Tag Archives: Liberal. Politics

The Politics of Poverty

30 Thursday Aug 2012

Posted by in News

≈ Comments Off

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Jim Wallis Skyped in for the Huffington Post’s “Shadow Convention.”

Amid the frenzied weeks of the National Political Conventions, Jim Wallis and other liberals are urging politicians and voters to consider the fate of the poor when contemplating economic policies. The message is nothing new, but this time Wallis, president of the liberal Christian activist group Sojourners delivered it on Huffington Post’s live streamed “Shadow Convention.”

Of course Christians should care for the poor and consider them when casting their ballots. But Wallis essentially says if Christians truly care about the poor, then they will support government programs intended to address poverty.

Wallis repeatedly proclaims the federal budget is a “moral document,” and urges Congress to not reduce the deficit “on the backs of the poor” by cutting welfare programs. He explained “How we reduce deficits is also a moral issue,” but if reductions are made “by mostly punishing people who are already poor and suffering, that from a Christian point of view is fundamentally immoral.”

As a special guest on the “Shadow Convention,” Wallis reviewed statistics about having the “highest poverty rates in years,” and stated that “from a religious point of view [poverty] should be a top voting issue.” He described how “more and more of our friends are now in poverty,” and that “poverty in the suburbs is rising.” At the same time, he claimed many people aren’t concerned about poverty because they have “no personal connection with people who are poor.”

Wallis is absolutely right that Christians are commanded to love their neighbors and help the poor, and it is wrong to care only for ourselves and our own families. But is that command an imperative to support government systems?

Conservatives who prefer a smaller government don’t do so out of a disdain for the needy and admiration of the rich, as many liberals seem to think. Many, if not most who vote Republican genuinely care about the poor and give generously to charitable organizations. They simply don’t believe the way to solve poverty is through State structures. In fact, a recent study found that residents of Republican states contribute more to charity than those in Democratic states. The top states for charitable giving were also the most religious – Utah and Idaho ranked first and second, and the rest of the top nine were in the Bible Belt.

Also part of the “Shadow Convention” was a short debate on the motion: “The government is responsible for protecting poor people and reducing poverty.” Wallis argued the “Yes, it’s the government’s biblical role” side, and Joseph Loconte, a professor of history at The King’s College argued the opposing side.

Loconte wrote that too often, conservatives simplistically claim the solution is to “slash government assistance … and private-sector charity will rise from the ashes, like the mythical phoenix, to take care of society’s neediest.” Because poverty is not only a matter of material need, we must recognize its complex causes when discussing solutions. Loconte wrote:

The hard truth is that the worst assumptions of the welfare state have shaped and distorted social assistance of all kinds. The lack of personal responsibility, the denigration of entry-level jobs as the training ground for better employment, the isolation of individuals from their families, the indifference to marriage, the denial of any moral or spiritual dimension to the problem of poverty — these and other habits of mind infect much of what passes for private-sector charity.

Acknowledging the broader cultural problems – especially the breakdown of the family – contributing to the persistence of poverty and the failure of welfare to solve it points to the critical need for real community. As marriage and family have weakened and individuals have become more isolated, and in many cases more dependent on government assistance, it is clear we must reevaluate the role relationships and community play in addressing poverty.

“The balance between the two, the individual and community is critical … we’re losing that balance now,” Wallis said. He “[wants] a country that takes care of each other,” but what does it really mean to do that? When Jesus said “love your neighbor as yourself,” he meant love your literal neighbor – the one who you actually know in person, not an abstract neighbor you will never meet. Supporting assistance programs is valid if you truly believe those are good policies, but doing so does not contribute to building genuine community.

Quoting Methodism founder John Wesley, Loconte wrote: “‘Put yourself in the place of every poor man … and deal with him as you would God deal with you.’ Here is the one thing the secular State, by definition, cannot do — and the one thing that could make all the difference in the world.” Poverty and hunger are real issues demanding the attention of all faithful Christians. Perhaps it is time to take a break from the abstract discussion and help a neighbor in need.

Frank Schaeffer’s Paul Ryan Rant

21 Tuesday Aug 2012

Posted by in media, News, Uncategorized

≈ 14 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Image

Once again, self-described co-founder of the Evangelical conservative “movement,” turned liberal author and speaker, Frank Schaeffer has made wild claims about what is supposedly motivating the “religious right.” On Tuesday, August 14th, Schaeffer was featured on Ian Masters’s nationally syndicated radio show, “Background Briefing” to discuss Paul Ryan and the “War on Women.”

