The American presidential election is almost upon us (even those of us who do not live in the United States). One of the fundamental issues in this election regards distribution of wealth. Many people have become alarmed at Obama’s statements about the redistribution of wealth. I think it is useful to provide a Christian perspective on inequality of wealth. To that end, I am posting the seventh chapter of Wayne Grudem’s book Business for the Glory of God (Used with permission of Crossway Books).
Some inequality of possessions is fundamentally good and provides many opportunities for glorifying God, but also many temptations to sin; and some extreme inequalities are wrong in themselves.
It may seem surprising to us to think that some inequalities of possessions can be good and pleasing to God. However, although there is no sin or evil in heaven, the Bible teaches that there are varying degrees of reward in heaven and various kinds of stewardship that God entrusts to different people. When we stand before Jesus to give account of our lives, he will say to one person,
“You shall have authority over ten cities,”
and to another,
“You are to be over five cities” (Luke 19:17, 19).
Therefore there will be inequalities of stewardship and responsibility in the age to come. This means that the idea of inequality of stewardship in itself is given by God and must be good.
In a similar teaching, Paul, speaking to believers, says, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil” (2 Cor. 5:10). This implies degrees of reward for what we have done in this life. Many other passages teach or imply degrees of reward for believers at the final judgment. Even among the angels, there are differing levels of authority and stewardship established by God, and therefore we cannot say that such a system is wrong or sinful in itself.
Inequalities are necessary in a world that requires a great variety of tasks to be done. Some tasks require stewardship of large amounts of resources (such as ownership of a steel mill or a company that manufactures airplanes), and some tasks require stewardship of small amounts of resources. And God has given some people greater abilities than others, abilities in artistic or musical skills, abilities in mathematics or science, abilities in leadership, abilities in business skills and buying and selling, and so forth. If reward for each person’s labor is given fairly and is based on the value of what that person produces, then those with larger abilities will naturally gain larger rewards. Since people are different in abilities and effort, I don’t think there could be a fair system of rewards for work unless the system had different rewards for different people. Fairness of reward requires such differences.
In fact, God has never had a goal of producing equality of possessions among people, and he will never do so. In the Year of Jubilee (Leviticus 25), agricultural land returned to its previous owner and debts were canceled, but there was no equalizing of money or jewels or cattle or sheep, and houses inside walled cities did not revert to the previous owner (v. 30).
Some people have seen an argument for equal possessions in 2 Corinthians 8, but there Paul did not say that God’s goal was equality. For example, he did not tell the wealthy Corinthians to send money to the poor Macedonians mentioned in 2 Corinthians 8:1-5, but only that they should contribute their fair share in helping the famine-stricken Christians in Jerusalem:
…as a matter of fairness your abundance at the present time should supply their need, so that their abundance may supply your need, that there may be fairness (2 Cor. 8:13- 14, ESV; the Greek word isotΣs also means “fairness” in Col. 4:1, where it cannot mean “equality”).
Nor does the book of Acts teach some kind of “early communism” when it says that believers had all things in common. It is important to look at the passages carefully:
And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts … (Acts 2:44-46).
Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need (Acts 4:32-35).
These texts certainly show an amazing level of trust in God, generosity, and love for one another, all as a result of a remarkable outpouring of the Holy Spirit’s power in a time of great revival. But it is a great mistake to call this “early communism,” for (1) the giving was voluntary and was not compelled by the government, and (2) people still had personal possessions, because they still met in “their homes” (Acts 2:46), and many other Christians later still owned homes, such as Mary, the mother of John Mark (Acts 12:12), Jason (Acts 17:5), Titius Justus (Acts 18:7), many Christians in Ephesus (Acts 20:20), Philip the evangelist (Acts 21:8), Mnason of Cyprus (Acts 21:16, in Jerusalem), Priscilla and Aquila in Rome (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19), Nympha (Col. 4:15), Philemon (Philem. 2), and other Christians in general to whom John wrote (2 John 10).
Immediately after the description of such amazing generosity in Acts 4, there is in chapter 5 the story of Ananias and Sapphira, who lied about the sale price of some land. But Peter tells them there was no need to do this:
“While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God” (Acts 5:4).
It is significant that this story occurs immediately after the paragraph that says “they had everything in common” (Acts 4:32). It reminds us that all of that generosity in Acts 4 was voluntary and was not intended to nullify the ideas of individual ownership or inequality of possessions. When Peter says,
“While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?”
he reaffirms the idea of private property and keeps us from the mistaken idea that the church was establishing a new requirement that Christians give up all private property, or that Christians all had to have equal possessions. Acts 5:4 guards against such misunderstandings.
Later in the New Testament, when Paul gives specific instructions to those who are wealthy, he does not tell them to give up all their possessions, but to be generous and to set their hearts on God, not on their wealth:
As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life (1 Tim. 6:17-19).
So we should not think of all inequalities of possessions as wrong, or as evil. In fact, inequalities in possessions provide many opportunities for glorifying God.
If God gives us a small stewardship with regard to material possessions or abilities and opportunities, then we can glorify him through being content in him, trusting in him for our needs, expecting reward from him, and being faithful to our commitments. In fact, those who are poor often give more sacrificially than those who are rich. Jesus saw a poor widow put a penny in the offering, and he told his disciples,
“Truly, I say to you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the offering box. For they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on” (Mark 12:43-44).
And James tells us,
Has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which he has promised to those who love him? (James 2:5).
Thus, the Bible does not teach a “health and wealth gospel” (at least not until heaven!). In this present age, there are inequalities of gifts and abilities, and there are also evil, oppressive systems in the world, and because of these things many of God’s most righteous people will not be rich in this life.
As for those who have large resources, they also are to be content in God and trust in him, not in their riches, and both James and Paul suggest that they face greater temptations (see 1 Tim. 6:9-10; James 2:6-7; 5:1-6). Those who are rich have more opportunities and also more obligation to give generously to the poor (1 Tim. 6:17-19) and to the work of the church (Luke 12:48; 1 Cor. 4:2; 14:12b).
Inequalities in possessions, opportunities, and abilities provide many temptations to sin. There are temptations on the part of the wealthy or those who have other kinds of large stewardships to be proud, to be selfish, to think too highly of themselves, and not to trust in God. On the other hand, those to whom God has entrusted less have temptations to coveting and jealousy and not valuing their own personal position and calling in life, to which God has called them, at least for the present time.
In addition to this, there are some extreme kinds of inequalities in possessions and opportunities that are wrong in themselves. Poverty will not exist in the age to come, and so Jesus’ statement, “the poor you always have with you” (John 12:8) is best understood to mean “always in this age.” It does not mean that poverty will last forever, even into eternity. Poverty is one of the results of living in a world affected by sin and the Fall, and by God’s curse on the productivity of the earth after Adam and Eve sinned (Gen. 3:17-19).
We should seek to help the poor and seek to overcome their poverty. John says,
If anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? (1 John 3:17).
And when Paul went to Jerusalem to confirm the validity of his teaching in conversation with the apostles there, he found that they were in agreement, and then added,
they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do (Gal. 2:10; see also Matt. 25:39-40; Acts 2:45; 4:35; Rom. 12:13; 15:25-27; Eph. 4:28; Titus 3:14; Heb. 13:16).
The emphasis in the New Testament is on helping poor Christians, especially those who are near us or who come to our attention (see 1 John 3:17; Matt. 25:39-40; Rom. 15:25- 27; 2 Corinthians 8-9). But it is also right to help non- Christians who are poor and needy, as we see in the parable of the Good Samaritan who helped someone in need from a different religious background (Luke 10:25-37). We also see it in Jesus’ teaching, where he told us,
“love your enemies, and do good and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil” (Luke 6:35; compare also Jesus’ practice of healing all who came to him, not just those who believed in him as the Messiah).
So the New Testament emphasis on helping the poor shows us that there is an extreme kind of inequality that is not good, a point where people are in poverty and should be helped. (Just what “poverty” is will vary from society to society and will also vary over time within any one society.)
But is there an opposite extreme of having too much wealth? In contrast to many admonitions to help the poor, there is no corresponding command in the New Testament to take some wealth away from the very rich, and there is no teaching that a large amount of wealth is wrong in itself. But there are strong warnings against spending too much on oneself and living in self-indulgent luxury:
Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you… . Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days… . You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter (James 5:1, 3, 5).
James does not here imply that all those who are rich are evil, for in this same passage he speaks of the fraud and murder committed by these rich people, implying that he is speaking about the rich who are wrongdoers (James 5:4, 6). Paul says that Timothy should tell “the rich in this present age” that they are “not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy.” Paul does not say that the rich are to give away all their wealth, but that they are “to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share” (1 Tim. 6:17-18).
Yet James clearly warns against a kind of “luxury and self-indulgence” that is wrong, that shows little or no concern for others, and that does not take seriously the stewardship obligations that God bestows along with great wealth. It seems that those who are wealthy can too easily slip beyond a level of spending on themselves that is appropriate to their place in life and spend excessively and ostentatiously on themselves while neglecting to give generously to others.
But the distortions of something good must not cause us to think that the thing itself is evil. The evils of poverty and excessive, self-indulgent wealth must not cause us to think that God’s goal is total equality of possessions, or that all inequalities are wrong. Inequalities in abilities and opportunities and possessions will be part of our life in heaven forever, and they are in themselves good and pleasing to God, and provide many opportunities for glorifying him.



Comments (56) »
1. Stan McCullars
November 1, 2008
8:25 AM
Thanks for posting this. Very informative.
2. David McKay
November 1, 2008
8:52 AM
Extreme inequality can’t be a good thing, Tim.
It is interesting to see those with more money and possessions worried that an American president might make things fairer!
This takes me back to 1983 when an Australian prime ministerial candidate was also hinting at alleviating poverty by redistributing wealth. He even said that by 1990 no Australian child would be living in poverty.
This did not eventuate when he became prime minister, but it was disturbing to see wealthy church members worried he might make things fairer!
And it is disturbing to see wealthy Republicans worried that the poor might get a better deal at their expense.
3. Rick
November 1, 2008
9:01 AM
Thank you for the post, Tim. I agree with you: a basic balance of wealth and poverty is not inherently evil. Businesses report profits and losses all the time; yet rarely do we see them acting as though sinful marginalization was involved. (Of course, that outlook may have somthing to do with modernism still being slightly prevalent among Westens - the idea of self-achievement trumping notions of evil and fallen humanity - but that’s another story). I also agree that extreme poverty tends to reveal not so much the system of capitalism as bad ipso facto, but rather the fragmentation of human relationships under sin.
I also suspect in my observation of liberal political philosophy with the Lord that a large root of the argument for redistribution of wealth is the idolization of shame. Because of the fall of man, we get very touchy-feely about earthly things being good or bad to buttress our own image, and in the process we turn the image of God in our lives to the image of man.
I base this observation on the book of Genesis: Adam answers God that when he heard God, he was naked and was afraid, and so he hid. And God tells Adam, “Who told you that you were naked?” And God asks Adam whether he ate from the tree that God commanded him not to eat from. Evidently God was not the one who told Adam he was naked; only Adam told himself that. God did not care about Adam’s body image, for God wanted Adam’s image to be the image of God, to the glory of God. But when Adam ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam hid his body image from God.
From this passage, I think it’s safe to say that abiding with the Lord means knowing the Lord’s word, His commandment in Scripture and the Gospel message as the fulfillment of the divine and moral Law, as a better word over our fallen sense of body image. God’s word would protect Adam from getting all touchy-feely about his station in life. This is true for addressing the present day arguments for redistribution of wealth; people get very possessive about money because they are redefining their image apart from God. But if we know the Gospel, if we know this word as God’s gift of grace for our fallen hearts, we receive a new image of reconciled identity with God, in receiving the Gospel adoption as new sons and daughters, justified by faith alone in Christ alone, the new and better Adam, with the Lord.
