Compassionate Conservatives
Charles Spurgeon once wrote that a minister should never preach about hell without tears in his eyes.
Spurgeon was a staunch biblical conservative, but that remark might get him in hot water today with like minded believers.
He might even be accused of waffling on the doctrine of hell…though he most assuredly wasn’t.
He was demonstrating both that Scripture was true and that the Jesus he served was a God of great compassion.
Spurgeon majored on compassion, not condemnation, because believing in eternal condemnation for unbelievers broke his heart and he preached the Gospel from that brokenness.
It is my belief that it was his God given compassion for the lost and for sinners that made him “The Prince of Preachers”.
In todays divisive and rhetoric charged environment we have lost the balance in offering both truth and compassion, in both the church and in the political arena.
Liberals speak of compassion without doctrine and conservatives often embrace doctrine without tears.
I am a political liberal, not so much because I wholeheartedly believe in the tenets that accompany such a label, but because the conservative rhetoric too often felt like a brutal, personal attack.
It drove me away in tears and anger, unwilling and unable to hear from them anymore in that arena.
Personal experience also colored my vision.
Mexico gave me a heart for the immigrant.
Unemployment gave me a heart for the poor.
Illness gave me a heart for the sick.
What I heard from political conservatives was concern over issues rather than people…when you can’t separate the two biblically or politically.
The truly sad part is that the rhetoric hid hearts that were indeed compassionate, but the rhetoric drowned out the heart.
As a biblical conservative, I wonder if we aren’t doing the same thing…and if that’s the reason why we’re losing our voice and influence.
It’s one thing to drive people away from a particular political affiliation, another to drive people away from the Gospel.
Perhaps…
We should never preach about hell without tears in our eyes…
We should always preach about homosexuality as if our child was gay…
We should always preach about abortion as if our daughter had consented to one…
Perhaps we should lead with our hearts without neglecting sound doctrine…
Perhaps if we mixed some tears in with our doctrine we would be heard again…
Perhaps if we were known for our love…
Perhaps.
I agree with your heart. Thx for expressing it.
-mike
Thanks, Mike.
It’s a tough subject, but I think we need to talk about it.
Love this, thank you.
dswoager,
Thank you…there are more than a few who won’t love it, so I’m counting the positives early. 🙂
God should have used a more whole vessel than me.
My ratio is easily 10 offenses to 1 act of charity. My convictions grate, offend and they also drive me to the 1 act of charity. If I abandon my convictions, will my drive to that 1 act of charity also evaporate?
I know I paint my quills with a noble brush, try and fashion my reflection to resemble a less intellectual, probably more profane Sir Thomas More, knowing that I’m barely a man for ‘half a season.’
My only solace is that even when my heart condemns me, God is greater still and purchased me on His potential for me rather than my own potential for me.
Still, a difficult question – who is doing all the charity in this world? Likely, it’s the people with the most strident standards. It doesn’t excuse our offenses, but it does remind me of the phrase “…. warts and all”.
Rob,
No one should abandon their convictions.
I believe there is a hell.
I believe that homosexuality is a sin.
I’m opposed to abortion.
My concern is that it isn’t the convictions alone that cause us to be rejected, it’s how we present them.
I tried to make the point you did…that the heart is there, but the rhetoric has become so harsh it can’t be heard.
That’s what I hope to get people to consider today…
A note on charity…many of you know my heart for the border.
The foremost writer on this subject is an agnostic…who says loudly and often that every real on going humanitarian effort there is worked and funded by the church.
Michael, this is brilliant! Thank you for putting into words what I’ve felt for a long time.
Thank you, CK!
I get that, no one is more eager for the day when I’m rescued from me and I can be who I’m supposed to be without being such a jerk about it. An irritant-free me is too difficult to grasp.
But reality says that if we hold to a standard, and that standard is Christ, He is a stench of death, stumbling stone, an offense and knowing that, He said I gotta go out and be hated for His sake when I’m already enough to hate all on my own. Paul says “Who is equal to this task?”
Jesus says he himself is an offense and he gave his story to me to tell, and I’m at best a klutz and at worst an insufferable jerk. It’s impossible.
Rob,
I’m worse than you will ever be…but I’m trying to think through these things and adjust where given the grace to do so.
As I’m going through the Gospel of Mark, I’ve been struck by how often the text tells us that “He had compassion on them”…and those He had compassion on were children, women, unclean sinners, and the sick.
They were attracted to Him as much as others were repelled by Him.
I want to find that balance in following Him.
Let me share this quote with you, I don’t know if I identify with it because it paints my actions in a noble brush or if it reflects truth. It resonates with me but I don’t know if it’s genuine and good or if it just makes me feel cozy amid my rash-ness. Am I grumpy because I’m grumpy or can love also drive anger?
“In Hope Has Its Reasons, Becky Pippert writes, “Think how we feel when we see someone we love ravaged by unwise actions or relationships. Do we respond with benign tolerance as we might toward strangers? Far from it. . . . Anger isn’t the opposite of love. Hate is, and the final form of hate is indifference.”
Pippert then quotes E. H. Gifford, “Human love here offers a true analogy: the more a father loves his son, the more he hates in him the drunkard, the liar, the traitor.”
She concludes: “If I, a flawed, narcissistic, sinful woman, can feel this much pain and anger over someone’s condition, how much more a morally perfect God who made them? God’s wrath is not a cranky explosion, but his settled opposition to the cancer of sin which is eating out the insides of the human race he loves with his whole being.”
I think the best thing is to show compassion to the real people in our lives- our neighbors, our fellow parishioners, our friends and families. And any local personal enemies. Feed them, clothe them, give them words of *truthful* encouragement, showing them the love of Christ w/o any compromise. Gentleness, not vitriol.
As for government programs designed to help the poor…. I have no faith in them. They often cause more harm than good. When the government feeds the hungry, it is a mixed bag. (Detroit) I don’t doubt the sincerity of those who promote government charity but I think wisdom is often missing.
Rob,
I think it’s a great quote with much truth in it.
My concern is that if we as ambassadors for Christ only present the anger or if the righteous anger isn’t clearly tempered by love, then we have spoken the wrong message.
I have expressed much anger toward certain leaders in the church…to the degree that in earlier days it might have appeared that I hated the whole church.
That was righteous anger, wrongly expressed.
You are one of the most noble, caring people I know…
What can we do practically that measures the incorrect, inefficient side of the passion without mitigating the passion wholly so that no action is taken?
There are immediate needs, forceful, emphatic action is needed, that’s not debatable. How are we going to be ‘sanctified’ (borrowing an old Wesleyan construct) in our presentation? Do believers with unpopular cultural bias need to simply muzzle ourselves?
