The insurgent Tea Party and its Libertarian philosophy is a political phenomenon, not a religious one. Like the Democratic and Republican parties it seeks to challenge, it is a secular movement, not a Christian one. As with both major political parties, people who regard themselves as Christians may be involved in, or sympathetic to, the new Tea Party; but that doesn't make it "Christian." But like the philosophies and policies of the major political parties, the Tea Party can legitimately be examined on the basis of Christian principles -- and it should be.
Since the Tea Party is getting such national attention, our God's Politics blog is going to begin a dialogue on this question: Just how Christian is the Tea Party Movement -- and the Libertarian political philosophy that lies behind it? Let me start the dialogue here. And please join in.
Libertarianism is a political philosophy that holds individual rights as its supreme value and considers government the major obstacle. It tends to be liberal on cultural and moral issues and conservative on fiscal, economic, and foreign policy. This "just leave me alone and don't spend my money" option is growing quickly in American life, as we have seen in the Tea Party movement. Libertarianism has been an undercurrent in the Republican Party for some time, and has been in the news lately due to the primary election win of Rand Paul as the Republican candidate for a Senate seat in Kentucky. Paul has spoken like a true Libertarian, as evidenced by some of his comments since that election last week.
He cited the Civil Rights Act as an example of government interference with the rights of private business. Paul told an interviewer that he would have tried to change the provision in the 1964 Civil Rights Act that made it illegal for private businesses to discriminate on the basis of race. He answered a specific question about desegregating lunch counters by countering, "Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant?"
A few days later, he spoke about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Referring to the Obama administration's criticisms of BP, Paul said, "I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."
Is such a philosophy Christian? In several major aspects of biblical ethics, I would suggest that Libertarianism falls short.
1. The Libertarian enshrinement of individual choice is not the pre-eminent Christian virtue. Emphasizing individual rights at the expense of others violates the common good, a central Christian teaching and tradition. The Christian answer to the question "Are we our brother's keeper?" is decidedly "Yes." Jesus tells us that the greatest commandment is to love God and love our neighbor. Loving your neighbor is a better Christian response than telling your neighbor to leave you alone. Both compassion and social justice are fundamental Christian commitments, and while the Christian community is responsible for living out both, government is also held accountable to the requirements of justice and mercy. Both Christians on the Right and the Left have raised questions about Libertarian abandonment of the most vulnerable -- whether that means unborn lives or the poor.
Just look at the biblical prophets in their condemnation of injustice to the poor, and how they frequently follow those statements by requiring the king (the government) to act justly (these requirements applied both to the kings of Israel and to foreign potentates). Jeremiah, speaking of King Josiah, said, "He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well."(Jeremiah 22:16). Amos instructs the courts (the government) to "Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts" (Amos 5:15). The prophets hold kings, rulers, judges, and employers accountable to the demands of justice and mercy.
2. An anti-government ideology just isn't biblical. In Romans 13, the apostle Paul (not the Kentucky Senate candidate) describes the role and vocation of government; in addition to the church, government also plays a role in God's plan and purposes. Preserving the social order, punishing evil and rewarding good, and protecting the common good are all prescribed; we are even instructed to pay taxes for those purposes! Sorry, Tea Party. Of course, debating the size and role of government is always a fair and good discussion, and most of us would prefer smart and effective to "big" or "small" government.
Revelation 13 depicts the state as a totalitarian beast -- a metaphor for Rome, which was persecuting the Christians. This passage serves as a clear warning about the abuse of governmental power. But a power-hungry government is clearly an aberration and violation of the proper role of government in protecting its citizens and upholding the demands of fairness and justice. To disparage government per se -- to see government as the central problem in society -- is simply not a biblical position.
3. The Libertarians' supreme confidence in the market is not consistent with a biblical view of human nature and sin. The exclusive focus on government as the central problem ignores the problems of other social sectors, and in particular, the market. When government regulation is the enemy, the market is set free to pursue its own self-interest without regard for public safety, the common good, and the protection of the environment -- which Christians regard as God's creation. Libertarians seem to believe in the myth of the sinless market and that the self-interest of business owners or corporations will serve the interests of society; and if they don't, it's not government's role to correct it.
