There are important changes taking place in the Evangelical world, as typified by voices like Bill Hybels and Rick Warren — voices that refuse to reduce our political concerns to two or three issues. Check out this excellent piece in the NY Times.
Sniffing out the work of God in the world…
There are important changes taking place in the Evangelical world, as typified by voices like Bill Hybels and Rick Warren — voices that refuse to reduce our political concerns to two or three issues. Check out this excellent piece in the NY Times.
Is the murder of children a “pet” issue in your opinion? If so, I understand why you might try to make it seem silly or minute in the big picture.
This post and the only comment thus far are a can of worms if I’ve ever seen one, but a can that I have spent quite a bit of time thinking and praying about. I have become concerned in the past few years with both camps that have seemed to emerge in the vocal, political, Christian arena. On the one hand, it has been troublesome to hear the only issues being put on the front burner those of abortion and gay marriage. Just to be clear, I am a fan of Focus on the Family when it comes to their advice about parenting and marriage. That said, I have become increasingly uncomfortable with their political agenda that says it is concerned with the family, but really only addresses abortion and gay marriage. Are those really the only issues facing families? Those are not the ones my family is facing on a daily basis to be sure. I decided that complaining was not beneficial, so I wrote Focus on the Family expressing my disapproval for how polarized they had become. I stated that from now on, if the program was about political issues rather than about parenting or marriage, I would turn off the radio. Honestly, the response I got was quite discouraging. The person who responded said that FOTF had to pick some issues to get behind and these were the most critical to families. Really? On the other hand, I am equally disheartened by Christians who look as if in a backlash to the “religious right” have chosen their own “pet issues” at the exclusion of some important teachings. The opposing side wants Christians to simply see different ISSUES. I have wondered how reasonable it is to think that God sees protecting unborn babies more OR less important than healthcare for the poor. (Those are simply a couple of the issues I hear thrown around by the two sides. Don’t read anything else into them….) Seems to me that Jesus spoke often about what is going on inside the heart. Choices that each of us make on a daily basis seem to really indicate what is going on in our hearts. I am still thinking about the Sermon on the Mount because of the post a couple of days ago and because of BSF. I love the idea of being the salt of the world. So often I see Christians pushing political agendas on both sides and I wonder if the world just feels like they are being forced to drink salt water. Not very thirst quenching. I am going to try to be that pinch of salt that is worked through the dough making the flavor what it was meant to be and then leave the thirst quenching up to the one who described Himself as Living Water.
There are lots of issues, but no candidate matches my beliefs on all the issues. So I have to decide which issues are the most important to me.
In the US, since 1977, more than 1.2 million abortions have occurred every year. Since 1970, there have been over 45 million abortions in the US. Forty-five million! That number is so large that it leaves me feeling numb. That is more than seven times the number of Jews who were exterminated in Hitler’s Germany. Is there any other political issue, or any combination of other political issues, that even comes close in terms of total impact on human lives?
Any issue that someone focuses on to the exclusion of others is a pet issue. If you don’t care about anything but the war on terror or the environment or tax cuts or violent crime or even abortion then it is your pet issue. Identifying something as a pet issue says nothing about its correct/incorrectness.
Many of these religious/political leaders have a single or a few pet issues.
IMHO having a single or few pet issues is miss guided and simplistic. To collapse down the politics of the (arguably) most powerful nation on earth to a single or small number of issues is wishful thinking.
To say that the pet issue is a “moral issue” and therefore trumps all others is ignoring all the other moral issues. Is abortion a moral issue? Many say yes. But is not meeting the needs of the poor on your streets a moral issue? What about the genocide in Darfur? What about aids in Africa? What about the millions without access to medical treatment in America?
Being a Christian and active politically is complicated. Example: It is moral to help those who are poor (if you disagree…please read the gospels). How? The two major positions are market driven and the social safety net. Now unless there is the book of Economics in the Bible that I have missed the decision is for us to make. And since we are making this decision, we might disagree on it. And that is ok.
So first, let’s not have pet issues. Second, if we are going to focus on something politically then let’s focus on what Jesus focused on: namely the poor, downtrodden, sick and outcasts. Third, it is ok for politically active Christians to disagree.
I understand, and agree with the need for Evangelicals to move beyond just a few issues.
However, is there still room for those issues in the Evangelical “Tent”?
Those who believe that abortion is a horrible tragedy that needs to be stopped, that climate change is not caused by human activity, and that the agenda of radical homosexuals needs to be opposed are often marginalized, ridiculed and even condemned by liberal Evangelicals.
It seems to me that the religious left has their own pet issues. And they can be just as intolerant and narrow-minded as the religious right.
Choosing just who to vote for remains difficult for me, but I cannot get the advice I read recently off my mind as I consider the next election. That advice is the suggestion that I vote in the best interests of the “least of these” rather than to protect or enlarge my own status or physical comforts. As I ponder this I cannot help but think of Jesus’ words from Luke 4. I may be wrong, but Jesus seems to have had a broad range of “issues.”
Perhaps we are numb. Nearly 30,000 children will die today from starvation or fully preventable diseases. It’s big math but I think that comes to around 900,000 per month or nearly 11 million per year. Since 1977 thats…….
Of course those aren’t US children and there’s no easy target to point a finger at — couldn’t have anything to do with us as we fight our “obesity epidemic.”
