Home » story & idea

Biblical Economics 1-0-what?

Submitted by Jordan Peacock on May 6, 2008 – 7:27 amComments
Print This Post

Ok, I’m a bit confused.

We’re not exactly poor. My wife and I have both grown up having more than enough, and we live comfortably and have very little debt (soon to be none). But as we explore what the Bible has to say about finances, we feel pulled a few different directions. In Proverbs 13 we learn that a good man has an inheritance for his children’s children; that requires some capital, long term savings or investments, and quality relationships with one’s progeny. You think about the audience for that, they had more than one child typically, so you’re not talking a small amount of money. Yet Jesus commands to “give to anyone who asks” in Matthew 5. You have a weird collision in the New Testament of couples such as Aquila & Priscilla who make their living making tents, or Lydia who has more of a ‘luxury goods’ business (sounding like the woman in Proverbs 31), but then Acts mentions how “Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.”

And how well did that work anyway? A decade or two later and Paul is taking up offerings for the church in Jerusalem, possibly due to a kind of ecclesiastic economic collapse. The blessed become the beggars? Perhaps in some perverse sense the martyrdom had an auxiliary benefit: keeping the stress on the ecclesial budget down.

Jesus had nowhere to lay his head (Matthew 8). Judas kept their money (John 12), but it never says how much, and no matter what the prosperity preachers claim, I find nothing about Jesus’ secret mansion there so I don’t think Jabez (1 Chronicles 4) helps much. Jacob’s flocks were ‘blessed’ by quasi-magical deviousness. (Genesis 30).

Jesus’ parables make things really interesting, especially for those with a capitalist or communist predisposition. He claims the kingdom of God for the poor in Luke chapter 6 and in chapter 8 feeds the crowds. At the end of chapter 9 he reiterates his lack of accommodations. His prayer in Luke 11 asks for “daily bread” but he follows it with a promise for receiving whatever you ask of God. The Pharisees are condemned for their classism and their tithe, and a heart of giving is praised even when the giver has little to give (Luke 21). Chapter 12 describes a rich fool, and Jesus recommends an almost naive approach to life’s needs; give everything away, do not save or store up on earth. He then praises shrewd investors in his parable in chapter 14, and follows that parable with another featuring a nameless rich man in hell. The rich young ruler (Luke 18) is commanded to sell all his possessions and give to the poor. A reformed tax collector gives half his possessions to the poor and reimburses those he cheated. Jesus throws the salespeople out of Jerusalem. He gives an ambivalent answer regarding taxes and ends up getting betrayed for 30 silver coins. I guess Judas was sick of stealing from an empty wallet.

Seriously though; there is a strong, recurring theme in Jesus’ life and the lives of the New Testament church that emphasizes essentially:

a) Give, abundantly, cheerfully, constantly.
b) Live very simply. (Homeless, nomadic, or communal seem to be the trends).
c) Trust God for your needs.

How does that jive with the Hebrew scriptures regarding financial wisdom, inevitably the stuff being quoted in sermons surrounding tithes, investment, budgeting and wealth creation? How does that work with Christians who were businesspeople? (a role that unlike governmental positions, temple prostitution or soldiery, was permitted) How do I figure that out when, on the one hand, I know that Jesus didn’t die for my 401(k), but I still have one?

Author Bio:: Jordan Peacock lives and works in Minnesota with his beautiful wife and daughter. When not playing with technology or music, he’s writing comic books and wrapping up a university education.

http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_32.png

About Mark Van Steenwyk

Mark Van Steenwyk is a member of Missio Dei. He is a speaker, writer, educator, and grassroots organizer. With the support of the Central Plains Mennonite Conference, he travels to radical and intentional communities around the country to help network and offer support.

  • Whew! Good stuff here - in addition to Blomberg's work I would recommend "Good News to the Poor: John Wesley's Evangelical Economics" by Theodore Jennings, Jr.

