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."