I have been meditating for some time: What would a Christian economy look like? If we were to be the majority in the world and have the power to show forth how a Kingdom of God society should look like, and therefore take our ideas from the bible - how should that look like?
Ok, I admit it. The reason this has become even more relevant for me, lately, is that I find Christians who seem to think that the mixed economy model in Scandinavia and in most of Europe is some unbiblical, socialist thing. Their ideal seem to be "the great America" where we have reports of people who have to have three jobs to afford to have food on the table and a roof over their head. I cannot help myself but wondering: How can Christians who in other areas are Kingdom thinking people, hold that as an ideal? How do they get raw capitalism to work together with the bible?
I will not even try to acurately define all the different words used: socialism, capitalism, mixed economy, welfare capitalism. You can find all these words defined in Wikipedia. I will rather use them as they are commonly used and point to different types of societies where this are implemented. I am more into: What picture does the bible paint and how does that fit with the prevalent ideas I find in different societies?
The example of Israel in the Old Covenant
I think I will start in old Israel, because, apart from all the rules that is about how to be ritually, outwardly clean, there is rules who regulate ownership, bankruptcy, interest, a fair payment for work, righteous standards for commercial activity, how to treat the poor, etc. Many of these rules were as opposed to the society around Israel. God clearly states that there was no other nation that had such righteous foundation for their society as had Israel. So I don't think that we should just reject the way the Old Covenant Israelite society was arranged as Old Testament stuff, therefore not relevant. The problem with the Law was its inability to change human hearts, and all the regulations of outward ritual holiness were constantly pointing to that fact that they lacked inner holiness. The problem with the Law was not its standards, because Paul states that the Law in itself is good (Rom 7).
So how was old Israel? Firstly, every familiy has their own land. That was a part of their inheritage and, in fact, nobody could take it from them, even if they went bankrupt. The idea of bankruptcy shows on the other hand that the land had to be properly managed. If somebody should spend its value and potential with carelessness and yield themselves to laziness and drunkardness, they could end as slaves, maybe even for their lifetime. But, and there is a big BUT, the familiy line would never loose their land. What regulated this was the Jubilee Year. In the Jubilee Year every property went back to their original familiy. If somebody went bankrupt and had to sell their property to pay their debt, the price was set with regards to the number of years to the next Jubilee Year. Also, there was the obligation for Israelittes to buy the land, so that it did not come in hands of foreigners who might have other standards. As an Israelite slave in Israel they had the right to get their day wages, but the outcome of the land was not theirs to receive as long as it belonged to somebody else, so it kind of resembles what we call an employee today. You don't own your own company, but you still earn for your effort in it. So, how much difference in wealth, then, could possibly arise from this system? You still have the idea of management, and the fact that it pays to work well. But the system still ensured that you could never have a situation where one familiy own the whole thing and all the other where just employers not owning anything for themselves, right? How much, then, does that resemble raw capitalism, where there is actually no regulation on how rich you might become at the expense of others? I find it hard to reconcile. Ok, but that is the law, you say. We are in the New Testament. Well, yes, that is true. But this Paul uses the Law to declare the principle of equality when it comes to wealth, which where the reason for his organizing a joint funding project for the poor in Jerusalem (2. Cor 8.14-15). He takes the experience in the desert where people who tried to gather more Manna, actually didn't get any more, and those who picked to little did not suffer, and then he says that we are to share in order for there there to be equality. And even though Paul didn't want to force their giving, he is quite direct saying they're obligated to support those who gave them spiritual blessings, and that their giving is a proof of their obedience to the gospel. It's almost like our evangelical teaching on tithe. You are responsible for your obedience, and if you are not obedient you'll suffer loss. I feel the same way when I pay my taxes. I talk to God about it, and pray that the money will be used well, and that he will bless me for my obedience to the authorities. It's a question about believing God in everything and that He will provide, being it the state through free schools or social security if I lost my job, or some Christians brethren who saw my need and heard from God. In the end, everything comes from God.
