A Most Evil Bunny, a simple cartoon

I'm still laughing.

--Nick

TCM, "Would You Only Marry a Virgin? Living Ubuntu"

As usual, my good friend Calvin has a lot to say. To read this would be enriching and challenging for you. Read it.

Confronting The Elephant in the Bedroom of Christianity

I began this article by talking about my friend who faces the dilemma of a Christian culture that holds virginity as one of its highest ideals. The more stories I hear like hers—the more narratives of brokenness and familial shaming I’m told—the more my heart breaks for the individual and for our community of faith.

Anomaly or not, I feel as if a lot of well-meaning Christian men and women hold to a view of human sexuality and purity that is in no way redemptive. Again, culture shapes this more than Scripture. We carry around these attitudes of what we will and won’t accept in a relationship. Some people advocate dating. Some advocate courtship. Some advocate a near Puritanical approach to sex and dating. Some advocate a mutual and responsible exploration of “the other.” Intimately bound up in most approaches taught in the church, even some of the ones I agree with the most, is a sense of individualism and a “What’s in it for me?” attitude. Many single men and women walk around with lists. Topping the list is generally a desire for someone who is pure. Or at least someone who hasn’t gone “all the way.”[1] Some of them hop oneHarmony so some nebulous algorithm can help them make sense of what it is they want. We pay lip service to the idea that God is involved in the mix. But, he’s not really. Of course, we get appropriately indignant when our sincere relationship with God is questioned at this juncture. Not, too indignant, though. We don’t want to appear too esoteric or worse…Pentecostal.

We worship virginity. We bow to it. We raise it up as our standard. We hold it as the Church’s highest ideal. But, it can only be the Church’s highest ideal when firmly attached to an individualistic view of the faith. However, if we hold to a more communal understanding of the faith and take Scripture into account, we begin to get a view of the connections we miss when we’re too close to the tree to see the forest we’re in.

The “I only want a virgin” mantra is to miss the point of the Cross.

Some may scoff at this. Why can’t someone choose who they want and what they’re looking for in that person? After all, if they are to live with this person “until death do we part,” then doesn’t it make sense to live with someone who makes you comfortable? If marrying a non-virgin makes someone uncomfortable, well, they shouldn’t have to live with that. What is more, if one person keeps themselves pure—with maybe a little base-running in there, but getting thrown out at home plate—why shouldn’t they expect the same from a life partner? God calls us to purity and what’s better than two pure people marrying each other and beautifully displaying Christ’s love for the Church?

Far be it from me to throw a wrench in the works, but what if two people with individualistic ideas about life, faith, and love marrying one another doesn’t reflect God like they think it does? What if virginity isn’tsupposed to sit at the top of one’s list of criteria to look for in a mate?

I’m sure some of you are livid at this point. But, I just don’t see virginity at the center of the Gospel. I like Rebecca St. James just as much as the next person, but maybe a generation of “Wait For Me” men and women are tacitly being taught something that isn’t true.

Hosea and Living Ubuntu

Consider the story of Hosea. For all the claims we make of God “guiding our relationships,” when I look at Scripture I have a hard time thinking I’d want him pulling the strings. The more and more I thumb through its pages; the less our declarations seem authentic. When I see God involved in people’s relationships [in the Bible], I see him doing all sorts of things that most of us would never do. Like telling someone to “take to yourself a wife of whoredom and have children of whoredom…” Not only is Hosea told to marry a non-virgin, but a woman he knows ahead of time is going to cheat on him and who is going to bear to him hellspawn. You never hear that story in churches. When they cart the example couple out in front of the youth group with their story of “We waited and we couldn’t be happier…”, I think that maybe we are being disingenuous about the stories the Word of God gives us and only serves to reinforce a negative view of people who have chosen to do otherwise.

The Cross, however, is about more than staying virgins until marriage. I’d even venture that the Cross of Christ isn’t even about your virginity. The Cross—the old rugged cross—is about redemption. And without redemption we are unable to see the world as God sees the world—broken and desperately in need of hope. Hope that gives us new eyes and abolishes a personal faith in favor of a communal faith.

Might I suggest that to enter any relationship with virginity as the highest ideal is to reveal that one is not ready for a relationship at all? It reveals within the individual a spirit of unforgiveness and an “unknowing” of what it means to be human.

