A Theology Of Work And Economics

In our last post we addressed the reality that merely throwing large amounts of money and government programs at the problem of poverty in our nation over the past fifty plus years has not been successful. We discovered that one of the reasons why is because we have done a number of things to encourage a growing percentage of children to be born to and raised in homes without dads. So, regardless of our political persuasion, we saw that the state of the family, especially families with dads present, is important to the welfare of our nation. This truth should guide our approach to public square influence, as well as our choices for whom to cast votes.

In this post I want to discover two other areas in which our approach to poverty and the financial well-being of our society has been deficient: Our approach to work and economics. Right away, many Christians might conclude, “Tom, these are not biblical matters, topics that we should really try and influence, nor are they really moral issues. People can take whatever approach they desire. We should stick to those things the Scriptures really address.” Let me respond by saying that the Bible has much to say about these subjects and I am so glad the founders of our nation and those who shaped it in its early years were aware of this.

Here are some key truths from the Bible that not only remind us how God has created the world and man best to function, but that make up our theology of work and economics.

1. Because God created humans in his image, part of what this involves is that we are intended to work and be productive (Gen. 1:26-28; 2:15; Ps. 8:5-6; John 5:17). This is part of our dignity (from Latin dignitas, honor or glory) with which we are to reflect God’s glory. In fact, part of God’s will that should be carried out by those who truly know him is that they should work to provide for self, family, and others (see Ephesians 4:28).

2. God created us and the world in such a fashion that typically speaking the way he provides for our needs is through our work. We also discover that typically, the harder we work, the more provision we have. See Proverbs 6:6-11; 10:4-5; 13:4.

3. The way God has created us and the world is that our physical needs (the need for food, shelter, and clothing, for example) should motivate us not merely to work, but to work hard that we can provide for our needs and those under our care. Proverbs 16:26 reads:  “A worker's appetite works for him; his mouth urges him on.” This is an economic principle that not only leads us to work hard, but leads to ingenuity, as well as the motivation among all of us to make sure goods and services are available to others around us. So, the baker is motivated to bake and sell bread that he can be provided for and also his family. He is providing by baking bread because others need and desire bread. The truck driver is motivated to work and deliver the bread to places where it is needed so that he can provide for his family, and so on and so forth.

4. Given the first three truths, a fourth follows: If someone is able to work and is unwilling to work, others are not to provide for his needs (2 Thes. 3:10). To do that not only encourages a person to live in disobedience to God, but it removes part of his human dignity, it discourages him from pursuits that can provide for him and his family in a way that far surpasses handouts, and it also discourages him from playing his part in a thriving economy that benefits others. As such, that kind of charity is not truly helpful or loving.

5. The first four truths also intersect with a person’s responsibility that he has to love and care for family through material provision. If a man “does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim. 5:8). In other words, if a person is able to work and to provide for his family, he has a moral obligation to do that. If a person claims to be a follower of Christ and yet does not provide for his family in this manner, then this is an indication he has no desire to obey God and so is most likely not truly a believer. So, if we encourage a man not to provide for his family, we are actually encouraging him to disobey God and we are hurting the family by encouraging them to live on handouts, rather than to have more stable provision.

6. The Bible is clear that goods and property which belong to us are not to be taken from us without just cause. Exodus 20:15 reads: “You shall not steal.” What is more, a person is not to be cheated by selling him less goods than what he believes he is purchasing or by moving boundary markers and thus diminishing the land he owns (Lev. 19:36; Dt. 19:14). These teachings are not only the basis for property rights (i.e. the right to own goods and property and protection against you taking what is mine and vice versa), but most likely partially stand underneath the warning against monarchs becoming tyrants in their acquisition of the people’s property (Dt. 17:16, 17)—which would include excessive taxation. Taxation should provide for the protection and defense of a country, as well as the nation’s benefit, yet should not be onerous on the citizens (Rom. 13:1-7). 

7. The Bible values business as something that is good—a means of providing for one’s family and serving others (Proverbs 31:10-31, esp. vv. 18-22). When we put together the first six principles, along with this one, it appears that though the Bible calls persons to give from their property to help those in need in ways that truly help them and do not hurt them (Lev. 19:9-10; Mt. 25:35-40; Acts 5:4-5; 20:35), it is not positive toward the forced redistribution of wealth that would be part of socialism or communism, and that would eventually hurt individuals, families, and a nation since it runs counter to how God has created people and the world to function best.

