Pie & Prostitution Part 2
I’m back after my long hiatus. Several weeks ago I posted two examples of how voices in our culture approach issues of personal responsibility, morality and poverty. See that post here. Read on as I more fully develop these concepts, if you haven’t read the original post, It’d be helpful to check it out for the purpose of discussion.
Story 1: The Pie Analogy
I heard this from Glenn Beck. His point was that America is not a zero-sum economy. In other words if I buy a TV or earn a dollar I’m not at the same time taking it from someone else. I agree with this. There is a socialistic idea that says your success is always at the expense of someone else’s loss. That’s not true.
Glenn made the statement that America isn’t a pie to divide up, it’s a pie factory. This is true in that America is about possibility and potential. One of the things I love about America is our fundamental belief that we prosper through innovation and hard work; not through who your dad was or what color your skin is. One of the most frustrating things to me is that conservatives like Glenn Beck seem to think this dream is a reality. Prosperity IS to an enormous degree dependent on things that have NOTHING to do with hard work. They have everything to do with where you happen to be born, what color your skin is, or who your parents were.
His pie factory analogy fails in assuming everyone has the same potential, that we’re in a fair society. Several blocks from where I’m sitting is the worst school district in Pennsylvania. I found out this morning that sometimes when there’s no teacher for a class students will just sit in a classroom and that will be their “algebra” class. Think about that. What if your education was a series of study halls? What if those classes that weren’t study halls had one book for 25 students (an experience my wife has had working in urban schools)? This isn’t something that happened five years ago in some place far away. This is happening tomorrow as thousands of students who’s only fault was being born several blocks from where I’m sitting, to parents who can’t afford a private school.
I get that there are success stories of people overcoming enormous odds. No one should use use victimization as an excuse, but that does not mean victimization is not a reason. Reasons and excuses are two different things. Illustrations like Glenn’s don’t seem to take into account that boot strap morality is only sufficient in a fair society.
Story 2
Surprise! Story two is from the Bible in Hosea chapter 4. The same progression takes place that I described in my post. The priests are idolatrous and corrupt and as a result so are the people. Men turn to idolatry, alcohol and prostitution. As a result the Lord says this in Hosea 4:14
“I will not punish your daughters when they turn to prostitution, nor your daughters-in-law when they commit adultery, because the men themselves consort with harlots and sacrifice with shrine prostitutes- a people without understanding will come to ruin!”
I understand this is not all the Bible has to say on morality. I used his “trick” illustration to show that our typically evangelical ways of understanding morality and personal responsibility are often much more about American politics than they are the Bible. Often “christian politics” uses terms like “welfare mom” and treats people who are in poverty because of their sins (especially sexual sins) differently than they treat other sins.
The Bible says if you do not work you will not eat. That verse is invoked against social welfare programs all the time by Christians. What is really meant is if you’re working hard but underemployed we won’t help you, but if you’re rich and lazy you can eat. What church would care if a rich guy retired at 45? They’d probably envy him. It shows what we mean when we say “no work no eating” really means to us “no money no eating”.
Our unjust world in its injustice has distributed opportunity and hardship unfairly. Therefore for anyone to act as if they achieved all their wealth only through their own hard work is itself an act of injustice.
Meade
amybaker
yngfrnkstn
v02468
May 9, 2008 at 12:19 am
Too bad the Obama-bots don’t have a clue as to how free-market economics and capitalism works. Blame it on the evil rich - they got money to spare right? Does anyone remember Communist Russia? The Socialists also argue that Marxism hasn’t been implemented properly. 100+ million dead should be a blatant recognition of the system’s failure, but what do I know?
May 9, 2008 at 8:08 am
Yeah Meade I like that you point out that some social crimes that are also “Sins” with a capital S are hardly done in a vacuum. Like Prostitution. Some of your what-I’d-call less compassionate commenters haven’t exactly stood up and said “where are the men in all this.”
And some on here have bleated on and on about personal responsibility as if that’s not a fundamental “given” of what you’re saying on here. The only way you can respond to that is with a giant, sneering, “Dur.” There’s not a dichotomy between requiring personal responsibility and understanding and interacting with people as a by-product of their environment.
Let’s take, for the sake of argument, two equivalent prostitutes. One approaches your church with the purpose of “getting right w/ God.” One, however, is still out on the streets and doesn’t even know, yet, that she needs to get right w/ God. And your nets of compassionate ministry somehow pick up this fish. Under your construct, you treat these people differently. You can speak truth to the first person, as they’re actively seeking, moreso than you can the second, where you need to allow God to get them to the point where you can speak truth to them, assuming that day comes. It’s two totally different circumstances.
And yet the strident Personal Responsibility cabal would, I believe, have you speak truth, even to the denigration of ministry, to each and every person first and foremost. At one point years ago I probably adhered to this line of thought but as I get older I less and less understand its motivation. It’s a harsh, ungracious, self-satisfied way to be that reinforces Ivory Tower thought and (in)action.
That said, full disclosure, despite my position on this, my actions are, as yet, still sadly lacking and I pray that I can, in fact, respond to the commandment.
May 9, 2008 at 10:16 am
Joel: Very well said. You should have written the post.
