Sojourner's Asks, " What Would Jesus Cut?"
Posted: Friday, March 04, 2011
by Jean Horst
"What Would Jesus Cut?", is the question being posed by the organization, Sojourner's, to United States' legislators this week as they debate proposed budget cuts in Washington, D.C.
Sojourners, a Washington, D.C. based group was founded in 1971 and is headed by Pastor Jim Wallis. Wallis and his organization have been asking such pointed questions for years now. Their stated mission is "is to articulate the biblical call to social justice, inspiring hope and building a movement to transform individuals, communities, the church, and the world".
This latest question, which was posed in a full-page ad in Politico on Monday, February 28, was signed by 28 leaders from different faiths and from across the political spectrum. What's surprising is not that this question has created such a stir, but that it's taken so long for someone of some prominence to finally ask it. Wallis and his partners assert that how we set up our national budget is a direct reflection of our moral health as a nation. If we can without any qualms make the poorest among us and the "least of these" in our midst bear the brunt of paying for the financial mistakes and mismanagement of the wealthiest among us, then we as a nation are morally bankrupt.
Mr. Wallis has been making appearances on national television and radio talk shows asking this question again and again. He rightfully points out that these cuts are primarily being proposed because these are the constituents least likely to be able to fight back but they are NOT cuts that will really benefit the country as a whole, nor will they really impact the budget long-term. We are not running a deficit because we spend too much money on the poor, we are running a deficit because of the financial mismanagement of our bankers, add to that the wars we are fighting and there you find the biggest drain on our budget. Reigning in that expense would bring a much greater result.
With statistics from National Public Radio, Sojourners states that bringing 5,000 troops home from Afghanistan would save enough to fund for the top 10 cuts to all aid programs currently on the chopping block in Congress. To follow up this week's public campaign to raise awareness of the impact of spending cuts and some of the alternative proposals, Sojourners will be giving each member of Congress and orange bracelet next week that reads, "What Would Jesus Cut?" reminiscent of the wildly popular "WWJD" bracelets from several years ago.
I am very glad to see this issue being raised in such a public manner. Bravo to Mr. Wallis and Sojourner's for having the courage to stand up in defense of the vulnerable and voiceless in our population. The full text of Mr. Wallis' thoughts and his explanations about his beliefs can be read at Sojourners.org. This also contains the links to the statistics on the cost of the war in Afghanistan and other budget statistics. Click here to see a copy of the ad placed in Politico.
That leaves one final question... "What Would Jesus Cut?"
This Article has been viewed 1,725 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (8 total)Yes we should bring our troops home not only will we save money but also save lives.Thank you so much for your thoughts, David.
Actually, Jesus wouldn't cut anything because He wouldn't get involved in governmental matters. Remember when those two guys were arguing over an inheritance and one of them asked Jesus to settle the dispute (preferably in his favor)? Jesus replied by saying, "Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?" Remember when some men were trying to coax Jesus into speaking against the taxation of the Roman government? He responded by saying, "Render unto Ceasar the things that Ceasar's, and unto God the things that are God's." Issues such as spending cuts, taxation, and troop levels are matters for "Ceasar" (in our case, the U.S. government) - not Jesus - to be concerned with.
All too often, both liberals and conservatives will invoke the name of Jesus and try to act as if He would govern to their liking. They are both wrong. Jesus is (and was) never concerned about worldly governments or kingdoms. The only kingdom or government he was ever concerned about was the Kingdom of God. Now does Jesus want us to show mercy to the poor and vulnerable? Absolutely, but on a personal level, not a governmental level. Remember, that rule about separation of church and state applies to both conservatives and liberals.True, in the strictest sense. However, Jesus made many statements regarding our care and concern for the poor, downtrodden and unwanted which we can use to ascertain how we should make decisions and what should govern our own personal actions and beliefs. I will give you this quote from Jim Wallis' blog I linked to in my piece.
