Veritas Rex

A Biblical Understanding of Poverty

Poverty is an issue I have been thinking about lately.  I am currently reading “The Irresistible Revolution,” by Shane Claiborne.  Shane obviously has a remarkable passion for Jesus.  In my book, that ranks above all else.  However, sometimes his application of biblical principles is flawed, in my opinion, on the issue of poverty.  I am finding him a very interesting case study on the “social justice” wing of modern Christendom.

For example, in discussion of the church (writ large) he dreams of, he comments:

We dreamed ancient visions of a church like the one in Acts, in which “there were no needy persons among them” because everyone shared their possessions, not claiming anything as their own but “sharing everything they had.”  We knew we could end poverty. (emphasis mine) 

I love his passion, but wonder if his faulty presupposition will hamper his effectiveness or even cause more harm than good in certain circumstances. 

The faulty presupposition is this:  It is possible in this life to end poverty. 

It is no more possible for mankind to end poverty than it is for us to prevent all war or cure all disease or remove the sinful nature of mankind, as the words of Christ demonstrate:

Jesus, therefore, six days before the Passover, came to Bethany where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead.   
So they made Him a supper there, and Martha was serving; but Lazarus was one of those reclining at the table with Him.
Mary then took a pound of very costly perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.
But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, who was intending to betray Him, said,
"Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and given to poor people?"
Now he said this, not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box, he used to pilfer what was put into it.
Therefore Jesus said, "Let her alone, so that she may keep it for the day of My burial.
"For you always have the poor with you, but you do not always have Me." (emphasis mine)

                                                           - John 12: 1-8

I wish this were not so.  We can and should (as followers of Christ we are mandated to do so) help the poor.  The New Testament is replete with examples of Christ ordering us to help the poor.  However, we will always have the poor with us. 

Economic utopia is not possible in this lifetime.  Because mankind is not perfect, there will always be social problems…in this case, poverty.  There can be no man-made total eradication of poverty.  However, there are strategies and policies that have proven to minimize it.  Shane may not want to admit it, but the capitolistic, market economy of the U.S. has actually minimized poverty to an amazing extent when compared with other countries and economic systems. Many of the "poor" in the U.S. are not poor at all when compared to others around the world.

Traditional marriage dealt a blow today in California

In a blow to traditional marriage, California's gay marriage ban has been overturned today by the state's top court.

So for all of you out there who still buy the argument that a Marriage Amendment in Indiana is redundant, there is no more room to hide.  Also note the quote at the end of the article (emphasis added).  Apparently, activists in California fully intend to use this decision to force other states to recognize gay marriages.

We told you so.  But this is one time I wish we would have been wrong.

But alas, some folks like Pat Bauer and Terri Austin will still try to make the case that our docile gay marriage proponents in Indiana would never think of trying (again) to overturn our laws.  Pat Bauer may trust them, but I don't.   This strategy is sure to be used in Indiana (again) to attempt to overturn our law through the only means available to gay marriage supporters- the courts.  Because we are without a marriage amendment, we may soon be hostage to the same court system that banned the word "Jesus" from the Statehouse.

California's Top Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban
SAN FRANCISCO - In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.

Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.

Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as news spread of the decision.

"Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," the court wrote.

The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march.

"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody — not just in the state of California, but throughout the country — will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco. (emphasis mine).

Obama going for the Evangelical vote

CBN news posted the pictured flier on their blog yesterday.

Let's see what the left's response to this will be.  They heavily criticized Huckabee for his "subliminal cross" over the head in an Iowa ad.  Will they go after Obama for his less than subliminal message? 

Personally, I have no issue with it.  Just like in an earlier post where I said the same thing about the Demmies campaigning for black votes in churches.  The double standard, however, is appalling.

Not a man but a movement. The ideas behind politics

Last week I posted a blog titled "The Next Ronald Reagan?  We're not ready yet?"  The premise of the article is that what is happening in the halls of government is a result of what is happening in the collective mind of the nation.  Abraham Lincoln put it this way: "the philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next."

