Why Liberalism is Unchristian, Part III

Not only do Democrats have a habit of being generous with other people’s money, turns out they are also more stingy with their own. In fact, repeated studies have found that both Republicans and Conservatives are more generous than Democrats and Liberals respectively in donations of time or money to charitable causes. This makes sense because Christians tend to give away a lot of money--their own money--and a wide majority of Christians are Conservatives. Apparently Liberals are largely content to allow the government to provide their share of giving.

In other words, this notion that there is anything remotely Christian or generous about being a Democrat is a myth.

Add into all that 50 million murdered babies, the assault on traditional marriage, the depravity masquerading as our entertainment industry, their declaring God off limits in political discourse, and now their lack of actual generosity, and one begins to see the reality of the Democrat party. As one Internet writer put it: “The Republican party may not be the party of God, but the Democrat party is definitely the party of Satan.”

Why Liberalism is Unchristian, Part II

We have pointed out that when Jesus commanded his followers to take care of the poor, the sick, and the needy, he never said, “Take what your neighbor has by force, and give that to the poor,” which is what government welfare does. Nowhere in the Bible is it suggested that we should take from our neighbors to help the poor. That’s not an oversight. If the malady is selfishness, it can’t be cured by force. Forced “charity” only increases interclass resentment and a sense of entitlement. Consider some other consequences of the voluntary vs. forced approaches:

	Jesus’s Way – Voluntary Giving	Liberals’ Way – Taxation
Virtue	Loving Others, Obeying God	None
Motivation of the Donor	Help Those in Need	Avoid Fines, Penalties, Prosecution, and Jail
Attitude of Donor	Concern for recipients	Resentment of bullying government and those receiving entitlements
Instigated by	God	Man
Cause	Choice	Force
Locus of Choice	Internal; Lies with the owner of the money	External; Lies with the holder of political power
Monitored by	The donor or church	Wasteful bureaucracy, if there is any monitoring at all
Additional Benefits	Since aid is given out of a sense of concern, additional help may be given in the form of mentoring, housing, babysitting, and other intangibles	No additional benefits
Use of Resources	Responsible; very efficient	Irresponsible; inefficient
Effectiveness	Very high	Low
Attitude of Recipient	Encourages gratitude because specific donor can be known	Encourages a sense of entitlement because bureaucracy has no face, identity, and rarely any real expectations
Result	Growth and progress in both donor and recipient	Progress is unlikely
Result	Spiritually and socially rewarding; donor more likely to give to the poor; recipient more likely to help others when able	No spiritual reward. Donor less likely to give voluntarily in future and recipient less likely to give when able because “it’s the government’s job”
Result	Decrease in the public’s burden	Increase in public’s burden; Another government entitlement to grow out of control
Result	Relationship	Increased dependence; increased racism; increased classism

This is why the Church, families, and individuals have the God-assigned job of taking care of “the widow and the orphan.” It should not be the government’s job because the government can’t do it well. This is why many people on government aid have no plans to get off of government aid. Anonymous government aid can’t solve the actual problem, which, in our nation, is usually the behavior of the person in need.

Why Liberalism is Unchristian, Part I

This one is for the 38% of Democrats who describe themselves as born-again Christians.

Liberals go to great lengths to make it seem that voting Democrat is something other than a spectacular moral failure. There is a feeling among some Christians that, although the Democrat party promotes child murder and homosexuality, those evils are offset by the belief that Democrats do a better job obeying Christ’s command to help the less fortunate.

According to Matthew 25, Jesus told his followers, "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'” (NIV)

It is very clear that Jesus is saying you take care of them—YOU do it.

But that’s not what Democrats do.

In order for Democrats to have it right, Jesus would have to have said, “Take what your neighbor has by force, and give that to the poor, the sick, etc.”—for that is what Democrats try to do: taxing other people and throwing what the government doesn’t waste to the needy. But Jesus didn’t say that; he didn’t intend to because it doesn’t work nearly as well as what he did say.

I often hear the communal arrangement of the early Christians in Acts cited as proof that government wealth redistribution is Biblical. But again, the giving there was voluntary and not forced through confiscatory taxation. This is made clear when Ananias and Sapphira were about to die for lying to the Holy Spirit, and Peter said in Acts 5:4, “Didn't [the land] belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal?” (NIV)

Forced charity is obviously not charity at all; it is theft with social appeal. Virtue is always voluntary. This is a subtle distinction, but one that makes all the difference.

