How Conservative Christianity Is Duped By Its Leaders to Help Oppress the Poor! A Paper.

[Joshua N]

*Disclaimer: I am a Christian, but not a "conservative" one, to which this paper is referring.*

**********************************************************
Paper
**********************************************************
Joshua N
Jesus Against Christianity – Lawson
Final Paper
March 13, 2007

In my previous paper, I discussed America’s ideology of civic republicanism and how it shaped public opinion and U.S. public policy on poverty. In this paper, I will discuss how status quo religion has been used to propagate this ideology and maintain this policy.
What is Status Quo Religion?
This can not be done, however, without first providing an adequate working definition for status quo religion. Simply put, status quo religion is religion that is used to maintain the status quo: it helps in the fight to resist change and works actively to make sure things stay as they are. Status quo religion upholds a set of commonly accepted values by which a society runs. These values create an environment governed by a set of rules based upon these common values. America’s common values include (but are not limited to): free market capitalism, independence, patriarchal family structure, individual responsibility, moral certitude and ethnocentrism. Yet, within the system created by these commonly shared values, there exist anomalies, or, as we call them, injustices. Rather than adjusting the system to account for these anomalies, status quo religion helps to keep the current value system and, therefore, power structure in place. Instead of addressing them, status quo religion will attempt to ignore, explain away, justify, downplay, spin, or attempt to appear powerless against long existing injustices. In order to eliminate these injustices, many Americans have attempted to change the system by holding traditional values in tension with new ones, such as communal responsibility, and in light of new evidence which shows that urbanization, industrial and post-industrial living require this shift. These attempts to change the current value system are viewed by status quo religionists as attacks against America’s way of life – not only its culture and values, but even its very well being, since America’s prosperity came to fruition under the current value system’s tenure.
These common American values which existed within the status quo value system are intricately tied. Easy land ownership opportunities for free, white males meant a never before possible opportunity for independence. This opportunity for independence appeared to be dependent mainly upon one’s willingness to work, so great onus was placed upon individual responsibility and personal accountability. This view was supported by a Calvinist belief that emphasized hard work (hence the term, “Puritan/Protestant work ethic”). To these Americans, free market capitalism was fair because, unlike feudal systems, workers were rewarded for their effort. Fair meant harder workers received more income than those who worked less. The market would not be controlled to give money to those who did not work to earn it; that, according to the system, would be the true injustice.
What is more, this framework of values was bound together by Protestant Christianity. Status quo values were seen through the lens of Protestantism, America’s traditionally dominant religion, and Protestant theology was used to justify the system. “If a man does not work, neither shall he eat,” was a favorite scripture of status quo religionists, and the “Puritan/Protestant work ethic” became the standard by which every immigrant or outsider was judged. Because the value system brought economic prosperity, it was considered a superior values and economics system, touted as and equated with the will of God. This brought about a moral certitude and ethnocentrism which assumed that dominant American cultural norms were superior to those of other, from dissenters from within the United States to critics from without.
But when the anomalies of poverty arose in the system, such as poverty from drought, discrimination, or lack of access to poverty from industrialization, deindustrialization, and globalization, status quo religion fought against changing the value system. Instead, it interpreted poverty through the lens of the current system. Rather than recognize the other factors that contributed to poverty, status quo religion relied upon its supposedly God-given system, and trusted that God would take care of the righteous (themselves) and punish the immoral (the suffering poor). The poor choose to be dependent rather than work hard for their own wealth. Poverty is God’s just punishment to the poor, and faithful human beings will not hinder God’s judgment.
The Right Hand of the Lord: Status Quo Religion in America
The status quo in America believes firmly in traditional western values, and uses them to support the current power structure and justify the suffering that arises from the anomalies in the system. Status quo religion, to be more specific, uses religion as a tool towards these ends. In other words, status quo religionists use God and Scripture to justify the existence of the prevailing power structure. They claim that the current value system and subsequent power structure reflect the will of God, and those who oppose the current system are opposing the will of God.