There is much more we could say, but hopefully a picture is emerging in our minds. What we believe about work, economics, and how we go about helping the poor (and even how a nation is taxed) are not biblically or morally neutral issues. They truly matter. I would argue that to the degree we follow these principles in our work and economic philosophies in a nation, we will benefit the society as a whole and individuals in particular. To the degree we leave behind these truths, we will weaken our economy and hurt individuals, as well as families.

No doubt, this is a subject we will return to again and again. But for now, if it is something you desire to look into further, I would encourage two resources:

1. The Poverty Of Nations (By Wayne Grudem and Barry Asmus): Jointly written by a theologian and an economist, this book deals with how countries can pursue greater wealth and prosperity for their citizenry—based upon what the Bible teaches and what economic research has uncovered. The desire of the book is help us not merely aid the poor by giving them things once they are poor, but rather to lift them out of poverty so they do not have to live off charity.

2. Business For The Glory Of God (by Wayne Grudem). This book deals with the Bible’s teaching about business.  Contrary to what some might think, the Bible is not negative toward business, even though business owners can go about their business in ways that are immoral and harmful. Business, rightly done, that provides jobs and creates wealth, is very good. It glorifies God!

How We Have Defeated Poverty In The Last 50 Years...Or Not!

In 1964 President Lyndon Johnson launched his “War On Poverty” with the goal of bringing about a “Great Society” that would eradicate poverty and address some of the social problems arising in the early sixties. It was thought that a “historic expansion of the federal government” would do the trick.[1] The approach is the same put forth by so-called progressives today—not the least of which is President Obama and presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton. To the average American listening to or reading the news, it seems to make sense: “Yeah, we have all these problems in the inner-city and among the poor—especially among minorities—and if we put enough money toward them and put together a few more government programs, it should help.”

There is only one small problem. It has not worked. Not only wisdom, but compassion should move us to take a step back and reassess the problem. As the old saying goes, “The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over, but to expect different results.” It is time we look to different strategies. To make that point I want, first, briefly to define one of the key problems at the heart of poverty and societal dysfunction, and then look toward a solution.

A Key Problem

To identify the problem I want to go back over fifty years (1965 to be exact) to a report put together by the Democrat senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan. In the “Moynihan Report” this former Harvard-professor, former U. S. Ambassador to India, and former U.S. Representative to the U.N., addressed concerns he was seeing at the time in the African-American family. A man who deeply cared about the state of the family in America, he put his sociological prowess to work in researching the topic. Here is what he wrote: “The fundamental problem is that of family structure[, especially the absence of fathers]. The evidence—not final but powerfully persuasive—is that the Negro family in the urban ghettos is crumbling.”[2]

If that is what Moynihan suggested then, what would he conclude now. Consider the difference between then and now:

On the day his report was released, about one-quarter of black kids were living only with their mothers. Moynihan called this a crisis, as indeed it was, but 50 years [later], the numbers are nothing short of astonishing: Between 70 and 75 percent of all black Americans are now born out of wedlock, a tripling of the trend Moynihan had spotted. More than half of Hispanic children are born out of wedlock now while more than one-third of white babies are born to unmarried mothers.[3]

Though many lawmakers believed the problems emerging from such familial situations could be addressed by government programs, Moynihan was skeptical. “Government, he reasoned, could not tuck a child into bed at night; government could not save a marriage; government could not help a broken family fall in love again. These were, he said, primarily cultural problems and not economic or political problems….”[4]

But why are these statistics of interest, especially if a person is committed to a secular state, devoid of any religious influence?  Consider the following:[5]

(1) Decades of research have shown that teen pregnancy rates, drug abuse, school drop-out rates, and many other social problems increase when fathers are not in the home.

(2) According to University of California at Santa Barbara researchers, William Comanor and Llad Phillips, “…the most critical factor affecting the prospect that a male youth will encounter the criminal justice system is the [absence] of his father in the home.”

(3) “In almost all categories…income, academic achievement, and employment [African American families have stagnated or lost ground over the past half-century.”

(4) The poverty rate for African Americans is about 30 percent, and 4 of every 10 black children are raised by single moms living at or below the poverty line. Statistics are dramatically different for black Americans who are married: the poverty rate is below 10 percent.”

