If you have not read the post below on the Folly of Forced Compassion, this post will probably make little sense. This is not a response, per se, to that post, but it does seek to unpack further the actual application of a society that has eliminated “forced” compassion in favor of “free” compassion.

Let me begin with tithes and offerings in churches. Many churches allow for the receipt of automatic electronic fund transfers. In other words, a church allows for its parishioners to establish a monthly automatic withdrawal of ten percent of their income to be electronically transferred into their church’s bank accounts. I have to admit, there is nothing explicitly stated in scripture which would prohibit such actions. After all, the person is tithing, right? On the other hand, this is slightly against the spirit of tithing, which is an act of faith and an act of compassion (see Malachi 3). An automatic withdrawal takes little thought. (I don’t think about my mortgage payments because they are automatically withdrawn.) At least using online bill pay causes me to think for a second about the tithe I am making to my church as I click the ‘pay’ button. While convenient, automatic withdrawal affects the spirit of giving to the church and makes it too routine.

Now consider ‘forced’ compassion through welfare and taxes. Unintended consequences have occurred because human thought has been largely removed from the process. Rather than thinking about having compassion on others, money is simply removed from my check by the IRS and deposited where needed. Although Dan excluded Social Security and Medicare from his post, having these withheld from my check causes me to stop thinking about caring for those around me who are older, causing me to forget that care of the elderly means more than financial assistance. Compassion that is forced becomes routine and viewed as a garnishing of ‘my’ money.

So, let’s eliminate ‘forced’ compassion! But hold on a second! We all agree that we ‘must’ (whether compelled by God or by government) have compassion. And some would argue that government should not be the compelling force. But let’s be honest. Would the elimination of a compelling human force that has caused the elimination of thought and heartfelt compassion suddenly lead to increased thought and heartfelt compassion? I think not. When the computer system goes down and EFT’s don’t work, few think to write paper checks to their churches. Human hearts do not have a switch in them that suddenly begin to think and feel when they have stopped thinking and feeling.

This is one of the major points of contention about medicare, welfare, and social security. Those in favor of ‘forced’ compassion fear that if there is no force, compassion will not take place. Those in favor of ‘free’ compassion argue that it will. I agree with those who say it will not take place; the human heart simply does not change that fast. If we simply eliminate force, compassion will not take place until the situation of certain individuals becomes so dire that suddenly we are compelled to have compassion upon those we have come to resent. I would estimate that this would take at least one generation of the poor, and that is simply one generation too many to sacrifice. However, I am in favor of “free” compassion that does involve thinking and heart-felt compassion. So how do we solve this impasse? Simple: double the compassion.

What I am proposing is shocking and wildly unpopular because it is ‘my’ money. I’m suggesting we put our money where our mouth is and give twice as much. It’s easy to stand on the side lines and claim the government should not force compassion, and Dan makes a great argument for why they should not force compassionate behavior. But the reality is that while government does “force” compassion, they do not “restrict” compassion. In other words, they dictate that x number of dollars must be spent on compassion, but they do not state what the rest of our income must be used for. Why can’t we use the rest of our income for so much compassion that the government realizes that they do not need to force compassion? Sound impossible?

In the second century, a Roman official wrote to the Emperor to explain why his city was no longer in the Roman welfare system. The reason: The churches in the city did so much that welfare was unnecessary. The church, a group of thinking and compassionate individuals, took such good care of the poor, orphans, and widows, using their aftertax income, that they rendered government assistance programs in the Roman Empire unnecessary! So why don’t we do this? Because we think it is ‘our’ money.

Back to tithing. Tithing a tenth is an admission to God that all of it is HIS money, we are simply stewards of it. It does not mean “ten percent is Gods, ninety percent is mine.” Instead, it is a demonstration that 100 percent is Gods, I just get to use it. We get upset that the government takes “my” money to use how it sees fit, but then we keep the rest and use it on something other than the very compassion we argue that the government should not be doing. For further evidence, just ask your pastor what percent of your church gives ten percent? I guarantee you will be shocked by the low number. Why is this the case? We think it is “our” money and we should use it as we see fit..

The early church though saw religion that was pure and undefiled as caring for the poor and orphans (James 1:27) and did not make excuses that the government took 25 percent of their income. Our goal should not be to get the government out of the compassion business. The goal should be to have compassion, but we are so busy blaming the government for taking “our” money that we fail to use the rest of “God’s” money to be compassionate. The reality is that we can do a better of job of compassion because compassion is God’s business. So let’s stop telling the government to stop and instead put our money where our mouth is and put them out of business. Let’s take back “God’s business” using “God’s money” to accomplish “God’s mission.” This means that I give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s (the rest!). Wow, that’s an awesome statement! I should patent that! Funny that “me” is not even mentioned.

Collateral Damage is the term used by the military for damage done to civilians in order to accomplish a military mission. It seems to me that this debate between Greg and Dan is over collateral damage.

