God Hates Injustice, Not Inequality
February 7, 2007 Posted by Amy Hall
In his post, “God Hates Inequality,” Jim Wallis argues that the Bible demands we raise the minimum wage because God hates inequality.
Leaving aside the issue of hermeneutics regarding the passage Wallis chose to support his position and the question of whether or not we should raise the minimum wage, I actually have no reason to think that God hates inequality (in terms of results, not in terms of unjustly applied laws and oppression) as Wallis’s title says. That seems to be more of a Marxist idea than a biblical one.
I think He hates greediness, injustice (e.g., withholding a person’s agreed-upon wages, using dishonest scales, accepting bribes), oppression (e.g., imposing heavy rent and tribute, keeping the clothes off people’s backs as pledges overnight, inflicting violence), a lack of giving, and suffering. But inequality–the mere fact that some people have more than others? I’m not sure I see that condemned in the Bible.
A couple years back, a law was passed by the people of California that compelled everyone who makes over a million dollars to pay an extra tax. This really disturbed me. I don’t like the idea of people taking from others just because they have more. The Mosaic Law not only says we’re not to favor the rich, it also says we’re not to favor the poor. We’re also not to covet what the rich have, nor are we to take what is theirs for our own, regardless of how much they have.
Wallis uses the following argument to support his position:
The average worker [in America] has to work a whole year to make what their boss makes in one day. This is wrong; it’s an injustice; it’s a theological issue.
An injustice? Because one person makes more than another? Even though the standard of living for all our people is so much higher than nearly every (if not every) other country in the world? I don’t like the fact that the word “justice” is now being used to mean “equality.” The two words are not synonymous. For example, I worked in the film industry, and I knew the outrageous amounts some people were paid, but this never made me angry. Just because I had to work one and a half weeks to make what the Director of Photography made in one day (that’s eight years to make what he makes in one–and our production assistants would have to work fifteen), was that an injustice? I think Wallis has a misunderstanding of what justice is. I was not oppressed by the mere fact that someone was making so much more money than I was, nor was I cheated in any way. We were all paid the amounts for which we agreed to work at the agreed upon time; we were treated equally justly, though we had unequal results.
Perhaps Wallis is confusing justice and equality because he assumes that if anyone does have a great deal more money than others, that person must be dishonest and/or an oppressor (another residue of Marxism, I think), but this is not the case. It’s possible to be wealthy and still giving, righteous, and even good. Look at Job. Job stole no money from others, neither did he oppress anyone. He and his servants were unequal, yet he was approved by God. How could this be? Because Job was just, and that is the category that God cares about, not inequality.
(HT: Sacred Frenzy)
Related posts:
- On the Equality and Inequality of the Genders
- Punishment is Necessary for Justice
- Proposition 75 Fails
- Washington Briefing
- Controlling the Nurturing Instinct
- Connecting Emergent Ideas (1 of 2)
Posted in Amy's Posts, Main Page, Politics, Theology
content rss
February 7th, 2007 at 12:47 am
Roger you're right–God does hate injustice, but he also hates inequality. Wallis is a welcomed and fresh voice (probably prophetic) for the evangelical community. The article refers to a reformation of minimum wage. The inflation-adjusted value of the minimum wage is 30% lower in 2006 than it was in 1979. This is more than just inequality, and especially when accounting for gender and racial disparities, there are unjust elements to it.
You write, “It's possible to be wealthy and still giving, righteous and even good.” I absolutely agree. However, my propensity toward sin leads me to believe that that is usually not the case. I don't disagree with that statement, but I would say that that statement is not reflective among most (Christians included) in our culture. Jesus's model for ministry is to defend those who have least in our society, and Wallis (and perhaps he errs a little too much) does pursue that. I wonder if the Church in general has erred too much on the other side.
Regarding Wallis's hermeneutics, reading through his book (God's Politics) gives a much better picture that Wallis's theology is pretty right on and he does the hard work of letting scripture inform his politics. Isaiah 65 is a fantastic passage of hope. I certainly hope reforming minimum wage is not God's picture of justice, but I would imagine a fair living wage for some people who make minimum wage, a living wage puts into words the expression of God's hope in Isaiah 65.
