·
The rise and popularity of socialist Bernie
Sanders during the 2016 presidential primary.
·
The victory of Democrat Socialist Alexandra
Ocasio-Cortez of New York in that state’s 2018 Democrat primary.
·
In Omaha the upset of Brad Ashford in the 2018
Democrat primary by Sanders backer and socialist, Kare Eastman.[3]
·
“Millennials (sometimes defined as those born
between 1977 and 1996) are going politically left rather than right by an
almost 4-1 margin.”[4]
·
“One poll showed half of American millennials
saying they prefer socialism to capitalism.”
·
“Membership in the imaginatively named
Democratic Socialists of America has grown sevenfold since the 2016 election.
The number of chapters has almost quintupled.”
We can most likely pinpoint several factors for this shift.
On the one hand, the world has become a much smaller place because of
technology in general and social media in particular. This has removed some of
the “alien” feel associated with centralized forms of government. Additionally,
many younger adults have rubbed shoulders with far more people from socialist
or communist countries as more and more international students have come to the
United States. And, of course, the former USSR and Soviet block no longer exist,
China has been significantly impacted by western and capitalistic influence
(even though it remains officially communist), and most U.S. media outlets have
become less and less suspicious of centralized governments and economic
systems.
At the same time that all this has been happening, the
United States, through the influence of government leaders, has creeped little
by little toward a more centralized or socialist structure. For younger adults,
especially, all they have known is the presence of a growing number of
government programs and apologists for such programs as being compassionate in
their help of the poor.
What this changing environment has made possible is for
millennials and even younger adults to advocate for socialist principles, even
if some may not apply the label. Of course, as the label “socialism” is used
more and more positively more are willing to wear the label.
One of the effects this shift in thinking has had is to lead
many young Christian adults who are advocates of social justice to prefer
socialism, to be favorable toward it, or at least not to oppose it. At the very
least, so the thinking goes, if gospel work and making disciples is our main
work and we are not to be held hostage by partisan political theories, and if
the Bible really doesn’t have that much to say about how we should approach
government and what our view of economics should be, then really it doesn’t
matter what your position is on this entire subject.[5] In
fact, some might argue, “Isn’t socialism more compassionate than capitalism
anyway, and so it ought to be preferred by Christians? After all, at least with
socialism you can be seen as compassionate and not a stingy capitalist.”[6]
It is this very thinking that I want to push back on in this
post. I am not doing this because I think partisan political posturing is more
important than God’s Word. Nor am I doing it since I am “in the back pocket of
a political party” or because I merely want to keep the things “the way they
have always been.” What I want us to discover is that though a person can hold
to socialist view of economics and government and still be a Christian, that
person cannot hold to a socialist view and, at the same time, have a view of
economics and government that is consistent with the Bible!
That statement may seem to be extreme to the eyes of many
Christians in our current culture, but I hope to demonstrate it is true in this
and my next two posts.
Before getting into the particulars, I want to remind us why
this subject has arisen. We are in the midst of a series of blog posts looking
at how to pursue biblical justice and to do so as truly compassionate
Christians, seeking the well-being of others in regard to a number of hot and
debated topics in our society. Economics is one of those. To put this another
way, if we do not look at this subject in light of biblical wisdom, the very
wisdom of the God who created this world and us to function as he did and knows
how we best function, we will likely contribute to the hurt and pain that bad
economic and government approaches bring upon fellow citizens. This would be
the opposite of love and justice.
So, to show that the Christian who loves his neighbor in the
biblical sense ought to advocate a biblical view of government and economics
and what that view is, we will set forth the following seven truths from the
Bible.
1. God Created Humans With Four Key
Relationships That Must Be Kept In Mind As We Shape Our Governmental and
Economic Approach.
The biblical worldview reminds us that to see poverty as
merely the lack of material resources or to see human flourishing as merely the
acquisition of material resources, as most North Americans do, is short-sided.
We will see this in what the Bible teaches, but it is also evidenced in how
those who experience the poverty of resources speak of their situation. Though
they do not discount the material lack, they also “tend to describe their
condition in far more psychological and social terms…. Poor people typically
talk in terms of shame, inferiority, powerlessness, humiliation, fear,
hopelessness, depression, social isolation, and voicelessness.”[7]
One of the effects that seeing poverty only as lack of
material resources has had is to blind us to more full-orbed approaches to
problems. For over fifty years the war on poverty fought in the United States
has committed over twenty trillion dollars to alleviating poverty, with little
results other than making people slightly more comfortable in their poverty.[8]
And, at the same time, we have fostered an “end-justifies-the-means” approach
among some citizens who believe that they lack equality in material resources. Since
what we have or do not have materially is the main or only thing, they conclude
it really doesn’t matter how this is addressed, as long as we change the material
state of the poor or disadvantaged.
