Jesus Is So First Century
Pastor Ted Haggard — president of the National Association of Evangelicals, pastor of a Colorado Springs megachurch, and the subject of a cover story in this month’s Christianity Today — knows how to help people escape from poverty:
“It’s not hard. They need to live in a society where there’s freedom of religion. And if they want to gather up some wood and make chairs and sell them on the corner, they need to be able to do it. Free markets. Free markets have done more to help poor people than any benevolent organization ever has.”
But Jesus made no mention of free markets, Haggard is reminded. Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell all and give to the poor.
“But Jesus was in the 1st century,” Haggard answers, “and we’re in the 21st century.
“The Scripture is the Word of God, and nothing else is. But if the Scripture says we have an obligation to the poor, then you have to take what we’ve learned in the last 2,000 years to help poor people not to be poor. If the Scripture says we have an obligation to the oppressed, then you have to take what we learned in the last 2,000 years to help oppressed people. I maintain that we learned more about those subjects in the 20th century than in any other single century.”
Haggard is so enthusiastic about free-market economics that he applies it to church.
There’s a lot to unpack here, and we’ll get to even more of the same in a moment. But there’s one thing that just leaps out of this excerpt that I have to deal with first…
Did Haggard really just say that Jesus would have responded differently to the rich young ruler if the conversation had taken place in the 21st century? That Jesus recommended selling everything and giving to the poor because it would be two millennia before he could give the market-based answer he really wanted to give? Which would be what, exactly?
I really hope Pastor Ted was misquoted, because the alternative is astounding.
It’s no secret that Haggard is a free-market enthusiast. And we’ve talked before about what a disturbing philosophy this makes for a church. But what about the Christian response to extreme world poverty?
Before considering that, let’s let Pastor Ted explain a bit more about his ideas when it comes to fighting poverty. In the companion interview to the CT piece, Haggard says the following:
Are you pro-business and conservative out of pragmatism or out of theological conviction?
I am pro-business and pro-free market because we have 6.4 billion people on the face of the earth, and that is the only way we’re going to be able to create enough wealth, provide enough goods and services and meet the needs of enough poor people.
It’s a pragmatic approach. We have a responsibility to the poor and needy. There is no way we can give enough cans of peas and give away enough toys at Christmas time to meet everybody’s need. We have to stimulate wealth. We know from the 20th century which government policies and economic policies create poverty and which government and economic policies create wealth. And so, all we have to do is apply those.
In my recent discussions with Prime Minister Tony Blair, we had an in-depth discussion about how the West can implement policies in poverty-stricken areas like portions of Africa, so they can start creating wealth. Hong Kong and South Korea and Singapore and Australia and New Zealand and the United States are not wealthy countries because we took wealth from somebody else. We’re wealthy countries because we learned how to create wealth. And so, we want that exported all over the world, and I think Christians should be pro-free market and pro-free trade because we have an obligation to help poor people have their needs met.
I’m about to be quite critical of what Haggard says here, but before I do so, I think it’s important to state that there’s some truth to what he says. Certainly, if very poor countries are going to escape a pernicious cycle of poverty, part of the solution will involve developing domestic industries and finding a global market for their products. In addition, these countries will need to develop sustainable agricultural production first for domestic consumption and then for export.
That’s not as easy as it sounds, especially considering the geography of certain African countries, but it’s almost impossible given the existing agricultural subsidies in the US and the EU. I wonder if Haggard’s free-market evangelism extends to his weekly conference call with the White House. Does he press them to reduce US subsidies and to encourage similar action from Europe? Or does he share the White House’s conveniently different definition of what constitutes free trade?
While Pastor Ted might get partial credit for his answer, let’s be clear: these statements demonstrate a poor grasp of economic history and, quite frankly, a pretty underwhelming theology.
First of all, Haggard may indeed be sunny and optimistic, but putting a happy face on the history of capitalism doesn’t magically make market forces the cure-all for poverty. I hate to break it to you, Pastor Ted, but to claim as you do that the US is rich because we “learned how to create wealth” is to ignore the African slaves, Chinese railroad workers and immigrant factory laborers from Europe who were the criminally underpaid fuel for the American economic juggernaut. To claim that “all we have to do” to solve poverty is apply the economic policies that create wealth is to ignore the reality that our present wealth is maintained by importing clothes and electronics and produce that have been sewn and manufactured and picked by underpaid, overworked people living in abject poverty.
The dark side of capitalism is that there will always be economic losers. The dark side of being pro-business is that a certain level of poverty is good for the profit margins. Let’s not pretend otherwise. And let’s certainly not sanctify it and sell it as Christian duty.
Look, the market is such a dynamic economic engine because it runs on the idea that people are most interested in maximizing their own pleasures and gains. We’re selfish creatures, and harnessing that selfishness holds tremendous power.
But the Christian narrative promises something radically different.
In the figure of Jesus, a divine Selflessness breaks through the selfish. The language of Jesus, the grammar of the Kingdom, is that of sacrifice, of humility, of love, of giving. When the Church starts speaking the language of the market, it’s forgotten its native tongue.
I know I’m coming down hard on Pastor Ted. But here’s the thing: I’m not much different. When I read the story of Jesus responding to the rich young ruler, you know what? I look for loopholes, too.
Sell all I have? That can’t be what he really meant. And I’m sure he wouldn’t say that to me.
But go back and read Mark 10 again.
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.”
Jesus looked at him and loved him. Out of love, he asks: Sell. Give. Come. Follow me.
That’s not first century.
That’s timeless.
91 Ripples from “Jesus Is So First Century”
Jim says:
November 8, 2005 at 2:11 pm
You’re a lot kinder than I would have been.
The guy doesn’t even make sense.
He’d make a great North American Evangelical preacher if he weren’t one already.
“Cans of peas.” What an asshole.
Shanna says:
November 8, 2005 at 3:11 pm
I’m in the middle of Bonhoeffer’s discussion of this very verse - I’ll report back tomorrow. The cliff-hanger that I left on was his derision for Christians who would read the above verse and interpret it to mean the very opposite of what it literally said.
But I did want to add to the debate that, when we talk about poverty as Westerners, we look on in horror at statistics that peoples of a given country are surviving on less than X dollars or pennies per day. As Rabbi Michael Lerner points out much more eloquently than I could, it is only in America where we consider it progress to require more money to survive each day. While it is inhumane to denigrate someone’s struggle to feed, clothe and shelter themselves, I’ve also been giving a lot of thought lately to being part of an economic system that counts increased economic activity from prisons (to take just one example) as “progress”. It makes use of the words “poor” and “poverty” very confusing, especially from folks like our friend Mr. Haggard.
zalm says:
November 9, 2005 at 5:11 am
It’s funny how those convergences happen sometimes. I meant to get into the Mark passage in a bit more depth, but the post was already too long, so I cut that part out. I’d love to hear what Dietrich had to say.
As long as you’re serving up the quotations, I’d be interested to hear a bit more of where Lerner’s coming from with the point you make, because I’m not quite sure I understand. Is it a commentary on the use of income figures as a metric for comparative poverty or on the different and perhaps warped ideas we might have about what constitutes “subsistence” when considering income?
Brandon says:
November 9, 2005 at 6:11 am
Zalm,
Kudos. Your treatment of this puts you in my top 5 blog list (as if you weren’t there already.)
Thank you for your insight.
bill says:
November 9, 2005 at 10:11 am
Well put and I agree with your assessment. But I think Jesus was answering the question “what more must I do to inherit eternal life,” rather than “what must I do to help the poor.” In other words, Jesus was telling him what he should do to inherit eternal life. And that something had to do with his own stumbling block. A block that most of us stumble over. Therefore, hanging on to his wealth and teaching the poor to fish, as it were, may help the poor according to Haggard-ism but it leaves the so-called rich young ruler with the same problem that he started with. The poor, in this teaching were incidental. The problem lies with what we treasure.
Great thought. Haggard is really just taking the unspoken econo-theology of modern churches out into the open. We must challenge this BS. Not just to help the poor. But to help ourselves put material into the right perspective. While abject poverty is bad, materialism pushes people to do things they don’t want to do, it tears families apart and it is itself a form of slavery. We are slaves to the market.
bill
Random Ravings says:
November 9, 2005 at 11:11 am
Capitalist Jesus?
From the Salmon: Jesus is so First Century
I am not really sure how to give you a few quotes and still give the post justice, so just go read the whole thing.
[hat tip a badchristian blog]
Tom says:
November 9, 2005 at 11:11 am
I really like his advice - go gather ye some wood and maketh the chairs for sitting. Does the wood come from Mr. Free Market’s backyard, or are the poor supposed to steal it from somewhere else?
timmer says:
November 9, 2005 at 3:11 pm
Last quarter at sem I got to do an exegesis of Matthew’s version of the rich young man story (19:16-30). My view may go a bit against the thrust I have seen here thus far, but I am certainly not in line with Pastor Ted…
My research led me to the conclusion that this was a specific message to a specific person because of a specific problem. In this man’s case, the problem was his wealth. It was different in other cases--check out the stories of Nicodemus or the parable of the Good Samaritan. All three of these stories were spawned by a similar question--"What must I do to inherit eternal life/enter the kingdom/etc.” The weird thing is that Jesus gave each of them a different answer. To Nicodemus, who prided himself on (spiritual) maturity Jesus said, “become a baby.” To the law expert Jesus said, “break the purity laws.” To the rich young ruler, Jesus said, “sell all you have.”
I think the message of Jesus in Mark 10, as elsewhere, is a radical redefinition of identity around and into His person. That being said, this identity means being broken hearted about the things that break Jesus’ heart (as Campolo says). I cannot, as Pastor Ted does, see this as a loophole in the passage.
