This blog has been established to discuss matters of Christian faith and politics. Anyone is invited to join the conversation! Hopefully, this will become a collaborative project for fruitful discussion on these important subjects.
---
How should faith /moral values interact with politics? How should social class/ economic status interact with politics? How should faith and social class constitute one another? On one hand, the Christian Right says that marriage laws, abortion laws and limited government (limited collective responsibility) are all essential moral values to uphold (despite economic status of oneself and others). They believe that individuals should acquire goods and services for their personal welfare and that of their immediate family. Agnostic about the degree to which that personal acquisition has to do with the acquisition of others, they believe that public sharing of utilities (historically this has been won in water, electricity, transportation, Social Security, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (welfare), public schools, city recreation facilities and programs, and the list goes on... to the current debates over publicly subsidized health care) is not "efficient." (Why exactly this is not efficient often leads into a discussion on the best way to increase the GDP by creating new "capital." However, I usually think of efficiency and a strong economy as two very different objectives. I'd love to discuss this more.)
Meanwhile, the Christian Left understands our nation as a fundamentally interdependent unit. The wealth of some is not necessarily their entitlement, for it was won at the expense of many others who did not have a share in the profits of that wealth-producing endeavor. Therefore, the poverty, health care and civil rights of the disfranchised is as much the responsibility of the majority as it is of the minority. Some believe more in redistribution of riches than others. For some, charity should be much more "voluntary" than for others. But usually, Christian Leftists are distinguished from the 'Righters in their belief that the state has the responsibility to secure Civil Rights and equal opportunities, for the "free market" and doctrine of indivdiualism will only work against the legal and social development of individuals at the bottom of the social and socioeconomic ladder. Fundamentally, the Christian Right and Left disagree not over the relevance of aspects of our faith. We disagree over the role of Christian faith as it constitutes and directs our government. Despite what they tell you, 'Leftists do not usually hate private charities or babies, and 'Righters do not usually wish poverty and inaccess to proper health care on others.
We do disagree over how personal our Christian faith is intended to be. Is our faith an individual calling to ethics outside of our legalized system of wealth creation (American capitalism)? Should our faith deny awareness of the social hierarchies of race, gender, nationality, sexuality and religion, all of which help to mutually constitute the most exploited class in the legal/economic system? This personal concept of faith lends itself to the argument that public utilities and charity should all be "privatized." It provides the foundation for 'Righters to argue that a prime role of the government is to regulate "life" and "death," but everything else is a "personal" decision that conscious individuals can make themselves. Meanwhile, 'Lefters don't see faith so personally. Much like the Biblical vision of Israel, 'Lefters see collective responsibility for one another, enforced through the law, as a prime expression of faith. Therefore, they believe we have a burden as believers/chosen people (is there a difference?) to reconstitute the legal, political and social hierarchies of our country to reflect God's grace. This often includes another chance for wrongdoers (anti-death penalty), grace for law-breakers (amnesty for immigrants), and support for the needy (from a pool of tax revenue). We disagree not about the importance of charity and grace to the Christian walk, but about how we as Chosen People (a People or individuals?) are to steward this calling.
Ultimately, we disagree about what we are each responsible for on Judgment Day. To what extent will our shortcomings of personal obedience include sins of omission---NOT taking care of brothers and sisters we did not know, --NOT acting to reconstitute the nation to provide more for others at the possible "expense" of oneself, --NOT standing up for the people who get little respect in society because they have a history of social or institutional "sin." Many 'Righters assume that the fact that this world is "Fallen" releases us from the responsibility of redeeming the state, foreign policy, the economic system, and the reality of social stratification. Many 'Lefters assume that personal obedience to the Holy Spirit within us is only a very small part of, or sometimes even a handicap from, our collective responsibility to use the legal system to foster social amnesty or grace. (Whoever owned resources/capital in the last generation or under the old "legal" paradigm, 'lefters would say, should not have a better chance at owning them in the next generation. In fact, the old legal paradigm should be changed to re-level the playing field.)
It seems to me that all sides of the spectrum (for there are obviously more than two) are afraid of the redeeming power of the Holy Spirit. We are afraid of what the Holy Spirit can change in us as individuals, and afraid of what the Holy Spirit can call us to as a community, a nation, a planet. For, on both the individual and collective levels, responding to the Holy Spirit will likely mean sacrifice of a great deal of our sense of entitlement, pride, self-righteousness, judgmentalness, selfishness, personal ambition and idolatry of personal success.
