Brian wrote that “Looking back over religious-political discourse in recent decades, many of our religious leaders implied, ‘If a candidate is right on issue A and issue B, support him without reservation,’ which carried the tacit message, ‘These issues are so important -- don't worry what he says about issue C and issue D.’ The result of this kind of endorsement was that millions of Christians supported President Bush on two issues…”

By virtue of what Brian and other commenters on Sojourners have written in the past, I think we can assume issues A and B are abortion and gay marriage. But the problem with this equation is that, for most Christians, those two issues weren’t the only reasons they supported Bush. Perhaps they liked Bush’s stance on education or judges or foreign affairs or taxes or any of the other dozens of issues out there. To reduce Christian support for Bush down to two issues is shallow. That’s not to say that if Gore was pro-life Christians wouldn’t have given him a longer look, they probably would have, but it’s insulting to say that Christians go to the voting booth and say “Well, this guy is opposed to abortion and gay marriage so I’m going to vote for him. I don’t care what he thinks about taxes, energy, the budget, health care, education, etc.” I don’t know any Christian who does that.

You might think other Christians need to reassess how a Christian should look at the issues of taxes, energy, foreign affairs, etc, but don’t say that just because another Christian doesn’t agree with you on those issues that they “don’t worry about” what a candidate says about them when voting for that candidate.

In general, I agree with Brian though when it comes to voting. There is nothing wrong with a Christian “endorsing” a candidate in the sense of saying “I support him or her” as long as you’re careful to not make that candidate the be all and end all of your life. Recognize that they’re going to disappoint and don’t follow them blindly. But what I think Shane was getting at was is he going to allow a particular candidate to use the movement he’s created to help him get elected. Shane’s right to resist that pressure. Shane’s movement is geared to something greater than helping a particular candidate get elected.

Posted by: Eric | July 17, 2008 2:58 PM

That’s not to say that if Gore was pro-life Christians wouldn’t have given him a longer look, they probably would have, but it’s insulting to say that Christians go to the voting booth and say “Well, this guy is opposed to abortion and gay marriage so I’m going to vote for him. I don’t care what he thinks about taxes, energy, the budget, health care, education, etc.” I don’t know any Christian who does that.

In my experience, especially in the 1980s, NcLaren's perception is quite accurate -- I knew quite a number of Christians who did (and some still do) vote primarily on those two issues. I occasionally visit another Christian website which runs them into the ground; just last month I got into a heated exchange with someone who considered Barack Obama the "worst ever candidate for President" based just on those alone. And almost all major evangelical Christian media that get into politicas do the same, to pump up outrage and watch the $$$ roll in to their "ministries."

That said, I also believe that we shouldn't hold up our candidates as messianic figures because if you do you set yourself up for disappointment. If elected they have to work too closely with legislatures, the public and lobbyists, and that generally precludes any grand crusades for/against issues. No question that Ronald Reagan was (and to a certain extent, still is) a "messianic figure"; Obama is looking like another, and he's already let down the anti-war contingent of the party by not promising to pull the troops out of Iraq immediately -- thing is, he never promised to to that in the first place.

Posted by: Rick | July 17, 2008 3:16 PM

Kevin S. - I've also seen McLaren listed as an advisor to Obama's campaign in news stories. He's not on staff, but he's definitely helping. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but he's definitely supporting him publicly.

Posted by: Eric | July 17, 2008 3:29 PM

I knew that as soon as I wrote what I did above that Rick would respond with an anecdote from the 80s about how some Christians he knew acted out the perfect stereotype of an unthinking right-wing Christian.

Yes, there are those types out there. They don't just exist on the right either. But my point was that it's insulting for Brian to say that the millions (that's a lot more than "quite a number" or one guy who doesn't like Obama) of Christians who supported Bush did the same.

Posted by: Eric | July 17, 2008 3:38 PM

I knew that as soon as I wrote what I did above that Rick would respond with an anecdote from the 80s about how some Christians he knew acted out the perfect stereotype of an unthinking right-wing Christian.

I say that only because that's when I first noticed it. As I mentioned with my experience on that other blog -- which, BTW, has also blasted McLaren, Rick Warren and others for being "un-Biblical" -- many still maintain those same views; I hear from them from time to time. Heck, I have churchmates and other friends who still listen regularly to James Dobson, and no one in his or her right mind will tell me he's moderated!

