Staggering Backward Print
Money, Love, Desire - Foundations of Mercy
Written by Douglas Wilson   
Tuesday, 30 October 2012 06:19

Isaiah gives us a good description of what it is like to be ruled by those who have been struck with a judicial stupor. He also describes what it is like when a people are liberated from that rule. "The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful" (Is. 32:5).

Our modern usage of the word liberal in a political sense makes this verse funny, but at the same time, the verse is talking about the grasping and venal who have managed to apply to themselves a thin veneer of compassion -- and that is exactly what modern liberalism is. The verse drives around the double switchback. At first you think it is being used as a pun -- as if someone seriously applied Ecc. 10:2 to our modern political labels. "A wise man’s heart is at his right hand; but a fool’s heart at his left."

But we do live in a time when the envious are praised for their generosity, and the greedy for their altruism. If someone seeks to keep his own money, he is called greedy, and if someone else tries to confiscate the money of another, he is called generous. This is, of course, a photo negative of what God calls it, and Isaiah elsewhere calls down a woe on those who call evil good and good evil (Is. 5:20).

We are currently being governed by the drunkards of Ephraim (Is. 28:1). Not only are they staggering drunk on the wine of their pretended power, but they are also proud, wearing their insolence like a crown. They taunt Isaiah, as though his word were nothing but a little sing-songy catechism. They represent him as teaching "line on line, precept on precept." This is not how God is teaching us to learn the Bible -- this is how the drunkards of Ephraim mockingly represent it. They are singing Jesus Loves Me back at Isaiah through their noses.

 

Very well then, Isaiah says. That is how it will be for you.

But the word of the Lord was unto them
Precept upon precept, precept upon precept; Line upon line, line upon line; Here a little, and there a little; That they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken" (Is. 28:13).

And the ears of those who hear of it will tingle.


Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! MySpace! Yahoo! BlogRolling! Twitter! LinkedIn! TwitThis
 
Comments
Search
Only registered users can write comments!
Jonathan  Tuesday, October 30, 2012 9:03 am
I'm interested in how Doug's definition of greedy differs from mine. I think someone can say "but it's all my own money!" and still be greedy for it. In fact, I can't think of any way of defining a greedy person where "wants to keep his own money" wouldn't be at least part of the definition. According to Isaiah, the seeking of your own pleasure and oppression of workers was a serious issue in the nation of Israel, and sharing your bread with the hungry, inviting the homeless into your home, covering the naked, and not trying to avoid the poor are all part of the true fasting. "Seek to keep his own money" sounds like it possibly could go hand in hand with what Israel was being judged for. If Israel wants its light to rise, they are to "pour yourself out for the hungry."

Also from Isaiah, where the judgment on the nation of Israel really does seem to be partially due to their greed, and their relative lack of concern for the impoverished workers who are oppressed to feed their greed:

Woe to those who join house to house,
who add field to field,
until there is no more room,
and you are made to dwell alone in the midst of the land.
The LORD of hosts has sworn in my hearing:
“Surely many houses shall be desolate,
large and beautiful houses, without inhabitant.
For ten acres of vineyard shall yield but one bath,
and a homer of seed shall yield but an ephah.”
holmegm  Tuesday, October 30, 2012 11:46 am
Jonathan wrote:
In fact, I can't think of any way of defining a greedy person where "wants to keep his own money" wouldn't be at least part of the definition.


Really? Wanting to take and keep other people's money doesn't qualify?

Yes, of course greedy = not good. The problem is figuring out who is actually greedy, and what, if anything, to do about it.

Is the guy building a mansion greedy? Maybe. What if his name is Al Gore or Barack Obama? Not so clear cut anymore? Why?

And what if he is? Does that mean we head down there with the pitchforks and torches to take his stuff? Where is the scriptural warrant for that?
Toby Wilson  Wednesday, October 31, 2012 10:46 am
Jonathan,

I have read a lot of Pastor Wilson's material, and in the larger context of his writing and ministry it seems odd to roll out an insinuation that he is advocating "sharp-elbowed" capitalism. He has, in fact, criticized it.

Regarding the man who wants to keep his stuff, I think the way you should think of that is: "as opposed to having a burglar take his stuff."

It is NOT compassion for me to break into your house, take your valuables, sell them to a fence, then give the money to poor people. I would further contend that it would not be greedy on your part to lock your doors and prepare if you knew I was coming to steal your stuff at 3:00 AM November 5th.