February 7th, 2007 at 12:48 am
oops… Amy, I apologize, I misread who posted this!
February 7th, 2007 at 2:20 am
No problem. I have been on hiatus for quite a while!
February 7th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
All men are created equal in worth, in ability to please God with what they have, maybe in other ways, but God's distribution of talents, isn't in equal measure. So, to say that inequality means injustice is to doubt the good of God's good pleasure. Perhaps that is what Eve was doing when the serpent implied that God was holding out on her. In that case, this lie is as old as the rest.
But, anyway, as Veith said, : “Inequality alone is not a sign of injustice.”
for what it's worth,
-Ben
February 7th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
“a fair living wage”
What do you mean by fair? I recall a parable about a field owner that paid the same rate to all his employees regardless of when they started, and when people thought his equality an injustice, he answered not with a defense of equal payment, but with his keeping their agreement and his right to do what he wills with what is his. I agree with the field owner. What say you?
February 8th, 2007 at 1:15 am
Reforming minimum wage is a short-term and short-sighted fix. What's the point if the value of the dollar continues to collapse under the policy of fiat money and the weight of deficit spending (both government and individual)?
February 11th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Amy,
Could you please elaborate on the following passages, particularly the use of the word equality in 2 Corinthians.
Acts 2:44-47
44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
2Corinthians 8:12-15
12For if the willingness is there, the gift is acceptable according to what one has, not according to what he does not have.
13Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. 14At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality, 15as it is written: “He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little.”[b]
James 2: 15-17
15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
February 12th, 2007 at 4:14 am
Hi, David! Good to hear from you.
I'm curious as to why you included the James passage. We are definitely to help the poor, no doubt about that. Do you think it's against the poor to say that God doesn't hate inequality? I don't think “helping the poor” and “making people equal” are the same thing. God desires for us to help those who are suffering. Do you think the “average worker” in America that Wallis talks about is suffering? I don't think so. I'm certainly not suffering simply because someone in America is making 400 times what I make. I'm doing fine. Should people who make 400 times more than I do be helping the poor? Yes! And many of them do. Let's say there's a man who makes $10 million a year and he gives away half of it to charities. I would say he's pretty generous! Is that still an injustice because he's still making so much more than I do? I just don't see it that way. What about the foundations, the businesses, the scholarships, the awards–everything he contributes to society? I don't think he's being unjust simply because he has more. The issue, then, is whether or not he's giving and bettering people's lives, and not whether or not he has more money than I do. (And if he doesn't give, then what? We take? Paul certainly doesn't set a precedent for that.)
People think that if someone has money, he has taken it from someone else, but that's just not the case. Wealth is created through our innovation, and the overall wealth increases in a free market society. Then it's used to create more jobs and support more people. In free market societies, the more people are allowed to keep their money (which they are then free to give to others on their own–and BTW, the more free the market and the lower the taxes, the more people give on their own) the better off the society is as a whole. This is why even the poor in our country do better than the average person in some other countries. In general, when the rich in a free market society do better, the poor don't do worse, they do better. If everyone were equal, our society would be in huge trouble because there would be nobody to finance jobs. That would definitely hurt the poor. And wouldn't that be against the spirit of all these passages? That can't be what God's asking for here.
The Acts passage: they're doing what families do. We ought to give to people as they have need–particularly our families, including the family of God. You'll notice, though, that they all gave their own money freely. They were not taking the money from others by force and giving it to others.
2 Corinthians 8: The chapter begins with Paul pleading with the Corinthians to give to their needy brothers in Christ. He then makes it clear to them that they should not give so much that they are then worse off than those originally in need, but they're to give as they can to help the others so that all will have what they need, knowing that the others will help them when they're in need. This way, they can all meet their needs together as a family.
