think the state's and the citizens' interests extend very far at all. I can accept the convention that the last trimester is where those public interests begin to be involved. The farther back we go in the process, the less the public's interest.
It's not a question of "us" having the right to kill. It's each woman's responsibility. The Bible doesn't give any directions on this.
Bill
Please clarify
You said, "I don't think the state's and the citizens' interests extend very far at all. I can accept the convention that the last trimester is where those public interests begin to be involved. The farther back we go in the process, the less the public's interest."
Are you saying that the public's interest is what determines life?
Clarification?
I'm not sure of your question, Ben. If you're asking if I'm saying that the public (via the government) is determining what is and what isn't life, then the answer is no. Biology says that embryos and fetuses are living entities.
The public, via the government, does determine legal personhood, however,and has a legitimate interest in safeguarding those who are under its jurisdiction by having laws against murder and other forms of homicide.
My view is that the farther away a fetus is from birth, the more the balance of responsibilities shifts away from the government and more towards the pregnant woman.
I referred to "the convention" about the last trimester because it really is a social construct based on biological, technological, psychological, and ethical considerations. It's not a biological or ethical Given.
Anthropologists know of simple societies where infant mortality was so high that a child wouldn't be given a name until it had survived at least a year. A certain degree of protective emotional distancing was maintained until it was "safe" to commit to the child's personhood. In that kind of society, the "convention" would be very different from what it is in ours.
My own bias is toward the rights of the pregnant woman. The Roe v. Wade third trimester standard seems to be generally acceptable as a convention, so long as the health needs of the woman are recognized as taking precedence in emergencies -- which was the traditional standard of even the Roman Catholic Church a century or so ago.
Bill
Clarafication
You said, "I can accept the convention that the last trimester is where those public interests begin to be involved. The farther back we go in the process, the less the public's interest."
From this statement, it appears you are saying that it is the public's interests that governs what life we should consider saving. However, I had never heard even the most extreme abortion supporters go that far. I have only heard those in favor of euthanasia of the elderly that would say something of this nature. The public's interest is so subjective that it should not be a factor in deciding which life to live and which life to kill.
I was asking for clarification to make sure you were standing by that statement or if I misunderstood the statement.
Ben
re: Clarificaton
In my response to your request for clarification, I tried to make it clear that I'm not talking about public opinion as measured by, for instance, an opinion poll. It's the public interest as it's institutionalized through the processes of our government.
It's through government that many decisions about life and death, such as capital punishment and war, are made. That's the arena in which we are contending on this issue.
Subjectivity is inevitably involved, however. It's inescapable when there are no objective measures for determining the advent of personhood. And for us, there are also no clear Biblical standards for doing that, either.
Bill
different doesn't mean person
Unique DNA in living cells is not necessarily equivalent to personhood. It may be different genetic material and living tissue, but the question as to whether that qualifies it as a person with moral value. As I've said before, a newly decapitated body is living and has genetic independence, but (barring the possibility of re-attaching the head somehow) the body does not qualify as a person with legal rights. Laws that stipulate the handling of corpses are not there because of the rights of the dead, but rather to protect the rights of the living.
David
As a N.O.W. activist...
(for real, state VP for a couple of years even) and you do know N.O.W.'s position on reproductive freedom...
Well, I'd get up to speak on abortion rights and after a minute or so I could see staff members turning pale, shooting each other worried looks, the audience would start to get restless and look sorta mean. See, I'd always start my talk with my beliefs about abortion.
I'd tell the group "see, it was like this, me and God talked about this and decided that it would be absolutely wrong of me to consider it." Not what they were used to hearing, as you can imagine. I'd go on to explain that God 'n me didn't discuss the right or wrongness for anybody else, that wasn't in MY job description to decide. But for me, this would be a grave sin.
Then I'd tell why I am so strongly pro-choice. Which I'll tell y'all, but up front tell you I don't plan to discuss or debate this issue, we all pretty much have our minds made up and it would be a waste of bandwidth. I felt pretty good about how I got to pray it out and know God's will for me. And while my preference would be for every woman to come to the same decision, it really is a decision for a woman, her doctor and her god to decide.
And the absolute LAST entity I want involved with such an important decision is the government! Not any government! We put that sort of power in its hands, you never know when it may seem expedient to force women to have abortions, not just keep them from it. This is absolutely NOT a power of government, at least in my view of what government should be doing.
I can (and have) sat on boards and committees working on strategies to reduce the number of abortions. I personally would like to reduce them down to zero. I think REAL sex education is a key. They've got to take the class to graduate, so we should make it fact filled to give them the tools to NOT get pregnant. So getting pregnant is a very clear choice to be made. As a mother, I'd say just making "keep your legs together" a rule should be all that needs to be said, but as a mother, I do really know much better than that.
And our teens need to hear a lot of truth about what having a baby is like. I think every teen in America should have to watch that film they showed us in childbirth classes (when it was too late to change my mind!) that got very graphic about pregnancy, labor and delivery. That would be a strong deterrent don't you think? I mean, my husband passed out during the labor part of the film. So whatever super graphic film they're showing childbirth classes (probably not the one with the '70s hair and clothes that I saw) that's what we need to be showing.
Anyway, that's how I approach the abortion question. We need to give our kids the motivation and the skills to not be in position to need one. And definitely keep our government out of the process!
Ben, I bet we agree more than disagree on this one. And you'll find others here who agree with you even more than I do. So hop on over to another topic... we're full of 'em!
Government??
You said, "And the absolute LAST entity I want involved with such an important decision is the government!"
But yet, government needs to start providing healthcare to everyone? I would agree with your assertion on many many subjects - teh less government gets involved the better. However, if the ultimate issue is, "Is the fetus a life or not a life?" which I believe is the issue, then I think it is the government's job to protect life.
But you are right we have all made up our minds on this so let's not waste bandwidth.
Ben
providing health insurance vs. health care
I would tend to agree about the abortion issue though i do believe that we are beginning to find common ground in reducing abortion.
Just wanted to note that the government can make sure that everyone has health insurance while still allowing the private sector to provide health care or even provide the health insurance. That's what happening up in Massachusetts. The government mandates health insurance and works with the insurers to reduce cost of health insurance and subsidize the health insurance for working and low income folks.
Right On Janet
I totally agree that the the key to preventing abortion is good comprehensive sex education. Abstinence should definetly be taught, but it can't be the only method taught.If abstinence is the only method the young person knows,they can get a 99% on the subject but if they lose control one time, they failed the course.
The other dynamic is cultivating a healthy respect for our bodies, ourselves, our personhood, and extending that respect to others. Sex is constantly being pounded into our mind set as some sort of idealized nirvana that validates us as persons. The corporate culture enhances this by selling us products that claim to increase our sexiness.The young have to be able to recognize these messages and reject them.This is also where spiritual training of the young comes in.
the question back at ya
I think the question more appropriately is why have so many conservative Christians focused almost exclusively on the abortion issue at the expense of others. There are 5 million children who die each year from hunger and hunger related diseases. 20% of children grow up in poverty in the US. Where is outrage from the religious right on these issues? Why is just about abortion?
Thankfully, I think this is changing as more evangelical folks broaden their view of justice to include all of these issues.
I think you will actually see a very nuanced conversation about abortion on CrossLeft and we actually have teams of folk who are now in dialogue about finding common ground. I think we need to recognize that good people can disagree about when life begins and therefore on abortion. You can't find Biblical text that supports one person over another without serious extrapolation.
As for the issues Jim highlights around healing the sick, lifting up the poor, etc., there is solid Biblical foundation for doing so and there is solid foundation for the entire community be it church and government doing so. I think Gary's points to just some of the 2000 reference to taking care of the poor that are in the Bible. If you accept that the church can't do it all, then you see the role for government.
You said, "There are 5
You said, "There are 5 million children who die each year from hunger and hunger related diseases. 20% of children grow up in poverty in the US. Where is outrage from the religious right on these issues? Why is just about abortion?"
Since you want to throw out numbers, did you know that there have been 47 Million babies killed from abortion just in the United States since Roe v. Wade. That is 7 times as many Jews that were killed during WWII in concentration camps. That is 1,300,000 babies a year - just in the US. In my town, we have 1200 abortions a year. There is nothing else (besides natural causes) that kills more people in my hometown than abortion.
And you wonder why it is important to me? Those are some incredible numbers.
You said, "I think we need to recognize that good people can disagree about when life begins and therefore on abortion. You can't find Biblical text that supports one person over another without serious extrapolation."
See my response above to Gary about erring on the side of life instead of death.
20% of children grow up in poverty in the US. Poverty in the US is hardly a bad life when compared to worldly standards. I think it is unfair to talk about how easy it is in the US and how high the standard of living is in the US, and how greedy the US is, and then say that we have to fight poverty in the US. Poverty in the US is living it large compared to the rest of the world's poverty level. I think the US does a good job taking care of its unfortunate. Not to say we (the Church) could not do better, and should stop trying.
Tony Campollo Speaks to Poverty
Here are three quotes from Tony Campollo regarding Christian responsibility for the poor. He has a very succinct way of speaking to the issues. The second quote, my personal favorite, was given at a public Christian gathering.
"I think that Christianity has two emphasis. One is a social emphasis to impart the values of the kingdom of God in society - to relieve the sufferings of the poor, to stand up for the oppressed, to be a voice for those who have no voice. The other emphasis is to bring people into a personal, transforming relationship with Christ, where they feel the joy and the love of God in their lives. That they manifest what the fifth chapter of Galatians calls 'the fruit of the Spirit'. Fundamentalism has emphasized the latter, mainline churches have emphasized the former. We cannot neglect one for the other."
"I have three things I'd like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a shit. What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night."
"There are 2,000 verses of Scripture that tell us we must be committed to protecting the poor and the oppressed... There is no concern of Scripture that is addressed so often and so powerfully as reaching out to the poor."
2000 verses
Do any of the 2000 verses tell us to force other people to give to the poor by forcing taxes on them? Or is the point of the verses to tell us to want to give to the poor? I still do not see how government forcing rich man to give to the poor is helping anyone.
You are right. There are many evangelicals that would be horrified if they heard someone they thought was Christian say "shit". However, just because evangelicals do not want the government to provide free handouts to the poor of this country and would rather do it through church organizations, that is no reason to assume that evangelicals do not care about the poor.
