Veritas Rex

A Conservative Conscience Pricked by Poverty

Conservatism’s most daunting challenge is not being correct on the policy issues; it’s overcoming the emotional appeal of the left.

I’m a conservative: I do not believe it is the government’s responsibility to care for me from cradle to grave. But my buddy, Kevin disagrees. Via Facebook, he invited me to his house and makes this revealing jab: “We'll even let you eat our food for free. Fortunately we are not Republicans and won't charge you for it. We don't mind giving handouts to those poorer than ourselves.”

Thanks, Kevin.

Fortunately, I’m reading a book that addresses these problems and more. The Conscience of a Conservative is a title that may surprise those unaware that conservatives have one, but Sen. Barry Goldwater’s 1960 classic is a short must-read for anyone who wants to really understand conservatism.

Now back to Kevin’s concerns. According to Goldwater, the left’s ultimate goal is to subordinate the individual to the State. While some countries accomplish this goal through socialism, welfarism is the predominating form of American subordination today. Goldwater demonstrates: “They understand that the individual that can be put at the mercy of the State—not only by making the State his employer (socialism)—but by divesting him of the means to provide for his personal needs and by giving the State the responsibility of caring for those needs from cradle to grave.”

While Americans would immediately dislike grocery stores becoming socialized, welfarism is much more attractive because, “[t]he effect… will be felt later on—after its beneficiaries have become its victims, after dependence on government has turned into bondage and it is too late to unlock the jail.”

I want to give people handouts and assist the poor. I really do. But welfarism is the worst solution, creating as many problems as it solves. One mayor recently told me that he expects 5-6% of his town’s population to remain unemployed because they’ve learned to live semi-comfortably and legally on welfare and charity. Fabulous. So here are Goldwater’s three main problems with welfare: it eliminates individual responsibly, it trades dignity for slavery and entitlement, and it corrupts politicians.

If the government is going to feed that bum, why should I or my church care about him? When a storm hits, instead of neighbors bringing hammers and chainsaws, we now depend on the government to do the work while we surf the Internet. Not to mention that the government has proven it’s ability to do this “free” repair quite expensively.

Also, it builds entitlement. Now victims expect to be helped, even after minor storms. Perhaps oversimplified, the 5-6% segment of the population feels owed the right to not work because of the “free” housing and unlimited food stamps. Goldwater says that “it transforms the individual from a dignified, industrious, self-reliant spiritual [his emphasis] being into a dependent animal creature without his knowing it.” Compare this with private charity where the receiver knows that good deeds are out of kindness, not owed.

Finally it corrupts politicians because of the temptation to manipulate federal dollars into votes. It’s very easy to campaign on poverty and say we should do something about it. But whether the Constitution allows the federal government the power to do something about it is quite another issue altogether. Even President Roosevelt admitted in 1930 as Governor of New York that the Constitution does not empower the federal government to deal with “a great number of vital problems of government such as… social welfare, and a dozen other important issues.” Among these dozen other issues lies education, which is strictly reserved for the state. Clearly passion sells better than Constitutionalism. It was Hubert Humphrey in 1968 who said: "The time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadows of states' rights and to walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights. People, human beings, this is the issue of the 20th century.” And if I also loathed the Constitution and was naive about the nature of man, I’d agree.

I’ve arguably won the policy war, but I’m back to where I started: cold and callus. But I believe that families, the Church, communities and charities can do a better job than government. They did a better job before the Great Depression, before the government wrested the responsibility from the individual for political gain. Also, the federal government can allow businesses and individuals the chance to the donate billions that were formerly swindled, mismanaged and splurged.

The government should return individual responsibility, free the entrapped and restore the dignity to the federal government.

They won’t do it on their own. It’s like taking chocolate out of a pregnant woman’s hand. It won't be pretty, Kevin.

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.

