US and UK Christians and Politics

Have to think about that one. Interesting. Anyone have comments?

 

Like I said, you're either consistently libertarian or consistently interventionist. I don't think you can pick and choose and say "Oh I want the gvt involved in x but not in y". If you want a gvt to look after your internal and external security you have to pay them for it; with that goes the knowledge that they might spend your money on something else...

Jim, the OT in particular is full of exhortations to the civil gvt to do something about poverty. With the Israelites, they began with a more or less tribal society prior to and during the settlement of Canaan. Against this historical background of Israel gradually being transformed from a wandering group of tribes to a settled agricultural society,the land, which they believed belonged to God, was entrusted to them corporately. They were in effect the stewards and trustees of God’s property. Inevitably this meant that to some extent they became involved in competition rather than co-operation. Some were given good land, others poor land; some were gifted farmers, others discovered themselves to be unsuited to it; some prospered while others failed.In this context of development of private property and rich and poor, the parts of the Law,dealing with the notion of covenant, are very valid: this extended to every area of Israel’s social, economic and community life. Central to the great law codes of Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy are the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1-17) with the fundamental principle ‘thou shalt not covet’; and the ‘Book of the Covenant’ (Ex 20:22-23:33). The various ordinances of the Book of the Covenant attempt to identify and give special protection to the more vulnerable members of a selfish society, e.g. slaves, aliens, widows, orphans and the poor; to contain and prohibit the widespread use of violence; to avoid exploitation in money-lending and employment practices…the Book of the Covenant also introduces the idea of the seventh year, which is developed in Deuteronomy and Leviticus into two related concepts: the sabbatical year (Deut 15:1-15) and the year of jubilee (Lev 25)…There are also further ordinances concerning tithing the produce of the land to feed the poor and needy (Deut 14:29/26:12); payment of religious offerings being reduced in the case of the poor (Lev 12:8; 14:21; 27:8); making of loans to, and the employing of poor men (Deut 24:12, 14, 15); leaving the gleanings behind in harvested fields, or olive branches in the vineyard and then allowing the poor free access to them (Deut 24:19; Lev 19:19; Lev 23:22). Therefore, in giving the Law, God is concerned not just with blessing, but also with fairness, justice and freedom from oppression for the poor and the weak.

The developing gap between rich and poor beginning during the settlement phase continued to widen after the settlement and during the period of the Kingdom(s) (c.1040-586 BC). Israel evolved from being a loose tribal grouping to become a centralised nation-state, with great extremes of wealth and poverty. The caring, sharing notion of early Israel was distorted into a harsh, primitive type of capitalist kingdom. A seemingly-endless procession of mainly bad kings ruled over both Israel and Judah, practising pagan rites and exploiting the poor, Ahab’s theft and murder in the acquisition of Naboth’s vineyard being but one example (1 Kings 21).

Against this backdrop of hedonistic paganism and exploitative decadence, the great Old Testament prophets rose up to denounce the nations of Israel and Judah and their rulers. Hebrew society took on some of the characteristics of neighbouring peoples. With Saul, David and Solomon Israel became a monarchy. In theory, the king was to protect the poor; in practice, however, Israel had a royal court, a priesthood and armies, and it alternately went to war and made alliances with neighbouring kingdoms. It is Israel’s failure to live up to its original calling that prompts the rise of prophecy. Amos is particularly ‘anti-rich’, attacking their lifestyles and their abuse of the poor, together with injustice and judicial bribery (Amos 2:6-7; 3:15; 5:7; 5:12-13; 6:4-5). This is unacceptable to God (Amos 5:21-24). Micah is equally critical: the rich appropriate others’ property and destroy the poor (Micah 2:2; 3:2-3). Similar themes can be found in Isaiah 3:14-15; 10:1-4 and 58:1-6.

It does not necessarily follow from the above, however, that the prophets were categorically against people having wealth; it would appear that they were more concerned about how that wealth was acquired and at whose expense. Nevertheless, the dominant theme of prophetic diatribe against the secular and religious establishment seems to be that of justice for the poor, widows and orphans.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Well said, Matt. I'll take awhile to digest it.

