Category Archives: Christ and the Politico-Economic

Entitlement V

26 Tuesday Nov 2013

Posted by in Christ and Culture, Christ and Economic, Christ and the Politico-Economic, Economics, Human Experience and Theology

≈ Comments Off on Entitlement V

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Selfishness is concern for self to the detriment of others.  Not all entitlements spring from selfishness.  With this said, my comments that follow zone in on those that do spring from selfishness.  To receive entitlements is really to take from others.  Note that I said “take” and not “receive.” There is no “giving” in this type of system. Entitlement states, “I deserve so someone take it from others and give it to me.”  Robin Hood is the hero of the poor: take from the rich, give to the poor.  The question for the poor is what attitude should I have?

This is a heart matter for a strong and tough person, a trusting and committed person.  These poor must to strong and tough because they are often exploited and they know it; they are also trusting and committed because they entrust themselves to the Lord Jesus and remain committed in that trust.  For these poor to refuse the entitled attitude of “I deserve it” they can look to the OT example of negative rights, as I noted in my earlier post on entitlements: what they might say, then, following this OT example, would be, “those rich will not (are not entitled) to oppress us.”  This brings in another set of people (the rich) and only seeks to remove the oppression done to the poor but does not seek to take things from the rich. Simply, the rich will not take from the poor and the poor will not take from the rich.

The OT clarifies, “You must not deal unjustly in judgment: you must neither show partiality to the poor nor honor the rich. You must judge your neighbor by righteousness” (Lev. 19:15; translation mine from the Hebrew, italics mine).  Look at how close Jesus repeats this Levitical principle but in different words: “Do not judge according to appearance but with righteous judgment you must judge” (Jn. 7:24).  Notice all the negatives (nor, not, neither) and how Leviticus and Jesus disavow judging people according to their socio-economic status.  Instead, both Yahweh (in Leviticus) and Jesus (in John) juxtapose their disagreement with this judging according to appearance (poor or rich or simply how someone looks) with how to judge properly, that is according to righteousness.  Of course, we must know what “righteousness” is to know how to judge.  It is clear from Scripture that righteousness, tsideqah in Hebrew, points to the teaching of the Law, the Torah, and also to Jesus’ complements to it.  And here, to avoid controversy, let’s assume that “righteousness” focuses on the moral elements in the Law and in Jesus’ teaching.  

But, if we look at people’s conformity to Jesus’ teaching and God’s law as the standard by which we judge, we do not simply see someone’s socio-economic status and conclude that they are entitled or disentitled.  We neither see the rich and say, just because they are rich, that they should give their wealth away (disentitled to their wealth) nor do we see the poor and say, just because they are poor, you should be entitled to more wealth.  And remember to be entitled (to other people’s stuff) implies taking from someone else, which then implies some measure of force.  

What is particularly dangerous about entitlement is that those who have this entitlement attitude understand themselves as holding the moral high ground.  But not having stuff and thinking you should have it and wanting someone to take it implies immorality, both in the force necessary to make this occur and in the envy that undergirds it. Simply “not having” does not produce moral currency (to put them on the high moral ground) that sets someone above “those that have.”  Look what comes together in this thinking: “I deserve, someone take it and give it to me, and having the moral high ground justifies coercion, force, or even violence.”  Following the example of our Lord Jesus, it is obvious that having the moral high ground does not put one in a position to take or engender an attitude of taking but, rather, to give and engendering an attitude of giving.  Jesus holds the absolute highest moral high ground there is.  Yet He deprives Himself of that lofty purity to come to earth to give Himself, making others pure: “He became poor so that we might become rich.”  

