BreakPoint Albert Mohler June 14, 2005
“We have figured out your problem. You’re the only one here who believes in God.” That statement, addressed to a young seminarian, introduces Dave Shiflett’s new book, Exodus: Why Americans are Fleeing Liberal Churches for Conservative Christianity. The book is an important contribution, and Shiflett offers compelling evidence that liberal Christianity is fast imploding upon itself.
Shiflett’s instincts as a reporter led him to see a big story behind the membership decline in liberal denominations. At the same time, Shiflett detected the bigger picture–the decline of liberal churches as compared to growth among the conservatives. Like any good reporter, he knew he was onto a big story.
“Americans are vacating progressive pews and flocking to churches that offer more traditional versions of Christianity,” Shiflett asserts. This author is not subtle, and he gets right to the point: “Most people go to church to get something they cannot get elsewhere. This consuming public–people who already believe, or who are attempting to believe, who want their children to believe–go to church to learn about the mysterious Truth on which the Christian religion is built. They want the Good News, not the minister’s political views or intellectual coaching. The latter creates sprawling vacancies in the pews. Indeed, those empty pews can be considered the earthly reward for abandoning heaven, traditionally understood.”
Economist like Laurence R. Iannaccone (and others in the Economics of Religion field) have been studying this phenonoma for years. He first put forth the hypothesis that strict (conservative) churches should grow faster in his paper Sacrifice and Stigma: Reducing Free-Riding in Cults, Communes, and Other Collectives.
The idea is that people want to go to a church where they feel others are also contributing. Conservitive churches weed out those that just want to enjoy the ride and increase the benifits to the faithful.
I think the fastest growing “church” in the United States is the Church of the Unchurched:
————————–
The Barna Research Group specializes in conducting national surveys on all aspects of religion. They have detected a precipitous increase in the number of what the call the “unchurched” — those who have not gone to a religious service during the previous six months. Special events like weddings, funerals, or holidays were not counted. Comparing mid-1998 data to data collected 18 months earlier, they found:
Group…………..1997-JAN……….1998-JUL
All adults……………27%………31% (60 to 65 million)
Southern states.. 19%……….26%
Northeast………….34%……….39%
Midwest…………….26%……….26%
Western states….34%……….38%
A rise of 4 percentage points nationwide and 7 percentage points in the South may not seem that significant. But consider:
** This change happen over a period of only 18 months.
** The number of unchurched is now greater than the number of persons identifying with the largest single faith group: the Roman Catholic Church.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/us_rel1.htm
——————————–
Also, I think the factor most influencing church growth is whether the church actively evangelizes rather than whether it is liberal or conservative. It’s just that conservative churches tend to evangalize more — but not always. For example, in statistics I’ve for the Greek Orthodox church growth is almost flat, with membership during 1990 – 2000 growing from 515 thousand to 518 thousand, or a total increase of slightly more than one-half of one percent.
The proper response to a church that mixes with message of Christ with excessive liberal political content, is not to leave and join one that mixes the message of Christ with excessive conservative political content. The proper response is to belong to a church that puts the message of Christ first and foremost and leaves politics outside the church walls.
I get the impression that some people want the theological equivalent of Fox News. They want a church that filters the Gospels of any hint of social responsibility, a church doesn’t make them feel uncomfortable about the poverty, war and suffering around them, a church that doesn’t challenge their preconceived opinions but affirms them, a church where they can boast like the pharisee and feel free to direct their scorn freely at the publican, a church that says “my country right or wrong.”
Christ’s teachings it is said, were intended to “comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable.” In fact, if we read what Christ actually taught there is enough in there to make both liberals and conservatives alike feel ashamed. If the taking of innocent unborn life from abortion should make liberals ashamed, then the terrible neglect, poverty and suffering of millions living outside the womb should challenge the moral smugness and complacency of conservatives.
So, if you are a political conservative and feel uncomfortable with something read from the Gospel maybe you should consider that it isn’t part of some “liberal agenda” but is exactly what Our Lord intended.
Dean, putting aside politics for a moment. “Liberal” churches poltically also tend to be, at best, speculative theologically or abandon all pretense of Christianity while still holding on to the name. Many so called conservative churches are just as far off theologically for we Orthodox as the so called liberal churches.
Jesus’ message is neither only social/political in nature nor is it entirely spiritual/other worldly. However, for we Orthodox, the primary focus is on repentance for the healing of sin. We must never neglect the almsgiving however, for that is an important part of Orthodox spiritual life.
For the sake of unity, effectiveness, and our own salvation, we should try to look at social/poltical problems in the light of Church Tradition and teaching, not attempt to make our own political agenda identical with the Church. Conservatives and liberals both are guilty of attempting to force an agenda on the Church rather than acting in the world according to the direction of the Holy Spirit and the teachings of the Church. In my experience, it is much more difficult to tell the difference than one might think.
It is important to recall that Orthodox theology (on a very basic level) is a series of antinomies–holding as one whole truth precepts that at first glance seem mutually exclusive: God is One in Three. Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man without mixture or confusion. The Bread and Wine is both Bread and Wine and the Body and the Blood. God is completely unknowable, yet we communion with Him in an intimate and essential way-becoming by Grace what He is by nature. God is perfect love and forgiveness, yet Hell exists and many will unfortunately go there for eternity.
Jesus tells us that poor will be with us always, yet we are clearly commanded in Matthew to feed the poor, heal the sick, and visit those in prison as essential to our salvation. I still maintain, that in the context of the whole Gospel, these commands are meant for each of us individually and cannot be fobbed off on our parish or our government.
Humility, obediance, kenotic self-sacrifice loving neighbor as oneself. Yes all of that and more. It is a task that only God Himself can actually acomplish which he did on the Cross. We have to enter into His sacrifice as best we can in the ways and times available to us, hoping we don’t miss an open door somewhere–becoming like the lazy virgins.
Watch and Pray for you know not the hour or the day that your Lord will return.
If the church or the parish you are in does not teach and embody these truths and more–communicate the Holy Spirit, you should go somewhere else.
Dean, come off your hobby horse.
You sound like a broken record… I get your point; socialism good, capitalism bad.
I wish you all the best hammering your square plug into the round hole. Even if you are in denial about it and it hurts your feelings, Christ did not preach socialism. He didn’t preach capitalism either. Our Lord did not come into this world to establish or lecture on economic systems. But I think you are aware of that fact.
However, despite your antipathy toward it, capitalism has improved the lives and created more wealth for more people then all other economic systems throughout all of history taken together. Which can’t be said about your favoured system of state enforced brotherly love. It produced, however, tens of millions of murdered people. If you honestly think about it, you will have to come to the conclusion that capitalism is the only natural system for free men to deal with each other, voluntarily and without (government) coersion.
It appears to me, however, that you are not quite sure what capitalism actually is, I suggest therefore some readings on that topic.
Start with:
“Economics in one Lesson” by Henry Hatzlitt (that is actually all you need to read in order to “get” capitalism), then proceed to the works of Ludwig von Mises. Start with “The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality”, then go to “Planned Chaos”, continue with “Planning for Freedom” and read a “little” about the folly of “Socialism” before you tackle the real lesson on capitalism with “Human Action”.