    Old Wesley - what a radical! I reposted, with the author's permission, a story of one man's economic/ethical struggle with wearing $30 Gap shirts that his Indian friends were paid pennies to sew. He references a story of Wesley - the "plunder of the poor" he discovered in his own home, and what Wesley did about it (http://athada.blogspot.com/2007/03/globalizatio...).
  • Family Lutheran Services has been working specifically with Burma for a while now. Unfortunately the government there is the main barrier to helping those people. I know John Piper's church is planning a trip, and that Doctors Without Borders are involved. Opening your home to invite refugees or sponsoring an immigrant seems to be the most effective way to help.
    Also, look up the ISI ministries to international students and find someone from near there. Ask them how you can help. Family Lutheran is a national organization which most likely has an office near you.
  • Agreed again. I propose capitalism for the world and altruism for believers. That is, I assume full and exclusive responsibility for the least of these as a Christian.
    I don't think the state should do anything at all about poor people. I think that the poor are the church's responsibility, and only the church's responsibility.
    I believe this because I believe unregenerate humans are incapable of pure altruism. Whenever they are charitable they are doing so for some selfish motive. (There is the exception, sometimes God moves a person to do something good even though they have not accepted him. This is a special grace to both them and the recipient of the good work and is consistent with God's sovereignty.
    So, we should work for pure voluntarist systems within the world, because they do the last harm. Then we should accept the peculiar mandate which Christ gave specifically (and I mean exclusively) to the church.
    The good work is the blessing. If there is any good to be done systematically it must be done through the church. Sometimes the best we can do is work hard or invest in someone who can make better (more productive) use of the resources. We must always look first to the least of these, strictly defined.
    We cannot hope for altruism from the state. We cannot expect any better from unbelievers.
  • JMorrow
    This has certainly been a vigorous conversation to sit in on. Juris, your arguments on the merits of capitalism sound solid and remeniscent of my college political economy and Int' trade courses. I'm also aware of the drawbacks and critiques of the morphing of capitalism into state/industrial collusion. But I think its also apropos to this discussion to bring talk about wealth and poverty from the macro to the micro level, and from economic theory to biblical narrative. I still feel like these discussions are so far apart from one another.

    While I'm extremely sympathetic to the Church more rigorously and comprehensively taking on the cause of the poor, I have to ask who among the poor wants to wait until we get our collective act together? What woman, man or child should have to wait in suffering until Christians decide how to best organize themselves and take on that collective responsibility? We still have a long way to go in convincing Christians on an individual and congregational level to take that calling with seriousness and vigor. So I can understand why governments, corporations and other groups outside the "Church" feel the need to engage in that work. Voluntarist systems would be in the long run most profitable to dealing with global material and spiritual needs, but from a Christian perspective I think those systems will only be profitable when they match "ends" with "means" I think the Gospels tell us its not just about "feeding Jesus sheep" or carrying for the widow and the orphan but that how we do those things effects the ends. There's a reason why Jesus refuses the Devil's offer to turn a stone into a loaf of bread. Not just any means will do. The Gospel teachings and stories offer us not just worthy goals but also worthy strategies, ideas and callings. I think capitalism and other economic/pol systems will have to address these "means" questions in order for Christians to utilize them with integrity and faith. But I think that as Christians engage ministering to the poor globally we need to understand how monumental a task that is!

    Also, while I'm curious about your definition for "unregenerate" I would take issue with the notion that noone besides a practicing Christian is capable of pure altruism. I seriously doubt even practicing Christians are able to do attain it. I'm reminded of Paul's words,

    "I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing."

    Selfless giving is a grace when it comes, and the Spirit blows where it will. If we are to live out the calling of the Church to minister to the poor then in this day and age I think that requires us to also partner with those who while not sharing our story are not incapable of sharing our cause. In fact that may turn out to be a great moment for sharing our faith. Hope some of these thoughts stir further discussion.
  • I'm not sure whether to be pleased or scared with how much we agree.... *laughs*

    So a good case study then....there is possibly 100,000 dead in Myanmar due to the cyclone there, many more injured. What can we do? Who knows people we can work with?
  • jurisnaturalist- you said "...there are unlimited resources in this world." would disagree. They may seem "unlimited", and I guess, in a sense, our resources haven't gone anywhere- just changed into something else, but there definitely isn't unlimited resources. And yes, God can continue creating new resources, if he wants, but my guess is that he wants us to be good stewards of the resources he has given us rather than creating new ones when we have trashed everything he has created already. Resources are limited...

    I would like to hear the reasoning behind the idea that there are unlimited resources.

    And, if resources are limited, how big can we make the pie? Isn't there a point at which there is too many of us for the world to sustain us, even if resources are distributed well? What does it mean to trust our creator and provider God in a world of limited resources? Do we trust that he will provide more if we reach our limits?
  • Hi Maria!
    I actually believe that there are unlimited resources in this world. The question is always, "At what price."
    Or better yet, how many of those resources do we know how to utilize, and then, at what price?
    300 years ago oil was a black mud which was a nuisance because you could not grow on it. 100 years ago nuclear was a dream. 50 years ago agricultural yields were half of what they are today.
    We don't know what the future will be like, but I am optimistic.
    Be good stewards, of course! Waste not, want not.
    The pie can continue to grow. The world could easily hold many times again the number of people alive right now. Malthus wrote his dire predictions of overpopulation around 1800, when the global population was at the most 1 billion, 1/6 th of today's. He was wrong.
    N Snow
  • Ok, I do believe that progress and technological advances can help us further our resources or get the most out of each resource, but you still have to say that resources are limited. We will reach a limit to how much food an acre can produce or how much more energy we can produce from fossil fuels. Yes, progress means stretching or multiplying our limited resources, but that doesn't mean that they are "unlimited". I also think a lot of our huge expansion of resources came from the growing use of fossil fuels, which then led to a growing world population. And I do believe that fossil fuels are in limited supply and will one day be used up. Then we will lose a lot of our current ability to expand our resources as we do (fertilizers for food production, desalinization for water production, oil for plastics production)... unless we find an equally abundant energy source. We cannot plan on forever expanding our limited resources through progress, technology, and the use of fossil fuels. My bet? The pie will continue to grow, but not for forever.
  • I agree with Maria that our resources are limited. This is a finite planet. I agree with Nathanael that the pie can continue to grow as we become more creative in the way we use those resources. My concern is that a lot of the growth of our pie has been done with only short term goals in mind rather than long term goals. I think that is the whole point of trying to have wealth to give to your grandchildren. When we think of how we might provide cake for future generations, we're not so worried about having cake now. Because so much of our economic growth is focused on the short term, we are going to have to pay for it in the long term. Unfortunately, those that pay are not the same ones who benefit. Pure capitalism, without any government regulation, would only look at the short term and would be a very unjust system indeed.

