Why Liberty Needs Justice: A Response to the Tea Party-Occupy Film
Christianity Today's newest film is provocative because of its gritty, grounded honesty. This is not a film about political pundits bantering back and forth exchanging policy talking points. Instead, it's about two very ordinary people, their deep faith in Jesus, and how that faith is leading them to engage two of the most consequential grassroots movements of our time. These movements have one beautiful thing in common: they are groundswells of ordinary citizens reengaging their democratic civic duty, letting their messages be heard and considered in the public square.
Last week, my coauthor, D. C. Innes, rightly pointed out that the film's title, "Liberty or Justice for All," and its structure seem to pit the virtues of liberty and justice against one another. Within the first minute of the film, liberty is clearly identified as the motivation for Emmett Bailey's Virginia Tea Party involvement, while justice is revealed as the motivation for Pam Hogeweide's Occupy Portland involvement. Both subjects say their involvement arises from their faith.
Bailey articulates his understanding of liberty and law this way: "The Founders' vision (and God's vision), was that we would be self-regulated. When God is being honored, people are regulating themselves, not regulated from the outside with laws." We see Bailey at a Tea Party rally where machine-gun-toting "patriots" listen to a woman remind the crowd of something they are "very familiar with." She launches into the Declaration of Independence ("We hold these truths to be self-evident …"). Then she twists history and identifies "tyrannical government" as the entity Americans must protect their rights from.
There's much to say in response. First, Bailey's interpretation of the Founders' (and God's) vision is idealistic. The Founders were not against regulation. They were not against law. Their first act was to create the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights—a set of regulations and laws. They understood regulation and law as necessary tools for preserving liberty. As for God's vision, Bailey's read of Scripture seems rooted in dispensationalist soil. How else can one read the whole counsel of Scripture and think God's vision is the abolition of law? Consider the Ten Commandments, all of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, David's Psalm 119 love letter to the law, all the prophets who called the Israelites back to the law, and the words of Jesus, who declared, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish, but to fulfill" (Matt. 5:17)?
Second, the Tea Party spokeswoman's assessment that America's Declaration of Independence was a call to protect oneself against government in general, which she implies will always be tyrannical, is misguided. The Declaration of Independence was written by founders of a government who fought real tyranny—taxation without representation, imperial rule without democracy, foreign rule without self-governance. And that self-governance was not about an individual's ability to self-govern. It was about the colonists' lack of liberty to legislate and regulate civic life apart from the crown. The Founders were not a band of individuals fighting the big bad monster called government. They formed a government to fight foreign rule. That was the context for their declaration.
Meanwhile, we see Hogeweide writing her Occupy Portland sign for the day: "Corporate Personhood = Corrupt Government." What fuels her engagement? Her desire to see revival.
"I've been one of those women," she says, "who has been like, 'Rain it down, God. Bring revival to America.' " Then she attended an Occupy march and scanned the crowd. It suddenly occurred to her: "What if this revival is not gonna happen inside the church?"
I understand what Hogeweide means. Through most of my teens and 20s, I sat in pews and prayed for revival. I prayed fervently that the Holy Spirit would break out across this land and transform lives and hearts and bring people back to Jesus. But my sense of what revival would look like was rooted in an individualistic, suburban, middle-class understanding of a faith that was, frankly, born in a communal, largely urban, politically and ethnically oppressed culture. My vision of revival was limited to individual holiness.
What I believe Hogeweide caught wind of at the Occupy rally was the vision of revival we see in Mary's Magnificat: "He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty" (Luke 1:52-53). She caught the vision of revival that Jesus had when he proclaimed in his first sermon: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor" (Luke 4:18a, NRSV).
She caught the vision of revival Jesus had in his instructions on how to pray: "Our Father in Heaven" (in other words, not our oppressor, Caesar, who calls himself the father of the people he oppresses), "hallowed by thy name" (in other words, "God, your name is the highest name, not Caesar who says his name is the highest name"), "thy kingdom come; thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" (in other words, we are your subjects, God, not Caesar's. Subvert the will of our imperial conqueror and let your will be done, not his!).
