Is there a "Moral Hierarchy"?

[jweyman]

I heard an interesting thing on Chuck Colson's Breakpoint this morning. He suggested that there is a "moral hierarchy" by which Christians should weigh their candidates. In this ethical structure, the value of human life takes precedent. All other things, while good in themselves, are overtaken by the more pressing issues.

The example he used:

- Kerry promoted his plan to help the poor and often quoted the book of James.

- Bush opposes "abortion rights" (as the world would call it) and destroying human life for research purposes.

He suggested that, while helping the poor is a good and noble thing to do, it simply isn't as important as the abortion issue. (in the moral platform)

Thoughts?

[Soulfyre]

Good post, jweyman! Let me give this a short time before I post. I would like to see what others say before I, as Bill O'Reilly says, "bloviate".

God bless,

Matthew

[melinky]

I have to admit that toward the end I was really wavering between the candidates to the point that I was prepared to not vote. I just couldn't bring myself to vote for either Bush or Kerry. That is, until the second debate. Kerry said something that told me he was not the candidate God would favor. (In my opinion anyway)

This is what he said:

First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I'm a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today.

But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that.

My understanding is that God wants us to place His will above the will of the people and not to be of this world, but to strive to be of His world.

1Pet. 4:2 From now on, then, you must live the rest of your earthly lives controlled by God’s will and not by human desires.

Rom. 12:2 Do not conform yourselves to the standards of this world, but let God transform you inwardly by a complete change of your mind. Then you will be able to know the will of God—what is good and is pleasing to him and is perfect.

1Cor. 1:20 So then, where does that leave the wise? or the scholars? or the skillful debaters of this world? God has shown that this world’s wisdom is foolishness!

1Cor. 3:1-3 As a matter of fact, my friends, I could not talk to you as I talk to people who have the Spirit; I had to talk to you as though you belonged to this world, as children in the Christian faith. I had to feed you milk, not solid food, because you were not ready for it. And even now you are not ready for it, because you still live as the people of this world live. When there is jealousy among you and you quarrel with one another, doesn’t this prove that you belong to this world, living by its standards?

2Cor. 4:3-4 For if the gospel we preach is hidden, it is hidden only from those who are being lost. They do not believe, because their minds have been kept in the dark by the evil god of this world. He keeps them from seeing the light shining on them, the light that comes from the Good News about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God.

I'm sure there might be other references, but my eyes are feeling a little fried right now.

Melinda

[Kenny]

melinky said:

I have to admit that toward the end I was really wavering between the candidates to the point that I was prepared to not vote. I just couldn't bring myself to vote for either Bush or Kerry. That is, until the second debate. Kerry said something that told me he was not the candidate God would favor. (In my opinion anyway)

This is what he said:



My understanding is that God wants us to place His will above the will of the people and not to be of this world, but to strive to be of His world.

1Pet. 4:2 From now on, then, you must live the rest of your earthly lives controlled by God’s will and not by human desires.

Rom. 12:2 Do not conform yourselves to the standards of this world, but let God transform you inwardly by a complete change of your mind. Then you will be able to know the will of God—what is good and is pleasing to him and is perfect.

1Cor. 1:20 So then, where does that leave the wise? or the scholars? or the skillful debaters of this world? God has shown that this world’s wisdom is foolishness!

1Cor. 3:1-3 As a matter of fact, my friends, I could not talk to you as I talk to people who have the Spirit; I had to talk to you as though you belonged to this world, as children in the Christian faith. I had to feed you milk, not solid food, because you were not ready for it. And even now you are not ready for it, because you still live as the people of this world live. When there is jealousy among you and you quarrel with one another, doesn’t this prove that you belong to this world, living by its standards?

2Cor. 4:3-4 For if the gospel we preach is hidden, it is hidden only from those who are being lost. They do not believe, because their minds have been kept in the dark by the evil god of this world. He keeps them from seeing the light shining on them, the light that comes from the Good News about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God.

I'm sure there might be other references, but my eyes are feeling a little fried right now.

