Matthew
26:6-13 NIV
While
Jesus was in Bethany in the home of Simon the Leper, a woman came to
him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured
on his head as he was reclining at the table.
When
the disciples saw this, they were indignant. “Why this waste?”
they asked. “This perfume could have been sold at a high price and
the money given to the poor.”
Aware
of this, Jesus said to them, “Why are you bothering this woman? She
has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with
you, but you will not always have me. When she poured this perfume on
my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. Truly I tell you,
wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has
done will also be told, in memory of her.”
"A
society that puts equality -- in the sense of equality of outcome --
ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The
use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force,
introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who
use it to promote their own interests." (Milton Friedman)
Jesus
said to his disciples “that the poor you will always have with you,
but you will not always have me.” He could just as well have said,
the sick you will always have with you, injustice you will always
have with you...in fact suffering of all sorts you will always have
with you. The question is: Was Jesus's remark a cue for inaction and
complacency in the face of suffering? All his ministry among the
outcast and downtrodden, it is worth remembering, showed just the
opposite. Now Milton Friedman says that to use force to achieve
equality will destroy freedom. This conclusion is patently untrue.
On a daily basis in the United States the police power of the state
enforces the American premise of “equality before the law.” In
fact, without this use of force our freedom would be impossible. As
an economist his intention was probably to say that enforced economic
equality will destroy freedom. This is a red herring. Very few if
any Americans call for economic equality. And very few call for
government ownership of the means of production. Yet, one need not
call for economic equality or socialism to wish to lessen the
egregiously lopsided distribution of wealth in America. It is
becoming abundantly clear that in capitalism wealth is filtered by a
relative few despite wealth's widespread sources and creators.
Capitalism alone, while a positive contributor to the general welfare
as an economic engine, is a necessary but insufficient condition to
realize economic justice. Does Jesus's remark that “the poor will
always be with you” suggest that change in economic structures are
not ever to be made? I don't think so any more than I think
suffering in any form should be taken with bland resignation and
cynicism. This is counter to the nature of love. America has not
yet “grown up” and become cynical as regards justice—social or
economic. It continues to remain true to its essentially Christian
mission of mutual regard and concern.
Print Page
