If I Could Design the Church, Starting from Scratch…
by Melody Tan
I would make it a worldwide church just as it is now
There is a certain sense of kinship amongst Seventh-day Adventists around the world, best displayed when you walk into an Adventist Church in a foreign country without knowing a soul or even speaking the same language.
It isn’t only because you know what to expect—the time church begins, the same Sabbath School lesson, a similar worship service—but you are immediately accepted, because you are a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, somewhere in the world. And more often than not, you’ll meet someone who knows someone you know.
In a worldwide church, lifelong and international friendships are easily and often made.
There would be less bureaucracy and more strategic action
The Conference, the Union, the Mission, the Division, the General Conference—all the administrative layers of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is enough to make one’s head spin. Add to that specific focus areas such as children’s ministries, women’s ministries, Sabbath School and stewardship . . . all of which exist in every administrative layer and each with its own unique strategic direction it wishes the local church to undertake.
The local church, on the other hand, is sinking under a mountain of posters, resources and information packs from each of these official church sources, and torn in different directions thanks to the divergent instructions from the various administrative layers.
But ask any ordinary church member to tell the difference between a Union and a Mission, or a Division and a Conference, and chances are, all you’ll get is a blank stare in return.
A reduced amount of bureaucracy will free the Church and the local church to concentrate on a particular strategic action, adding strength to unity.
There would still be a strong emphasis on health
I would not be in the Church if not for the health message. Twenty years ago, my parents were baptized into the Seventh-day Adventist Church after Bible studies which had eventuated from health-related workshops. My father had been diagnosed with cancer, and we were looking for a healthier lifestyle to help him battle the disease. The Adventist health message appealed to my parents, as did the love and forgiveness of God.
Dan Buettner, a National Geographic Fellow and multiple New York Times bestselling author obviously thought there was something special about the Adventist health message and overall holistic lifestyle too, when he listed a group of Adventists living in Loma Linda, California as a “Blue Zone”—an area where people live longer than average. The vegetarian diet encouraged by the Adventist Church has also been repeatedly proven as beneficial in numerous scientific studies, including in Dr. T. Colin Campbell’s The China Study and in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine.
My father never received a miracle cure for his cancer, but our family are confident that we will see him again in heaven. And today, I am healthier and happier—and filled with hope—thanks to the health emphasis of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
The church would be more involved in social justice matters
It is true Jesus did say, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s” (Mark 12:17) but that doesn’t mean we ought to stay silent on issues of refugees and asylum seekers, economic justice, the environment, and war and peace.
Where other Christian denominations have had their voices heard—with some even becoming leaders of advocacy—on social justice issues, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has been absent because of its reluctance to be involved in “political matters”.
However, while the Bible has advocated that church and state should not mix, it also said, “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8).
The Church needs to be a leader on issues of justice and not hide in the shadows, for fear of political involvement.
I would continue to encourage the prominence of in-depth biblical study and knowledge
Seventh-day Adventists know their Bible—and Seventh-day Adventists are eager to learn and study more from the Bible. It is because of this enthusiasm for biblical knowledge that I believe we have some of the best understanding and interpretation of the Bible and its prophecies among the various Christian denominations. As God’s love letter to us, it is wonderful not only to be able to better grasp what He is trying to tell us, but to discover what the future holds.
I would acknowledge Ellen White as a prophet of God and a founder of the Seventh-day Adventist Church but curb the hero worship some place on her.
When I first started regularly attending church, I used to think Ellen White was a church member whom I somehow never met. Such was the extent that she was quoted by those giving the sermon and with such familiarity and assumed knowledge of who she was (“Sister White said . . .”), I was left perplexed and confused as to why she was so extensively referred to since at the time, I did not possess the required “insider knowledge”.
While I recognise Ellen White as a prophet and respect her inspired words of wisdom, it is never OK to neglect the Bible in favour of God’s messenger—especially when her teachings are taken out of context and used to judge and reproach a new Christian (“Sister White says as a female, you shouldn’t wear trousers . . .”).
And when non-Adventists believe we place more importance on Ellen White than Jesus (and perhaps even worship her), you know we have a problem on our hands.
It would remain as the safe place where young families are catered for
If there is one section of the community the Seventh-day Adventist Church serves well, it would be young families. With activities such as Children’s Sabbath School, Adventurers and Pathfinders and Vacation Bible School, parents raising young children are able to do so in a healthy, safe and God-loving environment.
The Church itself pays much attention to young families, often organizing events, producing resources and setting strategic direction to attract and provide for this particular demographic. As a new parent myself, I am confident my and my child’s related needs will be well met.
I would pay more attention to the other demographics of society
As a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church for close to 20 years—half of which was as a young single and the other half in a serious relationship that eventually led to marriage—it was only in the last year that I felt I finally met the full membership criteria because I had fallen pregnant. Before that, it often seemed like if you do not have a small child, you’re irrelevant and unimportant.
From the local church level to the top of the bureaucracy, much energy and effort is spent on meeting the needs of families with young children. Some even go so far as to declare young families their “target audience”. In marketing speak, it is true if you target no one, you reach no one, but in church speak, are we at risk of forgetting that “he died for all” (2 Corinthians 5:15, italics added)?
Friendships would be just as genuine, caring and sincere
While equally invaluable friendships can be made with those who aren’t members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, a special connection is inevitably made when you worship the same God. These are friends who understand your spiritual struggles, who will pray for you and with you, and who encourage you into a deeper and more meaningful relationship with your Creator.
I would make it a place where love and acceptance comes before doctrine
As Seventh-day Adventists, we pride ourselves on having the “truth”. The Sabbath, the state of the dead and hell, the Second Coming, the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation . . . we believe we’ve got it sorted. But while these doctrines do matter, for some, they have become the only things that matter.
We are often eager to remind people of the “correct” teachings and even more keen for them to believe what we do and adhere to our habits; we steer clear of interdenominational activities because the other Christian churches have got it “wrong”; and we turn up our noses at those who walk into our churches but who do not fit a certain mould or follow a certain lifestyle.
We are proud of being unique, but to others, we come across instead as being arrogant, aloof and even judgmental.
“Of all the commandments, which is the most important?” one of the teachers of the law asked Jesus (Mark 12:28).
“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these” (verses 29-31).
“Love your neighbor as yourself”, not “Wait for your neighbor to share your beliefs and then love him”.
Melody Tan is on leave from her job as an assistant editor at Signs of the Times magazine in Australia. Melody and her husband are the new parents of baby Elliott Bell as of 22 July 2016.
“I would make it a place where love and acceptance comes before doctrine…..”
You found the right forum for your spiritual agenda. The “big tent” church that has no definition.
Bill,
John 3:16 begins with “God so loved the world.” God loved us before we knew we needed to be loved. People become believers because God loves them. Couples generally don’t get married because it is logical and reasonable, but because they are in love. God’s “big tent” is LOVE. But standing outside in the pouring rain is the doctrine-first sourpuss who complains that he’s getting wet when all he has to do is step inside and be loved.
Melody, perhaps we should have warned you that because Adventist Today values providing a “free speech area” for the Adventist community, there are one or two individuals who are self-appointed critics that make negative comments about everything we publish. Bill Sorensen evidently spends full time monitoring our Web site so he can be the first to post a comment about each article, and he always grinds the same ax. Most readers don’t agree with him and we are getting more and more complaints about his arrogant, negative comments. Nonetheless, Bill is one of the people Jesus died for and we value him in that light even though his comments are generally unhelpful.
Welcome to Adventist Today! I rejoice that God has given the Adventist faith new generations of writers like yourself. My heart was warmed by your column. I look forward to more.
Thanks so much for your encouragement Monte and I’m glad you liked the article 🙂
There is a certain sense of kinship… Just like McDonalds, in a way. Wherever you go you can expect a certain menu.
Melody, don’t bother yourself with Bill Sorenson. He seeks to make a God in his own image.
“Melody, don’t bother yourself with Bill Sorenson. He seeks to make a God in his own image.”
Those who downplay doctrine are the ones who want to make a god in their own image. Don’t be deceived by those who think “love” is somehow over and above doctrine.
Love has no definition but the human imagination without a biblical definition of what love is by way of doctrine.
But like I said, the article fits in nicely with the false spirituality many embrace on this forum. The “big tent” ecumenical movement is all about “love” with no definition but human speculation and man’s vain imagination.
Bill Sorensen wrote:
“Don’t be deceived by those who think “love” is somehow over and above doctrine.”
By all means don’t read I Corinthian 13 too closely. In this passage Paul clearly states that Love is superior to the ability to understand or explain Doctrines. Steer well-clear of this arch-deceiver!
“Love has no definition but the human imagination without a biblical definition of what love is”
Very, very true!
“by way of doctrine.”
Jesus Christ came to demonstrate true Love to humans (among other things). His own loving example is the basis of His “new commandment” to “love one another” which was actually an old commandment to which He gave new meaning “as I have loved you”.
To the extent that Doctrine reveals to us the Love of God, it is True Doctrine. To the extent that Doctrine obscures the Love of God, it is False Doctrine. How so? Because Love is the basis of the Divine Nature and Character. Whatever does not proceed from Love does not proceed from God.
Hey Bill,
Interesting comments. I do NOT think “big tent” Christianity shows a naive faith in the goodness of human beings.
Instead people that emphasize doctrine over intimate and compassion fellowship, suggest there is a path to righteousness and goodness. That’s is naive b/c it’s required that good people exist. While such tents are impossibly because I’ll most likely to chose point a finger than give a hug.
Paul had to overcome, how should pagan and unchurched Gentiles understand and embrace that Kingdom of God has arrived and arrived for them personally?
We are those uncircumcised descendants and some Jews embraced our uncouth ways. Other Jews left the church they help found and keep their doctrine to this today as best as they can.
I think the tent is an impossible fantasy. And that’s because of people like me, you, and Melody Tan are bound to be at odds over different things at different times. We can feel the burden of mortality and watch everything slip away. Then victimized each other while claiming innocence at the expense of another’s guilt.
The church is not pure without sinners but like “whitewashed tombs” rotten with hypocrisy, Bill.
The idea that the church is pure because it keeps sinners out, punishes the guilty, shows how insulated even incestuous Adventist’s’ sectarian behaviors can be.
Why take responsibility for compassionate fellowship and personal reciprocity to our community? We shouldn’t bother, Bill, cause we’d always get in each other’s way. People might notice how incredibly evil humanity is, Bill. That all-inclusive tent is the least we can do for our need of humility and community.
Who wants to die for that? For other sinners in a community of sinners that hug?
The law and doctrine offer juicer returns, we can join in putting our thumbs down and condemning another one of Satan’s advocates. The righteous can say that “things get better with doctrine” instead of love because things are so bad.
If the church is meant to be a big tent for sinners, whats the point of being perfect and more perfect than the Pharisees, or at least the Philistines, or definitely better than the prostitute at the well. I like the letter cause it can do this 😛
Yes, the doctrine over love is practical and its the more human way of how to walk like Christ
Bill Mancer wrote regarding Bill Sorensen:
“He seeks to make a God in his own image.”
Don’t we all do this?
Or put differently, we each show what kind of God we serve by how we live, by what we say and do, by how we treat those around us, and especially by how we treat those whom we consider inferior to ourselves, or who disagree with us.
Imputing our likeness and “our image On God”
That’s the difference between fundamentalists and non-believers.
Between the old establishment and young millennials.
The gulf is so great, because older groups think reflect their prominence, their successes and political leanings. When younger folk want God removed from the conversation altogether, they resent God peering with His likeness into the non-godly lives.
One is self-righteous and the other resentful.
Religious fanatics are mocked for suggesting their characters are reflected in an omniscient, wise and powerful God. That they win and succeed because God loves them.
And then non-believers cannot help but stumble over a image of God as a firearm-toting American with a “God Great Again” T-shirt.
When God’s image is seen in other people, it shames to us into examining our own conduct and hypocrisy.
If God is just our version that what’s the point? Millennials can understand political differences but why should God’s endorsement matter when it invites more criticism is into your flaws.
Older people think they can parlay God-fearing righteousness into being popular. God’s image is not matter of opinion or vote but reflects His presence in everyone and Christian obligation to everyone.
Older generations appropriate God as being for them and against their enemies. While Millenials resent the vengeful God image and thumb their noses when people armed with Bible expect their submission.
LYNN
Wow! Is this some sort of ageism? I think most “older’ members would resent your stereotypes.
And you’ve probably insulted everyone on here! The “older” generation called the baby boomers started the progressive church movement.
Melody,
What a wonderful picture you describe!
I wouldn’t pursue social justice issues because they are so intrinsically wrapped-up in the political, which is a quick path to compromising Christian principles. Instead, I would focus on teaching people the about the present reality of the Holy Spirit who is waiting for us to let Him guide us into empowered ministries that change lives and improve communities. That’s “Christian social justice” without the political connections.
Oh, and I would add a whole lot of variety in our Sabbath School lessons, our group studies and our worship services because doing the same old thing the same old way is both boring and a great way to make the church unattractive to the community. Such variety will make the church a more personable and attractive place.
Melody Tan, thank you very much for your evident appreciation of the church and the thoughtful suggestions for its mission. I hope to read much more of your writing here.
The new type of Adventist Church that Ms. Tan proposes would is an excellent template for a Neo-Adventist focus within our church family. While there are just a few minor points that would need some additional discussion to clarify, she has offered us an effective and positive way forward to rethink an Adventism for the 21st Century. Thank you. (By the way, may I suggest that Ms. Tan and the rest of us simply ignore the protestations of those still living in the 19th Century. We can look to the future and reject the tired dogmatism of those stuck in the past. )
Oh ye of failing memories: ‘We have nothing to fear for the future except as we shall forget the (nineteenth century) past….’ or similar. No, doesn’t work for me either.
Why not call it the Tan-Taylor Pseudoadventist church?
” We can look to the future and reject the tired dogmatism of those stuck in the past.”
Oh yes, like loyalty to the bible is transcended by human speculation and vain ideas of human goodness of today that will enlighten us in all human relationships?
How obvious can a person get…?????????
” This goody goody religion that makes light of sin and that is forever dwelling upon the love of God to the sinner, encourages the sinner to believe that God will save him while he continues in sin and he knows it to be sin. This is the way that many are doing who profess to believe present truth. The truth is kept apart from their life, and that is the reason it has no more power to convict and convert the soul.” MR vol. 6 page 12
I think she sees this forum as she looks into the future from her day.
Bill,
Human ideas that are somehow viewed as superior to the ways of God are not of God, but against God and dogmatism is essential to the promotion of such ideas. In contrast, the ultimate expression of love is found in the pages of scripture and the experience of those who discover that the first doctrine God taught Adam and Eve after they sinned was about how much He loved them. If He didn’t love them so much, He wouldn’t have taught them about the plan of salvation.
To quote you, “How obvious can a person get…?”
Yet you seem unable to see it. I fear it is because you have never been touched and transformed by the incredible, amazing, indescribable and all-powerful love of God. I want to obey and teach others about the wonderful doctrines that I find in scripture because of the love of God that has touched and changed me. How I wish you would let God touch you with His love so you could see things through the lens of such a transforming experience!
There is nothing else to add, besides…
How can I say, following dogma and the law because a person loves God is wrong. I wouldn’t.
I would not presume to say your faith is wrong, regardless. But only presumptions and prescriptions do not have a constructive place.
Following doctrine out of love God is duly check-marked.
Yet, why love humanity?
Does God love His doctrine, His works more than the people that reject Him with their very thoughts?
Should we expect men to be righteous? Are humans righteous because of Christ or something else, someone like EG White?
Or was Christianity necessitate because of nobody’s righteousness before doctrine?
Is the presumption of righteous an undying remnant of our lustful ambitions for power?
Do we bristle at the idea of being amongst humiliated sinners in a tent? When we can point at the idolaters, fornicators, drunks etc
Or do people expect sin depends on whether a church is powerful and righteousness enough to to stop it? That the community of righteous is the solution and not love and forgiveness?
Can people love with humility because of their flaws and keep their claim to be more righteousness than another because of doctrine?
Can forgiveness cure sin?
Melody Tan wrote:
“I would continue to encourage the prominence of in-depth biblical study and knowledge”
“I would acknowledge Ellen White as a prophet of God and a founder of the Seventh-day Adventist Church”
Dr Taylor wrote:
“While there are just a few minor points that would need some additional discussion to clarify, she has offered us an effective and positive way forward to rethink an Adventism for the 21st Century.”
For many if not most Seventh-Day Adventists, the op cit statements of Ms Tan are more than “minor points” to “clarify”. There is a fundamental epistemological chasm between those of us who accept the notion of Divine Revelation (in whatever form) and those who reject any such notion, or even the notion that there might be any “supernatural” at all.
Well articulated Ervin, very perceptive. Melody is spot on, thanks for your refreshing insights. Change will always be painful. in fact change makes enemies. thank God for our present sabbath school lesson.
The church exists for its non-members. When will it hit home. It can easily degenerate into an adventist ghetto.
God have mercy on us.
Ken,
You wrote: “The church exists for non-members.” That is an insight I wish far more people had so we would be focused on doing what brings people in and makes them part of God’s “family” instead of fighting with each other and doing things that make them want to stay outside.
Melody,
You have painted a beautiful picture that I think most Adventists (and certainly Yours Truly) would admire.
Regarding bloated bureaucracy, there is a built-in contradiction within our church. On the one hand we believe that Jesus is coming “soon”. On the other hand we expend a lot of time and energy and money and talent on institutional preservation. Yet if our theology is correct, then the purpose of EVERY one of our institutions is to work itself out of a job as quickly as possible. Ditto for our employees and even our volunteers!
