In a very thoughtful reflection on the U.S. government's ineptitude and Bill O'Reilly's over-spiritualized Jesus, Chris Skinner tells us "Why “Jesus” is to Blame for the Government Shutdown". Skinner exposes the fiscal-conservative incarnation of "Jesus" and shows this construct to be at odds with the Jesus we find the pages of the New Testament.Skinner writes:
"Even in my own personal experience, the most outspoken opponents of universal healthcare have been self-proclaimed “born again Christians” who are quick to tell you that they read the Bible literally. Mind you, they don’t generally read the parts about caring for the poor and marginalized literally...Those who know me well will know that I am very sympathetic with Skinner's critique. Indeed, Christians generally cherry pick from the New Testament and have little rhyme or reason for which passages they take literally. Moreover, when I hear platitudes like "lower taxes" and "smaller government" I tend to think in these terms and these terms.
The Jesus I read about in the New Testament and more importantly, the one I attempt to follow in my own life, wants—I believe—to be taken seriously (and literally) on things like caring for the disenfranchised among us."
It should be said, however, that there is another version of fiscal conservatism that Skinner's post does not represent. Fiscal conservatives whom I have come to respect do indeed read Jesus' message about caring for the poor literally. These folks believe that the Church can do more to combat poverty than government programs. And (while many don't) many of these fiscally conservative Christians put their money where their proverbial mouths are. I know lots of bloody-do-gooder Christians who want lower taxes so that they can do more for the disenfranchised, usually giving to places in the world where poverty is perilous. Now, I don't see the dichotomy between taxes and generosity like they do; I'm with Skinner on this one. There is a troubling inconsistency among many of my coreligionists. So this post does not negate Skinner's; it just adds a small wrinkle. Not every fiscal conservative is greedy and/or over-spiritualized in orientation.
Skinner makes another really good point and one that bears repeating. O'Reilly, in his vague categorization of "parable", dismisses any literal interpretation of Jesus' fiscal ethics. Skinner correctly points out that Papa Bear does not represent most conservatives on this point. I would extend this further: Tea Party advocates in general do not represent most Christian conservatives. In tone and content, the average Christian conservative has very little true representation in congress at present. In this way, O'Reilly's "apolitical Jesus" fantasy mirrors the silent majority of Christians who choose to be absent and ignorant and therefore cannot hold their congress person accountable for willful negligence. I wish it weren't so, but Skinner is absolutely correct on this point.
-anthony
___
Anthony Le Donne (PhD) is the author of The Wife of Jesus: Ancient Texts and Modern Scandals
I would count myself among these so-called fiscally conservative Christians who are passionate about justice, peacemaking, and especially fighting poverty and ending human trafficking. I believe much should be done to work for societal change and social justice but unlike my "progressive" brothers and sisters I see fiscal irresponsibility as an abdication of our responsibility to be good stewards of what we earn and I believe that putting money into the hands of government in order to accomplish something we should already be doing is the ultimate form of fiscal irresponsibility. Time and time again the US government has been shown to be inordinately fraught with fraud, mismanagement, and the use of others' money for purposes other than those for which is was originally intended. This is injustice just as much as anything else.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, just as I see the marginalization of the poor to be sinful I count it as equally sinful when government officials refuse to listen to the people who elected them. I would consider healthcare reform one among many examples in which millions of people have shown that they do not support what the government is doing with their money yet a small segment refuses to negotiate simply because they "won" their own way. I am married with two small children and we make around than $70,000 a year and are very, very, very (read Dave Ramsey) careful with every penny we earn and yet after our utilities, mortgage, taxes, childcare, transportation, and food we have literally no money left for the exorbitant amount we are being charged for healthcare.
I know many more people in similar circumstances who, because of the ACA, will not be able to afford basic necessities and who are also not eligible for subsidies. A system of government that will literally seek to impoverish one group of people so that they can be seen as caring for another group of people is unjust and yet in our culture one cannot oppose progressive political change without being labeled as uncaring, bigoted, or worse. And yet here I sit as a person who is deeply passionate about the cause of the poor and marginalized who nevertheless been placed in dire financial straits because of the government's desire to provide something to the poor by literally taking money from those who cannot afford to give it. "Big business" gets a break, the government is exempt (along with their staffers), and yet people like me who, though I do have some money, could never afford for my healthcare premiums to double (and in some cases triple or quadruple) are labeled "greedy" simply because we insist that the government be responsible with the money they take from us.
