Santorum Takes His Gospel of Individualism to Dordt College
“You go to Dordt College and you ask me that question?” Rick Santorum said to Ryan Walters, Dordt College freshman, when Santorum spoke in Sioux Center recently. And the question that Santorum seemed amazed at was this: “If not for our [government] social programs, how can we take care of our poor?” Santorum asked the audience who should take care of the poor, and the answer he got first was “the church,” and then, the answer he wanted, it’s up to “the individual” to take care of himself.
Before we parse those three answers, I want to comment on Santorum’s amazement at Walters question. Why was he so amazed? I can only speculate. Santorum was amazed because he had been led to believe that Dordt College is a bastion of conservative Republican political views. Where did he get that idea? Again, I can, only speculate. Perhaps his colleague in the House of Representatives, Steve King, told him that. Perhaps the fact that Sioux County is called the most conservative county in the country influenced his viewpoint. Perhaps people at Dordt led him to believe that, though I hope that’s not the case. Whatever the reason, it concerns me that people automatically assume that Dordt has a conservative Republican agenda.
I must say that as a former Dordt professor, I was extremely proud to read the account of Mr. Walters interchange with Mr. Santorum. It is a scary thing for a young person to stand up in public forum and take on someone who has spent his entire adult live engaging in political dialogue; yet Walters held his own with Santorum. Secondly, I was proud because it showed that Dordt College is not a place where everyone is shaped by the same cookie cutter. ( I pray that Dordt College will never becomes a place where students are all expected to have the same opinions on political matters.) Finally, I was proud because even though Santorum is a life-long Catholic and has a sterling record on pro-life issues, Walters had the pro-life position on the issue of health care, a position with strong Biblical support.
Which brings me back to those three answers to Walters question, how can we take care of the poor? Should it be the individual, the church or the government? Well, of course, it should be all three, but the weakest answer is “the individual.” Obviously an individual should pay for her health care if she is able, but Walters’ question was about the poor. Most poor people do not make enough money to begin to pay for the health care needs, especially with the out-of-control healthcare costs that we have these days.
Some people would say to those poor people, “tough,” but that is not a Christian response. Some people would say to the unemployed who can’t afford health insurance, “Get a job.” But most unemployed people are desperately seeking employment. Who should pay the health care costs of the unemployed and the poor? Some people would say “the church.” Apparently some people did say that at Santorum’s Dordt College event.
It is a good answer, but not a realistic one. Unfortunately, many churches do little or nothing for the poor. Check some time what percentage of your church giving goes to the poor. After the staff salaries and the building fund and the Christian education fund and the mission fund, what percentage is left for the poor? Precious little. The plain truth of the matter is that the church can’t even come close to paying for the health care needs of the poor.
If churches took over the government’s share of Medicaid, each congregation in the United States would have to ante up around $323,000 each year. If churches took over the four most basic programs for the poor in the United States, each of the 325,000 Christian, Jewish, and Muslim congregations would have to raise $289,000 more than they now give to the poor. That’s about $93 billion. (These statistics are from Mennonite scholar Ron Sider’s book Just Generosity, pp. 70-73; 82-87;91-93. I realize that they are twelve years old now, but the plain truth is that giving to the poor has gotten worse in those twelve years.)
That leaves, as Walters suggested, the government. What does the Bible say about government and the care of the poor? Well, Paul says in Romans 13: 4 (that’s St. Paul the apostle, not Ron Paul) that those in authority are “God’s servants for your good.” That good is public justice. In I Kings 10: 9 Solomon is told “the Lord has made you king to execute justice and righteousness.” How might the King, that is, the government, execute justice and righteousness? According to the Bible, one primary way is by making sure that the hungry are fed, by paying fair wages, by creating conditions for healthy living. Government intervention is the only way that systemic structural injustice such as discrimination or inadequate wages or dreadfully inadequate healthcare can be corrected.
After all, governments are ordained by God to do justice. They are a gift from God. Where do Christians like Santorum get the idea that government aid to the poor is wrong? And where do Christians like Santorum—or Michelle Bachman or Rick Perry or Ron Paul—get the notion that each individual must solve his own problems? Christianity is the anti-individualism religion, it is the love your neighbor religion, it is the “bear ye one another’s burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ” religion. The Christians gathered at the Santorum event in Sioux Center ought to have erupted in a chorus of “no’s” when Santorum told young Mr. Walter that each individual is responsible for her own healthcare.
