Sounds great Brian, glad to see there is still hope out there.

p

Posted by: Payshun | February 20, 2008 12:52 PM

I'm reminded of an illustration I heard a good many years ago. A large group of hikers were strung out a long a trail, on thier way to the top of a tall mountain. Not too far into the first day, came a fork in the trail that did not seem to be on the map.

Most followed the lead hiker who simply chose the one that looked better to him, and others followed suit. But along came an individual who, observing the trend, suddenly embarked upon an effort to get everyone to follow the other fork, by shouting that "everyone's choosing this way".

Later, when the forks of the trail rejoined at a camping spot, it became obvious that he wasn't exactly right about what those had chosen before him. Some observant soul confronted him about his words and his response was "Well, you all DID choose to go that way, made my words true in retrospect".

Methinks these people are embarked on a campaign to create a political majority by declaring it exists in advance, and hoping people will "follow the masses" like sheep. They're doing nothing different than the "other" people who tried the same thing not so long ago, but from the "other" side of politics.

It's no less corruptive of both faith and politics now than it was then.

Posted by: The Watcher | February 20, 2008 1:22 PM

... but what happens to those that stand for a traditional set of moral values? Are they now the unenlightened, anti-Jesus, bigots the liberals love to believe they are?

That depends on your definition of "traditional set of moral values." I personally fit under the definition of "social conservative," yet I have long recognized there are, among others, economic and racial implications of the Gospel. Too bad that too many so-called conservatives -- who would defend to the death the inerrancy of the Scriptures -- ignore them, and because of that their day is fast passing.

Having been myself involved in "religious media," I know from personal experience that the fastest way to grow and maintain an audience is to bring up some "bogeyman" to raise money and power against. When I first became a Christian it was "secular humanism"; later it became the Soviet Union, the "gay lobby," Bill Clinton -- the list never ended. It never occurred to them that the secular right was calling the shots, so interested the "religious right" was interested in maintaining its own authority, and ironically it ended up forfeiting is ability to speak for God.

To suggest that the Christian media doesn't properly proclaim the Gospel is not only condescending to all those that appreciate all it offers, but it is also divisive and we are called as a body to be unified.

Because what I said above, the Christian media simply cannot afford to proclaim the entire Gospel, "the poor having good news preached to them." If it were simply or primarily about "fire insurance," that's easy, but if it's about making things right (see Mary's Magnificat), well, that's "socialism."

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 20, 2008 1:46 PM

I respect Rick's response greatly, however I still am not convinced. I know some of the leadership at organizations like Moody Bible Institute and they are very genuine in their broad respresentation of the Gospel. It was on their Chicago based radio station that I spoke with Wallis and I feel they really work on bringing all different perspectives from the Kingdom into play, albeit maintaining a traditional Biblical core. Perhaps other 'religous media' aren't as pure as i find MBI to be, but I don't believe the emergent movement to be immuned to similar methods of raising a flag towards a common enemy. Their foe seems to be more the conservative Christian community than sin itself, and that I find disturbing.
I appreciate this honest debate we share in.

Posted by: Steve S | February 20, 2008 2:45 PM

Steve S, I take issue with your using this term 'absolute truth', as if you -- or any of us -- have absolute truth, and, as you say, "Christ [would] be proclaimed just as affectively while standing on the foundation of absolute truth."

I want, and attempt to believe, that Christ is the embodiment of absolute truth. And I get a good (but not total) picture of this through the Bible. But I don't claim to know absolute truth because I know all of Christ's words, etc. There's not enough there for 100% enlightenment. And how can anyone suggest there is? We do the best we can.

Christ asked us to follow him through his life and actions in numerous specific ways. He did not ask us to do our best to be right about everything. We are part of an order of following Christ if we are Christians, and loving our neighbor as best we can. We have some truth but we don't have absolute truth. Meanwhile, we have access to the one who does. This seems like a delineation worth noting. I hope to be humbled by it so I might be of use to an infinite god.

Amen.

Posted by: Geoff | February 20, 2008 3:19 PM

Who wants to read another book that says the same thing as the other several written on the same subject. What makes this book unique.

Posted by: Joseph Grigoletti | February 20, 2008 3:38 PM

Geoff... the simple usage of your Amen at the end poses a self-rightous tone and if your use of god (lowercase) was deliberate, it was remarkably disrepectful, bordering on blasphemy.
And I believe you have absolute truth misinterpreted and have fallen prey to postmodernistic thinking. (Just because its the modern philosphy of the day, does not make it more accurate/valid than a previous school of thought).
Absolute truth is infallible truth, not complete knowledge on a subject. On earth, we will never have complete knowledge of God and his majesty. We can however, by believing the Scripture, be assured that we hold in our hands infallible, absolute truth. You might deny that, but to deny it gets at the root of our difference. If you do not believe the Bible to be infallible you have not fully put your faith in the Word of THE Amighty God. It is one thing to struggle with doubt, but to state that the Bible is fallible is simply a folly and lack of faith. God offers faith through prayer. God blesses those who seek.
I know the emergents can't stand to hear such strong terms and convictions on spiritual matters and it goes against the grain, but that is the Gospel. Christ, OT heroes and the New Testament writers were controversial and bold; not just in the social activism, but in their statements calling for faith. Christ said "I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life. Nobody comes to the Father but by me." If you find the Bible to not be absolute truth, that statement holds no water and faith has no firm foothold (which might be okay, infact expected of a postmodern).

