Church's role versus Government role

greenspun.com : LUSENET : The Christian Church : One Thread

I made an observation recently (actually again, recently), and yet no one can explain what seems to be contradictory positions.

A lot of politically conservative Christians would have the government abandon roles in helping society, yet they do not support their church or some parachurch organization in an effort to take over those functions. I am talking things where it is hard to imagine them being addressed in any way except by the government or by networks of churches.

Case in point: they support efforts for the government getting out of the business of helping the poor, give lip service to "faith-based" solutions, but do nothing to see that their faith is a part of the solution. Specifically, they might lobby their local government to not put up a city sponsored shelter, and then also oppose their church housing homeless families one night per week.

What do these people think the solutions are? If it isn't the government, and it isn't the church, then who will care?

-- Anonymous, January 10, 2000

Answers

(James 1:27 KJV) "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."

IMO the problem will never be solved: (Mat 26:11 KJV) "For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always."

It'll take Jesus sitting on the throne of David for these problems to be dealt with. Babylon does not care for people. Money is its god and money is its love. It is a merciless System.

(Luke 1:32 KJV) "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:"

(Luke 1:33 KJV) "And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end."

(Rev 22:20 KJV) "He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus."

(Rev 22:21 KJV) "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."

-- Anonymous, January 11, 2000


We had this sam discussion in my Sunday School Class recently. In fact, it was brought to my attention by a non Christian friend of mine about 3 years ago who said she thought it hypocritical of Christians to be pro life and anti welfare. We want women to keep their babies but on the whole don't help with providing options for them to meet the financial requirements. It got me thinking. We SHOULD be the cutting edge of social change. We SHOULD be modelling a system that is the envy of religions and governments everywhere. And some places are doing their part. Perhaps if we each tried to make a difference in just one area and networked with other congregations for additional ministries we could begin to make a dent. I better stop before I start to ramble. Oops, too late! I'd love to hear some things that Churches are doing in the area of Social Change. Also note the address change. My provider bit the dust in the new year so we moved to juno.

-- Anonymous, January 11, 2000

Sam,

You address an example I almost included. About 18 months ago, I had to chastise my brother (biological and spiritual) when he told me about his support for those blocking abortion clinics, but when I asked, I found out he hadn't contributed a dime of his resources to pregnancy crisis centers or the like. If you are going to oppose someone doing something, you have a responsibility to seeing that there is a reasonable alternative.

Now in my brother's case, he was simply being ignorant, and now understands my philosophy of making sure there are alternate roads if you are going to close one down.

-- Anonymous, January 11, 2000


I know this answer is just off the top of my head, but I wanted to add my two cents. History is important here. The modern charity/welfare reforms that we enjoy now, as I recall, are a result of the revivals at the turn of the last century (1800s). Orphanages, hospitals, soup kitches, etc, were created by the churches and individual Christians out of the overflowing of love and concern for their fellow man put there by the Holy Spirit. The members of churches had tender hearts. The government didn't have to tell anyone to do anything, they did it because of their devotion to Christ. One thing I think the welfare/charity debate shows is the sad condition of compassion in the American churches. Unfortunately, the collective "we" of American Christianity is just as materialistic, selfish and greedy as everyone else.

And Mark, you hit it right on target: never suggest a "don't" without suggesting an alternate "do"!

-- Anonymous, January 11, 2000


Mark,

Another good, thought provoking question. I can personally be counted among those conservative Christians who feel that the government has no mandate or instruction from God to carry out the social programs that exist today. The government sticks its nose into too many places that it doesn't belong. I cite Romans 13:1-6 for this position I hold. That passage basically says that government exists because of God's authorization and the function He has given government is maintaining order, period. I know of no other passage in the Bible that tells government to provide welfare and relief programs.

That being said, please let it not be said that I am without compassion - many have needs to be met, the question is who is responsible to meet them. The posters on this thread have already brought up some very good points. Yes, the Bible says the poor will always be with us, but that is not God's fault nor is it the government's fault or responsibility. It is the result of man's inhumanity toward man - something that will (unfortunately) continue to exist until Christ returns to make things right once more.

