Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger

"Some are guilty. All are responsible."

-- Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel

So I'm pretty busy this week grading papers for my sometimes boss Ron Sider. He's the professor who teaches the "Biblical Faith and Public Policy" class I've been T.A.ing this semester. He's probably best known, however, for a book he wrote in 1977: Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger.

That's a dynamite title for a book. All you need is that title and you know what the book is about.

Or you think you do. It's interesting, and frustrating, that many of Rich Christians most enthusiastic critics (and fans) are people who haven't actually read the book. They just assume they know what it's about because of that title.

The centerpiece of the book was an argument for what Sider calls a "graduated tithe." The idea of tithing -- giving 10 percent -- comes from the Hebrew scriptures. Sider's argument was that 10 percent should represent the lower, and not an upper, limit on how much of their income Christians should give away. He wanted Christians to sit down and honestly figure out how much they need to get by -- to pay the bills and provide comfortably for their families. Settle on an actual dollar amount for what you need -- tithing included. When your income is below, or equal to that much, then try to give 10 percent. But if your income should grow, increase the rate of your giving. Give away 20 percent for the next $10,000 you earn. Give away 30 percent of the following $10,000. And so forth.

His concern was not with Christians' wealth per se, but that our wealth had outpaced our generosity.

Please notice what this argument is not. It is not a call for mandatory giving. It is not a call for a government program. It is not socialist. It is not anticapitalist. Nor is it a plea for some kind of dependency-inducing, thoughtless giving (Sider is most excited about "teach a man to fish" type solutions, such as microenterprise funds).

It is individual and it is voluntary. But it is costly.

Sider's book includes plenty of criticism of the American way of life, but this criticism is directed toward Madison Avenue, not toward Wall Street. His target is the consumer culture that says too much is never enough. He argues, instead, that enough is enough. And that until we learn that, we will never be able to give to others, or to be satisfied ourselves.

The book was, of course, attacked as a redistributionist, socialist, Communist, even Stalinist manifesto. It was called a "guilt trip." It was endlessly attacked by rich Christians insisting that the "age of hunger" was not their fault.

This last was particularly odd. Sider wasn't saying that global poverty was their fault. He was saying it was their responsibility, and that it was their opportunity. And his proposed response to that opportunity was wholly individual and wholly voluntary.

But again, it was also costly.

And that, I think, more than the Cold-War-induced ideological blindness of his libertarian and laissez-faire critics, accounts for their obtuse insistence on attacking his proposed individual response as collectivist and his proposed voluntary response as coercive.

When we were working on one of the many updates for Rich Christians, I mused that maybe a less explosive title would mitigate some of the touchiness the book's earlier printings had received. I suggested, perhaps, "Stingy Christians in an Age of Hunger" as a more accurate summary of the book's argument. Or maybe just, "Don't Be Stingy."

I was just kidding, though, and anyway it wouldn't have mattered. "Don't Be Stingy" is, to those critics, just another Stalinist slogan.

Comments

[Kristin]

Has anyone seen a copy of how much each of our illustrious elected officials gave to charity lately? I think a quick comparrison between giving and professed belief would do nicely for the call to reinvigorate politics with evangelical Christian "values."

[Puck]

I have no problem with you christians giving your money away to people who hate you, turning your other cheek to people who want to kill you, accepting guilt for every imagined ill of the world (gee - do you think maybe you are worshipping a god who hates you?) - but when you start playing in the political arena you begin asking me to do that too. And I don't - and I don't appreciate it.

Nobody has to share your values in this country - especially not with the public treasury.

[Edward Liu]

Kristin asks: "Has anyone seen a copy of how much each of our illustrious elected officials gave to charity lately?"

As a baseline, one could look at their income tax returns to see which charitable donations they've itemized. That would also be helpful by providing a breakdown of who, exactly, they were giving money to. A donation to Habitat for Humanity or Heifer International would impress me a lot more than a donation to that kid's charity that Tom DeLay set up as a front for a PAC slush fund. I'm pretty sure the President has made his public since taking office, and it wouldn't surprise me if Dick Cheney said he didn't have to, and that making that information public would damage his ability to give free and unbiased taxes to the government.

