Should Christians join the Occupiers?
A sidebar running below a cable news show recently asked "Would Jesus Be an Occupier?" Anyone who understands Jesus teaching understands that he did not share the values of the Occupiers. Let's compare what the occupiers are advocating with Jesus' teaching and that of his earliest followers. It is hard to determine exactly what the Occupiers are advocating, except they are against Wall Street "greed." Which they believe was represented by AIG and Morgan Stern and other companies that got bailouts as a result of the housing market collapse of 2007. What they do not understand is that Congress created organizations like Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac and required banks to make bad loans. The reason the companies asked for Federal money was that they were implementing Federal banking policy and believed the tax payers should bail them out. This is not to say I agree the bailouts were appropriate see AIG It May Be Time for a Tea Party. I advocated that the economy and the country would have been better off without the bailouts on that point I agree with the occupiers.
The occupiers advocate that instead of being given bailouts corporate money and private wealth should be taken from those who possesses it and distributed to everyone who can show a need for it. For them a gap between wealthy and poor is itself evil. The question on the sidebar "Would Jesus be an Occupier?" premises that Jesus agrees that a gap between rich and poor is inherently evil. In Matthew 26:6 - 13 a woman pours very expensive alabaster over Jesus head merely for his comfort and glory. The disciples were described as "indignant" at what they say as waste. They believed that wealth should be distributed by those who have it to those who do not. Jesus, however, rebuke them and said honoring him was more important than giving to the poor. Jesus never assumed that the prosperity was evil. Jesus presumed that distribution of wealth was neither compassionate nor benevolent. Jesus understood that giving money away whether by philanthropist, or by governments did not lift people out of poverty.
Poverty is a result of a combination of social conditions, government policies and individual choices. The New Testament, the theological and philosophical development of Jesus' teaching, clearly advocates that our material life should reflect our economic choices. Remember how Paul counseled his young disciple, Timothy, to respond to the poor. He said, "he who will not work, should not eat." The church had no obligation to support the irresponsible.
Jesus also taught that the things God gives us we are to invest for growth. In the Parable of the Talents he tells of three men each given stewardship of wealth. Two invest it and increase the size of their master's assets, while a third buries it. It is the one who keeps and hoard whom God condemns, not the one who produces. Most people, maybe even the occupiers, would agree that it is neither benevolent nor compassionate to enable irresponsibility and we all agree that there is no biblical requirement to give money to deadbeats. There is no doubt that the Old and New Testament and Jesus himself commanded believers to take care of the poor and needy. But did Jesus or New Testament advocate a communal redistribution of wealth from the who have to those who do not?
Those who believe it did appeal to a few obscure passage among them, Acts 4:32. "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... There was not a needy person among them , for as many were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold 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) Some people, I'll call them "the social justice crowd" point to this passage as evidence that the early church advocated communal living and redistribution of wealth. Further study in the book of Acts itself reveals that this not the case. The passage refers to a specific situation. It was not the application of Christian values that would succeed or become the norm. It is even doubtful whether the Christian's referenced in the Acts 4 passage lived communally. In the next Chapter in the book of Acts a man, Annanias and his wife, Sapphira, are brought before Peter for profiting from the sale of a piece of property and withholding some of the proceeds for themselves. Notice what Peter says about the property:
"While it remained unsold,did it not remain your own, and after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? (Act 5:4aESV) Peter makes it very clear that the couple owned the property themselves. The community did not. It was at their disposal. They were judged because they had "... not lied not to men, but to God." One can infer from this that certain individuals had agreed to turn some of their wealth over to the community for benevolence, and that they owned it individually until surrendered. Annais and Sapphira were condemned because they vowed to turn their property over to the church, then not only failed to do so, but lied about it. They attempted to defraud the church of what they had agreed to give. There is no indication here that the church was compelling people to give up their property to everyone who had need, rather some who had wealth had agreed to use it for eleemosynary means.
The scriptures both Old and New Testament does teach the poor are to be helped. The question is how are they to be helped. Does that help require an equal of distribution of wealth. A passage that sheds light on how we help the hurting or weak is Galatians 6:2, and 5.
"Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ...For each will have to bear his own load." On the one hand we are commanded to lift people's burden's; on the other hand to hold them responsible for "bearing their own load." What is the difference between a "burden" we are to lift for others and a "load" they are to carry for themselves. The word translated burden makes reference to "boulders" where as load refers to "stones." Years ago my wife and I used to occasionally drive East on I-90 through Washington State's Snoqualmie pass. While the road has few exits, every few miles there are signs along the road reading, "Avalanche Warning." When I would see these signs I would comment that I would rather not see the warning as there was nothing we could do if we were buried under an avalanche. When these avalanches came on this road the victims had to be dug out. This is what Paul means by "burden." Sometimes life avalanches us. We all at times face crises is so severe we cannot help ourselves. In that case it is the church's responsibility to provide relief. Whether the crisis is financial, such as some who is unemployed or underemployed, natural disaster, emotional of family or a health crisis, we are to provide relief for those who are unable to help themselves, but we are not to carry their load.
Several years ago when my children were small I borrowed a friends van so that I could take my family, including my parents, on a trip to the Olympic Peninsula. Our small station wagon did not have room for everyone. Much of Olympic Peninsula is gravel roads. I adapted by driving to the road conditions so my friend's van would not be pitted. The word translated "load," in Galatians 6 may refer to adapting to life's gravel roads. We are commanded specifically not to relieve people of the stress natural to their situation that they are capable of bearing managing themselves. There is no Biblical responsibility for those who are comfortable materially to give up their wealth just so others can be comfortable. No one is helped by being made dependent on government or church.
The idea that the wealthy people are inherently greedy because of their quantity of their possessions is absurd. The idea that a Christian world view demands that the church be a catalyst for "social justice," meaning material redistribution of wealth neither improves society nor promotes justice. So for those who would advocate that if Jesus were alive he would join the Occupy protest I have a few question?
Do we define greed by those who work diligently and build wealth, which they use to create jobs for others and use in philanthropic pursuits, or by those who demand that other people give them what they are capable of earning themselves? Which is selfish, to expect the church or the government to take away the possessions and comfort others have earned it and give it to those who are perfectly capable of working but have done nothing for it? The fact is Jesus avoided political and economic controversy. Remember when asked about taxes he said, "Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's and Paul later said that we paid taxes because governing authorities were "servants of God" (Romans 13:6). Not all protest and civil disobedience is Christian. Jesus would would just as likely engage the wealthy on the floor of the stock exchange as he would the protestors in the streets. One thing is certain he would examine their heart and character rather than their portfolio. He would not be an occupier!
The occupiers advocate that instead of being given bailouts corporate money and private wealth should be taken from those who possesses it and distributed to everyone who can show a need for it. For them a gap between wealthy and poor is itself evil. The question on the sidebar "Would Jesus be an Occupier?" premises that Jesus agrees that a gap between rich and poor is inherently evil. In Matthew 26:6 - 13 a woman pours very expensive alabaster over Jesus head merely for his comfort and glory. The disciples were described as "indignant" at what they say as waste. They believed that wealth should be distributed by those who have it to those who do not. Jesus, however, rebuke them and said honoring him was more important than giving to the poor. Jesus never assumed that the prosperity was evil. Jesus presumed that distribution of wealth was neither compassionate nor benevolent. Jesus understood that giving money away whether by philanthropist, or by governments did not lift people out of poverty.
Poverty is a result of a combination of social conditions, government policies and individual choices. The New Testament, the theological and philosophical development of Jesus' teaching, clearly advocates that our material life should reflect our economic choices. Remember how Paul counseled his young disciple, Timothy, to respond to the poor. He said, "he who will not work, should not eat." The church had no obligation to support the irresponsible.
Jesus also taught that the things God gives us we are to invest for growth. In the Parable of the Talents he tells of three men each given stewardship of wealth. Two invest it and increase the size of their master's assets, while a third buries it. It is the one who keeps and hoard whom God condemns, not the one who produces. Most people, maybe even the occupiers, would agree that it is neither benevolent nor compassionate to enable irresponsibility and we all agree that there is no biblical requirement to give money to deadbeats. There is no doubt that the Old and New Testament and Jesus himself commanded believers to take care of the poor and needy. But did Jesus or New Testament advocate a communal redistribution of wealth from the who have to those who do not?
