On Leftist Christian Naïveté

On November 2, 2009, Sean Hannity entertained a caller who made the following observation and comment (paraphrased).

Are you a Christian (rhetorical; Sean Hannity states that he is a Christian)? The Bible says that the Christians had all things in common, each of them shared equally. None considered what he had as his own. If you’re a Christian, why do you not want this instituted in America?

This sentiment has been echoed in several of my conversations. Most recently, Neil Carter (ex friend, he defriended me on Facebook) and Presbyterian minister (holding several post graduate degrees including a doctorate from Princeton) stated his support for B.O. by enumerating the many examples of our responsibility to care for the needy, feed the hungry, clothe the naked and generally be a do-gooder. These were theological reasons for his Democrat vote in 2008.

Besides the lunacy of the caller’s assertion as well that B.O. had led us out of slavery into freedom and the Promised Land (and Sean was to be excoriated for grumbling against our own “Moses”), the premise of his question is naïve and false. The answer to it is simple, if one knows how to clarify issues (a lost art in America) and frame the question more sanely. In other words, it misses the real point of government’s role in our lives and precisely what is meant by “promoting the general welfare” in the Constitution.

Let's set aside the real demand that Sean's caller was making - that Sean share 100% of his earnings and wealth so that the caller could benefit. The selfish intention was clear and admitted. But, it has nothing to do with the philosophical argument set forth by naïve Christians.

I was slightly troubled but sympathetic with Sean’s retort. He basically defended himself by saying that the government already took 60% in taxes and that he gave an additional amount (not to be disclosed) by way of charity. I suspect that the amount is sizeable. Studies show that conservatives are considerably more charitable with their monies than liberals. As Sean hinted, I’m sure that if vanity were to get the better part of pride, his contributions would make Al Gore’s and Joe Biden’s pale in comparison.

I am not satisfied with Sean’s answer. I am thoroughly on his side in this debate and in his perspective, generally. But, the answer is too personal. And it doesn’t have to be. This issue is far too important for it to come down to a personal comparison of tax-paying and alms-giving. It’s far too important to be reduced to math, although math is telling.

If I may cut right to the chase and offer the only and perfect retort to this naïveté. The following question has rarely, if ever, been asked of these Convenient “Christians.” Convenient, because their lives and the remainder of their philosophy never seem to be guided by any sense of biblical reasoning; yet, they have adopted the time-honored practice of “proof-texting,” lifting portions of Scripture out of context in order to support a political view or opinion. [More on this in another setting; it is helpful to note that Jeremiah Wright used this method of hermeneutics in defending his “liberation theology.” Any student of the Bible and history noticed it right away when, in the 2008 campaign era, he quoted an Old Testament text and actually said that liberation theology was based upon this verse.]

Here’s the clarifying question: What directive did Jesus or His apostles ever give to the state?

Not even the Rev. Dr. Neil has been able to answer this question.

While the “Christian” Left scrambles for an answer and no doubt attempts to delegitimize the very question itself, please note that the question clarifies an all important issue - government, specifically civil government, is and should be limited in its scope of authority. Not just to the Christian but to every American. No religious believer would profess ultimate obedience to the state over God. But, that’s not even the issue. No American would either, religious or not. At least, no American who reads, understands and believes the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

Sean did fair in his answers. But, the single Scripture that came to mind was Jesus’ statement that we must “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar and unto God that which is God’s.” This is very good but it doesn’t address the early Christians’ practice of having all things in common, a pattern the “Christian” Left sees for American government, minus of course any other “Christian” principles like respect for life (in the womb), honor to God in the public square as in all places, not being ashamed of Jesus Christ, et al.

While we’re on it though, let’s be clear about what Jesus said and what the implications are. Although the first part of the phrase is metaphorical in that it is certainly not limited to the Roman Emperor two millennia past, it hardly needs interpretation. Most folks understand intuitively that Jesus was speaking of “the state” when He said “Caesar.”

If Jesus was espousing a political philosophy, it certainly fell short of what many of us would have hoped to learn in our Western mode of thinking. We long for a treatise. We long for some treatment of the subject which we could dissect, critique, interpret in our own way and misinterpret and apply to our own advantage. Characteristic of Jesus, he used the least number of words to express timeless and eternal truth. And we need not over-explain or over-analyze it.
Just note, the statement is a limiting one. Caesar doesn’t get all. God probably does. But, even God allows a “rendering” of certain things unto human, earthly authorities.

The statement also begs the question whose answer is immediately, “no.” Is Caesar entitled to everything he demands? Yet, this goes entirely unnoticed by those who seek ultimate and total power for the state. The fact that God is entitled to certain things, even if not all things, is the corollary that doesn’t apply to the Leftist, Christian or not.

