You asked for specific issues from a Biblical perspective.
Let's start with idolatry. I agree with your definition that it is "setting up moral authorities in competition with, or to the negation, of God." But you then turn it into a partisan polemic against the Democratic Party, and what you call its "aggressive secularism" and "classic pagan hallmarks." I do not agree that the "chief crisis that any would-be political leader today needs to address" is the idolatry of secularism. The far greater crisis is those who call themselves Christians (or Jews), but put other loyalties ahead of their loyalty to God
The reality is that the idolatries that rule in the U.S. include nationalism, materialism, racism - ideologies that compete with the rule of God and for the loyalties of people of faith.
I've told the story many times about when I was in seminary, and our group of students did a thorough study to find every verse in the Bible that dealt with the poor. We looked for every reference to poor people, to wealth and poverty, to injustice and oppression, and to what the response to all those subjects was to be for the people of God We found several thousand verses in the Bible on the poor and God's response to injustice. We found it to be the second most prominent theme in the Hebrew Scriptures--the first was idolatry, and the two often were related.
On Bush's "idolatries." I recount in God's Politics how often George W. Bush has confused the American nation with the people and the purposes of God in his use of Scripture, hymns, and his calls to arms in his war against terrorism. I do believe that Bush's theology has led to disastrous consequences and has embarrassed American Christianity and damaged our image around the world.
On same-sex marriage. I believe in equal protection under the law in a democratic, pluralistic society for gay people and everybody else. Some would debate whether civil unions are necessary for that, or whether other legal protections are adequate. And that's a fair discussion. But, I have consistently said that I don't think the sacrament of marriage between a man and a woman should be changed.
On abortion. I have repeatedly said that I believe abortion is wrong and always a moral tragedy. The number of unborn lives that are lost every year is alarming. But I also do not believe that the best way to change that is to criminalize abortions and just force them underground. The question is how can we actually prevent unwanted pregnancies, protect unborn lives, support low-income women, offer compassionate alternatives to abortion, make adoption much more accessible and affordable, carefully fashion reasonable restrictions, and thus dramatically reduce the shamefully high abortion rate in America? You say you want to respect the will of the people. Well, every opinion poll shows the same thing - substantial majorities think that there are too many abortions and that we should pursue measures to reduce and restrict the number, but they do not support overturning Roe v. Wade.
Finally, on poverty. You say that we can agree that some needs should be addressed by government. But in your book, you say that "I can find nowhere in the Scripture where the state is commanded to extend generosity to the impoverished." I suppose it depends on how you define "the state." It was very different in ancient Israel before the monarchy, but the Bible is full of laws that govern leaving the corners of fields unharvested, not shaking olive trees and grapevines a second time, the Jubilee year of redistribution - all aimed at compelling those who "had" to hand over some of their plenty to those who did not. And there are laws governing fair wages (think minimum wage), unfair interest rates (think outlawing payday lending), and other ways of ensuring some degree of economic justice. It's the gap between the rich and the poor which seems to most concern the prophets and reducing the economic chasm is a priority for them.
Then, in perhaps the most outrageous statement in your book, you say that "It is debatable whether the Bible's many admonitions to care for the poor really apply today, in the United States, other than to a relatively small group of people." Do you really believe that trying to support a family of four on $20,000 a year (the official poverty measure) isn't really poverty? Thirty-seven million people living below the poverty line is not a small group. I couldn't believe your statement when I read it this week. And it tells me that you have never lived in a poor neighborhood or had any poor people as your friends. Do you see the news these days, with stories of families having to choose between paying the rent or buying food, between keeping the electricity on or buying needed medications? And what about all the children who are poor, and even hungry, in America. Do you think that it is all just their fault? Do I need to tell you the heartbreaking stories of what happens to families in the poorest neighborhoods in Washington DC where I have lived for three decades? There is real and painful poverty in the U.S. today, David, and the Bible's admonitions certainly do apply. And frankly, most all the rabbis that I have been blessed to know over many years would completely disagree with you on this. Your incredible statement about the biblical imperatives not applying to the poor in your country makes me think that we will never agree on very much about what the Bible says about politics.
Finally, who I personally vote for is not the issue. In our work, we have successfully worked across the aisle on a number of issues. On TANF (welfare reform) reauthorization, we convened a group of senior Republican and Democratic staff to work on a bipartisan approach. We worked with former Republican Senator Rick Santorum on the CARE Act, supported the direction of his Republican anti-poverty platform, and several other measures. My closest friend in the U.S. Senate for many years was former Senator Mark Hatfield, Republican from Oregon. Sadly, I have not been very enthusiastic about the voting choices we have had in many recent elections. But what says more about my politics are the causes and movements which have compelled my time and energy. It's not who I may vote for, but who I work with as allies toward common ground and common goals.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Jim Wallis and Sojourners have a verifiable history of working with people in both the Republican and Democratic parties (even GWB, at least in the beginning of his first term), and I think he would like to see himself more as an Independent, prophetically above partisan politics; however, his comments about abortion are what really establish the fact that he is a minion of the Democratic Party, first and last.
He admits that unborn human lives are lost. How are they lost? Certainly not spontaneously. We call that miscarriage. They are killed in a premeditated fashion for various reasons--that's the sad truth. Yet, he does not seem to want to take legal action to prevent the killing of the innocent.
