My friend and contributor here, Mike Toth, sends a link to an opinion piece in the Washington Post that, within the current U.S. budget debate, discusses how two parties pray to the same God but listen to different economists. But can faith dictate specific policies? Or does it merely set priorities? But what does that even mean given the harsh jargon that guards the heavily mined frontier between a holier-than-thou secular religion of liberal-progressive class struggle v. the right’s idol worship of laissez faire individualism.
The author, Michael Gerson, writes about politics, religion, foreign policy and global health and development in a twice-a-week column and on the WaPo PostPartisan blog. Gerson also contributes to the Capitol Commentary published by the Center for Public Justice. In his op-ed, Gerson discusses two approaches. On the left, Christians can appeal to government-based protections for the poor and powerless as advanced by Anabaptist Jim Wallis and his group, the Circle of Protection. In comparison consider the free market approach to social salvation forwarded by Christians for a Sustainable Economy (CASE). CASE argues that compassion is “best fulfilled through Christian charity and spiritual counseling, not government programs.” So there we are.
It seems to me Gerson gives too much credit to both sides of a false debate. Both extremes worship the same gods of economic growth (freedom from want), complete security, and absolute freedom. Science, technology, and for what it’s worth these days, the U.S. Dollar, is our triune savior, not a Jewish carpenter from Galilee.
And herein lay the woof and warp of most postmodern U.S. political movements and argument, where, if you’re lucky, you only ever get two of the three, if that. The Left, in steerage, rallies for freedom and growth now, while the right tends to purchase security and growth managed by markets and war to protect interests. In this context, Christians of all stripes have a lot of repenting to do in allowing their witness in the world to get stuck in this particular Satan Sandwich.
See my What Does Jesus Do? posted in March, 2005.
Bill Gram-Reefer is Editor & Publisher of Halfway To Concord, founded in 2004. Halfway To Concord is the leading online source for community-driven political news, events, and opinion for Contra Costa County and the San Francisco East Bay.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
The Acton Institute focuses on reconciling Christian precepts (which, at the core, are collectivist) with individualism and personal liberty. The inherent tension between the Christian collectivist ideal and the individual (esp as re economic freedom) has long been a point of discussion within thoughtful religious circles.
The Institute’s work will be of interest to any individuals seeking to explore these issues:
http://www.acton.org/index/about
As a Christian, I find myself caught in the whiplash of these competing extremes and looking to the Scriptures to clarify the resulting chaos. When I do so, I find a perspective of economic justice that differs greatly from the current debate. This perspective assumes that the rich and powerful will get theirs and focuses instead on how the haves should treat the have-nots.
One of the earliest exhortations to such justice was given while the Israelites were still wandering in the desert.
6 “Do not deny justice to your poor people in their lawsuits. 7 Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty.
8 “Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds those who see and twists the words of the righteous.
9 “Do not oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt. (Exodus 23:6-9)
This became an enduring message to Israel, especially upon their repeated failures to establish a just and “righteous” society. It appears that Jesus adopted this same position.
1 The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me,
because the LORD has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim freedom for the captives
and release from darkness for the prisoners,
2 to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favor
and the day of vengeance of our God, (Isaiah 61:1-3; cf. Luke 4:18-19)
Paul also echoes that sentiment in admonishing the early Church.
4 Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. (Philippians 2:4)
Those references beg the question. Should public policy concerning debt and taxation be simply informed by political and economy ideology, or should some overarching question of economic justice frame our debate?
The fact is that the U.S. poor are struggling disproportionately in the economic downturn and the middle class is now in danger of receding, if not into poverty, at least into a new, poorer working class with fewer opportunities for the prosperity. At the same time, our wealthiest members of society amass even greater advantage and wealth.
This debate can not be confined simply to political compromises on deficit reduction and the size of government. We must consider whom government policies will benefit and how we those policies might be formulated justly.
Jesus transcended the politics of his day. He said “render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.”
He had little use for the politicians of His day – the Pharasees and the Sadducees – were called “whited seppelcures and broods of vipers”.
Jesus told these politicians they were “straining the gnat and swallowing the camel.” They were trying to “pull a splinter out of their neighbors eye but were ignoring the log in their own. ”
The things we think are important – money, security, entitlements – are just not the things Jesus would be particularly concerned about. I believe Christians should be much more concerned about their own spiritual and moral health. Hope and change must begin from within, after all. Looking for someone else to offer you “hope and change” is a case of the blind leading the blind.
What would Jesus do: he would pray not prey.
Maybe, after turning over the money changer tables? Predatory politics on both sides of the aisle.