I got the following email from a friend, and I couldn’t help but think of the depressing resurgence of class warfare and populism in the current Presidential election – especially as being practiced by Christians who really should know better:
“For the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And going out about the third hour he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, and to them he said, ‘You go into the vineyard too, and whatever is right I will give you.’ So they went. Going out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour, he did the same. And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing. And he said to them, ‘Why do you stand here idle all day?’ They said to him, ‘Because no one has hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You go into the vineyard too.’ And when evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last, up to the first.’ And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them received a denarius. Now when those hired first came, they thought they would receive more, but each of them also received a denarius. And on receiving it they grumbled at the master of the house, saying, ‘These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.’ But he replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?’ So the last will be first, and the first last.”
(Matthew 20:1-16)
The parable illustrates God’s mercy and shows how salvation is the same for everyone who is saved. It was directed at the Jews who were upset that the Gentiles also received the gospel. But it’s also worth noting that the grumbling about other people’s rewards was out of bounds. How God blesses other people is really not our business, except to rejoice for them. Other people may be financially better off, but it doesn’t follow that we are being treated unfairly, and Christians, of all people, should understand this. According to Matthew Henry’s commentary on this passage,
The giving of a whole day’s wages to those that had not done the tenth part of a day’s work, is designed to show that God distributes his rewards by grace and sovereignty, and not of debt.
Our tax system is based on some people’s moral certainty that something is owed by the wealthy to the non-wealthy. That is not a Christian attitude.
(Snopes article on this email.)
_______________________
Bar Stool Economics
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100 If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes,it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the
owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers, he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33 But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to
compare their savings.
‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’
‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!’
‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’
‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the
bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
I love how you can take a parable about equality and somehow spin it so that it appears to be justifying inequality. That takes some serious logical jujitsu. I guess you see no conflict between “I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you” and “Other people may be financially better off, but it doesn’t follow that we are being treated unfairly.”
Nadav, please expound on what you think the conflict between those two statements is. The amount of money in Bill Gate’s bank account has no bearing whatsoever on the amount in mine. Also, please explain what is “unjust” about financial inequality. Can you list a single bible verse that claims we should all have an identical standard of living? Or an identical standard of anything? Even in heaven, we will have different levels of responsibilities and rewards based on how we have spent our lives here on earth.
[Added: to be clear - we are all equal in God's eyes - lost people are all equally lost, saved people are equally saved. There are no degrees of salvation or lostness. But we are certainly not given the same rewards for unequal effort, even in heaven.]
Ah, but here on earth, people are given unequal rewards for equal effort all the time. Bill Gates’ fortune has much less to do with the degree of effort he puts into his work, and much more to do with the way the market values his work. Unless you think that the market reflects God’s will, I think you’d have a hard time proving that there’s no injustice involved with the huge amounts of financial inequality that exists in our country, let alone throughout the world.
Regarding the parable, I recognize that it can be interpreted in different ways, but it seems to me that God’s message is that God’s gifts (as in grace and salvation) are distributed equally among all people. It doesn’t matter if you feel that you deserve more of God’s gifts because you’ve worked harder or believed harder.
Where I found the contradiction is when you stated: “it’s worth noting that the grumbling about other people’s rewards was out of bounds.” First, you’re interpreting the parable to apply literally to financial well-being rather than salvation, which I think is questionable. And second, you’re making what I consider to be an incorrect generalization. It’s not that God rebuked the complainer for comparing wealth in general — rather, God specifically rebuked him precisely because he complained that God gave the other workers the same rewards for unequal effort, the very thing you claim never happens, even in heaven.
The Bible makes it pretty clear in numerous places that we will not all be equal in heaven, but we will be equally alive.
Furthermore, realize that all the workers in the story benefited from the economic exchange. Unfortunately, some of them decided to whine because others had profited more.
Economically, “the same rewards for unequal effort” means INEQUALITY. If you and I both make a lemonade stand and earn 100 bucks each, but you spend $50 on lemonade while I spend only $20, then I’m better off than you. Moreover, what would you say if I ran a business and paid all the white employees 30% more than all the blacks? That would be inequality.
The parable does not say that we will all wind up living in a heavenly commune. The point of the parable is that Jesus doesn’t mind inequality. The workers got what they contracted for, but then some of them tried to amend the contract out of greed.
See, we can both make blanket statements about the point of the parable, but that doesn’t make either one of us correct. That’s what’s so great about parables. The best either of us can do is to offer reasoned arguments supporting our interpretation of the parable, based on what the parable actually says.
