Are Evangelical Churches Drifting Left?
Did you wake up one Sunday morning and finally realize that you could no longer support or attend a church that has gradually embraced an anti-American, anti-Capitalistic gospel in the name of Christ? Did it suddenly dawn upon you that the ever-present term “social justice” is merely a code word for a Marxist view of redistributive justice wrapped in a thinly disguised Christian veneer? Have you visited church after church after church only to discover that something decidedly unchristian has crept into the gospel teachings replacing, by redefinition, all that has been sacred to Christianity for centuries?
We live in the Age of Heresy and what we have to fear is not the old cults that Christians have traditionally warned against for years. What we have to fear today is the steady drift to the political left that has distorted our many venerable institutions and well-known Christian denominations.
Today 100,000 local congregations and 45 million Christians are supporting leftist goals yet most of the members are still blissfully unaware.
Read it all.
December 15th, 2009 11:09 am
Slightly off-topic but I’m curious about your thoughts on the morality of the birth control pill. Specifically, I’m thinking of your average, run-of-the-mill birth control pill (not morning-after) as used in the context of marriage to prevent pregnancy. It’s implied here, but elsewhere you’ve stated your pro-life stance. I’ve been researching the topic and came upon this website: http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html. I haven’t read the book by Alcorn yet, I’m wondering if there are other books/articles you’re aware of? I hadn’t realized until reading that website that there was controversy around the pill.
December 15th, 2009 11:11 am
FYI here’s a link with more info…http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/prolife_birth_control_pill/A_Longer_Condensation_of_Does_The_Birth_Control_Pill_Cause_Abortions.shtml
December 15th, 2009 1:21 pm
That is a pretty awful article, both poorly written, full of lofty (yet cheesy) rhetoric, and faulty assumptions.
But I especially love the implication that somehow “anti-American – anti-Capitalistic” equates with “unchristian.” I must have missed tGeorge Washington 1:1, where is said, “To follow Jesus is to love America and capitalism.”
December 15th, 2009 1:43 pm
Dave, I don’t necessarily agree with every detail of every thing I post.
But I think it’s unassailably true that evangelical Christendom has drifted left, and often unknowingly on the part of the folks in the pews.
December 15th, 2009 1:54 pm
Well… I no longer am part of “Evangelical Christendom,” nor does it or would it concern me that there is such a drift. But again, that article was pretty horrible, and pointed to a grand total of ZERO pieces of evidence for such a drift. The article used one individual anecdote to prove its point. You typically post and link to thoughtful things, most of which I significantly disagree with. But they are at least thoughtful. This article was nothing of the sort.
As for your claim of it being “unassailably true” that a drift exists – how do you define such a leftward drift? And how does “evangelical Christendom” NOT include the “folks in the pews.”
December 15th, 2009 3:45 pm
Dave, you said
I think I knew that already. 🙂
I guess you must not have read all the stuff that the article linked to itself. It consists largely of links to and quotes from other sources. Did you not read them? There were a bunch.
I’m glad you noticed.
I agree the term “evangelical Christendom” could use a little nuance. So how about this:
The seminaries, pastors and leaders of evangelical churches have gradually drifted left. Many of the parishoners they lead have gone along, inch by inch, not realizing that it is to the left they are moving, rather in the same way that standing at the rail of a slow moving cruise ship you may not be able to sense motion relative to the shore, but if you go away and return, you surely will see that you’ve moved.
I didn’t say it was a “slippery slope”… it would be better if it was, because it would be easier to point out and demonstrate to doubters… like you? I doubt that you really doubt it.
The willingness of so many more evangelicals to vote for Obama than have ever voted for any strongly pro-choice candidate pretty much makes the case.
Someone convinced some of them that abortion didn’t matter as much as they thought it did.
So, Dave: do you doubt that evangelicals are moving left, inch by inch?
If so, why call into question the observation? If not, why not?
December 15th, 2009 7:56 pm
I read some of them. I got bored, as they were not very relevant or meaningful to the alleged topic at hand.
