Chris Myers Asch: Be All You Can Be (As a Civilian)
Number of federal military service academies: 5
Number of federal civilian service academies: 0
One does not need to be a pacifist to find something wrong with those numbers. Indeed, a growing movement of people thinks there is a glaring need for our nation to build a U.S. Public Service Academy. Sojourners has officially endorsed the effort, joining a broad array of service organizations such as Catholic Charities USA, the National Urban League, and the National Peace Corps Association.
Recent studies show that more students than ever emerge from high school wanting to serve their country and their community. But they often find themselves freshman year on campuses that are indifferent, if not outright hostile, to such high-minded ideals. The five military academies offer opportunities for service, but many students (because of conscience or preference) want to serve in the civilian world, in fields such as education or health care or the environment. Where can students go to get the kind of intense, service-oriented education that will mold them into citizen leaders, the way West Point and the military academies develop military leaders?
The answer is that such a college does not exist – yet.
That is why we must build the U.S. Public Service Academy. The Academy will be a completely different kind of college, one that gives students a chance to do something real with their lives and become part of a movement to make this country better. Modeled on the military service academies, the Academy will recruit top students from across the country and offer them full scholarships to pursue a rigorous undergraduate education focused on leadership development and public service. In return, Academy graduates will spend five years serving their nation by working in the public sector at the local, state, and national levels.
The grassroots movement to build the Academy has succeeded in getting Sen. Clinton and Sen. Specter to introduce the Public Service Academy Act (S. 960). Reps. Jim Moran and Chris Shays introduced the same bill in the House (H.R. 1671). Learn how you can help build this new college by visiting: http://www.uspublicserviceacademy.org.
Chris Myers Asch is a Teach for America/AmeriCorps alumnus and the co-founder of the U.S. Public Service Academy.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
France has a school set aside specializing in public administration, the ENA. It's one of the most prestigious colleges in Europe. It's also been an absolute disaster. The "Enarques" are socially isolated from the bulk of French society, and have turned large chunks of the French government into their own little fiefdoms. This is a big part of why French government is nearly impossible to reform.
As it stands, there are lots of schools of public administration (not to mention law) where future public servants can study and in the process sometimes bump into people who aren't interested at all in government but who do lots of interesting things in basic science, medicine, technology, art, literature, and even sports. This makes them a little more rounded and aware that government isn't the only thing that matters. And then they compete for jobs with graduates of other schools. This is a good thing and should be encouraged.
Whatever your view of the proper role of government, this Public Service Academy is a very bad idea.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | June 25, 2007 11:08 AM
Yah if you base this idea off of France's style of government which is not much like ours.
I think it can be a brilliant idea if the goals of it are stated up front and people committ to it. I say anything that can teach people civics and empower them to make better choices for the betterment of the weak is a good thing.
p
Posted by: Payshun | June 25, 2007 12:59 PM
Opportunities to serve our country without joining the military sound terrific. But I did a doubletake when I saw Cathoic Charities mentioned as such an organization to support. For gracious sakes, don't let federal dollars go to any religious organizations that fail to follow the rules maintaining the wall of separation of church and state! That would be unAmerican and extremenly vulnerable to undue influence from proselyting religious groups. No tax money for that, please. (Catholic Charities does a lot of good work, actually, at least in Albuquerque.)
Posted by: Pat White | June 25, 2007 1:11 PM
I also doubt the usefulness of a PSA.
1. Many public universities already offer similar programs.
2. It is unclear to me what the specific set of skills necessary for effective public administration and service are. If I were to take a guess, they would include: Follow orders. Follow regulations. Cover yourself. Blackmail. Evade feedback.
Courtesianship and confucianism are not modes of behavior we want to encourage in our institutions.
3. The Christian element here is fuzzy. Why should Christians support the creation of an institution which absolves individuals of more responsibility by creating a new "priestly" class of bureaucrats to handle the "least of these" for us? I should think that Christians would further strengthen their support for Christian universities which have strong track records in developing servant-minded individuals.
4. Why should Christians be interested in emulating institutions which were designed to train for war? The service academies are excellent at preparing men and women to serve the United States Government (certainly NOT our country) by breaking things and blowing them up.
"Chris Myers Asch is an incumbant of the unionized unaccountable Teach for America/AmeriCorps programs established by the United States Government to make good statist pagans of all of us, and the co-founder of the U.S. Public Service Academy which will teach us all the right regulations and political behaviors which will insulate young bureaucrats from the feedback inherent in the market. It will further instruct them to make decisions based on what will advance their career, expand their program's budget, and undermine liberty."
Nathanael Snow is a student of Bonhoeffer, Hauerwas, Hayek and Mises. He believes that all social good is to be done by Christians and that responsibility for the least of these must be assumed by individuals. He blogs at http://jurisnaturalist.blogspot.com
Posted by: jurisnaturalist | June 25, 2007 2:54 PM
I don't know if Public Service Academies are the answer, but the problem is only honoring service to your country when it comes at a time of last resort (police, fire, armed forces).
