A Conversation on Faith and Public Policy

The "Whole Gospel" and Other Things

2009-11-30T19:44:00.000-08:00

I finally got my copy of The Hole in our Gospel from the library, and am about 2/3 of the way through it. I can’t wait to hear your thoughts on it. I am thrilled that it has encouraged you to be more involved in the Lord’s commands to care for the poor. I also hope that reading this book has helped you to understand me a little better. My views about “social justice” or caring for the poor do not come from some liberal ideology—when I talk about these things I’m talking about the gospel of Jesus Christ, the “whole gospel” as Stearns describes in this book.

You asked specifically what role I think government should have in caring for the poor. For one thing I think it’s exactly what you said, providing checks and balances—making laws that keep companies accountable in instances when their actions are harmful to those without the power and wealth companies often have. Beyond that I don’t know exactly. There are many people who believe the government should provide services and resources to help the poor. Perhaps if the Church were actually doing its job of loving God, loving our neighbor and making disciples who do the same, people wouldn’t see a need for the government to provide these things. I’m sure I have expressed this before, but what frustrates me greatly is that so many in the Church have spoken out so vehemently against government involvement in helping the poor, and yet our churches are so unaware and uninvolved in doing it themselves.

As I have said before, government is not the answer to these problems, but it does have a role. I know there are flaws in our system of government, and of course, our government officials are human beings affected by sin. However, I don’t agree with you that there are no checks and balances to the greed and inefficiency of our government. There are term limits, we all have the right to vote, we can call our representatives and let them know our views, we could even run for office if we wanted. There is still room for the government to mess up, but there are checks and balances.

You seem to have implied several times that a completely unhindered free market would take care of any problems of corporate greed or injustice on its own. I don’t understand this. Perhaps reading Adam Smith will shed some light. Let me know what abridged version you have and I’ll try to find it at the library. You said that many people think this book “helped set the West on a path of prosperity unprecedented in the history of the world.” While that may be true, I would question whether that has actually been a good thing, for the West or for the rest of the world, especially in light of what Stearns says in his book.

I’m very much looking forward to hearing more about your thoughts on the Hole in our Gospel.

Fending for Ourselves

2009-11-20T17:10:00.000-08:00

Dear Mindy:
It seems we are in basic agreement about the message of the Grand Inquisitor, i.e. that many people are terrified of freedom and are willing to give it to anyone who can keep them in bread and rule over them. As you say, even the church is guilty of not thinking adequately about throwing money and goods to the poor withour giving them and insisting from them an opportunity to grow on their own. You might (did) say, let them "fend for themselves" as if that was a bad thing.

I have finished "The Hole in the Gospel" and you may use my copy if you wish. It had an impact on me that I didn't expect, and look forward to sharing that with you. I will just say it challenged me (and Nancy) again to get back to the basics of the Lord's commands to feed, clothe, give drink.

You're right, many do see the mixing of caring for the poor and government in the same sentence as a kind of creeping socialism, mainly from experience in countries that have tried it over many centuries past. What do you mean by government involvement in this area? You didn't say exactly.

For the record, Mark and I spoke briefly about a wacky proposal Tammy told me about during a visit with her in Colorado Springs recently. It seems someone envisioned a resort hotel on the top of Pikes Peak! There is after all, a paved road to the top and many make the trip, as I and Mark have done. However there's not enough room on the top to do that. The solution, shave off a couple hundred feet to make a larger spot. Mining wasn't in the conversation, but it did remind you of "corporate greed", a phrase you used several times in your piece on strip mining. If some think of socialism in regard to government involvement in social issues, others default to "corporate greed" when thinking of for-profit enterprises. Yes, there are a lot of scars on the landscape from mining. I have also seen near your hometown, places where land has been reclaimed after Big Muskie went through, with cattle grazing and crops growing. Granted, requiring a company to do that by law may be part of protecting the peace we have spoken about, and that's OK. Everyone needs checks and balances.

I'd like to speak of greed. For some, greed virtually defines the business world, that of capitalism and free enterprise, and it's the first and only adjective that comes to mind. The good news is, there is a check and balance in a competitive atmosphere to ameliorate that, plus as we described above, laws to make sure it happens. The truth is, every human is infected with greed, whether in business, education, the church or yes, the government. The bad news is, there is no check and balance to greed and inefficiency in the government bureaucracy, that part of society many want to turn over major sections of our lives.

There is a very good reason to "keep the government out of it" in many areas. When that happens, people are free to pursue the best solutions because they themselves will benefit from it. It would be "fending for ourselves" in the best sense, and the poor can and want do it too. That is the essence of the work of Adam Smith, who wrote a book many consider helped set the West on a path of prosperity unprecedented in the history of the world. It is called "The Wealth of Nations". I have actually never read it, but I'd like to read it with you and discuss it. I have an abridged copy on order. The original ran to 900 pages I hear. The minority parties right now have their hands full trying to beat back a 2000 page Health Care bill that will transform society as we know it. If the are successful, time will allow for more studied responses to legal and medical abuses in our health care system. I wouldn't have described the current medical system as destroying the peace of our communities, as you have, but it does need work.
Love,
Dad

Socialism and The Grand Inquisitor

2009-11-12T11:08:00.000-08:00

I enjoyed reading the Grand Inquisitor again—it reminded me of how much I loved The Brothers Karamozov. When I read it the first time there were sections of it that held so much truth about God and the world that I felt my reading of it counted as my devotional time.

The way I understand it, in this chapter the Grand Inquisitor explains to Jesus that although He came to set men free, men exchanged their freedom for happiness. He claims that the vast majority of people don’t really want freedom, they just want someone else to take care of their needs. The Inquisitor says that the common man is terrified of freedom and is willing to give it up to be ruled by a small group of people who “suffer” freedom on his behalf, in order to make sure he is happy. The Church has done this, the old man claims, and that is why the people, although they recognized Jesus for who He was, did not interfere when the Grand Inquisitor ordered Jesus to be arrested. Jesus, he claims, was wrong to offer true freedom to all—instead, he should have offered them bread.

I agree that having a State or a Church that says, “We’ll take care of everything, you don’t have to worry about a thing,” is not good. A system in which the people must depend on the State or the Church for their survival or their salvation is dangerous. Many government welfare programs have led to this kind of dependence, and so have many charitable, church-run programs.

It seems that often when someone seen as a liberal mentions “caring for the poor,” especially when government may be involved, conservatives immediately think they are talking about socialism. Julie Clawson, author of Everyday Justice, describes an example of this here on her blog. When I talk about government involvement in caring for the poor, I do not mean that the State should exist in order to provide for all the needs of the people and make sure they are happy. In an earlier post you said, “The State exists for just a few reasons, one being to maintain a standing army for national defense, a domestic police force for preserving the peace internally, and not much more.” OK, so what does it mean to “preserve the peace internally”? Is it only a matter of protecting us from burglars, drug dealers or violent individuals?

Mark told me that you and he had a conversation a while back about mountain top removal mining. Mountain top removal is an example of corporate greed that destroys the peace of our land and our communities. Coal companies basically blow up a mountain top in order to expose the coal, and push the debris down into the valleys, clogging up rivers and streams and destroying forests and wildlife. Coal companies do this because it is a cheap and easy way of getting their product, and this increases their profits. These companies are allowed to do this by law, because the law also states they are responsible for reclaiming the land they have destroyed. Even if the companies did the reclaiming, which often they don’t (and no one enforces the laws about this), the land is still never the same. Not only is this bad for the environment, but communities have been destroyed because of this practice. If it is a responsibility of the State to preserve peace internally, then the State ought to be involved in protecting our land and communities from this type of corporate greed.

I believe that our health care system is another place in which corporate greed has contributed to destroying the peace of our communities. Corporate greed is not the only issue, it’s all very complicated, but certainly the desire of drug companies, hospitals and insurance companies to maximize their profit has led to practices that harm. Again, since the State is supposed to preserve the peace, the State should be involved in regulating corporations to protect people from their greed. Please know that I am not saying that profit is bad or that all corporations or businesses are greedy. But some certainly are, and I believe the government should be involved in regulating that.

Of course, the government isn’t the only answer. It would be better if people who run corporations would have some sense of social responsibility and make better choices. This is one place where the Church should have some role. Christians should have an influence and should be working to bring shalom to every area of our world. Jesus came to bring shalom, a word whose meaning goes way deeper than the English word “peace.” American Christians (and maybe Christians throughout the world) have made the gospel about forgiveness of individuals’ sins so that those individuals can make it to heaven when they die. The gospel is so much more than that, though. It is the good news that our God reigns! And in a world where God reigns there shouldn’t be people dying of starvation, or girls sold into slavery, or people living extravagantly lavish lifestyles with wealth they “earned” through harmful business practices, while a few miles away people are struggling to find a job or a place to live. As John Wimber said, we live in the already but not yet. But we shouldn’t let the “not yet” be an excuse to not work towards seeing the Kingdom come alive now. Jesus Himself taught us to pray “Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” I don’t think He meant for us to just pray that and then go about our day.

I don’t believe forced socialism is the answer. But I see too many Christians deriding socialism, and then just leaving it there. I don’t hear solutions to the problem of poverty from conservatives beyond “Keep the government out of it.” Or, perhaps the solution of conservatives is just to protect and build up our free market system, and let everyone fend for themselves to make it in that system. For non-believers that may be enough. But for Christians, I don’t think Scripture lets us off the hook that easily. Now I’m getting into the realm of The Hole in our Gospel, although I haven’t had the chance to read it yet (I've requested it from the library, but it hasn’t come in yet). I don’t want to jump ahead to that book if there is more to say about the Grand Inquisitor. There is more in my head right now that I want to say, but I’m not sure how directly related it is to the Grand Inquisitor, and this is already a long post. As usual, I’ll hope the opportunity to share these other thoughts will come up again as we continue the conversation.

I’ll let you know when I’ve gotten the book.

Mindy

Our Government at Work

2009-11-08T11:56:00.001-08:00

Dear Mindy:
Well, it's done, at least in the house, by a rousing 220-215 margin, not close to the majority Democrats have there. At least abortion is out of it for now, a wrenching disappointment for the Pelosi kids. I'm not able to respond to all the points you bring up on the specifics of the bill. I too am disappointed conservatives have been slow to put a proposal on the table. Perhaps you can bring me up to date on what it says.