Greatness in our heros becomes substitute for our own calling
When Israel wanted "a king like the other nations", God wasn't very fond of the idea, because it meant a rejection of him as king and a rejection of the kind of society he wanted to shine forth through them. He warned them that a king migh amass wealth at the expense of themselves. Do you really want to become slave of a king, he asks them? Yes, that is was they actually wanted. After generations in the promised land, the slave mentality of Egypt were still in their hearts. There is a tendency in fallen human hearts go give up the idea to be a every day hero. Instead we want some to symbolize the greatness that we ourselves are called to be. It seems that at some point people like to hold on to their unhappy circumstances, and specially if they can point to something or somebody as an excuse for their misery. Then, at least, they are not responsible, and they can at least point to somebody who is rich, whealthy and successful - the king, or the sportsmen or -women, the football team or some favourite preacher, or whatever. The irony is that their given up and the fact that some are extremely successful as opposed to themselves, are some very important reasons for their misery. God's dream, on the contrary, is a nation of Priests and Kings (Ex 19). Oh, if everyone of them were Prophets, Moses cried when Joshua was upset on his behalf because somebody prophecied in the wrong place - outside the Church building -aargh! (Numbers 11,29)
Society - it is God's idea? The church and the state. A New Testament view
What we need to understand, is that the idea of society is something that God cares about, and therefore he has said something about it, also. It not so that we have society and then we have church as they are totally two different things. No! Church is a society in God's eyes. It is meant to be an alternative so that His purposes can shine forth in an otherwise dark world. So the calling of the nation of Israel to be different and to be God's tool to show people who He is like, it still there, through the church of Jesus Christ, which is His body. His dream is still a nation of Kings, Priests and Prophets, men and women of greatness, dignity, hard working and upright. How wealth is handled by believers is very much on God's heart. How does an ideal society look like, and how are Christians to relate to government, taxes, and so forth. That we be my next theme as we go into the New Testament. Firstly, we'll see how this worked within the Church, and then we'll look at how the Church related to the authorities outside the Church.
It seems very clear that sharing earthly wealth is a value of apostolic Christianity. Acts 4.32 states that nobody called regarded their assets as their own. They shared everything. Did the Church repeal the idea of ownership and management responsibility? Not, exactly. In Acts 5 we see that Peter rebukes Ananias for lying about his and his wife's giving. Peter says that he didn't have to sell the estate he owned, and when he did sell it, he was free to spend the money however he wanted. The point underlined here is that he was responsible to manage his belongings. Neither the Church nor the apostles had any authority to force him to sell or to give anything. It is a matter between him, his wife and the Lord. So, the Church is totally without the idea of taxes to pay for its activities? Well, just almost. Because most evangelical churches, including the ones who are lead by people who argue that the state or a non-Christian entity of authority is not to require taxes to help the poor, teach tithing as a biblical principle of 1) living in faith and being therefore blessed and 2) as a kind of financial bottomline for the running of apostolic ministry. And it is taught in such a way that not bringing the tithe is equalled to "stealing from God". They say that the thithe is not yours, it is the Lord's. So you cannot give it, only steal it. This post is not the place where I am going to argue either for or against such a view. I only observe that people who say that if the state gives money to the poor which it has got through taxes, that is by definition not a expression of "compassion" and therefore unbiblical socialism, are the same people who preach this kind of understanding of the tithe. If ten percent of your income is the Lord's and the Lord calls it stealing if you unlawfully keep it, doesn't it resembles the way state administration consider taxes? So, the Church then, if we can require Christian leaders to think in term of principles, should never use the tithe to help the poor, lest it be not compassion and it be unbiblical, right? Or do we perceive the Church as different than the state in that matter. In practise, there is admittedly not much risk, as most churches uses more than the incoming tithe to pay professional preachers and the rent for parking places and buildings that are empty and unused most of the time. The pastors and teachers (and to a much less degree evangelists and missionaries) are to many pew fillling believer paid to represent them in serving God, in the sense that they themself can reduce their service to sit silently, politely and obiediently, listening to the preaching every Sunday morning. In a biblical model, on the other hand, preachers paid are people who in most cases have a ministry that goes beyond their local Church. Apostles, Prophets, Evangelist, Pastor and Teachers are to equip the saints to do the job, Eph 4 says. So if the saints do the job in a local church, what should the ministry gifts do? Get along and find another place to pioneer a new "power plant". Like Paul says in the end of his letters to the Church in Rome: I no longer have any room for ministry here, I'll have to go on (Rom 15.22). But my question remains: Is it unlawful use of the tithe to help the poor? When the church in Jerusalem had their own ministry lead by the apostles who later delegated this to deacons, who made sure that poor and helpless people were helped in their need. Was that a personal giving - a personal showing compassion? Or was it the Church as a family and a society who helped the poor? And did it become less compassion because of this way of organizing this ministry of compassion, to make it more effective and to make sure that no one was left out? In fact, this was the very reason why the apostles delegated this task to deacons. They realized that if they were to keep the quality of this ministry at an apostolic level and still be faithful to their calling to release heaven on earth by the power of the Spirit, they would have to give the task to somebody else. So they found some good and spiritual men.