Christians should recognize that war is a last resort. Relating to our world through diplomacy is better. Relating to our world through building just markets together is better still.
Likewise, building our society through creating a corps of people interested in serving the greater good is better and more efficient than continuing to focus exclusively on responding to crime.
As an expression of faith, we need to have the courage to create a constructive government that makes the world better. But of course, that is what makes me a liberal. I believe people working together through their government can make things better.
my blog
Posted by: JimII | June 25, 2007 3:57 PM
What Biblical justification do you offer as evidence that the state can make things better? I observe several instances where the scriptures warn us about the influence of the state. I also observe the scriptures admonishing the Church to be the effective force for good in the world despite any actions of the state.
What, specifically, can the state do to make the world better that the church couldn't do more efficiently and without invoking force? Nothing.
Good done by compulsion or utilizing means extorted involuntarily is devoid of virtue. Any reward for such action is temporal and diminished. As believers we seek eternal rewards and to the fullest, not only for ourselves but also for those we serve. To strip the "good" which is to be done of the conditions which generate its virtue is also to strip the administrators and recipients of such aid of their dignity, making them wards of the state - so much less than image-bearers of Christ.
To be sure, while they remain unserved they are much worse off. Which is why well - intentioned strong efforts such as Chris' disturb me so greatly as they are misdirected. If all that energy were expended on and through the Church, so much greater the work, as all glory would be given to Christ, instead of being diluted on the state!
Dare to think outside the box which ascribes divinity and ultimate responsibility to a human institution, and to seek for solutions which do not begin with, "There ought to be a law."
Nathanael Snow
Posted by: jurisnaturalist | June 25, 2007 4:30 PM
Chris Myers Asch wrote:
Recent studies show that more students than ever emerge from high school wanting to serve their country and their community. But they often find themselves freshman year on campuses that are indifferent, if not outright hostile, to such high-minded ideals.
Now here's an oddity: those universities that are so hostile to the ideals of service, are largely under the direction of faculty and administrators with secular liberal outlooks. Can there be a connection?
Wolverine
Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2007 5:07 PM
Umm Nowhere is his post saying that his ideas are the solution. They are place where solutions can be created and grown. You all on the right and folks like juris believe that the government can do no real good. I know that's not true. There are plenty of examples in the old testament that speak to that. Anyone remember sanctuary cities...? The government like individual efforts can be used for good or ill. It really does depend.
Nathaniel,
Please do not be naive enough to think that individuals will always make things better if anything they can make it worse just as much as the state. I am sorry but feeding a family is not diluted work. Christ gets the glory regardless if people convert and the overt level of arrogance about the majesty of the church is disturbing. The church is flawed just like every human institution. Yes I called it a human institution as it was made for man and not man for it. It's about community and for some really odd reason you seem to deify it as a cureall. Just to bring this discussion down to earth a little we really need to examine the church and actually let it do what it can do and let the state do what it can. Instead of hating government which is what folks on right and you do please try to use it as a tool to feed people because when it's all said and done the church can't do it alone. That's a fact.
p
Posted by: Payshun | June 25, 2007 5:31 PM
In some countries, such as Austria, students give several years of service for a small stipend after high school and before college. I would love to see this in the USA where students can serve the country (and humanity) by joining organizations like the forestry, environmental agencies, peace corp, paramedic or firefighting training and service, etc. The benefits would not only be stronger, better communities but also more mature college students with the better chances of having goals and direction when they start their higher education.
Posted by: Maggie Roy | June 25, 2007 8:03 PM
P,
I will address your example of the sanctuary cities.
These were cities appointed for anyone accused of wrongful death. The accused could run there for sanctuary until the case was brought to a judge. Once the case was heard the judge's verdict, according to the law, was followed.
I have no quarrel with this form of government. I don't believe it requires central organization, but it is clearly Biblical. It does not, however, assign to the state the responsibility of caring for the least of these. Rather than calling this a "good" which the state performs, I prefer to look at it as a "harm" which it prevents.
In regards to the rest of your comments:
1. Individuals and the state have equivalent potential for doing harm.
True, except the state does its harm in the name of the law, whereas individuals do their harm in contradiction to the law.
2. Feeding a family is not diluted work. True, but it ought to be done by the Church. To be clear, I don't advocate removal of welfare programs until the Church has risen up to meet the need on its own. If it never does, then the Church is to blame for the further loss of liberty and dignity we all will endure.
3. I don't advocate the use of social programs by the church to cloak evangelistic agendas. We are to feed the hungry regardless of whether they convert.