But Sean, this doesn’t directly answer your caller from Michigan who imagines that American domestic policy should fall along the same lines of early Christian practice. For it doesn’t address why we don’t lift words and practices out of context and apply them to a setting for which they were not intended.

Now, a fuller treatment of this naïve belief.

To apply early Christian practice, we shall just refer to it as “having all things in common,” as a matter of American domestic and tax policy is a violation of what actually happened as recorded in the book of (1) Acts.

This state of affairs was totally voluntary. It clearly emanated from some internal mechanism (I call it the Holy Spirit) and was not put upon them even by their own leaders within the church community let alone by authorities of the state. To be precise, we have no record of Jesus recommending this lifestyle either. Perhaps it was modeled in the traveling community around Jesus. But, that is unclear. We know that Judas kept a purse for the group but pilfered from it with apparently little concern from Jesus.

Of course, the point has nothing to do with whether or not the church community should follow this model. They may well should. The issue at hand is whether or not the state should force it upon the whole of society as a matter of policy.

Although I don’t care for most modern expressions of the Acts 4:32 idea, I do not, herein, argue against this type of Christian communal practice. There are plenty of groups that try it in one form or another. Many Christians do their best to adopt the spirit of such a practice through their giving to the local church and the practice of “alms-giving” or giving to the poor, especially their own who are in need. This happens in some of the most flawed Christian communities, even those with nearly incoherent mission statements. It’s just something they do. But, if a group of Christians were to practice this communal lifestyle, they could do it to a lesser degree precisely because the state has already taken up too much of their income in taxes. In other words, the state is actually the instrument that mitigates against such a heavenly and blissful condition. Unless the members run afoul of the I.R.S., it is impossible for them to share “everything” in common because the state will have taken either the first 15% and maybe up to 70% of the “everything” that they were supposed to have in common. Of course, if they are all poor, there may be no tax rate other than the 15% or so they must pay for social security. Perhaps the sharing of poverty amongst fellow believers is what the "Christian" Left has in mind.

By the way, we’re still waiting on an answer to my question, what directive did Jesus or His apostles ever prescribe for the state?

Are “Christian” Leftists actually saying that the practice of “having all things in common” should be taken away from the church community and given to the state? If not, how can both groups practice it? You cannot “have anything in common” more than once. So which is it? Does the Christian community practice this or does the state? If it’s the state’s responsibility, the argument falls quite flat doesn’t it – Christians are in effect prohibited from practicing it. And, if the state has the responsibility to insure some sort of “Christian” community, does it also have the responsibility to preach the Christian gospel? To discipline and correct its members for adultery? This may be the vision of America promulgated by some but certainly not by the Left.

Read Acts 4:32 again (below). It is not really clear how the details were worked out. We know that people did not claim ultimate ownership – no one claimed that “any of the things he possessed was his own.” This is consistent with the Judaic and Christian tradition of viewing everything as belonging to God and viewing ourselves as managers (“stewards”) of what we “possess.” Christians did, please note, “possess” certain things. The difference was that there was no “grasping” of possessions. This is what Buddhism had taught for 2,500 years but what appeared as if by magic in the Christian community without mandate. There is no indication that there was a common till. The sharing of all things was by attitude and mutual sharing, not by a Department of the Treasury or via the Ways and Means Committe.

Our world could certainly use an attitude of sharing and mutual concern. But, it’s an attitude that dynamic Christianity does not seek to impose upon society. It seeks first to introduce human beings to the reality of (2) “Christ in you, the hope of glory.” The implications and natural consequences that follow cannot help but spread a charitable environment throughout society.

But, the surest way to insure that such a spirit does not spread throughout, is to place upon the state the responsibility to produce that which it cannot. Historically, it's also the surest way to waste 66% or more of the resources within the redistributive hierarchy, hardly what happened in early Christianity. "All things" does not mean "all things less the bureacratic deduction."

One parting thought. If it’s a Christian’s obligation to support the state in its pursuit of this vision of communal sharing, is it also a Christian’s duty to support the state’s pursuit of other community practices such as Paul’s admonition, “For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.” (2 Thess. 3:10) No provision for the unfortunate condition of having lost one’s job. It’s pretty straight up – You don’t work, you don’t eat. Now, this one I like. We get to watch the lazy bastards on the welfare dole starve to death. Excellent!

I knew that Right-Wing Republican Christians enjoyed seeing people go hungry and actually wanted them to starve to death. This we know from the current White House and Congress. I just didn’t imagine that the sympathetic Left would support this notion. I suppose we have more in common than we thought.


Notes

(1) Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. (Acts 4:32)

(2) To them God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles: which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. (Colossians 1:27)