The following quote is the best I found in my study and sums up the whole issue well: “That Jesus did not command all his followers to sell all their possessions gives comfort only to the kind of people to whom he would issue that command.” (Gundry)
Jacke says:
November 9, 2005 at 10:11 pm
Jesus knew the heart of the wealthy man who was unwilling to sell all he had, give it to the poor and follow Him. That’s the sad part, I believe that particular scripture is speaking to people who make an idol of their wealth, who put it before God, that is what the wealthy man did, after all, he put his wealth before God, he was disingenuous and Jesus knew that, just as He knew that Judas would betray Him before Judas did so.
I don’t believe that scripture was a lesson about how the Christian should take care of the poor as much as a lesson about what should be the condition of our hearts, to put Jesus before any other thing. It could, just as easily, have been a family member. There is an illustration of that also, Jesus asked a man to follow Him but was told that the man must bury a family member first, Jesus wants us to put God first, not money, not our spouse, not our friends or other family or any of our possessions.
There is much scripture in the New Testament regarding work. Without looking up each individual scripture, and trusting that those who would be reading this blog have at least an elementary understanding of scripture, the scripture tells us in 2 Thessalonians that if any man is unwilling to work that he shouldn’t eat. The scripture also tells us that we should work so that we might have something to share with the needy. Certainly, I can’t say for sure, but my own common sense tells me that the needy are those who are unable to work, not unwilling.
I’m one of those people who believes it is better to teach a man to fish, so that he will be able to work to feed himself every day, rather than giving him a fish enabling him to eat only one day. I see no harm in giving work to people in other countries and what you say about them being paid so poorly? Well, certainly when compared to an American worker the wages paid to those living in the poorest regions of Africa would seem paltry, but that does not take into account the cost of living in America versus the cost of living in that poorest region of Africa.
I fully understand what you are saying and where you are coming from. I don’t know that I agree with the idea of a Pastor promoting free trade from the pulpit but I do think it is more valuable to send a pack of garden seeds, of appropriate choice for the climate, to parts of the world to give people something to work at to meet their own needs than sending them a can of peas. Work is a healthy thing, a rewarding thing and an honorable thing. What honor and pride could one find in being the recipient of canned goods and bags of rice with no way to work to care for himself or herself? I cannot imagine the despair one might feel who had no way to support himself but through the charity of others. Have you thought about it from that perspective?
zalm says:
November 9, 2005 at 11:11 pm
Well, first of all, it’s nice to see some new faces round these parts. Thanks to those who linked to this post, and to the rest of you, welcome.
I particularly appreciate bill and timmer’s willingness to explore further the story of the rich young ruler. I think your thoughts are right on target. I started to write something similar last night and couldn’t do it nearly as succinctly as either of you, so I bailed. Maybe I’ll try to pick up some of those thoughts here.
Having considered it a little more, it seems to me that Tim Stafford’s question to Pastor Haggard is a bit of a non sequitur. Like bill points out, Jesus’ command to the rich young ruler is more about the ruler giving up that which he held most dear than it was about poverty reduction. And as timmer asserts, the specific command is tailored to the heart of a specific person. (I hadn’t tied this story to Nicodemus and the parable of the Good Samaritan like that before… good stuff).
Maybe there’s no good answer to Stafford’s fallacious statement. That’s only the faintest of lifelines for Haggard, because his answer is still pretty revealing, and it’s not like Jesus didn’t talk elsewhere about giving to the poor. But it’s worth noting all the same.
That said, I’m not sure that’s all that’s going on in this passage. Sure, the important part of the command was for the young man to rid himself of his wealth as a precondition to following Christ. But I don’t think the second part of the command � to give the proceeds to the poor � is an insignificant afterthought.
Likewise, the words Jesus has for his disciples after the young ruler leaves make it clear that wealth is a particularly formidable impediment to obedience and to following him. In the spirit of the Gundry quotation that timmer shares, I think we have to ask ourselves, are we the kind of people to whom Jesus would issue that command? <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.globalrichlist.com/">Are we wealthy?</a>
(I see that Jacke’s left a ripple while I was finishing up this one. I’ll have to think about what she’s written before I address that one separately.)
dufflehead says:
November 10, 2005 at 12:12 am
i have to agree that the giving to the poor was not an afterthought. if that were the case, Christ could have just as easily have said “go and give your stuff to your friends” . . .but what good does that do?
“standard of living” is a very touchy subject to me. for one, why are there different “standards” (and can there be more than one?)? in the same vein, check these words out
“ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
funny how we’re so willing to spend so much money to beat democracy into people instead of spending the same amount of money to simply help.
sad how the church thinks there’s no problem with this line of thought.
dufflehead says:
November 10, 2005 at 1:11 am
so there are the dots now let me try to connect them (sorry for the extended post but as my wife pointed out, there are too many and too great of mental leaps there)
you see the preamble. you see the bit about the standard of living. and the bit about the “enforced democracy” (can that really be democracy?) here’s the bit that you don’t see.
it seems to me that by “all men” the declaration accidently includes the entire planet. if everyone in the entire world is entitled to the same share of this planet, how is it helpful to beat the idea into them? wouldn’t it be a far better use of our time and money to provide basic necessities and share?
if we really believe that all are created equal, how can there be a difference in wages and standards of living? how can there be different classes? how is it helpful to give them seeds to plant when they have no where to plant them?
sorry for the ramble . . . i’m an engineer, english is like an afterthought
zalm says:
November 10, 2005 at 3:12 am
Jacke,
I think we agree on your first point regarding the reading of Mark 10. I hope that you can see that from my most recent comment.
For that matter, I agree with your points about work as well. I think I said something similar when I wrote that part of the solution for countries trapped in poverty would be to develop industries, find markets, and develop sustainable agricultural production.
You say that it’s better for people to learn how to provide for themselves than to live off of handouts. You say that work is healthy, honorable and rewarding. I don’t think anyone would dispute that.
I just don’t think it’s that simple.
I wish it were. I wish that anyone who was willing to work would be able to provide for the food, health, and safety of their family. And if it were that simple, we’d be doing a much better job at reducing poverty. But it’s not like that.
For a variety of structural reasons, some of them market-driven, there isn’t a direct correlation between how hard someone works and how wealthy they can become. Even in this country, many people work very hard and still can’t afford the medicine or the food that their children need. For that matter, there are others who work very little and have more money than they know what to do with.
And while you’re right to say that the cost of living in the US is quite high, I’d argue that by just about every metric, someone living below the poverty line in the US is better off than at least a billion or two of the rest of the world’s population.
So yes, part of the solution is teaching people skills that they can use to provide for their family. Part of the solution is trying to connect willing workers with work that will bring them health and honor and reward. But it’s only part of the solution.
Another part of the solution is showing mercy to those who can’t provide for themselves, no matter how hard they work. Most international agencies working with poverty issues focus on both relief and development. Development � building wells, preparing fields and training workers � takes time. Medical relief and food relief offer people a chance to survive in the meantime.
Yet another part of the solution involves seeking justice in transforming cultural, political and economic structures that make it difficult, even impossible, for many people to work their way out of poverty.
Anyhow, I guess this is a longwinded way of saying that the solutions here are pretty complex. I’ve written about some of this before, if you want to read through my posts in the “<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.fromthesalmon.com/category/poverty/">Poverty</a>" category. A decent place to start is with <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.fromthesalmon.com/2005/04/23/fighting-poverty-bad-news-and-good-news/">this post</a> or <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.fromthesalmon.com/2005/04/27/the-end-of-poverty/">this post</a> or <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.fromthesalmon.com/2005/08/12/a-free-market-famine/">this one</a>.
I certainly don’t have all of the answers, and I certainly need to be reminded of a lot of this all too often. But this is a worthwhile discussion, and I thank you for sharing your thoughts, Jacke.
Jacke says:
November 10, 2005 at 10:11 am
Zalm,
As you say, International agencies are focusing on both relief and development. The U.S. is one of the donors of funds and/or humanitarian aid which is being distributed by these International agencies, I might add, that if one wanted to do the research they would find that America is the largest donor to these causes. The problem I seem to have identifying with many Christians who lean toward the left on political issues is that they cannot tell me how much money is enough money to give to the poor. Now, I do not mean to generalize all Progressive Christians in making this statement, I know that different readers of your blog are each individuals and that they agree or disagree at varying degrees. but this is an argument which comes up all too often.
Now, who in their right mind would argue against helping and aiding the poor!? So, by setting up an argument which appears to want to help and aid the poor it would seem that the “Progressive” Christian has insulated himself from criticism. The problem is not that “Progressive” Christians want to help and aid the poor, Zalm, the problem is in the solution, what is the best solution and the world view which accompanies it.
I read Dufflebag’s reply (or ripple) last night and I am always left with the same question when pondering this question: When is enough, enough? Asking such a simple question does not make me cold-hearted and uncaring, rather it is a practical question.
Dufflebag seems to think there should be fairness “across the board,” if I am understanding him. The only way, in my mind, that I could see what he dreams of coming about is for an entity, in this case it would have to be the government, to take more money away from those people in America who are better off, financially, than “at least a billion or two of the rest of the world’s population,” and be charged with the task of re-distributing it to the rest of the world. That my friend is socialism at best and communism at worst. This is the basic premise I see that I cannot agree with. America is not a socialist country or a communist country. So, please, tell me, when is enough, enough? When will Dufflebag and other Progressive Christians who have a similar outlook feel that the government of the U.S. has taken enough in taxation from it’s citizens to give to the poor?
