Driving home in my car just now I turned my radio on to the local Christian talk station just in time for the Jay Sekulow Live program. The topic of discussion for today was tax reform. Even though it is not the topic I want to write about, nor what I really want to discuss here, I will come out and say it right up front anyway, since I imagine some commenters will want to direct the conversation that way anyway: I am not, in general, a big fan of the Jay Sekulow show. The main reason why I am not has to do primarily with the topic of my article: I do not believe it is generally a good idea for specifically Christian ministries to focus their time and energy on political issues over which biblically orthodox Christians may legitimately differ.
Now that I have gotten that bit of information out in the open, let me back up a little to clarify that: 1) this article is not specifically about Jay Sekulow; 2) it is not specifically about tax reform; and, 3) it is not specifically about Christian radio (though that is getting a little closer, perhaps, to the main point I want to talk about here). The truth of the matter is I don’t personally have an axe to grind one way or another about tax reform. I am not totally sure what I feel about various tax reform options. And if another Christian program were to present the opposite political view to that of Jay Sekulow on tax reform, it would bother me just as much as when Jay Sekulow presents his view.
And it is not that I am totally disinterested in the topic of tax reform. I agree that it is a valid point of discussion on which many different people, Christian and non-Christian alike, have perspectives that are worthy of hearing and taking into account. I agree that it is an important topic that merits serious discussion in general. And while I may not necessarily be a fan of a good amount of secular political talk radio–whether of the right-wing variety or the left-wing variety–I do think it is a good thing that the airwaves are free for various commenters to air their opinions on these matters. But I think there has been an unhealthy tendency in the the past, let’s say, thirty years for Christian ministries to venture out into the realm of offering opinions in the name of Christ, the Church, and Evangelical Christianity that are best offered in different venues and with different implications.
Let me unpack that a bit. I think it is perfectly fine for individual Christians to have opinions on any number of issues that the Bible and our specifically Christian religious beliefs do not directly address. In this respect, Jay Sekulow has just as much of a right, and indeed a prerogative, to defend his personal views on tax reform as any other free American citizen. And the fact that he publicly identifies as a Christian does not in any way disqualify him from doing so. But it seems to me that the fact that he presents his program and ministry as a specifically Christian ministry carries along with it the tacit understanding that the views he propagates on his program are views that can be defended from the Bible and views that he not only considers politically correct but also biblically correct.
Now perhaps Sekulow (along with many other Christian interlocutors who defend a wide array of political positions on a number of different issues) has some sort of convoluted biblical defense of his particular take on tax reform that he can pull out of his coat pocket if asked to do so. But I am not personally convinced there is any clear biblical position one way or the other on the particular issues at stake in the contemporary discussion on American tax reform.
If he wants to talk about abortion, I am right there with him–though there may be several different valid political approaches toward working to limit and eliminate abortion from our midst, and I would be opposed to anathematizing or excoriating fellow believers in Christ who advocate other political approaches. If he wants to talk about a Christian understanding of marriage, or what the Bible teaches about the sin of homosexuality and other sexual sins, I am right there with him as well. As Christian ministers, we need to give the full counsel of God, without holding back, even on issues that may be considered controversial in our society. If he wants to talk about immigration (though, from what I gather, I may likely disagree with some of his views on this topic), I likewise think that is a valid point of discussion for a Christian program or ministry to address. But there are a whole slew of issues that I am convinced are not specifically Christian or biblical issues with regard to which I think it is vitally important to clearly delineate between personal political opinions and purportedly orthodox religious opinions.
I think what I am proposing here is related to Paul’s admonition to the Corinthians to not go “beyond what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6). Ultimately, arguing in the name of Christ, the Church, or Evangelical Christianity for debatable positions on topics the Bible does not clearly address draws a line in the sand that serves to divide the Body of Christ over matters that ought not to divide us. I also think that a large degree of friction and abrasiveness within the Body of Christ that has also infected our society at large in recent years can be traced to the tendency of many Christian ministries to do just this–to go “beyond what is written.”
