Band-Aids or Cures? (by Alexis Vaughan)
The prophet Isaiah says that the Lord will be a stumbling block for many, meaning that the majority of us will have difficulties living the way we ought to. Working in the field of social justice only seems to add another dimension to that difficulty. Poverty, economic inequality, and eradicating racism, sexism, and the like are all issues that "progressive Christians" care about, but how much do we really say about how things got this way?
From my experience, the progressive Christian movement has shown that it can advise its constituency on how to assist in uplifting burdened communities, but I've noticed an absence in acknowledging what got us -- a collective "us" -- into places of suffering in the first place. Effective movements all have two key elements: first is a thorough understanding of the root causes of their issues in order to heal whatever the "disease" may be. The other is an unrelenting commitment to be a cure and not a treatment. Where we are right now in history begs the question: Do we want to be a cure or just a painkiller?
To illustrate my point, let's take an example from sports. The fact that Washington, D.C.'s NBA team is now called the Wizards, rather than the Bullets, is a treatment -- not a cure of the disease of gun violence in our city and society at large. The "progressive" nature of those who eventually voted and officially changed the name acted more like "pressure valves" than healers. What's unfortunate with a lot of progressivism nowadays is that we've lost sight of what's necessary -- the sacrifices and the struggle -- that's called for to break down systems of oppression and exploitation, and for a new order to rise.
What we do instead is become a pressure valve that takes a step in the right direction to relieve some pressure of a situation, but usually stops once that initial victory is achieved. There's nothing inherently progressive about changing a name. What we should be focusing on is changing the culture of violence. Ironically, from where we stand today, perhaps D.C. needs to revert back to its old NBA name, or maybe the "D.C. Militias" would be a good one if the Supreme Court, in all of its infinite wisdom, is the Truth we are satisfied with.
Let's be clear: Walking in love and faith through Christ is hard because it involves the death of things we'd rather hold onto: pride, privilege, our egos, grudges toward certain people, etc. But the Bible tells us many times that those things that make up ourselves are going to have to die in order for us to truly live through him. Hebrews 12 reminds us that we "have not yet resisted to the point of shedding our blood" -- or in other words, we have yet to come to a place in our struggle where we are willing to give up our ways of life, that while they may allow us to live comfortably above others, they help foster the "isms" we protest against.
To read the whole sermon, click here.
FULL TEXT: Band-Aids or Cures? - Sojourners Chapel sermon - July 9, 2008
There are few traditions in American society as widely shared and loved as sports traditions. I recently spent the Fourth of July weekend doing what I usually do: watching the Wimbledon finals with my dad, discussing the rivalries, analyzing each point, and reveling in the wins of my favorites. However, growing up in the D.C. area means you're raised in the tradition of the Redskins- not necessarily Venus vs. Serena, or now Roger vs. Rafa. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of football, but you can't grow up in this area apart from Redskins culture. During the first Joe Gibbs era when I was little and the Redskins were still dominant, I enjoyed the excitement and never questioned something so revered. It wasn't until I was older did I come to view the Redskins franchise in a different and much less favorable light.
I'm sure some of you remember the campaign to get the city's NBA team- then the Washington Bullets- to something less violent, in a city that's been crippled by gun violence. I remember pushes to have the name "Redskins" changed to something less offensive around that same time, but it never really gained any momentum despite the fact that the term is a blatant racial slur for indigenous peoples based on the pigmentation of their skin. I remember promotions at Boston Market that encouraged kids to enter in their ideas for new team names with the purchase of a kids' meal, but the efforts to change the name of what historically has been the most racist NFL franchise, were met with considerable resistance. A person can't help but wonder why in this society that proclaims to be the freest nation in the land, we'd allow this to go on without much of a second thought or discussion; but the answer is simple. It's because it's our tradition!
As we all (hopefully) continue to grow in our commitments to this movement inspired by the biblical call for social justice-- it is important to note a somewhat similar tradition that threatens to paralyze us and our efforts-- our tradition of maintaining our comfort level.
The prophet Isaiah says that the Lord will be a stumbling block for many, meaning that the majority of us will have difficulties living the way we ought to. Working in the field of social justice, only seems to add another dimension to that difficulty.
Poverty, economic inequality, racism, sexism and the like, are all issues that "progressive Christians" care about, but how much do we really say about how things got this way?
From my experience, the progressive Christian movement has shown that it can advise it's constituency on how to assist in uplifting burdened communities, but I've noticed an absence in acknowledging what got us -- a collective "us" -- into places of suffering in the first place? Effective movements all have 2 key elements, first is a thorough understanding of the root causes of their issues in order to heal the "disease", the other is an unrelenting commitment to be a cure and not a treatment. Where we are right now in history begs the question: do we want to be a cure or just a painkiller?
To illustrate my point here, let's go back to sports. The fact that our NBA team is now called the Wizards, is a treatment - not a cure of the disease of gun violence in our city and society at large. The 'progressive' nature of those who eventually voted and officially changed the name acted more like 'pressure valves' than healers. What's unfortunate with a lot of progressivism nowadays is that we've lost sight of what's necessary- the sacrifices and the struggle- that's called for to break down systems of oppression and exploitation, and for a New Order to rise.
