Another reason I'm glad I left the United Methodist Church. Apparently now they support abortion.
For this entry in our series, I am simply going to quote Ron Paul (all emphasis is mine):
Since the bailout bill passed, I have been frequently disturbed to hear “experts” wrongly blaming the free market for our recent economic problems and calling for more regulation. In fact, further regulation can only make things worse.
It is important to understand that regulators are not omniscient. It is not feasible for them to anticipate every possible thing that could go wrong with whatever industry or activity they are regulating. They are making their best guesses when formulating rules. It is often difficult for those being regulated to understand the many complex rules they are expected to follow. Very wealthy corporations hire attorneys who may discover a myriad of loopholes to exploit and render the spirit of the regulations null and void. For this reason, heavy regulation favors big business against those small businesses who cannot afford high-priced attorneys.
The other problem is the trust that people blindly put in regulations, and the moral hazard this creates. Too many people trust government regulators so completely that they abdicate their own common sense to these government bureaucrats. They trust that if something violates no law, it must be safe. How many scams have “It’s perfectly legal” as a hypnotic selling point, luring in the gullible? Many people did not understand the financial house of cards that are derivatives, but since they were legal and promised a great return, people invested. It is much the same in any area rife with government involvement. Many feel that just because their children are getting good grades at a government school, they are getting a good education. After all, they are passing the government-mandated litmus test. But, this does not guarantee educational excellence. Neither is it always the case that a child who does NOT achieve good marks in school is going to be unsuccessful in life. Is your drinking water safe, just because the government says it is? Is the internet going to magically become safer for your children if the government approves regulations on it? I would caution any parent against believing this would be the case. Nothing should take the place of your own common sense and due diligence.
These principles explain why the free market works so much better than a centrally planned economy. With central planning, everything shifts from one’s own judgment about safety, wisdom and relative benefits of a behavior, to the discretion of government bureaucrats. The question then becomes “what can I get away with,” and there will always be advantages for those who can afford lawyers to find the loopholes. The result then is that bad behavior, that would quickly fail under the free market, is propped up, protected and perpetuated, and sometimes good behavior is actually discouraged.
Regulation can actually benefit big business and corporate greed, while simultaneously killing small businesses that are the backbone of our now faltering economy. This is why I get so upset every time someone claims regulation can resolve the crisis that we are in. Rather, it will only exacerbate it.
This doesn't mean that all regulation is bad. But it does mean that an economy which is governed more by regulation than by free market principles will likely be more morally hazardous than the reverse, and tend to have more systematic injustice than the reverse.
People tend to think that any regulation will make the situation better, but in fact it is really easy for regulation to harm a situation. It easily leads to morally hazardous situations which favor the big guy over the small guy, even when the subject of regulation is the big guy.
In Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions he delineates between two basic visions of humans in politics - constrained and unconstrained.
A constrained vision of humans views people as essentially being unable to achieve permanent moral progress for two reasons:
An unconstrained vision of humans, instead, views true moral progress as being achievable - either now or in the future.
From a Christian perspective, there are good and bad points to each of them. The constrained vision has the advantage of being very similar to the Biblical concept of original sin. Humans are simply unable to progress, no matter how good our intentions or well-reasoned the process. Ultimately, however, Christians have a hope for the future in which the world is restored to goodness. Thus, the unconstrained vision tickles our eschatological hopes.
Now, I have given up hope in trying to discern the end-times as portrayed in the Bible. But one thing appears certain - the vision of the future in scripture cannot be obtained without God. That is, whether we are able to achieve relative goodness before the return of Christ, or whether we will require the return of Christ to restore goodness in our institutions, scripture makes it clear that any sustainable progress within society will require God's help.
The constrained vision is too pessimistic and cynical. The unconstrained vision is hubristic and self-important.
Thus, the conservative view of society has two components - a governmental component and a spiritual component. The purpose of the governmental component is to provide the incentives necessary to maintain a base level of morality in a fallen world. Thus, government itself should, in general follow the constrained vision of humanity. On the other hand, the Church should not be so limited. The Church should be the one which removes constraints by the power of God. God will be the power to change lives and nations and governments. Governments cannot do this, social action cannot do this, only God is qualified in this endeavor.
This, I believe, is the message of Christian conservatism in politics. We must structure our governments in recognition of our fallen humanity. But we must not limit our vision to what can be accomplished in government, but instead look to God to see what He has for us on the horizon, and seek His help as individuals, as people, as churches, and as nations to change our hearts towards each other.
