Thursday, October 11, 2007

The Bible and Economics...


Beanblossom Covered Bridge
Originally uploaded by paynehollow
From Jeremiah...

"[The wicked] do not plead the cause, the cause of the orphan, that they may prosper; and they do not defend the rights of the poor. Shall I not punish these people?" declares the LORD. "On such a nation as this, shall I not avenge myself?"

Jeremiah 5:28

"For, if you truly amend your ways and your deeds, if you truly practice justice between a man and his neighbor, if you do not oppress the alien, the orphan, and the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place, nor walk after other gods to your own ruin, then I will let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers forever and ever."

Jeremiah 7:5-7

O house of David, thus says the LORD:
"Administer justice every morning; And deliver the person who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor…”

Jeremiah 21:12

Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor. Also do not mistreat or do violence to the stranger, the orphan, or the widow; and do not shed innocent blood in this place.

Jeremiah 22:3

"Did not your father eat and drink, and do justice and righteousness? Then it was well with him. He pled the cause of the afflicted and needy; then it was well. Is that not what it means to know Me?" declares the LORD.

Jeremiah 22:16

"Leave your orphans; I will protect their lives. Your widows too can trust in me." [God speaking]

Jeremiah 49:10

21 comments:

Michael Westmoreland-White said...

Excellent quotes from my favorite prophet.

Eleutheros said...

As with the rest of the series, Dan, those are all verses about morality and have nothing whatever to do with economics.

Dan Trabue said...

Well, on this point, I will have to disagree with you, E. I think how we spend our money, how we deal with "the least of these," what our economic practices, what our justice practices are... ALL of this has to do with economics.

revhipchick said...

i think you've made a great point dan--what we do with our money gives us great insights into our actual priorities, values, and morals.

but it sure makes life a lot easier when you don't understand it that way! some days i hate the fact that i have to think through this stuff now! ignorance is bliss.

though, i'm still plenty ignorant and blissful! i have so much yet to learn!

Alan said...

I'm not sure how we could possibly separate morality from how we spend our money, on either the very small scale of individual purchasing, saving, & investing, or on the large scale of a country's economic policies.

After all, "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also..." Not a Jeremiah quote, but still pretty good. ;)

Michael Westmoreland-White said...

The economic context of these verses is more apparent in larger sections. For instance, in Jeremiah 22, the king is using slave labor for his new palace, with costly building materials at the expense of the economic welfare of the people.

Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness, his upper rooms by injustice, making his countrymen work for nothing, not paying them for their labor.

He says, 'I will build myself a great palace with spacious upper rooms.' So he makes large windows in it and panels it with cedar and rosewood.

Does it make you a king to have more and more cedar? Did not your father have enough food and drink? He did what was right and just, so all went well with him. He defended the cause of the poor and needy, so all went well. Is not this what it is to know me? asks the LORD.
But your eyes are set only on dishonest gain, on bloodshed and oppression and extortion.

Jer. 22: 13-17.

Eleutheros said...

Dan:"ALL of this has to do with economics."

Of course, one may use a word as one wishes. The language belongs to us all. But stretching the meaning of "economics" to include anything that "has to do with" bespeaks a curious mindset.

For example, Psalms tells us to make a joyful noise unto the Lord. Are we to consider this the Bible's view of music theory? Scales, chords, inversions, harmony, etc. are subordinated, or out the window all together as music theory because the Bible, which should take precedence, has its own teachings on music theory?

To label the verses you cite as the Bible's teaching on economics rather than piety or morality is like citing in the 15th chapter of 2 Chronicles where Azariah told Asa "Be ye strong therefore, and let not your hands be weak." as the Bible's teaching on body building rather than a teaching against idolatry.

Economics doesn't mean, in ordinary language, "something sort of, maybe, having something to do with how we spend our money" any more than music theory means "sort of mentioning something vaguely related to music." I well understand the desire to lend a certain logic, objectivity, practicality to one's interpretation of the Bible. But it leads to some pretty strange places.


For example the American Puritans viewed wealth as a sign of salvation and cited the Bible copiously in support of it. If God favored you materially, it was proof you were saved. So a outward display of wealth was important. That's the sort of thing that comes from passing off verses in the Bible about piety as if they were lessons in economics.

Faced with piety and economics, one often has to violate the one to achieve the other. That's why it's piety. If you have run your affairs well and fairly and turned a handsome profit for your efforts, you have done well economically. Faced with someone in dire need, you might feel compelled to give them some of that gain, or all of it. That is NOT in your economic interest, although it is an act of piety.

And I will point out again the half, the far greater "half", that you've left out completely. Why is it always what we do with our money that God's "economics" is concerned with and not how we came by it?

Dan Trabue said...

Economics: the science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, or the material welfare of humankind.

