Resource Allocation Hypothetical Example:

Here is my proposed hypothetical situation that I would like to throw out there for your consideration and thoughts. Assume I am a college student and have $1000 that I've saved up from a summer job. Either I have decided to use this money to help others, or I feel compelled to help others, or I am physically compelled via government taxation to provide the money to help others. My interest in this posting is not why to give, but how to best use the $1000. I propose a few situations below:

• Situation A: Marisa became pregnant her senior year at East High School in inner-city Rochester, NY in 2003. She had the support of her mother and grandmother, and decided to both graduate and keep the baby. The baby's father, John, her high school boyfriend, left to Iraq in 2003 right after they graduated. They both did reasonably well in high school. $1000 could be used to provide an apartment and food to Marisa and her baby for 1 month.
• Situation B: $1000 could feed & provide basic education for one month to 30 orphaned children somewhere in the third world(via something like World Vision or Compassion International).
• Situation C: I spend the $1000 furthering my own education because I wouldn't want to be frustrated in not becoming all I can be. My education may or may not possibly benefit society somehow.

What would you do?

Economics is fundamentally about resource allocation in a world that has limited resources. Various governmental, religious, and philosophical systems address this issue, but in the end, there will be some allocation of the fixed amount of currently available resources.

Next time I'll suggest we switch to a theocracy, but for now...

by DC

As much as I love debating whether God (indirectly) commands us to work to change government policy to help the poor, the fact is that the government is involved in helping the poor. So the question is, what are we going to do to help?

Or, if you're obstinately on the other side of the debate, I'll put it to you a different way: Whether the government helps the poor or not, God still told us to help the poor. What are you going to do to follow that command?

I don't want to hear about the abstract and theoretical things we should be doing, I want to hear concrete actual things that you are going to commit to doing tomorrow, or 3 days next week, or once a month for the next year. Jesus certainly never told his followers to go sit around, debate, and hypothesize. You care enough to read this. What else do you care enough to do?

I want to see people put a commitment in a comment here and then come back in a reasonable amount of time and tell us how it's going (or how it went). Accountability is an important thing in any Christian community. Are you willing to be accountable for something you think is important?

I'll give you a couple examples to get you started:

1) [easy, political] "I'm going to write to my congressman and say that I care about people in this country having enough to eat and a place to sleep and I'm willing to pay more taxes to make that happen"

2) [medium, non-political] "For the next year, I'm going to commit to volunteering 1 day a week at a local place that benefits the poor."

3) [hard, political] "I'm going to run for local government office and then do everything I can to shift our local policies in ways that will help the poor"

If you're already doing something, I encourage you to sign up for something that's one step more commitment. And hey, if you shoot high, try hard, and screw it up, God'll still be happy about it - and so will we.

"Give to God what is God's"

I haven't visited this site for several days now, and this is in part going to be a response to the latest post. There are a few ideas I'd like to address, God help me, concisely.

- Before the main point: There still is this idea of looking at our democratic government as this etherial, alien being. The truth of the matter is that what we as a group do does have much relevance in how the government is run. Many of us are turned off by what "they" do in politics and therefore do not participate; this is a big mistake in my opinion. All governments, even though democratic, fall under the influence of the wealthiest and the most (worldly) powerful people who look to amass even more fortune for themselves. We as Christians, I think, would not agree with this. But many of us turn away and withdraw (cut & run?) because, honestly speaking, it doesn't affect many of us individually. Whom it affects the most, actually, and continues to affect them from one era to the next are the hungry and the poor. Thus in a way, for us to disengage from politics is like turning our backs (again) to the poor. I know some might think that this can be done in private sector or individually or as small grass root groups, but such resistance is really no match when it comes to having to go up against unfair laws of the government. Really, I think we need to look at these things at more of a collective level than an individual levels as we are so inclined.

- Now the main point. Stemming from the Matt 22:21 verse (and really, you gotta look at what's been going on in the passage as a whole, right?):

Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?" But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?" "Caesar's," they replied. Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

This was Jesus' response to Pharisees trying to trick him into saying something wrong. Well, apparently the answer was not wrong, since apparently it struck a chord of truth and they went away. So what happened here?

First of all, look at the question. Its point isn't to debate the relevance of government in ministry, but rather to induce Jesus to say something unpopular to the Jews who hated the Roman government and turn the crowd on him. So this isn't a conversation about the role of the government to begin with.