My post talked about rebuilding the dike of intellectual thought in the Conservative Movement.  I made the point that before we can think about the next Ronald Reagan, we need to identify and support the next Milton Friedman, William F. Buckley, Whittaker Chambers, James Burnham, Thomas Sowell, and scores of others.

In a follow up comment, I mentioned the importance of F.A. Hayek and his leadership in transitioning from mere intellectual inquiry to activism.  The following article appeared in a 1997 issue of National Review.

The plan to end planning - the founding of the Mont Pelerin Society
National Review,  June 16, 1997  by Ralph Harris

IN the aftermath of World War II, when Friedrich Hayek assembled some three dozen like-minded American and European scholars on the slopes of Mont Pelerin above Lake Geneva, the outlook for freedom could hardly have been more bleak. Churchill had coined the phrase "Iron Curtain" to mark the apparently permanent division of Europe between East and West. Some of the German participants at this first Mont Pelerin Society meeting had difficulty getting travel passes to Switzerland. Marshall aid had yet to be launched for the reconstruction of shattered economies. In April 1947 the new Deutsche Mark was more than a year away, and cigarettes still served as the general medium of exchange. As a grim omen for the future, Hayek's new classic The Road to Serfdom (1944) was banned throughout Germany, not only in the Soviet zone, but also by the three Western powers of occupation.

Exactly 50 years later, some eighty of the now five hundred members of the society gathered at Mont Pelerin, a few hundred yards from the smaller hotel at which the first meeting was held, to mark the anniversary and review progress. On the face of it, the world around had been transformed in a direction that would have rejoiced our anxious founders. How far can we conclude, therefore, that the objectives of the Society are well on their way to being fulfilled?

An objective observer at that first gathering in 1947 must surely have marveled at Hayek's dream and mocked his tiny band of economists, philosophers, and historians cocooned in Switzerland, remote from the ugly realities throughout the rest of Europe. After all, their purpose was to launch an intellectual crusade aimed at reversing the rising tide of postwar collectivism already signaled by the swamping Labour majority that had swept Churchill aside in Britain -- Hayek's chosen home since he quit Vienna in 1931.

Read the rest here.

Peterson joins Seminary Board

I don't know much about this group, but the Indianapolis Star is reporting that former Mayor Bart Peterson has joined the board of the Christian Theological Seminary in Indianapolis.

Peterson will join the board of trustees of the Christian Theological Seminary in Indianapolis on July 1.

The Northside seminary is affiliated with the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) but has faculty and students from 40 denominations. Peterson has been a longtime member of Second Presbyterian Church on the Far Northside. The seminary is a graduate school offering degrees in theology, ministry and counseling, among other things.

In a statement released by the seminary, officials said they hope the mayor's experience establishing charter schools and his promotion of the arts will mesh with the school's goal of helping students understand the relationship between religion and the arts. He will also work closely with the seminary's advancement committee, which is involved in fundraising and promotion.

Keeping Teens Safe: How the intact family buffers against teen substance abuse

From the Heritage Foundation:

1.  Cigarette use. Teens in intact families are less likely to initiate cigarette smoking compared to peers in non-intact families. full details

2.  Cigarette use. Teens in two-parent families reported, on average, lower levels of cigarette smoking than peers in single-parent families. full details

3. Alcohol abuse.  Teens in two-parent families reported, on average, lower levels of drinking than those in single-parent families. full details

4.  Alcohol abuse. Teens in intact families are less likely to abuse alcohol than peers in non-intact families. full details

5. Alcohol and marijuana use.  Teens who lived in intact families during early adolescence are less likely to initiate alcohol and marijuana use than peers who lived in non-intact families.  full details   

6.  Illicit drug use.  Teens in intact families are less likely to use illicit drugs other than marijuana compared to peers in non-intact families. full details   

7.  Illicit drug use (European teens).  European teens in intact families are less likely to use illicit drugs than peers in non-intact families. full details

8.  Cocaine use.  Individuals from intact families are less likely to use cocaine compared to peers from non-intact families. full details   

9.  Drug abuse.  Teens in intact families are less likely to abuse drugs compared to peers in non-intact families. full details 

10.  Behavioral problems.  Teens in intact families are less likely to exhibit behavioral problems such as binge drinking than peers in blended or divorced single-parent families. full details

Goodin Stands for Hoosier Families; ACLU disagrees

From Citizenlink.com, a publication of Focus on the Family, 5-12-08

ACLU Challenges Indiana Law that Regulates Porn Shops

Businesses must register with the state before selling sexually explicit materials.

