So Roger, you're on the "Left". Let me guess, you're a dyed-in-the-wool raving liberal '60s hippie?
I consider myself a member of The Christian Left (both generally, and with this organization) too, and while of course there's always a lot more complexity and nuance on both ends of the spectrum than labels like "right" or "left" might paint it, there are clear distinctions too.

I know of plenty of sincere Christians, including some ministers, who align very strongly with the values of love, compassion, and mercy that The Christian Left champions — and in the case of the ministers I'm thinking of, who have also taken a vocal stand against the "religious Right" — yet who also may either draw the line at some other social issues (abortion and same-sex relationships seem to be the Big Two bogeymen, usually), or maybe have a different approach to some things (say, healthcare) than others do on the political "Left". And they might also be uncomfortable with identifying themselves with the term "Christian Left". (Part of that also stems from the social and political baggage, as some see it anyway, that comes with the catchall term "left", which I trust open dialogue will clear up in time.)

And of course, there are those on the "Right" too, who don't march in quite the lockstep on every issue that a lot of public voices might give the impression they do. I grew up religiously and politically conservative — though, this was in the 1960s and '70s, before "the Right" began its headlong lunge toward ever-further-right polarization and hardcore ideology — and it was exactly over the Right's growing "hardcore-ism" in the 1980s (both politically and religiously) that I began standing more and more at arms' length from what called itself "conservative", and not keeping in step with them.

Eventually (in the early '90s), I found myself at a wonderful church, whose pastor was one of those I mentioned earlier, who took an outspoken stance against the religious Right (which was his background, as well — and he's the son of a prominent pastor who heads a large, conservative denomination), although at the same time he was one of those who wouldn't consider himself on the "Left". He just didn't see that the Christian "Right" was actually following Jesus, whom they said they wanted to follow — not when you compare their acts, words, and attitudes to his, anyway.

Yeah, all that's interesting, but The Christian Left takes on a bunch of political issues, like public healthcare, that the Bible never talks about, right?
Finally, the protracted national debate over healthcare a few years ago shocked me as I listened to the ever-more-openly callous position that both the political and religious Right dug into, and it forced me back to review the abundant biblical passages (I've been a 35-year Bible student, and went through an excellent, conservative graduate theology school) concerning care for the poor, ill, or oppressed.

To my real dismay, I found that for decades I had practiced denial ignoring the very obvious stance of the Bible: that it IS very much part of government's responsibilities to care for the poor and needy (as it is also everyone's responsibility to help, of course); I had simply always believed what I'd been told in my youth, that "the Bible's commands to help the poor are directed at individuals or the church, not at the government" (and, trusting those who taught me that, I never questioned it). Jeremiah 22 and the first half of Proverbs 31 are but two of very many passages that bluntly state government's responsibility to help the poor.

The answer was so clear as to make me ashamed that I'd denied it for so long: it is absolutely part of government's direct job to care for the poor (including, in this case, those who can't afford healthcare for themselves or their families), for the direct reason that the Golden Rule is a responsibility for all people to practice toward all others, and of course every act or policy of government is not only enacted by people, but has real effects on the real lives of other real people.

That, if anyone asks, is the central reason that governments are NOT exempt from responsibility to practice the Golden Rule ("In everything, do for others what you would want them to do for you", Mt 7.12 and Lk 6.31). Government "of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE [and an observer who heard Lincoln give the Gettysburg Address noted that he emphasized the word "people" all three times]" — remember that? There's no abstraction in government: whatever government does has direct impact, sooner or later, on people, an impact that people in government are accountable to take thought for, "in everything".

That sounds very ethical and idealistic, and all. But what about being "fiscally responsible"?
"Fiscal responsibility" or "accountability"? Fine; as long as consideration for the direct and immediate impact on people is put first. Will a "fiscal accountability" measure first have a direct impact of threatening more people's livelihoods, homes, ability to feed their families, to afford healthcare, to keep from getting ill or dying sooner? Then that gets taken care of first — that's where "responsibility" should show up first, as care for people. The nation is "we the people", not "we the financial bottom line" (which is what emphasis on putting "fiscal accountability" first ends up making it into).

Long-term impact is vital too, of course; but trumpeting a policy's alleged long-term impact, when the immediate impact is real hardship and agony for people, ends up valuing natural selection (as even some conservative voices are now saying openly: "These are tough choices, and some will suffer, but ...") over genuine care for people. "We the people", by the way, implies a concern for one another, to stand together as one, not an Ayn Randian, pseudo-Darwinian national policy of "survival of the fittest".

Care for the poor, the sick, the needy? Yes: that's a responsibility for people in government to extend to ALL the people in the nation they serve. There's no excuse to skirt around that.

