A Bishop's Defense of Government -- Sightings

Is government the enemy?  In some places, like Libya it probably is, but can we honestly say that government is the enemy in the United States?  It may be inefficient and ineffective at times, but is government really the problem?  And as we answer that question it probably is good to remember that even in a representative democracy, ultimately "we the people" are the government. 

This is the question that Martin Marty raises in today's edition of Sightings.   He makes reference to a Lutheran Bishop in Minnesota who decided to stand up and defend the importance of government, including taxation, as an expression of our existence as a people in compact with each other.  I may not always agree with the government, but I'm not sure that anarchy is better.  I may not like every regulation or tax, but the FDA and EPA provide important services that enhance our lives.  But, I'd like to hear what you have to say in response to Marty's essay.

********************* 


Sightings 2/21/2011

A Bishop’s Defense of Government

-- Martin E. Marty

Belgian sociologist of religion Henri Desroche once observed three functions of religion in society. Religion normally attests a society when it is in the business of “affirming.” There and then it serves an integrating function. That’s normal: think “God bless America.” Next, in a society that is examining its own premises and reorganizing its constituencies, the function of religion is to be contending “within the limit of contesting the status quo.” Think Martin Luther King, Jr. “In a society that is denying, challenging and refusing its own right to exist, religion appears as a function of protesting, revolting and subverting,” writes Desroche. Think recent Egypt.

Beyond these three functions of attesting, contending and protesting are chaotic movements like anarchism, or, closer to home in today’s America, simple “anti-government” actions, expressions, and tantrums. Think of Ayn Rand’s shrugs and the many current declarations in praise of the selfish individual. Now and then religious leaders, themselves aware of the attesting, protesting, and even, though too rarely, the contending functions of faiths, will examine and take on selfish declarations. One whose words reached publics in the Minneapolis StarTribune and subsequently, of course, on the internet, is Peter Rogness, a bishop within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and president of the Minnesota Council of Churches. He had the sense to speak of the obvious to multitudes and the courage to take on the anti-government folk, in a column entitled “Government is not the enemy.”

His question is clear: “Is government us or them?” a question which he follows up with the observation: “With no public announcement, we have changed from a people sharing a common life to several hundred million individuals who happen to live near one another, and we risk losing our soul in that change.” His “we” is “the people” who appear(ed) in so many of “our” founding and later public documents. He adds: “As people withdraw into greater concern for their private welfare, government as public enterprise fades; the ‘we’ becomes ‘they,’ common purpose becomes interference and the poor and vulnerable are left on the margins.”

Government, in our history and for Rogness, is not an “it” or a “them.” “Taxes aren’t theft; they’re the means by which we pool our resources, fairly and with order, to underwrite this common life.” Ready to take on an icon, he looks back to 1981 when an unnamed U.S. President announced, “Government is not a solution to our problem; government is the problem.” The bishop anticipates legitimate debate over his words “fairly and with order.” No party, no policy, has a monopoly on “fairness” and good “order.” Contesting policies and programs is a right and duty of “we the people.”

Rogness asks, “So why is a Lutheran bishop writing a social and historical critique?” He is not unique. Numbers of other bishops do so, among them Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams. They do it because at stake are “values rooted in the faith traditions of the people who make up this state and nation.” And: “A budget is a moral document.” Let debating over budgets continue, something that can’t happen in an “anti-government” moment, which one hopes will not become an era of potential destruction. It would be caused by the “I’s” who, Rogness writes, take care of themselves and do not notice or who do disdain the “others.” These others, the vulnerable and marginal, are prime in the faith traditions of which the bishop speaks.

References

Henri Desroche, Jacob and the Angel: An Essay in Sociologies of Religion (University of Massachusetts, 1973).

Peter Rogness, “Government is not the Enemy,” StarTribune.com, February 6, 2011.

Martin E. Marty's biography, current projects, publications, and contact information can be found at www.illuminos.com.

----------

In this month's Religion and Culture Web Forum, Jessica DeCou offers a comic interpretation of the theology of Karl Barth, bringing his work into a surprising and fruitful dialogue with the comedy of Craig Ferguson. Both men, she contends, “employ similar forms of humor in their efforts to unmask the absurdity and irrationality of our submission to arbitrary human powers.” The humor of Barth and Ferguson alike stresses human limitation against illusory deification. DeCou argues for understanding both the humor and the famous combativeness of Barth's theology as part of this single project, carried out against modern Neo-Protestant theology. The Religion and Culture Web Forum is at: http://divinity.uchicago.edu/martycenter/publications/webforum/

----------

Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

Ask Not What Your Country Can Do for You . . .

