Welcome!

This blog grows out of my conviction that every aspect of our lives is sacred and is to be nurtured and celebrated as a good gift of God. Most of the posts will be the sorts of things you would expect from a historian and worldview teacher, but some are likely to be a bit surprising. Since God created all things good, including all aspects of human life, everything is interesting and important from the perspective of a biblical worldview. Everything under the Sun and under Heaven is thus fair game here. I hope you find it interesting and enjoyable.

Monday, December 12, 2011

Poverty Series

These are the links for the series on poverty I did earlier this year.


18 comments:

  1. I was so pleased with you posted this list of articles you had written on poverty. In fact, I at already planned to ask you for such a summary.

    I spent this afternoon reviewing the articles I had previously read and read those I had not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I read article 3 just now. And in it Dr. Sunshine states: "In view of this, it seems quite possible for the Law to have mandated government welfare as a unique institution in Israel. Yet it did not." I would disagree with this argument. I think that government support of the poor is in the Bible. Look at it this way. Originally Israel was supposed to be a theocracy with no human king. The nation only got a king after the people grumbled for one. God even warned them against having a human king. Yet originally the theocracy, where the Law of Moses was the law of the land, had no human king and so God was the king of Israel and therefore the government was under God. The theocracy was God’s government. If this had not been the case then why did God say that in wanting a human king they were rejecting Him as their king? If God is the king, then it means that there is a government. The whole nation consisted of a confederation of tribes. What bound them together was the Mosaic Law and the worship of Yahweh. The priests and Levites were in effect God’s government employees. They got paid by means of a tithe on the produce of the land of Israel, which included livestock. To look at this from a modern perspective, this was a type of property and income tax rolled into one. Every third year a tithe was taken to support the poor. Dr. Sunshine briefly mentions this in the article. But he does not tie it to government support of the poor. I believe it is. It is basically government support of the poor in a theocracy, where the king is God. I know that this is an analogy, comparing Israel’s theocracy to a government like we have today in the United States, but how else do you explain the nation of Israel in the time before there was a human king, which is how God wanted it in the first place? The tithe was the tax to support the system, and the tithe every third year was to support the poor. It was the Levites who collected the tithe and it was they who were to distribute it to the poor. Therefore we can assume that part of the Levites’ job was to care for the poor. I know that it can be argued that the tithe was not a tax, but I don’t know how this could be if it was not voluntarily. Only taxes are forced on people. And the tithe was not voluntary. It was mandated by God to be given by every farmer in Israel. So I would say that in the Bible we do have government support of the poor. The Israelite theocracy, under the Mosaic Law, even before there was a human king, was a government. But because the aid given to the poor was mandated by a divine law, many people don’t see this as government assistance to the poor. I understand that this is my interpretation, and it is based on an analogy between Israel’s theocracy, and modern day governments, but I believe that my argument has valid points that many people would agree with.

      Delete
    2. In my previous comment (above) on government support being found in the Bible, I am not attacking Dr. Sunshine’s position. I believe that Dr. Sunshine is a wonderful Christian scholar who devotes much of his time free of charge to promote the cause of Christ. I am simply presenting a different perspective on interpreting the Bible when it comes to this issue. I admit that my argument is based on my interpretation and on an analogy between the ancient Israelite theocracy, and modern day governments. But this is how I interpret the Bible from my perspective.

      Delete
    3. You make an interesting point that is probably what most people think when looking at ancient Israel. But there were civil authorities, typically in the form of clan and tribal elders in Israel, as well as "Judges" from time to time. None of these were separate from the Levites and priests except in levitical towns--in fact, the Levites were not given land so they were not at any point territorial rulers. It is hard to see how this makes them the "government." There is a difference between a theocracy and a hierocracy (rule by priests--I think that's the term for it). Further, the Law does include provisions for kingship. So my conclusion is that the administration of social welfare was in the hands of the Levites, who were not in fact rulers, governors, or otherwise in charge of political and military affairs in Israel--hence, it was not a government function.