What we do instead is become a pressure valve that takes a step in the right direction to relieve some pressure of a situation, but usually stops once that initial victory is achieved. There's nothing inherently progressive about changing a name. What we should be focusing on is changing the culture of violence. Ironically, where we stand today, perhaps DC needs to revert back to its old NBA name ...or maybe the DC Militias would be a good one if the Supreme Court, in all of its infinite wisdom, is the Truth we are satisfied with...
Let's be clear: Walking in love and faith through Christ is hard because involves the death of things we'd rather hold onto: pride, privilege, our egos, grudges towards certain people, etc. But the Bible tells us many times that those things that make up ourselves, are going to have to die in order for us to truly live through him. Hebrews 12 reminds us that we "have not yet resisted to the point of shedding our blood" -- or in other words, we have yet to come to a place in our struggle where we are willing to give up our ways of life, that while they may allow us to live comfortably above others-- help to foster the "isms" we protest against.
My pastor in North Carolina used to say that the power of God in all of us is the power to love and serve others, yes. BUT! It is also the power to repent - sacrifice - and then to reconcile. We've got the first part pretty much down, but the last two need some attention, in order for our ministries to be effective and sincere. As important and beautiful as it is to 'spread our wings of love' - so to speak - in this movement and lay the groundwork for what a just society looks like, it's equally necessary to 'uncover our roots', and have a firm understanding of how society came to be as it is.
A quick example of this is what's going on right now in Manassas. Some of you may have read in the Washington Post recently about a situation in Manassas, VA where a man erected a large billboard on his property with a message that proclaims his frustrations with our immigration policy and the city's treatment of immigrants (legal or otherwise). The billboard essentially traces the history of European-American imperialism as being the force behind the genocide of indigenous peoples, and the disenfranchisement of blacks under Jim Crow -- in big, bright letters for everyone to read. Now, this is primarily a First Amendment rights issue, but the reactions to the billboard (by mostly European-Americans) are what's most troubling -- and what should be of concern to us. And yes, some of what's being reported is coming from church-going folk! One storeowner and head of the town's Business Association said of the wall "When you see something calling you a racist, it takes away from the positive image you're trying to portray."
But seriously, let's think on that for a moment. The situation has brought about some our least attractive traditions! When someone publicly recalls, a very true and well-documented history of exploitation, murder, forced assimilation, and segregation, our present tradition tells that person to STOP! Your comments are making me uncomfortable! Keep the truth to yourself, and let me continue comfortably in my own tradition of denial!
Now, some of you may have responded in a similar manner to this woman. But for the most part, you might say something like: "well her comments don't reflect me. I'm very kind to immigrants. In fact, I even volunteer to tutor immigrant children on the weekends, etc, etc." Still, very few people seem to be invested in publicly addressing the roots of our American past and the inherent biases of the system that continue to oppress people. I've been told many a time, that it's relatively pointless to discuss these matters because it's 'too negative', 'overstated' or otherwise 'in the past'-- when we need to be focusing our energy on making our future as bright as it can possibly be!
But hold on a minute. Let's think about this too. Where in the Bible is it implied that the journey toward truth and away from sin is going to be easy? The truth of the matter is, none of this is easy or comfortable. Paul says in Galatians that we're "imprisoned under sin", meaning that our 'sins of today' are being built on the foundation of our 'sins of the past', and even though we may intend otherwise, we contribute to a way of living that makes our situation worse! In the case of the billboard, refusing to acknowledge and engage our racist-- and in terms of immigration, severely hypocritical past-- we are doing our people and our movement a great disservice!
I have a piece of paper taped to the wall of my cubicle, a section of James Baldwin's introduction to his play "Blues for Mister Charlie" that describes this sort of sinful imprisonment and what this element of our tradition looks like. He says that 'what's almost hopeless in our racial situation now is that the crimes we have committed are so great, and so unspeakable, that the acceptance of this knowledge would literally lead to madness'. So to compensate for that, what we too often do, all of us, in order to protect ourselves, is 'compulsively repeat our crimes' -- and in doing so, enter this kind of 'spiritual darkness which no one can describe.'
We have another American Tradition though, greater and more a part of our being, than the aforementioned unattractive ones - The pursuit of truth and the courage to act upon it. This tradition led founding fathers and some of the great leaders we revere, to question the divine right of kings, the idea of noble blood and the inherent Inequality of man. This led to social, political and scientific breakthroughs never before seen or imagined on our Earth.
So we don't have to continue along in the unattractive traditions. We have another option. We can do better. If it's true-- and I believe it is-- that all people are made in God's image and we all belong to each other as parts to the body of Christ, then we have the duty of getting to know each other and being honest with ourselves.
Let me be clear- this is not about playing the "blame game" or anything of that sort. We all have to be disciplined in this pursuit of truth, in the pursuit of God, if we hope to liberate future generations and not repeat the mistakes of generations past.
