The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

No, what may turn us into a third world country is our departure from the living God.

_________________
"The person who has my commandments and obeys them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will reveal myself to him." (John 14:21)

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

That's correct. But it's not necessarily a bad thing. A true/pure "free market" does not exist in a society that decides that certain forms of coverage (health care, police protection, fire service, social security, etc) are going to be offered whether or not they're paid for. We've decided that it's better for us as a society to cover these things whether people think they need them or not. I think you'd have a tough case to make that we'd be better off offering things like police protection and fire service only to those folks who chose to pay for it.




Really? The reason we dumped the Articles of Confederation and came up with the Constitution was because the Articles were too weak and we needed more federal power in order to make our nation viable. Is it really a stretch to think that were the founding fathers able to see our society as it exists today, with state boundaries being little more than formalities in many cases and arcane throwbacks in many others, that they might agree that in the pursuit of efficiency and effective government, it would be appropriate to give more power to the federal government and not less?

-Dan.

(argh... can't edit posts...)

My followup:

I see this constant deference to the founding fathers as little more than a form of hero worship or even idolatry. That document was written at the very beginning of the first industrial revolution, at a time when -for the most part- the colonies truly were independent. However, that level of independence does not remotely resemble any aspect of our society today. How about instead of treating the founding fathers as if they were prophets of God writing under His divine provenance, we treat them as guys with a lot of wisdom who did a bang-up job creating a government that reflected the society of their day, and while their ideas still have plenty of things to offer, they could use some tweaking to better serve today's society? Instead of constantly looking to the past, why don't we start addressing today?

-Dan.

I'm not sure if this relates to the OP article, but I've always thought it dangerous to try to associate one political party with Christianity. There's just no perfect party that completely and perfectly reflects the values of Christianity. It would absolutely be great if there was one, but it just doesn't happen in politics.

I personally just try my best to vote my conscience and what I feel would be best for our country. Sometimes it's the Dem side and other times it's the Republican side.



I do wonder if we as a society are unneccesarily and overly torn by this issue. It's the one issue that does seem to always crop up in big elections as a key dividing point between parties and there is often lots of anger and blame that go with it.

I personally believe that there is a Biblical principle and precedent of systematically helping the poor via things like welfare and other types of aid. I agree with Dan (and recall this discussion from CW Forums) on his use of Levitucus 19 to help illuminate the issue:

9 “‘When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the LORD your God.

Although there are various verses about helping the poor found throughout the Bible, this one does seem to offer a principle and precedent of systematically reserving a set portion of whatever we've "harvested" for the poor and needy.

I realize our times are different from those of the OT, but the general principle of that verse I think could be legitimately thought of as modern day welfare or tax exemptions and the like. The specific portion we set aside for the poor may be debatable (i.e., the precise tax rate or amt. of welfare), but there does seem to be a principle that something be systematically set aside for the poor.

I've noticed that the 9 pages of this thread are becoming redundant. The issue hasn't been whether or not God commands and expects that the poor, the sick, the elderly to be cared for by the christian community. I think all agree on that.

The debate is whether God wanted such charity to be governed by believers THEMSELVES or governed by a vast bureaucracy which operates with the authority of force.

I've yet to see a convincing argument for the latter and wonder if that's simply due to the possibility that such an admission would leave us struggling with our conscience in light of the failings of such programs as well as our own failings in providing this charity.

_________________
"Whatever laws are contrary to God's honor or contrary to the welfare of human beings are sinful and tyrannical and should not be called laws"-Girolamo Zanchi
http://WWW.christian-libertarian.com

Dan,
It's true that a primary purpose for adopting our Constitution in place of the Articles of Confederation was to strengthen the federal government, but there was grave concern among the Founders that the federal government might be too strong. That is why they drafted a Constitution which strictly limited the power of that government. And foreseeing that the need for changes might arise, they incorporated into the Constitution provisions for amending it.

