Jesus Manifesto - Latest Comments in Biblical Economics 1-0-what?

Re: Biblical Economics 1-0-what?

markvans — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:25:28 -0000

You're simply misinformed. While Matthew says "poor in spirit" Luke says "poor." And Jesus' emphasis on the poor is a profoundly deep theme throughout the Gospel of Luke--as well as the rest of Scripture (particularly the Prophets). While poverty is used as a metaphor in Scripture (I don't think anyone can deny that), it is also used in a straight-forward way. It is strange to me how folks will opt for straight-forward meaning when they agree, but force metaphor when they don't agree.

Re: Biblical Economics 1-0-what?

slcraig — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:07:40 -0000

You do NOT understand the teachings of Jesus............a simple example is that Jesus was not speaking of the 'economically POOR' when He spoke of the 'POOR', He was speaking of the condition of their 'Soul and Spirit' for those who are 'POOR in Spirit' are those most likly to SEEK Him and those that SEEK shall find.

Read E.Griffith-Jones The Economics of Jesus and his other works

Re: Biblical Economics 1-0-what?

Maria Kirby — Fri, 09 May 2008 11:17:26 -0000

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.

Re: Biblical Economics 1-0-what?

JMorrow — Thu, 08 May 2008 16:27:21 -0000

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.

Re: Biblical Economics 1-0-what?

jurisnaturalist — Thu, 08 May 2008 08:45:44 -0000

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

Re: Biblical Economics 1-0-what?

Maria Kirby — Wed, 07 May 2008 21:37:50 -0000

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.

Re: Biblical Economics 1-0-what?

athada — Wed, 07 May 2008 20:20:04 -0000

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/....

Re: Biblical Economics 1-0-what?

joe_turner — Wed, 07 May 2008 16:53:32 -0000

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.

Re: Biblical Economics 1-0-what?

jurisnaturalist — Wed, 07 May 2008 16:46:19 -0000

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.

Re: Biblical Economics 1-0-what?

joe_turner — Wed, 07 May 2008 16:43:01 -0000

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.

Re: Biblical Economics 1-0-what?

hewhocutsdown — Wed, 07 May 2008 16:38:38 -0000

I appreciate your vigour, but it can be taken for antagonism. Please discuss these issues with (more apparent) respect for those you disagree with.

Re: Biblical Economics 1-0-what?

joe_turner — Wed, 07 May 2008 16:33:34 -0000

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?

Re: Biblical Economics 1-0-what?

jurisnaturalist — Wed, 07 May 2008 16:27:24 -0000

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!

Re: Biblical Economics 1-0-what?

joe_turner — Wed, 07 May 2008 16:23:21 -0000

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?

Re: Biblical Economics 1-0-what?

joe_turner — Wed, 07 May 2008 16:18:16 -0000

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.

Re: Biblical Economics 1-0-what?

jurisnaturalist — Wed, 07 May 2008 16:17:01 -0000

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?

Re: Biblical Economics 1-0-what?

jurisnaturalist — Wed, 07 May 2008 16:14:27 -0000

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.

Re: Biblical Economics 1-0-what?

jurisnaturalist — Wed, 07 May 2008 16:09:23 -0000

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

Re: Biblical Economics 1-0-what?

hewhocutsdown — Wed, 07 May 2008 16:01:27 -0000

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?

Re: Biblical Economics 1-0-what?

joe_turner — Wed, 07 May 2008 15:38:55 -0000

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.

Re: Biblical Economics 1-0-what?

joe_turner — Wed, 07 May 2008 15:35:51 -0000

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.

Re: Biblical Economics 1-0-what?

jurisnaturalist — Wed, 07 May 2008 15:33:53 -0000

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

Re: Biblical Economics 1-0-what?

jurisnaturalist — Wed, 07 May 2008 15:26:59 -0000

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.

Re: Biblical Economics 1-0-what?

hewhocutsdown — Wed, 07 May 2008 15:14:43 -0000

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.

Re: Biblical Economics 1-0-what?

jurisnaturalist — Wed, 07 May 2008 15:11:31 -0000

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.