I well remember my long-time rector (of blessed memory) saying: "There is only one thing a Christian can do entirely alone -- and that is to be damned!"

Thanks for this.

Coincidentally, here in the UK, the BBC Radio Reith Lectures this year are on the subject of "A New Citizenship", exploring ideas about the areas of our lives in which markets are or are not appropriate, and concepts such as "the common good".

Of course "self" need not mean selfishness in its most brutal sense. We can, however tentatively and ineptly, work on developing our better self, which might well find expression in community, wether micro or macro.

(Editor's note: Thanks, Reg. We need your full name next time.)

On the flip-side, however, is both the fact that God knows us each by name and deals with us on both an individual and collective basis and the fact that systems can be as inherently sinful as individuals. Simply ceding control of our lives to the government is no more the answer than rabid individualism. Like most things, a balance must be struck.

I'm also a little curious where one can find biblical basis for the assertion that "everyone is a child of God." The bible does say that everyone is a part of God's good creation, but also states things like "to all that received [Jesus], that believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God." (John 1:12) That would seem to include some and exclude others.

I'm sure I don't want a gov't enforcing left-wing ideas about religious economy any more than I want a gov't enforcing right-wing ideas about religious economy. Both are an unwelcomed intrusion of religion into the state. Both are gov't enforcing religious economy and that scares me a lot in a first amendment context. Sure, I may agree with the left (or the right, for that matter) but letting a religion I agree with make policy choices means I have to let other religions make choices, too (eg: Gay marriage in California).

You can try if you like to write a religious justification of one or the other, but I get worried about all sides when they start saying "this political party is doing more-christian things than that political party" because parties are simply doing *political* things.

It's what we do with what we have (taxed or not, used or misused by the gov't or not) that is important: not what we get the gov't to force others to do in the name of religion. If Gov't and/or theives takes 99% of my money, I'll be asked how charitable I was with the remaining 1%.

Does anyone else find it ironic that the liberals are the ones who seem to operate more concretely under the premise that the individual cannot and therefore should not fully be trusted and that the accountability and therefore shared responsibility lies in the collective?

Say, that is ironic.

No, wait, not "ironic;" what I meant was "demonstrably false." I keep getting those two mixed up.

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives....
-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood....
-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
(Source)

if we operate on the premise, “I know best what I need; therefore let me decide for myself” (i.e. small government) then we are eradicating the understanding of and belief in our tendency toward sin

In other words: "I know what's best for me" is bad, because I'm sinful. Yet, we are all sinful. So how in the world can I not trust "I know what's best for me," yet I'm supposed to trust "I know what's best for all of you"? Either way, we are at risk of the faults of fallen man. But in the former, I am responsible for the adverse effects on myself and those around me. In a collectivist society, those making the decisions are typically insulated from the effects of their decisions.

we also need government to be strong and, yes, accountable.

The only way to make government more accountable is to make it smaller. The bigger it is, the more responsibility can be spread around a group or group of committees. And when that happens, more often than not, nobody takes responsibility for anything.

(Editor's note: Thanks, Stephen. We need your full name next time.)

Let's ignore the conservative label for a moment (many of us are very tired of all the politics!) and concentrate on the equation of "decide for myself = denying the fact of sin". IMO, it's an unfounded claim. And an odd conclusion.

It is a non sequitur that assumes that someone who decides for themselves will decide wrongly (which strikes me as a very RCC attitude - Father Knows Best). For my part, when I decided to decide for myself, I chose a more progressive belief-set, not regressive.

There is an assumption on the part of McKenzie that ones who decides for themselves will make a selfish, self-absorbed decision. I pose that many, if not most, of the developments in progressive Christianity were first started by individual men and women who decided something contrary to tradition and the community - it was the community that had to be drug, kicking and screaming, onto the next milepost of the Kingdom.

I mean, if there was ever an example of an individual who rocked the status quo, it was that rabble-rouser Jesus.

I would suggest that "conservative" is a mislabel to describe what McKenzie is attempting to describe. Rather, I would opt for "hypocritical", and even then I'd dial down the rhetoric and call the recalcitrant to listen to their better angels, not condemn them.

That, and to consider that Matt. 25 was more about seeing Jesus in The Other, than obeying the community.

(Editor's note: Thanks. We need your full name next time.)