Though this is true in many cases, this paper will examine this phenomenon in relation to America’s economic system, especially as it has played out over the past century. During this period, the status quo of free market capitalism and its relative, individualism, have been under attack. Although they remain entrenched, the fight that they have engaged in to remain so has caused them to bear their teeth, so to speak. Free market capitalism has had to fend off attack, and as a result has shown its tools of defense. One of its greatest tools has been status quo religion. Over the past century, status quo religionists have used the Bible, God, and Christianity to support America’s unjust economic system; to neutralize this abuse of religion, other Christians must use Scripture to provide an alternate interpretation of God’s will, one that exposes the injustices of the current economic system and holds status quo religionists accountable for their part in sustaining it.
Status Quo Religion’s History and Rise to Prominence
"When men are taught that the capitalist system is rigged against them, that they have a legal and moral right to welfare payments, and that those who live well as a result of their own labor, effort, and forecasting skills are immoral and owe the bulk of their wealth to the poor, we must recognize the source of these teachings: the pits of hell."
– Gary North, The Sinai Strategy: Economics and the Ten Commandments (1986)
Free market capitalism reigned unchecked in America until the 1930’s. It was at this time, however, that the Great Depression occurred. With 24.9 percent of its citizens unemployed, America could no longer accept that personal choice was the greatest factor of poverty. America’s confidence in unfettered capitalism was shaken, and Roosevelt’s “New Deal” implemented social programs which actively worked to alleviate poverty. These programs regulated the price of crops to fight price depression, protected labor unions’ right to organize, created jobs for the unemployed, provided tax money for natural disaster relief, built public housing, and provided social security for the elderly and disabled and unemployment insurance for the unemployed.
It seemed as though the tide had shifted away from the status quo. Americans were skeptical of the ideology of civic republicanism and were beginning to comprehend other factors of poverty besides individual choice. It did not take long, however, for skepticism to arise concerning the newly formed social programs. Americans wondered why the new social programs did not solve the problem of poverty, and soon the status quo, which took account for poverty by accusing the poor of dependence and laziness, quickly regained control. Indeed it had never actually lost control, but had only faced its first serious skepticism on the national scale. By the oil crisis of 1973, supporters of the status quo returned, this time organized and focused.
This organized group of supporters of the status quo was called the “New Right.” Like the Old Right, the New Right was conservative in that it wanted to conserve the long existing ideologies that made America what it had become. In most instances, by definition, someone who is conservative is one who wants to maintain the status quo, and, if open to change, is only willing to make changes by using conventional, status quo methods. For instance, right wing conservatives would suggest that cutting taxes and deregulating business sectors would stimulate the economy better than attempts to regulate the market. Allowing hard working, ambitious Americans to reap the benefit of their labor would encourage work, and thereby stimulate the economy. This stance supports individual responsibility and the “fairness” of proportional reward for capital investment. The Right supports conserving this system despite the injustices that occur as a result of its implementation. For the first time, however, the Right faced a significant challenge from the socialist ideologies of the New Deal. As the Great Depression brought about the New Deal and therefore a shift in power and ideological thought, the Right had to redefine itself in order to ensure that it remained established.
In the 1960’s, when social programs and socialist ideologies were at their peak in America, young conservatives, at the advice of Sen. Barry Goldwater, formed a group called Young Americans for Freedom (YAF). From this group, young conservatives reshaped the Right and gave it new life. Among these new, leading conservatives was Paul Weyrich. No longer assuming they held the status quo position, Weyrich urged that conservatives fight aggressively as underdogs. They implemented many new and effective tactics, but perhaps the most effective was a stronger than ever tie to religion. Weyrich is quoted as saying, “This alliance between religion and politics didn’t just happen. I’ve been dreaming and working on this for years.” His method included creating an organization called Christian Voice. This was actually a right wing tool used to maintain right wing economic ideology. Christian Voice created a “morality rating” for Congress members based on their votes, but in reality the morality rating reflected the Congress members’ economic leanings. According to the AFL-CIO, Robert Drinan, Congress member and Catholic priest, was recorded as having a “pro-worker record” of 88%; at the same time, Christian Voice gave Drinan a morality rating of 0%. Richard Kelly, a congress member whose pro-worker record provided by the AFL-CIO was 8%, received a morality rating 100% by the Christian Voice.
The religious arm of the Right was strengthened after a 1979 meeting between Weyrich and television evangelist, Jerry Falwell. Falwell, already a supporter of status quo morality and values, including individualism and capitalism, became a powerful religious voice for supporting the status quo of Right wing economics. According to Joanna Ricca, this gave status quo politics unbelievable strength:
Now they could use scripture to mask Right Wing ideology. Now they could convince sincere working people to vote against their own economic interests by manipulating their religious faith. Now they would be beyond criticism. They could attack anyone who tried to expose the real pro-corporate, anti-democratic agenda as being anti-Christian.

