“Wealth And Poverty,” an essay written by BYU professor Richard E. Johnson, explores the social economic status of America. Although many people consider the rise of a “drugs, sex, and rock & roll” lifestyle to forecast the Second Coming, Johnson proposes that materialism, consumerism, social inequality, and world vanity are even greater predictors than traditional sin.
“Sinners are clearly self-indulgent, satisfying their whims and appetites for comfort or pleasure through sexual, chemical, or violent means. And innocent others clearly suffer because of their self-indulgence,” states Johnson.
It’s not difficult to see how this description applies to both “traditional sinners (thieves, addicts and prostitutes)” and an American people focused on supplying every one of their material desires – whether it be a larger house, top-of-the-line clothing, or frivolous vacations.
The United States typifies the saying, “The poor get poorer and the rich get richer.” The references for Johnson’s essay provide numerous examples and statistics about how the spread is widening between the rich and poor. Citing the Census Bureau, “the richest one-fifth of Americans households received almost twelve times the income of the same number of the poorest household in 1990.” That ratio increased by 12.5% since 1980, and most likely hasn’t improved during since.
Quoting another report by Coleman and Cressey, “the average real income (adjusted for inflation) of the bottom fifth of workers declined 10 percent from 1980 to 1990, while the real income of the top one percent jumped 122 percent during the same period.” I didn’t fully understand what Johnson was trying to emphasize when I read this statistic the first time. Billions, if not trillions of dollars, were transferred from 20% of the poorest population into the possession of a mere half-percent of the American people who already have their financial needs met.
Keep in mind that these statistics are discussing the average income of the American people. It’s scary to think that the gap is even wider, when you consider that the poor people in American are living off that income on a paycheck-to-paycheck basis, while the rich continue to stockpile that extra income into savings and other assets. The poor get poorer and the rich get richer.
So what does the author suggest we do to solve this problem? Johnson recognizes that it would be wrong to push any political agenda. In facts, he suggests that by truly practicing Christianity, there would be no need for government intervention: “All would be taken care of through private acts of sincere charity.” Knowing that it would be possible to expect this, Johnson proposes a balance of both public and private efforts.
Johnson’s essay delivers an alarming description of the reality around us. Johnson notices that he doesn’t have an answer that would satisfy everybody. Political partisanship and philosophies about economics will stand as an obstacle to finding a public solution we can all agree on. This reinforces the necessity for each individual to demonstrate charity. The answer may be to give, serve, and love others, and to “wash the feet of the poor,” even as Christ himself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While Johnson's suggestion of Christlike altruism is ideal, it is not realistic. There is no way simple Christian aid can help fix the problems that cause poverty. To really change our society, we have to do more than just thrown money at the problems. The good thing about government is that it has the resources and the power to make sweeping changes. Even if everyone practiced perfect charity, there would still be those left disadvantaged, and there would still be a need to have some sort of government intervention.
ReplyDeleteI think unless you're Heavenly Father, trying to fix the poverty gap is pretty useless. Sure there are things people can do such as charity to help close the gap, but it cannot be fixed completely by us. If everyone had the same income, there would still be things that would cost some more money and others less depending on what the person decided to spend it on. How do you regulate what is an okay thing to spend your money on? It all goes back to agency and how we decide to live our lives. Until Christ comes and the common order is instated, there is no real and perminant fix to poverty
ReplyDeleteLyse, I appreciate that you are willing to stand for your liberal ideology. I must point out, though, that in your last remark you contradicted yourself based on a false assumption. First, you assume that Christlike charity is merely giving material aid to the poor. If that was the case, then you would be more correct in all of your remarks. Unfortunately for you, Christlike charity is not simply giving money to those who have less, rather it is a pure love for one another.
ReplyDeleteThis leads me to your contradiction. You said that if "everyone practiced charity, there would still be those left disadvantaged." Based on the correct definition of charity, how can this be the case?? True, if everyone were to give one dollar to another person, there would be some left out. The same is true for all relief and aid. But again, that is not charity. If EVERYONE were to have a deep love for those around them, and did what they could to make sure their neighbors' needs were met, there would be no poverty.
