What ‘Evangelicals for Harris’ gets terribly wrong 

In some very convoluted theology, a new group calling itself Evangelicals for Harris supports Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris because the group claims her big-government entitlement programs “are rooted in principles that align closely with our [evangelical Christians’] faith and values, emphasizing the importance of family, community, and justice.”  

It is true that Jesus often showed concern for the poor, sick and disadvantaged and admonished his followers to help them. But that responsibility was on his followers as individuals; it can’t be offloaded to the government.  

It’s common in American politics to portray politicians as people of faith, and the Harris campaign is no exception. In a section called “Kamala’s Faith Story,” the Evangelicals for Harris website claims she is a “deeply committed and faithful Christian,” and quotes her saying, “I can trace my belief in the importance of public service back to learning the parable of the good Samaritan and other biblical teachings about looking out for our neighbors …” 

The group’s supporters believe that Harris’s embrace of big-government entitlement programs reflects Christian values, and lists some of her proposals: a $25,000 home subsidy, a $6,000 tax credit for families with newborns, eliminating medical debt and price controls. 

It has been a hallmark of liberal theology to equate the Christian obligation to care and provide for the poor with using the power of government to tax and redistribute money to others — some of whom, it turns out in practice, are decidedly not poor. 

But is that what the New Testament says? Is that meaning of the Parable of the Good Samaritan?  

In the story, a man walking from Jerusalem to Jericho was attacked by robbers who stripped him, beat him and left him for dead. Both a priest and a Levite passed by the man but walked on offering no assistance. Then a Samaritan saw the man, bandaged his wounds and took him to an inn where he cared for him. The next day the Samaritan gave the innkeeper money and promised to cover any additional costs when he returned.  

Notice that upon encountering the victim, the Samaritan voluntarily took on the responsibility of helping the man. He did not say, “This is terrible. I will immediately go to the palace and try to convince Herod to tax the wealthy and use the funds to create Herod-Care so that people like this man can get the health care they need.” 

The Samaritan did not say, “I will go to the Sanhedrin and encourage them to provide a universal basic income so that unfortunate fellows like this have the funds to meet their needs.” 

And he did not say, “This just demonstrates why the Romans should provide a tax credit for buying a home so people like this victim can recover in their home rather than an inn.” 

No, the point of the parable is that a Samaritan — people who had a long and contentious relationship with the Jews — was willing to sacrifice his own time and resources to care for the victim.  

The New Testament lauds people who give sacrificially of their own resources — think of the story of the Widow’s Mites — and seek no praise or recognition for their sacrifice. 

By contrast, politicians — and especially liberal politicians like Harris — want to use the tax system to force others to give sacrificially and then seek recognition, and votes, for their “generosity.” Listen to recent speeches by President Joe Biden as he boasts of all the taxpayer money he and Harris have given to various projects they support.  

Ironically, if not hypocritically, many big-spending, liberal politicians devoted very little of their own resources to charitable causes before they hit the political big time. Just check out Barack Obama’s and Harris’s pre-big-time tax returns. Obama gave between 0.5 and 1 percent of his cushy income to charity in the early 2000s. As an unmarried attorney general of California, Harris declared zero charitable contributions on her 2011-13 tax returns. 

To be clear, I am not questioning Harris’s faith or the faith of those who have joined Evangelicals for Harris. I am only challenging their interpretation of New Testament scripture passages that admonish Christians to care for the poor.  

That admonition is for Christians, either individually or as a group (i.e., the church), to give of their own time and resources to help the poor. Voting for Kamala Harris does not fulfill that obligation. 

Merrill Matthews is a public policy and political analyst and the co-author of “On the Edge: America Faces the Entitlements Cliff.” Follow him on X@MerrillMatthews.