What would I do about health care reform? First, as we began this discussion some time ago, I would want it to line up with my understanding of biblical principles as outlined in one of my first blogs, speaking to the 10th commandment about coveting anything that is our neighbors, the fallacy of trying to make health care a right to be provided by the government, which produces nothing on it's own. Also, tort reform, and assuring the maximum competitive situation between insurance companies to allow them to bid across state lines both of which would reduce costs drastically. In other words, a free market initiative. Ironic that we will be studying I Cor 6 in our home group next Sunday, the biblical version of tort reform.

I'm looking forward to your comments on "The Grand Inquisitor", esp in response to mine. I now have a copy of "The Hole in our Gospel" and will be starting on it this week on long plane rides. If you have some comments on that book, let me know them also.

Love,
Dad

Information on Republican Health Care Reform Proposals

2009-11-05T08:08:00.000-08:00

Last Saturday John Boehner gave an address in which he outlined "Republicans' plan for common-sense health care reform our nation can afford."

This is what I have been looking for, I'm just a little disappointed that it has come out just a week before the Democratic bill is scheduled to be voted on. There is some helpful information included here at the GOP website. The links at the bottom are very helpful, and I wish I had been able to find this information earlier, as many of these documents were written this summer.

There is a lot of information here, and I don't know if I will have the time to look over all of it, but from what I've seen it looks like some of what has been proposed by Republicans is similar to what the Democrats have proposed, including "pooling mechanisms" to help small businesses and individuals find affordable coverage, and providing coverage for those with pre-existing conditions through "high-risk pools" and "reinsurance" (I don't understand those terms, though, so I'd have to do a little more research on that). The Republican proposals also include medical liability reform and the ability for employees to find their own insurance if they don't like what their employer offers, while retaining the same tax incentives their employer gets. These things sound good to me. One thing I can't quite understand, though is that many of the proposals strengthen Medicare--isn't that government run health care?

As I said, I found this information to be very helpful. What I find frustrating is that Republican politicians and conservative commentators have focused so predominantly on attacking their opponents, rather than on trying to provide good information about both sides of the debate. Many conservative Christians have gone with the flow of the media, simply believing what they are told by anyone who claims to believe in God and holds conservative views, and then repeating it. I read once that a prophet needs to not only send the message that something is wrong, they need to paint the picture of what could be. If conservative Christians have felt that the Democratic health care proposals are wrong, I wish they would have respectfully and reasonably pointed out what was wrong, affirmed that this is an important issue that needs to be addressed, and then painted the picture of what could be. I wonder if things would be different at this point if that had been the approach taken several months ago.

Well, we'll see what happens on Saturday (last I heard that was when they were hoping to vote on the bill). If the bill is voted down, I think I will be a little relieved, and will hope that everyone can start from scratch to find something that will address the real problems in our health care system. If the bill passes, I think I might also be a little relieved, but hope that those who want real change will not feel that they have gotten it and sit back and do nothing. There are those who feel that this bill's passing will be the beginning of the end of our country as we know it--I can' t say I agree with this, but even if the worst did come to pass, God is still on the throne.

2009-10-26T19:42:00.000-07:00

Dad,

The problem is that you and I both think we’ve found truth, but we don’t seem to agree on it. So, ultimately, yes, our goal is to find truth. But in order to do that, we do first need to understand each other’s current view of truth. Without this understanding we just get stuck at the point of each of us thinking we’re right and the other is wrong.

You seem surprised that I “as much as declared that I can’t decide what is the best thing to do about health care…”, but this is what I’ve been saying all along. My original reason for starting this conversation was not to convince anyone that the liberal agenda was the right one, or that reform proposals by Obama or Congress would be the best thing. What I have wanted in this whole health care debate is good information to help me make my decisions, as opposed to the reactionary rhetoric that has come from many media sources and forwarded emails. I understand that conservatives are saying the government should stay out of it and let the market fix the problems. I’m willing to believe this, but I don’t understand how that will work. You said that doing nothing would be better than what is being proposed right now, although doing nothing is not what you would choose. Can you tell me what you would choose to do to address the problems in our health care system, besides simply telling the government to stay out of it? Earlier you mentioned that reform needs to allow competition between insurance companies. I’m pretty sure I agree with this. Could you help me understand this better?

You said you were trying to decipher what I believe. Regarding the health care issue, I feel I can now say that I oppose the current legislation coming through Congress. I have only come to that conclusion in the last week or so, and what led me to this point is what I learned from an NPR program that aired this month, a program that finally gave me some of the good information I’ve been looking for. October 11 and 18, NPR’s This American Life devoted two hours to explaining some of the problems with our health care system. They didn’t talk about the current bill, they didn’t propose any kind of solution. The purpose was not to support or oppose any political party or agenda. The purpose was simply to explain how complicated the system is.

I knew our system was broken, but I wanted to understand how and why it was broken so I could figure out whether or not the current legislation would address the real issues. I now have a better understanding of why health care costs are so high, why insurance premiums keep going up, why insurance companies sometimes drop customers leaving them without insurance, and I can say with more confidence that I don’t believe current proposed health care legislation will fix the real problems. I now understand what David Brooks was saying in this article that I linked to in an earlier post. I do think there may still be a need for some kind of government intervention, just not what is currently being proposed.

So, that’s where I am on that. I still have a lot more to say on a couple of broader topics, one being the role of the Church and the role of government in caring for the poor, the second being the way the public discussion about current political topics has gone and the way conservative Christians have contributed to that discussion. I have probably said enough for today, so I’m sure I will get the chance to address these other topics as we discuss the Grand Inquisitor, which I hope to write about soon.

Our Grand Communicator

2009-10-25T11:47:00.001-07:00

Dear Mindy: Here I am on a Sunday afternoon trying to decifer what you believe and where you are. Your last post as much as declared that you can't decide what is the best thing to do about health care unless you see a full blown proposal from conservatives. That does tell me a lot. Actually, if you listen, there are many voices decrying the intrusion of government into this major part of our lives, and pleading to let the private sector continue to what it does best, that is make it better at the least cost (for everyone). Doing nothing, although not what I would choose right now, is far better than what is being proposed. For the time being, Barry and friends are steamrolling a bill through that must be so toxic, they can't afford to let the representatives have as much as 72 hours to look it over before voting. They have also changed the locks on the committee rooms so someone from the minority party doesn't barge in. Believe it. Conservatives have their hands full right now throwing a wrench in the gears of the most far reaching and damaging social legislation in the history of our fair nation.

You like the President's "clear and concise" way of communicating in a constructive, rather than critical way of others ideas. I am reminded of Charles Krauthammer's remarks that we need to watch what he does rather than what he says. They are two different things, sad to say. I wouldn't classify his health care reform, HR3200 that is 1506 pages long, as clear and concise. His speeches are one thing, the reality is a 1500 page bill. What is his clear and concise response to General McCrystal? Still dithering on a request for more troops that is in line with his campaign promise to clean up Afganistan.

You want to now go to the church's role in dealing with poverty. We (I) have been dealing with that all along. The government's place will be to force the redistribution of wealth to those with less, and I am against that. Does that label me one with selfish interests because I have more than some? I reject it. The church's role is to facilitate the commands of Christ to give, help, enable, disciple, comfort. It is not the role of the State. I have purchased the book, "The Hole in Our Gospel" and am looking forward to it. In the meantime, "The Grand Inquisitor" is speaking to a reincarnated but silent Christ about the three temptations. For purposes of this discussion, most of the material is in the one about turning stones into bread, to wit;

"...for never was there anything more unbearable to the human race than personal freedom! Dost Thou see these stones in the desolate and glaring wilderness? Command that these stones be made bread - and mankind will run after Thee, obedient and grateful like a herd of cattle."
and, "...for where is there freedom of choice where men are bribed with bread?" He is speaking in arrogance about how the church has come to conduct itself. Pretty descriptive of mankind, whether Church or State doing the bribing.

One last thing. Because I love you and you are my daughter, I want to understand you and is a major reason I'm doing this. However, in a dialogue truly pursuing the truth, whether we understand each other is second to whether we find the truth. The good news is, when we find the truth, we will understand each other better.
Love,
Dad

The Role of the Church

2009-10-16T08:50:00.000-07:00

Dad,

Thanks for the suggestion. I already have the Brothers Karamazov (we read it a couple years ago in our book club), so if it’s not too late to cancel your order, you might not need to get a copy—unless the Grand Inquisitor published by itself includes some extra commentary that would be helpful. I will definitely read it again, since it has been a while, and since the last time I was reading it with a different approach than I will be this time.

I looked up John Boehner’s website, and I still don’t see any suggestions for how to fix the problems in our health care system. He is clearly an opponent of big government and there are some articles on his site that address the problems with the health care bills proposed by Democrats in Congress. But I couldn’t find a proposal by him to address health care. You mentioned allowing competition among insurance companies—what would this look like? Has Boehner proposed something that would do this?

A month or so ago President Obama gave a speech in which he outlined his suggestions for what should go in a health care reform bill. Whether you agree with any of his suggestions or believe anything he says, I still appreciated that he clearly communicated these ideas in a way that I could understand. I didn’t agree with all of it and I think he left some things out, but it was clear and concise and, for the most part, constructive rather than critical of others’ ideas. I want to hear the same kind of speech, or see in writing the same kinds of suggestions, by a conservative. You’re right, the proposals of John Boehner and others like him haven’t gotten much play. If there are other, better ideas for fixing this problem than the ones the Democrats are suggesting, I want to understand them. But I can’t find them.

Much of our conversation has been about the free market system and the role of government. We haven’t talked much yet about the role of the Church in dealing with poverty. Unfortunately, the Church does not exist in isolation from government or free markets. Each one has an influence on both of the others. I think the two books I’m interested in reading will address this, using lots of Scripture to put things in perspective. I actually hope you will be interested enough to eventually read both books, (as I know I will), but for now why don’t you pick? Both of them are quite a bit longer than the Grand Inquisitor (sorry!).

The first is Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger (first published in 1978, updated every few years, most recently in 2005). It is broken up into chapters and short, easy to read sections with intriguing titles such as “Rationalizing our Affluence” “Is God a Marxist?” and “A Biblical Attitude toward Poverty and Wealth.”

