CHRISTIANS AND ECONOMIC INEQUALITY

Jack Kerwick


If ever sober-minded folks thought that they
could take refuge in the Christian church from
the left-wing juggernaut that is our culture’s
zeitgeist, they can think this no more.
In the vestibule of the Lutheran church in
which my son’s summer camp is held, I
noticed that the most recent edition of The
Lutheran is devoted to the topic of “economic
inequality.”
Norma Cook Everist, a professor of church and
ministry, quotes Luther who wrote that “the
poor” are routinely “defrauded” by the rich.
Matters, she declares, are “no less” true
“today.”
Dividing, as it does, the world into “makers”
and “takers,” “inequality” fosters the invidious
fiction that some, including some people,
including “some children,” are “worth more
than all the rest.” This, though, contradicts the
Christian’s belief that we are all “created in
God’s image [.]”
“Congregations,” Everist writes, “need to
welcome, include and minister among people
across socioeconomic boundaries.” She assures
us that “we don’t need to fear those named ‘of
no worth’ becoming filled with power and
potential because,” she concludes, “together
we can become life-givers in the world.”
Where to begin?
For starters, the term “inequality” when used
in this context is both inaccurate and unfair.
“Equality” is a morally charged word. In this
respect it is not unlike “good,” “justice,”
“virtue,” and the like. Some of “the rich” that
Everist and her ilk loathe may know how to
cook their books, but Everist and her fellow
proponents of economic “equality” most
definitely know how to cook their arguments:
casting one’s position in the language of
“equality” is a sure-fire way of stacking the
deck in favor of one’s view from the outset.
That this is so becomes obvious once it’s
considered that the very same people who
incessantly bemoan “inequality” while arguing
for income and wealth redistribution are the
first to demand ever greater “diversity.” They
are the first to bludgeon us into “celebrating”
our differences.
Income/wealth “inequality,” however, is
diversity.
If we are going to promote real diversity, then
it is a foregone conclusion that there will be
differences, dramatic differences, in the life
choices that individuals make.
And this in turn means, necessarily, that there
will be staggering differences in the amount of
money that people earn, for among the choices
that people make throughout their lives is the
choice of, well, their livelihoods.
“Inequality,” in other words, is just the word
that the self-avowed champions of diversity
attribute to those instances of diversity that
aren’t to their liking.
If, as Professor Everist implies, those of us
who object to being coerced into working
longer hours for little to no pay for the sake of
realizing the redistributive scheme of some
ideologue’s imagination are the enemies of
“equality,” then she and her fellow travelers
are the enemies of diversity (to say nothing of
individuality and liberty).
Another critical point is that, whether by
accident or design, all too many contemporary
representatives of the church, like Professor
Everist, conflate the issue of “the poor” or “the
needy” with that of economic “inequality.” In
doing so, they radically misconstrue the
Gospel.
The parable of the Good Samaritan, the parable
more than any other designed to emblematize
the ideal of Christian charity, features a man
of considerable means—the Samaritan—who
deployed some of his ample resources to help
a stranger in need.
Jesus, in other words, held up a reasonably
well-to-do, and possibly even wealthy, man as
the model of Christian love.
Christ also praised a Roman soldier, a man,
mind you, who was sufficiently well off to
have servants, as displaying more faith than
anyone— including the impoverished to whom
He ministered—in all of Israel.
Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were rich
members of the priestly class with whom Jesus
must’ve been particularly close, for not only
did they attempt to prevail upon their fellow
Pharisees to refrain from turning Jesus over to
the Romans. Following Jesus’ crucifixion, both
prepared His body for burial in the tomb that
Joseph secured for Him.
The Christian’s vocation is to care for the
needy, for those in need. And this could
include anyone— regardless of his or her
socioeconomic circumstances. Unfortunately,
whether Lutheran, Catholic, or otherwise, the
contemporary Christian church’s almost
exclusive emphasis on “the poor” comes at the
cost of reducing the non-poor, and certainly
the rich, to the status of non-persons. As such,
the latter are for practical purposes rendered
objects, yes, but not proper objects of agape,
of Christian love.
No, the tireless campaign to demonize “the
rich”—as well as those of us who are not rich
but who object to the demonization of the rich
and the socialist fantasies of the demagogues—
renders “the rich” just objects.
Of course a great portion of Jesus’ ministry
was spent ministering to the poor. Yet a great
deal was also expended upon attending to the
needs of the non-poor—as well as those of the
rich .
And none of it was spent on the issue of
“economic inequality.”