Jonnypeepers: I didn’t advocate for socialism or against capitalism in this post. Nor did I blame anything on the rich. I also didn’t say anything positive about Russia or Marxism. If your only category for compassion for the poor is socialism then you are the very type of person I think needs to reevaluate how you understand the world. Read to understand first, then refute. Don’t just dismiss a straw-man through guilt by association.
I’m not saying I have all the answers but I am saying it’s unhelpful for those of opposing view points to argue against things I didn’t say.
May 9, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Joel I like your argument b/c it brings up the point of how Jesus dealth with people. Too often in church history, and sometimes just accidentally, we expect people to come to God on our terms. Terms that are not even in the Bible. For instance… expecting people to dress a certain way at church when they are not even believers. It is the same thing… we want to help people or prostitutes, but only on our terms. Obviously there are guidelines, but I have seen so many mercy ministries function this way, and it is grating. IE— not feeding people unless they listen to a Bible message first.
May 9, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Yeah I appreciate that you picked up what I was laying down, I didn’t want to go right to J but His example was in my thoughts.
For the record, I’d like to state my position on the Personal Responsibility line of thought, without replying to anyone specifically. Here is my response:
Are you kidding?
The personal responsibility thing is like a hideous marriage of faith and politics in which both are perverted and the result is this ineffective bizarre point of view. There’s an aspect to which I would unhesitatingly tell anyone who was listening (key) that there are consequences to their actions, both earthly and eternal. On the other hand, looking at society in a macro-sense, it’s distinctly unchristian to unpityingly look on the world as the result of the actions of the unsaved. Of course it is just that. But neither our faith nor compassionate politics put US in the position of judge or even mouthpiece of the judge, in that sense. As if we somehow needed one of the commenters on this blog to examine people’s life choices and enlighten us as to their roots or causes.
At the end of the day, it’s difficult to look at the “personal responsibility” point of view, at least as its been inexpertly argued here, as anything other than a thinly veiled cop out. I’m sorry, but that’s it. The call of Christianity is to find a place where you can walk past a sorority party and find the revulsion for the sin (easy) and still have the compassion to pray for them and minister to them (brutally difficult). We always have no trouble summoning up the indignation. Others swing too far to the other side (as it’s been suggested has been done here) and not acknowledged the sin. The Answer, as with most Christian issues, lives right smack in the middle.
May 9, 2008 at 4:07 pm
In light of Joel’s comments, I felt compelled to put up this quote from Kay Warren, Rick Warren’s wife, which she voiced following criticism from Christians:
“25 yrs. into the pandemic, being HIV positive still carries stigma and shame. But God cares for the sick and so must we…It’s not a sin to be sick. The Bible tells us Jesus was repeatedly “filled with compassion” as he encountered broken bodies and broken minds. While polite society vigorously avoided contact with those they considered disease outcasts, Jesus responded in a radical way: He Cared, he touched, he healed.. We live in a broken, sinful world. We all make mistakes, but at the same time God cares passionately about everyone he has made. You never find Jesus asking people how they got sick, not once does he ask that. When sick people came to him, he simply said, “how can I help you?” And that’s where we’re trying to go. That needs to be the first question out of our mouths.”
I love that, or you could ask the Christian pick up line: “If you were to die tonight….?” that’s hilarious, I must give Matt Chandler credit for that. He always ponts out…if someone knocks on your door then says that, how likely are you going to be to invite them in? NO… you’re more likely to call 911 b/c you fear for your personal safety.
May 9, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Yeah in that light, the AIDS epidemic is gift-wrapped for Satan. Not only a horrible disease, but one that you could almost legitimately make a case that someone “deserved!”
May 9, 2008 at 10:01 pm
In Meade’s defense, I don’t think he even said anything positive or negative about socialism. Understandably so, we assume socialism is the assumed position of those who question folks like Glenn Beck, which is unfair to those saying there’s something deeper (like Meade is saying). However, Glenn was responding to Michelle Obama’s pie analogy, which is nothing less than a socialist mindset. To eat a slice of pie does not necessarily mean one has to give his slice (or a portion of it) away.
Good post, Meade. I would let Glenn off the hook a bit, because as a regular listener, I know that he and his family spend much of their time on the weekends helping the poor, giving generously with their wealth and their time. At moments on his show, he rants very much so about how selfish Americans are and how we won’t help the poor and how we tend to rely on government to do the job we as Americans should be doing.
I also agree with the assumption that we are not all dealt the same deal of cards, and so kids who have no choice where they were born and live and go to school are “stuck” in certain situations. I don’t think it’s that cut and dry that we assume they are really stuck, but I would concede that life is not about earning everything we have and simply making it where others could not. Personally, I’m more against politicians who use this truth to gain politic points, yet never change the situation. I saw a chart that had the poverty rates in Philadelphia since the 1940s had actually increased more with Democratic mayors (whose political persuasion tends to run on helping the poor, et al), and when Republican mayors were in office, the poverty rate went down. Full disclosure: I’m NOT a Republican!
I’m very confused by those who think that everyone who hails personal responsibility actually treats “sinners” (prostitutes, gay people, et al) as less-than-human. This, too, can be a straw man to say that the worst of the “other side” is indicative of everyone who strongly believes in personal responsibility (and I’m not saying those who critique these people DON’T believe in personal responsibility). What I think these critics miss is the point is not that children aren’t taking responsibility, it’s that as grown-ups, we can’t blame the system for not accomplishing what we want to accomplish. Many many examples abound of those who were uneducated who succeeded. And while this does not mean everybody will do this (because we’re all born with certain traits, characteristics, and personalities), it does not mean that we don’t have the opportunity. Our constitution does not guarantee happiness, but the pursuit thereof.