Legislating to “Love thy Neighbour” did not and will not ever work in a free society. Do what you think is right and help thy neighbour, but don’t force me to do what you consider is right. I will, or will not do my part as I see fit, because it is my personal responsibility to account for my actions or non-actions before my God! You and your government ordered “Love” don’t count before that court…
The numers aren’t that great for church growth in conservative denominations either it seem, but only appear large when compared to the truly imploding liberal denominations.
For example, the article reports that over a decade the PCA grew by 42.4%, but annualized that is only 3.6% — or, assuming an even male-female division, 2.1 new entrants per woman. The more liberal Presbyterian denomination used for comparison shrank 11.6% over that same time. Annualized it is a 1.2% loss, or equivalent to 1.98 per woman. A large chunk of these discpepancies seems like it could explained by births and not pew hoppers from other denominations.
#3 Dean: I wouldn’t be looking for the GOA to increase in membership really. It should essentially be driven by Greek immigration and births of attending families. The OCA and Antioch ANA might be a better place to look for Orthodox increases, but I bet they aren’t as big as the PCA numbers, not even close.
Note 6: Here, here caneel!
Some other socialist programs that need to go:
a) Socialized high school education. I am unmarried and without children. Why am I paying for others’ educations? It’s not like they need an education to live! One can make a sufficient living on a grade school education with such jobs as: valet, fast food chef, car wash attendant and televangelist.
b) Socialized retirement accounts. If you have neither the financial saavy nor the disposable income during the productive years to be able to save a sufficient amount of money to live on after you’ve retired, I say “Too bad!” There’s always the YMCA, the soup kitchen and the homeless shelter down the street.
c) Socialized subsidization of the handicapped. If you’ve ended up with the short end of the genetic stick (or hit by a Snapple truck), they have many uses for those who cannot move or speak of their own volition, including (but not limited to): Scarecrow, Cosmetology Practice Bust, Carpool Lane Passenger, Umbrella Stand, Beanbag Chair and National Intelligence Czar.
{{Shakes Head}}… Austrians.
Some of these are great (especailly the Hatzlitt book). I just think they do not do a good enough job seperating their economics from their classical liberalism.
BTW the Hatzlitt book is available online: Economics in one Lesson
Caneel,
After reading your post, I found myself turning to the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 4:32-7) and reading about the Church of the Apostles in Jerusalem:
4:32 The multitude of those who believed were of one heart and soul. Not one of them claimed that anything of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common.
4:33 With great power, the apostles gave their testimony of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. Great grace was on them all.
4:34 For neither was there among them any who lacked, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold,
4:35 and laid them at the apostles’ feet, and distribution was made to each, according as anyone had need.
4:36 Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas (which is, being interpreted, Son of Encouragement), a Levite, a man of Cyprus by race,
4:37 having a field, sold it, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
It’s so radical, it’s scary. No, Christianity does not endorse any economic theory. The Master taught us that “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God” (Mark 10:25) and that “He who has two coats, let him share with him who has none: and he who has food, let him do likewise” (Luke 3:11). But the Master wasn’t simply too busy teaching mankind and rubbing elbows with the poor, feeding the hungry, and healing those who were sick around Him to teach mankind about economic theory. He teaches us “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in Heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matthew 6:19-21). Our “business” as Christians runs theoretically against the grain of the capitalists around us who spend their lives accumulating wealth for themselves and their families. In fact, for many centuries Christians were forbidden to charge or receive interest on money loaned. “Usury” was considered a sin and wasn’t allowed for Christians until relatively recently.
Instead of accumulating capital, we are obliged by the Master to use our wealth in reaching out to our fellow man. He instead taught us the theory of “stewardship”, and that what is “ours” really is not our own, but is given to us by God along with a purpose for our lives. This isn’t any sort of marxism or socialism, however. This is something more sublime. He turns conventional wisdom on its head when He teaches us that our purpose in life is to serve God, not mammon, and that our responsibilities lie in how we deal with and care for our neighbors, including tending to the material needs of the poor, the widow, the orphan, and the destitute. If you’re implying that capitalism is somehow legitimized by that message, then I’m afraid you’re going to have to look elsewhere than to the Master for that “seal of approval”.
All of us will face the Master on that Terrible Day of Judgement and be forced to give an account to what we have done, and what we have left undone. I know have certainly not done as much as God has called me to do, and I pray that God will forgive me for doing so little, in the face of so much misery here in my own backyard.
“Modern liberalism is an acid that burns through everything it touches. The Church has shriveled in proportion to its exposure to it.” (quote by: can’t remember)
Michael writes: “Jesus tells us that poor will be with us always, yet we are clearly commanded in Matthew to feed the poor, heal the sick, and visit those in prison as essential to our salvation. I still maintain, that in the context of the whole Gospel, these commands are meant for each of us individually and cannot be fobbed off on our parish or our government.”
Individual actions are always good, but inasmuch as a problem cannot be adequately addressed at the individual level the only option is to pursue a more global approach. This necessarily brings one into the realm of the social and political. This is particularly true in a democracy. For example, if you oppose slavery, helping an escaping slave would be a good deed, but action in the social and political realm would also be important. In fact, it would be a very strange argument to say that such action would constitute “fobbing” the problem off on to the government.
In a democracy, who is the government? It’s us, and our elected representatives through us. Capitalism is not a divinely-ordained economic system, nor is it something that is part of the natural world, such as tides and forests. It is a human construct. It is the way that we as a society have decided to conduct our economic affairs. It is a very good system; it may in fact be the best system. But like any human activity it carries with it both good and evil. It is the system that we, collectively, have decided upon. Thus we have an obligation to try to reduce the evil as much as is practical and possible. In the final analysis, it’s not a matter of fobbing the problem off on to someone else, but of taking responsibility for the system that we ourselves have chosen.
In the first few centuries of Christianity such an approach was not available.
Actually, there is a role for government helping the poor. Take IOCC (International Orthodox Christian Charities) for example. It leverages the contributions it receives with government grants so that it can disburse twice as much aid. It has grown to become the third largest agency of its type (Catholic Relief and Lutheran World Services are ahead of it).
The problem is when government itself tries to run these programs, especially with progressives in charge. Care for the poor falls way to promoting an agenda so that the poor end up poorly helped. This is one reason our schools are such a mess, or that the Great Society programs didn’t change the poverty rate in America, for example.
Note 10. Andrew, capitalism did not exist in the time of Christ. The moral imperative still applies though if we think of capital as a comodity. IOW, if we have the wealth to give a man a coat, giving the one off your back or going to Target to buy him a new one amount to the same thing. Wealth (anything beyond your needs — and if you are reading this on your own computer you fall into this category) can certainly be corruptive, but the uncorrupted are also in a position to accomplish significant good with it.
JamesK,
What is ours is not OURS. Instead, what we have is an obligation to share what we have received with those who have not. That’s the crux of what the Master teaches us in the Gospels. We are obligated to do what we can with what we have been given. Nothing about that is easy, but it is the Way which the Master has set before those who would follow Him.
AVARICE is not a “family value” or a Christian virtue. It’s a mortal sin. I’m afraid that unless we all see ourselves as “stewards” of our wealth, our possessions will weigh down our souls and sink us beneath the waves of this life. It doesn’t take great wealth to commit AVARICE. AVARICE is a way of seeing what we have as being fully our own, and not as blessings received from God, and hoarding those for ourselves and our family to the exclusion of others, even those in need. But for the Grace of God, any of us could suffer sufficient famine, devastation, or physical handicaps such that we would not be able to adequately feed ourselves, or even to care for ourselves and survive without help. The handicapped, the hungry, and the destitute are a reminder of God’s blessings to us, and they are more than a “drain” on our finances, but can touch our souls in ways that can help us to be more humble, more giving, and more committed in our walk with God here on Earth.