4. Am I being arrogant about the church? Is Christ arrogant or is He God? Did He establish the Church or did He not? If He did establish the Church and assign it a peculiar ethic and a social mandate, then it is a special institution, not to be compared to other human institutions, just as Christians are peculiar people since we believe we have God living inside of us in the person of the Holy Spirit enabling us to do good works which our flesh cannot perform. I suppose this is an exclusive, and perhaps an arrogant position if it is not borne with much humility by acknowledging that it is Christ which lives in me, not I myself who deserves the glory for the good which I am now able to perform. To be able to do good IS the blessing.
5. I don't hate law. I do hate pagan centralized government. Whenever it feeds someone it does so with strings attached. If the state were restricted to protecting rights and enforcing contracts it would do well. God rebuked the Israelites for desiring a king. Arbitrary centralized leadership is pagan in its root. It demonstrates a rejection of God and His law in favor of a law giver who can be manipulated by various special interests.
6. I believe that the church can feed the hungry, and those it cannot are covered by God's sovereignty. I believe it is a sin to coerce others into doing what we think is good. It is patronizing and legalistic. It places a perceived good above the command of God.
Nathanael Snow
Posted by: jurisnaturalist | June 26, 2007 10:08 AM
" I would love to see this in the USA where students can serve the country (and humanity) by joining organizations like the forestry, environmental agencies, peace corp, paramedic or firefighting training and service, etc."
What is preventing them from doing this at present?
Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2007 12:40 PM
I have two questions for the advocates of this type of school"
1) Can't people already get degrees in public administration? How would a federal service academy be different?
2) Obviously, there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people already working for governments (federal, state, local) all around the country. Are they not effective? If so, why do we need an acacdemy? If not, what is the reason to believe that individuals who graduate from a new service academy will be more effective?
And a comment, I work in Washington, DC and know lots of people who work for the federal government. They do it for all sorts of reasons: good pay, job security, good benefits, they like politics and/or making policy, they find the work exciting, etc. You might be able to find one or two who say they do it because they just really wanted to "serve" the country. I know there are lots of people who love to serve others, but they rarely view the joining government as the best way to do so.
Posted by: Eric | June 26, 2007 1:34 PM
Just a quick note. Lots of folks are remarking that you can get these degrees elsewhere, but you can also get military training elsewhere. Like most Naval Officers, I was commissioned by NROTC. Should we close the military academies because you can get military officers from other sources?
Having an academy would focus the nation's attention to this notion of service, and eventually (maybe after a few decades) increase the prestige of such position in the same way going to Anapolis has some special weight that I didn't get from NU NROTC.
Posted by: JimII | June 26, 2007 2:15 PM
JimII
Actually, I think that the existence of NROTC points to the value of having a wide range of sources for potential leaders, whether in the military or in civilian life.
In any field there will be a handful of elite schools that will predominate. In the military it's West Point and Annapolis. In diplomacy it's the Ivy League and Georgetown. In law there are several including Harvard, Yale, Michigan, and Chicago. Name a field of public service and there's almost guaranteed to be several top schools in place already.
There's no need for an elite public service school. We already have several. Any that we try to create now is liable to evolve into an ENA and that's about the last thing we need here.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | June 26, 2007 2:41 PM
The military academies have weight partly because admittance into the institutions is so competitive. They represent that best and brightest students from across the country.
While you can get military training from ROTC programs (that is, at the schools that have not shut such programs down), you cannot get a military degree. You can get degrees in public service administration.
As to the question of whether we should open up schools as a symbolic gesture, I don't see any compelling reason why that should be so. If we do fund it, it stands to reason that it should come out of exisiting funding for public colleges and universities, which I wouldn't necessarily oppose.
Posted by: kevin s. | June 26, 2007 2:49 PM
JimII - I think the best argument in favor of not eliminating the military academies despite ROTC programs at non-military schools, is that the military doesn't want to rely solely on other colleges and universities to supply them with their officers. But because we're currently getting more than enough people interested in working for the government right now, it doesn't appear there's a need to create an academy for this purpose.
You also wrote that "Having an academy would focus the nation's attention to this notion of service, and eventually (maybe after a few decades) increase the prestige of such position..."
Why do you think we need to raise the prestige of working for the government? Also, do you really think it would be beneficial for society for self-sacrificing, service-minded people to think of the government as their ticket to serving others? Wouldn't it be be more constructive for them to find ways to serve others outside of the government?
I used to think that Sojo was an entity that felt that churches and civil society had fallen down on the job of helping the less fortunate so the government needed to step in. It's posts like Asch's that make me think Sojo's real belief is the government should be the default support mechinism and churches should fill in the gaps.
Personally, I'd rather have people working for the government who weren't sequestered for four years in an institution designed solely to train them to be a "civil servant."
Posted by: Eric | June 26, 2007 2:51 PM
Nathaniel said:
I have no quarrel with this form of government. I don't believe it requires central organization, but it is clearly Biblical. It does not, however, assign to the state the responsibility of caring for the least of these. Rather than calling this a "good" which the state performs, I prefer to look at it as a "harm" which it prevents.