    I agree that capitalism is a very practical economic solution. I see the same principles working in the natural world. However, it has extremes which can be very unpleasant to say the least -even in the natural world. This is where generosity comes in. Generosity is a form of grace. Capitalism works on a contractual basis. It's like the OT law. This is good, but it has limits. Grace moves us past the law. It gives us what the law can't, and helps us to become law abiders. Generosity does the same thing in economics. It allows those who have nothing, or who are loosing everything, to become players in the economic game again.

    I believe wealth is a responsibility. If we are not able, or do not have the time or inclination, to manage that responsibility to benefit the most people both now and in the future, then we should give our wealth away to someone(s) who can.
  • Brilliant!
    So much of making wise decisions is looking at the long run instead of the short run. I am fond of saying, "Wealth is how far you can see into the future." Seeing into your grandchildren's generation is a good first step. Planning long term like that encourages savings and investment. It also encourages fair business dealings with success dependent upon repeat business rather than short term gains from scamming. Does anyone read e-mail from Nigeria anymore? No, we know better. Scams only work int the short run because we learn.
    Some economists try to say that the more rational individuals will always plan for the long run and will avoid trying to scam people. But there are always people who can't see that far into the future. I call them pagans. That's an ugly word, but what I mean by it is that they believe in a static universe. An unchanging world wherein they must appease each of several gods. They can't see into the long run because their idols have nothing to say about the future, only demands placed on the individual today.
    Government tends to do the same to us. Legalism also has similar results. And guilting people into giving is the same monster. I had a pastor who used to say, "Don't should on yourself, and don't should on other people."
    I really like the capitalism = OT analogy. I'm going to use it, with your permission. For unregenerate people, they have only the law, and the law is the best they can do. I don't think we as believers can hold them accountable to anything other than adherence to the law. I believe that God distinguishes between laws common to all peoples and laws peculiar to the Jews, and then as believers he frees us from all of these to transcend them.
    Now to look at the effect of the multinational corporation Joe and I were discussing, does the existence of multinationals encourage people to think about short term gains, or long term gains? It depends, of course, but I'd say that on the whole the ability to invest in stocks, etc. draws people into thinking more about the long run, making them less likely to defraud others. Nothing biblical here, just conjecture (and heaps upon heaps of historical empirical evidence).
    Nathan
  • Thanks for the compliment. Feel free. I think it's good to discuss money in Church -more than give generously, so God will bless you. Like sex, money is one of those deep dark secrets we don't discuss, giving it the opportunity to fester and ferment into something that will make us drunk with lust. By bringing it honestly out into the open, we give ourselves a chance to receive grace and transform our desires into something that will bless others.
  • That is nonsense, and frankly very easy to state when you are within the 20% of the world population that uses 70% of the resources and never likely to be in a situation of severe shortage.
  • Which is nonsense? My facts or my optimism? Perhaps it is my patience and lack of sense of urgency at what some hail as a crisis? How is it a crisis when things have steadily been getting better for 200+ years? How much better is good enough?
    What do you propose instead?
  • 40% of the planet do not even have access to clean sanitation. How much is good enough - how about not dying for the sake of medicines costing a few cents, how about having clean water, sanitation, enough food...? Basics wouldn't you say?
  • Hey, I'm all for helping with clean sanitation. Who should pay for it, though? Does it matter? Does it matter to God what means we employ? That's what this whole blog is about, I thought!
    And why don't they have clean sanitation? Again it is their lousy governments!
  • Yeah, I suspect God wants us to repent of the institutional sins we find ourselves swept along in - which act to make the poor poorer.

    As for lousy governments - you ever hear of the IMF? Why do you think the lousy governments are so lousy?
  • Yes, the IMF was created by other governments. It has not done much good. William Easterly and Paul Collier agree on this much.
    I think government in general is lousy. I think it is a bad idea.
    Law, on the other hand seems to be a good idea.
    Government is the monopolization of the use of force.
    Law is the leveling of rights for all.
    Frederic Bastiat has some excellent essays dealing with the subject which are available for free download.
    My contention is that so often the market is blamed for problems in the government, and almost always the prescribed cure is more government.
    The only cure is Jesus, as campy as that sounds, it is true. And the primary Jesus the world will see is you and me.
    So, it is our responsibility. The agenda:
    1. Work to eliminate the sources of privilege.
    2. Assume full responsibility for the least of these.
  • Well, yeah. The Bretton Woods institutions were created (and are still mostly owned) by rich countries and have mostly acted against the interests of the poor by policies which encourage exports over self reliance.

