EQUITY

a sermon preached by the Rev. Dr. Tim W. Jensen
at the First Religious Society in Carlisle, MA
Sunday March 7th, 2004

OPENING WORDS: “Not to give to those in need what to you is superfluous is akin to fraud.” -- St. Augustine


READING: Deuteronomy 15: 7-11 [12-18]


If you type the word “equity” into an internet search engine like Google or Yahoo, the first “hit” you will undoubtedly come across will be the web page for the British trade union for actors and other performing artists of that same name. But if you look over to the side of your screen, at the so-called “sponsored links,” what you will find will be a long list of solicitation after solicitation for home equity loans and credit lines. This is how “equity” is most commonly understood and used in ordinary conversation: the equity in our homes, or perhaps “equities” in which we invested the form of common stock, “shares” of some commercial enterprise which we own “corporately” in the company of other investors. And just as an aside, I learned the other day (from a very credible source), that there is now over a billion dollars worth of real estate equity here in the Town of Carlisle. A billion dollars is a lot of money, by any measure...and of course, because I live in a church-owned parsonage, I don’t actually share in any of it. But that doesn’t mean that I’m not invested in this community, or that I don’t have an interest in what goes on here, sharing in the ups and downs of the fortunes of my neighbors and fellow creatures.

The word “equity” itself comes from the Latin word “æques” meaning “equal” (and which should not be confused with the similar sounding “equus” meaning “horse”). If you look it up in any half-way decent unabridged etymological dictionary, you will basically find some combination of the same small handful of definitions, all of which build in slightly different directions on this original root meaning. In its most basic sense, “equity” means “fairness,” and “equitable” is essentially a synonym for “fair” or “even-handed.” More precisely, equity refers to the legal principle of impartiality, which asserts that every individual has the same right to be fairly heard, and to stand equally with all others before the law -- that we are all entitled to our day in court.

Then comes the financial sense that we’ve been talking about already -- the value of Property (most typically, but not exclusively, Real Estate) minus the amount owed against it...in other words, the part you own “free and fair,” without encumbrance, and which you have a right to redeem in a reasonable time even in the event of foreclosure by a creditor.

Finally, and perhaps most specifically, “Equity” refers to a system of legal rules and doctrines which resorts to general principles of fairness and justice, at times even superseding existing statutes or the common law, whenever established law proves inadequate for just settlement and an equitable resolution of a problem or conflict. In other words, Equity law is basically carte blanc for all those so-called “activist judges,” who are empowered by centuries of British and American legal tradition to root out injustice whenever it comes before them, by relying upon their own best judgment, and a fundamental spirit of fairness and equity .

Now all this leads me to the real question that I want to look at today, which is How do we go about creating “equity” in a Society? -- the kind of community which not only embraces basic principles of fairness and impartiality, but also one in which everyone gets a fairly even-handed opportunity to “buy in” and enjoy an equitable share of its underlying “value.” This is obviously a very complicated topic, and certainly not one which we are going to be able to exhaust in just a few minutes preaching on a Sunday morning. But it’s also a problem that should deeply concern each and every one of us, since it directly affects the quality of both the local and the world community in which we live. Theologians and Social Ethicists in particular sometimes talk about this problem in terms of Economic or “distributive” Justice -- how do we fairly divide up the wealth of a society, so that everyone receives an equitable share?

Not necessarily an equal share, since that would probably be impossible even if it were desirable. But an EQUITABLE share -- a fair share -- whatever that may be. Enough, perhaps, to keep body and soul together. Or maybe enough to assure every individual of life, and liberty, and perhaps even a little happiness...or at least the opportunity to pursue it. Economic justice is about more than merely an equitable distribution of wealth. Ultimately, it’s about relationships -- about benefits and privileges, rights, duties and responsibilities, and how they are shared within a society. Who owes what to whom and why? What kind of obligations do those whom God has smiled upon owe the less-fortunate, and what must the latter do to collect?

Ideas about what is fair and equitable vary from place to place and over time, and even for a single individual over the course of a lifetime. A young child will scream “That’s Not Fair!” whenever they don’t get their way, but as we grow older we come to realize that life isn’t always fair even though we wish it were...and that sometimes we can’t get what we want, or even what we need, no matter how hard we try. Perhaps our ideas about what we “really need” also change over time, as we come to understand our own needs and the needs of others better and more completely. Food, Clothing, Shelter, Education, Health Care, the opportunity to earn an honest living (as contrasted with the opportunity to “make a killing”).

Think about it for a moment: what might you personally add to or subtract from this list? What about transportation, for example: the freedom to move efficiently and affordably from place to place? What about the opportunity to fall in love and form a family...with someone of a different religion? With someone from a different race? With someone the same sex as yourself? As Americans, we tend to be uniquely militant about defending our own perceived “rights” and “freedoms,” but we can sometimes become a little short-sighted when it comes to acknowledging the accompanying duties and responsibilities, or defending the rights of others....especially when they are asserting the right to be different than us.

But the principle of equity insists that all individuals be treated impartially and even-handedly. There should NEVER be two standards of fairness: one for people like us, and another for people different than us. If anything, society should go out of its way to protect those who are incapable of protecting themselves: the widows, the orphans, the strangers. This understanding of equity goes all the way back to the Bible, to the ancient legal codes of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. I’ve always been fascinated by the attempts of certain individuals to read these books “literally,” as a set of divinely-inspired rules and regulations appropriate to governing contemporary behavior. Because more often than not, they aren’t actually interpreting these Scriptures literally at all -- instead, they read them through the filters of their own prejudice, finding support for things they already believe and naively ignoring or misinterpreting what they find disagreeable or don’t understand. And because they read them out of context, they often overlook the more basic, undergirding ethical principles which still give these texts contemporary relevance, despite the fact that they were originally written for a society which no longer exists and which was very different from our own.

Not always, of course. There are still people who “get it” -- some of them very conservative people theologically -- but who understand that just because the Bible talks about slavery (a lot), it doesn’t mean that we have a God-given right to own slaves, or that we should execute adulterers and disobedient children by publicly pelting them to death with heavy stones just because that’s what someone said you ought to do 3000 years ago. In order to truly understand what these texts are all about, you need to read them anthropologically -- you need to understand them accurately in their original context, discern the underlying ethical principles which give them their coherence, and then apply those principles meaningfully to contemporary times. And it’s a very difficult process, because no matter how excellent a scholar one may be, it is impossible not to bring SOME level of contemporary bias to the task. And yet, properly handled, this can be an important tool of discernment in its own right. The things that seem the most strange and unusual are the ones we should be most attentive to. And those that feel the most familiar likewise those which should be approached most skeptically and suspiciously.

There are times (not many, but a few) when I kinda wish that I were a preacher in an honest-to-God Bible-believing church, so that I could have the liberty to go line by line through a passage like the one I read earlier from the Book of Deuteronomy, and really “open the Scripture” to all of you without being afraid of starting a riot. (Of course, if this really were an honest-to-God Bible-Believing church, I would probably cause a riot anyway, just because of the nature of my exegesis). Because even though that particular passage may seem like a relatively straight-forward exhortation to give generously to one’s less-fortunate neighbors, it comes in the midst of a series of similarly prescriptive passages concerning kosher dietary laws, the practice of tithing, the notion of the so-called “sabbatical year,” (a kind of mini-jubilee or “sabbath” every seventh year, at which time creditors forgave the outstanding debts of their neighbors), and finally the equitable treatment of someone who has sold themselves to you as a slave.

And when you examine these passages side by side and in their historical and cultural context, you start to realize that these “laws” are not really about doing nice things for your neighbors out of the goodness of your heart or because it pleases God; they involve instead a systematic redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor FOR THE GOOD OF THE COMMUNITY ITSELF, a community which includes both rich and poor, all of whom face changing fortunes, all of whom are God’s people. It’s not about charity, or doing good works. It is an investment in what is sometimes called “Social Capital” -- strengthening the relationships which bind us together as neighbors, and allow us to depend on one another in times of crisis.

Of course, here in America in the 21st century, we do things exactly the opposite -- we encumber our children and our children’s children with massive amounts of debt in order to put more money in the pockets of the wealthiest 1% of the population, while at the same time jeopardizing the retirement and health care benefits of an entire generation. And I know there are many who dismiss this kind of talk as partisan political rhetoric, but if you just take a step back from it for a moment and try to look at the situation dispassionately, I think you’ll see that there are fundamental questions of equity and social justice at issue here, and that they concern us all, regardless of our political sentiments.

I believe in the entrepreneurial spirit. I believe in free enterprise, and a market economy -- I believe that incentives are important, and that economic growth, increased productivity, and the creation of wealth are all good things. But I also believe in environmental regulation, in living wages, in health and safety standards, and a society that looks first to protect the lives and livelihoods of its most vulnerable members, rather than subsidizing the extravagant lifestyles of its most affluent. Who really needs meaningful financial incentives more desperately: middle-aged corporate executives like Ken Lay and Dennis Kozlowski, or the 17-year-old inner-city High School drop-out, who is convinced by his entire life experience that there will never be a place at the table for him, simply because of the color of his skin? And even if they all end up in prison, as so many young African American males do these days, do you really think that there’s even the slightest chance that he will find himself eating at the same table as Dennis and Kenny-boy?

A good rant is healthy every now and again; it gets the blood flowing, and inspires the heart to reach out once more into the community, and help to do God’s work in the world. And I just want to say, here at the end of the hour, that I’m very proud of the work that this congregation does in the area of Social Action. Through our on-going partnership with Habitat, through our support of the Open Pantry and the House of Hope, the Bartlett School, the Sharing Foundation, and the various other programs and community agencies we reach out to and are involved with, we help to make small but significant improvements in the lives of hundreds of our “neighbors and fellow creatures” every year; and I know that there are many individuals in this church who do even more in their private lives, and are an inspiration and a good example to us all. Yet as important as this work is, the problems are even bigger. Private Charities and faith-based organizations simply can’t do it all; society as a whole needs to be reminded to make enough room for everyone in the boat, so that we all can float with the rising tide, rather than leaving some of us behind to sink beneath the waves and drown.