The Biggest Problem with Liberalism

It doesn’t work.

It should always be stated so clearly: the problem with Liberalism is that it doesn’t work. It is inadequate to help us because it misdiagnoses the human condition, calling people inherently good when we lean instead toward secrecy, sin, and selfishness.

The Primary Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives, Part II

So who’s correct? Which view of humanity best describes the way we actually are? Most of you won’t believe it at first, but for the most part the reality is that people are basically evil (but exceedingly valuable). This is why Liberalism doesn’t work. It relies on an erroneous foundation that believes people are intrinsically good (but not very valuable). As a result, it gets wrong nearly all resulting responses.

Don’t believe people are evil? Consider the natural state of children. They don’t need to be taught to be dishonest, selfish, disobedient, or to hit other children. Those things come naturally to children.

What about adults? No one trains us to be lazy, lustful, gluttonous, angry, proud, power hungry, irresponsible or ungrateful—and yet we are all of those things. These things need to be trained out of both young and old, and closely guarded against if they are to be avoided at all. And, when we are caught in some transgression, is our first response to stand up, take responsibility and make amends for our act? Generally not. Our first impulse is to lie, cover up, and try to weasel a way out of it.

And it doesn’t work to claim that people are basically good, but that we are corrupted by “society.” How could society be a bad influence if it is nothing more than a collection of people, all of whom are intrinsically good?

We do have a few basic impulses that are good, like the love of parents and children for each other. But the majority of good values and behaviors come from outside ourselves, eventually tracing back to God’s commandments.

Put simply, badness is the human condition. The Bible puts it like this: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9)”

We have a natural gravity toward depravity. The function of government must therefore be to restrain our natural appetites, not facilitate them. The answer to crime isn’t to just legalize everything. The purpose of government must be to restrain evil—our evil. To diagnose our condition otherwise is to condemn our resulting actions to failure.

If People Are Evil

Now imagine a world where people are depraved from birth, where badness is an embedded desire in each of us. People would have to be trained to be honest, generous, and not to harm each other. Goodness, if it is known at all, would have to be handed down from outside of humanity. When mobs gathered, they would riot and loot, killing each other over things as trivial as soccer games. Our charities would have to work overtime to bring in donations. Heroes would be exceptional. And there would be other traits:

Big government would be bad because power would be likely to corrupt our leaders, and we would want them to have as little power over us as possible when that happened. Our leaders would have to be monitored through a system of checks and balances.

Our leaders should be chosen by their wisdom and how well they have overcome their own bad impulses, but they still may not get elected because the voters are foolish.

Wealth should not be redistributed without the consent of the donors. The recipients would have to be closely monitored to ensure they didn’t spend the money foolishly.

The military would be crucial for keeping the population safe from foreign aggression, which could come at any time, for no particular reason.

The police would be necessary. The more densely populated an area became, the more it would need police.

Whatever people want to do should be measured against standards of right and wrong, and prevented when wrong.

Government programs would need to be strictly measured by their stated goals. To fail to do so would invite abuse.

Children would need lengthy training in standards of right and wrong.

Christianity would be good because such people would need a savior.

Sounds like one of our major political parties, doesn’t it?

If all of the above were true, the full half of the population who disagree with those positions would be easily explained, because people are naturally foolish and wrong. People believing in these positions would have a difficult time persuading others because no one likes to think of humanity as basically evil.

Of course, if people are not inherently evil, then none of the above would be true, and such positions would be indefensible either logically or empirically, so their adherents would have to resort to one-line sound bites and name calling, instead of analyzing issues for hours on talk radio.

If People Are Good

Try to imagine a world where people actually are good from the cradle, where badness had to be learned from a source outside of humanity. Imagine a world where people would have to be trained to fight, abuse, and cheat each other, where the prisons were empty and the churches were unneeded. When mobs gathered, they would suddenly burst into acts of goodness, cleaning up neighborhoods and caring for the poor and the orphan. Heroes would not be celebrated because it would be normal and expected for people to achieve great goodness. And there would be other advantages:

The government could grow to any size—even to socialistic proportions—because power would not corrupt and our leaders could be trusted to do what’s right.

Our leaders would not be chosen by their virtue or character, but by their I.Q. We would want the smartest people in charge so they could solve the hard problems for the rest of us.

