Yesterday I wrote about Jefferson and the separation of church and state. Today I want to address the question of theocracy more directly. As I mentioned yesterday, there are many on the left who seem to believe that the religious right really wants to institute a theocracy in America. Nothing could be further from the truth! I’m sure there is an insignificant minority who really would like theocracy but being insignificant, they really don’t need to be dealt with in any significant way.
For the overwhelming majority of evangelicals and anyone on the religious right, what we want is what the First Amendment guarantees. We want to exercise our religious beliefs without government interference. But because freedom of religion has been reinterpreted to mean freedom from religion, that has become increasingly difficult to do.
I was a double major in college. My majors were political science and religion. Typically people looked at me like a grew two heads when I told them this. But I made a concerted effort to deal with the intersection of religion and politics in my studies. One thing that was taught in Constitutional Law class was that there is a fundamental tension between the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment. I submit that this is simply not the case.
The tension has been introduced by activist courts who have placed greater weight on the establishment clause than the free exercise clause. Additionally, the courts have expanded the the notion of establishment well beyond the original meaning of an official state religion or church. That was, in fact, the original intent. Americans greatly feared a state church, many of them having fled precisely that in coming to America. The First Amendment, in part, guarantees there will be no state church in the United States.
Today the courts regularly claim that, for example, a teacher in a public school, by merely exercising his or her free speech and free exercise rights, is engaged in establishing a state religion. The very idea is preposterous but it is claimed none the less. So in this interpretation, the free exercise clause and the free speech clause of the First Amendment are trumped by the establishment clause, thus the tension that is claimed.
Rightly understood the First Amendment has no tension. Indeed it is quite simple. You and I are free to believe whatever we chose about God and religion or to believe nothing at all. At the same time the government is prohibited from establishing a state church, from regulating how we practice our religious beliefs and generally from interfering in religion in any way.
Amazing that clear meaning has been distorted beyond recognition today. The result is this tension where government violates the free exercise clause and the free speech clause in the name of the establishment clause. Interpreted that way there is, indeed, much tension but it is an imposed tension that did not exist originally.
The Constitution guarantees every government employee, whether a teacher or an office worker, and every elected official, the right to practice their faith in what ever way they see fit. And that includes proclaiming their faith in the normal course of their duties. While they may represent the state in some sense, they clearly do not have the authority to establish a religion or church in the name of the government.
The anti-Christianity disciples are clearly biased against Christianity. While claiming to want nothing more than to preserver what the founders intended, they go to great lengths to distort that intent. They twist it to their own ends so that it bears little, if any, resemblance to the original intent. And I believe they do so knowingly simply because they are hostile to Christianity. They see Christianity as a threat to their own belief system. And where Christians are generally willing to bring their beliefs to the table in the arena of ideas, the other side doesn’t think their beliefs can prevail unless they suppress Christianity. Certainly no idea has much chance to prevail if it cannot be heard in the public square and that is really what they are after.
For more on this subject and the efforts to combat Blogs Against Theocracy, visit Dakota Voice.
From time to time you hear from someone or other who claims America is becoming a theocracy. Many believe the religious right controls the Republican Party and wants to institute theocracy in America. I have little patience for such rhetoric simply because it is demonstrably false.
Many of these same accusers love to tout "separation of church and state" and its hallowed place in the Constitution. Of course, the Constitution nowhere contains anything like separation of church and state but that is no deterrent to the disciples of the philosophy.
Jenn Sierra of Ft Hard Knox has written extensively about the subject of religion and the founding of America. She rightly points out that, for example, most of our founding fathers were very religious people who often referred to the providence of God in establishing this country.
There is a group called Blogs Against Theocracy that last year began a blogswarm dedicated to the separation of church and state. From their site:
The theme [of the blogswarm], like always, is the Separation of Church and State — we are for it. But the variations on the theme are many…This is not a bashing of religion – peeps can believe what they choose, however they choose — but it is a reminder that the Government should keep out of religion, and Religion should keep out of the government.
They claim to have no animus against religion but it instructive that they’ve again chosen Easter weekend for their blogswarm. That seems to me to be a clear attack against Christianity in particular. While I agree with their assertion that government should stay out of religion, their claim that religion should stay out of government is code for Christians staying out of government. Indeed, the disciples of the separation of church and state never challenge any religious perspective save Christianity. When schools want to promote Islam, for example, there is never a peep from these folks. It is only Christianity that is anathema to them.
