What Progressive Christians Get Wrong about Taxes and Taking Care of the Poor
It looks like for the first time in their nearly 11 months in power, the Republican-controlled Senate and Republican-controlled House will be able to send something of significance to the Republican president to sign into law. That something is tax reform. I'm middle class, and if this new tax code becomes law, it will benefit me financially. Because I am Christian, this means I'll also be able to donate a little more to charities. And because I'm a supply-sider I recognize that some of this money will also go towards purchases and help along the economy. Helping along the economy will likely create some more jobs as well. As you can tell, I mostly approve of this tax bill. (Though my no means do I think it is perfect, but perfect shouldn't be the enemy of good).
However, there are many who oppose it. That's fine. Their claims that this tax code will destroy the poor seems excessive, but they are free to think that and make their arguments. Some especially vocal about this are progressive Christians. Again, they are free to make their arguments, but when they start bringing in scripture, it's worth examining what they are trying to say and if they are using scripture appropriately.
I want to start with some Rachel Held Evans tweets that were in response to this from Erick Erickson:
It probably doesn't come as a surprise that I generally agree with Erickson on this point. While not everyone who advocates for taxing the living daylights out of the rich shirks their individual responsibility to take care of the poor, it sure seems we consistently hear more from the Christian left about raising taxes than we do about how someone can better take care of the poor in their midst.
Held Evans responded with series of tweets:
Quin Hillyer's question is fair, but he should recognize that the body of Christ has a clear collective responsibility to take care of the poor. The bible does command it. However, Held Evans' reference to Leviticus 25 is...not accurate. At the very least, it doesn't accurately relate to a secular government's tax code.
What Held Evans points to in her defense is the Year of Jubilee. The Year of Jubilee was under Jewish civil law instituting a year every so often when all debt was forgiven and captives were set free. There is nothing about a tax code, and there is nothing about the collective responsibility of a nation other than Israel participating.
As I discussed in my youth Sunday school class yesterday, there are three types of laws in the Old Testament: Civil, Ceremonial, and Moral. Civil no longer applies because there is no ruling Jewish state over believers. This would have included things like punishments, inheritance, and the Year of Jubilee. Ceremonial laws have been superseded and replaced by the work of Jesus Christ on the cross. These were festivals, food restrictions, and rituals regarding offerings and priestly duties. Moral laws still remain. Nothing occurred since the Pentateuch to abolish or restrict moral law. This would include loving God, loving one's neighbor, idolatry, and sexual sin.
Of course, the deep (DEEEEEEEEEEEP) hypocrisy here is that Held Evans is very adamantly in favor of same sex marriage being acceptable in the Christian church. Her pointing to civil law in Leviticus to justify opposing a secular tax code, but ignoring moral law (which, again, were not abolished) regarding sex and marriage is at best inconsistent and at worst ignorant heresy.
Of course, she's wrong anyway in this application of Ezekiel 16 even if she was consistent in regards to homosexuality. The judgment poured out on Sodom was prior to the Law found in Leviticus. It would be unwise to believe the destruction of an entire city for the sins of its inhabitants at this time are entirely analogous to a non-Jewish country's tax code.
I genuinely appreciate Held Evans taking the time to say that there is a point where she does not go in this conversation, that there is room for "reasonable disagreement." And as I have pointed out, she is right that there is clearly communal responsibility. However, she is wrong to meld the communal responsibility of believers to take care of the poor with a secular government's tax code. Scripture speaks to Christians taking care of the poor, not voting/supporting the taking of money from others to do it. In addition, Erickson's initial tweet is still accurate. Scripture teaches the church's responsibility to take care of the poor, and also, the individual's responsibility. He is also correct to point out that scripture does not speak to the government's role in doing so.
Now, that doesn't mean the government does not have a responsibility to do so. However, I believe Erickson's tweet is more about those who demand the government to do it without investing any or much of their own time or money to do so.
Finally, this post wouldn't be complete without addressing Sojourners campaign against this tax bill. They staged a "#2000verses" campaign to promote 2,000 verses that address taking care of the poor.
First an foremost, it would be nice if they took all of scripture this seriously.
However, to the point, Sojourners makes the same two errors as Held Evans. First, there is "reasonable disagreement" on how this new tax code will directly impact the wealthy, the middle class, and the poor. There is also "reasonable disagreement" about how supply-side economics work, and how much it can benefit the poor through 1) increased revenue that arrives through an expanded tax base, and 2) the potential increase of jobs by encouraging investment.
