“Redistribution of material goods” is often associated with
socialism. However, I would like to suggest that “redistribution of material
goods” is a part of becoming and being a Christian who practices Shalom (the
peace/justice of YHWH). The question that Dr. Lindsley proposes (Does the bible command/teach/encourage socialism?) is one that seems to be popular
among those who wish to dismiss any form of recompense for those who have been
socially marginalized. The question that needs to be addressed is, “Does the
bible teach redistribution?”Being someone who places the materially poor at the top of the Bible’s primary concerns, I read Acts (and the entire bible for that matter) much differently than Lindsley. It is in my view that the Biblical narrative is primarily concerned with Shalom which translates to spiritual, financial and political liberation for the destitute and forgotten (Lk 6:20-25).
Ethicist and theologian Richard B. Hays argues in Moral Vision of the New Testament that the Luke-Acts narrative demands that
Christians are to prophetically envision a just and peaceful society that
promotes redistribution. Unlike Lindsley, Hays suggests that the giving of
material possessions in Luke-Acts symbolizes one’s response towards God (Lk
18:18-30; 19:1-10). While the “rich young ruler” refuses Christ’s invitation of
redistribution, Zacchaeus accepts.
Both cases demonstrate Christ’s Kingdom politics of necessary redistribution (pg. 123-135). However, Lindsley is skeptical of theological application via narrative passages and suggests that Scripture must be interpreted in relation to the “didactic or teaching portions.”
Ross and Gloria Kinsler in their book The Biblical Jubilee assert that redistribution is synonymous with the Christian tradition. While Lindsley is convinced that communal sharing is the exception and not the norm, the Kinsler’s cite 2 Corinthians 8-9 as a text where Paul exhorts the church of Corinthians to share their possessions with the poorer Macedonian church so that there will not be a “needy persons among them” (Ex 16:16-18; Deut 15:4; 2 Cor. 8:15) (pg. 146-147).
Paul seems to be deeply committed to redistribution as it is recorded in Acts 11:29 that the believers in Antioch were asked to send supplies to Judea to combat a famine. Furthermore, the early (c. 50 AD) apostolic teaching known as the Didache has an extremely negative view of wealth while conversely admonishing believers to redistribute their possessions and give to whoever begs (see ch. 1, 4, 5, 11).
Both cases demonstrate Christ’s Kingdom politics of necessary redistribution (pg. 123-135). However, Lindsley is skeptical of theological application via narrative passages and suggests that Scripture must be interpreted in relation to the “didactic or teaching portions.”
Ross and Gloria Kinsler in their book The Biblical Jubilee assert that redistribution is synonymous with the Christian tradition. While Lindsley is convinced that communal sharing is the exception and not the norm, the Kinsler’s cite 2 Corinthians 8-9 as a text where Paul exhorts the church of Corinthians to share their possessions with the poorer Macedonian church so that there will not be a “needy persons among them” (Ex 16:16-18; Deut 15:4; 2 Cor. 8:15) (pg. 146-147).
Paul seems to be deeply committed to redistribution as it is recorded in Acts 11:29 that the believers in Antioch were asked to send supplies to Judea to combat a famine. Furthermore, the early (c. 50 AD) apostolic teaching known as the Didache has an extremely negative view of wealth while conversely admonishing believers to redistribute their possessions and give to whoever begs (see ch. 1, 4, 5, 11).
I think it would behoove Lindsley to acknowledge that he is coming from a particular interpretive tradition (as a White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant [WASP] Lindsley finds himself to be a member of the dominant tradition) thus influencing his reading of this (and other) text(s). I will not argue that the Acts ecclesiology is possibly descriptive instead of prescriptive, but I would argue that The Kingdom of God is biased towards the widow (Lk 21:1-4), orphan/children (Mt 19:14), foreigner (Jn 4) and the poor (Mt 25).
How that plays out politically (capitalism vs. socialism, ect) depends on one's philosophy. But the key for the Christian is to embrace The Kingdom of God which transcends traditional political constituencies and embraces redistribution of material goods.
-Josiah R. Daniels
Josiah, Jesus said the poor you will always have with you.
ReplyDeleteJesus would be wrong if we did what you're suggesting, therefore you must be wrong.
P.S.: Repent or whatever.
