There were three responses to my posting “The Coming Revival”. There were probably others who read it, as they do the others that are posted, but who did not comment on what was said. To post a comment or not to post a comment is one’s choice.
But I was troubled by the comment from John, of Locusts and Honey fame. Here is his comment,
Your judgment of the budget hinges on whether government should steal from people in order to help the poor. If Jesus ever advocated Robin Hoodism, please cite chapter and verse. Posted on 21 November 2005 at 8:36 am to “The Coming Revival”
In reading John’s writings, I have noticed a certain sense of humor. So my first inclination was to think he was trying to make a joke of some sort. If it was a joke, I thought it was a poor one and one that shows no regard for the topic at hand. At the least, it was a bit callous.
But it was not as callous as the note I received from my Congresswoman, Sue Kelly of the 19th New York Congressional District. I sent copies of the blog to both of my Senators and my Representative. So far, the only response I got is from Representative Kelley.
November 21, 2005
Dr. Tony L. Mitchell
7 East Willow Street
Beacon, New York 12508-1812
Dear Dr. Mitchell:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the 2005 federal budget process. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your views.
As you may know, Congress passed a budget earlier this year which called for $35 billion in savings in our mandatory spending programs, which make up over half of the federal government’s spending annually. The new federal spending associated with responding to the unprecedented devastation caused by hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma have caused many to believe that budget savings must be increased further.
Recent economic reports show that our economy is strengthening, and sensible budget enforcement is an important part of ensuring the economy continues to grow. While Congress currently is examining various budget proposals associated with hurricane recovery and the larger federal budget, please know that I am continuing to work for policies that will promote fiscal responsibility and continued economic growth, while taking care not to eliminate support for those in need.
As this process moves forward, please do not hesitate to contact me with any future concerns you may have. Once again, thank you for reaching out to me on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Sue Kelly
Member of Congress
I am well aware that this was a form letter generated automatically in response to the e-mail that was sent. But it also shows a certain degree of callousness on Representative Kelly’s part to not have someone check and see if such a response is proper. This automatic response, which says that those in need will continue to receive support, is almost opposite of the direction that I was taking in my writings.
But, returning to the point of this writing, it could be that John feels that the tax situation in this country is unfair and inequitable. Maybe he thinks that taxes are unfair, burdensome and a bother. It would not be the first time, nor will it be the last, that others fell that way. The whole issue of taxation in this country seems to be that we pay too much in taxes.
I have always seen paying taxes as part of my duty as a citizen. How else do we pay for the services that government provides? And I also realize that there are times when our taxes are too high; I also realize that there is a certain inequity in the tax system. First, those who have the ability and the wherewithal to do can get exemptions to the tax law by supporting their Senators and Representatives, those with the ability and the wherewithal can hire accountants and tax attorneys to find the loopholes in the tax code that will enable them to reduce the taxes that they pay. Not everyone has that ability or the wherewithal to obtain such services.
A fair and equitable tax system would impose a fair burden, if you will, on all individuals. Right now, we do not have such a system. And rather than giving tax breaks to a few (yes, I know that the tax breaks are for all of us but who are the true beneficiaries of such largesse?), perhaps we need to revise our system so that it is fair to all.
I could not help but think of Zaccaheus, the tax collector. Tax collecting in Biblical times was not an honorable profession. Those that collected taxes earned their living by taking a commission from the taxes they collected and it was not unheard of for such collectors to take a few extra coins to keep in their pocket. But, after meeting with Jesus (a meeting that caused great displeasure amongst the community leaders), Zaccaheus renounced his ways and returned that which he stole four-fold. Maybe, if we revamp the present system and follow this Biblical example, things would be better off.
But the issue of my posting was not the taxation system but rather the budget that Congress passed. I know that there are those in this country who feel that our government, be it Federal, state, or local, has no business developing, promoting, or advocating social programs. Maybe that is true; maybe it is our responsibility as individuals to take care of the others in this world who are in need. But what happens when the tragedy of loss is greater than what individuals can provide?
The lessons learned from the 1920’s and 1930’s are still with us. When the nature of economic crisis is great, it takes a larger response to meet and resolve the crisis. Whatever factors may have played out in 1929, the Great Depression was caused by the greed of a few and the inability of all to answer the needs of the many. It took a combined response of all through the government to pull ourselves out of that low spot in the economic history of our country.