4. Mrs. R
November 1, 2008
9:20 AM
Dear David,
As a middle class Christian, I am not worried that the poor might get a better deal at my expense. My problem with the government taking my money is that they use it for programs that go against my conscience. I would much rather have my money to give to the poor in a way that glorifies God. I don’t need the government to distribute my money, I am capable of and happy to do so myself.
5. Angie
November 1, 2008
9:47 AM
To read a debate about this issue visit:
http://www.sojo.net/blog/godspolitics/?p=3226
6. jess
November 1, 2008
9:59 AM
Thanks for posting this!. It was a great follow-up to a discussion my Bible study had this last week.
7. J.P.H.
November 1, 2008
10:29 AM
Gruden makes a good point when he points out that some tasks require the possession of wealth to accomplish. Such as owning a business. It’s important to note that such wealth is not liquid. All the business owner’s wealth is tied up in growing the business and accomplishing more industry.
It strikes me that there are two ways to define “rich”. One deals with income the other deals with “stuff”. One can have a very large income but still live like someone with a much, much smaller income. Is such a person “rich”? He has the capability to live extravagantly if he so choose, but does not choose to do so. I’m of the opinion that this is how “rich” believers should endeavor to live. This is a stronger statement than most people are willing to make, so maybe I go too far.
For instance, if a believer gives away 90% of his income and can still easily afford a $120,000 automobile, is it wrong of him to buy one? Quite possibly.
The trouble with this is that it’s a slippery slope. How does one establish a standard of living that is low enough to be “not extravagant”? I mean, I could certainly live more frugally than I do, if I had to. The same is true for almost everyone. Public perception might be a good guide, though. I don’t drive the cheapest car I could possibly drive, but nobody would consider my car “extravagant”. Same for my house, clothes, etc. Maybe when a believer’s lifestyle is reasonably described as “wealthy”, as opposed to his income, then he’s treading on dangerous ground.
8. J.P.H.
November 1, 2008
10:41 AM
Another thought on this. Gruden makes a big deal about how the Acts giving was voluntary instead of coerced. One typical criticism of using government to redistribute wealth is that it involves “taking peoples’ money by force”. What’s lost in that criticism is that taxation in any form, regardless of what the money’s used for, involves “taking peoples’ money by force” in that paying one’s taxes isn’t optional. In a democracy, the citizenry makes collective decisions on how to spend its tax revenue. Not everyone is going to agree with every one of those decisions, but if you don’t pay your taxes you’re going to jail.
Imagine, if you will, someone who thinks the U.S. should have a drastically, drastically reduced military, with accordingly reduced military spending. That person laments that every year the government “takes his money by force” and spends it on something he objects to. Most would have little sympathy for such a person and would not consider him a victim. Their response is that we all benefit from national security, so he’s getting something in return for his money even if he disagrees about how it’s being spent. Of course, the same argument can be made in support of wealth redistribution to assist the poor. The rich benefit by not having an impoverished underclass. Less crime, not having to drive through slums, etc.
My overall point is: the government is always going to collect taxes “by force”, and almost every tax payer will disagree with at least some of the things that tax revenue is spent on.
9. Ellen
November 1, 2008
10:55 AM
Timely post. I’m leading discussion tomorrow on the Luke 16 God & Mammon poem, followed by the Dives & Lazarus parable - should be interesting two days prior to the election!
My bottom line is that the Kingdom of God is not represented by the U.S. government. The biblical mandate to care for the poor is never achieved by governmental wealth redistribution. When government taxes me $1.00 to spend on the poor, only about $0.60 reaches the poor (administrative costs, dontcha know?) Government is a hideously inefficient and politically motivated (535 Congress-ers all with the prime directive of re-election) vehicle for social justice. Taxing the rich simply never works - it always winds up taxing the middle class (look up the history of the alternative minimum tax for proof positive.)
10. Dan
November 1, 2008
11:47 AM
“The reason there are poor is that the rich don’t share.” - Mother Teresa. There’s truth in this statement. More so than many of the paragraphs, quotes and hypothetical situations above (forgive the pun) do justice to.
Mother Teresa isn’t saying the reason there are poor is that taxes aren’t high enough, or that Marx was right, or that the poor aren’t maybe there of their own accord. She’s calling those who are wealthy to examine their conscience. To see if abject selfishness- a sin, do we not all agree?- is part of why so many excuses are made for not giving some of their surplus to church or secular organizations dealing with poverty and need (or, as here, where straw men are built around the issue of ‘barriers’ to Christian charity).
C’mon…no mainstream American politician is seriously saying the rich can’t be rich. What I think some are saying is that it’s fine to have wealth, but be honest in your motives if you’re making up Straw-Marxist arguments rather than seeing where there are worthy causes to assist with your surplus.
11. David Kjos
November 1, 2008
11:53 AM
David McKay wrote: Extreme inequality can’t be a good thing, Tim.
Why not? Because the Bible says so, or because you say so? On what authority do you say that?
It is interesting to see those with more money and possessions worried that an American president might make things fairer!
OK, suppose the neighbor on my right is rich, and the neighbor on my left is poor. Is that unfair? No, but let’s pretend it is. Now suppose I rob my rich neighbor and deliver the booty to my poor neighbor (after spending the greater portion on the purchase of burglary tools, paying my accomplices, and bribing the local police to overlook my larceny, of course). Would I be lauded as a neighbor who made things fairer, or just called a thief?
By the way, I am definitely not one of “those with more money and possessions.”
12. Tim Challies
November 1, 2008
12:43 PM
Extreme inequality can’t be a good thing, Tim.
I don’t know if I agree or disagree. But let’s try this. Do you think it would be unfair if, say, the Apostle Paul has significantly more reward in heaven than the thief on the cross?
