The Middle Way

“Proclaim liberty to all the earth and to all the inhabitants thereof” (Leviticus 25:10).

Last week, President Bush delivered a stirring paean to individual freedom, which he said would become a standard for nations seeking closer relations with the United States. The recent elections in Palestine and Ukraine, and the upcoming ones in Iraq are all touted as examples of budding democracies throughout the world. Of course, like most Americans (and others), I hope the President is right; however, history suggests that the expectation of democracy, particularly in the Middle East, is likely to be very premature.

Democracy is an advanced state of social development which requires many preceding steps to be followed before it can take root. As evidence for this, let us take a look at the steps that the English and we had to take before achieving the free government that we have today:

• Establishment of a united nation, ending tribalism: King Alfred, 6^th century AD

• Establishment of fundamental human rights and the rule of law: Magna Carta, 1215

• Creation of higher education: Oxford University, 13^th century.

• Establishment of a legislature independent of the ruler: Parliament, 14^th century.

• Rise of a middle class, neither privileged nor poor: 15^th century.

• Subordination of the military to civilian government: End of feudalism in England, 15^th-16^th centuries.

• Establishment of an independent judiciary (not sure about date, certainly before 1600)

• A written constitution (not mandatory – Britain still does not have one, but highly recommended): Virginia Ordinance, 1621, which in time led to the New Hampshire Constitution (the first modern state constitution) in 1784, which in turn was a model for the US Constitution in 1787.

• A written statement of human rights: Declaration of Rights, 1688

• Establishment of federalism (optional for many nations, required where there are diverse populations): Act of Union between England and Scotland, 1707.

• Freedom of the press: John Peter Zenger trial in New York, 1735

• The right to impeach officers for high crimes and misdemeanors: before 1776

• Establishment of universal and mandatory public education: 1778-1920

• Disestablishment of state religion (again optional, but highly recommended): Completed with South Carolina, 1832

• Elimination of property requirements to vote: c. 1832

• Establishment of the secret ballot: c. 1913

• Universal suffrage for white males: c. 1913

• Universal suffrage for whites: Eighteenth Amendment (women’s suffrage), 1920

• Reforms to protect the ballot from fraud: c. 1950-date

• Universal adult suffrage, period: Voting Rights Act, 1965

Granted, nations today may learn from history the knowledge we acquired the hard way, which enables them to accelerate of the process. With sufficient will, and following its European heritage, Ukraine might now be ready for democracy; but to expect Iraq to complete this process in only three years without a supportive culture, is demanding more than is likely to be humanly possible.

Sometimes, the process of liberating a people is better served with at least somewhat benevolent dictators during a transitional period; such as King Louis Philippe in France (1830-1848), Francisco Franco in Spain (1931-1974), and a succession of military rulers in Turkey, ending in the mid 1990s, which may have provided that nation with enough stability to make it the first true democracy in the Islamic world. It is still too early to judge whether Vladimir Putin is attempting to fit this mold with his “dictatorship of law” in Russia.

America’s foreign policy should nurture human rights everywhere, provide technical help to nations desiring it, and stand against rulers who egregiously exploit or enslave their people (for example, in Rwanda and Sudan); but let us be reasonable in our expectations. It took us 14 centuries to get there. We should expect that for others, it will take a generation or more.

Copyright © 2005, Harold D. Thomas. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to use the material in this blog provided both conditions are met: (1) Credit is given to the author, and (2) the use is not for profit.

“Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me.
“But you ask, ‘How do we rob you?
“In tithes and offerings. You are under a curse - the whole nation of you - because you are robbing me. Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this,” says the Lord Almighty, “and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it.” (Malachi 3:8-11)

Recent news stories indicate that the world’s generosity toward those who have suffered from the tsunami in Southern Asia has been so great that the aid agencies are having difficulty effectively processing the funds to help those in need; however, one story from last week cited a UN aid official who criticized the United States for being “stingy” with development assistance, which in 2003 (according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) was 14% of gross national income, the lowest of the major industrialized nations. Private donations reportedly only increased that figure by 3 percentage points.

One analyst suggested that American public opinion considers foreign development assistance to be “money down a rathole.” Here in Ohio, that opinion is very widespread. One reason is that our major media have a natural tendency to report the negative; and the negative of foreign aid lies in the abuse of aid by corrupt dictators in Third World nations. Certainly, to cite one memorable example, neither we nor Iraq have recovered from Saddam Hussein’s diversion of Oil for Food money to military projects.

