Why Touchstone is Not Really “Conservative”

Some years ago, when I was a young Congregationalist minister, I was invited to become a member of a local service organization--the one that contained, I was told, the “movers and shakers” of the town. The invitation was extended by a friend of our church who was a man of wealth and influence--something for which I should, someone made a point of telling me, be grateful. Naturally, I was pleased with this vote of confidence, and attended the next luncheon meeting, held at the club room of an upscale restaurant. Although my benefactor could not be there that day, he paid for my meal--for which I was very glad, for my salary doubtless made me the least motile and shakile person in the room.

There was a great deal of talking and a great deal of bonhomie, mostly involving higher-order primate ritual--mutual back scratching, aggression and submission displays, and the like. But two things in particular stuck in my memory. One was the piddling level of the club’s benefaction, given the wealth represented in its membership--the paltriness of which seemed to cause no embarrassment. The other was the loud presence of an old dentist who interrupted the meeting (!) four or five times to make vulgar jokes about being born again. This was one of the oddest things I had ever seen. Clearly this was a “conservative” gathering, but this ostentatiously, aggressively irreligious man was never rebuked, only met with polite but subdued laughter, even though the pastor of one of the major born again-variety churches--who was also a prosperous businessman--was a member, and was present. I found myself experiencing an uncanny and unanticipated affinity between this old infidel’s anti-Christianity and the kind of conservatism I was detecting in the membership.

The principal lesson the experience drove home to me, early in adult life, was that while Christianity and "conservatism" have certain agreements, they have very different roots and very different ends. The majority of those present at this meeting would probably be called “country club Republicans” today, although I don’t think the term was in use then. All signs pointed to the likelihood that this group was comprised almost exclusively of political conservatives, with whom I was used to identifying. I refused to go to subsequent meetings, and was told that I had insulted both the organization and my host by failing to avail myself of the opportunity. Regretting having disobliged the very decent man who had attempted to sponsor me, I nevertheless made it clear I had no interest in giving religious sanction to whatever game that bunch was playing--and so remained, to the chagrin of certain members of my church board, down among the immobile and shaken, joining, without knowing it, the local liberals, Catholics, and shabbier brands of Protestant in the estimation of the People Who Counted. In their minds I was not a conservative, and, given their lights, they were right.

The social and political operation of Christians is not based upon theorizing about what works best for the ordering of the world, but belief about what pleases the living God. The result is a way of thinking and acting that may or may not be agreeable to those whose understanding of the ordering of state and economy is based on a realistic appraisal of human nature coupled with an ideals of moderation and resistance to earthly utopias--that is, the classical tradition usually identified as “conservatism.” Christianity’s affinity with political, economic, and social conservatism is particularly pronounced in societies suffering from moral breakdowns which adversely affect all areas of life, but in Christian eyes the difference between “conservative” and “liberal” theory is still only a difference between theories, one more reasonable and more in agreement with Christianity about the nature of man than the other, but still based on a theory about human good that deals only with the achievement of happiness in this world.

Ayn Rand is one of the best examples of a conservatism that has parted company with Christianity. While she is in a certain sense right about the destructiveness of altruism, the definition of that vice put forward in her novels must also encompass much of what Christians regard as charity, of self-giving and self-abnegation that does not lead to the greater worldly happiness or comfort of the givers, but pleases God. While Christians may agree heartily with her about the stupidity and destructiveness of what illogical, morally lax, utopian liberals regard as good in this regard, they cannot follow through to the logical end of her eminently conservative theorizing because their ultimate desire is not the good of the world in its present form, or the comfort of human life here, but an Ultimate Good that involves giving up this world for the Life that lies beyond it. To the pure conservative this giving up is a giving over, and the Christian who does it a traditor.

