ASSIGNMENT

Defining Worldviews Part 1

3 worldviews spoke in each part Biblical, modern, or post-modern

his course is introduce you to key ideas, principles, and historical events related to the founding of America's government. But now over 200 years later, it can be easy to wonder if those same principles and ideas are relevant today. We might wonder what the find fathers would have said about today's times and situations. One of the ways we can learn about the ideas that were so important to define fathers and the founding of American government is compare their ideas to current political ideologies and worldviews. Doing so might also help us better understand how we are influenced by current political and cultural ideologies, which are both unbelievable and destructive of the freedoms and rights, are fine fathers held so dearly. To understand those ideologies, we first have to understand that political ideologies derive from particular worldviews. Let's say that again, political ideologies derive from particular worldviews. Therefore, in this presentation, we will discuss the three major world views which have influenced the American government in society since its founding. The first is biblical Christianity, the second is modernism, and the third is postmodernism. In turn, we will discuss some of the new political ideologies which have arisen from those worldviews. Marxism, progressivism, critical theory, multiculturalism, feminism, and queer theory. We will learn how these perspectives can be destructive in undermining of the basic freedoms and liberties we enjoy in American society. As a brief aside, some might be wondering why process philosophy has not been mentioned in this list. This is because it has different meanings for different philosophical perspectives. Fortunately, the key ideas associated with the various forms of process philosophy will be addressed in these presentations in one way or another. So let's focus again these three major worldviews. For instance, our founding fathers were largely influenced by a Christian worldview, which in turn lead to a political ideology of classical liberalism. But since that time, America has been influenced by competing worldviews, which have led to new and potentially destructive political ideologies. To understand all this has happened, we first have to look at how worldviews influence our approach to life. A worldview is the intellectual, emotional, and even spiritual framework by which we apprehend reality and assign meaning to life. A worldview could be considered like a telescope or a magnifying glass, because it helps us see the world. But it's more than that. It's like a lens, or more accurately a framework that determines how we make sense of life. God, truth values the meaning of life or relationships with others. We interpret everything in life with this worldview framework. And that is why a person's particular worldview leads to what one believes about politics and what government should be, and what it should do. And if everyone has a worldview, that means that everyone else's worldview is influencing our own personal worldview, whether we know it or not. Just as individuals had a particular worldview. Societies and people have collective worldviews, which in turn leads to political ideologies. So to understand these political ideologies, we have to look at the major worldviews that have influence American society and government since the founding era. To do so, we have to go back in time to the Middle Ages with the Catholic Church was the predominant social, cultural, and political force in Western Europe. The influence of Catholic theology and Roman legal custom led to the development of important concepts for American government. One such impact is the belief in inalienable rights. The notion behind inalienable rights is that man is made in God's image, which of course is a key idea in Christianity. So with this concept, we see how key worldview idea imago Dei helped influence the American find political ideology. But we know that the Catholic Church abuse its power in stepped outside the confines of its biblically defined authority. In response, the process of reformation arose in attempt to restore the church to biblical Christianity. Further ideas arose from the Reformation and influence American government. Ideas like covenantal theology or Federalism, limited government, rule by consent. In a biblical view of the institutional separation of church and state. All of these ideas poured into the worldview, the American founders, in influence their political ideology. And we would consider those ideas as part of a biblical Christian worldview. But as mentioned earlier, other worldviews have sense influence American society, government, and politics. The first worldview was modernism, like a Protestant Reformation. It to arose as a response the abuses of the Catholic Church. But in doing so, modernism rejected any notion of God. Labeling belief in God is mere superstition to be discarded in the name of logic. Rationality, science and technology. The place of God, modernism put faith in evolution as a guarantee of man's eventual progress and victory over religious superstition and ignorance. With the advent of the Enlightenment and then the Scientific Revolution, the modern world, you argue that man was finally ready to evolve in progress beyond old and backward ways of thinking. Ironically, it is hard to have a logical foundation for life, something the modern worldview supports. When one rejects a logical, rational session starting point, that is God, specifically the biblical God, which is something the modern worldview rejects. It is perhaps this fatal flaw that led many to reject modernism as a solution. Specifically the postmodern world use the predominant worldview in society today. In it arose as a rejection of modernism. It did so for a couple of reasons. First, because modernism rejects any spiritual components of life, the only outcomes that you and I are just physical beans with no eternal purpose or meaning. We are nothing more than little bits in a big machine. According to modernism. Postmodernism rejects this determinism and meaninglessness. Secondly, modernism espouse that science, technology, and reason were enough to guarantee mankind's ultimate progress. But because of numerous wars like World War One and two, and numerous tyrannies where leaders use science and technology to kill and control millions of lives. People became very suspicious of the modern worldview. In people and turn it become very suspicious of anyone who claims to know at all. Once everyone else to live the same way they do. That's why today people tend to reject any claim that there's absolute truth and tend to adopt a whatever works attitude about life. This is part of what makes up the postmodern world view. Whereas post-modernism rejects naturalism and allows for people to have meaningful religious expressions and experiences. It also tends to reject Biblical Christianity because Christianity espouses an inherent sense of right and wrong. And indeed that Jesus Christ is the only way to God. The problem with the postmodern approach is that people don't think very deeply or logically about their own worldviews. Because in the name of rejecting modernism, people tend to reject logic and rationalism. So in turn, they have no way of knowing how solved their worldview is for enduring the storms and trials of life. And it also means that any experiences, joys, trials are victories we have, are entirely subjective and are bereft of any ultimate meaning and purpose. But as this presentation about worldviews relates ultimately to a discussion of political ideology, It's interesting to note that whereas post-modernism is supposedly a reaction to, in a rejection of modernism. In reality, the two worldviews have much in common. First, they both espouse that all of life came from a starting point of meaninglessness. This is easy enough to see with modernism because it says we have all through random chance and emphasizes constant change. A starting point which seems to undermine the notion of rules of logic and absolutes. Postmodernism meanwhile, certainly allows for divine origin and creator. But a de-emphasize the notion that this God would communicate to us and logical ways based on absolute truth and values. This in turn is why postmodernism tends to be more comfortable with an Eastern mythical worldview in which any gods or cosmic forces are silent about truth and values were at least are all inclusive with less concerned about the prospect of conflicting beliefs and values. For all practical purposes then postmodernism also rejects the biblical notion of meaning and values, just as modernism does. Just as modernism rejects Jesus Christ claim to be the ultimate, an exclusive source of truth and dies. So does postmodernism. And whereas modernism would still claim to believe in values like caring for others, it has no intellectual foundation for doing so. Just like postmodernism is lacking. For modernism, the only source of values, the only reason to be nice to others is based upon a rational calculation that doing good to others is best for personal survival. But that is a very subjective way of linking what is good for oneself with what is good for the rest of society. It also requires and hopes that people are always logical and rational and making value-based decisions. Postmodernism would reject this perspective and likewise value altruism. But since postmodernism tends to devalue lacZ will absolutes, in turn, values and truth are likewise subjective. Therefore, it is hard to see how it differs much from modernism. Meanwhile, christianity stands alone in its emphasis on an eternal personal, sentient creator being who is both just and loving. This got not only created us in his own image, but he also clearly communicate to us using truth, logic, and reason through the word of God and the power of the Holy Spirit. He further affirmed our existence and true values by sending his own Son in our likeness to die for our sins and restore a right relationship with Him through Jesus Christ. In Christ, love, justice, and humanity. We're all a firm's completely and perfectly true justice was affirmed because as a human being, christ was punished for our sin. So in the end, mankind was not spirit a just punishment for sin. Thus, God did not compromise his own just standards in saving us. But love was also a firm's because as fully God, Jesus Christ was perfect. And therefore he was able to qualify as a substitute for the punishment we deserved. Further because of Christ's resurrection, the power of God enables us to say no to selfish and sinful tendencies that hurt both us as individuals and those around us. Therefore, biblical Christianity provides a meaningful foundation for our existence in our lives. In, as mentioned above, played a key role in influencing American government through principles like separation of church and state. Inalienable rights. Federalism, which derived from covenantal theology, injustice.