So what does it mean to pursue truth? What would that look like? In the July issue of the magazine, we had a review of the documentary, "Traces of the Trade", which is the story of the journey of Katrina Browne, a young seminarian who takes a journey to Ghana with her family to retrace their slave-trading past. She felt God telling her that if she was willing to delve deeper into her history, if she was available to God in that way, that the result could be the vehicle to drive some real healing and reconciliation work. She didn't brush actions of her ancestors off as something archaic and irrelevant. She didn't get lost in an internal battle against the feeling of guilt. She did what she was supposed to do. God had tapped something in her heart leading her in a pursuit of truth, and she had the courage to seek out where that truth was leading her-- as uncomfortable as I'm sure it was to arrive for the first time at Cape Coast...
We mustn't be afraid of having a similar courage, and we mustn't be afraid of the implications of unveiling truth. When we allow ourselves to be truly available to God to work on us and open us up to honesty, we are either so affected by it that we spend our lives working to make a positive difference on earth, or we close our eyes, and --consciously or unconsciously -defend the way things are.
Make no mistake and listen to closely - there is no middle ground. Christ demands everything from us - we must lose our lives as we've known them in order to save them. Like MLK said: breaking silences often means that we are subjecting ourselves to a "vocation of agony" but must do it. Amen? Amen.
Alexis Vaughan is editorial assistant at Sojourners. She preached this sermon at Sojourners chapel July 9, 2008.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
"how much do we really say about how things got this way?"
Alexis,
Great sermon! The reactions to the billboard you speak of are likely similar to the would-be reactions to biblical Prophets if they were alive today. Imagine Amos speaking to the U.S. war-mongering elite and their evangelical supporters!
If we are going to try to make sense of the mess we're born into, we certainly do need to look back to massive land theft, genocide, and slave plantations--these are what made way for the booming economy of early "America."
Contemporary Mexican migrants (undocumented laborers and displaced workers) are in a unique position here: their land was first stolen by Spaniards, then the northern half of their land was taken a second time in 1848 by U.S. invaders under President Polk. Also, Mexican migrants are descendants of the survivors of smallpox, rape, and slave labor under early Spanish feudal systems.
Under NAFTA, the Mexican poor are living a life closer to that old feudal system than the glorified promises of neo-liberalism. And in the U.S., where the Black poor are living in the aftermath of Jim Crow, Mexican laborers are encountering the new disenfranchisement, appropriately called "Juan Crow" by Roberto Lovato and other journalists.
So, where are today's prophets? Who is speaking against today's destructive imperialism--from Manassas to Baghdad???
Posted by: Quetzal | July 21, 2008 1:20 PM
History is obvious and cannot be changed, as ugly as it is at times. What about all the displaced peoples displaced by Attila the Hun? Or the Gauls? Or Rome? Or China? Or Alexander the Great? Or Mohammed? Or Israel? Or....?
Should we demand all historical lands be returned to their original owners?
If so, the U.S. southeast should belong to my people, the northeast to my relatives, the Midwest and the plains to my cousins. Perhaps "teepee-burbs" and longhouses would be the norm? Everyone else would have to go back to their ancestral native lands???
Would that be an appropriate resolution? Is that what progressives are opining for? I constantly hear this gong being hit on a regular basis, yet not a single person who is hitting the gongs has a resolution - they just blame Anglo-Saxons - denigrate and blame the white people... It's really EASY to do it!
It seems to me, that the only room that is made is for complaint and lament and little action.
Posted by: Armed2Win | July 21, 2008 2:18 PM
"first is a thorough understanding of the root causes of their issues in order to heal the “disease”, the other is an unrelenting commitment to be a cure and not a treatment. Where we are right now in history begs the question: do we want to be a cure or just a painkiller?"
The "progressive" (I used parenthesis so no one would get offended) use of the band-aid/cure critique of society is lousy. When you use disease as a parallel to poverty and the like you have just taken out the human ability to make choices. People generally have little say on the contracting of a deadly disease.
"The fact that our NBA team is now called the Wizards, is a treatment – not a cure of the disease of gun violence in our city and society at large."
Changing the name of the team was not meant to be a tool to reduce violence. It was to avoid being the butt of too many jokes.
In unrelated, yet nonetheless important, news...A number of years ago I bought a Chris Weber Bullets jersey from a thrift store. I have since lost it. Has anyone seen it? I'm kind of upset about this.
"the efforts to change the name of what historically has been the most racist NFL franchise, were met with considerable resistance.""
I'm not a Washington Redskins historian. For all I know it may be the most racist NFL franchise, but I do know that they had the first and only black quarterback to win a Superbowl...for whatever that's worth.
"A person can’t help but wonder why in this society that proclaims to be the freest nation in the land, we’d allow this to go on without much of a second thought or discussion; but the answer is simple. It’s because it’s our tradition!"
This doesn't make any sense. You think our country would be freer if the government named private organizations as to not offend anyone?
Posted by: DITE | July 21, 2008 2:32 PM
alexis, its a good thing you were born at this time, a hundred years ago the leaders of social justice would not have had time to try and get ball teams to change their names they would have been doing something for voting rights or job rights looks like we have come a long way. remember the best way to help the poor is don't be one. who has helped the poor more sam walton or mother tereasa? roger
Posted by: roger | July 21, 2008 3:08 PM
Mother Teresa. The rich man asking Lazarus for a drop of water in Sheol might disagree with me, I grant you.