Any discussion about budgets and who gets what portion of Federal and state funds should be a moot point. Why should it not be an automatic thought that all who reside in our country receive the basic benefits of society? Look at Norway– their taxes may be what we consider high but every person in the country has medical coverage (it is not free; everyone pays something in the way of a co-pay), child care is not a burden on the parents, and what we call poverty in this country is non-existent. The salaries in the country are also higher. The standard of living in Norway is consistently and traditionally higher than that of the United States, normally ranking 1st or 2nd in the world. Norway’s foreign aid contributions on a per capita basis are also higher than this country. So it isn’t about the money; it is about what value you place on people and what you do with the money.
I am not that all enamored by most of the current social programs; I think that the way they are administered have caused more harm than good. I also think that there is a great inequity in the way the money of the Federal government is spent. We spend far too much money on developing ways to kill people than we do on helping people. We seem to think that war is a better solution to the world’s problems that giving the hungry food or the thirsty water. And the money that we spend on defense does not go to the men and women serving in our military; it goes to defense contractors so that “jobs can be saved and/or created.” All we have to do is look at the logistical support given our troops as they went off to fight that ill-conceived and poorly planned war in Iraq; where are all the billions that have been spent on defense if our troops do not have adequate armor for their vehicles? And why are our troops not provided care when they come home? Why is it that we speak of supporting our troops in time of war, why do we wave the flag so boldly when we send the troops off to fight but forget them when they come home? Why do the dead come back to Dover, Delaware, in the dead of the night without the fanfare of fallen heroes?
These are the results of a budget which does not care about people but more about power. We spend money to only further the political power of a few and we ignore the many. The intent of the programs designed to help have been lost in the immediacy of political rhetoric. It is time, as I wrote in my original post, for a revival.
This revival should focus on seeing that everyone, not just a few, are able to live a worthy life, not just one that gets by. This revival should focus on seeing that those with abilities can use their abilities and not suffer because of where they live or who they are or other factors created by the indifference and callousness of their fellow men.
We need a revival that will point out the obvious. Those that have but fail to share will be like the rich young in Matthew.
The Rich Young Man
Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.”
“Which ones?” the man inquired.
Jesus replied, ” ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’ “
“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19: 16 - 24)
The rich young man went away said because he was unwilling to give up that which made him rich but prevented him from being saving. Jesus had promised a man treasure in heaven if he followed him (Matthew v. 21; compare it to Matthew 6:20); the man preferred to keep his treasure on earth (Matthew 19:22). The rich young man was like many “First World” Christians today. They want God to affirm that we are religious enough without costing us anything more than we have already been offering him. They trust only tentatively the value of heaven’s kingdom and hence are prepared to sacrifice only little for it; but one who is not sufficiently convinced of the gospel’s truth to sacrifice everything (Compare this with Matthew 13:44-46) will not prove worthy of it. This is not to say that we are justified by our merit-we must receive the kingdom like a child. (Matthew 19:13-15) But genuine, saving faith is practically shown not by merely reciting a prayer but by living consistently with what we profess. (From the commentary on Matthew 19 at http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/index.php?action=getCommentaryText&cid=1&source=1&seq=i.47.19.6)
Jesus promises to more than make up for our sacrifices; do we believe him enough to sacrifice whatever our calling demands? As Craig Blomberg comments: “This entire episode should challenge First-World Christians, virtually all of whom are among the wealthiest people in the history of the world, to radical changes in their personal and institutional spending.”
The rich young man was not the only person whose attachment to possessions proved a challenge to his commitment to Christ. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer, martyred by the Nazis, pointed out, the difference between us and the rich man in the story is that Jesus stood before him and did not allow him to reinterpret the Master’s words in a more convenient manner. Bonhoeffer claims that the man’s honesty in rejecting Jesus’ command was better than disobedience that pretends to be obedience today He compares a boy told by his father to go to bed; the boy has studied theology, however, so he is now intelligent enough to reason, “Father tells me to go to bed, but he really means that I am tired, and he does not want me to be tired. I can overcome my tiredness just as well if I go out and play.” But a child offering such arguments to his father would likely meet with language or an experience he would have to interpret more literally, as would a citizen with her government-or a disciple who reasons away God’s demands. (From the commentary on Matthew 19 at http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/index.php?action=getCommentaryText&cid=1&source=1&seq=i.47.19.5)
The call for revival has never been more evident than it is today. The beginning of Advent should remind us that Christ is coming, not as a thing of the past but as a present moment. Advent should remind us that Christ came to save mankind, not allow a select few the opportunity for salvation.