I also agree with Tony that you cannot neglect one for the other in the two emphasis of Christianity that you mention above. But that illustrates perfectly why government cannot be the agent of relieving the sufferings of the poor - because the government cannot do the other emphasis of Christianity.
imagination
Ben,
Consider this scenario. You are the king of a small country and have the same religious beliefs that you now have. In this country, a one wealthy man owns the stores and manufacturing plants and controls most of the economic means. He controls wages so that there are large numbers of people who cannot afford medication and medical checkups. Some of them struggle to afford food and shelter for themselves and their children while the wealthy man lacks nothing.
You, as the a Christian king have never taxed the people for more than was required to sustain yourself and therefore cannot give enough to help many and certainly not all.
You have asked the wealthy man to consider being more generous to the people who make his lavish lifestyle possible. He refuses and indicates that he feels he doesn't owe them anything. He was a self-made man and they ought to do what he did.
Don't you think that as the king who has the power to require it, that you should take some action and use your power to help those people who need it as a matter of justice?
David
Apples to Apples
This scenario, though interesting, is not an accurate description of what is going on here in America.
Quote from your scenario, "have never taxed the people for more than was required to sustain yourself". This is absolutely not the case here. Because the government has far over taxed its people in order to provide $$$ for all the Senator's and Congressman's (GOP and Democratic both) pork barrel projects for their home people. The government has too much of our money and needs to prioritize what it is spending it on.
Hey, poor is no fun!
Poverty in the US is NOT living large, even when compared to global standards. It IS a bad life, with very little dignity in it. When a person has to accept help just to survive, to make sure their kids survive, the way dignity is stripped from them is probably the biggest sin of all. I do think this also contributes to crime, because if you don't get caught you get to survive and keep your personal dignity too. And if you do get caught, at least you're guaranteed three square and a bed.
Homelessness is not living, it is barely subsisting. Those 200,000 veterans sleeping under bridges are joined by families which spent their savings on last month's emergency, so this month's emergency finds them and their blankets under the viaduct. After several years on the board of a faith-based homeless shelter, I know homeless. And I know poor. These numbers are appalling and we can do better than that.
I overstated
You are right. I overstated it by saying living large. Forgive me.
consequences of poverty
You seem not to blink about the fact that we have 22% of children as poor saying were doing a lot better than a lot of countries. "20% of children grow up in poverty in the US. Poverty in the US is hardly a bad life when compared to worldly standards."
Really?
I guess that depends on what standard you are using.
Do you know our child poverty rate is the highest in the developing world. Yes, in the richest of all the rich countries we are actually the worst in taking care of our kids.
You seem to imply that the consequence of poverty are not as significant in the US. Well, again it depends on what metric you are using. For example, life expectancy in India and China were poverty rates are high though decreasing is actually considerable higher than life expectancy of African Americans in the United States to the tune of about 20 years difference.
At another point you said that no one is denied health care in this country. Have you been without health insurance? Do you know what its like to debate about whether to go to the hospital because you know the bill is not far behind. We're not talking about the poorest of the poor in terms of health care...that's what Medicaid is for. We're talking about working people who are forced to make tough decisions around health care. If you are interested in erring on the side of life, let's err on the side of giving folks the security of getting health care that the need without worry whether they can afford it or not.
I just don't understand how Christian values add up to supporting pre-emptive war and being so callous to the uninsured and the poor. There hasn't been a lot of Biblical backing that you've provided in either case. Futhermore, you seem to imply the situation is not all that bad which seems to demonstrate either a lack of experience in being in such a position or a lack of compassion. To say we are doing a good job of taking care of less fortunate does not meet with the reality or stand up to a comparison of any other developed country in the world.
Overstated
As I stated to Janet, my words of living large and better than the rest of the world were trivializing a bad situation. I made it seem more rosey than it actually is. I have seen the life of the poor firsthand and know it is not easy even in this country. Please accept my apologies.
That said, the answer is not more handouts. Teaching them how to better themselves and not needing to rely on government handouts should be the main focus of every assistance program.
Ben
The government, churches and poverty
Hi Benji, thank you for contributing your ideas and for debating everyone in a civil discourse. A lot of your posts really do a good job of challenging our usual liberal assumptions about the government's role in helping the poor. I don't necessarily agree with what you're writing, but it's intelligently stated and you back up your arguments well.
If churches want to take more of a load in helping the poor, I don't think anyone here would be against that.. In the early 20th Century, many progressive Christians tried to to aply the social gospel to the community. Jane Addams, for instance, created the Hull Houses to help out immigrants and poor women with community education programs. Dorothy Day created the Catholic Worker houses to feed the poor. Their local efforts did do some good, but eventually most of these early progressives came to the conclusion that only the federal government could deal with the enormous problems caused by an unregulated free market. Whether it was Progressive Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt or Progressive Democrats like Woodrow Wilson, FDR or LBJ, they made government programs that did things that state and local agencies were not able to handle: child labor laws, Social Security programs for the elderly, laws to upgrade working conditions, laws to protect the right of workers to organize.
I attended an evangelical church for about 8 years and one of the things I kept hearing was how the same 10% of the church was doing 80% of the work. A lot of the 10% were overworked and on the verge of burnout. I don't blame the other church people. They worked 40 to 50 hours a week and then spent their time with their families. Between work and family, they just didn't have the energy to volunteer for any long term work for the church. In the Episcopal church that I now attend, they have a program called Our Daily Bread that feeds the poor every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. The majority of people who volunteer are either retirees and students doing community service.
What does it mean to help the poor? There's the feeding of the poor. But then there's also giving the poor educational training and job training. For the homeless, there's pschiatric counseling that may be needed, a place to sleep. If the churches are to take from the government the services to help the poor, they'll need to take these things into consideration. Personally, I would have more confidence in a trained social worker who is trained in the nuisances of poverty issues.
I think the free market is basicly neutral: it has some good benefits and it has some inherent flaws. If you look at the various Progressive movements in the last century, from the early Progressives of the Teddy Roosevelt era to the New Dealers to the Progressives of today, they all deal with basicly the same problems: the concentration of wealth within a few corporate hands, the gap between the rich and the poor, the exploitation of cheap labor and the indifference to poor working conditions, the exploitation of natural resources and the resulting degradation of the environment. I don't think that the government is capable of eradicating poverty, but I do think it has the power and the responsibility to alleviate the worst aspects of poverty.
You're right that churches should be in the forefront in the fight against poverty. Churches have been in the forefront in the fight to abolish slavery, for women's suffrage, for worker's rights, for civil rights. In the fight for poverty, I think churches have been most effective as an agent that mobilize government to action. Maybe I misunderstand what you've written, but you seem to be making the argument that fighting poverty is an either/or choice between churches and the federal government. I don't think it has to be one or the other. Both could work in concert.
Angelo, I probably agree
Angelo,
I probably agree with close most of your points. I do not think that it is an either/or for the government. The role of the government is simply "to protect its citizens". Part of the protection would be from crime. As it is well documented, crime rates are highest among the poorest. So one method of protection from crime is to assist people in getting out of poverty. I have no problem with government trying to do this.
However, I do not see government as a way for the Church to fulfill its missional role to aid the poor. The goal of Christian philanthropy should be to reach the recipients for Christ. The government cannot do this.
I also do not think it is a Biblical principle to redistribute the wealth of unwilling people. If the rich want to be rich and selfish then let them answer to God for that. Forcing them to give to the poor by means of taxes does absolutely no good. When the rich young ruler was told by Jesus that he would have to sell his possessions give them to the poor to be His disciple, Jesus did not hold him down and force him to do that after the man walked away. You cannot force people to do the right thing. When the church begins to do the right thing, then there will be progress. There are plenty of rich people who give millions of dollars to help the poor. For example, the hated Rupert Murdoch of Foxnews fame has teamed up with Rick Warren to create World Vision (worldvision.org), which helps the hunger and AIDS epidemic in Africa. Bono has been doing similar things for years. There are countless people that are rich enough and willing to help, that we do not need to force the selfish ones.
The examples in Acts about "communal" living were all people that had the same mind - a heart for Christ. We do not have that here in America, and we cannot force it upon anyone.
By the way, it is good to see someone on the site that does not think free market Capitalism is horrible. You are right, it does have flaws - as does any man created system.
Christian philanthropy and Capitalism
Well, Ben, I think we're talking about two different things. You seem to be talking about helping the poor as a spiritual discipline with evangelism as its goal. I'm writing about helping the poor as a civic duty of citizens to the less fortunate members of society. There is nothing wrong with helping the poor for Jesus. The Social Gospel and Catholic Worker movement had those same goals. I just agree with something Bill wrote in a post somewhere around here that an explicit evangelism is not necessary to help the poor. Mother Theresa helped the lowliest of the low in Calcutta without explicitly evangelizing, but the fact that a Christian was helping those that others shunned was a powerful example. When Mother Theresa died it was not just the Christian community of Calcutta who mourned. Hindus and Moslems mourned with equal fervor Mother Theresa's death in Calcutta.
I don't necessarily see the redistribution of wealth as being a bad thing; I only question how that wealth is distributed. It does seem that when many socialist and communist governments attempt to redistribute wealth, they sacrifice civil liberties and democratic processes, which is a sacrifice that I oppose. In the long run I think capitalism does a better job of redistributing wealth over a wider population and offers economic mobility, but there are consequences to those positive things. The best example of the good points and bad points of the free market today is ironically in Communist China. Since China adopted free market reforms 30 years ago, a middle class of 200 million people has formed and if the economy keeps growing at its present pace, the middle class will grow to around 700 million people in about 20 years. According to a recent issue of Mother Jones magazine, though, to maintain this economic growth China has suffered through some horrendous pollution problems due to the rapid industrialization. The gap between the rich and the poor is growing. Workers are making cheap products in sweatshop conditions.
These are conditions caused by the economic system, and I think the church does not have the resources that the government has to alleviate the excesses of this system. I read in a book on the New Deal that their philosophy was that the federal government has a responsibility to assist its most vulnerable citizens through the worst aspects of a free market system. That's something that has stuck with me.
agree Benj
Ben,
I think I largely agree with you. The goal of public policy that assists the poor must be structured in a way that supports families developing their own economic self-sufficiency. As an example in developing countries, microfinance programs have extended small amounts of credit for poor folks to start small businesses.
