National Debt as a Biblical Issue

Home / National Debt as a Biblical Issue

Posted Feb 23 2011 by Tony Campolo with 20 Comments

Welcome to Red Letter Christians! If you're new here, subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on the RLC Movement and/or sign up for the RLC newsletter!

Two days ago I was interviewed by abcnews.com for a piece the journalist was writing entitled, “National Debt as a Biblical Issue: Did Selfishness Lead to Giant Deficit?” In preparation for the interview I was provided a wealth of information on the national debt as interpreted by evangelicals across the political spectrum. However, when it came interview time there were many thoughts flooding my mind.

The debt is a crushing figure, possibly reaching $15 trillion in 2011. Undoubtedly, we don’t have to search deeply in Scripture to find that such debt is not the grandeur of faithfulness.

It is important to recognize, though, that many of the verses currently used to identify the immorality of such a staggering debt do not stand alone. While Christian commentators can point to verses such as Proverbs 13:22 (“a good man leaves an inheritance for his children’s children”) and Nehemiah 5:3-5 (speaking of being powerless because of debt) there are other verses in the Old Testament that do not receive as much attention yet point to issues that could be seen, given the proper circumstances, as equally as important and immoral as the national debt.

Take for instance Leviticus 25 which speaks of the Year of Jubilee. Scripture demands that every 50 years debts are canceled. Or read Deuteronomy 15: 1-2 which states that every seven years debts must be canceled. If evangelical commentators cite Scripture in an effort to decrease government spending and bring down the national debt they should also be inclined to personally follow other parts of the Hebrew Scriptures such as debt forgiveness.

At the same time we must ask ourselves how we got into this debt. Some of those who are currently protesting the immoral debt were the same folks who advocated in favor of America’s two immoral wars with Iraq and Afghanistan. These two wars crippled the budget at the rate of $500,000 a minute in 2007 (source: Washington Post). Furthermore, if the question is truly centered around morality, how moral is it to cut programs needed by those in poverty? As Jim Wallis said, “To protect the rich instead of the poor in the name of deficit reduction is immoral.”

Simply put, if you want to use the Old Testament to make your case and apply Scriptures, you have to apply them down the line. The National Debt is undoubtedly an issue but so is health care, immigration, and our education system. Each of these issues comes with a laundry list of proof texts from Scripture advocating for and against each issue.

If you enter the Bible looking for texts to back up your already determined position you will surely find plenty. In doing so, though, you will ignorantly skim over countless other verses. When you read Scripture without a predetermined agenda then and only then can you become open and receptive to the full direction of the text.

Readers who viewed this page, also viewed:

Brian McLaren: What’s Wrong With Our Message?

How it All Happened: My Prayer at the DNC

About the Author

Tony CampoloTony Campolo is the Founder and President of EAPE and Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Eastern University. Look for Tony in your area and follow him on Facebook and Twitter.View all posts by Tony Campolo →

Popular Posts

Pingback: Tweets that mention Red Letter Christians » National Debt as a Biblical Issue -- Topsy.com
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZLHBNFYH4RSEHY6KDXH7RZKREQ Larry

Amen, Amen, Amen
http://www.liveloud.net xfree9

Definitely some great thoughts here. Most of us try to find biblical support for our views, and it takes lots of energy to reverse that trend (I’m guilty of this, too!).

A few nit-picky things. The debt is more than 15 trillion because we must include the Social Security and Medicare deficit, which is nearing or exceeding 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities (lest one say there is a “trust fund,” that trust fund is in bonds that are “cashed in” thru more taxation… so there is no “trust fund”).

When one looks at the “tax receipt” (you can google it) for the average American, it is really silly for most of us to complain about common good items like roads and national parks when the problem is clearly in dependency-producing entitlement programs and Social Security (which is neither social nor secure). The big ones need to be reformed. But nobody wants to do this because the government has ingrained in our society an entitlement mentality toward these services. I’m all for wanting safety nets, but when the net is tattered, torn, and cannot hold its own weight, it’s now a net danger.
- http://twitter.com/robmille Rob Miller
  
  There isn’t any Medicare/Medicaid debt, it’s always been a PAYGO system, and is still bringing in more revenue than it pays out, which is used to buy t bills to (1) earn interest, and (2) lower the interest rates we pay to borrow from other sources. They will continue to be in the positive revenue wise for another 10 to 15 years w/ no changes, although everyone knows there need to be some changes made to extend the “profitability” of the programs. Profit being not exactly the right term, as it’s a government program, not a business or personal finance situation.
Lucas Garth

Here here on paying your way. There seems to be a rampant selfishness about a nation that is deep in deficit that advocates tax cuts especially for the rich. Australia has a much higher personal and company tax rate as do many nations in the world that are prosperous. For the us and particularly tea party advocates to think only cutting spending is the solution you are living in dream world. The world is coming and pay day is approaching.
Andy

Well said. It sickens me that Christians are standing up in Congress, the House of Commons and other places, and proposing cuts to programmes needed by those in poverty or increasing the tax burden on the poor.

Personally, I think that making money should be encouraged, but if God makes you rich it is so you can not just live, have R&R and other such good things, but help others to live – the money is only on loan to you, it is there for you to bless others with. Not that you should live in poverty unless God explicitly calls you to, but rather that you take responsibility to ensure others do not live in poverty because of you (allowing for the lazy etc)
- http://www.liveloud.net xfree9
  
  Andy, everything you said about wealth and “being rich” is spot on! I think the concern by some people is the “how” question. Should people be forced to bless others simply because some in power believe as you and I do that being wealthy is more than about enjoyment of material goods but to be used for the kingdom mission of justice?
  
  Congress is doing things with “other people’s money,” so everything it does is tainted with political motives and a lack of knowledge about how best to allocate resources so that everybody can be fed, clothed, and have a way out of poverty. Concentrating power corrupts those who now have incentive to use such power for their own gain. Spreading power by decentralizing it means communities must work together, live together, and serve together for a common good.
  
  I’m detouring on my thoughts, but I have a huge problem with a monopoly solution (i.e. government redistribution) to the needs to the poor.
  - D-Dawg
    
    Well said, xfree9. We live in a sinful world, and the best public policy figures out how to best account for people’s sinfulness in order to yield the best result. Along that line, going along with what you said, corruption when power is centralized does damage to an entire nation and is harder to combat due to the separation between the governed and the governing. Corruption when power is decentralized does damage only to the given locale and is much easier to combat due to the lack of separation between the governed and the governing.
    
    Basically what you said.
    - http://www.liveloud.net xfree9
      
      Thanks for your thoughts. I’ve written similar things on my blog, liveloud.net
      Join the conversation!
http://twitter.com/robmille Rob Miller

I’m really not sure what the point of this is. There’s certainly a time & place for deficit hawks & austerity, there’s no reason to believe that now/here is it. The money we borrow to cover our deficit is borrowed @ approximately 1% via t-bills and is used to build, maintain & infuse a (currently anemic 2%) economic growth, that in better times has been (and all signs point to will once again be) a much healther 5 to 7% growth rates. Increased interest rates would be a cause for much alarm, and there certainly isn’t an eternal spring of money we can borrow forever from, but of all the times for deficits to sound these alarms, the current environment we are borrowing in, and the use/needs of the outlays is a very odd time for deficit hawkery to be en vogue. I really don’t understand where the idea of gov’t deficits became equated with a morally reprehensible status? God Himself basically instructed Joseph to run budget surpluses to enable deficit distribution for the coming famine. Obviously they didn’t have the funding options of selling t-bills at the time, but budget deficits (and gov’t debt) as a moral hazard seems to not be something you can get directly out of Scripture, outside of trying to extrapolate it from personal financial principles.
- http://twitter.com/robmille Rob Miller
  
  I think you’d have a much stronger argument to make that we are funding the propping up of the American economy (in tough times like the last 2 to 3 years), and fueling our prosperity (and wars) on the backs of oppressed Chinese & Saudi citizens, who use purchasing our debt to manipulate their own currencies & economic growth rates in order to keep themselves in power. That would be the moral hazard that can be drawn from the debt situation we currently have.
TomTex

Jesus saves. Politicians spend.
Jesus forgives debts. Politicians create debt.
Success is NOT logical. (Romans 12:2)
Tim

Yes, you can find scripture to support just about any predetermined position, and Christians by doing so have been guilty of some stupid stuff over the years, but scripture as a whole does speak plainly against the corruption and greed of those in power who have run the debt up spending money on “programs” that are primarily designed to buy votes but have precious little to do with helping the disenfranchised.

