ADBC: 31 – Welfare, Russia And The Three Are One, Right?

Here’s the premise of the conversation.

Previously in the conversation: My brother went to town on explaining the role of instruction and commanding in the home. I really believe a lot of what he’s shared in the series of the conversation collated would support people a lot with great wisdom when it comes to the dynamics of a household from the state of the marriage to the interaction between parent and child. It’s quality reading, well worth your time reading. As well as that, though, he put together a tour de force on the issue of liberty being a myth for the purpose of subjection. Marvellous written words are found here to provoke thought and further conversation on underlying concepts that we take for granted and fuel a lot of what people take as the norm. It’s this interrogatory work that is so lacking when we engage in conversations about matters we know so little about but feel so entitled to offer the benefit of our ignorance. My brother’s work is very good at stopping me in my tracks ad getting me to think things through more carefully. That’s why I urge you to do the same with his contribution to the conversation which I highly commend you to read over here.

Engaging in the conversation calls for a degree of thought and deliberation on some fascinating questions that my brother sends my way. Will I stand up to engage with these quality questions? Here goes:

Q – Discuss the moral issues with the acts of governments and the various populaces against Russians, seizing assets, freezing accounts, ending business and stopping products, getting musicians cancelled from events because they don’t speak out against Putin. Amongst the moral issues, discuss whether the governments attacking Putin and the Russian people can be justly charged with hypocrisy in terms of wars.

There’s this picture I’ve got in my head about America in the 1950s. A range of cultural artefacts might well have influenced that picture including books and articles I read and television programmes I watched. This picture is of a country in the grip of the heights of the Cold War with the threat of atomic warfare taken very seriously. As well as the heightened fear of conflict in the armed sense, there was also the sense of a threat from within. A threat to what was presented as the core values of the land of liberty. To “protect” that way, anyone who was deemed to have socialist or communist leanings and sympathies were not just viewed suspiciously, in a number of cases they were treated as pariahs. In some industries, the easiest way to get someone fired was to whisper and hint that they were a “pinko”. There were some hearings at the congress level that looked to “root out” the communist threat. It did a tremendous job at whipping up a nationalistic fervour for the red, white and blue and how it wasn’t considered a witch-hunt by many is a bit odd to me.

I share this recollection of a picture to highlight the following. A political perspective that was never advanced as a serious alternative to the consensus of the day was treated as if it was a disease that had to be eradicated by any means necessary with little actual moral authority behind it. The fear-mongering could actually be considered as at best morally ambiguous and at worse a departure from a commitment to what is right and just.

The picture has been painted for us about what is taking place in Ukraine. Russian troops are in the country. Hundreds of thousands have been forcefully evicted or are fleeing in fear of the military movements. People are dying in conflict, significant infrastructure collapse is apparently taking place. That which is happening, according to this picture is very wrong. Seriously wrong. A sovereign nation is attacked and threatened with a hostile takeover by a foreign force.

Such is the emotive response to the videos and reports of devastation that to ask the question, “what is wrong with what the Russians are doing?” appears almost ridiculous, offensive and insensitive. So if we’re not allowed to ask that question, and if it’s to be assumed that what is taking place is wrong (and if we can put together a thoroughly substantial case), there is a bit more of a reasonable question to ask – what should be done about it? And who should do it? And what gives them the authority to do it?

Of course, there’s no time to answer these questions because as someone living in a Western country that had no problem getting involved in military conflicts for any reason they could concoct, we should see ourselves as being in the best place to act. We have the right. Cos we know right. We’re British. We’re the only ones that stood against the evil of Nazism, so we’re informed. And we’re a country based on Christian values, so we’re told. And we’re a bastion for liberty, so the story goes. So here we are ready to do something about this evil that Putin has done. What we cannot afford to do, however, is too much in the way of a military conflict as if they were a smaller country without the military infrastructure to affect us as if they were located somewhere like the Middle East to pick a random region out of the hat. We can’t do that, cos they’re big and they have weapons that could affect us and all that. So, we cannot do that, but what we can do, is “hurt” them economically.