Defining Worldviews Part 2

In the previous presentation, we cover the three main worldviews that have impacted american Government and Politics. Biblical Christianity, modernism, and postmodernism. In this presentation, we will discuss the major political ideologies that have arisen since the founding era. We can best understand the ideas associated with these political ideologies by discussing which worldview from which they arose. First, let's start with the modern world. You remember that this worldview rejects any belief and the spiritual or supernatural. Religion is regarded as mere superstition and a major impediment to progress and growth is seen as merely a physical or material being, and therefore can be acted upon, changed, and improved upon through physical means only. Naturalism, science, technology, and reason are viewed as the major means of success for mankind. There are two major political ideologies which have resulted from the modern worldview. Marxism and progressivism. Marxism arose at a protest for the major changes in society that arose as the result of the Industrial Revolution. As a result of this revolution, the small family farmer business was largely replaced with a factory and mass production. Further, more and more people moved from the countryside into the city to work in those factories. Often for 12 or more hours a day under harsh working conditions. And sometimes even including child labor. Marx found these conditions to be dehumanizing and argue that the worker was being exploited because he no longer owned his own farm or his own business. He was merely working for the capitalists. That is the people who actually did in fact own the factory or business. One might think that Marx was actually critiquing the modern worldview by arguing that capitalism was inherently dehumanizing and exploitive. However, as we shall see, his assumptions and solutions were entirely based upon a modern worldview. First, borrowing from Hegel's dialectic, he assumed that mankind was evolving into higher and better economic systems, which will ultimately lead to communism through a process of conflict and then eventually symphysis. To understand this assumption further, you will need to review Hegel's approach to dialectical reasoning on your own time. In other words, Marx assume that eventually society would have all passed capitalism into something better, namely communism. And as we know, Darwin's theory of evolution was and is a major tenant of the modern worldview in so far as that. And to provide the sole explanation for the presence of mankind in life in general. And they'll, Hegel's dialectical approach tended to be more mystical and spiritual. It too was based upon this assumption. So we can see the influence of evolutionary ideas on marks as well. Further, the solutions that march propose, we're also within a modernist worldview framework because there are mainly economic that is physical in nature. To solve the problems and abuses of capitalism, Marx propose that private property owner should be abolished, therefore, removing the potential for greed and exploitation. Each according to his ability. Each according to his need, was Marx's model. So in a spirit of cooperation, society as a whole would own the means of production. And no one entity would have all the power. In the spirit of evolutionary progress. Marx assume this would happen naturally as workers from all over the world united to overthrow their capitalistic oppressors. Of course, this never really happened. Tyrants like Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong, and others who themselves borrowed from the modern worldview and cleaning rational and scientific approaches to solving capitalistic exploitation use political and military power to basically force the countries into a communist mold. Not only do these efforts fail in dramatic fashion, but millions upon millions of people were beaten, imprisoned, and even killed in the name of communism. Of course, Marx would likely never have approved of such evil. But it's interesting to note that his so-called solutions not account for all of reality. For starter marks, not understand or knowledge of the problem of greed is not simply the result of private property. The Bible tells us that greed and other forms of covetousness and discontent are attributes of the human heart and the very nature of sin itself. In turn, sin is more than just bad behavior attitudes. It is a spiritual force that confounds this and often controls as apart from God's saving grace. Jesus Christ, any so-called solution to any human problem which ignores this biblical truth will therefore be flawed. Further, it seems that Marx overlooked the dignity and inherent creativity of the human soul by devaluing private property. While the Bible is clear that we should give freely ensure flavor private property, it is also clear that private property is a gift from God. And moreover, private property is how we use our own unique, intellectual, physical, and spiritual gifts to glorify God and care for others. A free market system allows for this type of creative expression in ownership. But it is not clear that a Marxist system would. You only evidence we have of communism is when it was forced upon people in it definitely stifle creativity and freedom and took the joy out of work and labor in ways that Marx could not possibly have imagined. We will discuss these issues further in a moment. But for now, let's move on to the other modern political ideology. The second etiology is known as Progressivism. Progressivism developed in the early 1700s. It was driven by the notion that the experts should be involved in all levels of decision-making. And by default, it placed a greater emphasis on government and bureaucracy as the means for allowing experts greater control and authority. Like Marxism, progressivism was born out of the concern of how big business in the rapid urbanization of America was lead to exploitation and corporate greed. And like Marxism, progressivism saw the solution in economic and political terms. First by emphasizing a stronger presidency and national government as a means of further regulating the economy. And secondly, like Marxism, the progressive mindset also tends to be more secular. So whereas a biblical approach to dealing with a problem like poverty would emphasize some form of church based intervention were spiritual issues can be addressed. Progressive approach might devalue that well, only emphasizing solutions generate by professional experts via government programs. The more secular emphasis of progressivism is in part due to the fact that while many progressives rejected their fundamentalist Christian upbringing, and instead embrace the social gospel approach where Christ commandments to care for others, especially the poor emphasized. However, his role as mankind, Savior and King are de-emphasized. To be sure, there were Christians among the progressive movement in people from different political parties. But today the idea of progressivism tends to Standford, increase national role in all things political, even at the city level, in a devaluing of decentralized community-based politics. The emphasis on the role of the national government to solve problems by way of review is again, due to the belief that only the national government is strong enough to overcome and control powerful business and political interests. Secondly, as mentioned earlier, progressivism espouses the importance of having the best minds in the same room to solve the problems. This lens to greater decentralization of decision-making in control. Of course, from a biblical perspective, we knew that man's sinful tendencies are best check with decentralization, where power is shared among new resources and accountabilities therefore increase. Now that we've discussed two of the major political ideologies from the modern worldview. It's time to focus on how the postman worldview has contributed to various political ideologies. The postmodern world view has brought forth for main political ideologies. Critical