Of this end outside the world, and its beginning in the same Place, mere conservatism can know nothing, despite a superior reason, realism, and assessment of human nature as compared to “liberalism”--the latter characterized by belief in the goodness of human nature, its forward evolution in the world, and a utopian end. Despite its practical wisdom, it will find an enemy in Christianity when the ethics of the faith overrides its pragmatics--when, for example, Christians insist that its practical reasons for limiting population growth are overridden by divine mandates concerning the conduct of family life. In such matters the conservative, who may quite reasonably believe that life on earth can be more happy and comfortable for its inhabitants when there are fewer people, especially in overpopulated areas, will make common cause with the liberal--who believes the same thing, with the admixture of progressivist and utopian notions--against the Christians.

The liberal, along with the conservative member of my unjoined club, will agree it is unwise to encourage real Christianity, the former because it is sure to condemn his view of human nature and the social theorizing that follows it, and the conservative because, once religion does its service as a stabilizing influence on society, what remains is no more than pie in the sky. The conservative believes strongly in pie, and has superior notions about how to secure it, but in his purest incarnation regards the pursuit of its celestial form as no more than a personal hobby.

Here at Touchstone we are Christians. When placed in the context of certain modern political contests we will look most dreadfully conservative for two reasons: first because we believe, with traditional Jews, Muslims, and almost all people of faith, in ancient, universal moral norms, in sexual matters in particular, against those who think that certain elements of societal or scientific progress have rendered them nugatory, and second, because we agree with conservatives that a realistic appraisal of human nature leads to skepticism about its innate goodness, militates against undisciplined progressivism, and is non-utopian.

The appearance is, however, a product of the context. It is mere Christianity when light falls on it from a certain direction. It does not look the same in all lights.

Comments

[John Mark Reynolds]

This is exactly right.

I wish I had written it . . . but think every traditional Christian should.

I have had similar experiences. Jesus is Lord and not anyone or anything else!

John Mark Reynolds

[Grigory]

The notion that Ayn Rand is in any way shape or form a "conservative" is absurd. Whatever gave you that notion? Because she believes in the free market? There are plenty of conservatives who believe in fair trade - as defined by Russell Kirk and others, conservatism is more born out of a belief in the wisdom of tradition as the accumulation of human experience and the acceptance of an immutable moral code rather than out of any sort of loyalty to a particular economic theory.

[Stuart Koehl]

I think we have some definitional issues here regarding the term "conservative", which in an American political and social context means something very different than it does in a European context, just as the term liberal has all but lost its meaning in the philosophical chaos of the late 20th century.

There are many different modes of thought these days falling under the rubric of conservatism. There is classic Toryism, which stands for traditional vested interests, established religion, economic protectionism, and close control of the state in maintaining moral order. This would best correspond to the kind of thought today characterized as "paleoconservative". One of the distinguishing characteristics of this mode of thought is its fundamentally negative assessment of the prospects for the future, hence it tends to be reactionary in nature, seeking to hang on to the status quo or roll back society towards some ahistorical golden age.

Then there is the classic "Whig' position, which in Britain morphed into classic "liberalism". It stands for free and open markets, a limited government role in social regulation and neutrality towards religion. This comes closest to "mainstream" conservatism in the U.S., with excursions in different directions.

Neo-conservatism best corresponds to late Gladstonian liberalism in the UK, with its emphasis on moralism in foreign policy and an imperative to spread its values abroad, though originally neo-conservatism also represented a fall-back from the domestic utopianism of the New Left towards the more limited vision of classic Liberalism.

Libertarianism is not conservatism at all, except in its most benign manifestations which call for a return to a more strictly Federalist interpretation of the Constitution. In its more utopian vein, Libertarianism is a form of radical individualism which cannot be reconciled either with the the traditionalism of Toryism nor the communitarianism of classical Liberalism. Yet Libertarianism is often categorized as conservative because it is antithetical to the Leftism which today is the most recognizable form of American "liberalism"

