Category Archives: Economics

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

What’s Wrong with the Way Christian Ministries’ Leaders often Treat their Workers?

15 Friday Nov 2013

Posted by in Christian Ministry, Economics

≈ Comments Off on What’s Wrong with the Way Christian Ministries’ Leaders often Treat their Workers?

Tags

, , , , ,

What’s wrong with Christian Ministry’s “Employee/Employer” relationships. Have you every wondered why it is okay for Christian ministries to “employ” people without paying those people? This question should raise some eyebrows and maybe even more objections so some clarifying comments need laid out. First, the question above does not impugn genuine volunteer work. Any organization, church, institution, business, or government can ask for volunteers—no objection to that. But asking for volunteers for iterative or non-regular activities is quite different from structuring an entire institution around free labor as regular practice (volunteer work). Essential to recognize is that hoping for volunteers is very different than expecting volunteers by the framework of the organization.

For instance, imagine a ministry, Christians for God: This ministry runs its day-in, day-out activities by paid employees but also by non-paid occasional volunteers. Sometimes this ministry needs more work done after hours and so opens up extra work to the paid employees by offering both paid hours and accepting volunteer hours for the work. In this way, whether the workers get paid or volunteer is decided upon by the one who works, not by the one asking for the work. This is all well and good and might be the best situation. However, if the ministry cannot afford to pay these after hours of work, it could still ask for volunteers to get the work done so long as it is occasional, not obligatory, and not presented through manipulative “guilt-tripping.” Most people readily understand “volunteer work” as supererogatory—i.e., beyond the call of duty—but why is it that many Christian organizations turn what should be supererogatory (working without pay) into what is obligatory?

When a Christian institute makes working for free obligatory to work for them at all, the question all Christians must ask is, “How are you Christians, who run that institute, submitting to Christ by establishing a work setting that requires free labor you leading Christians?” No one is calling into question the nature of volunteer work or the hearts of the ones who volunteer. We are asking, “Is there something immoral and indicating non-submission to Christ for Christian leaders to expect free labor for themselves?” In most of these cases, how these Christians who work for such an institute get paid is by raising support. So others, not the leaders of the institute, fund these Christians. What is obvious is that those funding and those being funded are submitting to Christ; what is not obvious is how the leaders are submitting to Christ. These leaders get free labor for themselves, have authority over those working for free for them, and establish a non-prosperous business/institute that is not self-sustaining.

These leaders do not have the right to say that they pay their employees because using the language of “pay” implies producing a product or service from which income is collected in excess to the cost of running the institute/business. Further, really it is those are voluntarily funding the employees that could claim to “pay” these employees. It is better to say that these volunteer funders are simply funding these employees since they are not “paying” them as compensation for some service or product they’ve consumed.

Let’s pull this all together:

1) The volunteers (volunteer employees) for the institute are clearly submitting to Christ because they are freely willing to take on the hardship by raising support.

2) Those funding these volunteer employees are submitting to Christ because they are freely funding and not receiving a product or service in return.

3) Those leaders of the institute’s receive free labor because they are not paying the volunteer employees; these leaders receive free income from the produce of the volunteer workers (and amazingly, these leaders sometimes take salaries); these leaders get to have authority over the volunteer workers although not compensating these workers; and these leaders use their authority to continue to propagate an unsustainable and non-prosperous ministry model built on the back of “free labor” of willing devote Christians.

The Christian leaders get to tell the volunteer employees what to do, expect them to work for free for them, get to benefit from the produce (fruit) and money the volunteer employees produce meanwhile the volunteer employees do not share in those benefits, and perpetually uphold and so perpetually benefit from this non-prosperous and unsustainable model.

I might be confused but didn’t Jesus say, “The kings of the Gentiles domineer over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves (Luke 22:25 – 26) . . . and I am among you as One who serves (Lk. 22:27).

Next time I’ll unpack this in view of what I’ve said above.

B. T. Scalise