Some of the comments made it apparent that some of my points were unclear. I've made some minor changes and a few additions in the hopes of making myself clear. - Funky]
I was wandering through the Book of Acts last night and a few things jumped out at me. I'll be posting about them over the next few days or weeks. For now, I'll limit myself to what appears to be an indictment of how most Christians live their lives, i.e. richly.
"And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved." - Acts 2:44-47
"Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common." - Acts 4:32
This certainly seems to advocate a communal lifestyle for Christians. Tying this into the Red vs. Blue craziness, I find it interesting that Red Christians get most of the moral teachings right but disregard the economic teachings, and the Blue Christians get the economic teachings while mostly ignoring the moral teachings. As a Purple Christian, I find this to be very frustrating.
I've heard more lame defenses of free market capitalism from Red Christians than I care to remember. I don't buy it. Tell me why redistribution of wealth is wrong. Tell me why market forces are reason enough to pay off-shore workers peanuts. Tell me why consumerism isn't unChristian. Tell me why there aren't more fiery sermons against commercial Christmas.
I'm not just talking about all the sales and products being pushed, but the very giving of "wants" as gifts. Why isn't more emphasis put of making charitable donations? volunteering time? giving heartfelt, homemade gifts? Being poor shouldn't be the only reason your kids don't get a new video game system. We all, young and old, have too many toys. How do they profit our souls? I'm trying very hard to make do with what I have and stop drooling over technological goodies I don't have.
Recently, I have found myself increasingly convicted by this. I humbly ask of my readers - shouldn't we all be? Please don't think I'm giving moral imperatives lower priority. I'm just refusing to ignore social justice. I refuse to believe government doesn't have a part to play in Christian charity. A lot of conservatives seem to disagree with me. Convince me.
On a related note, I'd like to point out the following:
WORD-FM (101.5) [Pittsburgh area] talk host Marty Minto will do several live broadcasts from area rescue missions next week with the goal of raising more than $30,000 for feeding the hungry and homeless on Thanksgiving. The programs will air from New Castle City Rescue Mission on Monday, Washington City Rescue Mission on Tuesday and Light of Life Rescue Mission on Wednesday.
WE NEED YOUR HELP NOW!
PLEASE CALL AND DONATE WHAT YOU CAN
1-866-496-7336
Funky Dung
Comments 27
I think many red Christians would agree with you on your points, but that they would argue that it is the Christian's role, not the state, to do such things. Communal property is lovely, but the Apostles did not insist that Rome take everyone's belongings and redistribute them, the Apostles and their flock did it themselves.
You ask why there aren't more sermons against commercialization of Christmas–how many have you listened to? What's your sampling besides the Oratory and the odd parish in Erie or Eastern PA? How do you know what a Pentecostal in Wisconsin or a Baptist in Alabama is saying?
+0
Posted 17 Nov 2004 at 8:46 pm ¶There was interesting article in the Post that focussed on some Evangelicals in Ohio. They were not doing well financially, but they still rallied behind Bush do to "moral values". I agree that earning a basic livelihood is a moral imperative, but these people decided issues like gay marriage, etc. trumped that. So I think issues like outsourcing and whatnot are not considered unimportant, but are overshadowed by other issues in the "red" states, which is why the red/blue division can be dangerous.
This is another argument for getting more moderate (even Democratic) pro-life Christians out there, so we are not stuck with these unpalatable dichotomies (this coming from a citizen who reluctantly voted for Bush).
+0
Posted 17 Nov 2004 at 8:59 pm ¶Here's that Post article I mentioned:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26469-2004Nov4.html
+0
Posted 17 Nov 2004 at 9:13 pm ¶Communal property is lovely, but the
Apostles did not insist that Rome take everyone's belongings and redistribute them, the Apostles and their flock did it themselves.
I would argue that that was more an artifact of the hostile pagan Roman government than a theological statement.
+0
Posted 17 Nov 2004 at 9:37 pm ¶If it was a product of a hostile government, are there cases where Christian governments instituted socialism and had it work? Moreover, do you want George Bush and Arlen Specter spending your charity money?!
