Electoral College 101 - A Brief Explanation of the Electoral College

The electoral college is an obstacle to people who desire the Presidency to be decided by the nationwide popular vote. Four times in our history, the President has not defeated his opponent in the popular vote. In 1824, John Quincy Adams lost in both the popular vote and electoral college, making his election the only case in our history where the President was chosen by the House of Representatives. In recent history, we have George W. Bush beating Al Gore in the electoral vote in 2000 while losing in the popular vote. Similar situations to this arose in 1876 (Rutherford B. Hayes beating Samuel Tilden) and 1888 (Benjamin Harrison beating Grover Cleveland).

The battle against the electoral college is centers on whether we are a collection of states versus us being one federal state. With that said, there are still some lesser issues that are still pertinent.

The electoral college serves no role after the first vote. Twenty-nine states have legally bound their electors to vote for their candidate. The others, who are not legally obligated, are still strong party supporters chosen by the party, so they typically do not stray. Straying, or what is known as being a faithless elector, has only happened 158 times in our nation's history. None of those 158 times have ever swung an election. If a candidate does not have a majority of the electoral vote after the one vote of the electoral college, the President would be immediately decided by the House of Representatives, which happened in 1824.

The electoral college system might not be the best thought out system in the world for a democracy, but this is not due to elections being stolen by the electors. It will run into problems if a third or fourth party ever arises. In Europe, a multitude of parties run in a preliminary election followed by a final election in which the two highest vote getters in the preliminary election run off against each other. This is preferable compared to a third party candidate, if they were to ever gain traction again, causing the candidate they are pulling votes from to lose. Or even worse, causing the outgoing, lame-duck session of the House of Representatives to choose the President. The biggest problem with the electoral college, as with many of the systems in place for presidential campaigns, is that it discourages a third, fourth, or fifth party. Most political issues have more than two sides. Having more parties involved in the public discussion would create more constructive policy debate rather than the tit-for-tat we are wallowing in.

Despite the drawbacks of the electoral college, I would like to propose that it is beneficial to keep an electoral system where votes are given by state rather than purely by popular vote. If we moved to selecting the President through popular vote, the President would be decided by a few major cities rather than the nation as a whole. The campaigns would focus on city issues and ignore the rest of America. The electoral college insures that each state matters.

The main change that needs to happen is not the abolishment of the electoral college but the institution of a preliminary election. After each party has their primary, an election would be held in which every party could run against one another. This preliminary election would empower everyone to vote for the candidate they want without "wasting" a vote rather than just voting for "the lesser of two evils." Having a preliminary election would help move our nation away from party-centered politics toward issue-centered politics. This preliminary election would be followed by a runoff election between the two candidates who received the most votes in the preliminary election. This system is normal election procedure in many nations around the world and would help promote additional parties, bringing additional solutions, to the political arena.

It doesn't hurt for us to evaluate the antiquated systems our founding fathers developed. They were radical and revolutionary for their time, but since then many of their great and original ideas have been improved upon by other nations experimenting with them. I would love for the grand experiment that is America to keep on experimenting.

John Wesley on Election Day

I met those of our society who had votes in the ensuing election, and advised them
1. To vote, without fee or reward, for the person they judged most worthy
2. To speak no evil of the person they voted against, and
3. To take care their spirits were not sharpened against those that voted on the other side.

From John Wesley, October 6, 1774.

A Christian in Politics

It’s that time of year again. One in which everyone starts misbehaving, proclaiming that if you don’t share their political views then you can’t be a Christian. This is the first election season where most of us are on Facebook, and it is difficult for some to behave themselves. Oh, what a wonderful time. I’m sure God smiles down on all of his followers attacking one another when they are supposed to be identified by their love toward one another.

But what if in this political season we got it all wrong? What if our goal in life isn’t to achieve political victory but to love our neighbor? What if behaving like jerks, to put it lightly, in the political arena actually is a distraction from our true purpose in life? What if, instead of choosing Obama or Romeny, we decided to choose Jesus?

It’s tough for many to not be a jerk when they get their news from a biased source that neglects the negative stories about their own guy. In this vaccum of news from the other perspective, one begins to believe the other side is purely evil while they are on the side of the angels. But I want to propose that neither side is on the side of the angels. They are both flawed human institutions that forget their true purpose in the hopes of winning the temporary and fleeting praise of the masses and/or some select wealthy donors.

As followers of Jesus, we must not align ourselves too closely with any human institution dare we lose our prophetic voice. What that means is that we can never become so Republican that we don’t speak out against the injustices of the Republican Party. Or likewise, we must never become so much of a Democrat that we can’t speak out against the injustices of the Democratic Party. 

The church has a purpose in our society. We are to be the salt of the earth, the light of the world, and a city on a hill. We can’t do that if we just become another cog in one of the political parties, a cog that they can depend on no matter what they do. How different both of our parties would be if the people, especially the Christians who should know better, in those parties started cleaning up their own house rather than just constantly throwing mud at the other?

If one party feels that they have a specific demographic locked in, they won’t do anything to win the vote of that demographic. Why would they? They already have them. Each of the parties, like all human institutions, are inherently flawed. They are better when they are striving toward loving others and those things that are good. They are worse when they are living selfishly. We, Christians, must play hard to get when it comes to the political parties. True, we might grow old and lonely some day, but at least we won’t be a dirty whore, sleeping in bed with those who are committing atrocities of all sorts that our Savior would be ashamed of.

So the church, needs to be a place where people of all political persuasions can get along, keeping our prophetic voice alive by drawing closer to Jesus. The Democrats needs good Christians in their midst. The Republicans do too. Likewise, so does the Green Party, the Libertarians, and every other political group. Every group needs a little salt and a little light.

So let us not denigrate our brothers and sisters who might have different political views than us. That doesn’t mean that we can’t talk about the issues we disagree on, but let us not pretend that our side in the political arena is the one on God’s side. I’ve seen both sides, and they’re both pretty filthy. And that is just from visible appearances. God sees the heart. Thankfully, he has grace enough for Republicans, Democrats, and third-partiers too.

Reaction to Andrew Sullivan's Christianity in Crisis

Andrew Sullivan: Christianity in Crisis

Saying "Christianity has been destroyed by politics, priests, and get-rich evangelists" is like saying that it once was better, as if there was a golden age of glorious Christianity at some point in the past. Was that golden age in the 80s when our most prominent spokespeople were Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Jim Bakker? Or the 60s, when a girl would get pregnant and be shipped out of town? Or the 40s, when we imprisoned those who couldn't fight in the war without destroying their conscience? And we can go even further back and find terrible atrocities.

I am always a little hesitant to look at some point in the past as the golden age.

I'm encouraged by the church these days. What I see in the church today is a great thing, albeit mired at times and places by confusion. Not that the church being in a good place is exclusive to our era. People are going back to the Scriptures. People are trying to following Jesus no matter how radical those teachings might be. People are recognizing that the church is more about relationships than institution. And I see many churches who are living out their witness to their community and the world together. I think we are in good times for the church. Sullivan might just need to find a different, healthy church to be part of.

