| Economic equality? |
| Written by Tom Hobson | ||||||||||||||||||
| Tuesday, 17 January 2012 17:25 | ||||||||||||||||||
|
“He will judge the world with righteousness, and the peoples with equity.” – Psalm 98:9
“The one who had much did not have too much, and the one who had little did not have too little.” – 2 Corinthians 8:15
“Equality is a mathematical term.” – R. J. Rushdoony, quoting James Gray.
One of the loud complaints we have heard from the Occupy movement has been about the inequality of incomes, as if this were a matter of fundamental injustice, and as if forced wealth redistribution were part of the answer to the problem. Since the God of the Bible is a God of justice, the church cannot logically avoid the issue.
But while it is clear that God demands justice in how we treat one another, the problem is that God has not defined justice very explicitly. That does not let us off the hook. But it should keep us humble. God has not told us exactly what a fair wage or fair price should be, or what a fair contract should look like, although God expects us to make an educated guess as we seek to practice justice in the marketplace.
Has God truly made us equal? That’s a different question. Psalm 98:9 states that God will judge the peoples with “equity.” The word used here is mesharim, a word related to the term yashar or “upright.” It refers to what is “level” versus what is crooked. It is the best word in the Hebrew Bible to communicate the concept of equality. The word is used 19 times (never in the Torah). Only five of those uses are in reference to God, three of them in the Psalms. Yet the word is almost always used in a context of future judgment, where the assurance is that God will judge people equally. It is not used to speak of economic equality.
Several years ago, Sir Jonathan Sacks, chief rabbi of the British Empire, claimed that the Hebrew word tzedeqah really means “distributive justice that goes beyond equity and compassion.” However, he never offered a shred of lexical evidence to back up his claim. Tzedeqah is too broad a word on which to base a claim that God demands economic equality.
Economically, we don’t need to look far to see that God has not made us equal. Is it fair that God should give J. K. Rowling the talent to write books that have sold millions of copies, talent that God has not given to the rest of us (rich or poor)? Is it fair that God has given Albert Pujols the talent to play baseball well enough to land a contract for hundreds of millions with LA? (I have been a hometown fan of Pujols since the day he began, so I have never begrudged him what he gets paid, even though he has struck out or grounded into double plays numerous times when we needed a hit. I know that a huge chunk of what he gets paid ends up back in God’s pocket.)
Is it fair that God gave Steve Jobs the ability to grow a company? And why does God bestow such brilliance on so many people who hate God with a passion? Let’s face it: God has not distributed wealth-producing abilities equally. God even admits it implicitly in the parable of the talents, and in Luke 12:48: “To whom much is given, of them much will be required.”
It was recently noted that our top 10 entertainers get paid twice as much as our top ten CEO’s. So why haven’t we heard a whimper of protest from the Occupy movement about the entertainers among that evil 1 percent? Why haven’t we heard calls to confiscate the wealth of Oprah Winfrey or Steven Spielberg? Or why not confiscate the $90 million paid to Franklin Raines while he was running Fannie Mae into the ground?
Granted, a lot of the consternation appears to be about the disparity where folks at the top earn 100 times or more than what production workers are paid at the bottom. I share some of that consternation. There are many times where it is questionable whether the high earner contributes proportionately to the value of the company and to the prosperity of the other employees, the existence of whose jobs may depend on whether the high earner is competently doing their job.
There are times where the high earner deserves what they are paid. There are other times, as in cases like Albert Pujols’, where market supply and demand play tricks with the value attached by the crowd to their labor. Instead of trying to fix the market, the Biblical God of justice seeks to call us to account for what we do with that income.
It is eisogesis to baptize a Marxist political agenda as a divine mandate for justice. As Rep. Paul Ryan said in a recent speech, equality of (economic) outcome is actually a form of inequality, one that is based on “political influence and bureaucratic favoritism” – which, I would add, it is crystal clear that God hates. God is no “lifter of faces” (Acts 10:34, Rom 2:11, Eph 6:9, Col 3:25). God doesn’t check your face, or your party membership card.
