Dear Brandon,

Thanks for taking the time to write again. I appreciate that you are continuing to wrestle with this issue, and welcome your comments. I saw both of your posts today at the same time, so I have no idea why your other one didn't appear immediately. I'm not moderating, so I don't know what that was about - usually posts appear immediately, and I'm not doing anything to control that.

Brandon, do I understand you correctly that you maintain that Jesus taught that the righteous sometimes underpay their employees and that is acceptable to God? Are you defending here that Jesus gives us the "OK" to choose whether or not we want to pay our workers fairly, and that whatever we choose is OK, because it is our money to do with as we will?

I think you would be hard pressed - though I invite you to prove me wrong - to find a biblical text (in its proper context, held in tension with other scriptures, etc) to support the idea that underpaying someone who has done their work well and completely is ever righteous. See Deut. 15:9-11, as well as 1 Tim 5:18 and Deut 25:4, along with others texts, especially in Proverbs and the minor prophets, that speak unmistakably about justice as it relates to the righteous and wages they pay and are paid.

From what I can discern from what I know of the whole counsel of scripture, God never commends a righteous man for giving someone less than fair payment for work they have done. If you know of a text to prove me wrong on that, I welcome you to bring it to my attention. I'm certainly open to correction and I want my convictions to conform to scripture.

However, as far as I can see, there are beau coup texts that admonish God's people toward generosity - i.e. going above and beyond what is deserved.

Again, Matthew 20 is emphasizing Jesus' generosity, not an employer's right to do with his money whatever he wants. I say that confidently for two reasons. Number one, Jesus is defending his right to be generous, (so I don't think to use that same text as a defense for greediness will work), and two, the Bible says plenty elsewhere about God's expectation of how a righteous employer is to handle his money, as it relates to paying his employees, and those passages do not in the least support a theology of righteous stinginess. Consider:
- An employer does not have the right to hold back wages from his employee (Lev 19:13)
- An employer must not take advantage of a hired man who is poor and needy, whether he is a brother or a foreigner (Deut. 24:14)
- An employer must provide for his employees fairly (Col. 4:1)

In each case, the employer's right to do with his money what he wants is not without limits. I.e., he is not permitted to underpay or take advantage of his workers.

Conversely, there are extensive passages admonishing the righteous toward generosity, namely Psalm 37:21, Prov 11:25, Acts 10:2, 2 Cor 9:11, 1 Tim. 6:18, for starters.

You mentioned my appeal to grace as grounds for paying fair wages. The context of my comments were in relation to you using Jesus' defense of generosity as a defense of stinginess (it's my money and I can do with it as I will). So I was simply making the point that, if we're going to err on one side or the other, we must never err on the side of stinginess. But no, I was not saying that we must always pay more than is deserved. (I certainly tried not to pay more for my car than I had to! But I'm sure I still paid more than it was worth!!)

Jesus paid the workers who started in the first shift of the morning what they deserved, and that was right (and righteous).

But he paid those who came in the eleventh hour the same amount; that was generous, and that was also right (and righteous).

Had he paid any of them LESS than they deserved, it would have been wicked. That is the point I am making. Anyone who has a revelation of the meaning of grace will never go BEHIND what is fair and just - they will do what is fair (which is just) or BEYOND what is fair (which is generous). Either way is commendable, but generosity, at least from what I see in scripture, always gains a higher commendation from God.

I appreciate you taking time to write and that you are engaged with this issue. My prayer is that we who are in Christ and have tasted of his insurmountable mercy and generosity would respond with an eagerness to demonstrate mercy and generosity to others, never, ever greed or stinginess. There is no defense for a greedy Christian, in light of the eternal gift of grace we possess.

It's interesting that you asked about whether I would pay more for groceries than they are worth... I would. I would (and sometimes do) pay more for produce and coffee in order to support companies that employ fair labor practices with their employees. (I don't usually pay more for clothes because it doesn't get much cheaper than Salvation Army!) I could buy coffee in the grocery store for $5/lb. or I can buy it for $9/lb. from Dean's Beans (www.deansbeans.com), which guarantees fair labor and wages for their workers in developing nations, and gives many of their proceeds to humanitarian relief causes, both at home and abroad. So in that respect, the answer to your question is yes, I would and sometimes do.

Peace & Grace,
Christy

Dear Curious,

Thanks for the additional comments. I'll address your questions in order.

As for people on a limited income for whom Wal-Mart is their most convenient and affordable retail resource, well, I can only tell you how I - who definitely fit that description - do it. Quite simply, I go without or go to a different store and pay a bit more. In other words, I inconvenience myself.

I find it hard to believe that there are folks for whom Wal-Mart is their only option. It may be the cheapest and most convenient, but not their only option. I do believe that we are called to inconvenience ourselves at times, and this is one of them.

I buy most of my clothes at Salvation Army, church thrift shops, Target, and Fair Indigo (which, while their regular prices are high, their sale prices are killer. And everything there is guaranteed fair trade - www.fairindigo.com. Wonderful people doing wonderful things there).

I buy household items at my grocery store, usually store brand. I check sales and plan my shopping in order to get the best bang for my buck.

Re: your job... I don't think anything I said indicates that EVERYONE who does not receive benefits should claim inhumane working conditions. There are many reasons why someone in America would choose to work a part time job without benefits - I did it myself for several years in order to take long periods of time off from work so I could volunteer overseas. That is an entirely different situation than the well-documented circumstances for which Wal-Mart has been criticized, in terms of their employment practices. Although I don't know you or the circumstances of your employment, the fact that you are sitting at a computer somewhere, with the luxury of responding to my blog, tells me that you are not likely surviving on minimum wage alone.

Have you ever been beaten for not producing enough products during your shift? Have you ever been forced to work overnight - even locked in your factory - because they needed more items produced on a deadline? Have you endured the above circumstances while working for less than minimum wage? Those are the types of inhumane conditions I'm referring to - hardly comparable, I would venture to guess, to your situation.

(But if you HAVE suffered these circumstances, then by all means, YES you are in inhumane conditions and you should call the Dept. of Labor IMMEDIATELY to wage a formal complaint.)

Re: your question about "why Wal-Mart," here are a few reasons:

It is the world’s largest private corporation, employing more than 1.6 million people worldwide—more people than Ford, GM, GE and IBM combined.

The company serves 138 million customers per week worldwide and has outstripped any competitor.

In 2004, it pocketed $10.3 billion in profits, on sales of $285 billion, more business than Target, Sears, Kmart, J.C. Penney, Safeway and Kroger combined.

Wal-Mart alone is China’s eighth-largest trading partner.

It accounts for over 10 percent of our annual trade deficit with China, with over 70 percent of Wal-Mart products made in China.

Wal-Mart is infamous for requiring workers to work overtime off the books. It’s been cited for locking workers in plants overnight. The company has been hauled into court for discriminating against female employees. And it is viciously, rabidly anti-union, crushing any attempt by its workers to organize to gain a fair share of the profits they help generate.

Given its size in the United States, Wal-Mart is a major force in driving wages down and forcing cutbacks in benefits. It is a central reason why we have an economy in which CEO salaries are up, stocks are up, but wages are down.

In China, Wal-Mart pushes its suppliers to lower their costs, generating sweatshops in which young workers—primarily women—are forced to work grotesque hours at subsistence wages. According to The Washington Post , Wal-Mart even pressures its suppliers to pay less than the Chinese minimum wage.

It’s estimated that Wal-Mart’s government subsidies total a whopping $2.7 billion, or $2,100 per employee. An internal memo to the board leaked recently reported that “our [health care] coverage is expensive for low-income families, and Wal-Mart has a significant percentage of associates and their children on public assistance." In fact, nearly one-half of the children of Wal-Mart employees are either on Medicaid or have no insurance at all."

(The above stats are from http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2005/11/14/target_walmart.php)

These are just a few reason.

Again, thanks for the dialog. I appreciate your time and that you are engaged with this issue. I don't mind disagreeing... I do mind ignoring!

Grace and peace,
Christy