13. David Kjos
November 1, 2008
12:51 PM
One more note: fair is not the same as just. The Bible appears to have little interest in fairness.
14. Laurie
November 1, 2008
4:08 PM
I found this post very helpful. Thank you.
15. bchallies
November 1, 2008
4:20 PM
I have been forced to conclude in the last few years that some hard-working people are poor mostly because of systemic injustice. We live in a poor part of the country, are rubbing shoulders with people most middle-class folks wouldn’t, and have been appalled at the abuse of those with little political and economic clout. I do not believe socialism is the answer, but do think large corporations, government itself, should be forced to accord justice to all. In theory, all are treated alike. In practice, this is not so.
16. Jess W
November 1, 2008
4:29 PM
Thanks for this post,Tim. I recently graduated from Queen’s with a degree in International Development and my program was extremely left-wing, which suited my views at the time. It was terribly depressing and hopeless (what chance does socialism have against capitalism??) and I’ve been trying to square it with what the Bible says about social justice and it’s been an interesting process. This helped a bit.
I agree with the idea of private property and that differing levels of wealth isn’t wrong. I used to think that my understanding of scripture was what made me left-wing — because compassion for others is close to God’s heart, so we should take care of poor and needy. But now these same values are making me more conservative as I realize that if the State is taking care of the poor and needy there is less opportunity for God’s people to meet the felt-needs of those around them and give opportunity for evangelism.
17. E.G.
November 1, 2008
5:38 PM
Is it possible that God is installing an emperor who will force Christians to do what we aren’t doing, but should have been doing with our wealth? Will He cause the heathen empire to put us to shame to remind us of how we, and followers of Christ, ought to have been behaving during a time of extreme plenty for many of us?
18. David McKay
November 1, 2008
5:52 PM
Hi Tim
Another way of putting my view is that extreme poverty can be alleviated. Adequate health care for all is available in many countries in the world and should also be in the US.
19. David Kjos
November 1, 2008
6:20 PM
Is it possible that God is installing an emperor who will force Christians to do what we aren’t doing, but should have been doing with our wealth?
Not likely. First, the “emperor” has already been helping himself to our wealth, but hasn’t done—even remotely— what we “should have been doing” with it so far. I see no reason that will change now. Second, Christians are already doing it. You can speak for yourself, if your conscience is bothering you, but don’t presume to know what the rest of us are doing.
20. Charles Bivens
November 1, 2008
6:22 PM
Its a very interesting and complicated topic.
Certainly the Bible does not support Communism or an early form of Socialism. We know that in the early Church some folks sold their homes and possessions and others kept them.
What is key to remember concerning the first century Church is that, “There were no needy persons among them” (Acts 4:34). The money that was gained from selling possessions was given to the Apostles to be “distributed to anyone who had need” (See 4:35) How different it is with us today. Do we take care of our own?
This is I believe, a fulfillment of Deut 15:1-7 where it says in specifically in verse 4, “there should be no poor among you”. Commentators have recognized the fulfillment of this in the Church of Acts.
A question that disturbs me is whether or not we are associating Biblical texts that specifically deal with God’s People and are applying them to the government of the United States? Are the Church and the government one? Lets be careful that we make a distinction between God’s called out people and the US government. I am afraid that we often try to wield the sword of the state just as much as any group out there.
I don’t believe its the governments responsibility to make sure there are no poor among Gods people. They have a responsibility to the people of the USA to be sure but we as followers of Christ have a responsibility to each other as Christians. I believe that we are responsible to take care of the poor who are believers and then extend help to those outside the Body.
The way I see it that we are arguing and debating about what we want our government to do or not do and the Biblical reality is its our responsibility. The government will never be able to fix the injustice in the world no matter what that injustice is. I am afraid we have fallen into the trap of casting our responsibility as believers upon the US government. Then we complain when our candidate isn’t elected, our agenda doesn’t go through, etc.
All in all, my observation is that no matter which party gets in the White House the Church is unable to get its social agendas pushed through. It does happen of course but not as often as we would like. The poor grow poorer. Babies die in their mothers womb. Marriages crumble.
Although I believe we have a right to vote and should, its clear from scripture to me that it is Gods people who are to be a sign, a taste of the future revealing and proclaiming Gods Kingdom reign. We should not cast our responsibility on the government and then complain and argue when it doesn’t work. How can it?
No earthly government will ever be able to do what only God can do in and through His people. Although we are exactly the same in some respects as the rest of the population and no better, we are at the same time something all together different. We are Kingdom People. Our citizenship is in heaven. Lets intentionally serve members of the body by making sure there are no poor “among us”. Lets make sure that among Gods people believers have their needs met. Let us seek to truly be a sign of the future Kingdom now.
Unless I am misunderstood let me say that I do not believe we should ignore politics or the use of governmental avenues to do what is right. Yet while I believe we should not ignore the government and politics and elections I would merely caution that we not get consumed with the broken systems of the world that will not truly be fixed until our Lord comes.
21. E.G.
November 1, 2008
6:29 PM
David Kjos wrote:
“You can speak for yourself, if your conscience is bothering you, but don’t presume to know what the rest of us are doing.”
Thanks, that was friendly and gracious.
Judging from the disparity - even within our countries, not to mention between our countries and elsewhere - I’d say that we, on the whole (may not you, maybe not me, maybe not the fellow in the pew next to me, but in general), have been doing a pretty pathetic job of it.
22. Papayaguy
November 1, 2008
8:07 PM
Tim said,
“”Extreme inequality can’t be a good thing, Tim.”
I don’t know if I agree or disagree. But let’s try this. Do you think it would be unfair if, say, the Apostle Paul has significantly more reward in heaven than the thief on the cross?”
I don’t think I would have any problem with Paul having a greater reward than I will have in heaven. This is a “Reward” though which grants him and me what God deems appropriate for the work we have done and the responsibility we have shown.