This is the first time that I have encountered the idea that Jefferson mutilating his Bible and picking and choosing what passages he wanted to follow was a positive thing. That twist is new to me. But there is this fad today of only following the teachings of Jesus. It's not the worst thing in the world. But comparing Jefferson to Jesus is strange. Jefferson cannot be lifted up as nonviolent, one of the tenets of the Gospel that Sullivan keeps bringing up as a good thing. Jefferson was one the key figures in the preparations for the Revolutionary War and was the governor of Virginia during it. When he became President, he initiated the Barbary Wars, which set the tone early on for American international military excursions. Jefferson might have done a lot of great things, but he didn't live by the teachings of Jesus as Sullivan decribes them. Actually, Jefferson was a man who claimed to be a follower of Jesus and then used politics to give Jesus a bad name, just like the people that are easy to criticize from the modern era. Stumbling, bumbling, modern-day followers of Jesus are easier to criticize than Jefferson because we have not yet made them into gods.

The idea that organized religion is in trouble is an American fallacy. Some of the mainline denominations have not made the transition into the modern era and are in trouble, dwindling in numbers. But church attendance appears to be steady throughout the land. There has been a great non-denomination surge. Now, I live in an area where that attendance is lower than the national average, but the national average is pretty impressive.

Sullivan really needs to read two articles. I find it hard to believe that he doesn't already know these things. Many evangelicals, like myself, are not Santorum supporters nor do we consider ourselves Republicans. Jim Wallis wrote Defining "Evangelicals" in an Election Year. I understand when secular writers have swallowed the talking points about who evangelicals are, but Sullivan should have known better.

And my brief article talking about church attendance through the years. Obsessing Over Oddities - The Focus of a Life in Jesus and The False Assumption that Church Attendance is Declining in America.

Sullivan has swallowed some teachings that are a little off. He writes, "He [Jesus] was a celibate who, along with his followers, anticipated an imminent End of the World where reproduction was completely irrelevant." Jesus didn't expect an imminent End of the World. He expected an imminent arrival of the Kingdom. That is different than the end of the world. His followers were also not expecting an end of the world, but a resurgence of the kingdom of Israel. They didn't get what they wanted although the kingdom did arrive; it just looked and behaved differently. Now, one could argue that Paul misunderstood the imminence of the end of the world. I think that point could be made.

Sullivan also wrote, "He [Jesus] disowned his parents in public as a teen, and told his followers to abandon theirs if they wanted to follow him." Really? Jesus gave some harsh statements about family, but His "disowned" mother was there with Him at the cross and He asked John to take care of her. Doesn't sound like the type of "disowned" Sullivan is going after.

Sullivan does hit the same points that I hit. We should care more about being like Jesus than attacking homosexuality. We spend our time attacking the world rather than examining ourselves and being the light of the world. I would echo what Paul said, "For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you”
(1 Cor 5:12-13 ESV). But Paul is not en vogue and should apparently be discarded.

Sullivan's main point is right on. It's just convoluted getting there. "Above all: give up power over others, because power, if it is to be effective, ultimately requires the threat of violence, and violence is incompatible with the total acceptance and love of all other human beings that is at the sacred heart of Jesus’ teaching."

And then Sullivan hits his stride when he tackles Francis (again, an illustration that the church is continually resisting the siren call of the world and its power).

"When politics is necessary, as it is, the kind of Christianity I am describing seeks always to translate religious truths into reasoned, secular arguments that can appeal to those of other faiths and none at all. But it also means, at times, renouncing Caesar in favor of the Christ to whom Jefferson, Francis, my grandmother, and countless generations of believers have selflessly devoted themselves."

Amen. Mostly. Jefferson became Caesar, so I still propose that Jefferson is not a good example of renouncing the ways of Caesar, but the point is great.

And once again, after making a great point, Sullivan muddies it with more Jefferson and reason:

"I have no concrete idea how Christianity will wrestle free of its current crisis, of its distractions and temptations, and above all its enmeshment with the things of this world. But I do know it won’t happen by even more furious denunciations of others, by focusing on politics rather than prayer, by concerning ourselves with the sex lives and heretical thoughts of others rather than with the constant struggle to liberate ourselves from what keeps us from God. What Jefferson saw in Jesus of Nazareth was utterly compatible with reason and with the future; what Saint Francis trusted in was the simple, terrifying love of God for Creation itself. That never ends."

This whole talk of Jesus being reasonalbe goes somewhere I wouldn't want to go. I would much rather follow Francis' life of self-sacrifice and refuse a pillow. Might be completely unreasonable, but there is something beautiful in it.

Christianity is in crisis. But this is nothing new. It has been in crisis as early as the conference in Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. Throughout the letters of Paul, we see him dealing with crisis after crisis that the church faced at that time. I would avoid discarding everything except the teachings of Jesus, for then we will eventually have a different crisis on our hands. But I would also avoid making complex systematic theologies that get us so focused on doctrine that we ignore the clear and simple teachings of Jesus.

Let's love the story of God. Let's live the story of God. Let's not imagine that it is contained only in the Gospels. Let's let it overflow from our lives.

Tax the Churches

If churches were taxed like businesses, most still wouldn't pay any taxes. Money is paid out to workers (who pay taxes on that income), used on expenses, and given away to help people. Most churches usually end a year with the same money (or less in today's world) as they started the year with. No profit to tax.

Churches aren't showing record profits.Most churches don't even try to have profits unless they are saving up to buy a building or a piece of land. If church profits were taxed, churches would be unwise to save up money to buy just to have that money be taxed. Instead, they would just get a larger mortgage and avoid any accumulation of money that would be taxed.

Even the corrupt, financially immoral churches probably wouldn't be taxed all that much as they are giving their money out to the pastors and using it on expenses (like jets and new cars). Not saying that is okay. Just pointing out that taxing the churches probably wouldn't contribute all that much to tax revenue.

But churches would have to pay property taxes if they were no longer excluded from taxes.

If people are arguing that offerings should be taxed like sales tax, then that would also give some tax revenue.

Any group, even politically active groups, can create a tax free non-profit organization in the United States. The key is to be non-profit, which churches are.

Now onto the issue of politics in the church.

Personally, I think ministers should preach politics more. But they shouldn't be preaching the politics of either the right or the left. Just the politics that expresses loving the least, loving our enemies, and loving our neighbors. The politics of helping the oppressed and reconciling the haters. The politics of grace and forgiveness. The church becomes tainted when it aligns itself with any political party, but that doesn't mean that the views of Jesus are totally inapplicable to politics.

I stay away from directly addressing politics or candidates at our church, but that does not mean that I don't address issues and stances that would have political ramifications if the listeners to the message actually lived them out. Often, political issues and the Bible intersect one another. I don't see how one could preach the gospel and not talk about issues that would influence politics.

Separation of Politics and Faith?