The other is The Hole in Our Gospel. I heard the author, Richard Stearns, on Midday Connection a few months ago, and he has an amazing story. He was the CEO of Lenox, Inc., taking his faith seriously by attending church, giving generously, witnessing to his peers and even encouraging Bible studies to form and grow within his company. Through an interesting series of events he came to realize there was a major piece missing from his faith. I think the book is partly the story of how he came to be president of World Vision, and partly an explanation of the major paradigm shift that took place regarding his understanding of the Gospel.

Because the books are so long, I’m not sure if you want to take them by chapter, and perhaps share responses to them on the blog? Or we could just read the whole thing and share our thoughts afterward. We could start with the Grand Inquisitor, since it’s shorter and we both have it already.

Thanks for being willing to read one of these books with me—I know you’re busy, and I appreciate so much that you want to understand where I’m coming from. It means a lot to me.

Mindy

Reading List

2009-10-15T19:17:00.000-07:00

The laws you mentioned did indeed change society for the better. They had to do with how we relate as persons however, not how we pay for things.

One of the reform needs is to allow competition between insurance companies that, guaranteed, would give more options to all of us, including the poor, reduce costs and probably better care. I can say that as a matter of faith, knowing how two different systems attack problems, that being the state, and the world of free enterprise commerce. These are all part of proposals by John Boehner and others. They don't get much play do they?

I will read a recommendation of yours. Just let me know. I recommend "The Grand Inquisitor" by Dostoevsky. I have a copy on order for you. It is actually section 5 of the "Brothers Karamazov that has been published separately because it is so popular.

God Bless You,
Dad

Request

2009-10-07T06:52:00.000-07:00

Dad,

I don’t doubt that some of the entitlement programs of the New Deal and the Great Society did more harm than good. I have not argued that government intervention is the answer to the problem of poverty. I do, however, believe that the government has a role to play. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were part of Johnson’s Great Society. Before the Civil Rights Act, a large portion of our population could not work even though they wanted to, because employers often discriminated based on skin color when hiring workers. This kind of discrimination was protected by law. After an amazing, non-violent grass-roots movement whose leaders were usually Christians, the federal government stepped in. In that case I would say government involvement did a lot of good.

You asked for some specific ideas of how systemic injustice contributes to poverty, and what I would do to change those systems. Here is one simple example from the health care issue. We have a group health insurance plan through Mark’s work. If I go to the doctor, the doctor may charge my insurance company $300. But the insurance company may only “allow” $200. Someone who has an hourly wage job that doesn’t provide health insurance and can’t afford to buy their own (insurance rates are higher for individual plans than group plans) would have to pay the doctor $300. An individual doesn’t have the power that a large insurance company does to simply decide how much they are going to pay for health care services.

I don’t know the best answer to this particular problem. Obama’s health reform proposal suggests a health care exchange where individuals can find affordable health insurance options, including a possible public option. I don’t know if that would work. But it’s the only idea I’ve heard to address the problem. If conservatives have better ideas, I’d love to hear them. Could you recommend some conservative sources that are offering constructive ideas on improving our health care system?

There is a lot more to say about systemic injustice, poverty and what our response as Christians ought to be. There are two books I’ve been thinking about reading about this topic, written by people much more knowledgeable than I. Would you be willing to read one of them with me? From what I know of these books, I think either of them would help me communicate some of what I've been trying to say with this blog. Even if you didn’t agree with anything in the books, at least you would understand me better. You said in an earlier post that all you had to go on to know about me is what you think I am like, until I do or say something to change that. I’ve been trying to do that (although unsuccessfully, I’m afraid), but these books may help.
I would also be happy to read something at your suggestion. If you would like to pick something, my only requests would be that you pick something written by a Christian and that has a good foundation in Scripture. There is wisdom to be gained from people outside the church, but Scripture is something you and I have in common. I think if we make that our starting point, we will have a better chance of really understanding each other.
Let me know what you think…

Mindy

Repetition

2009-10-04T15:48:00.000-07:00

Dear Mindy:
You are a teacher for sure! If your student doesn't answer the question the way you want, ask again. So here we go. Yes, I believe there are flaws in our economic, social and political systems that make it difficult if not impossible for poor people to get out of poverty, and I do think changing these systems is something Christians should be wrestling with. Why else would I be blogging with you these many weeks? Nevertheless, I may go in a different direction with the solutions than you might. In my view the more government gets involved in trying to solve a problem like the poor, the worse it becomes for the poor. The New Deal of Roosevelt, and the Great Society of Johnson did much to damage the plight of the poor and there is much data to support that. They were the greatest expansion of entitlement programs in our nations history, and B. Obama is about to top them all. As a recent past President has said, "the most feared sentence in the world is, 'Hello, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you.' "

I would challenge you to get beyond the ideas of Social Justice and give me specific ways you believe our systems have "made it difficult if not impossible for poor people to get out of poverty." If we are to change the system, as you want to do, what would you change that would accomplish this?

Love,
Dad

Fixing Flawed Systems

2009-10-01T07:59:00.000-07:00

Hmmm, I thought I just did explain what I mean by social justice, or at least the gist of it. Social, political and economic systems often have flaws that allow those with wealth and power to gain more wealth and power (or at least keep what they have), often at the expense of those without wealth and power. I see this as a justice issue, thinking of justice as “conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude.” (That definition was taken from www.dictionary.com, the American Heritage dictionary definition 2b.) I believe that as Christians, we should be working to conform those systems to line up with God’s pictures in Scripture of how His people should live. He clearly says over and over that caring for the poor is important (and in Deuteronomy 15:4 He goes as far as to tell His people “There should be no poor among you”). If those flawed systems contribute to keeping people poor, then I believe Christians should be working to change those systems. Like I said earlier, I don’t know what the answers are. I think Scripture offers us some principles and examples we should take into consideration, but working those things out in today’s world is complicated. I earnestly believe, however, that it is extremely important for Christians to be trying to figure out how to do that—for the sake of our own relationship to God, as well as for the sake of our witness in the world.

I hate to be repetitive, but I do want to ask the same questions again: Do you believe there are flaws in our economic, social and political systems that make it difficult, if not impossible, for poor people to get out of poverty? Do you think changing those systems (social justice, as I explained above), is something Christians should be wrestling with?

The Question

2009-09-27T10:54:00.000-07:00

Mindy:
I have a lot to say on the matter of Social Justice, but you seem to be itching to tell me your understanding of Social Justice! So, what is it?
Dad

My Understanding of Social Justice

2009-09-24T06:32:00.000-07:00

Dear Dad,

I am glad to know we agree that there are more reasons for poverty than that poor people just don’t want to work. Most of your comments since we started this discussion have stressed the idea that it does not help the poor, or anyone for that matter, to forcibly take money away from hard-working people in order to give something to people who haven’t worked for it. One of your main points, if not the main point, is that when honest, hard-working people build wealth only to have it taken away from them by the government in order to provide goods or services for people who have not worked hard to earn those things, then everyone loses. I understand this. I take seriously the passages you quoted from 2 Thess 3:10 and 1 Tim 5:8. But those two passages are not all the Bible has to say about economic justice.

I agree that if someone is poor because they choose not to work or because of other unrepented sin, they don’t need handouts, they need admonition and accountability. If someone is poor because of someone else’s sin or some catastrophic event, then they need compassion. If someone is poor because of flaws in the economic, political or social system, then what they need is justice.

I know that many people think of the word ‘justice’ only in terms of the definition “the administering of deserved punishment or reward.” That’s not what I’m talking about. What I mean is “conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude.” And I’m not talking about it only in terms of the actions or attitudes of individual people, but of entire systems. Sometimes the same flaws in the system that make it impossible for the poor to get out of poverty give the wealthy an advantage to gain more wealth. This is not right. This is not how God intends for His people to live. When I talk about social justice I am not talking about punishing any one. I am talking about taking an honest look at the flaws in our system that help the rich get richer at the expense of the poor and trying to conform that system to a closer idea of how God intends His people to live. The Bible has a lot to say about that, and I hope our discussion gets us into some of those passages. I’m not claiming I have the answers, or that I know exactly how to apply these passages. Finding those answers seems extremely complicated to me, but it also seems extremely important, so I want to wrestle with it and figure out what I can do.

Do you agree that there are flaws in our system that make it very difficult, if not impossible, for some poor people to get out of poverty? Do you understand what I mean by social justice? Do you think this is something Christians should be wrestling with?

Social Justice

2009-09-23T17:04:00.000-07:00

Hi Mindy:
You made a leap of logic to assume I believe "all (or most)" poor people are that way because they don't want to work. In order to do that, you have to paint the apostle Paul with the same brush. I don't think that way, and I don't interpret his remarks that way either. However, why would the apostle insert those sentences in his letters if there weren't expectations of a free lunch among at least some of the faithful? I know, it's a hard thing, and you won't hear a sermon on it in 21st century America, given the entitlement and politically correct atmosphere we live in.
You have described well in your third paragraph how many of the poor have gotten that way, and I agree. I'd like to focus on your sentence, "And some are poor because of injustices in our economic, political or social systems." That is the mantra of the Social Justice crowd such as John Rawls, the Green Party, and others. They do not like capitalism, don't like communism, but don't rule out redistribution of wealth in between. Does that describe you, or are you somewhere else?

Love,

Dad

Reasons for Poverty

2009-09-22T19:39:00.000-07:00

Dad,

You said that this blog has helped you learn a bit about me, but much of it you already knew. I’m afraid I don’t agree. I don’t think you’ve understood what I’ve been trying to say, perhaps because I haven’t been doing a good job of clearly communicating my beliefs.

Many of your comments and the two passages you quoted in your last post lead me to believe that you think that all (or most?) poor people in this country are poor because they don’t want to work. Please correct me if I have misinterpreted your comments.

What I have been trying to point out is that, while idleness certainly is the reason why some people in this country are poor, that is not the case for many, many other people. Some people are poor because of bad decisions they made in the past, some because someone sinned against them, some because catastrophic circumstances have left them without the basic needs for survival. And some are poor because of injustices in our economic, political or social systems. Most likely it is a combination of several of those reasons. Do you agree with this? I really want to continue this conversation, but I don’t know if we can go much further until I understand your beliefs on the reasons for poverty in America.

Mindy

Justice

2009-09-21T16:34:00.000-07:00

Dear Mindy:
Goodness but it's been (too) long since I've had time to spend on the blog, but that doesn't mean I haven't been thinking about the issues. I do have to confess I am not optimistic about the direction of the blog. My original thoughts about this to myself have come true, i.e., we both are what we are. At least I know a bit more about you, but most of it I already knew. As such, it seems best to just address the issue foremost in your mind, that being justice. This is as applied to the Health Care debate, which is where it came up. Using the Bible as our source, the following exhortations come to mind:

"If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat."

