I’m (Obviously Not Really But Yeah Mostly) Democrat

In light of Bryan Magaña’s recent confessions, I begged The Two Cities to let me confess my own “struggles”. Yes, it’s true, I sometimes vote for Democrats. I confess, I did donate money to Obama’s campaign at the chance of winning a trip to meet the Commander-in-Chief and Beyoncé. I do idolize Michelle Obama for her passion to fight for healthy eating in America. And yes, I’m in love with Obamacare. Some may think I’m not a Christian for having these feelings (trust me, some do). But in reality, I blame the Bible for making me this way!

I grew up a pagan Republican in the middle class of South Orange County. My parents loved the Bush family. And when I met Jesus at age 19, I knew I would fit right into this GOP-loving club. But as I started to read my Bible and see so many passages about helping the poor, my eyes were opened. Wait, you mean you want me to sell all my belongings and give them to the poor? I started realizing Jesus was serious about this social justice stuff, so I too became serious about it. The next thing you know, I was spending my spare time throwing benefit concerts, chaining myself to fences, and making my friends watch Invisible Children. I pursued a degree in biblical studies so I could learn more about this people-loving Jesus, and my parents thought I’d gone crazy.

Over time, I became ostracized from my Christian brothers and sisters who called me a “liberal” and questioned me about the equality and justice issues I stood for. So I went to Fuller—a big no-no for some Evangelicals, though I do consider myself pretty theologically conservative—and then the real storm hit when I decided to attend UC Berkeley to get a master’s degree in social welfare. Yes, by the end of this school year I’ll have a degree with the word “welfare” in it. I’ve hit the deep end of the muddy waters of politics and religion, and I’m still perplexing people to this day.

The other day I found myself trying to tell a non-Christian friend that Jesus was awesome, and a Christian friend that I really was pro-life. I often find myself in the middle. As someone who was never wanted by her birth mother, and put in foster care to be adopted one month later, I know I almost didn’t make it out of the womb. I’m thankful for my life—a life that started at conception—so yeah, of course I’m pro-life. I love all unborn babies and want justice for them too. But I also love their mothers, their fathers, their cousins and neighbors. I am, and not really, a democrat because I am pro-life: pro-life for every life. This means I hate war, the death penalty, guns, the rising cost of education, poverty, awful insurance companies, global warming, a life without FEMA and capitalism. Oh wait… capitalism might go under a different category. Yes, it’s a tragedy that there are 1.5 million abortions every year in America, but there are more than 300 million living people in America that we must be concerned about as well.

As much as I want to believe that smaller government and more generous Church donations would work in America, I do not think this reality is possible. I think that even if all the churches in America were very generous in reaching out to the poor, the costs from this capitalistic society would make it impossible to cover most costs needed by the truly impoverished. Choosing a social work career has forced me into the trenches of these realities. When a homeless family walks through my doors and watches their child get diagnosed with cancer, am I supposed to call up a church and ask for a $50,000 check to cover one week of a hospital stay? Or do I call Medicaid? Everyday I watch hated government programs save lives. I could go on with many examples but the point is, the majority of Democrat policies favor more pro-life issues than the Republican policies. It’s just the facts. Ironically for me (just like Republicans) it’s a human life issue.

As Christians, and as a Church, we are responsible for loving others, but nations will also be held responsible. In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus reminds us that “nations will be gathered before him,” and God will separate the nations by focusing on five things: feeding the hungry, housing strangers, clothing the naked, caring for the sick, and visiting the imprisoned. These things are so important to God. And until all Christians can put their energy into meeting the needs of the needy so the government doesn’t have to, I’m going to be obviously, not really, but yeah, mostly Democrat.

Side Note: As we are only one day away from the 2012 election, there is no doubt in my mind that many of you are anxious over this election (as am I). Sometimes anxiety can turn into anger, and so you are aware in advance, any hateful comments will be deleted. I want to be clear in the fact that I do not 100% agree with every Obama policy, and my hope does not lie in him or government, but in the Cross of Christ. No political party will ever completely fulfill Matthew 25. My priorities remain to lead others to the truth of the gospel, and to do that by showing God’s love and light to this dark world. But I do believe that it is important for Christians to think seriously about the affairs of this country and vote. This can be difficult for people for many reasons, but I do not believe God wants us to be passive about exercising our freedoms in this way. So whatever party you line up with, I hope to see you at the polls on Tuesday!

Carrie Allen is currently a student at the University of California at Berkeley where she is studying for a Masters in Social Welfare. Before coming to the Bay Area she was born and raised in Los Angeles, California where she studied Theology at Biola University and Fuller Theological Seminary. Carrie is currently interning in the inner-city of Oakland working as a medical social worker. Some of her interests are public health and the prevention of disease in inner-cities, and how the Christian church should be responding to social justice issues. Carrie likes to spend her free time reading, watching PBS, attending Cal football games, and hassling the Two Cities bloggers about letting a female writer join the club. Carrie can be reached at carrieallen@berkeley.edu. You can also check out her personal blog here.

You might also enjoy…

54 responses to “I’m (Obviously Not Really But Yeah Mostly) Democrat”

  1. John Anthony Dunne

    Carrie, I like a lot of what you have to say, but I’m curious about Mt 25. Have you come across the view that Mt 25 is about Christians? This seems to be the preferable interpretation to me. Thoughts?

    1. Carrie Allen

      Johnny,

      Thanks for the comment.

