Bankers are Going to Hell (and Other Ways to Play Fast and Loose with the Bible)


Source: Gaston Gazette

“Bankers are going to Hell!” the woman I was speaking to brusquely insisted.

A bit surprised, I asked, “What makes you think so?”

“Jesus teaches it!” she confidently declared.

“Really?” I responded. “And just where do you find him teaching such a thing?” I asked, with more than a little incredulity.

“The parable of the unforgiving servant, the Gospel of Matthew chapter 18,” she announced. “Remember, Jesus tells of a servant who owes his master a huge amount of money and he is about to be punished. But the servant whimpers and begs so the master forgives him. Then later he runs into someone who owes him a piddling amount of money and is unable to repay. Instead of forgiving him, the first servant has the other one pitched into prison. When the master hears about what happened, he rescinds his forgiveness and has the man mercilessly punished.”

“And how does that support your claim?” I press.

“Think about it!” she says. “The bankers with their predatory lending and fraudulent mortgage-backed securities that went bad, cost masses of people hundreds of billions of dollars and tanked the economy. They deserve to go to prison. But instead the master, I mean, Uncle Sam, bails them out with tax payer money. And then, what do the bankers do? They start foreclosing on the homes that people now can’t afford. Many of these people couldn’t even understand what they were getting into with the sub-prime loans the bankers and their cronies were pushing. But instead of being forgiving -or at least graciously renegotiating their mortgages- the bankers started foreclosing on homeowners.”

“And so,” she ended, raising her voice to punctuate her point, “bankers are going to Hell!”

I’m a little less confident about that particular application of scripture. Drawing such a straight line from the Bible to a contemporary issue or policy and saying with assurance, “This is that,” is usually misguided. I’m not at all suggesting that the message of ancient scripture has nothing relevant to say about our present problems. But too often those pushing a political point or policy take passages of scripture to serve a purpose that has little –or nothing- to do with the actual meaning of the text. The ease with which some well known religious leaders have played fast and loose with the Bible for partisan political purposes is appalling.

Earlier this year David Barton, of the religious right organization Wallbuilders, boldly declared, “Most Christians can’t tell you about the two parables Jesus taught about the capital gains tax nor can they tell you about the four verses of the Bible that condemns the estate tax, nor can they tell you what Jesus said in Matthew 20 about the minimum wage.” There is a very good reason that most Christians can’t tell you about these things: there are no scriptures about capital gains tax, the estate tax or minimum wage because such things didn’t exist in biblical times.  It is safe to say that absolutely no credible Bible commentary of this generation or any previous one supports Barton’s view of these scriptures.

Obviously there are lots of ideas, institutions and issues that exist today that were unheard of two thousand or more years ago.  The Bible no more offers precise instructions about tax policy or environmental policy or size of the government than it does about acceptable forms of transportation. Only by twisting, stretching and distorting the message of scripture can it be made to speak in a direct way to many of the issues that concern us.

As an example, let’s look at the one passage specifically named by Barton, Matthew chapter 20. He not only finds a lesson about minimum wage in the parable of the workers in the vineyard, he also proposes that this passage of scripture contains a condemnation of unions and collective bargaining. In the parable the owner hires a number of men at the beginning of the day at the normal wage for a day’s work. Then he hires others later at different times. At the end of the day, all are paid the same amount. Commentators on this passage agree that the lesson is not an economic one. Rather it pertains to a spiritual truth: God has the right to give grace equally to anyone at any time, Jew or Gentile.

But a totally different message is found by Barton, who claims, “There is an implication that the landowner had a right to determine the wages his workers received.” The landowner was not constrained by a minimum wage law, supposedly suggesting that there should be no such thing today. Further, Barton asks, “Where were the unions in all this? The contract is between an employer and an employee.” He insists, “He went out and hired individually the guys he wanted to work.” No collective bargaining, no labor laws interfered with the right of the owner to decide who all would work for him and how much they would get paid. And that, according to Barton, is an economic lesson Jesus sought to teach.

