Rachel Held Evans, who spent a long time posing as an evangelical Christian working from within to sow distrust and discord among Christians before giving up the charade and joining the Episcopal Church, raises a funny point:
@EWErickson You want "Christian values" reflected in the gov. when it comes to sexuality but not when it comes to poverty?
— Rachel Held Evans (@rachelheldevans) March 17, 2017
The reverse here is that Rachel Held Evans does not want Christian values reflected in government when it comes to sexuality. She’s in favor of same-sex marriage and has to creatively interpret the Bible to support her position. Likewise, she thinks Christian bakers can be compelled by government to bake cakes for same-sex weddings.
Her presumption is a fantastic fallacy of the left. If we do not support particular government programs we are somehow not Christian. Government programs become idols we cannot mess with, fix, or abolish because if we do so we are not helping the poor.
This argument is not only disingenuous, but shows a profound misunderstanding of conservatives’ views on government. As my friend Dan Darling noted, the left thinks the Bible is super vague on sexual ethics and highly specific on the government’s exact role in healthcare policy. Let’s add aid of the poor to that as well.
In fact, it is not a Christian value to saddle our children with $20 trillion in debt they will have to pay off.
It is also not a Christian value to create dependence on government programs.
It is also not a Christian value to substitute government for private charity and church help.
It is also not a Christian value to offload our responsibilities to a federal agency.
It is, again, worth reminding people that conservatives give more to non-profits than liberals, who instead would rather raise everyone’s taxes and saddle our children with mountains of debt to absolve them of their personal responsibility to take care of the poor and need.
I want a government social safety net because I am a Christian and American who believes there are those physically or mentally incapable of taking care of themselves. Because all life is precious, we have a responsibility to take care of them.
But I also do not want an expansive safety net. We will always have the poor, as Jesus himself noted. But the left thinks we will have the exact same people poor where I support government programs that elevate the existing poor out of poverty, while mindful there will always be other poor people to help.
The idea that government, however, needs a Meals on Wheels program funded by taxpayers instead of successful authors like Rachel Held Evans forking over her own money to help fund Meals on Wheels is a cop out hiding behind faith.
The good Samaritan did not offload the man in the ditch to a government shelter. He took care of him with his own money.
Making the government fund that program may absolve liberals like Evans of having to lift a finger, but it saddles her children and mine with an ever growing mountain of debt.
I think it is far more Christian to take care of my children and the poor than have the former burdened with debt and the latter placed in a situation of dependency on Uncle Sam’s teet.
The left is loving Jesus today. But they’d still trade him for Barabbas.