Lets deal a little with this so called separation of church and state. They claim it’s in the Constitution. What they refer to is, of course, the First Amendment to the Constitution. The relevant clause says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That’s it. In that straightforward statement they find the separation of church and state.
The phrase "separation of church and state" comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association. The Danbury Baptists feared the establishment of a state church, something many had originally fled Europe to escape. They wrote to Mr. Jefferson expressing their concerns. Jefferson responded with the following letter.
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
This "wall of separation" Jefferson mentioned has been twisted beyond all recognition by today’s disciples of anti-Christianity. Indeed, what formerly was freedom of religion has become freedom from religion. And that means freedom from any exposure whatsoever. It matters little to these disciples that there is not a shred of evidence suggesting the founders intended such.
Notice the closing statement in Jefferson’s letter. He claims to be praying along with the Danbury Baptists "for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man." When such a statement is issued today by anyone in government it is universally condemned by the anti-Christian disciples. They seem content to reference Jefferson when they can twist him to their own ends but willfully neglect his full statement, likely because they condemn that portion of the statement.
Jefferson never argued in favor of the elimination of the influence of religion upon government. Neither did any of the other founders. Blogs Against Theocracy would have you believe otherwise. Don’t be fooled.
Over the next several days, this blog and others will be working to set the record straight as Blogs Against Theocracy works diligently to convince Americans that falsehoods are true. That is to be expected. I hope they won’t mind too much our calling them on it. What we are doing is not a blogburst. Each blog working in this effort will have its own original content rather than the same content being duplicated across blogs. So you will benefit from working your way through each blog and reading the posts. In this way you can become better educated about the religious beliefs of our founding fathers and what they intended in the Constitution.
For more information visit Dakota Voice, the organizing blog behind this effort.
Watching the caucus returns Thursday night one thing stood out. Virtually all the pundits credited Huckabee’s commanding victory to evangelicals. It was often noted that Huckabee didn’t have his own ground team in Iowa. Rather, he had the natural ground team of local churches. This, they said, made the difference in Iowa but they speculated that Huckabee wouldn’t be able to count on such an organization in other states. I want to challenge that view.
Yes, evangelicals and churches mobilized in Iowa and that certainly helped Huckabee. But the assumption that they mobilized because Huckabee is “one of them” is, I think, misleading. The fact is Huckabee came in a strong second in the Iowa Straw Poll several months ago, not because of churches and evangelicals, but because of his strong support of the FairTax. It just so happens that for the most part evangelicals are also strong supporters of the FairTax. but they are not the only strong supports of the FairTax.
It may well be that Huckabee won’t win in New Hampshire. But I think it quite likely that he will do well even if he doesn’t win. Moving on the South Carolina puts Huckabee back in the drivers seat again because there is an incredible FairTax organization in South Carolina and the vast majority of those FairTax supporters are also Huckabee supporters. I know this because I’m part of the South Carolina FairTax organization.
I was at the FairTax rally in Columbia, SC back in May. It was held across the street from the Koger Center where the Republican debate was taking place the same night. We had something like 9,000 people at that rally. We marched around the Koger Center, silencing all other groups while we marched. Indeed, small groups of supporters of the various candidates were in awe of the crowd we had. Many spoke to me, completely amazed that we had such support and so many people there.
The media virtually ignored that rally. Watching debate coverage that night it was striking to see video of numerous pockets of supporters for each candidate and no video whatsoever of the FairTax marchers. We were ignored.
We are still being ignored by the pundits on both sides and the media. With few exceptions the FairTax and its supporters have been given virtually no credit for Huckabee’s meteoric rise. But the reality is it is FairTax supporters that brought Huckabee that strong second place in the Iowa Straw Poll and it is FairTax supporter who have lifted Huckabee to the national stage. And so long as Huckabee continues to be the most articulate supporter of the FairTax, they will continue to lift him up.
I heard this verbalized yesterday on a radio talk show. I can’t remember which show it was but the guest was saying that both Thompson and Romney has looked at the FairTax and liked it but bowed to advisors who convinced them it was a losing issue. He claimed that both regretted listening to that advice. I don’t know if that is true or not. Having attended a couple of Thompson events it seems unlikely to me that Thompson ever even understood the FairTax, much less liked it. All I know is, the FairTax is a winning presidential issue and Huckabee has tapped into it.
