Answer to "What Would Jesus Cut"

A couple of weeks ago a friend of mine, asking for my opinion, gave me a copy of an article by perhaps the foremost representative of the Christian left, Jim Wallis. Following is a reprint of Wallis' article with my point-by-point comments. The article will be indented in block quotes, interjected by my comments in normal text.

This is Not Fiscal Conservatism. It’s Just Politics.
by Jim Wallis 02-24-2011

The current budget and deficit debate in America is now dominating the daily headlines. There is even talk of shutting down the government if the budget-cutters don’t get their way. There is no doubt that excessive deficits are a moral issue and could leave our children and grandchildren with crushing debt. But what the politicians and pundits have yet to acknowledge is that how you reduce the deficit is also a moral issue. As Sojourners said in the last big budget debate in 2005, “A budget is a moral document.” For a family, church, city, state, or nation, a budget reveals what your fundamental priorities are: who is important and who is not; what is important and what is not. It’s time to bring that slogan back, and build a coalition and campaign around it.

The governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, says he only really cares about his budget deficit; however, it now appears that he proudly sees himself as the first domino in a new strategy for Republican governors to break their public employee unions. (We are already seeing similar actions in Indiana, Ohio, and New Jersey.) Governor Walker’s proposed bill is really more about his ideological commitments and conservative politics — which favor business over labor — than about his concern for Wisconsin’s financial health.

This is the first use of a liberal/leftist trope--that conservatives favor business over labor. It's a convenient accusation that coincides with leftist narratives that go all the way back to the earliest socialist movements: they care about the poor and working man, the right is all about exploiting the working man (otherwise called "labor") and further enriching the ownership class/investment class. However, when contributions to the respective parties is analyzed over the last several election cycles it's clear that the vast majority of big business and super-rich contribution has shifted to the Democrat party. The statement that the Republican party is the party of big business and the rich is simply incoherent now.

Thousands of working-class Americans are now protesting in the streets of Madison and have made this a national debate. Even protesters in Egypt are sending messages of hope (and pizzas) to the Wisconsin demonstrators.

The Republican governors’ counter parts in the U.S. House of Representatives are also not cutting spending where the real money is, such as in military spending, corporate tax cuts and loop holes, and long term health-care costs. Instead, they are cutting programs for the poorest people at home and around the world.

This is where I started to get frustrated. He had a link on one of these statements that I thought would take me to a break-down of the "cuts" (which from what I've read are really just reductions in the planned growth of programs) but after following it (and others) it proved to be just more statements in other blog posts of his on his own web site that have not a single attribution to any document or proposal or study that can be verified. So why should I take anything he writes seriously?

This is also just political and not genuine fiscal conservatism. It is a direct attack on programs that help the poor and an all-out defense of the largesse handed out to big corporations and military contractors. If a budget is a moral document, these budget-cutters show that their priorities are to protect the richest Americans and abandon the poorest — and this is an ideological and moral choice. The proposed House cuts, which were just sent to the Senate, are full of disproportionate cuts to initiatives that have proven to save children’s lives and overcome poverty,

which initiatives? He names not a single one. I'm dying for him to 1) name at least one government program being cut and then 2) prove that it HAS saved lives and, more importantly, "overcome poverty."

while leaving untouched the most corrupt and wasteful spending of all American tax dollars — the Pentagon entitlement program. This is not fiscal integrity; this is hypocrisy.

The "most"? Really? More wasteful and corrupt than Medicare/Medicaid? This statement is both fatuous and absurd.

U.S. military spending is now 56 percent of the world’s military expenditures and is more than the military budgets of the next 20 countries in the world combined. To believe all that money is necessary for genuine American security is simply no longer credible.

Considering that those other countries have gutted their own militaries in favor of increasing their welfare states--to the point that it is bankrupting their economies--and that as a result the United States military has become the de-facto policeman of the world, providing security for the world shipping lanes, the movement of oil and goods throughout the world, providing security for unstable and fledgeling democracies, it seems perfectly credible to me.

To say it is more important than bed nets that prevent malaria, vaccines that prevent deadly diseases, or child health and family nutrition for low-income families is simply immoral. Again, these are ideological choices, not smart fiscal ones. To prioritize endless military spending over critical, life-saving programs for the poor is to reverse the biblical instruction to beat our swords into plowshares. The proposed budget cuts would beat plowshares into more swords. These priorities are not only immoral, they are unbiblical.