"If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse that an unbeliever."

That is the bible's version of economic justice, not mine. These are a long way from "who pays for the health care of my family?" The bible of course, in the nearly 200 verses about the poor, exhorts us to not persecute not vex the poor, to be advocates for them and to help them. Nowhere does it suggest we pay his bills for him. It also speaks loudly about how we are to have compassion on the less fortunate. Doing that is the Lord's command. He does not suggest the State conficated your wealth to do it on your behalf. That would gut the opportunity for us to do it out of a heart of compassion.

As you have self described yourself as being in the information gathering stage, why not read a little Karl Marx, or Dostoyevski's "Grand Inquisitor", or a little de Toqueville, or Frederick Bastiat, or Plato's Republic. Maybe you have done this already. If not, it can add to the opinions of NPR and Twitter, and rest on some of the wisdom of those who have been there and seen it. As you may have heard, Irving Kristol passed away Friday 09/18. He was known as the "Godfather of Neoconservatism." Jewish, of course, but nowhere have I read that he became a follower of Jesus. Nevertheless, he made the intellectual circuit in his life from athiest to Trotskyist to Socialist to moderate to conservative, and many believe set the intellectual table for the Reagan presidency. I am always awed by the pragmatism of Jews. Here is a comment that would be pertinent to our debate. "It's not enough just to have a sense of what's right and what's wrong, you also have to have a sense of how the world works."

God Bless You,
Dad

Mindy's Response to We the People Are Coming

2009-09-21T12:16:00.000-07:00

This letter may represent the consensus of many people in this country, but it doesn’t represent all, and possibly not even a majority. The letter may be useful in that it helps me understand the beliefs that some people have about what is currently going on in our government, but it is not helpful to me as I try to make decisions about how I will participate in our government as a citizen.

For one thing, I’m not sure about the truth of some of her claims. I will point out just two of them, the ones about ACORN. The letter’s author claims that ACORN will be “in charge of our 2010 census” and that “mandatory escrow fees” are contributed to them “every time on every real estate deal that closes.” I don’t know where that second accusation comes from, but here are two links to FactCheck.org that refute the first one, and possibly the second one. If you have evidence that supports those claims, please send them on. My point here, however, is not to get into a discussion about the merits or evils of ACORN—I don’t know much about the organization, except that it has gotten a lot of attention on conservative news programs. My point is simply that a letter with this kind of misinformation in it is not helpful. Even if some of the letter writer’s points have merit, I am prone to distrust what she has to say because the letter includes such clear untruths.

Also, the general tone of the letter is rather presumptuous. She claims to be speaking for “patriotic Americans” and “we, the people”. But America is a very diverse country, and many Americans have differing views on the role of government and how the current administration is doing. The letter asks, “Do you honestly think your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans?” Well, there are patriotic Americans who believe the administration’s current pursuits have merit. She says, “You will represent us, or you will be replaced by someone who will.” But there are many Americans who do feel the current administration represents them.

I’m not sure exactly what the author’s intentions were in writing this letter. Her goal, apparently, is to encourage people to vote the current administration and Congress out of office. That is all well and good. But she is trying to do this by implying that she represents all “patriotic” Americans, and by making several accusations against current government policy which may or may not be true. What if, instead, she were to seek out those Americans with whom she disagrees to have an honest and humble conversation? It would be much more helpful to me if this woman, and others like her, would find someone who sees this situation differently and listen to them with a real desire for understanding to find out why they think differently, and then humbly explain their own views. That, of course, is the reason I wanted to start this blog.

So, let’s continue the conversation…

Forwarded Email: We, the People, Are coming

2009-09-21T12:11:00.000-07:00

Dad, Here is the email Mom sent me--I'm guessing you already saw it.

Mindy

*************************************************************************************************

The only point I would add is, "don't take away our right and privilege to worship, pray and praise God." This country was founded on freedoms and freedom of religion is one of those choices! It is in God whom we trust.
~ E
*************************************************************************************************
Subject: We, the People, Are coming!!!

This is a little long but WOW did this lady get the message right! I couldn't have said it better!!

The following letter is rapidly circulating around the country. Americans everywhere identify with this 53-year -old woman. She has given us a voice. (Her letter was read on the Glenn Beck show.) Once you read this, you will want to forward it to all of your friends...
GLENN BECK: I got a letter from a woman in Arizona . She writes an open letter to our nation's leadership:
I'm a home grown American citizen, 53, registered Democrat all my life. Before the last presidential election I registered as a Republican because I no longer felt the Democratic Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. Now I no longer feel the Republican Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. The fact is I no longer feel any political party or representative in Washington represents my views or works to pursue the issues important to me. There must be someone. Please tell me who you are . Please stand up and tell me that you are there and that you're willing to fight for our Constitution as it was written. Please stand up now. You might ask yourself what my views and issues are that I would horribly feel so disenfranchised by both major political parties.. What kind of nut job am I? Will you please tell me?
Well, these are briefly my views and issues for which I seek representation:
One, illegal immigration. I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels. Stop the violence and the trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution. P.S., I'm not a racist. This isn't to be confused with legal immigration.
Two, the TARP bill, I want it repealed and I want no further funding supplied to it. We told you no, but you did it anyway.. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze, and repealed.
Three: Czars, I want the circumvention of our checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the czars. No more czars. Government officials answer to the process, not to the president. Stop trampling on our Constitution and honor it.
Four, cap and trade. The debate on global warming is not over. There is more to say, discuss, and investigate.
Five, universal healthcare. I will not be rushed into another expensive decision. Don't you dare try to pass this in the middle of the night and then go on break. Slow down!
Six, growing government control. I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored. I want less government in my life, not more. Shrink it down. Mind your own business. You have enough to take care of with your real obligations. Why don't you start there.
Seven, ACORN. I do not want ACORN and its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them every time on every real estate deal that closes. Stop the funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audits and investigations. I do not trust them with taking the census over with our taxpayer money. I don't trust them with our taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before taxpayers get any more involved with them. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, hello. Stop protecting you! r political buddies. You work for us, the people.. Investigate.
Eight, redistribution of wealth. No, no, no. I work for my money. It is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs. That is the only redistribution of wealth that I will support. I never got a job from a poor person. Why do you want me to hate my employers? Why -- what do you have against businesses and shareholders making a profit?
Nine, charitable contributions. Although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities, where we know our needs best and can use our local talent and our local resources. Butt out, please. We want to do it ourselves.
Ten, corporate bailouts. Knock it off. Sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we'll be better off just getting into it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful. Have you ever ripped off a Band-Aid? We will pull together. Great things happen in America under great hardship. Give us the chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us.
Eleven, transparency and accountability. How about it? No, really, how about it? Let's have it. Let's say we give the buzzwords a rest and have some straight honest talk. Please try -- please stop manipulating and trying to appease me with clever wording. I am not the idiot you obviously take me for. Stop sneaking around and meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me.
Twelve, unprecedented quick spending.. Stop it now.
Take a breath. Listen to the people. Let's just slow down and get some input from some nonpoliticians on the subject. Stop making everything an emergency. Stop speed reading our bills into law. I am not an activist. I am not a community organizer.. Nor am I a terrorist, a militant or a violent person. I am a parent and a grandparent. I work. I'm busy. I'm busy. I am busy, and I am tired. I thought we elected competent people to take care of the business of government so that we could work, raise our families, pay our bills, have a little recreation, complain about taxes, endure our hardships, pursue our personal goals, cut our lawn, wash our cars on the weekends and be responsible contributing members of society and teach our children to be the same all while living in the home of the free and land of the brave! .
I entrusted you with upholding the Constitution. I believed in the checks and balances to keep from getting far off course. What happened? You are very far off course. Do you really think I find humor in the hiring of a speed reader to unintelligently ramble all through a bill that you signed into law without knowing what it contained? I do not. It is a mockery of the responsibility I have entrusted to you. It is a slap in the face. I am not laughing at your arrogance. Why is it that I feel as if you would not trust me to make a single decision about my own life and how I would live it but you should expect that I should trust you with the debt that you have laid on all of us and our children. We did not want the TARP bill. We said no. We would repeal it if we could. I am sure that we still! cannot. There is such urgency and recklessness in all of the recent spending.
From my perspective, it seems that all of you have gone insane. I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us. We want our voice back. You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess that you are making. We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on you, to bring our concerns to Washington . Our president often knows all the right buzzwords like 'unsustainable'. Well, no kidding. How many tens of thousands of dollars did the focus group cost to come up with that word? We don't want your over priced words. Sto! p treating us like we're morons.
We want all of you to stop focusing on your reelection and do the job we want done, not the job you want done or the job your party wants done. You work for us and at this rate I guarantee you not for long because we are coming. We will be heard and we will be represented. You think we're so busy with our lives that we will never come for you? We are the formerly silent majority, all of us who quietly work , pay taxes, obey the law, vote, save money, keep our noses to the grindstone and we are now looking up at you. You have awakened us, the patriotic spirit so strong and so powerful that it had been sleeping too long. You have pushed us too far. Our numbers are great. They may surprise you. For every one of us who will be there, there will be hundreds more that could not come. Unlike you, we have their trust. We will represen! t them honestly, rest assured.. They will be at the polls on voting day to usher you out of office. We have cancelled vacations. We will use our last few dollars saved. We will find the representation among us and a grassroots campaign will flourish. We didn't ask for this fight. But the gloves are coming off. We do not come in violence, but we are angry. You will represent us or you will be replaced with someone who will. There are candidates among us who will rise like a Phoenix from the ashes that you have made of our constitution.
Democrat, Republican, independent, libertarian. Understand this. We don't care. Political parties are meaningless to us. Patriotic Americans are willing to do right by us and our Constitution and that is all that matters to us now. We are going to fire all of you who abuse power and seek more.. It is not your power. It is ours and we want it back.. We entrusted you with it and you abused it. You are dishonorable. You are dishonest. As Americans we are ashamed of you. You have brought shame to us. If you are not representing the wants and needs of your constituency loudly and consistently, in spite of the objections of your party, you will be fired. Did you hear? We no longer care about your political parties. You need to be loyal to us, not to them. Because when we fire you, th! ey will not save you. If you do or can represent me, my issues, my views, please stand up. Make your identity known. You need to make some noise about it. Speak up. I need to know who you are. If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole damn congress if need be one by one. We are coming. Are we coming for you? Who do you represent? What do you represent? Listen. Because we are coming. We the people are coming, and we vote !!
PLEASE, SEND TO AS MANY FRIENDS, RELATIVES, AND ACQUAINTANCES AS YOU CAN.
OUR VOTE IS VERY, VERY, IMPORTANT - AND IT MUST BE HEARD, LOUD AND CLEAR.

