if you're gonna put it out there...

one of the things i'm willing to accept as part of blogging/posting, is an alternate point of view. my mom threw one up on my uberlong post last night, and i was grateful for it. i didn't agree with her assessment of why i was voting the way i did. but i was appreciative of her views, and her reminder of God's heart and anger expressed in Jeremiah. i'm fully in agreement with her on that, so no worries there.

so...this was put out there today by a friend of mine who attends a christian college here in the city. actually, he might be done now, but that's beside the point. it would probably not have illicted a response were it not for one word he assigned to these 10 points.

truths.

i guess the original author, a conservative christian pastor born late last century, originally called the The Ten Cannots, likely a play on the ten commandments. here's a little paragraph my friend posted about him.

William J. H. Boetcker (1873 – 1962) was an American religious leader and influential public speaker. An outspoken political conservative, Rev. Boetcker is perhaps best remembered for his authorship of a pamphlet entitled The Ten Cannots. Originally published in 1916, it is often misattributed to Abraham Lincoln.

by now some of you probably think i look for the word conservative and go chasing after whatever i find. not true. i really would probably have looked past this as something written many years ago, in a pre-civil rights era...in a time still massively dominated by white males politically, socially, and spiritually. i know where the author is coming from. like i said a few posts ago...i'm from there, too.

but my friend wrote at the top of his note, before listing the 10 cannots, that "These ten truths are timeless, but are especially pertinent today as we elect the next leader of these united States."

what made me bristle was that word truth. they are being presented as absolute truth...they are timeless...they are proven...they are espoused originally by a christian preacher who was also a political conservative...which makes them near gospel in this day and age. a couple of these are true...the ideas behind them are straight out of scripture. but several of them have no basis in scripture, and would more likely be counter to what the Gospel really is.

here are the 10 cannots, followed by my thoughts on several of them. truth, in this case, is based on where you stand, or live, or work. truth for the author and for my friend is not the same truth for me, the people around whom i work and live, and millions of others. these things would be hugely important to mull over and meditate on if you were on the upside of these 10. but if you were on the downside, it would be hard to swallow these whole without the massive amount of sugar that usually accompanies such thoughts.

The 10 Cannots

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.

You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.

You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.

You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.

You cannot establish security on borrowed money.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves.



i understand where the thoughts are coming from...the mindset. but it remains that these are thoughts held by people with resources, not by people without them.


You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

this had been the cause of rebellions throughout history. this country was founded by people who gained strength by weakening the strong. the trouble is, since that founding it's been primarily used (the quote idea) to keep people in their place. slaves were told it would be better for them to not resist. women were told to keep their places and their tongues. workers were told that if they didn't continue to work in whatever manner or length of day the strong wanted, that they would lose their jobs and new people would be found who would put up with it. this of course happened after the "free" labor we "imported" was no longer available...whether african, irish, chinese, or whatever. resistance to this phrase was the birthplace of civil rights, suffrage, and labor unions believe me, there are many people who think we'd be better off without all three of those things.

You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.

another one used to keep wealth with the wealthy. it's not about giving. it's about oppression. those with decide, while those without live in the consequences. recent history has banks and brokerage houses deciding, leaving those without to suffer. and the message sent down via a 750 billion dollar bailout package was "you cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich." but the poor man will suffer either way through this. they do not say to themselves "well, i am poor and i suffer, but at least those with money will not suffer." they say "i am poor and i suffer and it does not matter what i do, i will always suffer." and the rich man does nott say "why, look at the people suffering. i should help." for the most part they do not think of those people at all, as they are able to spend their lives primarily without ever coiming in contact with them. and if, by chance, they are moved to give, they endow the arts and parks and things which are disappearing which need to be preserved. i'm all for that preservation. but God's heart is for the preservation of the oppressed.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

class hatred already existis. and it is not solely poor hating rich. in fact, most poor long to be like and hang out with the rich. most rich long to stay away from, be removed from the poor. their plight is their own fault and they are "fill in the blank." it's a little funny. Jesus told of the man in temple who looked over to see a poor man and his prayer was "thank you God that i'm not like that guy." i was in staff meeting today and our vp said, regarding a discussion we were having on abortion, pregnancy, welfare..."the upper classes hate these people." they definitely don't love them. at best they hate them. at worst, they're indifferent, having no thought toward them at all.

