President Obama’s new spiritual adviser (informally but not officially) is Rev. Jim Wallace of the national Sojourners movement. Wallace is an enthusiastic supporter of the recent health care legislation and also speaks out in favor of government mandated redistribution of wealth. While talking about the Christian responsibility to give to the poor, Wallace recently said in the Huffington Post April 9, 2010:

“Voluntary church action can’t provide health care for millions who don’t have it, or fix broken urban school systems or provide jobs at fair wages..or keep banks from cheating our people…All that requires commitments to holding governments accountable to social justice and advocating for better public policies.”

Now, before I evaluate his statement, let’s back up for a moment. First of all, the purpose of this piece is not to question the man’s sincerity. I have no doubt that he truly loves God and wants to do what is best. Wallace was already known over the years for pointing Christians toward a better understanding of God’s concern for the poor. The heart of a caring God who wants to reach out to the financially destitute and disenfranchised can certainly be found from one end of scripture to another and so, on its surface, Wallace is absolutely right when he reminds people that they should be passionate about the same matters which concern their creator.

Unfortunately, Wallace has also included government policy with his view. That alone is not a problem. We each have a right to integrate God with every facet of our lives, be they political, personal or social. After all, if God is not part of our entire life, the commitment to God becomes very suspicious. My critique of Wallace is not based upon his willingness to embrace politics. Instead, I am questioning the actual accuracy of his position.

Wallace will point (among other places)  to early chapters of the Book of Acts, showing that the believers shared all of their possessions and took care of each other. From such practices, he reasons on to the idea that our government  has a right to be the custodian of such redistribution. Close, Wallace, but no cigar.

2 Cor 9:7  “Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, generously, not under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.”

Forgive me for making the obvious, obvious, but if the government is going to force your hand, that sounds a lot like compulsion. Joe Biden likes to say, “Where I come from, we call that fairness!”

Really Joe?  Well, where I come from, we call that stealing. If somebody robbed you at gunpoint and assured you afterwords that he needed the bucks to put food on his table, two thoughts might pop into your mind: First, do you believe him?  How do you know where that money will be spent based upon the testimony of a man with his finger on a trigger?  Second, you might say to yourself. “Had he come to me and asked, I just might have had sympathy and made a donation toward his family.” Either way, I seriously doubt you would feel this character had the right to hold you up, despite his claims of being a modern day Robin Hood. That works fine in a fun, Errol Flynn movie, but we don’t live in Sherwood Forrest.

Now, let’s think for a moment: How is this act of armed robbery suddenly justified simply because the government  gets involved? It’s every bit as much of a hold up. Failure to comply is enforced by law which could include fines, jail time and yes, even arrest at gunpoint for anyone resisting. I know that sounds a bit dramatic but its all absolutely true. The only reason people don’t stop to think about it is because these laws have come to us inches at a time instead of miles at a time. The frog has been boiled slowly and we are used to the situation, like comfortable old leather.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Nothing I have said so far is intended as a call to rebel against the payment of taxes. Jesus told us to pay taxes and all countries need some kind of tax system. In any common community we must provide for protection and defense but keeping us safe and free is just about the only thing our forefathers pictured for a government role. Saying that all of us need policemen and therefore every citizen must chip in, is one thing. Telling a person that he owns too much and must share with those less fortunate is another matter altogether. When hard earned money is taken from people by law, that is not the kind of soil which cultivates “cheerful giving.”  The citizens of any free country should be allowed to do what they want with their own possessions. If not, then exactly what do we mean when we call ourselves “free?” Yes, God encourages us to be generous, but part of that generosity includes choosing our own recipient. Maybe you know of somebody in need and would rather see your funds float down that familiar river where you see exactly how it is being spent, where you can decide for yourself how much goes to the genuinely broken and how much creates more bureaucracy, the kind of  bureaucracy which pumps your tax dollars toward the  preservation of a Delta Smelt fish or a road crossing for Salamanders. Both are true stories but neither is the story we hear when politicians are explaining redistribution of wealth. Instead, they put forth illustrations of weakened people needing human compassion. Of course our hearts will always respond to such examples. It’s time for our heads to respond as well by asking the question; “Could the church do a better job of helping our brothers without the reigns of Big Brother?” Indeed they can. For the first hundred years of United States history the Christian organizations took care of the orphan, the widow, the poor, and the elderly. We did it without government welfare agencies and today many churches are every bit as generous and innovative.  But people have less to contribute to the church today because Robin and his 7 Hoods are robbing us before we can get to the collection plate.

Here endith the lesson.

Share this on