Several points need to be made, however:

• As Christians, we are called to go into all the world to take the Good News (Matthew 28:19), which in today’s world travels on the wings of help for impoverished nations. While our primary responsibility is to care for those in need in our own communities, we are called not to neglect the needs of people abroad. If everyone only cared for their own, how would the poorest nations get any help?
• The reporting of corruption with aid money ignores substantial contributions, both public and private, that have gone for their intended purposes. I have yet to hear of a Peace Corps volunteer stating that their project was a failure; or of church-sponsored development projects failing, except in a few instances where a revolution caused their undoing.
• Most Americans, including those who consider themselves “poor,” have no idea what it is to lack basic necessities of life - to be truly hungry or naked or without shelter. When Jesus said “the poor will always be with you,” (Matthew 26:11), he was reminding us that poverty is relative. We need to educate ourselves on what poverty really means to the rest of the world, and sensitize ourselves to their plight. The poorest Americans would be moderately wealthy in a country like Ethiopia or Haiti.
• Americans are an impulsive people. When we hear of a tragedy, we rush aid in because we feel genuine compassion. Then, when the news goes on to something else, or news of this need gets old, we forget that serious needs still exist. We need to learn persistence. Governments and private donors can show persistence by making multi-year commitments: a massive infusion to meet the immediate needs, and smaller and gradually decreasing amounts for, say, ten years, to address subsequent needs.
• Americans also tend to believe that throwing money at a problem will solve it. Our own experiences with the War on Poverty in the Sixties and Seventies and welfare reform in the mid-Nineties should teach us that this is not true. Helping the poor also requires compassionate and patient people with skills to contribute. Individual Peace Corps projects cost very little money, but give a great deal of bang for the buck, as their volunteers help build village infrastructure and educate their people. Politically, the Middle Way is to combine service with accountability. In situations where we are not responding to a disaster like the tsunami, governments can provide development assistance, but only where the projects can be audited to show that they are being used for the intended purpose, preferably as part of a larger plan to help a nation create a workable economic infrastructure. Expertise to do this is abundant, but the recipient country must be willing to consider the advice and do the planning.
• Finally, Americans tend to believe that private assistance should be sufficient. Perhaps it would be, if we all tithed to church and charity; but we do not even come close. Disasters like the tsunami require massive infusions of funds, which governments alone can supply. That said, however, we also need to remember that, in a sense, the governmental aid was extorted from us by collecting taxes. The spiritual gifts that come from giving can only come from a willing hand and a willing heart - to a non-governmental organization. Think about your own contributions, and if you need some help on where to send them, read on…
  

Need help deciding on a charity?

The Combined Charitable Campaign Manual, an Adobe Acrobat .pdf file, lists hundreds of charities by subject area, with a brief description of the activities of each, and most importantly, gives the percentage of the organization’s budget used for administrative and fundraising expenses. Designed for use by state employees in Ohio for their combined charitable campaign, it contains a great deal of extraneous matter, but I thought the descriptions and administrative percentages would provide an objective and helpful starting point.

For international aid, my (admittedly sectarian) preference is for the United Methodist Committee on Relief, which spends an exceptionally low 3% of its funds for administration and fundraising, according to the source cited above. Of course, there are many other charities that are worthy of your support. (Depending on the mission of the charity, 15-25% is considered acceptable).

Copyright © 2005, Harold D. Thomas. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to use the material in this blog provided both conditions are met: (1) Credit is given to the author, and (2) the use is not for profit.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." - Barry Goldwater, quoting Cicero (1964).

When these words were spoken at the 1964 Republican National Convention, many Americans panicked, thinking that Sen. Goldwater was a madman who would tear up Social Security cards and lead America to a nuclear war. Today, in a society that apparently values neither liberty nor justice, these words sound like -- a call for a Middle Way to bring reason back to a nation that has been polarized by extremism.

The 2004 election produced a record turnout, energized by two distinctly different candidates; but for both the President and Sen. Kerry, enthusiasm, while broad, was very shallow. This fact, coupled with the even split in the vote, suggests that many are hungering for a better approach to solving political problems.

This polarity in politics reflects a similar polarity in American Christianity, which has drained the energy of the "mainstream" Protestant churches (such as the Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches, and the United Church of Christ). Just as the political extremes took over their parties last year, so the leadership of these churches have often promoted liberal doctrines that were at odds with their laitys' understanding of the faith. Those who were disgruntled with "mainstream" Protestantism found a home with the Evangelicals -- who have produced an extremism of their own.

It seems that the spirit of the day has caused people in many parts of the world and of many faiths to question the relationship of their faith with the political system -- thus we see fundamentalism grow stronger in American Christianity and in the Islam of many Middle Eastern countries. The West promotes the separation of church and state, a doctrine with which I agree; but Sen. Kerry's clumsy attempts to relate his Roman Catholic faith to his pro-choice politics demonstrates the absurdity of trying to separate church and state within our own hearts.

Using labels like "conservative" or "Evangelical" to describe political or religious positions is resented by many; for as children of God, we are complex beings, whose beliefs usually do not fit neatly into a label; yet, in discussions, the labels do provide a useful shorthand for summarizing worldviews. Because such labels deal in generalities, I need to share with you my understanding of each:

Politics

In politics, a liberal is an advocate of government as an agent of change; particularly in issues related to health and poverty. In foreign policy, a liberal tends toward pacifism and wants to restrict the role of the military in foreign policy. In social issues, liberals resist governmental involvement in issues of personal morality (e.g., homosexuality and abortion). In fiscal policy, liberals want to resolve deficits by raising taxes, reflecting a view of the world as a class struggle.

