Conservative Christians dominate political and social life in the United States. While I know that there are hundreds of thousands of Evangelical Christians and Roman Catholics who consider themselves to be conservative Christians, it’s puzzling to me how the concepts of conservatism and Christianity can be aligned.
While American conservatives vary a great deal among themselves, conservatives in the United States support capitalism, an economic system in which the control of wealth (capital) is in the hands of the few. Conservatives believe in a strong military defense and the right of individuals to own guns. Conservatives hold to an ideal of rugged individualism, valuing self-reliance and competition. Related to this individualist ideal is the belief that government should be small and that a social safety net should, at most, be at a minimum. Yet, while wanting a small government which supports the value self-reliance, conservatives attempt to strongly regulate personal behavior regarding human sexuality, marriage, and family planning.
Christianity, based on the teachings of Jesus, maintains a primary moral imperative to “love one another as I have loved you” (John 13:34). In terms of the role of a military and gun ownership, the teachings of Jesus state, “Blessed are the peace makers for they shall be called children of God” (Matthew 5:9) and “If someone hits you on one cheek, offer the other cheek as well” (Luke 6:29). Both Matthew and Luke record words of Jesus stating that if someone in need asks for your coat, not only should one give the coat but also one’s shirt!
The teachings of Jesus are demanding. They call for a compassionate response to people and life situations. Judgment and condemnation have no place in the life or politics of Christians. “Judge not and you will not be judged. Do not condemn and you will not be condemned” (Luke 6:37). The life of a follower of Jesus should be marked by generosity toward others, openness to people, and forgiveness of their faults and failings. The teachings of Jesus are not ambiguous about the moral obligation to live by these values. Fundamental values of Christianity are unconditional support (including financial) for others, forgiving and living at peace with enemies, and doing no harm to others.
While conservative Christians have large numbers in American today, as I read the words of Jesus, I simply don’t find support in them for positions held by conservatives. I can’t help but conclude that the basic conservative positions are in conflict with the fundamental teachings of Jesus. On what basis do they call themselves “Christians”? Is it because they have a large number of followers and can influence political power? But then, Jesus also said, “Enter through the narrow gate, for the road is broad and wide which leads to destruction and many choose to follow it” (Matthew 7:13).
Thank you! I have been rethinking the relationship between conservatism and Christianity for some time now. They just don’t seem to reconcile. So much anger and negative energy among so-called Christians. I have a hard time even associating with them anymore because invariably the discussion will turn to some politically charged topic. Amazingly enough if you don’t agree with everything they believe, you are judged and ostracized…not at all what Christ taught us.
I agree totally with you LJ. Growing up in a Evangelical Christian High School in Hong Kong, I was taught the fundamental values of Christianity are Compassion/Love & Forgiveness. Ironically, since I came to the states for college, I found that the “mainstream” Christianity in the US was anything but being compassionate and forgiving. They spread hatred on things they don’t agree on; and they just don’t express opinions but fight against you till you are on the ground. Even though I am not a Christian myself, I see something fundamentally wrong about Christianity in the states; something that doesn’t exist in any other Christian countries!
Thanks for the comments.
Ultimately, each of us needs to focus on our own choices and how we live. While others may choose to use their religious beliefs to be critical of others, we can choose to find inspiration to respond with compassion to others. Of course, when others are acting out of hate, responding with compassion can be challenging. But it is an opportunity to grow.
You couldn’t have put it better. Thank you.
Jayne:
Thanks for the compliment!
Lou
Has anyone here, including you, Rev. Kavar, read the book “Who Really Cares” by Albert C. Brooks? I’m halfway through it as I write this and find the author’s research to be quite startling. Just curious.
CORRECTION!!! The author of “Who Really Cares” is ARTHUR C. Brooks”, not Albert, as noted above.
You expressed so well what I think and believe. There is also a Bible verse that says that when we do for the least “of these” we do it to Jesus.
Jan:
Thanks for your comment. The Bible verse you shared is also very appropriate for this discussion.