This is obviously not a gov’t / constitution issue, this is pure Christian Ethics. I have a “right” to offend you and you have a right to offend me; neither of us has a right to be “un-offended”.
As Christians, what do we do with our passions?
Rob,
We make it clear that out greatest passions are love for God and love for the lost.
If we keep to that foundation, our other passions will be heard by those with ears to hear.
Xenia…much truth in your # 13.
Next week, I’ll write “How To Alienate Your Reader Base With One Article” and link back here…
Michael and Rob Murphy, thank you for this timely article.
Last weekend , I ‘lost it’ to my son, (dad of my only grands, whose ex is about to marry her girlfriend)… all my ‘tolerance’ and repressed abhorance spilled out…. all the years of lovingly smiling while grieving inside…..just poured out as anger at how my grands are being fed a steady diet of straight up BULL SH#T.
My son looked at me like I was a lunatic, needing to be confined for my own safety.
I have spent the last several days hating myself….
Rob, thank you for this quote, a salve for my heart: “In Hope Has Its Reasons, Becky Pippert writes, “Think how we feel when we see someone we love ravaged by unwise actions or relationships. Do we respond with benign tolerance as we might toward strangers? Far from it. . . . Anger isn’t the opposite of love. Hate is, and the final form of hate is indifference.”
@Paige – I like the quote very much, and I think it’s right no matter what my motives for liking it. I was talking with a newly post high school teen and their parent and the parent is ready to crawl out of their skin for the actions of this adult child. The (now adult) child goes on and on about how “You’re judging me all the time, condemning everything I like doing.”
I said “Parent is letting you live in the house, using their water, washing your clothes that she bought you, making dinner, helping you with education.
All these things are saying ‘I love you’. You want your parent to only say ‘I love you’ with the words you select, in the tone of voice you prefer, on the days you find convenient to hear it. You have to understand that “I hate what you are doing” is just as much an “I love you” as all the stuff you greedily consume.”
It’s like when Israel tried to separate God from His Promised Land. We want your stuff, we don’t want You, God. We can’t do that. His righteousness is His love is His provision is His justice is His grace is His commands is His judgment is His mercy.
I have a little time online today and wanted to come in and say amen to this article.
I know that this is a tough issue, and that there is a balance to remaining true to our convictions while expressing compassion. I agree with Xenia that I think our focus in walking that out is best to be the face-to-face interactions of our neighbors and family.
Today I wrote a piece that was a departure for me. Normally I write about wonder and about my kids, or about our journey with mom through dementia. Today I wrote about the YesAllWomen campaign and about men’s treatment and view of women. I talked a little about End Slavery TN and about abuse. It is not a topic I usually delve into, but it was sparked by an article posted by a friend on FB. A Buddhist-ish, extremely liberal, vehemently pro-gay friend. We are friends because we went to a very liberal high school together, and I remain friends with her on FB because she is respectful toward me and occasionally I get a chance to engage her.
I wrote the piece instead of just “liking” the article she posted because it gave me an opportunity to shake hands with her as it were.
The reason I mention this is not mention my piece, but because I think the motivation is a little in line with what Michael is nudging toward. I saw an opportunity where I could agree with a friend who comes at life from a completely deceived world view…in my thoughts. I think she is lost. And I would like for her to know my Savior. Instead of liking the article she posted, I wrote about and I tried to gently mention the Savior…although I wrote it quickly and I could have shared the Gospel and I didn’t, frankly. I did, however in private dialog with her say more.
Her response publicly on FB was to say that she had deep respect for the action.
It was tiny…but it was noticed. It cost me very little…and I meant all that I said in my article.
Instead of keeping our eyes on the targets of what differentiates us and screaming of those differences, our great compassion may give us the impulse to grab the tiny moments of unity. The moments of human compassion that meet…and to note that they are there because we are marked by a Creator and are called by Him.
I am conservative politically and theologically, and yet I listen. I do not engage politics or really theology on FB or social media. I reserve those discussions for sitting at coffee shops and speaking face to face. Still….I think what Michael is calling for is an eagerness to jump at the moments where we can reach out to those of great differences and embrace them without sacrificing our integrity.
I’ve been challenged by Michael and others around me who push toward walking out compassion more visibly and organically, and I’m thankful for that.
Whenever I think of compassionate conservatives I think of Jesus with the woman caught in adultery (John 8 – in an unfortunately disputed text). He managed to be very loving and encouraging to her as he defended her to the crowds and yet still say go and sin no more. What a difficult balance.
Same with the woman at the well – he engaged her when other men wouldn’t yet he still pointed out her sin.
The problem is I can do that one on one – I have no idea how to do that when speaking to the legislature or the local news or writing an oped in the newspaper. The rhetoric on both sides is so thick because people are looking to win, not understand.
Thank you, Sarah!
We almost have to start over…and re establish that the reason we are opposed to those issues is because God is…and He is opposed because of the pain and death that they deliver.
It comes full circle back to love of God and love of neighbor.
Shaun,
I think we have to speak truth out of broken hearts with an eye toward always offering the Gospel and reconciliation with God.
All sides are looking to win…and our message gets tainted with words to win with instead of woo with.
Shaun: “The rhetoric on both sides is so thick because people are looking to win, not understand.”. sadly, yes.
Michael…yes! Understanding that is an enormous part of the equation.
I am the yin to your yang. I am a political conservative and a theological liberal.
When I see my relative who has a serious degenerative illness and no medical care I am a socialist.
When I see my neighbor across the street spend all day drinking and smoking dope I am a redneck.
Xenia,
That was wonderful. 🙂
X’s comment was hilarious! …and true of me as well…only I a redneck more often than a socialist 🙂
X, I also appreciate your clever comment as well. The real conundrum is when ‘they’ are sitting at my dining room table after eating ‘my’ food and mocking God (who gave the food and dining room table) and rejecting and condemning me for having a different opinion on these subjects than they have. “Tolerance” is a one way street…. Discussing “how shall we then live” and actually performing ‘love your enemies’ in person is quite another thing.
Tolerance is a one way street for some…..so true. As Christians we must live in Christ….embracing truth and grace. Can we not vehemently disagree with someone but still hope for the best for them? And as Christisns we know the best is found in Christ .
I notice the compassion Jesus had toward both women (at the well and caught in adultery) but I also notice the lack of compassion toward the men who were supposed to be spiritual leaders….all were in sin…. but His compassion was for the women…
Michael I love this thread!
Paige, don’t hate yourself for being concerned for your grands…(((hugs)))) sorry I don’t have any great words of wisdom.
Michael said,’and our message gets tainted with words to win with instead of woo with’
that is a very good thing to remember…wooing them not winning them…
Michael, this is an excellent message. Thank you for the reminder.