 

Cheers, Jim!

On tbe point of American individualism, I think that this is a basic by-product of Protestantism, whereas Catholicism and 'higher' forms of churchmanship tend to encourage a more communitarian, collective approach. Permit me to elaborate...

It was perhaps inevitable that the Reformation, with its (rightful) emphasis on the need for personal salvation through the individual’s faith and relationship with God, would spawn an, at times, unhealthy reliance on the Christian as individual rather than as part of the Church as a whole. Although we have to recognise that the pre-Reformation Catholic Church was not quite the monolith with a united front that some evangelicals would like to think (consider in particular the Catholic-Orthodox schism of 1054 and the split within Catholicism between Rome and Avignon 1378-1417), it is nevertheless true that in destroying the concept and ideology of a united ‘Great Church’ with universally-held and certain doctrines and uniformity of observance and worship, the Reformers created a problem for themselves and future generations of Christians: if the Catholic Church hierarchy is no longer the arbiter of doctrine, discipline and Biblical interpretation, then who is, and by what right and on what basis? Two solutions presented themselves – and still do today. The first is that it is the individual Christian who determines what is right and proper by revelation from God and by the Spirit illuminating the Bible as the Word of God. This is of course a recipe for both anarchy and heresy as well as the culture for the emergence of Godly, gifted and anointed Christians. The second solution was to set up an alternative church with its own doctrines and own hierarchy (different, of course, to that of the Catholics), which is what Luther essentially did. The second solution, however, presents a problem – who decides what form this church takes and what its doctrines are, and on what basis? So, again we are thrown back on the individual ultimately, and the second solution has large elements of the first in it.

Therefore Protestantism, taken to its logical conclusion, and despite its stated reliance on the Bible as the revealed Word of God, is nevertheless dependent ultimately on individual conscience and interpretation of that Word. Thus it is fair comment to say that the individual (and his/her relationship with God) is at the heart of the Protestant creeds.

Basic Protestant individualism then had added to it fairly quickly another important factor in the development of Right-wing thought: the Calvinist doctrine of predestination. Without wishing to delve into the theological controversies surrounding this doctrine, it is fair to say that this had a profound sociological effect, the legacy of which is with us today: by teaching that some individuals were predestined for salvation, whilst others were to be damned, Calvinist leaders had to find some way of telling the two categories of persons apart. Sometimes they were able to make the distinction by some reference by the individual concerned to having a kind of encounter with God or being touched by the Almighty in some other way; more often than not, and increasingly, Calvinists took material prosperity as a sign of God’s blessing and Divine providence and thus were able to determine that that individual was amongst the elect.

Calvinist teaching of the above kind shaped the formation of the Puritan wing of the Anglican church after the Elizabethan Reformation settlement in England of 1559 (many English Protestants had taken refuge in European countries where Calvinism was flourishing and had absorbed its teachings during the persecutions under Elizabeth’s predecessor Mary). Finding themselves marginalised and hounded out of the Church of England under the early Stuarts, many took refuge in North America, the Pilgrim Fathers of course being the most well-known. Whilst it is true that Calvinism has remained a stream within American Christianity ever since, more importantly the ethos of the Puritans played a fundamental role in shaping the society and institutions of the United States, in particular by extolling work and wealth-creation and by fostering individualism. It is unlikely that the US would be the great capitalist nation that it is today had it not been for Puritanism. This link between Calvinism and capitalism has been highlighted by social commentators such as Weber and Campolo.