With that in mind, I find this statement of yours to be highly questionable: “some of them decided to whine because others had profited more.” Technically, if you want to define profit as reward minus effort, then that statement is correct, but the literal complaint voiced in the parable is that all workers received equal rewards, despite the fact that some workers worked more than others and therefore felt that they were entitled to more. I don’t know of any other way to interpret this statement:
These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.’
Regarding your point about economics, I completely agree that “the same rewards for unequal effort” equates to economic inequality. That is precisely why I argued before that it is inappropriate to take the lesson of this parable and apply it to worldly wealth. Referring to what I said before – God distributes the gifts of grace and salvation, and according to this parable, God distributes those gifts equally. By contrast, in the material world, wealth is distributed for a number of reasons, but chiefly according to what is valued by the market. And under the rules of the market, people are frequently rewarded equally for unequal effort, or unequally for equal effort. If you want to argue that it goes against God’s will to seek to root out the injustice that lies behind much of the world’s financial inequality, then you are basically saying that the market reflects God’s will. If that is the case, then why is this particular economic system reflective of God’s will, rather than any of the other systems that have existed over the course of human history?
Just dropping in to say that a) I’m going to respond but I’m interested in both your comments and b) Nadav, I don’t accept your premise at all. As to the parables… I believe there are layers of wisdom in them. Like onions, like Shrek, like parfait… layers! That’s why we can keep going back to them time and again and finding fresh insight there.
And I’d like to note that not only does the bible say that the rain falls on the just and the unjust, it also does not say that greater possession of wealth is by default unjust. I don’t think economic inequality is a bad thing. The idea that these things are “unjust” presumes that there’s some rule somewhere that says we’re all supposed to be equally wealthy and that rule is being violated. Such a rule does not exist.
That said, I haven’t got time right now for a more measured and thoughtful answer, so I’ll be back with one as soon as I can, and thanks for your comments – it’s turning out to be an extremely interesting discussion.
Hi Laura,
Thanks for your response to my comments. Which premise, exactly do you disagree with?
Regarding parables, I agree that it’s possible to pull all sorts of meaning out of parables, but it’s important to distinguish between drawing meaning out and pushing meaning in. It’s very difficult to not interpret biblical verse through the lens we’ve formed based on our own preconceived notions, but the best way to avoid doing so is to keep in mind what is actually said.
I’d just like to add that I never claimed that all economic inequality is caused by injustice. I feel that your original post argued that any suggestion that there might be some injustice associated with income inequality is off limits, because — as you claimed — “the grumbling about other people’s rewards was out of bounds.”
To me, that implies that you believe that all distribution of wealth is exactly as it should be, since all we’re supposed to do is rejoice in other people’s good fortune, no matter how ill-earned that fortune may be. I’m simply arguing against that point — that there is a good deal of injustice behind much income inequality in our country and in the world at large. Is it just that millions of people die every year from easily preventable diseases while others have more money than they know what to do with? Is that truly a reflection of God’s will? That’s why I think it’s questionable to take a parable that talks about God’s direct gifts — namely, grace and salvation — and try to apply it to a discussion of worldly wealth.
I find it incredible that you use a parable such as this, one that is clearly intended, as the first writer recognised, to refer to God’s salvation, to justify the incredibly unjust taxation system and lack of social security that exists in the US. The Bible talks so explicitly about how the wealthy should give to the poor and suggests in several places how the poor are more likely to get into Heaven simply because of their lack of money. It would be great if people actually obeyed these principles and gave generously of their own money to those less fortunate than themselves (and I use the word ‘fortunate’ to illustrate the fact that wealth often has little to do with work ethic or intelligence and often just has a lot to do with luck), but this just doesn’t happen unfortunately. As a result, states are required to establish taxation systems in order to force individuals and organisations to give some of their wealth to those less fortunate than themselves. Taxation systems, in this sense, are really just mechanisms to require people to follow the so-called “Christian” value of charity, one that is emphasised so much more explicitly and more often than anything that justifies greed and condemns an income-proportional taxation system.
It amazes and depresses me that in the US in particular, Christianity is exploited and manipulated in order to justify the horribly inequitable social security systems that exist (and that allow families that rely on it to live below the poverty line). I am not a Christian but I have read the Bible a couple of times and I find the modern theological movement in the US scary and depressing, and the comments that some of you, in particular Laura, have made above confirm those sentiments for me.
