Diana Butler Bass: The missing sentence...
Last week, Sojourners launched the “Red Letter Christians” group at a press conference in Washington. “Red Letter Christians” is a short-hand way of talking about Christians who take the whole of Jesus’ teachings seriously in our spiritual and public lives—even the difficult bits of the Beatitudes like “blessed are the poor” and “blessed are the peacemakers.”
It is humbling to be asked to be part of this group of Christian writers; I felt especially awed at Dave Batstone’s discussion of contemporary slavery as a moral issue and Randall Balmer’s call to stand up against torture. For more than a dozen years, I have been voicing my concerns that the Religious Right’s conception of “values” issues is limited and politicized, but most of my words have been in print—not spoken with passion (as my colleagues so ably did) before reporters. With lights and cameras on, and journalists taking notes, I felt surprisingly shy (not at all as I feel in the pulpit or in the classroom) and, introducing myself quickly, shared my concerns about issues of church and state, and then willingly surrendered the podium to the next Red Letter Christian!
The combination of my colleagues’ clarity and my own shyness would have kept me glued to my seat for the rest of the event, save the question of one reporter. Several tried to pin us down politically (suspicious, I think, that we are some sort of front organization for the Democratic National Committee). Finally, one asked outright if all the Red Letter Christians were registered Democrats—and if any of us were Republicans.
The room seemed a little strained at that point. One person talked about being an independent voter. I kept thinking that the journalists were missing the point by trying to define us by Washington categories instead of theological ones. Unexpectedly, I found myself at the microphone again—“coming out” politically to a room full of the mainstream media.
I shared that I am currently a registered Democrat and that I was born to a Democratic family. However (and in correct chronological order), I have been a Democrat, a Republican, an Independent, a Republican, a Democrat, a Republican very briefly, and once again a Democrat (maybe the journalist should ask me the same question five years from now!). But then, the ultimate confession: One of my proudest possessions is a personal letter from Senator Barry Goldwater (yes, “Mr. Conservative”) congratulating me on being Arizona Teen-Age Republican of the Year in 1976!
The room laughed. And the subject changed back to more important things (like poverty, the environment, and peacemaking) than our voter registration. But if I wasn’t quite so intimidated by the cameras, I now realize that my confession should have extended just one more sentence: “Yes, I’ve worn all these political labels—depending on issues at stake and candidates in races—but throughout my checkered political history, one label has never changed: Christian; I am a Christian, and all those other labels are secondary to my baptismal journey to live the teachings of Jesus.”
And that’s the point of Red Letter Christians: We are Christians. All those other labels—Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative—are secondary to being Christian, our passionate quests to enact grace and live a Christian way of life. As I reflect on my missing sentence, I realize that it sounds a wee bit like a sentence from scripture. Not one printed in RED letters, but the plain black words of St. Paul: “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male or female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” If the blessed apostle were around for press conferences today, I’m pretty sure he’d add, “no longer Republican or Democrat,” too.
Diana Butler Bass is an independent scholar and author. Her latest book is Christianity for the Rest of Us (Harper, September 2006).
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
The verse isn't "blessed are the poor", it's "blessed are the poor in spirit." Isn't there a difference?
Does anyone else find the term "red letter christians" a little arrogant? What are the rest of us who are not liberal? Christians who don't take Jesus's teachings seriously? Give me a break.>
Posted by: jessie | September 28, 2006 3:25 PM
So by being a red letter Christian, are you saying that you take less seriously those passages that aren't in red letters. Are they somehow less inspired, or less meaningful in the daily life of every Christian?>
Posted by: James H. George | September 28, 2006 3:38 PM
Actually, Luke 6:20 (NIV) says exactly, "Looking at his disciples, he said: 'Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.'"
And I think you've competely missed the point, Jessie. I think it was pretty clear that the point Diana Butler Bass is making about Red Letter Christians is that it's not about liberal vs. conservative but following Jesus. If following Jesus in America makes one liberal (according to some) then, well, I guess that's just the way it is.>
Posted by: Ryan Bell | September 28, 2006 4:10 PM
"What are the rest of us who are not liberal? Christians who don't take Jesus's teachings seriously?"