Sam's dead, too, but the richest family in the world as his inheritors has been locking in illegal sub-minimum-wage workers in the stores late at night so they can't leave and nobody can come in to investigate.
After finding out what Wal-Mart's actions have often been (despite some recent improvements and programs to reduce drug costs and promote sustainable energy) I have to say my earlier generally positive view was dramatically reversed.
What ails Wal Mart is what ails America generally - a focus on profits even when it harms people.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | July 21, 2008 3:39 PM
Sojourner Truth's comments are both true and false. First, TRUE if the only purpose of Mother Theresa was to help the poor. Yes, she helped the poor, but she did not help the poor OUT of their poverty. (However, more importantly, she helped spiritually - which is ultimately much more important that monetary status). Walmart, whether you like them or not, at least helps the poor IN their poverty by providing services and products that are affordable. The rest of what Sojourner Truth talked about is patently false, at least in my opinion... Can't have it both ways...
Why? Liberal & progressive organizations desire is not to merely help the poor, but to even the playing field by TAKING from the wealthy and redistributing wealth to the poor, without any sort of provisional tools for accountability and improvement potential. (See aftermath of Hurricane Katrina for examples - you know FEMA $$ being spent at strip clubs or purchasing 40" plasma tv's...) This wealth redistribution, of course, is done by force. This is their socialistic desire couched in the catch-phrase "Social Justice". They then use the Rich Man and Lazarus parable and other texts throughout the Biblical Canon that support their viewpoints regarding this "Social Justice".
The problems is, Jesus never advocated wealth redistribution! His plea to the Rich Young Ruler was to give all he had to the poor and follow Him as a disciple. It was a test of personal priorities and allegiance (cannot serve God and money). PLEASE NOTE: Jesus did not force the man to give up his money!! Jesus allowed the ruler to cling to his fortune - but it was his downfall. The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is not against wealth, but against greed and the abuse of the less fortunate by those who have the ability to help. To quote Uncle Ben, "With great power (or money) comes great responsibility."
Ultimately, the advocates of social justice and the gong-ringers of social disenfranchisement based on historical woes are playing to the lowest common denominator - the desire for gain at no expense of effort. It's a lottery mentality that targets conservatives and the wealthy, many of whom have earned the money fair and square by good old-fashioned hard work and smart choices, and are already giving, liberally I might add, to those in need.
Perhaps some of the wealth that some have is a Talent on loan from God and they are multiplying it to His glory? (parable of Talents...) Perhaps some wealthy have prayed and lived the prayer of Jabez: "And Jabez called on the God of Israel saying, "Oh that You would bless me indeed, and enlarge my territory, that Your hand would be with me, and that You would keep me from evil, that I may not cause pain!" So God granted him what he requested." (NKJV)?
Liberals and progressives must stop being duplicitous and judgmental in their verbal abuse of Conservatives and the wealthy. And the last I checked, there is a Commandment against coveting...
Posted by: Armed2Win | July 21, 2008 4:20 PM
While I can appreciate the Spiderman Christianity allegory, and the media megaphone ego bluster about "Talent On Loan From God," it seems that there's always a temptation to fit Christianity into one's preconceived and favorite ideologies, so that one can have it both ways.
This could mean trying to give a patina of Christianity to ideologies of liberalism or conservatism in order to "have it all" or "have it both ways," according to the predelictions of your own inner child, your "natural man" of the id.
But you can't serve two masters. Jesus can't be seen as a hewing to Karl Marx or Friedrich Hayek, ideologists who weren't particularly spiritual, though they were trying to understand and explain and even correct material social problems as they understood them.
Why should you struggle to fit Jesus' radically iconoclastic teachings into what amounts to ideological meat grinders?
That just makes a predictable hash of Christianity, which makes us a scandal to the world watching and in its deepest recesses hungry for something spiritual that's not fake.
Before blaming the less wealthy for covetousness, a lottery-style mentality and wanting to become rich with little effort (sins of which surely many are guilty), please apply the test to those who have achieved wealth.
What of Enron and its bankers and other enablers never brought to account, manipulating energy markets to make money out of nothing, Wall Street speculators betting the Fed's largess on double-or-nothing commodity plays after their deceptive mortgage securities were falsely rated by rating agencies for money based on nothing, credit-card bankers existing upon usury and luring victims into endless debt traps? Are those rich who exploit the poor endless hard hours at labor in less than minimum wage and abysmal work and living standards, without any legal protections, extracting their pounds of flesh "fair and square?"
There is a naturally pleasing temptation to believe that because one has wealth, and assuming one is thankful for it, that God chose to bestow it as a sign of his approval and a reward for being a King's Kid - a belief that doesn't require one to be currently rich, but only hold it in hopes that the boon will eventually appear.
As a corollary to this, then, being poor isn't exactly against the law, but it might as well be. Moreover, it's a judgment levied by God as the just consequence of sin, and moreover, it makes the poor fair game for the better off who enjoy their position in society according to the will of God.
Hell, such a justification, entirely different from what Jesus plainly says, could as easily have been developed in Hinduism referring to Brahmins and Untouchables.
That's because any religion, even Christianity, can just be the vehicle used in any cultural context to express universal sinful human failings, piously adopted to justify the same old Cain refrain, "Am I my brother's keeper?"