PyroMarketing: Ideas, Not Geography matters

I continue to blog today from the Christian Leadership Alliance National Conference in Dallas, Texas. As I referenced in a previous blog, I spent the better part of a day with Greg Stielstra, author of the book PyroMarketing. I love marketing because marketing is geared toward movement building. If you are into marketing you are already well beyond the stage where you’re focused merely on building your own organization. Marketing minds are thinking about packaging ideas and attracting followers. And, contrary to a cynics approach, good marketers are about loving the customer or market. It’s knowing what we have will bring added value and meaning and attempting to communicate that in a meaningful way.

For those of you following our progress on the Mere Christianity Project that we are working on with Dinesh D’Souza following the release of What’s So Great About Christianity, I can tell you that you’ll see much of what we’ve learned over the past few days implemented into this movement. The most significant “aha” moment could be this one. It is the realization that what we are doing today with the Mere Christianity Project is not a new movement. The movement has existed in different corners and nooks and crannies for quite some time. We are providing that movement a community and a common area that brings the movement together. And we know that many of the readers of Veritas Rex, and certainly the good people at Indiana Family Institute are a part of that movement.

As we move forward, look for the Mere Christianity Project to employ strategies to unite the broader Christian community. What we are talking about is mere Christianity. As Dinesh has written, the atheist have been flogging the carcass of fundamentalism without having to encounter the horse-kick of of vigorous, traditional Christianity.

As we put Christianity on offense you can expect to see us fully utilize what some call “non-traditional” means of communication. We trust that one reason the readers of Veritas Rex are turning to the blogosphere for news, information, and commentary is because “traditional” forms of media are less trustworthy. You may wonder if they are even relevant.

And can you even imagine writing a letter to the editor today and waiting and hoping beyond hope that maybe, just maybe they’ll publish it? Yeah right! If you’ve got something to say, blog it!

In days gone by, we were well connected to mass media and poorly connected to each other. This led to communities of convenience. But today, with 44 percent of US on-line Americans being content creators, meaning they post, blog, have personal sites, etc, we are now poorly connected to mass media and well connected to each other. We now organize by affinity and interest.

This is how I can, living in Santa Barbara and today writing to you from Dallas, can be a part of a community of Hoosiers. I was born a Hoosier and spent the first 20 years of my life there. And in today’s world there is no reason I cannot continue to be a Hoosier despite the fact that when I drive to work in the morning I drive with the top down smelling the salty air.

This is not a commentary on the current state of affairs internationally, but we cannot stamp out radical Islam with troops and with guns. Radical Islam may have a geographic center in one region of the world, but is no longer bound to geography. When we organize by proximity, geography is everything. But it is no longer about proximity.

And so the likes of Christopher Hitchens and Dan Dennett and Sam Harris should rest assured that Christianity is not warlike as some have suggested. We are merely attempting to give an answer to the reason for the hope that is within us.

I’m Clark Vandeventer, CEO of World Changers Inc. To learn more about how we are employing these strategies to effect real social change, go to www.worldchangers.us.com.

From Mission to Movement

I have spent a great deal of time over the past few months contemplating the work of Leslie Crutchfield and Heather McLeod Grant which produced what I think is one of the most important books for the non profit sector in a generation. Their book, “Forces for Good: The Six Practices of High-Impact Nonprofits,” is about what I call “moving from mission to movement.”

“Forces for Good,” looks at twelve high impact non profits. These groups are as varied and diverse as the Heritage Foundation to the National Council of La Raza to Habitat for Humanity.

This book has in many ways provided the foundation for my work with Dinesh D’Souza in developing a strategy to put Christianity on offense against the secular elitists. Our assumption is that what we need today are not simply organizations that are more effective or efficient. Of course we seek to be effective and efficient, but our goal is far more audacious than simply to be better managers.

There is one characteristic of high-impact nonprofits that Crutchfield and McLeod Grant highlight that has intrigued me more than any other, and that is the ability to inspire what they call evangelists. The organization they highlight as being particularly effective in this regard is Habitat for Humanity.

Habitat for Humanity is well known for it’s work to provide affordable housing for low income families and those in need. But there are far more effective ways to build homes than getting guys like me with questionable construction know-how out on the job site. If they just wanted to build homes, they’d be far better off contracting with Ryland Homes or Drees Homes or one of the other housing developers.