What's the matter with Kansas is not that social values have deceptively thwarted the "true" politics of social and economic interests. I'm actually quite excited that we have begun to rethink our individual political participation outside of what others call our socioeconomic interests. For, the free market dogma upon which our modern economic system has been built falsely presupposes that all of us have the same "interest" in maximizing our wealth. I submit that this claim of Adam Smith on our human nature is actually but a socially constructed choice. Should Christians value wealth creation as much as people outside the faith? We have to keep rethinking how we are to be in the world but not of it.
How in the world did euphemistic "Kansas" come up with sexuality, reproduction and marriage as the most important Christian values? This evidence is pretty revealing of the shallowness of our perception of how Christianity is defined next to all other (sectarian and secular) belief systems. We should be embarrassed of ourselves, but not overcome with the pride of shame. It's time, I think, to admit to our own shortcomings as a Christian community and rethink what it really means to be our brother's keeper in a world we are not in but of.
16 comments:
I have to disagree with this statement:
"Rather, we disagree about what we are each ultimately responsible for on Judgment Day"
I would suggest that the so-called "righters" would argue that things like charity aren't the job of the government (i.e. it is forced on everyone) but the job of the individual (i.e. you contribute as your conscience demands). A "righter" isn't someone who thinks they don't have a responsibility to work together to provide for the poor, just someone who thinks that the government is the wrong place to be doing that. I fall into this camp. I'm well aware that the government is very large and can shuffle funds around to get it to where it needs to go, but I also know that the government has no motivation to be efficient. The government also has (by design) an ever-shifting vision. A "righter" would say that a better way to work towards these types of goals would be to find and work with (through donations and/or volunteering) an organization with a proven track record for doing what needs to be done, a clear vision that is likely to stay consistent for years to come, and high efficiency/low waste of resources.
There are two reasons that I buy into this view:
1) The bible gives no indication that we should force people to assume our morality. In fact, I seem to recall a passage saying not to judge non-christians as if they were christians. Of course, since I don't recall where it is, I'll rely on my initial statement for now.
2) Forcing charity results in a straight rate for everyone. Essentially nobody will go above the required amount, because they've already done enough. And yet, by forcing this morality on people, their actions are no longer good - these good actions become neutral. Perhaps we could get some bump in the amount of physical resources provided, but I believe there would be a spiritual cost to those who make the "donations".
Perhaps I've just managed to restate what that original quote was meant to say, but it seems unlikely to me that the general "lefter" thinks that God is going to look at them on judgement day and ask why they didn't do more to affect their government.
(I'm sure that's poorly expressed, but hopefully you get the idea.)
PS I'm definitely on the same wavelength about most of what was said here. Gay marriage as a "big issue" is ridiculous.
I agree with dc in many ways(as a righter). The big issue is where should the responsibility and power lie. Should individuals and churches have more freedoms and responsibilities or should the government have more responsibility at the cost of personal freedoms. I think it is clear that there are pros/cons to each side.
There is another thing I find interesting in the current topic ofdiscussion. Should a nation be responsibility for maximizing the "wealth" of its citizens, or should it be responsible for other nations? Should America deplete its resources to help poorer nations? I am curious to what others think America should do. If a socialist system is better than a free market system, shouldn't it be applied across the whole world, not just within a country? In this case America should start seriously sacrificing for the rest of the earth. All of us students would lose significant portions of our wealth because we are too wealthy compared to the other 90% of the world.
There is one big point I think is missing in the original post: What does the Bible say about this? In our current world, it is easy to ignore what I consider a guiding force in my life(the Bible).
"How should faith /moral values interact with politics?" Well, there's some tradition in Christianity, viz. Old Order Amish, that it doesn't interact at all, except to obey to the extent of authority granted worldly rulers.
Isaac, great question. I'd say that we do have a responsibility to provide for other nations, and not just maximize the wealth of our own nation. I'd say that Smith-ian "free market" economics do not describe human nature as much as they proscribe it. There is no great reason to use the GDP to measure the health and welfare of this country. It is only a particular kind of measurement. What do others think?
