The year of the Tea Party
Evangelical left leader Jim Wallis is very concerned that we not confuse the Tea Party movement with the Kingdom of God, or the Evangelical Magisterium, or something like that. Well I should hope not! But I am not aware that anyone at the forefront of the Tea Party movement is claiming that it is a definitively Christian movement. At the same time, however, Tea Party concerns are not unchristian.
The Tea Party is not the Moral Majority. Pollster George Gallup Jr. declared 1976 to be “the year of the evangelical,” but he hadn’t seen the half of it. Throughout the 1970s, evangelicals had been mobilizing in response to the federal government’s use of the IRS to take on all-white Christian schools, whether they were de facto segregated local private schools or intentionally segregated like Bob Jones University. This governmental breach of their “separated life” did not sit well.
By 1979, the Rev. Jerry Falwell had united religious conservatives into a more broadly concerned “Moral Majority,” setting the stage for 1980 to be the real “year of the evangelical” as born again Christians proved decisive in lifting Ronald Reagan into the White House. Electorally, if 2010 becomes the year of the Tea Party movement, where are the parallels, if any?
The Moral Majority was intentionally a largely, but not necessarily, religious organization. It presented itself as a moral majority, not a Christian majority. Their concerns were threefold: family, foreign policy, and fiscal responsibility, if I may put it that way. Family issues included opposition to homosexuality, abortion, divorce, pornography, and feminism. Foreign policy concerns included standing effectively against world communism and supporting the state of Israel. To this they added a call for lower taxes and a balanced budget. The group’s agenda mirrored the GOP coalition of moral conservatives, foreign policy hawks, and fiscal conservatives, though the Moral Majority was chiefly concerned with family issues. There was an evangelical ministry called Focus on the Family, but nothing called Focus on Firepower or anything like that.
The Tea Party has a narrower agenda. It’s all about money. The movement was triggered by concerns over wild government spending, initially the implementation of TARP to stabilize the financial system, but then the group began to rally against various other stimulus packages, interventions, and pork barrel spending orgies that seemed to exploit the crisis to pillage several generations of taxpayers while the getting was good.
But money is not a dirty word. While balanced budgets are not the stuff of gospel preaching, financial responsibility is not an ungodly concern. In fact, concern for it is implied in the Eighth Commandment: “Thou shalt not steal!” Jim Wallis says, “[T]he Tea Party can legitimately be examined on the basis of Christian principles—and it should be,” then proceeds to attempt it. Yet he manages to overlook this feature that is arguably Christian and definitively Tea Party.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top35 Comments to “The year of the Tea Party”
Wallis completely misses the point of the Tea Party. He doesn’t get it. Here’s another good piece about why Wallis is wrong.
http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Is-the-Tea-Party-a-Christian-Movement?offset=0&max=1
“To borrow a more inflammatory phrase from George Will, Reverend Wallis becomes, when describing conservative Christians and conservative policy preferences, “a pyromaniac in a field of straw men.” His argument against the Tea Party is a sterling example.”
“How, then, does Reverend Wallis describe the “political philosophy” of the Tea Party? Wallis likens the Tea Partiers to the murderous Cain, who believed or pretended to believe that he was not his brother’s keeper. The philosophy underpinning the Tea Party represents an “enshrinement of individual choice” that rejects “loving the neighbor” in favor of “telling the neighbor to leave you alone.” The Tea Party apparently rejects the very idea of government for the common good. It is an “anti-government ideology” that leaves no place for a government “preserving the social order, punishing evil and rewarding good, and protecting the common good.”"
Doesn’t get it at all.
Report comment to moderator
The Libertarians’ supreme confidence in the market is not consistent with a biblical view of human nature and sin. The exclusive focus on government as the central problem ignores the problems of other social sectors, and in particular, the market.
Government concentrates power in the hands of a few. Thus it is far more dangerous than the market, which scatters power and allows for competition.
But a power-hungry government is clearly an aberration and violation of the proper role of government in protecting its citizens and upholding the demands of fairness and justice. To disparage government per se — to see government as the central problem in society — is simply not a biblical position.
Umm, no. Just look at history. The Roman Empire, kings and feudal princes in the middle ages, the Russian czars, the Nazis and Communists, the other authoriarian governments of the twentieth centuries, whether from the Left or Right (in South America, for example) – authoritarian government has clearly been a plague and a much greater threat than the supposed threat of the free market.
