"The rich and powerful should be required by law to spend some time every year helping the poor and needy, says the Archbishop of Canterbury," the Daily Mail reports today.
"Rowan Williams said a return to the medieval tradition when monarchs ritually washed the feet of the poor would serve to remind politicians and bankers what should be the purpose of their wealth and power."
While I certainly appreciate His Grace's intentions, where in the Bible did Christ advocate the use of force to impose His teaching? Where in the Bible did Christ go to Rome to lobby the Senate to enforce His teachings? The Bible is filled with warnings to men to avoid the lure of State power.
"Because the duty to serve would be compulsory, those involved would not be able to claim credit for doing it, he added," the Mail also reports.
True, but if it's compulsory, then it's not God's will -- it's the State's. That's why He did not send Christ to Earth as a king. It is also rather ironic, given the fact one of the Bible's great villains is a head of state who conscripted God's people into forced labor.
His Grace also overlooks an important historical fact. In Christ's time wealth was not mobile. Men did not become rich by finding ways to be of use and benefit to their fellow man. The rich of Christ's time got rich by either being of use to the State, or being born into the State. Wealth was not earned, it was a barometer of political power.
As His Grace notes, such a law dates back to the time of monarchs, people who amassed their wealth through the power of the State. The relationship between the "rich" and the "poor" at that time was not one of voluntary, mutually-agreed upon exchange. The law was largely an attempt by "the rich" of that time to use an empty display of one-time subservience to mollify "the poor" who, in a world where wealth was fixed and not earned, had no recourse other than the axe.
But the money of today, which His Grace seems to speak of disparagingly, has transformed our world into a more peaceful place.
The "rich" His Grace speaks of today earned their wealth by providing jobs, homes, goods, medical care and a standard of living inconceivable in Christ's time. If "the poor" feel they are being mistreated by a member of "the rich," they simply take their business to someone else.
If you think "the rich" should do more to help "the poor," keep in mind that in a modern, capitalist, free market economy, money is a tool of voluntary exchange that changes hands when someone feels someone else provides a good of service worthy of that exchange.
In such an economy, both parties benefit. In fact this free market of voluntary exchange, of which money is the agreed-upon unit of measure, allows the poor to become rich and the rich to become poor. This phenomenon of social mobility was inconceivable in the world of State control that existed in the first century.
In the first century and into medieval England wealth was the spoils of political power. In our world, wealth is an one of the indicators of your value to your fellow man in a voluntary free market.
So, who has done more to help the poor? The bureaucrat who would run the compulsory work program serving dinners at a school, or the millionaire who became a millionaire by finding a way to manufacture enough of that food for everyone?
Yes, most of them will not be doing it out of a sense of responsibility to their Christian duties, but by advocating the use of State force to achieve the outward appearance of Christian charity, rather than inspiring to care for their neighbor out of a genuine Christian love, His Grace has already admitted motives are irrelevant. And improving the life of your fellow man by making his food more affordable only to earn a profit for yourself is still more peaceful and better for the poor than a world where the State rounds up the wealthy and influential and forces them under threat of arrest to ladle out soup.
Want to see "the rich" do more to improve the lives of "the poor?" Get out of their way and allow them to use their God-given mind to continue to create, innovate and produce.
"Rowan Williams said a return to the medieval tradition when monarchs ritually washed the feet of the poor would serve to remind politicians and bankers what should be the purpose of their wealth and power."
While I certainly appreciate His Grace's intentions, where in the Bible did Christ advocate the use of force to impose His teaching? Where in the Bible did Christ go to Rome to lobby the Senate to enforce His teachings? The Bible is filled with warnings to men to avoid the lure of State power.
"Because the duty to serve would be compulsory, those involved would not be able to claim credit for doing it, he added," the Mail also reports.
True, but if it's compulsory, then it's not God's will -- it's the State's. That's why He did not send Christ to Earth as a king. It is also rather ironic, given the fact one of the Bible's great villains is a head of state who conscripted God's people into forced labor.
His Grace also overlooks an important historical fact. In Christ's time wealth was not mobile. Men did not become rich by finding ways to be of use and benefit to their fellow man. The rich of Christ's time got rich by either being of use to the State, or being born into the State. Wealth was not earned, it was a barometer of political power.
As His Grace notes, such a law dates back to the time of monarchs, people who amassed their wealth through the power of the State. The relationship between the "rich" and the "poor" at that time was not one of voluntary, mutually-agreed upon exchange. The law was largely an attempt by "the rich" of that time to use an empty display of one-time subservience to mollify "the poor" who, in a world where wealth was fixed and not earned, had no recourse other than the axe.
But the money of today, which His Grace seems to speak of disparagingly, has transformed our world into a more peaceful place.
The "rich" His Grace speaks of today earned their wealth by providing jobs, homes, goods, medical care and a standard of living inconceivable in Christ's time. If "the poor" feel they are being mistreated by a member of "the rich," they simply take their business to someone else.
If you think "the rich" should do more to help "the poor," keep in mind that in a modern, capitalist, free market economy, money is a tool of voluntary exchange that changes hands when someone feels someone else provides a good of service worthy of that exchange.
In such an economy, both parties benefit. In fact this free market of voluntary exchange, of which money is the agreed-upon unit of measure, allows the poor to become rich and the rich to become poor. This phenomenon of social mobility was inconceivable in the world of State control that existed in the first century.
In the first century and into medieval England wealth was the spoils of political power. In our world, wealth is an one of the indicators of your value to your fellow man in a voluntary free market.
So, who has done more to help the poor? The bureaucrat who would run the compulsory work program serving dinners at a school, or the millionaire who became a millionaire by finding a way to manufacture enough of that food for everyone?
Yes, most of them will not be doing it out of a sense of responsibility to their Christian duties, but by advocating the use of State force to achieve the outward appearance of Christian charity, rather than inspiring to care for their neighbor out of a genuine Christian love, His Grace has already admitted motives are irrelevant. And improving the life of your fellow man by making his food more affordable only to earn a profit for yourself is still more peaceful and better for the poor than a world where the State rounds up the wealthy and influential and forces them under threat of arrest to ladle out soup.
Want to see "the rich" do more to improve the lives of "the poor?" Get out of their way and allow them to use their God-given mind to continue to create, innovate and produce.
The Archbishop's understanding of God equals his understanding of economics. His outspoken cries for socialism have, perhaps fortunately, helped to mask his uninterest in the salvation of souls. Were he as interested in original sin and salvation through grace that the Church once stood for, there might be no need for his obsession with secular political affairs including the social welfare state and impressed servitude. Were his enthusiasm for the health of the Church of England anything close to his penchant for influence in the world of Caesar, perhaps his vicars across England would not be preaching to empty pews, and, as a consequence, perhaps the good works of their parishioners would obviate the need for his Marxist rants. Perhaps.
ReplyDeleteBeautifully stated.
ReplyDelete