Here's the problem with liberals like Erika Christakis: they misuse Christian Scripture for their own political purposes, which is exactly what Jesus was against. She recently argued in TIME magazine that Republican Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan is "un-Christian" because of his budget proposal. Her complete distortion of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5 not only creates a gross misrepresentation of Jesus' teaching but it exemplifies the contempt of the Left for the Judeo-Christian ethic when a Christian is running for office.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus was not making a statement about civil government or the burden of taxation upon the people of Israel. He was speaking to his disciples and encouraging them to go the extra mile in Christian sacrificial love, which is certainly not the basis of governmental taxation.
Let me set the record straight: The only thing Jesus said about taxation was to "render unto Cesar that which was Cesar's" (Mark 12:17). He was not even remotely suggesting a 50 percent tax rate.
Furthermore, her statement is so egregiously inaccurate it is hard to believe that her editors even published it.
Let's consider the biblical context of tithing and taxation. As a Jew, Jesus would have known what the Jewish custom was toward tithing to the religious leaders, the Temple and the poor, which was separate from paying a civil tax.
From reading the books of Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy of the Old Testament of the Bible, many Old Testament scholars conclude that there were three religious tithes. There was a 10 percent tithe to support the Levitical priesthood. Then, an additional 10 percent of the remaining 90 percent was given to support the Temple during the annual festivals. Additionally, every three years 10 percent was collected to provide for the poor from the remaining balance of the 81 percent. (That's slightly over 21 percent to the Temple, the priesthood and the poor.)
When the Israelites asked for a king, Israel's last judge Samuel warned that the Israelites would pay a tax to the government to support the king and his army. He warned, the king will take and take and take. And he was right. In the Old Testament book of the Bible, 1 Samuel, the Israelites were taxed 10 percent for the first time by their civil government.
Again, Christakis is ignoring the context and misusing the text to make it say what she wants it to say. This is called "proof-texting." And unfortunately, people do this far too often. They use a biblical text to prove their bias, which in fact has absolutely nothing to do with what the text says.
But context is everything when understanding Scripture. It's important to note that the Jews gave to the Temple to provide for the poor -- not the government. And if Christians were tithing to their respective churches and involved in ministries to the poor to the extent that they ought, there would not be the overarching need for the federal, state, and local governments to provide the social services that they do.
As a conservative evangelical political commentator I am often asked, "What would Jesus do?" about a particular social topic. Would he be involved in politics? Would he support a particular piece of legislation?
I find that this is particularly the case in the 2012 presidential election because faith played such a large role in the Republican primaries and because we have a Mormon and a Catholic on the Republican ticket -- and evangelical support for them, which scares the Left.
Paul Ryan, a faithful Catholic, is being criticized for his political and religious worldview not because there is any merit to the criticism but because he is a Christian. If he were an Agnostic or Atheist would Jesus' perspective of the budget even be an issue? Obviously the Left is threatened by Ryan's upstanding character and will go to any length to tear him down-- including his Christian faith. But misusing the Bible to tear him down is outrageous. This is just one more example of how people want to make the Bible say what they want it to say instead of citing what it actually says. And it's flat out wrong.
David Briggs: The Flesh Is Weak: Churchgoers Give Far Less Than They Think
David Sloan Wilson: Ayn Rand and Modern Politics
James Peron: Are Conservatives Really More Charitable? Or Just More Religious?
The second thing is she said that when Jesus said "render onto caesurs what is caesurs" he wasn't talking about a 50% tax rate not even close she said. But the text does not give an amount and an punt is irrelevant to what Jesus was saying. Jesus was swing taxes are caesurs no matter what the amount so just pay them because they have nothing to do with the kingdom of God.