There is no simple answer to this dilemma. It is not unique to the SDA church. The book of Acts begins with a church “plant” with a very “flat” structure (120 people packed into one Accord 8-). However within a few years at most they discovered that some degree of organization was necessary. End of the “entrepreneurial” phase which even in the most successful endeavors only lasts for few years to at most a decade.
“Behold I come quickly.”
“Occupy until I come.”
“Let all things be done decently and in order.”
(church history summed-up in a haiku?)
“Where other Christian denominations have had their voices heard—with some even becoming leaders of advocacy—on social justice issues, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has been absent because of its reluctance to be involved in “political matters”.”
The government under which Jesus lived was corrupt and oppressive; on every hand were crying abuses—extortion, intolerance, and grinding cruelty. Yet the Saviour attempted no civil reforms. He attacked no national abuses, nor condemned the national enemies. He did not interfere with the authority or administration of those in power. He who was our example kept aloof from earthly governments. Not because He was indifferent to the woes of men, but because the remedy did not lie in merely human and external measures. To be efficient, the cure must reach men individually, and must regenerate the heart. 566 {CCh 314.4}
Again and again Christ had been asked to decide legal and political 315
questions. But He refused to interfere in temporal matters. Christ stood in our world as the Head of the great spiritual kingdom that He came to our world to establish—the kingdom of righteousness. His teaching made plain the ennobling, sanctifying principles that govern this kingdom. He showed that justice and mercy and love are the controlling powers in Jehovah’s kingdom. 567 {CCh 314.5}
Is Melody aware of the Inspired admonition?
What “Inspired admonition”? How about just “a personal opinion of a 19th Century devotional writer”?
Whoever you are hiding behind “sufferingsunfish” are you aware that the same inspired writer advocated that Adventists support the abolition of slavery and prohibition, two of the most significant social action movements of her time? Do you really understand her views?
If finances are an issue why do the liberals not object to the millions that Dan Jackson is spending in the frivolous move to his own quarters? Let’s start there!
Sufferingsunfish,
If it were not for criticizing church leaders, would you have any thoughts to express? Have you not asked God to shower His love on you so that you will have reason to celebrate His greatness? Have you not asked Him to give you a ministry where you can be a channel for his love so that you can be changed while id flows through you to improve the lives of others? I can only imagine what amazing things you will be sharing after you have done those things.
…but Mr Noel you’re criticising Sufferingsunfish. Remember Matthew 7:12?
Trevor,
I am treating him the way I want to be treated. If I complained about the leaders of God’s church as much as he does, hopefully someone would make me aware of it so I could change my ways.
“…why do the liberals not object to the millions that Dan Jackson is spending in the frivolous move to his own quarters?”
I don’t know how you’d classify me, but I agree. Too many big buildings, too many offices.
I used “liberals” as both Spectrum and Atoday appear quite decisively to be frequented by the left. OTOH there is no reason why conservative SDAS should not be troubled by the needless expenditure of millions by Jackson and company. Anyone know the basis for the move by NAD?
Have you ever been in the building? Do you have any factual knowledge of the practical needs? What do you bring to the table besides ignorance and prejudice?
I would leave it to others better informed to answer the question about exactly why the NAD leadership decided now to move out of the GC outsized building, but it is an excellent move too long in coming that should be supported. NAD needs to distance itself from the current GC administration both physically and in spirit and join forces with European Adventism to provide balance and a better way of moving the Adventist church into appropriate paths suitable for a 21st Century faith tradition. Of course, we understand that, regretfully, there can be no public statement to that effect.
Why should it be supported, Erv? It sounds like symbolism to me. How much is it costing? Is that a relevant consideration? I should hope so. jisy because something is a nice idea doesn’t mean it is justified by a cost-benefit analysis – a reality which liberals almost never consider.
Your comment, Erv, reeks of authoritarian elitism. Who is to say what faith traditions are “suitable” for the 21st Century – someone who takes a very dim view of religious faith? What role, if any, do you think democratic traditions should play in selecting the appropriate paths for the church?
Do you see no irony in the reality that you sound very much like the flip side of Bill Sorensen. He tells us what is appropriate for 21st Century Adventism and you tell us what paths the church should be on for 21st Century Adventism. By what authority…? Fortunately, neither of you is particularly representative of a church which must give heed to a multitude of voices and perspectives.
I wish I could write such powerful sentences that end in phrases similar to “reeks of authoritarian elitism.”
Regretfully, one can never predict in what direction Nate is going to direct his next rhetorical flamethrower. Except, that he seems to be consistent in expressing his commitment to a radical form of doctrinaire Evangelical libertarianism.
However, I agree with his point that it will not make any difference what any individual thinks or says what 21st Century Adventism will look like. We will only know when the Year 2100 comes around. Since there is a high probability that neither Nate or I will be there to witness personally the reality, all we can do is express our respective fantasies about that topic. Do libertarians fantasize?
By the way, we see that Nate continues to push one of his favorite ideas that fundamentalist liberals and fundamentalist conservatives are basically the same. Of course, Nate considers himself to be that reasonable, rational, consistent moderate. Speaking of fantasies . . .
But Erv…I didn’t even call you a fundamentalist! I was just suggesting the irony of both you and Sorensen having a clear vision of the direction the Chirch should take in the 21st Century. I’m not sure what evangelical libertarianism means. But it sounds fascinating.
Whether I am “reasonable, consistent, moderate and rational” is very much in the eye of the beholder. But your implicit recognition that my “reasonable, consistent, moderate and rational guidance might be just what the 21st Century church needs Certainly forces me to reconsider my disparagement of your ability to know the best path forward for a 21st Century faith community.
For a somewhat different but definitely related, take on this topic read:
http://www.tomdebruin.com/2016/08/17/facing-doubt-some-meta-musings/
What is so called “social justice”? Demonstrating with Black Lives Matter? Marching in Gay Pride parades? I know of no definitive concept of “social justice” that all agree on.
Sufferingsunfish,
You’re exactly right! “Social justice” is a term that cannot be defined because it is used to mean whatever someone wants. About the only common factor I can find in how it is applied is to justify some change in the law that penalizes one group to give privilege to another.
In contrast, God has plenty of work for us to do and I greatly prefer working under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Scripture promises that He will guide and empower us to do what God wants us to do. He has promised to provide all of our needs and I wish I had space here to tell you about all the times I’ve seen God do that. Recently, God laid a new mission project on my heart that is on a scale so big that when He told me, my reaction was, “You want me to do WHAT?” Still, I’m pursuing it confidently because of how I’ve seen Him guide and provide in the past. (When it happens you’ll be reading about it in the Adventist Review.) We’re just in the early planning stage and probably at least a year from it happening and already we have a list of stories about how God has moved obstacles out of our path and done things that could only happen in His power. What really excites me is how only a few people have heard about it yet how excited they are about it and asking how they can participate.
Sufferingsunfish,
The big thing I don’t like about “social justice” is that causes are typically anti-God in one degree or another because they are an extension of Liberal-Socialism, which is dedicated to the eradication of all faith in God from society. As a result, one of the quickest ways to get thrown out of a noble-sounding public cause is to mention God. So I wish those in the church who talk about “social justice” would learn the real nature of what they are endorsing and stop speaking of it in positive ways.
“Social justice” causes sound noble and are legitimized by endorsement from those in power. Further, they look attractive to Christians because they’ve heard about the power of the Holy Spirit but have not seen it or been touched by it, so they turn to “social justice” as an alternate way to accomplish what they think is work God wants them doing. However, ‘social justice’ is just a well-disguised Satanic deception designed to make God appear impotent and uncaring, make faith in God appear irrelevant and thus to lure people away from God.
Good comment, William. So true. But being able to say we believe in social justice is a great high for moral and virtue thrill seekers. Where else but church can you get such satisfaction from profession of faith. And the really great thing about social justice is that you really don’t have to do anything except support laws, rules and regulations that profess to advance social justice. For those who are addicted to legalism and control, but hate the legalism of the church, social justice is legalism on steroids.
Nathan,
An interesting observation. Can’t say I ever thought of it in quite such stark terms, but I agree.
There you go again William, conflating and confusing conservatism with godliness. It is logically undeniable and inevitable that if liberalism and socialism are determined to undermine that which is good, then their ideological, political, and economic counterparts, namely conservatism and capitalism, are by definition determined to defend that which is good.
You make no sense at all if you continue to deny that inescapable logical antecedent of your own complaint.
Jeremiah 22:3 speaks to nothing besides social justice. God through his prophet calls social justice “judgment and righteousness;” and exhorts us to “deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor: and do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent blood in this place.” That is social justice from the word of the Lord. (Consider Jeremiah 22:13-16 as well.)
Read Job 29:12-17 and tell me it doesn’t sound like ‘liberals’ do nowadays; and read Job 31:13-28 and tell me that verses 24 and 25 don’t sound like those who claim that their affluence is a result of their efforts, and complain about confiscatory taxes on “my [hard-earned] wealth” going to the undeserving poor.
Proverbs 31:9 instructs us to “judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.” We are therefore to advocate for social justice.
Stephen,
The concepts promoted as “social justice” simply do not exist in scripture. Yes, the Bible gives us clear concepts of fairness in our dealings with others but nothing even remotely close to the things like advantage based on a person’s race, gender (or confusion of it), economic status that the promoters of “social justice” are claiming as “rights.” There is no exemption from obeying the law like what Black Lives Matters promoters claim as a right based on the color of a person’s skin. So if standing for what scripture teaches makes me “conservative” as compared to the disobedience being promoted by Liberalism, then I’m a conservative. I’m just someone who obeys God because of the great love He has shown me instead of the hatred and inequality the “social justice” promotes.
Stephen,
If you wish to claim that the scriptural admonitions to deal fairly and charitably with others are being followed by Liberals but not Conservatives, a reality check is in order. Judge by ACTUAL results. Who has profited the most from the taxation and regulations instituted by Liberals? Their Wall Street cronies in the finance and banking industries and the bureaucrats they employ to do their dirty work. How successful has the “War on Poverty” been? There never have been more poor in America and the economy that the Obama Administration. Though it is claimed unemployment is the lowest in decades, the Employment Saturation Rate, a measure of what portion of the able and qualified population are employed, keeps setting new record lows and currently BLS estimates 97 million Americans are unemployed, the highest actual rate on record. Want to find the largest concentrations of the most severe poverty? Look in the cities and states ruled for decades by Liberals.
So much for the “good” Liberalism has been doing.
God’s plan for charity is person-to-person where a relationship forms between giver and receiver is formed and everyone gets to celebrate the love of God that is shared and receiving charity helps restore a person’s relationship with God. Try doing that with any government anti-poverty program or any of the “social justice” causes you hear promoted. Try it. At a minimum, you’ll get driven out, if not thrown in jail for promoting…
A swing and a miss on a pitch that was never thrown William; you missed the entire point. (Except that you have at long last copped to your repetitive conflation of conservatism with righteousness.)
This wasn’t about whether, in this society, liberal policies (when enacted) are more or less effective that conservative polices at addressing and alleviating poverty. This is about whether or not social justice advocacy—advocating the cause and promoting the welfare of the poor, the fatherless, the widows, etc. is a Biblical or scriptural principle that God has specifically instructed His people to follow; or whether doing so is antithetical to what God would have us do.
You cannot get around the scripture cited, and you cannot cite scripture that refutes the argument I have presented (above) with regard to specific scriptural admonitions and mandates to advocacy on behalf of the poor and disadvantaged for justice and righteous treatment; which is what social justice advocacy movements and social justice advocacy should invariably be about.
So in lieu of scripture, you have to appeal to the political frustrations of 21st century American conservatives. You never even consider thinking outside of the box to realize that it is even theoretically possible for a conservative to advocate for social justice
Stephen,
Can’t get around your point? No, you can’t get around the fact that Liberals simply love to misapply Bible verses in whatever way they find convenient and without regard to reality. All of your protestations about Liberalism addressing the needs of the poor miss the fact that those efforts are only making things worse for the poor and driving more people into poverty at a faster rate than at any time in American history.
I’d like to hear your ideas for how the church can minister to this growing class of the economically distressed. I’m talking about people like the man I met in Beckley, WV, who poured-out his heart to me about his family’s distress. He used to be a coal miner who earned a very good income until the Obama administration’s war on coal forced the mine to shut-down. He had his wife found other work, but at lower wages and without health insurance. They were able to get insurance through the Obamacare exchange, but they could only afford the lowest premiums and that policy came with a $5,000 per person annual deductible, which meant one person in the family getting seriously ill would force them into bankruptcy to pay medical costs before their government-approved insurance paid a penny! That man and his wife were deeply grateful for the Pathway to Health clinic being in their town.
What are you going to do to minister to the needs being created by the politicians you think are doing good things?
Read Chapter 51 in Patriarchs and Prophets by Ellen White.
Monte,
I wish more people would read that. Add Isaiah, chapter 58. Add just reading about how Jesus ministered to people. There is much good that God wants to do through us and is ready to empower if we will step-out in faith and the power of the Holy Spirit to minister one-to-one instead of trusting corrupt politicians and increasingly oppressive governments to do the work they should be doing.
You don’t seem to understand that whether or not liberal politicians are making things better or worse for the poor does not in any way address the Biblical instruction that you are to advocate the cause of the poor, and the fatherless, etc.; and that you are to seek social justice (judgment and righteousness) on their behalf.
Instead, you have to say that multiple passages of scripture about advocating for the poor are somehow taken out of context. Well why don’t you just use the Bible—not your political opinion—to make that case? Show us where Jeremiah 22:3 (or even verses 16, 17) or Job 29:12-17 or Job 31: 13-28, or Proverbs 31:9 are taken out of context on this thread.
I’m glad to see that you’ve referenced Isaiah 58 which talks about what we should do for the poor besides advocate for them. Good for you if you are indeed doing those things; but doing those things, and telling others that you do those things, do not nullify the admonitions to advocate the cause of the poor, et al and to seek social justice on their behalf.
Stephen,
There is no question that we are to be caring for the poor. The difference in our respective points of view is crystallized in James 1:27: “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” I focus on ministering to the poor according to the Biblical instruction and relying on the power of God to guide and provide. For example, on Sunday I spent several hours helping a new widow in our church with some challenges around her house and before the day was out, without asking for it, I was offered funds to cover the cost incurred. In contrast, you view absolutely everything through the lens of your political allegiances and somehow conflate government programs that promote corruption and make poverty worse with doing the life-improving things God wants us doing on a one-to-one basis. Can you point us to even one government program that directs a person’s attention to God? That teaches them about God’s love for them and to look to Him to provide their needs? You can’t because it is strictly prohibited. So it is clear that your view has been “polluted by the world.”
If you’re pointing people to government as the source of their solutions, you are leading them into the trap planned by Liberal-Socialism to make individuals dependent on government instead of God and to make a person’s allegiance to government superior over God.
Do you deny that there is not one scripture in the entirety of scripture that negates our scriptural obligation to advocate the cause (on behalf) of the poor, the fatherless, et al; and to seek justice and relief from oppression for them? That is a yes or no question.
Stephen,
There is not one verse in scripture that I can find negating our requirement to care for the poor. There also are plenty of instructions about how God wants us doing it and NOT ONE of them has even the faintest implication that we are to do it through government programs. God’s instructions to us are clear about charity being one-to-one and depending on Him to guide and provide. When are you going to start obeying God’s commands and following His instructions and stop advocating for corrupt human governments that claim to be helping the poor while actually making things worse for them?
What you don’t seem to understand, Stephen, is that scripture is generally directed to a particular people, at a particular time and place, under particular conditions. It is not a timeless, universal moral guide book – and it is certainly not a constitution for political entities. The closest the Bible comes to offering that is in Deuteronomy. Is that what we should be advocating?
“Justice” is not simply an abstract container that you can fill with whatever meaning you like, then – mirabile dictu – proclaim that, since the Bible calls on us to advocate for justice, what you believe is justice is a Biblical mandate. BTW, since when did you become so indifferent to separation of church and state? Remember, what I understand Melody to be advocating is greater involvement by the Church in promoting laws and public policies to further equality and “fairness” – especially for the so-called historically oppressed. At least that’s what I understand her to mean by “social justice.”
These are Biblical principles Nathan; given by inspiration of God. Paul says that scripture is profitable for instruction in righteousness. We’re not talking about human sacrifices or genocide Nathan. We’re not talking about any illegal activity in a free society. We’re talking about advocating on behalf of the poor and pleading their case for justice and freedom from oppression.
Again, even if you don’t believe that the institutional church should advocate for, or on behalf of the poor, the fatherless, the widows, or whoever; the Bible clearly indicates that its readers, hearers, and doers are still to do it…and your personal or political dissatisfaction with any particular government is not an excuse, or a hall pass.
This is not a close call. Don’t let your politics trump “thus saith the Lord.”
“but doing those things, and telling others that you do those things, do not nullify the admonitions to advocate the cause of the poor, et al and to seek social justice on their behalf.”
To feed to poor and help the poor to enslave the poor is not helping the poor.
Social justice is not social justice when the motive is anything but helping people become self sustaining but enslave them to serve the elitism that created the problem in the beginning.
Not to be able to discern the difference is a sad commentary on the Christian community that jumps in with both feet to help the elitists get final and full control of the whole country with the intent to control the world.
I agree with you, Stephen. The Bible calls upon me to do justice and to love mercy. But the Bible doesn’t give Stephen Foster the key to telling me or the church what constitutes justice – or legitimate advocacy for the poor – in the earthly realm, much less the Heavenly realm. And it certainly doesn’t encourage those who rest their hopes for justice in placing their faith in earthly kingdoms.
You guys are engaged in Polemical escapism. The point, the only point, is that we are Biblically mandated to plead and advocate the cause of the poor, and the fatherless, and the widow, etc. and to advocate for social justice on their behalf.