Conservatives tied status quo economics with status quo morality, and thereby won a large percentage of the vote. Groups like Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority have duped Christians into supporting candidates who may on the surface seem to represent particular issues that are popular among many conservative Christians, but these candidates do not have their voter’s best interest at heart. Weyrich himself notes:
"We can’t win by defending Reaganomics. We can only win by pushing those populist / conservative anti-elitist themes which real people support. I am not going to ...try to explain trickle down to an unemployed steelworker in Birmingham. But that same steelworker if asked to choose between our desire to see hardened criminals punished and the liberals’ defense of soft-headed judges, will be with us. That’s where it’s at."
In my previous paper, I noted the failure of Reaganomics and its inability to promote wealth for the lower and middle class. Weyrich seems to know this, which is why the New Right uses wedge issues to gain support from conservative Christians. A conservative Christian might not understand Reaganomics or its implication for her economic well being, but she does know that she wants prayer returned to schools. The New Right uses her desire to see prayer in schools against her by supporting prayer in schools. In reality, once elected the Right wing official will more than likely do nothing to change the prohibition of prayer in schools, but he now has the power to ensure that free market capitalism will remain status quo, giving ridiculous tax breaks to the wealthy and to corporations which hold most of the country’s wealth. The same goes for other issues important to conservative Christians like abortion and gay marriage, private schooling, sex education, and separation of church and state. Officials with economic motives use religion and morality to distract voters from economic issues.
In addition to religion and morality to pull voters to support economic agendas that upon further study they would more than likely not support, status quo religionists use religion as a mouthpiece to teach economic right wing ideology. Popular television evangelists like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Tim LaHaye and James Dobson support unrestrained capitalism and equate it with God’s will, thereby influencing their followers to faithfully follow such ideology as though it were God who commanded it. Christianity is commonly viewed as authoritarian. In fact, status quo religion leaders like Pat Robertson claim to hear God, and in effect forces God to support his political and economic agenda. Those who otherwise would not hold these views take on the status quo religionists’ agenda for their own. Many are already susceptible due to the longstanding tradition of civic republicanism and its ties to Protestantism. These leaders prey upon Americans’ long held belief of individualism, personal responsibility, and independence to fight against social programs and economic systems which seek to protect the common citizen. They mail newsletters to hundreds of thousands and send information through electronic media such as radio and television broadcasts to millions. They even fax their message to thousands. For instance, Jerry Falwell
…faxes his Falwell Confidential Report to almost 300,000 people, including almost 200,000 ministers. He’s turned the minister’s pulpit into a bully pulpit…. Today, on any given Sunday, there may be 50,000 churches where you’ll hear the pastor say something that he got from the Falwell confidential Report….