It is a complicated issue, all too often I find that many on the Progressive side of the argument would like to reduce it to being simply about what they perceive as Conservatives hard-hearted, heavy handed unwillness to part with money. No, it is not that at all, and actually I agree with much of what you said in your reply, the disagreement, I repeat, is not in the Christian’s willingness or unwillingness to help and aid the poor, after all, if we are Christians then that is what our hearts tell us to do, the question is how best to help and aid the poor.
The Pastor you cited believes that free trade is the best solution and he absolutely has a right to believe that, he may even be right, but I do not believe that the church is the place for guidance in such a purely, in my opinion, political matter, but then again, if he feels it is the best way to help and aid the poor...you see the problem? We all do our best to follow the “golden rule” we all do our best to be true to our convictions, in my opinion, what we need is less judgement and more debate.
zalm says:
November 10, 2005 at 10:11 am
I’ll have more to say later today on this I’m sure, but I have a pretty full day at work. So it may be a while.
In the meantime, though, I’m curious about something, Jacke. You ask how much is enough, and I think that’s a fine question to ask. I’d be interested to find out… How much of the US budget do you think goes to foreign aid?
Jacke says:
November 10, 2005 at 10:12 am
P.S.
dufflehead says:
November 10, 2005 at 11:11 am
Jacke
i’ll assume that you simply missed the spelling of my name and aren’t simply trying to insult me.
how much is enough? when there is no more poverty, it’s enough.
Jacke says:
November 10, 2005 at 11:12 am
I’ve got to cut out too, Zalm, but I’ll make a deal with you, I’ll see if I can find out what percentage of the U.S. budget goes to foreign aid if you will find out what percentage of all foreign aid comes from the U.S. and what percentages other countries, represented in the U.N., give of their annual budgets to foreign aid. Deal?
Jacke says:
November 10, 2005 at 12:11 pm
Oh, geesh, Dufflehead, my misspelling of your name certainly was a mistake! I should have scrolled back up and double checked before I posted that. I’m glad you didn’t jump to the conclusion that I was trying to insult you, and just when I am working so hard to be diplomatic, humble and charming! :0
Is it scriptural to believe that poverty will ever be completely wiped out?
If we follow your guideline we’ll ALL be poor and who will collect all of the money from all us selfish *rich* people to dole out $2.50 each to all of us ingrates?
I am not suggesting we do nothing, I just don’t think socialism is the answer.
Now, I’ve really got to go!
zalm says:
November 10, 2005 at 1:11 pm
I was actually interested in your gut estimate, Jacke. I’ve found that one of the things that shapes people’s opinions in this discussion is an internal sense, even if it isn’t a precise number, that we are either giving too much or not enough.
I actually know (roughly, not precisely) a lot of these numbers (at least in terms of percentage of GNP, which is probably a better comparison across countries than percentage of budget). And while I certainly won’t discourage you from doing your own research, I don’t want to make it seem like I was asking in order to be clever or to say “gotcha!” if you were wrong. I was just exploring some of the assumptions behind your statements.
But now I need to go grab lunch.
Kent says:
November 10, 2005 at 1:11 pm
Jacke,
Maybe not, but is that any reason not to be faithful and try?
Where is your faith? Do you think Jesus asked the rich young ruler to give it all away, only to abandon him with no hope? God’s storehouse is endless, it is we who close the door.
Socialism is just another ecconomic system devised by fallen humanity, no more or less godly than any other system, and just as subject to corruption by our desires. Capitolists have turned it into a dirty word because it subverts their means to profit. Capitolism has succeeded because it harnesses our greed in a way that benefits more of us, so we don’t revolt. That benefit is coming largely on the backs of third world economies, so the revolt may come yet. Communism failed because it couldn’t deliver; people couldn’t see a way to get ahead so they lost the motivation to innovate and produce.
Kent says:
November 10, 2005 at 1:11 pm
Kudos Dufflehead! When there is no more poverty, it is enough.
The rate of taxation in the U.S. is far below most of Europe. The right wing has fought hard to convice us that taxation is the theft of OUR money, so we will let them cut taxes on the rich and stop giving to the needy. I don’t think Jesus views money or taxes that way. None of it is OUR money. He said give to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s and to God what is God’s.
The fact of our democracy gives us some influence on how much tax is collected and how the taxes are spent. It doesn’t always go MY way, but that’s because I’m part of a very diverse culture. The right wing simply wants us to act according to a narrowly defined view of self interest (I call it greed) because it profits their capitolist friends to do so. If “We the People...” means that WE are the government, we need to stop talking about how THEY take and spend OUR money and start owning our part in the process. Government services are OUR services too.
In the U.S., the rate of contribution to the aleviation of world poverty as a function of gross national product and of gross national wealth is also far below much of the world. When will we stop patting ourselves on the back for the total dollars we give, while looking for a way out of our responsibility to help. We can certainly talk about the best ways to help, but Jacke, we need to stop looking for ways to say “it’s not my job”.
How much wealth do we need? How big do our houses need to get? In the U.S. the average new house has double the square footage it had 30 years ago. We didn’t feel deprived growing up with only 1200 SQ. ft. Why do we need 2400 or 3600, many are even 5-6000 sq. ft. Just because we can afford a Hummer doesn’t make it right to drive one. I’m not just talking about the environment here.
If the American church took seriously it’s obligation the poor and suffering and to the spread of the gospel, we would choose a simple lifestyle that would free up untold amounts of cash. Wasn’t it Wesley who said something like, “if I die with any money in the bank I haven’t been faithful”? He made tons of money from his books and gave it all away!
The truth is we don’t think it’s OUR job, we don’t think THOSE people are truly deserving of our sacrifice, and we don’t WANT to!
Rebecca says:
November 10, 2005 at 4:11 pm
(I haven’t actually read the other comments so this is just a comment to th epost) Wow! Thank you for that post. Every time I think it would be great to go to the local Willow Springs imitation church, I am reminded of why we have to go back to the first century Jesus. That’s the Jesus who is ‘relevant’ to us in the 21st century!
Jim says:
November 10, 2005 at 11:11 pm
Free Market Christianity is an oxymoron. The argument for limits on what should be given and to whom and how much we get to keep are systematically undermined by Jesus in the Gospels. Jesus chooses to say things like: “...whoever does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple” precisely to those people who would make the case that there is a point at which “enough is enough.”
Have you ever noticed that the softest most comforting things Jesus says, he speaks to the outsiders, the crippled, sinners, prostitutes? Everybody else, well, Jesus seems absolutely committed to royally pissing them off. Before you disagree, read the gospel of John. Watch how many times Jesus seems to deliberately say offensive things. Chapter 9 is a hoot!
That’s exactly the scandal that is the Gospel. It is a great inversion. It begins in Genesis and plays itself out through the whole story, leaving a lot of reconciled sinners and a lot more very unhappy lovers of anything but Jesus in its wake.
What I find unnerving about the current climate of Christianity in our country is this: just when I’m feeling convicted that Jesus is upending me by calling for everything I have, someone (and I’m sorry, but most of the time that someone is a conservative evangelical Christian) comes along and says Jesus didn’t really mean that and so I think I’m off the hook. But I’m not.
Ted Haggard does indeed have every right to think what he thinks and say what he says. Freedom of speech gives any Joe or Joan the “right” to espouse the heresy du moment. What the Church needs is people who will exercise their right to speak and live the Gospel because people like Ted are busy talking about something else.
Jacke says:
November 11, 2005 at 12:11 am
Dearest Zalm and Dufflehead,
I don’t believe that scripture calls on the government to collect everyone’s money and redistribute it to the poor or calls on believers to appeal to the government to do so. I believe the scripture calls on believers to work so that they will have extra to share with their brothers and sisters who are in need.
Jesus Christ never looked to government to meet the needs of the people. He looked to His Father, he looked at resources which were available from believers and multiplied those resources miraculously to the people who were in need. I am thinking specifically of the feeding of the 5,000. I suppose Jesus had the option of sending his disciples into the nearest city to call on the government agencies there to plead a case that there were 5,000 people on the hillside who were hungry, “could you drop ‘em sum cans o’ peas and sum bottled water, please?” But that is not what Jesus did, is it? He looked among the body of believers, His Church, and the power He had through the Father to meet the people’s needs.
On December 31, 2004, Jean Weicher of the Hudson Institute was the contact listed on this U.S. Newswire Release after the U.S. was accused of being “stingy” in the wake of the Tsunami:
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=41116
“Hudson Institute Senior Fellows Carol Adelman and Jeremiah Norris argue that no, Americans are not stingy. We are generous—not only through our government but primarily through our private charities. Using the right measures, Americans are the most generous people in the world.
Americans help people abroad the same way they help people at home—primarily through their churches, philanthropies, foundations, universities, and corporations. They prefer people-to-people programs over government-to-government programs, since they are more direct, nimble and quick....”
and:
“Each year the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) measures countries’ generosity by comparing each country’s official foreign aid as a percentage of GNP. The U.S. ranks last in this because this measure does not encompass the huge amount of international private giving by Americans. Each year, this OECD report results in press releases and statements disparaging America’s “stinginess.”
But using only government foreign aid is a limited, outdated and inaccurate way of measuring Americans’ generosity. Given the enormous growth in private giving around the world, donors and commentators should re-evaluate the measure....”
This type of giving, by “churches, philanthropies, foundations, universities, and corporations,” is, I believe, more in line with the teaching of Jesus. Further, I might add, what is it the government is giving? It is not the “government’s” money in the first place, it is the resources of the American people at an approximate rate of 33% of our income. We give our taxes and the government budgets how it will be spent, but it is our money they are using, money they collected from us. This brings rise to the question: what is the purpose of our government? Look it up.
