Misrepresentation of Scripture In the Political Arena: Poverty & the American Christian

I felt compelled to give a rebuttal, after reading the article written by Connie Schultz, author & wife of Ohio senator, Sherrod Brown, entitled: "First quote Jesus, then punish the poor.” First off, this is a blanketing statement. Because to the unbeliever, it makes the lofty claim that Christians, specifically in regard to this article, Christian Republican politicians, hate the poor. Instead of focusing on a Republican vs. Democrat approach, to the Bible, as many are wont to do, one must have a look at truth claims, and the origin of biblical compassion. Americans across the board are helpless knowing that their tax dollars are seemingly wasted on foolish government programs of all kinds. Since Connie Schultz started her argument with the Proverb 14:31, let’s take a look: “He who oppresses the poor reproaches his Maker,” which is where she stopped. The rest of the verse states, “but he who honors Him has mercy on the needy” (NASB). The subjective moral overtones are not in keeping with Scripture. More importantly, Christian combatting Christian in the public & political sector does more to undermine Christianity in the public eye than it does benefit.

Now from a purely general outlook of giving to charity, without covering religion albeit mentioning religion, is a bit of a misnomer as Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy put it, “Not to be too simplistic about it, but if you believe that government should take care of basic social services, then you’re going to go that way,” Palmer told International Business Times. “If you think charities should take care of things, and not government, then you’re probably going to give more generously to charity.” More on churchgoers giving more than their atheist counterparts can be found in the same article here: http://www.ibtimes.com/charitable-giving-state-are-republicans-more-generous-democrats-or-just-more-religious-1700059, as well as, Robert Hutchinson’s The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible, p. 93-94, Chapter 6.

So if ideology is a motivating factor, then who is right in the moral debate between Christians of opposing political views? It would make sense to refer back to the Bible. Jesus said, “For you have the poor with you always, but Me you do not have always” (Matt. 26:11). So what is he saying here? He shot down his own disciples who said “Why this waste? For this fragrant oil might have been sold for much and given to the poor” (Matt. 26:9-10)? Was he saying never help the poor? Of course not, but there is a time and season for the individual of a biblical understanding, not government, to decide when to give to the poor. That time in particular wasn’t it. Alms for the poor is only a portion of the problem for the professing Christian who doesn’t adhere to biblical precepts. In Malachi 3:8-10, it states, “Will a man rob God? Yet you have robbed me! But you say, ‘In what way have we robbed you?’ In tithes and offerings. You are cursed with a curse, for you have robbed Me, even this whole nation. Bring all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be food in My house, and try Me now in this, says the Lord of hosts, If I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you such blessing that there will not be room enough to receive it.”

Ten percent of the nation’s wealth, from a free-market standpoint, would do far greater good for the poor than government spending ever did with the lax conditions the Republican leaders, that she mentions, are addressing. But either way, it will not eliminate poverty as Jesus stated. He tells us to essentially endure the taxation, but the moral ambiguity of civil government taxing for the battling poverty is senseless waste from this perspective. While there is essentially no cap on Congress, based on the Constitution, taxes for the poor are “legitimate,” but are said taxes morally right?

As author & historian Vishal Mangalwadi writes, “Greek, Roman, Indian, and Islamic civilizations produced great physicians and surgeons; however, they did not create caring cultures…. Western civilization was able to learn from preceding cultures and develop modern medicine because the Bible informed it that real sickness in human society was selfishness.” So, Connie Schultz’s argument is dealing with symptoms of societal decay, pointing fingers at Christians she disagrees with, not addressing the fact that America has become far removed from her Christian roots. The more we secularize the nation, the less caring we will see man become, essentially fulfilling the last days prophecy of 2 Timothy 3. Ironically, for politicians, in general, who attempt to wax eloquent about separation of church and state, using Scripture to justify government legislation is contradictory.

Another issue that Republicans and Democrats, in the public eye, seemingly push is: The American Dream. But we live in an era where that false utopia is no longer feasible. That is not a nihilistic statement, but a profession that the house surrounded by a white picket fence, with a trimmed lawn, and a washed car, is not something easily attainable in a world that is economically crashing around us. Christians have and will give to the poor. It makes sense that some legislators wish to demand stricter standards for those living in poverty, but dealing with the heart is most important. No one can make a person better themselves and one cannot make the accusation that all Republicans wish to shame the poor (another blanketing of both demographics). But even here, they will never be 100% successful. The importance of being impartial to each man’s plight is essential. One alleged contradiction in the Bible is the understanding of appropriate context, which Schultz posited in the very beginning.

The example: Psalm 41:1 says, “Blessed is he who considers the poor; The Lord will deliver him in time of trouble.” Or Proverbs 14:21, “He who despises his neighbor sins; but he who has mercy on the poor, happy is he.” Now contrast those verses with Exodus 23:3, “You shall not show partiality to a poor man in his dispute.” So if a poor man is shown to not spend taxed money, given to him/her, in a way that will better his/her predicament, how exactly is the American public supposed to feel about their tax dollars being essentially wasted? The first two verses mentioned, as author John Haley writes, “comment the exercise of benevolence in cases where no question of law or justice is involved; the last teaches that, in suits between man and man, justice must be done. The judges must not be unduly swayed by the poor man’s pleading but must decide the matter impartially.”

There is a mocking tone to Schultz’s commentary as she is prosing on about “…the son of a pastor who likes to mention Jesus when explaining his opposition to the poor…,” in reference to State Senator Mike O’Donnell. Christians should be building one another up, not tearing them down over an endless debate concerning a topic Jesus addressed very bluntly. As Puritan preacher, George Webb wrote in 1621, “Poverty… may befall a wise man, virtuous man, a faithful man… Extreme poverty and necessity may befall the godly.… [But these] are the poor of God’s making, and our duty in respect to them, is… to pity them… comfort them… relieve them, and support them in deeds.” This is never understood to be the role of government, but of the Christian. So the honor that is mentioned in the second half of the verse she left out, isn't praise from men's lips for "doing the right thing," but honor from God for submitting to His will. If Schultz truly wishes to follow a biblical mandate, I suggest she read Exodus 23:10-11 and see if taking a year off, of farming nationwide, to let the poor glean from the fields is any more feasible than government ending poverty itself.            

Perhaps we should listen to our forefathers such as President Grover Cleveland who wrote concerning federal taxation for private welfare problems, “I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people. The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of common brotherhood.”