Tax Time
Once again tax day is upon us. But what this day means is vastly different to many Americans and therein lies a problem. For many Americans, while preparing their income tax is a difficult and confusing task and one they often pay to have done, the reward is great. According to IRS stats the average refund on an individual return is $2,345, so it is little wonder that some look forward to tax time with anticipation.
For some, their refund is a true refund. It is the amount of money they overpaid in taxes during the year. But for many others their refund is not really a refund at all, but simply more money for them. This is because at lower income levels there are a large number of credits that are subtracted from your taxes whether or not you paid money in. As I point out in my new book, Preserving Democracy, released today, during the 2004 tax year the lowest 40% of those filing returns actually had a negative share of income taxes paid, i.e., they received more money back from the government in their refund than they paid in.
In fact the lowest 90% of those filing income tax returns either received more money back from the government than they paid, or their share of taxes paid was less than the share of income earned. For those in the 90%-95% range their share of taxes was about equal to their share of income. For those above 95% their share of taxes was higher than their share of income
The net result is vastly different views of the tax code. When the majority of people pay less than 5% of the income taxes, their reaction to policy questions such as “should income taxes be raised” is likely to be vastly different than that of the increasingly small minority who are forced to paid the majority of the bill. In 1986 the top 10% of those filing returns paid 55% of the taxes. By 2005 the burden had been shifted such that just the top five percent paid and even larger 60%. The top 1 percent paid nearly 40% of the total tax bill.
This situation was one of the specific dangers the founding fathers worried about when they set up the system of checks and balances that is the U. S. Constitution. The system of checks and balances worked well for over 100 years. Then starting about the time of World War I we began to make changes to government, and in the process undermined many of the checks and balances the founding fathers had set up.
The result has been the explosive growth in government that we saw over the last 100 years where the share of the economy consumed by government grew a staggering 459% . As a result of the removal of these checks and balances, we now have two long term trends that simply cannot continue forever, and yet seem to have no end in sight. The first is government’s consuming a growing share of the national economy. It is simply a fact that the explosive growth in government that we saw in the last century cannot be maintained, If for no other reason than if we continue at this rate, in about 200 years the government would consume 100% of the economy, leaving nothing for anyone to live on. This would be impossible, the system would collapse long before this. Unfortunately rather than slowing the growth of government, we are currently increasing even faster.
The second longer term trend is that the tax burden is being shifted onto an ever smaller percentage of the population. Not only does this make it ever harder to fix the first trend, as any attempt is immediately labeled as “tax cuts for the rich” it has many other problems. It takes a lot of work to earn money and at some point government takes so much that it is no longer worth the effort. For example, why put in long hours and weekends to earn a bonus, if the government is going to take it all? What will happen if “the rich” who pay the vast majority of taxes cut back, or are forced by government to cut back, even a bit? Who will pay the taxes if the rich are no longer rich?
Many people are happy that corporate bigwigs are not going to fancy resorts, except of course all the “average guys” who work at those resorts or whose jobs are in some way related to them. The same can be said about corporate jets, but what about all the people who build them, the pilots who fly them, the ground crews that maintain them, etc.. Not being able to fly a corporate jet may be an inconvenience for a CEO, but it can be a major problem for all those who are laid off when the CEO is no longer allowed to fly that jet.
The simple fact is that government cannot continue to grow at the rate it has grown over the last 100 years; at some point the entire system will collapse. Unfortunately, no one knows where the point of collapse is. And this is just one of the dangers I outline in my book. If you are in the ever decreasing percentage that pays the bills, you probably are already aware of much of this. However, if you see tax time as little more than a big refund check, you might do well to consider the reasons for the checks and balances the founding fathers put in place to preserve democracy and create the greatest country in the world.
Of First Importance
As I have discussed previously all too often people dismiss rituals as meaningless and of little value. But this is somewhat of a chicken and egg problem. Are rituals dismissed because they are meaningless and of little value, or are they meaningless and of little value because they are dismissed?
Whether something does or does not have meaning depends largely on us. The cross is meaningful because we see it as a symbol of Christ’s sacrifice. We give it meaning by associating it with what Christ did. In short, we choose whether or not we will see it as significant.
This phenomena is not simply limited to religion. For example in 1971 Congress restructured federal holidays to give more three day weekends. Before 1971 Memorial Day was May 30th. Now it is the last Monday in May. As a three day weekend every year Memorial day has for most completely lost its meaning. A Gallop Poll last year show that only 28% of Americans knew the actual reason for the three Day weekend they were celebrating. Instead, for many Memorial Day is nothing more than a time for barbeques and parties rather than what it was originally intended, a solemn day to honor those who gave their lives in the service of their country.
