Responding to Cornwall on Faith and Politics
Concerning Bob Cornwall’s reply to the first question I must say that I find a lot of common ground, particularly when it comes to the problem of balancing involvement in politics and avoiding the dangers inherent in “the lure of power politics.” But, not surprisingly, there was some disagreement. One of the most problematic statements was his claim that “I recognize that I cannot coercively impose my beliefs on others. We live in a pluralistic country, not a Christian one.”
What makes this statement so troubling for me is that virtually every act of government is an act of coercion, the imposition of one person’s, or group’s beliefs and values on others who disagree. After all if there was 100% agreement, there would be no need for government. Government passes laws, which if transgressed, can result in the loss of property (fines), freedom (prison) or even death. To pay for this government likewise coerces money in the form of taxes. This makes government, at its core, an enemy to freedom and liberty.
I believe that some of the problems caused by this coercion can be mitigated by the democratic process. But, is it really an exercise of democracy when a majority imposes burdens on a minority, burdens that the majority does not share?
Now, unlike some of my libertarian friends, I do not see this as a reason to dispense with all government, for I believe that at least some government is needed. But where I suspect that I differ with Mr. Cornwall is over its size, location (local, state, federal), and its efficacy. We will probably get into more detail concerning this later on so let me just say that I believe that as a general rule government should be small and decentralized as much as reasonably possible, and that its mandates should allow for choice and freedom when possible. In addition, I would guess that we have significant disagreements when it comes to the definition of some terms and phrases, such as justice for all, safety net, and what is or is not equitable.
Finally I would point out that when it comes to the “the lure of power politics” one sure way to exacerbate the problem is to either increase the power, or to concentrate it. “Big government liberals” do both, increasing the role and influence of government’s power, while centralizing it at the federal level.
In short, drawing from my reply, because of love, I agree with many of the goals, particularly of tending to needs of “the least amongst us.” However, because of my view of truth, I would differ on the ability of a large federal government to actually accomplish this, and frankly believe that such a government is far more likely to only make matters worse.
Paul Ryan
Given the announcement over the weekend in this weeks debate sponsored by my publisher, Energion we were also asked to address the pick of Paul Ryan.
I think this was a great pick. There are generally two factors in picking a VP: Who will help get the candidate elected, and who will help them govern, these are not the same thing. Given that Ryan is one of the most knowledge people when it comes to the budget, and also one of the most reform-minded, I think this pick shows that Romney is focused on governing in general, and actually addressing some of the long term problems that have been growing larger and more threatening with each passing year.
That said, the choice of VP will ultimately pale in comparison to the importance of the candidates themselves. As such Romney’s choice of Ryan is actually more important than any strengths or weaknesses Ryan brings to the campaign. For me the choice is a good indication that Romney really intends to get spending under control, and the his speeches along these lines may be more than just promises made in the heat of a campaign, they may actually be what he intends to do, and if so that will be a very good thing.
Faith, Politics and the Election
This is the first post in a debate sponsored by my publisher, Energion on the upcoming election. The starting question is:
How does your faith inform your decisions during this election season, including both thinking and actions leading up to the election (involvement, etc) and your vote?
Let me start by stating up front that I do not see my view, in any way, as being “the Christian view.” It is very easy when laying out one’s views, particularly in such a short space, to take the positive affirmations I make as somehow implying criticism of others who have reached somewhat different conclusions. That is neither my belief nor my intent. I fully believe that there are devoted and believing Christians who reach very different conclusions, just as Christians do in so many other areas. That one, or both sides may be wrong is not a reason for criticism, but for dialogue and prayer.
My starting point, at least for this question, is that I believe we should be involved. In short, I take the verses that talk about our relationship to the state to basically mean that we should be good citizens. In a democratic form of government this means that we should take an interest in government and that we should vote.
We are to be the salt of the world, and while I do not believe this is primarily a political command–far from it–neither do I think that this excludes politics. While it is easy to be discouraged and fatalistic, after all, God is in control; what can we do; the same could be said of witnessing. While it is true that there are a lot of unsavory people involved in politics, I would argue that this calls for wisdom and caution, not avoidance.
So if we take involvement as a given, and if not, the rest of this is pretty much meaningless, how then should we be involved? As with everything else in the Christian world, this will vary significantly from person to person. A few will be called to be active, and fewer still to run for office. For most it will simply be a matter of becoming well enough informed so that one can cast a considered vote.
But this raises the question, how will you decide for whom to vote? After all Jesus is not running and no one else will live up to his standards. Everyone will be deficient in one way or another. While true, this is no more relevant to picking someone for City Council or President than it is for picking someone to be your pastor. The bottom line becomes who is the best person, among the candidates, for the job.