Wallis and his organization "Sojourners" represent the most visible element of the Evangelical left, a minority variant of American Evangelical Christianity. What Wallis fails to say--but what explains his statements concerning the military--is that he is an absolute pacifist in his interpretation of the Bible. Now while pacifism does have a long tradition in Christianity, it has never represented a majority view nor, I would assert, an orthodox view. Just war theory has predominated in Christian theology, in both Catholic and Protestant variations, throughout the 2 millennia of its existence--and in the more than 3 millennia of its Judaic predecessor. One of the major differences between Judaism and Christianity is the Christian view of secular government; the Jewish scriptures make no provision for such whereas the Christian scriptures acknowledge both a separation between secular and church government and a definitive role for secular government. Jesus delineated the difference first by saying, "Render to Cesar that which is Cesar's and to God that which is God's," and the apostle Paul defined the role of secular government in his letter to the Roman church:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. (Romans 13:1-7 English Standard Version)

Notice that Paul seems to define the central role of secular government as the bearer of the sword, in other words the administration of police and military force. Obviously the above scripture presents some challenges to a democratic republic such as ours in that the scope of government can be decided and changed by its citizenry. But most Evangelicals agree with the founding fathers of this country: that government should be limited. Our Constitution seems to agree with the above scripture (and essentially disagree with Wallis) that the central task of government is police and martial in nature judging by its preamble, "to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense...".

Now some members of Congress seem to want to force a government showdown over all this. They are saying there will be no shared sacrifice for the rich, only sacrifices from the poor and middle-class, or we will shut down the government.

This is nothing but an unsubstantiated accusation, or rather a libel. NO ONE has said there is to be no shared sacrifices.

The only people whose lives have returned to normal in America are the ones who precipitated our financial and economic crisis in the first place. They have all returned to record profits, while many others are still struggling with unemployment, stagnant wages, loss of benefits, home foreclosures, and more. These representatives are claiming that we should restore fiscal integrity by protecting all the soaring billionaires, while forcing the already-squeezed to make more and more concessions.

Let me offer a word to those who see this critique as partisan. I’ve had good friendships with Republican members of Congress, but not the kind who get elected by their party anymore. But let’s be clear, when politicians attack the poor, it is not partisan to challenge them; it is a Christian responsibility.

The entire two previous paragraphs are filled with demagogic hyperbole designed to inflame class warfare and inspire feelings of "righteous" indignation at Republicans. The "Americans" who precipitated our financial and economic crisis were the members of Congress who forced the banks into making loans to people who could never repay them through the mandates of the Community Reinvestment Act and thereby lead to the invention of financial instruments such as sub-prime loans and mortgage-backed securities which eventually corrupted the entire banking system, and the federal banking regulators who allowed and perhaps even encouraged the banks to loan against ever smaller reserve ratios. He gives no example--and I can certainly think of none--of representatives protecting billionaires or attacking the poor.

This is wrong, this is unjust, this is vile, and this must not stand. Next week, thanks to your support, look for a full-page ad in Politico signed by faith leaders and organizations across the country that asks Congress a probing question: “What would Jesus cut?” These proposed budget cuts are backwards, and I don’t see how people of faith can accept them. And we won’t.

Wallis rightly asserts that it is a Biblical and Christian concern that the poor should be helped; where he is wrong is his belief that this is a governmental concern. Caring for the poor and needy should be strictly the province of the church and private charitable organizations (but preferably the church)—not the federal government. It’s a testament to how moved Christians are by this truth that the Americans—and specifically Christian Americans—give more in charity than any other group in the world—despite the fact that more and more of what had been the province of private charity has been taken over by federal agencies. This appropriation of charitable roles by governmental agencies has had a devastating effect on charitable giving in the welfare states of Europe. All of this is well documented in Arthur C. Brooks’ book,
“Who Really Cares: the surprising truth about compassionate conservatism."

The root of this problem is the Christian left’s long standing propensity to apply Biblical principles meant for the micro (i.e. personal) to the macro (i.e. government). One of the central proof texts for pacifism is Jesus’ injunction to “turn the other cheek.” But of course this is a micro/personal principle that simply makes no sense for governments. If Jesus meant this on a governmental level, why would he not have instructed soldiers to leave the army, instead of merely telling them, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay,”? (Luke 3:14) And of course turning the other cheek refers to personal insult, not attempted murder. Also, the "beating swords into plowshares" reference refers to the earthly kingdom of Christ which he will establish after the battle of Armageddon in which He will slaughter the armies of rebellion with the word of His mouth. (Revelation 19:11-21)

For further reading, see Mark Tooley's article in American Spectator, or my post on this blog, How Would Jesus Vote?