I've come across a common, but confusing, response to my recent article on the Bible and poverty (in which I argue that the Bible very clearly teaches that taking care of the poor is a community-wide responsibility, not just an individual one). Some politically moderate and conservative Christians have responded by saying that the community can't possibly be understood to be the United States, and we can't possibly think of the government as the means to enact this community-wide support for the poor.
Some have argued that this is akin to theocracy, and others have said that this is impossible in a secular society, and that the church must simply focus on its own efforts to support the poor (and implicitly, Christians should not support government assistance for the poor). This is confusing to me for a number of reasons.
First, we live in a representative democracy. Aside from a few basic rights, the ethical shape of our public policy is an open question, and it's up to the citizens of this country to advocate for what they want to see happen. It's literally your civic duty to try to persuade your fellow citizens to support your vision for what the country should do with its wealth, its space, its power, its justice system, and its capacities to regulate systems like commerce.
If you're a Christian, of course you should have some thoughts on these matters. Of course I think that I should consult the Bible when I think about ethics, including political structures, the justice system, our economy, poverty, our health care system, and so on. You're a citizen of a democracy, so you're tasked with the responsibility of political authority in this country—perhaps only a small piece of the massive puzzle, yes, but it's a real responsibility nonetheless. You know those authorities that Paul talks about in Romans 13? Because of our political structure, that's you! You're someone with political authority, and you need to answer for what you do with it.
So, if you're talking to other Christians, discuss your ethical commitments and try to imagine together what a just world would look like. Then try to persuade others--even people who aren't Christians, yes—to support your political imagination. If you're talking to other folks who don't share your theological commitments, then you'll have to translate your views into ethical language that makes sense to other people. For example, Martin Luther King, Jr. often said he struggled for civil rights because he thought that God abhors racism. He talked to Christians about this using scripture and theology, and convinced many of them to join his struggle. But he also was able to talk to people outside his community using more vague language about human dignity, respect, and so on.
If you think that God wants vulnerable people to be protected no matter who they are or where they are, then programs like universal health care should be part of the theological, ethical and political conversation because they are the only way to ensure that all vulnerable people can find the medical care that (at least I think) God wants them to have. That’s my vision, at least.
What about people who don't care about God, but perhaps want vulnerable people to have access to medical care? Great—let's join together and form a coalition that advocates for the shared commitments we have, regardless of the sources of our ethical thought! In other words, we should not tell our fellow citizens that they should shut up about the sources of their ethical commitments. We should feel free to name why we believe what we believe, but also be ready to debate the ethical commitments themselves.
If we don't have these conversations, then we end up with no ethics in our public discourse. Basically, we end up outsourcing our ethics to the market, and whatever helps shareholders the most ends up being "good." So let's talk together honestly about what kind of world we want to live in, let's find areas of overlap where we agree, and struggle to make that world become a reality.
Second, these same Christians who tell me to keep the Bible out of discussions of systemic poverty are probably not so shy about their personal religious commitments when it comes to issues like LGBT marriage. I'm in support of LGBT marriage, but I also have theological reasons for this stance, and I can talk about it in a secular way and a religious way. Because both are important to me. And if you're a Christian, they should be to you, too. It seems clear to me that the political right is trying hard to stop religious people from talking about social safety nets, and this disingenuous ploy has worked to some degree.
Third, if you're a Christian and you live in a society that gives you even a shred of political power: you're now accountable for what you do with it. Read Isaiah 10:1-4. It's written to you! Do you want to take a gamble that God would be happier with universal health care might not work exactly right, or do you want to take a gamble that God will supports a health care system that privileges profits over poor people's lives? Do you want to take a gamble by advocating for an expanded the social welfare system and providing a universal basic income that might encourage some people to be lazy, or do you want to take a gamble by supporting the dismantling of programs that support the lives of poor and elderly people, like Social Security, Medicaid, CHIP and Medicare, in hopes that it boosts the economy and lets you pay a bit less in taxes? It seems like a clear choice to me. If it is to you, too, then please consider joining in the recently revived Poor People’s Campaign.
I realize that this is a debate... but let’s debate, instead of using God as an excuse to close it down.