Part of an ongoing series looking at all the many passages in the Bible that deal with wealth and poverty issues. You can see the links to the other passages in the series under the heading "The Bible and Economics" below or clicking right here.
I began looking at the book of Psalms last year and am still wading through it. Looking today at chapters 74 - 86...
Do not hand over the life of your dove to wild beasts; do not forget the lives of your afflicted people forever.
Have regard for your covenant, because haunts of violence fill the dark places of the land.
Do not let the oppressed retreat in disgrace; may the poor and needy praise your name...
~Psalm 74:19-21
God presides in the great assembly; God renders judgment among the “gods”:
“How long will you defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked?
Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
“The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing. They walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken."
~Psalm 82:1-5
Hear me, LORD, and answer me, for I am poor and needy.
Guard my life, for I am faithful to you; save your servant who trusts in you.
You are my God; have mercy on me, Lord, for I call to you all day long.
~Psalm 86:1-3
108 comments:
Tangential, I suppose, but I find several of these passages interesting in light of some current reading of mine. When dealing with the whole issue of "God", or perhaps "god", or what have you, it is important to get clear who we are talking about. The God of the Hebrew and New Testament Scriptures is not just "GOD", a generic concept about perfections. We do not have to do with "Absolute being" or "the ground of being" or anything else like that.
Rather, as these plaintive psalms indicate, and the rest of the Bible makes clear, we have to do with a God with a specific set of concerns, a program if you will, that means to bring all people together. The rich are not to be brought low out of spite and envy; the powerful are not to be rendered powerless out of rage. God loves the poor and weak, especially, and wants their full humanity naked before those who, arbitrarily, decide who is in and who is out.
That's what I love about these passages. God's care and concern for the weak, the orphan, the poor and imprisoned tells us who this god is that we worship. I wouldn't want to worship another God.
I don't see the point being made here. I don't see anything that indicates that God has greater love for the poor or greater dislike for the wealthy. As in all other attempts to depict the poor as somehow more holy and worthy of God's love and attention, you again find verses that indicate a specific kind of rich dude or dudes is oppressing others. It doesn't matter that they are wealthy, but that they are oppressive. It doesn't matter that the victims are poor, but that they are oppressed and suffering unjustly. I maintain that you are trying to hide your laziness under a veil of simple living. Many acquire wealth and are quite generous with their blessings, doing far more for others in less time than you could hope to do in your entire life. Think Oprah. Think Paul Newman. There's nothing holy, noble or more worthy of God's love in being poor.
I'm not making a point, Marshall. I'm just continuing this series where I quote what the Bible has to say about wealth and poverty.
Having said that, let me ask: Why is it that, after seeing dozens of these passages that have a VERY consistent theme (Woe to those wealthy oppressors who'd do harm to my beloved poor, widowed, orphaned, foreign and otherwise marginalized folk) with NARY A ONE verse saying "Woe to you who are poor who oppress my beloved rich folk," why do you think that is?
Why do the writers of the Bible - in different times and different cultures and different people - consistently warn specifically of the rich oppressors? Why do they consistently take the side of the poor and marginalized?
Do you think that is entirely random? Do you think that the passages would be making the same point (over and over and over) if they said simply, "Woe to the oppressors who'd do harm to my beloved people..."? Why do the writers over and over consistently and deliberately insert "RICH oppressors" and "POOR beloved," do you think?
Would you think the Bible would be better served and our understanding better served if we removed the wealth indicators from the text in all these dozens (hundreds?) of instances? When you say "It doesn't MATTER that THE TEXT says 'WEALTHY' oppressors, it's the 'oppressors' part that is important..." it sounds like you are taking away from the Scriptures what is consistently and apparently deliberately placed in there. Is that your intention?
Having said that, do I think that God loves the poor "more" than the rich? No, I don't.
Do I think that there are significant points being made specifically about wealth and poverty in these repeated passages that specifically speak of wealth and poverty? Yes.
Do I think we ought to focus on the one word ("oppressor" or "people") and ignore the accompanying descriptors ("wealthy" and "poor")? No, to do that would be a grave disservice to serious biblical study.
Marshall, I am striving to ignore the personal attacks and concentrate on specific ideas, but where you say...
I maintain that you are trying to hide your laziness under a veil of simple living.
I have to wonder what in the world would cause you to presume I'm "lazy" or that simple living indicates a lack of hard work?
Have you visited an Amish (or any) farm lately? Do you know that those simple live-rs are some of the most industrious people around?
You do recognize that simple living does not equate to laziness, don't you?
That seems a strange and unfounded charge to make by a fella of another fella when you don't even know how hard (or not) I work.
Please, stick to the topic and refrain from ad hom attacks. It reduces your effectiveness as a writer and is not a little boring.
First, Marshall, there is no indication that God "loves" the poor more. God CARES for the poor more, precisely because they have no one else who does. We in the believing community, the Body of Christ, are to incarnate that care in our preferential option for them.
This does not mean we start a revolution. It means we live out these verses - this entire Biblical theme - in our ministry.
As to the simple life being a result of laziness, Marshall, I can only point to Dan's comments. I know I wouldn't last very long, or at least without some whining, should I choose "a simple life".
"...VERY consistent theme (Woe to those wealthy oppressors who'd do harm to my beloved poor, widowed, orphaned, foreign and otherwise marginalized folk)"
Dan,
It seems as though you are skipping an important distinction in your conclusion. It says "woe to those rich folks who WHO..." not woe to ALL rich folks. It seems as though God is more concerned with how people are treated rather than the size of their wealth.
Dan,
You sort of addressed my comment before I read the whole thread. However IMO you are putting more emphasis on the descriptor (rich) than on the act of oppression.
Geoffrey wrote: " God CARES for the poor more, precisely because they have no one else who does."
Another way I've heard this put is that God loves us all equally, but He roots for the underdog.
A couple years back I spent some time on my blog working through Miroslav Volf's Exclusion and Embrace, a step beyond watered-down, North Americanized-liberation theologies. As I recall, Marshall was critical of my reflections (he even called Volf "Miroslob", proving how wonderfully recondite he can be). Yet, that work precisely addresses the controversy that crops up whenever this topic arises.
God is far more inclusive than we can imagine. God's love and grace, like rain, fall on the just and unjust alike (thus proving the futility of simplistic moral arguments). Even as he affirmed this, Jesus spent the bulk of his ministry with the poor, the outcast, drunkards, prostitutes, tax collectors. When rebuked for this, he said that those in good health don't need a physician.
More than anything else, this clarifies the point. It isn't that God doesn't love the rich and powerful. Rather, God - incarnate in Jesus and embodied in the Church - shows a preference for the outcast, because they are far more in need of that divine condescension. Through that example, too, the powerful, the wealthy may see the loving-care and grace of God at work and when called upon, like the rich young ruler, to give away all he has to the poor, might not walk away shaking their heads, but take up their crosses and follow him.
Beautifully stated, Geoffrey.
Craig said...
However IMO you are putting more emphasis on the descriptor (rich) than on the act of oppression.
How, might I ask, are you suggesting I do this?
Obviously, since I didn't offer any commentary on these passages here, you must be speaking about something I've said in the past, but what?
I mean, since I regularly come out against oppression, I am just wondering what I've said or done to suggest that I'm guilty of putting "too much" emphasis on "wealthy" and not "oppressor." Anything specific to support such a position?
Craig...
It seems as though you are skipping an important distinction in your conclusion. It says "woe to those rich folks who WHO..." not woe to ALL rich folks.
SOMETIMES, the Bible does say "woe to you rich oppressors WHO..." but sometimes, it just says, "woe."
Jesus, for instance...
He [Jesus] went down with them and stood on a level place. A large crowd of his disciples was there and a great number of people from all over Judea, from Jerusalem, and from the coastal region around Tyre and Sidon, who had come to hear him and to be healed of their diseases. Those troubled by impure spirits were cured, and the people all tried to touch him, because power was coming from him and healing them all.
Looking at his disciples, he said:
“Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are you who hunger now,
for you will be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep now,
for you will laugh...
“Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.
“But woe to you who are rich,
for you have already received your comfort.
Woe to you who are well fed now,
for you will go hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
for you will mourn and weep.
Not, "Woe to you who are rich WHO," just "woe to you who are rich..." Period.
Why do you think Jesus would frame it that way?
cont'd...
Or consider James 2...
Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? Are they not the ones who are blaspheming the noble name of him to whom you belong?
One would have to do some pretty hefty biblical gymnastics to spiritualize this passage and say that James wasn't speaking specifically and directly to actually poor and wealthy people and circumstances.
I think (and Geoffrey and Alan are with me on this one, it sounds like) we in the wealthy West REALLY try to ignore and downplay the economic issues in the Bible, even when they're overtly obvious in the text.
As Geoffrey and Alan have beautifully stated, we're not saying God loves only the poor or that God despises the rich. Far from it! After all, Jesus wept when the rich young man walked away, unable to move beyond his wealth.
I'll ask you the question I asked Marshall: Do you think the text from Psalms would be better served if we just removed the notions of wealth and poverty that are directly mentioned and ONLY dealt with the issue of oppression? Or, given that the terms are definitely there and quite specific and quite consistently brought up, do you agree with me that we ought to give just as significant consideration to the descriptor (wealthy) as to the noun (oppressor)?
cont'd...
Or, if you fear that we are putting too much emphasis on the "wealthy/poverty" part, is it also possible that some put too LITTLE emphasis on the "wealthy/poverty" part? It sounds like, just between you and Marshall, for instance, that you'd like to ignore the "wealthy" descriptor altogether, is that the case?
Is it possible that Jesus and the writers of the Bible are trying to get across MORE than simply, Don't Oppress? Is it possible that, as Paul noted, wealth is a trap? That the very act of over-accumulating wealth too often (not always, in my opinion, but often) introduces injustice into an economic system? Into a society/community?
If you'll recall the story of the Manna in the desert, where God miraculously provided food for the hungry Israelis wandering the wilderness, that God allowed them to collect enough, but no more? That those who collected a little had enough and that those who collected more than a day's worth of manna found it would rot before they could consume it. Is it possible that this is God's model for our needs?
Give us THIS DAY our daily bread...?
The foolish man who decided he'd build bigger barns to be more secure in his old age?
If not THE model, is it possible that it represents A good biblical model and ideal and that, in our materialistic culture, we're trapped in a backwards way of thinking?
These seem reasonable conclusions to me.
Sorry for the ugly awkward pack of writing there...
Stream of consciousness is perhaps not an ideal way of communicating.
Dan,
I am suggesting that given the totality of your writings on wealth that it is reasonable for one to conclude that you are emphasizing the "rich" descriptor. I would suggest that the passage is directed to some who are "rich" who are also "oppressing". You seem to draw some sort of equivalence between "rich" and "oppressor".
It seems as though you are trying to demonstrate otherwise through your rambling comments. If that is the case then I stand corrected. I am just throwing out my opinion.
To answer your question, I would have to see more context than you provide before I could determine whether the term "rich" is essential in this case. I would suggest, that (again from the limited context, that the term rich is simply a descriptor of the oppressors not a vital component of the oppression. Without some more study I really have no sense at this point.
In my case your assumption would be incorrect, I won't speak for Marshall.