Posted by: Rick | July 17, 2008 3:48 PM

Whether they agree or disagree, Brian -you've got people thinking, talking and praying. Good! Prophets welcomed.

Posted by: Greg K | July 17, 2008 3:59 PM

Let us remember that voting is a previlege and not a 'right'.

You're on constitutionally shaky ground when you make that assertion.

Posted by: Rick | July 17, 2008 4:19 PM

"I'm quite certain that my friend meant, by the word endorse, "blindly, uncritically, and without reservation express support for." And, of course, with that I would fully agree."

Didn't anybody read the post "his friend" made? He says quite clearly that he means:

"In post-Religious Right America, we want to learn from the mistakes of the generation before us (so we don't repeat them) - one of which was telling Christians who to vote for. Rather than spoon-feeding people answers, we hope to stir up the right questions - and trust that the Spirit will lead us as we "work out our salvation with fear and trembling."

Posted by: John | July 17, 2008 4:24 PM

Moderatelad - You should continue to post here. Just tone down the rhetoric sometimes. Don't let everyone get under your skin. Ignore the people who post for the sole purpose of being antagonistic.

On the voting issue, it depends on whether you're talking about human rights or civil rights. Voting is a civil right and a privilege at the same time. It's not a human right. We start from the default that any adult can vote. However, that civil right to vote can be taken away by law, such as is done with people who commit crimes.

Posted by: Eric | July 17, 2008 4:34 PM

It is amazing all of the left issues Brian list off but fails to mention one issue dealing with the Sanctity of Life. Amazing how he and Mr. Wallis can spew the democratic talking points with ease.

Posted by: buckeyeman | July 17, 2008 5:01 PM

It is amazing all of the left issues Brian list off but fails to mention one issue dealing with the Sanctity of Life. Amazing how he and Mr. Wallis can spew the democratic talking points with ease.

Please define "sanctity of life." If you're talking merely about abortion it won't get much traction because for 30 years that's been used as a political battering ram just to get votes. But it you're talking "womb-to-tomb" -- well, that's another matter.

Posted by: Rick | July 17, 2008 5:13 PM

Today I received a visit from a person who
comes by every so often, quotes scipture and
leaves a few pamphlets.
I am not usually available when they come,but
felt that I had to ask, what was the purpose
of the visit. I am a Christian ,will not convert
to their, but was interested in their opinion
on the upcoming election.
They answered me by saying Christ did not
believe Religion belonged in the policat arena.
As a Christian , I disagree with that because
since so many from the right have bombarded
us with their feelings on abortion,
gay marriage, gay adoption,etc.
I feel that I have to take a stand against
divorce, greed, and much more.
I applaud Obama for telling the other side
of the Story, That our Country is hurting
because of people chasing the dollar , while
neglecting quality time with their familie.
When he says turn off the tV and the games,
I think he would also say speak to your
children about doing for others, living
a Christian life, etc.

Posted by: lois Carey | July 17, 2008 5:52 PM

Brian,

I too had read Shane's piece, and found it a very good one. I agree with the principles in it.

I agree with you that we should take our responsibilities seriously. I disagree with your opinion that this means voting for one of the two duopoly candidates. IMHO, that is voting for an evil system to continue since both are essentially candidates for the status quo.

For me, a key issue is our national priorities. This country devotes over half of the discretionary budget to wars and preparations for wars. This is horribly wrong just in absolute terms for those of us who are followers of Prince of Peace. In addition, it means that human needs programs never get the funding they need because the priority is programs for mass slaughter. And it is not responsible in terms of care for creation since the military has devastating consequences for the environment.

I believe former President Eisenhower was right when he said, "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

Obama and McCain have consistently supported current national priorities. The campaign positions of both candidates are for a larger military budget and an increase in the size of the armed forces. Both also support an escalation of the war in Afghanistan. Both regularly make belligerent comments regarding nations with which the U.S. is not currently at war. (Not to mention various other issues on which both are wrong, such as the death penalty.)