This is an undeniable reality, whether you like it not, or whether you want to do it or not, or whether you believe the government programs that are in place at any given time are effective or ineffective, or whether you have a differing perception or conception of what constitutes effective advocacy for the poor than I do, or whether you think it is an individual or institutional responsibility.
None of you can deny that advocacy on behalf of the poor is a Biblical principle inspired by God and a scriptural responsibility of those who profess to believe in the God of the Bible.
Stephen,
The only person in this discussion who is avoiding the “thus saith the Lord” about caring for the poor is you because your political persuasions have led you to believe that a political philosophy that is working against God could possible be doing the work of God and somehow you have been relieved of your responsibility to practice charity according to God’s model. Charity has a direct spiritual function and purpose: directing the attention of people to God as their provider of all things so they will celebrate His greatness and depend on Him for everything in every aspect of life. Whatever distracts attention away from or minimizes that is against God, period. The most foundational philosophy of Liberal-Socialism is that the state must control everything and be supreme in society so all faith in anything but the state must be subjugated to the will of the state or destroyed. You have openly embraced that philosophy, so you are supporting a sin-twisted concept of charity that is very different from and opposed to the model God gave us to follow.
William you are running for all you are worth away from the question and the point. You have been doing this for a while, so don’t think that it has gone unnoticed.
I keep talking about the repeated scriptural instruction to advocate the cause of the poor, and you keep willfully and purposely ignoring that and refer to caring for the poor. It is a given that we are instructed to care for the poor William; no one is denying that.
My question and my point is that there is specific and repeated scripture with regard to advocacy on behalf of the poor; and about advocacy for justice for them too.
You can read as well as I can. So we know that you have avoided the advocacy question because you can’t think of any entity before which the cause of poor can be advocated except the government; and you certainly do not like the idea of advocating that the government help to alleviate poverty and oppression. You know it, I know it, and it is quite possible that everyone knows it.
You have a personal view of charity that is yours; and you are entitled to it. You cannot back up a statement such as “Charity has a direct spiritual function and purpose: directing the attention of people to God as their provider of all things so they will celebrate His greatness and depend on Him for everything in every aspect of life. Whatever distracts attention away from or minimizes that is against God, period;” with any Bible, because it is your own personal, private perspective and your own creative interpretation of your own reality. It sounds good, as most platitudes do.
The same goes for your conflated invention of “Liberal-Socialism” and its designs and objectives. No one can do anything about how you perceive philosophies that you invent or platitudes that you create.
Here’s what you miss: that this simply isn’t about political ideology. No matter how accurate or inaccurate your simplistic stereotyping may be, the point is that the Bible unequivocally and unambiguously instructs us to not only “care for” the poor, but to advocate their cause and to actively seek justice and righteousness on their behalf; and to relieve them of oppression.
You are uncomfortable with that undeniable reality; so you would rather rail against “Liberal-Socialism” and its adherents whom you identify, than deal with it. You’re running but not hiding. I get it; and we both know it.
Perhaps Michelle never realized that she inadvertently stepped on the American church’s…
Stephen,
Apparently you’re overlooking something: when the Bible writers told us to do something, they presupposed that you knew God’s prior instructions that were the foundation for what they were saying. So when we are told to care for the poor, authors such as Paul had a clear foundation in mind for their statement. Since God gave clear instructions in the Old Testament about how the poor were to be cared for and those instructions NEVER considered a government role in charity, what makes you imagine that God would approve of you doing it by a different way than His instructions?
God made it clear very early in history that He does not approve of alternate means of obedience when he did not accept Cain’s offering. The Old Testament gives us numerous examples of the punishment that came on people when they tried doing things their own way instead of following God’s instructions. So, why would you dare to risk God’s disapproval by imagining to care for the poor in a way so different from His instructions? Disobedience by any other name is still disobedience, no matter how good it looks in your eyes or how politically popular it may be.
Oops…I meant Melody. Perhaps Melody never realized that she inadvertently stepped on the American church’s hornets’ nest. She’s found the underbelly.
But who are the poor, Stephen? And what does it mean to advocate for them? Is being pro-life advocating for the poor? Is being in favor of vouchers advocating for the poor? Is supporting strong, effective police presence in inner city communities advocating for the poor? Is opposing minimum wage laws which destroy jobs for the poor advocating for the poor? Is opposing some of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, which costs jobs, when U.S. businesses move overseas, advocating for the poor?
If advocacy for the poor means subsidizing those who live below an arbitrary poverty line to survive without struggle, fear and insecurity, advocacy for the poor will only produce more of the poor. We have a Constitution that advocates for the poor. It’s called equal protection under the law and due process. Were those mechanisms in place during the Bible times?
Leviticus 19 and Exodus 23 call for a justice system that does not show partiality or favoritism toward the poor. How is that advocating for the poor? Jesus advocated a position of material want as the best posture from which to serve and experience the Kingdom.
I’m really quite amazed at how your political/economic views are superimposed on scripture, Stephen, to create an unfiltered, unnuanced dogma of how Biblical concepts of justice should apply, without cultural, political or economic translation, to today’s world.
“Perhaps Michelle never realized that she inadvertently stepped on the American church’s……..”
Well, there is always a moral decision about what avenue you may use to support any worthwhile activity in a Christian context.
I don’t usually give to a Catholic charity, but would on some occasions. I am aware that few do more in the way of “Social justice” and advocate it than the RCC. But I am also aware they use this agenda to advance their their own spiritual ideals which I do not agree with.
Just so, some don’t see our civil government as having any real concern for the poor and those in need, and only use this agenda to get control of the people. The civil government doesn’t have any money. All they can do is take OPM (other people’s money) and use it to advance their own agenda to enslave everyone and take final control of their lives in every area of freedom that would challenge the government agenda.
The elitists put themselves above the law as is so obvious in our modern government system. And that “all men are created equal” (under the law) is a farce in modern USA.
Real charity is what you do of your own free will. Not what the government forces you to do by taking your money and using it for their own agenda. This is tyranny, not charity. And if you don’t know the difference, then you will support the government in their bogus claim to “help the poor.”
Not only do you not hear…but you are not even listening. You keep talking about caring for the poor as if there is but one way to care for the poor; and as if the Bible has instructed that there only be one way to care for the poor.
You have made that up out of whole cloth. This is non-existent ‘bible’ that you have invented. There is not just one scriptural way to care for the poor. If that was the case, then selling all that we have and giving the proceeds to the poor would be the only way— since that is distinctly all that Jesus told the rich young ruler to do.
But one can also feed them with or from one’s own monetary resources. One can also clothe them with one’s own monetary resources; or with resources that have been solicited from others for the same purposes.
But another way to demonstrate caring for the poor, and another way that the Bible explicitly instructs that we do is to advocate the cause of the poor to not only the powers that be at any particular time and place, but in any way or form that advocacy can take. You simply do not even want to acknowledge the simple reality that the Bible instructs that we advocate on behalf of the poor, seek justice and righteousness for them, and relieve them from oppression.
The fact that you can’t afford to acknowledge this Biblical reality should tell you something. I really wish that someone else would try to come to your defense; because I know that you have sympathizers out there. Come out come out,…
No Stephen. No one has said there’s only one way to care for and advocate for the poor. What we are saying is that the Bible cannot be dogmatically read to support social justice, as that term is commonly understood, and as I have defined it. Had Melody simply said that the church should focus its energies and resources on the poor – in the name of Christ – I would have no problem. But what she said was that the church needs to get more involved in social justice issues. And that connotes a very specific way of serving and advocating for the poor.
Saying we disagree with that agenda, and observing that the Bible as a whole does not support that agenda, is a far cry from saying that we are opposed to charity and fair dealing; helping the poor, and advocating that they be free of the circumstances that prevent them from seeing and experiencing Jesus as He is. “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free” – not for a bigger piece of the American pie, promised in exchange for dependency on government and government extenders posing as churches.
Stephen,
That the Bible’s instructions for how we are to care for the poor do not match your political definitions is not my problem. So long as you view scripture through the lens of politics you will continue arguing in vague terms about even the simplest of things and make every possible excuse for disobedience, as you are doing.
Nathan, if you honestly don’t believe the poor and needy can be identified in 21st century America, or if you calculate and conclude that minimum wage laws have hurt more poor people than they’ve helped, or you believe that high corporate tax rates are more injurious to poor people than to corporations, or that Medicaid and its expansion hurts poor people, or that access to legal abortion does, or whatever, then you are scripturally enjoined to plead that on behalf of the poor. It might have been your first response.
No one ever said that you were, in principle, “opposed to charity and fair dealing [or even] helping the poor…” What I am saying is that you are obviously opposed to vocally advocating the cause of the poor and the needy, as is described in Proverbs 31:9— otherwise we likely may never have had this discussion. (Certainly William and I would not have.)
What’s more, I am suggesting that it is highly probable (if not obvious) that some are afraid to acknowledge that the Bible explicitly instructs us to plead the cause of the poor and the needy because, other than the government, they cannot practically envision any other entities to which the cause of the poor and needy can be plead in our society—and they recoil from the idea of pleading the cause of the poor to the government for a variety of ideologically charged reasons.
The upshot: again, ideology ‘triumphs’ over inspiration.
The fact is Nathan, that Noel has most assuredly suggested that there is but one way—‘God’s way’ (as Noel personally interprets that way)—to care for the poor; and has said that any other way is disobedience. Further he has failed to acknowledge that the Bible explicitly directs us to vocally plead the cause of the poor and the needy. In fact he has been arguing with me about whether or not that is what we should do.
I’ll reiterate that even if we’re somehow limited to pleading the cause of the poor to those who are inept, or corrupt, or to those who do not wish to hear it, we should do so anyway; because the Bible repeatedly makes it clear that we should.
William, there is nothing “vague” about opening your mouth and pleading the cause of the poor and the needy as is instructed in Proverbs 31:9. It is plain, explicit, and unambiguous. It is that particular, scripturally explicit, part of caring for the poor with which you are clearly in visceral, fundamental disagreement.
If you don’t want to do it, you certainly don’t have to. You are a moral free agent.
Stephen,
Either you cannot read, or you are just a liar, because I have made it clear that I am in total agreement with scripture regarding both advocating for the poor and actually doing what improves their lives in the ways God has directed. That contrasts with your severely politicized interpretation of scripture. You talk your political views about how to help the poor while I’m actually out there doing things to help them. When are you going to start talking from the experience of actually doing according to God’s instructions?
Well, well William, either I am illiterate or a liar, huh? Well, then I guess I’m illiterate because I looked at all of your posts in colloquy with me and you never once in any of them even so much as typed any form of the verb “advocate” in any of them. You never said one thing about agreeing with scripture or with me about what scripture says with regard to advocating for, or on behalf of. the poor.
But now you claim to “have made it clear that I am in total agreement with scripture regarding both advocating for the poor and actually doing what improves their lives in the ways God has directed.”
There is no possible way that that statement is true, because that is all that I have been trying to get you to say; and heretofore you have not said it or indicated it; at all. You have only claimed to have been in agreement with scripture with regard to caring for the poor; which had never been in dispute.
Since you CAN read; simply go back and identify where you have previously claimed that which you now say you had made “clear” about advocating for the poor.
Please point out to me, Stephen, where you find in Jesus’ life or teaching support for taking the cause of the poor to earthly rulers for legislative action. Or for that matter, where do you find such support in any New Testament scripture?
Overwhelmingly, both the OT and NT emphasize personal action – giving and caring for the poor – as duties and obligations, not as rights and entitlements. It is the Lord, not earthly governments, who is seen as the promise and hope for an end to the circumstances that produce oppression and poverty. Those who personally participate in moral action to relieve poverty and oppression vindicate the character and love of God.
You will search in vain to find Biblical support for the community organizer/political activism methods that are connoted by contemporary usage of terms like “social justice” and “advocacy for the poor.”
And let me emphasize, though it should not be necessary – this in reality in no way mitigates our responsibility as followers of Christ to care for the poor and needy in His name, and to advocate for them within our faith communities. Nor does it invalidate our personal responsibility, as citizens of earthly governments, to promote earthly justice for all. Reasonable minds, surrendered to God’s Spirit, may have sharply different views on how these responsibilities are best carried out.
Stephen,
If your concept of “advocating for the poor” is supporting government welfare programs that are actually increasing poverty instead of helping people rise out of it, then you’re confirming your belief that the political philosophy working to destroy all faith in God is doing the work of God. That gives new illustration of the description “self-exposing contradiction.”
Tell me Nathan, who is it exactly do you think inspired Jeremiah and Solomon and the writer of Job? Do you think that that was someone other than Jesus? Seriously, I’d like to know. After having inspired the OT scriptures that He said testified of Him, Jesus in His incarnate teachings made it abundantly clear that ignoring the plight of the poor can send you straight to hell. (Matthew 25:42-46)
I frankly don’t see anything about the indolent government-dependent slugs who some of you care so much about, being sent to hell for being on the dole (or for even being lazy for that matter); but I do see where if I don’t do and say something on behalf of the poor, that I am not doing what God’s word said that I should do. Please tell me Nathan, is the book of Proverbs a timeless moral guide book or not, in your opinion?
(Yeah, I’m a little impatient with, if not intolerant of, political ideology that trumps inspiration at this point; and with the sophistry that seeks to justify the same.)
The connotation you get from the contemporary concepts and terms “advocacy for the poor” and “social justice” represents a personal hang-up; so much so that, despite the teaching that the poor will always be with and among us, you are attempting to sell the idea that that was then but this is now.
It might be a good idea to get over it.
William, it’s hard to keep up with whether you are now suddenly for or remain against vocal advocacy of the cause of the poor (described in Proverbs 31:9); but at some point you should make up your mind. I’m just saying…
In any case, I trust that you will remember that you are a free moral agent and you don’t have to advocate anyone’s cause if you prefer not to do so. That’s up to you.
Have you yet found where you had earlier made it clear that you were in agreement with doing such a thing? I still haven’t found it—and I’ve looked again. (Maybe I should learn to read. In the meantime perhaps you can identify it for the rest of the world.)
As some others have noted here, the term “social justice” in practice means that some group gains the “right” to impose Their version of “justice” on Others.
This is not the way of Christ, who used the power of Love to break every chain that binds humans.
On the other hand, Ellen herself got heavily involved in the late-19th century Temperance movement. Though her involvement consisted of speaking by invitation to various assemblies regarding the evils of intemperate living. I am not aware that she engaged in what are now euphemistically called “protests” and “direct action”. Her focus was on persuading others of her views, not coercing them to hew to her preferred life choices. But she did not shrink from opportunities to advocate her views and exercise her powers of persuasion.
Regarding Abolition, many of the early Adventist were active Abolitionists, including helping to operate”underground railway” stations in Battle Creek and elsewhere. Adventist writers of that era generally denounced slavery, but they were divided regarding how strong a moral imperative existed for “direct action” against it. I am not sure that Ellen took a position regading how best to oppose slavery.
Interesting observations, Jim. If the SDA Church had originated in The Deep South rather than in New England, would the founders would have been abolitionists or pro-slavery?
Once we recognize that they would have been on the wrong political and moral side of the conflict, it is much easier to understand that abstract moral values and principles, often framed as platitudes and slogans, are not self-ordering. How we prioritize them and act on them is highly dependent on many factors.
I woild be interested to know what clear guidance Melody or others find in scripture for Christ’s church to agitate for legislative remediation of evil, much less what those laws might be. It is probably safe to assume that If the Church adopted 2 Thess. 3:10-12 as F.B. 29, Melody would not endorse that vision of social justice.
Social justice connotes government enforcement of rights and entitlements – not dying to self and turning the other cheek. And once you make your morality the law, the behaviors thereby mandated and proscribed cease to have any greater moral significance than paying taxes or obeying traffic signals. I guess it’s virtuous for the church to be legalistic and judgmental on social justice matters – but it is unchristian judgmentalism and legalism when it defines sin, sets guard rails, and calls its members to voluntary holy living.
What am I missing?
Nathan,
If you or I had been born in Saudi Arabia, would we be Muslims?
More regarding your larger question below.
Nathan,
Please see my post above (directed toward W. Noel), and carefully consider the scripture that was cited in it; then tell me what I am missing—because those scriptural references represent what I think you have missed. (There’s a lot more scripture that could have been cited, BTW.)
I’m. It really into proof-texting, Stephen. But if you want to play that game, tell me what you make of 2 Thess 3:10-12. Do you want a theocracy? I thought you were big on separation of church and state. It just seems incredibly inconsistent for you folks on the left to be selectively citing Biblical support for the church to advocate government action when you completely denounce those who cite the Bible as authority for policy and law that you don’t like. It is particularly absurd for you to use the OT, when you reject – and rightly so – the violent moral action against evil and the enemies of God’s people sanctioned in the OT.
I think I’m quite consistent. The Church, as a corporate body, should not be involved in legislating morality. Like the Jewish leaders of Christ’s day, the Left thinks it can make people good and bring about the Messianic age through force of law.
Nathan,
At least you see the value of citing scripture in this regard. Paul of course was talking to Christians about Christians; some of whom thought or acted like they were too heavenly-minded or holy to be bothered with manual labor.
Step back for a minute and consider the argument. This is about whether we should or should not actively advocate the cause of the poor, the fatherless, the widows, etc. 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12 in no way, shape, or form contradicts, conflicts, or diminishes the scriptural admonition and instruction to advocate the cause of the poor, the fatherless, the widows, etc. You seem to suggest that the text you cite cancels out the others; as if every poor person is an indolent, undeserving (Christian) slug, by definition.
And this isn’t about theocracy or the separation of church and state. This is about what the Bible tells us that we should do or should not do. Perhaps the question insofar as church and state are concerned is whether the corporate, institutional church or the individual believers who are in the church (or both) should do the advocating. No matter where you come down on that, the inescapable fact remains that scripture clearly, unequivocally, and undeniably requires Bible believers to advocate for social justice on behalf of the poor.
