Socialism schmocialism

Thanks to Joe the Plumber, we all know that Barack Obama wants to "share the wealth." Soon after the story broke, Senator McCain and a variety of pundits began throwing the world "socialism" around. I, like most Americans, had a gut reaction to the word. We don't like the idea of socialism or of any large government interference in our lives. After all, we've seen what socialism can do.

We remember Nazis chasing Indiana Jones through the desert. They didn't care about the Ark of the Covenant or its archaeological significance; they just wanted to use it to control the world. Or what about the super-human boxer, Ivan Drago, from Rocky IV? Another product of socialism. America's supposed to be about freedom. We don't like big government, we don't like people telling us what to do, and we always win because we've got more heart than the bad guys. We have a history of throwing taxed tea into Boston Harbor. We secretly boo Robin Hood when he steals from the rich and gives to the poor. And we'd rather smoke marijuana on the roof of the White House than pay our taxes.

But not so fast. I've yet to hear a senior citizen complain about the Social Security check or Medicare they receive. (Yes, I recognize that people pay into these systems. However, it's not a dollar-for-dollar payback and the money they are actually receiving comes from current workers.) I also didn't hear too many complaints about the $600-$1200 stimulous checks we received last year. I heard some folks making fun of the idea, but I'm pretty sure they still cashed their check. And, recently, when the federal government decided to cut a check for $700 billion to help the banking industry, I didn't see any Wall Street executives panning that idea. Maybe they complained about it while they were relieving stress at the spa.

All I'm saying is that we tend to look the other way when the redistribution of wealth benefits us. That's just human nature. If we were really the principled, freedom-seeking, give-me-liberty-or-give-me-death, old-school Americans we say we are, Ron Paul would now be winning the presidential election. Instead, we have two candidates who are both promising to give us stuff. And we like it that way.

I'm not suggesting that either presidential candidate is really interested in widespread socialism. I think a lot of the talk is just fear mongering. However, I would like to know Is the redistribution of wealth always wrong? I just gave several examples of where most people don't seem to mind receiving cash and prizes from the government, but that doesn't mean it's right. And, to be fair, it doesn't mean it's wrong either.

In the Old Testament, God had some funny economic policies. He instructed Israel, the people He had chosen to be set apart from the other nations of the world, to do something incredibly radical. Every fiftieth year, they were supposed to have a Year of Jubilee. On this special year, they were to return all property to its original owner. Also all outstanding debts were to be forgiven and any slave, who had become so because of a debt, would be released. In other words, they were supposed to reset the game board.

In an agricultural society like Israel's, land was wealth. God was instituting a system that would make sure the gap between the richest and the poorest never became so great that it would be oppressive.

Could you imagine if this were done today? Not many of us are farmers, but could you imagine waking one morning to find out that all of your debt were wiped clean? No more mortgage, car payment or credit card bill. You would no longer be a slave to the bank. Or what about the poorest of the poor? Imagine a homeless man suddenly finding out he owned stock in GE, something his great-great-grandfather had bought many years before. The game would be reset.

Why does the game need to be reset? After the Great Depression, Marriner S. Eccles, who had served as the Federal Reserve Chairmen under FDR made the following statement: "[A]s in a poker game where the chips were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game stopped. That is what happened to us in the twenties."

It's dangerous for everyone if too few people have most of the money in a society. As of 2005, the wealthiest 1% of Americans controlled 34.3% of the wealth in the U.S., more than the bottom 90% combined. On top of that, in 1990, American CEOs earned 107 times the average employee; in 2004, it was 411 times as much. Numbers like these have not existed since... well, just before the Great Depression. Greed is not always good.

I'm not suggesting that we try to live by a code of Jubilee. Even Israel never actually obeyed God in this area, though I wonder what would have happened if they did. I believe that nothing as simple as the idea that "hard work = prosperity" could be true all the time. I think, in principle, it's generally true. And, yes, this country has a lot of opportunities, but we don't all start at the same place, nor do we all have the same circumstances. Beyond that, I know lots of hard-working folks who can barely make ends meet. What I am suggesting is that at the core of the Jubilee ethic is love for our neighbor. And at some point, it's just more fair to reset the game than to keep playing.

Maybe all is not fair in love, war and capitalism: "Take no interest from [your brother] or profit, but fear your God, that your brother may live beside you. You shall not lend him your money at interest, nor give him your food for profit" (Leviticus 25:36-37, ESV).