But Habitat’s goal is far more audacious than building homes. They seek to make an unresolved housing problem to be unacceptable in the hearts and minds of individuals. Getting you and me to give our Saturday to swing a hammer and help build a home is a far more effective way to do that. They inspire evangelists, and evangelists build movements that change the world.

It is this shift from being mission driven to being movement driven that has so many organizations excited to be partnering with World Changers Inc. where I am now serving as the chief executive officer. After nearly a decade at the Reagan Ranch, most recently as deputy director, I saw what a difference it makes when an organization seeks to have a real impact--that is, build a movement--as opposed to sticking to the status quo. Robert Herbold calls this being “seduced by success.”

To learn more about going from mission to movement, visit our website at www.worldchangers.us.com. Visit the site now to learn how you can get a free copy of “Forces for Good.” You’ll be glad you did.

Sexual Orientation Change Possible: New Book

     A new book based on a peer-reviewed, longitudinal (long-term) study confirms change in sexual orientation is possible.

     Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation by researchers Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse reports 67 percent of study participants reported a change toward heterosexual orientation or were successfully continuing efforts toward that goal. The change rates are comparable for dealing with other difficult issues such as depression and better than Department of Labor rates reported for addressing substance abuse.  The research was conducted over three years.

     In-depth information about the study, its research methods and an extensive white paper on the work are available at www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=2846.

     The book will no doubt stir up controversy as it is challenged by those who won't even bother to read it.  But I know from my experiences -- including a former employee now married with children -- that gay men can change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation.  While it appears some environmental and genetic factors may predispose one to a same-sex sexual attraction, homosexual orientation is not an immutable fact of nature or Creation.  Anyone who doesn't believe that would do well to read this new book with an open mind.

Time Magazine: Billy Graham the devil?

Time Magazine profiled Billy Graham in their August 20 issue.  I've been to several of Graham's Crusades in Indiana and Ohio.  We've discussed Christian leaders lately and decried the plague upon our churches brought by those who succumb to temptation.

Billy Graham, however, has always been above reproach.  He's reached out to everyone who needed his counsel and prayers.  His integrity is unquestioned.

Onenewsnow.com has an interesting article about the placement of Graham's head on the cover of the magazine.  Did they intentionally superimpose his head over TIME in such a way as to give him horns?  Interesting...

The article is a great read.  It's also a good follow up to recent conversations we've been having on this blog.  Graham is probably the least "ideological" among the most prominent ministers in the US today.  Except for a couple of times in his career he has largely stayed silent on the controversies of the day. 

He's also demonstrated the most willingness to minister to those who need God.  He reached out to the Clintons during their most difficult times.   He's been the least judgmental.

Perhaps his chosen role is more appropriate for Christians?  There are those who believe that his approach ultimately does more good for the faith.

Gay Author: I'm being forced to become a Christian

Patricia Nell Warren, a prominent author of "gay novels" and contributor to Indiana's own Bilerico, tells us in her most recent post that she's being forced to be a Christian.

These days the religious right is on a roll with imposing conservative Christian belief in American life. Hence the liberty of Americans is now at risk if they want to publicly identify their personal belief or spiritual view as anything "non-Christian.” In fact, the religious righters try to claim that their own “right to liberty” includes their perceived right to forcibly convert the rest of us.

I found that surprising- and laughable.  For a woman who is being forcibly converted to Christianity she seems remarkably free to sell novels diametrically opposed to views of the "religious righters."  By viewing her own website, it seems she's been successful enough to also have a motion picture in development based on her most recent book.

I scoured the newspapers and I haven't found any references to her being jailed for being a pagan.  Any help from the crowd out there?

I mean, she wouldn't happen to be telling falsehoods would she?  If so, she should be more careful.  According to her own hysteria, she'll soon see goons in dark suits coming to drag her off to an unknown destination as punishment for breaking the Ten Commandments.