      Delete
  2. I see your point, Dr. Sunshine, but I still think it can be argued that it was a government. Look at it this way. In modern times there are different segments of the government and different authorities who run those segments. The tribes and clans were like the different states and counties. They had their own part to take in the governmental running of the nation. Even modern day governments have different sectors of the government which are run by different authorities. Like I said, it was a confederation of tribes. But what unified the confederation was the Mosaic Law. That law was administered by the Levites. You can see the Mosaic Law as the federal law and the Levites as federal employees and administrators who enforce the dictates of that particular law and that particular segment of the government. They also provided relief for the poor. The Levites were not territorial rulers, but they did provide a function of government, which was to enforce the Mosaic Law. Like the administrators who work for a monarch, so were the Levites. But that doesn't mean that there aren't administrators and authorities in the various counties as well, which are separate from them. The Levites didn't perform all the functions of government, because the other functions were left to the tribal leaders and judges. I don't think we are going to agree here. But I still think that I have valid points to my argument. Looking over what I wrote yesterday I think I could have worded it better and used better logic. But the ideas are the same nonetheless. And I think that a lot of Christians would probably agree with me. Thanks for your input.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think you are missing what the Levites did. They were in charge of the religious life of Israel, including teaching the Law. They were not responsible for enforcing it or rendering judicial decisions. I'd be very interested if you have any evidence that they did perform governmental functions because I don't remember any from the Mosaic Law. The tendency in the Law is to divide religious and political responsibilities, with a great deal of emphasis that you don't cross those boundaries, particularly from the political side. But given the lack of any indication that the Levites and priests have any role in government, I think it goes both ways--they weren't to govern which is part of the reason they don't have any territory. Simply put, I don't see the Levites having any political roles, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find Old Testament scholars who think they did. Again, if you have textual references, I'd be happy to see them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, they were judges. Look at Bible quotes below. Also in Exodus 32:25-29 the Levites, under the direction of Moses (a Levite), executed 3,000 of their countrymen. The power to perform capital punishment, is a power given only to the government. Moses, the leader, was a Levite.

      Deuteronomy 17:8-9:“If a matter arises which is too hard for you to judge, between degrees of guilt for bloodshed, between one judgment or another, or between one punishment or another, matters of controversy within your gates, then you shall arise and go up to the place which the Lord your God chooses. 9 And you shall come to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge there in those days, and inquire of them; they shall pronounce upon you the sentence of judgment. "

      Deuteronomy 21:5: "Then the priests, the sons of Levi, shall come near, for the Lord your God has chosen them to minister to Him and to bless in the name of the Lord; by their word every controversy and every assault shall be settled."

      1 Chronicles 23:4, speaking of Levites, it says: "Of these, twenty-four thousand were to look after the work of the house of the Lord, six thousand were officers and judges..."
      I have read that officers could be translated as sheriffs.

      2 Chronicles 19:8: "Moreover in Jerusalem, for the judgment of the Lord and for controversies, Jehoshaphat appointed some of the Levites and priests..."

      Ezekiel 44:24 "In controversy they shall stand as judges, and judge it according to My judgments."

      They were to be teachers of the law and judges. When a matter arose they knew best how to handle it. When sinners had to pay monetary penalties, who else would administer such a thing? Even when there was capital punishment, they were the ones who knew the law best.

      They may not have had territory, but they had cities, they worked in the tabernacle and temple, and they were dispersed throughout the different territories of Israel. Most places had Levites living in their midst. One phrase found in Deuteronomy 4 times is "...the Levite who is within your gates..." And so they lived in their own cities and among the other tribes of Israel, where they worked often as teachers of the Mosaic Law.

      Delete
    2. I just wanted to add one thing to the comment I just posted. The Mosaic Law included capital punishment. It wasn't just a law of religious observance. If it had to power to kill people, then that is the power of a government. Those who administered it were government officials. Those who judged it's matters were government officials. Therefore the theocracy of Israel was no doubt a government. And its federal administrators performed governmental duties, that included caring for the poor. Therefore my argument contends that the Bible advocates government support of the poor. But what do I know? This is just my interpretation.

      Delete
  4. Nice job on the verses. A few observations and alternate interpretations: first, the Mosaic Law clearly includes civil law, along with moral and religious/ceremonial law; it is thus no surprise that it includes civil penalties such as capital punishment. That doesn't mean those parts of the law were administered by the Levites. Second, the governmental parts of the Law applied when the Israelites were in the land, which occurred after Moses. During Moses' day, cases were judged by elders from each of the tribe, with Moses handling appeals--again, not the Levites. In the other cases that you cite, it is equally plausible to view the Levites as legal consultants--you will notice they are not the judges in your first example--since they were experts in the Law. In your second example, the priests make judicial decisions, but that could very easily be a matter of "inquiring of the Lord" re. the proper decision cf. the examples of divine guidance in 1 Samuel prior to David's accession. Given the other provisions in the Law for settling disputes, this would seem to be used in situations where the case was too difficult to settle, cf. bringing difficult cases to Moses after the elders were appointed to settle disputes. The examples from Chronicles are interesting, but given the context of the period I think you could make an argument that they were concerned primarily with religious observances, since the overwhelming focus in Chronicles is on the issue of faithfulness to God and the problem of idolatry, with little to no interest in other judicial matters. In short, I'm not convinced that the Levites acted in any way as a Federal government, which is rather an anachronistic description in any event. At the same time, given that the Law does regulate religious and civil government (at least up to a point), it would also be a mistake to suggest a separation of church and state (or temple and palace) in the period. Obviously, there is a strong religious component in government. In terms of administration, however, I think you can make a case, which would be in keeping with a lot of what went on in other ancient near eastern civilizations, particularly in Mesopotamia where there was tension between the priests and the government.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, in the end, the whole argument is on whether or not the provision in the Mosaic Law that a tithe taken every three years to support the poor can be interpreted as the Bible giving a support to government sponsored charity. I would say yes, but I think you would say no because it does not tell the government to do it, but for Levites to do it, and you don't see them as functionaries of the government. Webster defines a theocracy as "government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guide." This would make the nation of Israel, before the monarchy, into a government, simply because it was a theocracy. Unless you are saying that there was no theocracy in Israel till Saul was anointed as king. Otherwise what you are saying is that it was just a confederation of tribes, with no government outside of the 12 tribal governments.

