This post is part of a synchroblog, a bunch of different Christian bloggers reacting to a common topic. Wanna get in on it? Visit the synchroblog blog.
I’ve been asked, and not just by the Synchroblog leaders, about what Christians ought to think about economic inequality—the fact that the rich in our country have considerably more wealth, and considerably more influence over our society and government, than do the poor. Certainly many protesters don’t think this is right; and certainly many rich people (or people who want to be rich, and hope to someday take advantage of these advantages) don’t want the status quo to change. What does God think of this? What ought Christians think of this?
Christians and money.
Let me remind you of the first principles, which I discussed in my article about Mammon and money: Money is a spiritual force. It is a spiritual competitor with God, because people with money can buy for themselves anything they want—including things that God doesn’t want for them. Money is power, but once you use that power to purchase what you covet, you’ve abused it. And because the rich have a lot of money, they’re far more likely to fall into this temptation than the poor.
Now, does this make the poor more righteous than the rich? No. Give the poor money, and they will almost always make the same mistakes the rich do. Often faster; sometimes they’ve been plotting for years about what itches they’ll scratch once they finally have money. Riches simply expand the scope of what you can do… and get away with. Wealth amplifies one’s sins. It likewise amplifies one’s good deeds; but as every Christian knows, good deeds are no justification for, and don’t make up for, sin. No matter how much we amplify it.
Money in and of itself is not evil. It is a tool; it does good or evil depending on who uses it. This is often used to justify money-worship: “I’m being a good steward of God’s resources” is the usual Christianese for “Ninety percent for me, ten percent for God, but I decide where the ten percent goes, and not a nickel more.” It’s to defend stinginess, a lack of the fruit of generosity, as a “biblical principle.” Most of the folks who professionally give “Christian” financial advice are doing nothing more than throwing a lot of Christianese words and bible quotes on top of the very same financial advice that pagans and other Mammonists follow.
But if you want to know what God’s ideal economic system looks like, we gotta look to the Law. If we’re going to understand the Kingdom of Heaven, we have to look at the principles of the constitution God wrote for his chosen people.
Ancient Hebrew economics.
In the Law, God created a society, largely from scratch, for a large extended family of former Egyptian slaves. Generally it was based on tribal lands: Each tribe would own a certain amount of territory, and this territory would belong to the families in that tribe, in perpetuity. If for any reason they needed to sell that land, it needed to eventually pass into the hands of a buyer from their family, so that the land would continue to stay in the family. (Lv 25.25-27) And at 50-year intervals, any financial transactions would be nullified: Anyone who had sold land would get to return to their family’s land. (Lv 25.8-17)
Same with slavery, which was more of a form of indentured servitude than what we Americans would recognize as slavery: If you were in a financial jam, you would sell yourself (or rent yourself, really) to someone else. (Lv 25.39) Family members, again, were obligated to buy you back if possible. (Lv 25.47-49) But under ordinary circumstances, this slavery wasn’t permanent: Every seventh year—the Sabbath year—any slaves, except for those who voluntarily sold themselves for life, would be freed.
God likewise forbade the Hebrews from charging interest on loans to fellow Hebrews; from making a profit when they sold fellow Hebrews food; (Lv 25.37) from laying claim to the crops at the edges of their fields, or that they accidentally left behind during harvests; (Lv 19.9, 23.2) from exploiting the poor, or foreigners, but instead setting up community storehouses to feed them.
Now, that’s the system as God, through Moses, set it up. Did the Hebrews actually practice it? Rarely. Some of the reason the Hebrews were dragged off to Babylon for 70 years was because the Hebrews hadn’t observed seven decades’ worth of Sabbath years. (2Ch 36.21) The tendency to think of our positions as “mine, and I must be a steward of them” rather than “God’s, and on loan to me,” is the prevalent one among humans, including (and sometimes especially) Christians.
But the theme behind the Hebrew system was that everything ultimately belonged to God, (Lv 25.23) so he could set it up however he wanted, and this was what he wanted. He wanted a generosity-focused culture. Other people’s poverty or difficulty was not an opportunity to profit, but to help.
The fruit of a profit-based culture.
The reason why people in general—not just Christians—are concerned about the vast economic difference between the rich and poor, is because we simply do not have a generosity-focused culture. The rich are not generous. Deep down, each of us recognizes that the earth, and everything in it, belongs to God; that everyone, including the rich, are temporary keepers of God’s stuff. This being the case, the rich ought to be more generous than they are. They should be able to give out of their vast surplus, at no harm to themselves, at no dent in their ability to earn more money. There’s no reason they can’t.
But they’ll come up with reasons. And some of them are valid: Opportunists and the less-generous will take advantage of them; the lazy will live off their largesse, and not produce anything themselves; people ought to learn to live within their means; why should I work to support people I don’t approve of; and so forth. Fine. Don’t give to those people. Give to people you do approve of. Yet the rich don’t even do that.
