From: ptfarre@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Peter Farrell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: "Christian politics"??
Date: 31 Aug 92 07:29:48 GMT
Organization: The Great Beyond

In article <Aug.30.02.57.35.1992.12599@athos.rutgers.edu> djohnson@cs.ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson) writes:
>
>Another reason people get cynical about politics - everyone wants it
>to be black and white, when it isn't.  What about the single mother
>whose husband has left her, or is a mother due to rape or incenst.
>Should these women be "forced" to get married in order to receive
>government aid?  And even if a single mothers condition is due to her
>sin, who are we to judge her and deny compassion?
>
>But that's the big secret the political parties are trying to hide
>from us.  There isn't a clear answer to any of the issues raised.
>Notice that "issues" is plural.  It is discouraging to hear people say
>they will vote for a candidate because "they're against abortion" or
>"she's a woman", as if these were the only issues considered.
...
>If enough individuals did, maybe there would be no need for the government
>to step in.  

Here is a real-life example of the kind of thing Darin is talking about,
which has happened in my own church.  A woman who our church is helping
with money, food and furniture, was abandoned with three small children
by her husband. Two weeks after this shameful act, he declared bankruptcy
to elude his creditors, knowing this would mean her eviction from their
house.  Her only industry is childcare; she watches ten other children
of various ages in addition to her own three. Without a college degree
or extensive work experience outside the home, she is virtually unable
to find any employment at all which would prevent their starvation.

By some fortunate event, one of the families in our church heard of her
plight and now we are not only helping her material needs, but she has
a whole crowd of caring friends she never even knew. Her children (I suppose)
have playmates and a positive, safe place to go on Sundays. I am not
directly involved, but my tithes and offerings to God's church go for,
among other things, help to people the church is ministering to.
(And it sure would be easier to meet those tithes and offerings if my
taxes weren't high and getting higher. Hmmm...)  

The government simply cannot do it like this. It never will be able to.

I am known by some readers of this newsgroup as the guy with the shocking
point of view that most downtrodden and oppressed people volunteered for
the position; yet I can tell of compassionate acts like the one above.
That lady did not volunteer for what happened to her, I am confident of
that. But if there were a person whose miserable state was due to their
own ignorance, stubbornness and sin, the church could confront them with
that while helping their material needs.  Again, government cannot do this.

So the reason why Christians seem to support political movements that are
against big government (and thus, our enemies accuse us of hypocrisy by
its appearance, since most big-government agendas involve massive social
spending programs) is that government is butting its head in where it not
only doesn't belong but where it is very clumsy and ineffectual.

Some people in this country are for large government intervention into
the affairs of people precisely because they hate Christ and the church;
they consciously desire a nation where a poor person can get aid (whatever
that happens to mean; it is conveniently vague) without any prophetic
confronting from a "religious group".

I personally believe that any rational, thinking Christian will read the
statements of the two major political parties in our country and THINK about
what it will mean if one or the other prevails in national policy.  It  
doesn't take much work, either; they are both vocal & proud of where they
stand. One of them has its Presidential candidate OPENLY vying for
the support of lesbians and sodomizers; he intends to bestow special 
political status upon them if he gets his way. (IMHO, the implications
of that are themselves worth deadly serious thought before one merely
votes the party line next election day.) 

The unfortunate part is this: when the church attempts to fulfill its
Godly mandate in a particular situation, if it does not come out on the
side of a political group which trumpets the cause of the poor as its
major platform plank, then the church gets slammed by a hostile (and 
indifferent) outside world.  This is because the church's allegiance
- in politics or culture or current affairs or anything else - is
first to her King Jesus, not to politics or even the poor! (Shocking, huh?)
It is interesting to note that the Christians under Roman rule were
not thrown to the lions becaused they worshipped Jesus; they were killed
because they wouldn't tow the political line and say "Caesar is Lord".

Now please - let me not be looking down the barrels of a thousand
flamethrowers for saying that the church doesn't have to care about the
poor or the public good. (I didn't say that.) My view is that many 
Christians see a far bigger threat in big government (whatever its
nice-sounding intentions) than in the numbers of poor or needy people
(whose plight has been taken up as justification for a gigantic social
engineering project). 

Wasn't that nice, Mr. Moderator? I didn't even say "Republicans" or
"Democrats" one time! (But I think we all know who is who..) :-)  

Pete

[I'm beginning to detect a pattern.  There's an increasing assumption
that being helped is degrading.  This affects not only the poor, where
we are developing impersonal programs rather than the kind of actions
you describe.  It also affects attitudes towards disabled.  Our
economy is about to be attacked by a law that is predicated on the
concept that we must set things up so that disabled never need any
special considerations: buses have to be designed to accept
wheelchairs even though it would be cheaper for us and more convenient
for them to have special shuttle buses set up specifically to handle
wheelchairs, airplanes need wide aisles even though it would be
cheaper and more convenient to give all people in wheelchairs free
first class tickets, etc.  One of my colleagues has a sister who is
disabled.  He is livid at the thought that she might have to depend
upon someone to open a door for her.  While I generally support the
right of women to do anything they are qualified for, even within the
church, I will have to say that some feminism seems to have the same
quality.

It seems to me that Christianity is based on the idea that we all
depend upon each other.  I wouldn't want to see someone who is unable
to make any contribution, but how could that be?  Life seems to be
designed to force us to depend upon each other: as children, as
elderly, when we are injured, etc.  I would rather see life as a dance
with roles constantly shifting than a collection of people remaining
in proud independence of each other.

--clh]