Dean... I appreciate your response ;)
ReplyDeleteYou bring up an interesting point. I believe you are referring to when Jesus is speaking to Judas (Mt 26:11; Mk 14:7;Jn 12:8). An interesting fact that I would like to alert readers to is that the first half of the verse is usually the only part that is quoted, "You will always have the poor with you..." But if one was to read the entire verse, it is put in an appropriate context, "You will always have the poor with you, BUT you will not always have me." Is it possible that Jesus is speaking specifically to Judas instead of making a universal claim about the entire history of the world? Or is Jesus asserting that 1) not only will the poor always exist, but 2) those who follow me will not always have me. This would seem to contradict Christ's promise to be with us even "until the end of the world" (Mt 28:20). There is also, from a Biblical critic perspective, a sense of irony/prophetic condemnation with Christ's statement as it refers back to the Hebrew bible and YHWH's unmet expectations for the Israelite community.
I would also encourage you to check out this video (esp. 1:44-3:25). It further explains some of the things I have addressed in this comment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uZV90fsoCY
The notion that Christians should be sharing with the marginalized isn't controversial to me. What I'm confused about is why this gets called socialism. To my mind, there is a qualitative difference between what we read about in Luke/ Acts and what is known as socialism. One difference is the use of force. Christians gave (and give), socialist governments take from one group for the benefit of another. The voluntary nature of the Christian model makes all the difference. Giving and receiving, when motivated by the Gospel, draws people of different socioeconomic classes and in different situations together. Frankly, I don't see that happening in Europe.
ReplyDeleteWell I am inclined to agree with you being someone who is suspicious of "the powers and principalities." But let me offer up some things to think about for the both of us.
ReplyDelete1. Is it always wrong to be forced to give something to someone/something? Indeed part of our taxes are for military (a HUGE part of our taxes), school systems, libraries, fire departments, post offices... these services seem to be fairly beneficial despite the fact they survive off tax payer money.
2. Is it possible for governments to align themselves on the side of YHWH which might result in them creating laws that reflect YHWH's heart for the poor? (See Jim Walis for further discussion on this)
Good comment. Thanks.
I find your assertions interesting, but I am not sure that I can agree with you - at least not in the way you use modern terms (i.e., "redistribution") to describe what is described in Scripture (boy, I bet that surprises you, huh? :)). First of all, Zaccheus was did not simply "redistribute"; he also did "restitution" - i.e., restoring, with appropriate "interest", those whom he, like many other tax farmers, defrauded. As for the Acts 2-5 narrative (specifically Acts 5), while I have not read Lindsley's writings on this subject, I do assert (and have often done so) that the "redistribution" that took place in the early church was not mandatory or coerced in some sort of "institutional" sense. Instead, the Spirit put it in the hearts of believers, as the need arose, to share in ways that met the needs of others. Luke write the following as Peter's response to Ananias' deception - "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.” (Acts 5:3-4) Ananias' sin was not the sin of greed, much less the sin of "not redistributing". It was lying; Peter specifically says that the land belonged to Ananias before he sold it, and even the "profit" he made from it was his to use at his discretion! Prior to this, the church shared their goods as the Holy Spirit led them. Acts 4:32-35 says, "All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need." Regarding the comment to Judas, it seems to me that you have a fundamental hermeneutical dissonance with this passage the Acts passage. Specifically, you want to interpret "the poor you have always with you" as something specific to Judas' time (i.e., we can't take this as a universal truth, but only a statement that the poor would always be present in Judas' lifetime), but you don't want to do that with the Acts 4-5 narratives (the actions of Barnabas and the early church in Acts 4 [contra to the disobedient acts of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5]), which you maintain contain universally applicable principles.
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to say that the sharing of material possessions is not a part of Shalom. Quite the contrary. But any hermeneutic that wants to "legislate" such action is problematic. How much is too much to spend on a car? A house? A vacation? Who gets to make those decisions, and on what basis? My wife and I paid $28,000 for a van in 2005. Too much? Should we have bought a van for 14,000, and given the other 14,000 to the poor? Or how about 8,000, and giving 17,000 to the poor. By all means encourage people to share from the material bounty. But leave it to the Spirit to decide ultimately how, and how much.