Before we parse those three answers, I want to comment on Santorum’s amazement at Walters question. Why was he so amazed? I can only speculate. Santorum was amazed because he had been led to believe that Dordt College is a bastion of conservative Republican political views. Where did he get that idea? Again, I can, only speculate. Perhaps his colleague in the House of Representatives, Steve King, told him that. Perhaps the fact that Sioux County is called the most conservative county in the country influenced his viewpoint. Perhaps people at Dordt led him to believe that, though I hope that’s not the case. Whatever the reason, it concerns me that people automatically assume that Dordt has a conservative Republican agenda.
I must say that as a former Dordt professor, I was extremely proud to read the account of Mr. Walters interchange with Mr. Santorum. It is a scary thing for a young person to stand up in public forum and take on someone who has spent his entire adult live engaging in political dialogue; yet Walters held his own with Santorum. Secondly, I was proud because it showed that Dordt College is not a place where everyone is shaped by the same cookie cutter. ( I pray that Dordt College will never becomes a place where students are all expected to have the same opinions on political matters.) Finally, I was proud because even though Santorum is a life-long Catholic and has a sterling record on pro-life issues, Walters had the pro-life position on the issue of health care, a position with strong Biblical support.
Which brings me back to those three answers to Walters question, how can we take care of the poor? Should it be the individual, the church or the government? Well, of course, it should be all three, but the weakest answer is “the individual.” Obviously an individual should pay for her health care if she is able, but Walters’ question was about the poor. Most poor people do not make enough money to begin to pay for the health care needs, especially with the out-of-control healthcare costs that we have these days.
Some people would say to those poor people, “tough,” but that is not a Christian response. Some people would say to the unemployed who can’t afford health insurance, “Get a job.” But most unemployed people are desperately seeking employment. Who should pay the health care costs of the unemployed and the poor? Some people would say “the church.” Apparently some people did say that at Santorum’s Dordt College event.
It is a good answer, but not a realistic one. Unfortunately, many churches do little or nothing for the poor. Check some time what percentage of your church giving goes to the poor. After the staff salaries and the building fund and the Christian education fund and the mission fund, what percentage is left for the poor? Precious little. The plain truth of the matter is that the church can’t even come close to paying for the health care needs of the poor.
If churches took over the government’s share of Medicaid, each congregation in the United States would have to ante up around $323,000 each year. If churches took over the four most basic programs for the poor in the United States, each of the 325,000 Christian, Jewish, and Muslim congregations would have to raise $289,000 more than they now give to the poor. That’s about $93 billion. (These statistics are from Mennonite scholar Ron Sider’s book Just Generosity, pp. 70-73; 82-87;91-93. I realize that they are twelve years old now, but the plain truth is that giving to the poor has gotten worse in those twelve years.)
That leaves, as Walters suggested, the government. What does the Bible say about government and the care of the poor? Well, Paul says in Romans 13: 4 (that’s St. Paul the apostle, not Ron Paul) that those in authority are “God’s servants for your good.” That good is public justice. In I Kings 10: 9 Solomon is told “the Lord has made you king to execute justice and righteousness.” How might the King, that is, the government, execute justice and righteousness? According to the Bible, one primary way is by making sure that the hungry are fed, by paying fair wages, by creating conditions for healthy living. Government intervention is the only way that systemic structural injustice such as discrimination or inadequate wages or dreadfully inadequate healthcare can be corrected.
After all, governments are ordained by God to do justice. They are a gift from God. Where do Christians like Santorum get the idea that government aid to the poor is wrong? And where do Christians like Santorum—or Michelle Bachman or Rick Perry or Ron Paul—get the notion that each individual must solve his own problems? Christianity is the anti-individualism religion, it is the love your neighbor religion, it is the “bear ye one another’s burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ” religion. The Christians gathered at the Santorum event in Sioux Center ought to have erupted in a chorus of “no’s” when Santorum told young Mr. Walter that each individual is responsible for her own healthcare.
Amen and amen, Dave!
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I'm glad I stumbled on your blog--I found a link to it on Ryan Walter's Facebook page, of all places, because he's a former student of mine at Holland Christian High School and I've been following the fallout since Monday night. I loved his challenging questions--and your thoughts here, too.
Congratulations on your retirement, and Jeri's! Hope all is well with you and yours.