theory, feminism, multiculturalism. In queer theory. As we will see, all of these etiologies are related to one another. Moreover, we will see that they are all some extension and continuation of Marxism in one way or another. For instance, critical theory is also concerned about how one group exploits others. Rather than focusing on just economic exploitation, control. Critical theory instead focuses on how words, customs, and cultural norms are used by one group to control and exploit others. Therefore, the economic exploitation that Marxism focuses on is actually just a symptom of a much deeper problem. Similarly, feminism focuses on how men exploit and control women and to some extent, even the environment. That is Mother Earth. Multiculturalism in turn focuses on how one ethnic group, specifically Western Europe and America, have exploited in control Third World nations in indigenous people groups over the centuries from the age of colonization on to the present. And of course, the classical Marxist description of how Western nations have exploited these nations fits nicely with multiculturalism. In keeping with the postmodern concern about one group trying to force perception of truth and values and others. Multiculturalism emphasizes that each cultural or social group create its own norms and understanding of what is right and wrong in there for other groups seem to respect those norms. This of course raises a challenging question of 11 group for culture's norms involve serious violations of the rights and liberties of others. Finally, queer theory takes both critical theory and feminism one step further. Examining the questions of sexual and gender-based norms. Queer theory rejects any perspective on sexuality that would just limit sexual activity in expression to being either heterosexual or limited to the confines of traditional marriage. This is because queer theory to use such norms that chauvinistic, deterministic and by default, oppressive. Interestingly, if matter is in constant motion and changes perpetual as modernists and even many post-modernist believe. And if matter is in fact the only reality. It is no surprise that ensuring both modernist in post-modernists would reject any types of sexual or gender based norms as rigid and unhelpful. Each of these political ideologies, whether from a modern or postmodern world view, can be connected with certain policy outcomes. First, any government policy that involves economic redistribution can be said to be linked to Marxism. Sense of course, Marxism defines the problem of injustice in terms of disenfranchised, exploited people groups. The solutions to take money from the wealthy, that is, the capitalists and share it with others. Now keep in mind that the Bible requires the rich to care for the poor and for all the CILIP radically with respect to how we spend our money. But it also warns against the sinful tendencies of man, which are often encouraged as government increases its power and control over citizens. Focusing on how cultural norms, ideas, and even speech can be used to control and exploit others. It could be argued that critical theory is linked to hate speech legislation. Further, feminism and multiculturalism could be linked to affirmative action policies. Also, feminism is strongly in favor of pro abortion, was that when the CDS laws is protecting the freedoms that women have over their own body and free them from the control of men who may have forced them into an unwanted pregnancy. Queer theory can't be linked to the push to legalize same-sex marriage and the attempts to normalize homosexual activity in general. To understand the relationship among all of these ideologies, we have to remember. Now postmodernism is both opposed to in derivative of Modernism. First, postmodernism is a postmodernism because the ladder is set to leach reductionism, dehumanization and chauvinism. Modernism is said to be reductionistic and dehumanizing because it emphasizes naturalism and therefore reduces humans to me or physical beans. In other words, smaller machine parts which are controlled with a larger machine of the physical universe. Modernism is viewed as chauvinistic because an emphasizing logic and reason as the sole ways of learning and knowing. It rejects more intuitive, emotional, and perhaps even spiritual ways of learning and knowing. Further, modernism encouraged conquest and control nature and ultimately weaker, supposedly uninvolved people groups. This is all seen as being very ethnocentric and chauvinistic. And those emphasizing family values, as we saw, the religious right do particularly during the Clinton administration, were accused of doing so to ensure that men controlled women and children through the family unit. And that is why postmodern political ideologies focus on how exploitation and oppression can occur through cultural and sexual norms and not just through economic means. And that is in turn why we can do critical theory, feminism, multiculturalism, inquiry theory as extensions of Marxism. In other words, in the postmodern world view, it's a longer just about rich people. Explain poor people. It's now about rich, white Christian men exploiting and controlling everyone else as a means of extending their power and control in society. So in the end, when it comes to political ideologies, postmodernism really has not led to much of a difference with respect to the model worldview. Instead, it's just taken Marxism and applied it to different points of emphasis. Further because modernism and postmodernism both reject Biblical Christianity, they both end up rejecting important ethical principles which are so vital for preserving our freedoms. For instance, both worldviews d value who we are as humans, though in different ways. Modernism denies human individuality by positing that we are entirely products of our physical environment. And even though postmodernism allegedly allows for a spiritual component, it undermines any belief in substandard of truth, such that whatever we experience would feel become entirely subjective. Postmodernism also undermines individual rights and liberties by putting greater emphasis on group rights and norms instead of individual rights. This again is the result of its emphasis upon critical theory in multiculturalism. Since both highly value group-based values and norms and seek to undermine the oppressive nature of some societal norms which are created through what people say and what they assume is true. As mentioned earlier, hate speech legislation aims to prevent this type of oppression. But this type of legislation can actually limit freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. Because it can actually put someone in violation of the law, not for what they've done, but for what they might have said and what they might have been thinking when they said it, rather than actual wrongdoings committed. Most importantly, both modernism and postmodernism deny that Jesus Christ is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, mankind, Savior, and our ultimate hope. That denial in turn leads to political ideologies that defined problems and solutions soul in economic, cultural and gender-based terms. While the value in the role that both God's word and the power of the Holy Spirit must play in solution to any personal, political, or social problem. It is further no surprise that in turn, both end up emphasizing a stronger role for government, often at the expense of individual rights and liberties in the manner which the values, the role of the church in conjunction with the work of the Holy Spirit, serving and reforming society. The challenge then for Christians is to both be sensitive to the concerns about various forms of oppression that are at the root of these political ideologies. While at the same time championed the importance of limited government and individual freedom, as well as the role of the church itself in society being the salt and light. society being the salt and light. Hopefully this presentation has helped you become more aware of how to do so.

