What is poverty? Or: How unequal should the poor be?
Just before Christmas Andrew Wilson posted a thought experiment from Doug Wilson which provoked, if not quite fury, then a seething response in my lefty soul. But what was it that upset me, given that D Wilson said in his magical world that his proposal ‘leaves the poor undeniably better off’?
The problem for me was that his solution also meant that ‘the divide between the rich and poor will widen’ and dramatically so. Doug argued that a refusal to agree with his solution implied that instead of loving the poor, what really gets the goat was the mere presence and existence of rich people.
I made the sophisticated comment that increasing the amount of inequality in a society was ‘a bad thing’ and so here we are discussing it in a bit more length. There’s no disagreement that there is absolute poverty (with people living on something around $1-2 a day); that somewhere in the region of 2.5 billion people face a daily struggle to get the basic necessities of food, water, clothing and shelter. I’ve seen it first hand and it’s horrible.
There is rather more disagreement on what caused the poverty in the first place and still further disagreement on how it should be dealt with. Yet none of those compare with the rift that is caused by a discussion about relative poverty or in current terminology, income inequality.
In the next year, expect to hear a lot more about income inequality, not least because President Obama just put it in his State of the Union speech and there will be a presidential election where every candidate is at least a millionaire. Inequality was recently a topic of conversation amongst the rich and powerful at Davos and it’s a big part of the beef of those occupying, wherever it is they are now occupying in financial centres all over the western world. For years now everyone has been happy that the rich have been getting richer as long as everyone else does too. Now everyone else isn’t but the rich still are and somehow that doesn’t seem fair any longer.
Inequality in western societies gets the heckles up in other ways too. For example as the UK government changes how benefits work, we can expect to read stories of benefit scroungers with iPhones and flat screen TVs, and stories of hard working families that just can’t quite make the sums add up. But in a country where nobody starves, what is poverty?
Last summer saw London and other places caught up in the consumer riots, but in a consumer society where virtually everyone gets ‘want’ and ‘need’ horribly confused and where personal debt is dangerously high, what is fair anyway?
For Christians there are a number of questions:
In a wealthy society who is the poor? Inequality says something about how we measure and value certain jobs and work, yet often those who do the most important things get paid the least. Just talk to any mother if you disagree with that one.
Is equality a ‘good’ that we should care about? If so, how much equality should there be, and is this what Paul was talking about in 2 Cor 8:13-14?
So having asked a lot of questions without giving any answers, let me finally make my position clear. I believe that not only does the Bible articulate a vision of a society (past, present and future) where absolute poverty is wiped out but that it also paints a compelling portrait of a world where income inequality is at worst irrelevant and at best incomprehensible.
I believe that the customs of Israel, the teachings of Jesus, the values of the early church and the vision of the new heavens and earth all point towards this kind of world.
I believe that in the light of this, the societies Christians should strive for and the policies Christians should support are ones that lead to more and not less equal societies and where the gap between rich and poor is narrow. After all, the best paths are narrow ones.
——
This is part one of a short series on poverty.
Comments
By Andrew Wilson on 27/02/2012 at 13:33
Very stimulating. But I’m still not sure what you think the answer is to your main question: what is poverty? Is it absolute or relative? Doug Wilson’s thought-experiment was obviously assuming the former; I assume you don’t agree, but I’m not sure why ... Is it a 2 Cor 8 thing? Don’t leave us in suspense!
By Pete Thorne on 27/02/2012 at 14:04
And… in a similar vein to Wilson’s “What is death?” question, do we define poverty in terms of:
Wealth?
Opportunity?
Spirituality?
Relationships?
Security?
Health?
Education?
By Phil Whittall on 27/02/2012 at 16:44
@ Andrew: yes you’re right in assuming that I think poverty is also relative and was hoping to string it out a bit before revealing all.
@ Pete, good questions. Obviously poverty is primarily defined by lack of wealth which often means lack of health, security education and probably opportunity. Of course the order can be reversed a lack of security can lead to poverty, as can lack of health and so on. But material poverty does not necessarily equate to poverty of relationships and spirituality whereas material wealth can lead to those things. However I based my opening gambit on those issues related to material poverty.
By Stuart on 27/02/2012 at 22:49
This may be controversial but I am not sure God is all that concerned about material equality. In God’s kingdom He would appear to be more concerned about stewardship and rewarding those who show themselves to be trustworthy. He seems to be more concerned about how we use our wealth and possessions rather than how much we have (of course if we have more then he expects more from us). When wealth (or I say controversially “equal wealth”) becomes an end in itself then we are missing the fact that God has entrusted us with something for a reason.
If you accept that God wants us to learn to be stewards of all that he gives us and that He gives more to those who show themselves trustworthy then this inevitably leads to a level of inequality.