The abortion issue that has been brought up was the first thing that came to me when I read the original post. Mark and Dr. Dewey's remarks about not suggesting "don'ts" without suggesting a corresponding "do" is very wise advice. Nothing can exist in a vacuum (except dust bunnies). If we create a vacuum by eliminating something, then something WILL come in to replace it and I feel that we, as part of the human race and especially as Christians, should take steps to make sure the the vacuum is filled with something that is proper.

If we preach Pro-Life (which we should), then we had best be prepared to find homes for those children - either by supporting adoption programs or by adopting them ourselves! I know of some on this Forum that have opened their home up in such a way - God Bless Them For It! I find it interesting that the Early Christians were known by their willingness to go outside the cities' walls and take in the children that had been left there to die of Exposure, yet what are we doing today? It would appear that, over time, too much of the world's selfish attitudes have infiltrated the Church and we as leaders & preachers have not done a good enough job at sounding the warning.

We of the church must take an active part in helping and shaping the society we co-exist with. But we must be very careful not to end up creating a system like the one our legislators have punished us with. As we try to help meet the needs of others, we must not forget the over-riding mission of the Church - bringing people to Christ. Every effort we make must be weighed against that mission, and either implemented or rejected on that basis. Feeding a belly, while leaving the soul unquenched, does not meet that person's most important need - "for what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?" (Mark 8:36).

The Bible does, however, give us some clues about helping others that we can use as guidelines. The Old Testament law forbade Jews to harvest the corners of their fields (Lev.19:9-10). Those were reserved for the needy who could then come in and glean what they needed. That process not only met the needs of the hungry but was also a witness of the love and care of God who established that law.

I reality, this is a question that has no definitive answer. A lot of things have been done, and many more need to be done. All we can do is proceed in the love of Christ and weigh all that we do with the scriptures and praise God for any an all victories that come of our efforts.

-- Anonymous, January 12, 2000



Mark W.'s (the other one, not me) comment on Lev 19 reminded of an event in my life that opened my eyes a bit on both Biblical interpretation to our culture, and to possible governmental roles in helping the poor.

Six plus years ago, I had the privilege to live in Sweden for three months. The contrast in some of the laws between the U.S. and Sweden was startling at times. Sure, I was aware that guns were outlawed (and as such, nearly got run down by their overly abundant deer and rabbit population, but that 's not the point) and other sharp contrasts, but the laws that pertained to the poor were startlingly different, and actually quite biblical, more so than in the U.S.:

1) Trespassing laws were different. Anyone could be on your land as long as they kept a minimal distance from your house, 50 meters sounds right. Now the time spent on your land was restricted, but anyone could camp on your land for a night.

2) Farm laws. If you were growing any sort of food on your land, anyone could harvest what they could eat in a day. So if you had an apple tree more than 50 meters from your house, anyone could eat off of it.

3) Vagrancy (sp?) laws -- I remember seeing a group of homeless men camping out within view of a light rail station. I was aware of the one night rule at the time, but clearly these men were there for more than one night. I don't know the exact nature of the laws, but I asked and apparently they were on public land, and the laws were such that they weren't violating them by staying there. In fact, when I asked a Swede why they can camp there so long, I got a puzzled look and was told "they have to sleep somewhere".

While it may not be the government's role to help the poor through welfare (I am not going to debate that one today), the government is involved with the poor whether we like it or not. For example, decades ago, New York City used to have lots of (relatively) cheap housing, basically rooms with maybe a sink and shared bathrooms and kitchens. Then the city government over time increased housing standards, so then new housing construction must have a full toilet and certain other amenities in each unit. Costs went up, and with it the minimum salary it took to afford an apartment, or you did without other things. That is one example of laws and restrictions that have driven housing costs up, and now in nearly every urban area in the U.S., affordable housing is an issue.

One way or the other, the government impacts the poor, whether it is to help them through job-training or the like, or it is to negatively impact them through restrictions to where the homeless can sleep or standards that raise prices.