      Yes, I have heard the interpretation that this is talking about Christians (and also as someone pointed out below about Israel). While I do believe this passage is referencing Christians, I have a hard time completely ruling out the non-Christian from this passage for a few reasons.

      The first is, how am I to judge who is a Christian and who is not? Second, the second greatest commandment is to love others as I love myself. So if I am loving others as I would love myself, a Christian, then wouldn’t I be loving others as I would a Christian? I know, that one hurts the brain. Finally, so many of the “social justice-y” passages throughout the Bible always seem to have this kind of stipulation tied with it. I have a hard time accepting the fact that evangelism is for “all of Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the world” but meeting the physical needs of people is only for God’s chosen ones.

      Just some thoughts… but it is definitely something I think about a lot!

      1. Carrie, JD, et. al.,

        Matt. 25 is about Christians loving other Christians, likely with a focus on responding to the gospel ministry of Christian missionaries. It’s barely debatable, to be honest. Go read Davies and Allison’s ECC commentary on it for a good articulation of the view that Jesus is talking about the poor in general, then read how nearly every commentary since then (e.g. Carson, France, Blomberg, Keener, et. al.) rips D & A (and others) apart. Seriously. It’s really not even that difficult of a passage when you go read it.

        That said, I like the way you’re leaning on this Carrie, but I’d just divorce your broader theological comments from the exegesis of Matt. 25 specifically. Yes, Matt. 25 is about embracing needy Christians. Fine. But that doesn’t mean that Matt. 25 is the only biblical passage in play. As far as I can tell, Gal. 6:10 sums up the biblical teaching really well in one verse: “So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.”

        Christians are called to do good to all- or as you say here, Carrie, to love our neighbors as ourselves, no matter who those neighbors are, but always with a priority on caring for our brothers and sisters in need.

        So the thing I almost always come back to is that it just seems obvious that we should care for the poor. Christians should be against exploitation and for caring for the needy. I just don’t know how that’s even a difficult issue (except for the application, which is plenty complex).

        Andrew

        1. Carrie Allen

          Andrew, thanks for your thoughts. I totally hear you and appreciate what you have to say here. I really like that Jesus is so specific in Matthew 25 and I think that’s why I (and others) tend to gravitate towards it. There are entire ministries named “Matthew 25” and their aim is specifically to do the things listed (towards Christians and non-Christians). I am wondering if we can agree on the fact that I don’t need to use Matthew 25 as a backing to my point that we should do good to everyone. Is it a given that Christians should be serving in Matthew 25 ways to all people? Do you think Christians will generally accept that? If so, I’d be interesting in chatting with someone who is very passionate about the founding fathers and America being a Christian nation. Should it be an irony that most pro-Christian nation proponents are Republicans or Libertarians, and therefore want to cut programs that specifically help impoverished people? Thoughts?

  2. Andrew Kelley

    Carrie,

    Although I am not in total agreement with you, I really liked this post. I guess one of the primary issues that I have has to do with pragmatically doing things like Social Medicine. My wife and I just used NHS last night, and it was great (though I imagine that isn’t everyone’s experience) I just wonder if it having it as a goal of American policy is realistic. Would it make more sense to crate an environment where people can afford (or are benefitted as part of their employment) healthcare without government assistance? I would like to point out that this isn’t born out of a notion of “they don’t deserve healthcare” because I think we can both agree that is very unchristian sentiment, I just wonder if in a pragmatic sense, both in the long and the short run, it is a better, more self-sustaining answer.

    1. Richard Gonzales

      Yeah, let’s be pragmatic. We’ll start by legalizing same-sex civil unions. The positive economic impact of this policy far outweighs any fiscal burden we’d incur (see the FRC’s silly social security argument). I’ve only heard the moral case against same-sex civil unions/marriage on this site. What about legalized abortion? That’s good public policy. Crime rates are down after all those unwanted pregnancies have been terminated. China’s one-child policy is doing its job to control population growth, as well.

      That pragmatism sounds like a slippery slope for morality.

      1. Andrew Kelley

        Richard,

        I don’t mean to say that morality should be violated for the purpose of pragmatism. Either I wasn’t clear, or you misunderstood my comment. If the moral goal is to make sure that everyone is provided for – in this case, let’s say in terms of healthcare – is it better to do it through creating a social medicine system that is automatically available to everybody but may in fact collapse due to the lack of funds needed to keep it going or through supporting private employers thereby increasing jobs that have the benefit of healthcare? I am not totally sure of the answer (though I suspect neither option is totally workable).

        I would think that developing an NHS-like program that bankrupts the country in an unsalvageable way does more to harm everyone (including those who currently do not have healthcare). Being pragmatic isn’t immoral if you have morality as one of the conditions of your pragmatism. So, I am not saying healthcare shouldn’t be available to everyone. Instead, I am asking about the best way to get there.

        1. Carrie Allen

          Good thoughts, Andrew. Richard, you would have to expand on your thoughts more for me to respond. Thanks so much for commenting, though.

        2. Richard Gonzales

          Now that the snarkiness is out of my system, I can be a bit more thoughtful. I am interested in understanding your and Carrie’s view of pragmatism and its relationship with morality, because Carrie’s outlook in this article seemed to be a “coming to terms” with the two.

          The central focus of the Affordable Care Act is to reduce rising healthcare costs without creating a single-payer or socialized healthcare system, both impractical solutions. Healthcare will always be expensive as long as it’s a sickcare system–people go to the doctor when they need a service. At some point, we have to lay blame for high healthcare costs at the feet of those who lack personal accountability for their health. Doctors who make medical decisions based on the percentage of their work that insurance will reimburse also need to get it together.