Notice here that the focus is on people equally having what they need–they're not to give “for the ease of others” at the expense of their own affliction–he says they're not to go beyond equality in their sacrifice. They are all to equally have what they need. But what if everyone had what he needed, but one person still had more than everybody else–not because he was ungenerous, but because he either had worked harder, was luckier, or whatever? Do you think Paul would tell him he was doing wrong? Would God hate that? I don't think that's what he's trying to say here.
What I see in all of these examples are exhortations for people to give. We have a huge interest in encouraging people to give, and I do so all the time. I also give on my own because I see these passages exhorting me to give–I don't see them as giving me a reason to be angry that a lot of people have more than I do. I just have zero desire to take from one person to give to another, and it doesn't bother me that people are wealthy. Instead, I do feel a burden to give my own money to help others.
I think Paul's pretty clear that though we'll never be able to end poverty for everybody, we have a special obligation to our fellow Christians around the world to see that their needs are being met. Right now, we are the ones who have the money who should be supporting those who are laboring and suffering for Christ and have less than anyone in this country could imagine. I care about that. That's why two of my “recommended” links since the time we started this blog are for Gospel for Asia and Samaritan's Purse, and I personally support them both. I strongly believe we should be meeting the needs of the poor and suffering around the world because we have so much more than we need right now.
I think people ought to apply these exhortations to themselves instead of being so concerned about what other people are doing. And actually, it turns out that the people who think the government (i.e., other people's money) ought to be doing more to help the poor are far less likely to give themselves. I just heard an interview with Arthur Brooks, and I'm pretty sure he said that people who believe the government ought to collect more money to give to the poor are only 25% as likely as those who don't believe this to give their own money to help the poor. (You can listen to it here.) This is why I think that all these calls for equality (calls to take as opposed to calls to give) in this time and place (as opposed to the situation Paul was addressing) are actually against the spirit of what Paul is saying because they end up making people less generous which leads to less money to improve the situations of the poor. On top of that, it's taking another person's property who ought to be free to give or not give (as Peter told Ananias) and playing on envy.
I say we should follow Paul's example and focus on calls for people to give out of their own abundance. And believe me, we all have an abundance in this country. I don't have much when compared to people here, but I know I have a heck of a lot more than most of the people in the world.
February 12th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Amy,
I don't doubt your sincerity, and I don't doubt your love for the body of Christ, or your generosity. I will however critique your position, because I believe it is very dangerous, giving many Christians an excuse not to follow the teachings of scripture. However it is with some hesitation as I am not absolutely convinced that the government should be redistributing wealth. I'll defend the position here though.
If people started on an equal playing field and then some got further than others, I would agree. But that is a myth. Few people argue for absolute equality. Rather what most want is “living wages”, and healthy work environments. Cleaning hotels in LA county for 40-50 hr/wk for instance barely provides enough money to pay rent, hardly a living wage. And if all those people changing sheets worked hard, got an associate degree, and moved up, someone else would have to clean up those rooms. What many are arguing is not that inequality in and of itself is bad, but that our present levels of inequality are evil. People not being able to afford life saving surgery that can easily be done, is wrong, full stop! If the government should not be redistiubting wealth, to some degree, should it be protecting the un-born. To state it broadly, should the government be in the business of regulating morality? Many have concluded that the answer is yes if one's decisions infringe on others, for instance the working condition's in factories. This has largely been cleaned up in this country, but not in most places many of our consumer goods are created. That puts many of us in a position similar to the man living in the north in this country in the 19th century, who invested his money in plantations in the south. He didn't own slaves, but he profited from their work.
What the government should be responsible for is debatable. But is there any question what Christians should be doing? Lets just do what you suggested second. First you say it's fine for a man to keep half of his 10mil, but then you go and agree with Paul, that at the very least, among believers their should be equality.
Is there any doubt that Christians are starving right now? Any doubt that they are being persecuted for their faith? Any doubt that a Christian is right now slaving away in a SE Asian swet shop so that I can have a t-shirt for $5?
Amy, I have to tell you, I have been mulling these challenging passages in the Bible over for some time, and I am deeply disturbed, as much by my own behavior and hording of goods as with anyone's. I don't know what to think. How can I take a conservative reading of the Bible, by and large taking it literally, and conclude that I should do anything but get stupid/crazy in my generosity?