Now here I am going to step on some toes, and I apologize in advance, but voting for someone who cannot win is, in my mind, an act of selfishness. To me this is removing oneself from the final decision so that one can feel good about themselves, whether it is a vote for Ross Perot in 1992, or Ralph Nader in 2000. In this election, either President Obama will be elected to a second term, or Mitt Romney will be elected to a first. Voting for any other candidate is the same as not voting. It removes one from the decision making process and leaves it to others to make the decision.
As for what shapes my decision, that is probably best summed up by 1 John 3:16-18.
This is how we have come to know Love: The Messiah gave his life for us. We, too, ought to give our lives for our brothers. 17 Whoever has early possessions and notices a brother in need and yet withholds compassion from him, how can the love of God be present in him? 18 Little Children, we must not express love merely by our words and manner of speech; we must love also in action and in truth. (ISV)
A full exposition of these verses would take more space than I have, so let me just highlight a couple of points. First, we as Christians do have a duty to those in need, as Christ sacrificed for us, we too should sacrifice for others. This is not just a command to give of our excess, of what we can spare or afford. After all could Christ “afford” his life?
Secondly, notice that verse 17 talks about withholding compassion, not about withholding possessions. Our primary duty is not to give, but to love. All that we do must stem from a true love for those in need.
Finally, our love cannot just be an expression of concern, but it must work itself out in our actions and in truth. In fact the concepts of Truth and Love are central to much of John’s message and finding the correct balance between them is extremely difficult, as these two often seem, at least to us, to be in conflict.
Of course, trying to take the concepts of truth and love, which are difficult enough on their own, and apply them to public policy is not an easy process, which is why Christians can and do reach such different conclusions. Applying them to a choice of flawed men running for office is even harder, which will probably become apparent in the following weeks.
This is one of the reasons why, while I may politically differ with other Christians, I am not going to question their commitment to God or their faith merely because they reach different political conclusions than I have. Again such disagreement should call, not for condemnation, but for more dialogue and prayer, as we all seek to live our faith in love and in truth.
Preserving Democracy
Clever Quips from Conservative Sue used Preserving Democacy as a nice jumping off point to discuss the parallels between the fall of the Roman Republic and our current situation. Check out her post: Rome is Burning
ObamaCare and Our Duty to God II
In a reply to my last post, Robert Cornwall raised a number of issues. We are probably in general agreement on the “what” of our duty to those in need and our main difference is on the “How.” My main point was that our duty to those in need is not a valid reason to support government policies in general or the Affordable Care Act aka ObamaCare in specific. One’s desire for or against says nothing at all about one’s relationship to God, or their commitment to those in need.
Mr. Cornwall raised the point that the need is greater than the church can provide, but I would submit that the problem of providing health care for the nation is bigger than the government can provide. It can promise as much as it likes, but it simply cannot live up to those promises over any significant period of time.
No one argues that there are not huge problems with the health care insurance system in this country. The issue is how to fix it. I think a major cause of the current problems has been government interference and regulation going back decades. Government has failed at running the Medicare program, and I do not believe that even more government control will improve the situation but will only make it worse.
What is needed are new and innovative approaches to delivering health care, and more importantly of paying for it. Such innovation cannot come from the top down. It can only come from the bottom up. It is no coincidence that many of the innovative approaches that have improved care while cutting cost have come from the area least under government control, i.e., plastic surgery.
But government does not innovate, it regulates, locking the current system into a bureaucratic morass that can only drive up cost and further limit care; and that is assuming that this was a good bill. But it isn’t.
What is now the Affordable Care law was never supposed to have become law. It was a hastily crafted set of bargaining positions put together by the Senate and passed so they could go home for Christmas. The idea was that the “real” bill would be written in the conference committee when they returned. But Scott Brown’s election eliminated that possibility. The bill should have been dead at that point but through a series of questionable procedures, the Senate bill became law because it was that or nothing.
A few parts have already been repealed, as even the Democrats had to admit they were a disaster. What remains cannot stand. The Courts ruling that states can opt out of the Medicare provision will be a huge problem. In short the law must be either significantly modified or repealed, and replaced with a new approach. I support the latter. But then even today we do not know the full extent of the law, as there are many places where the law is simply “as the secretary shall determine” and the secretary is still working on it.
To me there is no doubt that the way the bill is written, if allowed to remain, in two years there will be even more people without insurance then there are now which was the main reason the bill was passed and thus the problem will be even greater that it currently is. The bill has already caused costs to rise, with many employers planning to drop coverage as a result of the bill; and that is with a bunch of waivers so as to avoid the pain of the bill until after the election, which is when the taxes also kick in.
Mr. Cornwall’s charge of Docetism, completely ignores the point that I was making. I was not saying that we shouldn’t worry about the physical needs of the poor, only that our duty cannot be fulfilled by passing it off to the Government. Again I oppose the bill, not out of any lack of concern for the physical needs of people, but the exact opposite, out of a firm and certain belief that this bill will make health care worse for people. It will increase suffering of people, not reduce it.