So a vote for Obama or McCain is a vote to continue the grossly immoral national priorities. Since both have repeatedly made clear their position on this, a vote for one of them supports a mandate to continue skewed national priorities.

We must refuse to be taken in by the two war parties and the mainstream media to think that we are wasting our votes if we don't vote for one of the establishment parties. If we do, we are co-opted into supporting a system that you explained very well in your book Everything Must Change is horribly wrong.

We throw away our votes if we vote for someone who stands for preserving and enhancing an evil system. It is time for us to come out of the closet, and vote for third party or independent candidates who will not be perfect but do really challenge the current system.

Posted by: Bill Samuel | July 17, 2008 7:50 PM

"I have no doubt there are many Christians who are conservatives through and through. In fact, I find that most Christians I know who have strong feelings about politics talk first like Republicans and second like Christians."

And you know this because you are Democrat, am I right?

"Perhaps this is the result of their upbringing in which their parents pushed a conservative ideology strongly."

"Perhaps" is a cowardly dodge. What you mean to say is that those who disagree with you do so because their beliefs have been forced on them by their parents. My mother and stepfather are Buddhist and liberal. In my observation, people's political views reflect those of their parents with about the same frequency, regardless of party.

"This usually means a strong distrust verging on hatred of government when it comes to domestic policy,"

It reflects a strong distrust of government period, but an acknowledgment that the government must provide our physical protection.

"yet a brand of nationalism that keeps them from questioning our government's foreign policy when it concerns war and other violent acts."

You will find that conservatives have questioned our foreign policy decisions frequently.

"But I wonder"

Another dodge. What follows is what you intend to assert.

"when Christians first consider voting, they are immediately drawn to the issues of abortion and gay marriage"

Do you have proof of this? The education issue converted me from Democrat to Republican. My school district implemented race-based mandatory bussing to circumvent statewide school choice laws. My school district was also a complete and utter failure.

"The Republicans seem to answer to their morals on those issues."

A magnanimous concession.

"Then they think, well Republicans must be trustworthy,"

Who are "they"?

"and they use the right God words (or subtly infused Christian messages, as in the case of Bush using lines from hymns, etc.),"

Oh, please. As though Democrats haven't used "God words". The name of this blog is "God's Politics", and it is a Democratic blog.

"So they begin to listen to and trust their positions on other issues and distrust those of Democrats, because they are the Godless baby-killers, right?"

Well, the Democrats do generally believe that it is okay to abort children. But that is not the core of conservative belief, no.

"This bias leads to an inability to honestly evaluate the proposals of a candidate from the other side"

So now we are dishonest.

"(obviously this happens in both directions)."

You don't seem to think it is obvious.

"And of course they then concentrate their attention to media (like Fox News)"

Or CNN or Newsweek, since it "happens in both directions" right?

"that validates this view of the world."

Or maybe we just disagree with you. It isn't as though what you posted here is particularly persuasive. When I switched political affiliations, what I encountered was more or less akin to what you have posted here. I was a judgmental blah, blah, blah...

Accompanied by many tears and much emotion, of course.

Posted by: kevin s. | July 17, 2008 8:19 PM

To suggest Christians had an excuse for voting to re-elect the Bush-Admin a second time, despite the revelation of error's and evil actions involved, is a statement that cannot be defended and certainly has no valid support.
The sole excuse that I am aware, is that church leaders either fearful or in total ignorance gave precious little or no warning to those they lead.
Voting, here again is evidence of ignorance or little discernment. Our government under both democrat and republican Presidents were involved in evil regarding Iraq, it would do no good to go into these points for those still ignorant.
Voting then for Congress, I believe a handful at most know why and how today it is (only) the (new) Congressional candidate that is of immeasurable importance, and again for those still ignorant of these facts would be pointless to describe. Many believe a Presidential candidate is important to all citizens, but a Congresman only to local constituents.
I believe today the great delusion is evident, also the blind lead the blind, I post this only to vent my frustration.

Posted by: DeWayne | July 17, 2008 9:01 PM

In response to Kevin's comment: "It isn't as though what you posted here is particularly persuasive."

I didn't post it to try to turn conservatives liberal! I posted it to give fellow progressives an understanding of the possible workings of the political mind in Christians so they could be on the awares and prevent it from happening to their friends/new converts, etc.

