Ben, he who is very much like me except that he is ardently liberal while I am ardently conservative, would like to have a debate with me about the merits of our views. Especially, I think, as regards our mutual faith in Christ.
I think an important framework for such a discussion has to start with what is agreed upon. I suspect, as I think I've stated soemwhere before, that I believe we probably agree on many things. We agree, broadly, in our theology - in who we regard Jesus to be, on the call on each of us as Christ-followers to obey him in all areas of our lives, and on the authority of the Bible. We agree that as Christians, we are not to give perference to rich and powerful people who we intend to use to leverage ourselves into greater positions of power, but to care in particular for the poor, lowly, forgotten people of the world. We agree that the simplest acts of compassion for these people are acts so incalculably valuable as if they had been rendered to God Himself.
I think, though this is a more general pronouncement, that we both want to see the greatest "good" done for the greatest number of people. We both want to maximise people's welfare across both material and immaterieal dimensions. We want to see justice, freedom, faith, love, and the other great things spread among all people.
The great divergence, I think, is in how we see this best accomplished. To what degree should we attempt to wield the power of government towarsd these ends? To what degree can/should we use the power of government to tax and seize resources to give them to others? Why? Why not?
I will, then, invite Ben to give his opinion on this question: To what degree should we as Christians support or cause our government to take resources from those we deem to have enough, and give it to those we deem as not having enough - both domestically and internationally. If possible, I'd like some bounds on when we should and should not. At what point should we abstain from, or even oppose, the government using its power in that way. Staking out our positions will help set a groundwork for the rest of the discussion.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
I'm looking forward to this. It should be a good exchange, particularly, in my experience, because you're both willing to flesh out an argument.
Yeah, when I respond, this should be a good exchange. Lately I've been so incredibly busy that I haven't had to time to get into this.
What I need is an afternoon where I can gather my thoughts. It ain't happening this weekend (I suspect) because Kenny and Erin are coming in.
But I will respond!
I think I'll start with a few points:
1. On Jeff's blog, you said you'd much rather see the church encouraging its members to feed the hungry and love their neighbors than telling them to vote a certain way (the issue in that example being gay marriage). I see no divide. If Christ is Lord, then He is Lord of all areas of our life, including our politics. We must submit our political views and principles to Him and faithfully try to make sure they are in line with biblical values, just as we must submit our finances, our sexual morality, and how we spend our time....all to Him.
Put another way, I see no divide between, say, directly feeding the hungry and advocating for policies you believe will ensure the hungry are fed. It's part and parcel of the same thing, all directed towards making the Kingdom values of faith, hope, and love a concrete reality.
2. A point Kenny has made which I will repeat here: We, the citizens of a democracy, have even greater responsibility to be politically informed and engaged because the government ostensibly represents us. Or, put another way, if decisions are often made by those who show up (and, oh man, have I ever found that to be the truth), then we have a responsibility to show up and speak for our Lord....and for the "least of these."
3. Okay, finally I come to your question. Although, just like an Obama-esque liberal, I'm not going to answer it right away. And maybe I'll forget to answer it at all. But I'll at least address your topic.
First, I'll say that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the concept of taking from the rich(er) to give to the poor(er). I think taking from yourself and giving to the poor (that is, charity) is better. But I don't think charity is enough and I think, on the societal scale, our political stands should have a bias for the least well off.
Similarly, I don't find much biblical support for the concept of strong property rights. I mean, yeah, there's "thou shall not steal", but that just begs the question of what counts as "stealing." (To draw a parallel, the Bible says "thou shall not kill" but pretty clearly authorizes the government to conduct wars and to execute people. So clearly "kill" - more accurately translated as "murder" - is more of a description of what individuals should not do...not the duly constituted government acting in accordance with divine will - or dare I call it natural law?) In the same way, I don't think the government taxing/taking from someone necessarily constitutes theft and, depending on who they give to and why, may constitute justice.