Sources:

"America's growing economic divide - resources for Journalists, Teachers, Policymakers, Citizens." Available online.
(http://www.demos.org/inequality/numbers.cfm)

Marriner C. Eccles, Beckoning Frontiers. Quotation available online.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression)

Holistic voting and the reason there are no political parties in God's kingdom

I love election years. It seems every four years, as a nation, we actually start to talk about things - what's working, what's not working, what the rest of the world thinks of America, what role faith should have in politics, if any, and what issues are most important to us. I love the discussion, the debate, even the spin from the talking heads in cable news.

This year, I've really enjoyed the fact that, for the first time I can remember, Christians seem to be crawling out from underneath the thumb of the Republican party. While I generally like the conservative principles that the party has historically held, I feel betrayed. George W. Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative" and he's governed to the left of Bill Clinton in many, many ways.

When I look back on the 20th century, the GOP was often the party of peace. After all, truly conservative principles dictate that policing the world is never in America's self-interest. It was Richard Nixon that finally ended the Vietnam War; it was Ronald Reagan who ended the Cold War without firing a single shot.

The Bush Doctrine (here's your chance to learn what it is, Governor Palin) stated that preemptive military action could be justified if U.S. interests were threatened. But Mr. Bush never told us what constitutes a credible threat. As a result, and with bad intelligence, we went to war in a part of the world that's easily destabilized and, in the process, we provided our enemies with the greatest recruitment propaganda imaginable. In my opinion, this decision made America more vulnerable to future attacks, and did so with a price tag of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of civilian lives.

But there are other issues where I trusted President Bush and now feel betrayed. For six of the last eight years, the Republican party has controlled the House, the Senate and the White House, but virtually nothing has been done to curb abortions in this country, though the GOP is supposed to be the party that values life. During this same period of time, the gap between the richest and the poorest in our nation has grown larger than ever. In addition, the lack of health coverage for more than 40 million people has been all but ignored.

I don't want to suggest that Bush did nothing right in eight years. I applaud the Bush administration for substantially increasing aid to Africa and encouraging other nations to do so. Still, like so many people, I feel like our country is headed in the wrong direction. So, like everyone else who's eighteen years of age and lacks a felony on their record, I'm left with a choice - McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden.

No matter who you support, I think it's important that neither candidate is running for the office of messiah. The man we elect will be president, not savior. That being said, I'm reminded of the greatest commandment. Jesus said, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind' ; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself'" (Luke 10:27, TNIV).

What impact will my vote have on my neighbor? is a question we all ought to ask before we enter the voting booth. This cannot be a question of self-interest; what may help the poor and the oppressed in the long run may hurt me in the short.

We should also ask ourselves how Jesus impacted those to whom He ministered. Jesus reserved his harshest words for religious leaders who believed they were self-sufficient, but was gentle with others he met, even some we would consider the vilest of sinners - prostitutes and corrupt tax collectors. Isaiah prophesied about Jesus: "A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out. In faithfulness he will bring forth justice" (Isaiah 42:3). With that in mind, I have to ask myself, Who do we think we are when we try to force morality on other people? Jesus didn't do that. Instead, He loved people into the kingdom. It's much more difficult, much more sacrificial, and much more biblical. We need to stop trying to build the kingdom using the devil's tools (to borrow a phrase from Derek Webb). Besides, it's not about morality; it's about changed hearts and introducing people to the Creator, Sustainer and Savior of the Universe.

After thinking about that, the presidential election seems rather inconsequential. That being said, I believe the best thing for my neighbors is an Obama presidency. He doesn't have all the answers, nor do I agree with everything he stands for, but as I've weighed the various issues in my mind, I think he's the best choice. Others may do the same thing and end up choosing McCain. That's ok. That's what voting is all about. Regardless of who ends up being president, let's not forget the national conversation about where we are and where we're going. And, if you're a believer, let's help each other remember that the kingdom of God has no party affiliation.

Churched: A Review

As some of you know, I teach a high school Bible class four days a week. It's a course of foundations; most of the students have little biblical knowledge and many of them aren't professing Christians, so I think of the class, not only as an opportunity to teach a subject, but also as a means of showing some high school kids Jesus.

What I'm finding is that most, if not all, of them already have a view of Jesus. It's been shaped by their experience or lack of experience with local churches. This creates a unique challenge for me, because I don't want these previous notions of God to taint their view of who Jesus is, but I also don't want to badmouth their church or tradition or something that there parents may think is really important. The nice thing is I've been there.

I remember going to church as a kid and hearing about Jesus and the Bible and later having some of my beliefs challenged and reshaped by other Christians, especially by professors in college and in seminary. I expect these kids will grow in their understanding of who, in fact, Jesus really is. I hope they each come to know Him personally. I also hope that I might be one of the many folks in their lives who provides a glimpse of Jesus, as he's revealed in the pages of Scripture.