To be sure there are lots of other very important issues and over the next few weeks Huckabee will be thoroughly scrutinized on all of them. He may or may not survival that scrutiny. But so far the myriad charges against him haven’t stuck and he’s continued to rise in popularity. Rush has said that Huckabee supporters aren’t interested in hearing anything negative or factual about Huckabee because they’ve made up their minds. Perhaps. But the same could be said (and I will say it) about all those “conservative” pundits who have been slamming Huckabee the last last few weeks. Some of them have slightly moderated their tone in the last few days. I suspect that’s because they are realizing that not only have they been unsuccessful in derailing Huckabee but they are going to have to deal with him going forward and that might be a little easier if they don’t have such an adversarial position but that’s pure speculation.
That bottom line is, the pundits and opponents of Mike Huckabee will continue to underestimate him so long as they don’t understand why he’s doing as well as he is. The FairTax is the biggest key. Yes, evangelicals support him and that helps. But that wouldn’t support him if there wasn’t a lot of common ground on key issues and one of those issues if the FairTax.
For months Mike Huckabee was ignored by the pundits. Then suddenly, Huckabee began to look like a viable candidate and the long knives came out. There has been much speculation about why this might be. Huckabee’s camp speculates that many had already picked their candidate and when Huckabee began to surge he was perceived as a threat. I lean toward that interpretation myself.
I’ve been a Huckabee supporter for some time now. I’ve heard most all the criticisms and I’ve heard Huckabee’s defense of those criticisms. Take ethics charges in Arkansas. Like attacks against Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay on the national level, Democrats always resort to spurious ethics charges when when they can’t defeat a Republican on the merits. I have no problem believing this is the case in Arkansas. In the case of the wedding registry issue, Huckabee’s explanation is completely credible and sensible. Opponents who stick to that charge look stupid, just like Giuliani’s constant charge that Romney hired illegals when he did no such thing. Giuliani looked stupid then and Huckabee opponents look stupid sticking with spurious and silly charges.
On the immigration question I take issue with Huckabee. I think he is wrong about the children of illegal immigrants but I respect his position because I have anguished over the question of what to do with kids who’ve been here nearly all their lives. They don’t know any other country and they are not responsible for the situation they are in, their parents are. I disagree with Huckabee’s approach because it rewards and encourages illegal immigration but I understand where he’s coming from and this one issue is not a deal breaker for me.
There is one charge, leveled by Ann Coulter and others, that Huckabee wants to use the government to implement Jesus’ plans for the poor, that gives me serious pause. If true that would be a real deal breaker for me. I have no patience for social gospel advocates and I won’t have patience for Huckabee if I find he’s a social gospel adherent. But so far I’ve seen no evidence that it is true. Indeed, Huckabee has said that he’s running for President, not pastor in chief. Yes, he will make decisions based on his worldview. That seems to scare the pants off some people. But the fact is, everyone running will make decisions based on their worldview, Christian or not.
I’ve been reading the criticism and looking for evidence but so far I’m not seeing it. I’ve been quiet for a while now because, honestly, I was afraid some of this stuff might be true. But so far all I see is accusations. In every case Huckabee has responded and responded well. The one time he seemed somewhat flummoxed was in a interview with Laura Ingraham. But the reality is Ingraham was extremely combative from the start and Huckabee has little chance to finish an answer. It was clear to anyone listening that Ingraham was gunning for Huckabee.
Coulter also got some mileage from Huckabee’s plan to bring music and the arts back to education. She carries on like that’s just the silliest idea ever introduced. But it seems to me that Huckabee is simply talking about a liberal arts education, something most of our founding fathers strongly supported. There is something of a resurgence of the idea among private schools today and it’s an idea I support. The idea is that you cannot have a well rounded education without covering arts, literature, music, foreign language, history, science and math. Modern thinkers want to focus solely on science and math and maybe a little language thrown in for good measure. I believe the liberal arts approach is superior and it was unbecoming of Coulter to treat it like it was silly. I’m not sure where she got her undergrad but I suspect it might have been a liberal arts school.
Now let me be clear. I’m a fan of Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter and many others who are taking pot shots at Huckabee. In virtually every case it seems clear to me that they have already made up their minds for someone else. Ingraham is a case in point. I’ve heard her interview Mitt Romney. She threw softball questions one after the other. Not once did she go after him on anything. Clearly Romney is her guy. Now that’s fine but she isn’t being real honest about that fact. She’s acted as if she’s unbiased regarding Republican candidates when she clearly is not. It’s human nature to see anyone who threatens your chosen candidate as the enemy but that alone doesn’t make the criticism valid. It requires evidence and there seems to be precious little of that.
