Cleanliness is not akin to Godliness: why evangelicals ought to muddy up the waters

I spent too long trying to think of a clever title. Success? I doubt it. But, regardless of my failure on that account, I hope to succeed on another account, on dispelling an annoying (yet common) conception of Christianity. Yet again I've run across a ridiculous rant against progressive Christians, and this time I took it to heart. As you may remember, this whole Evangelical Manifesto is causing quite the stir. So even though I already gave my thoughts on the manifesto in an earlier post, I thought I'd take the time to respond to an interesting response I found on townhall dot com. Now I've never been to that site, nor have I ever heard of Dr. Crouse, but google has a way of introducing you to strange new worlds. Dr. Crouse wrote a post called "Muddying the Evangelical Waters," a passionate response to the manifest, and I found it both both extremely disheartening and utterly ridiculous. I'm sorry, but it really was just silly. Here's a summary of what she had to say: the manifesto is secretly trying to turn Christians into liberals, and that's bad because liberals are going straight to hell. Okay, that's quite uncharitable, but that's what the article screamed out at me from my computer screen. Actually, what she did say was based on some truth (more at the end); however, the whole post was overstated and narrow-sighted. Here's what I found, line by line: (mainly sarcastic here, and remember this is all in response to the manifesto)

1. ...the closed group of people working on the content apparently excludes traditional conservative and pro-family evangelical voices.

Okay, so I don't recognize enough of the names to know which of the charter signatories is an actual conservative, but I will bet my life that they are all pro-family. And I am certain that some are conservative, if not at least moderate. The great part here is the reference to pro-family as though it is mutually exclusive with leftist policies. Wait... don't some lefties want to promote family policies like better leave for parents (including fathers!), better daycare options, etc?? I know that I, at least, am very very pro-family. I think families rock, and I think the government should help families out more (though I admit, I'm not sure how). I also, admittedly, lean to the left these days (though not always, depends on the wind), and I haven't come across a liberal who was anti-family (but I'm sure they're there, just not that I've encountered). Of course if your definition of family means one wife, one husband, and 2.5 biologically related offspring, where traditional gender roles are upheld...well perhaps I'm not pro-family after all. I'm pro whatever family you've got where you receive love and support. Not everyone has the luxury of a Beaver-style nuclear setup.

2. “Progressives” criticize traditional evangelicals because they are overwhelmingly Republican, without acknowledging that the Republican platform, which has been consistently pro-life, is congruent with the moral values of evangelicals whereas the Democratic platform is not.

Whoa there... The Democratic platform is not congruent with moral values? Says who? Oh that's right, I've forgotten, the only moral issues are abortion and gay marriage. The environment, poverty, war, access to healthcare... none of that has any moral dimension. We have no duty to protect our planet (command from God in the garden of Eden...), protect our neighbors (call to love them?), or live in peace (other cheek?). How silly of me.

3. “Progressives” criticize traditional evangelicals because they focus on individual sins and the two major moral issues of abortion and homosexual marriage, instead of focusing on what they call “structural sins” like poverty, war, oppression and destruction of the environment. Typically, when “progressives” talk about “broadening the evangelical agenda,” they mean making their so-called “structural sins” the priority instead of emphasizing the “personal sins” that concern traditional evangelicals.

Now this is a distinction that I find quite interesting. It's one I've discussed numerous times with friends. The question is how to deal with sins on a personal level, committed by a person in such a way that may only affect that person (and perhaps other consenting persons), versus sins that affect non-consenting persons and/or evils that arise from the structure of society. This is an important distinction, as Dr. Crouse notes, only I prioritize it a bit differently. We can expect fellow believers to live lives accountable to the commands in the Bible, but not non-believers. Example, Christians are called to moderation when it comes to substances like alcohol. Abuse is a sin (get drunk on the Spirit not on wine!). Can we expect non-believers to drink in moderation because the Bible says so? No. Now if they are drinking and driving and putting other people in harms way, then we have a case for complaint, but it's not exclusively a Biblical complaint. This logic can take you down several paths, one path will sort of leave you between party lines. Example, if you take a fetus to be a person (or a being worthy of protection from interference/harm), then you have cause for complaint --at least a starting point, because there is a non-consenting third party involved. In the case of gay marriage, however, you don't have any harmed third party (except the bogus claim that it degenerates the family as a structure or something). In the one case, the sin interferes with an innocent party, or at least could be claimed as such. In the latter, the sin affects none but the person choosing that lifestyle. As Christians, we are called to hold fellow Christians to the commands of God in Scripture. Heck, even Jesus said it would be a waste of time to try and convince a non-believer to live by Scripture (pearls and pigs). So why make Scripture a part of national law?? Unless a third party is harmed, God will deal with personal sinners, not us. Remember the tax collectors and prostitutes (committing personal sins)? Jesus ate dinner with them. The pharisees wanted to stone them. Christians today fall into which camp?

4. The “progressives” package their thinking in traditional Biblical rhetoric fusing traditional values with populist ideals and themes of the liberal left (like a Marxist-flavored version of social justice and racial reconciliation) and latching onto trendy secular causes like climate change, poverty, globalism, immigration and political correctness.

Now this one is fun. I didn't realize that climate change, racial reconciliation, etc were merely secular causes. Apparently the earth is not worth the effort for Christians, nor are immigrants. We take care of our neighbors, but only if they have a valid social security number, and if they're white.

5. Further, a significant number of evangelicals (according to George Barna’s polling) live no differently than their so-called “progressive” counterparts. These lukewarm believers (who critics say are less concerned about their salvation than their status and more concerned about money than morals) are easy prey for feel-good faith that puts few limitations on the believer — making no demands and establishing no boundaries. They are theological sponges — absorbing anything that “sounds” traditional and/or religious.

Pulling out the big guns now. Apparently, if you are a progressive, then you MUST be a wishy-washy Christian. I'm glad she let me know, because I was beginning to worry that I actually believed in something, like God or a personal savior. Glad to know I was mistaken, as it couldn't possibly fit with my heretical social agenda. Also note, apparently it is only liberals who are concerned more about money than morals. I suppose that's fair, after all, I've never met an affluent conservative Christian who has gripped about high taxes and undeserving welfare leeches. Never. Damn liberals.

6. As Christ warned the Disciples, standing for truth is not the route to public acclaim. The term “evangelical” means a Biblical worldview and this dictates a philosophical/theological perspective on the timeless moral issues of Scripture. Those positions ought to be clear and unequivocal, rather than muddied by sophisticated rhetoric and clever obfuscation. The subtle danger is, as the old axiom states: “Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.”

I completely agree. However, it's better to be unsure yet continually thinking about what you stand for than to blindly stand for the WRONG thing. Be careful. Very careful. We will be held accountable for what we stand for, and stand we must, but woe unto those who stand for the wrong thing.


Okay, I'm done. Really, I do realize that there are tons of wishy washy Christian liberals out there. But what Dr. Crouse doesn't seem to acknowledge is that there is a multitude of conservative Christians out there who are theologically unsound (at best) and often morally questionable. The liberal platform has many virtues, and they are not inherently secular. The conservative platform has some virtues too, but it has it's vices. Branding a whole movement of Christians as theologically unsound and immoral is not only wrong and unjust, it's just silly. I sympathize with liberal causes. I sympathize with conservative causes. I have friends in both camps, and I see virtues in both. I also have friends with whom I disagree, but that's okay. If they disagree with me, that doesn't automatically mean they are theologically unsound or worse. Maybe sometimes they are, maybe sometimes I am, but you can not assume to categorize an entire movement (esp without a critical look at your own side). Sometimes things aren't neat and clean cut. I'm sorry Dr. Crouse, but cleanliness is overrated. Sometimes you just have to get a little muddy. (yes, cheese-tastic end here, don't judge)

Disclaimer: I am not a fan of the Democrats. I may lean to the left, but I lean way past them when I do. This is not an endorsement for that party, nor necessarily an anti-endorsement of the GOP. Just thought I'd make that clear. Also, I encourage you to read the comments on Dr. Crouse's post. They are priceless. I'm pretty sure some of the people leaving comments would stone me if they had the chance.