Yes, there are numerous instances where God stresses the day to day aspect of His provision. That somehow needs to sit along side the fact that a number of folks who God speaks highly of were rich.
I actually think that Alan's take is pretty appealing.
Craig...
I am suggesting that given the totality of your writings on wealth that it is reasonable for one to conclude that you are emphasizing the "rich" descriptor.
Emphasizing? Yes, because it IS there and often goes UN- or at least UNDER-emphasized. But "OVER-emphasized"? I would have to see some quotes from me where you get that opinion in order to agree that you have a point.
I think sometimes what happens is that I point out that rich IS used and people seem to think, "well, you're just playing the class card, you're taking a socialist view of things," etc, when all I've done is merely point out that it's there and ought not be ignored.
Do I draw some equivalence between rich and oppressor? Only when it is there in the context. In these passages today, for instance, while "the poor" are spoken of and for, "the rich" don't make an overt appearance. I didn't bring up "the rich" in context of these passages.
Having said that, given the whole of the prophets and psalmist commentary about the oppression of the poor, it would seem that one could fairly safely draw the conclusion that it is often the rich and powerful doing the oppressing. You know, those who "add house upon house," whose "silver and gold will not be able to deliver them in the day of the LORD’s wrath...for it (silver and gold) has caused them to stumble into sin.," who "were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy..."
You get the idea. There is a great deal (it seems to me) of Scripture that ties the wealth directly to the oppression and lack of concern and action.
Craig, I am puzzled by your question to Dan. As Dan points out, not just in the Hebrew prophets and Psalms, but also in Luke-Acts, the Revelation to St. John, and in parts of St. Paul's letter, the link between wealth and power and the oppression of the weak is clear and direct.
Are you suggesting the Bible speaks otherwise?
Just to be clear, these passages are a judgment not just upon the powerful in the time they were spoken. They are not just a judgment upon some "Other" rich folk out there. These passages cut to my heart, because, by any standard except the glamorous life presented on the goggle-box, my family is outrageously wealthy. These judgments fall . . . on me and my family!
GKS,
My questions to Dan are two fold.
1. Scripture does present folks who are wealthy in a positive light, so when Dan seems to equate wealth with oppression it seems to fail to make the distinction between the wealthy who oppress and those who don't.
2. Since by any worldwide standard we are all wealthy, I am indeed curious where Dan sees himself fitting in to this.
So, I am not suggesting that there is no link between wealth/power/oppression. It does seem that Dan is suggesting some sort of equivalence that doesn't seem to be in the texts he has chosen.
I hope that by asking questions when I am unclear on what Dan is saying, he will clarify his positions. That will, I hope, minimize misunderstandings.
I have stated this before fairly clearly and plainly, Craig, but perhaps you have missed or just forgotten...
1. I am certainly amongst the world's wealthiest people and amongst some of history's wealthiest people. Probably nearly everyone reading this is in the top 5-10% of the wealthiest people in the world. That's just a statement of fact.
2.The Bible certainly DOES present wealthy folk amongst God's followers. No doubt about it.
3. The Bible also counts killers, adulterers, polygamists and creepy people amongst God's followers. I don't think we can assume a correlation between a "Bible hero's" wealth and his/her discipleship, any more than we ought necessarily assume that polygamy or killing is a good simply because it was done by a Bible character.
4. I don't think that wealth AUTOMATICALLY equals oppression or injustice. Either in the Bible or in our world today.
5. However, clearly, in the Bible and in the world today, there is at least SOMETIMES a connection.
6. It is my view that wealth TENDS to offer a great and difficult distraction/temptation and, as such, TENDS to be a trap, as St Paul states clearly.
People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction.
There, according to Paul, if you WANT TO get rich, you FALL INTO temptation and a trap. Paul doesn't even go so far as to say, "You MAY fall into a trap," or "You might have a tendency to fall into temptation." He states that as a reality. Period.
Jesus states that the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil. Jesus states plainly that we are NOT to lay up for ourselves treasures on earth. Period. Jesus condemns the "rich fool" who built bigger barns for security's sake. "Be on guard against all kinds of greed," Jesus tells us.
Time after time, clear statement after clear statement, we have Jesus and the biblical authors uttering such warnings.
7. So, to repeat, do I think that wealth = oppression? No, clearly not. Do I think wealth = evil? No, clearly not. Do I think you can't be a wealthy person and a follower of God? No, clearly not.
Do I think the Bible is replete with warnings about the trappings of wealth and injunctions to watch out especially and specifically for and with the poor? Yes, clearly so.
And because of that, I think we who are rich would be wise to be extremely cautious in our attitudes towards wealth and poverty. A trap is a trap precisely because it's hard for the prey to see and understand.
Craig...
I am not suggesting that there is no link between wealth/power/oppression. Dan is suggesting some sort of equivalence that doesn't seem to be in the texts he has chosen.
I'll repeat: IF you have some specific quote from me that you'd like to offer to support this, I could benefit from your concern and look at what I've said and how it has come across. But this generalized and vague claim doesn't tell me much of anything.
I've pointed to some specific texts in the Bible here:
"Woe to you who are rich," for instance.
"Is it not the rich who oppress you," for instance.
"Do not store up for yourselves treasure on earth," for instance.
In any of those, do you have concern for an inappropriate "equivalence," in my pointing them out? What concern is there in my words about those passages?
Thanks.
Dan,
Thanks for clarifying your position. Isn't it great when things work like this?
In my answer to GKS I probably should have said that it seems like you believe there is some sort of equivalence. I apologize for the unclarity. In my defense, I was explaining why I had asked the questions I asked, at that point of GKS comment, I think that you had clarified enough that I didn't have quite the same concern I had previously.
Anyway, thanks. Sorry, you had to re answer.
Yes, it's great when things work like that. You have a question about my position. You ask it. I answer it.
No presumptions made, just questions and answers. That's all how it ought to be, seems to me.
And all without name calling.
OK, Jesus can come back now. So far, we all seem to be in agreement.
I'm not sure about agreement, but it's definately a reasonably respectful understanding.
I'd say it sounds like we agree that...
1. To say that there is NO connection between wealth and oppression is not a biblical stance.
2. To say that rich=evil is not a biblical stance.
3. How much one should emphasize the wealth part of the equation and how much one should emphasize the oppression part of the equation is a matter where we have room for disagreement. The Bible does not say, "Thou shalt place 25% of all discussions on the oppression side and 75% on the wealth side," there is no "right" answer on how much emphasis is appropriate. Thus, there is no big problem if we don't fully agree on appropriate amount of discussion.
Right?
Dan,
I'm cool with your 1&2. I'm not sure your #3 can be drawn that broadly (although I think you're on the right track).
I'm not sure what you mean, Craig. Do you think there is a "correct amount" of emphasis to place on wealth vs oppression?
Seems the good feelings here might be upset by my comments about to be posted, but it can't be helped.
When I mention "laziness", it is in reference to the notion of simple living while advocating for progressive taxation and the supposed care for the poor. If one is so concerned for the poor, it seems justified to expect that such a concerned person would do more for them. If one is so concerned as to demand more from the rich, it seems that person is lazy if they do little to improve their own net worth so that they can be a better example.
Personally, I don't believe anyone can point to the wealthy and demand more without acknowledging what the wealthy already does by their efforts to achieve, or that they can be accused without the accuser knowing with absolute certainty the extent to which a wealthy person does or does not give to charity. And to constantly preach and highlight what is supposed to represent Biblical positions regarding the oppression of the rich against the poor, it is clear there is a standing accusation, or at least an accusatory tone toward the wealthy.
Dan points to the Amish. I'm sure I've ever heard of the Amish active in support of ANY particular tax policy, much less a progressive one. I'm not familiar enough with their day-to-day ideologies to look to their example at all. They choose their simple living, to be sure, but I don't know that they spend much time encouraging the rest of the world to do as well. In other words, they simply seem to concern themselves with their own path.
Thus, when I refer to Dan's "laziness", it is in regards to his published thoughts and the fact that they don't seem to line up. I am unimpressed with soup lines and offerings of a free room in the shanty for the person in need as the ultimate in charitable giving. It is temporary and serves a very limited purpose. At the end of the day, the poor is still poor and no lasting help is provided. Do I mean to disparage such immediate help? Absolutely not. I give in similar ways, to the best of my limited ability.
But I would very much prefer having the ability to employ. To give a more lasting gift of a job at decent wage with a chance for advancement. I would very much prefer having money to spend to benefit the local businesses which, when flush, will hire as well.
The fact is that the wealthy do more for the downtrodden just by being wealthy and living their lives than do most on our level. Yet, I would wager that most of them do more than simply live. Many achieve and give back. Many achieve for the privilege of giving back. I refer once again to Oprah, who is only one example of such largess and there are so many of whom we never hear or ever will.
I think it is too easy to speak of the poor in the church these days. Hard up for a sermon? Charity is always good. But I think that for all that could be taught, charity and care for the poor is the least necessary.
A few other points,
Geoffrey,
I don't recall this "Miroslob" dude. It rings no bells. Are you sure that was me? A link would help, if you could, to refresh my memory. "Miroslob" is too cheap a slam for me to admit to. If it was me, I deserve derision for that alone.
Jesus speaking to those who "need no physician" is not a point of inclusion, but one of pointing out that all are in need of salvation. None of those sinners with whom he spent His time were expected by Him to continue sinning. It is not a case that He loved them more, or that He cared for them more, because some of those "outcasts" were well off. God is VERY exclusive. The biggest scumbag in the world might be in heaven right now. But that scumbag repented in order to get there. He couldn't continue being a scumbag and gain salvation.
Marshall...
When I mention "laziness", it is in reference to the notion of simple living while advocating for progressive taxation and the supposed care for the poor. If one is so concerned for the poor, it seems justified to expect that such a concerned person would do more for them.
And what if someone thinks that engaging in hyperconsumerism is NOT the way to help the poor? That if they think that doing such actually does more harm to the poor than good? Then engaging in hyperconsumerism/overconsumption and trying to lead a more simple lifestyle is the way to go.
Wendell Berry states (about living a green and sustainable life and working to improve the environment) that, while protests and writing legislators and trying to shape policies, etc, have their place and may be helpful, that he is convinced that the single most important thing a person can do to help the environment is grow a garden. Period.
The point being that beginning to live a sustainable life yourself is the first step towards ending pollution, militarism, injustice for the poor, etc. This is my opinion, too. It seems a very logical starting place.
And, as such, I do what I can "for the poor" and WITH the poor, beginning by where I live, how much I make, how much I consume, my decision to walk moreso than drive, etc. From there, I'd suggest that my type of folk do a great deal of hands on activities with actual poor folk that help promote self-sufficiency.
Simply doing whatever to make a big salary so that I can peel off a few dollars to donate to charity is not a very impressive or biblical way to deal with the issues of poverty, seems to me.
From a biblical point of view, I don't see much support for the "get rich so that you can be generous" approach that you seem to be advocating. And there's certainly nothing in this particular post to support such a view.
Marshall...
it seems that person is lazy if they do little to improve their own net worth so that they can be a better example.