Stephen – I guess what’s missing here is what it means to advocate on behalf of the poor. If it is true that we get more, as a society, of what we subsidize, then trying to end much of welfare state policy is in fact advocating for the poor. What do you see happening to cities that declare themselves homeless havens? If you guessed that they get more homeless, go to the head of the class.
Please share with us your authority for the proposition that it is unbiblical to advocate for government policies that encourage personal responsibility and decrease dependency. I would also really be interested in what you do with statements of Paul and Jesus that seem to suggest that poverty and oppression are ideal positions from which to see and experience the Kingdom. Yes, Paul was talking to fellow believers in community. But so what? Are you suggesting that Paul would not extend the same principle – He who will not work should not eat; and moreover, should be shamed – to the non-Christian culture to which the faith community witnesses?
Stephen,
You’ve been duped by all the rhetoric of corrupt politicians who claim to be helping the poor, but who are just making things worse for them and driving more into poverty. Poverty has only gotten worse in every nation ruled by Liberal-Socialist leaders who claim to be helping the poor while enriching only themselves and their friends.
Again William, a lot less political theorizing and opinion from you and more of what the Bible actually says…itself…would be helpful.
No wonder you and ‘Conviction’ don’t get along. He or she keeps citing (or copying directly from) the Bible. Imagine that.
Jim,
Because of my then-current involvement in community drug prevention, when I was in grad school I did a history study of the various temperance movements in America. Yes, there are strong similarities between it, the church’s alignment with it and current social justice efforts. There also are at least two significant differences: a spiritual basis for wanting people to be healthy and only limited involvement with legislative efforts to limit the availability of tobacco and alcohol.
Currently America and several other nations are confronted with a new temperance crisis: poor lifestyle causing extreme rates of obesity and diabetes and high drug abuse rates leading to high death rates from overdoses (on Friday, Huntington, WV had 27 overdose deaths in 24 hours). This gives the church a major opportunity to help the public by teaching spiritually-based healthy lifestyle while the social justice warriors are advocating for laws to limit things like trans-fats in foods, the prescription of opium-based drugs and similar. Being effective at this requires that we be empowered by the Holy Spirit, else we will be just as misguided as the social justice warriors.
Hi Nathan and William,
First of all, there IS a “spiritual” aspect to “social justice” both in the Bible and in Ellen. For example read the following (shameless promotion of my eldest son’s writing 8-):
http://apokalupto.blogspot.ca/2016/07/the-sabbath-more-fully.html
I doubt that many readers here associate her Sanctuary vision with the Sabbath and “social justice”, but Ellen herself did.
Secondly, and more relevant in my opinion, is a whole raft of Mosaic laws regarding “social justice”. Under the Theocracy as instituted by Moses, there were extensive regulations to limit the ability of the rich to exploit the poor. These included a mandatory “tithe” for the poor. Limitations on transfer of ownership of real property (in English parlance, only the “right of possession” could be sold, not the “right of ownership” which automatically reverted to the heirs after a limited amount of time), limitations on ownership of slaves, ability to enforce debt collections, etc.
Now I fully understand that to right-leaning persons with Libertarian inclinations (such as Yours Truly), this might come as a shock, but the entire premise of the Mosaic code regarding personal and property rights, is that we DO NOT belong to ourselves. Rather we belong to God, and therefore everything we “possess” is actually “owned” by God, not us. And God limits our “rights” to acquire, use and dispose of, God’s property.
(continued)
The Mosaic Code casts human “rights” in terms of human “responsibilities” to God. Among other things, the strong are responsible to God for how they treat the Weak. And long after the Monarchy had been supplanted the Theocracy, many prophets including Isaiah and Jeremiah had much to say about the Mosaic principles of “social justice” that had been brushed aside in the quest o th Nobility to acquire wealth and power. The prophets list the related sins of Idolatry and Oppression as the causes of the downfall of the Monarchy, with first the Norther kingdom taken captive by Assyria and then the Southern kingdom by Babylon.
Read the Mosaic code once again, and the OT prophets. And then read what Ellen has to say about “social justice” in her commentaries on the foregoing.
Now consider the “social justice” ramifications of the “sevens” in the Mosaic code. Once every seven days, the people, the slaves, even the animals, are required to rest. Once every seven years debts are cancelled and slaves are set-free and the land itself is required to rest. In the Year of Jubilee real property reverts to the families of the original land-holders. Each of these is a reminder that we and all of our possessions (even our time) belong to God. We are Tenants and the world is God’s Field.
(continued)
Now fast-forward to Jesus Christ. Read His “inaugural address” in Luke 4, delivered on the Sabbath, where He quotes from Isaiah 61, in context a lengthy dissertation on the Sabbath and the Year of Jubilee and “social justice” and the call for restoration of these principles in the Monarchy.
The people are overjoyed to hear that Jesus will fulfill what has been promised. But wait – He skips the part about “direct action” against the Romans! And their joy turns to rage. Meanwhile Jesus initiates a three-plus years spree of Personal “direct action” against every form of human bondage (including bondage to sin which underlies all the others).
(continued)
So what does this mean for the SDA church today, institutionally and individually?
Institutionally, a worldwide church that operates under a variety of different models and customs regarding civil government, cannot be advocating political positions except where there is an overriding moral imperative. We do advocate for religious freedom (duh!). And we selectively advocate against various forms of violence against persons (unborn excepted). The organization is very cautious about taking-up these causes, which may or may not be a good thing.
(continued)
Jim,
I totally agree that there is a spiritual aspect to “social justice.” The big challenge is to understand that there is a distinct line of difference between the two and “social justice” often masquerades as spiritual when it is entirely political, coercive, destructive of individual rights and focused not on building faith in God, but faith in government. That line of distinction is only understood when a person knows the power of God in their life and are putting their relationship with God above things like their political allegiances. Thus many Christians are ripe for the picking by social causes and deception by Satan because their faith is based far more on tradition than a relationship with God. This describes in stark contrast the need for Christians to discover the promised power of God and the meaningful ministries the Holy Spirit wants them doing where they will be depending on Him instead of political allegiance or government.
Jim,
You’re right. We don’t belong to ourselves. We should belong to God instead of leaders who manipulate concepts of what is right or wrong and hide their true character behind a mask of what is good or spiritual.
Operating a station on the Underground Railroad, as did the first president of the GC, constituted violating Federal law. Sometimes honest followers of Jesus have to engage in civil disobedience. There is no Bible commandment that says, “Thou shalt be conservative or traditional about social values.” If the values taught by Christ happen to be conservative or liberal at any given time or place, it is equally meaningless. We are called to follow Him and be citizens of His kingdom, as well as active participants in the contemporary world.
I think that’s a fair statement, Monte. I don’t see anyone arguing that the church should advocate for conservative social values. What I see is a lot of folks arguing that the church should advocate for liberal values, and should conservative moral sentiments.
The primary examples of the SDA denomination plunging into politics are Abolition, Prohibition, and tobacco legislation. These are issues about which the entire church was in accord. It was easy: “We all think the same, so let’s use our collective resources and voice to advance what is not only a religious value by a social value as well.” Why do you think the church should be politically active about issues on which its members have sharp value differences? By what principle would you decide how and where the church should raise its voice to oppose the will
and values of a substantial percentage of its members?
You reference a former G.C. president’s running of a station on the Underground Railway as exemplary. I agree. But what does that have to do with the Church being active on social justice issues? An individual Christian choosing to disobey the law in order to do personal acts of love and mercy is not an example of social justice. Social justice is the reform and use of government laws and regulations to accomplish religious/moral objectives.
I meant to say in the first paragraph that those who think the church should be activist on social justice issues tend overwhelmingly to believe the church should “CONDEMN” Adventists who take conservative social justice positions.
“Can forgiveness cure sin?”
Never heard it put just this way, Lynn.
This is a compelling question. As is your contribution as a whole, here.
I take note of your return over the past few weeks to commenting here, Jim Hamstra. I find you your thoughtfulness and experience with regard to Seventh-day Adventism’s contribution to your life inspiring. Thanks for investing here.
Thanks Bill,
During my summer sojourn several people told me they missed my comments.
No if I could just get this web site to let me finish my discourse on “social Justice” 8-(.
Jim, please finish it off line and send me the manuscript as an Email attachment. We will be glad to publish it. — Monte Sahlin, CEO, Adventist Today
““Can forgiveness cure sin?”
If it is understood in the correct biblical context, the answer is “yes”, but if understood outside the biblical context, the answer is “no”.
The system refuses to let me complete my comments regarding “social justice” and “direct action”
We should be able to see, by now, Jim, that communication has become so complicated that everything must be clearly defined and qualified again and again.
We live an age of “Babylon confusion” even where we speak the same language.
A phrase that had a unified and obvious meaning, now has no definitive meaning and can mean almost anything, depending who says it and why.
“Social justice” has so many meanings and applications that on the surface, it means nothing. It must be carefully defined by the person using the phrase.
Our lessons this quarter is typical of this reality. It is all about “social justice” and all the things Jesus did and said.
By this time, we must ask, “What is the point?” “What are you trying to say?”
Historically, the point may have been obvious, but not in this present world of confusion over words, ideas, and concepts.
Anyone who advocates the law as an imperative can be called a “legalist” if the meaning is not clearly stated.
Just so, anyone can be called an “antinomian” if the gospel stated, is not defined in some clear application based on scripture.
This is true of politics as well as spiritual matters. And applies in all secular communications as well.
Modern “Babylon” is more about the spiritual “tower” of confusion in religion. Especially in discussions about law and gospel.
Christ expected the apocalypse (the immediate end of his perceived evil age culminating in the total purging of the earth by the glorious coming of the son of man, not himself, perhaps David or Elijah). Other than that concern, he appeared to be motivated only by explaining and showing how people should get along together. Melody’s last three paragraphs (love, love, love) represents the core of his teaching. A Christian is one who practices that singular precept.
His role as savior of the world was pasted onto his legacy after he died by disappointed people searching for a new definition of him. It took the Catholic Church about five hundred years to humanly work out all details. It developed a bouncing scoresheet of heresy and orthodoxy, most of which remain the core pivot points of all varieties of Christianity to this day.
Of the four Gospels, only John elevates him to God. It was likely the last written, anonymously, about 95 AD, during the sixty year time period following Christ’s death. It had plenty of time for the unimpeded redevelopment of the oral transmission of his legacy. It is loaded with mysticism, insertions and serious narrative deviations from the Synoptics.
If you want to be a Christian, don’t you have to follow his teachings, not teachings about him. [I know, my comment on John will sentence me to purgatory (a good Catholic doctrine) by rabid Adventist admirers, defenders and practitioners of manufactured Catholic dogma].
Bugs, we are well aware that you fit in nicely on this forum that attacks the bible incessantly as being invalid and beyond comprehension. We all make up our own religion……
So, what else is new???????
Bill, I invalidate the Bible, “incessantly?” That’s a new allegation! I’m more powerful than I ever imagined! Thanks!
And, yes, you have made up your own religion. There is no religion that isn’t “made up.” You “make yours up” by selecting the Bible as your authority and by your choice of buttressing verses. You pick and choose what your like, ignore verses you don’t, and condemn others who pick and choose differently, so you have your own version of religion. You, therefore, are “righter” in your own mind, than all others, even me, Bugs, The Great Incessant Invalidater (BGII).
“. You, therefore, are “righter” in your own mind, than all others, even me, Bugs, The Great Incessant Invalidater (BGII).”
Me and king David, Bugs…
“I have more understanding than all my teachers, for thy testimonies are my meditation.” Ps. 119:99
And….
“Through they precepts I get understanding, therefore I hate every false way.” vs. 104
Your idea that everyone just makes up their religion in the bible because the bible has no clear consistent testimony is bogus.
Bill, you say “Your idea that everyone just makes up their religion in the bible because the bible has no clear consistent testimony is bogus. Explain.
“. Explain.”
The bible has a flowing continuity that anyone can see and understand if they come with an open mind and willing heart to be taught of God. So that all true believers agree with each other about what the bible teaches.
Some dialogue is not negative because it is meant for qualification and understanding and questions are a part of that scenario. And some challenge is equally productive for a clearer insight into bible truth.
But some challenge is simply to attack some objective given and try to prove it is false. The questions are not to learn or understand, but to discredit and undermine.
God’s instruction to Isaiah was to “write the vision and make it plain, that wayfaring men, though fools, need not err therein.”
And this principle is biblical throughout scripture so that none need miss the point God’s desires for the reader to see and understand.
The whole bible is “doctrine” and a teaching instrument to communicate God’s will concerning sin and redemption. So both sin and salvation must be understood for any possible positive outcome that God intends for members of the human family.
It is such a neat and comprehensive system, that one false idea embraced will corrupt the whole system. People may have had some faulty views of some issues, but they did not build their Christian experience on the faulty view nor attack truth with a faulty view. Then it becomes dynamic and destructive.
Thanks, Bill, for your answer.
Church of Christ, Assembly of God, Christian Churches, Lutheran, Methodist, Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, and countless others are legitimized by your logic, your application. Every one of them claims to meet exactly the criteria you have espoused. So one doesn’t have to believe like you to make the trip to heaven. Right?
“. Every one of them claims to meet exactly the criteria you have espoused.”
In fact, none of the denominations you named would agree with what I posted.
I’m very encouraged by seeing young adults like Melody in our church. She’s a treasure to us.
The Pacific Union’s Constituency Report, Aug 2016 shows that membership grew by 4,290 members between 2011 an 2015, less than 1,00 per year.
There was a gradual decrease in the number of baptisms for that same period: 6,818 in 2011, and 5,503 in 2015, a decrease of 1315.
Whether the other unions in NAD show dissimilar or similar rates, it does indicate that the largest union is losing more than gains during the last five years. Perhaps someone can supply the rates of the other unions.
Elaine,
Undoubtedly decreases in the rates of growth in the Adventist church are greeted by you the same way that bad economic news is greeted by conservatives when a liberal is in the White House.
The largest Union in the North American Division is actually the Southern Union. The good news from your perspective is that after the First Quarter of 2011 it had added a net of 1,122 members, including 1,474 baptisms; whereas after the First Quarter of 2016 the Southern Union had added a net of only 891 members, with only 1,380 baptisms.
It is interesting to note that there are about as many Adventists on the island of Jamaica as there are in the entire Southern Union; and that there are about three and a half times as many Adventists in the Inter-American Division as there are in the North American Division. (You know, that’s primarily because those folks in Mexico and Caribbean, Central America, and the five most northern countries in South America are so uneducated, unsophisticated, and what have you.):-(
Stephen,
If you take a look at the General Conference statistics you will see a very disturbing, downward trend in the church’s growth rate in a number of parts of the world, including North America. From 2010 to 2014, membership in the North American Division grew by only 6.6%, or 1.1% per year, down significantly from periods 20 or so years before when it was 3-4% per year. Yes, the Southern Union has one of the better growth rates, but even it is slowing compared to past decades. During that same 2010-14 period, four of the church’s divisions around the world had negative growth rates (West Central Africa was -27%) and only two (S. African-Indian Ocean and S. Asia-Pacific) had double-digit growth rates in any single year.
I think what exposed the illusion of even the best church growth in North America as being good in anything but our own eyes is that in that four-year period NAD membership grew by 74,551 while the general population grew by 14.27 million. In other words, each time the church added one member, the populations of the United States and Canada grew by 191.
I’m not satisfied with such paltry growth rates because it means the church has already faded into extreme insignificance among the larger population. Since doing evangelism the same old way is producing those results, it should be obvious that the church needs to start operating differently or we’re going to disappear from society.
Stephen,
Dig a little deeper into the Southern Union church statistics and you’ll find that more than 70% of the membership growth in the 2010-2014 period was in Spanish churches and the largest number of new churches were Spanish-speaking. So if it weren’t for illegal immigrants, some conferences would have extremely little growth, or negative growth. (Friends who teach in the Theology programs at Southern and Oakwood tell me aspiring pastors have a far higher chance of being hired if they are bi-lungual, or if Spanish is their native tongue.)
Conclusion: any celebration of church growth is an adoration of mediocrity, believing an illusion, or both. The reality is that the church, using the methods of the past, is failing to fulfill the commission of Christ so we need to be doing things differently.
Loren,
I’m with you and glad to see Melody’s voice here. I just think her wishful mention about “social justice” shows how much our youth have been allured by the mix of politics and the good works God wants His followers doing. The church will never have an effective counter-message until we individually connect with the Holy Spirit and begin discovering the ministries He wants us each doing.
I have no criticism of social justice at all. Jesus was for it. I am, too. Our young adults will keep the church alive only if they begin to use their Christian faith to make a difference in the world.
Loren, in what sense was Jesus for social justice? I understand that term to mean the use of earthly kingdom law to achieve social objectives – particularly rights and entitlements to material well-being and security. What do you find in the life or teachings of Jesus that promotes these priorities? Perhaps you have a different understanding of social justice? I’m all ears.
“If I Could Design the Church, Starting from Scratch…”
Hmmm….
This seems just a bit shy of the mark to me. How would anyone presume to do such a thing without a clear call from Jesus himself? We may all have opinions on various things, but isn’t it our duty to submit to one another in the Lord, be servants and be obedient to Him?
There is just a touch of arrogance in this, and self serving, even in the most diplomatic and discerning of hands. How dare I suggest to Jesus that I have a better idea?
Besides that, what would you do with the thing you intend to replace? Discard it? Outlaw it. Attack it? Jesus said he did not put out a smoking flax or break a bent reed. Might be well for us to consider that our work rather than a visit to the land fill….