And Hogeweide caught the vision of revival that some of the first evangelicals had when their faith led them to the public squares of England and the United States to call for the re-formation of society through changes in public law and the institutions of regulations to end slavery, exploitation of labor and animals, and gender inequality.
Innes minimized Hogeweide's vision of revival, and in so doing overlooked evangelical church history and the theology that birthed it.
Most striking to me is the fact that neither subject of this film mentions the "opposing" virtue. But one only has to look beneath the surface to find it dormant—not dead—to these faith-filled patriots. Bailey, an African American, values liberty above all else. Toward the end of the film, he says, "If you don't have your freedom, nothing else matters." I understand that. For Bailey, lack of liberty is injustice. I only wish he would seriously consider the lost freedoms of 99 percent of the population when corporations and the richest 1 percent are given complete, unregulated liberty. For Hogeweide, justice equals liberty from corporate tyranny.
This week, Rep. Paul Ryan, Chair of the House Budget Committee, will submit his proposal for the Fiscal Year 2013 U.S. Budget. Most pundits predict it will be largely the same as last year's proposal, which balanced the budget on the backs of the poor. Two-thirds of all proposed cuts came from programs that help the most vulnerable among us, while Ryan offered tax cuts to the richest 1 percent. When his proposal drops, I urge CT's readers to watch this film and consider for themselves. Then let beauty have its way; engage the public square.
Lisa Sharon Harper is the director of mobilizing at Sojourners in Washington, D.C. She is coauthor with D. C. Innes of Left Right and Christ: Evangelical Faith in Politics (Russell Media).
Rethinking the $3,000 Missions Trip
Furniture Fit for the Kingdom
Faith in a Fallen Empire
RSS
TWITTER
FACEBOOK
Comments Are Closed
Displaying 1–19 of 19 comments
See all comments
Roger McKinney
Catholicism's flirtation with Marx was short. Liberal Protestant denominations still promote Marxism. But free markets and private property have been the historical position of Christianity. Those who deny it are inventing new theology equivalent to any heresy.
Roger McKinney
God created private property so that mankind could flourish. All societies that have held property in common have endured massive starvation. China lost 30 million to starvation in the 1960's. The Torah confirms God's sanctification of private property and Jesus affirmed it when he endorsed the Torah. As Rick wrote, the NT Church held property in high esteem, along with charity because charity does not exist without property. The Catholic church endorsed free markets and private property until it absorbed Marxist teachings in the 19th century. There are many Catholics who are Marxists. Liberation theology is Marxist Catholicism. Today, many Catholics, such as those at the Acton Institute, see Catholic social teaching as free market and private property oriented based on declarations by the most recent Popes.
RICK DALBEY
The early church contributed voluntarily, and personally to the needs of homeless saints. It was not coercive, it was not dependent on an intstituitional re-distribution of wealth, taxing or tithing. Peter reaffirmed the rights of private property ownership to the early church “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own?” The early church did not share its resources with all the poor of Jerusalem, only the believing poor in the church and only with strict standards. Single widows (not men) without family over 60 were given free food. As Paul says to Timothy in 1 Timothy 5:16 “If a woman who is a believer has relatives who are widows, she must take care of them and not put the responsibility on the church. Then the church can care for the widows who are truly alone.” I don’t “love” private property or capital. Curiously I would rather have your property, free food, free housing and i would prefer not to work for it. But, as the Bible teaches, that is irresponsible sin.
RICK DALBEY
You really want to base an economic system on the Garden of Eden? “There was no private property in the garden of Eden?” Of course, there was only one married couple in the garden of Eden. When there was more than one family, God established private property rules and theft was a violation. Those principles are reiterated over and over in scripture. Jesus says “in my house are many mansions”, “I go to prepare a place for you”. As it says in Revelation 20 and Isaiah, during the millenium there are private houses, private ownership, cities, business enterprise. That is what humans do. Nor is everyone in heaven equal. There are varying rewards, varying treasure. You have plenty of theories but I would rather stick with what the Bible actually teaches.