Well, it may SEEM that way to you, but your feelings don't alter things in the real world. "Laziness" would be based on, you know, not actually doing something. This is not the case for me or anyone I know in my camp. So you're welcome to whatever crazy hunches you want to have about people you don't know, but I'm more interested in real world evidence. Since you have nothing to support such a claim and I personally know it's a ridiculous claim, I shall write it off as simply an ignorant ad hom attack with no merit.
Marshall...
I am unimpressed with soup lines and offerings of a free room in the shanty for the person in need as the ultimate in charitable giving. It is temporary and serves a very limited purpose. At the end of the day, the poor is still poor and no lasting help is provided.
Well, I'm not unimpressed with acts of charity. It is part of what God's followers are supposed to do.
"This is what God has called for you to do: Love mercy (charity), DO JUSTICE and walk humbly with God."
Acts of charity are a help and a good thing to do. But just as important, I'd say, is doing justice. This could include giving an honest and decent pay for workers, as you're suggesting. But that's not all there is, either. Living a life in such a way as not to cause or support unjust economic systems is important, too, it seems to me.
The person who advocates for and extravagantly uses "cheap energy" which results in poor folk around fossil fuel sources to suffer, which would be counter to this post's passages. For instance. Thus, living in a more simple manner and not hyperconsuming IS an act of justice, it seems to me.
Perhaps I'll try to write a more comprehensive essay (or quote someone who has) making the case for simple living as an act of justice.
Regardless, claims that simple life advocates are "lazy" are just ridiculous and wholly unsupported.
Marshall, in matters of style and word choice, you seem to have an affinity for "scumbag". How marvelously classy.
Actually, the passage in which Jesus rebukes those who take him to task for hanging with sinners is precisely about inclusion. Those so named as "sinners", prostitutes, drunkards, tax-collectors, are excluded from society for any number of reasons, having to do for the most part with ritual purity ("prostitutes" refers, in all likelihood, to women and men who worked as Temple prostitutes in pagan shrines, so they were ritually unclean as well as being your common fornicator). Jesus spent time with them to demonstrate that God's Kingdom was open to all, not just those who observed every jot and tittle of the Law as interpreted by "strict constructionists".
I'm not sure how even you could miss that, Marshall. Turning it in to some kind of moral demand is ridiculous, unless you have access to a Bible that I don't have.
"Marshall, in matters of style and word choice, you seem to have an affinity for "scumbag". How marvelously classy."
Why, thank you, Geoffrey. How nice of you to say so. I find that even folks such as yourself are likely to get a good understanding of my meaning by my use of the word. So happy to know such is the case.
You are a bit confounded in your understanding of "inclusion". There is not a one of those sinners listed for whom Jesus would encourage, "Don't you change a thing!" He hopes all will repent of their ways and come to Him. There is no option for doing otherwise. Keep in mind that I do not insist that He demands perfection from those who are incapable of attaining it. But one who rejects His teachings is definitely NOT included. If He is to judge in the end, do you really suppose that judgment means no one will be EXcluded? What then would be the point of judging at all?
The passage is not in the least about inclusion, but in salvation for sinners. There is no sin too great from which one cannot repent and be saved. But one cannot simply carry on in rebellion and believe he will be "included".
As for what WE do with sinners, of course to attempt to bar them from our churches would mean empty churches. So I really don't know why you brought this up to begin with in the context of this thread.
"And what if someone thinks that engaging in hyperconsumerism is NOT the way to help the poor?"
I'd stifle the compulsion to mock and simply ask what is meant by the term? I don't recall suggesting that improving one's status in order to simply buy crap is the game plan to follow. However, having money to spend and then doing so DOES improve the economy. Increasing demand for goods provokes growth and growth means jobs. Planting a garden doesn't.
What I was talking about was doing something substantial for the poor by creating a business that employs them. Or supporting businesses that do. And guess what? One can still pass out ladels of soup at the same time.
Simple living will NOT decrease poverty in the least. It will not provide the most resources to aid the impoverished in a lasting manner, unless supporting them with your garden and lean-to is your goal.
My problem with your hippy solutions is how vague and ambiguous all your "solutions" are. You may want to walk to work if you like, mow your lawn with a scythe or a few goats, wash your clothes by slamming them against the rocks down by the river, but my desire for labor saving devices results in progress that leads to manufacturing which puts people to work.
I have asked such in the past on more than one occasion and will ask again. What is it you do for a living? What kind of scratch to bring in for it? What happens to you simple living people when you or a family member (God forbid) experiences a catastrophic disease or injury? How does your simple living account for that and what then becomes of all the poor people you have compelled to rely upon you for soup?
I also defy you to describe how our current economic system is somehow "unjust" simply because there are poor among us? (Gosh. Who told us that would always be the case?) When you can show that the system is the sole cause of their poverty, then you might have a reason to belabor this point about what the Bible says about economics.
Acts of charity are indeed important and I do them as often as I can while encouraging the same of others. But I'm under no illusion that I've done more than what it is. It's just a meal, it's just a coat, it's just a ride. I'd rather give them a job and show them how to stay out of debt as they move on their way to as simple or complex a life as they choose.
If you want to truly help the poor, throwing them a bone is a cheap and lazy way to do it. I don't care if you're standing on the corner every night holding their tin cup for them. The fact of the matter is that it isn't simple living and non-consumerism that will positively impact poverty.
Marshall, I have limited time so one thing at a time:
1. Many companies don't want their employees to share their salary. This is certainly true of mine. Thus, I won't. I've told you before, I am solidly middle class, which is wealthy by world and historical standards.
2. Regardless, my income does not impact upon this post.
3. Where you suggested that I specifically was lazy, it seems you are not meaning actually Lazy, as standardly understood in the English language. Since I am quite a hard worker (as a rule, not always), and since you know nothing about my work habits, you have zero grounds to credibly call me lazy and expose poor and crude reasoning to support your non-position.
4. You seem to be suggesting something more like hypocrisy rather than laziness. That is, it seems you are suggesting that those who support a progressive tax scheme (I'd argue the bulk of the US and Christendom) over a regressive or flat tax scheme AND who support doing something for the poor are being hypocritical. While you'd still be wrong, at least that would make some sense in the English language, rather than suggesting laziness. Is that closer to what you're getting at?
5. Clearly, one who is a hard worker is, by definition, not lazy, so you totally strike out there. Feel free to try to better explain yourself.
Marshall...
If you want to truly help the poor, throwing them a bone is a cheap and lazy way to do it.
You seem to have absolutely NO comprehension of what my positions are on wealth, poverty and Christian responsibility. Further comments such as the one you're making above only support that.
Since today's topic is NOT "how best to deal with poverty and wealth, from a Christian point of view," why don't you wait until I actually stake out a position on it and write then to what I actually am talking about, rather than taking wild guesses that are erroneous in nature?
Oh, what do I do for a living? That I can answer:
I do GIS and GPS work. More specifically still, I help water and wastewater utilities map their pipe networks so they can accurately keep up with their infrastructure.
Dan, your work sounds very cool, actually.
Marshall Art - on the use of scumbag, dude, I was most definitely NOT complimenting you. I find the word, and the sentiment, and the mind that uses it, revolting and offensive.
Where in anything I wrote do you read me either directly or indirectly suggesting that Jesus' preference for the outcast included insouciance toward their moral failings? The Synoptics at least are consistent - even those whose life was replete with sin were loved and told to go and sin no more. I see absolutely nothing in my general discussion of "inclusion" that even hints that this particular admonition (which I have not and will not take as historical or not historical; its general presence across various texts suggests the possibility that it might well have been).
So, the fantasy you have that I and other "liberals" approve in some manner, fashion, or form, with conventional immorality because we do not equate the Christian life with bourgeois morality is ridiculous. Whether it was the actual physical presence of Jesus, or our more contemporary experience of the Spirit of God, who brings the Son of the Father mediately present to us in the Church, I cannot imagine that event - which we Christians confess using the term "conversion" - changing their lives, as it does ours. Obviously that includes reimagining one's life in such a way that various self-destructive behaviors that can be generally lumped as immoral no longer play a role. Neither easily nor perfectly, of course.
That is neither here nor there, though. That you and many others seem to think Jesus was a blue-haired minder of other people's lives says far more about you than it does about who Jesus was as presented in the Gospel.
Dan,
While I can't possibly know the cut of your employer's jib, hiding behind his policy is fine, particularly since "middle class" is close enough to know. (this despite the term being rather vague--lower, middle, upper as it were) However, knowing a bit better your financial standing indeed is relative to your statements regarding your philosophies. For example, someone who is filthy rich and supports progressive tax policies is putting his money where his mouth is. Someone with no ambition for wealth and is supportive of such policies is putting the money of someone else where his mouth is.
There are many who claim to be hard workers, and who actually bust their asses in some endeavor, but are still quite lazy. The work they do is easier than the work that needs doing. You are the champion of the poor, Danny, and yet you insist on living simply and working oh so hard in doling out small portions of your labors to appear to care. Yet, the real work would be in furthering your own financial and economic power so as to be one of those who would be taxed more, while supplying real opportunity to those in need of work.
None of this would be required, in my mind, of those who simply content themselves with their own charitable endeavors. But to brag of living simply, while pushing for more from those who live large (through their own efforts) strikes me as lazy AND hypocritical. I have no problem with those who encouraging giving from anyone. My problem is with those who demand it by force through legislation. This would include you, who supports progressive taxation. When you're willing to put forth the effort most of the wealthy have to achieve what they possess, then I believe you will be justified in demanding more from them as you will have as much from which to give yourself. Still, however, total justification would be absent as you've no business telling another how to spend his money. Rather ironic considering Geoffrey's last comments.
Geoffrey,
"Marshall Art - on the use of scumbag, dude, I was most definitely NOT complimenting you. I find the word, and the sentiment, and the mind that uses it, revolting and offensive."
Yet, a young woman dropping f-bombs on a social networking site I'm to ignore. Interesting. But it's true. A bag of scum is indeed revolting and offensive. Imagine the person upon whom such a term is placed. I don't use it lightly. But be honest. How different is what you've just said about me? Throwing the first stone, aren't you?
"Where in anything I wrote do you read me either directly or indirectly suggesting that Jesus' preference for the outcast included insouciance toward their moral failings?"
By your merely bringing up the story. It doesn't seem relevant to the topic at hand. Plus, your choice of using the word "inclusion". It doesn't fit the scene at all as the story is not about inclusion in the least, but the point regarding for whom Jesus came. It is for the sinner, and He associated with them to illustrate that point. But these "outcasts" were not His "preferred" as you like to call it. Indeed, the Pharisees were every bit in need of Jesus as any whore or taxman was. You're simply doing the same thing as Dan by suggesting that there was a preferred class at all. If there was any who were preferred, it was all of mankind.
And yes, He tells the sinners to go and sin no more. That certainly suggests that He was a "minder" of other people's lives. It is foolish to suggest otherwise since His whole purpose was to bring us to salvation. That indeed speaks to caring about how we live our lives. Are you now suggesting that our behaviors have no bearing because we claim to believe on Him?
"So, the fantasy you have that I and other "liberals" approve in some manner, fashion, or form, with conventional immorality because we do not equate the Christian life with bourgeois morality is ridiculous."
