Writing projects sometime have a mind of their own—taking you places you didn’t expect to go. At the previous 5 posts to this drawn-out thread indicates, I have draw some conclusions about my political leanings, about taxing and taxes, and about political rhetoric. In particular, I have concluded that I can no longer be a registered republican—certainly not because I am not conservative in my political views, for the most part I am, in particular in my view of the constitution, limited government, and policy related to taxes and business. Nonetheless, it is the affiliation that is at heart—I cannot find myself affiliated by commitment to a political party: neither major parties represent my views on my relationship to the world around me, particularly to the poor. Neither party offers solutions that are biblical enough for me to sign my name to, actually. Although simplistic, but certainly not naïve, the political action arena and too much of the business associated with the issues of social action and poverty seem more about power—who has it, who controls it, and making money off it—for me to align myself in a political affiliation.
Now perhaps more naïvely so, it seems to me that Christians should not be too quick on affiliating with a party. I know some Christians turn to the Conservative Party, or the Libertarian Party (which I now seem closer to in basic philosophy, except this party, too, undervalues the role of government in addressing the issues of generational poverty), and even some Christians seem to now pump the so-called Tea Party as a political home. I think as an independent, non-affiliated citizen-voter, I have power to give away (which seems a more biblical view of political power), so that politicians and parties need to win my vote and support.
Many Christians won’t be a democrat because as a party they are pro-abortion—that seems clear enough for me, and personally, understandable. But simply because a party (in this case, republican) is via platform and rhetoric pro-life should not be enough to sign on. Because both parties seem to have enough to make my Christian-skin feel uncomfortable at this time, an independent position seems best for me. Candidates will have to win me over—and I will be specific on my questions to them regarding their positions and actions on behalf of the least vulnerable among us. Rhetoric will not be enough. Power is to be given away—not grabbed. I see too much of that now. How do I perceive their hold on power? These will be some of the criteria for my support and vote. I am committed to be a more thinking Christian when it comes to politics, political support, and voting.
The previous Expressing my independence thread posts...
1 of 6,
2 of 6,
3 of 6,
4 of 6, and
5 of 6.
“There was a time when the church was very powerful—in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the morés of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being “disturbers of the peace” and “outside agitators.”‘ But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were “a colony of heaven,” called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be “astronomically intimidated.” By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests.
“Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church’s silent—and often even vocal—sanction of things as they are.
But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today’s church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century.” ~Martin Luther King, Jr., “Letter From a Birmingham Jail” (1963)
My daughter never ceases to amaze me. In a recent homework assignment she analysis two pieces of literature from two government antagonists and advocates for civil disobedience—Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. Both these men, according to my daughter, Amanda, challenged “the ‘rightness’ of government laws and its justice system through civil disobedience.” These two essays reflected these sentiments: Thoreau in his essay “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience” (1849) and King in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail” (1963). She utilizes these essays and how each of these recognizable civil antagonists provoked others to be persuaded by their point of view. She summarizes the essence of these men’s conflict with Governing laws and the laws of personal morality:
“Humanity is ruled by a large range of moral law, which dictates the difference between right and wrong. However, society is ruled by a government that dictates what is considered right and wrong according to laws. These laws set the standards by which a society functions and the penalties for breaking the laws. When the law of society clashes with the moral individuality of humanity, it is only fair that one should be able to ask if the government’s laws are sound and morally correct.”
My Amanda contends that Luther, rather than Thoreau, has a better persuasive essay, for in the end both use appeals to justice, both from two very different angles. Thoreau because of how what he considered unjust laws affected him—he pushed his argument from an individualistic point of reference; whereas Luther, on the other hand concentrated on what is just for all people, especially those marginalized in places of concentrated poverty. I, too, read Thoreau, not in high school, but in college and I told Amanda I always felt he was a whiner. He complained about what he didn’t like personally. He would no more want you or his neighbor to exercise their personal morality if it somehow placed him in conflict with his own.
I never read King until I was a Christian, out of college and grad-school and working in a Community Action Agency. King on the other hand, despite any personal failings, didn’t complain for himself, but identified what ought to be just for all. My daughter’s brief essay contrasting these two firebrands draws out King’s poignant comment to the Church:
“King’s essay is exceedingly more personal than Thoreau’s. Within this letter there is also a hint of logical appeal, for example when his is talking to the church and how disappointed he is with their role in segregation, King ‘logically’ states that if the church does not ‘recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed and an irrelevant social club…’ (King). This logical appeal attempts to get the church to think about the consequences of their actions and inaction, drawing the point that it may be their downfall to not aid in the termination of segregation.”
I was amazed at both the reference in the Letter and that my daughter would draw out her own attention to the Church’s culpability in following unjust laws (and allow and not confront structural sin that leave many poor and marginalized around us). She ends her own argument that King was more persuasive than the selfish, bellyaching, whining Thoreau:
“In comparing King’s letter to Thoreau’s essay—both on civil disobedience— it appears that King’s letter is more effective in its use of emotional appeals and ability to draw in the audience with a convincing tone and persuasive argument. King is fighting for something he believes to be right and the reader can feel his passion simmer throughout the letter. King also is more effective in the way he establishes his authority. In the letter he gives a brief introduction of who he is and his purpose for being in Alabama. Thoreau, while demonstrating a well thought through and logical argument, still fails to truly captivate the reader. At the closing of his essay it appears as though he is just bitter for being placed in jail. Thoreau was not prepared for the consequences of his actions. King, on the other hand, was convinced that suffering the consequences of his actions was part of his argument.”
Perhaps one reason the Church fails to captivate the public is that we argue like Thoreau—we’re only complaining about what affects us, selfish, moralizing whiners who just don’t want what is unjust toward us. We ought to reflect more King’s argument and stop being “an irrelevant social club,” and realize that whatever suffering as Christians we are to endure on behalf of others is part of our apologetic, part of our argument for Christianity and that Christ is alive and the true King over all things in heaven and on earth.
Populist rhetoric favoring the poor over the rich and the government over the private sector hurts the poor
In the history I have studied and in recent and current history I have lived through and observed, one would think we would have learned that populous political rhetoric might win over the marginalized masses to ensure a change of who is in power, but actual governing leadership by populous politicians never have produced the utopias or “equalized” societies they promise—just consolidated, concentrated, and centralized their own elite status and power. In fact most such politicians once in governing power tend to be intolerant of competition, violent and aggressive against those who disagree, and tyrants over those they govern—even those masses they appealed to for power in the first place. If someone knows of one such governing politician that has actually brought their marginalized out of poverty and blight, please let me know.
