Clergy reflect on political parable
Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read, 'Vote Obama, I need the money.' I laughed. Once in the restaurant, my server had on an "Obama 08" tie. Again I laughed as he had given away his political preference -- just imagine the coincidence. When the bill came, I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need -- the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.
At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.
Some people think this story makes a great point, that it's right-on, spot-on, incredibly trenchant and amusing.
I think it's about a well-off guy who stiffs a waiter.
I think it's about a well-off guy who never planned to help a homeless person, and only does so to make a dubious political point.
First of all, all the yelping about "redistribution of wealth" and "spreading the wealth" -- the "class warfare" flag Republicans throw whenever some speaks of this or talks about income disparity in the United States -- it's all a whine by and for those who can afford
to pay more taxes under an Obama presidency. Those in the top bracket of income -- households making $250,000 or more per year -- would see a tax increase while those below that level wouldn't. Yes, progressive tax policy is about sharing the wealth -- those at the top pay more so those in the middle or below can pay less. A homeless guy would pay nothing, like many Americans who live in poverty, and get little back. (There are 25 million households at or below the government-set poverty line, according to the U.S. Census Bureau). Under Obama's tax plan, the waiter would not give up more; the waiter would get a break.
Since the story of the homeless man and the waiter had the sound of parable, I asked some of the clergy to read it and give me their thoughts.
Here are a couple:
Rev. Frank M. Reid III, Bethel AME Church, Baltimore:
In Matthew 19:16-26, the writer of this gospel tells of Jesus' encounter with a rich young ruler. The young man is trying to prove how ood and spiritual he is -- just as the writer of the email is trying to prove/justify his position and intelligence. After hearing all of his
rationalizations, Jesus tells him to sell all that he has and give it to the poor. We are told that WHEN THE YOUNG MAN HEARD THAT SAYING, HE WENT AWAY SORROWFUL, FOR HE HAD GREAT POSSESSIONS.
My father told me that the test for the young man was not really giving away his wealth -- it was whether he was controlled by his wealth or whether he was in control. Clearly the writer of this email is controlled by his wealth and will walk away from what is right
and even hurt other people to hold on to his possessions.
In the Hebrew Bible, the year of Jubilee is about what the e-mailer would call the redistribution of wealth. When Jesus fed the five- and four-thousand, it was the redistribution of wealth. Or should we call it the sharing of wealth with those who are the least, the lost and the left out?
I am working on I message for the night before the election. The Scripture Reading and Focus will be on Matthew 25:31-46. It is the story of the judgment of the nations. In the context of the Scripture the nations are judged based on whether they fed the hungry, provided for the thirsty, visited and made provision for the lonely and depressed, clothed the naked and showed compassion to those in prison. The nations then asked the following: LORD, WHEN DID WE SEE YOU HUNGRY OR THIRSTY OR A STRANGER OR NAKED OR SICK OR IN PRISON, AND DID NOT MINISTER TO YOU? The answer is important: INASMUCH AS YOU DID NOT DO IT TO ONE OF THE LEAST OF THESE, YOU DID OR DID NOT DO IT TO ME.
The issue here is not whether the money should have been taken from the waiter and given to the homeless/hungry person outside.
The issue here is why the rich ruler in the email didn't have the compassion to help both? It says more about him than it does about Obama and his so-called socialism.
The Rev. Joseph H. Muth, St. Matthew parish, Baltimore:
I think the story could be about the homeless guy or the restaurant server, but I think it is really about the guy who has the "luxury" of deciding who he is going to help and why.
The homeless man's situation is based on need and the
restaurant server is based on whether he did a good job serving. Because of
the different situations, I think it's a matter of being fair to the server
and being generous to the homeless man -- not pitting them against each other
to make a point. What's that about?
As far as parables are concerned I can think of the story of the rich man
and the poor man Lazarus (Luke 16: 19-31) who laid by the rich man's door
each day. The rich man never harmed Lazarus, he just ignored him. So is it
better to ignore the poor or treat them as a pawn in a political game? What
a question!
At the end of this parable, the rich man and Lazarus both died and
there was a great chasm between them. Lazarus 'was carried by the angels to
the bosom of Abraham,' and the rich man was in 'the abode of the dead where
he was in torment.' It's a beautiful story, but it is a long time to wait for justice.
In Luke 12:15 it says, 'Avoid greed in all its forms. A man may be
wealthy, but his possessions do not guarantee him life.' I think this means
life here and hereafter.
Matthew 19:23 says, 'How difficult it is for a rich man to enter into the kingdom
of God. It is easier for a camel to pass through a needle's eye . . . ' I
understand that one of the gates to pass through to get into Jerusalem was
very small and this particular gate was referred to as the needle's eye.
Merchants would have to unload everything off of their camels to try and get
through this gate. Jesus used this as a metaphor for the Kingdom of God and
what we may have to let go of to get through it.