It would appear that by God’s design he has given us each different gifts and at different levels. To some the ability to handle wealth, to others leadership, others wisdom, others nuturing etc. It would therefore follow on that God would entrust different levels of responsibility within each sphere according to gifting.
Now I understand that one perspective may that an appropriate stewardship of wealth is an equal redistribution. My problem with this is that it is not consistent with stewardship principles. People would no longer be entrusted acording to their gifting. Also, implicit in the desire to equally distribute wealth is that material wealth has some intrinsic value to satisfy the needs of an individual. Of course, it does not. The acqusition of wealth is likely to lead to a feeling of emptyness when it becomes an end in itself.
Now, I agree that God is absolutely concerned with poverty i.e. those who do not have enough to meet their needs. Suffering is not life as God intended and we are called to help those in need. I believe it is God’s concern that His people look to eliminate suffering due to poverty, especially within the church.
This draws me back to main theme of this discussion - what is poverty? So my answer is when our needs are not met and the result is physical, emotional or spiritual suffering. It must be absolute and not relative. It is the result of sin and what God came to save us from.
By Kip' Chelashaw on 27/02/2012 at 22:57
What do you make of the parable of the Ten Minas (Luke 19) which implies that there will be some kind of material inequality in the beatific state? Similarly, The Revelation of St John paints a picture of some kind of material hierarchy with the elders wearing golden crowns, sitting on thrones etc whilst the saints simply wear white robes and wave palm branches etc - these and other passages raise serious challenges (I think) to your supposition that material/economic equality is an inherent good.
K
By Phil Whittall on 28/02/2012 at 14:07
Kip,
I answer those questions a bit more in tomorrow’s post but I would respond that the crowns etc are symbols not of greater wealth but of greater reward. And not reward for wealth but for obedience to God in this life and that would include generosity to the poor. So unlike in this life the poor could be the inheritors of the crowns in the next.
By Kip' Chelashaw on 28/02/2012 at 14:50
“...the crowns etc are symbols not of greater wealth but of greater reward.”
My question to that is, what actual form does this greater reward take if not material? Are you saying that it is mere approbation? But why the imagery of being in possession of a certain rank and being attired in a certain way? What in your view does “greater reward” without a material component look like?
K
By Phil Whittall on 28/02/2012 at 16:31
@Kip I think as with lots in Revelation that these are symbols, just as a crown is now. I think the rewards may be in terms of honour and responsibility but that material rewards are, well, immaterial in a context where everybody will have enough and no one will want more. So a reward to be that is likely to come in a form that both people will want to give and receive and I think that honour probably captures much of that.
By Phil Whittall on 28/02/2012 at 22:16
@Stuart: I think there are a few problems with the idea of people being entrusted resources according to their gifting. Does that mean the poor should accept their lot? While me might see a pay raise as evidence of our gifting to handle more, would we treat a paycut in the same way? Any attempt to alleviate poverty is a belief that in your words the gifting of many of the poor is greater than they have resources to demonstrate. And it would be very easy to descend into a kind of paternalism that dictates who is deserving of what.
Conversely there are many would seem to have way more than their apparent gifting!
I would argue that it seems inconsistent to say to God isn’t too concerned about material inequality but is concerned about poverty. You can’t address poverty without at least some rebalancing of the inequality. It necessarily involves some redistribution of wealth whether through taxation, appropriation or giving. The much harder question is how much better off should those who are currently poor become, what standard of living would be acceptable and if it doesn’t match ours, why not?
Which is why poverty is not only absolute but relative.
And lastly of course if material wealth doesn’t satisfy then we shouldn’t have any issues with giving more away to meet the material needs of those who don’t have enough. Right?
By Stuart on 29/02/2012 at 16:24
Thanks Phil for your response.
The main point I was trying to make is if you look at the parables it would seem that God is less concerned that people have the same amount and more concerned that people use what they have as wise stewards (as everything ultimately belongs to God).
So hypothetically, if God decided to right every wrong and redistribute the wealth of the world, I am not so sure he would do it evenly. I think His objectives would be to:
a) eliminate suffering through absolute poverty
b) take from the unrighteous and give it to those who have shown themselves to be trustworthy
I agree my wording of “distribute according to gifting” may not be the best. God is looking for wise stewards who are trustworthy. So it is perhaps more about character than gifting.
By Phil Whittall on 29/02/2012 at 17:08
Hi Stuart, I guess the parable which might act as a counterbalance to that is Mt 20:1-16 which is at least in part an economic parable where the generosity of God treated people equally. I agree with both a) and b) . However I don’t think I see equality as having the same amount, ie we both have X but that your X and my Y don’t confer any significant advantages or disadvantages. Sort of like saying we’ll all end up middle class or Scandinavian!