DC said that the government has no responsibility to be "efficient." Let's discuss what we mean by efficiency. How about we take an example: We have a single mom, 18 years old, whose minimum wage job does not provide enough to support herself and her daughter on, let alone health care for herself or her daughter. What is the responsibility of Christians to this situation on Judgment Day?
So many things to say about this topic (go figure). I'll try to be concise and articulate:
- First of all, the government-is-less-efficient assumption is wrong in many cases. A prime example of this is how much Medicare spends on its administrative/bureaucratic work (2%) compared to private health insurance companies (20-25%, at least a TEN-FOLD increase). Government is sometimes way more efficient. They just have to set it up right.
- We the denizens of individualistic, Western society have a pretty big delusion about the nature of giving to the needy. We place too much emphasis on the voluntary and "good-hearted" nature of self-motivated giving to the point that we ridiculously think that it actually affects what the receivers (the needy) benefit from it (I used to think this way). How egomaniacal is this thinking? Do we, in our right minds, seriously think that the poor and the destitute care so much as to if we're smiling while we give, maybe except when we are doing so in person? Does it matter if you're putting in the dollar bill in the Salvation Army collection tin out of gladness of heart or under duress of our own conscience? Whatever the state of our mind is while we give, the result is EXACTLY THE SAME; so really, why does and should this matter so much? Someone told me that ministry (and they did mean this as a general term, for Christians in the world rather than the clergy) should always be focused on the others, not the ministers themselves. It makes perfect sense to me, intuitively and even more so Biblically.
- In an ideal world, everybody should feel the want/need to give, and they would follow through by actually giving. In real world, many people do indeed feel the want/need to give, BUT WE DON'T. Seriously, we don't. So again, if we have a system that is totally preserving of our Holy Doctrine of Personal Choice (which has supplanted the One True God a long time ago in our society) but doesn't deliver any result, then what good is it? And speaking of how things should have Biblical basis, isn't this basically the entire book of James? We can't always rely on voluntary giving because it just doesn't actually do much, especially on a long-term basis. If compulsory giving (such as higher taxes) does come through in doing something that everybody pretty much agrees is good, then that's what should be done. Sometimes, even as Christians, we forget that we are fallen beings, capable of so much evil and neglect for the good if we are left to our own devices, without a daily guidance from God. Even though we are saved through grace, we still live in the world and are ever so susceptible to temptations of our old habits, thinking, and selves (as Apostle Paul articulated many times). We should never forget or underestimate this terrible reality, but march forward without the worries of old (which are mostly superfluous anyway and are directly against the command of Jesus). If we sacrifice, we do it because in whatever way God sees fit we are compensated, whether on earth or heaven, whether it is we who benefit or others. And as long as we're willing to make the sacrifice, what does it matter that we are doing it through voluntary giving or through paying taxes (or whatever other involuntary modes of giving there might be)?
- Finally, about the Biblical guidance. The entirety of the Scriptures is LITTERED with commandments and writings on bringing equality and justice. And it is also full of how it has not been done historically, as the ethnic/geographical Israel has failed to become the True Israel (one of faith, not genetics) that God wanted to make it. Jubilee and debt forgiveness were direct commands of God that were never obeyed. Does that give us the excuse to ignore these commands, just because they haven't been followed before? What Jesus Christ's death on the cross and his subsequent resurrection did was what was so painfully unsatisfied by the Israel of old, the fulfillment of the Law and the paradoxical wrath poured out upon the only one ever capable of obeying all of God's commands, thereby serving as our sacrificial lamb. And our response to the lifting of that enormous, inevitable wrath of God that we would have otherwise faced is NOT to disregard the commands but to make our pursuit to obey them freely, without having it overriden by our worldly concerns. If we believe in God as our Lord, by definition we trust that where he leads us, though we may not know where and how we might get there, is a place that is better than where we are now. So this calls us to be even MORE radical in our faith, to be even MORE countercultural in ALL aspects (not like the easy ones we love to point out, such as sexual sins and drug use), to step up and make the sacrifices we are called upon to make, even when our flesh beg us not to. That is the complete picture of faithful life, so DO as much as we don't.