This isn’t a battle between compassion and responsibility. This is about responsible compassion. And responsible compassion does not ignore both the responsibility of those who are “ahead” (I hate that phrase) and the responsibility of others to do their best with what has been given them. Again, it is the personal responsibility of every capable American to care for the incapable, the sick, the poor, etc.
Meade, I really benefit from your thoughts.
May 9, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Joel says: “The Answer, as with most Christian issues, lives right smack in the middle.”
I think we just agreed on something
But you do come off as if you don’t like the concept of personal responsibility.
May 9, 2008 at 10:09 pm
I really like the phrase “responsible compassion.” I think that really captures the essence of the debate.
May 9, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Doug.. here is my underlying issue with your, ( I am calling it this for lack of a better word) political position of wanting to do social justice privately. While I wholeheartedly believe that your family would give in a huge way should your tax burden be relieved, and I think it’s great that Glenn Beck strongly encourages his listeners to be responsible in serving others, that will never work if you hold to a belief in total depravity.
The reason capitalism works, by that I mean makes us richer as a nation, is because we are at heart, from birth 100% sinful and selfish people. I don’t care what Glenn Beck says or how hard you push people to care about social justice, unless they are an extremely unusual individual or have the Holy Spirit, they are not going to spontaneously support the poor with their extra cash. That simply does not fit with total depravity.
Do I want my nation to be economically strong? Of course I do, it’s in my best interest, and that of my children’s and grandchildren’s, but since we are born serving ourselves, in a system like capitalism, without a safety net, people are crushed. Even if people pay drastically less in taxes, they are not going to give much more to the poor. They just won’t, human nature does not work that way, that is why we have social service systems that are publicly funded.
May 10, 2008 at 7:03 am
“…unless they are an extremely unusual individual or have the Holy Spirit, they are not going to spontaneously support the poor with their extra cash. That simply does not fit with total depravity.”
I don’t believe this is true one bit. Not that I can read the heart, but does every rich person donate because they believe in the cause, or because they have incentive (tax write-off) to do so? It does not take a concerned citizen to support the poor or sick or whatever. As you mentioned, capitalism works because it presides on the principle of personal gain. It does not thrive on the good will of every individual (though I believe we need to have a “sanctified capitalism”). Farmers in Texas don’t sell beef to people in NYC because people in NYC can’t raise cattle and therefore deserve to also consume beef. They sell it because they can profit; people in NYC buy it because they “profit” (in a different way). Because donating to charity is not a ‘profit,’ per se, many people donate because they benefit in some way, whether emotional, economical, spiritual, or all.
I’m NOT advocating for zero government involvement. I’m NOT advocating that every social program is irresponsible. But it appears to be the argument that unless government forces us to be charitable (by our taxes), the job won’t get done. That simply isn’t true, plus it’s unethical. Charity has dropped over the past year because the costs of living has gone up so much. Is it not reasonable to assume that if costs of living were reduced (or our income is increased) that charitable givings would also increase?
May 10, 2008 at 7:16 am
That was actually Doug above. We should stop using each other’s computers.
May 10, 2008 at 7:30 am
Okay, but I do suppose that I have something to say. Amy, in one sense I agree with you that “selfishness” drives capitalism. But I think if you end the argument there, you really fail to do justice to merits and value of capitalism. There are many brilliant, hard-working people who have been motivated by the ability to prosper–who have established quality, well-run businesses that have in the end not only prospered themselves but have provided good jobs for many many other people. Have we forgotten that successful businessmen provide jobs? Have we forgotten that without jobs, people end up in poverty? I think that’s part of the sting of this whole debate. I like the way Glenn says it: “Who wants a poor boss?” Seriously, think about that. Let’s not only look at the examples of capitalism run amuck in our society. Let’s look at the many many situations where brilliant entrepreneurs have established highly functional organizations where motivated, hard-working Americans could go to work, make good money, and provide good lives for their families. This is not bad. This is very good. When we talk about increasing taxes on the wealthy, what we are saying is that we trust the government to spend their money better than we trust them to use it to promote prosperity through their own creativity in building, spending, employing, endeavoring, etc. When looking from a “social justice” vantage point, I know it’s hard to see how “rich people spending their own money” benefits society, but if you think about it, it really does! It stimulate the economy. It provides jobs. It fuels another guy’s business who is in turn providing more jobs. It’s a way of distributing wealth that still largely depends on the incentive of the individual to use his own talent and creativity in order to develop a good life for himself. Having said that, I do realize that there are people in our society who are in extremely difficult circumstances. For those people, I believe the government has a responsibility to intervene. Some government funded programs are necessary. But I think we deny people the privilege of developing their own talent , creativity, motivation if we too quickly assume they need to be “helped.” I do see both sides of the debate. I’ve worked in the third world and the inner city. Yet, somehow I still see it this way.
May 10, 2008 at 9:05 am
I wish I could articulate like shiree. I concur.
May 10, 2008 at 10:57 am
Amy: a few points.
1. Does “total depravity” mean that human beings are 100% as bad as they possibly can be (like satan), or does it mean that every aspect of our humanity is tainted with sin to some degree? The answer influences what human institutions society can trust (read: fund) to dispense social justice.