Two Questions

2009-09-09T20:30:00.000-07:00

Dad,

I want to say a little bit about President Obama’s speech tonight, but before I do I want to address your response to my last post. But, before I do that, I want to go back to your Chinese Proverb’s #6 I am statement: I am who I think you think I am.

It seems from your responses to me that you assume that I support socialized medicine, or at least the “public option” that has been proposed. But, I have never defended either of these ideas. I feel strongly that health care reform should happen, and I believe that everyone in this country should have access to affordable health care, but, as I have said before, I don’t know what the answer is. I know that a lot of people are adamantly saying that socialized medicine is the answer. While I have not strongly opposed that idea, I have not strongly supported it either. I’m still in the information-gathering stage.

My point with the boat analogy was to say that health care is not just a compassion issue but is also a justice issue, and I believe that all members of a community have some responsibility to make things right when injustice has been done, not just those who perpetrated the injustice. I believe that the profit-motive can and has contributed to injustice in our health care system. Please don’t interpret this to mean that I believe it is wrong to make a profit. I have not said that capitalism is evil, but as I’ve said before, it is an imperfect system that is implemented by sinful people. I don’t believe that the system itself will just work out those kinks. It seems like someone is going to have to step in, and that seems like a reasonable role of government. Yes, the government is also an imperfect system implemented by sinful people. I don’t know how to get around this. I am thankful that we live in a democratic society where we can vote for leaders who have term limits.

Finally, The President’s speech: This is the first time in these last few months that I have actually heard him speaking on the issue, since I’ve been relying mostly on NPR, WCRF and the people I follow in Twitter for my information lately. Based on all of that, I was kind of expecting to be less impressed with his speech than I was. I’ve been frustrated lately that the public option had become the main focus of the debate, and there seems to have been a lack of willingness to compromise or work with Republicans on solutions. (My friend Laura posted this op-ed by David Brooks that helped me put my finger on why I wasn’t jumping on the public option bandwagon.)

Anyway, I thought what President Obama proposed sounded pretty good. I wish he had sounded more committed to tort reform, and I wish he had more clearly addressed what David Brooks calls “perverse incentives”. I still wonder if what he is proposing will, as Brooks suggests, simply bring more people into in a system that doesn’t work. But it seems like a good start. I’m glad that the ball is rolling to change things.

Did you have a chance to watch or listen to the speech? Based on the image of Obama that has been created in the conservative media, I wonder if it would have been possible for you to agree with anything he said. I appreciate that you were able to reconsider your acceptance of Glenn Beck’s claim that Obama is building a private national security force and concede that perhaps Beck had taken some of Obama’s statements out of context. It seems that the conservative media has spent at least the last year and a half creating an effigy of Obama that many people have come to accept as truth. I get the impression that your opinions about Obama and health care reform, as well as the opinions of many conservative Christians, have been greatly influenced by unfair misrepresentations.

To sum up, here are two specific questions that I’d appreciate hearing your thoughts on:

Do you see the health care issue as an issue of justice?

What are your thoughts on how the conservative media has portrayed Obama, and how has that affected the health care debate?

It was wonderful being with you yesterday for Isaac’s finalization. I’m looking forward to the next time we’re together.

Mindy

The Human Condition

2009-09-06T11:00:00.000-07:00

Hi Mindy:

The item of discussion at hand is whether compassion (esp. for the poor) should be administered voluntarily, as happens in a free society, or under compulsion by a third party, i.e. the State who confiscates resources to hand out as IT sees fit. Taking your last communication from the last paragraph first, we are agreeing that voluntarism is better. However you somehow made the need for justice into a segue into the pitfalls of capitalism. Interestingly, you used as your example the case where a transaction was made with goods (the boat) that were acquired (stolen) in an usavory way, and whether your responsibility as the buyer extends backward to the person from whom the boat was stolen in the first place. Or to put it in your context, isn't this another indictment of the free enterprise/capitalistic system?

Ironically, it is the American free enterprise system that has put safeguards in place to protect against that sort of thing. We have elaborate product and service guarantees so that the buyer gets what they paid for. This is borne out of our Business Law that was originally taught from Blackstone's commentaries in our law schools. He was a believer. Although now dead, there is a Christian legal society with his name on it. Anyway, in our system, the seller covenants that the product is what he says it is, and if not, your money is returned and he agrees to deal with the problem. Since the seller is the guarantor, he is on the hook for hot or inferior goods. If your conscience still bothers you, you can always intervene in his pursuit of reparations from his supplier, and offer to pay it yourself. I frankly think that is misplaced and that the Lord wouldn't expect you to use family resources in a matter that is no longer your concern. From what I know of socialism, this paragraph would not be on their screen.

Yes, while our system has been so wildly successful in raising the standard of living of everyone, the largest and most wealthy of American firms have accumulated enough resources to tempt many to get around the system. We lie, we cheat, we steal. No I'm not talking just about business persons. It's all of us. It's the human condition. Are you implying that having the government dispense resources would be corruption free? By the way, buying and selling, bartering, trading have been going on these last 6,000 years. All that time, free enterprise was taking place in some form. Capitalism was too. Whomever had a product to sell or barter, had to have capital to make that product. They were capitalists. To somehow suddenly make the American business system the bogeyman is to face down the most successful generator of wealth for everyone, ever. It became that way because old familiar ways of doing business were done in a framework of constraints put in place by biblical law. It worked. If many have their way, it will become the enemy, not the solution. Too bad. Too bad for all of us, esp the poor.

Blessings,
Dad

PS: The Plain Dealer today, Sunday Sept 6th, had a great section with pieces from several perspectives on pages G3, G5. Did you notice that the American Conference of Catholic Bishops believe that health care is a "right"?

Compassion and Justice

2009-09-04T10:08:00.000-07:00

Dad,

For me, there are two issues here: compassion and justice. Your question, should the delivery of compassion be done voluntarily or should it be forced on someone, only gets at the first issue. If the health care issue was simply a matter of, well, there just happen to be poor people out there who can’t afford health insurance or who can’t afford to go to the doctor, then that would be one thing. But I think it’s more complicated than that.

This is getting to one of the “pitfalls” I see in capitalism. A while back we were discussing capitalism and you posed the following question: Say I buy a boat from someone for $100 and sell the boat to someone else for $120. What’s wrong with that?

There may not be anything wrong with that. The fact that I have made a profit of $20 is not a bad thing in itself. But, this assumes that the decision to buy and sell the boat only impacts me, the guy I bought the boat from and the guy I sell it to. Does it matter how the first guy got the boat to begin with?

Let's say I buy a boat from Tom for $100, then sell it to Ellen for $120. I've earned a nice $20, Tom goes out and buys something he needs with the $100, and Ellen was fine with paying $120 for the boat, so everyone's happy. Except, later I find out that Tom actually stole the boat from Bill. I have done nothing wrong in this scenario. But, injustice has been done, and although I did not perpetrate it, I have benefited from it. As a citizen, do I have any responsibility to help make things right for Bill? What about as a Christian? And what would it look like to pursue justice for Bill in this situation? Simply punish Tom? But Bill still doesn’t have his boat. Should Ellen give him the boat back? Should I give him the $20 I earned?

This is just one very simplified scenario, but the questions it raises are very real and very relevant to me, and I honestly don’t know the answers. This kind of thing happens in a system where one of the primary motivations is profit. Sinful people will sometimes lie, cheat and steal to maximize their profit. When they do that, usually someone else is affected by it. How do we deal with the fallout of a system that lends itself to this kind of injustice? Is this where the government should step in? I don’t know. But as a Christian who believes caring for the poor and oppressed is intimately tied up with the gospel and my own relationship to God, I feel that I have to be concerned with pursuing justice for those who have been hurt by injustice, whether it was perpetrated by me or not.

This is why simply giving money to a “compassion ministry” is not enough for me. I could do that, but it seems like those ministries, although they are doing a wonderful and necessary service, are just putting a bandaid on a wound that needs surgery. If someone at this moment doesn’t have clothing or food or medical attention or whatever else they need to survive, then those immediate needs need to be provided for. But someone should also be looking into the deeper issues of why that person needs food or clothing or medical care. Is it simply because they are lazy and don’t want to work for it? Perhaps, sometimes. But could it also be because there is something wrong in our system that is keeping them from being able to provide for themselves?

So, going back to your question: should compassion be given voluntarily or forcibly? It seems obvious compassion is something that should be given freely. But what about the issue of justice? When injustice is done there are those who perpetrated it, those who benefit from it, and those who are hurt by it. Since we live in a community where all of our decisions affect others in the community, I think all three of those people have some responsibility. Figuring out exactly what each of their responsibilities are is the complicated question.

Convince Me!

2009-09-03T18:47:00.000-07:00

My Dear Mindy: Sorry I misinterpreted your statements about knowing everything. I totally relate to your struggle re Romans 7. Like that has happened to me every few minutes for the last 70+ years! I will also grant that Obama may have used military language to describe a civilian initiative. Still, I have to wonder at ANY civilian program that could or should be as large and as well funded as our military. Should we assume he didn't mean that either? Words do matter.

You have implored me to consider what you are actually like, rather that what I think you are like. Well, in my mind, all I have about you is what I think you are like. There is no other for me. My perception of who you are will stay the same until you do or say something to change that. Even so, those perceptions will never truly meet. It's like the Chinese proverb about the seven "I am's":
1) I am
2) I am what I think I am
3) I am what I say I am
4) I am what you think I am
5) I am what you say I am
6) I am what I think you think I am
7) I am what you think I think I am.

The great and funny part is they're all different. Doesn't it blow your mind that number 1 and number 2 are different? However, not to dispare. As we communicate in a trusting atmosphere, the differences narrow. Presumably, number one (1) is the totality of what God knows about me, and I probably don't want to know all that!