We often hear in our society that our spiritual beliefs shouldn't influence our politics. That view can only come from people who have superficial beliefs (beliefs that they intellectually assent to but practically avoid) or none at all. I don’t mean that to be offensive to those who separate their faith from their politics, but let’s be honest. If your beliefs don’t influence the way that you view the world and the way that the world should operate, then your beliefs are not really beliefs; they are just part of some religious ritual that you give intellectual assent to.

Our deeply held spiritual beliefs will influence our politics. They aren’t contained in some fictitious fairy tale section of our minds. Instead, they transform the way we live and view the world. If we really believe the spiritual things we claim to believe, then those beliefs will permeate our entire life. If we compartmentalize the practical applications of our spiritual beliefs to our church life or our life around a certain group of people, then we really don’t believe the beliefs that we claim to believe; we just give them lip service. Authentic belief influences the way we live, everywhere we find ourselves living.  That is what genuine, true belief is. The truth of the matter is that our beliefs always influence our politics. The question is, “What do we really believe?”

Now this doesn’t mean that we should have to spout off about Scripture in the political arena. What it means is that our politics are shaped by our beliefs, and those beliefs should be able to hold their own without referring back to Scripture with those who do not believe in Scripture. Truth doesn’t need Scripture to show that it is true. It is the truth. It is in Scripture because Scripture contains the truth, but the truth is not confined to Scripture.

Let us look at some clear, Christian teachings from Scripture and see how those should influence what our political views are. We need to recognize these problems in our nation and work to resolve them rather than turning a blind eye toward them or, even worse, supporting these sinful actions that are contrary to the teachings of God.

Jesus teaches us to love our enemies (Matthew 5:44). All too often our society’s fervent nationalism will spur us to dehumanize our enemies and harm them. Jesus went so far as to say that we are to love those who persecute us. So these enemies are doing harm to us, yet we are still supposed to love them. This might be difficult to iron out politically, but we must always remember that we are called to be faithful, not effective.

The Bible is filled with passages on how we are to treat the immigrant (Leviticus 19:33-34). We are taught to treat the immigrant as a native and love them as we love ourselves. Yet all too often the mentality of many politically active Christians is to speak against the illegal immigrant who has a worse life than us, not because of his or her work ethic, but because of the place they were born. This hatred has no room in the Kingdom of God because a brother or sister in Jesus who is from a foreign nation shares their primary citizenship with us in the Kingdom of God. We should be concerned about their well-being, not attacking them or making things difficult for them.

When it comes to abortion, the church is typically against it. Unfortunately, we often stand against it in a "you should do things my way" approach rather than a "we will sacrifice ourselves to help you despite your bad decision" approach.  Many people are hurt by abortions. We need to be willing to take the burden of sacrifice necessary to help the women who wind up being unwanted mothers. We need to make the sacrifice and adopt the unwanted children. We serve a savior who died for us despite us not deserving it; we are called to do the same for the others (Galatians 5:13-15).

One of the biggest dilemmas facing our society is the increasing income gap between the rich and everyone else. Not paying workers a fair wage, profiting off of unrighteousness and injustice, and ignoring the plight of the poor and needy are all actions that disgust God (Jeremiah 22:13-17). We may or may not think the government is the solution to these problems facing our society, but we, as followers of Jesus, cannot be complicit in, participate in, or even be supportive of those who bring these problems about.

Those are just a few of the issues where following Jesus criss-crosses with society.

We must make sure that in the process of being politically alive, we never compromise important beliefs. The ends never justify the means. However, that expression is often used as an excuse to be an obnoxious jerk, one who is unwavering and unwilling to compromise. We must realize that it is better to head in the right direction than to hide in our ivory towers, be self-righteous, and make no progress for the betterment of those who need help. We understand that this world will never be what God intended it to be prior to Jesus’ second coming, but we also recognize that striving for His ideal is what will make life better in the here and now.

We must be vigilant that we never lose our focus on Jesus in the mire of politics. This nation will not be transformed into what God wants it to be through political action. The key problem is a problem of the heart. But that does not mean that a follower of Jesus cannot be involved in shaping laws to promote the common good. We might hear the retort, “You can’t legislate morality.” But that is nonsense. Every law is a moral teaching, even in a secular nation.

When talking about politics, we must never forget that our primary witness for Jesus is our not our political stances; it’s our life together as a church. The government is not the salvation of the world; Jesus is. And He reveals Himself to the world through the local church. We must love one another and be the light of the world that we were intended to be.

It is my hope that the laws of the land I live in reflect the teachings of the spiritual kingdom I exist in. Everyone wants the laws of the land to reflect their own personal beliefs. The question is “What do we really believe?” Do we really believe in Jesus? Or do we believe in some warped rendition of nationalism? Or a gospel of selfishness? Or something else? Are we really agnostic? Our actions show what we really believe. I hope and pray that we, the people who claim to follow Jesus in America, will begin to truly live as if we really believe. What a difference that would truly make. We would really be a city on a hill.

Is America a Christian Nation?

Two questions.

How much would it cost to end world hunger?

$30 billion per year

How much does the United States spend on the military?

$869 billion per year

3.5% (or 7/200) of our annual military budget could solve world hunger.

Okay, one more question.

What does that say about us?

"Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me."
                                                                                                                - Jesus

"If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."
                                                                                                               - Apostle Paul



.

John Howard Yoder on Collective Responsibility

Reading through The End of Sacrifice, a collection of essays by John Howard Yoder edited by John Nugent, I ran across this quote. This came from an essay, Capital Punishment and the Bible, that was originally published in 1960. I would assume that it was pretty relevant then, but it seems even more relevant today.

If society--family, neighborhood, and nation--deprives a child of affection, teaches him or her vice through the world's largest pornographic industry, glorifies violence through the entertainment industry, glorifies crime through the wealth it gives its gangster kings, and shuts off legitimate avenues of growth and self-expression through substandard schooling and ethnic segregation, and then this child becomes a teenager armed with a knife and excited by alcohol and other narcotics, which society permits to be sold, is not society's casting the blame on the teenager a disgraceful search for a scapegoat? Such insistence on "personal responsibility" may well be a mere screen for society's refusal to face its moral decadence in repentant honesty (31-32).

The Christian Stooge

For too long, Christians have been naive when it comes to politics. We have allowed politicians to manipulate us into giving them our vote when they say the right things on the issues we care about. But when it comes to actually doing anything about the issues that we vote for, they have failed to bring their pontifications to reality. Politicians are good for that. It's time for Christians to stop playing the funny man in the stooge's act.

It looks like it is happening again.

Recently, Eric Sapp wrote an article entitled Rick Perry's Church Giving Hypocrisy.

Here's a great excerpt:

What we should be saying is that it doesn't matter whether the Church could do a better job caring for the poor or not because the Church isn't doing it. We wouldn't need Section 8 housing if we had enough Habitat homes. We wouldn't need food stamps or school lunches if we had enough soup kitchens. The way to ensure better care for the poor than government can provide is not to hobble government programs but for the Church to make those programs unnecessary. The problem is not that government is doing too much but that the Church is doing too little.

