What on earth are you talking about?

Please read this passage from the Bible. [1]

Matthew 25:31-46

31. "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33. and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. 34. Then the King will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35. for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36. I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' 37. Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? 38. And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? 39. And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' 40. And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.' 41. Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42. for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43. I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' 44. Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' 45. Then he will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' 46. And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." [other translations] [2]

Again, what are you talking about?  Jesus never says anything about any conservatives or, as you call them, "right-wingers."

You're right.  But Jesus sends to Hell the very people whose actions precisely fit those of people who today call themselves conservative Christians.

How do you know how much conservative Christians give to charity?  Many I know are quite generous.

I'm not talking about their private charitable giving.  I'm speaking of their political choices and activism.

Oh c'mon, this passage from Matthew only applies to acts of individual charity. [3]

Right-wingers always make this claim, and many people, without really thinking, respond, "Oh yeah, that’s right."  Why?  Where does Matthew 25 say or even imply that it only applies to individual actions of a charitable nature?

The proper view is, you are individually held to account under Matthew 25 for your individual one-on-one acts of charity or lack thereof, but you are also individually held to account under Matthew 25 for how the actions you take influence your society in its treatment of the "least of these."

In the analysis directly following, as will often be the case in this essay, my assertions will be backed up by (1) plain meaning and logic -- analysis of the text itself; (2) Biblical antecedents -- reference to other Biblical passages; and (3) Papal teachings -- citing of relevant elements of the Catholic Church's official written social doctrine.

So let's first look at the Biblical text itself.

Jesus separates the goats and sheep by nations, not by individuals. 

Moreover, when the "righteous" -- the sheep -- address Jesus, they ask "Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink?"  When the "cursed" -- the goats --address Jesus, they also speak collectively: "Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?"  The righteous and the cursed do not individually ask "When did I…"  or even "When did each of us…"

It is true that "nations" as used in Matthew 25 may not mean nation-states as we know them today, but it's still a collective noun.  That, together with the "we" language, certainly doesn't militate against responsibility to influence collective action, or excuse its failure.

This textual analysis, while not dispositive, is backed up by another factor: should a passage such as Matthew 25 really be interpreted narrowly so as to avoid responsibility?  To do so would be a perversion of the Golden Rule itself.

Having a narrow, stingy reading of Matthew 25 is, to put it more bluntly, absurd.  Would anyone seriously maintain that Jesus would say it’s okay for society as a whole to let people suffer and die, as long as some members give some money to charity? 

Please…  Jesus would charge the entire society with the responsibility.  There's every reason to think that each of us is judged by how the actions we each take influence our government and our society.  

What if an individual tries but fails to get the government or society to treat the "least of these" in a Matthew 25 fashion?  Is that individual punished because of the collective failure to act properly?  I would hope not, but in any case, such speculation is irrelevant for purposes of this essay, since as will be shown below, right-wing pseudo-Christians as individuals are on the opposing side of such proper action. 

(And to jump ahead on another point: this essay does not call for a government solution to any given problem.  It just calls for some solution).

That we are individually responsible for influencing the actions of our government and society is borne out quite clearly by the second element of our analysis: other parts of the Bible.

The Bible makes clear that God will hold a nation responsible for its wrongful acts toward the poor -- that is to say, for its political acts of omission or commission.   

The most famous example would probably be God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah because of the sins of their inhabitants.  The Bible makes clear that at least as far as Sodom is concerned, mistreatment of the poor was one element leading to its destruction:

Ezekiel 16:49-50

49. Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. 50. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them, when I saw it. [other translations]

Here's another example where the inappropriate actions of a city or nation's inhabitants towards the poor caused its destruction:

Zechariah 7:8-14

8. And the word of the Lord came to Zechariah, saying, 9. "Thus says the Lord of hosts, Render true judgments, show kindness and mercy each to his brother, 10. do not oppress the widow, the fatherless, the sojourner, or the poor; and let none of you devise evil against his brother in your heart." 11. But they refused to hearken, and turned a stubborn shoulder, and stopped their ears that they might not hear. 12. They made their hearts like adamant lest they should hear the law and the words which the Lord of hosts had sent by his Spirit through the former prophets. Therefore great wrath came from the Lord of hosts. 13. "As I called, and they would not hear, so they called, and I would not hear," says the Lord of hosts, 14. "and I scattered them with a whirlwind among all the nations which they had not known. Thus the land they left was desolate, so that no one went to and fro, and the pleasant land was made desolate." [other translations] [4]

In other instances, it was the government itself that was the instrumentality of the sin, and the cause of the nation being condemned and/or destroyed.  Sometimes the individual rulers themselves were singled out for criticism, and assigned blame for the punishment of the nation.

