Too many evangelicals are being taken in by the empty sanctimony we’ve come to expect from progressives who co-opt Jesus for their political agenda while accusing their opponents of doing the same.
Take, for example, the following statement by political funny man Stephen Colbert in a moment of candor:
“If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needs without condition and then admit that we just don’t want to do it.”
On its face, Colbert’s statement seems like an insightful zinger against politically conservative Christian hypocrites who preach Christ but fail to follow his example. If Colbert merely wanted to promote Christian virtue for the sake of poor people, that would be laudable. However, his comment actually encapsulates a litany of false, manipulatively deceptive assumptions, not merely to repudiate the idea of America as a “Christian nation” (whatever that is) but to insinuate that the idea of a “Christian nation” is predominantly advanced by those who do not care for the poor.
Putting aside for now the complex question of what defines a “Christian nation” (which I’ll address in another post) where does Colbert find any basis to assume that the idea of America as a "Christian nation" is promoted primarily by people who do not want to help the poor? Where are all these bogeymen? I’ve been to a lot of churches and met many varieties of Christians throughout America and I can count on one hand the number who exhibit anything but compassion for poor people.
Putting aside for now the complex question of what defines a “Christian nation” (which I’ll address in another post) where does Colbert find any basis to assume that the idea of America as a "Christian nation" is promoted primarily by people who do not want to help the poor? Where are all these bogeymen? I’ve been to a lot of churches and met many varieties of Christians throughout America and I can count on one hand the number who exhibit anything but compassion for poor people.
And yet Colbert implies that there is a significant, politically determinative number of people who want America to be a "Christian nation" but do not want to help the poor. This is simply not the case, unless you accept the progressive notion that compassion for the poor is the exclusive domain of the state, along with the false implication that a rejection of government entitlement programs is equal to misanthropy toward the poor.
Colbert is clearly attempting an improper induction by conflating a) the conservative/Republican political affiliation of the sort of people who typically promote the idea of America as a "Christian nation" with b) the conservative/Republican platform with regard to government entitlement programs, and c) a hypocritical refusal to help the poor. He’s essentially implying a one-to-one relationship between loving and helping the poor and progressive entitlement programs, thereby unfairly insinuating that if people embrace the idea of America as a "Christian nation" but don't believe the way to be a "Christian nation" is to outsource compassion to a bloated, inefficient, impersonal and fiscally unsustainable system of entitlements and wealth redistribution, you're somehow a hypocritical Christian.
His logic goes something like this: Those who want America to be a Christian nation believe we ought to follow the example of Jesus (TRUE). Jesus loved and helped the poor and taught us to do the same (TRUE). All who truly love and help the poor support government entitlement programs advanced by liberal progressives, so if you do not support these then you do not love and help the poor (FALSE). Jesus would have supported the government entitlement programs supported by progressives as the primary way to help the poor (FALSE). Therefore, if you support the idea of America as a Christian nation but do not support progressive government entitlement programs, then either Jesus was a hypocrite or we are (FALSE).
Colbert is clearly attempting an improper induction by conflating a) the conservative/Republican political affiliation of the sort of people who typically promote the idea of America as a "Christian nation" with b) the conservative/Republican platform with regard to government entitlement programs, and c) a hypocritical refusal to help the poor. He’s essentially implying a one-to-one relationship between loving and helping the poor and progressive entitlement programs, thereby unfairly insinuating that if people embrace the idea of America as a "Christian nation" but don't believe the way to be a "Christian nation" is to outsource compassion to a bloated, inefficient, impersonal and fiscally unsustainable system of entitlements and wealth redistribution, you're somehow a hypocritical Christian.
His logic goes something like this: Those who want America to be a Christian nation believe we ought to follow the example of Jesus (TRUE). Jesus loved and helped the poor and taught us to do the same (TRUE). All who truly love and help the poor support government entitlement programs advanced by liberal progressives, so if you do not support these then you do not love and help the poor (FALSE). Jesus would have supported the government entitlement programs supported by progressives as the primary way to help the poor (FALSE). Therefore, if you support the idea of America as a Christian nation but do not support progressive government entitlement programs, then either Jesus was a hypocrite or we are (FALSE).
To be clear, there is not a one-to-one relationship between the definitions of Christian and Republican. And yet, Colbert is content to savor his snarky, one-dimensional caricature of conservative evangelicals, despite the fact that Red states are statistically more generous than Blue states, or that private charities do more good with each hour and each dollar, doing the job for substantially less than what it costs government bureaucracies. That’s a far cry from the cold-hearted hypocrisy of progressive slacktivists, who find it all too easy to be so generous with other people’s money only to accomplish little and demand more. What progressives like Colbert seem unable to account for, but conservative evangelicals intuitively understand, is how voluntary charity benefits society by generating generosity in the heart of the giver and gratitude in the heart of the recipient, which promotes fellowship and hope among mankind. Entitlement programs strip society of that social capital, and therefore erode the glue that holds communities together. Thus, the progressive hope in the state is sadly misplaced.
Colbert’s rhetoric follows the trend of throwing the voice of Jesus through the mouth of Karl Marx in order to commandeer Jesus’ moral authority for the progressive cause. First, they reduce the significance of Jesus to merely a moral example. They do this ostensibly to limit the frame of reference to morality and ethics so that all can engage in a fair dialogue free from special claims of revelation, but in reality it is to reduce the definition of Christianity to purely political terms and hold Christians accountable to the diminished definition imposed on them. Then, taking Jesus’ moral example out of historical context, they use it as a basis to wag the finger at Christians for failing to live up to a definition of Christianity that Christians don’t embrace. After all, if religion is merely “the opiate of the masses,” the decision whether to abolish it, mock it or subvert it for your own causes is an arbitrary one.
We all know Jesus vocally denounced religious hypocrites. But progressives seem to overlook the fact the primary targets of these rebukes were the Pharisees, who were renowned for their acts of charity but who presumed that their ever-tightening regulations of all human activity could redeem their nation by the force of law. Jesus also rebuffed the aspirations of political zealots, upended the Sadducees’ materialistic cult of religious profiteering, and when the masses clamored for Jesus to seize the reins of national government to set right all wrongs, he explicitly refused. Instead, Jesus preached the good news of the supernatural reign of God in our hearts as the source of the world’s transformation.
Christians put their hope in the Creator and Redeemer, not the State. We rejoice that when people see our good works they praise our Father in heaven, not an omnipotent government. God, not the government, is the fountain of blessing, and his work of redeeming the world is mediated through all departments of human activity. Therefore, we reject any person or regime that proposes to be the sort of messiah that Jesus refused to be. And we will not be deceived whenever some cynical political opportunists tries to twist the gospel to make us bend the knee for some other kingdom. If Jesus is Lord, the Caesar is not.
Is there a proper role for government in caring for the poor? Sure. But government entitlement programs are neither a replacement nor a fulfillment of Jesus’ command to love them. This is a duty you cannot outsource to a government program.
