According to SayAnythingBlog, the liberal Christian group Sojourners is working to protect government spending by asking the question of "what would Jesus cut"?
Now the question is interesting, as Roman government at Jesus' time did support some things that I don't believe have their roots in Romans 13, Genesis 9, and other passages discussing the rights and privileges of governmental leaders/kings. We don't say "bread and circuses" for no reason, after all, and it's worth noting that many of the baths and other institutions were funded from tax money, too.
That said, I'm guessing that, if pressed, Jesus would have noted that the taxpayer-funded barbarity and murders of the Circus Maximus and other stadiums were an abomination before Him, even though the Roman leaders were, after all, pagans. I'm guessing that the brothels which followed the legions around also would be seen as abominable.
Hence, it's pretty straightforward that Jesus would tell us that funding for organizations that kill children, and even run interference for child brothels (e.g. ACORN and Planned Parenthood), would be off the table.
Going further, knowing His tenderness towards the victims of high taxes, and the tax collector's promise to repay what had been overpaid, I'm guessing that He would be clearly in favor of cutting programs that duplicate spending--the $200 billion that I wrote about a few days ago.
Finally, I'm skeptical that He'd recommend large defense cuts, as He knew very well what the benefits of the Pax Romana were.
Sojourners, you're welcome. I'm glad to help.
Podcast #1047: The Roman Caesars’ Guide to Ruling
-
The Roman caesars were the rulers of the Roman Empire, beginning in 27 BC
with Julius Caesar’s heir Augustus, from whom subsequent caesars took their
nam...
15 hours ago
16 comments:
I'm always amused by people who use "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" as a justification for our bloated public sector. Caesar wasn't handing out WIC and food stamps in the provinces. He was building roads for his legions to march on.
Context is so enlightening.
Well, technically the "good" emperors also gave bread to the masses--whether or not that was an issue in Israel at the time, I don't know, but it is plausible that food aid was known to Christ.
Of course, even that doesn't mean--as "bread and circuses" led to the collapse of the empire--that it was a good idea, but it may be possible that "bread and circuses" had made it from Roma to the provinces.
I've found that Sojourners plays a role similar to the Christian Coalition, but for Christians with liberal politics. To perhaps over-generalize, it seems to me that politically active Christians who are conservative seem to be primarily concerned with sin, and politically active Christians who are liberal seem to be primarily concerned with poverty. We're told that we'll always have both of those, so I feel there's room for both of these perspectives in the body of Christ. The problem with Sojourners, and the Christian Coalition, and this post, is that they are political first and Christian second while trying to come across as Christian first and political second.
Joe, I'm having a little trouble seeing how leading a post with analysis of Scripture, and applying it to sections of the budget, is somehow "primarily political." Jesus spoke, repeatedly, to this kind of thing--are we to accuse Him, too?
For that matter, I'm not entirely persuaded that either Sojourners or the CC fall into this trap. I disagree heartily with both on many issues, but that centers on whether I believe that their exegesis is correct, not whether they're proceeding from politics rather than Scripture.
(where Christian political groups do fall into the trap; when they excuse moral failings along the liens of "the ends justify the means," like Ralph Reed's gambling connections or Sojo's Soros funding)
Certainly you know as well as I that the other side also uses Scripture to back up their position. Beyond that, I trust you’ll agree that being able to quote Scripture is no guarantee of orthodoxy anyway.
I didn't characterize these organizations the way I did because of how they support their positions. Instead, it's because out of all the topics they could bring Christian theology to bear on (correctly or not in your estimation) they choose to spend the bulk of their time and energy on the ones that happen to have a lot of political capital in our society. This post also follows this pattern: abortion and defense, for instance, with I’ll grant a couple more generic topics too. If our King said, “my kingdom is not of this world,” why are so many of his children striving for power and influence in the worldly kingdoms?
Do you happen to know personally anyone who supports or identifies strongly with Sojourners? If so, do they read your blog? It may seem fine to you to snark away inside these confines, but the people you are disparaging are your brothers and sisters in Christ and deserve better. If on the other hand you don’t know anyone like that, don’t you think it might be worth your while to find one and chat with them about why they believe what they do before you criticize it? I think you’ll find that in general they love Jesus and respect Scripture just as much as you do.
Joe, I think you make a valuable point about snark. We certainly do need to guard ourselves against a nastiness of spirit. That said, the point you make has sometimes been used as a device to win or stop an argument/discussion. You point to a high standard and remark that it isn't being met. True! But perhaps not quite so applicable as it might seem. I don't think BB shows any kind of rancor or vitriol. Even his posts that criticize are quite gentle in nature.