Me:
You can call it whatever you like because you are still ignoring other aspects of the old testament law where the state was assigned the duty to feed the people. Take for instance the laying aside of parts of land, they were untilled so that strangers could pick their share and eat. That came from God to a centralized unified Israelite government where each tribe was called to set aside land for food usage. That's still governmental welfare for a semi pagan state. (Israel could only stay committed to God for small amounts of time.)
Not to mention each tribe was called by God and their respective leadership (government for lack of a better term) to set aside food for the priests (levites) so that they could focus on the spiritual aspects of the nation of Israel. That's welfare too. So if you have a problem w/ that I don't know what to tell you.
There are other examples where the Israelite kings showed mercy and protected an enemies camp and a host of other interesting and complex things.
You said:
True, except the state does its harm in the name of the law, whereas individuals do their harm in contradiction to the law.
Me:
This is simply not true. Not be rude but do you live in a dream world. Individuals and the state work together thru law to cause harm just easily as one or the other does alone. I can site many historic examples of this.
You:
2. Feeding a family is not diluted work. True, but it ought to be done by the Church. To be clear, I don't advocate removal of welfare programs until the Church has risen up to meet the need on its own. If it never does, then the Church is to blame for the further loss of liberty and dignity we all will endure.
Me:
I don't care who does it as long as it gets done. What is your definition of liberty? Having the church not feed people does not take liberty from me. If you talk about taxes being used to help the less fortunate I have no problem w/ my money being used for the betterment of the country. I see feeding people in the same vein as building highways. They are both equally important.
YOU:
4. Am I being arrogant about the church?
Me:
Yes you are. The church has a special mandate but if you think it's somehow better or more equipped to carry it out than any other institution then you are deluding yourself.
YOU:
Is Christ arrogant or is He God?
Me:
Arrogant and God so both.
YOU:
Did He establish the Church or did He not?
Me:
Ofcourse he established it.
YOU:
If He did establish the Church and assign it a peculiar ethic and a social mandate, then it is a special institution, not to be compared to other human institutions, just as Christians are peculiar people since we believe we have God living inside of us in the person of the Holy Spirit enabling us to do good works which our flesh cannot perform. I suppose this is an exclusive, and perhaps an arrogant position if it is not borne with much humility by acknowledging that it is Christ which lives in me, not I myself who deserves the glory for the good which I am now able to perform. To be able to do good IS the blessing.
Me:
I agree that from a spiritual perspective it is a very special institution but when humans get involved it becomes a very human institution. You can see this clearly in every church, in every denomination and in the larger history of the Catholic, Protestant, Coptic, Orthodox and other Christian churches. These holy set apart pieces of the body committed genocide, encouraged it, created forced labor, slavery and any number of social ills. Sorry but that's a human problem. It's a human thing and God had nothing to do w/ that. If anything it was those things that led him to judge it for all the evil it did and continues to do.
For all this talk about the beauty and union of the Holy spirit w/n us we have not erradicated any of the major social issues of the day and the church is far more affluent then it was 2000 years ago. So my point is that we as a church are indeed a very unique spiritual blessing to this world but when we have flesh and use it we are just like everyone else, no better or worse just united w/ God. The sooner we accept that, the sooner we can actually work on changing this world for the better.
YOU:
5. I don't hate law. I do hate pagan centralized government. Whenever it feeds someone it does so with strings attached. If the state were restricted to protecting rights and enforcing contracts it would do well. God rebuked the Israelites for desiring a king. Arbitrary centralized leadership is pagan in its root. It demonstrates a rejection of God and His law in favor of a law giver who can be manipulated by various special interests.
ME:
You can't be this naive. You really think the church is immune to that type of coercion and manipulation? You really believe the church doesn't engage in this now? Cmon now. We are just as broken as the world but we just like to pretend we are not. Even though Israel was rebuked for desiring a king God still gave it to them. He gave it to them and redeemed it thru Christ. So in the end your point is a mute one. If Christ is King and he is then this whole thing looks a lot different.
You:
6. I believe that the church can feed the hungry, and those it cannot are covered by God's sovereignty. I believe it is a sin to coerce others into doing what we think is good. It is patronizing and legalistic. It places a perceived good above the command of God.
Me:
I don't. God doesn't all the time and he calls the state, individuals and the church to force people to do the right thing all the time and he will continue to. If I waited for people to do the right thing I would still be a slave. We may not be able to change a person's heart and cause them to care about another but we can make sure their belly is fed. That's more important then whether or not the feelings get hurt because you are doing something you disagree w/.
p
Posted by: Payshun | June 26, 2007 4:04 PM
Eric:
And a comment, I work in Washington, DC and know lots of people who work for the federal government. They do it for all sorts of reasons: good pay, job security, good benefits, they like politics and/or making policy, they find the work exciting, etc. You might be able to find one or two who say they do it because they just really wanted to "serve" the country. I know there are lots of people who love to serve others, but they rarely view the joining government as the best way to do so.