Since the 1960’s, Right Wing Conservative leaders had tied communism and government intervention in the economy to the decay of traditional values. When the leaders of the religious right, such as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Ed McAteer joined the fight against communism and moral decay, they brought millions of Americans with them through their groups, the Religious Roundtable, the Christian Voice, and the Moral Majority, among others.
Now, you have a generation of Christians like Gary North, who use the Bible to justify free market capitalism over against social programs that help the poor. North writes that external blessings are received due to faithfulness; according to this logic, those who are wealthy must be God’s faithful. Yet, this ignores how the wealthy often retain their wealth through exploitation, as discussed in the previous paper. North then claims, “The Bible says, ‘Thou shalt not steal.” It does not say, “Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.’” In saying this, North somehow concludes that governments who tax more than ten percent of a citizen’s income is theft, and thereby breaking God’s law.
This reasoning is extremely flawed for several reasons. First of all, in no way is this prescription against theft referring to taxation. Second, even if this law could perhaps be applied to extreme taxation, who then became the judge who decided that ten percent was God’s ceiling for appropriate taxation? There is nothing even implicit, let alone explicit, in the command “Thou shalt not steal” that prescribes the proper amount of taxation. Third, even if this command could be saying all this, does this include the potential for taxation, i.e. a ten percent sales tax on an income that has already been taxed ten percent? Clearly this text was not designed to answer this question, and, even if it somehow was, it still does not solve the complexities of a system of taxation. Ten percent taxation in the United States would not even be close to enough funds to operate the current government system. Some things would have to be cut, and if police, security, road construction, or other helpful government services were cut, the economy and the people would suffer.
Considering North’s conclusion concerning America giving foreign aid to developing country, it is not difficult to envision what government programs he would eliminate. North ponders, “Does the Bible teach that wealth transfers are ethically valid?” and, “Should we recommend increased taxes in Western nations in order to ‘feed the starving poor’ in foreign nations? Is this what Christ meant by loving our neighbors?” North makes a valid point when mentioning that much of foreign aid given to poor countries is abused by those in power; unfortunately, his solution for this dilemma is not legislation to improve the method of aid distribution so that foreign leaders can be held more accountable, but rather that no foreign aid be given at all. Instead, North contends, giving should be from individuals or churches. After asking rhetorically whether it was biblically valid for the U.S. government to give foreign aid, North answers his own question with another rhetorical question: “Or does the Bible require personal charity, or church-to-church charity?” In other words, he implies that distributing aid should be the job not of the government, but of the people. But if charitable giving were left up to individuals and voluntary organizations like churches, the logical outcome would be that, because giving was no longer mandatory, less people would help the poor.
Here, the truth comes to light. North attempts to appear dissatisfied with the use of foreign aid, and he probably is; in reality, however, he actually disagrees with giving foreign aid to the poor and suffering in other countries altogether. Again, if it were only a matter of making sure aid made it to the people who needed it most, then North would propose legislation to help solve this dilemma. North dislikes foreign aid not because it is simply taxation, nor because it sometimes goes into the wrong hands, but because it is taxation for the purpose of wealth redistribution. Wealth is being taken out of the hands of the wealthy against their will and being put into the hands of the needy. According to North, this is against God’s will. If the same money had been taken to repave a road in his neighborhood, then Dr. North would very likely not be writing in protest. Why? Because taxation is acceptable when the money raised is used for self serving purposes. Again, North says it best himself:

"Is the poverty of the Third World the fault of the West? Is the Third World hungry because people in Western industrial nations eat lots of food? Does the West, meaning Western civil governments, owe some form of reparations (restitution) to Third World civil governments?”


North feels that the West takes no share in the responsibility of poverty in developing countries. This is because North lives in the realm and reality of civic republicanism, where hard work and creativity virtually guarantees success. Free market capitalism makes sense because it allows the hard working and ambitious to receive their fair share of wealth: if the West is wealthy, it is because of hard work and ingenuity; if developing countries are poor, it is because of the corruption and unethical practices of their people. They have chosen their state, so it is unfair to force those who have earned wealth to give it away to the poor. “Is the poverty of the Third World the fault of the West?” North asks this question as though the answer is “Obviously not.”
Yet, the actual answer to this question is yes, to an extent. Colonialism over the past 500 years has left developing countries economically crippled. Countries in South America, Africa, and Asia have been set back by colonial structures which take advantage of the land’s natural resources for the benefit of the “Mother” country. Western countries discouraged industrialization and manufacturing capability. When the countries were finally able to shake free from foreign rule, most countries were handicapped by centuries of dependency. Now, Western nations impose a sort of “economic” imperialism by allowing only raw materials to be traded without excessive tariffs. Manufactured goods from poor nations are taxed heavily – even more heavily than manufactured goods from other developed countries. For instance, the tariffs on manufactured cloth from developing countries are four times greater than manufactured cloth from developed nations. This limits developing countries’ ability to develop and costs them up to $100 billion dollars annually – more than they receive in foreign aid. Poorer nations would love to have the opportunities to gain wealth through their own hard work, but the greed of Western nations, or, more specifically, the wealthy elite and multinational corporations in Western nations, use their power and influence to limit poorer countries for their own benefit.
In spite of all this, Christians like North who support the status quo equate their ideology to God’s will. North states, “…Christian economics offers a true intellectual alternative: it rests on a concept of objective revelation by a true Person, the Creator of all knowledge and the Lord of history.” He goes on to say,
"As Christians we must always maintain that ethics is basic to all social analysis… It is never a question of analysis apart from ethical evaluation; it is only a question of which ethical system, meaning whose law-order: God’s or self-professed autonomous man’s? Because the Bible provides us with a comprehensive system of ethics, it thereby provides us with a blueprint for economics."

But is this true Christian economics? What North does not seem to realize is that, instead of promoting God’s will, he is actually advancing his own perspective. Instead of Christian economics based on objective revelation, North presents a subjective interpretation of a proper economic system based upon over two hundred years of history of civic republicanism in the United States. Status quo religious leader Jerry Falwell makes the same error when he reads the Bible through the lens of the status quo economic perspective.