No fantasy here, Geoffrey. You approve of much which is immoral. And what do you mean by "bourgeois"? Does that mean, that which is Scriptural? That would make sense then. You do not equate the Christian life with Scriptural morality. That IS ridiculous.
Marshall, please point to any place in my YEARS of writing THOUSANDS of posts on my blog and comments elsewhere where I have ever - EVER - come out and endorsed what you consider "immoral" behavior.
Please point to a single instance where I claim that the Christian faith in some way supports a life of moral squalor, or moral viciousness, or some other fantasy of yours. I do not equate Jesus' teachings with our current middle-class "morality" (which is really a kind of ideological hammer with which to beat others); that hardly means I endorse immoral behavior. Rather, it is the hardly new or interesting idea that the Christian faith has little to do with conventions of morality, of our time or any other.
I await your response, although my guess is you'll bring up my support for gay rights, in and out of the church, and perhaps my views on Christian sexual ethics that include a blase insouciance toward self-pleasuring, for which you've taken me to task in the past. So, I suppose I could ask for examples other than those, care-worn ones.
Craig wrote: "And all without name calling."
Well, that didn't last.
"I'm not sure what you mean, Craig. Do you think there is a "correct amount" of emphasis to place on wealth vs oppression?"
Dan,
I am suggesting that the emphasis would probably be more context specific, and not as general as you seem to be suggesting.
In any event, the topic at issue is Biblical teaching on economic justice, not whether or not the Bible says that bad things are bad and good things are good. I would far prefer for Marshall Art to elaborate how it is possible to square the circle between his views, which are diametrically opposed to the Biblical witness on economic justice, and his own vision of himself as having some kind of clear understanding of the Bible.
I even had my Advil handy in order to read it without interruption.
Geoffrey,
There's no real difference between the teachings of Christ and what you berate as "middle class morality". If comparing lust to adultery is not the ultimate hammer with which to beat others, I don't know what is. However, where Christ forgives and encourages that one goes and sins no more, folks like myself are merely reminding what qualifies as sin, which has not changed since Christ walked the earth.
So indeed, your support of homosexual behavior and scoffing at traditional ideas of sexual morality are perfect examples of your support for immoral behavior. I would add your support of abortion to that list as well.
"...the Christian faith has little to do with conventions of morality..."? Really? You're actually going to put this out as a legitimate point of argument? Christianity SETS the conventions of morality.
As to your last comment, perhaps you could elaborate a bit and point out which of the views you think I hold that would qualify as being diametrically opposed to Biblical teaching on "economic justice". I'm not aware that I hold any such unBiblical views. Pop a couple of those pills and take your best shot.
The Gospel according to St Luke has Jesus telling the rich young ruler to sell all that he has and give that to the poor, then come and follow him.
The Gospel according to St. Marshall Art says: "What I was talking about was doing something substantial for the poor by creating a business that employs them."
That is what I was talking about.
I'm going to set aside the whole morality debate for the nonce because that is another thread. But, yeah, I'm putting that out there, and am not the least worried about it.
Wow, Geoffrey. That problem you have with getting the point still plagues you I see.
The point of the story is not one of wealth vs poverty. Look at the whole thing, particularly Mark's version of the event (Mk 10:17-31). The young man speaks of having kept all the commandments as he is asking what more he can do to inherit eternal life. He kept them in a very external manner, like a lefty, missing the point of how one is to be on the inside. He's looking for a work's based answer and as he is so tied to his wealth, Jesus prescribes the cure of giving away all his wealth. This wasn't a mandate for Christians to give away all they own to the poor. So I hope you're not spending a whole lot of time begging for food after dispensing with your worldly possessions.
What? You haven't given away all you have to the poor? You don't sign over your paycheck every Friday to Feed The Children? Then why present this story?
Of course! To try to bust my chops. Far better it would be to ask a question in the gracious manner demanded of our host than to slander or assume.
You'll note that in the Mark version, Jesus "looked at him and loved him" (NIV). He was concerned that the kid was sincere in his desire to please and was not intended to bust his chops over his wealth. But that the wealth was an issue, that he was too tied to it, especially as evidenced by the kid's reaction to Christ's suggestion, indicates the true point of the story.
In that, I am totally down with the concept. I do not assume that the wealthy are greedy and oppressive and necessarily consumed with their wealth in the manner suggested by the lefty focus on "Sabbath Economics".
If the story had to do with the plight of the poor, what would have been accomplished should the kid given away all he had? First, he'd now be among the poor and in dire need of another rich kid to approach Jesus as he had. Second, the amount of the people served by the act is left up to the kid. Would he have given it all to one poor dude, or twenty or bought as many Big Macs as his riches could afford and passed them out, one burger to one poor person until all was gone? Third, nowhere does Jesus mandate such an act for any other rich person, though the implication is that any who are so tied to their wealth do as much.
But as we all know, or should, such an act will not gain one entry into eternal life.
I'm not even sure what to say in response, Marshall. Seriously.
Not because you are absolutely right and I am overwhelmed by your brilliance, sagacity, insight in to ancient Near Eastern life and literature, and great good sense. Rather, I'm speechless because you manage to miss that you asked for an example of where what you wrote differed from the Gospel. I offered an example, which you claimed I merely used to beat you with.
Look, can I help it if the Gospel writer has Jesus say that it is easier for an camel to get through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God? I didn't say that Jesus said that, and I don't particularly like it, because by any historical standard I am wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice of most of the human race, and barely above the median in the US!
Attempting to point the finger of hypocrisy is easy, cheap, and a game I don't play. Where and how I choose to dispense my resources is my business, and I'll leave it at that.
If you don't like it that the testimony of Scripture, Old and New, is that wealth leads to oppression and a breaking not only of the social bonds but the covenant with God, I suggest you try another religion. It's there, most people with eyes and hearts understand it and wrestle with it. I really have no interest in attempting to prove something that is in no need of proof. Spiritual blindness is beyond my abilities to heal.
"The Gospel according to St. Marshall Art says: "What I was talking about was doing something substantial for the poor by creating a business that employs them.""
Sorry for not spelling this out more clearly for you, Geoffrey. It refers to one who so piously poses as one who cares but purposely limits his ability to show true caring by living simply. Again, what is accomplished? A temporary respite from the sufferings of poverty for one, but what a great feeling of holiness for the condescension of providing another meal! This is what fails to impress. Certainly, a quick fix to those in a financial fix is a good thing.
But this living simply thing while speaking of the poor is wacky. If living simply means one makes tons of dough but doesn't live an opulent lifestyle, I get that. But the suggestion is that he eschews wealth. Purposely avoids it. What other recourse is there but to dole out ladles of soup while insisting that the wealthy be forced to cough up more of their money, as if they never give or even give thought to doing so?
What's more, he supposes that the poor are all victims of the actions taken by others in their pursuit of wealth. That the poor are "oppressed" by the current economic system.
But my position is that these evil wealthy dudes have done far more for the poor, downtrodden and unwashed masses than anything a hundred Dans could ever do because they employ AND donate, and in far greater sums BECAUSE of the wealth they've taken pains to accumulate.
Case in point:
Not long ago, my family was invited to an extremely swanky fund raiser for the Les Turner ALS Foundation. My father-in-law died from that disease, so that is what prompted the invite. As soon as we walked into the Four Seasons in downtown Chicago, I knew this was not the world I inhabit. Long story shortened, inside of four hours, these cursed rich bastards raised $500,000.00 for the cause. ONE NIGHT!! The dude who invited us attends several events like this every year. EVERY YEAR!! There are far more than "several per year" going on all the time for charitable causes of all kinds.
For Katrina (or was it 9/11---I forget), Sandra Bullock wrote a check for a cool million. THAT BITCH!! I don't believe she was the only one.
Bill Gates. Boy. Is there a crowbar strong enough to pry out a few dollars from THAT dude? Wait! He's mighty generous I hear.
Most everything I've seen (when I've taken the time to look) regarding this "Sabbath Economics" series fails to consider the main issue of worshiping one's wealth above and beyond God and His Will, and instead hints not so slightly at the socialist leanings of our host. One needn't be poor or non-wealthy to find favor with God. Being wealthy is not a sure ticket to hell in a golden handbag. I don't know too many wealthy people, much less greedy ones. But I've met scores of greedy, covetous non-wealthy people.
I fail to see the point you are even attempting to make. I never said that people with money don't give it away. Dan didn't either. In fact, I have yet to see anywhere on any of these threads anything that says, "Rich people don't give their money to good causes because they are evil."
I am going to break this up so you can understand it.
None.
Of.
That.
Is.
The.
Point.
Do you get it now? None of what you wrote, as laudable as it may be, has anything to do with the topic at hand. It's a bit like entering a conversation about the Beethoven symphonies and causally mentioning that you once saw Leonard Bernstein in a Manhattan restaurant. It sounds like it's on topic, but really, it isn't.
You either don't understand the topic, or would prefer not to discuss it. Either way, I think we shall remit to earlier happier moments when Dan and Craig had reached a certain agreement on some fundamentals.
Thanks for covering for me, Geoffrey. On jury duty this week and shorter on time than normal. You're doing a fine job.
Marshall, I have to wonder what exactly you're talking about when you say, "lefty focus on "Sabbath Economics"." I have almost exclusively said NOTHING on all these posts. For the most part, I've just put down the scripture and let them stand on their own for our consideration. So, when you say, "Lefty focus," what exact phrase of mine are you speaking of?
Where I said that rich people are evil? Oh, wait, I never said that. Where I said that rich folk are bound for hell? Oh, wait. I never said that. Where I said that poor folk are automatically good and going to heaven simply because they're poor? No, never said that either.
Can you give me some specific quote that you're speaking of that has your knickers twisted up? That has caused your heart to grow two sizes too small?
You seem to be arguing with someone who's not here.
Marshall...
It refers to one who so piously poses as one who cares but purposely limits his ability to show true caring by living simply. Again, what is accomplished?
Are you suggesting the one and only way to help poor folk is to get wealthy and employ them?
Marshall...
But the suggestion is that he eschews wealth. Purposely avoids it. What other recourse is there but to dole out ladles of soup while insisting that the wealthy be forced to cough up more of their money
There is the passage that specifically says "But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction."
It is my suggestion that I agree with Paul, that WANTING to get rich is likely to be a problem. Even wanting to get rich so that you can help others (which, no doubt, many do). But Paul and Jesus (and others) repeatedly warn of the trap-like qualities of wealth. Thus Paul does not counsel us to strive to get rich. Thus Jesus counsels us to be content with what we have.
Wealth, like power, has a tendency to corrupt, to enslave, to blind. That, to me, is one of the consistent messages found within the Bible and I agree with that conclusion.
Do you not think this is a common message in the Bible and, if so, do you think it doesn't apply to us for some reason?
Marshall, could I ask you if you have ever read Ron Sider's book, "Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger?"
It can be read online here.
If you're not familiar with him (or Yoder or Myers or some of the other progressive/anabaptist writers) and what they actually have to say, you might want to read a bit of their writings. I'm not the communicator these fellas are and you often seem not to be "getting" what I'm saying, Maybe if you read some of these other writers and what they actually say, you might reach a bit better understanding.
Sider is often critical of traditional "liberal" type approaches, you should appreciate that. We're not socialists in the Marxist sense. We're not suggesting that wealth = evil. We're not suggesting gov't solutions are the only or the best solutions. We aren't opposed to hiring people.