Thirdly she says if Christians would only tithe like they should there would be no need for government help for the poor. But they don't tithe like they should and what money they do give the lions share go into buildings and pastor and staff saleries. And even if they did tithe and used the all the money to help those in need there would be people left out. Gays would probably have trouble getting money from most churches. Cohabitatirs would be at the bottom of the list. Churches would only help who they chose to help and many would get no help at all
Government may not be a perfect way to assure poor get atleast a minimum of what they need but it is way better then depending on Christians to do it right.
http://www.politicususa.com/5-biggest-lies-paul-ryans-rnc-acceptance-speech.html
Certainly he's being criticized because he's a Christian. Because if he claims to be one, we expect him to behave like one...and he does NOT. He behaves like an entitled, spoiled frat boy used to having his own way and accustomed to lying to stay out of trouble.
Speaking of political misuse of texts, how does 1st century societal infrastructure have the remotest relevance with what we're dealing with today? Tell me, was healthcare 16% of the GDP in the Roman empire? What was the retirement package offered to slaves, and at what age could they start collecting it? How many children were offered 12 years of education?
what is important is the spiritual transformation of the heart, which changes a person's character, like the story of the Prodigal Son, most people's view of being a Christian is being the Elder Brother, that would be the one that did not "change" which is about how you generally describe Republicans, like "traditional values", pretty much opposed to "hope and change", not willing to "come together and socially communicate" with the Obamaesque Younger Brother as Mitch McConnel said, having "ill will" towards him, any student of the bible is aware that "anger, rage, malice and slander" are signs of being unclean, which is opposed to the Holy Spirit (resisting) and no HS=no Christian
the phrase "you can't serve God and Mammon" (greed, avarice, selfishness) applies to this conversation, when one has the HS, they "love God and neighbor", they "store up their treasure in heaven" because they do "acts of love" as in it being "more blessed to give then receive" this outward action confirms love inside
the government is a secular entity not a religious one, but it is composed of human beings, which can be lead by the HS
But then I read "...the Left is threatened by Ryan's upstanding character..." and gave up. Anyone crazy enough to believe that is never going to listen to other people's points of view.
what I m saying is that transforming the heart (from hardness to compassionate) is a personal experience/salvation from God, and "after these signs are fulfilled in you, whatever you find to do, do it with all you heart, because God is with you" so it does not matter what occupation a person has (remember in the Books of Kings and Chronicles "he was a bad King, he was a good King")
Loving God and Loving Neighbor is within and displayed outwardly, and that processes takes time (like Nebuchadnezzar) to happen through spiritual growth, better known as "born again" that "suffering as a woman in travail" comes about to people, the tragedy of "Job" or today we'd say "Tiger Woods" or "Martha Stewart", enters their life and should they recover, they are a changed person
if they happen to be in government, then they would want to do "what is right, and fair and just" coming from a clear mind and conscience there would not be just one way, because times and circumstances change, it is being able to shift the gears at the right time (rpm)
gotta go
:-)
Bonus Question: What type of car was the official car of the disciples?
A: On the way to Bethlehem, they were all in one Accord.
And just an FYI, Government became involved in monetarily lifting up the poor primarily because the faith based "tax" as you described it in your article simply was and is not near enough. Tell me......Considering the numbers of poor in today's world would not Jesus ask more of you than the 10%, that you prescribe? I believe he would, because he did.
In closing I leave you with two thoughts:
"Give and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.” Luke 6:38
and
"If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother”
I must ask, Bethany. Is the God of creation—the God of Israel, the God of the Bible—really your God whom you serve and obey? Or have you conjured up your own false "god" or "gods"? Or are you falsely worshiping according to the "traditions of men," which Jesus said would cause you to worship God in vain? (Mark 7:7). These are issues that I believe you need to reflect upon!
You make the mistake of assuming that those on the left are non-believers. And in that you couldn't be more wrong. When you write an article critical of the rights misuse of scripture (which over the past 30 years could fill volumes) you might get a more affirmative response to your perspective. Until then, you come off as just another talking head defending the indefensible; the demonization and disenfranchisement of the poor and infirm in an effort to enrich one’s own coffers; all the while making claims in the name of God to do so. I have serious doubt Jesus would find that acceptable under any circumstance. And apparently Catholic Bishops and nuns agree.