Michael and Rob, as I was reading your exchange I couldn’t help thinking there is something missing. Too many Christians think we’re supposed to be prophets in the OT sense, warning culture of its sinfulness and of God’s coming judgment. That’s just not the way Jesus and the apostles did things.
The father welcomed the son back without a scolding or demand for repentance.
Jesus defended the adultress and saved her life without pre-condition.
Paul taught the Romans to live peaceably with all people.
“In the same way, let your light shine before people, so that they can see your good deeds and give honor to your father in heaven” (Matt 5:16). That’s what salt and light are; not vitriol.
“The one who is gracious to the poor, lends to the Lord” (Prov 19:17a).
There’s a cart and there’s a horse. The cart can’t go in front of the horse. Sin is the cart and reconciliation with God is the horse. Without justification, sin doesn’t mean a damn thing. I could be the most ethical and morally pure guy on the block, but that wouldn’t save me. What Jesus and the apostles recognized is that what people need first is reconciliation with God (“We plead with you on Christ’s behalf, ‘Be reconciled to God!'” 2 Cor 5:20). To walk with God, we need the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and transformation through the renewing of our minds. That takes rebirth. Remember what Jesus told Nicodemus.
So, let’s be the people who show mercy to the wounded guy in the ditch, instead of the guys who pass by on the other side of the road either not wanting to get their hands dirty or who think he deserved it. Because, as far as God’s concerned, apart from the blood of Christ, we’re all the guy in the ditch.
Jean @ # 36,
What if the vineyard employees instead of being consumed with envy and jealousy at the vineyard owner’s beautiful son, decided to change their ways instead of conspiring to murder him?
Well Muff, I suppose God would have redeemed creation through Israel sans Jesus. Was that your point, or am I missing something?
By the way, I don’t recall that the vineyard owner’s son was beautiful. He was not a Saul. He came “looking like other men….He humbled himself”
Michael @ # 18,
That’s one of the things I really like about your blog. You’re not afraid to stir it up, and you tolerate dissent, even from Jeffersonian infidels like me.
It was only a ‘what if?’ (vineyard owner’s son) Jean. And Jesus himself? Pure speculation on my part. Why shouldn’t the last Adam, the only begotten Son of God, be as beautiful as the first, Every DNA strand perfect and not seeded with an expiration date (death)?
Muff, 41, that’s the thing about the incarnation, Jesus had to be made like us in every way, to be tempted like us, and to suffer like us, so that he could be the pioneer of our our salvation, the leader of the new exodus, and our faithful high priest interceding for us at the right hand of the Father. Hebrews 1-3 sets this out very well.
I’m sorry for being verbose; but the incarnation excites me. To be succinct, we would not have the hope of the resurrection if Jesus was a superman. Because we’re not supermen.
Jean, Dusty, muff…thank you for the kind words.
This one has been on my heart for a long while.
More on the same tomorrow.
More of the same tomorrow ….good !
Jean @ # 42,
There are 3 things I believe as base axioms which are not on the table for discussion:
1) Jesus was conceived with no human male sperm, but by the supernatural power of the Almighty.
2) He rose literally and bodily from the dead.
3) He will literally and bodily come to this world again.
The rest is in my opinion ‘spin’, which I may or may not agree with.
‘Jeffersonian infidel’ was only a loosely placed label to denote free thinker, it by no means sets me in lock-step with everything Jefferson wrote concerning religion. I believe in and affirm Jesus’ divinity, Jefferson did not. I believe in the supernatural miracles of the Bible, Jefferson did not.
Alienate reader base? I can’t even imagine why anyone would be upset at this article… Those who are upset and walk away from such a compelling plea for expressing compassion and love for the lost in a God honoring way …
What is to be said about that?
Furthermore;
The exchange on this thread is so very encouraging…
To hear each of your hearts on the matter
So much wisdom tempered with humility
Asking, seeking… HOW to deal with sin and injustices with love and compassion… And wondering, are we getting this right?
In reading about Paige’s situation and the adult child Rob Murphy is speaking of,, wherein the children want all the ” goods” and seemingly taking advantage of the love, compassion and generosity o the parent- while resenting any form of correction, any form of address as to the serious gravity of their sinful behavior…any form of boundaries….
Leads me to wonder- what does love and compassion look like in such situations?
We talk about the prodigal son and the father who received him back without question… But that was AFTER. The son had come home from his wild escapades in a foreign land and had returned to his senses… That I can understand. But what we don’t see is what if this son had acted out all his shenanigans under his fathers roof?
How do you imagine the father would have treated the son Then? Is it possible the father said at some point; son- if you so choose to live in sin … You cannot do it under my roof , so that the son was able to experience the full force of the consequences of his wrongful behavior?
When Michael writes
“The rhetoric felt like a brutal personal attack”
Fits well with what Shaun wrote…
“The Rhetoric is thick( and here I would add – brutal)
Because people are looking to win.. Not understand”
One of the most heartbreaking experiences was some time back in SanDiego joining a group of Bible college students who went out for an evening of street witnessing….
There was a young man; who upon engaging a person simply spewed out bible verses, antagonized and ired the other party – then walked away congratulating himself – with more bible verses- like “Christ is an offense to those who are perishing” or others of such nature .
I felt terrible for each side.. The one who was sharing and the intended recipient. This guy was clearly looking to “win” -not to understand, clearly looking to pummle his “opponent” with superior knowledge -not to show compassion, clearly indifferent to the plight of the other-not to show love.
Muff, 46, thanks for your response. The incarnation is a mystery. Christians believe in Jesus’ humanity and in his divinity. The Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. John says it so beautifully for me.
Sisterchristian, wow, what a thought. I think I was that young man, and my father kicked me out.
SC,
Your #48 says it all.
Good posts my friend.
Good thread to all of you…thank you.
Xenia –
So much in agreement with your # 13
Wouldn’t you agree that in general an Institution is a poor substitution for one on one personal attention.
It’s long been my suspicion that govt had to step up and step in where the church stepped out.. Although I could be wrong on that account.
It’s encouraging to read Michaels retelling of the one mans report that most/all? Of the significant work going on in Mexico is being done by the church … Very good
The long standing myth that the government is doing the church’s job when it comes to mercy work fails to understand the dynamics of how culture works. Free nations are governed by people who influence systems. Governments show compassion because the citizens have insisted that they do. Without question the system gets defiled. But Christians can be counted on to 1. Educate people 2. Provide healthcare 3. Help the poor. Governments get that stuff from the values of citizens. In other words the government is never separate from the influence of the values of the people.
America has a Christian history and government does what the Christians taught it to do. Now we just need to keep government from turning monstrous.
Michael,
You never cease to amaze me!
What a great vignette. So chock full of meaning and understanding. Powerful.
