Book about Evangelicals and Politics

[JSojourner]

I want to wholeheartedly commend a fairly new book about the phenomenon of the religious right and politics.

It's called "Thy Kingdom Come" and it's authored by Dr. Randall Balmer.  Balmer is, himself, an Evangelical.  But he writes the book as a lament over what Evangelicalism has become. I could have written it myself, for I was raised in the fundamentalist-evangelical wing of Christianity and theologically trained at Moody Bible Institute in Chicago.  Balmer's lament is my own.

It may be the most important book for thinking Christians engaged in politics since Jim Wallis's tome, "The Soul of Politics".

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I read some time ago an article by Balmer: http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i42/42b00601.htm

I summarize his argument as the following:
1)  The leaders of the Religious Right are hypocrites; therefore, their policies must be wrong.
2)  True Christians practice Christianity by proxy (using government as Robinhood to forcefully take from the rich in order to support the poor).

[Bono]

As an antidote to that, I recomend Gary North's classic An Introduction To Christian Economics.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

As an antidote to that, I recomend Gary North's classic An Introduction To Christian Economics.

yeah, I wonder what Balmer thinks of the following:

2Thes 3:10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."

1Tim 5:8-10 If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.  No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband, and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the saints, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds.

Balmer probably considers Paul the antiChrist.

[tik 🪀✨]

I read some time ago an article by Balmer: http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i42/42b00601.htm

I summarize his argument as the following:
1)  The leaders of the Religious Right are hypocrites; therefore, their policies must be wrong.
2)  True Christians practice Christianity by proxy (using government as Robinhood to forcefully take from the rich in order to support the poor).

How about.. the efficacy for integrity of the evangelical movement is greatly reduced when it is tied to the state?

Oh, and pluralism and tolerance are rather nice too.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I read some time ago an article by Balmer: http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i42/42b00601.htm

I summarize his argument as the following:
1)  The leaders of the Religious Right are hypocrites; therefore, their policies must be wrong.
2)  True Christians practice Christianity by proxy (using government as Robinhood to forcefully take from the rich in order to support the poor).

How about.. the efficacy for integrity of the evangelical movement is greatly reduced when it is tied to the state?

but Balmer is NOT arguing for Christians to remove themselves from politics, rather he is pushing his own political preferences and couching them in his own religious philosophy.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

2)  True Christians practice Christianity by proxy (using government as Robinhood to forcefully take from the rich in order to support the poor).

Mark 10:24-25: It is easier for a camel to pass through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

So, you're saying we should tax the rich more because they are going to hell?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

2)  True Christians practice Christianity by proxy (using government as Robinhood to forcefully take from the rich in order to support the poor).

Mark 10:24-25: It is easier for a camel to pass through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

So, you're saying we should tax the rich more because they are going to hell?

That quote has as much biblical validity as the one you previously posted (2Thes 3:10), so why do you focus so much on the latter than the former. What do you think Mark 10:24-25 means, and what should be done about it?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

2)  True Christians practice Christianity by proxy (using government as Robinhood to forcefully take from the rich in order to support the poor).

Mark 10:24-25: It is easier for a camel to pass through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

So, you're saying we should tax the rich more because they are going to hell?

What do you think Mark 10:24-25 means

First, foremost, and last...Jesus Christ was asking the rich young man to voluntarily sell all his possession and give the money to the poor because the man's focus was in the wrong place. 

1) Taxation does NOT equate to voluntary giving. 
2) Jesus Christ did not forcefully take from the rich man.
3) Jesus Christ did not ask other members of the Church to forecfully take from the rich man.
4) Jesus Christ did not ask other members of the Church to sell all of their own possessions.

---

, and what should be done about it?

What should be done is to follow Jesus’ command:  if I (first person, not third) am focused on my worldly possessions, I need to sell them giving the money to the poor.

---

That quote has as much biblical validity as the one you previously posted (2Thes 3:10), so why do you focus so much on the latter than the former.

How am I focusing more on 2Thes 3:10 than on Mark 10:24-25?

One verse means that Christians are not to feed those able but unwilling to work.  One verse means that it is better to sell off your possessions if they are a hindrance to your walk with God.