Liberalism long ceased to be what today is mainstream conservatism, having embraced the militant collectivism and statism that Jonah Goldberg uses to define "fascism" in his excellent little tome "Liberal Fascism". Whether it embraces socialism, corporatism, racism, or any other distinguishing twist, all forms of Fascism adhere to Mussolini's dicta, "Everything for the state, everyone under the state, no one outside the state". Goldberg makes a convincing case that today's liberalism is really a manifestation of fascism, albeit a "soft" fascism that employs benevolent language to achieve its ends. He traces a line that goes from the Jacobins of revolutionary France, through the Progressive movement of the early 20th century, through the fascination of American intellectuals with both the left-fascism of Leninism and the right-fascism of Mussolini and Hitler, to the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt and the unambiguous collectivism of the New Left. You may not agree with his argument, but he documents it well. American liberalism today is socially collectivist, economically socialist, and morally relativist. Its social vision is sexually libertine while simultaneously intrusive in all other areas of personal life. It may not be a coherent vision, but then utopian ideologies seldom are.

Where does this put Touchstone? Nowhere on the spectrum, actually. Christianity--even mere Christianity--stands outside of secular social and political categories which are transient, man-made constructs. Instead, it stands for the transcendent Truth of the Gospel, looking constantly to the Kingdom that is yet to come, and engages the world only to the extent that the world interferes with the commission of the Church to make disciples of all nations.

To the extent that Christianity stands for transcendent truths passed down from age to age unchanged and unchanging, Christianity is conservative: we seek to conserve and nurture the gift that we have been given, of which we are only stewards. We do not seek to innovate or to formulate "new" truths, only to expound on the immutable truths we possess.

When we do that, we find ourselves straddling a host of secular political divides, appearing "liberal" on some, conservative on others. On most, however, there will be disagreements within our own ranks on how best to attain the objectives mandated for us in the Gospels, which are descriptive rather than prescriptive. We are told to care for the poor, the oppressed, the sick, the homeless; we are not instructed on how this is to be done. We are given precepts on how to live a righteous life in all piety and dignity, but we are not told how to order society in order to facilitate these ends. It has always been so. There have always been disagreements within the Church regarding modes of human governance, and the Church has held these differences in dynamic tension within its bosom. But always the Church has insisted that whatever solutions are advocated be consistent with the Gospel message, and that is, or should be, our lodestone, ever pointing the way towards the Kingdom, in recognition that all that is of this world shall some day pass away.

[Thomnj]

It is too bad that you had ONE encounter with a local group which left you with an unsavory experience. To lump "conservatives" by whatever definition you seem to have into one pot is just as poor a characterization as the behavior of some of the individuals you ran into. JUDGING all of these members of the group without getting to know more about them as individuals is also as bad - and I am not saying that you should have felt compelled to stay for multiple visits. The behavior you witnessed sounded boorish, and who would want to be a part of it? But your judgement and subsequent condemnation (especially the roundabout population control reference) is quite incorrect and launched from a lack of knowledge of conservatism - no matter how loftily you write. Are instantly judgmental of your parishoners as well - or do you get to know them?

[smh]

Several of my readers do not seem to have understood the method, or grasped the point. Stuart Koehl's last three paragraphs above accurately describe what I am getting at; those who have difficulty with the way I put it may take those instead.

I wrote the definition of Touchstone that appears on its masthead, describing the journal as Christian and conservative. I have not changed my mind, nor has the magazine changed its stance, but I wish to make it as clear as I can, in as few words as possible, the limits of that terminology as applied to this project, or any other that attempts to be Christian before it is anything else.

We find ourselves moved to do such things, as an examination of our history will show, during political seasons.

[Judy K. Warner]

I doubt that the group was actually composed of political conservatives. I'll bet that the majority were in favor of legalized abortion, had no objection to government subsidies for business, wouldn't mind trading with Cuba, and favor open borders. "Country club Republicans" has a definition, and it is not conservative.

I take your point to be that Christianity is not a political ideology and cannot be identified with one. However, you told a particular story to illustrate that, so readers should not be reprimanded for responding to what you said in the story. If your illustration is faulty, there's nothing wrong with pointing that out.

[tdunbar]

Let me foolishly try a different tack: once I've categorized myself as 'Christian' the next most important subcategory is not (liberal, conservative, radical) but rather (evangelical, catholic, orthodox), where I use lower-case intentionally to reduce the dissonance with Touchstone's intention to be 'mere Christian' and so it seems that the posting aims to merely clarify the foundation of the blog and magazine.

