Red or blue? Right or left? They're both wrong.

Ecclesiastes 12:10 The Preacher sought to find out acceptable words, and that which was written blamelessly, words of truth. 11 The words of the wise are like goads; and like nails well fastened are words from the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd. (Scripture quotations from the World English Bible, public domain)

It's dangerous to read too much into a Bible passage, but this one seems to be saying that there is really only one source of truth, one shepherd. Others may speak, or write, but what they say should be measured against Christ's character and His teachings.

It is unfortunately true that one of the results of the multiplication of media outlets is that people can pick some that match their biases and predispositions, or their religion or race, and never even see or hear from other sources that may disagree. This was illustrated by a recent report in Wired. The author decided to "like" everything he saw in Facebook, including things that he definitely didn't like, to see what would happen. He reports "As day one rolled into day two, I began dreading going to Facebook. It had become a temple of provocation. Just as my News Feed had drifted further and further right, so too did it drift further and further left." In other words, what he saw matched what Facebook thought he really did like. In this case, the author was seeing bias in both directions, but most Facebook users, perhaps unconsciously, have their information and opinion sources tilted in only one direction. We tend to watch, read and listen to news sources that agree with our previous opinions.

So who is right? Whoops! Who is correct?

Both the right and the left, the red and the blue, are wrong.

A few years ago, this blog noted that abortion seemed to have suddenly ceased being the most important political issue for conservative Christians, and had been replaced by immigration concerns. Why? The influence of Lou Dobbs and other TV commentators. But the most important source of the political inspiration of Christians should be the Bible, not media personalities.

Both the left and the right, the red and the blue, are wrong. How?

* The right tends to ignore the plight of the poor, minorities, and otherwise less powerful people, including immigrants. For the Christian, there should be sympathy for immigrants, illegal or not, and concern for their spiritual and economic welfare. The Old Testament speaks about being kind to strangers. So does the New. Leviticus 19:33 "If a stranger lives as a foreigner with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. 34 The stranger who lives as a foreigner with you shall be to you as the native-born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you lived as foreigners in the land of Egypt. I am Yahweh your God." Injustice and racism are wrong. Psalm 72 speaks of the role of government (in that case, King David, who was the government) in helping and protecting the poor.
* The right tends to believe that the way to solve many problems is to send in troops, or to use bombs, or to use, sell or give away more weapons and ammunition. It seems to forget that Christ didn't say "stand your ground," but "turn the other cheek." How much violence in other countries would never have happened without US military aid? How many repressive dictatorships has such aid propped up? Too many.
* The right believes that the most important political and economic solutions are to cut taxes, if possible to zero, and to let the free enterprise system have unregulated license to act in the best interests of the stockholders. The free enterprise system has its place, but it has led to pollution and other problems. It bears at least some of the blame for the recent recession, where the US economy declined by about a third in the space of a year of so. Taxes are needed for roads and other infrastructure, for funding regulatory agencies, for public schools, for paying police, firefighters, and troops, (and politicians -- including those who want to cut taxes!) and for other things.

* The left seems to want to ignore Biblical teachings on sex and marriage. Homosexual activity is wrong. (See here). Many Christians, and others, believe that abortion is murder. (See here.)
* The left seems to want to ignore property rights. Although the New Testament says very little about property, the Old Testament indicates that it was very important to the Jews, and taking someone's property without just compensation is just as wrong as denying someone a job because of their ethnic background.
* The left seems to believe that the most important political and economic solutions are to increase government size and the amount of government regulation. Government agencies have their place -- I'm grateful for the Social Security Administration, for example -- but they also tend to get mired down in red tape, and submit to the wishes of special interests, rather than doing what they were originally supposed to do. And government does cost money, lots of it.

God help me to take a Biblical position, if I need to take a political position at all. The left and right are both partly wrong, in serious ways. Thanks for reading.

Added January 8, 2015: I have analyzed what's wrong with the political left and right, in considerably more depth.