A new Indiana law that requires retailers to register with the state and pay a $250 fee before selling sexually explicit materials is being challenged in court. The American Civil Liberties Union claims it violates freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Democratic state Rep. Terry Goodin wrote the law to protect communities with weak zoning ordinances that allow the porn industry to sneak in and hide its intent until it’s too late.

“They slip in under the cover of night," Goodin said. "They’re telling individuals that it’s going to be a grocery store or some other kind of store, and they’re opening up a pornography store. At that point, it’s too late to do anything about it.”

The law, which is set to take effect July 1, will keep the community informed, he said.

“The secretary of state’s office is going to notify the local authorities and tell those folks, 'Hey, this group’s coming your way,' " Goodin said. "That way, the local authorities can say, 'No.' ”

Curt Smith, president of the Indiana Family Institute, said lawmakers are protecting families.

“They give tools to local officials," he said, "who are accountable to their constituencies to try to restrain or at least retard this flood of pornography that’s coming.”

Narnia Cometh!

The Chronicles of Narnia series was written by Christian apologist C.S. Lewis- one of my favorite authors.  I'm looking forward now to the 2nd movie in the series.

Murder is Murder

As has been reported by WIBC and Taking Down Words, State Representative Mike Murphy and Senator Jim Merritt plan to introduce a bill in the 2009 legislative session to eliminate the viability standard from the state statute, elevating the murder of an unborn child to the crime of murder. The push for such legislation comes as a result of the shooting of Huntington Bank teller Katherin Shuffield. She was wounded during a bank robbery and later lost her five month old twins.

Here is what Taking Down Words (blog closely tied to the State Democratic Party) has to say:

Did Eric Miller take a vaycay? It certainly seems like this would have prompted him to crawl out of the woodwork. For those of you living under a rock, mom-to-be Katherin Shuffield was shot in the stomach while she was simply doing her job as a bank teller on April 22. Days later, her twins died at five months gestation, two months shy of the point required by Indiana law to bring forth a murder charge.

Where's the love??  Come on Taking Down Words, you must not have attended many committee hearings on pro-life bills lately.  I'm always there.  What am I, chopped liver?  :)

Taking Down Words goes on to say:

So, how many legislators do you think will file similar bills criminalizing the murder of an unborn fetus in any circumstance?

It's interesting to me that they admit that killing an unborn "fetus" is murder, yet they are still supportive of it as long as a doctor does the dirty work with a scalpel rather than a gun. 

D'Souza debates Peter Singer

www.tothesource.org has video of Dinesh D'Souza's recent debate with Peter Singer.  Nigel Cameron has a summary:

I have debated life and death with Singer. In this latest debate, Dinesh d’Souza tackled him on his denial of the existence of God. Thousands gathered in a gym at Biola University’s campus outside Los Angeles to watch the show. Singer is not simply a theoretician; he defends infanticide and euthanasia, and regards the “sanctity of life” as a mistake. He is something of an extremist. It might be unfair to call him a fundamentalist utilitarian. But if I were being unfair that is what I would call him. He drives widely-held liberal ethical views harder and further than anyone else in the public arena.

Is there a God? D’Souza opened with the 20th century’s litany of atheist crimes – far worse, he noted, than whatever crimes can be attributed to religion, even including the Inquisition, 9/11 and Islamist violence. Hitler and Stalin and Mao and the rest had demonstrated the bankruptcy of their atheist tenets. Singer countered that the debate was not about the bad things that atheists do, but whether God exists at all. Yet he too focused on evil to make his case – the classic case against God, that asks how a world so beset with pain and suffering could have been made by a God who is good. As an add-on he instanced the way in which the Old Testament presents a God who commits and approves genocide; and the New presents a Jesus who expected his Second Coming to happen any time (and was therefore wrong).

