There is hardly a more controversial political battle in America today than that around the role of government. The ideological sides have lined up, and the arguments rage about the size of government: how big, how small should it be? Some famously have said government should be shrunk so small that it "could be drowned in a bathtub."
But I want to suggest that what size the government should be is the wrong question. A more useful discussion would be about the purposes of government and whether ours is fulfilling them. So let's look at what the Bible says.
It's a good read, and Jim definitely knows his Bible. But I've got two big problems with it. And just so I don't become just one more internet naysayer taking potshots at someone else's writing ... I think the problems also point us to definite positive courses of action.
In a country whose constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," while my own opinions about governments role may be shaped by the Bible, those views should not carry any more or less weight than any others in our national discussions. I should not expect government at any level to automatically adapt to a Biblical definition of anything.
What the article doesn't say (but I know Jim Wallis knows and deeply believes) is that whether or not it is government's role to take care of the poor it is certainly not JUST government's role. The Bible ... particularly the Gospels ... are very clear about that.
In Matthew 25 when Jesus says that he is present in the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the naked, the sick and the prisoner and that our very fate and salvation depends on whether we care for those people on an individual basis in that need. When Jesus tells the man who has fulfilled all the law the one thing he lacks is to "sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." ... it is very clear that he is saying each one of us has individual responsibility to help the poor both as individuals and as a class of people.
Now, you might say, "well, of course, that's a given." Well ... no, it's not. Because if you are a liberal who has never had this conversation with conservatives, you might be surprised to find that an article like Jim Wallis' will likely evoke the reaction of "those liberals just want government to take care of everything." Many conservatives I know see thinking like Jim's article not as a challenging of the government to strive for the common good but an abdication of our own responsibility and making the poor "someone else's problem."