If you think socialism is the answer you might find a case study of France interesting. Approximately 80% of the French’s income is collected in taxes. Many people died in the heat wave in France in 2004. I guess it would be difficult to afford air-conditioning on 20% of your income, wouldn’t it? The French are an unhappy people, overall, they have no work ethic and want as much time off for vacation as possible, I suppose I would too if I only got to keep 20% of my income so that everybody could be equally poor (excuse me while I roll my eyes,
)
On the other hand, regarding capitalism? Look at the parable of the talents, the man who invested and drew interest on the money given him was rewarded by his master, while the man who merely kept it for the master without growing the money was scolded and the money entrusted to him was taken from him and given to the man who had reaped interest on the money entrusted. If that is not a support of capitalistic venture I don’t know what it is. If Jesus supported socialism wouldn’t he have told the story differently? Wouldn’t the ending have been that the master would have equally divided all the profits between the two men, rewarding the one who did nothing with his money the same as the man who drew interest?
dufflehead says:
November 11, 2005 at 12:12 am
you know, i rewrote this comment several different ways but i’ll just come out and say it: Jacke, i take great offense at your snide “rolling of the eyes” comment.
socialism is just as good as capitalism on paper, just like religions. it’s when people get involved that it’s all screwed up.
so american’s are more generous? are we really? we take most of the resources of the world and we give back a disproportionate ammount. that reminds me of the rich man and the widow at the temple. look at how generous the rich man was! what is that widow doing? is that ALL she’s giving? hmph.
here’s a quote from a church-going lady; “the government shouldn’t take care of poor people, that’s the chruch’s job” . . . well, STEP THE HELL UP,CHURCH!
oh wait, you need to spend money to get people in the door. you need that coffee stand in the temperature controlled temple that has two projectors and and offensively large sound system. you’re pastor only has a 4000sqf home? you should probably put more money towards that first so that he can bring more people to God.
but if the Church never steps up, who will take care of the needy? surely not MY taxes. i voted for more hostile take overs of 3rd world countries so that i don’t have to spend so much of my paycheck on my “needs”.
this also reminds me of a line from “the emperor’s new groove”:
Yzma: “It is no concern of mine whether your family has . . . what was it again?”
Peasant: “Uhm, food?”
Yzma: “Ha! You really should have thought of that before you became peasants”
ninjanun says:
November 11, 2005 at 1:11 am
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It would be interesting to “look up” how much of “my” taxes are divied out to these various purposes of our U.S. government.
dufflehead says:
November 11, 2005 at 2:11 am
"All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need”
doesn’t seem that capitalism was the way we started.
zalm says:
November 11, 2005 at 3:12 am
As much as I can, I try to adress everyone’s comments on the site. But when conversation gets going, sometimes I just don’t have the energy to do so. This is one of those nights. So I apologize in advance for the fact that I’m going to let a number of comments and ideas go. But I appreciate the vigorous discussion.
A few things…
First of all, let’s be careful when justifying or condemning entire political/economic systems based on one or two verses from the Bible. I’m not sure that’s terribly solid exegesis.
Second, I’d love to keep discussing this with you, Jacke, but I’d like to request that you read three of my previous posts first:
Fighting Poverty: Bad News and Good News
Are We As Generous As We Think We Are?
The End of Poverty?
I know it’s a lot to ask, but I hope that these posts will give you a better overview of where I’m coming from when I write about the response to extreme global poverty by the United States or the US church.
Tomorrow or later this weekend, I’d be happy to discuss Adelman’s statistics with you, since I’ve read a few of her papers. And I’d love to talk more about the role of government and the church in this effort.
Two more thoughts, though, before I get some sleep....
First, I’m not sure I like the way you rhetorically reduce development assistance, whether public or private, to simply “redistribution of wealth.” It’s not like most of this assistance involves just handing money to poor people and walking away. There are good people working hard in both government and NGOs to find ways that they can use their budgets to save and transform lives. And that involves thinks like trying to reduce malaria with mosquito netting and medication. Or mobile medical and dental clinics. Or digging wells. Or food and shelter for refugees and internally displaced people. And so on.
And finally, with regards to your question of “how much assistance is enough assistance?”, I think you can look at it a few different ways. You’ll get one answer if you consider it strictly as a question of economics and foreign policy. And we can talk about that if you want.
But you’ll get a different answer if you consider it as a Christian. Time and time again, people approached Jesus to ask that same kind of question: How much should I forgive my brother? Who is my neighbor? The questioners were always looking for a guideline, and Jesus always set the bar way beyond anything they had hoped to hear.
How much is enough? I’m not going to presume to know what Jesus’ response would be. But I bet that the standard he’d request from you and from me would be a lot higher than we’d expect.
Jacke says:
November 11, 2005 at 8:11 am
Zalm,
I, like you, have, in the past, tried to answer everyone who addresses me in comment sections but I just cannot continue to do that, especially when I am visiting another blog where most of the commenters disagree with me and am having discussions on more than one blog, which is currently the case. I find that everyone tends to pile on and I could spend my entire day sitting at my desk replying to questions. Well, needless to say, there is more than life than this and there are other things which should have a priority in my life. So, I am just going to have to start being a little more choosy about that to which I reply.
Thank you for your calmness and reasonable approach at responding to me, yours is an example of the type of comment that I will take the time to respond to. Too many heated exchanges simply are not good for my health and the health of those who are blessed, or burdened (depending on your perspective) to live with me or around me. >smiles<i></i>
Jacke says:
November 11, 2005 at 8:12 am
Hmmmm. For some reason part of my reply was cut off…
I went on to say that I would like to discuss this from a Christian perspective but I inquired as to whether you believe that the Bible is God-inspired and inerrant because I have come across quite a few Progressive Christians who do not believe it is and would like to establish that before going on in the discussion, for my own sanity.
Now, I’m going to have my coffee while reading one of your previous blog entries on this subject and will get back with you as time allows.
Jacke says:
November 11, 2005 at 9:11 am
Zalm, in “The End of Poverty” you quote economist Jeffrey Sachs as saying:
“It all comes back to us. Individuals, working in unison, form and shape societies?.... Great social forces are the mere accumulation of individual actions. Let the future say of our generation that we sent forth mighty currents of hope, and that we worked together to heal the world.”
I agree that it all comes back to us and I see no harm and a lot of good in people banding together in order to aid the poor of the planet. Where I generally disagree is in the promotion of government as the big “daddy” who collects a larger and larger portion of our income in order to make the decision FOR us about how best to distribute that money, as the government, today and historically, hasn’t had a very good track record in effectiveness and the private sector has had a better track record in that regard. So, why look to the government as our means to help the poor?
A peeve of mine is that many people who need assistance are put off by all the red tape required in order to receive that assistance, so rather than face dealing with the government red tape, they go without. Yes, I believe there would have to be a standard set by a GOVERNMENTAL agency in order to assess people’s needs, there has to be a policy in order to make those decisions and a guideline in order for such an entity to help the poor, this leaves NO ROOM for the Holy Spirit to guide, as it has replaced the Holy Spirit with red tape and paperwork to determine a person’s needs rather than compassion and love. Does a 5 year old (in America) need a bicycle, perhaps not from a realistic, practical standpoint, but from a love and compassion standpoint? Yes, a 5 year old needs a bicycle.
I believe that the scripture calls us out as individual believers, and as bodies of BELIEVERS to address the issue of the poor, but will need an answer as to whether you believe that the Bible in inerrant before bothering to go into any more detail from that perspective.
I do not go so far as Dufflehead’s “Church lady” who believes that the Federal government should have no part in aid to foreign countries,or domestically for that matter, but I do not believe that the Bible supports the idea that believers should band together under Nationalistic and governmental agencies in order to care for the poor, but rather through His church. That is why the issue, as you brought up, about Jesus always asking more of us than we might be willing to give is an important one, Jesus was talking in terms of individual believers and seemed, to me at least, to be much more interested in the motives behind men’s actions than the action in many cases. Is that making any sense or do I still need more coffee? >wink
Kent says:
November 11, 2005 at 11:12 am
Jacke,
Have you ever read “The Jungle” by Upton Sinclair. It’s a great expose’ on where the private sector is happy to end up, without government regulation.
You talk a lot about government like it’s the Great Satan or the AntiChrist himself, when it comes to doing works of charity. Are you equally opposed to government taking “your” money for armies and weapon systems to fight pre-emptive wars, in the light of Jesus’ inerrant instructions to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”? (Matt: 5, 43-48) Or did he not really mean it the way it sounds?
BTW- I’ve never heard of a starving child choosing to do without because of too much red tape. And while I wrote this post another one died!
I can’t help but feel that what underlies all your arguements against government charity is a selfish grasping of what’s YOURS. If you really took inerrancy seriously, you’d stop grasping so hard and let go.
And you know, this thing about inerrancy is just a red herring anyway. You are just looking for a way to dismiss those you disagree with, so you don’t have to consider whether their arguments are from God. Those fighting for so hard for inerrancy in evangelicalism today are ultimately just looking for conformity to their interpretation of scripture. If you really listen to them you’ll find they will tell you you have no business trying to instruct us MEN anyway!
Brandon says:
November 11, 2005 at 11:12 am
Jacke wrote:
I think so.
And,
Now, I know that not all of you share my reformed inclinations...but some of you do. And I know that many of you are all about being bringers of the kingdom. So, doesn’t it make sense that we live our lives now so that we live in a way that’s focused on BRINGING the kingdom?
