Redistibuting Wealth will Fundamentally Change the American Workforce
Don’t be enamored to quickly by “change.” Barak represents those in a long line of liberal socialists. His call for “change” is nothing of the sort. It may be a change from our current system, but what I mean is that it is nothing “new.”
From an economic standpoint, he is calling for an internal redistribution of Americas wealth. If redistribution is the way America wants to go, that is fine…it is the beauty of a democracy. But people must realize what this means. It is not simply a matter of fixing our current crisis, but placing ourselves under an entirely different type of government sanctioned economic situation which causes “opportunity” to function under the umbrella of a new paradigm. Obama wants to decide who is rich and who is poor. If you are too successful, then you will be punished.
This may sound attractive to the poor. Why wouldn’t it? If you cannot afford health-care, if you cannot pay your mortgage, if you cannot find a job, then the government will take from those who can to provide for you. The government ends up being the hero! Right? Well there are a more than a few major problems with this direction. Let me describe a couple
1. The motive of the labor force will be quit limited. People are motivated by success. There is nothing wrong with this, biblically or otherwise. This does not amount to greed. Even in the Scriptures, we are told to seek treasure in heaven (Matt. 6:20). But when wealth is redistributed the old idea that “hard work pays” will no longer be true. The entrepreneur mentality that has made America great will be drowned as people recognize that, if successful, they will be giving a major portion of their success to the government. Very few people will succeed in this type of socialism because they will have no motive to do so. We will eventually have to reinvent our popular description of America from “The Land of Opportunity” to “The Land of government sanctioned equality.”
2. Less productivity will eventually create an economic collapse, relatively speaking. America is the strongest nation in the world for many reasons, but, economically speaking, it all starts with the labor force and their motives for success. With the motives gone, their will be much less productivity and, hence, less revenue to redistribute.
I am not a rich person (relatively speaking), so I have nothing to lose by ascribing to a plan of wealth redistribution. In fact, I will gain, financially speaking, for a time. Rich people will be suffering on my account. They will have to pay more so that I can pay less. There would be less risk involved in my life. I could rest in the comforts that the government will take care of me and my family if I encounter a personal economic crisis. If I lose my health-care, I can be sure that my children will be taken care of.
But the pragmatic gains of such a system do not give me any comfort, hope, or motivation. Why? Because my financial success or failure is none of the governments business. It is not the government’s job to take from others to give to me. I am not in partnership with the government.
Motivation must be kept in tact if we are to prosper as a nation. There is no way around it. The work force must have a reason to use their gifts in a way that provides hope for success. The government is not our economic savior. . . the solution is and continues to be a motivated work-force.
When you go to the polls, you are not just deciding on a change in the type of government, but a change in a type of country. Is this the “change” you really want?
Join us in reclaiming the mind for Christ. Start The Theology Program in your church.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
- The Redistribution of
WealthTrust: From Stocks to the Lord’s Name - Why Are We in the “Greater Depression”
- First Ever Emerging Study Bible? The Poverty and Justice Bible
- Theology Unplugged - Top Ten Reasons NOT to be a Christian - Because God Will Make Me Healthy and Wealthy
- Is the Threat of Divorce Ever Justified?

Jeffrey on 27 Sep 2008 at 5:49 pm #
Isn’t this a theology blog, not a politics blog? I can understand abortion showing up, but here you’re dealing with economic issues. The Bible/morality/theology are irrelevant here.
Right or wrong, I find it inappropriate to implicitly tie conservative economics with conservative theology. It just adds to the perception that churches are but a tool of the Republican party.
Saint and Sinner on 27 Sep 2008 at 6:41 pm #
“Isn’t this a theology blog, not a politics blog? I can understand abortion showing up, but here you’re dealing with economic issues. The Bible/morality/theology are irrelevant here.”
Sorry, Jeff. Socialism has a one-word definition:
:::***THEFT***:::
By voting for a socialist, you are implicitly breaking the 8th commandment. This issue is VERY religious.
Anthony D. Rogers on 27 Sep 2008 at 7:00 pm #
Your idea of government is jaded and fundamentally wrong. Obama’s plan, while perhaps being socialistic in nature, is not a redistribution of wealth as such. It is, rather, an effort to help those who are struggling and less fortunate. It is comparable to public libraries, which are in place and funded by “the government” (i.e., taxpayers) for the betterment of society. Unless of course you would argue that libraries create less productive librarians, patrons, and information spaces—and somehow punish the successful library user.
Mostly, I am fascinated how often it is conservative Christians who are opposed to programs that (at least in theory) are developed to assist others. You need to critically reexamine your position and if you still find it to be the correct one, please be consistent and call for an end to those socialist public libraries that are helping send our economy down the drain.
C Michael Patton on 27 Sep 2008 at 7:06 pm #
Today is a theopolitical blog!
steph on 27 Sep 2008 at 7:08 pm #
sorry saint and sinner. Right wing conservative politics is all about theft.
steph on 27 Sep 2008 at 7:10 pm #
Michael - fundamentally has an ‘a’.
Cadis on 27 Sep 2008 at 7:26 pm #
Steph -Redistributing has an ‘r’
steph on 27 Sep 2008 at 7:37 pm #
so it does and Americas has an apostrophe. It’s not me who needs to know though is it Cadis?
Jeffrey on 27 Sep 2008 at 7:43 pm #
Saint and Sinner - “By voting for a socialist, you are implicitly breaking the 8th commandment.”
And then from the religious left, voting for McCain is a vote for war, and war kills people, and, and, killing breaks the Sixth Commandment.
Bush/McCain advocate deficit spending. Paul commands us to owe no man anything. Our country’s debt is an enormous sin - we must repent and raise taxes to purge ourselves of the guilt. (Or spend less.)
That’s the problem with religion in politics. It transforms what one thinks is an incorrect or unwise idea into a sinful one. This reduces what could have been a rational discourse over the merits of differing economic structures into Bible thumping.
Yes, Obama would redistribute wealth more so than McCain. Obama will be raising income taxes for the rich. Under his plan, the top rate will go from 35% to about 40%. To put that in perspective, we had a top rate around 90% in the 1950s – even then we were accurately called capitalists.
If you think McCain offers a better economic plan than Obama, then say that. You’d have a good case. But don’t cherry pick the verse of the Bible that best supports your opinion and champion it as the command of the Lord. You’re just making your religion look ridiculous.
dmpkce on 27 Sep 2008 at 8:02 pm #
(I posted this comment once but I got an error on internet explorer)
“labor force” - those who will be paying a higher tax do not in any way represent the labor force. That is just silly. Are you saying the top 3-5% of income earners in America are the labor force? And are you seriously saying that under Obama’s tax plan they would be stripped of being the top 3-5%? That Obama will tax them to poverty? Are you saying there would be no motivation to work if your third car has to be a Honda instead of a Lexus? I’m sorry this just seems like political propaganda.
The idea that people won’t want to work as hard is silly as well. How about working 3 jobs for a single family just to “get by.” I’m not in any way looking for a way to be MORE productive. Do I want my 70 hours a week to count for as much as the CEO who takes a multi-million dollar bonus for his 70 hours? No. I’m sure we need better laptops. I do think it is the responsibility of those who have been blessed with success and riches to make sure their communities thrive instead of their own bank account and vacation homes over seas.
Now, I will concede that the Government is maybe not best suited to redistribute wealth but I do believe they should reward those who see this as their mandate and publically point out those who don’t.
On the theology note, are their any instances of economic redistribution in scripture? I’ll leave this as a hypothetical question.
Ruth Tucker on 27 Sep 2008 at 8:56 pm #
Who really wrote this piece. It can’t be you, Michael. Whether I agree or disagree with you, I’m always impressed with your level headed thoughtfulness. Not this time——–BUT, you probably had your ghost-writer Sarah P. stand in while you went fishin’.
“Rich people will be suffering on my account.” I just get the sniffles thinking about that. Wouldn’t it be sad if an old Enron exec had been made to suffer on your behalf! And what about all the CEOs who have gotten us into this 700 billion dollar mess. Sure would be too bad if they had to “suffer” and not get their golden parachutes and have to live off the measly millions they already grabbed.
Back in 1940, the top execs made approximately 40 times what a working stiff made–on average. In 2000, the top execs made approximately 400 times what a working stiff made. Something is dreadfully wrong. Capitalism may be the American system, but it’s certainly not God’s system. So there!!!
Tim Ricchuiti on 27 Sep 2008 at 10:27 pm #
To call Obama a socialist and his tax plan wealth redistribution is to fundamentally misunderstand both socialism and wealth redistribution. Obama is proposing first of all to let the Bush tax cuts (which, by the by, John McCain did not actually support when they were first launched) sunset, as they were always intended to. Then, he’s proposing to tax the top 1% of wage earners at a slightly higher rate, while taxing the bottom 99% at a slightly lower rate. Again, that’s not socialism or wealth redistribution, that’s a progressive tax system, and we’ve had ours for 150 years. Somehow, we’ve managed alright.
bethyada on 27 Sep 2008 at 11:15 pm #
Isn’t this a theology blog, not a politics blog? I can understand abortion showing up, but here you’re dealing with economic issues. The Bible/morality/theology are irrelevant here.
