Can Government Provide a Healthcare Solution?

My plan was to begin a new series on philosophical pragmatism and its damaging effects on society, but I will delay that topic until my next post so I can talk a little about “government solutions,” which, in my view, is more of an oxymoronic exception than it is an actual truth. In a number of exchanges with my Facebook friends recently, I have seen expressions of skepticism and a lack of faith in the capitalist system of the United States.  Yet their alternative to resolve the “evils of capitalism” always seems to be more and bigger government, as if government represents some paragon of virtue and ethics that the unenlightened masses lack. My view is since government is made up of fallen people, then it has the same imperfections as the fallen people that make it up. This means that those in government who are supposed to represent the people can have personal agendas that are counter to the will of the people, and can enact legislation that may be ultimately bad for the people. This is particularly a problem at the federal level, since all people are affected, and is precisely why the people should hold government accountable, which includes getting the federal government out of areas in which it lacks competence or purpose.

"While the 10th Amendment explicitly limits the power of the federal government, today it has become little more than a quaint, and toothless, sentiment. But that wasn't always the case. The Founding Fathers were no fools. They understood that those who are inclined to power are also tenacious defenders of that power once they have achieved it."

Let’s take for example the current healthcare debate, with some feeling government-run healthcare is a “fundamental right.” I don’t agree with this because fundamental rights are, and I believe should, be strictly within the limits of natural law. In other words, those rights given by the creator that are unalienable: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Beyond that, we have rights based on the social contract that people make with government which gives it authority over certain moral and/or political obligations. So I don’t see healthcare as an unalienable right, but as a potential policy directive added to the social contract between the people and our government. Otherwise, we could go on forever with people continually declaring certain rights, giving more control to the government that coerces others against their will to pay for those rights (since a right costs something if some good or service must be provided to honor that right). You will ultimately get more and more people demanding rights with less and less people to actually pay for them. So regardless of where the debate over healthcare goes, healthcare is certainly not an unalienable right.

With respect to healthcare, I believe free market capitalism, though it is not perfect, provides for the most win-win scenarios based on a free exchange of market-based services. And within a framework of rule of law and property rights, the free market system works beautifully. Somehow, though, people expect it work perfectly, which is anything but realistic. Based on human nature, there will always be market bubbles that form and burst and there will always be creative destruction as technological advances are made. The healthcare system demonstrates the very issues that have come about with the advancement of innovative, life-saving technologies over the past five decades. But these technologies come at a price and have contributed to about half of all growth in costs (with preventable illness making up 90% of all healthcare costs, much of this due to obesity and smoking). Yet If we look at the way that people live now compared to 100 years ago, we see that due to capitalism, people now enjoy a far higher standard of living. Still, Americans are not satisfied that we have an exemplary economic system which needs to be defended, even though it isn't perfect.

My understanding is that most people who go to a doctor when their medical situation is advanced, or go to the ER, are those that can afford insurance but choose not to purchase it because they have other priorities. The ER is for those that need critical care regardless of whether they have insurance or not, with the insured bearing the full burden. But the ER is also used by those without insurance even if the need is not critical, which the insured pay for as well. The truth is we will always have those that don't purchase insurance when they can afford it, who drive up costs in the ER, and those who make poor health choices in life that drive up insurance premiums directly or indirectly based on whether they have insurance or not. People of today behave irresponsibly mainly because they can, since social mores and personal responsibility don't have the value they once did, and of course, the fact that the government will step in with other people's money in exchange for cheap votes and expanded powers. So I am certain that government-run healthcare is not the solution, since it won’t fundamentally change human nature.

The truth is any solution will be imperfect. Yet I continue to believe strongly that capitalism and our system of government as framed by the founding fathers is the best system to respond to the current issues in healthcare. What is needed is more competition rather than less, with the federal government not involved as a player in healthcare, but involved only in policy that facilitates the free market system. This would include the federal government getting out of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, remanding these to state and local governments that will provide this safety net for the truly needy in a more personal and efficient manner. Within the free market system, there should be a premium to pay for those who don’t (or won’t) accept responsibility for their lifestyle choices that cause preventable diseases. That is why it is perfectly acceptable to me that insurance companies be able to set premiums based on the lifestyle choices of the insured, and practical limits on how much care they will pay for. Those who refuse to purchase insurance when they can afford to should not be able to take unlimited advantage of the ER, particularly for non-emergency care.

The bottom line is Americans need to become more physically active and more responsible about their life choices, and if they don't, accept the consequences. It is unreasonable for someone to smoke, drink to excess, and live a generally unhealthy lifestyle expecting someone else to foot the bill. The government should not enforce this, but should work with insurance companies and healthcare providers on common sense policies that support their efforts to provide the best possible balance of coverage that would include preventive measures and reasonable limits on care based on objective criteria. We are all going to die some day, so we shouldn’t expect to be kept alive when our time has come solely because medical technology allows it. Doctors, along with their patients and patient families, have been making end-of-life decisions for generations, long before insurance. The blessing of private insurance has greatly improved the availability of healthcare, so let’s celebrate it and accept the fact that it has limits, while looking for ways to make it more available that preserves the efficiency and efficacy of the free market.