Gender, Race and Politics

My theme of the week in my classes was gender, race and politics. My French students have been less than interested in my other topics, so I chose what I thought would be a highly charged issue. I gave them all an article about Geraldine's infamous quote about Obama, and I hoped that would spark some discussion about not only the American presidential election, but also the role of race and gender in politics. I'd like to say it went well, but I'm afraid I had no such luck. How could they not care? (cue: pulling out hair) So I continued the discussion the next week, hoping that perhaps the lack of participation was due more to language issues (I did the topic with my older, but lower, class) than utter apathy. That helped, sort of, but even with my discussion guide I was having a hard time eliciting their opinions. So I asked them: do you care at all? Their response? Well, I've never thought about it before. Ding ding ding, problem found. The problem in my class was, essentially, the problem that perpetuates our lack of diversity in politics. The public, in general, isn't actively thinking about the lack of women and minorities in politics as a problem that needs to be fixed. It is, but your everyday Jill and Joe haven't worried about it much (and in my class, 99% of my students are white), or given it much thought at all. (this is less true in the USA at the moment, but that is mainly because of Hillary and Obama's dual, without which the issue would be more or less off the table).

I struggled with this issue at the beginning of the primary season. I was uneasy with candidates being elected because of their race or gender. That just seemed wrong to me, in the way that it would be wrong to elect someone because he was a white male (not that it doesn't happen on some level, but I don't think it should). I was of the mind that the whole point of being able to have a woman or black person as president was that as a person they are just as competent as a white man, and should be judged solely on their respective qualifications. I think, however, that my mindset was more naive than I'd like to admit. Younger generations want to ignore race/gender, pretend like they don't factor into the equation. However, that's a state of mind that won't help bridge the gap. Ignoring race and gender, instead of actively trying to equalize their position in society, and actively combating existing discrimination, will only perpetuate the status quo. And I'm beginning to think that perhaps there is something to be said about voting for someone (when other things are equal, of course) because of his or her race or gender (please don't flip out here). It's not that the individual is necessarily more qualified in the usual sense because of her difference (though later on I will argue for a new type of qualification), but rather her presence as a part of an underrepresented group helps bring a balance to the system as a whole. So where two candidates are equal in the important respects, and where one candidate has the added experience of growing up in the face of existing discrimination and socially constructed road blocks, that candidate's life experience adds an extra qualification to her candidacy. She is in a position to better know what her peers go through on a daily basis, and will be more conscious of that when making policies. If no one in the legislative/executive/judiciary branches has had those unique experiences that one only has in virtue of being a minority or a woman, then minorities and women will not have adequate advocates within our government. For our government to legitimately wield it's coercive power, it better represent, as best possible, the full body of its constituents.

Thinking about diversity not as an intrinsic value but as being valuable in an instrumental way, is not a new idea. I read some article (excuse my poor memory) about this in regards to higher education. The idea was to shift the focus of diversity as something that is important in itself (though I think that sometimes it is, and certainly, sometimes it isn't-- ie, I don't want serial killers adequately represented in higher education, even if right now they are in a minority, or at least I hope they are!). By focusing on what diversity can achieve, you have a better case for its promotion. The idea was something like this: someone in a minority or who is underrepresented in higher education has (and this includes socio-economic diversity), in general, a completely different set of life experiences that contribute, in an important way, to his or her overall point of view. It is valuable in higher education to have a variety of view points, because that will promote the most learning, and increasing learning is one of the fundamental jobs of HE. So there's the connection between having different life experiences and how that contributes to the person that you become and what you can contribute to others. I would add that those experiences can greatly affect the types of decisions you will make in the future (as we all make decisions that are often based on what we have encountered in the past). I would go on to add that the political decisions of elected officials are also affected in a non-trivial way by their past experiences, so it would be valuable to have a variety of experiences represented among the body of officials who make and enforce laws. So if two candadates are equally qualified, and if one has the added bonus of having a different point of view from the exisiting body of politicians, than that extra qualification should be factored in when we vote.

So this is where I'm going with this. Part of the problem is that there is a lack of effort to promote the aforementioned diversity of perspectives. My students had never really thought about it, and those that had told me (quite pessimistically) that they didn't think change (for France at least) was possible, at least not yet. So I asked them to think of a solution. What would change the state of things? Blank stares. No one knew, because no one had ever thought about it (surprisingly, not even the women). I explained to them, with conviction, that by beginning to think about the problem, you are taking the first step in fighting it. Nothing will change if you don't see it as a problem, or don't ever think about the problem as something that can and should be fixed. So awareness is the first step. The second step? I'm less sure, but hey, that first step is going to take us awhile. So, there you have it.

Some thoughts on justice, political action and individual choice

I've just finished reading G.A. Cohen's If You're an Egalitarian, How Come You're so Rich? The book is quite interesting, and it covered much more than I can possibly discuss here. So I'm going to limit myself to the topics that tie into what I've been mulling over recently, namely, government coercion and individual justice. Cohen did bring up some interesting thoughts on what the nature of God would be like and why he might have created us, along with some discussions on religious belief in general (specifically the effect of growing up in a certain denomination), but that's for you to read about if you want. I apologize in advance for the ridiculously long post, but I hope you can bear with me as I work through my thoughts on this... so here it goes.

Cohen distinguishes between three different strategies for justice, namely the Marx, Rawls and Christian strategies. Under the Marx conception, justice in the form of equality is an inevitability that will be born out of history (so to speak). Cohen spends a good deal of time challenging the Marx thesis, and he shows (quite convincingly) that equality will not come about on its own. Several lectures within the book were dedicated to showing why this is the case, but for the sake of brevity I'll leave it at this: equality is not inevitable, so the Marx strategy is not going to be sufficient for achieving real justice.

The second conception that Cohen evaluates is the typical liberal view (circa Rawls) that justice can be achieved through political means. Justice isn't (in the case of Rawls) straight forward equality, but we'll leave the difference principle out of it for now. For Rawls, and many liberals, justice can be achieved by constitution-making, or changing the structure of our society and government so that these institutions are just. ( Note: the use of liberal in this sense is the political philosophy use of “liberal” and not the pop culture designation for Democrats and others on the left of the political spectrum. Of course that's tricky in and of itself, but the best definition I found of the Rawls sort of political liberalism is that it's aim is to “ provide a political framework that is neutral between such controversial comprehensive doctrines” (SEP). I wish I had a better grasp of that particular concept, but for now I'll move on.)

The problem that Cohen found in the Rawls' conception is that there is a possibility that you might have a “just government” without necessarily having much in the way of a “just society.” The laws and regulations that govern the 'basic structure' of society can be just without having just-minded citizens within that society. The reason for this divide is that under the Rawls' construction, the people must only agree to (and understand) the principles of justice as they apply to the framework of their society. Rawls' conception is ill equipped to deal with the individual choices of people within those societies and within those structures. I agree with Cohen that this poses a serious problem for his theory of justice. If, for example, you have a “just” structure, but within that structure the choices of individuals counteract (or fly in the face of) the governing principles, then justice has not been fully achieved. It is inadequate to say that a government must achieve the end of promoting the welfare of the least advantaged if the members of that society continually choose to promote their own welfare in ways that disadvantage the worst off. As Cohen (rightly) points out, “the justice of a society is not exclusively a function of its legislative structure, of its legally imperative rules, but is also a function of the choices people make within those rules.”