How pray did you come to this conclusion. Do you think the Bible does not speak to economic issues?
sorry saint and sinner. Right wing conservative politics is all about theft.
Could you please be specific here, I am at a loss to know what you are referring to.
By voting for a socialist, you are implicitly breaking the 8th commandment. This issue is VERY religious.
I have some sympathies with this concept, but as the state is God ordained, taxes do not fully correspond to thievery, however excessive tax, and especially with the idea of giving money to other individuals rather than public projects may possibly be theft.
Mostly, I am fascinated how often it is conservative Christians who are opposed to programs that (at least in theory) are developed to assist others.
They are not, they are when people want to fund their pet projects with other people’s money. However the whole “program” concept is probably fundamentally wrong, but that is another topic.
And then from the religious left, voting for McCain is a vote for war, and war kills people, and, and, killing breaks the Sixth Commandment.
No it does not, killing in war is not murder. A war in general may be moral or immoral, but killing combatants in a moral war is not sinful.
Bush/McCain advocate deficit spending. Paul commands us to owe no man anything. Our country’s debt is an enormous sin - we must repent and raise taxes to purge ourselves of the guilt.
Good point. Added to which is printing money contributing to inflation which preferentially harms the poor. The solution is to lower spending, raising taxes will reap less income in the long term due to its dampening effect on the economy. Don’t ask for a bigger and bigger piece of pie, get a bigger pie.
Obama will be raising income taxes for the rich. Under his plan, the top rate will go from 35% to about 40%.
I sometimes wonder whether taxing the rich is sold as a policy of mercy whereas I suspect it is a politic of envy. Do you want the rich to be less rich or the poor to be richer? The answer to that question makes a huge difference in policy.
I do think it is the responsibility of those who have been blessed with success and riches to make sure their communities thrive instead of their own bank account
I agree. But if you forcibly take their money, how is that in anyway a “responsibility.”
bethyada on 27 Sep 2008 at 11:24 pm #
Wouldn’t it be sad if an old Enron exec had been made to suffer on your behalf!
No, for their own sins, yes; for Michael’s lifestyle, no.
And what about all the CEOs who have gotten us into this 700 billion dollar mess. Sure would be too bad if they had to “suffer” and not get their golden parachutes and have to live off the measly millions they already grabbed.
Exactly, let them fail. Don’t reward bad decisions. Let the successful businesses buy them. Don’t take money from tax-payers to line their pockets. Of course corporatism is often anathema to capitalism. Be very careful not to confuse the 2.
Back in 1940, the top execs made approximately 40 times what a working stiff made–on average. In 2000, the top execs made approximately 400 times what a working stiff made.
Is this true? Walter Williams suggested otherwise. It way my understanding that the richest 1% own a much smaller percentage of the world’s wealth now than 100 years ago. Of course that is a slightly different statistic to yours. If I find the link I’ll post it.
Again, that’s not socialism or wealth redistribution, that’s a progressive tax system, and we’ve had ours for 150 years.
Well it is socialism, you are just saying that it was socialism, it currently is socialism, and it will stay socialism, with a minor adjustment of minimal significance.
Saint and Sinner on 27 Sep 2008 at 11:27 pm #
“And then from the religious left, voting for McCain is a vote for war, and war kills people, and, and, killing breaks the Sixth Commandment.”
That’s extremely naive. The same book that has the 6th commandment also orders death penalties and the invasion of Canaan.
“Bush/McCain advocate deficit spending. Paul commands us to owe no man anything. Our country’s debt is an enormous sin - we must repent and raise taxes to purge ourselves of the guilt. (Or spend less.)”
You’re right on that one. Personally, I think they’re all theives, but McCain is the lesser theif.
“That’s the problem with religion in politics. It transforms what one thinks is an incorrect or unwise idea into a sinful one. This reduces what could have been a rational discourse over the merits of differing economic structures into Bible thumping.”
That’s philosophically naive. One’s interpretation of everything involves a worldview (i.e. metaphysics/religion). The subject is inescapable.
“Yes, Obama would redistribute wealth more so than McCain. Obama will be raising income taxes for the rich. Under his plan, the top rate will go from 35% to about 40%.”
The current tax system along with many of the social programs still involves a punishment of success and a redistibution of wealth to those who didn’t earn it.
“To put that in perspective, we had a top rate around 90% in the 1950s – even then we were accurately called capitalists.”
Which really got started under FDR who was heavily influenced by socialism. Many of his plans stretched out the Great Depression.
“But don’t cherry pick the verse of the Bible that best supports your opinion and champion it as the command of the Lord. You’re just making your religion look ridiculous.”
That’s not my opinion, and yes, that verse does apply to this situation. Socialism is based off of godless Marxist philosophy.
minnowspeaks on 28 Sep 2008 at 12:47 am #
Seems the Jewish people practiced a form of wealth redistribution called Jubilee. Guess the Bible is a bit socialist and doesn’t call that theft anymore than it calls war murder.
bethyada on 28 Sep 2008 at 2:49 am #
Seems the Jewish people practiced a form of wealth redistribution called Jubilee. Guess the Bible is a bit socialist and doesn’t call that theft anymore than it calls war murder.
Read Leviticus 25.
Jubilee was not wealth redistribution. It was returning land to the family. Families were not allowed to sell land, they were allowed to rent it.
You shall pay your neighbor according to the number of years after the jubilee, and he shall sell to you according to the number of years for crops. If the years are many, you shall increase the price, and if the years are few, you shall reduce the price, for it is the number of the crops that he is selling to you….
The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine. For you are strangers and sojourners with me. And in all the country you possess, you shall allow a redemption of the land.
The Isaraelites were allowed to sell houses inside the city and these did not return in the Jubilee.
Socialism is about the state enforcing wealth redistribution. God expects us to be generous, but us giving willingly has almost absolutely nothing in common with government confiscation of money to give to who it wishes.
steph on 28 Sep 2008 at 3:38 am #
Saint and Sinner quoted “And then from the religious left, voting for McCain is a vote for war, and war kills people, and, and, killing breaks the Sixth Commandment.”
and then Saint and Sinner says
“That’s extremely naive. The same book that has the 6th commandment also orders death penalties and the invasion of Canaan.”
I think that is extremely simplistic. “The same book” must be hypocritical and self contradictory according to S and S. Should we just toss it out? Or maybe we can take the ten commandments as timeless rules for living well, and the stories of death and war can be left in their context to give us an idea of situations over two thousand years ago.
McCain kills. The Bible commandment says do not kill.
Tim Ricchuiti on 28 Sep 2008 at 8:54 am #
Well it is socialism, you are just saying that it was socialism, it currently is socialism, and it will stay socialism, with a minor adjustment of minimal significance.
Well, bethyada, if you want to move the goal posts like that, sure, we’ve been a socialist country for 150 years, and we will continue to be one. BUT, if that’s the case, then I’m sure you will agree that Michael’s post is still wrong, inasmuch as if we have been socialist for 150 years, and will continue to be so, Obama represents no major change, contrary to what Michael seems to purport.
Tim Ricchuiti on 28 Sep 2008 at 9:10 am #
In addition to the above comment, however, I have to say I’m not sure what makes anyone thing a progressive tax system is the central tenet of socialism, or that paying taxes is somehow thievery. Do you like highways on which to drive your cars? Being able to use the internet right now to have this discussion? What about a strong national defense? Or public education? Have you ever used a public park? These are the things taxes bring us; the government isn’t stealing anything. It’s doing what a government is supposed to do: collect revenue and disburse monies. That it does so at different levels depending upon any number of different factors, one of which is income level for the income tax system, is not socialism. Or if it is (as I attempted to point out above), then every developed country in the world, including ours, is socialist, and we should probably stop complaining about it.
Ryan on 28 Sep 2008 at 9:26 am #
Dude, please stick to theological, religious, and spiritual reflections…leave the politics for others. I know, as several have noted, that Scripture does speak to economics, etc. etc. etc. But a blog and ministry as noted as yours should stick to what it is good at.
Furthermore, to me, the perspective found in the statement, “People are motivated by success. There is nothing wrong with this, biblically or otherwise. This does not amount to greed. Even in the Scriptures, we are told to seek treasure in heaven (Matt. 6:20).”, seems ironic, given your locale…take offense if you need to…but I’m just say’in that’s all…=)
mwoodard on 28 Sep 2008 at 1:09 pm #
Can someone explain to me how Matt 6:20 correlates to economic prosperity on this earth? The use of that text, in this piece, is a gross misappropriation of an eschatological concept.