For healthcare and education, public funding makes a lot sense. But if I were to make myself live a simpler life, I want my earnings to go to the Church, not to Harrisburg or D.C. Come on, Funky, you have a good libertarian streak, why this sudden desire for a strongly socialist government? Why not lead by personal example and draw people to follow Christ (who told the rich man in Matthew to sell all he had and to follow Christ; he did not tell the rich man to ask Herod to levy a new tax), rather than legislate a vow of poverty?
+0
Posted 17 Nov 2004 at 10:00 pm ¶Perhaps I have represented myself poorly. Abraham Lincoln said that the job of government is to do for the people that which they cannot do for themselves. To me, that includes enforcing ethical behavior on the part of corporations. For too many politicians, market forces take priority over compassion. It's a sort of captialistic utilitarianism. I expect better from Christian politicians.
+0
Posted 17 Nov 2004 at 10:27 pm ¶Fine, but that is still distinct (at least in principle) from trying to make people live an Apostolic life, per your citations of Scriptures. Jesus respected the rich man's decisions in Matthew: he did not force him to do anything, just "looked at him with love" and told him what he should do if he wanted to follow Christ as closely as possible.
For those of us frustrated with corporate abuses, please let me know what you think of the materials in my post just above this one! The timing was quite fortunate. Again, I think that many "red" Christians would agree with you on these basic principles, and good things would happen if Democrats would not make abortion their centerpiece platform (they brook debate in every other field, but on the national level, abortion is the thing).
+0
Posted 17 Nov 2004 at 10:38 pm ¶Jesus respected his decision?!?
"And behold, one came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?" And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments." He said to him, "Which?" And Jesus said, "You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself." The young man said to him, "All these I have observed; what do I still lack?"
Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions. And Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." - Matthew 19:16-24
That doesn't sound like respect for the man's decision to me.
+0
Posted 17 Nov 2004 at 11:13 pm ¶Respected as in He let the man go, not as in He encouraged it.
+0
Posted 17 Nov 2004 at 11:17 pm ¶And while yes, the government does what we cannot do ourselves, people can live simpler lives with Sen. Kerry, Pres. Bush or whomever you'd care to name telling them. Christianity's full of them. We cannot force Washington to do more charitable things, we can, however, with prayer and effort, reform our own lives. And what if the ideological balance of the country changes, Funky? Do you want corporate tax dollars pouring into sterilizing the poor in 3rd World Countries? As soon as a Dem gets elected president, the Mexico City Policy will be revoked again, just as surely as Bush reinstated it within a month of his inauguration. What about destroying embryos for research? Kerry's gung-ho about that, and made public promises. Even if he never becomes president, a Democrat, as things stand now, would almost certainly do likewise. Look at the messes that people have made with socialism: even apart from the real doozies like the People's Republic of China or the USSR, Sweden and Western Europe have intrusive governments and rampantly secular cultures. As my memory serves, Fr. Bryan could tell you about the deal with the devil that French Canadian Catholics made in securing public funding for parochial schools, and how that was a disaster.
+0
Posted 17 Nov 2004 at 11:23 pm ¶And again, I reiterate that I think that Christians should reexamine their lives and how their wealth controls them, not the other way around. I've discussed this with my wife, about how we are to manage our money and do right by God and His Church. I think, however, that government is not the central solution–far from it. It is part of it, for many important services, but Christians must remain Christocentric, and must remain rooted in their own relationship with Christ and their own service for Christ, His Church, and their fellow men, not trying to have a government act in their place to do good things on earth.
+0
Posted 17 Nov 2004 at 11:27 pm ¶As an aside, Bono of U2 (as Steve mentioned) helped get a lot of conservatives in Congress behind debt relief by appealing to the concept of a Jubilee year in the Old Testament (which the Catholic Church maintains as well, the year 2000 being the last Jubilee), where debts were forgiven and slaves freed.
So there's hope for Reds, and there is plenty of common ground, it's just using a clear common point of reference (like the Jubilee). A "red" politician would agree that we need to feed the hungry, etc. He may well contribute to charities generously (we can't say for certain about anyone unless we ransack his bank records, and charity should keep us from prejudging a social conservative politician on this).