Although it is rare for a politician truly to advocate for the poor and mean it and actually do something about poverty (I mean this—who, really, which one has? The list is short, very short), all render lip service and find ways to endear themselves to the poor, while at the same time ensuring the wealthy stay close and friendly.
I told my daughter just earlier this month, I could never be mayor of my urban city (or a legislator who represents it), for I would feel it was my obligation to make sure not one child goes to bed hungry. I couldn’t go to bed knowing that I had the power to do something and didn’t. No one wins elections and especially reelections on that platform. I heard a Connecticut Congressman say once, his constituency is so diverse, for he must find a way to please the billionaire and help the poor who don’t have enough money for food. For me, that’s an easy call—introduce the billionaire to the poor, make sure that happens. As a Christian (which the Congressman stated he was), it is not the politician’s obligation to please the billionaire, but it is his biblical obligation to advocate for the poor. However, it is even worse when a politician (and I don’t necessarily mean this CT Congressmen referenced here) sounds like he or she is an advocate for the poor, but in the end does little to truly promote the eradication of the conditions of poverty.
So on the one hand, political advocates for the poor in the end rarely come through for those whom they are advocating. (Just shifting financial resources doesn’t ameliorate poverty—or it would have happened already. Just throwing money at poverty and the poor doesn’t fix it either.) On the other hand, the politicized rhetoric and class envy in political speech does little good in the end for the poor. In fact it makes that separation stronger; it actually creates resentment by the non-poor against the poor; it makes it seem it’s “us with money” verses “them who want to take our money” and makes the non-poor wary of government funds and programs that shift resources and their money toward the poor. Most of the time politicized rhetoric in the form of class envy is used to produce resentment among the poor, the marginalized, and those who form the low-income populations, the “have-nots” (for a get out the vote). This resentment is to produce political power to shift money and resources to them, to promote spread-the-wealth policies (which isn’t a solution), particularly a power that comes in the form of voter-blocks toward the politician creating that class envy with their political rhetoric. But in the end it doesn’t work, for it also has the consequence of making the non-poor resentful of the poor—which in turn creates another block of voters with interests to protect themselves from government take-over in any form—which in the end just shifts power back to those alienated from those who live in poverty.
I’d go back to introducing the billionaire to the poor. I’d help the non-poor to learn more about poverty, its causes, and how some—maybe not all—of their wealth was created through the assistance of government (whether federal, state or municipal) in the first place (in order to take some of the self-righteous wind out of their own bravado). I have been to at least one “how to end poverty” or “how to help the poor” or “how to bring economic stability and jobs to the poor” workshops and/or conferences each year for the last thirteen years. I love the people who go—they are my colleagues and friends whose jobs are to everyday advocate for the poor. But I have always thought we’re the wrong group to have this discussion—at least wrong to be the only ones in the room. We need the billionaires in that room; we need the business leaders, entrepreneurs, the educators. Solutions to the problems start with the potential solutions being understood and owned by those who could make it happen, or at least to provide the resources and creative energy.
Populous political rhetoric, in the end, hurts the poor by either those offering the rhetoric, but not truly producing the promises, or through the dividing resentment and backlash created in those who are non-poor. There seems to be a better way. There must be.
In the last post in this thread, I will conclude with some thoughts on being Christian and an unaffiliated independent
Extreme and Undisciplined Spending on Social Programs Paves the Way for Zero-lining Important Social Service Programs
For eight years I had to face that a republican president kept zeroing out line items associated with supporting urban renewal, rural blight, and supportive services to the economically vulnerable and the poor. I argued with the best of my liberal leaning colleagues to restore such cuts in the federal budget. I also watched as my own State Governor over the years, especially in these economically turbulent times, attempt to balance the State budget on the backs of the same economically vulnerable populations. I understand it’s a tough call—and most conservatives believe these government funded support and urban/rural economic development for those living in areas of concentrated poverty are simply not the government’s business. But, and as I have discussed elsewhere in this blog and in my papers, it’s not a fair assessment to say the non-poor have not received similar government-funded assistance (see some previous posts—social construction 4 and social construction 5, as well as NIMBY-BANANA-LULUS). Certainly we can be more creative than always assuming it’s the right and prudent thing to do—that is cut out what helps the economically vulnerable and the poor.
Now we have an administration in office that seems to spend a lot on social services and the poor. Stimulus funds and funding for long established Government budgeted items have poured out in abundance. After many years in the wilderness of cuts and restraint (under Reagan, H W Bush, G W Bush, and even under Clinton), this is make up time and the dollars have flowed out of Washington. As someone who is indeed conservative, I still see, however, the value in much of this spending. However, two things make for a future of cuts and decreases in these areas once there is a change in power to right-leaning Congresses, Senates, and the Oval Office:
1. Most conservatives don’t know the poor, nor interact with the poor, and are geographically and through daily social habits separated from the economically vulnerable, and only see the spending as reckless and undisciplined.
2. Perception is many times 100% reality for those who don’t know the whole picture.
The unrestrained and undisciplined spending that is flowing from Washington under democrat controlled Congress, the Senate, and the Oval Office will be met with resistance once the power shifts. My fear is that there will be a stronger will and a more powerful ability to zero-out those important items in the federal budget aimed at helping those living with the affects of poverty. Those of us in the social service world and who work within Social Action need to be better at demonstrating what we do and how it benefits everyone. At the same time I think there needs to be more discipline in showing the outcomes of social spending and more argument in showing how the non-poor have benefited from the very government they now want to restrain in helping those living with poverty. Somehow we need to be able to see that helping those who are poor and economically vulnerable isn’t a right-left, red-blue, private-public thing. We’re smarter than that. Well, I certainly hope we are.
The next post in this thread will be
Populist Rhetoric Favoring the Poor over the Rich and the Government over the Private Sector Hurts the Poor
Low taxes often means more revenue into the government
I like low taxes. I believe most people do—even those who want to tax everything in sight. They just want other people’s income to be taxed more; not theirs. The politicians who make the laws know the loopholes, and recently we discovered that many just don’t pay their own taxes anyway (until they get caught). Historically when the Federal government reduces taxes, revenues go up. Of course this also depends on Federal spending and inflation. The reduction of the capital gains tax as well causes revenues to increase (for many reasons); in fact the 2003 cuts to capital gains under President Bush doubled the revenue from this particular tax. When will politicians ever get it right—raising tax rates are never the best way to raise revenue; in fact, tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates. Address economic growth and job creation and unemployment and you will see revenues increased. (It’s all about jobs, stupid!) This is what should be concentrated on—whether there are tax cuts or not. It is not that tax cuts directly increase revenue. Tax cuts leave earned cash in the hands of people to spend, which in turn spurs on economic growth. Overall this leaves more financial resources and capital in the hands of those who expand, build, create, and improve business and jobs, which in turn places more financial resources in everyday people’s power to spend. This is what increases revenue when taxes remain low.