If the owner of the house had known when the thief was coming then he wouldn't have voted for Barack Obama, or something along those lines.
Jonathan  Saturday, November 03, 2012 7:45 am
I'm not saying that Doug is arguing sharp-elbowed capitalism. I'm just interested in how he defines "greedy", because simply saying that keeping your own money isn't greedy would still allow greedy sharp-elbowed capitalism, greedy neglect of the poor, greedy accumulation of more houses and fields than you need, and just general greedy worship of your own money. So simply saying that "If someone seeks to keep his own money, he is called greedy" can't actually be a photo negative of what God calls greedy.

I don't see how the burglar analogy applies at all. I guess that's a fundamental difference.
James Ohlmann  Tuesday, October 30, 2012 12:19 pm
So, when God calls us toward social justice and toward Jubilee he must be greedy and envious. :confused:

As a Canadian, I truly hope my brothers and sisters in the south can continue with progress forward, rather than stagger backward.

On the other hand, I would enjoy singing Mitt Romney Style whenever I muse about American politics for the next four years. Win-win either way I suppose.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTCRwi71_ns
Jonathan  - re:  Tuesday, October 30, 2012 9:31 pm
holmegm wrote:
Jonathan: "In fact, I can't think of any way of defining a greedy person where "wants to keep his own money" wouldn't be at least part of the definition."

Really? Wanting to take and keep other people's money doesn't qualify?


What do you mean by doesn't qualify? Of course wanting other people's money would be part of the greed too. I'm not sure exactly how you're parsing "own money" versus "other people's money" though. That could be quite a long and complex discussion.

I'm definitely not relating to the Obama/Gore stuff or the pitchforks and torches. I haven't called for judging what others are doing or enforcing it - God is in charge of that. The first and most important part of defining greed should be in order to determine whether we ourselves are greedy, and then to repent of it and try to change it. Anything else would have to come well after that.
Melody  Wednesday, October 31, 2012 5:31 am
Jonathan, "...the seeking of your own pleasure and oppression of workers was a serious issue in the nation of Israel." Where does Doug even remotely advocate such a a thing? Who shall decide what constitutes 'oppression of workers' or what constitutes 'greed'? Ahh,,, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, Michael Moore, Barbara Streisand, Madonna, the list is too long to keep going. One gets rather weary of the liberal pots accusing the kettle of being black.
Jonathan  Saturday, November 03, 2012 7:49 am
Again, why are we listing Democratic politicians as if someone thinks they're immune? Greed is NOT limited to the Republican party. It appears to be an endemic issue among both parties, and is one of the major reasons why I don't belong to either one and won't vote for either one in this presidential election.

As far as "who shall decide", I think we should do our best to help each other figure out what greed and oppression mean. I have my own definitions, which would probably not fly well here, which is why I don't try to press them on anyone unless asked. But I certainly think that we should be working hard to help each other figure this out rather than letting people suffer (both the greedy and the oppressed) and waiting for the time when God will judge and make right what we've left wrong.
holmegm  - re: re:  Wednesday, October 31, 2012 8:11 am
Jonathan wrote:
I'm not sure exactly how you're parsing "own money" versus "other people's money" though. That could be quite a long and complex discussion.


Well, it would certainly be square one ...

The Lord seems to see a distinction. He prohibits stealing, which is something that can only make sense if there is such a thing as "my stuff" and "other people's stuff". He prohibits coveting other people's stuff, which would once again, er, presuppose the existence of other people's stuff, I would think.

Generosity is only possible, in fact, if I have stuff that is my own, to be generous with.
Jonathan  Saturday, November 03, 2012 10:51 am
I definitely believe there's a distinction, and I agree that we can start with that being square one.

I'm saying that many of us will parse it differently. For example, some people who give money to the IRS seem to think it's still "their" money, as opposed to the public's money. So they claim membership in "the 53%" and talk about the government spending "their money", or they talk about poor people taking rich people's money, even though I don't consider that money to belong to the people who paid it to the government anymore. (you could consider it the general public's money, or there might be an argument for considering it the money of the future taxpayers who may have to pay off the debt, but we won't even know who those taxpayers are until someone actually tries to pay off that debt, and it certainly won't be the same cohort as the current 53%.)

An entirely separate issue would be whether money earned illegally is now "my money". How about money earned illegally, but then passed to me legally? Or what about money earned legally, but under unjust laws? Or what about money earned illegally, but only because of unjust laws? What about money taken from me due to the legal tax process? Does it matter if the taxes are just or unjust?

