Thursday, December 6, 2012

Compassionate Christianity



Earlier in the week, a commenter (and former Republican) referred to himself as a “compassionate Christian.” I think this term is a bit softer than my last blog: “Being a Democrat is the Christian Thing to Do.” Boy, did I make some right-wing fundamentalists angry on social media with that post.

I also had a comment here on my blog complaining about my choice of topics. The poster wanted me to only write about the Followers of Christ group in Oregon City. I do understand that expectation since I have written about it for more than a year. The fact is I sometimes feel like branching out and talking about other things that are still faith-related. And writing about politics and religion, on occasion, is close enough.

For today, I will continue and complete my list of reasons that being a Democrat is the Christian thing to do:


Universal Healthcarewhen people complain about universal healthcare and the problem of insuring ten million more people, I am confused about their motives. Just because some people are lucky enough to have health insurance provided through their employer and others are not so lucky, doesn't mean that ten million folks do not need medical care or that the lives of the "privileged" are more important that the lives of people who are really suffering in this economy.

Education – the way out of a generational poverty is through education. Yet, often Republicans will complain about the “high wages” of educators. I vote Democrat because the candidates on this ticket promise and deliver better funding for free and appropriate education for all.

Social Justice –  As I watched the Republican National Convention this year, it was pretty obvious that the audience was 98% white. This was underlined in the fact that the cameras zoomed in on the same black man in the audience several times (perhaps they thought audiences would believe he was several different black men). I don’t know if it’s true, but I do know that many of the Republicans I know and speak to, are afraid of other races taking over “our” country. It is the Republican party who loves to point out that (they believe) Obama is not a true American.

War Policies and Practices – I am a pacifist. I hate war. I do not want to kill anyone or send our young American men and women off to kill and/or be killed in wars. Democrat leaders are less likely to declare war than their Republican counterparts.

The Death Penalty – I am against it because it takes the old law (an eye for an eye) as its basis. I am against it because it forces innocent people to kill (executioners, jury members, judges, etc.).


The Republican Party wants to keep minimum wages low and tax all income equally. The Democratic Party strives to enforce a livable minimum wage and tax people according to their income levels. The Republican Party claims it wants “smaller government” in one sentence, yet in every other sentence attempts to control and regulate the personal choices and behaviors of others.


This will be my last political blog for a while. I will write about the Followers on Sunday’s blog.

32 comments:

  1. The cost of the Democratic programs is not sustainable. The amount of the national debt and the deficit is horrible. They have not paid for anything they just want to borrow. Besides that democrats overwhelmingly support abortion. You cannot be a real Democrat unless you support abortion. I would also mention that Christ was neither Democrat or Republican. The Christian thing to do is not to be Democrat or Republican but to be neither.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If you subtract the cost of the wars the deficit is reduced by 1/3. So a good start is to just ignore it the way that past presidents have. Taxes have to go up. Sorry people, but it's going to happen. Hopefully it will be appropriately higher on the ones who can afford it the most. Both parties know it has to happen to support critical programs of all sorts. Bush cut taxes based on advise from his cronies and it broke the nation, Clinton raised them and the country thrived. If your looking for proof of "trickle down economics" vs democratic policies working the best, that should be enough. The republicans shut the government down to stop Clinton from balancing the budget, then he did it without their help and against their will. They blat about a balanced budget but it's the last thing that they want. Look back through history, they run up the deficit, then the democrats get left with the bill. Then when the democrats raise taxes, rather than cut the un-funded programs that the republicans started they end up looking like the bad guys. Then the republicans use it against them. It's a vicious circle that they've repeated since the founding of our nation. When bush took office the republicans had a surplus, their policies turned it into the defecit that we have now. If your growing tired of waiting for Obama to fix the problems caused by republicans, consider that it took 8 years to screw it up. It's going to take more than that to fix it. Assuming they won't block every action that Obama takes to do so. Ifthey continue to block all efforts to get the country back on track, then it will take far longer.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As a disciple of Jesus, it is very disappointing to hear you (Suzanne) buy into any political party - as if any such cheerleading were 'the Christian thing to do'. To be for Jesus in all facets of life and thought is also to transcend the temporal, carnal factions of man (which do not want Jesus as Lord of their factions). These factions want to use your energy, resources, and moral outrage for their own political ends. When it ceases to be expedient for the power brokers then you, naive Christians, will be chucked too.

    Also, Suzanne, I think you have limited your ability to touch a broad audience here by revealing your politics. Needless to say, many disciples (or 'becoming' disciples) cannot do the logical/moral gymnastics you do as a Democrat and so will find this blog no longer relevant for themselves. The same thing would have happened if you were a Republican or Libertarian or Green Party as well. My point is that I had hoped the blog would have focused on what is truly needful for those who frequently read here.

    This grieves me. Even if you retain some readers of a different political bent, your non-political words are somewhat tarnished in their eyes because of your identity as a mere partisan (whose political party doesn't have Jesus as the sovereign).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paul, while I respect you and your opinions a lot, I have to disagree with the policy of Christians staying out of politics. If believers refuse to participate in the process, we leave the government and direction of our country to...?

      Delete
  4. Suzanne, I too have enjoyed reading many of your posts. Nevertheless, I think you misunderstood me. What I'm for is a higher calling than party politics and to not be used by those who don't bow to King Jesus. By all means, be good news (practically involved) for the widow/orphan and stand for justice for the oppressed, but please don’t imagine that Christianity = Democratic party politics (or any other humanist organization).

    It simply isn’t true that Jesus would have us to throw our weight behind any entity that isn’t subordinate to Himself. Heck, many of us are having a hard time serving with a clear conscience in our local churches – whose expressed purpose is far more holy than the _______ party – because even godly folks let us down when we hope in them.

    I just wished that this blog could have avoided being unnecessarily offensive to your political opponents so that the greater message might have a chance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paul, I do respect your opinions and beliefs, even where we differ. I do not suggest that everyone should believe as I do.

      There is no topic more interesting to me than faith in God. But that doesn't mean that I can't have an opinion that differs from others in the faith. These issues are minor compared with the big picture, but (in my opinion) they are still interesting and worthy of discussion.

      Delete
  5. Paul, lighten up. It's refreshing to debate something other than how wrong the FOC is. Suzie has opened up a very interesting topic that became apparent to me some time ago. I felt as you, that there was no place for me in politics. As I understood more about it, it surprised me that despite their obviously reprehensible stands on some things, as a Christian I had to identify with them. Brouden your mind just a little, you might also find that the democrats actually are more In line with Christian values than you might think.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The bible says that Christians should submit to those in authority. Since a basic tenet of our government is popular and electoral vote, then as I see it I have a duty to submit to that system by way of casting my ballot. Since I am given a choice of candidates and a yes or no vote on any bill that may or may not be passed into law, then I am free to decide which I would personally prefer.

    When granted freedom, the most vital (and yet hardest) thing we must do is exercise it fully. There have been thousands of generations who would have fought and died for the rights and privileges we so often take for granted, and some *DID* fight and died for us to have them. To not fulfill our role in government is, in my mind, to disrespect all who have labored to bring it into being. It is a flawed system, but it's the best thing the world has seen yet insofar as the vote invests a basic value in the life of all its citizens. For all that we may feel small and vulnerable and powerless against government at times, it is just foolishness if we decide to waive our right to have our say.

    And as Suzanne so astutely points out, if Christians decline to make their preferences known in government, then we are turning ourselves over to be ruled by others, submitting ourselves to captivity voluntarily. Not voting is, in clearer terms, a vote for authoritarian government. As the old saying goes, 'all it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy; but who are you to judge your neighbor? (James 4:12)

      Delete
    2. Where was the judgement of others? The paragraph started out "as I see it I have a duty", that sounds like a personal though about a personal duty. Accusing someone falsely of judging you is just bearing false witness isn't it?

      Delete
    3. That was the whole verse, I wasnt meaning there was judgement, the point was there is only ONE lawgiver, the people on the supreme courts cannot pass or make laws there already is laws and statutes given to us by God, so there edicts that they pass are not "law" as far as the Christian is concerned, that is if you believe your bible.

      Delete
    4. Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: (1 Peter 2:13-15 KJV)
      And this is the big one that will damn you
      Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. (Romans 13:1-7 KJV)

      Delete
    5. Yes I would have to agree with being in submission, as long as it doesn't go against God and His word, what about Daniel and him not praying? Do you think that he obeyed or not? What about the apostles in the book of acts, when they were told not to teach Christ? Did they do it anyway? So if you were told that you couldn't pray or have a bible study in your home, would you bow to Ceaser? Or would you obey God? You don't think that they could put limits on where or when you pray or worship? I'm sure people in Daniel's day probably thought the same thing.

      Delete
    6. These are strict guidelines, where we are told what to obey, and how to obey. The apostles went through what they had to endure, then told us what we had to do for gods sake, obey.

      Delete
    7. Gods word is telling us to follow mans law. Specifically governors, and any one he sends to enforce his will. There is only one power, the power of god.

      Delete
    8. They have set up kings, but not by me; they have appointed princes, but I did not know it. With their silver and gold they have made idols for themselves, that they might be cut off. (Hosea 8:4) do you really think that you have to obey people who would legalize things such as abortion and homosexuality? Paul wrote Romans 13 and he went against Ceaser, so a person has to use a little common sense.