This past week we remembered the 50th anniversary of John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address.  It was a very different time.  It saw the passing of the torch from one generation to the next, from the generation that came of age in World War I to the that which emerged into public life through the Second World War.  It was a time of great anxiety due to perceived threats from an advancing communism, but it was also a period of growing affluence.  Religion was still "in," and there was a sense that Americans were in this together.  Of course, there were important issues that were getting papered over -- like those that would be identified with the emerging civil rights movement.  We were not yet at war in Southeast Asia, and we were ready to compete with the Soviets in the space race.

On that day in January of 1961, the new President, the youngest ever elected at the time, took the world stage and offered a call to America, a call to join together in a common cause.  The sentence that has come down through time still rings loudly, and yet it would appear that as a nation we are less inclined to heed its call.

On that day President Kennedy issued these words:

"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."  

In our day, it seems that we are asking a very different question -- "What have you done for me lately?"  We went to war in Afghanistan and then in Iraq, but instead of calling for national sacrifice through increased taxes to pay for this war, we cut taxes, and passed on the debt to a later generation.  That decision is coming back to haunt us.  Even as talk of cutting the deficit is being heard in the Halls of Congress, the buck is being passed on to the States and then to local governments.  While Congress can enable the nation to print money, states, counties, and municipalities must try to balance budgets -- and they must do this without raising taxes, since there is no interest in paying more to keep existing services.  Now, what is interesting is that most Americans want to keep the status quo in terms of services, they just don't want to pay for it.

And when one state, such as Illinois, tries to raise taxes in order to balance its budget, other states seek to capitalize on this fact by trying to woo companies to move elsewhere.  In other words, competition among states is leading to cannibalization of the nation.

So, I come back to the point made fifty years ago -- What Can I do for my country?  And I ask this question from the perspective that my own ultimate allegiance is due not to the nation but to God.   

Sacred Texts, Social Duty (DVD) -- Review

SACRED TEXTS, SOCIAL DUTY:  A Documentary by Ethics Daily.  (DVD)  Robert Parham and Cliff Vaughn, Co-Producers/Directors.  Nashville:  EthicsDaily.Com, 2010. 58 minutes.

            We know that people don’t like to pay taxes; that is clear from the political rhetoric of the day.   Who can forget the famous words of George H. W. Bush, who said so very clearly:  “Read my lips:  No new taxes.”  It was a promise that he couldn’t keep, but the blowback was so great that today it would seem un-American to suggest that taxes should be raised.  Although we like public services, such as roads, schools, police, fire departments, ambulances, libraries, and the like, we’d rather not pay for them.   And don’t get me started on those entitlement programs like Medicaid and welfare; though Medicare and Social Security seem sacrosanct in many quarters (remember that senior citizens do vote).   Our anti-tax mentality, when accompanied by an inability to figure out exactly where the fat is that can be trimmed, has lead to ever increasing budget deficits.   

Questions of taxation would seem to be political issues upon which the faith community would appear to have little to say, which may be why there are so few sermons on the subject.  After all, politics doesn’t belong in the pulpit.  Still, is it really true that our sacred texts don’t have anything to say about this issue?  Is there no word that can be spoken from a faith perspective on this issue, especially at this critical moment in the nation’s history?  These are the kinds of questions that are addressed in a splendid but challenging documentary from the people at Ethics Daily, who graciously provided me a copy of Sacred Texts, Social Duty to preview.  

The premise of this documentary is that the sacred texts of the three Abrahamic traditions do offer important guidance on the matter of taxation.   It’s not that God has a specific tax policy or method of taxation, but the sacred texts of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam do speak of the need for funds to be gathered for the common good.  Consider that Moses levied a half shekel tax on the people of Israel for support of the community (Exodus 30:13).  Malachi even suggested that failure to pay the tithe should be considered robbing God.  As for Jesus, he consistently called for those who had funds to share them with those who did not, and he is famous for saying “Give to Caesar, that which is Caesar’s, and give to God that which belongs to God” (Mark 12:13-17); while hanging around with tax collectors.  Yes, he called on them to do their job justly, but he didn’t condemn the profession.  Paul, of course, called for submission to the authorities, whom God had placed in their positions for the common good (Romans 13:1-7).  And, according to the Qur’an, zakat, alms given for the provision of care to the poor is a pillar of Islam.   So, the question is:  do our sacred texts simply commend charity – that is voluntary giving – or do they encourage or allow for what we would call taxation?  

The documentary is divided into four segments – “Social Duty in the States”; “Social Duty in the Sacred Traditions”; “Social Duty in the Square”; and “Social Duty and the Pulpit.”  Contributors to the discussion come from all parts of the three Abrahamic traditions, and are drawn from North and South, East and West.  All are in agreement that in one form or another; the Scriptures allow for and encourage the gathering of funds for the common good.  Indeed, as Presbyterian Tami Sober puts it:  “Taxes are what we pay for the common good.” 