There are times when cash and food assistance is necessary and there definitely is a role for government in ensuring that no one faces hunger or extreme poverty. Government is just one of the players that includes churches, nonprofits and company.
I am
I am one who you addressed your letter to and I have a few comments. First, I realize that just because someone is pro-life does not make them a great person. I also realize that roe v. wade is not going to be over turned any time soon and you are right that it is going to take changing peoples mind about it at the grass roots level. That said, I still vote for people that share my values - value of life is important to me but not the only criteria for the vote.
Second, your premise that we should vote for people who are choosing to help the poor, insure the uninsured, and educate my children is where I have most of my disagreement with bloggers on Cross Left. You are absolutely correct that Jesus tells us to do those things. But who does He tell, the Church or the Government? He is not talking to Ceasar when He says "what you have done to the least of these..." He is speaking to us Christians, His Church, His bride. Government is best when it governs least. If the government would stop double and triple taxing me on everything, we would have more discretionary income to give to the Church. If the American church would stop focusing on itself and focus on those that need it, then helping the poor would be a Church responsibility rather than a government one.
I disagree with your premise that Christians are to use the government to be its arm of help to the lost world. That is the Church's job.
For the people, of the people, and by the people
I am a values voter too Benj, and those quaint old constitutional values are what are I vote for.I see in your posts that you were a police officer and it sounds like in a tough neighborhod sometimes. I was a firefighter when I was younger , including time in Detroit, and a counselor, social worker type in later years. We were civil servants, Benj, paid for by taxpayers to perform a needed function. It is a pact that tax payers made with their government. We want our children educated, we want health care ,we want police and fire protection, we want our garbage picked up. We are a community and there is a common good. We can't barter a chicken for a doctors visit anymore like in the old days, we use money to that for us.
There is a new twist in politics, called the neo-con ideology. Their plan is everything privatized but the police and the army. Rumsfeld took it a step farther in Iraq with Blackwater and the other mercenary units, proving even the army can be privatized. They have private Fire Departments in a few places, and private ambulances have been around quite a while now. What do you think about private police forces, Benj?The contract goes to the lowest bidder, and they find the officers willing to work for the lowest benefits and wages around. What kind of officers do you think they will have? Rookies and bums, we both know the answer. But in this "new world" vision that is what is happening all over to government workers.Schools are falling apart as funding drys up, and the neo-cons shout "See government doesn't work!"They aren't making it up as they go along, they have a plan.
As a Vietnam vet with a service connected disabilty I paid close attention to the Walter Reed scandal. This was "neo-con" new world order thinking at its best shining example.Bush's boys canned 350 government workers who took care of the disabled vets just back from Iraq and Afghanistan.They gave a no bid contract to some pals of Bushy Boy, that is the way it works in the thug world. The top thug of the company sticks the payola back into the right politicians pockets, other friends of Bushy boy, and they hire 50 workers to replace the 350 government workers. The vets who , Bush and friends call heroes and shout about how much they support them, live in filth and scum. Unions are busted, the government is reduced, and the right pockets are padded. That is a thumb nail sketch of a government that doesn't provide services. there are no entitlements. Even the soldiers coming back from the wars got nothing coming. That is the way we heading, Benj, we have got stop it.
We are our brother's keeper. We aren't John Wayne on the lone praire with a cowboy hat on and nothing but critters to keep us company. We are all in this together.The churches can't provide enough money to feed the hungry or fund healthcare. It 2008 AD not 2008 BC.
The U. S. now outspends the entire rest of the world on military expenditures. We are out of control.All we have to do is starting working on that obscene budget and we can provide all citizenry with everything they need to be good functioning citizens and we won't have to raise your taxes.
Neo-con
Regarding privatized police forces: Are you telling me that local governments pay top dollar for their police forces in order to get the best? You do not live in the real world if that is what you believe. The department I worked for serviced a city that has about 275,000 residents. They start their police officers at $26,000 a year. You mean to tell me that is a professional department that is getting the best of the best. Governments are just as cheap and cut costs as much if not more than private companies.
You obviously have alot of bitterness towards the Bushy administration and some of it is justifiable. The Walter Reed scandal was an absolute embarrassment to the country and the administration.
You said, "The U. S. now outspends the entire rest of the world on military expenditures."
Let's look at something - Under JFK, our country spent over 30% of our GNP on our defense budget. What is it now? Less than 4%. Defense and protection of the citizens is where the money should be going so. That is the government's job. It is not the governments job to provide a house to four and five generations. It is not the government's job to provide health care for everyone. Which is a farce, if I need treatment and do not have insurance, the local hospital is required by law not to turn me away - they have to treat me. It is not like people are dying from a broken leg because a hospital refused to treat them. This country provides every opportunity to anyone who wants to get out there and work and make a decent living wage and most of those jobs will provide some form of health insurance.
Jim - I was never angry reading and responding to this post until you posted this reply. You never win anyone from the right to your way of thinking with your words. Bushy and his cronies are not THUGS. Dictators that kill thousands of their own people are thugs. (I heard all of you screaming "That is what Bush is doing with the War.") But Bushy does not throw out the Constitution in order to stay in power. The entire world thought Iraq had WMDs - the rest of the world did not do anything about it because they weren't the targets - we (and Israel) were and would have been. Your divisive words will never unify anyone. You are blogging on a blog that claims to be a Christian blog. Use words that unify instead of words that Hillary and Obama and moveon use to divide the country.
You question everything the evangelicals talk about and their motives but never question the information or motives of the media or democratic camp gives you in their sound bite talking points. Question everything equally.
re: questioning everything: military expenditures
Benj, you wrote: "Let's look at something - Under JFK, our country spent over 30% of our GNP on our defense budget. What is it now? Less than 4%."
I thought the JFK figure couldn't be right -- it sounded more like WW2. So I googled around a bit and came up with these numbers:
"Historically, defense spending reached annual peaks of 38% of the GNP during World War II, 14% during the Korean War, 9.4% during Vietnam, and 6.2% during the Cold War following Vietnam." -- Cordesman & Sullivan: US Defense Planning: The Challenge of Resources - 7/7/06
Going further, I found the National Defense Budget Estimates for FY2005 which had past numbers for Defense expenditures, Total Federal expenditures and GDP, which allowed me to calculate the following for the JFK years:
Total federal spending as a percent of GDP
1961 18.44%
1962 18.81
1963 18.58
(1964 18.48)
National Defense spending as a percent of GDP
1961 9.36
1962 9.22
1963 8.91
(1964 8.54)
The fact does remain that we spend far more on our military than any other country does. Precise comparisons are difficult because of variations caused by computing either in nominal dollar amounts or in terms of other currencies' purchasing power; by inclusion or omission of indirect costs like veterans benefits and interest on the military's share of national debt; by lack of inclusion of items like unpublished "black military operations" and maintenance of nuclear weapons.
As of 2003, the United States spent about 47% of the world's total military spending of US$910.6 billion, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
For 2005, the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation estimated that the US accounted for 43% of the world's military spending, whereas the Stockholm group put it at 48%.
I don't know if we're at the "more than the rest of the world combined" level yet, but we're close. And if we're not, the increase in our spending is probably doing a lot to cause other countries to increase their spending at a rate even faster than ours.
Bill
Military expenditures - addendum
It appears that the figures for current military spending don't include the supplementary budget numbers for the actual wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
When you add those in, along with all military-related spending, the total is 42.5% higher than the budgetary figures. That would put us well over 50% of the world's total.
But Wait There is More
All of those figures don't include the VA budget. We taxpayers pay also for our military adventurism years and years afer the action. The VA hospitals and clinics are full of Agent Exposed Vets from Vietnam and now we have the wounded from Iraq/Afghanistan and depleted uranium exposure promising to cause problems for years afterwards, much the same as Agent Orange.What is the price of empire?
But Wait There is More
All of those figures don't include the VA budget. We taxpayers pay also for our military adventurism years and years afer the action. The VA hospitals and clinics are full of Agent Exposed Vets from Vietnam and now we have the wounded from Iraq/Afghanistan and depleted uranium exposure promising to cause problems for years afterwards, much the same as Agent Orange.What is the price of empire?
I was off a little but not much
I was off a little from the numbers I saw, but not much. Here is the link, which is a site I am sure you do not put much stock into its information (Heritage Foundation). But regardless, it is where I got the information and they do cite their sources as well. In summary, in 1945, defense spending was 34.5%. In 2005, 3.9%. The percentage has increased to about 7% since 2005.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/issues/issuearea/Defense.cfm
Not off at all, but still off a lot
Ben, the numbers you got from the Heritage Foundation are derived from the same place -- the Defense Department budget -- that I got mine. They're fine.
The only problem is that you ascribed those 1945 numbers to the Kennedy administration in 1961-63.
But not to worry - I had a synaptical short-circuit today: called a friend by the wrong name. You'll have more of them as you get older, believe me.
And regarding the Heritage Foundation: my doubts concern their interpretations of some things, not their data. Though I like to double-check their sources.
Bill
True
That is true. I had the wrong time period for the 40% range. I apologize. I was going from memory and it failed me. I should have double checked it prior to posting.
oops
That is what I get for going off memory with the numbers. I will do some diggin to see where I saw those numbers before and try to get them correct and site the source.
Dear Benj
I am a sorry if I offended you. If I have been harsh in my language , I have to try and be milder and more diplomatic. I do want to demonstrate the futility of voting "pro-life" election after election.
As far as Bush goes, no apologies. He is most likely to go down in history as the worst President of the U.S.A. ever, and he is not through yet. As a veteran,I think he is a coward and a deserter.I respect Conscientious Objectors, and those who protested, and went to Canada,during the Vietnam era, than Bush.
As far as the media, you don't even have to get deep on this one. Corporations own the media. Corporations get tax breaks and favors from people like Bush and the right wing republicans. Fox, by the way, is the main stream media, and are a mouthpiece of the neo-con wing of the Republican party.Another, for instance, NBC. NBC is owned by G.E. G. E. has millions of dollars in war contracts in Iraq.Iraq has been a smashing succes for GE and countless other corporate benfactors, they have made scads of money. Do you think GE is going to slam Bush too hard?