Wealth could be redistributed and not meticulously tracked afterward because the recipients could be trusted to use it responsibly. The “donors,” of course, should not mind this because they would all be onboard with helping those less fortunate.

The military would be viewed unfavorably because it crosses into other nations and kills the inherently good people living there without their consent. In fact, the entire military would be largely unnecessary because other nations could be trusted to do the right thing.

We would barely need the police.

Whatever people want to do should be allowed and facilitated by the rest of us because whatever makes us feel good would actually be good.

Government programs would be measured not by their actual success at meeting any stated goals, but by the degree to which they give people what they want.

Children could decide how to raise themselves. In fact, since children are virtuous from the womb, the less parental involvement the better. In fact, we’d better just get those really smart people from the government to raise the kids.

Christianity would be bad because it puts restraints on people.

Science would be something of a savior because it appears to marginalize God and free people from any external moral code. It also increases our power as we make scientific progress.

Sounds like one of our major political parties, doesn’t it?

But if all of the above were true, there would be no way to explain the full half of the population who disagree with those positions. Maybe they’re all aberrant.

Of course, if people are not inherently good, then none of the above would be true, and such positions would be indefensible either logically or empirically, so their adherents would have to resort to one-line sound bites and name calling.

The Primary Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives, Part I

The first, greatest factor determining whether one is a Liberal or a Conservative is what one believes about the nature of humanity. Liberals view human beings as inherently good, but not particularly valuable. Conservatives take the opposite view; seeing people as inherently evil, but enormously valuable.

These two positions are in complete opposition to each other. At most, only one can be correct. Before deciding which that is, let’s look at the results each position has on one’s worldview.

If people are inherently good—if their first impulse is to do good—then the government’s role is one of facilitator. It exists to aid people in overcoming whatever might be preventing them from achieving success. If people are good, they should be allowed to do whatever they want to do. If they do evil, it is because they have been influenced or corrupted by some outside force, like society or religion.

If people are also not very valuable, then it doesn’t matter if their actions are destructive. Abortion, homosexuality, teen sex, pornography, the destruction of the traditional family, fatherless children, assisted suicide, euthanasia, drug use, crime, and political scandals are no big deal. In such a world, the way one feels trumps actual wellbeing, even the wellbeing of others. To those who do not value others much, Conservatives seem way too uptight.

If people are inherently evil—if their first impulse is to do wrong—then the government’s role is to restrain evil. If people’s hearts are evil, they should often be kept from doing what they want to do. To the extent that they do good—or even know about good—it is because of the influence of an outside force, i.e., God.

However, if we are also enormously valuable (because we are made in God’s image), then government should pass laws to protect us from each other. Abortion, homosexuality, teen sex, pornography, etc., are not matters of personal choice, but are activities damaging to the common good, and need to be legislated against. Individual wellbeing (as defined by God) trumps feelings or desires. To people who hold this view, Liberals seem dangerous.

So which position best describes the way we really are? Come back next time for an answer.

P.S. If you disagree with the above, or you find parts of yourself in both positions, odds are you regularly vote against your own most treasured values.

Telling Ourselves the Truth

But first we must tell ourselves the truth.

Francis Schaffer said most people would rather defend their prejudices than seek what is really true. Many of us don’t have self-concept enough to give the other side an even shake. People with a small or damaged self-concept are more likely to define themselves by their political party, and less likely to consider the possibility that the other side might be right. As Stephen Covey put it, “They don’t own enough of themselves.” We fear being proved wrong. We no longer discuss issues; we no longer debate policy. Now we conduct verbal combat as though our lives depend on it, slashing our opponents as they slash at us, neither one even hearing what the other is saying. Being proved wrong would damage our fragile psyches like a physical wound. So we block out the possibility that we could be wrong. And we hate our opponents. As Glenn Beck has said, “We’re eating each other.” We’ve become a nation of political cannibals, blaming the other party for every problem from the national debt to peanut allergies.

Our success or failure as a nation will be a reflection of how closely our decisions and behaviors are aligned with reality. We will not accurately discern reality if we are knotted up in our own biases and prejudgments. We must figure out what reality actually is, what we’re up against, what facts we must accommodate, what rules we must heed and operate inside of. Then we must admit the truth about what we find, no matter what that truth turns out to be.

“You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” — Jesus