Imitatio Christi

So, God is Immoral??

chuck — 2009-11-06T10:37:18-05:00

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!

There He Goes Again

chuck — 2009-06-05T12:40:03-04:00

It is no secret to readers of this blog that I am no fan of Rush Limbaugh. To me, in many ways, he embodies the worst of what "entertainment journalism" has become. There is a point, though, when one move from giving opinions or being entertaining to going where no one should go, right or left. Of course, as a progressive, I have no objection to conservatives allowing Rush to be the de facto party head. But, really, we do need to denounce this sort of thing.

Media Bias

chuck — 2009-06-05T09:54:32-04:00

Perhaps one of the more significant misperceptions that the right primarily, but the left as well, tries to create, sadly, often more successfully that we'd like, is around the claim of media bias. The right is sure the media tilts wildly to the left, and the left is sure the opposite is true (though, EJ's piece here is more nuanced than we often see). Oddly enough, the only scholarly studies I've seen on the subject (serious engagement over an extended period, solid research methodologies, etc.) have shown there is virtually no media bias. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it, in particular, I'd be interested in what metrics you think would be used to determine bias. Then, I'll have more to say.

Song of the Day

chuck — 2009-06-01T09:01:48-04:00

    I recall a particularly stressful period of my youth--around 15 years old or so, and no doubt the same period of awkwardness most all of us feel at that age. Not yet a adult, not exactly a child, all of us face those times when we just don't seem to fit. In particular, I remember looking forward to getting away from my home community and heading off to college--I saw it as a chance "to start over." Surely, all those awkward feelings and moments would go away, and wouldn't it be grand to restart life in a new place with new friends and new circumstances.
    I wonder how often all of us have had those kinds of feelings? Something, or even many somethings, in our life gets messed up and it seems obvious that all we need is to get away, to make a clean break, to start again. Sometimes we change jobs, sometimes we move to a different house, and in more extreme cases, sometimes we try a new marriage or new relationship. Odd thing is, though, in relatively short order, the same old problems that haunted us in our last place follow us and make a re-appearance in our new place. Why? Well, as it turns out, to make things be different, we do not so much need a "new start" as we need to make some changes in ourselves. More often than not, we are the problem, not our friends or our setting or our job, etc.
    This song, for me, captures that deep desire to "start again." It does not get into the likelihood that a change in circumstances will make the real change we want, but it does explore the deep desire to get away from our "chains" and to "start again." I first heard Augustana play this as part of their set when warming up for OAR at Merriwether Post a couple of years ago. You can hear the song, Boston, here, and the lyrics are below.

"Boston"

In the light of the sun, is there anyone? Oh it has begun...
Oh dear you look so lost, eyes are red and tears are shed,
This world you must've crossed... you said...

You don't know me, you don't even care, oh yeah,
She said
You don't know me, and you don't wear my chains... oh yeah,

Essential yet appealed, carry all your thoughts across
An open field,
When flowers gaze at you... they're not the only ones who cry
When they see you
You said...

You don't know me, you don't even care, oh yeah,
She said
You don't know me, and you don't wear my chains... oh yeah,

She said I think I'll go to Boston...
I think I'll start a new life,
I think I'll start it over, where no one knows my name,
I'll get out of California, I'm tired of the weather,
I think I'll get a lover and fly em out to Spain...
I think I'll go to Boston,
I think that I'm just tired
I think I need a new town, to leave this all behind...
I think I need a sunrise, I'm tired of the sunset,
I hear it's nice in the Summer, some snow would be nice... oh yeah,

Boston... where no one knows my name... yeah
Where no one knows my name...
Where no one knows my name...
Yeah Boston...
Where no one knows my name.

Tiller, part two

chuck — 2009-05-31T22:51:07-04:00

A much more reasonable position from a Christian perspective...whether or not this guy is a Christian, he speaks better words into this tragedy than Terry.

The Tiller Murder

chuck — 2009-05-31T22:44:42-04:00

Wow. The words of Randall Terry.....hard to imagine how one could feel this way.....

Biblical Christianity and Our Presuppositions

chuck — 2009-05-29T09:45:20-04:00

    I occasionally teach a course on theological method. One of the primary foci of this course is an attempt to get at the underlying presuppositions that we bring to our theological reflection. There are many, and you can often see this reflected in a rather crass form when you see studies that show some ridiculous percentage of Christians believe that "God helps those who help themselves" is actually in Scripture. I think the issue is much more subtle and much more pervasive.
    Over the course of the next few weeks, I will be exploring this theme in a series of posts here on the blog. In particular, I wish to explore the extent to which contemporary Western (in general, and American, in particular) are much more guided by the work of Immanuel Kant and John Locke, than in Scripture. By that, I mean that we bring definitions and valuings of such terms as "freedom," "autonomy," and "public debate" that are rooted in the political philosophy of Locke and the Enlightenment rationalism of Kant. I think the presuppositions we bring to our theological reflection create some very bad and particularly unbiblical conclusions.
    Pass the word and join us for discussion of this topic over the next few weeks. Please feel free to raise any particular questions that you want me to address as the series unfolds.

Must Read, Former Interrogator and Torture

chuck — 2009-05-26T18:30:00-04:00

The arguments we have laid out here against torture are not complex and they are well known. Torture is not a reliable source of information; it is a reliable way to get folks to say what you want. Torture is immoral and illegal and should never be practiced--a view shared by that hero of the right, Ronald Reagan. To practice torture is to surrender any claim to the moral highground, and as Peter Storey intimated, it is to number one's self among the barbarians. Interestingly, in this piece, a man who actually served as an interrogator takes on Cheney's claims that torture "works." I am only one small voice, but I promise to continue to raise this issue to advocate for a return to the moral high ground for as long as I can or until change happens.

Petraeus On Torture and Gitmo

chuck — 2009-05-26T17:30:00-04:00

No torture, close Gitmo, says Petraeus. Why? It HELPS us on the war on terror, contra Cheney.

Partisan Divide

chuck — 2009-05-26T16:25:03-04:00

I suppose I am just realist enough on human nature to realize that the surest way to collapse is for someone to become too powerful. Once we think we "run the store," the temptations to take advantage of our power and to exploit it for our own selfish gain becomes too strong. The dems found this out about 30 years ago, the Republicans about 3 or so years ago (recall Rove's "permanent republican majority"?). The trends in this report, though go for a progressive agenda, open the door for more abuse, if they continue. Let's hope the repulbicans are reading these trends and are busily realizing that their style of conservatism is just not going to hack it. Movement toward the center, compromise with populist legislation, realizaton that "just saying no" is not as good a strategy in governance as it is in sexual morality, these would all be good moves--good for their party and good for citizens. In fact, about the only person who would be damaged by saner voices at the helm of the GOP is Rush Limbaugh.