A Different Way

In this hot political season, with voices raised about guns, immigration, jobs, money in politics and more,  I find myself pausing to ask: which Way am I called to follow? Whose priorities should I pursue?

Before Christians were called Christians, they were called Followers of the Way. The Way was Jesus: simultaneously the path itself, guide and example, companion on the journey. Jesus said “I am the way, the truth and the life.”

But he also said “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23). 

The way to relationship with God, to the full life Jesus promised, is through Jesus himself, but also through following the path he shows us, walking with him the road of sacrifice and self-denial.

I’ve been listening to Christian leaders tie themselves in knots trying to explain why followers of Christ would also follow Donald Trump, who knows less than any potential leader I've seen about sacrifice and self-denial.  I’ve read carefully the explanation that while Donald Trump may not be as pro-life, pro-family, pro-faith as Christian leaders might want, the fact that he’s the Republican nominee makes him “the only hope.”

That sounds a little blasphemous to me.

Following the Way of Christ starts with a willingness to set our habits and loyalties aside. 

Jesus said again and again: "leave your nets, your fields, your money, your life, and come, follow me."

The early believers understood that the first step of the Christian journey was a step away from all prior allegiance, including allegiance to self, to comfort, safety, the right to be right, the mistaken idea that somehow we, on our own, are good people, better than those others.

Allegiance to party platform.

Even national pride.

The Apostle Paul understood this completely:

If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more:  circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless. But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. (Philippians 3) 

The early Christians understood that the leadership of Christ stood in stark contrast to the leadership of Caesar. 

The Roman Empire proclaim evangelion, the good news (or gospel), that Caesar Augustus (the Exalted One) would bring peace and prosperity. Caesar’s peace had winners and losers: subjugation of non-citizens, slaughter of enemy barbarians, prosperity for Caesar’s favorites.

The followers of Christ proclaimed a new loyalty, a contradiction of the Roman good news. The Christian gospel was not about the political rule of a forceful human leader, but the unexpected narrative of Jesus’ birth, death and resurrection and the announcement of a risen savior who would bring peace for all, not just the Romans favored by Caesar.

Jesus said, “Peace I bring to you, but not as the world (Rome) brings.” New life in Christ was by definition in stark opposition to empire, power and violence.

 

Several centuries later, Athanasius of Alexandria  (ca. 296-298 – 373) described the visible influence of the Way of Christ  on the surrounding culture:

Christ is not only preached through His own disciples, but also wrought so persuasively on men’s understanding that, laying aside their savage habits and forsaking the worship of their ancestral gods, they learnt to know Him and through Him to worship the Father. While they were yet idolaters, the Greeks and Barbarians were always at war with each other, and were even cruel to their own kith and kin. Nobody could travel by land or sea at all unless he was armed with swords, because of their irreconcilable quarrels with each other. Indeed, the whole course of their life was carried on with weapons. But since they came over to the school of Christ, as men moved with real compunction they have laid aside their murderous cruelty and are war-minded no more. On the contrary, all is peace among them and nothing remains save desire for friendship.  (On the Incarnation) 

As followers of the Way in the 21st century, we face a challenge not known to those new Christians of an earlier world. We carry the heritage not only of those whose lives mirrored the example of Christ, but also of those who in the name of Christ went on with their war-minded ways, killing and conquering, justifying slavery and sexism, suppressing scientific study, shouting down opponents, carrying signs saying “God hates.”

No one said the Way of Christ would be easy. 

Russell D. Moore, Southern Baptist pastor and theologian, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, has been working valiantly to encourage white evangelical American Christians to extricate themselves from unexamined allegiance to the Republican party and its current candidate.

In a 2015 New York Times op-ed he set forth as clearly and as calmly as I’ve seen the deep divide between the “way” of Trump and the way of Christ.

[T]he problem is not just Mr. Trump’s personal lack of a moral compass. He is, after all, a casino and real estate mogul who has built his career off gambling, a moral vice and an economic swindle that oppresses the poorest and most desperate. When Mr. Trump’s casinos fail, he can simply file bankruptcy and move on. The lives and families destroyed by the casino industry cannot move on so easily. 

He’s defended, up until very recent years, abortion, and speaks even now of the “good things” done by Planned Parenthood. In a time when racial tensions run high across the country, Mr. Trump incites division, with slurs against Hispanic immigrants and with protectionist jargon that preys on turning economic insecurity into ugly “us versus them” identity politics. When evangelicals should be leading the way on racial reconciliation, as the Bible tells us to, are we really ready to trade unity with our black and brown brothers and sisters for this angry politician? 