* References:

Jamieson, Bob, in Letters section. "Could America Ever Become the Not-So-United States?" The Wall Street Journal, 20 June 2009. Available from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124545060728632553.html. Accessed 20 June, 2009.

share on: facebook

Solutions for Social Justice – Part 3

In the final installment of this series, I want to first outline a key point about capitalism that we all inherently know, but it is worth repeating: capitalism as an economic system is not perfect. Now that I have that off my chest, I believe we all need to realize, if we haven’t already, that there is no perfect economic system and there will be no perfect system, ever. What should hearten us, however, is the excellent point that Jay Richards makes in his book Money, Greed, and God, stating that though free market [capitalism] doesn’t guarantee that everyone will win in any given competition, it allows many more win-win encounters than any alternative. And thus free market capitalism is the solution and not a part of the problem. The problem that actually led to the current economic crisis was an abuse of capitalism, and not the outcome of capitalism itself. So the worst thing we could do is to unceremoniously ditch capitalism in favor of some utopian alternative, particularly alternatives that have been demonstrably proven to not work, such as socialism.

One thing I have heard regularly from my liberal friends is how greed brought about the current economic crisis. I absolutely agree with the assertion that greed contributed to the economic crisis, but it was largely caused by the government in terms of monetary policy and gross interference in the free market by browbeating lenders into making home loans they would not otherwise make for the sake of encouraging an “ownership society.” This government interference crossed party boundaries, so there is plenty of blame to go around, but I would argue that the lack of proper regulation by the House Financial Services committee and the Senate Banking Committee caused untold damage, particularly in their oversight (or lack thereof) of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. My liberal friends, however, go further by excoriating corporate executives in general for their greed. And this is where we part ways, because first, whereas I do agree that greed is wrong, I don’t believe it always produces a poor outcome. I have on numerous occasions done business with people who I thought were greedy, but the transaction occurred because they offered a better value than the alternatives, possibly seeking to make more profit by volume. Second, since we have the rule of law in place, I know that the greedy people I chose to avoid will ultimately be brought to justice (some of which was served by me not giving them my business). As well, the greedy person’s volume strategy could fail causing them to go out of business, or they might rub enough people the wrong way and achieve the same effect. So consumer choice and rule of law are clearly two important keys to making free markets work.

As Richards points out in his book, free trade is not anarchy, as some would assert. It requires “a rule of law that makes sure one person doesn’t steal from another person or force the other person into an unwilling exchange (merely a more sophisticated form of theft).” He next argues that this doesn’t mean the government should control the market. The government’s job, amongst the few things it is designed to do, is to put a rule of law in place so unwilling exchanges are minimized, such as when unseemly brokers and banks attempt to sell “toxic loans” to unsuspecting homebuyers. In effect, this was the sophisticated theft through greed that the government was supposed to prevent, but only aided and abetted through poor monetary policy and lack of proper oversight of the financial markets. Beyond proper oversight, the government cannot control an economy because the free actions of individuals engaging in free trade is enormously complex, and when the government goes into the business of setting prices and controlling the production of goods and services through central planning, it has never worked out well for the people. In the governments whose leaders have tried this approach, such as those of Lenin and Mao Tse-tung, widespread famine and death resulted. So hopefully we have learned our lesson from history.

Richards notes that determining the economic value of anything is indeed a mystery and that market order is a wonder. Essentially, the price of a good or a service in a free economy is a little “packet of information” that tells us its economic value at that moment. It represents an underlying reality that is not merely the random choice of  a store clerk, but is a highly sensitive network for gathering and disseminating information, leading to specific prices for goods and services of interest. Richards further states that price alone allows entrepreneurs to decide where to invest, and it tells producers of goods how much to produce compared with other things it could produce. Thus, in a free market, goods and services will typically end up where they are valued the most. An excellent example is if a hurricane in the South leads to a local shortage of gasoline, gas prices will go up there and draw more gasoline to that region where it is more needed. Unfortunately, what typically happens in a crisis is that the government manipulates prices instead of allowing the free market to do its work. Another classic example is the “oil crisis” of the 1970s, when the government implemented price controls which, according to historian Thomas Woods, led to perverse outcomes that basic economic literacy would have avoided. In short, price controls did not allow more expensive oil to flow where it was most productive, which included oil rigs off the Louisiana coast, and further, did not allow other oil suppliers to enter the American market and alleviate the shortage. The result was long, unnecessary lines at the pump (as I distinctly recall, thus dating myself).

