Last week Christianity Today posted its summary report of a Pew Study that indicated how Evangelicals were thinking about the Federal Budget.
This paragraph sums up the most challenging data:
-
The top choices among evangelicals for the chopping block are economic assistance to needy people around the world (56 percent), government assistance for the unemployed (40 percent), and environmental protection (38 percent). In each of these categories, evangelicals were more supportive of decreasing spending than are other Americans. In fact, evangelicals were more supportive of funding cuts in every area except military defense, terrorism defense, aid to veterans, and energy.
In a sentiment that might surprise some of my readers, I have mixed reactions to this.
In principle, I think it’s ok for Christians to hold to different priorities as individuals and communities than they would require of all people through imposition of law. What we should be and do as Christians does not immediately determine what it means to do unto others as I would have done unto me and to love my neighbor as myself.
Sometimes this standard of love means that we will give our neighbors freedom from the law to do (or not do) things that we believe ourselves religiously obligated to do (or not do).
In a national budget in particular, I would assume that we should have more in the category of “defense” spending than comports with a Christian, cruciform view of the means of rule and power. I do think that our calling is to testify to an entirely different economy than that of power-by-war, and I also think it is a country’s duty to be able to defend its citizens.
Having said that, however, I do find it disturbing the extent to which Evangelical Christians differentiated ourselves from the rest of the country by being more in favor of decreasing Aid, decreasing money for education, and increasing defense spending than non-Evangelicals. This indicates to me that Evangelicals are still tightly wedded to political conservatism–a conservatism that has nothing to do with being faithful to traditional religious convictions and everything to do with a strange alliance of conservative political positions and traditional Christianity.
So I have a category for the sort of dissonance I perceive between what Christians should support, themselves, as Christians and what they support for the national government. But in the end I, like so many others, find the particulars of this list disappointing, to say the least.
Evangelical Christians in such a poll are distinguishing ourselves as being against our tax dollars being spent on poverty relief and preservation of the environment (two bedrock vocations of our calling to represent God to the world in our identity as Christian people) and being in favor of our tax dollars being spent on military “defense”–which of late has had very little to do with defense and always entails some amount of death and destruction.
Jim Wallis is right. Budgets are moral documents. While we will never regulate or create morality through our budgets, they certainly show where our allegiance lies. For this reason, the evangelical bias is troubling.
Is it possible that some Christians care deeply about those things but don’t feel like the federal goverent flooding failing and often corrupt institutions with money is good stewardship. Is it not possible that more spending is actually what isn’t needed from the federal government?
I am all for seeking justice for the oppressed… But using the tools of empire doesn’t always bring about justice. It often keeps herod in place and enriched and oppressing the poor.
Justin, while i agree with you that it is hard to trust the empire to do such things. Often those who oppose the federal spending the money on the poor and oppressed will not give to any cause that would.
I don’t think the budget is the real problem but rather members of Kingdom of G_d not wanting to live out its principles.
That’s a pretty broad brush you’re painting with there. I know plenty of people who support justice ministries to the oppressed who wouldn’t support many government spending projects.
You know. I just re read your comment. Actually I’d say it’s bullshit. Unless you have some omniscience that I don’t have, you don’t know enough people who oppose this spending and you don’t know what they do or don’t give to.
But, I guess, just like it’s easier for racists to paint all black people a certain way, or republicans or democrats to demonize the other, it’s equally easy for us to think the worst about those who disagree with us.
Personally, I’m just sick of the Christian left demonizing those who disagree as anti poor anti oppressed and simplifying their arguments to make them all appear hateful and stupid.
But it sure feels good to be holier than thou, huh?
An interesting article.
I think the biggest issue I see is that we don’t see the federal government as our government. It is a representation of us (after all, it is a democratically elected republic). It is not a monarchy or dictatorship. So it is not so much whether the govt is spending money, it is whether we the people choose to spend our collective funds helping the poor and needy.
I don’t think christ’s call to help the poor and the stranger was a joke. And I think he was probably serious when he said to give EVERYTHING to the poor and follow him. For better or worse, we are the government. We run it. it represents us. When we treat it like our enemy we forget that it is made up of us. That is the beauty of democracy.
