The Economics of Jesus
Saturday, November 11, 2006
31st Week in Ordinary Time
Memorial of St Martin of Tours
No servant can serve two masters. He will either hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth. Luke 16: 13
Jesus probably didn't know much about macroeconomics, even though he was God. But he really meant all those things he said about selling everything we have and giving to the poor and then following him.
The economics of Jesus is very simple. Live sparingly. Don't waste anything. Take only what you need and leave the rest for others. If possible, replenish what you take. Leave things no worse than you found them. And most important, don't become preoccupied with things, because they are not what your life is about.
The world as we know it could not run on the economics of Jesus. The consumption of goods, which drives the whole thing, would slow to a trickle. Most workers would be let go. The wealth of investors would disappear. The markets would crash. Instead of only half the world's people being desperately poor, we would all be foraging for food. It almost makes you glad that no one takes Jesus seriously.
But if we want to be followers of Jesus, we really do need to take him seriously, even if no one else does. He meant everything he said about being poor in the things of this world in order to be rich in grace. And he ought to know; he is God. He never would have won a prize in economics for his teaching, but what he said is the gospel truth.
posted by disciple @ 6:28 PM
13 comments
13 Comments:
What if you switched paradigms for a second: God did know all about macroeconomics but still chose for his teachings to decry saving and the accumulation of wealth? Would you then use it as a basis for communism?
JDW
I'm not sure I agree with the fundamental assumption that Jesus asked everyone to essentially be a minimalist, consuming only enough resources to survive. Jesus was found at his share of parties. I think we would need to further define what Jesus meant by taking only what you need. This isn't just food and shelter and it isn't the same for everyone. (Of course, this doesn't afford you the liberty for you to confuse "want" and "need" either.) I'm sad to hear that "no one takes Jesus seriously", but if they did, maybe the biggest difference we would see that many would consider detrimental, would be the slowing of innovation that is driven by greed. I would certainly entertain a discussion on whether or not Jesus would be a capitalist though.
What if giving everything (or most) of what you have does not mean you should stop working? We don't know much about Jesus' middle years, but why not assume that he worked in his father's workshop? Maybe he did, we don't know. Yet we know (assuming you take the Bible to be true and all) that for example Paul always wanted to make sure to make a living on his own, as to not be a burden on anyone.
Also: "The world as we know it could not run on the economics of Jesus." Well, maybe it'd be better. =)
So what if most of production were to go away, and wealth based on that consumption also diminished, and workers even lost their jobs. If we were to re-orient our priorities to things that can't be purchased in the store (and more often than not end up in the trash or storage), then the production and wealth lost would have very little economic value.
The initial shock may be harsh, but after we rebalanced and reached a new economic equilibrium, we could march on as content as ever. After all, our priorities would have changed.
Why do we all assume that a higher GDP is a good thing? Shouldn't the current economic cycle teach us that perhaps it can be inflated in unhealthy ways, and is really a mixed bag of good and bad influences in our individual and collective lives? And that perhaps there may be better measures (even economic measures) of success as a people/nation?
Most sensible interpretation I've ever come across on the internet.
Thanks for the interesting post.
Well, why would one expect a 1st century Galilean peasant to understand modern day economics?
Jesus was most likely motivated by a belief that the world was going to be ending in the next few decades, so material wealth was irrelevant and distracted people from preparing for the coming of God. Its not just a matter of selling material goods, but about giving up everything of this world. Paul goes as far as to recommend one stays single if they can manage it. In that light, it does make sense to live sparsely and sell all your goods. A few decades of meager living for an eternity in heaven is an extremely good trade.
Although your analysis accurately describes the shock that might happen if everyone suddenly shifted to lower consumption all at once, the eventual equilibrium is a much different story. In equilibrium, people are consuming less and people are producing less. So GDP, at least the way it is currently measured (mostly for feasibility considerations), would be lower. But that doesn't mean that markets would stop operating. We wouldn't all be "foraging for food"; in fact, with people eating less and lots of existing farming capital, we would have a lot of food to spare and could take farmland out of production. (There's also no reason why you need a sudden shock to get to that equilibrium; it's more realistic to assume that consumption would slowly decrease over time, as more people "convert" to a more minimalist lifestyle.)
Lower output makes many people fear lower employment, and it would be lower in the sense that people would work fewer hours. What guarantees that working hours will decline, instead of employment? Markets: people want more money to work longer hours, so, for the most part, employers try to avoid this by shifting work hours to those working less (who are cheaper). Of course, there are some fixed costs to hiring employees, so unemployment might be a little higher, but probably not that much. Most of the stickiness of working hours has to do with cultural norms; small shifts in output over long time periods do not change these much, but with such a dramatic shift, they would likely change. Employers also generally choose layoffs over working hours reductions for morale reasons, but presumably that would not be as big of an issue in the midst of a major cultural shift. (It also bears mentioning that output about 50 years ago was around half of what it is now, yet employment was not at half the level, although that has more to do with labor productivity.)
It's a little harder to say what would happen to the rate of innovation. It's likely that it would slow down a little because of the Arrow effect. That is, the benefit of investing in something that reduces the cost of producing one unit of output increases with the amount of output. So, with less output, the incentive to reduce production costs will be somewhat lower.
It also depends on what your definition of "need" is as well. Presumably, there's no such thing as extravagant health care, at least as far as disease remediation is concerned, so that's going to remain an area of major spending. Education likely follows a similar pattern. These are extremely large portions of the economy and demand for them would probably increase if people had fewer other material things. You'll also still need a legal system, and most of its costs are fixed.