The habits of captialism are often greed, inequity, and lust--and they don’t seem like kingdom habits to me.
dufflehead says:
November 11, 2005 at 2:11 pm
if you’re going to hold to what i shall term “literal inerrancy” then God established the governments.
whether or not you hold to that statement, the relevant question is; couldn’t God have been working through people able to make laws in order to provide for people that need help?
therefore, food stamps and Social Security is a form of God’s provision. probably not his preferred way, but a way, nonetheless.
Jacke says:
November 11, 2005 at 2:12 pm
Kent,
1.) I have never called the government the great satan.
2). I have never called the government the anti-Christ.
3). I have never said that I am against the government using a portion of my tax dollars for charitable reasons.
4). I live in a 700 sq. ft., one bedroom home with my husband and a dog, we have not paid the mortgage yet this month and most of our furnishings have been given to us by friends or family members. While we do not have much we cherish what we do have, not idolize it, appreciate it as the gift from God we feel it is. We tithe, we buy clothing for some children who we have taken under our wing, sometimes at the expense of going without something we need. I wear glasses and haven’t had an eye exam or a new pair in 4 years. I have no health insurance, yet, I have never asked for government assistance one day in my life but I do not condemn those who do, my Mother is drawing Social Security, Medicaid and is receiving food stamps. I have no problem with others taking advantage of assistance which is available to them but I choose to trust that God will provide for my needs rather than the government, He ALWAYS has, He’s never let me down. Furthermore, if my needs are not met, at some future point, I will rest strong in the faith that God has a purpose in allowing me to go through what I would be going through in that circumstance.
5). I am not trying to teach you anything. I thought I was having a discussion. Would you like me to leave because you disagree with me, Kent? Would you be happier then, completely unchallenged in your viewpoint? Yours is an example of the type of response I will not, often, answer.
Kent says:
November 11, 2005 at 3:11 pm
Jacke,
Thank you for correcting my assumptions about you, clearly they must have seemed pretty harsh. I apologize for hurting you. No I do not wish you to leave (not that my wishes hold any weight here, I’m pretty new myself and the owner of this blog may want ME to leave!). Perhaps I’ve been a bit arrogant because I HAVE wanted to TEACH you something, and at least in some way I finally got your attention.
On the other hand, (and I know you already recognize this) your economic situation and your trust in God are not a guarantee of virtue in ths matter. Your threats to dismiss our Christianity, our Faith, and the validity of our arguments on the basis of your view of the doctrine of inerrancy, I find pretty arrogant as well. Inerrantists have a hard time comprehending that someone could not believe in inerrancy and still believe in the necessity of salvation through Jesus Christ.
I have a personal stake in this as my father, a lifelong Southern Baptist pastor, missionary, and evangelist, is at risk of being tossed out of the Southern Baptist convention because of his views on inerrancy. This is in the midst of his missionary work in The Sudan, at the age of 81, winning hundreds to the Lord (including Muslims) in just the last two weeks! Southern Baptists used to be firmly non-credal, now the president of the Convention is the sole arbitor of the faith (talk about a papacy!)
Every time I ask me Dad about inerrancy he asks, “show me which text is inerrant?” In many cases, even the earliest manuscripts don’t agree. Clearly this is not an issue that is fundamental to salvation. As Martin Luther said, “faith alone”.
jaya says:
November 11, 2005 at 3:11 pm
first of, i really really appreciate this discussion. it is so freeing and exciting to see a high caliber, thoughtful, and passionate conversation going on between brothers and sisters. it is desperately needed, i am sure you agree.
Jeremiah 22:13-17 has given me guidance when i enter into thinking about my responsibilities in the world around me. (ultimately, that is all that matters. what did i choose with the choices before me). if you don’t have a bible handy, Jeremiah, in tears i am sure, is prophecying against the wicked sons of a good king, who are living in houses of cedar gotten with dishonest gain, taking advantage of the poor for their own comfort etc. the climax comes when the people are told that in taking care of the poor and oppressed, “this is what it is to know God.”
often, i get so tangled in my own red tape of which structure is doing what wrong, and how can i prove it to be so that i neglect to realise the opportunities lie all around me to grasp God’s heartbeat for the poor, and bring God’s kingdom in profound ways.
zalm, i appreciated this:
“First of all, let’s be careful when justifying or condemning entire political/economic systems based on one or two verses from the Bible. I’m not sure that’s terribly solid exegesis.”
take it to the next logical step and let’s say a Christian needs to become incarnate in his or her own socio-economic context, become a mustard seed which dies to self in order to provide a benefit to others. we need to not being so concerned with “who are the wheat? who are the tares?” ("who is in who is out") but taking care of the “little ones”. we need to be finding in them that spark of God, that hidden treasure, which we have been given the responsibility to search and find and fan to flame. by doing this we will be sowing the seeds of the kingdom. we will be able to choose good disciples, and have the ability to give all to gain the pearl.
and yes, i believe that Scripture has ultimate authority. unfortunately, a trite, selfish, eisegetical reading of scripture is too often passed off as daily “devotions.” people who have no idea what they are reading assume some sort in infallibility or innerrancy themselves, makiong the bible a magic spell book or (auuuuugh...) “life’s little instruction manual.”
zalm says:
November 11, 2005 at 3:12 pm
For the record, the owner of this blog has no desire for any of y’all to leave.
Honestly, this is by far the most comments I’ve ever gotten on anything I’ve written, and I’m thrilled and a bit humbled to have this kind of conversation spring up.
I’ll contribute more later when I’m not at work and when I’ve been able to pick a few things from the many, many things I’d like to say. But for now, I just wanted to say thanks.
As you were....
Jacke says:
November 11, 2005 at 5:11 pm
(((((zalm)))))
Jim says:
November 11, 2005 at 8:11 pm
Way up above there is a comment about the parable of the talents as supportive of a capitalistic system. I just wanted to mention that this is an egregious misinterpretation of that parable. Be careful how you read things, and how you read into things. Remember that everything Jesus said was said in a context. It is presented to us in a context as well, sometimes the two are quite different. Given the location of that parable in both Matthew and especially in Luke, we need to be very careful about any interpretation that takes us away from the overriding themes of those gospels. Capitalism or any other economic system is most definitely not one of those themes.
The parable is not even remotely about economics or investments. And even if it was, we’re stuck with that other thorny parable where the landowner pays the same amount to everybody at the end of a long hot day. That’s not about economics either but one could make a hell of an argument for a socialist system using just that parable.
Jacke says:
November 11, 2005 at 8:11 pm
Kent,
You did not hurt me, I have had my comments misrepresented and had assumptions made about what I believe so many times in the past that it is rarely that I take offense anymore. It isn’t worth it. (And lest I sound cold, sure, once in a while I do get hurt, but it goes with the territory, I just don’t know you well enough to be hurt by you right now)
It’s quite possible that you may teach me something, I like to think that I have a “teachable” spirit, but if you would like my attention I’d prefer that you would simply state that you’d really like to have me address this question or that question rather than the way you tried to get it. Coming from the position you came from earlier will only teach me that you are a judgemental and rash person. Sorry, but that’s the way I viewed it.
I have never claimed that my position in life causes me to be “virtuous,” that would be another assumption on your part. I was merely trying to make the point to you that I don’t care so much about holding on to my possessions because for the most part they are possessions which were not of my choosing but certainly I am grateful for them and they serve useful purposes.
I’m really sorry to hear what your father is going through. As a Southern Baptist, I must admit that I have been aware there has been some turmoil going on but I really haven’t kept up with what it is, I suppose I should be ashamed of that but I don’t go to the Southern Baptist Church I go to because of what they establish at the top levels. I go there because I feel that the Pastor there is who God would have me sit under for the time being and because they had a great need for workers in their children’s ministry, which is where the Lord has called me to serve. Generally, I stay so busy working with kids that I don’t have time to pop my head up and find out what’s going on with the adults as often as I’d like.
Was your father required to sign some kind of a mission statement or something? It seems like I have heard there has been a tiff over that. At any rate, I have only been a member of my new church for about 4 months, my old church had a split, a very ugly one. We are all going to get hurt in church sometimes because imperfect people make up the membership. Us “church people” are supposed to be perfect, you know? Lol.
Oh, I think were were talking about the best way to address the issue of feeding the poor, weren’t we?
Jacke says:
November 11, 2005 at 8:11 pm
Oh, one more of your remarks which shouldn’t go unaddressed, Kent?
You said:
“ Your threats to dismiss our Christianity, our Faith, and the validity of our arguments on the basis of your view of the doctrine of inerrancy, I find pretty arrogant as well.”
I never threatened to dismiss your Christianity, your Faith or the validity of your arguments on the basis of my view of the doctrine of inerrancy. I merely asked zalm what his view was. Let’s try to have a civil discussion.
bill says:
November 11, 2005 at 9:11 pm
Zalm, great post. Interesting discussion � for awhile, at least.
It’s amazing to me how many Christians think that Christianity is about others and what they should/shouldn’t do. As citizens and voters we make decisions for our city, county, state, etc.. That’s our responsibility. But when it comes down to the Christian walk, it’s not about others. It’s about me.
Zeke says:
November 11, 2005 at 10:11 pm
Wow, sorry I missed this one so far.
I know it’s late in the game, but here’s my contribution: the heart with which we as individuals treat the poor and oppressed is what ultimately matters most. Bill Gates with a single stroke of his pen could do more to help the poor and oppressed than I could potentially do in an entire lifetime. But my contribution could be measured like the widow’s mite and in God’s calculus exceed the benificence of Bill Gates.