To bring this to a close and solidly address social justice, my conclusion is that a free market, properly regulated by consumer choice and a rule of law that minimizes (since it cannot eliminate) win-lose exchanges, provides for the greatest degree of social justice since it allows for the free exchange of goods and services with prices being set by willing sellers and willing buyers. If sellers don’t meet the needs and desires of buyers, then those sellers will ultimately go out of business. Now as to the rich, they do not become so at the expense of the poor, because economics is not a zero-sum game where for someone to win, someone else has to lose. The economy grows naturally as greater productivity is achieved, lifting all involved. And capitalism is setup precisely to maximize win-win situations so the economy can increase productivity and expand accordingly. The problem is with so much government meddling in capital markets, and the confiscation of wealth to fund inefficient, bureaucratic social programs, the poor have less capital to work with to start businesses or achieve more education that would allow them to command higher salaries. Indeed, most people of wealth today in the United States started from very humble beginnings, so we can have confidence that people of all economic levels can aspire to a better life, even if not great wealth.

In this current technological age, new wealth and opportunities to create wealth are created all the time. Yes, there will be the inevitable disruptions as technology shifts, but this is no different than the way things were 150 years ago when whole agrarian communities could be wiped out after a couple of years of drought, or in the early 1900s when the horseless carriage put buggy manufacturers out of business. Yet we live in a time of unprecedented comfort and leisure that even the wealthiest people 100 years ago could only dream of, due to high productivity and division of labor. In day to day life, there isn’t a major lifestyle difference between the average middle-class family and Hollywood celebrities or sports stars though obviously, many of the latter have a more secure financial future (presuming they don’t blow it). Even the poor today live considerably better than the average middle-class family in the early 1900s (e.g., running water, sanitation, refrigeration, air conditioning). But to bring about the social justice necessary to lift up those in poverty will require the church and charities working at the local level, in concert with the principle of subsidiarity as I discussed in my previous blog post. If the federal government gets out of the business of social programs, the necessary capital will be freed up so that people can make free decisions in an efficient manner to help those less fortunate within their own communities. The American people have always been up to this task, and it is time the government put its trust and the future of America back into the hands of the people.

* References:

Richards, Jay W. Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem. New York: HarperCollins, 2009.

Woods Jr., Thomas E. The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Market. Lanham, MD: Lexington, 2005.

share on: facebook

“Equality”: Its Use and Misuse

I’m introducing an interim topic while I continue my research on solutions for social justice, and am happy to be out of school for summer for the first time in three years. After perusing reader contributions to the commentary section on gay marriage in this past Sunday’s Orange County Register, I felt I should respond to the overloaded use of the word “equality” as the LGBT community likes to define it. Personally, I think if they took a hard look at the way they are trying to redefine this word, let alone marriage, they would see the logical fallacies of their arguments, and what the unintended consequences might be if they were to have their way. Specifically, the way they use the word equality makes the word mean that if someone, in their own mind, doesn’t feel like they’re getting what someone else has, then there is a fundamental inequality that exists and must thus be ameliorated so they can feel “equal.”

One young gentlemen wrote in to say that those who voted for Prop. 8 (the ballot measure that amends the CA constitution so it only recognizes marriage between a man and woman) chose to “fear and hate homosexuality rather than understand it.” So, according to him, anyone and everyone who voted for Prop. 8 fear and hate homosexuals while not understanding their lifestyle, and there is no possible alternative way of thinking. He further states that the ruling puts forth the idea that members of the LGBT community are not “equal” to those of the heterosexual community, so this is “discrimination by definition.” Well first, I would like to state that I don’t think he knows the mind of those who voted for Prop. 8 because he has probably not had a civil conversation with any of them. Anyone who chooses to paint others with a broad-brushed stroke to assert they know with certainty what others think without doing their due diligence is arguing speciously. I personally know of no one who fears or hates homosexuals, but they simply don’t agree that homosexuality should be accepted as a normative lifestyle. As to understanding the gay lifestyle, I think most people clearly understand monogamous homosexual relationships, but have little knowledge of the sexual profligacy of the gay “scene” in major metropolitan areas that has contributed greatly to HIV/AIDS transmission. This is the side of the gay lifestyle they don’t discuss in public. In fact, one of my best college friends contracted HIV/AIDS in the LA gay scene and is now back in Florida living with the unfortunate consequences of his chosen lifestyle.

On this gentleman’s second point, he states that members of the LGBT community are not equal to those of the heterosexual community, which is discrimination by definition. This is classically flawed thinking. There are few things in this life that are “equal,” but the inequality here does not imply discrimination in the sense that someone is somehow being slighted if all things are not being made “equal” to their liking. For example, in the eyes of God, Bill Gates and the poor children he is helping in Africa have an equal spiritual status. Yet they don’t have an equal economic status in terms of wealth. So is it inherently bad because Bill Gates won’t “equalize” his wealth with the children he helps, or is the issue that these poor families don’t have an equal opportunity to gain wealth, which Gates is pressing for? I would argue for the latter. Another example is my company’s eight weeks of paid maternity and paternity leave, respectively, for a mother and father having a child. Is it “unequal” that since I don’t have any children, I don’t get the same benefit?  Yes it is, but as I stated, few things in this life are “equal.” So it would be the height of narcissism for me to presume that I should be treated “equal” to those who have children, since my situation is decidedly not “equal” to theirs. This could also be applied to tax benefits for married couples and to mortgage deductions, which are clearly “unequal” since others are, in essence, being discriminated against, but these policies are designed to serve the common good by encouraging responsible behavior that leads to societal stability.

