Thoughts from the vapor…

In The Church: “Social Justice” or Socialism in Sheep’s Clothing

by Kevin on Apr.17, 2010, under Politics, Social Justice, Worldview

WARNING!!!  This one could get lengthy…

There is much talk nowadays about “Social Justice” and what the role of the church is in that arena.  In recent years, the concept of “social justice” has been used by politicians to attempt to sway church members (a significant voting block) into voting one way or another.  So, as is the nature of a blogger, I have a few thoughts…

To start with, considering that the church is (supposed to be) a group of followers of Jesus, what was Jesus attitude and/or action towards issues of social justice?  Did He speak to social issues?  The answer is “Yes” and “No.”  How is that for clarity?  Jesus did quote the words of Isaiah:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord. (Isaiah 61:1-2, Luke 4:18-19)

And then Jesus declared that His coming was the fulfillment of this prophecy.  This is usually the “proof-text” for those preaching “social justice” in the church.  But, was this declaration a statement of temporal action or spiritual reality?  Yes, Jesus did physically preach to the poor (and the rich.)  He undoubtedly touched the brokenhearted, gave sight to the physically blind, and preached the acceptable year of the Lord.  But, I don’t recall Him delivering any physical captives, or freeing any physically oppressed people.  So, if this was meant to deal with the physical realm, His declaration that His mission on earth fulfilled this prophecy was a lie.

However, if we consider these things in the spiritual realm, He did ALL of them.  He preached to the poor.  He dealt with broken hearts.  He brought deliverance to those captive to sin.  He brought spiritual sight to blind eyes.  He set free those oppressed by sin.  In fact, if we look at other Scriptures, we see that Jesus referenced ALL of these concepts (delivering the captives, giving sight to the blind, freeing the oppressed, etc.) in specifically spiritual terms.

Hmmm…  Maybe this declaration is not so much about temporal social issues as it is about spiritual issues.  But, did Jesus actually TAKE ACTION on the pressing issues of social injustice in His day?  Let’s see…

Slavery was common in Jesus’ day.  Yet, He spoke not a SINGLE word about overturning this grave injustice.  In fact, in Paul’s letters to the church, he gives instruction that slaves should obey their masters as if they are obeying God and that masters should not abuse their slaves, but there is no mention of overturning the practice of slavery.

Racism was common in Jesus’ day.  The Romans considered themselves racially superior to everyone else.  They even had special laws that allowed them to conscript non-Romans to help them in daily activities.  What was Jesus response to this?  Did He stand up against this oppression?  Did He tell His disciples to fight this oppression?  To the contrary, He instructed them to submit to it and to go bey0nd that which was required by law.  He told them that when ordered to carry a burden for a Roman for one mile (the maximum allowed by law), they were to carry it a second mile.

Poverty was common in Jesus’ day.  Did Jesus lift anyone out of poverty?  He obviously had the power to give every poor person financial assistance.  He miraculously turned water into wine (a marketable commodity) at a wedding.  He miraculously turned a few loaves and fish into food (a marketable commodity) for thousands.   He miraculously increased a catch of fish (a marketable commodity) for the disciples.  When He needed money for taxes, He miraculously had it taken from the mouth of a fish.  So, how many people did Jesus lift out of poverty?  None!

Does this mean the Jesus did not care about these issues?  Was He tacitly endorsing slavery, racism, etc.?  Absolutely not!  However, His purpose was to redeem the hearts of men.  His goal was to love people to the point where they recognized their sin and repented.  And He understood that IN DOING THAT, social issues would be resolved.  When someone comes to truly understand the love of Christ, repent of their sin, and become His follower, His love begins to flow out of them to others.

How can one show the love of Christ and “prefer others above themselves” and still own a slave?  How can one show the love of Christ while denigrating another because of their race?  How can one show the love of Christ and NOT have compassion on those who cannot provide for themselves.  And this is what Jesus understood…  The ONLY way to produce lasting change in societal issues is to touch the hearts of men with the transforming message of love and repentance.

