Thanks to Dave and Roy for your comments about Democrats and Republicans. Both of you had good things to say.
Yes, of course, I was describing both parties with a very broad brush, but in some ways that is necessary. Candidates do tend to vote along party lines.
And yes, Christian Republicans do make a big argument that the church is supposed to care for the poor, not the government. In fact, Focus on the Family's politics magazine, Citizen, makes exactly this point this month in a scathing (and somewhat illogical) article on Barak Obama. However, this argument fails on two points.
1) The Bible never makes this claim. The Bible only says that the church should care for the poor, not that the government should not. In fact, the biblical picture of the ideal (often Messianic) government (given in the OT) is one in which government makes sure that the poor are given justice and resources to have a dignified life. The article I mentioned from Citizen Magazine cites (with horrible biblical scholarship) the parable of the Good Samaritan as justification for the government not playing a significant role in alleviating poverty or human suffering. This parable was a definition of loving action, not a description of how society should engage poverty.
2) As Christians, we should support any and all moral means to help the poor - even through the government. The argument that the church should care for the poor falls flat in the face of the fact that the church is not caring for the poor. The church is (with wonderful exceptions) more concerned with evangelism and bigger, "better" churches and church buildings than with serious care for the poor which would involve sacrificial giving (something far beyond mere tithing) and sacrificial service (something far beyond a morning in Sunday School). The fact is that some crises are so large that the government (if it is to be faithful in the least to its power and potential for good) must get involved. Imagine what would happen without FEMA, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, disability payments, unemployment benefits, HUD, etc, etc, etc. The church should (and is increasingly) involved in relief in all of these areas, but the government should also be involved. Moreover, we as a society should empower the government (through our tax dollars and votes) to do what we as individuals and churches cannot - lift large groups out of poverty and into more dignified lives, provide universal health care, etc.
Also, some are concerned that the liberal left might lead us into socialism. Perhaps we need to go more in that direction. The Old Testament seems to offer a socio-economic system of capitalism tempered by socialistic remedies. (See for example, the permanent possession of land by family lines and the forgiveness of debt every 7 years at the time of jubilee.)
For more reading on these issues, I highly recommend Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger by Ron Snider and www.sojourners.com (where you can read regular posts under the heading: "God's Politics").
3 comments:
Josh
So why do you think the church has passed on the taking care of the poor. Could it be the fact its easier for them to cause of government involvement. In an earlier blog you talk of a church bubble. I feel this bubble is aided by the fact its way to easy for the churches to say hey it the governments duty thats why we pay taxes. The church knowing this and well the sad fact most don't want to deal with the poor you know outside that church bubble is the biggest reason government shouldn't be in welfare.
Josh,
Here is a link to some good resources in regards to the questions brought up by the Global Wealth issue. It has six articles that deal with topics from Christian Socialism to Fair Wage laws.
http://www.baylor.edu/christianethics/index.php?id=48287
1. Be careful when you start getting into the realm of 'But the Bible didn't say' There is a LOT that the bible didn't say. Not to say that the bible is the only source of truth, just the highest we have short of God. :-) When we get into the realm of implicit ethics that is the realm largely of Christ's Spirit, which is highly personal and can vary from person to person. Where I agree, and author John Yoder would as well, is that Christ likening His way to that of establishing a 'Kingdom' is political in nature. I don't think many would argue that the word Kingdom isn't political in it's very nature. Building a socially just society in the model of Christ may indeed be very political, another question entirely is if that is even possible given our overly strict separation of church and state in the U.S. courtesy of the democrats at the ACLU.
2. No doubts that Christian Consumerism is rampant in many churches. It makes me cringe, and I rebuke those Christian's that know the full of the gospel yet fall in to the trap to be coddled and served. However short of major disasters, the Christian population in the western nations could do far more than the government could ever achieve both on the personal, and evangelical levels. The only question is the ability of justice minded folks taking charge and driving this all the way from the grass-roots to the GS's and Bishops, etc. that set the policy and the tone for the lazy majority.
Good stuff Josh.
www.davidbrush.com
I'm all for the church doing more to help the poor - much, much, much more. However, I'm also for the government doing more to help the poor - much more.
Yes, I think that Christians have neglected our role to care for the poor because we see this as the government's job. I see this as a problem for Christians, not a problem for the government. Government has a responsibility to care for the poor whether or not Christians do. Christians have a responsibility to care for the poor whether or not the government does. We are a linked, holistic society. We all - at all levels of society and organization - have a responsibility to care for the poor.
Post a Comment