Get E-Mail Updates

God's Politics Blog

The Family Research Council, Wolves, and Shepherds' Clothing

by Chuck Gutenson 03-16-2010 | 4:00pm
Print
356 Comments | Login or Register to post comments

100316-frcIn a recent Family Research Council e-mail, in an article titled, "Rev. Wallis: Wolf in Shepard's [sic] Clothing?" Tony Perkins aligned himself with Fox News commentator Glenn Beck's recent attacks. Perkins said:

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

the term "social justice" has become a code-term used by the Religious Left to mean everything from socialized medicine to redistribution of income. Their argument goes like this: Since God wants Christians to show compassion to the poor, government should work to meet the needs of everyone. ...

Last week, talk show host Glenn Beck said on his program, "I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church website. If you find it, run as fast as you can." To which Jim Wallis, a leader of the Religious Left, responded that Beck "attacks the very heart of our Christian faith, and Christians should no longer watch his show." Wallis's comments indicate how deeply Beck's comments cut. He has been the Left's main proponent of merging the biblical idea of justice with the liberal agenda to transform America into a place where the government orchestrates all facets of the economy.

Now, let me see if I got this right. Within the broader Christian tradition, there are a range of reasonable positions that have been held on the relationship between private and public roles in caring for the least of these. As I have written about in detail before, there are plenty of biblical reasons to conclude that God intends governments to be involved in care for the least. That God ordains governmental institutions is crystal clear, that God's agenda elevates care for the least to one of the highest concerns is similarly clear. Seems odd to think, then, that God intends governments not be involved in care for the least.

Reasonable people have embraced this position, and reasonable people have held Tony's. Don't misunderstand me: at the end of the day, one of these positions is right and one is wrong, and I am confident that Tony's is wrong. However, does Tony really think that a disagreement on this point means that the other should be characterized as a "wolf in shepherd's clothing" -- complete with a cartoon of a drooling, fang-toothed caricature? Is that the best we can do? Has our culture-speak so deteriorated to the point that we must demonize those who disagree with us, rather than engaging their positions in some detail?

Now, having pushed back on the failure in civility, let me move more to the substance of the argument. First, Tony claims:

The Bible teaches that the state has a very limited role, a view reflected in the Constitution.

Sadly, Tony does not provide us with any "proof texts" here, and it does seem his position has become what Stan Hauerwas calls "American civil religion" -- a position that confuses being American with being Christian. I would rather hear Tony give me his theological argument. He goes on to observe:

the failed social programs of the past 40 years have shown, when Big Government usurps the role of churches, private charities, and voluntary associations, it creates dependence on programs that just don't work.

Interesting. Is Tony suggesting we do away with Social Security? Is that one of the "failed social programs" he has in mind? One only need look at poverty rates among the elderly before and after the inception of Social Security to draw a different conclusion. Medicare? Is that another failure he has in mind? Again, a simple look at access to health care for the elderly before and after its inception tells another story. And, of course, the idea that government "usurped the role of the churches" is historically absurd. Governments did not get involved because care for the least was going so well, but rather because it was not.

As I note, there are folks who read scripture as Tony does, and I'd love for him to tell us his theological arguments. But it really would be cool if we could have a debate about ideas that don't involve trying to score cheap rhetorical points by moving to name calling and personal attacks.

Chuck Gutenson is the chief operating officer for Sojourners.

356 Comments | Login or Register to post comments
Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

Related Stories

Resources

Like what you're reading? Get Sojourners E-Mail updates!

by: krbg

03-16-2010 @ 7:17pm

You know, I see those who read the American Vision website a lot make statements like "God organized ancient Israel under the Judges according to the principles of capitalism with an empahsis on property and freedom." But I have read Judges and studied Judges and I don't see that at all. Where are the citations from Judges where God proscribes principles of capitalism or protects private property? And since when is Judges an example of good governance? It is mostly examples of Israel failing miserably except when an occasional leader rises up to take them to war, and those leaders are often of mixed moral character (Samson, for instance!)

by: dpayton

03-18-2010 @ 2:15pm

You do know that the Salvation Army is one of those "evangelicals", right?

by: BlueDeacon

03-16-2010 @ 7:07pm

Chuck chooses to ignore the different way in which God treats criminal law and moral law. That moral law which God chose to elevate infractions to the level of criminality also has specific penalties and means of enforcement and redress.

In the case of civil law, the means of punishment was restitution. In the case of moral law it was death, provided there were two witnesses, plus the accuser had to participate in the execution. (Thus, "capital punishment" was rare.)

On the other hand, what is the process and penalty for breaking the Sabbath law of the Ten Commandments? None. What is the process and penalty for breaking Jubilee? There are none.

That's untrue -- in this case, the punishment was exile, which God did threaten and eventually carry out. From Deuteronomy 4:26: "I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you this day that you will quickly perish from the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess. You will not live there long but will certainly be destroyed." The Hebrews lived in the Promised Land for 420 years but went into exile for 70 -- exactly the number of "sabbath years" God was owed.

The elderly are wealthier because what small amount of free market is left in this country has lifted our standard of living dramatically so that we can save more for later years.

The elderly are also extremely effective lobbyists who vote consistently. Don't think that doesn't matter.

by: BlueDeacon

03-17-2010 @ 4:06am

And Sider took a ton of heat for that -- I belong to ESA and saw some of the critical comments in the weekly e-mail I get. Whatever, many conservatives still don't give him any respect.

by: Stein

03-18-2010 @ 1:36pm

Tony Perkins -- "the term "social justice" has become a code-term used by the Religious Left to mean everything from socialized medicine to redistribution of income. Their argument goes like this: Since God wants Christians to show compassion to the poor, government should work to meet the needs of everyone.

by: krbg

03-19-2010 @ 1:40pm

The poor still struggle, but they are much less miserable than the poor in other countries BECAUSE of medicaid, Section 8, and cash welfare. Those programs have problems and can be abused, but they are not utter failures. The poor in this country have a higher standard of living than those in countries without such safety nets. We do not have people dying of famine and most cities do not have a slums. We can thank Medicaid, Section 8, and cash welfare for that. I am not saying that our inner cities are a paradise, but it would be much worse without our social safety nets.

by: krbg

03-16-2010 @ 7:04pm

I assure you, I read the Bible carefully and often, and I see many instances of God judging nations by the way its people treat the oppressed and those in poverty, both individually and collectively as a nation. God does expect governments to take care of the least of these. You may split hairs as to rather that includes government sponsored social programs, but most enlightened, Christian societies have ultimately felt that it does. I am not saying that capitalism is wrong, but I am saying that along with capitalism most Christians feel there must be some government supported safety nets for those that suffer either temporary or entrenched difficulties in a "winner take all" economic system. It is not either/or. It is capitalism with a conscience that most who believe in the social gospel support.

by: BlueDeacon

03-17-2010 @ 4:04am

You should inform the American Economic Association they have been wrong for the past century.

Even if I did it probably wouldn't listen.

Most education that raises productivity takes place on the job, according to research by McKinsey & co. Besides, the state doesn't have to provide education; the private sector can do it better. And very little beyond basic reading and simple math are necessary for entry-level jobs in the US.