Thank you for this perspective, Andrew. I think we will both agree that you are nowhere near close to being truly impoverished. Some of your comments make it seem like you think that healthcare reform will send you to the poor house. I don't think that this is what you're saying, but I just wanted to give you a chance to clarify.
Delete-anthony
I in no way meant to indicate that we are anywhere near being impoverished. I understand that compared to most people in the world, I am practically wealthy. Having said that, however, the premiums that we will be expected to pay are far beyond what we can afford and I know many people who are in the same boat who make less than we make. So we are left with the choice of signing up for a health care plan that we cannot afford (with premiums that are literally twice what we were paying) or paying a penalty and going without the care we need. If we have to pay what we are being asked to pay for our premiums we could lose our home, our ability to put gas in our car (which allows us to get to and from work), our ability to feed our children healthy food. Does this spell certain financial doom for our family? Perhaps not. But it does put us in a dangerous position that we would not ordinarily be in because we have, until now, been able to make more financially responsible choices for our healthcare costs. That has been taken from us.
ReplyDeleteOf course this is not as severe an injustice as those who have no care at all or even no job or way to put food on the table but for me it does bring up huge ethical questions. For instance, President Obama claimed that this healthcare law would lower premiums for most Americans and lower overall costs and it was on the basis of these promises that this law was passed in the first place. But now we are seeing that most of these promises were not true and that, in fact, most people who already have insurance will see a drastic increase in their premiums because of this law.
So, no, I am not facing immediate financial ruin but, again, if I pay what I am expecting to pay for my premiums, I and my family will be one medical emergency away from bankruptcy. Maybe others are okay with this but I am certainly not and never will be.
Thanks Andrew. This is the kind of civil conversation I wish our congress could have.
Delete-anthony
You know, I wish that we were having this debate over military spending.
Delete-anthony
I have been troubled by this discussion going all the way back to the O'Reilly/Moss conversation. In fact, I don't think either came off very well in the ways they "used" Jesus. Yes, O'Reilly spiritualized texts that were uncomfortable for his fiscal and social politics. Moss, on the other hand, tried to score social/political points by referring to Jesus' miracles as "free health care" (Really? Is that what those were?) and seemingly implying that followers of Jesus ought to take his concern for the poor as the basis for national public policies regarding the poor. It seems to me that, with the best will in the world, we (Christian citizens of the U.S.) will not be able to discern from the Bible which particular fiscal policies we ought to support, any more than we can know which of the dozens of government programs designed to help the poor we should encourage our elected representatives to support, or what should be the level of funding each deserves and how each should be administered. Similarly with healthcare. You may be (as I am) supportive of universal health care and still be (as I am) deeply unhappy with the law that was cobbled together too quickly and (it seems to me) without much forethought for many of its consequences.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is not that Christian fiscal conservatives (Tea Partiers or not) or Christian fiscal liberals are good or bad Christians, but that most of the problems we argue about involve enormously complex economic, social, and political issues. We biblical scholars are careful to talk about how complicated good historical and exegetical study is and how many specialized competencies are required of us--but when it comes to discussing economic and social policies, we resort to the same juvenile proof-texting we deplore in our students, as if we could move straight from the teachings of Jesus to national policy decisions. Simply to cite Jesus' compassion for the poor as a key to the particular policies of a nation state is roughly similar to claiming that because Jesus taught forgiveness of one's enemies and turning the other cheek, Christians ought to encourage their congressional representatives to press for the dissolution of the armed forces.
For a good example of the muddle many intelligent and well-intentioned Christian scholars make when they try to tackle issues beyond their knowledge and skillset, read the journal Interpretation 65/2 (April 2011) on the theme of "Usary." Only one contributor has both a seminary degree and a degree in economics--and it shows.
Thank you, Bob. Indeed, one of the reasons for this post was to nuance what has been a very divisive discussion on facebook and the blogosphere. What is it about politics that brings out the worst in everyone?
DeleteBTW, I absolutely loved your "The Story of the New Testament Text: Movers, Materials, Motives, Methods, and Models". Should be required reading for all students in NT studies.
-anthony