B. T. Scalise

Entitlement IV

09 Saturday Nov 2013

Posted by in Christ and the Politico-Economic, Exegesis and Interpretation

≈ 1 Comment

Returning to the point that Paul was unwilling to command ‘giving’ let’s do a bit more unpacking: “. . . see that you excel in this act of grace also.  I say this not as a command . . .” (2 Cor. 8:7-8)  He then goes on to note that Christ became poor so that Christians can become rich and implies we ought to mimic this (2 Cor. 8: 9 – 10).  That he does not command this is no surprise since only several verses later St. Paul states, “Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Cor 9:7).  If Paul commanded it, the giving would be under compulsion; if Paul commanded it, it would no longer be gracious giving but obligatory paying–it would be difficult to call obligatory paying an “act of grace”  (2 Cor. 8:6).  The point is that we should give because we want to–not because we have to–and we must recognize that mimicking Christ requires such “willing giving.”  Everyone who names themselves a disciple cannot say, “But what if I don’t want to?”  Certainly we may feel like this from time to time but, in such cases, we pray, give thanks, and renew our view to our Master, the Christ, Jesus our Lord.  Notice, Paul’s logic: “for God loves a cheerful giver.”  And if God loves this and we love Him then we are inclined and desire to please Him (as our loving Father), approve cheerful giving (as God does), and enjoy seeing other do the same (just as God does and loves seeing us do).  It follows, then, that fellow Christians who are able to provide are not entitled to ignore the needs of fellow Christians.  But needful fellow Christians cannot covet and demand, only receive.  Those rich Christians are not entitled to give begrudgingly or out of compulsion, only freely and cheerfully “for the Lord loves a cheerful giver.”   Accordingly, those Christians who have not cannot compel those Christians who have to give–or else giving would no longer be giving (Rom. 4:4).  All of these Christians, whether Christians who have or those who have not, places them solely before the throne of the Lord Jesus: how should I act, as a Christian, as I relate to the Lord? This is the first and most important question inasmuch as the Greatest command has preeminence (Love the Lord with all mind, soul, strength).

Entitlement III

30 Wednesday Oct 2013

Posted by in Christ and Culture, Christ and the Politico-Economic

≈ Comments Off on Entitlement III

Tags

, ,

Seeing this connection to covetousness–namely, fighting for the wants (not needs) of those supposedly “oppressed” by means of redistribution, even if in the name of Christ–ought to send us reeling since St. Paul aptly states, “covetousness is idolatry” (Col 3:5).  To break the 10th commandment is to likewise break the 1st and 2nd of the 10 commandments, the two which prohibit idolatry.  But this needs balanced. The coveting which can occur from the one who has not (the poor) is prohibited: a negative entitlement, that is, you are not entitled to covet.  So too, then, those who fight for the “right” of the wants of the so-called oppressed have the negative right, yes even responsibility, not to covet so as to redistribute to make everyone “equal.” The rich are not entitled to oppress the poor: to do so is to despise your Maker (Prov. 14:31).  Paul was unwilling to command ‘giving’ even as an apostle: “. . . see that you excel in this act of grace also.  I say this not as a command . . .” (2 Cor. 8:7-8).  I have no doubt that giving must be part of the way of life of any Christian; how could it not be in view of the immeasurable gift God has given both in creating whatsoever but even more so by giving His Son, the divine Logos (Wisdom and reason) of God.  In Him, each level of rationality has its meaning, fulfills its function, and sustains the ordered universe.  The question is to whom to give and how much.  It is no small matter that Agur in Proverbs 30:8 – 9 asks to be given just as much as he needs so that he will not ultimately deny the Lord.  On this logic, giving too much to some might result in a spiritual crisis of denying Yahweh, His Spirit, and Christ.