Yet when rituals are seen as meaningful, they can focus and magnified belief. They also serve a teaching function, as a way of transmitting important values to the next generation. The casual anything goes attitude of society exists just as strongly in a church more eager to attract members than to make disciples.
Apart from older churches with a long history of tradition such as the Roman Catholic Church, Easter and Christmas are pretty much the last Christian rituals, and for many even these are in decline. The meaning slowly draining away year after year, and for increasing numbers of young people the meaning is never implanted.
This weekend most Western Churches will celebrate Easter which commemorates the resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. (Orthodox observe Easter on the 19th) This is the most important date on the Christian Calendar.
Paul writing to the Corinthians said that “I passed on to you the most important points that I received: The Messiah died for our sins according to the Scriptures, he was buried, he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures-and is still alive!-” (1 Cor 15:3-4 ISV)
This is so important and central to the Christian faith that Paul later writes “if the Messiah has not been raised, then our message means nothing and your faith means nothing… your faith is worthless and you are still imprisoned by your sins.” (1 Cor 15:14,17 ISV)
Given its centrality and importance it is not surprising that the resurrection is not only one of the most well documented events of the Bible , it is one of the most well documented events of the time period, and one which skeptics have attempted in vain to refute for 2000 years. (See Christianity and Secularism Chapter 6)
The magnitude of the event is beyond comprehension. Even the natural aspects are difficult to fully grasp, a man was betrayed by one of his inner circle and deserted by the rest. The crowds that had hailed him one week earlier now called for his death. He was savagely beaten, scourged, condemned to death and then crucified. Because of the coming Sabbath, his body was hurriedly placed in a borrowed tomb. Which was then guarded by those who had had him executed.
Yet starting early on the following Sunday morning, people began claiming to have seen him. And not just a few, all of those close to him did, along with many of his followers. Even Paul who strongly tried to suppress the growing faith, saw him and converted as a results. In fact Paul point out that one appearance was before a crowd of over 500 , and challenged skeptics to go and talk to those that were still alive about what they had seen. In short a man who had died, had come back to life.
As amazing as this was, this was still just of secondary importance, serving mainly as a confirmation of what was really the most astounding part, a part that when completely unseen by those who witness Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection.
Jesus did not just die on the cross, he died for our sins. This is the truly astounding part and something that is beyond all comprehension. He died for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2), He died for me, and he died for you. He did this that we may live. “For as in Adam all die, so also in the Messiah will all be made alive.” (1 Cor 15:22 ISV)
This is the true meaning of Easter, that Jesus the Son of God, “died for our sins according to the Scriptures, he was buried, he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures-and is still alive!” (1 Cor 15:3-4 ISV) This is the true meaning of Easter. Will what you do this weekend be in accord with this?
This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.
In and Just Like
It is very common to hear Christians talk of impacting the world for Christ. Or to talk of how we are to be in the world but not of the world. But the latest numbers from the Barna Group clearly show that the impact is the other way around. Rather than in but not of, American Christianity is becoming in and just like.
Given that the government mandated secular worldview is so prevalent in the culture, it is not all that surprising to find that only 34% of Americans believe in absolute moral truth, or that half of Americans believe that the Bible is “accurate in all the principles that it teaches.” What is disturbing is the inroad such beliefs are making into the church.
In the survey, “Born Again Christians” were those who said “they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is important in their life today and that they are certain that they will go to Heaven after they die only because they confessed their sins and accepted Christ as their savior.”
While born again Christians who were asked the same question did better than Americans at large, it was not much better. While half of Americans did not believe the Bible was accurate, 21% likewise did not believe the Bible to be accurate. As for the belief in absolute moral truth, even a majority of born-again Christians, 54%, no longer accept that.
The Barna Group’s uses these and four other beliefs, such as Jesus lived a sinless life, to define a Christian world view. Those who hold all six beliefs are then said to have a Christian world view. Based on this the survey shows that only 9% of Americans have a Christian world view. Born again Christians do better, but not much. Only 19% of Born Again Christians could say that they hold all six beliefs.
In a broader perspective, this decline in belief has been going on for sometime. It reached a low point in the mid 1990s when only 7% of American held a Biblical world view. The trend reversed somewhat climbing back up to 11% by 2005, but now is back down to 9%.
