“One Little Hour”

Democrats like to think of themselves as advocates for the downtrodden. They look out for the proverbial little guy who is menaced by big business, an exploitative free market, and callous conservatives. Thus the folks-formerly-known-as-downtrodden have traditionally voted for the Democratic Party in exchange for promises of government largesse.

Obama stirred similar expectations among supporters during his campaign. The video of an Obama-ite, Peggy Joseph, announcing that Obama would pay for her gas and cover her mortgage was a big hit on youtube. Unfortunately, Obama has so far only managed to hurt the financial prospects for most poor Americans (myself included).

First, the Obama administration backed the “Cash for Clunkers” program. Whatever the environmental or macroeconomic effects of “Cash for Clunkers” (and I would argue that they are harmful), one clear consequence of the program is to raise the cost of purchasing and maintaining a used vehicle. Cars that once would have been resold in the used car market are now removed from supply. Used car parts which once were mailed all over country to make car repairs more affordable are also no longer in supply. The end result is higher prices for used cars and higher repair bills for used cars. Since used cars are owned in disproportion by poorer Americans, the Cash for Clunkers program is essentially a regressive tax on the poor.

Second, on Friday Obama drastically increased the import tariff on Chinese-made tires. We don’t yet know the full effect of the resulting trade war on American exports (though it will undoubtably be bad), but we do know the consequences for poor Americans. The tires that are imported from China have been sold under a number of American brands like Cooper and Goodyear. These Chinese made tires typically fill out the cheapest tier of tires which are marketed to budget conscious consumers. The increased tariff will make these cheap tires significantly more expensive. So not only are used cars more expensive, but the cheap tires that most poor Americans choose are more expensive as well. (It is worth noting as well, that since Obama approved this tariff increase in order to get labor union support for healthcare reform he has given the lie to his campaign promise to change the way Washington works.)

Third, I should mention proposed legislation that could hurt poor Americans. If the House-approved Cap and Trade bill passes the Senate energy prices will skyrocket. Since poor Americans spend a disproportionate amount of their income on utility bills, higher energy prices will act as a regressive tax.

With all this in mind, it is hard for me to believe that low income voters still overwhelmingly approve of Obama’s handling of the Presidency. If I were a Marxist I’d have some choice words about false consciousness!

[Add. 10/6/09] – The verdict on Cash for Clunkers is in. We are poorer as a result.

I became conscious of politics when I entered the ninth grade. I was a member of my high school’s speech and debate team specializing in extemporaneous speeches on current events. Each week I read most of the major periodicals, newspapers, and policy journals in order to get a handle on topics ranging from George W. Bush’s campaign platform to the civil conflict in Zimbabwe. I found that the more I learned about politics and policy the more I became aware of a cognitive dissonance between my politics and my theology. The principles that I advocated as a Christian came increasingly in conflict with conservative politics.

I should first note that this tension, which I’ve expressed as a tension between my duties as a Christian and a citizen, is a fault line within broader conservatism. Modern American conservatism is an amalgamation of classical liberalism and evangelical populism. Classic liberalism (or libertarianism to use its modern label) as formulated by Adam Smith enshrines the free market, individual rights, and is skeptical of interventionist government. Evangelical populism (or social conservatism) seeks to enforce communal norms that are constructed from Biblical proscriptions. Perhaps you can already see the source of my cognitive dissonance.

These two streams of modern conservatism come into conflict over the role of the State. Libertarians believe that State action is at best inefficient and at worst in violation of individual rights. Social conservatives, on the other hand, have no problem with State intervention. For many on the Religious Right, the question is a matter of how rather than whether the State should intervene. The social conservative believes that the State is a legitimate vehicle for enforcing moral conformity. (I would also argue that the social liberal is simply the mirror image of his right-wing opponent, but that argument deserves its own post.) Returning to my own personal experience, I found myself giving a debate speech declaring the evils of government intervention in the economy in one breath and in the next arguing for stricter government regulation of marriage.

Now, I am an expert at compartmentalizing contradictions – I find it disturbingly easy to spend a Sunday morning in hypocritical worship without repenting of known sin – but this tension nagged at me all through college. Most people that I knew gave no evidence of having even considered the question. A number of my acquaintances resolved the dilemma for themselves by advocating for some form of dominionism whereby the state effectively becomes an extension of the church. Even prior to becoming a libertarian, I could not follow this path; I was uncomfortable with the Christian reconstructionist’s lofty view of the state.