It's also worth pointing out that one of the five pillars of Islam is charity (zakat). It's pretty cut and dried: you have to give or you're not a Muslim. It may even be the second pillar, right after, "There is no god but God and Muhammad is his prophet." Something about that appeals to me conceptually.

I've been trying to donate to more charitable causes, especially after discovering that I was benefitting from the Bush tax cuts. I've also ensured that every charity gets a matching gift form from my employer; in addition to essentially handing the charities free money, it tickles me to know that our business is funding things like the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund and Help the Afghan Children.

[Laertes]

Puck, setting aside for the moment your oh-so-exquisitely-aggrieved tone and your generally loathsome demeanor, do you imagine your remarks to be at all on-topic? If you do, they betray shabby reading comprehension. If you don't, they demonstrate an unfocused anger, desperately seeking expression, however inappropriate the target.

So which kind of fool are you?

[Joyful Alternative]

Some years ago, I read a study of who gave how much to what, and from it I remember that lots of rich people give lots of money to charity, but it's heavy skewed toward things their names go on, like hospital wings and museum exhibits and endowed chairs at universities that already have obscene endowments. Little goes to antipoverty sorts of things--the homeless shelters, Habitat for Humanity, and Heifer Project that I and my husband give to. And their percentages are not so great.

[buckets]

I remember Sider's book from way back in '77, which seems like ages ago. Back when Christianity was often a progressive religion. I also remember the title of a book I saw in '82 or so: 'Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulation'. It's a pity that the world has changed so much since '77 but so little since '82.

[Beth]

It's also worth pointing out that one of the five pillars of Islam is charity (zakat).

In Judaism it's called "tzedakah". I wonder if "zakat" is the Arabic version of that word. While tzedakah refers to what we'd call 'charitable giving', it literally means justice. The idea is that it's not only sad for some to go hungry when others have plenty; it's unjust. Giving to the needy is simply a way of correcting an injustice. This was also kind of the concept behind "love your neighbor as yourself." It didn't mean you should get all gooey inside when you think of your neighber, but that you should take care of him or her, as you would yourself. It's no coincidence that when Jesus was asked to define "neighbor" in that context, he responded with a story of someone taking care of someone in need.

Everybody loves the story of the Good Samaritan, but it is actually one of Jesus' most difficult teachings, and if people really thought about it, they'd probably respond to it the same way they do to the phrase, "Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger." The parable of the Good Samaritan says that the law, "love [take care of] your neighbor as yourself," extends to every single person on earth. It's not enough to take care of your family, your homeys, your co-religionists, or your fellow countrymen. Everyone is your neighbor, and you are required by law to take care of them. If anything, I'd say Ron Sider is letting people off easy, by suggesting they give some percentage of their income. If he followed the letter of Jesus' law, he'd tell them they couldn't stop giving until everyone on earth was fed, clothed, and sheltered. I suspect that's why people react to so much hostility to Sider's title. On some level they recognize that a rich Christian in an age of hunger is by definition a sinful Christian, and resent him for pointing that out.

[bulbul]

Beth: no, "tsedaqah" is not the Arabic equivalent of "zakaat". The root of "Tsedakah" and "tsadiiq" can also be found in Arabic (and other Semitic languages), where it bears the common Semitic meaning of "just". There is, however, a term "sadaaqah", which designates voluntary charity (as opposed to "zakaat" as a duty) and which is the direct equivalent of "tsedaqah". It is very likely that "sadaaqah" is a calque from either Hebrew or Aramaic. The literal meaning of word "zakaat" is "purity, goodness".
"Zakaat" would be best described as a form of taxation. Since there is no separation of church and state in islam, one may even describe "zakaat" as Muhammad's New Deal (slight nod to Scott) - a tax levied on everyone the proceeds of which were used to support the poor (so-called "fuqaraa'" and "miskiin") and the new converts, to free people from slavery, to free people from debt (not any debt, mind you) and to support those fighting for God (not necessarily bearing arms) and those stranded on a journey.

Puck: do you think maybe you are worshipping a god who hates you?
No, we don't.
...but when you start playing in the political arena you begin asking me to do that too
What is your problem? Is it the simple fact that Christians join the arena? Or is it the views they express there?

[Steve]

Talked with a former pastor once about Ron Sider and "Rich Christians..."