My way of reasoning is like this: If it is completely OK for the Church to organize their help to the poor, and even use tithe, which according to what most evangelicals teach is not a free giving, but obedient bringing, why should it by definition be wrong for the administration of the state to do so? Should we tell them: "No, you can't do that. We have a copyright from God on this behaviour". Actually, when I read what some Christians argue, it seems that they are threatened by the idea that the state or local authorities should do any compassionate work. What will be left to the Church to do? How, then, will the Church shine forth in darkness? Taxes and social security seems to be hinderances for the gospel to expand the realm of the Kingdom.
An example of a "mixed economy" country - is there anything left for Christians to do in terms of social welfare?
Living in Norway, where we have a high level of social security administered by the state administration and the local authorities, I must say that whatever the state will try to get rid of poverty and social problems, there will still be plenty for God to shine forth in. In Tromsø the churches came together to pray for the felt needs of their society. So they had a Taxi driver who spent some of his time going around to health care institutions, the police, the political administration, the educational institutions and asked: What do you want us to pray for? Did everybody say: Oh, you don't need to, we're doing fine? No! Everyone wanted prayer. People who were atheists by conviction wanted prayer. And as results of the pervent prayers of the saints got known, do you know what the "always corrupt and lying", most left-wing paper in town wrote? "When the local autorities fail, God is on it the case". One prominant elder in town declared just some months before, that this very ungodly and biased paper would never write anything positive about Christians. How could such a thing happen? Isn't left-wing papers always biased against Christians? Well, when the police chief considered asking the government for money to find out why 1) criminal acitivity had gone down 2) more big size drug cases were solved then ever before, the press became curious. Could it be answers to prayer? And when the police chief was asked by the leader for the interdenominational prayer work if we should take the police off the prayer list in order to give him better analysis for his research and let him find out the power of prayer, his answer was: "Oh, no, you just can't do that!". Now, that is just by praying. How is God to shine forth if the world becomes too successful? Should we worry? Seriously? It must be that we don't believe in the gospel that we preach. No one can get results like God can. Shouldn't that be obvious to evangelical Christians? Obviously not.