For me, its not just about increase in tax revenue but about creating the potential for job expansion and creation and what any increase in revenue is spent on that matters to me. There is no way in a short blog post I can analysis the Federal budget in any meaningful way, but I can target my thoughts on two things: jobs/employment and the economically vulnerable. Republicans miss out on opportunities to address concentrations of poverty and the issue of unemployment (lack of job skills and work history, poor education, employment barriers, and the lack of employment opportunities). Meanwhile, democrats continue to act as if more taxes and time will fix the problems of the poor and unemployment and the lack of employment opportunities. Both are wrong. Both utilize the power of taxes and taxing erroneously. As the tax laws and various Acts of Congress in the post-WWII era helped to establish the movement of wealth and resources, including human capital, away from central-urban cities and into the regions of exurbia, new and created laws could bring restoration and wealth creation in urban centers. There has been some success in the Laws that create Enterprise and Economic Empowerment Zones in urban areas, as well as the Earned Income Tax Credit. My only issues with the EITC is that it should be utilized for promoting employment preparation or advancement and education. Certainly not home ownership—this leads to economic ruin for everyone! Just paying bills with EITC is like buying fish to eat rather than teaching to fish—if you get my point.
Tax revenue, as long as it’s about power, is harmful in the end. Just makes politicians, well, powerful and their status high. That’s all. After reviewing the numerous ways the tax system and laws were used to create outward exurban expansion and wealth, along with the deterioration of and depletion of resources in the urban centers post-WWII, I have concluded that creative people with a desire to actually enrich and change and ameliorate the conditions of poverty in the central-cities can if they have the will. Everyone likes low taxes, but it is all about creating economic and job opportunities, especially within areas of concentrated poverty, that counts in the end. This view and intention would do more to stop and prohibit general poverty in our urban centers. Just making taxes low or cutting social spending or decreasing the safety net type of infrastructure doesn’t address the causes of poverty, but neither does just throwing more money at the problem—rather than actually addressing the causes. Advocates for the poor should target their advocacy on causes and solutions, not just taxes and taxing.
Next post,
Extreme and Undisciplined Spending on Social Programs Paves the Way for Zero-lining Important Social Service Programs
My renewed independence
I have the form. I will fill it out by the end of December: I am reregistering as an independent with no party affiliation. I have told a few people, all of which are within my social action network—and the first thing is a smile, an “about time,” and then the assumption that I am moving from being a republican to a democrat. Sorry. That, too, rubs the wrong way on my soul after I produced the New Orleans paper on “Idolatry and Poverty.” Rarely has a research project or academic study affected me as this one particular paper. A line in my paper haunts me—its not a great sound bit or a great piece that will etch itself into the long stretch of history, but writing it affected me:
Non-poor Christians are in danger of idolatry when finding themselves in need of affirming “this worldly” system and its institutions in order to be at home, plotting their lives on the societal map provided by institutions and specious freedoms in order to relate—comfortably, plausibly, securely—to the overall web of acceptable meanings in society.
A line afterward was removed from my draft because I didn’t want the paper to spiral down and degenerate into Christianese on politics. But I wrote something like, “We as Evangelical Christians seem to continually affirm our faith through party affiliation and not the Word of God, confusing our faith with our politics.” I don’t think over the past ten years I have confused my political views and party affiliation with Republicans with my faith in Christ. In fact when I returned from serving in the Air Force in Korea way back in 1981, I registered as an independent after growing up and basically voting republican for my whole life (all of my 23 years!). Although I identified myself as a conservative and politically as a republican I maintained that Independent political party status until I moved back to Connecticut with my daughter in 1996, when I registered as a republican in order to vote in the primaries. Some states allow crossovers; CT is not one of them. I remained a republican, even was invited to work on a candidate’s primary bid for the republican spot for our city’s mayoral election, and joined the Republican Town Committee as a member, serving three terms. It was in my blood to be a republican by party affiliation—heck, my mom danced with Barry Goldwater at a fundraiser when he was the Republican candidate for President back in 1964. And if you would have asked me as a young Christian in my twenties and even through my thirties whiche party best represented evangelical Christians, I would have said the Republican Party.
But the Word has been pulling me into another frame of thinking. The Democrat Party is not the home of biblically minded Christians either. This is where it gets tough as a thinking Christian, one who wants desperately to have God’s Word and Spirit form and reform and mold one’s thoughts and beliefs and actions. Although I might act and vote in a certain pattern, associating with party affiliation tends to align one with all of its values and expressions—and I can’t do that as a Christian. This is particularly clear in regards to how one (I!) thinks about the issues of poverty and the poor. I wrote in my paper, “Christian approaches to poverty tend to align with political views, party affiliations, and social-locations.” The alienation and marginalization that most republicans display and affirm of the poor is simply not Christian (no matter what their view on taxes or private property is). And to counter in the other direction, centralization of power into any form of Government tends to be abusive and elitist, and thus the Democrat party cannot be “home” to the Christian either, for such a view of Governing power seems at odds with Scripture as well.
So, although this thought and direction needs more exposition and argument, here I only wanted to reveal that I am moving from my Republican Party affiliation to a non-party, independent political registration (not the Independent Party, but unaffiliated and independent of party). This does not mean I take the position that Christians ought not to be involved in politics or vote—nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, politics is all about power. Most want it for the power they get, the power they receive and obtain. Biblically, power is something that is to be given away—ah, there is that principle of incarnation and the cross (Phil 2:1ff). As a person in this Country, who is a Christian first, who is unaffiliated, I actually would have the position where I can give power away to those who need it most, the poor, and to the politician (through my vote) who convinces me they have the interests of the poor in mind as they will govern.