He said he'd read the book years ago, and the graduated tithe was legalist. I countered that this was Ron's suggestion...the way he chose to try to be faithful as a rich person (by the world's standards)...and the goal was for other Christians to challenged to think about the issue deeper for themselves. This pastor didn't seem too interested in the topic........this pastor of an urban church next to housing projects, who lived in the suburbs and drove a BMW to church.

I eventually left the church.

[Beth]

Thanks, Bulbul. "Tzedakah" and "zakat" seemed like a bit of a stretch, but given the similarity of meaming, it seemed possible. It also never occurred to me that 'tzaddik' (tsadiiq), the title of Chasidic leaders (literally 'righteous person'), was a cognate of 'tzedakah'.

I suppose for Christians, tithes would be 'zakat' and anything beyond that would be 'sadaaqah'.

[Rix]

My sister is quite affluent, lives in one of Jersey's most envied zip codes, where the lifestyle can be compared to successful merchants & squires settling on the outskirts of the estates of barons, dukes & princes. Even though ostentation is considered declasse in this segment of society (you don't flaunt it, baby), the amount of expensive "stuff" these upper middle class people own is mind-boggling, if one just slowly looks around the homes & property. & much of it has to be dusted regularly.

[Mirele]

I think tithing is legalist and is a regressive "tax" that hits hardest on the poorest among us. Moreover, tithing at so many churches is used to pay salaries for the staff and keep the physical plant running, with a small amount going to the needy. And then there are special offerings on top of that for other things, to say nothing of the building fund drives whenever leadership decides on a shiny new building.

I'm sure Ron Sider means well, but in a time where people are struggling to feed and clothe their families and keep a roof over their heads, asking for 10% off the top is IMHO sheer insanity. I've told Sider this before, but it just went zooming right over his head.

[Stan Taylor]

Mirele,

I have the same concerns about how my congregation uses my donations. Therefore, I only donate a portion to my church and the rest directly to charities. I consider both of these part of my Christian obligation to give.

[jhlipton]

I can't answer for Mr Sider personally, but consider this quote from Fred:
He wanted Christians to sit down and honestly figure out how much they need to get by -- to pay the bills and provide comfortably for their families. Settle on an actual dollar amount for what you need -- tithing included. When your income is below, or equal to that much, then try to give 10 percent. (Emphasis mine)

It seems to me that the poor shouldn't tithe below what's needed to keep their families comfortable, even if that's under 10%. And the gist of the post seems to say that the tithe should go to the poor and needy, whether you give to the church or to charities.

At least that's how I read the post.

[Mike]

The tithe is legalism. But, as the Old Testament demonstrated so well, sometimes we need rules because left to our own devices we fail to do the right thing.

Here's a thought: Keep what you need, and give away the rest. Some months you'll be keeping 90% and giving 10%, and some you'll be keeping 10% and giving away 90%.

Of course, we could spend the rest of our lives figuring out what we "need"...

Linking to this one, Fred. Thanks.

[Sparticus]

I got my copy of "rich Christians in an age of hunger" from a charity shop. If I believed in Karma I'd be so living the easy life right now.

[Paddymick]

I find it humorous when Christians refer to "Hebrew Scripture" for advice on how much to give, but condemn that scripture when it conflicts with their New Testament beliefs. Christ spoke in the New Testament about how much his followers should give... anyone remember the parable of the Rich Man. In Christ's world there is no such thing as a rich Christian. You are either rich, or Christian, but not both.

[L]

The poor need not give at all. They are to be the recipients of the fruits of charity, not the donors. If the challenge Christ gives to the wealthy is to be wise stewards of the wealth God has given them custody over, then the challenge to the poor is to accept the good things that come their way with humility and gratitude both to the donor and to the Lord on whose behalf he acts.

Christ did not tell us to tithe. His call is far more radical. Give what others need if you have it. Period. If a man takes your chiton, give him your himaton as well. It was taking this principle to its extreme that made the early Church as recorded in Acts communal.

Wealth is a gift of the Spirit every bit as much as those of healing, or wonderworking, or preaching, or prophecy. Imagine the consequences for a prophet who always refused to speak, denying the gift, even when it would not be a violation of the decency and good order Paul insists on for the assembly. It's exactly the same for the wealthy who refuse help to the poor. (And even worse for the wealthy pastor who insists on tithes to his church from a poverty-stricken parishioner!) Even the embellishment of the House of God should be secondary to that duty, as John Chrysostom points out.