In Norway we have a lot of elderly people who suffer from loneliness. Time and attention are a currency that seems hard to get in a modern society.The worst is the Christian celebrations as Christmas and Easter. A bitter irony, isn't it? We celebrate that Christ came to earth, that God gave, but we cannot even share a meal with some lonely people when they need it the most. One of the "left-wing" papers in Norway one year arranged for people to register their need for fellowship and families to register their willingness to include foreigners at this Christian celebration. It troubles me that it had to be a newspaper, whom some Christians love to bash as lead by a conspiration against Christians and everything else that is good and godly, that such a paper had to tell everyone what Christmas is all about - it is about to give, like God gave. How can God shine forth? Well, if Christians could understand that to celebrate God's Great Giving, is best done by doing what God did: give! Give of your time, your money, your food, your attention - to the ones that will really benefit from it. Instead we give to the already rich- a practise that Proverbs says will lead to poverty. We could have made God shine forth - but we are so busy celebrating what God gave to US, that we seem to have lost the message, altogether. Whatever the effort from the state administration - there is so much more to do, and some of it does not even cost a cent. Just looking into somebody's eyes and give them attention could be just the miracle that many people would need. The reason why God is not shining forth through his people as he wants to, is not because the state is doing what they shouldn't, it's because the people of God is so self-focused that even though God is showing us so many opportunities to shine Jesus, we are not doing anything about it because we just wouldn't. If he have bought the idea, that we presume belong to the the left-wings political parties, that everything is the responsibility of the state, is that the left-wing people's problem and issue, or it is ours? The fact that it warms a human heart that somebody care, even though it is not formally their job to care - those opportunities will never disappear from the face of the earth before Jesus returns. If we are blind to the needs, then we need to get our blind eyes opened. We are not helped by blaming apparant success of the society around us. But if Christianity becomes a quest for wealth, where preachers are flying their own jets, I think we got it all wrong. Visit the "Church of Peter" in Rome if you don't get my meaning. Poverty is not a Kingdom ideal, nor is amassing wealth without any other purpose. If we can employ, if we can help people to make a living, if we can fund apostolic ministry (equipping the believers to reach the world), then wealth is helpful. Inactive wealth, on the contrary, is against the values of Jesus. He condemns such a quest in the story of Lasarus and the rich man (Luke 16). Paul states that he and his team are not like many others that wants to turn the sharing of God's word into a business for your own benefit (2. Cor 2.17).
The Christians and the state - and the issue of taxes
Now, how does Christians then relate to the society around them? Do their regard them as enemies, or co-workers? Paul states in Rom 13 that the authorities are the servant of God, and that their authority is from God. Perplexing, isn't it? The irony, though, is that it seems that the Christians in China seem to better understand these verses and it's implications than, do Christians in Europe and America. And yes, we do have democracy and we should participate in public debate, but I am surprised to see which language we tend to use. If we are as abusive in our talk about authorities as the world, then we got an attitude problem. I do think, though, that we can have strong opionions and argue well. No, problem. But still we should remain in the position of respect of the difficult task it is to run a country. They'll all need our support and prayers, and Paul commands us to pray for them (1. Tim 2). Whether we like them or not does not matter. We can disagree in important matters, but we still we shouldn't sneer. I know, it's difficult and it's so easy to forget, but we are called to be the Daniels of even corrupt and evil leaders. Who would build relationship with todays Nebuchadnezzars? Daniel built friendship with a demonized, spiristic witch-King, and he was even appointed the leaders of all the spiritists that were the King's advisors. To make the matter worse, he even saved their lives!
Paul continues in Rom 13 to talk about taxes. Next to honor, money is the most difficult task for Christians to deal with in a godly manner. Paul states that we are to pay our taxes, because the authorities have been given the task to do this - by God(!).
The church, the press, the prophetic and conspirations - a New Testament focus
Where are all the conspirative ideas that seem to afflict some Christians in the New Testament? Paul doesn't seem to spend all his time figuring out what's the devils next move. He is more concerned with what is God's. Well, who is going to win, anyway? Even if they plan to kill us, we will be upgraded if they succeed, and they will not be able to stop God's plan. The way we die will make more people wonder - how can people be so dedicated and strong, and yet so humble? That is the message of the book of Revelation, it's not a workbook for conspirative Christians or people with mental issues. Please, don't get me wrong. We should partake in society, but as Christ is God's translation of himself, to make himself know in a way that we can grasp, can we please consider to do the talk in such a way that we don't offend, frustrate, confuse people unnecessary? If you have the position that if people ask critical questions or disagree, it's just because they have decided to be negative, and of course that gives us the right to ignore everything they say as lies, is that going to help us stay humble?. My former pastor said something that I have held as wisdom: "If what they write about us is true, we deserve to hear it. And if not - they'll be responsible before God." What is wisdom in this? It's resembles the attitude of the first Christian Churhch: "Lord, you keep watching their threats, but less us keep doing our job" (Act 4,29). In order words: It's not our business to protect us from those against us. It's our business to extend the Kingdom. In the end what God does will shine in such a way, that they'll end up writing about it anyway. Rather than being negative and push people away from us, why not be a little sympathetic. There was a time where we, too, did not understand spiritual things, right? So why don't we stretch out a hand to those criticizing us, and say: "Hey, I understand if you find our kind of logic a bit difficult to grasp. It's ok, been there, done that. God sees the bigger picture, that's all. If your intentions are more than just get out your rage against something that look odd and strange, let's talk together with decency and respect. Ok?" Why whine about the press? Will that help anybody? Really? Whining, saying: "Oh, everybody hates me. Nobody understands," sounds so defensive and puny. Isn't our God greater than that? Really? It's kind of saying: They're all right about us, but we don't like it. Rather than showing a relaxed and open mind: "Ok, that was a new thought to me. Could you please explain how you think? And fine also, if you would have me explain how I think."
