Many of you know that I love thinking about and reading about economics.
Economics has long been dubbed 'the science of unintended consequences' because it is very difficult to properly anticipate just exactly what people will do when confronted with a change in economic policy. There have been some fun books written on the subject including Freakonomics which I highly recommend.
Here's a quick anecdote that makes the point:
In a local restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie on. I laughed as I realized he had given away his political preference.
When the bill came I decided not to tip the server - explaining to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in abject disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need - the homeless guy I had passed outside as I entered the restaurant.
The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10.
At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution economic experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn (he scooted right off to buy more alcohol) but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he earned. I thought the waiter would understand since the homeless guy quite obviously had the greater need for the money.
Hmmm. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.
It's Been Forever......
7 years ago
9 comments:
I feel like this story suffers from a few problems:
First, the author grossly plays into stereotypes, especially concerning the homeless recipient of the $10. Not all homeless people run straight to the liquor store whenever they have any money.
Second, this economic model assumes entitlement to that which we "earn." However, according to our faith, all we have is God's (what we work for and what we are gifted with), and we are called to be good stewards and generous stewards of the blessings he has bestowed upon us.
Many problems start surfacing when people feel entitled to the gifts God has given them, instead of remembering that everything belongs to Him. The waiter is angry because he feels entitled to the tip. He earned it, he should get it.
But if we operate under the fair assumption that the homeless man is going to use the money to get food, clothes, etc., then the author's decision is in reality a very Godly one. He is choosing to help "one of the least of these (Matt 25:40).
Plus, we are called to serve without expectation of what we will get in return. Again, the waiter is angry because he feels like he should have received the tip, even though it is an extra bonus that is not, technically, part of the bill. He is not selflessly committing himself to the task he has been given like God calls us to do.
I must admit that I struggle with feelings of entitlement sometimes, but I am learning to keep my hands open more and more and use the blessings God has given me to the advancement of His Kingdom and Glory.
In these uncertain times, we need to remember that we are in the world, not of it, and are therefore called to respond differently to life's challenges than unbelievers.
Joel,
If you truly believe "and we are called to be good stewards and generous stewards of the blessings he has bestowed upon us."(Which I believe is true.)
How then, can we give if it is taken from us??
Also... How can we appreciate the giver if it is not given in love??
Ahhh.. this is a great dialog and one that I think is important. I sincerely wish we could have this level of discourse at the national level. I think it would benefit us all and draw us closer together.
Joel, I agree with your comment about the stereotyping and I probably could have left out the part about the homeless person buying alcohol. I put it in more as a placeholder that makes the reader identify with the uncertainty and lack of control over the use of their confiscated money. I wanted the reader to experience a situation where they are not only a) having their money confiscated but b) then watching it put to a use they would not appreciate.
It is a paradox that if we feel better about how the money we earn is used we might be more understanding about having it confiscated.. and when we feel that the money is being put to poor use we feel much more indignant about the confiscation.
We have to remember that all things belong to God. The $10 the author would have given the waiter does not belong to the waiter. According to our faith it is not his entitled right to have that $10. That $10 belongs to God.
If we add in the assumption that the waiter would have eventually given the $10 to the homeless man out of love (being a good and generous steward of God’s blessings), then what does it matter if the author does it instead?
We are but vessels of God’s love, servants who need to be more concerned with God’s will than our role in it. Insisting on being the one that gives is selfish. Instead, we are called to remove the focus from ourselves and keep it on God.
We don’t do good just to do good (I Cor 13:3). We should do the good God calls us to do. Otherwise, we end up like King Saul (I Sam 15). He did not make the required sacrifice the way God instructed him to, but instead got impatient and did it his own way. Therefore, even though he was worshipping God, God did not accept the sacrifice and rejected Saul and his children as king.
God wants us to be cheerful givers, but we can choose to begrudgingly relinquish what is rightfully His. Still, our pride and our sin cannot stop the will of God. A blessing not shared in love is no less a blessing to the recipient, but it does not bear the fruit of the Spirit in the giver. The homeless man is probably very thankful for the $10, regardless of how the waiter or the author feel about giving it to him. God’s command is for the giver’s benefit, encouraging us to experience the freedom of allowing God to be in control. God’s plan is the best one; we should stick to it.
In your example about Saul.....
King Saul had a choice - To Sacrifice his way or the way outlined by God. What happens if a someone else takes Saul's sacrifice and makes a sacrifice to God the way he wants? Is that a sacrifice at all?
______________
I actually could somewhat accept socialism if it were presented for love and compassion to fulfill God's plan. Unfortunately it is all about power, and like the frog in the pot it is realized too late.
Ahhh.. Joel.. you are approaching, I think, the crux of the debate and I appreciate your words. There is one additional principle at work here that is lurking in the background and might benefit from illumination.
It is true that all we have belongs to God. It is also true that God has given it to us – along with the responsibility to manage it well. God calls us to good stewardship. And not just of finances. He calls us to good stewardship of the good news (He’ll have the rocks cry out if we refuse to do the job). He calls us to good stewardship of our gifts. He calls us to good stewardship of our families. And so on.
Stewardship is demonstrating care and responsibility for that to which you have been entrusted. So, even though the ultimate owner of the resources in our care is God.. they still remain in our care. They have been entrusted to us and we remain personally responsible for good management of them. This is the point of the parable of the talents.