Ezekiel 16:49-50
” 'Now this was he sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.”
Is there any chance that the western evangelical community has so missed the boat on this issue that we are on the verge of being destroyed by God?
February 13th, 2007 at 2:36 am
I've defended my position against socialism almost 2 years ago on the A-Team blog here.
Defending socialism isn't the way to help the poor. There is nothing biblical about it. And so far, for nearly 40 years since Lyndon Johnson's “War on Poverty”, law upon law, taxation upon taxation, poverty still treads on. How much more of an oppressive government do you want in order to force the distribution of wealth to equal the playing field?
Why does the minimum wage need to be raised? Because things are getting more expensive. Why are things getting more expensive? Inflation. Why is there inflation? Well now, that's the $64,000 question. If inflation was stopped, would we need minimum wage laws?
David, I believe that you truly and sincerely feel for the poor, but don't mistake the conviction you personally have as something that the civil government must impose upon the wealthy. It would make the civil government impartial towards the poor, and that there is injustice.
Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly. Leviticus 19:15
February 13th, 2007 at 11:14 am
I don't think David (or anyone defending the raising of minimum wage) is advocating socialism. All economic systems have flaws. And socialism is not immune from that. What is unfortunate, is that there seems to be a blindness to the flaws of capitalism.
Victor I'm not sure I agree that “there is nothing biblical about (socialism)”, but using that sort of hyperbole, I would not hesitate to say that there is nothing biblical about capitalism.
February 13th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
David, I really do hear what you're saying, and I identify with your struggle. I struggle with these things too. I want to do what's right–to help people and please God. Desperately! I struggle because sometimes my emotional impulse is in conflict with what my head shows me will actually lead to the most good. It's like the conflict between a mother and a father when the mother, led by emotional compassion, wants to do everything for her son but the father wants him to have to stand on his own two feet and mature. Does his father not care about his son? Does he not want to see his son do well? Will the son not do better in life if the father has his way, and worse if his mother prevails? (Please note that compassion in the case of a son who was developmentally disabled would require everything to be done for him, so this is not a blanket statement. I'm just pointing out that compassion needs to be directed by our heads and not emotions if it's to do any real good. I've written previously about this here and here.)
What concerns me is that people are equating “helping the poor” with the redistribution of wealth by the government. They then judge our level of compassion in this country by our level of redistribution. This is confusing concern for the poor with belief in their remedy. The two are not the same. Here's a perfect illustration of how this plays out. After the tsunami, our government gave less than some other governments. Everyone cried out, “Look how uncompassionate America is!” But when you combined the government's givings with private donations, America was far and away more generous than any other nation. We are corporately, as a country, very compassionate–and not by force!
As I've said, people become more generous and more caring for the poor the less redistribution of wealth is done by the government. I'm very interested in reading that book I mentioned (I haven't had a chance yet)–and part of the reason I'm so intrigued by it is the author's statement about how important it is that we cultivate a culture of giving and compassion. He thinks his book is important because if we're not careful, we'll create a society that is uncompassionate–and all because we're trying to be compassionate! He was very surprised by the results he found from his studies because it didn't show what the person on the street expects–it didn’t show that the more a government redistributes wealth, the more the citizens care about the poor. (This is the assumption in your idea that what I’m saying is dangerous.) What he found is that the exact opposite is true–that the redistribution of wealth is what’s dangerous to the compassionate character of a country. He found that rather than those who are against redistribution using this as an excuse not to follow the teachings of Scripture to help the poor, people were instead using the government’s redistribution of wealth (or even their desire for the government’s redistribution of wealth–even if the government was not currently doing so) as an excuse not to help the poor themselves. Can you see the danger of this for everybody?
Never, never did I say you shouldn’t be overly generous with time and money, and there are many, many exhortations that Christian employers should live by as they manage their workers. We should be concerned about the poor no matter how much money we have–much or little. That’s how we should be as Christians! That’s how we should encourage others to be! But I just don’t hate the wealthy. I just don’t. We’re not told in the Bible to automatically hate the wealthy, and we’re not told to take their money or to envy what they have. We’re also told the government should not favor the poor or the rich, but instead it should be just. God blessed people with wealth many times in the Bible. There were wealthy people who followed Jesus and supported Him. They gave more than the others, but they still had more than the others. God did not hate that those people had more than the others.
