Sociologist and Divided by Faith author Michael Emerson has an interesting article posted at UrbanFaith.com regarding the issue of economic redistribution. Barack Obama took a lot of heat from his opponents during the election over this matter, as they labeled him and his policies (raising taxes on the wealthy and giving relief to the poor and middle class) as being socialist in nature. Here, Emerson examines the issue in light of early church practices and the noted work of John Perkins.
Recent Comments
Stuart on Rebel Songs BEEKAYTEE on Remembering a Different T… (@moorby_l) on ‘Twas the Night Before J… Bob dog on Rebel Songs Gail on How ‘Hee Haw’ Chan… Gail on How ‘Hee Haw’ Chan… Glenna on ‘Twas the Night Before J… Ed G.’s Tweets
- @imTerenceLester Wonderful news! Blessings and congratulations! 2 days ago
- @KaitlynSchiess Blessings and congratulations! 1 week ago
- @JBsTwoCents Blessings and congratulations! 2 months ago
- Happening today! christianitytoday.com/ct/2022/novemb… 3 months ago
- Friends, we're less than a week away from @CTmagazine's special Advent webinar. Writers from "The Promised One" dev… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 3 months ago
- Apology Asian Asian American Barack Obama Bill Cosby black church Bob Jones University Chicago Chris Rock Christianity Today Christmas Civility civil rights movement Conservatives Culture Deadly Viper Democratic National Convention Democrats Diversity Divided by Faith Election Eric Holder Evangelicals faith family film Forgiveness George Ryan Glenn Loury gospel music Grace I Have a Dream Illinois John McCain Jordan Peele Jud Wilhite justice Martin Luther King Jr. Michael Emerson Michael O. Emerson Mike Foster movies multiethnic church NBA Newsweek NPR Obama parenting Philip Yancey Politics prayer President Barack Obama Presidential Election President Obama Race Race Relations racial reconciliation Racism Reconciliation Religion Rod Blagojevich Roger Ebert Sarah Palin Saturday Night Live Sexism social justice Soong-Chan Rah Soul Children of Chicago stereotypes Thanksgiving Todd Burkes UrbanFaith UrbanFaith.com war Zondervan
Blog Categories
Blog Archives
Blog Calendar
Meta
Reconciliation Blog 
There is a huge problem with comparing the early church and their “all things in common” with government wealth distribution. Namely, the government has motives other than those the early church had. Sure, many in the government are well meaning, but to redistribute through a secular organization is fraught with problems. I guarantee the percentage of waste between government programs and the early church are staggering. And how often did someone in the early church get some sort of non community oriented kickback from what was collected? The modern American bureaucratic machine verses a few early converts? There is no comparison.
I do agree with churches and ministries engaging in redistribution. There it is by calling and being a part of the body of Christ. It is not forced or imposed by a government with more agendas than a millipede has legs.
I find the last paragraph of the article interesting. I also do not agree with it at all.
“As Christians, we undoubtedly should spread the wealth around. If we did as God asks of us–tithing our first fruits to do so–we would not need to have government involved. But we don’t do what we are supposed to do, and in such a case, it may be equitable and just to create a tax system that does that for us.”
Just as the writer doesn’t think Christ would agree with pay that is not equitable, I don’t think he’d necessarily agree that we let the government do this for us. For if we do, how many people drop out of joining him in his redeeming work that may otherwise have? Because the government is not going to redeem God’s creation. Only he will.
I’ve worked with Perkins’s ministry in Mississippi back in the early 90’s. I sat under his teaching at a large church and in a small Bible study. Because of his teaching, I “chose” to relocate to the inner city, I chose to give as a gift of gratefulness to my Savior through both my church and united way, and I befriended my diverse neighbors. But it was all my choice. That’s what Perkins taught as well. Would you prefer Obama tell us where to live as well and who we should spend time with?
The author also seems naive regarding job pay. He contrasts a garbage man with a brain surgeon. He doesn’t understand supply and demand. Brain surgeons are in high demand, so they make more money to try and save people’s lives. Garbagemen are easily replaceable, so there is no reason to pay them as much. If brain surgery was easy, their salaries would plummet. If no one wanted their services, the same.
It’s an extremely disappointing article. For another perspective, I recommend the blog of Radolpho Carrasco who is the Executive Director of Harambee Christian Family Center in Pasadena, Calif., started by Perkins, at http://www.urbanonramps.com/bio/
God is good
jpu
Dr. Emerson appears ignorant of political science, theology and economics.