Cohen give a pretty good critique of Rawls' exclusive focus on the basic structure (whatever that really is), and how that is an inadequately narrow focus for the principles of justice. He goes to on examine how many professed egalitarians suffer from this Rawlsean attitude. By suffer I mean, they live out their lives in the way that Rawls laid out his theory. They are more focused on fighting for the legislative and political achievement of justice, that they neglect to make personal choices that reflect their belief in equality. If, for example, your average political philosophy professor is a proponent of egalitarian ideals, and if he also keeps enough of his (modest) income to allow him to live relatively well-off, then he is not himself promoting justice through personal choice. A truly committed egalitarian would give away as much of her resources as possible in order to ameliorate the plight of those less fortunate than herself. She would live as spartanly as possible in order that her earnings could work towards righting injustice. While I'm sure there's a few egalitarians like that indeed do give away a considerable portion of their income, there is a sizable portion that don't. In fact, as Cohen points out, there is a good number of fairly rich egalitarians out there fighting for social change yet living the good life. Of course this skirts the practical issue of trying to live justly within an unjust environment (and having to include a certain level of risk into your calculations), but for the most part, egalitarians could do more than they currently do (on the personal level).

Cohen asks how this could be. How can so many people believe in equality yet continue to profit from inequality in real life? Cohen goes through a series of excuses (none of which really amount to a decent justification) that the egalitarians could offer, but for now I want to focus on the attitude itself and how that attitude plays out in my own life. The attitude is this: I can't right injustice alone, so I will focus my attention on making sure the government rights injustice (even if that means coerced redistribution). I may not consciously think this way, but unfortunately I behave like I really think this way. It's an attitude that is both pessimistic on the personal level for society, yet also rather pessimistic about my own ability to help voluntarily. I focus on making sure the government forces me to help (and also forces everyone else to help), instead of just getting out there and doing what I can on my own. To be fair, part of the problem is collective action. I'm well aware that by wielding what small power I have in our (supposedly) democratic government I can do more overall good than simply operating on my own. A just society is not the work of any one person. But, it's not the work of institutions either. I must do what I can through my everyday personal decisions, and also through my political decisions. The two must go hand in hand. My behavior shouldn't show contradictory beliefs. Too often the liberal focus is on what the government can do, and not what each individual must do in her own life. Cohen recognizes this problem, and it's one I'm finally starting to see myself.

This brings us to the Christian conception of justice. Under the Christian conception (at least, based on Christian theology and not necessarily how Christians practice today), the fight for justice is really a fight of individuals. Justice will only be achieved if there is a “revolution of the soul” or some sort of individual moral battle. Cohen says, “Jesus would have spurned the liberal idea that the state can take care of justice for us, provided only that we obey the rules it lays down, and regardless of what we choose to do within those rules. And I believe that Jesus would have been right to spurn that idea.” The Christian conception doesn't rely on the government to fight injustice because each person is individually responsible to fight this battle. This is why you don't see as many socially conscious Christians fighting for the welfare state. They are fighting instead within their churches and within their own communities to fix the injustice in their own backyard. They don't fight for the government to feed the poor and shelter the homeless, because they see it as their personal responsibility to do this as a body of believers. There is (or at least, should be) an ethos of justice in the Christian church, and the ethos doesn't want to bother with the government (when it comes to the fight for social justice). Now this isn't true of all Christians (certainly there are Christians who also fight for government-driven justice, and there are also Christians who aren't very socially conscious at all –unfortunately). Part of this, I think, is a mistrust of the government. Why should the government take my money when I know better how to put that money to good use in my community? That is, I think, a valid point. There is an element of mismanagement (at least in the US) within the government (and lack of efficiency), that keeps many well-meaning people at bay (our lack of real control of the government doesn't help much either). I know this because in the church community that I grew up in, the attitude was something like this: it is not the job of the government to take care of the people, it is the job of the church because that is how we are called to share the love of God with our neighbors. This is why many Christians I know don't fight in the political arena; instead they fight in their own backyards.

So if we disregard Marx, then we have these two competing attitudes. One says that we should fight for a just government, and the other says we must fight to make more just-minded people. I think it's too easy to rely on the government to solve our society's problems, so in that respect I think that the Rawls route is a cop-out. It's too easy to support Rawls' route while at the same time living unjustly in your own life. However, I think there's some something missing in the Christian conception. While I whole-heartedly agree that there must be in change in society's character (which must be achieved through individual attitude transformation), I also think that it's wrong to ignore the power we (should) have over the government. If you really want to right injustice, you must both live a just life and use what power you have to ensure justice on a larger scale. For those in democracies, that means wielding your political influence to make sure our coercive government is not unjust. If everyone lived a life a personal justice, then the coercive power of the government would not be needed. However that's unlikely, so we must be prepared to fight at both the individual level and at the collective level to achieve social change. I am still uneasy about government coercion on a whole, because I think that, at least in the US, we don't have much in the way of real control over our government. But let's say we did, then we would morally obligated to use said power to achieve a more just society. Both battles must be fought, because I don't think that either can achieve its desired end alone. A just government is nothing without just citizens, and just citizens can't achieve real justice within an unjust government.

I wrote all of this mainly to sort through my own competing convictions. I have both the desire to see a revolution in our government and also a revolution in the ethos of our society. I want both, and I do a poor job in both battles. A few weeks ago I talked about the Christian stance on wealth, and I stand by my admission that I have yet to conqueror the selfish materialist in myself. At the same time, I don't even know where to begin on the political front (being unimpressed by both the Democrats and the Republicans). It's rather frustrating to read a book like Cohen's, to be caught up in his message, and to then realize that I'm a big part of the problem. I'm convicted in both senses, doing hardly anything to help realize justice on either front. But the first step is awareness, and the second is action. I'm not quite sure what my role is yet, but I'm working on it. So I want you to know that I don't write about all of this in vain, but rather to motivate myself to get out there and be a part of the solution, both as a social activist and (more importantly) as a Christ-follower.

Prosperity Gospel

Via TC, here is a video from John Piper. I don't know much about Piper or his ministry, so I have no basis on which to evaluate his theology (sauf what I can learn at wikipedia), but his video is interesting --to say the least. It's obviously made to stir up emotions, using the video medium to its fullest (less substance, more outrage)... but he does have a point. And it's one that I explored awhile back. Is it okay for Christians to be wealthy? Or more importantly, is the point of Christianity to acquire blessings (money, health, and prosperity). I'll agree with Piper that this should never be the point of following Christ. God is not a vending machine, and the "Prosperity Gospel" is going too far (cf, the craziness going down in Nigerian churches). But I still think there's something to be said about being entrusted as a steward of blessings. Anyway, watch the video. And, if you are out there (whoever may be reading, one never knows), I would love to know your thoughts (be you a fellow Christian or otherwise). Here it is:



I think it's worth it to read this from CT. It's about the rise of the Prosperity Gospel in Nigeria. It's almost frightening, like the PG is the "Christian" version of that stupid book The Secret (I meant to post my thoughts on that before, but it annoys me too much...maybe later).

The line I found the most intriguing: "[The PG] is elevating gifts above the Giver."

What do you think?

More on Wealth

After writing up the post on wealth a few days ago, I've come across a few more discussions here and here. The first one is an article via Boundless (a focus on the family website, who'd have thought, right?), and the other is a response on Think Christian. It's good to see this issue being talked about, as it's usually the rather big elephant in the church. Not many pastors want to wake up their congregations to the simple truth that they are privileged and not doing enough to help those who aren't. And truth be told, I need to hear this message as many times as it can be told. So there you have it.

Some notes on wealth, comparisons, and grace

Let me start by saying that you should go listen to this message from Pastor Chris (it's the Jan 6th one). That's the basis for this post, and you'd be better off listening to his message than reading the rest of this. But should you decide to read on anyway, let me begin by saying something along the lines of what Pastor Chris said. You have every right to be suspicious of me, an affluent American with a college education and an internet connection, being in any position to speak about poverty and need. I openly admit that I have been blessed beyond belief, and I know that it's a very cushy armchair that I'm speaking from. But, suspicions aside, the issue itself is still worth writing about. So although I'm not a reliable source, and I'll be the first to admit that I'm one of the stingiest people I know, I think the message is important enough for me to write about it anyway (and I think by doing so I can at least start to get better myself).