Next post,
Low taxes often means more revenue into the government
In my profession within the social services and social action world, I have been identified as the “good republican.” This is mostly so because I work and argue on behalf of social action, social programs and safety net provisions for the economically vulnerable and poor among us in our communities—and do it rather well. And yet, I am conservative and tend to vote republican at the State and Federal level and tend to be rather hawkish regarding the military, and advocate an originalist approach to understanding the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. (The nuanced and progressive approach is eisegesis, a reading into the text, and more like making ammendments without going through the constitutionally established process of having the States vote on the ammendment—tricky I say.) Mostly I consider myself a politically conservative person because of these tendencies, but my social leanings are mostly libertarian. And as for my views on social action and the poor, most would say my leanings are liberal, however, I’d beg to say why such a designation—probably because it is held mostly by those who are politically liberal. So I am accused of being liberal, too. The number of people who hold or act on a principle or view (or worldview) determines such a principle or view is defined by the larger group? Who made that rule? I think I am a Christian who thinks christianly about the poor and poverty.
But I know…since conservatives believe in limited government that implies that the government should not be involved or utilize public funds to pay for or support social service programs; thus, those who advocate social service programs supported by the government are liberal, not conservative. But yet, it is degree—almost everyone believes the government has “some” role in providing a social services safety-net. But, should that line of too little or too much, too socialist/liberal or too capitalist/conservative be drawn in the Christian community. Now I agree that “line” could and should be debated, but as my recent paper on “Idolatry and Poverty” pointed out that many of the non-poor conservatives seem to think they “did it on their own” without the government—which is simply not true (read the paper!). So in the end its not limited government, but who gets the benefits of limited government and when and how. This is duplicitous.
Ah, but this leads me to my new found independence and some conclusions I have drawn from my recent research and my political involvement and observations over the last twenty years. Not everything makes it into a paper—so I’d like to post a thread of the gemera, the leftovers, some thoughts and thinking on a few areas.
First I’d like to unveil my decision to change political parties, well, really to move from being a Republican in party name and affiliation to being an Independent with no party affiliation (My renewed independence). Then a series of observations that review how the policies and rhetoric of political parties and talking-heads can have the opposite effects on desired outcomes: Second, Low taxes almost always means more revenue into the government.
Then a post where I talk about a grave concern I have, namely Liberal Extreme and Undisciplined Spending on Social Programs Pave the Way for Zero-lining Important Social Service Programs by Conservatives and a post on Populist Rhetoric Favoring the Poor over the Rich and the Government over the Private Sector Hurts the Poor in the End. And finally in this thread, Political Power-grabbing that Claims Attachment to the Poor Never Works for the Poor, but Secures the Establishment Wealthy. I might not curry favor with some of my colleagues, nor make friends among my more conservative associations. But, my aim is not to be liked or loved, or even to gain power in any sense of the word. My goal is to maintain a Christian persepective on the issues of poverty, advocate on behalf of the poor, and attempt to be faithful in my obedience to God’s Word as much as I possibly can, particularly in how I express my political and social views as they relate to those living with the affects of poverty.
In the next post in this thread (My renewed independence), I will explain some conclusions I drew on a personal level.
In the first post of this thread, closing my conclusions on my ETS paper, I offered a rewrite on the conclusion of my paper (Show me what kind of association you have with those living with the affects of poverty, and I will tell you what kind of god you worship). As most of my regular readers know I am working and finishing up a paper that I will present at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society that meets in New Orleans this month. The paper, “Idolatry and Poverty: Where the Public vs. the Private Isn’t Enough,” draft of which I have post on this site. I went into this project thinking I knew the outcome; already knowing what I expected to find out. After a year of research, having read and reviewed countless articles and books, I didn’t find exactly what I thought I’d find; I ended up discovering something slightly different.
In Rhode Island last year, I explained to my Evangelical Theological Society study group, “Other Voices,” that I feel, often, alone in any room. No matter where I go, I find I am almost always alone in the room, among colleagues, at church, among friends, at political activities. Don’t get me wrong, I have plenty of friends and family, and people are generally nice to me and often agree with parts of my thinking. So this isn’t about people as much as it is about what I believe to be important and true. I can be in a room of my professional peers and I’d, almost always, be alone; or in a room of friends or workmates, and again, be pretty much alone as a conservative, who believes in the original intent of the constitution, who works in the social service world on behalf of the poor. I am a conservative, “right wing” evangelical, a hawk regarding the military, a strong advocate of reasonable military preemptive action, low-taxes with minimal government, strong on business and the free market, who also believes that the issues of poverty are of national interest and deserve action at all levels of society, including government. Dealing with the issues of poverty is more than individual charity, for there is personal as well as structural sin, quality of life doesn’t mean just suburban life, but is a matter of well-being and economic self-sufficiency (or at least as much self-sufficiency as possible for individuals and families).
And particularly for the non-poor, conservative Christian there needs to be a different framework for thinking about poverty; one which is neither right nor left (although I am not that naïve to think one can totally be non-political or without a tinge from blue-red); one that doesn’t simply finds its basis in a political allegiance or socio-economic social location.
While writing my paper on “Wasted Evangelism” and Mark 4 for the Evangelical Theological Society annual meeting in 2008, I discovered that virtually every single reference in the Old Testament regarding the poor, the economically vulnerable, or the issue of poverty was juxtaposed with texts about idolatry. Vertically every Pentateuchal or Prophetic text dealing with the poor also, in the immediate context or flow of thought, had a reference to idolatry in some form or another—there is an idolatry-poverty juxtaposition that is consistent throughout the Old Testament. This intrigued me to do some further investigation. Here are a few things I learned and discovered along the way and in doing this paper:
- Because of the references to the poor and poverty in the Old Testament have as their basis the prohibition against idolatry, particularly the idea of God vs. the gods, the issue of poverty for the Christian is raised to the level of apologetics, placing it directly into the very nature discipleship and evangelism.
- The non-poor Christian living in the suburbs didn’t do it on their own as they claim—they had help over the years, particularly in Government aid, policy, and regulations.
- As long as there are zoning codes and laws supported by political conservatives, I will not believe those same conservatives actually believe in the free market—they believe in a controlled free market with rules and regulations that support their social location and place and property as they see fit (not as the market sees fit).
- The original Ten-Words, often referred to as the Ten-Commandments, have more to do with the issues of poverty than simply the piety of those who claim adherence to their so-called original intent.
- Political alignment is a faulty framework for thinking and dealing with the issues of poverty, and for the non-poor Christian in particular, it is a faulting and idolatrous construction of reality.
- Social action isn’t an option for the evangelistic efforts and life of the church community; it is by definition of the Gospel as presented by Mark, part of it—so much so that not to provide social action as a believing community is to be disobedient to the Gospel.
- Those living in and enjoying the benefits of exurban life have stolen and are “stealing” (as the original 8th commandment is to be read) from those who live in urban centers and are guilty of the original intent of the 10th commandment to not covet.
