"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
5 comments:
Until very recently, I would have responded to you post with something like this: No, the government isn't the best agent to spread Christian values (like the just distribution of wealth), BUT because it is still a good thing we should pursue it in any way we can, even politically. There is a certain logic to this line of reasoning that appeals to me. If the end is good, then it might still be worth using less than perfect means to reach that end. Plus, we have to do something and we might do some amount of good via the government. However, I've been reading some ideas that I think originate from John Howard Yoder's Politics of Jesus, and I’ve been reconsidering some of this. My ideas haven’t fully taken shape yet, but I think there is something profound about how Jesus took his stand politically (by crucifixion). Would an apocalyptic view (recognizing God’s ultimate victory over the “powers”) change the way we participated in his kingdom? I think so, but I’m just not sure what that looks like. I don’t think it means we do nothing, but I think it might change the way we think about church, government, and political theology in general.
I know I didn’t really add anything substantive there, but I just wanted to share some thoughts that are brewing. Someone else read Yoder with me and maybe you can help articulate some of this.
Well, I procrastinated all month commenting on this. I tried once and it took me an hour and then Blogspot ate my comment for some reason and I didn't have the will to recompose the comment.
This is a tough topic to post on and I'm not sure why. Maybe it's because it's hard to have amateur thoughts on it. I feel like we have to get into scientific specifics to make this interesting but I don't have the research to back it up. But I did eventually come up with these points to make:
(ONE) After halfheartedly supporting this idea from afar for a long time (thinking to myself, yeah, that would be nice), for the first time I sat down and tried to imagine what a "wealth-spread" country would actually feel like. I realized I definitely wouldn't work as hard. I'd feel like the government would provide for me and even though I should work the same amount with the same amount of effort I would not be motivated to.
(TWO) Just as I feel that social conservatism, which forces moral values on people, is a deeply flawed idea, I cannot support forcing compassion on people. The government should not force people to have specific Christian values, but rather it should only force people to observe each other's rights and enforce the values that are generally agreed on. The people that truly have no way to wealth should indeed benefit from the wealth of those who do, but there is something wrong with forcing people who have a way to wealth to give all that wealth away. Some is okay.
(THREE) In conclusion, from a compassion standpoint this idea appeals to my Christianness but from a stewardship/wisdom standpoint this idea does not work. And so while the way Conservatives spew venom against "socialism" bothers me, I guess I agree with them.
(FOUR) No one is stopping us from forming our own Acts-like commune, and that's the beauty of our system. We can choose to give because our country supports freedom.
(FIVE) Rather than worry over why so many Christians are badmouthing socialism, we should deeply examine why we ourselves don't give more.
(SIX) In the end, from a Christian perspective our material needs are not what matter. Our spiritual needs matter. That means sometimes money is necessary but only as a tool for our expression of our reliance on God and the active love that results as an embodiment of His.
I say we should be spreading the love.
I was reading Robert Inchausti’s book “Subversive Orthodoxy” (Antipolitical Politics - chapter 3) the other day on this topic and came across this quote by G.K. Chesterton he says, “We live in a time when it is harder for a free man to make a home than it was for a medieval ascetic to do without one” from his book “The Outline of Sanity.” Inchausti throws out and discusses a few other names in this chapter as being avant-garde in this field . . . Wendell Berry, Dorothy Day, Hilaire Belloc, Thomas Merton, E.F. Schumacher and Martin Luther King Jr.
Sorry to produce a reading list. And somebody mentioned John Howard Yoder earlier . . . I like him.
But yeah, I think it will take a radical indifference to both sides of the political spectrum to re-center the Church in our neurotically-whacked-out-capitalistic society. It is obvious to me that corporate America is out of control and Socialism is not the answer. Socialism has all the right ideals but non of the heart . . . non of the drive or motive. It wants to be good but it lacks the inspiration. In turn, I think we need Pentecost to happen . . . we need a Spirit charged community. It might change the world as it did in the first century.
Thanks Joe for inviting me!
After hearing about all the "tea parties" that took place last week in protest to taxes (mostly initiated by conservatives), I can't help but wonder about any Christians who took part why they supported the money spent on the wars in the past few years but are now picking apart the stimulus package aimed to help the poor in our own country.
Our church is doing a series on the recession that touches on this idea a bit and I recommend the podcast to anyone interested in a great new take on the story of exodus.
http://imagodeicommunity.com/information/sermons/
It's called "God's Abundance in the Empire of Recession." Rick equates our high times of the past decade to Egypt's production of bricks and how the Israelites were enslaved to this production. He points out several of the flaws in our thinking when we subscribe to the Empire's take on life, including our inability to see how we can share with others who are poorer. He exhorts us to look instead to the manna that falls from heaven. It is grace. We can't understand what it is when we are fresh out of the Empire. It doesn't make sense to us because it outside of the free market; FREE FOOD, what? But it is the truth. We can never make enough bricks and if we give ourselves over to the making of them, to the production of goods, to the making of money, we will never know an end to that busy-ness. But God calls us to rely on his provision and the peace that he provides. In Isaiah 55, "Come and eat! Why do you spend your money on what is not bread?"
Even in recession we can rejoice. Even if our government takes all our money and gives it to the poor we can rejoice. Even if our government refuses to help the poor and steps back to let the free market reign, we can rejoice.
Because God provides mannah. And water from the rock.
Post a Comment