Another of the ongoing series (here, here, here and here)where we look at biblical passages that touch on economic issues, matters of poverty and wealth. I was going to lump "The Gospels and Acts" all into one grouping, but it became clear that there was too much material to squeeze it into one post.
Then I decided to do "Economics in the Gospels" but still there was too much to cover. And so, I offer today merely "Luke 12 and Economics."
[Jesus speaking...]
"Are not five sparrows sold for two small coins? Yet not one of them has escaped the notice of God. Even the hairs of your head have all been counted. Do not be afraid. You are worth more than many sparrow.
"I tell you, everyone who acknowledges me before others the Son of Man will acknowledge before the angels of God. But whoever denies me before others will be denied before the angels of God…"
Someone in the crowd said to him, "Teacher, tell my brother to share the inheritance with me."
He replied to him, "Friend, who appointed me as your judge and arbitrator?"
Then he said to the crowd, "Take care to guard against all greed, for though one may be rich, one's life does not consist of possessions."
Then he told them a parable. "There was a rich man whose land produced a bountiful harvest.
"He asked himself, 'What shall I do, for I do not have space to store my harvest?'
"And he said, 'This is what I shall do: I shall tear down my barns and build larger ones. There I shall store all my grain and other goods and I shall say to myself, "Now as for you, you have so many good things stored up for many years, rest, eat, drink, be merry!"
"But God said to him, 'You fool, this night your life will be demanded of you; and the things you have prepared, to whom will they belong?'
"Thus will it be for the one who stores up treasure for himself but is not rich in what matters to God."
He said to (his) disciples, "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life and what you will eat, or about your body and what you will wear. For life is more than food and the body more than clothing.
"Notice the ravens: they do not sow or reap; they have neither storehouse nor barn, yet God feeds them. How much more important are you than birds!
"Can any of you by worrying add a moment to your lifespan?
"If even the smallest things are beyond your control, why are you anxious about the rest?
"Notice how the flowers grow. They do not toil or spin. But I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of them.
"If God so clothes the grass in the field that grows today and is thrown into the oven tomorrow, will he not much more provide for you, O you of little faith?
"As for you, do not seek what you are to eat and what you are to drink, and do not worry anymore.
"All the nations of the world seek for these things, and your Father knows that you need them.
"Instead, seek his kingdom, and these other things will be given you besides.
"Do not be afraid any longer, little flock, for your Father is pleased to give you the kingdom.
"Sell your belongings and give alms. Provide money bags for yourselves that do not wear out, an inexhaustible treasure in heaven that no thief can reach nor moth destroy.
"For where your treasure is, there also will your heart be."
Luke 12: 7-9, 13-34
======
What a beautiful passage on the joy of trusting God for all we need. About minding where our treasure lies.
I will note that, if you quote the line "Sell your belongings and give alms" it is often assumed that is Jesus talking to the rich young man, whom he told to sell all he had, give it to the poor and come, follow him.
But here's a passage where a similar statement is made to us all. One difference here being that Jesus didn't instruct us all to sell all we had, but rather, "Sell your belongings...", which is a bit more vague a command.
Your thoughts?
10 comments:
Dan,
As much as I've liked this series, I must opine that it is misnamed.
Economics literally means "household management" (oikos = "house", nomos = "rule, law, management")
Notice in the parable that the rich man doesn't say to himself, "I have much money, or many coins, laid up for myself" rather he says that he has much goods. Wealth based on a token (money based) economy is a rather modern concept. Until not so long ago, wealth meant how much household goods you had which meant how well you lived.
Economics means how you manage your possessions. Now notice that Jesus says, "one's life does not consist of possessions." That is the same thing as saying, "I'm not talking about economics."
Almost all the passages you have quoted in this series have pretty much nothing at all to do with economics. True, you said only that they touched on economics. But they only touched on it to say that they are not addressing it per se.
I must, I'm afraid, point out that you are still using a loose paraphrase. Jesus didn't say "one's life does not consist of possessions" but rather "a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth." There's a big difference there.
What Jesus refers to as 'life' does not consist of the abundance of possessions. Nor does it consist of the paucity of them. It is not related to the possessions at all.
Paul said "I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need." (From Philippians)
Abound, abundance. And it doesn't really matter one way or the other to the spiritual man.
Good set of verses, Dan. I don't think the "sell everything" part was supposed to be a universal command. The young man's problem was that money was his God.