Basically, because of fallen human nature, I don't believe people can be trusted to freely give what is necessary for the good of the poor. (Admitting that "the good" and "the poor" are terms in need of definition.) That's why I say charity is not enough. This is where, in a fallen world, justice must come in where love - or, at least, our limited human love - falls short. Government must step in with a system that takes from those that have to meet the needs of those who have not. What's most important to me is simply that the needs of the least of these are met, which I think is a biblical stance.
4. Now, to finally get to your question. What limits should there be on the government taking from some to give to others? I'd say the principle I tried to articulate in the above paragraph is a good start: "Does it help the least of these?"
If you're taking so much in taxes that business is going to go elsewhere and take economic prosperity with it, then it doesn't actually help the poor. (Of course, if you're so business-friendly that you don't harness some of those resources to help the poor, then you certainly aren't helping the poor. And yes, giving them jobs is part of helping them.)
Other examples. You say that the "windfall profits tax" won't really help anybody. (Maybe, I guess that depends on what it's used on.) Or that its side-effects won't be worth it. On the other hand, even if universal health care's critics are exactly right and it will lead to us all standing in long lines waiting on that heart surgery, it still would be better for the poorest of the poor who aren't getting an iota of medical care anyway (except the emergency room). Something is better than nothing.
So yeah, there's my theory of politics and government developed right now on the fly.
Final note: I don't claim any of these ideas originate from me. I certainly draw heavily from Reinhold Niebuhr. Who, like every Christian in the West, draws heavily from Augustine. Who draws heavily from Paul. And so forth.
I'll probably take a few posts to respond to everything, because I want to give it sufficient space to do so.
So, your first comment - about my comment on Jeff's blog. The differences I see between the church saying "vote this way" and the church saying "feed the poor" is one that happens in the heart of the congregants. Which is to say, the church telling the people to tell the government to do X get's X accomplished, and is good insofar as accomplishing X is your goal.
But there's a difference in one's attitude, and in one's heart when they get out and do it themselves. I am more changed by giving someone food with my hands, and from my pocket than I am if I just tell the government to do it, and use that as a substitute for personal acts of righteousness.
By way of example - we choose at our church to actively not have a "please stand up and greet those around you" time because we'd much rather have people taking the responsibility on themselves to be friendly. When we use proxies to act, it is an impersonal thing.
The second reason that I am hesitant to have the church advocating policy is that, while I agree that our faith should inform every part of our lives, I also accept that we have limited energies to devote to life. The church has limited time to speak to its congregants, and I have limited time to invest in my activities. The question, then, is not of "is this also good," but one of "is it the best choice between A and B." I fear that when the church becomes very active in advocacy, it becomes less active loving individuals. If it is doing both - then I have much less argument. To the extent that it is not, I think that telling people to be holy themselves, instead of telling them to tell the government to be holy is the superior choice.
The final reason is the one I most touched on on Jeff's blog - namely, that I think that history shows that when we--meaning Christians seize the reins of power, they might affect a lot of outward behavior, but I don't know that they prove effective messengers of love, grace, and forgiveness. A Theocracy, however you frame it, tends to look a lot more like the Old Testament than the New. Law and grace are a well-known, well-recognized difficult balance for Christians. I would rather spend a Saturday volunteering at an AIDS walk in town with a number of people I profoundly disagree with than telling them from the sidelines that they are sinners who need to repent.
The latter message is true, but the goal of proclaiming it is to bring about repentance, not to feel proud that we've told the sinners off. And to get to repentance, I think we have to prove our genuine love.
---
It's obvious why this will take several posts. But you'll find my final point - the dangerous, potentially insidious, and even corrupting power of government - to play a big role in my later thoughts. Essentially, I'll end up saying a lot - yes, the action is good... but the consequences negate the good.
A thought, not so fleshed out, but that I'll be pondering on property rights. I Think the Old Testament will be the best place to look, because I don't see much talk about the government's claims on us in the New (except obedience, and rendering to Caesar those things that are Caesar's). But what you laid out earlier looks very much like an argument from silence - they aren't listed, so we can't give them much weight. I'd say they aren't really negated, either.