Like you, I hate the notion of Goverment waste and misappropriation. There are certainly many ways where money is allocated toward programs which are just not useful or are even morally objectionable. We do have the responsibility to do honest work and care for ourselves and our own. But that can never be used to justify turning our responsibility into an excuse for gathering wealth at the exclusion of our responsibilities to care for the widow, the orphan, and the hungry. We never receive license to cede those responsibilities to government or to the Church. They are OURS. We own those responsibilities, and I assure you, on that fearsome Day of Judgement, we will be held to account for them. We who live here in America and are accustomed to the riches of this life need to see this as a potential stumbling block to those who would follow the Way. I appreciate this reminder to myself that I too have to abandon AVARICE and seek forgiveness for my failures.
Very, very well said Andrew.
Andrew – I was being satirical, and I guess I was hoping it was obvious from my suggestion that the handicapped and infirm be used as household props.
But I agree.
Christian socialists are some of the worst socialsts of all since there is just no way to reason with many of them. Data and theory means little when you are convinced government wealth redistribution was accidentally left out of the decalogue.
Those that rail against using the Bible as a history book decide that it makes a great economics book though.
Forced solidarity is no solidarity at all. And it removes the possibility of true, voluntary, Christian solidarity.
Sorry JamesK,
I’m afraid I misunderstood your post. Sadly enough, I’ve had this discussion before with people who would have wholeheartedly supported what you proposed (my barber, for one). It seems that avarice seems to be in political vogue in certain circles. I appreciate your understanding, Sir.
jjayson,
I only feel comfortable embracing the label Christian for anything which comes from the Holy Scriptures. What God has given mankind is His own. As far as economic theory goes, I’m no economist and I have no interest in anything outside of doing what I must do to honor my individual commitment to God and to my fellow man. I put my faith in God, as the “dismal science” has offered no solutions to eliminate human misery and privation, and I seriously doubt that even with the most efficient governmental agencies at its disposal, it still could solve these burning issues. Even more, I’m not advocating a role for government at all in any ‘redistribution of wealth” program. I’m not a politician, nor do I put my faith in politicians as I believe no politician in their right mind would take on the challenge of solving human misery, knowing what failure or setback could mean to their political fortunes. My faith remains securely in the Master and His Resurrection, and in God’s ultimate plan for mankind.
Ultimately, any governmental or Church action still could not release me individually from having to minister to those who are needy around me with what I have been entrusted. Each of us will be called to account for how we used what we received when that terrible Day of Judgement arrives. That obligation is individual and personal, as it relates specifically to what was entrusted to us individually. I don’t believe any economic theory can encompass the human heart and what is expected from the Divine. That is so personal, that all I know is what the Holy Gospels teach regarding material possessions and wealth, and what my own conscience convicts me that I am expected to try to accomplish. I just don’t believe it’s possible that you can encapsulate that into scientific notation as part of some overarching economic analysis. That would be like providing a detailed description of every snowflake that has ever fallen and touched the surface of the earth. The scope is simply beyond science.
What I can quantify is that this great sea of human misery exists and is churning around about us all. And with that, God has provided me with endless opportunities to reach out and exercise selflessness and, in the same spirit as the Good Samaritan, to embrace the stranger in need and give from the heart. I try to measure up to that obligation in my own life, and have so often stumbled and struggled with the challenge. But I keep reminding myself of what is expected of me, and keep trying and praying that I have the strength to follow through with that obligation in every small way I can. In doing this, I receive the wonderful opportunity to deeply experience the joy and the sublime beauty in the Way which the Master set before us in His living example.
Episcopalian minister and former Senator John C. Danforth writes about the negative impact of the political agenda of the extreme right on religion. His conclusions however apply to political extremism from any ideology, left or right.
“In the decade since I left the Senate, American politics has been characterized by two phenomena: the increased activism of the Christian right, especially in the Republican Party, and the collapse of bipartisan collegiality. I do not think it is a stretch to suggest a relationship between the two. To assert that I am on God’s side and you are not, that I know God’s will and you do not, and that I will use the power of government to advance my understanding of God’s kingdom is certain to produce hostility.
By contrast, moderate Christians see ourselves, literally, as moderators. Far from claiming to possess God’s truth, we claim only to be imperfect seekers of the truth. We reject the notion that religion should present a series of wedge issues useful at election time for energizing a political base. We believe it is God’s work to practice humility, to wear tolerance on our sleeves, to reach out to those with whom we disagree, and to overcome the meanness we see in today’s politics.
For us, religion should be inclusive, and it should seek to bridge the differences that separate people. We do not exclude from worship those whose opinions differ from ours. Following a Lord who sat at the table with tax collectors and sinners, we welcome to the Lord’s table all who would come. Following a Lord who cited love of God and love of neighbor as encompassing all the commandments, we reject a political agenda that displaces that love. Christians who hold these convictions ought to add their clear voice of moderation to the debate on religion in politics.
“Onward, Moderate Christian Soldiers” http://nytimes.com/2005/06/17/opinion/17danforth.html
Well, I guess I am going to offend some people, but it can’t be helped. Too much undigested clap-trap is offered as deep thought.
Note 8:
What’s your point? Sarcasm and sneering does not refute facts! All the “socialized programmes” you have mentioned can be offered through private or church institutions. None needs a forced (through taxation) government involvement. Or do you suggest people are so stingy and holding tight to their wallets that they have to be forced to hand over their “wealth”?
Note 9:
How do you separate Classical Liberalism (not what the word has become to mean today) from “economics”? Classical Liberalism is one of many theories of the “science” of economics, just as is classical Marxism. Classical Liberalism and Capitalism is one and the same. Is that why you don’t like it? Or why are you shaking your head?
Note 10:
If you say: “Instead of accumulating capital, we are obliged by the Master to use our wealth in reaching out to our fellow man”. Then I have one question for you. Where do you get your “wealth” to give to the poor? Don’t you have to “make money” first before you can give it away? Or do you hope for a fat inheritance? Where from did your parents get their “wealth”? Do we have here an infinite regression to the “creation of wealth, ex nihilo”? That is silly! You don’t get around the fact, that in order to give you have to have and in order to have you have to “make”…
Just for your peace of mind, I make and I give!
Note 13:
“The problem is when government itself tries to run these programs, especially with progressives in charge. Care for the poor falls way to promoting an agenda so that the poor end up poorly helped. This is one reason our schools are such a mess, or that the Great Society programs didn’t change the poverty rate in America, for example.”
I can only add, Amen!
Note 14:
“We are obligated to do what we can with what we have been given.” Exactly, and that includes our ability to create wealth.
“unless we all see ourselves as stewards of our wealth, our possessions will weigh down our souls and sink us beneath the waves of this life.” Well put!
And I fully agree with your statement: “We never receive license to cede those responsibilities to government or to the Church. They are OURS.”
