Nonpartisan Liberal Christians
by Motte Brown on 08/28/2008 at 12:30 PM
I was reading an interview with Rob Bell in Relevant Magazine earlier this year in which he made this statement: "We refer to ourselves [at Mars Hill] as aggressively nonpartisan."
This statement was literally a half a page removed from this one: "We are fighting a war right now for oil. American soldiers and Iraqi civilians are getting killed today because they have a resource that Americans are addicted to."
And though it's possible to be both liberal and nonpartisan, that last line could have been taken straight out of the Democratic talking points. Can't you just hear Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) say something like that right after he proclaimed "the war is lost"?
I thought of this as I read a transcript of Donald Miller's prayer to open the Democratic National Convention this past Monday. It would have been just fine had he left out some of the more partisan prayer requests for universal heath care, raising the minimum wage, government paid college tuitions, and increasing the national education budget.
Now I must say, I find affinity with many of the things these men say and do. But I think it's time to call a spade a spade. Rob Bell and Donald Miller are blue-bloods, lefties, liberals, doves, whatever you want call them. Just please don't call them "aggressively nonpartisan." I mean, you could. But please, don't ... unless you're going to afford Focus on the Family the same courtesy.
I've read many comments here lamenting Focus on the Family's supposed conspiracy with the Republican Party. I'm sure they're the same folks who praise Bell and Miller for their "holistic" approach to politics. You know, the "we shouldn't just be about the sanctity of life and marriage" approach. Which really means, "I care more about carbon footprints than unborn baby footprints."
And I'm fine that Bell and Miller are liberal. Really, I am. What irks me is their pretension of unbiasedness. I believe they use it to lead people leftward, away from more conservative views. And that, my friends, is called a political agenda.
Apparently, for Emergent types, nonpartisan simply means touting liberal beliefs to balance out all those conservative evangelicals.
1. Dan real/name said the following at 12:40 PM on Aug 28:
I have no problem with progressive Chrisitians and their desire to call attention to issues such as war, homelessness, poverty, starvation, third-world rampant diseases (issues that most conservative Christians tend to turn their heads and hearts from). However, I have become increasingly bothered by the "big oil" and "big government" talk from those on the left, including the progressive Christians. If someone is going to complain about big oil, then I really REALLY hope that they are not using any oil, or at least making an attempt to reduce their comsumption.
And besides, since when did oil become such a bad thing? I do agree that we need energy dependence and alternative sources of energy (something I believed in since I was a kid, and I am now 40), so why are we still doddling (sp?).
2. Texas Craig said the following at 12:42 PM on Aug 28:
Motte:
I certainly agree with you that Bell and Miller share views with the "lefties." But, what makes them "non-partisan" is that they also share views with the "righties." They are both pro-life, pro-religious-based programs, and pro- a bunch of other issues that "lefties" do not support.
I think your post hits on what causes many younger evangelicals to cringe at the current state of political discourse. I am pro-life, pro-death penalty, pro-available health care, pro-gun ownership, and on and on. I do not like the war in Iraq, but I also do not like Supreme Court justices like Ginsberg or Souter, etc. I am against gay-marriage, but I am in favor of liberal immigration. Where do I fit? I am no "leftie" nor am I a "rightie."
Personally, I find that labels like leftie or rightie, blue or red do a disservice to genuine discourse on issues. It leads much too easily to ad hominem attacks that do not address the merits fo the issues, but rather categorize people simply based upon who they share some views with.
So, personally, I do think that Rob Bell, Dinald Miller, and Rick Warren, and many others really are non-partisan, because they probably do not staunchly support either democrats nor Republicans upon party lines, but rather simply based upon the issues that are near and dear to their heart at the time - which will likely cause their allegiances to fluctuate between the parties, based upon the merits of individual candidates.
As a liberal conservative, that's my $.02 worth.
3. Jo said the following at 12:42 PM on Aug 28:
well, you may be right. i wouldn't be at all surprised if there was a political agenda in what they're saying.
but, i am in favour of universal healthcare, gun control and a decent minimum wage, and i am against abortion and same-sex marriage. and i know that i absolutely am 'nonpartisan'. as an english person, it doesn't even matter which side i'm on - it's not like i can do anything to affect who gets the presidency.
the thing is, it is possible to agree with some policies from the left and to agree with some from the right, and that's the balance i don't see on this blog, either in the posts or in most of the comments.
4. Jo said the following at 12:45 PM on Aug 28:
i'll add - everyone has a political agenda. but that doesn't mean everyone aligns perfectly with one party or the other. mars hill may have very strong political views, and yet still be nonpartisan if those views aren't overwhelmingly republican or democrat.
but i don't know much about what they stand for, so i'm not sure whether they really *are* nonpartisan or not.
5. mary kate said the following at 12:47 PM on Aug 28:
Interesting point. But is this "You know, the "we shouldn't just be about the sanctity of life and marriage" approach. Which really means, "I care more about carbon footprints than unborn baby footprints." really necessary? Maybe they're liberals but they're not calling themselves that. Ok. But hey, I care a lot about both unborn babies and the environment.
6. Alex C, said the following at 1:06 PM on Aug 28:
I think a good question to ask is "what does non-partisanness (is that a word? ^^;;) look like?" What exactly would that mean? and what does this Rob Bell person mean by calling himself a non-partisan?
I think "non-partisan" would mean that you aren't party loyale; you analyize an issue and pick the side you think is right, not the side that a particular party happens to pick. If this is the definition that Rob Bell follows, then the fact that his opinion of the war happens to be the same as the democrats doesn't mean he's a liberal who will always choose there side. Maybe he'd choose the side the republicans happen to be on in regards to other issues. The only other possibility for non-partisan I can see is that a person doesn't have opinions on the issues that divide a party, or completely avoids them. But of course, everyone has opinions, and avoiding important issues would just garner people like that even more criticism.
7. Jo said the following at 1:08 PM on Aug 28:
"As a liberal conservative..."
Oooh! I wanna be one of them. :P
8. Danny Limoges said the following at 1:21 PM on Aug 28:
I appreciate the points made in this article. Truth be told, Rob Bell and Donald Miller should not define themselves as "aggressively nonpartisan" given the statements they have made.
However, it is important to realize that there are frankly evil elements in both parties. While the Democrats are often cited for the millions of deaths by abortion, the Republicans can be linked to fiercely anti-immigrant (arguably racist anti-Mexican) policies, irresponsibly destructive environmental choices and support of corporations in ways that have had little regard for the poor (see Amos, Jeremiah 22:16 to see the ferocity of God's passion for the poor).
I am simply taking issue with the implication in the sixth paragraph that to criticize Republican leanings of Focus is to ignore the atrocity of abortion or the immorality of gay marriage. Both parties are run by ultimately fallen humans and there are truly few Christians in either one who ACTIVELY seek and exercise God's will before that of humans. Both parties will act out of line with God's way and love for people. Genuine Christians will fall to both sides and some will be frustrated altogether with the idea of Christians aligning themselves with a party.
9. Lauren said the following at 1:25 PM on Aug 28:
Texas Craig, I like your phrasing,I would consider myself a liberal conservative too!
I love God, I love my fiance, and I love babies.
I also care what kind of country my future babies will live in. I want them to be healthy and have access to the best health care possible. I want them to have the best educational opportunities possible. I want them to be able to walk, run and play outside without getting asthma from the smog. I want my future daughters to be able to eat tuna fish without having to be concerned about mercury.
Yup...a liberal conservative...that is me!
10. cn said the following at 1:27 PM on Aug 28:
Has Rob Bell ever made a clear stand for any conservative issues? He's not someone I really follow so I don't know much about his political stance. If he does feel strongly about same-sex marriage, pro-life issues, or others that are key conservative concerns then sure,non partisan works. Otherwise, I totally agree that he's a leftist in disguise. ;)
11. KB said the following at 1:42 PM on Aug 28:
Maybe it's just me, but if someone prays at the opening of the national convention for a major political party, doesn't that kind of imply some kind of affiliation with said party?
12. BDB said the following at 1:44 PM on Aug 28:
I thought that the WSJ follow-up article with Rick Warren was interesting. He noted that often he had conversations with people who assumed that since he cared about the poor, he was no longer pro-Life. Not at all. The Bible DOES say quite a bit about the plight of the poor. Republicans should talk about it more, and grapple with the issues. As has been written Gallup, many poor countries in Africa are quite pleased with the current administration's efforts. It's a great example of how conservatives can respond effectively to poverty.
Frankly, the WSJ talks a lot about how free trade agreements help poor contries because they can ship products to the U.S. easier. I think that would be a worthwhile debate to have: do those on the left care enough about the poor to let them sell their stuff here? It's absolutely appropriate for the Republicans to stand up and say that the Democratic Congress is against the Columbia free trade deal because Democrats don't care about the poor. If they really cared about this little poor country, they would pass it. Better to let entrepreneurs earn their own money.
13. Carrie (the original) said the following at 1:55 PM on Aug 28:
The problem with raising the minimum wage is that it is always going to be raising. It's never going to be "a living wage" because the bottom wage earners will always be the bottom wage earners.
If you raise the minimum wage you are inviting all sorts of other things that bring a economy down: higher prices on consumer goods. People have to charge more because they have to pay more. So, then, people are able to buy less with $5 because everything costs more.
I'm no economist, but even I can see what's wrong with raising the minimum wage. Nobody wins. Especially the middle class.
14. Holly said the following at 2:07 PM on Aug 28:
I really appreciate the point that this post was trying to make but this
"You know, the "we shouldn't just be about the sanctity of life and marriage" approach. Which really means, "I care more about carbon footprints than unborn baby footprints."
ruins it for me. As someone whose political ideals line up closely with Donald Miller and Rob Bell, I feel that the line should be, "I care about all human footprints indcluding unborn baby footprints." Low blow, Motte.
15. Matt said the following at 2:10 PM on Aug 28:
My greatest fear is that young evangelicals have become conformed to the world. Rob Bell and others seem to have emphasized where they agree with the current zeitgeist and downplay when they disagree. If Don Miller, for example, asked for the supreme court to overturn Roe v. Wade, the reaction would have been fierce.
Don't get me wrong; we are all guilty of this. While I don't agree with Rob Bell politically, I know I am not forthright about my beliefs among non-christians. When I do talk about my faith, I want to somehow look cool, hip and relevant. I want some type of Christianity which is somehow acceptable to everyone, in direct contradiction to scripture.
This sin extends to how I talk about my political beliefs as well. I've actually known many far-left liberals and to say the least I have not proclaimed my views on abortion. While I do not think the government should redistribute income, I am much more forthright in how I think we should care more for the poor.
Yet if we do believe life begins at conception, then the western world has been complicit in a holocaust of the unborn. The world, though, holds strongly to this practice and we beat around the bush in our belief to seem like the cool and hip type of Christian.
We all need to be unapologetic (but not dogmatic) about our beliefs. While we understand (and do not judge) why non-Christians without a basis for morality would allow abortion, we need to stand for our beliefs. Otherwise we go the way of the mainline protestant churches, becoming irrelevant as a movement when no distinction exists between us and the world.