You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.

this has been the rallying cry of privileged people everywhere. in other words, "welfare is the blight of the land. we have created people dependent on handouts, and have kept them from developing the good old anglo work ethic." the trouble is, if you look at people with privilege, you'll be more hard pressed, in my opinion, to find character and courage than if you look at people regarded as lacking initiative and independence. this one could have a book written on it...already has, i'm sure. and independence...why is a christian espousing the idea of independence? that's an individualistic, personal piety view that regards each man as responsible for their own plight. that will not be found in scripture. instead you will find a lot of God continually asking his people to fight for justice...to care for the needs of naked, hungry, thirsty, oppressed people. the church, as described in acts 2 had people who were apparently dependent on others to give. and people did it. sure, they weren't forced, as you stated. but i assume that you're talking about taxation when you talk about the money we're forced to give. well, you gotta give that either way. free market capitalism isn't the way of the Bible. it's share the wealth. it's not well, let's build character and courage into these people by not helping. that character and courage will come from discipleship, and i daresay we in the church could just some massive doses of both.

You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.

again, i think small men might disagree. few big men in history have been servants. more have been oppressors. more have imposed injustice. and if we are to do justice, which is action, as stated in micah 6:8, and not just not do injustice, which is passive, then that means tearing down some big men. it might even mean tearing down some big men who really help keep things the way we like them because the way we like them is oppressive to small men. migrant workers, and the businesses that support them, and our love and need for low prices comes to mind. corporate activities that allow us to have what we want at the expense of the rain forests or oceans or foreign workers comes to mind. tearing down these big men, even presidents, vice presidents, and secretaries of defense who fabricate causes for war and who orchestrate massive deception for any number of reason...oil, colonization, etc. and hide it as humanitarian while uganda and sudan and a dozen other places suffer atrocities that are unmatched...even they need to be pulled down. it is the hope of big men everywhere that small men will believe that line.

You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.

unions would disagree. now, unions have become just as corrupt, but the fact is that wage payers exploited wage earners badly before unions. and wage payers now fight to keep from seeing unions happen in their businesses. see walmart, a shining example of the big man wage payer if there ever was one. but we love them because our grocerly/clothing/electronics bill is so much lower. what we would like to remain ignorant of is that those discounts are costing someone. and they are not the only ones. coca cola was hit about 10 years ago with a 150 million dollars judgment brought by women of color who were not paid as their counterparts were...who were passed over for promotions. and now, because coca cola took that 150 million to heart (money drives it all), they are now in the top three companies in the country with regard to diversity and equity in pay and promotion regardless of race or gender. wage earners taking to the wage payer.  a study of Foxconn in China might also help explain why this isn't true.

You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income. (find it in proverbs)

You cannot establish security on borrowed money. (find this one in proverbs, too)

but be reminded, you cannot establish security with money, period.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves.

this is the old "God helps those who help themselves" verse. except it's not a verse. it's just a ideology. God doesn't say stop helping if the people won't help themselves. none of His commands like that regarding caring for the oppressed, marriage, working, whatever...none of them come with a "do this, if..." statement. it's a way out of the loop for us. we say, well, they just won't learn, they just won't get motivated, so i'm done with them. it's a messed up ideology. but it's easy for us. because it, again, makes everything individual...everything their responsibility. we work. we earn. we save. so we are taken care of. but we think we know the ideology of the oppressed..that they are looking for handouts. that they want to be paid for doing nothing. that is a worldview we hold because we haven't experienced the truth close up. we gather and guess from a distance. a safe distance. because safety is key.

i don't know this guy's life story...this William Boetcker. but i can guess pretty well, him being a white conservative evangelical. actually, i don't have to guess. i was one for most of my life. the funny thing is, i'm still white. i'm still conservative (theologically, not politically), and i'm still an evangelical. i just couldn't be further from the 10 truths this guy wrote. they may be truths, but they're not absolute truths. their relative truths...relative to where he stood. i'm standing somewhere completely different.