iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
William O'Brien

GET UPDATES FROM William O'Brien
 

Memo to Presidential Candidates: Redistribution of Wealth Is a Divine Commandment

Posted: 03/ 8/2012 10:30 am

Once again, the U.S. presidential election process is marked by the peculiar American interplay of religion and politics. As in the past several campaigns, conservative Christians are a prize voting bloc: Since the beginning of the campaign, we have witnessed the various Republican candidates vigorously vying for their votes, plying their respective pieties and accentuating their evangelical credentials.

Interestingly, the religious vote is highly prized despite the fact that the usual social issues that are the evangelicals' bread and butter -- abortion, traditional marriage -- are taking a decidedly backseat to urgent economic issues during these trying times of prolonged recession. (Though the current bizarre controversy over birth control may be shifting the terrain a bit.) That hardly means that those on the religious right aren't raising their voices. A subtext in much of the political discourse seems to be a kind of "biblical economics." Conservative Christians are among the most fervent defenders of the free market, which they see as divinely mandated; they are likewise among the most vituperative opponents of any socialist redistribute-the-wealth schemes, which, one might infer from their criticisms, are nothing short of satanic.

President Obama himself stoked the flames of controversy a few weeks back at the National Prayer Breakfast, when he underscored a biblical basis for his policies, including his suggestion that raising taxes on the most affluent Americans "coincides with Jesus's teaching that 'for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.'" Not surprisingly, his words raised the theological and political ire of many Christian leaders. Ralph Reed of the Faith and Freedom Coalition called the President's connection of his tax policy to Jesus's teachings "theologically threadbare and straining credulity." Columnist Cal Thomas suggested it was Marxist, not biblical. "Abuse and mangling of Scripture" were common critiques from Obama's religiously minded antagonists.

In fact, the Bible has plenty to say about economics, but it is more radical than what either conservatives or liberals usually assert.

In recent years, a growing number of scholars, preachers and laypeople -- both Jewish and Christian -- have been exploring what has been a largely marginalized part of the biblical tradition, namely the economic vision articulated in the covenant code of the ancient Israelites. Some have labeled this tradition for shorthand "Sabbath economics."

The Torah recounts how the ragtag group of liberated slaves was gifted by the liberating God Yahweh at Mt. Sinai with a blueprint for being a holy community -- the covenant. We are all familiar with the Ten Commandments, what we might call the "preamble" to the broader constitution. Christians especially tend to disregard much of the 350-plus laws that follow (spelled out a bit loosely through Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus and Deuteronomy). Included among the seemingly arcane regulations on such matters as liturgy, diet, hygiene, relationships and conflict resolution is a remarkable set of coherent teachings laying out the economic practices for biblical Israel.

The teachings explicitly build on the pre-Sinai episode of manna (Exodus 16), in which the wandering Israelites are instructed to take as much of the divinely given foodstuff as they need, neither too much nor too little, and are at the same time given the command to observe the Sabbath day of rest. Both commands -- "Take what you need, no more," and "Balance work with rest" -- are the beginning of subversive unraveling of the world of empire under which the Israelites had been enslaved and oppressed. They point to the new, holy social order that is being birthed.

The economic teachings of the covenant, then, begin by expanding the seven-day cycle of Sabbath to the seventh year -- the Sabbatical Year -- when the entire community is to let the land lie fallow, forgive all debts, and free all slaves or bondservants (Lev. 25:1-7, Deut. 15). The land was to be given a periodic rest, and any tendencies toward creeping oppression or bondage were to be released. Then, every seventh of seven years was the Jubilee Year, in which, in addition to the sabbatical provisions, the land was to be redistributed back to the original tribes and families (Lev. 25:8-54). The covenant included this systemic hedge against excessive inequities in the community. All these practices were rooted in a fundamental principle: The earth is the Lord's -- not Pharoah's -- and is given graciously and abundantly to the people. (Other critical obligations of the covenantal community were the practice of gleaning -- leaving the edges of fields unplowed so that those who were poor or sojourning through the land could take of the harvest for their sustenance -- and the care of widows, orphans and sojourners.)

Wait, did it really say that? Redistribute the land, which in that agricultural community was essentially the wealth? Are God's people commanded to -- gasp! -- redistribute wealth? Could that possibly be in the Bible, along with not committing adultery and not worshipping idols?

"Redistribute the wealth" -- few words are more noxious or notorious to American sensibilities. No notion is more blasphemous to our free market ideology. And yet, God said it, and, the believer must assume, God means it.