It is also key to remember that THIS is the mission He gave to His followers.  He did not instruct them to throw off Roman oppression.  He did not tell them to free slaves.  He did not tell them to fight injustice.  To the contrary, He told them to EXPECT injustice.  But the task He gave them was to take His message of love and repentance to the world.  And ANYTHING the church does which ignores this primary task steps away from what it was commissioned to do.  Yes, the church has a responsibility to the poor.  Yes, the church has a responsibility to stand for moral righteousness.  There is nothing wrong with the church taking a stand to help the oppressed.  But it CANNOT let any of those things become more important that its’ primary responsibility to show Jesus message of love and repentance.  And, in fact, the BEST way it can address those issues is by showing the love of Christ and calling men to repentance.

So, is there a role for the body of Christ in the political arena?  Absolutely!  Jesus taught that we are to be “salt and light” in the world around us.  This means that, whatever our sphere of influence, we are to bring to Gospel of Jesus Christ to bear.  In the United States, we have the privilege and enormous responsibility to do that in the political arena.  However, there are some things we need to keep in mind:

1. NEVER step away from the primary mission.  If the choice to step into the political/social arena means surrendering our ability to share the Gospel, it cannot be of God.

2. Be very wary of political association.  Jesus warned His followers about being “unequally yoked” with those outside the faith.  This does not mean that a politician has to agree to our statement of faith for us to vote for them.  But, it does mean that we need to be very careful putting a public stamp of “Christian approved” on a candidate who does not follow the same Master we do.

3. Understand God’s design for living life in this world.  God has spoken, through His Word, about every aspect of life.  He has revealed His design for individuals, the family, the church, the community, and the government.  In that design, He defines clear accountability and responsibilities.  Anytime we take a responsibility God placed within one of those areas and try to move it to another, we invite problems because we are violating God’s design.

For example, God placed the responsibility for educating/training children within the family “sphere”.  Over time (in this country,) we have largely ceded that responsibility to the government.  And now we bemoan the state of the public schools.  We violated God’s design…why do we expect anything OTHER than problems?

So, when we vote, we should look for candidates who closely align their understanding of government with God’s design.  Does the candidate support giving the government responsibilities/authorities which are not part of God’s design for government?  Does the candidate understand the accountability government has to God as the source of its’ authority?  Our government was originally designed with this understanding built in.  The Preamble to the Constitution declares that all men “are endowed by their Creator certain unalienable rights.”  This was a statement by the Founding Fathers indicating they understood that government had limited authority because the authority it did have came from God and that God had NOT placed certain things under their authority.  They viewed the role of government as a PROTECTOR of those rights as defined by God, not the GRANTER of those rights.

4. Trace issues to Biblical principles.  Every political issue can be tied to at least one Biblical principle.  Once we understand the realms of authority as defined by God and identify the Biblical principle associated with an issue, deciding who to vote for becomes much more simple.  For example, we are all familiar with the 10 Commandments.  Let’s look at a few of these and how they relate to the political issues of today.

Honor your father and mother. — Is there a respect for the family authority structure?  The UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child is a minor hot-button today.   The left is pushing the current administration to ratify the treaty.  There are some good ideas in the treaty.  However, there is a significant undermining of parental authority embedded throughout.

Do not murder. — Is there an absolute respect for the sanctity of human life above all others?  God’s perspective is that He made humans in His own image and that He put within man an eternal soul.   Every human life is sacred.  God says that He knows each of us personally from the moment we are conceived and that He alone numbers our days and that the decision of life and death is His alone.  He delegates this authority ONLY for the purposes of self-defense, capital punishment (carried out justly), and “just” war.

Obviously, this speaks directly to the abortion, euthanasia, and assisted suicide.  But what about animal-rights issues?   God also placed all other forms of life subject to man on this earth.  God gave man the responsibility to “subdue” the earth.  That carries the responsibility to wisely use the resources of the earth to benefit man.  So, how do the “rights” of an owl or a tree frog supersede the ability of man to harvest natural resources?  Does this mean we should ravage our planet without regard?  No, we are given the responsibility to nurture our environment.  But is DOES establish the priorities if the two responsibilities are in conflict.

