Motives and Intent.

Stephen, thank you for sharing the additional data flow about Terrell's
written piece, it is key to understanding just how intent are those like
him.  Please understand that Ray and I, and others on this list, know people
who deeply believe that this is the way everyone should come to live, that
they do not intend to live in a secluded utopian village.

While I do not think that we could possibly have a Bush in the White House
through 2016 (Jeb after GDubya), I do think that another term for the
current occupant in the White House will empower the fundamentalists and
literalists who truly want to take everyone back to a past time, based on
the biblical structure as they interpret it.

- KWC



> Ray Evans Harrell wrote:
> ... I think it is a liberal thing to do to be
> sure that we read a few of the people who Bush listens
> to.   This man says he didn't vote for Bush.   I suspect
> Bush is too liberal for him. ...
> But I think his view is important to know and answer...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Social Security and the Family
> -----------------------------
> Timothy D. Terrell
[cut] ...
>
> The presence of Social Security can serve as an excuse for
> family members, and the church, to dodge their
> responsibilities to widows and orphans...
> ... parents may not be as concerned
> about maintaining a close relationship with their
> children, or church members with their church. When one is
> not financially dependent on another, one may be less
> inclined to resolve differences and pursue peace.
> ... the family should be the first recourse when
> disaster strikes. Social Security bypasses the church, and
> makes the church and the family unit less economically
> relevant, and therefore less effective.
>
> How, then can our society move toward a more family- and
> church-oriented system of economic dependencies, and away
> from our current dependency on the state? ...
> a renewed recognition of the mutual
> responsibilities family members and church members have
> toward one another, and a preparation to meet those needs.
>
> As difficult as the politics may be, eliminating Social
> Security is, I believe, a moral obligation. The closer we
> move to reestablishing the family as an economic support
> network, the stronger our society will be.


Gosh Ray, this fellow sounds like a (theological) crank who
thinks that "state-run" social programs should be abolished
so that people will have no choice but fall back on their
own godly resources and re-discover the importance of church
and family. No doubt.

Even so, his economic arguments don't seem very sound.
Doesn't he misconstrue the social security system as a bad
personal savings account rather than as a good insurance
scheme? Strikes me (as in RG Collingwood's wonderful image)
like being in a nightmare in which a fellow insists on
translating the Greek word for trireme as "steamship" and
then goes on and on about the Greeks' inadequate
understanding of steamships.

Besides, his theological politics is driving the argument:
church and family are the core institutions of society;
therefore, anything that takes away from their power over
our lives should be abolished. As Arthur says - here's
another "political economy", another view. I'm perfectly
happy for him to construct a utopian village of god so long
as he doesn't insist we all must live in it.

The Center for Biblical Law and Economics, of which Prof
Terrell is Director, proclaims on its web-page (correct URL:
<http://www.christcollege.org/html/cble/index.html>) that
"law and economics constitute the foundations of order in a
society, and what men think of law and economics depends on
their theology."

Further: "With a theological foundation in the Reformed
tradition, the Center presents a world view that
acknowledges the Lordship of Christ over all of life. Thus,
no law can be properly legislated, and no case properly
adjudicated, without reference to God's Word. Economics
likewise must be informed by Scripture.

"The Center for Biblical Law and Economics ... is unique in
its explicitly Reformed foundations, and its focused
approach to law and economics that probes more deeply than
more broad-based groups can."

Stephen Straker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Vancouver, B.C.



_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework


_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Reply via email to