In media res

This bit is from a conversation elsewhere, but I just can't write this much and not give it a longer cyber-life:

My Contribution to a Conversation with Michiganders:

In looking at this list, I realize that I am the lone SEC man among Big 10 participants, but I am absolutely comfortable with that.

As disciples, we must agree that Jesus and the OT prophets placed a special emphasis on the poor, the oppressed, the disenfranchised, the victimized and the weak. Jesus declared it clearly on the Mount. In Isaiah 1, the prophet says stop doing wrong, learn to do right, then defines his terms: seek justice, encourage the oppressed, take up the cause of the fatherless, defend the case of the widow. Our responsibility as Christ-followers is unequivocally to help the poor and weak, even at our own expense and discomfort.

As Americans, we inherit a system designed to pit human tendencies against each other for the greater, stable good. Hamilton and the Federalists rightly said that government must exist to restrain human passions, and we thus have checks and balances, separations of power, an adversarial justice system, a two party political system and a capitalist economy. Note, however, that every turn of our system and economy requires self-interest, strict property rights, competition, “rugged individualism,” and adversarial opposition. Our system requires it to function properly.

Hear me when I say that I prefer no other system and believe that for civil governments and social compacts, this is the only way to fly. Let us not deceive ourselves, however, by thinking that these American tenets are in harmony with the gospel and Kingdom. Jesus clearly and forcefully taught self-sacrifice for the greater good, diminishment of individualism for community and disgorgement of individual wealth for the benefit of those in poverty. We are in tension as Christians. Sure, America may have been founded primarily by and for Christians, but American values, however necessary to civil society, are counter-cultural to the kingdom.

Perhaps I’m “blaming America first.” So be it. We can do great good with out wealth and power and our economy, and we should. We should also recognize it for what it is.

The choice between church-function and state-function is a false dichotomy. It’s not an either-or proposition. Why should we not want to harness every tool, means and institution to its most effective use to achieve the scriptural imperative of justice?

The church has failed, continues to fail and must be transformed. Sure, we white, middle-class, evangelical Protestants have some bright spots, but our comfortable suburban live belie our commitment to the principles. We absolutely must repent of our failure to our poor and weak neighbors. We collectively ride by the beaten man on the road and leave him to another Samaritan. Until our charity matches our debt service, we will be in bad shape. Also, in our republican democracy, the government, the state, is a reflection of the people, so if the church gets serious, the government will follow suit.

Even so, why should we not make good use of the state to transform the fate of the poor among us. Having lived through Katrina in Mississippi and being well familiar with the poorest corner of our rich land, I have witnessed the scope of a problem only within the practical capacity of a government. The church may salve poverty and its attendant problems, but smart government and a compassionate economy could virtually eradicate them on our shores. Then we would turn the rest of the world. Government may be inefficient, but it has the practical means to accomplish these goals.

The great problem with modern conservatives (not libertarians) is that they condemn government involvement in the economy, in business, in taxation, in health care and in programs to address poverty. Then, with a seeming blindness to the dissonance, demand government involvement in personal, sexual and moral behavior. Historically and practically, this is exactly backwards. Government is good at the economy and social structures. Government is very bad at sexual and moral behavior. The church, on the other hand, is perfectly well equipped to minister to relationships and morality but is not well equipped - these days - to tackle civil underpinnings.

I end up being a liberal but as a result of Christian pragmatism. We have problems to solve and a Kingdom to manifest. Let us use every tool in our arsenal, but let us use them with wisdom and appreciation for their practical limitations.

You want fewer abortions? Legal prohibition is only a very small and limited means of saving lives. Instead, try to create a sanctuary where terrified girls can rest in the love and community of a graceful kingdom. Also, try delivering the poor and desperate from such straights that they cannot comprehend raising another child. (Abortion rates fell during the Clinton administration - not the Bushes - because the economic outlook improved for poor people. You want fewer abortions? Make parenthood easier on poor people.) You want to “defend the institution of marriage”? Gay people are not the enemy. Divorce, selfishness, vain power and control and unrealistic expectations are the real problems and squarely within the province of the heterosexual church.

The problem and the solutions are too complex for our contemporary political parties, but they are necessary. The church should use politics and government to tend to the work Jesus gave us in advance to do: caring for orphans and widows, impoverishing ourselves for the sake of the poor and encouraging the oppressed (including yet-to-be born kids) and proceeding with stewardship and wisdom.