Friday, December 09, 2005

How to Talk About the Federal Budget on Behalf of Your Denomination

Curiously, I'm now getting press releases from The Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD). According to the press release I received yesterday, the organization is upset that five mainline church leaders are attacking the 2006 Federal Budget on religious grounds:

Wrapping a quintessentially partisan political issue in the messianic language of Advent and Christmas, top officials of five mainline Protestant denominations have joined to urge Congress to “vote down the FY ’06 Federal Budget.” The five insist that “there should be no compromise” regarding proposed spending “cuts” that might save $35 billion to $50 billion over the next five years (out of federal spending totaling almost $14 trillion over the period). They “pray that Congress will use this Advent season for purposeful reflection and in so doing conclude that the compromises required are unfair.”

IRD Interim President Alan Wisdom commented: “This misuse of the Advent message to score political points is offensive. Nothing in the Gospel of Jesus Christ prescribes how one should vote on a complex document like the federal budget. These church officials, claiming to be ‘representing close to 20 million followers,’ never even bothered to consult those church members. The members would likely disagree on the federal budget. But the vast majority would agree that the good news of this season centers on the birth of Jesus Christ, not on government spending patterns.”

Among the five church leaders in question is Jim Winkler, General Secretary of The United Methodist Church's General Board of Church and Society (GBCS), a favorite target of IRD.

I actually agree with the IRD—kind of, a little bit, to a point. True, the Gospel doesn't include specific instructions on how to vote on federal budgets, nor do the official teachings (as far as I know) of any denomination. Still, a federal budget is a moral document that Christians should scrutinize.

Jesus made clear on many occasions that his followers have a duty to help the poor, feed the hungry, heal the sick, and so on. He did not, however, say anything about the government's role in all of this. Of course, Jesus lived in an insignificant colony of an enormous empire and had no political channels to work through. In the United States, by contrast, most of our political leaders (and citizens) claim to be followers of Christ. Our situation in the twenty-first century United States, I would suggest, is more analagous to that of ancient Israel and Judah during the time of the prophets. Isaiah, Micah, Amos, and others preached that God was indeed very concerned with how the governments of these nations treated their citizens. The prophets often named the poor treatment of the needy as a barrier separating the people of Israel and Judah from God.

So Christians should care about how our government treats and assists its most vulnerable citizens. Yet, Christians disagree as to how the government should go about helping needy Americans. Some would insist that government-sponsored social programs are ineffective and that the government should instead support private initiatives. Others feel that government social programs are necessary and instrumental to helping people become self-sufficient. (I use "self-sufficient" for lack of a better word. None of us is truly self-sufficient; and expecting anyone literally to be self-sufficient is unrealistic and unfair.) As for me, I think that the government has an important role to play in defeating poverty in this country and in insuring that all Americans have adequate healthcare, though government programs are not themselves wholly adequate. I support measures to reform social programs that are ineffective; and understand that more money does not always mean better results; but reject moves to cut such programs entirely. I also feel strongly that poverty and healthcare are issues that matter very much to Jesus.

Back to the church officials in question. I agree with IRD that it was irresponsible for Jim Winkler and other denominational representatives to publicly and pointedly attack the budget on behalf of the members of their churches. IRD also notes that these church leaders failed to provide an alternative vision for the federal budget. (As Jim Wallis would say, "Protest is good, but alternatives are better.")

Still, as I understand it, Jim Winkler, as General Secretary of the GBCS, has a responsibility to lobby the government on behalf of The United Methodist Church. Which raises a question that I have raised many times before: How does lobby on behalf of a denomination whose millions of members disagree on just about every major political issue? What can Winkler say safely and responsibly as a Christian, a United Methodist, and a leader in his denomination? Here are a few ideas:

  • "Our federal budget should reflect values that are both American and Christian such as freedom, justice, and compassion. We must make every effort to use our national resources in ways that uplift and support all of our citizens and not in ways that harm or oppress our citizens or other persons affected by American policies."