      Delete
    9. If the apostle Paul could teach Christ when it's against the law then so could you! Or for that matter stand up for a biblical principle, especially in a time when Isaiah 5:20 is that much more relevant... "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" we are living in a time similar to that, but if we had good Christian men in office we wouldn't even have to worry about this, and we wouldn't be having this debate, I pray for that day to come!

      Delete
    10. Paul was the chief apostle, he told me directly to follow mans law. I'm no apostle, as a deciple, I need to follow Paul's teaching.

      Delete
    11. To anon 8:10,

      The sick fact of the matter is that if you had good Christian men in office they would spend all of their time in court. They would get nothing done. As soon as they passed any law that we would be behind, there would be 60 lawsuits launched. Not because they were morally wrong, but because they would be constitutionally illegal.but if you want to see for yourself then find one willing to run for office. Get him elected, then watch him fall like a deck of cards. If he went in an honest man, he would leave office a crook like the rest of them.

      Delete
    12. How would they be "constitutionally illegal" ? The founding fathers were good Christian men and they made the constitution.

      Delete
    13. Or do you not believe that there are men who march to the beat of there own drum and are not given over to a bribe for unjust gain? C'mon now we used to have Christian men in office and everything was fine, we were more prosperous the economy was thriving, but then we turned away from God and look where we are now.

      Delete
    14. Or by "constitutionally illegal" do you mean seperation of church and state? It's kind of funny when a person starts to look at things a little closer this edict they pushed isn't even in the constitution. And I defy someone to show me where seperation of church and state is in the constitution!

      Delete
    15. You pulled that one out of your own nether regions. But equal protection under the law is. That's the most used in court for civil rights cases, and cases where well meaning lawmakers have overreached. The founding fathers didn't want any particular religion to rule. I'm pretty sure it was the old Protestant v catholic feud that broached the subject. The un intended consequences of that wording were that it gave freedom to atheists as well as believers. Now consider the religious makeup of America today. It's not all Christian. This isn't a Puritan colony. We're the melting pot of the world. You've got Muslims, Jews, Hindu's, Scientologists, and beyond. But that's what the American experiment is about. One religion was not supposed to rule. We have Muslim president now! Joking, but lets say that eventually the country becomes predominantly Muslim, do you want to live under sharia law? You'd never stand for that. And they don't want to live under your laws either. If you don't like the freedom America affords you, or them, get out and find a more accepting place for Christianity. There's got to be some vacant lots in Jonestown.

      Delete
  7. Those are great observations. Think of how many lives were given to secure the right for black citizens in particular. The second part of the story Are the lives still being lost to secure freedom for all in the US. The freedom of our government functions, such as the electoral process, but also the freedom from government. Personal liberty isn't something we should take lightly.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Universal Healthcare? I am greatly concerned about the rammifications of instituting this program...nothing to do with economics. How will these laws change the freedom of faith? In the court system one of the major determining factors in deciding whether people are actually believers in faith healing or just trying to escape a judgement is whether or not medical insurance is carried. If everyone is automatically enrolled, then there is no legal expectation to practise that portion of our faith or obligation to the authorities to determine it's religious validity.

    Darren

    ReplyDelete
  9. You don't have to use it. They can just as easily see if you've ever visited a doctor. Either we're going to pay for emergency room visits( extremely expensive) or people are going to pay for their own healthcare. Maybe we need to lobby for a religious exemption, with a catch. If you or your family ever uses the healthcare system, then you have to enroll for life. And that would include an ambulance visit after a car accident.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It is unbelievable that you can so easily brush aside, actually never even broach the subject of, abortion. Do you really believe in God's economy that He cares more about whether we provide health care, food stamps and education while our government allows and promotes the slaughter of innocent lives? And you would defend and obviously have voted for a man who has defended and voted for partial birth abortion? What weird twisted Biblical understanding and principles you have adopted, but so typical of the so called "emerging church."

    It is not government's responsibility to care for family needs, from a Biblical perspective. Even in the New Testament there is "means testing" for the Church to determine who is worthy of support. You need to read Paul on those who won't work and women who were widowed. Not every widow was to be helped financially. The U.S. government has no real means testing and we are now giving away cell phones and run ads begging people to sign up for food stamps. Many Christians have unwittingly aligned themselves with those who believe that government is savior and lord.

    Our government usurps the mission and authority of the Church and of the family daily. The Church has responsibilities it is supposed to fulfill that were never intended for a secular government or a king. Families have also been given the responsibilities that government should never take over. We are to work by the sweat of our brow and trust God as our deliverer. God uses difficult times to draw people to Himself and to the Church and to mold and shape them into the people He wants them to be. We have placed government on a throne next to God and expect government to rule with Him as a benevolent and gracious king. Government and kings have their place and are instituted by God, but unfortunately, many well meaning Christians, like you, are too willing to give them far more authority and control than scripture allows or ever intended.