Ever since the group Bash Back antagonized a Church in Lansing, I've been reading up on the doings of the pro-homosexual hate groups. I don't know how long these groups have been in operation, but it is clear that they are now invigorating themselves, largely in response to California's Proposition 8.
What amazes me about so many pro-homosexual organizations is the complete lack of thought that goes into anything they say. Many of the things they say are either (a) obviously false, or (b) downright contradictory. For instance, here are Bash Back's "points of unity":
I don't know if anyone ever told them, but #2 is actually self-contradictory. Capitalism is the removal of state power over the economy. Maybe they were thinking of Mercantilism? In any case, it is obvious that they have little education as to what the different forms of economy are that exist, especially since they don't have a destination economic system listed.
Second, if they are not shooting for recognition in marriage, what exactly are they trying to be free from? If they are trying to force someone else's way of thinking, how is that not a form of state coersion?
What is amazing is how often these sorts of groups and websites call for action according to some grand ideal, but never list any specifics. When people list specific egregious acts that have been performed against homosexuals, invariably the perpetrator is already in jail for the crime! If this is a state oppression, the state wouldn't be the one sentencing the oppressors. It's possible in some areas that law-enforcement is turning a blind eye towards crimes against gay people. If that is the case, then that should be their message. I think everyone can agree that selective enforcement and prejudicial action by police is bad for a society, no matter who is being hurt and who is benefitting - in the long run, we all lose out from that sort of problem. But that is not the call, which leads me to believe that, mostly, crimes against gay people are followed up as just as much (or, perhaps, just as little) as crimes against everyone else.
Third, how can they say they oppose oppression? That is precisely what they are doing! That's the entire purpose of Bash Back - to engage in oppression against the people they don't like. They should just be honest about that rather than hide it.
These points of unity are just as boneheaded as the reasoning in recent anarchist propoganda for proposition 8 domestic terrorism. First of all, it's interesting because if a Christian group, no matter how small, put out stuff like this, it would receive national attention. Anyway, the piece promotes sabotage and targeted vandalism. But what's also terrible is the reasoning behind it. They don't like the fact that our society has "order givers" and "order takers", and that makes us undemocratic. What kind of reasoning is this? You will always have order givers and order takers in every type of society ever conceived of! What is different is that in a democracy the order receivers have a say in who the order givers are. And I don't know of any group of citizens who is being systematically denied that voice, nor is that being claimed.
So, as you can see, the pro-homosexual hate groups are consistently putting forth nonsense for support of their positions (and, if you think this is bad, you should see their Biblical exegesis!). This is different from, say, Communism, which, despite its being totally wrong, at least had a clear and self-consistent message about what the problems with society was and how they should be solved. These groups are different - they are just full of hate.
Anyway, the pro-homosexual hate groups are starting to emerge and gain traction. It is time to point out publicly both their idiocy and their hatred of their fellow human. But remember, in all things, this isn't a personal problem, it's a Jesus problem. Which means that the solution lies in Jesus more than politics or any other mechanism. Certainly, politics is a valid course of action, but remember that unless the Lord builds a house, the builders work is useless.
Democrats have been making a power play for the religious vote in the last few elections, and it appears that it is finally starting to take hold. While we have begun to talk about the relationship between conservatism and Christianity, what we also need to do is to take a look at how the Democratic Party is using religion, and whether or not we want to be using religion in the same way.
Now that he is our President-elect from the Democratic Party, I am going to use Obama as a model for the use of religion in politics, based primarily on his speech on the subject that he gave to the Sojourners in 2006.
His main points seem to me to be the following:
The problem with this is that it is a practical abandonment of Christianity. If you look at the logic of what he is saying, then Christianity is not allowed any voice, except when it is the same voice as a secular argument! Thus, while the religious right has its definite problems, the religious left has fundamentally, in its core reasonings about the relationship between faith and politics, decided that faith may only be in support of the party, it may never lead, contradict, or offer any substance on its own terms.
I can't say I'm surprised. This is probably coming from theologians as much as anyone else. Theology is one of those areas where its practitioners seem bent on making Christianity as irrelevant in the actual practice of life as possible, and to instead replace it with other disciplines such as sociology. Obama's position about faith and politics is a practical outgrowth of the theology that has been spewing out of the academies for the last half-century.