This Protestant work ethic, with its emphasis on thrift and the accumulation of wealth as a sign of God’s providence, remains the abiding legacy to North American Christendom.
This society that the church accordingly helped to create in turn has interacted with and impacted on the church and its teaching. Therefore, it is fairly inevitable that the teachings of many American churches, existing as they do in a profoundly capitalist culture, place a major emphasis on money and connected issues. In part, this is a good thing: the church has to speak into the society in which it exists and to say things of relevance to that society, and so it is to be expected that the church in the most capitalist country of the world should have something significant to say about money and wealth. But there can also be a down-side to this: the values of that society can equally rub off on the church; it can be a case of ‘too much of the World in the Church and not enough of the Church in the World’.

Conversely, the Roman Catholic Church has placed far more emphasis on the corporate rather than the individual. This is perhaps best summed up by their maxim "extra ecclesia nulla salus"; the individual can only be saved as part of a wider whole within the Church. This is fact goes beyond simple koinonia or fellowship; it is Christ through His Body, the Church, who imparts salvation to us. Therefore, only by being joined to the Church, by partaking in Her community life and Her sacraments, can salvation be obtained. Whereas Protestantism emphasises the vertical – the individual’s direct relationship with God – Catholicism stresses the horizontal – relationship within the Church.

Flowing from this, the role of the individual is played down; it is the corporate, the collective, that is important. In the same way therefore that Protestantism, and in particular its Calvinist variant, has close parallels with capitalism, so in turn can it be fairly said that Catholic ecclesiology bears some striking similarities to socialism, even communism, on a sociological level.

Added to this is the fact that, despite the rather obvious riches of the hierarchy, there has always been a bias in Catholicism for the poor, the needy and suffering. Whilst it is the case that the Church leadership has traditionally allied itself with the forces of conservatism, that has not always been the case with the lower clergy and sodalities, many of whom have emphasised poverty as a virtue (one has only to think of the Franciscans as a powerful example). Often this has been as a reaction to the visible riches of the institutionalised Church and can be traced back as far as the early Desert Fathers who emerged just as the Church was becoming officially recognised by the Roman government in the Third Century ; this has gathered momentum in recent decades with the emergence of Liberation Theology partly as a ‘rebellion’ against the Latin American bishops usually lining up with the conservative establishments in their respective countries.

Taking the two above strands – corporatism and concern for the poor – we have the main roots of Catholic social teaching. This first emerged in a major way in 1891 with the publication of Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum Novarum, which urged, amongst many things, fairness in the workplace and respect for the dignity of the poorer workers, in particular recognition of trades unions. Although the Pope affirmed the right of private property, he also stressed the principles of solidarity in the relationship between the individual and society and between society and the individual, and subsidiarity, whereby private initiatives were to receive the support of larger individuals or the state in cases where the individual or smaller social units were unable to cope. Rerum novarum “criticised the excesses of capitalism including the “greed of unchecked competition”; it defended the right of labor (sic) to form unions and stressed the duty of government to care for the poor. Workers were entitled to wages that would gurantee their families a reasonable and frugal comfort, Leo declared, and they committed no sin by seeking government aid to get it.”In part, this was a belated attempt on the part of the Catholic church to grapple with the immense social changes wrought by the Industrial Revolution, particularly urbanisation, and to win back the constituency of the proletariat; mainstream Protestant churches were trying to do the same at that time. Having said that, the encyclical was altruistic to an extent and stressed the theme of justice for the poor and set out Catholic social teaching for all members of that church; in doing so it set the trend for subsequent Papal documents and Catholic teaching and I believe that it is fair comment to say that it is an antecedent of liberation theology, though such a view may offend the current Pope. However, it is fair also to say that Leo XIII’s successors were not entirely consistent with his earlier stated views; Pius X in 1903 said that “Human society as established by God is made up of unequal elements…Accordingly it is in conformity with the order of human society as established by God that there be rulers and ruled, employers and employees, learned and ignorant, nobles and plebeians.”Pius XI’s version of social teaching in the 1930s “seemed so close to corporativism that dictators, like Getulio Vargas in Brazil and Juan Domingo Peron in Argentina, could invoke it.” (Although the “corporativism” referred to here is of the more fascist variety, akin to that of Mussolini’s Italy, rather than tending towards socialism, at the more extreme end of the spectrum there are more similarities such as state-corporatism than differences between fascism and communism; this highlights the dangers for individual civil liberties and human rights inherent in taking collectivism too far.)