You are a complex Christian that fits none of the molds for modern day Christianity. There is something so deep within you that in my mind puts you in league with some of the great men and women of my Bible.
I am so grateful to God for you.
@ Jean,
The story of Jesus is like no other. Even John closes his Gospel by saying that not everything about Jesus was written down. Did the Holy family settle for a time in Alexandria when they fled Herod? Did Joseph start a thriving construction business with the fortune in gold and spices gotten from the Magi? Did Jesus accompany Joseph of Arimathea to Brittania as speculated in William Blake’s poem? These questions and others make me tremble with awe and wonder at the very real humanity of Jesus. And they make me cling to his very person all the more.
“Did the Holy family settle for a time in Alexandria when they fled Herod? Did Joseph start a thriving construction business with the fortune in gold and spices gotten from the Magi? Did Jesus accompany Joseph of Arimathea to Brittania as speculated in William Blake’s poem? ”
Muff you’re kidding all of this blog’s readers, right?
If you’re not, how did you get that from this:
“There are 3 things I believe as base axioms which are not on the table for discussion:
1) Jesus was conceived with no human male sperm, but by the supernatural power of the Almighty.
2) He rose literally and bodily from the dead.
3) He will literally and bodily come to this world again.”
BTW I agree whole heartily with the second quote.
Beautiful thread. What a beautiful family of believers all of you are. Glad I ran into you!
@ Bob,
You’re aware of the concept of literary license and of a book written long ago by Lew Wallace entitled Ben Hur: A Tale of the Christ, no? Same difference.
The Last Temptation of Christ written by Nikos Kazantzakis also falls into that category. They all get people talking about Jesus.
Anon, Steve,
Thank you…that encourages me a lot!
Question: in all the NT accounts of confronting sin, do we have any example where someone was corrected because their manner overwhelmed the message? I know there’s verses on ‘zeal without knowledge’ and ‘restore them gently’… but Paul withstood Peter to his face, Paul confronts the Judaizers with rather brutal speech.
In all his instructions to Timothy and Titus, Paul addresses manner of message delivery and uses words like admonish, correct, reprove and discipline.
I can’t think of a time in the Bible when God directs/says “You said the right thing in the wrong way” to any believer. He corrects and disciplines Moses for flatly misrepresenting God, but I can’t think of any time when God corrects the means of delivering correct doctrine.
I think of Paul getting cuffed for bad mouthing the High Priest, but that was a cuffing ordered by the High Priest.
Maybe I’m forgetting something, if someone has an instance come to mind I’d like to be reminded so I can think it over.
Muff
Thanks. There are many who believe the idea of Jesus and His family doing just what you said. I think there have even been movies about it. Now Ben Hur you gotta love, all the love, action, drama and faith. They even had Moses playing Ben Hur.
What’s not to like about that.
Muff
BTW are you Muff Potter because of Tom Sawyer?
Rob,
I could look up a bunch more, but I think Paul sums it up with this…he admonished with tears and humility.
““You yourselves know how I lived among you the whole time from the first day that I set foot in Asia, serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials that happened to me through the plots of the Jews; how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house, testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. And now, behold, I am going to Jerusalem, constrained by the Spirit, not knowing what will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city that imprisonment and afflictions await me. But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God. And now, behold, I know that none of you among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom will see my face again. Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all, for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God. Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears. And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified. I coveted no one’s silver or gold or apparel. You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me. In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’””
(Acts 20:18–35 ESV)
The question is – are lay people to confront sin, or is that just left to the pastoral type offices. I don’t recall a lay person, an ordinary Joe in the Bible pointing out the sin of others and being complimented on it.
I leave it to the leaders to do that type of lifting. That’s why I pay zero attention to a ‘brother or sister’ who comes to me and says … well, says anything.
A Case Against Libertarianism
I put my foot in it when earlier today I responded to RB that “a case can be made that Libertarianism is both unbiblical and unchristian.” MLD called me out to present my case. So here goes.
Let me start with a working definition of Libertarianism:
Wikipedia defines libertarianism as a political philosophy “that uphold liberty as their principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgment.”
The Libertarian Party website defines a libertarian as “A person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action.”
I will adopt the above definitions of libertarianism and libertarian for purposes of this case.
Premise 1: From almost the beginning, the bible teaches that we have obligations towards others for their welfare, which to some degree impinge upon our individual liberty. I am using the ESV translation. Here are a few examples:
“Then the Lord said to Cain, ‘Where is Abel your brother?’ He said, ‘I don’t know; am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen 4:9) I believe this is irony and the answer to this question is “yes”. This is born out in Numbers 35, where cities of refuge are established to provide refuge from the avenger for the people of Israel, and for the stranger and for the sojourner among them who kills any person without intent.
Lev 19:9-10: “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the Lord your God.”
In Jeremiah 29, God instructs the Israelites in exile in Babylon to “seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.” These are the enemies of the Israelites.
Mark 12:31: “And the second [commandment in importance] is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
Luke 10:29: “But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, ‘And who is my neighbor?’” The Parable of the Good Samaritan follows.
So, from the bible, as demonstrated by the verses above, I argue that the bible teaches us that we have a duty for the welfare of others (especially the poor, the widows and the strangers in the land). This duty, by definition, conflicts with maximum autonomy and individual liberty.
Premise 2: The Christian cannot fulfill his/her duty to others in a democratic society exclusively by private means. I understand that we live in a Constitutional Republic, but the power resides in the people exercised through their elected officials. Therefore, Christians have a duty to exercise their vote for elected officials who will limit their individual liberty to a degree for the welfare of others (especially the poor).
(a) Christians shouldn’t vote for a candidate for elected office who holds (or has a record of) ethical and moral beliefs in conflict with biblical teaching (assuming another candidate exists who does). Imagine if I personally believe that the bible teaches that abortion is murder, but vote for someone who believes that the liberty of the mother trumps the liberty of the unborn child. I’m not suggesting that either belief in this example is the libertarian position. The purpose of the example is to demonstrate that Christians can’t hold a Christian ethical or moral position, but then toss that position out the window in the name of separation of church and state and vote for a candidate with the opposite position. In such a case, I believe God might impute the actions (which were endorsed by the voters through their votes) of the elected official back to the voters who elected him/her (because the elected official is in a sense the agent of the voter). Let me put it another way, if I believe murder is a sin, I can’t go and hire Michael to go out and kill my enemy for me to shield me from accountability to God. Therefore, the point is that if we have a duty under Premise 1, then we have a duty to vote for elected officials who believe likewise.