Allen,
No “clear call” from God? How do you define a “clear call from God?” Have you ever heard the “call of God” so that you would recognize it if you heard it again? God typically uses the people who seem least qualified by human measures and with church growth rates slowing and even turning negative in a number of parts of the world, the defenders of tradition are typically the ones digging-in their heels to defend what they think is right when it is producing failure. Feel free to pursue failure, if you wish, but as for me, I’m seeking God so I will know where and how He is leading and I can tell you that He’s led me down some very different paths and into ministries that are growing the church, but are scorned by those who are not even listening for the calling of God.
Interestingly, Mr. Shepherd has done his best to redesign the church by his constant criticism of it.
You make very good points, Jim, about O.T. justice. But it wasn’t social justice. Social justice as a concept has roots that can easily be googled. As you allude to, Jim, O.T. theocratic justice is about duties and obligations – not rights and entitlements. It is decidedly not egalitarian. The entire structure of Mosaic law, not to mention the 10th Commandment presupposes private property rights as part of the theocratic order.
We have no real record of whether and how Jubilee was actually observed. It was probably designed not to benefit the poor, but to maintain tribal wealth and identity. It would have been extremely disruptive economically. The ordained cycle of Jubilee presupposed that inequality and human subjugation would be the norm between the presribed periods of time.
The O.T. – even the prophets – has little appreciation for personal autonomy or religious freedom. It is only when we get to the N.T. that we see a radical shift away from law-based righteousness.
Jesus did not attack every form of oppression. If so, He was incredibly feckless. He DISEMPOWERED every form of oppression by revealing a Kingdom that could be entered and experienced regardless of external circumstances and powers. But we have no record of Him even freeing anyone from prison, not even John the Baptist. Where do you find Him speaking out against Roman oppression or validating First Century Jewish aspirations for “social justice?” Continued below…
The reality that Jesus had the power to completely eradicate sickness, death, oppression, and injustice contrasts so sharply with what He actually accomplished in a material sense – leaving His corner of the world in pretty much the same mess as it was at His birth – that it strikes me as preposterous to suggest that a part of Jesus’ mission was to advocate for social justice (social justice being primarily a materialistic ideal achieved through state action).
Big government religious conservatives have their own version of social justice. It’s called “family values,” and it’s tough to argue with the empirical evidence validating the efficacy of industry, self-support, delayed gratification, temperance, sexual purity, regular church attendance,etc. Are these social justice values not found throughout both the Old and New Testament?
While I don’t believe that the justice advocates in the O.T. bears much resemblance to “social
justice” as a 20th Century ideology, even if it did, I would not understand how one can use the O.T. to push one set of social values, while rejecting the legitimacy of using a plethora of both Old and New Testament authority to support a different set of social values.
Personally, I think the church, as the body of Christ, should avoid advocating on either side of social issues, except when its existence and freedom are threatened. Let members fight over social justice priorities as individual citizens of earthly kingdoms.
Right on, Nathan. As best we know, all He touched through resurrections and healings died later. Christ’s permanent legacy is highlighted in Melody’s last three lines. Only as personal experience through the motivation of his love is there a permanent effect that transcends death.
Nathan wrote:
“The reality that Jesus had the power to completely eradicate sickness, death, oppression, and injustice contrasts so sharply with what He actually accomplished in a material sense – leaving His corner of the world in pretty much the same mess as it was at His birth – that it strikes me as preposterous to suggest that a part of Jesus’ mission was to advocate for social justice (social justice being primarily a materialistic ideal achieved through state action).”
Really, Nathan? Perhaps you might try to set aside your legal training and your Libertarian pre-suppositions (many of which I share) and read the Bible from the other point of view?
Jesus entered towns full of people sickly of mind and body, and left with not an ailment to be found. He broke-up every wake and funeral he attended. Now you may rightly say that these were a tiny fraction of the world-wide siffering and death, but how much ground was He supposed to cover in three years of walking?
Jesus Christ changed the world – one person at a time. And then empowered those people to change others. Within a generation His followers were accused of turning the world upside-down. Your argument regard his impact is very myopic.
(continued)
I find your last sentence to be a classic tautology. You a priori restrict “social justice” to something that could only be accomplished by methods Jesus eschewed. Just because the Left has co-opted the term “social” to mean “governmental” does not eradicate its broader connotation of anything pertaining to some group of humans. Would “anti-social” then imply “anti-governmental”? This is Libertarian poppy-cock. Cannot even Libertarians have a collective “social” effect? Would that be called “social injustice” to distinguish it from the Liberal agenda?
Jesus never denied the reality or importance of the present material life. Rather He tried to cast in proper relation to the spiritual life and the (also material) life to come. This is what He meant by “more abundant life”. If the present material life was unimportant, then why bother to feed or heal people, much less to bring a dead person back into this material life?
Jesus DID change the world, though not by invoking “governmental action”. But when He returns He will take “governmental” action to restore “social justice” once and for all. He is both the Lion and the Lamb. The Prophet and Priest and King of Kings.
Nathan wrote:
“Jesus did not attack every form of oppression. If so, He was incredibly feckless. He DISEMPOWERED every form of oppression by revealing a Kingdom that could be entered and experienced regardless of external circumstances and powers. But we have no record of Him even freeing anyone from prison, not even John the Baptist.”
Actually, Peter and John claimed to have been sprung from prison by angels dispatched by Jesus. The methods Jesus used to attack oppression were carefully devised rather than feckless. The power of Love is more manifest in our personal deeds than in social/political polemics. But if you read His teachings carefully, they clearly condemn the behavior of both the Jewish and the Roman authorities.
You are correct, Nathan, that Jesus did not attack every form of oppression in the manner that was expected of Him, then or now. That is far more a sorry commentary on human nature than on His methods were were radically different from those of the various power elites of His time or of the present..
Jim – I am flattered by the thoughtful attention you have given to my comments. I am less enamored by your attempt to explain my perspectives and “errors” by my legal training and libertarian leanings. Such “knowing” explanations feel condescending and smug, implying that I am constitutionally incapable of achieving the lofty heights of understanding which you inhabit. I’m sure you isn’t intend it that way, but that’s how it feels.
Now on to the merits. You might want to look up the definition of tautology. Nothing I have said fits that definition. The Left invented the term “social justice.” How can you co-opt a term you have invented. It feels to me that you, not the Left, wants to co-opt the term. I have always understood “social justice” as referring to a system of government laws and policies intended to produce fairer, more equitable outcomes in the distribution of a society’s material resources. The Left does not, as you claim, use “social” to mean “government.” “Social” means society; and “government” denotes the means by which justice is to be achieved.
Now you can certainly reinvent the term. I would kind of like to see “social justice” redefined to include things like school vouchers, competition in health care markets, private savings accounts for retirement, etc. but that would be co-opting the term.
Jim – you also said, “Jesus never denied the reality of importance of the present material life.” That really leaves me scratching my head. Where to begin… Do you really want me to start reciting all the texts demonstrating the extent to which Jesus in fact did deny the importance of present material reality?
The healing of the paralytic in Mark 2 is a profound story of why Jesus performed miracles in the physical realm. I believe it was to demonstrate the power of Kingdom living to free humans from dependency on the physical realm for life and sustenance.
Whether he was turning water to wine, walking on water, healing the sick, raising the dead, feeding thousands with someone’s lunch – Jesus was saying, “The God who reminds you through Sabbath that He created you also reminds you through Me – the fulfillment of Sabbath – that He frees you from the naturalistic appearances of the created order.” It is through personal self-sacrificial acts of love and mercy that we demonstrate freedom, by God’s Spirit, from the grip of social justice concerns. Otherwise, when the church jumps onto social justice bandwagons built and maintained by “the world,” the church at best turns into a hectoring government
extender service, reinforcing the materialist presuppositions upon which “social justice” as a concept has been erected.
Nathan wrote:
“We have no real record of whether and how Jubilee was actually observed.”
True. According to Jeremiah it was routinely ignored.
“It was probably designed not to benefit the poor, but to maintain tribal wealth and identity.”
You need to go study the Mosaic Code and the later commentaries of Isaiah, Jeremiah and other prophets.
“It would have been extremely disruptive economically.”
That was indeed its intent. God as Creator and Redeemer is the Owner of everything. The people are Tanants in God’s fields and vineyards. Read what Jesus says about the Tenants who think they own the place. When one Tenant transferred the “right of possession” (surely you understand this from your legal background) to another, the Mosaic Code prescribed that the price was pro-rated based upon the years remaining until the next Jubilee.
Incidentally, the nobles of Israel and Judah nobles who according to Isaiah and Jeremiah found the Mosaic Code to be “extremely disruptive economically” found found the deportations to Assyria and Babylon to be far more “disruptive”. And according to Jeremiah, God’s land Rested for 70 years, to accomplish the Sabbatical years that the power elites had skipped found to be too “economically disruptive”.
(Yes – the notion of 70 “weeks” of years found in Daniel, arose from Jeremiah by Daniel’s own admission. He was shown there would be 70 more “weeks” in the future before the Messianic Jubilee that…
Tan. You have a loving disposition and love your fellowman,and the Christ. Social justice has found its true reputation in the French Revolution, Stalin’s Russia, China’s Mao, and Hitler’s
holocaust. All were formed on the concept of Social Justice. While the ideal system would be “Love your neighbors” and care for them, as this is the second part of the “Greatest Commandment”, however the mighty ungodly rise to rule, and enslavement of the masses is the inevitable result. The current world governments are moving toward a “ONE WORLD RULE”, under the auspices of the United Nations, controlled by the Global world Bankers.
Should this happen, in short order the masses will be enslaved and the surplus exterminated.
Look to the first 50 years of the 20th century, and the European Union, and the current infestation of the Alien invasion of Europe for your preview of what is to come, should the Savior not return first.
The social love of the comfortable pew, worldwide, is a beautiful thing, for SDA’s. They bond well in social settings, but less social in their lack of commitment to meaningful display of works for their neighbors.
i am appalled that modern man, including Christians, are so forgetful of the most recent past history of Earth. Any suggestion of what is forthcoming is pooh poohed as conspiracy.
Amazing how events of past annihilation of the masses is repeated oer and oer, because man
wants to forget, and are ignorant of history of man on Earth. >>>>>>>>
Perhaps Mr. Shepherd could point us to a biblical text where Jesus is recorded as saying anything about how churches were to be organized.
No New Testament writer of which I am aware, in his (they were all males) wildest imagination, ever contemplated the possibility that 2000 years would elapse from his own time. And they certainly could not image the proliferation of institutionalized Christian denominations, many of which are currently proclaiming that they are the only “True” Christian church.
Since the set of modern Christian denominations and other church bodies are a product of some 1500 years of human devising, one would think that humans concerned about the Christian witness in the contemporary secular world could reasonably suggest how these Christian church institutions could be better organized for the advancement of Christian values, however these values may be currently interpreted by different individuals.
A commenter wrote: “There is just a touch of arrogance in this, and self serving, even in the most diplomatic and discerning of hands. How dare I suggest to Jesus that I have a better idea?”
It’s puzzling that anyone would equate everything that the human church does with the express will of Christ. Also problematic are the negative assumptions that the author of the article writes with any intention to ignore the call of Jesus or to impose her views on church members. She is articulating her vision of a church that more closely follows the life and teachings of Jesus. All of us have our individual emphases about that, including the commenter as evidenced by his remarks on various internet forums.
My2cents,
The charge of arrogance is a classic defens used by the defenders of failed spiritual tradition. In contrast with them, God often reveals the things He wants done by placing ministry ideas on the hearts of those who are sincerely following Him.
Today, man runs to and fro, so busy in earning a living, collapsing, or running ragged in his
leisure time, that he neglects the importance of the corrupt political system, drawing the Social system noose around his neck. The National Social dole has now enslaved over 40%
of the population, and generally only 40% of voters show up at the polling stations. This is a
dilemma that must be addressed at the next presidential election, to continue the power system now in command, which will further tighten your noose, or vote for a change that
will interrupt that Political Correctness pathway. Your Choice. Will you stand up for your and your neighbors freedom????
“The National Social dole has now enslaved over 40% of the population”? I assume that this “interesting” comment is referring to the Social Security system of the United States? If not, please correct me. If it is, the word “enslaved” reveals your 18th Century political philosophy rather than being a reflection of the realities of a system which is one of the greatest positive achievements in the history of American democracy. By the way, we might recall that establishing it was bitterly opposed by Republican politicians at the time. (For those not living in the United States, sorry for commenting on something that involves just US history and politics.)
Larry (Bugs), ugh. Don’t you worry neighbor, friend, i’ll bail you out of limbo land with heavenly Fields of Ambrosia currency, LOVE.
Earl, for a “mature” guy, nay vintage dude, you are very funny! No one here except Elaine (who clearly isn’t a dude, but a vintage duddess) can appreciate the sophistication and the ablation effect of your humor as much as me! Thanks! This limbo place is full of the popes buddies and they look at me menacingly while saying, “remember the inquisition you pagan!” I shout back, “Remember the Alamo, you Sabbath-Keeper-Killers!” They get the last part of if it (all residents in limbo are required to read Great Controversy) and I have to keep running for my life.
Hurry, please, limbo is awfully crowded and my feelings are pretty injured. They don’t have a room set aside for feeling injuries. I may have to stop off at one of the colleges where they offer such for the easily offended for a few days. If you have any Ambrosia currency left over from my ransom, I may need it before I get back to the Fields of Ambrosia!
When a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs (credit to Melancon, Luther’s buddy)! Me!
Doctrine “is a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.” Putting love and acceptance before doctrine doesn’t make sense because love and acceptance would then be doctrinal belief. Anyway no use reinventing the wheel as FB 14 Unity in the Body of Christ and FB 12 The Church has this already covered – unless of course the article is a nod for love and acceptance in terms of WO and LGBT in the Church.
Trevor, I just scanned the New Testament looking for Christ’s thinking and teachings that parallel yours. Didn’t find any. In fact, pretty much opposite of your propositions. Should I look some more?
Matthew 15:9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.'” – Bible Hub
WO and LGBT deviant behaviour are secular manmade teachings sir; and so is feminism – which both of these piggy back on. Jesus didn’t teach such.
Trevor, just seconds after I posted my reply to you, my “light” came on and I realized you weren’t trying to reflect Christ or his teachings, just ones developed over millennia well after he was gone from the scene. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Luke 6:
25 Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep.
26 Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.
Erv, I think you just placed Bugs, Melody and yourself into woe? I Love you and Bugs; but in all honesty, I have a lot more faith in the potential that Melody has to offer. She will have to grow a bit though (just so I don’t put her back into woe with praise).
Melody, I very much agree that the SDA health message is one without peer in any belief system or lifestyle. The two meal plan, for example, is pure genius. What we now call NEWSTART is one of the best acronyms I know of. As for the Bible study, I’m not sure I agree. The JWs in the States display quite an array of texts in their door to door work. Their emphasis on members doing outreach hones their skills and knowledge. Like many SDAs, JWs are big on their favorite doctrines. The central truth of justification by faith is poorly understood by JWs, SDA and Mormons.
Luckily, in Australia you have Dr. Desmond Ford, whose gospel clarity and eloquence are unmatched among SDA, Mormon or JW
Bugs, I really wish I could posses your humor. You are getting better and better. Keep up the good work.
I hope that, by now, that Melody realizes what kind of personalities and religious biases are generating the regrettable negative comments her excellent opinion piece has been getting. Of course, we could say that same factors — personalities and religious biases — contribute to cause those enthusiastically agreeing with her to do so.
I am fascinated by your penchant for psychopunditry, Erv. Not sure what one’s moral/religious values have to do with personality. I suspect you are likely to find all personality types reflected in just about any perspective on these kinds of issues. Do you have some special software that enables you to determine one’s personality from his/her values?
On another note, do you really think that critical comments, questioning/challenging the opinions offered in a Commentary, are regrettable? What a strange comment on a website where robust dialogue and critical thinking are the lifeblood! What do you mean by that? I never cease to be amazed at how sensitive and intolerant the “tolerance” worshippers can toward perspectives which challenge their fundamental values.
But I do appreciate, Erv, your recognition that the uncritical cheering section also has biases and personalities. Profound…! So remind me again – exactly what was the point of that second paragraph?
I just read out loud to my wife your complimentary remark about my humor contributions, who then wanted to know where the funny stuff was. It was a prideful mistake! Ervin, she is Catholic. After showing her, she notified me that dire eternal consequences involving extreme heat is in store if I don’t get her theology properly aligned. Limbo is for babies, purgatory for adults, Bozo, she announced. She proclaimed a 7 day suspended sentence in actual limbo with brats if I don’t get that straight! And jokes about those places aren’t allowed, either. She is now a Holy See rep and my thorn-in-the-flesh censor. Even Trevor and Bill don’t treat me that badly!
And I also have to cease and desist calling her church the Seventh-day Catholic Church even though it now has “Sabbath School” every Sabbath. Keep that up, she claims, and neither limbo nor purgatory will adequately expiate my crimes. This may sound funny, but it isn’t!
Melody is a home run hitter whom, I am sure, is quite able to withstand the fiery darts of the calcified, lit match tossers herein!
“Bugs, I really wish I could posses your humor. You are getting better and better. Keep up the good work.”
Considering the portion of Bugs-Larry’s satire and sarcasm that is directed against the proposition that the Bible is in any sense normative or authoritative, might this enthusiastic endorsement by Dr Taylor reflect the latter’s views of a favorite target of the former’s barbs?
And yet another conspiracy theory!
Jim, please explain, from a thinking engineer’s point of view, how the Bible is “in any sense normative or authoritative” other than by human opinion.
As I see it, If you want to claim the Bible as normative ethically and morally, OK. That is the adoption of values based on opinion as an expected function of “belief” or “faith,” the arena of permissible non-verification. If you claim it to be “authoritative” beyond opinion then you are performing an impossible engineering miracle, the transformation of belief into verifiable propositions., from which there isn’t any deviation.
