Friday, August 14, 2009

The Rich Man and Lazarus

Considering how things are going in the world today, I thought it might be a good time to revisit the story of the rich man and Lazarus. From Luke 16: 19-31: 19"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores."

22"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell,[a] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'

25"But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'

27"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'

29"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'

30" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

====================

Short version: What goes around, comes around.

And also we have Luke 18:25:

"For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

OK, so why all the dogging out of the rich? Well, I certainly am not an advocate of socialism or communism as it has been practiced, nor do I have any problem with capitalism, in theory. The issue is that when you provide for yourself at the expense of others (over and above fair and reasonable profit), then you have a problem.

Let's look at Rush Limbaugh's earnings for example. His latest contract with Clear Channel was for 400 million dollars. We know things work a bit differently in the media world than they do in other fields when it comes to money. Rush gets a piece of the advertising revenue, which even he admits is "confiscatory." (I'll point out that Rush considers himself a Christian)

Rush has about 20 million listeners a day and if an advertiser wants to tap the listenership then they pay what they are told to pay and if they do not like it then, tough. Basically, Clear Channel, like other media firms, extort money instead of charging more realistic rates for the numbers of viewers/listeners to the show in question. Rush, like most entertainers, gets his money by overcharging advertisers. There is nowhere else a radio advertiser can go to get their message to an audience of 20 million listeners other than to Rush. I heard Glenn Beck make a comment a while ago, that he felt he was worth the 25 million a year he gets because so few other people could do his job. It is this type of thinking that earns the rich their trip to the hot fire pit of hell.

So, should the rich just start giving away all their money to the poor? No, but they should understand that they do have an obligation to help those less wealthy than themselves. Once their needs have been met, they should consider distributing some of their surplus income (perhaps in the form of additional jobs or raises) to the needy....over and above the Biblically suggested minimum of ten percent. As it is, about 20% of the people in the U.S. have 80% of the wealth. Spreading some of that around could help restore the middle class. Henry Ford figured out, a hundred years ago, that you cannot make products your employees cannot afford to buy.

What ever happened to compassionate conservatism?

No comments:

Post a Comment