Me:
I agree completely. The government is now become ineffectual and a pathetic spectacle of what it used to try to be. It can't get anything done and that's the real problem. I could not work there but I know others that still can and do. I used to intern in Washington and it made me reconsider my belief in the government to accomplish good social things. (thanks republican representative.) But I know that good still happens.
p
Posted by: Payshun | June 26, 2007 4:11 PM
"Now here's an oddity: those universities that are so hostile to the ideals of service, are largely under the direction of faculty and administrators with secular liberal outlooks. Can there be a connection?"
Hmmm. The studies that Asch cites seem to be mostly about students who can't attend the college of their choice because they can't afford it. It might be well, though, to remember the motto of Antioch College, which recently closed its doors because it was, apparently, too liberal for the current climate: "Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity."
Posted by: Another nonymous | June 26, 2007 4:16 PM
OoOo where can I tithe for this, or are you just gonna tax me?
Posted by: aaron | June 26, 2007 9:47 PM
I think the closing of Antioch is the tip of an iceberg wherein colleges are held accountable, fiscally and educationally. Their politics have nothing to do with their closing. They have been in trouble throughout their existence, and I think parents and the community are drifting away from colleges that do not offer any tangible benefit.
Posted by: kevin s. | June 26, 2007 11:30 PM
P,
“Ignoring aspects of the OT Law where the state was assigned the duty to feed the people.”
But, there WAS no state. There were courts, and there were individuals. The people were to feed the people. Voluntarily. Show me the law where the state was to punish the stingy.
Welfare was written into their moral code and their institutions, I will grant you. I remain optimistic that the church can be that institution which performs social good.
Again, the food brought to the priests was brought voluntarily. It is the element of force which I am so adamantly opposed to.
“Individuals and the state work together thru law to cause harm” if the law were limited to its two primary laws, protection of rights and enforcement of contracts, then ther would not be opportunity to manipulate it.
“I don't care who does it as long as it gets done.”
Then you are just as deluded as I am. For the poor will always be with you. Pursuit of an ends by any means is a dangerous way to live. All kinds of behavior becomes justifiable. I say, behave justly in your use of means, and leave the ends to God.
My definition of liberty is to do whatever I want to do, and for everyone else to do the same, with the one condition of not encroaching on other’s person or property.
You might have no problem with tax money being used to help the less fortunate. I agree that feeding people has parallels with building highways. I would have those built privately as well. I remain consistent here. Both are important enough that they ought to be performed privately.
It’s not that I trust individuals, but that I trust God, and recognize the spontaneous order which emerges when individuals are left alone.
Your separation of the spiritual significance from the physical relevance of the church is a form of Gnosticism. Most of the history of the church is tainted by its marriage to the state. I submit to you that absent the influence of the state the chuch performs its mandate, and does so quite well.
Maybe the point isn’t to eradicate any major social issues. Maybe it’s to live righteously, and to leave the results up to God.
If you don’t believe you are a better person since coming to know Jesus, then why do you bother to believe in Him? If the Holy Spirit is not effectual, then why bother? I for one know that I am infinitely better now than I was before. I know that the good which I do I do through the spirit in the same power and authority as Christ. This is exciting, and worthwhile.
God never calls the church to force individuals to do anything. He calls the state to punish evildoers. If you waited for people to do the right thing you would be free now, perhaps a generation later than you were, and without a civil war which ruined the economy and helped perpetuate Jim Crow in the South longer than necessary.
I disagree that full bellies is an end justifiable in itself for which any means necessary are legitimate.
Nathanael Snow
Posted by: jurisnaturalist | June 27, 2007 7:50 AM
Nathaniel said:
Your separation of the spiritual significance from the physical relevance of the church is a form of Gnosticism. Most of the history of the church is tainted by its marriage to the state. I submit to you that absent the influence of the state the chuch performs its mandate, and does so quite well.
ME:
God I wish were gnostic but you are still living in fantasy land when it comes to the church. When the church was not married to the state it was still just as big a mess as it was before that. That's why Paul was writing all his letters. he had to straigthen out poor theology, practice and praxis.
The church is first and foremost a spiritual union between God and man. For you to say that's not true shows how little you know about the scriptures. The kingdom of heaven is first and foremost a union of faith and practice, love and trust. It's not about the end result, it's about the way we love and are loved. That's our faith. That's what matters.
I still don't understand how you can trust the private sphere as much as you do when you know that it has been just as brutal as the public one. One can see this thru European history and how the serfs were treated by the ruling elite, or... There are too many examples that demonstrate that the private sphere can be as brutal or destructive as the public one.
I am a contemplative and a mystic that understands that the transforming power of Jesus works to free me from the condemnation of sin and it's ability to absolutely control my life.
