The Government's Job

I have heard many, many pundits and private individuals go on about how taking care of the poor and the sick are not the government's job, that it's the private sector's place to handle such things. Government messes up everything it touches and does everything inefficiently. It would be the least reliable arbiter of who should and should not receive health care or food and shelter. Or so the story goes.

Fair enough. So then it should stand to reason that these same folks would have no problem with the government staying out of people's morality as well, seeing as how it would be the least reliable arbiter of such things. By that logic, Americans should be free to marry whom they want to marry (regardless of gender), burn whatever objects they wish (including the national flag), sleep with their students, put their chronically ill loved ones to death, and do any of these things on television or in the movies or in front of small children if it cranks their tractor. All without government intervention.

Point made yet? If not, here goes: Sure, in an ideal world the free market would make everything available to everyone at a reasonable price that is kept down by competition. But that ain't the way it works. And I do believe it is the private sector - nay, the CHURCH's - job to be the primary support for the poor. But we ain't getting the job done, folks. And our government IS put in place to "establish justice" for and "promote the general welfare" of all its citizens. And justice and welfare are often in short supply in a system predicated primarily on stock valuation and populated by those of us who are more worried about TiVo than transients.

The Micah mandate

“He has shown you, O man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you: to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.” Micah 6:8

From Carry A Big Stick by George Grant:

“In 1917, when American troops were preparing to sail across the seas in order to take to the battlefields of France and Belgium in the First World War, the New York Bible Society asked former president Theodore Roosevelt to inscribe a message in the pocket New Testaments that each of the soldiers would be given. The great man happily complied. And he began by quoting Micah’s striking triune call for biblical balance — what he called the ‘Micah Mandate.’

“Why this particular passage? Because he said, ‘The whole teaching of the New Testament’ is actually ‘foreshadowed in Micah’s verse.’

“In his brief message to the soldiers, he explained:

" 'Do justice; and therefore fight valiantly against those that stand for the reign of Moloch and Beelzebub on this earth. Love mercy; treat your enemies well; succor the afflicted; treat every woman as if she were your sister; care for the little children; and be tender with the old and helpless. Walk humbly; you will do so if you study the life and teachings of the Savior, walking in His steps.'

"He concluded, saying:

" 'Remember: The most perfect machinery of government will not keep us as a nation from destruction if there is not within us a soul.'

"Roosevelt believed that the ultimate security of men and nations depended on a faithful adherence to Micah’s threefold demonstration of true Biblical balance: "A strident commitment to justice, a practical concern for mercy, and a reverent humility before almighty God.”

When Is Red Blue?

Here is an editorial from Christianity Today that takes Tony Campolo to task for numbering himself among Red Letter Christians.

When Red Is Blue: Why I Am Not a Red-letter Christian
by Stan Guthrie

Though I own several Bibles with the words of Christ printed in red, I've always found the concept a bit iffy. After all, we evangelicals believe in the plenary, or full, inspiration of Scripture, don't we? Setting off Jesus' sayings this way seems to imply that they are more holy than what is printed in ordinary black ink. Sure, Christians understand that Jesus the incarnate Word fulfills the written Word. But if all Scripture is God-breathed, then in principle Jesus' inscripturated statements are no more God's Word to us than are those from Peter, Paul, and Mary—or Ezekiel. That's why I felt a bit queasy when I heard about a group calling itself "Red-Letter Christians." In the book Letters to a Young Evangelical, Tony Campolo says RLCs have an "intense desire to be faithful to the words of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament." That's a worthy start, of course—but only that. More >

My response:

While Stan may score some points for exposing the disingenuity of Tony's professed non-partisanship, he fails miserably in his refusal to admit that the Republican party and mean-spirited, agnostic radio talk show hosts OWN more than half the evangelicals in this country. Most evangelicals equate doctrinal conservatism with political conservatism but sometimes the two are radically antithetical. I have been called a communist by a fellow ministry leader because I made a positive remark about the first century church's all-for-one economic model mentioned in Acts. His thinking was, "It's communalism, therefore communistic, therefore atheistic!" Never mind that it's scriptural. If it doesn't fit the social Darwinism espoused by modern-day conservatives, it's considered un-Christian. Is that irony or what?

Another thing: In context, when Jesus said "The poor will always be with you", he wasn't saying "Therefore, they aren't a priority." His point was, "I won't always be here. Focus on me now, and them when I'm gone." In fact, Matthew 25 makes it harrowingly clear that He says, "They ARE me, as far as you're concerned. If you don't take care of them you aren't mine. Get that through your head!"