How does this apply to inequality due to injustice and exploitation of the poor here on earth? I certainly don’t believe we should all have equal amounts of money and such but I question whether we are using Biblical concepts correctly. To extrapolate that the varying degrees of Rewards in heaven have application to inequality of possessions here is something I cant see connected clearly.
23. David Kjos
November 1, 2008
8:51 PM
David Kjos wrote: “You can speak for yourself, if your conscience is bothering you, but don’t presume to know what the rest of us are doing.” Thanks, that was friendly and gracious.
Well, it doesn’t sound as gracious as I wish it did. But I didn’t mean to be ungracious.
I’d say your evidence for the claim that Christians aren’t doing what they ought is weak. The existence of financial disparity doesn’t prove anything at all about that. To believe that Christian charity, when Christians always have and always will be a small minority, could have any wide-scale effect on global poverty, is fantastic speculation. And it contradicts Christ’s own declaration that this disparity will always exist.
In any case, supposing I am way off on that and you are correct, the answer is still not for me rob you and call it “spreading the wealth.” The answer is to preach the Word and let the Holy Spirit work through that Word to change your heart. And that’s where it ends. I can’t move from there to coercion, no matter how noble my intent.
24. R Page
November 1, 2008
10:34 PM
Living and ministering in an extremely poor community I see a huge problem with national re-distribution of wealth. Everyone makes financial choices, and the poor often make the same reckless decisions over and over. You can try to stipulate how some of the charity is spent, but there is always a way around the system. When the economic stimulus package came out last year, we were the only low/mid income family we knew who used the income for setting aside some savings for fuel oil this winter. Even families who had some level of college education spent their windfall on a splurge; and are scrounging now to find some way to heat this winter. We routinely see fairly intelligent people who have almost no fiscal discipline once they are in a hand-to-mouth situation.
My dad, a financial counselor, has folks he’s working with keep a diary of all expenditures for two weeks. They usually find in the hundreds of dollars spent on small ticket items over the two week period — and these are people that are hurting enough financially to seek counseling!
My point is that if you take away the system that requires both work and personal discipline, you are creating a monster. Because our community faces these challenges, we have some truly wonderful programs: a soup kitchen that requires you to set-up, serve, or clean up to partake of a meal; medical and dental clinics that use a sliding income scale; and a multitude of free or low cost educational programs for learning life skills. Even within our Scout Packs and Troops we’ll provide ways for kids to earn their uniforms and trips to camp so their parents don’t spend a dime.
When a true need arises — a child from a poor family is diagnosed with cancer, or an apartment building burns down — the outpouring of funds and goods is truly amazing; but by and large, our “welfare” programs require some effort on the part of the receiver. A national system, or even a state/provincial system can’t provide that amount of oversight. A city based program also allows our most generous donors to have a huge say in where their money goes — something they greatly appreciate.
25. E.G.
November 1, 2008
11:15 PM
David Kjos wrote:
“In any case, supposing I am way off on that and you are correct, the answer is still not for me rob you and call it “spreading the wealth.””
Thanks for that.
However, that is not what I’m saying. I am not FOR state interventionist redistribution. I am only asking “what if” this (installing a secular state that forces us to spread our wealth) is God’s way of shaming the Church? I don’t think that it’s beyond reason.
26. J.P.H.
November 2, 2008
12:20 AM
“In any case, supposing I am way off on that and you are correct, the answer is still not for me rob you and call it “spreading the wealth.”
Is it robbery when any tax payer’s taxes are used for something they don’t approve of? If not, why is spending of federal money on programs to help the poor “robbery” while other types of spending aren’t?
27. Patrick
November 2, 2008
8:42 AM
“It is interesting to see those with more money and possessions worried that an American president might make things fairer!”
That’s a bit of a strange definition of “fairer.” To argue that taking from one person and giving it to another and calling it “fair” implies that the person in possession of the money shouldn’t have had it in the first place, while the ultimate recipient of it should have possessed it.
In the case of wealth, this just isn’t true.
Patrick
www.TheologyOfOmaha.com
28. Neil
November 2, 2008
8:48 AM
Excellent analysis.
The social gospel is just coveting disguised as religion. It doesn’t just crowd out the real Gospel, it is used as a substitute for it.
And it isn’t even effective at what it purports to do! It keeps people in bondage instead of really helping them.
Taking other people’s money at the point of a gun (i.e., taxes) to fund your pet projects or what you think is “fair” is not charity. You might try to argue that it is good public policy, but to consider yourself generous for holding those views is mistaken.
29. Michael A
November 2, 2008
8:55 AM
It doesn’t matter. God does not need your money to accomplish his mission. The invitation to give your life and possessions away is primarily about freedom from your own self-worship. Luke 12 indicates that freedom from anxiety and worry lie in “Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.” (v33)
decisions about wealth = heart location…that’s all. (v34)
30. David Kjos
November 2, 2008
9:44 AM
I am only asking “what if” this (installing a secular state that forces us to spread our wealth) is God’s way of shaming the Church? I don’t think that it’s beyond reason.
Whoever is elected will be God’s choice, for whatever his reasons are. So no, that’s not unreasonable. What I object to is the suggestion that the state has ever, as some say, “done what the church should be doing.” It never has, never will, and in fact, never can.
31. David Kjos
November 2, 2008
10:11 AM
Is it robbery when any tax payer’s taxes are used for something they don’t approve of?
Not necessarily. The Constitution gives government the power to tax to fund certain limited functions. When government exceeds those powers, it is operating illegally. Illegal, forceful confiscation of property is robbery. That’s the legal angle. The biblical angle is that God makes individuals stewards of his wealth to use for his glory in various ways. He does not give us the authority to forcefully take what he has entrusted to our neighbors, no matter the purpose. We have our stewardship, and they have theirs.
32. E.G.
November 2, 2008
11:30 AM
David Kjos wrote:
“He does not give us the authority to forcefully take what he has entrusted to our neighbors, no matter the purpose.”
