Poverty is complex. On the one hand it is easy to be patronizing about ‘those poor people in Africa’ and do our bit for charity. As a result we may feel better about ourselves but in reality fail to make any substantial difference and end up headed down the wide road of pharisaical moralism (“God, I thank you that I am not like other men…” Luke 18:11). On the other hand we can fall into making subjective value judgments about who is or is not the ‘deserving poor’ – a relativism invariably based on our personal judgment of what constitutes necessity and luxury; so the rough sleeper is entitled to his dog, but not his iPhone, while I – as someone who is a respectable tax-paying member of society (rather like that Pharisee again) – am clearly entitled to both my dog and my phone.
 
I guess we can all agree that poverty – real, dollar-a-day, dirty water poverty – is bad. But things become more complex when we move from that baseline to the question posed by Phil, “Is equality a ‘good’ that we should care about? If so, how much equality should there be and is this what Paul was talking about in 2 Corinthians 8:13-14?”
 
It is interesting how different Bible translations handle this passage. The NIV uses ‘equality’ while the more conservative ESV plumps for ‘fairness’. These two words can mean quite different things according to context. When we talk about ‘income inequality’ do we mean a lack of equality or a lack of fairness? In building a ‘fairer society’ are we aiming for equality of opportunity, or equality of outcome? And how do we define what is fair anyway?
 
Consider an non-economic example: At this year’s London Olympics equality would be to give every competing athlete a gold medal – that would demonstrate unarguable equality, but it would also be grossly unfair! Fairness at the Olympics is guaranteed by every athlete being assessed under the same conditions in their event – there is equality in athletes being measured by the same timing mechanism, the same track, and so on. Fairness is demonstrated by the results – that some athletes are objectively better than others, and the very best ones come away with the prizes. In this sense the whole point of the games is to demonstrate and celebrate inequality – which is just how we like it! I want to see Usain Bolt doing something extraordinary and run away with the prize. The games would be ruined if they were not fair, and Bolt was made to give all the other athletes a 20 metre head start. Equally, they would be ruined if they were equal, and both Bolt and the slowest competitor were given a gold medal.
 
But, to push this example further, we might want to look at the systemic causes of one athlete succeeding while another fails and ask questions like these: Is it fair that the Americans have more money than anyone else and so can invest more scientific expertise into their athletes? Is it fair that the Kenyans live at altitude and run ten miles to school each day so that they produce the best distance runners? Is it fair that the Brits have a strong cultural heritage in sports that can be won sitting down? At the games there is equality of conditions, and fairness of results, but arguably neither fairness or equality were at play in the chain of events that led to those particular athletes being at the games in the first place. Is this fair? No. Should we try to do something about it? Well, there’s a question! The thing is, even if one were to take an American, Kenyan and British baby and raise them under exactly the same conditions (equality of opportunity) they would not end up equal in their abilities (equality of outcome) – genetics simply wouldn’t allow it. Is that fair? Well, maybe not, but it is diversity, which is meant to be another of our chief cultural values!
 
Back to 2 Corinthians 8:13-14…
 
The only other place in the Bible that the word translated here as equality/fairness is Colossians 4:1, which helps provide a reference point for what fairness might look like in practice: “Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.” (NIV) Clearly, there is a lack of equality between master and slave, yet Paul’s expectation is that there can be fairness in the relationship. In practical terms this would mean the kind of things that we now expect in employer-employee relations: appropriate remuneration, health and safety at work, and so on. If there is this fairness, should the slave/employee then feel resentful towards their master/employer if there is a great inequality of wealth between them? What if the master lives in multi-million pound house and the slave on the other side of the tracks? Biblically, I think it’s hard to make the case. And that means I am more sympathetic towards Doug Wilson’s thought experiment than is Phil. To put it another way, it would be unfair for a master to give his slave an iPhone while expecting him to sleep on the street, but not necessarily unfair for the master to live in a multi-million pound house while his slave had one worth £200,000.
 
Poverty – real, dollar-a-day, dirty water poverty – is bad. Absolute poverty is a horror. At the church I lead we are planning to take part in the Live Below the Line Campaign in May – feeding ourselves on just £1 per day for five days, as hundreds of millions of people have to do every day of their lives. We’re not doing this to guilt trip anyone, or because we like hair shirts, but as a way of expressing solidarity with the poor, and as an exercise in learning more about gratitude for the abundance we normally enjoy, whatever our personal economic and political views. I think Phil would approve!
 
——
 
This is part two of a short series on poverty.