Do not commit adultery. — Respect the sanctity of marriage as defined by God.  This hits on SO many hot-button issues of the day.  It speaks to the sanctity of marriage.  It speaks to how we teach young people to approach sex. ‘Nuf said….

Do not steal. — Respect the private property of others.  God’s Word is very clear on the principle of hard work and living on what one has earned by the sweat of one’s own labor.  The admonition to “not steal” is a statement that God intends man to keep that for which he labors.   It is not to be taken for use by another individual, whether directly or through a third-party.

Do not lie. — Integrity.  Now we are stepping on toes…  Our society has become very comfortable with deception.  Whether it is a politician or an advertiser, we now expect the truth to be “manipulated.”  And it is not restricted to one party or another.  Speaking of politics, however, dishonesty should automatically disqualify a person from political office (IMHO.)  When a person is asking other people to give them power based on what they promise (i.e. the words they speak,) ANY deception automatically calls everything they have said into question.

Do not covet. — I firmly believe that an adherence to this mandate would put many politicians out of business.  They seem to garner all their support by encouraging people to envy what someone else has and then proposing to take money by force from another person to get it for them.  The Biblical principle is clear.  We are each to take our skill/effort/resources to the marketplace and negotiate the price of that labor.  Based on the price someone agrees to pay, we are to work.  The income we receive is to provide for our needs and we are to be content with that which God allows us to earn.

Yes, there are those in any society who are not ABLE to work to earn an income.  Thus, God gives a responsibility to the church and the individual (not to the government) to (voluntarily) give generously out of the provision they have earned to care for those who CANNOT work.

So, does the Bible support “social justice?”  Absolutely!  But, it also gives clear direction on how to achieve it.  Anything else is just socialism in sheep’s clothing.

4 Comments

The “Morality” of the Healthcare debate

by Kevin on Apr.01, 2010, under Politics, Worldview

So, Congress passed the Healthcare bill.  In one fell swoop, arguably the largest intrusion of the US government into personal freedom became law.  Now we will sit through numerous lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the bill and, depending on the makeup of the Supreme Court when the case finally gets there, the Constitution may yet be preserved against the latest socialist attack.  But, in the mean time, I have a few thoughts.

Before I get into the real “heavy” stuff, just a quick thought on liberal “logic.”  It occurs to me that a mainstay of the liberal argument for abortion “rights” for decades has been the mantra that the government has no business getting between a woman and her doctor.  Yet now, somehow, if it will increase the power of the politicians and make people more dependent on the government, they argue that the government should get between ALL of us and our doctor.  Hmmm…

Now on to more important thoughts…

I am getting sick of this notion that somehow Christian “morality” should align one in favor of the Healthcare bill.  This argument falls apart at many levels.

First, no where in God’s design for government is there any indication that this comes within their sphere of responsibility.  Scripture is pretty specific on the appropriate functions of government.

“But what about those poor people who can’t afford healthcare?  Don’t you care about them?  Doesn’t Jesus care about them?”

There is no question that the Bible teaches that there is an obligation to the poor.  Jesus expressed great compassion for the poor.  But Scripture clearly establishes that this responsibility belongs to the individual and the church.  But, no where does the Bible indicate that this responsibility belongs to the government.

Second, Biblical teaching on giving to care for the poor contains some essential truths that the “social gospel” proponents are intentionally ignoring.

  • “Alms” (the direct giving of charity) were reserved for those who COULD NOT provide for themselves.  The disabled, the orphans, etc. were given charity.  Those who were capable of working were expected to work for their living.  The Scriptural statement in both the Old and New Testaments is “If a man WOULD NOT work, neither should he eat.”  Interestingly enough, God’s instruction to Israel in the Old Testament provides an interesting insight into this.  As it was a largely agrarian society, the farmers were instructed not to over-harvest their crops.  There were to leave a little in the fields.  This was so that the needy who COULD work would have something to WORK with.  The needy still had to pick the crop.  They still had to process the grain, produce, etc.  They still had to sell/trade what they could to get the things they needed.  The only thing made available to them was leftover raw materials with which to WORK.
  • In EVERY Biblical example or teaching on giving to the poor and needy, giving is ALWAYS voluntary on the part of the giver.  It is never under mandate or coercion by any human authority.  We do not allow bank robbery as long as the robber distributes the proceeds to the poor.  We do not condone such behavior because of some “moral” virtue.  By the same token, government entitlement programs of ANY kind (including healthcare) do not carry “moral” virtue because the government does not earn money.  The only money the government can give away is that which it has seized at the point of a gun from someone who worked hard for it.