“The Bible promotes free enterprise. The book of Proverbs and the parables of our Lord clearly promote private property ownership and the principles of capitalism. We therefore are strong free-enterprisers.”

Knowing the authority conservative Christians place in the Bible, Falwell claims that the Bible supports Free Enterprise and capitalism, thereby influencing millions of already susceptible conservative Christians raised with civic republican values of independence and personal responsibility to support unjust economic practices. As a result, conservative Christians become a strong base of support for the wealthy elite and a strong base of opposition to the poor and needy. James Barr puts it this way:
At least within the twentieth century, and especially since the Second World War, American fundamentalism has been strongly aligned with extreme political conservatism. Christianity is, in these circles of the far right, understood to give complete sanction to the capitalist system and to laissez-faire approach to society, and government intervention in social arrangements, the welfare state, mildly reformist attitudes, liberalism and socialism are all alike seen as forms of communism masquerading under another name.

Ever since World War 2 and, more importantly, the subsequent social programs of FDR’s New Deal, conservative Christians were warily skeptical of the government’s new socialist tendencies. In the 1970’s, the force of this skepticism was harnessed by free market capitalists who used popular conservative Christian television evangelists like Falwell and Pat Robertson to stoke the fires of skepticism to the point of fear and outrage. The New Right used these preachers to persuade listeners to reject programs like Social Security, Welfare, foreign aid distribution, and Medicare by appealing to their civic republican values of hard work and independence. The preachers, and local leaders who followed them, claimed that these programs only made the recipients lazy and dependent on handouts, and that the increasingly socialist government was contributing to the moral decline of the recipients and, therefore, the nation. As discussed in my previous paper, this was not the first time Christians were told this. This belief had been the status quo in America since the birth of the colonies, and was only beginning to be challenged by the time of the New Deal. By the late 1970’s, many were ready to bring back the status quo, and status quo religionists like Falwell, Robertson, McAteer, and Dobson helped to focus the energy of the people for the purpose of taking political action. In 1980, conservative Christians came out in full force to elect Ronald Reagan as President in a shocking landslide victory.
During his presidency, Reagan, the first neoconservative president, slashed funding for social programs. Funds for Medicare (health care for the elderly, created in 1965), Food Stamps (1964), Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC or “Welfare”, 1935), and Medicaid (healthcare for the poor, 1965) were all cut during Reagan’s tenure. Reagan also completely eliminated the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA), which provided skill training for the working and unemployed poor. Reagan cut funding for public housing in half within his first year in office, which in turn increased the number of homeless in America. At the same time, Reagan increased tax cuts for the wealthy and for large corporations.
The logic, reportedly, was that such tax benefits for the wealthy would create more wealth for the poor through new job opportunities created by the rich. Yet, coinciding with these cuts, America suffered its worst recession since the Great Depression. Reaganomics, Reagan’s attempt at supply-side, trickle down economics, actually hurt the majority of Americans and aided primarily the wealthy. Although it could be argued that Reagan’s policies did boost the economy as a whole, they did not improve wages or quality of life for American workers, and the income gap between the richest and the poorest widened. Between 1978 and 1989, the purchasing power of the minimum wage dropped 25 percent, but Congress would not raise it. During this same time, the additional amount of money the wealthy 1 percent received from new tax cuts passed by Congress was more than the entire income of the poorest 20 percent. The next president elected by the support of status quo religionists was George W. Bush. Bush, too, supported the economic agenda of the Right and made wealth disparity in America greater. With the help of Congress, Bush passed tax cuts which totaled $455 billion. But, the top 1% received 28.3% of the tax break funds, and the top 20% received almost 70% of the $455 billion.