--Tony
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think Santorum is just not that bright. And, like most Americans who put their oar into the dogmatomachy of public opinion, he seems impervious to the idea of questions as a starting point for real, shared inquiry rather than an adversarial courtroom style of debate where rhetoric crowds out true analysis. First thing to do is tar your opponent as a marginal character, an outlier of opinion, a shameful wanderer in a minority of error.
ReplyDeleteOf course that is what the "journalists" were there to do to Santorum too, and it is what most people do when they "share" and discuss the flavor of the minute on Facetwit as mediated by CNN, MSNBC, FOX, and the aptly Swiftian Yahoo News.
It would be interesting to see how someone like Santorum would respond to a student asking why he does not hold a "consistent life ethic," since that describes a popular Catholic perspective on all the issues involving death/killing/human mortality. Since it is more or less endorsed by the church and held by a lot of non-catholics as well, it would be hard for Santorum to pretend it's a marginal opinion. On some campuses it may be, but globally I think it has considerable purchase and is not generally (or easily) maligned due to the very smart and accurate word choice.
On issues like healthcare, I feel it is most productive to discard the religious and philosophical frame entirely (or at last in a direct way) for the purposes of public debate because nothing close to consensus will be found; it just feeds the rancor. Economic approaches and specific real-world scenarios that remind people what mortal bags of protoplasm they are can be far, far more relevant and productive. E.g., point out how it is just too expensive and ultimately does cost hospitals and municipalities a lot to deal with the indigent.
How deserving they are to be scraped off the street and taken to the ER is immaterial. Unless we want bodies left lying about in ways that were considered primitive and illegal in Hammurabi's time by the ancient Babylonians, the public cost cannot be pushed to the poor. I doubt any Christian or Libertarian really wants the burial of the dead to go back to being the sole responsibility of the church. Imagine the church bulletin: "As our incinerator is broken and the necessary funds have not been raised for repairs, please assemble in the crypt after services to help reorganize the skulls. Children can help excavate the boneyard as we remove some of our older saints to the county landfill to make room for newer ones."
Sometimes I think these political debates are dominated by affluent white people whose position in life means they have no idea what life, sickness, and death looks like up close in their cities. As a result they are naively generous or naively stingy and really just arguing over their money.
So, what is the responsibility of the individual? Is there any? Does God require us to give, or mandate that we participate in a government that runs social programs? Does God need our money to take care of the poor, or can loaves be broken to feed thousands? God wants the individuals heart, and the fruit of the Spirit to be shown in them. I would suggest that Santorum boned up on reformed doctrine, and assumed that we would understand the structure of our responsibility. Good job Rick, wish you were the front runner, there would be a yard sign up at my house.
ReplyDeleteP.S. Are you a Democrat or a Republican, if you won't identify with either, would you please state your general political biases to disclose to the reader that you do not represent "main stream" CRC thinking, but a sub-culture of acedemics who would like to improve our views by bringing them in compliance with views that "feel better?"
Thanks, Dave for this thoughtful post--I've posted it to my facebook and it's getting lots of likes, even (especially) from those who don't often find much to like when it comes to Christianity and politics. Happy retirement, but to tell you the truth I'm a little sad you aren't still in the classroom!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteProf Schelhaas: I share Kristin's sadness that Dordt students are no longer afforded your excellent instruction. You seem to be wrestling a straw man here, though. There are very few right-leaning Christians who actually espouse the type of individualism that you are arguing against. In any case, voters, regardless of faith, have made clear their support for a strong social safety net (even ardent tea partiers are adamant about their medicare). There is significantly less support for the wasteful and intrusive bureaucracy that always seems to accompany government provision of that safety net, though. I recall stewardship being a significant theme of my time at Dordt. Can you really argue that our government has proven to be a faithful steward of the resources we have entrusted to it? Are we being proper stewards of our children's future by borrowing 40% of every dollar that our government spends? I don't think so.
ReplyDeleteThe public policy debate is not about whether or not we care for our fellow man through government (we do and will continue to), the argument is about whether or not we will continue to do so in a massively wasteful fashion.
I would echo Ross's comments, and ask the simple question: When the statistics on charitable support for the poor are populated is there a corresponding graph that shows what compulsory support for the poor is exacted by the government at the same time? If people think the job is not theirs, they will abdicate and reduce.