Secondly, it seems like a statement that puts money and possession in its place. Jesus was essentially saying, "it's only money, not treasure in heaven, so just pay." This isn't the same as saying you shouldn't care about what goes on in politics. If anything, it's suggesting that we should keep engaged in the affairs of the government rather than withdraw altogether and stop paying taxes.

Third and most importantly, the latter part of that verse strikes me: "Give to God what is God's." That brings up the obvious question: what is God's? An obvious accompanying question would be, what is NOT God's? But it seems that while we may focus too much on the latter question, trying to distinguish what isn't God's and avoid engaging in them, that we forget to look for the answer to the original question, what IS God's?

Well the answer is everything, right? EVERYTHING is God's, and rightfully so. There is nothing we own that isn't also God's. And while he gives to many of us generously, that doesn't mean we are the sole owner of that which we have. Otherwise, Job should sue God for like a gazillion dollars for taking away his property (temporarily), giving him a disease (for a while) and causing significant psychological trauma (hopefully alleviated at the end). I hope we are in agreement that as Christians, we do not count the things we have on earth as solely our own.

God explicitly asks for ALL aspects of our lives. All our hearts, minds and even physical strength and abilities. He doesn't just focus on one type of sacrifice, like giving away money/paying taxes, but he wants our all. So while we still pay taxes, we do more. We take care of our immediate neighbors. But we also seek to take care of our not-so-immediate neighbors, and there is basically no better way that is done (or is actually done at all) than to change how our taxes are spent (this because there is a huge difference between having a bunch of families doing their own thing to help the poor vs. having a large group of people doing it together economically; it's a very practical thing).

- Now about the laws. I'll start with God's laws, the laws of the Old Testament. The way I see God, in a way, isn't so mystical. That's because things that he commands aren't completely incomprehensible all the time. If you put it to the test in real world--let's say the Ten Commandments--God's laws make so much sense for building a better community and nation. And before I go any further, that's what we have to be careful about: these laws aren't targeted at us individually, but at the group of us, myself and the neighbors. In historical context, these were laws being given to the Israeli NATION, not just for each Israeli to somehow make their lives own lives better. Often God's way of blessing us individually is to bless the community in which we belong.

So the law is perfectly relevant to us, whether we are saved by faith or not. In fact, we through grace we have been given the true freedom to follow the laws, because following the law would no longer be a statement about how good of a person each of us are. In the context of grace, we understand that we are fallen no matter what and nothing we can do (including following the law) would solve that problem, and that we have been saved through the sacrifice of Christ already so we don't even need to worry about all this.

So two things can get in the way of obeying the law in freedom. One is to think of law as having to do with our own individual sanctification rather than the rules by which we, as a community, can be more loving to one another (already covered above). The other has to do with how we respond to God's enormous love: by loving him back, or by trying to take advantage of it? I guess if you are doing the latter, theoretically you haven't truly experienced the pure love of God, since you couldn't help but love him back (there's one mystical part there). So if we do love him in return, then we wouldn't abuse his grace.

I'll give you an example to elucidate this point. Let's say that you have a friend whom you love dearly. One day you do something to hurt that friend, and you realize that you are at fault. Then you ask for forgiveness, and the friend forgives you. Now, if you really were friends with that person (meaning, you love the friend), then you would hope not to repeat the infraction you committed before. You might slip up once in a while, but you'd try to change (i.e., repent). But if you didn't love this friend (meaning, you're not really friends), then you might try to find ways to get away with committing the same trespasses again and again, essentially abusing the grace the friend showed in forgiving you.

So being forgiven, loving God in response (the only way we truly love), and understanding the purpose of the laws are all necessary to obey and abide by the laws in true freedom.

Furthermore, God's laws and the laws of our society aren't mutually exclusive. There are many laws in our world that are concordant, if not verbatim, with God's laws. Which brings us to the next topic...

- Should we force people to abide by certain laws? Well, why not? We do it now. For example, every society has the rule/law prohibiting murder. Anybody want to argue against this? It's a good law that benefits everyone and improves the community, so why wouldn't we want to force this law on the whole society? Maybe it's ths Asian side of me, but I don't really have such objection to being dictated to, despite my own rebellious personality. If it's good, why fight against it?

Well I'm tired of writing now. And as shocking as it might be to some of you to read my saying I'm tired of expressing my opinions, let me just leave you with a passage in the Bible:

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

An Opinion Piece

by DC

I'm working on a different post that actually has something to do with capitalism, but I'll briefly continue the recent trend of posting generally about Christianity and Politics. I promise I'll come up with something more "on-topic"(?) next.