In his treatise on forgiveness, Bishop Desmond Tutu speaks of the African Weltsanschauung known asubuntu:

It is to say, “My humanity is caught up, is inextricably bound up, in yours.” We belong in a bundle of life. We say, “A person is a person through other persons.” It is not, “I think therefore I am.” It says rather: “I am human because I belong. I participate. I share.” A person with ubuntu is open and available to others, affirming of others, does not feel threatened that others are able and good, for he or she has a proper self-assurance that comes from knowing that he or she belongs in a greater whole and is diminished when others are humiliated or diminished, when others are tortured or oppressed, or treated as if they were less than who they are.[2]

What does any of that have to do with virginity? Everything.

The story of Hosea is a story of ubuntu. The story of the Cross is a story of ubuntu. And with a new set of eyes, men and women who remain chaste are able to see men and women who do not remain chaste through redeemed eyes. They are able to adopt a more redemptive posture in regards to the mate they chose—choosing not to see what was, but rather what could be…together. They are now able to walk inubuntu, seeing themselves in the other and not diminishing their worth because their choices were different.

Would YOU only marry a virgin? Take our reader poll. 

Conclusion

If you’re still reading this, let me close with stating what I am not saying and reiterating what I amsaying.[3]

First, I am not advocating that virginity is some hopeless, pie-in-the-sky pipedream. I am not saying, “Well, since the statistics are stacked against you, you might as well go out there and do it and do it often. Wrap it up tight.” God has called us to a particular standard of living. While there is room for disagreement on how that standard is walked out in this life, there is a standard nonetheless.

Second, I am not advocating that young marriage is the ideal for everyone. Just as with anything, if taken to the extreme, a solution that works for some might be detrimental if practiced by all.

Now, let me reiterate my main points, so that there is no confusion. As Obama says, “Let me be clear.”

First, I am advocating young marriage for those who feel called to it and for those who cannot control their passion. The two need not be synonymous nor mutually exclusive. Scripture teaches that this is not a sin. If you feel led to do so, you are free to do so.

Second, I want to stress the fact that statistically, the longer one puts off marriage, the higher one’s chances climb of having sex before marriage. This isn’t an excuse. It is not an attempt to pardon people from any type of moral standard impressed upon us by Scripture. I am simply stating a statistical fact. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Third, Christians are called to a standard not just of physical purity, but also of purity of heart. To anubuntu heart. It is from this wellspring that a redemptive posture is made possible to us and available to others. It is through this purity of heart, available only by the renewing of one’s mind, that we are able to see and worship God correctly and see and love our neighbor as ourselves—even a neighbor we are considering dating.[4]

---

[1] Interestingly, I have talked with people who are in Christian relationships and have myself participated in enough Christian relationships of my own to have discovered that many young men and women rather enjoy “first, second, and third base.” So long as the penis does not penetrate the vagina, many young Christian men and women enjoy as much of each other outside of marriage as they possibly can.

[2] Desmond Tutu, No Future Without Forgiveness (New York: Doubleday, 1999), p. 31.

[3] This is a creative means of saying that if you comment on this article and say something that I am not saying when I have clearly and emphatically stated exactly what I am and am not saying, I will call you out on it. However, if you have read my words and choose to agree or disagree with my point, feel free to dialogue with me on this. I don’t claim to have it all figured out. If you do, please enlighten me.

[4] Is has been pointed out to me that I have taken the long way around in regards to getting to the issue of redemption and I might have treated it as more of an afterthought than as the main point. This was done intentionally as I am currently writing another series on the matter of direct forgiveness and redemption based upon a few films and the worlds of Bishop Desmond Tutu and Christian scholar Miroslav Volf.

TCM/Ubuntu

--Nick

Jonathan Martin, "Christianity Today and Blue Like Jazz"

I'm a fan of Martin as a writer and as a pastor. His podcast is awesome. So check this out.

I did indeed read Donald Miller’s Blue Like Jazz.  I liked Miller’s book because I thought it was funny and honest. I found it refreshing to buy a book in a Christian bookstore that was well-written (not generally criteria for publishing “Christian” books).  It did not change my life or even my mind about anything in particular, so I am not some rabid apologist for the book (and I don’t know Don personally).  I have not yet seen the new film.  But I don’t think I need to in order to call out Christianity Today for their frankly absurd new review.