Jesus taught his disciples to “count the cost” of following him. We should know, he said, where we’re going and what we’re leaving behind. We should also count the cost of following Donald Trump. To do so would mean that we’ve decided to join the other side of the culture war, that image and celebrity and money and power and social Darwinist “winning” trump the conservation of moral principles and a just society. We ought to listen, to get past the boisterous confidence and the television lights and the waving arms and hear just whose speech we’re applauding.

The Way of Christ leads us away from the longing for an earthly savior, away from allegiance to a political gospel of physical power or personal prosperity or the need to "win" at the cost of integrity and witness. 

It leads us away from slogans, mockery, hostility toward the opposition, nostalgia for comfort and ease at the expense of others unlike ourselves.

It leads us deeper into humility, deeper into the longing for wisdom, the repentant awareness of our own lack of love, our own inadequacy in the face of complex, overwhelming need.

And along that Way, as we read the words of Jesus, as we pray to hear and know his voice, as we ask to see with his eyes, to love what he loves, we find our hearts changing. 

As we follow his way, we find ourselves claiming, with him, a purpose and passion like his own, priority enough in this conflicted season:

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” (Luke 4)

Christ of the Breadlines, Fritz Eichenberg, 1951

This is a revision of a post from 2012, Which "Way" Am I Called to Follow?

It's also part of a series on What's Your Platform

Beyond the Party Platform July 24, 2016

Love Your Neighbor, Vote with Prayer

Ten days left until the 2012 election. My phone is busy with robocalls imploring me to save America, and my mailbox blooms with glossy colored postcards urging me to stand against a mix of urgent threats.

For some of us, voting is easy: walk into the polling booth and vote the party ticket. For others, though, that seems immoral: a sell-out to party power, an encouragement to our politicians to represent the agendas of deep-pocket party supporters rather than the needs of simple citizens.

A few weeks ago, registering voters in our local library, I found myself in conversation with a recently naturalized citizen, a man eager to participate in American democracy.

“How will I know who to vote for?” he asked earnestly.

“You can find a sample ballot at this website,” I said, scribbling a web address on the handout we’d given him: SmartVoter.org, offered by the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters. It provides information about polling places and hours and sample ballots for every precinct.  (In other states, the same information is available on Vote411, provided by the US League of Women Voters). 

“But,” he seemed uncertain how to say it, “how will I know . . .” He paused, unsure.

“What they stand for? What their positions are?”

“Yes.”

“That’s harder. But this is still a place to start." I explained that SmartVoter (and Vote411) provide links to candidates' websites, plus pass on answers some candidates have given to specific League questions. 

I admired the man’s motivation. Still learning the language, still struggling to find his way in a confusing new country, he was determined to understand the issues and to use his vote wisely.

I set out several months ago to think through issues and to argue that “voting as a Christian” doesn’t mean giving my vote without thought to the party that claims to stand for “Christian values.” In a recent article, The Politics of Abortion: Should Christians Vote Straight Ticket, Elliot Miller of the Christian Research Council argues that in their zeal to oppose abortion, Christians have become pawns of a party that claims to uphold a pro-life movement while often pursuing conflicting goals: “ Straight-ticket voting allows your party to get away with paying mere lip service to your issues.”

I find myself wondering: how many of us are aware that of the seven Supreme Court judges who ruled in favor of abortion in the landmark Roe v. Wade case, five were Republican? Of those who dissented, one was Republican, one Democrat. The history of political party and issues of life is far more complex, and in many ways more cynical, than most of us understand. 

Miller argues, as I did in my post "The Least of These":

“A pro-life ethic should not only apply to the unborn but also to the born, including people whose lives would be lost in a frivolous war, the catastrophic loss of life that could occur from a policy that results in nuclear war, loss of life due to environmental degradation (not just apocalyptic global warming scenarios but present-day famines in Africa and elsewhere that we have the means to do something about), the lives that are being lost daily in America through the ready availability of assault weapons, and so forth. If a candidate claims to be pro-life but promotes reckless policies on some or all of these issues, that needs to be factored in.” 

As Miller notes, pro-life Democrats have found their  more holistic pro-life efforts“sabotaged by the pro-life movement.” This is currently the case in Pennsylvania, where a moderate pro-life Catholic Democrat, Bob Casey, has been ranked “0 percent faith-friendly”  by a blatantly dishonest "Voter Guide for Christians." 