- This private vs. public dichotomy where the choice is between individual charity and government or public is a faulty framework for Christians to think about poverty, which supports both the idolatry of individualism and idolatry of the state rather than truly addressing the issues of poverty.
- And one wild and crazy thought—imagine thousands and millions of suburban, non-poor evangelical Christians moving out of their exurban comfort-zone and into urban–centers all across this nation. Imagine. Do you know what kind of impact that would have on urban centers, on urban school districts, on municipal, State, and Federal politics—and zoning laws? Imagine.
These are is just some of the things I was taught in doing this paper on poverty and idolatry. We’ll see if I have learned anything as time goes on.
A slight pause before I conclude with my thread on the Gospel of Mark, idolatry, and poverty. Friday night I had the privilege of giving a small talk at our agency annual dinner. The following are more or less the notes…some you have read here before…
- Two years ago, at NEON’s annual dinner, many of you heard me say that 1 out of 10 children will be live in poverty. It is as if you can picture when you see, say, a group of ten children that one of them lives in poverty. But that’s not actually the case with everyone in this room. Some of you will see a group of children, say a group of ten, and none will be in poverty—because you really don’t live and work and play in an area where you know any or only a few people who’d likely live in poverty. But if you are a NEON Head Start teacher, everyday, you see 8 out of 10, or in some cases 10 of 10 children who live in poverty; or, a NEON after school program, where 7 to 9 are most likely children and young people who live in poverty. Some of us are alienated from poverty, except knowing about NEON and about the urban center of our town.
- I have the privilege of developing a paper for an up coming conference in New Orleans. It is a theological conference, but some former professors of mine asked if I’d put together a paper on poverty. The topic I have chosen is the concept of idolatry and its juxtaposition with texts related to poverty.
- One of the quotes I found in my research stands out and has affected me greatly: Emil Brunner, in his book, Man in Revolt, said, “For every civilization, for every period of history, it is true to say, ‘show me what kind of gods you have, and I will tell you what kind of humanity you possess.’”
- So I have been immersed in reading and researching for the last year, and after 100s of articles and books on the subject. I have made some discoveries. When I started I knew what I wanted to write, but I didn’t know what I’d discover.
- One of the things I discovered what that much of the Old Testament material related to the poor or poverty is mostly codes and land-laws that created barriers or amerliorated the causes of generational or prolonged poverty of families and individuals. Yes, there is charity and kindness, but direct public laws that governed relationships, neighborliness, and business relations regarding the issue of generational and prolonged poverty. That seems to be where the emphasis lay: I made sense to me—privately and publicly, for my faith and for my profession. Poverty and poor people will always exist—that’s a fact of life—but laws and public policy need to reflect a commitment to end prolonged and generational poverty. In other words we all need to be Thinking Generations Ahead.
- Not long ago I had the privilege of speaking to our Childcare staff. I concluded by saying, We have one purpose, one goal, one outcome to achieve: As childcare workers, Family and Parent Partners, Educational Managers, especially teachers, you have one purpose, one goal, do such a good job at teaching your children and assisting their parents so that when the child become a parent, their children DO NOT QUALIFY for Head Start. Isn’t that all of our objective: To do whatever we can to address prolonged and generational poverty and do such a good job that when the children of poor families today grow up, they and their children will not qualify for all the assistance and programs because they will be ineligible because they will not need it.
- Many of you are familiar with The American Community Survey because it was just in the local paper, indicating that from 2007 to 2008, the population in Norwalk who live in poverty rose 200%. In fact, this rolling estimate puts Connecticut as the state with the largest increase in the country. Even the regular census indicates a growing pecentage of those in poverty right here in Norwalk: in 2000, we were at 5.2% and in Norwalk now based on the 2000 census, we are at 7.2%. did you know that 14% of the population in Norwalk receives food stamps? And, in Norwalk, of those who live in poverty, 36% are under the age of 18.
- The rolling, annual survey of the Census Bureau, The American Community Survey, puts us in 2008 at 9.6% poverty in Norwalk up from 5.3% in 2007. The jump, is not because we aren’t doing something about poverty or that we’re not helping poor people. I believe the jump is related to not preparing the poor to get out and stay out of poverty. Between 1994 and 2007 we provided mostly for short term solutions just to move low-income people quickly from poverty to low-income; we prepared them for low wage, service-centered jobs, NOT policies and programs to set up long term educational and vocational tracks to prepare them for living outside of poverty—to stop prolonged poverty.
- Did you know that Fairfield County is 37th in Median Household Income 37th. But in terms of measuring wealthy, Fairfield County, Connecticut is the 6th wealthiest County in all of the United States—we’re 6th when it comes to Per Capita Income (2009). What does it mean to be so privileged to live in the 6th wealthiest County in American, to live in a capitalistic, free market economic society where there are almost 40 million people who live with the affects of poverty, where almost 18% of children live in poverty, and here’s the one that cuts right through me, where 42% of children born in the bottom income quintile will remain in that quintile as adults. This means we’re allowing prolonged and generational poverty to exist to claim as victims of this cycle the most vulnerable among us. Something is wrong with this picture. That’s why we need to be thinking generations ahead.
- I closed with an illustration I had given before on this blog: There is a rather strong scene in the movie Hotel Rwanda, a 2004 film about a Hutu tribesman who is the manager of a hotel in Kigali, Rwanda during the 1994 genocide. While striving to protect his family and hundreds of Tutsi refugees from the Hutu mass-murderers, he was confronted with international indifference to the country’s plight. The scene is between this hotel manager and a reporter—we listen in:
Hotel manager: “I am glad that you have shot this footage and that the world will see it. It is the only way we have a chance that people might intervene.”
Reporter: “Yeah and if no one intervenes, is it still a good thing to show?”
Hotel manager: “How can they not intervene when they witness such atrocities?”
Reporter: “I think if people see this footage they’ll say, ‘Oh my God that’s horrible,’ and then go on eating their dinners.”
[later] Hotel manager: “There will be no rescue, no intervention force. We can only save ourselves. Many of you know influential people abroad, you must call these people. You must tell them what will happen to us… say goodbye. But when you say goodbye, say it as though you are reaching through the phone and holding their hand. Let them know that if they let go of that hand, you will die.”
- We have people living in poverty, right here in our prosperous community, and as I conclude and say good-bye, the poor are reaching out their hands to you and letting you know that if you let go of their hands, they and their children will die. Thinking Generations Ahead . . . how does that change what we do? How does that motivate us to end prolonged and generational poverty together as partners, as members of the community?
