I’m the Older Brother

by Tony Campolo 03-24-2009

When it comes to President Obama’s stimulus package and its provisions to help those Americans who are having great difficulty paying their home mortgages, I have come to realize that I’m like the older brother in the story of the Prodigal Son.

As you probably recall, Jesus tells about a younger brother who takes half of his father’s wealth and spends it irresponsibly in a “far-off country.” Finding himself impoverished, he takes a job feeding pigs (and you know how the ancient Jews would have reacted to even getting near pigs). He becomes so hungry that he actually wishes that he could eat some of the slop that the pigs were eating. In dire straits, this younger brother decides to return to his home and ask for a job on his father’s farm. But, as the Bible says, “While he is still a long way off,” his father sees him, runs out to meet him, welcomes this wayward son back into the family fold, and invites him to share in bounty of family fortune.

Then there’s the older brother! Jesus tells how this older brother is filled with resentment, and complains that he had worked hard on his father’s farm for many years, and now the money he helped earn for his father was being spent on this younger brother who had wasted the family’s wealth. We can almost hear him saying, “This brother of mine was irresponsible in the way he lived and spent his money, so why should he now get the benefits of money that I helped earn through my hard work, day in and day out?”

That, I am sad to say, is much the same attitude that I, along with most of my conservative evangelical brothers and sisters, have had in reaction to President Obama’s announcement that taxpayers’ dollars, earned by hard-working, responsible citizens, would be given to help those irresponsible Americans who bought houses that they couldn’t afford, while embracing a lifestyle that was beyond their means. With resentment, I, along with most of my rugged individualistic Christian friends, now sound like that older brother in Jesus’ story, and call for those irresponsible spenders to get what they deserve. With an air of self-righteous indignation, we declare, “They didn’t do what’s right and now we’re being asked to rescue them from the financial mess they’ve created for themselves!”

The gospel is about grace and we all know that grace is about us receiving from God blessings that we don’t deserve. But now, I, having received grace, find that my voice is blending in with a host of other older brother types who are reluctant to grant grace to those desperate home-buyers who were seduced into lavish living they could ill afford.

I’ve got some repenting to do. I doubt, however, that those who have wedded Christianity with laissez-faire capitalism will see things this way. I can just hear them saying, “Am I my brother’s keeper?”

Tony Campolo is founder of the Evangelical Association for the Promotion of Education (EAPE) and professor emeritus of sociology at Eastern University.

Categories: Economics

joiningtheconversation

Thank you for this.

How about, "I am my brother's keeper." Period. With humility, gratitude, repentence and caretaker-ship.

And the knowledge that when life feels "not-fair", we just might want to remember that grace is fundamentally not-fair. And we likely, more often than not, land on the lucky side of not-fair. At least when we look at all that's not-fair in the world. And especially when we consider grace.

If life loses that which is not-fair, then we lose grace. So, i'd prefer to live in the not-fair. Even when it hurts, or I really want to scream.

Oh, and God of Intimacy and Action- finishing that today. *Nice* work. Loved it. *Well done.*

letjusticerolldown

A good word, I receive. But limited.

Any of us who live fairly sane, responsible lives confront this everyday. Someone pays for shoplifting, smoking, prisons, law enforcement, drunk driving, foster care, Bernie Madoff, littering, STD's, contracting fraud in Iraq, etc.etc. And that burden rests mostly on those who are productive and responsible. This is not a new tension.

The problem here is that many of us feel the father in the story is not receiving the prodigal with open arms and throwing a celebration. Rather, the father had run off with the son, eating slop in a hog pen, and is coming home with the son to grab hold of the last assets and borrowing the eldest son's inheritance.

The father wishes to take the eldest son's inheritance so as to pay off investors to buy bad debt from the local money-changers, so the local money-changers will extend more credit to the prodigal son and him so they can go back to the hog pen.

So challenging our hearts as the elder brother is well taken--but it might be oversimplifying what many are really reacting towards.

Eric77

The other problem with Tony's analogy is that in the parable Jesus is talking about God's grace, which is unlimited, as ours should be. Material resources, which are what is being talked about in the bailout, are not unlimited. God can shower as much grace on whoever he wants for as long as he wants and no one is harmed. You can't do that with material resources. Also, equating God's role in dispensing grace and forgiveness to the government's role in dispensing goodies is flawed on a number of levels.

There is much talk, rightly so, on the God's Politics blog about fairness. Is it fair that the wealthy have so much stuff? Or is it fair that a particular person doesn't have the health care they need? These are important questions to ask. Almost always, we are told to examine the fairness of an issue and advocate accordingly. Does this not apply to this situation? If not, why not? When should Tony's arguments apply and when should they not? Discuss...

