"Spreading the wealth," "European-style socialism," "Robbing from the rich to give to the poor." It seems like these phrases have become curses and slander these days among conservatives and even among Christians.
In a way I'm responding to last month's post about "political theology," but from the reverse direction and with a focus on one concept: the redistribution of wealth. Though I am cautious about the government/President Obama's bailouts and stimulus packages, I can't help but question his opponents' objection to the "redistribution of wealth."
Only recently did I realize, or maybe just internalize, that the practice of spreading the wealth began as a Christian principle, encouraged by the disciples and the early churches. How can contemporary Christians object to it, then, as if it were morally wrong?
I think this is yet another way that Christian beliefs in America have been shaped by our economics and politics (it certainly happens the other way around also). Somehow "God helps those who help themselves" has become an unquestionable truth for Christians in this country, even though that phrase neither appears in the Bible nor can it be implied from what the Bible says about wealth. If it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven (Matthew 19:24), it seems that possessing riches in itself is wrong, or it leads all to easily to wrong.
Therefore as Christians we should be doing everything we can to spread our wealth by living simply and giving any excess to the poor!
But what does this mean in terms of government? Do I really want Congress in charge of redistributing the wealth? Do I want Obama to wear a little cap with a feather in it and carry a bow and arrows? Well, no. I think history has proven that government, no matter how right its aims, is not the best decider of how money should be used and where it should go. The more local an organization is, the more it understands the needs of the people it serves. The further away it is, the more it's bound to screw things up and slow things down. Nor do I think the government should be the enforcer of Christian principles, as Jimmy pointed out last month.
Then how should the redistribution of wealth be managed? I don't know the answer. As a Christian in America, my beliefs conflict with the fierce individualism and independence in our country's character. I don't know how to reconcile the two, and it's got to be more complicated than Ayn Rand and libertarianism - the solution I'd subscribed to until now. I guess it's easier to subscribe to a political system that will never be enacted, because then I'll never discover that the solution is more complicated than any political system can work out.
Book Discussion by Joe
Thank you to Allison for sharing a little space on this post for a great book worthy of reading: Revolutionary Road by Richard Yates.
At the heart of the book is the question of what makes a life in America meaningful. The 1950s young couple that are the main characters have a big dream (to pick up and move to Paris so that they can find themselves despite having kids, a well-paying job, and a nice house in the suburbs already). They fail, partly because they have already been crippled by the easy suburban life they disdain and feel they are better than (even though they are not) and partly because they are ridiculously selfish. Their selfishness rakes the people that know of their plan even as its boldness inspires. This book is important because it does not simply put down the conventional life (which it does beautifully and scathingly), but it questions those who dream of escape from it, leaving little else. It left me wishing I could find a manual for escape from selfishness and that I could resolve the tension between big dreams and reality in my own life. There is a grave danger in America: becoming glutted with contentment; there is also danger in flight. scooters