16. (Canadian) Andrew R. said the following at 2:17 PM on Aug 28:
I'm quite liberal, not gonna lie. No one is non-partisan; we all have our opinions on what would and would not work in the world.
That said, I think you're being flat-out unfair with liberals:
"It would have been just fine had he left out some of the more partisan prayer requests for universal heath care, raising the minimum wage, government paid college tuitions, and increasing the national education budget."
Motte, are you going to slam the GOP if their prayers include such partisan requests such as protecting unborn life and traditional marriage? Or is it just the prayer requests you disagree with?
"You know, the "we shouldn't just be about the sanctity of life and marriage" approach. Which really means, "I care more about carbon footprints than unborn baby footprints.""
No... that's a really inaccurate and unfair characterization. But I think you know this already.
Of course, this unfairness towards those who lean to the left are not surprising, considering how conservative Focus on the Family is.
17. obewan said the following at 2:28 PM on Aug 28:
The Blog said:
>>This statement was literally a half a page removed from this one: "We are fighting a war right now for oil.
American soldiers and Iraqi civilians are getting killed today because they have a resource that Americans are addicted to."
And though it's possible to be both liberal and nonpartisan, that last line could have been taken straight out of the Democratic talking points.<<
Many republicans are opposed to the war too.
18. J. Tucker said the following at 2:31 PM on Aug 28:
Texas Craig, you are my hero for that post.
It does bother me when people from either side of the political spectrum try to appeal to the masses by describing themsleves as "moderate" or "non-partisan," because that is a deception that would have the voters believe that they are only for the causes that any individual voter might deam important.
On the other hand, people that fit in the middle of certain viewpoints that have been appropriated (and by that I do mean stolen) by political parties as "platforms" are often at a loss when trying to identify themselves with a meaningful party/candidate. I often have this issue, because I am staunchly pro-life (and that means NO death penalty), but I also consider it a Biblical duty to provide for the poor, give people healthcare, etc., which is considered to be a leftist "failing".
Yes, Focus on the Family is an extremely right-wing organization. This fascinates me, because the republican party is not a religious organization. It merely uses the guise of religion to perpetrate all sorts of evil - yes, EVIL - for monetary gain. Fiscal waste, unjustified war, and deprivation of health care just to name a few. These are all things that rich republicans have been doing to make the rich richer.
And here it goes: if Focus on the Family were really trying to focus on Biblical values, they would reject BOTH political parties and start a new one. I don't understand how a Christian organization can reject a party that kills innocent babies but support a party that kills innocent foreigners and gives better health care to Al Quiada members than its own constituants. This isn't a question of the lesser of two evils as popular Christian media would have you believe. Both parties in our political system are guilty, guilty, GUILTY of evil sin. One can try to justify things this way or that, but the truth remains.
I love religious freedom, and I hate the concept that is referred to as the "separation of church and state." However, Focus on the Family is playing right into the politician's hands when they support republican candidates. Most politicians don't care about the spiritual well-being of our country, even if they claim to be Christian. And they do little for the morality-based political issues from a Christian perspective.
I don't know how Christian organizations lost sight of the basics of feeding people and protecting life (all life). Wait, I do know how. Politicians have wrapped up the issues that they want us to pay attention to in neat little bundles. If we don't accept the whole bundle, we must look elsewhere.
I'm sorry for the longish post, but I have to tell you, I'll be looking elsewhere this election. I'm sick of electing evil men to lead a country that was based on Godly principles and religious freedom. All us Christians have been politically manipulated for too long. I won't put up with evil from the republics or the democrats, and I hope none of you will either.
19. kaarina said the following at 2:33 PM on Aug 28:
Is it necessary to constantly assume that if you are for the conservation of the earth's resources and reducing our ecological impact you are an abortion-clinic supporter and hate the little babies by requirement?
Where was it written that we can only protect the earth at the expense of human beings, and conversely, that if you believe that unborn babies are people, you hate the planet and deliberately leave your SUV idling?
You lose your credibility when you grossly generalize a large public movement towards a "greener" lifestyle that includes fiscally sound principles that align closely with the conservative platform of reducing unnecessary spending. Imagine the money we'd save if the government buildings in DC ran off of solar or wind electricity generated by the buildings instead of traditional power plants. Abortion is fundamentally anti environmental, as it's completely unsustainable and extremely un-earth-friendly (after all, nobody's recycling those aborted fetuses). The two issues are fundamentally opposed to each other.
Your bias against everything on the "liberal agenda" is making you "cynical, snarky, deceptive, disrespectful, irrelevant, redundant [and] unnecessarily contentious".
20. a woman said the following at 2:44 PM on Aug 28:
J. Tucker and others,
As an immigrant, I love this country! Let's not lose focus here, comparing evils of both political parties.
(If you want to have a say, make sure to vote in your primary. That is important)
I think families who have immigrated here from TRULY opprossed and horrific situations have a greater appreciation to the opportunities here.
I can complain and criticize all sorts of organizations out there...BUT at the end of the day, I'm responsible and held accountable by God....
21. Brenna Kater, the Ocean Skater said the following at 2:49 PM on Aug 28:
Interesting & thought-provoking...
22. Mallie said the following at 2:59 PM on Aug 28:
Frankly, I'm surprised to see that this whole comment section has been largely "liberal" christians. Because I believe ordinary people can help the poor better than a government, and that forced charity is inferior to the outpouring of my own compassion, you seem to think that I'm stingy and cold hearted. If we christians used our own devices rather than submit our goals to a secular power, we would see how drastic the difference would be. I'm amazed that the same people who believe morality can't be legislated seem to think that charity can. Government is a matter of justice, not mercy. The king bears a sword and punishes wrongdoers, he's not a mother who nurses our wounds. But because I believe that, my personal mercy is more precious and needed. Let's look to ourselves before looking to the government.
23. Xasteuis said the following at 3:01 PM on Aug 28:
I'm a moderate who works with conservatives (mainly because I have more in common with them and they tend to be more rational).
While I do agree that the left does address important issues, letting the government handling the problem is not going to help (think who helps out the most during Katrina and other natural distasters).
While God may have established secular government as an authority to keep order, remember that God commanded us to preach the Gospel, not advance the goals of the government or a political party.
How is the anti-immigrant policies racist? I certainly don't want random people busting into my house and demanding the right to sleep, eat, and generally tear up the place. That's is why there is a lock on the door.
I've always described the difference between conservatives and liberals as 'What is easier to teach: justice or mercy?'.
We tend to forget that there will not be democracy in the Kingdom of Heaven
24. DP said the following at 3:28 PM on Aug 28:
"He has told you, O man, what is good;
and what does the LORD require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,and to walk humbly with your God?"
Both Right and Left need to understand that there are three commands in that verse, and we can't focus on one to the detriment of the other.
I can't help but think if Christians would stop being caught up in the election, and Christians who "lean right" and "lean left" came together as CHRISTIANS a whole lot more could be done do advance all causes. But hey, it's more fun to bicker...
"I've read many comments here lamenting Focus on the Family's supposed conspiracy with the Republican Party. I'm sure they're the same folks who praise Bell and Miller for their "holistic" approach to politics. You know, the "we shouldn't just be about the sanctity of life and marriage" approach. Which really means, "I care more about carbon footprints than unborn baby footprints.""
Case in point. How Christian of you.
25. BDB said the following at 3:32 PM on Aug 28:
Deprivation of health care? That's an interesting way to phrase it. Legally, in the U.S., care cannot be denied. The ultimate policy question is who will pay for what treatments?
Countries like Canada and the U.K. have systems that are much better for chronic conditions, but far worse for cancer. The reason is that single-payer government systems ration care by slowing down access. The U.S. rations care through a complicated insurance system - the government part that underpays, the private insurance part that is constantly battling between providers and insurers, and the folks caught in between, who might mortgage their house for cancer treatments, or end up getting donated care from a nonprofit hospital. Of course, in Canada, they'd simply be denied the treatment. I'm not persuaded that's an improvement. But I say that as someone with a good friend with metastic breast cancer. If the democrats enact their "plan," my friend's insurance is erased and she's sentenced to death.
In the U.S. there is much consternation about jobs outsourced overseas. Well, Europe's health-care systems are driving many of the pharmaceutical research jobs from Europe to the U.S. where they can make back the billion of dollars it takes to develop new treatments.
While enacting a Canadian or European-style health care system might reduce Brain Drain from those countries to the U.S., don't be under any illusion that it will make health care "better." It will redistribute the health-care dollars from people who need expensive treatments now covered by private insurance to those who are filing for bankruptcy because they don't have that kind of insurance.
Just remember - every time someone says that the U.S. should adopt a program like Canada or the U.K., what I hear is that they want my friend to be sent to hospice to die.
26. Jethro said the following at 3:38 PM on Aug 28:
Why then do you consistently deny that FOTF/Dobson are not simply Republican mouthpieces?
27. Christina (in green) said the following at 3:42 PM on Aug 28:
Maybe this is the wrong place to ask, but let me do so anyway...
I understand Environment stuff...I know why that's important (though often not to the extreme that liberals...and liberal christians...take it...).
However, I don't understand the following:
1) How universal health care = BETTER health care. France may have the best health care in the world, but what means America has the ability to do that? Have you seen our DMV service?
2) How liberal immigration = GOOD. Especially with our lack of requirement for people to learn our language. Do you know how difficult it is to teach in a multi-lingual classroom? Or how (especially in Florida), multi-lingual students affect standardized test scores, thereby driving down school ratings and losing government funding? Also, lower rated schools have a higher drop-out rate...meaning more uneducated workforce...which contributes to poverty...
3) How minimum-wage raises = better economy.
I'd also like to point out that these three points are oddly connected - in a way that makes supporting them all rather counter-productive and self-defeating.
One of the main reasons I found cited for poor American health care is that America's class system is so disparate. We have the poorest citizens and the widest gap between rich and poor among the "rich" nations.
But a lot of our "poor citizens" are immigrants. This isn't to say there are exceptions, but this has a huge effect on the effectiveness of our health care system...both universal and private. Note that France has incredibly conservative stances on immigration.
One of the benefits I found to immigrants with no high school education (which is the majority of immigrants) is that employers that hire them can pay them less money, driving down the cost to consumers for services that do not require skilled labor - this in turn could have an affect on the cost of living. However, with a minimum wage and minimum wage increases, you defeat yourselves once again by forcing high cost of living while still paying below the cost of living.
The reason why this has more of an affect on the Middle class than it does on the impoverished is because the impoverished already couldn't afford it. Those at the lower end of the Middle class are now "near poverty" and the ones "near poverty" are now impoverished.
I'm genuinely curious. I have no conservative agenda (though I admit, I'm a moderate conservative), I'm open-minded, and willing to hear ANY well thought-out and logical discussion on the matter. However, for me to respect your input, I'd really appreciate your respect on the arguments I've presented.
P.S. This might be a bad time to suggest that support of liberal immigration is also counter-productive to the Global Warming Activists on the liberal side, as well...