Congratulations to Tony Dungy

Congratulations to Indianapolis Colts Coach Tony Dungy as his new book, Quiet Strength, quietly made its way to the top of the The New York Times bestseller list Wednesday (hardcover nonfiction category).  This remarkable account of faith and family by a truly remarkable man of quiet strength deserves to be read by all Hoosiers.  Veritas Rex also notes with a smile it has bested Christopher Hitchens' recent book,  God Is Not Great, (No. 3), which regular readers won't be surprised we think all Hoosiers should skip.

The gospel according to Harry Potter

As an avid Harry Potter fan, I was intrigued by an article with the same title as our post in Christianity Today.  There are some supporters of IFI who feel that the Harry Potter books' treatment of magic is not positive, but I agree with the CT reporter who suggests that there is a lot more for Christians in Rowling's newest (and final) Harry Potter book. 

CAUTION:  There are spoilers.

The Gospel According to J.K. Rowling

The magic world of Harry Potter begins yielding to a 'deeper magic.'

Bob Smietana | posted 7/23/2007 09:50AM

[WARNING: PLOT SPOILERS THROUGHOUT THIS REVIEW.]

I first met Harry Potter when my grandmother was dying.

On New Years Day 1999, she had a massive stroke from which she would never recover. Not wanting her to die alone, we took turns sitting by her bedside, round the clock. The night I spent with her, I brought along my Bible, the biggest cup of Dunkin Donuts coffee I could find, and a new novel, picked up from the bookstore on the way to the hospital: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.

Both the Bible and the "Boy Who Lived" proved good company during the watches of the night. Both pointed the way to hope in the face of death.

And there was at least one echo from the Scriptures in the Sorcerer's Stone: Lord Voldemort, the Hitleresque dark wizard in J.K. Rowling's fictional works, was defeated not by power but by love—by a young mother who sacrificed her life to save her young son. In Rowling's world, that kind of love is stronger than any magic. It can even conquer death.

By the time Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows opens, however, it seems that death finally has the upper hand. Albus Dumbledore, Voldemort's greatest enemy, lies buried on the ground of Hogwarts. Lord Voldemort's Death Eaters have launched a reign of terror and are on the verge of replacing the Ministry of Magic with a Nazi-style government that will enslave muggles and "mudbloods" alike. Anyone who stands in their way will be eliminated.

The body count starts early—on page 12, to be exact—and the hunt for Harry and his friends doesn't let up for the next 700 pages.

A master storyteller

(Warning, spoilers approaching)

Rowling may not be as elegant or precise a writer as C.S. Lewis, or have a mythology as elaborate as J.R.R. Tolkien's, but she is a world-class storyteller. And what a yarn she spins. There are midair broomstick chases, last-minute escapes from Voldemort's clutches, a daring break-in at Gringotts, the goblin bank, and a siege at Hogwarts involving just about everyone from the previous six books. From Harry's departure from No. 4 Privet Drive to his final showdown with Voldemort, the action rarely stops. When Rowling does pause for breath, she reveals a secret that advances the plot.

And once in a while, she sneaks in a magical moment that made at least this reader set aside the book, as there were too many tears to see through. Those moments usually come between a parent and child: when Molly Weasley stands between a death eater and her children; when Narcissa Malfoy risks her master's wrath for her son's sake. There's even a moment, much like the closing graveyard scene of the Goblet of Fire, when Lilly and James Potter speak to their son: "We are … so proud of you."

Then there are all of Harry's friends. Ron Weasley, Hermione Granger, Neville Longbottom, and even Luna Lovegood all acquit themselves nobly in the Deathly Hallows. They will not be silent or turn aside in the face of evil. They remain loyal to Harry, even when such loyalty threatens their own lives. They are merciful—only one side in this war uses killing curses. And they are brave beyond measure, especially Neville, who does his parents proud in the Deathly Hallows. If my children grow up to have friends like them—or be such friends—their lives will be immensely rich.

That may be one of the enduring lessons of the Harry Potter epic. Jesus said that our lives do not consist of the abundance of our possessions (Luke 12:15). In Rowling's world, that is certainly true. Love, friendship, loyalty, laughter, joy, family—all of these matter much more than all the gold in Gringotts. Or in the Dursleys' well appointed but soulless home.