Anyway, on to the "convince me" part. I know you are really, passionately after the Truth. I am too. However, for me to continue throwing my ideas at you, hoping something will stick or generate an objection from you, is rather a one way street. That's why I said from the beginning, I can only say the truth as I know it and you can glean from it. You can do the same thing for me. I have already said many things in the first couple blogs and our previous emails that should generate some reaction or assent. Whichever it is doesn't matter to me, however take one issue and come back to me on it. Take a position and see how it feels. For starters, how about the delivery system for compassion. Take from others, or give voluntarily?

Love,
Dad

P.S.

2009-09-02T12:03:00.000-07:00

By the way, regarding the Obama civilian army speech:

Reading the little bit highlighted on Beck's program in the context of the rest of the speech leads me to believe Obama was using military language as a figure of speech. His point, I believe, is that we have focused on threats to our country from the outside, but it is just as critical that we focus on what is damaging our country from the inside. The "civilian national security force" he talks about is the 250,000 AmeriCorps volunteers he wants to provide funding for. You can click here to find out more about AmeriCorps and what its volunteers do.

It is unfortunate that Obama chose to use this language as he did, because I can see how someone might read this to mean that establishing a civilian national security force is one among a list of things he is planning to do (expand AmeriCorps, send college graduates to mentor young people, establish an Energy Corps, etc.). But the civilian national security force is not one of the things, it is his figurative description of this army of volunteers he hopes to empower to make a difference in this country.

Titles are hard to come up with for these things....

2009-09-02T06:57:00.000-07:00

Dear Dad,

In some ways having this conversation via written “letters” has its benefits: it gives both of us time to compile our thoughts, and can help us discuss very emotionally-charged topics with a bit of a buffer. The downside, however, is that it can be pretty difficult to convey or read the right tone in what is being written.

My confession to thinking I’m right all the time was an honest confession of my own sin and pride. As I get older I am becoming more and more aware of the struggle within myself that Paul describes in Romans 7:14-25. I wanted to make it clear that my real goal here is to understand the truth in these issues. Can I ask, do we share the same goal?

You said you don’t want to convince me of anything, but that’s exactly what I’m asking you to do. If you understand the truth in these matters better than I do (and you very well may!!) then I want you to convince me, because, as I said, my goal is to understand the truth. I’m not sure, though, that you believe me when I say this.

You have called me a liberal—but please don’t make assumptions about me based on your stereotype of liberals. If you are right about these things, I want to know it, but in order for you to convince me you have to understand what I actually believe, and make your arguments based on that, rather than on what you think I believe.

For one thing, what I don’t believe is that capitalism is responsible for all the evils of the day or that socialism is the way out. What I do believe, in that regard, is that capitalism and socialism are both flawed systems that are implemented by sinful people, and because of that there is potential for evil in either system. It seems that the people who defend capitalism the loudest are those who have benefited from it the most. I’m afraid that the fact that those people have benefited from it has caused them to be blind to some of the pitfalls of the system. Capitalism may be very good, but it isn’t perfect, and even if it was, it has been practiced by sinful people. I’m not suggesting that socialism is the way out—what I am asking for, pleading for, really, is that we take a look at the pitfalls of capitalism and see if there is any way it could be done better.

That’s all for now, I think. I’ll write more later…

Mindy

Pity The Poor Conservative

2009-09-01T14:07:00.000-07:00

Wow, not to waste any time eh? Right off, I'm dealing with someone who confesses to being right all (most) of the time, and has issues with conservative evangelicals, of which, yes, I am one. With that in mind, I will write more to congeal my own thoughts than try to convince you of anything. It's better that way.

First, your including a couple more paragraphs around Obama's quote on the civilian military did nothing to dispel the huge question of: Why? As large, as well funded, as our real military? What's that about. Help me. He wants to save the planet, aka global warming, and restore our place in the world. GW relying on bogus science (I can be specific if you like), and our new apologizer-in-chief, as some on both sides of the aisle call he and Hillary, wanting to restore our standing in the world? Watch what he does, not what he says.

And my question of the day: Why do most liberals assume in a knee jerk sort of way that capitalism is somehow now responsible for the evils of the day, and socialism is the way out? We are asked to ignore history in order to go there, including the most recent 200+ years of our own. No, the bible doesn't contain either word, so we must get the "sense" of meaning from the Scripture. That unfortunately can easily degenerate into a "he said, she said" sort of thing. Not productive between the faithful on each side.

Let's both agree that the Word wants us to be compassionate to the poor. We differ on how to deliver that compassion. Liberals, of which you are one, prefer the financial help to be taken from those that have. Conservatives, of which I am one, prefer that we ALL give out of a heart of compassion. The wealthy have more to give, to be sure, but the Lord was big on the widow's mite. We're all in it, not just those above the average income line.

Love,

Dad

Three Confessions Before We Continue

2009-08-31T21:22:00.000-07:00

Dear Dad,

OK, I’m almost ready to begin addressing some of the points you made in your last note. But before I do, I want make three confessions.

First, I have a tendency to think I’m right about most things. The mature, redeemed part of me knows this certainly isn’t true, but I still have that sin nature that would like me to believe that all my opinions are the right ones. I am praying that, as we continue this conversation, God will give me humility. That sinful nature is going to try to make me think that the goal of this discussion is for me to be right. But really, the goal is for me to find truth, and then walk in the truth God reveals. Honestly, that is what I want from this discussion. I feel passionately about issues related to faith and public policy, and I hope that through this discussion God will show me what actions I can take to live out His Good News in this area.

Secondly, I have, as I’m sure you’ve probably noticed, serious issues with Conservative Evangelicals as a group (although, and I’m not totally sure about this, I might be one of them…). I’m going to tend to lump you into this image of Conservative Evangelicals that I have formed in my head, which may or may not be an accurate one. But I do realize that not all Conservative Evangelicals are the same, and many of my stereotypes may not describe you. Please forgive me if I make assumptions about you and your beliefs based on this stereotype. And feel free to point it out (gently, please) if/when that happens.

Thirdly, the reason I have gotten so worked up about this issue is because I passionately believe that there is a strong theme throughout the Bible related to how God identifies himself with the poor and oppressed, and how He expects His people to care for the needy. That being said, I am not currently doing anything to help the poor and needy. We give money to our church, and some of that, I’m sure, goes to ministries serving the poor. But I am not directly connected to any ministries that are fighting poverty, providing health care, or pursuing justice for the oppressed. Like I said, the real goal of this discussion is for me to figure out what is the best way for me, with my unique passions and gifts, to live out what I see in Scripture. If sharing this conversation with others helps someone else figure out that same thing for themselves, then that would be a bonus.

Alright, with that out of the way, I can say that as I sat down to respond to the points in your previous note, I realized that I probably need to divide my response into at least two parts, which I think, for the sake of keeping the posts somewhat short, I will send in separate posts. Those posts will address (but probably not answer) these two questions:

You’ve made the point that the way to help the poor is not to take from the rich. So, since the Bible is full of commands for God’s people to make sure the poor are taken care of, how do we do that?
Discussions about public policy these days often come down to capitalism vs. socialism. Why do conservative Christians often imply, or state outright, that capitalism is the God-approved economic system and socialism is evil?

I have things to say on each of these questions, but feel free to answer them before I do. I am bursting with things to say, but let me know if you want me to slow down so you can respond to something before I get going again. I can wait to post again until you've had a chance to, if you want.

Mark told me that he told you today that I am all fired up about this (in a good way). I think I’ve been wanting to have a conversation like this with someone for years. I’m not sure if you knew what you were getting yourself into by agreeing to this! But, again, I really appreciate it.

Mindy

A Reason for this Conversation

2009-08-30T19:53:00.000-07:00

Dad,

I want to respond to your previous note in more detail, but since we’ve moved this discussion to a blog, I’d like to take the opportunity to reiterate one of my purposes in starting this conversation. There are really two issues that have spurred me to invite others to share their thoughts related to the health care debate—one of them is the actual health care reform issue, and what it means in light of our faith. The second issue is the way the debate about health care, as well as other political issues of the day, are being discussed.

My hope has been to get past the sensationalism and fear-mongering of the media in order to understand the true issues at stake. It is not helpful for me to hear people compare Obama to Mao, or to claim that the health care bill would mandate euthanasia. There have been many emails forwarded around that make all kinds of claims and accusations, but the emails aren’t always backed up with sources or facts, although it seems recipients of the emails often take them as fact. This kind of thing frustrates me, because I want to have enough information to form my own opinions. Anyone can take anything out of context and twist it to send whatever message they want. But if they provide you with the source of their information, at least you can go back and check to see if you would come to the same conclusion they did.

A perfect example of this came from the Glenn Beck series last week on Fox News. Mom and I discussed this briefly last week, and she was very concerned because Beck claims that Obama is developing a private military. I haven’t seen the entire Fox News video, but I did see that Beck showed a clip of a speech Obama gave during the campaign. Here is the transcript of the bit of the speech shown on Beck’s program:

“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

Transcripts of all Obama’s campaign speeches can be found on his website at www.barackobama.com/speeches , organized by date. Beck did not tell us which speech this soundbite was from, and he didn’t mention the context of the above statement. Here is that same paragraph in the context of the speech, which was given in Colorado Springs on July 2, 2008:

“Today, AmeriCorps -- our nation's network of local, state, and national service programs -- has 75,000 slots. And I know firsthand the quality of these programs. My wife, Michelle, once left her job at a law firm and at City Hall to be a founding director of an AmeriCorps program in Chicago that trains young people for careers in public service. And these programs invest Americans in their communities and their country. They tap America's greatest resource -- our citizens.

And that's why as president, I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their efforts connected to a common purpose. People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem -- they are the answer.

So we are going to send -- we're going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods all across the country. We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, to be there for our military families. And we're going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

We need to use technology to connect people to service. We'll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where Americans can browse opportunities to volunteer. You'll be able to search by category, time commitment, and skill sets; you'll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities. This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda, and make their own change from the bottom up.”

Seeing that paragraph in the context of the rest of the speech leads me to a very different conclusion than Glenn Beck’s.

So, the reason I am glad we are having this conversation is that I want dig through the muck that the media often gives us in order to understand the real issues. I want to hear rational, well-reasoned and well-researched arguments—and not just from people I tend to agree with, but from people who are different from me. If there is truth to what people like Glenn Beck are saying, I do want to know it, but I need you, someone I know and love and trust (even if we don’t always agree) to convince me.