          To my original point (with less absurdity this time). When we remove morality, isn’t there a pragmatic explanation for these policies? Same-sex civil unions will increase home ownership and strengthen civil society. Liberalized abortion laws have decreased crime rates, especially in low-income, minority communities.

          All the pragmatic talk comes from this: Salvation is becoming less and less important in a community’s collective cost-benefit analysis on these highly sensitive issues. How would you articulate against a strictly pragmatic approach when it violates your morality?

    2. Carrie Allen

      Andrew, thank you so much for sharing your NHS experience. I wish I had some of my own to cite. The healthcare problem in America is something I am very passionate about, but is also very complex. President Obama’s “Obamacare” is actually a very moderate approach to the issue. Hillary Clinton’s approach would have been way more NHS-like. I did prefer Hillary and her approach to the issue in 2008, but now that I have had 4 years to study it more I am actually not as confident that an NHS system could work, or would be best in America. I could definitely see myself changing my mind about this in the future, but for now, I think that it would have been too much of a drastic change.

      The history of healthcare is fascinating, and I really think there is something to say about the systems that were developed in each country at the height of advanced medical technology. 100 years ago people who got pneumonia often died… nowadays, you will rack up a million dollar bill before dying of pneumonia. With this said, the establishment of NHS early on in various countries, and private insurance’s in America really set the tone for what citizens feel they deserve, and also what quality of life truly means.

      In America, we want it all. We want severely brain damaged people to be kept alive with breathing machines and feeding tubes. We will go to any and all extents stay alive, many times utilizing medicines more than just healthy eating and exercise. This is a culture we have built and are comfortable with. We also expect that if we are sick, whether we have insurance or not, we will be seen right away. Many people think that this is where the “poor people” are abusing the system, but just think of ALL the different types of people who have no health insurance. College students, private contractors, people who just lost their jobs etc etc. I have worked in hospitals ever since I was 16, it’s been my life. I have seen it all. From the motorcyclist with no insurance who crashes his bike – million dollar government patient. The uninsured college student who is hit by a drunk driver while crossing the street – million dollar government patient. The middle aged diabetic who is recently unemployed and has a stoke – million dollar government patient. The uninsured mom who is not able to have decent prenatal care and who’s baby is delivered 2 months early – million dollar government patient. As you can see, life has a way of creating these million dollar patients that tax-payers are already paying for. I cannot tell you HOW MANY patients I have seen over the years who have had insurance all their life, were laid off, stressed, couldn’t afford their blood pressure medication, and had a stroke. A few weeks later they are approved for Medicaid and sent to a nursing home.

      Prevention is key. And prevention happens when people have insurance and can see a doctor.

      SO, Obama’s plan. In simple terms, he gives opportunities for everyone to be covered, and yes, forces everyone to be covered. This action may seem anti-American but really he is protecting tax-payers. Obamacare also (finally) begins to monitor the health insurance companies better. He really could do this better, but there is so much money in this business I know he could never get done what he really wanted to. But people with pre-existing conditions can be covered etc. Also, he makes certain things free of charge – yearly physicals, and women’s well-checks. This will bring more people into the doctor.

      To wrap this up, here is my points. (1) Obamacare is NOT AT ALL trying to be NHS. Obamacare is not “socialized medicine”. (2) Whether, you, I, or the Pope believes everyone should have medical care, it doesn’t matter. What matters is that the law says whoever walks into an ER and wants to see a doctor gets to see one. And if you have no way to pay for it then the taxpayers do. These are the facts, it most likely will never change because we will see dying people all over the streets, and so Obamacare is simply hoping to save money by offering the option of buying into a national plan so that people are able to see a doctor on a regular basis. Though this option does seem like NHS it’s not in two ways – it’s not free, and only a minority of the population will buy into this plan initially. I guess it could grow if the services were good, but I don’t think this is what Obama has in mind. And (3) while I do think it would be great for people to take responsibility of their own health care, I think that American health care companies are totally corrupt and evil and are taking advantage of Americans in every way possible. It’s completely ridiculous that an ultrasound cost more than $1,000, and it is an injustice that people go bankrupt every day from their health care bills. The system is the worst show of capitalism and it makes me sick to think about it. So until there is fair and balanced healthcare in this country, there is no way that I would ever encourage the growth of these companies, and therefore cannot get on board with this last statement of yours. This is also a huge reason why I don’t like Obamacare fully because I think he went too soft on these thieves and robbers. This is not only an issue for the poor, but it is for 95% of this country that cannot afford large medical bills even with insurance. It’s out of control and the GOP ever gets their hands on this again… it will honestly be tragic. I highly recommend watching “Sicko” to learn more about this issue. There is also a great PBS special called “Healthcare around the world” – it should be instant play on netflix. It’s fantastic.

      1. Andrew Kelley

        Thanks for your response Carrie. I think I can get on board with a lot of what you said although I might have some disagreements with how to get to a place where everyone is covered and health insurance companies aren’t corrupt.

  3. Patrick

    Brilliant!

  4. Raymond Morehouse

    Mandatory charity (i.e. socialist economics) isn’t in reality charity, and so no amount of state-mandated social care will ever fulfill the obligations of Matthew 25 (and I agree with John that this passage refers specifically to aid to Israel rather than charity in general). So that can’t really be on the table. Christians of any political persuasion should never breathe a sigh of relief that their mandatory taxes fulfill their personal obligations before God. I fear that arguments like yours imply that voting Democrat and writing an obligatory check to the IRS once a year makes a person more charitable or concerned for “social justice.”

