# Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators



## RamistThomist (Dec 30, 2007)

I read this book last summer. I started re-reading it again. Thesis: Ron Sider has continually preached that Christians should live below the poverty line, the federal government should play Robin Hood (er, scratch that. Robin Hood actually gave to the poor; the govt just lines its pockets), we should use our tax dollars to pay welfare in states like India, etc. All of this is under the rubric that "Jesus is on the side of the Poor."

Chilton shows that everytime you "take money" from those who actually work for it and give it to those who refuse to work, you never make the poor wealthier. You only make the rich poorer. 

Chilton also shows that some countries are poor because of their pagan faith. This means that while it is "noble" to help out the poor in _____, said problem is not really economics. It is paganism. They are slaves to pagan gods. Because of that they can never have economic prosperity until they convert. 

Chilton's response is a breathtaking combination of Austrian economics, biblical law, and outstanding rhetoric. While I do not accept his postmillennialism, this book is a fine intro to: 1) economics (it is like a small textbook), 2) biblical law.

Bottom line: This book has never been answered by Ron Sider. Sider has had over several decades to respond to Chilton. He never did. Sider's book is now on its 3rd (or 4th) printing. Surely a footnote acknowledging defeat is in order.


----------



## polemic_turtle (Dec 30, 2007)

I've got a copy signed by the author & I've given away at least one copy. It is superb reading.


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 30, 2007)

polemic_turtle said:


> I've got a copy signed by the author & I've given away at least one copy. It is superb reading.



It's on my 'next-to-buy' list (along with a dozen other things)


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 30, 2007)

A good book from the other end is:

Jonathan Bonk,

Missions and Money.

A good book and he seems to mediate between the views. He advocates a sympathy and help and generosity for the poor, without the Socialist economic agenda. In Ron Sider's enthusiasm to make a point, he went WAY too far and did more harm to his cause than help. Bonk corrects this.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Dec 30, 2007)

Pergamum said:


> A good book from the other end is:
> 
> Jonathan Bonk,
> 
> ...



For this book to be "the other end" would seem to imply that Chilton in his work cared nothing for the poor and had no sympathy for them. Is that the statement that you wish to make?


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 30, 2007)

The book WAS a reaction against another book was it not? Therefore it was not primarily written as a positive treatment on the subject of how to help the poor, but to primarily correct a false theological view - i.e. a reaction. Reactions NEVER show the full story.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 30, 2007)

Pergamum said:


> The book WAS a reaction against another book was it not? Therefore it was not primarily written as a positive treatment on the subject of how to help the poor, but to primarily correct a false theological view - i.e. a reaction. Reactions NEVER show the full story.



Actually, his book set forth positive stewardship to the poor and a biblical way to deal with poverty.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 30, 2007)

joshua said:


> Jacob, this would be helpful in the Book Review forum. If you decide to do that, let me know and I'll move all the responses to the official Book Review.



I do plan on doing a full-fledged book review. It was going to be a little differnt from this. But so not to clutter up threads, I won't post more on this book until I do a review.


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 30, 2007)

Pergamum said:


> The book WAS a reaction against another book was it not? Therefore it was not primarily written as a positive treatment on the subject of how to help the poor, but to primarily correct a false theological view - i.e. a reaction. Reactions NEVER show the full story.



Well, you really don't know what Chilton's book intended to convey without reading it, so perhaps it would have been best to say nothing about what its content was or was not...


----------



## Pilgrim (Dec 30, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > The book WAS a reaction against another book was it not? Therefore it was not primarily written as a positive treatment on the subject of how to help the poor, but to primarily correct a false theological view - i.e. a reaction. Reactions NEVER show the full story.
> ...



As someone who has read neither book, I agree.


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 30, 2007)

Jacob: have you also read "In the Shadow of Plenty" by George Grant? It's an excellent treatment of the question of poverty and the church's response, vs. today's nanny state mentality.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 30, 2007)

That is one of my favourite books. However, I must admit I preferred the cover on the original edition (which I own), every time I pick it up my sides ache with laughter at the phrases on the placards:

Give America Back to the Indians!

Moses was Insensitive!

Take a Canaanite to Lunch!

The State is Great!

Pharaoh offered Full Employment!

Guiltaholics anonymous!