2. You argue that “total depravity” makes people selfish such that social service systems must be publically funded. Well, doesn’t “total depravity” also misguide the public funding to do harm sometimes, not good. It would seem that selfishness and depravity would affect both public and private initiatives … each stumbles in its own way. A strong case can be made that where the government “helps” the most, things get worse. If you plot the poeple groups and the regions of the US where the government has provided the most “help”, those regions and those people groups are the ones lacking the most shalom (e.g. New Orleans, inner cities). So, in light of these data, people react in two ways: #1 - more money, higher funding … government programs have failed because they haven’t gotten enough funding yet, #2 - switch to Glenn Beck type solutions.
In light of total depravity affecting both public and private systems, why do social workers by-in-large have so much confidence in option #1?
3. There is historical evidence that shows private charity decreases as the tax rate increases above a certain point of “injustice”. Private charity, or the lack thereof, across Europe proves this principle beyond all doubt. Makes sense, right? For example, the president of Italy stated this week that Italians have a right to cheat on taxes because they are too high. Therefore, do we christians in the US want to make private charity extinct, as it is in Europe, by abdicating to an expanding federal government, because it usurps the mission of the church and private individuals?
4. What track record does public funding offer? Effective or not? Some would point out that public funding is like JRR Tolkein’s RING OF POWER. Which means that those who use such a RING OF POWER (as public funding) will unwittingly, but inevitiably, become conduits of evil, regardless of good motives. There is a strong historical case to be made that those whom the federal government helps the most become the worst off, ironically. Stated another way, whatever the government subsidizes, that thing increases: food stamps, public housing, military, post offices, unwed mothers, WIC, farm subsidizes, single moms. Some would argue we are driving these statistics in the wrong directions. I am told that the US congress publishes 70,000 pages of new laws in the code-of-federal-register each year to “help” us all. The question is whether multiplying those 70,000 pages of “help” will help or not. On this question, our nation is divided, with no end in sight.
May 10, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Meade wrote: “Prosperity IS to an enormous degree dependent on things that have NOTHING to do with hard work. They have everything to do with where you happen to be born, what color your skin is, or who your parents were.”
On this note, I do agree to an extent. However, I also will say that each individual reaches a point in life where they will take ownership of their own destiny. I, for example, was shown the hardest of work ethics, and my parents have much to show for their drive and ambition. I, however, live in a tiny two bedroom apartment right across “the tracks” where I get things stolen from me on a regular basis because I can’t afford to live in a nicer place. Why? Because I chose to live in the third world, then inner city, then go to grad school to learn how to show mercy to the wounded–all things I Love and am proud of. But I don’t have much outward prosperity to show for it. On the other hand, I know folks (some quite well but I’ll leave their names out) who grew up in the worst of conditions, worked hard to find a way out, and now live in houses that are 10 times the size of mine. Our destinies have not been shaped by where we came from. We made choices about what mattered to us. And we ended up where we wanted to be. I do realize that for many folks who were born into less than desirable circumstances, the way out is very hard. And my heart genuinely goes out to them. In my ministry days I looked for many ways to help them out, and the one thing that became abundantly clear to me was that if they didn’t want out bad enough to spend their own sweat and blood, then no matter how much I helped them, they would still never truly make the leap. We can’t do this for people. They have to want it. For those that want it, I am more than happy to share some of my blessings. I just think we err as a society to give so freely without the requirement to earn. If heart-felt motivation and drive is not an underlying factor in how a person sustains his life, there is far too great a chance that he will end up with little more than a sense of entitlement to that which others have earned. And by “others” I don’t just mean those who were born into privilege.
May 10, 2008 at 1:24 pm
This is one of our best and most productive discussions yet. Everyone is making very excellent points.
Doug & Shiree: I’m not ragging on Glenn Beck. I was just using his pie analogy as a contrast to the Hosea one. I think the two formed an interesting dualism that was useful in setting up our discussion. I actually don’t think either are the last word which I think everyone would agree with.
I’d probably agree with most or all of what you’re saying and just vary on a case by case basis. So yes, I’m absolutely for ownership of life and think it’s essential and am also aware that that’s not the whole story, compassion and grace also are a part of the process.
VATechhokie: Amy does understand total depravity as you described although this wasn’t apparent from her post.
I’ll speak for myself when I say you’re right about much of how what the government funds gets worse when it comes to certain programs. You’re also right with public giving. I think what Amy and I are thinking of is the various types of public funding. There’s government programs like DHS which is often very poorly run (by well meaning people) but then there’s programs such as the one Amy is a part of which receive public funds but are award winning and highly effective. It makes it complicated because there are effective and ineffective programs both public and private.
I think there’s also been various shifts in our nations economy and housing market over the past number of decades that coincided with the rise of many of these programs. I became aware of this when I worked with homeless. Back in the 1940’s there were the old hobo’s. Those guys who played harmonica and carried bindle sticks. That’s who the homeless were to a high degree - able bodied but alcoholic men. Housing took up a much smaller portion of the average American’s income. That’s not the primary homeless demographic today. The cost of housing has increased proportionate to income beginning in the 50’s and 60’s continuing till today. One failed attempt to address this was government housing. The creation of government housing was a failed attempt to fix a preexisting problem but it didn’t create the problem to begin with. This is becoming it’s own post.