A closer look at Casey’s positions shows  a consistent pro-life stance that still insists on accessible contraception and womens’ health care screenings, whether through Planned Parenthood, health insurance mandates, or other health care provision. He has been unfairly labeled “pro-abortion” because he insists, I think correctly, that the fastest way to reduce abortions is to make sure women have affordable family planning information and support, while the current “pro-life” movement seems determined to cut funding for anything that might help women limit family size wisely. I admire Casey’s respect for women and for life, and his courage in trying to vote his conscience, even as the pro-life movement joins the party faithful in aggressive and deceptive attempts to unseat him.  He is one of very few pro-life Democratic senators left, and unapologetic about his Christian faith, passion for justice, and motivation to serve the poor. Wouldn’t it make sense to encourage and support him? Apparently not.

The Faith and Freedom scorecard disseminated widely in churches and religious sites offers ten essential topics for a Christian to consider when voting, including "Repeal Obamacare," "20% Across-the-Board Income Tax Cut," "Cap and Trade Carbon Tax."

I've been reading the Bible all my life. Please: in what way is a 20% across-the-board-tax cut a “Christian value”? 

And how is repealing "Obamacare" one of the top ten priorities for someone concerned with seeing faith play a role in our political decisions? From what I can tell of God’s concern for our health, I’d say Good Samaritans among us should think carefully before deciding that those with pre-existing conditions or low-paying jobs don't really need insurance. 

Cap and trade? Am I expected to believe that Christians should – as a matter of faith and freedom - vote AGAINST protecting the environment fromincreasing carbon emissions and worsening climate change? (Ever hear of Kiribati?)

I’ve mapped out some of the issues I’ll be considering as I prepare to vote:

• Extreme inequality
• Food equity, transparent labeling, protection of small farmers
• Subsidies for the wealthy at the expense of the poor
• The influence of corporate money in our political systems
• Peacemaking and our dependence on war
• Our bloated military budget and why it should be cut
• Love of guns displacing love of neighbor
• Care for those in prison; injustices rising from privatized prisons
• A whole-life approach to abortion and social issues
• Right-sized government
• Fair wages and worker protection
• Care of creation and appropriate regulation
• Issues of character, honesty in advertising, meaningless negative labeling, unexamined privilege  

While we many argue about the wisest, most faithful approach on any of these issues, I am more convinced than when I started that the Christian faith has much to say about matters too often ignored by those who claim to speak for the church.While some would like the government to legislate on moral issues and stay out of the way on matters of economy and regulation, others believe that the role of government is to maintain justice and protect the common good, while leaving matters of personal morality to the guidance of the church. In every arena, solutions that seem obvious to one person may appear implausible, wrong-headed, or genuinely evil, to another. 

Which is why, as I suggested when I set out on this series back in July, we are responsible to examine issues, think through the proper role of government, and advocate and vote in ways that reflect our own convictions. For those of us who claim to follow Christ, the need is greater than ever to demonstrate our commitment to the priorities Christ taught us, priorities of mercy, compassion, peace, justice, rather than the agendas promoted by party politics, wealthy donors, and slick political ads.

When we let the maneuverings of political "faith leader" groups shape our votes and our voice, both our witness for Christ and our influence for good are hijacked.

To find out individual candidate's stances on issues that matter, Smartvoter, or, in other states, Vote411, offer answers to specific questions, and links to candidate websites. For those who hold or have held public office,  On the Issues offers specifics on votes cast for and against legislation, as well as quotes from candidates on a wide variety of issues. The public record of candidates sometimes paints a much more nuanced picture than opponents might give; it also can show inconsistencies, and obvious attempts at manipulation of voters. 

The Voter Guide, a national site, offers links to local voters' guides, some with more information than contained in the League sites. OpenSecrets provides information about campaign finances, contributors, lobby groups. Another website I'll be consulting is the Grover Norquist "Taxpayer Protection PledgeSigner" site. I object strongly to anyone taking a pledge that prohibits wise consideration of all solutions. It’s highly doubtful I’ll be voting for anyone on Norquist’s extensive list. 

We live in a broken world, with broken institutions, broken people. There are no perfect candidates, no perfect platforms. Those who cry for peace will have to look elsewhere. Those who long for justice will find that agenda sadly missing. Those who pray for wiser use of natural resource will search, maybe in vain, for candidates standing firm on clean air, clean water, clean food.

But I’ll still vote. I think of the hundreds who died in Tiananmen Square, hungry for the rights we take for granted. I think of the women in Liberia, facing down men who used violence of every kind to maintain control and silence opposition, or the dissident writers spending decades in prison, gulags, camps, composing poems in their minds, writing speeches in their memories, waiting behind bars for the simple right to speak. I listen to reports of young activists in Syria, battered for their dream of freedom, and promise to invest more deeply in the freedom I've been given.

