Comments on: More on Evangelicals and Entitlements

By: Evangelicals and Natural Law, Con’t » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog

Thu, 24 Mar 2011 14:21:34 +0000

[...] for evangelicals. For a century we seem to have been oscillating between isolationism and uncritical assimilation of the world’s sin-rigged agendas. We need to figure out another way to go. Natural law is [...]

By: Deb

Deb — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 13:19:33 +0000

I’d like to hear detailed ideas from Tom. It was never intended to be the government’s job to care for our parents, the fatherless and the widows. I volunteer in community ‘social work’–my mission field right here at home–and am frustrated over the misuse and abuse of taxpayer money for programs that ‘empower poor Americans’. An incentive might better empower me to financially help those I feel need it.

By: Ian Jennings

Ian Jennings — Sun, 06 Mar 2011 22:05:42 +0000

Nice to see you defending yourself here, Gideon -and, furthermore defending yourself graciously. That opening paragraph was a prime example of unpleasant and unwarranted snark, Greg, and it turned me off, for one, given that I know Gideon and have no doubt whatsoever that you’ve badly misconstrued his motivation. It’s tedious to have to say this, but the easy assumption that those who disagree with you must be doing so on the basis of character failings places you squarely in the company of those you oppose. And it smacks of insecurity and lack of confidence in your own arguments.

By: KEITH PAVLISCHEK

KEITH PAVLISCHEK — Sun, 06 Mar 2011 12:08:31 +0000

“We do not endorse any detailed agenda. Experts disagree.” The statement should have stopped there. Just imagine how many Evangelical signatures you would get if you left it at that!

By: Mary

Mary — Sun, 06 Mar 2011 01:02:00 +0000

By contrast, if we eliminated programs that intended to do such and actually *did* do it, we may be complicit in very real injustice,

Are you claiming that every country everywhere in the world was engaged in “very real injustice” prior to this century because they didn’t have a Leviathan welfare state?

By: Tom

Tom — Sat, 05 Mar 2011 22:38:48 +0000

All this just so disappoints me. There were some commandments summarized as: Love God, and love neighbor. Notice there was not one to love self, yet that is what so much seems to be about. All the social programs seem to be about how we protect ourselves, or have the government “love” our neighbor for us — we’re too busy.

If anything, I’d like us to have some programs to incentivize actions which show US caring for our neighbors or parents, so the government doesn’t have to (nor will we have to debate to who or how much the “government” should give — I mean after all, it has so much money, what’s the debate anyway?). Cut government social programs, and incentivize us to care for our neighbors, we seem to have forgotten how.

By: Gideon Strauss

Gideon Strauss — Sat, 05 Mar 2011 19:00:22 +0000

Jim: “Typically if one wants to consume more, he or she expects to pay more and if one wants to pay less, one must reconcile themselves to either less or an inferior product.” Well … no. It is one of the marvels of market economies that they harness human ingenuity to overcome this conundrum by achieving fresh efficiencies through better technologies, better organization of human effort, for increased productivity.

By: Gideon Strauss

Gideon Strauss — Sat, 05 Mar 2011 18:57:35 +0000

Greg: “Government profligacy is evil; disagreeing about how to deal with it is not.” Well … yes! But also: refusing to take a serious position on how to deal with it is irresponsible … while taking the necessary time to discern what the appropriate details of a serious position might be, and being open to persuasion with regard to alternatives, is responsible.

By: Gideon Strauss

Gideon Strauss — Sat, 05 Mar 2011 18:55:10 +0000

Gregory: “Leaving our children’s children an inheritance is righteous; leaving them with huge debt is evil.” Amen. Which is rather the point — or one of the two points — of the Call.

By: Gideon Strauss

Gideon Strauss — Sat, 05 Mar 2011 18:54:18 +0000

Mary: “If we eliminated every program intended to do such but didn’t actually do it.” I agree. By contrast, if we eliminated programs that intended to do such and actually *did* do it, we may be complicit in very real injustice, with very real world consequences for some of our most vulnerable neighbors.