Considering Society's Correlation of Wealth and Virtue

The author of the Letter of James says that we shouldn't show partiality or favoritism based upon wealth, inside the Church or outside of it.  The author's statement cuts against the prevailing wisdom and ethos of our own society, as well as James' own

I would like to raise the simple question about whether or not the author is correct.  We begin by asking about why partiality has been shown in the first place.  Today, I believe, we show partiality to the wealthy because we believe that there is a correlation between wealth and virtue--the wealthier that a person is, the more virtuous that they must be.

If we are going to correlate wealth and virtue, we first would need to be informed about the true net worth of an individual that we are evaluating, so that the individual's virtue could thereby be measured.  But in our society today, there is often a difference between reality and perception when it comes to wealth.  Particularly before the financial crisis a few years ago, there was an explosion of the use of unsecured credit.  Someone who did not have the trappings of wealth could easily obtain tens of thousands of dollars of credit to obtain it.  That individual, with little actual net worth, could parade about with designer suits, shoes, and a fancy car.  For those that correlate wealth and virtue, this individual would appear to be virtuous, when they are actually in debt up to their figurative eyeballs.  In comparison, studies have demonstrated that a large number of millionaires actually live frugal lives and don't show the trappings of wealth.  In a fancy suburban church in Nashville, who would get the preferential treatment by the ushers at the front door?

When we are measuring someone's wealth in order to evaluate their virtue, we have to acknowledge, therefore, that what we are actually measuring is not the person's actual wealth, but our perception of their wealth, which might be drastically incorrect.  But let's assume that we can make an accurate measurement someone--let's imagine that an individual's worth is transparent and known to everyone.  If wealth were correlated to virtue, this raises the inference, for example, that public school teachers are not as virtuous as private school teachers who make more money.  Doctors who choose to work in the developing world or in clinics for the poor have less virtue than specialists in large hospitals.  Persons who do not have wealth but who suddenly inherit money or win the lottery suddenly obtain virtue.  Business executives who fraudulently obtain large sums of money are virtuous.

James is right.  When we really think through it, it makes no sense to show partiality based upon wealth.  There are virtuous rich.  There are virtuous poor.  There are rich who lack virtue.  There are poor who lack virtue.  Basing our opinion about someone upon our perception of their wealth is irrational.

But let's assume for a moment that virtue was a function of wealth and that those without wealth truly lack virtue.  If that were true, then this is all the greater reason to show partiality to those without wealth in Church.  The Church is, after all, a place where those who are lost can find salvation and redemption.  By analogy, a hospital gives its greatest resources to those who are in the most critical condition.  The best doctors are in the emergency room.  Patients are given the most care when they are in critical condition.  The more that we perceive someone to be lost, the more hospitable and welcoming we should be, because we are called to be a place where those who are lost can find their way home.