      What ever the case, even if you could successfully argue that there was no government in Israel before the monarchy, the idea is that every third year a tithe was taken to support the poor. Another argument I can use is that this tithe was not voluntary. In the US many argue that the government has no right to take resources from one source and distribute those resources to the poor against the will of those from such resources are taken. The idea is that such a donation to the poor should be voluntary. Many Christians and other members of the political right feel this way. Yet if this were to happen the US would probably turn into a third world nation, with a few rich on the top, the poor on the bottom, and virtually no middle class. You'd probably find children begging in the streets in such a world. Just look at how things were for the poor only 150 years ago. This goes in direct defiance against the words of the Bible to care for the poor.

      One point I'm trying to make is that this tithe of the third year was not voluntary. And it was used to care for the poor. The only way to collect resources in the US in a non-voluntary manner to care for the poor is to have the government do it. In ancient Israel church and state were not really separated as they are today in America. So the Levites were capable of collecting a tithe to support the poor. But in the US there is separation of church and state, and to collect resources to care for the poor is only possible for the government. The church can't go around asking the non-believers to give money to support the poor. But the government can.

      So even if you wish to argue that the nation of Israel before the monarchy had no government, I, on the other hand, can still argue that the Bible supports aiding the poor with resources that were taken without voluntary consent. This being said, it can be interpreted that the Bible advocates government care of the poor, because only the government can do what the Levites did in ancient Israel.

      Delete
    2. Oh, I just noticed a mistake I made in my last comment. I jump to a conclusion that I don't fully defend. I say that if we get rid of government support of the poor the U.S. would probably turn into a third world nation, with a few rich on the top, virtually no middle class, and the poor on the bottom. What I meant to add in there, but forgot to add, is that this would happen if the wishes of many of the right in America were fulfilled by taking them to their furthest conclusion. This would mean getting rid of the minimum wage and all other laws protecting the poor. This starts by getting rid of social programs that do not benefit the elite. Sorry about the mistake. My mind was running faster than my hands could type.

      Delete
  5. Let's take this one step at a time. First, the Levites jobs by any accounting were primarily religious, and the tithe was administered by them; ergo it is logical to assume it was a religious duty, even if mandated by the Law. That's the key point in this post. Your attempt at a reductio ad absurdum is addressed in later posts, so I'll wait until you read those before responding. I will say that you assume an awful lot about what will happen if government welfare, etc., is eliminated. Most people on the progressive end of the political spectrum suffer from a failure in imagination on this point, assuming that their approach is the only one that will work, even though the results are far from positive in many respects. You will find that there are very well thought out approaches to dealing with poverty from more of a free market perspective. You might find the works of Fr. Sirico and Jay Richards interesting on this score.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I do admit that I shouldn't have written any comment on what would happen if the US got rid of it's laws defending the poor. That is not part of this discussion. I don't believe you ever advocated that. But in my life I hear so much complaining against government aid that I just become frustrated at times. Yet this was not the correct venue for that.

    I have never in any of these recent posts stated that I am defending welfare. I never used that word. You used the word, but I never did. I said that I disagreed with a statement of yours where you use that word. But I meant more in principle, because I think the Bible advocates aid/assistance to the poor. I am trying to show how I BELIEVE the Bible advocates government assistance and social programs. That is not necessarily a defense of welfare, as the term has come to be used. Welfare in America isn't the same as all other types of aid. The way the word is used is not what I am talking about. But I suppose that is probably my fault, because I didn't make myself clear.