The current administration are thugs just as any common thug. A thug wants something, they beat somebody over the head and take it, or break into a house and take it. Bush and the gang wanted control of Iraq's oil to maximize profits for the Oil companies.Control of production is essential to maximize profits. That doesn't sound like a good story to tell Americans,so it about W.M.D.'s, democracy, etc.
If it was only about WMD's , we would have left when we found no WMDs. Then it was about Sadaam and we got Sadaam.We still didn't leave.Now its about democacy and we are going to be there indefinetly.It is about oil Benj.
Yes Sadaam killed many of his own people. We sold him the guns, we have the receipts and we made sure he knew how to use them. We sent plain clothes CIA and Special Forces to Iraq to instruct his people on how to use the guns we sold him. We just sold the Saudis $20 buillion worth of military hardware. Saudi Arabia supplied 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11,they supply most of the foreign fighters in Iraq, and are funding the hate schools throughout the Muslim world.But there is a buck to be made and that is what it is all about and the people we have become. There were no Iranians and no Iraqis hijackers on 9/11.We attacked a people who did nothing to us. How Christian is that?
Oil??
You said, "I have to try and be milder and more diplomatic." I have to make sure I am this as well. It will only be when we stop using extreme language that we will be able to find common ground and make movement forward.
If it is about the oil and the money, then where is it? Why are our energy prices the highest in history? If the war was about gaining control of the oil, then why do we still not have control of the oil? Why are we giving it back to the Iragis?
This is the line that the media and far left organizations feed that you do not question.
You said, "There were no Iranians and no Iraqis hijackers on 9/11.We attacked a people who did nothing to us. How Christian is that?"
Would you say the same for a local police officer being threatened? Take this example: A man walking down the street is stopped by police, the man says, I am going to kill you. His hands are visible, he makes no sudden moves, and he clearly has no weapon to carry out the threat. Is the police justified in shooting him. I think we all agree absolutely not. Take the same man saying the same thing, only this time he has a large Buck knife in his hand and charges takes two steps toward the officer in an aggressive manner. Is the officer justified in shooting him now? Hopefully we can agree that he is. Now take the same officer and let's say he is a Christian. Is he still justified in shooting the man? Hopefully we still agree that he is. Romans 13 clearly justifies the use of force for the government, going as far as calling it an agent of God.
Now how is that scenario different than a nation defending itself? The WHOLE WORLD (not just our inept CIA) thought Iraq had WMDs. He continually threatened the US. Bush did something about it. Now, preemption is the doctrine you may have a problem with, but be consistent. If you do not want the military to be preemptive, then take away that power from the local police too. Then see how many police will be on the street to protect you - none.
Since Sadaam was overthrown, surely it does not take a genius to see mistakes have been made, you will find no argument here. But nation rebuilding has never been easy especially with the history of the fighting the Sunnis Shiites and Kurds have had.
You kid yourself if you think Hillary and Obama are going to get in the White House and get out of Iraq immediately. There is no way we can do that now.
Oil!!
Stephen somewhat addressed the oil factor but I would like to add. Remember, it is about maximizing profit for the oil companies, not helping America in any way. Oil was $1.46(+,-) a gallon when Bush took office.Now the national average is consistently over $3 a gallon. Iraqi oil was cut off for quite some time.That is what the oil for food bolckade was all about too. By controlling the output, they control prices. Its basic capitalism, increase supply, prices go down, decrease supply, prices and profits go up. Good old fashioned competitve capitalism is the last thing in the world the oil companies want.Total control of the production of oil is the desired goal, which enables them to control prices and thus profits.
As a far as your police officer and criminal analogy goes, I don't think it applies to the pre-war situation in Iraq. Every country in the world fears us and most hate us. The world is full of two bit dictators and kings that we support and could turn on us at any minute. The royal Saud family, just mentioned, and the Musharaf in Pakistan are examples. Venezuela and Iran both have oil. Big Brother is beating the drum against both of them. The day may come when we hit them over the head and take their oil too.
I concede that you are right on Hillary and Obama. I don't think either one would get us out of Iraq immediately. I am a Democrat but don't think either Obama or Clinton are going to significantly change the paradigm of American politics or our presence in the world as the enforcer of the wants and needs of the international corporation. I sure hope I am wrong about that.
Cosistency??
Pre-emptive force is pre-emptive force no matter if it is on a national basis or local basis. Both uses of force are taking lives. Why is it not the same?
Progressives ask righties to be consistent on pro-life and the death penalty, so why is it different when I challenge you to be consistent on the use of force?
Because I am more than willing ban the death penalty if we can also ban abortion.
Use of Force
The point I was trying to make and didn't bring it home all the way, was that everyone on the street might be carrying a knife and might take us out if they had the chance. We have robbed, cheated, and bullied so many nations that they almost all hate us. We are the big bully with the most money and the biggest guns.Our foreign policy boils down to "do what we tell you or we will kill you". They have to be nice to us but watch out, they all might be carrying a buck knife.Sadaam made no lunge or had no buck knife. They were whipped and cowering their country. Our embargos killed half a million Iraqis, mostly children. Our bombings regularly killed more. Using your police officer analogy, they were laying on the ground, with their head covered in the fetal position, yelling "Please don't tase me bro." We didn't tase them, we got out the shotgun and blew them away.
Also you keep bringing up abortion in the sense that Progressives want it or encourage it. Nothing could be father from the truth. Lets do something about it, voting for right wing politicans is futile becasue of their pro-life stance. Lets do something that works.
Christians justifying the Iraq War?
Well, this has been particularly troubling for me over these last 6 years watching Christians support the Iraq War. How did we get from "If someone strikes you on one cheek, offer up the other cheek" to "if you think someone has the ability to hit you and that they might hit you at some point in the future, then hit them first"? How can we say that we are following Jesus's teachings, but support pre-emptive strikes?
With the exception of attacks against Native Americans and clandestine activities of the Cold War, this country has never struck first first. Benj, the whole world might have though there were WMDs but the whole world was against a pre-emptive attacke to deal with that fact. In most countries opinion was 70% and higher against the war. A majority of our citizens were against the war without further UN resolution for action which we did not get. The overwhelming majority of Americans are against the occupation.
On oil, you cite high prices as some sort of proof that we don't have the oil secured, but how bout record profits to the tunes of tens of billions of dollars for each of the big companies. When the CEO of Exxon Mobile stepped down last year he received $410 million dollar exit package, while we are paying $3.00 for oil. How is such excessive wealth, Christian if Jesus tells us we should give that wealth up?
You were thankful when Gary offered scripture to share his understanding of war. I'd be interested in scripture, especially Jesus's teachings about peacemaking that fit with pre-emptive war.
Chritians Justifying Pre-emption
You have asked for Biblical reasoning for pre-emptive war, specifically the war in Iraq. Romans 13 gives a justification for the use of force though pre-emption is not specifically laid out. There are many stories in the Old Testament where God uses ethnic cleansing as a way to keep His people pure. God commands the Israelites to attack the current residents of Promised Land in order that they might have their land of milk and honey. As I am sure you know, the OT is a very violent book.
There are multiple Biblical (NT) principles that you could use to justify the war. First, protection of the Iraqi people that were being terrorized by their leader. The Bible is clear about the responsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves. It is hard to assume that this was Bush's reasoning since it was hardly spoken about prior to the invasion. But was touted only after WMDs were being hard to find.
Second would be the protection of innocent citizens. The Bible is clear about the responsibility to protect the innocent people who are about to die. This is the justification that the Bush administration did tout prior to the invasion. They told us that Iraq was harboring terrorists and had WMDs that they were planning on using against American citizens or giving them to the terrorists.
The question is, was that the actual reason for the war justified? Or was it oil? Or was it Bush wanting to kill Sadaam for putting a bounty on his dad's head? That is still debatable, but is an exercise in futility now that we are fiver years into it. The question for discussion should be, now that we are there, what should we do that would best assist the Iraqi people in forming a stabilized government that no longer needs our assistance? Now that is an interesting question that is much harder to answer.
By the way, there were many evangelicals that were against the war to begin with. The now infamous Ted Haggart organized an effort leading up the the start of the war to encourage Bush not to go to war. It was a large movement that either got 2,000,000 signatures or intended to get 2,000,000 - I can't remember exactly, but it was a large group of evangelicals.
Biblical reasoning vs. Jesus's teaching
So you offer some Biblical reasoning for war. Certainly the Old Testament suggests that God is actively involved in war. I believe though that Jesus brought a new ethic and more fully gave us teachings of God's love. Turn the other cheek and walk the second mile are not just lessons for interpersonal relationships, but also apply to the nations. Nations must walk the second mile in their diplomacy to build bridges of understanding and to work out differences that may require the occasional turning of the cheek. For all the violence in Iraq, think of how many of them have turned the other cheek even as we have bombed there homes and occupied their country.
I agree with you that the rationale for war is now largely bunk. I don't think it was just people making mistakes about WMD or harboring terrorists, I believe we intentionally misled. Most people who were involved have come out and said that the pressure to pin something on Saddam was intense. And rather than finding ways to achieve a peaceful solution, Bush and Cheney beat the drums of war. There's nothing Christian about their actions, and the consequences have hurt our moral standing in the world.
What do we do now? Certainly, not an indefinite commitment that Bush and McCain have suggested. Setting a deadline to get out seems to make sense. If we were to do a cost benefit analysis about staying for awhile vs. going soon (within the next year) I believe that we
I understand that a lot of Evangelicals that spoke out against the war. I marched with many of them. I believe that we can build a big tent to speak out against the war and to bring the war to a close. That's what we're doing through our participation in Christian Peace Witness for Iraq.
Differ about the war
This is where we will differ about the lead up to the war. I do not believe we were intentionally misled. I do believe that W. could have had blinders on so that he was seeing the evidence that only pointed in one direction, but I do not think he came out and totally lied to us. If he did, I think he would have also planted some WMDs there to find - if he knew the assertion was false to begin with.