He goes on to share that Rick Perry didn't even give a hundred dollars to the church the year that he made a million. Here is an article, Perry has not overburdened the collection plate, that goes in depth about his giving.

Wow. Actions like Perry's are not going to empower the church to step up and fill the hole caused by the disappearance of the government programs that many Christians, including Perry, are clamoring for. The moral thing for Christians and the church to do would be to actually provide the programs on a scale that the government would no longer need to do them. Until we step up and put our money and lives where our rhetoric is, we have no place, if we claim to be Christians, to ask for the government to stop the programs many poor people need. If we were already taking care of their needs, then we could be justified in asking the government to stop taking care of them.

If we think that the church can do it better than the state, then let's start doing it!

On the Debt Crisis

A Facebook comment on a friend's conversation over the debt crisis said, " How sad that those voted to make the right and righteous decisions don't have the backbone of an amoeba." The right and righteous decision in the context was to cut spending or shut down the government.

Not defaulting seems pretty righteous to me. 

I still haven't heard who will make the decisions on what gets paid and what doesn't get paid when the expenditures are more than the money on hand. It sounds like those decisions would be Obama's as the executor of the legislatures decisions. In that situation, Obama will get to decide what is and isn't cut. It will really centralize power in the presidency if Congress does not work this out, and I don't want more power centralized on the President. 

The government won't shut down. They just won't have enough money coming in to pay all the commitments. It does appear that Obama will be the one to decide what commitments get paid. He probably won't default on our debt, so he will cut spending. I would much rather have the decisions on what spending cuts are to be implemented be made by the legislature in a calm, collective, and well-thought out process rather than on the spur of the moment by one person and his appointed people because we are in a self-inflicted crisis.

Congress should pass a balanced budget amendment and send it to the states for ratification. Then they should make it the responsibility of the legislature that if they add a spending increase, they have to figure out how it will be paid for. They can't just make "good for them politically" policies, whether it be war or health care programs, without making the tough decisions on how to afford those policies. Then they should balance the budget. Do that and we won't have this crisis.

Let's put our "crisis" into perspective.

Jeremiah wrote, "Do not trust in these deceptive words: ‘This is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord.  For if you truly amend your ways and your deeds, if you truly execute justice one with another, if you do not oppress the sojourner, the fatherless, or the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not go after other gods to your own harm, then I will let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave of old to your fathers forever" [Jer 7:4-7 (ESV)].

True biblical righteousness is to live justly with one another, to not oppress the immigrant, the orphans, or the widow, to not shed innocent blood, and to not go after other gods. Those are the big picture thoughts repeated throughout Scripture. To live that way is to truly live righteously.

In the end, if I want to live in a righteous nation, these things need to be taken care of. I would love to see it taken care of by the people without the government. But we, the people, need to step up. When was the last time that you did something to increase justice in your sphere of relationships? When was the last time you helped an immigrant, an orphan, or a widow? When was the last time you celebrated the shedding of innocent blood? When was the last time you chased after gods other than God? 

On the issue at hand, let me ask, "Do you have debt?" Yet you expect the government to have none?

We, the people, get the government we deserve. If we change ourselves, then the government will change.

My Brothers and Sisters in Jesus, Be Careful of Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand has been growing in popularity in recent years through economic conservatives latching on to her teachings of self-reliance and individualism, views that seem to run contrary to the teachings of community and love for others in Scripture.

Ayn Rand in a 1965 Playboy Interview

“My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue."

Jesus in Matthew 25:37-40 (ESV)

"Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’"

Excerpts from Mike Wallace's interview with Ayn Rand in 1959.

Rand: “You love only those who deserve it.”

Wallace: “And then if a man is weak or a woman is weak he is or she is beyond love?”

Rand: “He certainly does not deserve it. He certainly is beyond it."

Wallace: “Isn’t it possible that we all believe in it [collectivism] because we’re all basically lonely people and we all understand that we are our brothers’ keepers?”

Rand: “You couldn’t really understand it because there is no way in which you could justify, nobody has ever given a reason why man should be his brothers’ keeper, and you have every example, and you see examples around you of men perishing by their attempt to be their brothers’ keeper.

Wallace: “What’s wrong with loving your fellow man? Christ, every important moral leader in history has taught us that we should love one another. Why, then is this love in your mind immoral?”

Rand: “It is immoral if it is placed above love of oneself."

The Apostle Paul writing about Jesus in Philippians 2:3-8 (ESV).

"Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." 

You decide. Do the teachings of Paul and Jesus line up with the teachings of Ayn Rand?

James Madison and the American Addiction to War

James Madison wrote,

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.

In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

quoted from http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_Madison, Letters and Other Writings of James Madison (1865), Vol. IV, p. 491.

Hopefully, some prominent politician of our time will echo his thoughts during this time of government financial crisis and budget cuts.  

Stephen Walt wrote an article for Foreign Policy asking "Is America Addicted to War?  The Top Five Reasons We Keep Getting Into Foolish Fights."

1. Because We Can
2. The U.S. Has No Serious Enemies
3. The All-Volunteer Force
4. It's the Establishment, Stupid
5. Congress Has Checked Out

I've no doubt that one could add more items to this list (e.g., the passive press, the military-industrial complex, etc.), but the items already noted go a long way to explaining why the supposedly peace-loving United States keeps finding itself in all these small but draining wars.

Large Government Jesus - Small Government Jesus

I recently read an article, Why Evangelicals Hate Jesus, from Phil Zuckerman, Professor of Sociology, Pitzer College in Claremont, CA.

I disagree with the author on many levels although his general point is right.  I agree that Christians often neglect the social issues that were a concern of Jesus.  I disagree when the author seems to replace the Republican Jesus with a Democratic Jesus.  

Zuckerman brought up the issue of gun control.  Biblically, there is no passage that stands up for or against gun regulation.  Now, we might be able to make good arguments against guns, but I have often said the the issue is more of a city versus rural issue.  Out here in the country, hunting is fairly common.  Killing a stray fox is sometimes a necessity.  Personally, I don't own a gun, but I have friends who would be more than willing to take care of a stray pest in my yard if the need arises.  In the city, the issue is much more extreme.  There really is no need for a gun except for shooting other people and defending one's self from corrupt government or crazy people. 

The author also deals with the idea that rich people are hated in Scripture.  They are not.  The author references, "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God" [Matt 19:24 (ESV)].  Zuckerman fails to do the passage justice in its context.  Right after that passage referenced, Jesus taught, "When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” But Jesus looked at them and said, 'With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible'" [Matt 19:25-26 (ESV)].  It is impossible for a rich person to enter into the kingdom but what is impossible for man is possible with God.  It is not wrong to be rich; it's wrong to be rich while not being generous.  The rich need Jesus just as much as the poor to be right with God.  It might be a common misconception that one being wealthy means that they are right with God.  Jesus is denying that thought while providing hope for the wealthy at the same time.