I am currently reading Matthew Paul Turner's Churched. I'm enjoying it quite a bit because Matthew's been there too and come out the other side. The book is essentially a humorous memoir about growing up fundamentalist. Some parts are funny; some are absurd, but throughout the pages of Churched is an honest picture of American Christianity in the late twentieth century.

Not everyone had to get a fundamentalist haircut in order to please Jesus. Not everyone witnessed their pastor box the devil and win. Not everyone heard the rumor about MTV's Kurt Loder possibly being the anti-Christ. And not everyone attended a church that attempted to hide from the world as much as Turner's did. Still, anyone who has ever experienced the culture shock of being in the world and not of it will really enjoy this book.

Matthew was once the editor of CCM magazine, so he's walked the line of trying to do something relevant, while still remaining part of the Christian subculture. He writes as someone who gets the joke and sees how silly some of the things we do can be, but he's not mean.

St. Augustine once said, "The church is a whore, but she's my mother." The church has done some horrible things throughout history and I don't agree with many of the loyalties and priorities of today's American church, but I think it's important to remember that, when it comes right down to it, we belong to her. It's also important to laugh at ourselves, recognize when we're being foolish and always remember to reexamine our practices in the light of Scripture.

If you've been a part of the Christian subculture for a while, check out Churched. You'll probably laugh at more than a few things.

www.matthewpaulturner.com
Churched @ Amazon.com

Lessons from an atheist

During the last few years, the Neo-Atheism movement has been garnering a lot of media attention. Every now and then, I'll see an interview with Richard Dawkins, who is probably the best known proponent of this new brand of atheism (or, as he puts it, "anti-theism"). I've listened to him debate Christians and others who at least believe in God's existence, and I've yet to really hear a compelling argument from him. To be honest, I can't really say I've heard any argument at all.

Because I want to know what people are saying on the subject, I've done a little bit of research and read up on some of the claims Dawkins makes in his book, The God Delusion. Again, I have not been impressed. Don't get me wrong - I'm not exactly opening myself up to the possibility that God doesn't exist, but I am trying to hear the logic from the other side.

One of my favorite books is Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, primarily because he makes a rational, logical argument for Christianity without starting with the Bible. He shows the reasonableness and even the likeliness of Christianity being true by dispelling many of the common rejections to the claims of the Bible and of the historical Christian church. Mere Christianity was compiled from a series of radio addresses Lewis was asked to give after the London bombings of World War II. As such, it's a bit dated. It's also probably a little too philosophical for the average American today. Still, it has been of the most influential books for people struggling with doubts since it was first published.

Lewis' arguments make sense and I can see why many are persuaded by them. But I don't get why Dawkins has gotten so much press. When asked what if he's wrong about God, he simply responds, what if you're wrong? When asked about the repercussions of atheism in society, he again turns the question around, citing the horrors of the Crusades and other wars waged in the name of God. When asked point-blank to explain how something came from nothing, he insists that the onus is on theists to instead prove to him there's a God. Essentially, he won't debate or argue or even provide fundamental support for his own beliefs (or lack thereof). Even the New York Times, in their review of The God Delusion, relented, "Dawkins’s failure to appreciate just how hard philosophical questions about religion can be makes reading it an intellectually frustrating experience."

So what is Dawkins' power? I think I've got it figured out. Listen to him speak. Then, take what he says and replay it in your mind, only replace his condescending smirk and British accent with the voice of Forrest Gump or Keanu Reeves. It turns out he's not saying anything at all. As far as I can tell, the only thing that gives him credibility is that British accent. No doubt it is a wonderful accent, but is it really enough to convince people there's no God?

There is one thing I think I can learn from Richard Dawkins. He consistently cites atrocities performed in the name of God as good reason not to believe in a Divine Being. Even a confirmed anti-theist like Dawkins realizes that if God exists, his followers should reflect his goodness in their love for people. Sometimes the most convincing argument is no argument at all. The Apostle John put it this way: "No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us" (1 John 4:12, ESV).


Sources:

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity.

Jim Holt, "Beyond Belief," Sunday Book Review, The New York Times, October 22, 2005 (available online: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/books/review/Holt.t.html).

Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion.

The Safety Dance

A few weeks ago, the editor of a monthly Christian magazine in Salem, Oregon contacted me and asked if they could publish "Rocking the Safety Dance," an article I originally wrote for Relevant Magazine, and which appeared on Relevant's site back in March. Since Relevant's copyright is limited to six months, I agreed.

Anyway, the article, now called simply, "The Safety Dance" (my original title; Relevant added the "Rocking the" part, which I never liked) is now in the October 2008 issue of Rethink Monthly. Unless you live in the greater Salem, Oregon area, it will probably be difficult to obtain a copy, so here's a link:

"The Safety Dance"