Worldview Implications for Policy Analysis

Hi, my name's Caleb Fisher. And in this module we're going to talk about a worldview, perspective on public policy analysis. And from Dean acres video you learned about the MAY can should perspective. Well, this, this video in particular is about really focusing on the MAY, the question, may government do something? And that really comes down to how you view whether or not government has the authority depends upon your worldview. So this is an attempt to provide a biblical worldview perspective on policy analysis. And the first perspective that we need to consider just a very basic one is what does the Bible say about decision-making in general? It's policy analysis or whether it's something as simple as to buy a car, what restaurant to go out to eat for. There's, there are some biblical guidelines and that's where you see on the slide the two extremes to avoid the paralysis of analysis and foolhardy decision-making. Those are two extremes in both cases though they're allegedly radically opposed to one another. In fact, they have, they should have a key commonality that is self-absorption. Because in the foolhardy decision-making, we're so confident we know what the right decision is that we just rush into without really considering the possible that we may be off track, that maybe we need to reconsider some of our alternatives and assumptions. That's, that's easy to say. Well, that's arrogant. But really from a biblical perspective, so is the paralysis of analysis because in that case, we're not trust in the Lord either were not Lena and the understanding to get a solid perspective on what decision should be made. We're so afraid of making the wrong decision or so, were so convinced that it's up to us to accurately collect all the data to make the decision that we stall. We haven't ha because we don't feel confident in our own abilities. And the reason that, that lack of confidence is so disturbing because we don't have our trust in the Lord. And one of the things I've had to learn over the years is that even when I'm doing my best to hold the dosage with an open hand. It's not have idolatry or any of my own selfish agendas at work. I'm really trying to honor the Lord with a decision. I've had to learn that part of having faith is that I need to make a decision at some point. And just trust that if it's the wrong decision, The Lord will guide me and helped me recover from that. And that a lot of times you learn through the mistakes you make and that's part of God's plan for you. So it's this real fine line of Scripture, honoring the Lord in our decision-making. We don't rush into decisions, but we don't overanalyze decisions through fear and self-absorption. So that's the first. But now we need to get into a much more philosophical perspective on a, with respect to policy analysis in the political arena. Because if you're going to go out into the political arena, whether it's criminal justice or business, or certainly government. All of those, even the first two domains, have political implications. You're supposed to be a leader that is operating with wisdom and making wise decisions. And so you have to understand that a lot of times we in society, in the political arena, the public arena, are influenced by unspoken assumptions that we all take for granted. And then we make bad decisions because those assumptions in and of themselves are an biblical. And what makes them so dangerous is that we don't analyze them. We don't examine them. So it's because their unspoken that they have a wreck so much damage because we're not aware of those assumptions are influencing us. Those assumptions are in the domain of worldview. So we need to understand, well, what does the worldview it well, it's on the next slide and intellectual, emotional, and spiritual framework by which we interpret reality, make sense of life, assign values to circumstances, events, and relationships in our lives. Now if you go from there, the next slide, here's the point. Everybody has a worldview. You can't help but have a worldview. You can say, I don't have a worldview, but that's the result of a particular worldview assumption that says that it's okay to not be systematic and coherent in what you believe. So that's a fun little journey for you if that's what your perspective is. If you look at the next slide, you see all these different spheres, career and work sense of purpose, what you believe about God, perceptions of truth, politics, relationships. Hi Emily. So those are just some examples of the type of worldview beliefs that we have and how worldview beliefs lead to other parts, other more concrete beliefs that we have about politics or what any part of life. The problem for most of us, even as Christians, is that all these circles, these domains of our worldview, perspective are all jumbled up and we don't know how they work or how they really influence one another. And thus, we are not able to make sure that our worldview is biblical. It's our job in this presentation to unpack our worldview and make sense of it so we can make sure that when we do Mei, Mei Kan should analysis that we're doing sound biblical analysis in the May portion of that perspective. So let's go the next slide. And the first step is we have to understand how worldview beliefs should be ordered and what I'm about to share with you if you look on this next slide, this is true of a christian, of any type of person. What even an atheist. This is the, this is the foundational presupposition. What you believe about God, even if you're an atheist, determines everything else about your worldview. So what you believe about God determines what you believe about truth, what you believe about human free will and purpose. I believe about things like values and values, purpose and truth are kind of the, the main philosophical categories of any worldview. So every worldview has these things then from there, those three areas influence what you believe about Paul. Sex relationships, create work every other part of your life. You go the next slide, this notion of a worldview as a home in which we live. The reason I've introduced that is because what you believe about God is that foundational belief, which in turn supports the framework of your worldview home. What you believe about truth, values, and purpose. Now when you go to somebody's house or even your own house, when you think about that house, what do you think about? You think about the aesthetics, the visible things. How many bedrooms are there? What type of countertops do they have in the kitchen? What type of carpeting, what paints do they put on the walls. But none of those things have anything to do with the overall soundness and security of that home. In fact, the things that are most important to the soundness and security, the home, or the things that are unseen, the foundation and the framework of that home, isn't that the truth? But we'd ever think about those things in our home. We just take it for granted. And so you could have a beautiful home with all the latest amenities, a wonderful flat screen, high-definition TV on the wall in every bedroom. But if your foundation is banana pudding and if your framework is vanilla wafers, I don't care how nice your home is. That thing is not going to survive. So we have to examine the building materials for our worldview home to make sure it all makes sense and all is able to support your other belief systems. So on the next slide, as it relates to the political arena and policy analysis. Let's, here's the progression. What you believe about God influences what you believe about truth. But your sense of purpose and about values, which in turn determines your view of government. And that's where that worldview, perceptions of worldview differences first began to determine how you're going to approach them may analysis what should government be doing, determines on what you believe government should be about from? And then there are key differences there. Obviously from there, what's your view about the role of government determines what you would say is a good public policy outcome. Now we're going to get back to this, the truth, free will and values question in a second. But first, I need to introduce to you here in the West, there are three major worldviews that are at work. Obviously Christianity is one that they Judeo-Christian worldview. Then you've got to others, modernism and post-modernism. And we could talk about Islam, I think what we'll probably see that as a worldview in the coming years. But I'm not going to focus on that so much at this point. Basically modernism as a worldview kind of evolved out of the Middle Ages. At here are the Catholic Church has all this power. Along with the kings. There's a lot of corruption because religion, the church is in bed with the kings. It's very ungodly. It's a very much an abuse of power. And we have this kind of revival of learning and scarlet scholasticism and so forth, scholarly work and research. It burst the Enlightenment and the Renaissance. We have this greater emphasis upon science, logic, and rationalism. So we're beginning to see this while we're discovering so many new things. The age of discovery, Scientific Revolution. And