Now as this relates to the young man who wrote to the Register, and another who goes even further, stating that the electorate has “disenfranchised and marginalized” a minority group (even comparing this situation to the days of Hitler and hysteria against the Jews), I will lay out my case in opposition. First, I would say that I am a minority whose people endured almost four hundred years of horrific slavery, Jim Crow, and “separate but unequal” status before achieving our full civil rights in 1964. To my knowledge, the LGBT community enjoys full protections under the law as I do, and have access to civil unions in California that provide benefits equivalent to heterosexual marriages. So I fail to see how this group is being disenfranchised, marginalized, or is suffering in any way as did Jews under Hitler or as blacks did under slavery and Jim Crow. They have freely chosen their lifestyles and are free to live their lives as they choose. But what they want at core is acceptance by the majority (and the church), yet they push for it under the guise of equality due to a mistaken idea of what equality truly means and the many dimensions in which equality may be defined. For millennia, societies have determined that male and female, in a committed relationship, set the normative definition of marriage that can produce children in concert with nature. Those who believe that is somehow inherently discriminatory clearly have no respect for the institution of traditional marriage and its stabilizing force in society, as they cannot marshal any demonstrated alternative superior to this norm other than to express their felt needs that their freely chosen alternative relationships should be “included” in this definition.

If we allow gay marriage then we must necessarily allow for polygamous marriages, “geometric” arrangements (such as “triads” and “quads”), and incestuous relationships, because the argument for gay marriage is the same as that in favor of any other alternative arrangement: it is one about choice and not about any inherently normative family structure. In her prescient book on worldview titled Total Truth, author Nancy Pearcey states that the social institution of marriage is a moral entity in itself, with its own normative definition, where there is a “good” for the individuals in the relationship and there is a “common good” for their lives together. She laments that we live in a time when “family bonds are rapidly dissolving in the acids of personal autonomy,” counter to the wisdom of traditionalist cultures where the clan or tribe takes precedence over the individual.  In other words, we are allowing radical individualism to slowly and inexorably break the bonds of traditional family structures and values, with the outcome eventually being the breakdown of society itself. Somehow I don’t see these gentlemen that wrote to the register as seriously deliberating about the potential unintended consequences of gaining what they desire, as their arguments are about choices and feelings, and not a truly working definition of equality that accounts for the common good and what history has taught us.

* References

Pearcey, Nancy. Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity (Study Guide Edition). Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2005.

share on: facebook

Solutions for Social Justice – Part 2

Since my post several weeks ago titled “Solutions” for Social Justice?, I have been delving deep into books, blogs, and articles that speak to capitalism and its relationship to human action. Specifically, my concern was how the poor are affected by capitalism and if it is indeed the best economic model for the poor, the rich, and those in between. While I am absolutely positive that socialism is not a viable economic model, since it concentrates economic control into the hands of a few, my thought was that Distributism would be a practical “third way,” as I expressed in my previous “Solutions” post, which would counter the concentration of wealth that appears inevitable within a capitalist system. While Distributism certainly has some striking benefits as an economic system based on subsidiarity, which is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority, in practical terms it appears the implementation of this model en masse would require a fundamental remake of our economy, but I believe it would be a powerful model for social and economic change. Still, I continue to believe that capitalism as it currently exists is a viable economic model that preserves individual liberty while providing opportunity for the upward mobility of all classes. In particular, I believe the Austrian School of economics provides the best model for robust capitalism, and I would argue that our system of government should further incorporate the Catholic principle of subsidiarity sans its hierarchical social structure (closer to sphere sovereignty in Reformed parlance) if it is to continue successfully with capitalism as our chosen economic model.

I recently finished the book Money, Greed, and God by Jay Wesley Richards, who is a former Director and Research Fellow at the Acton Institute, a Christian think-tank whose mission is “to promote a free, virtuous, and humane society. This direction recognizes the benefits of a limited government, but also the beneficent consequences of a free market. It embraces an objective framework of moral values, but also recognizes and appreciates the subjective nature of economic value. It views justice as a duty of all to give the one his due but, more importantly, as an individual obligation to serve the common good and not just his own needs and wants.” Note the emphases on limited government, free markets, and moral values, which are buttressed by justice as a duty of all to serve the common good in a free society with free markets. I believe Jay has captured in his book the crux of what makes a free, capitalist society such as ours work and thus achieve greatness as a young republic. His book provides deep insights into capitalism and its history, and he has explicated the ideals of the Acton Institute in concert with the controversial yet powerful Austrian economic model, providing a clear way forward for realizing the continued greatness of our country, if we embrace capitalism for its highest purpose.