(b) The political philosophy of libertarianism isn’t up to the task of fulfilling a Christian’s duty of looking after the welfare of others. The welfare of people, and especially the poor, is bound up in many things, such as access to clean water, air, shelter, personal security, food, education, employment, healthcare, etc. I should add that in my opinion Christians have a biblical responsibility to creation in general, and here I am talking about nature wildlife. My understanding of libertarian principles (very generally) is that all lands, including state and national parks should be privatized, the EPA should be eliminated, the FDA should be eliminated, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid should be privatized, there should be no public education, public housing should be eliminated, land use regulations should be eliminated, all restrictions on firearms should be eliminated, all or most consumer protection regulations should be eliminated, all or most financial institution laws and regulations should be eliminated, etc. Basically, the more laws and regulations you eliminate, the more liberty and autonomy you get; so these changes make sense from a libertarian perspective.
The problem with this system in a democratic society based on capitalism is that the poor will always get the shaft because they have not political influence. Now, one might counter, “the church will step in and take up the slack.” I agree that the church has an important role to play, but I don’t think the church can do it all and I don’t think that atheists and people of other religions should get a free ride. Everyone including atheists benefit from a society where there is order and peace, and to get order and peace we need a level of welfare for everyone. When I saw “welfare”, I’m not talking about a program, I’m talking about blessing.
We can debate where the balance is between state sponsored welfare and private sponsored welfare, but my premise #2(b) is that (i) private sponsored welfare cannot do all that is required; and (ii) non-Christians, who benefit from a social safety net for the poor, which produces order and peace, shouldn’t get a free ride.
Thanks Michael, I am adding up these different manners demonstrated by Paul and the NT guys. Not trying to do it in a ledger style, but examining and weighing the various manners, means, styles and trying to see how the NT instructs me. The preponderance of the type of words used for instructing, prodding, spurring, etc all in the context of the ‘fruit of the Spirit’. I’m also curious to see if there’s different tones instructed for preaching or sharing the Gospel with non – believers in comparison with the weight of words for correcting believers’ doctrine.
I have a thought in my mind that I can’t express well about how we leave style points judgment on whether our delivery is of acceptable love quality to the non-believer…. it’s tied to Paul’s thought that we’re both the fragrance of life and the stench of death, but I can’t find any good way of expressing what I’m trying to think.
@MLD / 65 . . . Matthew 18, Jesus says go to your brother if he sins against you – are you saying that’s only an instruction from Jesus just to the 12 with Him right then?
Rob,
I’m having a hard time following you.
My personal belief is that the harshness on both the political and religious fronts is driving people away from conservative positions without even hearing what is being said.
I’m actually engaged in some conversations with agnostics…and they all express this and appreciate someone who listens and speaks without the rancor they are used to.
I’ve spoken of my own experience on the political side…and emotionally I am still unable to consider conservatives in media because the damage done to my soul was deep and lasting.
My hope is that I never inflict that sort of carnage on someone regarding the faith.
When I read virtually any of the epistles we are exhorted to speak in love and humility.
If the Gospel is an offense to those hearing, that is not something we can control.
If we are what is offensive, that is something we can.
It is interesting to me that Paul in that same speech could describe other people as fierce wolves and even from within their own would be those speaking twisted things…warning these elders to be alert about such men showing up to hurt God’s people – the sheep.. Quite prophetic.
——————
Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert
——————-
As with so many examples, there seems to be no either/or. To everything a season. Jesus certainly spoke on hell without any tears in His eyes on more than one occasion.
Jude 1:23 comes to mind.
As an aside, I don’t think Paul was the sort of guy that would only call someone a wolf behind their back….
The problem becomes when everyone who doesn’t agree with you is a wolf…
I do believe Steve Wright just called me a wolf…
Pretty sad when I have to defend writing an article exhorting people to compassion on a Christian blog.
Jean,
Right now I am at a Relay for Life event and only on my mobile. I will read your post in detail tomorrow as I can’t give it the attention it deserves.
The Gospel music is sweet here!
Rob,
My comment was more general – if I see someone living in sin, do I say something. The Matt 18 is about sin that affects me and my relationship with another.
Michael,
I think you are trying to pick a fight. Steve didn’t say anything about you – unless you relate to the folks he is talking about.
But i will leave Steve’s business to him.
MLD,
You try to pick a fight daily.
If Steve wasn’t saying that he can clarify.
Michael @ 69 – I’m having a hard time following me, I can’t seem to get a good handle on what I’m trying to think, but I have been thinking about some of this for a couple days.
I think there’s two standards I’m trying to sort, secular ideas, political thought vs. Biblical thought.
I changed gears on the discussion and went to the Christian ethics side of speaking, and am not being effective in what I’m trying to say. My own trail of breadcrumbs in my thinking has become convoluted. I’m sorry, I think I’m speaking of things too lofty for my own good.
Sorry for being so confusing.
I pick my nose daily- that’s about it. 🙂
Rob,
There may be two standards at work here.
My contention is that in either sphere, vitriol may draw applause from the like minded, but totally shuts down any hope of dialog or mutual learning.
My other contention is that in either sphere, our primary identification is as an ambassador of Christ.
Rob pointed out what others like Alex have pointed out many times. That there seems to be different responses from God and His people depending on the circumstances being addressed. I do not think there is a contradiction in the Bible when Jesus or Paul act one way towards one person and another towards another.
The Acts passage cited, and the use of Paul warning about wolves, struck me and I made an observation, one I thought might add something relevant to the discussion. One consistent with what was said earlier in the thread about how people can feel two different things depending on the people they are dealing with at the moment.
An observation that certainly had nothing to do with Michael personally in any manner.
I was interacting with the text of Scripture, and adding a verse myself.
Michael, it would seem that Steve will need to speak for himself. Nevertheless I, too, didn’t read Steve as directing the wolf comments at you. There obviously has been significant friction (to put it mildly) between the two of you of late. That friction can result in a lot of suspicion. This has been a great thread. I hope it does not go sideways.
Gospel music at Relay for Life
http://youtu.be/tH8Gco4UlHo
Looks like Steve chipped in before I posted my comment.
KevinH,
I will try to keep this from deteriorating as that could easily happen.
Jean. Well thought out, your case against Libertarianism.
It’s been four weeks since May 16th’s TGIF
I took a couple weeks off from the blog, and with the exception of taking issue with the Duck Dynasty devotional Bible criticism, I haven’t really engaged anyone here, especially Michael, in that month, posting sparsely.
I don’t know how one could jump to thinking I was calling Michael a wolf in my engaging the Scripture above , but I doubt anyone else did. Much like a month ago with the accusations then…
I really don’t see how or why, after all these years, I need to continually explain myself against wild charges by the host, especially when those explanations are then ignored as seen here….and it is tiring to walk on eggshells.
Michael, I will pray for your employment, your family, and your ministry.
Bless you.
Steve,
What you did to me on that date was worthy of Matt 18 action as far as I was concerned.