On the other hand, it is not hard for me to understand how or why this has happened. We live in a media-soaked society in which controversial political posturing generally raises ratings and sells advertising. In Christian ministry, taking public views on this or that issue may well help to build a donor base, compile a mailing list, and rally the constituents. And in many ways and on many topics vital Christian voices have often been ostracized from the public square. We should indeed be legitimately reluctant to hand over the mike on all public policy issues to everyone but biblical Christians.
But I believe it is important to choose our battles wisely. When we cultivate the habit of pontificating on every issue that crosses the airwaves, we concurrently lose our prophetic edge on those issues that really matter from the perspective of eternity. When I get to heaven and am asked to give an account of how I lived my life on earth, I don’t believe I am going to be asked about how I defended my view on tax reform.
Once again, this is not to say that we as Christians ought to isolate ourselves from society at large and not contribute to discussions on everyday issues on which fellow citizens who are not Christians also participate. There is a time and a place for Christian legislators, attorneys, doctors, business executives, scientists, etc., to express their opinions on current issues debated in their respective fields of inquiry. The rub is when you express your personal view in such a way that it comes across as if you are speaking for the Church at large.
“The Bigger the Government, The Smaller the Citizen” and “There is no greater power of Government on Earth (beyond wielding the sword) than taxing citizens”
As stated, Christians can have views on such things a taxation. Those views might even derive explicitly or implicitly from Scripture (either by direct command, or by the ‘world view’ of the Scripture itself. This may be one of those areas that speak towards the implicit nature of God’s Word.
While the Scriptures themselves speak not a word about taxes themselves (besides the innocuous “render unto Caesar that is due Caesar” and further the commands to obey human governments via Romans 13) there is the implicit idea that God is the author of liberty and freedom. Freedom from the shackles of sin; freedom for slaves and others held by human governments without true justice.
An odious tax system stifles freedom limiting citizens ability to make choices and to enjoy the fruits of their labor which God has allowed them to enjoy as His mercy gift of common grace. It allows governments to grow more powerful and insensitive to citizens needs. With powerful governments, the freedoms to worship and praise without worries of government intrusion become more worrisome and greater – where for example governments tell bakers and artists what they must make and who they must cater to. Christians have never been in the history of Christendom been persecuted by weak governmental systems that allowed freedom – and in fact under such systems Christians have had the freedom to use resources to send missionaries around the world, using charitable money not taxed upon by overbearing governments. Only large tyrannical governments have persecuted the Church in the ages past. Governments that often controlled the means of production and taxed citizens heavily for all the “free” stuff – but as we should know, nothing comes free.
So yes I do believe that an argument can be made that yes even tax policy is not morally neutral – and that one can make a Scriptural argument in talking about it and stake out a position concerning it.
Rob
I agree with David on this. I’d ask Rob what the tax rate is that is unchristian.
I have often made this argument. Far too many Christians conflate their Christianity with their Republicanism (or their Americanism). Abortion and gay marriage are not controversial. But I’m quite sure there are genuine Christians who are socialists and communists, as well as capitalists. Just as I’m quite sure there are genuine Christians who are pro-gun and anti-gun, pro-universal health care and anti-universal health care, for and against a strong social safety net, for and against pacifism, and for and against amnesty for illegal aliens.
It’s fine to stake out a position on these issues, but not so fine to unequivocally state that God is on our side.
Just as an aside, not a fan of Jay Sekulow.
Ever since the days of Constantine and Theodosius, supposedly Christian rulers, together with the aid of their more theologically savvy court sycophants (see Eusebius, Drollinger, Jeffress, et al) have eisogeted support for their regimes and policies from supposed underlying scriptural principles (see divine right of kings, et al). By the way, in compiling your list of relevant Scripture passages that speak to a biblical basis for tax policy, don’t forget to include Genesis 47:13–26.
Are you suggesting that Sekolow here is a sycophant or that I am? I have always supported just tax policy before the current regime so…. your point exactly? Or just a hangup about inferred Scriptural principles that make up a general Christian worldview? Your comment David comes off as a bit of Freudian slip if all you wanted to talk about was if tax policy was Scriptural or morally neutral.
My comments were made generally without getting into the nuts and bolts of what makes up specifics. In terms of justice I have always supported a flat tax on individuals, businesses and corporations exempting people under a poverty line to be determined.