There is a little too much same old class warfare rhetoric (tax cuts for the rich at the expense of whoever, etc. etc. – a mainstay for leftist politicans) in this blog – but it’s still a good blog. Keep up the good work Tony
- http://twitter.com/robmille Rob Miller
  
  *eyeroll*. Buying votes is a total myth.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1388514701 Greg Dill

The problem with this article is that the author has it all backwards. Jubilee is a mandate to forgive others of their debt, not of their own debt. Even if we may forgive others of their debt, it is not likely that other countries will necessarily follow suit; especially those that don’t espouse Biblical worldviews.

The bottom line is there is no excuse for our country to be in $10+ trillion dollars of debt. And although the two unjust wars have certainly added to this debt, we were far into debt way before they ever began. The debt is simply a result of greed and the quest for world dominance and power over others. A truly Christian nation will seek to serve other countries and other people, not to seek power over them.
http://twitter.com/robmille Rob Miller

Where does the idea that the national debt = greed come from? Who is getting rich off the national debt?
D-Dawg

In the Destructive Donations post, Tony speaks of the need to look at the systemic issues facing Haiti and to help them only within that context instead of simply supplying them with direct goods or money. In that post, the concern was chiefly with the effect on the Haitian economy, but it would seem that the issue of context and end results also apply with any government safety net program.

In America, it seems that there is a cycle of dependency (not to mention massive waste, fraud, and abuse) that goes along with our safety net programs as they are currently put together. Should we seek reform so that monies and goods are distributed in such a way as to help motivate as many as possible out of poverty?
- D-Dawg
  
  Correction. The post didn’t really address giving money. Mainly focused on the giving of goods like clothing.
D-Dawg

How would any of you rate the situation of the poor, sick, & needy in America in 1995? I ask because if we rolled back government safety net spending to the per capita levels of 1995 (even accounting for inflation, population growth, and shifting age demographics), today’s deficit would vanish, and we would have a significant surplus with which to begin paying down the debt. While I don’t have hard data at the moment to prove my point, I do know that government spending has ballooned mightily over the past 30 years, far outpacing inflation, population growth, and shifting age demographics.

One of the reasons for the continued rapid growth in government is our continued raising of the bar of what is functionally considered basic human need (this due largely to technological advances in a variety of areas, particularly healthcare). This points to our sinful impulse to reject contentment with our current state, which also leads to empathy with others who are not content with their current state. Sometimes this feels right and good; it’s certainly good to be generous, and it’s good to want good things for others. However, we must be careful not to enable our own or others’ impulse to be discontent in our current situation.

If we could all encourage one another to live with a lower bar of contentment, the demand for ever expanding government spending would decline, leading to a more stable economy, and even better, a more content people.
D-Dawg

One last thought on military spending, and this is for any of you: do you believe that there are wars that are just, and that would thus justify increased spending to fund them? The discussion on military spending hinges on this point. If the theoretical just war exists, then the discussion is about the justness of a given war, ceding that, if a war is just, spending at heightened levels is acceptable. In this discussion, I can sympathize with those who say Iraq was an unjust war from the standpoint of it basically being a pre-crime war; they hadn’t committed a clear act of aggression against us when we went to war. I don’t understand as much why Afghanistan was clearly unjust. They were the principal harborers of the head of the terrorist operation that committed two clear acts of aggression against the U.S. I’m not saying I’m for war, but if war can be just, why didn’t Afghanistan meet the criteria? If there’s a post where this is laid out, please direct me to it, and I will be glad to read it.

If one holds that the theoretical just war does not exist, then the discussion is about the need to eliminate virtually all military spending. In this discussion, it’s worth asking if we are culpable when we are inevitably invaded and defeated, at which point most everyone would probably suffer (the very thing we’re trying to avoid by not cutting government safety net programs while advocating a reduction in military spending).