If you read the rest of my paragraph, I made clear that you have to know someone on the inside even to get those positions -- which is another problem entirely.

by: fundamentalist

03-18-2010 @ 1:34pm

krbg: "I do not thinks God has an "economy", because economics is a human construct."

God doesn't have an economy, but he stated "Thou shalt not steal" and he gave many laws about various types of property to reinforce his point. That applies to the government as well. The positive form of "Thou shalt not steal" is "Respect the property of others." In other words, God sanctified private property. To steal is an affront to God.

What is less clear is when the government is guilty of theft. But it is clear that just as individuals can steal, so can governments. The fact that the government is chosen by the majority makes no difference. The majority can pass laws that make the state commit theft as easily as any tyrant king. And that has happened in the US too many times. The most obvious examples are slavery (the theft of liberty), the Indian removal under Jackson, and the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent during WWII. Those were serious violations of God's laws approved by the majority of Americans. Do you think God hasn't judged this nation for the sins of the majority?

Here's a less known example. In the 1930's, Congress passed a law making it illegal for Americans to own gold and required everyone to sell what gold they had to the state for $35/oz. Those who didn't went to jail. That was pure, unadulterated theft by the state and approved by the majority.

The debates over whether or not the state should support the poor have gone on for a long time, but the general opinion, with exceptions, was that no, the state did not have that authority and doing so was theft, at least until socialism became popular in the late 1800's. After socialism became popular, no one cared what God wanted.

by: krbg

03-19-2010 @ 1:36pm

The reason we quit mentioning Jesus is because it quickly becomes a debate regarding economic policy (with some saying God forbids the government to be involved because any taxes not used for defense is stealing and others saying we should help others the most effective way possible and since people individually will never give enough to help all the poor, we need government to be involved through taxes) and thus to continue to appeal to Jesus corrupts His universal message into a political spat. In other words, since both sides claim Jesus agrees with them, one must turn to other arguments.

by: jason

03-16-2010 @ 7:02pm

'"Sadly, Tony does not provide us with any "proof texts" here..."

Why...so you can crucify him for it?'

No, if we call ourselves Christians then it follows that we should have these discussion based on the bible and Jesus. If there are no proof texts then maybe he is following culture and not scripture.

by: Simpletruths

03-17-2010 @ 3:45am

Now, now. Try to set your personal bias aside for a moment and read that quote the way I did...

What I read that quote as saying, is that Jim Wallis wants to "merge the biblical idea of justice" WITH the liberal agenda to transform America....."

In other words, Tony seems to be saying that Jim Wallis is a proponent of COMBINING two distinct things-biblical justice AND the liberal agenda-which of course would create something else altogether-and whatever that would be, it most likely would not be a totalitarian government.

Does that make sense?

by: fundamentalist

03-18-2010 @ 1:24pm

krbg: "Voluntarily? Tell that to Ananias and Sapphira! You crack me up."

Have you actually read that passage? What did Peter tell Ananias and Sapphira? He told them that the money was theirs to do with as they wished. They were under no compulsion to give. So why, he asked, did they lie to the Holy Spirit?

Show me where the Holy Spirit, Peter or the church required anyone to give anything. And read II Cor 9 where Paul takes up the offering for the church at Jerusalem. He specifically states that God does not want people to give out of a feeling of compulsion.

by: krbg

03-19-2010 @ 1:31pm

Another libertarian bemoaning the "good old days" when money was directly tied to gold, you know, before the rise of a strong middle class and an expanding economy. Of course, those "good old days" were called "The Gilded Age" where the US had a de facto royalty where a dozen or so families had most of the gold, all of the power, and owned entire towns like a modern feudal system because they owned all the businesses. You know, before anti-monopoly laws and all that. I know all about what Roosevelt did, and he was considered a traitor to his class and unless your last name was Astor, Carnegie, Rockefeller, etc you benefitted greatly from it.

by: fundamentalist

03-16-2010 @ 6:53pm

BlueDeacon:"it's really about changing fundamental structural issues so that the poor can make their own way."

And that would be capitalism. The only way for the poor to make their own way, without the state, is for them to earn higher wages. And what is the only prescription for higher wages known to the science of economics? That would be greater investment in productivity enhancing equipment.

by: scat

03-17-2010 @ 3:30am

I agree that all these battling Bible verses discussions just go round and round. Unlike ancient times, we have a giovernment in which we have a say as to what the government will do. We can vote, we can petition our representatives, we can argue politics with anyone else interested in doing so. It is an asset as well as a responsiblity. To do God's will in helping others, I can offer money, effort, time and any assset that may be useful, including voting for representatives that will pursue issues that will be helpful to the less-advantaged.

What is not an asset is an undereducated and unhealthy population. Too much of the discussion ignores the fact that we are all part of a society and a large segment of that society is unwell. We will only be better as a whole when we heal the those who are damaged.

For those who are so worried about the "redistribution" of their wealth, via taxes, I suggest you spend some time in a country where those in charge totally ignore the well-being of the population and the wealthy of the nation mindlessly enjoy thier wealth.

by: fundamentalist

03-18-2010 @ 1:21pm

Pastor Jeff: "Also, Jesus believed the government that put Him to death was ordained by God."

So did Jesus approve of everything Caesar did? Of Herod, did Jesus approve of his putting John the Baptist do death? God created the priesthood of Israel and the office of the High Priest, but Jesus disapproved of what the High Priest in his day did and claimed he had turned the temple into a den of thieves. You can't equate the institution with the people filling it. A murderous emperor doesn't delegitimize the insitution itself.

My point is that the fact that God ordained government does not give government a blank check to do whatever those in power (in our case the majority) decide they want to do. God set limits on what governments can do. No one in these posts is arguing that government is illegit. That is an anarchist position that I don't accept. All we're arguing is that the state has limits to what it can do. Socialists claim that because we are a Republic, the will of the majority is sacred and holy and can never be tampered with. The Bible disagrees. The majority can be just as evil and ungodly as any tyrant king. That's why the founders of this nation placed strict limits on what the state can do.

Until socialism became popular in the US, it was considered a violation of God's laws to use the state to take money from one group to give it to another. That principle was based on the Church Scholars ideas of what the limits of the state are.

by: fundamentalist

03-19-2010 @ 1:18pm

tin2man:"how do we love our neighbors as ourselves is the question."

Good point. And when someone asked Jesus who is our neighbor, he gave the parable of the Good Samaritan. But no one is arguing that we should not help others. We're all in agreement that the Bible assumes that those who love God will care about their neighbors. The debate is over how to help them, privately or through the state. Of course, some progressives like Chuck, always try to assert that if we don't insist on the state providing the help, then we hate the poor and want them to starve to death.

"Progressives" like to toss around the word justice without considering what God meant by it. In the Bible, the Greek word for justice is also translated as righteousness, which means being right with God, or doing what God would do. How do we know what God would do? We have to read the Bible, all of it, and interpret it with sound hermeneutics.

Concerning property, God said "Thou shalt not steal." He did not say that individuals cannot steal but it's OK for the government to steal whatever it wants, especially if the state will give what it steals to the poor. No individual has the right to steal from one neighbor and give what he stole to another neighbor and neither does the state. And God makes it clear throughout the Bible that he wants service to him and giving to the poor to be voluntary and therefore a sign of our love for him.

by: fundamentalist

03-16-2010 @ 6:51pm

krbg: "If those are the commands to a King, isnt that by extension a command to government to take care of the poor and needy?"

No. It's not. Read the passage again. What are the rights of the poor and needy? They are the same as the rights of everyone else: the right to life, liberty and property and nothing more.

We don't want to just give the poor only their rights. That would be a cold and cruel world. The poor need mercy and grace from us, and that is what God commands of his church, not the state. We are to give to the poor of our own resources, not take the resources of someone else and give it. There is no virtue in that.

At the same time, if you care about the poor you will want to organize society in a way that benefits the poor the most. And that organization of society would be capitalism. No amount of charity has ever lifted as many people out of poverty as capitalism has. God organized ancient Israel under the Judges according to the principles of capitalism with an emphasis on property and freedom. But rulers have always rebelled against God's plan. It wasn't implemented again until the advent of capitalism in the Dutch Republic of the 16th century.

by: RubyLou

03-17-2010 @ 3:14am

Last time I checked, Washington, Adams, Franklin and Jefferson were politicians, and rather liberal ones, for that matter. Co-opting them to serve the interests of the neoconservative/corporate agenda is...well...interesting, but no longer surprising among people who consider David Barton to be a legitimate historian.

by: RubyLou

03-16-2010 @ 6:47pm

FrontPage magazine? Wow. Surely you can find a more responsible periodical than that one to bolster your point. :-)

by: krbg

03-17-2010 @ 3:44pm

"The union movement came to the US with European immigrants steeped in socialism." And here are two of the bogey men of conservatives: immigrants and socialism, combined into one outrageous Glenn Beck-like comment.

by: fundamentalist

03-16-2010 @ 6:45pm

Chuck: "Now, it would be passing strange to think that God had created/ordained ruling authorities to serve his agenda, but then conclude that one of the most consistent themes of scripture (concern for those on the margins of our societies-the poor, the widow, the orphan, etc.) is excluded from the purview of those ruling authorities!"

Not strange at all. God did not say that the state should perform the roles of families and the church. God created different institutions for a reason: they have different roles. Chuck's interpretation of the role of government is similar to saying that because God owns everything, and I'm a child of God, then everything belongs to me as well.

Chuck: "If one looks at various sections of Deuteronomy and Leviticus, it is clear that God gives laws that are to be implemented in society that are aimed at tending to the poorest."

Chuck chooses to ignore the different way in which God treats criminal law and moral law. That moral law which God chose to elevate infractions to the level of criminality also has specific penalties and means of enforcement and redress. For example, a victim of theft could go to the authorities, have the thief arrested, put on trial, and if guilty punished severely. That is spelled out in the Mosaic Law. On the other hand, what is the process and penalty for breaking the Sabbath law of the Ten Commandments? None. What is the process and penalty for breaking Jubiliee? There are none. Covetousness is so serious that God included it in the Ten Commandments, but what is the process for brining justice to a victim of covetousness that isn't theft? There is none. Apparently, God viewed some of his commands in a different way than he did others. Some the state was to enforce and some it wasn't.

But hey, if Chuck will agree to limit the state to that which God prescribed in the Mosaic Law, before Israel chose a king, I'll gladly accept Jubilee and the other poor laws as laws with criminal penalties.

Chuck: "Just consider Ezekiel 16, where we are told that the sin of Sodom was that it failed to hear the cry of the needy.

by: John Mulholland

03-17-2010 @ 3:43pm

I never said anything about "moral self-governance in our constitutional republic." I never said, or implied that we are a "christian nation".

"And why aren't you in the midst of it instead of here with the corrupt lefties who are willing to talk with you and reason."

You have no idea how I do, or do not, spend my time. For that matter, you do not know who I minister to on a weekly basis.

by: Ngchen

03-16-2010 @ 6:27pm

There is a world of difference between speaking up for the poor and defending their rights (e.g. pushing for a good quality public defender service), versus supporting government welfare programs for them.

by: Palamas

03-16-2010 @ 6:21pm

Because Chuck would say that lots of those ways--particularly the ones that don't involve large government programs and massive state interference with the private economy--do not serve the end of "social justice," and therefore do not actually help the poor.

I will agree that Perkins portrayal of Jim Wallis is in bad taste and and a sin against charity.

by: letjusticerolldown

03-16-2010 @ 6:16pm

ameritianity: "Come on people. BECK was speaking of Political "Social Justice" and he was right on:"

Uh, this piece was about Perkins portrayal of Wallis.

by: letjusticerolldown

03-16-2010 @ 6:14pm

Palamas: "In fact, there are many ways that the government can help the poor"

I think you, Chuck, Wallis, Perkins and I all agree on that.

So why not simply affirm that?

All Chuck asks of Perkins is not to portray a Christian brother as a wolf in sheep's clothing because he might take a different strategy on how that looks.

by: krbg

03-16-2010 @ 6:14pm

And Daniel tells the King of Babylon (4:27) "Therefore O King, be pleased to accept my advice: Renounce your sins by doing what is right, and your wickedness by being kind to the oppressed. It may be that then your prosperity will continue."

by: letjusticerolldown

03-16-2010 @ 6:10pm

John Mulholland: "Which the author has done by implication in this article's title."

To me the article clearly affirms that Christians can legitimately hold different views on the issues and he only asks T Perkins to uphold this.

by: fundamentalist

03-17-2010 @ 5:00pm

krbg: "The earliest hospitals founded in western civilization before the middle ages were chraritable organizations of religious groups."

Why is it when we talk about the state doing something you give examples of private individuals doing it? The discussion was about the state redistributing wealth, not private charity by the church. Can you give examples of state redistribution of wealth and Christians advocating it before 1900?

I'll drop the argument that 19th century America was more Christian than today. The only argument for that was numbers and clearly you don't care about numbers.

by: krbg

03-16-2010 @ 6:09pm

Proverbs 31, 4-5, 8-9: "It is not for kings, O Lemuel - not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer, lest they drink and forget what the law decrees, and deprive all the oppressed of their rights. Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy."
If those are the commands to a King, isnt that by extension a command to government to take care of the poor and needy?

by: fundamentalist

03-17-2010 @ 4:56pm

March 16 was the birthday of the father of the US Constitution, James Madison, who was also a godly Christian. The Mises Institute commemorated the day with a posting of some of Madison's writings on the role of the state at http://mises.org/daily/4185. Here are some excerpts:

"The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate

by: prgrs_ev

03-21-2010 @ 9:15pm

Amen!

by: NMRod

03-18-2010 @ 1:07am

Perkins, Beck. Follow the money.

by: NMRod

03-18-2010 @ 1:06am

Amen, Deacon!

by: NMRod

03-18-2010 @ 1:05am

I guess, God "allows" government, sort of like how He allows divorce?

by: BlueDeacon

03-18-2010 @ 2:54pm

That would also contradict much of the evangelical church's fixation on legal abortion.

by: Simpletruths

03-17-2010 @ 4:22am

Rubylou-you seem to espouse two erroneous assumptions concerning Mr. Beck.

1-that he is a neoconservative or has a neoconservative/corporate agenda (or that it is appropriate to just toss out labels in a pejorative manner)
2-that Glenn Beck hates all politicians including the Founding Fathers

Neither is true.

I have no idea how you personally discern between a "legitimate" historian and one who is not-and I know nothing about David Barton-so I would appreciate you sharing whatever evidence you might have that people should not trust his work as correct.

by: NMRod

03-18-2010 @ 1:04am

Offshoot of James Dobson's political action wing and co-founded by the infamous Erik Prince of Blackwater, the private military and assassination (as was lately revealed) organization that was used for outsourcing by the military and CIA. Prince and his family have funded FRC and Focus on the Family to the tune of millions and Prince's mother is on the Focus board. Other large donors include Prince family members involved with the Amway group. It certainly is related to focussing on the issues important to one "family."

by: PASTOR JEFF

03-18-2010 @ 2:29pm

Exactly! This is why the term "social" is added to justice or gospel. That is why it is not redundant. It has as little to do with socialism as communion has to do with communism. I believe this conversation illustrates the loss in America of the ability to frame any argument in any other paradigm than economics and politics.

by: jonabark

03-17-2010 @ 5:43am

If Jesus words are enough for you, so be it. But moral self governance in our constitutional republic is not an exclusively Christian enterprise. It requires the informed participation of all citizens.

The idea that "Christian" nations have some stellar record or that "Christian Political Leaders" have shown a higher record of justice, wisdom, fairness, or peacemaking has very little historical evidence to support it and a great deal to contradict it.

Politics is the realm of compromise and real decisions. You talk as though there were some large popular Christian movement that was demonstrating the healing, sharing , and courage against corruption that Jesus showed. Well, where is it? And why aren't you in the midst of it instead of here with the corrupt lefties who are willing to talk with you and reason.

"Social justice" is not some loaded special language that implies some secret agenda. It is a simple potent and very Biblical idea. If there is injustice and mistreatment that is a widespread or consistent social problem, then some measure of social justice is needed. If some people are being taken advantage of by others, if some are being denied their legal rights or being subjected to abuse, then the abuse must be stopped, the rights insured. We all have an interest in social justice. If Glenn Beck were searched without a warrant, or denied medical care promised by his insurance policy he would fight for social justice.

by: PASTOR JEFF

03-18-2010 @ 2:14am

You don't suppose there is any FOF connection to the Coors fortune there , do you?

by: burningheretic

03-18-2010 @ 1:44am

What I have not seen mentioned (and I did not read it all) is that, unlike the Roman Empire, we (US) all have a say in what our government does. If you, as a Christian, do not want it taking care of the 'least of these', that is between you and God, who will separate the goats from the sheep on judgement day.
BTW, do not fall for the trap that the rich earned it. We (US) are all in this country together, and we all have obligations and legitimate claims on the common wealth. How far would anyone get only on their own? Without God?

by: mountainohana

03-16-2010 @ 11:31pm

Thank you, Blue Deacon for articulating a more complete definition of "social justice." I keep hearing it described solely as a desire for redistribution of wealth (which oddly enough, brings to my mind the Jubilee).

by: fundamentalist

03-18-2010 @ 4:14pm

BlueDeacon: "Ultimately, I see it as less a manifestation of the historic Christian faith as a desire to maintain cultural supremacy."

I see you haven't lost faith in your psychic powers to discern the thoughts and motives of the hearts of millions of people.

by: krbg

03-16-2010 @ 11:28pm

I said Christian societies, not Christian nations. In other words, in the history of western nations it is often a Christian affiliated movement that pushes for government support for the poor and down trodden. Of course, there are also Christian affiliated groups that work against such. So far, as MLK said, the arc of history has moved towards justice.
As far as when the US was its "most Christian", that is a matter of opinion. How do you define it? The most professing Christians? Highest church membership and attendance? Actions most consistent with a Christian ethic? For example, the period you point to as most Christian was also the period in which slavery was legal and widely practiced, only white male landowners were allowed to vote or have any sort of political or economic or social power, etc. Revisionist, over simplified history at its worst.

by: BlueDeacon

03-18-2010 @ 3:37pm

Something I just thought of: I don't think that we'd see this kind of controversy if there wasn't a motivation of fear -- that some people won't be able to use religion anymore as a battering ram to shame people into compliance. Ultimately, I see it as less a manifestation of the historic Christian faith as a desire to maintain cultural supremacy.

by: Jesusistheway

03-16-2010 @ 10:58pm

I'm not in the public limelight like Wallis is. He's put himself into that position. And I'm held accountable by Church brothers and sisters. Thanks for your concern, though...

by: Jesusistheway

03-16-2010 @ 10:56pm

Is that why Sider signed the Manhattan Declaration? Sider, who has admitted he's a registered Democrat, routinely crosses political lines to work with both liberal and conservative. I'd much rather have someone be truthful in who they are, than to spout pithy sayings like God is not a Republican...or a Democrat.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: Ngchen

03-16-2010 @ 5:37pm

Excellent points. Are you willing to challenge Tony Perkins to an honest debate?

Speaking of which, I'm curious as to what this Family Research Council is supposed to stand for. After all, economics are only indirectly related to families, right?

by: Ngchen

03-16-2010 @ 5:37pm

Excellent points. Are you willing to challenge Tony Perkins to an honest debate?

Speaking of which, I'm curious as to what this Family Research Council is supposed to stand for. After all, economics are only indirectly related to families, right?

by: John Mulholland

03-16-2010 @ 5:42pm

"there are plenty of biblical reasons to conclude that God intends governments to be involved in care for the least. That God ordains governmental institutions is crystal clear, that God's agenda elevates care for the least to one of the highest concerns is similarly clear."

When I read Deuteronomy 17 and 1 Samuel 8, I see God ALLOWING government, not ordaining it. In fact, He states that the desire of the Israelites to a king "like the other nations" is rejection of Him. Once this government (against God) is set up, God then sets down His expectations for the behavior of His people, which includes caring for "the least of these."

"Has our culture-speak so deteriorated to the point that we must demonize those who disagree with us, rather than engaging their positions in some detail?"

Which the author has done by implication in this article's title.

"Sadly, Tony does not provide us with any "proof texts" here..."

Why...so you can crucify him for it? I have observed complaint after complaint when people in the right appeal to "proof texts". But, if you really want one, Paul, in Romans 13 tells the believers in Rome who were under persecution by a secular government that they are to obey it, as they "wield the sword." Paul writes that, "He (government) is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer". This is a statement about war and authority, not food, healthcare, immigration policy or global climate change. Paul was operating under the assumption that Christians would address these issues as they lived out the Great Commission.

"And, of course, the idea that government "usurped the role of the churches" is historically absurd. Governments did not get involved because care for the least was going so well, but rather because it was not."

On this point, I agree whole-heartedly. Believers and the church corporately failed. But, the solution is not to get into bed with the political left and to use their language to rouse us as believers. Jesus' words should be enough.

by: John Mulholland

03-16-2010 @ 5:42pm

"there are plenty of biblical reasons to conclude that God intends governments to be involved in care for the least. That God ordains governmental institutions is crystal clear, that God's agenda elevates care for the least to one of the highest concerns is similarly clear."

When I read Deuteronomy 17 and 1 Samuel 8, I see God ALLOWING government, not ordaining it. In fact, He states that the desire of the Israelites to a king "like the other nations" is rejection of Him. Once this government (against God) is set up, God then sets down His expectations for the behavior of His people, which includes caring for "the least of these."