[JSojourner]

I read some time ago an article by Balmer: http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i42/42b00601.htm

I summarize his argument as the following:
1)  The leaders of the Religious Right are hypocrites; therefore, their policies must be wrong.
2)  True Christians practice Christianity by proxy (using government as Robinhood to forcefully take from the rich in order to support the poor).

An interesting article, but it misses the mark and misconstrues Balmer's argument.  Balmer, citing a litany of Evangelical Christian historians like the brilliant Dr. Mark Noll, points to Evangelicalism's obsession with abortion and homosexuality as being on, at best, flimsy Biblical ground. 

Interestingly, he doesn't come at this like a liberal Christian.  The Jack Spong school of theology is that nothing in the Bible can be trusted, so one can never derive any ultimate authority or guiding principle from its pages.

Balmer posits that it is precisely because the Bible IS authoritative and inspired, that Evangelicals (many, though not all) have it wrong.  He insists, and rightly, that the Scriptures are crammed with calls for social justice (everything from racial tolerance to economic equality to environmental stewardship to nonviolence) -- but virtually bereft of any passage that can be directly applied to abortion.  (Aside from one section of the OT law that actually indicates a vast difference in the value of the life of a woman and the life of a fetus.  In short, "kill the woman...forfeit your life.  Kill the fetus, pay a fine.") And on matters of human sexuality, Balmer again takes his beloved Evangelical community to the woodshed....not disagreeing necessarily with St. Paul in opposing gay sex...but wondering aloud why Jesus never mentioned it, why Ezekiel insists Sodom was destroyed because of arrogance, gluttony and greed and why -- most particularly -- the Evangelical right does not fight to pass laws that criminalize divorce, except in cases of adultery?

Think of it.  The prophets, patriarchs, apostles and Christ himself had far more to say about heterosexual infidelity and divorce than about gay sex.  Balmer insists -- and he's right, I think -- that any Evangelical conservative argument soft-peddling this issue can be honestly taken up by Evangelical or other liberals in soft peddling abortion and homosexuality.

Ask Jerry Falwell or James Dobson why they don't lobby for laws outlawing divorce and they will tell you...

*You can't outlaw divorce because that would mean criminalizing it.
*There are exceptions and circumstances where divorce, though tragic, is necessary to protect the safety of a woman or a child.
*While Jesus doesn't approve of the divorce and remarry lifestyle, he is still a God of love, grace and mercy and we dare not make divorcees second class citizens in our country or the church.
And my favorite --  *Divorce should be legal.  But hopefully we can reform the culture, so that divorce is rare.

So Balmer never says abortion and homosexuality are not sins.  But he opines that the Evangelical Right has made these issues their benchmark for one reason.  It's much easier to marginalize those who sin differently than you do.

As to other matters, such as what you call the "Robin Hood" approach to problems of poverty...Balmer simply puts it on the table.  Historically, this is exactly what Evangelicals have taught and believed.  That the church, government and business can and should work together to lift up the poor, defend the oppressed and improve the lot of minorities.  The notion is that no one is exempt.  Government can't and shouldn't be expected to do it all.  Churches and charities and individuals MUST play a major role.  But conversely, they cannot do it all either.

Balmer is simply asking why Evangelicals have abandoned their traditional support for the poor, women's right, labor, prisoners and the environment. It may be that they were right to do so.  But that would be another book and another thread, entirely. 

[JSojourner]

As an antidote to that, I recomend Gary North's classic An Introduction To Christian Economics.

May I presume you are referring to Gary North, son-in-law of the late Rousas Rushdoony?  The same Gary North who advocates capital punishment for the crime of homosexuality and practicing non-Christian religions?

Hoping we're talking about two different guys...

[nlm]

It's much easier to marginalize those who sin differently than you do.

Ding,ding,ding...we have a winner.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Balmer is simply asking why Evangelicals have abandoned their traditional support for the poor, women's right, labor, prisoners and the environment.

1) support for the poor - hogwash - Social Conservatives give more to charity than non-conservatives.

2) women's right -  Social conservatives aren't trying to take any rights away from women...except the right to kill their unborn.

3) labor - i don't even know why this is a christian issue in the modern U.S.  Americans work far less than people in biblical times and Jesus never complained about how hard people worked while he was on earth.