In India, there is a vast divide between these untouchables and the rest of Indian society who despise them. Yet these are precisely the people who respond to the call of Jesus, whether announced by Theresa or many others contemporaneously. In India, it is the rich and proud who don't respond to the call of Christ - they, like the rich man of the Lazarus story, have no need, and feel crumbs given to dogs are an adequate expression. Christians and Christianity are often despised - in the conservatism of India, Christianity is dangerous to the status quo and those who currently financially benefit from it.
Incidentally, wealthy and powerful conservatives also redistribute money by force - but it is given, obviously, directed by lobbyists in the trillions to an entirely different smart set.
As Malcolm Muggeridge ruefully observed, the relevant question of human history has been, "Who, whom?"
Posted by: M. Southall | July 21, 2008 9:40 PM
"I'm not a Washington Redskins historian, but ... you think our country would be freer if the government named private organizations as to not offend anyone?"
Well, with the enormous level of taxpayer debt, tax breaks and outright subsidy offered to major league franchises by government, one could make the argument that those vast transfers of wealth by force from the taxpayers into private hands might entitle some of those taxpayers, if the government represents them at all, to have more say in things than simply applauding the modern equivalent of bread and circuses!!!
Posted by: N.M. Rod | July 21, 2008 10:00 PM
Armed2win,
You really need to hang out with more liberals. The progressives I know are all about accountability. They are the ones that are building water treatment plants, volunteering in Free the Slaves, rebuilding burnt cities so before you site all the greatness of the lack of accountability in your conservative circles maybe you should try hanging out with some more liberals. You might learn something.
Quetzal
Great post.
p
Posted by: Payshun | July 22, 2008 2:54 AM
M. Southall, Please note the italics. I said:
"Perhaps some of the wealth that some have is a Talent on loan from God and they are multiplying it to His glory? (parable of Talents...)"
I fully acknowledge many have abused their powerful status via the abuse of money, people and the poor. Again, note that I italicized the word some. So you can't use that as a blanket statement from me regarding all wealth as a gift from God and poorness as his curse. Very transparent of you! One thing that I have learned from scripture is that "rain falls on the just and the unjust".
I also still stand by my comments that Jesus never forced the Rich Young Ruler to give up his wealth. In matters of charity or helping the poor, Jesus relegated that to the individuals responsibility to God, which ultimately falls into the realm of choice. Do we choose to honor God by helping "the least of these", or do we merge Church and State and force the issue? I find it humorous that Liberals and Progressives accuse Conservatives of this very sin when it comes to moral issues, but are perfectly fine with it when it fits into their view of the Church's and State's need for a merged Social Justice.
This is blatant and utter two-faced, and reeks of a double-standard. Conservatives and moderates see right through it. Once again - you can't have it both ways. Ironically, who has talked more of his Christian faith and it's application in the political sphere - McCain or Obama? (I have no problem with any candidate talking of his/her faith)...
Payshun - I almost don't want to answer your comment/suggestion only as it will likely be viewed with the rolling of the eyes. Regardless, here goes... Most people within my Protestant Denomination are liberals - there is an inherent fear of the Christian Right. Most of my good friends, Christian or otherwise, are committed liberals. We all get a long just fine. Why? We are all open to each other's ideas, something that is, unfortunately, not present on blogs like these. This of course, makes blogging a fun, but ineffective method of debate, as it allows for soap-boxing without eye-to-eye/face-to-face accountability. One of my closest friends is an agnostic liberal. He and I have fantastic debates - both political and religious. I respect him greatly, not only for his thinking capability, but also for his service to this nation - 8 years in the Navy. He is a hero and a great person.
For the record, I am more of a moderate politically, and lean progressive Religiously. I know, its an odd combination, but it's where I fit. Unfortunately, there are extremely few people with that religio-political resume, so often I don't fit in with conservatives or liberals some issues. LOL Oh well... Thanks for all the comments...
Cheers!
Posted by: Armed2Win | July 22, 2008 7:20 AM
I couldn't agree more. For the last six 10 months I have been working on a project I call Public Education: An arena for social justice. The problems found in public education are systemic and need careful examination in order to engage solutions. I have been a public educator for 17 years and am deeply committed to create opportunitiy for all. Currently that opportunity is denied to many. Schooling is a difficult matter to engage.
Sandy
Posted by: Sandy | July 22, 2008 9:20 AM
The issue if whether the rich young ruler ought to have given up his wealth to the poor to follow Jesus is clear - he was a spiritual failure because he was so attached to it that he could not. He ought to have.
When asked to do so by Jesus - not commanded - he would not do so and failed miserably, despite possessing good theology and having good spiritual understanding - just like many who call themselves Christians.
So he was unwilling to render to God what belonged to God.
However, this doesn't address what his responsibility was to Caesar, another matter.
Is it optional to render unto Caesar, what is Caesar's, and how is that determined? Is taxation entirely voluntary and if one disagrees with the levels set, is one free to ignore those laws?
Jesus' teaching is clear. Even where the government is a monarchy, essentially a dictatorship, we have financial obligations to the secular authority - Caesar - for all forms of government bear at least some relationship to that desired by God, to provide for the common welfare (as our own founding documents echo) however deformed.