Obama does seem to make a conciliatory note in the direction of religion. He says:
So to say that men and women should not inject their 'personal morality' into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
This would seem to mean, at least on the face of it, that grounding legal traditions in faith-based reaosning is legitimate. However, Obama refuses to continue to apply that same reasoning in the modern day. For instance, he argues this about abortion:
I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all. [emphasis mine]
So, while Obama indeed believes in putting together faith and politics, the way that he has done so makes it so that faith cannot have a legitimate role in the public square on its own terms, but must instead only play supporting roles to ideas found on the terms of other fields of endeavors.
This seems to be the general direction that the Democratic Party is moving in. Obama, being the president-elect from the Democratic Party, has now solidified this as the means of interaction of faith and politics for the party.
Therefore, when you hear religious language from the Democratic Party, keep in mind that the party does not have any intention of putting any part of its platform under the authority of God, but only under principles which are accessible to people who don't believe that there is no God. As someone who believes that the foundations of truth are in God, I don't think that is a sound way to handle the politics and faith issue.
I was very impressed (if you couldn't already tell) with Niebuhr's discussion of theology in politics. However, I think that Niebuhr was lacking in a few areas:
I think these were the mistakes that led Niebuhr to being a democratic socialist, rather than a democratic capitalist. What gives democratic capitalists a bad name is that we often tend to emphasize the role of government (which should be very little) but neglect to point out that there should be a strong role for non-governmental parties to play a regulatory role through informational campaigns and the like.
The third point - capitalism's ability to accomplish social equity - was probably not knowable to Niebuhr, but Sowell's Basic Economics makes a good case that capitalism can accomplish social equality faster than just about any policy. If the government is supporting a business, then it doesn't have any incentive to hire the best workers - it doesn't cost the people in charge anything to be racist, sexist, whatever. But when running a business, if you don't hire the best person, that costs you money, and if the guy down the street hires him instead of you, it may mean that you go out of business.
Many conservatives have made the mistake of saying that capitalism makes greed good. I believe that those espousing this should be shot. Greed is not good. However, capitalism at least makes greed less harmful to the rest of society. It is still totally self-destructive, and if completely unchecked, could lead to societal harm, but in the normal case, free market capitalism restricts the negative impact of greed on society. All societies have greed, it just hurts less in capitalistic countries, because we don't give our greedy people governmental authority (if we did we would no longer be capitalistic!)
I just finished reading Niebuhr's The Irony of American History. It's a fascinating read. Basically, Niebuhr's point is that history can be understood much better if we reintroduce the concept of "original sin". Basically, he criticizes the Communist view of history by criticizing their doctrine of sin/evil. They place "evil" entirely onto the property system. Therefore, by removing the property system, they have removed "evil". Likewise, liberal democracies have tried to remove evil through education - thus their doctrin of sin/evil is based on a lack of understanding and education. Therefore, by educating everyone to the largest extent possible, and through technological and scientific innovation, we can irradicate evil.
Niebuhr criticizes both of these by saying that the correct doctrine of sin is the traditional conception of "original sin" - that is, sin is a permanent part of each and every one of us. It can't be externalized on any other entity. Therefore, any view of history or governmental system which is based upon an externalization of sin is bound to fail. He says that the reason America has not failed where other people have is simply because we don't hold our bad doctrines as closely as others :)
Anyway, I've put together a collection of quotes for you from the book. Happy reading! Most of these are at least somewhat peripheral to the main arguments, but all have powerful insights.
p.23 - But these reservations of Christian realism in our culture cannot obscure the fact that, next to pretensions, we are (according to our traditional theory) the most innocent nation on earth. The irony of our situation lies in the fact that we could not be virtuous (in the sense of practicing the virtues which are implicit in meeting our vast world responsibilities) if we were really as innocent as we pretend to be.
p.29 - For we have thus far sought to solve all our problems by the expansion of our economy. This expansion cannot go on forever and ultimately we must face some vexatious issues of social justice in terms which will not differ too greatly from those which the wisest nations of Europe have been forced to use.
p.38 - No powerful nation in history has ever been more reluctant to acknowledge the position it has achieved in the world than we. The moral advantage lies in the fact that we do not have a strong lust of power, though we are quickly aquiring the pride of power which always accompanies its possession...we have been so deluded by the concept of our innocency that we are ill prepared to deal with the temptations of power which now assail us.