Um, YEP!>
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | September 28, 2006 4:40 PM
Sorry Ryan, I have to disagree with you because Jessie has hit the nail on the head. You need to learn to connect your good intentions to sound thinking.
Christ's ministry was not maintained by loaves and fishes brought out of thin air every day, but by a practical system of capital. Rich men and women contributed financially with their gifts (Mary Magdelene and Lazerus were very wealthy). They paid taxes, but what was beautiful and what Christ commended was not the Roman welfare system, but the free gift that people, rich and poor alike, gave from their hearts. This is a beautiful thing with which God is pleased.
God's politics has a lot to do with government budgets--minimizing them so that we can focus on the love of individual human persons.
You want to coerce the world into giving to causes that are noble and absolutely mandated by God, but you want to coerce rather than convince. The government is incapable of love the same way a giant corporation is, but the government is almost completely unaccountable to the people.
One disciple was appointed as the money manager--Judas. Tragically, he was corrupted by it. Our government is too. Why doesn't Sojourners or Wallace ever discuss the abject immorality of the giant pork provisions that Republicans and Democrats, alike, slip into our budget that is such a "moral document"?
Like Judas, our government has betrayed Christ by removing the love of Christ from individual human actors to bloated pork-barrel-proned bureaucrats.>
Posted by: Liberal in the classical tradi | September 28, 2006 4:50 PM
I'll just reiterate what I've said earlier. This "Red Letter Christian" business isn't necessarily wrong. I don't think Christian Conservatives have ignored the Sermon on the Mount or any of Jesus' other sayings, but that's debatable and if they think that the Red Letters deserve more emphasis, there's nothing necessarily wrong with that.
But there is a danger here that this could lead people to dismiss all the black letter stuff in the New Testament, not to mention the Old.
Look, we're all allowed to have our favorite scriptures. Me, I think that Ecclesiastes is da bomb.
I just hope that the Red Letter folks will affirm, at some point, that all scripture is valuable.
Wolverine>
Posted by: Wolverine | September 28, 2006 5:11 PM
Once again borrowing from another Christian, many of those who are speaking out against the Red Letter Christians are going on an "Adventure in Missing the Point"
As Diane Butler Bass so elegantly pointing out is that the point isn't a man-made label, but one of being a Christian. Jesus pointed us to the way the truth and the life. We simply need to study his words carefully for what that means for each of us.>
Posted by: Bill | September 28, 2006 5:19 PM
I think folks are missing the point here about the RLCs. No slogan or title is perfect; instead of splitting hairs about nomenclature (which church people are very adept at doing), we should be looking at the spirit of the RLCs and deciding if we agree with THAT or not. The point behind the name is not that the "black letters" don't matter or that folks who don't think like them are somehow non-biblical or insincere. Almost all RLCs identify as evangelical, meaning - among other things - that they have a high view of Scripture. In fact, I would argue that the RLCs are trying to get people to take an actual look at the actual words in their own Bibles minus all the right wing propoganda that has somehow brainwashed Christians into thinking that Jesus came to usher in a western democratic capitalistic free market nation that puts a premium on telling people to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and that perpetuates significant inequalities.
I am still confounded at how - if the Bible and what it says are central - the key "Christian" issues became abortion (about which there is scant and only indirect biblical mention), homosexuality (about which there are very few black letters and no red letters; there is much more about God's abhorrance of divorce, but we seem to have interpreted our way around that one), a western notion of the "traditional" nucular family, and making a Christian America (last I checked, the church was God's preferred vehicle, not the good ol' U.S. of A.)? If we are reading our Bibles, red AND black letters, then what do God and Jesus and the prophets say the most about? Idolatry, the poor, justice, mercy... loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself. I must have missed the part about looking out for #1 and he who dies with the most toys wins. And if i recall, the Acts 2 community had all things in common so that none among them had need. How many churches 1) dare to be in communities of need in the first place, thus putting themselves with the poor and actually creating a worshipping community where the poor and marginalized feel welcomed and embraced (see the black letters in James 2 for more on that), and 2) how many churches redistribute wealth so that their neighbors in need (or even congregants) have enough? And I also recall that Jesus seemed to have some harsh words about money, as did Paul. Yup... sounds like definite justiciation for crushing the poor underfoot (note sarcasm).