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 30, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > The book WAS a reaction against another book was it not? Therefore it was not primarily written as a positive treatment on the subject of how to help the poor, but to primarily correct a false theological view - i.e. a reaction. Reactions NEVER show the full story.
> ...




I have it saved in PDF form on my computer actually. It's ONLY 439 pages long.

It is a great tool against Liberation Theologies.


Sider was a flawed theologian advocating greater concern for the poor. Chilton shut him down. 

Again, Jonathan Bonk's book is a much more reasoned approach than Siders. 

And again, The Chilton book (hey, didn't he apostasize anyhow) IS a reaction against Sider. That makes the book a reaction and a response.

Why is it that there is a lack of books from a Reformed perspective about the poor and the most well known one was only written in reaction?

Chilton hammers the silly ideas of Sider about govt' intervention, food aid, a higher food tax for the developed nations to pay, etc and by Sider's 4th edition in 1997, Sider was advocating a lot more free market ideas to help out world hunger. 

Sider also always advocates a whole Gospel for the whole person; i.e. trying to help people practically as well as give them the Gospel. Chilton advocates this help too. 

Chilton is quite harsh too Sider in the book and this reduces its merits. It almost sounds as if Chiltonis gunning for Sider instead of trying to correct his views.

Also, Chilton's defense of slavery does not sit well:
"The Bible permits slavery. This statement will come as a shock to most people. The laws in the Bible concerning slavery have very seldom been studied, much less preached upon. But the biblical laws concerning slavery are among the most beneficent in all the Bible. The biblical institution of slavery has as its basic purpose the elimination of poverty..." 

To say that the Bible permitted slavery is one thing; to say that it is still okay is a greater leap. To lament that slavery is not preached on enough today seems odd.





Siders 1999 work, _Just Generosity,_ is much more balanced. 

What I object to is Chilton's labelling of Sider as a "guilt manipulator." I believe Sider's call for the West to do more was correct, even though he had only socilaistic notions to offer. His diagnosis was mostly sound, his medicine (a good dose of socialism) was like medicating with poison.

Are those pictures of little starving kids on TV at night guilt manipulation? Or is the West so emotionally detached that nothing moves them anymore. Sider tried to wake up the West and he did suceed in waking them up. 

Gary North even says as much here: RON SIDER HAS MOVED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, by Gary North.

It appears that Sider was one of the first out of the shoots as evangelicals tried to get a social conscience. 20 editions later, and now Sider is a capitalist. 


P.S> There is an interesting article about Sider in Christianity Today: CT Classic: Ron Sider's Unsettling Crusade | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 30, 2007)

Pergamum said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



I was using the first edition. It was only 200 pages long. 



> And again, The Chilton book (hey, didn't he apostasize anyhow) IS a reaction against Sider. That makes the book a reaction and a response.



It might not be fair to say he apostasized. He had a brain melt-down so I would urge caution. As to reaction, on one hand that's true. I don't see it as a demerit, though.



> Why is it that there is a lack of books from a Reformed perspective about the poor and the most well known one was only written in reaction?



That is a very legitimate question.



> Chilton is quite harsh too Sider in the book and this reduces its merits. It almost sounds as if Chiltonis gunning for Sider instead of trying to correct his views.



Rhetoric is always a dangerous gun. I understand what you are saying. In some cases, flamboyant rhetoric is very useful to illlustrate a point. Sometimes it is annoying.



> Also, Chilton's defense of slavery does not sit well:
> "The Bible permits slavery. This statement will come as a shock to most people. The laws in the Bible concerning slavery have very seldom been studied, much less preached upon. But the biblical laws concerning slavery are among the most beneficent in all the Bible. The biblical institution of slavery has as its basic purpose the elimination of poverty..."



I wish Chilton would have then described it as "indentured servitude," which would indeed eliminate poverty. Slavery has bad connotations.



> To say that the Bible permitted slavery is one thing; to say that it is still okay is a greater leap. To lament that slavery is not preached on enough today seems odd.



It is a leap, but not a great one. 



> What I object to is Chilton's labelling of Sider as a "guilt manipulator." I believe Sider's call for the West to do more was correct, even though he had only socilaistic notions to offer. His diagnosis was mostly sound, his medicine (a good dose of socialism) was like medicating with poison.



Except where Sider said anyone not living in rags is going to hell. But I am referring to the first edition. He might have rescinded that quote. 


