Often while I was a student at Moody Bible Institute, I would hear a particular argument made during discussions about politics.
More likely than not, during those days, these discussions focused on what a Christian response to the Iraq War should be or how Christians should address the issue of poverty.
During discussions on the issue of poverty I would hear two arguments. First, someone would ask, as a conclusion, “Isn’t that the Social Gospel?” No doubt in their minds simply asking this question had placed me in political-theological checkmate.
No. Believing that part of a Christian definition of “the good” is fighting to alleviate poverty, is not the Social Gospel. The Social Gospel was a specific argument that occurred in the 19th & 20th Centuries, which was naturalistic & humanistic. It was a reduction of the gospel to social action. It was also wrong--being inaccurate theology.
A second issue that would arise during these debates was that of eschatology. I would hear something like, “Poverty is terrible, but it will only be eliminated during the Kingdom of God.”
To me this is the worst cop-out. It is used as an excuse to adhere to economic, libertarian theories of laissez-faire economics that contradict how Christians should treat the poor.
This argument takes a theological truth, i.e., poverty won’t be entirely eradicated until the Kingdom of God, and distorts it in order to avoid the direct commands of our Lord to work towards relieving the suffering of the poor. It is convenient & superficial exegesis.
Let me draw an analogy. I could say the same thing to fellow Christians who have visceral reactions to states allowing gay marriage. I could argue that there won’t be a government based on God’s law until the Kingdom of God. Thus, we should not worry about what laws are instituted at this time. I would make this argument by arguing from a civil, libertarian theory of egalitarianism.
In both instances, the good which is being denied is being done on the basis that perfection of that good is not for this time. This is a classic error of making the perfect a reason to reject the good. both seek a good: allowing humans to live in dignity as image bearers or having positive law aligned to the natural law.
Christians fight vigorously to protect the poor. Their voting habits should reflect this priority. There needs to be a complete rejection of supply side economics & a rejection of any policy that breaks the backs of the lowest earners in our society. I support capitalism, but only if there is a safety net. This is necessary, because in a system based on competition for resources there are winners & losers. The losers are still human. Some efficiency should be sacrificed to care for those who struggle to compete.
There is no excuse for ignoring the mandate found in scripture, none except a conscience that is seared by worldly distrust in altruism. And such is inexcusable.