p.39 - All nations, unlike some individuals, lack the capacity to prefer a noble death to a morally ambiguous survival.
p.52 - ...the descent from Puritansism to Yankeeism in America was a fairly rapid one. Prosperity which had been sought in the service of God was now sought for its own sake. [Niebuhr then compares Deuteronomy 6:18 with Deuteronomy 8:7-17, which he had thought had been overlooked]
p.59 - But it cannot be denied that a bourgeois society is in the process of experiencing the law of diminishing returns in the relation of technics [technology] and efficiency to the cultural life. The pursuit of culture requires certain margins of physical security and comfort; but the extension of the margins does not guarantee the further development of cultural values. It may lead to a preoccupation with the margins and obsession with the creature comforts.
p.59 - Television may represent a threat to our culture analogous to the threat of atomic weapons to our civilization.
p.59-60 - Yet we cannot deny the indictment that we seek a solution for practically every problem of life in quantitative terms; and are not fully aware of the limits of this approach. The constant multiplication of our high school and college enrollments has not had the effect of making us the most "intelligent" nation, whether we measure intelligence in terms of social wisdom, aesthetic discrimination, spritual serenity or any other basic human achievement. It may have mad us technically the most proficient nation, thereby proving that technical efficiency is more easily achieved in purely quantitative terms than any other value of culture....No national culture has been as assiduous as our own in trying to press the wisdom of the social and political sciences, indeed of all the humanities, into the limits of the natural sciences...the result is frequently a preoccupation with the minutiae which obscures the grand and tragic outlines of contemporary history, and offers vapid solutions for profound problems.
p.63 - Nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime; therefore we must be saved by hope. Nothing which is true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context of history; therefore we must be saved by faith. Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we are saved by love. No virtuous act is quite as virtuous from the standpoint of our friend or foe as it is from our standpoint. Therefore we must be saved by the final form of love which is forgiveness.
p.74 - ...a strong America is less completely master of its own destiny than was a comparatively weak America...The same strength which has extended our power beyond a continent has also interwoven our destiny with the destiny of many peoples and brought us into a vast webb of history.....[to] hinder or contradict what we most fervently desire.
p.78 - The institution of monarchy, shorn of its absolute power, was found to possess virtues which neither the proponents nor the opponents of its original form anticipated. It became the symbol of the continuing will and unity of a nation as distinguished from the momentary will, embodied in specific governments.
p.88 - ...modern man lacks the humility to accept the fact that the whole drama of history is enacted in a frame of meaning too large for human comprehension or management. It is a drama in which fragmentary meanings can be discerned within a penumbra of mystery; and in which specific duties and responsibilities can be undertaken within a vast web of relations which are beyond our powers... [discussing two opposing views of man - overemphasis of spirit vs overemphasis of nature] man as the spectator and manager of history imagines himself to be freer of the drama he beholds than he really is; and man as the creature of history is too simply reduced to the status of a creature of nature, and all of his contacts to the ultimate are destroyed.
p.107 - There is an element of truth in each position which becomes falsehood, precisely when it is carried through too consistently.
p.116 - However, even the most grievous injustices of the feudal world are not as responsible for the abject poverty of its agrarian poor as the low efficiency of its economy.
p.133 - [quoting someone else] "For American power in the service of American idealism could create a situation in which we would be too impotent to correct you when you are wrong and you would be too idealistic to correct yourself."
p.158 - Divine jealousy is aroused by man's refusal to observe the limits of his freedom.
p.159 - ...Israel, the righteous nation, [is reminded] of the judgment which waits on human pretension. The great nation, Babylon, is warned that its confidence in the security of its power will be refuted by history.
p.160 - Christ is crucified by the priests of the purest religion of his day and by the minions of the justest, the Roman Law.
We've heard a lot about the "middle class" in pretty much every election. However, I don't think that the "middle class" is a distinction that Christians should be in the habit of making. There are two reasons for this - the Christian view of classes and the economics of the United States.
Let's start with the Christian view of classes. Here are some verses (certainly not exhaustive), I'll simply list them out and then I'll discuss their implications:
Galatians 3:28 - "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
Collossians - "Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord....Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven..."
2 Thessolonians 3:10 - "For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat."
James 2:2-7 - "For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, "You sit here in a good place," while you say to the poor man, "You stand over there," or, "Sit down at my feet," have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court? Are they not the ones who blaspheme the honorable name by which you were called?"