But, that means taxes! I don't want the government taking my money ...
And since, in a free country, We the People ARE the government, and our taxes are our contributions to a pool of funds to be used for the common good (contrary to a lot of conservative objections, taxes are not "the government taking" anything, which is the most common right-wing canard to dodge that) — then for example when it comes to an issue like healthcare, the only clear solution is for our (democratically agreed-on) taxes to support a program of national healthcare, the public healthcare that other developed and prosperous nations provide to all their citizens (and, of course, to add or expand other social safety nets besides healthcare). I appreciate the view of my friends in Canada, who are (rightly) appalled at the callous selfishness they see in America, and whose typical view on healthcare is, "We see our taxes as our gift to one another, to help one another out." That, if you ask me, sounds a lot more like what a "Christian nation" would be (since there are a lot of people on the Right who insist that's what America is or is supposed to be). "Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fufill the law of Christ [his command, "Love one another, just as I have loved you", Jn 13.34]" (Gal 6.2).

So have I gone through my own evolution to become part of The Christian Left? You bet I have. Now I'm joining with thousands of others (as of this writing, The Christian Left on Facebook counts more than 26,000 members) to call the Christian Right, Middle, or Anywhere Else, to just do what they say they want to do: follow Jesus.

Love one another. The Golden Rule. Carry each other's burdens. The "least of these".
Oh yes, and speaking of his views on the poor and needy, those who say they want to follow him might keep this in mind: "'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty, or a stranger, or needing clothes, or sick, or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me'" (Mt 25.44-45).

People matter. Our care for them, for the "least", for those who cannot provide for themselves, matters. If we want to live in a society where we believe "We the People" are what comes first — and if those who say they want to follow Jesus care about actually having the same care for others that he does (let's hope they do) — then the values of The Christian Left (which, we are glad and privileged to find, are also held by very many of our friends there who are NOT Christian, or not religious at all!) are values that our whole society should be sharing.

"We the People": the Golden Rule, not survival of the fittest.

Article by featured blogger Roger Smith, who also blogs at Roger's Shrubbery

I continue to be beyond frustrated with the “leadership” in Congress.  Ultimately, the failure to do anything but help the rich and pat the poor on the head with programs designed to appease them much more than to provide any meaningful assistance, can be blamed on both sides.  The Democrats can be blamed for sometimes being complicit in the actions and other times simply not having enough political backbone to stand up the the Republicans.  The Republicans can be blamed for consistently favoring their rich benefactors over the majority of their supporters and constituents who fall into the working class which continues to become (thanks in part to Congress) a poorer and poorer class.

You have to admire the Republicans (in a perverse “hate what you do but admire how well you do it” sort of way) for how consistently they have pulled off their game.  They are running both the short and the long con.  For decades now, they have been working diligently to wedge the classes further apart.  At first I thought they we doing it by decreasing the size of the middle class, increasing the size of the lower class and strengthening both the resolve and power of the upper class via  rules and regulations (or lack thereof) designed to achieve said results.

More recently, I've begun to think I completely missed the boat.  While it is true that in the US the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, the most important statistic is that the gap between the top 1%, in terms of wealth, and the rest of us is as bad as it is has been in 90 years.  The top 1% of the US have almost 39% of the wealth in the US.  And a full 50% of our population own only 2.5% of the over all wealth.  (All data above and below is from The Institute on Policy Study).

Change the measurement to stocks, bonds and mutual funds and that percent shifts to a whopping 51% of the wealth being owned by the top 1%.  Expand that 1% to the top 10% and 90% (no, that is no a typo) of what I'll call the “Wall Street Wealth” is owned by them.  Anyone still wondering why there was a Wall Street bailout and not a Main Street bailout?

It's not that the Republicans are trying to decrease the size of the middle class.  They are trying to widen the gap between the wealthy and the middle class effectively reducing the middle class to a working class poor by comparison to the wealthy.  I might add that they are rather successfully doing so. 

While the top 1% have seen their share of capital income increase by nearly 20% over the last twenty years, the bottom 80% have seen theirs fall by almost 15%.  CEO's income has risen 300% in that time.  Corporate profits have increased by 106%... and worker's pay has increased a measly 4.3%.  You have to hand it to the Republicans – they are good at this.

What is surprising is how well they play the working middle class.  A surprisingly high number of that group of people are some of the stanchest supporters of Republicans.  The Republicans are playing a long con here, making promises and appearing one way while working as hard as they know how to achieve results that rip off their strongest supporters.  All the while, their actions tell the tale saying to those not in the top 10%, “get your own.”

Recent battles on the hill should be more than enough to pull the curtain back to reveal congressional Republican's real motivation, as they work hard to stop Obamacare, stop extending unemployment checks and, at the same time, extend tax cuts to the wealthiest 1%.  While they do, they wrap themselves in the flag, shout things like “down with socialism” and “no taxes,”  in an attempt to endear themselves to middle class America.  All the while, they are working to install a plutocracy operating under the false front of a democracy in America... and they are doing it in God's name.

And that's where we should ultimately see thorough their ruse most clearly.  Adopting Christian precepts to support stepping on the least of these, to intentionally marginalize part of a society, to relegate a particular segment of a population to a place where they struggle to maintain good health, shelter and food while a small percentage of the elite dine of the backs of the least of these... well, that should be a con that just won't sell.

My question is, when is the Church going to do something about it?  My question is, when are you, when am I, when are we going to do something about it?  We have the numbers, just not the money.  We still live in a democracy (for now).  When are we going to do something about it?


(Post submitted by Featured Blogger, Rev. Mark Sandlin who also blogs at The God Article).