Furthermore, current upwardly mobile non-poor who live outside central-cities are the beneficiary of a change in how home ownership was made possible. As early as the 1930’s Federal regulation began to restructure the home buying process to allow for lower down-payments and longer term-mortgages. The principle of amortizing loans made it possible to borrow on long lengths of time for more affordable, smaller monthly payments. Later, after WWII other Federal Housing Authority (FHA) policies helped to structure home ownership to be very attractive and easier to obtain, specifically crafting regulatory guidelines for subdivisions on the outskirts of urban centers, the first fruits of what was to become suburbs. In effect, the government, through legislation and acts of congress—primarily through the FHA and Veterans Administration in particular—disproportionately encouraged new home ownership in the suburbs rather than fixing or rehabilitating older structures in urban centers.
Eventually the sociological pressures stemming from the end of WWII, the “released pent-up demand for starting families and buying consumer goods,” a housing shortage in the central cities, along with the availability of low-cost mortgages for new homes, and mass production techniques in the housing industry (obtained by mirroring techniques developed by the Armed Forces during WWII) kept costs affordable contributed to a rapid expansion of the suburbs. The shift in regulatory policies for long-term-little-down mortgages, government subsidized development of major highways for access in and out of central-cities, the GI Bill (a government provided education training program), and other Federal aid to the newer exurban regions made prosperity possible as we know it today. The power of zoning laws, not the invisible hand of the market, were set in place to protect the preferences and influence of those with power, along with affluent developers, “advertisers of home-related products, women’s magazines, the Federal Housing Authority, and bank officials, sought to make the sharpest possible contrast between the private, comfortable, safe, and protected environment of the suburbs and the open, competitive, dangerous, and seductive world of the central cit. The “invisible hand” had and continues to get help—sometimes through lobbying efforts via the government, sometimes through creative marketing, sometimes through elite-celebrity-status-trends makers, and/or non-free market, politically empowered zoning codes. Growth and decline, increase and decrease, expansion and contraction, growth in one area at the expense of another area—all unavoidable within a socio-economic system that prizes “progress” and is supported by greed, desire, and the ultimate goal of “the Suburban Way of Life. As an empirical fact, the capitalistic system, along with its handmaidens the “market” and the desire for upward-mobility, has ignored its central-cities and promoted life in the burbs as the ultimate goal of prosperity, the only path to growth.
The non-poor didn’t do it on their own
Simply—the more affluent suburbanite, despite a claim to a higher work ethic or a more developed sense of civic responsibility, didn’t do it on their own; they had help along the way. On the one hand, the non-poor’s social construction of reality which they now experience as everyday life allows them to benefit from past actions of government, not just the market, that laid much of the groundwork for continued prosperity. On the other hand, the concentration of the poor and poverty in central-cities is not simply about laziness, slothfulness, or even personal sin. (I assume the non-poor who benefit from the current structure and mediating institutions are just as much “sinners” as those living in geographic areas of concentrated poverty.) The fact of poverty and the reality of those affected by it in the central-cities couldn’t have happened any more effectively if it were actually planned and implemented with malice. Without the aid of government policies and subsidies, as well as municipally empowered zoning laws and discriminatory business policies (such as banking red-lining), the foundation for exurban wealth in America might not have happened. Rather than lamenting this ugly state of affairs, participants were encouraged to rejoice in the ability and prudence of such strategies and the institutions—not the government but capitalism and the mythical market—that enabled them. Certainly the market helped and capitalism rewarded those who could afford to move out of the cities and relocate in the suburbs. Let’s face it, postwar capitalism had a bias toward the suburbs and a bias against central cities. The modern, non-poor Suburban dwellers are the heirs of such socially constructed forces.
The problem for the non-poor believer, living in such a history and current social location, experiences only a partial reality, that is the present model for socio-economic progress and prosperity, and objectifies his or her world as what is the correct way and true, and thus biblical. This is a defective social construction, namely idolatry, which the non-poor Christian experiences in everyday life. However, the prophets warned of God’s judgment upon those who created economic structures that benefited some and excluded others, that paved the way to prosperity for some and generational poverty for others. The non-poor accept a world that is duplicitous, limiting the historic and current benefits of a socio-economic system to those the market blessed. Furthermore, the reality of everyday life, which is the acceptance that Suburban life and its enablers the free market and human acts of power, sustains an everyday life at odds with the Gospel, especially in how the Gospel has been formed by the relationship between idolatry and the issues of poverty.
Duplicitous, Self-Righteous Double Standards in the Burbs
Since much of the economic resources and those tending toward a conservative view of Government and Christianity live outside of the concentrated centers of poverty, the following focuses on the social-location of non-poor Christians who live within suburbia. My concern here is three-fold: 1) First, non-poor Christians are often not fully aware of their own socially constructed reality in the suburbs, its origin, that is, how suburban life came about; 2) second, the socially constructed reality sets up the non-poor Christian to be duplicitous and live by a self-righteous double standard; 3) third, the non-poor Christian’s participation in the suburban way of life, capitalism in general, and the free market system causes a need for continuous reaffirmation for a biblical plausibility of their social location. Non-poor Christians respond as those living in a socially constructed reality that is alienated from those living with the affects of poverty. “Without a sociological imagination” linking social location to history, the exurban non-poor, including the Christian, cannot properly understand who they are and why they act and think as they do. In order to see the impact of idolatry on how non-poor Christians respond toward obvious biblical texts concerning the poor, a review of the so-called objective reality known as the suburbs is needed.
Often the argument rests, not on biblical grounds, but on the ability of the non-poor who have taken the opportunities presented in our capitalistic, free market socio-economic system to develop wealth and prosperity. The poor in the cities only need to do the same. Equal opportunity, not equal distribution of wealth is justice. But this is not a fair picture, for the so-called “opportunity” has had a history and an opportunity that has been largely absent from urban-dwellers (i.e., the locale of most of the concentrated poverty), a present consequence that is more akin to the injustice described by the prophets than simply the results of a good, solid Christian work ethic and the free market. The task here is to briefly expose the misinformed road to prosperity for the non-poor and the non-poor Christians who co-benefit from the same socio-economic system and enjoy the current institutions that sustain such prosperity.