But I do not think chanting Bush Lied and rehashing the evidence going into the war will not unite us now to get us out of the war. Anytime a conservative hears someone from the Left say "Bush Lied People Died", it automatically puts up a brick wall to where no serious dialogue will ever take place. Much like the words Jim used early in this discussion about Bush being a THUG. I would suggest that the progressives stop using the "Bush Lied" and "Bush is a Thug and terrorist" tactic because it will get nowhere except to fire up the leftist crowd. If the goal is to unite and deal with the quagmire that is the War, then let's use words that build up and not ones that build a wall.
From everything I have read on this site, it appears that you truly desire to find a common bond to which both sides can work together to find a solution. I respect that a great deal - a whole lot more than an organization like moveon who places ads like "General Betray Us." That type of language has no place in legitimate discussions.
935 false statements
A recent study was done that that actually demonstrates that Bush and his administration did mislead the country.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/
I think we are trying to find common ground here, however I think we are also seek the truth. I do believe that Bush did mislead the country. But no matter what you believe, the problem is that Bush chose war over diplomacy, to strike first without any immediate danger to our country. Even if he believed they had WMD, Hussein did not a) have the ability to deliver those weapons and b) did not have the intentions to do so.
By the way, the phase "Bush lied, people died" is a counter to the outrage that those on the right had about Bill Clinton's personal life. I won't justify his actions, but they had no harm to most Americans and it certainly wasn't impeachable or worthy of the amount of time Republicans spent on it. The fact that this adminstration has spied on American citizens without a warrant, have held people in prisons indefinitely in Guatanamo, and have gone to war under false pretense. Certainly something there offers a more valid grounds for impeachment.
Pre-emption, force, and Romans 13
Romans 13 gave a justication for the use of force -- but not by Christians. A Christian and democratic government was not conceivable at the time when Pual wrote.
There's an interesting interpretation of Romans 13 by the Mennonite theologian John Howard Yoder in his "The Politics of Jesus". I've cited it before at +Left, along with a simplified online version at http://www.geocities.com/savageparade/poj. This version adds some post-Yoder contemporary comments, but it's quite clear on the basic argument.
Take a look at Chapter 10, "Let every soul be subject - Romans 13 and the Authority of the State".
Besides interpreting Romans 13 as rejecting Christians' use of force, Yoder's basic point is that God doesn't "ordain" any particular government. God "orders" governments.
To quote: "God does NOT create or institute or ordain the "powers that be", he only orders them - he tells them where they belong and what is their place."
There are lot of topics that you've touched on in your various posts that I'd like to see discussed at some length. Romans 13 is one. If you're interested, and you're willing to look at Yoder (the full book is better, but the simplified version is okay), then fire away and we can get down to it.
Bill
Yoder
I am certainly willing to look at Yoder and I have wanted to get the book in the past but never did. Your prompting may have just pushed me over the edge. Even the shortened version you linked to will take some time for me to go through and digest.
A quick comment about your first assertion that the use of force justification is not directed at Christians. Though most Roman soldiers were not followers of Christ, there were examples of some. Jesus cited a Roman Centurion as the man with the greatest faith in all of the land. That is a pretty hefty compliment from the Son of God. There are a couple of others that I cannot specifically recall at this moment.
I also think that a Godly government could have been conceivable to the Jewish culture at that time. After all, they did have the writings of King David, a ruler and man after God's own heart. As well as the writings of all the God-fearing kings in Israel's past. So I do not think that concept would have been as far-fetched as you indicate. I also see no directive that would preclude the Christian from participating in government. (I will reserve further comment on the last sentence until after reading at minimum chapter 10 from your link above.)
Ben
The centurion's faith
That centurion had faith in Jesus' healing power -- even, remarkably, at a distance. However, as there were no Christians and no Christianity at the time, only Jewish followers of an itinerant Jewish teacher, one can't say that he was a Christian or that Jesus' teachings about peacemakers didn't apply to him. The compliment was quite hefty -- but it was perhaps a bit exaggerated for dramatic effect in order to make a point: here's this 'wicked' but needy Gentile representative of an oppressive army of occupation, yet he's showing more faith than any of you, my fellow Jews, have yet shown.
re: the conceivabilty of a Godly government: Godly government had been lost because of lack of godliness: Judah and Israel had failed. The Maccabean 'restoration' had failed. Empire ruled the known world. TINA, as in "There Is No Alternative" (as Margaret Thatcher's Tories said about global corporate capitalism), would be taken as the only realistic doctrine once the Zealots' violent revolutionary option was rejected, as Jesus rejected it.
To participate in the Roman government would be to wield the sword. As I see it, that was precluded by the plain words of the Beatitudes. In practical terms, however, later on in the early development of the church, if a soldier were to become a Christian, the word was to stay in the condition in which you find yourself, but act in a Christian manner. If that were scrupulously followed up on, however, it would probably lead to the equivalent of a dishonorable discharge, if not an execution. (In the long run, the Empire won, overcame the teachings of Jesus, and created a 'Christian' army.)
I think that neither Jesus nor Paul were able to think in terms of a government of, for, and by the people. But even in terms of the ideal of the way the US government is supposed to be, it's still questionable that wielding the sword of state is a Christian calling. The best that can be said is that this was not an issue that they addressed, given the political context in which they lived.
I say this as somebody who ran for office once, in an unsuccessful half-baked campaign for the Illinois State Assembly, back when there were three representatives from each district, each voter had three votes, and it was possible to cast all three for one person or to split them for two or three candidates. That made it conceivable for an Independent, which is what I ran as, to win.
During that time, some Jehovah's Witnesses come to my door and I invited them in to talk, figuring the more time they spent with me, the less damage they could do to others. They were aghast that, as a professed Christian, I was running for office, as they hold to a strict rule of not being a part of any government. I confused them by saying that I wasn't interested in affirming the government but, instead, in witnessing to it, to have it change its ways. (My platform was "Economic Democracy" or worker ownership and self-management.) The JWs came back a second time, but left still confused. Although I was, in part, teasing them, I think I may have had a valid point.
I think our true ministry is to reconcile, not to rule, even in a democratic republic. I consider lobbying the governments at all levels for social and economic justice and for peace to be just fine, however. And I'm inconsistent enough not to have real objections to Christians running for office and winning -- so long as they campaign on a radical justice and peace platform. Which almost nobody does. Which is what, I believe, we here at CrossLeft would like to see them do.
????
You said, "I think that neither Jesus nor Paul were able to think..." - that is a bold statement about the eternal Son of God.
Are you making a case that Christians should not be in the military, should not be police officers, or be judges due to the fact that they might have to use/authorize force to be used against another?
re: ???? and bold statements
Ben,
That statement's not all that bold. I take it as a given that Jesus was human in every way, just like us. That means that he had to be constrained by the limits of time, place, and culture.
About Christians and the use of violence, if there's a case that has to be made, it's one that the advocates of the use of violence have to make. All I can say is I've found no indications that there's a specific Christian calling to wield the sword, either directly or indirectly. I'm not about to attack anyone who enters those professions, however. After all, I gave it a try myself in my one electoral campaign. So I just lay that issue out there as an open question. But I do favor Yoder and the Anabaptist tradition of non-violence.
The US military, for one, recognizes the legitimacy of conscientious objection. That's a good start.
Bill
Jehovah's Witnesses
LOL, I see I am not the only one that confuses and befuddles Jehovah's Witnesses.I always treated them respectfully, invited them in, got my Bible out, and went at with them. The local Witnesses avoid me like the plague now!
Be consistent
If you want to take preemption away from the military take it away from the police officers. I notice you did not comment on that portion of my post.
What was the point of turning the cheek? Was it to lay down and let the person beat you up? In the Jewish culture a man struck his slave (or wife) with his backhand but if he was fighting with another man, co-equal, then he struck with his fist. The word in the Greek for strike was the word for strike with the back hand. Because the majority of people strike with their prominent hand if you turned the other cheek, then you were forcing the striker to strike you with his fist where he would have to symbolically show you as an equal. This would in theory, show him that he was wrong for striking you (with his backhand). In other words, Jesus was not telling us to lay down and let people walk all over you. He was using creative ways to tell people to point out the wrongs without having to use violence. And yes, I believe all measures must be taken before violence.
The difference between you and I would be that you think more diplomacy could have worked. But diplomatic 19 UN resolutions did not work and 12 diplomatic years since the first Iraq war did not work. It is possible that Sadaam would never have attacked the US or given weapons to someone who could. But the President who was reading security reports that we will never be able to see thought that he would attack us in the near future. He did what he thought he should do so that there was not another 9/11. I cannot say he was wrong or right. I do not know what it is like to be the leader of a country when 3000 of the citizens die. I am not saying Sadaam was responsible for 9/11. I am only saying that having been through that as a leader, I can see why Bush would not want that to happen again on his watch.
God obviously knows there is a time when violence is necessary (look at any story in the OT). God is eternal and does not change so I do not think He has any different opinion now.
You said, "When the CEO of Exxon Mobile stepped down last year he received $410 million dollar exit package, while we are paying $3.00 for oil. How is such excessive wealth, Christian if Jesus tells us we should give that wealth up?"
Does the CEO of Exxon you mention claim to be a follower of Christ? I have no idea. I cannot expect a person that does not follow Christ give his wealth up.
Welcome, Benj!
Welcome to the discussion, Benj. You bring up a valid point here, and one I've heard pretty much every discussion I have with my dad. (Which makes it neither more nor less valid.)
I think you know some of your answers. Or at least I do agree with you that Jesus was talking to US as people, as followers. And to the Church, as it is a group of people trying to follow Jesus. Where we part paths, I think, is when I enter into the public discourse in stating priorities for our government's programs. I am always going to urge my government to stay in line with my priorities. And my priorities match those given to me by Jesus.
And gee, that just sounds prissy, doesn't it? Like anyone who doesn't set priorities like me aren't good Christians? I surely don't mean THAT subtext. I'm not only more than willing but utterly grateful that God does that judging and I don't have to. So don't take that prissy sound as what I think, I'm just not skilled at making my tone match my thoughts. You've got Biblical reasons for your beliefs and that's good enough for me. We'll let God figure out which path was the better one (if either path is) in the by and by.
And yet, isn't that how we all choose what candidate we'll support? How we pick our own personal litmus issues? We pick the candidate whose priorities most closely match our own. Maybe that's why you and I probably back different candidates. And I do thank God for that, although I suspect it's not so for my personal entertainment. I do so love election years!!