  • "Christians are obliged to assist those who are poor, sick, hungry, and oppressed. Our nation's Constitution says that we, as a country, shall "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, [and] promote the general Welfare." Christians who are true to their calling and Americans who are true to their identity must consider the needs of our nation's most vulnerable citizens when debating and voting on something as important as a federal budget. While many Americans and many Christians disagree on the most effective ways to help the poor, sick, hungry, and oppressed, we must all vow to keep these persons in our hearts and minds as we determine how to best use our national resources."

  • "United Methodists have long been advocates for social justice and institutional change. We have also long promoted personal responsibility. As we decide how to best serve our citizens and our world through our federal budget, we need to keep both of these things in mind. We must recongize that the government has a role to play in defeating poverty and assisting the poor, hungry, sick, and oppressed. But we must also realize that the government cannot by itself solve these problems. Government assistance programs must also hold people accountable for their actions and promote personal responsibility. We must lift up the strengths of competing ideologies for the good of all God's children."
  • 3 Comments:

    Blogger Jody Leavell said...

    I like your ideas for a more responsible statement from Jim Winkler. In a way I don't think the Church needs to lobby the government on this issue so much as it needs to lobby its members to spend the time and effort to make a knowledgeable decision on the matter. With painstaking thoughtfulness they should communicate as individuals, privately guided as Christians before God, and publicly declaring their thoughts to their elected officials.

    I have not found Jim Winkler to be someone I would have speak on my behalf as a Christian or member in the UMC. No matter who does it, though, I submit my conscience before God and hold as equals the United Methodist Church and the Federal Government. Neither owns me.

    Another comment on the topic. I frequently see many people confuse their responsibility as Christians with that of the Government. It is, in my opinion, an abdication of a Christian's responsibility to expect any government body to carry out the mission Christ gave to us. Like you, I don't deny that the Federal Government has a role, but it should not be used to cover our failures and assume guardianship for those we willingly ignore.

    The more we diminish the role government plays in what is essentially Christain Charity the more money, resources, and freedom we will have to fulfill our brotherly duty. That includes the running of orphanages, schools, hospitals, and many other social justice programs.

    2:59 PM  
    Blogger Beth Quick said...

    Interesting post. I respond with a clear bias as a board member of GBCS who loves the board and its work. I think Jim is a bold leader of GBCS, and I think his words are generally in line with what we claim to believe at United Methodists - all those things found in the Social Principles and the Book of Resolutions.
    You asked, "How does lobby on behalf of a denomination whose millions of members disagree on just about every major political issue? What can Winkler say safely and responsibly as a Christian, a United Methodist, and a leader in his denomination?"
    Your suggestions are nice, but I fear that when we worry about what to say because we all disagree on an issue, we end up saying nothing, and being ineffective. I don't see statements like the ones you offered as leading up to action, change, impact.. I say this as one who totally disagrees with some of the major policies of the UMC - so I know it isn't always easy to hear someone saying "The UMC says" when I know that's not what *I* say. But that's why we are a body, a denomination, a connectional church, and not just a bunch of individuals who happen to all like John Wesley. I want a church that actually has some strong opinions about things!
    After meeting with Roy Blunt's policy advisor in October as part of a GBCS meeting to talk about the budget, I became convinced that Blunt's budget agenda isn't about a different understanding of how to help the poor. I got the impression it was about a different understanding of whether or not it was economically valuable to help the poor. I think we need to speak out, and boldly. I don't think that's irresponsible, especially when it is done in a way that is fully in line with what we've already said as a denomination through the General Conference.

    11:20 PM  
    Anonymous Anonymous said...

    I don't think the alternatives offered are as pointless as Elizabeth implies. They have the benefit of being statements that all Christians can rally behind. I don't think any Christian can disagree with them. Such statements (contra those offered by Winkler) bring unity to the body of Christ and remind us all of the common values we share as Christians even as we may disagree on specifics. I think that unity could be a powerful thing, and that Winkler's statements do more to divide Christians than bring them together.

    11:46 AM  

    Post a Comment

    << Home