Alabama governor Bob Riley recently proposed a $1.2 billion tax package that would redistribute the tax burden on the citizens of Alabama. Alabama's current tax scheme is extremely regressive, levying an income tax on families of four making as little as $4,600 per year. The governor's plan would lower the tax burden on the poor and raise it on the rich. The plan has passed the state legislature, and its fate will be determined by the voters in a referendum. Though the Christian Coalition of Alabama opposes the governor's plan, most other Christian groups who have taken a stand have come out in favor of it, as have Jewish leaders and others. The governor says that his plan is based on his understanding of the teachings of the New Testament, but he could just as well have cited the teaching of Proverbs chapter 22. This chapter addresses the believer's proper attitude toward the poor in some of the most direct language in the Bible. Rich and poor are equal before God. Those who have excess will be blessed for sharing with the poor. God pleads the cause for the poor and will punish those who oppress them. The Conference of Catholic Bishops meeting at Medellín, Colombia, in 1968 stated a "preferential option for the poor," and liberation theologians have seized upon this phrase as a core principle of their beliefs. Progressive Christians, Catholic and Protestant alike, see the just treatment of the poor as a central tenet of the Christian life. Why would someone rob the poor because they are poor (v. 22)? No one would attempt to justify such action on the part of an individual, but some of the unjust structures of society do exactly that. For example, those who have plenty of money do not need to worry about minimum balances in their checking accounts, but those who do not have as much are forced to pay a monthly maintenance fee, in effect, a poverty tax. Another troublesome banking policy that affects the poor disproportionately involves bounced checks. Aside from the exorbitant fees charged per check, banks regularly run checks through their system on a daily basis from largest to smallest in order to maximize their profit at the expense of their less wealthy customers. For example, suppose a person makes a mistake in his checkbook and finds that he has written checks for $10, $20, and $50 on a balance of only $40, and all three checks hit the bank the same day. The fairest scheme would be for the bank to run the checks through from smallest to largest, so that the $10 and $20 checks would clear, and only the $50 check would bounce. Instead, banks run the $50 check through first, causing it to bounce and incur a $30 fee, followed by the $20 check, which now also bounces and incurs a $30 fee, followed by the $10 check, which bounces and incurs a $30 fee. Another example of structural injustice involves the mortgage rates that different customers are offered. Customers with plenty of money and excellent credit ratings can command lower interest rates than customers with less money or poorer credit ratings. On an international scale, Third World debt is a classic example of a structural injustice, this time perpetrated by rich countries on poor countries. The debt of a poor country has often been run up by a dictator who has now left office, the money often having been used to buy weapons from one of the richer countries. The current government of the poor country now finds that it cannot afford the interest payments on the loans a previous government incurred, yet the rich countries usually insist on repayment. Regressive taxes, banking practices that favor the rich, and Third World debt are just three of the many ways in which people rob the poor because they are poor. As those who accept the principle of the preferential option for the poor, we must make ourselves aware of the ways in which social structures adversely affect the poor and work to change the situation.