Sanctions are placed. Monies are seized. The ability to trade in this great country of ours is severely restricted and any association with Putin makes you a pariah. You could be supporting him in the brutality he’s committing. So we got to cut those ties however we can, right? Right?

Actually, no rigorous moral argument has been put together for those actions. All that’s been implied is that it’s bad to support Putin so actions can be taken to respond to his aggressive actions. And the desired effect is to weaken Russia so that they’ll stop the conflict – but that’s not assured. There’s no guarantee of that. Indeed, the people who are affected by this won’t necessarily see sanctions being made to force withdrawal. They might be convinced to see acts of aggression against them for not doing anything about their leader. Some might also be agitated to think that what’s happening is an effort to further disrupt their way of life so that it conforms more to the way of the aggressors. That’s not a helpful message to be conveying if all you want is peace.

In terms of the charge of hypocrisy concerning the draconian measures to what appears to be anything Russian or anything that does not outright condemn everything that Putin is doing – well that hardly comes across as the actions of a liberal democracy based on human rights. Having said that, it’s not as though the record of those who are enacting these confiscations have a great track record of moral integrity. From my perspective, these are the machinations of political players who have other agendas in place and are in the position to divert attention to these actions that with sufficient media backing can be draped in the flag of the country and be sensed to appeal to virtues including what is right and how much people want peace. It can have those notions and appeals, but beneath the surface, troubling questions and the consequences for these actions are not thought through. Neither, as I intimate, are the exploration of the truth, justice and righteousness in the issue. Are we really marking ourselves out as distinct from the witch-hunts of the last century? Or are we showing more sophisticated ways of being ignorant?

Those are my brief reflections on this issue from what I believe to be a moral perspective. Bullying and aggressive tendencies to those weaker for the gain of the bully are tactics I abhor. Those are tactics that are not just seen in Eastern Europe. It does not take much to see those precepts appearing in more dignified clothing closer to home with little said about it and even less done about it other than to accept it as just the way of the world. Intriguing isn’t it? We can barely bring peace into effect in the immediacy of our own relations, but we’re given enough to get upset and uptight about the threat to peace in another part of the world as though we have a responsibility there more than elsewhere. Intriguing. But I trust God to continue to give me further wisdom and insight on these matters to take a further informed and hopefully better position on these things to get from His perspective what makes for right in His sight.

Q – The welfare state has already failed and makes failure inevitable. True or false. Explain your reasoning. You can interpret “failure” as you wish. What do you believe the aims of the welfare state to be? Do you believe they were based on good intentions and good reasoning?

Ah, the blessed welfare state. From cradle to grave, you – the inhabitant of this land – can look to the government to supply and support you.

The baby is born in the hospital set up by the welfare state. The child is monitored by the schooling system and social services set up by the welfare state. The adult can have their working lives duly taxed to support the system and in case you’re not at work you can get support from those who want to help you back into work set up by the welfare state. The aged can then be rewarded for their years of employment and feeding into the system by a pension provided by the welfare and even certain care homes set by the welfare system. In the period from the cradle to the grave, your health needs can be supported by the welfare system. Even your protection and process to see injustices resolved can be supported by the welfare system.

Someone could read that brochure and nod their head thinking that this is a good deal. Indeed there may have been noble sentiments behind it. As the industrial revolution turned the agricultural system into a factory-based system so there was great exploitation of many by a few. There may have been a desire to look out for the poor and destitute in society. There may have been a desire that none in society be left out or severely disenfranchised – the elderly, the disabled, the stranger and the orphan. There may have been a desire to establish a safety net that perhaps people on a community level could not provide. When you can muster the very engines of statecraft to work on these matters, that can make something that might otherwise have been an unreliable voluntary enterprise into something that is the norm for all who enter these fair lands. Noble sentiments.