Years ago, I remember sitting at Fazoli's with Eric the Red debating this very topic: As Christians, how should we be involved in politics? It is clear that in a democracy we should vote our conscience and that as Christians our conscience should be in accordance with the spirit of God. Things become murkier when it comes to more than that. Should we be campaigning for candidates that we think uphold Christian ideals? Should we be lobbying for laws that are in accordance with God's commands for our lives? I don't think that Eric and I came to a conclusion that day, but the questions have lingered in my mind since then.

I don't claim to be an expert on how the scriptures relate to this topic, but I have come across a few things that I'll share and let you respond to. I think it would be great if you could provide specific biblical support in your responses. I'll see if I can do the same in this post.

For now, I'm ignoring the old testament because I was unable to find anything that related to how the common man should interact with the government. There were lots of things that leaders could take away, but that's not the question I'm looking at*. Instead, I will turn to the new testament.

There's a famous quote from Jesus: Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's (Matthew 22:21). We could discuss and debate the nuances of the exchange for days, but one thing is clear: Jesus differentiates between what we should do for our government and what we should do for God. But that still doesn't tell us whether we should make use of the government to do things for God, just that there is some difference between obeying the law and obeying God.

The new testament is filled with verses like this: To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. (1 Corinthians 9:21) I'm referring to the middle part that differentiates "the law" from "God's law". Here's another one: Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. (Galatians 3:25) This one refers to the old testament rather than "the law of the land", but I think the analogy holds that following a set of rules is not what God really wants.

This second point doesn't directly address the question of how Christianity and government should fit together, but it does cause me to question whether writing a set of rules that we must follow is really what God wants from us. Clearly we should be doing good things, but should those good things be forced on us? These verses seem to indicate that this may not be what God has in mind.

I'm also struck by a third sub-question: Does God want us to dictate what other people do? Clearly we need to be aware of what other Christians are up to so that we can support them in living a Godly lifestyle. There are instructions in the bible about how to approach fellow believers that are sinning and so forth. One place that talks about this is 1 Corinthians. When reading it, I came across this verse: What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. (1 Corinthians 5:12-13a) Though the context deals with other Christians, it is clear that God isn't calling us to make everyone conform to "Godly policies". He'll take care of that.

I won't dwell on this one, but it is clear that Jesus spent at least some amount of time helping the poor, but it was not a primary part of his ministry. Unfortunately, I don't think we can generalize from what he did. I think Jesus saying things like the poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me (Mark 14:7) show what I mean.

Although there is certainly wiggle room in what I've presented, these verses seem to back up the idea that we should not be turning our religious convictions into laws, but instead they should rule our individual and group (church) lives.

I know that Joe's response to this would be "That's great, but I only care that the poor get medical care, not whether God is explicitly calling Christians to get that legislation passed. The poor will only get the medical care if the legislation is passed. Clearly God cares about the poor and wants us to care about the poor too." To pre-respond, I'll suggest that this could certainly be the case, but it ceases to be a question of what God wants all Christians to do (help those in need) and instead becomes a political question that has nothing** to do with God (how do we best balance the various needs and goals of the country?).

I'll end with a link to an article that's on the same topic, but from a different perspective.

*Please note that I didn't do much in-depth thinking on the lessons we can take from the old testament and I would love to hear what Nina or some other old testament enthusiast would bring to our attention. Probably enough there for another whole post - if only I had spent the time to research it.

**Yes, yes, everything has something to do with God. You know what I mean.

It's interesting that J9 brings up the question of what citizenship we as Christians truly hold, because it seems to beg the question of our attitude towards nations and nationality.

On the comments to the first entry there was quite an interesting discussion about compulsory giving, which I like. Mainly because if others didn't make me do good things, I wouldn't do them. And I like the idea of a tax (I'm an economist, obviously not from Chicago).

However, why should the government be the only institution strong enough to tax? Why do we give it more allegiance than we do the church? Think of what happens when you commit treason vs. what happens when you commit blasphemy, as happens quite often on Sunday morning (how many of us go to churches with an American flag in the front?). It still seems to me the place for giving - and all of Christian life - is the church.

Which leads us to the obvious question: How about a church tax? Everyone who is a member of a church gets taxed on their income, by that church. This money is then sent to help the poor who are our neighbors and abroad. In fact, we can follow Jesus' example by making this tax 100% of your monthly income (eg. luke 14;33). This completely avoids the Left-Right divide, because as Christians we wouldn't have ANY money to give the government after we're done following Jesus.