Once you no longer hold to the rule that "any money legally in my possession is my money, and any money legally in someone else's possession is not my money", there becomes a lot of different important distinctions that could be made.

For the record, I consider any money to belong to me to be "God's money", and that I am only a steward of it, and I should not steward it any less carefully or more selfishly than I would any other money (for example, church funds or mission team funds). I think saying "it's my money and I can do whatever I want with it" would be out-of-line with God's intentions, who would at that point prefer that I lay it at the feet of someone who will be a bit wiser. Just like not committing adultery is a good rule, but doesn't cover the entire heart of the situation, I think that not coveting someone else's money is very important, but that there's more to greed than that alone.
Toby Wilson  Saturday, November 03, 2012 1:48 pm
Jonathan, thanks for the response.

I agree that there ARE some greedy people who simply don't want to share with others. I further agree that Christians should not be tight-fisted, etc. My read of Pastor Wilson's article is that he's not talking about those kind of people, he's talking about otherwise decent and generous people who are tired of being robbed by a corrupt government. The greedy that he mentioned are corrupt officials who feed their desire for money and power by manipulating the masses with their talk of "compassion." The Harry Reids, Al Sharptons, and Nancy Pelosis of the world strike me as building their own barns mighty large and awful fancy--all the while saying they're doing it for the poor.

The reason I used the burglary analogy is that I do not believe that civil government has a right to tax for the sake of what are broadly called "transfer payments." Taxing one person simply to give the money to another person so they can afford service Y or item X (health care, a candy bar, whatever) is unjust. It is unjust because the civil magistrate is passing judgement against a wealthier person in favor of a poorer person even though the wealthy person committed no particular crime against that particular poor person.

One may disagree with my particular understanding, but consider the passages that command the magistrate to show bias neither to the rich nor to the poor, and consider how that might apply to today. One way is in the manner I described above. If my application is incorrect, why? Why would Leviticus 19:15 NOT mean what it seems to plainly say?

There's a big difference between saying: "wives submit to your husbands" versus saying: "husbands make your wives submit." The former is Biblical, the latter is wickedness. The greedy are called on the carpet to change their ways, but nowhere is the magistrate authorized to make them redistribute at gunpoint.

To your point about illegally-gotten gain, it would be unjust to take money from a farmer who sold raw milk to customers who wanted to buy raw milk--even if the farmer's action was illegal. It's another matter if that farmer stole his neighbor's cow and sold the milk. He should repent, return the cow, give his neighbor the money he received for the milk, plus 20% of the total value of what he stole from his neighbor.(Numbers 5:6-7)
Jonathan  Monday, November 05, 2012 5:48 pm
I don't think any of my suggestions has the slightest relevance to “wives submit to you husbands.” I have never, ever suggested taxing the wealthy in order to alleviate greediness. That's not the point. It's the same as abortion – do I think abortions should be stopped because I'm scared of the effects of murder on people's hearts? No. I think abortions should be stopped because I think it's wrong that babies are dying. Whether the greedy are greedy is their issue. But I'm concerned with the lives of the poor, the orphan, the widow, the disabled, and others, which is an entirely separate issue than addressing greed. Greed certainly helps cause that issue, but no amount of force will change someone's heart. Trying to create tax law in order to enforce anti-greed morality would be as dumb as trying to ban gay marriages in order to enforce sexual morality. My concern is that our society operates as a society that protects the least. The greedy have to work on their greed issues themselves.
Jonathan  Monday, November 05, 2012 5:48 pm
As far as everything else you said goes, I was going to tell you that you had opened up far more cans of worms than I could respond to. But the response percolated in my mind, and when I sat down it wrote itself. You seem to be someone who thinks this through, so I encourage you to think my response through. I didn't include nearly the amount of detailed Biblical reference, logic, and cited examples that I would need to convince you – each paragraph would have had to be the length of a term paper to even touch these topics. Since you seem to be working with assumptions quite different from my own, I'm still not sure that would be enough. But I encourage you to read my thoughts with an open mind and give whatever value to them you wish.