Richard, in what bible verse can I find Jesus telling his disciples to petition the government to forcibly confiscate other people’s money to heal the sick, feed the poor, or buy a cloak for someone who is cold? Or advising that if Christians don’t step up, the government will forcibly confiscate not just their money, but everybody else’s in order to get the job done? In what verse does he advise that our goal should be to eradicate poverty or achieve a universal, level lifestyle? You’re cherry picking a few convenient verses but you really have no idea.
The fact is that the bible has hundreds, probably thousands, of verses related to money and commerce and the sum of them is not that money is bad or rich people owe something to the poor. It is Christians who are commanded to give, and we actually do phenomenally well at it. In fact, conservatives in general who believe in voluntary giving rather than government income redistribution give far more money and time than secular liberals who talk a good game but do little. Nothing is stopping you from giving over and above your required taxes. Knock yourself out, here’s the addess.
The poor are certainly not getting into heaven because of any lack of wealth. If a person goes, it will be because Jesus is his Lord and Savior and no other reason. Wealth is often a barrier to dependence on God, however. It is the LOVE of money, not the actual money, which is the root of all evil. Please read Wayne Grudem’s book
Business for the Glory of God: The Bible’s Teaching on the Moral Goodness of Business
I do agree that the taxation system is unjust, to use a much-abused word. It’s theft, a forcible socialist wealth redistribution system. It has nothing to do with Christian charity, and everything to do with power and bureaucracy. Please read Social Justice, For The Glory of Government for a more complete explanation of why Christians should reject the concept that government can or should do our job of taking care of the poor. And please read this article to learn why poor nations remain poor – and the reason is not the average American lifestyle.
The poverty line is a complete joke – actual consumption for “the poor” in this country is nearly as high as it is for the rich. As I’ve stated numerous times, that doesn’t mean there aren’t actual poor people in this country – it just means that the number has been ridiculously inflated by cynical politicians in a grab for power. And I say that as a person who has actually been poor, hungry, lived without electricity for the better part of a year, was evicted and eventually was on welfare for a short time. If you find life scary and depressing, read the bible. (And I believe it will be for the first time, in spite of your claim – I see that kind of minstrelsy all the time by people peddling socialism in the name of Christianity.)
I’m not peddling socialism. I’m merely expounding the benefits of having a social welfare state where the most unfortunate amongst us are not exposed to the worst aspects of poverty. You say that you were “poor, hungry, [and] lived without electricity for the better part of a year” and that you were evicted. I would say that the fact that you had to live hungry and without electricity is an indictment of the community that allowed you to live like that.
I was not making any judgement about who is charitable. I do realise that a large number of charities are Christian charities. It is largely for this reason, as well as the fact that I live in a predominantly Christian country (Australia), that I am so interested by Christianity and the Bible.
What I was saying is that charity is great and for all those people that give of their money and time, that is fantastic and I would commend their efforts whole-heartedly. Unfortunately, despite the Bible’s constant repetition of the need to be charitable towards our neighbours, the vast majority of our society does not give enough to support those people within society who cannot afford to support themselves. If people’s charitable instincts were such that charities alone could afford to assist the unfortunate people around the world, then that would be fantastic and we could considerably reduce the amount of taxes needed to be paid, but call me cynical, but I don’t believe that that is the case. Unfortunately, people are too inherently self-interested to give enough.
As a result, the government is required to force people to give. I don’t understand your opposition to the idea of social welfare when you support the notion of charity. The only difference is that charity is voluntary, but surely if something is right, moral and just, then surely there is no problem in forcing people to do that. The vast majority of our laws are created to affect that exact goal.
Finally, at the end, you state that you accept that there are actual poor people in the US but that you think the number is inflated. Whether the number is inflated or not is a debate that requires far more empirical evidence than I am able to supply. However, the fact that there are actual poor people in the US suggests that the job of taking care of the poor, which you refer to as “our [i'm assuming you mean this to refer to 'the people' in general] job”, is not being satisfactorily completed.
Surely, that is evidence of the need for the government to assume responsibility for the provision of charity towards those in need.
My question for you is really this: Why is it so bad that the government forces people to do what the Bible (and good conscience) tells us is the right thing to do – to help our neighbours when they are in need?
Just like holding to the terms of a just contract is rightfully enforced by the law, surely obedience to our social contract of supporting our neighbours should be enforced by the law?