I don't see taxes as theft, because the government has a clearly defined right to take its due from us. But what its due is... that's the question at hand.
Somewhere I see a hint of property rights is in the laws of ownership (including both inheritance and the right to "sell" land and property, though it would revert at the Jubilee so it's more like renting than selling) that are laid out. We have then (or, the Israelites did) the ability to own and transfer property described as ours and our family's - distinct from land that was simply a loan, or a transient loan given simply for the purposes of giving back to the government.
But this is but a thought, and going on longer than I intended already :-)
Again you talk about treating telling the government to do something (i.e. serve the poor) as a substitute for doing that something oneself. I don't advocate that. But neither do I advocate personal acts of righteousness as a substitute for seeking a righteous, just society on a larger level.
So while giving, service, acts of charity are absolutely 100% vital and definitely do more to change the heart of the Christian doing the serving, there's a separate question over whether it's enough at the societal level. For the Old Testament makes perfectly clear that we do get judged at the societal level. And - for all its flaws - government is an institution created for purposefully mobilizing society's resources to address issues.
I'm falling asleep here (it's after midnight and, as Kenny could tell you, today involved a fair amount of hiking), so I'll just skip to the other point that sticks in my sleep deprived mind. It is this: I never said there's no basis in the Bible for property rights. But I don't think it's a basis for particularly strong property rights. That is, there's clearly property rights as against stealing and for the purposes of inheritance. But I don't know if there's much in there about property rights as against the government using it for rightful purposes. (I could really say this better if my eyes weren't closing every 20 seconds. Maybe I'll try again tomorrow.)
Your position: There isn't much in the OT that says "the government can't take want it wants to use as it sees fit."
Me: There isn't much to say it can, either. But this is a weak spot to argue about, because the government in the Old Testament is a theocracy, so there's a legitimate question about whether any prescription for "this is what the government deserves as its due" because it's hard to differentiate between "due to your government" and "due to your God."
The government has some right to taxation, without equivocation in Jesus' "render to Caesar what is Caesar's." Whether the use is good or not, the government has that right. The government has the same inherent right to use my money to butcher the innocent and to defend justice. And what the government takes to do good can also be turned easily to evil - food given "to the hungry" which is taken by a warlord and used to entrench his own power, for example. Or money taken to promote the public health and used to rip children from the womb. (which is another reason I'm hesitant to give it the funds to begin with).
All I look at in the OT is that there is a personal, private/familial right to ownership. That is, God established a system where people can own stuff. This is a different perspective than one that says "governments should take as much as they see fit." I've discussed with Kenny whether property rights derive from the government alone, to be revoked as the government sees fit. It's a principle I'd disagree with. I am, therefore, just establishing a position where ownership is the baseline, not government distribution. What I have starts with me, not the government.
Other than the Old Testament judgement of nations, where do you get your equivalence of personal and societal righteousness? I see the latter as flowing from the former, but therefore secondary to it. I'd apply it as far as the OT judgements, too. I've always considered the primary problem with evil nations is that they are the result of evil people. I admit, I'm intrigued.
I don't believe in righteousness by proxy. As not all Abraham's descendants are justified by Abraham's faith, but by their personal faith, so I think that the personal level is the primary point for talking about. If we could (though I don't think it's possible to) create a society that was righteous on the outside, but neglected love (something I'd consider inherently personal), I believe it would amount to nothing.
I believe just actions taken by society to be a good thing, but not something that is a substitute for personal righteousness. It is subordinate, not equivalent.
I think that trying to have justice by proxy on a national level without it being true on a personal level is dangerous, as dangerous as a pastor that tells the church to go and be holy and doesn't work on being holy himself.
There is a difference in my book between someone who pursues righteousness on a national level because of the righteousness in his heart (as I assume is true of you) and people who would pursue righteousness on the national level as a means to any other end, or simply because it's easier to dictate for others than to do in one's own life.
In the first case, the two are harmonious, and good for you. In the latter, I think it's a farce at best and downright diabolical in the worst.
