« "Be Brave And Strong." | Main | Relationally Challenged? »

April 16, 2009

Comments

Nate Beaird

Well Said Pastor!

Augie Freda

Mark: Spot on! I encourage you to read a book by Arthur C. Brooks titled "Who Really Cares". It speaks to your comments well, especially the impact of government subsidies on charitable giving.

God bless,
Augie Freda

Ron Windbigler

The jump out point to me is this......."Whether this is a Christian nation may be secondary and consequential to this poignant consideration: Am I a Christian?"


So well said, if everyone would ask themselves that question.. And then answer it truthfully it would be amazing where "God" would take the nation.

Amber Cox

ooh SNAP!! Good one dad!

cwk

"Here's my experience. I'm 55 years old. In all my years I've never heard one person say our VA Hospitals are the best hospitals in America. Not one. Not once."

Really? Then allow me to introduce you to Mr. Phillip Longman.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.longman.html

Brian Getz

As a Master's of Philanthropic Studies student and author of the religion chapter of Giving USA 2008 (an almanac of giving in the United States) I can help fill in a few facts about giving and taxes. As tax rates go up, wealthy people actually end up giving more, rather than less, to charity. The reason is that at a 33% tax rate, the net cost of giving one dollar to a cause is only 67 cents. The donor is able to recoup one third of the "price of giving" by writing off the charitable deduction on their taxes. Study after study have shown that this "price of giving" effect more than counterbalances the "wealth effect" of untaxed people having more money to give. It sounds crazy, but it's true. Therefore, higher taxes not only lead to greater government provision of services for poor people, but also higher giving to nonprofits.

Even if it didn't, giving could simply not handle meeting the needs that government can. Why? Because the average American gives 2% to charity. Christians give as much as 3% on average. Taxes, however are close to 20%. If you can show me how lowering taxes will spur giving upwards of 10%, much less 20%, I will gladly accept your argument. Until then, I suggest supporting one's country through not only flags and service, but taxes as well.

Terry Ingle

Brian, even with your fancy math and questionable statistics there are a few facts to consider. First of all, it was never the intent of our founding fathers that the government be in charge of taking care of the poor. In fact, evry time it has tried it has botched it horribly. I can cite our broken social security system, medicare, medicaid, VA hospitals...need I go on? If you would like to visit my blog, http://terry-stuffithinkabout.blogspot.com/ you will find many examples of our founders stating that nothing good EVER comes from big government. They would know. Our nation has compassion for the helpless, but now we are being forced to support the clueless. According to the teachings of Jesus it is the Church who should help the poor and the fatherless not the government. When was the last time that there was a government program that was run responsibly? I can't think of one either.
Now our present administration is even talking about cutting back the deductions for charitable donations.
No matter how you slice it, I would much rather be giving the lion's share of the taxes I pay to my church. I know how it is being spent, and and there is much more accountability involved.

Mark Beeson

Thanks Brian. You too CWK.

You’ve helped with some solid facts and you’ve been gracious too. I appreciate both of you. Phillip Longman’s work is fascinating. I’m glad to have the link and enjoyed the read.

Let me bottom line a couple of personal opinions:
1. Givers give. I believe this is true, no matter how much money they make. They give no matter how much wealth they’ve achieved. They give if they get a tax deduction; they give if they don’t.
2. Government does what religion doesn’t. Religion does what government can’t.

At a deeper level, the collective will of any governed people eventually manifests itself in government policy. The moral code of any society – its DNA, if you will - manifests in the culture’s values: does life matter, does violence matter, do those who are weak and helpless matter, does personal property matter, does personal freedom matter, does a limit on government matter, does our physical environment matter (think green), does age matter, does sex matter? At the core of each civilization lies the dogma of conviction - the conviction that says, at the end of the day, “This is what I ultimately believe. This is what I value above all things. This is what I worship.”

Religion shapes social dogma. Religion knits a person’s values together like the strands of DNA connect to establish one’s physical appearance. At their religious core is one’s “why I value what I value.” At their physical core (go back to the whole DNA idea) is one’s physical capacity to act, to live and to do – according to their purpose (which is rooted in their values).

For that reason (I’ll leave other reasons for another time), I’m persuaded there is a necessary – albeit, delicate – balance between (values-shaping, morals-clarifying, purpose-giving) freedom from government’s intrusions in religion, and any government’s responsibility to provide those services most valued by the governed people. If people want security more than opportunity (with its inherent risks), the government will ultimately reflect that value. If a society values warriors over poets (a’la the movie “300”), that value will eventually shape the collective culture.

(Again, Brian and CWK, thanks for your thoughtful comments. As I’m typing this I again recognize the value of a collaborative process. You helped me.)

I’m contending (I think, in agreement with Jesus who said, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.”) that government can’t do what the church must.
Additionally I’m wrestling to communicate that the government is limited in its power. It is limited to the fundamental and essential values of the society. It finds its power, and its authority, in the religious DNA of its people.

So, if people believe their leaders should have power, they position them with power. They send a representative – with the power of their people – to speak for them, vote for them, judge for them and act for them. If people believe that citizens are ultimately responsible for their own society, they keep the power for themselves and (a) send new representatives every few years (USA) to preserve coherence with their moral code, or (b) rise up in a coup and overthrow their government, seize power and establish something they believe to be more to their liking. (Personally, I prefer the USA’s method of voting every few years over a blood-bath every few years.)