So when we say we want the government to cut spending on the poor or education, we are truly saying that we want to not help the poor or educate children. We can’t live behind a disconnect.
Now this is very provocative. I’ve not read the article and will do so soon. In the meantime….
That religious and social conservatives tend to give money, blood and time at greater rates than other groups is illustrated in “Who Really Cares” by Arthur Brookes. So, it is not a matter of lacking in compassion. As such, I think you and Wallis have your accusations very wrong.
There is a notable distinction between Christian charity and government coercion, between Christian compassion and government compulsion, between tithe and taxation. These are profoundly different activities. No more was Bush advancing the kingdom of God by military action than Obama is by growing government and enlarging entitlements.
As for defense, well, I have rather mixed feelings about the current status of things. My suspicion is that the fundamental difference between a peacemaker and a pacifist is that the former is willing to lay down his or her life for others while the latter is willing for others to lay down their lives. The budgetary difficulty is that speaking of numbers does not speak to hard realities in terms of personnel or equipment or such.
I suspect that somewhere embedded in the conservative mind is a convictions that the purpose of government is to enforce the rule of law so the citizenry may be productive and generous, avoiding fraud and unjust force.
“There is a notable distinction between Christian charity and government coercion.”
Hmmm. In other words, what you are saying is that there is a notable distinction between genuinely giving alms and forcing people to give alms, no matter their right of representation and choice. Funny thing is though, we chose to vote in Obama, and we chose to vote in a Democratic Senate, therefore, plausibly enough, bills are going to be produced with a Democratic stamp. That isn’t coercion but the democratic process at work.
If we are performing coercion, then what do we call what Mubarak or Berlusconi are doing?
This alters nothing, Mike. It only illustrates an inability to distinguish spheres of authority. It suggests a gross confusion of church and state as well, even suggesting a belief that it is proper to use government coercion to force (a portion of) citizens to enact elective Christian virtues. It exemplifies the residual wake of the New Deal when the government overtook actions previously done by churches and charities. It also may point up the danger embedded in the tyranny of the majority. And I doubt very much that you would be as smug if the presidential election had turned out otherwise. And I also doubt you are pleased with the new make up of the House of Representatives. Regardless, merely doing something doesn’t make it virtuous, whether individual action or group democratic selection.
Sorry my comment didn’t “alter” anything in the discussion; though you were provoked enough to respond…
– As for my response regarding your untenable, unhelpful dichotomy of church alms vs. coercive government, I met your smug and raised you irony. But it seems you’ve called with glibness (I thought maybe that was coming).
The reality is, it is hard to separate the sacred from the secular, which was the point that I was trying to elicit.
State mandated religion is quite different from elements of faith existing within the political process. When you enter the voting booth, are your decisions not influenced and directed by your faith? Likewise, is it really so different when politicians assemble for a vote on a bill? In this way, health care reform can be seen as a kind of alm, no?
Ahhhh.. it’s getting cramped in this column
…only if you redefine “giving alms” to mean taking. But coercion is not charity, compulsion is not compassion, taxation is not tithe, and forced redistribution is not alms.
I agree with Justin on this. I don’t think it’s an either or situation. I have seen enough of the government and their way of handling things. The church never should have stopped the storehouse and abdicated their responsibility to the government in the first place.
Justin, So is your assumption that our military, counter terrorism organizations, and energy companies aren’t “failing and often corrupt institutions”?
So, it is better to send our money to Exxon and Blackwater (or whatever their name is now)?
Also, in terms of giving. Christians do tend to give more than others, but almost all of it goes to their local church. Regardless, on average Christians only give less than 3% of their incomes. Even if this all went to aid those in poverty rather than big arenas and huge parking lots, this won’t accomplish much enough to address these issues absent government aid. The impact you seem to indicate regarding current Christian compassion is overestimated. Unfortunately, from my experience, most Christians say that charity is a personal thing when asked regarding government funding, but then they fail to follow through on living that out.
In my view, as Americans, we can lobby our representatives to makes laws reflective of our values. For me, I seek justice and mercy to be reflected in our government.