I'm enjoying reading this. I won't say too much, but I do think a significant issue, which you've both highlighted, is the nature of property rights. One view is that property rights are metaphysically real (a natural law view or perhaps biblical view); another view is the modern positivist view, that property rights are simply the creation of the state. In the first view, there is something real and moral to protect; in the second view, all there is is a utilitarian calculus about what would be best for society overall. I think there's some truth to both, but I think it's important to acknowledge that a property right is a real thing that can't, morally, just be totally abrogated by the State.
That said, I agree with Dave that the question is to what extent is this allowed. At this point, though, I don't think you can easily speak in abstract generalizations, and instead need to look at a specific instance, windfall profit tax or whatever, and ask whether it appears just and/or violates an inherent property right.
I had a thought as I was getting ready for church yesterday.
We know that pure and undefiled religion is, in part, to care for widows and orphans in their distress. Taken by itself, this might say that we should look after any and all widows and orphans, period.
But when talking about the distribution of church money and support (the church being the collective group where Christians had a voice and an active participatory role, much like our current government), Paul expressly says not to support certain widows, because providing financial support to young widows was likely to breed a situation worse than that of the unsupported widow.
How, then, do we recconcile this? Would these young widows count as "the least of these?" How should the fact that Paul himself did not say that we should give a stipend to all widows but rather only to some inform our choices about what it means to serve.
Could it be taken so far as "don't feed the hungry who are capable of feeding themselves?" It's something for me to think about, because I generally want to err on the side of being too benificent, instead of too "tough love" (though it may be that my "too benificent" is still firmly in your "too tough love" camp - I use these only in a relative sense).
While I wait for more discussion about individual vs. corporate righteousness:
"What's most important to me is simply that the needs of the least of these are met, which I think is a biblical stance."
Sounds good. Who are the least, and what are their needs? By which I mean, in what ways is this pronciple limited? Should we go until the poorest of the poor have just enough to live? To live comfortably? To live luxuriously? Or to live at the same level as the richest of the rich?
While there is anyone poorer than anyone else, this person could rightly be considered "the least of these," and would have worse living conditions than those just above him on the scale.
Interestingly, I think we see something very much like this in the early church, where belivers give all they have for the good of the others - but at no point are they trying to, as far as I can see, take from anyone who isn't willing to give it.
For the building of the tabernacle, it was an offering, not a tax that was collected. For the feeding of the hungry in Jerusalem, it was gifts not appropriations that fed the people. Even Paul says "each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give - not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver."
There is, in this last verse, something to suggest that there is a different qualitative value on free acts of love. I'd go so far as to say that this follows the grand Biblical theme of a free God wanting free love from free mankind.
I've grown up with (and so it is hard to shake) the impression of a change from the Old to New Testament, where the emphasis shifts from a commanding external force to an inward change of the heart. It's seen in the promise of a New Covenant, where God's laws are not written on tablets of stone, but on the hearts of His people.
You say that love is not enough, but Paul also says that even if he gives all he has to the poor and surrenders his body to the flames that without love it means nothing.
Government work crowds out the church, as it crowds out most public charities. It does so to such an extent that for any need the automatic question from many people is "What Will The Government Do About This?" This turns people into dependant serfs, because the government exists not to do good, but to perpetuate its own existence.
Welfare was a nice idea - giving money to the poor so that they would be better off. But instead, Welfare destroyed multiple generations of families that it touched. Good intentions have wrought immesuarable harm to precisely those it meant to help.
This, for me, is the great danger of government charity. Giving the weapon of "JUSTICE" to the hands of an amoral entity is something laden with the capacity for immesurable harm.
Part, then, of my problem with government as charity is that intentions and effects are rarely the same thing. I doubt that Welfare was intended to cause some 2/3 or more of inner-city children to grow up without parents (first, because they were worth more money that way, then because it simply became an entrenched lifestyle).