Robin Bownes

"God can shower as much grace on whoever he wants for as long as he wants and no one is harmed."

I am fairly sure that with a moment's deeper thought you will agree with me that this is not entirely so. God showered His grace on us - while we were still sinners / enemies of God, and He did this by becoming one of His lowly creations, living on earth (with all its poverty, heartache, etc), and then submitting to a shameful, painful death at the hands of His creation. All of this was so He could shower grace on undeserving us. Not only this, but Jesus remains human for all eternity, the first of us to rise and be seated in the presence of the Father, our eternal high priest at the right hand of the Father. While one surely cannot claim that Jesus/God was in any way permanently "harmed" by this outrageous outpouring of grace, one has to acknowledge the hugely, and permanently sacrificial nature of this outpouring of grace.

Have a look at what the Bible says about the resources at Gods, our Father's disposal. The whole point is that they are unlimited! However, I believe that the unlimited nature of the resources at our disposal via our Heavenly Father, is directly related to how we make use of those resources. I believe that as we imitate God in generosity, humility and love of others above ourselves, we will find that 5 loaves and 2 fish can go a really long way.

steve7193

Well put. Thanks.

nuclearferret

Well said. The father is free to do with his property what he wants, despite the seeming injustice done to the older brother. The President and Congress is not bestowing THEIR resources on the delinquent homeowners, who were "seduced into lavish living." They are using resources received under the threat of punishments up to imprisonment against the unwilling, to pay for these toxic mortgages. Additionally, they not only are gaining these resources from current generations, but imposing a debt obligation on children and unborn persons as well. Throw in the effort to generate inflation so that the dollars that will be used to repay debt to Chinese lenders will not be worth as much as they are today, and there are a number of moral questions to address.

Funny that people who are responsible with their finances are condemned for attempting to be appropriate stewards. Under this view, everything is God's blessings, not just grace, and we earn nothing ever. That being the case, why shouldn't I expect, nay demand, that my neighbor follow this Christian example and pay more taxes while I wait for a non-Christian entity, the government, to pay?

nandaiyo

I agree with the posts above.

If you had a child who stole not just from you, but went out and robbed entire neighborhoods, what would the appropriate response be? Apparently we are not allowed to be angry or to discipline the child but to just let them keep the money, and everyone they robbed are only allowed to show grace and love and mercy.

The gospel of Christ is one of grace, wonderful God-only-reliant grace. But we CANNOT remove repentance from the gospel or it cheapens grace and worships a false savior who did not pay for it with his life.

As individuals and organizations turn from greed, just as the younger son returned to his father's house then yes, let's band together and help out. But when individuals and organizations are just caught red-handed, and want enough bailout just to get back to how things were before, then we have a problem that will not be solved by showering them with grace and mercy.

Lord_Voldemort

Brother Tony,

I would appreciate it if, in the future, you would allow me and my conservative brethren to make our own confessions.

LV

BlueDeacon

Why? Conservatives already have their own blogs. (In the fall I was thrown off one for challenging the status quo.)

Lord_Voldemort

I'm talking about Tony having an experience where he sympathizes with conservatives, then confesses it all as a sin. Especially when he concludes with the strong implication that he is still superior to us spiritually because at least he confessed his own sin.

Well, maybe Tony did sin, (again: maybe) because his resentment of the beneficiaries of the mortgage assistance program might have been based entirely on jealousy. That doesn't necessarily mean that conservative opposition to that part of the stimulus was sinful, because our concerns were based on public policy and the problem of moral hazard.

(Moral hazard means that when people are shielded too much from the predictable consequences of reckless actions, the result is more recklessness. Kind of like jumping off a cliff and expecting God to protect you. I seem to recall Jesus saying that wasn't such a good idea.)

I have my own failings, which I confess on a regular basis. As a general rule I try to leave my political opponents out of it. That's not what confessions are for.

LV

BlueDeacon

With all due respect, I think you're being a little touchy here. The truth be
told (and Tony may understand this), much conservative policy is indeed based
on such resentment, not at all on any "moral hazard." Since he's spent his
career in inner-city Philadelphia, I seriously doubt he's jealous because he
would certainly have the money to live wherever he wanted.

Lord_Voldemort

With all due respect:

1. It's a cheap trick to insinuate that someone is guilty ("or as you put it, "touchy") based on the fact that he chooses to defend himself from an accusation, however cleverly put.