-- Anonymous, January 12, 2000


Mark,

You kinda made my point with the New York City illustration. Whenever government sticks its nose in - bad things tend to happen.

In reality, the government will probably always play a part in such reforms & programs, but the question is, according to Biblical standards, should it?

Job-training can be carried out in ways other than Government give-aways. This I know because I am currently doing just that. I may be launching rockets for a living right now, but due to the efforts and encouragement of my church and certain contributors to this Forum (and No-Thanks to Uncle Sam), I'm being re-trained for the work of launching souls toward heaven - a much more important goal, I think.

I guess I just always feel much more comfortable under the Government of God than I do with that of man.

-- Anonymous, January 12, 2000


Some Quotes I found on the Internet. Lest we ever forget!

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions but on the gospel of Jesus Christ." - Patrick Henry

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible. Do not ever let anyone claim to be a true American patriot if they ever attempt to separate Religion from politics." - George Washington

"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever." - President Thomas Jefferson

"We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions ubridled by morality and religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." - John Adams, address to the militia of Massachusetts, 1798.

"The highest story of the American Revolution is this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." - President John Adams

"I have been driven many times to my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had absolutely no other place to go." - Abraham Lincoln

"The only assurance of our nation's safety is to lay our foundation in morality and religion." - Abraham Lincoln

"We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of heaven; we have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity; we have grown in numbers, wealth, and power as no other nation has ever grown.

"But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us, and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these things were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own.

"Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us." - Abraham Lincoln

"Every thinking man, when he thinks, realizes that the teachings of the Bible are so interwoven and entwined with our whole civic and social life that it would be literally-I do not mean figuratively, but literally- impossible for us to figure what that loss would be if these teachings were removed. We would lose all the standards by which we now judge both public and private morals; all the standards towards which we, with more or less resolution, strive to raise ourselves." - President Theodore Roosevelt

"The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country." - President Calvin Coolidge

"America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scriptures. Ladies and gentlemen, I have a very simple thing to ask of you. I as of every man and woman in this audience that from this night on they will realize that part of the destiny of America lies in their daily perusal of this great book of revelations. That if they would see America free and pure they will make their own spirits free and pure by this baptism of the Holy Scripture." - Woodrow Wilson, 1911, pre-Presidential campaign speech.

"The fundamental basis of this nation's law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teaching we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in the right for anybody except the state." - President Harry S. Truman.

"History fails to record a single precedent in which nations subject to moral decay have not passed into political and economic decline. There has been either a spiritual awakening to overcome the moral lapse, or a progressive deterioration to ultimate national disaster" - General Douglas MacArthur

"Without God there is not virtue because there is no prompting of the conscience without God there is a coarsening of the society; without God democracy will not and cannot long endure. If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a Nation gone under." - President Ronald Reagan

"The morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of other religions. In people whose manners are refined, and whose morals have been elevated and inspired with a more enlarged benevolence, it is by means of the Christian religion." - United States Supreme Court, 1811

"Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament be read and taught as a divine revelation in the school? Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament?" - United States Supreme Court, 1844

-- Anonymous, January 15, 2000


The historic quotes reminded me of a forum held near here on Clinton's legacy. Ironies abound in the results of that evaluation. Several topics were addressed, but the most ironic topic was Clinton's impact on religion and government roles. As reported in a Sunday public forum section of the Raleigh paper (News and Observer), there is one legacy and one big irony given Clinton's escapades The Legacy: The Duke forum determined that Bill Clinton has done more to blur the line between church and state than any other President. The irony: Clinton is the only President known to begin each Cabinet meeting with a prayer. The article addressing Clinton and Religion (http://search.news-observer.com/plweb-cgi/fastweb?getdoc+nao_public_archive+nao_99+1113711+5++%28Clinton%20Religion%29%3AText) Headline: Bill Clinton: How has he put his signature on the Constitution? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Summary: The Constitution has withstood many tests over time, but nothing puts its principles more to the test than the actions and decisions made by presidents. That was the topic for three days last week as past and present government officials, legal s Byline: ROB CHRISTENSEN Source: STAFF WRITER Text: Here's a riddle: How could Bill Clinton be both the nation's sinner-in-chief and a president who presided over one of the most religion-friendly administrations in American history?