In the ancient church, the believers had little to say to the Roman government other than that they were committed to practicing their faith no matter what the Romans did to stop them. They were certainly not social reformers in either the leftist or the rightist sense of our current culture. It gets admittedly more complicated when believers are living in a democracy, but one can vote as conservatively as Jacke might or as liberally as Dufflehead might and be just as much a sincere believer--as long as they practiced radical compassion and mercy in their personal lives. God must surely despise those who are generous with the resources of others and stingy with their own.
Great debate, everyone. Peace.
Jacke says:
November 11, 2005 at 10:11 pm
Jim,
Yeah, well way back at the beginning was a discussion about the rich man who was required to sell everything he had and give it to the poor. That was not so much a statement directed to all of us about how we should all give everything to the poor as it was about the inability of the rich man to do so, or what was in his heart.
I know that I shouldn’t have used the parable about the talents to suggest capitalism is approved in the Bible and I too thought of all the men who worked for various amounts of time and received the same pay, that was about God’s grace, how the one who was saved on his death bed would receive that grace just the same as the one who was saved as a 12 year old and served God his entire life.
I have repeatedly made the statement that my disagreement with Progressive Christians is not about the fact that they would like to help the poor, rather it is in the method in which they would like to do so. It is still a fact that Jesus spoke to individuals and Paul and other disciples spoke to the body of believers, neither of them called on governments to do the job of individual and collective believers. If I am wrong, please show me in the scripture anywhere where a disciple or Jesus called on the government to meet the everyday needs of the people. Even in the Lord’s prayer as modeled by Christ, Himself, He tells us to look to the Father for our daily bread. The Father works through individual believers who have turned their lives over to Him, not through governments.
Kent says:
November 11, 2005 at 11:11 pm
Jacke,
Thank you for accepting my apology without offense, and for your kind words about my father.
Yes, I went to extremes to characterize your comments as a threat, but I feel the threat was implicit in your desire to resolve Zalm’s views on inerrancy before “bothering” to discuss the issues further.
Zalm,
Thank you for an excellent critique of Ted Haggard’s views and your good example of listening thoughtfully to your readers.
Good Night!
Jason says:
November 12, 2005 at 12:11 am
I just wonder about his epistemology (how he knows what he knows). If my thoughts are correct, then one of the fundamental cornerstones of evangelicalism is the inerrancy of scripture, and now he wants to pull out a contextual debate? If Jesus was God and God is omniscient (in evangelical thought at least) then Jesus would have known about captialism and free markets and we would have had a parable about such a system (the parable of the talents is, in my estimation a poor choice for support). It wouldn’t have been you brood of vipers, but you brood of socialists or communists.
You can’t pull a contextual card when you don’t agree with something in the Bible, isn’t that they argument against mainline denominations and their interpretations of the Bible?
Good post…
grace and peace
zalm says:
November 12, 2005 at 4:11 am
Well, it took me longer than I’d hoped to organize my thoughts enough to do justice to the efforts y’all have put into this conversation. Thanks for being patient, thanks for the kind words, and thanks for your thoughtful and challenging contributions.
That Whole Inerrancy Thing
So I guess I need to start with inerrancy. Honestly, Jacke, I’m not completely sure. I want to believe that the Bible is inerrant. I tend to read it that way, I tend to consider its authority in my life as if it were, and at the very least, I view it as a specific and special gift to us from God. But I know just enough about human witness, about translation challenges, and about my own failings that I might not be able to give you as solid a “yes” as you’d like to hear from me. And I’d echo some of the other thoughts shared here that inerrancy in Scripture doesn’t at all mean that we’re able to interpret clearly. I guess I’m still very much aware that we see through a glass darkly, and as a result, I try to approach the Bible with reverence, humility and care.
What Were We Talking About Again?
Okay… with that out the way, let’s get back to the topics at hand. It seems to me that we’re asking a couple of questions, some of which I asked originally and others that have come up in the course of discussion:
- What is the role of government in our lives and specifically in addressing extreme global poverty?
- What is the role of NGOs?
- How should the Church interact with each?
- Also, how much do we give to address poverty?
- Are we as generous as we think we are?
- Is there a Christian mandate to do more?
Some of these are huge questions, so I’m not going to do them justice. I think I will most likely come back to that second set of questions, perhaps even in a separate post. But here are a few thoughts about the first set of questions…
In Defense of Government
First, let’s talk about government. It’s a rough definition, but it seems to me that government is an arrangement that we make, an instrument that we use, to accomplish certain things that we wouldn’t be able to do on our own. And it can be tremendously useful. Jacke, you write that you’ve chosen not to avail yourself of certain government services, and it would be silly for me to argue that you’re wrong to rely on and celebrate God’s provision. But there’s plenty that the government provides that you do benefit from: roads, enforcement of contracts and property rights, regulation of food safety and building codes, and so on....
Is there a role for government in fighting poverty? Of course there is. Some of the structural forces that make it difficult for people and countries to break out of poverty are things that can only be addressed by governments: debt structures, trade arrangements, diplomatic and economic pressure applied to corrupt governments, etc. In terms of infrastructure improvements � building roads or canals, for example � governments are similarly important.
Also keep in mind that some of the social programs that different governments provide in varying ways affect even those who don’t immediately benefit from them. To the extent that healthcare programs offer care to those who wouldn’t be able to afford it otherwise, it helps curb diseases that might spread more rapidly. It benefits businesses to have healthy workers. Preventative medicine is significantly more cost effective than treating sickness. And food aid can be just as critical as healthcare in some areas in preventing the spread of disease. In fact, I think I could make the case that a certain level of development assistance makes sense for governments strictly as a matter of security.
So government can be a useful and necessary part of addressing the needs of extreme global poverty. We may differ in the degree to which we believe this, but I know you agree with this on some level.
But as I’m sure you’ll point out, government certainly isn’t without its problems. And you’ll get little argument here from me. Anytime you invest flawed people with tremendous power and resources, you’ll have a tendency for corruption, for inefficiency, for waste, and for abuse. Part of our duty as citizens and part of the prophetic role of the Church is to hold the people in government accountable. That’s one of the reasons why progressive Christians tend to write so much about government.
I’m not sure that we need to spend much time discussing how critical NGOs can be to addressing poverty. I’m a bit biased towards international relief and development groups, in fact, as I grew up around people who made that their life’s work. These groups can’t address some of the things that only government can, but given the right strategy, they can make personal and profound differences in the lives of the world’s poor.
Sheesh! What About the Church Already?!?
I realize that this is crazy long, that I need to head to bed, and that I haven’t even gotten to the Church. So let’s reward you for reading this far and cut to the chase.
I would love to say that the Church alone could solve this problem. Like Brandon said earlier, I believe strongly that a primary role of the Church is to work for the peace and renewal of a fallen world. And I would argue that one of the reasons that we turn to government and to other organizations is that the Church in the United States � the wealthiest body of Christians in the world � has failed to live up to that calling. As dufflehead said earlier, when the church steps the hell up to the plate, maybe there will be less need for government involvement.
Believe me, most progressive Christians long for that day.
Tish says:
November 12, 2005 at 8:12 am
ninjanun Says:
November 10th, 2005 at 11:09 pm
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It would be interesting to “look up” how much of “my” taxes are divied out to these various purposes of our U.S. government.
Those various purposes highlighted by you, Ninja, are, by far, the largest recipients of your tax dollars. The largest percentage of our budget is in social welfare spending.
Having said that, I wanted to mention something that people don’t often, for whatever reason, consider. The Preamble establishes the reasons for doing everything which follows in that document. People point to the phrase, “promote the general welfare,” as though it is proof that it is government’s job to take care of, and provide for, everyone. That is not the case as it would then state, “PROVIDE for the general welfare,” as does the phrase regarding defense of the nation. The wording is not an accident. Promoting is not the same thing as Providing. Promoting denotes SUGGESTING or ADVISING, which makes sense when you consider we are meant to be a free society. People have the freedom to follow the suggestions or advice, just as they have the freedom NOT to follow them.
Further, people point to the Preamble as though it supports the notion that our government is to do these things for everyone in the world. That, too, is untrue. The oft overlooked qualifying phrase, “to OURSELVES and our POSTERITY,” clearly shows that the conditions set forth in the Constitution are meant to apply to Americans, their descendants, and future generations of Americans, and not to the entire world.
After reading through the comments, I am aligned with Jacke’s stance on these issues.
Jim says:
November 12, 2005 at 9:12 am
After reading through the comments, I am aligned with Jacke’s stance on these issues.
That’s good to hear.
I find much in her comments to disagree with myself, however, Jacke comes across as reasonable, articluate, intelligent, willing to enter into dialog and debate, and civil. Even better, she seems to espouse the Gospel according to Jesus.
I’m not sure the same same can be said for Ted Haggard.
Tish says:
November 12, 2005 at 10:11 am
Jim,
I agree with your assessment of Jacke. In fact, most commenters here seem to be of the same vein. Gotta love that!
Being a proponent of capitalism and having a distinct disdain for socialism/communism, I’m drawn to Jacke’s arguments. Were you to ask me to make a case for my stance based on Biblical scripture, I would be unable to comply and my ignorance would be laid bare for the world to see. I’m not totally ignorant of the Bible or that which it teaches, but am certainly not learned in it either, so I will leave that to those of you who are better able to do so.
I do believe that God would not have us be slaves to any economic system, however, and a strong socialist, or a communist, society does exactly that. It takes the free will of man away. And of those areas around the world where capitalism is embraced to some degree, people prosper. That speaks for itself, in my opinion.
Have a nice day.