I've observed that people divide up into groups something like this (very rough percentages): 20% agree strongly with me (politically), 10% generally agree with me, 10% generally disagree with me and have opinions on politics but are open to learning and changing opinions based on new facts, 40% really don't know enough or care enough to have a political discussion, and 20% don't waste your breath. Which is why I rarely bother to post on blogs, etc., because probably the only people reading are of the first or last categories. And to be honest, I'm pretty much of the latter category from the perspective of a conservative - there's really nothing you could say that would get me to vote Republican.

And to respond to Eric:

"It's hard to have a dialogue with people who assume that anyone who disagrees with them must have been brainwashed into having different public policy ideas than they do. If there's no way you can believe that Christians who vote Republican come by their political beliefs through analysis and thought, you're going to have a hard time engaging in meaningful conversation with them."

You are right that I make certain assumptions about people who are strongly conservative - I've generally found them to be closed to arguments from the other side and distrustful of any of my information sources. This article on brain function in conservatives vs. liberals supports this assumption.
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/09/brain-study-lib.html

And of course I've met conservative individuals who do not fit this mold, just very few. And when I have a chance to interact with them personally, of course I give them the benefit of the doubt if they express their ideas intelligently. But I've discovered that blog postings really aren't the forum for understanding one another since most posters tend to be quite partisan.

Posted by: Lindsey Parsons | July 17, 2008 9:03 PM

When everybody who posts on your blog votes for Democratic candidates, and most of them endorse them, I call your blog Democratic.

Irrelevant. Now, if people were actively working for Democratic candidates and advocating for them on the blog, which frankly they don't do here, that's another matter. Besides, not everything in this world can be reduced to partisan political ideology.

Your experience isn't an argument.

By that standard, neither is yours. I do know, however, that conservatives are far, far more ideologically oriented than anyone else but believe that everyone (even the other side) thinks similarly even without a shred of evidence -- and it's generally not even true anyway.

Posted by: Rick | July 18, 2008 12:28 AM

Why do people think the unrelated issues of abortion and gay marriage go together? Abortion, like war, capital punishment, and euthanasia are "sanctity of life" issues. I oppose abortion because I don't believe in killing other people. I don't see what the gay marriage issue has to do with this one way or the other.

Posted by: Jerry | July 18, 2008 1:19 AM

"If that is what he meant, then he doesn't know what the word "endorse" means. McLaren has endorsed Obama by any standard definition of the term."

Thank you for bringing clarity, wisdom and enlightenment to the discussion. Somehow the discussion would not be as informative without your penetrating and cutting analysis.

Posted by: JamesM | July 18, 2008 6:20 AM

I do not quite understand why like other people why there is no other Godly principles we go by to support a candidate on. Yes in the past there has been alot of discrimination in the races and we are getting better on this. I see alot of black politians running as replublicans as well as whites believing they can win by being affliating with this party because they would have a greater chance to win. It is not about winning but what you represent is important. Have we not understood what John F. Kennedy said when he said "Do not not ask what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country under Godly principles what I believe he was referring to. Yes, he was not perfect and somethings maybe not what you liked. What has happen to this world in the last 40 yrs. It is going away from GODS teachings. To love the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy might and all thy strength. So many sermons spoken out of the pulpit according to mans agenda and not according to GODS agenda on how to bring heaven down to earth, and they have whitewash alot of HIS messages and instructions. What ever happen to love thy neighbor as thyself, and to forgive one another. Most people do not even open their Bibles up to read directions on how to obtain life. We as a people have no excuse when we stand before GOD, on what we did in our trials and journey in this life on earth, because we judge by our decisions and our works. GOD help us because we are accountable who we vote for to represent us. NO corporation or bribes (L0bbyist)should be allowed in persuaion in any issue for to be passed that they seek for there gain. This is Capitalishm, and no ishm is of GOD. I say wake up America and the world that we live in, because the teachings on economy in our schools is way off base according to GODLY principles in free trade. To give our jobs away because of the greed in our business who are not satisfied with wahat they make, but what more for a selected few. Just look at GM, who was the number one stock in america, and they have fallen to the bottom because of their decisions and actions that people will just buy american products, no matter what they do. Do you think they have learned yet? I do not believe so, or they would not have made vehicles as gas guslers. The party in office is allowing them to change contracts and medicals to suit their needs whenever they want by bribes by lobbyists to succeed. Is not bribes something that should not be allowed. yet we do not hear anything as a issue when it comes to elections and we know both partys are guilty. This is just a few examples. What about not teaching the truth according to GODS WORD. They have distorted it so bad that there is no life in it, and it is for what the people what to hear. Let me tell you, you preachers who have done this, is as the blind leading the blind according to GOD and you politians are held accountable to GOD for your actions. Did not JESUS tell Peter that the tributary, do not collect taxes from there own, but from strangers. Whose picture is on the coin, that is who you pay taxes too. Did not Jesus tell peter to go to the fish and get the coin to pay for you and I. SO were do this country get there teaching that the churchs and preachers do not pay taxes. I do not understand that you did not see the miracle that happen when the LORD told Peter to get the coin was a great miracle, that happen instantly, when Peter followed what the LORD told him what to do. the coin was the right amount for both of them for taxes. Did you read of this miracle for today. Bye for now