While the reviewer does not give the film a unilaterally negative review, they ultimately gave Blue Like Jazz 2 and 1/2 stars for, well, if you understand what you are reading–not being Reformed enough theologically: “Separating ‘Christian spirituality’ from the fundamentals of the gospel message means, in the case of Miller’s book, an emphasis on feelings and experience, on social justice and an individual search for truth. Little traction is given to the mortification of sin, to the atoning significance of the Cross, and so forth.”  Or later, “But Christ and the Cross don’t much factor into the story, making it seem like a big swing of the pendulum, from the legalism of the Christian Right to the social causes of the Christian Left.”

Here’s my deal: I don’t fault CT for having a more Reformed perspective. That’s their prerogative. The critic seems to find not only the film but the source material to be inadequate in its presentation of the scope of the gospel (though I don’t recall Miller’s book making any claims to define or re-define “the gospel,” only to share alternately funny and heartbreaking scenes from his own story).  What I can’t handle is the sudden doctrinal piety.  I’ve been reading the magazine since high school, and can’t recall a parallel.  In an attempt to “engage culture,” CT will generally give films even with the most difficult content generous marks if it is well-made.  Again, I don’t fault them for this per se.

What I do fault CT for is the inconsistency (I bit my tongue not to say hypocrisy) of being more generous with  say, A Girl with a Dragon Tattoo, which I have contended is a lightweight thriller posing as social commentary here.  In fairness, the critic was careful to state that Dragon Tattoo contains stark, disturbing violence.  Yet I am no less chaffed by the suggestion that a movie where the voyeuristic camera lingers on forced oral sex and anal rape of a female ultimately gets higher marks than Blue Like Jazz.  The Girl with a Dragon Tattoo is an “insightful, haunting film that successfully captures the sort of alienation and rage inherent in the abused and skeptical generation that Lisbeth represents…”  Even in all of its violence, the reviewer asks us: ” Is there anything left to cling to? Perhaps only this: the strange and persistent suspicion that goodness does exist and that justice is worth fighting for. At least this is what seems to keep Lisbeth going.”

But of course Blue Like Jazz has too much social justice and not enough atonement?  If any of Miller’s content in the book is represented accurately in the film, it surely has plenty of examples of love and forgiveness and grace that could be found without rummaging through a sewer of sexual degradation.  But of course a dark mainstream film like Dragon Tattoo has to be viewed through the lens of Christian charity in the name of cultural relevance, whereas Blue Like Jazz has to pass through the filter of Reformed theology.  We should look to find the value or “the truth” embedded in depictions of graphic sexual violence, but the lack of atonement in Blue Like Jazz is, pardon me, offensive?  Then again, I suppose The Girl with a Dragon Tattoo has enough “wrath” to “satisfy” anybody, even Reformed movie critics.

I love you, Christianity Today.  But the double standard is inexcusably stupid.  In your reviews, you can be the savvy “engage the culture intellectually publication” if you like, or you can be the orthodoxy police of culture.  I frankly don’t care which you choose, just thought you should know you don’t get to be both at the same time.

Martin/CT

--Nick

Deconstructing "Christian Films"; part I

DECONSTRUCTING "CHRISTIAN FILMS"; PART I

THE DEFINITION OF "CHRISTIAN" FILMS

The debate about "christian films" has followed me for years, ever since Biola. When I first enrolled in their film program in 2007, the debate was simmering and already at a boiling point. Conservatives had strong issues with sex and foul language, while the more liberal students continued to (sometimes unnecessarily) push the lines of good taste. At the time, I sided with my liberal friends (and I still do) and thought the entire debate was silly and unconstructive. Of course, I did very little to advance a reasonable dialogue on the topic as I was too busy being angry, chasing girls (to little effect) and supporting random libertarian causes. 

But, after hearing about the "Blue Like Jazz" controversy (1), the issue has come back to really bug me. Reading about two "christian films" duking it out over a piece of biblical terrain seemed not only futile but damaging. Imagine others watching this inner-christian spat over something as trivial as a film. This is also the same with "The Last Temptation of Christ", with christians protesting the film without having seen it. We're often very good at shooting from the hip and missing the map for the territory. 