I am 100% opposed to abortion and thoroughly support the ‘right to life.’ During the last two presidential elections there was a great potential for the elected president to affect the practice of abortion in this country based upon the liklihood of appointing a couple of supreme court justices. And in fact that was the case.
However, as the 2008 presidential comes ever closer, it does not appear that the president we elect will have the opportunity to make any major decision that affects Roe v. Wade. So why make this issue the issue that determines your vote and support. On the other hand, the president we elect will have an opportunity to impact a US foreign policy that claims it believes in the santicty of human life but continues to use military force (and the taking of human life) as a means of power and influence.
Whether you are a pacifist or just-war advocate, it seems very difficult to see how as a Christian you can support the US foreign policy (especially in the Middle East) over the last few years. This is the most pressing moral issue the next presidential candidate will face.
- Rex
While the president does not have immediate capability to stop abortion, he does make supreme court appointments, and that can make a decisive difference.
Let’s not forget that 12% of abortions are performed out of medical necessity. I’d like to see the Christian community find ways to minister to these women who never wanted an abortion but who still have to pull up behind cars with bumper stickers that say “ABORTION IS MURDER.”
George Will had a column this week that pointed out that even if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, which is not likely whomever is appointed to the court, it would only turn the issue back to the states. Probably it would have little impact on the total number of abortions.
If abortion were illegal, what would be the proper punishment–death penalty for the mother and doctor (we say it is murder)? Something less that says it really isn’t murder–say 20 years in prison? If a Texan traveled to California for a legal abortions but the child was conceived in Texas, would she be subject to the death penalty in Texas where abortion was illegal if she returned?
We have to deal with the complex social, legal and moral issues around abortion and the election of a president on that one issue does not make any sense.
I think the only religious voice that is consistent on the ‘right to life’ is the Catholic one that opposes abortion, death penalty, euthanasia, and war.
We have Bill Hybels, Rick Warren but watch out When Immanuel speaks and acts (God with us). This is the funniest thing I have read in a long time. Immanuel’s push though legisation, Imamanual (God with Us) get it… church grew to over 6,000. Immanuels church.
Mike great post brother.
I get the humor.
Immanuel (God with Us).
In my opinion a medically necessary abortion is when the life of the mother is at risk. I don’t think it reaches 12% at all.
Keith (and others):
What about the abortion of American soldiers? What about the abortion of innocent Iraqi civilians?
What about the abortion of America’s homeless?
What about the abortion of children all over the world dying of starvation?
What about the abortion of our environment?
What about the systematic abortion of those in poverty right in our own backyard? (Oh, right — we moved out to the suburbs so we don’t have to think about that anymore.)
What about the abortion of our families through the systematic materialism of our culture that puts us in the desk when we should be at home playing catch with our kids?
I’ve got a lot of pet issues — but they’re about protecting the dignity and worth of human life.
Conservative Christians run their lives through some deep-seated theological fear that prevents them from actually being Christ-like to the world.
We’d all like to think that liberals run around aborting their unborn babies just to spite the religious crowd. That’s the assumption here — it’s just not true.
Unless we’re going to talk about really valuing human life, let’s cut out the abortion crap!
Great piece. And as a side note, if we are going to yell “pro-life” as a mantra, lets be consistent. Let’s be pro-life when it comes to children’s healthcare for the struggling in the US, and pro-life when it comes to easily stoppable deaths in 3rd world countries, and pro-life when it comes to law abiding contributing foreigners in our midst, and orphans, and widows, pro-life when it comes to invisible children, to aids orphans, to our enemies, to the elderly who need medication. Just pro-life. Somehow we get distraced and forget our position once the fetus is birthed.
Tell me what is wrong with opposing abortion? I Undersstand about the homosexuality being asinine but the killing of un-born seems to be serious , but maybe not. Maybe if abortion were more widely practiced Touch a lie Ministries would be become obsolete.
I see the devaluing of human life the most important issue of out time. Whether it abortion or something else.
Like I said, I am PRO-LIFE. In fact, I am pro-life all the way. Most people I meet who claim to be pro-life are only pro-life in a selective (and very selective manner). They appear to be pro-life when the life in question is an unborn baby. Great! But what about all the lives killed by the bomb(s) in this world? And yet many Christian “pro-lifers” I meet support the war-making policies that kill thousands of people (and yes, innocent people, even children) that are persued by the United States and many other governments of this world.
Could we aim for a little more consistency?
Keith - Did you think I wrote “petty issues”? No — “pet issues.” Issues that are considered important and are valued. “Silly” and “minute” have absolutely nothing to do with it. Neverless, just in case anyone else makes the same mistake, I’ve taken the word “pet” out.
If you can find a candidate that supports all the values of human life, then great. I haven’t seen that candidate yet.
By the way, trying to stop the murder of 1.2 million people every year is not “crap.”
I have been thinking along the same lines as Arlene. To me there’s a lot to consider in all this. For one thing(among many), I am thinking about all the immigrants longing for a better chance in life—some of these are little children or parents of little children who what we want for our children. For some of us, I am afraid that we cherish and defend the unborn up to the point of birth, then we ignore their cries of poverty and disease and sin. From that time forward, they are on their own—and should learn to make their own way in this world.
Sometimes I find that I must repent for falling into the mindset of George Orwell’s Animal Farm: “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.” I wonder sometimes, are the “unborn more equal than others?”
Thank you for this.