    Jesus and the Church are God's answer and our wakeful moments in this life are better served promoting Him and His Church as the answer to every human need. While government has its seat at the table it is not at the head and it has a small role to play in God's economy.





    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If we followed the word perfectly there would be no need for government intervention. I've seen churches that do minister to homeless. They feed them, clothe them, and house them looking out for their needs while they are at a place in life that they need it. These places are going broke due to lack of financial backing from good Christians. Starvation of adults and children is commonplace in America. Your correct about it not being the governments problem, but no one we is doing it. At least not as a group, unless you count the government as a group of people contributing to the common good. A group taking care for the welfare of its people, the way that it ( the government )was commissioned to do in the constitution. It's not the democrats or republicans that are dropping the ball, it's all of the good intentioned, but non action Christians like me and too many others. The "hand outs" such as cell phones will continue to confuse me until the day I die. But if allowing a poor person with children $1.50 per meal to feed their household is overkill then maybe the problem isn't too much empathy, it's too much apathy on the part of all of us. Much like the Israelites, or Christians, left without leadership, the government will get out of control. As a Christian we have a voting system to keep at least symbolic control I've issues that mean a lot to us. I didn't vote for either of the recent candidates, I don't like politicians. But if I'm going to complain about the job that they're doing, it won't be that they're too compassionate to the vulnerable among us.

      Delete
    2. AMEN, AMEN!! I am an independent. I am an issues voter with no party loyalty because there is no one political party that represents all aspects of my moral conscience.

      With regard to the damage gov social programs can do, a good case can be made that Social Security led to the breakup of the extended family. The ideal social model for the family is one of multi-generational dependence. When SS came into being, mom and pop, and grandma and grandpa were abandoned by the younger generation. And thus came the rise of nursing homes when they got sick and day care centers as grandparents no longer lived with their children and provided care for their grandkids.

      I used to work with a Vietnamese woman and envied her lifestyle. She chose to work outside the home once her child was about 6 mon old. She had her mom and dad at home taking care of her child and keeping the house and yard. Her mom prepared dinner for the extended family every night. All she had to do was help clean up after dinner and spend time with her child and husband. She had the best of both worlds and her parents had the security of their children's income and the knowledge they were a contributing and important part of the family. She was the most relaxed working mom I've ever known.

      Delete
    3. That's a great story, and point. Grandparents historically were a part of the family unit. More than just holidays etc. but what if they were barren? With no kids, or grand kids. As they became unable to work and support themselves they had no way to live. On a side note, easier jobs used to be reserved for older men. They were then able to continue working beyond their younger and stronger years. As great as its been for a woman to enter the workforce, it's been equally destructive to men who have to retire early to make room for women to do the easier jobs. With pensions being raided,by republicans, there is a larger need for SS all the time. I'm not saying it was bad that women came into the workplace, it's just a hurdle to accept.

      Delete
  11. Conservatives generally embrace all people regardless of color. You are parroting what you read in the media. It was he Republican Party, Lincoln's Party, and Christians from the Northern States that spoke out and promoted the ideas that gave birth to the abolition of slavery. My family, Methodist Episcopal Christians at the time of the Civil War, had many men who volunteered in Kansas. Their main reason for joining the fight was to abolish slavery. Our family had several who lost their lives for this.

    It was the Republican Party who during the 1960's Civil Rights debate ensured the passage of the Civil Rights Act. To many Democrats were against it but Republican advocacy and votes gave birth to this new freedom for people of all color.

    And now we have this statement from you about blacks and people of color not being a part of the Republican Party? Actually, Republicans have more people of color in elected positions in this country than do Democrats. Do your homework. And, for instance, when a black man dares not to become part of the Democratic Party he is maligned or ignored,called an "Uncle Tom" or he is "brainwashed."

    The real travesty is the way the Democratic Party gives away free stuff in order to keep voters. They prey on poor people of color, people with little education and promise them freebies if they will just continue to vote Democrat. Democrats keep the plantation going and promote no person of color that speaks out against the debilitating handouts of government.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The Republican Party used to be for the common person. Democrats were for the rich. I don't know where the change took place, but it changed. Now the republicans are completely looking out for the rich, only the rich. Tinkle down economics failed under Reagan, Bush senior, and Bush junior. If it had worked as promised then we would have no problem for the democrats to fix. But there is a problem. When the rich get richer in America, the poor get poorer. Corporate profits are going through the stratosphere, while working people are getting their wages and benefits cut by half or more. The republicans are NOT descriminating, they are destroying white workers, and black workers alike. But don't forget that "workers" are single mothers, or fathers, and sole providers of the Ozzie and Harriet family's as well. They are equal opportunity destroyers.

    ReplyDelete

The catchpa has been removed to enable easier commenting. Spam and irrelevant comments will be deleted.