Commendable in an Age of Short Cuts: Kings, Presidents and Prophets

Politics And The Poor

The Presidential campaign has reached a fever-pitch. Exaggeration, half-truths and lies abound as each party scratches and claws toward election day in hopes of victory. It seems that truth in political campaigns, as in war, is the first casualty. Nevertheless, those who choose to vote, and do so responsibly, seek some measure by which to evaluate candidates.

I’m not going to attempt to separate the “wheat” from the “chaff” in the current crop of partisan wrangling. It should be no surprise that as a minister I’m more inclined to urge Christians to consider some of the things the scriptures have to say about the desirable characteristics and priorities to be sought in public leaders. While Presidents, Senators and members of Congress were missing from the scene in biblical times, some important lessons can be learned from what the scriptures say about kings.

By and large, kings did not get high marks by biblical writers. However, there are exceptions. Among the few kings regarded as good was Josiah. The prophet Jeremiah said of him, “He defended the cause of the poor and the needy and so all went well” (Jeremiah 22:16). Notice how the positive state of the nation is directly linked to the support this head of state gave the least advantaged. But what is said next in this verse is even more striking: “Is that not what it means to know the Lord?”

Defending the cause of the needy is virtually equated with having a genuine relationship with God. If a leader truly knows the Lord, that leader will act on behalf of the poor and by acting on behalf of the poor he or she will display the nature of his or her relationship with God. The use of God-words in speeches or the display of religious symbols in public buildings or the performance of religious rituals do not have priority over defending “the cause of the poor and needy.”

This commendation of King Josiah is in keeping with the leadership values affirmed elsewhere in scripture. Psalms 72 is a prayer that points to the qualities that make a leader praise-worthy. We should note both what is included and what is excluded in the text. The prayer asks God to lead the king in ways that will result in “prosperity for the people” (vs. 3) and abundance in food so the people may be satisfied (vs.16). Further, the prayer asks, “In his days may righteousness flourish and peace abound” (vs.7).

The national leader is to “judge your people with righteousness.” But observe that a particular class of people is given special attention: “and your poor with justice” (vs. 2). These words are directly linked to the prayer for prosperity. In this same vein, the prayer continues, “May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor” (vs. 4). There is no suggestion that the righteous leader should give similar attention to the interests of the strong or wealthy, thought the leader must be fair to all. Apparently the emphasis on being especially attentive to the needs of the poor is because leaders have a tendency to cater to the rich. This is certainly what we find in many contemporary American political leaders. There is no shortage of leaders and want-to-be leaders who are intent on defending the cause of the rich without regard to how the consequences crush the poor

The fact is that as political candidates seek public office sometimes they mask their real commitments. They may claim to care for the less advantaged while supporting policies that would leave the weak and poor even more vulnerable. It counts for nothing good if a politician says, “The truest measure of any society is how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves” and then advances measures that will do the opposite. We need to beware of leaders and aspiring leaders who pursue courses of action that will most immediately benefit the wealthy, while insisting that others will have to “sacrifice” in the short run, trusting that “somewhere over the rainbow/ skies are blue/ and the dream that you dare to dream/ really does come true.”

The Psalmist can’t seem to emphasize enough the importance of the leader’s attention to those who are less advantaged: “For he delivers the needy when they call, the poor and those who have no helper. He has pity on the weak and the needy, and saves the lives of the needy. From oppression and violence he redeems their life; and precious is their blood in his sight” (vs.12-14). The commendable King/leader enforces the laws that protect the poor and weak from the rich and strong, granting the poor, not just voluntary charity, but their rights. There is no way to govern “righteously” that neglects this focus.

Unfortunately, many who insist that more “godly leaders” are needed don’t have in mind leaders with the qualities extolled in scripture. Where do we find leaders who will govern with an emphasis on caring for the least advantaged, as scripture commends? Do we have any in either major party? They seem to be rare. Poverty has not been a serious topic during this campaign. Christians need to look carefully and prayerfully to find leaders whose influence will be “good news to the poor” (Isaiah 61:1).

—-
Craig M. Watts is the minister of Royal Palm Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Coral Springs, Florida and Co-Moderator of Disciples Peace Fellowship. He authored the book Disciple of Peace: Alexander Campbell on Pacifism, Violence and the State (Doulos Christou Press: Indianapolis, 2005) and his essays have appeared in many journals such as Cross Currents, Encounter, the Otherside, DisciplesWorld and more. Craig blogs on the Disciples Peace Fellowship’s, “Shalom Vision.”