Why not?
If African-Americans were still being lynched in the South, would he want laws against it, prosecution of the lynchers, and an end to tolerance of this practice, or would he instead want to take a soft approach focusing on education, economic improvement, etc. etc.?
I doubt it.
If Mexican illegal immigrants were being shot by skinheads with night scopes on their rifles, would he want the long arm of the law to clamp down?
What do you think? One guess.
If the severely handicapped were being euthanized involuntarily in government hospitals, how do you think Jim would respond?
Again, one guess.
But, somehow the killing of the unborn (otherwise known as babies), the most totally voiceless and helpless in our society, is different.
My guess is that, post-Mondale, the Democratic Party has gone overwhelmingly "pro-choice," so that's the way Jim has to go, because he has to cheer for his party.
It's a pity. There's a wonderfully long list of left-wingers who still think birth-control abortion-on-demand is unjust and would like to do something about it, i.e., take down Roe vs. Wade. (Unfortunately, Obama is not part of that crowd.)
I have been poor, lived with the poor, took care of foster children who were poor, and have close relatives that are still poor. Most are poor because of horrible decisions generally made to reduce short term discomfort at a horrible long term cost. A minority is poor due to some physical or mental deficiency but they are cared for by family. The problem with liberals is that they cannot accept that people suffer for their own discretions and that money without accountability exasperates the problems. The problem with conservatives and religious leaders is that they have not been successful in teaching the morality and sacrificial discipline necessary for people to improve spiritually and economically.
One of many examples: Foster daughter age 12 cannot read or write, steals daily, has tantrums, and breaks things. Age 17, can read and write, getting average grades in 10th grade, involved in church, no longer steals or breaks things but still has periodic tantrums. She decides with liberal Christian social worker that strict family discipline is not necessary so moved out with state subsidy and social system oversight. Daughter began stealing again, incarcerated many times in many jails and finally prison. During incarceration had no responsibility, watched TV and read comics. Between incarcerations she had three babies by three different fathers. Last father was put in jail for severe child abuse. She reconnected with foster parents as sort of an anchor. No more babies or jail and got a job, apt with Salvation Army, doing okay but got tired the Army’s discipline, standing and working. Foster parents agreed to pay for schooling. Social services decided she could qualify for SSI due to her background and they could keep her as a client. Now a job would doom her to lose her perpetual income with full health care. Social service is happy she is staying out of jail and not having babies. We believe they are selling her and many of her SSI client friends very short.
This is anecdotal but not an isolated situation. Many social servants are very helpful but the system depends on the clients as much as the clients on the system. The greatest help I have seen has been from individuals serving others sacrificially with the moral anchor and support of their church. The government can help but with accountability and incentive, not as a financial benefactor or service provider. The conflict of interest and resultant mutual dependency is often very destructive.
** Pro-Birth writ large is mass-Death **
"Pro-life" ranters are not pro-life. They are pro-birth. That dogma used to be called pro-natalism. It's an androcentric, completely misogynistic, demand that no impediment whatsoever on *births* be permitted by law.
What happens to mother and child after birth is irrelevant since the "laws" of nature will then cull weak from strong. "Pro-life" is pro-death -- the death impulse of the big-3 monotheisms in full operation. They reject the ultimate ends of human life as belonging solely to culture, and posit some totally non-existent spiritual realm.
Today's pseudo-scientific justification of pro-natalsim belongs to social darwinism (really, created by Herbert Spencer). However, that's merely a gloss on western religious demands -- 6,000 years of god damned male domination. When will it end?
Enough of ancient paternalistic tribal customs which cannot be enlarged to become a planet-wide ethos. (As Marvin Harris made very clear: reproduction will always win against food production, leading to de-facto slavery, degraded environments, and marginal living conditions. Technological intensification makes for only short-term solutions.)
It should be obvious that pro-birth is not pro-life. In fact this sick religious ideology is pro-mass-death: creating disease, poverty, and ignorance worldwide by fostering overpopulation, damning safe non-reproductive sex, and blocking responsible medical research.
bipolar2
© 2008
Nothing the Bible supports bloated welfare bureaucracies. These have been huge failures; one might say that government declared a war on poverty and poverty won. Indeed, much of the "welfare" budget goes to support the bureaucracy rather than the poor (i.e. they pimp off poverty), and even helps keeps the poor in poverty.
Private charities are also better and more in line with biblical teachings: fewer overheads, as well as direct contact with the people so they know whether they deserve a helping hand or kick in the pants. And they are likely to spring up when people have more to give because the government confiscates less.
It's also notable that many politicians of the Left such as the Clintons, Obama, Biden and Gore are notoriously stingy with their *own* money. "Compassion" for them = **generosity with other people's money**. Conversely, Prof. Arthur Brooks, although starting his research leaning left, found that conservatives are more generous with their own money and even with their blood donation, and published the results in his book "Who Really Cares?".
Foreign "aid" has merely served to prop up despots and enrich them while their people remain in poverty. That's why Kenyan economics expert, James Shikwati, pleads, Stop foreign "aid" (cited in paper with the URL at the top), while Thomas Sowell argues that it should be called "foreign *harm*".
Have you read this article?
http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortion.html
One of the best rebuttals to the ProLife movement I've read..
AA
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.