I honestly am not sure. I am definitely convinced that there is such a drift, and still think that the vast majority of Evangelicals still fall well within mainstream conservative/Republican values. I don’t find anything in the linked post (or subsequent links) that makes me think otherwise. Nor do I find the Obama vote a very convincing argument, mostly because it isn’t really true. There actually isn’t much evidence that Obama actually drew more evangelical support than Bush did in the two previous elections, especially when you control for race. You can read more on that here: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/02/005-bwhat-happened-to-the-values-voterb-19
December 15th, 2009 8:35 pm
I’ll take it as a given that evangelical churches are moving left, as a whole, with many exceptions, of course. I wish it wasn’t so. This is one time when I really, really wish you were right, Dave.
Ever read this book? http://tinyurl.com/y8b9l5r
It’s about young folks, of course….
But the obvious drift of the majority of Christian campuses is a sign of things to come, if not a sign of how things are already.
Dave, I’d think you’d be celebrating, not caviling.
December 16th, 2009 7:58 am
Again, I am not convinced. And the one argument you gave (the Obama election) wasn’t true. I just haven’t seen any actual evidence, other than random anecdotes, to support this assertion.
I know of the book. Haven’t read it.
I just don’t see much reason to celebrate.
Again, you can say something is true, but that doesn’t make it so. And I have simply yet to see any evidence that there is a real “leftward drift” of “Evangelical Christendom.”
December 16th, 2009 10:01 am
Dave
I think there is some evidence in the link Harmonicminer provided. Since you reject that I’d be curious to know what you would accept as evidence in this matter.
Also, you said:
I’d like to know how you feel about the flip side of this coin. For I seem to have encountered a few people who believe that to follow Jesus is to hate America and capitalism.
December 17th, 2009 9:11 pm
Again – I don’t see the evidence. Why don’t you point some of it out.
As for what evidence I would like to see… how some actual data on voting? Or data on opinions/viewpoints? Random anecdotes are hardly evidence of any trend.
Straw man much?
But to answer your your completely irrelevant question… anyone who says that there is Biblical justification of the idea that following Jesus means to hate America or capitalism is just as foolish as those are say that to follow Jesus is to love America and capitalism.
December 18th, 2009 10:52 am
Oh, the enlightened sages of the left won’t actually admit that they hate America and freedom (that is, after all, what capitalism really is). They simply adopt every perspective that would be taken by someone who hates America and freedom, all the while claiming they are the superior ones who love people.
It isn’t necessary for you to admit that you hate someone or something, if you constantly speak hatefully about them, tell lies about them, and support policies that are destructive of them. (I’m using the generic “you” here… I wouldn’t dream of suggesting that *you* actually hate America.)
December 18th, 2009 11:01 am
You are changing the subject.
December 18th, 2009 5:58 pm
December 19th, 2009 11:48 am
Dave, it was you who brought up the topic, when you said:
I’ll answer that: YES, it is unChristian to be “anti-American” or “anti-Capitalistic”, provided you have any grasp of history, economics, etc. Of course, there will be people who SAY they are anti-American or anti-Capitalistic who truly have no concept of what they are saying, who mean well, and are simply ignorant. There will be others who say the same thing who distinctly do NOT mean well.
What’s especially funny is this. Those whose concern is poverty and suffering in the world, which includes a great many of the Christian Left who are anti-American and anti-Capitalistic by default, virtually as an article of faith, are deeply deluded and self-defeating. They don’t seem to understand that the American way of life (broadly understood as economic, social, and political freedom) and, very specifically, market Capitalism in a framework of laws, is the best anti-poverty program ever invented. Bluntly, if you are anti-American and anti-Capitalism, whether you know it or not, you are against people having the opportunity to thrive.
Essentially, the only real alternative is a return to feudalism (the essence of socialism in the end) and dominance of society by an aristocracy, mostly of inherited wealth, using violence and the threat of violence to enforce its “good will” on society (also the essence of socialism… everywhere it has ever been tried). In such societies, the norm will be poverty.
In American society, the norm is reasonable comfort… which is why socialists are left with whining about the gap between rich and poor, because there really aren’t all that many poor, compared to other heterogeneous societies.
To be anti-American and anti-Capitalistic (with knowledge of what you’re talking about) is to wish ill for people.
And yes, *that* is unChristian.
December 20th, 2009 7:18 am
No… the author of the ridiculous article that you linked to brought that up, and I pointed out silly it was. You and amuzikman then decided to try and flip it around to claim that leftists claim that it is Biblical to be anti-American and anti-Capitalism.