*My sources:
Center of Immigration Studies
France and Immigration
Best Health Care in the World
Why France is rated Best Health Care
28. Vanessa said the following at 3:46 PM on Aug 28:
The next time anyone tells me they want a raise in the minimum wage, I want to ask them why they don't insist on mandatory yearly cost of living rates for EVERY wage earner. When minimum wage is raised 7-10% every year or so, while the average American worker gets a 3-5% raise IF THEY'RE LUCKY....the consumer price index goes crazy and wages for the mass of lower and middle class families goes nowhere. Raising the minimum wage does nothing other than create far more problems for the rest of the working class than it solves for those living in the poverty level.
29. Sarah said the following at 4:07 PM on Aug 28:
Can't it be possible for a Christian to be simultaneously pro-life and anti-war? Can't it be possible for a Christian to support some traditional values of the right and some progressive values of the left?
I don't think Christianity should be aligned with either political party. When we associate our faith with our political beliefs, we water our faith down. Christianity has stood the test of time -- history shows us that neither the Democratic party nor the Republican party has.
30. Jen said the following at 4:31 PM on Aug 28:
I'm with sarah #29 and Texas Craig #2. Being a Christian doesn't necessarily mean you fit nicely into a certain political party. I've voted both ways in various elections, and I don't think that makes me any less Christian. In fact, now I'm beginning to investigate 3rd party politics too.
You might be interested in reading this article - I think it is an interesting discussion of the commodification of Christianity, and how politics has played an interesting role in this - it's very well written, but wordy. http://tinyurl.com/67ygmq
31. BDB said the following at 4:32 PM on Aug 28:
Christina (in green) (#27) wrote:
>>Or how (especially in Florida), multi-lingual students affect standardized test scores, thereby driving down school ratings and losing government funding?<<
Another way to think about this is to consider that schools who are not aggressively teaching immigrants English are doing those kids a huge disservice.
This point was brought home to me in Cambodia. My first day there, I wanted a cup of coffee. So we set out in search of a cafe or something to buy coffee. We walked to three places in the neighborhood before they understood the word "coffee." Everyone was polite, but they didn't understand.
At the third place, the guy at the door tried to explain that they had three types of coffee (regular, iced, and iced-milk.) We were ushered into an air-conditioned room.
And a Jr-High aged kid came to take our order. His English was OK, and apparently much better than some others. So he serve as translator.
I've worked in ESL schools, I know lots of immigrants who want their kids to learn English. Heck, growing up, my grandfather would tell us the story about how my grandfather-would tell them they were in America now, they must speak English at home.
I'm very impressed by my European friends who can often speak 3 or more languages, including English. I feel like such a slacker that I'm only conversant in Spanish.
I honestly believe that if we got away from this bilingual-education garbage, and taught intensive English to English-language learners, half of the concerns about immigration would solve themselves.
32. Tigger said the following at 4:41 PM on Aug 28:
Ahh, Motte, in my humble opinion, the post would have ended better without the line about babies and unborn carbon footprints. Without it, it was a call to think; with it, well, them's fightin' words.
At first I wondered whether this was a Rorschach post - it was designed to expose what the readers really think. It seems too simplistic to say that there's no such thing as not belonging after drawing the lines in the sand. But some of us younger people are trying to tell say that there isn't just one line. There are many, as countless other posters have pointed out: abortion, environment, gun control, welfare, immigration, death penalty, universal health care.
Texas Craig (#2) pretty much summed up what some young independent thinkers think. Many of us have been born into a world where the rules have already been made, and we do not want to play the red-blue game. We look at the system and tell you that it does not work like were told it would and should. So we have to piece together our philosophies, and since there are only two political parties, there's nowhere to go. The only label left is non-partisan...and then someone gets worked up about that too.
It's hard to fathom why an Us vs. Them mentality is a desirable way to order the world.
33. BDB said the following at 4:43 PM on Aug 28:
Hopefully, over the next week or so, while watching FoxNews, we'll get to see a speech by a beer-distribution executive who has led 55(!) medical missions trips to poor nations.
The Republican party needs to let more such executives take the podium.
34. J. Tucker said the following at 4:46 PM on Aug 28:
Well, I certainly didn't intend to spark a debate of the issues. Quite frankly, many of the posts about health care that came after my post were incorrect.
1. Universal health care does NOT erase the insurance system and the availability of medical insurance.
2. The goal of a universal health care plan is not to make all health care for everyone better - it is to make sure EVERYONE has some access to health care. If you want gold star medical care, you can pay for supplementary insurance. Some of us just want to be able to see a doctor when we have a sinus infection.
You might all think number 2 is silly. Let me tell you how silly it is. I have two undergraduate degrees (finance and economics) and I graduated from law school a year and a half ago. I have been working for the largest law firm in the world (literally) for almost 8 months. I have NO health insurance that I don't pay for out of pocket 100% myself. The health insurance I do have basically provides that I won't have to sell my soul if I get hit by a car or shot by some maniac (after my $5000 deductible, which would probably bankrupt me).
3. I say deprivation of health care, because it is a fact that hospitals have denied treatment to indigents or removed indigents from the hospital during the course and before completion of treatment. How Christian is that?
While we're at it, I'll stir the pot a little more. I'm willing to bet the only reason that we can't have some sort of healthcare for every citizen just like France or England is because we're too busy spending BILLIONS of dollars on killing people. Yes, America has the strongest military in the world. How embarrassing. A nation founded on Christian principles is the strongest in the world at killing, but one of the worst at providing basic health care to the poor.
Yeah, we could argue all year about the details, but I'm not really sure that such an argument would be productive. The details are really a political argument, not a religious one. Many on this website have said it before, but I'll paraphrase: following Christ is a lot different than adhering to the views of a political party.
35. niki said the following at 5:08 PM on Aug 28:
bold.
36. Matt said the following at 5:15 PM on Aug 28:
To me, when they say non-partisian they mean that they aren't following a party line (either Republican or Democrat). Obviously, being against the war in Iraq is one part of the Democratic plank. But, just because you are against the war doesn't mean you are a Democrat.
Those of us that are younger, are sick of being pigeonholed into one party or the other.
37. J.T. said the following at 5:16 PM on Aug 28:
Hmmmm, I smell a redefining of political party lines in the near future.
38. Eliza said the following at 5:52 PM on Aug 28:
You didn't mention the fact that Donald Miller actually prayed in the name of Jesus, the son of God, something which conservative Evangelicals blame liberals frequently for not doing.
Also, isn't it great that the DNC had a Christian prayer? Isn't it amazing that the liberal party in America is still open and welcoming of a prayer to the One True God?
I think these are praise items. As far as praying for health care for the poor, a higher pay for teachers and other "liberal" talking points, those are things he (along with his kindred spirits in Denver) feel strongly about, and so he is praying for them. Isn't that good? Doesn't everyone pray for things they feel strongly about, and that they believe is in the will of God?
I do get your point about being annoyed at a claim of bipartisanship, but I think Texas Craig and others here have done a great job of saying what Rob Bell would have said.
39. Texas Craig said the following at 5:57 PM on Aug 28:
Some of the posts on specific issues on here have raised very good questions that highlight the problem with classifying people as red or blue, liberal or conservative. Namely, we then associate those in the other camp as holding to the views espoused by others in that camp.
For example, wanting health care for all people ought to be a goal we can all agree upon. It was Jesus who gave us the example of the good samaritan, who saw a medical need and took care of the man who had it. The question is how we get there. I am not necessarily in favor of universal healthcare as it has been laid out by the Demorats, but I also think we need to do more than we have done in our country. Should individuals be doing it? Of course, but how often do we see Christians actually doing this? How many people on here (myself included) have actually chipped in to help with the medical bills of those in our community? I would guess it is relatively rare.
Moreover, it is ironic and hypocritcal to think that Democrats are the only ones with the skewed view in this area. It was President Bush who passed into law the greatest increase in government-sponsored healthcare benefits for citizens with his Medicare expansion a few years ago. Where are all the "conservatives" decrying him for that?
I have always said that government works best not as the provider of services, but as the regulator of the private sector. I am not in favor of bigger government, but the reality is that our government already has its nose stuck into so many things. I would rather see the money spent on things that are more aligned with things that God wants us to care about. That doesn't mean I support the precise terms of the plans offered by the political parties, but I agree with the underlying principles of caring for the needs of the less fortunate.
Why is it ok to want government to sponsor faith-based programs and not health care for people? I just see a disconnect there-namely in that we like government when it involves itself in the programs that benefit us, but not in the programs that do not.
On immigration, my answer is pretty simple. When I see a person who lives in a very poor country with access to little resources who wants to better themselves, I do not think it is Christ-like to say "too bad, so sad." I genuinely believe the heart of God desires all men to have the opportunity to work hard and pull themselves out of poverty. On what basis, in the Bible, can we justify excluding people? To me, I cannot understand where a closed immigration policy comes from if one is a Christian.
I understand there are practical issues regarding who to allow in and how to allow them in, and there are ways to work those out. But, if we see our country as a house, and we see people standing outside asking for the opportunity to just provide food and shelter and education for themselves, I have a hard time believing that the Christ-like response is to tell them to go away. Like the Keith Green song from way back, Asleep in the Light, it is like the line "Jesus came to your door, and you've left him out in the cold."
Peace!
40. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:49 PM on Aug 28:
In the interests of fair disclosure: I'm non-partisan in the sense that I am neither Democrat nor Republican; my leanings, except for my pro-life position on abortion, are very libertarian. I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries and will not vote for either the Democrat or the Republican in November.
What bothers me, however, is the lack of consistency from the left on this matter of religious involvement in the political arena.
When a conservative preacher attacks in utero infanticide, the left attacks him for "crossing the line of separation between church and state" or "imposing his religious views in the political realm."
On the other hand, when a more left-leaning figure gets involved in Democratic Party affairs, promoting soft-communism in health care, State regulation of business and private affairs, and imposing secular values on families, it is "non-partisan".
I recently finished Blue Like Jazz. With the exception of Miller's left-wing political bent--which is smeared all over the book--he actually did a very good job. Overall, the book provides orthopraxy that meets the orthodoxy.
Trouble is, he does the same thing with his political views that the conservative does with his.
As a result, he undermined his theological agenda by promoting his political agenda.
Falwell blundered on that front, and paid a terrible price. Pat Robertson has also made no small number of gaffes on that front. Ditto for Richard Land and the Southern Baptist Convention.
Sadly, Miller has, like other like-minded churches (such as the Sojourners) failed to learn from the blunders of the right.
41. Jeremy said the following at 6:53 PM on Aug 28:
This may sound like a shameless plug, but I mean it in all sincerity -- consider voting for a third party candidate. The two-party system that so many of us hate only continues because people continue to vote for only one of two candidates.
The preservation of the status quo is bad for everyone. This country is $9.5 trillion in the hole, and yet both the Republican and Democratic parties continue to spend like there is no tomorrow. Republicans want your social freedom, democrats want your economic freedom. I say no more! I say it is time for a change.