These social teachings of the Catholic, together with similar trends in the more established Protestant churches (see below) gave impetus to the rise of Christian Socialism. It is easy to dismiss this as a simple ‘christening’ of Marxism or, at best, a coming together of socialism and Christianity. It is true that the movement was influenced by Socialist theories, but it is unfair to link it with the Marxist dialectic of scientific socialism. Christian Socialism had its origins in particular with the English writers Charles Kingsley and Thomas Carlyle (ironically Carlyle also provided moral impetus for the contemporaneous cross-current of imperialism) and the theologian F.D. Maurice. These men appealed to the establishment to help ease the lot of the poor. Coupled with the Oxford Movement, Christian Socialism in Britain became a vehicle for social change and can be linked to such diverse features as the founding of the YMCA in 1844 with its work in the slums, and the Salvation Army’s activities in the East End from the 1860s; indeed, Christian Socialism was one of the formative streams of the British Labour Party. It is wrong, however, to consider this a purely English movement; in France such ideas were represented by Lamennais and Leroux, in Germany Adolf Wagner, Stoecker and Friedrich Naumann took up the cudgels. Indeed, the Bishop of Mainz, Wilhelm Emanuel von Ketteler, pressed for social reforms by the state based on Christian responsibility. Government intervention to solve social problems was also demanded by the ‘Socialists of the Chair’ (Kathedersozialisten), who started the ‘Association for Social Policy’ (Verein fur Sozialpolitik) in 1872, which influenced the German legislation on social insurance (imported into Britain as the old age pension in 1908). Social concern in Germany was not limited to Catholics; Theodor Fliedner opened the first Protestant diaconate institution (Diakonissenanstalt) in Kaiserwerth in 1836, Johann Hinrich Wichern a home for wayward youths (Rauhes Haus) in 1833 and a sodality of deacons in 1843. Fliedner and Wichern founded the Innere Mission in the 1840s to aid young and old people, the sick and those on hard times. In 1877, Wagner started the ‘Central Association for Social Reform’ (Zentralverein fur Sozialreform), which was continued by Stoecker after 1890 as the Evangelical Social Congress. After 1882, evangelical workers’ associations were formed.

In the United States, these trends manifested themselves in the ‘Social Gospel’ movement. Adherents of this movement focussed on living conditions rather than on saving souls. If people were to lead pure lives, they must have enough to eat, decent homes and opportunities to develop their talents. Social Gospelers advocated civil service reform, child labor legislation, regulation of big corporations and heavy taxes on incomes and inheritance.Prominent among them was Washington Gladden, who published ‘Applied Christianity’ in 1886 and ‘The New Evangel’, and the Revd William Bliss, who called for a welfare state and founded the Society of Christian Socialists in 1889; Charles M. Sheldon’s novel ‘In His Steps’, published in 1896 and envisaging a kind of Christian Socialist Utopia, was also influential. A peculiarity of the American Social Gospel movement was the foundation of so-called ‘Settlement Houses’, essentially community centres with an emphasis on provision for the poor and shiftless and communal living; in some ways forerunners of the ‘base communities’ of liberation theology. It is accurate to consider the Social Gospellers of the late 19th Century as the spiritual ancestors of the likes of Campolo and Sider.

Christian social teaching and Christian Socialism were therefore far from being the exclusive preserve of the Catholic church ; many of the seeds of the Left-of-centre stance of certain liberal and even evangelical Protestants were also sown in the mid to late 19th Century. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that the corporatist background to Catholic theology lent weight to this trend and it was partly by adopting elements of that ideology that some Protestant organisations and churches came to similar conclusions.

My apologies for such a lengthy post, but I hope I've given some further food for thought as to how we've all got where we are.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Matt, you should write a book. Seriously. I don't agree first off with every point you make, but will re-read and mull it over. Much of it makes great sense. Maybe I'll come up with a point of argument...or maybe I'll just store it away for awhile.