    Further, I find it DEEPLY hypocritical to claim to be pro-life in its most robust sense and continue to support Obama. Including the abortion issue, Obama has expanded America’s violence-based, economically-motivated foreign policies beyond the atrocities of the Bush era to unprecedented levels. A claim to be “pro-life” and support this president (or Romney for that matter) is dishonest. A claim to “hate war, [and] the death penalty” makes no sense alongside of support of Obama, who has expanded the war on terror through military action and calculated assassinations (included one American citizen!).

    1. Reginald Jones

      Obama is a Christian.

      Romney is a Mormon.

      Why are people who are so tied to their Christianity in voting, not voting for the Christian?

      1. Alfred

        It might be because of Obama’s pro-abortion, anti-family, pro-crippling debt policies.

      2. Karen

        What makes you believe Obama is a Christian?

    2. James Lin

      Wouldn’t tithing be considered a “mandatory charity.” Most churches and church communities require 10% of their earnings to go to their religious community. Though I doubt the people who disagree with the idea that taxes for those in need actually pay their 10%

      I think the bigger issue here is greed.

      So at the end of the day, if you don’t agree with the idea of the Government spending your hard earned money on those who need it. I encourage you to actually GIVE to a helpful organization, and not just use this opinion as a reason to keep as much as you can.

      1. Carrie Allen

        Thanks for your thoughts, James! I agree!

      2. Raymond Morehouse

        Your insight into tithing is precisely my point: a mandatory tithe isn’t charity. The concept of a tithe is the erroneous misapplication of Old Covenant Mosaic laws to the New Covenant community. For Paul’s position of giving see 1 Cor. 9: give what you want to and give cheerfully, otherwise bother.

        1. Raymond Morehouse

          Whoops! Its 2 Cor. 9

    3. Carrie Allen

      Hi Raymond, thanks for your comment. I am having a hard time responding to you because some of your claims seem a little extremist. I think it is fair to say that if President Obama calculated the assassination of an American I would have heard about that.

      I understand your confusion about me being pro-life and supporting Obama. Though I think it’s fair for me to bring up the fact that since Roe vs. Wade in 1973, we have seen 5 Republican presidents serve terms (vs. 3 Democrats) and no one has ever changed abortion rights in America. For me to think that this could start now with a Romney/Ryan ticket would be, I dare to say, naive of me. I also think your above statement is unfair because I do think that if you get to say I am not pro-life for supporting Obama, then I get to say you are not pro-life for supporting Bush and his wars. In my mind, neither of those statements are truly fair, but I hope this puts us on more of an equal playing field.

      So anyway, thanks for the thought provoking comments!

      1. Raymond Morehouse

        On September 30th, 2011 Anwar al-Aulaqi and Samir Khan, both American citizens, were deliberately killed on Obama’s orders by a drone strike in Yemen. On October 16, 2011 al-Aulaqi’s 16 year old son, another US citizen, was also killed in a drone strike. This was major news. 5 seconds on Google will get you all the major articles, and the ongoing story of the family is seeking justice in our court system.

        I think you make the mistake of thinking that there are only two choices: either Pro-Obama or Pro-Romney. I think my comment makes it clear that I am ANTI both. I am anti any war-for-profit (Iraq or Libya!) If your sincere desire is to be pro-life in the way you describe you will have to make the hard choice to stop supporting the status-quo created by BOTH political parties.

    4. Carrie Allen

      Raymond,

      I didn’t respond to you at first because I thought you were cRaZy. Haha, now you blog here, so whoops!

      We would have to talk in person to rid you of all the Fox News brainwashing. Until then, lets agree to disagree?

  5. Amy

    Carrie, this is wonderful. I recently “came out” to my closest friends and family as being not as republican as they (although most of them already knew/suspected as much).

    I am anti-abortion (and I hate the term pro-life because, like you, I don’t think it really describes the republican platform at all). I agree with my republican friends that the legalized murder of unborn baby is reason enough not to vote democrat. But it makes me sick to the stomach to see how many people who call themselves Christians don’t support the democrats’ desire to help the poor, protect the environment, and promote peaceful solutions instead of war. I’m not saying Obama did all these things, but this is the platform he got elected on and the other guy is too afraid to speak out on these issues because he knows they are unpopular with the party that nominated him.

    I agree with Raymond that the primary responsibility to help the poor, protect the environment, and even to turn the other cheek rests with individual Christians, and no amount of government legislation can substitute for that. But I loved Carrie’s example of the kid diagnosed with cancer. There’s only so much the church CAN do, and I think it’s great to have the government step in where churches cannot.

    1. Carrie Allen

      Amy, thanks for your comments. I am happy to hear from you as this is why I really wanted to publish this blog post – not so much to fight with people, but to have a conversation about how this issue is so difficult for Christian’s to navigate. It is not at all clear-cut in anyway, and no party represents Christian beliefs on a whole (I believe). I am glad you liked my example because that is one thing I have a hard time convincing people of – how it works in real life. The church could just never cover those kinds of costs.

  6. Becky

    It is entirely possible to be a Christian, have a heart for the poor AND still be against government welfare programs in the way that they are handled today. My belief is that I am to be like Jesus and I am to care for the less fortunate, and that it is NOT a requirement of my federal government to do so. I feel a little judged in my opinion by others who don’t agree

    1. Carrie Allen

      Becky, thanks for the comment. I totally hear you and I am judged for my beliefs all the time too. I definitely understand your position as I was once there. I think that sometimes different life experiences lead us in a journey where we stand for different things. God has made us all unique in this way, and I am thankful that you are concerned for the poor and the less fortunate.

