David Platt’s Radical: Taking Back Your Faith from the American Dream has inspired many Christians to reconsider their relationship with wealth and embrace sacrificial giving. While Platt’s passion for Kingdom work is commendable, his approach to economics and giving often reflects underlying assumptions that are more aligned with socialism than with a biblical worldview. From a Christian Reconstructionist perspective, his theology of giving—particularly the idea that discretionary funds should almost entirely be redistributed through the church or missions—not only neglects biblical principles of stewardship but also assumes wealth is a zero-sum game.
Platt’s Vision of Radical Sacrifice
Platt writes: "We are settling for a Christianity that revolves around catering to ourselves when the central message of Christianity is actually about abandoning ourselves."
He challenges Western Christians to reject materialism and sacrificially give their excess wealth to the church and global missions. He shares stories of individuals who drastically reduce their standard of living to fund missionary endeavors, suggesting this level of self-denial is the essence of faithfulness.
Underlying this call, however, is a consistent implication that wealth disparities are a moral problem to be solved by redistribution. Platt suggests that the abundance enjoyed by affluent Christians is inherently sinful because it contrasts with the poverty of others: "We stand guilty of materialism, and our affluence blinds us to the needs of the world around us."
While this conviction may resonate emotionally, it implicitly assumes that wealth accumulation by some is directly responsible for poverty elsewhere. This zero-sum thinking aligns more closely with socialist ideology than with the biblical principles of growth and multiplication that underpin Christian Reconstructionism.
"The accumulation of wealth at one pole of society is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutalization, and moral degradation at the opposite pole." - Karl Marx
The Reconstructionist Framework
Christian Reconstructionists reject the notion that wealth disparities are inherently problematic or that redistributing it is the solution to poverty. Instead, they emphasize that wealth creation, when pursued within the bounds of God’s Law, is a blessing that expands the resources available for Kingdom work. Gary North critiques zero-sum economics, noting: "The idea that one man’s gain is another man’s loss is not biblical economics; it is a myth born of envy and sustained by coercive redistribution schemes." (The Dominion Covenant: Genesis).
David Chilton adds:"Economic growth under biblical law creates an expanding pie. Wealth is not stolen or static—it is created through obedience, labor, and innovation. God’s blessings do not diminish when shared; they multiply." (Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt-Manipulators).
It is worth noting that David Chilton’s book was written in response to the “Radical” of his time, and reads almost like a direct response to Platt because of it. The same ideas need denouncing in each generation.
The Bible presents wealth as the product of diligent work, wise stewardship, and obedience to God’s commands (Proverbs 10:4; Deuteronomy 28:1–14). Poverty, by contrast, is often (not exclusively) linked to disobedience, laziness, or systemic sin (Proverbs 6:10–11; 28:19). By portraying wealth itself as morally suspect and favoring redistribution, Platt’s approach undermines these biblical principles.
The Pitfall of Socialist Redistribution
At its core, Platt’s emphasis on immediate, sacrificial giving uncannily resembles a socialist redistribution. Socialism operates on the premise that economic disparities are inherently unjust and that forced redistributing of that wealth is necessary to achieve justice. Similarly, Platt’s insistence on radical giving implies that wealth held by Christians in affluent nations is intrinsically unjust and must be redistributed either as a means to alleviate global poverty or to free affluent christians from the sin of being wealthy.
This perspective fails to account for the dynamic nature of wealth creation. Economic productivity grows when individuals and families are free to use their God-given talents to create, innovate, and build. Redistribution, by contrast, often stifles productivity by penalizing success and encouraging dependency.
A Biblical Alternative
The Bible offers a better way. Rather than advocating for wealth redistribution, Scripture calls Christians to practice generosity within a framework of stewardship and economic growth. Consider these examples:
The Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14–30): The master praises servants who multiply resources through diligent work and wise investment. Far from condemning wealth, this parable highlights the importance of growing and managing it faithfully.
Joseph in Egypt (Genesis 41): During years of plenty, Joseph stores surplus grain to prepare for future famine. This strategic stewardship saves Egypt and neighboring nations, demonstrating the power of foresight and resource management.
The Jubilee Laws (Leviticus 25): While the Jubilee ensured that ancestral lands returned to families, it also affirmed the principle of property rights and economic productivity, rather than imposing permanent equality.
These examples reveal that God’s design for wealth is not redistribution but multiplication. Christians are called to grow their resources through obedience and hard work, then use their wealth to advance the Kingdom and care for others. You cannot pour from an empty cup, nor can you be truly generous when what you are giving away is someone else’s money.
An Illustration of Stewardship vs. Redistribution
To illustrate this principle, let’s consider a practical scenario:
A Christian family has $500 per month in discretionary income left after they tithe. Platt’s model would encourage giving it all immediately to the church or missions, amounting to $240,000 over 40 years., This is no small amount of money, but they could have given more without costing them anything extra.
Now, consider an alternative approach:
Monthly investment of $500 at 10% interest:
Total contributions: $240,000
Final balance after 40 years: $3,162,000
By investing, the family creates wealth that multiplies far beyond the original sum. At the end of 40 years, they could give the entire $3.17 million to the church or tithe annually on the growth (approximately $316,200) every year from that point on, or a hybrid strategy so that the family's church benevolence fund can continue to grow year after year.
This approach not only reflects faithful stewardship but also recognizes that wealth is not static. Christians are not limited to redistributing what they currently have; they are called to expand their capacity to give by growing their resources first.
Most churches operate more like checking accounts than investment accounts, spending every dollar they receive rather than growing it themselves. If your church has an actively managed endowment, that’s great, but most do not. If a church has a surplus beyond their baseline needs, they will find a way to spend it or otherwise donate it. The extra $500 may end up being spent on folding tables for a parachurch ministry event on the other side of the country. If you save it and invest it, however, within your lifetime you might be able to personally fund the building of an entire church.
A Charge to Congregants
I urge you to embrace long-term stewardship. Faithfulness involves more than blindly giving generously; it requires thinking strategically about how to maximize the impact of God’s blessings over time. Wealth is not evil—it is a tool for dominion. Through thrift, investment, and entrepreneurial efforts, you can multiply your resources and fund Kingdom work on a much larger scale. Save a little oil from your lamp, so that your childrens’ can burn ten times as bright.
A Charge to Pastors
Pastors, you have a vital role in shaping your congregants’ understanding of wealth. Instead of promoting guilt-driven giving that assumes wealth disparity is a moral problem, you should disciple your flocks in biblical economics. Teach them to view wealth as a means of fulfilling the dominion mandate. Encourage strategic giving that multiplies resources for the Kingdom rather than merely redistributing them, even if that means a smaller church budget in the short term. The pastor who succeeds you will thank you for planting those trees you knew you would likely never sit under the shade of.
Conclusion
David Platt’s Radical challenges Christians to rethink their approach to wealth and generosity, but its underlying assumptions often mirror socialist ideas of redistribution and zero-sum economics rather than the Biblical approach which affirms that wealth is a blessing to be grown and stewarded wisely.
The dominion mandate calls believers to create, multiply, and steward wealth for the glory of God and the advancement of His Kingdom. Faithfulness requires more than radical short-term sacrifice; it demands long-term vision, strategic planning, and the conviction that God’s blessings are meant to grow, not diminish. Let us give generously—not impulsively— and invest wisely, so that our contributions endure for generations to come.
Commentaires