Entitlement II

29 Tuesday Oct 2013

Posted by in Christ and Culture, Christ and the Politico-Economic

≈ Comments Off on Entitlement II

Tags

, , ,

Should not the rich provide for the poor? The typical logic to this is, “They have more and can spare more.” What is not said is, “They have more and I want more, I want what they have.” By saying this, I am not suggesting that the rich do not have a responsibility before God to aid the poor.  This is obvious because whoever “oppresses a poor man insults his Maker” (Prov. 14:31).  Notice also that to take care of the poor is a responsibility before God, not government.  And why does it matter that it is before God and not government? Because God has riches and power of His own He does not need to skim off the top or get “a cut.”  Not so with government precisely because they only have riches and power to the extent that they receive from other humans, usually through taxation.  This is why Yahweh, with our Lord Jesus demonstrating this par excellent, has always been distinguished from the pagan gods and Ancient Near Eastern gods: Yahweh is not a God in need of man’s service unlike the other gods who are, to some extent, dependent on man.  So what, then, is the problem with the poor wanting what the rich have?  In response to this, we might wonder if Christians have forgotten the 10th commandment: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that belongs to your neighbor.”  So then, the response, “but they have . . . and I want” immediately falls condemned as covetousness.  Even the Christian humanitarian who fights for the poors’ wants has to fear the 10th command.  The command says that you shall not covet anything of your neighbor.  It does not say, do not covet anything of your neighbors unless you are fighting for the wants of others or unless you are coveting it in order to give it to someone else.  To fight for the wants of someone else is still to be guilty of coveting someone else’s stuff, to want and take someone’s stuff in order to give it away.  What is often missed is that the humanitarian is indeed wanting something: what they want is something immaterial, however it is packaged: justice, prominence, power, glory, recognition, God’s glory, the promotion of the kingdom of heaven, Christ’s fame.  The last three are particularly ironic since obtaining these objectives breaks the 10th commandment: “I want God’s kingdom’s promoted by coveting the goods of one person, taking those goods away, and giving them to others” (the goods here are wants, not needs).   Of course, no one would say it this way.  It would rather come out like this: “We are pushing forward the kingdom of heaven by seeking equality and justice among all people.  I am not saying that people cannot fight for the rights of others or the essential needs of others or for the dignity of others; I am centering my attention on fighting for the wants of others.  We should, therefore, inquire, any time we have conversations of this manner, into the definitions of wants, rights, and needs.  How someone trying to act like Christ would respond in conversations about these will differ significantly based on both what is talked about (wants, rights, needs) and how these are defined.  I have no doubt more can be said about the role of government in its task of regulating trade and so forth and ensuring equity among people in a community but I will have to save this for later, with a lot more space.

Entitlement: Part 1

08 Friday Jun 2012

Posted by in Christ and the Politico-Economic

≈ Comments Off on Entitlement: Part 1

Tags

, , , ,

It is worth wondering why the majority of the law in the OT ascribes negative rights to people instead of positive ones. Dietrich Bonhoeffer thought about this same thing while his imprisonment during World War II which ending in his death at the command of Hitler.  When I say negative, I simply mean commands which have “not” in them: “You shall not murder, you shall not covet, you shall not commit adultery.”  The Entitlement mentality says, “I am entitled to something, I have a right to . . .”  But having an attitude of negative rights (“I am not entitled to, I do not have a right to”) changes how we receive.  The ramifications of allowing this “negative rights paradigm” to sink in through daily life, whether it be political, economic, or social, will create a brand new way of life, seen most clearly in our attitude about what we receive from others. But is entitlement really that bad a thing?  Are we not due something?  Do we have to define life by what we are not entitled to (e.g., not entitled to kill someone)? Granted, being self-interested is not always to be selfish.  Nevertheless, an entitlement attitude is defined by its concern for self preeminently and not with someone else.  In the negative paradigm, another person enters the conversation: “I am not entitled to murder someone.”  In the entitlement way, the same thought sounds like this with another not entering the thought: “I am entitled to live.”  This is only a small matter of phrasing but how we phrase it is foundational to how we understand our relationships with others.  Does our sense of entitlement damage another?  This is crucial: there can be some self-interested activities which benefit others and there are some which are detrimental to others.  Entitlement, as conceived in what follows, does harm to another and thus is rightly classified as selfish and not merely self-interested.  For instance, if we say that we deserve an education paid for by the government, what have we really said?  We deserve an education paid for by others who have labored through their jobs, risks, stocks, what have you, and then had their money taken through taxation and redistributed by government. And who gets the renown for this? Likely government and not the rightful men or women who earned the money.  Entitlement benefits received through government necessarily involves oppression of those from whom the money is taken in order for their money to be redistributed.  What degree of taxation? Or for what purposes will taxes be used?  How we answer these questions will determine whether taxation is oppressive taxation.  Taxation per se is not evil.  Will Christians, through entitlement and taxation, support enslaving many in this manner?  Bear in mind that I am not saying that Christians should not give; I am saying that Christians should give but taxation, required as it is, for the sake of government-discerned-entitlements is not “giving.”  For one, determining who receives your money is no longer up to the one who is giving the money (in many regards).  For two, giving based on Christ is to be freely done just as He freely gave.  For three, the one giving should receive credit for the gift rather than the one who is redistributing.  We even use different language to describe the difference between paying taxes and giving.  Intuitively we say, when we give the government money through taxation, “I paid my taxes,” rather than, “I gave my taxes”: different words for different actions.

B. T. Scalise