Thanks again for being willing to have this conversation, and for inviting others to join in by taking it to the blogosphere. I’m sure this will be very interesting…

Mindy

Response to "The Moral Imperative of Health Care Reform"

2009-08-30T15:05:00.000-07:00

Dear Mindy:
I appreciate your persistence in pursuing a (biblical) understanding of the raging health care debate. There ARE some pretty strident voices on both sides of the debate. Professor Gushee provides his share of them. His article has for me, hand grenades in every paragraph. For example, his statement, "whether we can simultaneously love a neighbor and not care if they die from a treatable disease because they cannot pay for it", is an example of a monstrous accusation against perhaps the most compassionate nation on earth right now, and the people giving of time and money sacrificially to help the poor in many ways, including free clinics. No one in our country is turned away from health care because they cannot pay for it.

For starters, the title of his article, "The Moral Imperative of Health Care Reform", is not what his piece is about. Health care reform is one thing, but Universal health care, aka socialized medicine, which is clearly what he is advocating, is entirely another. I happen to be in favor of health care reform, as are the vast majority of Americans. We all know that the system needs work. I and about 75% of my countrymen are not in favor of socialized medicine however. Now I know that those statistics don't matter to you right now. You want to know what the biblical imperitives are, and that is good. That is always where to start.

1)Here is a quote from Adrian Rogers, 3x past president of the SBC and one of the most anointed bible teachers of our time:
"You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they did not work for, that my dear friends is the beginning of the end of any nation."

Dr. Rogers is using the principle in Exodus 20:17, the tenth Commandment about not coveting ANYTHING that is our neighbors'. In order to provide socialized medicine, that would happen thousands of times per day. That would be an affront to God.

2) One of the things that need to be cleaned up is the overheated tort system in our country that grossly adds to our health costs. Physicians routinely pay liability premiums of over $200,000 per year just to be covered from lawsuits! We can blame it on the lawyers, and usually do, but someone has to do the suing. I personally know many believers who have done that. I believe that is an affront to God. Neither the writers of HR 3200 nor the professor addresses that.

3) The ethics prof pretty smoothly goes from a "theology of human rights that includes bodily rights, which includes a right to health care", (paid for by someone else) I'm frankly lost on that one. Where does scripture speak to a right to health care. He also speaks about the "unjust maldistribution of health care in this country as a huge national scandal." Those words "unjust maldistribution" are code words for socialism. No peoples anywhere have been lifted up by mandated equal distribution of resources.

4) All right, let's address the compassion issue. We are exhorted by the professor that there is "the moral imperitive to extend adequate health care to all of our nation's people." No there isn't, at least by the government. That is not a hard hearted response. It is none of the government's business to provide health care. It is up to the church, the individuals, and a system that allows for an adequate compensation AND PROFIT for the care it provides. Only then will better ways be researched and found to treat people. Only then will physicians have the freedom to treat people in the best way and for the patients whole life without a public agency deciding it for him. And the poor will be the beneficiaries of that better treatment. Having the government make the allocations of treatments is the least compassionate way imaginable, esp for the poor.

5) Even our Lord observed that we will always have the poor with us. That is not fatalistic. It's just the way it is. The best possible way to improve health care for all is to regulate tort law, regulate the way insurance companies make their payments, and by all means, not force America's companies to pay an onerous tax on top of the health care premiums we already pay.

6) And one last thing. We don't have the money to do it. And to do it anyway would be an affront to God. "Owe no man anything".

The professor is right that there are for sure broader moral issues at stake. Unfortunately, conservative Christians like me are painted with the "no compassion" brush. I reject that because I believe the better and sometimes harder way is not simply to hand out someone elses money to "solve" a problem. Destroying a free enterprise system that, under God, has created the most prosperous nation on earth, would be a gross misservice to the poor. Our level of prosperity has lifted everyones boat, unless a decision is made to get out of it. That's an individual decision. May the Lord give us all wisdom in these days.
Love,
Dad

The Morality of Health Care Reform

2009-08-30T15:04:00.000-07:00

(posted by Mindy)

Here is another good article that I feel articulates well how I'm feeling about the discussion of health care reform among evangelicals. It is written by a professor of Christian ethics at a Baptist seminary (Mercer University). I am still confused about the current proposals going through Congress, so I'm not saying I support the current reform 100%, but I do feel that something should be done. I also wish that more prominent evangelicals were making the points that Professor Gushee makes--that there is a broader moral issue here.

My goal in sending this is to initiate conversation--like I said, this is a confusing issue, and I really want to learn from all sides of the debate. I suspect that even people who disagree drastically can find some common ground, and that would be a good starting point for conversation.

Mindy

Opinion: The moral imperative of health-care reform
By David Gushee
Monday, August 24, 2009

(ABP) -- The national debate raging over health-care reform has become a maelstrom of competing claims and counterclaims. It has been deeply infected by political demagoguery and hysteria.

The tenor of the debate raises the legitimate question as to whether our nation still has the capacity to tackle an enormously complex policy challenge such as this one. Each day we spend millions of dollars to defeat external threats -- but if we cannot address our own domestic problems any more effectively than this, then it will not be al Qaeda that undoes us.

The primary Christian interest in health-care reform is the moral imperative to extend adequate health care to all of our nation’s people. Why is health-care access a moral imperative? Choose your Scripture text or your moral theory, but they all point in the same direction:

Those of us who enjoy access to health care could try a Golden Rule test, and ask whether we are doing unto others as we would have them do unto us if we do not fight for health care for those who do not have it. Is this how we would like our children to be treated when they are sick?

We could work from Jesus’ teaching of “love your neighbor as yourself” and ask whether we can simultaneously love a neighbor and not care if they die from a treatable disease because they cannot pay for care.

We could work from a theology of human rights that includes bodily rights, which includes a right to health care -- at least in societies such as our own that have the capacity to deliver health care.

We could speak of basic principles of distributive justice in regard to the goods needed for a decent life in a community, and note the obvious fact that the unjust maldistribution of health care in this country is a huge national scandal and an affront to the God of justice.

We could focus on Scripture’s concern for the poor and the demand that they be provided for, and then link poverty and lack of adequate health care -- for these are linked every day, in deadly ways, here.

The national debate over health-care reform has lost, or never developed, a truly moral focus. It has not been treated as the great moral crusade that it is. To find a way to extend quality health care to 50 million Americans who do not currently have it would be an extraordinary moral victory for this country. But except around the fearful edges of the debate -- “pulling the plug on grandma,” “death panels,” abortion -- the moral case has been muted, shouted down, abandoned or never made.

A word must be said about these most extreme fears. In my view they reflect some combination of honest grassroots-level misunderstandings of complex policy issues -- misunderstandings that are often fed by purposeful misrepresentations by activists seeking to derail health-care reform or to deal Barack Obama a setback. Such misunderstandings have been enabled to some extent by a lack of message clarity on the part of those advocating various pieces of reform legislation.

No American Congress will pass health-care legislation with Nazi-type euthanasia panels. No one will start surreptitiously pulling the plug on grandma. And if some contingent tries to slip in expansion of taxpayer funding for abortion into the final bill, it will lose my support and that of many others.

It must be observed, however, that for a certain contingent of American Christians, issues only become “moral issues” at the edges of life -- at the beginning and the end. Providing health care for 50 million people is not itself viewed as a moral imperative; the issue only becomes morally significant if it might, somehow, just maybe, lead to more abortion or to euthanasia. Is it not possible for Christians to care both about people getting health care when they need it, and about abortion and euthanasia? Once again we see how important it is that Christians develop a holistic, comprehensive sanctity-of-life ethic concerned about human well-being from womb to tomb -- and everywhere in between.

I have argued that extension of health-care access is a great moral imperative. I have also argued that it must not, cannot, and -- as far as I can see -- is not being purchased at the price of succumbing to euthanasia or taxpayer-funded abortion. It also seems clear to me that gaining this expanded access to health care at a reasonable price to the taxpayer, business and the federal budget is a highly important prudential goal.

Which kinds of reform strategies will be the most effective at extending coverage to the most people at the least additional cost are questions best left to those who have the expertise to make informed judgments on such matters. But that we need something like the health-care legislation now struggling through Congress seems to me very clear on Christian grounds.

-30-

David Gushee is distinguished university professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University.

Health Care Reform, the Poor and the Bible

2009-08-30T14:55:00.000-07:00

Dad,

I do appreciate your sharing your thoughts on this issue--your own thoughts and words are much more valuable to me than a forwarded email as I try to make an informed opinion about health care reform.

I have two major concerns about the current state of health care in this country. One is that basic, decent quality health care is not affordable or accessible for a lot of people in this country. There are people with jobs who can't afford health insurance and are barely getting by, trying to pay bills and feed their family, and end up forgoing preventive health care because they can't afford a doctor's visit, and then end up sicker. Not to mention the homeless, children from poor families or others who have difficulty getting the basic health care they need. Our country is so prosperous, I don't understand why this should be acceptable.

Secondly, I am extremely frustrated by insurance companies. I think everyone I know has a story about a situation with an insurance company where they were denied coverage for a procedure, doctor's visit or medication that was supposed to be covered according to their policy. My own experience and the stories of others seem to indicate that the goal of insurance companies is to hold on to as much of your money as possible, even if you are entitled to coverage or reimbursement according to the policy you are paying for. The standard practice for insurance companies seems to be to initially deny all claims, in hopes that the customer will not have the wisdom, time or ability to fight for the coverage they have bought. This is downright wrong.

These are my concerns. I am not claiming that Obama's proposed health care reform will fix these issues, because I don't know enough about it. If it did fix these issues, but included government funding for abortion, then that would be a problem.

But perhaps you're right, perhaps the government has no business trying to fix these problems. If that is the case, who would be responsible? As far as helping to make sure the poor have access to health care, then certainly the church should be involved. Many hospitals, of course, were started by Christians who felt it was their God-given duty to care for the sick. Some churches today support health clinics or have programs that help people find the services they need. This is great. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be happening enough.

And who should be responsible for keeping insurance companies accountable? I suppose in a free market, ideally, consumers would choose the companies that provided good coverage and were fair and honest in their practices, leaving other companies without enough customers to support themselves, forcing them to improve or go out of business. But what if every insurance company out there is corrupt? What if there is no option that provides good coverage and is fair and honest?