First, political scientists generally define government as “the monopolistic use of force” and politics as “the authoritative allocation of resources and values.” Putting them together, you get an institution that has the legal power to force you to do what they say and value what they value–or at least pay for what they value. Now, if that sounds like the church to you, you must be living under an official church in a communist country.
I notice Dr. Emerson liked to put to Acts 2 and Acts 4 to prove the early church was socialist. But, he conveniently ignored Acts 5 in which Peter tells Ananias: “Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal?” In the early church, there was absolutely no force being used to motivate people to give to those in need.
There is no legitimate way to use Acts as a justification for government taking money from one group and giving money to another group. Whenever money is forcefully taken in the Bible, it is considered theft. Even in the Old Testament, there was no prescribed penalty for failure to tithe.
When Dr. Emerson refers to a garbage collector as performing “hard, sacrificial work for the community,” he is using typical socialist propaganda to elevate the working class. Is the garbage collector really sacrificing? What is he sacrificing? It’s not as if the garbage collector could be making $800,000 as a brain surgeon, but has chosen to collect garbage because, as Emerson claims, that work is more directly beneficial to the masses. Emerson is being asinine and treating his readers as morons.
I am a public school teacher with a doctorate, and I make $41,000. But, I don’t expect anyone to treat me as if I am sacrificing for my students. I do this work because this is what I want to do. A sacrifice would be making more money doing something I found less personally satisfying. Now, the garbage collector probably doesn’t do his work for the satisfaction, but a basic understanding of economic theory (opportunity cost) tells us he would be do something else if he thought something else was a better use of his time and skills. He’s collecting garbage because that’s his best opportunity. There’s no self-sacrifice there.
Finally, Dr. Emerson apparently believes he is better than many other Americans. After all, he has decided that he has the right and authority to use government to decide what other people should be forced to do with their money.
In fairness to Michael, those Scripture reference links were added by me. I wonder if some of you are taking the point of the article too literally. What I read in the piece is more a call for the spirit of sacrificial giving and sharing that the early Christians practiced. I didn’t take this to mean our government should somehow legislate a socialist, or even New Testament, model of people giving their money to the poor. However, I do think it means we should consider applying a more selfless and compassionate approach to how we think about our financial systems in the United States (and I guess this would include our system of taxation).
I have a question for you.
What do you think of my new blog entry?
http://777denny.wordpress.com/
Thank you,
777denny
Edward,
Our brother writes, “But we don’t do what we are supposed to do, and in such a case, it may be equitable and just to create a tax system that does that for us.” I do take that to mean an endorsement of a more socialist model of taxation.
My issue with our brother is his belief that income directly correlates to value. A human who picks up garbage for a living has no more value than a brain surgeon. However, a brain surgeon is rewarded more for accomplishing what so few can, just like a pro athlete, or an entertainer. We the people, then, are willing to exchange more of our labor, in the form of cash, for some of their labor. Also, that brain surgeon receives more honor and respect because it is assumed that someone who has dedicated his life to science and research and medicine is likely able to apply his mind to other areas with some degree of excellence.
I’m sure Luke, the physician, was better compensated than Paul the tentmaker, but their value is independent of their careers.
Our brother’s reasoning is immature and echoes of Marx, the effects of whose thoughts were the slaughter of over 100 million in China and Russia.
I recommend reading Solzhenitsyn’s “Gulag Archipelago” and Applebaum’s “Gulag: A History” to learn the history of the philosophy applied.
God is good
jpu
Dr. Emerson wrote: “[The garbage collector] gets almost no respect at all, and is often sheepish to tell others what he does for a living.” Consequently, Emerson proposes paying the man more money. But, paying garbage collectors more is not going to get them respect. If money led to respect, 50 Cent would be our President.
If the garbage collector is ashamed of his work, that is a problem. But, it’s a problem Christianity deals with in a manner totally different than redistributing wealth. “Whatever you do, do it enthusiastically, as something done for the Lord and not for men, knowing that you will receive the reward of an inheritance from the Lord—you serve the Lord Christ” (Col 3:23-24, CSB). As Martin Luther explained, “Let the milkmaid milk to the glory of God.”
Dr. Emerson sees a friend who feels shame because he works for his own glory, and Emerson’s answer is to give the man more money. Why not introduce the man to the God who does not distinguish between rich and poor, brilliant and simple?