Rob
I’ve always wondered if something like a 12% personal Flat tax for everyone excepted the first 25k which is taxed at 6%.
*Everyone* pays taxes.
All deductions and loopholes go away – including programs that actually return more money to people equal to or more than they paid in payroll taxes. Only remaining exemptions : charity and mortgage.
Here’s how my plan would work… LOL
Someone makes $50k taxable income (after mortgage and charity):
25k x 6% = $1,500
25k x 12% = $3000
Total FED tax = $4500
Someone make $5m taxable income (after mortgage and charity)
25k x 6% = $1,500
4.975m x 12% = $597,000
TOtal FED tax = $598,500
Perhaps conservatives and liberals would support this… As it will obviously bring more money into the treasury – since we are not loopholing the rich out of paying taxes or refunding the poor and middle-class out of paying taxes… But is completely *equal taxation* among all the people. This can and will only work if all the loopholes and exemptions are closed and we truly can do our taxes “on a postcard.”
Oh….if someone makes only 25k they only pay $1500
If someone makes 12000….they pay $720 in federal taxes.
The point about sycophants applies to those people specifically named. I suppose, now that I think of it, Sekulow also has some marked sycophantic traits as well. As far as you are concerned, Rob, I am not even totally sure who you voted for, so I guess you don’t qualify for now.
If you have always supported a flat tax, more power to you. If I had taken the time to study all the ins and outs of different taxing options and their mathematical implications, I might well be right there with you. To be honest, based on what I do understand, I kind of lean that way myself. I’m just not convinced that a flat tax—or any other tax model—is a necessary implication of a truly Christian worldview.
“Sycophant – a person who acts obsequiously toward someone important in order to gain advantage.”
Yet your definition encapsulates who I might of voted for. Pleaseeese. For the record (like him or not) Jay Sekolow has been in the public eye for over 30 years and has held to fairly distinctive and consistent views throughout. Nothing he has said recently is different from what he talked about from the beginning. He is attempting to please no one. Neither am I for that matter.
For once – just one time David – I would like to entertain a conversation without getting into the vomit of bitterness about the last election. Being a Christian means forgiveness and knowing that we have a good and great God who is in control of everything because He is sovereign. No matter who YOU voted for I extend a hand of warmth, fellowship, and camaraderie that should be present among Christian brothers with diverse views.
Rob
Okay, Rob, I receive your extended hand. Peace. Just by way of explanation, I did not mean to infer that voting for someone makes one a sycophant. The intended point, rather, is that if I don’t even know whom you voted for, much less a whole lot of other things about you, how can I presume to call you a sycophant? As far as Sekulow is concerned, yes it is true he has been publicly promoting right-wing approaches to the combination of faith and public policy long before anyone ever dreamed of a viable Trump candidacy. But it does seem that in recent months he has (along with a whole lot of other people) adopted a marked pro-Trump position on certain issues (mostly related to the same types of things George W. Bush addressed in his speech on Thursday) that would have come across as a bit odd just a few years ago, even coming from the most hardline Christian conservatives.
David:
This is an excellent post. Even though tax policy was the example you used as an area where Christians may have different thoughts, and that you might disagree with Sekulow on that, and you expected more agreement on abortion, marriage, sexuality, the intersection of morality and government is not a fixed position and changes based on the times etc.
Slavery is a good example. I know of no Christian I have ever met today who would not say that slavery is not acceptable, and that we should do all we can to oppose it, including taking up arms.
But our NT brothers apparently did not feel that way, or if they did, they did not say so. Philemon is the ultimate testimony to that.
I know there are arguments here and there about slavery then vs. slavery in the 18th century and today, but the point remains the same.
In NT times there were institutions existing that today we would not hesitate to both 1) label as immoral, unequivocally, and 2) politically become active to the point of war to abolish.
This raises really interesting questions morally. Does morality change? Do right and wrong change? Is it wrong to own a slave today? Was it wrong to own a slave then? If it always was wrong, why did not Jesus address it plainly, as it clearly was an awful and pervasive thing practiced in that day? And if slavery was always wrong, why would Paul write a book advising steps to recognize and uphold that institution?
I have read all of the explanations. I really don’t want this thread to turn into a debate over slavery. I have used it just as an illustration.
