Skip to main content

Economics & Compassion

Economics is a complex subject that has been hotly debated for centuries.  These debates often devolve into passionate, illogical rhetoric, which should be unsurprising when we consider that economics concerns not merely theoretical numbers on pages, but the lives of actual human beings.

Conservatives are often criticized, and many times rightly so, for their dispassionate approach to economics, but Liberals must remember that poor economic policies, regardless of the motives that lie behind them, produce devastating results in the real world.  Emotional policy making, divorced from common sense economic principles, almost always harms the vulnerable classes it intends to help, no matter how zealous the policy makers and their supporters may be.

Whether we are concerned citizens on social media or public servants on Capitol Hill, we must avoid both extremes.  We should never approach economics heartlessly, as if it were merely an intellectual exercise, but it is important to remember that true compassion must account for the harsh realities of the real world.  Compassionate economic policies are not truly compassionate if they a) perpetuate the very problems they are intended (or that their proponents claim they are intended) to solve; or b) disregard the personal liberty of our neighbors.

Balance is key.  We must find a way to temper our compassion with common sense, legislating in a way that takes into consideration the individual rights of constituents and the long-term effects of our economic policies.  This is, of course, more easily said than done, particularly in a society obsessed with instant gratification and virtue signaling, but the future of our children and grandchildren depends upon it.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...
Post a Comment
Read more

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...
Post a Comment
Read more