May 10, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Shiree,
if i’m reading you correctly you’re sort of talking about trickle down economics. the way i understand that is that it’s basically been completely debunked. i’m not an economist and can’t “vet” that point of view at ALL but Reagan’s embrace of it is met mainly with contempt from everything i’ve ever read. I’m not saying either way whether that’s true b/c i don’t know, and Reagan is held up as an icon by both sides (with opposite intent obviously). but think about this: one of the things capitalism means for this society is that if a big company misses their projected earnings by X.XX%, layoffs follow. that’s the evil side of capitalism. my uninformed sense of capitalism is that if the society itself is roughly moral, capitalism is a great way to be. as the society itself grows more and more immoral (which i don’t think we’d argue), capitalism becomes as evil as any system can be.
May 10, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Well, I suppose that’s where faith comes in. I agree that capitalism is wrought with problems. But It think socialism is far worse. So I personally am not interested in looking to any system of government for total security in my life. We have Christ. We find our security in things unseen. And then we do the best we can with the visible tangible world. Yes, capitalism can go dangerously bad. But at least it promotes the freedom of creative people to be their best. All socialism does is hold everyone down so that nobody can rise to their potential or offer creative solutions to societal problems (yes, I’m speaking in extremes for the sake of making a point). And anyway, I don’t think the fact that a business can go bad and thus cause people to lose their jobs is a very sound argument against it. Such is life. I’d rather choose to work for a company with known risk involved than be told what to do with my time and talent by a government that has no invested interest in my personal happiness (but now I’ve really strayed).
Meade-I agree with what you’ve said. I’m interested in what Amy does. Would enjoy hearing more about it. I agree there are good government programs. Oh, and true confessions. Many of the cases that I see at my job are paid for by government dollars. Just thought I should “out” myself at some point along the way. I am thankful that the government pays for these services for people in need. As a side note, I also LOVE the fact that I, as a credentialed Christian professional, get to PRAY with my clients on the government’s dime–that is the ones who welcome prayer, of course. Having said all that, I’m still for minimizing government intervention.
May 10, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Joel, perhaps you should read more widely, if “all you’ve read’ debunks free market economics. Most of the critics of the “trickle down economics” are progressives or socialists. Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Adam Smith, would be great authors start with. I’m reading Sowell’s “The Quest for Cosmic Justice.” It is fantastic, and an easy and short read.
Winston Churchill wrote, “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
Why are layoffs such a bad thing? Is it because we don’t want people to EVER lose their jobs? Layoffs can be good because those same people can find other jobs that will produce more for a society than the big business who didn’t. I think one of the inherent frustrations for me with those who don’t trust capitalism is that we somehow have to find solutions NOW. Life doesn’t work that way. People need to make mistakes. People need to be tried and tested. When a layoff happens (at least in my understanding), there is unemployment benefits that were paid by the company anyway, so in the interim you can find a job. Does it hurt? Yes. Is it frustrating? Yes. Is it bad? Not necessarily. It’s what you make of it.
Presumably, the counter to my statement is, “Yeah, but the CEOs are making millions!” Okay, fine, they made millions. But if the company loses so much money, the CEO will eventually be fired. But why aren’t we willing to let the market do its job in “vetting” the bad? Why do we have to take action immediately? Why can’t we let the “invisible hand” work for the society at large?
Let me illustrate with a real example. When Hoover’s policies (which are remarkably similar to Bush’s) helped bring in a recession, the stock market crash made that recession tailspin into what we now know as the Great Depression. FDR came in (VERY much in the spirit Obama is running with) and promised to solve the problems. One of the deals FDR made with corporations was to keep wages high and “share jobs” (what we understand as part-time jobs) so that workers don’t lose their income. Unfortunately, this in turn caused employers to not be able to afford to keep people working because they couldn’t make a profit. Layoffs occurred as a result, and eventually most people were without work. One example, of course, that demonstrates that what government tends to attempt to solve, it either destroys or only temporarily helps. FDR did great things to help families out, but what he failed to do was have an “exit strategy” for them, and only use his programs as a temporary solution until the nation was back on its feet again.
Today I was asked by my friend if I believed that Obama/Hillary have good motives, and I said, “ABSOLUTELY! EVERY candidate has good intentions. NOBODY wants to see poverty stay the same. It’s all about how we approach the subject.” I would further comment, like I did above, that I think there’s a dichotomy between instant gratification (those who want government largesse to address the problems––which includes Hillary, Obama, AND McCain) and perseverance (libertarians who want to limit government involvement).
I’m betting perseverance is a better road to take. I’m in impatient person, though, so I can see why people want to end “bad things” NOW.
May 10, 2008 at 2:25 pm
“that’s the evil side of capitalism. my uninformed sense of capitalism is that if the society itself is roughly moral, capitalism is a great way to be. as the society itself grows more and more immoral (which i don’t think we’d argue), capitalism becomes as evil as any system can be.”
When God said Adam and Eve could eat of the fruit and die, or not eat of it and live, God took the risk that they would choose evil (undoubtedly the choice God didn’t want them to make).
Correctly noted, Joel is right about when capitalism would “work.” Our founding fathers said that the free society of America would only “work” insofar as we are moral. However, a greater injustice is the alternative, because in a free market, at least we are free to choose good. Otherwise we’re oppressed by those who define “good” and we are forced to pay for their definition.