"Has our culture-speak so deteriorated to the point that we must demonize those who disagree with us, rather than engaging their positions in some detail?"

Which the author has done by implication in this article's title.

"Sadly, Tony does not provide us with any "proof texts" here..."

Why...so you can crucify him for it? I have observed complaint after complaint when people in the right appeal to "proof texts". But, if you really want one, Paul, in Romans 13 tells the believers in Rome who were under persecution by a secular government that they are to obey it, as they "wield the sword." Paul writes that, "He (government) is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer". This is a statement about war and authority, not food, healthcare, immigration policy or global climate change. Paul was operating under the assumption that Christians would address these issues as they lived out the Great Commission.

"And, of course, the idea that government "usurped the role of the churches" is historically absurd. Governments did not get involved because care for the least was going so well, but rather because it was not."

On this point, I agree whole-heartedly. Believers and the church corporately failed. But, the solution is not to get into bed with the political left and to use their language to rouse us as believers. Jesus' words should be enough.

by: Palamas

03-16-2010 @ 5:42pm

"That God ordains governmental institutions is crystal clear, that God's agenda elevates care for the least to one of the highest concerns is similarly clear. Seems odd to think, then, that God intends governments not be involved in care for the least."

Chuck, it would seem that neither logic nor biblical interpretation are your strong suit.

The latter first: the call by God to be involved in the care of the least among us is a call that goes out time and again--to the people of God. There is next to nothing in Scripture about the social responsibilities of pagan governments, which are condemned mostly because of their paganism, not because they don't treat the poor well. That condemnation is directed at Israel. You aren't claiming that the U.S. is the modern equivalent of ancient, theocratic Israel, are you?

As for logic, let's just say that this statement is a leap, in two ways. One is that there is no necessary connection between the institution of government by God and His stated priority for caring for the poor. It may well be that care for the poor by the Church, or by other private entities, would satisfy the Lord just as much as a government program.

Second, while you don't mention any specific government policy in this piece, Sojourners advocacy policy makes pretty clear that you think that stuff like the current Senate health care reform proposal (or something more statist) is God's preferred way of dealing with the poor. In fact, there are many ways that the government can help the poor, some of which are indirect (by reducing taxes that discouragement growth in employment, for instance). So even if there is a logical connection between the two statements quoted above, that doesn't mean that your preferred mechanism of direct state aid to the poor would be the divinely anointed way to achieve it.

by: Palamas

03-16-2010 @ 5:42pm

"That God ordains governmental institutions is crystal clear, that God's agenda elevates care for the least to one of the highest concerns is similarly clear. Seems odd to think, then, that God intends governments not be involved in care for the least."

Chuck, it would seem that neither logic nor biblical interpretation are your strong suit.

The latter first: the call by God to be involved in the care of the least among us is a call that goes out time and again--to the people of God. There is next to nothing in Scripture about the social responsibilities of pagan governments, which are condemned mostly because of their paganism, not because they don't treat the poor well. That condemnation is directed at Israel. You aren't claiming that the U.S. is the modern equivalent of ancient, theocratic Israel, are you?

As for logic, let's just say that this statement is a leap, in two ways. One is that there is no necessary connection between the institution of government by God and His stated priority for caring for the poor. It may well be that care for the poor by the Church, or by other private entities, would satisfy the Lord just as much as a government program.

Second, while you don't mention any specific government policy in this piece, Sojourners advocacy policy makes pretty clear that you think that stuff like the current Senate health care reform proposal (or something more statist) is God's preferred way of dealing with the poor. In fact, there are many ways that the government can help the poor, some of which are indirect (by reducing taxes that discouragement growth in employment, for instance). So even if there is a logical connection between the two statements quoted above, that doesn't mean that your preferred mechanism of direct state aid to the poor would be the divinely anointed way to achieve it.

by: ameritianity

03-16-2010 @ 6:01pm

Come on people. BECK was speaking of Political "Social Justice" and he was right on:

"Social Justice: Code for Communism
By Barry Loberfeld
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 27, 2004

The signature of modern leftist rhetoric is the deployment of terminology that simply cannot fail to command assent. As Orwell himself recognized, even slavery could be sold if labeled "freedom." In this vein, who could ever conscientiously oppose the pursuit of "social justice," -- i.e., a just society?

To understand "social justice," we must contrast it with the earlier view of justice against which it was conceived -- one that arose as a revolt against political absolutism. With a government (e.g., a monarchy) that is granted absolute power, it is impossible to speak of any injustice on its part. If it can do anything, it can't do anything "wrong." Justice as a political/legal term can begin only when limitations are placed upon the sovereign, i.e., when men define what is unjust for government to do. The historical realization traces from the Roman senate to Magna Carta to the U.S. Constitution to the 19th century. It was now a matter of "justice" that government not arrest citizens arbitrarily, sanction their bondage by others, persecute them for their religion or speech, seize their property, or prevent their travel.

This culmination of centuries of ideas and struggles became known as liberalism. And it was precisely in opposition to this liberalism -- not feudalism or theocracy or the ancien régime, much less 20th century fascism -- that Karl Marx formed and detailed the popular concept of "social justice," (which has become a kind of "new and improved" substitute for a storeful of other terms -- Marxism, socialism, collectivism -- that, in the wake of Communism's history and collapse, are now unsellable)."

VISIT: www.ameritianity.com

by: ameritianity

03-16-2010 @ 6:01pm

Come on people. BECK was speaking of Political "Social Justice" and he was right on:

"Social Justice: Code for Communism
By Barry Loberfeld
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 27, 2004

The signature of modern leftist rhetoric is the deployment of terminology that simply cannot fail to command assent. As Orwell himself recognized, even slavery could be sold if labeled "freedom." In this vein, who could ever conscientiously oppose the pursuit of "social justice," -- i.e., a just society?

To understand "social justice," we must contrast it with the earlier view of justice against which it was conceived -- one that arose as a revolt against political absolutism. With a government (e.g., a monarchy) that is granted absolute power, it is impossible to speak of any injustice on its part. If it can do anything, it can't do anything "wrong." Justice as a political/legal term can begin only when limitations are placed upon the sovereign, i.e., when men define what is unjust for government to do. The historical realization traces from the Roman senate to Magna Carta to the U.S. Constitution to the 19th century. It was now a matter of "justice" that government not arrest citizens arbitrarily, sanction their bondage by others, persecute them for their religion or speech, seize their property, or prevent their travel.

This culmination of centuries of ideas and struggles became known as liberalism. And it was precisely in opposition to this liberalism -- not feudalism or theocracy or the ancien régime, much less 20th century fascism -- that Karl Marx formed and detailed the popular concept of "social justice," (which has become a kind of "new and improved" substitute for a storeful of other terms -- Marxism, socialism, collectivism -- that, in the wake of Communism's history and collapse, are now unsellable)."

VISIT: www.ameritianity.com

by: BlueDeacon

03-16-2010 @ 6:07pm

What Mr. Perkins and most "evangelicals" ignore is that the "social gospelers," not they, were the ones doing the works of mercy -- building hospitals etc. -- during the last century (even the Salvation Army was denounced when it was founded). I see today's conservatives as what Cal Thomas called "spiritual shoplifters," "taking things without paying the price" -- wanting the credit for things they had nothing to do with or even opposed.