  7. Donna Magana

    Carrie, I love your passion and this article shows that you are clear-headed and fair in your opinions. As a conservative American, I identify myself as a Republican only because that is the party that most closely matches my beliefs in what is best for our country. However, I see that you (and others) fall under the false assumption that Republicans don’t care about the poor. Nothing could be further from the truth. We just don’t agree on the circumstances in which help should be given and the amount of taxpayer dollars that should be allocated. Too many Americans (and a large amount of illegal aliens) have the dreaded “entitlement mentality” and I’m really not happy that a whopping one-third of my hard earned paycheck goes to fund these types of programs.

    I agree that the church has fallen short in helping the truly poor. I remember a situation at church years ago when we were at a mid-week service. A man and his wife (strangers) came in asking for a little “Christian” charity for the homeless couple. The discerning pastor told them we wouldn’t give them cash, but would pay for them to spend the night in a decent hotel and help get them back on their feet. The response from the man was “thanks for nothing” and off they went to their next victim. If the government was this discerning with our money, then Republicans would be much more supportive of social programs.

    Keep up your good work and desire to spread the gospel. That is our most important social responsibility.

    1. Carrie Allen

      Bryan’s Mom? You’re awesome. I love this comment. Thanks so much for being honest with me. I totally understand where you are coming from. I honestly, really do respect this opinion. I understand that Christians have different interpretations about these matters, and I don’t want to say you hate the poor in any manner.

      There are so many things in this comment that I am not sure where to start. So, I am just going to end here. You brought up many good points – all points I want to address over time in different posts so I really hope you will keep reading and commenting.

  8. Peter

    Simple economics will tell you that this “free” money and “distribution of wealth to the poor” in fact, is NOT FREE. Money that is printed and wasted like Obama’s policies including his 90BILLION to fund companies that went bankrupt, will come with a heavy heavy price tag.

    Keep voting for policies like this guy if you want – but know that the money you earn will soon be only used for toilet paper.

  9. Chris

    While I trust and believe that you strive to follow Jesus and seek His input in all things, in this case politics, I think you may have limited yourself and bought into the whole “republicrats” and “democritians” being a sorta agent of morality. There is so much wrong with both parties and essentially they are just different sides of the same coin. I would challenge you to look past the party affiliation and look at the person. I also challenge you to look at the 5 other candidates. Most importantly though, we must remember no matter who is president Jesus is still king!

    1. Carrie Allen

      Thank you for your thoughts and challenges, Chris! I really appreciate your feedback.

  10. Nathan

    Carrie,

    I’m glad to see a Christian “come out” of the political closet and express why you believe being a democrat does not mean anti-Christian. I spend a little too much time explaining to Christian Republicans that democrats are not evil, they just have a different idea of what works and those ideas can fall under the Christian umbrella as well. My main issue, however, is not with the general idea of having a government collect taxes from people and then disperse them to those in need, it’s that they are very, very bad at it. For every ten dollars taken in, 3 of that might go to benefit those in need, and we really don’t know if that much because Governments also have problems with transparency.

    Our country is in extreme debt and it is only going up, until our money system crashes and we can’t print anymore money and who knows what will happen then. One thing we can count on is that medicare, medicaid, obamacare, and many other government systems that too many people (or will soon) count on (and many lazily rely on) will be gone because they spend and spend and never pay anything off. In an individual’s life this is equivalent to getting as many credit cards as possible and paying for hotel rooms and food and clothing for as many of the needy as we can, until that limit is hit and there is no more money. Then those people are back out on the streets with nothing. Not quite what I felt like Jesus was trying to convey when he spoke using our talents in Matthew 25:14-30.

    I also agree with many of the comments that you are misinterpreting Matthew 25:31-46. The nations will be gathered (nations meaning everyone, not specific countries) and those who accepted Him and His disciples are the sheep and those who did not are the goats. Through your interpretation, we are given eternal punishment or reward by our works and not our faith.

    I don’t believe Obama is trying to run our country into the ground, but the idealistic ideas that he follows, and that you follow, will not realistically work with our government. Smaller government has to be the direction or we face not having any government at all.

    1. Carrie Allen

      Hi Nathan, thanks for your comments. I really do hear what you are saying, and I am not sure how the heck our government is going to get us out of debt. I have many fears over this too, and I really do respect a lot of the more Libertarian arguments for smaller government.

      For me personally, I think it would be impossible to meet all the needs of those truly impoverished without many of these programs and so that’s why I don’t think a smaller government model would work. This is just my opinion formed by my own personal experiences and studies.

      I mean, at this point I think we need to accept the fact that America has gotten themselves into a big problem. The facts show our money goes to social security, defense, health care (at 20% each) and then 16% to the safety net. Statistics show that safety net expenses are decreasing now that more jobs are being created. I believe that Obamacare will cut costs to healthcare (and this would take up a whole other blog entry for me to explain – see Andrew’s comment for more). Hopefully pulling ourselves out of some useless wars will help in the defense area – and well social security… we are in trouble there.