Note 21:
I’m just curious, Dean, on what grounds do you consider yourself a “moderate”? So far, I have read only one-sided left-handed commentary coming from your pen. Are you mellowing? Are you moving to the right? 🙂
One last observation about many of those posts here that desperately try to convince that government involvement in the “eradication” of poverty is an absolute necessity.
I detect, when reading between the lines, a basic underlying mistrust of our fellow men to do the right thing, a mistrust of people who have wealth or are able to create wealth, and the assumption that anyone who has created wealth must be, therefore, incapable of following the Lord’s commands or a good steward of his God-given wealth.
This mistrust leads the lazy, the envious and the insecure to look for Big Brother to “take care” of the wealth-creator and, if at all possible, to take that wealth away from him. Because, he can’t be trusted to do as God demands, and on top of all, he must have gotten his wealth by taking it away from the “unfortunate”, in other words from the lazy, the envious and the insecure.
Idealism and fuzzy ideas do not create wealth! If you really want to help the poor, use your God given abilities and make money and then give! Do what Andrew suggests: “reach out and exercise selflessness and, in the same spirit as the Good Samaritan, to embrace the stranger in need and give from the heart”. And not only from the heart, but also and most importantly, from your wallet!
Caneel
Well said
Note 22:”All the socialized programmes you have mentioned can be offered through private or church institutions.”
Let’s look at the numbers, shall we?
2003 (from ssa.gov):
1,791,316 retired workers and 777,461 disabled. Total number of primary recipients and relatives who receive benefits (inc. beneficiaries): 4,321,778.
Average monthly benefit: 970.70 and 994.30 respectively (retired/disabled).
Per month: $4,192,124,660, or $50,305,495,920 for all of 2003 (give or take a few hundred million dollars).
Which Church, exactly, can or would provide these numbers? You must know some pretty well-heeled churches.
Additionally, how does a Church decide who gets the funds? Would Catholics have to go to a Catholic institution to get their monthly check, and Baptists from a Baptist one? Would a Catholic have to pick up a Chick tract (with cheerful and colorful explanations of why they’re going to Hell) along with their monthly food stamps if they’re unfortunate enough to not live near a Catholic Church?
Now, I agree that there is mismanagement, waste and bloat in government. I just don’t think the answer is to remove these programs in their entirety.
Note 24:
Have you ever heard of Insurance Companies? Have you heard of Banks? Are Investment Dealers news to you? Let me think, mmmh, some come to mind, like Life Insurances, Disability Insurances or even Income Insurances. Have you heard that you can invest your money in the stock market? Or maybe you would prefer Bonds? Or even fix-term/interest investments. There is even investment insurance possible.
And, oh yes, the people in Chili (and Canada) are able to invest into their own retirement saving plans. And horror of horrors, the government has no access to these funds. Imagine, they are held privately, in banks….
The point is, why do you assume that all these millions of people are unable to take care of their own future? Do you think they are all feeble minded personalities that need be protected and taken care of by Big Daddy? Or are you advocating general lazyness and live-into-the-day mentality? I suggest you look up on the old fable of the ant and the grasshopper…
Your assumption that a church should/could/would be also an Old Age Security Fund is pretty much beside the point, a red herring and in addition, plain silly. I think you are able to come up with a better argument in favour of government largesse for the “unfortunate”.
The problem as I see it with these “givens” is that government has usurped the position of Big Daddy for so long that most people cannot even conceive of the idea that one is to take care of himself and of one’s neighbour. If the government would have decided back in 1792 to become the monopoly manufacturer of shoes, we would today debate the “interesting” question if the private sector would be able to produce shoes in sufficient quantities. Some really far out thinkers would even suggest that private enterprise would not only be able to produce shoes in sufficient quantities and in different sizes, but also in different colours instead of the standard government issue of black. But an outrageous idea like that one, of course, nobody would never accept….
“Why do you assume that all these millions of people are unable to take care of their own future?”
Well, some of us can. Those of us in the $100,000+ salary ranges can afford to put away money in 401Ks, IRAs, etc. while simultaneously paying for our children’s education and all the other daily expenses of living.
Some can’t. Some jobs don’t offer an employer match for their contributions. Some jobs (actually, many) don’t really pay enough to be able to max out in pre-tax contributions while also being able to pay for living expenses, at least not unless one is living in Cabrini Green-like squalor. Many employers in certain industries don’t offer health insurance.
Additionally, contrary to happy optimists such as yourself, misfortune happens. People lose limbs in car accidents, they suffer illnesses such as cancer and diabetes, they become a quadriplegic. Are you suggesting that we break out the cookie jar stuffed with 1’s to help pay for grandma’s radiation therapy or hope that the tithes at St. Bridget’s were especially generous? You’re not being realistic.
Yet one more paradox of the Culture of Life©: respond with outrage and vitriol when a husband has a plug pulled on his already lifeless wife, yet barely muster more than passing chagrin should some shiftless Mexican or some street urchin (who may be very much alive) be denied medical care because they have no insurance.
Caneel writes: “One last observation about many of those posts here that desperately try to convince that government involvement in the ‘eradication’ of poverty is an absolute necessity.”
I haven’t seen anyone talking about “eradicating poverty.” And I don’t think the main issue is poverty, but rather establishing programs that help people to have a certain minimal level of existence — that people aren’t malnourished, that they can be treated when sick, that they have an opportunity to be educated, and so on.
Caneel: “I detect, when reading between the lines, a basic underlying mistrust of our fellow men to do the right thing, a mistrust of people who have wealth or are able to create wealth, and the assumption that anyone who has created wealth must be, therefore, incapable of following the Lord’s commands or a good steward of his God-given wealth.”
Not the case at all. The issue is whether assistance is provided on a random and piecemeal basis or on a planned and programmatic basis. For example, imagine your thesis of “doing the right thing” as applied to national defense. We’ll take up a collection at church so that Sgt. Smith can have night vision goggles. We’ll have a bake sale so that Cpl. Carlson can have another 1,000 rounds of ammunition. I guess that’s how it would work.
Caneel: “This mistrust leads the lazy, the envious and the insecure to look for Big Brother to ‘take care’ of the wealth-creator and, if at all possible, to take that wealth away from him.”
Caneel, with all due respect, do you have any idea of what you’re talking about? The lion’s share of money related to social programs goes to people who are sick, disabled, elderly, and so on. The money pays for nursing home care for elderly people who otherwise would be out in the street. It pays for medication for people who are seriously mentally ill. It pays for chemotherapy for people who have no medical insurance. It pays for wheelchairs, assisted living, and rehab for people who are paralyzed. It pays for assistance to families with profoundly disabled children. The idea that individual and random acts of charity would someone take care of all that is ludicrous. In what other country does that work?
The question is what kind of society you want to live in. If you don’t mind poor people dying in the street because they can’t afford dialysis, we can do that. If you want a society in which families with sick children are bankrupted by the cost of care we can do that too. If you want beggars in the street we can do that. If you want legless diabetics dragging themselves around the street, we can do that too. Or maybe we could reinstitute poor houses. There are all sorts of options, and we can decide what kind of socity we want to have.
Caneel: “Have you heard that you can invest your money in the stock market?”
Have you ever heard that the stock market can take a dump and wipe out someone’s life savings in a single day?
Caneel: “The point is, why do you assume that all these millions of people are unable to take care of their own future? Do you think they are all feeble minded personalities that need be protected and taken care of by Big Daddy?”
