Even though the Christian financial "guru" Dave Ramsey claims not to understand Occupy Wall Street, he does know why protesters (and by extension most Americans) want to raise taxes on the wealthy: We are sinners. "At the core of this demand [to raise taxes]," he says, "is envy."
This judgment is not just offensive and wrong (see my last post) but sadly ironic: Dave Ramsey tells people to bring the Bible to their personal finances, so he should know that God's economy is all about (what he scornfully calls) "wealth redistribution."
Being a theologian, I could talk about how sharing in the life of the Trinity obligates us to share our lives with others, but another excuse to "spiritualize" our wallets is the last thing we need. I am also tempted to "tear apart" Ramsey's caricature of the "Occupy" movement (it may truly be one of the finest examples of a "straw man fallacy" I have ever seen). But I respect Dave Ramsey as a fellow Christian and a person who has helped free thousands of families from crushing debt. (He does "God's work.") Therefore I will focus on the practical, theological root of his economic "heresy."
Ramsey says, "When someone takes my money and gives me no say in the matter, that's called theft -- whether they're using a gun or the government." Though this statement begs the question and shows a desperate need to Google "social contract," it is most troublesome because of its exclusionary theology of property. Or as toddlers say, "Mine!" This doctrine does not come from Ramsey's Christian faith.
Exclusionary property rights require Deism. Deists in the 17th and 18th centuries compared God to a watchmaker: God designed the universe, wound it up, then went on vacation until the end of infinity. They said divine hands never dirtied themselves with human affairs.
Prior to Deism, "The earth ... and all its fullness" belonged to God (Psalms 24:1), and people had inherent worth because they bore the divine image (naturally, I am simplifying the history quite a bit). That changed when this mechanistic metaphor took over. British policymakers "privatized" common land that had sustained families for generations, and they used the threat of starvation (allegedly God's way of discouraging laziness) to grow the modern labor market.
When everything is a "gear" or "cog" in a large machine, nature can become a private commodity and a person's value can be judged by her productive capacity.
The biblical God -- the God with dirty hands -- does not tolerate such policies.
If we are truly the possessions of a loving God (Leviticus 25:23), then rights must be regulated by needs. In contrast to the deistic view Leviticus 25 (the closest thing the Bible offers to a clear economic "policy") presents a more "open" theology of people and property. That is why this chapter gives more rights to the poor than the rich, saying that a person who falls into poverty, and sells his property to survive, has the right to buy it back at any time (with some exceptions). Or a relative may but it back for him.
This "policy" does not exactly qualify as what Ramsey calls "theft" (yet) but it does not support his deistic concept of exclusionary property, either. If Ramsey says nobody has a right to take his "stuff," then I assume he believes nobody has a right to make him sell it, either. Though he agrees that everything we have comes from God, which is why he rightly stresses private giving, he sadly fails to let that belief get in the way of his laissez faire economics. Otherwise he might not be so quick to condemn progressive tax reform.
What Ramsey calls "wealth redistribution" the Bible calls "Jubilee." That same chapter goes on to prescribe an economic "Sabbath" to take place every 50 years. The most prominent feature of this Jubilee year is the requirement that all property be returned to its original owners. Thus, twice a century God would "level the playing field" between the rich (who had accumulated property) and the poor (who had lost it). This kept the poor from ever becoming too poor, and the rich too rich, over multiple generations.
Ramsey might say the Jubilee is impractical or that Christians are not obligated to follow the Old Testament. But he misses the point. Christians believe all Scripture offers insight into the mind of God, and the Jubilee suggests that God and Dave Ramsey are of two minds about "wealth redistribution."
Besides, the economics of Jubilee do appear in the New Testament as the "kingdom of God." Those three little words make us modern people think of "heaven" (with puffy white clouds and possibly harps), but it was a technical, theological term for Jesus and his fellow Jews. The kingdom of God meant social and especially economic justice.
Prophets like Amos (4-5) and Isaiah (59-66) proclaimed a day of judgment on those who oppressed the poor, which would also be a day of feasting for their victims. Or as Jesus' mother sang (Luke 1:52-53),
"[God] has put down the mighty from their thrones,
And exalted the lowly.
