As for dependency and the church taking care of everyone, I agree that the Church should, but unfortunately it doesn’t have the scope and/or resources that the state and local governments do (see illegal drug case above), but the major problem is that people are selfish and sinful and the Church is full of those people!

People can be compelled by fear or love. Love is perferable, but tougher. The Church should be motivating by love, as per Jesus’ example, but the State is able to motivate through fear (courts, IRS, law enforcement, etc) and it works better. So it is great to say that the Church SHOULD be doing the welfare stuff, but because of the inherent problem of getting the workforce/resources to do it out of love, the Church fails. Individual cases certainly disprove this idea, but universally the Church is too fragmented and full of sinners to do the job that governments (under a strong oversite by its citizens) can do.

Also, pure numbers give me, the pragmatist, stronger ammunition. Even if you concede 50% of American’s are Christians, the Church can only marshal that many. The government gets 100%. 100% of the taxes, 100% of the talents, 100% of the time, etc.

Enjoy Cancun and let’s continue this when you’ve got a nice tan.

I’ll agree wholeheartedly about the theology thing, at least insofar as the fact that I concur with the Evangelical Left about the need to take care of “the least of these”. Our disagreement comes when it gets down to the specifics. I don’t find any compelling case to be made Scripturally (nor constitutionally, by the way) for the government to be involved in doing what it does for the poor; you base your case, it seems to me, on pragmatics (“only the government has enough resources and infrastructure to tackle many of the problems in society”). I’d argue, conversely, that this is true because of the government’s usurpation of these things, its unduly burdensome tax policies, and the like. The government has these resources in part because of the progressive tax structure, which places higher taxes upon those who make a lot of money (not me, by the way!), which I find no Scriptural warrant for (the O.T. tithe sounds an awful lot like a flat tax, right?).

Further, Marvin Olasky’s book is wonderful in demonstrating the massive inefficiency of government to actually effectively promote the general well-being of people, that the way government goes about its business, doling out money with no real compassion (“here’s a check, don’t ask for anything more”) and with no real accountability is the exact prescription for the dependency that you and I agree is a bad thing. The government has policies in place that assist in the destuction of the family unit and the severing of those first-line-of-defense bonds that should take care of people in need (the church would be second on my list). I think that the rub is right here; the Evangelical Left puts a lot of trust in the effectiveness of government, whereas I don’t trust the government of the U.S. to do anything well–and that’s why, by the way, I’m more a libertarian than a Republican.

I’m certainly on board with you, by the way, when it comes to the government not giving the rich unfair advantages; we’re in agreement there. Corporate welfare is at least as bad as any other kind, and probably worse.

And you’re right: people don’t care how much you know until they know how much you (not the government ) care…

Maybe we can continue this conversation when I get back. Thanks for posting, Mike!!!

First, the issue related to isolated facts and tax cuts in particular. The Right does that as well. Ask anyone who supports abstinence only education and they will quickly point to the number of people taking pledges and don’t comment on the studies that show most of these programs don’t work. As for the tax cuts, sure the wealth pay a bigger percentage and therefore a larger amount, but the government does more for them. The government upholds property (both physical and intellectual) laws that disproportionately help wealth individuals. The recent rejection of the Kyoto Treaty on climate change was done at the request of the wealthy ownership class of America, who either own means of production or have shares/financial interests in them, because it would cost that class a lot of money to comply. So please, let’s tell the whole story.

The next issue is too much reliance on government programs and the idea that people become dependent. The evangelical left puts a lot of faith in government programs because only the government has enough resources and infrastructure to tackle many of the problems in society. For instance, drug abuse has many issues..border controls, international relations with source countries, local law enforcement, penal institutions and health care related treatment centers. The fragmented church is not set up to deal with that many and those complex issues. However, I think people are selfish and lazy. They become dependent on the government because the government is there. Paul tells us in 2 Thessalonians 3:10 that those that don’t work shall not eat. Clearly people were dependent on the Church in the first century. However, most on the evangelical left are looking to fulfill Jesus’ commandment of when I was naked did you clothe me, when I was hungry did you feed me, etc. Dependency should be looked at and dealt with, but shouldn’t be used as a reason to NOT help people.

I don’t agree with the last two points either. I have heard both Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis give very impassioned sermons/talks about becoming a disciple of Jesus. However, those of us on the Left believe that a strong wall between Church and State is necessary and are willing to work toward political goals with groups that may not share our spiritual beliefs. I don’t believe it compromises Jesus’ message of loving God and loving our neighbors. People don’t care how much you know, until they know how much you care.