Social Security was established precisely because of the large number of destitute elderly people. Part of the problem is that by the 20s more people lived in urban areas than in rural areas. The move to urban areas broke apart the extended family. In a rural-based society where most people live on their own farms they can usually support their own basic needs through their own labor. In an urban-based society survival depends on both the availability of jobs and on being able to afford housing, energy, and food purchased from other parties. Thus in an urban society one’s income can be destroyed by economic downturns, layoffs, business closings, and so on. In a rural setting many of the people there know each other and each other’s needs. In an urban society people often lead anonymous lives in which no one is aware of their needs.
The irony to me is that at the very point at which we have achieved a society in which we don’t have legless beggars dragging themselves around the streets, people like you want to roll all that back to a situation in which we would once again experience the very problems that inspired the Social Security program in the first place. And this under the assumption that private charity would somehow fix everything. It’s a nice idea, but it’s a fantasy that didn’t work before and wouldn’t work now.
If you want to live in a society like that, I suggest Nicaragua. Personally, I like living in the U.S. with its unemployment insurance, workers compensation, Social Security, and welfare. I’m happy to pay for such programs because I understand what the alternative is. I’m not rich, but I suspect that my wife and I are somewhere around the 90th percentile in income and we pay many thousands of dollars in taxes every year, and are happy to do so. And if that means that we don’t have the latest plasma TV or the newest Mercedes, then so be it.
Economics 101
Missourian. Bachelor of Arts, Economics 1974, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Member National Economics Honor Society.
If you wish I will submit documentation of my degree to Fr. Hans so that he can independently confirm it.
First, people should go back and find their Economics 101 textbooks and review a few basic ideas. The term “classical economics” is often used to describe the mainstream economic theory describing the operation of a “free market” system. The intellectual forebear of “classical economics” includes, but is not limited to Adam Smith. Since Adam Smith’s time we have benefit from very sophisticated econometric models which do a very good of predicting short-term moves in the economy.
Within classical economics there are certain activities which everyone agrees government is best suited to perform. They include: national defense, maintaining a money and banking system, supervision of some critical industries such as power and national transportion networks.
Jim Holman’s comment about the absurdity of a private national defense is correct, but, it does not offset Caneel’s arguments. Nobody anywhere has every seriously proposed a privately or voluntarily funded national defense.
Terminology: Capitalism is a Marxist term. Marx used this term in the 19th Century in an attempt to describe and understand the industrial revolution. People really need to ge up to date. Marx’s predictions did not come true and repeated attempts to force Marxist ideas to be successful have been the greatest failures in the history of humankind.
Free markets is the correct term. Free markets are what obtain when people are left alone to buy and sell as they please.
The United States is far from a “laissez-faire” economy. All you have to do is look at the long list of federal and state regulatory agencies. We have agencies that regulate food quality (Department of Agriculture) agencies that regulate the stock market (SEC), agencies that regulates drugs (FDA). I could go on for a long time. We also have programs that take the rough edges off the labor market. We ahve unemployment insurance and welfare.
I would really prefer if people would take a few minutes to acquaint themselves with some basic economic concepts before they start debating economics.
We have an international laboratory from which we can learn a great deal. Cross compare the United States with Canada and Europe. Both Canada and Europe have built a very highly regulated welfare state. Their overall economic performance has laggeed very far behind the United States and the quality of life is not better.
The common argument in favor of Canada and Europe is that although GNP is less, that somehow the quality of life is better. That fallacy is being revealed for what it is. Canada’s health system is cracking up. The health system in the U.K. is unworkable and unsustainable.
For the LOVE OF MIKE, The Labor Theory of Value Is Out of Date.
Marx is the author of the labor theory of value. This theory was an intellectula competitor to classical economics. Remember Marx had an axe to grind and classical econoimcs simply seeks to describe what is.
Marx was reacting to the Industrial Revoulation of the 19th Century. We are TWO REVOLUTIONS beyond Marx. We have had a technological revoluation in the Western world and we are experiencing globalization. If you want to read the history of Marxism may I suggest Richard Pipes Communism. This is a 186 page book in which the premier historian of Soviet Russia traces the history of communism in the 20th century..
Failure. IT WAS A FAILURE EVERYWHERE. NO ONE HAS SUCCESSFULL IMPLREMENTED MARXIST IDEAS ALTHOUGH IT HAS BEEN TRIED AND TRIED AND TRIED AGAIN/.
Marx was known, among many other things, for the LABOR THEORY OF VALUE. Dean constantly advances economic policies based on the Labor Theory of Value. The fact that he doesn’t recognize that his ideas are based on the Marxian Labor Theory of Value doesn’t change the fact. If I jump off a `10 story building I will drop to the ground even if I don’t understand that Newton discovered and quantified the law of gravity.
Bad Economic Policy is Bad Economic Policy Even if St. Francis Asserts It
I have just picked St. Francis out of a hat. I have no knowledge that Saint Francis ever attempted to assert an economic theory. Name any other person reverred for his or her holiness.
No matter how holy a person may be, bad economic policy is bad economic policy. Being a Christian does not mean that you can ignore economic history and attempt to recycle the tired, old failure of socialism. Being Christian does not mean leaving your brains at the door.
The fact that you don’t recognize that you are recommending policies based on the Labor Theory of Value doesn’t give you a break in my book. If you are going to debate ecomomics, know whereof you speak.
We have a modified free market system
The United States does not operate a true, unfettered free market system. We restrain the free market in many important ways. Firstly, we have government agencies to protect the interests of people who cannot effectively protect themselves such as : consumers of prescription drugs (FDA), investors (SEC), bank depositors (FDIC) and many many more. Secondly, we have programs that take the edge off the labor market. We have minimum wages (fine as long as they are kept fairly low). We have unemployment insurance and social security.
We have plenty of modern economic history that proves that assigning too heavy a share of the economy go government SUPPRESSES economic vitality. As Caneel put it so well, somebody had to work at a paying job in order to have alms to give to St. Francis who wandered through the world living as a beggar. We all can’t be St. Francis. Somebody has to work.
Christianity existed for 19 Centuries before the creation of the all powerful welfare state. Christians built schools and hospitals and shelters for the homeless and helped the poor and the needy for 19 Centuries before the emergence of big government.
Government has a tendency to grow and grow and grow and become more and more intrusive in the lives of its citizens. There is a correlation between large government and a government that is hostile to religion. See Communism. See the EU where a person who openly holds Christian values can be refused public office.
This should be a warning to Christians that funneling large sums of money to a secular government which has a tendency to gather all power to itself is not a good idea.
May we please learn from history.
Missourian writes: “Jim Holman�s comment about the absurdity of a private national defense is correct, but, it does not offset Caneel�s arguments. Nobody anywhere has every seriously proposed a privately or voluntarily funded national defense.”
The point is that a similar absurdity would occur were we to try to operate social program solely on the basis of private charity. We’ll take up a collection for Mr. Smith’s dialysis this month. We’ll have a bake sale to pay for Ms. Carlson’s anti-psychotic medication this month.
Missourian: “We have an international laboratory from which we can learn a great deal. Cross compare the United States with Canada and Europe. Both Canada and Europe have built a very highly regulated welfare state. Their overall economic performance has laggeed very far behind the United States and the quality of life is not better.”