Someone, anyone... help me understand the biblical basis and biblical centrality for the right's platform... free market, abortion, homosexuality, Christian America.>
Posted by: Bob | September 28, 2006 5:41 PM
Ryan,
The Beattitudes as they are given in Matthew says "Blessed are the poor in Spirit". Regardless, I don't think anyone would argue that simply living in poverty makes one have the kingdom of God. It seems to represent the fact that if one is poor in spirit (humble) or simply poor (as you interpret it), you can still have the blessings of the kingdom of God. Sorry, but that says nothing about social policy!
I agree that we should just be about following Jesus. But Wallis and others commit the same error some on the religious right commit in saying that their policies are GOD'S policies. I just don't agree. That divisive rhetoric does not help the conversation at all. I respect the fact that Wallis and others have liberal positions on many issues. But to claim that Christians MUST be liberal is just offensive to me. That is what Wallis and other criticize Falwell for doing. Do they not see the plank in their own eyes?>
Posted by: jessie | September 28, 2006 5:43 PM
But Jessie, my question is...
Why is Wallis a "liberal" for simply advocating for the poor and thinking that we should call out our government for policies which hurt the most vulnerable, while "conservative" means pushing a selective moral agenda that has scant biblical basis? I know that Sojourners makes no bones about being involved in public policy, and some Christians think that is a wrong move. And maybe he and the Right are doing the same thing, just with different agendas. But if we evaluate those agendas according to the priorities of our own Bibles, how does Wallis get to be the liberal for championing the themes and people the Bible talks most about?>
Posted by: Bob | September 28, 2006 6:01 PM
P.S. Said differently, if we decide that Christians should be involved in public policy (which all might not), then for those who choose to engage, what should determine what that involvement looks like and what issues Christians should tackle? That's where I think it's funny that Wallis is "liberal" for basing his public policy on the Bible's priorities. And if telling the truth, seeking peace, extending compassion, and caring for the children and the most vulnerable are not the Bible's priorities, make a case for what are. I think that Wallis and company, while not perfect, are reading their Bibles much more closely than those on the Right, who purport to be the "conservatives.">
Posted by: Bob | September 28, 2006 6:14 PM
Bob,
First, the terms liberal and conservative refer to those seeking to change from the established norms, vs. those wishing to preserve them.
I don't think there is a Biblical basis for a free market, per se. Neither is there a Biblical basis for socialism or communism. The Bible says that if you do not work, you should not eat. It is hard to say the same Bible would advocate government policy that gives people money for not working.
So the balance then becomes, how can the government create a safety net that will ensure that protects its citizens from capitalistic anarchy, while at the same time does not encourage people to stay unemployed. Liberals are inclined to think the balance is found with a higher rate of government involvement.
I disagree, based on the lessons we have learned from (for example) Europe, where unemployment often exceeds 10 percent, and where employees have grown accustomed to being unproductive and lazy.