"Of course, the Bible doesn’t mandate specific programs or prescribe a specific level of funding for any of them. And, we haven’t been trying to get Jesus to be the head of any budget committee, or think that he would ever want that job! The ad was made to simply make a point about our faith and our values. Since Jesus is concerned about our action (and our inaction) when it comes to the poor, we should also be concerned. If these programs were being reformed to be more effective or replaced with better strategies to help the poor, that would be another issue; instead, they are just being slashed. Because our biblical values demand that we both serve and defend the poor, we want to make sure that legislators consider how their actions will impact the most vulnerable people. This is part of our vocation as people of faith." - Jim WallisI would like to interfere a teeny weeny bit when the respected gentleman said, "Now does Jesus want us to show mercy to the poor and vulnerable? Absolutely, but on a personal level, not a governmental level. " - So does this mean that the man working as a government servant of the people, for the people and by the people, is not a human being? Does it mean that the government has no feelings or sympathy or compassion? If the government has none of these, then we have elected an immoral government. If the need of the hour arises for someone like Jesus wants the government to show mercy, definitely he would push for it. How can the governmental level NOT be considered a personal level? We have elected a government from the personal level because we have created faith and trust in those "Children of God" who will be ruling over us because they have promised relentless service. Jesus would want to see mercy, compassion and love to the poor, vulnerable and all, from the governmental level too - in my opinion!
Interestingly enough the church is supposed to be taking care of "widows and orphans" according to the Bible - it was never supposed to be the State that had to do this - I am blessed to belong to a church that does much along these lines but it is a rare, rare breed of church I am finding out.... thanks for this interesting article, Jean.Thanks for reading, Marijo. You are indeed in a rare breed of church.
It just goes to show you how powerful the corporate propaganda is in justifying the turning of ones head to the least among us for the temptation of inclusion in the spoils of greed. I don't know a lot about Christian proverbs, but I know who Judas Iscariote was, and is.Thank you for reading and commenting, David!
Jean, you wrote this so beautifully. "If we can without any qualms make the poorest among us and the "least of these" in our midst bear the brunt of paying for the financial mistakes and mismanagement of the wealthiest among us, then we as a nation are morally bankrupt." - that's such a quotable quote.I went to Mr. Wallis' site, it's amazing. I can't believe it costs $1 million per soldier in Afghanistan. Obviously these guys aren't staying at the Hyatt. I guess the money's going into the pockets of the military industrial complex fellas - I wonder who these people actually are, what they look like, where they live.I know this is about the US, but what you and Wallis say is really important for the whole world to hear. Thanks.I appreciate your comments so much, Jennifer. Always great to hear from you!
And I thought that this was an article about Jewish circumcision, at first glance; Jesus would cut all elected politician's( and CEO's )salaries to no pay, nothing, to make, restore public service to a volunteer unpaid position; thus we would attract only the altruistic and talented and leave greed and banality behind.
Principal's salaries should be halved before teacher's salaries are touched; CEOs should be let go before one employee is pink slipped.
Jesus, would cut from the top down, not the bottom up."Jewish circumcision" - LOL, Paul! Thanks for you thoughts!And the salaries are a very small pittance to the kickbacks and the salaries they get to lobby our officials after their service (that term makes me laugh) is terminated, which is what they are really in it for. You used to have to wait like a minimum of 10 years after your terms to lobby, and the stigma to do so at all was frowned upon because of the appearance of conflict of interests. My how things have changed.