I'm doubtful that mere ideology without institutional backing can ever become any sort of social organism, but applaud Touchstone's efforts to foster conversation nonetheless.

[Bosphorus]

Your article makes me think of a line of Pelikan's: "Christian are pessimistic about the world, optimistic about God and so hopeful for a life in God." (Quoting from memory: take the quotation marks as marks of my intention, if not my deed.)

[CKG]

Thanks for this, Steve. You hit the nail squarely on the head.

Fundamentally, Christianity is not a political category, and that is the salient distinction to be made between Christianity and either conservatism or liberalism. The Christian knows that "we have no earthly city"; our end lies elsewhere than this world. Work as we may for justice and the well-being of our fellow-men, we know that the ultimate end of every one of us is not here. And that will always end up being a barrier between Christians and those who subscribe to some notion of 'Politics-as-Salvation', of whatever stripe.

[GL]

Bravo, Steve and Stuart.

This explains why we can have so many hearty debates and still believe we are all mere *orthodox* Christians. We may doubt each other's views on a particular issue, even believing it is wrongheaded and stupid, but that gives no cause for us to doubt each other's mere Christianity. Our Christianity comes first. We attempt, as best we can given our fallen nature, to apply the eternal principles of Christianity to the transient "news and events of the day" which are discussed and debated on Mere Comments. Our application may sometimes be flawed and, at times, it may reveal flaws in our theology (that is the nature of fallen man).

The Fellowship of St. James and the editors of Touchstone have done an excellent job in creating fora for exploration of how Christian principles should apply in addressing the issues of our time. Thank you.

[Steve Nicoloso]

Certainly, Christianity has no truck with Ayn Rand's "conservatism", but there is nothing conservative about Doctrinaire Libertarianism. In fact, it is arguably the most devilish form of liberalism. To call these Country Club Republicans "conservative" is to submit to a use of the word that is both popular and wrong. What do such "conservatives" mean actually to conserve, save their own hegemony?

Surely Christianity, insofar as it mandates the ordering of life (public and private) toward that unity of all that is beautiful, good, and true, is not aligned a priori with any political class, party, or movement. But because Christianity makes such claims, deferring in principle to ancient tradition, patrimony, and identity, it is therefore in principle conservative; conservative whether or not (mostly not, these days) such inclinations are given voice in any popular political party or wing.

Moreover, insofar as liberalism views man as a strictly economic being, relegating matters of transcendant good to private opinion, and therefore proposes the ordering of society on strictly utilitarian metrics (propensities found in roughly equal abundance among partisans of the modern "left" and "right"), Christianity stands against liberalism.

Is it in the mission of Touchstone to contend for the "soul of conservatism"? Perhaps not. But Touchstone, as near as I can tell, does contend for the soul of Christianity. And in so doing, Touchstone reveals itself to be conservative in essence. The prophet almost always points back, whether in time or in logic.

To say Touchstone is neither "conservative" or "liberal" as these words are popularly understood is absolutely correct, but only because in neither popular understanding may the essence of conservatism be found.

When the thoughtless modern hears the phrase, "Touchstone is neither conservative nor liberal," he is likely to think, "Ah, Touchstone is centrist!" (or "moderate" or "nuanced" or any other adjective of central tendancy the modern liberal might apply) The result is false advertising: Touchstone is conservative, just more conservative than thoughtless moderns can possibly imagine.

[Joe Long]

My favorite part from this piece:

"The result is a way of thinking and acting that may or may not be agreeable to those whose understanding of the ordering of state and economy is based on a realistic appraisal of human nature coupled with an ideals of moderation and resistance to earthly utopias--"

Yet - Ayn Rand's thinking does NOT represent this, nor does the merrily hypocritical little oligarchy whose meeting you attended. Many organizations which call themselves "Christian" or "conservative" - or which are labelled "Christian" or "conservative" by outsiders - aren't, particularly. You can cry "Lord, Lord" without being a Christian, and you can (though I have no idea why people would) be fat, rich, staid, well-connected, alcholic and business-suit-clad, without being "conservative" in any meaningful sense.