May 10, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Joel:
Hmmmm, you think “trickle down” does not work and has been debunked? Some well-informed people agree with you, so the idea you expressed is popular. But what does “not work” mean? I think the “working” part of trickle-down economics is that whenever the rich-get-richer in the United States, the poor get richer, too, but disproportionately. So, the good news about trickle-down-economics in the United States is that when the economy grows, everyone benefits. But the bad news is the poor, although improving, do not get their fair share (compared with the gains of the rich). But “fair share” is difficult to define. McCain thinks taxes are too high, Obama and Clinton think taxes are too low (e.g. compared with Europe).
But what are the alternatives to trickle-down econonomics? The best alternative would be charity, which is a voluntary re-distribution of wealth. The next best alternative would be a forced re-distribution, by a government who re-distributes wealth wisely and efficiently. The least best choice is a forced re-distribution by a government who re-distributes unwisely and inefficiently (e.g. like a mob who skims too big of a cut from the businesses it “protects”).
May 10, 2008 at 3:05 pm
“God took the risk”
since when does God take risks? Or play it by ear?
There are numerous things God did before the foundation of our world, taking a risk is not one of them.
May 10, 2008 at 3:11 pm
av–The point is that God gave us freedom, knowing full well that we would muck it up. Yet he still gave it. What do you make of that? If God were in favor of a perfectly controlled society were all things were equal and no one ever gets less than the next guy, he would never have given humans the opportunity to screw up Eden. But he did. Why did he do that? Granted, the kingdom we long for is one where I believe equality will be realized in both the spiritual and physical sense–but that’s soooooooooo far removed from where we are now that it’s almost impossible to even begin to imagine what that will really be like. At any rate, if God is setting up the society, I trust it. If humans are setting it up, I’m scared.
May 10, 2008 at 3:16 pm
WAIT A MINUTE!!! I’m not even sure that’ we’ll all be equal when Jesus reigns. Help me out here. I”m not good on end times stuff. But as I understand, there will even be some form of rank then, as there is now in the heavens. Correct me if I’m wrong.
May 10, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Meade:
I have been pleased and surprised to learn from Amy there are so many good social programs out there. No one but Amy (in my family and church circles) even seems to know there are wise and efficient government programs available to re-distribute wealth.
Maybe that’s where Christians can be salt and light in the world, to pick leaders and to advocate for social policies that work. Since I am old, I could easily be cynical about Amy’s approach to work inside the “system” (i.e. what can one people do in such a big ocean?), but who knows how many “Amys” God’s spirit is tapping to get into social work … could be a lot. Could be a generation of Christians. No one knows how the wind can blow.
May 10, 2008 at 4:48 pm
so if God didn’t take a risk, he either in some way wanted us to fail to shoe his glory, or he was caught off guard. If there is/was truly a free will, there is a risk involved. Period. But it doesn’t follow that God wasn’t aware of or prepared for or caught off guard by the choice.
May 10, 2008 at 5:13 pm
I only recently logged in since many of your comments have been made, so I readily admit I have not read them all yet, but just a point of clarification quickly, and I apologize if this was addressed in a comment i missed. But… in particular vatechhokie, and in reference to some other comments made at other times on other posts:
With the exception of large denominational aid organizations like the Southern Baptists disaster relief, or pregnancy center’s, nationally speaking, literally all social service agencies take govt. money of one form or another, and it is usually quite hefty. DPW– whom you receive your welfare check from if you receive it , is 100% govt. funded, and tends to be what people typically think of when someone says govt. funded social service. Even Christian homeless agencies, while they solicit donations quite aggressively from churches, they too, under charitable choice, get subsidized.
Perhaps that may be where some of the confusion lies of no one hearing of good social work services from the government from anyone but me. The three “lions” of fully subsidized social services are social security, child protective services, and DPW offices. I don’t know anyone, social work or not, who are happy with those agencies as a whole, but keep in mind, they are asked to do impossible tasks with ridiculous funding.
For example, it would not matter if you had the silver bullet for a social ill like child abuse, if you have a caseload of 80 plus families, b/c the dept. cannot fund enough worker’s, you are not going to do the best work. There are phenomenal agencies, I meet them all the time, doing great work that are all fully govt. funded.
The problem with trying to solicit private donations or even seeking funding from family or religious foundations, is that the money is always short term and based upon what is ‘Hot” at the time. For instance, my school nurse is equally as important as the books my students read from, but people don’t give big to buy band-aids and pay salaries. When you are doing the hard work of reaching a community it takes years, literally decades, and private donors are very, very rarely in for the long haul.
May 10, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Amy, thanks for the clarification. I really appreciate a reminder of how things work (or don’t). We often forget the details of that which we are discussing after about three or four comments in!
My personal “solution” is to mandate charitable giving. On the whole, other people will not manage my own money better than I will. This is of course not true of every person. But if I’m required to give to each of, let’s say for sake of argument, three broad categories of social services, then I am going to give to that charity which I believe is carrying out the mission best. The ones who get less funded will fail and better ones will thrive or spring up in its place.
You are obviously correct that all of these programs/services are under-funded, but there’s a fundamental difference between the “socialist” way (I don’t mean that pejoratively) and the “capitalist way”: when the government fails, it asks for more funding (most times over and over again). When an organization fails, it will change its ways and innovate, or it will die. Government will never die, yet ask for more funding. Profit is not simply a motive for gain, it is also a great indicator of effectiveness of production and productivity. It’s not really about who does the job, it’s about which rules we “play the game” (for lack of a better phrase).