Report comment to moderator
What has to happen in order for this to be considered the “true” “year of the Tea Party”? With most pollsters expecting the Dems to take a beating but hold both houses, how low is that bar?
Report comment to moderator
Finally, I am just going to say it. There is something wrong with a political movement like the Tea Party which is almost all white. Does that mean every member of the Tea Party is racist? Likely not. But is an undercurrent of white resentment part of the Tea Party ethos, and would there even be a Tea Party if the president of the United States weren’t the first black man to occupy that office? It’s time we had some honest answers to that question.
“Likely” not?
“You Tea Partiers are racist lying bigots. Now, can we have a nice dialogue?”
Report comment to moderator
The tea party is brought to you by people who are tired of all the taxes. They wanted change, but they were too stupid to ask what Obama meant by change. They didn’t listen, but they are wide awake now.
Report comment to moderator
Disregard. Trying to underline some text.
Report comment to moderator
Arizona Border
“The American Patriots Are Coming!”
to AZ Oct. 22-24
“Speaking Truth To Power”
waiting for the invitation from Governor Brewer and Sheriff Joe
two American heroes, standing in the breach
OUR MISSION, Patriots, IS ARIZONA UPLIFT
Patriots Rally Song
Krista Branch
(turn up your sound all the way)
“I am America” http://bit.ly/9CRMOG
http://www.musostudio.net/Muso_Studio/Studio.html
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, Jim Wallis you make me sad.
“Christian answer to the question “Are we our brother’s keeper?” is decidedly “Yes.”
No. The Christian answer to that question is that it is the wrong question. My brother’s “keeper” is a horrible metaphor – used by Cain to try to weasel out of responsibility for murder.
There is no “keeper” mentality you find in the Bible in your relation to other people. Words like Love, Honor, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” – of course. But “keep” implies control, force, and be responsible for them. Slippery use of language to extend Biblical commands for individuals to care for other individuals to a call for a Nanny State.
Report comment to moderator
2 Matt Y –
or even read 1st Samuel – here what Samuel says having a king will do to the people.
The Bible says the government has a role to play – yes! Absolutely. But what is that role? “Sphere sovereignty” is a key concept – the government has intruded upon the other social spheres (family, labor, church, community, God & man) and has replaced God in those spheres. That is an awful place for the state to be – and when the king thinks he is God, he becomes the devil.
Report comment to moderator
Doug Wilson shoots Wallis down.
In flames.
Report comment to moderator
Finally, I am just going to say it. There is something wrong with a political movement like the Tea Party which is almost all white.
Methinks that MATT Y is a racist. At least his comments are.
Report comment to moderator
BTW, Doug Wilson is a self-conscious theocrat. And one of the more interesting points Wilson makes in the piece linked above is that Wallis, too, is a theocrat:
MFW (11): Methinks that MATT Y is a racist. At least his comments are.
Frank: Matt’s formatting doesn’t exactly make it clear, but
… are Jim Wallis’ words, not Matt’s.
Report comment to moderator
The Libertarians’ supreme confidence in the market is not consistent with a biblical view of human nature and sin.
This is close to a straw man arguement. Libertarians don’t hold “Supreme confidence in the market”. They respect the market as the sailor respects the ocean.
The libertarian does not see the market as the wisest of entities. They see the Pet Rocks along the way.
Report comment to moderator
Allen Wrench (6): Disregard. Trying to underline some text.
Frank: It can be done!
See WorldMagBlog’s “Website Help” link.
The first entry on that page is “How do I add bold or italicized text to my comment?”
In order to underline, just follow the same instructions for bolding or italicizing, but replace the “b” or “i” with a “u” instead.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you Frank in Spokane,
I see now that he was quoting Jim Wallace and not speaking for himself. Jim Wallace’s words are the racist words. I hope I didn’t offend MATT Y by misreading what he said. I hope someone will show him how to use the bold or the “quotation marks” so that won’t happen again.
Matt Y , Please forgive me.
