Is the Tea Party a Christian Movement?
Timothy Dalrymple, in his second article of a series on the Tea party, asks this question. (His first was; is it a social justice movement? More are coming.) He asks this particular question because of a similar question asked by Jim Wallis, he of Sojourners and the Christian Left.
Dalrymple notes that, for starters, that for a guy who doesn’t like to be caricatured (and who does?), Wallis certainly uses it to make his points. Some excerpts from Dalrymple:
The first sleight of hand comes in the phase, "Tea Party Libertarianism." Wallis poses the question: "Just how Christian is the Tea Party movement — and the Libertarian political philosophy that lies behind it?" Yet not all Tea Party supporters are Libertarians, and Wallis twists the Libertarian "political philosophy" beyond recognition.
[…]
How, then, does Reverend Wallis describe the "political philosophy" of the Tea Party? Wallis likens the Tea Partiers to the murderous Cain, who believed or pretended to believe that he was not his brother’s keeper.
[…]
Finally (I will deal with the racism charge in the third part of this series), Wallis condemns the Tea Party’s "preference for the strong over the weak" through its "supreme confidence in the market" — indeed, in a "sinless market" that has no need for oversight or regulation. The values of the Tea Party do not honor "God’s priorities" but "the priorities of the Chamber of Commerce."
These are powerful claims. They are also patently absurd. Only those who are already conditioned to expect the worst of political conservatives can believe that this represents a fair and honest account of the beliefs and values of the Tea Party movement. Would any Tea Partier — any single one, out of the millions across America who support or participate in the movement — actually accept this definition? It is an astonishing distortion of the Tea Party message to reduce it to "just leave me alone and don’t spend my money."
Rather than painting the movement with the brush of Rand Paul, Reverend Wallis might have consulted the polling data that shows what the majority of Tea Party supporters believe. He would have found a reality that defies the caricature.
Dalrymple proceeds to deal with these caricatures one by one, showing that Wallis either has no idea what the Tea Partiers really stand for, or who they really are. Dalrymple does a good job of being moderate in his pronouncements, noting, in many places, that neither side, Wallis nor the Tea Partiers, inhabit the extreme positions they each are often accused of, and does a great job of explaining what’s really going on in conservatives’ heads. Example:
What also needs to be refuted is the notion that resistance to higher levels of taxation is necessarily selfish. To resent a tax hike (or the prospect of one) is not to neglect the needy, and to wish to retain control over the funds one has secured in order to care for one’s family is not necessarily selfish. Conservatives generally are more generous with their giving than liberals, yet they resent it when a distant bureaucracy extracts their money in order to distribute public funds to the special interest groups on whose votes and donations they rely. Conservatives would prefer that care for the needy remain as local and personal as possible. Jobless Joe is more accountable to use the money he is given wisely, and to strive to become self-sufficient as swiftly as possible, when he receives that money from the members of the church down the street. This is not to deny that government services are needed, but it is to refute the notion that "taxed enough already" is a slogan of economic narcissism.
So, is this a Christian movement? Dalrymple’s answer is a solid "yes and no". I’ll let you read the whole thing to get his complete take on it, but answering this provided another point of moderation between the two sides.
In the New York Times poll, 39% of Tea Party supporters identified themselves as evangelicals or "born again," and 83% identify as Protestant or Catholic. If Wallis were correct in his description of the philosophy that undergirds their movement, then these conservative Christians would be abandoning the essential ethical principles of their faith. Yet this is hardly the case. What separates Jim Wallis from the Tea Partiers is not a difference of moral quality, or the presence and absence of compassion, but a different vision of the society that biblical love and justice require.
This is a much more sober description of the differences that in Wallis’ article. In it, he labels some of the (supposed, caricatures) values of the Tea Party as "decidedly un-Christian", while at the same time saying he wants to "have the dialog". In reality, he’s made up his mind already. Dalrymple, arguing from the Right, gives both sides a benefit of the doubt that Wallis doesn’t seem to be willing to do.
Filed under: Christianity • Conservative • Doug • Government • Religion
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
You gotta love all the conservatives in Kentucky who voted for Rand Paul and brought him to national exposure, priceless. Let’s face it they will try to vote this liar in but we can only wait and see if there is other skeletons in his closet, oh yeah he is not a racist, I repeat, he is not a racist. Great thing is we are talking about Kentucky, so being a racist maybe a positive, we will see. Yee Haw!
Wallis in his own words (as opposed to having his thoughts paraphrased), on his thoughts why Libertarianism falls short of Christian ideals:
1. The Libertarian enshrinement of individual choice is not the pre-eminent Christian virtue. Emphasizing individual rights at the expense of others violates the common good, a central Christian teaching and tradition.
2. An anti-government ideology just isn’t biblical.
3. The Libertarians’ supreme confidence in the market is not consistent with a biblical view of human nature and sin. The exclusive focus on government as the central problem ignores the problems of other social sectors, and in particular, the market.
4. The Libertarian preference for the strong over the weak is decidedly un-Christian. “Leave me alone to make my own choices and spend my own money” is a political philosophy that puts those who need help at a real disadvantage.
5. Finally, I am just going to say it. There is something wrong with a political movement like the Tea Party which is almost all white.