42. BDB said the following at 6:57 PM on Aug 28:
J Tucker (#34) wrote:
>>I'm willing to bet the only reason that we can't have some sort of healthcare for every citizen just like France or England is because we're too busy spending BILLIONS of dollars on killing people.<<
You'd lose the bet.
Congress did pass comprehensive catastrophic health care for seniors a couple decades ago and repealed it a year later. Paying for any of these 'programs' always involves taking from one group and giving to another. The one being taken from then organizes politically.
The reality is that government singler payer systems like Canada, the UK or France have cancer care that is much less advanced compared to the expensive care in the U.S. That's why Canadians who can afford to come to the U.S. where they CAN get access to the treatments by paying for themselves.
The basic health care Americans can get at, say, a county hospital, is much better than many people in the world can get. But that care does not cover any of the expensive treatments, either.
There are definitely proposals on the left to eliminate all private health insurance and go with a "single-payer" system. Their stated goal is to pay for those without coverage by eliminating all the jobs of people who work for insurance companies, process insurance claims, etc.
Here's an organization advocating elimination of private insurance and taking that money to fund single-payer healthcare for all.
Here is a more balanced analysis of single-payer proposals.
And here are the statistical outcomes for cancer in the U.S. vs. Europe.
The newest plan in Mass. has already run into significant budget difficulties.
Granted, part of the problem is that the American political system tends to make decisions on emotion. No matter where you draw the line in health care, someone will get the short end of the stick, and that person will end up on the news as a "victim."
43. skp said the following at 7:03 PM on Aug 28:
I thought I was the only one who had mixed political leanings. I never knew what to call my self. I also like the term "liberal republican." But just when I start to disassociate with the Republican party , the name calling starts. The terms rich, Evil and selfish were used in the above posts to describe Republicans. I found this "extremely offensive"- just like other posters found the carbon baby footprints comment to be offensive. Perhaps people would be more open to seeing the common ground and not the differences in party platforms if we just cut out the name calling.
44. Steve said the following at 7:17 PM on Aug 28:
I really felt that your characterization of Bell and Miller was extremely unfair and inaccurate. The fact that a person advocates a few viewpoints which have recently been associated with more liberal thinking is not sufficient enough to label that person a liberal.
Bell and Miller are like many bloggers on this site: They are liberal conservatives, they find some agreement with both sides, but don't want to be associated with any one- sided man-made doctrine. Their foundation is God's Holy Word, the Bible, and not any political party.
I find it quite a leap to assume that the statement "We shouldn't just be about the sanctity of life and marriage" means "I care more about carbon footprints than unborn baby footprints." Choosing to include a new political cause along side a traditional one doesn't neccessarily mean the new one supersedes the previous one. When you have a second child, does that mean you start to love your first child less ? I know many Christians who care about the unborn just as much as they care about the millions who die as a result of global climate change.
It is true that all of us have a bias, but Bell and Miller seem sincere in thier efforts to minimize theirs. Maybe Focus on the Family should do the same. Focus on the Family claims to be unbiased, but focuses most of its critism on "liberal" causes rather than "conservative" ones.
What is even more frustrating to many sincere Evangelicals is that Focus on the Family labels many causes, which are neither liberal or conservative, as liberal merely because they have been traditionally supported more by "liberals". For example, support for universal health care and an increased minimum wage are characterized as "liberal" and therefore placed in the same league as support for abortion rights and gay rights, when in fact those issues have almost nothing to do with abortion or homosexuals.
It is hard to put people in political camps. I have met gay conservatives and liberal pro-life university professors.
I think the following quote is appropriate: "In essentials, we have unity; in non-essentials, we have liberty; in ALL things, we have charity (love, even if that means loving the most pro-abortion, pro-homosexual political activists).
45. farmer Tom said the following at 7:36 PM on Aug 28:
Again, and again, I come here and lament the absolute ignorance of Biblical principle applied to the arena of politics.
Some of you are convinced that the forceable extraction of funds from the citizen, (taxes), and redistribution of those same funds to your favorite social welfare cause, the poor, the homeless, those with limited access to health care,..... the list is literally endless, yet you fail to understand the very basic standard that God has required of all people everywhere for all time, in His commandments, "Thou shalt not steal."
Any person who advocated the use of taxpayer dollars to do charity, or any other social program is a thief.
The purpose of government as described in Romans 13 is not to steal from the rich and give to the poor. Rather it is to punish the evil doers.
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
Nowhere, nowhere, nowhere in this passage is the redistribution of wealth a role of government. Those of you attempting to have government commit that crime are adding and abetting criminal behavior. Theft is just as wrong done by a government agent with IRS on his jacket, as it is by a masked man with a knife in his hand.
Until, both political parties are obedient to the Word of God by limiting themselves to fulfilling only those duties which God established governments for, then our country will continue to suffer the effects of the evil that is done in the name of government.
As has also been mentioned in previous threads, some of you do not understand the primary evil against which government is to act, a principle also clearly taught in God's Word. A principle upon which all other rights rest, the first fundamental right assumed by man's very existence, the right to life. The first time human government,(mankind justly punishing a fellow human), is mentioned in Scripture, see Genesis chapter 9 vs 6, it is mentioned for the very purpose of defending life, man created in the image of God.
Again, the purpose of government is to punish evil doers. And the taking of human life is evil.
Incessant rambling about using government to commit evil acts, theft, while ignoring the shedding of innocent blood, tends to make those of us who know the Word of God, and believe in following it, see red. You willingly ignore murder on a scale unlike any other culture in history, (50 million unborn murdered), while advocating the stealing of the wages, (just compensation for their labor), of hard working citizens.
Your covetous and unrighteous attitudes toward your fellow humans personal possessions is unGodly and unScriptual. Some of you will attempt to justify your desire to take other people property from them by throwing out verses of Scripture about the poor, the widows, fatherless, etc. And you will be misusing Scripture again, because in none of those passages is it the role of representative government to steal from the citizen to pay for the plight of the unfortunate. Each of those passages either refers to an action on a personal basis or action by the church. If you are confusing the role of the church with that of the government you are also ignorant of Biblical principle and do not understand the system of government that we live under.
So in closing let me suggest that attempts to claim some kind of moral high ground by teachers and preachers who advocate actions and attitudes contrary to the Written Word of God is heresy, and they should be treated with the contempt Peter had for the false prophets of II Peter chapter 2.
46. Adam said the following at 7:58 PM on Aug 28:
I find it remarkable that a party so incredibly opposed to abortion can have a majority in the house and senate, and someone in their party in the White House, and accomplish nothing towards eliminating abortion.
I find it remarkable that the current pro-life presidential candidate has not outlined a plan to eliminate or reduce abortion other than to appoint judges who will legislate how he wants from the bench.
I find it remarkable that a very pro-choice candidate has a plan to reduce abortion by 95% within 10 years. Granted - there's certainly a level that is politics.
I find it remarkable that the same people who want a free market, personal responsibility and small government are fighting so hard for a government solution to the problem of abortion.
47. Amir Larijani said the following at 8:06 PM on Aug 28:
Jethro asks:
Actually, Dobson is anything but that. In fact, looking at the other "evangelical leaders" and conservative organizations, Dobson may be the only one who has not endorsed a candidate.
48. Andrea said the following at 8:56 PM on Aug 28:
In Donald Miller's defense, he openly claims to be a democrat.
49. Adam said the following at 9:04 PM on Aug 28:
"Just please don't call them "aggressively nonpartisan." I mean, you could. But please, don't ... unless you're going to afford Focus on the Family the same courtesy...
What irks me is their pretension of unbiasedness. I believe they use it to lead people leftward, away from more conservative views. And that, my friends, is called a political agenda."
Who was the last person FOTF talked about as being "too conservative?" On what issue would FOTF fall on the more liberal end of the spectrum? Name an organization tha FOTF refuses to associate with and bashes because they are more conservative than FOTF?
Also, how can I label FOTF non-partisan in any way when FOTF Action exists to be... wait for it... partisan.
I wonder what could be accomplished if Bell and Miller came out and said that they are Democrats? Could it be that they could be lumped in with every other "liberal" and have their voices silenced by the Christian community? That sounds like a reason to fight to be non-partisan to me - especially if they have an anti-abortion stance.
As far as the carbon footprint comment was concerned...
"Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful. (Joshua 1:9 NIV)"
Everything means everything. Not just what you can find in 20 verses about homosexuality and abortion. I guess that makes me blue too - even as I'm seeking truth in the book with the red letters.
50. Mark said the following at 9:10 PM on Aug 28:
I don't think anyone *wants* us to have poor health care, poor educational systems, a poor economy, or an unhealthy environment. Of course we want to be safe, competitive, healthy, and prosperous. People just disagree on what the best methods are to obtain these goals and what level of government involvement is required. Just because you happen to disagree with another person about what the best method is doesn't mean he or she is some sort of monster who wants our country to fail. Let's avoid the straw-men, shall we?
I disagree with just about any position that de-emphasizes personal responsibility. I think it's a dangerous place to be when citizens depend so much on the government that they become complacent, lazy, and unambitious. Throughout history, this has led to a downward spiral where citizens put more and more power into the hands of politicians so they don't have to make the decisions for themselves. Eventually, the politicians strip away one too many of the freedoms of citizens, and at that point, the only way out is a bloody revolution.
51. Don said the following at 9:19 PM on Aug 28:
I find that I agree with both major parties on varying issues. I don't, however, agee on enough issues with either party to feel comfortable voting for either party.
I really believe in voting for a party that represents what you actually believe. For me, neither of these major parties fits the bill. But I haven't found a third party that does either.
52. nikki said the following at 11:05 PM on Aug 28:
Doesn't nonpartisan just mean you don't necessarily take ALL of your cues from the party platform?
I think it is way past time that Christians in this country grew up and started thinking for themselves, instead of only what either political party has to say.
This goes for youngish believers who realize how hip it is to take liberal positions on social matters, AND for those who staunchly hold to more stereotypical Christian political leanings. We ALL need to start from Scripture and not from whatever party we're more likely to identify with.
That said, if you are not talking about objective facts of life (what the economy will or will not do if the minimum wage increases, etc), there is a lot of room for disagreement amongst Christians. While there are many mandates found in Scripture that are directly related to political issues today (care of the poor, murder of innocents, and justice in general), there isn't an exact political platform that comes right out of Scripture. Both parties have plenty of problems and evil people within them, as well as good ideas.
53. JJ said the following at 11:42 PM on Aug 28:
It's this kind of partisanship that just isn't going to cut it anymore with young people Motte. Assumptions (such as those in your blog) do not a strong argument make. Oh yes, you'll still have approval from those already in your camp, but those who are moderates(such as myself) have learned to tune out what we sense to be spin. It's just going to take a better approach.
54. Nathanael Snow said the following at 11:59 PM on Aug 28:
It is possible to be a libertarian and hold the views attributed to Bell. I think he's probably a liberal, but I think the US Government should shut down all the foreign bases and bring all the boys (and girls) home to engage in industry, making things, instead of breaking things. Let there be a standing militia, but get out of everyone else's business, shut down the pentagon, the military-industrial-complex, and half of what politicians waste our time talking about.