No one is arguing that we should become a socialist or marxist state. The argument is merely that social programs are necessary in order to care for a large number of disabled, elderly, sick, or young people, and that other programs help to take the rough edges off the economy.
Missourian,
Thank you! You have just saved me an afternoon of pulling hair in an invain attempt to get through to the “closet-Marxists” who run under Christian disguise. I am always surprised how true it is that, as a general rule, the less logic there is behind an argument, the more often the words “social justice” are uttered in defending it.
As I said before, a lot of economic fantasy, undigested clap-trap really, is offered here without concern for the basic facts. Jim Holman, a writer who seems to have gotten his material from Cliches R Us, gives me a very long lecture, but fails to address even a single fact of economic reality.
Jim, just because you wish it does not make it a viable idea. You cannot erase the basic fact that government is using force (try NOT to pay your taxes) in order to implement the welfare state. It seems you love it that way. Well, study history and economics and see where your ideas will ultimatley and necessarily lead. Basically, the fact is, you want someone else to take care of you and those who do not wish or care to provide for themselves. You have no claim on me and so do not have the others. I pay taxes under threat of imprisonment to enable you and your company to live above your means. Under Socialism as we can see, the most highly rewarded talent is the ability to demonstrate need. The second most highly rewarded talent is the ability to hide means.
“Some ideas,” wrote George Orwell over half a century ago, “are so stupid that only intellectuals could believe them.” I agree whole-heartedly with him and in addition, we have to have some fun here, I strongly support the rights of leftists to damage their credibility by saying stupid things in public.
Now, can I go back and enjoy my gardening chores? Missourian, thank you again for saving my Saturday afternoon… 🙂
Caneel,
I noticed you didn’t find a single “source” or any Holy Scripture or writings of the Church Fathers to back your opinions on these matters. This demonstrates to me that your opinions are ungrounded. Feel free to reexamine all the Holy Scriptures I quoted for your benefit. I hope you will consider them seriously, since, after all, it IS God’s Word. Furthermore, I’d like to add another passage and some thoughts to what I submitted to you before:
17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good�except God alone.
19 You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'”
20 “Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.”
21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in Heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”
24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!
25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
Mark 10:17-25 (NIV)
What do you think the Master saying about the relationship between our possessions and salvation, Caneel? Was He simply trying to expose some weakness in this man for the Disciples and those gathered around him? Surely you don’t believe that the Master was tempting this decent, moral, rich guy. What do you think was the Master’s point? Was He reinforcing the notion that this rich man�s really did own of his posessions, and he had every right to �choose� what to do with what is truly his? To be honest, I’d be quite interested in how you read this passage, though I highly suspect you’re going to drop it, just as you did all the other Holy Scriptures I presented to you in support of my position.
Caneel, you’ve got alot of personal opinions on these matters. But as Christians, personal opinions are nothing compared to the eternal truth contained in Holy Scripture. I believe you are a pretty bright guy. So, I believe you’re bright enough to know that there is a distinction between human wisdom and God’s Wisdom (as I Corinthians 2:6-16 so clearly explains). I’ve listened to what you had to say, but as far as Christianity (and this discussion) is concerned, you don’t make even the slightest effort to back up anything you’re saying with Holy Scripture or any writings of the Church Fathers. I’m sure you can understand that for many Christians, that’s a big red flag. If you can come up with a better source to back these personal opinions about wealth and Christianity, I’m all ears. At least then, we’d have something tangible that we can discuss.
Andrew,
and your point is? I am not questioning the word of God, never have and never will. However, this discussion is about the insanity of liberalism (i.e. socialism), and the welfare state, not the veracity of our Lord’s word. So, please don’t quote the Bible or any Church Fathers to me. Neither are concerned with the abominations of socialism, (or for that matter, capitalism) or the intricate machinations of some people trying to suck money out of other people’s pockets. As far as I am concerned this here is and was a discussion on empty churches and clerical follies which has derailed into an economics bull-session.
If you want a Bible quote from me, I send you to Luke 16:1-13. Yes, I also know that the Lord was speaking in parables and that the meaning of this passage is that the believers should be as shrewd about their persuit of godliness as unbelievers are about their business.
However, we live among unbelievers and have to deal with the fallen world and for that matter I think I can go and act as the dismissed steward. The Lord did not condone his actions, but praised his shrewdness. If I use the “way of the world” to get some dough which I can use to do some good works, then what is the problem? With your attitude towards wealth and, yeach, “earthly things”, we would all be paupers. We would all equally share in our misery. But isn’t that the usual outcome of a socialist economy?
Another thing, Andrew, I think Missourian said it very aptly, the Bible or the Church Fathers are not manuals on how to run an economic system (neither are the wise words of bishops, deacons or matushkas nor the musings of students of Theology). The Bible and the Fathers are concerned with our individual salvation. Note, INDIVIDUAL salvation and not collective salvation. So trust me I am a sinner like the next, however, I do not just sit inactive pontificating holy nonsense, but I actually go out and try to change the world of the paupers for the better. All that with the abilities the Lord has bestowed on me and without stealing the money for that enterprise out of the wallets of others.
Sorry, if I sound harsh, but I am really fed-up with all these immature and wishful fantasies of how the world should run. It’s a fallen world, for crying out loud, and we have to tip-toe through the muck. I try my best to do that without seriously harming my eternal soul….
Caneel writes: “Jim, just because you wish it does not make it a viable idea. You cannot erase the basic fact that government is using force (try NOT to pay your taxes) in order to implement the welfare state.”
Caneel, what I’m about to say may come as a shock to you, so please find a chair and sit down. Ok, ready?
That’s how government works. That’s what government does. Show me one single government in the history of the world in which the citizens were allowed to pick and choose on a purely individual basis which taxes they want to pay. It doesn’t work that way. You have to pay for various social programs that you don’t like. Sorry about that. I have to pay for various military and other programs that I don’t like. I pay just as much for the stupid and wasteful war in Iraq as the most enthusiastic supporter of that war. When the Shrub administration hires right-wing shills to produce propaganda for its programs, I pay for that too. I helped pay for the false and misleading Powerpoint presentation that the administration used to try to sell the war to the U.N. You and I both pay for the various pork programs authorized by Congress. So poor me and poor you.
People pay taxes, both for things of which they approve and of which they do not approve. You don’t like paying for some things; I don’t like paying for others. Fortunately we live in a democracy. If you want to eliminate social programs, great, just convince a majority of the people supporting families on twenty bucks an hour that they don’t need unemployment insurance, workers compensation, and social security. Meanwhile, I’ll try to convince people not to vote for the neocon incompetents who got us into a war in Iraq. You may have better luck than I had.
Caneel: “Well, study history and economics and see where your ideas will ultimatley and necessarily lead.”
Even if all social programs were eliminated, government would still compel people to pay for the remaining programs, even individuals who didn’t want to pay for them. That’s the only way the system can work. I don’t like paying for the Iraq war, but I don’t expect that some special exemption will be carved out for me.
Caneel: “Basically, the fact is, you want someone else to take care of you and those who do not wish or care to provide for themselves.”
Dude, I’m the one paying.
Caneel: “You have no claim on me and so do not have the others. I pay taxes under threat of imprisonment to enable you and your company to live above your means.”