Even though “American taxpayers have spent $22 trillion [in the War on Poverty]--$920 billion in the last fiscal year alone…the results speak of near-failure in many areas of major federal expenditure.”

And what has been the approach of the United States government? To form “more than 80 federal government welfare programs that almost all have one thing in common: they provide very real financial incentives for couples [of all races and backgrounds] to remain separate and unmarried.” At the same time this has been taking place, we have removed faith from the public square, re-defined marriage, and done virtually everything we could to assure that more and more children are raised without fathers—one of the very components that Moynihan and countless researchers since then have uncovered as a key to our societal breakdown. “According to the 1010 census, for the first time in American history, more than half of all babies born to American women 30 years of age and under were born out of wedlock. The Centers for Disease Control in March found that 25 percent of All American babies born since 2010 were to cohabitating couples…twice as high as just 10 years ago.”[6] Recently the Wall Street Journal revealed that, “Cohabitating parents now account for a clear majority—59 percent—of all births outside marriage.”[7]

Thirty years after he published his report (1995) Moynihan commented on what had happened since his initial research: “The biggest change, in my judgment, is that the family structure has come apart all over the North Atlantic world.” What would he say now, 21 years after those comments?

Let me draw two main conclusions and point them particularly at those reading this post who are followers of Jesus Christ.

To begin, some of you have concluded either that the public square (or political process) is not worthy of your time because it does not impact lives or you have concluded it is not worthy of your time because it is inherently evil. Now, there is no doubt about it, there are evil people who have been, are, and will continue to be part of the political process. But please understand how much our structures and even our approaches to poverty and the family are moral issues that impact the country, the lives of adults, the lives of children, and future generations!  We must bring wisdom to the this arena. There are better ways to address these important societal ills than what the majority in the government and the media are advocating.

Second, we often think that those politicians who sound like they care really do, because they continue to push the same old tired approaches of an alleged “War on Poverty” that itself has become the ravaging enemy. We must stop thinking that simply because people say they care does not mean they have the solutions. Regardless of what side of the aisle they are on, those merely throwing money, programs, and more anti-family stances at these problems are not helping.

For my entire pastoral career I have, in one way or the other, been on the front-lines of helping those who are poor and hurting. During that thirty year period I have seen a continual spiraling downward into what 1960’s sociologist, Martin Seligman, termed “learned helplessness” (and I would add learned irresponsibility).[8] More and more people come for help who are addicted to drugs, have children and are not married (and/or they are grown children who did not have both parents in the home). And, what is more, they have no concept that their way out of poverty is to get and keep a job. Finally, they have been conditioned into thinking that someone (the government) will bail them out. So, they conclude, “Why do we need to work?” What they are left with is continually being stuck as “victims,” barely getting by, and living from day to day.

We can continue to try the same things, but they will not work.We must look in a different direction and this leads to my final point I want to address. There are solutions.

An Important Solution

Let me simply introduce one part of the solution. As followers of Jesus Christ, we must stop walking to the other side of the political road, ignoring those who are injured and need our help. We have to become Good Samaritans in the public arena! We must realize that in addition to helping those who suffer from these systemic problems after the fact (and that we should), we must also work to prevent the political pillaging.

How do we do this?  We keep advocating the importance of marriage (that is and has historically in all cultures been procreative in kind), the importance of families, the importance of the role of the father in the home, and also the importance of children learning responsibility and a solid work ethic. This is the kind of situation for which God created us and in which we flourish to the greatest degree (Genesis 1-2; Ephesians 5:21-6:4).

What is more, even though as Christians, we understand that God can graciously overcome the challenges of a single parent home (and we certainly do not want to suggest such situations are hopeless. They are not!), nevertheless, we also understand that policies that encourage marriage, family, and the presence of dads in the home are not merely religious issues; they are issues of the well-being of children and our society!

And, make no mistake about it: Our compassion will fall woefully short if we do not address these systemic and cultural problems!

---

[1] Throughout this post I am indebted to Timothy S. Goeglein, “The Moynihan Report At 50,” in The City, 8, 2 (Winter 2015): 7-12.

[2] Cited by Goeglein, “The Moynihan Report,” 8.

[3] Goeglein, “The Moynihan Report,” 8.

[4] Goeglein, “The Moynihan Report,” 9.

[5] All taken from Goeglein, “The Moynihan Report,” 9-10.

