As of July 14, nearly 5,000 local pastors have signed a letter petitioning Congress for a “Moral Budget.” Led by the progressive evangelical Sojourners organization, the initiative calls for a “circle of protection” around the poor. In other words, liberal evangelicals wish for the federal government to continue welfare bureaucracies that bankrupt the economy.
This petition is done in the name of people who “work to preach and live the Gospel of Christ.” These pastors hope that the governing authorities will care for “the least of these” as it makes severe budget cuts. The letter, however, does not shy away from specifics. Sojourners et al. wish to keep many entitlement programs: SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), WIC (Women, Infants, Children), Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Head Start, Pell Grants, and Community Development Block Grants. The letter reads, “We know from our experience of serving hungry and homeless people that these programs meet basic human needs and protect the lives and dignity of the most vulnerable.” What gives these men and women the obligation to tout expansive government provision? In a recent press call, the Rev. Nadia Bolz-Weber declared, “The poor cannot afford lobbyists in DC.” Sojourners president Rev. Jim Wallis remarked that the government makes tax-deductions on corporate jets while no one will look out for WIC.
“What would Jesus cut?” asks the Circle of Protection program. This echoes the sentiment of Jim Wallis that the budget is a “moral document.” Their decision is clear: “Funding focused on reducing poverty should not be cut. It should be made as effective as possible, but not cut.” Instead, the program hints that military spending and tax breaks should be shaved out of the government’s spending. In the aforementioned press call, Rev. Rick Nathan questioned, “How much is enough? How secure are you?” He also protested, “Don’t balance the budget on the backs of the poor.” Derrick Harkins said, “There is an incredible opportunity in front of the legislature to see that our budget is a moral document, not just fiscal dealings.” Although there might be an argument in the Christian faith community that government welfare is neither a prudent nor religiously-mandated option, consistent application of Scripture affirms Sojourners’ case. As Nathan pointed out, “[N]o pastor in central Ohio says they approve of cuts because of their faith.”
Conservative Christians have protested that private charities and churches can do a better job dealing with issues of poverty and hunger than political structures. Wallis and others think otherwise. During the press call, an IRD reporter questioned why so many funds were spent to petition the federal government for increased welfare. Why was this large monetary expenditure not sent immediately to the poor in some way? Wallis answered that, as a matter of fact, private sources can only provide 6% of the resources necessary to properly alleviate poverty. The church needs to be cooperative with non-believers to fix the problems of the world. Derrick observed, “The church is part of the larger conversation of society.”
Thinking Christians could do well to accept Wallis’ grounds that the budget is a “moral document.” Of course, they should ask some different ethical questions. First of all, is it moral to be a debtor nation? This is no small problem and reflects on the character of both the moral choices of the United States and those of Christian political activists. Second, if there is a problem with tax loopholes, why not make a simpler tax code so that everyone pays the same share of their goods? Wallis himself said, “The tax code of America is sinful.” If the government reduces the number of deductibles, exceptions, and other breaks, then there will be fewer tax-deductible luxury items (such as corporate jets). Although tax-breaks are drafted on the Hill in the name of the poor, they also allow for a complexity that can be exploited by the rich (who, incidentally, “make jobs”). In this situation, the middle class suffers the most. Less money “escapes” through the cracks in simplicity. This has long been the objection of economists against the American tax system.
Returning to moral questions, how “dignified” is it to live off of a government dole, or, rather, can there be much love in bureaucratic obligation which is ultimately backed up by the sword? Taxes are obligatory. Failure to pay them—if one keeps resisting the system—ultimately ends in death. Christians yield to Caesar what is Caesar’s, praying that the government execute justice, promoting good and punishing evil. However, as its name implies, charity comes from a very high kind of love. The love of neighbor in providing for the poor, at least in examples given in Scripture, seems to be more direct than “the government will take care of them.” Also, there is not very much dignity when someone becomes a social parasite, sucking down government assistance when he has the ability to get out of poverty. This is not always the case, but it does often happen. This person, though not necessarily a “contributor” to his society, is a human being nonetheless. Would there not be more dignity in the local community providing for such a person? Certainly a private charity could be more helpful and discriminating than a form-based government bureau in this situation.
Is it right to bankrupt the birthright of future generations? Christians are not good stewards of what God has given them when they spend the money that their children have not yet earned. Debts have to be paid; deficits even more so. In providing for themselves now, Americans (American Christians included) are hoping that future citizens will somehow foot the bill.
Can we somehow escape economics and establish utopia? As the letter itself said, “it has been difficult for us to watch the need around us rise while the resources we have diminish.” However, somehow things will all work out. As Jim Wallis said, “The Biblical example is that we will all have enough if we share it.” Although Americans today have fish and loaves, they have no promise that Christ will miraculously multiply them. This minor detail does not concern liberal evangelicals. Bolz-Weber claimed, “We have the wealth to provide for all our needy. We just need the moral fortitude to do it.” The burning question behind all of this is how long will there be wealth in a socialistic system. Numerous historical examples abound to show that mankind—just as the Bible said—is sinful and will take advantage of systems that promote sloth. Poverty increases with welfare; soon there will no longer be wealth to spread around, only bankruptcy. Theology does not exclude economics.
The circle of protection letter shows itself as a foolish decision on the part of the Evangelical Left. It can be described as nothing less than a call for utopia in a broken world. This has been the liberal saga for centuries. Three lessons echo from history: the bills have to be paid, the larger the government the larger its fall, and people think spending is fine as long as it’s someone else’s money.
No comments yet
Leave a Reply