Erick Erickson’s perversion of Obama’s National Prayer Breakfast Remarks
In a rambling post including swipes at Jim Wallis, Barry Lynn, the Social Gospel, the liberal media and Jeremiah Wright, Erick Erickson accused President Obama of “perverting the words of Christ to pursue his tax plan” at the National Prayer Breakfast last week. Here are the President’s remarks that so offended Erickson:
And when I talk about shared responsibility, it’s because I genuinely believe that in a time when many folks are struggling, at a time when we have enormous deficits, it’s hard for me to ask seniors on a fixed income, or young people with student loans, or middle-class families who can barely pay the bills to shoulder the burden alone. And I think to myself, if I’m willing to give something up as somebody who’s been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that’s going to make economic sense.
But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.”
Erickson claims that the President’s allusion to this passage (Luke 12:48) distorts its meaning. Here’s the heart of his complaint:
Christ was not talking about money. The President, in making the case for his tax plan using that passage of scripture, perverts Christ’s meaning. Christ was talking explicitly about the blessings flowing from God to the apostles and us through the Word and the need to proclaim Christ as the Living God.
I’ll leave aside the fact that Erickson fails to explain why Christ would deem it a “perversion” to draw lessons about material stewardship from a parable about spiritual stewardship. It’s not exactly a leap – the parable of the rich fool is in the same chapter of Luke. And rather than proclaiming that the parable definitively means Jesus would support his tax plan, President Obama is simply applying its lesson to his own beliefs on the matter.
What struck me most was Erickson’s self-contradiction. By the standard he lays out, the lessons of Scripture are relevant strictly within the literal confines of their immediate context. Applying a passage’s lesson to other contexts and situations “perverts” it. However, Erickson commits this very act elsewhere in his post by invoking God’s command that Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28) as a justification for opposing contraception.
He thus contends it’s perfectly legitimate to argue that God’s specific command for the first humans to populate an empty world should dictate that millennia later, in a world that is thoroughly populated, women should not use specific methods to control the timing and number of their pregnancies. If it’s permissible for Erickson to apply the lessons of Genesis to 21st-century medicine, why is it impermissible for the President to apply a parable about spiritual stewardship to his personal beliefs about material stewardship? Erickson’s trying to have it both ways — extrapolation by me, but not by thee.
Furthermore, Erickson would do well to dial down the self-righteous lectures. A Christian who finds the electrocution of his fellow children of God spectacularly entertaining ought to reexamine his own understanding of the faith before accusing others of “perverting” it.
I sympathize with Erickson a little bit. I too take umbrage when I believe leaders inappropriately use Scripture to advance their political beliefs. But that doesn’t make it right for Erickson to subject a fellow Christian to half-baked accusations of “perversion” and hypocritical condemnations.
Also: what Tim King said.
Good Heavens, Erick! You well know that Jesus speaks much more about money than he does about heaven! – and if you are counting all those references to “the Kingdom of Heaven” in Matthew’s Gospel, remember Jesus is using the that term as the polite form of God’s reign on this earth here and now! Jesus is clearly talking about money and economic justice – when he speaks of God’s reign in this world and when he talks about those to whom much has been given! The facts are these – that the rich of Jesus’ day lived in Jerusalem – their life expectancy was about 70 years. They were the folks – in cahoots with Rome and Herod in order to maintain their own lifestyles. They were those who owned the farms where the folks of Jesus’ class worked – those tenant farmers and day laborers he mentions. They had once owned the farms, taken for taxes and sold to the wealthy. The average life span of a farmer in Nazareth was 30 years compared to the Jerusalem 70 years! You bet Jesus was interested in economic justice, as were all the prophets! That day’s injustice was killing his friends and family – like it’s killing the poor working class in America. The text President Obama referred to is the basis for the understanding of the church throughout the centuries and following the teachings of Jesus and the prophets – “Noblesse oblige”. To those whom much has been given, much is expected- and that was his message to the rich man in the same chapter. He didn’t call the man “bad”. He did call him a “fool,” for not recognizing that your plenty is to be shared not hoarded – and that the person who doesn’t share -has much less of a soul when the soul is required of you! Luke’s Gospel is consistent! – The religious right wants to make the Kingdom of God Gospel preached by Jesus to be about pie in the sky for the few, when they die. Instead the Kingdom of God Jesus was preaching and living was a life contrary and alternative to the upper middle class and wealthy Herodians – and Saducean collaborators with Rome- who by the way – would fit the economic and political profile of the Tea Party in today’s American political scene! The saddest thing about the “religious right” is that it ever thumps the Bible, while missing its meaning -because it never bothers to learn the context of the authors’ messages.
I disagree with Erickson’s view that Obama has perverted Christ’s meaning of the verse “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.” I believe that President Obama was accurate in his interpretation of the meaning behind the passage (Luke 12:48). Throughout the bible Prophets challenge the idea of social and economic injustice that is taking place in Israel. This leads me to believe that the same is occurring here in Jesus’s teaching that “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.” Amos is a prime example of a prophet who challenges the social and economic injustices that are taking place in Israel. Amos says, “Therefore because you trample on the poor and take from them levies of grain, you have built houses of hewn stone, but you shall not live in them; you have planted pleasant vineyards, but you shall not drink there wine” (Amos 5:11) and then goes on to say “For I know how many are your transgressions, and how great are your sins-you who afflict the righteous, who take a bribe, and push aside the needy in the gate” (Amos 5:12). Both of these passages are examples that are used in the bible to address the social and economic injustices that are taking place in Israel. Amos speaks the word of God, which calls attention to the corruption that is taking place in Israel, where the rich have all the power and manipulate, abuse, and use the poor for their personal gain. This is just one example of numerous, gives President Obama the right to use the passage (Luke 12:48) the way he interpreted it in his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast, which addressed the tax situation in the United States and his view on what he believes it should be.