May 10, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Several years ago I worked for a social service agency that was 100% privately funded by people who shared vision for the cause of our program. I will admit, funding was always a big challenge. We had staff people who were employed strictly to raise money. This was difficult, though I think we always had enough and probably felt a financial burden similar to the programs you mentioned Amy that could always use more to meet needs better. The benefit to refusing government money was that we were free to make our own choices about how we structured the program. As such, we were able to include Christian discipleship as a part of the many-faceted program that we offered to women and children in need. Looking back, there are many many things that I would do differently were I to be involved with such a program again, but one thing that I really really liked about our model was that we were free to choose the entire structure of our program which meant we had total liberty to integrate faith in ways that we felt was helpful and meaningful to the population we served. We also provided a place for Christian people to volunteer, donate, and give finances. I think it served the community in two ways: it was meeting needs of people who were trying to rise above poverty and it was providing a place for service to those in the community who wanted to give in this way.
Incidentally, I must add that we did reach a point where we started to ask our clients to accept public welfare–so at that point we turned a corner and allowed more government support. It was helpful and we were glad for the way it alleviated some of the burden that was on our fund-raising staff. So, I can see it both ways. The good thing was that we were still not limited in the scope of our ministry just because our clients accepting welfare. And the other point is that we pushed the women hard to get off of welfare. We emphasized that it was a tool to use for a season–but that the goal was to move past it (I think there was a five year cap at that point and we encouraged them to move much quicker than that). Some were able to do so.
May 10, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Doug brought up something that I’d like Meade or Amy to address so I can think about this further. It is mostly informational and may benefit other readers as well;
What kind of internal “checks” are in place within the social programs you have been involved with or know of to measure efficacy? What happens to programs that aren’t producing the desired results? I realize some programs may fail almost entirely because of a lack of funding, but I think its safe to say that at least some programs are just poorly conceived or executed. Are such programs recognized and eliminated? Are successful programs recognized and awarded with more staff or funding?
May 10, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Hokie… i just realized made a very interesting point (paraphrase, my computer is acting up) “could be a whole new generation of Christians in social work.” that is exactly what is happening…much of the push back by young evangelicals against traditional Republican politics, is b/c of the absence of a targeted focus on social justice.
Your comment, who knows how the wind will blow, is apt, b/c that is what is happening. It is amazing to watch the tide turn on these issues, and I am kind of holding my breath to see if it will be a passing a phase or a new evangelicalism like Jim Wallis, Tim Keller, and other’s are talking so much about. Wallis’ new book addresses this very issue.
May 10, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Excellent question… I was about to answer something similiar based on Shiree’s comment about her past experiences with welfare…
There are a lot of internal checks on agencies, if you don’t meet certain standards you are cut. It is that simple. What becomes tricky though, is that when there is not as much money floating around, rather than solely evaluating based on performance or standards, it begins to merge with politicians just trying to cut anywhere and everywhere to save money.
The thing that is missing typically, is that the surplus money is not necessarily given to the agencies performing well. Technically you do, in that the better your track record, the more grants you get, but what is scary is that when money is low, anyone can get cut, and it’s the clients who lose out.
An example would be Head Start, one of the best examples of good social policy and practice, you can literally track neighborhoods crime and drop out rates based on Head Start data. Yet, it is very expensive, so it is frequently targeted for cutbacks.
Most publicly funded agencies have outcome measurements they have to follow and report on, which are good, but of course annoying to me as the worker. That is 50% of most social work., and the paperwork that people whine about. The outcome measurements are social work’s version of R & D in a corporation. In the past 10 years or so, there has been more of a focus on measuring success, which in most cases has been beneficial. Where it’s not beneficial is cases like No Child Left Behind, that tries to force change without resources.
For the individual… welfare is capped. You cannot just live on welfare your whole life, that was changed during the Clinton administration. There is a maximum amount of time and dollars you can receive.
May 10, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Amy-
This is really interesting. What’s your forecast? Do you “sense” that we are coming into a “new evangelicalim such that more and more Christians will be involved in publically funded social services? If so, how does the message of faith become a part of the work Christians will be/are doing? I guess I’ve always worried that Christians would compromise their voice by going into government funded work. I could be very misguided on this so I’m really interested in hearing some honest feedback from you.
May 10, 2008 at 8:50 pm
The other thing that I forgot to note is that often your outcomes and numbers are forced on agencies that are unrealistic. People are not products or manufacturing, and dealing with poverty is messy and takes a long, long time.
It makes me think of how I heard a TV critic describe Seinfeld, one of the most popular sitcoms of all time. The critic pointed out that it was successful b/c it was given time to gain an audience, and do well, but that in today’s climate a show like Seinfeld would never work now b/c the public is too impatient.
That’s a bit like social services, so many things that work get cut, b/c they aren’t given time to grow. We want instant results on things that boiled for hundreds of years.
shiree– the agency you mentioned is rare, if you are going to give someone money, give it to them they sound unusual.
May 10, 2008 at 8:56 pm
I don’t know that they are necessarily headed into secular social work, but there is an interest and a fight for justice amongst young evangelicals that is nearly unprecedented in our country. I can see shifts even since I was a BSW student, Jim Wallis’ newest book says it really well.