Comments
I am so glad to hear the Christian point of view on this expressed. When people use their religion to guide their vote,
their choice should reflect the teachings they subscribe to.
It's not that these premises are unique to Christianity. It's that all Christians are familiar w/the stories above. So many articles reflect the abortion issue as the sole guide for the choice of their guidance by their religion.
I'm so glad to hear this perspective
expressed publicly
Posted by: Nancy Kelly | October 28, 2008 8:38 AM
to me, this is a great representation of the problem with the way things are working right now in the "free market"... the patron with the money represents big business, and instead of paying the hard-working server (middle class), he "pretends" that he's doing some good but in fact he's extending the gap between the middle class and the lower class by making him pay the burden of the poor...
if the guy really wanted to do some good, he could have tipped as he was supposed to and then be charitable to the homeless guy.
if he's dining by himself (it sounds like) and tipping 10, and i'm guessing this cheapskate is at most an average 15% tipper, then his bill was around $65... gee, i wish I could afford to go out and eat a $65 meal!
yes, this parable proves my point exactly!
Posted by: e. roy lee | October 28, 2008 12:53 PM
Redistribution is designed for the churches where the Holy Spirit is leading. The people give of their abundance voluntarily as the Spirit beckons, and the wealth is distributed to where the Spirit leads. I believe God is moving in the hearts of His people to give like never before. Redistribution was not intended for the government to distribute as the "government" so wishes!
Posted by: marsha | October 29, 2008 8:33 PM
Interpretation depends on the roles you assign to the actors.
Jesus assigned roles to the people, individuals, and their interaction with each other in his parables.
The exemplar could as easily have the roles assume the context of government and policy, and its impact on individuals. The man eating is the one with the gold, the government. He chooses where he will distribute it based on his priorities, his policies.
He chose to eat at the restaurant with waiters, to receive high quality services, similar to government issuing grants to receive services, and controlling exactly how the dollars under its control are distributed.
The Restaurant received payment for its services. The restaurant is responsible for paying its workers, but the government has the ability, through its policy choices to reward performance or not. Because the server chose to challenge all of his customers by introducing his policy preferences into an arena where they would otherwise be irrelevant, he suffered unexpected consequences that were related to his inappropriate behavior that had the knowable potential be interpreted as disrespectful of his customers.
The government explained itself to him. And then implemented a policy that, consistent with the expressed priorities of the server, served one segment of the population at the expense of another. Nothing in the story indicated that the Man, intended anything other than to voluntarily give to the poor, as taught by Jesus. Except as the Government, he made a policy choice and took an action.
In reality, government has taken over the role of many of the things that were historically charitable actions. Without regard for the effectiveness, which is debatable, the act of government was to increase taxes, taking more of the assets and earnings of the working population, and decide how to redistribute those taxes to others.
Charities did a job. Government took over that role. I am looking for the solved problems. This form of redistribution for the citizen does not appear to done the job better.
Posted by: Bruce Robinson | October 30, 2008 1:09 PM
You do realize that the charities asked for the governments help because they were overwhelmed by need?
You claim it does not work on one hand, and yet on the other hand I hear Republicans claim repeatedly that our poor are pretty well off by the world's standards. So which is it? It doesn't work, or it does?
Is this what you really believe, or are you just rationalizing your greed?
Posted by: The Other Steve | October 30, 2008 10:05 PM
An important thing to remember is that Obama is not talking about welfare.
We're talking about tax policy.
And remember this. It's MY money to begin with. Obama is not going to give us anything, he's simply wants the middle class to keep more of their own money in their pockets.
It's actually quite radical compared to our past debates. Perhaps this is the real problem Republicans have, they're still stuck in 1968 and can't change with the times.
Posted by: The Other Steve | October 30, 2008 10:09 PM
this GOP 'parable' illustrates perfectly what remains of the rancid, rotting corpse of the Republican party and why they're going to lose so badly next week.
They are bitter, vicious, nasty, and willing to stiff a waiter in order to score cheap political points. Is it any wonder they've made such a cock-up of the last 8 years?
The GOP deserves a long, long, long time off so they can either exorcise their demons or complete the job of turning themselves into a fringe party composed chiefly of religious nuts, the ignorant, bigots and greedy SOBs.
Posted by: r€nato | October 30, 2008 10:46 PM
Bruce,
A valiant effort, until you said that the government's policy was "consistent with the expressed priorities of the server". There's nothing in Obama's policies that transfers money from the poor to the destitute.
Of course, the main actor in this story has violated an implied contract with the waiter, whereas if this story were generalized to the national level where it presumably implies, then the taxation contract between government and its citizens would first be negotiated via the ballot. Or to put it another way, it's the kind of terrible analogy that makes us all a bit stupider having read it.
DR: Well stated, Clutch Cargo! LOL!!
Posted by: matt | October 30, 2008 11:20 PM