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)