To correct this, what we must do is to go back and gain a
fuller vision of who human beings are and the four key relationships humans
have. To ignore these is to possess a view of humans that is distorted and will
only hurt.
“Due to the comprehensive nature of the fall, every human
being is poor in the sense of not experiencing these four relationships in the
way that God intended…. For some people the brokenness in these foundational
relationships results in material poverty, that is, their not having sufficient
money to provide for the basic physical needs of themselves and their
families.”[11]
We will look more closely at each relationship.
A. Relationship With God
The Bible makes it clear that humans were created in the
image of God, to resemble him and reflect his glory as his vice-regents,
bringing order throughout the world (Gen. 1:26-28; Ps. 8:5-6). Such a creation
mandate could only happen in humble dependence upon God and in close fellowship
with him (Gen. 2:16-17; 3:8). God is the one who must give true and full life,
to animate humans to carry out the purposes for which they were created (Gen.
2:7) and the one who must direct the best way for them to live (Gen. 2:16-17).
And, in fact, apart from dependence upon and listening to God we find only
brokenness, pain, and suffering—as evidenced in the disobedience of our first
parents, Adam and Eve, and its results (Gen. 3:1-24).
The rest of the Bible is clear that God directs mankind in
how to come to know and follow him and does it both for his glory and our good.
In Deuteronomy 10:12-13 we read: “And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God
require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, to love
him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and
to keep the commandments and statutes of the Lord, which I am commanding you
today for your good?” In John 10:10 we
learn of one of the reasons Jesus Christ came into the world to accomplish
salvation and reconcile man to God: “I came that they may have life and have it
abundantly.”
It is also important for us to understand that seeking to
figure out life apart from God does not bring good results. Proverbs 14:12
shares this wisdom: “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is
the way to death.” More specifically, Jesus affirms that apart from being united
to him through faith, humans cannot carry out the purposes for which we were
created, nor realize God-honoring results (John 15:5).
Because sin has entered the world through Adam (Rom. 5:12)
and all are born in sin, as those who are spiritually dead and cannot function
as God intended (Eph. 2:1-3), this most important of all relationships is
broken. Unless this most basic kind of poverty is addressed (Jesus says in Mt.
5:3 the most fundamental realization we must come to if we are to be part of
the kingdom is that we are spiritually poor), we will be assured of hurting
those we are attempting to help, as well as hurting self (the helpers).
In light of this basic truth that we were made to have
relationship with God and yet that relationship has been broken through sin, “until
we embrace our mutual brokenness, our work with low-income people is likely to
do far more harm than good.” This is due
to the reality that as sinful people, the economically rich who get involved in
helping the poor often have “god-complexes,” i.e. “a subtle and unconscious
sense of superiority in which they believe that they have achieved their wealth
through [only] their own efforts and that they have been anointed to decide
what is best for low-income people, whom they view as inferior to themselves.”[12]
And so, “one of the biggest
problems in many poverty-alleviation efforts is that their design and
implementation exacerbates the poverty of being of the economically rich—their
god-complexes—and the poverty of being of the economically poor—their feelings
of inferiority and shame.”[13]
At the same time, if we ignore this relationships, we fail to address the most
basic poverty or need a person has, that of a lack of relationship with the
Creator and Redeemer.
B.
Relationship With Self
We can infer from the Bible that God created humans to be
content in him, as well as with the resources and circumstances he ordained for
them (cf. Gen. 2:16-17). This would reflect a peace or wholeness within self
that is lost due to our sin and must be restored through the work of God’s
Spirit in the regenerate (Gal. 5:22; Phil. 4:11).
When this basic relationship is not addressed, it, along
with the first broken relationship (the one with God), lays the foundation for
humans not to see their need for God or even to desire to know, love, worship,
and serve God (Rom. 3:10-12; 1 Cor. 2:14). It leads to a brokenness of soul and
restlessness (Is. 61:1) that leads away from joy (Prov. 17:22; Gal. 5:22).