"Peace be upon Israel!" is the phrase that ends this psalm, but the modern nation of Israel is far from peaceful. The psalmist advances the principle that God blesses the upright and punishes the wicked, a nice sentiment and a theme of traditional wisdom (e.g., Proverbs), but one that is not always the case (cf. Job and Ecclesiastes). While suffering is often the result of sin, the person who sins is not always the person who suffers. All too often the innocent, or at least the relatively innocent, suffer for the sins of others. The situation in Israel and Palestine today is a good example of this verity. The history of the modern state of Israel is filled with violence and injustice, including the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes beginning in 1948, violent Arab attacks and reprisals, the Six Day War, the Yom Kippur War, the violence of the Palestinians against Israelis in the two intifadas, and the state-sponsored violence of Israel against Palestinians, both in overt acts and in unjust laws and discrimination on the part of the Israeli government. The current intifada was set off by Ariel Sharon's intentionally provocative visit to the Temple Mount in September of 2000. Other Israeli provocations include the continued building of Jewish settlements in occupied Palestinian territory and the building of a "Berlin Wall" to incorporate appropriated Palestinian territory into Israel. Palestinians have exacerbated the situation by sending waves of suicide bombers into Israel to attack civilians. The most recent ceasefire fell apart after Israel assassinated a number of Palestinian leaders (whom Israel identified as terrorists), killing many civilians in the process, and Palestinians responded by murdering civilians in suicide bombings. Both the overt violence exercised by Israelis and Palestinians and the structural violence perpetrated exclusively by the Israeli government (because the Israeli government alone has the power to do so)--which is directly abetted by the U.S. through arms sales, political support, etc.--perpetuate the suffering of the people of the region, Israelis and Palestinians alike. In the midst of all this violence and suffering, where is the upright person whom the psalmist says God will bless? They don't get much press, but they are there. The Israeli peace activist who advocates talks, not violence, is cause for hope. The Palestinian young person who opposes violence perpetrated against innocent civilians is acting in an upright manner. The foreigners who risk their lives, and sometimes lose them, to stand between warring factions and call for an end to the violence show belligerents on both sides the way out. It is not the rabid right-wing Israeli militants who attend synagogue service on Saturday and spew hatred against their Arab neighbors who are upright. It is not the self-deluded would-be martyrs who go to the mosque on Friday and make plans to destroy their enemies who are just. The God of Jews, Muslims, and Christians abhors the violence of those who falsely claim to be followers of God, but who in reality are only following an evil projection of their own warped hatred. If we would see peace in Israel, we who do not live there must support policies that will put an end to violence on both sides of the conflict. If we oppose Yasser Arafat because of his purported support for violent solutions to the Palestinian problem, we should also oppose Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu, and other Israelis whose antagonism toward Palestinians is evident to all unbiased observers. We must stop arms sales to Israel, and we must pressure those countries that supply weapons to the Palestinians to stop as well. We must begin to treat leaders of Israel and Palestine in an evenhanded manner, so that the U.S. is no longer seen as favoring one side over the other. Finally, we must support those Israelis and Palestinians who are risking their lives daily to bring peace to their land. The Road Map for Peace is a useless piece of paper until we begin to act like arbiters rather than partisans.
Showing partiality to the rich is a longstanding problem in the church, as evidenced by today's reading from James. Even in the first century, the rich were treated with greater respect than their poorer counterparts. The trend continued into the Middle Ages, getting so bad that wealthy families were often able to buy influential church offices, including the papacy. The problem remains today. I briefly attended a church several years ago led by a pastor who was generally respected by his congregation. The one complaint that people had about him was that he had a tendency to fawn over the wealthier members of the congregation, making a spectacle of those who had given large donations to the church. In comparison to the widespread tendency of Christians to favor the rich, an examination of the life of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels shows Jesus praising the humility and faith of the poor and warning that the rich were in danger of missing out on the kingdom of God. Jesus counseled the rich young ruler to sell all he had and give it to the poor, then follow Jesus. He said that it was harder for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter heaven. While a guest in the house of a wealthy individual, he criticized his host for failing to provide the simple hospitality shown him by the woman who was washing his feet with her tears and drying them with her hair. Christianity is a religion that calls for a radical reexamination of one's attitude toward riches. If the rich are in danger of being excluded from the kingdom, what does that say to those of us who enjoy comfortable lives, indeed, lives that are luxurious by non-Western standards? The fact that we may not be as rich as some of our neighbors does not mean that God will overlook our squandering of the wealth we have been given. There are many advantages to wealth, and many dangers as well. Money can provide one's family with a comfortable life, it can give one access to a good education, it can ensure decent health care, and it can give the person who has it the leisure to do many good works. These are all positive things, but is it fair that a small number of us--larger numbers in the West--can take advantage of excess wealth while vast numbers of people can barely make ends meet? About two billion people--one-third of the world's population--live either below or very close to the poverty line. How can the excess wealth of the very rich, both individuals and nations, be used to alleviate the suffering of the very poor? As James says, if we see our brother or sister in need, we should act to alleviate the need. Christianity began as a movement among the lower classes, with just a few wealthy patrons. In many places it has become the religion primarily of the middle and upper classes. In making this transition, how has the religion changed? Do the poor still view Christianity as a religion that offers a message of hope, not only in the next life, but in this one as well? When Karl Marx spoke of religion as the opiate of the masses, he was primarily talking about a Christianity that focused on the benefits of the afterlife in order to keep the poor in check. It is small wonder that the twentieth century saw people turn away from the church in droves. However, it is a testimony to the power of the original message of Jesus that many of the poor today, from Latin America to Africa to Asia, are seeking to reform Christianity, returning it to its roots, rather than to abandon it altogether. If those of us who live lives of advantage continue to follow a made-for-the-middle-class Christianity-as-usual, how long will the poor see their religion as the same as ours?