Why does the churches calling to live as the eschatological community, embodying the spirit of Jubilee, mean that we need to have the government do this for us? Why does a resistance to the government taking on the role of God’ people mean there is a dissonance? Simply because I see the Federal Government as the most wasteful and inefficient means of delivering aid to the needy that does not mean I am not passionately committed to seeing aid, yes even my money, go to the needy.
Ed – again with the assumptions. No, If it were up to me, I’d have no army. But it’s not my call to make. I’d prefer that while were cutting the federal budget (which is necessary as compound interest on debt, and an economy held afloat by government borrowing will not last forever) that we’d bring troops home from all overseas bases. Close them down. Maintain am airforce and stop being the worlds police.
But my point isn’t about what cuts are the beat to make so much as it’s about assuming a group of people are a certain way because they hold a certain position. Seems like reductionism to me… And in my opinion, it’s a bit unfair to make that judgement about millions of people about whom you don’t have personal knowledge.
I am basing my comments on the results of the survey. I have to agree with the writer here that it reveals that Evangelicals are more beholden to conservatism than they are to a Biblical view on the issues. It is frustrating to me. I think Christians cannot be fully aligned with either party, but the Republicans/Tea Party have done a better job of marketing to Christians.
I don’t know the views of any individual commenting here, but the survey reveals that the majority of Christians are fine with programs for the poor being the first things cut. Instead of advocating for these cuts, maybe Christians should advocate that these programs be better run. They may be inefficient, but they still accomplish many good things. We should be engaging in improving them, not cutting them. Look at Headstart or Americorps. They are good beneficial programs that are a nominal costs in the grand scheme of things.
I can’t see any movement in the church providing free or cheap preschool for hundreds of thousands of low income kids. I can’t see the church mobilizing 75,000 non-profit workers and paying even the minimal wage that Americorp provides. There are many programs that the church simply can’t or won’t offer. The church can very well offer emergency assistance to people in the local community, but the broad development opportunities through these programs has never been well replicated by churches in America anytime in recent history. Those that do good work in these areas are a small minority and are accused of promoting socialism in using the term social justice.
No arguments from me that the evangelical right is more beholden to conservatism and american civil religion than discipleship. I just think the christian left is just as beholden to the same kind of power politics as the right is. They are beholden to the same kind of demonizing as the right is. The same broad brush strokes that accuse the other side of being wrong or evil. And that seems to me to be just as wrong.
You may not be able to see the church mobilizing in the ways you described. I can. The church isn’t doing it now in the widespread manner in which the government is… but that doesn’t mean it’s not possible. The church certainly needs to reprioritize as I’m certain I need to reprioritize in my own life. But the church can do those things if it chooses to be led by the Spirit and live as the Kingdom rather than promoting the Kingdoms of this world doing the dirty work for them.
And the church certainly should call the powers to greater justice… and has done so in the past. The problem I see, is the church using force to do justice. I don’t remember Jesus chasing down the rich young ruler and forcing him at gunpoint to give away his wealth. The Kingdoms of this world will operate as they operate, and the church’s number one priority is to be a countercultural witness to the state, not to take over the state and try to baptize it. Because doing so baptizes us in the violence and force of the state and messes with our allegiances.
All that to say – the point of this was the reductionist opinions above and how they are no different from a Republican claiming that Liberals think abortion is morally ok because they voted for Democrats. Its short sighted and it makes for an us/them argument, which I surely don’t see in the gospel.
Thanks Justin. I would agree that some left-leaning Christians might be overly beholden to Democrats as well. I at least think I am somewhere in the middle, though I must confess that the Tea Party’s leadership has probably pushed me to the left further at least in relative terms.
For me, the poverty alleviation programs and particularly overseas development funds are a relatively nominal part of the budget, yet people are singling them out for cuts. It is easiest to cut in these areas where there is no defined self-interest group. I see the people that benefit from these programs as the “least of these”, and our duty as Christians is to help them and give them a voice where they have none.
It is no sign of faith when we advocate for our own interest and programs that benefit us personally. I will just throw a little of my own theology in here:
Matthew 5 “If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
Cornell West rightly said, “Justice is what love looks like in public.” If anyone thinks the working poor in particular are treated justly in this country, they need to go talk to more of them. We should do all we can to give them opportunities to improve their lives personally and advocate for them to our government.