Mike- With the prevailing winds of tolerance and unity, I’m suprised that you would refer to the Evangelical Crackup as an excellent piece. Although our brotherhood is not directly involved in the religous right, there are some strongheld beliefs that the conservatives among us share. For you to characterize these as pet issues is unbelievable. I wonder if you would have the nerve to say that from the pulpit at Highland.
Doesn’t get how funny this article is?
Immanuel.
My entry posted after your response to “pet issues.” (which does imply insignificance).
Doesn’t anyone get how funny this article is?
Immanuel (God with us) instead of Bill Hybels or Rick Warren or even yes, Mike Cope.
Don’t some of you understand the difference between “pet” and “petty”? You’re missing it.
It is a dangerous illusion to believe that lives will be saved in the U.S. if the law is changed so that abortion is illegal. If the law is changed, abortion will continue and will likely continue at about the same pace we see today.
Some against abortion don’t know this or don’t believe this. Sometimes that disbelief is not rational skepticism but willful cognitive dissonance. Some believe this but do not care, pressing the political fight regardless. This kind of determination requires a very strong foundation to sustain itself, and I do not believe that the foundation is the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Strip away Christendom, strip away Constantine, strip away cultural hegemony, strip away the struggle for power and control, and what does Christian opposition to abortion look like? Maybe it looks more like ancient Christians rescuing abandoned infants: the enduring witness of one redeemed life in the community of faith, rather than the coercion of the unwilling. Maybe it looks like the way God treats us.
Malchus’s ear is the easy way, yet ineffectual. The cross is harder, but leads to God’s victory.
If you indeed want to save lives, you must do something more profound than change the laws. You must die with dying.
It is still an hour and half later and when I think of the article it makes me laugh…Immanuel.
JeffW: “Malchus’s ear is the easy way, yet ineffectual. The cross is harder, but leads to God’s victory.
If you indeed want to save lives, you must do something more profound than change the laws. You must die with dying.”
Yes!!
So far the majority of responses have been about what the GOVERNMENT should do, and voting to make sure that type of government is in power. But Jesus did NOT tell us to turn over these issues to the government; He told US to go, one on one to “die with the dying”. If we truly want to change the injustices of the world, take Jesus to the world, as He Himself commanded us to do.
Personally I don’t line up behind the Dobson/Falwells nor the Warren/Hybels. Rather, as a follower of Jesus I try to bring Him and His love to as many as He puts in my path, and mentor young women who are ion a path to abortion, for instance.
I vote, always vote. But I don’t look for a spiritual director in my candidates, rather a leader. Yes, I prefer one that professes a firm belief as a follower of Jesus. But two of our most ineffective recent presidents have filled that profile; Carter and Bush II. Both profess deep belief in Jesus and neither will win any gold stars as strong, effective leaders, imho.
Politics and Faith, a slippery topic to battle. I for one am glad that the opinions of man are not the opinions I need to be concerned with regarding who I choose to vote for based on my faith. And yes, my vote is very much based on my faith. The religious left and the religious right are far different from the spiritually minded concerned voter. Be very careful what you say here in this widely read forum. Many people are watching how “Christians” interact with one another over issues that divide us. Do we act like Christ like or do we spew venom in an effort to be the one who writes the most cutting remark on how we are correct in our opinion.
Be careful here friends, many unsaved are watching.
I think one of the ways forward in the current political/religious climate is for leaders to connect issues that are often disconnected. That is, I think there are ways to “yoke” issues.
For example, here’s how I would “yoke” abortion and social justice.
The #1 predictor of poverty in American is single-parent, female-head-of-house households. Thus, if Christians are going to legally insist that the children of poor unmarried women are to be born into this world then Christians need to vote for policies that take care of those children. It’s no good blaming the mom or father in this situation. The child is on the way and whatever sins the parents may have committed (by having sex or not forming a family) should not be visited upon the children. The child didn’t do anything wrong. Thus, that child is entitled to excellent day-care (because Mom has to work), an excellent diet, excellent health care, excellent schools, and a way to go to college.
The point being, if you insist that children be born into this world you better be voting for the societal infrastructure to care for those children.
Yet many Christians don’t.
Preacherman,
Either you or I are on crack. I don’t get at all what you’re saying.
Richard B,
That’s a pretty good point.
Along with that, I’m thinking that Christians should also be willing to step up and provide loving homes for these hypothetical unwanted infants in addition to just financially supporting them through government programs.
Deana,
To me, “medical necessity” means that unless an abortion is performed, the mother dies. Are you saying that is the case in 12% of abortions? Do you have a source where you get that figure?
I had just never heard of a figure anywhere NEAR that high.
Nevertheless, I think your point is valid. Whatever that percentage is (even if, as I thought, it is substantially smaller), those women are too often forgotten.
Preacherman,
I am glad you get it, now come down off the mountain and explain it to me.
Preacherman,
Are you noting that the “Immanuel” Baptist Church wasn’t exactly “God with” the people in its community?
The more you turn over to the government, the less freedom one has. Please–we live in the greatest country in the world with the most opportunities. It’s time for people to take responsibility
Jeff - I’m not buying that making something illegal wouldn’t reduce the number of abortions. That would imply that all people getting an abortion don’t care whether it’s legal or not. I’m quite certain that many of those aren’t going to be comfortable going to some blackmarket non-regulated illegal operation. That goes right up there with 12% of abortions are medically necessary.