I eventually recognized that I had a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of morality. In my mind I had been equating morality with moral behavior. See, the most government can ever hope to legislate is conformity, adherence to laws and regulations [though a cursory review of our war on drugs should raise big questions regarding governments efficacy at enforcing conformity]. Government, even in the most repressive societies, cannot legislate our motivations or our beliefs.

I then realized that the source of the tension between my political self and my theological self was a clash of definitions. What did it mean to be moral? Or to put it in Biblical parlance, what did it mean to be righteous? In politics I was supporting a definition of morality which was synonymous with conformity. Government would prevent people from acting in a certain manner and promote moral ways of behaving. Obedience to law was equivalent with morality. But my theology told me something very different. Christ’s righteousness was given, not earned. Righteousness certainly was not equivalent with moral behavior; that is the path of the legalist. The legalist tells us that if we can get someone to behave in a certain manner they will be moral. But Christ taught that righteousness is heart-centered rather than behavior-centered. 

This longstanding tension relaxed as I merged my political and theological thinking. Government cannot legislate morality because the State can do nothing more than regulate external behavior. No matter how many laws that we pass which prohibit vice, our country becomes no more moral in God’s eyes. For example, simply preventing homosexuals from marrying does not somehow make America more pleasing to God. Government legislation can only hope to discourage actual homosexual acts. It cannot prevent homosexuality in the heart. I do believe that homosexuality is a sin before God, but using the government to prevent external manifestations of sin does nothing to satisfy God’s standard of holiness. Government cannot make a sinful heart righteous – only the gracious offer of redemption at the Cross can do that. By confusing righteousness with external conformity we have reflected poorly on the gospel. From our pulpits we loudly proclaim salvation by faith and not by works, but in our politics we whisper, “behave in x manner rather than y in order to be moral and thus more pleasing to God.” We have become political legalists.

The conflict over homosexuals’ right to marry exemplifies the damage that we have caused. In California, Proposition 8 excluded same-sex couples from the legal rights of marriage. Now, in a narrow sense I would defend Proposition 8 from the judicial end-runs of its opponents, but I wish that Proposition 8 had never been passed and that evangelicals had not been complicit in its passage. As believers we should not be afraid of giving offense for the gospel’s sake. Certainly, those who do not believe in Christ will not take kindly to being confronted with their sin. But this principle does not give Christians carte blanche for giving offense. We must strive to give offense only because we preach Christ, not because of our methods or manner. But do we communicate Christ’s love by denying civil rights to homosexuals? Is Christ magnified when we make homosexuals second-class citizens?

The root problem with our opposition to homosexual marriage is not that we believe homosexuality is wrong. The fundamental problem with our opposition to homosexual marriage is that we have confused the kingdom of God and the kingdom of man. We are trying to use the State to delineate the Church. But when we combine Church and State we run the risk of blending the two. Thus we have made marriage, a biblical covenant between two individuals and God, something to be regulated and defined by civil government. Today, it is the State that marries us, not the minister.

This little example of blending illustrates a far bigger problem; I believe that we have come to equate American citizenship with heavenly citizenship. Now it is true that American Christians are citizens of both kingdoms, but the requirements for each must remain distinct. That seems so obvious it sounds silly, but when we conflate the kingdoms we blur the distinctions between the two. Want to be a full citizen of the United States? Well you’d better not be a homosexual (we won’t let you marry) or an atheist (we won’t let you hold office). Blurring the lines between the kingdoms of God and man ignores Christ’s proclamation, “My kingdom is not of this world.” Do we not then err when we attempt to make it so?

I became a libertarian because I realized that our rights and responsibilities as Christians are different from our rights and responsibilities as Americans. Being a libertarian gives me the freedom to fully embrace both identities. I can defend the civil right of homosexuals to marry while simultaneously preaching to them their sin and need of a Savior. I can vote for a politician while realizing that no amount of legislation, no matter how effective, can make our nation more pleasing to God. I can evangelize the lost while fully aware that as the gospel changes hearts it will make us better citizens.

But when we wrongly define Biblical morality or blend church and state we distort the gospel. Our faith in Christ transcends the kingdom of man. Like the Apostle Paul we eschew hope in “earthly things” and proclaim that “our [pre-eminent] citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.”

ShowForth recently released a website about the Great Awakening that is a companion to their documentary DVD. The site has supplementary resources for students and teachers, such as biographies, essays, and primary sources.

Props to Lincoln Mullen.