Best wishes.
Lou
From the biblical scholars who contributed to the ESV Study Bible–ON ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS:
While nearly all Christian ethicists believe that civil government should take some role in assuring that everyone has access to the most basic human needs, they differ over the degree to which civil government (as distinguished from nongovernment entities such as relatives, neighbors, churches, and charitable organizations) should assume responsibility or authority for meeting those needs. Points of difference often arise with regard to government programs to rehabilitate and train individuals, create new jobs, change social and economic structures, and/or redistribute wealth. Questions raised by these differences do not fall into categories of clearly defined biblical right or wrong, but tend rather to entail philosophical differences in economic or social theory.
And as to gun ownership (one point of many that could be made regarding wars and weapons)–check out Luke 22:35-36:
[35] And he said to them, i “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” [36] He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.
Thanks for sharing that passage. However, I would suggest that the realm of God which Jesus spoke of described a fundamental reversal in which those who are marginalized receive justice and live in equity with others. This is actually a tenant held by the Pilgrims/Puritans who settled in New England and who are the historical ancestors of my denomination, the United Church of Christ. We share the belief that it is role of Christians to work toward creating the realm of God on earth by working for social justice and equity among all people.
@Counter
Ok – Economic and Social Theory – What we are looking at is this; supposedly the richest/best/greatest country in the whole universe is in the deepest debate on whether the poor should be able to have insurance or not!
Economically speaking, I guess not since the economy is so bad. Just let people who can’t afford health care suffer; while a lot of other people can still drive their luxury cars, buy their mansions (mmm… may be not anymore!) and enjoy their bonuses.
Socially speaking, what I understand from the opponents against health care reform is that people should take care of their everything because of a fake capitalistic system.
Developing countries may not be socially and economically feasible to provide basic health care to all their citizens. But the big US of A? Really? Economic and Social situation?!
GUN?! Oh GUN! Where do you live that you need a gun going out, like the 2000-year-old story you mentioned? From your argument about society and economy, I doubt you live in a tough neighborhood, like those who can’t afford health care or a meal but need a gun to protect themselves!
Remember: Not everyone born with a gold spoon; there are many out there aren’t as lucky, or have even chances to be lucky!
@Counter
Ok – Economic and Social Theory – What we are looking at is this; supposedly the richest/best/greatest country in the whole universe is in the deepest debate on whether the poor should be able to have insurance or not!
Economically speaking, I guess not since the economy is so bad. Just let people who can’t afford health care suffer; while a lot of other people can still drive their luxury cars, buy their mansions (mmm… may be not anymore!) and enjoy their bonuses. Don’t forget how this country gets so deep in debt: Consumer Economy!
Socially speaking, what I understand from the opponents against health care reform is that people should take care of their everything because of a fake capitalistic system.
Developing countries may not be socially and economically feasible to provide basic health care to all their citizens. But the big US of A? Really? Economic and Social situation?!
GUN?! Oh GUN! Where do you live that you need a gun going out, like the 2000-year-old story you mentioned? From your argument about society and economy, I doubt you live in a tough neighborhood, like those who can’t afford health care or a meal but need a gun to protect themselves!
Remember: Not everyone born with a gold spoon; there are many out there aren’t as lucky, or have even chances to be lucky!
If the discussion is about health care, there are a couple of problems with this health care bill. The bill is offensive to libertarian ideals and is financially irresponsible and short-sighted. But the underlying issue with this health care bill is that it does not address the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is that we don’t have enough doctors to provide the kind of care that we wish all Americans could have. This bill cannot resolve that. In fact, no bill can.
The argument is that the private health care system we have rations care on the ability to pay. This is true (with some qualifications—hospitals treat many health problems even when the patient can’t pay, but it is true that the principle of a private, free-market health care system is that ability to pay is the threshold). But since the problem is really that we lack the resources to provide top-quality care to everyone, this bill can only change the basis for rationing care (i.e., this bill cannot create resources). The alternative (to rationing based on ability to pay) is to place in the hands of the federal government the power to ration care as it sees fit. That is a power that I am unwilling to grant the federal government under any circumstances. We know the corrupting force of total power. What more power can we give to the government than to explicitly authorize Congress and the President to decide who lives and who dies in the everyday context of domestic medical care?