And can we as Christians please admit that there is still ethical challenges that is difficult to address, even to us? It's easy to address a problem as a problem. But it's more difficult to find good and lasting solutions. The prophetic ministry of the Church is not merely to be whiny fault-finders, but to release grace and wisdom for godly solutions. We tend to become so black-white and one-sided, and we end up doing the same as we accuse the world to do, just in the trench of the other side of the road. We find it easy to suggest that people not in the situation to handle a coming child could have the baby adopted by someone else. At the same time we are outragous to the fact that lesbians and homosexuals could be the one to adopt, because then we argue that kid's need to know and grow up with their biological parents. So focuses and perspectives seems to shift. Is it only if those adopting are not couples we as Christians find suitable that the kid would start wondering who are their biological parents, and why they decided they couldn't keep them? Of, course not. It hurts not being able to take care of the child you have carried in the womb for 9 months. And it really hurts to be abandoned. It would help if we could argue with the perspective that our arguments we hold true, should be kind of universal. Adoption is not as much the solution than to help young parents to make it. How these situations should be handled, can be demonstrated in the Church. Firstly, as grown ups, are we ready to do the difficult conversations about sex, hormons, emotions, pregnancy? And secondly, what if somebody still gets pregnant at a young age? Are we truly supportive? We try to defend those killed in a mother's womb, saying nobody speaks for them. That is good - we need to do that, and the best way is how the Church helps parents in difficult situations. If we really want to defend innocent baby's, does that defending stop as soon as they are born? Really? What life are they going to have? And could we please consider the fact, that all those aborted babys are now with the Lord and totally fine, but there is so many hurting women, who have wounds in their soul because they believed a lie and killed a beginning life? Most women know that abortion if wrong the moment they hold their own living baby in their hands. The way to people's hearts is to touch their wounds coming from a sinful life with the virtue of reconsilition, love and and healing.
It is easy to preach to the choir, to all those who seem to fit in. How do we reach the lost, those hurting with bad choices and bad concious and no dignity left? Mercy and compassion precedes the perceived need for grace. Why do I write all this? Firstly, because it doesn't help to regard those you are to reach as your enemies. Paul says we are not fighting flesh and blood - not humans beings, and the weapon we have is supernatural grace, mercy and peace (Eph 6). Secondly, how we treat difficulties around sex and not planned pregnance in the Church will decide whether we will be a city upon a hill or whether we are only treating difficult matters more harshly and with less compassion what those we consider to be outside in the cold world. There are alternatives to abortion and it is a question of resources like money and time. But in the end, the propetic is more about revealing God's heart for people than to figure out the next conspirative idea to pollute the hearts of Christians into believing they have to shout out for their rights and take serious steps to protect themselves, as if God was not their protector. God's type of economy is not firstly to get the economic theory right. It is about a society that is built upon values as equality, compassion, transparency, openmindedness, righetousness and dignity.