Whether we’ve been taxed enough already is yet to be seen.

If citizens want more benefits from the government, we’ll all pay more taxes. But beware, ultimate trust in government makes trust in Christ secondary. The notion that government gets it done, and the church doesn’t, leads to greater trust in government than in church. We dare not forget, though the government can do great good (in keeping with the values of the Church) like: feeding the poor, caring for the sick and those in prison, government can’t do that which is only done by the Church.

People prioritize their money, energy and effort according to what they most value – what they cherish above everything else. They give what remains to lesser priorities. If citizens believe taxes get more accomplished than the tithe, who wouldn’t want to pay more in taxes? In that case, who wouldn’t reduce giving to non-profits in order to increase their impact by increasing the size of government? Is bigger (read “better funded, better led and better managed”) government better than stronger church, or is it subsequent to it? We have government officials in high positions whose publicized giving records indicate they have embraced the idea that non-profits are hardly worth supporting. They trust the government to produce the results they desire (remember my religious DNA illustration). They turn to the government for things they want most.

The issue is complicated when citizens refuse to acknowledge the value of both: religion and government. Each has value. Each matters. Expecting one to accomplish the mission of the other leads to cultural dissonance, frustration and a polarized citizenry. I think we’re seeing that in America today. And I think a growing tension is fueled by the hate-speech now common on radio, television and the internet. (Even blogs seem bent on polarizing rhetoric more than synergizing and redemptive conversation….which may be why I’m so impressed by BRIAN’s and CWK’s comments on this post.)

I’m beginning to drift so I’ll wrap this up. (Besides, I’ve got a weekend service ready to begin….)

I’m praying these opinions move the discussion forward:

a. Religion ultimately shapes government.
b. Citizens pay for government programs. More programs require more taxes.
c. Eventually, debts must be paid. Taxes fund government debt payments.
d. What is “right” (what is valued and ultimately ascribed worth) is derived from the collective conscience and rooted in religious conviction.
e. It’s possible (if allowed by the citizenry) for the government to create a tax structure so severe, and an economic/enterprise model so restrictive, that non-profit charities suffer a loss in revenue. It is also possible for non-profits and charities (including churches) to lose their tax-exempt status. It is conceivable that tax deductions for charitable giving to non-profits could cease – as expanding government programs (and debt) require more money. I believe that would result in the decline of charitable giving.
f. I’m working to help the church do better at what Jesus wants His Church to do. (I hope you will too.)
g. I’m working to help our government better do what we need the government to do. (I trust you’ll be part of that effort as well.)

Like Jesus (and Brian) said, “Render unto Caesar…” and don’t neglect to “render unto God.”

…………I hope this comment was helpful. Those who read my blog know I hardly ever make time to comment on comments, but I really enjoyed this and hope you did too. Onward and upward friends! We’ve got work to do….and it is best done together.

Mark McClean

"And I think a growing tension is fueled by the hate-speech now common on radio, television and the Internet. (Even blogs seem bent on polarizing rhetoric more than synergizing and redemptive conversation…."

For thinking Americans "hate-speech" is easy to recognize and turn our backs too. Yes it does fuel a sense of helplessness and frustration within an anxious citizenry desiring to take some form of responsible action beyond voting and word smithing their deeply felt ideals.

What worries me FAR MORE than hate-speech is the smooth-talking "happy-speech" cleverly marketed, inside a good-looking smile, with just a hint of new age populism thrown in to make it easily digestible to wide swaths of well-intentioned and “busy” Americans. It is this deliberate political propaganda, on both sides of the debate, that takes the keenest of ears to discern the tiny specks of truth within the voluminous amount of exaggeration and outright lies.

Great observations within this thread. Although I think taxes is not the core frustration in our country. Less than 40 years ago this country had an income tax bracket as high as 70% under Jimmy Carter, and it's been higher than that. The increase in income taxes on those who earn more will be easily defended by those wanting to increase the size and scope of government by simply looking back on our own history.

"National sovereignty" is the the real elephant in the room and the one political issue able to bring everyday working class Americans outside their front door to carry a sign in the street for the first time in their life.

When the dilution of the sovereignty of the American constitution reaches a critical mass there will be a new wave of Thomas Jeffersons that emerge, willing to sacrifice as much as the document's founders, to ensure this "last best hope on earth" remains as intended.

Rich Schmidt

I loved (and quoted on my blog) the "Am I a Christian?" paragraph. Good stuff!

The ensuing conversation in the comments reminded me of a post on a fellow pastor's blog a while back about a city in Brazil that eliminated hunger through government action. In that case, private charity wasn't enough. The post is here: http://masbury.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/brazilian-city-eliminates-hunger/

Probably due to the timing of my birth and adolescence, I grew up looking at government through a Reagan-esque lens, seeing government as the problem, not the solution. So my basic perspective is somewhat libertarian. I've said to friends before that if the government would just get out of the way, then the church would rise up again and meet its responsibilities to care for the sick, poor, homeless, imprisoned, etc, like Jesus told us to. The church has been leaning on government crutches and has forgotten how to stand on its own, let alone walk, run, or carry anyone else.

Now... I'm starting to wonder. Perhaps there's more of a role for government than I'd previously thought.

Thanks, Mark, for wading into the tea-filled waters and sharing your thoughts on this!

The comments to this entry are closed.