If you prefer, here is a shorter essay by Sider. You might find it interesting and even find some points with which you can agree.
"Are you suggesting the one and only way to help poor folk is to get wealthy and employ them?"
I'm not going to say it's the only way but (as someone who spent about 10 years exclusively employing the homeless) it's a pretty darn good one.
It's not perfect, and it has as much to do with the employed as the employer, but it seems to work pretty well.
It's kind of the difference between giving someone a fish and teaching them to fish. Anytime you employ folks, pay them a decent wage (I was paying around $11.00/hr five years ago), teach them skills, and encourage them it is a pretty good thing.
While you're reading I'd suggest "When Helping Hurts" By Steve Corbett and Brian Fikkert. They take the freshest approach I've seen in quite a while to the problem. The fact that John Perkins agrees with them is (IMO) confirmation that they're on the right track.
Dan wrote: "You seem to be arguing with someone who's not here."
I laughed out loud when I read that.
It isn't unusual for Marshall to read things we did not write, to impute motives no one has even implied, and to insist that it is we who do not know the meaning of the words we have written.
It really gets tiring.
"It really gets tiring."
Then take a freakin' nap.
Am I to assume that I must ignore all either of you have ever written because you don't mention it all in a given post? I know Dan likes to pretend valid and logical arguments against his positions were never presented when he speaks on a subject later on or in a different place.
But I remember what you guys say (mostly---at least the high points or most outrageous) and to post on a related topic invites reminders of what has gone before. So when Dan post on economics, I do believe that his position on, say, progressive taxation, factors in. I'm not going to pretend it has no bearing or is in no way connected to his purposes behind the post.
Thus, "You seem to be arguing with someone who's not here." is a completely bullshit charge. You are indeed here and all you've ever said (unless you've retracted, recanted or repented of a previous position)goes with it. I have no doubt, as Geoffrey's reference to a supposed "Miloslob" moment illustrates, that either of you would do any different.
I have comments about the suggested reading, but dinner calls. Later.
Then comment on something I have actually said, not imaginary arguments I've not made.
Reminders:
1. I'm not opposed to hiring poor people. That is a good thing.
2. I'm not saying rich people are evil.
3. I'm not saying poor people are naturally good by virtue of their poverty.
Any time you want to talk about some of my actual comments, please do.
Craig, to reiterate: I'm fine with employing poor folk. That is a good thing (given a just wage and working conditions).
And having many friends in social services, in mental health work, in education and otherwise working with the poor and marginalized, I'm aware that we ought not simply "do for" folk.
Which is why you don't usually hear me write about being church TO the community, but rather, being church WITH community. If you get the difference.
Dan,
Since I've not suggested that you were against employing poor folks I'm not sure why you felt like pointing that out.
I can say that from what you have said about how you and your church interact with the poor it tends to be more along the line of temporary assistance. While this kind of thing is helpful and necessary it is not the whole answer. I would suggest that the church (and IMO more importantly) people in the church need to look longer term and move beyond just temporary assistance.
Craig...
I can say that from what you have said about how you and your church interact with the poor it tends to be more along the line of temporary assistance.
Then I have failed to paint a complete picture for you. Our church and its members do many things for the homeless and mentally ill and only very little of it is in the temporary assistance category.
Short term assistance and long term planning. Advocacy. Case management. Life skills. Employment. Mental health assistance. Adoption. Community. Friendship. Developing affordable housing. Habitat for humanity. Working to stop unfair lending practices that help lead people to destitution. Education. Homelessness prevention.
Etc.
While we have a few programs that we partake in that are of the temporary assistance category, that is just scratching the surface. FYI.
A clarification: for a small church (~80 members), we have what I believe to be an unusually high number of folk who work directly and indirectly with and alongside the marginalized, and have for a long time. Between our little crew, we have quite literally hundreds of years' worth of work alongside the marginalized. At church, in our communities, in our friendships and in our jobs.
In my experience, folk who've worked alongside the marginalized for any length of time at all are much less interested in temporary assistance (as vital and helpful as that is) and more interested in long term solutions. Thus, while we do engage in short term assistance in a variety of ways, it is not at all what I would consider the thrust of our efforts.
Thanks for the clarification, previously you've just mentioned the other stuff.
Well, it's funny, in a sad, pathetic kind of way, that both Dan and Geoffrey can tell me what the point of the post isn't, while still failing to explain what then it is.
I asked Geoffrey to explain what views I hold that are in conflict with Scripture and he presents the rich young man story against my suggesting the employment of the poor serves them better than handouts. There's no connection here whatsoever. Employing them DOES serve them better. What that has to do with the rich young man story is beyond me and beyond Geoffrey's ability to explain. Geoffrey just wants to trash talk.
So, what then IS the point of this series of posts? As I said, I have not read them all. But I HAVE been witness to many comments of Dan's that, like these verses, suggest a theme. That theme is indeed one of rich oppressors vs the downtrodden poor victims of that oppression. But if that's not the point, then what is? Nothing much else to do? No solid ideas for a post so you decided to just reprint random passages with no intention behind them?
Dan says that I am responding to someone who is not here. That I have commented on things you have not said. That's pretty funny coming from a guy who has on more than one occasion suggested that MY words conveyed a message the words themselves could not. "Don't you realize how that sounds?" he has said to me. And yet after years of hearing his position on wealth and poverty, greed and want, taxation and the victims of economic injustice, I'm supposed to assume there's some different intention and meaning behind the choice of printing these verses. Right.
But let's first look at a recent list:
1. I never said anything about your position regarding the hiring of the poor. I've only suggested that it better serves them. You have never spoken of it unless you're ragging on "just wages", as if you have any say in how one person decides what is proper compensation for services requested. So back at ya regarding commenting on what I've actually said!
2. This is a nice backpeddle after consistent offering of verses speaking of oppressive rich people. I've never heard you speak of anyone of great wealth doing anything positive. ALL previous references to the rich have been negative to my knowledge.
"Can't you see how that might sound to people?"
3. You indeed suggest that the poor are without fault. Look at your last comment speaking of "the marginalized" as if something was done TO them by someone else, not to mention the selected passages themselves, which always deal with those who HAD been victimized. That there are people in the world who have been victimized does not matter as that is a separate issue from what we as Christians do for the poor. And that certainly doesn't account for all the poor in the world and not at all in this country (with the exception of outright embezzlement or other criminal acts).
You want to tie much of this to an "unjust" economic system, as if a system is capable of being just or unjust. There is no better system for the benefit of the most people than the system under which we now operate.
more coming---
Your own reading suggestions point to that very fact while trying to suggest something contrary. Look at what it says in the preface:
"In 1970, chronic undernourishment plagued 35 percent of the people in the entire developing world. In 2002, thirty-two years later-in spite of rapid population growth-only 17 percent were chronically undernourished."
It goes on to attribute much, if not most of that to democratic governments and market economies. My position agrees with this and encourages more of it, including encouraging, if not pressuring, other countries to adopt these methods.
It speaks of techniques such as micro-loans, to allow the poor to develop their own businesses or income producing strategies. This, too, aligns with all I've supported.
Then later in the book, I see it speaks of bad habits and behaviors that contribute to poverty. Again, this is totally in line with my position that most poverty is self-inflicted.
Unfortunately, it then goes on to speak of "unfairness" in the systems. Perhaps this book is available in hardcover at my local library. I can't wait to see what it says about "unfairness". Everything I've heard thus far about "unfairness", "level playing fields", "economic injustice" has been catch phrases of socialism, a nasty version of covetous and envious thinking.
I haven't gotten to your "simple living" posts yet, though the first seems to be an incomplete exerpt of someone else's thoughts. But the fact is that I don't see how that would in any way make sense to try to implement, especially as it means changing the minds of non-Christians as well as Christians who don't see a call for monk-like living in Scripture. Being content with what one has is not the opposite of attempting to acquire more. But it's often used as a substitute for putting in the effort necessary to acquire more. Nothing in the Bible suggests to me that we should avoid like sin the building up of wealth. As I continue to say, the most greedy people I've ever met were not wealthy. That there are warnings attached to the quest does not mean it should be avoided. If that were the case, none of you would be working now. SOMEBODY sought more and as a result, you both have jobs.
One final thing for now:
Geoffrey said to me,
"Where and how I choose to dispense my resources is my business, and I'll leave it at that."
That's fine. I hope that Dan would feel the same. But he supports progressive taxation. If Geoffrey does as well, then he doesn't offer the same condition for the wealthy as he supports dictating how THEY dispense THEIR resources. Demanding a greater percentage from them that what is drawn from you is imposing how YOU feel they should dispense their resources.
As I said before (and repeating myself is frustrating), you are making points and offering arguments that have nothing to do with the topic.
Since you seem to believe that Dan doesn't understand the point of his own post, and that I am equally clueless, allow me to offer my view, and if I'm wrong, why Dan can correct me. Fair enough, Marshall?
Dan offers up quotes from Scripture on issues of economic inequality and what that means for the people of God. That is all he does. He does so, taking these posts as a whole, to make the quite uncontroversial point that, for the Christian tradition, broadly speaking, the pursuit of wealth in and for itself (even if philanthropic deeds follow) is not a mitigated good; rather, it is a temptation that perverts the social contract, leads to the oppression of others, and does violence to the covenant.
The point is not that in societies rooted in different moral, political, and religious contexts offer opportunities for wealthy individuals and others to offer their services, either individually or corporately, to assuage the pain and suffering caused by the ravages of the pursuit of wealth. The point is that we who call ourselves Christian are to live our lives outside this entire set of assumptions, not play that game, refuse to accept that living includes the pursuit of material gain, either as a means toward some random end, or in and for itself.
It has nothing to do with salvation or damnation. It has nothing to do with the moral virtue or viciousness of individuals. It has nothing to do with philanthropy, taxation, or the contingencies of ideology or party affiliation as they are poorly understood. It has to do with living according to an ethic that sees self-abnegation as the first rule of life. It has to do with reaching out to those ravaged by a system that decides that some human beings are of more worth than others. It has to do with reaching out to those who pursue wealth, regardless of motive, and offer them a different way of being human in a world that seeks to dehumanize all who refuse to play the game.
Geoffrey...
Dan offers up quotes from Scripture on issues of economic inequality and what that means for the people of God. That is all he does.
A bit of clarification: I am simply seeking to post most places where matters of economy, of poverty and/or of wealth are spoken of. I'm wanting to have them all gathered together in one place for ease of reading.
For what it's worth.
It is my belief that, taking these passages as a whole, we will see some consistent themes. Themes of God's concern specifically for the poor. Themes of God's warning specifically to the rich.
But my primary purpose in posting these passages is simply for the sake of compiling a collection of the Bible's commentary on matters of economic concerns and that can be there for anyone to review and get what there is to get out of them for themselves. Truly, I have no agenda, it's just a collection.
I have opinions about what we find in that collection, but no agenda in posting them, other than the very act of compiling them for our reading pleasure (or perhaps, discomfort).
Marshall...
But it's often used as a substitute for putting in the effort necessary to acquire more. Nothing in the Bible suggests to me that we should avoid like sin the building up of wealth.