55. 'Guerite ~ BoldLion said the following at 6:31 AM on Aug 29:
This is very educational for me to read and learn from!
I am conversative and Pro-Life.
I also can see that we without government can help the poor by educating them in other country on a Mission Trip. Also local here too.
I wouldn't like for them to get my tax payer money. I have seen the abuse on how they used the money for.
This does reminded me some years ago when I was getting a medicine refilled at the local CVS drugstore. I noticed a brand new SUV Lexus (truck built). I told myself that is way too expensive and wondering who would be driving that.
While waiting in line for my medicine, there I saw elderly black woman with tinted blue hair and with her sexy looking "granddaughter or daughter". They too was getting medicines and other things on WIC and Food Stamps.
Then I got my medicine with my co-pay insurance and pay them for the rest.
As soon as I got out of the store, and guess who I saw getting into that fancy SUV. It was them. I said "WHOA!" "Is the government paying them more than I am making?"
I have seen this everywhere, and they don't work. I rather not support them because they are too greedy. They need to work to support themselves and learned that money doesn't grow on tree.
Right now, they do think that money does grow on tree because the government is supporting them from our tax money.
This is not right! I do need my tax money to support myself.
Before I got fired from the manufacturing job that I worked for more than 10 years. I was making a little more than $12 an hour and working overtime (16 to 20 hours) and getting 1 1/2 pay.
Now, I have a job making minimum wages that is $6.55, and not a full time, and no overtime. There is no way I can support myself in that. I just have to cut down a lot of things and still go job hunting for better paying job. At least, it is better than no unemployment pay.
What more can I say!
'Guerite ~ BoldLion
56. Jen said the following at 6:40 AM on Aug 29:
JT #37 - amen. It's about time.
57. NAB said the following at 7:12 AM on Aug 29:
@34
Please take a look at the federal budget before you assume military spending is crowding out social entitlement.
58. Cynthia said the following at 8:31 AM on Aug 29:
J. Tucker #34 (universal health care)--thank you!
I have a college degree from a highly respected Christian college and did not have health insurance for two years after I graduated, even though I was working two jobs. I was not able to buy health insurance on my own because I have juvenile diabetes and no health insurance company will cover me. Because I was spending $650 per month on medicine and medical supplies for the diabetes (on an $800 month total take-home pay), I qualified for welfare and food stamps but not for medicaid. I finally got very ill from the flu and could only be treated at an emergency room, through which they finally let me into the hospital. I ran up $20,000 in medical bills in 4 short days. The hospital wrote off some of the bills but I was not able to pay my remaining medical bills because I had been unable to work for 2 months because I was so sick, and the unpaid bills ruined my credit.
I am now 26 years old. I now have good health insurance through group insurance at my job. But recently I had to have major surgery to remove pre-cancerous tumors from my stomach. All the costs would have been about $80,000 out of pocket without health insurance. I am scared about what would have happened if I had needed this surgery when I didn't have health insurance.
While it is U.S. law that emergency rooms have to treat you whether you have insurance or not, no hospital or doctor has to treat you for a "non-emergency" if you don't have a way to pay for it. Cancer, diabetes, lupus, multiple schlerosis, Lou Gherig's disease, rheumatoid arthritis are not diseases that can be treated by emergency rooms and go untreated if you don't have health insurance. Even if you do have health insurance, many times the policies don't cover those things fully.
I honestly don't know what I would have done if I had needed that surgery when I did not have insurance. I am forced to consider the possibility that I would have died.
59. Danielle said the following at 9:27 AM on Aug 29:
This post didn't sit well with me. Somehow I sense a critical , unfair, and biased attitude, particularly with the third-to-last paragraph (as has been mentioned numerous times).
J. Tucker, I agree wholeheartedly with you, particularly with the first commented you posted.
Would Jesus have been in a political party? In reality, the heart of God sits with positions on both sides: protecting unborn life, good stewardship of His creation, caring for the least of these, protecting the sanctity of marriage. It has been said before, but I will once again say that we aren't called to be followers of a party, or even politics, but of Christ. When our involvement in a political party begins to eclipse our relationship with God (or at least how people see us in that relationship with God), we need to ask ourselves if we're letting commitment to a party come before commitment to following Him.
Of course, I believe our faith and core values will influence our political positions, but to me that faith seems like it would be influencing us to a middle position, or perhaps a positions that seeks the creation of a "Jesus party," or a "Decline to State party" (haha) like I have come to define myself by.
Perhaps it's in the heat of an election season that this blog was posted, but I think that it gives the underlying sense that to be conservative or to be Republican is somehow more Christian, while Christ makes no mention of commitment to specific U.S. political parties in Scripture. Psalm 111:10 says that "the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; all those who practice it have a good understanding." To me this implies that a person who truly loves and seeks to live for God will be able to make wise political decisions in line with what God cares about.
For me, as I have grown in my relationship with God I have seen myself becoming increasingly politically moderate (socially conservative and economically liberal). I'd like to think that it is the result of God working in my heart to make me more like Him so that ultimately people will see a life that is radically transformed as a result of his work, but not a life that is stubbornly holding to the right or left.
60. IMO said the following at 10:58 AM on Aug 29:
"I find it remarkable that a party so incredibly opposed to abortion can have a majority in the house and senate, and someone in their party in the White House, and accomplish nothing towards eliminating abortion."
Not true.
There have been small victories.
61. Chris said the following at 10:59 AM on Aug 29:
Vanessa writes:
The next time anyone tells me they want a raise in the minimum wage, I want to ask them why they don't insist on mandatory yearly cost of living rates for EVERY wage earner. When minimum wage is raised 7-10% every year or so, while the average American worker gets a 3-5% raise IF THEY'RE LUCKY....the consumer price index goes crazy and wages for the mass of lower and middle class families goes nowhere. Raising the minimum wage does nothing other than create far more problems for the rest of the working class than it solves for those living in the poverty level.
Minimum wage is not increasing at 7-10%, at least long term. Check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:History_of_US_federal_minimum_wage_increases.svg
The problem with a non-indexed minimum wage is that between those instances when it's raised, the purchasing power decreases. While the average worker may get even a small increase that doesn't compensate for inflation, that person is at least getting something. Those subject to minimum wage don't.
What results, then, is a seesawing effect where political pressure has to build up, resulting in a relatively rapid increase, just to bring purchasing power back up to some previous level.
From a macro-economic viewpoint, what you propose would probably be better (yearly increases) if applied to minimum wage only. Then employers would naturally have to adjust to it yearly, either as companies who employ minimum wage earners or employ others who would experience upward wage pressure from such increases. They wouldn't then have to suddenly deal with large increases. (Rather interesting when you consider the Fed's primary job of price stability, e.g. low, manageable inflation.)
I, for one, would like to see such a system linked to increases in productivity. That way, as our economy (in general) becomes more efficient, everyone shares in it. When productivity does not grow, then everyone doesn't share in it. Those of us able to increase our productivity within our sphere of influence or greatly increase our productivity would still be able to secure additional increases for ourselves. Think of it as a general profit bonus plan for all the employees along with incentive plans for individual performance.
62. Jeremy said the following at 11:01 AM on Aug 29:
"...tends to make those of us who know the Word of God, and believe in following it, see red."
=) One of the things I find most entertaining about you, Farmer Tom, is your not-so-subtle implication in almost every post that anyone who disagrees with you, even about something as cearly secondary as the role of government, is not a true Christian.
Anyway, I will only address part of your post right now, but one of the classic ways in which taxation is understood economically is in the form of an implicit contract between citizen and government. Just as it is not theft when an employee demands compensation for his work according to the terms of his (usually explicit) contract, so also it is not theft when the government extracts taxes in exchange for services and protections, in accordance with this implicit contract. And just as an employee is free to leave a company if he finds the terms of his employment disagreeable, so too is a citizen free to leave this country if he finds that social contract disagreeable. We studied this while sitting in some big room listening to some egghead drone on in a monotone =).
And the obvious problem with your sole focus on abortion, as many others have pointed out, is that it has no effect. Even for those that do think abortion is murder, handing your vote over to the Republican party will change nothing, just as it has changed nothing for the last 8 Republican-led years, or for the intermittently Republican-led 17 years prior. It is an issue Republicans are more than happy to exploit in order to get votes, but when it comes to any sort of action, nothing has happened and nothing is going to happen.
63. BDB said the following at 11:45 AM on Aug 29:
Well. Based on the news this morning, I think we're guaranteed that, one way or another, some things will be shaken up in Washington D.C.
This is going to be a fun election!
64. mary kate said the following at 12:14 PM on Aug 29:
the comments on here are interesting, that's for sure. i'm wondering what you think about them, motte?
65. Dan Gill said the following at 12:21 PM on Aug 29:
The comments in the magazine and in Donald Miller's prayer reveal that Bell and Miller are partisan in that they declare support for positions that are largely on one side of the aisle. They may hold equally strong beliefs about positions on the other side of the aisle, but they didn't bother to express those. That is the essence of partisanship.
66. Texas Craig said the following at 1:08 PM on Aug 29:
Farmer Tom (#45): Sometimes I am amazed by your responses, because they appear so confident and yet are so lacking in biblical support. You say that government's sole role is to punish the evildoer, and there is no biblical support for taking from others to benefit the poor. Read up on the tithe, brother. Part of the tithe was mandated to care for the needs of the poor and the widows. The tithe, as well as many aspects of the Jewish laws at the time, were intended as the means of government for the Jewish people.
You might respond that we are not the same as the Jewish state, which I agree. But, we certainly can look to the laws that God gave them as good principles for governing. Moreover, if anyone is going to talk (rightfully) about how all laws are a reflection of morality (which they are), then certainly things that we are called to do as individuals can and should be supported and encouraged by our government.
Moreover, there is no legal basis for concluding that government-approved action is "stealing." Just as it was not stealing for the tithe to be required, or for taxes to be paid to the civil government (let us not forget that Jesus commanded that taxes be paid when the question was addressed to him), it is not "stealing" when the government, through legal means, requires taxes to be paid.
Farmer Tom, you are entitled to your opinions, but KNOW THIS: your views are not God's word, nor do you have the monopoly on understanding God's word. Moreover, those of us who disagree with you do not necessarily have any less love for or understanding of God's word. I will more than happily address your arguments, just like I did regarding the covenant with Noah, to show that your interpretations are not necessarily clearly aligned with what God's word says.
67. Motte said the following at 1:54 PM on Aug 29:
Mary Kate:
I'm glad you asked.
I believe that most of the commentators on this board are good willed. But there's an assumption within many of the posts that needs to be addressed. One assumption is that one party cares more for the poor and needy than the other. That's simply not true. The point of contention is the role of government as is relates to the poor and needy.
So when the good willed Christians on this board say that I'm both liberal and conservative, what they're really saying is that liberals care more -- and do more -- for the poor because they're for more government programs that address the ligitimate needs of many Americans. And so the commentators say, I'm with the liberals on issues like universal health care, etc.