ReplyDeleteSomeone really needs to read David Chilton’s critique of Sider. “Productive Christians In An Age Of Guilt Manipulation A Biblical Response To Ron Sider.” Chilton tears apart biblically every argument attempted by Sider. This entire piece is built upon Sider’s position that it is government and government alone that can solve the problems of society. In fact government through regulation and the almost total elimination of the biblical framework of the free market system has created the problems we have today. The Bible never gives government authority to covet or steal for the sake of “justice”. Neither does the God of the Bible put forth some sort of premise that government is the ultimate avenue to ensure that the poor are fed, that fair wages are paid, or that healthy living is it’s responsibility. Chilton exposes these ideas clearly as anti-biblical and provides biblical remedies to each of the issues mentioned and many more. When someone says that the “reality” is this or that in spite of the clear teaching of scripture, it ought to be taken as legalism and nothing more. Again read Chilton if anyone is really interested in what the Bible truly says, Sider is wrong.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite Reformer, Martin Luther, argued that since the church did such a horrible job of taking care of the poor, the government needed to do it. Unfortunately, then, Luther did away with the scriptural mandate (i.e., clear command)of the church caring for the poor (the principle) to the rationale of having the government do it because at least it would get done (the pragmatics). Luther did what businessmen are typically accused of: supplanting principle with pragmatic reasoning. So much for theologians. This businessman will stick to the Scriptural principle.
ReplyDeleteBut now let’s look at the results of this pragmatic, non-Biblical, approach.
In terms of whether the government is doing enough for the poor or not, the poverty level (see http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml) for a family of 4 is $22,350, whereas federal spending per capita is $16,800 (see http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/09/obama-to-spend-103-trillion-on-welfare-uncovering-the-full-cost-of-means-tested-welfare-or-aid-to-the-poor). Thus, federal spending (on average) for welfare (this does not include non-welfare spending on the poor, such as education subsidies for example) per family of 4 is $67,200, which is numerically sufficient to make sure we no longer have any poor amongst us. I, for one, wish the government spent those averages on my household (I still have 6 children at home with me: that would be quite a sum indeed!).
Some would argue that since we still have the poor, the government needs to spend more money on welfare programs.
Some would argue that since we spend far more on welfare spending than is necessary to lift every poverty level family out of poverty in this country, maybe the issue is that we are spending too much money on welfare programs.
Some would argue that God is not obligated to bless and prosper a non-Biblical approach to the problem of the poor.
Dave: I could never get you to sit and discuss economics with me while you were Dordt. I really did not want to start the process by going through your blog.
But, hey, if it works, why not? :>
I've been pondering the Joseph story. Wasn't that pretty much a (pre)Christian implementing an extremely Keynesian version of economic theory (govt's taxes like crazy during the feast so it can spend like crazy during the famine) full of wealth re-distribution just so he can help a secular government take care of a bunch of reprobate poor people who would one day enslave his own people.
ReplyDeleteThis is just as clear of a Biblical mandate for the secular government taxing the rich and giving to the poor as any other.
I’d like to respond to Gary Vander Plaats’ comment if I may...
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that just because God expects his Church to care for the poor, this doesn’t mean the world’s governments should not also do so. Just because God mandates that his Church do something doesn’t release others from responsibility. Should Hindus and atheists not care for the poor?
I wonder if you would say the same of the Creation Mandate. Should governments neglect the care of creation so that churches (and only churches) can do it? Does your church have a smog committee or a committee to manage the amounts of mercury in the world’s oceans, or topsoil erosion? Is my church doing research into air quality and asbestos removal (to say nothing of global warming)? No.
Is it the Church and only the Church that should cry out against injustice (like poverty and malnutrition)? Is it the Church and only the Church that should be fighting AIDS and starvation in the third world?
Should churches be the institutions that develop life-saving medicines? No. Pharmaceutical companies are uniquely qualified to do that work, do it well, and save lives. Just as, I would suggest, governments are qualified to address financial injustice and help mitigate the costs of health insurance for the poor.
Do you believe we Christians are honestly ready to take on the full and entire responsibility of caring for the poor and the homeless and the sick? Can we do it? Is it entirely up to us? Can God not use governments to do his will?
After all, isn’t it the goal of many Christian Republicans to get a Christian President elected so he can do Christian things? Who gets to decide which Christian things he does, or how he allocates our tax money? Would a Conservative Republican suggest that her government no longer weigh in on the issue of abortion or stem cell research?
Finally, I agree that pragmatism should not trump principle. But a bulk of your posted comment, and others here, is that the government just isn’t doing a very good job with our money. And that may be the case. But then isn’t that an argument from pragmatism?