On a political level, I’m as libertarian as you seem to be - perhaps more so. But, I also recognize that God allows governments to do what they do, whether it follows His law or not. It is our duty, as Christians, to follow the government unless the government attempts to force us to act in opposition to our Lord. The government is not “Christian,” and will never be until the government is Christ Himself.
“What I object to is the suggestion that the state has ever, as some say, “done what the church should be doing.” It never has, never will, and in fact, never can.”
Not in substance, but perhaps in form. God would prefer the substance of our joyful generosity.
33. S. Patrick
November 2, 2008
6:39 PM
Luke 18:18-23
And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother. And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.
Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.
34. Robert W.
November 2, 2008
7:15 PM
Neil Said: ‘Taking other people’s money at the point of a gun (i.e., taxes) to fund your pet projects or what you think is “fair” is not charity.’
Right on the head, Neil. Folks, caring for the poor is all about GRACE. Charity should be our attempt at immitating God’s Grace to us. Grace is unmerited favor. Brutal and macro-economically unwise progressivity in the tax code has nothing to do with any kind of charity that our Lord advocates and it has nothing to do with Grace.
S. Patrick: I think you might have missed the point. Since He knows what is in a person’s hear, Jesus was telling the rich guy what he needed to hear. I think it is stretching things to believe that was a general command to all.
35. Carol Jean
November 2, 2008
7:49 PM
Michael A. said, “It doesn’t matter. God does not need your money to accomplish his mission.”
Good word Michael. Nor does he need the coffers of the U.S. government. Take note Donald Miller, Tony Campolo, et al.
36. Lisa
November 2, 2008
10:20 PM
Very thought provoking post and comments.
Also very well said RPage!
37. Vaughn Park
November 3, 2008
12:47 AM
Wow, it is really alarming to see how effective the secularists have been in their efforts to inculcate even evangelical Christian believers with their warped worldview. I am both stunned and saddened to see this petulant desire on the part of some for a nanny state to make things “fair” for one group by effectively punishing another. Grudem’s article is sufficient for a reasoned thinker, and further commentary from me will probably not sway the emerging neo-marxist mentality evident in a few of these posts.
38. J.P.H.
November 3, 2008
9:23 AM
David #31, a few thoughts re: constitutionality:
a. “public welfare” clause, Article I, Sec. 8. Even if you disagree about what it implies, it probably bears addressing.
b. The U.S. Air Force. The Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to levy taxes in order to support an army and navy. Nowhere is an air force mentioned. Since the Constitution has not been amended to grant that right, is the Air Force constitutional? Obviously there were no airplanes when the Constitution was written, so they could not possibly have made explicit provision for an air force. However, the author did make provision for the Constitution to be amended. The fact that we have an air force and nobody even considered amending the Constitution has big implications. Basically, somewhere along the line we, as a nation, decided no to “play by the rules” when it comes to following the amendment process. If, for some reason, we were forced to, then I suspect there would be broad support for amendments authorizing all sorts of federal power: aid for the poor, public schools, funding basic research, etc.
3. While the Constitution wasn’t yet in place, in 1777 the Continental Congress set aside money for the printing of an “American Bible”. This suggests a particular mindset on the part of the Congress- that federal money can be used for more than the narrow set of things that would eventually be codified in the Constitution.
4. The Department of the Interior, which handled such tasks as the recolonization of slaves and the establishment of national parks, was created in 1849, a scant 60 years after the Constitution was adopted. There was no amendment.
5. The welfare clause came up during the 14th Congress, where Madison veto’d a bill to use federal funds for the improvement of roads. He specifically said that the “public welfare” clause doesn’t allow such expenditures. While Madison was clearly instrumental in constructing the wording of the Constitution, he wasn’t the only signer. Rufus King, who also was also a signer, was a member of the 14th Congress and voted for the improvements bill. So there seems to have been disagreement on its meaning from the very beginning, even among signers.
6. Madison, while he felt efforts like the improvements bill should be handled via amendment, actually supported such measures. He just felt there should be an amendment first. Check out his 7th state of the Union address. He very much wished to see such improvements take place; he just insisted the power be granted to the federal govt. first by amendment.
39. J.P.H.
November 3, 2008
11:25 AM
Vaughan #37:
I find it slightly offensive that you assume any evangelical believer who disagrees with you on this issue must have been brainwashed by the bogeyman, i.e. secular Marxist left. Is it really so improbable that a believer might come to these conclusions on his or her own? Your attributing these views to brainwashing closely resembles the tack taken by some of Christianity’s detractors, who allege that believers only believe because they were brainwashed by their pastor or parents. Both arguments strike as unworthy.
As for Gruden’s article being “sufficient”, we’d have to describe “sufficient”. I agree that Gruden adequately demonstrates that it is not a Christian imperative to support the delegation of care for the poor to government entities. He also demonstrates that it is a Christian imperative to care for the poor in some capacity. What I think he fails to demonstrate is that it is imperative for the believer to oppose delegation of care for the poor to government entities.
I agree with the poster who said it’s a matter of each person’s conscience. It’s possible for a person to take each position out of a wrong heart condition, and in both cases they would be in error.
40. DS
November 3, 2008
11:36 AM
I am from a poor family but over 50 years I am financially very comfortable. God help me, I do not attend church for various reasons, but one way that I feel like I am “doing good” is by generously donating time and money to the poor. I do this because I want to help others, it makes my heart feel good (pleasure is in the giving) and sometimes I have the feeling like God is smiling. I have raised six caring children who are aware of the blessing of giving-and in fact I adopted an African-American male 4 years ago because I felt the need to help. He has blessed my life and the lives of my children. I have donated one of my cars to a poor family twice. I am not trying to exult myself, I just want you to know that I agree with the idea of stewardship that I have read here-having wealth and giving to the poor is a blessing to the soul. I do not agree with the forced requirements of taking from me with high taxes and having it “possibly” redistributed. I feel resentful about this because I know the soul lesson will be overshadowed by my resentment at my lack of choice. I am sorry if this seems selfish, but I know I am not selfish, as do the many that I personally help.