And, I’m still waiting for someone on the political right to explain to me what is wrong with wealth redistribution through taxation. Shouldn’t the availability of health care for all people be a goal of any bible believing Christian? I fail to see why we’re at odds with that other than, ironically, a general fear that we may have to give up something financially (which seems incongruent with Matt 6:20 in the first place). Is there nothing wrong when we whole-heartedly fund massive church building projects but can’t stand the thought of giving a little more to help the impoverished? Either we’re looking for ways to prop the Republican party, or we’re failing to seriously wrestle with the ethical implications of the biblical text.
Jeffrey on 28 Sep 2008 at 1:38 pm #
>if you want to move the goal posts like that, sure, we’ve been a socialist country for 150 years, and we will continue to be one.
What!? You mean I can’t simply conclude all Democrats are evil by calling them socialists? But that would mean people like Lambaugh, who I listen to oh so critically, are sometimes wrong!
Stop making me think!
Tony on 28 Sep 2008 at 5:57 pm #
Sorry to see politics intrude itself , purposefully, into this blog.
The lessons of the past ten years are still unlearned.
The same arguments made to prop up the Vietnam war, the same
parsing of the Hebrew Testament (taking history for religious law)
The same total ignoring of the Gospels of Jesus Christ and all he said
about the poor. If Jerry Falwell was right about our being punished
for sin, is isn’t allowing homosexuals to live in peace that is our problem.
It is our treatment of the poor, the undertrod, the underpaid, the modern
equivalent of slavery that multiple jobs just for survival has become.
If you can’t abide reading the Gospels, then at least read Amos.
Tony on 28 Sep 2008 at 6:04 pm #
P.S. The first socialists were called Apostles; read Acts.
The next ones were called monks. Just because Marx and the Soviets
called it “Socialism” doesn’t make it so. Those racist gun nuts in the woods
call themselves “Christians”, but that doesn’t make it so. Any system works
if people are honest and work for the common good. It is people who can and do
pervert any system, be it capitalist, socialist, aristocracy or whatever.
Work for the Kingdom.
Seek justice, and you won’t have to worry what to call any particular system.
Dave Z on 28 Sep 2008 at 7:28 pm #
to mwoodard:
People should work for what they receive, as Adam worked, by the sweat of his brow.” I know people who live off government giveaways - they do not work. Our church sees them on a regular basis; healthy young men who are on “disability,”living with women on welfare, then coming to our church looking for a handout. We don’t see them on Sundays, only during the week. They crush out their cigarettes (at $3 a pack) in the parking lot, then come in asking for money for food. We had one guy come in with his wife and 5 kids. We gave them a $150 credit at the local store (with restrictions such as no cigs, no alcohol) and when the guy said he had construction experience, we offered him a couple weeks of work. He put in about 2 hours, left the job half finished and never came back. And you want me to give people like that health insurance?
So…”Shouldn’t the availability of health care for all people be a goal of any bible believing Christian?” NO!
2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.”
Besides, unless you focus only on the sob stories offered by those who need to create a crisis to get elected, health care is widely available - I know another family - single mom, employed part-time (deadbeat dad disappeared) and 3 kids. They’re at the doctor’s office far more than I am.
How can it be that people think Socialism can work? We saw it fail all around the world in the 20th Century. Rich leadership becomes ultra-rich and the common people wait in bread lines. Talk to someone who lived in the former Soviet Union.
And to steph:
“McCain kills. The Bible commandment says do not kill.”
There is a difference between murder and killing. The Commandments use the word for murder. Your lack of distinguishing the terms leaves your credibility suspect.
Besides, what do you think Obama means when he says he will take no option off the table concerning Iran? He is willing to send troops overseas to fight. We’ve had as many wars started by Democrats as we have had by Republicans.
Chris Roxie on 28 Sep 2008 at 7:57 pm #
What Senator Obama wants to try has already been done. It was called the “Great Society” and a liberal president named LBJ started it
back in the 60’s and it helped to destroy the inner city and create even greater poverty and moral decay.
Secondly, the Bible commands personal charity. I think it
is ironic that liberals give less to charity than conservatives.
See Obama, Biden, or Gore’s tax returns. I would also
like to challenge you to read the book, Who Really Cares,
by Arthur C. Brooks. He chronicles and details how conservative republicans give more to charity than liberal
democrats. Biden gave a paltry $120 to charity in 2007 but
made over six figures not including his wife’s income.
The donations to charity from republicans, conservatives,
libertarians and the religious far exceed the donations
made by the secular, non-religious and progressive
liberal democrats. It is a undisputed and documented
fact.
Third, don’t believe the smoke and mirrors of Obama’s economic
plans. If he is elected, all of our taxes will go up because there isn’t enough money for him to carry out his planned
promises of “economic justice”. I would like to ask the liberal readers to grow up and realize that we are all
at different economic levels because we operate at
different levels of talent, ability, maturity and personal
responsibility. We are equal in that we are human but
don’t kid yourself into thinking we can create an economic
utopia in this country. Socialism might work
in a small Scandanavian country but not in a country of
almost 300 million people. We are equal in our humanity
but not equal in our abilities. We pay Tony Romo millions
because his skills are in demand and the market place
will pay him. We pay CEO’s millions because their skills
are in demand and the market will pay it. We pay
grocery store clerks $9.50 because it isn’t a skill that
is in demand.
Obama promises to raise the capital gains tax. If you
have a 401K plan or any retirement account, get ready
to receive a beating on your investment portfolio.
Fourth, 40 percent of people in the US do not pay income taxes, and any money received by them would be in the
form of a free government check at the expense of another.
Fifth, if Obama is elected, guess what? I want him to
be a good President because we only suffer if he falters
or stumbles. I will pray he makes good decisions and
that God gives him wisdom and strength.
Finally, I believe capitalism is a sound and Biblically based
economic system that as evidenced by the American success
story is the only valid, workable and fair system to employ
in a fallen world.
Waiting for the hate mail.
mwoodard on 28 Sep 2008 at 8:41 pm #
DaveZ,
You response is quite common in evangelical circles, and to be honest, I find it incredibly myopic. First of all, it labors under the common American presumption that all wealth is earned and equal opportunity is afforded all individuals across the board. There are several problems with this. The first, and most disturbing, is the false belief that all wealth is “merited.” I lived three years in downtown Dallas and worked extensively with clients in the Highland Park area. A large percentage of those individuals inherited wealth, as is often the case, and did very little to “earn” what they had. What is your attitude toward those individuals? Should we take away the food of the rich that don’t have to work?
My point is that there are just as many, if not more, lazy people among the wealthy as there are among the poor.
You also assume that the opportunities to accrue wealth are equal for all. This is patently false. Children born into poverty are on a completely different socio-economic plane than children born into homes with even moderate incomes. A lot of the bad examples you just mentioned (and again, there in every bunch) are often those so born of despair & frustration that they, in effect, give up. I honestly ask you, does Christ give up on them as you have?
Finally, you’re grossly mishandling the 2 Thess. 3:10. The text clearly governs situations in which one refuses to eat, not those unable to provide for themselves. If you want to make the generalization that all people on welfare are lazy, than that be on your conscience. Again, 2 Thess 3:10 does not support sweeping generalizations!
I don’t think Obama needs to create any crises. The Bush administration has given plenty of material, be it over-zealous borrowing from the Chinese to fund a war built on false premises or the fiscally irresponsible bail-outs. By the way, do you have a problem giving your tax money to the white collar Wall Street guys whose gross incompetence & greed have created the problem?
mwoodard on 28 Sep 2008 at 10:02 pm #
Chris writes,
“Finally, I believe capitalism is a sound and Biblically based
economic system that as evidenced by the American success
story is the only valid, workable and fair system to employ
in a fallen world.”
I’m not sure the “American success” story is the yard-stick by which to measure whether a given economic/political system is biblically based! Economic systems in the ancient world were incredibly complex and bore far closer semblance to “socialism” than modern democracy. The faith developed amidst a “primitive” socialism built around patron-client relationships and a wealthy elite (~1-3% of the population) that controlled most of the goods. Only a few hundred years later this evolved into Eusebius’ espousal of a total monarchy in his praising of Constantine. And so on, and so on! The point being that you can fit any given social/political structure into a “biblically informed” world-view and try to spin it. Unless you want to go down the road of trajectory hermeneutics, which most conservatives avoid, than your argument lacks valid support.
From The Balcony on 28 Sep 2008 at 10:19 pm #
Ruth — your comments surprised me. I’m so weary of people believing the untruth that liberals are the only ones who care about social justice. Whoever came up with the across-the-board belief that liberals are the only ones who want to help with social issues and concerns? I know many strong conservatives who give much more than anyone will ever see to social causes all over the world and in our own communities. Liberals might be surprised….but God isn’t. He sees. I truly am weary of people thinking that somehow, because we are conservatives—we must not care. I care and I am conservative. I put my money where my mouth is. The fact is: one party does not have the right to claim they care more than the other—and then use that false belief for their gain.