When they do, with rare exceptions, it’s not much, percentage-wise. When someone with $1,000 in the bank gives $100 to charity, that’s a tenth. When a billionaire gives a million to a cause, that’s less than 1 percent. Rarely will anyone, regardless of how easily they can afford it, give more than 25 percent of their surplus to anything. Rick Warren’s practice of giving 90 percent is so freakish that it’s noticed with awe… but it’s quickly ignored how very rare this practice is among Christians.
Giving so little of yourself—plus writing the whole of your giving off as a tax deduction, which means you actually lose nothing—is not true generosity. Only the superficial would think so.
Jesus certainly isn’t impressed:
Jesus sat down near the collection box in the Temple and watched as the crowds dropped in their money. Many rich people put in large amounts. Then a poor widow came and dropped in two small coins.
Jesus called his disciples to him and said,
“I tell you the truth, this poor widow has given more than all the others who are making contributions. For they gave a tiny part of their surplus, but she, poor as she is, has given everything she had to live on.”
In my experience (’cause some of my church duties have included bookkeeping), the rich in our churches are rarely the ones who give sacrificially, who put in much time in ministry or community services, who go on missions trips, who give significant amounts. Few will give a tenth of their income to their church—at least, not without strings attached. The rest of the time they’ll spread it out among several charities. In general I’ve seen that they give little more beyond they can successfully deduct from their taxes. (In fact, they’re usually the first to contact the church at the beginning of the year, wondering when they’ll be getting their financial statements so that they can deduct their tithes from what they owe Uncle Sam.)
Because we live in a profit-focused culture instead of a generosity-focused one, the rich want to increase their profits, and want to use whatever available means they have, including the government, to do so. The poor see this, and understandably feel more and more alienated from the rich. And when data comes out about just how rich the rich are, in comparison to how poor the poor are, we have outrage and unrest. In some countries, we even get revolutions.
In a generosity-based culture, would we see this kind of unrest? Sure; there are always greedy people who will try to justify getting more than they deserve. But you’ll see a lot less of it. In fact, what you’re more likely to see is a people glorying in their rich.
The people of Judah and Israel were as numerous as the sand on the seashore. They were very contented, with plenty to eat and drink. Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates River in the north to the land of the Philistines and the border of Egypt in the south. The conquered peoples of those lands sent tribute money to Solomon and continued to serve him throughout his lifetime.
The daily food requirements for Solomon’s palace were 150 bushels of choice flour and 300 bushels of meal; also 10 oxen from the fattening pens, 20 pasture-fed cattle, 100 sheep or goats, as well as deer, gazelles, roe deer, and choice poultry.
Solomon’s dominion extended over all the kingdoms west of the Euphrates River, from Tiphsah to Gaza. And there was peace on all his borders. During the lifetime of Solomon, all of Judah and Israel lived in peace and safety. And from Dan in the north to Beersheba in the south, each family had its own home and garden.
Each year Solomon received about 25 tons of gold. This did not include the additional revenue he received from merchants and traders, all the kings of Arabia, and the governors of the land.
King Solomon made 200 large shields of hammered gold, each weighing more than fifteen pounds. He also made 300 smaller shields of hammered gold, each weighing nearly four pounds. The king placed these shields in the Palace of the Forest of Lebanon.
Then the king made a huge throne, decorated with ivory and overlaid with fine gold. The throne had six steps and a rounded back. There were armrests on both sides of the seat, and the figure of a lion stood on each side of the throne. There were also twelve other lions, one standing on each end of the six steps. No other throne in all the world could be compared with it!
All of King Solomon’s drinking cups were solid gold, as were all the utensils in the Palace of the Forest of Lebanon. They were not made of silver, for silver was considered worthless in Solomon’s day!
Solomon had a reputation for wealth, but Solomon likewise had a reputation for spreading the wealth. The historian notes the prosperity of the people as well as their king, and that as a result of this prosperity “silver was considered worthless.” When the rich are truly generous—when your economic system isn’t a trickle-down but a downpour—no one is outraged when the rich get richer. No one begrudges prosperity when the rich are inclined to share their wealth.
But that’s not the world we live in. “Share the wealth” is a profanity to most capitalists. Including many Christians… including those Christians who recognize that the primary reason God blesses his people with wealth is so that we can share it, and
So don’t misunderstand me. I’m not just critiquing the rich. Any Christian who gets rich is just as likely to continue in this same self-focused behavior. It’s not just the rich that lack generosity. It’s all of us. Before you get rich, if ever God blesses you financially, deal with this attitude now. Because this attitude is precisely why it’s going to be very hard for the wealthy to enter the Kingdom. (Mk 10.23-25) Not impossible, but not likely.