The logic, apparently, is that those who work hardest earn more income, and therefore have a right to keep it. They should not have to pay a higher percentage, but in fact should pay a lower percentage because of their greater monetary contribution. This logic can be seen in the evolution of America’s taxation on capital gains and estate tax. Over time, the tax burden has been shifted from wealthy large-asset-owners to middle and lower class wage earners. The capital gains tax determines the amount of money wealthy asset owners have to pay for income earned from capital investment such as stocks and bonds. Most wage earners pay about 39 percent of their income in taxes. Asset owners, however, only pay 28 percent of their income in taxes. And this was before 1997; because of a tax break in 1997 by President Bill Clinton and a tax break in 2003 by George W. Bush, the taxation on capital gains has since dropped to only 15 percent. The estate tax is America’s only tax on accumulated wealth, and at one point every individual who inherited more than $1.5 million was taxed a portion of their estate. This changed in 2001, when Bush’s tax reform began to slowly phase the estate tax out. The exemption for paying the estate tax will be raised from $1.5 million to $3.5 million in 2009, and in 2010 will be repealed altogether.
Ironically, the two wealthiest men in America, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, oppose these tax reforms. They recognized that the practice of extremely disproportionate wealth was unjust. Warren Buffet said, “Without the estate tax, you in effect have an aristocracy of wealth, which means you pass down the ability to command the resources of the nation based on heredity rather than merit.” More than anyone, conservative Christians believe that one should “make it” of their own merit. Yet, this group is being deceived by the Right through status quo religious leaders like Falwell to believe that the rich have earned their wealth and it should not be taken from them. This is, in many cases, not true; most of the wealthy in America are wealthy in a large part due to inheritance. Even those who did not inherit great wealth had access to opportunities that most Americans do not. As long as figures like Falwell, North, and Robertson endorse status quo economic principles and equate them with the will of God, conservative Christians will continue to support the status quo by following their lead.
“I Will Tell of the Kindness of the LORD”: Conservative Christians Taking Religion and Morality back from the Right
That is unless, of course, it were somehow possible to wrest Conservative Christianity free from neoconservative economic ideology. Great effort has been made by the New Right to blend and confuse the two so that conservative Christians support neoconservative policies. In fact, there is nothing which ideologically connects the two. Although the new right has tried to connect conservative Christian issues such as abortion, separation of church and state, and gay marriage to their status quo economic agenda, one can be a conservative Christian but not be politically (neo)conservative. A conservative Christian may not hastily change her beliefs concerning Biblical inerrancy or the divinity of Jesus, but this does not limit her in her belief in the efficacy of a particular economic theory.
Indeed, the Bible has much to say concerning the injustice of exploitative economic systems; unfortunately, many conservative Christians do not know this. Their most visible leaders equate such “new” ways of thinking with evil and the devil, and local leaders follow suit. This is made all too easy when political leaders of the New Right are willing to add conservative Christian issues to their campaign ticket and thereby derail their opponents who contend against their economic exploitation as immoral – and, this, while implementing legislation that hurts the very people who elected them into office. Even worse, they will more than likely never enact legislation to make the changes for which conservative Christians elected them. They are exploiting the American people and deceiving conservative Christians all in the name of God, but maintain that their opponents are the immoral ones! Something needs to be done. Conservative Christians need to be made aware of their exploitation at the hands of neoconservative politicians, and leaders within conservative Christianity must arise who will use the voice of God to speak up for the cause of economic justice.
There is plenty of scripture which supports such a stance:

15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, "Go in peace; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
-- James 2:15-17 (TNIV)

13 Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. 14 At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality, 15 as it is written: "The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little."
-- 2 Corinthians 8:13-15 (TNIV)

1 "Shout it aloud, do not hold back. Raise your voice like a trumpet. Declare to my people their rebellion and to the house of Jacob their sins. 2 For day after day they seek me out; they seem eager to know my ways, as if they were a nation that does what is right and has not forsaken the commands of its God. They ask me for just decisions and seem eager for God to come near them. 3 'Why have we fasted,' they say, 'and you have not seen it? Why have we humbled ourselves, and you have not noticed?' "Yet on the day of your fasting, you do as you please and exploit all your workers… 5b Is that what you call a fast, a day acceptable to the LORD? 6 "Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? 7 Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter— when you see the naked, to clothe them, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood? … 9b "If you do away with the yoke of oppression, with the pointing finger and malicious talk, 10 and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry and satisfy the needs of the oppressed, then your light will rise in the darkness, and your night will become like the noonday.
-- Isaiah 58:1-10

And there are many more. There is evidence in the Bible that there is indeed a such thing as those who are more vulnerable than others, and that it is God’s will that God’s followers be about the business of protecting the least of these. Not everyone who is poor is lazy; rather, many are in poverty because they are exploited by the rich and powerful. Christians like North who do not feel that the government should be involved with helping the poor, but that this activity should be left to individuals and voluntary organizations, at the same time insist that the government intervene against other practices that they feel are displeasing in the sight of God. If conservative Christians believe it is okay for the government to act concerning these, then there is hope that they can take action against the systemic injustice of status quo economics. New leaders must emerge to mobilize by calling attention to their exploitation by neoconservatives and to the exploitation of the poor and vulnerable.
Three already have, and their example will hopefully inspire a new generation of conservative Christians who are concerned about poverty and economic exploitation. Ronald Sider has been writing and speaking about the United States unjust economic practices for the past 30 years. He is a supporter of capitalism and the market system, but understands that without regulation capitalism will benefit the haves at the expense of the have nots. He has written many books that have influenced an emerging generation of conservative Christians. His organization, Evangelicals for Social Action, is a think-tank which works to provide solutions for systemic poverty and economic injustice.
Tony Campolo is another theologically conservative Christian who works for the cause of economic justice. He contends that one does not have to be theologically liberal in order to be economically progressive. According to Campolo, in addition to individualistic emphases on personal piety, Christians should also be concerned with social issues concerning the welfare of those in need. Campolo shrewdly notes something intriguing with one of his common speech introductions:
"I have three things I'd like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a shit. What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night."

Campolo offers both a critique and warning to conservative Christians: social justice issues must be as much as a priority as personal piety issues. Again, he states,
"Jesus refers to the poor over and over again. There are 2,000 verses of Scripture that call upon us to respond to the needs of the poor. And yet, I find that when Christians talked about values in this last election, that was not on the agenda, that was not a concern. If you were to get the voter guide of the Christian Coalition, that does not rate. They talk more about tax cuts for people who are wealthy than they do about helping poor people who are in desperate straits."

He also rightly blames the influence of mass media status quo religious leaders like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson:
"The major factor influencing the evangelical vote was Christian radio and television," he says. "But they did not do what their charters tell them to do, namely preach the Gospel. What they were doing was becoming surrogates for the Republican Party."
Campolo works to reorient conservative Christians toward social justice issues in the same way conservative Christians of the past did before the rise of the New Right.
Jim Wallis also despairs at the monopoly the Political Right has had on conservative Christians. He has written many books about this issue, including God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It, and The Soul of Politics: Beyond "Religious Right" and "Secular Left" (1995). Wallis hopes to discontinue the association between political/economic conservatism and Christian conservatism. His group, Sojourners, focuses on issues of poverty using God and Christianity as their standard of justice.
Conclusion: Hope for Conservative Christians and for America
There is hope for conservative Christians. They have been duped and manipulated by the New Right, and their history of civic and agrarian republicanism has been used against them, but it is not too late to realize this deception and embrace God’s will concerning justice for the least of these. While conservative Christian leaders like Jerry Falwell have painted the poor in a negative light, playing upon already existing stereotypes of laziness and immorality, they have drummed up support for Right Wing economists who have used the conservative Christian vote to help the richest 20 percent of Americans at the expense of the rest. Nevertheless, the leaders who have arisen from within conservative Christianity are making great strides in helping their fellow conservatives understand that God is also interested in the well being of the marginalized. There is still much work to be done, but momentum in conservative Christianity is shifting towards the cause of social justice. There is hope that conservative Christians will one day soon fight for the causes of social justice just as strongly as they have in the past towards other issues. If they do, then America will have added a powerful force for the cause just economic practices.
Final Reflection
This class has been an enlightening one. I have learned much about Jesus and the tensions which exist between his teachings and the status quo practice of religion in America. This is especially true in regards to wealth. I Timothy 6:10 says “The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil,” and Ecclesiastes 5:10 says “Those who love money never have enough.” Truer words were never said, and these sayings are especially applicable to America’s current situation. Whatever logical or philosophical reasonings can be made concerning laissez-faire economics, the truth is that these reasonings in the end are used primarily as justifications for greed. It may seem hard to pinpoint at any particular point in a tightly packaged argument, but the overall message and delivery seethes with greed and selfishness. Right leaning economists will try to keep the issue of poverty in the economic field, but God calls us to view poverty through the lens of our common humanity. Though no system is perfect, every effort should be made to improve upon the existing system – and improvement does not mean more economic output or consumption. Improvement to the system means real equal opportunity and equal access for everyone, the eradication of absolute poverty, and respect and dignity for people of all income levels. Economics is not an exact science. It does not consist of irrefutable laws, and it must always be approached with the acknowledgment that each number represents a human being, a child of God.
Jesus is worthy to be followed. The example laid out in class and in our readings is an inspiration for humanity. This loving and forgiving nonviolent person was bold and courageous enough to speak truth to power, even in the face of death. Those who have been his disciples, like Martin Luther King, Jr. and James Lawson, are examples to the world of what power can be harnessed for good when following in his footsteps. Christians had good reason to become enamoured with Jesus. My hope is that those who call themselves Christians can rediscover Jesus’ greatness and fall in love all over again, and that those who are not Christians can be introduced to the man who has inspired greatness over a name that has been used to justify violence and oppression.
Jesus spoke out against the economic injustice of his day. We should do the same. Just as important, however, is that we should not let this image of Jesus as prophet of justice die again. It has been crucified over and over – drowned, suffocated, buried, hidden. Trapped by their greed, the powers that be do not want the powers of love and nonviolence to be unleashed upon this world. We who work for justice must not let them take away one of our greatest weapons – Jesus the revolutionary. This class has not only taught me about the radical nature of Jesus’ teachings, but also the importance of professing that image to others and the power it contains for social and spiritual change.


