Thank you Justin.

An Evangelical Who Doesn’t Like Sarah Palin

by Jim Wallis 07-27-2009

I was doing a workout anyway, so I decided to watch Sarah Palin’s farewell address while pumping away on the elliptical machine. The first thing I heard was CNN’s senior political correspondent Candy Crowley say that “evangelicals” just love Sarah Palin, even though most other groups (even her own Republicans) have steadily soured on the now-former Governor of Alaska. Crowley is a good political analyst who normally has intelligent things to say; but I am tired of the stereotype.

There are a lot of evangelicals, like me (and especially younger evangelicals), who are just embarrassed by Sarah Palin.

The speech was vintage Palin—absolutely awful. After some frenzied patriotism, that the United States was the BESTGREATESTEVER country in the history of the world, and that those who have any questions about any of that are just, you know, the absolutely wrong kind of people, she went on to an endless extolling of OUR MILITARY. Now, I feel a lot of pain and respect for the kids who have been put in harm’s way by the stupid decisions of the last administration, and are still there trying to fight their way out of their leader’s mistakes, but again, blind allegiance to the military and all their wars has not been one of our best national characteristics.

Then she talked about how bad the government always is, in everything, and that HOLLYWOOD STARLETS want to come up to Alaska to take OUR GUNS. So she wanted to remind America that support for the Second Amendment to bear arms comes from a deep northern tradition of WE EAT SO WE HUNT.

And finally, she got into some theology, which I guess is what Candy Crowley thinks warms evangelical hearts. She spoke of “God’s grace helping those who help themselves.” And once again, the vice-presidential candidate who continually startled Americans with an amazing lack of intellectual grasp on so many issues showed that she is also biblically illiterate. God’s “grace” is for “those who help themselves?” I wonder where Sarah thinks that text is found in the Bible. Actually, Sarah, the special love of God seems to be for those who have the hardest time helping themselves—hence they need some help from those of us who can help ourselves. In Sarah’s version of Mathew 25 it must say, “As you have done to those who can best help themselves, you have done to me.”

So from Sarah Palin today, I heard rampant super-patriotism, an uncritical support for everything military, a scurrilous attack on any notion of how government might serve the common good, an effusive defense of guns, and a completely backwards biblical theology of the haves and have-nots. So why, as an evangelical Christian, am I supposed to like her?

When I listen to Sarah Palin, I go back and forth between thinking this person is just not smart enough to be president (and our recent experience of that has been scary enough) to thinking that she is indeed smart enough to be a very effective demagogue — stoking the fears and myths of the American people to build a frightening political future. Either way, I hope she stays retired from politics. So here is one big evangelical dissent from those who reportedly like Sarah Palin. She makes me wince, grimace, roll my eyes, and even worry a little about the future.

http://blog.sojo.net/2009/07/27/an-evangelical-who-doesn%E2%80%99t-like-sarah-palin/

I'd really like to help the poor, but...

I recently heard another Christian making a statement about government policy towards the poor that began with “I'd really like to help the poor,” but abruptly terminated with a qualification that brushed away any real obligation to provide assistance for the poor. It struck me that I have heard the words “I'd really like to help the poor” come from the mouths of Christians many times before, but almost always that phrase prefaces a rant about people taking advantage of the government, perverse economic incentives, the destruction of the family, etc. I have rarely heard many Christians start a sentence with “I'd like to help the poor” and have anything constructive to say after it. Therefore, I would like to challenge a few of the arguments that Christians often use to assuage our buring consciences in regard to the poor, especially those that deal with the role of the government.

1. I only want to help those who deserve to be helped, not those who exploit the system.

This statement presupposes an erroneous distinction between so-called “deserving poor” and those who, for one reason or another, should not be helped. The general definition for the undeserving poor is those who sit at home and watch TV while drawing support from welfare programs. And, granted, there are those who do take advantage of the system. (Although I think their numbers are probably very low compared to those of single mothers working two jobs and trying to raise fatherless children.) However, there is no biblical grounds for letting some “undeserving” poor live in squalor while the “deserving” poor are helped. This idea seems more akin to Social Darwinism, or Benthamite utilitarian social theory, or some perversion of the Puritan work ethic than to a Christian conception of grace. The Bible demands that we help all the poor, without an expectation of a response on their part. Grace does not, thankfully, differentiate between those who deserve it and those who do not.

2. The government should not help poor people, Christians should do it themselves.

This argument is, first of all, impractical. We know very well that Christians do not have the will to help the poor as much as they should, to begin with, and we also know that Christians do not have the resources, or the centralized authority, to effectively fight poverty. Secondly, it ignores the fact that the government is an agent of God, deputized to carry out his will. Paul calls the government God's servant in Romans 13. So it is not somehow “secular” or “non-Christian” for the government to work toward Christian social goals. That is, in fact, what the government is there for.

Objections to the expanded role of the government usually come from a libertarian impulse, very strong in America, that stems from the Enlightenment obsession with individualism and liberty, or from a strong suspicion of government that comes from Anabaptist tradition. The kind of freedom that libertarians advocate is one that must be rejected by Christians, who know that freedom does not come from a mere absence of coercion from outside sources. Christian freedom is direction and purpose and a correct ordering of our desires. And the Anabaptist suspicion of government, while at times valuable in defeating Constantinian alliances between Church and State, can overlook the possibility that government, like the rest of Creation, must be redeemed and utilized by Christians.

There is much more that could be said, but I think I have stirred enough controversy already. There are very many people who will not agree with anything that I wrote here, but I think we must think hard about the kinds of ideas that Christians have bought into when it comes to social policy. Do they come from scripture and an ardent and honest desire to help the poor, or from myths that superficially jive with Christian culture, but do nothing to bring about the social goals of the God who “has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly...filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty”?

E.I.

I think a prerequisite for any "application" portion of a Sunday school lesson should be actual applicability and spiritual practicality. Somewhat horizontally-related, yet trivial, activities don't make the cut. Just food for thought. Oh, and my "EQ" is 70.

¡gracias!

Thanks for this invitation. It means so much, really it does. In short, I hope that my input will be helpful and satisfactory to all.