According to the original intent of the U.S. Constitution, the federal government is authorized to tax and spend for programs only if they are for the good of the Union or all of the people. I agree that certain federally provided services are desirable and that taxes are a legitimate way of paying for them. Some of those programs benefit all of the people. Others, such as Social Security and agricultural subsidies, benefit certain groups and not the whole people. Such programs are therefore unconstitutional. Congress has no authority to tax and spend for them. And in doing so our lawmakers are lawbreakers.

It may be that the majority of Americans think our federal social welfare programs are desirable. If that is the case, let them amend the Constitution so that the federal government can lawfully administer those programs. But to the extent that we simply disregard what the Constitution says, we effectively destroy it. Some may not care about our Constitution, but it is that rule of law which has preserved our liberties. And every erosion of our liberties can be traced back to disregard for our Constitution and the principles that it embodies.

We can be a nation of law or we can be a nation of expediencies, but if we choose the latter we will build on shifting sands and what we build will not endure.

With due respect, Dan, this is sheer rhetoric. I know of no one who worships the founding fathers or thinks of them as prophets of God. I refer to them hermeneutically in order to be clear about the meaning of the Constitution as it was written. That's all. If you wanted to know how a law passed by Congress should be construed, the best way to do it would be to ask those who framed the law. In the case of our Constitution, the framers are no longer with us. But many of their writings are with us and pointedly address their intent in framing the Constitution as they did, and therefore the true meaning of that document.

_________________
"The person who has my commandments and obeys them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will reveal myself to him." (John 14:21)

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

Christians are not in charge, and risk looking like Scrooge when they refuse to support the efforts our government makes to help the poor. (They are always free to go above and beyond.) You say that "charity" should be governed by "believers themselves," as though believers are the ones in charge of the system, and that the only assistance that the poor should receive, should be charity. Instead, Christians end up looking as though they want to undermine the efforts of others to help, under the mistaken belief that only Christians should be the ones helping, that the poor should only receive help from Christians. That makes non-Christians think we are irrational, controlling, crazy people. I want you to consider the possibility that this would be a poor witness.

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

As a bed-wetting liberal, I used to consider INTENTIONS and APPEARANCES alone.
As a reformed, rational believer, I now also consider CONSEQUENCES and RESULTS.

If I said ALL charity should be governed by "believers themselves", it wasn't intentional, so let me clarify.
Charity should be the role of individuals, families and communities. There is certainly room for private enterprise and given the structure of our republic, while I would question the wisdom of turning this responsibility over to government at any level, I would concede that there is room for a state govt to enact such programs on behalf of its constituents.

That said, no honest, informed assessment can deny that government welfare historically perpetuates poverty and creates generational dependence, while diminishing the ability and conviction of the general population to fulfill its charitable role in society. Believers who oppose this grand scheme of tyranny and theft only risk looking like a scrooge if we fail to explain the moral and economic reasoning behind our convictions. Those who continue to support government welfare, in light of its historical record of performance, risk looking foolish, pacified and detached from reality.

Furthermore, I dont find that unbelievers are incapable of charity...in fact, I'd bet their charitable convictions may be close to that of believers, if not for different reasons. If anything, believers can provide the model which includes personal relationship and accountability.

_________________
"Whatever laws are contrary to God's honor or contrary to the welfare of human beings are sinful and tyrannical and should not be called laws"-Girolamo Zanchi
http://WWW.christian-libertarian.com

Ignoring the issue of ag subsidies (because it'll be a cold day in hell before I argue in favor of them), I think there's a pretty strong case to be made that keeping the elderly from being homeless and destitute benefits all of society, even if we young folk aren't the ones cashing the checks every month.



As much as I agree with you in theory (and I do) and as much as I would love things to work that way, practically speaking, that's not going to happen for at least another 30-50 years (bare minimum). In the past year, we've witnessed numerous instances of Congressional deadlock, the latest being with a virtual blade over their "supercommitte" necks ready to come down and enact cuts that no one wanted. If that's not enough to make government effective, what would it take to get a constitutional amendment pushed through that's reasonable and well-written? I don't believe it can happen and I'd rather not have our society hijacked because of it..



FWIW: I'd use the word "hyperbole" instead of "rhetoric."

I didn't mean that they literally think that the Constitution is God-breathed, but in some sense, with the way it's revered in some circles, my assessment is not too far off. I tire of hearing about how the founding fathers wanted things to work, when those same people ignore the differences between that society and the one we live in today.

-Dan.

I remember this theological interpretive point debated in a previous CW thread as well. And, I think it's also an often mentioned point of contention.

For me, I genuinely find it inexplicable why a government initiated system of helping the poor would be somehow undesirable in God's eyes. I don't think I ever saw it as a problem until I began to tune into politics and was exposed to some of these views on the part of some conservatives and conservative, Christians, who dislike "big government."

But, I don't think I truly understood that and have never been sure that it's Biblical either. ...I guess I see government as neutral and whether it's big or small that it's about what policies we enact, as opposed to government-run programs somehow being inherently wrong or undesirable in God's eyes.

To be sure, the Leviticus 19 passage does not specify a government-run kind of giving, but I don't take that in the stronger sense of government initiated charity and/or duty to the poor as being wrong. It may not have been mentioned, but I don't see that absence being automatically (without some other supporting argument or verses) a sign that it's wrong.

I can see how both individual and collective systematic giving are useful. This was also a point we discussed in a former CW thread, but oftentimes there are just too many people in need, who may not be part of a church or whom churchs may not have the resources to help. With a small community, where the church(es) is big enough and where others' needs are easily known, then we can find ways of giving directly to people. And that may have advantages, such as being able to more accurately know and see who needs what types of help (as opposed to a more anonymous process where fraud or other problems can occur)....And there's probably more accountability that way as well. If poor person knows directly of where his charitable aid came from, then he'd probably feel a more direct connection to it and society and want to work hard to make him or herself self-sufficient as soon as possible and not irresponsibly use that aid. Whereas, in a relatively large bureaucratic system of welfare, people may just get checks in the mail...individual needs are not always accurately reflected and accountability or responsibility may be harder to track. ....In short, I can see a good number of advantages to individual giving that large-scale giving may not have.

But, on the other hand, I can see how a more centralized and systematized way of giving is also helpful. As mentioned earlier, there may be people unconnected to a church or anyone willing and/or able to help them. And for such folks, having a centralized way of receiving help may be more efficient and helpful. And the specific types of help may also end up being more efficient, convenient, or just plan do-able. I think of Section 8 Housing as such an example. I realize it has it's fair share of problems, but I can imagine that helping a homeless person with their living conditions as a local church may be tough. Most likely no married couples - or even singles - for that matter would want a stranger to be living with them. I suppose a local church could build a shelter of their own to run and house people. But, I can also see here where having a societal level safety net that provides housing, such as Section 8, can be more practical and efficient. ....It has its advantages too.

I think we can give in many ways - individually or collectively - and both have their practical advantages and neither would seem to me inherently wrong.

So, in short, I do not generally have a problem with the principle of government, systematized charity for the poor. I'm sure we can improve upon it, but I think there's a place for it in society....just as their is for individual level charity. So, I often find that extreme political positions that view government welfare as somehow being either unBiblical and/or otherwise wrong as mostly being misguided....and sometimes even inexplicable.

(Again, I can understand why some might prefer one tax rate over another or want to debate the specifics of how much or how to give to the poor on a government/societal level, but I'm not against the general principle of collective, centralized giving. I just think we can find ways to tweak it to make it better.)

Dan, this is where I would have to disagree with you. As noted in the couple of posts above, I agree with your justification of government-initiated charity to the poor (based on the precedent and example of Leviticus 19), but I do not see how capitalism, as an economic system, is inherently morally wrong. It's important to distinguish here that capitalism in the hands of a fallen and selfish group of people may turn out to have very negative consequences, but that the system itself is not innately wrong.