At the heart of the conversation is a matter of justice.  The scriptures of all three traditions are clear – God is concerned about justice.  Historian and Baptist Sunday School Teacher Wayne Flynt reminds us that Matthew 25 speaks not just about charity, but about justice.  He says in the film that “What we’ve done is sever ethics from social morality and reduce ethics to personal morality.  Also what we’ve done is say that justice is about charity.”  Rabbi Ben Romer of Virginia reminds us that in the Jewish tradition, government is charged with preserving justice for the entire community, therefore, he says that:

“The American government has the responsibility, as the government of the people, to provide for the needs of the people.  And certainly the synagogue and the mosque and the church has a responsibility beyond the government, but not in place of the government.”

             If taxes are appropriate way of providing for the common good from a faith perspective, then the next question concerns the kind of taxes that Scripture would deem appropriate.  Again, even though no particular tax method is outlined in Scripture, principles of justice would assume that the tax burdens not fall on those least able to pay.  That is, tax policy should be progressive not regressive.  As all the scriptures of all three traditions put it – those to whom much is given, much is expected.  Even Adam Smith agrees with this principle – as pointed out in the documentary, Smith wrote in the Wealth of Nations:   

 “The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”   

A progressive tax is one that doesn’t fall heaviest upon those least able to pay – making sales taxes more regressive than income taxes, since often sales taxes fall even on essentials such as food.  Lotteries are also regressive forms of taxation, in fact they can be considered, as Baptist pastor David Wheeler puts it, “tax evasion.” 

            The assumptions that lie behind the film are that most people of faith want to do the right thing, and that the Scriptures of all three traditions call on governments, as well as individuals, to pursue justice and the common good.  It would appear that taxes are essential to this process, for services need to be paid for – something that seems lost on so many American today.  They decry the deficit, but want their taxes to reduced even as they demand more services.  Unfortunately, those who need help the most, too often don’t have the power to speak out for themselves, and thus they end up bearing the burden.    

The value of this documentary is that it raises important questions that people of faith need to wrestle with.  This film, therefore, is an excellent piece to be used in congregations to start that discussion, and fortunately a discussion guide can be found on the web site.  Congregations may want to divide the video curriculum into four parts, making for a month long study, or it could be used in one sitting, but the participants need to be ready to engage for a lengthy period of time.     As to why we would want to do this, perhaps Methodist pastor Philip Blackwell makes the best the case:

“If the public system of taxation as well as the delivery of services doesn’t reflect how it is that we are to care for one another, then it is the religious community’s responsibility not only to point that out, but to advocate and to organize in order to make sure that there is a kind of common care for people.”

Some might call this politics, but as the participants in this conversation are apt to point out, it is really a matter of a sacred duty, for God is concerned for justice and the common good.  And that, as they say, is preachable! And this DVD an insightful and important contributor to a conversation that needs to be undertaken.

Customer Service Government?

The GOP candidate for governor of Michigan, Rick Snyder,who has no government experience, but comes to the campaign from the corporate sector, speaks of ""customer service government."  He is one of several candidates that have no government experience, but suggest that their business acumen is key to success.  I really don't want to debate that issue, though I have my doubts that one can move from the business world into government all that easily. 

But, what is interesting to me is the concept of voter/citizen as customer.  In these campaigns, Snyder's included, the citizen is addressed as a customer, but what does that mean?  If Snyder means that things like transparency and efficiency and even good service should be part of the governmental ethos, well I would agree.  But, if citizens are customers, or at least considered customers, does that not feed the consumerist mentality that makes governance almost impossible.  Government is put in the position of pleasing individual customers, which means it may not do what is right, but what is expedient.  I think we're already there, but this only makes it more apparent.  

But are citizens really customers?  Are we not the government?  And as government should we not be concerned about the common good as well as the individual good.  As an American, I have only one government.  It's not like I can choose between Coke or Pepsi -- you know decide which one tastes better and choose it.  It's not even like choosing between banks, deciding which bank offers me the best customer service.   So, what does "customer service government" really look like?

And since this is a faith-based blog, let me push the question into the church.  Since the church has become increasingly tied to consumerist ideology, is the church member a customer?  After all, when we look for a new church, we call this "church shopping."  And we decide not on doctrinal bases, but on the basis of the children's program, youth program, the preacher, the music.  Again, where in this does the question of the common good emerge?

There was a video going around a while ago comparing the church to Starbucks -- suggesting that the church might look to Starbucks for guidance in "customer service."  Well, is that truly the way we ought to look at either church or government?  Doesn't "customer" orientation take away the idea of responsibility to church and community?  Are we not part of the "body politic," even as Christians are part of the "body of Christ"?