    And I do not say that my arguments are the facts. I state that these are my opinions and my interpretation. If any of my posts were reductio ad absurdum, I believe that it would mean that I proposing that this is the way it has to be. I am not. If I did say that at some point, it is probably due to an unintentional error on my part. I have stated time and again that these are MY interpretations, and I even stated at one point: "But what do I know? This is just my interpretation."

    I have many arguments for reforming the system and changing things around, because I think too many people abuse the system, and because I think the way it is set up now actually destroys many families and makes them dependent on government.

    Before I met my wife she lived in low income housing because she was one of the many working poor. It was a very nice apartment building in an upscale town. She would go to work 5 days a week, while her neighbors stayed at home. And at the end of the week she was no better off than they were, except that she had worked during the week, while they had not. It hurts a person to have to drive to work each day and spend the entire day there, and have nothing to show for it in the end, while the neighbors don't have the same burdens, yet their standard of living is no worse.

    I do not advocate for a liberal system of welfare. But I do advocate for laws protecting the poor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do not see how my argument that the tithe of the third year can be interpreted as a Biblical backing of government aid is an example of reductio ad absurdum. I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to in that statement. It is not an absurd analogy. In fact I find that statement a bit offensive and unnecessary. I have never said any such thing about anything you wrote. In fact I even praised you at one point in my posts. I don't see how my arguments about my Biblical interpretation fit that definition.

      A. I am proposing that the nation of Israel was a theocracy before there was a monarchy. In fact the closest thing to rulers they had in those times were the Judges, who apparently often spoke with God. Therefore the nation was, at least in theory, ruled by God.

      B. Even after there was a monarchy it was still a theocracy because men like David also spoke with God.

      C. In a theocracy the religious leaders were an arm of the government, because it is a government that revolves around God...hence the term theocracy. Webster defines theocracy as: Government of a state by the immediate direction or administration of God; hence, the exercise of political authority by priests as representing the Deity. And many Bible scholars have called ancient Israel a theocracy.

      D. Even if you can prove that there was no government before the monarchy, one can still interpret the Biblical passage as a defense for government aid, because only the government in the modern day could do what the Levites did in antiquity.

      One thing I learned in Bible school is that when a preacher interprets the Bible he has to apply it to the modern day so that he can show how its teachings affect the lives of the congregants. This is not always a direct connection. You can't always find how A will directly equal B when you apply it to the lives of people in the modern day. But to make the Bible relevant for the modern day Christian that is what must be done. If that is a form of reductio ad absurdum, then you will find a lot of absurd sermons coming from the pulpit which bring comfort to the lives of the listeners.

      I remember you even saying that throughout history when people read the Bible they would spiritualize the passages to fit their lives. I can't always pray the Psalms without spiritualizing them, because they wouldn't make sense for me in my life if I didn't.

      Throughout history there have been nations where the Christian clergy were paid by the government. The salaries of priests and ministers came out of the coffers of the state. Yet the jobs of these men were primarily religious, as you said was the case for the Levites, but in being paid by the government does that not make them government employees and civil servants? I say this because I wish to point out that just because someone's job is primarily religious does not mean that that person does not represent an arm of the government, especially in a theocracy. For example, the pagan rulers of Rome were also the high priests of Rome.

      I know that at one point you stated that my analogies were anachronistic. That is not my intent. I am simply trying to apply ancient scripture to the needs of the modern day. In doing so I draw up analogies between modern day governments and ancient Israel.

      The average Christian who reads the Bible has to be able to take what he reads and apply it to his life in the here and now. That's what I'm doing. When someone reads that in ancient Israel there was a theocracy (as many scholars point out) which provided for the needs of the poor by a type of taxation, then that person can very realistically see that as a type of government assistance. Especially because it is a theocracy. If it was just a monarchy that would not be so clear, but it being a theocracy makes it all the more a realistic argument.

      Delete
    2. Sorry for the multiple posts today. I'm just trying to defend my statements. When I wrote that if the US gets rid of its laws defending the poor and rids itself of all government aid to the poor, I did not make that statement out of nothing. I know what the world was like before there were safety nets for the poor and I know what I have seen with my own eyes.

      I was in Eastern Europe in 1987. Back then I didn't see great wealth, but neither was there grinding poverty. Everyone had a job. There were no beggars in the streets.

      I returned in 1997 and there was 18% unemployment and tons of beggars all over the place. My cousin's wife told me that many entrepreneurs made their livings by paying desperate workers below the minimum wage. The minimum wage was equivalent to just under $200 a month on the exchange rate. While many entrepreneurs offered jobs paying $30 a month from what she told me. I meticulously calculated the cost of goods in the country in the shops. There was little difference in the cost of goods (primarily food) from what those same goods cost in the US. On $30 a month a person couldn't even feed himself in that country, let alone pay the rent and give money to the church. And the church in this country didn't concern itself with too much charity. That they left to the state to take care of. That's at least what I was told. And I know, because I did ask around.