To the contrary, I think capitism gives everyone a chance to succeed and apply themselves in work to serve others' needs. Our individual needs are met and wealth is generated by being able to provide a service or product to society that others want and can presumably benefit from. And, in return, the better our product/service and/or the harder and smarter we work, the more we are rightly rewarded for that labor. It promotes individual responsibility and reward or "punishment" for our work and service to society. If, all things being equal, we are lazy or produce a non-beneficial or undesirable product or service to society, then we are not rewarded as much and are "punished" for our lack of useful work. And the reverse being true when we work hard.....Everyone can potentially benefit from this system, as it's not a zero-sum game, and the services and products we produce directly benefit society.

I can see how it would be wrong to give everyone the same outcome or wealth for differing levels of effort/work, such as the case can be with communism. But possibly worse is that one's work ethic may not be as strong, since there's a sense that everything will always be provided for and everything is always equal/even no matter how much more one works over another.

Capitalism may sometimes lead to us forgetting about social and societal responsibility, as opposed to just individual responsibility. And it can sometimes end with people trying to take advantage of others for personal gain. ....Maybe that first sentence should be restated....as capitalism isn't necessarily causing this lack of social/societal responsibility, but more that we fallen humans and our selfishness can lead to this sort of view.

I think this is where it's important to have some checks and balances on capitalism...there should be fair competition and there should be a social/societal safety net for people.

.....I have possibly some more thoughts.....but just wanted to add my long 2 cents so far. Am off to bed soon, so might catch up again later.

if this country wasn't in $15T debt, we could afford these programs -- plus, we see the gov't spending zilllions on worthless studies or given to people as payback for political favors -- perhaps that is why a particular subset frowns on "big gov't"

spending $ we don't have on seemingly worthwhile programs to aid the disadvantaged is not something God would support imo (1 Sam. 15:22)

Paco,

I'm not at all happy with our national debt either, because there are always fears that we may have over-extended ourselves into dangerous territory (with an inability to pay back and have a possible collapse of the government and economy like a Greece). But, at the same time, listening to many experts who are so far more qualified than me to examine these things - someone like Warren Buffett - I do hear that the U.S., while having a very high and probably unhealthy debt, is still always going to be OK and able to repay (for the foreseeable future). I know that Buffett and others, while they have concerns about our debt, still believe we are within reasonable limits and are doing many of hte right things to keep the debt in check, while propping up other areas that help to sustain and grow our economy and maintain a stable society.

I do think some areas that could use change in policy are things like foreign aid and intervention. Rather than taking on so much of the load in helping other nations, be it monetarily or militarily, we could stand to ask more of the other major economic powers of the world to contribute more. We cannot always do things alone - at least, not as efficiently and not without a potentially high cost.

But as for social welfare programs, I think our nation has actually historically been able to sustain both the high levels of social safety net features and a healthy prosperous economy. I am not an economic historian, but some of the nation's Golden years for several decades post-WWII also seemed to be the same years in which our per-dollar spending and value on social programs and welfare types of aid were at their highest and also when taxes were relatively high. ......Others can please correct me on this.

Having debt may not be in and of itself bad if one is able to repay it. It can be seen as a form of investment or a "cost" of doing business that in the end produces the most efficient or best result. If the U.S. is in a position to repay our debt, as great financial luminaries and experts, such as Buffett have said, then it may simply be a matter of maintaining a reasonable balance of debt spending to our economic growth.

Yes, the "all or nothing" approach does not work in personal or business relationships. I'm not sure why so many seem to think it will work in national politics.

Sorry, Dan, but it is you and others who decide that the process laid out in the Constitution is too difficult and so decide to do whatever is the whim of the day, "Constitution be damned," who are hijacking the system. And so, as a result, we no longer have a government of laws but instead we have a government of men.

Regards.

_________________
All Scripture quotations are New American Standard Bible, unless otherwise indicated.