As far as the gay marriage and abortion issues go, those have been discussed at length, so I'm sure you can locate the arguments from both sides.>
Posted by: kevin s. | September 28, 2006 6:39 PM
I don't think that whether one is considered a liberal or a conservative should necessarily be defined by the area of concern...poor or orphans etc. I think it is much more defined by the method of solution. Should it be the state or the private sector which is involved. Evangelical Christians (many of them conservative) give a large amount of money to the poor. They also give time and effort. I am sure liberal Christians are also very active. However, if someone thinks that the government should be the primary change agent...then I think that...almost by definition...makes them more liberal. If someone thinks it should be less government and more private sector, then I think that makes them...again...almost by definition...conservative. Many libertarians are also conservatives. The Book of James speaks about how "true religion is this...caring for the widow and orphan and staying untainted by the world." James does not say how that should be done and I think sincere and loving Christians can differ on that. I do think that when someone says that people who object to the term RLC are missing the point are on thin ice. How scripture is interpreted is very important. New generations will face new challenges...but the Word of God and how it is interpreted is of ongoing importance. Whether someone is liberal or conservative (or somewhere in between). Bill B.>
Posted by: William Blakey | September 28, 2006 6:42 PM
Jesse,
I think it's interesting that you commented that "I don't think anyone would argue that simply living in poverty makes one have the kingdom of God." Perhaps not. But many Christians throughout history, and today would argue that living in poverty while trying to be a disciple of Jesus Christ bears much fruit. It is indeed a way to experience the Kingdom of God.
The Salvation Army is a present day example. Last I checked, to be a pastor, you must live at poverty level, the same as those who are served.
Dorothy Day, founder of the Catholic Workers movement, is a 20th Century example. She even found that listening to the poor is a means of experiencing God's grace.
St. Francis started an entire revival movement among the church (for there was only the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches when he lived in the 1400s). The basis of revival? Renounce all material posessions (he had many), travel around preaching the gospel, and beg for all food, clothing, and shelter. This was God's call upon his life, and no one disputes that it bore MUCH fruit for the Kingdom.
So yes, Jesus knew what he was talking about when he said "blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the Kingdom of God." (Luke 6:20) My own perspective on this verse is that when we give up trying to provide for ourselves, we discover God's provision and blessing are abundant. It may look like material poverty, but it is spiritually rich.>
Posted by: Amy | September 28, 2006 6:52 PM
So by being a red letter Christian, are you saying that you take less seriously those passages that aren't in red letters. Are they somehow less inspired, or less meaningful in the daily life of every Christian?
James H. George | 09.28.06 - 9:43 am | #
So you believe that in order to fully accept all of Christ teachings, we must devalue the rest of scripture? Some logic...>
Posted by: Drina | September 28, 2006 7:05 PM
Some clerical organizations require a vow of "poverty." No?>
Posted by: tovart | September 28, 2006 7:07 PM
Drina,
I think the point he is making is that, by calling a movement red-letter Christians, you are doing one of three things.
1) Implying that those who disagree with you are ignoring Christ's teaching.
2) Emphasizing one biblical passage over another.
3) Using a catchy slogan that says nothing.
I suspect it's a little bit of all three, and I know the tendency of this organization to use talking points as a bludgeon, so I'm not sure it's as simple as parsing semantics.>
Posted by: kevin s. | September 28, 2006 7:34 PM
Bob,
Bill gave an excellent response to your point about being "liberal" or "conservative". Being concerned about the poor doesn't make you a liberal or a conservative. Your METHOD of showing concern about the poor does. Wallis is clearly a liberal in his methods and believes in having a large social welfare system. I am not and I think government programs is not the solution. That doesn't mean that I don't care about the poor. I just differ in methods from Wallis.>
Posted by: jessie | September 28, 2006 9:29 PM
In the words of St. Paul, "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" We have no right to re-make Christ in our image. We are here to witness for Christ. If we do it through teaching or preaching, great! If we do it through standing for justice, great!
The buttom line is, we are to be lights in a dark world. We must stop bickering over these tiny issues and do the work of Christ.
sapientia justicia temperantia>
Posted by: Ken | September 28, 2006 9:35 PM
Agreed Ken but in order to do what you are suggesting we must first reconcile w/ each other and that takes the ministry of reconcilation that Christ created and Paul adapted. That must happen first if we have any hope of doing what you are suggesting as one unified church.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | September 28, 2006 9:49 PM
Kevin:
I don't think there is a Biblical basis for a free market, per se. Neither is there a Biblical basis for socialism or communism. The Bible says that if you do not work, you should not eat. It is hard to say the same Bible would advocate government policy that gives people money for not working.