So, I'm going to set forth some criteria about what defines a "christian film." These ideas are not set in stone, and I'm open to changing or refining my ideas. I won't be putting for any specific biblical data, but will attempt to argue in a different way.

The same difficulties in defining evangelicalism are inherent in defining really anything as Christian. Some define evangelicalism more sociologically (2) in terms of historical trends. I'm inclined to work within this framework and put forth a definition of what defines a "christian film."

VALUES & SPECIFICS

To be clear, a "christian film" and a film with christian "values" are two different things. I imagine that this discussion and the subsequent challenges will bring forth clarity, but I'm somewhat confident that "values" are different and require a different set of criteria. 

BEBBINGTON'S QUADRILATERAL

I consider Bebbington's Quadrilateral to be a great foundation for this discussion. Based on his research, Bebbington attempted to define what evangelicalism really is, and what is required of it. He defines it as follows, and I have added to his principles. My additions and clarifications are italicized. 

1. Biblicism. 

An adherence to Scripture and belief that it contains the ultimate authority. 

2. Crucicentrism.

The atonement of Christ. 

I've seen some criticism leveled at "Blue Like Jazz" (3) in regards to atonement theory, but I considered this already in my review of "Blue Like Jazz" and found the critique strongly lacking (4). 

3. Conversionism.

Believing that humans need to become converted to Christianity. 

4. Activism.

The belief that the gospel needs expressed in effort. 

Oddly enough, many christians seem to shirk this label and divorce it from social justice. I can understand the desire to be separate from possible progressive politics, but this does include ministering to the needs to non-christians, which makes this part vital and something christians seem to be lacking. All of the four premises put together seem to offer the potential for the label. Of course, this is not conclusive and more directed to stimulate more viable criteria.

I will add a final and conditional premise that can make or break the idea of a "christian film" and a film that has "christian values."

DOGMATISM; A CONDITIONAL PREMISE

5. Dogmatism.

A conditional belief that is either respectful and passionate, or condescending and antagonistic. What it adds is empathy and what it detracts is the same. 

Which brings me to my next point.

SUBJECTIVISM

The biggest issue we often miss is intention. What did the filmmakers intend to communicate and do they refer to their art as "christian?" Steve Taylor has a love affair with cheekiness and sarcasm that comes through very strongly in his film, but I haven't read anything that would lead me to believe that Taylor would label his work as "christian." In fact, in order to reach more people, it seems that it would benefit Taylor and Miller to separate from current Christendom (to avoid associated baggage) in order to get their film out there. To be taken seriously by your audience is indeed an important ideal. 

Many christians desire to be separate from the world, and will sacrifice quality for message, as if one is more important than the other. The issue becomes subjective. I went to see "Fireproof" at the dollar theater and I watched as several older people left the theater halfway through when the film paused to deliver a really poorly written sermon. I heard one of them mutter "bullshit" on their way out. I knew very little about their religious convictions, but I knew I wanted to join him and talk. I didn't. 

Simply put, a filmmaker who doesn't want to associate his film with the "christian" label is justified in doing so. In doing so, he would be fulfilling part 4 and 5 out of BQ, leaving room for parts 1-3 to be integrated however he or she chooses. 

EXAMPLE

The first four premises together make, I would argue, the potential for a christian film. Assuming that dogmatism is a negative feature (to be separated from conviction), if one is dogmatic about the above mentioned features then the resulting artistic piece will indeed be didactic and be made exclusively for those that are Christian.  People who are not christians will have little interest. The presence of dogmatism does indeed create tension with the audience and filmmakers. Consider that "Fireproof" has over 600 five-star reviews on Amazon (5). Consider that "Fireproof" strongly fulfills 1-3 very strongly, to the point where I wanted to leave the theater. It poorly applies part 4, not because it lacks integrity or a desire to promote christianity, but because it misunderstands it's audience. Was the film made for christians, or everyone? 

I think the film was made exclusively for christians, with the hopes that others would overlooks it's poor filmmaking, structure and writing in the hopes of seeing the "message." This will be looked at in another section. 