Obviously, I do not agree that it's the government's responsibility to provide for it's citizens in that way. And I certainly do not agree that conservatives care less for the poor than liberals because they believe the same as I do.
Which brings me to my next point.
These same good-willed Christians say they are conservative because of issues like abortion. But it's one thing to "say" it and altogether another thing to "vote" it. Because you're really not given a choice of picking and choosing your issues when you go into the voting booth like it's some sort of political buffet. No, you're having to choose between two viable candidates who are on completely opposite ends of the spectrum on just about every issue.
And as I've written previously, issues should be weighted.
It's perfectly legitimate to argue the government's role in caring for the poor and the environment. And you can differ with me all you want. But abortion is another matter. Or at least it should be. Protecting preborn babies, in my opinion, is not debatable.
So when I wrote that people "care more for carbon footprints than preborn baby footprints," what I meant is that when people vote for pro-abortion candidates, they are choosing "debatable" issues over "non-debatable" issues.
It's their right to believe those things. I don't think they're evil because they believe those things. But I do believe they're very wrong about those things.
68. BDB said the following at 2:10 PM on Aug 29:
Jeremy (#62) wrote:
>>It is an issue Republicans are more than happy to exploit in order to get votes, but when it comes to any sort of action, nothing has happened and nothing is going to happen.<<
Please keep in mind that before 1973, abortion was something handled by state legislatures. It was legal in some states, not legal in others. It was the Rowe v. Wade decision that made the issue of judges so intensely political. That decision forced states who didn't believe in abortion to allow it.
I definitely think that the Republican party has paid a lot more attention to judges as a result of this politization. There is a difference in which judges get appointed depending on which party holds the presidency. But even if Rowe v. Wade was overturned, it just throws abortion back to the state legislatures.
On health care, I do think we need to have a comprehensive discussion about the trade-offs. For example, some on the right argue that we could pay for health care just fine if illegal aliens weren't getting it for free. is that a valid argument? Well, how is it being paid for? If they're paying social security taxes, then they are taxpayers. If they're being paid under the table, then they're not paying into it. I don't think you can "solve" the healthcare crisis without "solving" immigration. If allowing immigrants to apply for green cards means that they start paying taxes, would that be enough money to solve the problem?
Part of the reason medical insurance costs so much (I'm paying $350/month right now) is that individual states pass laws to mandate all sorts of things be covered. Most states do not allow policies that cover just the "basics."
California is different in that it has a $250,000 limit for "pain and suffering" in medical malpractice lawsuits. That keeps some semblance of control of costs. California seems to have plenty of doctors, while other states are finding all their OB/GYNs leaving because malpractice insurance is too expensive. I don't think you'll get functional health care refom without tort reform. Doctors who can't afford to take the risk with lawsuits might just decide to get their satisfaction for helping people by going to other countries to do medical missions, like former senator Bill Frist, M.D. did while he was a senator. He couldn't afford to keep up his malpractice insurance while serving in the senate, so he practiced medicine overseas during the breaks. Somehow, I doubt the Democratic party has the intestinal fortitude to fix the lawsuit part of the health-care crisis, which means they can never really fix the problem.
By all means, let's have a national conversation about health care.
69. Cynthia said the following at 2:55 PM on Aug 29:
Motte,
7 of the current 9 Supreme Court Justices were put in place by Republican Presidents. At the time that Roe V. Wade was passed, 6 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices were put in place by Republican Presidents. In the 35 years since Roe V. Wade was legalized, Republican Presidents have been in office 23 of those years, Democrats 12 of those years. Also, the Supreme Court gets thousands of requests for review of different cases each year and only chooses a hand-full of the ones they want to choose. The current Republican-nominated appointees have pointedly not decided to revisit Roe V. Wade year after year after year. Which leads me to one big question.
What the heck have the Republicans been doing all this time? I'm serious! They have repeatedly squandered their opportunities to do something about Roe V. Wade while throwing in the term abortion to get evangelical votes. If I really thought the Republicans would actually do something about abortion, I would be happy to vote for them based on this one issue.
Meanwhile, many Republicans are against universal healthcare, which a pro-life issue and right to life issue, just as much as abortion is. 18,000 people die each year from lack of health care due to lack of insurance. We say in the pro-life movement that unborn children have the same right to life as adults. Well, then, don't adults have the same right to life as unborn children? Or do we value human life only if it is part of a group that numbers 1.2 million a year?
And how about this? 19-24 year olds have the highest rate of being poor and uninsured, and abortion rates for women are highest in the 20-24 year old range. Also, it has been found that poverty and other family over-responsibility is the leading predictor coupled with unplanned pregnancy of abortion. Poverty also corresponds with lack of health insurance. What do I mean by all this? If we solved the health care crisis in this country, we could go a long way to providing support for our mothers who may be tempted to get an abortion.
Look, the whole point of doing away with Roe is to get abortions to decrease and ultimately stop. But getting rid of Roe is only one part of the puzzle. We will always need to the Church to change hearts and minds about abortion and social programs to support moms and give them the tools they need to raise healthy families.
Getting rid of Roe (which I support) does nothing in and of itself to solve the problem that tempt desperate women to commmit abortion.
And please, Motte, never, ever, ever, jump to conclusions and judge me and think that I don't care passionately as much as you do about ending abortion. I am serious about it. But this is a major area of imbalance in the Church and many blogs that I have read by secular feminists readily point out their perceived hypocrisy of "pro-life" advocates who show by their Republican votes that they don't support mothers (using your same argument that those who vote democrat don't want an end to abortion).
Thanks.
70. Texas Craig said the following at 2:57 PM on Aug 29:
Motte (#67): I respectfully disagree with your assertion that what we "liberal conservatives" are saying is that one side cares more for the poor, etc. I never said that, nor do I believe that. Rather, within the context of labeling (which I disagree with anyway), I was making the point that I do not fit within either camp based upon the way you started your original article: namely, that certain views are partisanly liberal.
In fact, I think your last post makes the point I was trying to: i.e., that caring about certain things (such as the poor) should not mean that someone is labeled as either conservative or liberal.
As for abortion, I will be honest that I find the views expressed by many to be hypocritical. I expressed this concern in another post, and no one responded to it. But, if you and Farmer Tom are going to raise it, let's really discuss it.
I am pro-life, but not because I think abortion is murder. In fact, if I think abortion is murder, then I am COMPELLED to go down to the abortion clinic and physically restrain the abortion doctor or mother to prevent the abortion, in the same way that I would physically struggle with someone who is going to shoot my wife, daughter, neighbor, etc.
So, if someone believes that abortion is murder, then explain to me how you can justify letting it happen? The only justifiable answer I can ascertain to that question is that a person believes that force is not appropriate to use even in self-defense or in defending the life of another. So, the person who would stand by and watch someone shoot their neighbor, wife or child without taking action can justifiably say that abortion is murder and do nothing to physically stop it. But, for everyone else, either they don't believe abortion really is murder, or they don't live out their convictions with the courage they ough to.
This is a serious question I would like to hear the answer to from those who consider abortion to be murder. How can you not physically act to stop it? Would you let someone kill your neighbor without taking action? Even if it means violating the law (like those who hid the Jews in WW2), surely we are required to stop the atrocity at all costs if this murder is going on?
Please, let's discuss this since it has been thrown out there.
71. John said the following at 3:37 PM on Aug 29:
#58
The perfect example of illogical processing.
You may have died. If you're a Christian, so what? Nothing could be better than being with Jesus.
Fact #1: The reason the health care you paid out of pocket for is so expensive is BECAUSE of the third party payer system we have here in the U.S. Which is just a couple steps from full blown communist.
Fact#2: If the government were less involved, people used insurance the way it supposed to be used and were held responsible for their own health while paying for care that was not necessary for insurance to pay for, the costs of everything from pills to chemo would be far lower.
Fact#3: There are churches and Christian organizations that could have helped you as well as Christian individuals who could have helped you. Also, if the government wouldn't take so much money from us, they would've had even more resources to help you.
The answer is not more insurance, more regulation, more taxes, etc. Those are the very reasons the costs are so high in the first place. Communist health care (which is referred to by many as universal health care) will simply "ration" health care to the point that seeing a doctor will happen after you've long passed away. The prices will be artificial and not reflect the true nature of the situation. (The resources involved)
The incentives for new cures, technologies and such will not be there because of fixed costs. Under such circumstances, unless you're very rich and know people, you would most assuredly die!
Communism, socialism, liberalism, progressive, etc. are all anti-God philosophies. Policies enacted based on such ideals harm people they do not help at all. As Christians, it is our duty to defend the defenseless. Do not fall prey to nor be involved with these horrible philosophies. Pray and read your bible so you are not ignorant of the enemy's tricks.
Conservative ideals (not synonymous with republican ideals) are biblical and the practical application of God's principles.
72. Adam said the following at 3:37 PM on Aug 29:
IMO,
Small victories? Perhaps. Any constitutional ammendments? Any laws that would outlaw the practice? Any universal laws requiring parental consent for underage abortions?
The simple fact of the matter is that even a Republican majority will do basically nothing to stop the tide. The most that can be hoped for is that there will be an abortion litmus test on judicial appointments (which is probably technically illegal, or at the very least unethical).
73. John said the following at 3:53 PM on Aug 29:
A few more facts:
Trial lawyers(ambulance chasers like John Edwards) are another reason for the high costs in health care.
The fact that becoming a doctor and protecting your practice from law suits costs so much causes many to forgo the whole thing and never enter the field of medicine, thereby reducing the number of doctors. (Hopefully you all can put 2 and 2 together when it comes to supply and demand)
Or if they do become doctors, the high cost of business is passed onto the consumers.
The consumers being insurance companies, because individuals don't actually "shop" for health care but instead "coverage". Next time you're in a hospital, ask how much a particular procedure costs. Try not to feel uneasy when the nurse looks at you like you have two heads.
Lastly, as comical as it sounds, the largest purchaser of health insurance and thereby health care, the largest monopoly in existence, the government, likes to attack insurance companies and health care providers for making health care "unaffordable".
And the great unwashed mindlessly nods in agreement never even batting an eye lid at the fact that it is that very government monopoly that makes the costs artificially higher than what they would be if individuals had to personally realize the costs of health care.
Unfortunately, we're too far down the red brick road to stop the communist health care train from coming and wrecking the greatest health care system in the world.
74. Bertha said the following at 4:26 PM on Aug 29:
Hmm...I agree with Bell and Miller on some things and I agree with FOTF on some things. I tend to identify myself as a conservative, however, (particularly online) I find many conservatives who make me want to become a liberal. Personally, I would like to see a pro-life, pro-enviroment party.
75. farmer Tom said the following at 5:25 PM on Aug 29:
62. Jeremy , dude you're a barrel of laughs,
, even about something as cearly secondary as the role of government,
So if I understand what your saying, you would be perfectly happy living in North Korea, since government is simply a non-issue with you. See ya, move your self over there since, it's no big deal, it's a secondary issue.
