Great posts from the last discussion. Continue with those thoughts!
I think the question of "Does Faith affect our politics?" has been answered pretty clearly and our goal will be to define exactly what that looks like for followers of Christ.
Several different topics have been mentioned and we will get to all of them eventually. Right now I would like to focus on one in particular.
Much has been mentioned about the role of government, specifically when it comes to caring for the poor and oppressed. As followers of Christ we are called to care for and love those who are seen to be "in the margins" of society. It was mentioned in one post that "we are all children of God no matter what our status, race, gender, nationality, etc." We are to follow the example of Christ in loving and caring for all people. However, when it comes to "government programs" and subsidies to help those less fortunate in society, we find that many evangelical christians would line up against these programs. Is this contrary to the bible? Another post mentioned that although we are called to care for the less fortunate the bible does not say that it needs to be provided by government. I think this point will define our discussion. We know that the early church had a practice of caring for each others needs. They sold posessions and goods and pooled their resources to give to whoever might have a need. (Acts 2:44,45) For the next two thousand years the church continued to care for those who had needs, and not until the last century did the government get involved. Is the "church" still capable of caring for those with needs or has this problem become too big? Did the government step in because needs weren't being met?
Does our biblical calling push us to support a candidate who will create larger and more effective programs to care for the poor and oppressed in our country? Or does it call us to reject government involvement and stand up as followers of Christ to support those with needs both in our country and around the world? What say you?
-Randy-
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Whose Role Is It?
Posted by Hannah Riggs at 6:13 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Isn't both the government and the church responsible?
It was Jesus' responsibility ('the spirit of the Lord is upon me...to preach good news to the poor...to proclaim freedom for prisoners...to free the oppressed... Luke 4). It is the church's responsibility.
Isn't it government's responsibility (and I'm completely uninformed on governmental theory and function) to provide opportunity/condition for economic, food, health, personal and community security?
I think it depends on the society in question. To begin it wasn't until recently (historically speaking) that there was a separation b/w the religious and ruling institutions.
The Jewish Law made provisions for its own version of welfare as harvesters would leave the fringes of the crops to be gleened by the poor.
In addition, Martin Luther was responsible for setting up a welfare system within Electoral Saxony. But this system centered around the church and the state in cooperative effort.
Previously I have held, from a philosophical stance, that it is the church's role to provide for the poor, not the state. As I have reflected further, I think there is room for it to be the state's responsibility, but that depends on the state, it's constitution if it has one and other variables.
As an American, I believe our land ought to be governed by the American Constitution. Our Constitution does not provide or allow for the types of entitlement programs that are in question as a way of maintaining a purity in our Republic and preventing politicians from, in effect, bribing the electorate through government handouts. Philosophically, I believe in the United States of America, care and provision for the poor is laid at the hands of the public whether it be through religious or secular private institutions or individuals. So I would oppose a candidate that is willing to violate the principles and ideas that constitute what it means to be the United States of America, but not on theological terms.
Theologically, it should be of little consequence how much or little the government cares for the needs of the poor and the oppressed, the Church (meaning people not simply the institution)should be participating anyway. I think we do it better, and with not only physical but also spiritual results.
I think those inclined to care for others as the Bible directs us too are having a hard time doing so because they have little money left to give after the goverment takes most of their paycheck in taxes and little time left to give after they work their fanny off all week trying to make enough to provide for their own family (after taxes). But, you know what amazes me - they still find a way to give time and money in spite of all that. Why - because it's their conviction and their passion and their desire.
My major beef is the feeling that I have no voice in how the goverment uses my tax money to "help" people in need. That's the main reason I wish it would fall out of the hands of the goverment - so I could have more input on how my money is utilized.
Amanda - I completely agree. The government is a highly inefficient spender, and since there are so many of us, it is very tough to decide how to allocate the resources the government does have. This is why I think if the government would get back to basics (roads, defense, public safety etc.) we would be left with a stable society in which to grow the economy. This would leave more money in the hands of those who earn it, thereby giving people a chance to give more to the poor and needy.
Jackie said...
Perhaps you have read the July 14/21 World. I thought this article pertained to your discussion and it's what I thought to be the case but just confirmed my thoughts.
"MIT economist John Gruber last year confirmed that Roosevelt succeeded in having New Deal governmental programs crowd out private giving. '"Church relief made up 90 percent of the income of the poor before the New Deal." Gruber found that church and charitable giving held up well in 1929 after the stock market crash and did not drop until 1933 when the New Deal began. Then and only then did church spending for charitable purposes fall by one third"'.
I think this was the beginning of the church losing its effectiveness in providing for the poor. The whole article is a good read! We (your parents) grew up in a generation who knew nothing different that the government taking care of things and your generation probably even more so. But it appears that your generation is having an awakening to what used to be and a desire to return to it. I personally believe it is not the government's responsiblity and I think if you read that article it will give a glimpse of how I think it actually 'demotivates' people to take care of the hurting when the government moves in to do it. I pray the tide can be turned back. I believe it would certainly be much more effective and when the church gives there are benefits on so many levels. The most significant being the love of Christ shown, but there is also a face to face that helps people to be 'accountable' and help in actually getting them back on their feet - a walking along side.
Okay, enough said :)!
Love,
Jackie
June 27, 2008 5:32 PM
I savor any opportunity to share the following speach with folks. The following link leads you to the transcript for Bono's speech (sermon) at the National Prayer breakfast, D.C. (the same one I sent to you Troy). He preaches a convicting message on this very subject of Faith, politics and the poor. Whatdo you think?...
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/bononationalprayerbreakfast.htm
I savor any opportunity to share the following speach with folks. The following link leads you to the transcript for Bono's speech (sermon) at the National Prayer breakfast, D.C. (the same one I sent to you Troy). He preaches a convicting message on this very subject of Faith, politics and the poor. Whatdo you think?...
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/bononationalprayerbreakfast.htm
oh and, along the same lines, this link takes you to Bono's lifetime achievment acceptance speech @ the NAACP awards. I this one myself and he preached a fiery sermon. While the answer of whos role it is isn't particularly answered in these speeches both governments, the church, and individuals are appealed to. Not to mention his real point that " 'love thy neighbor' isn't a piece of advice, its a command."
http://zoostation.poplemon.com/index.php?topic=18271.0
Post a Comment