Thanks for your kind thoughts! I’ve been trying to think of the best way to respond to the several points you bring up. Let’s focus on this statement: “In principle, individuals are morally responsible for helping individuals.” If you agree with this, then you agree with me.

The differences between the U.S. government and the Roman empire are immaterial in reference to this principle: regardless of the nature of the bureaucracy, Jesus was pointing the finger of responsibility towards the people in front of Him, not the State, whatever its form.

“Legislation of morality” is a red herring. On one hand, your point is somewhat misleading; no one flatly supports ‘expensive wars’ – only particular wars – and this is hardly a characteristic of Conservatives across the board (some support some wars, some support none, etc.). And you could easily support a particular war and social welfare programs. On the other hand, your point is simply mistaken; the nature of law is to track morality because law prescribes behavior – it defines what ought and ought not be done in society. Perhaps there are unjust laws (that prescribe things incorrectly), but that is a failure in function, not in form. But all of this has very little to do with our defining principle for this article: individuals are morally accountable for aiding other people.

Finally, your last point seems to be “If the Church did its job better, then smaller government would be better; until then, an unsustainably large government is best.” I’m sorry, but I don’t understand your reasoning. It sounds like you are agreeing with the principle that individuals are responsible for helping individuals, but you are disillusioned by many people in the Church failing to do so. Why would many people’s failures to follow the principle invalidate the principle itself? Rather than trying to substitute a system that we know does not follow Jesus’ commands (State-managed welfare programs), wouldn’t the better course of action be to motivate the Body to act appropriately as our Lord commanded? Especially given the reality that you reference: the government is spending money that it simply doesn’t have.

I think we both agree: the vulnerable need protection and Christians should provide it. I’m not convinced that the State is either equipped or obligated to do so.

As an aside, though, I would point out that the “Gov’t” in the Middle East 2000 years ago was NOT exactly one where “citizens” were allowed to vote, lobby and advocate for or against any of the imperial budget being spent on such things as visiting prisoners, feeding the hungry and clothing the naked. These folks were simply executed or used for entertainment in the Coliseum.

But my main point is this: If you, as a Christian in America in 2012, believe that the gov’t should not be involved in meeting food, clothing, housing, medical or educational needs…then you should also agree that the gov’t should not be involved in legislating or enforcing morality. The problem I always have with my conservative Sisters and Brothers in Christ (in America) is that they want it both ways when it comes to the gov’t, and what the Church’s relationship to the gov’t should be. They want the gov’t to leave their money alone. They talk about smaller gov’t; gov’t within its means, and so on. But they want BIG BUDGET-BUSTING gov’t when it comes to fighting expensive wars, and when it comes to dictating what consenting adults can and can’t do in private.

Yes, if the Body of Christ in America more fully walked out what Jesus teaches and convicts us to do…which involves efforts toward feeding folks AND cultivating behavior that honors God and everyone else as God-imagers (which is really the core of what morality should be about, eh?)…well, then I guess the idea of a very small gov’t would be more appealing to me.

As it stands, as long as we (the Church) don’t protest against the money the gov’t doesn’t have, but is spending on all these wars – military and otherwise – I, for one, will continue arguing that it can also spend money it doesn’t have on the feeding, housing, medical and general well-being needs of especially the most vulnerable among us. I will continue to vote for candidates who feel the same way.

Much respect, love and grace…Mark

As a man of strong Christian faith I have felt the US is slowly moving away from God. The aforementioned moral values are only a couple of examples of this. So I have concluded the first and foremost question for a Christian to ask about a candidate is will this candidate bring our country closer to God or further away. That was God’s standard when Israel wanted a king. He warned them a king would lead them away from Him. That should be a Christians standard.

I personally believe a candidate that believes that god is an exalted man and that man can become a god is nothing short of the original temptation thrown our by Satan (…for you will be like God). That candidate is NOT godly and has a faith that comes from the father of lies. Such a candidate is likely not to bring our nation closer to God.

Then I hear “what option do we have?” I agree with the underlying sentiment of the question but that does not allow me to ignore the important question. Let us not forget who is in charge. Regardless who our president is God is still on His thrown. And if the majority of voters in this country demand a return to more traditional moral values our government will respond. Our politicians love to be re-elected. As I see it the problem is not the politicians but rather the electorate which is moving away from God.