Redistribution of wealth: It's in the Bible!
By Daniel J. Webster
Tax day has come and gone. News video of tax protests is still being shown. There were images of President Obama wearing a Mao hat with the Chinese Communist red star. There were images of makeshift American flags with a hammer and sickle replacing the stars. One news photo showed a woman holding a sign that read, "My God, My Money, My Guns."
My God and my money, indeed.
This Sunday millions of American Christians who attend churches that follow the Revised Common Lectionary will hear a reading from the Acts of the Apostles. It's a short reading. In just four verses those who hear Acts 4:32-35 may be a little surprised about how the early followers of Jesus handled their money and possessions.
They will hear "...no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common." The story tells us followers sold their homes and property, gave the proceeds to the apostles who distributed the funds so that there "was not a needy person among them."
I'm going out on a limb here and suspect that, like the woman holding the sign about God, money and guns, most of those protesting on April 15 really and truly believe the United States is a Christian nation. Many of them truly believe the economic stimulus actions by the federal government amount to socialism. That's what they've been told by their favorite radio talk show hosts or cable news antagonist anchors.
The brief reading for Sunday is actually just the beginning of a longer section of Acts that details those who redistribute and those who refuse to share their wealth. St. Barnabas is singled out as one who does right in selling his land and giving the money to the apostles.
But Ananais and his wife Sapphira don't fare as well. They hold on to some of their possessions. Peter calls them agents of Satan. And the consequence for withholding wealth for yourself in this story is death. Both Ananais and Sapphira drop dead when told of their inaction. They might as well have been holding the sign, "My God, My Money, My Guns."
This is one of those uncomfortable readings that are dismissed by millions of modern Christians who believe capitalism is God's will. Don't get me wrong. Capitalism is not evil if it has a conscience. But when capitalism is perverted to create a society that proclaims loudly, "I've got mine. You get yours," then we have a system that promotes death among the least among us.
There have been other images on TV and in the news. A recent "60 Minutes" report on CBS profiled uninsured patients at a Nevada hospital who had their cancer treatments canceled when state tax dollars were withdrawn because of the economic downturn. One patient said it amounted to a death sentence.
In that same story a doctor was shown treating some of those patients for whatever they could pay. He and other physicians were donating, or redistributing their wealth, to take care of those who were needy. They were acting today in the spirit of Barnabas and those early followers of Jesus.
Living in that spirit will really make us a Christian nation for all Americans whether they be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or those of no faith. President Obama, the man vilified as communist or socialist at the TEA Parties, often refers to the multi-religious golden rule when he discusses tax increases for the wealthy. Maybe he should refer to Acts 4:32-35 in the future for those who believe in "My God, My Money, My Guns."
The Rev. Canon Daniel J. Webster is canon for congregational development in the Diocese of New York and Vicar of St. Francis of Assisi Church in Montgomery, New York.

i'm 100% in favor of wealth redistribution as an act of voluntary charity taken by religious persons for religious reasons as a reflection of their internal transformation. but i can still be 100% opposed to governmental taxation, the vast majority of which is NOT used for wealth redistribution, but for a whole host of very un-Jesus-like activities.
our new president's socialist leanings (whether they exist or not) have nothing whatsoever to do with the intentions of charity and whether or not we should be doing that ourselves, or entrusting it to his (or any other) government.
(Editor's note: Jhim, we need your full name next time.)
Posted by .hack/jhimm
|
April 17, 2009 12:33 PM
Jhimm, I understand what you're saying. What, though, if many of us - in light of the recent election, perhaps most of us - also want our taxes oriented toward wealth redistribution? Is not support for welfare, for SCHIP, for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), for Medicaid funding not an expression of charitable intent on the part f the electorate? It is certainly one purpose I have when I vote. I want to have not just charitable individuals but a charitable society. So, voting for that - and for that use of our tax dollars - is an expression of my intent that the broadest possible society (which is to say all of us) with the broadest possible need (which is to say even those in other places).
Marshall Scott
Posted by mscottsail
|
April 18, 2009 12:01 PM
Christians need to stop asking the gov't to enforce our moral and religious choices on everyone. It's annoying from the left *and* from the right. If churches want to be sources of wealth for the poor (I'm all for that!) then let us do it: let's sell our property (and not file lawsuits over getting them back!) let's ditch our gold chalices and icons, and candlesticks. Let's sell off our thousands of dollars of pipe organs, turn our churches into low-rent apartments, stop paying our clergy in salaries way above poverty level, and let's return to Acts-level of simplicity and humility.
But let's not use the gov't to force others to be "fiscal Christians" just so we can feel righteous. No secular gov't is going to build the kingdom - but the church can *be* the Kingdom right now... without coercing others to come to the party.
Posted by Huw Richardson
|
April 18, 2009 12:34 PM
So, in other words, when Christians are in the majority they are supposed to use the power of the state to impose their values?
The Bible says Christians should help the poor. It doesn't say they should take from the rich to give to the poor -- or anyone else.
Bringing about the kingdom is about changing hearts and minds. It's not about leveraging the coercive power of the state.
Posted by John B. Chilton
|
April 19, 2009 9:46 AM
I think people are distorting the point of this article, which is that there is a scriptural case to be made for redistributing wealth, and that we should feel free to make it when we participate in the debates that shape the laws of our country.
Posted by Jim Naughton
|
April 19, 2009 10:37 AM