Anyone who does not buy into christianity as a whole, or even in parts, will watch this film, see all four parts (excluding the workings of the Holy Spirit and God working through whatever medium He desires of course) and given the conditional nature of 5 in a dogmatic manner, its unsurprising how many if not most non-christians react. They leave. 

"Blue Like Jazz", as an opposite example, fulfills all 4 points as well as the conditional nature of part 5. It understands that dogmatism works against the point of the film, and the conditional nature of part 5 allows the film to be understood by those who would otherwise ignore it. Because of this, I do think "Blue Like Jazz" rejects the potential to be labeled a "christian film" and instead prefers the label "film." Again, this does not assume that films cannot have christian values. 

For a "secular" film that fits very well within this paradigm, see "The Grey" and my thoughts on it.(6)

This brings me to another point.

LABELS

The baggage that comes with the label "christian" is enough for me to disassociate my writings with the label entirely. I will use myself as an example here. Of course, anyone with theological training can pick up specific themes in my writing. However, I do wonder if disassociating myself with the label actually solves anything.

Kierkegaard mentioned that once a label is placed, the argument is negated. I don't know if I agree entirely, but the concept of lumping all similarities into a specific camp strikes me more as a camp mentality than an honest exploration. Just making a note of this. 

FAILURE & "THE MESSAGE"

The biggest objection I've heard to my thoughts (in other avenues) is that "the film was bad, but the message was good." I have several things to say to this.

1) This is based on a misunderstanding. if one believes that there is some sort of standard in art in terms of quality, then every film must be understood and looked at in that way. No partiality.

2) Partiality may be shown, but one must admit that they are showing it as such, and their opinion is based more on personal preference against a set standard. 

3) What is the standard for good films? I offer several thoughts below:

3a) The technical quality. "Memento" was made for cheap, and it turned out to be a classic. "The Dark Knight" required over 185 million to make, but it was flawless. 

3b) The efficiency of the narrative. Does the film work as a whole? Pacing, acting, writing, direction. Anything involving the requirement of interaction in terms of narrative. 

3c) The strength of the message. The message can be entirely fatalistic, but does it communicate it well? Does it remain true to it's worldview? Does it challenge it? Is it dogmatic?

3d) The personal element. This is where the presuppositions and experiences of the viewer come into the equation. They make up a quarter of it, and one is allowed to reject the film as personally repulsive or in disagreement with the worldview expressed. I think "Watchmen" fulfills A-C very well, but the overall worldview is something I would reject. It is a great film in the first 3 points, but fails for me on a personal level. Subjectivism. 

4) Finally, the message is only part of the entire film. I'm not convinced that accepting a bad film just because of the "message" is valid. 

CONCLUSION

I'll confess, I don't think I've really settled the issue at all. At most, all I hope I've done is provide some possible rabbit trails we can all follow in the hopes of finding the truth. This debate is not settled nor is this article conclusive. 

I will also confess that I'm not certain this discussion will ever end. As with Bebbington's Quadrilateral, it has it's fair share of detractors (D.A. Carson is one). So, here's to the truth and that it may be found.

If it doesn't, we can still argue less important things like jelly beans and dark beer. 

--Nick

Footnotes:

(1) DailyBeast/Blue Like Jazz.

(2) Bebbington's Quadrilateral. 
-- biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible (e.g. all essential spiritual truth is to be found in its pages).
-- crucicentrism, a focus on the atoning work of Christ on the cross.
-- conversionism, the belief that human beings need to be converted.
-- activism, the belief that the gospel needs to be expressed in effort.

(3) Christianity Today/ Blue Like Jazz

(4) TMC, Blue Like Jazz review. Also, Split/Frame review.

(5) Fireproof/Amazon Reviews

(6) Split Frame/The Grey

Eating Like a Damn Dirty Hippie, update

No, I did not fall off the wagon. Instead, I got so busy I couldn't keep this series updated. However, I've decided that alcohol is allowed in small doses provided there is now exercise involved. This includes walking, breathing, sleeping and eating my daily dose of bricks.

That is all.

--Nick

Jonathan Merritt, "Millennials Are More Independent, Divided on Culture Wars"

I like Merritt, even if I'm not convinced by some of his theological opinions. As I'm known, I love respectful perspective. 

A new study produced by Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) confirms what we already knew to be true. A majority of Millennials believe that abortion is “morally wrong,” are torn on same sex issues, and a plurality consider themselves independent.