We give lavish grants to fighting the disease du jour in the Third World, only to crowd out research on other equally deadly diseases. We give a million dollars to causes that will sell well with the general public, when that million would have made many times as many people much better off by giving them clean water.
But even if the best and brightest managers were able to wield the arm of government to exactly the ends they desired and feed the hungry and accomplish justice, the powerful apparatus remains after those men have moved on, and the tool that was wielded for good may be just as easily wielded for great evil.
But I digress pretty far from my original point. How to even summarize?
1) Is care for "the least of these" a mandate for extrnal equality among all people, enforced by any means necessary?
2) I think the overriding biblical theme of love negates the efficacy of domination as a means of action.
3) I don't trust even the most perfect human government - much less one ruled by the lowest common denominator - to be a tool of justice. We have an all-too-visible object lesson across America as we see what the well-intentioned Welfare program did to countless families and lives.
Even the most well-intentioned program, once established, can (and will) be turned to whatever ends the current administration sees fit. Whatever tools we give the government whould be tools we are willing to give those with whom we utterly disagree politically. Give them 90% of the nation's GDP to spend for the poor and you give them the ability to give 90% of the nation's money to its own political backers, the poor be damned.
"So while giving, service, acts of charity are absolutely 100% vital and definitely do more to change the heart of the Christian doing the serving, there's a separate question over whether it's enough at the societal level."
Reminding myself that I need to address this more clearly. A society is, in the end, individuals. And I think it is fundamentally impossible to have a righteous society without the individuals in it being individually righteous first. This is particularly true when the righteous are guaranteed to be in the minority in a majority-rule system.
As such, I see judgements on society as judgements on the individuals therein, addressed by proxy.
Not having found the time to address your well-thought out points in detail, I'll just make one of my one-off points and get back to work.
You say you don't believe in righteousness by proxy. I say I believe in collective responsibility. When Joshua was invading the promised land, one guy kept some of the spoils for himself. The result: God's judgment on all of Israel and Israel losing the next battle. Why? Why didn't God just hold the individual who did the misdeed responsible? Because there is such a thing as collective guilt and collective responsibility.
So yes, society is made of individuals and individuals must be righteous. But there is such a thing as an unrighteous society in which there are righteous individuals. One such way I see this society is one in which the poor suffer (i.e. because they lack access to basic health care), but there are some individuals willing to give generously to charity (i.e. doctors doing some free service). The latter does not justify the former. Charity is not enough to make a righteous society. Collective action matters.
Okay, and now that leaves me with the need to address only the 2 dozen other points you make and get into the idea of property rights. Hope others (especially Kenny) are still paying attention to this. Hope I find time to respond.
Collective responsibility... or a demonstration of the also-true idea that sin is a disease that spreads.
When a husband cheats on his wife, he harms her and she suffers consequences, though she did nothing to earn them. That this is true does not mean it is a corporate responsibility between he and she.
Or, to make the analogy more impersonal (as one might consider a husband and wife "one flesh") if one man working the cash register at a store is caught stealing, or making too-liberal a use of some benefit (like coffee breaks, or the like), it can harm the rest of the staff whose liberties are cut off as a result. Sin of every sort has consequences beyond the individuals who commit it.
It seems to me more likely that this is the case in Joshua - and all the more likely because perhaps many people were greedy and thinking of doing the same (is it really common for some devious idea to occur to only one person) so God, knowing all mens' hearts made a lesson for everyone right then and there.
In each case, collective judgement is easily seen as the consequence of individual sin, though it affects those who did not commit it.
At the end of your post, you make a point that I think we will diverge on: "Collective Action matters." I would agree that America is not a righteous society. Of every government that has ever existed I'd say that. Some, clearly, are more righteous than others. But I'm not sold on "Only Collective Action Can Make A Righteous Society" (a point on which I agree) being equivalent to, or leading neccessarily to "We Must Take Collective Action."
It's a cost-benefit analysis for me, perhaps. I find the cost to Christians and to Christian values to be too high when power is the end goal, even if it is power to do good. In the very act of getting the power to do good and just things, the people who do it are so often corrupted and make a mockery of Christ. I don't think that the scandal seen in the conservative churches who sought to attain political power is an accident, or a peculiar falling unique to them. I think it's a consequence of going about things the wrong way.