The second error is that the commands to take care of the poor are directed towards believers, both as a community and as individuals, and not a secular government. If Sojourners, and progressive Christianity as a whole, want to utilize scripture to torpedo tax reform legislation, they are first obligated to argue why this code beyond reasonable doubt will further harm the poor. Scripture commands believers to take care of the poor, not how to set corporate tax rates and what deductions to keep or eliminate.
However, there are many who oppose it. That's fine. Their claims that this tax code will destroy the poor seems excessive, but they are free to think that and make their arguments. Some especially vocal about this are progressive Christians. Again, they are free to make their arguments, but when they start bringing in scripture, it's worth examining what they are trying to say and if they are using scripture appropriately.
I want to start with some Rachel Held Evans tweets that were in response to this from Erick Erickson:
The Bible teaches it is an individual responsibility to help the poor. Shame on those who’d pass off their personal obligation to the government. https://t.co/WMEUgEIOWl— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) December 2, 2017
It probably doesn't come as a surprise that I generally agree with Erickson on this point. While not everyone who advocates for taxing the living daylights out of the rich shirks their individual responsibility to take care of the poor, it sure seems we consistently hear more from the Christian left about raising taxes than we do about how someone can better take care of the poor in their midst.
Held Evans responded with series of tweets:
This is a common teaching in evangelicalism that has absolutely no basis in fact. From Hebrew Scripture to the N.T., care for the poor is described in communal terms. Entire nations are judged by it. https://t.co/3lFC6n8OCk— Rachel Held Evans (@rachelheldevans) December 3, 2017
Show me a place where it says the "communal" responsibility is supposed to involve confiscated, non-voluntary aid. Please. I'm waiting. @EWErickson is right.— Quin Hillyer (@QuinHillyer) December 3, 2017
To be clear, Held Evans isn't wrong in what she says in her initial tweet; she is wrong in the conclusion she draws. Taking care of the poor is communal. However, communal and demanding a secular government take by force from those who have much and redistribute to those who have less are different. This is the centrality of the failure of the Christian left when they incorporate scripture into the tax code. To the extent that taking care of the poor is a communal effort, it is the community of believers that have this responsibility, not a secular government. Demanding the government take more from one person to give it to another is no act of charity.Leviticus 25.— Rachel Held Evans (@rachelheldevans) December 3, 2017
Quin Hillyer's question is fair, but he should recognize that the body of Christ has a clear collective responsibility to take care of the poor. The bible does command it. However, Held Evans' reference to Leviticus 25 is...not accurate. At the very least, it doesn't accurately relate to a secular government's tax code.
What Held Evans points to in her defense is the Year of Jubilee. The Year of Jubilee was under Jewish civil law instituting a year every so often when all debt was forgiven and captives were set free. There is nothing about a tax code, and there is nothing about the collective responsibility of a nation other than Israel participating.
As I discussed in my youth Sunday school class yesterday, there are three types of laws in the Old Testament: Civil, Ceremonial, and Moral. Civil no longer applies because there is no ruling Jewish state over believers. This would have included things like punishments, inheritance, and the Year of Jubilee. Ceremonial laws have been superseded and replaced by the work of Jesus Christ on the cross. These were festivals, food restrictions, and rituals regarding offerings and priestly duties. Moral laws still remain. Nothing occurred since the Pentateuch to abolish or restrict moral law. This would include loving God, loving one's neighbor, idolatry, and sexual sin.
Of course, the deep (DEEEEEEEEEEEP) hypocrisy here is that Held Evans is very adamantly in favor of same sex marriage being acceptable in the Christian church. Her pointing to civil law in Leviticus to justify opposing a secular tax code, but ignoring moral law (which, again, were not abolished) regarding sex and marriage is at best inconsistent and at worst ignorant heresy.