So here's the problem: we are wealthy. More specifically, you are wealthy. Yes, you. If you have the time and ability to read this blog, you are wealthy. And what's more, throughout the world there are a great deal of people who are not. By great deal, I mean a shocking majority. In Chris's message he said that (and I forget his source) if the current ratios were reduced to only 100 people, then only one of them would have a college education. Now I'm not assuming that you do have a college education. I only remember that specific statistic because I didn't quite believe it. Chris described this scenario where you imagined turning the typical American family into one living in a shantytown (of sorts). The imagined family had only $5 to it's name. He then proceeded to describe the typical churchgoer who, upon hearing the wealth/poverty sermon, leaves Church rather offended and somewhat angry. This churchgoer thinks to herself, "Sure, there are a lot of wealthy people (even at our Church), but I am not one of them. They are wealthy; I'm barely getting by." She then gets into her car and drives to Starbucks where she buys over $5 worth of coffee and pastries. She has just spent more money at Starbucks then the imagined family has to it's name. She is wealthy. We are wealthy. You are wealthy.

Now this situation is not uncommon (the angry churchgoer). I often feel (during these sorts of sermons) that the message doesn't apply to me, a poor college student. When I'm out of school and have a job and some money, sure, then I'll be generous. As for now, it's all I can do to get by. That's the thought, and it's totally wrong. There's a phenomenon at work here that's based off of comparisons. I compare myself to the people around me, and I determine from that comparison what my situation is. However, my comparison is limited in scope, and therefore is doomed to be horribly miscalculated. I went through high school thinking to myself (rather smugly), "Well our family isn't as rich as everyone else here (I'm from a very affluent suburb), and I'm glad we're not. Across the street they have 4 story houses with elevators (I'm not lying), and we live in a modest ranch house. People at school get cars when they turn 16, I got a job and paid for mine....etc." I thought that because I wasn't as rich as my schoolmates that I must have a better attitude about life, money, and working. Well, perhaps I was less spoiled then they were, BUT I was grossly underestimating my own wealth and situation. Notice the thought about the car, and look at how it didn't occur to me that having a car at all is a huge sign of wealth (let alone having one as a teenager). It didn't occur to me that although I bought it myself, I had the good fortune to be in a family that didn't need my wages (it's a sign of wealth that I got to spend my wages on myself). That in itself is huge. I was going to school at all, as a female no less. So why didn't I (and why don't I) see that?

Well I think it goes back to this comparison thing. No one wants to be at the bottom, even if the bottom is really a rather nice place to be (ie my situation in our suburb). I've had the same feeling in other contexts. Take my swim practices as an example. If I swim one of the best practices of my life (timewise), but am the slowest person in my lane, then I am prone to leave practice thinking that I sucked. But, if I swim rather slowly, but am the leader of the pack, then I come home feeling rather proud of myself. I have a hard time gaging my objective performance, but it's always easy to see how I size up to my fellow swimmers. You can't help but feel crummy when you come in last, even if you're coming in last amongst a group of the fastest swimmers on the team. Or maybe it's just me. I don't know. The point is that our comparisons in our little micro-universes really mess up our ability to gage our actual situation in the world and in life. And it's important to be aware of your actual position if you're going to figure out what duties your position entails. If you are wealthy, you have a duty to assist the poor. At least, I believe God says that you do (and some would say that without God you still have a duty to). If you are convinced that you are poor, then you won't recognize your duty. But whether or not you recognize it, it's still there. So the point of this first bit is that you are wealthy. Now about that duty...(and back to Chris' message)

There are two camps in the Christian realm when it comes to wealth (and of course, many who fall between the two). In one camp you have the ascetics who say that wealth is evil. If you are a Christian, you should not have any wealth, but rather you should give it all away. If asked whether Jesus would have owned a Hummer, they would say, "Absolutely not." In the other camp we have the hedonists who say that wealth is a sign of God's favor. If you don't have wealth, then God must not be pleased with you. They say that God wants us to have a good time, to enjoy what this world has to offer (eat drink and be merry!). If you asked them whether Jesus would have owned a Hummer, they would say, "Yes! He would have had 2 or 3!" Now both of these camps can pull out many Bible verses that support their position, so how can you tell who's right? Well, one thing that they both have in common is that they both focus on wealth itself. To one group wealth is an inherently bad thing. Whereas the other group thinks that wealth is inherently good. Either way, they are both focusing on the object (not the person).

I'm inclined to think that wealth is neither inherently good nor bad. I think that it is something that has the potential to lead to both good and bad things. Chris put it this way: God's approval (or disapproval) of wealth is essentially located in the heart of the holder. There are two equations:

Wealth + GRACE = Generosity
Wealth + SELFISHNESS = Greed

God delights in our generosity, but he is deeply angered by our greed. Both circumstances involve wealth, but the two outcomes are very different. It's about where your heart is. If you begin to believe that the blessings in your life are yours, or that you brought them about by your own power, then you're in trouble. What we have we get from God. What we accomplish we do by his grace. So we should in turn live our lives with grace, remembering that what we have is not our own. If you begin to believe in any way that you deserve what you have, well then you've just crossed a dangerous line. The sermon talked about a passage from Deuteronomy 8 where God promises to bless the Israelites who've been wandering in the desert for a long time, but He also warns them to remember who has blessed them. Wealth is not good, but it's not bad either. What we do with it, and how we work with what we have, is the important part. We need to ask ourselves, "Am I full of grace? Am I being generous?"

So I guess all of this was just my roundabout way of saying that we should be mindful of our blessings, and that we should handle our blessings with grace. We have an obligation to recognize what we've been given, and we have a further obligation to be graceful stewards of those gifts. Regardless of whether the Joneses have a better car than you do, you are blessed. Now what will you do with those blessings? There was a great example of a man (a prosperous radiologist) who's goal was to end his life with nothing. No moths and rust and thieves and such for him. Is that our goal too? That goal has never even occurred to me, and I'm ashamed to admit that my first reaction was that he was being rather irresponsible. So you can imagine how far I still have to go...

(an endnote: I'm sorry for sounding so preachy, but sometimes things must be said. I'm preaching mostly to me, because I'm the worst offender. But, if this resonates with you as well, well then that's probably for the best)

Human Rights Blog...

My good friend's sister is meandering her way around Africa, documenting human rights violations and publishing articles while she's at it. She's a terrific writer with some interesting stories to tell. Go check it out here. (warning, it's under construction so most of the links don't work yet...)

Working without benefits

I came across this article in Sojourners. It's worth taking a look at (though I think you have to sign up to see it, but don't worry it's free and worth the sign up because they have other great articles). The article is about how it sucks to be a worker in the US because so many jobs don't have benefits that are desperately needed, and it's taking it's toll on the family. There wasn't much in there that I hadn't already come across, but I was glad to see that a Christian based magazine was showing awareness and concern for this problem. Here's my favorite part:

"We need to think long and hard about what kind of economy we want to create for the next generation of workers. What are the basic standards that should be common to all jobs, not just the best jobs? At the very least, the United States should follow the lead of other advanced economies and provide paid time off for workers who are ill, have an ill family member, or need time to care for a new child. We should also ensure that safe, affordable, and enriching child care is available to every parent. We need to incorporate into our policymaking the recognition that those working in low-wage jobs may be unable to make ends meet and that their employers are not filling in the gaps with benefits."

Of course the other side of this discussion is what will happen to businesses, esp small ones, when the fringe costs (is that what they are?) go up. Perhaps it shouldn't be all on the business' shoulders? Some days I wish I was an economist so I'd have a better idea of what was really at stake here.

More Egally Business

I was recently referred to this article by Arthur Brooks in the City Journal. In light of my obvious egalitarian convictions, the article voiced one of the most common objections I’ve encountered. Strickly speaking, the concern is that egalitarians are too focused on equality of income. This could very well be true, egallies of all varieties may be missing the point as much as everyone else. But, my sort of egalitarianism (and the sort that I’ve had the most exposure to) is not like this at all. Equality of income (or even, overall assets) is not only ridiculously hard to maintain without an absurd amount of interference into people’s lives, but it also doesn’t achieve the sort of equality that I think every person deserves (which I will explain below).