Our votes are not about defending our own rights, our own parties, our own strongly-held opinions. They’re tools in the service of the common good, one more way to defend the rights of the poor and needy, and to love our neighbor as ourselves, even when that neighbor speaks a different language, or prays for peace in a country other than our own. 

Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves,
    for the rights of all who are destitute.
Speak up and judge fairly;
    defend the rights of the poor and needy.

    (Proverbs 31:8-9)

Learn to do right; seek justice.

   Defend the oppressed.

Take up the cause of the fatherless;

   Plead the case of the widow.

   (Isaiah 18:17)

This is part of a continuing series about faith and politics: What's Your Platform? Join the conversation.  Look for the "__ comments" link below to leave your comments.  

For further thoughts on values and faith, I recommend the work Miroslav Volf has done this fall in thinking through Values of a Public Faith: Values of a Public Faith (part one), Values of a Public Faith (part two), Values of a  Public Faith (part three). Sojourners has also produced a downloadable pdf,  "Why Voting Matters: An Issues Guide for Christians." And Evangelicals for Social Action provide a similar guide: "Can My Vote Be Biblical."  Note: none of these resources say "This is who you should vote for." Instead, they raise important questions, offer suggested guidelines, and argue for informed individual decisions. 

Makers, Takers, and Immoral Wealth Transfer

We’ve been hearing for years now: “47 percent of Americans don’t pay taxes.” Memes are hard to trace back, but this one seems to have started with a 2009 report by Tax Policy Center fellow Bob Williams, estimating that 47 % of “tax units” would pay no federal income tax in 2009. That number has shifted from year to year, but the 47% idea appears impervious to fact, and was solidified by launch of a "We are the 53%" Tumblr site: "Those of us who pay for those of you who whine about all of that . . . or that . . . or whatever."

We’ve also been hearing references to “makers and takers.” While this idea dates back as far as Ayn Rand (and probably far beyond that), it was affirmed and publicized by a 2008 book by Peter Schwizer called Makers and Takers: Why conservatives work harder, feel happier, have closer families, take fewer drugs, give more generously, value honesty more, are less materialistic and envious, whine less . . . and even hug their children more than liberals.” (And yes, that's all part of the title.

A Fox News editorial in July energized the "maker taker" discussion once again:

"'A house divided against itself cannot stand.'  Abe Lincoln used those words in 1858 to describe a country that was careening toward civil war. Now we’re a house divided again and another civil war is coming, with the 2012 election as its Gettysburg.
Call it America’s coming civil war between the Makers and the Takers. 

"On one side are those who create wealth, America’s private sector. . .

"On the other are the public employee unions; left-leaning intelligentsia who see the growth of government as index of progress; and the millions of Americans now dependent on government through a growing network of government transfer payments,  from Medicaid and Social Security to college loans and corporate bailouts and handouts (think GM and Solyndra).

"Over the past century America’s private sector has been the source of productivity, innovation, creativity, and growth–and gave us the iPhone and iPad. The public sector has been the engine of entitlement, stagnation, and decline -- and gave us Detroit and the South Bronx.   . . .

"That public sector . . . brought us to the point where 48% of Americans are now on some form of government handout."

New York Times, Business Daily, How Do the 47% Vote?

Arthur Herman’s comments were repeated, reposted, retweeted thousands of times, and the ideas he shared continue to surface in poltical speeches, both private and public. The takers, that lazy 47 or 48%, are ruining our economy, fueling our debt, dependent on government handouts.

Set aside, if you can, the damaging, deliberately divisive image of a coming civil war.

And set aside the misleading suggestion that those who don’t pay federal income taxes don’t pay taxes at all, and the reality that many pay state, local, social security and FICA taxes, and all except the most indigent pay sales taxes.

And set aside the mean-spirited idea that our retired, our young, our disabled, are simply “takers” because our contribution can be accurately measured by whether we pay federal income taxes.

And set aside the strange idea that somehow the “private sector” is always the good guy, and the “public sector” just gets in the way.

Or the mention of "handouts" to GM and Solindra, without honest acknowledgement of far larger handouts to fossil fuel, banks, agribusiness, and a host of other private sector enterprises never questioned by those decrying "the growth of government."

Who, really, are the “makers” and the “takers”?

And which direction is wealth being transferred?

This whole question of entitlements is at the heart of the upcoming election: aren’t we tired of the entitlements of the old, the sick, the poor? Aren’t we angry about grants for low income students, subsidized housing for low income families, nutrition assistance for those who don’t work hard enough to feed the children they brought into this world?

And isn’t it immoral to transfer wealth from one group to another?

There’s the question that interests me most: transfer of wealth. Isn’t that socialism?