Report comment to moderator
Underlining’s not allowed (as far as I can tell) in the World Mag set of rules for Word Press. I try it from time to time
Report comment to moderator
To ask if the Tea Party would have started if a black man hadn’t been elected is a legitimate question. One can also ask if the Tea Party would have started if a Democratic President wasn’t elected. Given that Obama’s domestic policies aren’t much different than Bush especially in terms of bail outs and stimulus packages, its legitimate to ask why the Tea Party formed only after Obama was elected. Given that Obama attached more oversight to the bailouts and seeks regulation to prevent an other bank bailout from being necessary, one has to ask why the Tea Party wasn’t more upset with the Republicans who gave money away with oversight. The answer to all these questions may lie with Dick Armey, Freedom Works and other Republican groups who gave financial and organization assistance to the Tea Party.
Report comment to moderator
No underlining?
Strange. It shows up in the “preview” view below the text entry window. But it evidently doesn’t render in the final post.
But
strikethroughdoes! (Replace the “b” or “i” with the word “strike”.)Report comment to moderator
HRW (18): Given that Obama’s domestic policies aren’t much different than Bush especially in terms of bail outs and stimulus packages, its legitimate to ask why the Tea Party formed only after Obama was elected [my ital - FiS].
Frank: Umm … wrong [my bold below]:
(But that’s okay … I only learned of this just yesterday myself!)
Report comment to moderator
Frank – –I don’t think the two tea parties are the same people.
For a little fun check out the video who is more conservative Obama or Reagan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILg1-H6oNuM
Report comment to moderator
Great posts so far. Hope I don’t ruin it with this …
If the Tea Party movement is Christian, then Ayn Rand was Christian.
The movement is political; Christianity is not. On the other hand, any movement which emphasizes truth, justice, liberty and is full of Christians, certainly has some temporal alignments on matters of principle.
The movement is not “All about money!” It is primarily about liberty and limited government. It is about the things which once made America great, a celebration of hard work, rugged individualism, entrepreneurship, free markets and rational self interest.
It opposes socialistic altruism which rewards failure and penalizes success. It is against collectivism and economic syndicalism, central planning of bloated oppressive government that leads to tyranny, rationing and poverty.
Does one find such principles in the Bible? Perhaps in part.
There is nothing better for a man than to enjoy the fruit of his labor. (Eccl 2:24; 3:22)
The Promised Land was described as a place where every man had his own vine and fig tree, his own property to enjoy.
If any would not work, neither should he eat. (2 Th 3:10) In other words, no free rides. Everyone earns his own keep.
SeanMt gave an excellent answer about Cain in #8. We are not to be our brother’s keeper in the manner that fascists and socialists imagine. Christians are to care for others, not keep them.
Report comment to moderator
HRW (21): Frank – –I don’t think the two tea parties are the same people.
Frank: … which is kinda my point, actually.
At (18), you said things like:
In actuality, there is no single identifiable “Tea Party” (capital T, capital P, registered trademark). There’s no “Tea Party” PAC. There’s no political party that goes by that name. There is no mailing address for a unique organization or social entity who has the sole rights to call itself “the Tea Party.”
There are the web addresses “www.TeaParty.com” and “www.TeaParty.org.” While the former appears to be some manner of rock group, the latter appears to be one of scores (hundreds?) of political websites with the words “tea party” in their url, all of which promote what they believe to be the principles of the Tea Party movement. (Which principles themselves have hardly been enumerated, agreed upon or set in stone by all who call themselves “Tea Partiers.”)
The Tea Party movement is vast and broad, but it is hardly monolithic or singular.
And since there is no one group who calls itself “the Tea Party,” it makes no sense whatsoever to discuss the Tea Party as a group that came about after Obama was elected, or who wasn’t disgusted with the spendthrift GOP POTUS and his lackeys in the legislature, or who received funding from this or that central resource.
However, it appears that the term “Tea Party” was first used contemporarily by Ron Paul supporters in Boston in Dec. 2007.
(Of course, I could be wrong. And it wouldn’t be the first time today.)
Report comment to moderator
The Tea Party movement, like all movements, started long before it had a name. To tie it to the election of Barack Obama is inaccurate. Anti-tax rallies and protests have been going on for a long time, and just happened to coalesce in the last two years. I would say that the taxing and spending that occurred under President Bush were what actually prompted the various groups and individuals to come together into a recognizable movement.
Most Tea Party people I know were not huge fans of President Bush. He was simply better than the alternative.
Report comment to moderator
the Eighth Commandment: “Thou shalt not steal!”
That is a misuse of the commandment.
How did Jesus look at this?
Matthew 6:24
“No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.
Matthew 22:15-22
Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”
But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?”