He has filled the hungry with good things,
And the rich He has sent away empty."
Jesus' audience "marveled" when he proclaimed "good news" for the poor (Luke 4:18, 22) and (some scholars think) maybe even a new Jubilee (v. 19), words he later elaborated on, saying, "Blessed are you poor, For yours is the kingdom of God ... But woe to you who are rich, For you have received your consolation" (6:20, 24). It takes some spry intellectual gymnastics to make those words not mean "wealth redistribution."
The kingdom has not come, but Mary did not praise a God who "will put down," nor did Jesus say, "Tomorrow, this Scripture will be fulfilled..." (see Luke 4:21). The Bible assumes that God's kingdom has begun in Christ Jesus. Thus, the social and economic reordering he proclaimed should already be happening.
It also indicates that what our word "heaven" means -- the kingdom of God --Â looks a lot like Dave Ramsey's economic hell.
Someone who truly believes God's kingdom is a place where the "first will be last, and the last first" (Matt 19:30) should think twice before implying people who do not agree with him are sinners. Some of us are his sisters and brothers. Many Christians want to see higher taxes for the rich because the mission of the church is not "private." We must "lean" into our future hope -- the hope of social justice and wealth redistribution far more radical than anything Occupy Wall Street has demanded -- working toward the economics Jubilee as if the kingdom of God were already among us (Luke 17:21). Because it is.
Follow David J. Dunn, PhD on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DrDavidJDunn
The Economy of God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Rev. Jacqueline J. Lewis, Ph.D.: God's Economy
Dear Occupy Wall Street ... - daveramsey.com
Daily Kos: An Open Letter to Dave Ramsey Re: Occupy Wall Street
Which kingdom is the federal government a part of? The kingdom of light? There is no theological basis for a kingdom of the "in-between" right?
"We must "lean" into our future hope -- the hope of social justice and wealth redistribution far more radical than anything Occupy Wall Street has demanded..."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "we" you are referring to seems to mean the Church forcing itself upon a political system that doesn't have the same mission as the Church. I'm all for the Church taking up the responsibility to seek social justice, feed the poor, and being radical with our finances for God's Kingdom. However, if you are implying that we should use our votes to force others to pay for our Kingdom values against their will, I'd have to disagree with that conclusion.
God's Kingdom must come about with the Church humbly leading the way, not the government. The belief that if we have a majority that believe the same values then we can force the minority to do what we want seems like a counter-Kingdom value. Jesus says "love your neighbor as yourself". Would we want our neighbors to vote their values into laws to force us to pay for their programs?
Like I said, I was in harmony with most of your article but got caught on that conclusion! :)
That's the only critique I have. Thanks for posting this. I haven't read many Christian perspectives on Occupy Wall St. or Dave Ramsey. You do a good job of tackling both.
You ask, "Would we want our neighbors to vote their values into laws to force us to pay for their programs?" To which I ask, "Isn't this what everybody does?"
The classical idea of "liberalism" (in a non-pejorative sense of the term) is that our private beliefs should be, well, private. John Kerry expressed this sentiment about stem cell research a few years back when asked about how his Catholicism informs his decisions.
Dave Ramsey definitely votes his values. What I am saying is that he and his fans (and I consider myself kind of a fan, actually), should take a minute to ask if their values reflect the values of their faith – the love of neighbor, for instance, you are talking about – or doctrinaire free-market talking points.
The church, after all, is not fundamentally an institution but the people in it.
In response to your question I think you'd agree that just because everybody else tries to legislate their values doesn't mean it justifies whether we as Christians should or shouldn't. What I meant by "kingdom values" may be better defined as "non-government role values".
One of Jesus' most quoted lines about taxation is "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's & God what is God's." Romans were free of welfare until Trajan in 98 CE. Roman Kingdom values were in stark contrast to the Kingdom of God, perhaps why Jesus used that radical metaphor.