Melinda

Amen, I wanted to go to the debate place and ask Kerry about his so-called faith. Obviously he does not serve the same God, because to me God is suppose to be in every part of your life, no matter if it be political or personal. Legislate God, it'll be better for the country!

[jweyman]

I think the one downfall of the Republican party (and consequently, many conservative Christian voters) in recent years is that we come off as uncaring about the poor. This isn't necessarily true and, perhaps, is in fault to our candidates. Regardless, I think I'm guilty of skirting the issue since it hasn't been such a hot item on the ballot.

I see that as one danger in following such a pyramid-like hierarchy. We may too seldomly look at the rest of the moral spectrum. (helping the poor etc, being lower on the list than abortion or war etc) Perhaps we should turn our eyes to these issues over the next four years.

If the world (specifically the democratic party) is going to criticize us for being soft on poverty, let's show them that we do care.

[Soulfyre]

Actually, more is said in the Bible about our duty to the poor and helpless, including widows and orphans, than is said about some of our favorite "hobby-horse" sins like sexual misbehavior, drunkenness, or divorce. As Jesus once accused the Pharisees, we "...strain at a gnat and swallow a camel." Selective indignation is a problem for all of us. We often tend to be the noisiest about the sins that affect us the least, or which seem to require the least immediate involvement from us. I, too, am horrified by the carnage of abortion, but I believe that our concern should not stop at the birth canal. Many babies are born to poor single parents ill-equipped emotionally or resource-wise to care for their needs. Child abuse is rampant. Many poor children lack nutrition and health care. Are we only to care that a child is born, only to turn our backs at the subsequent responsibility for raising the child? Does our concern about harm to the child only apply to the pre-born?

Did you know that some of the most profitable psychiatric facilities are run by Christian organizations? Evangelicals are noted for their open wallets and their desire for feel-good counseling. Money that might be used to provide safe harbor for those afflicted with paranoid schizophrenia, severe bipolar disorder or autism are closed for lack of funding so that hospitals can open more profitable counseling centers affiliated with or operated by Christian psychiatrists whose patients are far more manageable (and far more likely to be insured or have financial resources). Again, the poor and helpless take it on the chin to provide the rest of us with a feel-good poultice.

In some cases, successful charities are hammered by those of us who live in daily fear that some undeserving wretch will take advantage of our philanthropy. Recently, a conservative commentator took on The Lord's Diner (a charity with which I am somewhat familiar) for being "naive"...not asking enough questions to ascertain the financial resources of those seeking meals at their friendly and hospitable ministries (so different from the dreary soup kitchens). When it is convenient, if not applicable, the image of the "welfare Cadillac" is emblazoned in our minds with no accompanying statistics that demonstrate that such abuses are indeed in the distinct minority. When Jesus said, "If someone should ask you for your cloak, give him your tunic also," he didn't say "...but first, have him fill out a financial accountability statement to make sure that he cannot afford a cloak and tunic." In fact, in Jesus' times such demands were likely to come from Roman military, who could impress people into service, or demand consideration (although few governments could boast the careful provisioning of their troops like Rome).

No, we, who are considered among the world's wealthy, have become so accustomed to our wealth and reliant upon our convenience that we consider that poverty is a moral fault...a state to be rebuked rather than a situation to be remedied. For those interested in a more consistent social ministry, I would recommend the website, Evangelicals for Social Action, founded by Ron Sider. Or seek out some of his books, like Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, 20th Anniversary Edition, The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience, Just Generosity: A New Vision for Overcoming Poverty in America, Toward an Evangelical Public Policy, or Churches That Make a Difference: Reaching Your Community with Good News and Good Works. These books challenge us to exemplify Christian discipleship before the watching world by doctrine and deeds.

How can we do less in response to God who gave His dearest for the most undeserving?

God bless,

Matthew (soulfyre)

[fairbank]

This is a great topic, and I would like to humbly share a few observations.

First, I reject the notion that the evangelical church at large neglects the poor. Every church that I have pastored or attended has done far more for the destitute, abused, and neglected than they have for the unborn. Particularly during the Christmas season, how many churches do you know that have attemped to stop an abortion? Yet it is quite likely that they have collected donations or food for needy families or a local food co-op.