2. Are you saying that there's no such thing as moral hazard? Or that we are misreading the risks? Or are you (as usual) simply assuming bad faith on the part of your opponents? I would ask you to consider if you need to confess bitterness towards brothers in Christ who disagree with you, but then you'd just say I was being touchy, so never mind.* Instead I'll ask you this: even if you disagree with us, don't honest disagreements ever happen in your universe? They do in mine.

3. I was not aware that Philadelphia was a jealousy-free-zone. Maybe they make up for it with other forms of mean-spiritedness? Philly is the town where they booed Santa Claus after all. Heck Philly-native or no Campolo himself admitted to resentment, so what I wrote wasn't exactly a huge stretch.

LV

*See, I took it back, so I'm not really accusing you of anything. If you respond to this, you're demonstrating that you are being touchy. This way, I can make all kinds of accusations and you can't defend yourself! Isn't this fun? -- LV

BlueDeacon

It's a cheap trick to insinuate that someone is guilty ("or as you put it, "touchy") based on the fact that he chooses to defend himself from an accusation, however cleverly put.

You just made my point in the way you chose to respond. The political right historically has been self-deceptive to a point that it doesn't even recognize where its attitude comes from, and that's why it has a hard time understanding what's actually going on right now. In insisting on ideological purity, it has found itself out on the street -- fueling even more resentment (which I see even in the church).

Are you saying that there's no such thing as moral hazard? Or that we are misreading the risks?

Well, "Reaganomics" was full of moral hazard when it was proposed, and its effects actually wrecked a major employer in my city. So I guess it depends on whom it helps, no?

Lord_Voldemort

Not sure how I made your point, but I'm willing to leave this whole line of discussion right where it is if you are.

As far as Reaganomics being full of "moral hazard" -- think you're getting moral hazard (promoting risky behaviour by protecting individuals from consequences) with Schumpeterian "creative destruction", in which outdated and ineffective firms are brought down and replaced by more up-to-date and effective ones, with a net improvement in productivity and quality of living for society. The first is to be avoided as much as possible, the second is regrettably necessary in a free society.

In fact, the two are to some extent mutually exclusive: protecting employers from the consequences of failing to adapt and improve (through bailouts, special government loans, etc.) creates moral hazard, encouraging companies to be slow about adapting new technologies or developing new products. When that happens what you get is Pittsburgh's steel industry in the 80's, or Detroit today.

LV

BlueDeacon

My point is that conservatism as practiced today is by definition reactionary; even the "new thinking" that it claims to be is based only on opposition to what was then present reality and thus simply cannot escape scapegoating, especially toward people at the bottom. Unfortunately, its acolytes have never talked with anyone who disagrees with it to point out any potential weaknesses because dissent even to this day is considered intolerable. That's why you see so many conservatives still swearing by President Bush despite political and economic reality -- they can't ever accept that they were fundamentally wrong about a lot of things.

As for Reaganomics, its basic tenet was that if you take restraints, whether regulations or taxes, off the "big man" he will invest and grow the economy. As a Calvinist, however (because I have a healthy respect for the doctrine of sin), I immediately recognized the danger in that approach -- that he would instead use his newly-awarded power to oppress the masses, and that's precisely what happened.

Two instances from 1984: Before I was hired there, the grocery chain where I worked for seven years strongarmed major wage and benefit concessions from its union workers. Earlier that year a bunch of union activists and some of their pastors disrupted my church's later Easter Sunday service amid complaints that church members who were executives with major steel companies were putting them out of work. (BTW, I live in Pittsburgh.)

Also happening was that, with the assumption that new office space would be needed, plenty of construction took place, which drove up the market for real estate -- and when those promised jobs never materialized the economy tanked (but this was during the first Bush presidency, so it wasn't directly tied to Reagan).

But conservatives were oblivious to all this and couldn't accept that their economic theories just didn't work, which is one reason why they resented (that word again) Bill Clinton so much for getting elected and cozying up to the business community -- part of the Reagan coalition -- in the process.

Joe_Allen_Doty

The "non-saving" son who left home did NOT get HALF of his father's wealth. He was the 2nd-born son.

That's because the first-born son in Israel and Judea always inherited TWICE what his younger brothers got.

Since there were just two sons in this parable, the younger son only got ONE-THIRD his father's wealth. (If there had been 3 sons in the family, the two younger ones would EACH have received ONE-FOURTH of their father's wealth with the 1st-born son getting half of the father's estate.

Because the father agreed to what the younger son asked, the older son became the owner of his father's real estate, meaning the farm on which they lived. But, the father, since he was still living, had authority over the older son and his son's property.

The older/1st-born son didn't have to ask his father for permission to kill a fatted calf while his younger brother was in that foreign country. The older son owned the animals on the farm anyway, even the goat he mentioned in Luke 15:29.

The older son tried to claim that his younger brother spent his inheritance on prostitutes. How did he know that? Or was he just making up lies to slander his younger brother? The KJV states that the son "wasted his substance with riotous living" and the NIV has "wild" in place of "riotous." But, the Greek word is "asotos" which merely means the opposite of "saving."

jeffp

So how do the AIG bonuses from the Stimulus fit in this story?

scat

I have always thought the older brother to be petty and greedy. He has the house, the land, the family wealth and he begrudges a party for his pathetic kid brother who has lost all his money and has been sleeping with pigs. Sure the older brother worked hard but he was also the recipient of good fortune, being born first for one thing.
I think it supremely arrogant to think that the good things in life are all the result of our hard work, that we deserve it, when in fact it is often the product of God's delivery to us of blessings that we took advantage of. Then we blame the bad things on bad fortune, rather than any shortcomings or shortsightedness on our part.
I am not wealthy, but I have enough, sometimes more than enough. I don't think He blesses us so that we can live a cushy life. I think those of us He has blessed with more than enough are supposed to share it gladly and acknowledge that all blessings are from God. We are on thin ice when we judge ourselves more worthy because we have "worked hard".

jmndodge

Tony, you fall into the trap of blaming the bailout on the ones who can't pay their mortgage. To provide home ownership and upward mobility in America, we have always had/will always have/and need to have people apply for mortgages. We know that it is and always will be the responsibility for the mortgage lenders to do due diligence, and to process and/or reject those loan applications. We also know that there will be life situations which change in 20 or 30 years (even the week after approval) where health, job, marriage status change and a loan goes bad. This results in nothing more the the lost interest earnings, and costs of foreclosure processing in a stable market, and is part of operating costs. These are "Younger brother" problems. In our American situation, the "Father" in the Mortgage Industry, and he is not gracious and filled with goodness, but is a Shyster. The housing bubble is caused by the derivative industry, the rush to lure people into inflated loans without following responsible (legally mandated requirements) and the mad rush to package and get rid of personal responsibility for their behavior. They made billions on processing loans, bundling them, and passing on the risk. The "Older brother" represents all those who profited from the scam, (hard working types living on "bubble values of our homes, market investors, and particularly those in the financial industry". We already bailed out those at the top, and protected them from any loss due to their criminal activity. Now you want us to feel like were are being abused when the victim of this criminal activity is being given some small help to struggle with debt they can't afford, but we can't afford for them to quit trying to pay. Tony, your "Confession" is a self righteous rant against the wrong people, and a smokescreen hiding the truth.

There was a time you helped move me toward the truth, but ... I think you have lost your way. Let's get back on the journey.

letjusticerolldown

I don't understand a whole lot about mortgages. But my gut says that something smells rotten in the whole system; which leads me to think we need to corporately find means of acquisition and ownership largely outside of the traditional mortgage system.

Traditionally the mortgage industry has tried to walk a very interesting line. On the one hand, they traditionally showed great diligence in making sure borrowers had the capacity to pay back. On the other hand, they showed great diligence upfront in qualifying and encouraging persons to offer on properties at the maximum possible pricepoint.

So in some regards it took only a small nudge in both directions (i.e. a little less diligence in qualifying and a little willingness to ratchet up the amount a person could borrow) to push the system over the cliff. It had been such a great market because it existed on the edge of the cliff.

Further, it was structured so every 2 or 3 or 7 years persons would be getting a new 30-year mortgage or refinancing for another 30; never paying off any principle.

Buy a home you want to live in long-term, pay it off, upgrade it, upgrade your neighborhood, build it so it will work for you thru retirement, build it so you or your parents or grandparents might live there with other family if/when needed.

WitnessforPeace

Brother Tony, you and Jim have helped me on my faith journey, which is why I logged in and found, with some disappointment, that your latest post was 7 months ago. I'm afraid I now agree with "There was a time you helped move me toward the truth, but ... I think you have lost your way. Let's get back on the journey." although I think Jim has fallen MUCH MUCH farther into conformity with the spirit of the times. The mortgage crisis is about a systemic failing, and I think your sincere sympathy for the dispossessed is missing the point both of the crooks (Democrats and Republicans) who caused the problem, and also the point of the parable. Tim Keller's "The Prodigal God" is a thoughtful, utterly non-ideological look at the parable from someone who "gets it"
Blessings,
Witness4Peace