Is Wealth Redistribution Biblical?
October 27th, 2008
After posting the Obama radio interview where he endorses wealth redistribution on my facebook page, I received several good responses. One of which was from my wonderful Aunt whom I love dearly, but respectfully disagree with on this issue. Her comment cited the passage above. I thought it would be beneficial if I posted my response here and let others contribute as well.
This Bible passage tells of a rich young man asking Jesus what he must do to have eternal life. After Jesus told him to keep the commandments, the young man asked Jesus what else he lacked. Here is Jesus’ response (ESV):
21 Jesus said to [the young man], “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 22 When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
I have several responses to this passage, but first I want to reemphasize that I do believe in the authority and reliability of scripture. This event really happened and Jesus really did make those comments. So I am assuming throughout my post (and this entire blog) that Scriptural passages have real-world implications. With that out of the way…
1) There is a difference between Jesus’ commandments to individuals and government coercion. In this story, Jesus did not command his disciples to rob the rich man to give his possessions to the poor. On the contrary, he implies personal responsibility in verse 23 when he states:
“Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven.”
It does not follow that because an action is moral, government should force it to occur. For example, there are many verses that command Christians to tithe. I would shudder at the thought of taxes paying for church budgets however! Instead, I believe 2 Corinthians 9:7 gives good guidance on giving (ESV, emphasis added):
“Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.”
2) If we were to interpret this passage as applying to government, tax rates would be 100%! Jesus tells the young man to sell all that he possesses and give it all to the poor. If this passage were to apply to government, we would have to give Uncle Sam all that we own and let them decide who gets what. There’s a name for such a government system: communism. Obviously, we have seen those results…
3) Even if it is acceptable for government to redistribute wealth, government’s success in alleviating poverty is debatable. The Acton Institute published an excellent video that gives a Christian perspective on how government programs have not helped the poor, but have instead hurt communities. Other studies have had similar results.
It goes without saying, there are many Christian thinkers that would disagree with my assessment. Jim Wallis the founder and editor of Sojourners Magazine, as well as David Beckmann the president of Bread for the World, both have very different opinions. There are also plenty of other verses that have been used to justify wealth redistribution. I would love to hear my readers opinions on this extremely important and hotly debated topic.
October 28th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Wow.
“Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.”
I think that would close the book on the argument. Unless of course cheerful is equivalent to something like patriotic. Then the pro-taxers can use untrue or invalid assumptions about the individual and berate them for not being patriotic……or a cheerful giver. (Patriotic is in reference to Biden’s comments)
However, I would like to see the context of the quote. With these types of arguments you are going to get me to pull my Bible back out.
(Baptist college burnt me out for awhile)
October 28th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Hi Price,
So, here we have the problem. If people would choose the Christian thing to do (which of course means making Love our aim – not our own agenda), we probably would not need government at all. I think people cannot help but act out their beliefs through politics. Hence, the “abortion” issue (and every other moral issue that is posed.) And, we still have that grand debate that Jesus yet again stirs up – Matthew 22:15-22. I guess many of the “right” would call him a “socialist.”
October 29th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I think your analysis of the biblical passage is correct, and I would add that as a Catholic myself, I firmly believe in the doctrine of subsidiarity. Leaving charity up to the government removes responsibility from individual human beings.
Back in 1996 I was an Alan Keyes supporter (back when he was still sane). I went to a speech he gave at a Baptist Church in Atlanta, and he put this all in wonderful perspective. When Jesus talked about helping a person who was stuck in the ditch, he didn’t tell us to go to the local government office in order to get the man out – no, you had to get in the ditch yourself and do it.
October 30th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
But, Can you say that about abortion? …Leaving the freedom for people to decide on their own.
October 30th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Great interpretation! Even from a strictly sociological perspective, their is considerable evidence for the ineffectiveness of the government working to fight poverty, etc. It is no secret that the non-profit sector, churches, and individuals have done more for the impoverished than any government program.
Again though, the passage about not giving reluctantly defines everything. Giving is simply more effective with an open heart.
October 30th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Regarding abortion, it depends on if you believe an unborn baby is a human life. In my opinion, an unborn baby has the right to life, and the government has the obligation to protect human life. So, just like people don’t have the “right” to go on a killing spree in their local mall, they also do not have the right to kill an unborn child.
October 31st, 2008 at 11:29 am
I totally understand your arguments. However, if people did as Jesus commanded (Jesus did not say that you must give joyfully – Jesus said give all you have.) If everyone gave all we had, we might not be dealing with these social situations. It is interesting that Jesus had more to say about money than abortion. No one is commenting on the Matt.22:15-22 scripture. I’m thankful that we can elect our official so that as a government by the people, we can decide where the money goes. Does anyone look at this situation and see that re-distribution means the re-working of welfare which needs a lot of re-distribution. Our money is already taken. It is also interesting that the religious of the time are the ones who demanded that Jesus be crucified.
November 3rd, 2008 at 4:51 pm
What Jesus actually said is not easy to swallow. (That is probably why they crucified him.) Jesus never said “Give what you think you should give in your heart.” Jesus said, “Sell all (all) you have and give all (all) the money to the poor. (I don’t think Jesus even said to do it cheerfully.) Concerning taxes – they are going to be here, there and yonder. (Matt. 22:15-19)Jesus says, “Give to Caesar(the government) that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s.” (Everything belongs to God – so much for prosperity gospel.)That really doesn’t leave any for us peasants. I’m thankful that God provides. I’m also thankful that we have a government where we vote on how we will “redistribute” the wealth (that’s what taxes do.) Ironically, Joe the Plumber, who actually didn’t have enough to start a business might get a little help.
Isn’t is also disconcerting to know that Jesus talked more about money than abortion.