2 Corinthians 9:11 - "You will be enriched in every way to be generous in every way, which through us will produce thanksgiving to God."
Luke 6 - "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God...But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation."
Luke 12 - The rich fool
Luke 16 - The story of Lazarus (sorry, not going to copy it)
Luke 18 - Rich young ruler
Luke 19 - Zaccaeus
In the gospels, especially Luke's, it appears that Jesus really has it in for the rich. This is somewhat true. In Luke 6, there is a clear distinction between what happens to the rich vs the poor when the Kingdom comes. However, as Luke develops, I think the story gets more nuanced. It isn't just that every rich person is bad and will be punished and every poor person is good and will be rewarded. I think Luke 12 epitomizes the problem with the rich - it is not their income, it is the fact that they store it up so no one else can use it, and then it becomes worthless to them when they die.
In the story of Lazarus, it was pretty clear that the rich man had been ignoring Lazarus who basically lived on his doorstep.
In Luke 19, you actually have a rich person who is lauded by Jesus. Note that he does not get lauded by Jesus for becoming poor - he only gives away half of his possessions. But what he does do is (a) move from stinginess to generosity, and (b) repent for any possible wrongdoing he has done to the poor. (just as a note - parts of this story are unclear, as I may blog on in the future, but these two points appear to be what elicits Jesus' response no matter what the rest of the story means).
Note that although Jesus asked the Rich Young Ruler to give away all of his posessions, he is clearly fine with Zaccaeus only giving half.
So here's what I get from the gospel message:
Now, if you imagine further on, the early Christian community has to figure out how to live out these sayings. Thus, the apostles further develop the theology of economic classes along the sames lines as Jesus.
Paul is an interesting study - for he says both that there is no difference, and that we should each be faithful in our differening positions.
So here are my take-aways from all of this:
It is clear that Christianity is not the introduction of or the calling for equality of outcomes, but of equality of personhood - recognizing the full image of God in each person.
Therefore, as Christians, I do not believe that we should recognize economic class, but rather economic income ranges. That is to say, as Christians, we are all in this boat together. We shouldn't consider ourselves a distinct group from the "rich" or the "poor" - we may have a joining economic location, but that is so little of a reason for division. Instead we need to recognize that God's grace is for everyone, and that God has removed the distinctions (actually, they were probably never there to begin with).
There are in fact economically disadvantaged people, but again, they are not a class. We should in no way be treating them as a class. Note that this is the same thing that annoys me with the race-baiters - they continually want to divide us up into classes, and start class warfare between the groups. This is not the way Christ taught.
Likewise, because Christ never taught the equalization of assets, there is never any reason at all to care about the "gap" between the rich and the poor. The gap is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the needs of the poor are taken care of. It makes no difference whatsoever, from a Christian standpoint, it is the standard of living of the poor, not the gap between the poor and the rich, that is our concern.
Now, the economic issue. The fact is that "the poor" is not a static group of people in the United States. Maybe in other countries, but certainly not here. When people talk of "the rich" and "the poor" in the country, in many cases they are talking about the exact same people - just in different phases of their lives. If I start out working at $30,000 a year, get a mortgage on a new house, and save 10% per year, and have an annual raise of 3%, then I will start my work life being "poor" (no savings or assets and $30,000 a year), and at age 65 be "rich" ($103,000 per year, $245,000 in savings, and probably a $100,000 house, plus other assets - this would actually be a lot more if you converted the house payment into savings after the house was paid off).
So, when we look at the "poor" and the "rich", we may just be looking at the "young" and the "old". This gets especially amusing when you hear politicians engage in class warfare about how the "rich" should be paying "their fair share", followed by saying that we need to be protecting our senior citizen's retirement accounts - THESE ARE THE SAME PEOPLE THEY WERE TRYING TO STEAL MONEY FROM IN THE PREVIOUS SENTENCE!
Note that none of those numbers assume that anything special happened in someone's life. Also, $30,000 is a perfectly livable income (at least in Middle America) for a starting family, and is achievable at just about any job in the US with two incomes, and still many for just one. Calling such households "poor" is a huuge stretch, especially when you remember that many of our "poor" are living at about the same living standards as the rich are in Jesus' day.
But not only that, in America, there is often opportunity. And many people take it.
