Point the Finger Where it Belongs: The Church

Don't blame the rich.

I've grown weary of phrases like "pay their fair share" (as I pointed out in my last post) or the blatant criticism of anybody who makes a lot of money and doesn't want to share it. It's not their responsibility. It's not their job. One of our country's founding principles is the right to the "pursuit of happiness." No requirement exists that says, "If your pursuit of happiness brings you gobs and gobs of money, you need to share it to equal things out. You are also responsible for the happiness of others, since you've been so good at obtaining it for yourself." That one hasn't yet made it into the books.

The rich are just chasing happiness in the only way they know how. It's a bad strategy, in my humble opinion; but they have every right to that strategy or any other. If they want to burn their money, they can. It's theirs. They are not legally obligated to use it in a way that makes others happy.

I also tire of Americans trying to tell other Americans that they are too rich and should share. That's asinine. If a lower-middle class American were to go walking through a 3rd world country, I guarantee they'd look like a "super-rich" individual there. If Americans were willing to get rid of this provincial, Americentric view of life, we'd see that any demands for the rich to share a large portion of their excess wealth are demands pointing the finger at 90% of us to bring up much of the rest of the world. If you're at any income level in the U.S. (aside from abject poverty), and you're not willing to give up 70% of your income for the less fortunate, then you really have nothing to say to those who have more money than you.

That's not to say that the right thing to do isn't to help the less fortunate. It absolutely is, for some of us. Don't look to the rich, though. They're just following the rules (for the most part) that have been laid out. Is there anyone to blame, then, that poverty and hunger exist not only in the U.S., but around the world? Who can we wag a finger at, asking when they're going to do something about it? My answer - the church.

While it's not an American principle or law to help those less fortunate, it certainly is a Biblical one. Christ was pretty clear about that. Treat the poor, the homeless, the orphaned, the downtrodden (in Christ's words - "the least of these") as if they were Christ himself. It's not given as an option, as a suggestion, as something that it would be nice to get to. The entire church was built on this principle. America screams of individualism; Christ screamed for the unity of the body. Americans have property rights; Christians are to hold all things loosely except for God.

If there's anyone to blame here, anyone to call out and demand more from, it is those who profess Christianity. Rich Christians, middle-class Christians, and poor Christians have a job to do. That job is to serve, to find those in need and provide for that need as a picture of what Christ has to offer. We are commanded to make the poor our responsibility. If anyone's dropped the ball, it's the group who has claimed it's their responsibility in the first place.

And we weren't told to give of our excess, to give whatever is left over after we have what we want. We were told to give sacrificially. It's a tough command; we have a lot of trouble giving up what we think we've earned (especially if we're locked into a prosperity doctrine). But it's also a great way to pursue that happiness we have a right to - to trust Christ, to help others, to value God and faith and human life all at one time.

Some individual Christians and entire church bodies are doing a magnificent job of this. It won't show up in the newspapers (and shouldn't) because they're just doing their job. It's a fundamental responsibility and role to play in our society. Don't look to the government to fix poverty. Government is either clueless or powerless or both to take care of that problem. Look to the churches. Ask them what they're doing. For they have a greater responsibility, and greater offer of joy, than any of the rich being attacked.