You have to be kidding me… I thought you were more intellectually honest than that.
December 20th, 2009 8:02 am
Dave, if you are intellectually honest you will explain in detail, and with historical examples, how the policies of socialism which you espouse are not unChristian. Harmonic has given very thoughtful and informative reasons for capitalism. Now you do the same for whatever it is you believe.
December 20th, 2009 8:40 am
Dave, be specific: what, exactly, is intellectually dishonest about what I said? Remember the qualifiers I used when you reply, if you do.
The short story: I don’t want people to suffer in poverty. No Christian SHOULD want that. The best anti-poverty program in history is freedom and capitalism, both of which require the rule of law, and the restraint of government overreaching. That, my friend, is unassailable on historical grounds. Note I did not sssert that ALL people in ALL capitalist societies have ALWAYS avoided poverty.
I simply said that freedom/capitalism did the best job of lifting people OUT of poverty… again, unassailable on historical grounds, even if we didn’t have solid economic theory to explain why it is so. But we both history AND economic theory to demonstrate it.
So, again: if you love people, want people not to suffer needlessly, it is surely unChristian to be against the very things that can lift them out of poverty, given enough time.
What we do now will affect people for generations… our responsibility is also to THEM… which is a purely biblical perspective, my friend.
December 20th, 2009 12:44 pm
Melody – I love how you think I should include historical examples and details, and you don’t expect the same of harmonicminer. Harmonic was very general and very unspecific, simply saying that he believes that “freedom” helps people escape poverty. That is a valid argument, but you surely cannot believe that he actually supported his argument with any details or historical examples. But I don’t expect consistency from you, so I shouldn’t be surprised. All you ever do in response to any of my comments is make some snarky comment, often including personal attacks, and never actually respond with any substance. Which is why I mostly ignore you. While I almost always disagree with harmonic, he at least responds with substance and thoughtful comments most of the time.
Harmonic – I find it silly to imply that to be a good Christian is to be pro-American and pro-Capitalism. I have no problem with you being pro-American and pro-Capitalism. I have no problem with you having a very conservative ideology. But I find it intellectually dishonest to claim that the nebulous “American values” and capitalism are the only, or even the best, means for people to escape poverty. I also have yet to see any historical examples. I have also yet to see any Biblical examples of why I should be a pro-American capitalist if I want to be a Christian.
Just curious – how were people good Christians before America existed?
FWIW, I am not anti-American. I tend to be anti-capitalist. But my allegiance is not to a country or an economic system. My frustrations with people like you, Melody, and the author of the linked post is that you all seem to have an allegiance is that country first, capitalism second, and God third.
December 20th, 2009 12:46 pm
Oh… and Melody – what socialist policies are you referring to? Because I surely have not advocated for any socialist policies in this thread, or any thread on this blog, that I can recall. So why don’t you give me some examples of these socialist policies.
December 20th, 2009 2:09 pm
I will not get into this discussion (other than to say I am one of the evanglical leftists Mr. Harmonicminer is troubled about), but I am pleased Dave that you actively discuss and challenge the views of Mr. Harominicminer. Glad to see Mr. Harmoniminer has a good company to debate with. 🙂
December 20th, 2009 3:20 pm
Dave, you said
Well, to start with, you live in one… though that’s gradually changing.
But, if you insist:
17th century Holland
18th-19th century Britain
19th-20th century USA, Australia, Canada
Late 20th century India, China (prosperous to the extent that it has become economically freer… could be far richer if it went farther… but the government would lose control, and knows it, so it is restrained… otherwise, China would own the world in a few decades… would ALREADY have done so, possibly)
20th century Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea (similar disclaimers to China for the last two here)
Post WW-II Japan and Germany, both “remade” to a degree in the USA’s image, though both have diverged, of course… and could reasonably be said to be struggling now exactly to that degree
There are others… these just come to the top of my mind… I’m sure I could make the case for some Greek eras, though they aren’t as good a match as these for “American values”.
Now: find me a socialist or authoritarian nation that has prospered so. If you can.