But continuing with the topic, given the NT failure to address that, can and should we be so hard on our human ancestors when it took them a few hundred years to get it right? Can we blame someone who otherwise was a great Christian in 19th century, but due to the absence of clear teaching and biblical witness on the topic, still thought that slavery was acceptable?
Should all such people be removed from Christian and SBC history. I think here of Boyce, Broadus, Manly, Furman, Mercer, and others who were giants in the spiritual realm, but held to a political and social belief that today we completely and utterly reject?
This brings me to modern political controversies and whether Christians may disagree on issues. Of course they can. I believe the first rule, however, is to be very careful dragging Jesus into the debate. Does Jesus have a preferred tax rate? I think not. Do you? Perhaps. Do I? Yes.
I believe the debate should be on the basis of wisdom and what we have learned.
I am clearly more willing to understand a difference between me and James P. Boyce on the issue of slavery, than I would be to understand a difference on the issue between me and some person living today. If I met anyone today who advocated for slavery, I would argue they should be psychologically examined or arrested – or both. But I have not desire, nor do I believe it is right for me to have the same opinion of those in the past, though they held the same opinion.
I can more likely understand those in the late 19th and early 20th century who may have believed that some form of socialism would be the best way for people to live. But today, after seeing mankind and nations try to bring socialism to various countries, I think any Christian who would advocate for such a thing would be playing with a deck missing a few cards. It seems 100 million dead should count for a rethinking of the issue.
Your article is very good, and needs to be considered. I fear that we have a younger generation in the SBC that is captivated by virtue signaling and wanting to be well thought of by the right people. They leave no room for honest disagreement among Christians on issues such as immigration and racial relations. It’s their way or the highway. And it’s not just that – it’s that if you don’t agree, you are not on the side of Jesus. For them, it’s not just a question of the best policies based on arguments about what is most wise. You are with them and right, or you are not with them, and evil.
I spoke with Al Mohler about this recently. I will let him speak for himself, so I encourage those reading to go read his own writings. But on the racial issues, he mentioned that we in the SBC drink from cisterns we did not dig and we eat from trees we did not plant. We owe a debt of gratitude to those who went before and built things like our seminaries. Many of the buildings, endowed chairs, schools etc. at these place are named after avowed racists. Southern, for example was saved from bankruptcy by the former governor of Georgia, Brown, who gave a gift in minted gold to keep the school afloat that today would be worth $15 million. Do we purge these men’s names from our institutions because they held different, but not too different, views from others in their societies on political questions? Or do we honor them and what they did, but reject their views on some political questions because we now know better?
I know that I have couched this in historical terms, but how one views these things will often reveal how much tolerance one has for others who take a different view on some of the particular remedies that may be advocated to address racial issues today. One being obsessive talk about racial issues, which to me has not seemed to be very productive and perhaps been more counterproductive.
Also, take immigration. Here is an issue where Christians agree on some basic principles regarding humanity and the freedom of people and loving others. But there is significant disagreement about the “how” and “how much.” Despite the OT cherry picking on the issue, it is impossible to come up with a cogent immigration policy from the Bible. There are a lot of details.
But there is a class in the SBC that sees no subtlety on the issue, and if a voice is raised questioning a proposed remedy, the response is not just to question the wisdom of a particular approach, but to question the morality of the person and how close they walk with Jesus.
I really appreciate your writing on this topic. I do not see Jeffress or Sekulow as sycophants. I agree with the other writer that these guys have well known public stands on lots of issues, and they back politicians based on their beliefs in those issues. But that is true of lots of religious figures, generally.
This topic deserves more prayer and discussion, and I thank you for your contribution.
Louis, That is a mouthful to mull over.
First of all, I appreciate your appreciation of my article and affirm that in a broad sense we do seem to be tracking together on this. That being said, though, a few additional observations are perhaps in order.
1. With regard to slavery, biblical teaching, and the views of our theological forebears: The whole question of whether or not the Bible addresses the abolition of slavery and whether the seeds of abolition are implicit in the gospel is an interesting and complex question that in some ways goes beyond the scope of this present discussion. Personally I think it is linked to a biblical approach to the imago dei and the inherent dignity of all humans. The fact that many of our forebears did not see this with the same clarity as we do today is no doubt due, in large part, to them being a product of the times and cultural milieu in which they lived. This, in turn, should lead us to be more vigilant of our own blind spots and cultural accommodations.