The church hasn't always been so weak that it couldn't tax its members - why not now?

Real-World Example #1

Despite how much many of us are committed to certain principles, many of us feel confined by the terms "Left" and "Right" and feel that the theoretical discussion sets itself up for irreconcilable disagreements. So, I'm going to propose a real-world example and invite discussion on how we think we should confront this problem from the perspective of the various hats we wear at once. We are (a) as citizens of this world, (b) as Christian citizens of this world, and (c) as Christians whose citizenship is in heaven. I hope that this set of three approaches to the problem will illuminate our sometimes conflicting tendencies as fleshly but in some sense immortal, beings. I encourage someone else to write the next blog entry with perhaps another real world example to discuss.

Example:
Marisa became pregnant her senior year at East High School in inner-city Rochester, NY in 2003. She had the support of her mother and grandmother, and decided to both graduate and keep the baby. The baby's father, John, her high school boyfriend, left to Iraq in 2003 right after they graduated. They both did reasonably well in school, getting Bs and having a good chance of getting into college. Marcela was especially good at writing. But, she decided that in order to take care of the baby she would be better off getting a job someplace near home, at least at first. She hoped to someday go to the local community college. John, Marisa decided, was not ready to be a responsible parent yet, so she didn't really want to marry him or live with him, even if that would make raising their daughter Tiana so much easier. Plus, she didn't want to get married as a teenager. So, Marisa kept in contact with him when she could, and received some monetary benefits from his military stipend.

For the last four years, Marisa has worked at the local supermarket as a cashier and recently got a job at a doctor's office as a receptionist and aide. She can hardly believe the health insurance available at her new job. Tiana is now turning four, and Marisa is thinking more seriously about going to school to be a nurse's assistant or maybe even a nurse. She is paid just above minimum wage and her annual income is currently $15,000 before tax. She qualifies for subsidized loans if she does get into college. John may be coming back permanently from Iraq soon, and may have his own chance to go to college as well. John's military service afforded him the opportunity to become a full citizen, and Marisa encourages him as a friend to pursue his interests in business. (She doesn't see a future for them beyond friends.) Tiana is now taking part in the local Headstart program, a federally funded program for nursery school age children in low income families. She loves the arts and crafts, but the class size is huge and the staff is low, and every year they talk about closing the program. If they do cut that or the heavily subsidized after school program, Marisa will not be able to afford private childcare or have the time available to go back to school. She already cannot find a steady job that pays her over $7.50 per hour.

Question:
Whose responsibility is it, as US citizens, Christian Americans and citizens of heaven (please distinguish if they conflict), to respond to the needs of this family? Whose duty is it to :

a) Provide Tiana with the nursery school or day care education and health care. These are currently funded by state and local subsidized programs for low income families.

b) Provide John, a US veteran and father, with higher education, health care and other opportunities to develop civilian skills for a "second" career. Higher ed for veterans is currently funded by the budget for the military in the G.I. Bill, also in the process of revision and cuts.

c) Provide Marisa, a high school graduate and mother, with opportunities for a living wage so that she can someday support herself, higher education for a career of her own some day, and child care while she is either in school or working. Currently, the minimum wage is far below a living wage, and women who have not been in the military seldom win publicly subsidized rides to college. The old welfare system, aid to families with dependent children, strongly encourages "marriage" as a solution to single parent families. Women with children who seek public subsidies are childed for laziness. What is the public's (as citizens, Christian citizens, and Christians) responsibility to Marisa?

What's the Matter with Kansas?

This blog has been established to discuss matters of Christian faith and politics. Anyone is invited to join the conversation! Hopefully, this will become a collaborative project for fruitful discussion on these important subjects.

---

How should faith /moral values interact with politics? How should social class/ economic status interact with politics? How should faith and social class constitute one another? On one hand, the Christian Right says that marriage laws, abortion laws and limited government (limited collective responsibility) are all essential moral values to uphold (despite economic status of oneself and others). They believe that individuals should acquire goods and services for their personal welfare and that of their immediate family. Agnostic about the degree to which that personal acquisition has to do with the acquisition of others, they believe that public sharing of utilities (historically this has been won in water, electricity, transportation, Social Security, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (welfare), public schools, city recreation facilities and programs, and the list goes on... to the current debates over publicly subsidized health care) is not "efficient." (Why exactly this is not efficient often leads into a discussion on the best way to increase the GDP by creating new "capital." However, I usually think of efficiency and a strong economy as two very different objectives. I'd love to discuss this more.)