My point is not to give “allegiance” to a system… the capitalist/freedom system is a tool, historically derived from sad experience with far worse systems, for alleviating multi-generational poverty. So exactly to the extent that the Christian Left reads the scripture as meaning that all good Christians should have as top priority the relief of poverty (not a good reading of scripture, as far as it goes…), the Christian Left should LOVE freedom/capitalism, and see the export of it around the world as top priority… but instead, they’d rather export socialist dependency.
December 20th, 2009 4:11 pm
Dave, I was entertained by this question:
Responding to your (I assume) tongue-in-cheek question with my own tongue firmly planted sideways, I would assume that until there was historical proof of the superiority of the combination of capitalism and freedom, Christians may be forgiven for their ignorance. And modern Christians who have been miseducated may also be so forgiven.
So, what’s *your* excuse?
December 20th, 2009 4:14 pm
I don’t have time to address all of your examples, but lets just take a couple – 20th century China and 20th/21st Century USA.
The USA has some of the largest gaps between the “haves” and the “have nots” in history. The same can be said about current China. While both countries have seen significant economic growth and prosperity, they have also seen significant levels of poverty.
You seem to think that making some people rich somehow helps the poor, and there is little historical evidence of this.
December 20th, 2009 4:22 pm
And that is a misrepresentation of what the so-called “Christian Left” says. But I am getting pretty used to that.
December 20th, 2009 4:29 pm
Thanks Dave. You made my point, of course, because you mentioned the gap between rich and poor… the only point you can still make when most of society isn’t poor.
Read carefully. I said “multigenerational poverty” is the disease for which “capitalism/freedom” are the cure. I didn’t say that *everyone* in such societies is out of poverty. I said that there was no reason why the NEXT generation should be trapped in poverty in such societies. In other words, capitalism/freedom are an inoculation against future infection, not quick fixes for the present… although India’s experience shows that the patient immediately improves with a good dose.
Poverty is, and has always been, the universal human condition. You CAN’T end it in detail everywhere for everyone. Societies that have pretended to do this have simply made everyone poorer… except the elite, of course, who always do just fine.
The proper question to ask is not “why is there a gap between rich and poor,” or “why is there poverty,” it is “how did so many people do so well by historical standards in the USA and other societies?”
The answer is obvious.
December 20th, 2009 4:38 pm
Dave, you complained about this:
when you said
Dave, I said “to the extent.” That’s because not all of the Christian Left is uniform in this. But clearly, that is a large element of the distinction between the Christian Left and the rest of the Christian world. Don’t take my word for it… just believe what they write about themselves.
But you are caviling, I think.
December 20th, 2009 4:40 pm
My point is that the prosperity has not “trickled down.” And I find it hilarious that you point to China, even with disclaimers. It is still authoritarian. And it still has immense poverty.
But my greater point is this – there are different perspectives and opinions about how to deal with poverty. You and I disagree. But I would not say that you are not a Christian because of it, nor would I say that you are not Biblical. You have made it very clear that you would be unable to say the same thing about me, because I don’t buy into free-market capitalism as a means to end, or deal with, poverty.
December 20th, 2009 5:00 pm
But Dave, prosperity HAS trickled down, or we’d all still be serfs and share-croppers. Who do you think got rich before the middle class appeared? The people who were already rich, of course. But the middle class has grown and grown, and even those in poverty are not usually there for life… you should read Thomas Sowell on this, who has a very nice explanation based on statistical research about how few people in the USA stay in what passes for “poverty” here even a couple of decades of adult life, let alone an entire life. And for those who do, my previous comments apply…. I can give you a link to the relevant book of Thomas Sowell, if you need it.
And yes, China has poverty, much due to its authoritarian nature, but it is LESS poor sense it became MORE capitalist… which is a work in progress, of course.
Re: your last comment that you “don’t buy into free-market capitalism as a means to end, or deal with, poverty,” I believe in my first definition of unChristian (in hating capitalism, which is simply “economic freedom”) I used the phrase “provided you have any grasp of history, economics, etc.”
I suppose you can decide if my definition applies to you.
December 20th, 2009 6:32 pm
I know Thomas Sowell – no link needed.
