Freedom and Virtue: A Response to the Tea Party-Occupy Film
In the past four years of economic upheaval, the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street have been the defining political movements of the Right and the Left, respectively. This Is Our City's documentary film profiling two Christians in the movements examines the right-left divide among biblically committed Christians through this parallel divide in the civic sphere.
Emmett Bailey of Richmond, Virginia, and Pam Hogeweide of Portland, Oregon, are immediately likeable folk—and not just because we see them serving generous quantities of food in dining rooms, though that helps. They both profess Christ and want to bring what they understand of his teachings to the sphere of political responsibility.
The film's title, "With Liberty or Justice for All," sets liberty and justice against each other. Emmett, the Tea Party Republican, sees justice in terms of liberty (though he does not mention justice), and understands liberty as "all that's good about life, all that's good about being a Christian"—which, at first glance, seems to imply that the gospel is about enjoyment and freedoms in this life alone. Pam, the Portland Occupier, sees justice as the fruit of revival—a return to life sent by God—which is presumably a state of liberty (which she does not mention but surely implies). Though we see her marching for justice, "the language of God," she does not indicate what she believes justice to be. The "99 percent" language of the Occupy movement suggests that it might have something to do with economic leveling.
Pam speaks expansively only when she describes the time she realized that the revival in the church for which she had been praying might actually come outside the church, when non-Christians hunger for justice. This is a strikingly political notion of revival and thus of the gospel. As she presents it, revival is something non-Christians are capable of experiencing while remaining strangers to Christ.
Perhaps these descriptions do not faithfully or fully represent Emmett's and Pam's views—we can only discern so much from snippets of interviews. But taken on their own, the views they express here sound like civil religion on the Right and the social gospel on the Left—the besetting sins of Christians at each of these poles.
The one statement of substantive political thinking in the film comes from Emmett, and I think it is profound. He describes a healthy political order as one made up of largely self-regulating citizens. "The Founders' vision was, and because God's vision was, that we would be … regulated from within. In other words, we're self-regulated. In other words, when God is being honored, people regulate themselves, not being regulated from the outside with laws." In language more reminiscent of the nation's Founders, men are least in need of masters when they can master themselves.
Biblically speaking, we find the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel stating this idea when they foretell the fulfillment of Christ's redemptive work in the New Covenant. At that time, people will no longer need instruction from without, but instead will know from within what is right and act on it faithfully (Jer. 31:34). "I will put my Spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules" (Ezek. 36:27). Of course, that's an eschatological picture, one of our complete liberation from sin after Christ's return. But such pictures indicate what we should aspire to embody now.
In other words, what God desires for a politically healthy nation with a strong Christian influence is not a society top-heavy with complicated laws and omnipresent bureaucracy, but a society of decent people who need few laws because their character largely suffices as law and who demand few government services because they serve each other. Bailey suggests that our government would be more faithful to our God and to our Founders if it would protect this character in the people against corrosive economic, cultural, and political influences, and promote it where it was lacking.
If I were looking for a helpful point to take away from the film, that would have to be it. Whether Emmett and Pam could agree on this, I have my doubts. They are more likely to enjoy a good feast together. But that's a good place to start.
D. C. Innes is associate professor of politics at The King's College in New York City, and coauthor with Lisa Sharon Harper of Left, Right and Christ: Evangelical Faith in Politics (Russell Media). Look for Harper's response to the film tomorrow at ThisIsOurCity.org.
Rethinking the $3,000 Missions Trip
Furniture Fit for the Kingdom
Faith in a Fallen Empire
RSS
TWITTER
FACEBOOK
Comments Are Closed
Displaying 1–14 of 14 comments
See all comments
Nate Clarke
A Hermit and Roger McKinney, it looks like this discussion is headed no where. Feel free to continue in another place but at this point I think it's gone far enough away from the original article that we'll delete further comments in this discussion.
Roger McKinney
Hermit, you’re engaging in psychological projecting. I respond to all of your points. You ignore most of mine. No one in the US claims to be a socialist any more, but your characterizations of capitalism and you ideas are all pure socialist. In past posts I have defined socialism and communism; you just don’t read them. Jesus endorsed free market capitalism when he endorsed the Torah, from which the Church’s scholars at Salamanca determined that the only just market is a free market. You don’t need money to have capitalism. Capitalism can include barter.
Roger McKinney
The military may have purchased the first electronic computer, but the principles behind it go back centuries. It was based on mechanical computers. The military always purchases cutting edge technology. So what? That doesn’t mean that without military spending the technology would never develop. The steam engine was far more important to Western development than the computer and the military had nothing to do with it. The computer would have been invented regardless of what the military or the government did. All you can say about military spending is that it might have speeded up the process. The transistor made modern computing possible and Bell Labs, a private company developed it.
Roger McKinney
Hermit, I don’t believe any of the things you attribute to me. Making those claims just proves once again that you don’t read my posts. You just regurgitate your socialist ideas. Yes, God gave us free markets. Study the Scholars of Salamanca. Free market capitalism is in the New and Old Testaments. The Church did not give us communal ownership of property. That’s a dishonest reading of scripture. Sharing private property is not anything at all like common ownership. Christ said to make your primary goal in life to please God. He did not condemn providing for your family and saving for hard times, which is capitalism. Capitalism did not invent greed; mankind did. Greed is far older than capitalism.
