hmm...thinking about politics today. i saw bill clinton's speech last night, and i have to say that the guy knows how to work a crowd and inspire one to work to change the world through the democratic party. there's this dilemma i find myself in regarding the extent to which christians should be engaged in the political process. on one hand, i believe that my primary allegiance should be to the kingdom of God, and not to america. really, i think it's the role of the church to meet the needs of families and the poor. but the church hasn't been able to fully do that. in the meantime, i essentially work for the government, and have worked for government-funded programs my entire career so far. and, quite frankly, my families can't wait around for the church to meet all of their needs. my kids need medical care and food, and my families need efficient, affordable access to counseling, parenting classes, offender treatment, etc. i have a lot of relative caregivers who want to care for the children in their family, but can't because they can't afford to. i have kids who are stuck in limbo, going from one place to another because housing assistance has a wait of over a year. that's too long for my families. honestly, i want a government that is going to try to do something about it. this is a big issue and i'm not trying to address all of the sides today. i just have a hard time seeing kingdom-ideals manifested in the real world sometimes... talk back to me!
posted by amy @ 7/27/2004 12:49:00 PM
7 comments
7 Comments:
somehing about this whole idea we've been going over just seems too detached from reality to even debate about. maybe i'm just overwhelmed by the lack of action that the church has taken. but, really. can we really say that the church should undo all of the injustice in the world.
maybe so. but it seems farfethed, unrealistic, and unpractical.
I think it might take the whole church, not just a fragment. Amalgamation.
-fez
I miss having you around, Amy! I can't wait to be in Columbus and near you...you make me think, and you make me glad that I am changing careers (having been reminded by your essay about all those things I thought I left behind)! You are right, though, about the dichotomy in your life. You, of all people will work it out! See you soon. Kate
Sorry if I'm out of place here. I'm just a friend of your brother's who reads your page and found this interesting enough to comment on.
I've struggled a bit with the question myself, but I see myself as not having lived long enough to properly answer it. Was the church more giving before Roosevelt's New Deal? Did the govenment solve a legitimate problem, or create a bigger one in the process? I don't know... I wasn't there.
After showing Francis of Assisi the riches amassed by the Church, Pope Innocent III said: "You see, the Church can no longer say: 'Gold and silver have I none'" [Acts 3:6]
To what Francis replied: "True, and neither can she any longer say: '...rise and walk.'" [Acts 3:6]
Do we lose more of our power the more we give it away?
Four responses. :)
1)
>>my kids need medical care and food, and my families need efficient, affordable access to counseling, parenting classes, offender treatment, etc.<<
There are two levels of need here: "medical care and food," which are pretty clear cut, and "counseling, parenting classes, offender treatment, etc.," which are needs in an ideologically bound way. I'm pretty sure that some parenting classes are worse than no parenting classes at all, you know? And actually, now that I'm thinking about it, "medical care" is also ideologically bound in some senses, because "adequate medical care" is a slippery concept. One person's adequacy is another person's excess. Which is to say: I'm not impressed by the candidate who wants to provide for everyone's needs. I'm interested in the candidate who says, "Listen. I want to introduce parenting classes, and this is what I mean by that, and this is why I think it is a good idea for the government to be in that business." (Or I could be interested in the candidate who says, "The government should not be in this business, and this is why, and this is how that need will be met, even without us." Or possibly: "The government, by trying to meet this need, is actually hindering the efforts of people who could meet the need more effectively and quickly; we need to eliminate some bureaucracy and get out of the way, and this is how that will work.") What I want on these issues are specifics, never vague generalities about helping people, which are boilerplate political posturing in most cases.
2)
My main question about this post is: why do you imagine any human government would be able to fully care for everyone? The political argument gets cast as an argument between helping the needy and not helping the needy, but that seems to me a misrepresentation from whichever side uses it, at least in contemporoary American politics. Both major parties and all the mainstream minor parties believe that their ways of approaching governance and social programs will result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
3)
Relatedly, historically, people who makes claims about using political force to "help" absolutely everyone, have ended up not doing so. Not ever, not once. And too often the main legacy of big-idealism has been the killing of massive numbers of people (see 20th century communistic and fascistic regimes). That is to say: there is no perfect government; this is earth, earth is fallen, and humanity won't be designing a utopia. So: your families may not be able to wait around for the church to meet their needs, but the government won't be bringing about a perfect world, either.
4)
Do you imagine helping people as primarily a process of giving them things you think they should have? Or in some cases would you agree that people should be responsible for taking care of themselves? I ask this while acknowledging that people often need a leg up to get out from where they're stuck.
Four vaguely related half-thoughts. You asked for talk-back. :)
And an add on: the institional church can do some things, the government can do some things, and we ought to use them both as tools; inasmuch as they are useful and good, we should tend to them, improve them, work on and with them; but they ought to make us nervous, too, because they are human contrivances.
Should be asleep,
Fred
you should blog more so i know what you're thinking.
this whole engagement thing still leaves me in the dark.
i have a short answer to this question, should christians be involved in politics? my answer is, if you so feel the calling of god to be involved in politics then yes you should be involved.
after all amy, the very job which work is a gov't funded project that is very much a part of the whole world of politics.
on another note, if christian voices are not heard in the world of politics, the chances for degredation of love as we know it stands to suffer greatly.
Post a Comment
<< Home