Politcal Discourse: Myth "Your political position is indicative of your level of compassion towards the poor"

I have read article after article admonishing Christians for voting against certain government programs aimed at reducing poverty. The assumption being that voting against these programs shows a lack of concern for those with fewer means. This concern is generally raised by Christians who are more politically liberal, although I occasionally see the reverse argument. As Christians, we are called to care for the poor, but does that mean voting for a larger government? The answer is no and a statement such as this comes from a place of economic misunderstanding.

Before I explain the premise of two economic positions, there a few things which need to be said about Christian charity. We are all called to be generous with our possessions and our finances. This should naturally be done in prayer and with God's guidance. Anything you earn after taxes is not yours and we are responsible to spend it according to God's will. This is true for every Christian regardless of what they do at the polls. God calls each of us to different levels of financial charity. Further, within the Christian community, we should hold each other accountable for obeying God's command to help those around us. In the church, this should always be a discussion of how to spend our own resources, not how to instruct the government on spending tax resources. That conversation belongs outside of the sanctuary.

So going back to my statement about an economic misunderstanding. Both sides of the political spectrum agree that poverty is a problem. They have different ideas, based on research, on what the most effective solution would entail. I will explain each position briefly and simply. There are many nuances, but my intention is to provide an overview.

Politically Liberal Position: A liberal position is one that asserts the problems should be solved by the government. That is the unifying force within a population. This means more government programs and higher taxes to pay for them. It can also mean more government control of the business market. For example, supporting a higher minimum wage is an example of the government exerting control over the supply and demand of the labor market. People who adhere to this ideology believe that there is evidence that poverty can be decreased by direct government involvement. This could be in the form of welfare, food stamps, etc. The idea being that once people have their financial needs fully met then they will have the opportunity to eventually find work that might let them live independently.

Politically Conservative Position: This position is based on the idea that individuals should be enabled to pull themselves out of poverty. This means a smaller government with fewer taxes and a free market system. Some social programs are needed, but they should be short-term programs based on satisfying immediate needs so as not to create an environment of dependence. Programs that do not generate statistically significant gains should be cut, regardless of the good intentions behind them. Proponents of this position argue about the long-term benefits of empowering individuals to be a part of their own poverty solutions.

There are so strong economic arguments as well as social theory argument for both solutions to poverty. Discerning the better of two is a complicated question. Therefore it is entirely inappropriate to accuse someone one of indifference to poverty based solely on their belief for the best economic solution to poverty. Instead, we should work together to devise solutions within our own communities where we can be directly involved.

Political Discourse: Introduction

Politics are becoming increasingly divisive within the United States. Politically differences are one the biggest reasons over ended friendships. Sadly, this division has drifted into sanctuaries and church congregations. The name calling and tribalism that occurs within the political arena has been disgustingly adopted among some Christians.

One of the most difficult questions that I am working on trying to answer is what a Christian's role should be in government. I am still unsure of how Christians should approach political involvement. From what I can see by reviewing scripture is that God's followers have spanned the political spectrum. Even Jesus's disciples represented diverse views. This leads me to think that there is no "Christian" political viewpoint. Yet I do think that all Christians should pray about how they vote, if they should vote, and how God wants to use politics to further His kingdom. I do believe that your political views can give you the opportunity to be a Christian witness to those who share those views. Therefore, I believe that God will Christians from all political walks to further the eternal kingdom.

I do believe that Christians have the opportunity to show friendship and unity can span a political divide. This means refusing to believe political stereotypes which are used to dehumanize individuals with an opposing views or to create a straw man argument. It also mean being honest about the stances different parties take as well as being kind when someone is struggling with determining how to vote when every candidate running means the voter will have to compromise on something.

This is the beginning a series of writing pieces that will address false accusations that I hear in Christian circles about different political views. The purpose of this is to encourage more honest discussion. I believe Christians from all political views can worship together and find unity in Christ and can be civil in disagreements on economic policies. I will try to remain politically neutral in my writing. I am registered with a political party, but it is not one of the primary parties, so I am writing as an outsider. I will alternate between accusations from the Christian political left and the Christian political right. I am writing with the assumption that my audience is comprised of Christians. This allows me to assume a shared morality and devotion to truth as well as a desire to live a Christ-like life. I have had the privilege of attending both primarily politically liberal churches as well as politically conservative churches, I will be bringing in my experience of both.

Christian Culture Shock

Since my graduation from Bethel College until now, I have lived in an increasingly secular environment. During that time I obtained two degrees at a secular university in the United States. I then went on to live in the post-Christian United Kingdom. As a physicist, the majority of colleagues have long rejected the existence of God or the hope of Salvation. I have learned to adapt to the culture. To relish the thoughts and friendships of those I work with and to navigate differences with love. I am very honest about who I am, including my flaws, struggles and shortcoming. Those who choose to live without God have met too many of His followers that hide their struggles. I also had to discern the fine line between living in the world and being not of the world.

Now I am back in Christian in little town in the Bible Belt. Everyone I meet is guarded. I can feel weight of secrets and the fear of judgement. I am no longer accustomed to this way of life and I no longer find it palatable. I do harsh on those who live around me. It is merely a survival method in a community for which there is little privacy. The cost of discovery would be too great. I too, am receding into myself. I am struggling to remember the the "rules" within Christian subculture. What clothes can wear? What words am I allowed to use? What songs can I listen to? What hobbies do I hide?

It does not have to be this way. We can hold each other accountable, but it has to be done in love and truth. It has to be done in relationship. I am coward and I do not think I encourage these changes without putting my comfort in jeopardy. Everything still feels so foreign.