Tax Cuts

 

“Tax Cuts”

 

John 12:1-8
12:1 Six days before the Passover Jesus came to Bethany, the home of Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead.

12:2 There they gave a dinner for him. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those at the table with him.

12:3 Mary took a pound of costly perfume made of pure nard, anointed Jesus' feet, and wiped them with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.

12:4 But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (the one who was about to betray him), said,

12:5 "Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the money given to the poor?"

12:6 (He said this not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief; he kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it.)

12:7 Jesus said, "Leave her alone. She bought it so that she might keep it for the day of my burial.

12:8 You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me."

 

This is another variation on the famous duo of Mary and Martha, sisters of Lazarus, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. In one of the other gospel stories, Jesus comes to their home and is teaching a group. Martha is fixing lunch for the crowd, and Mary chooses to sit at Jesus’ feet for the teaching, rather than help Martha prepare the meal. Martha goes postal and demands Jesus tell Mary to come into the kitchen and help. Jesus does this infuriating “Martha, Martha…” thing, which I’m sure really torqued Martha off, but Jesus justifies Mary’s absence, saying “She has chosen the better way.” Obviously, this is a variation on the story as given us by the author of John. Those who take the Bible very literally would have to postulate that Jesus spent a lot of time at Lazarus’s home, and this story is of a different time.

 

For those of us not so caught up in the “literalist” view of scripture, we can surmise that the two authors are telling different versions of the same incident. This idea is not all that unusual, really. Ask two or three people who are guests at a dinner party what was the highlight of the evening, and you will most certainly get two or three different stories. In the Lukan version of the story, that author was impressed that Jesus calls Martha out for being so caught up in trivial details, and praises her sister for paying more attention to deeper, “spiritual” things. This account of the event has graced many sermons, providing preachers with affirmation that spiritual things—and paying attention to Jesus—are more important, or at least AS important—as taking care of more menial, daily tasks. Going further, one could suggest it is a story about prioritizing one’s life, giving more attention to important matters, while being less anal about stuff you have to do, anyway, somewhere along the line. Frankly, this is not a fair assessment of the story in Luke, though. Jesus doesn’t condemn Martha, as he realizes that her Jewish faith requires her to provide adequate hospitality for her guests. This IS a priority for the Jewish believer, as the Hebrew code of hospitality—“welcoming the stranger”—would be one of the “five pillars” of Judaism, if it had pillar like Islam. Mary could be seen as negligent of this code, and even selfish, as she chose to sit at Jesus’ feet and listen, rather than to serve. There’s a sermon here, too! The Christian church is rife with folk today who “church hop,” or move from one church to another because they are not “getting fed” at their former church. Martha could teach these people a thing or two. Which is the “better way,” getting “fed,” or having opportunities to serve God and others? Maybe the Mary and Martha characters are archetypes? 

 

This is where we went at St. Paul’s UMC, years ago, with the Lukan version of this story. We used the Luke 10 text as the theme scripture for our vision-casting process back in the early 1990s that resulted in a vision statement that guided the church for over 20 years, until we drafted a new one during my tenure as lead pastor. We saw “Mary time” as essential to building faith and discipleship in Christ followers, as spiritual formation is the very foundation of these things. “Martha time” is what we believed was the other “pillar” of a Christian disciple, as serving others—what John Wesley called “acts of mercy”—is what gives the church its mission and outreach. Every believer needs “Mary time” and “Martha time,” and nurturing both and striking a balance.

 

In turning back to the Johannine version of the Mary and Martha story, we do note a common theme, though the authors take a different tack. Both stories focus on the importance of Jesus, and the fact that he would not always be “available” to his followers in the way they were accustomed, and that it was okay for them to make the most of his incarnate presence. In John’s version, Mary doesn’t just SIT at Jesus’ feet, she anoints them with a costly perfume. In this case, it is not Martha who goes postal, but Judas Iscariot, the guy everybody loves to hate, anyway. The author provides some commentary here. Judas claims to care about Mary’s “wasting” of this costly perfume by suggesting it could have been sold for a small fortune and the proceeds used to feed poor people. John opines that Judas didn’t reallycare about the poor, but wanted more moolah in the till, which he was supposedly raiding, as the “treasurer” of Jesus’ little band. Jesus rebukes Judas, telling him that the poor will always be around, but he won’t. Who saw that coming when you first read this story? Seems kind of selfish, doesn’t it?