Let’s make it real. If by chance, we look Raines…how can one not see that he had everything to do with the fall of Fannie Mae! That sure affected a lot of lower and middle income people. Raines basically redistributed the wealth he created from approving loans to people who could not afford them (by assuring them they could afford them!)….and then he pocketed millions of $$ right into his own personal pocketbook through bonuses he gave to himself. Along the way somehow he became Obama’s key financial adviser. If this corruption is as deep as I think we will soon discover, do we really want this kind of dishonesty running our failing economic system? Does not God expect integrity? Doesn’t this affect our poor and middle class in an extreme way?
And as far as your comment about capitalism not being in God’s plan—tell that to wealthy Abraham…..tell it to wealthy Job who said…The LORD gives, and the LORD takes away. Giving and sharing has nothing to do with political affiliation. You can be wealthy and love/share….and many do.
Michael - I’m with you on this one. Politics does affect religion….and our faith should affect our view of politics. Those who fail to think outside of party denominations fail to use the discernment God gave us. And I thank God that Sarah Palin uses her faith to demonstrate what we all should be doing. Standing up for our faith. She’s not perfect. None of us are, but at least she doesn’t use her religion to damn America.
Jeffrey on 28 Sep 2008 at 11:32 pm #
Dave Z,
It sounds like some lazy people are supporting their lazy lifestyles partially through your church. Does this mean your church should start a new policy of not giving money to the poor? Of course not!
One option is to either work harder to help your church more effectively figure out who can be helped and who is beyond help. Another option is to just accept the fact that when you help people, some of that effort will be exploited - and then help them anyway.
Government programs often find themselves in the same situation in dealing with their flaws. The options are to be canceled, reformed, or for the flaws to just be accepted as part of the cost of helping the needy. The correct answer will never be uniform across all situations and programs.
There are no doubt problems with welfare or universal health care caused by undeserving people receiving help. But whether or not this bad outweighs the good is something that must be considered on a case-by-case basis, rather than through generalizations about how much help the Bible says the poor should receive.
A real debate should take place within these parameters. The conservatives would be the people more prone to concluding a program is not worth it and should be cut. The liberals would be the people more prone to concluding reform is possible or the costs are worth it. This is the kind of rational discussion that is almost completely missing in America as partisans demonize the other side.
I know you shouldn’t really care what an infidel has to say about the Bible, but can’t you just look at helping the poor v. if you don’t work then don’t eat as balancing truths intentionally left in tension? Similarly, Proverbs talks about a wise man saving for his grandchildren while Luke 12:20 mocks treasure on earth. You’re supposed to leave them in tension and then use prayer/discernment/reason to figure out which truth applies in each particular situation.
The worst thing you can do is analyze which verse or biblical concept trumps the other. Even if you are right, what will happen is you will find the biblical basis for the political idea you already possessed. This concept then becomes written in stone as not your opinion, but as the command of God. You then become prone to applying that same verse in a new situation whether or not you are right the second time.
It’s just agonizing to hear what should be an economic debate come down to “you don’t care about the poor” “well you’re a socialist.”
C Michael Patton on 29 Sep 2008 at 12:08 am #
Great comment folks. It goes to show that there are some very strong feelings about this. Thanks for participating thus far.
Couple of comments that will repeat some things that have already been said.
1. I don’t advocate a septation of one’s political view from their theological views for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, it is impossible. Every area of politics has a principlized foundation that will ultimately be theological. Second, one should not even strive for such to live a thoroughly converted life. Our Christianity is not a Sunday morning Christianity. We should be Christians everywhere and in everything, allowing Christ to convert us wholistically. To say that we separate the political life from the spiritual is very naive and unbiblical.
2. The actions of the first Christian communities in Acts cannot does not support government sanctioned redistribution of wealth. It evidences a willing distribution to those in need. If anyone thinks that conservatives such as myself think that the rich should horde their money, they have missed the conservative boat by a mile. We should be very generous as God has prospered us. But the government cannot sanction this type of morality and should not force the hand of anyone.
Those who referred to the Israelites system of government need to step back and take a second look. They were under an agreed upon theocracy which is very different from our system and cannot find parallels the way some are promoting. God rewarded the nation of Israel much differently.
3. The work force is the primary focus of this post. Do you not think the work force includes the rich? There is a mass prejudice here against people who have money which is as unbiblical as a prejudice against people who don’t.
But my point is that the work force will be demotivated to strive for success. This success often has financial incentives that are deserved in a capitalistic society. If you don’t like capitalism, this is fine, but, in my opinion it is the best system out there, even if there are risks that people will horde. We can put certain sanctions in place to regulate this, but we dare not take away this incentive.
4. The point of the “seek first the kingdom of God . . . and all these things will be added to you” was not the focus on the “kingdom of God” aspect, but the motive that is implied that God rewards those who work hard. “Seek” and “added to you” is the key. This is a heavenly principle that should find its foreshadowing here, whether it be financial or otherwise. This does not need to amount to hording, but to responsible commerce. Without it, society will never be free and successful.
Infrastructure, in my view is the providing force of the government. They don’t pull the wagon, they don’t stock the wagon, they stand beside the wagon and protect it.
minnowspeaks on 29 Sep 2008 at 12:48 am #
@ Bethyada–Yes, the original tenents on the land recieve the land back at the Jubilee. What you neglected to recognize is the fact that each was originally given land (thus a level playing field) and when they sold or lost that land some how and another person (persumably a wealthier person) accquired the land the person who accumulated the land did not just get to keep it and continue to accquire more and more wealth. Even the acquisition of the land can be seen as for the benefit of the person who was selling, not necessarily the person buying since a relative was expected to redeem the land if possible.
My point in even saying what I did to begin with was to say we can make the Bible fit whatever we are trying to prove/ advocate. BUT that is not really how we should be treating the Bible.
To say that American is a Christian nation is false. It insults every American Jew, American Muslim, American Buddhist, etc. who lives here. Our government may support principles that Christianity also supports but to say that makes it Christian just isn’t true. Therefore to suggest that our government must or should or has the right to or even can practice Christian charity, compassion is also wrong. Only individuals can practice Godly behavior. Only individuals can be selflessly motivated. We the Church have fallen down on our job but turning that job over to the government has not worked. It has created a welfare class, an entitlement mentality and has allowed prejudice, greed and arrogance to prosper.
C Michael Patton on 29 Sep 2008 at 1:21 am #
Minnow, great comments. I agree completely.
Dave Z on 29 Sep 2008 at 2:42 am #
OK, mwoodard, consider it “incredibly myopic” if you wish (Gee, I hope some day I can grow up to see as clearly as you), but the fact is that our church has offered work to people who simply don’t want it. I do not feel we have any obligation to feed such people.
You speak of those “so born of despair & frustration that they, in effect, give up.” I can’t help but think that they are able to give up only because someone is there to hand them a government check and pat them on the back and say “There, there, it’s not your fault.” Our system enables them to become leeches on our society. Few people would choose to starve to death if work were available. Hunger is a strong motivator. But why should they work when they’re already feeding at the public trough?
You write “Should we take away the food of the rich that don’t have to work?” isn’t that what you are advocating? If not the food of the rich, then the financial resources that supply food.
And to Jeffery, do you really think we do not try to discern who is really needy and then meet those needs? We do consider it on a case-by-case basis as you suggest.
We are commanded to take care of the poor. Love demands it. We are taught to give and to give generously. And I do, so lighten up on that. But show me where scripture commands taking care of the poor with someone else’s money. Where are we taught to compel others to give? But that’s what taxation for social programs is.
I just hate what I see as the “Daddy-knows-best” philosophy of government. Do you believe government will display the discernment and wisdom you advocate? Am I (are we) supposed to write a blank check for health care
to the same government that already uses my tax money to pay for killing unborn children? Over 110,000 children killed at taxpayer expense in my state alone in just one year. How many “medically necessary” sex reassignment surgeries will I be paying for?
As I said, I know poor people, and they are not lacking health care. They’re actually doing OK. In one family of four, living under the poverty level and receiving public assistance, two of the kids are attending college subsidized at taxpayer expense. Now, to be fair, they only have one car, and no cable TV. But they do have cell phones.
I have to agree with CMP that “There is a mass prejudice here against people who have money” I can’t help but wonder if some of that is based on jealousy. But for whatever reason, the proposed solution so often is to have the government take that money away, as if wealth itself is inherently unfair. And that is the heart of Socialism.
bethyada on 29 Sep 2008 at 2:57 am #
The first socialists were called Apostles
Compulsory ≠ voluntary.
Well, bethyada, if you want to move the goal posts like that, sure, we’ve been a socialist country for 150 years, and we will continue to be one.
The degree to which your country is socialist can be debated, I was pointing out that progressive taxation is already socialist. And I believe many dislike Bush and McCain because they are socialist.
I have to say I’m not sure what makes anyone thing a progressive tax system is the central tenet of socialism, or that paying taxes is somehow thievery.
Progressive taxation (other than decreasing a nations prosperity) is an attempt at equal outcomes. It has everything to do with making the people the same monetarily and nothing to do with increasing government funds.