If we accept this dubious approach to scripture, as outlined by Barton and others like him, and if we claim there are economic lessons in this passage, it is easy to find very different lessons than the ones he seeks to push. Consider the following:

First, the men were paid a denarius for their work, the normal daily living wage at the time. This is certainly more than minimum wage. The generally-accepted standard for affordable, sustainable housing costs is that they should be about a third of a household’s income. By that standard a person with a full-time minimum wage job cannot afford housing in any state in the union, according to a recently released report. If the parable contains a condemnation of minimum wage, as Barton suggests, it condemns it for being too low, since it is not a livable wage. A living wage is the acceptable biblical standard. More can be paid, but not less.

Second, if we are to assume that because the owner of the field went out to hire the workers he wanted this somehow implies that collective bargaining is to be condemned, so too is the use of a personnel department to do the hiring condemned.  The owner himself must personally take on that task. Does this fail to take into consideration the complex business world such as we have in our time? Indeed, it does. But if we insist that we adhere to a primitive model for labor, then we must do the same for owners and managers to be consistent.

Third, in this parable no matter how much the laborers worked, they were all paid the same amount. If we are as recklessly imaginative as our friends on the religious right, then we can see this parable as implying divine support for equal pay even where there is not equal work. Would this disincentivize workers? The owner of the vineyard didn’t seem to be concerned about that possibility so apparently neither should we. The parable “proves” that equal pay is biblical and supported by Jesus.

Finally, workers must be paid at the end of each day. That is what takes place in the parable. Will this be a huge book-keeping headache for the owner? Probably. But too bad. That is the biblical way things are supposed to be done. In fact another passage of scripture reinforces the importance of this practice: “You shall not withhold the wages of poor and needy laborers….You shall pay them their wages daily before sunset, because they are poor and their livelihood depends on them; otherwise they might cry to the Lord against you, and you would incur guilt” (Deut 24:14-15).

Is all this farfetched? Certainly not more farfetched than the claims made by those on the religious right who misuse the Bible to support an economic agenda that is most advantageous to those with the greatest wealth and power and anything but genuinely biblical. Scripture does, indeed, have some things to say about economics and other important matters that continue to affect us today. But playing fast and loose with the Bible for partisan advantage –whether one enlists scripture to consign bankers to Hell or to oppose the capital gains tax- shows little concern for the way of Jesus and the truth of the Gospel.

—-
Craig M. Watts is the minister of Royal Palm Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Coral Springs, Florida and Co-Moderator of Disciples Peace Fellowship. He authored the book Disciple of Peace: Alexander Campbell on Pacifism, Violence and the State (Doulos Christou Press: Indianapolis, 2005) and his essays have appeared in many journals such as Cross Currents, Encounter, the Otherside, DisciplesWorld and more. Craig blogs on the Disciples Peace Fellowship’s, “Shalom Vision.”

Sponsor a Child in Jesus Name with Compassion

Print Friendly

  • Mike Ward

    Is the woman who said ,“Bankers are going to Hell!” a real person or is this your own parable.

    • http://www.facebook.com/joycecoolidge Joyce Watts Coolidge

      It was inspired by a conversation that he and I had. My daughter has an overdrawn checking account. Chase has hired a collection agency to collect the debt. (Little did I know that the account had been mistakenly set up as a joint account with me on it) The situation made me think of the parable. I don’t think the bankers are going to hell, but I would love to send a debt collector after them!

      • Mike Ward

        Thanks Joyce.

      • Anonymous

        I’ll agree on Chase. Thanks to their way of handling mortgages and credit cards, as well as my medical debt, it will be a couple of years before I’m free of them. They bought out my life in 2008- every bit of my debt was purchased by them, as well as their takeover of Washington Mutual gave them my checking account and credit cards.

        I’m $2500 away from paying off everything except for the mortgage and then refinancing with a local credit union instead.