Jacke says:
November 12, 2005 at 10:11 am
zalm...yes, you wrote a book but then I’m guilty of doing the same thing, myself on occasion. I’ll be stewing on what you said and reply later.
I really popped in to let you know that I sent a reply to Jim last night and the spam filter caught it. Honestly, I can’t remember what I even said this morning but I’m really hoping that it was reasonable, articulate, intelligent and civil. >wink
Jim says:
November 12, 2005 at 2:11 pm
Agreed.
I’m a fan of capitalism too, and markets that are free. I have derived singificant benefit from living in this kind of society for 40 years now.
I am also fan of the Lord’s. My particular convictions cannot allow me to embrace Capitalism as any kind of faith system. And, more importantly in terms of the discussion above, I don’t believe it makes sense to do so from a cultural standpoint.
My concern, and it is a deep concern, is that the particular pastor about whom Zalm wrote his original post comes too close, and indeed crosses that line with his Free Market Christianity. I believe, from a faith standpoint that Mr. Haggard has come close to, if not crossed into, heresy.
Jacke says:
November 12, 2005 at 2:11 pm
Checking to see if this will go through. Two previous replies got caught by the spam filter.
zalm says:
November 12, 2005 at 8:11 pm
Hmmm… sorry about that, Jacke.
Usually my spam filter doesn’t give me false positives, so I don’t check it that often. I just saw your replies now. I’ve restored them, so folks may want to head back up to Nov. 11, 8:15pm for the first of Jacke’s replies that got gobbled up. And I’ll try to figure out how to get the filter to like you again.
dufflehead says:
November 12, 2005 at 8:11 pm
so you think you’re not a slave to capitalism?
Jacke says:
November 12, 2005 at 9:11 pm
Thank you, zalm,
I’ll see if this will go through.
My time’s very limited the next couple of days.
I’ll be baaaack though.
dufflehead says:
November 13, 2005 at 12:11 am
and wasn’t this great, christian, capitalistic democracy of america built off of slavery?
Kent says:
November 13, 2005 at 1:11 am
I am a fan of capitalism myself, in that I have benefitted materially from it. However, I’m not sure that all that benefits me materially also benefits me spiritually. I am easily made a slave to the desire to consume. It is the air we breathe.
dufflehead says:
November 13, 2005 at 2:11 am
To promote actually means to “contribute to the progress or growth of; further”. To me, this a “promote” is a much more active word than the word “advise”
Dei says:
November 13, 2005 at 3:12 am
Zalm,
I was referred here by another blog and I have to say , I like what little I’ve read so far. I may just become a regular.
This particular post of yours has led me to put my finger on something that was bothering me greatly. A really good friend of mine, devout Christian (her denomination isn’t important in this context) and good writer, sent me a story to have a look at. Its gist was a group of angels who set up a ‘guardian-angel for hire’ scheme whereby anyone could ask them for any favour in return for some small fee—like calling a relative one hasn’t spoken to in years. Of course, it went awry and, really, it should have been funny. But I hated it. Hated it so much I really had to sit back and ask myself why.
The point at which I got angry was when a woman had a son with severe nut allergies whose life the angels had saved a number of times and the chief angel attributed it to her knowing that he’d be saved and thus no longer caring to read the label on food she bought. Quite aside from the vile calumny I found this (knowing a number of people with severe allergic reactions, I’ve not known a single one of them to be cavalier about their condition, despite having free adrenaline injections on hand from the NHS, much as people don’t take the presence of seatbelts in a car as a reason to drive recklessly), I was like ‘wait, hold on. This woman’s problem is that she can’t afford (story set in the US) an adrenaline pencil to save his life when he needs it and if you were serious about helping, then why don’t you nudge her to a job that provides health insurance, or towards a Medicare scheme or if you’re concerned that she is reckless, a visit from social services to see if there aren’t any underlying psychological problems? Why don’t you ask why? You jerks!’
Reading this post and the replies of others, I realise that the problem I had with the story was that if there’s one thing in which Christianity lacks, it’s the ability to ask ‘why have the poor no bread?’ and that far from being an aberrent description of what Christian practice is, the story was in some ways a very accurate one—tend the immediate, ignore the wider issues. I’ve noticed too that when immediate help doesn’t translate into the person’s problems being resolved long-term then St. Paul’s assertiona that those who will not work should not eat gets trotted out, regardlss of wheterh that accurately describes the stiuation. And that’s what disturbed me.
I’ve had to realise the Karl Marx’s stinging criticism of religion as the ‘opium of the masses’ still applies more than I’d like it to, though I have to say that there are some Christian groups that do do what they can to actually change lives for the better. They have my support. It wouldn’t be a problem if the Church (all denominations) wasn’t seen as a force for social good and instead as an institution primarily concerned with a person’s spiritual health regardless of material conditions, but it is seen as such despite its reluctance to take on social structures. And that’s not right.
Doubltless I’ll think more about this issue as I go along and I’d sure like to hear what you think.
Jacke,
Much as I’ve enjoyed reading your point of view, there’s just a few things that I wished to address from a point of view of accuracy.
If you’re talking about socialism, then first, it’s not accurate to say that France has an 80% income tax rate. That place would be Norway, which has one of the very best standards of living and least social inequity anywhere in the world. The top income tax rate in France is 48%, incidentally. (As a point of historical interest, the top income tax rate in the US following the end of WWII was 91% and it marked a period of great economic expansion and the creation of a viable middle class—taxation isn’t in itself necessarily bad).
On the critique of the French for the number of people who died during the unprecedented 2003 heatwave: The sad thing is that it implies that no one in the US dies from heatstroke and that’s sadly not true—hundreds of people die every single year from the heat and it only makes the local news, not the national news provoking a crisis of conscience and a determination to not let it happen again as it did in France. I live in the UK and a lot of people died here too. Again, it wasn’t something we took to heart. Go figure.
There’s a reason the OECD doesn’t count private donations when looking at what governments give, other than for reason of it being difficult to measure: compared to what governments can give, it’s negligible. People giving generously , genuinely, flat out, can raise a few millions of dollars. Government giving generously can raise a few billions of dollars. God may see and bless the individual, but there really is no contest. You don’t need to look far to put this to the test. Look at how much Americans gave for people affected by Hurricane Katrina. Now look at the emergency spending bill Congress passed for the same. No contest. I’m not denigrating individual generousity and I think that because we’re individuals we can reach out to other individuals in ways that simply can’t be done at the national level but in the context of providing the resources for change or relief, the widow’s mite is more accurate than you’d think.
Long enough for me at the moment—I’ve a workday to go tend to. But I shall be back.
Jacke says:
November 13, 2005 at 8:11 am
Dufflehead (and zalm, and Jim...and...),
I think I am much less a slave to capitalism than I would be to socialism or communism. At least with capitalism I have opportunity. If I am willing to work hard, study, and sacrifice I will be able, at some point, to live comfortably enough (and comfortably has different meanings to different people) that I will have more to share on an individual level, down here where I live. I do believe this is what the Bible instructs us to do, those of us who are able...we are to work so that we may have enough to help our brothers and sisters in need. Under socialism or communism my choice of what I do with my money is taken away and the government acts as the benefactor to those in need, in my place. So, when I would like to buy one of my children (the ones my husband and I have taken under our wings) something they need, or that I feel they need, I cannot. They have to look to the government rather than a benevolent friend or God as He sees fit to work through them.
Some of us are in agreement that the government is not the best assessor of people’s needs, nor the best at seeing that the needs of people is met. Is the church perfect? No, but neither is the government and the church has a better chance of perfecting benevolent spending than the government does.
Socialism and communism take that choice totally away from the people. You think because you vote that means you have made your choice and you have done all that is necessary because no one is in power lest God approves it? Take a look at our political system today...do you really have a choice? Once you have elected your representative to Congress is he/she listening to the voice of your district? Is he/she as concerned with what you would like to spend tax payer dollars on as you are, or as concerned as all of his constituents as they are? I think not. So, why give so much of your money to the government that you no longer have a choice as to whom you will help and how you will help them? Why tie your own hands so that you are powerless to help ANYBODY in the hopes that a government will help EVERYBODY when they have proved lacking time after time after time? It makes no sense.
In my opinion, it is better that you decide where your extra money goes, who benefits from it. Are there selfish people, yes! But there are people who are not selfish, too! Sure I benefit from the government’s care of infrastructure...certainly my Mother benefits from Social Security and Medicaid, I am not saying that we should throw these programs out, I know some do, but I am not. I am saying that I am not willing to give away my choices, to do so would likely mean that I no longer make a decision whether I buy Amanda a new outfit for school, or the AWANA materials she needs, or buy myself a new pair of badly needed glasses, to do so means that Amanda will go without and I will go without too. I will be appealing to the government to meet my needs, proving that I have them and watching all those around me suffer in need while we all await the government to hear our pleas, a government who is busy listening to its own, removed, voice rather than mine.
Don’t you get it? Capitalism allows me to be as much a slave to it as I CHOOSE to be, Socialism and Communism take that choice away entirely.
provoked � Spiritual Economics says:
November 13, 2005 at 9:11 am
[...] My wifes sent me a link to the article and I read a response to the article over at http://www.fromthesalmon.com, the specific post is �Jesus Is So First Centrury�. What came out of the response was a rather good conversation about economics and Chrisianity. [...]
zalm says:
November 13, 2005 at 10:11 am
Still ironing out the spam filter issues. I think it’s upset with me for making it work overtime on this thread without extra compensation.
Scroll up a bit to read Dei’s comment, which has been restored.