Christianity IS entirely compatible with, indeed fosters, a realistic appraisal of human nature, and ideals of moderation where appropriate ("...let your moderation be known unto all men"; St. Paul, according to King James' translators). Certainly Christianity should make us entire proof against the delusions of earthly paradise which drive societies to bloody madness, and individuals to folly and misery.

"Touchstone" is the most deeply conservative publication I know. It is far more conservative, for instance, than "National Review" at present (which is also pretty good) (yes, I used "conservative" as a synonym for "good); and in true conservative fashion, "Touchstone" gives considerable attention to choosing just what is WORTH "conserving" (hence the very insightful new cover story on the '50's, proving utopia is not to be found even in the past).

Your unjoined club surely contained a number of spineless conservatives; perhaps they'd been cowed through losing too many dominance/submission games, or browbeaten (by feminized theology?) into not playing those games at all. And if they WEREN'T prepared to do that - bearding even a respected old vulgar dentist in his comfortable lair if necessary - then it was a failure both of their Christianity AND conservatism, to continue in a group which a realistic appraisal of human nature would warn them against.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

I'm gonna pick some nits with GL (though I think these arose simply from the sloppiness of fast writing to which I am often prone)...
1) "Our Christianity" ain't; what holds us together is our Lord and King. (I get a funny feeling when people start talking about "the Christian religion" instead of Jesus. And not funny "haha".)
2) I don't think what is unique to Christianity is "eternal principles" and thinking that the religion is a matter of following some principles (as opposed to a Person) can get us into trouble. Such verbiage can make it sound as if there is some sort of algorithm we can follow that will put us "straight".

I think SMH's fourth paragraph is interesting:

The social and political operation of Christians is not based upon theorizing about what works best for the ordering of the world, but belief about what pleases the living God. The result is a way of thinking and acting that may or may not be agreeable to those whose understanding of the ordering of state and economy is based on a realistic appraisal of human nature coupled with an ideals of moderation and resistance to earthly utopias--that is, the classical tradition usually identified as “conservatism.” Christianity’s affinity with political, economic, and social conservatism is particularly pronounced in societies suffering from moral breakdowns which adversely affect all areas of life, but in Christian eyes the difference between “conservative” and “liberal” theory is still only a difference between theories, one more reasonable and more in agreement with Christianity about the nature of man than the other, but still based on a theory about human good that deals only with the achievement of happiness in this world.

I try to pay attention to social science research (like the stuff that Brad Wilcox and others do). It generally seems to me to confirm the path for human flourishing delineated by the patriarchs and prophets. When it doesn't, there is almost always a reason (typically bad methodology). I think it's okay to value such research and use it as an apologetical tool but--as it seems to me Dr. Hutchens is pointing out--it could be spiritually dangerous if you liked Christianity because it verified your political or sociological views.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>1) "Our Christianity" ain't; what holds us together is our Lord and King. (I get a funny feeling when people start talking about "the Christian religion" instead of Jesus. And not funny "haha".)<<<

Outstanding point, one which echoes the observation of Father Alexander Schmemann, who liked to say that Christianity is not a religion, but rather the end of religion or the challenge to all religions. He defined religion as a cultic system to mediate between man and God (or "the gods"), but through Christ's incarnation, death and resurrection, we now have direct access to God without need for intermediaries. Christianity therefore is nothing less than new life in Christ, a new mode of human existence that, while it may have cultic elements in its earthly worship, in fact transcends all forms of relgion.

>>>2) I don't think what is unique to Christianity is "eternal principles" and thinking that the religion is a matter of following some principles (as opposed to a Person) can get us into trouble. Such verbiage can make it sound as if there is some sort of algorithm we can follow that will put us "straight".<<<

The precepts of the Lord are not--or should not--be the principal focus of Christianity. Rather, putting our faith and trust in Christ's promises as presented in the Gospels, we should desire through our baptism to put on Christ and grow in Christ. Christ's precepts, therefore, are a means to an end--to share in the divine nature, to become by grace what Christ is by nature, a true son of God. We don't attain theosis by just following rules, for that was the error those who sought salvation under the Law; but we should, in our love of Christ, naturally want to be like him, and therefore would be inclined to obey such commandments as he gave us before his ascension to sit at the right hand of the Father.