Since we in the United States live in a democracy and thus select our rulers and by extension the policies they will implement, either type of such criticism– whether broadly of the government or specifically of the actual officials -- can well be considered applicable to us today as a society:

Isaiah 10:1-5

1. Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees, and the writers who keep writing oppression, 2. to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be their spoil, and that they may make the fatherless their prey! 3. What will you do on the day of punishment, in the storm which will come from afar? To whom will you flee for help, and where will you leave your wealth? 4. Nothing remains but to crouch among the prisoners or fall among the slain. For all this his anger is not turned away and his hand is stretched out still. 5. Ah, Assyria, the rod of my anger, the staff of my fury! [other translations]

Micah 3:1-4

1. And I said: Hear, you heads of Jacob and rulers of the house of Israel! Is it not for you to know justice? -- 2. you who hate the good and love the evil, who tear the skin from off my people, and their flesh from off their bones; 3. who eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them, and break their bones in pieces, and chop them up like meat in a kettle, like flesh in a caldron. 4. Then they will cry to the Lord, but he will not answer them; he will hide his face from them at that time, because they have made their deeds evil. [other translations] [5]

Biblical antecedents, therefore, support the conclusion that Matthew 25 does not just apply to individual acts of charity, but its standards are applicable to those actions we take or fail to take as a nation. [6]  And in a democracy, each of us is responsible under Matthew 25 for how our individual political and other decisions influence the national course of action.

The third element of my analysis -- the social doctrine of the Church – affirms my textual analysis and examination of Biblical antecedents, and similarly makes clear that individual acts of charity are not sufficient to satisfy Matthew 25. 

Let's go through the reasoning process behind the Church's position:

·       Even the anti-communist, anti-socialist [7], even anti-welfare-state [8] Pope John Paul II has strongly and repeatedly reaffirmed the Church's Matthew 25-based "preferential option for the poor":

As far as the Church is concerned, the social message of the Gospel must not be considered a theory, but above all else a basis and a motivation for action... Christ's words "as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me" (Mt 25:40) were not intended to remain a pious wish, but were meant to become a concrete life commitment... Love for others, and in the first place love for the poor, in whom the Church sees Christ himself, is made concrete in the promotion of justice... Centesimus Annus [9]

·       In this effort, individual acts of charity are not enough:

This constant dedication to the poor and disadvantaged emerges in the Church's social teaching, which ceaselessly invites the Christian community to a commitment to overcome every form of exploitation and oppression. It is a question not only of alleviating the most serious and urgent needs through individual actions here and there, but of uncovering the roots of evil and proposing initiatives to make social, political and economic structures more just and fraternal. Ecclesia in America [10]

·       The reason individual charity is not enough, and that collective political action is required, are the "political and economic structures" referred to by the Pope: [11]

[T]he decisions which either accelerate or slows down the development of peoples are really political in character. In order to overcome the misguided mechanisms mentioned earlier and to replace them with new ones which will be more just and in conformity with the common good of humanity, an effective political will is needed." Solicitudo Rei Socialis [12], [13]

·       So harmful are these structures that they can even be called "structures of sin":

If the present situation can be attributed to difficulties of various kinds, it is not out of place to speak of "structures of sin"... "Sin" and "structures of sin" are categories which are seldom applied to the situation of the contemporary world. However, one cannot easily gain a profound understanding of the reality that confronts us unless we give a name to the root of the evils which afflict us. Solicitudo Rei Socialis [14]

·       The Vatican itself will go beyond charitable work and seek to influence governmental and international bodies:

Once more I express the hope, which the Synod Fathers made their own, that the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace together with other competent agencies, such as the Section for Relations with States of the Secretariat of State, "through study and dialogue with representatives of the First World and with the leaders of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, will seek ways of resolving the problem of the foreign debt and produce guidelines that would prevent similar situations from recurring on the occasion of future loans." Ecclesia in America

In sum: yes, you are individually held to account under Matthew 25 for your individual one-on-one acts of charity or the lack thereof, but you are also individually held to account under Matthew 25 for how the actions you take influence your society in its treatment of the "least of these" – the "social, political and economic" choices to which the Pope refers.   (And no, I'm not saying government programs are the only answer.  Quite the contrary.  Read the section directly below.)

Even if Matthew 25 requires going beyond individual charity, conservative Christians have plans to help the poor, and that certainly satisfies the injunction in Matthew 25.

Their "plans" are inadequate to fulfill the Matthew 25 mandate.

Proposing that private charity should do whatever needs to be done, and hoping that there will be enough private charity, isn’t a plan -- it’s a hope.  Vague hopes that private charities will take up the slack from decimated or never-enacted government programs are worthless, and have never come to fruition.

Jesus didn’t say “I was hungry and you hoped I’d be fed.”  Or “I was hungry and you called upon people to feed me.”

