Debate and the Call to Care

            I have become interested in debate between Dave Ramsey and Rachel Held Evans and others and still others who have contributed.  It makes me think a little of the debate between advocates for gun control laws and the lobbies that oppose them.  I agree with the advocates for gun control on most of what they say about guns, violence, and society.  Everything except one thing—that we need more gun control laws.  I am convinced that we do not enforce the laws we have.  Until we do enforce the laws we have, we don’t need more.  What I would like to say to both sides of the argument is this:  You are all reasonable, intelligent people.  Why not get with these other reasonable, intelligent people and come to some workable solutions to create a safer and saner society?

            I would say the same thing to the debate between those who promote the habits of the wealthy and those who advocate for the poor.  Dave Ramsey can come off as arrogant.  I think at times he verges on sexist.  I think his theology is fraught with problems.  And I think he’s right about the stuff that lands in his area of expertise—personal finance.  I know that he has helped marriages.  I know that he has helped people get a better grip on their finances. I think he's done more good than harm.

I also believe that Jesus has a preferential concern for the poor.  I believe that Jesus’s followers are called to have the same concern.  I think that Dave Ramsey’s rhetoric is insulting to the poor and that is a problem.  His advice has to do with helping people navigate 21st Century financial systems in North America.  I find it helpful when people do that with the level of expertise he brings to the table.  I take issue with those who want to then claim that these principles are also biblical.  The Bible doesn't spell out the pathway to financial prosperity.  It also doesn't identify the means of addressing poverty.  It points the faithful in the direction that says those who have should demonstrate Christ-like concern for those who lack.

My issue is whether or not caring for poor persons means applauding their good efforts or if it entails helping provide some stepping-stones out of poverty.  So, what if despite his arrogance, quasi-sexist, faulty theology, Dave Ramsey does indeed offer the most helpful advice to those wanting to move from financial instability to financial stability?  Can we excuse the insulting rhetoric and use what is helpful and say thank you? 

I debated in High School and some in college.  I was never very good.  I taught three semesters of academic debate at a local university.  My students didn’t ever have good debates.  So that clouds what I’m about to say.  I don’t think debates like the ones between gun-control advocates and gun-rights advocates help that much.  Or that the debates between proponents of the poor vs. proponents of the wealthy help anyone.  We have created a culture of divisiveness and dissension where cooperation between people who disagree with one another rarely happens.  The Argument Culture we have created makes it impossible to concede in the face of greater logic without losing face.  I do recommend Deborah Tannen's book.  The argument culture creates a false dichotomy between two opposing positions in situations that may actually have more than two sides.  Worst of all, the Argument Culture wastes brainpower and intellectual energy on advancing or defending positions rather than actually helping people.