However, while you and this hypothetical red politician agree on this end, as defined in Scripture, there is the issue about the means. Just because Bill X aims to end world hunger means that opposing Bill X means you want people to starve. You may oppose it because it's an expensive, unworkable plan that just may put food in the mouths of local warlords rather than the refugees you really want to help! And this is where Christians need to be careful with distributive justice on the national scale.
+0
Posted 17 Nov 2004 at 11:34 pm ¶I don't think consumerism behooves Christians… I just posted about this yesterday on my blog, actually.
I think American Christians have focused far too much on material goods than God. It's all about getting more. If we get a raise, we automatically think: "Oh, good, now I can go buy ______ for myself." We don't think, "Oh, good, now I can go give more money to the church for that building project/school/mission."
I think "Red Christians" may understand more than you think, though. There was a Post or NY Times article about the correspondence between charitable giving and voting patterns… The counties that gave the most (by percent of income) to charitable causes generally voted Republican. I'll try to find the link.
Christians who are Democrats think that it is the government's role to bring about justice. Echoing what Jerry said, those of us who lean more toward the Republicans believe that it is OUR job (the Church's job) to bring about justice. Personally, I think we're failing miserably at it.
I used to think that socialism was great. But then I realized that if I pay more taxes to cover universal health care, food for the hungry, etc., I would lose any say over how it is spent. I wouldn't be able to abstain from supporting abortion with my money, for example. The problem with socialism (Swedish or Canadian style, for instance) is that Christians would lose that influence over their money. I'd prefer to give my money to causes I believe will help further the kingdom of God — not causes that are immoral.
That being said, I think American Christians are far too materialistic, just like the rest of Americans. I for one am sick of it! Arrgh. I'm not going to buy a Christmas tree this year. I just don't feel like celebrating such a commercialized holiday.
+0
Posted 18 Nov 2004 at 12:28 am ¶[moving on to a more... (shall we say) family-friendly thread...]
I think Emily is very close to hitting the nail right on the head with:
Christians who are Democrats think that it is the government's role to bring about justice. Echoing what Jerry said, those of us who lean more toward the Republicans believe that it is OUR job (the Church's job) to bring about justice.
While these charactizations are rather crude, there is some truth to them. But the bottom line is that:
A) it is God's will for individuals (and individuals in Churches) to pursue justice; AND
B) it is God's will for governments (or the individuals that run them) to pursue justice
And what we (at least the Evangelicals) lack is a mainstream source of real political power, where none of God clearly wills is neglected. Falwell and his cronies are off trying to force the gov't to do "our" bidding on "moral" issues. The hard left Christians (and yes they are legion) are off trying to force the gov't to do "our" bidding on economic issues.
Christianity (and the thought that it inspires) is a single, comprehensive, radically life-altering package. It's not a religious buffet where we get to pick and choose the stuff that… just… self-actualizes us the best (injesusnameamen). It's a commitment to being the eyes and ears and hands and feet and heart of the Lord Jesus Christ in our various communities.
Peace!
+0
Posted 18 Nov 2004 at 4:05 am ¶I'd like to thank everyone for what's an enlightening thread so far. It's great conversations like these that fuel my belief that a blog without comments is only half a blog, if that.
Jerry, I'm not nearly so gung-hi socialist or communist as I may sound. I'm just trying to sort everything out and thinking aloud in the process.
Emily, don't punish the poor, humble Christmas tree. I don't think a beautiful evergreen, representing everlasting life, with strings of lights, representing the birth of the Light of the World, need be part of Consumermas.
+0
Posted 18 Nov 2004 at 4:16 am ¶Steve,
Yeah, I know I simplified it. But I think those are the basic arguments of many political liberals and conservatives, at their core.
I do agree with you. The Gospel is powerful, life-changing stuff — why should the Church not be powerful and life-changing? I think it's a mistake to try to work only within the government (as liberals are sometimes wont to do) or outside the government (as conservatives are sometimes wont to do). Nor should we pick and choose which of Christ's ideas we'd like to follow. You can't just say: "Respect for life? Like that one. Feed the hungry, well, I don't know about that."
America has a great deal of nominal Christianity. I've often wondered what it would look like if we would truly follow the teachings of Christ…
Emily
+0
Posted 18 Nov 2004 at 6:09 am ¶I'm for faith changing government, too, but as I outlined before, policy, especially policy meant to establish new services, can get very messy and may well produce unintended consequences, so while faith can change government, we should be careful with what we changed, and remember that many faith-based charitable organizations may be better suited to some tasks than Uncle Sam.