 

Cheers, Jim! I have to confess that some of the above does come from a paper I've written critiquing both Prosperity Theology (you know, the sort of stuff you get on TBN)at one end and Liberation Theology at the other extreme. I don't expect you to agree with my last two posts, but just thought it was useful to have a bit of a look at how the Christian approach to things has evolved as I see it on both sides of the Pond. The most noteworthy thing I found in my research for the paper was that the Christian Socialist/ Christian social teaching etc began to emerge in the UK (and to an extent in mainland Europe too) with the likes of Wilberforce, Shaftesbury, Kingsley etc BEFORE Marx and Engels came up with the Communist Manifesto in 1848

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Matt


Impressive, most impressive.

 

Ofcourse, every time somebody starts a discussion on the church helping the poor people jump in and start yelling about the evils of the 'social gospel'(TM) followed up by accusing the person who started the thread of being a Roman Catholic plant.

(only slightly exagerated)

 

Thanks, mioque! I hope I've demonstrated that Christian social action is not just limited to Catholics and liberal Christians but has a long and honourable pedigree amongst committed evangelical Christians.

TUC makes an important point: could those who argue that the relief of poverty is solely the preserve of the churches and other charitable institutions explain why it is that,for example, we don't have a forum on the BB devoted to that?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

You are absolutely correct. Things are far out of place not only in the government but also in the church. A few observations from my POV:

1. The big denominations (mainline denominations, "liberals") rejected scriptural authority in favor of the "social gospel" in the early 1900's. The social gospel rejects or neglects the need for individual salvation through faith in Christ, and focuses exclusively on the temporal, i.e. feeding the hungry and social causes. Salvation is viewed as works-based and universalism is taught.

2. The Fundamentalist movement was born out of the apostasy of the big denominations, and correctly held to a return to personal faith in Christ, but overreacted to the social aspects of liberalism, therefore teaching a neglect of the physical needs of the poor and the cultural needs of society as a whole.

3. The liberals, in their goal of spreading the social gospel, leveraged the power of the government through social legislation.

4. Now, the government,rather than the church, is caring for the poor. The liberals think it's great, having enlisted the government to do their work for them (and force others to do so, whether they wish to or not), and the fundamentalists complain but do too little to change it, either through the legislative process or through charity on their own part.


So, yes, it's out of whack. But working to make it right again is better than pretending it's not wrong.

 

Matt (and others):

A quote from The Law by Frederick Bastiat, 1850:

"...Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men
have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that
life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that
caused men to make laws in the first place.
What Is Law ?
What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of
the individual right to lawful defense.
Each of us has a natural right--from God--to defend
his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the
three basic requirements of life, and the preservation
of any one of them is completely dependent upon the
preservation of the other two. For what are our
faculties but the extension of our individuality? And
what is property but an extension of our faculties?
If every person has the right to defend -- even by
force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then
it follows that a group of men have the right to
organize and support a common force to protect these
rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective
right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is
based on individual right. And the common force that
protects this collective right cannot logically have
any other purpose or any other mission than that for
which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual
cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty,
or property of another individual, then the common
force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be
used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of
individuals or groups. ..."

 

Jim, very astute observations in your first post Will likewise have to go and mull over your Bastiat quote before coming back to you

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Reverting to you on the Bastiat quote, Jim, whilst I agree that the principle of private property and laws to protect its integrity are essential foundations for democracy and a healthy economy, I'd like to know how you see taxation as undermining that foundation.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

There is no objection to limited taxation to support the basic governmental function of protecting life, liberty, and property.

Taxation simply to redistribute the money is an entirely different function, and is communism.