Good article, as always, Jean. Several years ago it was stated and printed, though, I can't tell you who put out the info, that if each church or non-profit took on just two people/families per year and taught them, met their needs; just got them on their feet, we would not have a homeless and poverty problem in the US. I have heard that repeated through the years. I think it is the responsibility of the people, not through the government to meet these needs. That said, if I was homeless and had kids to feed I would take what is offered. I have a question (ha- of course!!) about bringing the troops home. I would like to see them all home, but know that we'd probably keep some troops overseas in any location considered a possible hot spot. I remember from high school studying that after WWII when all the troops came home and were discharged unemployment was very high. There were no jobs now that there was such limited military or war effort to support. I sometimes wonder if that is why the troops stay overseas. The government doesn't know what to do with them. WWJC? I honestly don't know, but sending it to the government to spend/give as it sees fit takes all the personal responsibility out of it. You have paid your fee and you are done. Regardless, it is a good question.I understand the theory that churches are supposed to be doing this not the government. The thing is, if the people in the churches believed it was their responsibility then the churches would be involved in helping the poor and we would ask our elected leaders to consider doing the same. Right now we have a situation where people go to church, drop their money in a collection basket and say they've paid their fee and they are done. It's not much different - they don't take any personal responsibility if their church doesn't giving anything to really benefit the community they are supposed to serve. There are many reference in the Bible that say the government and leaders are to look after the poor. The old testament is packed with admonishments for those in charge to look after the immigrant and hungry and care for them with compassion. I suppose I don't see it as an either/or situation.
I always appreciate your thoughtful comments, Lorrie!I see your point Jean. We've talked about those that write their check and believe they are done, never interacting with anyone to know if there is a need. Refresh my memory, if you have the chance, on references about the government taking care of the poor. All my mind can think of is Joseph's dream and the king listening (severe drought- food gathered and distributed). Everything else I come up with refers to the religious leaders of the times reminding the people to care for each other. I agree with you - indifference is a terrible thing when we are talking about people's lives.In the Old Testament, the Jewish government was the religious law, there weren't two different sets of rules. Eventually, they did have a king in Israel but they were still expected to use the laws of Moses to govern and rule. The prophets make many references to God judging the kings for their unjust treatment of the poor, one example is in Isaiah 10;
"1 Woe to those who make unjust laws,
to those who issue oppressive decrees,
2 to deprive the poor of their rights
and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people,
making widows their prey
and robbing the fatherless. "
There are similar passages in Proverbs, Psalms, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos, & Zechariah. It's not hard to make the connection that God cares passionately about the poor and their plight. So by extension, we should as well. Asking our government to deal compassionately with them is not a stretch. Then again, it still all comes back to personal responsibility for how we live out our faith in our daily lives, doesn't it?Since you now seem to favor an Old Testament-style theocracy (when it suits your whims, I suppose), here are some other things that God punished the rulers of Israel for in the Old Testament:
1. Not removing homosexuals from the land
2. Allowing people to work on the sabbath
3. Allowing Israelites to marry non-Jews
4. Not utterly destroying pagans (including women, children and babies)
5. Allowing witches to live
6. Failing to stone children who not obey their parents
Shall we return to all of that as well? If not, what gives you the right to pick and choose? You see, you either want an Old Testament-style theocracy in which the government was responsible for enforcing religious rules, morals, and ethics (and was held accountable when it did not), or you prefer a New Testament view of things in which Jesus stressed personal accountability, morality and ethics over government application and enforcement of such. Take your pick, but you can't mix and match.Thank you so much for your comments, You bring up very valid thoughts, I have no interest at all in an Old Testament-style theocracy. It's extremely problematic on so many levels as you accurately pointed out. I was responding specifically to the "where in the Bible does it talk about government" part of the question, not as a blueprint for what to do now. Many theologians parse the Old /New Testaments instructions by following the things that carry from one to the other without change. The instructions for how to treat the poor are among the strongest of admonitions that do not vary.
Christians have a conundrum now since Jesus was so specific and so vague at the same time. He was very specific that it is the state of our hearts and the motives of our actions that are of utmost importance but very vague on how that looks in daily life. I keep coming back to the "least of these" context. As a follower of the way of Jesus, I have to ask myself where my "loves" are and what do I do with my life that honors his example. Since my government does allow me a voice, I strongly believe that advocating for the poor honors the life of Jesus and my faith.
Thanks again for your thoughts and comments.
Okay since you asked, I think he would he would cut Planned Parenthood.You may very well be correct.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.