The article goes on to show how conservatives tend to be more optimistic about people’s opportunity to move upward economically and socially, whereas liberals tend to think people are stuck where they are. Well, there is truth on both ends. Of course there are many people who are gifted with the necessary market-skills that will allow for them to break free from their less advantaged roots, but not everyone has the right sort of talents to do so. If a person is born more charismatic, good looking, intelligent, etc –they can’t boast that they deserve to have been born so. They also can’t say that they themselves achieved any sort of feat by being lucky enough to live at a time when such traits are highly marketable. Not that hard work doesn’t come in at all, I believe it certainly does, but there are many people in the lower ranks of society who work very hard with the talents they have, but they don’t have what the market requires for them to rise. Is that their fault? No. The fact that there are many working poor is sad, but true. There are working poor. If you work 3 jobs but earn only a meager salary with no benefits, what else can be expected of you? The question isn’t whether there is the opportunity for some to rise, but whether all those who deserve to rise can do so. Why should the back breaking work of the custodian go unrewarded all because he wasn’t born 7’ tall with a great lay-up shot? It’s not about opportunity for the lucky few, but for those who really are contributing to society in a meaningful way (not that bball players don’t, but do they really contribute millions of dollars worth—seriously?).

This quote made me smile (being a former conservative, yet not a liberal –sort of disliking all sides –but with definite lefty tendencies):

“It is small wonder, then, that conservatives tend to be happier than liberals today. The 2004 GSS showed that 44 percent of people who identified themselves as “conservative” or extremely conservative” were “very happy” about their lives; only 25 percent of self-identified liberals or extreme liberals gave that response. Conservatives believe that they live in a more promising country than liberals do, and that makes them happier.”

Couldn’t this just mean that conservatives might be more ignorant of the situation of everyone else in society, and so they may be less worried about the overall situation? I certainly wouldn’t put it past them ;) . This, of course, followed the explanation of a study where liberals (rich ones) thought there was less mobility in the US than poor conservatives. Well, perhaps the happiness with what you’ve got isn’t so much a function of your political leanings, but more about other ideological sympathies. Growing up as a WASP, you are taught to be content with what you have, but to work very hard anyways. WASPs also tend to be conservative (and don’t usually run into much if any discrimination). If the right really has a monopoly over the religious sect, then I wouldn’t be surprised if they were a bit more optimistic about their situation in life. But, that’s just a hunch. Maybe they controlled for religion, who knows.

This quote (and objection) didn’t surprise me:

“And those left behind, it’s important to note, will almost certainly not become happier if we redistribute more income. Indeed, they will probably become less happy. Policies designed to lower economic inequality tend to change the incentives of both the haves and the have-nots in a way that particularly harms the have-nots. Reductions in the incentives to prosper mean fewer jobs created, less economic growth, less in tax revenues, and less charitable giving—all to the detriment of those left behind. And redistribution can, as the American
welfare system has shown, turn beneficiaries into demoralized long-term dependents. As Irving Kristol put it three years before the federal welfare reform of 1996, “The problem with our current welfare programs is not that they are costly—which they are—but that they have such perverse consequences for
people they are supposed to benefit."”

Of course if we try to mend our already shoddy system it won’t do much good. That’s because you can’t build a house on the sand. Maybe we just need to tear it down and start again, which means we may also mean that we need to be a bit more creative. Income equality won’t cut it (though making the inequality itself less stark certainly wouldn’t hurt). It’s about making equal opportunity for people to live a flourishing life. You needn’t make 100 grand a year to flourish. What do you need? Well that varies from person to person. But Nussbaum has some ideas (bodily freedom, health, development of the mind, meaningful relationships, etc). I think I would just need enough money to ensure decent living arrangements, food, clothes, etc and maybe a family and a job that challenges me and is interesting. I don't think equality of income is necessary to give everyone a shot at this, but I think everyone does deserve a shot at a worthwhile life (even if their talents aren’t very marketable). If you are willing to work and do your share, you should have this opportunity (though you could argue that work ethic itself isn’t something you deserve to have but that you have by chance –a combination of genes and how you were raised). Income isn’t the only thing we need, but maybe we need a more encompassing education (how to take care of yourself, emotional ed, resources for parents, etc) and better healthcare.

This is more in line with what I think about things (though I think Brooks is mistaken about how well conservative policies really promote the sort of opportunity I’m thinking of):

“A more accurate vision of America sees a land of both inequality and opportunity, in which hard work and perseverance are the keys to jumping from the ranks of the have-nots to those of the haves. If we can solve problems of
absolute deprivation, such as hunger and homelessness, then rewarding hard work will continue to serve as a positive stimulant to achievement. Redistribution and taxation, beyond what’s necessary to pay for key services, weaken America’s
willingness and ability to thrive. This vision promotes policies focused not on wiping out economic inequality, but rather on enhancing economic mobility. They include improving educational opportunities, aggressively addressing cultural
impediments to success, enhancing the fluidity of labor markets, searching for ways to include all citizens in America’s investing revolution, and protecting the climate of American entrepreneurship…Placidity about income inequality, and
opposition to income redistribution, are evidence of a light heart, not a hard one. If happiness is our goal, those who promote opportunity over economic equality have no apologies to make.”

Brooks is right, it’s not just about the money. It’s about so much more! So let’s get things going already…

Where did all the egalitarians go?

This post has been in the works (or at least in my head) for quite some time. I thought it would be a good idea to take a look at two fairly familiar political philosophy ideologies (egalitarianism and libertarianism) and for me to show you what I think of them and how I believe they stand in relation to the Christian faith. To be perfectly honest, I only just recently became aware of the former ideology this past year, so I can only skim the surface of this discussion and am not at all qualified to have much of an opinion. But that's never stopped me before, so here it goes.

I'll start with a basic overview of the egalitarian perspective as I understand it. According to the Standford Encyclopedia, egally's favor "equality of some sort: People should get the same, or be treated the same, or be treated as equals, in some respect. Egalitarian doctrines tend to express the idea that all human persons are equal in fundamental worth or moral status." As far as the general attitude, who wouldn't be an egalitarian? Most people (at least as far as they'll admit to others) believe that all people are just as important as any other person, and that no race/religion/sex/sexual orientation/etc makes you less valuable as a person. So far, so good. In fact, this attitude is proclaimed quite prominently by Christ and his followers. We are all, according to Jesus, beloved children of God. Each one of us is dearly cared for and loved just as much as every other person, and we should treat each other with that in mind. Love thy neighbor as thyself, because thy neighbor is just as important and worthy of respect and love as you are.

Of course, this is a lovely attitude to have, but a hard one to live. What does an egalitarian government look like? What sorts of policies would it have? The common conception is that everyone would have equal income/wealth. But that's not necessarily the case, because equality of income wouldn't be enough, nor would it accurately reflect an equal treatment of all persons within a society. Income and wealth (as Rawls would say, 'conceived broadly as they must be') aren't important in and of themselves; they are only important in so far as they can achieve some greater good (for what use is a bunch of paper bills that are intrinsically worthless?). Sen would go the 'capabilities approach', where what you're looking at are people's actual capabilities to achieve certain functionings. His approach is rather interesting, but of course I don't have much time to go into it here. The point is, equality is not limited to equality of resources, but can (or should) include people's opportunity to live flourishing lives. That's the sort of equality that I want to take a look at.

For me, everyone has some sort of initial right (as much as possible) to have an equal shot at living a flourishing life (which can, and will inevitably, vary from person to person). Being born to different parents or a different race/sex/etc shouldn't damage or better one's shot at flourishing. That of course, brings in all sort of problems when it comes to our market place, education system, family policy, etc. The currant range of incomes, for example, is completely ridiculous. People should earn more for more time spent working, and their job pay should reflect either the need for people to work in that field (ie backbreaking, drudgery jobs should be high in the pay range because they suck and those that have to do them should be compensated accordingly) or the importance of the field itself. That also means that education should be equalized so parents can't buy their children into better schools and therefore better paying jobs. That may also mean that parenting itself should be more closely monitored or better parenting education set up so parents can learn how to do a better job of it (those who know me well know that I'm often tempted to say parents should have to get a license to have kids-- which I'm only half kidding about). I think natural talent (intelligence, beauty, etc) should only be rewarded in so far as they help better the lives of everyone, because who can say they deserved to be born smart or attractive?