For the state to collect money to use its mandate is not (necessarily) thievery. To take money from 1 individual to give to another individual is suspiciously similar to burglary. And to gain votes by offering men other men’s money sounds very much like bribery.
By the way, do you have a problem giving your tax money to the white collar Wall Street guys whose gross incompetence & greed have created the problem?
This wasn’t addressed to me and its not my money, but yes. Special favours are special favours, whether to the rich or to the poor.
***
minnow the original tenents on the land recieve the land back at the Jubilee. What you neglected to recognize is the fact that each was originally given land (thus a level playing field)
Exactly. But this is equal opportunity. Many capitalists are happy with a degree of equal opportunity (how that is implemented is likely highly debated). The problem with socialism is it argues for equal outcome.
when they sold or lost that land some how and another person (persumably a wealthier person) accquired the land the person who accumulated the land did not just get to keep it and continue to accquire more and more wealth.
No, you could accumulate wealth. In fact you could accumulate much wealth and pass it on in your family. You could even buy a big house in the city. You just could not accumulate land. Land in an agrarian society is analogous to a plumber’s or a carpenter’s tools, not a waterfront property.
My point in even saying what I did to begin with was to say we can make the Bible fit whatever we are trying to prove/ advocate. BUT that is not really how we should be treating the Bible.
But we can’t, that is why I challenged your exegesis, I thought it faulty. People in this debate here are arguing how they see the economic situation from how they read Scripture. But the fact we do this does not mean every opinion is legitimate.
I agree that the Bible is our authority, so we need to change our ideas when they contradict Scripture.
To say that American is a Christian nation is false.
I don’t recall saying this, nor do I necessarily think this. Though I do think some of its prosperity is due to historic Christian principles.
Therefore to suggest that our government must or should or has the right to or even can practice Christian charity, compassion is also wrong. Only individuals can practice Godly behavior. Only individuals can be selflessly motivated.
Agreed.
We the Church have fallen down on our job but turning that job over to the government has not worked.
I probably lack information in this area, but I am not certain that the church gave this to the government. The church was very effective previously. I think the government took it because of its own agenda and the church subsequently has possibly been less involved.
It has created a welfare class, an entitlement mentality and has allowed prejudice, greed and arrogance to prosper.
Yes.
bethyada on 29 Sep 2008 at 3:15 am #
I think capitalism is to be favoured if maximising prosperity for all men including (probably: especially) the poor. Of course maximising prosperity may not be a good thing given the parable of the wheat.
There are several reasons for my belief and they would take much room, suffice it to say that I think there are some false beliefs about what capitalism does, how it creates wealth, and how it benefits the poor. A good article by Brent Hardaway is Christianity and Capitalism: A look at the Bible, economics, and social justice. It is very long; he interacts a lot with Sidey.
For those who oppose capitalism for its supposed evils I strongly recommend Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt.
steph on 29 Sep 2008 at 4:12 am #
bethyada:
it’s about exploiting the planet and underprivileged and satisfying the wealthy.
Dave Z:
The commandments are in Hebrew. You need to brush up or your credibility is suspect.
Finally, I don’t see why several readers of this blog have complained about the subject the blogger has chosen. It’s his blog. If you don’t like it you can skip it surely.
steph on 29 Sep 2008 at 4:26 am #
Dave Z
I think I know what Obama means about Iran. While he is less offensive than McCain I don’t agree with Obama on alot of things. Did I say I did? I don’t think so. My country’s government who I have voted for three terms now, is a left wing strongly anti war government. The only criticism I have of my Prime Minister is that she isn’t green enough. That’s why I always give my second vote to the Greens who hold seats in our left wing parliament.
dmpkce on 29 Sep 2008 at 6:36 am #
“I think capitalism is to be favoured if maximising prosperity for all men including (probably: especially) the poor.”
Why? There isn’t any evidence of this. Simply, the rich have gotten much, much richer and the freedom to let the market rule itself and to allow individuals to freely see it as their responsibility to help the poor hasn’t worked. The rich have gotten richer, the poor have gotten poorer. The idea of equal opportunity to achieve prosperity (if that is indeed what we should be shooting for) hasn’t worked.
The middle and lower income brackets give higher percentages of their income away to charity than the rich. Why is this? Why don’t the rich miraculously see this as their responsibility? Are some among the rich very generous? Of course, but on average, as a system, the rich have only gotten richer.
So how about this, let us concede the government shouldn’t and can’t rightly mandate it. Does the government have any role in creating a kind of system or country that encourages it? And how?
Or is it back to the old, “our country is the greatest and people are just good in general and they will all do what is right and not buy their third vacation home and help the poor, working, single mom?”
Luke on 29 Sep 2008 at 9:08 am #
I don’t understand you sometimes CMP. Sometimes you can be such an “outside the box” and fresh thinker, demonstrating your Christianity by the tone of your posts and how you live your life. Yet, there’s still this part of you that is still such a white, middle-upper class (though I know you’re not, it’s what it sounds like), ethnocentric American who is a diehard Republican who thinks if a democrat gets elected it will be the end of the world and the Republicans are who Jesus would vote for that you just can’t let go of.
You talk like it’s going to be the end of the world or something if Obama gets elected. Come on man, we were just fine with Clinton for 8 years, and much worse off with your boy Bush…quit making it out to be so much more than what it is. It’s not really going to make that big of a difference, seriously.
If you want the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer then that’s fine with me, but don’t blame me and act like I’m not being “biblical” if I don’t see things through the same lens. It looks like I may possibly be low-class my entire life, and I would love it if it weren’t so tough on me, and I will continue to work my butt off every bit as much either way, no matter what.
Bill Kitchen on 29 Sep 2008 at 9:39 am #
“You talk like it’s going to be the end of the world or something if Obama gets elected. Come on man, we were just fine with Clinton for 8 years, and much worse off with your boy Bush…quit making it out to be so much more than what it is. It’s not really going to make that big of a difference, seriously.”
Wrong, my friend, Clinton dropped the ball during his eight years in office. This is why we are having to bail out these
big lending companies. It is a documented fact that Clinton
pressed through his cronies financial institutions to approve
more high risk and lower income people to receive home loans. This was a nice feather in his cap and mirrors the
social justice gospel of economic justice that liberal Christians
preach. It doesn’t work!!!
It matters who we put in the White House!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From The Balcony on 29 Sep 2008 at 9:53 am #
A very wise, compassionate, godly man told many of us who volunteer regularly to help the poor around the world….
“God gave you enough so that you could give to those who do not have enough.”
To me the key words are “so that YOU could give……” meaning that others should not give for you. You should be the one humbly and sacrificing giving from your heart. Giving isn’t really giving if you allow others to do it for you. We give not only because God commanded us, but because we love our Father (the giver of all things) so very much that His love overflows through us. Thus we give to those in true need….not those who are lazy and refuse to work.
Just food for thought.
C Michael Patton on 29 Sep 2008 at 11:06 am #
Luke,
“Yet, there’s still this part of you that is still such a white, middle-upper class (though I know you’re not, it’s what it sounds like), ethnocentric American who is a diehard Republican who thinks if a democrat gets elected it will be the end of the world and the Republicans are who Jesus would vote for that you just can’t let go of.”
Wow! You got all of that from one post? “End of the world”?
britphil on 29 Sep 2008 at 11:30 am #
Can I just begin by saying I am really glad that I have waited until now before responding to Michael’s original posting.
“I don’t understand you sometimes CMP. Sometimes you can be such an “outside the box” and fresh thinker, demonstrating your Christianity by the tone of your posts and how you live your life. Yet, there’s still this part of you that is still such a white, middle-upper class (though I know you’re not, it’s what it sounds like), ethnocentric American who is a diehard Republican who thinks if a democrat gets elected it will be the end of the world and the Republicans are who Jesus would vote for that you just can’t let go of.”
Luke my friend, you echo my own sentiments as there is part of me which really becomes confused sometimes when reading postings such as this one by Michael. Again, as with the “Green issues” post I allowed myself the luxury of several days before deciding to respond so that I could try to properly absorb what Michaell was saying, and try to produce a balanced and considered response.
My initial thoughts were that Michael was deliberately trying to be a tad provocative and mischievous in attempting to provoke an angry knee-jerk response from Christians of a non-Republican/non-conservative leaning, so I decided to give myself a bit of time and space to reflect on what Michael has said and also to read through the comments/replies from earlier respondents.
“If you want the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer then that’s fine with me, but don’t blame me and act like I’m not being “biblical” if I don’t see things through the same lens”
Well said Luke, although I don’t think Michael actually believes that all non-conservatives are thoroughly unbiblical, (just mostly unbiblical!!) and he does allow us to view things differently even though he may not agree with us.
“.It looks like I may possibly be low-class my entire life, and I would love it if it weren’t so tough on me, and I will continue to work my butt off every bit as much either way, no matter what.”