If this is a class-ridden society denying "access" to upward mobility to those at the bottom, why is it that immigrants can come here at the bottom and then rise to the top?
One obvious reason is that many poor immigrants come here with very different ambitions and values from that of poor Americans born into our welfare state and imbued with notions growing out of attitudes of dependency and resentments of other people's success.
The fundamental reason that many people do not rise is not that class barriers prevent it but that they do not develop the skills, values and attitudes which cause people to rise.
The liberal welfare state means they don't have to and liberal multiculturalism says they don't need to change their values because one culture is just as good as another. In other words, liberalism is not part of the solution, but part of the problem.
Many comparisons of "classes" are in fact comparisons of people in different income brackets — but most Americans move up from the lowest 20 percent to the highest 20 percent over time.
Yet those who are obsessed with classes treat people in different brackets as if they were classes permanently stuck in those brackets.
The New York Times series even makes a big deal about disparities in income and lifestyle between the rich and the super-rich. But it is hard to get worked up over the fact that some poor devil has to make do flying his old propeller-driven plane, while someone further up the income scale flies around a mile or two higher in his twin-engine luxury jet.
Only if you have overdosed on disparities are you likely to wax indignant over things like that.
Sometimes it seems as if liberals have a genius for producing an unending stream of ideas that are counterproductive for the poor, whom they claim to be helping. Few of these notions are more counterproductive than the idea of "menial work" or "dead-end jobs."
Think about it: Why do employers pay people to do "menial" work? Because the work has to be done. What useful purpose is served by stigmatizing work that someone is going to have to do anyway?
Is emptying bed pans in a hospital menial work? What would happen if bed pans didn't get emptied? Let people stop emptying bed pans for a month and there would be bigger problems than if sociologists stopped working for a year.
The real chumps are those who refuse to start at the bottom for "chump change." Liberals who encourage such attitudes may think of themselves as friends of the poor but they do more harm than enemies.
So, as a Christian, I reject class distinctions and especially class envy, but fully embrace the need for those with wealth to be generous (note that taxes aren't the same thing as "generosity" - the Bible is just as forceful about the need to give from a good heart as it is for tgiving itself), especially to the poor. Also, there is a bottom requirement to receive help - you must work if you are able. Interestingly, you see the same values reflected in Conservatism - the red state/blue state divide of the 2004 election matches almost perfectly with the top and bottom of the "generosity index" - meaning that conservative states tend to reflect the responsibilities of the rich - to give more.
The system of class warfare and envy is anti-Christian and leaves everyone in poverty. The system of generosity and peace with your fellow man is the system described by the New Testament, and by most measures it appears to be one which offers a very high standard of living even to its poor, and provides the mechanisms to allow the poor to rise out of their poverty.
Many people think that conservatism is somehow against the principles of Jesus. That loving your neighbor, giving, and social justice are antithetical to free markets and conservative forms of government. So, I'm going to spell out the reasons, theologically and practically, why you should be conservative. In fact, I'm going to show why even theologies centered around social justice are more compatible with conservatism than liberalism.
So, in this first post, I'm going to cover some social justice issues that I think make conservatism a better choice for socially conscious Christians.
The first question to consider is whether or not righteousness can be outsourced. I would contend that, on a general basis (with many exceptions), righteousness cannot be outsourced. Even more so, I would also argue that helping out your neighbor is a specific act of righteousness which you should never outsource to others. If your neighbor is in need, then it is your job to help them. Liberalism allows us to simply outsource the helping of others to the government. Therefore, we don't have to bother with it ourselves. We don't have to do the messy job of helping the poor, the downtrodden, or worst of all, the sick. We can leave that to the government. They will do the work of Jesus themselves, and we don't have to worry about a thing.
So, let's say that we decide to outsource our righteousness to someone else. Which would you rather outsource it to?
I don't know about you, but I would pick the first person. But, now, remember, the government (or at least congress) is not allowed to encourage any sort of spirituality or religion with its laws. Therefore, by outsourcing to the government specifically, I have already rules out the most effective and comprehensive means of administering social justice! If you decide to outsource social justice to the American government, you are in fact saying that faith plays no part whatsoever in the reconciliation of social justice. Using the government might make some sense (assuming we were fine with outsourcing righteousness) if we lived in a theocratic state (note - I am not advocating this), but since we live in a theologically-neutral state, outsourcing to the government is simply counter-productive, because it cannot by its very nature address the spiritual problems that go along with the social problems (and which often lie at the root).