In non-ideal theory, it's all much harder than that. But you get my drift. It's the attitude that I care about for right now. The details can be decided by smarter people later on. Now, it seems as though Christians have a good reason to be egallys. After all, we all are equal in God's eyes, so why shouldn't we also treat each other equally? Why aren't more of us tempted to follow the egalitarian trend? I believe there may be several reasons that hold many of us back. And these reasons have a lot to do with (or in common with) the libertarian field of thought.

The Stanford Encyclopedia tells us that "libertarianism holds that agents are, at least initially, full self-owners. Agents are (moral) full self-owners just in case they morally own themselves in just the same way that they can morally fully own inanimate objects." In other words, I am mine and my stuff is mine and I have the right do with me or my stuff what I so choose unless it interferes with you and your stuff. This thought is very tempting, because who doesn't have a complex about their stuff and control of it? You do your thing and I'll do mine and that'll be that. When I put it like that (admittedly biased -- explanatory anecdotes to follow), you may wonder what this has to do with Christianity. It doesn't seem very Christ-like, so why would a Christian be tempted to embrace it? Well, there's this whole doctrine of free will that comes into play. God put us here, many Christians believe, with free reign over the course of our lives. He thought it good (for whatever end He has in mind) to give us the latitude to do with our lives what we will, so why shouldn't we give each other that same latitude? Of course with that freedom comes the freedom to mess up other people's lives (whether directly or not), but that's the price we pay. If God can appeal to some higher good than comfort (at the cost of suffering for many), than why shouldn't we? (I'm stealing this question from a friend--thanks for asking it)

Well here's how I think that sort of thinking goes astray. God did give us freedom over our own lives, but He did so to give us the opportunity to choose the righteous life. That means, we have the opportunity (and He wants us to use it) to do good in this world. We are given our freedom not so that we will choose to cause suffering, but so that we will choose to love each other and bring comfort to each other. To take that a step further, if we have a government set up in such a way that we have enormous influence (at least, compared to our predecessors) over how it runs, then we should use our ability to choose to choose a system that will best reflect the attitude of Christ, one where all citizens are treated equal. Libertarians value freedom as a concept, but freedom to really live requires more than latitude to do what you can with what you've got, esp when what you've got with the status quo sucks. Real freedom requires the capability to reach goals, not just the legal right to do so. That requires a whole different playing field from the one we've got right now. You may ask: why can't helping others be on a voluntary basis, why should the government be able to coerce our help? Well, collective action is one thing. We can only do so much as individuals, and it's hard to organize on the same level that the government could. Besides, if the government did go the egally route, it would be because the people chose it. Jesus told us to help each other like we're all one big family, and leaving everyone alone to fend for themselves won't cut it.

There's another issue I have with the whole set-up of the libertarian philosophy and the Christian perspective. Self-ownership (and ownership in general) bothers me quite a bit. I don't deserve to be here. I don't deserve to live as long as I do. I don't deserve the abilities and circumstances I was born with and into. I don't own my body. All that I have is on loan, and it's all a gift. I'm supposed to do with what I have what I can until it's time to give it all back. I am a steward of my life and the "stuff" I have, and if I act like I own any of it then I won't be doing what I'm supposed to at all. Focusing on your rights and ownership and freedom to do what you want is all a very self-centered business. It's one we're quite prone to, and it's an attractive idea but it's not the right idea. We aren't our own, we are God's, and we are charged to take care of each other (even if we have to make sacrifices). Lay down our lives for each other-- that's the goal. It's tempting to say, like above, that if God lets us choose suffering then we should allow each other to choose suffering, but that's missing the whole point. My last post on Romans talked about that sort of attitude and how it doesn't make much sense. The gist was: all because our evildoing makes God look better (or makes people turn to him more), doesn't mean we should take that as license to do evil. We're still supposed to do the right thing, even if God can use our doing the wrong thing to further his plan. That might not make sense, and you might not see the connection with that and the libertarian attitude, so I'm sorry for not being able to better put into words my feelings on the matter.

That all being said, I'd like to leave here with some words of wisdom from my Pastor who gave a phenomenal (but challenging) message today. You can check it out here if you want (it's called "It's all mine"). The message was about Romans 12:3 which says, "Share with God's people who are in need." Sharing isn't a new concept, but it's so hard to do because we get so caught up in what's mine. So we looked at the parable in Matthew 25:14-on that talks about the master and the talents (probably 70lbs of silver, or the equivalent of an ordinary laborers wages for 20 yrs). The point is that the master gives his servants some of his money, and the servants are entrusted with it until he returns. The servants that take his money (notice, never their own money) and use it to make more for their master are considered faithful. The one who sits on the money and does nothing with what he's been entrusted with gets in trouble. We have to live like the first two servants, knowing that all that we've been given is never ours. We should use everything we have to give glory to our master, and when he returns he'll be pleased with us. It's never about what's mine, but what is his and how we use it for his purposes. Do I own myself? No. Do I have stewardship over myself and my "stuff" for the time being? Yes. So let me use what I've been given to follow Christ's command to love everyone in every way possible.

So where have all the egalitarians gone in our Churches? Why do we still care too much about our stuff and our lives and not other people? God is wondering the same thing...

(fyi, I don't think you have to be an egalitarian to be a Christ-follower, and you can still be a libertarian and be a Christ-follower, but I think it's important to remember the attitude we are supposed to take when we make these sorts of choices... and from my perspective the attitude of the egalitarian more closely aligns with Christ's message. But many other Christians may disagree, and my opinion is once again just that-- only my opinion and nothing more.)

**And as promised above, here are several anecdotes about my encounters with libertarians that have made me wary of them ever since. I thought it best to share my bias openly, because my opinion is obviously influenced by my real life experiences with libertarians and not just their ideology:

My first encounter with a real libby came in my discussion section for my contemporary moral issues class. The discussion was unproductive as it was because the section was loaded with business majors and no other philosophy students. While discussing surrogate motherhood (or some such topic), a fellow classmate volunteered that he disagreed with whatever stance we were talking about. When asked his reasons, he promptly replied that he was, in fact, a libertarian. When further asked how that affected his decision, he merely replied again that it was because he was a libertarian. End of story, no more discussion. You can imagine the thoughts that were reeling around my head after that display of willful ignorance.

My second encounter came when I met the heir to a rather large company. He was a very very wealthy white boy who stood to inherit more money than I'll probably earn in a lifetime. For him, being a libby was the "cool" and "trendy" way to be conservative economically without being thrown into the not-so-cool-for-20-somethings Republican camp. To be fair, he had every practical reason to be a libertarian, as that position would ensure that his large wealth and influence remained in tact. It's almost hard to blame him... other than the fact that if he weren't a white rich male he would hardly be so eager to preserve the status quo. So as you can imagine, I don't have much sympathy for the actual libertarians I've met (even if I have more for what their ideology actual says), because so far they've just been naive white boys with lots of money...

Bar Talk: the lottery

So I thought I might introduce a possible theme for some of my future posts, just because this particular source of inspiration has been good fuel for thought recently. My roommate and good friend bartends at the Best Western (this is not a plug for that hotel chain, and I'll refrain from commenting on its quality level... though I must say, the bartender is great). We work opposing schedules, so I've found myself frequenting her bar quiet often. After all, who can turn down free bottomless cokes with grenadine? One of the perks of my visits, aside from chatting with my roomie, is my fellow patrons. I live in the ultimate college-town, so bars are usually overcrowded, noisy establishments where you get hassled by sloppy frat boys. Not my style. And it certainly doesn't make for good conversation (who goes to a college bar to talk?). But at the BW life is different. The patrons come in all shapes and sizes, and each has his or her own story to tell, and believe me, they are all willing to tell it. The age range is generally 30-somethings to 70-somethings, and the reason for staying is usually some sort of convention/conference or a friend or family member is at the UW hospital. So, as you can tell, each person I meet comes with a unique set of baggage. And since my roommate is generous when she makes drinks, they quickly become chatty. So I've decided to record my more memorable bar talks, and I'm only sorry I hadn't started earlier because I've already forgotten some great talks.