The study reports that 51% of Millennials believe that having an abortion is “morally wrong.” This falls in line with other studies in years past, which assert that rising generations are as pro-life, or perhaps more so, than their parents’ generation. Most young people, it seems, will seek to protect of unborn life as did many of their parents. Only 37% said they considered abortion “morally acceptable.”

But young people differ substantially from their parents on same sex issues. According to the study, Millennials are divided on same sex issues, with 59% favoring gays and lesbians to legally marry. Christians of similar age are also moving this direction according to a study conducted by PRRI in 2007, which showed 52% of young evangelicals favor some form of same sex union. I've written on why I think this is happening in many outlets, including this article in The Huffington Post.

Perhaps the most interesting finding in this study, however, is Millennials affinity for “independent” affiliation. A plurality (45%) self-identify as such. Young Christians seem to align with this trend as well. A 2001 study of young evangelicals by Pew Research Center for the People and the Press uncovered 55% were self-described Republicans. When the study was repeated in 2007, only 40% remained in that category. Interestingly, the 15% didn’t migrate to the Democratic party; only 5% did. The remaining 10% now describe themselves as “independents” or “unaffiliated.”

Last week at the Q conference—a prestigious gathering of more than 750 young Christian leaders in Washington DC—a participant survey found that 61% of participants claim they don’t affiliate with either the right or left.

So PRRI has uncovered what we already knew to be true. Young people—including those who claim the Christian faith are eschewing the American culture wars in significant ways. They remain conservative on issues such as abortion, but are rethinking or altogether shifting on other issues previously considered progressive. It seems Millennials are indeed less concerned about involvement in the partisan culture wars than some of their parents were.

If you’re like me—tired of the culture wars with it’s sour tone, divisive tactics, and blind partisanship—you welcome such data. It’s time we move beyond the framework of the religious right (and the religious left, for that matter). This generation will not perfect a model for political engagement, but we can make strides toward more Christ-like engagement in the American public square.


Merritt/Millennials


--Nick

McKnight, "Christians, Politics and the Poor"

I found this on McKnight's blog and thought it was a good beginning to the previous post by NPR.

As you may know, there’s a “serious” discussion about how best to care for the poor. Some in the GOP think it’s not the government’s business; some in the Democrat party think it is.

What would Jesus do with the U.S. economy?

That’s a matter of fierce debate among Christians — with conservatives promoting a small-government Jesus and liberals seeing Jesus as an advocate for the poor.

After the House passed its budget last month, liberal religious leaders said the Republican plan, which lowered taxes and cut services to the poor, was an affront to the Gospel — and particularly Jesus’ command to care for the poor.

Not so, says Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, who chairs the House Budget Committee. He told Christian Broadcasting Network last week that it was his Catholic faith that helped shape the budget plan. In his view, the Catholic principle of subsidiarity suggests the government should have little role in helping the poor.

“Through our civic organizations, through our churches, through our charities — through all of our different groups where we interact with people as a community — that’s how we advance the common good,” Ryan said.

The best thing that government can do, he said, is get out of the way.

There’s enough simplicity-it is in this whole discussion that one wonders whether or not these folks really do care to dig both into Scripture and into the Christian tradition enough to be challenged by Christian truth.

1. Some folks are poor. They deserve, in most cases, our empathy and our compassion and our help — both as relief and as a path to employment.

2. Scriptures teach God’s people to care for the poor, and when God’s people ignores the poor, God makes it known that he is on the side of the poor. (Let’s not debate the specifics of the “preferential option for the poor.”)

3. Scriptures don’t emerge from either socialism or from free market enterprise, and those who think they do are making a gross historical error. It requires historical finesse and hermeneutical nuance to move from that world into our world. Turning the Bible’s laws into eternal laws is great example of biblicism and will land you in trouble most of the time.

4. God’s people responded to the poor in a variety of ways, including distribution — ever read about Moses in Egypt? And Jubilee? And the laws of gleaning? These are divinely-commanded and governmentally-administered required donations designed to help the poor.

Sometimes God’s people responds individually and locally to care for the poor. Ever read about Paul ad his collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem? (Which, by the way, was a Christian concern for fellow Christians, was an offering and not a tax, and which is not a good set of texts for how democratic societies care for their poor.)