In leveraging Jay’s book as the basis for this post, I want to be clear that neither Jay, in his book, nor I, in this post, believe that any economic system is perfect. Despite what some in government would have us believe, there will never be a utopia on earth (and of all people, Christians should know this better than anyone else). Government simply cannot and will not solve all of our problems, because human interaction is incredibly complex. The best the government can do is provide a framework for economic interaction that produces the best possible outcomes, and then properly enforce the rules of engagement. The more government attempts to take on above and beyond the limited number of things it is designed to do well, the harder it is for a society to function because decision-making becomes concentrated into the hands of a few instead of allowing a fairly-traded market to decide outcomes based on free interchange. Though there are some brilliant and highly talented people working for the government, it is humanly impossible, particularly at the federal level, for any of them to fully consider the consequences of meddling in free markets.

For just a moment, think about the fact that the framers of our Constitution, many who were men of wealth, power, and prestige, could have constructed a centralized system of government, but instead chose to provide a small number of enumerated powers to the federal government while allowing the states to conduct their own affairs. The wisdom in this choice was that people were free to govern themselves at the state level, and moreover, free to own property and to conduct business through free markets (evils of slavery notwithstanding). The states were (and continue to be) in constant competition with one another to test out new ideas and either fail or succeed in the manner in which they decided to govern. If a state government became too onerous or abusive in its power, or did things to hurt its own economy, its citizens were always free to move to another state that provided more opportunities or freedoms (which I am seriously considering doing since I happen to live in the sorry state of California). What was common to all states was the Constitution, which was the supreme law of the land, yet it also expressly limited the powers of the federal government. If only the folks in Washington, D.C. would adhere to these limits.

Now, to get to the topic at hand, the problem is, as Jay states in his book, that we have reflexively looked to the government for the past forty years to solve social problems. It hasn’t worked because when the state takes over a task that is better handled by someone closer to the problem, it transgresses its proper boundaries and creates more problems than it solves. Jay discusses a set of overlapping “circles of responsibility,” which I have ordered as follows: self, family, neighbors, churches and nonprofits, city/state government, and the federal government. It is when the federal government steps in and runs roughshod over this intricate “web” of overlapping responsibilities with no knowledge of the situation on the ground, violating the principle of subsidiarity, that we have increased problems. The federal government simply grows itself by confiscating capital that could be used more efficiently at the lower levels, and redistributes the wealth it has taken based on its own priorities. This is entirely different from general taxation for legitimate government functions as enumerated in the Constitution. Rather than promoting the general welfare, these redistribution schemes end up allowing citizens to vote for the government to take property from others to give to them. And it doesn’t solve the poverty problem, but simply breeds more dependence on the federal government. And apparently, that is precisely why they do it even though it is impersonal, inefficient, lacking in necessary knowledge, and decidedly unconstitutional.

More to come in Part 3, where I will discuss how capitalism does not reward the rich at the expense of the poor, and how it provides the best model for lifting the poor out of poverty, requiring a change in the government mindset towards to the poor and allowing those who can best serve the poor to do so. Of course, this will mean no more cheap votes, which I believe is the federal government’s purpose for involving itself in social programs in the first place.

share on: facebook

Miss USA and Theological Cherry-picking

I apologize for being so rudely interrupted in my series on social justice solutions, but I couldn’t resist this post, and will pick my other more important topic back up soon. I won’t go much into the controversy over Carrie Prejean’s unfortunate question and response at the recent Miss USA pageant, as that is well reported. But I do want to call out a particular interview on the CNN Campbell Brown show between guest commentator Roland Martin and Miss Prejean. In the interview, Martin quoted former Miss California 2003, Nicole Lamarche, who is now an ordained minister, as having said the following:

"In the past few days, much has been made of the words of Miss California USA, Carrie Prejean. She stated that marriage is between a man and a woman... While this sentiment is shared by many who seek to condemn gay people and gay marriage, citing pieces of the Bible to further one’s own prejudice fails to meet the Bible on its own terms.”

First, what are the "terms" of the Bible she speaks of? If it is flawed, or all the more, false, then what's the point of being an ordained minister? Second, why should we take Lamarche’s admonition that the Bible says we should love our neighbor as ourselves if it can’t be trusted? Is she asserting that you can take what you like and encourage that, but discard what you don't like and say it's up to interpretation? That appears to me very flawed logic. Third, how is Lamarche so certain that Carrie is attempting to “further her own prejudice”? Couldn’t we also assert that Lamarche is prejudiced since she believes her own position is right? Who is to judge if there is no objective moral standard? Apparently there isn’t one since Lamarche doesn’t see the Bible as having any particular authority unless she accedes it. Thus, she sets her own standard and projects her standards on Prejean. What a shame.