But such theorizing ignores the practical issues that the public sector has to solve. Should big oil companies like BP simply be allowed to spew oil into the ocean? And is regulating them really un-American? Do we really want nobody to inspect our meat, make sure our kids' toys are safe, or police the polluters to keep our air clean? Do we really want owners of restaurants and hotels to be able to decide whom they will or won't serve, or should liquor store owners also be able to sell alcohol to our kids? Given the reality of sin in all human institutions, doesn't a political process that provides both accountability and checks and balances make both theological and practical sense? C.S. Lewis once said that we need democracy not because people are essentially good, but because they often are not. Democratic accountability is essential to preventing the market from becoming a beast of corporate totalitarianism - just as it is essential for the government. And God's priorities should determine ours, not the priorities of the Chamber of Commerce.
4. The Libertarian preference for the strong over the weak is decidedly un-Christian. "Leave me alone to make my own choices and spend my own money" is a political philosophy that puts those who need help at a real disadvantage. And those who need help are central to any Christian evaluation of political philosophy. "As you have done to the least of these," says Jesus, "You have done to me." And "Blessed are those who are just left alone" has still not made the list of Beatitudes. To anticipate the Libertarian response, let me just say that private charity is simply not enough to satisfy the demands of either fairness or justice, let alone compassion. When the system is designed to protect the privileges of the already strong and make the weak even more defenseless and vulnerable, something is wrong with the system.
5. Finally, I am just going to say it. There is something wrong with a political movement like the Tea Party which is almost all white. Does that mean every member of the Tea Party is racist? Likely not. But is an undercurrent of white resentment part of the Tea Party ethos, and would there even be a Tea Party if the president of the United States weren't the first black man to occupy that office? It's time we had some honest answers to that question. And as far as I can tell, Libertarianism has never been much of a multi-cultural movement. Need I say that racism -- overt, implied, or even subtle -- is not a Christian virtue.
So that should get us started. Let's have the dialogue about how Christian the Tea Party Movement and its Libertarian philosophy really are. Jump in!
Jim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street -- A Moral Compass for the New Economy, CEO of Sojourners and blogs at www.godspolitics.com.
+Click here to get e-mail updates from Jim Wallis
Follow Jim Wallis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jimwallis
I see the advances in women's rights, gay rights - a whole lotta people's rights - disappearing through the Tea Party movement and their definition of Christian. If you don't fit you're on the revile list. Mr. Wallis reminds me: "When Christians start acting Christlike I might consider that there is a God." Probably not, but then there is no evidence that's going to happen.
Did you actually read the article?
Secondly, you really do need to get your facts straight. The Tea Party is a totally separate group from the official Libertarian political party. I know several Hispanics in Texas who either hold office as a Libertarian or who are currently running for office. I have even seen people of all colors of skin (black white and brown, amazing!) at official Libertarian party meetings. We are not all racist!
Your accusations that the Tea Party is racist may or may not be true, I am not a member so I can't speak for them. But please, stop mixing up the REAL Libertarian movement (the third largest political party that has been around for decades) - a viable alternative political party - with the Republican co-opted Tea Party 'movement'.
The official party platform is for LESS government, not the absence of government. Why is that so diffcult a concept to digest? Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean you have free reign to throw rocks at it or to make wild accusations of racism, when you probably have never even personally been to a Tea Party or official Libertarian political organization meeting.
The election of an African American president, the every increasing acceptance of gays in society and the fact that not everyone is as upset as they are with the growing hispanic population (legal or otherwise) has forced them to come to grips with the fact that this is no longer a nation dominated by straight white christian males.
In order to answer the question as to how "christian" is some aspect of the Tea Party, one need only examine the extent to which the emotions which are the underpinnings of the Tea Party are "christian".
If things like hate, jealousy, fear, selfishness and desire to dominate and control are christian values, then the Tea Party is christian. If those aren't christian values, then neither is the Tea Party.
The Fig Tree Withers
18Early in the morning, as he was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. 19Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered.
"You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters
below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God, am a jealous God."
Deuteronomy 4: 23-24 (New International Version)
"Be careful not to forget the covenant of the Lord your God that He made with you; do not make for yourselves an idol in the form of anything the Lord your God has forbidden. For the Lord your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God."