Posted by: Sydney Mooradian | July 18, 2008 8:51 AM

I don't see what the gay marriage issue has to do with this one way or the other.Posted by: Jerry

Some see both as a sign of serious moral decay in this country. Many of those same individuals don't give a whiff about the war in Iraq and other pressing moral issues.

Posted by: JamesM | July 18, 2008 8:59 AM

But, by inviting Clinton, Obama and Edwards, they did endorse their candidacies at a time when it could also have helped Dennis.

It's a stretch to compare Dennis to Ron Paul outside the context of their positions on the war (Dennis' ethical and humanitarian opposition to Ron's legal).

Dennis lacked support precisely because of groups like Sojourners made a conscious decision to abdicate their beliefs and principles in favor of money and influence (the major reasons people get elected).

Posted by: Tom | July 18, 2008 9:40 AM

In the same way that Brian McLaren made the very informed statement to Christianity Today that: "One of the problems is that the average Christian in the average church who listens to the average Christian broadcasting has such an oversimplified understanding of both the Bible and of church history - it would be deeply disturbing for them to really learn about church history." The fact that both Mr. McLaren and Jim Wallis have ignored the rebuttal to Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right (see http://ebionite.com/TwoWrongs.htm ), both have rendered themselves nothing more than cultural blind guides. Jesus didn't teach that its OK to be right on a few things, and wrong on others -- he said that his disciples must become a Living Expression of the Truth and the Kingdom. And as fully explored at the above link, neither the Right of the Left get the very essence of Jesus' teachings, and both are equally strangled by the lack of depth of having been cast along the side of TheWay.

Brother Of Yeshua
http://BrotherOfYeshua.com

Posted by: Jacob, Brother Of Yeshua/Jesus | July 18, 2008 10:03 AM

"I say wake up America and the world that we live in, because the teachings on economy in our schools is way off base according to GODLY principles in free trade."

We can't teach Godly principles in government schools. The Supreme Court has ruled it's unconstitutional. The teaching of economics doesn't advocate any worldview. The problem is not enough people are taught economics in school. The lack of economic education causes people to make uninformed comments like:

"To give our jobs away because of the greed in our business who are not satisfied with wahat they make, but what more for a selected few."

Posted by: DITE | July 18, 2008 10:30 AM

"We can't teach Godly principles in government schools. "

Godly principles can be taught anywhere- honesty, love of one's neighbor, the Golden Rule.

Somehow a segment of Christinity believes that if you cannot get someone to say the sinner's prayer, you are not teaching godly principles. Maybe we should seek to let our lives speak instead of seeking to indoctrinate.

Posted by: JamesM | July 18, 2008 10:51 AM

Brian makes many good points but his assertion that millions of Christians voted for W for 2 reasons insults the judgement of those voters. As Brian himself says later in the post, it is an imperfect system whereby we often vote many times for the lesser of two evils....in this case it was a choice between Al Gore and GWB. I voted for W for a host of reasons, a choice made by balancing multiple and sometimes conflicting wants for my choice as president. Did I know at the time what W would do in Iraq? Of course not. Its so very easy for all of us isn't it, to look back and condemn those who voted for Mr. Bush?