So far the only one I’ve seen who truly seems unbiased is Rush Limbaugh. If he’s picked a candidate I am hard pressed to tell who it might be. The Huckabee campaign takes on El Rushbo at their peril.
I will continue to watch the situation carefully. If there is something that might change my mind about Huckabee I want to know about it. Yes, he’s my guy. But I am willing to switch if he turns out not to be the real deal. To date I’ve seen nothing to sway me. And lest you think I’m not as willing to change as I say I am, recall that I started out supporting Fred Thompson so I’ve already switched once. I’ll switch again if new information comes along that convinces me a I should.
For now I’m just disgusted with the constant “conservative” attacks on Huckabee. I think it’s a mistake and it’s damaging to the party.
It’s Thanksgiving once again and so it’s time to actually think about the things in our lives we are or should be thankful for. I suspect that far too many people see this day as just another day off work and don’t really take stock of the things they should be thankful for. I don’t want to be one of those people so here is my list of things I am thankful to God for.
My wife. She is my best friend, my partner in business and life. She is a great mom and and just an outstanding person.
My kids. Both my son and my daughter are wonderful people and I am proud to be their father.
My work. I’m one of those lucky people who gets to make a living doing something I really enjoy.
My parents. They celebrate their 50th anniversary this week! What an amazing accomplishment. They taught me what I needed.
My home. Too many people are dissatisfied with their home. I love where I live!
My church. Without a solid church family I don’t see how people cope. We have such a wonderful church.
My health. I’m a normal middle aged guy with the requisite aches and pains but overall I’m pretty healthy.
My friends. They say if you have one true friend in life you are lucky. I have several real friends that I can count on in a pinch.
My country. There is much to complain about in America today but it is still the greatest country on earth! I love this country.
My freedom. This obviously relates to the last item. Without this great country I would not have this freedom.
My provisions. God continues to graciously provide for my needs and the needs of my family.
But most of all I’m am thankful for the gift of eternal life given to me by my savior Jesus Christ. Without that none of the other things would matter because I’d lose it all when I die. But because of Jesus, all that I have now pales in comparison to what eternity with Him will be like.
No list could ever be comprehensive and this one is no exception. Suffice it to say that I am well aware of the things I do not deserve yet I have anyway.
Life is good. If you don’t think so you need to take a look at why. And if you don’t know Jesus, that is your biggest problem. If you want to know more just drop me an email.
The news is full of talk today about Pat Robertson’s endorsement of Rudy Giuliani. It is certainly a shocking event. How can a leader in the evangelical movement endorse a man who supports gay marriage, government funded abortion and sanctuary cities? It is completely mind boggling.
The only thing I can come up with is this visceral fear that only Giuliani can beat Hillary Clinton. Certainly many feel that way but I wholeheartedly disagree with them. In fact, I believe that ONLY a solid conservative can beat Hillary Clinton. But that is beside the point here.
The fact is, Robertson has sold his soul for this endorsement. Not that Pat Robertson is all that credible but what credibility he had is gone now. I’m sure there are some people who would follow the man straight into hell but I think most evangelicals will see this as a total compromise with the devil.
I’ve been critical of James Dobson for his public stand against anyone who isn’t a total social conservative but that criticism is not because I disagree with him. My criticism is that Dobson has made a habit recently of saying things publicly that were better said in the pulpit. In truth, I have a real problem with any candidate who is not a social conservative and I doubt that I could vote for one. The very real probability is that many evangelicals will stay home come election day if Giuliani is the Republican nominee. They simply will be unable to pull the lever for him and rather than vote for someone worse they just won’t vote at all.
As implied above, Pat Robertson hasn’t has much credibility except with his faithful following for some time. He has a habit of running off at the mouth and saying some pretty ridiculous things. But this really tops the charts. I cannot fathom how a follower of Christ, someone who holds the sanctity of life so dear and fights for the traditional family, can come out and publicly endorse a man who stands in opposition to these principles.
Truth be told, I’m not sure what I will do come election day if Rudy is the Republican nominee. But I know there is not chance that would work to put him in that position. That Robertson is working to put him in that position is just inexcusable.