> Are those pictures of little starving kids on TV at night guilt manipulation? Or is the West so emotionally detached that nothing moves them anymore. Sider tried to wake up the West and he did suceed in waking them up.



No, that's not guilt manipulation. Guilt manipulation is when you tell the hard-working tax payer (e.g., non on welfare) that he should not only give his money to those who to whom he has no pressing obligations, and also that he should feel ashamed of making that much money to begin with. I have a quote from _theOtherSide_ to illustrate the point. 



> Gary North even says as much here: RON SIDER HAS MOVED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, by Gary North.



I saw that. Unfortunately, Sider's doctrine spread to the likes of Jim Wallis.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 31, 2007)

SPEAR DANE: Good analysis. 

Yes, Sider did tone it down. I have some sympathies towards Sider because I think he had good intentions (soft heart and a soft head perhaps) but each later edition toned down his socialism more and more. 

You are right, whether Chilton went off the deep end into preterism or not, this book in question was very well written and really did rebut the socialist practices advocated by Sider. 

It is ironic, we have one orthodox person that possibly went into preterism rebutting a socialist who later became a capitalist. Sider's ability to grow and change says a lot about his humbleness (hopefully). 


I really do see books about social justice and the poor as lacking in the Reformed Tradition and so it does grieve me a bit that the only book most reformed folks can say they read about these issues was a reaction. 

That really is my main contention I am fighting for here: that a truly positive reformed treatment of social justice and the poor be written....and not merely written as a reaction (and written irenically and not in the ascerbic style of Chilton and Gary North)


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 16, 2008)

Regarding "slavery" I was thinking about something: First of all, we must take into account that unbelievers are *slaves* to sin. And sometimes (not all the times, granted) those who are slaves to sin seek out slavery in all areas of life, in terms of the welfare state, lack of responsibility, refusing to take dominion under God, etc. 

So before we even get to the indentured servitude question (which is what biblical slavery really is and what Chilton is advocating), we need to address real spiritual issues of slavery today, and its practical consequences.


----------



## Iconoclast (Jan 16, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> SPEAR DANE: Good analysis.
> 
> Yes, Sider did tone it down. I have some sympathies towards Sider because I think he had good intentions (soft heart and a soft head perhaps) but each later edition toned down his socialism more and more.
> 
> ...



Having read both books I still find this issue somewhat disturbing. When I first read Sider's Rich Christians I was unprepared to deal with the issues raised, either biblically, or mentally and emotionally for that matter.
I found myself wondering if I ate anything more than a plain hot dog, or peanut butter and jelly sandwich, if I was sinning against people in third world countries, by not trying to do something.
At the same time I had no clear idea how to proceed in an effective manner.
No one should offer service just out of guilt, hence Chilton's book was a solid response to Rich Christians.
Nevertheless several area's of concern which were raised still need to be addressed.
If each one of us were to travel into what we know as "the third world" and were able to stay for awhile it is hard to figure how much different perspective we would have living where we are now,and just returning to life as usual.
Some of the men on the board, have already done this, or are currently doing this in some aspect now as missionary service. 
What do you come away with? What are three perspectives that you had before you went,and have they remained the same after you spent time laboring in the world at large.
When we see the feed the children report on TV, it seems to still raise many of the issues that Ron Sider was raising. His politics, and economic's were shown to be flawed,yes.[ pagan idolaters reaping the corruption they have sowed to the flesh] It does seem that His heart was thinking right however.
Ron Sider is like many in the churches today in general. Not having enough biblical foundation, trying to serve the Lord, do so emotionally substituting whatever they "feel" is right, rather than searching the scripture for it's clear teaching. This is what leads to a legal obedience in fundementalist circles.
What made me feel so guilty even though I thought His original Rich Christian book was somewhat over the edge, was when I asked myself what am I doing other than reading His book and being critical of His somewhat flawed arguements. The teaching in Matthew 25 is still there for all of us.
David Chilton has helped to give a more well rounded understanding of these things, yes for sure. But I never have felt a real settled understanding even now on "who is our brother". I do not want to sort of sweep the issue under the rug now .
These very issues also impact our conduct in reference to our eschatology. Postmill writers have much to say about this very thing,more so than the Amill,or pre-mill writers. Do you see this differently?


----------