Yesterday at the bar, I found myself in the company of one 30 something tax attorney (yikes) and a married couple in their 60s (ish). Their conversation somehow turned to gambling, and it caught my attention. They began talking about how casinos prey on the poor addicted souls who just can't help cashing in their paycheck in hopes of somehow hitting the jackpot. So, given that I had just read Sandel's book (which I wish I had kept for the sake of this post) and he had his own opinions on the matter that got me thinking about it myself. Sandel believes, and I agree, that state lotteries unfairly burden the poor and marginalized sectors of society. Rich people don't spend their savings on lottery tickets, generally, because they aren't desperate for financial stability. Also, the more education you have, the less likely (intuitively) you will be to fall prey to the mentality that the lottery really is a realistic way out of poverty. Understanding the odds isn't as simple as it seems, esp without a good education, and if you don't understand the extreme unlikelihood that you will ever hit the jackpot then you are more likely to think you really could win. From a common sense standpoint the lottery is looking pretty grim. Is the state really promoting a program that virtually takes money from the lowest earning members of society and redistributes that money to ease property taxes or fund education? Should the poor really be bearing this burden? Choice or no choice, if the state knowingly runs a lottery where the money is coming primarily from the least advantaged, it is (IMO) culpable of a pretty serious moral wrong.

So what does the literature say? Well I did some research this time (for once), and I wasn't surprised by my findings. The results varied in degree, but overall the sources say that the lottery is, in effect, a regressive income tax. The lower the income, the more burden you shoulder. The percentage of money paid to the lottery versus the percent you earn is lower as you make more money, for various reasons. Education is one reason, and so is the fact that rich people don't need to rely on lotteries to pull them out of poverty. So if it's true that the poor are funding the lottery revenues (and incidentally, so too are minorities, particularly Blacks and Hispanics, according to a Texas study, see below), then the revenues better be pretty damned important. But, of course, they're not, not really. In Wisconsin, according to an audit done on our own state lottery, the funds from the lottery in the fiscal year of 2000-01 had a return of about $67 per household on property taxes (the sole use of our lottery). Who pays property tax? Who is 67 bucks richer? Not the folks who bought the tickets, that's for sure.

Not all of the studies agreed on the extent of the harm done by lotteries. But even the studies that didn't show a huge correlation between education and lottery ticket purchase admitted that if a person had less than a full high school education, then that person's likelihood of buying lottery tickets was inversely related to the amount of years he or she actually completed. Education can even be predictive when you control for income (Miyazaki et al. 1996). Check out this excerpt from a report I found:

"Nevertheless, the fairly consistent finding of regressivity across the five states and numerous time periods suggests that the lottery as an implicit tax may need improvement from a consumer policy perspective. Indeed, it is likely in the best interests of state lottery organizations that they revise the marketing of their products in a manner that decreases regressivity in an effort to avoid regulation of their product due to tax incidence implications. For example, even though it may not prove profitable in the short term, a campaign targeted toward higher-income consumers would likely result in significant changes in a state's lottery tax incidence, thus, avoiding legislation that curbs a particular lottery organization's ability to generate long-term revenue. Alternatively, state policymakers may wish to alter lottery payout structures by decreasing the effective tax rate of lotteries, potentially resulting in a more attractive product for higher-income consumers."**

Mark Thorton, and economist in Auburn, points out (in a rather emotionally charged article) that "Rich people can gamble at much better odds in Las Vegas or over the Internet where the payback is 90% rather than the state lottery’s 50%."

The worst part is that states are increasing advertising and marketing for the games that the lower-income purchasers tend to put more money into (the instant scratch games that have more frequent but lower payouts). Studies show (ask any pysch student) that when you increase reward (or semblance of reward) but at irregular and unpredictable intervals then the person is more likely to repeat the behavior in hopes for the reward. Example, if you give a dog a treat every time he pushes a button four times, he won't push it as much as he will if he doesn't know when it's coming but it comes enough for him to know it sometimes will. I pulled that out of the AP Psych vault, and can't remember who said that, but I remember it. And even if that's wrong, the Wisconsin audit purposefully suggested that the state increase the frequency of prizes for the instant win games because it would bring in more revenues if people saw that some people did win sometimes. And those revenues have been shown to come from the lower income groups even more so than the revenues from the higher payout games.

So I don't like the lottery, not when the state is using it to redistribute income from the poor to the middle-upper income folks. It's not right, and the benefits can't justify it in my mind. Of course the couple at the bar and their conservative lawyer friend protested the lottery because it's a vice that sucks people into a downward spiral, and they may be right, actually they are probably right. But honestly, casinos or other private gambling get-ups don't bother me as much as state run scams. The state should not be taking advantage of people, and it certainly shouldn't use other people's ignorance or financial insecurity to raise funds that just go to the middle and upper class. Interestingly, the lawyer dude told me that although we all agreed that the lottery is bad, he could tell that I am "very liberal" based on my comments about it. I was sort of offended. Why should caring about the poor be limited to liberals? I also hate being labeled, because it traps you into a whole slew of stereotypes. I am not a liberal, and I am not a conservative. But I'm not a centrist either. So take that.

More bar talk to come.


Sources:

Wisconsin Lottery Audit 2002

The income redistribution effects of Texas state lottery games Source: Public finance review [1091-1421] Price yr:2000 vol:28 iss:1 pg:82

**The tax incidence of lotteries: Evidence from five states Ann Hansen, Anthony D Miyazaki, David E Sprott. The Journal of Consumer Affairs. Madison: Winter 2000. Vol.34, Iss. 2; pg. 182, 22 pgs

Misusing God

So I've still be poking around looking at what other thinkers have to say about my questions of morality and social justice (in relationship to Christianity). I found some thought-provoking passages by a theologian named Kenneth Cauthen. I didn't agree with everything he had on his site (for example, I don't think he gives the Bible enough credit for helping some people radically changes their attitudes towards their fellow human beings), but I do think he has a great point about the tragedy that occurs when many Christians use the Bible merely to confirm their own interests. It's part of our sinful nature to try to use God to our own advantage, but we need to be aware that we're doing it because it's a very dangerous practice. Here are some of his thoughts that struck me the most:

A key conviction of mine for a long time has been that the crucial dimension of religion is ethics. I do not mean at all that religion can be reduced to ethics. Religion has many dimensions. The two that have interested me most are that it provides a framework of meaning and a guide to morality. Religion includes a conception of and a relationship to whatever is regarded as Ultimate. Faith means, as H. Richard Niebuhr taught, trust in and loyalty to God. It includes gratitude for the gift of life and its opportunities, its joys, and its potential for enjoyment. Religion, then, provides an ultimate grounding for the meaning of life, and it has implications for morality. According to Jesus the two great commandments are love of God and love of neighbor. Both are essential, and they are dependent on each other. Without love of neighbor, love of God is incomplete and defective. Without love of God, love of neighbor lacks ultimate grounding. I do not imply that atheists cannot act morally in any sense. They may often have higher ideals and live more virtuously than many believers. I only imply that their analysis of the total context of the ethical life is incomplete. In practical terms, how we relate to other human beings, value them, treat them, and include their good in the good that we seek for ourselves is the gist of the matter for me. Religion that does not lead to equal regard for others is fundamentally deficient, no matter how much meaning and satisfaction it may provide for believers themselves. Jesus said, "you will know them by their fruits." When the ethical fruits of religion are wanting, it is usually because the community of those with whom we identify, suffer with, and for whom we are willing to sacrifice is too small, excluding those outside it who may be neglected or opposed, even hated. Growth in love of neighbor occurs when the circle of those whose good is included in the good we seek is expanded. Religion that is inward and vertical may provide purpose, inspiration, joy security, hope, comfort, and happiness for believers as individuals and groups, but if it does not express itself in service of the neighbor inside and outside the religious community itself, it is woefully inadequate and close to being false. The best of the Bible agrees with me on this point.