+0
Posted 18 Nov 2004 at 2:50 pm ¶Emily says,
America has a great deal of nominal Christianity.
Ya know, I'm fairly certain (can't dig up the links right how) that church attendance rates have never been higher in the history of this nation. Couple this with the fact that the only Churches that have grown over the past 30 years have been theologically orthodox (i.e., Catholics & Evangelicals). What should this mean? Christianity should be having a profound and positive impact on our culture. Alas, this seems to me to be quite far from the case.
If you measure Christian impact on culture by: preventing gays to "marry", by letting people (especially the best off) keep more of their $$ for themselves, by foolhardy attempts to export "Democracy", well then, okay, "we've" been having an impact.
But if you measure by a Biblical standard ("Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." Jas 1:27), then Christian Action (since 1980) has been a resounding and dismal failure.
Not only are we NOT "visiting" the fatherless & widows in their affliction, we are hardly keeping ourselves "unspotted from the world." Rather than impacting our surrounding culture for good, we (and I speak of the general "we") are instead allowing the culture of the world to totally remake Christianity. And I'm not here talking of mainline, old-line, liberal Protestantism–such denominations have been in decline for decades. I'm talking about us, the Orthodox (RCs, Evangelicals, Eastern Orthodox), the "keepers" of the True Faith.
The very thought that I should get to keep more of "my" money, is a temptation straight from Hell. We forget that every good & perfect gift comes from above. We soon forget that everything we have belongs to God. We too easily forget that the only reason God has given us control over the tiniest piece of wealth is to be a blessing to others ("but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth." Eph. 4:28)
Interestingly, the RCC (in spite of my few, yet well-advertised, disagreements with its dogma) is really the only long-term hope I see in combatting the decline of social effectiveness of orthodox Christianity. The Evangelical Church(es) are too mesmerized by the thought, goals, practices, and motives of the "World." This, coupled with a profound weakness of its intellectual life, virtually rule out any long-term ability to stave off corruption. On the other hand the gut-wrenching conservatism (resistance to change) of the RCC, which is one of its greatest liabilities, also turns out to be its greatest strength.
Long after the majority of Evangelical church(es) have (I fear) compromised on abortion, on gay clergy, on divorce, on entertainment-driven "worship," on doctrinal essentials, the RCC will still be there zagging while ev
+0
Posted 18 Nov 2004 at 3:00 pm ¶[here's the rest]
Long after the majority of Evangelical church(es) have (I fear) compromised on abortion, on gay clergy, on divorce, on entertainment-driven "worship," on doctrinal essentials, the RCC will still be there zagging while everyone else is zigging.
Random thots….
+0
Posted 18 Nov 2004 at 3:01 pm ¶Well, Funky, you threw down the gauntlet:
A lot of conservatives seem to disagree with me. Convince me.
and while it generated substantial, positive, and voluminous discussion, no one really seems to have picked it up. I think your readers must simply be too left-leaning. (Sigh) Though it would be nice to have a right-winger out of which to kick the Murgatroid once in a while, I guess one ought not complain too strenuously of civility and erudition. If you wanna real fight on your hands, I guess you'll have to head over to Christian Conservative of Evangelical Outpost and pose as a Christian who thinks gov't might be able to actually do some good–beyond merely banning "bad stuff". Just be sure to keep all appendages safely away from the cage!
See ya!
+0
Posted 20 Nov 2004 at 5:08 am ¶Though I am a bit surprised my soft glancing endorsement of the RCC didn't pique a response.
Cheers!
+0
Posted 20 Nov 2004 at 5:11 am ¶The endorsement did surprise me, but there were so many other issues flying here, I coudn't address them all.
+0
Posted 20 Nov 2004 at 5:56 am ¶If you want a fight with a redder Christian, check out http://thepublicsquare.blogspot.com/, which I believe is run by the Curt Jester.
(BTW, I am a "purple Christian" in a loose sense of the word, so I agree with the principle of much of what is said by y'all, but things always get interesting when someone actually proposes a practical(?) way of ensuring corporate justice etc. That's where bullet hits bone.)