Yes, my sarcasm and satire, as you properly discern, is often specifically targeted. It is squarely aimed at the futile attempt by religious alchemists to transform the base metal of ideas into the actual gold of reality. This is evidenced in a million religious church/lab/human work places where hope is applied as magic. The fantasy covers transformations of the Bible into the inerrant Word of God, ancient cosmology into historical fact, a “heavenly sanctuary” into a dimensional building, and heaven a tourist destination. These being several of thousands of examples.
Can’t you confess that the pious alchemists are innately funny? They do funny things. For instance, they employ useless key texts as incantations and chants to procure gold. And like all gold miners, the mother lode is only a few inches away for the persistent!
Nate states that he is not sure what “one’s moral/religious values have to do with personality.” He must be joking here. Our personality informs every aspect of how we see the world including the kinds of religious values that we think are important. Many theological systems are examples of personality types written large with a lot of mumbo-jumbo terminology thrown in.
Nate says he is “amazed” about how “sensitive and intolerant” are “tolerance” worshipers” That suggests that he is “amazed” about some of his own comments once he reads them over after he has posted them.
I think there is something about a “mote” and “log” in a comment attributed to Jesus in the New Testament.
Erv, I have never professed to be a big believer intolerance. I have always fully supported the right of individuals and faith communities to define themselves and maintain behavioral boundaries. I do not believe that tolerance per se is a moral virtue, much less a moral imperative. “Tolerance,” when used by the Left, is in my opinion not a principle, but merely a tactic to deligitimize conservative intolerance of liberal moral values. I have no idea where you could have gotten the idea that I am a “tolerance worshipper.”
As for the role of personality, I agree that our personalities inform everything we do. But I don’t understand how you think you can discern much of anything about an individual’s personality from their comments on this website. And pray tell, once you have decided, based upon the comments, what a commenter’s personality type is, using your favorite inventory, what are you going to do with it? What relevance does it have? How does my personality affect the relative convincing force of my argument?
So please help me understand: How do you think you can identify personalities of commenters based upon their comments in a way that has any explanatory or predictive value?
I just visited an SDA church 45 miles from home instead of 17. The quality of leadership and teaching of the senior pastor was different than the assoc.
Since laity are generally conventionally minded/..herd mentality …. the personality of any church will be heavily influence by competency and personality of the leaders.
Melody’s article is a critique of problems in the church. The leadership’s trends perpetuate those problems..
Revival and reformation crashed & burned again.
Love those old wineskins!!
Jimbob,
What you described about herd mentality was a major factor that we considered and took steps to prevent when we formed the church where my wife and I are members. Biggest on our list of ways we decided to do things differently was being lay-led and we share our part-time pastor with two other churches. I wish you could hear how often he has said that he wishes the other churches could be like Grace Fellowship because they have so many problems arising from herd mentality that simply don’t exist in our church.
Have I missed Mr. Calahan’s explanation for his comment: “The National Social dole has now enslaved over 40% of the population.” Perhaps he doesn’t want to respond to the question. That’s fine, but might be taken to be an admission that he misdirected this comment.
Jack Hoen’s review of Douglas Axe’s book “Undeniable” allows no comments unless they have read the book.
Many, I venture, will not read the book.
But a question contained within the first few paragraphs of his review, showing the very colorful chameleon’s tail raised a question: Some of us learned that chameleon’s have a unique ability as do many animals, to change color instantly to their surroundings to “disappear” into the background for survival. The very colorful chameleon shown, is he always so brightly colored, and is he able to change color immediately?
Forgive, for I am not the best at this.
The alchemy example is explicit; but maybe lacking. Yes, we can convert lead (or more easily bismuth) into gold, through transmutation; but at such cost. The problem, it is much easier to convert gold into lead. Do the transformations of transfiguration and resurrection hold even the lead or bismuth to convert? Who made the lead, bismuth or dirt to start with and at what cost is the conversion?
But in proposition, are the results not verifiable? Is society not proof, in face of survival of the fittest? Is society not the result of all of those labs, hopes and the reason we are here now and here sharing ideas?
In humility and since you use the BIBLE in authority describing the Heavenly Sanctuary, might I use the same privilege? If the Sanctuary is created by HIM, is it not bound to HIS dimensions? We are definitely not paying tourists, because we have nothing to offer. Would the tourist trap not be the wide gate with free admission? Is this not the fantasy of transformation or do we assume we are entitled stowaways while inviting everyone else along for the ride? When HE will Lovingly give us tickets if we Love HIM and Love others?
Forgive again Mr Boshell, I am new to this and haven’t figured out this posting stuff yet.
Ervin,
cnsnews.com “According to the Census Bureau, in the 4th quarter of 2011, 49.2% of Americans received benefits from one or more Gov. programs.
‘
Ah, you might want to check what part of that figure is due to Social Security payments to senior citizens. Do you argue that those who receive Social Security payments are on the “dole”? You might want to check on where the funds for those “dole” payments came from. A few facts always helps ones arguments.
They are only “on the dole” when the amount they or their beneficiaries take out begins to exceed the amount they have put in. Since you’re a facts guy, Erv, you might want to check on where the funds have gone. Current beneficiaries have spent those funds by voting for politicians who couldn’t say no.
On a macro scale, the “few facts” are that this epic Ponzi scheme that is our social
Security system had a nearly 70 billion dollar cash flow deficit last year. It faces future shortfalls, given current and projected funding, of 25 trillion dollars.
Medicare is even worse. Assuming we don’t go back to double-digit medical cost inflation, Medicare faces a mere 48 trillion in future shortfalls.
Doesn’t it feel good, Erv, to know that you won’t have to worry about it because your children, grandchildren and great grandchildren will be stuck with the bill for the self-indulgences of the most spoiled generation? So yes, as you say, a few facts do help arguments. But for the FDM (facts don’t matter) movement, hearts and minds are seldom changed by facts or arguments. Now what were you saying about the source of the funds for social security payments? Can you say CHINA?
The biggest decision most commeners here have to make about social justice is which tshirt to wear. No skin in the game, just chat, chat, chat, mostly nonsense. In Burma, for example, Buddhists have been on a campaign to drive the Rohinga Muslims from their country. The government greenlighted these efforts by denying them citizenship. The campaign consists primarily of arson and murder. When some escaped into Thailand, they were raped, robbed murdered, and sold into slavery
In a neighboring country, there exists an extrajudicial corps of enforcers who help developers and local police accomplish their goals, primarily through beatings,destruction of personal property,and intimidation, murder, now and then. Recently, in the same town where Dr. Harry Miller worked long ago, a pastor’s wife was knocked into a ditch and buried alive by a backhoe, when she protested against the destruction of her church.
Social justice, in the States, is mostly code for Black entitlement i.e., Blacks ate entitled to break the law, disrespect the police, be criminals, etc.
Lucky for us, I guess, that any and all opinion is accepted on these boards. That being the case, I’d like to say welcome back to the racist Hansen I first met. I wasn’t sure where you ‘went.’ I started to wonder whether I had previously mistaken you for a racist; but I see that my first impression was the right one. It was you, after all, who once called for the genocide of black people in America on these boards; and now it’s you who believes that social justice is primarily about black entitlement. I’m certain that you have plenty of company among our esteemed readership.
Given your perspective on things, when Jesus talked about “the least of these,” He surely must have been referring to the social equivalent of black people wherever He was; right?
That being the probable case, you should be looking to feed and clothe those who are “entitled to break the law, disrespect the police, be criminals, etc.” Otherwise Matthew 25:45 might apply to you. That makes sense to you, doesn’t it? If not, why not?
Pretty disgusting and offensive final paragraph, Hansen. I hadn’t noticed it until Stephen pointed it out. Any chance we might at least see an apology for the boorish expression of your sentiments, if not the content of the mind from which they emanated?
Ervin. My over 40% estimate was not intended to misrepresent the point i was attempting to make. Social Security (SS)was inclusive. However, those who must exist on SS, without other income are considered to be living in poverty, so are also receiving other benefits, such as Obama Care, Medicaid, etc. Also in my comment
i said % of population, whereas when we use percentage of “voters”, it increases the % of those on benefits. And the % of those on benefits is 21.3 +, not counting SS. The
beneficiaries have ballooned in the 8 years of Obama.
Obama’s socialism has put the USA on a slippery slope to a Socialist Republic, of which a vote for Clinton will continue this trend.
The following statistics may interest you:
TYPE OF BENEFIT %VOTED DEMO. %VOTED REPUB
Public housing 81 12
medicaid 74 16
food stamps 67 20
unemploy. 66 21
govt disability 64 25
welfare/pub. assist. 63 22
This according to http://www.rare.us
This proves those on the dole know who to vote for in order to get a raise.
Several who commented on those “living on the dole” (SS and Medicare) should answer these questions:
Will you refuse these benefits; and do any of you loved ones? Will you be called a “free-loader” then?
Yes, just as in life insurance, it’s possible to receive the entire amount even if you have only paid less than a year.
Are you aware that once income has exceeded approximately $120 K, even in the first quarter of each year, will pay no more SS payments for the remainder of the year? IOW: millionaires and those with $120 K/yr pay the same into SS.
FDR gave us SS following the Great Depression when millions were jobless, homeless and hungry; but Bismarck introduced this concept in the late 19th century. No single charity could begin to cover the number now covered by SS.
LBJ gave us Medicare which prevented the millions in poverty from the inability to pay for necessary medical care. What is suggested to imitate that program?
As for voting: the well-known fact is that people vote their pocketbook. That applies to the very wealthy and the very poor. Nothing new there.
Elaine, what does the question of whether I would refuse S.S. benefits have to do with anything? The super wealthy, most of whom are Dems, think taxes should be higher on the wealthy. But I do t see them volunteering to give up their tax breaks or pay more taxes.
The point is that social security isn’t like life insurance, and it was never designed to be. If it was, it would be profitable, like life insurance companies. When social security was implemented, life expectancy was around 64, and social security didn’t kick in until 65. It was actuarially sound.
All of your points evade one overwhelming reality. THE SYSTEM IS HOPELESSLY BROKE! Making our descendants pay for our profligacy is corrupt and immoral. The system should be scraped and subsumed within the welfare program as a needs based benefit. You don’t need social security and neither do I. No one DESERVES a comfortable retirement. We should be productive and self-sufficient as long as we are blessed with good health and the ability to work, unless of course we have saved for our retirement.
I would gladly give up my social security entitlement in exchange for a needs based program to deal with senior citizens who are unable to provide for themselves.
Likewise, Medicare should be NEEDS based. No taxpayer funded joint replacement so I can play tennis til I’m 90. And as long as I’m earning a good living and able to afford private insurance, why should I be able to go on Medicare?
Elaine,
While Social Security and Medicare have their own baskets of issues, I think the bigger conceptual issue in this discussion is about how the larger public welfare programs have created generations who, because they can live on government benefits, have lost their motivation to improve themselves and, instead of improving their own lives, demand still more benefits from the government that are paid for by increasing the national debt and taking such large amounts from the pockets of wage-earners that their incomes are shrinking and they are sinking toward poverty.
It would be interesting to speculate what changes in a point of view those who now say they don’t need Social Security benefits or any “government handout” because they are rich enough if they would experience a catastrophic medical condition and the cost of treating it would drain all of their accumulated wealth and make it impossible for them to continue with gainful employment.
I have a suspicion of what would happened to their “highly principled” arguments against “government handouts.” But I guess I am just a suspicious kind of guy.
But, of course, it can’t happen to them.
Erv, perhaps you didn’t read my statement that I believe unfunded, unaffordable entitlement programs should be replaced by welfare. And yes, if I was eligible for benefits under that welfare program, I would take them.
But I still don’t think I could ever wrap my ethics around the idea that it is okay for me to force you and your neighbors, as well as your and their descendants, to go head over heels in debt to keep me alive or to keep me from starving.
Now I might well feel that I have an ethical obligation to keep you alive or to keep you from starving, and it would be highly moral of me to make self-sacrifices to do so. But you have no moral right to demand it. And I have no moral right to collect I.O.U.s from my neighbors, children, and unborn descendants at gunpoint in order to mitigate the tragedies and poverty that may befall you.
You suggest, Erv, that I am not a person of principle; that I would abandon my principles should my circumstances turn Jobian. You might be right. I am human and quite fallible. But by God’s grace, I hope I will not abandon those principles though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death. And if I do, they will not be any less valid.
Erv,
I’ll give you a specific example about the impact of Obamacare and the Obama Administration’s “war on coal.” When I was at the Pathway to Health event in Beckley, WV last months, a man told me his family’s story of why they were there. He’d been a coal miner earning a good income until the mine was shut down by environmental regulations. The impact of that on the local economy also caused his wife to lose her job. They found other work, but earned far less and without insurance benefits so they had to go to the Obamacare exchange where the only policy they could afford was the one with the highest deductibles: $5,000 per person before it began paying anything. On their limited income they were one serious illness away from financial ruin and he couldn’t afford to pay for a simple visit to his doctor, so he was at our free clinic. That story has been replicated in variations tens of thousands of times across America, so we need to measure whether what is touted as “helping” is actually making things better for those who are suffering and recognize when it is making things worse. In the course of my ministry, I see how government programs claimed as “helping the poor” are just making things worse and creating more poverty. I’m doing what God has empowered me to do to help those in need instead of just talking in politically-correct terms about what politicians want us to believe.
A person who is in extreme need has no right to demand help from someone with the capacity to help? How did God answer the question, Am I my brother’s keeper? What does Jesus say about who is on which side of the judgement in Matthew 25:31-46? Why is it important to protect people from being required to fund humanitarian aid simply as part of the quality of life in a country? What is the moral difference between tax funding of parks or national monuments and tax funding of social insurance?
You miss my point, Monte, in at least two ways. First, the philosophical point: Simply because one may have a moral duty does not necessarily infer a moral right, and vice versa. This point should be obvious, but you have overlooked it. Second, your points – all good – ignore the moral question of indenturing our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren with trillions of dollars in debt to satisfy needs, wants and feelings that seldom rise to the level of extreme need which cannot be met by the “needy.”
Funding parks vs funding social insurance is not necessarily a moral issue if there are actually funds to pay for them, any more than buying a new car or purchasing life insurance is necessarily a moral issue. It’s simply a matter, at least in a representative democracy, of deciding how we want to spend the taxes we choose to impose on ourselves. It does become a moral issue when we sacrifice our liberty through massive indebtedness to creditors that impose the costs of our refusal to make tough choices on future generations.
Most important for this discussion, these important issues should be confronted by individual citizens conscientiously selecting civic priorities – not institutional churches focused on Kingdom priorities. Your positions on these issues are defensible. But Melody’s contention is that the church qua institution should be involved in social justice issues. Your points don’t support her position – at least not as I understand it.
“A person who is in extreme need has no right to demand help from someone with the capacity to help? ”
The question betrays the basis of help and Charity. Help and Charity is not a “right” and if it is a “right” then it is not Charity. It is “entitlement.”
And this is the whole problem in our government today. If the government “helps” in any situation outside the norm, then the help becomes the norm in any and every situation that parallels the circumstance. And it is not charity, but entitlement.
If I give my neighbor a hundred dollars to “help him out” in a difficult situation, that is charity. All the neighbors have no “right” to demand a hundred dollars from me if they are in the same situation. But if the government gives someone a hundred dollars in a given situation, then they “owe” the same help to everyone else in the same situation. The government can not discriminate about equal situations and still be just.
The individual can. And those you help will be thankful, knowing you are not required to help them, but do it because “you want to”, not because “you have to”. This does not apply to the government, and those who receive help have no sense of gratitude since it is an entitlement.
If we don’t discern the difference, we are in massive confusion about charity vs. entitlement.
One issue that our friends concerned with the impact of government programs on human behavior might sometime wish to explore, is the why the United States, of all modern democracies, is the only one without a single payer governmental universal health insurance plan for all citizens. What is it about the American cultural experience that so many are convinced that everything is best in the hands of a corporation making money off the suffering of our fellow citizens? Or Is there something wrong with the moral fiber of all other modern democracies? Is this not American Exceptionalism run amok. A related question is why should health care be in the hands of for profit companies at all? I’m all for using the profit motive to motivate and reward inventive behavior in the real world. But health care? I’ve always wondered how that kind of social policy is justified by those with finely developed moral sensibilities.
Good questions, Erv, with lots of good answers. But it’s a discussion that really veers off-topic. It does illustrate, however, the deep and treacherous waters that the church gets into when it claims on the one hand to believe in separation of church and state, and then proceeds with the other to use its moral/religious voice to influence government policy. It was with good reason that Paul said to the Corinthian Church, “I resolve to know nothing among you save Christ and Him Crucified.” The church has already taken on enough doctrinal weight and controversy. I’m quite sure that divisive political controversy is not the path for the church to refocus on gospel basics and essentials. Those who would trade 28 fundamental religious beliefs for 28 fundamental political beliefs are simply trading one form of legalistic ideology for another, and paving the way for state-enforced theocracy in the process.
To rebuke is a two way street. Rev 3:19″As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. The issue is love. Do you truly love if you place Law and Doctrine as more important than love. One who puts Law
and Doctrine as more important than love, has not accepted the mercy, grace, love, and sacrificial death of the CHRIST, for him, is indeed, living under the LAW, which condemns him, and demands his death.
Luke 17:3 “Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.”
2 Timothy 4:2 “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.”
How does one rebuke without Law and Doctrine to rebuke? Better yet, do you think that HE will not rebuke and chasten. Just because you think there is no Law or Doctrine?
No one holds the right to demand Charity, especially from HIM, or have privilege of interpreting or influencing the Grace of others in Charity. Charity is hidden and should be in equality.
2 Corinthians 8:
11 Now therefore perform the doing of it; that as there was a readiness to will, so there may be a performance also out of that which ye have.