My concern Luke is that many, though by no means all on the conservative right have little experience of living, serving or ministering on a day-by-day basis in a tough urban, often poor context where issues of inequality or injustice are everyday realities, and which are faced by Christians both within the church and non-Christians outside of it.
“Isn’t this a theology blog, not a politics blog? I can understand abortion showing up, but here you’re dealing with economic issues. The Bible/morality/theology are irrelevant here…. Right or wrong, I find it inappropriate to implicitly tie conservative economics with conservative theology. It just adds to the perception that churches are but a tool of the Republican party.”…
Sorry Jeffrey but I have to profoundly disagree with you here. What irks me is when abortion is considered to be the only “political/ethical issue that can be discussed, (ie producing one-issue “abortion” Christians).
“How pray did you come to this conclusion. Do you think the Bible does not speak to economic issues?” Spot on Bethyada. As a Christian with an economics background such a response gladdens my heart.
“”Rich people will be suffering on my account.” I just get the sniffles thinking about that. Wouldn’t it be sad if an old Enron exec had been made to suffer on your behalf! And what about all the CEOs who have gotten us into this 700 billion dollar mess. Sure would be too bad if they had to “suffer” and not get their golden parachutes and have to live off the measly millions they already grabbed.”
Ruth Turner, please stand up and take a bow! This is the area where I feel Michael’s argument is at its weakest. Is it morally and spitirually right to remain silent about CEOS who continue to trade and conduct business and make hugh profits at the expense of ordinary working people. There are thousands of hard-working ordinary people here in the UK who have recently discovered that the company pension schemes who have paid into company pension schemes all thier lives only to discover that their hard earned and hard worked for retirement income has been recklessly gambled away and frittered away by so-called entrepeneurs who then walk away with millions. Not all wealth creation is wrong or bad, but wealth creation which is for personal gain and deliberately targets the most vulnerable in society has to be challenged. Nowhere, it would appear to me, does Michael offer a credible critique of such economic activity which is all too commonplace.
“Your idea of government is jaded and fundamentally wrong. Obama’s plan, while perhaps being socialistic in nature, is not a redistribution of wealth as such. It is, rather, an effort to help those who are struggling and less fortunate. It is comparable to public libraries, which are in place and funded by “the government” (i.e., taxpayers) for the betterment of society. Unless of course you would argue that libraries create less productive librarians, patrons, and information spaces—and somehow punish the successful library user. Mostly, I am fascinated how often it is conservative Christians who are opposed to programs that (at least in theory) are developed to assist others. You need to critically reexamine your position and if you still find it to be the correct one, please be consistent and call for an end to those socialist public libraries that are helping send our economy down the drain.”
Anthony - well said!
Something is dreadfully wrong. Capitalism may be the American system, but it’s certainly not God’s system. So there!!!” (Ruth Tucker)”
Ruth, thank you for such incisive comment. It also gives me the freedom to say what I am about to say. I get very concerned by Amercian Christians who are convinced that ruthless and relentless pursuit of the American dream is always totally in line with God’s will. I see very few contributors to this blog even daring to hint that the current financial crisis that the USA, and hence the world also, finds itself in, may be a means of God calling us to a severe reality check! ie you cannot expect to carry on like this and expect that I automatically approve and am going to bless you!
“To call Obama a socialist and his tax plan wealth redistribution is to fundamentally misunderstand both socialism and wealth redistribution. Obama is proposing first of all to let the Bush tax cuts (which, by the by, John McCain did not actually support when they were first launched) sunset, as they were always intended to. Then, he’s proposing to tax the top 1% of wage earners at a slightly higher rate, while taxing the bottom 99% at a slightly lower rate. Again, that’s not socialism or wealth redistribution, that’s a progressive tax system, and we’ve had ours for 150 years.”
“In addition to the above comment, however, I have to say I’m not sure what makes anyone thing a progressive tax system is the central tenet of socialism, or that paying taxes is somehow thievery. Do you like highways on which to drive your cars? Being able to use the internet right now to have this discussion? What about a strong national defense? Or public education? Have you ever used a public park? These are the things taxes bring us; the government isn’t stealing anything. It’s doing what a government is supposed to do: collect revenue and disburse monies. That it does so at different levels depending upon any number of different factors, one of which is income level for the income tax system, is not socialism. Or if it is (as I attempted to point out above), then every developed country in the world, including ours, is socialist, and we should probably stop complaining about it.”
Tim Ricchuiti…how I would like to shoot the breeze over a few sodas with you my friend. Your contributions are cogent, intelligent, thoughtful and wise.
Now to comment directly on Micheal’s original posting.
1. The motive of the labor force will be quite limited. “People are motivated by success”. There is nothing wrong with this, biblically or otherwise. This does not amount to greed. Even in the Scriptures, we are told to seek treasure in heaven (Matt. 6:20). But when wealth is redistributed the old idea that “hard work pays” will no longer be true. “The entrepreneur mentality that has made America great” will be drowned as people recognize that, if successful, they will be giving a major portion of their success to the government. Very few people will succeed in this type of socialism because they will have no motive to do so. “We will eventually have to reinvent our popular description of America from “The Land of Opportunity” to “The Land of government sanctioned equality.”
Firstly I would like to respond that not all people are motivated by “success” There is an even bigger philosophical questions which lies behing this assertion. How do we define, judge and assess “success” It would appear Michael that you have left a key word out of your original statement and that what you are trying to say is that people are motivated by “financial success”. Many people are, but I know many people for whom this not the most powerful motivating factor in their life. Also you say that “this does not amount to greed”. Again I feel that a key word has been left out of this statement “this does not neccesarily amount to greed. In a number of cases it does not, but in many cases it would have to be argued that the desire to make mioney for making money’s sake is the most powerful motivator in the lives of many people.
2. “Less productivity will eventually create an economic collapse, relatively speaking.”
Please corrrect me if I am wrong but the present economic collapse and crisis has nothing whatsoever to do with reduced productivity and everything to do with risk taking going way too far!
3. “The entrepreneur mentality that has made America great”
Herein I feels lies the problem and thsi is not restricted to American entrepeneurs but is true the world over. On a recent family break we visited Cadbury World in Birmingham UK. For those who do not know this is located in the suburb of Bournville just outside Birmingham City Centre. The Cadbury family were Quakers and much of the immense profit that they began to make as the company profits grew was mostly ploughed back into the family business. Houses were built for emplyees, libraries, concert ha;;s, parks and lecture hall were built for the factory workers. In short the key motivator was not financial success for its own sake but so that it could provide a better quality and standard of living for its employees. There were a number of similar philanthropic entrepeneurs and it appears to me that entrepeneurship is only one side of the equuation. What an entrepeneur does with the vast profits they make is another…do they choose to line their own pockets..do they offer hugh financial bonuses to the select few… or do they use their profits to seek the benefit of all. Approximately 15 miles from where I live is the village of Port Sunlight, built by the Lever Borthers for the workers. The housing in this area is still of a really highquality and right in the centre of the village estate is an acclaimed Art Gallery, the Lady Lever Gallery, which is free and open to all.
It would appear to me that the age of the philanthropic entrepeneur has well and truly gone. The parish where the church of which I am part of the leadership team is situated slap bang in the middle of an area known colloquially as “the Klondyke” not because of norotious lawlessness and anarchy as it may first suggest, but becasue it was named after Klondyke Jones, the entrepenur/philanthropist buisnessman who used the vast fortune he had amassed through his business toprovide affordable social housing for the economically poor and vulnerable. Where are such philanthopist businessmen/women today. There area few. Bill Gates, Sir Richard Branson, the late Anita Roddick spring to mind, and by “philanthropist” I mean much more than supporting a few well-meaning charities but for whom social justice is a way of life and not just a mean’s of salving the conscience of insividual busineesmen/women.
“And, I’m still waiting for someone on the political right to explain to me what is wrong with wealth redistribution through taxation. Shouldn’t the availability of health care for all people be a goal of any bible believing Christian? I fail to see why we’re at odds with that other than, ironically, a general fear that we may have to give up something financially (which seems incongruent with Matt 6:20 in the first place). Is there nothing wrong when we whole-heartedly fund massive church building projects but can’t stand the thought of giving a little more to help the impoverished? Either we’re looking for ways to prop the Republican party, or we’re failing to seriously wrestle with the ethical implications of the biblical text.”
M Woodard…I salute you! You make some really salient, powerful and well-argued points.
“Finally, I believe capitalism is a sound and Biblically based economic system that as evidenced by the American success
story is the only valid, workable and fair system to employ in a fallen world.
Waiting for the hate mail.”
Chris..sorry if you were hoping for some hate mail…hopefully we can agree to disagree! I am stuggling to understand how you can equate unfettered captialism as “a sound and Biblically based economic system” as you watch the news in the USA at present. Just out iof interest, are you appalled that the Government has intervened, or do you adopt a more pragmatic approach which may conced that this sound and biblically based system is also a flawed one, just as any man-made economic system, including Sociaism, Communism etc is bound to be? As for the “American success story”..there are countless other economies around the world which are equally as successful but operate diffently than America and which are not suffering the same plight as the American economy and mat well be in a stronger position to survive the curent global crisis without too much government aid.. I especially would refer you to the Scandinavian economies in Europe, where taxation is higher, where the welfare systems are probably the strongest in the world and where the qulaity of life is also amongst the highest in the world.”