Skeptical scholars have sought to diminish the import of these teachings by arguing that Israel never "fully practiced" this Sabbath economics vision. Of course, neither have God's people ever "fully practiced" the Ten Commandments, but we don't question their authority as divine mandates. And of course, it is argued, contemporary society is fundamentally different than the ancient tribal kinship system of the Israelites. So one can question whether these teachings have any relevance for us today.

Or, for religious Americans who claim to take seriously the Bible as a revelation of God's will (and conservative U.S. Christians are hardly shy in making such an assertion), perhaps we need to do some serious wrestling here. God's holy people are clearly and undeniably commanded to redistribute their holdings, to ensure that inequities of wealth and poverty do not corrode their community, to make sure that none of God's precious children have less than they need or more than they need.

In fact, thousands of faithful persons in our society are hungering for deeper meaning in the thralls of materialism and the economic imperative to get ahead. Many are asking tough questions about fundamental injustices in our global economic system (including the resonance of many people of faith with the message of the Occupy Movement -- the obscenity of the 1 percent versus the 99 percent). Even many conservative Christians have begun to question the moral and spiritual challenge of consumerism. Wrestling to free themselves from the bondage of debt, stress and overwork, many in our society, church folk included, are seeking to simplify their lives -- to live "more with less." More and more people, seeking liberation from our own structural Egypt, are experimenting in such economic alternatives as food co-ops, credit unions, community reinvestment funds, co-housing and intentional communities. Numerous Christians and others are "going green," finding ways to live and consume within ecologically responsible limits.

But beyond personal and communal practice, what could Sabbath economics mean in our political witness? Maybe we need to risk a little "class warfare" rhetoric and question whether the gaping economic inequities in America are not in fact both social and spiritual crises. (Jesus' own momma wasn't above a little class warfare in Luke 1: "You have filled the hungry with good things and send the rich away empty.") Maybe we need to engage in a more radical critique of the assumptions of the free market and the American dream.

Maybe we can liven up the next debate by asking the presidential candidates, all wearing their religion on their sleeves, about how they would work to implement God's command to redistribute the wealth and make sure all citizens have enough, not too little, not too much, in oh-so-biblical America.

All right, maybe not this campaign. But the ancient vision beckons -- sacred and wise. May we immerse ourselves in this story and, with God's grace, learn how to bear witness in our modern-day Egypt.

 
FOLLOW RELIGION
 
 
  • Comments
  • 78
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
06:44 PM on 04/25/2012
Young America's Foundation's fourth annual GPA Redistribution Petition and Video Contest has produced yet another stellar student entry, this time from Carthage College. This year, the national public policy debate has focused on "fairness" through taxing the wealthy in an attempt to redistribute wealth. Many young people support this socialistic policy.

Yet, when students at Carthage where asked if they would be willing to sign a petition to redistribute GPA points from the top 10% to the rest of the college, most of them said NO. One student said, "No, because I worked hard for my grades!"

Another said, "At Carthage, each student has an equal opportunity to get the GPA they desire." And another, "I don't want my GPA being taken away from me if I had an 'A'."

When the petitioners told students that oftentimes outside factors leave students at an unfair disadvantage, a student said, "No. I'm low-income and a minority, and I have a fairly decent GPA, so..."
04:29 PM on 04/17/2012
People sharing, not government taking what one rightfully has earned and has a right to keep and distribute as one sees fit. Jesus would never force the rich man to give his goods over, he never did. Everyone, stop falsely using the bible to create government Communism and Socialism, it's disgusting.
04:55 PM on 04/18/2012
No one can earn the kind of money that corporate CEOs are awarding themselves. Anything over a certain amount of what one "earns" in a year should go straight to a charitable organization, or be surrendered to the government. You mention people distributing money as the earner sees fit. This makes sense only so far. Realistically, no one can "use" several hundreds of millions. They can only waste it on extravagances. If I were suddenly given, say, fifty million dollars, I could only spend a small fraction of it responsibly. Spending the rest of it could only be done through disgusting extravagance. No one should be deprived of the fruits of their labor. But there is a tremendous difference between labor and robbery.