Paul's comment about not eating was directed at people in the church who refuse to work. It has nothing to do with public policy. A better comparison to the modern social safety net would be the Old Testament commands to allow the poor to glean one's fields. Or the command to pay one's workers on time. Or the usury laws. Or the Sabbath year, Jubilee, etc.
So the balance then becomes, how can the government create a safety net that will ensure that protects its citizens from capitalistic anarchy, while at the same time does not encourage people to stay unemployed. Liberals are inclined to think the balance is found with a higher rate of government involvement.
I disagree, based on the lessons we have learned from (for example) Europe, where unemployment often exceeds 10 percent, and where employees have grown accustomed to being unproductive and lazy.
What about our own experience with the hard-fought struggle for basic labor standards, which are being rapidly eroded in the name of global "competitiveness"?>
Posted by: HuckFinn | September 28, 2006 10:11 PM
"Paul's comment about not eating was directed at people in the church who refuse to work. It has nothing to do with public policy. "
Sure it does. Do you think God would support an economic policy that rewards those who refuse to work (and we are naive if we do not believe that such people exist).
Which basic labor standard has been eroded in favor of global competitiveness?>
Posted by: kevin s. | September 28, 2006 10:51 PM
Thanks for the comments about the METHOD of care and concern for the poor being the main difference - by definition - between liberals and conservatives. Point definitely taken. However, I will still say that I don't think many can successfully argue that since 1994 (and especially since 2001), when Republicans took over control of the Congress and the Presidency, that it has been an era characterized by small government. It might be the case that Republicans slash social welfare programs, but is that small government? Hardly. I don't call global military spending of $865 billion dollars small government. Nor is a skyrocketing debt. Republicans just put the $$$ different places, but don't tell me that a Republican-run Congress or White House is any smaller than Democratic ones. America is one huge bureaucracy, and I think many in the Right labor under the illusion that cutting welfare safety nets somehow means they are for small government. My spin on that is that it means conservatives favor the "poor need to sink or swim in the free market" approach vs. the liberal "maybe the government has some substantive responsibility toward its own poor beyond just pushing it off on the private sector" approach.
Also, I take issue with the claim that Jim Wallis and Sojourners believe in a big social welfare system. Sojourners advocates for the role of BOTH governmental and personal responsibility. See their Covenant for a New America (www.covenantforanewamerica.org), which has sections devoted to the role of BOTH the public and private sectors. They are not any more in favor of handouts than conservatives are. However, they do want to government to be just and moral and take care of the most vulnerable. I think - if one takes time with Sojo's position - one will see that they advocate for solutions on both ends. I think "where the Right gets it wrong" is to just focus on personal responsibility as if governmental policies are somehow morally neutral or non-existent, as though the "market" is some level playing field that has an inherently Christian telos. The news flash is that we have hundreds and even thousands of laws and public policies, and we as Christians should be asking if they are just, good, and fitting with Jesus' care and concern for the poor and marginalized, not pretending they don't exist just because we believe in "small government."
Lastly, I am also not in favor of a system that encourages dependency and rewards laziness or non-work. But that is different from a government washing its hands of responsibility for the common good and for caring for the most vulnerable citizens. I also believe that the government is best positioned to provide some of this help and support to the poor. If the conservatives want to put their money where their mouths are, then great; let's remove all government programs and let the church pick up the tab for the billions of dollars that - at minimum (even for you small govt. folks) - are necessary to care for this country's elderly, children, and vulnerable. I don't know of many churches that are financially equipped or willing to start paying billions in social security benefits, medicaid, etc. Soup kitchen and grocery handouts are fine, but I don't believe that the private sector or church is ready to fill the role of government if govt. "got genuninely small" tomorrow. And I speak as one with 2 retired parents who worked hard all their lives but who performed did simple jobs that didn't afford pensions or safety nets. So their little church is supposed to pay for them and all their medical expenses and meds? Or some multinational? Or maybe I am out of my modest salary? Charity is fine and dandy, but handouts and missions trips once a year don't provide the vulnerable with what they need, nor do they challenge unjust policies that perpetuate extreme economic inequality, cycles of poverty, etc. Americans have spent too long listening to Horatio Algerian stories of rags to riches and not enough time with good economic and sociological data that shows that upward mobility in the U.S. is more of a myth than most people think.
