I started a few posts ago talking about politics. I had a couple about abortion, and I enjoy the dialog, but I think that one could go forever. I want to continue my thoughts about politics by discussing economics here. I want to reiterate, again, that these are only my opinions, and sometimes I am just throwing things out there to mull over.
This is, by far, the most obnoxious topic about politics to me. Economics. This is also, I think, one of the fuzziest and grayest of all political topics for a Christian. I think maybe that is why this gets me really riled up. Here is the typical thing said by many Christians about economics, and about Obama specifically "I just have a hard time voting for a socialist." Or, "I just don't think we should play Robin Hood with people's money." Or, "It is the church's job to help the poor, not government's job."
So, a few things about all of this. I think I will start with the accusation that Obama is a socialist. A socialist wouldn't advocate for more small business. A socialist would advocate for the government to create businesses and then employ people. A socialist would try to have the government control everything that has to do with money in our country, and Obama clearly does not. I think the problem is that this is, again a gross oversimplification in order to create fear in the American people. It would be the same as saying that Republicans believe in a complete free market. That is just simply not true either. The fact is that socialism does not work, and a complete free market does not work, for essentially the same reasons. People are corrupt. The only thing that corrupts people more than money is power. Money truly causes people to do crazy and awful things. If we were socialists, no one would have any incentive to work hard, or really to work at all, let someone else do it. If we were complete free market, large businesses would abuse and oppress their workers to an extent that would make sweatshops look tame.
So, neither works if they are pure, what about other considerations? I think to think that capitalism and Christianity go hand in hand is completely foolish. If one system is inherently more "Christian" than the other, it is certainly socialism. Some people have been blessed with much, and the clear biblical message for those that are blessed is that they are to share. They are to help the poor and the widow and the orphan. Not by "trickle down" economics, but by feeding them, clothing them, and giving them something to drink. These are not optional, they are compulsory if we follow Christ.
However, one would reply that people are called to do that of their own free will, government is not supposed to make us do that. Well, yes and no. The fact is that Jesus is not telling the government what to do when he orders his followers to care for the less fortunate. But, that is primarily because his followers would have had zero impact on what the government actually did. They lived in a province of Rome. Rome was not democratic and Rome did not give a crap what Jesus said. Rome cared about Rome. Christians were called to care about widows and orphans. However, the Old Testament is pretty clear that EVERYONE was called to give of their money to the poor. The Torah (Gen-Deut) was the law of the land. It made alms compulsory. So, we can't force our government to take care of the poor, but we can sure vote for it.
The last thing that I think stands in the way is simple selfishness. People do not want to be told what to do with "their" money. Which is understandable. But I think this is a flawed thought for a Christian as well. The Bible teaches clearly that anything we have, we have been given. No one has truly earned everything they have and everything they are. Some have done pretty well, but each has been helped in some way. In addition, the Bible teaches that the earth is the Lord's and everything in it. Including our money. The Bible does not advocate rugged individualism, and rugged individualism is a foolish, stupid way to try to live anyway.
So what do I think we should do? I think we should vote for those who want to help the poor with health care and welfare. I think we as the church should help them too. It may be that they messed up and so they are in the position they are in, or it may be that they caught a bad break. I don't see why it should matter to us, we are just called to help. I think if we are being honest, capitalism, survival of the fittest, is not the way we are called to be. As a side note, in the Old Testament prophets, failing to help the poor and the widow is the same as murder. We wouldn't advocate that our government murder would we? So, while I said this issue is not black and white, I think it may be pretty clear after all. We are called to help the poor and the widow, no matter what. We are called to advocate for them in our votes, and in our lifestyles. We shouldn't buy clothes from sweatshops and we shouldn't continue to think that oppresive politics are ok, because the wealth will "trickle down." Now, the way the orphan and widow are helped the best is clearly debatable. But help we must, and we must not separate our politcal leanings from our relationship with Christ.
10.26.2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hey Chris,
Well first of all, I know that you are looking forward to the big game in two weeks between OU and Texas Tech. I am sure it is going to be great. Both teams seem to be firing on all cylinders.
I heard about your blog from a couple of people in my church and I decided to go check it out. I appreciate that you are throwing ideas out there, so I wanted to comment on a few of them.
I read your blog on economics and I did find it interesting. I am going to avoid the issue of Obama and if he is a socialist or not. I will simply say that what is being proposed is socialistic. When one begins to state that we should redistribute wealth – taking from the rich and giving to the poor that is certainly one characteristic of socialism. You defined socialism as the government owning businesses and then employing people, but another aspect of socialism is an economic, social and political doctrine which expresses the struggle for the equal distribution of wealth. In socialist countries this may be achieved by the government owning the business and owning the property and owning etc . . . This cannot happen overnight in America, so one way to move our country in the socialistic direction is to tax to such a degree that even though individuals own the property and/or business, they pay such a great amount as to give what they have worked hard for away to others and equality of wealth is established. If they cannot afford the taxes and the mortgages then they declare bankruptcy. The bank then owns the assets. Right now, the government just bought (now owns) many mortgages and we have seen a nationalization of our banking system. Follow the logic and it sounds a little like socialism.