D’Souza laid out his rationale for theism: the universe had a beginning; the “laws of nature” had (as Stephen Hawking has said) to be just-so in order for life to arise and flourish. Singer countered that the universe may have had no beginning; that if God made it then where did he come from?; and that scientists do not all agree with Hawking’s contention.

And the debate flowed on, with questions from the audience – some from Christians wanting to underline D’Souza’s case, some from Singer fans, and yet others from unpredictable directions. What did Singer think of the idea that suffering in animals (a big theme of his in his argument against a good God) can be explained through reincarnation - justice winning out as creatures come back to atone for sins in past lives? Singer laughed this off as an incredible theory, and asked what it would mean for a kangaroo to die of thirst because it had been Hitler in a former life. D’Souza called Singer to account for this easy dismissal, and argued that a major theme of all religions is that of cosmic justice: that fairness will, in the end, win out; that what seems unjust in the here and now will one day be set to rights. As Singer noted, atheists don’t find evil to be a problem that needs to be explained; they do not like it, but it is just there.

Did either side win? If I were grading the debaters, I would give them a draw. They were both spunky without being aggressive, and the tennis match of Q and A was well balanced as arguments were raqueted across the podium. Their theme, the greatest theme in the world, was not resolved by a knockout blow. And the audience was reminded, perhaps, that when Jesus debated the Scribes and the Pharisees, and Paul the philosophers on Mars Hill, however compelling their case for belief, they could not compel its acceptance. Some joined the believers; some did not.

So it should not come as a surprise that many leading men and women of our day – the cultural elites who set the pace in our nation and shape the lives we lead – are not people of faith. As Singer pointed out, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, the two greatest philanthropists in history, are not believers. It is all too easy for Christians to take the view that the unbeliever is not only wrong, but stupid; that the arguments all flow one way; that apologetics, properly done, will sweep all before it. Which is, of course, nonsense – else Jesus and Paul, the Great Debaters of the first century, would have won the world at their first encounter. The unbeliever can make a good case. He can argue back, probe the logic of belief, raise the hard questions like Job did (as D’Souza pointed out), long, long ago.

That’s why we have to debate. We are not afraid of the facts; not perturbed by the skills of those with whom we disagree; not unwilling to trade argument and explanation with the smartest minds and the shrewdest tongues. The assumptions of our once-Christian culture have begun to shift. Time was when it was hard to be an atheist, as the Christian mind was embedded in the culture. Now it is the believer who finds it hard to get a hearing, and harder still to make our case.

But make it we must. We talk too much to ourselves, and too little to the wider world. We have no option but to raise our voices and articulate dissent in a society whose defining terms are now post-Christian. Like the dissidents in Soviet Russia we must not be silent. World and church alike must hear our voice, until like that evil empire the godless structures of the secular mindset begin to crumble as we state, and keep on stating, the truth of Jesus Christ; in season, and out of season.

Voter ID law is good for families

Last week I had the opportunity to interview Indiana Secretary of State, Todd Rokita about the recent Supreme Court decision upholding Indiana's voter ID law and what that might mean for Indiana families.  We had a frank and open discussion that merits mentioning.

When I asked Secretary of State Rokita what he had to say to families who may have had their votes offset by others voting illegally in past elections, he told me that the "Photo ID law protects the family from being disenfranchised."  He went on to say that thanks to the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the voter ID law, "Their vote won't be stolen by someone who cheats the system."

Common sense.  Show your ID to vote.  If you are doing things the right way you have nothing to fear.

Secretary of State Rokita called voting the "most sacred civil transaction."  He also went on to say that those who claim racism on this issue may be showing some racist tendencies of their own.  Some of the critics of the voter ID law are inferring that minority groups do not have the ability to participate in mainstream, modern society.  Secretary of State Rokita rejects this notion and showed faith in the minority community's ability to obtain an ID and bring it to vote with them.  These sorts of opponents of voter ID remind me of a George W. Bush line, with their "sutle bigotry of lowered expectations."