However, I do agree that as churches it would be a shame if the biggest thing we did to fight abortion was political action. We must be engaging our communities for the cause of Christ. We need to win hearts.
Another problem with our arguments here are the definition. I hardly think that the poor of our day look anything like the poor of Jesus day. I’m not trying to be cold or heartless, maybe just create a different direction for discussion. When Jesus talked about ministering to the needs of the poor, in most cases these were people who were relatively helpless. Here, unemployment is incredibly low, in my part of the country most stores have help wanted signs out. While our welfare system is kinda screwed up, we have one (more than they had in 30AD). John Edwards says that 37 million people live below the poverty line. What I wonder is what does that line represent. I acknowledge there are poor people among us. But it is my observation that there is no one going hungry unless they are choosing that. Different countries…different story. But let’s not water down the gospel into making sure everyone can afford to eat out and cable TV.
We need to speak the truth in love. The methods used by that Baptist church in Kansas is a disgrace. Jesus would never have that attitude. We need to gently minister to those people who practice such things. Jesus lovingly told the woman caught in adultery to “go and sin no more.” We must never sacrifice truth, though.
I agree Kyle… why should I feel bad for the poor even though I participate in a societal system of oppression with them. They have enough to eat, and some of them even have old, beat-up cars to drive. Poverty has NOTHING to do with the way I abuse other people and hold them down.
Great thought…
“What I wonder is what does that line represent.”
Kyle, take a family of four and a minimum wage job for a year — that’s about the only way I can suggest to understand what poverty means/feels like.
And for most inner-city poor, TV is a necessity. For many families who work all day, it’s the only way to keep their kids off the street and away from doing drugs, gang activity, or getting shot. I’m sure you don’t drive down the worst streets in large cities. Do you think people want their kids on those streets either?
Rick Scarborough mentioned in the article is loosely based out of deep East Texas and spends considerable time on KSWP/KAVX - our two local Christian radio stations, which, sadly have also become about as politicized as Focus on the Family in the past decade. Greg Boyd, author and minister, always makes most sense to me in issues such as this. Personally - I’m pro-Jesus. I challenge anyone to listen to some of Greg’s on-line sermons and see if they don’t proclaim the truth on these volatile issues.
Jesus didn’t trust in politics to change the human condition. If we follow him, neither will we.
I’m with you, Gardner.
But you better get that message to Jim Wallis and the Religious Left.
JD/Gardener,
I’m sure Jim Wallis and the Religious Left would gladly sit down and shut up when Christians decide to get outside of their churches and follow the words of their Christ to actually do something serious about poverty.
You’re statement leads one to place you on the Religious Right — not saying it’s correct, but you really got reach out for a mutual respect on these things rather than tearing your brothers and sisters down…
Maybe we can just kick people out of the church who we don’t agree with… oh wait, we’ve been doing that for thousands of years. Does anyone know when we’ll learn to love one another…?
For all those that are against abortion (and for the record, so am I), do any of you sign up to be foster parents or adoptive parents?? I know most of the time when people adopt, they only want a baby, not an older child. As for people being hungry only because they chose to be . . . what planet do you live on?? I suggest you read Larry James’s blog if you don’t already. Situations happen - sometimes short-term and sometimes long-term. Very few plan to become homeless. I agree with an earlier post. I simply do not understand how you can choose abortion to be the deciding factor on how you choose to vote. Too many people are waving the abortion flag while sporting their yellow ribbon and waving their flag.
Odd.
From the comments so far, the majority tend to think a Christian is only carrying a torch for a political agenda when they disagree with you, but when they agree with you, you think they stand up for the truth.
Does this sound pharisee-ish to anyone but else? I say again, remember the unsaved are watching how we deal with issues we disagree on within the Christian community.
Oops. I meant anyone else, not anyone but else. My apologies.
While there are many issues addressed in the article to deal with, I’ll only address one. Abortion. One one side is a guy in a Wal-Mart suit yelling “murderer” and on the other a yuppie gal who wants people to love the woman who just had an abortion and to care for her needs.
What is not addressed from either side ought to be the most obvious. Most abortions are birth control too late. And, like AIDS, the abortion problem is behaviour driven.
Where are the so called “Christian voices” telling young women and men to keep their underpants on when they are unmarried. Preachers stopped preaching against sin decades ago and the result is more and more sin.
The mushy sort of religion passed off as “Evangelical” hardly resembles what one finds in the Bible.
Grace to you,
Royce Ogle
Re-read, it.
Immanuel has pushed through legislation, Immanuel and Fox New…Immanuel, Immanuel, how many times the article mentions the name Immanuel which is (God with Us) is doing all this. Do we see what God is doing? Isn’t wonderful. Does the NY Times not see? Immanuel (God with us) is doing with Fox News…. I think it is great! Immanuel God with us can do all things but most of the time we are so blind to see it.
I hope that no one is implying that any of these issues is more important than the others. If you really listen to Jim Wallis and others like him, the message is one of balance. The work being done by these folks in turning our attention to important biblical concerns like poverty and justice has been much needed. Our political eyesight has been too narrowly focused since the Regan era. Based on voting trends and exit polls, prior to then, most conservative, evangelical Christians identified themselves as Democrats. The pendulum always swings back and forth. All of these issues are important, and we are never going to find a political candidate who agrees with us on every one…just like we don’t agree with each other on them.