So, we are not discussing, nor debating our personal responsibility as it relates to good stewardship (at least I hope we all agree that we have it) and I feel at times you might think we are.
The needs of the world are overwhelming to any one individual. One of the ‘mechanisms’ that God seems to have put in place to assist us in finding our part of this large task is the discernment of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit makes us sensitive to other’s needs as well as providing us discernment in making resource allocation decisions. God oversees this activity in some miraculous way to ensure that the various needs are met.
I readily admit that another ‘mechanism’ that God seems to have put in place is ‘government’. And we need to respect that – and when the debates and voting are all over with we definitely will.
The point of the anecdote was to get us thinking about how appropriate it is to allow government to usurp the opportunity/responsibility that has been given directly to us by God. God is purposeful. He gives us this stewardship responsibility, in part, I believe to assist us in ‘working out’ our salvation. Like you mention.. it is a process we go through with God to learn how to let go and be cheerful givers, etc.
So, to your question ‘what does it matter if the author does it instead?’ I say it makes a huge difference and apparently God thinks so too.. because He chooses to operate through us (how marvelous the thought) to achieve his mission for the world.
In the story the waiter is us. The homeless man is our neighbor. And we have a choice as to who the author is. We can either have the author remain God working through us (the waiter). Or, we can have the author be the government. It is not selfish in any way to want God as my leader. Oh, that all of us would choose God to be in control of our lives!
So, I agree with you: “let us do the good God calls us to do”. I propose to do this by a) suggesting that the government not be allowed to ‘take away’ the means that have been entrusted to our care to do so and b) not handing over to a godless government responsibility that God has given to His people.
I am simply unwilling to make the assumption that you are – that the godless government will do good with the added money it is provided. As an example – choose any godly principle regarding the management of money and observe if the government is in alignment with that principle.
I feel like I'm sensing a contradiction in what you're saying. On the one hand you advocate the government as a mechanism of authority placed over us by God. They you say that we cannot trust that authority, even though it's appointed by God. Granted the government makes bad decisions, but so do we all. Not a day has gone by in my life where I did not make a bad decision, no matter how small. I am a saint and a child of God, but I still sin.
The presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives does enable us to make good decisions, but sometimes what is good in the Kingdom of God is not always thought of as good in the world. Take my choice to stay abstinent until marriage (which I believe is the way God intended sex to be enjoyed); not a choice shared by many in our culture.
The point is God uses whomever he chooses to do his will, whether that be Peter (a prideful, zealous hothead), Paul (the church's worst persecutor), the Babylonians (heathen, Godless nation), or Jesus himself. We cannot assume that God is not using the government to advance His Kingdom and help those in need.
And how can we be sure that the motives of those making economic decisions are selfish or unGodly? That is judging, and God makes it clear that He is the only one who should be doing that. Granted that doesn't make people who make bad decisions innocent, but they will stand before God and answer for what they have done. They do not stand before us. Paul goes so far as to say, "I do not even judge myself...it is the Lord who judges me (I Cor 4:3).
If we cannot trust those God puts in authority over us to do good, how can we trust the One who put them there? Granted we must always be making sure they are making Godly decisions, and if they ever ask us to do something that directly contradicts God's commandments we are perfectly justified in disobeying them, but until then we are asked to follow and have faith that God is in control of everything. He has the power to turn evil into good. He can calm the sea and make light what was dark. He sets the captives free and gives rest to the weary.
Only God fully knows what His will is, and only He knows how it will all pan out in the future. We see but a glimpse of the Plan, and that is why we are called to have faith that God is good and His Plan is best. We may never see the results of the good He calls us to, but you can be well assured that it will, without a doubt in my mind, be used by God to advance His will, His good and pleasing and perfect will.
In Saul's case, God was not happy because Saul chose to go his own way and ignore God's instructions. If someone else came along and did the same thing, God would have been just as angry. But that is not for us to worry about. We cannot control what others will do. God doesn't even do that; instead, He chose to give us choice (freewill) as well.
We cannot worry about how others are going to respond to the call of God in their lives, since we have no control over their decisions. Instead, we need to be faithful to God's calling in our lives, and part of that means doing what the authorities over us tell us to do. Don't speed. Pick up your trash. Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's. I don't claim to be perfect in following this authority either (my speeding ticket will speak to that), but when I do break the law it's a bad decision on my part and there are consequences (again, ticket). Still doesn't mean I shouldn't follow the law.
God has a plan, and like I've said before, it's the best one out there and we need to stick to it. We need to follow it in whatever form it takes. We are but vessels, servants, and sheep; God is the Lord of Hosts, the Alpha and Omego, the Great I AM. Be more concerned with seeing God's will fulfilled than being the one who fulfills it.
I don't think that Tod's was accusing the government of making ungodly decisions with the resources. He merely makes a point that it is not their position to decide.
It is our opportunity to give as God directs and leads through the Holy Spirit.
The original idea of this post was to get people thinking about how appropriate it is for the government to use its power to force redistribution of wealth.
This has been a good discussion. Thanks for participating. I hope everyone that has participated passively or actively will decide for themselves where they stand on this issue and the many others that face us in this election and vote their conscious. At the end of the day that is all we can do.
Best wishes,
Tod
Post a Comment