The vision of Isaiah 1:17 was to "Learn to do well: seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow." The vision of Jesus, as stated in Matthew 25, was that whatever you do the least of these, you do it to me. Does this mean that you never cut programs whose stated goal is for the “poor?” Does it mean that we cannot roll back such spending to what it was a couple of years ago without putting up with the charge that we are immoral?
I raise these questions because, honestly, that seems to be the view of Jim Wallis, who thinks of the federal budget as a moral document. The primary moral test, of course, how it addresses the needs of the poor and vulnerable. In an advertisement campaign, Wallis and Sojourners makes it clear: While government debt is a serious problem, the ad implores lawmakers not to balance the budget by cutting the "sound investments that a just nation must protect." Among the "investments" Sojourners mentions are school lunch programs, tax credits for the working poor, and international aid for fighting pandemics.
Wallis says, "These priorities that they're offering are not just wrong or unfair, they're unbiblical." I have serious problems with this. Let me see if I can sort it out for myself, as well as any potential reader.
For one thing, it must be wonderful to be so certain that what Wallis wants God wants. Such thinking used to be on the religious right, but now, it also dominates the religious Left. In political reasoning, I find this approach very much like pulling the “God” card. If your argument, yell loud, and claim that God agrees with you. I am among those who are not quite as confident as Wallis appears to be that my religious faith translates readily into a partisan political agenda. Wallis has a found a rather small box in which God can live. The box has the label, “Leftist Political God.”
For another thing, does Wallis really believe that no one advocating budget cuts he opposes can have serious ethical grounds for doing do? For example, within the United Methodist Church, paragraph 163 of the Social Principles states that the church recognizes the responsibility of governments to develop and implement sound fiscal and monetary policies that provide for the economic life of individuals and corporate entities and that ensure full employment and adequate incomes with a minimum of inflation. Well, I fully agree with this principle. Think of how differently the deficit situation would be today if employment was around 95% rather than 91%, or if those who have stopped looking actually found something due to a growing economy. I would contend that the approach of the past Congress and the President of leading this nation into one trillion dollars of debt every year for as long as far as we can see is a direct contradiction of this principle. It has also led a deepening of the recession, which always hurts the lower economic classes first and more. I would agree that such policies are unethical and irresponsible. Even if we make the assumption that the present generation will escape negative consequences of this nation going bankrupt, which is becoming increasingly doubtful, the idea that we are willing to place this burden upon future generations is an unethical and irresponsible act.
Here is one way to look at the debate concerning reducing federal spending for this year. Today, we have a projected $1.65 trillion deficit. The Republican Party has proposed reductions totaling $61 billion, a mere drop in the bucket of red ink our nation is piling up literally by the minute. Today, multiple $2 billion bites at the apple are woefully insufficient for the times we live in. Yet, according to Politico, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) “are considering pushing forward a series of short-term continuing resolutions with targeted spending cuts that would be difficult for Democrats to oppose.” Such cuts are hardly profiles in courage. Yet, if we read Wallis, we would think these politicians are immoral, rather than those who defend the present level spending. Senator Reid released an alternative that offered only a token $6 billion in cuts. Is Wallis ready to say that since Reid has fewer cuts, it is closer to Jesus?
To look ahead to the 2012 budget, shortly, House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) will release the Republican budget for fiscal year 2012. It is vital this is a bold budget and political conservatives must fight for boldness in the appropriations battles that will follow. Yet, for Wallis, it will be about the notion that Jesus will be on the side of keeping current levels of spending rather than reducing the weight of debt upon present and future generations.
For a third thing, Wallis assumes that Jesus would tell Congress to do anything at all. Yes, the followers of Jesus, as well as those who still live under the old covenant, are emphatically commanded to help the poor, to comfort the afflicted, and to love the stranger. However, those obligations are personal, not political. It requires a considerable leap of both faith and logic to read the Bible as mandating elaborate government assistance programs, to be funded by a vast apparatus of compulsory taxation. To put it sarcastically, Jesus did not say that the way to enter Heaven is to dole out money extracted from your neighbors' pockets.
In a democratic society, the point is to offer reasonable arguments in the midst of tough choices. We need to be discussing how a country grows wealth, which I would contend favors limited government, low taxes, less regulation of business activity, and valuing the contribution of the producers and investors of this nation. In relation to the specific issues Wallis raises in his ad, no, Jesus will not tell any person in Congress what to cut. I hate to have to say this again, only this time to the religious Left, but God is neither Democrat nor Republican. I would like us to carry on our political debates with that assumption.
If Jim Wallis is the pattern for Christian involvement in political discourse, my own hopes for reasonable political dialogue in society generally and within the Christian community in particular, will be largely dashed.
No comments:
Post a Comment