I can certainly respect those who feel the Bible is a flawed, errant document that is just a collection of fables. But if they feel that way, I think it’s only honest to be consistent on that view. The Bible is propositional in that it makes truth claims that one can accept as true or reject. Its entire veracity rests on the truth claim of the resurrection of Christ, and nothing else. Concomitant with this truth is Christ’s proclamation that the Old Testament is true, and that he witnessed its history as a part of the Holy Trinity, co-eternal with God. So the Bible is not a book where you can accept some of its tenets as authoritative, while rejecting others. If it is not true, or is only partially true, then what one accepts or does not accept as true is simply a matter of personal opinion.

Unfortunately Lamarche wants to have her cake and eat it too. She sees the Bible as authoritative in areas where she happens to be in agreement, but she doesn’t see the same in areas where she doesn’t. For someone learned in religious studies, it frightens me that she doesn’t understand the concept of progressive revelation and that not everything the Bible reports is what it condones. Sinful behavior is a regular occurrence in the Bible, thus the story of redemption within its pages. She further violates basic methods of interpretation in her exegesis of New Testament passages. Let’s now look at a few quotes from a recent interview with her alma mater, Pacific School of Religion:

“Most people seeking to condemn gay people point to the Book of Leviticus, where we read that men lying with men is an abomination. However, we rarely hear of other verses found in the book of Leviticus that are equally challenging. For example, Leviticus also tells us that eating shrimp and lobster is an abomination. And that a person should not wear material woven of two kinds of material—an impossible mandate for a pageant contestant!”

First, she presumes that anyone against gay marriage is “seeking to condemn gay people.” While this may be the case for some, isn’t it reasonable to say that people can be against gay marriage because they believe the Bible is true and that it condemns homosexuality? And isn’t it possible to love gay people as the Bible commands while not agreeing with their lifestyle choice, and further, not abridging such? If those people respect biblical authority as Lamarche presumably does, then why should they believe otherwise? As to comparing homosexuality to eating shellfish, this is where Lamarche completely misses progressive revelation. The prohibition of homosexuality in Leviticus 18 was enjoined with other practices such as incest, adultery, and marriage of close relatives, under Mosaic law. While these prohibitions were included in Mosaic law, it must be known that the Mosaic law was temporal and conditional, but these prohibitions were in effect before the Mosaic law, during, and now continue to this day as being fundamental to society. Would anyone say that we should allow incest, adultery, and marriage of close relatives today because their prohibition is limited to Mosaic law? As with many other prohibitions in the Mosaic law, in the New Covenant all dietary restrictions were deemed unnecessary under the dispensation of grace, and are not in effect today. Lamarche then continues with her next rhetorical volley:

“In Paul’s letter to the community in Corinth we read, ‘For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church….’ And yet these words have not prevented Christian denominations from ordaining women, such as myself. Sadly, the Bible has been used to further prejudice throughout history. We have used it to permit ourselves to enslave people; to conquer and kill; and to denigrate the earth.”

Here, Lamarche focuses on a narrow passage, violating the three basic hermeneutical rules consisting of context, context, context for biblical interpretation. This passage is within the larger context of keeping order in church meetings. Paul’s call was not for absolute silence, but was specific in that he wanted wives to wait to ask their husbands questions at home. At that time they actually respected men as the head of their households. In God’s eyes, the woman is personally equal to the male, but she is distinct in her womanhood from his manhood. Thus God designed the woman to function in willing subjection to her husband’s headship in the church. So this in no way enslavement, but a willing partnership between equals with different roles.

Finally, Lamarche demonstrates extraordinarily poor biblical exegesis, particularly for someone who carries the title of ordained minister:

“The truth is that it is difficult to know for sure the intentions of the biblical authors, but we do know something about God. Those of us who know God through Jesus of Nazareth know that he went to great lengths to express God’s love to people who were labeled as outcasts. He spent time with children, prostitutes, and lepers, all of whom were labeled as outside of the grasp of the Holy. As we continue to seek God’s vision for us as a nation grounded in a love for justice, I pray that we might move closer to the cause of grace.”

The truth is that it is no more difficult to know the sure intentions of biblical authors than it is for you, my dear reader, to know the intentions of the post you are currently reading, or to know the intentions of Lamarche’s writings. Otherwise, biblical interpretation would be an academic exercise and become purposeless since the Bible could be interpreted to suit whatever one desires at any point in time. The purpose of biblical interpretation is authorial intent (as it is with this post). No more, no less. Now for Jesus to go to great lengths to express God’s love to people who were outcasts inferred no special status on this group of people, but was to demonstrate that he came to save all of the lost who would put their faith in him. There simply are no people that are outside “the grasp of the Holy,” as Lamarche puts it in her brand of plain old bad theology. We are all sinners saved by grace when we accept Christ, and none of us has any special status in the eyes of God. So it is the height of ridiculousness to assert that we should accept gay marriage in order to “move closer to the cause of grace.” The very reason we need grace is because we are sinners who have transgressed God’s law. So I would suggest Lamarche return to a reputable school for remedial training in both biblical exegesis and hermeneutics, and keep her own personal prejudices aside by rightly dividing the word of truth moving forward.