Two things. First, Held Evans leaves out verse 50, which says, "They were haughty and did an abomination before me." The Hebrew word for abomination here is towebah. This is the exact same word used in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 where it describes acts of homosexuality as abomination. To reiterate, for Held Evans to use the verses she uses to oppose a secular government's tax code, but still defend the "sanctity" of same sex marriage, is DEEP hypocrisy.“Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned. They did not help the poor and needy.” - Ezekiel 16:49 (See also #2000verses) https://t.co/3lFC6n8OCk— Rachel Held Evans (@rachelheldevans) December 3, 2017
Of course, she's wrong anyway in this application of Ezekiel 16 even if she was consistent in regards to homosexuality. The judgment poured out on Sodom was prior to the Law found in Leviticus. It would be unwise to believe the destruction of an entire city for the sins of its inhabitants at this time are entirely analogous to a non-Jewish country's tax code.
This is just bad hermeneutics. Verse 32 says He will gather "all the nations," yes. However, within that very same sentence, he then separates the "people from one another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats." Grammatically, this indicates everyone from all nations will be gathered together, and individuals will then be judged. God says "To those on his right" and then "to those on his left." While a nation can be judged, this passage is about judging individuals. Some are sent to heaven and others to hell. A nation, not having a soul, cannot be saved nor can it be damned to hell.In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus describes God judging NATIONS (not individuals) by how those nations treated immigrants, the poor, the imprisoned, and the sick. https://t.co/dqUkRADT2U https://t.co/AQAoVZkEun— Rachel Held Evans (@rachelheldevans) December 3, 2017
Again, Held Evan is correct. And if her rebuke was directed at congregations or groups or denominations or ministries that neglected the poor, she would be accurate. However, again, we are discussing a tax code that folks can disagree with on how it will impact others. There are different legitimate economic viewpoints that could argue the impact this tax code will have on the poor. There are many well-written, well-educated individuals who make incredibly compelling arguments for supply-side economics.The Bible is not a series of individualistic teachings for individual consumption & enrichment. The WHOLE THING is written for and by communities with communal concerns in mind. https://t.co/iEVQylsoGR— Rachel Held Evans (@rachelheldevans) December 3, 2017
Of course this doesn't preclude individual giving/sharing/advocating. That should go without saying. But it's simply untrue to say the Bible never speaks of communal justice for the poor. Quite the contrary. https://t.co/3ZPzvbhHpS— Rachel Held Evans (@rachelheldevans) December 3, 2017
Final thought on this: I wouldn't go as far as Father Martin, because I think there can be reasonable disagreement among folks about how to best care for the poor, but I contest Erickson's claim that the Bible only teaches individual responsibility, not collective responsibility. https://t.co/3ZPzvbhHpS— Rachel Held Evans (@rachelheldevans) December 3, 2017
I genuinely appreciate Held Evans taking the time to say that there is a point where she does not go in this conversation, that there is room for "reasonable disagreement." And as I have pointed out, she is right that there is clearly communal responsibility. However, she is wrong to meld the communal responsibility of believers to take care of the poor with a secular government's tax code. Scripture speaks to Christians taking care of the poor, not voting/supporting the taking of money from others to do it. In addition, Erickson's initial tweet is still accurate. Scripture teaches the church's responsibility to take care of the poor, and also, the individual's responsibility. He is also correct to point out that scripture does not speak to the government's role in doing so.
Now, that doesn't mean the government does not have a responsibility to do so. However, I believe Erickson's tweet is more about those who demand the government to do it without investing any or much of their own time or money to do so.
Finally, this post wouldn't be complete without addressing Sojourners campaign against this tax bill. They staged a "#2000verses" campaign to promote 2,000 verses that address taking care of the poor.
#2000verses needs to keep going, now more than ever. https://t.co/pXz8JqmN3p— Sojourners (@Sojourners) December 2, 2017
First an foremost, it would be nice if they took all of scripture this seriously.
However, to the point, Sojourners makes the same two errors as Held Evans. First, there is "reasonable disagreement" on how this new tax code will directly impact the wealthy, the middle class, and the poor. There is also "reasonable disagreement" about how supply-side economics work, and how much it can benefit the poor through 1) increased revenue that arrives through an expanded tax base, and 2) the potential increase of jobs by encouraging investment.
The second error is that the commands to take care of the poor are directed towards believers, both as a community and as individuals, and not a secular government. If Sojourners, and progressive Christianity as a whole, want to utilize scripture to torpedo tax reform legislation, they are first obligated to argue why this code beyond reasonable doubt will further harm the poor. Scripture commands believers to take care of the poor, not how to set corporate tax rates and what deductions to keep or eliminate.
Comments
Post a Comment