Your implication that you are the only one who understands “history, economics, etc.” is amusing. Your arrogance is always amazing. I love how you continually, in post after post, claim that anyone who disagrees with you doesn’t have any knowledge. It is offensive, and frankly, unChristian. Much more so than being pro- or anti-Capitalism.
You really seem unable to have people disagree with you with you needing to try to ridicule them.
December 20th, 2009 7:28 pm
Dave, you said, “Your implication that you are the only one who understands “history, economics, etc.†is amusing.”
This is not what I said at all. I am not the only one… the idea is risible, as if I see myself as some lone expert on historical economies. My whole point is that there is an army of historians and economists whose understanding is the basis of my own. I’ve based my understanding on theirs, and the successful linkage they make between their theories and the facts of history.
I note that you make no specific objection to the nations/time-frames I listed above as evidence that freedom/capitalism is the antidote for multi-generational poverty.
Dave, I know you have knowledge. What you seem not to do is to reconcile the knowledge you have with the theories you prefer for how society should be organized. If you, in fact, DO know that increased and more broadly based prosperity existed in all the places I named, and yet you do not believe it was due to capitalism/freedom, what do you think was the source of it? And why was similar prosperity NOT experienced elsewhere at the same time, in places with similar levels of technology, infrastructure, and education?
Dave, what I said was that “Christians” who understand history and economics and still prefer to destroy capitalism to make everyone “equal,” do indeed strike me as unChristian, knowing that their policies will increase human suffering, not lessen it. Obama, reminded by a reporter that tax cuts increase receipts to the government AND grow the economy, and conceding the point(!), said, regarding increasing taxes anyway, that “it’s just a matter of fundamental fairness.” That perfectly illustrates the commitment to an authoritarian statist ideology that cannot be described as “Christian,” given that, by definition, it increases suffering for no gain. Sadly, it represents a good many of the Christian Left.
I left room for people who don’t understand, which is most, I suppose. Honestly… walk down the street. What percentage of people that you see, including “educated” people, have read even one book on economics, let alone several? What percentage have read a history book since they were in school? Two? Three?
So I understand that many, perhaps most, of the Christian Left are as ignorant as is the norm for society, and so hold their perspectives “innocently.”
So, Dave: name some societies that have seen increases in prosperity *brought about* by socialism… if you can. If you can’t, will you concede that your theory of how things ought to be does not fit the historical facts?
December 21st, 2009 10:56 am
Harmonic, considering how capitalism increases poverty, it is a mystery to me why millions of people south of the border can’t wait to weather great heardship just to get here. And they aren’t interested in going back to Mexico or anyplace further south. Why do we have to try to keep them out? If the gap between rich and poor is the issue then why does anyone wish to come here? In fact, why did anyone come here to begin with? There was nothing here. Maybe Dave can enlighten us.
December 21st, 2009 3:21 pm
Umm- Mexico is a capitalist country. And you could argue that in many ways, Mexico is more “free” (especially in terms of economic regulations) than the US is. Why do you think businesses move their unskilled labor to Mexico? Because they can do it cheaper, without the same labor laws, environmental laws, and with a lower corporate income tax.
But Melody, maybe you can enlighten us more about the details about Mexico’s economic system better than I can.
December 21st, 2009 7:22 pm
Dave,
You don’t have time to address all the examples that you virtually demanded with your “have yet to see” comment? Is that because you are too busy? Or because there was a thoughtful, reasoned response to your challenge? Or maybe because if you ignore them you can later still claim you still “have yet to see” them. Yet you somehow always manage to find time to drop in and issue your sweeping condemnations and finger-pointing pronouncements of “un-Christian”. (I’d love to know by what criteria you make these absolute judgments..)
You litter your comments with words like “silly”, “intellectually dishonest”, “arrogant”, “hilarious”, “snarky”, “ridiculous”, etc. etc. etc. At the same time you tend to ignore most of the presented evidence and only cherry-pick in responding. And when information is provided that further challenges your position you then ignore it claiming to be “bored”.
Not that you are alone in complaining about harmonicminer… But here’s the thing – If you want to debate an issue with harmonicminer you would do well to think of it more like a 12-round boxing match rather than a drive-by shooting. Otherwise maybe you should take your own advice and “go troll someplace else”.