Posted by: Noodle Beach | July 18, 2008 11:25 AM

Noodle said:
Brian makes many good points but his assertion that millions of Christians voted for W for 2 reasons insults the judgement of those voters. As Brian himself says later in the post, it is an imperfect system whereby we often vote many times for the lesser of two evils....in this case it was a choice between Al Gore and GWB. I voted for W for a host of reasons, a choice made by balancing multiple and sometimes conflicting wants for my choice as president. Did I know at the time what W would do in Iraq? Of course not. Its so very easy for all of us isn't it, to look back and condemn those who voted for Mr. Bush?

Me:
I think you guys do a really great job of condemning yourselves. There was plenty of opposition and well researched critique of president bush. So it's that we judge and condemn you it's that you all ignored all other critique of the candidate. The Left knew that he was not someone to be trusted with running the country and I am talking about Democrats to Green Party folks. We all saw the writing on the wall. The question is why did not you?

p

Posted by: Payshun | July 18, 2008 11:52 AM

Noodle,

Thank you I am blessed. May you be blessed as well. All I am saying is that your brothers and sisters on the left were very skeptical of him from day one. We questioned everything he did and why he was running. We questioned his competence and ability to lead.

You all ignored all of our critique and you can say that's Monday Morning quarterbacking if you want to but nothing I am saying is new. We studied the man's failures and his successes and they did not add up. You all studied his "values" and went with only that.

I never said an Al Gore presidency would be all roses but we knew enough to know that it would not be a president Bush presidency and that was all we needed to know.

p

Posted by: Payshun | July 18, 2008 12:45 PM

Excuse me, but what else in the world do you think, say, setting up call centers in India is about?"

You're excused. I would call it lowering input costs, increasing efficiency, increasing profits. It's no more "greedy" than companies using light bulbs instead of kerosene lamps even if that means kerosene lamp makers would lose their jobs. Profits are a necessity for prosperity. It is a near truism amongst economists that protectionist trade policies are harmful to a society.

Posted by: DITE | July 18, 2008 1:13 PM

Rickisms

In my experience most conservatives don't know enough about, let alone respect, what others believe to make that kind of judgment --

If you're talking merely about abortion it won't get much traction because for 30 years that's been used as a political battering ram just to get votes.

however, that conservatives are far, far more ideologically oriented than anyone else but believe that everyone (even the other side) thinks similarly even without a shred of evidence -- and it's generally not even true anyway.

Of course, conservatives won't accept that because, at heart, they want all the authority and when you have too many people making money ... well, that causes problems all the way around.

Pul-LEEZE!!! What sense does it make to outsource jobs to make a few more bucks of net profit when people over here who lose those jobs down the road end up not having enough money to buy your products?

On what basis? That he supports neither right-wing policies nor the kind of religion that tries to justify or excuse them?

Bush's rebuke from the rest of the world is a result of his failure to govern properly, something the political right doesn't care that much about.

Posted by: Rick | July 18, 2008 11:33 AM

Posted by: tit4tat | July 18, 2008 1:40 PM

Once again, McLaren does what he always does and builds a straw man which he viciously attacks.

Posted by: JohnH | July 18, 2008 2:24 PM

Sorry

*now it's a very small minority

Posted by: DITE | July 18, 2008 2:39 PM

tit4tat -- Everything I said is true. Deal with it.

The only true supply-sider was Ronald Reagan, not George H.W. And disparage as you may about supply-side theory, Mr. Reagan left office with 15 million more jobs in the US than when he started.

Big deal -- the numbers respectively of high-wage manufacturing jobs went down and low-wage service jobes went up. My city used to be known for steel and glass; today, however, the primary industry is now health care -- which is also taking a hit with higher premiums because those decisions are being made not locally but on Wall Street. And with "merger mania," a lot of middle-management folks lost their positions, which is what caused the recession because they'd lost confidence in the economy.

At one point in America the majority of people were farmers. Now it's a very small majority. There aren't millions of unemployed farmers wandering America with no money to buy the food that they used to farm.