This can lead the materially wealthy to lack contentment no
matter how much they have, to think they must always have more, and to become
enslaved to those desires—and to think others should as well. This can distort
approaches to poverty alleviation. At the same time, it leads those who have a
lack of material resources to blame others and to be angry toward others for
their situation, and so to approach fixing their situation in ways that are
destructive.
The brokenness and sinfulness inherent in regard to these
first two relationships exacerbate the remaining two.
C. Relationship With Creation
In Genesis 1:26-28 we read not only that God made humans in
his image, but also what this means for our relationship to creation:
Let
us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over
the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock
and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male
and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be
fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over
the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living
thing that moves on the earth.
The verbs that describe the activity of humans (“have
dominion over” “be fruitful,” “multiply,” “fill the earth,” subdue it”) not
only show the mission for which God created us—a mission in which we resemble
and reflect him to his glory (Ps. 8:5-6), but they also convey the activity of
vice regents. Like the one in whose image humans are created, we are to work,
create, and bring order to the world. Genesis 2:15 (“The Lord God took the man
and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.”) highlights further
that mankind was created to be workers. When we put this together with Psalm
8:5-6, we understand that work is part of the way people glorify God and it is
part of the dignity of humans.
It is in light of this foundational teaching we come to see in
the Bible that:
·
It is God’s moral will for humans to work
(Exodus 20:9: “Six days you shall labor and do your work.”) and typically he
provides for the needs of humans through work (Prov. 10:4-6; 13:4).
·
God has created the world and humans in such a
way that they function best when they are motivated by their needs and those of
family to work and to produce (Prov. 6:6-11; 16:26; 21:25; 31:15-18).
·
The work of humans is good because of the way it
honors God (Ps. 8:5-6), serves others (Prov. 31:15-24), and brings order to the
world (Gen. 1:26-28). This is why we can say that, “A primary work of the
church is the church at work.”[14]
·
Working to provide for one’s own needs and also
that of their family is characteristic of what one does who believes in and
follows God (Eph. 4:28; 1 Tim. 5:8) and so if a person is able to work and unwilling,
others are not to give him provision and thus encourage him not to work (2
Thes. 3:10).
·
When people face poverty of resources and/or
opportunity, part of preserving their dignity, honoring God and the way he has
created us, and also in light of how they will best flourish, it is to be
realized they must be part of figuring out the solution (Gen. 1:26-28). This
will not only help them flourish, but this earned success also will give them
far more satisfaction (Prov. 12:11, 24; 14:23; 22:29; 31:18). What is more, if
it is appropriate and genuinely helpful to provide resources to others in a
time of need (a safety net), it is best if those receiving the resources work to
receive them (Lev. 19:9-10).
·
It is God’s moral will for humans to be generous
and to help those who experience a poverty of resources, and not to be greedy (Prov.
14:21, 31; 19:17; 22:29; 31:20). Though this is true, this does not negate the
truth that work, business, profit, and the creation of wealth are all good
things (Prov. 21:5; 31:18; Eph. 4:28). They are part of the best and most
ultimate solutions for material poverty.
What we discover, then, is that for Christians who are
genuinely pursuing righteousness and justice, this must include encouraging
responsibility, hard work, problem-solving, and the reality that work,
productivity, business formation, and wealth creation are all very good things
that glorify God and benefit people. To advocate for approaches to poverty
alleviation that do not keep these things in mind, but instead by-pass work and
demonize business are unjust, unbiblical approaches.
To take this a step further, to advocate for these
principles in our approach to economics in general and to the alleviation of
poverty in particular is not a matter of being left, right, Democrat, or
Republican. This is not about “being in the pocket” of one side or the other.
It is instead about pursuing true justice and also holding to approaches and
solutions that work and benefit others.