And trust me, I have no horse in this race. I’m not wealthy and trying to defend what I have. If there were a redistribution of wealth nothing would be taken from me personally, believe me! Nor am I saying this out of guilt for a lack of giving on my part. I try to make it part of my life to help people I know personally and people around the world. Please consider reading that book or listening to the interview. There’s a steady drumbeat of “helping the poor=government redistributing wealth” and “the wealthy are bad people (unless they believe the government should redistribute wealth)”–but I think there’s good reason to question that, particularly since these ideas began based on a naturalistic worldview that knew nothing of the wisdom of God.
February 13th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Defending the raising of minimum wage is advocating the idea of socialism, whether one acknowledges it or not. It is still a redistribution of wealth to which there is no justification based on God's Law. Making wealth is not a criminal act and the burden of proof is upon those who would, through legislation, vote that wealth out of the pockets of the one who earns and into the ones who did not.
As for “nothing biblical about capitialism,” can you prove that socialism is? Can you prove from Scripture that the civil government can use coercion and the power of the sword to force the well-to-dos to give to the poor? Because that is what socialism is: the use of civil government to force the redistribution of wealth.
Scripture does not support socialism as an economic system. In the absence of that economic system, what economic system are you left with? If not capitalism, then what?
Those who say that capitalism isn't biblical usually cite misuses/abuses of it, but that doesn't nullify the validity of capitalism as being a economic system. It just shows the evil of men, not capitalism. The misuse/abuse of a good thing does not make the good thing a bad thing.
What we have today in our goverment looks like capitalism on the outside, but on the inside, you have socialism and mercantilism in the mix. Add to that an unbridled central bank robbing the wealth of every citizen through monetary inflation, our economic system is hardly the capitalism that is found in the Bible.
February 13th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
I would not hesitate to say that there is nothing biblical about capitalism.
EE, a free market society has many biblical properties. It's where the “ox is not muzzled while he's treading out the grain” (enjoying the fruit of his own labor) where “the worker is worth his wages,” where private property exists and is respected (as in the 10 commandments), and where able-bodied people are responsible to work to support themselves (“if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either”). It's also the most generous system. People in free market economies give far more to help the poor than people in other systems. In addition, it's based on the innovation of people who are able to create ideas and wealth because they're made in the image of God and are inputting ideas into a system rather than the system being closed and determined completely by natural cause and effect.
Do people twist these things? Of course. Welcome to sin. Does this system reflect biblical principles more than other systems–particularly those on the left that are based on a naturalistic worldview that discusses the motivations for everything only in terms of money and power? Yes, I think it does. As people in this system, are we responsible to help the poor in this system? Yes. And we're also responsible to do the hard work to figure out which ways of helping will actually do the most good.
February 13th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
And by the way, guys (and every regular commenter on this blog), I'm thankful for all of your comments. I think the level of our discussion on this blog generally remains respectful (even with difficult subjects) and is quite valuable. The more I read around the blogosphere, the more grateful I am for what you've created here with your discussion. Thanks!
February 13th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
This is an interesting debate/discussion, but I fear that using the terms socialism and capitalism are highly anachronistic in our exegesis. We can take our contemporary lenses of these economic systems and see evidence for both socialism and capitalism in the Bible. But in the end it's putting a square peg in a round hole. Wealth of Nations was written in 1776, and socialism is even younger. Granted, these are a couple of the economic terms that determine how we see the world here and now. But let us be careful of saying any time there is economic redistribution in the Bible, that it is socialism, or when there is an exchange of goods and services free from governmental restraint that it is capitalism.
I understand seeing the parable of the manager paying everyone how he wants as a free market employer-employee relationship. I also understand how someone could read the early parts of Acts as an early experiment in socialism. Both interpretations are incorrect, however.