again, i'm, I'm thrown historical events, putting them very close together. And there was more separation, but they're all related to this modern worldview that says all we need is science, technology, logic, and reason. We can solve all our problems. And so the intellectual person began to reject God. There are plenty of Christians during that time, whether in the Protestant Reformation or even scientists at the time who were very comfortable with their belief in Christ as an actual true follower of Christ and their intellectual pursuits. But some people began to say, you know, religion is the problem. If we could just get rid of religion, we could really see a flowering of true development and progress in society through science, technology, logic, and reason. You're familiar with this perspective. And there's a sense, there's this assumption. You have Darwin and his, his arguments about evolution being introduced around this period of time. So there's assumption we are evolving pass a belief in religion and superstition. We're moving on so we can just assume and hope that the evolutionary progress continues. And so obviously it's a naturalistic physical framework. There's no spiritual component there. And that was the motors have worldview. Now here you have this lofty idea about the progress of mankind through science and technology and reason. And then you have problems with that vision. One, you have technology being used in World War One and World War II. Millions of lives are being slaughtered because of technology. So maybe science and technology in and of themselves are not the full solution. 2, you have all these people that had these big grandiose ideas and certainly not the modern world views about big grandiose ideas and utopian schemes to change mankind forever. And it was people with big ideas that whether it was stellar Mao say tongue that, that, that slaughtered millions of people are in prison and brutally tortured billions of people. It was the same people that went not the same, but the same perspective. Big ideas we in the West are superior to these other parts of the world that were colonizing and discovery new. So we're enslaving the indigenous people groups. Many times we're killing them. Because we think we're better than them. So there's a lot of racism at a foot with this, this big idea perspective. And there's also another concern people realize if there is no God, if we're just spiritual beings were totally a product of our physical environment. So there's really no free will because I'm just being controlled by the things around me. And that felt very deterministic. So some people, rather than going back to the biblical God who affirms all these wonderful things about who we are as human beings. Some people reacted by the 19 sixties and fifties, reacted to the modern worldview and went into what we call post modernism. And post-modernism, as I said, is a rejection of this deterministic naturalistic framework. And said, You know what, we do have this spiritual personal meaning. We're not going to really try to define it because we reject metanarratives. In other words, we reject any claim of overarching truth because it's this belief, an overarching truth is this belief in logic that has led to all these wars and all this mistreatment of indigenous people, groups and so forth and all this intolerance. And you know, the postmodern rule of you because you hear things like there are no absolutes there. It's not right for you to judge me and I have to do what's right for me. And you do what's right for you that speaks to a rejection of absolute truth and therefore puts an emphasis on personal meanings. So you do what works for you, as I said, and I'll do what works for me. And it's all very subjective and all very, it's supposed to be bring value to you and I as human beings. It also puts an emphasis on what is called social constructionism, which basically says we create meaning together, we create values together. We make sense of life together. And that's how we avoid being intolerant UNI, through shared experiences create meaning and truth, which sounds really nice until you realize that, well, if that's all there is, there is no absolute right and wrong. So if one people group wants to kill people or mistreat women in their pupil group. That we can't judge that because we can't go against what they socially constructed. See there's problems here. And I think in the postmodern world view, There's also this emphasis on evolutionary consciousness that we, as a collective whole were being or becoming part of the cosmic one, we're evolving to a higher spiritual state. And my point in comparing postmodernism was a reaction to modernism. But what's really ironic is that in the end, because they have the same starting point, they end up being the same thing. It's just that postmodern, postmodernism is more of us has spiritual terminology to it, but it's not much different in the end. And we can see this if we go to the next slide, we look at these three worldviews, modernism, Christianity, postmodernism, and take a look as we go down the row. What do these perspectives believe about God? Well, modernism rejects any belief in God because it's just a physical only universe that kind of was brought into existence through random chance. Postmodernism, Yes, we'll believe in some sort of cosmic other. But it's very vague. It's very impersonal. Only the God of the Bible believed in a personal, eternal, infinite being who loves us and communicates to us in meaningful ways. Even the Islamic worldview has a hard time with the notion that we, as Christians would say, that were made in God's image. They're offended by that. It seems very presumptuous, but that's what scripture tells us were made in God's image. That allows us therefore to be able to experience true love and justice and beauty and make individual important sentient decisions. Look at the nature of truth. The modern worldview rejects any belief in absolute truth because everything is in, there is only a physical universe and everything is in a constant state of change in flux so you can have absolute truth there. Likewise, the post-modernist rejects absolute truth. There's really no difference. You go back to values. The only reason from the modern naturalistic framework that you and I love one another. It's herself survival that we have found that this hormonal secretion that leads us to love others actually better for personal survival. In the postmodern world view, the only way you get values is by creating meaning with one another. Social constructionism. In the modernistic review, human purpose, there is no free will. We're just cogs in the wheel, we're just robots were totally controlled by our external physical environment. In fact, there's no difference between us and the external physical environment. The postmodern Worldview believes in free will, but it's very subjective. It's, well, yeah, this makes sense for me. I can explain that logically. I can explain why the decisions I make are important. It just feels important to me. I have a real hard time with that. I don't care what I feel. I want my feelings be based upon truth. Otherwise my feelings are invalidated. Biblical worldview we have what is known as participatory free will, mean that you and I can make decisions. God is ultimately in control, got initiates everything we participate with what he initiates, whether its decisions we make in life, whether it's the very fact that we were born, even sanctification, we participate with God moving us to him, join us to Him and repentance and sanctification. So we participate with how he's made us. And yes, there are constraints and our free will, but at least there's free will in the Biblical worldview. Certainly to biblical worldview, we believe in eternal truth. Jesus Christ, the living eternal Word of God, came and dwelt among us, certainly because Jesus Christ became. Fletcher on human flesh, fully man and fully got our free will. Our unique identities are affirmed. Certainly Jesus Christ on the cross, being fully God and fully man affirms God's eternal sense of justice and his eternal sense of love. Because a perfectly good God cannot tolerate any evil. So he couldn't let any of us off the hook, otherwise you'd be less than good. But that same perfectly good God could not tolerate our eternal destruction because then his perfect love would be compromised. So you see Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, taking our sin on the cross. And in so doing, man was punished because Christ is fully man. But also man was saved in the cross because Jesus that was fully God was also perfect. He didn't have his own sinful issues. If I run the courtroom before Eternal God trying to take your punishment. I couldn't and I wouldn't because I'm just I wouldn't do that. Sorry. But I couldn't because I have my own sinful issues, but Christ could be the perfect sacrifice. And he took the punishment that we deserved on the cross. And so in Christ's love and justice are perfectly fulfilled. What's so beautiful about that is the Christian worldview is logically, internally consistent. So when you are moved to tears because of what Christ has done for you in the cross. You know, it's logically