Posted by: Steve S | February 20, 2008 4:08 PM

I know the emergents can't stand to hear such strong terms and convictions on spiritual matters and it goes against the grain, ...

Do you really? Perhaps it's that kind of dogmatism they can't stand, less because of actual doctrine than the attitude behind it. In my experience conservatives don't do a good job of communicating their convictions in a way that people can understand them.

Besides, we also need to show, not just tell, the effect of the Gospel on our lives -- as the saying goes, talk is cheap. I'm told that the "emergents" want to get back to a sense of the holy, where their parents in contrast often wanted a God they could manipulate and manage for their own purposes.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 20, 2008 4:50 PM

Teaching a man to fish is far more valuable provided he can still eat while he's learning. As individuals, generosity should be recognized as noble. However it is perfectly legitimate to keep this generosity at a personal level rather than be 'forced' into it by a governing body. Giving should be and can be from the heart, not required by a socialist position.

The problem I see with what you just wrote is that the Bible isn't anywhere near as individualistic as you make it out to be. "I got mine and to hell with you" was never a Scriptural response to poverty -- but that's basically what you're saying, because many of the poor really don't even have the kind of access to education, jobs etc. that the "rich" take for granted. What you're inaccurately calling "socialism" really represents government-granted access so that those that don't have get an opportunity, and that's Biblically justifiable.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 20, 2008 4:59 PM

Thanks for your response.

I would say that 'government granted access' is socialism. Its being paid for by the wealthy and given to the rest of the people.

I do not wish to suggest that I have a "greedy" approach to society. I plainly said that we all should be inspired to give out of the freedom and liberty we experience, not be forced to funnel our giving through beaucracy and secular means. Greed is a Biblical vice and I obviously wouldnt fall into the trap of promoting it. We are given the freedom to share what we are blessed with, and I, speaking for many, do not wish to have the government manage that. I can manage giving, spending, and saving and my money on my own, thank you very much.

Posted by: Steve S | February 20, 2008 5:06 PM

Steve S.,

I appreciated your response and your other following responses. You clarified I what I thought to be contradictory in your first post. Thanks! I may not 100% agree on everything you said, but I do think we have a common ground.

I agree with Rick Nowlin that a lot of "conservatives don't do a good job of communicating their convictions in a way that people can understand them." And I think he's pointed out a weakness with them here. However, I do like your previous post that "I do not wish to suggest that I have a "greedy" approach to society. I plainly said that we all should be inspired to give out of the freedom and liberty we experience, not be forced to funnel our giving through bureaucracy and secular means...."

[Aside note] Giving does have to come from the heart and not because someone tells you. But as a follower of Christ it is hard to dance around the fact that giving comes with the Christian lifestyle. There may be something wrong one's interpretation of Scripture if they do not feel compelled to do good works for others because we have been blessed and have been given grace.

Despite what you (Steve) may think about emergents (and I'm not saying you hate them, but it seems you are at least indifferent to them), I do appreciate what they have brought to the table, so to speak. But I wouldn't say they have all the answers either, nor do I agree with everything they may stand up for.

God Bless!

Posted by: Matt21 | February 20, 2008 6:01 PM

Who wants to read another book that says the same thing as the other several written on the same subject. What makes this book unique.

Posted by: Joseph Grigoletti | February 20, 2008 3:38 PM

Apparently you've read it since you state that it "says the same thing as the other several written on the same subject." Why then are YOU asking "what makes this book unique?"

Posted by: I said it, I believe it | February 20, 2008 6:13 PM

Jim -- Marx was actually born Jewish; his family converted to Lutheranism when he was a child (for social, not spiritual, reasons).

rick, please tell me where do you get these statements? what are they based on? maybe this is "superior knowledge" generalities ozzing out of your biased head.

I used to read "religious right" publications, listened regularly to Christian radio and was a regular viewer of the 700 Club until 1985. So I got this straight from the horse's mouth, if you will -- a "religious justification" for cutting back social programs that actually helped people, sanctioning racism (specifically, apartheid in South Africa) and other Biblically unacceptable stances that then passed for evangelical Christianity. In fact, I didn't even know until later that there was even a "secular right" out there that at times gave it cover.