The Industrial Revulution at the term of the last century made it more profitable for folks to work in plants, so they left farms -- in Europe as well. And your comment that "[t]here aren't millions of unemployed farmers wandering America with no money to buy the food that they used to farm" is either categorically false now or will be soon, as farms are closing up weekly (and, I'm sure, at a higher rate today because of fuel prices). Many of those folks in the country have nowhere to go because the towns they supported financially also collapsed.

Increasing input costs increases prices.

It worked for Henry Ford, who came up with the idea of paying his workers enough so that they could afford to buy his cars.

And since this is a Christian blog, I think it would be fine to add a sense of the Scripture, which counsels against economic exploitation, especially on the part of the rich -- which is apparently being justified here. But it seems that those passages are being ignored for the sake of power -- and we accept that at our peril because, like it or not, we do have a responsibility to our fellow man (yes, culturally as well).

That gets us back to the topic. It seems to be that the purpose of government is to restrain evil and administer justice to benefit as many as possible. That said, when any entity gets in the way of that -- from the rapacious profiteer to the small-time crook sticking up people in the street -- it should be the responsibility to do whatever's necessary to remove that person from society. We're now determining the best way to do that and, by inference, the most qualified people to act as administrators.

Posted by: Rick | July 18, 2008 3:13 PM

"is either categorically false now or will be soon, as farms are closing up weekly (and, I'm sure, at a higher rate today because of fuel prices). Many of those folks in the country have nowhere to go because the towns they supported financially also collapsed."

I have not heard any statistics about millions of former farmers that are starving to death in America. I am agreeing that farms are closing up quickly and small towns are dying. Farms are getting bigger because it is more efficient. People from small farms are moving into cities because they can be more productive there. It is the healthy evolution of our economy.

"It worked for Henry Ford, who came up with the idea of paying his workers enough so that they could afford to buy his cars."

Ford's assembly line reduced input costs so the final products were cheaper. That's why they could afford the cars. The assembly line also made people more productive which raised the price of their labor (wages).

"Someday we'll get back to localized economies where the free market will really work, ala farmer markets, etc."

Wow. So, now your against specializing an economy? You are not going to find an economist that supports this idea.

Posted by: DITE | July 19, 2008 9:52 AM

Government in Charge of Justice

New Chemical Element Found!

- Governmentium (Gv) Study of recent hurricane and gasoline issues have proved the existence of a new chemical element. A major research institution has recently announced the discovery of the heaviest element yet known to science.

The new element has been named:

"Governmentium (Gv)"

Governmentium (Gv) has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.

Governmentium is inert. However, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A minute amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second to take over four days to complete.

Governmentium has a normal half-life of four years; it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.

This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as Critical Morass. When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium (Am) -- an element which radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.

This decays into a permanent stable element called: Bureaucratium. It can never be destroyed. (Author unknown)

Posted by: MS | July 19, 2008 3:21 PM

"You're going to tell me that's economic progress?"

Absolutely

"You should understand that the biggest threat to our economy is concentrated wealth because those that have it tend to call the shots, primarily to benefit only themselves. And that's not biblical."

Small farms are struggling because they are not efficient. If concentration of wealth is what you fear, you should be adamantly against encouraging people to continue to work a job that prohibits them from being competitive and efficient. Both sets of my grandparents made the difficult decision to move off the farm and they became more productive after doing so. This allowed my parents to go to college and be even more productive than their parents.

"False -- he quintupled their pay."

What's false? I agreed that he raised their pay. I don't think he quintupled it, however. I think it was more like doubled, and again that's because the assembly line made the workers more productive and increased the price of their labor.

"Not everything can be reduced to pure economics. There's something called "justice" mentioned in the Scriptures several dozen times."

Not everything can be reduced to economics, but you can't form opinions on the justice of the economy based on a completely inaccurate understanding of the economy.

Posted by: DITE | July 19, 2008 10:34 PM

Many people don't care about Scriptural justice. They are more concerned about the bottom line of big business and the rich getting richer. Sermon on the Mount? bah!

Posted by: ando

You however miss speak for many who also are concerned about jobs going over seas .
Liberal views of their government sponsored justice is even more intrusive into personal lives of believers .
The freedom to live our our God given lives plan is hampered by liberal regulation and taking from one person to arbitrarily give to another based on only monetary gain . Leaving justice in the hand of a John Kerry , George Bush , Obama , is about as far away from any Biblical truth , Government Justice is cultish in the fact it it puts faith in men , and not God .