Mark 10:21
Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
04:11 PM on 04/22/2012
He never forced him. People have to do the charity, not the government, especially if one has not put into the system with taxation already. Any family or business who ran things as the government did would have been in the street and dismantled long ago. We must have one flat tax, little but smart bureaucracy and let the private sector, the creativity of individuals reign, forming coops, sliding scale medical programs, whatever we as citizens, fellow human beings can do, but the government have a small budget it sticks to, most if not all of the time.
photo
Pole
retired professor of History, Comparative Religion
02:36 PM on 04/03/2012
Amen, brother. Of course we would need to give up Capitalism. Capitalism doesn't believe in sharing. read Acts and you will come across a passage that says: "They shared everything in common." It didn't last long, of course, but that's what the earliest expression of Christianity did. Groups of monks have attempted to copy that as well. Saint Francis wanted the Church to do that as well and lived that life in community. There are too many rich folk and too many busy Investors who feel that they have a right to all they can get to want to share. Their religious disposition is to keep and get more.
04:31 PM on 03/31/2012
I've been wrestling with this concept of Biblical economics for a couple years. Interesting to see I'm not the only one who is wondering what this principle looks like in today's society.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chw777
09:40 AM on 03/19/2012
We should all be concerned for the welfare of the poor. But giving is to be done from the heart, by one's own freewill. No one should be FORCED to share their income with others. No one should be allowed to enlist the government to take by force what belongs to someone else. This is unbiblical and definitely not "walking in love".
researcher
researcher
12:36 AM on 03/11/2012
Experience can be a great teacher.

Americans need a few more decades of capitalism before they understand its agenda and what it will create as a society. They still love their capitalism more than their bibles even as it creates a society of 1%ers and a society of have nots.

Borrowed and printed money is hiding the real ills of capitalism in America. What if Americans had to really pay for these wars for corp profits and for these bailouts? Then it would sink in faster. Until the majority of Americans suffer the ill side effects of capitalism it will be held up, as the only effective economic system is the world.

Capitalism will create a very selfish society so as long as the majority is not suffering from our you are on your own capitalist economic system, it will keep right on perking along creating wealth among the few at a rapid pace.

Americans are not keen on evidence. Religion and science are perfect examples of this rejection of evidence that is outside their existing cherished beliefs and hidden paradigms before any investigation.
02:09 PM on 03/11/2012
Capitalism is rooted in freedom, Freedom of association, Freedom to spend or not spend your earnings or capital as you see fit, Freedom to give your capital to who you want. Are advocating that people should bow to the state? Should give up some of there hard earned capital to the state and that the state knows better than an individual how to spend their money? I for one would rather free than have a government tell me what to do with my money or capital.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
reasonable111
07:33 PM on 03/11/2012
Agree . The poster above you thinks Capitalism is evil. Capitalism is what made our country great, along with fair play and Judeo Christian Values, integrated with science. None of these are bad things.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MaryBethC3
09:59 PM on 03/09/2012
Great article!

Re: Individualism vs Communal Giving and Sharing of Resources: Christians regard both Old and New Testaments as divinely inspired Scripture.

Individualism is NOT the "way" of the Old or New Testaments. Rather, God has a relationship to the community of believers.

In both Old and New Testaments, God speaks to people as community. The Old Testament is the long story of the relationship between God and his "people".

New Testament writers addressed the communities at Corinth ("Corinthians"), Phillipi ("Phillipians") and so on.

When Jesus was asked "How are we to pray?" He taught to pray as community: "Our (not "MY") Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name....Give US/(not "me") our daily bread. Forgive US (not "me") our trespasses as WE forgive those.........Deliver US (not "me") from evil.

The selfish individualism we see in religious circles today does not have, as its source, the holy Scriptures of either the Old or the New Testaments.
08:53 AM on 03/10/2012
I believe you are touching on what is perhaps the core issue of how the Bible is misconstrued in much of U.S. Christianity -- the overwhelming, and distorting, lens of individualism. One of the most important, but little known, American theoloians, William Stringfellow, used to say we need to "read America biblically, rather than read the Bible Americanly."
07:30 PM on 03/10/2012
I think most people think the bible is talking about doing that individually. People being forced to do that by the gov isn't what it was being talked about.
researcher
researcher
12:37 AM on 03/11/2012
"The selfish individualism we see in religious circles today does not have, as its source, the holy Scriptures of either the Old or the New Testaments".

amen.
02:14 PM on 03/11/2012
There is nothing wrong being individualistic and there is nothing selfish about it either. looking out yourself and you family is rooted in everyone's survival instincts. I might be silly but I don't think the Gov knows better than me or my family what's best for it. now tell me researcher If me and some friends thought you had too much money would we be justified to go take it from you to redistribute it? Or is it only the wonderful all powerful gov that can do that?
01:23 PM on 03/09/2012
So if the govt is the Master, and the banks are the servant, to whom the Master forgives the debt...shouldn't the banks forgive foreclosures?
And if they dont; forgive forclosures, do we get to sell they chattle, seize thier bonuses and cast their families into servitude, say at walmart, until they pay?
Hey, maybe this Bible banking has so merit after all.
10:45 AM on 03/09/2012
A major difference between the Old and New Testaments is one of choice. In the Old Testament, there was no choice on being a Jew or not. Either you were according to the law or not. In the New Testament, with the coming of Christ as Messiah, all can be Christians based on choice.