- By the way, let it be recognized that there are NO passages in the Bible that condone the concept of personal choice, accumulation of wealth beyond our need, or keeping our present standard of living for years to come. It does, however, contain a lot of evidence to the contrary.
Well, I guess this is what happens when you have lots of free time and internet; you get sucked into discussions like these.
If you were at the xtianity and capitalism discussion that I also attended, you know I like quotes. You also know that I like Stanley Hauerwas.
Here's a quote [Speaking of the pastor's vocation, but equally applicable here]:
"Being a minister...is not a vocation merely to help people. We are called to help people 'in the name of Jesus'. And that's the rub. In fact, we are NOT called to help people. We are called to follow Jesus, in whose service we learn who we are and how we are to help and be helped. Jesus...robs us of our attempts to do something worthwhile for the world, something 'effective' that yields results as an end in itself."
Could it be that the problem with the debate between Left and Right lies in the fact that they are really not all that different? Both agree on the same basics, and that is the problem. We don't need one side of the coin; we need an entirely different currency. Both assume that it is our business to make the world turn out alright, and just disagree regarding the method - specifically how much to use government. What kind of church have we become if the tasks we should be doing (whether or not that is most 'effective') we instead look to the government to do? The debate shouldn't be about what can change the world most effectively. Jesus didn't call us to be effective. Jesus called us to be perfect. If Jesus cared about efficiency, he would have befriended Caesar, not let himself get crucified on the cross.
Let me know if this didn't make sense.
Having lots of free time and internet access sure does help; I imagine I can't do this so much once I start work, but anyway.
I both disagree and agree to what Stanley Hauerwas says and what Joel has eloquently stated (I was at the mentioned meeting of the minds earlier also). So here goes.
I do think that the effect itself matters. The Gospel would not have power or relevance in the world if it didn't lead to some fruit. Not just the book of James, but Jesus stated many times about how what ends up happening matters a great deal.
One of the prime example of such assertion of Christ is how he said the world would recognize us. He said that the world would know us by the fruits we bear in him. This implies that: (1) the effect is often different from that of the world (countercultural), and (2) anybody, even if they do not believe in God, would be able to recognize it. Thus, the effect isn't solely for doing good to others, but to proclaim the Good News to others (then again, aren't they basically the same?).
Jesus also spoke repeatedly about bearing fruit, and so do many epistles afterwards. One of the parables of Christ talks about two sons, one who says to his father that he will do as told but ends up not doing it, and another who defies him at first but then ends up doing as he is told. He made it clear that the latter son is more righteous because he ended up doing what he should. Intention matters far less than the actual effect.
However, here's the point I agree with Hauerwas. Our actions, while they should bear fruit, should NOT be DICTATED by how effective they are (i.e. effectiveness). Valuing the effect is not the same as valuing effectiveness, because the latter implicitly contains judgment of what is good or bad effect.
The problem with this, of course, is that we far, far more often judge the quality of the effect strictly from our human perspective than from God's perspective. Therefore, this leaves an opening for us to substitute God's value for our own, what pleases our flesh instead of the Spirit. And no matter how great of an intellectual or devotional person one might be, there is NO ONE who is immune to this temptation and eventual deviation from doing as God commands (if you disagree with this, then surely you disagree with the Gospel).
It is a profound pride and arrogance we have built up and have been reinforced by others around us that blinds us to believe that we can somehow avoid this tragic fate, that we can somehow overcome our own fallen humanity. Of course, we could claim that we have been made to overcome because we see Christ as our Lord, but if Christ is our Lord indeed, our Master, the One who is one with our all-knowing and all-powerful Heavenly Father, then why do we not simply do, JUST as he commands us?
A great amount of literature has been written, by self-proclaimed followers of Christ, with an intent that seems like they are trying to justify the Scriptures to fit our present-day lives and culture, to assuage our anxiety that we may have to radically shift our lifestyle and beliefs, to massage our own egocentric tendencies, to protect the identity and life of the world that our flesh is so fond of. This is so horribly the opposite of what the Scriptures are for, that we will have to justify our lives in the light of God's commandments to us.