I had hoped (and posted) that Obama’s middle-of-the-road rhetoric on school reform options meant that he would support school choice. Instead he has acquiesced to the powerful teachers unions. The second paragraph of the article is particularly indicting:

Let’s call them Sidwell Liberals, after the famous Washington, D.C., school where President and Mrs. Obama send their daughters. Despite this personal experience, Mr. Obama signed into law a provision passed by Congress that shuts down Washington D.C.’s voucher program, depriving 1,700 disadvantaged kids of the chance to escape failing public schools through the use of scholarships that let them attend private schools. Two of them attend Sidwell Friends School with the Obama girls.

It saddens me that a man who seems to sincerely desire to help the underprivileged cannot (or will not) see such hypocrisy.

[Add. 9/10/o9] : I must revise my opinion of the President downwards. The more I ruminate on this issue the less willing I am to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. His is the “sin” of commission rather than just ommission.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, religion and politics wonks made much ado about very little over the emergence of the Evangelical Left. Certainly the white evangelical left exists (ie Tony Campolo), but despite all the hype over evangelical enchantment with Obama, the evangelical left did not have a break out year in 2008.

Yet the Evangelical Left should be heartened. (more…)

At the end of June, financier and swindler Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in federal prison. He had defrauded thousands of people of over $65 billion. Although many of his victims were relatively well-heeled, plenty of poor-to-middling investors lost their life savings. These bare facts reveal a tragedy, but one that is not particularly unique except for its record-breaking scale. A quick google news search shows that another dozen ponzi schemes have popped up in the news in just the past 24 hours.

But Madoff’s sentencing took on a special significance. (more…)

Slate just published this article on the prosperity gospel. (Another from the NYT). The article is of uneven quality (postmillenialism tied to prosperity gospel?), but his central point, that the prosperity gospel continues to attract followers in the midst of economic recession, is significant.

The prosperity gospel is self-validating and non-falsifiable. Consider the case of the fictional (though realistic) Mr. Kilpatrick. Mr. Kilpatrick has been struggling to break through into management at his office. He happens to attend a service at Lakewood Church where he hears Joel Osteen declare that “those same winds that are trying to defeat you, God can cause to change direction and be the very winds that propel you into the destiny He has in store for you!” Mr. Kilpatrick realizes that he just needs to “sow into God’s kingdom” (tithe and purchase materials from Joel Osteen ministries) and God will fulfill His covenant by financially blessing him. Mr. Kilpatrick digs into his pocket and gives. Lo and behold, several months later Mr. Kilpatrick gets a promotion! Clearly God had rewarded Mr. Kilpatrick for giving. Now Mr. Kilpatrick can buy a new home (with an adjustable rate mortgage), get a nice, new car, and give even more generously to Joel Osteen’s ministry.

Mr. Kilpatrick’s financial success validated Osteen’s ministry. But if the opposite had happened to Mr. Kilpatrick, if his financial situation had worsened, it would not have invalidated the prosperity gospel. Mr. Kilpatrick’s financial failures were a result of his lack of faith or his insufficient giving. If only Mr. Kilpatrick had trusted God a little more or given more than he would have been rewarded. The prosperity gospel is unfalsifiable since circumstances are always interpreted as proof of its validity.

The unfalsifiable and self-validating nature of the prosperity gospel, at best, undermines its followers pursuit of sanctification. A believer in the prosperity gospel who is financially prosperous will be tempted to ignore personal sin since the prosperity gospel replaces holiness with wealth as the standard of God’s pleasure. Alternatively, a prosperity-follower who is fiscally impoverished may spiritually castrate themselves as they seek for the sin in their lives that has caused God to frown upon them.

Ultimately, as John Piper has eloquently noted, the prosperity gospel runs counter to the true gospel.

[Add. 10/30/09 - Article]

If you’re interested in the history of religion in America you should check out mine and Lincoln Mullen’s new collaborative blog Religion in America. We hope to use the blog to post book reviews, historiographical essays, and photo tours of historical sites. We’d value your input!

Both Lincoln and I have graduated from Bob Jones University and gone on to pursue religious history in graduate school (he at Brandeis and myself at Temple). Lincoln specializes in colonial religious history (ie Puritans) while I focus on fundamentalism and evangelicalism in twentieth century America.

I just noticed two articles on Drudge about the situation in the Honduras. The first is from the opinion section of the Wall Street Journal and appears to give the lie to claims that it is an undemocratic coup. (more…)