    I don't think it is the market itself which is at fault, but the fact that we live in an extremely unequal world, so that it can never work in a fair way. I also have little faith in government, but even less in the beneficial effects of a free market.

    I can't disagree with your agenda.
  • I appreciate your vigour, but it can be taken for antagonism. Please discuss these issues with (more apparent) respect for those you disagree with.
  • I'm sorry, I didn't realise I was acting without respect. I thought I was attempting to answer the points put to me and Nathan was attempting to do the same with the points I put to him.
  • Maybe I'm just defensive of the term "Capitalism." What we have now is not it. The corruption you speak of is better called Mercantilism, in which industry is complicit with the state.
    There are two ways which a person can get hurt in an economy. One is to be cheated, defrauded, or to have their business suffer from political favoritism towards a competitor.
    The other is to lose to competition. That is, for a competitor to undercut a price or to provide a better service, which causes business to fall.
    The first occurs in Mercantilism and is the result of power.
    The second occurs within Capitalism and is the result of fair competition.
    Nothing is static, nor should it be.
    Multinationals are neither just nor unjust.
    The political systems within which firms chose to operate may be either just or unjust. If they show no favoritism but merely enforce contracts and protect rights they are just. If they permit privilege they are unjust. All political systems are unjust.
    Multinationals expose themselves to more political structures, and operate within more unjust systems. They just work to make a profit within those structures. If those structures show no favoritism, they will operate under those conditions. If those systems do show favoritism the multinational would be foolish to not seek to gain privilege.
    The problem is not with the institution of multinational firms, but with the corruption of the law which permits it to show privilege.
    This is largely semantical, but if the clarification is not made we might sacrifice voluntary exchange unnecessarily, which I am loathe to do.
    Nathanael Snow
  • I was talking about capitalism. It doesn't take government for one businessman to figure out that if he cuts his employee's wages he'll make a better profit.

    True, IF everyone, everywhere, at everytime, on every issue had multiple choices, ranging in all directions, then they could truly put their money/effort behind whichever one they felt and that capitalist system would 'work'. The truth is that monopolies and limited choices are far closer to many aspects of reality; I can't choose from ANY job, just the ones available. And sometimes the only worthwhile alternatives are so far shunted and buried that one must step well outside the walls of general culture to embrace them.

    As mentioned; capitalism, like the ideas of benevolent dictators, communist utopias and anarchist ideas of no governance, would work ideally given implausible and unrealistic input. It doesn't have that idealistic input (us), therefore we must make do with a system that is, at best, a series of pros and cons. It's more something to be wary of than to put faith in, even if one utilizes it.
  • you make some valid, good economic points hewhocutsdown.
    If there are unlimited inputs we get good capitalist systems.
    You mention monopolies, though. Where do monopolies come from? Show me a monopoly that is not supported by the state in some way, and I'll show you one that regularly lowers their prices and improves the wealth of all. Monopolies are not a natural product of pure capitalist systems, they are an anomaly. We hear a lot of ranting and raving about monopolies from politicians and the press but most often those monopolies have been granted some political privilege which enables them into their monopolist position.
    I compare capitalism, communism, and monarchy (or whichever form of benevolent dictatorship you prefer) along both economic and ethical grounds. Economically, neither the beneficient dictator nor the communist economy can work because they require a central planner who knows more than anyone can know. Hayek and Mises have been accepted even by the mainstream on this point..
    On ethical grounds, both the dictatorship and communism require the use of force. Capitalism renounces force.
    N Snow
  • Let me rephrase it a bit here too. Adam Smith understood that, despite the attempts of some states and the church, you get a better model of human behaviour if you work with what you have, not with what you would like to have. It's all nice to believe everyone would just like to pay taxes and tithes and help their neighbor out of goodwill, but it's far more realistic to realize that when people do this it's still usually out of their self-interest.

    The problem with that model is in it's success; by focusing on what is, there is little room for transcendence. The room is self-interest; try to move past that and you hit the ceiling. Anything modeling itself on selflessness is inherently not capitalist, by definition. So following a selfless God within a selfish system is going to be a bit of a curious trip one way or another.

    Again; capitalism is great in that it is one of the most 'down-to-earth' economics systems humanity is devised. That is what gave it birth and that is it's greatest flaw.
  • You are correct that monopolies and the like rely on coertion of some kind, but to limit that to governmental involvement is simplistic. Whether it's a government (national, state, local), a tribe, a gang, a corporate head or a scheming businessman, people who want to force people's hands often can. Now a monopoly in the wild rarely exists without competitors, but the point is that their competitors are so weak/ravaged that an alternative does not exist.

    Coca-Cola hiring guerillas to assassinate union members and leaders in Colombia is a great example. Another is the company scrip used by many mining corporations, forcing men, women and children to work in horrific conditions to make a pittance to purchase overpricing goods from the company. There are many more examples, particular as one works backwards in history.
  • Agreed. These examples are not capitalism, but force. That is semantical, but important. Firms like these could not get away with their behaviors without the compliance of the state which has as its mandate to execute justice. These are not failures of capitalism, but of the state to either stay within its bounds or to effect its mandate.
  • No, there are plenty of ways for the poor and those without power to be affected by rampant capitalism. In an unfair world, the poor which produce most of the raw materials literally slave away to prop up the profits of the rich.

    Further, true capitalism always capitalises on the poorest to protect the bottom line, hence the race to the bottom in most sectors. In the textile sector, which I know a little about, this means that the nastiest cheapest factories in the cheapest countries are used - until development and stronger laws means that it is cheaper to produce somewhere else That is nothing to do with political favouritism as far as I can see, but blatant exploitation of the poorest by the rich.

    Multinational corporations are considered to be individual entities yet are claimed to be amoral. But what do you call a system that grows food for the rich whilst people in the same country fight over the cheapest form of sustenance? A system that forces people into cycles of poverty to enable us to have a $5 T-shirt? How is that not immoral?

    Corporations are serving Mammon. And therefore cannot be moral.
  • Well, Joe, we might want to take this off-thread.
    Anywhere where the poor are forced into anything is abominable. Most of this is supported by the state. Multinationals may encourage it, because it brings them profits, and if that is what you after you may have my concession.
    However the question of how it can be fixed is not through regulation or crippling of multinational firms, but rather through eliminating the political structures which make it possible for the multinationals to do these things. So, that's the point I take aim at. The multinational is a strawman.
    Capitalism always gets the best deal it can. It capitalizes on the productive potential of each individual. If some individuals have less productive potential, then they get less. If you can come up with a more just system that does not involve force, I'm ready to hear about it.
    Those nasty - cheap factories, were those people forced into working there, or was it the best job they could find? If there are better jobs, then those factories will have to improve the working conditions.
    Look again at the political structures in those nations where there are so many poor. They have the worst institutions imaginable. There is little appeal to common law. There are roadblocks to entry. There is corruption. These are not the result of pure commerce, but of political activity.
    I agree with you about the symptoms of the problems. I will even agree that the multnationals are taking advantage of a political situation. I must say that the problem is not within volutary trade but within the politics.
    ndsnow@gmail.com
  • 'forced' is a tricky term. When one either works for a pittance or dies, is that forced labor or a choice to live? I've been to a lot of factories on several continents. Whilst it is true that institutional and governmental systems are terribly corrupt, on the whole the corruption was usually caused by capitalism anyway (eg arms sales). Money feeds corruption. It is easy to blame grinding poverty on national corruption, but at the end of the day, we are the ones buying this stuff and therefore we are the ones directly forcing people to remain in disgusting poverty. You can only defend capitalism because you benefit from it.
  • That just isn't so, Joe. I grieve for and send money to poor people in lands of oppression. I also support ministries which are doing the more important long-run work of moving those people out from under oppressive regimes into the US. Lutheran Family Services is my favorite of those ministries.
    Eeking out a survival has been the norm around the world for most of history. Living under oppressive governments has also been the norm. Capitalism was the move away from those systems, and began to prosper from within without any oppression. Everywhere capitalism has taken hold everyone has prospered. So much so that now in America we have the luxury of caring about the environment.
    Money feeds everything. Corruption and starving babies. Even if we were not buying stuff from poor countries they would still be poor. They are better off for our involvement and will be even better off yet if they can get rid of the oppressive systems which are hindering their growth.
    I defend capitalism because it is the only system which completely renounces the use of force. I defend capitalism because it is the only system which is honest about the limits of central planning. I defend capitalism because it tells the truth about government.
  • Friend, not so long ago, the next greatest step in the green revolution was the modification of rice to give essential vitamins to the Indian poor who could only eat rice - a massive step forward as claimed by the agrochemical and seed companies.

    Which sounds all fine-and-dandy. Except that the monoculture of rice is a fairly recent development - traditional multicropping village gardens provided the poor with all the range of nutrients that they needed.

    As you have already pointed out, capitalism claims neither to be good or bad but amoral. If there is money to be made in removing the ability of the poor to feed themselves, to privatise the water that they drink, to sell the genetic resources cultivated by hundreds of generations - someone will do it. They don't care, why should they?

    Capitalism does not support good governance when it conflicts with the bottom line. Capitalism does not hesitate to defend its financial interests against all comers - up to and including committing massive human rights abuses against those who simply want to live.

    I'd challenge you to look at any western country and show me how 'everyone has prospered' under capitalism. Have you looked in your gaols, your inner city sink estates, the black economy? Capitalism depends on a parasitic relationship - whereby one party benefits from the sweat of another. I think that is pretty obvious even looking at our own countries, never mind the billions of world poor that we depend upon.
  • I suppose we have reached an impasse. Capitalism conforms to the governance it finds itself in.
    Those Indians have increased in population in proportion to the increase in production. Should we prevent that? Should we try to control the population? By what means?
    I suggest prosperity. Only wealthy countries have a decreasing population growth rate. We get more wealthy and say, "Hey I've got enough to retire on, I guess I don't need a bunch of kids to support me when I'm old." So we only have 2 kids.
    Poor folks say, "I'll never make enough to retire, better have a bunch of kids so they can support me when I'm old."
    There's half of your poverty trap.
    As soon as there's not enough resources for a certain number of people some of them will die, and then there will be enough. That's simple biology.
    But productivity keeps increasing. We keep growing more. There's no end in sight, either.
    I don't know what you would prefer. I've been too long on the defensive here. What should we do to make things right according to you? Can you make your proposals work without employing force?
    I'm curious.
    Nathan
  • I suggest it is the height of lunacy to say there are too many Indians when they are each using a minute fraction of the resources we use. There are enough resources to feed many times the current population of the world - if we were not around using far more than our fair share.

    Why are you talking of controlling populations - when the only thing that needs controlling in the first instance is the greed you and I take for granted.
  • We should all be more careful when taking aim at capitalism. (I'm the resident defender.) Don't assume that savings or investment in the stock market is unjust. Don't assume that growing in wealth is unjust. The sriptures say to work hard so that we might have something to share with one who is in need. Perhaps part of understanding this all better is to rightly discern who the least of these are. They are not anyone who is less well off than we are. They are not those who have made poor decisions with their lives. They are not those who have too little ambition. They are those who cannot do for themselves due to physical, political, or mental barriers.
    Jesus did for the least of these.
    Money earned unjestly through the manipulation of power is to be renounced by believers. Money earned through wisdom and hard work is to be respected. When we earn money in this way it is by making someone else better off, too. It is by making the pie of goodies which is divided up bigger for everyone. Money gained through power is done by cutting the pie up differently, and is necessarily at the expense of someone else.
    We must swear off of a zero-sum-game view of the world and recognize that our situation is not static, but changing, and growing. We must recognize that God is still creating, and that there are unlimited resources in this world.
    Most of all we need to be optimistic and forward looking rather than fearful and fixed upon the past.
    Nathanael Snow
  • I'm not assuming anything. Unfortunately the corruption implicit in much capitalism is obvious. It is a truism that if a large profit has been made, it is often at the expense of somebody. The system that encourages profiteering at the expense of other considerations is developed by the market in stocks and shares, which is inherently immoral.

    Show me any multinational which has earned their massive profits justly.
  • The heavy slant in Jesus' teaching towards simplicity and giving to those around them makes the periodic discussions of earning interest, and particularly the OT mandates of growing one's assets makes it all the more confusing and bizarre. I don't think the three generalizations really indict any economic system (or indicts them all, whichever way you look at it), and therein is where my curiosity lies.

    How does one save and invest for one's household AND give generously to whoever asks? Is there a balance that needs to be struck, or is one side more weighted than another, or is one a foul heresy? (those are always fun...)

    It's honestly confusing/bizarre and it's hard sometimes to know how wisdom directs.

    I will say this, though, jurisnaturalist. While laissez-faire works great in theory, and has it's moments in practice, it's in the same ring as political anarchism (which also has it's moment). Corrupt people corrupt it. Capitalism left to it's own devices is a horrific, destructive force, as is it's opposite (socialism). Neither provide a 'safe haven' but rather may only be supported conditionally. You are right; this does not damn every aspect of capitalist practice (investments, free trade, etc) just as the failure of communism does not mean every aspect of it is corrupt (giving to those in need by those able, etc). But it is folly to support it blindly, which you are wise to catch.
  • I found an interesting discussion about this very thing in Jacques Ellul's work, Money & Power. His assertion is that "wealth" in the Hebrew Bible is meant to be seen as a blessing from God, whereas this is not the same notion of wealth in the Christian Scriptures. In fact, I think he asserts that such wisdom and knowledge is different because of the monetary systems we function under.

    If you haven't read the book, I would highly recommend it in regards to this subject.
  • We went to a funeral yesterday for my wife's grandfather - at 97 this patriarch represented the last of his generation in either of our families. And it is not too difficult to see how the (relatively modest) wealth he produced has cascaded through the generations.

    I watched a video the other day about Indian textile workers. These men were working long days for little money - and even slept on the floor after work so they did not have to pay for a room. When they were asked why, they answered that they were migrants from a far-off area and were working hard to give their children a better life and education. The offensive and disgusting minute wages they were earning were nevertheless being used for the development of their children. I don't think that this story of absolute sacrifice for the hope of a better life is unusual.

    I cannot argue that either of these examples are inherently ungodly or unbiblical. But what is ungodly and unbiblical in my opinion is reaping without sowing and exploitation of the poor and weak. And it seems to me that the majority of the financial wealth in our lives are either the result of reaping without sowing or exploitation or both.

    For example - most sensible people plan financially for old age. Yet we expect to get more from our pension than the contribution we put in. And the difference is causes by someone gambling on stocks and shares, which in turn encourages the excesses of rampant capitalism.

    It is possible to unpick most of our lives in this way. But the real struggle is knowing what to do about it.
  • If we expect to get more out than we put in it is because we leant our savings to someone who was going to make something out of it instead of hoarding it. If that person makes a profit, we get some of that profit ourselves. If they have made a profit it is because they made something that people valued more than their money, which in most cases means something good has been produced. Should we instead hoard? Should we instead not plan for retirement and instead end up dependent on our children?
  • So what happens if that person has made a profit by exploiting the poor?
  • Should you save money? How should you give, and how much? What about insurance, retirement, salaries...? I think Jesus' point was that it doesn't matter what you do, it matters who you are. A radical change of heart precipitates radical change of action. The only one who can change my heart is Jesus, so the only thing I can do is try to listen and love him more.

    I look at the money in my wallet and checking account as something Jesus can put to use, and tithing as a way to keep my faith and discipline in check. I believe God would be pleased if, out of faith, you gave everything you had away. I believe he would also be pleased if you managed your money shrewdly to use for his glory.
  • While I don't disagree with the thrust of your comment, I want to push back a bit. You see, I've become convinced over the years that when someone basically says: "its all about the heart" it is often implied that actions aren't that important.

    In the US, it is easy (VERY EASY) to feel just fine in one's soul about hoarding wealth. In the west, we've gone through a philosophical shift where it is quite easy to divorce intentions from actions. That is why someone can say that there heart is in the right place without anyone expecting their behavior to match their words. This is part of the dark side of the Reformation (particularly the Lutheran part of the Reformation).

    So, what's my point? My point is that when we say "it is all about the heart...and the only thing I can do is try to listen and love him more" we must temper that with the very biblical insight that faith (and love) without action is dead. And we must also recognize that, at least according to Jesus, loving God and loving neighbor are inseparable.
  • Joel Brady
    Ok Mark, while the crux of most of these statements may in fact be true, no one seems to be answering the question--what is or is not fiscally allowed. You suggest that faith without the deeds to back it up is dead -- and i agree -- but what are those deeds? Who measures? What's the metric here? Because as far as I know, that family on the corner driving that 3 series BMW, taking off for the weekend to their Tahoe cabin, is living on only 10% of their wealth. I just don't know.

    The point I'm trying to make here is that as important a conversation as this has been for the church, I'm finding that it's wrought with the same single-minded intractability most abhor.

    A little anecdote: recently I had a conversation with a friend who was a bit confused by another friend's move into an 'apparent' ostentatious three bedroom house with a pool (shutter at the thought!). The house, however, was an opportunity for this couple to get away, replenish themselves after time on tour and a busy work schedule, not to mention cheaper rent then they were paying SF. Right now it just seems that many of us who are trying to sort this out are chopping each other at the knees because our thinking of the way of Jesus is becoming far too singular.
  • I'm not sure there is any metric besides the rather challenging statements of Jesus. Can one quantify the Spirit? No. But I think we all know what abundance in the face of human need looks like.

    I think it would make things so much more helpful if we take percentages out of this discussion. If someone makes 10 billion but only lives on 1 billion are they justified before God on this basis alone? While this is an interesting statistic, it is theologically meaningless to me, since all who follow Christ must admit that everything they have belongs to Jesus. Jesus doesn't ask for a cut, he asks for the whole of us. Discerning what that looks like is a messy mixture of honest meditation of Scripture, communal and personal discernment, and context.

    Single mindedness isn't always bad. But I agree that being rigid on this isn't helpful. Nor is it helpful to act as though this is all up for grabs. For far too long have Christians relegated issues like wealth/poverty and war/peace into "secondary" matters...if they even make it up to that level.

    The question is: "How do we lift up simplicity, radical attachment to Christ, and a sense of open-hearted generosity in such a way that it inspires action and faith without being legalistic?" I'm not at all convinced it is to simply say: "This is a matter of individual conviction." But nor is it to say: "We must all become poor. Period."
  • Plus, if it just comes down to a heart-issue, I tend to be more generous with God's favour towards me than is probably merited. :)

    EDIT: I probably worded that poorly, but my brain is on slow and I can't think of an adequate rephrasing. You get the gist.
  • Jon
    In religious debate forum recently, someone asked, "How do you know when you are too rich?" Because, in some ways, it's pretty hard to exactly define these categories. I'm by no means rich by typical American standards, but I'm friggin' wealthy by typical Ghanese standards.

    The best answer I could muster is that the moment we'd rather hold onto our dollar than give it away, we know we're too rich.

    Another way I try to look at this is that in a very real sense the idea of "mine" shouldn't really exist in the Church. In truth all that we have should be for others--perhaps that really does mean taking the steps of St. Francis and selling everything and having nothing--in other cases maybe it just means that whenever someone asks, we give; more than that, we give even when we're not asked.

    Am I betraying Christ for owning my Gateway Desktop and am able to buy food from the grocery store every week? I'm not going to say yes or no to that, because I think it's something I should legitimately wrestle with.

    What I do believe, however, is that whenever I begin to see "stuff" as being particularly "mine" rather than as a resource by which to give away freely, I am serving Mammon, and not God. The moment I would rather hold onto my dollar than give it away I am too rich.
  • toddh
    Neither Poverty nor Riches by Craig Blomberg does a pretty good job of sorting through all the conflicting messages throughout the Bible on wealth and possessions and trying to come up with some sort of synthesis. The title of the book gives a pretty good clue on where the author ends up on the issue. It certainly challenges you when you try to get too radical one way or the other.
  • I would imagine that most readers of JM would fall between the radically simple edge and Blomberg's position. In regards to his book, which I've only skimmed, I have to ask: how helpful is it to look to a successful North American for a "balanced" perspective? I don't ask that simply to kick up dust here. I think we in the US should make a concerted effort to read 2/3 world voices on wealth. There are, of course, the liberationist voices...some of which are more radical than others. Justo Gonzales (who isn't a liberationist at all) has a fascinating book called "Faith and Wealth: A History of Early Christian Ideas on the Origin, Significance and Use of Money." Any other voices worth listening to?
  • toddh
    Blomberg states in the intro that he did his best to consider voices outside of his own experience (white, middle class American). How successful he was at that everybody has to judge for himself or herself. I just think he was remarkably fair at mediating between some conflicting messages on money, possessions, and poverty that can be gleaned from the Bible.
  • There was a book called Wealth & Poverty that I discovered hidden somewhere and read while at bible school. It was great in that it was written and edited by devout Christians, all of whom had RADICALLY differing perspectives on economics. Each one wrote one paper, and each wrote a critique of the other three papers. It was great just to recognize some of the benefits and flaws of the various economic systems.
  • Kai
    I liked your conclusions a,b and c.
  • I don't know the answer to this one. I've wondered the balance myself but have yet to find a simple, black-and-white answer. I think it comes down to relationship with God and being led by the Spirit. After all, He criticized those who followed the rules but denied what the rules were teaching (the Law is a teacher).

    I am curious about one of your comments, where do you see that believers are not allowed to be in governmental positions or soldiery (I understand the temple prostitution ban)?

    Thanks,

    - John
  • Those were semi-formal stipulations set by (some for sure, not certain about all) the early churches.
  • Joel
    I would like to press a bit farther about John's question above. Show me in the bible where it is said that believers are not allowed to be in govt. positions or serve as soldiers. I understand that may represent the ideal, but I don't see that in Jesus' commands at all. Jesus ate with the tax collectors and tells them not to cheat people. But I have never found a place in the bible where He tells any of them to stop working as tax collectors. Tax collectors in Jesus' time were particularly hated by the Jews. If my understanding of it is correct, the tax collectors were Jews who worked for the Roman govt. so they were seen as collaborating with the occupiers. Also, they were required to collect a certain amount of tax and their salary was paid by whatever they collected above what was required. I suppose that most of them became quite wealthy by collecting much more than was owed. Jesus only asked them to not cheat people.

    As for the soldier question, the bible only mentions a few instances where Jesus spoke with soldiers. He healed the daughter of one of them and simply instructed the other to not use his position in the army to extort money from people. He never told any of them that they should not continue serving. I don't think that quitting was an option for either one anyway.
  • As far as I can tell there is nothing in the scriptures barring any professions. There is some talk about believers being formerly prostitutes, but other than that you're working with details from the early church. I can dig up some sources for you if you'd like, but let's work with the topic at hand here. Drop me a line at <my handle> at gmail.
  • If you don't mind me jumping in- I think that Jesus did say one thing that would make staying in these positions hard to do. He said that if any would come after him he must deny himself, take up his cross and follow him. This would have been quite a blow to anyone of social standing of any sort, because the cross was what happened to failed messiahs. It would mean taking on an identity that would make you a criminal in Roman state religion, or at least a lunatic. But most definitely a social failure.

    I think this also applies to the original discussion. If we are to follow Jesus in his descent, as Phillipians 2 suggests, then wealth, as a form of power, is something not to be held on to. Jesus possessed great power, yet did not use it when it was time to go to the cross. We are to have the same mind, and I believe this means serving those around me with my two hands, not pursuing wealth, but working up a good sweat nonetheless, and not despising material blessing when God sees fit to bestow it, yet still being thankful if it is sometimes withheld.
  • We're glad you jumped in, Sara
blog comments powered by Disqus