We should consider how we can use everything we have to further God's kingdom and lay up treasures in Heaven. Once people give generously they won't go back.
Thanks for the comments, fellas.
E, I'll have to say that I've read and re-read your comment and I'm not getting it. Yes, economics means household management. Yes, "Economics means how you manage your possessions."
So, how have these passages NOT been about how we manage our possessions? That seems to me to be exactly what these passages have been talking about in one form or the other.
And yes, Neil. I agree. The rich young man had a problem with dependence upon his wealth. He depended upon, relied upon, worshiped, mammon, not God.
And I think that the scriptures point out that this is a condition common to humanity. Hence the many warnings to beware the trappings of wealth.
When we read passages like this, I think the first thing we have to do is figure out, desperately, how these things DO NOT apply to us. How can we, for instance, prove to God that we are not "fools" when we have spent our lives building bigger and bigger barns and seeking kingdoms that are more like Wall Street than Missions of Charity?
Wiggle as we may though, parsing "oikos" and "nomos" and "everything," I fear, when I can push it from my conscious mind no longer, that we, I, am living according to the wrong paradigm.
Suppose Jesus, (oh, surely not, please, please not) really meant that we were to take care of each other. I mean, not just our own family, but other people too!
Mother Teresa said, "You and I, we are the Church, no? We have to share with our people. Suffering today is because people are hoarding, not giving, not sharing. Jesus made it very clear. Whatever you do to the least of my brethren, you do it to me. Give a glass of water, you give it to me. Receive a little child, you receive me."
Oh, dear!
Dan:"That seems to me to be exactly what these passages have been talking about in one form or the other."
It's because, Dan, you are confusing what the Bible says about piety and charity with what it says about economics. And it doesn't deal with those two concepts alike.
It seems that you are suggesting that charity and generosity are the basis for a God-endorsed economic system, something like, If you are generous to others or the common cause, God will increase your lot as sort of reward.
Now there are passages in the Bible that deal with economics per se. For example:
When goods increase, they are increased that eat them: and what good is there to the owners thereof, saving the beholding of them with their eyes? Eccl 5:11
and
She seeks wool and flax,
And willingly works with her hands.
She is like the merchant ships,
She brings her food from afar.
She also rises while it is yet night,
And provides food for her ousehold,
And a portion for her maidservants.
She considers a field and buys it;
From her profits she plants a vineyard.
She girds herself with strength,
And strengthens her arms.
She perceives that her merchandise is good,
And her lamp does not go out by night.
She stretches out her hands to the distaff,
And her hand holds the spindle.
from 31st Prov.
These passages (and many more) are about economics. They are about using our time, resources, abilities, and opportunities to provide for ourselves and our families with a right livelihood.
Now, once we've done that. The question of charity and piety can enter into the discussion. True piety comes when you realize that what you have earned with the 'sweat of thy face' might be sorely needed by some other and you are willing do without yourself, have your family do without, in order to aid them. Not the expecting of a divine reward into your left hand while the right is dispensing largesse.
I submit to you, Dan, that you are confusing the two. Piety is not economics and economics is not piety.
Now, let me posit it to you: If you were to pick someone's pocket, defraud a little old lady out savings, or steal a child's piggy bank ... is there then a question of whether it is the right thing to do, the best stewardship before God, to give a portion of that loot to the poor?
If it seems like a bizarre question, that is just how I find myself viewing the posit that the verses on piety are proffered as verses on economics. You see, before you address whether or not it is in God's economic paradigm for you to practice altruism with your money, you have first to settle the question of whether is was rightly earned or ill gotten.
Those who do not live by a right livelihood, those who live by ill gotten gain, will see the passing around of goods as a good thing with their hand out to dip into pie as deeply as possible. They will resist any discriminating look into the scheme of things lest they find their call for generosity a bit too self serving.
Anyone who lives by means of forcibly collected funds, the perpetuation of fraud, and cultivating weakness of spirit (for example, "professional" teachers, paid ministers, supervisors, paid advocates, facilitators, etc. etc.) are of course going to be all for a view the piety and economics are the same thing. Those whose economic base rests on a right livelihood are more likely to see the difference.
See?
Whoa! Are you saying that taxation = ill-gotten gain? Or am I misunderstanding.
BRD:"Are you saying that taxation = ill-gotten gain?"
No, of course not. I've said nothing of the sort. The key words in my posit are "force" and "fraud".
For example, if I don't want to pay taxes for highways, I just don't buy gasoline (and tires, and oil). No one is forcing me to pay that tax, it is completely voluntary. That's an example of a tax without using force.