You said:
If you don’t believe you are a better person since coming to know Jesus, then why do you bother to believe in Him? If the Holy Spirit is not effectual, then why bother? I for one know that I am infinitely better now than I was before. I know that the good which I do I do through the spirit in the same power and authority as Christ. This is exciting, and worthwhile.
Me:
I believe in Him because He loves me. His death and resurection are great gifts but even if he did not do those things he would still be worthy of my love and adoration because he is love incarnate. Love deserves to loved back. Your faith (judging from what you wrote) centers on the acts he does for you and not on the purity of loving God freely w/o conditions. Is that really love?
The Holy Spirit is effectual in some ways but then I still sin. He can't stop that from happening but he can make it so that I bounce back from it much more quickly and heal others as I do. The Holy Spirit's job is to transform me into a person for healing for myself and the world, protecting me from some of the more dangerous aspects of my psyche and spiritual condition, intercession and to make me a person of deep grace and abiding love. That is powerful and exciting but also hard and challenging.
you said:
But, there WAS no state. There were courts, and there were individuals. The people were to feed the people. Voluntarily. Show me the law where the state was to punish the stingy.
Welfare was written into their moral code and their institutions, I will grant you. I remain optimistic that the church can be that institution which performs social good.
Me:
This is simply not true. When Pharoah assigned Joseph to feed the known world that was a state condition not something made by a court or committee. That was force. When the King of Babylon put Daniel in charge of feeding people it was an autocratic order. That was also force so... Oh and God used it. The King's command was law and that was a state, an empire and something the world had to contend w/. Not only that but there were provinces, lands, regions city states and any number of local controls. So your point here ignores history.
I am all for recognizing the power of the church to transform the world but what you are suggesting is not only realistic but naive and foolish. The church can feed many but the government can feed all. I would rather people be fed and children protected than not. You prefer something else I get it.
p
Posted by: Payshun | June 27, 2007 5:00 PM
One last thing I trust God to feed people but I don't trust people to be the hands by which he feeds them. God has the benefit of having the larger picture, a perspective that allows for dying and the dead and redemption. As I am one w/ Him I share that. But I also know my Father's heart and it is his desire to feed many in any way possible even if your liberty (aka greed) is impinged upon.
p
Posted by: Payshun | June 27, 2007 5:16 PM
Payshun wrote:
I trust God to feed people but I don't trust people to be the hands by which he feeds them.
The thing is, government is a lot like Soylent Green: it's made of people. Any flaws you see in people in the market or in their families or in the church will eventually be reflected in the government as well.
As an aside -- unlike Mr. Snow I don't see the government as a pagan establishment and I won't say it has no role to play at all in helping the poor, but I do think you are inclined to sell the church short.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | June 27, 2007 7:10 PM
Wolvie said:
As an aside -- unlike Mr. Snow I don't see the government as a pagan establishment and I won't say it has no role to play at all in helping the poor, but I do think you are inclined to sell the church short.
Me:
That is a fair and accurate critique. I just wish the church had not earned it.
p
Posted by: Payshun | June 27, 2007 7:19 PM
Payshun:
Touché.
Wolverine
Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 9:54 PM
I disagree -
I believe that many of our schools of higher education do challenge and admonish their students to become involved in their communities either FT or PT to make them a better place.
My son who attends a small Christiam University in Chicago had been challenged along with his classmate to work with the homeless, at risk childrem and students, Habitat for Humanity, Big Bro & Sis etc. This school even have a BA in 'Not-for-Profit' administration. Some like my son are going into FT christian work and will challenge his kids to be involved in the community and 'the song goes on.'
No - I am not interested in have the Gov't start an academy. Let's support the colleges and universities that are intentional about not only educating our young people for a career of their choice, but also prepare them for a life of servanthood for the community they life in.
Be blessed -
.
Posted by: moderatelad | June 28, 2007 9:18 AM
P,
I’d rather the church were stuck in the issues of theology, practice, and practice than out and out paganism and Gnosticism, which is where we are today.
Salvation is a union between God and man, the church is a covenant relationship among believers under the blood of Christ. It gives every believer a claim on his brother via their personal relationships with Christ.
I believe you know a great deal about the Scriptures, I , too, am a student of the Book, and a seeker of truth.
I also believe in faith and practice, lave and trust, but I ‘m not sure what you mean by these terms, or what your point is.
It is about the end result: that Christ be glorified, not that we love and are loved. The love is mercy, and adds to His glory. I could go all-out Piper here, but I’ll stop.
It’s not so much that I “trust” the private sphere. I recognize the self-interestedness of man, and that the market system best takes advantage of this quality and turns it to the most efficient allocation of goods. However, in such a system, the truly poor and helpless are neglected. Thus, the church is necessary to care for the least of these. I don’t understand why anyone outside of the church would give a damn about the least of these, although I know that many of them do. If they choose to help the poor it is a reflection of the common grace upon them, but not an imitation of Christ. God alone knows in each case, but the question is about whether it is right to FORCE anyone to do good by caring for the poor. I do not see how this can be justified. The need does not justify the means.