Roger McKinney
Hermit, current demand and supply also take into account what individual actors think the future price will be, too. If individuals thought that oil would run out next year they would price it much higher today. The current price tells us that most people don't think oil will run out in our lifetimes. The market reflects the opinions of the majority of buyers/sellers. I'm sorry they don't agree with you or have your values. I'm sure you would love to dictate to the market what prices should be, but then we wouldn't have a market. We would have socialism. If you think oil should be priced higher, I'm sure producers will allow you to pay more. But just because the majority of people don't agree with your ideas doesn't mean the market is failing or is wrong.
Roger McKinney
PS, having the SEC investigate Enron or Madoff for fraud is perfectly consistent with libertarian thinking. Both thrived because the SEC refused to do its job. That gave investors the wrong idea that there was nothing wrong with either. Enron and Madoff were failures of the state to do its God given role of protecting life, liberty and property. They were not market failures.
Roger McKinney
Carlos, we have never had unregulated markets, so how can you claim they do more harm than good? We have had nothing but increasing regulation since FDR. The Federal Register of new regulations has grown by over 50,000 pages every year since 1970. The problems we face today are the perfect storm of massive, conflicting regulations. Madoff and Enron thrived because the government gave them their stamp of approval. As Smith wrote, government licensing and regulation only provide cover for fraud. Of course, all libertarians in all times have insisted on the rule of law to protect life, liberty and property.
Roger McKinney
Hermit, markets do not “inadequately reflect the future value of the goods …” Greer only advertises his ignorance of price theory. He attempts to set economics back 150 years by advocating cost of production price theory. Economic science advanced only after economists discovered the principles of subjective pricing and marginal pricing. Greer denies both. And Greer promotes Marx’s nonsense that markets naturally lead to monopolies. Markets destroy monopolies; governments create them.
Carlos Ramirez Trevino
To politely disagree with McKinney, our modern interpretation of Smith as an "unrestrained Free Market" Libertarian is a far stretch from reality. Smith advocated free trade with respect to British Mercantilism, which was an economic reality that limited entrepreneurship. The difference is that free trade for Smith doesn't mean "no regulation" trade. For Smith the driving force behind capitalism was the individual desire to exercise an ambition that in the process of satisfying personal interests, also met the needs of society. Our current experience, however, is that unregulated markets result in more harm than good. So, a good market system is one that allows and provides the opportunities for individuals to be creative, while protecting the interests of the rest of society. Madoff, Enron, and corporate greed must be controlled and only the government can do that with a minimum harm to society, national security, and financial stability. Capitalism also has its limits.
Roger McKinney
The choice between self regulation and government regulation is a false dichotomy. Adam Smith proposed a third option: market regulation. Smith was professor of ethics. His economics is his ethics applied to the market. He invented nothing. Everything he learned about market regulation of ethics came from studying the Dutch Republic. He discovered that competition in the market does a far better job of regulating greed than anything the government can do. Of course, he recognized the need of the state to prosecute crimes against life, liberty and property. We don’t have to rely solely on self-regulation. The Dutch Republic proved Smith’s point for 200 years.
Roger McKinney
"Bailey suggests that our government would be more faithful to our God and to our Founders if it would protect this character in the people against corrosive economic, cultural, and political influences, and promote it where it was lacking." Wow! That is one terrifying sentence! Can you imagine bitter bureaucrats determining what is economically, culturally and politically best for the character of the people?!!!! Wait a minute! That's what the OWS and Tea Partiers are attempting! That's what the socialists and conservatives are all about - mind control.
Carlos Ramirez Trevino
Insightful comments and good evaluation of the film! History reveals that sometimes our ultra-emotional Christian sensitivity to the needs of others impedes our ability to focus on the reality of the necessity of the Cross. While some emphasize right living (legalism), others stress good deeds (social gospel), ignoring or finding it difficult to accept that people either can’t do what is right of their own volition or can’t save the world through the improvement of social conditions. God created with one purpose in mind, the Cross. And the reason the Cross is pivotal is because through the Cross God purposed to eliminate, eradicate, and emancipate all of creation from the potential inevitability, certain probability, and existential reality of corruption (sin, evil, pain, and suffering). Clearly order, discipline, compassion, and responsibility play an indispensable role in the Christian life. However, when put in perspective, there is no Scriptural support for either the extremes of legalism or indiscriminate pity in the Christian Gospel. Just as Christ achieved a balance between condemnation and compassion, we too must strike that balance in recognition of the fact that the Cross is the ultimate and only dispensation for corruption and hope of redemption.
RICK DALBEY
"the revival in the church for which she had been praying might actually come outside the church, when non-Christians hunger for justice. This is a strikingly political notion of revival and thus of the gospel. As she presents it, revival is something non-Christians are capable of experiencing while remaining strangers to Christ." That is a very common sentiment in Portland among Post-Modern evangelical Christians who want to "de-construct" (Derrida and Brueggeman) and "un-pack" the Bible. Tattoos on women, occupy Wall Street, social justice, the usual suspects. My concern is that what George Fox College, Multnomah and Western Seminary (Portland Christian schools) all call Post-Modern evangelical is actually a road stop on the way to apostasy. Again, we're leaders. As they say, Keep Portland weird.
Christine Thomas
Nice sunny outlook Mr/Ms D.C. Innes. Wish I could have a similar hope that the Kingdom is possible now, in our government, in the human heart/character, without or before the second coming of Christ. I think the "documentary" proposed with two sincere and fine people was way too short to take much of anything substantial from it. Nice flash but a way too deep and serious topic for the time it was given. It didn't serve either view well...and may have even been unfair.