Supporters of this bill are motivated by the vision that care should not be available only to those who can pay for it. But the problem with that thinking is manifest. Somebody has to pay for it.
With limited resources (doctors, hospitals, hospital beds, finances), we must choose a mechanism for allocating those resources. The basic philosophy underlying this health care bill is a socialist one. (Supporters of the bill should not shy away from that word—it is what it is.) The result is that instead of having a lot of people getting the best, most innovative health care in the world and a certain number of people getting inadequate care, we would move toward nobody getting the best, most innovative care in the world and nobody getting totally inadequate care—but everybody getting some level of care somewhere in the middle. There are multiple problems with this. Perhaps the foremost problem is that it hinders advances in medical technology. It is only because of concentrated wealth that society can make technological advances, in the medical field or elsewhere, that end up benefitting everybody.
Now, the premise on which this whole universal health care idea is based is that we (i.e., “somebody”—and usually, “somebody else”) can pay for it. I reject this premise. Our national debt was sitting at around $7.5 trillion entering Bush’s second term in January of 2005. By the time Obama was inaugurated it had climbed by about $3 trillion up to $10.6 trillion. During Obama’s 15 months in office, the debt has climbed $2.3 trillion more, up to nearly $13 trillion. I know, I know—it’s easy to throw those numbers around, but the U.S. has borrowed $2.3 TRILLION that we don’t have in the last 15 months alone. We are currently operating at an annual federal deficit of around 12% of GDP. That is entirely unsustainable. Imagine if you ran your household like that. “Well, honey, we expect an income of about $50,000 again this year, so let’s budget to spend $56,000 just like last year.” (Actually, if people did not behave like that in their personal financial decisions, we could have avoided much of the economic distress that we have seen in the last year and a half or so. What makes us think that things will turn out differently when it is our government that behaves like that?) The debt figure above only includes money that the US government has already borrowed. It does not include the unfunded Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security liabilities (promises we have made to citizens about future benefits and payouts). A private company would be legally required to report these liabilities on their balance sheet, and likewise be forced to have sufficient assets to cover them, or otherwise be forced into bankruptcy. The government, however, acts differently. If you include these promises, the debt number is over $60 Trillion, more than 5x GDP.
Part of the problem with the spending stems from the woeful inefficiency of government. The institutional competency of the American federal government is checks and balances, bureaucracy and oversight—indeed, our government is inefficient on purpose. The reason for inefficiency in government is fairly easy to understand, really. An easy illustration is comparing your spending habits if you have a meal plan (on scholarship) given to you by a college vs. if you were paying cash out of your own pocket for every meal. There is just little incentive to be prudent when the money/resources that you are managing is not your own (and you have no personal stake in it).
Another argument is that Medicare was met with similar opposition when it passed, and now everybody loves Medicare. Well, I’m not sure that everybody LOVES Medicare, but seniors are dependent on Medicare because they have paid into it their whole lives and planned on the support that Medicare promised to offer. The problem with this, of course, is that the Medicare entitlement program is going broke faster than anybody can fix it. So to hold out Medicare as a shining example of how the government actually can succeed at administering a health care system is patently absurd.
Finally, this health care bill is offensive to individual (and state) liberty (and arguably unconstitutional). Never before has the constitution been read to empower the federal government to force (on threat of imprisonment) individual citizens to purchase a private good or service. President Obama and some Democrats in Congress apparently now believe that they ought to be able to use the force of law to compel individual citizens to purchase health insurance in accord with federal regulations.