Besides, "social justice" isn't so much about a replacement for charity; it's really about changing fundamental structural issues so that the poor can make their own way. And that is surprisingly threatening to a lot of people because it means they lose power and authority in the greater society. (That is why people had to die during the civil-rights movement.)

by: BlueDeacon

03-16-2010 @ 6:07pm

What Mr. Perkins and most "evangelicals" ignore is that the "social gospelers," not they, were the ones doing the works of mercy -- building hospitals etc. -- during the last century (even the Salvation Army was denounced when it was founded). I see today's conservatives as what Cal Thomas called "spiritual shoplifters," "taking things without paying the price" -- wanting the credit for things they had nothing to do with or even opposed.

Besides, "social justice" isn't so much about a replacement for charity; it's really about changing fundamental structural issues so that the poor can make their own way. And that is surprisingly threatening to a lot of people because it means they lose power and authority in the greater society. (That is why people had to die during the civil-rights movement.)

by: krbg

03-16-2010 @ 6:09pm

Proverbs 31, 4-5, 8-9: "It is not for kings, O Lemuel - not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer, lest they drink and forget what the law decrees, and deprive all the oppressed of their rights. Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy."
If those are the commands to a King, isnt that by extension a command to government to take care of the poor and needy?

by: krbg

03-16-2010 @ 6:09pm

Proverbs 31, 4-5, 8-9: "It is not for kings, O Lemuel - not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer, lest they drink and forget what the law decrees, and deprive all the oppressed of their rights. Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy."
If those are the commands to a King, isnt that by extension a command to government to take care of the poor and needy?

by: letjusticerolldown

03-16-2010 @ 6:10pm

John Mulholland: "Which the author has done by implication in this article's title."

To me the article clearly affirms that Christians can legitimately hold different views on the issues and he only asks T Perkins to uphold this.

by: letjusticerolldown

03-16-2010 @ 6:10pm

John Mulholland: "Which the author has done by implication in this article's title."

To me the article clearly affirms that Christians can legitimately hold different views on the issues and he only asks T Perkins to uphold this.

by: krbg

03-16-2010 @ 6:14pm

And Daniel tells the King of Babylon (4:27) "Therefore O King, be pleased to accept my advice: Renounce your sins by doing what is right, and your wickedness by being kind to the oppressed. It may be that then your prosperity will continue."

by: krbg

03-16-2010 @ 6:14pm

And Daniel tells the King of Babylon (4:27) "Therefore O King, be pleased to accept my advice: Renounce your sins by doing what is right, and your wickedness by being kind to the oppressed. It may be that then your prosperity will continue."

by: letjusticerolldown

03-16-2010 @ 6:14pm

Palamas: "In fact, there are many ways that the government can help the poor"

I think you, Chuck, Wallis, Perkins and I all agree on that.

So why not simply affirm that?

All Chuck asks of Perkins is not to portray a Christian brother as a wolf in sheep's clothing because he might take a different strategy on how that looks.

by: letjusticerolldown

03-16-2010 @ 6:14pm

Palamas: "In fact, there are many ways that the government can help the poor"

I think you, Chuck, Wallis, Perkins and I all agree on that.

So why not simply affirm that?

All Chuck asks of Perkins is not to portray a Christian brother as a wolf in sheep's clothing because he might take a different strategy on how that looks.

by: letjusticerolldown

03-16-2010 @ 6:16pm

ameritianity: "Come on people. BECK was speaking of Political "Social Justice" and he was right on:"

Uh, this piece was about Perkins portrayal of Wallis.

by: letjusticerolldown

03-16-2010 @ 6:16pm

ameritianity: "Come on people. BECK was speaking of Political "Social Justice" and he was right on:"

Uh, this piece was about Perkins portrayal of Wallis.

by: Palamas

03-16-2010 @ 6:21pm

Because Chuck would say that lots of those ways--particularly the ones that don't involve large government programs and massive state interference with the private economy--do not serve the end of "social justice," and therefore do not actually help the poor.

I will agree that Perkins portrayal of Jim Wallis is in bad taste and and a sin against charity.

by: Palamas

03-16-2010 @ 6:21pm

Because Chuck would say that lots of those ways--particularly the ones that don't involve large government programs and massive state interference with the private economy--do not serve the end of "social justice," and therefore do not actually help the poor.

I will agree that Perkins portrayal of Jim Wallis is in bad taste and and a sin against charity.

by: Ngchen

03-16-2010 @ 6:27pm

There is a world of difference between speaking up for the poor and defending their rights (e.g. pushing for a good quality public defender service), versus supporting government welfare programs for them.

by: Ngchen

03-16-2010 @ 6:27pm

There is a world of difference between speaking up for the poor and defending their rights (e.g. pushing for a good quality public defender service), versus supporting government welfare programs for them.

by: fundamentalist

03-16-2010 @ 6:45pm

Chuck: "Now, it would be passing strange to think that God had created/ordained ruling authorities to serve his agenda, but then conclude that one of the most consistent themes of scripture (concern for those on the margins of our societies-the poor, the widow, the orphan, etc.) is excluded from the purview of those ruling authorities!"

Not strange at all. God did not say that the state should perform the roles of families and the church. God created different institutions for a reason: they have different roles. Chuck's interpretation of the role of government is similar to saying that because God owns everything, and I'm a child of God, then everything belongs to me as well.

Chuck: "If one looks at various sections of Deuteronomy and Leviticus, it is clear that God gives laws that are to be implemented in society that are aimed at tending to the poorest."

Chuck chooses to ignore the different way in which God treats criminal law and moral law. That moral law which God chose to elevate infractions to the level of criminality also has specific penalties and means of enforcement and redress. For example, a victim of theft could go to the authorities, have the thief arrested, put on trial, and if guilty punished severely. That is spelled out in the Mosaic Law. On the other hand, what is the process and penalty for breaking the Sabbath law of the Ten Commandments? None. What is the process and penalty for breaking Jubiliee? There are none. Covetousness is so serious that God included it in the Ten Commandments, but what is the process for brining justice to a victim of covetousness that isn't theft? There is none. Apparently, God viewed some of his commands in a different way than he did others. Some the state was to enforce and some it wasn't.

But hey, if Chuck will agree to limit the state to that which God prescribed in the Mosaic Law, before Israel chose a king, I'll gladly accept Jubilee and the other poor laws as laws with criminal penalties.

Chuck: "Just consider Ezekiel 16, where we are told that the sin of Sodom was that it failed to hear the cry of the needy.

by: fundamentalist

03-16-2010 @ 6:45pm

Chuck: "Now, it would be passing strange to think that God had created/ordained ruling authorities to serve his agenda, but then conclude that one of the most consistent themes of scripture (concern for those on the margins of our societies-the poor, the widow, the orphan, etc.) is excluded from the purview of those ruling authorities!"

Not strange at all. God did not say that the state should perform the roles of families and the church. God created different institutions for a reason: they have different roles. Chuck's interpretation of the role of government is similar to saying that because God owns everything, and I'm a child of God, then everything belongs to me as well.

Chuck: "If one looks at various sections of Deuteronomy and Leviticus, it is clear that God gives laws that are to be implemented in society that are aimed at tending to the poorest."