Jesus did not preach socialism, but he did preach generosity.  The early church modeled a voluntary communal system, but it was never mandated although it is mandated that we are to help a brother or sister in need.  If we don't, then we don't love God (1 John 3:17).

The author confused being a follower of Jesus with holding a position on what sort of government we should have.  Jesus never addressed that issue.  Whether the government takes a more active social role, which I am fine with and often encourage. Or whether an individual is against large government, it does not make one more or less of a follower of Jesus.  We can be either big government or a small government Christians.  Both sides seem to make the mistake that their side is the only side that Jesus would be on.  My thought is that Jesus would not be on either side but remain a prophet proclaiming the call to love others as we love ourselves to both.  A person could be faithful to Jesus, against big government, and be passionate about loving the poor outside of the government.  Unfortunately, we get confused by the heartless conservatives who do not care for the poor, claim to follow Jesus, yet are not in step with his teachings.  While on the opposite side, we can see people who love the poor but refuse to acknowledge Jesus.

But Zuckerman is right in saying that being a follower of Jesus is much more important being saved from hell.  We follow Jesus, not for fire insurance, but because we really believe that Jesus is the best life to live.  Too often we get confused in thinking that following Jesus is all about getting to heaven.  It isn’t.  That is the frosting on the cake.  Following Jesus is about transforming this world.  In the Lord’s Prayer we pray, “Your will be done ON EARTH as it is in heaven.”    

And Zuckerman's last sentence is right on.

"Of course, conservative Americans have every right to support corporate greed, militarism, gun possession, and the death penalty, and to oppose welfare, food stamps, health care for those in need, etc. -- it is just strange and contradictory when they claim these positions as somehow "Christian." They aren't."

Opposing corporate greed, militarism, gun possession, the death penalty, welfare, food stamps, and health care does not require a person to take the large government position that the author seems to insinuate that it must.  (Except for the opposing the death penalty.  That one is inherently governmental and political in nature. Ironically, it's smaller government)  You can be a socially-conscious, small government follower of Jesus, but if you say that the government shouldn't be doing certain things to bring about social justice, you must be leading the charge in equipping and empowering the church to take up the slack.  You should be providing free medical clinics, food distribution, housing the homeless and training them, promoting peace, and preach out against the unfair profits on the backs of workers.  All this can be done outside of the government or within the government, but it needs to be done by follower of Jesus. 

The author made the mistake of linking achieving social justice within a large government to the teachings of Jesus. The real argument that Zuckerman needed to make is that social justice can only be achieved through the government.  I don't know if that point can be made.  Zuckerman did not even try.  The whole article was written under the false assumption that that point is already commonly held.  He must not have any small government Christian friends who are bringing justice about in their world. 

Mitch Daniels and Baby Boomers

Mitch Daniels, the governor of Indiana, wowed the crowd at CPAC.  It's a good speech worth listening to.

Here's a quote from him at Butler University's Commencement in 2009.  Please note that he is a baby boomer.

Today, if you are thinking about standing on the shoulders of the past generation, I'd say "Please don't."...What I mean to suggest is that you take into the world the values written on the locker room wall at Hinkle, which are not much at all like those associated with the Baby Boom.  That you live for others, not just yourselves.  For fulfillment, not just pleasure and material gain.  For tomorrow, and the Americans who will reside there, not just for today.  That song I mentioned ends with the refrain, "And don't worry 'bout tomorrow, hey, hey, hey." When it comes on oldies radio, please, tune it out.  Do worry 'bout tomorrow, in a way your elders often failed to do.

Religion is Still Relevant

On a forum that I interact in, it was posted concerning attempts at expanding gun control legislation in the aftermath of Representative Giffords shooting: 

"Or people with knives, or gasoline and ball bearings, or just stupid religious pronouncements to people not able to think for themselves. Hell religion is responsible for more death historically than the short period of time we've had guns. Ban religion."

His sentiments echo many of the comments I have read following the stories of this tragedy in Arizona.  There is a deep-seeded hatred toward Christianity stirring under the surface of our society.  I had to reply.

First, I want to say that I am not for the banning of guns.

Religion has been a tool that power-hungry politicians have used at times to get their will.  As we have seen in this nation and in the Soviet Union, when religion does not march along with the power hungry, they will just use nationalism and self-defense as a rallying cry.  The problem is people pursuing power at all costs, not religion.  Religion is not at fault for the deaths you are tossing at its feet.  Ignorant and power hungry politicians are. 

I admit that religion has been tainted at times throughout history; there is death on its hands. 

But there are glorious moments.  And they are still happening.  Every day across this nation. 

Just this week, I saw a doctor open up a free medical clinic in my town.  The first day was a trial run without much promotion, so we only saw three patients.  But Christians paid for $2000 worth of medical treatments for those three patients.  They had to be people who were too wealthy to have government insurance, yet too poor to have insurance on their own.  A category that is pretty massive in America right now.  Religion, throughout history, has helped in medical treatment for those whom society has deemed unworthy.

Last week, I sat through a presentation of an organization (Hope 2 Liberia) that is trying to bring hope and stability to the civil war torn nation of Liberia.  There was a banker in the audience who made the point, through a question, that he didn't think it was wise to make an investment in Liberia since it was not a stable nation.  In that setting, the investment would just go to waste in the midst of another crisis.  What he didn't grasp is that the Christian organization is not making an investment; they are just trying to be loving through providing safe drinking water, the best education possible, and health care.  It's not about an investment, but about loving people and bringing stability where investors won't put their money.  Our church will be doing a fundraiser in the fall to help them reach their $15 million dollar goal.

Last night I went to a concert (Winter Jam).  The entry to the concert was cheap ($10 a pop for big name bands).  The goal of the performers and producers was to get some of the 11,000 people attending to adopt children or support orphanages in nations where child abandonment is prevalent (through Holt International).

I am in negotiations with an inner city church in Ft. Wayne to let our country church partner with them in meeting the needs of the poor in the city.  They have a good system in place to not be abused by money grabbers, but they also don't ignore the down and out.  It's on that balance beam of being charitable yet responsible that these religious organizations live. 

So we can look at the terrible moments of the church, or we can look at the great moments.  As Sarah Palin said during the 1984 Miss Alaska beauty pageant, "In Alaska we have mosquitoes. We also have the most beautiful mountains in the world. The choice is ours as to which we'll focus on." 

Religion has brought a lot of good.  And guns, along with making wars bloodier and killing easier, have made it easier to hunt.  Mosquitoes.  Mountains.  You can choose what to look at.

A Look at the Fairness Doctrine

With the recent shooting of Representative Gabrielle Gifford in Arizona by Jared Loughner, talk of the Fairness Doctrine has begun again.  Somebody must have this policy on the backburner to whip out to their political advantage during times like these.

The Fairness Doctrine was implemented in 1949.  It was a policy that was intended to insure that broadcasts on important public matters would be balanced, honest, and equitable.  It was repealed in 1987 under the urging of Ronald Reagan.  