Blogged with Flock
I has the privilege today of attending a luncheon sponsored by the South Carolina Republican Convention. The luncheon was held in Columbia and the keynote speaker was Fred Dalton Thompson. When the opportunity to go to this presented itself, there was no chance I was going to pass it up.
Thompson spoke for about 25 minutes and covered a lot of ground. In a speech of that length you can either cover one topic with some depth or you can skim the surface of a lot of topics. Since there was no overriding theme, Thompson chose the latter. What follows is my account of Thompson’s comments today.
Senator Thompson had quite a few quotable moments. The first was in his recounting of his visit with Former Prime Minister Thatcher and her relationship with Ronald Reagan. Referring to the accomplishments of the two Thompson said “strength doesn’t cause wars, strength prevents wars.” He then recounted how following the end of the cold war the US cut defense spending by more than 1/3, military development by 50% and allowed our intelligence operations to languish, particularly our human intelligence capabilities. He pointed out that through numerous attacks on our assets around the world we did little to nothing until 9/11 and the war in Iraq.
Thompson showed a real grasp of the situation we face in Islamic fascism. He said that our enemy sees this conflict as having already gone on for a hundred years and they are prepared to go another hundred if necessary. He said that people just don’t understand or appreciate that fact. He went on to say that in previous conflicts the country always pulled together but now partisan politics takes precedence. A big applause moment was when Thompson talked about the sons of two friends who are serving in Iraq and have re-upped. He said they had hope and optimism and he wasn’t going to give up hope so long as they held it. Thompson said we need leadership to bring us together, implying that he can provide that leadership.
In the subject of illegal immigration Thompson agreed that it was dividing our party but he expressed optimism that the party would get past it. He emphasized that the resolution had to come from consideration of what was best for the country, not what was best for either party. He said that thousands of illegal immigrants are not Mexicans and that is a grave risk to national security. Thompson said that we could not hope to protect our country until we secure our borders and he flatly said that the current immigration reform bill is not what is best for this country. He rightly pointed out that we got the same promises in 1986 that we are getting today and there is no reason to believe them now. He also pointed out that the US grants one million green cards per year now so claims that we are taking an anti-immigration stand are unfounded. In another quotable moment Thompson said “we welcome legal immigrants and this is home to all of us but we get to decide who comes to our home.” Thompson said the government can’t handle the backlog of four million legal immigrants waiting on processing now so how can they possibly handle 12-20 million more?
On the question of taxes Thompson said that low taxes benefit everyone but the tax and spend types want to divide up a static pie instead of increasing the size of the pie so everyone gets a larger piece, precisely Reagan’s position. He did not endorse the FairTax but he did say that we are bankrupting the country, the government and the economy and that waiting to fix the problem hurts everyone.
In a great moment for religious conservatives Thompson, referring to the Declaration of Independence, said that our rights come from God and not from government. He went on to say that our founding fathers knew what they were doing when they set up our federal form of government with separation of powers. The implication seemed to be that we’ve strayed far from that ideal now. While not expressly mentioning abortion or assisted suicide, Thompson emphasized the sanctity of human life.
Thompson said we need a new coalition of people coming together for the good of the country. The clear implication was that he could build that coalition. That is exactly what Ronald Reagan did. He built a coalition of people from both parties, not in government but in the electorate. Reagan won two landslide victories by convincing democrats to vote for him.
I’ve often said this country is floundering because no leader has been able to cast a vision that the people caught hold of. Bush seems to understand the threat from Islamic fascism but he has utterly failed to articulate that to the people in a way that grabs their attention. There have been a lot of comparisons between Reagan and Thompson, not the least being they are both actors. Some have pointed out that Thompson is not like Reagan in the sense that Reagan has a long history of conservative intellectual thought and writing. Thompson clearly does not have that.
There is, however, one comparison that really works and that is the ability to communicate. Reagan could cast a vision and so can Thompson. On all the issues I’ve heard him speak on Thompson has been on the right side. He certainly was today. He may not be the conservative intellectual Reagan was but he has that long missing ability to communicate in a way that is at once understandable and compelling. He has the ability to cast a vision. I believe that he can bring in a lot of Democrats and that could easily turn the tide, not just in the election but also in terms of moving this country forward as a people with a common vision for the future. Unless this country gets behind a strong leader who is willing to do what it takes, we are in for a very difficult and painful future. As Churchill said, “sometimes it isn’t enough to do your best, sometimes you have to do what is required.” We, as a country, must be willing to do what is required if we expect our future to look anything like our past. It is my belief that of all the Republican candidates, Fred Dalton Thompson is far and away the best man to cast the vision for this country.