Is there a better word for the consideration of HOW we produce, distribute and consume goods? If you prefer, I could use the title, The Bible and Wealth and Poverty and Oppression and Justice, but it seems to me that economics fits just fine.

Dan Trabue said...

Al ozarka said:

Wow! This compilation of scripture is a bitter indictment against the irresponsible and exploitive nature ogf the Democratic Party towards the poor, the homeless, and the fatherless!

If it wasn't for leftist subjugation of blacks, illegal aliens, [gays], and homeless drug-addicts, the Democratic party wouldn't have a base!


And he felt necessary to use a distasteful ephithet towards gays, so I've substituted a word. There are some words I won't let stand here.

Eleutheros said...

Dan:"Is there a better word for the consideration of HOW we produce, distribute and consume goods?"

In your proffered definition deals with is a poor phrase for the lexicographer to use (although, alas, it is one of their favorites). Deal with? What in Hades does that mean?

Economics is the science that describes and quanitfies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.

Leave it at 'deal with' and pretty soon everything is economics ... and when everything is economics, nothing is.

There are passages in the Bible that ARE about economics, but the uber-liberal doesn't like them so we don't often see them out for an airing. For example, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread." If you are eating bread and not sweating for it, that is, if you are consuming goods and services and not producing at least the equivalent of those goods and services yourself, you are living from someone else's sweat.

That, I would tell you, is immoral. The Bible points out an economic reality which anyone can figure out with or without the Bible, and then in other parts points out the morality involved in that economic principle. But to call the moral teaching "economics" is misleading if not duplicitous. It implies that if only we follow (someone's particular version) of the moral teaching of the Bible, that will by definition be the soundest economic decision.

This is the same sort of reasoning the televangelists use to bilk old widows out of their life's savings. Just give me all your money on faith and see what if God doesn't reward you with even more wealth! Giving me your money (backed up by a string of verses) is what God wants so it is the best economic decision you can make as well.

Throughout the entire time of the Bible, the economic system was managed by very wealthy people who were wealthy because of the number of slaves and indentured servants they had. The Bible endorses this arrangement to the very end.

Jamie said...

Verses are all telling us to look for those with less. It is to be a mirror of the grace God gives us; we being the party who can't do anything for ourselves, God being the Kind, Gracious One who provides.

BUT, what about the verse in Peter about, If you don't work, you don't eat. Some people have become pros at not working with help from welfare and other gov't programs. Some do need it, some REALLY don't. If you quote the Bible, you gotta keep context.

Dan Trabue said...

Thanks Jamie, for the thoughts. And I have been and will include verses on all sides of economic ideas. If you scroll down my page a bit, you'll see a link to previous The Bible and Economics entries, including the Proverbs and Ecclesiastes passages, which are a bit more on the "don't work, don't eat" vein.

The point - as I think we'll see as I go through the Bible pulling out a good sampling of what it has to say on wealth and poverty, justice and oppression and simplicity - is that the Bible has a heckuva lot to say about these issues and we'll also see consistent and insistent concern for the poor and marginalized and consistent and strongly insistent warnings about the trappings of wealth and the evils of overconsumption/consumerism.

brd said...

It seems that Eleutheros has made this semantic point before. I appreciate the parsing, but I think most of us humble blog readers understand what Dan is getting at.

The Bible sets forth some principles of living that are radical and could, were we radical enough, change our economic world. If we were serious about caring for orphans, we would vote and legislate and participate in programs and actively pursue adequate services for foster care. If we were serious about justice, we would not allow individuals to accrue wealth to the extent that those individuals can wield unlimited power over the lives of the innocent and oppressed of our society.

A serious reaction to Biblical directives would mean land reform, radical redistribution of wealth, a serious reassessment of general health care, and job programs that would make the CCC look like child's play.

Certainly, economic principles come in here somewhere. Maybe some redefinitions would be in order to boot.

(Plus, I would argue that the principles of music, aka music theory, are present consciously or unconsciously in every piece of music, from Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star to Rachmaninoff's Concerto #3 in D Minor to Schoernberg's Pierrot Lunaire to Dolly Parton's version of Peace Train.)

Eleutheros said...

Brd:"A serious reaction to Biblical directives would mean land reform, radical redistribution of wealth, a serious reassessment of general health care, and job programs that would make the CCC look like child's play."

A serious reaction to the Communist Manifesto would do the same thing.

Everyone makes up a world as they'd like it to be and then they dip into the Bible on a cherry picking expedition to find verses that show that, sure enough, that's the way God wants it too.

Modern socialists are no exception. Those who are swilling at the public trough (or earnestly wish they were) naturally look into the Bible and find all of its teachings about piety and compassion to mean that we ought to use the police power of the state to take assets from people at the point of a gun and pay their salary. (Yes, that's right, if you are a government school teacher, your salary is made by the government threatening to throw people out of their homes at gun point if they don't pay their property taxes for your salary).