And also, I do get the Gospel and the "Great Commission" right -- if anything, I take it back to its original context, which is to create a whole new "family" inspired by God to bless the entire world, which is why the Gospel represents far, far more than "fire insurance." If you read the book "God's Politics," even the late Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ, confessed to Jim Wallis that "caring for the poor is part of the Great Commission" because it was what Jesus taught -- and he didn't just mean contributing to charities, either! The most important part of the book was the $1,000 check Bright sent to Sojo and just when Jim opened it a staff person mentioned that Bill had just died.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 20, 2008 8:48 PM

Rick,
I would like to give you info on a conference call for African-American pastors/leaders--if you would be willing to email me at runwiththechariots@ya hoo.com

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 20, 2008 9:42 PM

"Abortion, though legal, wasn't really an issue in those days"

It wasn't expressly prohibited, which is altogether different from it being legal. They did not advocate its legality.

"And as far as tax rates and gun rights were concerned, your comments represent pure conjecture and are thus not germane to the discussion."

Suggesting that their politics aligned with those of a modern day progressive Christian group is inherently an act of conjecture. They did not call for restrictions on gun rights, and did not call for the level of taxation we see today.

It is entirely relevant that the church of Acts didn't call on governmental redistribution, for precisely the reason that they did live differently from the rest of the world. I draw a parallel between the church of Acts and Marxist thought is ridiculous.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 20, 2008 11:21 PM

I have never had such mixed feelings during a political campaign. Believe we really need to be in prayer for this nation and the candidates. There are issues much deeper than who becomes the President.

Prayerfully..........

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 20, 2008 11:30 PM

You can live in simple denial because it's a hard gospel to submit to, but the fact is that the early church lived in an absolutely communal way, and distributed DAILY food for those who were hungry. (do you think this might have included more than the Grecian widows?) The infallible Word of God in Acts records that the early Christians sold their possessions and "as needed" sold houses or property they owned and "laid the money at the feet of the apostles." I am not arguing here that from this we can extrapolate that we should be doing the same today, but it sounds good, doesn't it? They also, is it not true, refused to fight for any nation, in anybody's army, because they had a higher loyalty than to "serve" any earthly government or military power. Stephen was the firstthe apostles picked to distribute food to the widows and he was "filled with the Holy Spirit" when he gave his eloquent defense, and then calmly and willingly laid down his life and asked his heavely father to forgive his murderers....that's the early church! crazy, huh?

Posted by: PKman | February 21, 2008 12:09 AM

I can't say that the tone of the emergent church is one of self-righteousness. Sure, like any group, there will be those who are, but I think the tone generally ranges from genuinely humble to generally frustrated. The frustration comes from the fact the emerging church is made up in large numbers of folks leaving the conservative evangelical church because of some sort of disillusionment they felt or some hurt brought on them.

For me it was going to an evangelical church and reading the gospels. That study and experience led me to see my church tradition as closer to the Pharisees in the gospels than it was to Jesus. My tradition also seemed more American than Christian. It also had little to offer the impoverished youth I ministered to beyond promising them an afterlife.

The emerging church is really just about folks like me coming together seeking a fuller faith tradition. That may seem like a self-righteous statement but I do not see it as such. It is a statement of someone who left the evangelical church with the belief something was greatly lacking.

We're hardly a religious left though I think that temptation to become such is great and must be resisted. Ironically, Christianity does not thrive from positions of power.

Emerging Christianity is hardly relativistic either. It is a humble movement but one that does stand with conviction that seeking to live the way of Christ is much more important than theological dogma that distracts us from living much of the time. It is by no means a everyone's way is fine type of movement.

A large part of the way of Christ has to do with how we treat those in need. Take Jesus' saying "The poor you will always have with you." This is often used to demonstrate we can't and shouldn't worry too much about the poor. Yet, it refers directly to the book of Deuteronomy where that phrase is followed by "be open handed toward the poor" and the conclusion that there should not be anyone among you who is poor."

Or consider the parables and how they spoke of financial matters or matters related to an unjust tenant farming and tax system. These were not not to be understood in a personal spiritual way but as a confrontation of unjust powers.

It is important to remember that the ancient mind did not separate personal and private. The kings of old led people of faith and were confronted by the prophets who confronted not only their own people but other nations as well. Their message was not one of personal generosity but of justice.

Also, to believe Jesus and his followers did not seek to have governments change the way they did business is to misunderstand their place in society and to miss the subversive Kingdom and Lord language used throughout the New Testament. The kingdoms of the world were called to see this new kingdom and join it in justice, not by saving souls for entrance into Heaven.

Jesus marching on Jerusalem the week prior to his death and stirring up things at the Temple was a call to both the political and religious authorities to justice.

