Originally posted December 17, 2010, at The Lutheran Zephyr. Republished with permission of the author.
“Jesus is a liberal Democrat.”
So says Steven Colbert, the wise-cracking comedian who gives a regular dose of God to a generation that is largely absent from the pews, mostly by revealing the hypocrisy of Christian conservatives.
In last evening’s show, he took aim at his favorite target, Bill O’Reilly.
Of course, Bill O’Reilly is low-hanging fruit. Picking apart O’Reilly’s theology is about as easy as getting a cold by walking through a child-care center in January.
The two lines that Colbert highlights from O’Reilly’s piece — about Jesus not advocating any kind of service to the poor that is self-destructive, and the “God helps those who help themselves” quote — could be identified as theologically fraudulent by any Christian who has even a basic grasp of their catechism and Bible.
So I’m not sure that Colbert’s rant here is very significant, except perhaps for the rather public smackdown of Bill O’Reilly’s odd theology that it represents.
But there is something else that bothers me.
Yes, Colbert rightly highlights that many of those who would claim this country to be Christian seem to give little credence to the social dimensions and demands of the gospel.
But those who champion Colbert as some sort of political genius and social prophet for our times seem to miss a very important dynamic in this whole equation: what can the government realistically do, and what should it do?
Just because Jesus fed the 5,000 and told his followers to give their cloak and go the extra mile, should we expect such actions always to be taken by our government?
I’m not sure that the words of scripture necessarily relate in a one-to-one correlation to the mission and tasks of government … do they?
Jesus is not a liberal Democrat. But neither is he a conservative Republican. Any attempts to squeeze him into one of our 21st-century political boxes is pure idolatry.
I’m a pastor, and in my line of work the words of scripture do apply in much more of a one-to-one correlation than they do in government.
Yet in my congregation, how often do we send the poor away — to the government — to find assistance, because we don’t think we have the means to help?
We who are committed to the words of scripture and the way of Christ often feel that we cannot do what our Lord commands us to do, because of limited resources or priorities that might place paying the electric bill or the pastor’s salary, or buying the youth group’s foosball table, above feeding the hungry or giving money to the poor.
So if our churches, with crosses on our steeples and gospel words on our lips, cannot do what they are commanded to do in relationship to the poor, why do we expect any more from the government?
Not everything that is good and holy and just can be accomplished by the government, just as the church cannot do everything that it is called to do by God.
So while it is fun to point out the speck of holy hypocrisy in our neighbor’s eye, have we figured out what to do with the log that is in ours? When we’re done scratching at — or scratching out — our eyes, perhaps then we can figure out, however imperfectly, how to work together to do to the things our Lord calls us to do.
And yes, as if you couldn’t tell from this post, I’m still trying to figure out a satisfying political philosophy.
Find a link to Chris Duckworth’s blog The Lutheran Zephyr at Lutheran Blogs.
Whether the church or the government, the 5000 still need food, thus the following of a David and Goliath proportion.
1. The church wont because Matthew 25 is not a priority amongst her members. If feeding the 5000 were solely the churches responsibility apart from government, they likely would not get fed.
2. The govt will be under attack from some church members and other citizens for spending tax money to do so, and when it does feed the 5000, it will be very wasteful in doing so. However, the 5000 will get fed... even if it takes the resources which might feed 25000 to do so.
Its nearly the same deal with any type of activity called out in Matthew 25. Political solutions may be the only possibilities even if they are far from the optimum. Otoh a change of heart on the part of the individual church member is a better answer... but heart changes take a very very long time.
I ultimately agree, its near impossible to sort a political ideology out of the current mess.
I think Bill had a very good explanation for his statement regarding Colbert's rant and God's actions. When Jesus fed the 5000 he didn't do it with the government's help nor did the people write off their contributions on their tax returns. I thank God that He's listening to our prayers.
I couldn't help but think as I read this article about something I read once--if everyone in the United States who professes to be Christian actually tithed, the government wouldn't need to be involved in caring for the poor. The church could do it. I think though, it's easier to make it a liberal or conservative issue than to face what it really is for Christians--a personal responsibility.
Jesus can not be contained in any box. For years growing up and through my 20's I felt at odds with the vision of Jesus most often portrayed, that is as a pacifist and a soft man. Did he have those sides? Sure he did, but that is but one side.
Jesus was also a trouble maker and tough guy willing to stand up to Pharisees, or to overturn the money changers tables. And as far as followers of Jesus, I daresay nobody ever said John the Baptist was a soft man.
Only when I reconciled my warrior energy and tendencies with that side of Jesus, and yes I do have a soft side as well, was I able to fully accept God's grace and wholeheartedly rejoin the church.
As far as the government being the channel to funnel aid to those in need, I am dubious at best. Look at our own Lutheran World Relief and know that between $0.95 and $0.99 of every dollar goes to the people in need of help. I dare to say that a government agency achieving a thirty cents on the dollar would be held up as very efficient.
It is up to us as Christians to take care of our fellow man. It is not up to our governments to do so.