Serfdoms were forms of statism, on a micro level. The private sphere ought to be brutal and competitive. In this manner it engages in creative destruction and finds new sources for expanded wealth which is shared by all. Of course the wealthy enjoy more of the expanded wealth, but inequality is not important to me at all except in terms of equality under the law.
I believe that God’s love is effectual for changing my behavior. I believe that my life has a different quality now that I have accepted His love. I am a different person. If I were not, what would that say about the saving power of Christ’s death and resurrection? Do I continue to sin, of course. The difference is now I have the ability through the power of the Holy Spirit to choose to do good. I can do as Christ did, seeing the things that the Father is doing, and participate in doing them.
Your examples are of foreign states, not of the people God intended Israel to be. Does God manipulate states? Indeed. These foreign powers were based on pagan laws. Israel was unique in that it had been given the natural law upon which to live. It did not need an arbitrary law giver. Israel also had courts and appeals courts for refining the law. The case law which grew out of this process is the book of Deuteronomy. All necessary law can be discovered and refined through the judicial process. There is no need for a legislature if the law is confined to its sphere.
You call me naïve, but perhaps I am just young and optimistic. I really believe this message, and the potential of the church to accomplish it. What is required is assumption by the church of full responsibility for the least of these. This message is consistent with the scriptures and the Christian ethic. Engrandizement of the state is not.
I don’t trust people to be the hands which feed, either. I trust the power and decree of God. He has given this responsibility to the Church. He trusted us. He did not give this responsibility to the state. Christ did not trust the state.
I would rather be free and starving than enslaved and fed. I hope you can agree with me here.
Nathanael Snow
Posted by: jurisnaturalist | June 28, 2007 11:58 AM
Nathaniel said:
I would rather be free and starving than enslaved and fed. I hope you can agree with me here.
Me:
I agree to some extint considering I have been that before. (starving and free) That type of freedom is not really freedom it's only an ego validation of the desire to not be a part of society. I don't think that's freedom, as a matter of fact I consider that slavery to one's own ego. But that's a whole other point.
you said:
I don’t trust people to be the hands which feed, either. I trust the power and decree of God. He has given this responsibility to the Church. He trusted us. He did not give this responsibility to the state. Christ did not trust the state.
Me:
Then by that logic you will trust that the power/decree of God thru the state can feed people if he chooses to do that. I would also argue that he has given that responsibility to the all mankind as the Good Samaritan parable demonstrates. None of them were Christian and had nothing to do w/ that but yet he in his wisdom sought to show something much broader than church mandate.
You:
Your examples are of foreign states, not of the people God intended Israel to be. Does God manipulate states? Indeed. These foreign powers were based on pagan laws. Israel was unique in that it had been given the natural law upon which to live. It did not need an arbitrary law giver. Israel also had courts and appeals courts for refining the law. The case law which grew out of this process is the book of Deuteronomy. All necessary law can be discovered and refined through the judicial process. There is no need for a legislature if the law is confined to its sphere.
Me:
If that were simply true they would never have kept needing to refine it and add more laws. My point was that Israel and other states chose to have kings. Those kings created regions, states, courts and autocratic rule to decide things. In the end in many kingdoms (Israel included) the King was the law.
Also historically speaking Israel still had arbitrary law givers (ie the Prophets...)
You:
I believe that God’s love is effectual for changing my behavior. I believe that my life has a different quality now that I have accepted His love. I am a different person. If I were not, what would that say about the saving power of Christ’s death and resurrection?
Me:
Great question. The saving power of the death and resurrection are the bridge to union (oneness) w/ God. I no longer sin in major ways because of it's power. But I am still the same sinful person I was and no power not even the resurrection can really change that till this body dies. If I do the same things for the same reasons then that means I really did not change to the degree you are insisting.
I did change fundamentally from dead to life. That's true. But I am also still walking in a dead man's body. This body will die and become dirt. As long as I am in it I am a combination of sinner and saint. Your theology gives a lip service to the former while exalting the latter. Rightly so you are an evangelical. I don't need to do that as I am contemplative and don't see that as important.
You:
Do I continue to sin, of course. The difference is now I have the ability through the power of the Holy Spirit to choose to do good. I can do as Christ did, seeing the things that the Father is doing, and participate in doing them.
Me:
Agreed. I said the same thing earlier.
You:
Serfdoms were forms of statism, on a micro level. The private sphere ought to be brutal and competitive. In this manner it engages in creative destruction and finds new sources for expanded wealth which is shared by all.
Me:
Then how can you believe that God is a God for all people when you are ok w/ injustice and brutality?