One could argue from a biblical perspective that our faith values should influence what we give to The Church & not what we give the government (give to God what is God's). For me there is a separation & my "vote" is to give God's money to God's Church or a cause that is a good steward. The other side is the role of government. We have a Constitution that tells us the answer to that. In the same way, we have God's revelation through the Bible/Christ/Holy Spirit telling us the role of the Church. I don't see the government thriving in social justice on behalf of the Church. Things become too big & too impersonal. Social justice may be better served by investing into local churches, non-profits, & social entrepreneurs who care immensely about their own communities.
I don't know where you stand on these issues, but I will say that a lot of people oppose abortion or the death penalty or war because of their religious values. To allow one's faith to influence anything but economic issues just seems a little inconsistent to me.
A lot of Christians try to do this when it comes to things like gay marriage and abortion (though I think most of their approaches are mistaken to sinful). It is hard to see calls to legislate Christian morality on fetuses but not the market as anything but crass hypocrisy.
My personal favorite is the one where the Pharisees ask him about when the kingdom of God is coming.
Jesus answered, "The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed; nor will they say, "Look, here it is!" or "There it is!" For, in fact the kingdom of God is among you."
Then, when his followers asked him the same thing, "When will the kingdom come?"
Jesus answered, "It will not come by watching for it, It will not be said "Look, here it is!" or "Look, there it is!" Rather, the father's kingdom is spread out upon the earth, & people do not see it."
Thank & respect Dr. Dunn - maybe more people will see it upon reading your article.
However, in your article you take issue with him accusing those he disagrees with as being "sinners". Below is a sentence from your blog on gay marriage. Aren't you guilty of the same thing?
"Their efforts, which reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of marriage, are misguided at best and sinful at worst."
In all seriousness, I meant what I said. He should "think twice" about it. I do not necessarily have a problem with someone pointing to sin when she thinks she sees it. However, in my mind there is a big difference between calling someone's "efforts" sinful versus presuming that their motives are sinful. That's what Ramsey did when he said people who think as I do are motivated by envy. Calling an effort or act sinful leaves open the possibility that someone has good motives, but is misinformed (which is what I think about Ramsey). The other suggests someone is just a bad person and therefore shouldn't be taken seriously.
Grace & Peace.
Dave Ramsey no longer serves the community of people who are trying to get their heads above water. He serves himself. God will walk away from that guy.
It reminds me very much of the story of the onion from Dostoevsky's _The Brother's Karamazov_. Have you read it?
The only thing I would say is that two reasonable people can disagree. Obviously, I think Dave Ramsey is very, very wrong when it comes to the way he fails to let his faith shape his politics. In my opinion, he gets it backwards. I actually struggled for quite a while to write this because I found myself picking apart every little thing he says. Ramsey is not a very good thinker, for whatever that is worth. Like William James (allegedly) said, What most people call thinking is really just rearranging their prejudices. Ramsey fits that description quite nicely, and this will probably only get worse as more and more people heap praises upon him. (St. Augustine warned us about this.)
On the other hand, God uses people who are wrong, and I do believe that despite his very flawed ideology, Ramsey has put together a brilliant kind of "folk economics" when it comes to personal finance. He really does deserve credit there.
"Jesus said, if your leaders say to you, "Look, the kingdom is in heaven," then the birds of heaven will precede you. If they say to you, "It is in the sea, then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside & it is outside you."
Also this, from the Gospel of Thomas:
"He said to them, "You examine the face of heaven & earth, but you have not come to know the one who is in your presence,
& you do not know how to examine this moment."
The Gospel of Thomas:
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl_thomas.htm
But obviously the "church" has vested so much of its capital into "chasing the money" that they no longer are christian by any liberal definition. Mercenary, grave robbing, nursing home preying vultures, yes. But not Christian.
If there is a God to Hell with them.
You say, "In other words, if government asks you to do something for the poor or to make society better you should double that. Of your own free will." Brilliant! I couldn't agree more!
Let me also add that Ramsey really does not get the idea of social contract when he calls taxes theft. Total assent is not required for a policy to become law. If "we the people" decide that some members of our society are obligated to contribute more than other members, that is not called "theft." It's called democracy!
His recent political rants have driven me away.
I am no longer a fan.