As far as faith and social justice are concerned, I can think of no better match. Social work crushes people with exhaustion and I cannot imagine people doing it w/o God, you just get really hard. When people know you serve them out of a love for Jesus, that is mind blowing, and completely against our prideful natural proclivities.
It’s hard to explain on a blog, you can always email me, but yes, I walk a fine line. I make very complicated ethical decisions constantly, but that will be the case whether you are in a secular agency, christian agency, or a church.
May 10, 2008 at 9:06 pm
I think this is why I’m for letting the system works itself out, because it really does take time. I’m glad to know there are “checks and balances” in the system, but I must ask, “Who defines them?” In a business it is clear: profit. But as you pointed out, it’s not that easy in social work. People aren’t products. And it’s very messy.
As far as a “new evangelicalism,” I’m all for that, but only if it leaves government in its proper role. We’ve become so accustomed to government involvement in our lives that it is hurting us in many ways. If Tim Keller, Jim Wallis, et al could lead evangelicals to become more socially responsible, better stewards of the environment, and be responsibly compassionate toward everyone, that will be truly awesome.
But here’s my hang-up. It’s about WE THE PEOPLE. Seriously. Remember when those old-fashioned revival preachers would come and say, “Revival starts in your heart”? I never knew what that meant until I was older. It basically means we’re all responsible to look after our neighbor, and when we all do that, it is happening as a community (hence a “revival” starts in a community). Add more funding to programs, raise taxes, give government greater power over society, and the individual does not feel any responsibility to be a “good neighbor” (apologies to State Farm).
Sounds like a recipe for a ton of people who neither feel compelled to care for their neighbors nor unable to do so if they wished.
May 10, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Amy said: “I make very complicated ethical decisions constantly, but that will be the case whether you are in a secular agency, christian agency, or a church.”
Agreed!
May 10, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Well, I would love to dialogue more with you about it. I’ve kinda been out of the social service scene for awhile–since I started my psychology graduate degree. But I’m interested in learning from your experience. If gov’t funded programs are truly the best way to go, I need to be convinced of that so I can change my politics. If privately funded ones are best, then we need to harness all the ambition, drive, and talent of our generation so as to find ways to create more of them. And we need to harness the financial means of the generation ahead of us so the fruits of their hard work can go to programs that promote ideals we believe in.
I admire you for what you do, Amy. I hope none of our political bantering has come off like we don’t appreciate the love you show to the population you serve. It’s truly awesome. I know first hand from my own experience several years back just how thoroughly exhausting it can be.
May 11, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Doug:
The “proper role” of government … what is it? And does the bible define the proper role of government? “Proper” in the United States probably means a role according to the constitution or according to the founding fathers. I’m curious what you and others think???
Regarding christian involvement in society, is it just social services that need christians involvement? What other areas of society desperately need christians? How about the media? The arts? How about higher education and universities? These seem to be areas of society where secularism dominates and I don’t know why. So it seems to me a new wind needs to blow in a bunch of places.
May 11, 2008 at 6:56 pm
That’s a great question! I’m not sure I know “the answer,” but I do believe it is NOT to take care of us. Ron Paul offers this description: “In a truly free nation, the government acts only as a referee by protecting property rights, enforcing contracts, prohibiting force and fraud, and providing national defense.” Eisenhower’s secretary of the treasury Ezra Taft says, “By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute the wealth or force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will.” The Alabama Constitution (in 196
is quoted by Taft: “That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression (Art. 1, Sec. 35).”
Those are some things to think about. I’m in favor of small government precisely because the larger the government the more oppression exists or can exist. It is never the case that bigger government equals more freedom and liberty.
May 11, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Oops…. I wrote that last bit… Shiree used my computer last…
May 11, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Hmm… guess I didn’t address what the Bible says about the role of government. I’m not 100% sure. It’s enigmatic to some degree… maybe I’ll post a blog entry on it someday.
May 11, 2008 at 9:04 pm
THAT is the question that I would like to have answered!! What does the Bible say about the role of government? I know that when I started studying psychology, I was introduced to the very controversial topic of “what the Bible says about psychology,” and I landed on the side of the debate that said “not much.” Of course the Bible says a great deal about finding freedom from the depraved state, relational attitudes and conduct, putting off the old self, etc. so there is much it offers the Christian who is in pursuit of a healthy mind and emotions; nevertheless, the deeper a person goes into the inner workings of the mind, body, emotions, etc, the more one realizes that there is a WHOLE LOT the Bible does NOT say on the topic. I have a hunch that issues of government may be the same. Sure, we have the nation of Israel to look at, but they were a theocracy for so long, and when they finally got a king, it was against the better counsel of God. And of course, there is a great deal of legal code in the OT, but I’m not sure we can apply that so well to issues of modern government. So, what DOES the Bible say about government, its role in society, its interaction with the church, etc? Lots of BIG unanswered questions here. If someone has some answers, please speak up.
May 11, 2008 at 9:07 pm
When it comes to “caring for people,” I’ll cast my lot with George Bush’s answer: “I believe the government has a responsibility to help those who cannot help themselves.”
May 11, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, which pretty much means that you must spend your Economic Stimulus Check on stuff you don’t need in order to help boost the sagging economy.