“Many who claim to love Jesus with their theology hate the poor with their economics, and I think we should stop being okay with that” (Rules, p. 242).
Have 'Em Delivered
Write to the Editor
Subscribe
Connect with
Connect with
13 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dan from Georgia
8 years ago
Amen. Too many people let it stop at their pocketbooks and then shout “liberal!”
I could be wrong, but knowing the way Doug writes, I’m thinking he means liberals that say they “love Jesus” hate the poor by believing in a welfare state, handouts, democratic economic policies, etc.
This is something of a “bomb” that will tend to be interpreted in whatever way the reader wants to–hopefully the book fleshes this out a bit. And as I pull the pin to this particular “grenade”, it strikes me that our Biblical economics must be both personal (avoiding debt, encouraging work, etc..) and governmental. We certainly need to see this in terms of not only “do I want to help?”, but also “will this really help?” and looking back ask “how is this working out for the people we were trying to help?” One of the nastiest criticisms I can… Read more »
“One of the nastiest criticisms I can make of our current President, for example, is that he apparently spent two decades on the South Side without ever figuring out that all of our efforts to “help” were making things worse. Either that, or since he got their votes, he didn’t care.” The President firmly holds to the “vision of the anointed,” as Thomas Sowell calls it. It doesn’t matter how much the data or his own experiences contradict it. We just need to expand those programs or tweak them. Or find a few people who benefitted and moved up in… Read more »
My take on BHO is that we haven’t really got to the meat of his program yet. He really wants fundamental transformation, just as be says but has been stymied and had to settle for destroying what he could. “Fundamental” of course means radical as in communism. I want radical change too so I’m sympathetic except for the communism part.
Drew
8 years ago
Doug, my sense is that you make a problematic presupposition about economics, which is that a free market economy is and will always be the best for everyone, rich and poor alike. There is certainly some truth in the idea that as a society creates more wealth, unhindered by government regulations, its poor will be raised up. Indeed, leaning into the free market idea for now may be the best thing for the poor in America. But this will not always be the case. America goes through economic cycles, some of which are more free market leaning, and some of… Read more »
Amen. Too many people let it stop at their pocketbooks and then shout “liberal!”
I may be wrong, but I’m pretty sure he means personal economics, not government economic policy.
I understood that from reading the post. I just seems many people confuse the two.
I’ve never heard anyone get called liberal because they gave a lot to charity.
I could be wrong, but knowing the way Doug writes, I’m thinking he means liberals that say they “love Jesus” hate the poor by believing in a welfare state, handouts, democratic economic policies, etc.
I assume you’re right. He’s very clear about not supporting liberal social policy.
Yeah, and I think it’s okay to criticize taxpayer-supported “charity” when things like this happen: http://www.govtslaves.info/red-cross-built-exactly-6-homes-for-haiti-with-nearly-half-a-billion-dollars-in-donations/
Actually conservatives are more charitable than their not-so-generous liberal neighbors: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2014/10/17/Who-s-More-Generous-Liberals-or-Conservatives
Of course, liberals love to be generous with OPM…
True dat!
This is something of a “bomb” that will tend to be interpreted in whatever way the reader wants to–hopefully the book fleshes this out a bit. And as I pull the pin to this particular “grenade”, it strikes me that our Biblical economics must be both personal (avoiding debt, encouraging work, etc..) and governmental. We certainly need to see this in terms of not only “do I want to help?”, but also “will this really help?” and looking back ask “how is this working out for the people we were trying to help?” One of the nastiest criticisms I can… Read more »
“One of the nastiest criticisms I can make of our current President, for example, is that he apparently spent two decades on the South Side without ever figuring out that all of our efforts to “help” were making things worse. Either that, or since he got their votes, he didn’t care.” The President firmly holds to the “vision of the anointed,” as Thomas Sowell calls it. It doesn’t matter how much the data or his own experiences contradict it. We just need to expand those programs or tweak them. Or find a few people who benefitted and moved up in… Read more »
My take on BHO is that we haven’t really got to the meat of his program yet. He really wants fundamental transformation, just as be says but has been stymied and had to settle for destroying what he could. “Fundamental” of course means radical as in communism. I want radical change too so I’m sympathetic except for the communism part.
Doug, my sense is that you make a problematic presupposition about economics, which is that a free market economy is and will always be the best for everyone, rich and poor alike. There is certainly some truth in the idea that as a society creates more wealth, unhindered by government regulations, its poor will be raised up. Indeed, leaning into the free market idea for now may be the best thing for the poor in America. But this will not always be the case. America goes through economic cycles, some of which are more free market leaning, and some of… Read more »