But let’s move on. You stated that if one system is inherently more “Christian” than the other, it is certainly socialism. Your foundation for that statement is based upon the FACT that the Bible does tell us to care for those who have less or, to sum it up, are less fortunate. But let’s look at a couple of other things within our recent election and scripture.
I would certainly have more tolerance for a man who wants to tax more to help those with less, if he himself helped those with less. It is common knowledge; you can find it on the internet that Obama, between the years of 2000 and 2006, gave very little to charity. One year, he only gave .4% (yes, that is a decimal point) and his biggest year he only gave 6.1%. I am not going to chase rabbits about his extended family living in poverty, but just the idea that a person who practices one thing and then preaches another doesn’t sit well with me. I am sure as a pastor; you understand this cannot be your life. To put that into perspective, I made $24,000 in 1992 and I gave $2,400 to my church. In 2000, Obama made $240,505 and he gave $2,350 to charity (a total of 1%). By the way, Biden is even worse. The most in the past 10 years that he has ever given to charity was $995 in a year he made over $319,000 and his average for the past 10 years was $395 a year to charity.
Let’s look at scripture.
You stated “If we were socialists, no one would have any incentive to work hard, or really to work at all, let someone else do it.” Later you state that socialism is more “Christian.” Well, those two statements seem to contradict scripture. God created work in the Garden. Right at the beginning, God stated that it was all good, which included work. It was the frustration in work that happened when man fell. So God called work good, but then socialism which leads to not working is more Christian. Interesting. . .
There is absolutely nothing in scripture that supports socialism. You are making the assumption that because God said to help the poor, that God does not desire that there be poor and rich. That is not what Scripture says. Scripture states that the Lord makes poor and the Lord makes rich. Christianity is about a heart change. It is not about legislating morality. That has never worked. So what if I can force my neighbor to give more to help the poor. If my neighbor does not know Christ, my neighbor is still dead in his sin. Well, we might be able to eliminate poverty . . . what about that. Well, that also goes against scripture. Christ says that we will always have the poor.
You speak of the Bible stating that we must help the poor, but I also see the Bible speaking to self-responsibility as well. In scripture, there are certainly those who are handicapped or they may have some reason that they cannot work – that is not who we are talking about. We are not talking about the blind and the lame who are asking for alms. When the Jews gleaned the fields, they were to leave some of the grain behind for the poor, but the poor still had to get up, go out, and get their food. The poor had another option as well. If they were in debt they could sell themselves into slavery (Jews and Gentiles) in order to work the debt off. In both cases, the poor were not just handed food or money. Can you imagine the outcry if those who received welfare actually had to do something in order to receive it or they had to be working toward getting off welfare?
You stated that we ought to help the poor not by “trickle down” economics, but by feeding them, clothing them and giving them something to drink. How is the employer not doing that? The rich own the businesses; give jobs to the poor so that the poor can get food, clothing, shelter, and water. Oh, surely you do not mean that the rich should just give their money to the poor and nothing is required of the poor (again, I am not talking about those who have disabilities). I am all for helping those who are in tough times. People love to use the story of the Good Samaritan as an example of this. Here was a man who helped another, but it was not perpetual.
You are right that it was much different under Roman rule than how we live here in the US, but you and I cannot say WHY Jesus did NOT say something. That is total speculation. The poor, here in this capitalistic economy, live better than the poor anywhere else in the world. The poor have opportunities to move up in society unlike Biblical times and many places that exist right now. The problem is that the poor will never move up in riches through the government. That is something that they will HAVE to do on their own. The government can pay for education, childcare, food stamps, mortgage, etc . . . but if the individual does not work they will continue to remain poor. You have to remember that there is a difference between relative poverty and absolute poverty. Our government cannot protect people from relative poverty which is what most are wanting.
In America, there are more programs to help people than you and I could even begin to count. There are programs to help single mothers, and elderly widows. There are programs out there to help poor children and drug addicts. There are programs out there to help those with medical conditions and those without employment. The problem is not that we are a cold-hearted nation and we need to vote for people who want to help. We are already helping. Government will never be able to give people the life that they dream and as long as people put their faith in taking from others to support their dream. They will ALWAYS be disappointed.
Paul has some pretty specific things to say about working and eating in 2 Thessalonians 3. I am not sure how you resolve the whole welfare thing with that passage. Again, I am not talking about those who cannot work. I am talking about those who live off the Social Security of their parents and those who will not work because it is hard. It is an absolute lie that one political party is compassionate and the other cold. The press has sold that story for years and yet a study by a professor in Syracuse found just the opposite. Let me quote here: "In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others."
So when you say we should vote in a way to help the poor – should we also vote in a way that shows good stewardship? Are we not also called to be good stewards? Should we vote for people who practice what they preach – or simply vote for people who say the right thing and then force that upon others? Does God’s word teach compassion and charity or does it teach redistribution? Also, what is the consequence in America for those who do not want to work? Should they starve? How long should the government take care of them and be the safety net? I certainly think we should be careful about assigning Christianity to any governmental philosophy.
As my dad used to say, "I know that work is hard. That is why it is called work and not fun."
Lyle, I appreciate the response. I will write my next blog about that.
Post a Comment