Greg argues Both Christian teaching and conservative beliefs about human behavior explain why we shouldn’t expect to find that our opponents are conscious of the destructiveness of their policies.

Dan disagrees by saying Let’s not step into the OK Corral thinking the cultural elite don’t know what they’re doing. 

The question is do the cultural elite know what they are doing? To Dan’s point, of course they do! To Greg’s point, of course they don’t! How can both Dan and Greg be correct. The answer is collateral moral damage. In Dan’s examples, the cultural elite certainly know that supporting abortion does harm for the sake of sexual liberation, just as the media chooses multiculturalism over the defense of women and children. What these entities do not recognize is the moral damage done well down the line.

Consider the influence of psychology in our country. I’m a supporter of psychology and believe it has a lot to offer, but when self-esteem and psychology became the basis of morality, moral character slowly disappeared. Check out James Hunter’s excellent book Death of Character. Did the elites know this would happen? No. In fact, they still don’t know that it has happened and is happening but still think psychology will pull us out of the moral pit that psychologically based moralism took us into! Why did they not see this coming?

They did not see the moral damage because of their misunderstanding of human nature, which is Greg’s point. Entities who do not believe in the corrupt nature of mankind cannot predict the moral fallout of their policies because they lack an understanding of the depravity of the human heart and soul! They believe that people are by nature good and have such a positive view of humans that if mankind is simply released from what supposedly holds it back people will flourish and lead moral lives. The reality is that mankind will seeks it owns selfish ends and invent new ways of doing wrong. The issue is not simply epistemology but anthropology.

In the short term, Dan is right. Entities know that they often have conflicting, destructive policies. Greg’s point is that since these cultural elites have an errant view of human nature, they cannot predict the depraved twisting of the best intentioned policies. Consider Gay Marriage. Do those in the places of power understand the contradictions and immediate consequences of such policies, such as the devaluing of marriage and the elimination of gender? Of course they do. But do they understand what happens to a culture when masculinity is emasculated and men no longer step up as leaders? No, they cannot predict the Hell that will break loose when men are no longer men and women are no longer women. Do they foresee what will take place morally in this country when all decisions are based on what feels good, regardless of order or design? That is collateral moral damage that can only be predicted by someone who understands the depravity of mankind.

So, I would say Greg hits Dan in the leg with his first volley. Dan then wings Greg in the arm with his response, at which point they up in side by side hospital beds sipping coffee and watching the presidential debate.

Greg’s post about the new catechism from TGC sparked a thought in my mind about a theme which we have mentioned several times on this blog–the importance of education. I don’t just mean teaching the ability to read and right, but the importance of teaching people the basics tenet of the Faith and of Morality. In the arena of attempting to create a moral consensus as we are on this blog, teaching morality is of utmost importance.

Consider the moral consensus of Old Testament Israel. The book of Joshua ends with the people declaring their allegiance to the LORD God of Israel, but the book of Judges opens after the book of Joshua with everyone doing what was right in their own eyes. Moral consensus quickly disappeared. It was not simply because Joshua died and no strong leader appeared, but because parents did not teach their children. [Judges 2:10 And there arose another generation after them who did not know the Lord or the work that he had done for Israel.] Without being taught about the God of Israel, the people quickly abandoned the covenant which had provided their moral consensus.

The purpose of a catechism is to teach the basic doctrines of a given faith. Unfortunately, catechizing children has become less emphasized today than of old. Perhaps that is because ‘doctrine’ is not viewed as important in many churches, but my fear is that parents no longer view it as part of their responsibility to teach the faith to the next generation. Instead, we might teach our children Bible stories and tell them to be good boys and girls, but many Christian parents do not even do that. The result is a spiritually illiterate group of children who could answer Bible trivia about a given story but cannot relate the importance of that story to the history of redemption in Christ.

The same is often true of morality. For Christians, morality should be based in scripture, but I often wonder how so many  Christians can hold such varied positions on morality. Again, I think the answer is often a lack of parents educating their children on the relationship between faith and real life. The result is young adults who cannot judge a topic on the basis of morality, but they know how many stones David had when he fought Goliath!

This is a real travesty in our culture and in our churches. Parents have been called to teach their children (Deuteronomy 6) about faith and morals. Establishing a moral consensus starts at home as parents pass on a moral religious heritage to their children. I praise Greg for catechizing his daughter. I do the same with my three daughters. My two-year-old even has the first three questions of the CYC memorized and will often chant the answers to herself in the car–“God, all things, own glory.”  I want to encourage all parents that read this blog to fulfill their calling as parents and pass on to their children a moral faith framework.