Okay. But the Bible DOES quite clearly warn about the entrapping nature of wealth, yes? And the Bible DOES say that increasing our wealth ought not be anything we're striving for, right?
So, "avoid like sin" the building up of wealth? I don't know one way or the other about that language. Maybe, maybe not. I'm open to interpretation on that approach.
However, ought we be cautious about our wealth, given the clear and repeated teachings of the bible about the dangers of wealth? Yes, I think that is justified. Be cautious to not let wealth (or the pursuit thereof) become our god? Clearly yes. NOT have the acquiring of wealth as a goal? Yes, I think that is a reasonable take-away from Scripture.
Marshall...
I've never heard you speak of anyone of great wealth doing anything positive. ALL previous references to the rich have been negative to my knowledge.
I doubt seriously that this is true. I don't believe I have personally had much to say about "the rich" being bad or being good. Feel free to provide a quote from me.
As always, I welcome it when people say, "Dan, when you say X, it sounds like..." and make their case about my actual words. In this case (and I could be wrong), I doubt seriously that you can find any words where I have come out condemning "the rich."
What I HAVE done is quote the Bible (which says things like "Woe to you who are rich," and "Is it not the rich who oppress you,") and suggest these are vital, important teachings. But are you suggesting that the Bible is primarily anti-rich? Perhaps so, but that is what the bible says and I'm merely agreeing with it, it's not my stated opinion.
Beyond that, I have clearly pointed out more than once that some of our biblical heroes were wealthy and yet still good followers of God, so I suspect that your hunch is more of a preconceived notion on your part moreso than based on anything I've actually said. But, by all means, show me any troubling statements I've made and we can talk them over.
Marshall...
I have no problem with those who encouraging giving from anyone. My problem is with those who demand it by force through legislation. This would include you, who supports progressive taxation.
Part of your beef (a large part, it seems to me) with me and mine seems to stem from this whole opposition to a progressive tax scheme. That is a whole other topic that I don't know that I want to get into here, but suffice to say, it is true that I believe that I as a firmly middle class person ought to pay more into the "system" which has benefited my family so well. And those who have benefited from the system (ie, the way things are set up, the education, the roadways, the defense, the police, the prisons, etc) even more ought rightly pay even more.
It's just a matter of equity. To him whom much has been given, much will be expected. IF I benefit more financially from the way things are in our country than a working poor fella does (and factually, I do), then it is only reasonable and equitable that I would PAY a greater percentage of my wealth into the system. And I'm glad to do so.
What I'm striving to avoid is a REGRESSIVE system or one that harms the poor. I want to avoid this because THAT is at the heart of much condemnation of nations in the OT. A so-called "flat tax" is not a "equal" tax and certainly not a progressive one (as I think is reasonable and as folk like Thomas Jefferson and I expect the majority of americans throughout our history have considered reasonable).
The proposals for "flat taxes" or sales taxes that I have seen have all been REGRESSIVE taxes - taxes that would cut a greater bit of flesh out of the hide of the poor, that is what I want to avoid. If you can produce a flat tax that doesn't have the result of being regressive, by all means, propose it. I've yet to hear one.
But you might want to set that canard away for some time when I'm talking about taxation. Or bring it up at your place if you want to talk about taxation.
Again...
I have no problem with those who encouraging giving from anyone. My problem is with those who demand it by force through legislation. This would include you, who supports progressive taxation.
It would include me and Thomas Jefferson, among many others. Jefferson who said that he'd like a tax scheme whereby the wealthy paid for the roads and schools and defense so that the average farmers (ie, working class, middle class, poor) would pay practically nothing.
I am fine if you'd like to return to Thomas' vision of a sales tax only on those things that the wealthy can afford, but that would have to be a sales tax large enough to pay for our whole gov't, so I rather suspect that the rich would not want to return to that manner of taxation. But seriously, good luck with that. I'll support you all the way in abolishing a progressive income tax scheme and returning to a sales tax on the wealthy alone.
Marshall said...
I see it speaks of bad habits and behaviors that contribute to poverty. Again, this is totally in line with my position that most poverty is self-inflicted.
This strikes me as a rather grace-less and uninformed opinion of the poor.
The bottom billion of the poorest folk in the world are generally poor simply because they were born in a poor country with few options for leaving that poverty. It seems rather small-minded for a relatively wealthy American to criticize "most" poor people as having inflicted this grinding poverty upon themselves.
You want to reconsider that statement?
How many biblical passages do you have to support drawing that conclusion? How much study in world economics have you conducted to support drawing that position?
When Job lost all he had, his "friends" came along and blamed him, too. They were wrong for doing so, if I'm not mistaken.
The facts are that people are poor for a variety of reasons. Certainly, bad personal decisions play into that. No one here who is familiar with poverty on a personal basis would deny that. But that is not the whole of the story and, I'd suggest, in most cases not even the bulk of the story.
Geoffrey
"Since you seem to believe that Dan doesn't understand the point of his own post, and that I am equally clueless, allow me to offer my view, and if I'm wrong, why Dan can correct me."
I didn't say that. What I said was that you and Dan have been telling what the point isn't, but not much about what the point is. Correcting you yet again, however, does indicate a singular level of cluelessness on your part.
If there is one topic that gets wide play in the average Christian church, it's the topic of charity and the temptations of money. I doubt that any other subject gets as much attention, even to the point of forgetting Christ Himself. It's very much, "yeah, yeah, I get it. Help the poor. Don't be greedy. I get it." It's very much a "preaching to the choir" subject. Every Christian understands these lessons, whether they live them or not. It's done to death, one could say. To the progressive, there is no other lesson in Scripture.
Thus, I don't buy Dan's explanation in his most recent comments that there is no agenda behind it. Sorry. I just don't. And apparently you don't either when you say things like
"...to assuage the pain and suffering caused by the ravages of the pursuit of wealth."
This assumes that pain and suffering always accompanies the pursuit of wealth. I expect that's mostly true for the people doing the pursuing (which is why so few achieve it or even try to), but not necessarily true, if true at all, that there are victims left in the wake of those on that pursuit. (I speak only of those who pursue in ethical ways--not criminal)
The verses Dan likes to present, at least those here, are always accompanied by those that speak of people being oppressed. They can't honestly be used to make a case for simple living as they are distinctly referencing a specific sinful act by one group against another. Said in another way, they are not really verses regarding economics, but acts of charity and kindness, or the lack thereof by those with the greatest ability to provide them.
I would go further to say that I don't think it is accurate to say that self-denial is a main theme in Scripture. Service is not the same as self-denial, though in serving one may have to deny the self. Living large does not preclude service to others. In fact, fortunes have been built by providing for others in a manner that satisfies those served...satisfactorily. You make an assumption about people who seek more out of life, who seek to enjoy more of what God has provided and your assumptions are the very type of judgmental sinfulness of which Christians are NOT supposed to partake.
Dan,
As I said above, I do not believe you have no agenda behind the posting of these verses. To clarify, I won't say that you have an overt message necessarily, but I do believe that perhaps on a subconscious level, there is an intent. It is too much a persistent theme with you to simply post them, just to post them. But I'm not going to belabor the point but will concede it.
Moving on:
"But the Bible DOES quite clearly warn about the entrapping nature of wealth, yes? And the Bible DOES say that increasing our wealth ought not be anything we're striving for, right?"
Yes for the first question. Not exactly for the second. I think you consistently misinterpret such things as the parable of the rich dude building a bigger barn. The message is always one of putting the material above the spiritual. That's not the same as not striving for wealth. It's about serving two masters and how it can't be done. You seem to think that it is not possible to seek monetary gain without worship money. Is that the case? Money is a tool. It allows one to get things done more easily as one uses a hammer to build more easily. Life takes money. Do you want your kids to have an average education or a great one? Do you want your family to have average health care or excellent health care? Do you wanna help one poor guy or hundreds?
"NOT have the acquiring of wealth as a goal? Yes, I think that is a reasonable take-away from Scripture."
No, it's not reasonable, except as regards the goal being more important than God. One needn't aspire to great wealth for that. One needn't have money as a goal at all to commit the sin of ignoring God in favor of something else. Power. Women. Comfort. Food. One's work. Even charity work can be an obsession as strong as the lure of cash for a given individual. Acquiring wealth is merely one ambition of hundreds.
"I doubt seriously that you can find any words where I have come out condemning "the rich.""
One need only read a few lines more:
"But are you suggesting that the Bible is primarily anti-rich? Perhaps so, but that is what the bible says and I'm merely agreeing with it, it's not my stated opinion."
First, if you agree, it IS your opinion, stated thus or not. But, the Bible is NOT anti-rich and saying so is a negative statement against the rich, some of whom, if not many, are nice people, too. The Bible is anti-greed. That's an important distinction. The warnings about the trappings of wealth are greed related, not ownership related.
"...I have clearly pointed out more than once that some of our biblical heroes were wealthy and yet still good followers of God..."
Sorry. No such instances come to mind.
Gotta go. More later as your final remarks are interesting.
Marshall Art: "I would go further to say that I don't think it is accurate to say that self-denial is a main theme in Scripture."
Who said the following: "There is no greater love than this, than a man would lay down his life for others." Was that (a) Adam Smith, (b) Karl Marx, or (c) That carpenter guy from Nazareth who hung out with whores and drunkards?
The Biblical ethic is primarily a social ethic, a communal ethic. Whether this person, who happens to be wealthy, is of generous spirit and kind of heart while that person, who is poor, is a mean, lazy, grubbing, dirty miser is of little consequence. Rather, it is the structure within which these personality traits (neither virtues nor vices in any Biblical understanding) occur with which the Bible concerns itself.
In the prophets, the LORD of Israel insists that all the pious, observant practices mean nothing because there is no justice in the land. It isn't some misprint that has God saying that the smell of the burnt offerings stinks in the Divine nostrils because everywhere the widow, orphan, and others are neglected while the rich row fat.
Geoffrey,
Your arguments continue to condemn yourself. As you are still posting comments, it's obvious you haven't laid down you life for anyone in the extreme sense of the sentiment. If you have any disposable income, you haven't laid down much at all. I believe that neither of us expect that our every waking moment be filled with total concern for others and never for our own selves.
Laying down one's life for another is an example of extreme love for the other. Jesus lauds this act because it is an extreme act of service to another that is self-denying, but it is not a suggestion that we live a life of self-denial. Indeed, I would say that such acts are not the result of an intention to deny one's self, but to act on behalf of another. To serve in the ultimate manner. The distinction is perhaps lost on you. I'd say that to live a life of service is to have one's focus on others, whereas to deny the self is to be focused on the self. Would you say I'm splitting hairs? Perhaps, but some lines are that fine.
Dan,
I understand your unwillingness to stray from whatever the point of this post is. Getting into taxation too heavily is easy to do, so I'll only say a few things and hope you see a connection.
You like to remind:
"To him whom much has been given, much will be expected."
and then go on to, it seems, interpret this to only mean give more excess to the poor. Though that might be part of it, I think it means something more broad in terms of accountability and responsibility for what one possesses. For example, it can mean that to have power, even if it means only power or authority over one's immediate peers, co-workers, family, etc, to be overbearing would be less than expected.