  • http://www.facebook.com/terryrosler Terry Rosler

    “He lends money for interest and makes excessive profits. Will this person live? He will not live. He has done all these disgusting things. So he must die, and he will be responsible for his own death.” Ezekiel 18:13

  • tarl_hutch

    Thank you Craig, for your timely article. This is something we all seem to slip into from time to time, using the bible to prove our preconceived ideas and cultural standards. This has been running rampant as of late, and we need to be reminded to keep the original intent and the Holy Spirit in mind when interpreting the bible. This is an issue I am trying to keep in mind in my studies and relationship with God, thank you again for the reminder.

    Let us be careful before passing quick judgements based on our cultural norms, and attempting to use scripture to back it up. So often forget how influenced we are by our society and entrenched cultural biases, otherwise why would we need the Spirit of Jesus to help understand the ways of God?

    • Maddie

      I’m sorry, there should be no down arrows, your comment is great. I thought someone had already commented and that was how you expand to read it.

  • Matt

    More irony on this site. The entire purpose of Red Letter Christians is to distort Scripture in an effort to push leftist ideology. Any random sampling of archived posts can attest to that.
    As for the Burton guy you mention, I have no clue who that is, so I’m assuming what you are saying is true. If it is, he is wrong too. Jesus’ parables aren’t about minimum wage or capital gains taxes. However, the scriptures don’t make arguments for socialized medicine, high taxes, massive entitlements spending, a disasterously weak foreign policy, or more government involvement in my life. These are all leftist policies I’ve seen pushed on this site backed up by twisted interpretations of the Bible.
    So Mr. Watts, in your attempt to make Conservative Americans out to idiots, you opened up an opportunity for me to point out your own hypocrisy. Thanks.
    By the way, minimum wage is one of the single dumbest ideas ever conceived by man. Its the most artificial and fake number out there. If minimum wage is so important, why not make it $100/hour? This is why. Because businesses will either A) Increase prices proportional with the wage increases, therefore making the purchasing power of that increase null and void or B) Start laying offf workers, therefore increasing unemployment. Not to mention, raising minimum wage discourages the opening of business in a state, enhancing employment issues.
    Man, pointing out the stupidity of liberalism is so much fun.

    • Drew

      Actually Matt, you have many basic economic facts wrong in your last paragraph. If you took some basic courses in economics you would have a better view of minimum wage. You might still disagree with it, but at least you would have the appropriate knowledge base to disagree with it. Looks like to me you are simply making up things as you go. Unfortunately, that is what most Americans do when it comes to economics – nobody has studied it but everyone thinks they are an expert.

      • Matt

        Please enlighten me as to what part I’m wrong about.

        • Drew

          Wage increases do not bring about a proportional increase in prices. This would be taught in a Microeconomics 101 or 201 type of course. It depends on the elasticity of the goods or services being provided. If the product is relatively elastic, any hike in prices for any reason will be met with a drop in demand so steep that raising prices would not maximize profit. Also, laying off workers would only occur if the marginal utility of having those last workers dramatically changed. Of course, this is only looking at the micro picture.

          • Matt

            I did have an overly simplified explanation but I was not wrong. Mandatory wage increases cut into a business owner’s profits and profits are the number one reason a person has a business in the first place. The protection of those profits is the goal. So if the government comes in and says you have to pay these employees a minimum of 7.25 instead of the old minimum of 5.15 or whatever it was, that loss in profits has to be made up for somehow. The utility of the employee did not change at all, but their compensation did. An increase in prices is one way to counter this, but I agree, it is not the most common way, and isn’t the smartest for business owner (I didn’t make this clear, granted. I was trying to illustrate that recouping profits is the goal.) What is most common and does happen quite often is that workers are laid off. Look at the stats between 2006-2009 and the increase in minimum wage and the increase in umemployment. Then look more specifically at the increase in unemployment of the demographics that are usually minimum wage workers, teenages, college kids, the young, etc. Then look even closer at minorities. I can tell you personal examples of this happening when my state raised the minimum wage even above the federal wage. The numbers are there. I didn’t mention earlier either that one of the sickest aspects of minimum wage laws is that they bar entry of the poor into the working world as well as deny the employer the ability to make his own contracts. Let’s say there is a person who is not skilled or educated but is willing to work for his keep. Becasue of his status, an employer is willing to pay him $6/hour to work for him because that is all he is good for. Well, too bad, that guy doesn’t get a job because the government is saying that he must be paid $7.25/hour. Boom, minimum wage laws just kept a willing person out of the work force and back into the welfare system. Capitalism is cold-hearted and beautiful. We just have to let it do its thing. That means removing government from every nook and cranny of the economy.

