Getting involved
Yesterday Daniel Drezner linked to an LA Times article on a new "framework for political action" that the NAE is drafting:
[The document] affirms a religiously based commitment to government protections for the poor, the sick and disabled, including fair wages, healthcare, nutrition and education. It declares that Christians have a "sacred responsibility" to protect the environment.
But it also hews closely to a traditional evangelical emphasis on the importance of families, opposition to homosexual marriage and "social evils" such as alcohol, drugs, abortion and the use of human embryos for stem-cell research. It reaffirms a commitment to religious freedom at home and abroad.
So far, it looks as if there are some potentially good things in this. A broader societal perspective by many churches is needed, for one. That some churches can spend millions of dollars so white suburban kids can have another gym to play in while giving a mere pittance to, say, churches in developing countries is troublesome, to say the least.
Likewise, a slightly greater separation between the Republican party and evangelicals could be good. For one, too many evangelicals seem to tie the kingdom of God directly into the Republican party's political successes. Secondly, it would just be nice to keep the GOP on its toes.
However, there are a couple of things that seem questionable. For starters, I'd be interested to see how it divides responsibility to the poor between church and state. Calling the state to action, while doing nothing oneself is both hypocrisy and symptomatic of an excessive, almost idolatrous, reliance on governmental action. Plus, there have been plenty of times that the government has succeeded in hurting the poor far more than helping.
Furthermore, some of the "Biblical" statements look suspicious. The draft says at one point
When social structures result in such gross disparities and suffering, the Bible writers envision structural solutions, such as periodic land redistribution so that everyone can have access to productive resources and be dignified members of their community
While I haven't seen the larger context of this, the problem is that you just can't draw a one-to-one correspondence between land practices listed in the Pentateuch and property rights in modern USA. Land to Israel was important because it was tied to the promises of God. The "periodic land redistribution" that it refers to was a means of preserving Israel's inheritance, not alleviating "gross disparities and suffering." To transpose those principles into modern American culture requires some hermeneutic gymnastics.
Anyway, it'll be interesting to read the full draft whenever the NAE gets around to actually putting it on its website. I'm also curious to know which seminary and denominational leaders reviewed it.
June 22, 2004 01:18 PM