+0
Posted 20 Nov 2004 at 5:26 pm ¶Okay… how 'bout this?
Wanna reduce the number of abortions? Here's my plan:
Let the Gov't offer complete pre-natal, delivery, post-partum care absolutely free to any woman who lacks insurance. Moreover, let the Gov't pay all co-pays, deductibles, etc. for said services for all those who DO have insurance.
Let the God't offer a $5000 "Happy Birthday" gift to all children born in this country whose household income is below… say… $50,000.
Total cost of program? I dunno but I GUARANTEE it is a HELL of a lot less than current military spending.
Estimated # of abortions prevented each year: 800,000.
I don't think a complete nationwide ban on non-theraputic abortion could accomplish as much.
Will the program be abused? Probably. Will it encourage women to "have babies to get money"? Probably. Will some women buy drugs, lotto tickets, or cigarettes with the money? Maybe. My question is: How bad do you wanna stop abortion? Would you be willing to pay 10% more federal taxes for such a program? How bad do you wanna stop abortion?
Thots?
+0
Posted 20 Nov 2004 at 8:34 pm ¶Steve, I like what you said besides the b-day gift. I don't want my tax money for the parents to put a down payment on Grand Cherokee or new stereo system. Healthcare would be great, and what you describe is preventative, basic medicine that would save us a lot in the long run, and has partial precedent via WIC (Women Infants Children) programs.
If you simply must give 5K to the kiddies, put it in a trust fund that may be accessed at 18 for college, or earlier if they want to do vo-tech training while still in high school
+0
Posted 20 Nov 2004 at 8:41 pm ¶I don't want my tax money for the parents to put a down payment on Grand Cherokee or new stereo system.
I don't want my tax money to do that either, but if it buys a birth (instead of an abortion), isn't it money well spent?
I'm thinking of it more in terms of covering child care or necessary expenses, and believe me $5000 is chicken feed over the first few years. Perhaps it could implemented as an expanded WIC-like program and spread out over the first 5 years of life or so. My wife & I qualified (and utilized) for WIC while I was in grad school and, as far as it went, it was a fine program. But the benefit amounted to maybe $20-$30/wk reduction in grocery expenses to us. I'm talking about something much more powerful… an incentive in some cases to choose life over abortion.
But the question is: are we, as a Christian people, dedicated enough to forego our own enrichment, pleasure, financial dreams, to give life to others. I mean, we're so rich in this country (even when we were on WIC), that our money seems worthless to us. But it CAN buy life; it CAN buy alleviation of suffering to someone somewhere. And this is what the conservative party line doesn't seem to get. We say, "O that's for the church to do, or that's for private citizens to do, but not for the gov't to do." But we really want to just spend that money on our lusts (Jas 4:3f). Where the hell (no pun intended) is the follow-thru? I'm in (and treasurer of) a conservative Evangelical church that spends less than 2% of its gross intake annually on alleviation of economic burdens. And I can lay solid odds that my modest proposal to fight abortion from the demand side would meet with suspicion of lunacy in my church. ("So, Steve, when did you become a Communist?")
I'm sure the RCC has a better track record and I give regularly to ecumenical and Catholic charities that DO put their $$ where their mouth is. But, hey, what if we could utilize the resources and power of the Federal Gov't to fight abortion (demand side) in a broad, national, uniform way? Wouldn't that be great? Wouldn't it be worth a half-dozen B-2 Stealth Bombers? Wouldn't it be worth a tax increase?
Cheers!
+0
Posted 21 Nov 2004 at 1:57 am ¶I believe the government can do many things to help, but the "we spend X on these things, so why not spend Y more on something" argument leaves me a trifle cold. I like what you propose, mind, but that spending philosophy makes me ill. Your point on the 5K is well-taken, though.
However, before we think federally, these plans would be worth trying out on a local level. Start small, then work up, human beings being much more likely to intuitively grasp the effects of smaller projects. Witness how far the megalomaniacal building projects of socialist countries took China and Russia. Also, given that states have significantly different demographic and economic issues, it may help to compare a couple systems.
+0
Posted 21 Nov 2004 at 5:26 am ¶Post a Comment