The early Christians, living on the margins of the Roman empire, were in no position to see laws changed. They had no voice. They could live as this new kingdom within the Roman empire and be a city on a hill. They did this by giving up luxuries for their neighbors needs. They did this by refusing to go to war. They did this by causing an empire that saw them as strange and as a threat to marvel at how they took care of not only their own but of non-followers of The Way as well.

American Christians have access in our democracy, even as flawed as it may be. Hopefully, we do not use that access to grab power but to call for justice in all our systems.

Posted by: J. D. Allen | February 21, 2008 2:12 AM

The American military is the largest socialist
organization in the world (with the possible exception of China's military).

American health insurance is socialist in nature.

The Christian socialist Scandinavian societies
are thriving. Their taxes are "high" but no
higher than our taxes plus health insurance
premiums combined. And they get a lot more bang
for their buck (health, education, decent housing, decent senior care)- for everyone.

Our wonderful, liberal, basically Christian post WWII society began to rapidly decay with the ascendance of the Clever-Uber-Military-Industrial-Complex "Conservatives" who targeted non-traditional "conservative Christians" to unthinkingly vote for the war mongering, uber business, aren't-we-wonderful crowd.

God loves everyone equally. Without exception.

Posted by: SEMPER | February 21, 2008 9:44 AM

PKman,
You said,
"the early church lived in an absolutely communal way, and distributed DAILY food for those who were hungry"
Look into this and you may see that this was not a universal practice of the church. We see this in the church in Jerusalem. Look a little closer and you will see why this was the case. We also have no teaching or directive from scripture that tells us this is how we are to live.

Someone else mentioned Matt. 25, which on occasionally is referenced on this site. Who did Jesus mean when he said, "the least of these, my brethren"? Study it and you will see that he wasn't talking about the poor.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | February 21, 2008 10:13 AM

"You didn't even have laws prohibiting abortion until the late 1800s, and even then they were enacted by people you would have considered liberals."

The laws codified what was essentially in practice. And yes, they would have been enacted by liberals then. I would have been a liberal in those times, which is why drawing a comparison to a modern day leftist group doesn't make sense.

"As if that's all they stood for."

As if what's all they stood for?

"Consider that Christians considered Rome corrupt to the core, that wasn't relevant. "

I think American government is equally capable of such corruption. Jim Wallis thinks we've already arrived, though his reasoning is rather off. I don't see the Ted Kennedy's and Mark Foley's of the world as the executors of a redistribution paradigm akin to the church of Acts.

"Thus, "economic redistribution" is a smokescreen for the real issue, which is that conservatives are interested primarily in power"

Well, that's the drum you like to beat, but it isn't where I am coming from. I don't have much power to preserve. Nonetheless, the argument was that the church of Acts finds resonance in Marxist ideology. I disagree.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 21, 2008 10:53 AM

"Based on your previous posts, Kevin, I seriously doubt you would have been a liberal."

That's because you assume that my conservatism is based on an inherent characteristic that seeks to preserve what has past. As such, you think I will be conservative irrespective of context.

While I doubt my protestations will convince you otherwise, my previous posts do nothing to support this view.

"I mean, just because you may disagree with someone's conclusions doesn't mean his observations are faulty."

I didn't say they did, Rick. You seemed confused as to my point of contention, so I identified it. That said, nobody has really made any sort of case that the distribution of the church of Acts ought to be replicated at a governmental level. It was mere assertion, which can only be countered with assertion.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 21, 2008 12:37 PM

"That is the very definition of conservatism, if you haven't noticed, and that's just what modern conservatism tried to do beginning in the 1960s."

You contradict yourself. You say that part of the definition of conservatism as an inherent characteristic, and then note that the characteristic was only achieved in the 1960s. You are conflating the definition of conservatism with the modern conservative movement in America.

"However, as I have consistently said, it misses the point because the issue was never really charity; it was economic justice that the church attempted to model, at least on a small scale, so that "no one had need" and that God's true agenda could be seen and felt."

What misses the point? Your pronoun use is baffling me today. Yes, the church wanted to ensure that nobody lived in need as an example to the world. We are making the same point, only you think it argues for government redistributing income (whether you like that term or not) and I don't see that connection.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 21, 2008 1:50 PM

You are conflating the definition of conservatism with the modern conservative movement in America.

Hardly -- modern conservatism became more activist and more organized than previous conservative movements only because the political and cultural changes taking place were greater and more comprehensive than ever before.

We are making the same point, only you think it argues for government redistributing income (whether you like that term or not) and I don't see that connection.

Sorry, but conservatives have consistently failed to make that case -- conservatives always have focused on "mechanics" (which, in practice, means they intend to give up virtually nothing) rather than the actual needs of the poor. Furthermore, the issues are not strictly economic; they also need to, among other things, be encouraged to vote, run for office, become activists, buy homes -- things that actually stabilize neighborhoods by empowering people but that the "right" never addresses. It's almost as if the right wants the poor to remain poor.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 21, 2008 3:20 PM

Duh-sciple - The simple answer to your question is that the Church and Christians do more.