You see, socialism sounds appealing because it is smiler to Christ's government of Zion. The problem is, it is Satan's counterfeit. It is based around materialism instead of love and focuses on "Taking" instead of "Giving." Thus, the freedom to choose whether or not to give is removed, and the blessing from giving freely cannot be received. The charity present in such a society is only superficial because there is only action, and no love behind the action.
When Christ returns, he will institute the law of Consecration, which is based upon people's love one for another. The saints in the New Jerusalem prior to his coming will be ready to live the law, for those who rejected it will have been denied the opportunity to dwell in Zion. We are now faced with a choice - we can practice pure charity and be prepared to live Christ's law, or we can pretend to be charitable and not be ready for Christ's law. Socialism is Satan's tool to draw people to the latter choice. While people believe they are being charitable by giving the government the power to redistribute their wealth to the poor, they are not gaining the love one to another that is required to live Christ's law. Thus, they are being distracted from the true goal of preparing for Christ's second coming.
Dear reader,
ReplyDeleteI agree that a gov't program to this tune is a last line of defense. I struggle when I try to decide to what extent the gov't should intervene in such an un-ideal circumstance as we have on our hands now (referring specifically to a decay in morality). The potential for waste is obviously not the issue here; if we give as freely as we ought, someone will abuse the gift. As long as a program is not overblown (in other words -- does not pretend that it can command virtue), I naturally consider if it really can produce happiness and encourage right living.
In a compulsory tax where proceeds somehow go to the poor, those willing to give benefit and do not so strongly feel a yoke of compulsion, and those willing to properly and truly receive benefit. Likewise, those not willing to give do not benefit (and do not really lose anything -- it's only money), and those who wish to abuse the gift gain nothing, while only losing another chance to change their habits.
This argument ought to be carried farther. Perhaps I err. Then, I hope, I may receive as fools deserve -- to be corrected.
From,
a secret admirer <3 (that's a heart)
I don't want to get all up into politics and all that boring stuff, but there is a reason why the law of consecration isn't in effect today. In this imperfect world, people abuse charity. It's a sad but true fact. I'm not saying you should be charitable - you absolutely should. But trying to solve world poverty by throwing money around, like Lyse said, would accomplish nothing. It is by our actions that things are truly accomplished. And I believe that you can be a rich person and still do that. It may be hard, but it's certainly possible.
ReplyDeleteAaah, this reminds me of Florida so much. When I was young and naive, I thought that every beggar truly needed it. So I gave money to almost everyone who tapped on my window while I was stuck at a stoplight.
ReplyDeleteOf course, then I found out later that most of them were there to scam people. My little heart was crushed.
Chelsey speaks the truth. People will continue to abuse charity until we've all reached that level of perfection that is right now unattainable. It's rather sad.
It is true that charity alone cannot solve the entire problem of nationwide poverty in the United States. However, I don't think that we should just consider charity useless or inconsequential. If every member of the Mormon faith did something each month to help the poor or the needy, there would be a lot more happier people in the world. We, as Mormons, can do all we can even though we are only one voice, one individual to make the world a better place. Don't think on the negative side, be optimistic and know that you can make a difference. If no one tried to help anyone, we would all be miserable. Help people who need it as much as you can, no matter if they're poor or sick or depressed or lonely.
ReplyDeleteThe way to close the gap isn't to throw money around as has already been stated. I think the way to do it though is by creating equal opportunities for everyone. Which i realize is pretty much impossible. But that way we all have our agency to choose what we want to do with our opportunities. Also increasing people's education will help a great deal.
ReplyDeleteYes, it is essential to remember the importance of creating equal opportunities for others. But yet I think it's equally important to not overdo it. Take affirmative action for instance. Honestly, I think that some universities take these things way too far. All of these things need to be done in wisdom and order.
ReplyDeleteI just though of the story about the boy throwing starfishes back into the water and while he as told he couldn't make a difference as there were so many of them, his response was I made difference to that one, and that one... I'm just going to worry about those I can make a difference to in my life rather than just giving up because I can't make a huge difference.
ReplyDelete