I chose to do nothing, as you’re not the first person who has done such and this is a blog, not a church.
You have been allowed to post without moderation and mostly without comment.
I didn’t make a wild charge…you have been so hostile that I assumed it was more of the same.
I have defended you when I felt it was the right thing to do.
You can save your prayers…
Bob @ # 63,
Indeed I am Bob. Potter is one of those characters from Twain’s pen in whom he invests just enough pathos so that old Muff is believable and not affectatious.
I’m a registered republican. That statement alone conjures up all sorts of stereotypes that do not represent me. Something you mentioned Michael caught my attention and it had to do with some who lose sight of and compassion for people that are conservative.
To me that’s a stereotype that unfortunately impacts how some might view me when I say I’m a republican. If I affirm that I believe certain things are sin I’m further stereotyped as that man who only believes in two sins and winks at most everything else. That’s the world we live in so I roll with it the best I can.
With the hell that has become Iraq politics are again front and center. I’ve seen at least three videos on FB of people being murdered in the most brutal and callous ways imaginable. I must point out one was of Christians being martyred in India. Sometimes we forget about the rest of the world. Remember Ukraine?
The fact is the world is not going to get better and better as is evidenced by a cursory look at the local, national, or world news on any given day. Satan is at work everywhere in a million different ways. He’s good at what he does. He deceives people with sweet lies as well as vicious and obvious ones.
Spurgeon spoke of hell as well he should have. It’s a reality of scripture no matter what some might say. If he preached today I’m sure many would have him on their hit list for any number of reasons. I have to believe the critics then or now would sway Spurgeon from the hard truths of scripture. There is a hell to be avoided and the only way that will ever happen is through the Jesus and what He accomplished on the cross and when He rose physically from the dead on the third day. Good intentions. Good morals. Good works. They will never cut it when each of us stands before God.
Can I drive a person from the gospel and cause them to not be saved? That seems unfair to the person I alienated. If the question is what did a person do with the person and work of Jesus can I or another be the cause of their separation eternally from God??
How about if I gave a person false hope? I told them there is no hell and they will simply be annihilated when they die. How about if I told them God will look at the sincerity of their hearts and will allow them into His kingdom. You see, God is love and He would never do the ugly things you read about in the old testament. That God is different than Jesus so don’t you worry.
I think I’ll risk offending people with speaking truth as best I can no matter how it offends them than offer them a false hope. Things have changed a lot in my years as a believer and since my views haven’t changed alongside society I’ll live with the broad brush stereotype.
If I’m to become one of those believers being martyred for their faith as I’ve seen on FB recently I can only hope I wouldn’t deny my Saviour. I deny Him in different ways now with how I live my life. I can only hope I wouldn’t deny Him with my last words.
” Something you mentioned Michael caught my attention and it had to do with some who lose sight of and compassion for people that are conservative.”
Should read. “conservatives who lose sight of and compassion for others.”
“I have to believe the critics then or now would sway Spurgeon from the hard truths of scripture.”
That should read….. “I have to believe the critics then or now would NOT sway Spurgeon from the hard truths of scripture.”
Proofread before hitting send.
I think the ultimate put down one christian can say to another is “You can save your prayers…”
Especially after one is clarifying that he did not say what one accused him of saying.
But hey, this IS the arena..
When we speak of offending people for truth, what do we mean. Do we just walk up to Aunt Sara and say, “this bothers me about you and I think you should stop doing it!!!”
I was listening I think Monday when I went to get gas in my car some guy on KWAVEabot 2pm and he was going on and on in his message, about some forgettable topic (as I don’t remember) and he said”I know some of you are thinking that I am being too tough, but if you knew me, you would know that I don’t care what you think of me.”
I thought, how odd for a pastor to say that to his congregation – “I don’t care what you think of me.” Now was that the kind of truth we tell people and let the chips fall where they might?
MLD,
Obviously Mr. Wright and I have deep personal hostility toward one another.
I do not believe his is sincere in his well wishes in the least and if this mattered he would have contacted me privately to resolve it a month ago.
This will be the last comment on the matter.
Period.
I just thought to myself that both of you need to leave your gift at the altar…so forth and so on.
Talk about a pride fest.
Derek, you’re probably right.
“I think I’ll risk offending people with speaking truth as best I can no matter how it offends them than offer them a false hope. ”
MLD, with other stuff going on in this thread I’m not sure if you were referring to what I stated.
Either way I’ll respond.
I’ll never set out to offend anyone if the topic of faith is brought up. What I find is that people can be offended by the fact I’m a believer even before words are spoken. In conversation I can’t help but offend/anger them if I affirm that I hold to the fact Jesus is the only way to God and all other belief systems that reject that are lost. I offend them if I affirm my belief on the hot button topics of homosexuality and abortion no matter how I state my convictions.
I will not compromise those beliefs to win favor with anyone. Yet I won’t wave my bible in their face while reciting verses to make my point as I don’t see much value in that tactic.
I’ll try to steer people to Christ and him crucified as that’s the focus for me. Any specific sin in a non believer is a symptom of their lostness. By focusing on Jesus that eliminates good works and sincerity in a false system of belief as paths to God.
So I look not to offend but realize that’s difficult these days. I will not offer false hope in affirming anything that leads to a christless eternity. That seems to be happening a lot and I believe it is a favorite lie of the enemy.
Neo, #87, thank you.
Erunner,
Although I used your comment as a jumping off point, it wasn’t about you, but more comments above that spoke about offending others to tell them the truth. It was more in the context of pointing out sin.
Go blue – we are on a one game streak! 🙂
MLD, how much did Kershaw earn yesterday?? The Kings won the cup and I don’t even care as I don’t enjoy hockey. I refuse to bandwagon though and pretend I do. 🙂
Why do you torture yourself and listen to KWVE when it seems you don’t enjoy any of their offerings? Anyone you like on there??
Steve W. said, “Rob pointed out what others like Alex have pointed out many times. That there seems to be different responses from God and His people depending on the circumstances being addressed. I do not think there is a contradiction in the Bible when Jesus or Paul act one way towards one person and another towards another.”
Very interesting comment.
I am glad you acknowledge the differences, I think that is self-evident and hard to deny.
Why do you think it’s not a constant?
Why “Love your enemies, forgive unilaterally, turn the other cheek” but then “smite the enemy, call out the wolf, confront the enemy” etc?
I see the clear what I call contradiction, what you would call “different approach” and I’m open to other opinions….why the “different approach”?
Why not 100% all the time: “love your enemies, unilaterally forgive, turn the other cheek, forgive 70 times 7, return evil with good, bless those who curse you, do good to those who spitefully use you” and so on?
When do you apply the above…and when do you drop the hammer of “smite the enemy and confront the evil” etc?