As an ending note let me relate my brief exchange with Thompson today. There was a large crowd of people who wanted to meet Thompson and shake his hand and I was in the middle of it. When I finally got the chance I extended my hand and Thompson took it. He has a real man’s handshake. His large hand wrapped around mine with a firm grip the way a man is supposed to shake hands, not bone crushing but you know you’re shaking hands. I told him that a lot of people were really excited at the prospect of him running and I was one of them. He smiled and thanked me. Then I told him that all those people, including myself, were going to be really disappointed if he decided against running. He grinned real big and said, “so will I.”
————–
NOTE: I recorded Thompson’s speech on my cell phone. The audio isn’t the best in the world and there is considerable background noise but it you can hear what Thompson had to say. The format is a peculiar cell phone format and I can’t find a way to convert it to mp3. I’m thinking about uploading it anyway since Real Player will play it but I’d prefer to convert it to mp3 so everyone can use it. If you know a good way to convert it, please let me know. Alternatively, if you have the ability to convert it I’ll be happy to send it to you for conversion if you’ll send the converted file back. Just let me know.
UPDATE: Thanks to Orlando the file is now in mp3 format. To listen to it click here.
Regular readers of this blog are aware of the sometime struggle I’ve had trying to balance politics and my Christian outlook or worldview. I’ve at times tried to make this blog something it never was intended to be and the result was always that I came right back to pure politics.
My solution comes in the form of another blog entitled Universitas Veritas. If I got my Latin right it means universal truth or total truth and it is a blog about the Christian worldview. I think you’ll find it interesting.
The modern worldview denies the existence of truth or confines the idea of truth to what can be demonstrated empirically. But there is much in each of our lives that we accept as truth with absolute faith even though there is no empirical evidence for it. That is as much true for the atheist as it is for the Christian. Even the die hard naturalist scientist finds that he can’t live his personal live by the “truths” he espouses in the lab.
This new blog will explore worldviews. It will compare and contrast the Christian worldview with other worldviews and attempt to give some substance to how the Christian worldview can and should be lived out.
I hope you’ll check it out. It will be a journey and I have by no means figured out in advance where it will lead. That’s why I need you to come along. I’m open to all kinds of discussion on this topic and I hope you’ll contribute. Atheist or Christian, all are welcome. I don’t want to fight with anyone but I do want to examine and discuss some of the hard questions of life. Lets do it together.
I have to this point refrained from weighing in on the most recent attempt to discredit the resurrection of Jesus. For one, the Discovery Channel documentary wasn’t particularly interesting as challenges to the resurrection go. For another, I just don’t think I have much to add to what others have already said.
I still don’t have much to add but I want to point my few readers to another source that goes much farther than any other I’ve seen in discrediting the documentary. From Stand to Reason Blog (it’s in my Christian blogroll to the left) comes Missing Information in the Tomb. It is well worth reading and gives some very interesting information about the times in which Jesus lived.
This has been a difficult post to write. I’ve been working on it for several days. My biggest concern is that I not be misunderstood but I fear I cannot do justice to what I’m getting at. Some will read this post and just say “oh yeah!” Others will read it and conclude that I’m a horrible, judgmental idiot. But after days of working on it I just don’t see any way around that. So here it is.
__________________________
I mentioned in the comments of the Christian Dilemma post that I was going to write about the Social Gospel Movement. A movement that began in late 19th century, the social gospel teaches that Jesus can’t return until social justice and equality are achieved on earth through human effort. Various offshoots exist that may or may not relate to Jesus return but that still focus primarily on social justice, equity and other social problems.
Proponents of the Social Gospel and its variants tend to believe that people are poor because the rich have exploited them. Phrases such as “on the backs of working people” are common. The belief seems to be that any equitable system would ensure that everyone has pretty much the same thing. Indeed, most efforts appear to be geared more toward punishing those who have more rather than enriching those who have less. Little emphasis or thought seems to be given to exactly how the poor became poor in the first place.
I need to start off saying I don’t believe that we can achieve much of anything of lasting importance on our own. The notion that mankind can achieve some sort of utopia with our own effort is contrary to scripture and contrary to human nature and all of human history. To date, every Utopian thinker has been demonstrated to be wrong.