However, it is a bit more complicated than that. One may love God with all ones heart and diligently seek to love the neighbor, but the understanding of what it means to count the good of others equal to our own may be sadly flawed. Our understanding of justice and love is mediated through our historical, social, and cultural location and is thus limited by that environment. Ethical insight cannot be purified and perfected by religious devotion alone in some ahistorical, transcendent fashion except perhaps in rare (I'd argue it's more prevalent than he thinks, though perhaps not in the type of Church he attends which is a hardline Southern Baptist one) and remarkable circumstances. The Baptist Christians I grew up with saw no contradiction between love of neighbor and racial segregation and responded with anger to anyone who suggested the incompatibility. I experienced this when I suggested such an incongruity in a sermon. Yet I would not doubt the reality, the depth, and the sincerity of the religious faith of the best of them. Earnest study of the Bible in most cases merely confirms existing convictions, although transforming breakthroughs do sometimes occur. Moreover, equally dedicated Christians have diverse and contrary notions of what service of the neighbor requires of us, particular with regard to complicated questions of social justice. My point is that depth of religious commitment is no guarantee of moral insight. Intense devotion to God connected to tragically defective moral insight and practice is a fact of the human condition that we have to live with (again, we shouldn't have to live with it, instead we should fight to change it, as Jesus commanded us to!). The problem is that when we have blind spots, we are not aware of them, even when we honestly want to know what is right, just, and best. The only resolution of this tragic condition is found in Psalm 103:8-14 and in the Christian doctrine of salvation by grace though faith and not by righteous behavior.

My experience has been - with some notable exceptions - that the higher the authority attributed to the Bible, the more perverse the ethical views associated with it. That is overstated, but it reflects my pain and disappointment over many years in hearing people quote the Bible in favor of moral views that I find abhorrent. With all the high and noble morality taught in the Bible urging love for neighbor, compassion for the poor, and demanding justice for all, it is a mystery to me why so many who claim to be obedient to the Word focus on the parts of Scripture that are used and misused to oppress women, children, and racial and sexual minorities. Seldom do I hear in sermons the radical demands for the reordering of society that will bring the powerful down and exalt the poor and helpless. That would be far more biblical in the deepest sense than crusades against homosexuals, the suppression of the ambitions for women for a full and equal place in church and society, and resistance to the just aspirations of people of color.

That's just some of what he had to say about these topics. And I think he hits on some good points that are often ignored by the Church. But the picture he paints needn't be so grim. After all, Jesus claimed that he would break us free from the bondage of our sinful nature, and that if we ask he will strengthen us to live righteous, loving lives. All we have to do is ask for help! If we'd stop being so prideful and admit that we can't live right on our own. So yet again, something more for us to think about.

And in case you were curious, this is the passage in psalms that he refers to:

The LORD is compassionate and gracious,
slow to anger, abounding in love.
He will not always accuse,
nor will he harbor his anger forever;
he does not treat us as our sins deserve
or repay us according to our iniquities.
For as high as the heavens are above the earth,
so great is his love for those who fear him;
as far as the east is from the west,
so far has he removed our transgressions from us.
As a father has compassion on his children,
so the LORD has compassion on those who fear him;
for he knows how we are formed,
he remembers that we are dust.

Christianity and Social Justice

This entry stems from a recent awakening I’ve had. When I was growing up, I was unofficially taught that Christianity only aligned with conservative politics. With a few exceptions, the Christians I knew feared the political left because they felt threatened by some liberals’ anti-God attitude. Only the GOP will protect your God, I was told. It is more important, they said, to protect marriage and outlaw abortion than worry about the poor. The poor can wait, because, after all, you earned your money. It’s about hard work. Each person has what they’ve earned. Those who don’t work hard enough, well, that’s not your problem. You deserve to keep what you earned. So conveniently enough, conservative policies protected “morality” along with wealth. It’s a win-win for suburban Christians, the best of both worlds.

Thankfully, I didn’t completely buy into this logic. I always considered myself a moderate, someone who despised both political parties. I was alienated from the left because so many of them (or at least the most vocal ones) were clearly opposed to religion, to God. Why would I want to be a part of a party that thinks I’m ignorant, that denies the most important part of my life? The left was out. But the right wasn’t much better. They may not deny God, but they do worse. They use God for their own advantage. Parade your materialist-driven, selfish policies under the banner of Christianity and you can win the hearts of mainstream America. Not cool. So there goes the right. And unfortunately, my moderate-I-hate-all-politics stance doesn't do much in the way of feeding the hungry or sheltering the poor.

And then there's socialism. What is it exactly? How does it fit in with Christianity? Why don’t more Christian’s embrace it? In response to the latter question, Christians feel alienated by the left. They sense (as I often do) the prevalent anti-God sentiments voiced by so many liberals. Christians are human, and it’s hard for us to find common ground with people we feel threatened by. Despite this, I have a feeling that more Christians would agree with socialist policies if someone explained to them what it really meant. One of the main stumbling blocks to socialism is the word itself, which is loaded with connotations and misconceptions preventing a lot of people from accepting it.

So what is socialism exactly, and why would so many Christians embrace it if they understood it better…. Well, for starters, socialism aims to undo the harms and injustices found in capitalist systems which can include a redistribution of wealth that is subject to social control. Social democrats want to establish a society where people have a more or less equality of opportunity to flourish. Everyone should have access to the means necessary to live meaningful lives. This can include, but is not limited to, access to quality health care and education. Why would Christians be opposed to everyone having an equal opportunity to flourish? I don’t think they would be opposed, if they saw socialism in that way. After realizing this, they may very well take up the socialist banner.

So what is it about Christianity that lends itself to promoting social justice? If you take a look at the early Church, you’ll see that the first Christians not only valued social justice, but they lived it. These Christians often lived in communes where wealth was shared, and you made sure you took care of your neighbors. These Christians didn't value wealth. They knew that if you served the things of this world, there wouldn’t be any place for God in your life.

We were commanded to feed the poor, support widows and orphans, and look after the sick. The wealth we are given on earth is not our own. It belongs to God. He entrusted us with it so that we would put it to good use, to glorify Him. Luke 12:48 says, “To whom much is given, much will be required.” The more wealth you are blessed with, the greater responsibility you have to use that wealth to serve those in need. It’s not a hard concept to preach, but it’s a hard lesson to live. Why do we gripe about taxes being too high when we live in luxury and those around us don’t have enough to eat or a place to sleep?? We are a selfish lot, and the world knows it. Why would you want to become a Christian when the only Christians you see hoard their wealth while children live in poverty? It is in part because we have been taught to fear those who would join with us in the fight for social justice. The right-wing has exploited faith, and used people’s sense of morality to keep them from doing the morally right thing.

In the book of Matthew Jesus says, “If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away…Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also…. No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.”

And as for non-economic justice, well Jesus came to level the playing field. Galations 3:28 says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” When Christ came, he made us all equal in God’s eyes. So if Jesus doesn’t see our race, sex, or class, then we shouldn’t see them in each other either. This means we need to take care of everyone, not just ourselves and those like us.

Here's a quote from Rev. Roden Noel: "Surely that man or woman is no Christian at all, except in name, in so far as he or she remains indifferent to the awful abyss that yarns between rich and poor; to the insufficiency of the share in our immense wealth which falls to the lot of those who produce it."

So what would Jesus think about conservative economic policies? Would Jesus care if the poor were marginalized? Or would Jesus want his sons and daughters to take care of those in need? I think the answer is pretty obvious. Loving God’s children is the best way we can glorify Him, and it’s the best way to show them God’s love. If they don’t experience God’s love, then why would they want to love Him in return? The best testimony we can have is through our actions, not our words. Would Jesus be a socialist? Maybe he would, but that’s not the point. The point is that what we’re doing right now isn’t working. We aren’t taking care of each other, so we need to change the way we do things. Let’s not make a mockery of God. Instead, let us start being the salt and light of the earth, as Jesus called us to be.

“Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.” (Matthew 5:6)

Something to think about.