RICK DALBEY
Oh, so you have some wisdom that abrogates private properety? The 10 commandments are no longer valid (though shalt not steal)? The perfect wife in Proverbs 31 should not accrue capirtal and speculate in land? Peter establishes the right of private property in Acts 5, “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own?” As 1st Timothy says, it is the LOVE of money, not money itself that is the problem. Hermit, have you sold all you own? Do you have any private possessions? Are you living on charity?
LLOYD OMDAHL
Are we Christians of the New Testament or are we warmed over Israelites following the Talmud?
Roger McKinney
God's will for mankind regarding property after the fall was revealed in the Torah: thou shalt not steal. No one believes in a 'free market capitalist Eden'. Hermit has to fight a straw man because he can't stand up to the real thing. As the Godly scholars of Salamanca determined, based on the Word of God, God sanctified private property in the Torah and the only just market is a free market.
Roger McKinney
Continuing the theme of honest Bible interpretation, how should we handle the Torah commands regarding the poor? If we are going to obey part of the law, Paul says we should keep all of it and the Torah requires the death penalty for violating the Sabbath. If we apply Torah law directly today and allow the state to force wealth redistribution, then we should allow the state to execute Sabbath offenders, adulterers and homosexuals. Wise Church scholars separated the roles of religion and state. The Church is responsible for the poor and for religion. The state is responsible for civil law. In addition, Jubilee and Sabbath year debt forgiveness involved no wealth redistribution. The Torah specifies that all sales of property and loans (except those to the poor) should be pro-rated based on the amount of time to Jubilee and the Sabbath year. In other words, the Torah doesn’t allow sales of land as we know it today, but what we would call long-term leases.
Roger McKinney
Christians need to consider that the majority of the population is not Christian; they are not subject to the principles for godly living to which Christians subject themselves. To force non-Christians to act like Christians is absurd.
Roger McKinney
Some people want to make Jesus a policy wonk. The lack they natural fear that Christians should have of putting words in God's mouth. Jesus had very little to say about state policy. When the church has the right to arrest and try criminals then I'll concede that the state has the authority to do the church's job. To treat the Bible honestly and not put words in Jesus' mouth, one has to examine the context. In context, all of Jesus' teaching referred to the way believer should act; they were not government policy and to claim they are is simply dishonest. Of course Christians are to share their wealth, but that says nothing about what the state should do. Church scholars determined centuries ago that the role of the state is that of a night watchman. Attempting to do anything more infringes on the role of the Church and the family. Attempting to collect taxes for anything more is theft. As as CT has pointed out, free markets help the poor more than charity.
RICK DALBEY
Rome did not found a socialist state where everyone was equal. There was a great disparity in Roman society. Caesar’s taxes paid for huge standing armies that commited genocide and invaded countries like Israel. Taxes paid for crucifixions. Taxes paid for Nero’s palace, coliseums and other public works projects. Are you saying because Jesus said to pay your taxes that somehow He was advocating an equal distribution of wealth? The poor in Rome and in Israel were taken care of by personal charity and family, not by the government. In Proverbs 31 the perfect wife is a venture capitalist who speculates in real estate and has a retail business.The early church took care of Christian widows only with demonstrable faith who were over 60 and had no living relatives. They did not put the poor of Jerusalem on the dole. I hardly know how to respond you are so confused.
RICK DALBEY
Hermit, how can you say Jesus is “Clear” about re-distribution of wealth in the lazarus parable? You could just as well say Lazarus was spared an eternity in hell by remaining poor. You are attempting to find economic theory in a parable that is about justice for the faith-filled poor and judgement on the impious, extraordinarily selfish rich man. The moral of the story is not that the government needs to confiscate evryone’s income and re-distribute it, but that the Rich man ought to personally, voluntarily share some portion of his goods with a man who had none. That is called charity, a much lauded value in Jewish culture, not Marxism.