The closest we can come to forcing a righteous society upon an unrighteous people is through coercion and domination. It's not that government has no right to do these things... but I think that Christians ought not try to rule by force, because that's not how Jesus acted. Until he returns in power to do just that, I think the way we are called to lead is from the bottom - as servants.
I see the power of government as a blade with a poisoned handle - something it is dangerous at best for a Christian to attempt to wield, and never without cost.
That being said, there are far greater injustices in the world than the poor in America lacking health insurance. If we want to be just and serving the least of these, why don't we start in Africa?
It might be true that providing subsidized insurance to the poor in America would make their lives better off, but it would have still more effect on a continent ravaged by disease, famine, and oppression - serving those who are even lower far more than the same funds could be used domestically.
Isn't solving Health Insurance in America while allowing starvation in Africa very much akin to fixing a patch in a moderately wealthy man's robes while allowing the most destitute to go naked?
[Note: If ever I should happen to insult you, it is certainly not my intent. I can occasionally drift into sarcasm in a biting way when it comes to political affairs... and while I don't think I have here yet... I admit my weakness now and ask your patience if it should happen.]
Yep, still paying attention…
Just a few questions after reading recent posts:
Dave, you make a couple of points that seems compelling, but I’d be interested in any data on them you might know of: 1) government programs crowding out private charity; 2) welfare (and/or similar programs) actually harming the poor by entrenching generational poverty.
One thread in this argument I don’t agree with is determining what our government should do based on what Scripture requires of the people of God. I think we extrapolate some important things from Scripture for the believer’s role in secular society, but I don’t think what Paul says about how the Church should be governed applies directly to how we, as Christians, should participate in the American democracy.
Dave, I’d be interested to see if you can develop a few issues further. One, you view government as a corrupting influence (blade with a poison handle was a nice phrase), and so you’re wary of the church handling this blade. I guess I would just briefly say that I think this view is a bit out of step with the largest historical view of the Church’s relationship with the government, which, to be very simple about it, I think is something along the lines of ‘the Christian should wield the government’s power for good.’ Of course that begs a lot of questions, but I think it’s basically the view held by Augustine, Calvin, Luther, etc. Still, there are strong traditions, Quaker, Mennonite, etc, that are very skeptical of government.
Also, for Dave (since he’s mostly the one writing), I’m always curious to hear where you draw the line for coercive government action. You’re generally against it, which seems easier in this discussion to stand for (free acts of good will, which I think was a good point vs. government redistribution of wealth), but presumably you’re not absolutely against government coercion. So when I think about government coercion, I see a spectrum: at the far end of the spectrum is the government coercing people not to murder and steal, which seems uncontroversial, and on the other end, I see redistribution of wealth (actually, the farthest end would probably be theocracy, where Christians wanted the government to mandate belief in Christ or something). What guides you in drawing the line at any given place on that spectrum?
"So when I think about government coercion, I see a spectrum: at the far end of the spectrum is the government coercing people not to murder and steal, which seems uncontroversial, and on the other end, I see redistribution of wealth (actually, the farthest end would probably be theocracy, where Christians wanted the government to mandate belief in Christ or something). What guides you in drawing the line at any given place on that spectrum?"
If I had do define such a spectrum, I would have the "too much coercion" point defined neither as redistribution of wealth nor theocracy but rather an utterly controlling 1984 type of government, because the scale is how much of a person's life should be subject to explicit and direct government control.
I agree with you that I'm not against the power as a principle, because I do believe there is a legitimate place for government.
Perhaps the line that you draw is one of "It is the government's place to punish evil, but not to act 'for the greater good.'" That is, that government should be judge, but not charity.
Once that line (if it can be said to be a line) is crossed, then there is a difference only of degrees from feeding the hungriest people to being a benificent caretaker over every aspect of our lives - and eliminating freedom in the process.
