A Pastor's Response to Bill O'Reilly: Two Kinds of Societies

Bill O’Reilly wrote a column on Saturday, December 11, 2010 about Jesus and unemployment that is creating a bit of a stir. In the article he warns of the fiscal danger posed to our country if we continue to help those who are out of work, stating, “There comes a time when compassion can cause disaster.”

I am not a politician, nor have I ever claimed to be. Nor am I an economist, as my wife, who tends to our family checkbook will tell you. I am however, like O’Reilly, a Christian. And this column, in which he openly states that he is a Christian, concerns me.

In the article O’Reilly references Congressman Jim McDermott who said, “This is Christmastime. We talk about Good Samaritans, the poor, the little baby Jesus in the cradle and all this stuff. And then we say to the unemployed we won't give you a check to feed your family. That's simply wrong.”

O’Reilly, in response writes, “By invoking the baby Jesus, McDermott puts an important question in play: What does a moral society owe to the have-nots?” This question, which is important, makes a subtle move away from Jesus and toward a “moral society.”

Many would agree that if a society were to live according to the teachings of Jesus we would have a society that would be deemed moral. But a society rooted in the teachings of Jesus and committed to living out his teachings is far different than a society that one could simply call “moral.”

For the most part we in the United States are moral. Most agreeably abide by a traditional Judeo-Christian ethic. Many go further and add religious language and symbols to this moral society and call it “Christian.” But it is not Christian; it is moral. The problem with a moral society, even ours, is that it practices a selective morality. We select certain issues as wrong or sinful, while accepting and promoting other issues as good and necessary.

When O’Reilly asks a question about what a moral society owes the have-nots he moves us away, not toward Jesus – the same Jesus he invokes at the beginning of his question. Make no mistake, Jesus is moral, but our morals are not Jesus. This is because our morals are often incomplete, shortsighted, biased, and frequently human-made constructs. Jesus, is radically different.

If O’Reilly were to ask, “What does a society rooted in the teachings of Jesus and committed to living out his teachings owe to the have-nots?” The answer would be drastically different than the one he advocates.

When we invoke the name of Jesus as Christians, as O'Reilly boldly does in his column, we must speak with a voice that transcends traditional politics, economics, partisan division, petty debate, and divisive rhetoric. We must speak in a way that moves all of us toward the heart of Jesus.

In this column O’Reilly concludes by writing, “… being a Christian, I know that while Jesus promoted charity at the highest level, he was not self-destructive. The Lord helps those who help themselves. Does he not?” And so I conclude in response to his closing remarks.

As Christians, throughout Scripture we learn of a God who always comes to the aid of the have-nots. The slaves, the poor, the hookers, the orphans, the widows, the immigrants, the sick. We meet the God who is always in the business of helping the ones who cannot help themselves precisely because they cannot help themselves - this includes you, me and Bill O'Reilly.

As Christians, we confess this God. The one who goes about helping the people who could never help themselves. This kind of God is one who is treading on a path of compassion that can cause disaster … even the disaster of the cross.