Imagine if every Christian or Christian family chose one other family in their community that had physical or emotional needs to be met and truly worked to improve their lives. I'm not talking about throwing them a couple bucks when they need it, but truly working to meet their needs. Imagine if more Christians adopted the attitude of Shane Claiborne, who posts here every so often, and devoted their lives to helping others.

Obviously I'm being idealist there, but it's no different than those who think if we just taxed people a little more and or tried a little harder to get the right people in office than we could solve all the world's problems.

Posted by: Eric | February 21, 2008 3:57 PM

Rick - I agree with you when it comes to civil/human rights. When certain groups of citizens are treated differently under the law or outside of the law there is a role for government to play. We should demand that our government treat everyone equally and enforce the laws that command that.

Duh-sciple was asking about poverty issues though, which are, at least in my mind, very different from civil rights.

Posted by: Eric | February 21, 2008 4:11 PM

Brian wrote:

"we may indeed soon have a great awakening on our hands, inspiring followers of Christ to "works of faith and labors of love and endurance in hope" (I Thessalonians 1:3) - all for the common good."

What is required is a REVOLUTION inspired by a GREATER Awakening:

A new way of seeing and relating and evangelizing Jesus, who was NEVER a Christian!

The term 'Christian' was not even coined until the days of Paul, about 3 decades after Jesus walked the earth a man.

Jesus was a social justice, radical revolutionary Palestinian devout Jewish road warrior who rose up and challenged the job security of the Temple authorities by teaching the people they did NOT need to pay the priests for ritual baths or sacrificing livestock to be OK with God; for God already LOVED them just as they were:

Sinners, poor, diseased, outcasts, widows, orphans, refugees and prisoners all living under Roman Military Occupation.

The early followers and lovers of Jesus were called members of THE WAY-being THE WAY he taught one should be; Nonviolent, a Peacemaker and one who did the will of the Father:

"What does God require? He has told you o'man! Be just, be merciful, and walk humbly with your Lord." -Micah 6:8

Jesus remained NONVIOLENT and forgiving even while being mocked, whipped and nailed to a cross and he promised that it is the Peacemakers who are the children of God, not the peace-talkers.

2,000 years ago The Cross had NO symbolic religious meaning. When Jesus said: "Pick up your cross and follow me," He was issuing a POLITICAL statement, for the main roads in Jerusalem were lined with crucified agitators, rebels, dissidents and any others who disturbed the status quo of the Roman Occupying Forces.

100 years before Jesus walked the earth a man, Rabbi Hillel knew that the Hebrew understanding of Hokema; Holy Wisdom; The Feminine Divinity was the same as the Greek understanding of The Logos: The Word.

It was the first John and Paul who understood,

The Word was good and The Word was The Logos and The Word was Jesus.

It was John Lennon on 'Rubber Soul' who intuitively knew:

"The Word is just The Way and The Word is Love."

So, with a little imagination, an open heart and mind, one could see that before Jesus walked the earth a man; He was already a SHE!

Hokema, Holy Wisdom; the Feminine Divinity

Now, isn't that good news and how about these words from the Book of Wisdom?

WISDOM 7:22-8:1:

In Wisdom is a spirit intelligent, holy, unique.

Manifold, subtle, agile, clear, unstained, certain.

Not baneful, but loving the good,

Keen, unhampered, beneficent, kind,

Firm, secure, all-powerful, all-seeing

And pervading all spirits.

Wisdom is mobile beyond all motion and SHE penetrates and pervades all things by reason

SHE is the aura of the might of God and a pure effusion of the glory of The Almighty

SHE is the refulgence of eternal Light, a spotless mirror of the power of God

And SHE who is one, can do all things and renews everything

And passing into holy souls from age to age,

SHE produces friends of God and prophets.

Wisdom has built her house and SHE calls to all; "Come, eat my food and drink my wine and you will live abundant life and walk in the ways of understanding." -Proverbs 9: 4-6

e
http://www.wearewideawake.org/

Posted by: Eileen Fleming | February 21, 2008 4:30 PM

Eric -- Charity can go only so far because even the recipients eventually get tired of "handouts." People who oppose welfare don't understand that most people who are on it don't want to be (and in fact, over 90 percent manage to get off within two years). But if there's no opportunity to make your own way, what can you do?

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 21, 2008 7:55 PM

James Dobson is vilified for two reasons irrelevant to his "faith" in Christ: 1) He consistently vilifies others in order to make a buck; and 2) He rejects counsel from other believers who don't think the way he does, even other conservatives. He has thus lost his authority to speak for God -- even my "conservative, Bible-believing" evangelical pastor has said that.