The reality is different. Making the welfare state has instituted a mentality that suggests that care is something only nominally to be expected from parent figures and key members of the community. The force of law and weight of the scheme sees parents spending a lot more time away from their children than actually engaging with them. The upbringing is as much done by the schools that the welfare system has developed. The idea of health is designed by a system that is not about genuine wellbeing and fullness of life in the physical, mental and emotional (because of course the spiritual bit doesn’t really matter unless you subscribe to whatever new-age fad fits).

In reality, the welfare system breeds a dependence that is not liberating but in a lot of ways is inhibiting. The welfare system is so intricate, complex and administered by bureaucratic concerns and appeals to whatever buzzwords and trends of the day that the actual welfare of the individuals and communities is almost an after-thought. The somewhat compulsory nature of the system as well lends itself to the way that it’s treated as a golden calf in the system and how alternatives that encourage more personal responsibility at family and community levels are minimised and dismissed. Then there is the inevitable sense of entitlement that subsequent generations feel because of it. Entitled to benefits, entitled to support, entitled just because you’re born in a country that tells you that the state has you wrapped in its warm (cough-cough) embrace and you just have to be ready to comply with what the state requires.

I referred to the possibility of it being built on good intentions. That might have been there. But a few steps back can give an insight into how those intentions were ill-advised and actually posed a threat to the welfare of those it was supposed to support and protect. The welfare of the individual is best found in the context of the family. I say that based on my belief and understanding of how God set up the world when it came to human interactions. It’s all about the family interaction that has the sibling dynamic as well as the parent-child dynamic and the role of the elders in overseeing the collection of families in the family feeling. In that context, the family ties reinforce the need to care for each other and particularly those who are on the fringes or likely to be disenfranchised for one reason or another. This is all done out of respect for God and respect for the order He put in place that starts and ends with the family.

What the welfare state concept does is rip all of that out of its context and establish the state as God to whom all who dwell in the given confines owe their lives and eventual allegiance. The disturbing thing about this is how the impersonal, imposing influence of the state is not life-giving or life-enhancing precisely because it refuses to acknowledge and depend on the Source of life. Its refusal to do so sets itself up as an alternative to the original system. One that actually works against that which operated so well in the original set-up. It’s another grab by man to dominate and control others and do it dressed in the garb of good works. It’s a pity as well seeing as though many of those concepts and functions of the state were projects that started in the church and started from the godly premise that said that family looks out for others and embraces them into the family. The hospital. The school. These find their modern expressions rooted in the church. All the government had to do was ease it out of the hands of volunteers and make it a bureaucratic organ operating “good works” and soon that which was about heart and spirit is systematised and turned into a benevolent monster of the state.

But who are we to criticise that which we’re lived with for nearly a century? How ungrateful we are to dare to suggest such a behemoth could in any way in itself be a problem. No. The system is fine, it just needs adjustments that fit with the political trend of the day. The answer cannot be to dismantle it all together and give responsibility to the community in totality. The answer cannot be to support whatever equips people to engage as functioning members of family and community rather than another body who submits and complies to a system that does not have their best interests at heart.

In that sense, the reasoning and the basis weren’t good at all. Not good in God’s sight as I understand it anyway. Also in that sense, the welfare state is not a failure at all. It’s a rip-roaring success. It is a system designed to deliver the mess it has in society. It’s just a failure is in what it should mean by … you know … welfare.

Q – Do Christians, adherents of Judaism and Muslims worship the same god? Please explain your answer.