12 For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not.
13 For I mean not that other men be eased, and ye burdened:
14 But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality:
15 As it is written, He that had gathered much had nothing over; and he that had gathered little had no lack.
Mr Foster has a big heart and sees a lot of need. Mr Noel does also, but lives in an area where equality may swing into continuing self assumed need. I see it all the time from my generation, and actually flaunted.
The egalitarian principal is the moral high ground of which i believe is Ervin’s choice. And mine. i believe that
govts. priorities of basic importance is 1. Free medical care of its citizens, as in Canada (i have family there that don’t complain of some of its slow non urgent delivery).
2. Free education, with guidance, according to intellectual
qualification, some to academic, some to technical, some to skills of various types, and for those who have learning
challenges. In the past there were apprentice programs for those pursuing various “trades” or common labor roles, of which those roles in large numbers are now obsolete, and must be redirected. As “Robotic” machines tale over the repetitive labor roles that formerly was for those who work with their hands, a “think tank” must solve the roles for those replaced by machines.
Mankind will never leave Earth to colonize other reachable planets, before the end of life on Earth, so some selection of what space ventures will provide benefits to Earth must be rationally determined so as to free up resources for those currently living, to provide the above basic priorities.
Of those who have much, much more is required for responsibility to your fellowman.
What true value is there in storing up wealth far beyond
that required for self usage??
Currently it is estimated approx 5% of the people control
95% of the worlds wealth. This is untenable. Something
must change or there will be global slavery, extermination of billions, for the benefit of those who control global resources. With such a cornucopia of resources there should not be a single soul in need of basic needs. Am i my neighbors keeper?? Why is it that we have such suffering and despair by billions, when the storage facilities are overflowing??
And yet, Earl, world hunger has been dramatically reduced as the rich were getting richer. Poverty is down; literacy is up; health and longevity have greatly increased. Read Bjorn Lomborg’s “The Skeptical Environmentalist” to understand how vastly better off the world is from a materialist perspective than it was just 50 or 60 years ago. Where in history has a significantly narrower gap existed between rich and poor? The U.S., which has a large wealth gap – that has grown larger while “social justice” advocating politicians have been in control – has the wealthiest poor people in the world. Would you prefer that everyone be equally poor or unequally prosperous? The poor of the world have never had it so good materially – which certainly doesn’t mean that they have it good by middle class American standards (that middle class being in the top 5% which you reference).
The assault on the 10th Commandment is relentless, even among Christians. Were it not for the 5% about which you complain, most of what you describe as the “world’s wealth” (It doesn’t belong to the world at all) would not exist. There are of course fantastically wealthy folks, like George Soros, who have impoverished others to gain their wealth. But most wealth, like that of Bill Gates and the Koch brothers has created great wealth and comfort for others.
Be careful what you wish for. We are illustrating, in this discussion, why the church should stay out of politics.
The logic being employed here escapes me Nathan. As a response to Earl’s claim that a worldwide wealth disparity in which 5% of people own 95% of the world’s assets is unsustainable or “untenable,” and makes hunger and deprivation inexcusable; you are saying that rates of poverty have decreased as the rich have gotten richer.
How poverty rates can be decreasing when wealth disparity is increasing is beyond me.
Anyway, I read that statistically in America, if there were only 100 people in the United States, the single richest guy would own more that one-third (about 35%) of everything. The next four richest individuals would own more than one-fourth (28%) of everything. The next five richest folk own about 14% of everything, and the next 10 people would own about 12% of everything. So that’s 20% of the people owning about 90% of everything; somewhat less stark than Earl’s worldwide numbers. (Is that good or bad?)
The challenge however is there are 80 people remaining. Well, the next 20 people own about own 9% of everything between them. Then, the next 20 folks—who represent the middle quintile—own 3% of everything (split 20 ways).
That leaves the (‘bottom) 40 individuals who are remaining with…uh…nothing; or less than nothing—in that some of them own less than they owe; and we can be fairly certain that they owe it to one of those top five or 10 people.
I’m trying to follow this. How can a trend toward greater disparity be sustainable?
Stephen,
you write:
How poverty rates can be decreasing when wealth disparity is increasing is beyond me.
I conclude from your remark that poverty is always relative? Poverty is not an absolute measure of well-being. Poverty is always a comparative metric.
The poor man of 2016 enjoys luxuries and surplus that were unknown to the richest man 100 years ago or 200 years ago. According to you, the poor man still lives in poverty because his relative enjoyment of luxuries and surplus remains disparate.
I don’t want to distort your meaning. I just can’t imagine you mean something else.
William, a good way to have avoided distorting my meaning would have been to avoid having said, “According to you, the poor man still lives in poverty because his relative enjoyment of luxuries and surplus remains disparate.”
Actually, the way I assess the current wealth distribution in the world is that the poor person still lives in poverty in today’s world because of the creed of the fictional Gordon Gekko character (in the movie “Wall Street”) into which many in modern society have bought; that “greed—for lack of a better word—is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms–greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge–has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed–you mark my words–will not only save [the fictional] Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA” (for example).
Not only this, but any other economic creeds, philosophies, or thoughts are often literally demonized; even by nominal Christians.
In the statistical analogy that I referenced (of a U.S. population of 100) we’re not merely talking about “relative enjoyment of luxuries and surplus” William. No, we’re talking about percentages of assets of any and all kinds that are owned by the people of our country; including basic necessities.
William Abbott,
Let me stipulate that we should—no, that I should—personally do much more for the poor than I do now in terms of giving to them of my own resources; because I can and because it is right.
You may have missed it, but we are debating whether or not we should also advocate the cause of the poor and needy, and plead their case to whoever can be of any assistance to them; and if we should actively seek justice and righteousness on their behalf. The Bible makes is unmistakably clear that we should all of the above.
But if you happen to believe that this can and should only be done by us individually (personally), I have no problem with that. However I don’t understand how you figure that this can and only should be done intimately. Please clarify what you’re saying.
Standards of living vary in societies and cultures throughout the world. I believe that we are to brighten the corner where we are, so to speak. Just because someone on the other side of the globe has a lower standard of living and/or must endure worse living conditions than those of us in the industrialized west does not absolve us of our responsibilities of doing and saying what we can, where we can, on behalf of those we can see any day and everyday.
Stephen,
I found on the internet a compilation of sixty bible verses about oppression. Oppressing the poor, (widows and orphans, the fatherless) mocking the poor, vexing the stranger, all these call down the judgment of heaven on the doer. It is sin of the first order. The collective ideas we currently have about social justice and wealth transfer are not in the texts. There is no ‘Robin Hood’ in scripture.
Your notion about ‘brightening the corner where you are’ exemplifies Jesus’ parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. Although the parable is told for another purpose, it is obvious judgment has fallen on the Rich Man, in part, for neglecting Lazarus. From this parable and the parable of the Good Samaritan, we know the Lord Jesus Christ took a dim view on walking past your fellow man in his hour of need. Don’t oppress, don’t even neglect, your poor and needy neighbor. That is the Law of God.
The social justice movement is certain they know who the neighbor is and how ‘the rich’ might bless him. I realize the rich can and should bless the poor collectively. We are collectively a rich country. Compulsion (force) to stop oppression I would support. Compulsion to bless? I don’t think that is possible. God judges the rich man. He doesn’t compel him, he warns him. God asks Him to consider, “Who is my neighbor?” Figure that out then go and, ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’ Compelling other to ‘bless’ might be a subterfuge for theft.
It’s not sustainable, Stephen, because of greed and envy. If 100 people have purchasing power prosperity of say $100,000 per year (let’s say they have a net worth of $500,000 per person), and George Soros is worth 20 billion dollars, the collective wealth of those 100 people (50 million) is 1/400th that of George Soros.
Because of envy, the disparity will create tension. Greed only becomes an economic problem when it is used to devalue the purchasing power of people’s earnings or wealth. Through regulation, taxation, and interference with free markets that encourages “too big to fail” financial institutions, penalizes and prohibits efficient energy production, etc., government greed is devaluing the purchasing power of its citizens. As long as it can borrow and tax to subsidize those whom it impoverishes and enslaves, the government can create the illusion of beneficence. But as Margaret Thatcher pointed out, the problem with socialism is that eventually, you run out of other people’s money.
Free markets are no panacea. But the economic principles set forth by Adam Smith still hold true. Sadly, covetousness and unrestrained greed are also embedded in human nature at every level. The war on inequality (a.k.a., the social justice movement) has replaced the war on poverty and the war on hunger with the tail-chasing, vote-garnering task of making sure that we are morally outraged at the existence of even a highly mobile bottom quintile of income earners.
Stephen,
The disparity between your personal wealth and the wealth of the average Congolese is very great. That is a disparity you can do something about. Not that you can change the economic outcomes of the Congolese by impoverishing your family. But you could sell all that you have and give it to the poor. In the quest for international social justice, what do you propose we do?
Even incomes from the lowest quintile in the United States are unimaginable sums for the average Congolese. You might think staying in a Motel Six is low status. I know Congolese that couldn’t imagine personally enjoying such luxury. You might spend more on a night’s lodging than they spend in a year for food for their family.
I’m still disturbed about Melody Tan’s condescending attitude and guilt towards the hotel maids in her last article.
I want to posit something: If social justice isn’t personal and intimate it isn’t worth a pitcher of warm spit.
What part of “not sustainable” is in dispute Nathan? The prospect of running out of other people’s money is a rhetorical red herring; as opposed to the reality of 40% of Americans, and a much larger and ever-increasing percentage of the world’s population, who own nothing.
Adam Smith was no prophet and his principles are not doctrinal; and skepticism about them is not blasphemous, subversive, treasonous or in any way sinful—much less necessarily mistaken.
It’s not envy that creates tension so much as it is scarcity and deprivation. But you seem to relate scarcity and deprivation with envy; as if it is primarily the poor who are envious and covetous. (Is that what you believe, or have I misunderstood/misinterpreted you?)
You also seem to think that greed is not intrinsically evil or necessarily deleterious insofar as economics are concerned because, to your way of thinking, “greed only becomes an economic problem when it is used to devalue the purchasing power of people’s earnings or wealth;” and that happens only when the government is greedy.
Paul says that the love of money is the root of all evil; and he surely wasn’t talking about only government greed, if he was talking about that at all.
For those of us who don’t operate in scarcity and who are in no way deprived, it may be natural to some extent to regard those who live with scarcity and deprivation as envious of those of us who don’t.
Is it any wonder why it is so hard reconcile this perspective with the Biblical injunction to plead the cause of those in scarcity and want? If we believe that those who live in scarcity and in want are envious of us (and of what we have); in whose interest is it to plead their case, or advocate of their cause?
Doing so rewards the envy of the largely undeserving, and is therefore wrong; isn’t that the thinking? Can we see why Jesus indicated that it is extraordinarily difficult for those of us who are relatively wealthy to be saved?
Could that even be true?
Since when, Stephen, did you become such an advocate for private property? If I earn a sufficient amount of income to provide food, clothing and shelter, why does it matter if I don’t accumulate property?
Are the 40% of Americans,who you say have no accumulated wealth, experiencing want or scarcity? The answer is a resounding no. You know well the percentages of Americans below the poverty line who enjoy flat screen T.V.s, air conditioning, smart phones, home
ownership, and automobiles. It looks like extreme wealth inequality is quite sustainable. 92% of them claim to be well fed.
What are you doing for those experiencing real scarcity and real want? Most of the so-called advocacy on behalf of the poor that goes on in America has nothing to do with folks experiencing real scarcity. It seeks greater
equality on behalf of those who have little to no food, clothing or housing insecurity.
So again I ask you, Stephen – how do you define the poor? What does it mean to advocate for them? It’s time for you to be done with bumper sticker abstractions. Quit bluffing and setting up straw man arguments. Once you answer some of the questions I’ve posed, then perhaps we can have a meaningful conversation about who the “poor” are and what constitutes advocacy on their behalf.
Stephen,
What I stated about the condition of the Social Security Trust Fund and the growth in the national debt came from the latest quarterly report to Congress from the Secretary of the Treasury. So, if you choose to not believe me, you are also not believing what the chief financial officer of the nation put in print. If you want to see that report, ask you Congressman’s office to send it to you.
Stephen,
You sound like a third-grader in a playground argument! When you don’t want to be disputed, you attack the integrity of the messenger and no claim is too wild to make. Now, how is doing that behaving like Jesus? I thought you said you were a Christian.
Stephen,
When did the idea of running-out of other people’s money become a “rhetorical red herring?” It isn’t because the U.S. Government ran out of money a long time ago and it is social programs that have done it. Look at Social Security and what you will find is not money the government has in the treasury, but a lot of IOUs where the balance that is supposedly there has long since been diverted to other programs. Social Security ran out of money a long time ago and the “balance” that supposedly exists in the fund is an illusion. The national debt is currently somewhere around $19 trillion and growing with all of it being from the growth in social programs under the Obama Administration. So the question isn’t when the government will run out of “other people’s money” because it already has, but when the government will no longer be able to pay interest on the national debt, the dollar becomes worthless and the global financial system collapses as a result.
The government has not run people out money. To the contrary the people’s representatives have run the government out of money via spending more than it is willing to tax the residents and the businesses that operate within its jurisdiction.
Our federal government has run budget deficits for something like 45 out of the last 50 fiscal years; so this is nothing new.
We should perhaps review certain facts William. You say that “The national debt is currently somewhere around $19 trillion and growing with all of it being from the growth in social programs under the Obama Administration.”
The truth of course is that ALL federal spending is mandatory spending, discretionary spending, or interest on debt (which of course represents a much smaller amount in any given year than the other two categories of spending).
Mandatory Spending is federal spending that is spent based on existing laws rather than the budgeting process. For instance, spending for Social Security is based on the eligibility rules for that program. Mandatory spending is not part of the annual appropriations process.
Discretionary Spending is the portion of the budget that the president requests and Congress appropriates every year.
In FY 2015 mandatory spending represented 64.63% of all expenditures (or $2.45 trillion). Discretionary spending represented 29.34% of all expenditures (or $1.11 trillion). Interest on federal debt represented 6.03% of all expenditures (or $229.15 billion).
Of the $1.11 trillion in discretionary spending, 53.71% or $598.49 billion was in military spending.
Yet you say that all of the growth in the national debt, all of it, comes from the growth in social programs under the Obama Administration.
(This is why I frankly never believe anything that you type. No offense; but you have an unfortunate history as relates to facts.)
William Noel,
With regard to your demonstrably false statement that “The national debt is currently somewhere around $19 trillion and growing with all of it being from the growth in social programs under the Obama Administration;” you now write “What I stated about the condition of the Social Security Trust Fund and the growth in the national debt came from the latest quarterly report to Congress from the Secretary of the Treasury. So, if you choose to not believe me, you are also not believing what the chief financial officer of the nation put in print. If you want to see that report, ask you Congressman’s office to send it to you.”
We know that the national debt is around $19 trillion, but what you said about “all of [the recent growth of the national debt] being from the growth in social programs under the Obama Administration,” is not true; and you shouldn’t compound the untruth by saying that you got it from a source that would not ever, under any set of circumstances, say that the entirety of the current growth of the national debt has come from the President’s expansion of social programs.
Again, I wonder wither the sense of privilege that permits you to blatantly say things that that are not at all truthful; and to say them with an attitude of an entitlement to do so?
You have told me William, on this very thread, that I am either illiterate (cannot read) or a liar. I do not feel sufficiently privileged to say the same about anyone on this site. Imagine…
Correction: …whither the sense of privilege…? Actually, I probably should have said “from whence comes…”
Mr Calahan, I think we may already be there. My dad always says, with so few, how can we help others when we cannot help ourselves.
He taught me how to look. From usaspending.gov and for the largest State, population and allocation we can look at California in $224 billion in Federal allocations into the State, with $77 billion we should partially remove for Social Security allocations that were actually paid for by the individuals for retirement and surviving spouses. Then we likewise partially remove some of the $66 billion for Medicare and Medicaid services. If we remove the almost $80 billion for Health and Human Services, almost $20 billion for military and $16 billion for veterans, there is not much left over (some of that $80 billion for HHS is from SSA and Medicaid).
Is public teaching not important; even for others? Is infrastructure not important? What is important?
I cannot get into some of the enrichment college programs I would like to take. My dad cannot even pay to get me in. He serves on some boards and could probably get me in, but that’s not right either.
Are new homes, cars, phones and steaks really needed? When most of the working do not have those? Is that equality for those parents working and trying their best? Maybe those in my generation are just realists or heartless.
What is the answer?
Whisper,
You are illustrating the complexity of the issue and touching on many of the threads that people love to discuss while losing sight of the larger picture of wasteful, bloated government.
Yes, teaching is important. Still, one must ask the value of that education when the government keeps spending more on education but student performance keeps dropping and American students are becoming some of the least well poorly educated in the industrialized world. Contrast that with students who are home schooled and who typically score far higher than students in public schools. For more than 20 years, almost every year the winner and top nine competitors at the National Spelling Bee are home schooled. Ditto for the National Geography Bee.
My point is that not everything people charge as heartless is that way at all when you consider that what is being promoted often is of lesser value, or borders on worthless. The picture becomes even worse when you see that government-funded education promotes all sorts of things that are contrary to spiritual principles and is very restrictive of free speech, in particular any speech that questions the value or verity of what is taught.
Unfortunately, college is becoming unaffordable for many. Perhaps you will need to pursue a trade and go to college part-time at night while earning your degree. There are ways to get there. So don’t despair. Instead, find a way.
What’s wrong with the Church Jesus designed? Why the need for a new design or redesign? Even though it is lukewarm and heavily compromised, with Him left standing on the outside of the hearts of many; yet He knocks to come in, bringing eyesalve for the blind, a robe to cover our nakedness and gold tried in fire for faith and love. Why the need for a new design when He has His Church well covered. The only design needed is to heed the call for repentance.