4)  prisoners - hogwash - just who exactly has more prison programs than any other group?  Evangelicals

5) environment - on average, America is much cleaner than is was 30 or even 40 years ago.  This is an argument over how far we should go to protect the enviroment, not if we should protect the environment.....and IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT WE PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT MUCH MORE THAN THEY DID IN BIBLICAL TIMES...MORE THAN EVEN JESUS DID HIMSELF. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

It's much easier to marginalize those who sin differently than you do.

Ding,ding,ding...we have a winner.

no actually, it is a strawman argument.  I do not want homosexuality outlawed.  Nor do I want homosexual marriage outlawed.  But that doesn't mean "the people" don't have a right to choose which activities they will condone and which activities they will refuse to condone.

If a homosexual wants to practice homosexuality, then go do it...just don't ask me to place my stamp of approval on it.

If a heterosexual couple wants to have pre-martial sex, then go do it...just don't ask me to place my stamp of approval on it.

If a drunk wants to go get drunk, then go do it...just don't ask me to place my stamp of approval on it.

Do I ask anyone to place their stamp of approval on my sins?  No.

[Bono]

2)  True Christians practice Christianity by proxy (using government as Robinhood to forcefully take from the rich in order to support the poor).

Mark 10:24-25: It is easier for a camel to pass through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

I love it how people like to quote this verse, but never quote what comes next:
Mark 10:26And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved? 27And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.

[nlm]

It's much easier to marginalize those who sin differently than you do.

Ding,ding,ding...we have a winner.

no actually, it is a strawman argument.  I do not want homosexuality outlawed.  Nor do I want homosexual marriage outlawed.  But that doesn't mean "the people" don't have a right to choose which activities they will condone and which activities they will refuse to condone.

If a homosexual wants to practice homosexuality, then go do it...just don't ask me to place my stamp of approval on it.

If a heterosexual couple wants to have pre-martial sex, then go do it...just don't ask me to place my stamp of approval on it.

If a drunk wants to go get drunk, then go do it...just don't ask me to place my stamp of approval on it.

Do I ask anyone to place their stamp of approval on my sins?  No.

This has nothing to do with your approval and everything to do social regulation. One doesn't have to approve of something to not regulate it.

The people certainly have the right to not condone certain actions, that however, is different than legally banning such actions. Some people may not approve of interracial marriage - but if that rather ill informed group were a plurality they would not have the right to ban it. You seem to be arguing that minorities have no rights if a majority decideds to take them away - that's not the America I know. People can not vote to make a minority less equal based upon religous values (or other values), though certain factions believe otherwise and certainly the GOP has been pandering to those groups and allowing for such injustice to occur.

I get that you are a part of those groups and that you want to be pandered to. That regulating other peoples lives is small potatos to evangelics as long as those regulations conform with their religion. I don't expect to change your mind - only point out that you are full of it, but I suspect most folks that post here have figured that out already.

Strawman? If you call Balmer's arguement a strawman arguement I don't think you know what the words mean.

The bottom line on the evangelical crowd that believes in forced social regulation is that they want folks to conform to their rather limited set of values and raise their public profile by marginalizing those who are notably different.

Stamp of approval? Whatever. I don't see the evangelicals out in force trying to ban getting drunk - but then many evangelicals drink.

[minionofmidas]

I read some time ago an article by Balmer: http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i42/42b00601.htm

I summarize his argument as the following:
1)  The leaders of the Religious Right are hypocrites; therefore, their policies must be wrong.
2)  True Christians practice Christianity by proxy (using government as Robinhood to forcefully take from the rich in order to support the poor).

I highlighted the one part where Balmer is wrong.

[minionofmidas]

2)  True Christians practice Christianity by proxy (using government as Robinhood to forcefully take from the rich in order to support the poor).

Mark 10:24-25: It is easier for a camel to pass through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

I love it how people like to quote this verse, but never quote what comes next:
Mark 10:26And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved? 27And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.

The "camel" is a mistranslation from the aramaic to the greek anyways. The correct reference is to a ship's rope.

[JSojourner]

Balmer is simply asking why Evangelicals have abandoned their traditional support for the poor, women's right, labor, prisoners and the environment.

1) support for the poor - hogwash - Social Conservatives give more to charity than non-conservatives.

2) women's right -  Social conservatives aren't trying to take any rights away from women...except the right to kill their unborn.

