Imitatio Christi

What Do Health Care Reform, the 40 Work Week, Unemployment Insurance, the Minimum Wage, etc, etc. Have in Common?

            Well, they were all brought to you by political progressives, they were all opposed by political conservatives, and they all are now viewed as fundamental presuppositions of a healthy society by virtually everyone.  Okay, all but health care reform, but trust me, if it passes, in no time at all it will be viewed so positively that we will no longer be able to remember why it took us so long to implement it.  And, of course, the list actually includes many, many more initiatives—child labor laws, basic workplace safety rules, social security, Medicare, and so on.

 

            In each case, the vast majority of political conservatives opposed them.  They told us that businesses would be ruined, that the problems resulting from implementing the initiatives would be worse than if we left things as they were, that implementing them would make us non-competitive, or, more generally, that the good life as we know it would be gone if we were so foolish as to pass these pieces of legislation.  One would think that after being wrong sooo many times, political conservatives would speak with a bit more epistemic humility, but alas, not so.  If one took some of the speeches in opposition to health care reform, one could substitute “minimum wage laws” or “child labor laws” in place of “health care reform” and it would be déjà vu all over again—to quote Yogi.  One wonders why these folks any longer have credibility on issues of basic societal justice.  If you trusted them based on simple empirical evidences, they would be roundly dismissed on such issues.

 

            So, it is not at all surprising to find that, as we are on the verge of possibly the most significant reform in American politics in the last 40 years, political conservatives are united against it.  We have the highest health care cost “per unit” than anyone else in the world, we are below the countries with universal coverage as far as customer satisfaction is concerned, we are somewhere near 40^th in infant mortality (you’d think the pro-life forces would notice this), and it goes on.  Yet, in the midst of these overwhelming evidences to the contrary, those opposed to health care reform think things are just fine.  All that is fine, and let’s make no mistake about it, are the financial interests of those who benefit from the status quo—the insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, etc.  These are the ones to whom far too many of our politicos are indebted.  We need more politicians indebted to the common good, to the common person, to the public good.

 

            There is no guarantee yet that there will be health care reform, though we are closer than ever before.  If we do succeed in overcoming the monied interests and act on behalf of the common good, check back with me in three years.  We can celebrate yet another case of political progressives going against special interests to move legislation in favor of the common good.  May it be so!

Sarah Palin and the Demise of Public Discourse

            I wonder how many doctoral dissertations will be written over the next several years aimed at exploring the cultural phenomenon that is Sarah Palin.  It is hard to imagine a scenario in which one would undertake such a study and come to the conclusion that the impact she has wielded on culture has been even marginally positive.  Here we had a person so clearly over their head as a vice-presidential candidate who, nevertheless, is being highly rewarded by a particular substrand of the American population.  Sarah’s stunning ignorance on policy issues was spun as “independence;” an inability to answer questions with even a semblance of articulateness, we were told, was a sign of her “anti-elite” roots; and her engaging in the most crass demagoguery was attributed to her “rogouishness.”  It is hard to imagine a single point of intersection with culture that Sarah did not cheapen the quality of our public discourse, and now, with the publication of a “best seller,” we get to hear even more gems of wisdom.

 

            Perhaps Palin is an easy target for a bigger phenomenon.  It has not been so long that Charles Barkley told us he was not a “role model,” as if a person gets to choose that role!  He was but a minor example of those who plug themselves into public discussion with seemingly no awareness of the responsibility they bear for the things they say.  Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Jim Cramer, Bernard Goldberg are all examples of folks whose participation in public dialog leave our public discourse more impoverished.  What we need is a mechanism to remind these folks that with great blessing (a major “bully platform”) comes great responsibility.  One thinks of the line from A Christmas Carol, when the ghost of Marley, bearing the chains of injustices carried out in his own life, warns Scrooge that the chain he bears himself is a “ponderous one.”  What ponderous chain does someone like Rush Limbaugh bear for his “contribution” to public discourse?  He used to refer to himself as having “talent on loan from God.”  I used to wonder what Rush thinks God is going to say when he returns that talent, in light of his use of it.