Chuck chooses to ignore the different way in which God treats criminal law and moral law. That moral law which God chose to elevate infractions to the level of criminality also has specific penalties and means of enforcement and redress. For example, a victim of theft could go to the authorities, have the thief arrested, put on trial, and if guilty punished severely. That is spelled out in the Mosaic Law. On the other hand, what is the process and penalty for breaking the Sabbath law of the Ten Commandments? None. What is the process and penalty for breaking Jubiliee? There are none. Covetousness is so serious that God included it in the Ten Commandments, but what is the process for brining justice to a victim of covetousness that isn't theft? There is none. Apparently, God viewed some of his commands in a different way than he did others. Some the state was to enforce and some it wasn't.

But hey, if Chuck will agree to limit the state to that which God prescribed in the Mosaic Law, before Israel chose a king, I'll gladly accept Jubilee and the other poor laws as laws with criminal penalties.

Chuck: "Just consider Ezekiel 16, where we are told that the sin of Sodom was that it failed to hear the cry of the needy.

by: RubyLou

03-16-2010 @ 6:47pm

FrontPage magazine? Wow. Surely you can find a more responsible periodical than that one to bolster your point. :-)

by: RubyLou

03-16-2010 @ 6:47pm

FrontPage magazine? Wow. Surely you can find a more responsible periodical than that one to bolster your point. :-)

by: fundamentalist

03-16-2010 @ 6:51pm

krbg: "If those are the commands to a King, isnt that by extension a command to government to take care of the poor and needy?"

No. It's not. Read the passage again. What are the rights of the poor and needy? They are the same as the rights of everyone else: the right to life, liberty and property and nothing more.

We don't want to just give the poor only their rights. That would be a cold and cruel world. The poor need mercy and grace from us, and that is what God commands of his church, not the state. We are to give to the poor of our own resources, not take the resources of someone else and give it. There is no virtue in that.

At the same time, if you care about the poor you will want to organize society in a way that benefits the poor the most. And that organization of society would be capitalism. No amount of charity has ever lifted as many people out of poverty as capitalism has. God organized ancient Israel under the Judges according to the principles of capitalism with an emphasis on property and freedom. But rulers have always rebelled against God's plan. It wasn't implemented again until the advent of capitalism in the Dutch Republic of the 16th century.

by: fundamentalist

03-16-2010 @ 6:51pm

krbg: "If those are the commands to a King, isnt that by extension a command to government to take care of the poor and needy?"

No. It's not. Read the passage again. What are the rights of the poor and needy? They are the same as the rights of everyone else: the right to life, liberty and property and nothing more.

We don't want to just give the poor only their rights. That would be a cold and cruel world. The poor need mercy and grace from us, and that is what God commands of his church, not the state. We are to give to the poor of our own resources, not take the resources of someone else and give it. There is no virtue in that.

At the same time, if you care about the poor you will want to organize society in a way that benefits the poor the most. And that organization of society would be capitalism. No amount of charity has ever lifted as many people out of poverty as capitalism has. God organized ancient Israel under the Judges according to the principles of capitalism with an emphasis on property and freedom. But rulers have always rebelled against God's plan. It wasn't implemented again until the advent of capitalism in the Dutch Republic of the 16th century.

by: fundamentalist

03-16-2010 @ 6:53pm

BlueDeacon:"it's really about changing fundamental structural issues so that the poor can make their own way."

And that would be capitalism. The only way for the poor to make their own way, without the state, is for them to earn higher wages. And what is the only prescription for higher wages known to the science of economics? That would be greater investment in productivity enhancing equipment.

by: fundamentalist

03-16-2010 @ 6:53pm

BlueDeacon:"it's really about changing fundamental structural issues so that the poor can make their own way."

And that would be capitalism. The only way for the poor to make their own way, without the state, is for them to earn higher wages. And what is the only prescription for higher wages known to the science of economics? That would be greater investment in productivity enhancing equipment.

by: jason

03-16-2010 @ 7:02pm

'"Sadly, Tony does not provide us with any "proof texts" here..."

Why...so you can crucify him for it?'

No, if we call ourselves Christians then it follows that we should have these discussion based on the bible and Jesus. If there are no proof texts then maybe he is following culture and not scripture.

by: jason

03-16-2010 @ 7:02pm

'"Sadly, Tony does not provide us with any "proof texts" here..."

Why...so you can crucify him for it?'

No, if we call ourselves Christians then it follows that we should have these discussion based on the bible and Jesus. If there are no proof texts then maybe he is following culture and not scripture.

by: krbg

03-16-2010 @ 7:04pm

I assure you, I read the Bible carefully and often, and I see many instances of God judging nations by the way its people treat the oppressed and those in poverty, both individually and collectively as a nation. God does expect governments to take care of the least of these. You may split hairs as to rather that includes government sponsored social programs, but most enlightened, Christian societies have ultimately felt that it does. I am not saying that capitalism is wrong, but I am saying that along with capitalism most Christians feel there must be some government supported safety nets for those that suffer either temporary or entrenched difficulties in a "winner take all" economic system. It is not either/or. It is capitalism with a conscience that most who believe in the social gospel support.

by: krbg

03-16-2010 @ 7:04pm

I assure you, I read the Bible carefully and often, and I see many instances of God judging nations by the way its people treat the oppressed and those in poverty, both individually and collectively as a nation. God does expect governments to take care of the least of these. You may split hairs as to rather that includes government sponsored social programs, but most enlightened, Christian societies have ultimately felt that it does. I am not saying that capitalism is wrong, but I am saying that along with capitalism most Christians feel there must be some government supported safety nets for those that suffer either temporary or entrenched difficulties in a "winner take all" economic system. It is not either/or. It is capitalism with a conscience that most who believe in the social gospel support.

by: BlueDeacon

03-16-2010 @ 7:07pm

Chuck chooses to ignore the different way in which God treats criminal law and moral law. That moral law which God chose to elevate infractions to the level of criminality also has specific penalties and means of enforcement and redress.

In the case of civil law, the means of punishment was restitution. In the case of moral law it was death, provided there were two witnesses, plus the accuser had to participate in the execution. (Thus, "capital punishment" was rare.)

On the other hand, what is the process and penalty for breaking the Sabbath law of the Ten Commandments? None. What is the process and penalty for breaking Jubilee? There are none.

That's untrue -- in this case, the punishment was exile, which God did threaten and eventually carry out. From Deuteronomy 4:26: "I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you this day that you will quickly perish from the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess. You will not live there long but will certainly be destroyed." The Hebrews lived in the Promised Land for 420 years but went into exile for 70 -- exactly the number of "sabbath years" God was owed.

The elderly are wealthier because what small amount of free market is left in this country has lifted our standard of living dramatically so that we can save more for later years.

The elderly are also extremely effective lobbyists who vote consistently. Don't think that doesn't matter.

by: BlueDeacon

03-16-2010 @ 7:07pm

Chuck chooses to ignore the different way in which God treats criminal law and moral law. That moral law which God chose to elevate infractions to the level of criminality also has specific penalties and means of enforcement and redress.

In the case of civil law, the means of punishment was restitution. In the case of moral law it was death, provided there were two witnesses, plus the accuser had to participate in the execution. (Thus, "capital punishment" was rare.)