2. With regard to current political discussions on race, nationalism, and immigration, I think the Bible does address these particular issues much more fully than what we often realize. I am currently working on a manuscript that, in broad terms, analyzes a biblical approach to race and nationality. I believe this is a deep underlying motif of redemption history as a whole that is often overlooked. Many misunderstandings come from our failure to view these issues from a specifically new covenant lens. That being said, I can agree with you that the Bible does not give us a detailed blueprint for addressing many of the specific policy issues we grapple with today. But I, for one, think it has a boatload to say about our general approach to race, ethnicity, and nationality that needs to be discussed even more than is currently being discussed.
3. Regarding Sekulow, Jeffress, et al., I don’t remember specifically who among them hitched their wagons to the Trump bandwagon back when there were still various viable candidates left standing in the Republican primary. It seems to me, though, there were then—and continue to be—many key points of difference in emphasis between Trump and other Republicans/conservatives, and that Trump’s particular take on these issues did not become nearly as popular among certain Evangelical leaders until after it had become apparent he was the legitimate frontrunner for the nomination.
I agree with you, David. Yet I am finding it more difficult to avoid wading into politics because there are so many self-identified “Christian” sources on the web promoting misleading information designed to promote President Trump’s agenda. I have read several “analyses” of the president’s tax proposal, lauding it as “pro-family”, while ignoring the fact that it would result in a tax increase for many low and middle-income families (especially large families). Meanwhile, there is no question that the proposal would be a boon for the wealthy. What are we to think of this? I have seen the policy of net neutrality caricatured as a government take-over of the internet by so-called “Christian” websites, when the facts suggests that reversal of this policy would be a bonanza for telecom companies while making it far more difficult for small content providers, including small churches, to get there message out. It seems to be a common strategy for these websites to bait sincere believers with pro-life and pro-family content while slipping in articles advancing a variety of corporate interests. When they occasion warrants, should we not call out this practice?
David:
You are welcome. Agree with you on all points.
Intelligent discussion would be welcome on ethnic issues, and I am hopeful that might occur. Most “discussion” I have heard is not all that intelligent, frankly, and has led to strife. And its mainly over posturing – who can condemn this group more etc.? Hence, my lack of enthusiasm for more of what I have seen.
Also would be glad to hear more intelligent discussion on migration, immigration etc. Mohler commented recently, and I have noted, the lack of any limiting principle. That is, if what people advocate ends up with the conclusion, “well, everyone who is poor around the world should come to the U.S.”, then we know we have a problem. No one says that, of course, but when a person puts down their pen after making a plea, and that is the natural conclusion to be drawn, then the hard work has not been done, and it’s just another log on the fire arguing for the same approach.
Perhaps immigration enthusiasts should be asked to start with this question: “Whom do you believe should not be permitted to immigrate to the US, and why?” In my view, a person who has not really thought about that (beyond barring terrorists or bad people) has really given serious thought to the issue.
I suspect there are more than a few of the younger evangelical crowd who without really given it serious consideration no longer believe in the nation state. They see it as a product of the fall. Hence, all movement, migration, legal or otherwise, is a good, and efforts to stop it are bad.
This also comes out in discussions about the relationship of the Christian to his/her nation. The younger generation could not identify with the past generations who founded and build the US. They seem to sincerely believe that there is no biblical basis for countries, so whey have them. Or if they exist, they do so as a necessary evil, to which Christians simply have to resign to accept.
I think where both of these, and other issues, get bogged down is when we come to “what do we do about it” stage. For example, I could listen to Al Mohler and someone like Malcolm Yarnell discuss the reformed/non-reformed perspectives. It’s engaging, thoughtful etc. Beyond that, with other personalities, it often gets ugly.
I look forward to hearing more from you.
Once again, thanks for the insights. I think indeed we are tracking on this. One more observation: I think in the past several years our friend Alan Cross has been a great model for us on intelligent and biblically-balanced discourse on immigration.