I on the other hand believe that we had a system of government based on Biblical principles and I would like to maintain that system instead of the corrupt social welfare state so many of you thieves desire.
And the obvious problem with your sole focus on abortion, as many others have pointed out, is that it has no effect. Even for those that do think abortion is murder, handing your vote over to the Republican party will change nothing, just as it has changed nothing for the last 8 Republican-led years, or for the intermittently Republican-led 17 years prior
Do you know what happens when you assume?
I have not voted for a Republican for president since 1996. I voted twice for Howard Phillips of the Constitution party and in 2004 I voted for Michael Petrutka of the Constitution Party. So try again for some constructive criticism, but get your facts straight next time. :)
Interesting to note that you critiqued my comments about the purpose of government, even made a opposing claim about that purpose, yet you cited as a reference, some egghead drone on in a monotone. Now that impressive, you obviously are a great parrot, but where is your use of Scripture, the revealed Word of Almighty God, to defend your position. I gave you two passages which define the role of government, you gave me an eggheaded drone! My source trumps yours, try again. :)
If you believe that God's Word is our final authority for faith and practice, see II Peter 1;3,4, then your opinions about government should be formed and shaped by the Word of God, not some eggheaded drone.
76. Steve said the following at 6:22 PM on Aug 29:
Motte,
It is appreciated that you further clarified what you meaning when you wrote they "care more for carbon footprints than preborn baby footprints." While I have gained a deeper understanding of your argument, I still strongly disagree with it.
According to statistics I saw in the book "God's Politics", for every baby that dies from abortion, eight children around the world starve to death. Tens of thousands perish every day from war, preventable diseases, poverty, lack of access to affordable health care, and the affects of climate change. It is not "debatable" whether or not we should take political action to end these deaths any more than it is "debatable" whether or not we should stop the killing of unborn babies.
It neither party chooses to embrace ALL of these issues, Christians should pull out of both parties and start thier own political party. We must NOT be tempted into believing that we are doing the right thing by choosing the "lesser" of two evils; God always provides a way out for us, even in the voting booth.
77. BDB said the following at 1:22 PM on Aug 30:
Obviously, I should have written Roe v. Wade.
I actually had dinner with Norma McCorvey once before she gave a speech. I don't think of her as Jane Roe any more.
But I know a bunch of other people named "Rowe." Sorry.
78. Eric C said the following at 3:20 PM on Aug 30:
The issue of protecting unborn life takes precedence over other matters such as poverty and environmental stewardship because people who are already living in the world can always receive help both from others and more importantly, from God. Unborn life, by contrast, can't seek or even receive help because it's not even at the point of entering the world.
Do you save the people who are in a rickety boat, or do you save the people who are ALREADY in the water sinking?
79. Leah said the following at 7:48 PM on Aug 31:
Texas Craig (66)- Amen, brother.
80. Steve said the following at 9:20 PM on Aug 31:
Christina (#27), you said:
"2) How liberal immigration = GOOD. Especially with our lack of requirement for people to learn our language. Do you know how difficult it is to teach in a multi-lingual classroom? Or how (especially in Florida), multi-lingual students affect standardized test scores, thereby driving down school ratings and losing government funding? Also, lower rated schools have a higher drop-out rate...meaning more uneducated workforce...which contributes to poverty..."
So there is a correlation between multilingual education and low standardized test scores. Have you considered that the problem might be the standardized tests themselves and not the multi-lingual students who are taking them?
81. farmer Tom said the following at 8:10 PM on Sep 1:
66. Texas Craig,
I'm tired, I'm busy, and I find replying to you a chore. You use terms in manners which are in direct opposition to the clear Biblical meaning of those terms.
Since Christ fulfilled the demands required by God to pay the penalty for sin,we are no longer under the law, we are living under grace. Tithe is a part of the law. There is no such thing as tithe for a New Covenant believer.
Galatians 2:20-3:6
20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Galatians 3
1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
Texas Craig, why do you want to return to the law, a required system of tithe when we are free to worship God with giving for conscience sake??
See the following passages,
I Corinthians 16:2 2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him.....
We are to give out of our ability, and
II Corinthians 9:7
7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.
by the dictates of conscience.
There is no demand for a particular amount of giving from God for the New Covenant believer.
Why do you desire to return to a system which is the opposite of giving of your own free will???
Why is it that you so desire to control mankind, you would allow the "state" to demand something that God does not demand of New Covenant believers???
I could go on, but I believe it will be futile. You are convinced that God would do good, (feeding the poor, helping the fatherless, etc.) by demanding of people that they submit to an onerous tax system?
My God is not like that. He wants His people to give to the poor, the fatherless, etc out of love. He desires that we do those things which please Him out of love for Him, not at the point of a gun.
Your god is a shallow vicious god, who requires his victims to do good, to pay for the fatherless, and the poor out of compulsion. Do it, or else. Your god does not trust you to do what is right, he will force you to do what he requires, because he says so.
My God says, II Corinthians 9:7 " 7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver."
So that's your choice, your god of giving at the point of a gun, or my God who says, Give out of love for me.
Which do you prefer Texas Craig???????????
82. Leah said the following at 10:56 PM on Sep 1:
farmer Tom- you are wrong to dictate that Texas Craig's "god" is different to yours. Just because he might have a flawed opinion of God does not mean it is a different God.
Also, if replying to him is such a chore, don't do it.
83. Texas Craig said the following at 10:58 PM on Sep 1:
Farmer Tom (#81): My God is simply the God who has reconciled us to Himself, not counting our sins against us. My God is love. He is perfect and gracious and compassionate. He also seeks justice. So, I am not sure who you are talking about when you reference who you think my God is.
Yes, I completely agree we are no longer under the law, nor are we obligated to tithe. If you are tired from responding to my thoughts, perhaps it is because you are jumping around, taking too many different positions. Here is what you said in your earlier post:
"Some of you are convinced that the forceable extraction of funds from the citizen, (taxes), and redistribution of those same funds to your favorite social welfare cause, the poor, the homeless, those with limited access to health care,..... the list is literally endless, yet you fail to understand the very basic standard that God has required of all people everywhere for all time, in His commandments, "Thou shalt not steal."
My point was in response to your comment about what God has (in your own words) "required of all people everywhere for all time." Clearly, your idea of government redistribution being stealing could not be true if God used it in the form of the tithe for the government of His people, the Jews. So, I was taking issue with your point. I was not at all trying to say that the tithe applies to us, nor that we are under the law.
But, just because we are no longer under the law, this does not mean that principles of caring for others or using God's principles as a mean for government is wrong. You are mixing apples and oranges. Our freedom in Christ and the method of governing are two different issues.
Moreover, I find it interesting that you conveniently ignored something in the passage from Romans 13 that you cited. Specifically, you say that the primary purpose of government is to punish evildoers. But, in your own post, you note that Romans 13:4 states the ruler is "the minister of God to thee for good." Who are you to define "good" as ONLY including the punishment of evildoers? The passage says that rulers are used by God for "good." In the verse right before, it notes that those who do good will receive praise by the rulers. Thus, clearly, they are not there just to punish evildoers.
Moreover, you read into the post your own thoughts about who are "evildoers." Who qualifies to receive the sword? Those who commit murder only? Those who rape? What about those who withhold money and are not generous (Ever heard of Ananias and Sapphira?). My problem with most of your posts is that you read into a passage what you want to see in it, ignore whatever might disagree with your views, and then you act as if your view is the only acceptable interpretation and everyone else is bent on denying God.
Just so we are clear, God's word is my authority, and the God I serve is loving, gracious, and just. He has set us free from the law, no doubt. But, that freedom from the law does not nullify that we can learn from what he taught the Israelites about how to set up their government.
Romans 13:4 tells us that government is there to do good. That includes punishing evildoers. But, that is not all. What about national defense? Is that acceptable to you? That certainly goes beyond just punishing evildoers. What are the biblical limits you believe exist upon government, and what is your biblical basis for it? You will have to provide more than Romans 13, because that has the open-ended statement that government exists to do good, which certainly would support most of the things I would like to see government do. So, please do enlighten me, because I am always open to what God's word says. So, if you have strong support, I will happily review it.
84. John said the following at 6:12 AM on Sep 2:
farmer Tom,
The tithe came BEFORE the law! The tithe is still in affect. If you're not doing it, you're stealing from God.
Your point about charity, though, is correct.
Some taxes are right and necessary. Others are out right theft.
But the sheeple like simple. Thinking gets in the way of hedonism.
"Everybody's workin for the weekend." And to pay for unwed pregnant teens!
85. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:33 AM on Sep 2:
Adam remarks:
This is because of what abortion is. All "problems" are not equal. Given that there have been well over 50 million such abortions since 1973, we either have the greatest advancement in human liberty worth celebrating, or we have a mass slaughter that would rival the worst of Stalin and Mao.
Given the medical realities of human life in utero, Needless to say, this "problem" is not some little inconvenience, like, say, a county debating whether to go "wet" or "dry" (i.e. allow or ban the sale of alcohol).
Ergo, some level of government involvement is in order, the issue being which level of government, and what depth of legislation, and what type of enforcement mechanism (active or passive) is appropriate.
Some in the pro-life movement want an all-encompassing Human Life Amendment whereas others--such as myself--would rather see the issue returned to the states so that voters, legislatures, governors, and state courts would have ownership in addressing the matter.
(I take the latter approach, because our Constitution is predisposed toward allowing states the latitude to define degrees of murder, manslaughter, homicide, and what constitutes accessories thereof, and levels of punishment for each. Moreover, our federal government has--in the years since Roe v. Wade--shown its utter lack of competence to provide effective leadership on this issue.)
86. obewan said the following at 10:22 AM on Sep 2:
The blog said:
>>”And though it's possible to be both liberal and nonpartisan,…”<<
Is this an acknowledgement that it is not possible to be conservative and non-partisan?
The tone of the whole blog suggests that you think this is the case. You make it into an all or nothing scenario. Opposition to the war = “siding” with the “liberals”. Failure to support the “pro-life” candidate = voting “for” abortion.
My reality suggests that it is not that simple. How am I to define myself when a “Republican” candidate is opposed to the war, or when the so-called “pro-life” candidate declares that he is opposed to any constitutional amendment that would “ban” abortions?
87. Carrie (the original) said the following at 1:13 PM on Sep 2:
Ok, now I know why my comment wasn't published.
I'll try to take a more "non-partisan" approach. I just finished reading Donald Miller's "Searching for God Knows What". I can understand where the guy is coming from. It seems as he is working really hard to not indentify himself with the Christian stereotypes and I can't really blame him.
While you won't catching me throwing my support in *that* direction, I can still understand where he is coming from.
I just want to say the following in light of the most recent blog post . . . "MacGyver 2008". (A friend of mine has that bumper sticker and I love it!)
88. obewan said the following at 1:28 PM on Sep 2:
Maybe the tax-exempt status comes into play for the "non-partisan liberal Christian" pastors too. I mean, we should afford them the same courtesy if they "claim" to be non-partisan and also have concerns about their own tax-exempt status.