I want to encourage both Michael and Steve W. to follow the Core Group’s rules here and make peace and get along and not continue in conflict 🙂
If I can demonstrate self-control and follow the rules…so can you guys 🙂
For many years, I justified my silence and non-action with regards to Bob Grenier as “love your enemies, unilaterally forgive, turn the other cheek, forgive 70 times 7, return evil with good, bless those who curse you, do good to those who spitefully use you”
As I grew older and then had my own child, the realization of how evil he was and how he would keep hurting people hit me like a tidal wave.
I could no longer ignore it and had to confront the evil…even though it did not fit within the one narrative above.
It certainly did, however, fit the OT narrative and Revelation narrative and some of the NT narrative of dealing with the enemy and confronting the enemy and confronting evil and fighting against it.
I’ve been told to “forgive unilaterally and unconditionally!” about a zillion times…but the bible doesn’t necessarily say that…it presents two distinctly different narratives.
I have no doubt in my conscience that confronting Bob Grenier was the right thing to do…so there must be some truth to a dual narrative…sometimes you are to go Gahndi Jesus and sometimes you are to go OT and Revelation Jesus.
I printed this a couple years ago fromSojourners and I think it was saying what I was trying to say in this article.
Come Let Us Reason Together
How good and pleasant it is when the people of God live together in unity.—Psalm 133:1
As Christian pastors and leaders with diverse theological and political beliefs, we have come together to make this covenant with each other, and to commend it to the church, faith-based organizations, and individuals, so that together we can contribute to a more civil national discourse. The church in the United States can offer a message of hope and reconciliation to a nation that is deeply divided by political and cultural differences. Too often, however, we have reflected the political divisions of our culture rather than the unity we have in the body of Christ. We come together to urge those who claim the name of Christ to “ put away from you all bitterness and wrath and anger and wrangling and slander, together with all malice, and be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ has forgiven you” (Ephesians 4:31-32).
1) We commit that our dialogue with each other will reflect the spirit of the Scriptures, where our posture toward each other is to be “quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry” (James 1:19).
2) We believe that each of us, and our fellow human beings, are created in the image of God. The respect we owe to God should be reflected in the honor and respect we show to each other in our common humanity, particularly in how we speak to each other. “With the tongue we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse those who are made in the likeness of God …. this ought not to be so” (James 3:9)
3) We pledge that when we disagree, we will do so respectfully, without falsely impugning the other’s motives, attacking the other’s character, or questioning the other’s faith, and recognizing in humility that in our limited, human opinions, “we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror” (1 Corinthians 13:12)). We will therefore “be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love” (Ephesians 4:2).
4) We will ever be mindful of the language we use in expressing our disagreements, being neither arrogant nor boastful in our beliefs: “Before destruction one’s heart is haughty, but humility goes before honor” (Proverbs 18:12).
5) We recognize that we cannot function together as citizens of the same community, whether local or national, unless we are mindful of how we treat each other in pursuit of the common good in the common life we share together. Each of us must therefore “put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body” (Ephesians 4:25).
6) We commit to pray for our political leaders—those with whom we may agree, as well as those with whom we may disagree. “I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made … for kings and all who are in high positions” (1 Timothy 2:1-2).
7) We believe that it is more difficult to hate others, even our adversaries and our enemies, when we are praying for them. We commit to pray for each other, those with whom we agree and those with whom we may disagree, so that together we may strive to be faithful witnesses to our Lord, who prayed “ that they may be one” (John 17:22).
We pledge to God and to each other that we will lead by example in a country where civil discourse seems to have broken down. We will work to model a better way in how we treat each other in our many faith communities, even across religious and political lines. We will strive to create in our congregations safe and sacred spaces for common prayer and community discussion as we come together to seek God’s will for our nation and our world.
Well, then show us how it’s done…you two pastors make nice and get in line 🙂
Michael, 106, point 7) (re: it’s more difficult to hate others…when we are praying for them) has been profound for me. It really works. It’s important to realize, however, that the prayer isn’t: “God, wake that jerk up so he sees things my way”; it’s more: “God bless Tom and his family, draw him closer to you and give him peace.”
McKnight over at Jesus Creed just linked a different article from Sojourners, titled, “Do Churches Alienate Intellectuals?” by Stephen Mattson. It’s under today’s, Weekly Meanderings. I think it’s related to this thread and it may resonate with (or convict) some of your readers. I recommend it.
RB,
This is far beyond an online dustup.
This, along with other developments on other matters last night. will have implications here and elsewhere for a long time.
I’ll be going offline for a day or so until I can get it all sorted out in my own soul.
Michael, do what you think is needed for you. I hope you’re not off line too long, because you’re a refreshing source of inspiration and wisdom to many of us.
Personally I think this Spurgeon character is a troublemaker. Look how his comments have torn apart our community. So, perhaps Spurgeon is the wolf here.
Actually, my readings about Spurgeon was that he was not all that compassionate to fellow Christians with who he disagreed.
Charles Spurgeon, I am calling you out as a Wolf.
Erunner – I listen to KWAVE perhaps 30 min total per week. But that is enough material to keep me going on my anti evangelical rant. 😉
Jean,
Thank you.
There were some huge developments offline last night in some stories we’ve covered here.
My gut reaction is anger…and I’ve already been angry about the matters for some time.
I have to make sure that when I write it’s from righteous anger, facts, and a desire for repentance and reconciliation, not revenge.
If anything I do is God’s work, it has to be done God’s way…or I fall under discipline myself.
I’ve had quite enough of that already… 🙂
Firstly, I am not a Libertarian, I lean libertarian. I would say that my views more closely align with Rand Paul on a lot of issues (not all). Therefore, I do not align myself with all the platforms the “Big L” Libertarian Party may have.
Let’s get to your first premise.
The only objection to that I have is that it is an obligation, specifically as applies to charity to the poor. The Law to me brings obligations, or duty, that we are unable to fufill. Love brings what we, as Christians should really be about. When you feel it is an obligation, you feel a need to drag all of society along with you even if they have no wish to go there. With love you do what you, as an individual Christian, are supposed to be about.
I can think of nothing else in that that I can seriously disagree with. I am not an anarchist and realize that individual liberty is not absolute. We don’t have a right to murder people as we wish. We should support a government that is structured in such a way as to keep itself functioning in it’s role. I just believe the government’s role impinges too often on areas outside of it’s role.
On to premise two:
On this, I beg to differ.
At this point let me point out, that with the exception possibly of the passage from Jeremiah, none of the scripture you pointed out above can be considered as a command nationally.
Let us go to the one that obviously people may find fault with my reasoning here, Leviticus 19:9-10. Note the fact that field and vineyard are in the singular. So though this was given to national Israel, it applied to individuals. I think this is best exemplified in Ruth where, even though this is stated in Leviticus, Ruth still asked the servant of the reapers for permission to glean, which probably meant you could still be turned away at some places.
