I recently came upon some remarks Republican John Johnston of Indiana made about the poor while campaigning for Indiana House of Representatives last summer. (Johnston was defeated by his Democratic opponent in the fall.) I know his remarks are old news, but I want to use them to illustrate a point. Here are Johnston’s comments, which he posted in an online discussion:

For almost three generations people, in some cases, have been given handouts. They have been ‘enabled’ so much that their paradigm in life is simply being given the stuff of life, however meager. What you see is a setting for a life of misery is life to them never-the-less. No one has the guts to just let them wither and die. No one who wants votes is willing to call a spade a spade. As long as the Dems can get their votes the enabling will continue. The Republicans need their votes and dare not cut the fiscal tether. It is really a political Catch-22.

Johnston listed his religion as “Christian.”

Let’s turn to Matthew 19.

And someone came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” Then he said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER; YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY; YOU SHALL NOT STEAL; YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS; HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER; and YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” The young man said to Him, “All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?” Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.

If Johnston was given free reign to rewrite this passage, he might well have the young man object: “But teacher, wouldn’t giving the poor handouts enable them to be lazy?” But Jesus? He didn’t seem at all concerned about the poor becoming dependent or lazy. Jesus would not have been at all okay with letting the poor “wither and die.”

Of course, I am not a Christian. I also don’t think the Bible is infallible. But Johnston is, and Johnston does. I’m really really—really—tired of seeing evangelical Christians adopt political positions that are at odds with any straightforward reading of the Bible, and then claim that their positions are in fact supported by the Bible.

As I’ve noted before the Bible says a lot of things, some of which are contradictory, and can be interpreted many different ways. But at the very least, evangelical Christians who adopt tea party positions need to be willing to admit that there is some ambiguity here. And yet, they don’t. Instead, they present their position as the obvious godly biblical position, and all other positions as anti-Christian.

I should note that I’m also not saying I think Jesus was perfect, or an unambiguous social justice giant. I don’t. Jesus’ treatment of the Syrophoenician woman was appalling, for example. But I don’t have to think Jesus was perfect to see that it’s pretty clear Jesus would have thought positions like Johnston’s were nuts.

Now, I’ve heard conservative evangelicals argue that there is a difference between a person voluntarily giving to the poor on the one hand and government taxation on the other. They argue that government taxation—taking money from one to give it to another—amounts to theft, which is condemned in the Ten Commandments. I don’t buy that, for several reasons. For one thing, if the government giving to the poor enables the poor to be lazy, so do individual acts of charity. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. For another thing, the Bible endorses taxation, including taxation that involves taking from one and giving to another (i.e. the poor).

Let’s look at Matthew 22:

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?” 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.

By this logic, all money belongs to the government.

And then there’s Romans 13:

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

This passage not only endorses taxation completely, but also admonishes against rebelling against one’s government. By the logic of this passage, God put Obama in power. Why, then, do so many evangelicals spend so much energy griping over it? Isn’t that griping in fact griping against God?

Now let’s look at Leviticus 9:

When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner.

Some might argue that this is voluntary charity, not forced charity through the government, but this argument doesn’t pass the sniff test. This was the law. People were required by the government to leave the edges of their fields for the poor.

And finally, there’s Deuteronomy 14:

At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year’s produce and store it in your towns, so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the foreigners, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied, and so that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.

It’s probably worth noting that “the foreigners, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns” is obvious shorthand for “the poor.” And here, in this case, there’s no room for arguing that this is voluntary, personal charity. It’s pretty obvious this is the government taxing people to give “handouts” to the poor.

I don’t have a problem with people arguing against taxes being used for things like welfare. I don’t have a problem with people saying that “handouts” “enable” the poor and make them lazy. Well, I do have a problem with those positions, in that I think they’re wrong and selfish and unethical and lots more words I’d rather not put into print. But if someone wants to disagree with me and hold a position I find horrendous, that’s their right.

I do have a problem with evangelicals arguing that these positions are rooted in the Bible, saying that everyone who disagrees with them is anti-Christian, and simultaneously clobbering people over the head with Bible verses on issues like marriage equality. It’s absurd. It’s hypocritical to the extreme.