Spreading (Other People's) Wealth
Monday, December 29, 2008 at 3:07PM In the latest issue of The Church Herald (January 2009), the "Question of Faith" asks "As a Christian, should I be fearful about a government 'spreading the wealth'?" Not surprisingly, both Jack Cherry and Jackie Smallbones answer "no" and give a ringing endorsement for government mandated wealth redistrubition.
Herewith, a few objections:
First, most of the passages that command generosity have to do with supporting fellow Christians in need. The famous Matthew 25 "least of these" passages says "least of these brothers of mine." This doesn't mean Christians don't have an obligation to help others, just not the same obligation. Do good to all, Paul says, especially to those who are of the household of faith (Gal. 6:10).
Second, the biblical texts cited say nothing about the government's responsibility and everything about the church's responsibility. Rev. Dr. Smallbones points to several passages where Christians are commanded to "spread the wealth." True enough. We are encouraged to be generous and to share with those in need. But Christian generosity is not the same thing as an state-sponsored economic plan. When we argue for government "spreading the wealth" we are not talking about our need to give more. What we are actually arguing for is spreading other people's wealth.
Third, Paul makes clear that true generosity comes "as a willing gift, not as an exaction" (2 Cor. 9:5). Our giving is not to be "under compulsion" (9:7). Of course, we still need to pay taxes (Rom. 13:6-7). But compulsory taxation is not what the Bible means by generosity. Smallbones advocates "taking from the wealthiest to alleviate the sufferings of the poorest" but none of her texts support this point. The Bible supports the idea that the wealthiest ought to give to alleviate the sufferings of the poorest. But this is far different from the notion that we should take from the wealthiest and give it to the poorest.
Fourth, the early church did not practice a form of communism, as Smallbones states. That practiced a form of communalism where they share freely with one another. But this is not communism. In communism, the state owns the means of production and there is not private property. Yet, we see clearly in Acts 5 Ananias and Sapphira sold a piece of property and could have kept some of the proceeds. Their sin was in lying to the Holy Spirit, not in owning their own possessions. In fact, Peter said, "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?" (Acts 5:4). This is not communism, but private ownership plus Christian generosity.
Fifth, there are legitimate economic concerns with government redistribution of wealth. The more you tax the rich, the less incentive they have to produce, expand, and, in general, create wealth. The economy is not a zero-sum game. The rich getting richer does not have to mean the poor getting poorer. In fact, the capitalist incentive of wealth creation (and keeping most of that wealth) is what has led to mass prosperity in the West over the past three centuries. No system has done more to alleviate poverty in the world than democratic capitalism.
Sixth, are not the tragic examples of Russian communism and Latin American socialism enough to warn us that there are some dangers in the flattening of economic conditions. While not every plan to spread the wealth can be called socialism, at that very least we have to admit that as a general principle "spreading the wealth" is not to be welcomed uncritically.
Seventh, we must remember Jesus' words that we will always have the poor with us. Obviously, this does not mean Jesus wants us to have a careless indifference to the poor. But it means that we shouldn't call the church a failure everytime we have suffering in the world.
Eighth, we need to ask: have government efforts at "spreading the wealth" been effective in the past? Have the poor been helped by the measures introduced 40 years ago under the Great Society? Is it healthy for the poor to depend on the government for long periods of time for their livelihood? What makes the government more trustworthy and more efficient with our nations' wealth than the nation's wealthy? Why do we assume that if there is a problem in the world, it must be the responsibility of our government to solve it?
In general, I think Christians need to do more careful reflection on the nature of theology and economics. Too often we jump from the biblical texts (which we know something about) to economic theory (which most Christians know nothing about). You can make an air-tight case that Christians should be generous and that we ought to be concerned about the poor. You cannot make a very good case that compulsory spreading of the wealth is the Bible's prefered economic policy, nor that it is the best way to actually help the poor.