 

            The dynamics of all this are very complex.  A willing and interested audience, coupled with freedom of speech and the freedom to market virtually any idea, not matter how harmful, the reduction of our age to a “sound bite” mentality, are all things that contribute to an environment in which such negative influences on public discourse are allowed to flourish.  I am a strong advocate of freedom of speech, for example, but I am also an advocate for finding a stronger way of tying folks to the damage they do to our public discourse.  I can see the problem, but am less clear on the way forward.  Ideas?

 

What Do You Get When You Cross Micah 6 with John 3:16?

            Well, you get progressive evangelicals—a people who unite those two things too long separated:  the invitation to become followers of Jesus and the call to join the struggle for the creation of just societies.  And, what is it that progressive evangelicals do?  Well, this week a bunch of them are gathered together in Dallas to call the city together under the aegis of Justice Revival.  A revival that calls folks first to become followers, no, not just followers, but disciples of Jesus, and then does not stop there but goes on to invite them to take become disciples who embody Jesus’ concern for the poor and marginalized.

 

            How many of you have experienced the disappointment of finding that those who are most concerned about creating just societies are so often inattentive to inviting folks into relationship with Jesus?  Or, on the other hand, experienced the frustration of seeing those who put such a strong emphasis on evangelism that they forget the biblical emphasis upon issues of justice?  Well, if you have, then Justice Revival is for you—whether you are in Dallas this week or not.  Join with us, wherever you are, and make this a week of Justice Revival for you by praying for your kindred spirits, Christian brothers and sisters, in Dallas.  Then, consider how you can, this week, unite the invitation to become followers of Jesus with the call to become involved in social justice concerns.  Partner with us, and let the spirit of Justice Revival take root where you are, and let us do what we progressive evangelicals do best:  recognize that participation in the struggle for social justice is not something one adds to being a Christian, but rather that it is at the center of what it means to follow the Crucified One!

So, God is Immoral??

            While working out at the gym the other night, I happened to catch Jack Cafferty on the Situation Room.  One of the questions he posed for his viewers dealt with whether or not it was fair to more heavily tax the wealthy to pay for health care for the poor.  The respondent that most captured my attention was the one who commented that there was absolutely no moral or philosophical basis for expecting the wealthy to pay higher taxes than the poor.  Given the way the theme of the obligations that attend wealth shows up in Scripture, I was puzzled at this respondent who, I had to conclude, must believe God is immoral.

            From very early on in the Scriptural stories, the idea that those who are well-to-do have obligations to participate in caring for those less fortunate is clear.  Consider the gleaning laws wherein farmers where enjoined to leave some produce in the field for the poor to gather.  Similarly, the laws (notice, “laws” not suggestions) regarding Years of Release and Years of Jubilee required, in the first case, forgiveness of debts every seven years and, in the latter case, the return of the ancestral lands to their original owners.  All of these laws imposed burdens on the well-to-do that effectively required them to undertake care of the poor with the resources of which they were stewards.

            Once we move to the New Testament, we are told to keep in mind the rule that “to whom much is given, much is required.”  That God is very serious about these obligations of the wealthy toward the poor is evident in numerous ways.  First, the Pericope of the Great Judgment in Matthew 25 has Jesus rejecting those who did not engage in serving the “least of these.”  Second, in Luke 12 we have the Parable of the Barns.  In this case, a wealthy farmer has done so well with his crops that he, quite simply, plans to retire early.  Rather than saying, “Wow, what a good farmer you are,” God says, “You fool, tonight your life will be required of you.”  Why was he a fool?  He saw his good fortune as something for himself rather than as an instrument of blessing to others.  Third, in the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, we see a Rich Man who ends up in hell for no other obvious reason than that he had the wherewithal to help Lazarus—in fact, to help heal Lazarus of his ailments—but instead turned a blind eye.  In each of these cases, God judges the ones who did not understand the obligations that go with much as the ones who were immoral.  Of course, none of these passages directly reference the question of taxes, but they all are crystal clear in the obligations that attend wealth in all aspects of life—public and private.

            So, Cafferty’s respondent thinks there is no moral reason for expecting the wealthy to bear a greater share of the costs of care for those of our society who are on the margins in one way or another?  Well, as is evident from Scripture, God sees things differently, and when it comes to God or Caffertys’ respondent, I’ll go with God being the one more likely to get morality right!