valid to do so. It's not just a subjective whimsical filling in the moment. Now as we move into a view of government, we see that in the modern world view, it tends to favor a more expansive role for government. Now there's atheists out there who are libertarian and conservative as I grant that. But in general, because the, the typical naturalistic framework believes in evolution, there's this hope that you get the best and brightest in the room that the intellectuals, the progressives, they, they can solve our problems, let them rationally, without any bias, solve our problems. So you need to give them the authority to do so. So you're more in favor of big government. You're more in favor of you in the Constitution is a living document that kinda evolves with the needs of society. The postmodern world, I think, would favor that too. Yes, sometimes it leads, it tends to go into more individualism, libertarianism, the point of chaos if it's not careful and advocation of social responsibility. But it also, because it also believes in evolution to some extent, those more spiritual, it still will tend to favor big government. In a biblical worldview, we believe in limited government because we do not trust human beings to be perfectly rational. Yes, were made in God's image. But we had this notion that confounds us and controls is known as sin. So pride and arrogance must always be factored in. So we believe in limited government. And furthermore, as Christians, we believe in the ability to master sin through the power of God, through the power of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God to change us. That is about self-government. So a self-governing individual does not want to be pampered and controlled and perfectly cared for by big government. Because we believe being made in God's image, we have responsibility and the freedom to take care of our lives is very important. As we move forward. Now I'm going to get into some more specific sure, that both the postmodern worldview and the modern worldview. But I wanted to show you that screen here to show how similar those two are. In the end, as Solomon said, there's nothing new under the sun. You can't escape certain boundaries if you don't believe in a personal infinite creator been. So let's look at the naturalistic worldview. And you have two major political movements that come from that. One is Marxism and the other one is progressivism. Marxism rejected the alleged abuses of capitalism. He was concerned about the abuses that were being seen in the Industrial Revolution. And it began to censored, rejected any spiritual component to what causes greed and injustice. The only solution, therefore, what would, could only be an economic one? Redistribution of wealth and so forth. Progressivism, the belief that you get the best and brightest in the room. They can get rid of the, the Yoko locals and get rid of this religious superstition. Let us solve the problems together that also kinda lead to a rejection of any spiritual component, any problem. And it led to big government solutions. So you see as a result, on the next slide implications, you see emphasis on economic and political solutions only. No sense of addressing the spiritual component of any problem. Ucfs on a redistribution of wealth and behavior modification. Not really dealing with human beings made in God's image who also have the potential for greed and laziness and selfishness. Okay? And if you look at the postmodern world view, what we really see is we see those same things with a slightly different twist. Look at this next slide. You see feminism, critical theory, and queer theory. And really those three are kind of the postmodern equivalent of Marxism. They all kinda come from the Marxist perspective. And Marxism, it was the rich man, the rich person exploiting the poor. In the postmodern world view, it's the rich male. Explain everybody else. Feminism focused on chauvinistic abuses. Critical theory focuses on any way that power is used through words, through social custom, structures and processes to exploit and imprison people and keep the haves and more power. And queer theory further says, Listen, it's not right for men to exploit women. It's not, it's not right for there to be gender-based exploitation or sexual norms that leads to exploitation. So queer theory is all about, it's not even about Nestle first and foremost being pro gay, it's first and foremost, but you shouldn't even make a big deal about sexual distinctions if someone wants to be gay and heterosexual the same time. That's none of your business. Let them do what they want to do. And my concern that even with that, there's this other issue with queer theory. If there is no male, female distinctions and sexual roles, is there going to be any distinction between adults and children when it comes to sexual activity. And you're starting to see some so-called intellectuals make the case that no, it is not wrong for an adult to pursue sexual relationships with the child. And I think we'll see more of that in the coming years that, that of course concerns me. There's another emphasis here in the postmodern world view as we wrap up this presentation, known as satisficing and bounded rationality. In the modern worldview, the assumption was if your logical enough, if you collect enough data, if you just give me just a matter of time, we can make the right decision. I think then it kinda sound like meanwhile, back in the real world, they'll never be enough time to collect enough information to make a sound decision. We will never have access to all the information we need to define the problem. Now in the canon should part of the May kinda should analysis. We had the policy analysis process where you define the problem, you identify the alternatives and you establish criteria and so forth. The whole assumption there was that you can properly define the problem. You can properly gain enough information to do that. But the post-modern perspective says, Wow, you just do the best you can. You satisfice you. It's a combination of sufficient. In satisfactory, you do the best you can with the time constraints you have, the budgetary constraints you have to make the best decision you possibly can. And that's what this means. Bounded rationality is another reflection. You never have unlimited rationale. And I think there's a lot of biblical truth today. I think there's a lot we can take away from that perspective. And so in the postmodern world, you, the implications for policy analysis, again, satisficing bounded rationality, we see rejection of absolute truth. Everything is inconstant flashes this today. Today it might be wrong to do this tomorrow. It might be okay to do it. Okay. Just so there's really no difference between that and the mothership framework. We see a continued emphasis on problems being defined as exploitation based upon gender, class and ethnicity. Now, exploitation based upon gender class. Ethnicity does certainly occur all the time. But we have to understand from scripture that there's also a personal component. A personal spiritual component, or personal responsibility is also a key part of that. You can either be a victim of evil and exploitation or you can be a survivor of the exploitation. And furthermore, you can aid your own exploitation. You can participate with destructive tendencies in your life and further victimize yourself. And the Bible tells us that we should not do that. And through the power of Christ, we don't, we need not do that. So in conclusion, the final slide was some biblical perspectives to wrap this all up. One, be aware of those and biblical assumptions from naturalism, from modernism, postmodernism, be aware how they influence your understanding of public policy and the role of government to understand holistic solutions. There is a place for government, but there's also a place for other factors and composes a society to get involved like churches, like families, you and I develop in relation of the people to preach the gospel to them, to help them give the freedom and the power of God to change their lives. This final point relates to that in a perspective that you'll hear a lot about this in this class, covenant and sphere sovereignty basically says, we're all in this together. It's not about any one source having all the power. We all have certain power and therefore responsibly from God to impact the solutions and society for the better. So churches, businesses, non-profits, in cooperation with governments, sometimes independent of government, should be attack, should be attacking these problems politically in our communities, in solving them. And a lot of times we can serves, I'll conclude with this. A lot of times we conservatives say, well, government should not be doing this or that, okay? Then what should, then who should be solving that problem? Because somebody is called to distend the gap and solve that problem. And I hope in this class when you start talking about problems, you're not just say no, big government shouldn't is not the answer. I hope you are beginning to think, well then what is the answer? Hopefully this presentation begins to get you to think along the right lines of answering that question. Thank you for your time.

