Soccer Mom: Unplugged

Usually, I don't like to write divisive posts about Christianity because I think we canabalize our own all too often when we confuse politics and religion.  Today,  I'm making an exception.

The Democrats made an effective effort before the last midterm to get out the message that they too are believers.  They ran commercials and ads highlighting the stereotypical association between the DNC and the war on poverty, senior citizens concerns, etc.  There are good Christians on both sides of the aisle, I acknowledge this but this association is distressing for several reasons that have less to do with politics than with faith.

It was particularly disturbing to me because I am a Christian quite concerned with social issues but also aware of the fact that Conservatives give more in the way of money, time and every other measurable donation to charitable causes.  In fact, conservative Christians object, not to helping the needy, but to being forced to let the government do it.  As with most issues,  the conservative stance is simply... I can do a better job with my money than Washington can.  I can donate through organizations that don't require a million man bureaucracy to distribute goods to the needy.  I can buy groceries for my neighbor who is having a hard time.  I can lend a hand to someone who is struggling.  I can afford to save and put my children through college on my own dime.

Some Christians in America have confused government intervention with the New Testament model of a united order (Acts 4-5) where saints laid all that they had at the feet of Peter who then distributed the goods and wealth among the saints so that there were no poor among them.  Still others see the scriptural practice as justification for communism.  On some levels,  this sort of redistribution of wealth looks a lot like communism.  But from a distance, lust looks a lot like love.

Remember that the united order practiced by the early saints was administered by men of God, apostles who were dedicated to lifting up the hands that hang down and strengthening the feeble knees (Heb 12:12).  We have no historical record to verify but I'm not inclined to believe there were earmarks.  Somehow, I fear, the very human American government, no matter how noble and inspired, will never measure up to the original officiators of this radical social plan.  Thus we are left to depend upon something just as reliable as God's desire for us to be charitable, mankind's self-interest.

For some, placing the sacred trust of caring for the needy squarely on the shoulders of the individual seems to be too much of a risk.  They would rather rely on government agents and a series of complex laws (regardless of the propensity toward loopholes) to administer what they see as a divine command to care for others.  We cannot forget, however, that God himself endowed each of us with free will before requiring that we use it for good.  To strip individuals of their ability to be charitable by redistributing their wealth for them is to be in opposition to the great plan that requires choice and obedience.  For how can one willingly obey if he is first compelled?

Joshua said "Choose ye this day who ye will serve" (Josh 24:15).  The purposes of God are thwarted without choice. Even Christ in Gethsemane recognized the inherent need for choosing good when He said "nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt" (Matt 26:39).  Admittedly, Christians on both sides of the political spectrum struggle with the impulse to legislate morality.  There is a wide gulf, however, between outlawing evil acts that pose a danger to society and forcing people to choose the better part.  One is common sense.  The other is nonsense.