That freedom of choice is fundamental to Christianity. In Christianity things that are against Jewish law in the Old Testament are OK. Paul and the apostles and early church leaders debated this very topic. To the New Testament believer, all foods are OK for instance, while in the Old Testament some foods are forbidden. Jesus puts the onus on the believer to make the decision on what to eat based on his own situation and that of those around him. In short it moves from government/those in leadership telling what is right according to the law to the individual making the decision.

Likewise with redistribution of wealth. To whom much is given, much is expected, but who decides when someone has been given much and where it should be given? In an Old Testament way, the government should decide, but for the Christian, Christ made it clear that is a heart issue for the individual. He never asked the Roman or Jewish authorities of the time to help the poor for instance, but He out this on His followers.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MaryBethC3
09:59 PM on 03/09/2012
Individualism is not the "way" of the Old or New Testaments. Rather, God has a relationship to the community of believers. Please see my post above.
05:44 PM on 03/10/2012
We as individuals have the choice to choose Christ or not and are called by him to live according to the Word. Christ never asked the Roman or Jewish authorities at the time to do anything. In fact they were irrelevant to His message.

His message of salvation was to the individual and His call to help the poor and needy was to the individual, not the government. It is only a misguided read of the New Testament and Christ's message filtered through a left wing lense that someone could come to the conclusion that big government programs to redistribute wealth are somehow Christian.
05:45 PM on 03/10/2012
You cannot get to heaven and say that you participated in Christianity in some sort of collective and that is how you got salvation. It can only come individually and only you are responsible for your actions.
photo
AlfredE69
Liberty Lovin' Tree Hugger
10:10 PM on 03/08/2012
I must disagree. It would be better to lower taxes; to adjust for this, the Pentagon budget would be cut by 69%, also the US would disengage not only from the Middle East, but end its ceaseless wars, and shut down all US military bases overseas.

For verily it is written, it is easier for a blind man to thread a needle, than a war monger to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
photo
Peter Combs
Amused by the illogical..no, NOT a Republican
09:51 PM on 03/08/2012
I think ROmney would say he does precisely that every year...he gives them Millions each year...

meanwhile..Joe Biden earned 300K and gave a total to all charitys of $369.00 Three hundred Bucks?

and Obama made over 2.1 Million donated 20K...less the 1%, Romney donated 15%..

SO while Obama talks a goo tune about personal resonsibility and contributing your fair share...he doesn;t do it.
01:05 AM on 03/09/2012
You must remember that liberals like Biden will give the shirt of your back but give nothing of their own for charity. Biden is a great example of this.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ikswoliw
11:58 AM on 03/09/2012
Mitt gives 15% and has $200,000,000.00 left. Must have hurt.
08:23 PM on 03/08/2012
God's word does say that we should share with those in need, and the early church held everything in common. I believe that is God's desire, and I try to implement that in my own life. I do this because of my relationship with God, and my beliefs about what He wants me to do. However, I do not want to give my money to a distant government, nor even a local one, filled with bureaucrats and politicians, who are paid more money than I make, for deciding what to do with my money. How much I give and who I give to are between me and God. If you believe in the redistribution of wealth, then you give away YOUR money, not mine.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
HarryFromMA
01:32 PM on 03/10/2012
CK,
The Book of Acts speaks of a specific group at that time who gave voluntarily, to the apostles for those who had need, and it was their own property, as well. They were willing to everything, but the text does point out that the money Ananias & Sapphira (spelling?) had withheld money that was theirs, when they sad they would give it for others. Government redistribution of WEALTH is not biblical under the New Covenant.
You make an excellent point - they should give THEIR money away, if they want to.
Forcing money away isn't New Covenant, and it wasn't given to gov't.
06:21 PM on 03/08/2012
There is income redistribution in this country - via government-imposed taxes - from the middle and upper middle class (who pay 25-35% in federal income taxes + payroll tax) to the super rich (who pay only 15% taxes, even on salaries/carried-interest, and only on income that they are unable to hide in one of the numerous loopholes and tax shelters available to them).