Meanwhile, the Christian Left understands our nation as a fundamentally interdependent unit. The wealth of some is not necessarily their entitlement, for it was won at the expense of many others who did not have a share in the profits of that wealth-producing endeavor. Therefore, the poverty, health care and civil rights of the disfranchised is as much the responsibility of the majority as it is of the minority. Some believe more in redistribution of riches than others. For some, charity should be much more "voluntary" than for others. But usually, Christian Leftists are distinguished from the 'Righters in their belief that the state has the responsibility to secure Civil Rights and equal opportunities, for the "free market" and doctrine of indivdiualism will only work against the legal and social development of individuals at the bottom of the social and socioeconomic ladder. Fundamentally, the Christian Right and Left disagree not over the relevance of aspects of our faith. We disagree over the role of Christian faith as it constitutes and directs our government. Despite what they tell you, 'Leftists do not usually hate private charities or babies, and 'Righters do not usually wish poverty and inaccess to proper health care on others.

We do disagree over how personal our Christian faith is intended to be. Is our faith an individual calling to ethics outside of our legalized system of wealth creation (American capitalism)? Should our faith deny awareness of the social hierarchies of race, gender, nationality, sexuality and religion, all of which help to mutually constitute the most exploited class in the legal/economic system? This personal concept of faith lends itself to the argument that public utilities and charity should all be "privatized." It provides the foundation for 'Righters to argue that a prime role of the government is to regulate "life" and "death," but everything else is a "personal" decision that conscious individuals can make themselves. Meanwhile, 'Lefters don't see faith so personally. Much like the Biblical vision of Israel, 'Lefters see collective responsibility for one another, enforced through the law, as a prime expression of faith. Therefore, they believe we have a burden as believers/chosen people (is there a difference?) to reconstitute the legal, political and social hierarchies of our country to reflect God's grace. This often includes another chance for wrongdoers (anti-death penalty), grace for law-breakers (amnesty for immigrants), and support for the needy (from a pool of tax revenue). We disagree not about the importance of charity and grace to the Christian walk, but about how we as Chosen People (a People or individuals?) are to steward this calling.

Ultimately, we disagree about what we are each responsible for on Judgment Day. To what extent will our shortcomings of personal obedience include sins of omission---NOT taking care of brothers and sisters we did not know, --NOT acting to reconstitute the nation to provide more for others at the possible "expense" of oneself, --NOT standing up for the people who get little respect in society because they have a history of social or institutional "sin." Many 'Righters assume that the fact that this world is "Fallen" releases us from the responsibility of redeeming the state, foreign policy, the economic system, and the reality of social stratification. Many 'Lefters assume that personal obedience to the Holy Spirit within us is only a very small part of, or sometimes even a handicap from, our collective responsibility to use the legal system to foster social amnesty or grace. (Whoever owned resources/capital in the last generation or under the old "legal" paradigm, 'lefters would say, should not have a better chance at owning them in the next generation. In fact, the old legal paradigm should be changed to re-level the playing field.)

It seems to me that all sides of the spectrum (for there are obviously more than two) are afraid of the redeeming power of the Holy Spirit. We are afraid of what the Holy Spirit can change in us as individuals, and afraid of what the Holy Spirit can call us to as a community, a nation, a planet. For, on both the individual and collective levels, responding to the Holy Spirit will likely mean sacrifice of a great deal of our sense of entitlement, pride, self-righteousness, judgmentalness, selfishness, personal ambition and idolatry of personal success.

What's the matter with Kansas is not that social values have deceptively thwarted the "true" politics of social and economic interests. I'm actually quite excited that we have begun to rethink our individual political participation outside of what others call our socioeconomic interests. For, the free market dogma upon which our modern economic system has been built falsely presupposes that all of us have the same "interest" in maximizing our wealth. I submit that this claim of Adam Smith on our human nature is actually but a socially constructed choice. Should Christians value wealth creation as much as people outside the faith? We have to keep rethinking how we are to be in the world but not of it.

How in the world did euphemistic "Kansas" come up with sexuality, reproduction and marriage as the most important Christian values? This evidence is pretty revealing of the shallowness of our perception of how Christianity is defined next to all other (sectarian and secular) belief systems. We should be embarrassed of ourselves, but not overcome with the pride of shame. It's time, I think, to admit to our own shortcomings as a Christian community and rethink what it really means to be our brother's keeper in a world we are not in but of.