We’ve been watching a transfer of wealth on a scale hard to imagine, made possible by globalization and the increasing mobility of the global elite.

Fueled and funded, in large part, by quiet shifts in rules that allow government handouts to those who need them least.

But the transfer isn’t the one “makers and takers” proponents have their spotlights on.

Just consider one small change: the capital-gains tax cut of 2003.

A May, 2003, the House Ways and Means committee reported: “In tax year 2003, the capital-gains tax cut which only covers eight months of the year is worth $30,700 to millionaires, but only $42 to households with incomes between $40,000 and $50,000.”

If the average millionaire saved $30,000 in 8 months, that’s $45,000 for the next full tax year. Not bad for a small tax sleight-of-hand.

Most of the “entitlements” so hotly denounced yield small amounts for the families in question: the average SNAP (nutrition assistance) benefit for a family of four is about $6,000. A maximum Pell Grant for a full-time college student is $5,550.  The maximum SSI (social security income) for a disable individual is about $8,400 a year.

Where’s the outcry for the $45,000 a year in wealth transfer accomplished through the capital gains tax cut?

And that’s for the average millionaire. For those in even higher brackets, the take is far, far greater.

Another wealth transfer to consider: mortgage deductions. Why does the government subsidize home ownership, and at what cost? Who benefits?

Full disclosure: my husband and I own a home. We deduct our mortgage – which gives us a tax break each year of at most $2,000.

If we owned a larger, more expensive home, the break would be bigger: according to a recent Pew Charitable Trust study, families in the highest income categories receive a tax subsidy on average of almost $18,000.

I’m happy to see some of my tax dollars help provide housing for those most in need of it. In fact, yes, I’d be willing to give up my own mortgage deduction to ensure adequate housing for families I know who are currently living in substandard, crowded rentals.

But I’m not happy to think that tax subsidies are incentivizing purchase of second homes, or wasteful McMansions. And puzzled that the same people who object to small contributions to the poor are so unconcerned about very large contributions to the rich.

Last year four thousand families with net earnings of over a million each paid no federal income taxes at all. That’s a wealth transfer of hundreds of thousands per each “tax unit.” Do we care?

The difficulty in all of this is a distaste for numbers, a dislike for taxes, and a willingness to believe that “they” are stealing “my” money.  But who are “they”? And what can I do about it?

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities works hard to make numbers visible: their contributions make clear that “the takers” are not always those struggling hardest to get by, and while there may be some “takers” at the low end of the economic ladder, the biggest takers, and the most dangerous to our economy, are at the other end:

Read that housing benefit chart carefully: last year, the goverment gave $105,000,000,000 - $105 billion - in tax benefits for mortgage deductions. Add all the other housing subsidies together, and the total is less than half that. Who are the takers? Where's the wealth transfer?

The current wealth transfer goes much deeper, though, than tax cuts for the wealthy. I’m still trying to understand: how did it become possible for CEOs to pay themselves hundreds of times more than their workers? Why do workers reap an increasingly small share of profit in companies with strong bottom lines? Why do almost one in three working families still struggle to make ends meet? Who benefits from pushing back worker protections, or holding the line on minimum wages?

Who are the takers: the Walmart employees who make $11.75 an hour, $20,000 per year, often paying a large percentage of their wages for health care benefits, often scheduled week to week, with shifting hours that make a second job impossible?

Or the six heirs to the Walmart fortune, who now have a net worth of 89.5 billion, equal to the bottom 41.5 percent of US families combined.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote in 1904, “taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.” Who benefits from the argument against raising taxes in the upper brackets? Which loopholes are our politicians willing to close, and at what cost, what benefit?

Another Supreme Court justice,  Louis Brandeis, wrote in 1897, “we may have a democracy or we may have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.” That's even more true when that great wealth can be used, without limit, to influence elections, platforms, policies.

The Apostle James, two thousand years ago, wrote:

“Listen, my dear brothers and sisters: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? Are they not the ones who are blaspheming the noble name of him to whom you belong? If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, 'Love your neighbor as yourself,' you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.”

Givers? There are many ways to give. Money is only one measure of our contribution.

Takers? We all take, some of us humbly, and with gratitude. Some of us on a far greater scale, with a far greater sense of entitlement, and far greater harm to those we take from.

Immoral wealth transfer?  The divide continues to grow. The question James asked the church has never been more relevant: “Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? . . . Are they not the ones who are blaspheming the noble name of him to whom you belong?”


Join the conversation.  Look for the "__ comments" link below to leave your comments.  

This is part of an continuing series about faith and politics: What's Your Platform?