December 21st, 2009 8:13 pm
amuzikman… as usual, you swoop in to attack me, while ignoring people like Melody who do much worse, completely ignoring ANY substance any just attacking me, often in a completely unfactual way.
Of course, you also completely ignore harmonic’s use of very similar language, all the way down to the “unChristian.” But at least you are consistent. You consistently attack those you disagree with, while ignoring those that do the same things as long as they agree with you.
As for being “bored” – yes, I got bored reading really poorly written opinion pieces with very few, if any, factual evidence about, well, anything.
I am not ignoring any evidence, and I think I have been pretty clear in my time spent on that blog that I am not afraid to deal with different opinions. As I said, and you can doubt that as much as you would like, I don’t have the time to deal with each individual example right now. Sorry that you don’t believe that. But again, I have yet to see one time that you have actually had a charitable response to me.
With that said, I could do the same thing and throw out examples of where capitalism has failed (Melody, unwittingly, as provided for one very good example) or when other economic systems have been successful (the Roman Empire would be one; the slave-dependent South USA would arguably be another example; I would argue that China is an example). What harmonic did was present examples of where capitalism has created prosperity. He has not presented evidence that capitalism is the best way to create prosperity, nor has he presented evidence that capitalism is the best way to end (or limit) poverty.
Oh… and for what it is worth, I don’t believe that I have made any, if any “sweeping condemnations and finger-pointing pronouncements of ‘un-Christian'” before this thread, and that was simply in response to harmonic’s “unChristian” claims. But again, you completely ignore his “sweeping condemnations and finger-pointing pronouncements of ‘un-Christian’.” Because you agree with him.
December 21st, 2009 8:16 pm
By the way… I am still waiting for the Obama administration to end home schooling and charter schools.
Oh wait – they want to expand charter schools? Lets just ignore that then.
December 21st, 2009 11:00 pm
I would like to ask a question. The question is to understand your opinion relating to the original topic (since these threads have moved quite far from the original concept.) To all parties going back and forth – do you agree or do you not agree that the left adgenda has crept into the christian churches and schools? If you have any examples, that would be of interest to me – but really I think you could find examples “OF” the left moving in, but would be hard to prove (or even show) that the left “has not” moved in. If you choose not to respond, I will miss your opinion, but would certainly accept your choice.
December 22nd, 2009 1:20 am
Dave,
You will recall that I specified “American style capitalism/freedom” which means, mostly, that rule of law and a relatively honest civil service (by world and historical standards) will prevent the abuses of power that strangle business in Mexico.
Yes: large businesses move manufacturing to Mexico sometimes… because they can afford the bribes, both the “official” ones (paid to actual “civil servants”) and the “unofficial” ones (more or less protection racket payoffs). Plus, the companies have usually negotiated directly with the Mexican government before moving.
On the other hand, if you try to start a small business in Mexico, AS a native Mexican, you are likely to have many problems besides your legal competition.
2/3 of US jobs are in small businesses. Similar businesses have a very difficult time starting up and competing with entrenched businesses in Mexico, due to corruption that is nearly legendary.
So Mexico doesn’t have that employment base that provides the market into which other businesses can sell, setting off the spiral of wealth creation by creating wealth and markets for it simultaneously.
Mexico simply doesn’t work as an example of “capitalism/freedom/rule of law.” It is very nearly a failed state entirely. Type “mexico” into the search engine in the top title bar of the blog, and you’ll see some posts on that topic, some with reference to US government projections, among other things.
Dave, I note that the slavery of the Southern USA essentially kept it poorer, not richer, with even a greater gap between rich and poor than the North, according to economists I’ve read on the topic. You can start with Thomas Sowell… since you’re familiar with him.
Dave, the other examples you cite (like the Roman Empire) did not promote generally culture-wide affluence similar to the ones I cited. There is no comparison between the living standards of most people in, say, Puerto Rico, compared to the USA, and those of most of the provinces in the Roman Empire compared to Rome itself.
Why do you have such faith in non-capitalist approaches? Can you name any society where a non-capitalist approach has produced anything like the culture-wide affluence of capitalist societies?
December 22nd, 2009 2:02 am
Bill,
There are so many evidences of “leftward motion” in the christian schools that it’s hard to know where to start. Much of the sort of thing I describe in the series on this blog, “The Left at Christian Universities”, can be found in one form or other in many or most of the Christian colleges and universities in the USA. Not all…. but certainly a simple majority, anyway, probably more.