I have to disagree with your idea that what Colbert did was not very significant. We live in a country where we are bombarded with the conservative voices claiming to speak for God. Many people listen to the likes of O'Reilly and other pundits and political leaders who invoke God's name and believe every word they say. These same pundits, politicians, and even pastors are encouraging people to view the world from a very selfish perspective, and the Bible is very clear about our need to and how to live in community. It's not supposed to be "every man for himself."
Pundits and politicians keep trying to say that this is a "Christian nation." Really? Then why doesn't our government and our people act like it? That's the point. To say the government can't do it. Fine. But then don't say that the government is Christian. (Which incidentally, I don't think it is or should be.) O'Reilly's main point was that people have to prove they are worthy of help. He thinks most people getting aid are free-loaders (which all polling data and interviews show otherwise). Colbert points out the very notion of having to prove you are worthy of help is in direct opposition of what Jesus said. As Lutherans, we should know grace as well or better than anybody.
And really, Colbert was asking us to all look in the mirror, to see the log in our eye. Here's the significant point: "Because if this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor either we have got to pretend that Jesus is just as selfish as we are or we've got to acknowledge that he commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it."
I agree that Jesus isn't a liberal Democrat or can't be fit into our political categories. However, I think that Colbert's last statement is actually very significant, about pretending that Jesus is just as selfish as we are, and that we don't really want to help the poor. As far as the tired argument about whether it should come from the church or the government, I think that is just that, a tired argument. I think we are called to help the poor in the way that most helps them, not in the way that most helps us. Sometimes that is through private means. Sometimes that is through a public program. But the thing is to start focussing on the people who have needs and not just our needs.
Thanks, all, for keeping the conversation going ... and I hope it will continue, in these pixels or in other ways.
Clearly the government cannot do all it ought, because the government is made up of "We the people," a rather sinful lot. So too is the church, the "People of God," also a rather sinful lot. Thus, the odds are stacked against us from the start.
But this doesn't mean that we just shrug our shoulders, talk about personal responsibility, and gripe about taxes or "those people" who are in government or politics (some of whom attend my church, inside the Washington DC beltway, and indeed do their best to do good by their calling and public charge). If that is what I hint or suggest in this blogpost, I do apologize. That is not the intent.
Even if the government is not "Christian," per se, there remains a calling for government, nonetheless: primarily to restrain evil, maintain civil order, and care for the public good, which includes caring for those who cannot care for themselves. Luther, in his commentary on Psalm 82 (Luther's Words vol. 13) writes about the God-given role of the prince, not to be preacher-in-chief, but to establish a peaceful rule and to "help the poor, the orphans, and the widows to justice, and to further their cause." [Luther's Works (13:53)] Luther goes on to say that the entire prince's realm should be like a hospital, caring for and maintaining all that have any need.
But still ... how does all this get done? What does this look like? That is the discussion we need to be having in the church. How do Christians view the role of government versus the role of the private sector? How do we live into our call to love and serve our neighbor in a pluralistic society? And when the church just as well as the government fails to do what it ought, how are we called to respond?
Whether we find fault in the government or in the church or in some mythical "those people" or in ourselves, our hearts should grieve at the plight of the poor, and our faith compel us into action.
I was interested in Duckworth's comments but have a few questions. It sounds like Christians are alone in this world of suffering. We are a minority and by using our citizenship to influence our government in their aid to those on the margins we are showing that we are part of a global community seeking to do justice.
We show compassion, not just by charity or taking up the tithe for the poor, but also by our involvement in politics, by electing those who show a preferential option for the poor in their values.
Jesus is not a democrat or republican but he is on the side of the oppressed. This does not mean he only loves them or that they are more righteous. It just means that to follow Jesus means to be on the side of the oppressed. This shows up at the ballot box as well as the communion rail.
And lets remember that the government is not some entity out there. The government is us. Lets work to make it do justice, love kindness and walk humbly in this global village.
George S Johnson
I'm not sure Cobert meant that Jesus was literally a liberal democrat. It's in the category of speech called satire. In satire vices, follies and abuses are held up to riddicule with the intent of shaming another individual or perhaps a whole society. As a piec eof plitical satire, Cobert's piece is very effective. It points out the wide gap between what Jesus said and how we behave. Note that Cobert's last and most stinging statement is directed at us, the citnizens, not the government.
As an effort to prove that Jesus is actually a democrat it's laugable, which of course is the point....
Thanks for the faithful and rational comments. You can tell this is a Lutheran blog!!! Bill is right. Colbert was being satirical, just poking fun at those who claim (oh so loudly!) that Jesus is a conservative Republican. When people claim this, and we remain silent, we are tacitly agreeing. How does one stand up for the Gospel, stand up for one's faith and rebut such sacrilegious nonsense without giving offense?! Well, satire is one quite effective way. Jesus taught us to care for the poor. We can and should debate the best way to do that. But when some claim (and I'm not making this up, it was on another Christian blog) that Jesus preached that we should take care of our own families and protect our own property and that's all - well, Lutherans Christians need to scream NO! And since humor always helps, go for it.