Matthew 6:19-21
“Do not store up riches for youselves here on earth, where moths and rust destroy, and robbers break in and steal. Instead, store up riches for yourselves in heaven, where moths and rust cannot destroy, and robbers cannot break in and steal. For you heart will always be where your riches are
Luke 12.33:
“Selll all your belongings and give the money to the poor. Provide for yourselves purses that don’t wear out, and save your riches in heaven, where they will never decrease”
The answers to your questions are in the links in my last post, Richard, including the inflated poverty rates, and by “our job” I mean specifically Christians. Read the social justice link in particular for why.
I cannot reject your “social contract” forcefully enough. I am absolutely not bound by any social contract – the obligations on me are deeper and wider than you can possibly imagine, and I welcome them as a blessing, not a burden. But their source is not any political or social philosophy. While the end result of those obligations causes me to live modestly and give away as much as I can, my goal is not to end poverty, which Jesus plainly said was impossible. My goal is to serve others for the glory of God. Not to serve them for their own sake, because they deserve it, or anything like that. To give to them because God gave to me. But if it is coerced (as all taxes are) then it’s not a gift and it does not glorify God. It is His glory, not any earthly means or result, that drives Christians – or should, if we have any decent understanding of our own theology.
And how is what you’re espousing – in essence, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs – not socialism?
The verses you list – you’re completely missing the point if you think that the government forcibly taking money and redistributing it would provide eternal riches.
I can’t argue against your claim that the goal of charity should be to serve God and not to help those to whom the charity is being directed, but I do find it curious. As an agnostic, I give to charities and I volunteer for charities because I believe that I have a duty to help my fellow man. Surely giving to someone less fortunate would be good whether or not the Bible told you to. Helping someone in need is a very generous thing to do and is one of the best aspects of human nature. A starving man in need does not care for the glory of which God a piece of bread is donated to him. Just as for him, the primary consideration is the fact that his life has been saved, the main motivation for me is also his saviour (in a physical, not a religious sense)
As for your point: “you’re completely missing the point if you think that the government forcibly taking money and redistributing it would provide eternal riches”, that’s a complete straw man argument. I never suggested that at all. All I did say was that government redistribution of wealth allows people in unfortunate circumstances to suffer less than they otherwise would.
As for your claim that I am espousing socialism, I guess I am espousing a form of socialism, but that word is so corrupted with connotations about communism, which I am certainly not espousing, and the still present McCarthism-like fear of anything left-wing. However, I do not feel the need to label my argument with a title like socialism that is already over-burdened with unrelated debates.
My final question goes back to the question in my last entry: “Why is it so bad that the government forces people to do what the Bible (and good conscience) tells us is the right thing to do – to help our neighbours when they are in need?”
- Is your answer that it does not glorify God and is therefore worthless? If not, what is your response?
To end, thank you for your debate. I have found it enlightening, although clearly I do not agree with your arguments as I appreciate that you don’t agree with mine. I commend you for your consideration of these issues and I hope that you continue to live modestly and give away as much as you can.
Richard, my answer is turning into another post, as it’s longer than I thought and I don’t want to dash off a quick answer. I also want to (as I wanted to in my response to Nadav) take the time for a thoughtful, reasoned, on-point answer rather than a knee jerk response about an issue that I’m quite emotionally invested in. I have a propensity toward quick, unthoughtful reaction where comments are concerned, and I really do want to avoid doing that any further, because I don’t want to try to score rhetorical points and “win” but instead to add something positive to the debate.
And Nadav, I still haven’t answered you, and I’m sorry about that. Please bear with me a little longer.
Thank you both for your patience.
It’s amazing what you can “prove” with numbers, isn’t it? Especially when you use a database that is demonstrably flawed. As the column I linked to shows, the savings rate suggested by database that Michael Cox uses is 16.7%, when in fact the national savings rate is less than 1%. So yes, knowledgeable economists can disagree over which measure to use to measure financial inequality, but to conclude — based on one flawed analysis — that “the poverty line is a complete joke” is willfully ignorant at best.
I also strongly disagree that only individual, voluntary charity serves the glory of God. Every single person is created in God’s image, and as Jesus said — “Whatever you neglected to do unto one of these least of these, you neglected to do unto Me.” It follows that if we — as a society fail to provide for the poor, then we — as a society fail to serve the glory of God. And coercion of sorts is just how Democracy works. We have laws to prevent the tyranny of the majority, but in many ways, the will of the majority limits the freedom of others. If I wanted to marry my sister or take two wives, the law prevents me from doing so because society has determined that such actions are detrimental. Similarly, if a company wants to dump waste into a river because it saves them money and allows them to produce cheaper goods, our laws prevent it from doing so, because we as a society have determined that environmental welfare is more important than private profit. If we didn’t have such laws, then the people living downriver of that company would suffer needlessly, and that certainly wouldn’t serve the glory of God.
