Replies

I would have considered myself a biblical conservative but policital liberal up until about ten years ago. I wouldn't now, but not because I have strayed from biblical conservatism, but because the nature of liberalism is rapidly changing every moment. Clearly the Democratic party of John Kerry is nowhere near the Democratic party of FDR, or even JFK, something that life long Democrats like Zed Miller are thankfully making more and more people aware of.

I became a Christian while I was still deeply emersed in far left politic and ideas, and I thought that much of what Jesus taught fit right in with a lot of those ideals. In fact, I still do. While my own politics have become more conservative, much of what Jesus talks about, I believe, still doesn't sit too with much of what the Republican party, and conservatives in general, proclaim.

One has to only look at the seperating of the sheeps and goats in Matthew 25 to see that. When Jesus looks to the sheep and says, "I was naked and you clothed me, I was hungry and you fed me, I was in prison and you visited me", these are not describing actions of a political conservative, are they? More like, if a person was naked and hungry, they need to get a job so they can feed and clothe themselves. If a person was in prison, it's their own fault and they need to be responsible for their actions.

One has to merely look at the constant admonistion throughout the Bible, Old Testament and New, about care for the poor and the needy to see that modern conservatism's wholesale abandonment of the poor and the needy is in direct opposition to God's desire to how we treat each other.

I appreciate that this is an unpopular opinion, espically on a board like this. I would just ask, before anyone reacts to my post, just to re-read what Scripture has to say on things like care for the poor and needy, on the accumulation of wealth, on the priority of love, and see what it has to say, then see how that fits into your own political view, rather than taking your policital view and seeing how you can justify it thorough Scripture.

In His service,

pony

re-read what Scripture has to say on things like care for the poor and needy, on the accumulation of wealth, on the priority of love...

You are absolutely correct that Scripture commands that we take care of the poor and needy. The question is should that be a government responsibility or individual persons and private organizations? I would contend that when the government is placed with that responsibility it cause two problems, at the minimium. First, individuals are removed from active responsiblity placing them at a distance which leads to unhealthy social and cultural divisions. Second, when the government coerces and steals money from citizens through taxation the citzenry then reacts to that harm by blaming those whom it is supposed to help. This again leads to unhealthy social and cultural divisions within society. When individuals give freely of their own money and time it is always accompanied with a passion for those to whom it is given.

Strangely enough, I was just like where you stand now around 10 years ago (as a high school student). At that time I believed the Bible's calls to care for the poor and needy nessiticated a cradle-to-grave welfare state system. That idea was rooted in the days when I was still in Hong Kong where pursuit of economic gains makes the US look like Denmark.

Then I came to New Zealand. I witnessed how the best intention of welfare state provisions make a mockery of individual efforts. Rather than providing a big helping hand to the needy, it has instead become a big brother of the needy. Just like Roger Douglas (the former Labour Finance Minister 1984-1988 - whose reforms were called Rogernomics), I'm one of a numerous number of former socialists. (Roger Douglas was a fully-blown socialist, a card-carrying member of Socialist International) Interestingly most neoliberal policies supporters (in NZ a neoliberal means someone akin to a free market conservative in the US) were used to be hard-core socialists - apart from Roger Douglas, Richard Prebble, Rodney Hide, Ken Shirley, and Don Brash are the other well-known ones. I now understand that true compassion from the satte requires a tough love approach, something that doesn't make my stand popular in Asian Christians circles.

An exerpt of Roger Douglas' speech about welfare reforms is here:

http://www.rogerdouglas.org.nz/conf04a.htm

I remember a verse of Paul's (sorry, don't have the actual reference) that basically to take care of the needy, but not of the able-bodied who will not work.

I also have a huge problem with the state being responsible to fulfill what ought to be done by private people and organizations. The state is coercion, plain and simple. Not only does the state do welfare badly, it also robs all virtue from the act of giving and helping. Coerced virtue isn't virtue at all. So, you end up with a system that encourages sloth in those who receive, and removes the virtue from those who give. What is good about this?