Please explain to me how that happens. Last I looked the old lady and I were paying several thousand dollars every month in taxes. If you want to cut me a check, great, I’ll send you my address. Now if you want to talk about imprisonment, wait until we have a military draft, refuse induction, and see what happens.
But anyway, please explain to me why it is fair when I have to pay for military adventures of which I do not approve, but it’s unfair when you have to pay for social programs of which you do not approve.
The point of my previous post was that we can CHOOSE the kind of society in which we live. We can send disabled workers to the poor house. We can have children pilfering discarded food from grocery store garbage dumpsters. We can let people die in the streets from easily treatable illnesses. We can let poor families choose which freeway overpass they want to live under. All these things are easily within our power to accomplish — if we want to live in that kind of society.
Personally, I like living here in the U.S. with the various social programs that we have. But for you, again I suggest Nicaragua. There are lots of beggars there, so with the occasional Cordoba (about 6 cents) you can discharge your charitable obligation. There are fewer people there, so it will be much easier to convince people that the True Paradise does not include social spending. I mean, Nicaragua wastes all that money on rural electrification projects and sanitation projects, and why should the government force the wealth-creators to pay for immature and wishful socialist fantasies like that. Who cares if some family in rural Nicaragua has clean drinking water! If some lazy dolt or his worthless kid dies of cholera, so what? That’s not your problem. Eliminate those projects and it will be more money in your pocket.
By the way, have you seen the new Porsche Carrera GT? I think it really could be the car for you. Why drive to church in anything less?
Caneel,
You’re aware that this is OrthodoxyToday and not DismalScienceToday, right?!? I’ll quote Holy Scripture and the Church Fathers because their perspective is foundational to what all Christians must believe and practice. Sorry, you can’t pick and choose what to believe in Christianity. Christianity is not a buffet.
I find it perplexing how now you’re saying that individual involvement and choice within the Christian’s larger participation in the Economy is NOT part of the Church’s teachings? So, before you insist that it is, and now it isn’t. I don’t think you can have it both ways, Caneel. The Church’s teachings on possessions and charity very much effect the individual’s participation in the larger economic world. They just forbid us in accumulating wealth at the expense of our neighbor. I can understand why you don’t like those assumptions, and why you’re unwilling to touch Holy Scripture, and instead try to “bog down” the discussion in endless economic theorizing. The facts remain the same.
By the way, those “immature and wishful fantasies” you’re speaking about are called Christian Doctrine. If you don’t like those teachings, and they don’t fit with the “talking points” that you seem more diligent to defend than the Orthodox Faith, I’m afraid I can’t help you there.
Andrew, Advance an Economic Policy and You are Subject to Economic Critique
Andrew, is you want to discuss how a Christian orders his own life, or the life of his family, fine. If you want to discuss how a Christian community such as a local church or national or international church organization organizes itself, fine.
However, it you prescribe a specific economic policy which must be adopted by the elected officials of our country, then, that economic policy is subject to reasoned debate. We, as a country, have available excellent resouces which allow us to evaluate all of the consequences of a a policy, both short-term and long-term. Christians are not forbidden from using their brains when evaluating the worth of an economic policy.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a person whose comittment to the unprivileged has never been questioned, finally concluded that many aspects of Lyndon Johnson’s welfare policies ended up fragmenting and virtually destroying the Black family in America. No one is absolved from looking the truth square in the eye.
Many people assume that adopting a “living wage” policy, something which must be adopted by the ELECTED OFFICIALS of a non-theocratic state is THE CHRISTIAN APPROACH. However, the “living wage” policy is eseential drawn form Marxism and is based on the “labor theory of value.” It is totally legitimate for Christians to discuss the real impact on society and on the poor of the “living wage” policy. We know a great deal about Marxist policies and the effect they have on society.
Caneel’s objection is to the empowerment of a huge, secular goverment through heavy taxation. Christians helped the poor for 19 centurires BEFORE the establishment of the mega-government and the welfare state. Christians built hospitals, schools, libraries and aid societies for the poor for a very long time before Big Government entered the picture. We are capapble of doing excellent work for needy people through our own institutions which are less liable to be corrupted by the world.
This is an economic policy, it has predictable economic effects and no one has the right to use mere moral intimidation to shut off debate.
It is presumptious in the extreme to assert that you know the sole Christian answer to every public policy debate going on in the United States today.
Marxists Economics cannot be adopted without Marxist Politics:Read Solzynitsyn
People think that they can pick and choose from Marxism. Oh yes, they say. Stalin was terrible and so was Lenin, but, we will ignore the plain teachings of history and pretend that we can separate Marxist economics from Marxist politics.
Marxist economics always depress the economy and decrease prosperity, in turn, Marxist demand even more political power over the economy to enact even more draconian Marxist economic policies. So goes our economic freedom, so goes our political freedom and eventually so goes our intellectual and religious freedom.
See Solzynitsyn and see where this leads.
I can fully support private charitable works controlled by Christians and directed by Christians for Christian purposes while I object to further empowerment of a secular government which is hostile in many regards to Christian values. Do you really want to give more power to a government which has ENSHRINGED ABORTION AS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT? Do you think that that doesn’t matter. What type of policies is such a government likely to adopt when it comes to families and the terminally ill? Policies which condone and even advance abortion and euthanasia because it is convenient and economic for the state. Cheaper you know.
Andrew do you really think that the welfare state supported and enhanced the family? Really? Prior to WWII less than 10% of all black children in America were born out of wedlock. Now 66% of all black children are born to single mothers. The welfare state eventually corrodes and destroys families and communities until all are reduced to near childlike dependents of the all powerful state.
Missourian, actually, you can separte it. You can use marxist politics and cultural marxism without economical marxism. As a means to employ a totalitarian state – and indeed a totalitarian culture – marxism works on its evil and anti-christian way. As an economic system, it blows. So now we have examples like China, where there is a semi-capitalist economy with commanded by a single-party communist state. Even on other nations, the trendy continues. In Brazil, we a ruled by a marxist party and nearly everyone on the media or academia is culturally marxist, but the economy is run on a semi-capitalist basis. Everyone wants the money. But not the freedom.
Andrew,
“You are aware that this is OrthodoxyToday and not DismalScienceToday, right?!?” Cute, however, again besides the point. Actually, no point.
Since it seems you’re slow in getting what Missourian and I are trying to say, I will type this out for you very, very slowly…
Before you critizise me, read my posts diligently. I never maintained any contradictory opinions. That would be a sign of insanity. I may be somewhat nuts, as my friends assert, but not insane.
This discussion is about economic systems.
The Bible and the Fathers are neither in question, nor in doubt or even part of this discussion.
Literacy of the Bible and the Fathers do not, obviously, also make you literate in economics.
Unfortunately, you exhibit the pompous arrogance of the economically illiterate!
The Bible and the Fathers are not manuals or prescriptions for economic systems.
Economic systems are man-made constructs and can and must be objectively evaluated.
Christians, even if Orthodox, are allowed to use their God-given brains.
It is pretty impertinent of you to try to shut down discussion by questioning my motives or orthodoxy.
However, I envy you about the security of your lofty moral perch, it must be of Olympian hights. But it seems that the air up there is so rarified that it inhibits clear thinking. Just be careful that you do not slip and fall!