So we get into this illusory mode, that the reason we are thinking so hard about this whole issue of helping the poor is that we want to find what is more effective. This, by and large, and as painful as this is to admit, is utter pretension. We make these issues way too sophisticated because by the time it's so murked up and processed, it wouldn't be same as the genuine article, the real thing, what God commands us to do. Surely we cannot keep it ALL so simple, but when we factor in many different aspects of what obeying God would look like in our present world, we in our sinful nature can't help but insert our own selfish considerations and desires, to preserve our own safety before all others, to protect what WE deem to be valuable instead of what God considers valuable, to seek our own little kingdom before the Kingdom of God. We are not seeking God's Kingdom and his righteousness first, and trusting that He will provide us what we need. We are securing everything we need and want, then asking God to take care of the things we need to make living sacrifices for.
I believe Hauerwas states that we shouldn't do things as Christians because they are effective, but simply because we are commanded to do, despite the fact that it SEEMS ineffective in our eyes and it may feel frustrating because it shows not impact (not immediately anyway). I agree with this statement, and especially that we cannot trust our town minds to figure out what is the best, but we must submit to God and obey, trusting that doing so is indeed the best thing to do in the world that is sinful and broken. Thus, while we shouldn't be dictated by effectiveness of our actions, we must recognize that effects do matter. The question is, are we doing things that produce the effects that glorifies God?
To me, this is a bit more black-and-white than maybe some others like to think. I don't see the difference in these opinions as how to find the more effective way to help the poor. I see them as either the right way (that obeys God's commands inspite of our own leanings, whether they be "instinctual" or intellectual), or the wrong way, to substitute our own judgment for God's.
I think that the "lefter" opinion of this issue is the correct approach in putting obedience into action in our present day society, based largely on what is written in the Bible. And by "the Bible," I mean the ENTIRE Bible, lest we form the One True God in our own image, the absolute height of human arrogance.
First, my thanks to j9 and the rest who have worked on this blog. I hope it will prove a fruitful forum for continuing some of our discussions. I would caution, however, that a blog is a different medium of communication than the discussions we've had. As such, it will have strengths, but also weaknesses. Let's not forget that our comments and/or posts may be around for some time. Also, let's remember that some things are indeed best discussed in person. Sometimes it is easy to be less restrained when the people with whom we are communicating are not physically present.
A great number of points have been raised. Since my time is rather finite, I'll only address a few.
Going back to Janine's original post:
--There is an attempt to characterize the "Christian" Right and "Christian" Left. These categories do correspond to reality to a certain extent, but I am hesitant to invoke them too much. My views, taken as a whole, would potentially make both a stereotypical group of 'Lefters and a stereotypical group of 'Righters equally mad...it just might take the 'Righters 5 minutes longer to realize they should be mad. Individuals are often not easily categorized, and if we place too much emphasis on categorizing them, we will spend much of our time arguing about how to define the categories rather than on discussing what we should believe and what we should do. I know of "'Righters" who see the free market as an opportunity for personal aggrandizement, but I also know of some who see the freedom it gives as an opportunity for them to exercise their beliefs and help the poor through their economic choices. I know of "'Lefters" who almost seem to elevate the state to the status of savior while arguing against historical Christian morality, but I also know of some that are doing great good regarding the environment. The Left-Right dichotomy may sometimes be necessary, but it is a fuzzy dichotomy with a great deal of baggage; remember the uniqueness of the individual.
--"We do disagree over how personal our Christian faith is intended to be." I would suggest that some of this may be related to the modern dichotomy between a public sphere (often taken to be "objective," and to some degree secular) and a private sphere (often "subjective," and influenced by personal beliefs and morality). The methods of 'Righters can sometimes tend toward the private sphere, while the methods of 'Lefters can tend toward the public sphere. When 'Righters emphasize marriage, morality (especially sexual), abortion, etc., this may be characterized as belonging to the private sphere. When 'Lefters emphasize social justice, this may be characterized as belonging to the public sphere. I would suggest that part of what is needed for us to move forward is a reconnection between "public" and "private." Perhaps we cannot expect to fully address social justice and institutional sin without a strong, historic Christian morality at the individual level, and vice versa. In that case, the danger will always lie in promoting one part at the expense of the other.
And now a few thoughts on the comments.