My point, and indeed the real point is it is all about the individual heart and not what we can, through duty, impose on others.
Regarding your (a), this is exactly why a lot of Democrats would never get my vote. I cannot vote for them because of abortion.
I will inevitably vote my conscience on that issue.
Abortion is murder and this is why the state has a right to act in it’s capacity to outlaw it. It unfortunately, will not do that.
However, not all libertarians or libertarian leaners are made alike. Rand Paul and his father Ron Paul are both against abortion for example.
Regarding your (b), political systems and philosophies are not up to the task of caring for the poor.
Any of them.
Which is why it needs to be left to the individual and organizations they create to deal with it.
I believe that parks should be turned over to the states, not private organizations. The states interests have been overlooked and the federal government has an insatiable appetite to seize lands. IMO, the states the rights there. I have seen in South Dakota, that the states can well manage large parks on their own and probably bring more value to the citizens that way.
Sorry, but the government is too large and too corrupt to entrust with charity.
Taxes and hoping the government gets it right are not doing that. They are just means of enforcing your law on others by confiscation and redistribution.
You go out and do charity and I believe that you fully fufill the law of love.
It’s all personal and heart motives, which is what Jesus came to show us.
And now, I need to go mow the lawn.
It rained tons for about two weeks here making it impossible to cut the grass.
Now, it has dried out a little (not completely) and I need to try to get it cut.
Thanks Derek. As usual, your comments are excellent.
As I read the NT, I see the call to servanthood and obedience as central, as much the reason for our justification as our own salvation. I see the the emphasis on being the gospel rather than merely believing or proclaiming (although they’re all there). I think of Rom 12:1-2.
I personally can’t wait until I feel charitable or generous, because I don’t trust my heart. I think of Jer 17:9. I don’t get points from God, or sanctify myself, but more times than not I feel blessed.
“Jean’s Case Against Libertarianism:
Premise 1: From almost the beginning, the bible teaches that we have obligations towards others for their welfare, which to some degree impinge upon our individual liberty. I am using the ESV translation. Here are a few examples:
——
So, from the bible, as demonstrated by the verses above, I argue that the bible teaches us that we have a duty for the welfare of others (especially the poor, the widows and the strangers in the land). This duty, by definition, conflicts with maximum autonomy and individual liberty.”
Straw Man fallacy. Libertarianism doesn’t disagree with helping the poor, etc, it simply states that it is the job of the individual to help of their own volition, not to be compelled involuntarily by a Government.
“Jean’s A Case Against Libertarianism
Premise 2: The Christian cannot fulfill his/her duty to others in a democratic society exclusively by private means. I understand that we live in a Constitutional Republic, but the power resides in the people exercised through their elected officials. Therefore, Christians have a duty to exercise their vote for elected officials who will limit their individual liberty to a degree for the welfare of others (especially the poor).”
Again, a Straw Man fallacy. Libertarians do not disagree with this. Libertarianism recognizes the need for some Govt. and some authority structure. We are not Anarchists.
The debate about whether or not to help the poor, etc is not the issue…Libertarians agree with “love your neighbor” and helping the poor.
The disagreement is the apparatus that does such and whether it is right or the most efficient to do such through Govt. compulsion and bureaucracy or through private individual volition and efforts.
You also seemed to assert that Capitalism has gaps that cannot be filled by private efforts.
I would personally argue that what we have today is not Capitalism…it is a Govt./Big Corporate/Wall Street Socialist Crony Capitalist construct and not really Capitalism of old.
A truer form of Capitalism would not socialize the losses of the Rich, Wall Street and Big Corps while it privatizes their gains and allows them to cheat the System by offshoring labor and taxes and regs etc.
Thank you, Jean.
It would probably be a better debate to get a full blown libertarian on here.
As for me, I would still hamper the libertarians by appealing to the 10th Amendment and if the individual states wanted to be charitable or do something that the federal government doesn’t have the power specifically stated to do, then so be it.
I think the 10th amendment gives a lot of latitude in that area to the individual states.
Plus, the farther down the food chain that control over charitable giving goes, the easier it is to rein it in if out of control and feel more responsible for it and the ones receiving. Which is why the best charitable giving is from the individual. The farther from the source the more abuse by various hands between.
And now back to lawn mowing. It is so hot and humid, I am having to take frequent breaks and rehydrate.
Derek, maybe something with a little salt around the top of the glass will quench the thirst. 🙂
RB, you evidently have more faith in your fellow man than I do. I would like the world you describe better than the one I live in.
Charity given by individuals is just that – charity.
When the government does it, it is nothing but plain old wealth distribution.
Jean, actually, I have little faith in my fellow man, which is why I don’t like Govts. run by men having such power over individuals.
History has proven time and again that Govts/Kingdoms with too much power consolidated in the hands of a few men always end badly.
There is a reason our founding fathers set up the US as a Republic and not a true democracy. The rights of the individual was their primary concern, not the opinions of the majority.
Libertarianism is a-religious and largely a-political. It’s a philosophy that could be embraced by any political party. At its core is a very populist and individualist pulse…it favors neither the rich or the poor, neither the privileged or underprivileged, neither the minority nor the majority…though it provides a powerful check against the majority from oppressing the minority.
A beer would do good, but I have none here right now and no plans to get any at the moment.
It wouldn’t be so bad except I have about an acre of mowing area. All of that with a push mower. After I get my truck paid off in a year, the first thing on my agenda is a riding mower.
Luckily the back acre and a half is wild to a large extent and not mowable or I would despair.
I am not even trying to get it in mowing shape till I have a riding mower. Going back there with my trimmer to knock down the biggest stuff is all I am attempting right now.
Here’s wishing everyone a Happy Father’s Day weekend!
Praise God from whom all blessings flow….
A lot of the time straight up “Big L” Libertarian candidates are the biggest minus for Libertarians.
I wasn’t going to vote for Obama or Romney last time, but Gary Johnson seemed actively hostile to Christianity. So instead of being a-religious, it makes it sound anti-religious.
Just like, their drug policies, it all sounds good and rational when talking about the failure of the War on Drugs and the clogging of the penal system with small time drug offenders.
I actually think that prohibition of them has been about as successful as the prohibition on alcohol was.
But then, the candidate always seems to make the people think that he really would like to light up a fat doobie in the White House…and it’s gone…as the meme goes.
People just aren’t as generous towards drugs as they are towards alcohol and that is the way it is.
I agree with Derek, I think Rand Paul is about the best candidate on the horizon for any real “change” in a good way.
Ricky Bobby,
Remember that old song by the Who?
…Meet the new boss…Same as the old boss…