          • tarl_hutch

            I am sure that both you guys know more about economics and its theories than I do, I was an English major after all, but their is one thing about this debate over minimum wage that concerns me. The biggest problem I see, is that workers earning the “minimum wage” are still not making enough money to survive without some other assistance, governmental or otherwise. This is another fallacy of the “minimum wage”, it is not liveable, to do so one must work at least two jobs to equal one decent paying job. And don’t get me wrong, there are plenty who do that, God bless them, but some others do not have the ability to do so, due to children, transportation, etc.

            I also see the point about profit concerns and possible layoffs, but allowing an employer to pay less than minimum wage does little to help that worker leave the welfare system, as it is still not a liveable wage. I have seen this in action in the hospitality industry in which i work. Housekeepers have the hardest, most labor intensive job, but make min wage, thus despite working full time and some having second jobs, most also recieve governmental assistance. Our company is doing fine, but we are still happy to let our employees stay entrenched in the welfare system.

            So, how do we set up a system that pays a truly livable wage, while allowing companies to survive and grow? A hands off approach will not solve the problem, allowing companies to profit while paying a sub standard wage. Nor will over regulation help companies to continue to grow. We must find a balance or a better system (of which I would have no idea), and keep the interests of all in mind.

            Which brings us to how to view this as Christians, which must focus on the needs of others. True, business owners need to grow to offer more opportunity, but should also keep the needs if their employees over solely their desire for profit, this can be done and is by many responsible Christian business men. The other side is the need for the church to include business skills training into its community programs. If we want business to pay fair wages, we need to make sure they are getting prepared workers. We should also take more of the burden in helping the poor, instead of building bigger sanctuaries. Further thoughts?

  • Anonymous

    “The Bible no more offers precise instructions about tax policy or environmental policy or size of the government than it does about acceptable forms of transportation. Only by twisting, stretching and distorting the message of scripture can it be made to speak in a direct way to many of the issues that concern us.”

    Exactly, which is why this blog post should probably have ended right there. As Christians, we are to treat people we employ fairly and justly. But this is just about where the specific instructions end.

  • Anonymous

    I’m glad I read the whole thing. The only thing I disagree with is that no Christian Commentator has ever seen these verses as being economic. I refer you to the ancient Catholic and Jewish discussions around the sin of usury, and my own July 2009 blog posting with links to the seven modern Catholic encyclicals on economics:
    http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/2009/07/history-of-caritas-in-veritate.html

  • Anonymous

    One quibble: they are no longer called Personnel departments, but Human Resources departments. The name Human Resources is meant to enforce the view that a worker is worth the same as a chair, a computer, or a box of paper clips to the business owner. Personnel implies that the worker is a person and businesses no longer believe that (Ayn Rand considered workers as moochers and parasites).

    On Matthew 20 itself: the the workers were all paid the same implies socialism, where all receive the same. I will not go all the way with that, but when coupled with Acts 2:44-45 and Acts 4:33-35, it certainly says that more than Barton’s claims.

    Still, the parable is meant more to be spiritual than economic.

×

TRENDING: 5 God Excuses to Avoid After A Natural Disaster>>