“Caesar’s,” they replied.
Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”
When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.
He didn’t say protest against Caesar and call Caesar a thief. These Christians have lost their way and are not focused on the Kingdom of God.
Report comment to moderator
I think in America we have now a confluence of hippie era “Do Your Own Thing” and longstanding “Dont Tread on Me!” Libertarianism.
I agree that the TEA movemt (remember it means Taxed Enough Already) is not the exclusive purview of Conservative Christians. Exclusively conservative Christian protestant outfits like Christian Coalition and Moral Majority petered out long ago.
Opponents of higher spending and taxes dont really need to agree on anything else.
How much voluntary poverty fighting does Jim Wallis do??
Report comment to moderator
#25 ExMinister “He didn’t say protest against Caesar and call Caesar a thief. These Christians have lost their way and are not focused on the Kingdom of God. “
The church mission has to do with the Kingdom of God, but Christians are also commanded to be good citizens. We have citizenship in two countries, a heavenly and an earthly.
Regardless of one’s religious persuasion, as American citizens we have the right to protest policies which are harmful to the country. Otherwise what you would be saying is that only non-Christians are allowed to speak about politics.
Report comment to moderator
“Otherwise what you would be saying is that only non-Christians are allowed to speak about politics.”
Um… that’s not what he’s saying???? Seems like that is the liberal mindset to me….
Report comment to moderator
Exminister (25): [Jesus in Matthew 22] didn’t say protest against Caesar and call Caesar a thief.
Frank: Nor did He say that everything that Caesar demands is his.
Reading what the Holy Spirit teaches us in 1 Samuel 8:10-18, it is evident that God considers a tax of ten percent to be egregious:
God asks a tithe of us. When Caesar compels much more than that, he is likely stealing.
Report comment to moderator
@29 Frank
That was for Israel. The money was for God.
Jesus doesn’t want His people involved in politics. Being a law abiding citizen is right so as to not shame the gospel. To associate with this party or that or stand in protest for this or that is focusing on this world and relying on human answers for the worlds problems. Guess how that goes. Is not time short? Is the answer in this world? The Old Testament was about God and Country. The New Testament was about the world to come saving those who come to Him. Where in the New Testament do you see any reference to fixing the Roman government? That is Zionism and that has no hope.
We have a representative government. We vote these bastards in and they spend like crazy and ultimately someone will have to pay for it. If I run up my debt I will pay for it to be an honorable person. We have taxation WITH representation. We are responsible. It is not stealing. That is a stretch.
Matthew 6:19-21
Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
Report comment to moderator
#30 ExMinister, What you say sounds an awful lot like what I say frequently here, but with one slight alteration: Jesus didn’t mandate that none of his followers should participate in politics. Rather, Jesus and Paul provided a hard separation between church and state, outlining the two areas of our concern living as humans on planet earth. Eternal matters outweigh the temporal, but don’t annihilate them.
A church should fundamentally be about spiritual concerns. The only political mention in the NT was to be good citizens and pay your taxes. Obviously the spiritual economy is more important than your 401K.
However, John the Baptist pointed out Herod’s sins and Paul appealed to the Roman government. There is nothing wrong with voting one’s conscience or being involved in one’s community or politics.
One doesn’t feed his family solely with spiritual bread. Nor does loving one’s neighbor mean avoiding all matters of community. However, you are right to point out that these can be a distraction from more important eternal matters.
Report comment to moderator
EXMINISTER, the passage Frank quoted does not refer to money given to God. It refers to money demanded by the king for his personal support.
Report comment to moderator
exminister (30): Jesus doesn’t want His people involved in politics.
Frank: I think that is a vast — and biblically unwarranted — oversimplification of the matter.
While the whole testimony of Scripture indicates that the civil magistrate — i.e., rulers or “politics” — must submit itself to the lordship of Jesus Christ, I suggest you consider four passages:
Jesus does not want His people involved in politics as if politics is to be their salvation.
Rather, He is all for them being involved in politics if that involvement — whether as voter, judge, legislator or king — is submitted to Him.
Report comment to moderator
Today Michelle Obama resorted to call the Tea Party movement racist. That’s odd given the speech was hosted by an organization whose sole purpose is to promote the agenda of a single race so-called.
Report comment to moderator
34. Did you see the pictures of the crowd at the convention. I didn’t see any white people in the crowd. According to their standards that makes them racist.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!