You:
It is about the end result: that Christ be glorified, not that we love and are loved. The love is mercy, and adds to His glory. I could go all-out Piper here, but I’ll stop.
Me:
I remember when I used to be an evangelical and think in terms like you. Thank God I no longer do but I am glad you have something that works for you. God's glory is transcendent and he is glorified if we are amoebas or praising him next to the angels. Your understanding of his glory is a little immature. Because how he glorifies himself is so amazing, so other, so different that he has to bring us into it for it too count. He does that thru our union w/ the Holy Spirit. So we can't add to the infinite transcendent glory of God. All we can do is exhibit it. That's enough.
You:
Salvation is a union between God and man, the church is a covenant relationship among believers under the blood of Christ. It gives every believer a claim on his brother via their personal relationships with Christ.
Me:
I love your definition of Salvation. It's beautiful and correct. But your definition of the church is lacking. The Church is the union of God w/ mankind under the blood of Christ and one w/ the Holy Spirit. It's a lot bigger than a relationship between believers even though it is unique, powerful and beautiful. It starts w/ the personal relationship w/ Christ but since Christ feels a corporate responsibility for mankind it goes there next and then concludes in an individual and corporate relationship w/ God.
p
Posted by: Payshun | June 28, 2007 3:01 PM
The Good Samaritan story was given to His disciples as an example of the church’s new ethic. I don’t believe that He intended it as a command for everyone.
Laws are refined because each new case is unique and results in a unique decision. Each new decision sets a precedent for future decisions. Israel was rebuked for choosing a centralized state. Prophets added no new laws that I am aware of, but that would be an interesting study. When the king was the law, the people suffered, you’ve made my point for me.
I guess I adopt the Hebraic view of man and reject the Greek. I body and soul as united, and man as one whole. It fascinates me how these fundamental doctrines influence our politics. The body will die… and be resurrected, though it becomes dirt the scriptures are clear that Jesus had a bodily resurrection, and that He promises the same for us.
So, I am an evangelical, in one sense, though you see how I eschew the label.
I need to be more careful about the use of the terms brutal and competitive. I believe that open competition works provided that there is no encroachment or breach of contract. In other words: no use of force or coercion. The market works in this way. Everyone ends up doing what they do best, and Paris gets fed.
“I remember when I used to be an evangelical and think in terms like you.”
Well, I’m certain of one thing: things will change! I remember when I used to be a fundamentalist member of the Religious Right. The more I learn the more I realize how little I know. I persist in making the strongest argument possible because it provokes the strongest and most challenging rebuttals. Thank you.
He does call us to be aware of how we can bring Him glory. While I know that He will be glorified and I agree about its transcendence, I struggle to understand what He is calling us to.
The church is the only legitimate collectivization of human beings. Between any two individuals my sin or yours will require the death of one or both of us. At some point we will sin against the other in such a way that only death will satisfy. But for those who accept Christ’s call to discipleship we receive His forgiveness of our sins and extend His forgiveness of our brothers’. His death has supplanted yours and mine. Only when we have reached this unique place in relation to God and our brother can we agree to anything unselfishly, as a responsive act to His call. What has transpired is a fundamental change in human nature, the same change which socialists seek through the state, but fail to achieve.
Now, able to agree, and able to give unselfishly, we are able to consider and care for the least of these, without a mind to how it may serve our interests. We merely obey the call of Christ. To insist that others must do the same is to force them to act contrary to their nature. It is inhumane and unjust.
Please email me to continue this discussion. I’ve enjoyed it greatly.
ndsnow@ncsu.edu
Nathanael Snow
Posted by: jurisnaturalist | June 28, 2007 4:22 PM
Been There; Done That
My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you – ask what can you do for Hillary Clinton. I served as a guinea pig at Hillary’s “think tank.” Somewhere, between the Soviet Gulag and Purgatory, Hillary spawned the US Public Service Academy. The Duke lacrosse team fiasco shows that liberal educators have created a phony cultural paradigm that distorts reality. But, nobody exploits phony paradigms, obfuscates the truth, or games the system like the Clintons.
I Got Your Public Service Academy; Right Here
Set the Wayback Machine for 23 August 1995: a hot day in the nation’s capitol. But 3000 miles due west on California’s Central Coast, a constellation of events was unfolding that would have a profound effect on Western civilization. Yet, this cataclysmic upheaval was only part of the plan. Bill Clinton picked up the telephone. It was his Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, calling from a payphone in Monterey. Bill held the receiver at arms length and gazed at the tasteful floral arrangement that adorned the Oval Office. Leon’s disembodied voice filled the room. What now, asked Hillary. It’s that damn college, mouthed Bill. There was, no getting out. Hillary nodded, just tell Leon he’ll get whatever he needs: http://theseedsof9-11.com
Posted by: Rosetta Stone | August 20, 2007 2:10 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?