I saw on Facebook someone purporting to be a Christian saying she would vote this year based on candidates’ policies (as opposed to personality and character, I suppose, or political expediency). Specifically, she said she would vote for candidates that advocated for low taxes, less regulation, a stronger military, freedom of religion, and support for Israel, and against abortion, “open borders,” and a “Living Constitution.”
It seems to me that the criteria for determining the “Christian" character of public policy have to be the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, as we have them in the New Testament. How do this person’s views on policies stack up with what Jesus himself actually says and does? Let’s see.
- Taxes. The Lord expresses frustration over the crushing tax burden laid in his time on poor people and workers. They were financing not only their own oppression by the Romans, but the expensive lifestyle and monumental projects of local leaders. But Jesus also proclaims “the acceptable year of the Lord,” a reference to the Jubilee laid out in Leviticus 25, which is about a radical downward redistribution of wealth. His attitude towards the rich is consistently and highly critical. He lives according to the motto that everything belongs to God (Psalm 24:1). Can we infer from all this that Jesus would have accepted higher taxes on the wealthy if it meant more aid for the needy? That would be completely within character for him.
- Regulation. In our time, people complain about regulation because they favor letting the market do as it pleases. But when Jesus is advised to rely on the market to feed over 5000 hungry people, he rejects that option. When the establishment turned the holy Temple into a marketplace, he is incensed. Jesus understands that markets are modes of economic oppression and inequality because they inherently privilege the rich. His ministry, on the contrary, indicates a preference for policies that create wholeness and equality. He also sees God’s creation as a theater of God’s glory, full of living signs of God’s Presence. He does not tolerate the kind of depredations wrought by an economic system based on greed and inequality. Would he advocate for regulation? Much of the Torah is a regulatory regime designed to prevent the Israelites from falling into an authoritarian, oligarchical polity like they one of which they experienced the business end in Egypt as slaves. Jesus would have people’s behavior regulated by God’s Word and will. He would curb the capricious liberties taken by the powerful against the weak. If regulation means protecting workers, the poor, women, strangers, and creation, Jesus is all for it.
- A stronger military. The Lord Jesus rejects the kind of coercive State power exerted by the military when the devil offered it to him. He and his people knew the military mainly as its victims. In his Sermon on the Mount he gives advice about how to deal with oppressive occupation soldiers. It was Jewish Temple police who arrested him, and Roman militarized police who killed him. Bearing in mind that the U.S. military is by far the strongest in history, with spending far, far greater than any other nation, more indeed than the next 10 or so combined, it is frankly and obviously impossible to imagine Jesus advocating for an even stronger U.S. military.
- Freedom of religion. Jesus lived in a context where Judaism was the official religion of his country and non-Jews were looked down on. At the same time, the Roman Empire recognized a wide variety of religions, as long as they all worshiped the Emperor. Jesus makes a point of ministering to and lifting up Samaritans, who were considered heretics. He also heals several non-Jews. He complains, sometimes bitterly, about religious rules being given the force of civil law; so he would certainly not have wanted his teachings enforced that way. Jesus would have no part of any supposed “freedom” of some to impose their religion on others. Would the One who heals all use his religion to deny health care (or even a cake) to someone? Hardly.
- Support for Israel. Jesus endures a situation of colonialism, ministering to its victims. He certainly does not advocate violence in any case. But it is far easier to see Jesus sympathizing and siding with indigenous people like the Palestinians than with the settlers and soldiers who are using violence to take away their land and lives. It was Jesus’ opponents who were so apoplectic about preserving the Jewish State of his own time. They saw him undermining their nation and religion. It’s why they killed him. So, no, I don’t see Jesus supporting any regime oppressing its neighbors. And he, like the prophets, would be particularly critical if Jews, who supposedly know better because they have the words of the Torah and prophets, fall into these behaviors. It is impossible to believe he would have supported a colonialist, oppressive State, even (or especially) were it technically “Jewish” in character.
- Abortion. Jesus says exactly nothing about abortion. It is safe to assume he would have been against it as an act of violence. However, he also receives women as equals and empathizes with and heals their pain. Since he doesn’t generally advocate inflicting coercive, heartless, and punitive laws on suffering people, it is hard to believe he would call for criminalization here. Jewish belief is that human life begins with breath. As with everything, the Lord is about humility, forgiveness, gentleness, wisdom, compassion, and life.
- Open borders. Jesus does not advocate for stronger national borders, or borders at all. He himself wanders across local borders all the time. He lived in the larger context of the Roman Empire, of course. Implied by the fear of “open borders” is a racist hatred of “illegal” foreigners and immigrants. Yet Jesus’ birth is welcomed by an entourage of enemy, “heathen,” foreigners. And he understands the demands of Scripture that strangers be welcomed and cared for. So it is hard not to believe that open borders would be fine with him.
- A “Living Constitution”. The closest thing to the Constitution that Jesus knows is the Torah which guides Jewish life. Neither he nor the early Church understand the Torah in a rigid, legalistic, literal way. Indeed, his enemies thought he was dangerously lax in his Torah observance. He repeatedly says in his Sermon on the Mount that his teaching overrides the literal sense of the Torah. In reality, he makes the Torah more strict and more spiritual at the same time. This is how he enacts a “living Torah.” He wants Torah observance to express its Spirit, which is deeper than its mere letter. Translating this to how we approach the U.S. Constitution is a stretch. On the one hand, we have always talked about equality, liberty, and community as the spirit of the Constitution. It our best, we have seen these characteristics emerge in our polity in broadening and creative ways. On the other hand, it could be argued that the document was carefully designed to privilege white, male property owners and weights the system in favor of them and the States that practiced slavery. So-called “originalist” interpretations of the Constitution focus on the letter of the law, which continues the implementation of these dictates, which frankly contradict the accepted spirit of the document. Jesus most certainly does not approve of a polity that privileges people with money and power, which is what Constitutional originalism does. If a “Living Constitution” approach is about applying the deeper spirit of the Constitution to contemporary issues and problems, then it is hard to see Jesus having a problem with it.
We may vote according to our consciences. But we should be very careful about calling our advocacy of certain policies “Christian.” Only Jesus gets to determine that. And Jesus doesn’t necessarily see things the way we do.
It seems obvious, but I think Christians should base their political and economic views on the life and teachings of Jesus.
+++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment