To vote for Jesus is to vote for a foreign policy that protects against attacks by other nations and promotes the principles of Jesus to other nations...

This week we have been addressing the issue of defense and foreign policy. Specifically, I would like for us to ask and answer the questions “What policies would Jesus promote when it comes to the issue of national defense? How should the United States relate to the other nations in the world?

So far this week, we have discovered that as followers of Jesus, we are not to ignore evil; but we are not to respond to evil with evil. As followers of Jesus, we are to carefully consider our response to the harm and wrong that comes from the evil intentions of others by doing the noble and the right thing. In addition, as far as it is possible, as followers of Jesus, we are to strive to have harmonious relationships with others.

Unfortunately, the harsh reality is that there are times that no matter what we do, we are unable to experience harmonious relationships with others. As followers of Jesus, we are to do all that we can to live in harmony in community with everyone. And when that does not occur, we are to respond to evil, injustice and conflict by doing the noble and right thing. And we are to practice this lifestyle with all men.

We also discovered that, as followers of Jesus, we are never to take justice into our own hands. Instead, we are to leave room for God’s right and just response to selfishness, sin, and rebellion. In Romans 12:17-21, we discovered that when we respond to the harm and wrong that comes from the evil intentions of others by doing the noble and the right thing, even to the point of meeting the pressing and practical needs that they have, we become the vehicle that God can use to reveal His Son Jesus and bring rescue.

And because of that reality, Paul commanded the members of the church at Rome, and followers of Jesus throughout history, to not allow the harm and wrong that flows from the evil intents of others to conquer and defeat us. Instead, we are to conquer and overcome the harm and wrong of evil by responding in a way that does the noble and right thing.

We also reminded ourselves that government was designed by God to represent Him in a way that promotes good for people and punishes the evil of people. Government was put into place by God as an intermediary, or representative, of God to promote justice for those who do well and to punish evil by responding with righteousness and justice to wrongdoing and injustice. A purpose of government is to create structures that execute swift punishment for crime so as to be a deterrent to crime. And as part of God’s design and responsibility, governments are responsible to defend their nation from an attack by other nations.

However, while it is clear that governments are to responsible to defend their nations from an attack on their nation, what is less clear is when a government should become involved in a military action that does not involve a direct attack on their nation. So, when should a government engage in military action against another nation when a direct attack on their nation has not happened? In other words, when should a nation go to war?

There are four main viewpoints that have been advocated in an attempt to answer this question. The first view is the crusade or the Holy War, which believes that followers of Jesus should try to use military force to bring the gospel to other nations. However, when we read the message and teachings of Jesus, we discover that there is no evidence to substantiate this view. The second and third views are Christian pacifism and Christian non-resistance. However, as we already have discovered, the message and teachings of Jesus that are used to advocate these positions apply to personal insult, not personal self defense or national defense.

What the message and teachings throughout the Bible do advocate for when it comes to the issue of national defense and foreign policy is what is referred to as the “Just War” theory. The just war theory maintains a military action is a less than ideal necessity that is just when it meets four specific criteria. First, the military action must be necessary as a last resort after all other options have been pursued and exhausted. Second, the military action must be necessary to preserve justice through retribution, not retaliation. In other words, any military action will involve a proportional use of force with the goal to bring justice and punishment to the wrongdoing and injustice done to others, not to gain revenge.

Third, the military action must be necessary in order to protect innocent people. The Biblical case for this criterion is found in Psalm 82:4 which states “Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked”. And fourth, and most difficult to discern, is that the military action must be necessary in order to prevent the spread of evil, which we see in both Romans 13:1-4 and 1 Peter 2:13-15.

Now while all that applies to the use of military force, what about other aspects of foreign policy other than military force? What about the financial and relational aspects of foreign policy? I just want to spend our remaining time together providing some guiding principles that the letters that make up the Bible provide for us when it comes to these questions.

First, the foreign policy of a nation should serve to protect the sovereignty and independence of that nation and protect and defend the interests of its citizens in their relationship with other nations. As a result, the message and teachings of Jesus do not advocate for a one world government, but that governments try to live in peace and harmony with one another. As we discovered earlier in this series, as followers of Jesus, we are to support some form of a government that is chosen by the people who are being governed. This is the case because of the reality that human beings have an inward bent towards selfishness and rebellion that can result in the abuse of power if not kept in check. Thus, a one worldwide government would have far too much power and could lead to massive corruption and tyranny that would not be able to be held in check by the people who would be governed. 

Second, as we discovered in the second week in this series, the foreign policy of a nation should seek to promote freedom and respect for human rights in other nations. As followers of Jesus, we are to seek to influence government towards its divine design and towards the message and teachings of Jesus when it comes to how other nations treat those in their nation.

Third, the foreign policy of a nation should seek to do good for other nations as they are able to do so. As we have the opportunity, we are to demonstrate care and concern for other nations. A foreign policy that lines up with the message and teachings of Jesus asks the question “If I was in their situation, how would I feel loved?” and then responds in a way that expresses the love that we would want expressed to us to that nation. We are to take Jesus call to love our neighbor as ourselves to other nations, so as to influence that nation towards the teachings of Jesus.

Similarly, the foreign policy of a nation should seek to provide humanitarian aid where there are natural disasters. However, it is important to distinguish humanitarian aid from economic aid. There is a difference between meeting the pressing and practical needs of individuals in a nation as the result of a natural disaster and providing ongoing economic aid in order to help a country develop economically.

And because of that difference, the foreign policy of a nation should not provide economic development aid to poor nations. The reason for this position is due to the harsh reality that in a vast majority of cases, government economic aid that is given to poor nations is misused by that nation, especially if the government is not one that has been chosen by the people of that nation. In addition, ongoing economic aid creates a culture of dependency that enables a nation instead of empowering a nation.

Finally, the foreign policy of a nation should provide military aid according to just war principles. In other words, foreign aid should only be given to a nation for the purpose of helping that nation defend themselves and to promote freedom in that nation. Now that leads us to the question of the nation of Israel. In other words, what should the government’s position and policy be when it comes to the nation of Israel?

The short answer is that the foreign policy of a nation should support the nation of Israel to the extent that the nation of Israel continues to do the right thing, while recognizing that God has a special role for the Jewish people to play in God’s story. When the Apostle Paul in the book of Romans refers to Israel, it is not referring to the ground that the nation of Israel currently occupies. Instead, he is referring to ethnically Jewish people who will respond to God’s transformational activity through Jesus life, death, and resurrection, by believing, trusting, and following Jesus as Lord and Leader.

You see, currently, we are living in what theologians call the church age. Jesus, life, death, and resurrection ushered in the church. And since the beginnings of the church, God has used the church to advance His kingdom mission across cultures and continents in order to rescue people from all nations and cultures. Near the end of God’s story, the full number of all non-Jewish people that will be rescued as a result of God’s grace will be reached.

At that time, God will turn his attention to the Jewish people and all Jewish people that respond to God’s activity by believing, trusting, and following Jesus as Lord and Leader will receive the forgiveness of sin and enter into the relationship with God that they were created for.  And because of that reality, we are to support the nation of Israel to the extent that they are doing what is right and just, with the recognition that God has a special role for the Jewish people to play in His story.

Now, with all that in mind, here is a summary statement when it comes to voting for Jesus on the issue of foreign policy. And that summary statement is to vote for Jesus is to vote for a foreign policy that protects against attacks by other nations and promotes the principles of Jesus to other nations. You see, Jesus is not an interventionist. Jesus is not a non-interventionist. And Jesus is not an isolationist. Instead Jesus is God. And to vote for Jesus is to vote for a foreign policy that protects against attacks by other nations and promotes the principles of Jesus to other nations.

To vote for Jesus is to vote for a foreign policy that recognizes the threats against our nation and takes steps to protect our nation from attacks by other nations that would want to do us harm. To vote for Jesus is to vote for a foreign policy that recognizes that, when all other efforts fail, there are times when military action is a necessity in order to help other nations protect themselves and provide justice against the wrongdoing and injustice done to them by other nations.

And to vote for Jesus is to vote for a foreign policy that seeks to do good for other nations when we have the opportunity to do so. To vote for Jesus is to vote for a foreign policy that loves other nations in a way that reflects the love of Jesus to that nation.  To vote for Jesus is to vote for a foreign policy that influences other nations towards human rights and freedoms in their nation as a result of those in all nations bearing the thumbprint of God. To vote for Jesus is to vote for a foreign policy that provides humanitarian aid to other nations when tragedy strikes that nation. To vote for Jesus is to vote for a foreign policy that empowers, not enables other nations financially.

The tension between personal insult and the pursuit of justice...

This week, we have been addressing the issue of defense and foreign policy. Specifically, we have been asking the questions “What should be the policy of the United States when it comes to the issue of national defense? How should the United States relate to the other nations in the world?

Yesterday, we looked at the reality that the conversation surrounding national defense and foreign policy can best be described as emotionally charged and highly divided. At one end of the conversation when it comes to the issue of national defense and foreign policy are politicians and others who advocate what is often referred to as a non-interventionist or isolationist view. Non-interventionists advocate a foreign policy that is characterized by the absence of interference in the external affairs of another nation without its consent, or in its internal affairs with or without its consent. Isolationism advocates that a nations' interests are best served by keeping the affairs of other countries at a distance.

On the other end of the conversation when it comes to the issue of national defense and foreign policy would be politicians and others who advocate what are often referred to as interventionist policies. Interventionists advocate for a foreign policy that is characterized by a proactive engagement in the internal or external affairs of another nation with or without their consent.

We then looked at an event from history a statement that was a part of perhaps the most famous sermon that Jesus ever preached, which we refer to today as the Sermon on the Mount. We discovered that the issue that Jesus is addressing here is not self defense. And the issue that Jesus is addressing is not national defense or foreign policy. The issue that Jesus is addressing is not between nations. The issue that Jesus is addressing is between individuals. The issue that Jesus is addressing here is about being dishonored and disrespected by someone.

The issue is not about being a pacifist, as many people in the anti-war movement attempt to use this passage. The issue is about someone’s personal honor being insulted. Jesus point is that they were not to seek retribution by suing in court, which was their right under the Law of retribution. Jesus states that they should accept the personal insult without responding. We see this reality further reinforced in a section of a letter in the New Testament of the Bible called the book of Romans. The Apostle Paul, writing to early followers of Jesus who were apart of the church at Rome, states the following beginning in Romans 12:17:

Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord. "BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Here we see Paul command followers of Jesus throughout history to never pay back evil for evil to anyone. In other words, followers of Jesus are not to respond to the harm or wrong that comes from the evil intentions of others by responding in like manner. Instead, Paul commands followers of Jesus to respect what is right in the sight of all men. The word respect here means to give careful thought and consideration to something.

Paul’s point here is that we are not to ignore evil; but we are not to respond to evil with evil. As followers of Jesus, we are to carefully consider our response to the harm and wrong that comes from the evil intentions of others by doing the noble and the right thing. In addition, as far as it is possible, as followers of Jesus, we are to strive to have harmonious relationships with others.

Unfortunately, the harsh reality is that there are times that no matter what we do, we are unable to experience harmonious relationships with others. As followers of Jesus, we are to do all that we can to live in harmony in community with everyone. And when that does not occur, we are to respond to evil, injustice and conflict by doing the noble and right thing. And we are to practice this lifestyle with all men. Notice Paul’s words in these verses: anyone, all men, all men.

We are to respond to those around us who are far from God by doing all that we can to live in harmony in community with them, and then responding by doing the noble and the right thing when that does not occur. Now a natural question and objection that arises here is “well Dave, what about justice? What about justice for those who do harm to me?”

Paul, anticipating this question, responds by stating that as followers of Jesus, we are never to take justice into our own hands. Instead, we are to leave room for God’s right and just response to selfishness, sin, and rebellion. And to back his point, Paul quotes from a section of a letter that is recorded for us in our Bibles called the book of Proverbs. Beginning in Proverbs 25:21, we read that that kindness shown to an enemy will bring shame to him and perhaps lead to repentance. The writer of proverbs then paints a picture of this repentance by pointing the members of the church at Rome to an Egyptian ritual where a guilty person carried a pan of burning coals on his head to indicate his repentance.

Paul’s point is that when we respond to the harm and wrong that comes from the evil intentions of others by doing the noble and the right thing, even to the point of meeting the pressing and practical needs that they have, we become the vehicle that God can use to reveal His Son Jesus and bring rescue. And because of that reality, Paul commanding the members of the church at Rome, and followers of Jesus throughout history, to not allow the harm and wrong that flows from the evil intents of others to conquer and defeat us. Instead, we are to conquer and overcome the harm and wrong of evil by responding in a way that does the noble and right thing.

Now a natural question that arises here is “Well Dave, then if that is the case, if we are never to take justice into our own hands individually, then who will bring justice. Paul provides the answer to this question in the very next verse, which we looked at in the very first sermon in this series, beginning in Romans 13:1:

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

As we discovered in the first sermon in this series, government was designed by God to represent Him in a way that promotes good for people and punishes the evil of people. Government was put into place by God as an intermediary, or representative, of God to promote justice for those who do well and to punish evil by responding with righteousness and justice to wrongdoing and injustice. A purpose of government is to create structures that execute swift punishment for crime so as to be a deterrent to crime.

And as part of God’s design and responsibility, governments are responsible to defend their nation from an attack by other nations. However, while it is clear that governments are to responsible to defend their nations from an attack on their nation, what is less clear is when a government should become involved in a military action that does not involve a direct attack on their nation. So, when should a government engage in military action against another nation when a direct attack on their nation has not happened? In other words, when should a nation go to war?

Friday, we will examine that question…

The current conversation in our culture concerning defense and foreign policy...

At the church where I serve, we are in the midst of a sermon series entitled “Vote for Jesus”. During this series, our hope and our prayer is to accomplish three specific goals. First, our hope and our prayer is to demonstrate that Jesus is not a Republican and Jesus is not a Democrat. Instead, Jesus is God and as God Jesus is the one that we are to place our hope in, not a political party. Second, our hope and our prayer is to equip and empower us to think critically and Biblically when it comes to the issues that our culture is faced with that often find themselves expressed in the political process. And third, our hope and prayer is to provide a framework from the message and teachings of Jesus when it comes to how we as followers of Jesus are to engage in the government and in the political process in way that reveals and reflects Jesus to those around us.

This week, I would like to address the issue of defense and foreign policy. Specifically, I would like for us to ask and answer the questions “What should be the policy of the United States when it comes to the issue of national defense? How should the United States relate to the other nations in the world? Like so many of the political issues that we have been looking at during this series, in our current political climate, the conversation surrounding national defense and foreign policy can best be described as emotionally charged and highly divided.

At one end of the conversation when it comes to the issue of national defense and foreign policy are politicians and others who advocate what is often referred to as a non-interventionist or isolationist view. Non-interventionists advocate a foreign policy that is characterized by the absence of interference in the external affairs of another nation without its consent, or in its internal affairs with or without its consent. Non-interventionism is different than isolationism as isolationism also involves the economic component of economic nationalism.

Isolationism advocates that a nations' interests are best served by keeping the affairs of other countries at a distance. The common motivation of both positions is the desire to avoid being drawn into dangerous and otherwise undesirable conflicts. Both non-interventionism and isolationism believe that nations should avoid alliances with other nations but still retain diplomacy and avoid all wars unless related to direct self-defense. Those who advocate for non-interventionist or isolationist foreign policy, who would be viewed in our culture as being on “the left” or “libertarian” often paint those who are against their policy proposals as being war mongers or imperialists.

On the other end of the conversation when it comes to the issue of national defense and foreign policy would be politicians and others who advocate what are often referred to as interventionist policies. Interventionists advocate for a foreign policy that is characterized by a proactive engagement in the internal or external affairs of another nation with or without their consent. Interventionists advocate for instances of nation building politically and economically, as well as military action in order to advance a nations interests. Those who advocate for an interventionist foreign policy, who would be viewed in our culture as being on “the right” often paint those who are against their policy proposals as being isolationists and not concerned with national security.

Now, with all that background in mind, let’s take a look at what the message and teachings of Jesus have to say when it comes to the issue of national defense and foreign policy. Specifically, what do the letters that make up the Bible reveal about a nation’s role and responsibility when it comes to national defense and foreign policy? Would Jesus be hawkish on the issue of national defense and foreign policy?  Would Jesus advocate an interventionist foreign policy? Or would Jesus be dovish on the issue of national defense and foreign policy? Would Jesus advocate a pacifistic isolationism?

A thought that could be running through your mind is “Well Dave, didn’t Jesus say somewhere that whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. So Jesus obviously was a pacifist. So wouldn’t Jesus advocate for a pacifistic isolationist foreign policy?”  So let’s take a minute and look at that very statement together to discover the answer to that question. We see Jesus make this statement as a part of perhaps the most famous sermon that Jesus ever preached, which we refer to today as the Sermon on the Mount. So let’s look at this section together in Matthew 5:38-39:

"You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

Jesus begins this part of His Sermon on the Mount by quoting a part of Leviticus 24:19-20. Let’s take a moment to look at the entire verse:

If a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him:  fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him.

Now these verses were referred to as the Law of Retaliation, which was used in the Jewish legal system to enforce proportional retribution for offenses that occurred between two people. The Law of Retaliation was designed so that there would be the right amount of justice in order to prevent private vengeance or revenge from taking over their legal system. Much of our legal system here in America is based on this concept of proportional justice or retribution.

But notice what Jesus what Jesus says next. Jesus, after quoting part of the Jewish Law of Retribution, states, but I say to you do not resist an evil person.  But what is Jesus getting at here?  When Jesus uses the word resist, He is literally stating that we are not to place ourselves in a place of opposition towards someone, in this case an evil person. This evil person that Jesus is describing is literally a person who is bent on doing wrong. Jesus then gives us an examples of a situation in which we are not to place ourselves in opposition to someone who is bent on evil by stating that if someone slaps us on the right cheek, we are to turn the other also.

To understand the situation that Jesus is referring to, we first need to act this scenario out. You see, the vast majority of people are right handed, just as it was in Jesus day. Now can I hit someone’s right cheek with my right fist? No I can’t. I would have to use a backhanded slap to do what Jesus is talking about. Now, in the Jewish culture of Jesus day, this form of a backhanded slap was a common way that people disrespected or insulted someone.

You see, the issue that Jesus is addressing here is not self defense. And the issue that Jesus is addressing is not national defense or foreign policy. The issue that Jesus is addressing is not between nations. The issue that Jesus is addressing is between individuals. The issue that Jesus is addressing here is about being dishonored and disrespected by someone.

The issue is not about being a pacifist, as many people in the anti-war movement attempt to use this passage. The issue is about someone’s personal honor being insulted. Jesus point is that they were not to seek retribution by suing in court, which was their right under the Law of retribution. Jesus states that they should accept the personal insult without responding. We see this reality further reinforced in a section of a letter in the New Testament of the Bible called the book of Romans. Tomorrow, we will look at this reality…

To vote for Jesus is to vote for tax policies that promote personal responsibility and government accountability from everyone who earns an income at a fixed percentage of their income...

This week we have been spending our time together addressing the issue of taxes. We have been asking the questions “Does the government have the right to collect taxes? And if so, then what type of tax system would Jesus promote?

So far, we have discovered that  when it comes to the question “Does the government have the right to collect taxes?"  throughout the message and teachings and the letters that make up the Bible, we see that the government has the right to collect taxes and that followers of Jesus are to fulfill their responsibilities to pay taxes. Now, that leads us to the next question which we need to ask and answer, which is “What type of tax system would Jesus promote?”

Wednesday, we examined the current conversation surrounding the issue of taxes.  At one end of the conversation when it comes to the issue of taxes are politicians and others who advocate for an increase in taxes through an increase in the progressive nature of the current progressive tax system. On the other end of the conversation when it comes to the issue of taxes would be politicians and others who advocate for a decrease in taxes.

We looked at some statistics regarding taxes, provided by the Federal Government, and discovered that 45% of Americans pay nothing in federal taxes. By contrast, the richest 20% of Americans pay nearly 87% of all federal individual income tax in America. In addition, the  top 1% of Americans, who have an average income of more than $2.1 million a year, pay 43.6% of all the federal individual income tax in the U.S.; of the top 0.1% — just 115,000 households, whose average income is more than $9.4 million, pay more than 20% of the federal income tax in America.

We looked at the argument in support of the current progressive tax system and the statistics that involves the issue of justice, efficiency and happiness.  We discovered that you can see these argument on almost any website that promotes the progressive tax system.

Today, I would like for us to evaluate whether or not the arguments of justice, efficiency, and happiness that are used by those who promote the current progressive tax rate that we have in America hold water. To do that, let me give you an illustration. Let’s say that you went out and bought an ice cream maker, because you like ice cream. You purchased the ice cream maker legally, with your own money. Let’s say that you purchased all the ingredients necessary to make ice cream with your own money, legally, and began to make ice cream for your friends, because all your friends love ice cream.

However, as you finish making the ice cream, your neighbor comes over and takes half of your ice cream for his friends, without asking. Later, you notice half of your ice cream is gone so you confront your neighbor. When you confront your neighbor about taking half of your ice cream, your neighbor says “Well you still have enough ice cream for you and your friends to be happy. It’s not fair that you have access to an ice cream machine and I don’t, so it’s only just that I get half of your ice cream.”

Now, what would you do after your neighbor took all of your ice cream without asking?  What would you do after your neighbor took all of your ice cream that you made with your own money, legally? Would you be justified to call the police?

Yes you would. And the reason why you would is because your neighbor took what you had legally earned without permission. You would be justified because your neighbor stole from you. And you would be justified because of what is written in Exodus 20:15:

You shall not steal.    

As we talked about last week, almost everyone is somewhat familiar with this statement because it is one of the Ten Commandments that you have heard about. This command is the eighth of the Ten Commandments that God gave to the Jewish people. And this command is straightforward and easy to comprehend. Do not rob someone of something that is theirs. Do not jack each other's stuff.

Now here is a question to consider: If you earn your education, your training, and a position of employment legally: If you work hard in an industry that is legal and in a way that earns money legally, and then someone comes and takes more of a percentage of what you have earned than someone else, is that any different than the above illustration? Is that not stealing? 

If you work hard and earn a legal income and purchase assets legally, and then someone comes to take a higher percentage of what you have earned than someone who earns less than you so as to redistribute that income to the person who makes less than you so as to make up for income inequality, is that not stealing? The writer of Proverbs addresses this very point in Proverbs 17:26:

It is also not good to fine the righteous, Nor to strike the noble for their uprightness.

You see, there is no justification in the letters that make up the Bible for a progressive tax system that charges a higher percentage of taxes to a person who legally earns an increasing income. What the letters that make up the Bible do advocate for when it comes to taxes is that everybody pays something in taxes. What the letters that make up the Bible advocate for when it comes to taxes is what is referred to in our culture as a flat tax system.

A flat tax system is a system where every person is charged a flat percentage of their income in taxes. For example, in Leviticus 27:30-32 we see that every Jewish person was to tithe. Now a tithe simply means a tenth. So every Jewish person was responsible to pay a 10% flat tax. In addition, in Exodus 30:13-15, we see that every Jewish person was responsible to pay a census tax. This census tax was a fee of half a shekel, which would equate to $5 in today’s economic terms, which was required regardless of one’s income level. What the letters that make up the Bible also advocate for when it comes to taxes is that everybody pays something.

Now maybe you have been paying close attention to all that I have written this week and you caught that I have not addressed one of the arguments for a progressive tax rate, which is the argument of efficiency. In other words, we need increased taxes and a progressive tax system to provide increased revenue for goods and services that government provides.

Now this leads to the question, how much taxes should people pay? A great statistical tool when it comes to answering this question is referred to as the Laffer curve. The Laffer curve demonstrates the impact that higher taxes will have when it comes to the level of tax revenue that a government will collect. Too low a rate of taxes, as seen here on the graph, results in too little tax revenue for government.

However, too high a rate of taxes will also result in decreased tax revenue for a government, because at some point people will stop working to earn income if all that income is going to taxes. At some point between too little and too much there is a tax rate that will generate the maximum amount of revenue for any government. The goal is to find that amount and then spend that amount in a way that promotes good for people and punishes the evil of people.

So, with all this evidence in mind, “Does the government have the right to collect taxes? And if so, then what type of tax system would Jesus promote?" It is the answer to this question that provides for us a timeless truth when it comes to voting for Jesus. And that timeless truth is that to vote for Jesus is to vote for tax policies that promote personal responsibility and government accountability from everyone who earns an income at a fixed percentage of their income.

You see, to vote for Jesus is to recognize that we have been divinely designed to live in relationship with Him and one another and to live lives of responsibility in our relationships with one another. And a part of that Divine Design and responsibility is the responsibility to pay taxes. To vote for Jesus is to promote tax policies that provide the necessary resources for the government to fulfill its Divine responsible to promote good for people and punish the evil of people. To vote for Jesus is to promote tax policies that create the environment for economic growth that results in opportunities for people to improve their economic status. 

To vote for Jesus is to promote tax policies that encourage personal responsibility by having everyone pay a fixed percentage of their income, regardless of their income. And to vote for Jesus is to promote tax policies that result in that fixed percentage of income that is collected by taxes being used in a responsible manner by that government to fund the necessary aspects of government, including the military and defense. 

The current conversation in our culture when it comes to the issue of taxes...

This week we are addressing the issue of taxes. Specifically, I would like for us to ask and answer the questions “Does the government have the right to collect taxes? And if so, then what type of tax system would Jesus promote?

Yesterday, we addressed the question “Does the government have the right to collect taxes?” What is so fascinating about this question is that this question is not a new question. As a matter of fact this question was actually asked of Jesus. We see this question asked of Jesus in an event from history that is recorded for us in a section of an account of Jesus life in the Bible called the book of Matthew. In Matthew 22:15-22, we discovered that, as followers of Jesus, we are responsible for fulfilling our responsibilities that belong to the sphere of government, which includes paying taxes.

As followers of Jesus, there is no Biblical basis for refusing to pay taxes. As a matter of fact, Jesus paid taxes. The disciples of Jesus paid taxes. And early followers of Jesus paid taxes. We see this reality reinforced by the Apostle Paul in a section of a letter that is recorded for us in the New Testament of the Bible called the book of Romans. In Romans 13:1-7, we saw Paul explain to early followers of Jesus that we are to pay our taxes to whom it is due; local, state, and federal.

So throughout the message and teachings of the letters that make up the Bible, we see that the government has the right to collect taxes and that followers of Jesus are to fulfill their responsibilities to pay taxes. Now, that leads us to the next question which we need to ask and answer, which is “What type of tax system would Jesus promote?”

Currently, the United States government uses what is referred to as a progressive tax system. Simply put, a progressive tax system advocates that as a person’s income increases, the percentage of taxes that a person pays increases. As we talked about last week, in our current political climate, the conversation surrounding the issue of taxes has been one of the most fascinating discussions to observe.

At one end of the conversation when it comes to the issue of taxes are politicians and others who advocate for an increase in taxes through an increase in the progressive nature of the current progressive tax system. As a general rule, those who are viewed in our culture as being on “the left” often paint the current economic environment as being "rigged" for the wealthy.

And in the conversations that have been occurring over the last several years, those who advocate for an increase in the progressive nature of the current progressive tax system will use phrases like "everybody needs to pay their fair share" or "we need to solve the issue of income inequality" or "we need policies that promote a living wage" or "we need to rid the country of crony capitalism and deal with the one percent who are taking advantage of the system".

On the other end of the conversation when it comes to the issue of taxes would be politicians and others who advocate for a decrease in taxes. Some would argue for a decrease in the progressive nature of the current progressive tax system. Others would argue for either a flat tax, or a consumption tax, which is also referred to as a “fair tax”.

These are politicians, who would be viewed in our culture as being on “the right”, who advocate for lower taxes will use phrases like "we need a tax system that promotes personal liberty and responsibility" or "we need a tax system that promotes economic growth in a way that makes the pie bigger for everyone".

So, who is right when it comes to taxes? Are taxes rigged for the wealthy? Are the rich not paying their fair share? Are taxes hindering economic growth? And more importantly, which tax system lines up with the message and teachings of Jesus?

To help answer these questions, let’s look at some statistics and some Scripture. Let’s start with the statistics. According to the most current data on taxes, provided by the Federal Government, 45% of Americans pay nothing in federal taxes. By contrast, the richest 20% of Americans pay nearly 87% of all federal individual income tax in America. In addition, the  top 1% of Americans, who have an average income of more than $2.1 million a year, pay 43.6% of all the federal individual income tax in the U.S.; of the top 0.1% — just 115,000 households, whose average income is more than $9.4 million, pay more than 20% of the federal income tax in America.

Now a potential argument in support of the current progressive tax system and the statistics that I just shared with you is “Well Dave, just because the rich are paying more taxes, doesn’t mean that they are paying their fair share. Besides, rich people don’t morally deserve their income because almost everyone’s income results largely from factors beyond their control. Rich people have had privilege and access to resources and systems that poor people have not had access to. So it is only just to make rich people pay more taxes. Anyways, rich people can afford to pay more and still be happy with their lives. So if you let poor people pay less taxes they will have more money so they will be happier. And besides, the progressive tax system promotes efficiency as a progressive tax system increases revenue to the government for public goods and services”.

Now, I just want to make sure that you don’t think that I am not making up this argument. You can see this argument on almost any website that promotes the progressive tax system.

But do the arguments of justice, efficiency, and happiness that are used by those who promote the current progressive tax rate that we have in America hold water? Friday, we will discover the answer to that question...

“Does the government have the right to collect taxes?”

At the church where I serve we are in the midst of a sermon series entitled “Vote for Jesus”. During this series, our hope and our prayer is to accomplish three specific goals. First, our hope and our prayer is to demonstrate that Jesus is not a republican and Jesus is not a democrat. Instead, Jesus is God and as God Jesus is the one that we are to place our hope in, not a political party. Second, our hope and our prayer is to equip and empower us to think critically and Biblically when it comes to the issues that our culture is faced with that often find themselves expressed in the political process. And third, our hope and prayer is to provide a framework from the message and teachings of Jesus when it comes to how we as followers of Jesus are to engage in the government and in the political process in way that reveals and reflects Jesus to those around us.

Last week, we addressed the issue of the economy. Specifically, we asked the question “What type of economic system would Jesus promote?” We then discovered that to vote for Jesus is to vote for an economic system that supports private property and provides financial opportunity. You see, to vote for Jesus is to recognize that we have been divinely designed to live in relationship with Him and one another and have been given responsibility to rule over the earth as His representative here on earth. And a part of that Divine Design is the opportunity to own private property.

To vote for Jesus is to recognize that Jesus is not against us owning private property; what Jesus is against is private property owing us. To vote for Jesus is to recognize that to work hard and to leverage the resources that they owned as a result of their hard work that revealed and reflected Jesus to those in the workplace in order to meet the pressing and practical needs of others in a way that reveals and reflects Jesus.

And to vote for Jesus is to promote economic policies that provide financial opportunities for everyone, regardless of economic status. To vote for Jesus is to promote economic policies that provide the opportunity for individuals, through their efforts, to gain the education and opportunities to improve their economic status. 

To vote for Jesus is to promote policies that do not deny justice to someone because they are either rich or poor. To vote for Jesus recognizes and protects the belief that one's economic status should not be a factor when it comes to justice and that each individual, regardless of economic status, is responsible for their actions. We ended our time with a fundamental question regarding the economy unanswered. And that fundamental question is this "Well Dave what about taxes?”

So this week I would like for us to address the issue of taxes. Specifically, I would like for us to ask and answer the questions “Does the government have the right to collect taxes? And if so, then what type of tax system would Jesus promote? So let’s take each of these questions and let’s see what the message and teachings of Jesus has to say about these questions.

First, let’s take the question “Does the government have the right to collect taxes?” What is so fascinating about this question is that this question is not a new question. As a matter of fact this question was actually asked of Jesus. We see this question asked of Jesus in an event from history that is recorded for us in a section of an account of Jesus life in the Bible called the book of Matthew. So let’s jump into this event from history together, beginning in Matthew 22:15:

Then the Pharisees went and plotted together how they might trap Him in what He said. And they sent their disciples to Him, along with the Herodians, saying, "Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any. "Tell us then, what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?"

Matthew, who was a former tax collector who became one of the twelve closest followers of Jesus, gives us a front row seat to this event from history by providing for us the context and the question that was asked Jesus. This event from history occurred on the Tuesday before Jesus was arrested, tried, and crucified. Matthew tells us that the Pharisees, who were the self righteous religious people of Jesus day, gathered together to plot and plan how they could trap Jesus so as to discredit Jesus.

You see, as Jesus gained in popularity among the Jewish people, the Pharisees began to lose the power and influence that they so desperately desired. So the Pharisees wanted to discredit Jesus publicly so they could retain the positions of power and influence that they had prior to Jesus arriving on the scene. After plotting and planning, these self righteous people thought that they had come up with the perfect question that would discredit Jesus. So, with their question in hand, these self righteous religious leaders approached Jesus as He was surrounded by large crowds.

Upon gaining Jesus attention; upon trying to lower Jesus defenses by brownnosing Jesus, these self righteous religious leaders then sprang the question that they thought would trap Jesus on Jesus “"Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any "Tell us then, what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?"

Now to fully understand why this question was viewed as being a trap, we first need to understand where the Jewish people were at during this time in history. At this time in history, the Jewish people were a conquered people who lived under the rule of the Roman Empire, which was the dominant military and political power in the world at this time in history.

 

So the question that these Jewish religious leaders posed, if communicated in the language that we use in our culture today, would have sounded something like this: “The Roman government says we are to pay taxes to Caesar as our ruler and Lord, but the Bible says that God gave us this land and that He is our ruler and Lord. So what do you say we should do? Should we pay taxes or not?”

You see, these self righteous people believed that this question placed Jesus in a no win situation. If Jesus answered the question by saying that the Jewish people should not pay taxes to Caesar, then the Romans would view Him as leading a rebellion and would kill Jesus. However, if Jesus answered the question by saying that the Jewish people should pay taxes to Caesar, then the Jewish people would see Him as a traitor to the Jewish people and of being disloyal to the Lord.

Either way, Jesus would lose power and influence and the self righteous religious people would gain power and influence. However, what these self righteous religious people were not prepared for was the answer that Jesus would give to this question. An answer that Matthew records for us beginning in versed 18:

But Jesus perceived their malice, and said, "Why are you testing Me, you hypocrites? "Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax." And they brought Him a denarius. And He said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" They said to Him, "Caesar's." Then He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." And hearing this, they were amazed, and leaving Him, they went away.”?

Well, that did not work out like the self righteous religious leaders had planned. Instead or gaining influence by eroding Jesus influence, this question and Jesus answer to this question resulted in the further erosion of the self righteous religious leaders influence and Jesus gaining influence.

And it is in Jesus answer to this question that we see Jesus reveal for us the reality that there are two spheres of influence in the life of a follower of Jesus. In one sphere of influence are those things which belong to government, which Jesus refers as the things that are Caesar’s. The other sphere of influence involves those things which belong to the religious life of people, which Jesus refers to as the things that are God’s.

Jesus here is revealing for us the reality that the church should not try to control the things that are involved in the sphere of government and the government should not try to control the things that are involved in the sphere of church. Jesus point here is that as followers of Jesus we are responsible for fulfilling our responsibilities that belong to the sphere of government, which includes paying taxes.

As followers of Jesus, there is no Biblical basis for refusing to pay taxes. As a matter of fact, Jesus paid taxes. The disciples of Jesus paid taxes. And early followers of Jesus paid taxes. We see this reality reinforced by the Apostle Paul in a section of a letter that is recorded for us in the New Testament of the Bible called the book of Romans. In Romans 13:1-7, which we looked at in the very first sermon in this series, we see Paul command followers of Jesus to do the following when it comes to taxes in Romans 13:6-7:

For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

In these verses, we see Paul reveal for us the reality that we are to practice a lifestyle of submission to government by fulfilling our responsibilities. We see this revealed for us four different ways that we as followers of Jesus are to fulfill our responsibilities to government. And part of that responsibility is to pay our taxes. We are to pay our taxes to whom it is due; local, state, and federal.

So, throughout the message and teachings of the letters that make up the Bible, we see that the government has the right to collect taxes and that followers of Jesus are to fulfill their responsibilities to pay taxes. Now, that leads us to the next question which we need to ask and answer, which is “What type of tax system would Jesus promote?”

Tomorrow we will begin to answer that question…

To vote for Jesus is to vote for an economic system that supports private property and provides financial opportunity...

This week, we have been examining the issue of the economy. We have been asking and answering the questions "What policies would Jesus promote when it comes to the economy? What type of economic system would Jesus promote?" So far this week, after defining some economic terms, we looked at a section of a letter that is recorded for us in the Bible, called the book of Exodus, where we discovered that the nature of the commandments that are recorded for us in the Old Testament of the Bible seem to indicate that Jesus would not be a proponent of socialism or communism.

In addition, we discovered that one’s economic status should not be a factor when it comes to justice. And the justice system should not be used in such a way that favors or provides advantages to anyone based on their economic status. Each individual, regardless of economic status, is responsible for their actions.  We also talked about the reality that the letters that make up the Bible reveal that there would always be the poor among us. And the reason why there will always be the poor among us has nothing to do with an economic system around us. The reason why there will always be poor among us is due to the selfishness and rebellion that is within us.

Today, I would like to look at another argument to the idea that Jesus was an advocate of socialism and communism, which would be "Well Dave what about God's repeated commands to care and provide for the poor? What about Jesus words in Matthew 25:31-46 that talk about caring for the poor and the needy as evidence of being right with God? What about what the early church did in Acts 2 and Acts 4? Doesn't the words of Jesus and the actions of the early church promote the idea of socialism or communism?" If that argument in running through your mind, I just want to let you know that is a fair question. So let's look at the verses in question, beginning with Acts 2:44-45:

And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; ⁴⁵ and  they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need.

The argument here is that the phrase "all things in common" reflects the sense of common ownership, not private property. In addition, those who use these verse to advocate that Jesus was a socialist of communist would point to the fact that early followers of Jesus sold their property and possession and were sharing them with all as anyone might have need, demonstrates the income redistribution to those in need that is a foundational principle in communism. And we see a similar pattern by early followers of Jesus a few chapters later in Acts 4:32-35:

 And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them. ³³ And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all. ³⁴ For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would   sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales ³⁵ and lay them at the apostles' feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need.

Now if we were having a conversation out at the courtyard coffeehouse, my response to this argument and the use of these verses to support an argument for socialism and communism is this: "Who had all things in common? Was it the government that had all things in common? It was followers of Jesus living in community that was marked by unity who were willingly and without compulsion meeting the pressing and practical needs of other followers of Jesus.

You see, it wasn't that these early followers of Jesus did not have private property and it wasn't that the government was compelling these early followers of Jesus to sell their private property. Instead these early followers of Jesus were open handed and generous with their private property to meet the needs of others. And throughout the letters that make up the Bible we see the Lord call His people to work hard and to leverage the resources that they owned as a result of their hard work that revealed and reflected Jesus to those in the workplace in order to meet the pressing and practical needs of others in a way that reveals and reflects Jesus.

Now in terms of the argument that socialism or communism provide the best environment to eliminate poverty, another response to that argument would be this: can you point to one example of any communistic or socialistic economic system eliminating poverty in any country throughout human history?

The answer is that there has never been a case in human history where that has been the case. However, there are many examples throughout history that indicate that socialism and communism create and exacerbate poverty. If you do not think that is the case, look at the history of the nation of Cuba, the nation of Venezuela, the nation of North Korea, just for starters.

As a matter of fact, did you know that communism was once tried in America? It is one of the reasons that we celebrate Thanksgiving. When we celebrate Thanksgiving, we are celebrating how the Native Americans helped early settlers who were on the verge of starvation.

 

However, the part of the story of Thanksgiving that you are not told in history class is the reason why they were suffering from starvation is due to the fact that the initial settlers to America attempted to institute a communistic economic system. AHowever, since there was no incentive to work hard because at the end of the day, everyone gets the same thing, no one worked hard. And as a result there was nothing to eat. Thus, the first Thanksgiving. It was only after the settlers to America abandoned communism that they began to succeed.

So, with all the Biblical and historical evidence in mind, what should be the policy of the United States regarding the economy? What type of economic system would Jesus promote? It is the answer to this question that provides for us a timeless truth when it comes to voting for Jesus. And that timeless truth is this: To vote for Jesus is to vote for an economic system that supports private property and provides financial opportunity.

 

You see, to vote for Jesus is to recognize that we have been divinely designed to live in relationship with Him and one another and have been given responsibility to rule over the earth as His representative here on earth. And a part of that Divine Design is the opportunity to own private property. To vote for Jesus is to recognize that Jesus is not against us owning private property; what Jesus is against is private property owing us. To vote for Jesus is to recognize that everything we have comes from God and has been given to us to bring the light of the kingdom of God into the dark spaces and places of the world by being open handed generous people.

And to vote for Jesus is to promote economic policies that provide financial opportunities for everyone, regardless of economic status. To vote for Jesus is to promote economic policies that provide the opportunity for individuals, through their efforts, to gain the education and opportunities to improve their economic status.  To vote for Jesus is to promote policies that do not deny justice to someone because they are either rich or poor. To vote for Jesus recognizes and protects the belief that one's economic status should not be a factor when it comes to justice and that each individual, regardless of economic status, is responsible for their actions. 

Now right about now you might be thinking "Dave what about taxes, you did not talk about taxes". Next week, we will spend our entire time talking about the issue of taxes....