Worse however, are the statistics for the younger generations. Those in the 18 to 23 year age group, commonly called the Mosaic generation, were virtually completely secularized, as less than one-half of one percent had a biblical world view.
Now those pushing the secular world view, would undoubtedly say that was because of the superiority of the secular world view and that people are just rejecting the false superstitions of the past. But then they would say that, wouldn’t they. Ultimately I do not think they can be blamed, any more than you could blame a prosecutor if you lost a trial where the evidence was on your side, but your defense lawyer never bother to get up to present your side of the case.
I do believe the evidence is on our side. In some cases very clearly. In fact, in my classes on critical thinking I would use the rejection of absolute morality as an example of how people don’t really think through what they believe.
I would ask how many in the class believed in absolute moral truth, and would get results similar to those found by Barna. I would then ask if torturing babies for fun was inherently wrong, or was a matter of opinion where for some it was wrong, but for other it might not be. With the exception of one student, all the students in all the classes where I asked this considered torturing babies for fun inherently wrong, and the one who didn’t was not very comfortable with his conclusion but was being honest with his belief that there was no absolute moral truth.
Thus with one simple question I was able to almost completely turn around people’s thinking on absolute morality. Granted, winning over the culture will not be quite as easy as this, but on the other hand it is not the insurmountable problem that some seem to think, nor is everything lost.
Still the Church is like the defense attorney with a strong case to make who never presents it. Josh McDowell, in his book The Last Christian Generation, discusses how many young people see church as little more than a place to go with a lot of fun activities, but with little impact on their lives. This is also seen in the very large number of people who leave the church when they leave home.
Yet it need not be this way. The Church not only has the truth, but in many cases the preponderance of the evidence to back it up. Yet sadly many Christians have the attitude of ‘I already believe’ so they don’t need to learn about things like doctrine or apologetics. In fact, it is not only quite sad, but very telling, that many Christians do not even know what the word apologetics means. Given this, the results from Barna, are really no surprise.
This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.
Modern Pharisees?
One of the problems that Jesus had with the scribes and the Pharisees is that they create “burdens that are heavy and unbearable and lay them on people’s shoulders.” (Mt 23:4, ISV) It is all too easy to look back and say, “How could they do that?” But as we look back at the history of the Christian church, it is easy to see that the idea of adding additional rules and regulations to what God wants did not die with the Pharisees as Christians have often been as eager to add their own list of additional do’s and don’ts to God’s law.
Even the early church struggled with this when it came to the question of whether or not Gentile believers had to follow the Jewish law. In the 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14 we see Paul dealing with this issue when it comes to the early church. In First Corinthians 8 the issue was whether it was ok to eat meat sacrificed to idols. While that issue no longer troubles Christians each age seems to have its own set of candidates for inclusion into God’s law.
Personally I like Paul’s answer to such questions in Romans 14, “Each of us will given an account of himself to God. Therefore let’s no longer criticize each other.” (Rom 14:11-13a) Still some are reluctant to let go of their desire to add new rules, and therefore see the second half of verse 13 as a sort of backdoor way of imposing such rules, for Paul goes on to say that, “Instead, make up your mind not to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.” I realize, they say, that it is technically ok, but you still should not, because it could cause someone to stumble.
But this is not an excuse to make a new rules, but rather, an injunction, to be sensitive to those who are weaker in the faith, as Paul goes on to point out in verse 22, “As for the faith you do have, have it as your own conviction before God.”
As with so many things in Christianity, it is a fine line to walk. On the one hand I want to resist additional rules being placed on people, on the other hand, I don’t want to cause a weaker brother to stumble.
Our local paper has a weekly feature where they request responses from the faith community on a particular question. The question they sent out this week is “Does smoking (or drinking) make someone a “bad” person? What about drinking too much coffee or eating too much ice cream? At what point does a vice become a sin, or some sort of a moral problem?” This question immediate raised the issues discussed above.
For some this is an easy question. With the exception of ice cream, some would see these as wrong in any amount, and thus a sin. However at least in terms of Christianity, both coffee and smoking came long after the New Testament, and therefore would seem to fall under what Paul discusses in Romans 14 where each is to make up their own mind on the matter, and not to impose their conclusions on others. As for drinking alcohol, that was well known in Biblical times, and was accepted. After all Jesus’ first miracle was to change water into wine, and the context here is pretty clear that this was not grape juice. Still, it has come to be question by some Christians in the last few centuries, particularly in the United States.