 

In our time, the Judas/Mary controversy is somewhat played out in the issue of tax cuts vs. government programs. One philosophy (libertarian) is that we should all get to keep all of the money we earn, and other than paying scant taxes to provide for national defense and basic infrastructure such as roads, it’s every man, woman, and child for themselves. Another philosophy (socialism) says that we are our “brother’s keeper,” and that taxes are a way a society can help assure that its poor don’t starve to death or die of exposure, due to improper or non-existent housing. Since the birth of Social Security, public assistance, and public education, the USA has been what some would call a “democratic socialist” republic, with these programs helping assure some sense of basic needs being met for most of our population. Public education has sought to create some level of parity in terms of preparing Americans—regardless of resources—for life and a career. Two conservative administrations have instituted large tax cuts which, regardless of how one tries to argue it, tend to be weighted heavily toward benefitting well off citizens. As a pastor, and with a spouse who worked part-time, our income wasn’t an earth-shattering amount, ensconcing us fully in the middle-class, and I can say without a doubt, that the Trump era tax cuts made absolutely NO difference in what we owed in taxes. On the other hand, we have certainly benefitted from numerous government programs over the years and now are most grateful for Social Security! As a pastor, I also know that for every “welfare queen” (a horribly degrading term coined by a former President), there are hundreds of thousands of Americans who are grateful for the public assistance “safety net,” and who only use it in accordance with the laws that govern it. It keeps them afloat until they can find or resume employment. These people have their pride—believe me, as a pastor, I know how many could have lost everything, if it weren’t for a temporary “leg up” from these programs! 

 

Taxation and government programs serve as a way to help the “least of these,” in the words of Jesus. Persons of more libertarian philosophies often suggest that, rather than take their money in the form of taxes, we “let the churches” or the non-profit entities take care of “the poor.” Here are the facts: if you took every dollar of every offering plate from every church in the United States—EVERY dollar—it might cover the SNAP (“food stamps”) program for a given year, which is only one small part of the national “safety net” programs. This is an “economy of scale” issue, friends. A prosperous and powerful nation like the United States SHOULD have a decent “safety net” program! AND we should provide the best public education program on the planet! And we should have a system to support and care for our elderly! AND we should have available health care for all citizens, if we are even “half” the “great country” we constantly brag about. These things cannot happen without taxation. Tax cuts that mostly benefit high-income people serve only to derail these kinds of programs and add to crippling deficits.

 

When Jesus said “the poor you will always have with you,” he was not making a statement steeped in futility, but was stating an obvious truth. He was also saying those of us who HAVE resources would ALWAYS need to share them to keep the poor from starving or freezing to death. Giving $50 to the local foodbank will not suffice. A system of revenue sharing via taxation is how a moral nation helps its poor. In Jesus’ day, there were a variety of ways to help the poor, including “almsgiving,” because the poor WERE to be cared for. It was not an option in Rome, and it was not an option in Judaism. In the early church, two disciples were “elected” to supervise the ministry of “waiting on tables,” which was a way the Jewish faith collected food for the poor. Christianity adopted this program, as well. In 21^st century America—as in other developed nations on earth—we must care for the “least of these,” and such a monumental effort requires large programs supported by tax dollars—far beyond the purview of church and charities. It was Jesus who said, “to whom much is given, much shall be required.”

 

In today’s story from the Gospel of John, had Judas Iscariot really MEANT that the funds from the costly perfume used to anoint Jesus’ feet by Mary should go to help feed the poor, this could have been a good thing. Obviously, he didn’t, at least according to the author of the gospel. Jesus’ statement about Mary’s gesture was a parallel to his “Martha, Martha…” statement in the Lukan version. God has no issue with the “finer things” we have and do in life, as long as we make adequate for those less fortunate and help everyone find a path to at least the basics of human survival and opportunity. Serving ourselves and serving God by serving others must be balanced endeavors, if we are to be true to the gospel. No Christian in our modern American society can support tax cuts and cuts in social programs with a clear conscience. Is it wrong to want to build a nice life for ourselves out of the resources we generate through our careers and/or financial legacies we receive? No, as long as we also give generously to help others, and support public taxation to build the necessary “safety net” programs and public education for our children. Is it wrong to work for responsible oversight to these programs so our tax dollars are not being wasted? Of course not. (Had someone been watching Judas more carefully, maybe he wouldn’t have been so easily tempted!) Interestingly, in our current political climate of deeply polarized philosophies, so many want “better oversight” of tax dollars that go into social programs, but I don’t hear nary a soul crying out for better oversight and reining in tax spending on the largest share of the federal budget, which is the defense budget. 

 

Jesus also told the disciples to “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.” Even the Son of God knew that taxes were a necessary means to provide for the public good! Even as we need our private “Mary time,” which one may interpret as our “self” emphasis, so we also need our “Martha time” of serving others, and making sure their basic needs are met. This is the way of Jesus, and it is the central message of the Christian gospel. Amen.