Sponsor a Child in Jesus Name with Compassion

Print Friendly

  • James Edwards

    Big question… is the government responsible to create “programs” to care for the needy, or is it the personal responsibility of God’s people? Is it good stewardship to spend tax money to fund wasteful government programs that do such an ineffective job?

    • Benjamin

      Seems the guy who wrote the above article already answered that question here: http://www.redletterchristians.org/fradulent-freedom-and-the-needs-of-the-poor/ And the claim that government programs are wasteful and ineffective is a dogma of the political right, not a statement of fact. If fact government programs sometimes have much less waste than private companies. Compare administrative costs in private health insurance companies to those in Medicare/Medicaid.

      • Frank

        In 2010, improper payments in federal programs totaled $125 billion. That’s a lot of waste!

        • Benjamin

          ALL big organization have waste. Repeating the dogma of the political right while failing to distinguish one program from another or apart from meaningful comparisons with huge multifaceted private organizations is just propaganda. The largest amount of waste that was found back in the 80s when Reagan established his “blue ribbon” group was not in social programs but in the defense budget. Not what he wanted to find out.

          • Frank

            I am repeating facts not dogma or propaganda from any political group.

            Defense is another story.

            No more money for the government to waste!

          • Benjamin

            Since it seems we are looking to healthcare to identify waste, the U.S. private healthcare system is a horrid failure in relation to government systems. Again, the study you reference is not a comparative one. But all the problems it names can be found in private healthcare companies. Gov’t waste can sometimes be attributed to the understaffing caused by conservative politicians. The very ones complaining about inefficiency cause it by undercutting the ability of the gov’t to do the job that needs to be done. I found this article of interest:
            http://nontrivialpursuits.org/bureaucratic_waste.htm

            After comparing the U.S. private approach to the much cheaper and more effective British system, he writes,”Opponents of Socialized Medicine are flat out wrong when they suggest that a Private Sector Health Care Industry is needed in order to control health care costs. This is essentially because (A) cost-controlling price competition does not exist in America’s private health care industry for clearly identifiable reasons (private insurance, patents, & restricted entry into the “doctor’s guild”), and (B) the private sector alternative is not desirable because it puts constant pressure on providers to compromise the quality of health care in the name of efficiency and cost control (see Managed Care in America).

            “Ultimately, the opponents of Big Government do not really care about the poor quality-of-product generated by government programs they have underfunded. In fact, they like it that way because poor-quality government services are cheaper, and that means thatthey pay less in taxes to the government. Then, after they’ve succeeded in degrading the quality of government-provided services, they have the political opportunity to say, “Look! I told you that the government always provides lousy service compared to the private sector!” Blaming government institutionalism for the poor results that they are responsible for, themselves, is a favorite political stratagem of anti-government zealots.”

          • Frank

            When YOU are ready to discuss without rhetoric, propaganda, political leanings or bias I will be happy to continue.

          • Benjamin

            You have not offered a comparative study. All the problems named are found in the private healthcare system, a system that is more costly and not more effective that the government healthcare systems in the rest of the developed world. Personal experience: My son was horsing around with a friend, smashed his chin on the pavement and needed stiches. It was late so we had to go to the emergency room of the local hospital. Instead of just sewing up the wound, they decided he needed a brain scan and a scan of his neck, though he didn’t complain of pain in either. Cost to the insurance company: in excess of $20,000. The profit motive runs rampant and hurts us all.

          • Frank

            Or maybe they just wanted to make sure that your son was ok. Them being doctors and all and knowing better than you whether it is necessary or not. You should thank them!

          • Benjamin

            Sure. Only the gov’t has problems with ”
            unneeded care” mentioned in the study you referred to. Geeze!

          • Frank

            That’s not what I said Benjamin and you know it.

            There is no getting around that government has proven they cannot be trusted. We need a different option.

          • Frank

            And this out just today:

            The U.S. health care system squanders $750 billion a year — roughly 30 cents of every medical dollar — through unneeded care, byzantine paperwork, fraud and other waste, the influential Institute of Medicine

  • Frank

    Josiah, after the Book of Law was found…

    3 The king stood by the pillar and renewed the covenant in the presence of the Lord—to follow the Lord and keep his commands, statutes and decrees with all his heart and all his soul, thus confirming the words of the covenant written in this book. Then all the people pledged themselves to the covenant.

    So he was a great king not because He defended the poor and needy, he was a great king because he obeyed God and out of that relationship he was able to show care.

    So we need leaders who submit to Gods authority in order to truly care for the poor and needy,

  • Allie

    This post is very much in line with Jesus’ teaching of the the sheep and the goats. Caring for the poor or not: this the criteria for whether or not we are doing God’s work.

×

TRENDING: Remember Guantanamo Bay? asks Shane Claiborne >>