Joe, this really comes down to a couple of simple questions; is political action appropriate for a Christian, and is it appropriate for their speech to offend political opponents?
Well, what would you tell Elijah and John the Baptist? What would you tell Wesley, Wilberforce, Christ, Paul, and a host of early Christians who enraged the pagan Romans (including patricians and emperors) by adopting babies from the garbage dumps?
As WB comments, a lot of this really has more to do with silencing opponents than with Biblical principles of discipleship and morality. There is a difference between being needlessly cruel, and being needfully honest.
Okay, it's not so strange now. I'm surprised to be censored. I didn't expect that you agree with my comments, but I didn't expect that you'd do that, particularly when another one of your co-bloggers had joined the conversation. In any event, I get the hint and I'll leave you alone--with a heavy heart, if you'll believe it. BTW I did attempt to contact you at the e-mail address you mentioned earlier. If you did receive that, that is, if I hadn't mistyped the address, the offer I had in there at the end is both genuine and still standing. I really regret the rift that has come between us and wish it didn't have to be this way. I had hoped it might someday be overcome, but apparently not this time around. Take care and good-bye for now.
I didn't remove it. Repost. (comment is that it was removed by the author--so whether you intended or not, it appears that Google "helped" out here)
I have tried so many times to re-post this. It must be something in the cut-and-paste from the email confirmation the fist time (though that doesn't explain how it got eaten the first time). Now all the monkeying around I've done trying to get it to work has gotten me locked out of my Gmail account until I can get home and get the verification code off my answering machine. I was able to post onto the worship music post--at least it was there as of 1:44 EDT. Maybe once I get my Gmail accoutn back I'll just need to retype that post from scratch and see what happens. It didn't have any HTML in it. It's all very weird.
You may believe that I wrote to avoid discussing the points you mentioned if you wish. The problem with that line of thought, aside from it being incorrect, is that the original post could be accused of the same thing. The content of the linked document was co-opted to present a contrasting political platform as the actual Christian platform in lieu of ... well, the content of the document wasn't addressed, so I guess in lieu of a stereotype? Both the post and the document are flawed because the theme is flawed--Jesus is not likely to care about budgets at all, indeed his interactions with taxes in the New Testament are ones of apathy and changing the topic. Jesus may lead some of his followers to go into politics as individuals, but in my opinion he refuses to be an emblem of any political faction. Thus I have no problem in general with Christians being politically active, but I do object to Christians saying that some particular political position is the Christian one, particularly when (in the case of Sojourners and the Christian Coalition) this is done to gain worldly capital.
The actual motivation of my responding to this thread at all was empathy for the friends of mine whom I love and think highly of and who themselves think highly of and support Sojourners. I believe they would be offended to have their perspective on how to engage the world for Christ dismissed so flippantly and turned into a vehicle for the opposite viewpoint. There is a big difference between offending people with a different political perspective because they don't like that you disagree (that's on the hearer) or because they don't like being treated condescendingly (that's on the speaker). How does patronization being gentle instead of harsh make it okay? How many posts here are of the pattern, "Here is where they are coming from, but I see it this way instead," and how many are of the pattern, "They think or do such and such but I know better"? There is diversity in the body of Christ for a reason, and that reason is not so that we can feel smug about ourselves.
The golden rule goes a long way here. I'd encourage you to spend some time on a liberal blog (political and/or Christian liberalism as the case may be). See how many times your perspective is misrepresented and gauge how that makes you feel, and then come back here and imagine how someone who disagrees with you might feel to read what you write about them. Perhaps you'll find this exercise as illuminating as I did.
Well, it appears to have finally taken this time, in two parts and retyped by hand. Let's hope it stays this time.
Joe, I might post on the taxes thing--if we understand His comments to tax collectors in the context of the culture of the day, as well as His teaching of the rich young "ruler", Paul's rebuke to the corrupt judge who whipped him without trial, John the Baptist's instruction to soldiers to be content with their wages, and more, it's pretty clear that Jesus was not ambivalent about taxation and politics, but discreetly revolutionary.
And I hope that we can agree that if any group finds themselves endorsing money for Planned Parenthood, or $200 billion for redundant programs, they ought to be rebuked by any honest Christian for throwing this money down the toilet.
Yes, I can agree with that.
Post a Comment