The Janet
Thanks for allowing and welcoming different perspectives. I like your Dad already.
If we as Christians allow the government to provide all the philanthropy that the Church should be providing, doesn't that discourage individual Christians from getting involved themselves. "Oh, I feed the hungry and clothe the homeless because I pay my taxes like a good Christian." That is not the attitude that Jesus wants and commands. Jesus told US to feed the poor. Government should be there only to provide us the safety and security to do so.
It is not the government's responsibility. Prior to the Great Depression, how were the homeless and poor assisted? It was not by the government. It was by the Church. When FDR began his government assisted programs (which were meant to be temporary helps not permanent welfare), the Church began to neglect its responsibility allowing the government to step in. BTW, I do not think FDR is the evil liberal most Conservatives do. If the programs were implemented like he intended, they would have gotten the country out of the Depression when no one was able to spare a penny and then been done away with. The problem came in when the programs were never done away with and now we have generation after generation living in government housing and being fed with government welfare checks.
I appreciate forums like this to discuss the issues.
Can the church do it all?
First welcome.
I agree that the church should be doing more, but I would challenge your assertion that the church itself could end poverty, hunger, and homelessness. Let's be clear, Jesus asks for an absolute commitment. When the wealthy person asks him what he should do to follow him, Jesus insists that he give up his possessions. That's a total commitment and nearly all of us fall short.
If we acknowledge that we fall short, we then understand what the role of government is. Humans are imperfect, so we form governments to protect ourselves from each other and to ensure a more perfect justice. Many conservatives rail against taxes but Jesus said give to Caesar what is Caesar's. And that tax money went to pay for the roads and public spaces that Jesus, the apostles and Paul all traveled on to spread the Good News.
Similarly in our time, we pay taxes for the common defense, for public goods and for a more perfect system of justice. I would argue that the redistributive affects of our tax system (charging the rich at higher rates and ensuring adequate funding for education, health care, and hunger are noble endeavors that make our system more just and correspond with Jesus's commision to take care of the least of these. The church will not be able to provide health care to the 47 million people without health insurance. The church will not be able to feed the hungry by itself (indeed, most faith based programs rely on government support for their very existence.) If we are going to solve our big problems it will be through the common efforts of the church, corporations, the government, nonprofits and individuals all working together in a network to tackle our fundamental challenges.
I want to finally challenge something that you said that is just not true: "generation after generation living in government housing and being fed with government welfare checks". With welfare reform, this is clearly not true given the 5 year time limits, etc. But even before welfare reform, a small fraction of the total users of welfare were on the roles for more than a decade. Most folks either used it once or cycled on and off welfare with the economic cycle. I would comment to you Bane and Ellwood's "Welfare Realities: From Rhetoric to Reform" for more information.
No the Church cannot do it all
Basically because it is am impossible task. Matt 26:11 is Jesus telling us that we will always have the poor. Is that an excuse to not do anything about it and not feed the poor? Absolutely not. That was in response to the disciples complaining that the woman could have sold the perfume she used to wash Jesus' feet and used the proceeds to give to the poor.
You speak of redistribution like it is a good thing. It is the beginning of communism that is not Biblical. You reap what you sow is a concept that is taught throughout the Bible. Again, being forced to redistribute my wealth, or the wealth of others, is not what Jesus intended when he said to feed the poor. Jesus wanted each of us to care for and love our fellow man enough that we are willing to sacrifice ourselves to help those that need it. Forcing people to give more taxes (despite their economic situation) does not promote this attitude Jesus taught.
Voting someone into office that will raise the taxes on the top 5% so that the government will give out more handouts is not what Jesus taught. Giving to others with other peoples money is totally contrary to what Jesus taught.
Who did Jesus hold as an example as the giver of the most? It was the widow that gave her last dollar, actually I think the equivalent today is more like a penny. But it was because she gave sacrificially. How sacrificial is it for me to vote a politician into office that he will use other people's money in order to provide benefits to others? That is not sacrificial at all for me.
"With welfare reform, this is clearly not true given the 5 year time limits, etc."
In my former career I was a police officer. Answering calls into the government housing, it was not unusual to see firsthand three, sometimes even four generations living in the same complex. Not the same apartment, but when each got old enough, they applied for and got their own place. Oh, and they did not get a job. Despite what is on paper, I have seen this firsthand and know that our welfare system is broke when generation after generation is living in government housing.
Who Cares For the Poor?
Hello Benj and welcome to Crossleft. I appreciate your posts and used to share some of your sentiments. I once said to a minister friend of mine, "Well, if the Church were taking care of the needy, the government wouldn't have to."
I was expecting an amen, but he gave me a quick lesson on the magnitude of poverty and its causes and I began to realize the Church is not capable of meeting all the acute needs of the poor of our nation, much less the world.
That encounter provoked me to do a bit of Bible study on the subject of caring for the needy. My study up to this point is revealing that God has addressed these issues in the Law, the Prophets, the Wisdom books, the Psalms, and the New Testament.
First and foremost, I am searching for our Father's heart on these matters. Secondly, I am striving to discover what His mandates are regarding responsibility and accountability. I have found three primary means of delivery that the compassion of God is to be brought to the less fortunate ones among us.
The first level is individual responsibility and I believe that we both certainly agree there. I find the parable of the Good Samaritan to be an adequate text for that premise and there are many others that also support it. As individuals, we should take care of our own kin and be helpful to our neighbors in need.
Secondly, Kingdom organizations (The Church) are also charged with caring for the needy. The book of Acts offers insight and endorsement of that by examples of un-selfish giving and sharing one with the other. Again, I don't think we disagree on the issue of Church level responsibility to care for our own in the household of faith.
Benj wrote, "You speak of redistribution like it is a good thing. It is the beginning of communism that is not Biblical."
Please read Acts4:32 "All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had." This concept predates Socialism/Communism by many centuries. However, I have yet to find many Christians advocating for a return to first century Jerusalem style communal Christian living.
The third level is governmental. Most of us are probably unaware that God requires nations, kings, and governments to be merciful and not neglectful of needy ones that dwell under their authority. Much of the Law of Moses required fair and merciful dealings with the poor. The tithe was commanded so that the priests, the poor, the widow, the orphan and even the alien could be amply provided for. That's a serious societal welfare system.
Jesus said, "Whatsoever you have done unto the least of these my brethren, You have done it unto me." The Bible is useful for shaping attitudes and policies for how government should treat the "least of these" spoken of by Jesus in Matthew 25.
We discover there is a principle of God's blessings coming to individuals, communities, and nations that take care of the needy and judgment for those that do not. Christian political leaders and others should have the following sayings etched on their hearts and minds and they should be the guiding principles in policies that relate to the "least of these."
Proverbs19: 17 "He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and He will reward him for what he has done." [This proverb certainly fits with the spirit of Matthew 25]
Proverbs 29: 14 "If a king judges the poor with fairness, his throne will always be secure."
Calamity and judgment come to individuals, communities, and nations that neglect or oppress the needy.
Zechariah 7: 8-14 shows us that God judged the nation of Israel for oppressing the needy and for not showing compassion and mercy.
Proverbs 22: 16 "He who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth and he who gives gifts to the rich - both come to poverty."
Do more tax breaks for the wealthy while cutting funding for social relief programs conform to the wisdom of Proverbs 22:16? This is not about partisan criticism for the sake of criticism. This is about prophetically finding God's heart and allowing Him to speak to our hearts. Not to our hearts only, but to the hearts of the Church and especially to the heart and soul of our governing officials.
I believe it is possible that the nations who show mercy to the least will be honored in heaven.
Why care for the poor?
I think we agree on more than we disagree, but the basic disagreement is the role of government. We both agree that the Church needs to step up to the plate and do more. It makes me sick to see a church build an extravagant luxurious building so that they can have a nice place to sit while they listen to a sermon that makes them feel good instead of challenging them to become Christ like, which sometimes leads to discomfort and even pain in our lives. (example Job, Paul, and any number of first century Christians)
You provide excellent research and I love the way you back your positions with Scripture. I will have to study each reference and see if I come to the same conclusion, but here is my initial reaction:
What is the ultimate goal of caring for the poor? Is it to feed them? Or by feeding them, is it to share the love of Christ with them to bring them to a saving knowledge of Him? I believe Jesus taught it is the latter. How would a government agency do that? The answer is simply, they would not. Especially in the current climate of our society where a government official cannot utter the word God without the ACLU screaming separation of church and state. The only entity to be able to do this is the church. I am not talking about only the big institutionalized denominations. I mean the Church, the bride of Christ. Each individual doing his or her part with the people they come into contact with each and everyday.
Thanks again for the dialog. I appreciate discussing issues without the hatred that is prevalent in most opposing view discussions.
Benj wrote,"What is the
Benj wrote,"What is the ultimate goal of caring for the poor? Is it to feed them? Or by feeding them, is it to share the love of Christ with them to bring them to a saving knowledge of Him? I believe Jesus taught it is the latter."
My wife and I worked and lived at the US Center for World Missions in Pasadena, CA in the early eighties for several years. We hosted major missions conferences where I met a fellow working for one of the world hunger relief missions. We struck up a conversation about his work with the starving in third world countries.
I said something like, "So, I guess you get a lot of opportunities to tell people about Jesus after you feed them huh?" His reply surprised me. He said, "That's not why we do it. We're there to feed them because if we don't, they'll starve to death. We work long days and we seldom have time to tell them about Jesus because we are so busy showing them about Him."
Benj, we agree on the idea of Christians leading the way in helping the needy. However, this is a much larger issue than just getting some help to poor folks. Only government can address the systemic causes of poverty. Millions are starving globally while we sit on the agricultural technology that could feed them all. Our current government prioritizes military development and waging war over humanitarian issues.
I don't advocate for socialism, but unbridled capitalism is certainly not reflective of scripture. The government has the power to regulate business and to tax. Those taxes can certainly be spent to help ensure the needy ones among us are cared for. Rich folks pay a lot more in taxes than others and amazingly they are still rich after April 15. That means they can still pay more and not hurt.