But, hey, its all in the Bible there somewhere about taking other people's property and paying your salary with it.

There have been many other serious reactions to Biblical directives through history. The economic paradigm the Bible reflects is that of patriarch who owns a great number of slaves and servants. Most of the teachings about piety in the Bible are admonitions to treat your slaves well and not abuse them. But NOT to set them free or consider them equal to yourself. Under the patriarchal system the only widows and orphans needing charity were those not included in someone's slave holdings. If the patriarch didn't choose to take the dispossessed into his pool of slaves, then he was admonished to at least provide some food and aid to them.

So just as we had Boaz, Job, Abraham, and all the other wealthy folk in the Bible fully endorsed by God in their patriarchy and slave holding, so today Bill Gates, the Walton family, and all the major corporations find a paradigm in the Bible to follow.

So did the antebellum southern planters. A large household consisting of one's immediate family, indentured servants, share croppers, and slaves was a serious reaction to Biblical directives. So was Tsarist Russia, European colonial expansion, and the industrial revolution. So is modern corporatism.

The economic system the Bible teaches endorses the holding of slaves. It also roundly condemns borrowing and lending money, so before worrying about electing officials and empowering them like a band of robbers to steal the property of people who earned it (which is NOT taught in the Bible), first cut up your credit cards and if you don't have your house and car paid for, give them back until you have the cash to pay for them in a Biblical manner.

If everyone had a serious reaction to Biblical directives and practiced the actual economic model found in the Bible, there would be precious few ills to correct by the Satanic means (stealing) that are advocated on this list. Earn your own keep and do things like teaching and preaching as a gift to the people as was done in the Bible, earn your bread by the sweat of your face, do not borrow money nor live on interest, don't be a glutton (don't over consume, be a Pillsbury Doughboy or one of the "kine of Bashan").

Do those things that the Bible teaches FIRST. And then let's take stock to see if we need to seize people's goods in the name of the God after all.

eyemkmootoo said...

"A serious reaction to biblical directives would mean land reforms, radical redistribution of wealth, a serious reassessment of general healthcare, and job programs that make the CCC look like childs play."

The Hutterites?

eyemkmootoo said...

Acts 2:44-46 One of the "actual economic models found in the bible"?

eyemkmootoo said...

"And all that believed were together, and
had all things common;
And sold their possessions and goods,
and parted them to all men, as every man had
need.
And they, continuing daily with one
accord in the temple, and breaking bread
from house to house, did eat their meat with
gladness and singleness of heart,.."

"..describes and quantifies distribution and consumption" well enough.

But production?

Merciful Lord, I was supposed to stop this madness.

eyemkmootoo said...

And because he was of the same craft, he
abode with them, and wrought: for by their
occupation they were tentmakers.
And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath,..

production

Erudite Redneck said...

Wait a minute. The concept of "economics," as opposed to "political economics" is fairly recent, I mean in the past 100, maybe 150, years or so. There is no economics outside a political environment, even if that environment is libertarian, laissez faire, or whatever. Politics is the clash of morality and ethics and values, by definition. The decision to see "economics" as a sterile system of "markets" and supply and demand and whatnot, itself is a moral decision.

Sigh. Galbraith should have livedd another 100 years.

Eleutheros said...

ER:"There is no economics outside a political environment, even if that environment is libertarian, laissez faire, or whatever."

That is true to an extent. Deliberately avoiding the argumentum ad absurdum it is a matter of degrees.

If you were to advise people to not ingest lead because it is poisonous, one might retort that lead is ubiquitous, you CAN'T avoid it. Even the the mountain springs where we get our water have micro-micro-micro traces of lead.

But the amount of lead is insignificant. We could drink the water for 100 years with no ill effect. It doesn't mean that because there is a tiny bit of lead everywhere, it's the same as eating paint chips.

You economic observation is that way. All of us, no matter how libertarian and autonomous deal with the larger economy in some way. What goes on in the world affects the price of gasoline, insurance, medical services, salt and nails.

But the more autonomous a local, community, family, or personal economy is, the less it is affected by the larger politics.

We are, for example, in the process of taking in our corn which will provide most of our bread for the year. It was grown with no inputs from the outside, no motor fuel, no fertilizer, no seeds. No money was involved in any way. That means that at least there is bread on the table for the coming year. The political environment does not affect that at all.

But the person who stops by the convenient store every day to pick up bread on their way home from commuting, their bread is greatly affected by politics.

You can't escape the effects of politics altogether, but you can make those effects insignificant in your life.

John said...

I think that we should all review basic economics.