In reality, Jesus is not a liberal or conservative. He certainly is not a democrat or a republican. he is above and beyond our human labels and associations. We are the ones to choose to be associated with his label as followers of him. With that being said, there is a righteousness implied in being a conservative or a republican that is sanctimonious, if I can generalize a bit. I think that Colbert was satirically addressing that perceived righteousness. I appreciated his satire and the point he made for all who calls themselves republicans or democrats. But mostly it was for those that call themselves Christians and those who are trying to force their faith into a political label.
To appreciate the genius of Colbert's monologue, you need to look past the partisan nattering. Is he scolding conservatives for their perceived insistent self-interest, or challenging us to admit our own?
Do you want some "liberal deity" redistributing your loaves and fishes?
In the end, Colbert (who, as I understand it, teaches CCD classes when he's not playing a talking head on TV) says, we either need to pretend that Christ doesn't want us to take care of our neighbors, or "admit that we don't want to do it." Not that we need to make the government more liberal, but that we need to be honest about our own character.
Colbert is an entertainer and makes some pretty ridiculous statements while in character. People following Colbert or John Stewart are as scary as those who seem to think that Rush or O'Reilly are always dead on correct.
For me the issue is not should we help the less fortunate, that as a Christian and caring Human is a given. The issue is who do you want to give your money to, to then distribute to those in need? Pastor Duckworth quotes some of Luther's writing to seemingly support the idea of giving the government money to then give to the poor. Nonetheless, I cannot seem to find Jesus ever calling for the government to feed and help the poor. He calls on us as individuals to do so. Letting the government take your money and then waste $0.60 on the dollar in administrative costs is both lazy and wasteful of the resources we as individuals have been blessed with.
For me, I would rather redistribute the gifts God has blessed my family with to the church and then participate in the act of redistributing those gifts to those in need through involvement in both my congregation and the greater Lutheran community overall. Too many people in government end up getting caught up in building their power base and protecting their positions and seem to forsake the high ideals they professed that got them into the government run charities to start with.
And on a lighter note...sometimes laughter can lead to more learning than a serious approach. Often people cannot hear a message if it's delivered as hellfire and brimstone but if you can make them laugh about themselves they might just think....hey, there's some truth in what he says. I think that's Colbert's and Stewart's approach. At least it gets all their millions of viewers - who might never set foot in a church - to hear a message about helping others, tolerance, anti-bias, that they might not hear anywhere else. I applaud them.
Regarding Jeff's closing comment: "It is up to us as Christians to take care of our fellow man. It is not up to our governments to do so," . . . It is not an either/or but a both/and. As for observing that Jesus never called on the government to feed/help the poor, neither did Jesus call on the government to establish the DEA and enforce drug laws. Yet both are natural outgrowths of the principles for which Jesus stood and modeled. The problem with depending on Christians to "redistribute the gifts of God" is that a huge percentage of Americans either are not Christian or, as believers, are not a contributing member of a church. Whatever its failings, government is one way of redistributing the gifts of God for people who are not motivated to do this on their own. I applaud Jeff's personal attitude and actions. But if we depended alone on folks like him, many more children would go hungry.
Thank you, thank you for these well chosen words.
We need to remember that we govern ourselves which is not what Jesus and his contemporaries experienced. The Jews were an occupied people. They had no representation and no voice as to what happened to them.
We do.
We elect our officials, we can influence them by where we put our money and by being in communication with them.
We are our government. We are responsible for what happens. The purpose of our government is to keep us safe from foreign invasion and provide for the common good of its citizens. WE decide on what that looks like. Simply because we have been complacent in allowing our money to be misspent is a poor excuse for saying that government doesn't have a role in caring for and protecting the poor. We are the richest nation in the world; there is no reason that we should be telling those living in poverty "too bad, so sad."
Matthew 12:20, "A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out, till he has brought justice through to victory."
When I started seminary in Berkeley after a seven year career as a highway patrol officer in Arizona, I was considered by many to be a right-wing conservative (when the "many" were being kind). When I moved to the rural Midwest, I am considered by the "many" to be a bleeding heart liberal. The "many" I have come to learn over the years are the same no matter what political ideals they embrace, often with a slanderous criticism of the motives of those who dissent that mirrors a religious inquisition. This is why Keith Olbermann and Bill O'Reilly are just different sides of the same coin.
In my opinion, why Cobert did was to expose the hypocrisy of those on the extremes who are so often convinced of their political and ideological superiority that even God cannot exist or act outside of those ideological constraints.
Democrats and Republicans have two distinct but valid ways of understanding the role of government. I identify with one of those understands more than another, but I do not assume the motives of the other is malevolent or that those who do not agree with me are just dumb and uninformed. Democrats are not motivated by sinister motives to make the United States a communist state and Republicans are not motivated by greed to make the rich richer on the backs of the poor; at least not a majority of Democrats or Republicans are motivated by such things. The "many" of the extremes wants us to believe such stereotypes, however, because then it justifies their political idolatry.
I recently commented to someone that I am fiscally and socially Christian. The comment was made a bit tongue in cheek with a seed of truth included as well. The more I considered my comment the more I came to realize that this should be the truth for me, not just a seed. The Bible instructs us how best to deal with our money as well as our neighbors. Our political leanings should not override what is expected of us as keepers of our brothers and sisters.