We have the means to eradicate global hunger and the ability to give clean water to every thirsty kid on the planet. What is missing is the will to do so. That my friend, is sin worthy of judgment.
You said, "I said something
You said, "I said something like, "So, I guess you get a lot of opportunities to tell people about Jesus after you feed them huh?" His reply surprised me. He said, 'That's not why we do it. We're there to feed them because if we don't, they'll starve to death. We work long days and we seldom have time to tell them about Jesus because we are so busy showing them about Him.'"
I am sorry, but your friend is missing the point of missions. If you are not telling them about Jesus, what is the point? Why give a starving man one day worth of bread? If you possess the Bread of Life, and do not share it, then you are crucifying Christ all over again. Jesus told his disciples follow me and I will make you fishers of men. What were they fishing for? The souls and hearts of men. Feed a man for a day or two or two years without sharing about Jesus and you have only delayed his eternal death. Fulfilling the great commission should be the ultimate goal of missions.
You said, "Rich folks pay a lot more in taxes than others and amazingly they are still rich after April 15. That means they can still pay more and not hurt."
I say, this philosophy does not promote Christlikeness in anyone. The people getting their taxes raised are bitter and angry. The people that support the idea (progressives) are not giving sacrificially as Jesus teaches. Only using other people's money to feed the poor. And the people receiving the goods are not being told about Jesus only receiving a handout for which they did not work - a concept that is not taught in the Bible.
I love the heart of the progressive, especially the ones on this site who are motivated by the teachings of Jesus. Please understand that I am not questioning your motives or philosophies or love for Jesus. The disagreement between us is the method in which we choose to accomplish the same thing. I believe that if the Church truly acts like the Church that Jesus prayed for in John 17, it can do more than all the governments in the world combined could do for the needy. If the Churches that believe in the same Gospel could put all their theologies and doctrines aside, unite themselves in the fight against some of the problems we have discussed, then the world could see that those that unite under the name of Jesus can accomplish more than those that unite under the name of a country. And yes, I do believe the Church is big enough because my God is big enough.
Benj the Point Is....
Benj wrote, "I am sorry, but your friend is missing the point of missions. If you are not telling them about Jesus, what is the point? Why give a starving man one day worth of bread?"
Ah, you missed my subtle message in the last post. The point is that the people being served knew they were being helped by Christians...you know, ministering to the "least of these". He was showing them the Gospel by being the Gospel.
Why give a man who is starving something to eat? First, we should because it can be done. Second, because if we don't, they will starve to death. Third, to have the means and not the will is sin (the sin of omission). Jesus was asked, "Who is my neighbor?" He answered with the story of the "Good Samaritan."
Poverty is a monstrous enemy of Heaven and Earth. You are right, God is big enough to deal with it and He has commissioned us to help. Scripture calls us ambassadors of Christ and His Kingdom. He is calling His bride to shake off her slumber and arise from apathy and start leading the way toward compassionate solutions for a dying planet.
Benj, we live in the richest and most powerful nation on the planet. We have a representative form of government...you know, "of the people, by the people, for the people." We Christians, both left and right, make up a huge voting demographic. We can and should be lobbying for compassionate policies as we strive to bend the will of our government toward justice.
Tax the rich
Many of the comments on the subject of feeding the poor have suggested that the rich need to be taxed more so that there will be more money "redistributed" to the needy, either nationally or globally. I ask how that is promoting what Jesus taught? How is forcing someone else to give their money to the poor following Jesus' teachings? Jesus taught us to give cheerfully and sacrificially. Who is sacrificing in this scenario? Yes, the rich can afford to give more, but being forced to do so does not make them cheerful and they are not sacrificing. The middle class, I assume by most of the posts, that would include most of us, does not give sacrificially because we get tax cuts, or at least no raise at all. Sure we can be cheerful about the rich having to give more, but not the intent of Jesus.
Simply, how is forcing someone else to give via taxes complying with the teachings of Jesus?
We are each responsible for what we do with our money and will have to give God an account one day. That would include the rich people who are not philanthropists. Let them answer to that and you answer for your actions.
Re Tax the Rich
Nobody likes to pay taxes, but it is the primary means by which Americans share the burden of keeping our government solvent. If the moral obligation of government is to solve the problems that we as individuals cannot solve on our own, then taxation is the fairest means of funding solutions. From an objective, rational basis, to ever rule out any sort of a tax increase is not just folly, but incredibly reckless—a trap that John Kerry fell into during the 2004 presidential campaign. No one knows what the future brings. History is full of unforeseen events that require great amounts of capital in order to provide an effective response.
Liberals must now lose the obsolete notion of using taxation simply for the confiscation of wealth. Such a philosophy is based upon an erroneous reliance on only one of the six interdependent cannons of distributive justice: arithmetic equality. Instead we must always seek to maintain the wealth of those who succeed by playing by the rules. This means helping the middle class maintain a standard of living for which many of its members struggle everyday to maintain. These folks, not the wealthy or non-working poor, pay the bulk of our taxes. If programs funded from hard-earned tax dollars are also invested in the middle class, it will discourage resentment toward the less fortunate who rely heavily upon programs also funded by tax dollars.
The fairest means of accomplishing this task is still found within the progressive system of income taxation. And even today, the original arguments in support of progressive taxation are as valid today as they were almost a century ago. As the economist Monsignor John A. Ryan observed in 1916,
also
I just want to add to what Stephen has already said. I think underlying this discussion is a difference in the way we see the gross inequalities between some of the most wealthy and the poor. I think I can speak for most of us here (correct me if I'm wrong) the issue boils down to a question of justice and checking power. The reason that our government has checks and balances is that political power can lead to injustices if there is not some means of stopping the law makers from codifying legal favors for themselves or for whatever group they identify themselves with.
I think we generally think it an injustice when some people have enough to own three homes, a jet, a yacht, work 40 or less hours a week, and have cleaning services etc. while other people who are working 60-80 hours a week cannot afford basic health insurance for themselves or their children and have to rely on the state for assistance for their most basic of needs. Taxes might not be the best long term fix, but it is a simple answer for the time being. Perhaps systematic changes could be put in place to cap the salaries of company heads relative to their employees or to the lowest paid group of individuals in the country. Sure, running a company is a more important job that requires skills, knowledge, and discipline that isn't required to produce the product on the production floor. But is that difference in the difficulty and importance between the two positions accurately represented by a difference of hundreds of millions of dollars a year in income and benefits?
The Bible has much to say about justice Ben. Rulers are advised to be just again and again in the book of Proverbs for example. I think that the point that most of us are getting at with our interest in taking from the rich to give to the poor is that the rich have power in their wealth and we believe that there is not sufficient systematic means of checking their accumulation of power and influence through their wealth. At some point, their continued success is made at the price of the wellbeing of others. That is a matter of justice and we believe that the Bible has something to say about our responsibility related to it. Gary had a post that I hadn't seen before that speaks to this. Perhaps it got a bit buried in all of the replies. Here's a link to it.
http://crossleft.org/?q=node/5725#comment-51847
David
render unto Caesar
Actually Jesus was pretty clear in taxes...render unto Caesar what is Caesars, give to God what is God's. Paul also exhourts us to pay our taxes.
Again, let's turn the question around. Where in what Christ said about giving tax breatks to rich people who don't need it and didn't ask for it?
The tax cuts for rich people has caused our government spending to go from surplus to record deficits.
The tax cuts and war spending also prevent us from doing a lot of good. I think the difference between your perspective and progressive Christans is that we extend ou Christian values to the role of government. So if Jesus said heal the sick, I know that can't happen through the private sector alone. Therefore, we find a role for government in health care, poverty, homelessness, the environment, and education.
You could make your same argument about education. Why should our tax dollars pay for education? Churches, especially the Catholic church has been educating children for centuries. We didn't have compulsory public education when the nation started, why do we need it now? Well, there are lots of reasons, but an economic reason is that an educated workforce and citizenry is actually a public good. While I don't necessarily have any direct interest in paying for the education of your child, I know that your child being educated will improve our overall economy and ensure that your child can meaingfully participate as a citizen in the democracy.
The same public good argument can be made for health care and poverty. For example, I may not want to pay for your health insurance directly, but if you go to the hospital room in emergency because you couldn't pay for primary care or preventive health, costs for the whole system go up and we all end up paying a lot more.
In regards to poverty, if there are such wide disparities, the nation suffers. I may not want my tax dollars going to anti poverty programs such as job training, food stamps or even cash assistance (what we call welfare), but there are even higher long term costs in crime and incarceration, lack of economic competitiveness globally due to uneducated populace, and other national ills for not addressing the problems of poverty head on.
Feeding and preaching
Another "hello benj", and welcome aboard.
Just one, well maybe two, okay three quick comments at this time about feeding and witnessing.
Feeding is an intrinsic good. It shows love to a person who is made "in the image of God". It doesn't require words.
There's a line that I like from somewhere in the Talmud: "To save one life is as if you have saved the world."
Going beyond that, I remember a classic anecdote -- I might even have got it from the Reader's Digest many decades ago -- about African Christians going out from their own communities to other African communities to do missionary work. They would settle in among the people and live their lives in an exemplary fashion, always being loving toward each other, and being kind and helpful to others, and giving assistance of all kinds as needed, but never preaching the word. When reporting on their work and being asked by critics "how, then, did you spread the Gospel?", they would answer: "After a while people come to us and ask 'why do you live the way you do and how can we become like you?' Then we tell them about Jesus."
There's much to be said for modeling good behavior before talking about it -- particularly as our history is full of such bad behavior that there are many who are sceptical and tired of words and need to see deeds first.
If the church proves to be big enough to do it all, that would be wonderful. It has to show it, though, before other types of aid could ever be cut off. And the church would have to aid those who refuse to hear the word or who reject the word, too. Otherwise, government and secular aid would still be necessary.
Theoretically, in a democratically based republic, the people are the authority over (or perhaps behind) the government. Ideally, the government is us and we can decide on what's good for the common good. Of course, it's not quite working that way....
Bill
Modeling Good Behavior
You said, "There's much to be said for modeling good behavior before talking about it -- particularly as our history is full of such bad behavior that there are many who are sceptical and tired of words and need to see deeds first."