The Fairness Doctrine is dangerous.  This comes from a guy who thinks that Rush Limbaugh is one of the most illogical people on the radio and would not mind if he was off the air, so I am not arguing on behalf of right-wing talk radio hosts.  I am arguing on behalf of freedom of speech, which seems to be under a constant barrage of attacks right with this push and the recent push to silence Wikileaks.

A survey in 2008 showed that 47% of Americans are in favor of a fairness doctrine on the radio and on television. I am sure this number has grown in light of the recent shooting in Arizona that is being spun in an attempt to push the fairness doctrine.  The last thing I want is for the government to force constraints on commentators because the inevitable conclusion-not just some slippery slope argument but a practical implementation of the Fairness Doctrine-is that some department in the government must decided what balance and fairness looks like.  After this is decided, the press will then have to do what the government decides is fair.  I find it hard to believe that legislation like this is even being debated in America. Nothing good could come of it, yet 47% of Americans think it is a good idea.

What the Fairness Doctrine would mean is that we would have to hear both the Republican and Democratic side of every issue. How convenient for the establishment. If every show would have to be like one of those cable news shows with the Republican talking point puppet on one side and the Democratic talking point puppet on the other, it would prevent any third view from entering the public forum. The two parties have created a tough enough system for a third party to crack, but the Fairness Doctrine would insure that the political debate would always be dictated by the two parties.

Michael Savage fought against the United States government allowing a Dubai company to manage the American ports. Under the fairness doctrine, would his view have been allowed on the air?  It was against both the Republican and Democratic position on the issue?

Although the two parties would like to present it as such, every issue does not nicely fit in with the Republican or Democratic bipolar political talking points. Some issues have three, four...fifty different viewpoints. It should not be up to the government to decide if a viewpoint is adequately represented on the air.  That is for the consumer to decide.

What would this mean to the internet? Would I have to find some fellow American to write opposing viewpoints to every political post I make? Would they silence me if I did not want to participate in their silly games?

Welcome to America, the home where they make us think we are free. We seem to be having a lot more in common with the "free" people in China.

Stop the Lying in Wahsington (and in our lives)

Dr. Karl Menninger, who I wrote about in Legalism Brings about Division, Love Knits Us Together in Unity, wrote Whatever Became of Sin in 1973.  I recently picked this book up and have been awed page after page with how the problems of our society back in 1973 are still the problems facing us today.  His main point is that we gloss over sins, give them other names, and justify them away.  Here is a section of the book that just shows that some things never change.

Lies, Lies, Lies

I well remember the afternoon of Friday, May 7, 1915.  A half-dozen medical students at the University of Wisconsin were leaving the laboratory to go home for the day.  A newcomer arrived with an exciting message.  "They have done it!" he cried.  "The Germans have torpedoed the Lusitania.  And now the fat's in the fire.  There was no ammunition on that ship."

The argument as to whether Britain or Germany was most at fault continued for months and years afterward.  Sentiment turned increasingly against the Germans, and war began to be mentioned.  Finally, two years later, we were persuaded.  Over fifty years later, shortly before its own tragic demise, Life (October 13, 1972) published an excerpt from Lusitania, by Colin Simpson, a British journalist who had carefully examined all the old and much new information about the Lusitania.  And what does he say?

That the Lusitania was indeed heavily armed, that her manifests had been falsified to hide a large cargo of munitions and other contraband, that the English admiralty was strangely negligent in protecting the ship against attack, and that for some thirty years the United States Government purposely withheld the truth about the sinking from the public; it denied the facts and falsely accused Germany of an atrocity to arouse American sentiment against Germany.

In other words, while one cannot say that the event was staged, it was very largely maneuvered and greatly misrepresented and exploited by the British and American governments to induce hatred in the American people toward the German people.  In short, we were lied to by our leaders to maneuver our country into a war for political reasons and not to "save democracy."  By order of President Wilson, the truth about the Lusitania was buried until the time of President Franklin Roosevelt.

One hero stood out in all this shameful business.  On September 20, 1917, Senator Robert La Follette of Wisconsin stated in a public speech that it was true that the Lusitania had been carrying munitions and the President was aware of it.  The Senate promptly attempted to expel him for this treachery!  La Follette demanded exhibition of the true manifest of the Lusitania.  This was refused.  Dudley Field Malone, the Collector of Customs in New York, quietly offered to testify on La Follette's behalf, and the Senate dropped the shameful charges.  La Follette was one of the few public leaders who would not join in that great political lie which led to the death and maiming of millions of human beings.

I lived through these days and these conflicts of opinion and contradictory news dispatches, and the tragic years that followed.  For me, lying is a sin in large letters, and lying by leaders is unforgivable.

The rally cry, "Save Democracy," still has as much appeal to us today as it did in the run-up to World War One.  That war was sold as a fight for democracy and the war to end all wars.  But the American people bought into a mislabeled bag of goods that they paid for with their lives.  This war, and the condition that it left Germany in, set up a nation for the likes of a dictator like Adolf Hitler.

It seems that we have a historical tendency to create our greatest enemies through our involvement in affairs abroad.  We created the situation that created Hitler.  We funded Saddam Hussein and gave him the military equipment he then used against us.  We even gave Osama Bin Laden his wealth during his fight against the Soviet Union.  When are leaders lie, manipulate, and destroy in order to gain, we are left in a worse situation than we were before.

And we still follow the drum beat of lies into war.  We blindly believe our politicians when they say a war is how we are defending our homeland and saving democracy.

We need to repent as a nation.

We need to stop accepting lying as the status quo.

We need to call sin what it is and refuse to allow egregious and continual sinners to lead us.  A lie is a sin, yet we like to color it up and call it protection, marketing, and public affairs.  How have we allowed lying to become commonplace? 

We need to stop attacking those who point out that the emperor has no clothes and begin to be upset that the emperor is actually naked.  It is extremely difficult to stand up against the powers that be in a society that likes to pretend that the powers that be, at least the ones on the same side of the political aisle, are never wrong.  We must realize that those who we blindly accept as being right are those who are most dangerous to us.

Until our frustration is directed at the right things, we will never see any significant change.  Along with expecting our leaders to not be liars, we must also direct some of our frustration on self-reflection.  We need to repent and be the people that God wants us to be.  

Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God. They collapse and fall, but we rise and stand upright. O Lord, save the king! May he answer us when we call.  Psalms 20:7-9 (ESV)  

Some trust in lies and deception, in money and military might, but we will trust in God.  Let's stop coloring up sin in fancy, acceptable terms because sin is never acceptable.

How to Change our World for Jesus - The Lure of Politics

When I first started this blog in 2004, I wrote a few articles on Christian Exodus, an organization that plans "to accelerate the return to self-government based upon Biblical principles" by planned resettlement in South Carolina.  The idea is that if enough Christians moved to the same place, they can create a synergy that will transform their local governments, which will then transform the state into a theocracy, a government that recognizes God as its ruler.  I thought they might have fizzled out by now, but they appear to still be going strong.   