But I’d like to return to my earlier question — if it’s “off-limits” to try to reduce the injustice that lies behind much financial inequality, then aren’t you in fact arguing that the current distribution of wealth reflects the will of God?
I also wanted to echo Richard’s thanks for this debate. It’s been very enlightening for me as well, and I really appreciate that you’ve taken time to consider my arguments and write thoughtful responses.
Heh, we crossed comments. And I also appreciate the debate, it’s provoking me to really put my thoughts in order on this topic.
With regard to how much “the poor” consume, there is plenty of info on that phenomenon – I often link to a chart from Heritage but based on Census data. Home ownership, cars, cable, multiple TVs. Mind, I’m not saying people are living like Donald Trump, just that when people talk about the poor, most of us have this idea of people actually going hungry. We think of people who are homeless, or who are like I was, very nearly homeless. I managed to get the rent on a crappy little apartment paid so I had a roof over my head for a long time, but I relied on food banks to eat and couldn’t pay for a phone or electricity. Nowadays the description has been stretched to include people who can’t afford to upgrade their playstation to a wii. I don’t want to subsidize those people.
My main gripe here is – how do we define “poor?” And we know that Christians are called to serve the genuinely poor, but does anyone in society have a legitimate, unearned claim on anyone else’s property? If so, why?
Oh, and as to the current distribution of wealth reflecting the will of God – as I believe God is sovereign, then yes, that would necessarily include the distribution of wealth. Put it this way – I don’t think He’s up there saying, “Oh crap, look at those people in Darfur, that’s terrible, what can I do to help them?” I think He permits poverty for reasons that we may or may not understand at the time – well, for that matter, EVER. Jesus said, “the poor will be with you always.” I also don’t think that poverty is by definition an evil. So the heart of your premise – or at least what I believe your premise is, that the fact of financial inequality represents an injustice that should be corrected – is in my view wrong.
As to the equal/unequal work/pay argument… first, the rain falls on the just and the unjust. Second, it’s not necessarily unjust. Take Bill Gates. Is he cruising now? Pretty much. But early on he a) perceived a need b) developed a system, c) acquired and marketed another and d) generally worked his kiester off. Shouldn’t he have the benefit of that over the course of his life? Or is the only moral way to acquire wealth to be a wage-slave where your income is a direct result of hours worked?
Although his business methods were ruthless – maybe on a par with those of Carnegie and Rockefeller, I haven’t really studied it much to be honest – at the end of the day we have a workable standard platform that has generated billions in new wealth for other developers. Just as we have railroads today that have created wealth for other businesses who had new access to markets that were formerly closed because of the distance between them. I’ll have to give this some thought… but really, I’m just not seeing any injustice here, except the fact that such initiative is so heavily penalized.
A three-fer… from wanting to not comment at all to three in a row. I’m pathetic. And I really need to get some work done. But to expound just a bit on the unequal work/pay… it should go without saying that the pay for a task should be the same regardless of who does it. We already have laws about that, and I support them.
Hi Laura,
I think your post #19 illustrates the confusion that can arise when one tries to combine moral arguments with market arguments. I never suggested that Bill Gates gained his wealth through immoral means, rather that the market system we live under follows its own logic and assigns its own value, and there is really no reason to believe that the values assigned by this economic system reflect God’s will any more than any other economic system that humans have ever lived under.
The strength of this economic system is that it allows spectacular economic growth — not that it distributes that wealth properly. As to whether our economic system is “just,” well there are many different ways one can argue that point. You just argued it in terms of the market’s own logic: Gates took advantage of an opportunity to create something that other people valued highly, so he should be rewarded for it. But there are degrees to which that argument can be taken. Should everything be valued according to what the market proscribes? Of course not, otherwise we would have no public goods, such as clean water, roads, national security, etc. Should people like Bill Gates be rewarded if they contribute to economic growth which (theoretically) improves the welfare of all people in society? I would say yes, but then one has to answer the question of the degree of reward he should receive. If the government taxes some of that reward and uses that money to provide public goods, thereby improving social welfare, then everybody benefits. More importantly, the poorest in society (and yes, there are many people who are hungry and who do depend on food banks, even if you believe that the official numbers are inflated), suffer less as a result.
