RLC Proper 8, Year B, June 28, 2009

St. Bartholomew’s Episcopal Church, Richmond, Virginia

The Rev. Haywood Spangler, Ph.D.

2 Corinthians 8:7-15

Since the fall, there has been much discussion in the news about distributing public funds to remedy recession and to encourage economic growth. And, that may be the reason I was most struck by Paul’s observation to the Corinthian church, “it is a question of a fair balance between your present abundance and their need, so that their abundance may be for your need, in order that there may be a fair balance.”

In this statement, I think Paul offers us a definition of distributive justice, or a definition of the way particular goods should be distributed among a group of people. I want to call his definition “mutual-regard.” We should distribute goods based on our mutual regard for one another.

I don’t think we hear much in churches about this mutual-regard view. As church-goers, I think we often hear about two other views of distributive justice: give to others only what you think they deserve. Or, sacrifice all you have, whatever the circumstances. Paul offers a way between these extremes. So, I would like to spend most of my time this morning describing the view of justice Paul offers us.

To clarify the mutual-regard view of justice, I want to say a bit about the other two views of justice, the views I think we hear most often. The first view I’ll call the boot-straps view, for shorthand. The boot-straps view comes up mostly in the media, not in churches. The boot-straps view is essentially that goods should be distributed according to what people earn for themselves. The boot-straps view assumes that everyone has an equal opportunity to earn goods for themselves. People should receive help, according to the boot-straps view, only if they are in some way victims of circumstance. People who are needy because of poor judgment are not good candidates for help. And, we have heard versions of this view of justice a great deal recently, whether in reference to individual home owners who bought more than they could afford, or in reference to corporations that kept using the same business practices, even when they were failing to show a prophet.

You probably will not hear much about the boot-straps view in most Roman Catholic or main-line Protestant churches. What you are more likely to hear is the self-sacrifice view of distributive justice. Justice occurs when everyone who has gives pretty much everything away to those who don’t have. Whereas the boot-straps view focuses on the worthiness of the would-be recipient of help, the self-sacrifice view focuses on the apparent spiritual need of the more affluent to give ‘till it hurts. In this view, the needs of “the needy” are somewhat secondary to the need of “the affluent” to repent for their affluence by ceasing to be affluent. Sometimes, the implicit message is that the best way to help “the needy” is for you to become “needy” yourself.

To summarize, the boot-straps view tends to be suspicious of giving to those in need, while the self-sacrifice view implies that if you don’t give ‘till it hurts, regardless of circumstance, you have not given enough. Paul does not propose either of these views in his words to the Corinthians.

To understand what Paul is saying, a bit of context is important-and unfortunately, this passage is taken a bit out of context. Paul has asked each of the congregations he founded to take up a special collection for the congregation in Jerusalem, because the Jerusalem church is being persecuted and they need material help. It seems the Corinthians are hemming and hawing about taking up the collection. So, Paul instructs them, “It is appropriate for you who began last year to do something . . . to finish doing it” – meaning, take up the collection already. But, the Corinthians do not have to “give ’till it hurts.” Rather, Paul says, “I do not mean that there should be relief to others but pressure on you.” And then Paul makes the remarked I started with, “it is a question of fair balance between your present abundance and their need, so that there abundance may be for your need.”

Perhaps to the discomfort of boot-strap proponents, Paul does not say, “it is a question of their deserving your help, and they really have tried, and through no fault of their own, they are in a tight spot.” And, perhaps to the discomfort of self-sacrifice proponents, Paul suggests that one point of giving is to secure future benefit for oneself – give to Jerusalem now, so that they can give you to when you are in need.

What Paul proposes, I want to suggest, is a view that we should distribute goods based on our mutual regard for each other, and self-interest is an acceptable part of mutual regard. As a principle for the distribution of goods, Paul’s mutual regard view indicates that we cannot be suspicious of giving or of those in need. But, it also indicates that it is OK to expect something in return for our helping others, and that it is OK to preserve or own well-being.

To close, I want simply to leave you with what I think is Paul’s view of distributing goods, including money: Giving should be based on mutual regard, meaning giving is necessary, but so is self-preservation and sometimes receiving support yourself. I invite you to think about how Paul’s mutual-regard view of giving applies in your life. It could apply to your giving to the church, or other charities, or perhaps how you view public policies, such as healthcare, or perhaps your political activities. Wherever you think it applies, Paul invites you and me to probe the views of justice we typically encounter, and to consider carefully what an authentically Christian view is.