“A large percentage of those individuals inherited wealth, as is often the case, and did very little to “earn” what they had. What is your attitude toward those individuals? Should we take away the food of the rich that don’t have to work? My point is that there are just as many, if not more, lazy people among the wealthy as there are among the poor.
You also assume that the opportunities to accrue wealth are equal for all. This is patently false. Children born into poverty are on a completely different socio-economic plane than children born into homes with even moderate incomes. A lot of the bad examples you just mentioned (and again, there in every bunch) are often those so born of despair & frustration that they, in effect, give up. I honestly ask you, does Christ give up on them as you have?”
“I don’t think Obama needs to create any crises. The Bush administration has given plenty of material, be it over-zealous borrowing from the Chinese to fund a war built on false premises or the fiscally irresponsible bail-outs. By the way, do you have a problem giving your tax money to the white collar Wall Street guys whose gross incompetence & greed have created the problem?”
M Woodard…this is great stuff! Many people here in the UK have argued for a slimmed down monarchy here in the UK, because of the significant numbers of wealthy hangers on on the Royal Civil List, who do very little, yet whose lavish lifestyles are paid for out directly from the public purse ie taxpayers money. Indeed, during the last decade or so of a left-of-centre administration have the Royal Family bbeen made far more accountable for the monies funded at taxpayers expense. Previous conservative governments did very little to curb such unwarranted expenditure…indeed, the very opposite, their policies encouraged flagrant abuse of the tax system by certain members of the Royal Family, who are now required to, quite rightly, run a much tighter ship as a result.
“I’m not sure the “American success” story is the yard-stick by which to measure whether a given economic/political system is biblically based!”
Mwoodard (sorry for the formality in addressing you but I don’t know your first name)..this last statement is the jewel in the crown! The sooner we have a serious debate which focusses on the much vaunted “American success story” which asks whether it all that it is cracked up to be, and whether God views it through the same rose-tinted spectacles that many appear to do. My concern is that, when everything is stripped away, many people appear to have more faith in”the American dream” or “the American success story” than in God Himself. IN fact, it sometimes appears to me that the two concepts appear to be almost interchangable ie faith in the American dream success is on a par with a personal faith in the Living God.
“Let’s make it real. If by chance, we look Raines…how can one not see that he had everything to do with the fall of Fannie Mae! That sure affected a lot of lower and middle income people. Raines basically redistributed the wealth he created from approving loans to people who could not afford them (by assuring them they could afford them!)….and then he pocketed millions of $$ right into his own personal pocketbook through bonuses he gave to himself. Along the way somehow he became Obama’s key financial adviser. If this corruption is as deep as I think we will soon discover, do we really want this kind of dishonesty running our failing economic system? Does not God expect integrity? Doesn’t this affect our poor and middle class in an extreme way?”
Just to show you that I am trying to be objective I think that From the Balcony makes some excellent points here. Similar accusations can be made of our current Labour government. I find it almost unbelievable to get my head round the fact that under more than a decade of Labour ie left of centre rule the gap between the very rich and the very poor has widened considerably. However, I am also concerned that waiting in the wings as the next Prime Minister of the UK is David Cameron, who was the Chief Economic Adviser to Norman Lamont, the Conservative UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, giving advice behind the scenes on what became Black Wednesday in the UK, when the UK suffered its worst economic crisi in recent history, He and his party are currently making all the right noises re social justice etc. but whether it is being said “with integrity” or merely to appeal to a large constituency of “floating voters” remains to be seen.
“And as far as your comment about capitalism not being in God’s plan—tell that to wealthy Abraham…..tell it to wealthy Job who said…The LORD gives, and the LORD takes away. Giving and sharing has nothing to do with political affiliation. You can be wealthy and love/share….and many do.”
I agree with this comment, and would cite the Christian wealthy philanthropist businessmen/women(and even non-Christian ones) as evidence of this. However, I would contend that they are very much in the monority at present. I would also argues that the scruptural injunction “to whom much is given, much is expected” needs to be adopted as a rule of thumb far more than it is at present.
“I don’t advocate a seperation of one’s political view from their theological views for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, it is impossible. Every area of politics has a principlized foundation that will ultimately be theological. Second, one should not even strive for such to live a thoroughly converted life. Our Christianity is not a Sunday morning Christianity. We should be Christians everywhere and in everything, allowing Christ to convert us wholistically. To say that we separate the political life from the spiritual is very naive and unbiblical. Politics does affect religion….and our faith should affect our view of politics. Those who fail to think outside of party denominations fail to use the discernment God gave us.
Michael my friend..I am with you 100% on this aspect. ” If anyone thinks that conservatives such as myself think that the rich should horde their money, they have missed the conservative boat by a mile.” Agaijn I largely agree, only I don’t just think the issue is about hoarding money, there are serious issues regarding exploitation of the more vulnerable in society which enable people to earn huge amounts of money at their expense.
“The work force is the primary focus of this post. Do you not think the work force includes the rich? There is a mass prejudice here against people who have money which is as unbiblical as a prejudice against people who don’t” Again Michael I would agree with you to some degree, but would again arue re the rich that “to whom much is given, much is expected”.
“If you don’t like capitalism, this is fine, but, in my opinion it is the best system out there, even if there are risks that people will horde.”
I cannot agree that it is the “best system out there”. It is one of several options and surely there has to be a strong argument for a mixed-economy approach which seeks to harness the best of capitalism and the best of liberalism/socialism. I feel that such an approach would give a far better platfiorm for the “responsible commerce” you crave for Michale, not just to survive but to thrive. “Without it, society will never be free and successful” I think this is a bit too glib/trite for my liking and leas onto a far bigger debate ie what c0onstitutes “success” and what constitutes “freedom” Is it not the case that many, thougyh not all, of the richest people in socierty, far from being freed from their ability to make wealth find themselves trapped by it.
We have a brialliant prayer in one of our Anglican services, it’s one of my favoutie pieces of liturgy. “to know you is eternal life…to serve you is perfect freedom/liberty”
I shall njow bring this to an end and await some animated response.
C Michael Patton on 29 Sep 2008 at 11:42 am #
Phil, scanned your response, but it is too long to work through in a week! I think it is four times longer than the original post!
Vintage Phil. Great to see you by good friend.
C Michael Patton on 29 Sep 2008 at 11:49 am #
Warning: an imbalanced and emotionally non-irenic post ahead. Don’t read as it may only cause disappointment among many of my more progressive friends.
I should have added the above to this post even more than the tree hugger post
From The Balcony on 29 Sep 2008 at 12:07 pm #
Michael - stop working so hard!!
You might just help somebody!
Marvin the Martian on 29 Sep 2008 at 12:24 pm #
Note to those who advocate a progressive tax system and think that the Obama plan of increasing taxes on the “top 5% of earners” is fair, do any of you realize how much of the tax burden the “poor” actually bears?
The top 5% already pays a hugely disproportionate amount of the IRS revenues. According to IRS figures (as of July 2008), the top 5% of Adjusted Gross Income earners accounted for a whopping 60% of all IRS personal income tax receipts. The bottom 50% of AGI earners (anything below $31,987), aka the “poor”, only accounted for just 3% of IRS receipts. Just how much more of the tax burden do liberals want the “rich” to carry, and how much less can we make the “poor” pay? According to Joe Biden, paying taxes is a patriotic duty! Who is Obama to deny the poor their opportunity to be patriotic and pay for the very programs that the taxes are supposed to provide for? Keep in mind that these figures do not even include the various credits that the lower tax bracket folks recieve, i.e. earned income tax credit, etc. I find it astonishing that people think it is “right” or “just” to take money by force (which is exactly what an income tax is) from the rich to pay for the various programs that “help the poor”.
It also begs the question, why are “poor people” poor to begin with? How many “poor” people have cell phones? How many “poor” people have cable TV? How many “poor” people are poor because they have made very poor financial decisions, and not because of some systemic issue that keeps them from advancing out of their “poor” state?
Bill Kitchen on 29 Sep 2008 at 12:28 pm #
britphil your post is way too long. Start your own blog and paste a link to it. Ridiculous!!!
Dave Z on 29 Sep 2008 at 12:30 pm #
Hey, I have a great slogan for those who favor income redistribution:
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
Great slogan, don’t you think? Now, it may have been used before, but still seems to be the theme of some in this discussion. but wait, come to think of it…seems like it has been tried before…
Dave Z on 29 Sep 2008 at 12:40 pm #
Hey Steph, the commandments were in Hebrew originally, but I notice you quoted in English. My point is that “kill” is not the best English rendering of the Hebrew. Almost all modern translations render “ratsach” as “murder.” There is a difference. I stand by my point.