      When I take a big look at this picture I really believe that education is our answer. If we are providing the opportunity for an education to everyone (even those who cannot afford it) then we will have less and less people who rely on healthcare, safety nets, and SSI/SSDI. I am lucky enough to have slid right through community college at $9 a unit, and am completing a masters degree and will most likely never need to depend on a government program. BUT, this is because I relied on every and all government assistance to get through college. Anyway, I am rambling on here. We have a difference of opinions and I really do hear you. Thanks for having this chat with me! I love talking to more Libertarian leaning folks than Republicans, because I really don’t think Romney is very small government minded (not as much as Ron Paul at least).

      PS. I explained my Matthew 25 stuff above.

  11. Sean

    The social justice that Democrats promote is not the biblical model. From OT gleaning to NT widows, people were expected to work and contribute even in their need. Our welfare system provides far more incentive for unbiblical, self destructive behavior than anything else.
    And I don’t mean to sound overly morbid, but if you actively support politicians who advance abortion, isn’t that blood still on your hands?

    1. Carrie Allen

      Hi Sean, thanks for your comments. I hear this question a lot. But I always have many ways to turn it around on people. If you are actively supporting Republicans then do you have everyone’s blood on your hands that died in the Iraqi War? Not being sarcastic… just honestly asking you.

      1. Sean

        The short answer is ‘yes’, you bear the responsibility of what you vote for (I don’t vote, however). But this isn’t exactly apples to apples considering the Americans who died in the war were volunteers. Also, wars are not inherently sinful, there are many circumstances where they can be justified as an unfortunate but necessary sacrifice. That’s not to say this war was justified, but its simply not comparable to ripping a baby limb from limb. Do you have another answer besides turning the question around?

  12. To those who are arguing that social safety net policies get abused, one of the things that I’ve been challenged on recently is to recognize that just about any policy will be abused by some on one side or the other. The rich will abuse tax breaks by not giving to the poor. The poor will abuse welfare by taking it as a handout instead of a hand-up. The poor just end up being the ones who take the hit.

    The reality of abuse, then, shouldn’t be the measure of a social policy. Rather, we should think about whether or not the good outweighs the abuse. For example, while Obamacare will cause a lot of money (Democrats who pretend that it will actually save money in roundabout ways are just being silly, so far as I can tell), it will also give health care to a lot of people who otherwise simply would not be able to afford it (Republicans who pretend that it will actually make health care less attainable in some roundabout ways are just being silly, so far as I can tell). And for me, that’s a net gain. I want the poor to have access to health care, even if it costs me more. And that’s because I’m a Christian.

    In any case, the abusers are a bad measure of the policy in most cases, unless they outweigh the beneficiaries.

    That said, I also think that it’s much harder to measure the effects of social policies intended for the poor than both sides make it out to be. Throwing money at the poor often really doesn’t help. Keeping money from the poor doesn’t either. Why? Well, because that’s because these are massively complex issues regarding massively complex communities filtered through massively complex bureaucracies. So of course the answers aren’t simple. And that’s where I sympathize with the thinking of both sides.

    Also, I still think it’s hard to overstate the importance the abortion issue morally, which sways me heavily Republican.

    In any case, good post Carrie. We agree on much more than perhaps you often realize/I often make clear!

    Andrew

    1. Carrie Allen

      I like what you have to say here Andrew, and I appreciate all of our conversations on these issues.

      I am excited at the prospect that you are really thinking critically about these things (instead of getting just really offended and not listening like some people tend to do). I am also excited because I think I do have ways to prove to you that:

      (1) Obamacare will save money. Gasp! Or at least, I think it should if everything goes as planned. In one of my old jobs, one of my favorite things to do was to watch the bills of uninsured people in the ICU hit the millions mark. Most of them were admitted for something that could have been prevented with a doctors visit, but alas, if they have no insurance they can’t visit a doctor. Also, Obamacare puts prices on things, and this helps private companies to stop charging $10 for a bandaid (so taxpayers don’t have to pay $10 for bandaids anymore). But anyway, this is a long conversation.

      (2) I think I can prove to you that giving money to the poor through welfare systems actually DOES help them more than you know. And in some cases, is essential to survival. As a social worker, we know that these programs have terms, and will not support our clients forever and so while they are receiving certain benefits for those short amounts of time, we try to find them jobs etc. You cannot receive food stamps forever.

      (3) Yes, abortion is a difficult issue. There is a lot to say about this, but one thing that I want to say is that I find it so ironic that GOP’ers want people to be individuals and not rely on government, but then want to get rid of abortion. If a teenage girl who lives with her drug addict mother becomes pregnant, she might convince herself that getting abortion is the right thing to do so she doesn’t have to rely on government funding. I feel like so often the Republican party can take this stance like, “well you can’t get an abortion, so you should just stay preggo for 9 months and then give your kid up for adoption.” On the other hand, Democrats say, “get an abortion.” This is where both parties have it terribly terribly wrong and are just completely unrealistic of the realities of these situations. So it’s frustrating. So what do we do with these mothers who are not financially prepared for a baby but don’t want to choose abortion or adoption? Many Christian conservatives beg for these women to not have abortions but then just want to throw them to the wolves after. It’s disgusting.

  13. Carrie Allen

    Hi Everyone – I really appreciate all the comments received so far. Being inspired by DA Carson’s lecture at UC Berkeley last night, I love that this conversation seems to be headed towards a civil debate.

    Though most of my intent for this blog was to encourage those who have similar feelings as I, there might be a place where we can talk about other issues further. This blog is not intended to change someone’s position or tell someone they don’t care about poor people because they vote Republican, but more just to tell MY story.