I don't think that's all there is to it, but I think that's part of my thinking.
"I guess I would just briefly say that I think this view is a bit out of step with the largest historical view of the Church’s relationship with the government, which, to be very simple about it, I think is something along the lines of ‘the Christian should wield the government’s power for good.'"
This I know. But looking at the end result when government and church are tied closely together historically leaves me skeptical that it can be done. Constantine appropriated Christianity as a conqueror; Calvin tried to actively force people into holy lives to very minute degrees; the Roman Catholic church's role as a power broker and alternate kingdom through all the middle ages is well known; the influence/ends/means/roles of groups like the Moral Majority and the Christian Coallition has led to turning conservative evangelicals into political sheep.
There are exceptions, like a man's faith causing him to rouse the government in England to eventually abolish slavery. But was that a man using the government to achieve a positiveend... or just getting the government to stop pursuing an evil end?
If I am out of step with the most popular Christian view of the issue through the ages, it is largely because the attempts I see (in my admittedly limited survey of the issue) don't suggest themselves as reasons to go down that road.
I am immeasurably dubious of a view that says "it may have gone terribly wrong before, but that doesn't mean we won't succeed where they failed." Not because it is impossible that it might succeed, but because the potential costs far outweigh the potential benefits.
I think that the moment a Christian (or a group of Christians) says "I will do good later but need to first aquire the power to do it" he is in the same boat as a man who says "I may be charitable later, but I first need to be come wealthy to do it." It may indeed come to pass... but it is more likely that having aquired power or wealth it becomes a corrupt end in itself, and not just a means.
"Dave, you make a couple of points that seems compelling, but I’d be interested in any data on them you might know of: 1) government programs crowding out private charity; 2) welfare (and/or similar programs) actually harming the poor by entrenching generational poverty."
#2 is the easy request, because a large push behind the 1996 welfare reform was to break this cycle. Welfare was structured so that (1) a "family" would get more money if there were not 2 parents, which led to a dramatic increase in the number of single parents; and (2) you received more money if you remained on welfare than if you went to work (work, phrased another way, had a negative wage attached to it so that the more you worked the less you brought home).
Looking at the AFDC program in 1993, some of the statistics comparing AFDC mothers with non-AFDC mothers (some of this is doubtless because of who the program targeted, granted):
Statisitc / AFDC Mothers / Non-AFDC Mothers:
Age 15-19 / 5.1% / 1.7%
Age 20-24 / 23.1% / 8.2%
Race Black / 39.2% / 13.3%
Married / 29.8% / 79.1%
Married, husband absent / 17.3% / 4.7%
Never Married / 47.5% / 8.4%
Not HS Grad / 43.5% / 14.5%
No job last month / 87.4% / 31.6%
There's other AFDC data - and more compelte data - at http://afdc.urban.org/AFDownload.html, which I intend to take a look at when I have the time.
What I expect to find is an increase in (1) single parents, (2) unemployment, and (3) persistent use of the AFDC program over time.
Point #1 is less easy to discern, but I'll take a look aorund and see what I can dig up.
If you have the time and inclination, could you possible do a little interpretation of the AFDC data you cited. I'm ignorant to the point of not even knowing what AFDC means...
When you cite rationales behind 1996 welfare reform, they make a lot of sense. But they also make me wonder whether what was needed was specific reforms to the program (for example, not disincentivizing work), and whether once those reforms were made whether you can still state the general principle that welfare tends to harm the poor.
Regarding Christian use of power, you cite some strong examples of misuses of power. But I'm wondering if the balance of Christian influence on government is actually negative.
For example, it's my understanding the the concept of charity came about only after Christ. So, in general, any notion of the welfare state may be attributable to Christians (of course, I know there are mixed reviews of the welfare state, but it's hard to criticize the spirit of it, in the broadest sense).
I also tend to think that the superiority of the Western culture over other parts of the world is due in large part to Christianity, as all of the nations of the West have been largely influenced by the 'judeo-christian' ethic. This is extremely broadly put, but it remains remarkable to me that everyone wants to live in the West, given the opportunity, and Western nations are more shaped by Christianity than others.