[Adam Young]

Sider's book has changed my life - I read it three months ago, and I'm in the process of reorganizing my life to be a giver and not a taker. One of the things that hit me the most in the book - besides the graduated tax idea (amazing by the way) - was found in the earlier chapters when Sider talked about the different things happening in the world today. Two of them had to do with salt - iodine deficiency found in 750 million people, and dehydration that can be "cured" by a packet of salt and other nutrients. After reading this and other things that God put in my viewfinder, I am attempting to start a mission project called "The Salt Of The Earth Project". I have been trying to contact WHO officials to find out more information about what's happening in these two areas - the WHO had set a goal by the year 2005 to reduce the amount of deaths/goiter problems due to iodine deficiency - but so far, haven't heard back from anyone. If anyone knows of an organization that is doing this already, I would love to hear from you because I would like to partner up with that organization.

Thank you Ron Sider for writing this book.

[lbb]

I'm not a Christian any more, for reasons that I won't go into here, but I'm a deep admirer of the Mennonites. I'm sure they have feet of clay, too, and probably if I looked closely enough I'd find that they've done appalling things that I really can't get with...but I read something they'd written once that really stuck with me. I'll paraphrase it as best I can -- I wish I could find the original.

The Mennonites do work around the world based on some very simple principles: I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me. They've had missions and projects all around the world whose work has been to improve the lives of their fellow human beings.

Anyway, seems a few years back, the Mennonite Central Committee got together to take a long look at their work, and reexamine the central premise: that they could best minister to disadvantaged people by giving them stuff -- food, tools, infrastructure, education, whatever -- to improve their quality of life. They came to the conclusion that, while all that is great, a big part of the reason why so many have so little in the world is because a few have much, much more than they need.

When we were kids and didn't want to eat our green beans and mom told us to think of the starving children in China, we'd say, "Let 'em have my green beans." Or maybe not, if mom was clutching the yardstick and looking short-tempered, but we came away from it believing that the idea of any connection between our consumption (or waste) and the starvation of children halfway around the world was a joke. The MCC conclusion denies that directly and explicitly. Others are poorer for it because the rich use more than they need and waste even more. This conclusion threatens affluence as we know it, because if you accept it, the only righteous way to live is to live more modestly, bringing your consumption more into line with what you need rather than what you want. It threatens many institutional interests, but most of all, it threatens the consumer-junkie in the American soul. People actually have a panic reaction to the suggestion that they should cut back, spend wisely, use wisely, think of the effects of their consumption. They lash out. They're not pretty.

I live in a rural area of the northern United States. Winters are harsh, the economy is lukewarm at best, fuel to heat homes is expensive -- and Congress just cut the LIHEAP program by more than half. It's the death of a thousand cuts, and it is death -- when temperatures for months on end are such that you'll die in your home in a matter of hours without heat, we are indeed talking about death.

But there is little help for us. Our predicament didn't come about in a storm or a wave or a military attack. It came through global warming, which isn't; and rises in fuel prices, which gets plenty of ink and tape time when irritated Southern SUV owners are in line at the pump, but not when people in the north are quietly freezing to death in their homes; and decreases in real wages; and a stagnant economy; and cutbacks in the programs that could help us so that the money can line the pockets of the already wealthy. No one sends money to the Red Cross for us; no one exhorts their fellow Americans to "give 'til it hurts". They just let us quietly die.

The winter is young; we have more than three months of it to go here. Yet, already, some of my neighbors must choose between buying food and buying heating oil. So people pay for the oil, close down parts of the house, move the whole family into one room for the winter, and get what they can from food pantries. Those are the places where the more affluent get rid of the food that they weren't going to eat anyway. It's a metaphor for the state of the country and the world: the rich give away a three-year-old can of green beans, and then sit back to enjoy their Christmas dinner of ham and turkey and prime rib and lobster tails. And, oh yeah, we got plenty of Pepto-Bismol and plenty of prescription meds to fix what ails your stomach. But what do you have for the poor? Where is your charity that you can let them quietly die of cold and won't even give them food as good as what you eat for one day of the year?

Look in the mirror. Look hard.