3) labor - i don't even know why this is a christian issue in the modern U.S.  Americans work far less than people in biblical times and Jesus never complained about how hard people worked while he was on earth.

4)  prisoners - hogwash - just who exactly has more prison programs than any other group?  Evangelicals

5) environment - on average, America is much cleaner than is was 30 or even 40 years ago.  This is an argument over how far we should go to protect the enviroment, not if we should protect the environment.....and IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT WE PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT MUCH MORE THAN THEY DID IN BIBLICAL TIMES...MORE THAN EVEN JESUS DID HIMSELF. 

Social conservatives DO give to help the poor.  Balmer affirms this and so does Jim Wallis in his books.  But there are two problems here.  First, some of their giving is aimed not at the actual feeding and care of the poor, but with a view toward proselytizing.  I have no problem with this.  I support a missionary in the Philippines. Wycliffe Bible Translators and I used to support the Billy Graham Evangelistic Assn -- all because I do believe in the work of making more and better disciples of Jesus Christ.  And there can be no arguing that some giving does go to the actual needs of poor people, without any strings attached.  (Though more than one ministry here in my town won't help poor people who are not already Christian or who won't sit still for a gospel sermon.)

But there's another sense where I think we have a problem.  Individuals -- conservative, liberal and otherwise -- can and do give tons of money.  Good on them!  But what of nations and people groups?  Jesus, in Matthew 25, is clearly judging NATIONS and not individuals for how they treat the least and the last.  Jeremiah's laments and prophesies are specific in saying that ordinary people AND Kings, Rulers and Nations are held to account. 

As to women's rights, Balmer makes clear that Evangelicals were in the lead in supporting suffrage...advocating temperance (largely because women were seen as victims drunken abuse)...and in reforming ridiculous notions of women as property.  Balmer has much praise for his fellow Evangelicals.  But today, the Evangelical wing of the church is mostly silent on equal pay, domestic violence, the ordination of women and yes -- reproductive rights.  Not just the right to an abortion, but the right to go to a women's clinic for a pap smear without being verbally intimidated and assaulted.  As to abortion, what punishment shall we mete out to abortive mothers?  To doctors who perform abortions?  To nurses who assist?  To secretaries who schedule them?  To those who pay for the abortion or those who drive the abortive mother to and from her appointment?  And how shall we punish the fellow who impregnated the woman?  Any suggestions on how to do this without filling our jails?  Or do we need bigger prisons? If we don't punish the crime, or just give a slap on the wrist...then the law itself is your "strawman".  It has no reality or substance.  Better to make the procedure  (along with divorce maybe?) safe, legal and very rare.

Labor certainly is a modern and a Christian issue.  There are plenty of unsafe workplaces.  As to fair pay, how about this beauty?  Dana Corporation demanded its Fort Wayne Axle plant employees accept a pay cut of 12 dollars an hour.  They were making an average of $22.  Not bad, but hardly great.  If they refused to submit, the plant would close.  Dana insisted it was unfortunate...but necessary to keep the company afloat.  The workers acquiesced (sp?) and that Christmas, Dana's then-CEO was given an annual bonus of one point five million dollars.  Ask Jeremiah, Isaiah, Jesus or St. James to comment on that.  And this sort of thing is happening in lots of places...not just at Dana.  But even if you were right and labor was no issue here in the states, what of the sweatshops in the Marianas Islands for which America is responsible?  Why did Congressman Delay fight to protect the employers there from investigation and punishment?  A Christian issue, to be sure.

I almost didn't mention prisoners because I do so respect the wonderful ministry of Prison Fellowship.  Chuck Colson, for all my disagreement with him on certain issues, has been a steadfast messenger of hope to men and women behind bars.  New life IS possible.  Forgiveness and change can be reality.  And PF's ministry to the families of inmates at Christmas is truly commendable.  Our parish has supported them every year and we really believe in their work.  That said, do Evangelicals advocate for the innocent who are false imprisoned or even sentenced to death?  Do they oppose or support capital punishment? What is PF or a similar ministry doing to ensure that inmates are treated humanely and protected from the abuse of fellow inmates or even prison staff? 