--jokayone has raised a good question about compulsory "giving" in the case where such giving has a good result. I see such compulsory giving as a possible option under some circumstances, but one which brings its own dangers. The problem now is that many people who should give of their time and money, don't. The problem with compulsory giving is that people may come to think that by paying their taxes, etc., they have fulfilled their responsibilities. Subconctracting one's responsibilities to the state, as it were, may be necessary in some cases, but we should approach it with caution. Over the long term, I suspect such subcontracting could destroy the "character" of a nation.
--That goes along with some of what jcuff said: "What kind of church have we become if the tasks we should be doing (whether or not that is most 'effective') we instead look to the government to do?"
Ultimately, regardless of what we think the government should do, we have a responsibility, both for our actions in regard to "personal" morality and for our actions in regard to the poor. Regardless of what the government should do, we can--as individuals, as communities, and as churches--begin to fulfill both responsibilities today. And that, perhaps more than anything else, is what we shall be judged for.
GP
While GP makes a good point about the potential danger in relying on the government to do our work in helping the poor, let me ask what we even think "government" is. We seem to think, whatever point in the sociopolitical spectrum we lie on, of government as some totally foreign being, as if it were a structure set up by extraterrestrial aliens. But in democracy, WE constitute much of the government. And although we are not a direct democracy but a representative one, we as civilians do possess the ability to decide on the general direction of our social policies. This is a given fact in politics, and hence it is replete with attempts to inform, shape, and manipulate the opinion of the public to get the votes.
But it seems that we have gotten so used to this sad reality that we have grown averse to participating in ths process at all. Instead of attempts to reform our government (which we can do), we give up on it. And then we complain about how inefficient it is, and then perpetuate such inadequacies of what has become a broken system by creating and subscribing to false ideological assumptions.
I li
I like the discussion about compulsory giving. Mainly because if others didn't make me do good things, I wouldn't do them. And I like the idea of a tax (I'm an economist, obviously not from Chicago).
However, why should the government be the only institution strong enough to tax? Why do we give it more allegiance than we do the church? It still seems to me the place for giving is the church. Which leads us to the obvious question: How about a church tax? Everyone who is a member of a church gets taxed on their income, by that church. This money is then sent to help the poor who are our neighbors and abroad.
In fact, we can follow Jesus' example by making this tax 100% of your monthly income (eg. luke 14;33). This completely avoids the Left-Right divide, because as Christians we wouldn't have ANY money to give the government after we're done following Jesus.
The church hasn't always been so weak that it couldn't tax its members - why not now?
I believe the Mormon and Jehovah's Witness churches do tax their members. Many churches do today, just informally.
Why set up a parallel ecclesiastical government if we already have one (albeit with non Christians sharing resources with us)? Why not use the public, secular utilities for a universal good? Why does the Church have to be the one to help the poor? Why can't Christians just work through government?
jcuff: You said, "Everyone who is a member of a church gets taxed on their income, by that church. This money is then sent to help the poor who are our neighbors and abroad."
Sounds exactly like a tithe? My church requires all members to give this certain portion(10%) of their income(i.e. a tax).
It has been said incorrectly: "By the way, let it be recognized that there are NO passages in the Bible that condone the concept of personal choice, accumulation of wealth..."
I think that in general personal choice shouldn't be placed above God's will, but I can think of one example that to me says that THERE ARE passages in the Bible that condone personal wealth. God told solomon, "I will give you what you have not asked for—both riches and honor—so that in your lifetime you will have no equal among kings. And if you walk in my ways and obey my statutes and commands as David your father did, I will give you a long life." In this case God gave Solomon a great standard of living and long life based upon his personal choices. Anyway, it is foolish to claim that God would NEVER have someone have a good standard of living or wealth.
I don't even know if I want to respond to the last comment, since it is pretty much the standard example of taking passages out of context to prove one point. There is a difference between having God bestow unto you wealth (for whatever reason He sees fit) as opposed to accumulating wealth beyond what you would otherwise normally need. The whole argument about how valuing personal choice so much is this type of thing exactly. This is almost saying, "God did it for Solomon (a KING of Israel, by the way), so why shouldn't I get the same?", as if we're back in the throes of childhood rationale. Let God be God, which means He will give to whomever he pleases and we do not question His wisdom. So if that means He does NOT bestow the same to us, we shouldn't complain either.
Post a Comment