The topic seeming to get the most attention in the comments is abortion. Just an interesting statistic…approximately 2 million more abortions on average occur per year during Republican presidencies than during Democratic presidencies(based on statistics from the National Right to Life webpage). I had heard this before, so I decided to check it out for myself. Between 1973-2001 (the latest stats on the web page), Republicans were in power for 16 years, with 28.7 million total abortions. The Democrats, on the other hand, were in power for 12 years with a total of 18.4 million abortions. There could be many reasons for this, but I suspect it has much to do with some of the things that have been mentioned above such as lack of education and availability of birth control and reduced funding for social services (daycare reimbursement, food stamps, healthcare, etc). Something to think about.
I think it’s very interesting that nobody has offered an answer to Linda’s question, i.e., if you make abortion illegal, what sort of punishment do you mete out for it? Maybe that says something for how much we’ve really thought through the whole issue.
Niles - I don’t abuse other people and hold them down. Your language there is rather unproductive. And your scenario of a family of four living on min. wage is a bit overstated. Out of all minimum wage earners, fewer than 10% of them are the main wage earner for a household with children in them (and even then welfare benefits are not counted when determining poverty status). I agree that would be tough. But it is not a long term lifestyle being endured by a significant number of people. But in the case you give, I believe without a doubt that we should feed the poor. If you can calm the rhetoric, my point was simply that ministering to the world in our everyday society (talking about the communities that we live in) probably means something other than providing food. I think reading the Bible and seeing people being fed and going out and doing that alone is somewhat shallow and self-centered. It’s more about trying to make ourselves feel good. Jesus saw peoples needs. Those kids whose parents need cable TV to keep them safe, they don’t need another handout. Trust me, few of them are starving. What they need is the care and feeding of the spirit. When our children are lazy, they need discipline so they don’t drown when they get on their own. Some people never learn these lessons as children and become burdens on the “system”. They need to have good mentoring relationships with people who can relate and teach them better ways. And above all else, we need to stop assuming that physical poverty means spiritual poverty.
I think Americans have always been the first to jump on the cause of helping others whereever they may be. The problem of government taxing everyone to the extent it does today by saying they can take our money and do better by it than we do is lazyness on our part. We are too busy, let someone else do it is a recipe for disaster. If I feel close to a cause, I would like to have the financial ability to give to it and not have govenment make up my mind for me. That tightrope is sagging and not productive to anything the Bible taught me. It is like we have blindly been led into a hole where the norm is both having to work and the kids not really getting our values because we are not there. Where did we think that was going? In truth we are not getting our values formed because many spouses don’t really talk to each other very much either. Everytime I hear either political party try to further the idea that they are better at managing my money than I am, I take offense. Government running anything effeciently is a joke. I know in my heart abortion is wrong. Yes, I have donated to children’s homes. Yes, I have tried to help women to try and keep their babies. Yes, I have dropped food off to families in need. Why do we always take the assumption that others are not doing this and government has to step in? I think Christ is always asking us what are we willing to do.
Yikes! Where was my spellcheck-forgive me.
Government inefficiency is a myth… research it.
The government is VERY inefficient. That is a FACT. Any argument to the contrary is a new one to me. But, nothing surprises me anymore.
Why is it wrong for the government to protect the lives of innocent unborn children, but right for it to take money out of everyone’s pockets to do the benevolent work of Christ?
Government is not doing the work of Christ. Government is doing the work of government. It’s providing for the “general welfare” a guarantee of the constitution.
And look at government overhead costs for each agency. They are much lower than the majority of corporations out there. Most government programs, including “welfare”, operate with administrative/overhead costs less than 3.0%… Find me a business that does that well.
Keep blinding yourself, though.
Beth, if government is so efficient, why doesn’t healthcare work better in Great Britain. Did you know that the British are starting to pull their own teeth rather than go to NHS dentists? Did you know that a man diagnosed with prostate cancer in the United States has twice as good a chance as surviving the disease as someone diagnosed in England? Several years ago, it was reported that patients in the UK were having to wait up to eight months for cancer treatment and by that time, many of their cancers are incurable. One publication reported that the delay in treatment was so long for bowel cancer that 20 percent of cases that were curable at the time of diagnosis were incurable by the time treatment was started. If you listen to the BBC or check out some of the British media, you will find they are constantly discussing the NHS crisis over there.
In Canada, it can take nearly five weeks to see an oncologist, forty weeks for an orthopedic surgeon, and thirty-two weeks to see a neurosurgeon.
If government is so efficient, why, when it absolutely positively has to be there overnight to you go to Federal Express and not the US Post Office?
So, then, the British gov’t has problems, therefore our gov’t should have no part in helping it’s own people. Makes perfect sense.
Man have we bought into it. We are a sound bit crazed people. “Government is either good or bad” pick a side! “We need socialized medicine” “There is nothing wrong with our current health care system” I am a “Democrat” or “Republican”, but if I borrow from each I am flip flopper.
Mike has brought up some great issues in pointing us to this article, and most of us have used it as an opportunity to spout our opinions and stats instead of engaing in a productive converstion.
I hate abortion, I think God hates it, I don’t want the government to tell me I can’t allow my daughter to have an abortion if she is raped. I don’t think that makes me less Chrisitan. You can have an opinion, but it is just that. Why should I have to vote based on that issue, why should I allow a party or group of people to guilt me into a vote on one issue? What happens when the right the government wants to take away is one you happen to like?