[GL]

Gene,

You are, of course, correct. Thanks for picking my nits. Now I can avoid lice . . . I hope. ;-)

[Bill R]

"Thanks for picking my nits. Now I can avoid lice."

What SMH refers to in his post as "higher-order primate ritual."

[Nick]

While I agree in principle I disagree in tone. Is there power plays when high powered folks meet? Of course. Is this wrong or primitive? I don't think so as long as there isn't any meanness to it. It _is_ important in some social situations to understand who is a, "mover and shaker." Also, I'm not sure how you would be aware of how much they gave, even proportionately by a single meeting with a group of men you never met again. You may be right, but are you sure?

There is a tendency, older than Christianity, to assume that the rich are evil. I imagine Nicodemus was plagued by the same problem.

Otherwise, like I said, I'm in agreement and Stuart expressed it vary well.

[William Rush]

Mere Christianity is neither conservative nor liberal. It is radical.

[labrialumn]

Nick, one man's as good as another. It is the content of his character that counts. Jesus taught us not to lord it over others. That means pecking order social power plays are forbidden. "The least of these" will turn out to have been the movers and shakers when that Day comes when we all will stand in the sorting.

[Charles R. Williams]

I think men like Dick Cheney and Roger Scruton, both of whom I admire in many ways, are better representatives than Ayn Rand of a conservatism that is incompatible with Christian faith.

[Charles R. Williams]

I think men like Dick Cheney and Roger Scruton, both of whom I admire in many ways, are better representatives than Ayn Rand of a conservatism that is incompatible with Christian faith.

[Ethan C.]

Mr. Williams, I think I can imagine what you're getting at with Cheney, but I'm not familiar enough with Scruton's work to see why it would be particularly incompatible with Christian faith. Care to elaborate?

[Houghton Grandmal]

"Country club Republicans" before the mid-1970s (before Roe v Wade) were not actually "either." The were perhaps "Liberal" in some sense of the old Whig liberalism that Stuart Koehl described above. But mostly they were mainstream American pragmatic liberals and that American mainstream, unanchored (because Protestant) by any strong religious Tradition, had been glacially moving toward a kind of rapprochement with New Dealism, Deweyism, Oliver-Wendell-Holmes legal positivism etc. All of these trends were anathama to the "old Tories" or what we now call Paleoconservatives."

The beginning of the sifting out process had been under way since the New Deal, with Weaver and Kirk and others pointing the way. But the social revolution of the 1960s culminating in Roe v. Wade catalyzed it, producing the rise of Ronald Reagan. Neo-conservatives came along a half-step behind, disillusioned with the results of the Gramscian "march through the institutions" whose fruits were becoming obvious.

So those "country club Republicans" that Rev. Hutchens met way back when probably weren't all that "conservative"--just good ole boy pragmatic centrists vying with other good ole boy mainstream New-Deal/Great Society centrists. They probably had no clue about what had really been unleashed by the late 1960s and R v. W in the early 70s (I'm assuming Rev. Hutchens' encounter took place sometime in that era rather than in the 1940s or 1950s!!)

[evagrius]

My question is this;

Whewn someone in the street asks you for spare change, do you give them any?

How you answer will define you as "liberal" or "conservative".

I would hazard a guess that the writer...and the vast majority of the readers have little inkling of what life is for those on the street, who are visible, or what life is for those who are afraid of showing themselves on the street, though they need aid.

Matthew 25, Matthew 25, is the definition of "liberal" and "conservative"....

Everything else is bloviation, chest-thumping, Phariseeism.

[Nick]

Evagrius,

I know what your getting at and you're wrong in such a typical way it hurts. In general I avoid giving change. The reason is two fold. First, being a credit card person I very rarely carry cash. Second, I avoid giving away cash to people randomly where the cash may be harmful to them. I suppose I'm automatically un-Christian in the first case, yes?