I simply do not equate legally passed taxes in our democratic-ish system with “robbery”. I wouldn't make that equation no matter what the distribution of such representative-passed taxes were, but in the case of our American system I also strongly disagree with your apparent assumption that the system somehow favors the poor over the rich. I do believe our government is corrupt, but suspiciously, the people who have the most to do with that corruption and who most benefit from that corruption are the rich, not the poor (which is almost universally true in every country, throughout history). Every chief executive we've had was wealthy, the lawmakers are all wealthy, the justices are all wealthy, nearly all of their confidants, advisers, and associates are wealthy, the lobbyists are wealthy, their campaigns are primarily funded by the wealthy, and public opinion is heavily influenced by media outlets run by the wealthy and with advertising paid for by the wealthy. I don't think this is universal control – a few lawmakers do care for the working-class and poor to a degree, a few lobbyists represent large contingents of the working class and poor, some media outlets do broadcast news at least partially on behalf of the non-wealthy, pastors/teachers/academics and other influential persons can sometimes build movements on behalf of the non-wealthy, and even with all those forces working against them, there are occasional (historically rare) incidents where the non-wealthy use their voting power to alter the position the wealthy have set out. But such influence is rare. Studies have shown that Senate votes on federal legislation almost always line up with the positions of the upper-class and upper-middle-class in the state the senator represents. Anything that benefits the lower-middle-class, working class, or poor only happens when the wealthier constituents (who are certainly not always selfish) want it to.

Why'd I start with all that? Because I think the idea that our system is benefiting the poor at the expense of the wealthy is laughable. Almost every aspect of our government and court system favors the wealthy. The idea that the wealthy are getting screwed by this greedy 47% that won't pull their share is a myth created by the wealthy who aim for even more disproportionate power. The reason why the tax burden is shifting is because the wealth and income distribution is shifting. Real take-home income (after-tax, inflation-adjusted) for the top 1% doubled between 1980 and 2005. For the top 0.1%, it nearly tripled, and for the top 0.01%, it increased by over a factor of five. Over the same period of time, real take-home income for the middle 33% of income earners stagnated, and real take-home income for the bottom 33% declined slightly. For the first time since the Great Depression, the wealthiest 1% of society own over 40% of the wealth in America. Most recent decisions by government has helped that happen, rather than slowing it down. (Those numbers and a few others here are well-documented in Unequal Democracy by Larry Bartels, which is a quite interesting read, though slightly dated since it came before the recent financial collapse.)

(Just to be clear, I am not in the least a fan of the whole 99% movement. I think it's hypocritical, uninformed, and ineffective. Just wanted to make sure I didn't get lumped there after throwing out a couple stats.)

All that just to say – I don't believe in the least that our government robs the wealthy on behalf of the poor. No one benefits more from the American government than wealthy Americans. The corrupt certainly manipulate the masses, but it is rarely on behalf of the poor. And that goes for all politicians, including the Reids and the Pelosis who are building their barns mighty large. I think a larger proportion of Democrats effectively help the poor than Republicans, but I wouldn't say it's incredibly effective (partially due to incompetence, partially due to limited intent), and I doubt it's because they're not greedy.
Jonathan  Monday, November 05, 2012 5:49 pm
On your “transfer payments” idea, I just have to say that I deeply disagree philosophically. At the most basic level, you may believe that the government has no place helping the physically disabled who cannot work, the mentally disabled, mentally ill persons, the old and infirm, widows with children, abandoned mothers, orphans, impoverished children, refugees, or the impoverished ill and injured. You may think that such people should be taken care of by private individuals and churches, or left to be homeless or die if no one steps up. And in that case, many of them WOULD be left to be homeless and die, because even with the poor-to-mediocre safety net we have today, thousands of people are falling through the cracks and churches and Christians don't do remotely enough to stand with them. I don't believe the government should abandon them. I believe that a just government run by just and compassionate voters (and Christians should be the most compassionate and most merciful/just) should work to ensure that there is a safety net for such people to survive, which seems to require at least some form of the “transfer payments” you dislike. I don't believe that is a “judgment” passed against the wealthy person at all. I've never believed taxes to be a judgment against anyone, and I think that there are probably psychological differences going on there that lead to such a feeling. (I'm not psychoanalyzing you – I have no idea what those differences are. I'm just saying that after reflection, I can't seem to see that issue the same way you do, and I don't think most other people would either, so I'd hypothesize either someone is missing a great deal of information or that we have very different psychologies.)

