“It’s a sin that somehow light is changing to shadow, and casting its shroud over all we have known” – Pink Floyd, On the Turning Away
Pink Floyd’s On the Turning Away has been stuck in my head for a day now. It’s a nice representation of compassion and empathy toward the throngs of the less well-to-do, the throngs of poor and downtrodden throughout the world. Those who really could use a hand, or at the very least could use a system that is not designed to keep them downtrodden.
As most surely know by now, I have any number of complaints about governance in this country (and across the world, for that matter). I want to make clear that my grievance is not so much the existence of corrupt governments and oppressive regimes. I don’t like these things, but their existence is almost expected. This is a fallen world and has long been a place of oppression and violence between men; between the “haves” and “have nots”. No, my major grievance is rather that in a democracy, such as ours, Christians find themselves willing participants in such an oppressive regime – and willing offenders against their own brothers and sisters. It’s quite frustrating.
The Reverend Jim Wallis is at it again. Before I lash out, two points of clarification. (1) I don’t call anyone “reverend” these days. It’s not out of disrespect, honest it isn’t. I just take a more hard line on Jesus’s dictate that “you are all brothers” in Matthew 23:8. (2) I find that I disagree with Jim Wallis on a great number of things, but I do think that he is sincere. He may be sincerely wrong (I think so), but I don’t want to give the impression that he has some ulterior motive (he may, but I won’t make such an accusation). I’ve read other things he says and have found him not to be simply a political talking head. He has things he believes and he presses for them, and they are apart from political ideology (though they tend to line up more with the left). Our disagreement then is not personal. We disagree over interpretations and the proper role of each other in determining personal behavior.
Jim Wallis and some other religious “leaders” have started an initiative called the “Circle of Protection”. I hate to link to it, but if you care to read, here’s what Jim Wallis says about it.
Wallis and the others essentially argue that, in difficult budget times, it is important (morally right?) to make sure we don’t cut funding for programs that help the poor and needy. We disagree.
First, there is the pragmatic issue. Is the current level of funding for these programs right? If it is too low, then he ought to argue for increases. Somehow “what is right” has taken on some likeness to inertia. It is just wrong to change things, whether we hold that they are good at the current time or not.
Even more pragmatically, I find it quite absurd to defend federal aid programs which, in some cases, have as much as 70% of their funding swallowed by the bureaucracy, with the other 30% reaching those in need. No charity could ever function like this, their donations would dry up over night. But somehow, the federal government gets away with it … oh, that’s right, they don’t need donations: they can just take the money. Is Jim Wallis promoting welfare for federal bureaucrats? It sure sounds like it.
Far beyond the pragmatic there is the moral issue. And here I will say that these programs, enacted by government fiat in a democracy, are quite immoral.
In a democracy, a government of, by, and for the people, there is no government other than the people. When the government does anything for someone or to someone, it is the people doing it for and to that someone. When the government takes money from one and gives it to another it is the people taking it from one and giving it to another. This runs afoul of good doctrine on a wide array of issues.
It is wrong, dear reader, for Christians to step in and act as an authority above the others (who also may well be Christians). But if we are all equals, if we are all brothers, then by what right do we do such a thing to each other. No, if God made us free to choose benevolence toward another, then we should leave each other free as well.
When we see Christians voting for these programs (or for leaders to enact these programs), they are voting to use the force of government to enforce what God has left us free to choose, and has reserved judgment to Himself. This, by the way, is theocracy – which we almost all say we oppose.
“But the Bible tells us to care for ‘the least of these’.” Yes it does, and we each feel the tugging of the Holy Spirit to help those in need. And I’m sure we will all give account to God for the things we did and didn’t do. Is this not what we see in Matthew 25? By the way, the image of final judgement in Matthew 25 considers what people – individuals – did. To think that one can say “Lord, I voted for policies that took money from that one and gave it to this one” as a defense is silly. We will give account for what we each did, not for what we forced others to do.
“But the federal government has the resources.” Nonsense. First, they only have the resources they get from us, via taxation or tax-through-inflation. By the way, we as Americans are quite generous with our philanthropy (not to say more couldn’t be done). To think we’d just let people collapse from our greed does not hold.
“But random, scatter-shot efforts by individuals won’t have the coherent impact of a centralized program.” This is just bad math. Individuals quite often form into corporate groups to achieve something larger. (March of Dimes, Redcross, etc….) Furthermore, the ability to achieve a desired result in self-organized groups usually vastly exceeds the centralized approach. (Did we learn nothing from the fall of the Soviets?)
The Wallis article goes on to say things like “What would Jesus cut?” – but I ask “who would Jesus enslave?” For this is the program that is proposed. These religious leaders propose that it is OK for the federal government to enslave a nation, many of whom are Christians, in support of benevolence programs for the needy. That the programs are ineffective is a glaring wrong, but also a non-issue. The principle here is simple. We, as Christians, should not be involved in enslaving our brothers (or anybody else) to support our imaginations of grand benevolence. (See 1 Tim 1:10)
We should, all of us, look to ourselves first and ask whether we are walking out what the Lord desires of us. It is absolutely OK to make coalitions for a grander purpose, and to convince others by argumentation, preaching, and exhortation to join our efforts.
I write this blog in no small part out of an effort to convince others of such a purpose: to mold our government into something consistent with the freedom we are given by Christ, and to leave others free to choose what is good on their own (though they may make choices with which we disagree).
And there is plenty to oppose in our current government actions, but it is not the threat of cutting programs. We oppose the enslavement of individuals, which is exactly what happens any time the government takes money from the citizenry and spends it on anything other than the collective defense of individual rights (life, liberty, property).
We oppose constant theft and oppression of the poor and middle class. This is exactly the mode of operation of the Federal Reserve. Honestly, inflation is taxation – or worse yet theft in that it does not tax income but stores of excess production (i.e., wealth). Yet inflation (theft) is fundamentally the policy of the Federal Reserve. Where is the outcry from the Christians against a government organization whose policy is theft from the masses to give to the wealthy?
It is no shock that the mighty and powerful would use slavery and theft against the citizenry. “Are not the rich the ones who oppress you” – James 2:6. What is shocking is the degree to which Christians, even Christian leaders, are complicit in the oppression, in the theft and slavery. As though somehow it’s OK if we can just turn the machinery in the direction of some modestly defensible moral cause. It is not.
Get in the game boys, get in the mud. There’s a world of injustice out there to be fought. No need to play “big brother” and benevolent lord over the rest of us. We know how to follow our Lord too, and we hope to do so without oppressing our neighbors.
Freedom at Bethsaida 