According to Schaeffer, “We have a Republican ticket with probably the most brutal far right economic policy, coming from the same man who’s got the most anti-woman policy.” He claimed Ryan is “a real extremist … a person who is brutal toward women and equally brutal to the poor.” Even more hyperbolic, he stated “women are second class citizens in his world, as are the poor.” Merriam Webster defines the word “brutal” as “grossly ruthless or unfeeling,” or “cruel, cold-blooded.” Schaeffer may disagree sharply with Ryan, but is it appropriate to call him “brutal?”

As someone who was once deeply involved with conservative Christians and politics, it seems Schaeffer should know that opposition to abortion is not really about oppressing women, or that free-market economic policies are not motivated by a deep-seeded desire to oppress the poor. It is certainly possible to disagree with Ryan’s views without accusing him of sinister motivations. But often when a news outlet like MSNBC or CNN wants “analysis” on conservative Christian politics, they call in Schaeffer.

As the son of prominent evangelical leaders Francis and Edith Schaeffer, he has a veneer of legitimacy in his claims. Schaeffer accuses conservatives of the same things the liberal media already accuses them of, yet goes further, with the “inside scoop” on the supposed evil motivations driving conservatives.

Schaeffer alleged that Ryan “does not believe in the rights of all human beings,” and “he holds up only one part of Roman Catholic teaching faithfully and has dismissed the rest of it on the basis of being an Ayn Rand disciple, not a disciple of Jesus Christ.” He said Ryan would “attack programs for the poor that are the safety net that keep people from a miserable fate, defund Medicare … and attack Social Security.”

Speculating about the chance of Ryan making it to the White House, he said if Americans knew of “Ryan’s anti-woman, war on women record when it comes to abortion, contraceptives, towing the Vatican line to the extreme,” then there would be no chance of he and Romney’s election. He further accused Ryan of having a “preoccupation with other people’s sexuality … [and] is the only part of Roman Catholic teaching which has actually transferred into Ryan’s agenda. The rest of it, when it comes to compassion for the poor, serving others, following Jesus Christ when it comes to the view of wealth as opposed to sharing, in those areas he’s totally departed and … is a disciple of Ayn Rand.”

Schaeffer’s comments don’t contribute to a productive discussion on the actual important issues, like sanctity of life or poverty. It wouldn’t be worth noticing, but because he keeps finding an audience and media outlets, I have to conclude, sadly, that some people believe what he says. Rather than acknowledging that conservatives do want a good life for others, but they simply believe in different means to achieve that outcome, Schaeffer muddies the already murky waters of public discourse with his wild assertions.

I Was Hungry and You … Called Your Congressman

26 Tuesday Jun 2012

Posted by in News

≈ 45 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Poverty and hunger is a deeply personal and local matter that the Church must address. (Photo credit: US Daily Review)

There is no debate that Christians are called to care for the poor and hungry. When Jesus said “I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me … whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me,” he made it clear that caring for those in need is not optional. How we do so, however, is a more contentious issue. For some, obeying this command means forming a “Circle of Protection” around federal government entitlement programs.

Since the federal budget debate began to heat up in the spring and summer of 2011, a group of religious activists formed a “Circle of Protection” with the purpose of lobbying President Obama and Congress to avoid cutting funding for welfare programs. Recently, Bread for the World president David Beckmann spoke to a group of “emergent Christians” about “changing the politics of hunger.” On June 20, at small gathering of Washington, D.C. based “emergent Christians,” he discussed how Christians can end world hunger by influencing “the most powerful institution in the world:” the United States government.

Beckmann explained his view that Christians ought to care for the needy in their community, but also they should make sure the government is “leading” the effort to solve poverty and hunger. To accomplish this, he stressed the importance of contacting representatives in Congress and telling them to protect entitlement programs. It is not enough, he claimed, for churches and local institutions to address these needs. He cited statistics that found if Congress made the proposed cuts to the SNAP program (food stamps), every church in the US would have to provide $50,000 each year to “fill the gap.” Beckmann stated: “it’s just not possible.”

There is evidence, however, that the growth of government programs crowds out private charitable giving. Thus pruning back some of the 70 or so federal assistance programs would yield more private giving. As taxes increase to cover spending, tax credits for charitable giving decrease, and government money flows to non-profit organizations, private giving shrinks. A Cato Institute report states:

Charitable giving declined dramatically during the 1970s, as the Great Society programs of the 1960s were expanding. The decline in giving leveled out in the 1980s as welfare spending began to level out and the public was deluged with news stories about supposed cutbacks in federal programs. Then, after the passage of welfare reform in 1996, there was a large spike in private giving.