Just as faith without works is dead, charity without justice is hollow. See ">http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm/action/home/special/items/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0401&article=040141c>
Posted by: Bob | September 28, 2006 10:53 PM
Thanks Diana for sharing your articulate and inspiring voice on behalf of Christians throughout the country who are serious about their faith and ready for deeper conversations about values. Your words remind Christians that whatever party we may or may not belong to (or used to belong to) we are called to seek the way of Jesus. As the old hymn goes,
In Christ there is no East or West,
In Him no South or North;
But one great fellowship of love
Throughout the whole wide earth.
In Him shall true hearts everywhere
Their high communion find;
His service is the golden cord,
Close binding humankind.
Join hands, then, members of the faith,
Whatever your race may be!
Who serves my Father as His child
Is surely kin to me.
In Christ now meet both East and West,
In Him meet North and South;
All Christly souls are one in Him
Throughout the whole wide earth.
A contemporary version of this hymn could be "In Christ now meet both blue and red" and/or "In Christ now meet Republican, Democrat and Green". Thank God you and the other "Red Letter Christians" are speaking up --- you are giving us all hope that real change is possible. As a young adult, I am especially grateful to have strong mentors like you and the others in the movement who are witnessing faithfulness in the midst of these deeply troubling times. You give us all hope that the church is not out of touch or completely held hostage by one political party. Thanks for being such an inspiration!>
Posted by: Will | September 29, 2006 12:51 AM
Work and Non Work interesting and lame. Look we have issues about poverty and work and instead of focusing on the least of these like say those that can't work because they are sick or what have you we are talking about the working class that is lazy. Can you say red herring? Let's focus on those that can't and then worry about the rest of it later.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | September 29, 2006 3:29 AM
Even in the course of these comments, it would seem we have all forgotten one basic premise: we agree on Christ and all He came to do to usher in the Kingdom of God. As we talk about public policy issues, we're looking at it from multiple perspectives. One perspective sees overwhelming evidence of sin's entrance into Creation and operates based upon a model designed to minimize the effects of sin. In this perspective, it is often thought that only certain persons and institutions are able to do this effectively.
Another perspective focuses on the hope that exists because Christ came and has overcome the world. Rather than minimizing the effects of sin, those who hold this perspective might work actively to overthrow and to overcome people, structures, systems, etc. that are manipulated in ways to prevent greater revelation of God's Kingdom.
Still another perspective sees the very people, structures, and systems as places through which the effects of sin may be overcome by understanding that the Kingdom has indeed already been ushered in.
So, which is the correct perspective? As long as we begin to open the Kingdom--the truth of the Christ--so others (regardless of affiliation) understand that it is real and present, does it really matter? If the Lord's creation contains so much diversity and if we are to believe what Paul writes in the epistles about the Body having many members, then why are we spending time and effort trying to define the "one right way" to respond? Why are we quibbling over labels and titles? Right/Left, liberal/conservative, evangelical/post-Christian, all of these have one thing in common: none of these is what God calls us. The only thing He calls us is His...and He asks us to respond to others--ALL others--like we respond to Him.
Yes, some of us are called to engage the world in a manner that focuses on policy, others might be called to economics or teaching or customer service or engineering or artistry or some other area; regardless of area, every one of us will be given a false dichotomy by societal structures. We will be asked to choose a side, with those doing the asking telling us, of course, their side is correct.
We don't need to give in to this kind of mindset, though; we can choose another Way. If we truly follow Christ, we will always be seeking to understand how the Lord's hand is moving in the world; we will be sensitive to the Kingdom work He's doing; and, we will always support that work regardless of the label worn by those who carry it out.