In the second case I find it much better to give things that are needed. I've walked out of a restaurant, left overs in hand, and been asked for change for "food". If I hand the other half of the sandwich am I doing the wrong thing? If, having no change, does telling him to wait and making a quick drive to Taco Bell also count as evil? Those in the back muttering about "killing him" can cut the comments now :)

Labrialumn,

Bull. "Lording over" is an abuse of power. Posturing to understand social class and distinction happens all of the time and is perfectly normal. It is, after all, one of the reasons dating is so difficult. What do I say to please the group? What interests them?

If you're going to run proof-text nonsense I'll gladly point you to Jesus' sound advice in such a situation, take the lower seat. I'll carefully note that Jesus didn't feel it appropriate to complain that a seating chart wasn't provided before hand.

[William Rush]

Right on, Houghton. The One who asks us to 'love our enemies', to 'hand over our cloak', ' to give to everyone who begs from us' -invites us to place ourselves outside the boxes of 'conservatism' or 'liberalism', and to enter a new paradigm. Matthew 5 is a shock to us all.

[Joe Long]

Yet the definition of a conservative given about...one "whose understanding of the ordering of state and economy is based on a realistic appraisal of human nature coupled with an ideals of moderation and resistance to earthly utopias"...is, I think, a Christian imperative!

The first two parables in Matthew 25 (the ten virgins, the talents) indeed command shrewdness and sense...the lesson which follows demands a daunting level of personal charity - but has no left/right political implication. So you're right; it goes beyond "liberal or conservative" and thus has no bearing on the clear indications elsewhere in the Bible (say, the entire books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes!) that a Christian should be conservative, by the above definition. (He should also be liberal, in the sense of promotion of liberty - but no one means that when they say "liberal" today, while conservative DO assert the ideology above.)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Whewn someone in the street asks you for spare change, do you give them any?<<<

it entirely depends. Is the man sober? Does he appear to be an honest man down on his luck? Or is he drunk or stoned, or mentally deranged? If the former, I tend to give the man some money, along with the admonition that he buy something to eat. If the latter, I generally refuse, because of the high probability that the man will use the money for drink, or drugs, or some other harmful purpose. Sometimes I offer to buy the man some food, from a fast food place or sandwich shop--but most of the time they don't want that, they want the cash.

I prefer, in dealing with the indigent, to do more than assuage my conscience through a meaningless disbursement of loose change. I organized, for example, some of the kids from my parish to collect toiletries such as toothpaste, toothbrushes, soap, hand cleaner, combs and brushes, etc., and then took them down to Lafayette Park and other places where the homeless congregate, to give those to people who needed them.

Closer to home, when I see a person in need of a hand up, I offer him work--yard work, clean-up, sometimes odd repair jobs I need done. I pay them market rate for this work. If they do a good job, I ask them to come back in a week or so to see if I have more for them to do. In this way, I respect their dignity as persons, do not give them a handout, but reward their honest labor.

I have had mixed results from this approach. On the one hand, a few people begin to catch on, and I recommend them to my neighbors, so that they have a clientele from whom they can earn a reasonable bit of cash. These people I also provide with information and suggestions on how they can improve themselves, get further assistance, medical care, shelter, etc. On the other hand, most of them soon begin to think that they are entitled to my money, begin demanding that I give them something to do, and then switch to asking for money in advance. Some of these men are not reliable--they promise to show up and don't; they sign on for a job and don't finish it. These are the kinds of behavior that are responsible for their situation, but there is really nothing I can do about it. Everyone gets three chances; after the third, I tell them not to come back.

Doing things like this has set me back a few thousand dollars over the past couple of years--none of it deductible from my taxes. I continue to do it for lack of a better idea of how to offer charity to people in need that does more than meet some immediate material longing, but rather provides some form of long term help.

I don't see this as being liberal or conservative, simply Christian, and the best I can do with my meagre resources given the scope of the problem.