Beckmann lamented that “very little progress has been made against poverty and hunger” in the US over the past few decades. This, he explained, is because ”we haven’t had a president who’s made the effort” to address hunger since President Lyndon Johnson launched the “war on poverty” in the 1960s. Unfortunately, he said, every administration since Johnson has prioritized other issues ahead of solving poverty and hunger. Beckmann admitted: “The federal government can’t solve all the problems,” but it can “provide a framework” for others to follow. Further, he said “the states cannot do it [address poverty] without the federal government. The federal government has real power and authority and we have to use that.”

Another major concern with public assistance programs is the risk of dependency. When asked about how to provide a safety net that adequately helps people in dire situations, yet requires them to seek self-reliance as a long-term solution, Beckmann said: “The dependency issue is a real concern.” With only anecdotal evidence, he claimed: “No one who’s on food stamps wants to stay on food stamps. There are probably some exceptions, but we could ere more on the side of handing out more help.”

Too often, however, faceless federal programs do engender dependence resulting in negative social consequences, and they rarely (if ever) solve poverty. Without providing the accountability and tailored assistance that local community charities can offer, one-size-fits-all federal programs are both a consequence and cause of many of the social problems they attempt to address. For example, it is commonly noted that certain welfare eligibility requirements discourage marriage, thus increasing the number of single parent (most often single mother) homes. Looking at this side of poverty, it is clear that the real issue is not a mere lack of material goods, but a deep social and spiritual breakdown.

Even still, Beckmann told the group: “As Christians, we should do what we can to make sure the government is doing what it should” to solve poverty and hunger. But no matter how effectively Christians encircle and “protect” government programs, the federal government is not capable address the deeply personal and spiritual needs of the poor, and ultimately, solving poverty.

Frank Schaeffer: Conspiracy Theorist?

20 Wednesday Jun 2012

Posted by in News

≈ 16 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Frank Schaeffer makes regular appearances on MSNBC. (Photo Credit: MSNBC.com)

Frank Schaeffer, the son of prominent evangelical leaders and founders of the L’Abri Fellowship, Francis and Edith Schaeffer, has become something of a spokesperson for those who vehemently oppose conservative Christians. Because he is a self-described “founder” and former member of the “religious right,” Schaeffer makes regular appearances on MSNBC and other media outlets, such as the Huffington Post, to comment on the supposed “true” motives driving conservative Christians. Most recently, Schaeffer appeared on Martin Bashir’s MSNBC show to comment on a recent conference sponsored by the Faith & Freedom Coalition.

The conference featured many prominent conservatives, including presidential contender, Mitt Romney, Senator Marco Rubio, National Review Online Editor Jonah Goldberg, Glenn Beck, and many others. Among the topics discussed was the threat to religious freedom posed by the contraceptive and abortofacient employer-provided coverage mandated by the Obama Administration’s health care policy. Describing the conference, Schaeffer told Bashir: “This is not freedom. This is another form, the American form of Sharia law being imposed because of religious fiat … This is naked anti-Obama politics masquerading as faith. That’s all that’s going on.”

According to Schaeffer, when Christian conservatives express concern about growing threats to religious liberty, they are actually motivated by a burning desire to oppress women. He told Bashir: “What you have to understand when they’re in action these days, is they speak in Orwellian double-speak. What’s the common denominator of all their faith and freedom? Politics. It’s to take away the freedom of choice for women, to take away contraceptives from women who work for Roman Catholic institutions, to take away choice for women, to take away gay marriage.”

Schaeffer has developed an elaborate conspiracy theory on this point. In an article titled “How the Far Right Roman Catholics and Evangelical Taliban Trapped the President,” he describes in a matter of fact tone how the Manhattan Declaration, written in 2009 by IRD Board member emeritus and Princeton professor, Robert George, is really an elaborate “trap” for President Obama. According to Schaeffer, the Manhattan Declaration is “an anti-Obama document (that never mentions the president by name) signed by hundreds of evangelical leaders and the Roman Catholic bishops.” He further writes that the document represents a “well laid plan by a few Religious Right Extremists that has succeeded in entrapping the President just as these extremists planned.”

Instead of acknowledging that conservative Christians might truly be concerned about threats to the sanctity of life, dignity of marriage, and religious liberty, he claims the Declaration’s signers deliberately “launched a fishing expedition to find any issue that might gain traction with which to beat the President in 2012. That could have been gay rights, or stem cell research. It turned out to be contraception.”

During his recent five minute appearance on MSNBC, Schaeffer asserted that “the tea party and the religious right have lied about our president consistently, using everything in the book except to come out and say what’s bothering them, and that is that he is a black man sitting in the White House, that in their view belongs to white people, I guess, in perpetuity.”

