Top
Browse > Home / Doxis, Feature / Biblical Economics 1-0-what?

Biblical Economics 1-0-what?

Written by Jordan Peacock : May 6, 2008

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.

Michael Cline is a former co-editor of Jesus Manifesto. He's currently the Pastor of Young Adults at a Wesleyan Church in Minneapolis. When not contributing at JM, he's doing even more reading and writing towards his MDIV from Bethel Seminary. His blog can be found at www.reclinerramblings.blogspot.com


Print This Article Print This Article

for further reading . . .

  • None Found
· Filed Under Doxis, Feature 

Comments

Viewing 57 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    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
    • ^
    • v
    Those were semi-formal stipulations set by (some for sure, not certain about all) the early churches.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    We're glad you jumped in, Sara
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    I liked your conclusions a,b and c.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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?
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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."
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^