      So my examples come from history and what I have seen with my own eyes. I do not advocate that this Eastern European country return to communism, but there had to be a better way to introduce democracy to this country, without so many people getting hurt. So what I said in my post about children begging in the street was based on the history of poverty and from what I saw with my own eyes, and not from a reductio ad absurdum argument.

      Delete
  7. The reductio ad absurdum point didn't deal with what you were arguing for, but with what I took to be your argument that if I was right about the Levites, then a whole bunch of things followed in the American welfare system. My point is that those things don't necessarily follow.

    In terms of biblical application, given that the tithe in all other cases is religious--paying for the salaries of priests and participating in a religious feast--and given the fact that the duties of the Levites were overwhelmingly religious, it would seem that poor relief in the OT was primarily a religious rather than a state duty. That, it seems to me, has direct application to today. I spell out what I see that as meaning in the rest of the articles in the series. You will note that I do not argue that governments have no role to play here, but that that role is subsidiary to the role of religious institution, private charities and foundations, and especially family.

    ReplyDelete
  8. BTW, The first definition of theocracy that I quoted is actually from Merriam-Webster. I forgot to add the first word to the type of dictionary I got it from. Sorry...minor mistakes happen.

    And no, I never thought that only if someone could prove the point about the Levites that everything else would follow. I was even trying to stray from that a bit by mentioning other reasons. But I had no idea what you were talking about when I read that. I felt a bit offended because of what the term means.

    I don't think that is the only reason. Even if the Levites were left out of the argument we must still consider the fact that the tithe was not voluntary and therefore similar to a tax. For whatever purposes it was used it was still not voluntary. Even when clergy are paid from government coffers in Europe it was still a tax.

    I think this is where this discussion is going to end. I have stated my viewpoint. I still think that my interpretation fits, because the Levites were an arm of the government, especially since it was a theocracy. I've explained many of my views over and over again, AD NAUSEAM, to use another Latin term.

    Even if you can show without doubt that I am wrong, you still have to contend with the different types of Biblical interpretation that exist out there. In your book, Reformation for Armchair Theologians, page 41, you state that in the Middle Ages there were four different ways of interpreting each passage of scripture that were used to give meaning to the text. There were the literal, spiritual (anagogical), moral (allegorical), and tropological sense of interpreting each passage in scripture. Using this kind of variety in interpreting scripture I think it can easily be said that the Bible defends and promotes government aid/assistance to the poor.

    To find comfort and meaning in scripture each person has to find his/her own interpretation as he/she is led by the Spirit. And every preacher must try to make the words and teachings of scripture relevant for his listeners. He must try to apply it to their lives. When we interpret scripture we must try to be accurate and interpret one part of scripture without negating another part of it. The Holy Spirit is the true author of scripture. We are only to do our best in finding how He leads us to understand it in our own lives and apply it to the modern day to give us meaning, comfort, and the light of salvation.

    I wish I could agree with you as to the role of church, private charities, and family as being primary and the government as being subsidiary. Unless I am misunderstanding you. Which might be the case. The reason I cannot is a practical one. All those institutions don't have the regular funding and stable help to offer that the government does. A disabled person can't rely consistently, day in and day out, month after month, on the church, private charity, and his family to provide him with a living and care for him. And when it comes to health insurance, forget it. I know someone who works with the disabled and the mentally retarded. It just wouldn't work in the modern day. And I pity those who had to rely on their families in the historical past. You can't force a bother to care for his disabled brother after his parents are gone. Who would care for such a person if he/she has to be watched 24/7? The brother's wife won't. I can practically guarantee you that. The family has their own lives and children to care for. They have to go to work and can't care for a family member. The churches don't have the steady funding. And private charities come and go. How much can they provide for such people in comparison to what the government does? If they rely on voluntary donations, it won't be long till they cannot compete with what the government. That's just my educated view.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The point of subsidiarity is not that the government has no role, but that by preference other more immediate institutions should do as much as they can first, and the government coming in as a last resort. This makes sense on a number of levels, some of which I detailed in later articles. One stat that wasn't available when I produced the series points to yet another reason: charities that service the poor have about 30% overhead costs, so 70 cents of every dollar make it to the poor; government programs have 70% overhead, so only 30 cents of every dollar makes it to the poor. Which approach makes better sense economically?

    ReplyDelete