But should all not have a chance in equality? Can some of those parents out there actually home school while working or maybe without the privilege of education to rely on themselves?
I have good grades with everything provided when I am ready for college. I am blessed. But I would have like to taken part in some of the programs that are constructed for those less blessed. Some of the subject matter really interested me, but I was excluded for being blessed. Is this equality?
Did Jesus see it as His or his followers’ responsibility to make life fair?
Whisper,
The only equality you will ever find in life is your equal need of God’s great redeeming grace to save you.
In human terms, how are you measuring “equality?” By opportunity, or results? The two are opposites. Opportunity allows a person a starting point where their personal commitment and a host of other factors combine to determine the outcome. If you’re expecting standard results, they you are dismissing the personal factors that so powerfully influence outcomes. Politicians who complain about “inequality” are typically looking for standard outcomes, something that is impossible unless everyone is reduced to the least common denominator of utter mediocrity.
Seeking equality in anything human is an exercise in futility and frustration, so don’t waste your time seeking it. Instead, seek to be excellent in whatever God is guiding you into doing. Seek to stand above the crowd and be an example of achievement that others can emulate. Then let God’s blessings overflow to others to lift them up and improve their lives.
Nathan, i was not particularly concerned with the poverty
in these U.S. There is no reason for a person in the US to be hungry. i was thinking of the perpetual backward countries in Africa, and parts of India, and the Middle East, bcause of the lack of responsible government, tribal warfare, and the caste system, where progress to creature comforts never happens for the common folk. Because after the powerful bleed the system, and the violence of
internecine blood baths, and the robbery of the food supplies, totally inadequate water supplies, lack of birth control, and almost no medical services, makes life a living nightmare and hell to the lowly. i believe Christ has placed these unfortunates to the care of those able to make a difference. Yet many of the extremely wealthy ones who could make a substantial difference, could easily formulate plans to change the status quo. You mention Gates, Buffett, and members of their group, which is a good start to the problem, however their billions are not nearly enough. The need is for the world bankers, located in the City of London, to step up with their trillions to solve global hunger and suffering. A more noble cause there isn’t. i believe the “love of money” is the root of all evil. God will exact a price for this lack of concern of ungodly men. “Rocks fall on us, and hide us from the wrath of the LAMB.
Sadly, Earl, many of the problems you mention are political in origin. Supply of food is less the problem often than the obstacles placed in the way. Some are cultural; some are political. Tons of wheat can go untouched because people learn that it is genetically modified and they won’t touch it. It’s a big complex problem that cannot simply be blamed on stinginess by the developed world.
The only people who would not touch genetically modified wheat, or genetically modified wheat products, are those who are not at all hungry.
Greed for money and stinginess are at the base of the cultural and political problems that cause all kinds of evil; including hunger. Of course hate and its fraternal twin brother— indifference, are also reasons for the cultural and political problems that permit hunger.
“Stinginess by the developed world” along with greed for money and stinginess—and greed for money in the underdeveloped world—are at the root of all kinds of evil; including hunger. At least that is what the apostle Paul said and meant in context; and is a truth that cannot be sanitized.
“The only people who would reject GMO food are those who are not hungry.”‘
You might want to look that up, Stephen. Unique to humans, ideology and superstition are often more powerful motivators than reality and instinctive drives. I just googled “third world” “GMO food” and noticed a number of entries that contradict your assertion, including one captioned: “Starving Zimabweans reject GM food.”
As for your assertion that greed and selfishness are at the root of many problems the world faces, I don’t think you’ll get much argument on the website you could probably also add “envy” and a few other toxic states of mind and heart.
C’mon Nathan, we both know that you one can find a headline that might say literally anything, and that a headline need not in any way be synonymous with or related to the truth about anything.
This is certainly true with regard to the one you cited about Zimbabwe. In whatever article this is, the government of (or the decision makers in) Zimbabwe clearly are not those who are themselves starving.
And as far as my assertion about greed and selfishness is concerned, I should have said that the truth of what Paul says about the love of money cannot be sanitized or diluted. Covetousness is a sin; and conservatism is consistent. It is mighty, mighty self-serving for those of us in the richest 1-5% of the world’s population to cite the “envy” of those in the ‘bottom’ 95-99% as a problem of any kind…especially when food, water, clothing, and shelter (of any kind) are among the things that are ‘envied.’
Stephen, could you help me better understand your position. Do you define the poor as those who have food, clothing and shelter insecurity?Or do you define the poor as those who are in the bottom quintile, or some other segment of income recipients? Does it include those who are likely to be in a higher income quintile within a few years?
Do you contend that the Bible stands against wealth or income inequality that results from honest career choices, risk taking, personal connections, industriousness, talent, intelligence, good fortune, etc. – even if that inequality doesn’t impoverish anyone? What injustices did Bill Gates or Steve Jobs commit in order to gain their wealth? Does producing/inventing a desirable product at a price that people are willing to pay in order to enjoy the product constitute oppression when
the producer/inventor gets fabulously wealthy from those transactions? Is it unjust that LeBron James earns obscene amounts of money from
people who want to enjoy being dazzled by his basketball wizardry?
I’m not ready to buy into what strikes me as yout highly materialistic view of both The Kingdom and the O.T. prophetic tradition. But I would like to know if your view of Biblical exhortations to care for the poor leads you toward a government safety net for the truly needy, or toward redistributive justice, spreading among the many the wealth built by the efforts of the few.
Nathan,
The poor are those who are insecure insofar as having food, clothing, shelter, and other related basic necessities (like water and transportation) is concerned; no matter what statistical prospects for future advancement they may be deemed (by you or me) to have at any given point.
You seem to be so very, very concerned with the rich, and the talented, and the industrious, the intelligent, the connected, and the fortunate; which frankly appears very self-serving to me; because I perceive you to be all of the above.
I don’t begrudge you, me, or Bill Gates or the late Steve Jobs, or George Soros, or the Koch brothers, or Sheldon Adelson, or Oprah Winfrey, or LeBron James, or anyone their legally and ethically hard-earned income or success; except to the extent that I believe that it is actually God who empowers the ability to get, and it is Him alone who sovereignly bestows favor for whatever reasons He sees fit.
By the same token, I don’t believe that you or I, or any of these people are intrinsically or inherently more valuable to God than the beggars who approach me.
Nice try, I guess, trying to label my identification of Old Testament prophetic sayings as materialistic or whatever. It (the Bible) says what it says. You can try to marginalize and/or minimize these saying because they appear in what is referred to as the Old Testament. You can buy into it/them or you can reject it/them. You are a free moral agent.
I am okay with your definition of the poor, Stephen, as long as “insecurity” has some objective reference point. By that definition, perhaps 4-5% of Americans are poor.
As to those who avoid poverty through government dependency, I am sure that you and I have quite different ideas about what constitutes advocacy on their behalf. Melody’s point was that the church she idealizes would be more politically active on a number of fronts. She acknowledges that Jesus was silent on the political issues of His day, but says that doesn’t mean the church should be silent on those issues. I strongly disagree with her.
Some of us have zeroed in on advocacy for the poor, and I think we all agree that it is important to do so. We just disagree about who the poor are and what constitutes advocacy on their behalf. We may also disagree on the role the church should play on politics. But the fact that I think the church witnesses best and least divisively when it stays out of the political arena certainly does not in any way relieve its members of their responsibilities as Christian members of the polis to advocate for justice as their consciences move them.
My personal values and beliefs hopefully have philosophical and Biblical integrity, and are not simply the product of my upper middle class station in life. Likewise, I would not consider your views lacking in integrity or validity simply because they advance the self-perceived interests of African Americans.
Mr Calahan’s take on why poverty exists in Africa and India isn’t quite on the money. He misses out one major factor which has directly affected these parts of the world, among others. Perhaps he can guess what it is after taking off his selective history glasses.
My curiosity is suddenly aroused by Mr. Hammond’s comment that there is one major factor which has directly affected Africa and India as to why poverty exists in those regions. Guessing may not get Mr. Hammond’s answer. Thus, I wonder if he would please be so kind as to share with the rest of us what that “major factor” might be–in his opinion.
I hope Trevor answers. I will offer my answer also. The religion of much of Sub-Saharan Africa is animist. Witch Doctors, Spells, Fetishes and Magic. It leads to a worldview where everyone is in competition for power – spiritual power and material power – the two realms can’t be divided in the animist’s mind. You need strong magic to block the magic of others who would harm you. You need magic to impede others and raise yourself above others. The Voo Doo doll says it all.
The idea that service to and faith in the one true God who hates evil and who eschews power and Glory for Himself is alien to the imagination of the animist.
It is the religious ideas of service and trust that has lead to the slow development of the complex trading communities of the developed world. One gets status in our society through service and our trade is nearly frictionless because of the high degree of trust we place in one another.
In the Congo you don’t even eat with your friends and relatives without at least a little concern somebody may try and poison you. They don’t do potlucks. Fear is the predominant force in Animist societies – not faith, trust and service.
I’m not as familiar with India. The religious idea of reincarnation with all its futility and non-linear, circular, understanding of time, creates a mental impediment to risk-taking and entrepreneurial enterprise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R0vQEWQOjg
Check out this video of a Christian pastor doing battle with a juju priest and two of his assistants in africa.
It appears Benny Hinn’s methods are spreading? Entertainment for the locals?
Hansen,
That is quite interesting. Remember how the early Adventists would write about their enthusiastic meetings where believers would be ‘slain’ in the spirit. I’ve listened to Congolese pastors talk about the juju man’s fetishes and the powers that they conger with them. Those Pastors absolutely believe in demonic powers. The competitive dichotomy of spiritual power witnessed in the video is a reality in Congo. One intuitively doubts its all in their minds, but you can’t believe like they do either, I don’t know what to think.
That video clip is not recording some theatrically managed morality play. The participants all obviously believe. That video clip belongs on Erv’s thread about the singularity of the natural reality.
“One intuitively doubts its all in their minds, but you can’t believe like they do either, I don’t know what to think.”
William, one thing is certain: what is witnessed in that video is a blatant demonstration of Satan mocking, not only the Gospel’s account of “casting out demons”, but also Jesus Christ Himself. That pastor should be appalled at himself. An absolute disgrace to Christ!
Just what so-called “social justice” issues would the author like to see dealt with? “Social justice” is the buzz word the left uses for things it sees as important, such as homosexual “marriage,” imagined racism/bigotry, the global warming/climate change hoax, fanatical environmentalism, abortion, the death penalty, and anything else the left deems important to get excited over.
The denomination is doing just fine dealing with genuine social issues people have faced for generations, such as hunger, poverty, homelessness and isolation. It doesn’t need any help from the left, thank you.
Bob Hawley,
This is a downright hilarious post; perhaps (hopefully) tongue-in-cheek. Most of the controversy on this thread centered on whether or not advocating the cause of, and on behalf of, the hungry, the poor, and the homeless was even a relevant scriptural imperative in the 21st century; and in debating the totally absurd notion that doing so represents disobedience to God.
But now, perhaps tongue-in-cheek, you suggest that since “The denomination is doing just fine dealing with genuine social issues people have faced for generations, such as hunger, poverty, homelessness and isolation. It doesn’t need any help from the left, thank you.”
I suppose we should take that to mean that you understand that either the denomination or its individual members should actively advocate for, and plead the cause of, the hungry, poor, and homeless, to whoever can listen.
Hi Melanie. Good to see you at Adventist Today. It seems to me that we are living in the age of “post-theological Adventism”. Unfortunately, I do not see any great increase in love and acceptance in the church corresponding to the decline in doctrine.
Reading AT comments leaves me saddened. I’m no great Somebody in the church. I’ve pastored churches, served as chief editor at Pacific Press, and some know me from books I’ve written. But what matters to me is just being a seeking Christian who wants so much to be more like Jesus and be part of a church that’s all about Him and that’s filled with His character of love. It’s disheartening to read comments here filled with countless attacks and defensive comebacks, personal insults and impugning of character and motives. Is this how we win the world to Jesus? Is this how we achieve unity? Is this how we speak to each other if Christ’s love is our motive?
Can we not spend far more time discussing what we’re for – than what we’re against? Can we not sometimes disagree – but without becoming disagreeable and deliberately hurtful? Is it really a good thing to show how eloquently well we can “one up” the other guy? Can we really imagine some of these discussions, using the words often seen here, taking place at the foot of the Cross? Please, men and ladies, try not to post something clever but hurtful without first being sure you love them enough you’d die for the target of your words.
Not trying to preach here. Just speaking from sadness and a yearning for how I wish things could be.
Thank you, Ken, for your pastoral words. For everything there is a time and season – even robust debate. Of course gratuitous insults are never in season. AToday is not for everyone. Christ and Paul had sharp words for those who they believed were teaching a false gospel or undermining the mission. Clear thinking as well right living is important. And neither clarity of thought or right living are always best served by a warm fuzzy approach to bad behavior or sloppy thinking.
I appreciate and respect your distaste for the sharp interactions that often pass for dialogue on AToday. My wife doesn’t like it either. That’s why she never goes on the website. I’m fine with that. But I do find your scolding a bit sanctimonious and annoying. And, meaning no disrespect, I’m not sure how proclamation of your vitae adds weight to your very respectable concerns.
Nathan, If it weren’t for you, we’d be pretty much a rabble.
I love the “Nathan, If it weren’t for you, we’d be pretty much a rabble.” As I am a proud member of the rabble who never inherited the “faith gene,” I would think that he would also consider himself a “rabble rouser” of sorts. I suspect that his redeeming quality, in the view of some, is he clearly has the “faith gene” and that he is Christian mystic of sorts — at least in some of his postings he writes like one. On the other hand, one can never tell what he will be for or against tomorrow — all with well-crafted reasons, of course.
I must plead guilty, Erv. I sort of assumed Hansen was being tongue-in- cheek, and his comment made me smile. I am as much a rabble-rouser as anyone. I can be quite sharp in my comments. In fact my comment to Ken was intended as a defense of rabble-rousing within reasonable boundaries.
If I could design the church
The church was organized (or one might say “reorganized”) in the time of Moses (Acts 7:38) but the organization of the church is not the church–it is a tool of the church. The church has existed as long as there have been believers. I can’t improve on how the church was designed but I can observe that many problems can be avoided by thinking of the church as consisting of believers instead of thinking of the church as an organization. The former promotes personal religion. The latter tends to promote institutional religion. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with organization but evangelism is the process of encouraging people to trust the Lord. Proselytizing (persuading people to join an organization) is not evangelism.
People who tithe deserve 1) to know that the tithe will be used for no other purpose except the support of full-time gospel ministers and deserve to know that 2) those people who are paid from title funds will NOT teach certain doctrines such as Sunday sacredness and the natural immortality of the soul. Organization can be helpful in this regard. We just need to make the appropriate distinction between the church itself (the believers) and the organization of the church.
I really like your points, Roger. I think both designers (progressives) and defenders (fundamentalists) share a misplaced trust in institutions and authority. The power-seeking progressives and revolutionaries of one generation tend, im ensuing generations, assuming they are successful, to be the fundamentalist defenders of the institutions they have designed.
Designers and fundamentalists tend toward top-down solutions. As you say, Roger, institutions are vital. But when individuals in movements find they can gain power and significance by transferring some autonomy to the institution and acting collectively, they sometimes forget that the institution can’t replace or even direct the movements which willed it into existence. They forget why the institution was created in the first place. It was intended to be a facilitator
its constituent movements.
My Sabbath School class is the place where design starts for me. We are a core group of maybe 25. We potluck together; we hike 6 miles, on Sunday morning and then get together at a coffee shop; we share breakfast responsibilities each Sabbath morning. Discussion facilitation and Christ-centered topic selection is a shared process that about half the class participates in. Offerings are taken for outreach projects in which members of the class are active. We consciously seek to be Spirit led. We are not very big on trying to design church for other movements within our local church, mich less the Conference.
I am still looking forward to Mr. Hammond’s explanation of the one major factor which has directly affected Africa and India as to why poverty exists in those regions. I trust he sees the need to share with us this important piece of information.
There are several reasons for the African/Asian dilemma of perpetual hunger and creature comforts. 1. Education
2. Infrastructure 3. Tribalism. 4. Religion. 5. Colonialism.
China is a miracle happening. In less than 100 years they have risen from an agrarian economy, mostly of small family plots, which were never able to feed the masses, and millions starved annually, but since WWII, have developed through technology, challenging the USA for
Global dominance. They are building complete million person cities, complete with infrastructure, as yet unpeopled, in continuing to bring the peasants into the 21st century. This is the kind of global projects needed for
the backward people of the world. The resources are available should the 5% ers underwrite the costs. They have a new economic paradigm. They print currency with nothing but national prestige guaranteed. With the forthcoming power to be given to the United Nations, and their issuance of a global digital currency (barter-drawing rights) there will be no excuse not to lift up the lowly, however instead, world wealth will flow to the top
1% ers, and global masses will be exterminated by Biological weapons of destruction, beginning with Africa,
and the Middle East, this will be the “final holocaust.”
I have just watched the wonderful film of “Tell the World – 1844 (Feature Film)”
I enjoyed it very much.
With the question “If I Could Design the Church, Starting from Scratch…”, I think one needs to revisit those calculations with assurance they were right. William Millar was ideed correct about 1844.
I think instead of a great Disappointment, maybe they should have looked at the signs and what they may have meant. Thus revisit what it means that every eye shall see, revisit what it means to return on the clouds, revisit what it means that I shall be called by a “New Name”. They should not have given up as the wrong date, but maybe somewhere in the world in 1844 there was an event they awaited for. Also revisit Revelation and know that the year 1844 is also the year 1260. I think If William Miller had known this, we would have a different world right now. Regards to all Tony
regards Tony