The exurban non-poor benefit from the structures, institutions, and economies that developed in favor of the suburbs and, for the most part, at the expense of the central-cities—for decades. The shift from urban to suburban came with a committed redistribution of efforts and transactions ranging from Federal subsidies to government policies, including perceptions of urban and central-city life and the goal of prosperity being the American suburban way of life. The ability to enjoy prosperity today, especially in the upwardly mobile circles of exurbia, is built on a number of socio-economic transactions that have contributed to the current socially constructed reality of many non-poor. Since the end of WWII, Suburban development has been “celebrated while urban decline was explained away as inevitable.” The “industrial cities’ obsolescence” and the flourishing of the suburban way of life, for many, has been “a sign of progress rather than as a national defect,” even necessary for continued economic growth. As the last World War concluded, America began experiencing one of its most prosperous eras of its history, rising to be one of the most affluent nations in the world. Throughout the post-WWII era, “Jobs were plentiful and wages were on the rise. Young married couples were confident enough of the future to flee apartments in the cities for homes with mortgages in the suburbs.” At the same time, “the industrial cities were undergoing precipitous decline.” American urban-centers, along with its infrastructures and economies, were failing and residents who could afford leave for the suburbs in great numbers. The industry clusters, particularly manufacturing firms that supported much of the urban population, closed up and left for “more favorable locations.” Jobs left the central cities en mass and there was negligible workforce development supportive of those who could not afford to leave. Urban-municipalities became overly burdened with a dwindling tax-base and an ever-increasing demand and need for services. The Post-War era was not “a temporary deviation from unrelenting expansion” of outlying areas, suburbs, and the periphery of city-centers; it was more than an ‘optical illusion’.” This began a long-term, epic change, “a sharp and possibly permanent shift in the country’s pattern of urbanization” that would create two, almost alien segments of society, with two distinctively estranged realities.
Securing Home, Adjusting Our Signs and Symbols
Luke T. Johnson reminds us that, “Idolatry comes naturally to us, not only because of the societal symbols and structures we ingest from them, but also because it is the easiest way for our freedom to dispose itself.” This understanding of the function of idolatry is captured well by Berger and Luckmann, who have demonstrated that “reality is socially constructed.” However, to fully understand “the everyday reality” of human beings, it is simply “not enough to understand the particular symbols or interaction patterns of individual situations.” It is the “overall structure or meaning within which these particular patterns and symbols” are experienced. As we seek to apply the significance of texts that present Laws, land-stipulations, warnings, and judgments regarding our relationship and social action toward the poor and economically vulnerable, it is important to understand the social life-world experienced by the non-poor, how it was formed, and how non-poor Christians participate in the outcomes of this social location.
Religion once offered an integrating principle that helped to provide a “life-world” that was “more or less unified.” Modern life not only provides a less unified everyday life, now religion often aligns itself with the socio-economic forces that give meaning to such everyday life that inoculate the Christian from the idolatrous forces embedded in the social-location and its institutions. Over time different symbols and signs, rather than religious (or biblical) permeate the various social-locations the modern non-poor experiences as everyday life. In fact the very habit of experiencing the fragmented, often unintegrated social-locations over and over everyday might feel like a freedom granted by our socio-economic system, but weakens the plausibility our faith forming a true “home world.” We, then, find ourselves in need of affirming a “this worldly” system and its institutions in order to be at home, even as Christians. The individual, then “plots the trajectory of his life on the societal ‘map’” provided by such institutions and apparent freedoms in order to relate—comfortably, plausibly, securely—to the overall web of acceptable meanings in the society. “Because of the plurality of social worlds in modern society, the structures of each particular world are experienced as relatively unstable and unreliable.” Consequently the institutional order undergoes a certain loss of reality. The security comes on objectifying the subjective reality. The separated sectors of our social world are rationalized and relativized, forcing the non-poor Christian to religiously justify “this worldly systems and institutions” in order to feel less exposed and vulnerable and more relevant and secure.
Although there is some movement among younger evangelicals to embrace social action, much is simply a political realignment rather than truly counter-cultural expression of faith (“justice issues are trendy and participation gives good feeling”) and alien or detached from actually poverty (“they get to go home to the suburbs after their social action is done for the day”). Nonetheless, for the most part, the non-poor evangelical Christian living in the suburbs, benefiting from limited government and the promise of upward mobility, feel at home in the burbs, a life sustained and enabled by capitalism and the free market. After decades of political alignment and religious justification, the remedy for the alienation and loneliness and self-doubt of modern, segmented life is democratic freedom and capitalism—all biblically text-proofed.
Here, I am concerned with the non-poor Christian’s social location, particularly those participating in non-urban life, and how the idolatry-poverty framework can help to inform and form the concept of discipleship and evangelism (i.e., the demonstration and proclamation of the Kingdom’s presence). It is not necessarily how Pentateuchal and prophetic ethical texts apply to our modern social location, but how the inter-play between idolatry and the issues of poverty relate to those who ought to be informed and formed by the Gospel and the inaugural presence of the Kingdom of God. And then, how the Christian and the Church community apply that significance to life in the public arena.
Idolatry pushes us into a defective reality
The Old Testament story-line through narrative, psalmists, wise-sayings, and the prophets is, for the most part, a story of the tension between the faith and worship of Israel and the presence and pressures of idolatry. P. C. Craigie defines “idolatry” as “The worship of an idol or of a deity represented by an idol.” The Bible’s wide range of terms for idols and idolatry allow the concept to be taken to mean both the worship of images and the worship of foreign gods, making both senses valid. The first direct prohibition against idolatry (Exodus 20; Deut 5) was associated with God’s revelation of Himself to Israel, a “self-disclosure” through words rather than images and the Sinai redemptive event, which “constituted a paradigm” of God’s continued self-disclosure. The severe exclusion of worshiping images (i.e., symbols and signs) or serving other gods before Yahweh was “to maintain a continuing consciousness among the Israelites that their God is different from and incomparable to the pagan gods” (cf. Isa 40:18-26). Although much of the ethical content of Israel’s faith is similar to the surrounding ANE religions, this is one of the most striking contrasts to Israel’s neighbors, namely the religion of Israel prohibited the use of images in the worship, in the passing on of knowledge of God, and, very importantly, in regards to Israel’s relationship with God, to others, and to the land.