    One theme I see coming up a lot is welfare being a crutch, and the idea that people should not be relying on government assistance. I do agree that the system can be abused, but I also wish that people had more knowledge on the way welfare is designed to not be a crutch. So maybe that might be something we can talk about more here. I will also most likely address my Matthew interpretations as well. Please keep your comments coming as I would love to hear from all different kinds of people and opinions.

  14. Thanks for sharing your heart, totally agree that Christians need to remember the poor. I think Republicanism can and should have helping poor people central to their campaign. I’ve actually worked for FEMA, and found it completely inefficient and unhelpful. And I think a bigger government works the same way.

    When you look through our history, America was strongest when it embraced more capitalistic ways. Poor people are helped most when they have freedom to build their own life. There is a reason you don’t see Americans “escaping” to Cuba, and it is because communism and strong central governments just do not work!

    I’m not sure what the solution is exactly, and I love that you pointed to Christ as our ultimate hope, because that is the real truth. I just think there is a better chance of helping the poor by empowering them to help themselves and each other. Popular republicanism has lost sight of that, I think, which is sad for me. And I can’t stand that christians have wrapped themselves up with a group most of the world seems as greedy and rich.

    Anyway, I’m not stringing together much cohesiveness, so I’ll just stop. Thanks again for sharing.

    1. Carrie Allen

      Evan, thanks! I think you have some really good points here. After this last hurricane we experienced I was so overwhelmed by FEMA’s debt and the outlook of the program… it’s quite overwhelming.

      I have also thought a lot about our history and capitalistic ways. I think the issue becomes more difficult for me as time goes on and the population grows. It’s a very difficult topic and I really appreciate you taking time to give me your thoughts. Trust me, I don’t have it all figured out, and I don’t think I need to try to do so because like I said, the gospel is more important. I agree with most of what you’ve said here. Thanks for the conversation!

  15. Stephanie

    I became way more socially liberal after doing a project on, of all things, progressive dispensationalism (at Talbot, in Dr. Saucy’s class… what! what!) The assignment was to read a bunch of Old Testament passages and, more or less, talk about what it might mean for the church and Israel. I almost couldn’t finish the paper because I was just struck with how much God cares about the poor. It is all. over. the Bible and I’d just never seen it before. I remember going to one of my undergrad profs at Biola and basically asking him, “has this been here the whole time!? What have I been doing!? What is the church doing!?” and so began my career in social welfare:)

    I feel like I have to add my two cents because as a student/professional in the public social welfare field, I work all the time with people on public assistance. And, like Carrie said, the public welfare system is actually designed to NOT be a life long crutch. There is actually a movement to no longer call it “welfare”; in Orange County, CA it is called “self sufficiency.” Granted, a name change is not a system change and I’ll be the first to admit that all our systems and programs are broken and dysfunctional, but, at an organization ethos level, the push is towards helping remove obstacles to employment and helping people find jobs. CalWorks (California’s version of TANF) has eligibility requirements and benefit caps that put time frames on the amount of time a person has to receive services. Yes, people find ways to cheat the system, but I’ve seen way more people actually benefit from these services and find employment, keep food on the table and a roof over their kid’s heads. On the flip side, people fail to comply with the program requirements and lose their eligibility and benefits. And, just like any government program, the process of qualifying for services can be super complicated, impacted and confusing. So, it is not as “easy” and “handout-ish” as it used to be or people might think it is.

    So, handout? Yes, sometimes. An easy handout? Not most of the time. Designed to get people from “welfare to work? In theory. Successful? Sometimes.

    Thanks for the great dialogue! These are such important topics and there is so much misunderstanding and assumption making on both sides of these issues. It’s encouraging to see that people care, even though we might disagree on what taking care of the poor and marginalized actually looks like:)

    1. Carrie Allen

      Steph, thanks for always having such great comments.

      First, I just love that you brought up the issue of easy handouts. A facebook friend of mine wrote the other day something about a lady buying two ipods with her EBT card while talking about how she had no food. I was so angry for the whole rest of the day because not only are people just hateful, but they are also ignorant. I remember one time the lady ahead of me in the grocery store was trying to buy soy milk with her EBT card and it wouldn’t work because it wasn’t a real milk product. There are so many lies going around about what welfare is, who uses it, and how to get it… it drives me crazy.

      And then finally, I love your last statement to me about what taking care of the poor looks like. Stephanie, I don’t even know what it looks like! I think I change my mind every day. But I think the point is is that I care, and I am willing to fight for their rights. And I know you are too! 🙂

  16. I really liked this article, Carrie. Thanks for sharing some of your history and a clear window into your thoughts. I’m also a Fuller person 🙂 My wife is in the PsyD program there, and we lived right across the street from campus from 2006-2012. Being there (if only as a spouse) really shaped me. I came in with a strong leaning toward one party. Now I resonate with what you said. “Obviously, not really, but mostly.” It’s still hard to overcome the one-party environment I grew up in, but what I really want to do – is to vote on each preposition, each office – based on research and conscience. And then, like you said, I want to put my trust in God rather than in man. Excellent article. thanks.

    1. Carrie Allen

      Addison, thanks so much for your reply. We must have definitely crossed paths at Fuller because you were there when I was there! 🙂

      I really appreciate your comments.

  17. Kathy

    Hi Carrie

    you sound like me, especially when it comes to peace, social welfare and equal rights for women. It’s hard to come out then as a Christian who is Pro-life and such, but this makes more sense to me in my heart and when I read the Bible.