Lest anyone think I am just biased against anyone who happens to be classified as poor, let me say I understand that there are those who fall into poverty through little or no fault of their own. A woman whose husband leaves her with no means of support or whose husband dies are possible examples. Life for someone like that can be very difficult. Still, people in such situations have options. In the short term those options may not be very appealing but they still live in a society with class mobility. With the proper determination they have the power to change their circumstances. They also need and deserve help from those around them and as Christians we have an absolute obligation to provide help.
On the other hand, it is my heartfelt belief that most of the poor in this country are poor by choice. That is not to say they woke up one day and thought, “hmm, I think I want to be poor.” Rather, they simply refuse to do anything to raise themselves up. Manual labor is “beneath” them and there are plenty of jobs their “dignity” won’t let them do. How their “dignity” lets them take handouts rather than earn an honest living is beyond me.
Scripture has much to say about poverty. Following are but a few passages.
Prov 14:21
Whoever despises his neighbor is a sinner,
but blessed is he who is generous to the poor.Prov 14:31
Whoever oppresses a poor man insults his Maker,
but he who is generous to the needy honors him.Prov 19:17
Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the LORD,
and he will repay him for his deed.Prov 20:13
Love not sleep, lest you come to poverty;
open your eyes, and you will have plenty of bread.Prov 21:13
Whoever closes his ear to the cry of the poor
will himself call out and not be answered.Prov 23:21
for the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty,
and slumber will clothe them with rags.Prov 28:19
Whoever works his land will have plenty of bread,
but he who follows worthless pursuits will have plenty of poverty.Ezek 16:49-50
49 Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.Matt 25:37-40
37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’Luke 3:11
11 And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.”Acts 20:35
In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”James 1:27
Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.James 2:15-16
15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?1 John 3:17-18
17 But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? 18 Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.
From these and other passages it is inescapable that we, as Christians, have a duty to help the poor. I have never argued otherwise. But many of these passages also indicate that some poor are responsible for their own plight.
I argue that as Christians we have a duty to ensure that what “help” we provide, as far as we can determine, is actual help. In other words, I believe we have a duty to make sure we aren’t actually making matters worse.
It would be simple if all we had to do was give some cash to whatever poor person crossed our path. We could do that without giving much thought to the matter. Knowing nothing about their situation we may be helping them to continue the behavior that got them into poverty in the first place, whether alcoholism, drug abuse, gambling addiction, etc.
The point I’m making is that we cannot escape our responsibility to be “our brother’s keeper” by simply throwing money at them. At root, their problems are not financial, they are spiritual. Money isn’t the solution to our national problems and it’s not the solution to an individual’s problems either.
You may suspect, based on everything I’ve said so far, that I believe I have it all worked out. Nothing could be further from the truth. I’m struggling with this issue. I just believe that ignoring the poor or throwing money at them are equally unproductive approaches. Somehow we have to engage the poor on an individual basis and offer help that really helps. And I’m convinced that sometimes that will involve things that the individual may not appreciate at the time.
For example, I’ve run across a panhandler asking for money for food. When I offered to buy him a meal, he declined. He didn’t want the meal, he wanted the money. I wasn’t willing to just hand him money but I was more than willing to feed him. He wasn’t too happy with me but he did see that I cared enough to take him somewhere and buy him a meal. I don’t know if that ultimately made any difference or not.
I’m reminded of the commercials that say “friends don’t let friends drink and drive.” Have you ever tried to take the keys away from a drunk friend? If you have you know that often they are not appreciative in the least. They may become belligerent and combative. They may scream and yell at you. If you are more concerned about them being mad at you than you are about their safety, you may give in and let them drive. If you do that, whose best interest are you looking out for? True love requires that we think about what’s best for our brother, not how it makes us feel.
The same reasoning, I would argue, applies to everyone, poor people included, who is doing things to make their own situation worse, not better. In the end you may not be able to help them. That’s the rub. In the end, people have to be willing to help themselves before they can receive help. Just like forcing a drunk into rehab isn’t likely to get them sober, attempts to help people who will not accept any responsibility for their situation are unlikely to be truly helpful. They may make us fell better about ourselves but who is being helped then?
So I still don’t arrive at ready solutions. The panhandler on the street is still panhandling and my offer of a meal didn’t change that. I may see him again and if he approaches me I will offer again to feed him. Who knows, maybe he’ll take me up on it next time and I’ll get a chance to sit down with him over that meal and get to know him. Perhaps then I’ll be in a better position to give some real help.