Here are some of the posts for background on this subject:
More on Christian Exodus - The Dilemmas Raised in Attempting to be a Christian Nation or State
The Difference Between a Nation of Christians and a Christian Nation
Creating a Jesus State - On Christian Exodus

What we see in Christian Exodus is just a more overt expression of the platitudes and attempts of many of the Christian political organizations fighting the political battle in America.  This approach is nothing new.  It is just a rehashing of the concept that has crept into the church throughout the years.  As Christians, we desire our nation to be one focused on God, but this desire can be expressed differently.  For some, it means that they will enter the political fray and attempt to transform the political structure from one that is out of tune with God to one that takes its marching orders from God.  From the Christianization of Rome by Constatine to Calvin's Geneva to Uganda today, we see that the religious people, when trying to make a state based upon the headship of God, have a tendency to begin killing people who disagree with them.
 
The fallacy of this approach is that the life of Christ cannot be passed on to others by the powers of the State.  We might create moral people through the threat of the gun, fines, and imprisonment, but moral people are meaningless without hearts surrendered to the Lordship of Jesus.  I pray that we will never resort to executing non-believers like Constantine and Calvin were willing to do, like the people of Uganda are almost ready to do once again.

If we want to have an eternal impact on our world, we need to focus on being the people that God wants us to be rather than obsess with transforming our nation.  It's easy for us to point fingers at others and tell them that they need to change while we ignore the most important calling on our life that we have control over.  Our nation would benefit more from Christians examining their our own lives, drawing closer to Jesus, and following our intimacy with God with the sacrificial living that will inspire.  We need to spend our time figuring out ways to make Christ's love real to the world around us through the overflowing of the love we have for one another in our local church.  It starts with us truly loving one another, not just with words but with real, meaningful actions.  That love will produce the result we desire instead of the hatred that ensues from Christians entering the political fray "for Christ," creating morality laws, and coercing others to live like they are Christians.   

We still have the concern of how to stand up for justice and the things God cares for in our society.  Don't confuse this approach as saying that we need to stop being concerned about the things that Jesus is concerned with.  The answer to justice does not lie in the state but in Jesus, who has a body here on earth that is supposed to bring about His will.

In a conversation years ago with John Nugent, professor at Great Lakes Christian College, he wrote to me concerning the writings of John Howard Yoder.  His thoughts are very appropriate on an election day like today. 

"What follows is simply a summary of John Howard Yoder’s article “Original Revolution” published in a book that bears that title.) The Sadducees represent one strategy. They got in with the Roman power brokers located in Jerusalem and through strategic alliance with them sought to carve space for Jews in Palestine on Rome’s terms. Then there are the Pharisees who gave up on political leverage. Instead they created Judaism to be something mostly concerned with individual piety. Regardless of who is in charge, if everyone just focuses on personal piety, they will be right with God and will share in the resurrection. Then there were the Zealots. They would not tolerate Roman occupation of “their land” without a fight. So they employed violence, subterfuge, and revolt in order to topple the enemy. These three strategies are employed in various ways by various groups and religions in America today. I leave it to you to connect the dots. But a fourth strategy seems most analogous to the Exodus movement. These are the Essenes or Dead Sea community. Their strategy was to quarantine themselves off from the contamination of wider society, to do things right on a strictly in-house basis, and to patiently await God’s call to take the next step whatever it may be."

Significantly, Jesus rejected all of these strategies. If either of them were basically right, it seems that Jesus would have allied with them and taken control of their already gathered ranks. Instead he begins a movement that is genuinely new and draws adherents from various of these camps. His strategy was to form a people who would exist among the people but would not live according to their ways. Instead they would order their life together to bear witness to God’s kingdom. His strategy should not, however, be confused with the Pharisees. Jesus did not ask them to focus primarily on their individual spiritual lives. He gathered them into a people whose corporate life together was a large part of their witness (e.g., light of the world, city on a hill, salt of the earth, etc). It was crucial that they be a visible-political body, ordered according to the politics of God’s kingdom, and it was crucial that this people would exist in and among the other peoples of the world—not off in relative isolation as with the Essenes. If the Essene strategy was right, all Jesus would have had to do was join them and tweak their teaching to align with God’s kingdom. Interestingly, however, John the Baptist seems to have left this group to be used by God to prepare the way for Jesus among the people of Palestine. Anyway, you know how the story goes. Jesus gathers this people, dies, rises, re-gathers them, and commissions them to await the HS who would empower them and send them out on their worldwide mission. The HS comes and Jesus’ followers decide to huddle in Jerusalem (re-Babel-ification). Then the HS sends persecutions that scatter the Jerusalem Christians out into worldwide mission to people of all ethnic groups. But this dispersion, according to the letters of the NT, had to take a certain kind of shape. In keeping with Jesus’ vision, they were to form messianic communities ordered according to God’s kingdom and located among the nations as a witness to them. Their status was that of aliens, strangers, exiles, and ambassadors. They were resident aliens—residing among the people but of alien citizenship. A great online article that highlights these themes in 1 Peter can be found here."

So we really have the option of being five types of people.

1. People trying to change the political structure for God.
2. People focused only on individual spirituality.
3. People focused on removing the "sinners" from their land by force.
4. People focused on isolating ourselves from the world.
5. People who live together in such a way that their life together is a witness to the world.

I can see the possibility of Groups 1, 2, and 5 working together. Then I am reminded that the blunt end of Jesus' criticism landed on groups 1 and 2, the Sadducees and Pharisees.

Now, if you're new to my beliefs on individual spirituality, let me have a little go at explaining them. The main verse we hear on a "personal relationship" with Christ is John 17:3, "And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent." Jesus requests in that same prayer that we are to "be one" three times (John 17:11, 17:21-22). God wants his people to be one. As Ephesians 4:4-7 states: "There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift."

A brief summary of my stance is this. It is important for each individual to make a commitment to follow Christ - that is the entry into the Kingdom; however, that commitment does not lead them into personal spiritual ecstasy land. That individual commitment leads them to the body of Christ. Romans 12:5 says, "We, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another." When you become a Christian, you begin to share your life with others.

It is tough to believe in the importance of being a collective group in a society that worships the individual. But we need to be careful. When our beliefs parallel that which the pagan culture around us strongly adheres to to, we need to make sure that we carefully scrutinize those beliefs.

As followers of Jesus, we are tempted with all sorts of methods that will distract us from our true mission to be in love with Jesus as a body and live lives together that will reflect His glory.  Anything else than total surrender is easier, and that is why they are appealing.  But we must remember that Jesus' burden is light.

Toward a Christian Politic

Robert Putman and David Campbell just wrote an article published in the Los Angeles Times:  Walking Away From Church.  In it, they describe the trend of younger Americans to abandon the church because of its close union with the Republican party and conservative ideologies of our times.

A friend sent me the article and wrote, "Americans need to keep politics out of the church."

