So, God is Immoral??

            While working out at the gym the other night, I happened to catch Jack Cafferty on the Situation Room.  One of the questions he posed for his viewers dealt with whether or not it was fair to more heavily tax the wealthy to pay for health care for the poor.  The respondent that most captured my attention was the one who commented that there was absolutely no moral or philosophical basis for expecting the wealthy to pay higher taxes than the poor.  Given the way the theme of the obligations that attend wealth shows up in Scripture, I was puzzled at this respondent who, I had to conclude, must believe God is immoral.

            From very early on in the Scriptural stories, the idea that those who are well-to-do have obligations to participate in caring for those less fortunate is clear.  Consider the gleaning laws wherein farmers where enjoined to leave some produce in the field for the poor to gather.  Similarly, the laws (notice, “laws” not suggestions) regarding Years of Release and Years of Jubilee required, in the first case, forgiveness of debts every seven years and, in the latter case, the return of the ancestral lands to their original owners.  All of these laws imposed burdens on the well-to-do that effectively required them to undertake care of the poor with the resources of which they were stewards.

            Once we move to the New Testament, we are told to keep in mind the rule that “to whom much is given, much is required.”  That God is very serious about these obligations of the wealthy toward the poor is evident in numerous ways.  First, the Pericope of the Great Judgment in Matthew 25 has Jesus rejecting those who did not engage in serving the “least of these.”  Second, in Luke 12 we have the Parable of the Barns.  In this case, a wealthy farmer has done so well with his crops that he, quite simply, plans to retire early.  Rather than saying, “Wow, what a good farmer you are,” God says, “You fool, tonight your life will be required of you.”  Why was he a fool?  He saw his good fortune as something for himself rather than as an instrument of blessing to others.  Third, in the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, we see a Rich Man who ends up in hell for no other obvious reason than that he had the wherewithal to help Lazarus—in fact, to help heal Lazarus of his ailments—but instead turned a blind eye.  In each of these cases, God judges the ones who did not understand the obligations that go with much as the ones who were immoral.  Of course, none of these passages directly reference the question of taxes, but they all are crystal clear in the obligations that attend wealth in all aspects of life—public and private.

            So, Cafferty’s respondent thinks there is no moral reason for expecting the wealthy to bear a greater share of the costs of care for those of our society who are on the margins in one way or another?  Well, as is evident from Scripture, God sees things differently, and when it comes to God or Caffertys’ respondent, I’ll go with God being the one more likely to get morality right!

Comments

[Dave Doty]

I am not familiar with Jack Cafferty or the situation room but are we placing an expectation of Christlikeness on those who are not followers of Christ? Is that a reasonable expectation?

[chuck]

Hey, Dave, great question. The issue here is one of basic morality. This guy made a claim that runs counter to the biblical evidence as to what God expects. Minimally, we should agree that what God expects meets the standard of being "moral." I'd be happy to take on the deeper question implied by your question in a subsequent post:)

[Dave Doty]

Excellent. Thanks. I am very interested in how we influence the surrounding culture that does not share the Judeo-Christian value system. Obviously we need to think these things through from both rational and emotional perspectives that carry more universal appeal.

I like the phrase "common cause" for getting Christians to come alongside justifiable issue activism, like environmentalism. What a witness to have Christians actually encouraging Greenpeace and such. Or any number of gender rights or economic justice organizations.

[Kelly]

Hi Chuck,

Kelly Hahn here, old student of yours. I agree to a point, but it seems that the moral obligation to care for the poor was to be realized by the wealthy giving of their own desire (1 Tim. 6:18-19 for example) rather than the wealthy being taxed? And, while maybe not directly related to the health care issue, I do think it would be unfair to tax the wealthy if (and I only say "if") it fostered complacency and laziness on the part of those benefitting from the wealthy. I'm afraid that would only create a welfare society. Those are my concerns, I guess. I've been studying the Scriptures and trying to answer the question: "Who are the poor according to Scripture?" and so I've obviously been relating the question to the current debates. Anyway, hope you're well. I've still got "The Wizard" by Uriah Heep on my iPod because of you!

[jerry]

The Wizard? Sounds like a "song for the day" candidate :-)

Chuck, nice to see you back where you belong - blogging!

The examples you cite are from a "theocratic nation" that followed God and His Laws - well, tried to anyway. We live in a land of "separation of church and state" where we are free to believe on not believe in whatever we deem to be "god". So perhaps to Dave's point above, can we really correlate the guy's comment to scripture?

What's unfortunate is that this is a "political" issue and by definition, half the nation will agree and the other half disagree while we all seek to take the moral high ground. Is "morality" a personal decision or can/should it be legislated?

[zero]

how can we concern ourselves with the laziness of those with less financial resources than wealthy individuals if wealthy individuals pay higher taxes? isn't it enough that just by virtue of the wealthy having MORE means they should pay more taxes? isn't that what a progressive tax system is? and how can we assume that one who has less money is lazy when needing assistance? so many people now have to work more than one job (at very low wages) just to struggle to make it. not get by or have enough or even get ahead....just struggle to make it! that's ok? and why would a society that states it is founded on christian principles actually allow anyone to be poor? it's a cruel society that demands everyone work and pull their own weight and then by fiat and hubris, sets up a hierarchy of what work will be rewarded for what and with how much@! do we actually believe wall street types earned their billions in the last few years, if ever?? if we are going to be christians, it's not enough to say so and then allow the constructs of society to dictate how a person's worth should be judged or who is worthy and who is not.