I believe this myth arose from the same source as many myths about Christians or those of a politically conservative bent: from those of a politically liberal bent and their allies in the partisan media.

Charitable giving is considerably higher in the so called "red" (or pro-Bush) states, and this denotes an idealogical difference. Conservatives apparently wish to help the poor by helping the poor directly, and they do so generously, while liberals prefer to confiscate the income of producers and distribute it to those whom they deem most worthy. The difference is man helping man vs. government helping man.

Back to the original issue of a moral hierarchy, again I pray to share humbly about that which provokes me greatly, so please do not misread my passion as arrogance. It is merely a desire for justice. I believe that the life and rights of the unborn do take precedence over other social concerns for the following reason. The poor, the abused, the homeless, and the downtrodden have at least two options available to themselves. They can help themselves, and/or cry for help. The unborn can do neither. They are entirely subject to the whims of their confused and/or frightened mothers, and the abortion mill doctors all to eager to perform the procedure for profit.

I have confronted brothers and sisters in Christ, and even my fellow clergymen, mostly from African American Churches, and said to them, "If you have voted for, or encouraged voting for a pro-choice candidate because they favor your social causes, shame on you. May God forgive you." Many have repented and changed their view in spite of immence peer pressure.

Again let me assert that I want to remain humble in this rant, for truly the sin that offends me most is my own. I know better, and every time I sin I grieve my blessed savior to my shame. I do wish to conclude though, with the hope and the prayer that the life of the helpless unborn would become a top priority for Christians in their community ministry and outreach programs, and in the way they view the political landscape, to the praise of HIS glory.

[Soulfyre]

Thank you, Eric...

You give me a much-needed reminder. What you have said is undeniably true. Evangelical Christians (or any Christians who attempt to be consistent with the proclamation of the gospel) are often much-maligned in broad brush strokes by the press, although I think those who are often most publicized provide a great deal of fodder for the liberal feeding frenzy. It has been my sad experience to cringe as I hear Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson purporting to represent "evangelicals" or "the moral majority". I believe they have consciously fashioned themselves into media-generating individuals, and in doing so have done a disservice to many Christians.

Nevertheless, while I do not support the role of federal government as "Robbing" Hood, I do believe that there is a danger in the growing "meta-church" movement, who seem to be nourishing an "edifice" complex, as they bowl their way to "Jesus" and build gymnasium facitilies to rival many health clubs. How unlike a local church of blue-collar folk, many of whose jobs were in doubt, deciding to use the money they had saved for enlarging their church (so that they could go from three services to two on Sundays and use something more comfortable than folding chairs) to assist local Christian congregations in India in building churches (plural!) and a clinic, because the dollar would go further there.

I agree, brother, that charity is far more prevalent among the reviled Christians, than among the liberal elite. Among the wealthy liberal elite who believe that tax cuts should be rolled back, how many have returned substantial portions of their income to the IRS? Why do I get the feeling that when they talk about the unjust tax cuts going to the wealthy, they do not include themselves in that designation. And those that do are not going to lead by example. I do not say that they do not give to charity, but why do I not hear of George Soros spending his fortune to build schools for public access that provide a safe haven for learning in at-risk neighborhoods, or building clinics for young mothers in crisis? Of course, I suppose building another abortion clinic easier, though...at least then the liberal elite can kill (sorry for the choice of words) two birds while they're stoned...er, I mean with one stone: they make a tidy profit while ensuring the death of the "unfit" to live.

Yet I do believe that we must still cast the most critical eye at ourselves. We cannot change the "liberal elite", and aside for intelligent voting, we can scarcely hold our federal government to account (since by far the most pervasive problems lie in the massive federal bureacracy, and, as you know, politicians may come and go, but the bureacracy goes on forever...or probably at least until Jesus Christ returns). But we can seek to become more active and more faithful ourselves, and to exhort our brothers and sisters to do the same.

Thank you, again, for your important course correction, Pastor!

Matthew (soulfyre)