Those who believe it did appeal to a few obscure passage among them, Acts 4:32. "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... There was not a needy person among them , for as many were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold 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) Some people, I'll call them "the social justice crowd" point to this passage as evidence that the early church advocated communal living and redistribution of wealth. Further study in the book of Acts itself reveals that this not the case. The passage refers to a specific situation. It was not the application of Christian values that would succeed or become the norm. It is even doubtful whether the Christian's referenced in the Acts 4 passage lived communally. In the next Chapter in the book of Acts a man, Annanias and his wife, Sapphira, are brought before Peter for profiting from the sale of a piece of property and withholding some of the proceeds for themselves. Notice what Peter says about the property:
"While it remained unsold,did it not remain your own, and after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? (Act 5:4aESV) Peter makes it very clear that the couple owned the property themselves. The community did not. It was at their disposal. They were judged because they had "... not lied not to men, but to God." One can infer from this that certain individuals had agreed to turn some of their wealth over to the community for benevolence, and that they owned it individually until surrendered. Annais and Sapphira were condemned because they vowed to turn their property over to the church, then not only failed to do so, but lied about it. They attempted to defraud the church of what they had agreed to give. There is no indication here that the church was compelling people to give up their property to everyone who had need, rather some who had wealth had agreed to use it for eleemosynary means.
The scriptures both Old and New Testament does teach the poor are to be helped. The question is how are they to be helped. Does that help require an equal of distribution of wealth. A passage that sheds light on how we help the hurting or weak is Galatians 6:2, and 5.
"Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ...For each will have to bear his own load." On the one hand we are commanded to lift people's burden's; on the other hand to hold them responsible for "bearing their own load." What is the difference between a "burden" we are to lift for others and a "load" they are to carry for themselves. The word translated burden makes reference to "boulders" where as load refers to "stones." Years ago my wife and I used to occasionally drive East on I-90 through Washington State's Snoqualmie pass. While the road has few exits, every few miles there are signs along the road reading, "Avalanche Warning." When I would see these signs I would comment that I would rather not see the warning as there was nothing we could do if we were buried under an avalanche. When these avalanches came on this road the victims had to be dug out. This is what Paul means by "burden." Sometimes life avalanches us. We all at times face crises is so severe we cannot help ourselves. In that case it is the church's responsibility to provide relief. Whether the crisis is financial, such as some who is unemployed or underemployed, natural disaster, emotional of family or a health crisis, we are to provide relief for those who are unable to help themselves, but we are not to carry their load.
Several years ago when my children were small I borrowed a friends van so that I could take my family, including my parents, on a trip to the Olympic Peninsula. Our small station wagon did not have room for everyone. Much of Olympic Peninsula is gravel roads. I adapted by driving to the road conditions so my friend's van would not be pitted. The word translated "load," in Galatians 6 may refer to adapting to life's gravel roads. We are commanded specifically not to relieve people of the stress natural to their situation that they are capable of bearing managing themselves. There is no Biblical responsibility for those who are comfortable materially to give up their wealth just so others can be comfortable. No one is helped by being made dependent on government or church.
The idea that the wealthy people are inherently greedy because of their quantity of their possessions is absurd. The idea that a Christian world view demands that the church be a catalyst for "social justice," meaning material redistribution of wealth neither improves society nor promotes justice. So for those who would advocate that if Jesus were alive he would join the Occupy protest I have a few question?
Do we define greed by those who work diligently and build wealth, which they use to create jobs for others and use in philanthropic pursuits, or by those who demand that other people give them what they are capable of earning themselves? Which is selfish, to expect the church or the government to take away the possessions and comfort others have earned it and give it to those who are perfectly capable of working but have done nothing for it? The fact is Jesus avoided political and economic controversy. Remember when asked about taxes he said, "Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's and Paul later said that we paid taxes because governing authorities were "servants of God" (Romans 13:6). Not all protest and civil disobedience is Christian. Jesus would would just as likely engage the wealthy on the floor of the stock exchange as he would the protestors in the streets. One thing is certain he would examine their heart and character rather than their portfolio. He would not be an occupier!
Comments
Post a Comment