Progressivism and Public Analysis: The Promises of Progressivism and the Consolation of Conservatism

This presentation is progressivism and policy analysis. And a little subheading here, the promises of progressivism in the constellation of conservativism. The point is to show, yeah, there are some benefits, progressivism, but there's also some limitations. And you might be asked, Well, why are we even talking about progressivism? This course is on government regulation. And the reason we are is because government regulation is ultimately the result of public policy. So bureaucrats, legislators, executives make policy upon the policy analysis process, they define the problem, they generate solutions and implement solutions that in turn, in some form or the other, leads to government regulation. Now, obviously, the policy analysis process should be even handed, objective and rational. And thus regulation you would think would also be intelligent, appropriate, and efficient. And that's why I had that disclaimer. No way is this video meant to be humorous or satirical. Because when you and I both know that government regulation often is anything but efficient and practical and realistic. So why is that? Now, to set the foundation, progressivism is this notion that we should get that x best experts in the room to generate policy solutions, to make recommendations and solve that problem. Before we get into all those key stipulations of progressivism, let's talk about the worldview of the progressive approach. And I would make the case that much like Marxism is kind of coming from a naturalistic solution perspective. Insofar as it assumes only secular, only physical, only empirical components to problems, and therefore only secular only empirical only physical solutions to problems. So much like Marxism would define the problem of poverty as exploitation in the solution would therefore only be redistribution of wealth. Progressivism likewise, assumes that your best solutions are going to become from physical solutions, from government. It's going to not really acknowledge spiritual or holistic solutions, or certainly the causes, the spiritual causes of problems as well. So with that being said, let me, let me talk about what we would call the promises of progressivism first, it's that trained impartial elites who conduct analysis and let the research Dr. recommendations are in control of making those introducing those solutions. So they're, they're supposed to be smart. They're supposed to know, they're sad, they're supposed to be experts in their field. Makes sense. They're supposed to be able to, to make impartial recommendations that would hopefully in turn lead to holistic centralized solutions of problems. The reason that centralization is important is that hopefully if you're centralizing, you can solve all the problem. And once if you can get, give the people, the decision-makers enough authority to, to, to solve the problem that need that by default requires centralization. And that makes sense on some level. It also assumes scientific rationalism. Rationalism, in other words, that people are smart. They're coming out from a scientific approach, not from a knee jerk approach where they've got their own biases and assumptions that are clouding the approach to policy analysis. And therefore regulation. Allegedly, progressivism was all about avoiding superstition, narrow mindedness and disorganization allegedly. Okay, that's the promise of progressives and that's what we're hoping is going to happen. But there are some pitfalls that we're going to discuss in the next few slides. First of all, having to a degree by your name doesn't mean that your rational, rational. I ever interviewed by my name. And sadly I'm not always rational and the frail human being in need of a Savior, in need of God's wisdom. Political constraints secondly, can deny the full possibility of rational policy analysis. And this is where we begin to see why government regulations themselves are often irrational and a poor fit to the problem and the solution. So that's just the reality of the political world. There's a lot of constraints, was a lot of different actors and so forth. We'll discuss that in a second. Elitism can further undermine holistic analysis, including spiritual components. If you're, if you consider yourself to be an expert in your impressed with your expertise, and you believe that people that don't have your expertise are therefore dumb and they shouldn't have any say. You might fall prey to pride and arrogance and therefore elitism and therefore narrow minded solutions. If you're coming out a problem with a secular only perspective, you're going to therefore overlook entirely the spiritual dimension of most political problems is going to lead to an impartial, an incomplete solution, often an entirely misguided solution. Because if you don't define the problem properly in the policy analysis process, it doesn't matter how good your solutions are. There going to be off base. They're not going to be able to solve the problem because you haven't properly define the problem from the get-go. Here's some more pitfalls of progressivism, something that the progressive spirit never really would have accounted for. Because their assumption is that you get the elites, you get the experts in government, they're going to be impartial, are going to make all the right solutions. Bureaucracy creep. In other words, the more you to find the problem, the more you try to solve the problem the agency created to regulate and implement the solution is going to be more concerned about its own survival and its own. Authority, so it's going to grow, and that's what happens with your typical government bureaucracy. It seems to grow over time. It's related agencies, survival. Agencies, survival comes at the expense of constituent care, are more concerned about making the next budget gain approval from Congress or what have you, the mayor, the governor for that, for that next budget. And so that becomes more important the constituent care. And tactically that even gets worse as you get more actors, more agencies involved in quotes solving the problem. Then you get top-down solutions. Again in the name of centralization, you doing centralization, the name of, of getting a much more comprehensive solution of the problem. But as a result, you're more top-down, you more hierarchical. Thus, your solutions, they're out of touch with the local contact, local context, and the personal spiritual dimensions of the problem. And that's why a lot of times you get, you get, you know, federal solutions that do not work in a local context, right? Because they are too rigid. By default, regulations are too rigid and they're often, they miss local personal context. That's why typically we as conservatives in the House will have government recommend local solutions to local problems, to say nothing of how that ensures more freedom for you and I. And then you have this problem which is anything but rational, but it is just the reality of government mismanagement of funding, spending other people's money on other people's problems. You know, when you spend your money on yourself, you're very particular and how you spend it, even if you wasted your very particular on how you waste your money on yourself, you know exactly what you're doing. Typically, you take a bureaucrat that doesn't know you and doesn't know the person trying to help. All of a sudden, that money in fiscal restraint becomes a lot less important. And you take a bunch of lawmakers making a budget on a yearly basis, or allegedly supposedly suppose you'd have to do that hasn't been happening lately. And you don't have discipline spending. It is a direct refutation of the alleged elitism and rationals when professionalism that the progressive movement was founded upon, lawmakers