May you all know the peace and love of the Lord as He guides your hearts and hands in the world.>
Posted by: Angela | September 29, 2006 4:32 AM
Yes, I'm finding myself classifying myself more as a Christian first, and then a citizen of this nation. There are times I am ashamed of the flag becuase of what our leaders have done to the flag in the name of Americanism. Back in 2001 for National day of Prayer, I refused to have God dressed up in an Uncle Sam's Suit and paraded around as our very own God. If ths was truly to be a national day of prayer, then all religious groups belong and not just Christians at worse or born-again Christians at best. We solved the issue in our ministerium by allowing each pastor to do his or her own thing. Some of the prayers were pretty politcal. Others, like mine, were thankfulness for the responders and the medical follow up teams. This is where our concerns need to be.>
Posted by: Gerald Rounds | September 29, 2006 4:35 AM
Angela,
Good points. We must, in all things, choose Christ above all else. He is THE way THE truth and THE life.
Gerald,
I'm not sure what you are saying. I agree that God should not be dressed up in patriotism. I disagree that a national day of prayer to our Lord should include prayers to a God who does not exist. The latter is not scriptural. If I misinterpret you, please forgive my offense.>
Posted by: kevin s. | September 29, 2006 6:26 AM
Kevin:
Sure it does.
You might be able to extrapolate the principle, but the context is clearly dealing with the distribution of alms within the church.
Do you think God would support an economic policy that rewards those who refuse to work (and we are naive if we do not believe that such people exist).
What policy are you talking about? I think the conversion of AFDC to TANF in 1996 largely addressed this. However, you seem to be tarring all social programs with the same brush. Do you object to unemployment insurance? What about public funding for education, job training, legal services, health care, etc?
Which basic labor standard has been eroded in favor of global competitiveness?
Manufacturing is all but dead in the US. The pay and benefits of most retail jobs are not comparable to the former factory jobs that helped build our middle class.>
Posted by: HuckFinn | September 29, 2006 6:52 AM
"You might be able to extrapolate the principle, but the context is clearly dealing with the distribution of alms within the church."
Explain to me how you can reason that from the text. Either way, if we cannot extrapolate biblical principle, why are we having this conversation at all?
"Manufacturing is all but dead in the US. The pay and benefits of most retail jobs are not comparable to the former factory jobs that helped build our middle class."
That is evidence of a new economy. The death of manufacturing is not tantamount to the erosion of labor standards. My field of work largely did not exist 15 years ago. We are moving in a different direction.>
Posted by: kevin s. | September 29, 2006 7:27 AM
Kevin:
Explain to me how you can reason that from the text.
The preceding verse discusses having a right to (financial) help from the church. The entire passage is about idle busybodies in the church.
Either way, if we cannot extrapolate biblical principle, why are we having this conversation at all?
Extrapolating biblical principles is fine. I just don't think this verse should be used in isolation as ammunition against public assistance to the needy. I notice you've said nothing about the other passages or government programs that I mentioned.
That is evidence of a new economy. The death of manufacturing is not tantamount to the erosion of labor standards. My field of work largely did not exist 15 years ago. We are moving in a different direction.
This "new direction" is providing far fewer family wage jobs, and pensions share the same grave with manufacturing jobs.>
Posted by: HuckFinn | September 29, 2006 10:45 PM
I hate to go back to the argument about what the "red letter Christian" movement really means, but here goes: Often times, in evangelical circles, we focus on the saving death and resurrection of Jesus. This is not bad, but a good thing. HOWEVER, I believe that what the red-letter Christians want to do is to connect the rest of Jesus' life on earth with his death and resurrection, so that the emphasis isn't only on his death atoning for our sins, but how he lived his life for us.
And perhaps, if we learn to tell the whole story of Jesus' life and teachings, his death and his resurrection, we will have a greater understanding of what his saving death and resurrection mean for us, and for our lives as Christians.>
Posted by: Lutheran Pastor | October 2, 2006 8:58 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?