We miss the essence of Christmas unless we become, in the words of Eberhard Arnold, “mindful of how Christ’s birth took place.” Once we do, we will sense immediately that Advent marks something momentous: God’s coming into our midst. That coming is not just something that happened in the past. It is a recurring possibility here and now. And thus Advent is not merely a commemorative event or an anniversary, but a yearly opportunity for us to consider the future, second Advent - the promised coming of God’s kingdom on earth.
Such an understanding of Christmas is possible only insofar as we let go of the false props of convention and seek to unlock its central paradox. That paradox, to paraphrase the modern martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer, is the fact that God’s coming is not only a matter of glad tidings but, first of all, “frightening news for everyone who has a conscience.”
The love that descended to Bethlehem is not the easy sympathy of an avuncular God, but a burning fire whose light chases away every shadow, floods every corner, and turns midnight into noon. This love reveals sin and overcomes it. It conquers darkness with such forcefulness and intensity that it scatters the proud, humbles the mighty, feeds the hungry, and sends the rich away empty-handed (Luke 1:51-53).
Because a transformation of this scale can never be achieved by human means, but only by divine intervention, Advent (to quote Bonhoeffer again) might be compared to a prison cell “in which one waits and hopes and does various unessential things… but is completely dependent on the fact that the door of freedom has to be opened from the outside.” It is a fitting metaphor. But dependency does not release us from responsibility. If the essence of Advent is expectancy, it is also readiness for action: watchfulness for every opening, and willingness to risk everything for freedom and a new beginning. (From http://www.bruderhof.com/articles/MeaningOfAdvent.htm?source=DailyDig)
So as Advent begins, let us remember why Christ came. As Advent begins, let us remember that the cost of discipleship may be too great if we are unwilling to sacrifice so that others may rejoice. Let us again start the renewal that begins this season.
I was not making a joke at all. Rather, I was pointing out — in too much brevity to make myself clear — that Jesus instructed the rich young man to give away his money, not someone else’s.
This is important distinction. When you say “Because of my Christian faith, I want my government to give X amount of dollars to cause Z” you are arguing, in short form “Because of my Christian faith, I want government to steal form these people (i.e. taxation) in order that money be be collected to serve the needs of cause Z.”
Taxation is nothing more than legalized thievery. We may need to do so for certain absolutely necessary purposes, but this is always a necessary evil.
Jesus called upon the rich young man to — out of his own free will — choose to do the right thing and give up his money for the poor. But using government force eliminates this voluntary choice. It is virtuous to donate one’s money for the poor. There is nothing virtuous about being mugged.
So when I said expressed your idea as Robin Hoodism — stealing from the rich to give to the poor — was I was pointing out that Jesus never advocated the use of government force in order to achieve these objectives.
Comment by John — November 25, 2005 @ 9:29 pm
My first inclination in posting these comments was to quote Jesus “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s”; but since I have an alternative view about what that means I choose not to do so.
I don’t want to get into an argument about taxation. There are others doing that. I think that to view taxation as an evil, necessary or otherwise, is inappropriate and faulty. This country’s first major crisis revolved around it’s ability to pay its bills; the result was the transformation from a confederacy of states to a republic with a constitution. Even the Confederacy during the Civil War found that holding to the ideas of independent states without a strong central government and taxation across the board did not work.
What we are faced with is that people are not doing what they should do and they are allowing their elected representatives to spend the money in ways that do not necessarily represent what this country is about. Or perhaps, they are spending the money in ways that better represent this country and we need to rethink our values.
Taxation should not be a burden nor should it be view as evil. At best, it is the payment we make because we are citizens of this country. It should be fair, it should be equitable, and it should help those who need the help and are unable to get the help on their own. It will take more than words to accomplish this; it will take a revival of the spirit.
Comment by Dr. Tony — November 26, 2005 @ 3:41 am
It would all be well and good if taxation was fair and the uses of revenues sensible. But we live in a fallen world where there is no perfection.
Taxation still involves this senario: government takes property from citizen. If citizen refuses, government incarcerates citizen. That is coercion. And as coercion involves a violation of free will, I regard it as evil. It may be necessary under certain extraordinary circumstances — to provide for the minimal functions of the state — but it is still evil. It is still stealing.
Because it is stealing, I am disinclined to attribute noble purposes to its use. Stealing from people, whether by taxation or mugging, and giving those revenues to the poor, is still stealing.
“Render unto Caesar.” Notice that the Kingdom of God envisioned by Jesus is apolitical and agovernmental. Jesus never advocates government policy changes. Rather, he instructs individuals to choose to be righteous. And there is much righteousness in giving one’s money to the poor. There is nothing righteous about being mugged, as one is not choosing good over evil.
Comment by John — November 26, 2005 @ 10:52 am