41. Larry Geiger
November 3, 2008
12:34 PM
“Is it robbery when any tax payer’s taxes are used for something they don’t approve of? If not, why is spending of federal money on programs to help the poor “robbery” while other types of spending aren’t?”
I believe that it is robbery when money is taken from one individual and given to another.
For instance. If I pay a contractor to build a road (let’s say I-10 from Florida to California) and any citizen in the nation may freely hop on that road at one end and drive to the other end, then I have provided a service to the American people. Same for our military.
Now if I take money from tax payers and give it to an individual for their personal use (Social Security, FEMA payments, welfare, income redistribution, etc.) then I have committed theft. Pure and simple.
Now if I want to eliminate hunger by establishing food kitchens across the nation, then any one who wants a meal should be able to walk in, sit down and get the same meal everyone else gets. Anyone! If you don’t like the quality and variety of food, then you could go to the store and get your own. If you don’t like driving on I-10, and you want to fly your Lear Jet instead, that’s ok.
Thinking that we can create equity outside of God’s rules will always create more inequity.
42. J.P.H.
November 3, 2008
2:46 PM
Larry #41:
In many ways, the sort of redistribution Obama is talking about, at least with regard to taxes, fits nicely into your criteria. Often tax programs will give a “tax credit” to all tax filers. “Tax credit” is somewhat misleading- basically it’s free money, available even if you don’t owe any tax. It’s important to note, though, that everyone receives it. Not just poor people. It just happens that poor people are the ones who don’t owe any tax to begin with.
Another idea that would fit within your framework is a national health care system. Like your example with the highway, those who choose not to make use of it are free to do so.
I’m going to assume that you don’t either of these ideas. That’s fine, but it may mean that the framework you’ve described doesn’t really fit your actual views. Or maybe you need to refine it somehow.
43. A.
November 4, 2008
12:02 AM
Since when did Christians start debating the lawfulness of taxation? Is this some intra-mural Reformed debate I have missed out on up to now? Has the phrase, “Render unto Caeser” been expunged from the latest sectarian study bible on the grounds of being an interpolation by Matthew the Tax-Collector?
Setting aside the wisdom of Obama’s wealth redistribution policies for a minute, can we analyse the non-sequiter “taxation is theft”? Taxation is not theft, because taxation is by definition appropriation of monies by a lawfully constituted authority through lawful means. You may not agree with how the government spends your taxes, or with the tax rate, but then, in the democracy you choose to live in you have recourse to the ballot box at the next general election.
44. Joe Socialist
November 4, 2008
1:12 AM
Luke 16:13
No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.
45. leonie
November 4, 2008
3:03 AM
Dear Challies,
First of all, I wonder what your ideas will be about this subject after you have visited the Dominican Republic. Having lived there, as well as in other Third World countries, I realize that there are absolutely no biblical justifying answers to all the suffering that is caused by poverty that, Marxist view or not, for a big part does derive from unequal economical and political systems.
I think it is very tricky to make comparisons when it comes to economics with biblical times and the present. The gap between rich and poor has never been as big as it’s today. The richest person in Jesus’s days would be considered very poor today when it comes to healthcare, education, even nutrition. Also, to use Jesus’ quote about that there will always be poor, should never be taken out of context and understood as a given fact that doesn’t require extra action. There are tons more verses in the bible about true believing being giving to the poor, taking care of widows and orphans in their need etc. And sharing, even sacrificing your self, money included.
I know that for some Americans (I’m Dutch myself) a socialist system equals something very unchristian and liberal. But believe me that in my country all, poor and rich can go to quality schools they choose (whatever denomination), enjoy higher education without huge depts, have high standard medical care for whatever problem that occurs. If the wealth is shared in a responsible way, it actually is possible. Not to say that it’s utopia, but for sure it’s a fare and somewhat safe place to grow up in. Sharing the wealth is possible and therefor a responsibility for all that you cannot biblicly argue away, or perhaps today, vote away.
I pray for your country, worried about my dear American friends who don’t have a good medical insurance, but who do have amazing study loans, no pension to look forward to but funds that are worth nothing anymore after mismanagement of well known companies. I’m worried about the soldiers in Iraq, even more the people (especially christians) who live there. And all the countries the current president perhaps doesn’t even know the name of, but who are dependent and face consequences of decisions that are made in the White House. May God bless America and may America open up to the needs of those around them.
46. Vaughn Park
November 4, 2008
4:54 PM
J.P.H.:
My remarks were not intended to offend you. That you were offended only indicates that you are afraid to think about your own views critically.
Bear in mind that any government that feels entitled to redistribute income will likely also feel entitled to re-evaluate and potentially take away many cherished liberties on the same subjective basis of perceived fairness.
You may also want to check to see if your own level of charitable giving falls into the generous category. In all of my years in business and ministry I have observed that those most interested in taking from others often personally give the least.
47. J.P.H.
November 4, 2008
7:10 PM
“That you were offended only indicates that you are afraid to think about your own views critically.”
This doesn’t follow. When you say to someone, “You only believe X because you were brainwashed into it,” your explicitly stating that the person didn’t arrive at X through careful thought or prayer. I would find also find it mildly offensive if someone said to me, “You’re only pro-life because you’ve been brainwashed by the Christian Right.”
“Bear in mind that any government that feels entitled to redistribute income will likely also feel entitled to re-evaluate and potentially take away many cherished liberties on the same subjective basis of perceived fairness.”
Possibly. Perhaps I don’t draw so fine a line between “the government” and “the people” as you do. In this case, it is “the people” who have decided, collectively, to fund such programs. Moreover, they’ve chosen to do so in a manner that does no real harm to those asked to foot the bill.
“You may also want to check to see if your own level of charitable giving falls into the generous category.”
That would depend on what you consider generous. My wife and I give about 10% of our gross pre-tax income each year. She’s also made some career choices in order to serve low-income clients that have resulted in her income being much lower than it might have been. We fall into the set of taxpayers who would more or less “break even” between Obama and McCain’s plans.