But absolutely NO PERSON ON EARTH has the authority to speak for God. Not a one of us has been granted direct access and sets earthly policy for God.

If Dobson is or becomes politically activist, (sorry, I really don't know much about him) he'll soon find that politics and faith do not mix. One is human and full of corruption, the other is inspired of God. As soon as you try to make any particular party or ideology 'blessed' of God, or a matter of faith, you have corrupted that faith, or blasphemed God, because that political move will turn out something other than God's leading.

I have faith, and I am politically interested. My faith guides what I relate to my fellow man, whether I care about him or not, for instance.

My experience at life has taught me what's effective and good, and what isn't. Faith guides my motives. Experience and understanding drive how I want things done.

Posted by: The Watcher | February 22, 2008 12:56 AM

If Dobson is or becomes politically activist, (sorry, I really don't know much about him) he'll soon find that politics and faith do not mix. One is human and full of corruption, the other is inspired of God. As soon as you try to make any particular party or ideology 'blessed' of God, or a matter of faith, you have corrupted that faith, or blasphemed God, because that political move will turn out something other than God's leading.

Had you said that in the 1980s you would have been considered crazy, especially in Christian media which often considered Ronald Reagan close to deity. In those days if you were a "liberal" or a Democrat you were in league with Satan.

As for Dobson, let me fill you in. He holds a doctorate in child psychology and founded the SoCal-based "Focus on the Family," whose radio program is a staple in Christian media. But, for some reason, he got involved in the "culture wars," probably because he saw doing so as a shortcut to raise funds and expand his reach.

There's no other nation with more opportunity than here. Not even close. And that opportunity is availabe to EVERYONE who is functional (not mentally or physically incapacitated).

Sorry, but that simply isn't true. I was very talented and considered brilliant as a child and stayed out of trouble, but I know today that I simply did not have access to the same academic and vocational opportunities that my suburban peers did just because I lived in an urban area. That's a fact -- and, truth be told, many suburbanites even today look down upon us who live in the city and deeply resent any "special help" we may get because, deep down, they really believe they're entitled to everything. Where do you think much of the complaining about "welfare" comes from?

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 22, 2008 10:33 AM

"Hardly -- modern conservatism became more activist and more organized than previous conservative movements only because the political and cultural changes taking place were greater and more comprehensive than ever before."

Right. That would argue against the contention that, regardless of context, I would remain conservative.

"Sorry, but conservatives have consistently failed to make that case --"

Make what case? I was simply saying that the church of Acts was dissimilar to Socialism. You don't address that case at all.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 22, 2008 11:02 AM

Rick - Why is what I advocate that Christians do called to help the poor "charity" while what you advocate to help the poor is not charity? Your whole point seems to be that charity is not enough, yet why when Christians and Churches do it it's called charity but when the government does the same thing it's not charity?

I agree that people get tired of handouts. But how is the work that I propose the Church do to counteract poverty a "handout" while the work you propose the government to do to counteract poverty not a handout?

Posted by: Eric | February 22, 2008 11:39 AM

Okay, but I stand by my contention that, in a different context, I would not be a conservative. If I were in China, or in a different time in American history, I would likely be progressive. It just happens that the way I believe government should operate happens to find resonance with the conservative movement at present.

The United States is and has always been among the most ideologically/politically conservative countries in history; "conservatives" in other countries, especially Europe, would be considered "progressives" here and conservatives here have no analogous grouping anywhere else. Thus, I have serious doubts about your claims, particularly at the turn of the last century where evangelicalism was employed for politically "liberal" goals -- which in those days included ending abortion.

If economic redistribution represents a red herring, all the more reason to not shoehorn a political lesson into the book of Acts.

Context, context, context. As was said earlier, the early church had no power to change Roman laws or culture and indeed never even sought it; it focused on "being the church," and that was sufficient, especially for that day. But, far from simply "selling fire insurance," it showed the rest of the world how it should operate, and its willingness to stand out, while also inviting persecution, made it more attractive to outsiders; which is why it didn't need to do a whole lot of what we consider "evangelism."

That said, they would have also understood that the Prophets -- the New Testament wasn't written at that time -- spoke boldly against mistreatment of others, and the Law ordered the people of God to welcome strangers. My point is that there are two points to the Gospel, which correspond to Jesus' summation of the Law, which was "worship God with everything you have" and "do what's right by and for others." And frankly, in my estimation and experience, American conservatism is woefully deficient on the second part because of its focus on strict "roles," if you will, which sabotages actual ministry.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 22, 2008 12:48 PM

Rick - When you say "it" which (government charity or Christian charity) are you referring to? Sorry, it's not clear from your first paragraph.