To wrap, I would like to add that Lamarche and folks of her ilk are a most destructive lot. Who would propose that the Bible supports the gay political agenda, under the false veil of justice and equality, when a homosexual lifestyle is clearly inimical to the teachings of the Bible? This is a most deliberate and wanton misinterpretation for anyone who believes the Bible has one shred of truth. My assertion is if Lamarche wants to make her argument, that she make it on other grounds without attempting to falsely marshal support from the Bible. I then may at least respect her argument. But her current attempt is to argue her position from the Bible while undermining its very foundations. This tactic is nothing less than unconscionable, and fair minded people should never give in to this type of grown-up biblical bullying.

share on: facebook

“Solutions” for Social Justice?

It has been a few weeks since my last post, and I would like to thank the few, the proud, the readers of my intermittent ramblings. During this time I’ve been doing some research on the founding principles of the US Constitution, Economics, and learning about a Catholic economic model called Distributism, which claims to be a “third way” between socialism and capitalism (specifically, avoiding the centralization of political power in the former, while avoiding the centralization of economic power in the latter). Including the benefits of Distributism (or some elements thereof) in my economic thinking was suggested by one of my Facebook friends, Brennan, and since my next blog idea was to discuss government “solutions” within the context of social justice, I thought it might be worth the time to do some research in this area. The idea of a post on government solutions for social justice was seeded by an exchange with another Facebook friend, Travis, who is a classmate at Talbot, working on his Masters in Theology. So my heartfelt thanks go out to both Brennan and Travis, to whom I will be looking for feedback. I will only touch on Distributism in this post, but will follow up in more detail in the next.

Travis and I both attend a conservative school of theology and are both evangelical Christians, but from a political perspective, Travis tends to lean Democratic and is an Obama supporter, while I lean conservative and was a McCain supporter in last November’s election (well actually, I wasn’t a true supporter but believed McCain was the “lesser of two evils,” as it were). On matters such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research, Travis and I are in general agreement. Where we tend to disagree, however, is with the specific role of government in terms of social justice, which includes providing more resources for inner city communities and schools as they continue their epic struggles to this day. Travis feels Democrats are offering solutions whereas Republicans are not, but admits that after over forty-plus years of Great Society social programs, there has been little progress in terms of lifting those in the inner city out of the generational poverty, crime, and lack of education that continues to haunt these communities.

My assertion is that the proper role of government at the federal level is to provide a level playing field and to vigorously enforce such, which is consistent with conservative principles of personal responsibility, a small federal government with limited powers as outlined by the Constitution, and low taxes to spur economic growth such that opportunities abound for all who would take advantage of them. What I don’t believe is that government can “fix” these communities such that they will be able to effectively take part in the opportunities available. Why? Because I believe the problem has more to do with the decay of the family and moral values in those communities than any other factor. Though church attendance is high in inner-city black communities, the timeless values taught in church somehow do not effectively translate into action in terms of excellence in the classroom, strong family units, or abstinence until marriage as the ideal. So if the values which would preserve and uplift these communities are not practiced to any appreciable degree voluntarily, there is little government can do. But what the government does is to continue to sink federal and state dollars into these communities at the behest of liberal Democrats with little real results, only perpetuating a generational cycle of dependency, ensuring cheap and enduring votes for the Democratic party because of the perception that they are doing something. Apparently pushing for equal opportunity and the enforcement thereof, as championed by the Republican party during the civil rights era and beyond, is considered not doing anything.

What I am arguing as a conservative is that there is no government funded solution to the inner city problem that is purely a factor of government spending, particularly any solution as currently outlined by liberal Democrats. With a relativistic and mostly materialistic view of the universe, liberals simply don’t see that the problem is a lack of accountability as well as a lack of objective moral values and virtue in these communities. Over the past forty-plus years, liberals have rejected timeless and transcendent values that are vital to turning these communities around, instead promoting a “do whatever you want as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody” social policy concordant with a sex and passion-driven mainstream media, as if the only type of harm one can do to someone else is physical. From their perspective, one can engage in all other manner of risky and deviant behavior, but if one finds him or herself in a compromised situation, it is the government’s job to bail them out since they simply exercised their “right” to live their life in a capricious and irresponsible manner as they so decide with little thought to the consequences. In other words, one has rights but no concomitant responsibilities along with those rights.