The only way to fix this income redistribution and bring tax fairness is:
1. Tax all income at exactly the same progressive marginal rates. The income of the super rich (capital gains, dividents, salaries for money managers/carried interest) should be taxed at the same marginal rates as regular income - just as when federal taxes were originally introduced in the USA.
2. Close ALL tax shelters and loopholes that the super rich use to hide a large part of their income (Cayman/Swiss accounts, hundred-million-$-tax-free IRAs, etc.)
3. Eliminate the AMT, which now overwhelmingly targets the working middle and upper-middle class!
4. Introduce new tax brackets for incomes over $1M and $10M. When federal taxes were originally introduced in the USA only incomes of over $1.2M (in 2011 adjusted $) were taxed, at progressiv­e rates, but now there is not even a separate tax bracket for incomes larger that $1M.
05:25 PM on 03/08/2012
I wonder how H Cain 9-9-9 plan would have worked to re distribute wealth, or re distribute poverty.
I knda miss Herman Cain. I can't wait until he has his own late nite show
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
eddy joe
welcome to the machine
05:24 PM on 03/08/2012
abortion, traditional marriage -- are taking a decidedly backseat to urgent economic issues during these trying times .... Only in the liberal media. Christians still hold these things sacred.
photo
basilva1
123avlis
05:50 PM on 03/08/2012
As an evangelical I would ask you; with close to one third of our total population below or near the poverty line what good do abortion and marriage laws do them? does it feed them, or clothe them? For decades, we evangelicals have had blinders at best or purposely turned out backs at worst on God's children in need. And in this instance I am talking about the living children of God. So maybe you should listen to the "liberal media" and do what you were commanded to do - Love God and Love your neighbor.
10:52 AM on 03/09/2012
Whether or not it feeds and clothes them, from an evangelical perspective it is the right thing to do. We still need to take care of the poor as evangelicals, but jettisoning our values simply because they don't directly alleviate a different problem is unacceptable.

To an evangelical who believes that life begins at conception, what other public policy issue directly results in the death of 1.4 MILLION children per year? If there was a toxin or pollution or whatever that ended in the death of 1.4 million children per year it would be at the top of the list of importance. For the evangelical, that is what abortion is.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
HarryFromMA
02:12 PM on 03/10/2012
basilva,
If you are truly Evangelical Christian, then you should stop adopting the worldly liberal agenda to divert from social/moral issues to what THEY want all of us to center on, while ignoring the issues they don't want social/moral conservatives to speak and act for.
1) What does marriage have to do with the poor? Single moms are much more prone to be, or go into, poverty, and the kids are more prone to have problems of various kinds. Have you not read/seen this evidence? Plenty of Evangelicals will show this to be true. Non-religious, too. Liberal media may not include it, or at best not emphasis it.
Prov: "RIGHTEOUSNESS EXALTS a NATION, SIN is a DISGRACE to ANY people."
So, the Bible does have something to say on your diversionary post.
Evangelicals cannot, collectively, do all - defend "righteousness" in a nation, work against :"sin" that disgraces a nation, and brings negative consequences naturally? Limited, indeed.
2) You DO need to delve a LOT more into Evangelical Christian action, and less in the liberal media. Christians (conservative, Evangelical, etc) have been WELL into feeding the poor, soup kitchens, community dinners for the poor, clothing closets, Compassion Int'l, World Vision, Prison Fellowship including the Christmas program for kids of prisoners Angel Tree, Samaritan's Purse, etc., etc., for QUITE a LONG time. They are also into countering and rescuing people from human trafficking, etc.
Where have you been?!

PART 2 NEXT---->
photo
donk970
Hard working member of the 99%
07:55 PM on 03/08/2012
Actually Satan holds those things sacred because it keeps peoples minds off their own need for salvation. The more time Christians spend thinking about how sinful other people are the more likely it is that they will forget their own sins.
10:53 AM on 03/09/2012
Since God has forgotten my sins forever because of the blood of Jesus why shouldn't I?
11:35 AM on 03/10/2012
“Errr - you responded "why shouldn't I" to the statement "... thinking about how sinful other people are". As a Christian I waste no opportunity telling others about my own salvation through Christ; but as a Christian I also know that judging others is way, way above my pay grade. I never presume to know anyone else's heart - that's Gods job not mine. I can only pass along the good news about salvation despite my own long list of transgressions.”

If God believes something, why shouldn't I? That is not a statement of judgement, but of affirmation to what God says.

I completely agree that we cannot know what is in someone's heart and therefore will never ultimately know if someone will get into heaven or not, but it does not follow that we are to be silent in the face of actions that are contrary to the Word of God. It is right for Christians to declare murder wrong, rape wrong, sex outside of marriage wrong, and yes engaging in homosexuality wrong. It is not the Christian who is judging, but the Word of God that states these actions to be wrong.

Its like the policeman who cites you for speeding. He is not judging you, but pointing out that your activity is contrary to the law. It is up to the judge (God) to do the judging.