Reinhold Niebuhr, in his Nature and Destiny of Man observed that idolatry is the making of that which is contingent absolute, something relative into “the unconditional principle of meaning.” Luke T. Johnson points out that when we consider or ascribe something as ultimate, this is worship, but not just what our lips or cultus practice render, but in the exercise of our freedom in service to that which we consider absolute and unconditional, and thus derive our significance. Whatever we may claim as ultimate, that is my god, which “rivets my attention, centers my activity, preoccupies my mind, and motivates my action.” It is, however, not just the wooden object or image fashioned with gold and silver, that is provides the danger of idolatry, for the Bible is clear that such idols are no-things (Pss 115; 135). It is the body of knowledge—the basis or meaning and worldview—that accompanies the object that is worshipped and, as well, the social and cultural habits that follow in developing an everyday world with meaning and definitions for relationships—repeated action, ritual and mundane habits—that objectifies reality and maintains significance and security. Our socially constructed world, then, is our reality formed by our service of worship through the habits and experience of everyday life. It is idolatry when anything other than the Biblical God is the object of such service.
Johnson reminds us that “The important idolatries have always centered on those forces which have enough specious power to be truly counterfeit, and therefore truly be dangerous: sexuality (fertility), riches, and power (or glory).” Idolatry is the seeking of something powerful enough to give us meaning, yet controllable enough for it to be my being, my life, my worth. What makes idolatry attractive—and dangerous—is its “claim to manipulate ultimate power; the folly of idolatry lies in the fact that any power which can be manipulated cannot be ultimate.” Idolatries are socially constructed—our affection is placed in an “ultimate power” or what is perceived as absolute is objectified through reinforced routines of daily life, making “the relative absolute, the contingent necessary, and the end-all that which is neither end nor all.” The result is constructs a distorted reality for the Christian. Our whole orientation can be in apposition to the reality of the inaugurated presence and affects of the Kingdom of God. As far as biblical revelation and the Christian is concerned, “Idolatry [is] the Big Lie about reality.” This is equally true of economic realities and social-locations that form our everyday habits as non-poor, evangelical Christians as it is of those who worship multiple gods in other world religions. This is why simply aligning one’s Christian faith with a political party or even with a socio-economic system is ultimately idolatrous.
I know I need to finish up my last thread (on coveting), but the need to work on my paper for the up-coming ETS meeting in mid-Nov is an all encompassing project. In this “new” thread, I am floating up some trial balloons and ideas on one of the section. I am dealing with the issue of the non-poor’s socially constructed world, and the implications it has for co-participating non-poor Christians, particularly regarding the issue of poverty.
Moving from ancient text to application (Old Testament ethical texts regarding the poor and poverty) can be very difficult, especially as we consider how such texts are to inform and form Christian discipleship concerning those affected by poverty. At the risk of over-generalization, approaches to tend to align with political views and party affiliations, as well as comfort levels and economic social-locations: Republicans and the politically conservative tend to read capitalism, free markets, and individual charity as biblical solutions; democrats and the politically liberal tend to lean toward the State as the responsible guarantor to provide the means for caring for the poor. Both appeal to Scripture; both argue their solutions are biblical. As I have argued, however, both certainly have merit and find some proof-texted support, but neither takes into consideration the biblical juxtaposition of idolatry and poverty, nor our own human capacity to participate in the idolatrous patterns of our own social location and both overlook the idolatries of our own political or social alignments.
Shifting the center for discussing the issues of poverty to discipleship and evangelism helps to focus our attention on the social-location of non-poor Christians and how they are respond to the poor and how they can challenge idolatry. This is particuarly important since the sacred text is primarily concerned with informing and forming God’s community. This being the case, in light of biblical discipleship, the non-poor Christian must recognize his or her social location and resist the affects of idolatry that have informed and formed their own reality.
While I agree that there is an absence of a systematic, comprehensive Evangelical reflection on politics and public life, my concern about developing a Christian political or even public philosophy is that such endeavors tend to align with existing political structures (right or left, liberal or conservative) and current socio-economic systems rather than a subversive confrontation to existing idolatries. The development of a public philosophy can lead, then, “to contradicting, confusion, ineffectiveness, even biblical unfaithfulness, in our political work.” Defending the status quo. Christians will be Democrats, republicans, and independents, all depending on how one was raised, who their friends are, how they view government, etc. A political philosophy would be somewhat be akin developing a rationale for a system of this world, which, we are not to love nor align ourselves with. Evangelicals ought not develop such a philosophy that would affirm a particular party-platform or advocate for a particular economic system, it seems to me distinctively Christian ethical responses cannot develop such “this worldly” philosophy, for it is the realm of discipleship and evangelism through which we apply a Christian philosophy of the public. More so, we ought to develop biblical views on the public square, and especially on how our wealth and economics affect the poor. We need a discipleship that has public conponent that takes in all of Scripture, and the full weight of the Gospel. As evangelicals it is our responsibility to advocate for the poor, not promote simply political solutions.
From the working draft, “Idolatry and Poverty: Where the
Private vs. Public Isn’t Enough.”
While we’re at it—talking about idolatry and the poor—I take a slight side route and pause in my mini-series of posts on idolatry and coveting to say…
If you’re planning on doing the “Cash for Clunkers” deal and get your $4,500 for trading in your used car for a new one—think twice if you have a concern for the poor. I heard and then did a little study that with all the cars being turned in for the “Cash for Clunkers” program, the price of used vehicles are rising. This hurts the poor directly I thought. I couldn’t be the only one who put these two things together, so I began to browse—and I am not the only one. Hundreds of websites and blogs are making comments and postings that “Cash for Clunkers” hurts the poor. You see, since they—the program goal—is to take the older vehicle off the road, this reduces the number of older cars—i.e., used cars—available in the market, which causes the cost of the used vehicles to rise. It is the pool (i.e., market) of used cars that poorer folks and families rely on for their car-purchase, because its affordable (well, it used to be). (Teens looking for their first car will be hurt too!) I betcha that no one in the current administration or congress even thought about this; it is like raising the taxes on the poor, which it actually does. And if you consider insurance, the cost, too, is higher because of the higher cost to the used vehicle, which hurts the poor as well. This is a clear display that even those who claim through their impassioned speech and rhetoric that we need to have concern for the poor and shift (redistribute) resources to the poor don’t really care about the poor and how their so-called good-will legislation actually impacts the poor negatively. As one person said, “Progressive policy isn’t always good for the poor.” Like corn-for-cars, which leaves long lines for food in third-world societies, cash for clunkers hurts the poor. Where is the outcry from Jim Wallis and his kind? Nowhere to be heard! Where are the community organizers to boycott and speak on behalf of the poor and against cash for clunkers? Not one bit of action on their part! Since this was a liberal idea, a progressive idea, these groups will be silent—which actually shows everyone where their heart is at. It is power they want--not to actually help the poor. Cash for clunkers hurts the poor—boycott the program if you care about the poor.