I have to confess that I did not watch more than thirty seconds of the debate. Honestly, I had taped Survivor and that had my undivided attention. However, I heard the next morning from almost everyone, left and right, that Romney had won the debate. But I was caused to pause by a self-declared ‘liberal on the left’ poet on NPR. In an attempt to capture the debate in verse, this poet declared (I won’t attempt to repeat his rhyme) that Romney had clearly won, but, the poet asked, was Romney right?

Consider just for a moment what it takes to win a debate. You must present your viewpoint in the most convincing and thoughtful way. And yet, the winner of the debate does not have to be right. Debate does allow each side to point out the flaws in the other’s view, and perhaps one side wins by convincing everyone that his or her viewpoint is more right than the other’s. But does making your viewpoint seem the most right actually make it right?

Years ago I watched a debate between an atheist and a Christian. The atheist went first and threw out perhaps five or six serious questions to the Christian. The Christian responded with the classical arguments for the existence of God, but never addressed the atheist’s challenges. Clearly the Christian was ‘right,’ but I and the people watching the debate with me all agreed that the Christian ‘lost’ the debate.

I think there is an aspect of American Culture that expects a clear winner. We don’t necessarily expect perfection or even a job done well, just a win done better than they other guy. We even refer to a team that plays a crummy game but somehow manages to get the victory as ‘escaping with a win.’ Americans love winners, even winners in debates, even when they are wrong. I noticed that polls shifted slightly after the debates, with Romney gaining more traction. Of course, Romney supporters stated that was because Romney is correct in his views, but how much of it is because Romney was the winner and we vote for winners. This is a real challenge to America to stop and consider what a candidate in a debate is saying and means rather than just how they say it. Perhaps they are not the most convincing, but maybe they are right. Maybe they are the most convincing, but maybe they are wrong. In the end, does it really matter who ‘wins’ versus who is the most ‘correct.’ I suppose the real challenge is to say the most ‘correct’ information the most convincingly.

Yesterday I stood with 1,000s of other fellow Wisconsinites in the annual LifeChain, where we stood along major roads in the greater Milwaukee area holding signs protesting abortion. The signs read “Abortion Kills Children,” or “Adoption: the Loving Option,” or “Abortion hurts Women.” During the hour and a half that we stood along the roadside I reflected on ‘moral consensus’ and the realities of a land that lives post Roe vs. Wade.

We live in a land that constitutionally (and if you have followed the debate and comments on Karen’s recent post) and morally believes in ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,’ it is ironic that we also live in a land that denies life to unborn children. There seems to be quite the similarity between saying that babies in the womb are really fetuses and slaves aren’t human (well, maybe 3/5th human). We change the definition of who the constitution protects so as to create a moral loophole. Unborn babies are not babies, therefore not protected by the constitution, our declaration of civil moral consensus. It took constitutional amendments to make slaves human, and that seems to be the only way to get abortion ended in this country.

The other thought I had as I stood silently protesting was the similarity between standing on the side of the road and voting against gay marriage. I’m not suggesting that gay marriage and abortion are similar, the murder of unborn children is completely different than one’s sexual preference. But I thought about the effectiveness of holding a sign on the side of the road. In many ways, it is about as effective as trying to vote against gay marriage. Is it successful in accomplishing it’s goals? Slightly, but there are better methods. Yet, I still stood there because it is effective, if only slightly. A slight effectiveness does not mean that I should not do it. A slight effectiveness of voting in the issue of gay marriage does not keep me from voting. But I have to confess that the annual LifeChain is about the only time I get involved in the pro-life movement. Just like casting my vote is about the only time I take a stand against gay marriage. I’ve become content to be involved in only ‘slightly’ effective means of social change. Slavery did not change because once a year people stood on the side of the road and protested. Maybe they did that, but social change took place through social debate and discussion and action.

The abortion debate also has a bearing on the debate of law and morality. The majority in this country seem to support abortion, but does that make it right and ‘moral?’ Does government have a responsibility to ignore the masses and do what is ‘moral?’ When it comes to gay marriage, I confess that I often think ‘no,’ but when it comes to abortion, I resound with a definite ‘yes,’ which really serves to muddy the waters even more. Where is that line between government being reflective of the masses and doing what is moral?

In this instance, the out is provided by the constitution. My pursuit of happiness is limited by another’s liberty. Currently, a woman’s happiness trumps a baby’s life and liberty. “It’s my body” sounds similar to “that slave is my property,” both of which are constitutionally wrong. A gay man’s happiness in marrying his lover is fine constitutionally unless tax rates have to be raised on everyone because he now gets a tax break for his sexual preference of marrying a man. Now his happiness is encroaching on my liberty. I could even make the same case against abortion. Killing off part of the next generation of workers and tax payers makes my taxes go up, again affecting my liberty.

All of which, I believe, shows that we have a good standard of moral consensus in the constitution. With that as our guide, it seems that moral consensus on many of these issues could be handled. So, I throw this question out to my fellow bloggers…how does the constitution apply to gay marriage?