I think you’re misrepresenting the point that I’m trying to argue, which is not that all inequality represents injustice, but that injustice is present in some aspects of inequality, and it is important to expose it and fight against it. Your original argument — that people who complain about income inequality are doing what the bible says is “off limits” — suggested to me that you thought there was no point in trying to question the allocation of wealth as it currently is in the world. [just a quick aside: I think we both agree that there's a distinction between begrudging others' good fortune out of envy and seeking to redistribute wealth in order to alleviate suffering.] I think the “God is sovereign” argument that you use to justify wealth distribution is a very slippery slope. Just as God allows poverty to exist and for genocide to take place in Darfur, God also allows us to act to reduce poverty and to prevent genocide. And while the Bible may not say “thou shalt impose a 50% income tax on the wealthiest 10% of thy population in order to provide universal health care,” nor does it say “thou shalt create markets of capital that will serve as engines of growth and will allocate wealth properly.” There are a lot of bad things (and good things) that happen in the world that are not specifically described in the Bible, but that does not mean we don’t have a moral obligation to respond to them. When atrocities like Darfur occur, I agree that it is improper to blame God for them, but does that make us blameless if we fail to act in a way that could have prevented the disaster, or at least have alleviated some of the suffering?
Finally, in response to your question about whether “anyone in society have a legitimate, unearned claim on anyone else’s property,” I would first ask, what — besides human law — gives anybody the legitimate claim to their own property? Is that claim earned or unearned? And by whose definition? When Dutch explorers “bought” the island of Manhattan from the local inhabitants with a bunch of trinkets, did they suddenly gain a legitimate claim to the land?
Thanks again for the great debate!
If I have $1,000,000 making 10% interest and a population of poor cancer patients each require a $100,000 operation which will save one life, what is the best way to preserve life? Should I give away all the million and save ten cancer patients right away, or should I keep the million in the stock market and use the interest to save one patient each year for the next twenty years? What would happen if the government forced me to spend all/most of the money right away? As you can see, the happiest solution often comes from letting people keep most of their own money.
On another issue, let’s look at a general statement Jesus might make: “Sell your possessions and give the money to the poor. Then you will have treasure in heaven. Wherever your treasure is, that’s where your heart will be.” The benefits derived by the poor appear to be entirely incidental. He doesn’t dwell on the benefits of helping the poor at all. You would almost think that Jesus doesn’t even care about poverty.
Instead, why does Jesus say to give charitably? Because it gains you heavenly rewards! Once you de-emphasize your need for materialism, you will be a better person. You will be better suited to serve God. So I don’t think charity even has much to do with helping society. It has to do with de-valuing money in your own mind. Whenever you value money (or fame, status, etc.) too much, you lose perspective of the more important facets of life.
Overall, you are quite right that injustice exists in the world economics. That injustice usually is the result of authoritarianism or socialism. The people were suffering in Darfur (as far as I know, there’s peace now) not because there was too little charity, but because Islamist government soldiers were killing them.
Finally, socialists like to point to the (limited) market controls in ancient Israel and say, “Aha! God hates capitalism!” At that point, I usually roll my eyes. The land was not entirely alienable; that is true. Debts would periodically get erased; that is correct. But look at what OTHER controls there were, which socialists invariably reject:
1) Broken homes were forbidden. If you committed adultery, you were dead.
2) Murderers were publicly executed. Prison, gangster culture would not exist because there were no prisons.
3) There was essentially no central government under the original system.
4) Everyone was pretty much required to worship God
5) The tax rate was only 10%
Socialists like the freedom to go broke and have the government bail them out, but they also reject the government’s right to impose moral values on them. Socialism is the worst of all combinations.
I’m having a rough time stringing ten uninterrupted minutes together to consider all this, and part of my problem is we’re all arguing different angles of this. So here are the questions I’m considering, based on the comments so far –
Economic inequality – a)does it offend God? b)do Christians have a commission to eradicate it? c)how exactly do we define it, anyway?
Taxation – a)is the idea of taxation as wealth redistribution compatible with Christianity? with American ideals? with what the Founding Fathers intended?
Poverty – a)how do we define it? b)are the poor owed anything by virtue of their need? c)while it’s abundantly clear that Christians have obligations to the poor, do non-Christians? d)what is the goal of Christians caring for the poor, or what should be the goal? e)what are the implications/results of non-Christians voluntarily caring for the poor? f)what are the implications/results of coerced care (income redistribution by taxation) of the poor?