5. The Church’s teaching traditions are worthy of serious exploration, including how Christians have helped shape public policy in a variety of countries in order to make sure the poor are cared for.

McKnight

NPR, "Was Jesus for Small Government?"

What would Jesus do with the U.S. economy?

That's a matter of fierce debate among Christians — with conservatives promoting a small-government Jesus and liberals seeing Jesus as an advocate for the poor.

After the House passed its budget last month, liberal religious leaders said the Republican plan, which lowered taxes and cut services to the poor, was an affront to the Gospel — and particularly Jesus' command to care for the poor.

Not so, says Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, who chairs the House Budget Committee. He told Christian Broadcasting Network last week that it was his Catholic faith that helped shape the budget plan. In his view, the Catholic principle of subsidiarity suggests the government should have little role in helping the poor.

"Through our civic organizations, through our churches, through our charities — through all of our different groups where we interact with people as a community — that's how we advance the common good," Ryan said.

Through our civic organizations, through our churches, through our charities — through all of our different groups where we interact with people as a community — that's how we advance the common good.

- Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis.

The best thing that government can do, he said, is get out of the way.

But Stephen Schneck, a political scientist at Catholic University, says he thinks Ryan is "completely missing the boat and not understanding the real heart, the real core, of Catholic social teaching."

Schneck says Catholicism sees everyone as part of a mystical body, serving one another. True, the New Testament does not specifically speak to the government's role. "But charities and individuals and churches can't do it all," Schneck says. "When charities are already stretched to their limit, Catholic social teaching expects the state to step up and to fill that gap."

God And Government

Peter Montgomery at People for the American Way says conservative evangelicals have been arguing for years that the Bible favors a free-market system. But since President Obama was elected, he says, they have shifted into high gear.

"They are finding biblical justification for opposition to progressive taxation, opposition to unions and collective bargaining, opposition to the minimum wage, opposition even to social welfare spending and Social Security," he says.

Because, in their view, he says, God intends the government to have a minimal role in society. You hear echoes of that from megachurch pastor Rick Warren, who was asked about the budget recently on ABC's This Week.

They are finding biblical justification for opposition to progressive taxation, opposition to unions and collective bargaining, opposition to the minimum wage, opposition even to social welfare spending and Social Security.

- Peter Montgomery, People for the American Way

"The primary purpose of government is to keep the peace, protect the citizens, provide opportunity," Warren said. "And when we start getting into all kinds of other things, I think we invite greater control. And I'm fundamentally about freedom."

Evangelicals cite the book of Romans, which is one of only a few places in the New Testament that refer to civil government. Then there's the conservative resistance to taxation, which some say violates the Eighth Commandment: "Thou shalt not steal."

Richard Land at the Southern Baptist Convention says of course Jesus paid his taxes and advised followers to do the same. But, he says, "the Bible tells us that socialism and neosocialism never worked. Confiscatory tax rates never work."

The Bible never mentions socialism, obviously, but Land says the whole of Scripture says that people are sinful and selfish and, therefore, "people aren't going to work very hard and very productively unless they get to keep a substantial portion of that which they make for them and for their families."

Does The Bible Promote Capitalism?

For other religious conservatives, the Bible is a blueprint for robust capitalism. Recently, on his radio program WallBuilders, David Barton and a guest discussed Jesus' parable of the vineyard owner. In it, the owner pays the worker he hires at the end of the day the same wage as he pays the one who begins work in the morning. Many theologians have long interpreted this as God's grace being available right up to the last minute, but Barton sees the parable as a bar to collective bargaining.

"Where were unions in all this? The contract is between an employer and an employee. It's not between a group," Barton said. "He went out and hired individually the guys he wanted to work."

Schneck says many Christians would not recognize this Gospel — and he says there are more biblical verses about feeding the hungry and taking care of the least fortunate. Schneck agrees that the Bible encourages initiative and hard work. But he says theologians through the ages have said there must be a balance.

"Pope after pope after pope argued that we're called to be more than market creatures. We're called, in fact, to always bear in mind the common good and our responsibilities to others," he says.

But we can probably expect both parties to claim Jesus as their favorite economist in the months to come.

NPR