A whisper of Christ

Along with revealing the back-stories of Albus Dumbledore, Severus Snape, and Petunia Dursley—all of which should satisfy longtime Potter fans—Rowling reveals another secret in the Deathly Hallows. It happens when Harry, Ron, and Hermione visit Godric's Hollow, to the house where Voldemort killed the Potters. There, Harry sees the murder through Voldemort's eyes. When the Dark Lord broke into their house, James Potter rushes to defend his wife and son, but it was hopeless. Caught without a wand in hand, he was no match for Voldemort.

Lily, on the other hand, had a choice. Voldemort wants to kill Harry, not her, and tells her to step aside. She could live and let her boy die. Instead, she lays down her life to protect him. The act of substitutionary sacrifice saved her son's life, just before the opening of the Sorcerer's Stone.

As Rowling said in an online interview (mugglenet.com/jkrinterview.shtml), the "caliber of Lily's bravery was, I think in this instance, higher because she could have saved herself. Now any mother, any normal mother, would have done what Lily did … but she was given time to choose. James wasn't. It's like an intruder entering your house, isn't it? You would instinctively rush them. But if in cold blood you were told, 'Get out of the way,' you know, what would you do?'"

Jeff Weiss, religion writer for the Dallas Morning News, said the first six Harry Potter books are remarkably secular. After the Half-Blood Prince was released, he wrote: "After 3,365 hardcover pages, we know an awful lot about the orphaned wizard, and as far as we know, neither he nor anyone else in the books has ever set foot inside a church, spent a moment in prayer or acknowledged (or even contemplated) the existence of God.

"In the new book, as in the earlier volumes, Christmas is a holiday of feasts, presents and decorations—with no whisper of Christ."

Writers such as John Granger (hogwartsprofessor.com), however, argue that Rowling's fictional world is loaded with Christian symbolism, but always in the background. In the books themselves, the only hint of Christianity comes in the form of Sirius Black, Harry's godfather. Since he has a godfather, Harry was baptized as an infant. (Rowling said the baptism, or christening, was "a hurried, quiet affair" (books.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_858.php).

But Christ begins to whisper in the Deathly Hallows. A few pages before the flashback of the Potters' death, Harry and his friends visit the last resting place of Lily and James Potter, in the church graveyard in Godric's Hallow, on Christmas Eve.

First they see the grave of Kendra and Ariana Dumbledore, the mother and sister of the late Hogwarts headmaster. It bears this inscription: "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." (None of the characters seems to know that these words are from Matthew 6:21.)

Not far away is the Potters' tomb, with a different inscription: "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." The quotation is from 1 Corinthians 15: 26, part of a long passage about the resurrection. In Godric's Hollow, Rowling begins to reveal that, like Narnia, her world has a "deeper magic." Love, expressed as substitutionary sacrifice—choosing to lay down your life for your friends—has a power that Lord Voldemort, like the White Witch before him, is blind to. That blindness becomes his undoing—with the help of Harry and his friends.

When C.S. Lewis started out to write The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, he didn't have Christianity in mind. "Some people seem to think that I began by asking myself how I could say something abut Christianity to children; then fixed on the fairy tales as an instrument, then collect information about child psychology and decided what age group I'd write for; then drew up a list of basic Christian truths and hammered out 'allegories' to embody them," Lewis once wrote. "This is all pure moonshine. I couldn't write in that way at all."

"Everything began with images," Lewis continued. "A faun carrying an umbrella, a queen on a sled, a magnificent lion. At first there wasn't anything Christian about them. That element pushed itself in of its own accord."

Something similar seems to have happened to J.K. Rowling. She began writing about wizards and quidditch and Bertie Botts Every Flavor Beans, and somewhere along the way, Christ began to whisper into the story.

And the whole world was listening.

Bob Smietana is features editor of the Covenant Companion and the co-author of GP Taylor: Sin, Salvation, and Shadowmancer.