At the suggestion of my friend Rebecca Baker, I’ve touched the surface of some of the New Testament issues concerning poverty and the government. This is all I have time for right now, but if you make comments, I’ll try to get to them.
Approaching the problem of government from the Christian Scriptures is more problematic. Moses was giving practical rules to create a more just society (like the one in Deuteronomy 25 where women are forbidden to rescue their husbands by grabbing the assailant’s testicles – that business is right out if you want to play fair). There is no corresponding practical approach in the New Testament. I think that if we take the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew and the Sermon on the Plain in Luke as being the exact same thing, we can get into dangerous theological territory.
There are, of course, numerous passages in the NT that support giving to the poor. The first that come to mind are “Blessed are the poor…woe to the rich” from the Sermon on the Plain in Luke 6. The parables of Jesus are too numerous to mention here. There is a famous passage from Acts 2 where all the believers held everything in common. There is a troubling passage in Acts 5 where God strikes Ananias and Saphira down for lying about their contribution to the common fund. Acts 10 says that God heard Cornelius’ prayer and “remembered his gifts to the poor”. That one is significant because Cornelius was not a member of the Christian community at the time. In Paul’s retelling of the 1st Jerusalem Council in Galatians 2, the ending of the Church leaders advice to him is “that we should continue to remember the poor” which Paul says is, “the very thing I had been eager to do all along.” St. Paul’s vision for the church in general is in 2 Cornithians 8:13-14 “Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality…”
When these passages are brought up in support of government policy, the normal response in some circles is to suggest that they are in reference to how things should function within the church and not for how government should be run. This insular approach to the concept of charity might be a starting point, but I don’t see it as any sort of end point. From what we know about them, Jesus and the Apostles spent a great deal if not most of their time working with the poor. In the case of Jesus, the Gospel’s are clear to make the point that this work wasn’t limited to people of his own faith group. I would also point out that one of the common criticisms that Judaism levels against Christianity (and I think rightly) is that the focus on an afterlife has led to complacency when helping people in this life. (I would argue that this is actually a departure from New Testament theology because of the Greek influence on the Church Fathers.) I’m not sure I have all the answers here, but if you spin the argument out from the other side, what do you get? Do you suggest that Jesus or St. Paul want monetary equality in the Church but outside of it that they support oppressive systems? I think part of the problem here is that the specific words of the New Testament get taken out of context. Jesus and St. Paul were Jews that were fully aware of the prophetic tradition of the Hebrew Scriptures. However you interpret their words, I think it is dangerous to place them in opposition to the radical commitment to economic justice that their religious tradition had given them. That commitment included working against unfair government structures that oppressed the poor. It is also significant to note that as the prophetic tradition grew, it expanded beyond Israel to include working against oppression in surrounding states.
The second normal objection is centered in personal responsibility. There are many passages throughout the whole of the Scriptures that suggest that personal responsibility is something that should be valued. The chief verse that gets used is St. Paul’s, “if you don’t work, you don’t eat.” Whatever the specific context of Paul’s statement (I’ve always been curious about why this argument doesn’t get applied to Jesus and his three years without working.), there is a more insidious argument that lies underneath. Specifically, if you’re poor, it’s your fault. I don’t doubt that this is the case sometimes, but it ignores the systematic oppression of people that get trapped in a cycle of poverty. The ironic part of this argument is that the heroes that we love most in the Bible were not “responsible” in the worldly sense. I’m not opposed to personal responsibility, but can we really suggest that Isaiah going around naked for three years at the command of God was acting in a responsible fashion? Was he really holding down a job during this time? If you can say that he was being “responsible” (and I do), then the situation becomes much more complicated. Sometimes being responsible before God means being irresponsible in the eyes of everyone else. If that is the case, we shouldn’t be so quick to make a causal connection between irresponsibility and poverty.
The situation becomes clearer if we place it in a more modern context. I don’t know whether or not Mother Theresa advocated for any specific form of government. I imagine she didn’t. Maybe I’m wrong. I do know that she dedicated her life to serving the “poorest of the poor”. Given that life, even if she did not advocate for a specific form of government, I don’t think she would support a system that allows 400 people to have as much wealth as the bottom 150 million. I think any school yard child could see that it is an unjust system. Those that are defending that system in the name of Christianity have really just invented their own religion and given it an old name.
Kurt you bring up some great points in this one and I can only address a few.
First I believe the example should start in the church. I agree that that this should be the start of the discussion and not the end. Well said. We should practice it the way it is suppose to be in the church, not to isolate it to the church, but to be an example and let it expand out from there.
you also bring up the point that Jesus was not worried just about his own faith group. I think one of the things that the rich are not doing is teaching others hwo to build wealth. Not everyone can be "rich", but I do believe that everyone can build some degree of wealth, even if that wealth is just enough to sustain them. The rich know these tricks, and very few teach them to anyone outside their class.