There are so many churches that it’s hard to keep tabs on them… just too many denominational differences. But: the “emerging church” movement comes predominantly from the “evangelical left.” Just ask them: they’ll tell you. And it is mostly quite left, with occasional exceptions.
To the extent that churches seem unconcerned about what is happening in the Christian colleges and seminaries, there is evidence of drift.
Many churches have adopted “social justice”, “diversity”, even “universal healthcare” and “sanctuary status”, all essentially leftist political goals paperd over with bible verses.
Worse, too many churches have significantly “liberalized” the moral teaching of Christian tradition, and some have started saying it really doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you “mean well.” In my mind, these are all leftist perspectives.
December 22nd, 2009 9:22 am
Free enterprise is required to operate with tremendous lead weights from the government here in the U.S. What I love to see is free enteraprse being practiced by many ambitious non-English speaking Mexicans in my community. Maricella comes to my door every couple of weeks with her red cooler filled with hot, homemade tamales and I buy them for $12.00 per dozen. She has no license to operate and is illegally operating out of her kitchen. She works hard and keeps 100% of her profit. (No, she is not a made-up character; in fact Maricella is her real name). When her business grows to the point that she could actually start providing jobs for others, she will need a business license, will have to move into an approved business district and will have to provide ‘health insurance’ for her employees. Then she will have to pay all kinds of city, county, state and federal fees. Obviously, she will never be able to grow her business because the ‘start-up’ capital will eat her alive. I know many Mexican people who have reached the point of having their own business grow enough that they now encounter government regulation. The frustration they experience turns them into conservatives in a hurry.
The business of government is one of two things: either to stay out of people’s lives to the greatest extent possible – which was the goal of our founding fathers – or it is to control people’s lives as much as possible. Our founding fathers did not think for one minute that the free enterprise system of government, encompassed by the rule of law, would make everyone wealthy or happy. But they also knew that seeking to control the lives of others was neither Godly nor beneficial to the one being ‘helped’. On the other hand, those who seek to control a society and create an imaginary utopia must accomplish their dream at the sacrifice of the dreams of the common man. The individual who holds a job in the bureaucracy will by nature seek to perpetuate the need for what he does whether it is of any value or not. And so bureaucracy grows like cancer. Just try to build a house from scratch or start a business.
December 22nd, 2009 10:32 am
Haha. Yup – you are right – there is nothing in between. At all. Thanks for the brilliant insight.
December 22nd, 2009 10:34 am
I have a friend (mother of a couple of boys whom I hope will be my students when they get a bit older) who parallels Maricella. She is from Mexico, here legally, and is a skilled baker. She has a HUGE kitchen which she remodeled in order to support her baking business. It is so large that she does the business part on one end, and her family food prep on the other. Nevertheless, it is illegal in CA for her to do it that way. She has to have a completely dedicated room to satisfy the state. She has to get licenses enough to paper the exterior of the space shuttle fuel tank. For her to hire someone to help her with large jobs, she has the usual folderol involved with that, both state and federal. And on and on and on.
But even so: it is better than Mexico, where she has had family members kidnapped (her family is NOT rich, but has one member who has had good fortune in business, and so is now a target). She is here because in the USA the main enemy is “transparent” extortion by the government, while in Mexico it is “hidden” extortion by the government and criminals too.
The USA has not been totally “capitalist” since the federal government decided it should subsidize railroad building, the anti-trust laws, etc., in the 19th century. It is still freer here than many places… but our direction is the wrong one, and it is easy to demonstrate that our government, not the overreach of capitalists, is what brought on the recent economic crisis.
December 22nd, 2009 10:46 am
Harmonic…
And you will recall that Melody said nothing of the sort. You will also recall that you have emphasized over and over again in this threat that the more freedom we have in our economic system, the better.
Here is the interesting thing about Mexico. You mention things like bribes. Interestingly, there is a strong argument that can be made that bribes can and should be part of any “free” capitalist economic system. The essence of what you are saying – the more freedom, the better – is that in order to achieve as much freedom as possible, there can be no regulations getting the way. You cannot get a much better example of the free market “working” than bribery. Oh… and if you don’t think that bribery occurs in the USA, I have a bridge to nowhere to sell you in Alaska.