These, of course, are baseless accusations. But because Schaeffer can describe himself as someone who once worked alongside, and even led Christian conservatives, his opinion is apparently authoritative in the eyes of MSNBC and its viewers.

Wild Goose Festival Logo (Credit: NCCouncilofchurches.org

In closing, Schaeffer told Bashir: “There’s a whole other side that is about faith and freedom. There are moderate Roman Catholics, moderate evangelicals such as the Wild Goose Festival … There are alternatives, someone like myself who is a Christian is one of them.” At the upcoming Wild Goose Festival (which it seems a stretch to call “moderate”), Schaeffer is scheduled to speak on “Child-like Wonder for Jaded Cynics.”

I Hate the Culture War Too

13 Sunday May 2012

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 29 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

It might surprise some of you that I don’t wake up every morning thinking about new ways I can hate on gay people.  Nor do I spend all day making signs of aborted babies.  I  also don’t check the immigration status of the person sitting next to me on the bus.  (Yes, I ride the bus and sometimes I even commute by bike, how’s that for Creation Care?)   I suspect I am like many of you.

I also hate the culture war!

Wouldn’t it be nice if we all just live in peace.  If we just understood that every idea and action was perfectly acceptable.   We wouldn’t have to draw lines, give labels, make moral judgments, there would not be any for or against, right or wrong, instead we could all just “be.”

I am told that all we (Conservative Christians) should “start washing feet instead of waging war.”

Or as Rachel Held Evans ranted after Amendment 1 passed in NC,

“My generation is sick of the culture wars.

We are tired of fighting, tired of vain efforts to advance the Kingdom through politics and power, tired of drawing lines in the sand, tired of being known for what we are against, not what we are for.”

The absurdity of this argument seems to escape people like Rachel Held Evans who seems to have convinced herself that she is somehow holding neutral ground. The fact is there is no neutral space here and none of us live in a world where lines are not drawn, labels applied, or judgements made.

Let me explain what I mean.  According to the American Psycological Association,

“Since 1975, the American Psychological Association has called on psychologists to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations.”

Back then, very few people, religious or not,  would ever have envisioned the President of the United States saying on national television,

“we are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated.”

Between 1975 and today there were lots of lines being drawn.  There was the line of “tolerance” then came the line of “acceptance,” then came the line of “affirmation,” and finally the most recent line, the coercive power of the State compels all citizens to accept and affirm same-sex marriage.

So if all those lines have been crossed, why should there be any lines at all?  How about “age of consent” laws?  How about pedophilia? How about polygamy or polyandry?

Before you say, those lines will never be crossed, you should know that there is a group of psychologists and mental health officials looking to de-stigmatize pedophilia. In an article from Fox News,

“The organization, which calls itself B4U-Act, is lobbying for changes to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, the guideline of standards on mental health that’s put together by the American Psychiatric Association.”

“Stigmatizing and stereotyping minor-attracted people inflames the fears of minor-attracted people, mental health professionals and the public, without contributing to an understanding of minor-attracted people or the issue of child sexual abuse.”

Would Rachel Held Evans not join me in drawing a line around pedophiles?  But why there?  Because it hurts children?  Divorce hurts children too.  What about that line?  The real issue, that Rachel and others refuse to identify, is not whether we draw lines, but where we draw the lines.

Is it really the lines that are driving young people from church or is it something else?  Perhaps these younger evangelicals who are abandoning church are simply unwilling to accept the limitations that Jesus, the Bible, and the Church all put on sexual gratification.  As my colleague, Kristin Rudolph noted in a recent blog,

“According to recent statistics reported by the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), 80% of unmarried Evangelicals between the ages of 18 – 29 have had sex.”

How many of these young Evangelicals are going to be offended when the church says, homosexuality is sin, sex before marriage is sin, divorce is sin, etc?  It should be of no surprise when the Church is the only institution in society saying, “no” to people’s unrestricted passions and base desires there might be some anger.

Scripture repeatedly assures us that the message of the cross, which in part calls us to self-denial, is both offensive and encouraging.  It also reminds us that we are in a battle, not only for ourselves, but for our families, churches, and ultimately the whole world.  But as St. Paul admonished, “The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world.”  So with God’s help, we fight the battle in the realm of ideas, where “arguments and pretensions” hold sway.

Ultimately, I don’t fight in the culture war because I love it, but because I am called to it.  I hate the culture war against families, against children, against fathers, against stay-at-home moms, against people who hold a high moral standard.  What is at stake is not simply personal preferences, it is humanity itself.  If that is not worth fighting for than what is?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 506 other followers