Posted by: Eric | February 22, 2008 1:15 PM

Rick - Thanks for the clarification. I guess I'm still confused as to your point. I proposed that the Church and Christians need to do more to help those in need and in poverty as an answer to Dun-sciple's question. Why is a government engaging in the same actions I propose (please re-read my original post) the Church engage in superior in your mind?

Posted by: Eric | February 22, 2008 1:58 PM

Why is a government engaging in the same actions I propose (please re-read my original post) the Church engage in superior in your mind?

Because some of the factors keeping the poor in that state are in fact structural and institutional and cannot even be ameliorated by a few dollars and a ministerial focus -- they are dealt with by changing policies, also a Biblical concept. That is, evil systems must be confronted and changed wherever possible. It's like anti-apartheid figure Allan Boesak said a couple of decades ago about not settling for "loosening of some chains" -- "Apartheid must be abolished. Nothing else will do."

I'm not saying, however, that changing systems is everything; people do need to take some responsibility for changing their lives. But they need to know that change is possible, that if they "play by the rules" they can benefit.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 22, 2008 3:12 PM

"Numerous surveys indicate that the rate of drug use among whites is greater than among blacks, but the incarceration rate of blacks vs. whites for similar offenses is something like 3 times as high."

Can I see one such study? I'd like to see what you are dealing with here. I, for one, think institutional change is a great way to alleviate many of the problems you describe.

But, as a conservative, I see governmental programs in light of their costs. Let's take the example of college loans and grants. We spend money on them, which takes it out of the hands of taxpayers. We then spend money to distribute them to students.

As a result of the free money, tuition increases, as students are encouraged to go into substantial debt to attain a degree. Colleges spend hundreds of millions of dollars on facilities and star faculty in a ridiculous horse race funded by parents and governmental subsidies.

Of course, part of the horse race means attracting the best students. How do you attract students? By providing them the education that they want. So we have a generation of double-majoring liberal arts grads who lack any tangible skill to pay back the tremendous debts they have incurred.

Of course, the easy access to education dollars means that college degrees become the new diplomas. As such, the poor are disadvantaged by a process that pours money into a system aimed squarely at the middle class.

So there are two answers to the problem. One is to quit exacerbating the problem by cutting the funding or increasing the funding and exacerbating the problem. But when we turn this into a morality play, it becomes a decision of whether we are for or against education.

That leads to bad decisions that hurt everyone, especially the poor.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 22, 2008 5:55 PM

Kevin,

Here is the first study about drug incarceration (and many other causes as well) that I found using a Google search. It is very detailed, but requires navigating between hypertags: www.hrw.org/reports/2000/usa.

Here is a quote from that study:
"The marked racial disparities in drug arrests did not reflect racial differences in violations of drug laws prohibiting possession and sale of illicit drugs. Statistical as well as anecdotal evidence indicate drug possession and drug selling cut across all racial, socio-economic and geographic lines. Yet because drug law enforcement resources have been concentrated in low-income, predominantly minority urban areas, drug offending whites have been disproportionately free from arrest compared to blacks."

A lot of the data are from the 1990's, and from what I gather, the problem has grown worse since then. (The statistics in this study also indicate that 38 % of all black prisoners are incarcerated for nonviolent drug offenses, vs. 24 % of white prisoners. Speaking of economic cost, conservatives should be outraged about the effect on taxes due to this choice - it's costing us multi-billions of dollars annually.)

You are right to worry about costs, but it is also important to realize that many costs are very well hidden, as are the benefits of acting. We are often paying a very high price (in dollars and cents as well as socially) totally outweighing the direct costs but well-hidden abd therefore unnoticed. I saw a Swiss study from Zurich (Tages-Anzeiger newspaper, several years ago), for example, of the economics of spending public funds to supply bona fide (there were tests to verify addiction) heroin addicts with drugs. This seems on the face of it like a crazy way to deal with the problem. Yet they were able to show in hard economic terms that the investment in providing drugs to addicts actually resulted in a net profit to the taxpaying public of Switzerland. Why? Because property crimes were dramatically decreased, due to removal of the need to rob or steal to get drugs. Many of the addicts accepted treatment and actually succeeded in weaning themselves from drugs. The mental health and other healthcare costs of the addicts dropped significantly, and the public was not stuck with the bill. And, very importantly, many of these addicts were able to go to work and become taxpaying citizens again, even while they were receiving the drugs!

However, all of these benefits are entirely indirect. If you look at the budget, it appears that tons of money are being poured into a rathole! But the net cost is actually negative - a profit rather than a loss.

Posted by: Jim | February 22, 2008 7:59 PM

Which is the first problem with conservative mentality, right there. Some things simply cannot be quantified.

That may be, but government's sole mechanism of action consists of spending money. It is what government does. In that light, what government does SHOULD be measured in terms of cost vs benefit.