Libertarian as a base for a civil society seems to be part myth, part what if, and a lotta paranoia with greed on the side.
The claims I made about what their stances on government and taxes come from one of their websites. Which is to say, from the people whose stances they are.
Amos 5 is a sad song of grief. 5:10-13 They hate the one who rebukes in the gate, And they abhor the one who speaks uprightly. Therefore, because you tread down the poor And take grain taxes from him, Though you have built houses of hewn stone, Yet you shall not dwell in them; You have planted pleasant vineyards, But you shall not drink wine from them. For I know your manifold transgressions And your mighty sins: Afflicting the just and taking bribes; Diverting the porr from justice at the gate. Therefore the prudent keep silent at that time, For it is an evil time.
Revelation 13 The two strange beasts. 15-17 He was granted power to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak and cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed. He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark of the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
And who the h-ell cares how Christian the libertarian party is. Again trying to sling around Christianity as a bad thing. The only bad think in this country now is people that can't think for themselves and have to lump Christianity into every bad thing organized religion has done. How Christian anything is will be determined as to how it holds up against the true example of Christianity, Yeshua Moshia. In that comparison I think no movement nor group can hold up. Christianity is a life in Christ not what you or MSM has decided what Christianity should be. Everyone just uses it for their own purpose's, be it an example of love or how not to be but few actually understand what it means to have a relationship with Christ.
OK so there is something wrong when someone says exactly that. I mean common, only blacks and Asians and Hispanics, Jews, etc. get to have political movements that reflect their views/ cultures/race?. How dare those evil white Bastar-ds. Face it. The values of the older white generation are fading fast and so is its culture. Are they not entitled to have a party that is made up of their cultural beliefs? Its always the subtle race card at play with liberals. Always attacking or at the very least trying to color any given topic/group even in the guise of discussion, as racist. Pun intended.
BTW could you please show where you got the statistics that the tea party is mostly white. In other words Prove it. Please if you quote some liberal agenda based group poll as your resource I may have to puke in your direction. One more thing. White Christians are becoming fast, a minority in the US. As to " would there even be a Tea Party if the president of the United States weren't the first black man to occupy that office? "
So another try at playing the old race card. Man, forget what I said about may have to puke, and Duck!, I'm hurling just reading your tripe.
You would think they would have cheered in the streets for the Wall Street bailouts, GM,etc Instead they scream about the Stimulus bill that helped keep States working. Statistics show that the stimulus is working.
Did the Tea Party speak out about the AZ Show your papers legislation? NOPE. Because they want their country back from "those people" who have a skin color darker than their own.
They want to destroy Social Security, the Federal Reserve, Medicaid and Medicare. They are against any social program that provides a safety net for the have-nots. They are scary scary scary.
I'm sure you appreciate having a HuffPo columnist seemingly validate your preconceived beliefs. But this is exactly why political discourse is so toxic these days.
You're the gift that keeps on giving. Wouldn't your comment apply to those calling political opponents: socialists, communists, fascists, terrorists or unAmerican? How about accusing a political opponent of not being a citizen, despite evidence provided by that inidividual's state, assuring you that they were born in this country? How about accusing your opponents of wanting to "kill" old people or practice eugenics? Would any of this represent believing the worst in your political opponent.
Simply unbelievable. If you watch Fox News, listen to right wing talk show hosts, or are a member of the Tea Party, it's an amazing amount of cognitive dissonance that allows you to believe you're not daily demonizing your political opponents, and then accuse them of somehow being unfair to you. I've seen a lot of this from the right, but this one is quite and achievement.
Wouldn't your comment apply to those calling political opponents: soci alists, com munists, fas cists, terr oris ts or unA merican? How about accusing a political opponent of not being a citizen, despite evidence provided by that individual's state, assuring you that they were born in this country? How about accusing your opponents of wanting to "kill" old people or practice eugenics? Would any of this represent believing the worst in your political opponent.
For anybody that watches Fox News, listens to right wing talk show hosts, or is a member of the Tea Party, it's an amazing amount of cognitive dissonance that would allow them to believe they're not daily demonizing their political opponents.