Could the man who dallied with a 21-year-old White House intern be the same person Time magazine called the most pastored president ever? How does Monica Lewinsky fit with White House prayer breakfasts?

It's perhaps a subject more appropriate for a panel of psychiatrists than the group of constitutional scholars who gathered last weekend at the Washington Duke Inn in Durham.

In the scholars' view, the Clinton era - and its contradictions - have helped push constitutional law in directions that might not seem obvious.

The Clinton administration has made the law more friendly toward religious practices in public places but less friendly to those who believe strongly in the strict separation of church and state. It is now easier to sue for sexual harassment, but businesses, schools and universities are more legally liable for boorish behavior that goes on within their walls.

Clinton, a Yale-educated lawyer, has resisted politically popular movements to amend the Constitution so as to allow group prayer in the public schools, to criminalize flag burning or to require a balanced federal budget.

"We have been through an era in which we might have fallen into a process of casual amendment of the Constitution," said Walter Dellinger, a Duke University law professor who served as a top lawyer in the Clinton administration.

"In most respects," Dellinger said, "President Clinton took a moderate approach on constitutional rights. ..."

Presidents can have an important influence on how constitutional law evolves. Administrations interpret the Constitution when enforcing the nation's laws. They help set the agenda for Congress. They set federal policies. And their Justice Department lawyers argue the law before the courts.

Few constitutional questions have stirred up more dust than the Establishment Clause on religion. The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." But scholars, politicians and the courts have argued for years over exactly what that means. Does the Constitution, for example, permit organized prayer in the school classroom or religious-oriented Christmas pageants?

One of Clinton's legacies, according to several constitutional experts, has been to move the power of the federal government more in the direction of allowing religious practices in public settings.

"There has been no more religion-friendly era than the Clinton era," said Marci A. Hamilton, a law professor at Yeshiva University. "It has been an era where more has been done for religion and with religion and fostering religion than any other era in history."

Clinton begins Cabinet meetings with prayer, frequently attends prayer breakfasts and has invited ministers regularly to the White House. One of Clinton's guiding lights on the issue has been Stephen Carter's book, "The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion." Carter's book, which so impressed Clinton that he is pictured holding it in his official Yale University portrait, argues that we have constructed a political and legal culture that forces the religiously devout to act as if faith doesn't really matter.

Nearly every time there has been a public-policy question pitting those who advocate more extensive government support for religion versus those who want to maintain a strict separation between church and state, Clinton has opted for more religion in public life.

He has championed the Coalition for the Free Expression of Religion, an ecumenical political coalition of 30 mainly religious groups, and put the weight of his administration behind their proposals.

He backed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which passed Congress only to be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. The law was designed to encourage the free exercise of religion in public schools and the federal workplace.

The administration is also supporting the Religious Liberty Protection Act, which passed the House in July and is pending before the Senate. That bill would prohibit state and local governments from placing "a substantial burden" on a person's exercise of religion unless officials can demonstrate a compelling reason to do so. Supporters say the legislation would prevent such things as local communities using zoning ordinances from keeping churches out of neighborhoods or preventing Jewish students from wearing skullcaps in schools.

###

A softened image:

While Clinton has politically cozied up with the centrist Coalition for the Free Expression of Religion, he has continued to keep an arm's length from the religious right. He has opposed reinstating group prayer in the public schools or making abortions illegal. And his administration cut off the tax-exempt status of the Christian Coalition, the Virginia-based conservative group that has strongly opposed Clinton.

Skeptics no doubt will see Clinton's strong support for religion as a political cover for a kinky, scandal-ridden personal life. But whatever Clinton's degree of sincerity, his actions have probably helped soften his image.

"The tone that has been set by the Clinton administration has proved that you can engage in all sorts of immoral and inappropriate behavior," said Hamilton, "[but] if you resort to God you can be the Teflon president."

