Why I am not a Democrat.... or a Republican.

Though the Democrats generally tend to lean towards my values as a Christian, I cannot call myself a Democrat. But that doesn't make me a Republican either. Nor any other political party. What occurred in the past few days in regards to the Farm Bill and the Fairness Amendment is a perfect example of why that is. If representatives of congress were free from political pressure to vote their conscience, the Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment should have passed. Instead, the amendment failed with a vote of 117 to 309 (see if your rep dropped the ball here). Note this bit from an LA Times article before the voting began:

"This is the biggest change we've had in payment limits ever," said Peterson. He said that "wheat, cotton and rice are not in support" of the change and that neither were many of his committee members. Nine of them are freshmen Democrats who defeated Republicans in rural districts. Pelosi and other Democratic leaders have made protecting those Democrats a priority to ensure that they keep their seats.

In the past, Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) had supported similar measures introduced by Kind.

"We have pushed them beyond where they feel comfortable," Peterson said of the freshmen as he explained why he would oppose any move to further lower the cap on subsidy payments. "Their constituencies do not support what we have done." Advocates who expected Pelosi to push for deeper reform were frustrated.

That's putting it lightly. As I heard one advocate say: "What's the point of getting the Dems reelected if they don't change anything?" I'm amazed that our political system works as well as it does! The thing is, though, that so many Christians allow themselves to be lured in by one side or the other. We all know about the Religious Right and how so many Christians in America identify themselves with the Republican party. But the "Religious Left" is not the proper answer. As a Christian, my core identity is found in Christ. I am certainly concerned that the government acts in accordance with my moral values (particularly protecting the disadvantaged of society), but we ought to watch out for that sweet, addictive drug they call "political power." We ought not get duped into thinking that some political party, or government for that matter, is the embodiment of Christ on earth. They merely have their power on lease from God, and we need to make sure they understand that.

That is why I may be disappointed in the outcome of the vote yesterday, but I do not feel that my efforts were wasted. It is not a waste to do what is right. It is not a waste to speak truth to power, even if power wins in the short term. Of course, we can see some "practical" benefits. We know that we've made some progress, we've had good press coverage, we got some baby steps in reform, and tons of new advocates found their first opportunity to raise their voice. And this round is not even over: there is still the Senate bill to think of and then the conference to reconcile to the Senate and House versions. These practical points are important for organizations like Bread, so they can keep their steam going. But ultimately we do this because we are standing up in our biblical concern for justice and we need to make our voices heard, even if they are not heeded.

Today, one of the things about Bread for the World that I am grateful for is that one key word they emphasize: nonpartisan.

Should we let the government do it?

I came across a blog post by Pat Allen, a corporate lawyer in (I think) Illinois, asking some very good foundational questions about the mission of Bread for the World (and I'd like to add that he does so without a harsh polemical tone). His church is participating in Bread's "offering of letters" campaign and this is his reflection:

Here is what I wonder: Is writing letters to Congress, asking them to pass more laws and spend somebody else’s money to help poor people, really the best way to help poor people? Or do we accomplish more if we give our own time and money directly to groups that really help poor people?

Is the church’s role to be just another lobbyist asking the government to do this thing or that? Is this all we have to do: ask government to do more? Does that fulfill our responsibility? Or are we supposed to do more, to use our own time and money to help those in need? (Our church does a lot of this, too.)

Obviously, government has more resources than any one individual does. But if you give your time or money to a group that directly helps poor people, you know something is actually getting done. Spending your time and money writing letters to Congress has the potential to result in a lot of nothing.

As I said, I may be wrong on this. I am just wondering.

I started to write out a comment in response to his blog post, but it just got too long, so I'll reflect on his questions here . . .

Hi Pat,
First of all, I think you raise an excellent and essential question. I am involved with Bread myself and it is a question that I ask myself. I am an Anabaptist Christian and thus I am very wary of the church getting in cahoots with the government. I also feel that it is important for the church to serve the hungry itself in obedience to Jesus and as a witness to the world of our transformed lives in the Spirit.

The reality, however, is just the amazing numbers difference. No organization's attempt to address an issue can come anywhere near what the government can do. On Bread's website they address this issue to some extent and one point they make is this:

Government action is not the only mechanism to deal with hunger and poverty, but charitable responses, however vital and compassionate, seldom result in lasting, structural change.

What Bread is advocating for is assisting poor people in finding their way out of poverty, so that they are able to live a sustainable life, without the need for charitable handouts. There are many organizations doing great work out there (I think of World Vision, Mennonite Central Committee, and others), but in terms of how much bang we get for our "buck" (that is, our efforts to end poverty), the United States government has no competition. That's the practical concern.

Another response that I have is related to the way we think about the government's budget. On your comment regarding government funding as "spend[ing] somebody else’s money to help poor people": I think we need to be honest about government funding. If we are to say that it is "somebody else's money," we need to apply that across the board. For example, funding for the military, farm subsidies, as well as grants and other favorable treatment to corporations (what some would call "corporate welfare"), would all fall under these categories.

Since the government is "spending other people's money" in a sense, many Christian leaders have begun to emphasize that the government's budget is a "moral document," which must reflect our moral priorities. In reality, for example, foreign poverty spending is less than one half of one percent of our budget. Is that too much? Does that accurately reflect our concern for the world's poor? I certainly don't think so, and that is why I have gotten involved with Bread.

One final comment that I have is in response to your questions about whether this is "all we have to do." I believe you're saying "no." And I would say, Amen! I don't think that "lobbying" the government with our moral concerns is the only thing that we do as the missional Body of Christ in service to the poor. I think that we should have a holistic vision for responding to poverty: both in being prophets to the powers that be, as well as in doing real, live service to those in need.

I hope that my response to your post sounds even a tiny bit as gracious as your original words. We need people to talk about these things in respectful dialogue. Thank you for raising the question and I would love to get your (or others') response(s).

Peace,
Pat

Update (Same Day): Here's some more information from Bread:

A single letter can be worth $1,000

Consider Africa , where hungry people have few defenders in Congress. Bread for the World’s 1995 campaign to protect crucial development aid to Africa mobilized approximately seventy thousand letters and reduced by about $100 million the cuts that took place. In this case, the average letter leveraged more than one thousand dollars to Africans in dire need.

Merely writing a letter can save a person's life

In 1991, Bread for the World mobilized 100,000 letters and helped get the U.S. State Department to mediate a peace agreement in Ethiopia that saved half a million lives. By any reasonable calculation, each letter in that campaign saved at least one life.