Posted by: MS | July 20, 2008 1:21 PM

Then explain the Civil Rights Movement.

Posted by: Rick

Explain slavery

Posted by: MS | July 20, 2008 3:04 PM

The Bible teaches that no government, corporation, or individual has the right to steal from its fellow citizens, regardless of whether the majority votes to make that theft "legal."

That's pushing it. Government imposes taxation because it has the right to 1) maintain infrastructure and 2) administer justice. Concerning the second, when private entities in this country have too much money they tend to want to run things, so they send in lobbyists to gain special treatment, including the right to exploit their workers. (Our political system is built that way, so simply reining in lobbyists is not only impractical but illegal.) Even the Apostle Paul told Jesus' followers to pay their taxes -- to a corrupt Roman government that they no doubt hated.

MS -- Answer my question first. Then I'll answer yours.

Posted by: Rick | July 20, 2008 4:54 PM

Rick: "As though "efficiency" is everything -- there are spiritual, social and cultural factors involved as well. Reducing everything to "efficiency" takes the human portion out of it because God did not make us as mere economic machines."

Right on! DITE, you seem to define efficiency as simply getting most monetary return from each dollar invested. According to that definition, churches are also "inefficient": they have to ask for money every week.

Posted by: I and I | July 22, 2008 11:09 AM

I find it interesting that Brian mischaracterizes Christians by saying "If a candidate is right on issue A and issue B, support him without reservation," which carried the tacit message, "These issues are so important -- don't worry what he says about issue C and issue D."

It's not that we voted for Bush, or will vote for McCain, because we think "don't worry what they say about issue C and D". It's more that we think they are right on issues C and D, as well as A and B.

Issue A is abortion. Barack Obama has fought hard to ensure no medical care for unborn children, when he fought against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. This is un-Christian and sinful, and Christian's can't vote for Obama due to his stance on this issue alone. Issue B is special rights for gays and their agenda to destroy the traditional definition of marriage. Barry and McLaren are also in agreement in supporting these sinful attempts to make homosexual practices legitimate. God has spoken against the sin of homosexuality, in fact he destroyed Sodom become of it. Christians can't vote for Obama or support McLaren on this issue either
But issue C is tax policy. Obama thinks we should raise taxes on working Americans. McCain thinks we should let working Americans keep more of their own money. This is not a Christian vs. non-Christian issue. One way works better, and every time we lower taxes the economy does well. And it may be a moral issue...we should not confiscate more of a man's wages just to re-distribute it to others. But, as Christians we are free to choose the high tax or the low tax policy here. One or the other is not Christian or non-Christian. And certainly if one believes in high taxes, that does not compensate for a belief in killing live born children. Democrats and Republicans both have the same goal: help poor people and raise everyone's income so they have the self-respect of a job to care for their own family. Just because the Democrats idea doesn't work, doesn't make it Christian or non-Christian.
Say issue D is the war. Of course the Iraq war met the just war theory, but it also was something that needed to be done to protect the safety and freedom of Americans and the world. If Obama thinks its OK to let al Qaida take over an oil rich country and use it as a sanctuary to plan and launch the next 9-11 on America, then that's his business. But, he can't argue against the great job Bush and McCain have done to protect Americans. He may think he has a a better way, to meet unconditionally with brutal thug dictators, but that doesn't make his way more or less Christian. We both have the same goals here, protecting Americans safety and protecting the safety of the world. Just because Obama's failed weakness and appeasement won't work, is no reason to vote or not vote for him. His chosen method of dealing with terrorists doesn't trump his aggressive stance against live born children.

Posted by: Tom Paine | September 8, 2008 10:10 PM

I love the way Brian puts things, and he is the only Christian I've heard give a thoughtful reason why to vote for Obama. Every other Christian that I have read has given rather nebulous reasons. I'm not voting for Obama for various reasons, but McLaren's advice, hopes, and thoughtful writings should at least give every non-Obama supporter some things to think about.

Any by the way, on his own website, he has endorsed Obama.

Posted by: Doug | September 16, 2008 11:18 AM