Being generous: it isn't as easy as it looks, is it?

Windfall profits. Winning the lottery. Oil tycoon. Heir to a fortune. Strike it rich. Making poverty history. Cattle on a thousand hills.

Close your eyes and imagine such a scenario for yourself.

An alert reader will recognize the last expression as the proverbial way we speak of the Creator God’s claim on all of us creatures and our creature comforts. The other expression of note, “making poverty history,” is the business proposition or world vision of Gates-Bono and company. These renowned Good Samaritans intend to use their huge net worth and networks to reduce poverty.

Imagine a scenario where you, too, could end poverty for all the people in your sphere of influence. Stay with me for a few minutes as you get to play not God or Gates, but the company Boss or Uncle Sam, dear ol’ Dad or director of MOM.

For ease of computing, let’s say you have 100 units in your sphere of influence. These are to be the recipients of your largesse, whom you hope to thereby lift out of poverty. And you have in hand “the cattle on a thousand hills,” which we will translate into a set amount, say $100,000.

Your mission, should you accept it, is to give away 100% of that money, dividing up that fixed pie, so as to end poverty for the 100 units under your care. Now come the tough questions, the answers to which will reveal the guiding principles that govern you in a world rife with issues of untold wealth, unimaginable poverty, charitable choices, and social justice.

Who gets the money and how much?

All things being equal, do you follow the equity principle and give $1000 to each “unit” (= household, employee, client, or whatever)? Or, do you give according to household size (with more mouths to feed), with larger families getting up to $2000 or more and singles getting $500 or less?

Or do you dole out money by a certain investment principle, according to earning capacity and production potential? Under this governing philosophy, you give out more to those at the top, the fittest, who will generate more capital, so that the aggregate GNP is higher, in the hope that the rich will then take care of the poor, as in a certain theory of “trickle down” economics.

Or do you take the choice away from the rich and give proportionately more to the weaker members, in order to level the playing field and give everyone a fighting chance? This governing principle smacks of much-maligned socialism.

Yet another option is this: You distribute according to need, with people getting what they ask for, but only what they ask for. “Ask not, want not.” While no one has great need, and everyone has enough, some will have more than others. This is the case, it seems, in the first century church: “Selling their possessions and goods, they give to anyone as he had need” (Acts 2:45).

Would gift come with strings attached, that is, with expectations and accountability? That seems to the case in Jesus’ parable of the talents (recorded in Matthew 25:14-30). There the Master expects the recipients of the talents, which were unevenly distributed—five, two, and one, “each according to his ability”—to trade with them, multiply their investment and at least earn interest until he returns. According to Jesus’ parable, those failing to do so received a harsh, fatal lesson in economics: Even what they had left was taken away and given to the better stewards who had earned more, even in abundance. Meanwhile the worthless servant (one with low net worth and bad work ethic) was cast out into utter darkness.

If that sounds unfair, or too much like today’s free market (ruthless, survival-of-the-fittest capitalism), so be it. Still, we must continue this scenario for another round, to see for sure.

Still unfair? Okay, what redistribution scheme do you propose?

Now suppose the $100,000 were out of your hands, but held in trust somehow, until the Master returns. You know human nature is basically selfish and into self-preservation. And you do not trust human kindness to flow naturally from the rich to the poor. Yet you still have these 100 units under your care, a third of whom will die in poverty without your help.

So, being fair-minded and kind-hearted (you are, aren’t you?), you must direct the trust fund to get the money moving in the right direction to make poverty history. Who would you have play “Robin Hood,” robbing from the rich and giving to the poor?

Would your version of Robin Hood redistribute via compulsory taxes or charitable choice—or as a “thief in the night” (Matthew 24:42-44)? Would the tax imposed (or gift expected) be “progressive” (heavy on the rich)? Or would it be “flat” (everyone pays equal)?

Would you simply revolt, as certain “taxpayers without representation” once did? Or, on the other hand, would you print more money and run up the debt? (Sorry, that last option may be what Uncle Sam does on a grand scale, but that’s not allowed in this game of a limited fixed pie.)

Would you sell chances—at $1 apiece, let’s say—each with an equal shot to win the State’s $100,000 lottery (less expenses and overhead)? Some say that’s what makes ours a “land of opportunity.” Yet others call the lottery a “tax on the poor”!

As for me, I’d revolt against such odds or taxes. And you’d join me. So let’s change the rules and roles, and let the poor decide among themselves what might be a win-win solution.

Under a third scenario, you trust the poor and disenfranchised to gather among themselves, exclude others, and let them vote how to give away your money: Might they agree on a single ultimate winner—or rather, an equal split of the pie, however tiny, among themselves? What would the voting dynamics be like?

Now turn the tables: How would you go about electing one of your peers to emerge the sole winner-take-all? (The current reality TV show, “Unan1mous,” is based on this incredible premise.) And if elected the winner, what would you do with the money? How would you express (or redistribute) your gratitude?

We’ve come full circle, back to the dream scenario set up at the outset of this poverty-and-wealth simulation. You can wake up now. You are that winner!

But as the winner, you cannot take it with you. (Ever see a hearse pulling behind it a U-Haul? Neither have I.) All that you have now, and all you’ll ever will win or inherit, is a trust from God, your Creator and Sustainer. Remember, God owns all “the cattle on a thousand hills…. For the world is mine, and all that is in it” (Psalm 50:10-12).

Here’s the real deal. In all your various roles and by whatever values you hold dear, you get to decide what to do with what you have in trust from God. All the principles of income redistribution—those which governed your answers in the above, make-believe scenarios—now come into play.

For example: As a chief stakeholder, you have a proxy vote on your company’s dividend distribution or community re-investments. Likewise, as a voting taxpayer, you can tell the government what the spending priorities should be. As a trustee of a nonprofit board, you can decide whether to concentrate those resources on a few to assure some get out of poverty, or more broadly, to give many more a chance. As a donor with many calls for your money, will you tithe and where will you designate? As a trustee of the estate of a deceased parent (or two, in my case), what kind of trust accounts will I set up for my children?

Wherever you live and work, you have that responsibility and privilege for deciding where and how those precious resources get distributed.

As the system is set up now, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That gap widens every year. Who will stand in the gap? Is God calling you, with me, to bridge that gap?

Think about that, for a change. For here and now. For Real.

© 2005 Middleton Outreach Ministry

Site design and maintenance donated by Liberty Professional Services, LLC
Hosting donated by TDS Metrocom