In a republic, in a democracy, the laws are made with some responsibility to the assent of and accountability to the citizens who are able to both vote, run for office and petition peaceably for redress.
If taxation was an obligation to a tyrant such as Caesar, then how much more so to the government of a democracy!
Therefore there is no predetermined level of individual taxation that is too low or too high, depending on how the citizens decide, through either delegation to their representatives or through direct democracy, to allocate their collective wealth. The scope of what ought to be done and by which institutions is never addressed, except to make sure in fact that the practical maximum good for one another is God's moral law.
However one might want to make Jesus a disciple of Adam Smith, where personal selfishness supposedly results in public good, that is not possible. Nor is heaven on earth without God, by means of Marxism, in any way said to be achievable.
It's important to note that Jesus said that as Christians we have a spiritual obligation to pay taxes we might not approve the level of, in order not to bring disrepute to the saving hope that all can have in Christ.
In fact, He was dismissive of the burden, deeming it of such little import that He promised that the ability to do so would be provided as a matter of course to those who follow Him.
I might add that the maximum indulgence of a selfish individualism is not the measure of a society's real freedom. Real freedom can be determined by how much a society limits the ability of us collectively and individually to do the maximum good for others.
By a measure of whether we can watch 116 channels of pornography, we are very free. By our inability to provide health care (by whatever mechanism, whether market-driven or not) to 20% of our population, to provide adequately for their retirement, by our obscenely high incarceration rates, our poor educational system and other measures, we are far from as free as we could be.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | July 22, 2008 10:53 AM
Sojourner Truth: "By a measure of whether we can watch 116 channels of pornography, we are very free. By our inability to provide health care (by whatever mechanism, whether market-driven or not) to 20% of our population, to provide adequately for their retirement, by our obscenely high incarceration rates, our poor educational system and other measures, we are far from as free as we could be."
SJ, I'm gonna steal this one. Brilliant.
Posted by: carl copas | July 22, 2008 1:00 PM
Sj,
You just killed that comment and I could not agree more.
Armed2win,
I am glad to hear that you have liberal friends but it's obvious that they are not all of the activist variety because I can tell you my liberal activist friends sometimes focus so much on accountability that they ignore some of the work. It's a good thing to or else some of them might loose the grant money that is so vital to the work.
Alexis,
Great sermon.
p
Posted by: Payshun | July 22, 2008 1:27 PM
ArmedtoWin: "(See aftermath of Hurricane Katrina for examples - you know FEMA $$ being spent at strip clubs or purchasing 40" plasma tv's...)"
I find this, probably offhand, comment very offensive. Do you live on the Gulf Coast? Have you been there? Which of the 250,000 displaced residents of New Orleans alone have you personally seen abusing what little FEMA money they get? The ones I met were grateful to get a little money just to be able to gut their houses so the government wouldn't tear them down, much less spend it on luxuries. Sure, there are people who cheat the system everywhere. But don't lump the overwhelming majority of those poor people who've lost everything they own in with them.
Joel Robinson, who used to run one of the relief camps in Mississippi once said, "you can judge or you can serve, but not both." From your words, I can see which you've chosen.
Posted by: JEM | July 22, 2008 1:27 PM
JEM, thanks for the candid comments, but you can't judge either. "Judge not lest you be judged yourself..." You don't know where, how or who I serve and support (as you don't know me) so assuming who I am based on one comment that got under your skin is a bit careless and obtuse.
For the record, my comment was obviously not a lumping of all those that were "helped" by FEMA (for the record FEMA should have done a lot more, and MUCH MUCH sooner). I was referring to a broadcast report/fact, across all news affiliates, which reported that some people were abusing the system, just like I personally know some people who are abusing welfare. No need for personal attacks on a Christian blog. Regardless, Gods richest blessings to you...
Back to the issues, Payshun - I have an interesting question for you and your friends.
Does one have to be an activist to be an effective Christian, Conservative or Liberal, or can one quietly go about doing good unto the Lord (Matthew 7:21-23)? For the record, its only a question, not a label or accusation, OK?!
Posted by: Armed2Win | July 22, 2008 3:53 PM
Payshun. I forgot to mention Matthew 25:34-40.
In light of this sermon and all the comments, I think some might be wise to re-read Matthew 25:14-30, The Parable of the Three Servants, and in conjunction with Matthew 25:34-40...eh, all of Matthew 25. :-)
Cheers.
Posted by: Armed2Win | July 22, 2008 4:02 PM
Moderatelad:
I'm wondering whether God's provisons for land (capital) to be returned to its original owner every Sabbatical Year wasn't a form of forced redistribution??
Posted by: George, Jr. | July 22, 2008 10:25 PM
Sorry! My comment on land redistribution in the O. T. was meant for "Armed2win", not "Moderatelad".
Posted by: George, Jr. | July 22, 2008 10:31 PM
Liberals and progressives must stop being duplicitous and judgmental in their verbal abuse of Conservatives and the wealthy. And the last I checked, there is a Commandment against coveting...
