Presbyterian Lobbyist: A Failure of Whose Leadership?

on April 4, 2013

20130404-033516.jpg

By Jeff Gissing | @jeffgissing | www.jeffgissing.com

Our nation is facing a moral crisis according to J. Herbert Nelson, Director of the Presbyterian Church (USA) Office of Public Witness. Addressing the Loaves and Fishes gathering last month, Nelson stated that our moral crisis, our “moment of intense pause,” has been caused by “moral ineptness in high places [of government].” Referring to the sequester Nelson stated, “We are now in the midst of…indiscriminate spending cuts…that result from a weakness in moral character.” There is some truth to Nelson’s claim, but the devil—as always—is in the details.

At first glance it seems that Nelson chides both the President and the Congress for their failure of leadership, which has led to the current stalemate. When read more closely, it’s clear where he believes the lion share of the responsibility lies: “This crisis, caused by our leadership in Congress, is at the core of our spiritual consciousness.” In reality, it takes two to tango.

Surely the President deserves a rebuke for instituting the sequester provision in the first place—a political game of Russian roulette designed to give him leverage over Republicans. It appears that there may, after all, be a real bullet in the chamber. Yet surely there is some hubris among Republicans who appear willing to give little by way of compromise. In the end, there’s no telling whether the pistol is pointing at the President, the congress, or—more likely—the American people.

Nelson’s address is a political one with a veneer of religion. It’s also internally inconsistent. He asserts, “This stalemate [over the sequester] is the struggle over our vision of our government’s responsibility to support the most vulnerable over and against funding wealthy people and multinational corporations through tax breaks. Central to this stalemate is the question of the government’s responsibility to support ‘the least of these’.”

Here Nelson is guilty of a sin of omission. There can be little doubt that real differences exist in the ways Americans envision their government functioning. These are legitimate philosophical disagreements, some more reasonable than others. However, Nelson omits any mention of the duty of the government to steward the nation’s resources. If it is right to consider the “least of these,” we ought also consider among that number successive generations of Americans whose future has been mortgaged to secure excesses in the present.

Nelson is also guilty of the same interpretive misstep so many progressive Christians claim to see in traditional Christians: sloppily moving from the text’s supposed, “plain meaning” to an application in the current moment.

Nelson tells us that his “faith book”—I prefer to call it the Bible—informs him that Jesus declared, “Just as you have done it to the least of these, my brothers and sisters, you have done it unto me” (Mt 25:40). It’s all so simple. Jesus said it. I believe it. The government should do it.

No reference consideration is given to who the audience was, what the context of the statement was, and how the church has interpreted it over history and how our current political system is differentiated from that of the New Testament.

Moreover, Nelson is internally inconsistent. At the outset of his remarks, he argues that this moment in political time is the fulcrum between two opposing choices. On the one hand, we can fund “wealthy people and multinationals” and on the other we can care for the “least of these.” The choice is only so stark when such a contrast is necessary for rhetorical purposes, clearly the case here.

According to Nelson, reality is that the United States has few financial woes. “We are acting out of a posture of scarcity rather than abundance. Our resources are not scarce; they are abundant!” In relation to many other nations this may be true. However when considering obligations and income through taxation, the United States is in trouble.

Which is it? One moment every inducement to a corporation to relocate is tantamount to wrenching food from the mouth of an impoverished child: “How can we declare that the ‘haves’ ought to have more while the ‘have-not’s’ [sic] get less? This is a reverse Robin Hood plan, where the poor get poorer and the rich get richer.”

In the next the United States government is awash in cash with more than enough to create a centrally planned nirvana: “We are not bankrupt! There is enough!” While it certainly true that we are not yet bankrupt, now is not the time to haphazardly loosen the purse strings.

Ours is a time for reflection and for restraint. Many individuals find themselves forced into this position—prudence would suggest that our government should join them.

In his final rhetorical flourish, Nelson claims to prophetically speak on behalf of the American people: “The nation spoke at the voting booth in overwhelming numbers to decide that the candidate who vowed to tax corporations and high-income individuals at a higher rate would serve as the President of this country.”

Did I miss something here? Is the President suggesting the repeal of taxes for high-income individuals? Is he suggesting that corporations be tax exempt? Far from it. Instead, the President has done something that all politicians do when they transition from candidate to incumbent—face reality.

Nelson might wish that President Obama revert to the candidate Obama that he describes in contrast with Mitt Romney as “[ending] tax breaks for the wealthy” and “[ending] corporate welfare,” but in the end—as all ideologues are—Nelson will be disappointed because reality is a tough bullet to bite. Perhaps as a consolation prize, he might consider that had he been elected, Mitt Romney would likely not have been anywhere as fiscally conservative as during the run up to the election. Reality cuts both ways after all.

There is more than a little irony in the way Nelson chooses to conclude his address: “We must build bridges of hope for the future generations by the way we act now.” Those who wish to restrain government spending on social programs almost certainly point to this as their rationale. The brutal truth is: we spending tomorrow’s money. By failing to admit this, Nelson undermines his own argument and reveals that his address is simply a rearrangement of liberal talking points overlaid with some allusions to Jesus. Nelson claims that we Americans are better people than would fall for the reverse Robin Hood scheme he claims the government is perpetrating. He should also know that Americans are, as George Will has noted, “a center-right people.” As a result, he should know that his proposal will be received skeptically at best.

20130404-033943.jpg

  1. Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on April 4, 2013 at 8:48 am

    It’s very disturbing that people in a position of leadership, like Mr. Nelson, are so detached from reality. He appears to mindlessly repeat left-wing talking points, separated from any real understanding of the issues or independent examination of facts.