On the other hand, what is the process and penalty for breaking the Sabbath law of the Ten Commandments? None. What is the process and penalty for breaking Jubilee? There are none.

That's untrue -- in this case, the punishment was exile, which God did threaten and eventually carry out. From Deuteronomy 4:26: "I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you this day that you will quickly perish from the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess. You will not live there long but will certainly be destroyed." The Hebrews lived in the Promised Land for 420 years but went into exile for 70 -- exactly the number of "sabbath years" God was owed.

The elderly are wealthier because what small amount of free market is left in this country has lifted our standard of living dramatically so that we can save more for later years.

The elderly are also extremely effective lobbyists who vote consistently. Don't think that doesn't matter.

by: krbg

03-16-2010 @ 7:17pm

You know, I see those who read the American Vision website a lot make statements like "God organized ancient Israel under the Judges according to the principles of capitalism with an empahsis on property and freedom." But I have read Judges and studied Judges and I don't see that at all. Where are the citations from Judges where God proscribes principles of capitalism or protects private property? And since when is Judges an example of good governance? It is mostly examples of Israel failing miserably except when an occasional leader rises up to take them to war, and those leaders are often of mixed moral character (Samson, for instance!)

by: krbg

03-16-2010 @ 7:17pm

You know, I see those who read the American Vision website a lot make statements like "God organized ancient Israel under the Judges according to the principles of capitalism with an empahsis on property and freedom." But I have read Judges and studied Judges and I don't see that at all. Where are the citations from Judges where God proscribes principles of capitalism or protects private property? And since when is Judges an example of good governance? It is mostly examples of Israel failing miserably except when an occasional leader rises up to take them to war, and those leaders are often of mixed moral character (Samson, for instance!)

by: krbg

03-16-2010 @ 7:23pm

Seriously. All you Gary DeMar type theologians who swear the Bible trumpets private property and capitalism conveniently forget that the Israelites began with one of the biggest episodes of wealth re-distribution in the history of mankind, one for which the entire world continues to wage war today. I am speaking, of course, of the invasion and "redistribution" of the land and wealth of Canaan to the Israelites.

by: krbg

03-16-2010 @ 7:23pm

Seriously. All you Gary DeMar type theologians who swear the Bible trumpets private property and capitalism conveniently forget that the Israelites began with one of the biggest episodes of wealth re-distribution in the history of mankind, one for which the entire world continues to wage war today. I am speaking, of course, of the invasion and "redistribution" of the land and wealth of Canaan to the Israelites.

by: DcnScott

03-16-2010 @ 7:24pm

John Mulholland said,

"When I read Deuteronomy 17 and 1 Samuel 8, I see God ALLOWING government, not ordaining it. In fact, He states that the desire of the Israelites to a king 'like the other nations' is rejection of Him."

Those passages refer to the establishment, not of government, but of monarchy, as being contrary to divine will. Prior to Saul, the Chosen People had government: rule by Judges, with which system God appears to have had no problem.

Is it your position that God ordains anarchy? Or did you simply paint with too-broad a brush?

by: DcnScott

03-16-2010 @ 7:24pm

John Mulholland said,

"When I read Deuteronomy 17 and 1 Samuel 8, I see God ALLOWING government, not ordaining it. In fact, He states that the desire of the Israelites to a king 'like the other nations' is rejection of Him."

Those passages refer to the establishment, not of government, but of monarchy, as being contrary to divine will. Prior to Saul, the Chosen People had government: rule by Judges, with which system God appears to have had no problem.

Is it your position that God ordains anarchy? Or did you simply paint with too-broad a brush?

by: krbg

03-16-2010 @ 7:26pm

Also, the rate of poverty among senior citizens is much lower post medicare than premedicare.

by: krbg

03-16-2010 @ 7:26pm

Also, the rate of poverty among senior citizens is much lower post medicare than premedicare.

by: BlueDeacon

03-16-2010 @ 7:30pm

The only way for the poor to make their own way, without the state, is for them to earn higher wages. And what is the only prescription for higher wages known to the science of economics? That would be greater investment in productivity enhancing equipment.

Nonsense, because "capitalism" as such has nothing to do with that. First, you have to have the access to the education that qualifies you for such positions; that, however, often doesn't happen because often the basic resources don't exist. Then, once you finish you have to know someone to steer you to the right people who can be "helpful"; however, the poor often don't live in the same neighborhoods as the folks who make those decisions. This is where "affirmative action" came into play.

by: BlueDeacon

03-16-2010 @ 7:30pm

The only way for the poor to make their own way, without the state, is for them to earn higher wages. And what is the only prescription for higher wages known to the science of economics? That would be greater investment in productivity enhancing equipment.

Nonsense, because "capitalism" as such has nothing to do with that. First, you have to have the access to the education that qualifies you for such positions; that, however, often doesn't happen because often the basic resources don't exist. Then, once you finish you have to know someone to steer you to the right people who can be "helpful"; however, the poor often don't live in the same neighborhoods as the folks who make those decisions. This is where "affirmative action" came into play.

by: chuckg999

03-16-2010 @ 7:32pm

Just hopping in quickly here. Well said, krgb, good balance on some complicated issues. I think you capture what Gregory of Nazianzus had in mind when he said that if Scripture says 5 plus 7, it need not also say 12. As I have noted elsewhere, Scripture affirms that "all powers" were ordained "by him, for him." This is stated directly in Col 1, and if they are ordained to be "for him," obviously, they are ordained to serve God's ends, and care of the poor is clearly near the top. Now, Scripture never explicitly excludes or includes governments from care for the poor, but of course, this is an argument from silence that is not particularly helpful. (I find the appeal to Romans 13 problematic with connection to the broader context, say, the preceding chapter.) The issue is not whether it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that they should--of course it is reasonable. So, the attempt to move from "Jesus/God never said....," as I say, does not really help. In fact, in detailed discussions, I don't think I have ever found anyone who really means to say that governments do not have a role to play in creating just and fair societies. The better question is how they are to do that and with what mechanisms. Krbg, you are exactly correct in saying that most enlightened Christian societies have seen the need for government sponsored social programs. Perhaps, one could even say "all"......

by: chuckg999

03-16-2010 @ 7:32pm

Just hopping in quickly here. Well said, krgb, good balance on some complicated issues. I think you capture what Gregory of Nazianzus had in mind when he said that if Scripture says 5 plus 7, it need not also say 12. As I have noted elsewhere, Scripture affirms that "all powers" were ordained "by him, for him." This is stated directly in Col 1, and if they are ordained to be "for him," obviously, they are ordained to serve God's ends, and care of the poor is clearly near the top. Now, Scripture never explicitly excludes or includes governments from care for the poor, but of course, this is an argument from silence that is not particularly helpful. (I find the appeal to Romans 13 problematic with connection to the broader context, say, the preceding chapter.) The issue is not whether it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that they should--of course it is reasonable. So, the attempt to move from "Jesus/God never said....," as I say, does not really help. In fact, in detailed discussions, I don't think I have ever found anyone who really means to say that governments do not have a role to play in creating just and fair societies. The better question is how they are to do that and with what mechanisms. Krbg, you are exactly correct in saying that most enlightened Christian societies have seen the need for government sponsored social programs. Perhaps, one could even say "all"......