And for the rest of us who ARE humans, COST DOES MATTER. Despite a 6 figure income, I do not have an unlimited budget, and Biblical injunction requires me to be as prudent with the wealth God entrusted me.... Even when that means making choices about government or how I help others.

In other words, it is NOT following God's instructions to ignore cost when it comes to charity.

Posted by: The Watcher | February 22, 2008 9:01 PM

By whose standards? And how do you determine that? Do you track every student using government money to attend school and judge whether he/she "deserved" it? This is precisely why you just can't quantify that. Reminds me of the old saw about people who "know the cost of everything but the value of nothing."

There really isn't much disagreement on cost/benefit standards. You choose the goal. Choose several approaches. Measure results vs cost. Hardly any mystery at all here. I can do it with business, charity, education... All quite easy to do and really not particularly arguable.

Oh, and recognize that the moment you institute ANY mechanism for doing something, it is already outdated and outmoded by someone who can do it better.

For instance... 15% of my money to Social Security = poverty when I collect it

vs

15% of my money into an IRA and untaxed = wealthy retirement.

Not even slightly difficult. Any competent money manager can show it to you in about an hour. If you disagree after that, you're ... well... Incompetent.

So, why is it so hard for some people to give up Social Security? It is a complete no brainer. Any 3rd grader can understand the math and make a competent choice.

The objections, however, tend to reveal that the GOAL of those who want to keep SS have nothing to do with having people have a good retirement. As not a one has ever made a valid argument as to why, I can only guess that it must be something more ideological that they will not publicly state, because it's either stupid... or is born of malice.

Posted by: The Watcher | February 22, 2008 11:56 PM

Watcher -

We agree that cost/benefit must be considered. But make sure you are including all of the costs and benefits - on and off the books.

The yield of a Social Security investment is lower than it could be, because the program was set up as a pay-as-you-go program rather than being actuarially based. To change now would require a higher premium and thus a lower yield to carry the people who are already disabled or retired, while investing additional money in actuarially sound investments. (My family benefited greatly from the disability insurance when my father was disabled while we kids were very young.) Of course we could dump those folks, and then our personal yield would dramatically rise. But then there is the question of "doing unto others ..."

Look at it as analogous to buying whole life insurance instead of a stock investment. The yield is lower because a significant part of the payout is going to the beneficiaries of people who aren't as fortunate as us. But relying on the higher-yielding stocks without the insurance aspect will leave many vulnerable to disaster if they are disabled or die too soon before the investment can mature.

Insisting that I must obtain the whole benefit is analogous to asking if I am my brother's keeper, when we know that there is an insurance aspect, and that risk must be shared across the whole society.

Posted by: Jim | February 23, 2008 3:27 AM

"Actually, the rate of college graduation has stagnated in the U. S. in recent years."

Because kids are going an not completing their degrees.

"Costs have escalated, as you noted, but not because of tons of dollars being given to students."

I include cheap loans (which colleges expect students to take on) as part of the problem. That is part of a governmental program. If students were forced to pay out of pocket, you could say good-bye to $100 million student centers and $300k professors who don't teach.

You could also say goodbye to a college degree as a gateway to career-type employment. To me, the answer is to eliminate all funding completely. Let people pay for it if they want it. I assure you that the poor (who are generally unable to go anyway) will see a benefit in that they will no longer have to compete against a class of individuals who received meaningless degrees.

But that isn't the mentality. The mentality is that college = inherent good. As such, withdrawing funding from college = bad.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 23, 2008 2:42 PM

Kevin -

Actually, a significant part of the runaway cost of college is due to a phaseout rather than an increase of government subsidies, that used to pay a much larger portion of the tab for students, together with a shrinkage of the income of middle and lower income strata relative to the top income stratum. That stratum includes college administrators and some highly-paid faculty, but not most. (Just like the corporate sector, University President salaries have doubled in the past few years. Not so for most faculty.) Income of people at the top is keeping up with college costs. A large proportion of the rest of the population is falling behind.

Federal funding for research has also become increasingly difficult to come by (e. g. less than 15 % probability of success at the National Institutes of Health), in part due to the lessening of cold war tensions that gave a large incentive for science funding. Some of these Federal funds included the GI Bill, the National Defense Education Act, and many other prgrams that had their heyday at the height of the Cold War.

You may not be aware of this, but public state universities generally receive less than half of the funds needed to operate from state sources, and this fraction has been trending downward in many states. Tuition is also generally significantly less than the cost of education. Fundraising is becoming an increasingly dominant aspect of colleges and universities.

Your approach would be great from the perspective of defending individualism as an ideological objective, but would most likely cause the US to fall further from a competitive position in the world than its present tenuous status. "We the People" requires cooperative action in many cases to make individual success feasible. Much of the competitiveness of the US in the past five decades is a direct result of government investment and stimulus of key technological developments.

Posted by: Jim | February 23, 2008 8:27 PM