Leer en Español
Are you for the poor?
Most people are conditioned to respond “Yes” to that question. It makes you feel good, doesn’t it?
Are you for the rich?
Most people are conditioned to respond “No” to that one. Does that make you feel good too?
Both answers are wrong. They betray bias and ignorance. The very best answer to each question is the same, and it’s also a single word: “Depends.”
Allow me to provide a little more detail so we can all give better informed answers.
What if the first question is rephrased this way: Are you for the poor who are destitute because they repeatedly made bad decisions that rendered them unemployable—such as embracing destructive habits or disrespecting other people? And what if the second question is reworded thusly: Are you for the rich who earned their wealth honestly by serving happy customers?
Even if you responded “Yes” and “No” to the first questions at the start of this article, you might well have answered “No” and “Yes” when I added the additional information.
What’s the difference? The questions in the first set were too broad, too abstract, to prone to knee-jerk, emotion-based, fact-free answers. The second set of questions brought the matter down from the clouds to something closer to reality and experience.
Likewise, suppose I asked you this: Are you for the poor who are destitute through no fault of their own? You probably would say “Yes.” Or if I asked, Are you for the rich who get their wealth from deception, political connections or unfair advantage? You probably would say “No.”
If you despise the rich as a category, I ask you this: Would you make an exception if your father or daughter became wealthy because he or she made some good decisions, created new wealth and bettered the lives of others?
Or, to make it even more personal: What if you became rich because, say, a million fans who love your music bought tickets to your concerts? Would you give them all a refund so you would no longer be rich?
My apologies for all these questions but sometimes a few inquiries prompt us to think more clearly. All I did here was to introduce some real-world facts that are present all around us, every day. The bottom line is this: As convenient as it may be, it is almost always superficial and misleading to pigeon-hole people by group instead of judging each individual by his own decisions, actions and circumstances.
Each individual has his own life story
The poor are not an amorphous, collectivist blob. Nor are the rich, or any group in between. We are distinct individuals, not blobs. This is the essence of what Dr. Martin Luther King meant when he famously advised that we should judge people not by the color of their skin (essentially, a racial group) but rather, by the content of their (individual) character. Character is, by its very nature, a very personal matter. There are poor people who are good and poor people who are bad. Same with the rich.
Some of my friends in the Christian community may protest, citing the first of the Beatitudes in Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount: “Blessed are the poor.” Advocates of Marxist-leaning “liberation theology” cite this as justifying a “preferential option for the poor” and even compulsory welfare state programs.
But that passage (Matthew 5:3) is one of the most misquoted and misinterpreted in Scripture. It actually reads, “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” Jesus was not referring to material possessions, but rather, to a state of mind. To be “poor in spirit” is to be humble, open-minded, reverent, eager to learn and grow. It’s the opposite of an arrogant, condescending, hubristic or know-it-all attitude.
In Luke 6:20, Jesus does say, “Blessed are the poor.” In that instance, as the verse clearly denotes, he was speaking directly to his disciples, not a mass audience. It was his way of saying, “Blessed are the poor among my disciples. Though you may lack physical wealth, you are rich in heavenly blessings.”
If one person can be called the Father of Liberation Theology, it would be Peruvian philosopher Gustavo Gutierrez. His 1971 book, A Theology of Liberation, is a mix of good intentions, bad theology and lousy economics. Even he, however, cautioned against reading “Blessed are the poor” as suggesting “canonization of a social class.” (Michael Novak’s classic Will It Liberate: Questions About Liberation Theology is a must-read refutation of Gutierrez and his philosophy.)
In one sense, namely our charitable giving, we all practice a kind of “preferential option for the poor.” We send our donations of money and clothing to the Salvation Army, not to Jeff Bezos. That’s common sense, and it’s in keeping with Jesus’s teachings. He encouraged private, voluntary support for the needy and never endorsed compulsory, government-provided welfare. The Good Samaritan in his famous parable did not petition the government to help a poor man; he was “good” because he chose to help of his own free will and with his own resources.
What would you answer to Jesus if he asked you what you have done for the poor?
Imagine if Jesus appeared before us today and said, “OK, tell me what you did for the poor.” Do you think he would be impressed if you answered, “Oh, I voted for the politicians who told me they would take care of that.” Of course not. Nor would he be impressed if you responded, “I voted to rob the rich so they would have less.”
The “preferential option for the poor” for which Jesus was sympathetic never included an endorsement of bad character or poverty-causing behavior. And it never called for robbing Peter to pay Paul. In his Parable of the Talents, he applauded the creation of wealth. He defended private property in his Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard. He warned against prioritizing material wealth over matters of spirit and character, but he never suggested the remedy was forcible redistribution. Jesus did not judge people according to their racial, gender, political or income grouping. You don’t get to Heaven based upon your ethnic background or the size of your bank account.
If you are ever asked if you are “for the poor” or “for the rich,” don’t go for the bait. Life is complex. Individuals are unique. Generalities are a trap. Think more deeply than childish collectivists do.
For additional information, see:
No, Jesus Wasn’t a Socialist by Lawrence W. Reed
Did Jesus Despise Money? by Lawrence W. Reed
Was Jesus a Socialist? (video) by Lawrence W. Reed
Lawrence writes a weekly op-ed for El American. He is President Emeritus of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) in Atlanta, Georgia; and is the author of “Real heroes: inspiring true stories of courage, character, and conviction“ and the best-seller “Was Jesus a Socialist?“ //
Lawrence escribe un artículo de opinión semanal para El American. Es presidente emérito de la Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) en Atlanta, Georgia; y es el autor de “Héroes reales: inspirando historias reales de coraje, carácter y convicción” y el best-seller “¿Fue Jesús un socialista?”
Defining the “deserving poor” by their lack of income and/or wealth is without meaning. Asking Why are they poor, and what have they done to cause their economic situation, is more informative.
Giving “alms” to the “poor” is without justification if the poor have caused their own position in life– drug/alcohol use, dropped out of free public education, failed to learn a trade, extensive sloth, etc., and are unwilling to change.
In the U.S., our Nation is economically strong enough to provide for those who are truly unable to provide for themselves such as the sick, infirm, and/or mentally ill. But for the others, the alms will do nothing to improve their long run position in society.