Since you seem to have the monopoly on correct Bible interpretations, I dare not walk in your shadow. Therefore I’ll quote Thomas Hobbes. Remember him? He’s an evil philosopher. “Principles, no matter how noble, are mere wind without the sword”. And I would go one up on good old Thomas and say to you: “The accumulated effect of your words is equal to the flatulence of a mouse”.
How’s that? I can do insults too… 🙂
Caneel writes: “You cannot erase the basic fact that government is using force (try NOT to pay your taxes) in order to implement the welfare state. It seems you love it that way.”
I wrote a longer response earlier, but about half the messages I try to post don’t show up. So here goes….
I would just point out that everyone has to pay taxes for things that they don’t like or don’t approve of. I didn’t want us to go to war in Iraq, and don’t like it now. But my taxes dollars support that war nonetheless. So why is it fair that I have to financially support a war I don’t like, but unfair that you have to pay taxes for social programs that you don’t like? What’s the difference?
Caneel: “Basically, the fact is, you want someone else to take care of you and those who do not wish or care to provide for themselves. You have no claim on me and so do not have the others. I pay taxes under threat of imprisonment to enable you and your company to live above your means.”
What gives you the idea that you’re somehow supporting me? In what way? Either cut me a check or come up with a different argument.
Missourian writes: “Marxist economics always depress the economy and decrease prosperity, in turn, Marxist demand even more political power over the economy to enact even more draconian Marxist economic policies. So goes our economic freedom, so goes our political freedom and eventually so goes our intellectual and religious freedom.”
How is it that social programs constitute Marxism? If so, what programs? Are some social programs Marxism and others aren’t? I have no idea what you’re talking about here.
Jim,
You are exactly right when you say: “I have no idea what you are talking about here”. You really have no idea about economics. A statement like yours on my comments about taxation and social programmes: “What gives you the idea that you are somehow supporting me? In what way? Either cut me a check or come up with a different argument” is beyond redemption. This is the dumbest repartee I have heard in a long time. Do you really need this explained in detail?
Jim, to make it simple, with Marxist economics, as with pregnancies, you can’t have just a little of it….
Caneel: “This is the dumbest repartee I have heard in a long time. Do you really need this explained in detail?”
Yeah, I do. When you say you’re supporting me, how does that work? As I mentioned before, the old lady and I are probably somewhere around the 90th percentile for income. Between state, federal, and property taxes we pay several thousand every month in taxes. But somehow you seem to have the idea that me and all my lazy and indolent buddies are hanging out in front of the welfare office every Monday waiting for your check that will allow us to buy smokes and beer.
Caneel: “Jim, to make it simple, with Marxist economics, as with pregnancies, you can’t have just a little of it.”
To make it simple we do have a little of it. As a society we can choose what we want to pay for. In the middle of what apparently is to you to a Marxist state, taxes for the rich are being reduced, income for the lowest groups is basically flat or going down, while income for the highest groups is increasing anywhere from moderately to tremendously.
But the answer I’d really like from you is why it’s fair when I have to pay for military expeditions that I don’t approve of, and unfair when you have to pay for social programs you don’t approve of.
Also, it would be helpful to know if you oppose all social programs or only some. For example, the state where I live has a program that pays for nursing home care for elderly people who cannot afford it. In order to be eligible for the program, the elderly person has to spend down his or her assets to a very low point in order to be eligible. So — do you like that program? If not, with what would you replace it? Do we just lay the old people out in the street? If not, what’s the plan?
An oft-quoted saying within this blog is that the role of government is not to establish Heaven on earth but to prevent Hell from taking over. So what happens if True Christians© neglect their Christian duties? How many Christian individuals have you met that have honestly invited over a homeless person for dinner or offered them a bed in their own home? Puh-leeze. The vast majority of Christians don’t even “tithe”.
Yes, perhaps if Christians engaged in corporal works of mercy as they were commanded, there would be much less need for government assistance. The problem is: they aren’t.
The government must thus “take up the slack” to some degree to compensate for what we are failing to do (I include myself in this). I did not say supply everyone with a new car and a penthouse in Chicago. I’m saying there is a minimal level of material provisions (food, emergency aid, shelter) that are befitting the human person as a creature of God. There are people who, through no fault of their own, are unable to provide these for themselves or for their families for a time. Christians are failing to provide this, so I cannot see how the collective “we” is not under some compulsion to provide this.
Why does the preview key sometimes send me to the FBI web site? Anyone else having this problem?
What do the declining approval numbers for President Bush and the Republican congress tell us about the moral agenda of the religious right. “Recently only forty-two percent of those polled said they approved of the way Mr. Bush is handling his job, a marked decline from his 51 percent rating in the aftermath of the November election, when he embarked on an ambitious second-term agenda led by the overhaul of Social Security. Sixteen months before the midterm elections, Congress fared even worse in the survey, with the approval of just 33 percent of Americans, and nearly three-fourths saying Congress did not share their priorities.” “Poll Shows Dwindling Approval of Bush and Congress”, NY Times, June 17, 2005.
In the November 2004 election the religious right closely aligned itself with President Bush and the Republican congress. The recent polls suggest that the very narrow moral agenda of both the Republican party and the Christian right excludes and ignores issues important to average Americans and American Christians. These include access to health care, retirement security, the massive deficits, the increasingly dubious justification for the war in Iraq and the bungled occupation, and increasing signs of global warming and long-term environmental degradation. All of these are issues that have a wide impact on the lives of Americans and also have a moral component.
Jim,
Do you really want a lesson in Economics 101? That would be fine with me. But I must caution you, I am a very impatient teacher. Maybe Missourian has more patience and is more tolerant with slow learners.
However, since I am a firm believer in the capitalistic system and in the obligation to use our brains, which was given to us by the Lord, not to be left idle, but to be exercised, and you have stated that you do not want to take undue advantage of my, I must say quite costly acquired wisdom, I would have to charge you a very substantial hourly tuition fee.
(For your information: The last paragraphs were attempts in sarcasm and not really an offer to teach you anything for any amount.)
But, in the spirit of charity, I will today gratuitously point you to the reading list I have posted under Note #6. Feel free to use it to enlighten yourself. I hope that it will get you started with the basics.
Unfortunately, I think that the horse of this discussion has been flailed to death and kicking it any more will not bring it back to life. You are the proverbial Liberal with his feet firmly planted in mid-air, and I am not willing or able to do the Sisyphean job of raising the floor to your level�
Dean,
they are on to you! Big Brother is watching you…. fear
Caneel – It is possible to support a capitalist economic sytem, while also supporting safeguards that protect that system from its own worst excesses, and align it more closely with Christian and humanitarian moral objectives.
A capitalist system that allows the wealthy and powerful to exploit the poor and pressure the middle class while creating growing disparities in wealth and income is not healthy and will produce conditions of social injustice condemned by Judeo-Christian moral and ethical precepts.
We see numerous examples in the Old Testament where Israel and other nations were punished by God for oppressing the poor and ignoriring their suffering. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ predicted the destructtion of the Temple, not as a form of idle crystal ball gazing, but to make the point that societies that aleinate themselves from od are on a path to their own self-destruction.
I agree that Government intervention is by no means the only method or manner in which to help the poor. But it is one tool and sometimes it is the appropriate tool, especially when the reasons for poverty are structural, systemic and macro-economic. To say that we are not going to choose the most effective means to help the poor because of an ideological prejudice, is to put ideology before God.