89. John said the following at 8:07 PM on Sep 2:
The titheis still in effect. Try as you might, if you're not tithing, you're stealing from God.
It was before the law!
90. farmer Tom said the following at 1:01 AM on Sep 3:
I'll get back to Texas Craig and his love of other peoples money in a while, right now I want to remind you all off something else.
I'm a Constitutionalist. I believe that nothing should be done by our federal government which is not explicitly stated by the Constitution. Since the Constitution never mentions education, the use of federal dollars to fund education is unConstitutional, and is a violation of the Law.
Since many of you seem to think that ignoring the Constitution is no big deal, and you're in favor of the government taking dollars and spending them on things which it is not entitled to, you do not complain, in fact you applaud their actions. And that kind of behavior leads to other violations of the Constitution.
Read this statement from the Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
Now think about what that means. Does it say that religious organizations do not have the right to free speech? Of course not, rather it says the Congress shall make no law regulating speech or religion. Yet both political parties are so wicked, they no longer follow the law, they do things that the law never intended, they restrict things that the writers of the Constitution would find appalling. Don't believe me go to the top of the page and read the following post.
Sex: Yes. Religion: Yes. Politics: Um.
And it's our very own fault. We have accepted evil,(violation of the law) in the name of good, (all the government programs which do something like education, healthcare etc) and now the result is that the Law is no longer being followed with regard to our God given rights. Freedom of speech is now regulated,(it is in fact no longer free), while we accept the illegal benefits of programs offered by a government attempting to do "good". Put another way, we have sold the birthright for a bowl of soup from the government kitchen.
Again, both political parties are to blame for this. Both parties are aiding and abetting the social welfare state. And in the process, you are losing your freedoms.
Next they will be telling you that your money in not your own, that they are entitled to all of it, ..... oops, bad example, ever heard of the income tax? how much do you make? you can keep this much of it....
91. John said the following at 6:52 AM on Sep 3:
Texas Craig,
You're over looking a huge difference between your example and our government today:
Namely, Jews didn't come to their fellow Jews' house (or tent as it were) and arrest them for not paying the tithe at point of a gun!
They also didn't use that tithe to pay for infanticide, needle exchanges, unmerited welfare, etc.
Looks like its back to the drawing board for you.
92. John said the following at 7:11 AM on Sep 3:
Here is something to chew on.
93. obewan said the following at 10:04 AM on Sep 3:
#91.John had the following to say on Sep 3 at 6:52 AM:
>>”Namely, Jews didn't come to their fellow Jews' house (or tent as it were) and arrest them for not paying the tithe at point of a gun!
They also didn't use that tithe to pay for infanticide, needle exchanges, unmerited welfare, etc.<<”
--------------------------------------------
They probably were not arrested for not “paying” their tithe for two reasons:
1.) The tithe was never money even though money existed at the time the tithe was in effect. It was always food or animals to be used as food or spices to be used for cooking food.
2.) Not everyone was required to tithe. Only landowners who farmed or herders who raised animals for food were subject to the tithe law. The poor did not tithe. City dwellers did not tithe. Craftsman or trades people were not subject to the tithe law.
As for the “welfare” part, a full 1/3 of the tithe went to feed the poor, disabled, widows, orphans, etc…You would be hard pressed to find ANY church today that complies with THAT part of the “tithe law”.
The New Testament makes the case that the freewill “offering” is superior to the tithe. I can see why. If everyone complied literally with the tithe law, as it originally existed, the church would have LESS money since money and not food is what it runs on today. Then too, the freewill offering could raise more than 10% for some people who are very blessed and are generous givers.
I grow quickly weary with all the misguided teaching on the subject of tithing in the church today. I mean, we have televangelists spewing their pitch on how it is wrong to “rob” God, and they cry out for people to bring the whole “tithe” into the storehouse. Then they go out and buy another mansion or private jet for themselves and get caught using it to fly their family to Colorado ski vacations. (I won’t name the person who did that because supposedly she has repented.)
To read a good PhD Thesis on the subject of tithing written by a man in seminary you can use this link. It contains all the scripture and historical perspective to back up the points I stated.
www.tithing-russkelly.com/
94. Adam said the following at 11:12 AM on Sep 3:
John,
You have to do quite the stretch Biblically to come to the idea that the tithe is required of Christians. You can go through the whole Abraham/Melchizedek/Hebrews link - but an example does not a command make.
farmer Tom,
It seems to me that we pretty much have free speech in this country. Granted, there are some exceptions. For instance, shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.
Religious institutions have free speech as well. If they wish to be exempt from paying taxes - they have to be willing to limit their speech. Any church can drop their non-exempt status and basically say whatever they want. If we as Americans are going to grant organizations a free ride and protections - then we require a trade-off.
---
There was definitely a form of government welfare/income distribution in the Old Testament. There were government mandated debt cancellation programs. And you were not allowed to harvest your entire field. These are both forms of government welfare. It may not be in the form of cash, but it is the same result.
But we can talk about how big bad government has overstepped the Biblical ideal of government. But we live in a Republic. We elect people to represent us and our views. The culmination of 200 years of doing this has gotten us where we are today.
95. Texas Craig said the following at 4:24 PM on Sep 3:
John (#91):
I am not sure how I got lumped in as the guy supporting redistribution of wealth. I think you misunderstood the point I was making with my reference to the tithe, and you have expanded it to something I never intended to communicate. As I said in a post earlier, I am not a fan of government providing services, nor do I like government getting bigger. On the flip side, though, I would like to see my government dollars going to something beneficial, rather than to go toward, as you say, "to pay for infanticide, needle exchanges, unmerited welfare, etc."
I am not in favor of expanding welfare, nor do I have much sympathy for the so-called "poor" in our country. As someone who has been to China before, I have seen what the truly poor in the world look like, and they are not the people in our country who live in government housing and have televisions.
But, I do think better and more available preventive healthcare for people in our society is a good thing and ought to be explored. I certainly understand the policy arguments against it. My whole point originally in regard to the tithe was that Farmer Tom was wrong to say that there was no biblical basis for the idea of some (albeit limited) "redistribution of wealth" for the poor, because the tithe and other requirements given to the Jews established that for their government. Yes, there were all kinds of differences between the Jews and us, and I acknowledged that in my post.
In fact, as far as government-sponsored programs, I am disgusted by the medicare expansion put into place by the so-called conservative administration. But, to get back to the original article by Motte, I also do not think it is fair to label certain issues as conservative or liberal, or claim that some are "partisan" just because they hold certain views on some issues.
As for the tithe, obewan does a great job of explaining it and I will not elaborate.
96. farmer Tom said the following at 5:11 PM on Sep 3:
Adam, I agreed with everything you said up to this point,
But we live in a Republic.
Sorry, but we lost that a long time ago, we actually live in a social welfare democracy.
obewan said,
I grow quickly weary with all the misguided teaching on the subject of tithing in the church today. I mean, we have televangelists spewing their pitch on how it is wrong to “rob” God, and they cry out for people to bring the whole “tithe” into the storehouse. Then they go out and buy another mansion or private jet for themselves and get caught using it to fly their family to Colorado ski vacations.
Amen.
97. Charles H. said the following at 4:12 AM on Sep 4:
Re: "Sex, yes. Religion, yes. Politics, um." -- I am shocked at how many Christians are willingly silenced by the mere fear (not even a specific threat!) of losing, of all things, a tax exemption. I assume that's the unnamed "legal" fear alluded to in that closed posting.
Are we really that coddled? What would a Christian in China or Sudan, in fear for his or her very life, say of a church huddled in fear of losing a tax exemption?
98. John said the following at 7:43 AM on Sep 4:
obewan,
Tisk, tisk. You're poor reading skills are showing.
I said "unmerited" welfare, NOT welfare per se.
"2.) Not everyone was required to tithe. Only landowners who farmed or herders who raised animals for food were subject to the tithe law. The poor did not tithe. City dwellers did not tithe. Craftsman or trades people were not subject to the tithe law."
References?
"The New Testament makes the case that the freewill “offering” is superior to the tithe. I can see why. If everyone complied literally with the tithe law, as it originally existed, the church would have LESS money since money and not food is what it runs on today. Then too, the freewill offering could raise more than 10% for some people who are very blessed and are generous givers."
Sadly, you're wrong here too. The problem is you apparently think that people who call themselves christian actually tithe. They don't. The average "tithe", lol, is some where around 2%. The new testament does not make the case that the freewill offering is superior to the tithe.
You're right, televangelists and others miss use the tithe. The tithe is still required. What is required, however, is better oversight.
99. John said the following at 7:55 AM on Sep 4:
Adam,
You've have to do quite the stretch Biblically to come to the idea that the tithe is NOT required of Christians.
You can go through the whole Christ did away with the law nonsense, but a false interpretation does not a justification make.
If you want to steal from God, you go ahead and do so, but do not try to convince others that doing so is anyway justified. The tithe is required of all Christians. It is not giving, it is returning. Giving is whatever is above the tithe.
"There was definitely a form of government welfare/income distribution in the Old Testament"
No there was not! The Jews were not threatened with jail time if they did not give of themselves. It was voluntary. God commanded it, but like all of God's commands, it is up to us to choose to obey. Nothing is forced. The exact opposite of income "re"-distribution. I shutter to think of the day when we arrive at income "distribution". I'm sure it's not far away though.
"There were government mandated debt cancellation programs. And you were not allowed to harvest your entire field. These are both forms of government welfare. It may not be in the form of cash, but it is the same result."
Boy for someone who is against stretching, you sure do a lot of it. These were commands of God. Again, they were not "government" mandated. You're seriously confused.
100. John said the following at 8:03 AM on Sep 4:
"I am not in favor of expanding welfare, nor do I have much sympathy for the so-called "poor" in our country. As someone who has been to China before, I have seen what the truly poor in the world look like, and they are not the people in our country who live in government housing and have televisions."
Amen!
"But, I do think better and more available preventive healthcare for people in our society is a good thing and ought to be explored."
Yes, of course, but through the market, NOT government regulation, "incentives" or whatever else politicians cook up to get votes.
"My whole point originally in regard to the tithe was that Farmer Tom was wrong to say that there was no biblical basis for the idea of some (albeit limited) "redistribution of wealth" for the poor, because the tithe and other requirements given to the Jews established that for their government."
It was VOLUNTARY! What don't you all understand about that. There was no IRS. No threat of jail time. No men with guns to take you away if you did not comply. Just the consequences of being foolish enough not to do what God commanded, like now with so many fools spouting off about "christians don't need to tithe". There false teachings will be there own undoing, just as it was for Jews who went against His commands in the past.
"I also do not think it is fair to label certain issues as conservative or liberal"
But they are. Some ideas are liberal and others are conservative. What your saying is equal to, "I don't like labeling certain organisms as plants or animals." It's just natural.
"As for the tithe, obewan does a great job of explaining it and I will not elaborate."
Actually he does a horrible job of explaining it. Alls he did was make assertions without backing them up.