Of course, the people I mentioned who cannot take care of themselves are the most extreme example. I believe there are plenty of lesser examples. For instance, the Earned Income Tax Credit appears to work rather well. Ronald Reagan called it the greatest anti-poverty initiative we have. It is exactly the kind of transfer payment you call robbery. Ideally I would prefer that everyone were paid a just wage – I think that if you do full-time, productive work, you should be paid at least enough to allow you to support your family. That's a minimally just wage to me. But in many cases, people have jobs where that's just not possible, and so a just society can find other ways, like the EITC, to fill the gaps.
Jonathan  Monday, November 05, 2012 5:49 pm
As far as Leviticus 19:15, I think there are numerous ways in which our society absolutely fails in partially to the rich or the poor. I've alluded to some already in terms of access to government power, but since the “plain language” context of the verse actually appears to refer to courts, I'll give a few examples of that. Obviously, the rich get better legal representation in our justice system. We have the idea that its fair that the rich be allowed to pay for better representation – how that would not result in partiality, I cannot hope to imagine. We might as well make it legal for the rich to give large gifts to the lawmakers – oh yeah, we do that too. Because of that, the rich have a large hand in writing the laws, can also consult lawyers preemptively to find loopholes in the laws, conduct transactions and participate in acts outside of borders to circumvent laws, bribe victims (referred to as “undisclosed settlements”) in order to avoid facing the penalties of law, pay off courts (called “bail”) to avoid spending time in jail before their case is heard, and that doesn't even touch biases towards the rich in terms of police activity and law enforcement. So yeah, I would love it if Leviticus 19:15 were fairly considered in this country – but I don't think the verdict would be remotely close to what you assume. And that's true for virtually every society, which is why there are dozens of verses in the Bible suggesting that we need to pay special concern to make sure that we're not unfairly treating the poor, but only two or three that even both to make "rich or poor" clear.

Your mention of Leviticus 19:15 caused me to imagine what it would be like if our society (and, you seem to suggest, even our government) thought about actually applying the other nearby verses. Think for a moment about:

Leviticus 19:9-10
Leviticus 19:11 (how many businesses could honestly say they don't attempt to deceive or mislead their competitors, their customers, or their financiers?)
Leviticus 19:13 (what would happen to that factory Romney bought that pays workers 1-2 months after they earn their work so they can't quit without losing significant income?)
Leviticus 19:17 (there goes political campaigns)
Leviticus 19:18
Leviticus 19:33-34

(Of course, I wouldn't exactly want Leviticus 19:19-28 applied, so I'm not sure what that says about this whole exercise.)

Now, to bring this all back up to the start, as far as what would be “fair” tax treatment to the rich versus the poor, I don't think there's an easy answer to that. I don't believe in the slightest that “equal percentage of net income” somehow automatically means equal treatment. As Jesus noted concerning the widow who put in her two mites, those two mites are worth FAR more to her that a much greater sum is worth to a rich man (and the scribes getting her to put in that money will receive the greatest condemnation). $2,000 is far more important to a man earning $15,000 a year than $200,000 is to a man earning $1.5 million a year. Why shouldn't an equal % of wealth be taxed, rather than an equal % of income? (That would create some great incentives too – working for high income would be disincentivized less, hoarding wealth would be disincentivized more.) Why not tax gross revenue rather than net revenue? (Note that when you're taking a % of the harvest, you're taking from gross revenue, not net profit.) Why not make a certain allowance equal to what someone needs to sustain their family, and then only tax the amount they make above that? Of course, none of this takes into account the ways the rich can game the system, which obviously gives them all sorts of advantages not currently including in the basic tax rates.

All of this talk, especially what you said about “judgment”, sort of assumes that the money is fairly allocated in the first place. I think that's a naive assumption too. Some people benefit much more from the system than others. Is it unfair if the people who benefit the most from the American system pay more back into the system? Now, whether that creates the ideal incentives is up for question, but it's a much different question than what is “fair”. I don't think there is a simplistic answer to that question either.
Jonathan  Monday, November 05, 2012 5:50 pm
Finally, a totally random question that has nothing to do with the previous speech. If it is unjust to take money from a farmer who sold raw milk, do you feel that it would also be unjust to take money from a farmer in, say, Colorado, who sold, say, marijuana? I don't know anyone who buys raw milk, but the woman who led me to Christ died of stomach cancer last year at the age of 36, leaving her husband and two young daughters here. And you know what, when she passed away, her husband smoked the rest. I've never touched the stuff, but I can't say I blame him. All that only to point out that different people will have extreme differences on what they consider “unjust laws”.