There are actually three kinds of conservatives: the libertarian who resists governmental involvement in society almost to the point of anarchy, the traditional conservative whose wariness of governmental involvement is reflected in a strong emphasis on the balanced budget, and the neo-conservative. Since neo-conservativism appears to be the dominant strain, I shall herewith define conservative in neo-conservative terms.

A conservative, so defined, is an advocate of government in the maintenance of the status quo, especially in economic issues; a position justified by an emphasis on personal responsibility. In foreign policy, they favor a strong military as an active component of foreign policy (while this is usually called a strong national defense, one can argue that the conservative view of the military really goes beyond that, making them in the liberal view "policemen to the world." In social issues, such conservatives favor active governmental intervention in areas of personal morality (such as "defense of marriage" and restrictions on abortion). In fiscal policy, conservatives tend to keep the budget unbalanced by setting taxes at an unreasonably low level, justifying same as a control on the growth of government (which it clearly has not been) and as beneficial to the economy (read, large corporations).

Liberals and conservatives both tend to view budget deficits as a necessary part of conducting government, at least at the Federal level.

Religion

The polarity of politics is reflected in Christianity by a dualism that may be described as liberalism vs. evangelicalism. Politically, theological liberals tend to be political liberals; and Evangelicals tend to be political (neo-)conservatives.

Theological liberals tend to grant considerable license in the interpretation of Scripture (in the most extreme cases, rejecting it entirely, even questioning the divinity of Jesus). Liberals tend to emphasize the mercy of God at the expense of His justice, and social morality at the expense of the personal. Government, to the theological liberal, is a means of spreading God's love to the needy and oppressed.

Evangelicals (as I am defining them here) insist on a narrow interpretation of Scripture, in the most extreme cases, insisting that every word be taken literally. This can result in a rejection of reason as a gift of God that leads to (in my opinion, artificial) conflicts between the teachings of faith and those of science. Most evangelicals take a balanced view of God's mercy and His justice; but a few at the very extreme will stress His justice at the expense of His mercy. Personal morality is stressed at the expense of the social. Government is a means of enforcing personal responsibility, with personal morality being more important than the social.

The Middle Way

I suggest that the Middle Way in politics and religion supports traditional American views of both. It should not be viewed simply as nostalgia for the past; for every generation has new issues and new challenges, but it does reflect views and attitudes that have maintained our freedom and prosperity.

In politics, the role of government is to protect individual and group freedom, and to maximize opportunities for individuals to grow and contribute to society (and not solely through making money). The Federal government should be limited to the purposes expressly stated for it in the Constitution: national defense, protection of interstate commerce, enforcement of the Constitution, and, where necessary, to provide help for poorer states to grow economically. However, the bulk of governmental power should rest, as stated in the Tenth Amendment, with the states and with the people. Observe how this simple idea at once addresses the Federal problems of overly powerful lobbies, campaign finance reform, and the myth of "Federal funds" (which are nothing more than returning fewer taxpayers dollars to the States than the taxpayers paid in). A philosophy that favors localized government states that in many areas, a national policy is not necessary - local variations in social policy respects local culture.

In foreign policy, the Middle Way desires a United States that seeks cooperation between nations in the resolution of global problems by seeking and promoting win/win solutions. Military force may be used for peacekeeping and self-defense, but is not used proactively in the resolution of problems abroad. The United States seeks to export its best ideas through information and persuasion; and supports the right of every people to enjoy the same liberties that we do, even when the result may be distasteful (This is to say, for example, that we should support the independence of Taiwan and Kurdistan, and accept at least temporarily the results of a free election that establishes an Islamic fundamentalist or a socialist state).

In religion, the Middle Way views Scripture as the revelation of God's will to humanity; but acknowledges that we live in a very different society from the ancients, so that interpretation is necessary. However, just as the Constitution should be interpreted by the courts by rules of strict construction, so the Bible should be interpreted as conservatively as possible, consistent with its application to our reason and our experience.

Separation of church and state is desirable. It is, in fact, the bedrock of the Protestant Reformation which ensures that the power of the state will not corrupt the church; and that the moral influence of the church will not corrupt the state. In the Middle Way, government is neutral toward all faiths, but will protect the rights of all faiths including our own, to make its doctrines heard in the public square and the media, but in no event should government attempt to achieve by force what religion is designed to accomplish by persuasion.

I suggest that the ideal agents for promoting the Middle Way are the mainline Protestant churches; but to do so successfully, the laity must be energized by the Holy Spirit through prayer and meditation; and they must be vigilant in the activities of their clergies and bureaucracies. This work has already begun through such organizations as the Institute for Religion and Democracy
and denominational renewal movements, such as Good News in the United Methodist Church.

In future (and shorter) installments, and through your input, we shall discuss how these ideas might be translated into policy.

Please e-mail me if you would like to be added to a list when new entries have been added to this blog.

Post a comment.

Copyright © 2005, Harold D. Thomas. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to use the material in this blog provided both conditions are met: (1) Credit is given to the author, and (2) the use is not for profit.