Dave Z on 29 Sep 2008 at 12:45 pm #
Hey britphil - remember this? It’s from your side of the pond
“Let me tell you how it will be;
There’s one for you, nineteen for me.
‘Cause I’m the taxman,
Should five per cent appear too small,
Be thankful I don’t take it all.
‘Cause I’m the taxman, …
and you’re working for no one but me”
From The Balcony on 29 Sep 2008 at 1:49 pm #
Marvin
While I agree with you on the tax stuff, be careful that you don’t lump all of the poor into one big category. It is so easy to over-generalize and we must not be guilty of that.
Many poor people are as you describe. However, many are not. God uses poor people as often as he uses those who are not poor. God loves them the same way.
Not every person who is poor is lazy. Not every wealthy person is hard working (like those who inherit wealth).
Marvin the Martian on 29 Sep 2008 at 2:56 pm #
From The Balcony,
The point I had about the “poor” was to illustrate that far too often than not, they are poor because of unsound, foolish financial decisions. No where did I mention that they are lazy.
I should know. I was once very poor, well under the 30K mark, with a working wife and two kids to boot. We were very “poor”, and very hard working, and very dumb. We racked up huge credit card debt, lived outside of our means far too often, and ended up filing bankruptcy. But we still had cable, cell phones, TV’s, etc. We weren’t “poor”, we were foolish. Financial stress was a contributing factor in the disolution of my first marriage.
My current wife and I are on much more stable financial ground. We fall in the top 40% percent range as far as AGI, meaning we are still on the lower end of the middle class scale, but we live very well because we live within our means.
Why you think that I was somehow inferring that God didn’t love poor people, or that poor people were “lazy”, from my initial post is very puzzling to me.
From The Balcony on 29 Sep 2008 at 3:14 pm #
Marvin
When you explain it that way, I understand what you are saying. The last paragraph of your previous post seemed a little too general about poor people. $30,000 a year isn’t poor in many places. It is rich. The family income of one of the children we sponsor in Tanzania is……..only $7.00 a month. That’s quite a difference when you see the bigger picture.
If the point you were trying to make is that we should live within our means, I am in 100% agreement with you. If your point was that many people are foolish and overspend, I agree. It was just a little confusing from your previous email….that’s all! We often have a tendency to lump everyone into the same heap…
Marvin the Martian on 29 Sep 2008 at 3:20 pm #
FTB,
I wholeheartedly agree with you. The 30K figure was just a figure used by the IRS in determining a threshold. I, like you, believe that the poorest person in America is still far more wealthy than most people in third world countries. But liberals in this country like to say that those in that tax bracket are “poor”, which as you illustrate, is absurd.
I think it is nothing more than class warfare rhetoric to get votes.
C Michael Patton on 29 Sep 2008 at 3:24 pm #
“The family income of one of the children we sponsor in Tanzania is……..only $7.00 a month. That’s quite a difference when you see the bigger picture. ”
Yes, the bigger picture. For those who live in America, it is hard to talk about being truly poor. In a very real sense, historic and contemporary, just about everyone is “rich.” This is even relative to the cost of living. This is why I think that any talk of redistributing can be legitimately seen as greedy. Who really wants to get richer? The rich or the richer? Who cares, it is the same. In one system, much more of the “rich” want to get richer at the expence of the success of others.
From The Balcony on 29 Sep 2008 at 3:26 pm #
Marvin - then we agree

Michael - hard to believe, isn’t it? When I stepped into Amani’s home two years ago, it gave me a huge wakeup call. 6×8 size for the total home; no windows or doors; sacks holding the mud in place, dirt floor, no water nearby; no protection from bugs or animals or predators. I don’t listen to whining anymore.
C Michael Patton on 29 Sep 2008 at 3:37 pm #
Yes, my love for capitalism has increased in my travels to the third world. The Indian slums forever humbled me.
ChadS on 29 Sep 2008 at 8:01 pm #
I’m amazed at how often capitalism and socialism are imbued with these moral underpinnings that simply do not exist, as if one is inherently good and one evil.
Capitalism at its heart is amoral and is simply one way among many to organize an economy. Capitalism is purely about supply and demand — somebody wants something and there is another to give it. In a purely capitalist society things that are crimes now like prostitution, drugs, gambling etc. would be legal. I think there are very few Christians extolling the virtues of capitalism that would want to see a purely capitalistic society.
Let’s not forget that the earliest communist and socialist theorists looked at capitalism and saw its worst face possible. They looked to England and saw child laborers of 12 and 13 years old being maimed in textile factories and coal mines. They looked to the U.S. and saw factory workers dying on the job and being paid $.30 an hour working 12 hour shifts 6 days a week. They wanted to correct that.
So before we sit here and imbibe capitalism with this moral superiority and give it a Biblical mandate lets not forget the excesses and abuses possible under this system (afterall the North Atlantic slave system was purely capitalistic at its heart).
So, no capitalism is not good and socialism is not evil — it’s what humans do with it that make it so.
ChadS
steph on 29 Sep 2008 at 8:27 pm #
“Hey” Dave Z: I don’t have Hebrew script on this blog. “Modern translations” probably have agendas. The meaning is broader than ‘murder’.
minnowspeaks on 29 Sep 2008 at 8:35 pm #
WOW Brit Phil! Haven’t seen a post from you for a while. But I haven’t been around all that often. I am trying to isolate the through line–are you saying that it should be the role of government to care for the people it governs? And if so, why? And, to what extent?
jntowers on 29 Sep 2008 at 11:57 pm #
ChadS is right - sin is the problem. With sin involved, capitalism will always lead to excess and greed, on both sides. Then politicians will take advantage of that, on both sides. *generalization to follow* People are irrational and forgetful. The big problem in our country right now is the fact that politicians play to the problem of the day, and voters know this. Therefore voters can vote for whatever they want or need at that point and time - not necessarily what is right and best for the country.
You think the politicians voted down the “bailout” plan today b/c they thought it was the right thing to do? Heck no. It was simply b/c they had too many voters that were pissed off at the idea of taxpayers bailing out greedy corporations. It could be argued that the bailout plan is necessary to prevent an all out depression, which would hurt a LOT more than the greedy corporations, but few would listen to that side. People are just pissed b/c of Wall Street’s greed and refuse to look at the bigger picture. Which brings me back to my original point - sin is the problem, and people are irrational and forgetful.
And don’t argue with me on the stupid bailout plan, I don’t know where I stand on which would be better - letting America and the world suffer a depression, or managing it with the bailout plan to more of a severe, drawn out recession. All I do know is that there was not a balanced approach to the decision making with regard to the plan, and that was my point.
Peter on 30 Sep 2008 at 1:27 am #
“Why? Because my financial success or failure is none of the governments business.”
Uh, yes it is. Imagine a hypothetical scenario in the future where every atom on the planet is owned by some corporation. Your financial success is doomed, because the system would make it inevitable.
If it wasn’t the government’s business, they would shut down all the schools, and lower taxation.
And who’s to say that the current proportion paid by the rich and poor is “right”? Who’s to say the rich paying more and the poor less is wrong? Precisely how much do the rich have to pay before you lose your “comfort and motivation”? Would you gain comfort if the poor are taxed more and they abolish taxing the rich?
britphil on 30 Sep 2008 at 3:53 am #
Folks
Apologies for the previous novella. I shall stick to knee-jerk reactions from now on. Giving myself time to think before I respond is clearly a dangerous thing!
What I attempted to do (very poorly, admittedly) was to try and pull together the strands of the previous contributors. P&P is a truly fantastic site but the one thing I think it sorely lacks at present is an attempt to listen/discern what God may be saying through the various contributors. Much as though we may like to think to the contrary, none of us has a monoply of the truth, but the sum is sometimes a constituent of the parts. It often frustrates me that debates are left to fizzle out and die, or just vanish into the ether without trace and without any real attempt to review, reflect upon or pull together/summarise what God may have been trying to say to us as the debate has on a particular topic progressed.
“I am trying to isolate the through line–are you saying that it should be the role of government to care for the people it governs? And if so, why? And, to what extent?”
Hi there Minnow. This is really naughty of you, my friend. Given the deserved, irenic rebuke I received from CMP, and the far less irenic and more trenchant rebuke emanating from Bill, you then pose what appears to be an exam question requiring an essay in response!! Are you secretly trying to get me excommunicated from P&P!
Very briefly, yes I do believe that to some extent the government has a moral responsibility to care for the people it governs. We have a moral responsibility also to pray regularly for those who lead us politically. I also believe that the state does not have the right to interfere in every aspect of life, but as the State/Government are responsible for devising, promoting and implementing economic and social policy, they have a responsibility to ensure that it doesn’t benefit the relatively few and harm the many.
If economic policies are imposed which are deliberately designed to keep the vulnerable and weak in a position of vulnerability and weakness
then they are to be challenged and questioned in my view. History is littered with governments which do not believe they should car