=====
Those are his key points – points which for the most part, I find valid concerns. I think his point 4 is the most problematic, in that Wallis overlooks the notion that Libertarian types are often fine with assisting the poor and weak with personal dollars, just not gov’t dollars.
Other than that, I think his other four points are reasonable concerns with libertarianism. Perhaps he’s a bit heavy-handed in his evaluation of Libertarians, but it seems to be close enough to start a conversation. I’m sure Libertarians are welcome to tweak his assessment of them.
As to your writer’s suggestion that “Yet not all Tea Party supporters are Libertarians,” do you think that is a valid summary? Sure, not all Tea Partiers are libertarian, but the tone of the Tea Party movement seems to be exactly a libertarian tone, don’t you think?
I believe one of Wallis’ central claims is that the Tea Party – like any political movement – is not a Christian movement. There may well be Christians taking part in it (as they do in the GOP or with the Democrats), but it is not a Christian entity/collective in and of itself.
That would seem to be a hard thing to dispute reasonably.
I would like to know who of prominence in the Tea Party has made the claim that it is a Christian movement/entity/collective. Frankly, I don’t think anyone or any group is trying to make that point, so this is a straw man. Someone saying that “Christians ought to support the Tea Party” is more akin to “Christians ought to vote Republican/Democrat”; a statement of opinion rather than the group’s supposed underlying philosophy.
The thing is, it is Wallis who proclaims the Tea Party “libertarian”, so that’s another straw man. I find libertarianism myself too much of an anti-state philosophy, but I think Dalrymple’s description is more in line with the stated goals; a proper balance of individualism and government that is currently far outbalanced on the government side of the scale.
Which is why I can see someone thinking it is, in fact, libertarian. Trying to wrest control back from a government spending us into debt territory previously unthinkable makes it look libertarian, but the government is so far to the Left currently that simple conservatism looks libertarian in comparison.
As to the points:
1. “The Libertarian enshrinement of individual choice is not the pre-eminent Christian virtue.” Agreed, but neither is tyranny. (I can use just as extreme language as well.) However, personal choice is, in the mind of Christian conservatives, a much better way to implement Christian virtue and keep the individual involved in it, rather than a mindless bureaucracy.
2. “An anti-government ideology just isn’t biblical.” Sooo, protesting the government’s involvement in a war isn’t biblical either, Mr. Wallis? Ah, that’s biblical, but protesting the government for taxing us too much isn’t. Gotcha.
3. “The Libertarians’ supreme confidence in the market is not consistent with a biblical view of human nature and sin.” The Christian conservative’s view of human nature and sin informs their idea of how the market should be regulated, but does have more trust in market factors than more and more central planning. (See also: USSR)
4. “‘Leave me alone to make my own choices and spend my own money’ is a political philosophy that puts those who need help at a real disadvantage.” As you have already noted, Christians (and Christians of any political bent) tend to give more charitably. But Wallis wants government to decide what you should give to charity.
5. “There is something wrong with a political movement like the Tea Party which is almost all white.” It’s only “almost all white” in the sense that the entire country is “almost all white”. A Gallup poll notes that, while most Tea Partiers are Republican, “In several other respects, however — their age, educational background, employment status, and race — Tea Partiers are quite representative of the public at large.” (And another straw man is dealt with.)
While it’s not a “Christian movement” per se (and it is a political movement specifically), it seems to me that Wallis wants to paint the Tea Partiers as decidedly non-Christian so as to dismiss the thought that they might have an alternative method to deal with the problem of the poor from him. That he uses these caricatures (and, in some cases I’d say, outright deception) to try to make his point doesn’t say much for his point.
Doug…
2. “An anti-government ideology just isn’t biblical.” Sooo, protesting the government’s involvement in a war isn’t biblical either, Mr. Wallis? Ah, that’s biblical, but protesting the government for taxing us too much isn’t. Gotcha.
To be fair, protesting a war is protesting a specific action (or set of actions) of a gov’t. It’s not being “anti-gov’t.” It’s protesting a bad policy, not gov’t. Right?
Many Libertarians come across as anti-gov’t. Period. Almost but not quite anarchists. This is how the Tea Party group sometimes come across. At least to many of us out here.
[3.] The Christian conservative’s view of human nature and sin informs their idea of how the market should be regulated, but does have more trust in market factors than more and more central planning.
Yes, that would be a difference between we and they. I think BOTH gov’t planning and “market factors” are ripe for abuse and BOTH can be used for good. I don’t see either being more corrupt than the other and, if either, I’m slightly less inclined to trust a corporation than gov’t, simply because a corporation is starting with the proposition that it’s in it for its own good and wealth, whereas at least with gov’t, the assumption is that its employees are public servants.
[4.] But Wallis wants government to decide what you should give to charity.
I’d say that is a caricature of Wallis’ position, not an actual representation.
As to the fifth point, are you suggesting that Tea Partiers are representative of the racial diversity in our nation? Anecdotally, I can tell you that, while Louisville has a black population of about 33%, the crowd at the last Tea Party rally had one black person that I could see (and he may have been a reporter), or a representation of probably less than 1%.
Or, even if you assume that the Louisville Tea Party was populated with people from all over the state, we STILL have a much higher black population than 1%.
I think this is a problem that ought to concern both the Tea Party movement and the GOP: When your membership is composed significantly disproportionately of one race, THAT should scare the hell out of you.
Two mens’ opinions.