I am a capitalist, but not laissez faire. I see too much sin in the world and in economic history to say that absolute free markets work. I see too much sin in corrupt central governments to say that socialism actually has ever achieved any of its goals.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Amy,
Leave the government out of this for a moment. (I know your original post did concern the government) This whole conversation is way too Left vs Right. People commit to an ideology, me included, and then read the Bible into it or visa versa. The question is, in light of the Bible, what should Christians do today, particulary Western Christians?
Your right, live generously, but how generously?
Paul uses the word equality. The example of Jesus is to give everything away. The Bible says if you see someone in need and say “God Bless” and do nothing, etc… What should we do with these passages? You say be generous. Is the Church prepared for the type of generosity the Bible seems to command?
I'm not. I'm in the same boat you are, having enough, and not much more. On this hating the rich thing. We conservatives have no problem calling sin sin when we have a conviction. What I'm wrestling with is, in light of the overwhelming poverty in this world, at what point does possessing X number of dollars become sin? (Good luck inserting a number in there
)
Never mind poverty in this country, the causes of which are debatable. Consider the extreme suffering of people in the third world, some of whom are Christians. If I know that the wife of a pastor lives in extreme poverty because her husband has been locked up because of his faith, and that $25 bucks a month will make a difference, do you think I could scrounge up $25 in loose change, “value” meals and lattes? You would think so, but no, not really.
And concerning the very rich… (what ever that is)
Look, no one likes a hypocrit, (i.e. me) but the story of the “rich young ruler” comes to mind. So does the one about the man whose barns weren't big enough. “Your life will be demanded of you this very night.” Wow!
Hey if I were addressing a group of obviously poor people, maybe some other passages would come to mind, the ones the Right loves to sight about working and eating, not oppressing the rich, fairness and the like, but how much does that apply to people who have the time and means to read a blog.
Were rich, we need to hear the passages that confront us, not the ones that let us off the hook.
February 13th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Hey, thanks for making it happen. I keep reading this blog and you in particular cause I need to be balanced out. I want input from multiple perspectives. And actually, I'm way closer to your thinking than my occasional postings here might indicate.
February 14th, 2007 at 11:24 am
When I read Ronald Sider's Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger (the 1997 update) his brief introduction stuck with me. It said something to the effect that when we think about how much money we have, we usually compare ourselves with people who have more and his intention was to get us to compare ourselves with those who have less than we do. Say what you will about the rest of the book (I greatly appreciated it), but I think this posture is absolutely necessary within our consumer society where we are always told we don't have enough. (Remember Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous? What an awful idea for a show. Cribs is just the new version.) I believe a Christian response is one of gratitude, beginning with thanksgiving for what we do have before lamenting what we don't have. And I assume that many of us in the West really won't really lament about what we don't have. Every once in a while, when I find myself jealous of others with more than me, I jump onto the Global Rich List and punch in my numbers and I am reminded of how fortunate I am.
Sider's point is not that poverty should be the baseline, but that it is a de facto baseline for many in the world. His point isn't that we should make less than we do, but that we should do more for others with what we make.
February 14th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Tyler, what a great link! It was reading about Gospel for Asia and their missionaries that woke me up to how incredibly rich I am compared to people in other countries. It does only take about $30 a month to make a tremendous difference in their lives, and that's what moved me to give to them. That amount of money means nothing to us, but everything to them.
February 14th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
The way I see it with how generously–i'd rather err on the side of being too generous rather than too stingy. We put too much time on “what we're supposed to do” as a Christian–I see it more (perhaps the post modern part of me) as learning and being a work in progress. Too many christians operate out of fear of giving (gotta give the 10% to the church and do whatever the h**l i want with the 90%). I want to be more generous next year than i am this year. Unfortunately, too many people err on the side of being less generous in the name of (I already did my 10%)
It's not about the percentage (that would make me a legalistic pharisee)–but it is meant to be a sacrifice (Paul backs me up on that one, and Jesus reminds me to give out of poverty, not abundance).
John Wesley said it well: Earn Much, Save Much, Give Much…