Posted by: Armed2Win | July 21, 2008 4:20 PM
Give me a break. I remember when politics started getting REALLY nasty and who was the first bomb thrower. 1996 and Newt Gingrich. The 'bomb thrower' reference is one he identified with himself. Conservatives (the name is ridiculous considering what so-called conservatives have done to our national debt, and how they helped expand the powers of the presidency) started this name calling and continue it. Quite whinning when us liberals and progressives have had enough and decide that they we can no longer be quite!
For the record, I am more of a moderate politically, and lean progressive Religiously. I know, its an odd combination, but it's where I fit. Unfortunately, there are extremely few people with that religio-political resume, so often I don't fit in with conservatives or liberals some issues. LOL Oh well... Thanks for all the comments...
Posted by: Armed2Win
And Bill O'Reilly is an Independant! Right!
You are correct in your posts that I do not know you, but your posts are all I got to go on. Smells like a banana, walks like a banana, ...
Yeah! I'm going with the percentages. You're a banana.
You want to quote Matthew 25, and then defend the rich keeping their riches? You have to face Christ with that. Good Luck!
As far as the rebuttals to your remarks against the sermon, I believe that Sojourner Truth has answered very adequately. But I would like to leave off with an idea that most Americans would support, and do believe in.
I do not believe in equality of outcome, but, in as much as is possible, we should provide equality of opportunity. If you believe that that opportunity is as available today as it has always been, you are not looking at the same statistics I am.
Radical Moderate
Posted by: Radical Moderate | July 22, 2008 10:34 PM
Armed2win
Why would you ask me that? It makes no logical sense. But to answer your question no being an activist doesn't guarantee someone entrance into salvation. Judging by what you wrote you are implying that me and my friends are going to hell because of our good works or we don't have faith in Jesus. I can tell you they do those works because of their faith and if that is what you are implying then I have some choice words for you. But if not feel free to clarify your comments.
p
Posted by: Payshun | July 22, 2008 11:15 PM
BTW Armed2Win,
I am a Christian mystic and I have been learning a lot about prayer and living a life dedicated to just sitting and being with God. That means that if someone wants to sit in a monastery and worship God in utter solitude then great, that's a sacred and high call. But if someone wants to simply live their life in ease and do little for the kingdom save raise their family great too. The work is the same. In the end it's not about the work we do for the kingdom but the love we share that matters. That can't be quantified and should not be. Have a great night.
p
Posted by: Payshun | July 22, 2008 11:40 PM
Posted by: George, Jr. | July 22, 2008 10:25 PM
'...form of forced redistribution??...'
I will answer that - does that mean that Teddy Kennedy will return all of what he has gained every 7 years?
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 23, 2008 12:34 AM
Armed1Win-
I wasn't suggesting a repeat of the Sabbatical Year restoration of land ownership; I was pointing out that God in His provisions for Israel's communal life did recognize that the cumulation of capital in few and fewer hands was an undesirable thing, one to be remedied by redistribution. Certainly then, taxing the ultra rich to provide some opportunity for the have nots has a biblical basis.
Posted by: George, Jr. | July 23, 2008 11:05 AM
George, Jr. - I didn't rebut your land distribution comments - I believe it was "Moderatelad", for he tends to end all posts with "Blessings -"
I will rebut now though! Your redistribution argument based on the seven year land Sabbath is a HUGE stretch - it was by no means forced redistribution, but another Sabbath unto the Lord - one of many. The purpose of the 7th year was so that the poor AND animals could eat (are we to redistribute wealth to animals too?). Also, planting crops was not allowed on the 7th year - a Sabbath rest for the land. Anyhow, total different spiritual and economic scenario and set of circumstances...
One thing I find interesting is that tree fruit produced in the first 3 years was to be viewed as "uncircumcised" and not eaten, and the 4th year crop was given to the Lord. Finally, after 5 years, one could eat his crop (Lev 19:23-25). I only write this as the laws put forth for the Hebrews were theocratic in nature, and are not applicable/translatable in a non-theocratic society and government. If that were the case, farming would look a lot different today...
Payshun - I was not at all suggesting that you or your activist friends are going to be rejected by the Almighty, or condemned to Hell. Mercy, please! :-) I just find it interesting that activists are the ones screaming the loudest about their "good-works" and often condemn those that quietly go about doing "good works" for the Lord as though they do not care about social justice or societal woes. My question/comments were more rhetorical and contemplative in nature - food for cogitation.
Radical Moderate - I am certainly not a banana. I see myself more as a pear - and I have started an exercise program to rid me of that produce persona! Sorry... By the way, are you a Radical or are you Moderate? Per your own words, you obviously cannot be both... ;-)
Posted by: Arme2Win | July 23, 2008 11:52 AM
"When someone publicly recalls, a very true and well-documented history...our present tradition tells that person to STOP! Your comments are making me uncomfortable! Keep the truth to yourself, and let me continue comfortably in my own tradition of denial!"
I only wish this problem was addressed more often. People are way too "uncomfortable" and easily offended these days. The place I hear of this happening most often is on college campuses, which should be some of the freest places to express opinion. Too often people with view points that make others uncomfortable and are considered insensitive are told they aren't allowed to express their views.
Fight stupid speech with more intelligent speech, not with speech codes and "organized disruption".
