A Gospel-Shaped Vision of Wealth Distribution
Looking for a surefire way to incite spirited conversation at a subdued Thanksgiving table this year? Why not bring up the topic of wealth distribution? Everyone is bound to have an opinion! While wealth distribution is typically relegated to the realm of the political (and controversial), it’s actually quite important for a Christian to have a good grasp of the way the gospel moves us to give away our money.
Talk of wealth distribution leaves many evangelicals uneasy. It sounds, well, rather Marxist. It’s true, Marx was consumed with a utopian, almost eschatological vision for economic equality. Marx’s solution was to eliminate the very heart of capitalism: private property. But he failed to account for the pesky problem of the human heart. Evidence does not point toward the likelihood that societies will pursue a communitarian way of life; in fact, historical evidence reveals quite the opposite. As a result, such a vision is bound to fail, cut off at the knees by human sinfulness.
Some have argued that Jesus, or at least the early church, possessed a communistic bent, referring to texts such as Acts 2:45, which states, “They were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.” This initial expression of sacrificial sharing is certainly important to our understanding of the way the gospel transformed that newly-formed community. But on closer examination, we see that property was freely and selectively given for the good of others—it was not totally eliminated.
There is, however, a strong theme of fairness, or equality, developed throughout the New Testament. Unlike Marxism, it does not involve a universal leveling of society through revolutionary means. Rather, pursuit of equality takes place within the sphere of the church and targets a critical center missed by other structural solutions: the human heart. In short, the New Testament vision is one of radical generosity, rooted in Christ.
GENEROUSLY GIVING FROM OUR SURPLUS
The New Testament vision of wealth is shaped by the incarnation and cross-work of Christ. A remarkable passage that displays this vision of giving is 2 Corinthians 8. The Corinthian church had already agreed to provide funds to the struggling Jerusalem church (1 Cor. 16:1ff), and Paul writes to pave the way for its collection. After pointing to the example set by the Macedonian church, he urges the Corinthians to approach this task from a gospel vantage point: “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich” (2 Cor. 8:9). He draws an explicit link between Jesus’s incarnation and the Corinthians’ understanding of their own wealth. In other words, the radical generosity of Christ, when rightly received, gives birth to a generous reflex.
Fairness is not demanding the same outcomes or opportunities but graciously supplying what is lacking through radical generosity. There is much discussion these days about what “equality” actually means. Is it equal access to opportunities for wealth-creation? Or is it the guarantee that all will have equal outcomes in life? How we answer this question shapes the policy we choose to support. But the New Testament vision for equality is situated on a different plane. Paul goes on to write, “For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened, but that as a matter of fairness your abundance at the present time should supply their need, so that their abundance may supply your need, that there may be fairness” (2 Cor. 8:13-14). This understanding of equality is need-focused, recognizing that the significant deficits caused by need can and should be met by the surplus of those with the abundance and ability to meet that need. It would appear then, that Paul has in view equality of outcomes. But this is not a matter of capping wealth or demanding that an entire population live in the same socioeconomic strata. The outcome Paul calls for is the elimination of need as it appears in the spheres of local churches.
Fairness is also not preferential treatment. It is important to see that Paul in no way wages class warfare, seeking to tax the rich while prioritizing the poor to bring about equal outcomes. If there is prioritization, it is temporal prioritization. That is, those who have an overabundance are properly equipped to engage in radical generosity. But the expectation is that the presently needy will in the future possess abundance, whereas the presently wealthy will at some future time be needy (in terms of financial resources, or perhaps some other undefined need that those who are in abundance can provide). This vision therefore does not rely on fixed groups of suppliers and consumers of wealth but rather a mutual interdependence between socioeconomic strata. It is an exercise in humble realization that wealth and socioeconomic status is no immutable caste; instead, wealth requires a stewardship that may change at any given moment. Self-reliance, therefore, is not only an affront to the fact that God alone is provider, but it is damaging to equality by causing a retreat into individualism.