Dr. Emerson’s proposal is actually the antithesis of Christianity—attempting to fill spiritual hungry with temporal food.
In addition, Dr. Emerson ignores the role of government in creating the economic problems. During the 19th century, physicians were generally low paid and given little respect. Then, the AMA lobbied government to give them authority to license physicians and accredit medical schools. They successfully closed many medical schools, which resulted in more competitive admissions. That helped raise the respect of physicians. Fewer medical schools also meant fewer physicians, thereby decreasing supply and increasing cost. So, the reason physicians are paid so well, and healthcare is so expensive, is largely the result of government intervention in the market.
Dr. Emerson also mentioned the physician having the ability to choose the best schools, while the garbage collector must accept the zoned public schools. Why not address the government monopoly of schools and the opportunity vouchers would give to those with low incomes? We don’t need to artificially raise pay of low-income workers if we would just take the ~$8,000+ we spend on public school students each year and let parents use that money to choose the best education for their children.
Government is not the answer; it is usually the problem. The first government project in the Bible is the Tower of Babel and the first politician is Nimrod.
I too found the conclusion of this article a bit troubling. A good case can be made that people don’t donate enough to charity. But then to make the case that Big Brother government is justified to step in and do it for us is ridiculous. Even if you leave out if it is morally right to do this, has anyone been paying attention to how the government spends money? Why do people believe that ‘government knows best’?
There is a very important distinction between charity and government redistribution. It baffles me that people think these are the same thing. When the government (or any entity) forcefully takes money from one party to give it to someone else, it is called stealing. When someone gives to the charity or person of their choosing it is called giving.
EG,
Thanks for sharing this article. I think the other commenters have a good point: one shouldn’t draw a perfect parallel between the communality of the Acts church and government redistribution programs. Although I am sympathetic to (what I perceive as) Emerson’s fundamental impulse (i.e. equity in the Kingdom of God) I have to disagree that government-sanctioned redistribution is the best way to achieve it. For me, the issue isn’t so much the morality of government taxation but rather whether pursuing such a course of action puts too much emphasis on government action and not enough on church action.
Trying to theologize redistributive taxation via the Bible is not the way to go, as I understand it. But people who say so (myself foremost) need to “pick up the slack” by putting together equitable, communal, grace-ful economies where we are. Supply and demand and other concepts are useful for describing the way worldly economies function, but at times they run contrary to Kingdom values, and we have to have the wisdom to recognize when they do and the courage to make the necessary changes.
Thanks for the link and discussion.
P.S. I started “Reconciliation Blues” today and I’m already halfway through. It’s very easy to read but also very challenging. Thanks!
Here is what the brain surgeon, or any other doctor has to go through to get to more money than a garbageman, “…
medical school itself. Two years of cutthroat class work, followed by two years of rotations, led to many sleepless nights, premature graying, and ulcers.
Once they graduate from med school, it still was not over! They endure several years of residency (very little choice as to where they end up; they can specify preferences, but ultimately where they get “matched” is up to the computer). And they go where they are told to go. During their residency, where they learn their specialty (such as internal medicine, pediatrics, urology, surgery, etc.), though they now have the M.D. degree and are called doctor, they are essentially underpaid and treated as grunt labor. Every 3 or 4 days, they must pull an all-nighter at the hospital and are mistreated by both their superiors and their patients.
After they finish their residency—yep, you guessed it—there still is more. Many have to further specialize (for example, if you did pediatrics, you can go on to specialize in pediatric dermatology). More years of learning and pain, and they still are not fully treated as doctors until they finish!
Many people discover, along the way, that all this is overwhelming. But they can’t get off the treadmill. They’ve already invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into this, and the only way they can pay off their school debt is to become a doctor. It’s a vicious cycle. And, as many of my friends have complained, doctors don’t get paid as much as they used to, or as much as people think they do.”
http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/2009/01/14/the-pre-med-track-is-it-worth-it/
Since it costs much more to become a doctor than to become a garbageman, shouldn’t the doctor be paid more, once he finally starts his practice, perhaps 10 or more years after the garbageman started his?
God is good
jpu
[…] O. Emerson wrote an article about redistribution on the Urban Faith website and Ed Gilbreath put up a post asking for comments on the merits of redistribution. From the responses, and the […]
[…] couple week’s ago, I posted about Michael Emerson’s UrbanFaith.com article on “The Redistribution Question.” […]