One of the most profitable sectors in our society is health care and isurance. Capitalism has not brought about the best situation. I could give plenty of people I know as examples, but trust me, there are people not getting the proper health care becasue they can’t afford it. Should we be more like Canada or the UK? Maybe, we must change something becaue our system is broken for many people. Unless of course you don’t see health care as a right, then you are probalby happy with things the way they are as long as you can afford it.
We can make fun of our “church” mindset, and the only ones going to heaven theolgy, but it looks like we have just moved on to other issues that we will judge people on.
Interesting article. You gotta love it when Rick Warren doesn’t want to be too political but has Obama speak and Bill Hybels doesn’t want to be political but has Jimmy Carter speak.
I, for one, am glad to see the cracks in the evangelical right being exposed. Their political agenda is full of inconsistencies. For example, in the abortion conversation the question of who gets abortions is rarely asked. The answer is …. Republicans. Or women of the Republican demographic: disadvantaged teens are more likely to keep their babies while teens with more promise for college, etc. are more likely to get an abortion; unemployed women are less likely to opt for abortion than working women; married women (especially African American) are more likely to abort than unmarried women. For most women, abortion is an economic choice rather than a moral choice which is why the shrill voices of the radical pro-life political movement falls mostly on deaf ears….
….and is why social justice is important. Often the heart is accessible through the stomach or put another way, economic outreach is a powerful tool for spreading the gospel.
Great posts by Mindgamer and Brad.
Mindgamer, social justice is also a good way to show God that we actually care for the people he cares about…
Michael Moore wrote: “So, then, the British gov’t has problems, therefore our gov’t should have no part in helping it’s own people. Makes perfect sense.”
Yep, Michael, you got it. You are every bit as perceptive as your namesake.
It’s a shame that we settle for letting the government attempt to do the work of the church and an even bigger shame is that so many people feel good about that.
I wish someone could quote a scripture that has shows Jesus lobbying a government to feed the poor, provide job assistance, babysit, provide academic education, provide medicinal health care, etc.
In my opinion, if we truly wanted to serve Jesus HIS way, we’d get serious about lobbying to have government back off and retrieve that money from being over taxed. Then we could actually have money to give to the church and let people with the hearts and minds of Christ take care of His people in need. If we aren’t willing to be His hands and feet in that way, it isn’t a government problem, a Democrat problem or a Republican problem. Sadly, it’s a serving the Lord problem. Instead we are willing and eager to let an entity that is supposed to be separated from the church, do the work of the church….and feel justified and good about it.
I know on this site, I’ll be blasted for those opinions because I have been blasted for them here in the past. But it’s such a testament to our faith that we have more faith in government to help the poor and needy than we have in the church. The unsaved are watching and they see where we put our faith. We teach them to go to the government for their needs, not the church, and ultimately not to God.
Mindgamer,
“For example, in the abortion conversation the question of who gets abortions is rarely asked.”
Who gives a shit, babies are still murdered at the altar of self, except %12 of the time.
I have been out of this conversation for far too long. What constitutes social justice? What are we discussing? What is social justice? From what I have read, some suggest that social justice means an equality of outcome. Others suggest that it means an equality of opportunity. Please explain?
I’m sorry I seem blinded because I can’t see that government is more efficient than private businesses. Even though I WORK for the government. You’re entitled to your opionion, though.
There constitution speaks of “general welfare of the United States,” not “welfare checks” that you seem to be confusing with it.
“Social justice” spoken of on this thread seems to be mandated redistribution of income though government.
Keith, I am with you on this. One thing I find very interesting is that the religious left, who wishes the religious right would go away, chastise the right for neglecting Christianity for the sake of political power. The religious left then, in the name of compassion, advocates blatantly using the power of the state to bring about their idea of the perfect society, — call it social justice. What they do not understand is that when you curtail individual liberty and incentive in the name of social justice you end up with less justice, social or otherwise, for everyone. Conservatives are not against things like government-run health care because they hate poor people and don’t want them to have any medical care. They simply understand what happens when you let government run the health care system. However, those on the left are persistent optimists regarding their own abilities. If they can just put Hillary (or whomever the latest left-wing savior is) in charge, she will do it better than the British or the Canadians or all of those others who have tried socialized medicine and failed.
Voting for a politician who will use the power of the state to take money from whom you believe is less worthy and give it to those who you believe are more worthy does not make you a better Christian. It simply makes you a believer in income redistribution, not necessarily a believer in Jesus. What I don’t understand is why all those people who want to raise taxes on everyone else always pay the legal minimum regarding taxes. Is there any law that prevents them from kicking in a little extra to Uncle Sam if they think he is so good with their money?
I disagree with Terry and other with similar points for two main reasons 1. Systemic problems require sytemic solutions. Each individual can make a difference, but in order to really make a big dent in a problem you have to have the means, power, and organization. Government has that. I as an individual can give money to a fmaily struggling on minimum wage but I don’t have the power or organization to increase the minimum wage and instantly and consistently put more money in millions of workers pockets from now on. I can assit those in poverty in many ways, but my resources are limited, my time is limited, the circle of poor people I know is limited, I can’t dramatically change how welfare is structured like during the war on poverty and take the poverty rate from 16% to 12%. I can help my parents when they retire, but I can’t create a system of social securtiy that took the elderly from the most likely segment of the population to live in poverty in the U.S. to the least likely. Big problems require big solutions.
