Today, we’re going to talk a little
bit about a phrase and concept I’ve heard over the years: “God’s preferential
option for the poor.” According to Wikipedia, this
refers to “preference being given to the well-being of the poor and powerless
of society.” It was formally articulated by the Catholic Church, but
Protestants more on the left side of the political spectrum have bought into
this to some degree as well. More from the Wikipedia article, quoting the Archdiocese
of St. Paul and Minneapolis: “According to said doctrine, through one's words,
prayers and deeds one must show solidarity with, and compassion for, the poor.
Therefore, when instituting public policy one must always keep the ‘preferential
option for the poor’ at the forefront of one's mind. Accordingly, this doctrine
implies that the moral test of any society is ‘how it treats its most
vulnerable members.’ The poor have the most urgent moral claim on the
conscience of the nation. We are called to look at public policy decisions in
terms of how they affect the poor.’”
Now, there’s some truth in this. As
I’ve mentioned several times before, you really have to put forth an effort to
find a book of the Bible which doesn’t
express God’s concern for the “least
of these.” He cares about the
well-being of the poor and oppressed, and we need to reflect that concern.
In the earlier essays I wrote on “Wealth
and Poverty,” I made the case that while we all care about the poor, we differ
on the best way to do that. Just handing money to someone usually is not the
way to help them. If someone’s poor because they’re committing dysfunctional or
self-destructive or economically foolish behavior, you’re not showing love by
handing them money.
Today’s post deals with what I
consider is the root of the problem: Letting our feelings of compassion
overshadow our heads in how best to help those in need. Going back to the
description above, the trouble I have is with the word “solidarity.” What I
think is wrong with this idea is that it allows compassion—or more likely,
guilt—towards the poor to overshadow justice.
It’s absolutely true that the Bible,
particularly the Old Testament prophets, were very concerned with “justice” for
the poor, but once again let me point you towards the NET Study Bible note on Isaiah 1:23: ”
The rich
oppressors referred to in Isaiah and the other eighth century prophets were not
rich capitalists in the modern sense of the word. They were members of the
royal military and judicial bureaucracies in Israel and Judah. As these
bureaucracies grew, they acquired more and more land and gradually commandeered
the economy and legal system. At various administrative levels bribery and
graft become commonplace. The common people outside the urban administrative
centers were vulnerable to exploitation in such a system, especially those,
like widows and orphans, who had lost their family provider through death.
Through confiscatory taxation, conscription, excessive interest rates, and
other oppressive governmental measures and policies, they were gradually
disenfranchised and lost their landed property, and with it, their rights as
citizens. The socio-economic equilibrium envisioned in the law of Moses was
radically disturbed.”
In other words, the “injustice” towards
the poor which the prophets were condemning was an inappropriate, corrupt
relationship between the wealthy and government officials. We need to work
against that, and the most effective way I know of is to reduce the influence
and power government has over our lives.
Another way that the FMS would scale
back on the corruption we’re seeing condemned in Amos is a simple concept that
escapes peoples’ notice: Rule of law. We make the rules
simple, easy to understand, public, and hard to change. If the laws aren’t
working, then we work within the system to change them. We don’t just bend or break
the rules when it becomes inconvenient to follow them. Rule of law isn’t there
to protect the elite so much as it’s there to protect those who can’t protect
themselves. It’s not going to work out perfectly; nothing will in this fallen
world. But the only alternative is government by feelings, which--I promise
you--will lead from 1) rule of law to 2) the rule of the jungle, where the strong
rule over the weak.
America started off as an underdog,
fighting off the most powerful empire in the world. We’ve always had a soft
spot in our hearts for the scrappy underdog, fighting “The Power.” All of our
fictional heroes in conflict fit this pattern: Imagine a sports movie in which
the big rich team wins in the end. Imagine a comic book in which the big
conflict is Superman going up against a mugger. Imagine a TV drama in which a
rich CEO is in a legal battle against people who’re suing his company, and it
turns out in the end that the litigants were wrong to file the suit, and the CEO was the good guy all along.
But compassion is not the end-all
and be-all of right and wrong. In our court system, the key virtue isn’t
compassion but justice. In our personal
lives, we have to be compassionate,
quick to forgive, etc., but not in our government, especially our court system. Read these passages
for a summary of how important the Lord took this issue seriously: Judges
are to judge their cases with justice. What do the facts and the Law
say?
Please read this warning
to judges very carefully: “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to
the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.” Think
about that for a moment. He specifically warns judges not to show partiality towards
the poor. Why would he be tempted to do that? Because he had compassion on
their plight. He felt sorry for them. “Well, maybe they did steal from this
store, but I’m sure they’ve had a hard life.” “Well, maybe they did murder
someone, but the guy they murdered was a rich guy whom I don’t like. So I think
I’ll let him off.” Whatever the defendant’s background or economic status
should make no difference. The only two things that the judge should consider
are 1) The facts, and 2) The law.
Yes, we need to show compassion for
the poor, but solidarity? Does that
mean we stand with them when they’re wrong and their wealthier opponent is
right? If you have trouble with answering that question, go back and read what
Moses warned judges: “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but
judge your neighbor fairly.” Poor people are sinners just as much as rich
people are. It’s entirely possible that in a legal battle between a rich man
and a poor man, the poor man is wrong based on the facts and the law. If so,
the judge had no choice but to rule accordingly, not based on his personal
feelings in the matter.
I want to reemphasize that this is
in the realm of government and public policy, not in our personal lives and
relationships. When it’s an issue between us as an individual and someone else as an individual, the watchwords are love, mercy, grace,
forgiveness, generosity, and, yes, compassion. We treat others like God has
treated us.
But in the realm of government, law,
and the justice system, the watchwords have to be—they must be—justice, rule of
law, and impartiality.
That’s the way God set it up, and I don’t
think we’re going to come up with anything better, do you?
No comments:
Post a Comment