in bureaucrats do not spend money well, they wasted on pork. Marx, all these things in agencies waste the money as well and the name preserving the budget. As for each year. I'm not anti-government. Clearly the bible's an anti-government, but we have to take these realities into account. And often they are not. So what does the Bible say about these things? And I think it's important to look not only at the Bible, but also just some, some did the whole philosophical traditions. The constellation of conservativism from Edmund Burke is that your Edmund Burke, the father of conservativism, said Beware the daydreams of intellectuals. In other words, just because an idea sounds good up here, you get a smart person. I can articulate an idea. And this idea for what government should do to solve our problems. It may make sense, very, fairly fairy world, but it may not make sense in the real world. And so it's important to note that distinction in what Edmund Burke says, that often the common sense of common people trumps the schemes of the elites. Progressivism said that the problem with most policy solutions back in the day was that you had a bunch of local people. They didn't the local locals who didn't know what they're doing. They're too parochial there, too unprofessional. They didn't know their stuff. And certainly that was a problem that exists that we have to be aware of that. But Edmund Burke reminds us that many times there is a thing called common sense that people just the real life experiences of day-to-day living have much more contact sometimes than the intellectuals do up a capitol Hill. And so their solutions are much more in touch with reality that's important to remember. And I think this is where we start transitioning into biblical truth. The bright idea is the sages should be in line with the wisdom of the ages. Some of those ideas, what does the woods with the ages in terms of a biblical perspective, we're talking about things like inalienable rights, natural law, The inherent need to limit government, even if government could generate the solution doesn't mean it should, if it comes at the expense of your rights and my rights and freedoms right, we have to have a balanced approach to this. Elitism often means arrogance, that often means abuse of power. We have to guard against that. Now if we go to the Book of Proverbs in the Bible, we see some major themes that are relevant for any approach to policy analysis and regulation. In Scripture, wisdom and justice are intertwined in progress mean that it's not just haven't had smarts, It's about being a good person. It's about caring for people is about ensuring true justice. In the Bible, justice is more than just coming from a judge. It's a holistic approach to life. Everything is good and just and fair. People are cared for. There is peace, there is fairness across the board. People, the poor cared for, the individual rights are protected. This holistic approach, we have to remember that we can't have a narrow vision. Justice words, just redistribution of wealth, where it's just taking from one group and given to another. There may be a time and place for that. Certainly the Bible calls you and I to share our wealth with those that don't have it. Certainly recall to fight against oppressive structures in society. The wisdom certainly is based upon humility. You don't get to pat yourself on the back for being an elitist. So you don't get to pat yourself on the back for having a degree. We're here to serve people in a care for them. And sometimes government misses that fact because they get out of touch with the people whose money they are spending. And that's really sad, but it happens all the time. So this presentation is not meant to be a total rebuke of progressivism because wisdom in scripture like progressivism. Encourages a rational and an intelligent approach to policy analysis and regulation. But wisdom, often, unlike progressivism, takes into account human arrogance and depravity, and therefore provide some checks and balances. If you have a naive assumption that a government official who has his PhD is going to be rational and elite it in an objective. I think that's not a biblical truth. I don't think that's a biblical reality. Then we have one more thought from Scripture, this idea of covenant, where you and I aren't, we're all in this together. We're accountable to one another. If God would make a covenant with us, ultimately fulfilling that covenantal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. And what he did for us on the cross. He would do that for us. Was he if he would say come into a company with me, you make the choice to enter into relation with me, and I'll bless you and I'll be accountable to you and I will fulfill my end of the bargain. I'll go beyond the letter of the law to fulfill my promise to you. And ultimately, that's what he did. Jesus Christ ultimately went the extra mile. Didn't he? Taking the sacrifice of sin that we should have had the punishment of sin, which we should have had. He took that on the cross, he became the punishment. He became our sacrifice if he would do that for us. And what should we do for one another in terms of the covenant, the vehicle notion of covenant is relayed to the biblical notion of justice. We all are accountable to one another. No one should have all the power. No one should hoard power and BD elite, we need one another. As a result, we have this idea. You read guys like Abraham Cooper, known as sphere sovereignty, which is that power is shared among various entities in society. The federal government, the state governments and local governments, churches, businesses, communities, non-profits, UNI families. We all have a piece to play in problems that need to be solved in our communities in so we're all involved in that. And you don't have therefore a federal government that's top-heavy giving all these regulations and mandates and telling states and localities what to do. And you don't have a view to solving social problems that ignores the role of the church, the role faith-based non-profits and so forth. The covenantal approach encourages personal accountability, which conservatives love, and it encourages social justice. Well, how do you balances to you bounce them through having not just the federal government involved. We have churches, localities, faith-based non-profits that CAN, who have the context of how to care for people who also know those people well enough to, to hold them accountable in a loving way. Case in point, my churches involved with a network of churches in my area. And they know people that really generally need help from churches. And those people that are just gaming the system and trying to take advantage, take advantage of the kind of churches with respect to financial resources. That's cooperation, that's a localized solutions are caring for the poor. Finally, a covenantal biblical approach to policy analysis and regulation acknowledges the inherent spiritual dimension of most problems. Government regulations are inherently anti spiritual because they don't typically allow for a spiritual component because that's an alleged violation of the separation of church and state. But we know that if we're going to really solve problems in society, we have to allow for that spiritual problem. It's not just a spiritual problem, right? It's not just the result of a lack of personal choices. If you read scripture, what causes poverty? Yes, it points to wastefulness and a lack of personal responsibility, but it points to a lot of other things too, like oppressive rulers and oppressive structures that take advantage of the widows, widows and the fatherless. So we have to be aware of that too, and it blends those together. And I think that's very important as we talk about government regulations class. Thank you for your time.