The overarching reason for my concern for the poor is not because I am a "liberal" (although, politically, perhaps that's what I am--but please don't make assumptions about me based on that--it doesn't mean I agree with everything Obama or Congressional democrats say). The reason for my concern for the poor is because I read the Bible. How we, as individuals and as a community, treat the poor is intricately tied up with the Gospel and our relationship to God. A couple passages that support this are Isaiah 58:5-10 and Matthew 25:31-46.

⁵ Is this the kind of fast I have chosen,
only a day for a man to humble himself?
Is it only for bowing one's head like a reed
and for lying on sackcloth and ashes?
Is that what you call a fast,
a day acceptable to the LORD ?

⁶ "Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break every yoke?

⁷ Is it not to share your food with the hungry
and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—
when you see the naked, to clothe him,
and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?

⁸ Then your light will break forth like the dawn,
and your healing will quickly appear;
then your righteousness ^a]">[a] will go before you,
and the glory of the LORD will be your rear guard.

⁹ Then you will call, and the LORD will answer;
you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am I.
"If you do away with the yoke of oppression,
with the pointing finger and malicious talk,

¹⁰ and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry
and satisfy the needs of the oppressed,
then your light will rise in the darkness,
and your night will become like the noonday.

I highlighted some parts to point out that this passage claims that when an individual or a community cares for the poor, then God gets glory and their light shines. If the USA is a "Christian" nation, then we need to be concerned for the poor and oppressed if we want our light to shine in the world and God to be glorified. And, we need to do away with the pointing finger and malicious talk (Lord, help us...)

Here, also, is Matthew 25:31-46

³¹"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. ³²All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. ³³He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

³⁴"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. ³⁵For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, ³⁶I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

³⁷"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? ³⁸When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? ³⁹When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

⁴⁰"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

⁴¹"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. ⁴²For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, ⁴³I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

⁴⁴"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

⁴⁵"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

⁴⁶"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

In this passage, it looks like Jesus might be judging nations, as well as individuals. Our nation will be judged if we do not make sure the hungry are fed, the naked are clothed, the sick are cared for. Not only that, but Jesus identifies himself with the hungry, sick, naked, prisoner. We meet Jesus when we interact with and care for the poor.

These are just two passages that highlight the importance of caring for the poor. There are hundreds more. I believe Scripture as a whole supports the idea that how we care for the poor is definitely one of the most important things about our life and relationship with God.

I've kind of gone on and on, and gotten a bit off the topic of health care. But I hope you can see that it is related. If proponents of health care reform are claiming that it is about helping the sick and the poor, then I want to understand it better, to know if that's really what it is. Unfortunately, as I try to understand it, I have come to mistrust conservative Christian media, because they are using tactics that are dishonest and reactionary. I am looking for other ways of getting, as I said, good, well-presented, verifiable information, on all sides of the issue. It seems to be a difficult and time-consuming task...

Thanks for engaging with me on this topic. I hope you're enjoying the conversation...

Mindy

P.S. Here is another link to the McLaren article. I know I've already written a lot, but if you have time, let me know what you think...

http://www.brianmclaren.net/archives/blog/an-open-letter-to-conservative-c.html

Thoughts on the Health Care Bill

2009-08-30T14:38:00.000-07:00

Hi Mindy:

I did read the CT article, but the other wouldn't pull up. Seems to be enough blame and misquoting to go around these days on the subject of health care. I'm afraid I am not at all sympathetic to the idea of government intervention in the medical care of it's people. My problems go back to whether the government has any business at all in these matters, and for me, the answer is no. The State exists for just a few reasons, one being to maintain a standing army for national defense, a domestic police force for preserving the peace internally, and not much more.

When Norman Thomas was running for President on the Socialist ticket in the 1960's, he wanted something like socialized medicine. Americans did not want it and saw the many pitfalls. Neither he nor his programs such as this were taken seriously then, but they are now because we, the frog, are in a pot that is slowly being brought to a boil by liberal politicians. Entitlements of unimaginable scale are our "right" now

Socialized medicine lets the government bull into you and your son's china shop that you will surely regret later. You didn't mention the funding available for abortions, or the 8% premium small businesses will have to pay for govt health care. Will that care be any better? I answer in a simple way. I have never seen the govt do anything better than the private sector can do, warts and all.

About the five year consultation, probably a good thing, but probably a bad thing if this govt is the driving force for it.

I believe a health care bill of some sort will be passed by the Pelosi/Reed combine. It doesn't really matter what's in it. Once the nose of the camel is in the tent, additions and modifications will come fast, and we will have little to say about it. And you won't like it.

My love to you

Dad

Response to $64,000 Question

2009-08-30T14:37:00.001-07:00

Hi Dad,

I am very eager to learn more about health care reform, and I would welcome your thoughts or any good information you could send along. There is so much misinformation going around that it is hard to know where to find good facts. This email you forwarded may be perfectly legitimate, but I do have some questions and concerns about it.

Because of all the code surrounding it, it seems this has been forwarded again and again, and I can't tell who originally wrote it. Do you know where it came from originally?

Also, the email mentions an interview on ABC's health care special. I wanted to find the interview, either a transcript or video, so I could understand the exact wording of the question, and the context surrounding Obama's response (or lack of response). The email quotes the interviewer's question asking about "the universal health care program." Although some people are calling Obama's health care reform "nationalization" or "the government takeover of health care", that isn't really what it is. He has said he would like to see universal health care, or a single payer system, eventually, and perhaps the current bill would lead to that, but the current bill is not that. This could be the reason for Obama's failure to answer the question. But I couldn't find a copy of the interview, so I wasn't able to judge for myself what this interaction might have meant.

I looked up the "Kennedy Health Care Bill" mentioned in the email, and although I didn't take too much time to research it thoroughly, the discussion about this particular bill took place in early June. There have been a lot of changes to the proposed reform since then, so the information in this email might be outdated by now.

Lastly, and this may be a picky thing, but I'm a teacher, so I guess these things matter to me: the email was full of typos and misspellings.

I don't know what to think about health care reform, really. I think it is needed, but I don't know what it should look like. The whole issue is so complicated I feel like I need a degree to make an informed decision. But I do want to try to understand what I can, and would be interested in hearing from all sides of the debate with good, well-presented, verifiable information.

Did you have a chance to read the CT article or the McLaren letter I sent earlier?

Mindy

Forwarded Email: Finally, the $64,000 question was asked!

2009-08-30T14:35:00.000-07:00

>
>
>
> .
>
>
> Subject: FINALLY..... THE $64,000 WAS ASKED.
>
>
>
>
> .
>
>
>
> FINALLY...THE $64,000 QUESTION WAS ASKED...
>
> YESTERDAY ON "ABC-TV" (BETTER KNOWN AS THE ALL BARRACK CHANNEL) 
> DURING THE "NETWORK SPECIAL ON HEALTH CARE"....  OBAMA WAS ASKED:
>
>
>
>
> "MR. PRESIDENT WILL YOU AND YOUR FAMILY GIVE UP YOUR CURRENT HEALTH 
> CARE PROGRAM AND JOIN THE NEW 'UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAM' THAT 
> THE REST OF US WILL BE ON ????"..... (BET YOU ALREADY KNOW THE 
> ANSWER)...
>
> THERE WAS A STONEY SILENCE AS OBAMA IGNORED THE QUESTION AND CHOSE 
> NOT TO ANSWER IT !!!...
>
> IN ADDITION, A NUMBER OF SENATORS WERE ASKED THE SAME QUESTION AND 
> THERE RESPONSE WAS..."WE WILL THINK ABOUT IT."
>
> AND THEY DID. IT WAS ANNOUNCED TODAY ON THE NEWS THAT THE "KENNEDY 
> HEALTH CARE BILL" WAS WRITTEN INTO THE NEW HEALTH CARE REFORM 
> INITIATIVE ENSURING THAT CONGRESS WILL BE 100% EXEMPT !
>
> SO, THIS GREAT NEW HEALTH CARE PLAN THAT IS GOOD FOR YOU AND I... IS 
> NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR OBAMA, HIS FAMILY OR CONGRESS...??  WE (THE 
> AMERICAN PUBLIC) NEED TO STOP THIS PROPOSED DEBACLE ASAP !!!!.... 
> THIS IS TOTALLY WRONG !!!!!
>
> PERSONALLY, I CAN ONLY ACCEPT A UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE OVERHAUL THAT 
> EXTENDS TO EVERYONE... NOT JUST US LOWLY CITIZENS... WHILE THE 
> WASHINGTON "ELITE" KEEP RIGHT ON WITH THEIR GOLD-PLATED HEALTH CARE 
> COVERAGE'S.
>
> IF YOU AGREE PLEASE PASS THIS ON ....IF NOT PLAN TO SUFFER WITH THE 
> OBAMA HEALTH CARE PLAN ....FOR FREE....   WHILE OUR SELF-SERVING 
> POLITICIANS MAKE SURE THAT THEY TAKE CARE  OF THEIR BUTTS AT OUR 
> EXPENSE.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Health Care Debate Frustration

2009-08-30T13:48:00.000-07:00

Friends and Family,

I read some interesting articles recently that I wanted to share. With all of the debate on healthcare reform, I have been very frustrated by what I'm hearing in the news--particularly through conservative Christian news sources.

The first article is an example of what i find so frustrating--it is from Christianity Today, a publication that I usually like quite a bit. The article itself seems to be somewhat balanced, but the headline is a perfect example of the kind of propoganda that seems to be flying about these days. If you take time to read the article, please also read some of the comments--many of them express my own frustration with the use of inflammatory and false language that seems to be included in every news story I've heard about the topic on Christian radio.

The second article is by Brian McLaren, and urges Christians to refrain from contributing to the fear-mongering and propaganda that is coming from both sides of the debate. The fact is (in my opinion), the health care system in this country does have some serious problems, and in order for anything to improve there needs to be honest, open dialogue. What I see happening seems to be politicized mud-slinging. The McClaren article is a bit long, but I would love to hear your thoughts on it if you get the chance to read it.

Mindy

P.S. When I went to link the CT article I found they had changed the headline and deleted the comments that had criticized it. The original headline was "Section 1233: Mandating Euthanasia?"

http://blog.sojo.net/2009/08/11/an-open-letter-to-conservative-christians-in-the-us-on-health-care/#disqus_thread

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2009/08/section_1233_ma.html