 

More Bastiat:

"... This question of legal plunder must be settled once
and for all, and there are only three ways to settle it:
1. The few plunder the many.
2. Everybody plunders everybody.
3. Nobody plunders anybody.
We must make our choice among limited plunder,
universal plunder, and no plunder. The law can
follow only one of these three.
Limited legal plunder: This system prevailed when
the right to vote was restricted. One would turn back
to this system to prevent the invasion of socialism.
Universal legal plunder: We have been threatened
with this system since the franchise was made
universal. The newly enfranchised majority has
decided to formulate law on the same principle of
legal plunder that was used by their predecessors
when the vote was limited.
No legal plunder: This is the principle of justice,
peace, order, stability, harmony, and logic. Until the
day of my death, I shall proclaim this principle with
all the force of my lungs (which alas! is all too
inadequate).*
*Translator's note: At the time this was written, Mr.
Bastiat knew that he was dying of tuberculosis.
Within a year, he was dead.
The Proper Function of the Law
And, in all sincerity, can anything more than the
absence of plunder be required of the law? Can the
law -- which necessarily requires the use of force --
rationally be used for anything except protecting the
rights of everyone? I defy anyone to extend it beyond
this purpose without perverting it and, consequently,
turning might against right. This is the most fatal and
most illogical social perversion that can possibly be
imagined. It must be admitted that the true solution --
312
so long searched for in the area of social relationships
-- is contained in these simple words: Law is
organized justice.
Now this must be said: When justice is organized by
law -- that is, by force -- this excludes the idea of
using law (force) to organize any human activity
whatever, whether it be labor, charity, agriculture,
commerce, industry, education, art, or religion. The
organizing by law of any one of these would
inevitably destroy the essential organization --
justice. For truly, how can we imagine force being
used against the liberty of citizens without it also
being used against justice, and thus acting against its
proper purpose?
..."

 

OK, now that you have accepted the principle that taxation is not necessarily wrong, we have to ask ourselves the question: "What forms of taxation damage the principle of private property?" I can only speak from the UK POV, so here's a list of the main ones:-

1. Income tax - tax on income so not a property tax, so no.

2. National Insurance - ditto

3. Value added tax (sale tax) - tax on consumption, so no.

4. Excise and other duties - see #3

5. Capital gains tax - tax on increase in value of an asset, so yes.

6. Corporation tax - tax on income earned by a company, so no.

7. Stamp duty - tax on a document, so no.

8. Stamp Duty Land tax - tax payable on money paid for land, so arguably yes.

9. Inheritance tax - tax payable on the assets of the deceased, so yes.

10. Insurance premium tax - tax payable on insurance premium - probably no - depends whether you consider an insurance policy 'property'

11. Council tax - local county or city tax payable on the value of your home, so yes.

Er...I'm sure there are more but can't think of any.

So, some forms of taxation are on property, others are not. But even taxing private property does not amount to communism; communism is the abolition of all private property and income, pure socialism is the abolition of private property and neither therefore envisage a tax on property since in both systems there is no property to tax

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Matt,

Income is property.

But, I think, in order to judge whether taxation is in violation of property rights, the question "What is the tax money used for" is as important as "How is the tax money collected".

 

Define 'property', then. To me, income is a regular payment in money or money's worth in consideration for the fulfilment of a contractual obligation by its recipient. 'Property' is capital - real estate, personal chattels, stocks and shares, debts owed to you etc, and therefore income cannot be property.

I think it does not matter what the tax is spent on as to whether it violates property rights; either the collection violates them or it doesn't; what its spent on is irrelvant IMO; in accepting the principle of having a government and paying taxes to that government for it to function, as part of the deal, the 'social contract' if you like, for being a member of society, you have to accept that the government may spend what it collects on things you don't like. That's too bad; if you don't like it, change the government; but I don't see how you can complain that its immoral for you to thus pay tax.

Yours in Christ

Matt (not on BB again now until Monday 9AM GMT)

 

Property is anything to which you have legitimate claim.

Your money is certainly your property. Your car, house, etc., of course. But, even your thoughts are your property, as is your time. It's yours, entrusted by God to you. He gives to each of us as He sees fit. What He has goven to you is not mine.