2. I agree that Christians should be doing more and that it is a shame that we NEED to rely on government for help or to do most of the job. But I don’t buy that as an argumnent for little government involvment for 3 reasons.
I disagree with Terry and others with similar points for two main reasons 1. Systemic problems require sytemic solutions. Each individual can make a difference and should try, but in order to really make a big dent in a problem you have to have the means, power, and organization. Government has that going for it. I as an individual can give money to a family struggling on minimum wage but I don’t have the power or organization to increase the minimum wage and instantly and consistently put more money in millions of workers pockets from now on. I can assit those in poverty in many ways, but my resources are limited, my time is limited, the circle of poor people I know is limited, I can’t dramatically change how welfare is structured like during the war on poverty and take the poverty rate from 16% to 12%. I can help my parents when they retire, but I can’t create a system of social securtiy that took the elderly from the most likely segment of the population to live in poverty in the U.S. to the least likely. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do anything ourselves, it is just recognizing that as individuals we are limited in many ways that government is not. Big problems require big solutions. Read Larry James’ blog sometime he often speaks about these kind of issues.
2. I agree that Christians should be doing more and that it is a shame that we NEED to rely on government for help or to do most of the job. But I don’t buy that as an argumnent for little government involvment for 3 reasons.
1. I don’t believe that all or most Christians now consistently give money to their church or charitable organizations
2. I don’t believe that most of the Christians that do give money give at a level that is consistently sacrificial, that they regularly give something up in order to give money
3. And most importantly, even if I am wrong about the first two, where does most money that Christians consistently and sacrificially give to their church go? Does most of it go to directly or indirectly benefit them by paying for church maintenance, staff, and activities for members, or does it go to help those who are in need in the community (not just the church family but the larger community)? How many of us really think about where the money we give to our church actually goes and where it should go? When those three things change I may be willing to put most of my eggs in the Christianity basket to solve big social problems.
It’s shameful that we have so much faith in the Government system and so little faith in God’s people. If we had all that money back in “our systems” just imagine how organizations like the ones you mentioned could help. Dream for a moment on the amount of good that could be done with millions of dollars distributed by benevolent minded churches and Godly leaders. A radical change in the mentality of this nation would mean we aren’t talking about what an individual family could do to help the needy, we are talking about what a network of millions of Jesus minded families could do to help the needy.
Yes, you are right many churches aren’t using God’s money to do the work He laid out for us. We get sidelined with “extra” things like big buildings, high powered technical equipment, high paid staff, etc. I realize that. But it doesn’t have to be that way. I am more willing to believe that a church can think like Jesus than Government. I’m willing to put my eggs, as you call it, in the Christianity basket to solve big social problems because I believe the God who created the universe is willing to help us solve those problems HIS way, not Governments.
How sad that the church has the mentality of thinking big where Government is concerned but is small minded where the church is concerned. Big problems require big solutions and be solutions come from God, not Government.
I would love to see a test done, where the government was willing to give ONE church family a large amount of it’s tax dollars for a year And allow that church to minister with that money. My guess is that you’d see more sacrificial giving because we’d see up close and personal the good that our resources could do. We’d see the benefit. As of now the majority of God fearing people just see the abuses of government spending with the money God blesses us with. But you see, the government is not willing to do a test of this kind because Government doesn’t want us to see the difference. The powers that be like to feel the power it gives them to Lord over it’s citizens, be important, pull all the purse strings and be their salvation. It’s called Government slavery and it comes from being small minded.
Amanda -
1 First I’m not sure if I agree with you about how many people give and how much they give. I used to think that was true and I still do a little, but I have been surprised on occassion to see someone sacrificing. However, I agree wholeheartedly on how church money is spent. I was discussing with an atheist recently why church contributions are tax deductible. But when it comes down to it, a large percentage of most church budgets is turned around to take care of it’s members. Scarily, that makes it no better than most civic clubs. The problem is, without that spending, people will leave a church. I would guess a majority of a congregation is there for the “production” on Sunday morning.
2. I’m still trying to dispell this mindset that there are all these families living on minimum wage and if the government would just raise it, they would be better off. The problem is that only a very small percentage of families subsist on a min wage income, and even if they do an even smaller percentage do it for more than a few months. In reality, raising min. wage causes employers to pay a premium to a bunch of high school and college kids who are likely not living in poverty to provide very little relief to families that need it. It’s a $130 billion fix for $3 billion of problem.
3. Even though you may feel like the problem is bigger than yourself, it’s not bigger than God. I’m sure you will continue to help your neighbor. If every single Christian would just look out for poor, the problem would be almost eliminated. I just left a government job. I know they can make a dent, but I also know we can do it better. The church may not be ready for the unity it’s going to take, but it’s a better goal than trying to get a government to do something it will ultimately fail at.
Kyle
The only thing I can comment on about minimum wage and low wages is that we will always need people to be our cashiers at Wal-Mart, heat our food at McDonalds, clean our hotel rooms, etc. and as long as we allow employers to pay those people wages that do not allow them to live significantly above the federal poverty line ($19,971 for a family of 4) and to not provide any benefits like healthcare, retirement, etc or only minimal benefits, then we will always have poor people and poor families. Someone simply has to do those jobs and there are not enough teenagers to go around.
