http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1532 A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog Thu, 04 Dec 2008 07:17:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1532#comment-1072 Funky Dung Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archives/1532#comment-1072 <i>Communal property is lovely, but the<br />Apostles did not insist that Rome take everyone's belongings and redistribute them, the Apostles and their flock did it themselves.</i><br /><br />I would argue that that was more an artifact of the hostile pagan Roman government than a theological statement. 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.]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1532#comment-1073 steve Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archives/1532#comment-1073 <i>I don't want my tax money for the parents to put a down payment on Grand Cherokee or new stereo system.</i><br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?")<br /><br />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?<br /><br />Cheers! 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!]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1532#comment-1074 Jerry Nora Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archives/1532#comment-1074 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. http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1532#comment-1075 Jerry Nora Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archives/1532#comment-1075 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. http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1532#comment-1076 Jerry Nora Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archives/1532#comment-1076 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. <br /><br />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). <br /><br />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.
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.]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1532#comment-1077 steve Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archives/1532#comment-1077 Emily says,<br /><br /><i>America has a great deal of nominal Christianity.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <i>only</i> 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)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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
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]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1532#comment-1078 Jerry Nora Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archives/1532#comment-1078 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.<br /><br />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).
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).]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1532#comment-1079 Jerry Nora Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archives/1532#comment-1079 Here's that Post article I mentioned:<br />http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26469-2004Nov4.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26469-2004Nov4.html]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1532#comment-1080 Jerry Nora Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archives/1532#comment-1080 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.<br /><br />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.
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.]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1532#comment-1081 EmilyE Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archives/1532#comment-1081 I don't think consumerism behooves Christians... I just posted about this yesterday on my blog, actually.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.
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.]]>