I agree our environment is presently cleaner than it was 40 years ago.  35 years ago, I lived in Pittsburgh.  So I know, whereof you speak.  And you know who I credit for a lot of the progress here?  Fellow Democrats, plug your ears!  Richard Nixon.  Dick Nixon signed the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts into law. I will always be grateful to him for that.  But my fellow Evangelicals were mostly MIA on that issue back then.  Today, it is changing.  The Evangelical Environmental Association is one group starting to do some impressive work.  Balmer gives credit where it is due, but not where it isn't.  We have much yet to do.  Clean air, water and soil are of first importance.  And yes, it's better now than 30 years before.  But it's NOT better now than it was 10 years ago.  We're moving backwards. 

[Bono]

Balmer is simply asking why Evangelicals have abandoned their traditional support for the poor, women's right, labor, prisoners and the environment.

1) support for the poor - hogwash - Social Conservatives give more to charity than non-conservatives.

2) women's right -  Social conservatives aren't trying to take any rights away from women...except the right to kill their unborn.

3) labor - i don't even know why this is a christian issue in the modern U.S.  Americans work far less than people in biblical times and Jesus never complained about how hard people worked while he was on earth.

4)  prisoners - hogwash - just who exactly has more prison programs than any other group?  Evangelicals

5) environment - on average, America is much cleaner than is was 30 or even 40 years ago.  This is an argument over how far we should go to protect the enviroment, not if we should protect the environment.....and IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT WE PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT MUCH MORE THAN THEY DID IN BIBLICAL TIMES...MORE THAN EVEN JESUS DID HIMSELF. 

Social conservatives DO give to help the poor.  Balmer affirms this and so does Jim Wallis in his books.  But there are two problems here.  First, some of their giving is aimed not at the actual feeding and care of the poor, but with a view toward proselytizing.  I have no problem with this.  I support a missionary in the Philippines. Wycliffe Bible Translators and I used to support the Billy Graham Evangelistic Assn -- all because I do believe in the work of making more and better disciples of Jesus Christ.  And there can be no arguing that some giving does go to the actual needs of poor people, without any strings attached.  (Though more than one ministry here in my town won't help poor people who are not already Christian or who won't sit still for a gospel sermon.)

But there's another sense where I think we have a problem.  Individuals -- conservative, liberal and otherwise -- can and do give tons of money.  Good on them!  But what of nations and people groups?  Jesus, in Matthew 25, is clearly judging NATIONS and not individuals for how they treat the least and the last.  Jeremiah's laments and prophesies are specific in saying that ordinary people AND Kings, Rulers and Nations are held to account. 

How do you propose God will judge nations? Throw them collectively into hell? The only thing Matthew 25 says is that all the nations will be present in judgement, ie Jews and Gentiles. That is the focus there, not some social gospel hocus pocus.

As for all your other stuff, the only time a tax is mandated in the Bible is a ten percent tithe to the church. 

[JSojourner]

Balmer is simply asking why Evangelicals have abandoned their traditional support for the poor, women's right, labor, prisoners and the environment.

1) support for the poor - hogwash - Social Conservatives give more to charity than non-conservatives.

2) women's right -  Social conservatives aren't trying to take any rights away from women...except the right to kill their unborn.

3) labor - i don't even know why this is a christian issue in the modern U.S.  Americans work far less than people in biblical times and Jesus never complained about how hard people worked while he was on earth.

4)  prisoners - hogwash - just who exactly has more prison programs than any other group?  Evangelicals

5) environment - on average, America is much cleaner than is was 30 or even 40 years ago.  This is an argument over how far we should go to protect the enviroment, not if we should protect the environment.....and IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT WE PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT MUCH MORE THAN THEY DID IN BIBLICAL TIMES...MORE THAN EVEN JESUS DID HIMSELF. 

Social conservatives DO give to help the poor.  Balmer affirms this and so does Jim Wallis in his books.  But there are two problems here.  First, some of their giving is aimed not at the actual feeding and care of the poor, but with a view toward proselytizing.  I have no problem with this.  I support a missionary in the Philippines. Wycliffe Bible Translators and I used to support the Billy Graham Evangelistic Assn -- all because I do believe in the work of making more and better disciples of Jesus Christ.  And there can be no arguing that some giving does go to the actual needs of poor people, without any strings attached.  (Though more than one ministry here in my town won't help poor people who are not already Christian or who won't sit still for a gospel sermon.)