I also agree that no problem is bigger than God, but I also believe that God expects us to work on problems. We can do that in a whole lot of ways. I personally see democracy as a great opportunity for Christians to work toward solving problems on a large scale. It’s not the only opportunity Christians have but I think it is an important one.
If we allow the government to demand that buisnesses pay higher than what the market demands, the price of the product will increase with the wage increase. It doesn’t do anyone any good get a raise if it doesn’t increase more than the cost of living.
Glenn: You said “Conservatives are not against things like government-run health care because they hate poor people and don’t want them to have any medical care. They simply understand what happens when you let government run the health care system.”
So, what is the “conservative” answer to the very real problem of 50 million people (10 million children) in America that have no health insurance? No one is accusing you have hating poor people. But screaming “socialism” every time someone tries to address this problem is not helpful. Why not advocate an alternative solution?
Would you be in favor of eliminating the Medicaid program? What about Medicare, the FEHBP (federal employee plan), or the VA hospital system? If not, then would you be opposed to expanding Medicaid to cover more low-income families? If not, why not? Surely you would agree that ignoring the problem is not a solution. So how do we solve it?
Despite what you might think by listening to Shawn Hannity or Rush Limbaugh (as I do from time to time), neither Clinton or Obama advocate a nationalized health system like that adopted by most of the western world. The Democratic candidates advocate expanding our current programs (Medicaid, FEHBP, Medicare, the CHIP program, etc.) so that they reach more low-income families. But neither candidate is proposing anything like the British NHS.
Some on the very far right advocate no government-funded healthcare for anyone. Some on the very far left advocate a nationalized health system where everyone pays into a single government fund, the government owns hospitals and employs doctors nationwide, and everyone is provided whatever free health care they need. These are extreme positions that are almost universally understood to be a bad idea. The real discussion is happening in the middle, between those that think our current programs are good enough and those that think they should be expanded somewhat. Unfortunately, it doesn’t make for good talk radio.
I have spoken of this before. My dad lived to be 91, his body heart,feet,eyes, well you get the idea just wore out. He did go to doctors frequently and I got to be with him occaisionally on these little jaunts. He lived in Flat Rock, MI and went to Woodhaven, Trenton and other doctors in the surounding communities. His hearing was not to good either, so he talked in stage whispers and it could at time be embarrassing. He always had a smile and would talk to other seniors waiting in the doctors office, which was always crowded. I could not have been more surprised by other seniors that said they came from Canada-right across the river. Seems they have to wait forever to have the doctor treat them. One gentleman with a twinkle in his eye related to my dad. They bet if I don’t get to see a doctor I’m going to die quicker. But I still drive. Sometimes the wait was a long time that day but they still came to Michigan to SEE a doctor. Told me all I needed to know about government run healthcare.
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah……
Thanks, Snapshot and others. It seems that so many want to bang on their drum proclaiming social justice, while the govt spends other people’s money. They pat themselves on the back but have hardly put in a dime of their own money and probably none of their own time.
For those that back their words with their own time and money, what great influences. Come on Amanda, that’s what will get people moving - witnessing others work. You don’t need unlimited resources or to know a huge circle, just the intestinal fortitude to get out there and do something and realize that one person CAN make a difference.
Note to Leland: You missed the point and wasted some crude language. It does matter who is getting abortions within the context of who we think are getting abortions. The reason that there is no political solution to the problem of abortion is that even among those politicians that profess to be opposed to abortion, their constituencies are overwhelmingly opposed to legislation that limits abortion. So they say just enough to get elected but then take no action whatsoever.
Note to Dan: Social justice has nothing to do with equality whether in opportunity or outcome. Social justice will never be achieved by government - of any kind. Social justice is defined by our response to the world’s inequality. Do we care? and do we act? From the prophets to the gospels, true religion is reflected in our actions toward the poor, the widowed, and the orphaned.
Note to Amanda: FYI, according to Barna Research, fewer than 10% of evangelical Christians give at least 10% of their income to their Church. As of five years ago, the MEDIAN annual gift to the church was $300 - and that was a decrease.
With all this talk of government and minimum wage, it would seem that one of the first steps toward social justice would be for evangelical Christians to simply tithe. We have seen the enemy, and he is us….
A personal witness: I tithe from the gross.
Making that decision was both life-altering and faith-changing. Each month I am reminded that what I have is on loan from God and I am the steward of it.
IHOP, if you do not tithe, you have no voice in the social justice conversation nor should you complain about how much and where the church spends the Lord’s resources.
I have lived in Canada all my life and watched my wife give birth to two kids, several relatives battle cancer, and personally had surgery in our medical system. The care has been excellent, prompt, and professional. It was only several years ago that I even realized that our health care had the reputation in the States that it did, and, frankly, it’s still astounding to me. The system has flaws, of course, but no more so than any other. Most of you have probably heard some story about someone friend’s uncle who knows someone who knows someone who knows someone in Vancouver who had to wait for surgery and taken it as an opportunity to write off an entire medical system because it’s not what you’re familiar with. Too often (myself included) we see what we want to see and hear what we want to hear, I’m afraid. Our health care system is just fine, thank you very much. We like it and - in spite of its weaknesses - are proud of how inclusive it is.
Between that and our smoking economy (the loonie is kicking your dollar’s butt right now if you didn’t know), maybe some of you should look into a move to the north!
Mindgaamer,
“Note to Leland: You missed the point and wasted some crude language.”
Naw!