Similarly inadequate for Matthew 25 are the vague hopes that "the market" [15] will solve the problem; or that "competition" will; or even that the seemingly-more-specific, yet just as bogus, long-discredited Reagan-era theory, "trickle-down" economics, [16] will provide the solution.

Vague hopes are not enough: plans to help the poor must be concrete.

Indeed, Church social doctrine makes explicitly clear that concrete action is required:

As far as the Church is concerned, the social message of the Gospel must not be considered a theory, but above all else a basis and a motivation for action... Christ's words "as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me" (Mt 25 :40) were not intended to remain a pious wish, but were meant to become a concrete life commitment... Love for others, and in the first place love for the poor, in whom the Church sees Christ himself, is made concrete in the promotion of justice. Centesimus Annus

The hungry must be fed, the thirsty must be given water, the naked must be clothed, the sick must be given medical care.  No excuses are acceptable:

The motivating concern for the poor--who are, in the very meaningful term, "the Lord's poor"…--must be translated at all levels into concrete actions, until it decisively attains a series of necessary reforms. Solicitudo Rei Socialis [17]

You don't have to advocate any particular ideology: Democratic, Republican, liberal, conservative, socialist, libertarian, or any other "ism."  But you have to have a plan.  It can be a totally non-governmental plan.  But you have to be able to say "Here's what we will do, if allowed, to solve this problem as soon as humanly possible."

The hallmark here is effective action, not a state of mind or expressions of verbal concern.

If someone proposes a plan to help "x" number of people, and you oppose that plan because, for example, it utilizes the evil government, then you better have a real alternative plan of your own that will help just as many people to the same degree – not a vague hope.  If not, that’s un-Christ-like, and will get you sent to Hell.

If you don’t like someone’s proposal, come up with another way with the same goal and scope.  If not, you’re not Matthew 25 compliant.  You’ve done exactly what the cursed are condemned for in Matthew 25 – giving the hungry no food, the thirsty no water, the naked no clothes, the sick no medical care.

So I would challenge the right-wing pseudo-Christians in every situation where they oppose a plan to reduce human suffering: give us your concrete plan for how the private sector will accomplish this goal.  Should churches tell their followers that their faith requires an additional "x" percentage of charitable tithing for these purposes?  Or how?

For example, let's say I have a plan for the government to provide health insurance for all uninsured children in this country.  You oppose that plan because you believe the government will be inefficient and ineffective, and because you prefer small government.  That's fine.  You have valid concerns.  So tell me your plan to ensure that all uninsured children in the country have health insurance.  Not to ensure that 10% or 30% or even 50% of the children have health insurance, but all the children.  And with as much assistance and as quickly as my plan.

I'm not saying right-wing pseudo-Christians are going to Hell because their plan to, for example, feed the hungry has a different ideological basis than the plan I would prefer, or because they oppose big government programs.  Other people can and should have a different ideologies and philosophies than mine, their own way of solving problems. I'm not a believer in communism, socialism, capitalism, or any other economic "-ism."  Whatever works and provides a fair opportunity for all of society's members to participate, and leads to a fair distribution of the society's resources among all its members, is fine with me. I'm not saying that right-wing pseudo-Christians are going to Hell because their plan to feed the hungry won't, in my opinion, work.  No, I'm saying they're going to Hell because they have no plan.

The key here is that you must have what I call an Equivalent Alternative Solution (EAS), which will:

·       help at least the same number of people who legitimately need help

·       provide at least the same amount of effective assistance to those people

·       get the help to them at least as quickly

·       be at least as certain to accomplish these goals

In complete violation of the need for an EAS, right-wing pseudo-Christians consistently advocate courses of action which they know are sure to fail to help all those legitimately in need, or will help them inadequately [18], or will help them for too short a time, or are much less certain to take effect.

Right-wing pseudo-Christians often advocate an initially inadequate first step, with no mandated follow up, just the vague hope that the rest of the necessary process for the solution will work itself out through the sheer force of those magical cure-alls, competition and the market. [19]

Instead of coming up with Equivalent Alternative Solutions, right-wing pseudo-Christians make excuses: fraud ,government waste, it’s their own fault.

But Jesus didn’t approvingly say “I was hungry and you ensured I wasn’t fed by an inefficient government program.”

My favorite right-wing pseudo-Christian line is, the individual's suffering is the result of decisions he or she has made.  Well, so is getting cancer, the result of what you eat, smoke, breathe.

In the Bible, God didn’t tell the enslaved Israelites it's their own fault.  God didn’t express to the Israelites the hope that Pharaoh would change his mind.  God didn’t tell the Israelites to be self-sufficient and free themselves.  God took the Israelites out of Egypt.  The lesson is, there are some situations where the suffering simply do not have the means to help themselves without outside assistance.  (That certain