I have run across many people who are upset about this fact. I will try to find the most recent one, because he put it well in an article I read. I don't remember who it was, but he basically said that the rich have an obligation to teach people how to think about money and capital so they can start to help themselves.
I think this really sums up my whole opinion. the programs and system we have now are to "give a man a fish." We feed them for a day, and they only want more. I think what we need to do is "teach them how to fish" so they can eat for a lifetime.
I think Jesus's teachings are quite clear that the accumulation of material goods and wealth significantly impede spiritual growth. There are no instances where He advocates owning or possessing "things". There are, conversely, a number of examples of Him stating that wealth is an obstacle to a relationship with Him. Mark 10: 17-22 directly states that a rich man must, in addition to following the law, sell his possessions and give his money to the poor. In Matthew 6, Jesus says, "DO NOT lay up treasures for yourself on Earth." I could go on with more examples, but even the most elementary reader can interpret that His message was that worldly things are a corrupting influence and that it is sin to live in comfort and luxury while others starve. Paul reiterates this many times as well. I like Ephesians 4:28 where he states that one should work, not to acquire for one's self, but so that one can give. The only riches he ever advocates are riches in good deeds. It seems that attachment to worldly goods is undesirable. At best, the rich are cast as spiritually immature, perhaps pitiable. After all, how can anyone who seeks to love like Christ amass material wealth in the face of poverty and suffering?
I liked your allusion to the Ananias and Saphira story, BTW. I think it is a very Old Testament moment for the New Testament God.
Not being Christian, I'd still like to interject one point that I find relevant. It is a response to Brent, before the obligation of the rich to teach wealth there is an obligation to build the aforementioned wealth without taking advantage of the existing structures that capitalize (literally) on the alienation of the poor from power.
Ah…
But if the wealthy are wealthy because they know how to grow the wealth, than is it evil of them to grow that wealth? What if they grow that wealth so ridiculously much….but then they give it all back to those who do not know how to grow wealth?
not to mention that really all of us are wealthier than the poor in our society…so should we all give away our houses and cars and whatever tomorrow because we have more than they?
I don't have that much faith, unfortunately. Although I admire people who do (or at least give more than I do….)
Kurt, I thoroughly enjoyed reading your blog on "Politics and Religion". I am not a Christian but am very spiritual. I believe my closeness to God guides me to believe in helping the poor and those less fortunate than me. We seem to be living in a very selfish society that doesn't want to help the less fortunate if it means giving up any of it's luxuries. The thought of higher taxes on the rich for the benefit of the poor and balancing the countries budget has been shouted down by the extreme "right wingers". Many tend to dismiss the need for government's role in helping the needy by giving examples of those "scamming the system" or just being lazy. Yes, there are plenty of inherent problems with Welfare and Medicaid, but by eliminating these programs would bring tremendous hardship on people who have suffered enough already. And the argument that the churches should provide this help instead of the government(and they should), is irrelevant, because they are NOT providing enough assistance NOW. These people can't wait for churches to do the right thing, they need to eat today. Brent M. mentions the old story of teaching one to fish instead of giving them today's meal. How about providing both. It starts with educating the poor and they will become tremendous fishermen and fisherwomen. Headstart programs, mentoring programs, volunteer tutoring programs and a society that truly wants to help these people succeed will make these people fishing captains.
Greed is killing our economy. There is no such thing as trickle down economics. There is instead "steady flow upwards" economics. As much money that get's in the poor and lower middle class hands by necessity goes right back into the economy to buy basic needs. Most of those dollars are spent in Wal-Mart, Dollar Store, and Winn Dixie which benefit the wealthy stock holders. Whereas, tax policy that favors the rich just creates greater Merrill Lynch Brokerage accounts. It doesn't create jobs, heck many of those people have never worked a day in their lives. If the greed continues and the poor continues to get poorer, they will give retribution in the form of crime and as is the case in London rioting and looting. Perhaps if people won't give out of basic decency, they will for their own selfish reasons of not wanting anarchy on the streets. If you don't want your businesses looted and have the threat of your car stolen at gun point, do the right thing and teach these people to fish. Economics 101 explains that to have a healthy economy money needs to flow freely, and that hoarding will make the economy collapse.
Nice thoughts, David K. Thanks for commenting. I am fearful about the very things that you mention. Whenever wealth disparity gets to the point that it currently is in our culture, there is a revolution that often follows. Hopefully the ship can be righted before we reach that point.