STEWARDING GOD’S PROVISIONS
Pursuing fairness is a manifestation of God’s faithful provision. It is interesting that Paul supports his argument by referencing the collection of manna in the wilderness (Exod. 16:18). There, God provided Israel with desperately needed food. Individual ambition might typically result in some collecting and hoarding more, while others received less. But God directed Israel to collect as much as they could eat. And at the end of the day, when all was measured out, those who collected much had none left over, and those who collected little had no lack. God’s provision resulted in perfect equality based on need, and miraculously, this labor was not hijacked by selfish ambition. When we couple this example of need and provision in the wilderness with Jesus’s own instruction that we pray for God to provide our daily bread, we locate ourselves in the steadying reality that, work as we may, it is ultimately God who provides.
Fairness was practiced in the operations of the early church. In addition to Acts 2:45, we see evidence of this radical generosity in Acts 4:34-35: “There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.” As argued above, this vision of fairness as need-elimination was operative in Jerusalem in the early days. We further see evidence of need-elimination in the care for widows (Acts 6; 1 Tim. 5:3-16) and in the explicit connection between this generous help and true religion (James 1:27).
Hoarding wealth and lazy dependence on others are both condemned. A strong case for wealth distribution via radical generosity can be made by the consistent condemnations of wealth hoarding. Jesus has plenty to say about the foolishness of relying on one’s net worth (Matt. 6:19-21; Lk. 12:13-21). Indeed, the act of protectively storing up wealth for oneself may preclude entrance into the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 19:16-30). Of course, none of this suggests that a New Testament vision of fairness through radical generosity enables idle reliance on others. To the contrary, Paul rather bluntly declares, “If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat” (2 Thess. 3:10). Of course, some are unable to work due to various limitations. These are not the folks Paul has in mind here. He targets the moochers. And those who refuse to take responsibility by depending on the community foster inequality by artificially creating need and siphoning precious resources. Responsible productive work, however, can actually develop greater equality by doing one’s part to eliminate personal need. It reduces the burden on the community and strengthens the church’s capacity to provide by making the individual a positive contributor to meeting others’ needs (cf. Eph. 4:28).
DOING GOOD TO EVERYONE
This vision is not entirely reproducible outside of the church. What I have described is simply not a program that can be reduced to principles and transferred to the culture at large, for the preceding observations are attainable only through the profound change wrought by the gospel, through the Spirit. I’m not at all suggesting that non-Christians cannot be radically generous. Rather, it is impossible to motivate or legislate an entire society toward this end. The gospel, however, is such a motivator for the entire society of Christians, located in the church.
At the same time, the Christian should advocate for just, structural policies that enable flourishing in society. Though the model of radical generosity is not reproducible outside of the church, we should seek structural change in our culture. A society with unjust laws and obtusely unequal opportunities for employment places even the hardest workers at a terrible disadvantage. Therefore, out of love for our fellow brother and sister—and out of broader concern for the world—we should advocate for policies and laws that enable people who desire to work to provide for themselves. Unjust laws and structures will create deeper problems. If poverty is preserved by systemic injustice, the generosity of God’s people will always be working against behemoth deficits. But advocacy cannot be the only action we take. Advocacy to the exclusion of individual radical generosity is an abdication of our gospel-shaped responsibility. Both are required.
Therefore, the church is called to eliminate need within its boundaries by distributing personal wealth through radical generosity. There is no indicator that the church itself is called to eliminate material need throughout the world. This is not a reality that will be realized until Christ reigns on this earth. This calling certainly does not stop with the church; the riches of the gospel are sufficient to empower us to do good “to everyone” (Gal. 6:10) as we have opportunity. But it starts in the church. We have a particular obligation to engage in sacrificial, continual need-meeting within the church as God’s people distribute their wealth through mutually-dependent, radical generosity.
Bob Stevenson is a husband, father of four and serves as Lead Pastor of Village Baptist Church. He is passionate about encouraging and strengthening the local church through written and spoken word. He writes at https://medium.com/@thebob and on Twitter.