Politics do not need to stay out of church.  Some messages inevitably have political consequences.  Loving immigrants and abortion for instance.  However, the biblical principles that makes me against abortion and for loving immigrants (stand up for the rights of those weaker and loving my neighbor as myself) also makes me against the death penalty and war.

We need to make sure our political views are shaped by Scripture and the Holy Spirit rather than prominent political ideologies.

The problem that has manifested itself in the American church is that Christians aligned themselves with one political party and let that political party define their political views rather than letting Scripture.  Christians were once involved in both political parties, but they apparently thought a closer alignment with one political party would be more beneficial to bringing about God's will.  In so doing, they compromised on a lot of issues that they should not have.  By aligning themselves with one political party, American Christians abandoned their position outside the fray as a prophet to all of American politics.  We became part of the system rather than a force that helps shape the system. 

On health care, it does not mean that the church should be for universal

government health care, although it could.  Health care, like most issues, is more complicated than an either/or decision.  The church should be for everyone having adequate health care without going broke.  If a person believes that they should have health care and claim to be a follower of Jesus, then they should love their neighbor as they are being loved.  If they have health care but think others should not, there is a great spiritual disconnect from the golden rule.  All of this does not mean that we must conclude that the government should be the one to provide health care.  But if health care is something a person feels they deserve while claiming to be a Christian, then they should also feel that other people made in the image of God deserve equal treatment.  We need to wrestle with how everyone can have adequate health care because that would be the right response of Christians who have health care. 

So I cannot conclude that politics should stay out of the church, we just need to make sure that Jesus remains the center of those politics.  For further reading, check out John Howard Yoder's The Politics of Jesus or Two Kingdoms, Two Loyalties: Mennonite Pacifism in Modern America by Perry Bush. 

War, abortion, health care, and budget deficits are issues that God is concerned about, and they are inherently political.  However, Jesus does not have a position on gun rights, term limits, level of taxation, representative democracy, international trade policy, etc. I would have no problem of the church I minister at being branded a politically "liberal" church if that meant that we were a church that stood up for the poor, against war, and against the death penalty.  But we would not be able to abandon conservative issue of being against "abortion," nor could we say that homosexuality is a lifestyle that is in God's will.  We cannot be liberal or conservative - just Christian.  And we need to make sure that we allow Scripture and the Holy Spirit to shape our views rather than go to Scripture to force our view on it.

Our biblical belief that homosexuality is a sin, even if we don't proclaim it from the rooftops, will make us unpopular.  By the end of the article, that was the main issue that author was centered on.  The belief that homosexuality is a sin yet our nation should allow them to have equal rights makes me loved neither by the religious establishment or the tolerance culture of our world.  Just this last week, Lindsay was asked her view on homosexuality by someone who was considering our church.  I'm pretty sure her answer that homosexuality is a sin like any other sin, yet we are still called to love homosexuals was not the answer they wanted to hear.  I doubt they will be visiting.  They wanted to hear that it is okay to be a homosexual, and despite the alluring siren call of our culture, that is not something we can say and still be honest with Scripture.  For some our age, their belief that homosexuality is a valid lifestyle in the eyes of God will cause them to discard Scripture.  But does that mean that the church should never teach on the issue?   

So I would advise that we need to not throw the baby (politics) out with the bathwater (Republicanism).  We need to make sure that we have a politic that is glorifying to Jesus, has the golden rule at its heart as it is at the Gospel's heart, and that we only stand up for and against issues that Jesus would stand up for or against.

Taxation is Stealing, The Purpose of Government Spending and Taxes

Drudge's headline reads, "ROB THY NEIGHBOR: HALF OF HOUSEHOLDS PAY NO FED INCOME TAX."  The real article is more even keeled:  Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax.

Nothing like inciting people through calling someone a thief.  We're trained from childhood to stop thieves from stealing.  The inflammatory headline ignores the complexity of the situation.  In a system that taxes, it is inevitable that some will receive more benefits than others.  That is the purpose of taxation and government programs.  If not, then everyone would just keep their money and spend it however they wanted.  As libertarians propose, we could have private jails, private security, private roads - private everything.  However, most of us see the benefit of using our money collectively for the common good.  

The frustration that becomes expressed in Drudge's headline comes not from indignation that the government is helping the poor, but a shift from a form of socialism that protected the rich while allowing the poor to be prey to all of the varying markets.  The United States is still a society that has socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor.  This situation might be changing, and the people who were benefiting from it previously will not take that lightly.  On the right, Thomas Sowell, a popular commentator, made this point in an article on real estate and eminent domain:

"A very different form of socialism for the rich protects their communities from even the dangers of a free market...For example, the "open space" laws that have spread across the country to protect upscale communities represent one of the biggest collectivizations of land since the days of Josef Stalin."  

On the left, James Clancy, the president of the National Union of Public and General Employees, made a similar point: 

"Ordinary public taxpayers who worked hard and played by the rules and were exploited in the first place are now being forced to bear the risk and responsibility for the financial mess but get no help with their priorities. It’s a classic case of socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor."

The question that Drudge's headline ignores is, "Who did most of the work that made those who pay taxes have the money to be in an income bracket that has to pays taxes?"  That wealth did not just appear out of thin air.  It was built on the backs of the workers who are now receiving more back in taxes.  Inadequate compensation is more unfair than taxes being levied on those who gained disproportionately to the rest of the work force, but it does nobody any good to start labeling the other group as thieves.

Many people never pay enough in taxes to pay their public schooling off, but that doesn't mean that giving them a public education is wrong.  Right now, at today's rate in Ohio, it would be just under $125,000 owed per student for an elementary and secondary education.  That does not include any preschool programs.   The cost increases when the student follows up high school by going to a public university, so most of us have taken a lot of money from the government for our education.  In the case of education, we're not talking federal taxes, although they do pay 10.5% of elementary and secondary education, but it's an illustration of the point.  Taxes we pay should be used for the betterment of society.  It does not mean that I have to receive proportional benefits for every dollar I pay, nor does it mean that I will only receive benefits equal to what I pay.       

Taxes are used to benefit society as a whole, and most of the time those who are on the poor end need the most help.  Helping them, through education for instance, is typically beneficial to society as a whole.  It is inevitable that some citizens will receive more than they paid and others will pay more than they receive.  That's the way a society that taxes works.  But maybe we should stop looking at it through a benefit-cost ratio and start viewing it through human-love lenses. 

We could be pursuing libertarianism, but most of the people that I hear complaining about taxes are not expressing libertarianism.  People seem to like the areas where the government helps them and dislike other people getting help.  But maybe we shouldn't have problems with people receiving help and living closer to the standard of living we have.

***

To hear ideas on libertarianism, you can listen to Free Talk Live, or visit other libertarian sites like Free Keene, the Cato Institute, or the Free State Project. 

***

I wrote on the subject of Jesus' teaching on taxes a while back: Taxation is Stealing, Health Care, and Jesus' Teaching on Caesar.