But you only seem to use the expression to nag people into donations. What's more, it is clearly stated as an expectation of God's, not your or mine. For anyone to have such expectations of another is envy and covetousness.
As to progressive taxation, I recall you bringing up a quote from Jefferson in the past and that I did not think you understand it properly. I'll only say that much about it for now as you don't want to go off on a tangent, but consider this: if progressive taxation is something you consider to be more Godly and Christian, why did God never have more than a flat "tax" when it came to tithing? I don't recall when He instituted the practice that he ever called for more than a tenth, rich or not. The problem is rarely a matter of how much revenues are collected, but what the gov't does with them. Too much is mandated and then finding money comes later. That is not being good stewards of the people's money, because it is backwards. Consider the funds coming in and THEN how to use the money. That's the order it should happen.
As to self-inflicted poverty, there must be a distinct focus on what you want to discuss. When speaking of taxation, I assume you're speaking of how money is dispensed for problems in this country. If you want to talk about solving the world's problems, you must be specific. Internationally, I would prefer all aid come from our pockets as we see fit to dig for that purpose. I have a big problem with those who want our gov't to help only the financially hurting of other countries because we are rich in treasure, but balk at helping the physically hurting who are poor in military might to do it themselves.
Just like the goofy Warren Buffet types who think the wealthy should be taxed more, there is no one holding anyone from sending in more money than their legal tax obligations require. Likewise, there is no one stopping anyone from giving more for any worthwhile cause. Taxation, however, is not voluntary (aside from the willingness to support the gov't's constitutionally mandated functions).
As to where the impoverished find themselves, that makes no matter as to what they decide to do. Even to be born and raised in squalor, one is not obliged to perpetuate the cycle and add to the suffering by engaging in activities that do so. More simply put, don't dig the hole any deeper than it already is by starting a family (for example).
This is not to say I support ignoring the suffering in the world. I'm simply saying I don't buy into the notion that they are totally helpless unless they have guns to their heads. Even more, I don't appreciate acting as if the situation is more dire than it is, and then suggesting that all that can or should be done is to give and damnit what a greedy selfish bastard one is who doesn't give every extra dime in his pocket. Such is NOT what Scripture is saying.
My point here is that it is too easy to lay it on thick, like a Jew or Roman Catholic laying guilt trips on people who likely are giving already. This is the tone of your "Sabbath Economics" presentations.
Marshall...
I understand your unwillingness to stray from whatever the point of this post is.
The point is blindingly obvious and has been stated multiple times. I'm unsure what part of "looking at what the Bible has to say about wealth and poverty" you're failing to understand, but there it is again.
Marshall...
You like to remind:
"To him whom much has been given, much will be expected."
and then go on to, it seems, interpret this to only mean give more excess to the poor.
No. By quoting "to him whom much has been given, much will be expected," I mean precisely to those who have been given much, much is expected. Period.
It is the notion that it is only just and reasonable to expect that those with more resources contribute more. Jefferson thought it, Jesus thought it and most Americans I'm pretty sure think it.
I cited that extreme example of self-giving love to make the point that you seem to be talking out of some hole rather than your mouth when you claim that self-abnegation is little part of any Biblical ethic.
As for the rest, I have to wonder if you actually paid attention in Sunday School when you were a kid. I did.
Marshall...
you only seem to use the expression to nag people into donations. What's more, it is clearly stated as an expectation of God's, not your or mine. For anyone to have such expectations of another is envy and covetousness.
I strive to use the expression for what it means, which is much more than "nagging people" into donations, which I have not done (feel free to cite a place where I have done so - I'm fairly sure it doesn't exist).
To believe that those with much are expected to give much is an example of a justice-oriented mindset, not envy or covetousness.
Envy: painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage
Covetous: marked by inordinate desire for wealth or possessions or for another's possessions
Merriam Webster.
I don't think you are understanding the meanings of the words or you are presuming incorrectly what my motives are.
Do you think Jefferson was envious or covetous because he wished to see the rich pay for the expenses of the gov't?
Marshall...
Just like the goofy Warren Buffet types who think the wealthy should be taxed more, there is no one holding anyone from sending in more money than their legal tax obligations require.
You mean, "Just like the goofy Warren Buffett and THOMAS JEFFERSON types...," right? I'd suggest any time you wish to criticize those who are in favor of progressive taxation, you include T Jefferson in your criticisms, just to keep some perspective on the matter...
“Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometric progression as they rise...”
"These revenues will be levied entirely on the rich, the business of household manufacture being now so established that the farmer and laborer clothe themselves entirely. The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied. The poor man who uses nothing but what is made in his own farm or family, or within his own country, pays not a farthing of tax to the general government, but on his salt; and should we go into that manufacture also, as is probable, he will pay nothing.
Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country MADE A PARADISE by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings..."
TJ
Geoffrey,
I paid close attention in my childhood Bible studies. Whether you did or not, one thing is certain: you didn't learn to get the point. Self-denial is not a tenet of Christian teaching. It's merely something you improperly infer and confuse with service to others.
Dan,
I don't think you use the expression "To whom much is given much is expected" accurately, but only as regards giving money. AND, as I stated, it's one thing for God to say it, but envy and covetousness for YOU to say it, or Thomas Jefferson to say it or anyone else. I, for one, and daring to speak for most conservatives and conservative Christians, do NOT have such expectations of those who have more than me. I have hope that more people will be generous for the sake of the needy, but that hope is equal to the hope I have that the needy will adopt the same practices and qualities that allowed others to attain more. What those who have attained more do with their excess is between them and God. I have no part in it other than to encourage. But "expect"? That is envy and covetous for a fellow human expect anything of the fruits of another person's labors.
As to Jefferson, there is nothing in your offering to suggest progressive taxation on income. As he clearly states, he is speaking of taxing the purchase of imported goods by the rich. The farmer makes all his own goods, or buys them domestically. If you're speaking of adopting Jefferson's policies, then nothing made in the USA should have a sales tax placed on it. And as he isn't speaking of income tax, then we'd only be supported by that which the wealthy buy that is made outside our country. Yeah. THAT'LL work.
And my Buffet reference was distinctly toward HIS suggestion, that the rich pay higher taxes. If he believes that, truly believes that, then he is perfectly within his rights to send more of his wealth to the gov't than is expected under current IRS directives. So are you. Do it and leave the rest of us alone to disburse or hoard as we please.
Marshall, I thought you might find this interesting. The quote I like best? "According to the Bible, if you really have been changed by the grace of God, it will move you toward the poor." Read the whole blurb, it is really good.
Marshall...
AND, as I stated, it's one thing for God to say it, but envy and covetousness for YOU to say it, or Thomas Jefferson to say it or anyone else.
AND, as I stated, you don't appear to understand the meaning of the words you're trying to use. Jefferson does not appear to have been covetous or envious of the rich when he supported them paying for the bulk of our taxes. Not according to the real world definitions of those terms.
And I am not - I'm just not - envious or covetous of the rich, not according to standard English definitions of the words. So, unless you want to try to make more sense of that line of thinking, I'd suggest you'd do best to quit beating that horse.
Marshall...
As to Jefferson, there is nothing in your offering to suggest progressive taxation on income.
Never said he was speaking of a progressive INCOME tax. I said he was quite clearly speaking of a progressive tax scheme (one based on sales tax that would affect the rich nearly exclusively).
And, as I said, if you can convince the rich to convert from a progressive sales tax - where everyone bears some burden but those with the most bear a larger percentage - to a sales tax on those items which the rich nearly exclusively buy, then I'll support you 100% of the way.
Is that what you want? Then God bless you, I suppose (although I'm not so progressive that I want ONLY the rich to pay for gov't - so I'd not be as progressive as you are, if that's your position). But I don't think that's your position. I think you've said that you favor a flat tax - one that would have the result of being REGRESSIVE and harmful to the poor, which I won't support.
Regardless, clearly Jefferson favored a PROGRESSIVE tax scheme. By definition. Words have meanings, you know.
"Self-denial is not a tenet of Christian teaching."
Wow. Just....wow.
Quickly, I will clarify the position on self-denial. I make this distinction: we deny what we once were in the sense of our fallen nature in coming fully to Christ (Alan take note). That's not the same as denying ourselves creature comforts or forsaking our ability to create wealth. I would say there's a distinction between self-denial and denying the self.
Marshall, Jesus said that unless we hate our families, our friends, our very lives, we are unworthy to be called his Disciples.
That isn't exactly about making ourselves comfortable in our warm homes with our kids gathered around us. Unless our commitment to Jesus comes before everything else - including our very lives - it isn't true Christian Discipleship. This is hardly a new-fangled notion, considering it is in the Bible.
And, it is also off-topic, although perhaps tangentially related.
Nor is it about making ourselves impoverished as if it brings us closer to God. It is very poor understanding on your part. Are you suggesting that it is impossible to put Jesus first whilst seeking a better life financially? Or, do hate your wife and family and the life you lead in the belief that it will please Him to do so? You again miss the point of the verses and expressions you use against me. It's becoming obvious that you are more concerned with putting me down than dealing in truth. I fully believe it is without doubt possible to acquire wealth in a Christian manner. If you don't, then you must have some firm idea of where the line is that a Christian must not cross between providing for himself and his family while remaining true to Him. What makes you think you know that line well enough yourself?
And by the way, I think I haven't tread upon any issue that is too tangential for the thread. Otherwise, there is too much ambiguity in presenting the verses. As I said, the notion of charity and caring for the needy is a topic well covered in every church I've ever visited and in some I would posit it gets more play than preaching about Jesus Himself. For some, it is all one needs to know about Jesus and I find that sad and very much harmful for the spiritual lives of the listener.
I have never said, and would never say, that it is impossible to be a Christian and be wealthy. All that has been said in this thread is the simple reality that the Bible is pretty consistent that the pursuit of wealth is a trap that leads to oppression, social dislocation, violence, and idolatry. That our entire society is geared toward the accumulation of wealth as the sole gauge of status and worth, it should be obvious that the Scriptural admonition that our resources are to be used toward the common welfare strikes many as counter-cultural. And that's OK.
I have not attacked you, except perhaps for your obtuseness, particularly on the whole "self-denial isn't a Christian teaching" thing. If you feel attacked, maybe it's in the Bible.
Are you "geared toward the accumulation of wealth as the sole gauge of status and worth"? I will say that I've met one or two for whom that is true. But I can't say that I've found it all that commonplace. Yet you insist that it is. Most people I've met who have sought after wealth did so in order to secure their lives financially, so as not to burden themselves on others, to allow themselves to enjoy more of the world and life God gave them and yes, to do for others. Status was not a concern, and worth was already evident and a driving force of their belief that they could achieve.
Geoffrey, before questioning my attention to my religious training, you questioned from what hole I drew my positions. I'd call those put downs and a form of attack. But really, I'm not concerned about that as I can take it easily. But apparently what you call obtuse is just another point you seem to be missing. To say it another way, I don't believe you have a good handle on the concept of self-denial as taught in Scripture.
And still yet again, I have no problem with the lessons of the Bible on the trappings of wealth and the encouragement toward charity. My point is, and pay attention here, few are ignorant of these lessons. One needn't gather every reference to these lessons as if too many exist that haven't quite gotten the message and need to study it further due to a tenuous grasp of the obvious.