RICK DALBEY
Hermit, I think you have me confused with someone else. I said when we reinterpret Jesus parables to mean building a utopian political system on this earth, when we re-cast biblical spiritual revival as a coercive equal re-distribution of wealth, that our faith resembles marxism. Ms Hogeweide has given up on prayer for spiritual revival, as she says, and instead has become a militant, sign-making, sloganeering advocate of coercive re-distribution of wealth and like Strelnikov in Dr. Zhivago or Tom Joad. Jesus told Peter to put down his sword, “my Kingdom is not of this earth”. But there will always be Simon the Zealots among us who disreagrd His words. The 1 percent and the 99% is an arbitrary, destructive fantasy.
RICK DALBEY
Jason, I asked where in the gospels did Jesus fill the hungry with the good things of this world, clothes, money, a supply of free food, transportation and clean drinking water? My point is He is talking about the water of life, the bread of life, The answer you gave me from Matthew 25 is not something Jesus did. Read any commentary on Matthew 25. Jesus is not talking about feeding the world or saying you will go to hell if you do not visit prisons. He is answering a question the disciples asked about the signs of the end times and He is talking about giving aid to persecuted believers “one of the least of these, my brothers”. As He says a few chapters earlier, “my brothers are those who do the will of God”. Matthew 24 and 25 is all about the dire state of the end times, the relentless persecution of believers and His coming. As Jesus said to Paul, "Saul, Saul why do you persecute me?"
Roger McKinney
Jason, Shane Claiborne and Jim Wallis have co-authored books.
RICK DALBEY
"He has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty" (Luke 1). She caught the vision of revival that Jesus had when he proclaimed in his first sermon: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor" (Luke 4). So revival is now all about the redistribution of wealth? Where in the gospels did Jesus fill the hungry with the good things of this world, clothes, money, a supply of free food, transportation and clean drinking water? Or did He say that “the kingdom of God is not about eating and drinking” or “don’t worry about what you shall wear” and “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” “Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again”. What did Jesus say when the disciples complained that a woman had poured perfume over Him worth a years wages and could have been sold giving the money to the poor? “The poor you will always have with you”. This reinterpretation of Jesus message is a Marxist/leninist fantasy.
Roger McKinney
Jason, if you go to the sourjourner site and search for "gospel of scarcity" you will get this : "Jubilee on Wall Street: Reimagining God's Vision in Action Originally Posted: 08/31/2011 - 4:39pm | Type: Blog " it was a I cried because it was a reminder that we still have a choice. We can live by the gospel of scarcity or we can live by the gospel of abundance. We can live as if life is a crap shoot or we can live ..." But if you follow the link to the article that sentence isn't there. There is a missing paragraph in the article. The sentence may have been there and the web manager erased it. But I have seen the phrases "gospel of scarcity" and "gospel of abundance" in Wallis' books too. You have to read a lot of Wallis to get what he means by those phrases, which I have and I think my explanations are accurate. However, Wallis seems to be ashamed of the phrases now. He hasn't changed his mind. He is very much opposed to the science of economics and makes that very clear.
Roger McKinney
Jason, I got them directly from his web site years ago. Maybe he is embarrassed by those words and is trying to hide his socialism.
Roger McKinney
Passion is fine, but to paraphrase Paul, zeal should be tempered by knowledge. I realize that most people care about emotions and nothing else, but that only belies their assumption that no objective truth is possible. The science of economics contains many important truths about how to help the poor that no amount of passion will erase, such as destroying the wealthy will only make everyone poorer without helping the poor. Of course Wallis, founder of Sojourners, demands that people abandon the “gospel of scarcity” (his term for economic science) and embrace the “gospel of abundance” (his euphemism for socialism).