Works Cited
Clouse, Robert G. ed. Wealth and Poverty: Four Christian Views of Economics. Downer’s Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1984.
Collins, Chuck and Yeskel, Felice. Economic Apartheid in America: a Primer on Economic
Inequality and Insecurity. New Press, New York. 2005.
Dean, John W. Conservatives Without Conscience, New York, Viking Press, 2006
Hendricks, Obery M. The Politics of Jesus. Doubleday. New York. 2006.
Himmelstein, Jerome L. To the Right: the Transformation of American Conservatism, University of California Press, Los Angeles, 1990, 88.
Iceland, John Poverty in America: a Handbook – Second Edition. University of California Press: Berkeley, 2006
Mason, John Oliver. Meet Evangelist Tony Campolo. The Progressive, August 2005 Issue. http://www.progressive.org/?q=mag_camp0805
Ricca, Joanne “The Right Wing Attack on the Labor Movement”; available from http://www.wisaflcio.org/political_action/rightwing.htm.
Sider, Ronald J. Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger: Moving from Affluence to Generosity, Dallas, Word Publishing, 1997.
Utter, Glenn H and John W. Storey. The Religious Right: A Reference Handbook – Second Edition. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2001.

[Joshua N]

1. Shameless

self-kick.

[alittlelark]

2. KnR!

Jesus for Prez!

[dajoki]

3. To the Greatest Page. K&R...

The problem with "status quo religion" and conservatism is that it has nothing to do with the Bible or Religion at all, but rather the whims of conservative politicians and the wealthy. Ever since the "New Deal" was implemented the right wing of America has been fiercly attempting to destroy it.

When Harry Truman announced his "Fair Deal" it had little success because of fierce political opposition from conservative lawmakers determined to reduce the role of government. He tried to protect against unfair labor practices, he also wanted a higher minimum wage, greater unemployment compensation and housing assistance. In 1946 when Republicans took over the House and Senate for the first time in 18 years they immediately started an attempt to reverse liberal "New Deal" policies. Truman did his best to fight Congress on spending cuts and tax cuts, but had limited success.

LBJ credits Truman with his passage of "The Great Society" programs which included social reforms, elimination of poverty and racial injustice. Major spending programs that addressed education, medical care, urban problems, and transportation were passed because of the liberal Congress.

With the emergence of talk radio and right wing preachers, as you say, many people were duped and conservatism became the leading force in American politics and swept the country. Unfortunately this type of thinking continues to this day, and I personally believe is getting more serious by the day. Their goal of stripping away every social safety net we have remaining, will be successful unless we wake up very fast and make some drastic changes.

On Friday I became a Grandfather for the first time, and I dred the thought of my Grandson growing up in the current environment of the political and social justice climate of a nation that is becoming colder and meaner by the day. I can only hope that by the time he becomes an adult, people will have finally seen conservativism for the heartless movement it really is. Maybe he will be able to be someone who will work to bring about the drastic changes that are needed. I don't know, but I will do my best to teach him!!

[bobbolink]

4. Impressively researched!

Poverty isn't a popular topic with Christians, either, so I hope you will continue speaking about this!

Ironically, in the last couple of years, it's a group of conservative Christians who have not only embraced the environmental issues (as "stewards") but have also been speaking out on poverty issues, because of the bibilical mandate.

Unfortunately, they are mostly talking about charity rather than justice.

But, then, the "liberal" Christians aren't really speaking about justice, either.

:(

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. I'll have to bookmark this for later review. Thanks