Christians invented science, the university, and the hospital. All these things, of course, could be seen as private enterprises, but I bring them up to point out that Christianity has had many broad, salubrious cultural influences, many of which probably were intertwined with Christians acting in public and/or government capacities.
President Bush's AIDS intitiative is credited with saving millions of lives in Africa - how many Spanish Inquisitions does this offset?
AFDC = Aid to Families with Dependent Children, a primary component of the welfare system.
It's certainly possible that a well-incentivized welfare program could be created. But the broader problem is one of dependency - as voters become dependent on a particular government program, they will tend to vote in their own self interest as they perceive it, which is usually for the continuance and expansion of that program.
Politicians are eager to have a reliable voter base, and voters want politicians who give them stuff. That's why I think that government charities are in general a dangerous thing, because they can expand a noble idea, like caring for single mothers and turn it into a voter dependency machine. Why are Social Security and Medicare considered political third rail? Because they are government charities with blocs of voters lined up behind them.
This doesn't strike me as a good thing, because the program is at this point no longer about the people it is serving, but the votes they are providing. When the two things are in concert there is no problem, but when they are not, then the momentum against beneficial change is very high.
"President Bush's AIDS intitiative is credited with saving millions of lives in Africa - how many Spanish Inquisitions does this offset?"
I suppose the answer to that question may in art depend on what the monies used thus would have otherwise done, whether in private hands or in still more life-effective but less flashy ways, like clean water an mosquito nets.
Or the answer can be seen in the public reaction to either. That we know of the Inquisition very well, but would struggle to name significant acts of charity from 50 or 100 years ago suggests that the damage wrought by the worst failings of the church makes much more of an impact on the reputation of Christ in the world than a hundred times as many good things.
That Christians affect governments is not something that concerns me - and so the strong positive influence of Christians upon government is not surprising, and is even expected. But I'd suggest that it is the outflow of grace from Christians that accomplishes this - a private person creates the hospital doing his best to care for the sick, and the government picks up on it.
I consider this a different effect altogether. The danger of government is not that it is incapable of being affected by the Christian, but that it both can corrupt the Christian in the process and the same power can be used for evil as well as good. Science gives us long lives and immense comfort, but also nuclear war and napalm. The force used to enforce justice can be turned to enthroning tyrants. The hospitals used to tend the sick can be used to rip unborn children from the womb. Does this mean we should not build them? I think not... but it means that the more tools we give an inherently amoral entity, the greater tools it will have in the wrong hands.
Even if Christians were a solid voting majority, I'd be wary just of the corrupting power of government. Since I do not believe we can even guarantee an agreeable government, I'm wary of both its potential for corrupting as well as the danger of giving it increasing power and yielding freedoms that it is both loathe to return and apt to use to its on ends.
"Or the answer can be seen in the public reaction to either. That we know of the Inquisition very well, but would struggle to name significant acts of charity from 50 or 100 years ago suggests that the damage wrought by the worst failings of the church makes much more of an impact on the reputation of Christ in the world than a hundred times as many good things."
I read this differently, or at least I suspect a partially different explanation. The World hates Christ (John 15) and Christ's followers. So, to the extent that Christian achievements are under-represented in the public consciousness, I credit this to the public's emnity with God.
That said, I recognize your thinking represents a legitimate view of the Church's role in history; almost all Christians have significant failures in their representation of Christ, and so it's not totally unfair of the world to criticize Christians for that, or to be wary of Christian involvement in politics.
This also strikes me as a question not well resolved in the abstract. Lately, I've been feeling the need to read some history to get a sense of what's actually happened in the Church and in the world.
As a tentative matter, the conservative is winning this debate in my eyes. Now, as a practical matter, I know that Ben has a difficult time with rapid response in a blogalogue. But, nevertheless, I know his capacity, so I'm not going to cut him too much slack either.
Post a Comment