And one final thought…  When was the last time we saw legislation passed which assumed we were independent, intelligent humans, capable of leading our own lives?  Every piece of legislation supposedly designed to “help” us is really a statement of arrogance on the part of politicians declaring that we, “the great unwashed,” can’t take care of ourselves.  So, tonight as you go to bed, remember that your politicians are sitting in Washington, looking down on pitiful, stupid you, and just waiting to “help” you — just as long as you are willing to trade your freedom for the “help.”

3 Comments

Corporate “Ethics”

by Kevin on Feb.19, 2010, under Business World, Character, Ethics

I have recently been contemplating the notion of Corporate “Ethics”.  As the economy struggles and certain politicians seem to want to divert attention from their own culpability, the blame is directed at those “evil corporations” (which is another discussion entirely.)  In response, we are flooded with companies trying to convince us all that they are acting “ethically,” or that they hold such traits as “integrity” in high regard.

From the inside, as a follower of Christ in the corporate arena, I have observed this phenomenon from a different perspective.  And it goes beyond just an abstract observation because it brings with it a potential temptation to compromise.  Of course, I will generalize based on my observations, but from talking to colleagues in other companies and friends in various industries, I think my points have general validity.

1. “Ethics” and “integrity” do not always have the same meaning outside of a Christian worldview.  Yes, they may sometimes be based on the same basic Judeo-Christian concepts, but they have come to hold very different meanings.  In an organization that supposedly values “integrity”, I have seen horrified reactions from those touting “integrity” when someone actually acted with true integrity.

2. As with pretty much everything within the corporate context, “ethics” and “integrity” have a financial component to how they are defined and/or executed.  They exist within a construct which evaluates the potential for a given action to impact the financial bottom-line of the company.  If an un-ethical action could impact the finances of the company, either directly or by damage to the reputation of the company, it is considered a serious issue.  If not, no one really cares.  If the issue is deemed serious, but addressing the issue would be costly, either financially or in impact to the organization,  it is ignored.

For example, an executive lying to customers, employees, colleagues, etc. is only considered a breach of ethics if it has the potential to bring financial harm to the company.  As long as the lies are “insignificant” or can be covered in some manner so the company is not financially harmed, there is no problem.

If an executive is caught in a compromising situation but it is felt that the individual is so valuable to the organization that corrective action would be detrimental to the company as a whole, a determination is made as to whether or not the risk to the organization is great enough to offset the potential “pain.”

3. Management techniques and business processes can actually codify un-ethical behavior, either as designed or as implemented.  Often, a manager’s desire to not be seen in a negative light will create situations that are obviously un-ethical.   I have observed Quality Assurance organizations where it was an enforced process that critical defects NOT be reported in certain situations so management did not have to deal with the customers about the issue.

One of my favorites, however, is the concept of “managing up.”  In theory, “managing up” encapsulates to notion of making sure that one is in sync with their direct manager, both in understanding what they want and in making sure they are aware of and in agreement with what the individual is doing.  In reality, this is usually implemented as a process to filter any information management receives so they only get information that puts the individual in the best possible light.  Or it is used to limit the information given to management so they make a decision desirable to the individual even though it may not be the best for the company, instead of giving them all the facts to make the best decision.

I know of one employee who was reprimanded for complying with a direct request from the CIO of a company to send him a specific document.  The VP of the group actually believed that the employee should have ignored the request because the VP might not want the CIO to have some part of that information.  This VP (as well as the SVP) was so paranoid that if an employee in the group was seen talking to another executive, they were called in to report on exactly what was said.  This executive also published a department policy forbidding anyone in the group to email any other executive in the company, even if it was in response to a specific request.  All of this was under the guise of “managing up”.