Heads up, in my school years I took up Religious Education as a course to study. Then when I did that, I also did Theology at A-level. Then when I did that, I also did Philosophy and Politics at degree level. That heads up is given because this kind of question is something I came across in some shape or form through all those academic studies. It’s an important question to me for a number of reasons. I’m aware of efforts made by exponents of the three religions to be closer together. to operate on the similarities that are apparently shared by them. This has even led to some making efforts to solidify relations because they appeal to similar land origins and personalities. That’s also led to some stating that Jews (please allow me to use this term to cover the reference to adherents of Judaism), Christians and Muslims worship the same God. To me, if that’s true, then it leads to a lot of questions as to how we relate to each other and the truth of who God is. On a relatively surface-level observation, if it was the case that the three religions were worshipping the same God, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to suggest that the Muslims would be the better of the three because their faith is the most recent, covers aspects of the previous two, but just so happens to offer the truth on misguided notions the other two have.

Where I’m at in terms of what I understand the tenets of the three religions to be I would even go as far as to say that it’s just not possible for the three to be worshipping the same God. Just. Not. Possible. The claims of the Jews and the Muslims come across as so antagonistic to each other that God would seriously have to be mixed up to be the same one. Seriously mixed up. The appeals to Abraham might be joined by the two, but seriously – these two people groups have some very different ideas about God to the degree that I’m comfortable saying they can’t have the same God in mind.

In between those two chronologically, of course, you have those pesky Christians who make things uber awkward with their claims about this Jesus of Nazareth. Some Christians make a lot of effort to connect with Jews because Jesus was a Jew and all the heritage of the faith is essentially based on what God reveals through the Jewish people. It’s part of the appeal of the Christian to the Jew to talk as though the same God is Father of both Abraham and Jesus. I can appreciate from a Jewish perspective, however, that this would be not just a tough pill to swallow, but also a somewhat unnecessary one to contemplate because it does not deal with their issue sufficiently. When you also take into consideration some of the essential tenets of Christianity. Such is their incompatibility with the Jewish approach that you could see why the conclusion some have to reach is that they worship different Gods. From my own view, I see Jesus as the fulfilment of all that God’s conversation through the people of Israel was leading to. I can see why that is problematic if you’re rooted in the Jewish perspective.

As a side note, there is an effort among some to go for the “all-roads-lead-to-the-same-God” approach. I can see the appeal – especially when you can smear them all with the brush that they all go for love, peace, justice, kindness and goodness. It is a lovely notion in how it relaxes any tension between what are essentially different flavours of the same ice cream. It’s all ice cream, it’s all about the dessert experience, it’s all about having a good treat. We can just live with that sense of unity whatever flavour we prefer, however much we might want some nuts and other accoutrements added to enhance the taste experience, it’s all the same at the end of the day.

The big problem with that, of course, is that it requires us to lie about those roads. It also requires us to really mess things up when it comes to the nature of God. Finally, it is something that conveniently works on the basis of us being the ultimate judge of who God is, rather than submitting to the thought that who He is is based on what He expresses that could have an exclusive nature to it. It’s for that reason that just making a cursory look at the three religions you mention that these three might say similar things on the surface in terms of monotheism and father Abraham, but the disparities are great enough to reach the conclusion that they’re not worshipping the same God and it would actually disrespect the distinctions of these faiths to try and square that circle.

---

Wowsers, bro – these were tremendous questions. I hope I’ve done justice in the responses I’ve given. Thanks for that, bro.

Here are some questions for you:

Q – A major part of man’s inhumanity to man is his decision to ignore God and see himself as the only arbiter of right and wrong. Discuss.

Q – A key outcome of the reaction to the pandemic by many in positions of power is how people will submit to tyrannical moves to suppress freedoms and economic stability for whatever a ruling authority deems to be a threat to safety. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this sentiment? Is that capacity to be conditioned and informed in a certain way without much resistance pose greater future problems?

Q – Talk about a piece of music or a song you’ve enjoyed recently and what it was about it that made it particularly enjoyable.

It is marvellous to be jousting and raising these thoughts to this level of conversation, Hesediah. Thanks for your time.

For His Name’s Sake

Shalom

C. L. J. Dryden