Comments on: A Biblical approach to voting

By: James Ogley

James Ogley — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 10:14:57 +0000

Martin: Hoorah for openSUSE!

Ummm, and back to the point. Really good points. As is always the case when translating (in every sense of the word) ancient ideas to modern (or even from other modern cultures), there’s a range of possibilities.

My sense is that in terms of [post-]modern politics, the left (with a deliberately lower-case ‘l’) is closer to Biblical values than the right – but by no means exclusively so and extreme versions of each are ultimately false-eschatologies of which we need to be wary.

On that last point, http://jamesthevicar.com/wordpress/2008/10/22/on-preaching-during-the-credit-crunch/

By: Martin Grashoff

Martin Grashoff — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 21:35:34 +0000

RE James: you are probably right. I’m adding western content to Hebrew words. But when we interpret ‘tsedaqah’ as ‘establishing social justice’ we do the same. In fact it is impossible to go all the way back to the time the Bible stories were conceived and find ‘the original meaning’. Rabbinic tradition says that for every Hebrew word there are 70 translations, meaning that for every different cultural setting a different interpretation can be found (70 being the Biblical number of all peoples).

Klaus Koch (TWAT, II.507-530) gives as basic meaning for the root (T)SDQ ‘gemeinschaftstreu oder heilvoll sein’. In English that is something like ‘being faithful to the community’ or ‘to bring healing’. Clearly it is about personal connections — in the way Levinas works that out — and about face-to-face responsibility. Koch observes that (T)SDQ is most and most versatilely used in the Psalms, rather than in the Prophets. It can be related to the expression ‘chesed we’emet’ meaning ‘steadfast love and faithfulness’.

I just want to emphasise the interhuman and personal dimension. I don’t think Jewish tradition is too eager to leave justice in the able hands of the state, simply because that tends to be anonymous and therefore not really a good work. Of course, western society organises much of its social care through the state, and I don’t think it’s a bad thing, but still that personal link between poor (‘anawim’) and wealthy is essential. If you don’t have to see the face of poverty it’s actually quite easy to get away with insane bonuses or the most greedy expenses claims. When socialism turns into neo-liberalism, and conservatism tends towards selfishness, the personal factor might be essential as touchstone. Am I a moralist or merely a realist?

Quite funny, BTW, to have this discussion because planetSUSE made the link…

By: James Ogley

James Ogley — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:35:48 +0000

Michael: The way in which wealthy Israelites (or latterly, Jews) would distribute their gifts would probably be through the state’s apparatus, the Temple and network of synagogues. You’re right to observe though that a [post-]modern equivalent would be a “both-and” approach of finding the dividing line between entrusting the state with one’s “gifts” and of finding ways to give effectively from what remains.

You’re also spot-on to observe that this is not about supporting the work-shy but about helping those who through circumstances are poor, disenfranchised, left behind by society. It must also be about recognising that there may be reasons behind the appearance of indolence which, if effectively addressed – and subsequently prevented by investing in the sort of social contexts where it takes root – can assist people and communities to contribute more effectively to society as a whole.

By: James Ogley

James Ogley — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:20:55 +0000

Martin: Actually, the notion of truth and trustworthiness is a western one that we impose upon the term righteousness (or right-ness). The Hebrew word tsedheq is about fulfilling the requirements of a relationship, of being identified as being part of a relationship and is very often directly linked in the Hebrew Bible with mishpat – justice, the restoration of equity. (Thanks to Bruce Malcow, Social Justice in the Hebrew Bible p. 16 for these observations)

This isn’t to say that trustworthiness isn’t a good thing of course or that we shouldn’t take it seriously but that if we’re talking about what the Hebrew Bible means by righteousness, that that isn’t part of it necessarily.

(Couldn’t get the Hebrew to render correctly so switched to transliteration)

By: Michael Meeks

Michael Meeks — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:12:39 +0000

Economics needs to have a place in the thinking Christian’s armory of weapons to attempt to do good with IMHO . Pragmatics matters too, given a minumum standard of living: perhaps a hovel, with dry crusts and water provided from your salary – what is the most effective use of the rest of it. Is it most efficient to hand it to Gordon Brown to distribute to the needy in some highly wasteful secular fashion ? or is it better to pay a lower tax and perhaps have enough money to give some to the Church, and the needy directly ? Indeed – the very concept of a ‘gift’ you mention above is that it is not compelled – eg. by a centralising bureaucracy’s taxation

The concept of the deserving poor is also an interesting one, it would not be a just society in which the indolent are permanently insulated from their responsibility to provide for themselves and their dependents. 2 Thes 3:10 seems to have some hard words for those who will not work. Thus – arguably a good Christian policy is to try to provide reasonably remunerated work for the poor – but doing that without a sound economic understanding is unlikely to work well.

By: Martin Grashoff

Martin Grashoff — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 08:55:23 +0000

‘The gifts of the righteous’ are certainly about ensuring that the poor get a fair share of the common wealth. That’s the justice part, so to say, and a valid lead to pick your party. But ‘righteousness’ is also about truth and trustworthyness, and that might make the choice more complicated. If I could vote in this country — but I’m ‘a stranger and an alien’ — I would probably vote for the person who would appear most trustworthy. Which might be a Huge Task.

By: riggwelter

riggwelter — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 21:07:02 +0000

Good points Chris, as to whether you should think nationally or locally, that for me is determined by the electoral system – we elect a local representative not a national leader.

There’s that old saying “think global, act local” so I guess the answer could be a sort of both-and/hold them in tension arrangement.

For some people, all local options will be much of a muchness so they’re freed to think at a more national scale of course and for some there could be a shining local candidate who may stand at odds with a less desirable national party.

It’s always going to be a compromise of course and where the line (or cross) is drawn comes down to individual judgement calls.

By: Chris Kimpton

Chris Kimpton — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 18:43:05 +0000

I have probably missed the point, but here goes…
Trying to match christian values/kingdom goals to the key “issues”/”policies”, I guess “pro-business”, “anti-Europe” is not kingdom like.

But across the parties, lots of policies are kingdom-like, so the task is to identify the most kingdom-like party?

Or do we stick to the local level and access our local candidates under that criteria… with a view that we then get the most kingdom-like government?