Posted by: Eric | July 23, 2008 4:33 PM
Armed2win,
Thanks but no thanks. Your suggestion is condescending and annoying. I don't need to think about that because I already did. I need to correct you on something else activists are not condemning people, they are critiquing people. There is a difference, a huge difference.
Activists like myself and my friends don't feel like we have a right to judge anyone. We are just tired of the hypocrisy of people saying they care about something when their words don't match their actions. It's one thing if they are constantly trying to learn it's another thing when they don't really care and pretend to.
Not only that but I don't hear any activists here screaming about anything. That's a little melodramatic. Why would you care what they are saying any way? Sometimes in cases like genocide, mass rapes, climate change, social justice, abortion... people should scream or would you rather people did not?
p
Posted by: Payshun | July 24, 2008 12:37 AM
Mod,
Evangelists are "out of fashion" because of the lack of love for the people. It becomes about numbers and not about actually loving people. There is more to evangelism than merely preaching the word. There is healing, feeding... The goal should be to love God and to love your neighbor. That's not happening. Instead it's tracks, four spiritual laws... Most evangelicals do a really poor job of translating loving people into action.
That's not good. The type of evangelism evangelicals do has been "out of fashion" for centuries. Mother Theresa, Dorothy Day, Howard Thurman and many others typify the type of evangelism all Christians are called to do on some level even if it's just a smile.
p
Posted by: Payshun | July 24, 2008 12:51 AM
Payshun, you have said the following:
"Your suggestion is condescending and annoying. I don't need to think about that because I already did. I need to correct you on something else activists are not condemning people, they are critiquing people....Activists like myself and my friends don't feel like we have a right to judge anyone."
So, is your accusation that I am condescending and annoying a critique or is it judgmental and condemnatory? Regardless, truth hurts sometimes, to use an old colloquialism, but I apologize for annoying you - that is not my intent. My intent has been, all along, for serious debate/discussion and an exchange of ideas.
"Sometimes in cases like genocide, mass rapes, climate change, social justice, abortion... people should scream or would you rather people did not?"
I never said activism is inherently bad, nor is addressing the ills that afflict this world - genocide, rapes of any number, murder at any stage or age, poverty, etc. I agree with your statement above. We should be bringing these issues into the public sphere. However, sometimes another old colloquialism can apply: "What you do speaks so loud that I cannot hear what you say." Like you mentioned in a previously, "I can tell you my liberal activist friends sometimes focus so much on accountability that they ignore some of the work." That's the problem that I have with some activism, and hence my quotations of Biblical texts.
"Evangelists are "out of fashion" because of the lack of love for the people."
Is this a critique, or is it judgmental and condemnatory? How do you know? I know several evangelists - they have a deep and abiding love for all humanity and have committed their lives to reaching out to them.
"It becomes about numbers and not about actually loving people."
This I can agree with. Many evangelists (even the ones I know) are more concerned about making members than making disciples, despite love. Christ's Great Commission was to make disciples, not converts. I think that is something that should be followed more. This involves more than just large rallies and mass baptisms, but living with people, learning their cultures, their ways, their dreams and desires, their goals, and ministering to their needs. If the opportunity arises to share the Love of Christ, then by all means do so...
Posted by: Armed2Win | July 24, 2008 8:43 AM
Mod,
Billy Graham is the exception that proves the rule. I am sure a lot of evangelists love people in that immature I am right and I need to save their souls kind of way. But I can tell you for the people I am friends with it doesn't work. It's comes across as judgmental and annoying.
Armed said:
Is this a critique, or is it judgmental and condemnatory? How do you know? I know several evangelists - they have a deep and abiding love for all humanity and have committed their lives to reaching out to them.
Me:
Well it's not condemning first off. Never once have I said they did not have faith in God, or that they were going to hell. Never once did I assume bad faith in what they were doing. So it wouldn't be condemning if I don't do any of those things. Biblically condemnation and judgement are reserved to God and God alone so I don't have the power to condemn or call anyone to hell so no I am not condemning.
Most evangelists in the states today don't do what Jesus did. They don't heal the sick... It's not the model that is in vogue for conservative evangelicalism.
Armed:
"That's the problem that I have with some activism, and hence my quotations of Biblical texts."
Well that was not very clear from your earlier posts. You said we lacked accountability and that we weren't concerned with it. So which is it? Is it both or one or the other?
I am going on good faith here. I will take you at your word. Your goal is serious debate and conversation then please ask more questions that actually represent the people you are critiquing.
p
Posted by: Payshun | July 24, 2008 12:30 PM
Excellent & very thought-provoking treatise on where our priorities & energies should be focused. It has made me think (again) on the issues we face in our society & whether "fixes" we pursue are truly cures or treatments for the ailments.
Thinking further about gun control as a response to the issue of violent crime, I have for quite some time believed that surely it would be more cure than treatment, but I've lately started to deeply doubt that assumption, in favor of treating the things that cause people to want to commit violence. In Japan, where I currently reside, guns are VERY highly controlled & almost non-existent outside of military & upper levels of law enforcement, yet they too have a violence problem that they seek to overcome. And I am encouraged to see some semblance of a cure being proposed in seeking to treat the emotional issues & mental health of individuals, not in knife control:
http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=5373
Posted by: Joshua Murphy | July 26, 2008 11:18 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?