To grasp, advocate for, and to practice these principles is
also important because sin leads to great brokenness in this area. Greed,
deceit, and injustice on the part of employers (James 5:1-6), deceit,
injustice, and laziness on the part of employees (Prov. 10:26; Eph. 6:5-8),
hopelessness and shame for those in poverty, arrogance on the part of those with
material resources who may help in ways that hurt, and the overall tendency in
our society to think business and wealth are innately evil all are results of
sin and ultimately hurt those who experience resource poverty. As we have
already discovered, “One of the biggest problems in many poverty-alleviation
efforts is that their design and implementation exacerbate the poverty of being
of the economically rich—their god-complex- es—and the poverty of being of the
economically poor—their feelings of inferiority and shame.”[15]
D. Relationship With Others
When God created man he said, “It is not good that the man
should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him” (Gen. 2:18). As a
result, God created woman and they were in perfect unity and lacked shame in
their relationship prior to sin (Gen. 2:21-25). They also were intended to work
together to bring order into the world (Gen. 1:26-28). Once sin entered the
world humans were full of shame (Gen. 3:7), fear (Gen. 3:8-10), blaming each
other (3:12), as well as hatred and jealousy (Gen. 3:16; 4:1-8).
Jesus affirmed that the relationship with God was ultimately
foundational, but that how we relate to others flows out of our relationship
with God and itself is foundational (Mt. 22:37-40).
We should not be surprised, then, that a very destructive
poverty that is growing and wreaking great havoc in people is the poverty of
relationship with others. Arthur Brooks explains:
Today, the poorest 20
percent of American adults are only a fifth as likely to be married as the
richest 20 percent. They are about 30 percent more likely to say they never
attend religious services and over 60 percent more likely to say they never
spend time with neighbors. They also work, on average about 20 percent fewer
hours per week. These patterns are decidedly not concentrated in any racial or
ethnic group…they afflict all sorts of economically vulnerable Americans.[16]
If we look closely at what Brooks is saying we discover that
at least three of the four relationships that are foundational to humans (God,
creation, and other people) are broken and/or non-existent in the lives of many
who are struggling and not flourishing.
Wendy Wang and and W. Bradford Wilcox of the Institute for
Family Studies confirmed these conclusions when they recently reported their
findings of a lengthy study that was cosponsored by the American Enterprise
Institute.
[The
study] examines a group of Millennials whom the National Longitudinal Survey of
Youth has been following since 1997, and who were last interviewed in 2013 and
2014, when they were 28 to 34 years old. The report finds that the link between
marriage and economic success among Millennials is “robust after controlling
for a range of background factors.” Compared with the path of having a baby
first, marrying before children more than doubles young adults’ odds of being
in the middle or top income tier….[17]
Additionally, Wang and Wilcox report that “the economic
welfare of millenials (i.e., more likely to reach the middle class and to avoid
poverty) is significantly affected by their following a set of norms that have
been called the ‘success sequence’:”
1.
Graduate from high school;
2.
Maintain a full-time job or have a partner who does; and
3.
Have children while married, should they choose to become parents.[18]
Wang and Wilcox confirm the findings of other studies through
the last three decades that speak of the importance of not having children
until a person is married, the benefit of getting married and staying married,
the benefit of having employment and staying employed, and the benefit of faith
for people to flourish and to avoid the poverty of resources.
One factor that is often added in other studies is staying
out of legal trouble. Yet, the evidence for many years is that contrary to what
many argue, crime is not first and foremost a result of environmental factors.
It is a most often due to the lack of moral training in the formative years.
Two decades ago Chuck Colson penned words that are still just as true today:
In
1977, psychologist Stanton Samenow and psychiatrist Samuel Yochelson published
a landmark seventeen-year study, The
Criminal Personality. They found that crime cannot be traced primarily to
environmental factors. The only adequate explanation, they concluded, is the
moral choices of individuals. The solution to crime, they said (revealing their
Jewish roots), is “the conversion of the wrongdoer to a more responsible
lifestyle.”
In
1987 professors Richard J. Herrnstein and James Q. Wilson came to similar conclusions
in Crime and Human Nature. They
determined that the cause of crime is a lack of moral training in the morally
formative years.[19]
A 2014 American Academy of Sciences report found not only an
unprecedented growing incarceration rate over the past forty years in the
United States, but also a staggering impact this has on families, especially through
the absence of fathers in the home—a reality that leads to greater levels of
behavior problems and delinquency among children and youth. This often leads to
a cycle of crime, as well as poverty of resources.[20]
What we see over and over is that all four of the
relationships we are focusing on matter when it comes to poverty and that this
certainly includes relationships with others. Family matters. Dads in the home
matter. Marriage matters. How we treat others matters. “Poverty is the result
of relationships that do not work, that are not just, that are not for life,
that are not harmonious or enjoyable. Poverty is the absence of shalom [or peace] in all
its meanings.”[21]
Conclusion
The key point for our current discussion is that if we are pursuing
genuine and real justice, we must keep in mind these four relationships and the
resultant broken systems that arise from them. We cannot simply address the
symptom of a poverty of resources.