We are not equal in terms of the talent or income-producing abilities that God has given us. Neither are we equal in terms of the opportunities that God gives us. If you don’t like that, yell at God about it. The question is, How do we live with that disparity without caving in to greed, envy, hatred, or complicity in evil?
Instead of resenting others for abilities and opportunities that God has given unequally to others, we need to focus on our responsibility for what we do with what God entrusts to us. That includes treating others justly in what we pay for goods and services. That includes speaking up when we perceive that others are being treated unjustly. But let us be careful not to jump too quickly to point the finger until we truly understand. And let us be careful not to claim God as our authority where God has not spoken.
TOM HOBSON of Belleville, Ill., a PC(USA) pastor for 28 years, is currently serving at First Church in Herrin, Ill., and as an adjunct professor at Morthland College, West Frankfort, Ill. Your Responses (9)
![]()
Tom Hobson
said:
|
|
Belleville, IL Now might be the time to direct readers to my comments on Matthew 25 in my Outlook blog "Care For the Poor - Unrealistic?" (title mildly satirical) posted on 9-24-11. |
Adel Thalos
said:
|
Hixson, TN Thank you for this article. You have rightly pointed out that there is a difference between fairness of opportunity and fairness of outcome. Have not the experiments in Communism shown that greater centralized power for the purpose of redistribution simply does not work? I also wonder where this idea that the playing field is not level in America comes from? The utopian earthly idealism of Marxist ideology leads merely to loss of all freedom and utter corruption, for it denies human depravity, especially as it becomes centralized...leading to utter abominations throughout history. I wanted to point out that the repeated reference by commenters on this article to Matthew 25 ignores the actual meaning of that text, which has nothing to do with treatment of the poor. The interpretation that Jesus is referring to the poor in Matthew 25 started with Leo Tolstoy, but was not understood that way in the church previously. I would suggest some serious exegetical commentaries for those who are so inclined. |
D C Carothers
said:
|
Harrisonburg, VA It is likely true that I and nearly everyone has a partisan point of view in some sense, but it would be a severe stretch to say that my previous post expressed one. The posting merely pointed out that you had already acknowledged what is expressed in Leviticus 25. And the only place that the word "federal" appears on this page is in your very last post. Mr. Edmonds referred to what the wealthiest 1% often pay "in taxes." Of course it is true that what the very wealthy pay in state and local taxes, wage taxes, etc. can in some cases be miniscule, but that is part of the point, isn't it? And at the risk of expressing a partisan point of view, although it is legitimate to believe that tax policies that make the effective rates relatively flat across income levels are appropriate, I believe that it is also true that most Americans believe that the wealthy should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes but are misled by the constant barrage of misinformation by those asserting that many people pay "no taxes" into thinking that the wealthy pay far more than they really do. Yes, since you asked I am perfectly willing to say that those at my income level and higher have most enjoyed the benefits of American society and thus should pay more for all of the things that have made it possible for us to be successful. And as Mr. Edmonds points out, it is especially problematic that some significant minority of the very wealthy are actually paying a smaller portion of their income in taxes than the middle class and even some of the poor. I am not expecting people to adopt the view that the wealthy should pay higher taxes, but I think it is fair to ask for honesty in how the distribution of taxes is described. |
Tom Hobson
said:
|
Belleville, IL The Outlook demonstrates true bi-partisanship. The same Outlook that publishes what I write (within reason) also allows you to use name-calling like "partisan silliness." Can you acknowledge that both of us have a partisan point of view? Cries of "justice" can be just as simplistic as the rhetoric of the fundamentalists. When speaking of those who pay no taxes, in context, the claim to which I was responding had to do specifically with Federal income tax. Your response is helpful, that when all taxes are taken into account, the percent comes out fairly flat. As it should be. Are the rich responsible to give far more of their income to help those in need? Absolutely. To repeat, Jesus says, "To whom much is given, of them much will be required." But that is a function of God to require this, not government. |
D C Carothers
said:
|