I’m sidetracking here, and I could go on and on and talk about taxation and the effect of taxation on the economy, and how the only possible way to spend a projected (read: low-ball estimate) $1 trillion over the next 10 years on this health care plan AND reduce deficits (which is the claim) is to raise taxes by at least $100 billion per year, and how all of that tax burden will ultimately be borne by the average consumer. But the point here is that the bill will (1) cost an absurd amount of money, (2) that we don’t have, (3) without fixing the underlying problem, and give the federal government power to both (4) force individuals to contract with insurance companies and (5) decide who gets what care and when.
And… for good measure, II Thessalonians 3:7-12:
“[7] For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, [8] nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. [9] It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate. [10] For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. [11] For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. [12] Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.”
The debt figure were exactly my point. The debt figure is so high because of consumer economy. People in the US keeps spending on consumer products which is made overseas and don’t have offerings in exchange for a balanced trade.
And because of this, a lot of people use the argument of debt so other more important needs are ignored, like health care (big surprises) and education. In other words, we are substituting the ability to provide healthcare to those who can’t afford them, with the ability for some others to buy things they don’t need.
It was not the Obama administration to require private care initially, there was public option, but the Republican fought so much that the bill now really contains no reform. I don’t agree with the requirement of mandatory private insurance, but at least they have something and the government can help them with it! Believe me, last thing I want is the insurance companies gaining more businesses.
Many would argue public option in term of capitalism; but personally I believe the government should be the primary provider of social welfare: Like education and healthcare. Not that everyone need to get them, but it’s about being able to gain access.
I understand that resources allocation is a big problem in the healthcare industry; but does that mean that the right way to solve the problem is allocating to those who can pay, and ignore those who can’t?! I don’t know how all these private insurance will help the poor, but at least they will have the opportunities to gain access, which they don’t now!
And linking back to the topic of Christianity: my education on Christianity was about compassion and forgiveness. I don’t see both in most Christians in the US. And healthcare is the big example; if one can’t think in others’ shoes – the fact that not everyone is as fortunate and they need help from others, then I don’t think they can call themselves Christians! That’s why I think Dr. Kavar is criticizing the conservatives who call themselves Christians but lack fundamental Christian qualities and believes!
A couple things:
First, it seems that the site administrator removed my comment quoting II Thessalonians 3:7-12 as food for thought…
Second, trade deficit is not the same thing as national debt. The “consumer economy” (as you call it–i.e., individuals buying goods they don’t “need”) is at best indirectly related to national debt–and even then, only where people buy themselves into poverty. I’m not sure why you are talking about buying foreign-made goods as if that had anything to do with the national debt. Our government borrows money (i.e., debt) to pay for programs because we don’t have the revenue to do it, and nobody wants to raise taxes or (especially on this blog) cut benefits/entitlements.
My problem with “free” stuff (health care or anything else) is that it isn’t actually free. The government can control price, but not cost. So giving “free stuff” away just hides the costs, causing people to over-consume, thereby imposing MORE costs. The biggest problem isn’t even that people expect “the rich” to bear those costs–the biggest problem is that we actually just ignore those costs. We just borrow more money and watch the national debt figure balloon. But that debt is becoming debilitating. 5% of our total spending for FY2009 was spent on interest expense (and it would have been higher if not for the significant drop in interest rates).
At any rate, all this goes to show that this debate is really about economic theory, not biblical teaching. The Bible teaches us to tithe and give to the poor, not to store up treasure on earth but in heaven, etc. (individual teachings)–it does not teach us that we ought to have a socialist economic system. What’s important is to look at your own heart and your use of your own resources. In fact, does nobody find it interesting that the Obamas made $5.5 million in 2009, gave less than 6% of that away, and after charitable contributions and taxes combined, still had a net income of $3.2 million last year. The Bidens were even worse–gave only 1.44% of their income (over $330k) to charitable organizations. I’m just saying that you should be careful not to put words in Jesus’ mouth–nowhere did he advocate a socialist GOVERNMENT or otherwise condemn “conservatives.”
As an aside, there are compelling arguments to be made that free-market capitalism is, in fact, better for everybody because it raises the standard of living over time. I could go way deeper into that, but I’m not going to take the time right now.