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.""
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816
Marshall...
Most people I've met who have sought after wealth did so in order to secure their lives financially
And this can be a trap. Jesus set, don't worry about these things, but seek first the kingdom of God. Jesus called the farmer who built more barns to "secure his life financially" a fool. Paul said people who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap.
It is the seeking security and safety and money over and above God that is the trap. We are to put our trust in God. Not a military, not a golden parachute, not a good nest egg, not manna. It can seem so reasonable to "just store up enough" so that we don't have to worry about our future, but "just enough" becomes more and more and never enough, all too often. It can be entrapping and thus, we are warned about this over and over.
Seems to me.
But Dan, this assumes the kingdom is not being sought. I don't disagree with what Jesus said. I disagree with how you believe it should be lived. Where is the line of demarcation between just enough and too much, and when is too much too much? It all seems very subjective. That's fine, it should be. But only as far as ourselves and not for us to determine for each other.
My position is partly based on personal experiences/observations. To wit, my father-in-law, while not being amongst the filthy rich, was quite "comfortable". His efforts at acquiring wealth allowed him to care for HIS father-in-law, his mother (until they died), his son, who eventually died of AIDS, and his own medical needs as he slowly deteriorated and died from ALS and now his wife survives quite comfortably in her retirement with funds to provide for the support of her kids and grandchildren (as well as other charitable endeavors) should a need arise. He also gave the home in which he raised his kids to one of them. Did he store up too much treasure or just enough? His generosity was well known in his little circle and was second only to his late partner who converted from Judaism to Christianity and himself helped a couple of dozen people start their own businesses, which helped secure his own.
To the extent to which either of these men put God first is between them and Him, but it would be easy to suspect they leaned toward doing so based on the way they lived.
The trappings of wealth are well known, as I said. The other side of the coin is not doing enough for fear of those traps. But a Christian needn't fear them if indeed he does put God first. The money will never rule him but be merely a tool, which it is. Unfortunately, as most business people I can see don't accept hogs or chickens or a basket of squash as payment for debts owed, money is required. And you'll note above that my F-I-L dealt with two catastrophic illnesses for which health insurance runs out. How many can YOU handle?
Part of at least my own problem here is this - Marshall, you are speaking in highly individualized terms. I am speaking in a broader social/communal way about the structures that compel individuals to act in certain ways (as, I believe, Jesus and the Hebrew prophets were, as well). Noam Chomsky has a great line in regard to his. He says that he is uninterested in the private psychology of individuals. He is far more interested in the structure of bureaucratic systems.
To answer your question honestly, I would say that, yes, whether I am conscious of it or not, I am geared toward not only the accumulation of wealth, but ensuring that what I do have I keep. It isn't that I'm an uncharitable person, or stingy, or particularly selfish in my private affairs. Quite the reverse is true. My wife and I realized, however, that our combined income is now well above the national median, and I for one made the point that makes us among the economic and financial elite of the planet. We struggle little differently than most folks whose incomes aren't in the six or seven figures.
These verses, then, do not point to some other person. They are addressed to me because (a) as an American, I am among the wealthiest persons in the history of the planet; and (b) our society is structured in such a way that I cannot, no matter how well I might think of myself, help but act in ways that are detrimental to the well-being of others. That's the way things are set up.
Are you starting to understand now? This isn't about how good an individual I think I might be. It is about a whole system that predetermines my complicity in the degradation of others.
Geoffrey,
My gosh. It's worse than I thought. You really need to elaborate on that very last line. It has to be one of the most stupid things I've ever heard, so I'm going to say that I DON'T understand now. I'm extremely and most sincerely serious here. Just how has this system predetermined your complicity in the degradation of others?
I've never read Chomsky. I've heard conservatives rip on him may times. But nothing I've heard reflects more poorly on him than his own words. You both have it backwards. It is the psychology of individuals that leads to the creation of bureaucratic systems. And the system doesn't compel behaviors, the system is based on behaviors, that is, how we are has determined that this system is best and our wealth as a nation has demonstrated the truth of that. I'm sure you've heard the story of the first colony and how it failed under a shared, communal system but flourished under a form of capitalism. Where YOU'RE hung up is on the fact that we are fallen creatures and some people do not rise above that base level. There's just enough of 'em to make things tough, but overall, in this day and age, even with corrupted notions that have twisted Christian teaching, we still manage to have a pretty good place to live for all, with our poor living lives coveted by the poor of other nations.
Shorter Marshall Art - Lalalalala - I'm not listening to anything that tells me my life isn't fine just the way it is.
You know, these conversations are quite revealing. Every time I think it might be even slightly possible you are willing to consider looking at life even slightly differently, including setting aside stuff that is factually inaccurate as well as your overwhelming pride in assuming you know far better what Dan, I, and others actually think and do, we get in a conversation and I am reminded, yet again, that I would really have hated being your teacher in school.
Teacher: "Art, this is the answer to this problem."
Art: "No it isn't."
Teacher: "Yes, it is. Here are the reasons why."
Art: "I don't care what you say, I know the answer is mine, and your reasons don't matter."
Playing catchup...
Marshall...
That there may be in the world those who use their wealth for ill and/or accumulate it at the expense of others is hardly an argument for simple living.
We're on a small island. There are X gallons of water. X acres of arable land. X amount of resources.
On this island, if 1/10th of the people are consuming 7/10ths of the water, arable land and resources, THAT is an argument for simple living. Living within our collective means. Not living at such a high level that if everyone were to live that way, there would be not enough.
That's just simple mathematics. This is what I'm speaking of when I speak of simple living. Living in a sustainable manner that doesn't presume to take from what others might need.
Marshall...
If simple living means contentedness with what one has, I have no issue with the concept...
Yes, that is certainly part of it.
Marshall continuing...
...as I believe such is possible even whilst pursuing more. It seems a dichotomy, but it isn't.
Being content with what you have WHILE pursuing more IS a dichotomy, it seems that way because it is that way. Why would you suggest it isn't?
Marshall...
Is it your contention, Dan, that simple living would involve handing over ideas and inventions for the betterment of all while accepting no compensation?
I dunno. I haven't thought about that angle or talked about it here.
Having said that, if I were a scientist who had "invented" a cure for AIDS, I can't imagine keeping that invention a secret and selling the cure at an inflated price in order to get rich. I can imagine patenting it for the purpose of keeping some shyster from patenting it for themselves in order to inflate the price for THEM to get rich. But having patented the cure, I would presume to try to get it out there at the cheapest cost possible because it's a life/death issue.
I would imagine I'd want to share the patent with others for the sake of helping the most.
Would you find that reasonable?
On matters NOT of a life/death urgency, would I think that "simple living" would demand that a fella who invented a new Widget share his invention with everyone else for free? No, I don't think that.
Marshall...
Are you suggesting that compensation must be limited to some arbitrary amount?
Umm, no.
Marshall...
Simple living would not allow you the home in which you live and the means to clean and cook and educate your kids as you now do.
Umm, why not?
Marshall...
Someone stepped up and created and through that creating also created wealth and invested that wealth to mass produce for everyone's benefit and...it just goes on and on and the world is far better off despite our fallen natures.
I'm not entirely sure of the full scope of what you might be implying here, Marshall, but it seems you trust that "things working out for the good if we just let them go unimpeded" more so than I do. There seems to be (correct me if I'm mistaken) a pollyanna-esque view you're expressing here that suggests if we just let people pursue their natural interests and perceived best interests - no regulations or limits or rules to abide by - that it will all be good, even though people are at times sinful, selfish, greedy and hateful.
In short, it seems that when it comes to business, you have this trust in the innate goodness of humanity that you don't seem to express in other areas of life.
Marshall...
There's no utopia on this world.
Nope.
Marshall...
None can be created because there aren't enough people who see things the same way, so disfunction will reign. Our current system is the best available and "simple living" as you've so far presented is worse than a pipe dream. It's unnatural and not better than what we have.
Well, as Geoffrey already suggested, while I think the US system is a pretty good system in many ways, it is NOT the kingdom of God. It is NOT the realm of God that we believers have as our blueprint. Just because we will not know "God's kingdom come, God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven" perfectly, that is no excuse for us not to be living into that Realm, living with the values of the Kingdom of God.
Right?
The whole "utopia" thing is a red herring, a canard, a false choice. We either accept the sucky system we have, or we pursue the fantasy of utopia. Which choice would any sane person make? Except there are all sorts of choices in between, not least the kind the US had from roughly the mid-1930's through the early 1970's that included progressive income taxes, restrictions on the activities of banks and investment firms, greater regulatory oversight of financial markets, real estate markets, and banking. During that time not only was the US a serious world power, our economy was strong and stable, business was robust and diversified, and the middle class stable and far wealthier relative to the rest of society.
As soon as a group of folks took power and instituted policies claimed to make things even better, it all got worse.
Coincidence?
It just gets worse and worse. I'm beginning to think that Geoffie is incapable of being honest in a sociopathic way. I never said I view my life as just fine the way it is. I have never said LIFE is fine just the way it is. I am content with a great many aspects of my life, but, there's always room for improvement. And there certainly is in YOU.
And I wouldn't have wanted you as my teacher, either. It would have gone like this:
Teacher: "Art, this is the answer to this problem."
Art: "No it isn't."
Teacher: "Yes, it is. Here are the reasons why."
Art: "No. It isn't. I don't even have a degree yet and I can see you haven't got the answer. No one in this room reads the answer in that manner, either. And we're not even teachers. We need a teacher who isn't stupid and misses the point. Let's see your diploma. I wanna make sure it's not in crayon."
"On this island, if 1/10th of the people are consuming 7/10ths of the water, arable land and resources, THAT is an argument for simple living."
No, Dan. It's not. You haven't stated how they came to be in possession of so much of the islands land and resources. Maybe they did all the hunting and exploring while the other 9/10ths sat on the shore waiting for a ship while they ate up all the washed up provisions.
It's easy to create a scenario that can't help but support your position but you haven't done that here. In your little story, it's an argument for revolt, to storm the minority and take what they possess. Sort of like what you like the gov't to do to the wealthy and productive of this country. You have to show why simple living (after you've properly explained what the hell it really means) is better for all in a manner that appeals to all.
I gotta tell ya. I often think of what it must have been like to live a couple hundred years ago when things were simpler. But eventually, I come across all the reasons why we're now better off. I actually like simple. But I like it because I know there's complex to fall back on if need be. There are hospitals and temperature controlled buildings and lots of places to find food and transportation is all over the place.
But getting back to your point, I don't know that we're at a place where we'll soon run out of anything we need, and I believe that by the time that happens we should have found new ways or resources to compensate.
More later.
Dan wrote, "Well, as Geoffrey already suggested, while I think the US system is a pretty good system in many ways, it is NOT the kingdom of God."
Indeed.
It is always interesting to read how much better off everyone is today in our new modern era from folks who, at the same time, do nothing but slam today's culture.
In other words, the material things that modernity has brought, like reliable toasters and snow blowers are great, but let's please keep our culture chained to the puritanical 1600s.
Such disparate views of culture and economics would seem inconsistent at first glance, but in reality, both views are entirely consistent within an ethic that says, "I've got mine, screw everyone else."
Post a Comment