Harrisonburg, VA I occasionally read this site to get a feeling for what is happening around the denomination. I am at a loss as to why something called the "Presbyterian Outlook" would publish a piece such as this, the type of partisan silliness we see in the public arena from all sides, but here badly attempting to disguise itself with a faint Biblical patina. The author acknowledges that Leviticus 25 among other things suggests that a more egalitarian society is evidence of a more just society, but continues to divert by attacking straw arguments that have not been made. There could be no better evidence of disingenuous intent than dragging out the canard about many Americans paying zero taxes. We all pay many types of taxes, some of which have a greater impact on the wealthy and some of which have a greater impact on the poor. Pretending that the one tax that is reasonably progressive is the only tax is fundamentally dishonest. When all taxes are taken into account, the percent of income involved is fairly flat across income levels, and the very wealthy do not pay a dramatically higher percent of income than the poor, and only a little higher than the middle class. |
Tom Hobson
said:
|
Belleville, IL I did not say that the God of the Bible has nothing to say about justice. I said that God nowhere defines explicitly what a fair wage or a fair price is (the dollar hadn't been invented yet), nor does God even decree that all income should be equal. The words of the prophets against injustice still stand, and Leviticus 25 would have preserved a comparatively egalitarian society if it had been obeyed. As for the rich paying lower tax rates, it's hard to pay lower than zero, which is what almost half of Americans pay. And if the economy is rigged, look who must have pulled the plug on it right before the 2008 election (cui bono?) - the same folks who spent a trillion dollars on "stimulus" and $500 million on Solyndra, none of which money benefited the poor. |
Hart Edmonds
said:
|
Cincinnati, Ohio This is a rather clever way to argue for wealth concentration as if we live in nation where there's an even playing field. As Bill Moyers said, quoting a young Occupy protestor, "The economy isn't broken, it's rigged." Yes, those who benefit among the top 1% often pay, for example, a much lower percentage of their income in taxes. Warren Buffett said it well, "I pay more in taxes than my secretary does." The wealthy are different than you and I, they can pay lobbyists to game the system. Radical income inequality begins to undermine a society, and leads to its eventual rot. It is a matter of justice, and yes the Bible does speak about economic injustice. Check Matthew 25 or Amos or Isaiah or Jesus' first sermon in Luke 4. |
Whit Brisky
said:
|
Chicago, Illinois The Left always confuses the virtue of voluntary giving to help the poor [develop the cultural ability to become self-sustainingly middle class] with government coercion through forced taxation for the redistribution of wealth and income to people who may be where they are because of their own "life choices." Private giving is always better at distinguishing those who deserve help from those who don't, and in structuring aid to encourage self-development and the abandonment of the culture of poverty which is holding them back. I know of no Scripture which instructs people to support a government of redistribution, though many that incourage individual generousity. Matthew 25 is of this sort and contains nothing about how a government should act. Nor can the Left seem to distinguish between a voluntary "community" brought together by common culture and history acting to support the "least of these," and government coercion by those in power. I would also suggest that the Tenth Commandment has something to say about class warfare. |
Bill LeMosy
said:
|
IA Thus says the LORD [according to Amos 2:6]: For three transgressions of Israel, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment; because they sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals— The Old Testament prophets had a keen sense of justice. When some people in the society had much more than they needed for life, while others had too little, Amos ranted with caustic eloquence. I see the Occupy protesters as channeling that prophetic voice into the United States and throughout the global corporatocracy. Here, too, some have much more than they need for sustaining meaningful life, while so many others have inadequate housing, nutrition, security, medical care, and legal protection. Moreover, the situation worsens with each passing decade as the rich grow fatter and the poor grow hungrier. As I see it, equality is not the issue, nor is punishing the rich for building wealth on the backs of the poor, nor is an anachronistic imposition of Marxist theory upon the biblical authors. Rather, the issue is justice, i.e., whether we are willing to let the so-called 1% continue selling “the needy for [an extra] pair of shoes.” Flash forward to Matthew 25. How a nation treats “the least of these” matters. How the Empire treated the vulnerable and increasingly marginalized ones mattered to the first century church. And it matters to us, if we too are trying to follow Jesus. |