But there's another sense where I think we have a problem.  Individuals -- conservative, liberal and otherwise -- can and do give tons of money.  Good on them!  But what of nations and people groups?  Jesus, in Matthew 25, is clearly judging NATIONS and not individuals for how they treat the least and the last.  Jeremiah's laments and prophesies are specific in saying that ordinary people AND Kings, Rulers and Nations are held to account. 

How do you propose God will judge nations? Throw them collectively into hell? The only thing Matthew 25 says is that all the nations will be present in judgement, ie Jews and Gentiles. That is the focus there, not some social gospel hocus pocus.

As for all your other stuff, the only time a tax is mandated in the Bible is a ten percent tithe to the church. 

Social gospel hocus pocus?  The greek word there is ethnos.  People groups...nations or nation states.  How does God punish?  As I said, perhaps the leaders and lawmakers.  Perhaps for all of us, an overwhelming sense of grief in knowing that our self-centeredness is damnable and worthy of damnation.  I don't know.  I can do my best to right divide the scriptures, but I am not the Bible scholar your pal Gary North is.  Or his Dad-in-law, Rousas Rushdoony. 

Oh, but wait.  They believe the state would be evil to tax the wealthy. But morally right to execute homosexuals and Wiccans.  @@

[Bono]

Balmer is simply asking why Evangelicals have abandoned their traditional support for the poor, women's right, labor, prisoners and the environment.

1) support for the poor - hogwash - Social Conservatives give more to charity than non-conservatives.

2) women's right -  Social conservatives aren't trying to take any rights away from women...except the right to kill their unborn.

3) labor - i don't even know why this is a christian issue in the modern U.S.  Americans work far less than people in biblical times and Jesus never complained about how hard people worked while he was on earth.

4)  prisoners - hogwash - just who exactly has more prison programs than any other group?  Evangelicals

5) environment - on average, America is much cleaner than is was 30 or even 40 years ago.  This is an argument over how far we should go to protect the enviroment, not if we should protect the environment.....and IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT WE PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT MUCH MORE THAN THEY DID IN BIBLICAL TIMES...MORE THAN EVEN JESUS DID HIMSELF. 

Social conservatives DO give to help the poor.  Balmer affirms this and so does Jim Wallis in his books.  But there are two problems here.  First, some of their giving is aimed not at the actual feeding and care of the poor, but with a view toward proselytizing.  I have no problem with this.  I support a missionary in the Philippines. Wycliffe Bible Translators and I used to support the Billy Graham Evangelistic Assn -- all because I do believe in the work of making more and better disciples of Jesus Christ.  And there can be no arguing that some giving does go to the actual needs of poor people, without any strings attached.  (Though more than one ministry here in my town won't help poor people who are not already Christian or who won't sit still for a gospel sermon.)

But there's another sense where I think we have a problem.  Individuals -- conservative, liberal and otherwise -- can and do give tons of money.  Good on them!  But what of nations and people groups?  Jesus, in Matthew 25, is clearly judging NATIONS and not individuals for how they treat the least and the last.  Jeremiah's laments and prophesies are specific in saying that ordinary people AND Kings, Rulers and Nations are held to account. 

How do you propose God will judge nations? Throw them collectively into hell? The only thing Matthew 25 says is that all the nations will be present in judgement, ie Jews and Gentiles. That is the focus there, not some social gospel hocus pocus.

As for all your other stuff, the only time a tax is mandated in the Bible is a ten percent tithe to the church. 

Social gospel hocus pocus?  The greek word there is ethnos.  People groups...nations or nation states.  How does God punish?  As I said, perhaps the leaders and lawmakers.

So that eventually comes to salvation by works. How nice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How is charitable giving self centered?

[Democratic Hawk]

If I wasn't a Christian, I dare say I could have become one of those self-serving, self-seeking, self first, self last, self always kind of people. Thankfully, I'm not

I give to charity, but it's not so I can merely feel good about myself, and I'm happy for my taxes, whether direct or indirect, to fund programmes such as healthcare, education, welfare, etc. Society, in itself, is greater than the sum total of its parts, which is why any notion of the common, or public, good, is far from abstract

Issues, such as child poverty, lack of affordable healthcare, can be very much moral issues as well as abortion, same-sex marriage and stem cell research, for example

As for the Bible sanctioning the tithe (10% to the church), and that alone, as a mandatory tax, well society has evolved and become much more complex than it was back on that era. Of course, in an ideal world no man, woman or child would be dependent on either the government nor on charity for a helping hand. As a Christian, I champion the plight of those less fortunate than myself

Dave

[Bono]

As a Christian, I champion the plight of those less fortunate than myself

That's good to know.