More later, I’m sure, but for now I’m off to church.
a badchristian blog says:
November 13, 2005 at 11:11 am
a tale of two restaurants
I got to thinking this morning about the tenets of capitalism. I’ve been inspired by a great conversation Zalm has going on over at his blog about the free market and Christianity. Further, my thinking was drawn along by a little junket Jen and I ma…
Jim says:
November 13, 2005 at 12:11 pm
Jacke,
I respect your opinion. I think you get some things wrong in your analysis, but I’m really not in a position to argue them intelligently so I defer.
But I have to take strong exception to your last comment as far as it concerns me. I can speak only for myself.
I am not a proponent of socialism or communism. I’m not sure where you got that impression. I am a Christ centered person. This often puts me at odds with the very economic system I prefer (capitalism) because I cannot read the scriptures and be satisfied with the disconnect between where that system has brought us and the call of God. I’m not and never have suggested that we abandon capitalism because it’s imperfect. But I’m not going to evangelize for capitalism either. Why should I?
My one and only concern is that Free Market Capitalism applied to Christianity (which is exactly what Ted Haggard is doing, according to the article in CT) is heresy. It takes the true Gospel and transforms it into a false one. That’s my concern. Perhaps you don’t see it that way and well, that’s got to be okay for both of us. Your still a thoughtful and articulate person and you seem to have a big, Jesus loving heart. Awesome! My quarrel is not with you or with capitalism. In fact I’ve got no quarrel at all. But I still think Free Market Christianity is a false gospel and worthy only of condemnation. So I will continue to condemn it in the strongest terms I can find. We’ll just have to leave it at that, I’m afraid.
I don’t believe Jesus was a “socialist” or a “communist” and I don’t believe Jesus was a capitalist either, though I consider myself to be one. I don’t believe any of these systems are either supported or refuted by the scriptures, at least not enough to choose one way or the other with the scriptures as justification.
Please be careful in throwing the classifications around.
Jacke says:
November 13, 2005 at 1:11 pm
Jim, please take what applies to you from my comments and apply it, what doesn’t apply to you is directed at someone else. I am merely trying to put my thoughts out there. I don’t have the time to address everyone separately all the time so I tend to throw everything into one comment and hope that you all will understand that I’m not speaking all things to all readers.
I would agree with you that the scripture is not a proponent of any one system of government. But I’m a lover of freedom and a lover of having the most choice, in any given matter, possible. I was not making an effort to “evangelize” for capitalism, though I believe it is a much better economic system than any other simply because it does allow for more freedom. I also believe that taxation is required for any government, though I am a grass roots supporter of “The FairTax” tax reform plan. You may have heard of it?
There appear to be some people commenting on this blog who support socialism. I view socialism as a threat to our system of government and a threat to my personal freedom. While not “evangelizing” for capitalism I would be remiss not to point out that I support it and oppose socialism. The founders of our great country did not intend for us to become a socialist Nation.
I appreciate your thoughts and I’m sorry if you thought I was assuming you are a proponent of socialism, I was addressing the overall subject matter of what I have been reading this morning and had very little time. I attended a wonderful church service this morning! Hope you did too! You are very kind and complimentary in your responses to me, you must have the gift of encouragement, thanks!
Dei? I’ll be waiting for “Tish” to reply to you. She’s a good friend of mine and much more capable than I, as you could see, in addressing your comments.
zalm says:
November 13, 2005 at 2:11 pm
Yeah, there’s a lot going on simultaneously right now. I’ve got like eight posts or lengthy comments that I want to write in response, and they all deal with fairly different elements of this discussion.
And I agree that, while the different constructs are clearly related, there may be some value to stepping back and teasing them apart for a bit.
I’ll see what I can do later today.
In another odd convergence, the sermon at church today was about this passage in Mark 10. Is God affirming to me that this is the right conversation to be having right now? Or is God trying to lovingly whap me over the head with this until I get it? Or is it both? I don’t know.
Nice post, though, Brandon.
Jacke says:
November 13, 2005 at 2:11 pm
Dei,
Social charges now raise more tax in France than income tax. ...
http://www.frenchentree.com/france-tax-advice/ DisplayArticle.asp?ID=2254 - 37k - Nov 12, 2005
This article is an introduction to the primary taxes you are likely to pay in France.
There are four forms of tax on income and gains:
1) Income tax on earnings, rental income, pensions and some investment income. This is applied on scale rates, with the highest rate being a hefty 48.09%.
2) Other types of income have fixed rates, such as 16% at source on French bank and bond interest and 16% on certain capital gains such as from shares or funds.
3) Social charges, totalling 8%; 11% on investment income and 7.1% on pensions. Just over half of these charges can be deducted from your income when calculating the tax due at the progressive scale rates (but not at fixed rates).
4) Health contributions, which are 8% over a threshold.
Brandon says:
November 13, 2005 at 2:11 pm
I just have to say that I think that a lot of this discussion is attempting to deal with an interesting confounding of several distinct but related constructs. Namely, I think that the split between capitalism and socialism is confounded inherently with a individualistic and collectivist way of understanding the place of the individual in culture.
What I hear a lot of people saying is that capitalism isn’t really the problem so much as its almost inherent coupling with a rugged individualism. Likewise, I hear the more economically conservative contingent making the point that socialism is a problem--but mostly because of its rigid adherence to collectivism to the point that it restricts freedom.
Both are valid points, I think. I don’t know if this strikes a chord with anyone, but perhaps it would help to discuss these issues separately. Of course, it may not be a helpful distinction...and if not, feel free to carry on!
grace and peace,
brandon
Jacke says:
November 13, 2005 at 4:11 pm
Dei,
Also, I omitted this from this link on the comment you were referring to:
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=41116
Honestly, I wasn’t basing what I said on thin air, Dei. Upon what do you base your statement...?:
Tish says:
November 13, 2005 at 4:11 pm
I’ve been reading, and in some instances, re-reading the comments, as well as the blog itself. Admittedly, I haven’t read all that can be found at the links. However, something struck me while reading, a question. Is Mr. Haggard actually suggesting that Jesus would promote capitalism, or that He, in fact, did, or is Mr. Haggard merely suggesting that, as Christians who are charged with helping the poor, we should promote capitalism since it is known to reduce poverty when it is embraced? If the latter is true, then Mr. Haggard’s quote above, “But Jesus was in the 1st century, and we’re in the 21st century,” would be understandable as having the benefit of hindsight and the opportunity to look at various societies’ economic systems and the wealth generated within through history, we can see the benefits of capitalism which speak for themselves. Promoting capitalism in a religious context actually makes sense when you look at it that way. I can’t really find a direct quote of Mr. Haggard saying that his interpretation of the Bible is that it supports capitalism, but again, I haven’t read through all the links. Does it strike anyone else that Mr. Haggard might be speaking in this context or am I totally on the wrong page with this line of reasoning?
“Why have the poor no bread,” Dei? That’s a very good question, one that would take all the time in the world to answer as there are so many factors/determinants which play a part. In my opinion, part of the reason the poor have no bread is because of an established sense of entitlement, something which is fostered by socialist/communist economic systems and socialist programs. Unfortunately, this mentality has taken hold in this country. People feel they’re “owed” bread, whether they’ve done anything to earn it or not, whether they’ve done anything to give back in some way or not. Please understand that by “bread,” I mean all those things which people need/wany such as medical care, housing, transportation, etc. I’m not speaking of food.
I remember seeing a perfect example of this mentality a few years ago. A man was speaking before the City County Council in opposition to closing down three bus routes in the city because the company was losing money. He was probably around sixty years old and he angrily yelled into the microphone at the transportation company’s representatives, “Y’all don’t care ‘bout us! Y’all are just in this business to line yer own pockets!” I just shook my head. He was followed by a speaker who was also opposed to closing the routes, a woman who appeared to be in her thirties. She first chastised the company’s representatives for not “caring” about the city’s residents and then she said, “That’s MY bus! I’ve paid to ride on that bus for five years! How dare you take it away from me! What about me?!” These people actually believed the company was obligated to LOSE MONEY so they wouldn’t be incovenienced. How’s that for a sense of entitlement? I wanted to jump up and scream at them, “Uh, hello? Are you for real?!”
It was a perfect example, in my opinion, of a detrimental mentality which has taken root in this country and many, many others which purport to be “free” societies. This leaves people incapable or unwilling to take responsibility for their own lives or teach their descendants to do so. The incentive is removed when people are given things, rewarded, in many instances, for making bad choices in life. That sounds mean, but it is the truth and the truth is not always pretty. It’s a viscious circle and it’s there because people have completely lost sight of the fact that all those “free” things the government, churches, food pantries, etc., give them aren’t really free. They’re paid for by others.
Another reason people have no bread is because they’ve been taught over the past five decades or so to view themselves as victims. This victim mentality makes it easier to blame their problems on ________ (take your pick: poverty, racism, sexism, genderism, classism, corporatism, fascism, harrassment, medical malpracitce, blah, blah, blah) and expect certain treatment because they’re victims. If they don’t get the treatment expected, a loaf of “bread” to their specifications, there are always “caring” lawyers waiting in the wings to help them get what they’ve been wrongfully denied for a pretty penny to be paid by the victimizer. How many times have you heard, “I’m a ________ (pick any label) and this is what I deserve.” The caring lawyers who are always willing to help the victim get what they deserve foment this mentality because it is financially advantageous for them to do so. They know that suing someone who has money, whether the case has merits or not, be it a local store owner, doctor or a CEO, will net some money as many, many times, the store owner, doctor or CEO will simply pay to make the case go away or because it costs too much to defend themselves.
Add to all of the above that people seem to be of the understanding that they have the right to never be offe