But most things can be overdone, and that is the case with all the above, including ice cream. God is not a burdensome killjoy who seeks to deprive us of all earthly pleasures. Nor does he want us to cause ourselves problems. Clearly alcohol can be abused, as the Bible also makes clear, but so can ice cream, as in the case of those who are seriously overweight. The simple rule for these, and most other things, is, if it becomes a problem for you, than it is a problem that should be avoided.
What is much more important than these individual issues is that we do not allow such things to cause division within the body of Christ. This is something to be kept in mind on both sides. Just as it is wrong for those who believe such thing should be avoided to impose these as new rules for the church, it is likewise wrong for those who believe it is ok to partake to flaunt their liberty. Unity requires considerations on both sides, our goal being that, “Each of us must please our neighbor for the good purpose of building him up.” (Rom 15:2)
This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.
The Fate of the Evangelical Movement
One of the hot topics of the moment seems to be speculation on the ultimate fate of the evangelical movement. Mark Spenser believes, among other things, that evangelicalism “is going to decline quickly to a smaller, more chastened, more diverse, less influential form” and that “Megachurch evangelicalism will survive on size, not fidelity to the Gospel.”
As Mark Galli, senior managing editor of Christianity Today points out this somewhat depends on what is meant by Evangelicalism. If evangelicalism is seen as a cultural or sociological movement than its ultimate decline is certain. On the other hand if it is seen as a primarily theological movement than “Evangelicalism as such will no more collapse than will the ubiquity of sin and the longing for salvation.”
In all this speculation it is important to keep in mind two things. The first is that change is inevitable. Even a quick glance at the history of the Church will show that it has undergone a great deal of change over the centuries. While with the clarity of our current beliefs, it is easy to look back at the ‘errors’ and ‘follies’ of Christians in the past and ask questions such as: how could they believe that?; or how could they do that? It should be equally sobering to realize that should Christ tarry long enough, there will be Christians in the future who look back on the evangelical movement and ask those very same questions.
The change comes from a number of factors. Galli is right when he points out that “Like any movement, religious or not, evangelicalism has become embedded in certain aspects of its culture.” While we are not of this world we are in it, and try as we might, it does affect us and how we look at things.
For example, I think there can be little doubt that should Christ tarry, the church is on the cusp of a major and significant change the ramifications of which will be huge, but as yet unknown. Why? Very simple: the growth of technology. If you were to take a Christian from just about any period of Church history and drop them into the average modern church, while there would be a lot of things they found strange, there would be many things they found the same, in particular how our primary connection to the faith community is through the local church.
I am not predicting that the local church as an institution will cease to exist, though I would not rule it out. The primary reason for the local church is to give Christians a means of coming together to worship, learn about, and serve the Lord. Until very recently how else would you do it? With the advent of radio and TV, it suddenly became possible for people to participate, at least to some extent, in Church services without having to actually go to church. But the key weakness of radio and TV is that they are passive and one way. This was a huge weakness. But it is not like the local church likewise did not have weaknesses. After all a common meeting point does allow people to fellowship together, but only when they get together, and for most that was only a couple of hours a week.
Now we have new technologies such as cell phones, instant messaging and the internet . There are now so many ways of sharing information and staying connected and few if any have any idea how this will affect the church and the way people worship. There are people who live in other states, to whom I am far closer and have far more contact with than anyone at my church, because church is still a far more a limited style of communication that requires my physical presents.
So how will the church change as it comes to embrace these new technologies? While we do not know all the details a few things are sure. These emerging technologies will bring a lot of change, a lot of benefits, a lot of challenges, and some real dangers.
To give just one example, with the current technologies it would be possible to set up a service that allowed your accountability partner to know where you are and to be notified if you went someplace you shouldn’t. Such information given to a close and trusted friend, one whom you had asked to help you resist the temptations you struggled with could be a tremendous aid and benefit. However the same information given as a requirement of the church would itself be a huge temptation to abuse and thus a source of real danger.
While changes is thus inevitable , the second thing to keep in mind is that God is in control. Again looking at church history we see that the Holy Spirit breathes life into new movements and they grow. But when they calcify and stagnate, sometimes God brings renewed life, sometime he just starts something new. Whether evangelicalism will continue to grow or collapse, will ultimately be determined by how responsive evangelicals themselves are to the leading of the Holy Spirit. e.
This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.