The key issue Travis and I discussed was related to supply-side (or “trickle down”) economics as not benefitting the lower classes, and thus being a major factor in their strife. While I don’t believe supply-side economics necessarily are at fault, since everyone benefits through lower taxes for all that promote economic growth, I do see the downside to a purely individualistic approach and see some flavor of Distributism as a better model particularly within inner-city communities to harmonize the relationship between morals and economics, thus bringing healing to these communities. Distributism, as an economic system, promotes local control (through decentralization of political power into the lowest level possible), ownership of private property, self-reliance, industry and thrift, and community spirit. A Distributist system would, however, place spiritual and ethical demands on these communities to lessen playing out of their passions and appetites in favor of family unity, generosity, and cooperation. I envision this would consist of local government working with churches, charities, and private investors to setup guilds, cooperatives, credit unions, home-based businesses, and micro-credit banking to empower productive communities to become interdependent as opposed to being dependent. Though Distributist ideals have grown out of Catholic social doctrine, they do not demand adherence to the Catholic faith, but would rely on core Christian teachings as a mooring for economic and social policy within these communities.

I will expand further on how I envision Distributism working practically to promote social justice in my next post.

References:
Triolo, John F., 2008, Can Distributism Work? Part II. On-line. Available from Internet, http://www.thecontrariansreview.com/Can_Distributism_Work__2.html, accessed on 19 April 2009.

Society for Distributism, 2009, Brochure. On-line. Available from Internet, http://www.scribd.com/doc/13266644/The-Society-for-Distributism-Brochure, accessed on 19 April 2009.

share on: facebook

Lovelle Mixon: Looking Forward and Backward

Tonight I watched a Bill O’Reilly episode on Fox News, and was intrigued by the dialogue that took place between two guests over the recent rallies in Oakland honoring Lovelle Mixon, the man who fatally shot four officers before being killed by Oakland police last week. The purpose of the rally was reported to also have been a condemnation of the police. As the story is well reported I won’t belabor the details, but what was intriguing about this exchange was the clear contrast between these two black guests: one a talk-show radio host looking forward, and the other a Ph.D. still looking backward though he has risen from a similar situation as Mixon.

James T. Harris, a conservative talk-show radio host in Milwaukee, WI, condemned those in the rallies honoring Mixon, saying they had a “collective mindset” that was legitimate 30-40 years ago, but is simply illegitimate today. He cited the breakdown of the family and the declining role of religion as the true reasons that many black communities continue to be mired in poverty and crime-ridden neighborhoods. Harris goes on to say that while solidarity was a necessary and helpful thing 40-50 years ago, it is now destructive because it continues to aim at past inequities that no longer exist to any wide extent.

On the other hand, we have Marc Lamont Hill, who holds a Ph.D. (with distinction) from the University of Pennsylvania. Hill is considered one of the leading “hip-hop generation intellectuals” in the country. Hill argued that those taking part in the rallies were not celebrating Mixon, but simply responding to “police terrorism” that has been endemic to their community for decades. O’Reilly responded, rightfully, that this was an inappropriate forum in which to voice their concern, particularly since Mixon was a rape suspect and a cop-killer who left three widows and ten children without a father. But Hill was undeterred. He said that Mixon had a right to “fundamental humanity,” so his life deserved to be celebrated though his actions clearly didn’t. O’Reilly wasn’t buying that either.

Harris then attacked Hill’s very premise that there was such thing as “police terrorism” in the black community. He argued that the “cups of sorrow” from previous generations continue to be propagated needlessly in the black community into the current generation, looking for terrorism where it doesn’t exist. He continued that blacks are now free, but too many continue to look to the past though times have clearly changed. O’Reilly graciously gave Hill the last word, which Hill used to blather on about how the rallies were challenging a “repressive and oppressive police state.” Thank goodness O’Reilly pulled the plug, as I had had enough of Hill and his whining. Hill is legitimate proof (as is Obama) that a black man, through hard work and determination, can achieve whatever his mind can conceive if he applies himself and accepts responsibility for his own life and his own family (ironic that I borrow a bit of phrasing from Jesse Jackson). This same opportunity is available to our brothers and sisters in Oakland if they would simply accept responsibility for their own communities.

So there you have it, one black man who acknowledges our horrid past of slavery and Jim Crow, but demonstrates thankfulness for what we have overcome, and is looking forward to the future (amen to that). Yet we have another black man who has achieved a high degree of success himself as an intellectual who writes, speaks, and appears on national television, but continues to look backward and rail on about inequities of the past. I think the only thing Hill really demonstrates in this exchange is the double standard too many blacks hold towards whites. We want them to treat us with decency and respect, but we don’t have to return the same when it suits us because of past wrongs. Those rallying around Mixon have no defense, as their cause célèbre is indefensible, but Hill sure gave it a hell of a try. Certainly, he could apply his Ph.D. training to defend causes that are actually of some benefit.

share on: facebook