What the Bible says about politics

This post attempts to collect everything the Bible says, that can establish principles for Christian political behavior, mostly by ordinary citizens, but also by elected leaders, or those aspiring to office. It does not attempt to deal with particular issues, such as gun rights, global climate change, government debt, immigration, foreign policy, health care, abortion or homosexuality, as important as they, and other issues, might be. Instead, it attempts to point to  Biblical principles that apply to political behavior. The links, above, are to reasonably thorough posts on two of these issues.

Here are some Biblical principles that should apply to political behavior: Respecting others, and having compassion for them
Matthew 7:12 Therefore whatever you desire for men to do to you, you shall also do to them; for this is the law and the prophets.

This statement, by Christ, in His Sermon on the Mount, is usually called the Golden Rule. It is the guide for all interactions with others, including those who may disagree with us politically. From outside, at least, it seems that there has not been a lot of this, from either side of the aisle, in Washington lately. That's not the only place that it's been lacking! It would seem that we should listen to others, and try to see the merits of what they are saying, and, if we disagree, do so respectfully and in a non-confrontational manner.

This commandment not only enjoins us to respect our equals, but tells us that we should be compassionate toward others who are not as well off as we currently are. That compassion should include appropriate government action.

Respecting authority
Ecclesiastes 10:20 Don’t curse the king, no, not in your thoughts;
and don’t curse the rich in your bedroom:
for a bird of the sky may carry your voice,
and that which has wings may tell the matter. (All quotations from the World English Bible, public domain.)

Exodus 22:28 You shall not blaspheme God, nor curse a ruler of your people.

Titus 3:1 Remind them to be in subjection to rulers and to authorities

Taxes
Matthew 22:15 Then the Pharisees went and took counsel how they might entrap him in his talk. 16 They sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are honest, and teach the way of God in truth, no matter whom you teach, for you aren’t partial to anyone. 17 Tell us therefore, what do you think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?”
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, “Why do you test me, you hypocrites? 19  Show me the tax money.”
They brought to him a denarius.
20 He asked them, “Whose is this image and inscription?”
21 They said to him, “Caesar’s.”
Then he said to them, “Give therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

2 Chronicles 10:1 Rehoboam went to Shechem; for all Israel had come to Shechem to make him king. 2 When Jeroboam the son of Nebat heard of it (for he was in Egypt, where he had fled from the presence of king Solomon), Jeroboam returned out of Egypt. 3 They sent and called him; and Jeroboam and all Israel came, and they spoke to Rehoboam, saying, 4 “Your father made our yoke grievous: now therefore make the grievous service of your father, and his heavy yoke which he put on us, lighter, and we will serve you.”
5 He said to them, “Come again to me after three days.”
So the people departed. 6 King Rehoboam took counsel with the old men, who had stood before Solomon his father while he yet lived, saying, “What counsel do you give me about how to answer these people?”
7 They spoke to him, saying, “If you are kind to these people, please them, and speak good words to them, then they will be your servants forever.”
8 But he abandoned the counsel of the old men which they had given him, and took counsel with the young men who had grown up with him, who stood before him. 9 He said to them, “What counsel do you give, that we may give an answer to these people, who have spoken to me, saying, ‘Make the yoke that your father put on us lighter?’”
10 The young men who had grown up with him spoke to him, saying, “Thus you shall tell the people who spoke to you, saying, ‘Your father made our yoke heavy, but make it lighter on us;’ thus you shall say to them, ‘My little finger is thicker than my father’s waist. 11 Now whereas my father burdened you with a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke. My father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.’”
12 So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam the third day, as the king asked, saying, “Come to me again the third day.” 13 The king answered them roughly; and king Rehoboam abandoned the counsel of the old men, 14 and spoke to them after the counsel of the young men, saying, “My father made your yoke heavy, but I will add to it. My father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.”
15 So the king didn’t listen to the people; for it was brought about by God, that Yahweh might establish his word, which he spoke by Ahijah the Shilonite to Jeroboam the son of Nebat. 16 When all Israel saw that the king didn’t listen to them, the people answered the king, saying, “What portion have we in David? We don’t have an inheritance in the son of Jesse! Every man to your tents, Israel! Now see to your own house, David.” So all Israel departed to their tents.
17 But as for the children of Israel who lived in the cities of Judah, Rehoboam reigned over them. 18 Then king Rehoboam sent Hadoram, who was over the men subject to forced labor; and the children of Israel stoned him to death with stones. King Rehoboam hurried to get himself up to his chariot, to flee to Jerusalem. 19 So Israel rebelled against David’s house to this day. 

Because of the statement by Jesus in Matthew 22, and the similar statement by Paul, in Romans 13, below, it seems that Christians generally should pay taxes assessed by the government. The burden discussed in 2 Chronicles 10 seems to have been taxes and also servitude. Based on this case, it seems that there may be times when Christians should speak up against burdensome taxes. It is doubtful that the amount of taxes expected from people and businesses in the US is as much as the burdens Rehoboam would have put on the Israelites. Those with the power to levy taxes need to be careful that those taxes are as fair as possible, and are not a crushing burden, based on this story.

Note that taxes to Caesar were being paid by the Israelites of Christ's time, an occupied nation, to their occupiers. The Romans put Christ to death, and fed Christians to the lions.

Respecting authority and taxes
Romans 13:1 Let every soul be in subjection to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those who exist are ordained by God. 2 Therefore he who resists the authority, withstands the ordinance of God; and those who withstand will receive to themselves judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Do you desire to have no fear of the authority? Do that which is good, and you will have praise from the same, 4 for he is a servant of God to you for good. But if you do that which is evil, be afraid, for he doesn’t bear the sword in vain; for he is a servant of God, an avenger for wrath to him who does evil. 5 Therefore you need to be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For this reason you also pay taxes, for they are servants of God’s service, attending continually on this very thing. 7 Therefore give everyone what you owe: if you owe taxes, pay taxes; if customs, then customs; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Respecting authority and obeying the law
1 Peter 2:13 Therefore subject yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether to the king, as supreme; 14 or to governors, as sent by him for vengeance on evildoers and for praise to those who do well. 15 For this is the will of God, that by well-doing you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: 16 as free, and not using your freedom for a cloak of wickedness, but as bondservants of God.
17 Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.

We (including me) have problems with that last clause. We, as a culture, have problems with honoring anyone at all. Our humor, all too often, doesn’t affirm anyone or anything, but does the opposite. The second President Bush was mocked for his sometimes tortured syntax, the way he walked, and for his pronunciation of certain words. I confess that I did some of that, and I shouldn’t have. Cartoons of President Obama (and the Presidents before him), often have been designed to do the opposite of honor, and, at times, I fear, Christians have delightedly passed these on through e-mail and social media.

The principle of honoring those in authority seems to go beyond the President, and extend to other elected officials, and various public servants, such as the police, teachers, and people who work in the Department of Motor Vehicles. I personally think it should also extend to candidates for office.

Does this mean that we must support all the policies and actions of such people? No. But we should disagree, if we must, in a respectful manner. Here’s a case of Paul disagreeing, by asserting his rights:

Acts 16:35 But when it was day, the magistrates sent the sergeants, saying, “Let those men go.”
36 The jailer reported these words to Paul, saying, “The magistrates have sent to let you go; now therefore come out, and go in peace.”
37 But Paul said to them, “They have beaten us publicly, without a trial, men who are Romans, and have cast us into prison! Do they now release us secretly? No, most certainly, but let them come themselves and bring us out!”
38 The sergeants reported these words to the magistrates, and they were afraid when they heard that they were Romans, 39 and they came and begged them. When they had brought them out, they asked them to depart from the city.

And a similar case:
Acts 22:24 the commanding officer commanded him to be brought into the barracks, ordering him to be examined by scourging, that he might know for what crime they shouted against him like that. 25 When they had tied him up with thongs, Paul asked the centurion who stood by, “Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman, and not found guilty?”

Praying for those in authority
1 Timothy 2:1 I exhort therefore, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercessions, and givings of thanks, be made for all men: 2 for kings and all who are in high places; that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and reverence. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; 4 who desires all people to be saved and come to full knowledge of the truth

The Roman Emperor, at the time Paul wrote this, was Nero. It is true that much, or all, of the reason for praying for rulers, in this passage, seems to be so that Christians can live in peace, but it's also true that we should pray that rulers (and others) will come to belief in Christ as savior. It seems to me that prayer for wisdom for those in authority is also important, and should be part of our prayer life, although the Bible doesn’t seem to explicitly say that.

Ezra 6:8 Moreover I make a decree what you shall do for these elders of the Jews for the building of this house of God: that of the king’s goods, even of the tribute beyond the River, expenses must be given with all diligence to these men, that they not be hindered. 9 That which they have need of, including young bulls, rams, and lambs, for burnt offerings to the God of heaven; also wheat, salt, wine, and oil, according to the word of the priests who are at Jerusalem, let it be given them day by day without fail; 10 that they may offer sacrifices of pleasant aroma to the God of heaven, and pray for the life of the king, and of his sons.

This is part of an edict of Darius, who was not an Israelite. He asked for prayer for himself and his sons. We should do the same for those in authority over us, and their families.

The government has a responsibility to the poor and oppressed
Psalm 72:1 God, give the king your justice;
your righteousness to the royal son.
2 He will judge your people with righteousness,
and your poor with justice.
12 For he will deliver the needy when he cries;
the poor, who has no helper.
13 He will have pity on the poor and needy.
He will save the souls of the needy.
14 He will redeem their soul from oppression and violence.
Their blood will be precious in his sight. 

The World English Bible attributes this to both David and Solomon. In either case, they were the government, and whichever of them wrote it recognized the responsibility of the king toward the poor.

The Jewish Law made provisions for the poor. Exodus 21 specified that, unless a slave chose to remain one, any Hebrew so poor as to have become a slave was to be freed after six years. Leviticus 14 said that a poor person was not required to make as large an offering as someone who is well off, in some circumstances. Leviticus 25 required that, if a family became so poor that they have to sell their fields, those properties were to be returned to the family in the Year of Jubilee.

In Jeremiah 22, we read:

15 “Should you reign, because you strive to excel in cedar?

Didn’t your father eat and drink,

and do justice and righteousness?

Then it was well with him.

16 He judged the cause of the poor and needy;

so it was well, then.

Wasn’t this to know me?”

says Yahweh.

17 But your eyes and your heart are only for your covetousness,

for shedding innocent blood,

for oppression, and for doing violence.”

18 Therefore Yahweh says concerning Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah:

“They won’t lament for him,

saying, ‘Ah my brother!’ or, ‘Ah sister!’

They won’t lament for him,

saying ‘Ah lord!’ or, ‘Ah his glory!’

19 He will be buried with the burial of a donkey,

drawn and cast out beyond the gates of Jerusalem.” 

Those in authority should not take bribes
Exodus 18:21 Moreover you shall provide out of all the people able men which fear God: men of truth, hating unjust gain; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.

This was advice to Moses from his father-in-law. The ESV renders “hating unjust gain” as “hate a bribe.” Apparently there were, then, as now, those who expected favors in judgment because they paid for them, but then, as now, people of integrity who judge -- or write or vote for legislation -- on the merits, not because of a campaign contribution or a trip to a resort. We need more of these, and we can’t always tell who is like that, and who isn’t.

Politicians should, at least usually, be honest.
Like the rest of us, politicians should not intentionally deceive so that they may advantage themselves. This means that political advertisements should not deliberately confuse the record of opponents. It means that politicians should not make promises that they don’t mean to keep. It means that, when a politician, in office or aspiring to one, discovers that something she said is not true, or something they said would happen isn’t going to, they should say so, and apologize. Recently, President Obama had to backtrack on his statements that people could keep the insurance that they already had, under the provisions of the Affordable Care Act. He should have apologized, and did. I don’t know if he deliberately deceived us in saying that in the first place, or if it was an honest mistake, because he didn’t realize what would happen.

Much deceit during political campaigns, especially in attack ads in various media, is supposedly not under the control of the person it is designed to benefit, but produced by some political action committee. Whether the candidate knew about it, or not, such deceit is wrong. Candidates should not knowingly deceive, or allow their supporters to do so.

There may possibly be times, such as when delicate negotiations with another country are going on, or when agents of the US are operating under cover, where deceit, at least temporary, by a person in authority is appropriate. But most deceit by elected officials, and by people running for office, or their supporters, is not of this type, even if supposedly in the interest of national security. It’s just plain wrong. I have recently posted on lying, deceit and the like, based, I hope, on what the Bible has to say about these matters. It includes a few cases where God seems to have approved of deceit.

Thanks for reading.

Thanks for reading. Have I left anything out?

January 8, 2015: Here's a post on what's wrong with the political left/right in the US.

Medical ethics: Introduction, and questions for Christians

Bioethics is a word derived from the Greek words for biology and ethics. Biology is the study of life. Ethics is concerned with right behavior. So bioethics is an academic, and applied, discipline, about to proper behavior related to living things. You might suppose that bioethics concerns such matters as protecting endangered species, and, from the origin of the word, it should, but that branch of ethics is usually called environmental ethics, and will not be considered further here. (For more on that subject, see this post on “Environmental Stewardship in the Bible.”)

Bioethics, for this post, considers what behavior is right, in relation to health care. It is also called medical ethics.

Christians should be concerned with bioethics. Why? Here are some questions on the subject to consider:

1) Should a Christian seek medical treatment, or never do so, but trust in God to heal, in answer to prayer? Should a Christian avoid paying for health insurance, but trust in God’s provisions for financial needs?
2) Abortion, for some Christians, is the most important issue in society. Is this type of medical “care” ethical? If not, why not? Does the Bible clearly indicate that abortion is murder? If it doesn’t (or even if it does), is abortion ever justifiable? Are any forms of birth control acceptable for Christians to use? Are various forms of apparent wrong-doing, from deceit in anti-abortion ad campaigns, through murdering doctors who work in abortion clinics, things that Christians can do without sin?
(Here’s a more extensive discussion of abortion.)
3) What is a person -- that is, someone who should be treated as if they had rights? Is an infant a person, in that sense? A fetus? An embryo? A fertilized egg? A sperm? An unfertilized egg? A child? A person in a persistent coma or persistent vegetative state? A person who is temporarily unconscious? A person who has died within the past few hours? An intelligent animal, such as a dolphin, whale, chimpanzee or bonobo? A really fast computer with lots of processing ability and memory? A computer program capable of interacting in English with a human being such that the human can’t be sure whether the interaction is with a computer or another human? An intelligent alien organism? (Note that these are not scientific questions, or at least not mostly scientific questions. They are moral, religious, legal, political and philosophical. There have been times when, to our shame, blacks or women were not considered persons, in many senses.)
4) Some types of procedures or treatments strike some Christians (and some others) as so unnatural that they shouldn’t be allowed. Human cloning is one such procedure. Other types of “enhancements,” such as the use of drugs by athletes, are more common. Are there limits to what should be done to “enhance” the human body, including the brain?
5) Christ taught justice and concern for the poor, and Psalm 72 indicates that the government (in that case, King David, who was the government) has some responsibility for care of the poor. Is it right that the relatively wealthy, and seniors, should have access to expensive medical care, when the poor don’t? If not, why not?
6) Should Christians oppose the current fee-based “system” of medical care in the U. S., as unfair and wasteful? That “system” has financial rewards for medical facilities that encourage expensive procedures, as opposed to more simple treatments like exercise and diet. It also has financial rewards for doctors who become specialists, as opposed to those who become family practice, physicians, or geriatric physicians. It gives insurance companies incentives for not paying for treatments, for delaying payment, or for not covering sick people, who need insurance most, at all. It makes it likely that patients who are unable to pay for care will go to emergency rooms, where care, which someone has to pay for, is more expensive, and where their care may be interfering with true emergencies. The “system” emphasizes treatment, rather than prevention, which would often be cheaper and more effective.
(As I understand it, so-called Obamacare would do little, or nothing, to fix most of these issues, or might make the problems worse.)
7) Many people in the US have no healthcare insurance. Currently (Obamacare may change this) such insurance is most often obtained through employment. This often results in employers hiring people on a part-time basis, so they don’t have to pay for part of the employee’s health insurance, when, otherwise, that same employee might have been hired on a full-time basis. Also, health insurance costs for companies are high enough that it is difficult for them to compete with firms from other countries where health insurance is not a benefit of employment. Should Christians work to change this way of doing things? Do Christians have any special duty to advocate particular modes of governing, or of economics? Is trying to spread the gospel of salvation, which is important for eternity, compatible with trying to change laws, or trying to change those who have political power? Why or why not?
8) Research to bring new medicines and treatments to usefulness is expensive, and should be compensated, especially since the majority of such new treatments and drugs don’t turn out to be useful, and it is usually impossible to know that without years of expensive testing. But drug companies charge considerably more to US customers, in many cases, than they do to others, and they keep patents on medications active by tweaking minor features, such as the color or shape of the pill, when otherwise such medications could be sold as generic. Is this fair? Should Christians oppose this?
9) Everyone, barring the second coming, is going to die. When should we “let them go,” and let someone die, if ever? Should everything possible be done to keep someone breathing? If not, why not? Is it ever all right to administer treatment which will hasten death? If not, why not? Does God ever allow Christians to take their own lives, or to engage in actions that will lead to their deaths? A lot of healthcare resources are spent in taking care of persons who are within a few days of dying. Is this legitimate?
10) Are psychoses, addictions, emotional illnesses and physical handicaps the result of sin in the person’s life, or are they diseases, like, say, chicken pox, and the result of living in a fallen world? Should addictions and emotional illnesses receive any specialized treatment, other than prayer and care?
11) How do we deal with aging, or otherwise incapacitated, relatives and friends? Must a Christian put her life on hold to help such people? Is it ever right to act against their wishes, or even to deceive them?
12) Should there be differences in how people get health care, based on sex, age, income, ethnicity, religion, disability, and the like? If so, why? If there are such differences, should Christians oppose this?
13) Are we, as a society, spending too much on healthcare, at the expense of, say, public school education, or infrastructure?
14) Each Christian should examine her own life. Does she exercise properly? Get enough sleep? Eat healthful foods? Avoid exposure to UV rays, from the sun or tanning beds? Avoid harmful foods and drinks?

Where can we get guidance on such issues, and others?
There are several candidates for such guidance, among those who claim expertise in bioethics. They include:
1) Deontological ethics. This type of ethics holds that some things are always wrong, or always right, no matter what the circumstances. For example, it could be argued that it is never right to deliberately deceive a patient. Following deontological ethics doesn’t answer the question of how to decide what’s always right and always wrong. The Ten Commandments, the Bible as a whole, or the Hippocratic Oath, might be taken as guides for this, but they don’t cover all questions in bioethics. (There have been many attempts to modify the Oath for our culture -- Hippocrates lived four centuries before Christ. Here is one such.)
2) Consequentialist ethics. This type of ethics holds that what is right and wrong depends on the consequences, so we should try to make as many people happy as possible, and as few unhappy. Perhaps the Golden Rule of Matthew 7:12 is a form of this type of decision-making. One problem with this approach is that we don’t always know what the consequences will be.  Another problem is that this approach seems to deny the possibility of absolute moral directives.
3) Be virtuous. (See Virtue Ethics in the Wikipedia.)
4) Establish principles, and work from them. The book that was, for many years, the most important text in biomedical ethics was built around four such principles, in order from the most important to less so: Autonomy, giving the patient power over decisions; Beneficence, doing good; Nonmaleficence, not doing harm; Justice, treating people fairly.

If principles are to be the touchstone for medical ethics for Christians, the following is a proposed set of Christian principles which are relevant:
A. Treat others with unselfish agape love (1 Corinthians 13, and the Golden Rule); 
B. Treat one’s body as if it were the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19-20).
C. Treat resources as if they came from God, (1 Chronicles 29:10-14) as responsible stewards.
D. Remember that life and death are ultimately in God's hands (Deuteronomy 32:39).

This was originally posted on August 16, 2013, but has since been tweaked a little. Thanks to anyone who may read this post.