But further, if you really think that large businesses move to Mexico mainly because they can afford the bribes, and not because of the very little regulations, I am not really sure what to tell you. The same is true about China, and most of the rest of SE Asia. While their prosperity is growing, it is largely due to the lack of regulations, allowing multi-national corporations to access the cheapest labor and the cheapest overhead possible. In turn, you have awful working conditions and pathetic wages.
Interestingly, some of the more “prosperous” nations actually do hold to a moderately non-capitalistic economic system. Much of western Europe currently falls under this category. For example, Finland is ranked as the #1 most prosperous country in the world (see here), but has very high marginal tax rates and access to public health insurance/health care.
My point is this – I do not deny that capitalism can create prosperity. I do deny that capitalism always creates prosperity.
Earlier you asked a question about what socialist countries have created prosperity. The short answer to this (which is all I have time for right now, as my baby is starting to wake from her nap. amuzikman – is that okay with you?) is that we haven’t really seen a true socialist country, so there have been no socialist countries to create “culture-wide affluence.” But I would point out that countries like Canada, Finland, and much of the EU have much less capitalistic systems than we do in the US, and they are creating similar levels (and sometimes higher levels) of affluence and prosperity.
December 22nd, 2009 10:50 am
One more thing… looking at the USA of the 20th century. I would argue that what played a significant role in the expanding middle class in the mid-20th century was the significant growth of the labor movement, which, I assume, is decidedly un-capitalistic in your mind.
The labor movement drove up wages for the working class, creating and establishing a strong middle class. As we continue to see the manufacturing industry leave the US for places where they can pay poverty (or worse) wages with out any regulations, we are starting to see the middle class erode.
December 22nd, 2009 10:53 am
There is significant disagreement on this point, and not just from me, but from numerous economists.
Our recent economic crisis was created by a number of things that all hit at the same time, but there is a very strong argument that government intervention has significantly helped us avoid a much, much larger crisis.
December 22nd, 2009 11:18 am
Dave, I mentioned earlier “heterogeneous” societies as well. Yes, some quite small, homogeneous nations have done OK, for awhile, with more socialist systems, though it’s obvious that their success at this would have been impossible if not for the enormous economic engine of the more capitalist societies with which they traded, and could not have been achieved in an environment of different social/ethnic groups each trying to “get theirs” by suckling at the public trough.
In the engine, socialist approaches simply fail to account for human nature… which is exactly what happened with the union movement, which wasn’t terribly damaging until it began demanding unrealistic wages/benefits not related to true economic value.
Dave: our economic crisis would have been impossible without the government demanding that loans be made to people who should not have received them. Everything else flowed from that attempt of government to interfere with basic economic reality. All the nonsense about “credit default swaps” assumes that there will be a significant amount of “credit default”, which simply wasn’t the case until the Barney Franks of the world got into the act. It isn’t complicated or sophisticated… it’s very simple.
December 22nd, 2009 11:23 am
Oy.. in the above, I did not mean “in the engine” I meant “in the end”.
Obviously capitalists make more typos.
December 22nd, 2009 1:26 pm
This funny just arrived in a Christmas letter from a friend.
Question: How does Al Gore’s household keep Christmas politically correct?
Answer: On Christmas morning, they give the presents TO the tree.
December 22nd, 2009 1:59 pm
enharmonic – another post of great substance. Melody – are you going to explain how Mexico is not a capitalist country at some point?
harmonicminer… I hope to respond later to your comment.
December 22nd, 2009 2:32 pm
Let me ask you another way, Dave. Can you name an instance in history where the combination of free market capitalism, rule of law (that “relatively honest” civil service I mentioned), and general personal economic/political freedom, existing for more than a generation, did not produce a general societal increase in prosperity and standard of living the benefitted most people in the society?
If you can name one, can you name two? On the other hand, I simply don’t know of any authoritarian state (required for socialism to “function”) that has ever managed to do this, especially a heterogeneous one. (One possible “almost exception” is Singapore… but it is essentially a single city, and still has considerable elements of economic freedom and certainly strong rule of law, contract enforcement, etc.)