In the 1980s, after scientists studying AIDS had come to an understanding of what caused it and how it was transmitted, they were confronted with a public relations problem. Although they had released their findings in the media, public hysteria about the disease was still prevalent. C. Everett Koop, U.S. surgeon general under Ronald Reagan, issued a detailed statement on preventing the transmission of AIDS that was designed to calm the public's fears and educate them on the subject. After the statement's release, many of his supporters on the right said that he had sold out and become an apologist for the gay-rights lobby. Misinformation and fear continued to be widespread. Children with AIDS were expelled from public schools and from churches. Fearmongers claimed that if a person with AIDS was sitting in a restaurant drinking water, and a waiter giving him a refill let the pitcher touch his glass, AIDS could be spread throughout the restaurant. Much of the fear and lies about AIDS were spread by those on the right who had a visceral hatred for homosexuals. In the midst of this insanity, one woman almost single-handedly quashed the hysteria of the radical right and calmed the public's fears about people with AIDS. Princess Diana made a very public visit to an AIDS clinic, making a point to shake hands with some of the patients in order to demonstrate that AIDS couldn't be transmitted by casual contact. The pictures of her visit spread throughout the world, and the majority of people came to understand that what the scientists and the surgeon general were saying about AIDS was true, and that victims of the disease deserved love, not fear or hatred. People have a natural tendency to be leery of those who look different, speak different languages, worship God differently, or have a different culture. Jesus confronted this attitude when he visited the Gentile cities of Tyre and Sidon. He encountered a woman whose daughter was "possessed by a demon" and sought healing for her. He seemed to rebuff her first advances, saying that his healing power was intended only for the "children," that is, the Jews. He might have said this to test her faith, or he might have been giving voice to his disciples' prejudices, in order to expose them as unjust. When the woman persisted in her plea, Jesus pronounced that her daughter had been healed. Who are today's outcasts, the people around whom we feel most uncomfortable? Is it the immigrants who have moved into our neighborhoods, resisting assimilation to our culture? Is it the new family next door that belongs to a different ethnic group? Is it the people who worship at the makeshift mosque or temple just down the road? Is it the homosexual couple who are parents to your children's friends? Is it the street people who hang out around your church? Is your church a mission, doors open to whoever might show up, or is it a club, open to members only (and their special guests)? If the neighborhood around your church changed, would the congregation stay and minister, or would it pack up and move? It's not even enough to welcome all who come our way. If we are to follow the example of Jesus, we must seek them out. Jesus met the Syrophoenician woman in a place that was outside his usual element. Why did he travel to Phoenicia? Was it to rest? Or was he actively seeking to expand his ministry? Either way, the application for today's Christians is clear. We are to continue Jesus' work of bringing the good news to all those whom we encounter, and we even need to go out of our way to make sure that everyone hears--and sees--the message of power and healing.