Is Social Justice "socialist"?

In my almost-two years in Athens, I've been abruptly and brutally confronted by the liberalism of academia. When I first moved here I was in shock at the evident enmity many of my new colleagues and professors held toward Christianity and those who followed it. At first I withdrew into isolation for fear of offending someone with my Christianity (cowardly, I know). I was lacking confidence in my intellectual capacity for graduate studies to begin with, and I didn't need my colleagues to have further fodder for my shortcomings (again, so cowardly). So I began praying for my new friends and trying to tread lightly regarding religion, the embarrassingly corrupt history of the church, and the role of religion in society and politics today (again, oftentimes embarrassing). Eventually, I decided their proclaimed "tolerance" for everything but Christianity was in fact the most extreme form of intolerance! And so I decided instead to gently confront their claims and therefore try to learn why an unbelieving world hates unbelievers.

To my chagrin, it turns out that Christians are seen as rudely intolerant, elitist, uneducated, ignorant, heartless, and selfish. Ouch. Our sins have enacted near fatal wounds to Christianity's reputation. Not that God can't overcome the damages of our sins, but still, it's something to think about. And the religious right doesn't help things since it manipulates God and "God's plan" for whatever political expediency it deems most pressing. (Thanks Glenn Beck for making up lies and dragging us all down with you.) So, I started asking my liberal friends why they stand for socialism, i.e. national healthcare, increased welfare, free higher education, no war, decreased military spending, tax hikes for the wealthy, etc. While the old conservative argument of "liberals want government to be God" sometimes rings true, oftentimes I was confronted by the compassion of my "liberal" friends. Why does the political left seem more socially compassionate than the "religious right?" If conservatives purport to be acting in the name of "Christian principles" that this nation was founded on (which, by the way, were not so Christian but were in fact Deist and straight from the French Enlightenment), why can Republicans quickly agree to fight wars that further endanger human rights for the most oppressed and deflect resources from the poor at home? (More on my struggles over pacifism and just war at a later date!)

Now, I know these are sticky, tricky, complicated, ugly issues that have no simple answer. And I'm still muddling my way through them all, especially since anything the government touches immediately drowns in inefficiency. But, if it comes down to me having to pay more taxes so that a single mom with 3 kids can feed them, clothe them, pay their heating bill, keep their water, etc, while simultaneously 5 other people abuse the system and corruptly siphon funds or selfishly use the funds rather than provide for their kids, I think I'd rather have less money, face the corruption, but know that in the end that one mother can care for her kids. Maybe the higher taxes and government inefficiency are merely the consequences of our failure as Christians to confront poverty head on through the church, I don't know. Any suggestions for solid theology on how living the Christian life plays into politics would be awesome. In the meantime, I loved an article on the recent budget crisis here by Tony Hall, executive director of Alliance to End Hunger. He quoted from Isaiah on the biblical mandate to care for the poor and oppressed (but the New Testament is rife with these commands as well):

"Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless,” Isaiah 10

"Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—when you see the naked, to clothe them, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood? Then your light will break forth like the dawn, and your healing will quickly appear." Isaiah 58

Here's the meaty (and polarizing) part of Hall's views on the recent proposed budget cuts and how we as Christians should pray for our nation. It's long but worth the read:

"Every day 25,000 people worldwide die from hunger and preventable diseases. Fifty million Americans go to bed hungry at least two or three times a month; 17 million of them are children. So when I saw a recent poll showing that my fellow evangelicals were among those most supportive of cuts to foreign aid directly benefitting vulnerable people, it broke my heart.

Some Christians argue that justice for the poor is simply a matter of private charity. They believe government shouldn't be in the business of helping vulnerable people. They think it's solely the responsibility of the church to care for the poor.

This line of reasoning not only ignores the message of the prophet Isaiah, it also betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the dynamic interplay between the public, private and social sectors in addressing global and domestic poverty.

When I ask Christians what percentage of funding for domestic feeding programs they estimate comes from private charity—including soup kitchens, food shelves, school lunches for poor kids and meals for elderly people—most are shocked when I tell them it's less than seven-percent. Bottom line: without substantial government investment, 50 million Americans would not have enough to eat on a regular basis; private charity, however generous and well intentioned, doesn’t go far enough.

Those who believe the government should not be involved in helping poor people have a spiritual obligation to restructure the missions budgets of their churches and reevaluate their own giving priorities if they want their views to be taken seriously."

Pretty controversial, right? And I toned it down with cut and paste. Some points are well-taken, for instance the church's impotence to effectively minister because of Christians' failure to tithe (also see Rich Stearns' amazing book (that I'll probably reference later on the blog) The Hole in Our Gospel). So if we want the government out of "ministry," what are we going to do about it to take up the slack and minister to the poor, oppressed, the fatherless, the widows, the hungry, orphans, etc? That is one tough question. At the same time, the Bible is pretty clearly against the adversity of debt, and entitlement programs are the largest source of the nation's debt according to the CBO (and rife with corruption to boot). Here's the flip side of Hall's argument, a clearly articulated article by Eric Teetsel. Highlights from his points include the following:

"Despite such a clear identification of the problem, many on the political left continue to offer solutions that don’t address entitlement spending. Instead, they propose cuts to military spending. While there are examples of fraud, waste, and abuse at the Pentagon that should be addressed, simple math proves that even the most radical reductions in military spending will not solve the crisis posed by entitlements.

The military budget is $680 billion, including about $530 billion for day-to-day operations and an additional $150 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Take the $1.6 trillion deficit and subtract the U.S. military budget of $680 billion and you are still left with a $920 billion deficit this year.

Even if every taxpayer was willing to subject themselves to astronomical rates, remember that the projected annual deficit ten years from now is $9 trillion. In 2008, the total taxable income was just $5.65 trillion for alltaxpayers in America.

Implementing reforms to Medicare and Medicaid is going to cause trepidation among those who rely on these services. This only makes fear-mongering and ad hominem attacks more damnable. Respectable public servants may disagree with Paul Ryan’s plan, but any politician who claims to be serious about fixing the federal budget but is not willing to reform Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security is just banging their fist."

Two totally different viewpoints, both with some compelling supporting evidence. So, can we be compassionate and spend responsibly? That remains to be seen. I get pretty frustrated with the corruption in DC, but I have to admit that I don't envy their job. I'd love to hear from you all what you've been digging up on these issues and how you're thinking through the relationship between faith and politics. I'm about to read Tim Keller's new book Generous Justice that delves into these issues of a solid, theological understanding of applying the principles of biblical justice. I'll keep you posted with what I find.