Re: Money is a tool. A Message to Redistributionists

Bob:

You are, of course, correct to point out the selective nature of the
divorce from the old covenant; I was sloppily thinking only of
Levitical precepts like diet, sacrifice, and "eye for an eye". When
it comes to the moral commandments to Israel (the Ten and others),
Christians still generally accept the old covenant. Of course many of
the culturally conservative among us still accept "eye for an eye".

Still, the Jubilee concept is inextricably linked with the society in
which it was instituted: a theocracy. For such a system to work, it
must be top-down. Thus Janice is quite right to point out that a true
Jubilee is a government-mandated structure; you would have to convince
others who were not Christian to go along with it. The Jubilee was
not commanded of us by Jesus and certainly did not strike the early
church as something to petition the Romans for. The believers could
have continued the practice among themselves, purchasing goods from
other believers in proportion to the number of years left and
equalizing the whole at the Jubilee. But they didn't. (Though what
they did do might be even better for social cohesion, as they treated
everyone's possessions as church possessions.) And the "Jubilee"
declared by the Catholics over the centuries doesn't resemble the
historical concept inasmuch as it resembles "Passport to the National
Parks" with the indulgence granted only after visiting x number of
cathedrals. Conversely, the Pope's call for African debt relief is
much more in line with the essential nature of Jubilee: he called on
governments to forgive loans, probably over the objections of
taxpayers.

Now, what the Episcopal church is doing is what every church can and
should be doing with regard to fighting poverty and disease. But
that's not what I meant by "corporate" vs "individual" as it applied
to Israel. If members of the synagogue have agreed to set aside a
portion of their church budget and individual members object, then
such could leave the body. Israel's corporate existence today is a
political existence, and you can't abstain from giving to a
government. Should anybody abstain? Morally no, but in my opinion
it's not just to require them to.

And I must emphatically disagree that "no one is suggesting ...
either/or". Maybe nobody on this thread. But a significant finding
talked up by historians of the 19th and early 20th centuries is that
the push toward more socialism in government led to less private
charity in England and America, the bulk of which has always been
church charity and, indeed, which supplied more poor aid than
government did. Unreached people would no doubt find Christianity
more relevant in their lives if it were still the chief organ of
charity.

Chris
Received on Thu Mar 9 10:12:39 2006