There are some big happenings just south of here in Orange County this weekend.
The Presbyterian Global Fellowship is holding their third annual Inside-Out Conference in Long Beach this weekend. For details of what is happening you can check out the PGF Outbox blog. (For the GA Junkies out there this is the same convention center that was the site of the 212th General Assembly (2000) of the PC(USA).)
There’s also some political event going on at a megachurch down there. With the price of one of the good seats at $2000 I’m skipping it. But seriously, this blending (blurring?) of church and state has raised issues with some people. (Example 1 and Example 2 from On Faith)
But I want to take a step back from this direct and high-profile political involvement and mention another church and culture article. This comes from David Virtue of Virtue Online and in a recent post he discusses a book by Dr. Peter Hammond titled Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat. (now apparently out of print) Mr. Virtue begins his entry with this:
Islam
has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The
religious component is a beard for all the other components.
You may or may not agree with this and if you agree you may consider the concept of a complete system a positive or a negative (Mr. Virtue goes on to discuss it as a negative). But it struck me that a scholar and friend of mine views the ancient Hebrew society as a complete system with implications for the modern Christian Church to be integrated in society, not an institution outside it. This is not that the United States should be a theocracy, but rather how Christians corporately and individually participate in our culture. And yes, this flies in the face of American individualism and the church as just a spiritual institution.
The Rev. Dr. Robert Linthicum is a parish associate at our church and head of the parachurch organization Partners in Urban Transformation. Previously an urban parish minister and leader at World Vision in urban ministry, he is an expert in community organizing. With his background and study he has a theological perspective that sees the Biblical instructions to ancient Israel as a complete system, an integration of their spiritual, economic and political life so that there are no rich or poor but a culture that is equitable to everyone. And through this lens he reads the rest of the Bible to see God’s people as the workers for God’s social vision even today.
Now, you may not agree with his theological viewpoint; I can say that I am not in total agreement with some of the things I have heard Bob say. But in the same way that Mr. Virtue is discussing Islam as a complete system, this particular view has ancient Israel intended to be a complete system and the Christian Church the inheritors of that legacy.
I have been trying to find a good resource on line that explains some of this but have not located any. You can get some of this viewpoint from one of Rev. Linthicum’s sermons (larger mp3, smaller wma). His central books on this are Transforming Power and Building a People of Power.
For consideration. Your mileage may vary.
“there are no rich or poor but a culture that is equitable to everyone”
How is the elimination of rich and poor related to whether the culture is equitable? That a lazy person becomes poor while an industrious person becomes rich doesn’t strike me an inequitable or unBiblical. Didn’t God Himself bless David with riches as a reward for obedience and a sign of divine favor? Didn’t God make Solomon fabulously wealthy? Didn’t God impoverish those with whom He was displeased?
To be sure, the Bible takes issue with wealth acquired for its own sake and hoarded. And the Bible deals with coveting the wealth of others. And the Bible deals with charity for those who have fallen on hard times. But none of that has anything to do with giving everyone equal incomes. Really, I think this was inartfully worded. Surely this wasn’t what you meant to say, was it?
Hi Demesne,
Thank you for your comment. I can see what you are saying based upon the history of the Hebrew people as described in the Old Testament and you are correct.
But the section that you quote is pretty much what I meant to say although maybe I should have written “no extremes of rich or poor.” You are correct that through providence, hard work, luck, cooperation, any number of reasons, some individuals will prosper and some won’t.
My distinction is in the next paragraph where I write that ancient Israel was “intended to be a complete system.”
This was a brief post and I really did not develop Rev. Linthicum’s viewpoint on the Old Testament to do it justice. But it is centered on the Law in the Pentateuch and the regulations that include caring for the poor and the systems that it describes for prevention of accumulating wealth at others expense and redistributing the wealth in the cancellation of debts and in the return of land in the Year of Jubilee. And I say “intended” because the people had the Law and did not follow some of these provisions almost from the start, resulting in some of the extremes you point out. For the next 1500 years, or longer, the prophets were calling them back to obedience. But here is the intent, as set out in Deut. 15:4,5:
Again, this is brief and I am not doing his systematic approach to, and his viewpoint on, the Old Testament Law and systems justice. As I indicate in the original post, my personal understanding is somewhere between his and yours. My intent was not so much to lay out this understanding in a full way, but to point out that there are Christian scholars who see Christianity as a full system (inherited from the systems of ancient Israel) that includes all aspects of the culture and does not compartmentalize our spirituality to Sunday morning and Wednesday night.
I hope that helps.
Indeed, it does help. I don’t disagree that the Jewish Law was meant to be as broad and all-encompassing as you say. I don’t even dispute that Christianity can be applied that way, nor do I have a problem with the notion that it should be applied that way.
My only question was related to whether equality of incomes is the correct Biblical standard. There are certainly alot of economic issues on which the Bible takes a firm stand: wealth for its own sake, covetousness, greed, cheating in business, mixing religion and commerce, charity, poverty, social justice, etc.
I just don’t happen to think that income leveling is one of those, and I haven’t seen any Scriptural basis for it. The Bible may have said “let there be no poor among you”, but it certainly never said “let there be no rich among you”! Moreover, there is no way to get rid of the rich without sacrificing other Biblical principles that we also cherish: personal responsibility, reward for hard work, individual freedom, and the pursuit of happiness (an unalienable right we have long held to have been endowed upon us by our Creator).
I see no basis for saying that “equitable” means the elimination of the rich along with the poor. That isn’t equitable. Some people are always going to be wiser, luckier, and/or more industrious (and therefore more prosperous) than those who, for their own reasons, make bad choices that keep them impoverished.
In any case, sometimes the poor cannot be helped. Christianity (or Jewish Law) does not offer a solution to the problem of the drug-addict who simply chooses to remain addicted and unable to work. Giving him money to make him less poor doesn’t strike me as a good strategy. As long as he chooses to put whatever money he has up his nose, even the Church cannot change his circumstances. That isn’t systemic, that is God allowing us the free will to fail. Until the Lord returns, we are always going to have those among us who choose to be disobedient and therefore are not blessed as richly.
The verse you cite merely says that there SHOULD BE no poor, since obedience to God will give you all you need. The necessary corrolary to that is that those who are disobedient will be the poorer for it. No system can fix that. It is as God ordained it.