    1. Carrie Allen

      Kathy,
      Thanks for your thoughts. It’s such a hard topic to deal with. It’s interesting, when I talk to my very secular and liberal friends and colleagues, they often like to remind me, “hey, we hate abortion too.” Even though they struggle with when life begins, they still know that abortion is not the most wonderful thing in the world.

      What is important to me, as a Christian, and as a woman, is to focus on the prevention of these unwanted pregnancies. I don’t think abortion will ever become illegal again, and I think it’s time we accept this, and come at it from a different route. But I think it’s also important to take a stand for pro-life, but like I said… pro-life meaning every human life.

  18. clark

    Carrie, thank you for posting your blog. i’ve read the replys thus far and this is a needed discussion. Like others have posted i agree the the Matthew 25 passage is meant for individual believers, not nations or governments. The “All the nations will be gathered” refers to God bringing ALL people before him for judgement. Not just about the Nation Israel, but how we as individuals have treated people around us that are in need. We all have responsibility, either individually or collectively to notice those around us who are in need and do what we can to help them. Not just trust that the Gov’t will take care of them. We’ve lost this in our country and all over the globe. What is the history of hospitals (healthcare)? In the middle ages Churches or other religious institutions were the ones who took care of the sick, poor and needy. They were refered to as hostels, almshouses, etc. and were open to all. There was not government system to take care of the sick and the needy, that was left up to the Church. Likewise the history of social welfare is rooted in the Church, before gov’t took over the role. Members of a cogregation would tithe and this “revenue” would go toward the care of the sick and the needy. Of course the tithe can be compaired to a tax from the Church. The OT and NT discussed provisions for the poor.

    The current governmental system for taking care of the sick and the poor is unsustainable in the US. There is no accountability in the system because the government is too far removed and the recipient is often anonymous and not accountable. Previously communities took care of their own and knew who was truely in need and who was ‘gaming the system.’ I agree that we need to be generous and champion the downtroddened, but i’m not sure large federal programs are the way to meet the needs of ‘widows and orphans in distress.’

    1. Carrie Allen

      Hi Clark,

      Thanks for your comment!

      I also agree with you, I am not for sure that large federal programs are the way to meet the needs of widows and orphans, but I am also not sure if we could come up with anything better.

      I do disagree that welfare recipients are anonymous. Accountability could be argued. I don’t like how many people think it’s so easy to go on welfare. Ever since I began an internship at a children’s hospital, I often cannot sleep at night because I know some of my single mom’s have kids with cancer and are homeless, or have a home but literally have zero dollars in their bank account. And it takes me MONTHS to get them on any kind of welfare and when they can get it it’s about $500 a month. Really? How does a mom support a child with leukemia on $500 a month?

      Your comment about the history of the church and Christians taking care of the poor, while true, are also not the norm. History shows us there has always been people living in extreme poverty. Back then they would just die of pneumonia or other disease. There wasn’t money for hospitals.. it was just accepted. It could be like that today in America. It goes on all over the world. But is that who we are as Americans? I saw Les Miserables this week and was reminded of that kind of poverty. I think without our welfare programs today, that is the kind of poverty we would be facing.

      Thanks for your thoughts… I would be interested to know what your thoughts are on my response.

  19. Rick Hollar

    Carrie, if you study history you will find the negative results of different governments with too much power. A government that is too large – larger than the equilibrium amount – has devastating effects on the people it “governs”, or dictates. I, just like you, want the utilitarian best for all. A large government is not the solution, more a quick fix like buying your child a sucker to keep her from crying. This approach is not realistic, nor is it ideal. Enacting an unrealistic NHS on everybody is the start of a very slippery slope to the end of American liberty and life as we love it. Saying insurance companies are fraudulent is incorrect and insulting to me – a very generic stigmatizm you give the insurance industry. I know you mean well but I’m afraid some of your ideals and actions are too liberal for reality. Capitalism is the nature of the beast that allows you the opportunity to seek expensive education to obtain your M.A. In “social welfare”. I would personally suggest that perhaps you would be less hypocritical in your post regarding political policies that provide the best outcome for Americans. Thank you very much for your post and your passion for the people, you are a great American. God Bless

    1. Carrie Allen

      Hi Rick,

      I appreciate your comments here. I think we would disagree on many things, but could also agree on some.

      First off, I don’t think Obamacare is anything like NHS. I actually wish we could have an NHS in the US, but I don’t think Obama could ever get that passed through Congress. There is too much money in the insurance industry to overcome those companies.

      Second, when it comes to the health insurance companies, I am sorry you feel insulted, but this is something I will never back down on. I believe they are corrupt to the core, and I will literally fight against them until the day I die.

      Third, I don’t think big government is a bad thing, if big government is defined as a place where there is Obamacare and welfare.

      Fourth, my ideas are not too liberal for reality. Half of the country lives in this reality. Each of the halves thinks the others are delusional, and that is where I have to shake hands with the other side and have conversations like this. These are good conversations to have.

      Fifth, capitalism may have been the nature of the beast to allow me my MA, but then they should stop all higher education opportunities for middle and lower class people because we are learning is how to fight against that beast. Oh wait, they already are turning higher education back into a upper class privilege! 😉

      Sixth, I am not sure how I am being hypocritical?

      And finally, the Republican party does not provide the best outcomes for Americans. I think if they did, they would have won the election. Thoughts?

  20. […] added writer Carrie Allen’s post, “I’m (Obviously Not Really But Yeah Mostly) Democrat” did very well. No two writers for The Two Cities think alike when it comes to politics and […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *