;)
Macroeconomics and the Bible
Posted by David Rogers in Bible & Theology, News & Culture
Even though, way back when, I took college introductory courses on both micro- and macroeconomics, I freely confess that I have never had a very good understanding of either one. Since then, I have spent quite a bit of time studying other subjects, such as the Bible and theology, but I freely confess to having a whole lot to learn on all that as well. As far as I am able to tell, though, the Bible does not have a whole lot to say about macroeconomics—microeconomics, yes, but macroeconomics, not so much.
So why am I writing about macroeconomics and the Bible? Not to argue in favor of one theory of macroeconomics over another. My main beef is with those, from all sides of the spectrum, who talk and act as if the Bible had a lot more to say about macroeconomics than it really does. The ideologues, in this regard, are the advocates of dominion theology (on the right) and liberation theology (on the left), but there are a lot of folks in between these extremes who are swayed to one degree or another by their arguments.
The book of Proverbs has a lot to say about microeconomics. No argument from me here. It clearly teaches basic principles of financial integrity, frugality, sound investing, and strategic saving. In addition, the Bible, all through its pages, in both the Old and New Testaments, has a lot to say about honesty and generosity. Jesus himself talked a lot about personal finances, and the importance, as God’s children, of being good stewards of the resources He commends into our hands.
As far as I can tell, though, the closest thing to a particular theory of macroeconomics advocated in the Bible is found in the civil law given to the theocratic society of Old Testament Israel. With respect to the economic practices of kings and other civil magistrates, the main revelatory content has to do with general principles of justice in favor of the poor and underprivileged, and against corruption and vice on the part of the rich and powerful. All in all, though, in spite of the arguments of the dominionists and liberationists, there is extremely little that can be adduced to conclusively support contemporary theories of economics such as free-market capitalism, neo-liberalism, or socialism.
If anything, certain practices, such as the year of Jubilee, the third-year tithe for the poor, the law of gleaning, and the sharing of material resources in the Jerusalem church, appear to lend support to certain aspects of socialism. In both the OT and NT, however, there also seems to be an assumption of private ownership of property. But, as I understand it, reading support in the Bible for any one theory of macroeconomics as practiced in modern-day nation-states is anachronistic and intellectually inconsistent. Though it is true that in many modern contexts, socialism has been linked to atheism, and espoused by evil totalitarian regimes, as far as economic theory in and of itself is concerned, this is not inextricably so. From what I can tell, from a strictly biblical point of view, government-facilitated redistribution of wealth, in and of itself, is neither as inherently reprehensible as many dominionists and right-wing Christians make it out to be, nor as virtuous as many liberationists and left-wing Christians make it out to be.
In the New Testament, there are several obvious reasons why there is very little, if any, instruction given to Christians with regard to macroeconomics. Decisions made with regard to issues such as macroeconomics are normally made by those with the power to make them. And for the most part, New Testament Christians were not included among this group. For Christians, as well as for practically everyone else in the historical milieu of the New Testament, decisions on public policy regarding taxes, government spending, the coining and circulation of money, international trade, interest rates, ownership of property, hiring and firing of employees, etc. were totally out of their hands. In addition, it is unlikely that even those who did have the power to make such decisions thought through these issues in any way close to the manner that modern-day government officials do.
Fast-forward 2,000 years and a lot of things have changed. In modern democracies today, we as Christians (along with everyone else) have the opportunity to speak meaningfully into issues such as macroeconomics. We also have the possibility of speaking into questions of public ethics and morality. Even though we, as individual Christians, may not hold any public office, we have the opportunity—and many would argue, the responsibility—by way of our vote, to influence the establishment of public policy.
This is an eventuality that the Bible does not appear to take into account. A lot of times I find myself wishing the Lord had revealed more in his Word concerning these matters. In the end, however, I trust he knew perfectly well what he was doing. Nevertheless, there are some things that seem pretty clear to me. For instance, if I as a Christian can make a difference through my vote and participation in the political process to counteract the sacrifice of innocent human life through abortion, it seems pretty clear to me that I ought to do what I can. Exactly how I should go about it may not be so clear, but, at least, I think it is pretty clear I should do something. The principle of the sanctity of human life is sufficiently clear in the Bible. Many other matters debated in modern-day partisan politics, though, are not nearly so well defined in the Bible. Equally sincere and orthodox Christians may legitimately argue both sides of many issues.
Most today would agree that the questions of macroeconomics are among the most significant issues of contemporary politics. As that erstwhile and once-successful political candidate Bill Clinton poignantly summed it up, “It’s the economy, stupid.” My personal thinking on this is that, from a certain perspective, the economy is indeed really important. Politicians do well to major on these issues. It is good that we have people who spend time studying these issues and developing theories on how to best make the economy prosper on a macro level. In no way am I denigrating the important work of those who give their time and effort toward studying these subjects.
As Christians, though, I think it is very difficult to demonstrate a specifically biblical basis for the superiority (whether on moral or other grounds) of one economic theory over another. We can certainly make a sound case for good ethics and morality. We can generally argue from the Bible against greed and corruption, and in favor of justice and personal generosity. But what public policy decisions best serve to grease the wheels of the national economy and cause the nation (or the world) as a whole to prosper is a totally different matter. There may well be (and probably are) sound principles of economic theory that help to answer these questions, and those who study these matters scientifically (including Christians) can help us to find these answers, but I don’t believe the Bible itself purports to do so.
As such, I don’t have any problem with Christians espousing personal views of macroeconomics, nor participating in the political process that helps to set public policy influencing the national economy. What I do have a problem with is Christians insinuating that one particular economic theory is THE Christian view on macroeconomics, or claiming biblical support for their theories, when there is none.
Unfortunately, more and more, as of late, a lot of high-profile Christians in public media appear to have developed a special penchant for doing just this. As national elections draw closer, heated rhetoric on public media in general, but on many Christian media outlets as well, is escalating with regard to issues such as macroeconomics. In an effort to discredit one’s political opponents, certain views of macroeconomics are frequently held up as the Christian or biblical view, and opposing views as anti-Christian and immoral. This may happen from both the right as well as the left, though on the particular media outlets I happen to listen to, I hear it more often, as of late, from the right.
When I hear Christian media personalities launch into their tirades on these issues, my heart sinks. I believe this type of rhetoric, whether issued from the right or from the left, is divisive to the unity of the Body of Christ, counterproductive for our ultimate aim as Christians, and contrary to Jesus’ will for us as his disciples. Also, whenever we publicly mock and sarcastically denigrate the policies and economic theories, as well as impugn the motives, of politicians with whom we disagree (especially those currently in office), I believe we are violating the biblical injunction to “honor the king” (1 Peter 2:17). That is not to say we cannot ever voice our views on these topics, but we should watch our attitude and the language we use to do so.
Lest anyone misunderstand what I am saying: I am not personally opposed to right-wing views of macroeconomics. As far as I can remember, whenever I have voted in national elections, I have voted for Republican candidates. Certainly, my views on the sanctity of human life and other moral issues have a lot to do with this, and I am not ashamed or reticent of speaking out as a Christian on these issues. But I am careful to not put forward my personal views on macroeconomics as specifically religious convictions.
In the Church (and in our churches), we should be united by the gospel, not by our views on macroeconomics. It should not be perceived as in any way scandalous when a brother or sister in Christ espouses a theory of macroeconomics different than our own, or than that of the majority of the members of our church or denomination. And we should not use official church or denominational channels to advocate views of macroeconomics that do not have specific biblical support.
Also, though I am thankful for the freedom of press we have in the United States, and in no way would want to limit the right of broadcasters and publishers to advocate the political views they choose to advocate, it seems to me that, ideally, there should be a clear difference between the programming of Christian media outlets and that of secular politically-driven media outlets. If I want to hear someone give a defense for one theory of macroeconomics over another (unless they are citing clear biblical principles), I would prefer to hear them do so on a secular station, where the reputation and clear gospel witness of the Church is not at stake.
To paraphrase a well-known verse of Scripture, “The kingdom of God is not a matter of monetary policy, taxes, and government spending (or the lack thereof), but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.”
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
David,
Thanks for posting on a somewhat under-the-radar issue. I see some parallels between this subject and that of proper church government (lead vs. rule, plurality of elders vs. lone pastor, etc.).
When I posted this, I thought it was fairly controversial, and might get some reaction. I am bit surprised at the lack of response so far.
In any case, since posting this, I came across some interesting video clips by Ken Myers, referenced in a post over at Justin Taylor’s blog here:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/10/11/ken-myers-the-current-economic-crisis-how-to-live-well-in-a-time-of-uncertainty/?comments#comments
Though I have seen Myers name before, I am not totally familiar with his angle on all this. I have listened to what he says on the video clips. He has evidently thought through all this quite deeply. It seems to me he is dealing with some of the same background material I am presenting here, but has come to different conclusions. And it doesn’t appear he is coming from either a dominionist or liberationist perspective. But, after listening to the video clips, I am still a bit unclear on exactly what economic theories he supports, and what is the scriptural basis he uses to support them.
Are any of you out there familiar with Myers, and able to give me a bit more insight on this?
I’m also interested especially if anyone out there wants to challenge some of my assumptions or give me a bit of pushback on what I have written here. I am open to being convinced otherwise. I get the idea Myers, for instance, might be able to change my mind on some things. But I am still trying to wrap my mind around just what it is he is saying.
I was surprised to be approached by a person who declared that since the Bible specified money in terms of weight and measure, it is unbiblical to have money that lacks them, i.e., paper money not backed by gold, silver, or other concrete items.
While I don’t object to the gold or silver bugs on monetary policy, I do object to those who would make this a Biblical mandate.
Timely article but too arcane a subject for most SBCers, I think.
William,
Thanks for your input. The example you cite is a good example of what I’m talking about.
David,
I do understand what you are saying. However I fail to see a distinction between Micro, (private and personal) and Macro (national and public) financial principles.
I would venture to say that the Biblical principles of economics are the same whether you are dealing in much or in little; private or public.
(Luke 16:10) (Luke 19:17)
If you are speaking of the differences between a “Socialist System” verses a “Capitalist System”, then I still think the “privatized principles” of finances in the scriptures would uphold the free market system. However, like you I haven’t devoted myself to this particular study; but it is interesting.
Jeff,
Thanks for the feedback on this. I am grateful to interact on the content of this post, as I think it is an important issue on which there is much confusion and differences of opinion among sincere Christians.
I checked out your blog, and read your last two posts, which, interestingly, deal with related issues to this one here. Though I agree with a lot of what you have to say, including (if I understand it correctly) your main premise—the ultimate answer is in the gospel, not in secular political or cultural ideas that any lost person, be they religious or not, may happen to hold—I am not so sure that “if it is on the ballot, it is in the Bible.” Though the Bible contains vital principles regarding justice, ethics, faithfulness, etc., I think there are matters on which the Bible does not take a position one way or another. For instance, I would be interested to know, basing on the Bible alone, what justification one would give for supporting Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan as over against Mike Huckabee’s Fair Tax plan. Based on scientific principles of economics one may well be better than another (and I don’t have a clue which one, if either), but I don’t think the Bible specifically supports either one to the exclusion of the other.
I guess we are dealing here with our understanding of the sufficiency of Scripture. The Bible is sufficient for our spiritual lives, and our knowledge of God, even for our “ethical” lives, for lack of a better term. It also gives us bits and pieces about science and history, sometimes very important ones. But by no means does it tell us everything there is to know about science or history. Does that mean those areas the Bible does not deal with specifically are out of bounds for Christians in their studies and pursuit of knowledge? I think not.
You reference Luke 16:10 and Luke 19:17 in relation to micro- vis-à-vis macroeconomics. While I agree there are areas of overlap, such as general integrity, generosity, and wise stewardship, I don’t think the difference between “much” or “little” should be drawn out to include “private” or “public.” The same principles of microeconomics apply to Bill Gates as well as to you and me. But there is a difference between Bill Gates, you and me, and the national economy.
Here, for instance, is an example of where personal ethics or principles of stewardship do not translate to public ethics or principles of stewardship (only on a wider scale):
What about self-defense and national defense? Personally, we are to turn the other cheek. Does that mean that, as a nation, we are also to turn the other cheek? Personally, we are to forgive debts. Does that mean that, as a nation, we are also to forgive debts?
Participatory democracy creates some interesting dilemmas if you try to apply biblical principles to all of public life.
I’d love to hear your response, and continue to dialogue on this. As I commented earlier, I am open to being convinced, but am not there yet.
David,
Thanks for your response, and your dialogue.
I do agree that the intricacies of our public issues may not be expressly spoken to within the scripture. However I do believe that the “sufficiency of Scriptures” extends to all parts of our lives in principles that it teaches.
For example, Peter said, “God hath given us all things that pertain to life and godliness . . .” When I say if it’s on the ballot it’s in the Bible, I am saying that every issue that we deal with is ultimately a spiritual issue, or a Biblical principle somewhere in the background. Looking beyond the titles, and the verbage, what are the principles involved? Whether we are discussing taxes, healthcare, economy or national defense, I do believe that the Bible has something to say about those. Now I will readily admit, that it is not always on the surface, or in plain sight to the cursory reading; or that I have been able to find it, but I do believe that it is there.
You bring up the point of self defense verses national defense. This is an example of two different situations with two different examples or commands. Privately, the watching servant would not suffer the strong man to break in and injure his family. That’s self defense. Nationally, the government has been given the sword of punishment, and protection, that’s national defense.
Economically, since there are no clear examples or instructions of Macro-economics, the only resource left is the principles of micro economics. When we don’t know what to do, we do what we know to do; I don’t beleive that we are free to make it up as we go along. In other words, we “use the last known instructions” until there are other instructions. Otherwise we are working according to the machinations of man.
I do think that the principles of microeconomics as illustrated in scriptures, when examined, echo with the ring and theme of capitalism. That being said, I find nothing else in scripture that contradicts that, or counters that. If I did, I’m fairly confident that I would feel different.
I think, “emphasis think, (without deeper study)” that at least a cursory case can be made that the primary Biblical purpose of a National Government is for National Defense, and Domestic Civility. I know that sounds shaky, but as I said, that is a cursory thought.
I understand the difference in dealing with the welfare of one family, and dealing with the welfare of 300 million families. Decisions have different consquences. However, I do think that the Biblical principles are the same, in the managament of one economy or 300 million little economies; and I think so because I find nothing in scripture that segregates those issues.
i enjoy the discussion, and hope too that i can still be taught.
Jeff,
Thanks again. You are making me think, and that is a good thing.
Let me see if I can break down several things you say here, and deal with them one by one.
Peter said, “God hath given us all things that pertain to life and godliness.” We must determine just what this means. Does it mean, for instance, that Einstein’s theory of relativity is hidden in the pages of Scripture, and all we have to do is know how do dig for it, and we will find it? I think not. And I imagine you agree with me on this one.
Similar to Einstein’s theory (which, although I know very little about laws of physics and such things, I see no reason to question), there are many other points of knowledge that, although true, are not revealed explicitly in Scripture. If I want to know about them, I must look elsewhere, perhaps, in general revelation. Some people would call this “natural law,” as I understand it.
The problem is that, just as our interpretation of Scripture, as followers of Jesus, is not infallible, neither is our interpretation of natural law. And I believe it is a mistake to take a fallible interpretation of natural law and ascribe to it the authority of Scripture. That doesn’t mean that we should ignore natural law, just we should be tentative and humble in our approach to natural law. As followers of Jesus, we should let our understanding of Scripture inform our understanding of natural law, but recognize there are limitations as well.
My main underlying issue in this (as in a lot of what I write) has to do with the unity of the Body of Christ. I believe our unity is to be based on a common acceptance of the gospel, not on a common adherence to debatable principles of economics or politics. However, many, both down through history, as well as in recent years, with political aims in mind, have sought to create a political alliance based on certain theories of economics and natural law, and bring Evangelical Christians into the fold on the theory that our understanding of Scripture demands our solidarity with such alliances. This, I believe, is, in the long run, destructive to Christian unity.
Our unity must be based on the essentials of the gospel, not on debatable and (from the viewpoint of the gospel) secondary and tertiary matters. We are free to believe what we think best regarding politics and economics, and vote, and participate, according to the dictates of our conscience, and our understanding of scientific principles of economics and natural law. But our first allegiance must always be to the Kingdom of God, and to our brothers and sisters in Christ (who may or may not agree with us on matters of politics and economics), not to our political allies (who may or may not agree with us on the gospel).
A few more thoughts…
I lifted this quote from the Wikipedia article on “Capitalism”:
“Capitalism, as a deliberate economic system, developed incrementally from the 16th century in Europe,[11] although proto-capitalist organizations existed in the ancient world, and early aspects of merchant capitalism flourished during the Late Middle Ages.[12][13][14] Capitalism became dominant in the Western world following the demise of feudalism.[14] Capitalism gradually spread throughout Europe, and in the 19th and 20th centuries, it provided the main means of industrialization throughout much of the world.[4] Today the capitalist system is the world’s dominant economic model.”
Do you believe that the principles of capitalism, as we know it today, were embedded in Scripture, and it took us, as Christians, 16 centuries or more to discover them? Do you think, for instance, Christians, in the Middle Ages, if they were good students of Scripture, should have been able to intuit principles of capitalism in Scripture and apply them to their own situation in the context in which they lived? Personally, I do not. This is something of what I mean in my original post, when I speak of “anachronism” and “intellectual inconsistency.”
David,
I fully agree that all the “laws of physics” are not delineated for us in scripture. Yet again, we don’t get to make any decisions in determining them, or amending them or maneuvering them.
As we whittle away at this, what I intend to say is this: Whenever, and to whatever, I am called to make a decision on, the guidance is in the Word of God, empowered by the Spirit of God. I don’t have to decide which planets are going to rotate in what direction. I do have to decide as a human being how I am going to manage my citizenship on earth. In whatever country or culture I am in, God has given us His sufficent Word, and offered us His divine wisdom through Jesus, concerning whatever issues we must make a decision on.
Those things that are out of our hands, are just that, out of our hands. But those things that are in our hands, God has equipped us through His Word “That the man of God may be complete, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” Everything we are called to do, we have been equipped to do, (whether we use it or not.)
I’d write more, but out of time.
I enjoy the dialogue. – If you are ever passing through Corinth, and want to grab a sandwich, shoot me an email, or give me a call, and I’ll buy. jmh@pinecrestbaptist.org; (662) 603-3948.
Jeff,
On a first read, your argument here is very compelling. But as I think it through to its logical consequences, either it doesn’t always hold true, or I am not understanding totally what you are saying.
Take this scenario, for instance. Suppose I am an environmental scientist, and I have been called upon to advise the government in regard to an environmental catastrophe of enormous implications, and possible loss of millions of lives. As a Christian, I will want to do what I can to save lives, and to cooperate with those authorities who are seeking to promote the welfare of those under their jurisdiction. But, when I give my advice as to how to best deal with the particular catastrophe, with a view to preserving the environment and saving human lives, I am not going to open up my Bible in order to find the answer. I will be informed primarily on these decisions on the basis of my knowledge of science, not my knowledge of Scripture.
Change the names and faces, and insert a scenario having to do with economic science, and I believe the same general principle holds true.
I understand if you don’t have time to continue the dialogue. I have enjoyed it as well. I would love to take you up on your offer. Hopefully, next time I am passing through Corinth, I will remember your invitation. Whenever you come through Memphis (or Cordova) the same holds true on this side (901-619-9198).
Blessings, and thanks for your service to the Lord.
David:
S.C. US Senator Lindsay Graham is a lifelong Southern Baptist from Seneca South Carolina. Couple days ago he had an interesting Q and A with with Froma Harrop of Real clear politics.
You can google that easily.
Likewise Karen Gorney has been out front on the politics of abortion for some time. I have yet to see anyone in the CR engage her points. David Gushee is not a single issue voter. Nor is Carey Newman, but as grand Baptist Christians they seem to have a bigger Christian ethical agenda than current leadership in the SBC.
So there are two key people for you to engage.
Would love to see you look into their thoughts and engage something a little outside your comfort zone.
I have come to have some respect for your sincerity. Will be interesting to see if you engage these two while otherwise for the most part preaching to your tried and true choir here at this site.
Sfox
Stephen,
I can’t promise you anything, since I already have a lot of other stuff on my plate, but I may eventually get around to checking out the sources you mention.
In the meantime, I thought you might have a thought or two engaging what I wrote here. What do you think, for instance, the Bible has to say on questions of macroeconomics? Do you think Christians should look to the Bible to guide them on these questions?
David,
What a wonderful illustration, and I welcome the picture you have presented.
The conclusion of your picture you said, “when I give my advice as to how to best deal with the particular catastrophe, with a view to preserving the environment and saving human lives, I am not going to open up my Bible in order to find the answer.”
I would most certainly say, yes you can, and yes you should. The Bible has much to say, directly, or indirectly, of the relationship between humanity, and the wise stewardship of nature.
For example, one Biblical boundary that can be laid down without question, is the boundary that human life is of “much more” value than animal life. If I am the Christian scientist involved, that Biblical fact is a boundary line that my advice would not cross.
Furthermore, (from the top of my head and without seriuos study) the Old Testament law contains many “principles” and “precepts” about the management of fields, and farms.
Your example falls right in with man’s prescribed work, which is to keep the land, and properly dress it. God never commands something of us, without equipping us, or directing us in that work. The command to be stewards of the land is in the Word, and the instructions for proper stewardship, directly or indirectly, are in God’s Word.
We can change scenarios, to “economic advice” or “international affairs” or “domestic affairs” whatever we want to choose, and the Bible (rightly understood) contains the proper guidance for all such issues.
You may present a scenario that I do not have a Biblical answer for, but that does not mean one is not there. God’s Word contains everything man needs to know, in order to govern himself, protect himself, and provide for himself.
thanks for the discussion
Jeff,
I would divide between spiritual or ethical issues (such as the priority of human life over animal life) and, for lack of a better term, technological or “scientific” issues. I am referring to decisions on which a knowledge of chemistry, or biology, or physics, etc. is vital. As an inerrantist, I believe that, when the Bible refers to these subjects, it does not mislead or deceive us. But that doesn’t demand believing that the Bible teaches us all there is to know about these areas. There is much, much more to know (sometimes with very important implications) about each of these things than what is contained in the pages of the Bible itself. The Bible may lead us to use the minds God gave us in order to investigate and study these matters out, but beyond this, the Bible doesn’t inform us about scientific formulas, mathematics, and most of what we call technology today. For instance, in an academic classroom, you are not usually going to choose the Bible as your textbook in these particular disciplines. As a Christian, you will, however, rely on your knowledge of the Bible to inform any spiritual or ethical aspects that may arise in your study. Economics, as a so-called “soft” science, may share some common ground at times with the ethical and spiritual subject matter of the Bible, but, as far as I can tell, in the more purely scientific aspects (which are quite often the fodder of many current political debates) the Bible doesn’t purport to provide the answers.
All this seems fairly clear to me. If you don’t agree, we may just have to agree to disagree on this point.
David,
I completely agree that the Bible doesn’t deal with the explanations on the molecular level, or in the intricate sciences. In that we are in full agreement.
My assertion is that the sum total of all the molecular, technological, mathematical, scientific calculations and studies, must be filtered back through the management lens of the principles of the scripture. It is the scripture that teaches us what to do with such knowledge.
We may have to turn to a Chemistry book to learn the makeup of borium monoxide (made that up) but once we do, and know what it is, and how it works, the principles of the scriptures are used to give us the right wisdom in it’s usage.
It seems to me that you are speaking of “knowledge” and “facts” that the Bible doesn’t reveal. And I am speaking of “wisdom” and the principles of scripture that are to be used in the management of all known facts.
Every fact, (whether in the Bible or not) is a fact to be properly dealt with. I agree with you that the Bible does not give us all knowledge; but only through the scriptures can enact the right use of any knowledge that we do have.
Once a scientist learns something never learned before, and has harnessed it’s potentials, then the scriptures contain the principles by which those potentials should be managed. In whatever science we are speaking of.
Maybe we have been talking apples and chicken . . .
Jeff,
Let’s see if I can steer this back to the main point of the original post…
Ironically, at the moment I just saw your last comment and am typing this one, there is an interview on C-SPAN with Milton Friedman on the tv in my living room where I am sitting.
Though I am reluctant to get into the details of economics at this level for fear of further exposing my ignorance, a key element of the point I am making on this post is that the validity of the economic theories of, say, for instance, Milton Friedman as over against those of John Maynard Keynes will likely not be able to be demonstrated or disproven by the Bible alone.
In some ways, this is because the issues they deal with in their respective theories are matters of “knowledge,” “facts,” “technology,” and “science,” and not so much of the type of “wisdom” the Bible teaches us.
Yet, many of the debates in modern-day politics, as I understand it, depend on what level of credence one gives to the ideas of either Friedman or Keynes (or other similar economic theorists).
I don’t see how an acceptance of Friedman’s economic theories makes one a better Christian, nor the acceptance of Keynes’s economic theories. That is not to say that neither one of them is more correct than the other in their theories. However, the criteria for determining that will not be found primarily in the Bible, but in the study of the secular science of economics.
David,
Without further exposing my own ignorance of the financial intelligentsia, and economic tycoons, I would still have to think that both, “Friedman” and “Keynes” economic theories could be examined under the microscope of the principles of scripture. Of which I will be the first to say, I am not in the arena of Biblical financial scholars.
I don’t think the “acceptance of one or the other” makes one a “better Christian.” But I do think that all Christians should get their thinking from the Mind of Christ, the Word of God and the Spirit of God. I think you probably agree with that.
I do believe that the Word of God with the Spirit of God, is the final step in any investigation of facts, and application of such, in any field.
Now that being said, I don’t think a football coach will find whether or not he needs to run or pass in a given situation, but I do think that the Bible can give him what he needs to teach young men how to be the best athlete they can be.
I don’t know if we are getting anywhere, but I am enjoying the iron sharpening, and the critical thinking that I am being put through. I wouldn’t blame him at all for my faults, but I learned a lot about the necessity of “thinking” through your dad’s ministry. Still haven’t mastered it yet, but working on it. I have appreciated the dialogue.
Jeff,
I am tempted just to leave off here and agree with you this has been a good discussion (and it really has, exactly what I was looking for when I wrote this post). But your football coach illustration plays into my point too well to just leave it at that.
A football coach may be a good student of the Word of God, and faithful disciple of Jesus. He may even use his knowledge of the Bible and of the Author of the Bible in a very effective manner to train young men, and play an important rule in their spiritual, social, and ethical growth. But if he does not have a clue about X’s and O’s on the football field, chances are he is not going to win many football games. On the big scale, he will excel in those things that are most important. But he might be better off looking for another job where he can have the same sort of impact on young men, or else study something in addition to the Bible in order to become better acquainted with the fundamentals of football.
As I see it, there are many aspects of macroeconomics which directly play into some of the most important questions being debated with regard to politics nowadays that have more in common with the X’s and O’s of football than with the other vitally important leadership and discipleship skill of our theoretical football coach.
If we talk about football, our Christian faith and biblical belief system will not contribute much toward our understanding of when to call one play as over against another.
By the same token, when we talk about politics, I don’t believe our Christian faith and biblical belief will contribute much toward our understanding of when to favor Friedman or when to favor Keynes (for lack of a better example), or when to promote one particular tax strategy or monetary policy over against another.
In the secular realm (in the etymological sense of “of this present century or era, i.e. this-worldly instead of eternal), questions of macroeconomics have a certain degree of importance. For those who don’t see life from an eternal perspective, questions of macroeconomics indeed often rank among the most important. But for those of us who see life from a different, eternal perspective, questions of macroeconomics and secular politics have a merely secondary importance.
David,
We are certainly together on the football coach. Which makes me think we may still be talking apples and chickens.
I completely get what you are saying about the X’s and O’s of Macroeconomics do not necessarily come from the scriptures, and I agree.
What I contend, is that at the end of the day, once all knowledge is in, and the X’s and O’s are understood, that the Biblical principles of finance, should shed some light on which “system” to chose.
Back to the football coach for a minute. (not to change the subject) but I think this question may illuminate another issue on the overall picture. Ultimately who should we deem as a better football coach? A cussing, screaming, scoundrel of an infidel who wins; or a good solid believer, who loses with integrity and honesty?
As a last ditch effort to salvage that illustration, if we apply that question to politics, and finances, do we assume that “gain” or “prosperity” would in fact always be the right decision?
Thanks again for letting me discuss with you.
“Do we assume that ‘gain’ or ‘prosperity’ would in fact always be the right decision?”
That is a very good, and a very subversive question you ask there, Jeff. It betrays a good part of the tension we experience living in the “already-but not yet” era before Jesus returns to set up his eternal kingdom.
While we as Christians live as exiles in the “babylonic” kingdoms of this world, I think we do right to appropriate the instructions given in the OT context to “seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper” (Jer. 29:7). But we are to do so with the knowledge that ultimately, when the “70 years” are up, God’s judgment is coming on Babylon, and we are to flee.
If any candidate for the presidency of the US were to publicly pose the question you do here–do we assume that “gain” and “prosperity” would in fact always be the right decision–both you and I know he/she would not have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the election.
But, when I, as a Christian, am called upon to vote for president, whom do I vote for? Do I necessarily vote for the most godly, biblically-guided candidate? Even if he/she doesn’t have the most competence at “X’s and O’s”? Perhaps so, but such a position will leave us as Christians as politically irrelevant. Such a view is not the material of successful political alliances in the world in which we live.
But then again, maybe we are not called upon to be successful, but rather to be faithful.
Some related issues to think about here:
What’s more important: Theology or Saving America?
Should we be praying primarily for America or for Americans?
What do we do when we must choose between the biblical gospel and American civil religion?
In Re roughly D. Rogers comment 21 I suggest he google Marilynne Robinson’s recent lectures at Duke on prevenient courage and the strong witness of the institutional church in America before the Civil War.
Most fascinating Q and A. I may come back later with a pristine link, but simple google should do the trick.
With his three links at end of comment 21, wanted to share what I think is the kerygma, at least for me on these matters; and I think it safe to say Wheaton and Notre Dame’s Mark Noll would be in same stream with Robinson.
Anything anywhere specifically about the Bible and macroeconomics?
I’ve heard the word ‘justice’ applied to God.
In the Old Testament, I read that God wants justice for those who suffer at the hands of the wicked, and for those whose situations are vulnerable: the widows, the orphans . . .
In the New Testament we encounter a Lord who healed and fed people and died for them, with forgiveness on His Lips for those who were ignorant of their actions . . . I see in this Lord, a person who would not sit at the table, dressed in purple, feasting, while some sat outside the gate hungry, thirsting, and ill.
I never could understand the political will of some Christian people in our country who lacked any compassion or solidarity with Christ’s poor. Or who thought it acceptable to destroy the environment, poinson the water and the air, and so harm the common good of all in pursuit of wealth.
Your post comes at a needed time. I wish it had come sooner.
Theocracy and Dominionism are not Christianity in any form.
If our people are to be at the mercy of those who have been corrupted by greed, let us at least not honor the merciless as Christ-followers.
Yes, Christiane, our God is a God of justice and compassion, and we, as Christ’s followers are called to show that same justice and compassion in the world in which we live. That much is clear. There is a good bit of debate, however, on what is the best way to go about it. Some economists claim that if we have a bigger “pie,” then everyone benefits, even those who get a comparatively smaller slice of the “pie,” and so the important thing is whatever makes for a bigger “pie.” Some Christians say the best way to help the poor is through the private sector and not the public one. All these are debatable questions, but, as faithful Christians we can never neglect the poor or forget about our responsbility to care for the world in which we live. Sometimes, this implies doing our homework, and thinking through, to the best of our ability, how certain government polices affect the poor and the underprivileged. In the meantime, though, when we look at other people, we should do our best to see their heart, and not judge them on the basis of their economic theories.
Hi DAVID
My Christian faith leads me to want working people to be allowed dignity and that is something that IS on the political chopping block at this time.
If a government takes away their rights to organize for fair wages and for decent working conditions and safety in the work place, then I think Christians should not support that government.
So you and I likely disagree. But I would and could NEVER question your devotion to Christ and the Church. We see things differently in the economic world, and that’s ‘okay’. But I must speak for solidarity with those who are struggling in our country . . . their numbers are growing and among them are the children and the aged and the ones who cannot live unless they are cared for by others.
For a Christian, the dignity of the human person is a sacred belief.
You and I can at least agree on that.
Christiane,
I agree with you about wanting working people to be allowed dignity and the dignity of the human person. And I am very open to being convinced as to what is the best way for that be achieved, realizing, at the same time, we will likely never all agree on the details. I’m not real hardline either way on a lot of these questions, as I don’t see that my faith in God and His Word demands that from me. I seek to be as hardline as possible, however, on the necessity of love, grace, mercy…
David,
(pastoral duties have had preeminence the last few days)
I think you hit the nail on the head, when you said,
“such a position will leave us as Christians as politically irrelevant. Such a view is not the material of successful political alliances in the world in which we live. But then again, maybe we are not called upon to be successful, but rather to be faithful.”
I think that is my point.
What’s right does not always work. I remember a quote from your dad when he said something to the effect that many have “traded that which is right for that which works.”
I do believe that when it comes to the issue of being “politically relevent” verses “biblically faithful” we only have one choice. It is never right to do wrong, and it is never wrong to do right.
We may become politically irrelevent, but I believe we never compromise our Biblical faithfulness for the sake of pragmatism.
I do get your point about being in the “babylonic kingdom” and praying for their peace and prosperity. And I fully agree. I also believe that only comes to a point; and that point comes to a stop when their peace comes at our spiritual and moral price.
There are two times in the scriptures that we are to defy our government; and both are in the book of Daniel. The example of the Hebrew Children, and then the Lions Den.
When the government demands that we disobey God, we defy it. When the government forbids us from obeying GOd, we defy it. Up until those issues come in to play we are to be submissive to all other edicts and rules.
I said all of that to say this, that our ultimate loyalties are to always reside in the Biblical guidance we have concerning the management of whatever knowledge we possess.
Again, I have enjoyed the discussion, and I don’t want to weary you with it. I do think that we are more on the same page, than off and I thank you for your post, and look forward to the next one.
Jeff,
Undoubtedly, we agree on a whole lot, with respect to the question at hand. I hope to continue to read, discuss, and reflect on this, and to grow in my knowledge and understanding of God’s will for us as Christ’s disciples. Your contribution has been significant in this regard. Blessings.
David,
Just read you article. You and I are in agreement on this issue.
What frustrates me and makes me tear my hair out are Christians who are so committed to right-wing Minarchism that they take it on as an article of faith.
I wrote this back in 2007: http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/2007/12/small-government-and-modern-evangelical.html
Romans 13 is quoted often by Christians as a way of arguing that government should be small. This is a recent teaching, however, because if you look at all the historical commentaries on the book of Romans, none of them address this issue. It’s possible that a recent commentary might mention it, but that just proves my point that the teaching is recent.
The thing is that, like you, my view on economics is that Christians can hold any reasonable position. I’m reasonably progressive and liberal in my politics – mainly because I live in a country that has socialist policies like universal health care and open-ended unemployment benefits. That doesn’t mean I’m going to argue that socialism is the only biblical alternative… anyway, read my blog post as that articulates my position.
OSO,
Nice to see someone who is a Christian and has put a good deal of thought into economics comment favorably on this. Very good point about older commentaries on Romans 13.
For anyone who may happen to read this several months after initially being published, the following link gives some interesting additional food for thought:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2011/12/06/biblical-vs-deistic-economics/
It’s complicated, folks.