What do you get when you raise someone out of poverty without helping them spiritually? A materialist consumptionist.
What do you get when you give health care to someone without healing their soul? A heartbroken nation.
What do you get when you regulate businesses without teaching spiritual values? Loopholes, and people who will leverage them to further their own greed.
If you, like me, believe that the physical problems that people have are real, but are overshadowed by the even larger spiritual needs of our nation, then why would you even think to outsource the righteousness of the nation to a group who cannot, by their own proclaimed nature, perform the most important tasks?
One of the problems with outsourcing righteousness, is this - what happens when the organization you outsource righteousness to becomes corrupt? If you believe in original sin, then this means that all people are capable of sin and corruption, whether government or non-government. Therefore, what do you do when the government itself, intentionally or accidentally, becomes itself the problem? Note that simply not keeping up with changing societal parameters can move a given policy from being helpful to being hurtful, so not only do we have to trust the members of the government not be corrupt, we also have to trust them to stay on top of things.
If we outsource righteousness to a non-government agency, then, if it becomes corrupt or out-of-touch, we can simply stop outsourcing to them, and outsource to someone else. However, if we outsource to the government, here's what we've done:
So, if you outsource righteousness to the government, there is a very good chance that, not only will they be incapable of ministering spiritually to those in need, they will wind up perpetuating more social injustice, and be in a better position to do so because you just gave them all of your money.
Personally, I think we should try to minimize our outsourcing of righteousness and help each other on a daily basis. This would be a lot easier if a third of our labor didn't already go to ineffective government programs. In a later post, we'll also talk about the practical economic reasons why the "social justice" agenda of the liberals actually tend to produce more poverty, even in the short run.
Many people do not understand the moral accounting of pro-life politics. By "moral accounting" I mean the way in which people decide whether or not a given policy is an overall good or bad policy.
Let's take the issue of condoms. Many pro-choice proponents are completely unaware of why pro-life proponents are not in favor of condoms. Pro-choice proponents see condoms as an easy way of preventing pregnancies among teenagers, and are confounded as to why pro-life proponents don't encourage them as well, since, at least according to pro-choice theory, this would reduce the overall birth rate.
The problem with this view is twofold. One reason often given is that condoms don't decrease the incidence of pregnancy - the incidence of sex is usually increased with condom promotion so much that it negates any benefit.
I don't know if that statistic is true or not, but that is not the real, underlying reason.
The real reason is that pro-life is part of a bigger worldview - what I will call the "culture of life". The "culture of life" generally has the following set of views:
Many (but not all) pro-choicers have a nearly-opposite set of views:
So, let's look at the moral accounting that occurs with condoms and teenagers.
Situation 1: If teenager A has sex with teenager B outside of marriage without condoms, you get a baby.
Situation 2: If teenager A has sex with teenager B outside of marriage with condoms, you are less likely to get a baby.
For the pro-life proponent, situation 1 is clearly better. They have sex outside of marriage (which is a negative) but they get a baby (which is a positive). In situation 2, they have sex outside of marriage (which is negative) but it isn't offset by the positive of having a baby. Therefore, pro-life proponents don't like funding condoms for teenagers, because, by pro-life moral accounting, it actually makes the situation worse - you get only the bad - no good.
In addition, conservatives tend to view moral choices as independent, not situational. Therefore, the moral choice of sex is independent of the moral choice of abortion. Therefore, promoting or restricting condom use is independent of the choices about abortion - you only get into the sex morality.
Therefore, condoms only promote the moral problems associated with sex outside of marriage, because they (a) encourage more of it, (b) remove the possible redemptive part of it [the baby], and (c) view it as an independent moral choice from abortion.
In addition, many with the "culture of life" worldview take the view that sex itself is a sacred institution. Therefore condoms promote an additional problem in that, not only do they remove the good side of out-of-wedlock sex, they also cheapen the act of sex itself, and with it the institution of marriage.
Without condoms, and with a baby, even sex outside of marriage is much more likely to lead to marriage, thus redeeming the original act. Promoting condom usage is likely to remove this redemption, and leave the ones having sex outside of marriage both without the either redeeming part of the equation.
Thus, while most pro-life proponents don't want to outlaw condoms, we aren't in favor of promoting them to unmarried teens, either.