48. vaughn Park
November 5, 2008
2:42 AM
J.P.H.:
If you are incapable of drawing an appropriate line between the people and the government of this, or any other country, you are even more naive than your previous comments seem to indicate. What programs are you indicating that “the people” collectively have decided to fund? And, while we’re on the subject, is it your opinion that Scripture invests credibility in decisions made collectively by “the people”? You also indicate, somewhat subjectively that “no real harm is done… to those asked to foot the bill” —-Really? How do you know? Have you asked them, or are you driven by greed or envy to assume that which you cannot know? If you are advocating for socialized medicine, would you also argue that the introduction of millions of new uninsured patients into an already overtaxed healthcare system will not result in a decline in healthcare quality? Simple logic and mathematics indicate otherwise, which just might harm those being “asked to foot the bill.”
I really have no interest in your giving, but had simply noticed an eagerness on your part to mandate through the government increasing the involuntary “giving” of others. You may want to consider that socialism has no ability, economically speaking, to increase wealth on a sustained basis. You certainly can “spread it (wealth) around” for a short time, but ultimately the result will be to discourage economic achievement among those who are most productive, and the end is that there will be less to spread. Socialism does not work.
49. steve s
November 5, 2008
3:11 PM
In all the time I’ve been reading the comments on Tim’s posts, this is the least gracious, most argumentative thread I’ve encountered.
Money, eh? Shame on some of you!
I’m British, btw. we don’t need to worry about all this stuff. ;-)
50. vaughn Park
November 5, 2008
5:48 PM
Steve,
Perhaps as a Brit you misunderstand at least a part of the discussion. The issue is not money, nothing to be “shaming” people for. The issue is liberty, which Americans cherish. My own concern is that a government that is willing to exert itself to redistribute income in a fairly radical way may also impinge upon more important things than money, such as the freedom to serve God openly and faithfully. No one is arguing here against the responsibility of caring for the poor, it just seems to be, from the NT perspective, the responsibility of individual believers and churches, not the secular government.
Cheer up; the exchange of ideas is a healthy thing, especially among Christian brothers.
51. J.P.H.
November 6, 2008
12:26 AM
#48:
Take a step back and read what you wrote. Does it not strike you as somewhat patronizing?
You say I’m naive. I might say you’re paranoid. It’s a matter of perspective.
What programs have “the people” decided to fund? All of them, in that “the people” elected the legislators responsible for their creation, then failed to elect representatives to dismantle them.
No, I do not think the scriptures indicate any special credibility for decisions made collectively. My point in mentioning “the people” was to highlight the fact that there’s not a monolithic, authoritarian state imposing things on the American populace. We elect people. They pass laws. If we don’t like the laws they’ve passed, then it behooves us to elect someone who’ll pass different laws. If we don’t, then “we” are giving our tacit approval to the legislation that was passed.
Re: “no real harm”. It’s simple math. If someone is pulling down $10M a year and the govt starts taking $400k instead of $350k, the loss of that $50k pales in comparison when viewed against the plight of those on the opposite end of the income spectrum.
Re: socialism discouraging achievement. I’d argue that really depends on how its implemented. If one were silly, and taxed earnings above a certain amount at 100%, then I’d agree with you. At the other end of the spectrum, if you make it so that a jobless person can live “comfortably”, then you’ve removed his motivation to find work. I’m not advocating either of these.
52. J.P.H.
November 6, 2008
12:30 AM
Ah, yeah, so I was off by a power of 10. Make that $1M/yr.
53. vaughn Park
November 6, 2008
1:34 PM
No, JPH, my post does not sound patronizing, and I am not so thin-skinned as to be offended by your insinuation that I am paranoid, either. I do see, however, that you have at last revealed your own bias in favor of socialism. If that is your position, good for you, but intimating that those who do not believe in socialism are in some way greedy, and are therefore less concerned for the poor than you are is, in fact, unbecoming. I will gladly render tax to whom it is due, but I have no naive notion that the federal government, or any other government, save Christ’s own coming one, will ever deliver this earth from the effects of sin.
54. Larry Geiger
November 6, 2008
3:07 PM
JPH
I’m not the one to draw the line. But I know that in our country, the line has been crossed. When did we really cross it and begin taking money that should not have been taken? I’m sure that’s a matter of opinion.
I’m certainly not for national health care, especially something such as what Hillary Clinton wants. However, with a pool as big as the US population, there could be a way to create a controlled insurance company that anyone could buy into. If it came from taxing one person and giving to another, then I wouldn’t be for it. If it created a system where I buy my own insurance, then it could probably be done rightly.
I just know that it’s currently out of control and probably going to get much worse before it gets better. My neighbor went out and bought a generator after a hurricane. Another contractor I know had his generator break and he went out about the same time and bought a new one. Both of these folks make at least $50,000 a year and probably much more. FEMA sent them both checks for $800.00 to pay for the generators. They never applied for the money. FEMA just went to the stores, asked who bought certain things, and then sent the people checks. That’s crazy.
The government should never write a check to an individual that is not providing a service to the nation.
55. J.P.H.
November 6, 2008
6:23 PM
Vaughan- I don’t recall saying you were greedy. If anything, you suggested I might be the greedy one when you said I should examine my own personal giving. As for my bias, I wrote in Ron Paul for president. If anything, I lean libertarian. I just find some of the arguments against these kinds of programs to be at best weak, and at worst disingenuous.
56. vaughn Park
November 6, 2008
7:31 PM
JPH, glad to hear you wrote in Ron Paul. You may, however, want to visit his website and familiarize yourself with some of his positions relevant to this thread. If memory serves correctly, he opposes further government encroachment on healthcare (read: he is opposed to national healthcare), and is not in favor of the “spread the wealth around” approach to taxation (and redistribution) favored by President-elect Obama. Glad you wrote Congressman Paul in, though, in spite of your apparent disagreement with him on some key issues..