[JSojourner]

Balmer is simply asking why Evangelicals have abandoned their traditional support for the poor, women's right, labor, prisoners and the environment.

1) support for the poor - hogwash - Social Conservatives give more to charity than non-conservatives.

2) women's right -  Social conservatives aren't trying to take any rights away from women...except the right to kill their unborn.

3) labor - i don't even know why this is a christian issue in the modern U.S.  Americans work far less than people in biblical times and Jesus never complained about how hard people worked while he was on earth.

4)  prisoners - hogwash - just who exactly has more prison programs than any other group?  Evangelicals

5) environment - on average, America is much cleaner than is was 30 or even 40 years ago.  This is an argument over how far we should go to protect the enviroment, not if we should protect the environment.....and IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT WE PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT MUCH MORE THAN THEY DID IN BIBLICAL TIMES...MORE THAN EVEN JESUS DID HIMSELF. 

Social conservatives DO give to help the poor.  Balmer affirms this and so does Jim Wallis in his books.  But there are two problems here.  First, some of their giving is aimed not at the actual feeding and care of the poor, but with a view toward proselytizing.  I have no problem with this.  I support a missionary in the Philippines. Wycliffe Bible Translators and I used to support the Billy Graham Evangelistic Assn -- all because I do believe in the work of making more and better disciples of Jesus Christ.  And there can be no arguing that some giving does go to the actual needs of poor people, without any strings attached.  (Though more than one ministry here in my town won't help poor people who are not already Christian or who won't sit still for a gospel sermon.)

But there's another sense where I think we have a problem.  Individuals -- conservative, liberal and otherwise -- can and do give tons of money.  Good on them!  But what of nations and people groups?  Jesus, in Matthew 25, is clearly judging NATIONS and not individuals for how they treat the least and the last.  Jeremiah's laments and prophesies are specific in saying that ordinary people AND Kings, Rulers and Nations are held to account. 

How do you propose God will judge nations? Throw them collectively into hell? The only thing Matthew 25 says is that all the nations will be present in judgement, ie Jews and Gentiles. That is the focus there, not some social gospel hocus pocus.

As for all your other stuff, the only time a tax is mandated in the Bible is a ten percent tithe to the church. 

Social gospel hocus pocus?  The greek word there is ethnos.  People groups...nations or nation states.  How does God punish?  As I said, perhaps the leaders and lawmakers.

So that eventually comes to salvation by works. How nice.

[quote]

Nope.  Not at all.  It's the chicken and the egg.  (Actually, the security of the believer is something I will forever be grateful to men like Calvin and Darby for championing.)

St. James explained it very nicely, Dr. Luther's objections notwithstanding.  Salvation IS by grace alone. One who is saved, however, bears some proof of it by their works. 

But I respectfully suggest you missed my point.  St. Paul, and I believe Jesus also, taught salvation by grace alone...for the individual.  Societies, nations, governments and groups of people are judged -- according to Jesus' words in Matthew 25 -- by their deeds.  You will see in the text that Jesus is judging the nations.  ("All the nations will be gathered before him", it says.) And within each nation-state, Jesus allows for the possibility that there will be groups of righteous.  Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, undoubtedly damned nations, nonetheless had remnants of righteous who will be saved.  Those responding in the scene the Lord sets refer to themselves as "we".

As I said before, I am not completely sure how this paradox works.  The individual is saved by grace, through faith alone.  Yet Jesus' words in Matthew 25 can't be explained in any other way -- unless you accept that he is judging nations, systems, people groups.  Otherwise, Jesus and St. Paul are in unquestionable disagreement.  And based on your posts, I know you hold scripture in high regard.  So I doubt that's an option you would comfortable with.

But let's speak of works.  You have, at least once, cited Gary North as someone you respect and admire.  May I ask why?  Don't you think his call for the execution of homosexuals, witches and abortive mothers is an egregious evil?