This first truth gives shape to the remaining six truths we
will look at in our next two blog posts.
Joyfully Pursuing Justice With You,
Tom
[1]
Merriam-Webster (on-line) defines capitalism this way: “An economic system
characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by
investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production,
and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a
free market.” Merriam-Webster (on-line) defines “capital” in this manner: “relating
to or being assets that add to the long-term net worth of a corporation [such
as] capital improvements.” Michael Novak, in Joel Belz, “System For Sinners,” World (March 18, 2017): 4,
writes: “Socialism is a system for saints. Democratic capitalism works because
it’s a system for sinners.” Again: “Novak has always preferred the term
‘democratic capitalism,’ arguing repeatedly that a purely capitalistic system,
with no restraints, is almost certain—because of the sinfulness of humans—to
produce unacceptably ugly results.”
Merriam-Webster (on-line) defines socialism this way:
“Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or
governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and
distribution of goods.” The same source defines communism as follows: “A system
in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed; a theory
advocating elimination of private property.”
[2] As
early as the 1940’s F. A Hayek, in his book The
Road To Serfdom, was sounding the warning that gatekeepers in the
west were advocating centralized forms of government.
[3]
This and the following bullet points are taken from from Marvin Olasky,
“Between Anywhere and Somewhere: An afternoon with U.S. Sen. Ben Sasse,” in World (July 21, 2018).
[4] This
is not an inordinately partisan statement, as if made by one who is beholden to
or “in the back pocket” of conservative and/or Republican political thought. To
be left leaning includes that these younger adults also lean toward socialist
economic and governmental theories—centralized government, big government, and
turning to the government first and foremost for solutions, rather than the
private sector. It also suggests that these younger adults lean in the
direction of believing social justice involves the redistribution of wealth and
the equalizing not just of opportunities, but also of outcomes.
[5]
Merriam-Webster (on-line) defines “economics” in this way: “A social science
concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production,
distribution, and consumption of goods and services. I would take this a
step further: Economics deals with how we can approach the production,
distribution, and consumption of goods and services in a manner that is best
for those in a particular society, such as the United States. To argue, as I
will below, that we must have a biblical view of economics means that we must
consider at least what the Bible teaches about who people are, what our
relationship to work and production ought to be, how provision for human needs
is best carried out, how a government ought to relate to such an economic view,
and what does the Bible teach about poverty alleviation.
[6] It
is now true that growing up in the United States means you are inundated with
centralized government, wealth redistribution, and equality of finish line
thinking in all levels of education, through major media outlets, and in the
warp and woof of the culture itself. Anything else now appears to lack
compassion.
[7] Steve
Corbett, Brian Fikkert, When
Helping Hurts: How To Alleviate Poverty Without Hurting The Poor…and Yourself
(Chicago: Moody, 2012, repr.), 51.
[8] Arthur
C. Brooks, The Conservative
Heart: How To Build A Fairer, Happier, And More Prosperous America
(New York: Harper Collins, 2015), 2-3.
See also Timothy S. Goeglein, “The Moynihan Report At 50,” in The City, 8, 2 (Winter
2015): 7-12.
[9]
This is taken from Corbett, Fikkert, When Helping, 56.
[13] Corbett,
Fikkert, When
Helping, 62.
[15] Corbett,
Fikkert, When
Helping, 62.
[16] Arthur
C. Brooks, The Conservative
Heart: How To Build A Fairer, Happier, And More Prosperous America
(New York: Harper Collins, 2015), 53-54.
[17]
Joe Carter, “How Millennials Can Avoid Poverty: Follow The ‘Success Sequence,’”
a July 18, 2017 blog post, accessed September 3, 2018, at thegospelcoalition.org.
[18]
Carter, “How Millennials.”
[19]
Chuck Colson, “Crime And The Cure Of The Soul,” First Things (October 1993), accessed September 3, 2018
at firstthings.com.
[20]
See Eric Metaxas, “For Such A Time As This: Restoring Prisoners And Their Families,”
a June 16, 2014 blog post, accessed September 3, 2018, at breakpoint.org.
No comments:
Post a Comment