4. “Ethics” in the corporate world is a concept of individual actions, not personal character.  From a Christian worldview, we understand that a lack of integrity is a matter of the core character of the individual.  In the corporate sense, a demonstrated lack of integrity in an area of life not involving the company business is ignored.  There is no connection to the core character of the person.  The corporate concept of integrity does not equate a person’s willingness to cheat on his spouse with a deficit of basic character in the area of honesty.

5. For a follower of Christ working in the corporate world, there is an unrelenting temptation to adopt the corporate version of “ethics” instead of holding to the Biblical standard of character.  Unfortunately, I have seen too many “Christians” in the corporate world decide to “play the game” and begin to compromise their integrity.  They get caught up in the fallacy that there is a “secular” world and a “sacred” world.  They begin to forget that we are called to be ambassadors of Christ in ALL things and that we bear His Name, even as we walk the halls of the corporate world.

Leave a Comment

The Cult of Self-Esteem

by Kevin on Feb.08, 2010, under Popular Media, Self-Esteem

I must confess that I am a fairly consistent viewer of American Idol.  I don’t usually vote, but I do tend to pick a favorite (or two) and keep up with how they do.  My biggest curiosity every season is the inevitable battle between the better singer/musician and the better performer.  It is rare that one contestant is both the best singer/musician and the best performer.   Last season was a classic example.  Lambert was by far the better performer/entertainer, but Kris Allen was a far better singer/musician.

Now that the confession is out of the way, I’ll get to the point.  I am one of those who LOVES the preliminary rounds as the masses get their reality checks that they are NOT of sufficient caliber to advance.  Yes, there are things I don’t like about it.  (I personally don’t understand why a show about musical talent insists on showing us the nutcases who only come for the attention, and by putting them on TV, only guarantee that more nutcases will turn out next season.)

But there is one thing that really jumps on my last nerve.  Every year, there is a parade of people who are convinced that they are going to make it just because it is their “dream” and they “believe in themselves”.  The fact that most of them are old enough to have figured out the fallacy of that notion is beside the point, and speaks to other issues.  But there they are, and to make it worse, they are surrounded by family and friends who, in the face of what should have been a really strong CLUE to the contrary, continue to bolster this absurd notion.

If you pay attention to the media, this is now a consistent mantra aimed at all ages, but primarily focused on young people.  Much of the educational focus in the country now centers on building the “self-esteem” of the child at the expense of pretty much everything else.  Even advertising is now driving this point with startling regularity.

Now, from a Christian worldview, this is pretty obviously identifiable as the foundational precept of secular humanism; that man is sufficient within himself and only needs to access his innate power to achieve his goals.  But even with in the “secular” realm, how does one continue to endorse and propagate a notion that is repeatedly and firmly disproven on a daily basis?  AI is just one very visible micro-laboratory in a world that repeatedly abuses such a notion in real life.

I guess it just amazes me that the very people who so avidly watch the show are the ones who can’t seem to grasp the basic lessons:

1. A “dream” and “believing in yourself” do not equal talent.  Even long-term, strenuous effort will not enable someone who is not “musically-inclined” (or, as some might term “tone-deaf”) to become a top-level vocalist.  It is just not going to happen…

2. Especially in an endeavor as subjective as the entertainment industry, even someone with a modicum of talent can invest massive amounts of training and preparation and STILL not “make it” to the top of that profession.  There are MANY very talented and hard-working musicians who will toil in obscurity just because they were never “noticed” by the right person.

3. When reality slaps you in the face on national television and says it ain’t gonna happen, try to catch on.  Being thirty years old and back to try again for the ninth time says alot more about you than the fact that you can’t carry a tune, and it is NOT a positive message.

A final note to the parents of children…  It is a good thing to encourage your child to dream, even to dream BIG dreams, and to support them in their pursuit of those dreams.  But it is also your job to be a reality check, especially when there is concrete evidence that they do not possess the basic skills necessary.  Failing to do so is a dis-service to your child and only prolongs the pain.  At some point, hopefully your child will be smart enough to realize the fallacy of the “cult of self-esteem” and they are going to have alot of questions as to why you kept lying to them.

Leave a Comment