    Unless ominous statistics wrought largely by liberal socio-political policies are reversed, we will never get out of the rut of governmental dependence. About 70 percent of African-American babies are born out of wedlock, a condition more highly correlated with poverty than any other single factor. About the same percentage of babies born to poor white mothers are fatherless, and over 50 percent of Hispanic babies are born sans marital commitment. As a society our overall illegitimacy rate will soon surpass 40%. Marriage has lost its sanctity (is it any wonder that marriage redifinition is gaining momentum?).

    A well-worn definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over and expecting different results. By this criterion our culture is insane. We are looking to the same failed political initiatives to solve the problems they created.

    Left-wing religionists are complicit in the carnage, but they never admit to anything. You said it all: “Nelson’s address is a political one with a veneer of religion.” May God help us.

  2. Comment by ericvlytle on April 6, 2013 at 7:15 am

    You’re right about repeating the same stupid mistakes. A reporter was interviewing Congressman Keith Ellison, who is way left, about all the money poured into Head Start and how it has produced almost no results. Elllison fumbled around for an answer, and the best he could come up with was, “Well, we need to invest more.” If a program with a million-dollar budget flops, give it a 2-million-dollar budget.

  3. Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on April 8, 2013 at 2:53 pm

    Mr. Ellison, like most modern Democrats, is an apologist for, and facilitator of, parental irresponsibility.

  4. Pingback by Presbyterian lobbyist: A failure of whose leadership? - The Layman Online - The Layman Online on April 4, 2013 at 9:13 am

    […] more at http://juicyecumenism.com/2013/04/04/presbyterian-lobbyist-a-failure-of-whose-leadership/ Download this page in PDF […]

  5. Comment by Marco Bell on April 4, 2013 at 4:59 pm

    So, Mark Tooley, I’m presuming from your text, that you don’t want to rescind the tax breaks to the 1%,and the Large Corporations?

    Would you rather the poor suffer for the glut and greed of those in power over the last thirty years?
    It really is as simple as cited by Mr. Nelson.

  6. Comment by sandytnaylor on April 4, 2013 at 9:05 pm

    Certainly. Everything goes back to the evil corporations. Or Reagan. Or Bush. Lucky you, such simple explanations for all the world’s ills.

  7. Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on April 5, 2013 at 9:48 am

    Mr. Bell, you (along with Mr. Nelson) really need to educate yourself. The top 1% actually paid more AFTER the Bush tax cuts. The following is an article from a nonpartisan (though somewhat left-leaning source): http://www.factcheck.org/2008/05/top-1-what-they-make-and-pay/

  8. Comment by Marco Bell on April 8, 2013 at 4:23 pm

    Head Start works very well for thousands of deserving kids and their families.
    Only a cruel miser would want to cut funding to a program that might not display astounding numbers for the bottom line.

  9. Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on April 9, 2013 at 3:37 pm

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/22/HHS-Study-Head-Start-Kids-Have-More-Problems-in-Math-and-Social-Interactions

  10. Comment by Marco Bell on April 9, 2013 at 7:23 pm

    Thank you Cleareyedtruthmeister, for the link regarding the Head Start programs shortfalls. It seems that there are still some things to work out in the Head Start Program. If we cut the Defense budget a few billion, even more needy children could receive help.

    I’m always wary of news coming from Breitbart, but Dr. Susan Berry is a qualified professional, so I’ll accept the evidence as presented, as being valid.

    Though let’s be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath-water.

    Again, Thanks!

  11. Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on April 10, 2013 at 1:20 pm

    Unfortunately, Marco, liberal policies beget more liberal policies. The Left’s destruction of the nuclear family (sexual liberalism, replacement of Dad with a government check, etc.), beginning in the 60’s, has created so many fatherless children that Head Start has become, at least for some, a bit of a lifeline. But it is not the best answer…restoring the nuclear family, in accordance with Judeo-Christian values, is a far better solution.

  12. Comment by Marco Bell on April 10, 2013 at 11:35 pm

    Cleareyedtruthmeister,

    I agree with your summation of some of societies’ shortfalls, ie: Dependency, abandonment, indifference, irresponsibility, absentee parenting (oxymoronic term, as one isn’t parenting while absent), and similar ills.

    You are more correct in that the “Nuclear Family” is the design for perpetuity of the species. These facts cannot be argued against in practical terms, so I shant.

    This is not a defeat to most Liberal causes, it is more likely a display of diversity, and it’s dynamism as a driving force to evolve this marvelous organism that we are. (Note, I did not use the word miraculous, but the incredible majesty that IS, the Human being, certainly could employ that word for emphasis.)

    Bottom line, I just don’t want to cut beneficial ‘benefits’ to needy families at the expense of extending the tax savings for the Rich.
    It seems to me that if one is earning sums of money that are far greater than they could possibly require to live comfortably (I realize that is purely subjective), that excess monies could (perhaps should) be directed toward helping humanity meet it’s challenges. This almost seems a dictate if one were to be living in “The Word”.

    Thankfully, individuals in that category, like Bill & Melinda Gates find themselves compelled to do this philanthropic work. Compelled being the operative word in my point. This of course at the risk of sounding like Socialist.

    Thanks for your exchange. G’nite!

  13. Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on April 11, 2013 at 10:43 am

    Marco, glad you agree, to some extent, as to what the main problems are. I would simply point out that there is nothing Socialist about what Bill and and Melinda Gates are doing since it is purely voluntary and not compelled by an authoritarian state.

    Were it up to modern liberals there would be no one able to give the amount of money that Bill Gates gives because there would be no one as rich as Gates.

    A factual historical understanding of Socialism renders the conclusion that Socialism is better at spreading and equalizing a relatively low standard of living rather than raising the average standard of living (read “The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich). Of course, this relatively low standard of living has never been suffered by the leaders of Socialist and Communist movements.

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.