Have you tried this approach in your personal life? In a secular work environment, I did this for several years. And yes, I was thought of as a good person and was well respected. However, no one came up to me and asked "Why are you so good?" You have to be intentional about your witnessing. In the African communities where being nice to another tribe is totally foreign, then, yes, I can see where just being nice would eventually lead to conversations. But in a country that is full of good moral people that are going straight to Hell because they do not know Jesus as their personal Savior, then I am not sure that tactic works. You have to have conversations and be intentional about your Mission. That of course, has to be backed up by the way you act and behave.
If we use the government to be the arm of sharing God's love, then how will people know what they are receiving is from God. The government will not tell them about God's love with the people they are giving the handouts to. The government is the wrong organization to perform these tasks if the goal is to assist these individuals with a hope of bringing them to Christ, which should be the goal of all philanthropy.
re: intentionality
Along with David, whose previous comment is below, I too have had occasions where I've been asked how it is that I, a left activist, am a Christian. The conversations came about because I had always been as upfront about being a churchgoer as I was upfront about being an activist. In the conversations, I was able to link the two.
The difference between the US and African villages isn't so much about "being nice to a foreign tribe" as it is in living in small communities where people can see the full range of each other's behaviors. Unusual kindness, humility, patience, and helpfulness in routine daily life thus have a better chance to be noticed. appreciated, and remarked upon. Here in the US, our private lives are known to relatively few people; our public lives are segmented so that people in one part of our lives aren't all that likely to know people in the other parts of our lives.
Besides, the African example was illustrative of a principle and wasn't meant as a program for doing evangelism here. It was simply in the spirit of St. Francis of Assisi's "Preach the Gospel always, and when necessary use words."
One of the ways that I see action being a form of Gospel preaching in the US is in public demonstrations for justice. Every "Who would Jesus bomb?" placard is a form of witness. Picketing with workers on strike and carrying signs "Labor-Religion Coalition" and "Jobs with Justice" is a fine way to witness to the passing observers and to enter into conversation with the workers. The conversations needn't be "evangelistic" to be, in fact, evangelistic. The conversations make it clear that there are religious people, including Christian people, who take social and economic justice seriously. The wording of the signs and the commitment that brings people out to join the picketers are a form of plowing the field -- for those whose fields are in need of plowing. There are plenty of others who are sowing or casting seeds around who can then take advantage of the work of those who do the plowing.
This implied division of labor between those who demonstrate the word and those who speak the word (who sometimes are the same people, of course) fits the fragmented nature of our life in our society, with its complex division of labor.
re: the role of the government. I don't expect or want to be told that the government is trying to bring me to Christ through my monthly Social Security check or whenever Medicare pays my doctors. Or back in the period when my family got actual "handouts" via food stamps due to my extremely low-paying activist job. However, Christian lobbying for appropriate governmental programs of assistance is another form of witnessing which prepares the way for witnessing via words.
Going back to my quote from the Talmud, I do have to object to your assumption that the goal of philanthropy is to bring individuals to Christ. The first goal of any philanthropy as I see it is to assist people in their lives and to help keep them alive. Should a Christian not give aid to, say, a Buddhist charity that is able to bring aid into Burma where other charities can't, even though the recipients will never know the aid came from Christians or hear an aid-linked Christian message? I would hope that the response would be "Give". There's a case where "what would Jesus do?" is a good question with, I think, a clear answer. (Did the Good Samaritan try to talk the injured Jew into accepting the Samaritan version of the Israelite religion?)
With regard to people going straight to hell because they don't know Jesus as their personal Savior, then, if that's your belief, it's really important to keep them alive first. If they die in a famine, they've already lost their chance.
There are others, however, who would be willing to trust their God to sort things out in accordance with justice, mercy, love.
Bill
intentionally marketing Christ
Hello benj
I think that your observation about the some of the differences between how we need to shine our light in US culture versus how it might best be done in some other culture (Africa, perhaps.) However, I disagree with your assertion that we somehow have to be declarative about doing what we're doing for Christ.
I think people should definitely know that we are Christians. We can let them know in a variety of ways without becoming obnoxious or offensive. We can also make it known that our commitment to Christ is what leads and guides our activities and shapes our perception of the world around us. That is likely enough. The reason is related to your observation about cultural differences.
America is a saturated market when it comes to Christianity. Christian ideas, symbols and organizations are found everywhere so most people don't need an introduction to the fundamentals of Christian faith. What they need is a compelling reason to try it out. That needs to be our goal as Christian here in the US. When we are focused on doing God's work in our lives everyday and upholding our relationship, it will be apparent. People who are "in the market" for a new product (so to speak) will know where to turn if we have demonstrated God's love and compassion. Think of the way Jesus ministered to people. It was the ones who were broken that were receptive to God's voice in their lives.
If we are living out God's principles in our lives, we shouldn't need to fly a banner over our heads when we are doing work in his name. Those who are hungry for the difference (in marketing terms this is product differentiation) they perceive in our lives. I have had this happen. I've had the opportunity in the last 3 years to share my faith in an ongoing dialogue with 3 separate people who approached me and asked me about my faith. There is wide spread awareness of the product (salvation through faith in Christ). The problem is that Christians haven't done very good product demonstration.
David
Obnoxious
You said, "We can let them know in a variety of ways without becoming obnoxious or offensive."
Why do you assume that if I speak about my faith in Jesus I will automatically become obnoxious and offensive?
If you speak about your faith...
...without being asked about it first, there's a good chance that it will be ill-received.
Letting people know that you're a Christian, a la David's recommendation, is rather different from speaking about your faith in Jesus. The first can come up in passing in casual conversation as in "no, I didn't see him on Meet the Press, I was in church." The second can easily be dismissed as unwelcome marketing.
I've been accosted by strangers asking things like "do you have a personal relationship with Jesus?" Although I've been polite, I've felt annoyed. Ditto when they knock on my front door.
The hard sell drove me away from Christianity when I was 13 or 14. A cousin, a "Hebrew Christian" Presbyterian minister whose father was the pastor of the Presbyterian-affiliated First Hebrew Christian Church of Chicago, put pressure on me some time after my bar mitzvah to decide between Judaism and Christianity. (I'd been exposed to Christianity during summers which I often spent at their Jewish neighborhood settlement house summer camp on Lake Michigan.) I chose Judaism, which seemed simpler, more direct, without fancy Trinitarian concepts -- and which wasn't hassling me. Despite my good feelings about Jesus, I developed intellectual contempt for Christianity. Thus, when I did have a conversion experience (unmediated by anyone talking about his faith), it took me four years to get over my feeling of revulsion at the idea of getting baptized. So I'm not a fan of the hard sell.
When it comes to Jews in particular, I think that non-Jewish Christians have lost the moral right to evangelize Jews -- until perhaps a couple centuries of deeds have outweighed the horrors of the past. And for a Jewish Christian like me to evangelize a fellow Jew, that would have to be very indirect and we would have to have a very good relationship to start with. The few times that's happened, I didn't bring it up. The other person asked me. And we kept it on an intellectual plane. No persuasion. Just an explanation of my own experience. Anything more would have been, in fact, obnoxious and offensive.
Bill
Said well
Bill,
You have just illustrated well the point I was trying to imply in my response to David. You have showed how you can share your faith without being obnoxious and offensive. There are Christians that are obnoxious and offensive, I will be the first to shout that from a mountain top, but there are obnoxious and offensive lefties, righties, muslims, Catholics, atheists, evolutionists, creationists, etc.
I will admit that my interaction with Jews have been somewhat limited, so I will trust your assertion about how to reach them for Christ.
I have also bee accosted by people trying to sell me a credit card, but I am not bitter at all credit card companies. Why do we characterize all Christians based on experiences we have had with just a few? I will admit that I have done the same thing, but I do not think it is right to do so. It is human nature to stereo-type. It is funny how everyone is so against stereo-typing in every other circumstance, but it is perfectly socially acceptable to stereo-type Christians as obnoxious and offensive just because a small percentage of Christians are obnoxious and offensive, though admittingly they are usually the loudest.
re stereotyping
Thanks, Ben.
My own reading of what David wrote is not that he was stereotyping all Christians. I think he was referring to exactly what you were referring to about that percentage, however large or small, who are, in fact, obnoxious and offensive -- and LOUD or at least highly visible.
Another point that follows from what I previously wrote: no one person has to take on the responsibility to do a complete evangelistic number on anyone. We never know where on the spiritual journey someone may be. Some folks need a word, but some need a helping hand or an attentive ear. Or an iconic example of another person on a picket line or at a demonstration, or taking a risk to intervene in a potentially violent situation.
Modeling good behavior isn't all there is to it but in our cultural context, which is so full of words and spin and media, it's an especially important part of the mix. That's why I cited that African missionary anecdote as a model.
Bill
Contagous Christianity
I would recommend the book Contagious Christianity by Bill Hybels for anyone to read. It talks about this very thing about witnessing be relational and intentional.
Oh Geez
I thought I was being real soft and sweet and diplomatic.
oh gee whiz
Well, Jim, it was the "jumping up and down" and "screaming" and "shouting" bits that struck me as unsoft and unsweet. I think that negatively emotive words are to be avoided in this kind of evangelistic propaganda. (See how those last two words, though accurately descriptive, tend to rub the wrong way?)
Let us appeal consistently to people's better natures. And when we must go in for (our version of) Hellfire and Damnation, it should be in a sorrowful tone.
Brother Billy
Its the Politicians
It is the politicians who are doing the jumping up and down, the screaming and shouting,and hustling the honest conservative Christians. Thus the conservative Christians are indignant at these abusing politicians who have taken advantage of their religious beliefs.
But first...
...they start out having identified with those politicians. When I read stuff from the right describing leftists in negative emotional terms, I immediately classify the writers as belligerent partisans. I may go on to read and assess their arguments since I tend to take an anthropological interest in partisanship, but I think most people are more dismissive than that.
I love the sentiments...
...but I think it isn't worded diplomatically enough to reach a conservative reader.
Particularly, it might be better to refer to "deeper Christian values", or something like that, rather than to "self interests" in the second paragraph.
Material self interests can be brought in after that, as an afterthought and then as a reason that some politicians want to manipulate and use the "values voters". Their material interests are elsewhere.
I don't have any ideas about blogs where this can be posted. I'll look around, though.