Another example of a tax would be the background check for a gun purchase. When the prospective buyer is charged, I believe, $5 to have their name checked for a gun purchase, the something like $4.75 goes to pay for the database and 25 cents to the retailer for performing the check. Without that fee, there would be no check and all the money goes to sustain the database. There is no fraud involved.
A case where both force and fraud are involved is levying property tax to pay for government schools. First, it is force because you cannot avoid paying it even if can make no use of the services (you have no children, for example). The tax is unrelated the service, property ownership has nothing at all to do with the conducting of government schools. And you have no personal choice as to whether to pay the tax or not. Force.
It is also fraud because of the propaganda that if you didn't have government schools, massive numbers of people would not be able to read, write, or do math. This has been demonstrated over and over again to be false. Children who are not exposed to the propaganda to begin with virtually ALL learn to read and write and do arithmetic with no instruction at all.
So this is an example of a livelihood based on both fraud and force. Remove those two underlying supports and the "profession" evaporates immediately. It is not a right livelihood.
Although I would prefer a system completely devoid of both force and fraud, for the sake of a practical life, I would allow them as long as we have only ONE at a time. It'd be ok to have a tax involving force as long as it was being used for some benefit that would disappear the moment we ceased to excise the tax. Likewise, it would be acceptable to have taxes based on fraud (like most of the telephone taxes) so long as they were voluntary. That way those of us who see through the fraud could choose not to pay the taxes and thus promote right livelihoods.
One could make the argument that, like gas, a person does not have to own property, therefore they don't have to pay property tax.
BRD:"One could make the argument.."
While it would be a logical argument, it would be profoundly weak argument.
Thomas Jefferson wrote on taxes, and I'll have to paraphrase here, I don't have it at hand ... to wit: Consumer (or consumption) taxes carry within them their own limitations of abuse and excess. Recall the Boston Tea Party. To finance their unpopular and disastrous European wars, they levied a heavy tax on tea. The colonists simply quit buying tea. So the British declared that when the tea was unloaded at the warf (actually when the bill of lading was delivered to the harbor master), the tax was due whether anyone drank the tea or not. So the colonists dumped the tea into the harbor as a tax protest.
Like that, although so many have a hard time imagining it, a person can live without motor transportation, or at the very least one has the feasible ability to greatly reduce it. I'm not arguing the virtues of doing so or not, just pointing out that it is possible.
And it's possible to cut back the road taxes at any point and on the fly. This is a powerful motivation to keep them modest. If you raise the gasoline tax or excise tax on tires, you might, in fact are likely, to collect LESS tax money since people will cut back on the use of those things.
But with property tax you have these characteristics:
1. It's a purely artificial tax. Property ownership has nothing whatever to do with government education. This means that the ability to tax is not geared directly with what the tax is spent on.
2. Unlike with road taxes, the people paying the tax don't necessarily get any benefit from the tax.
2. While it is possible to live without motor transportation, it is not possible to live without a place to live. Property tax is paid directly by the owner or indirectly by the renter.
3. While people can stop buying luxury items, alcohol, tobacco, and can greatly reduce buying motor fuel, they cannot easily sell a house and buy a smaller one.
So while your proffered argument smacks of a point on the surface, in substance it is not the same thing.
Looking at the management of OT Levite system, I think one can distinguish two kinds of property:
1. Property or wealth for personal use, in which self-denial and discipline is definitely key. Levites had this kind of property, houses, clothes, some small land.
2. Property, or wealth to make money. The other tribes had this kind of property, Levites did not. I feel this is to be sold when service to Jesus is to be taken. The property, that is used for making money. (?)
The other interesting thing is where is your heart. Is it not to be in the Church, is it. Loving your brothers. Carrying your brothers in your heart. Thinking of events mentioned in the book of Acts, Peter with no silver no gold (even though he might have had, but as belonging to the community), Ananias and Safira (they had the right to keep, so communion in wealth was not an absolute, total demand, but based on give when asked, I suppose) I think that declining of all possessions, or putting it other way: give when asked (i.e. no right to hold back) is to be understood within the Church. Outside giving should be a decision of the community and not individually. Even though I’m probably quite stubborn, I’m not pushing these thoughts onto you Dan or anyone else, but seeking the truth until I am convinced. Anyway I hope to generate some thinking about these matters at least.
If I am wrong, please forgive me!
Post a Comment