A theology of work
As I read Romans 13, Paul does not suggest that the state recovering taxes is wrong or that the state is an unwanted competitor of the Church by helping the poor. It's more about how we help people. Another principle that we find in the bible, which is helpful in that respect, is where Paul states "those who will not work, shall not eat" (2. Tess 3). Even though it might sound harsh, there is a lot of good logic and wisdom behind this. The fact that we are made in the image of God the worker, makes us workers. We are made for work. Laziness and idleness are not from God. Resting after work, on the contrary, is both godly and biblical, and there is a lot of suffering because we don't allow our bodies and minds to rest before God, as he rested after creating the world. But resting and idleness are two different things. A challenge for both churches and the state is the fact that "cannot work" and "will not work" are two different things, too. And yet, it depends how you define work. In our modern society we have made job descriptions that might be too demanding for some people. Their health does not allow them to have a full time job. At least in Norway, the social security system does not honor those who want to work as much as they can. So if you inability level is 20%, you'll get nothing from the social security system. You have to have an ability level of mimum 50%. Such rigid rules does not communicate: We'll honor you as who you are and we'll happily receive what you are able to contribute with and we'll honor that, too. If you get less paid if all you can get is a 40% position than what you get paid if you choose to stay completely unemployed, what is the message? Obviously, social security is not encouraging you to perform as well as you can. To work should always pay off. It's a part of the biblical consept of righteous business. A worker is worth his og her wages. God promises us that we'll be paid in heaven, even. He is a payer for the work done, so wages is not some necessary thing just here on earth, it is godly and a part of God's nature. The left-wing parties, at least in Norway, seem to be outraged at the thought that we should require anything from unemployed and disabled people who receive benefints from the social security system. What they don't understand is that to contribute is a basic need for all mankind, it's why we were created. It will make us feel appreciated and help us to be a partaker in the society. If all you can do is talk, good! We have so many lonely people. Why not organize visits and be something for somebody. The left-wing people seem to have the idea that people are then doing jobs that should have been ordinary jobs, and that this is a way to reduce wages. But we'll have to be able to keep two thoughts in our mind at the same time. We do know some facts from research that is done in this field:
1) The longer people stay out of work and are inactive, the less chances do they got do get an ordinary position in the job market.
2) The longer people stay out of work, the greater the chances they develope mental issues as depression and social anxiety.
3) People who suffer mentally is better off with activities that match their ability, then if their are left totally inactive.
So, we'll have to balance some principles: To help the needy, but do so in a way that will help them to help themselves. If not, we'll end up with a larger part of the people left for idleness and a desctructive self focus and who does not partake in producing the value we need to be the best society we can be.
Conclusion
There always be both public and private initatives and responsilibites in a society. The question is more about balance, and we might disagree on where the best balance point should be. That is perfectly okay. But what surprises me is that some Christans seems to be threatened if the state should take biblical principles of ours and make it their own, and of course that will make them succeed to a certain degree. It just shows that the message of the bible works, right? Does that challenge our faith in God? Really? We love to prophecy and calling out the gold in people, at the same time some seem to hate the idea that everyone should have the opportunity to get educated, even though the parents are not wealthy, if that involves the state funding people's education through taxes. Quite an irony, isn't it? A society can decide to make some fundamental things like education and health care a public matter. Does it work less efficiently and cost more money? It depends. In Norway the state run hospitals have the opportunities to get patients from other regions, so they kind of compete with each other. And there was an American guy who had to use his health insurance to cover some health care in Norway. He was very suprised to see the low cost and good quality. And however successful such a quest would be, we'll never run out of sick people to pray for. And whatever success the educational system should become, there will always be people in need and people that fall out. I don't worry that God shouldn't have room to shine forth in our mixed economy country. If Christianity and the Church are not a city upon a hill, shining Jesus, it's because it has failed to give itself unreservedly to her Lord and Saviour. There is no excuse outside our own hearts and lives. Whatever society and ideology, the Church can extend the Kingdom of God with God's help. Church history proves this to be so. The question is more if we are on the task, or if the want for everything else has quenched the thirst and longing for a deep revival, in our hearts first, and then in our surroundings.
Ingen kommentarer:
Legg inn en kommentar