Casting a large shadow over the Clinton legacy, of course, was Congress' impeachment and acquittal of the president for his role in the Monica Lewinsky affair. Clinton provided the first test of the impeachment process since the Radical Republicans came within one vote of ousting Raleigh native Andrew Johnson in 1868.

The Framers of the Constitution made impeachment very difficult. Section Four of the Constitution says the president "shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." And the Constitution sets a high bar for conviction, requiring a two-thirds vote of the Senate.

Judging how well the constitutional system worked during the impeachment crisis depends on one's politics.

For Clinton supporters, the system worked well enough to keep the president from being drummed out of office - but not well enough to prevent the excesses of an out-of-control independent prosecutor, a sensation-seeking news media and rabidly partisan House Republicans bent on reversing the results of the 1996 presidential election.

Susan L. Bloch, a law professor at Georgetown University, argues that nearly every action of the GOP House was wrong - from its failure to call witnesses and its decision not to do any independent fact-finding to its unwillingness to consider remedies short of impeachment. But the central error was seeking to impeach a president for personal behavior - and for lying about it in a deposition. Bloch said that does not fit the constitutional definition of high crime and misdemeanor.

"Impeachment is like a nuclear weapon," Bloch said. "It should be unleashed only for the most grievous wrongs."

But Clinton agnostics argue that the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" does not mean simply transgressions related to public office. It also means that the president is subject to the rule of law and that private conduct can have an important effect on a president's ability to effectively govern.

Neil Kinkopf, a law professor at Georgia State University, said Clinton's behavior was "very harmful to the public." What if Clinton's weakened condition encouraged America's enemies abroad? And to what extent has trust in Clinton been diluted?

"Now when the president deploys the troops, there is the question of whether he is wagging the dog," Kinkopf said, referring to a recent movie in which a president launches a fictional war as a way to divert attention from his own scandals.

Lash Larue, a Virginia attorney who has written about the Constitution, said narrow legalistic arguments about whether the president committed perjury under oath miss the larger picture.

"Impeachment and trial in the Senate is the process by which we determine whether the president of the United States has measured up to the standards of conduct the American people are reasonably entitled to expect of him," Larue said.

###

The bar on impeachment:

There was little consensus among the legal scholars about how the impeachment will help shape future administrations. Some assert that the House's impeachment has lowered the bar and made the impeachment of future presidents more likely. But there is the contrary argument that the Senate acquittal will give future Congresses pause before they try to impeach another chief executive.

Congress has already delivered one verdict. Tired of Washington's investigative culture, Congress did not renew the law setting up the independent counsel's office.

The political fallout from the Clinton impeachment may not be known until after the 2000 elections. Although Clinton will not be on the ballot, the Lewinsky scandal and the impeachment process could influence voters when they elect a president and members of Congress.

"If a Republican is elected [president] in the next cycle it will be hard to argue that the impeachment was a failure," said Michael J. Gerhardt, a law professor at William & Mary College.

One irony of the scandal is that the Clinton administration may have laid the legal groundwork for the president's own impeachment.

On several issues, the Clinton administration has weighed in on the side of victims of sexual harassment, even if it erodes the First Amendment guarantees that Congress shall pass no law "abridging the freedom of speech," according to Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University and legal affairs editor of The New Republic magazine.

"Both in the legal positions his administration has championed and in the constitutional drama that he precipitated," Rosen said, "Clinton more than any other president has both expanded and illuminated tensions between privacy, harassment law and free speech."

In one of those instances, Clinton helped persuade Congress to include a provision in the 1994 crime bill changing the rules of evidence. The measure reversed the traditional prohibition on the consideration of instances of bad character in cases involving sexual assault and child molestation.

In 1997, attorneys for Paula Jones, the Arkansas state employee who was suing Clinton for sexual assault, amended their complaint. Citing the new federal rules, they asked Judge Susan Webber Wright to force Clinton to name other women he had propositioned in order to establish a pattern of sexual harassment.

Wright agreed, and that eventually led to questions of Clinton's past consensual sexual activity, which led prosecutors to Monica Lewinsky.

"The rest," Rosen said, "is constitutional history."

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2000


Moderation questions? read the FAQ