Andy Smith
Professor Smith,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your comment. Be sure to check out Michael Wiltshire's post and Dr. Art Lindsely's post. Both are accessible through this page. A few things:
1. My argument is not that there should be a legalized “redistribution system.” My argument is that Christians should partake in redistribution because that is part of discipleship.
2. I don’t disagree about Ananias AND Sappharia. And I don’t disagree that Acts 4-5 describes a certain community. In fact, I use neither passages in my argument. Instead, I suggest that Christian teaching (evident by Paul’s epistles and the Didache) urges, encourages and exhorts Christ followers to provide for the needy.
3. As for my “hermeneutical dissonance” I appreciate the challenge. But maybe I did not make myself clear. I am not making Acts 4-5 universal. I am attempting to build a biblical case (from both testaments) that suggests that YHWH desires his followers to share their material possessions in pursuit of justice which results in knowing YHWH (e.g. Jer 22:15-16; Mat 25). I DO think that the church in Acts 4-5 demonstrates a THEME that is present all throughout the scripture: give sacrificial to those who are forgotten.
4. Finally, I do think that there is such thing as spending too much on possessions. This is why church communities exist so that your brothers and sisters might advise us in what to buy and what not to buy. This goes against rugged individuality and consumeristic mentalities that permeate the US culture but this is indeed what it means to be a disciple of Christ. US culture deems financial discipleship (or any form of discipleship) foolish, but this seems to be exactly what the foolishness of YHWH calls for (I Cor 1:25-27). But, “That foolishness will save those who believe; although their foolish hearts may break they will find peace” (Rich Mullins).
-Written in cahoots with my mother Ruthie Daniels
Josiah - thanks for the gracious and thoughtful response. I'm in the midst of a family get together right now, so I can't give you a detailed reply. But I will say a couple of things.
ReplyDelete1. My first name is Andy. Please use it! :) As a graduate of CU, you are among the folks I insist call me that. I have students call me "Professor Smith" while they are still in school, but after that, the rules change, as it were. So please - call me Andy! :)
2. I agree with virtually everything you say in points 1-4. My only comments - or perhaps questions/qualifications - are as follows:
a. I agree that Christians should share with others in need. If you want to call that "redistribution", I suppose you can do that. But that term sounds very political, rigid, and forced to me - as though there was initially something wrong or immoral in the way wealth fell out among others that now has to be fixed. Instead, we should realize that all we have (whether we are rich or poor) comes to us via hard work and productivity (generally, though not always) and through the blessing of God - and we have the privilege of sharing with those in need if we have been abundantly blessed. This should not be forced or coerced, as "redistribution" implies (to me, at least - cf. Philemon), but instead should be provided to others as an act of, and on the basis of, love.
b. I am much more comfortable with the notion of "THEME" of giving sacrificially to those who have been "forgotten" (?; perhaps a better term is overlooked, or who are not in a position to provide for their own needs) than with any notion of coercion; unless what "coerces" is love - again, see Philemon.
c. I appreciate your conviction that one can spend "too much" on certain possessions. I probably have a similar conviction. But again - I would encourage you to see this as a "THEME" or "PRINCIPLE" rather than imagining that we can ultimately agree among ourselves (or, much worse, have it dictated to us by other(s)) that there is ONE SPECIFIC "amount" that is a ceiling that we should all adhere to. For example, in a lecture to a group of high school students, Tony Campolo asked the question, 'Am I saying that $50,000 is too much to pay for a car? That's exactly what I'm saying.' Okay, fair enough - he is entitled to his opinion. But I don't want Tony Campolo, or anyone else, telling me what I must not pay for a car. Instead, let me dialogue with fellow believers, get their thoughts, consider ways in which I can help others, and then decide, as led by the Spirit, what would be an appropriate, prudent amount to spend on, say, a car. For me, in 2005, that was $28,000. Perhaps you would consider that too extravagant, and would not recommend I pay that much. Fair enough - but I don't think you, or anyone else, has the right (God given or otherwise) to mandate that I spend no more than X amount on a car. Nor do I have the right to impose such mandates on you.
Oh, and best wishes to both you and your mother Ruthie! And also - two picking on one is unfair! God bless you, Josiah, and have a great summer.
In Christ,
Andy
Hey thanks for the thoughts ANDY! Hope you will visit frequently.
ReplyDeleteHope you have a good summer as well!