Thus, it is entirely possible that the world would look pretty much the same, except that we'd be healthier and smarter and have a lot more time off, but with worse TV. I could live with that.
I'd like to share an alternative explanation of Jesus' perspective on money, because I feel you've missed the balance point. Understanding "God's economics" requires a look at more than just one verse. We must take the entire Bible in context and realize it is fulfilled in Jesus himself.
Let's get some of the larger context:
(1) Wealth is part of God's blessing: Deuteronomy 8:18, 28:1-13, Abraham (Genesis 12:2, 13:2), David, Solomon, much of Proverbs and Psalms (112), etc.
(2) Poverty and lack are generally described as a symptom of separation from God (Deut. 28:15-), Judges, Malachi 3, Joel.
With that in mind, let's look at Jesus.
(1) Jesus chose to live a life beneath his means. Born into a well-known carpenter's family, he probably made quite a good living, but he was also gifted with substantial wealth by three kings upon his birth (Matthew 2:11). It was common in that day for kings paying tribute to newborn royalty to give gifts that represented substantial percentages of their own net worth. Their gifts would have been their very best because they understood Jesus to be the King of Kings, therefore Jesus probably had substantial wealth, but chose to live beneath his means.
(2) Jesus frequently used money in his parables. In fact, he talks about wealth and money more than any other topic except the Kingdom. He goes so far as to say in Luke 16:9-12 that how you manage money is a major factor in determining your ability to receive spiritual revelation from God. You are only a steward of your possessions. In several parables about the Kingdom, Jesus even encourages shrewd investment for profit, because it represents good stewardship. (See the Parable of the Talents where the King rewards his servants who invest and increase the capital they were given, while the servant who did nothing with it was punished.)
Jesus had money to give away. He had a treasurer (Judas) and gave regularly to the poor. That's not a sign of hand-to-mouth living or poverty, but of abundance.
(4) Jesus did not accrue material things or make them a focus of his life, yet he never lacked for money, even to the point where money appeared supernaturally for his needs (Matthew 17:27).
So rather than condemning worldly possessions, Jesus tells us to be good stewards of money, using it to serve God and help others. Profit and increase is a sign of good stewardship. Wealth is a blessing to the pure in heart (Proverbs 10:22). However, we must always remember that everything we own belongs to God, and we must use it in a way that honors him. We own things, but things must never own us.
When we look in the Book of Acts and the Epistles, we see those who are successful and wealthy caring for their Christian brothers and sisters in need (Acts 4). That does not indicate a community of egalitarian poverty. In fact, Acts 4 says that poverty was eliminated in the entire region of Jerusalem! That is not Christian communism, it was strategic giving combined with the already successful business leaders equipping fellow Christians to work and earn a good living (2 Thes. 3:10).
When writing about money and giving in 2 Corinthians 9, Paul even tells us that God's will is to enrich us and increase our financial resources so we can always be generous!
In conclusion, it’s clear that the Bible’s perspective on wealth and money is not at all one that encourages or glorifies poverty, neither is it communistic. Throughout the Old and New Testaments, God’s will is clearly that his people be well provided for as they work, and also have enough to give away. Therefore, the economics of Jesus are clear: “Seek first the Kingdom and all these things” including money, “shall be added unto you.”
All this talk on the economics of Jesus is well and good, but let us not forget the other fairytale character with volumes to say on the subject of modern day economics: Rumplestiltskin. We would all do well not to forget his guiding principles, especially in an environment such as this; perhaps it is time for a shift in ethos as country, nay, as a global entity. W.W.R.B.?
I feel like im going to throw up after reading this...
Reply to Ianesque:
I think I have some debate with some of your points, or at least would like to clarigy them and then see what you think.....
1) Jesus may have attained wealth, but it's what He did with it that matters. He saw no function for wealth in the kingdom, rather, like you said, He lived within his strict means, even wandering with no home and relying on friends in different towns to house him, and picking coins out of fish mouths to pay taxes. Wealth was a non-issue in the sense that he did not have it, rather he speaks of giving what you have to those who need it, investing the gifts that God grants to everyone and advancing the kingdom with your gains and profits... You seem to state this...
2) Poverty may theologically be a symptom of the fall, but it's still a mandate of the Kingdom of God to help the poor (James 1). James considers the religion that does nothing for the poor as a dead religion. Also, Amos 2 is a prophecy of condemnation against Israel herself for overlooking the poor ( a very serious few passages...). Jesus life was a message of bold and blatant rebellion against the religious caste system of first century Israel in the way that he loved and ministered to the poor, marginalized, and the sinner. In faith, the boy with 2 fish and 5 loaves gave all he had, and was blessed. In faith, the rich young ruler came and asked Jesus how to get to heaven, and sadly turned away from his advice "Sell all your possessions and give it to the poor." This message of social justice and selflessness is the most spoken about theme throughout the prophets and takes up a good chunk of Jesus message.
So yes, God blesses us, so we may bless others. That involves stewardship, it involves investment, but the underlying purpose is for our profit to be given away. To be put to use in the furtherance of the Kingdom of God...
Everything in this post made sense but for the last paragraph.
All of it was rational, logical till then. And suddenly, there was a straightforward "God is right because he's God" claim. Why?
The "Jesus economics" is a way of life all around you and within you. You just on't see it. Take a look at the the vast society of cells making your own body -- tens of trillions of live, self-reproducing organisms living by the laws of "Jesus economics" ("you" are the god of that realm).
Post a Comment
<< Home