[6] Goeglein, “The Moynihan Report,” 10.

[7] A November 27, 2015 article cited by Goeglein, “The Moynihan Report,” 10.

[8] For this label I am dependent upon Marvin Olasky, "Growing The Conservative Heart," an interview of Arthur C. Brooks in World (June 11, 2016): 25.

Foundation

Much effort has been expended through the years to prove either that the United States was founded as a Christian nation or that it was not. One of the problems with the entire debate is the lack of precision in language. What is meant by “Christian nation”? If what is meant is that all the founding Fathers were truly Christians and/or all the people in colonial America (and later the early days of the United States) were truly Christians, or if what is meant is that somehow the entire nation and its founding principles were perfectly aligned with Christianity and its Scriptures, then the answer must be, “No.” If, however, what we mean is that the Founding Fathers sought to base their founding principles in large part on the truths present in Christianity and its Scriptures, then we can answer, “Yes.”

I bring this up because many of the things that the founding Fathers (especially the framers of the Constitution) sought to do flowed out of a biblical worldview and can be instructive for us when it comes to how we should approach our involvement in the public square.[1]

What were some foundational truths that were present in those early days that should continually guide us today?  

Absolute Truth

The first part of the foundation is the existence of absolute truth. What we mean by this is that because of the God who is there, we know there are truths that are true all the time and there are truths that we can know to a degree that we can have absolute certainty about them. That there is one God and not many; that this God created the universe; that what God reveals is always right and wrong is always right and wrong and flows from his own nature; and that what God reveals to us about himself, mankind, and the world is true and can be understood by all kinds of people (Gen. 1:1; Lev. 19:2; Dt. 6:4-9; Jer. 10:10; Titus 1:2) leads us to conclude there is such a thing as absolute truth that we can certainly know.

Now, this does not mean we will all agree on all points of what is absolute truth or that any one of us can speak absolutely about every subject. But, it should lead us to believe in absolute truth, to seek for absolute truths upon which we can agree as we approach the public square, and to remain steadfastly committed to biblical truths that we know certainly.

I believe the rest of the foundation we will look at in this post is comprised of such absolute truths.

The Rule Of Law

The second “brick” we should place in our foundation is that mankind is best governed by laws that form boundaries for behavior and that also limit the power that can be exercised by those in authority. That God revealed laws of right and wrong to display how he wants mankind to live is beyond question (see Exodus 20:3-17; Mt. 19:17-19)—and that these laws flow from the character of God himself (Lev. 19:2) is also just as certain.

Even under the New Covenant, though we do not live under the system of Law in the same way as in the Old, nevertheless the Law is still good (Rom. 7:7a, 12; 1 Tim. 1:8) because it displays for us that and how we fall short of God’s standards and so need salvation (Rom. 7:7b), it uncovers how a person is supposed to love others once they are a Christian (Rom. 13:8-10), and it helps to restrain evil (1 Tim. 1:8-11). These are purposes that are in line with the glorious good news of God (1 Tim. 1:11).

It is the third purpose of the Law, namely putting in place principles of right and wrong in society that help keep peace, bring order, restrain evil, and also limit powers of authorities, that most informs the rule of laws in our society. This does not mean that all laws are built upon absolute truth and biblical laws. It does suggest that some are (laws against the taking of life without just cause, for example) and that the concept of rule of law is based upon biblical truth.

The need for the rule of law was exemplified in the Old Testament by Israel’s kings and the fact that whether or not they followed God and ruled well had significant impact on the welfare of the country (see 1, 2 Kings and 1, 2 Chronicles). The need was also taught in Dt. 17:14-20 when God, through Moses, warned Israel that government leaders (kings) would tend to abuse power and so they must be under the rule of God’s Law.

It is not hard to see why this is so. When sinful leaders (which is all leaders) have unchecked power, they can make themselves the Law of the land in a way that is arbitrary, self-serving, and destructive. Yet, when leaders must submit to laws of the land, these very laws serve as a check-and-balance against despotism.

This country’s founders understood that leaders should not be granted unchecked power to lead simply because they might have good ideas or good ends in mind, for such unchecked power can become dangerous. They also understood that since man is sinful and fallible, there needs to be a lawful process in place for changing laws that are not right and that are destructive.

We must realize that however we engage the public square, we must preserve the wise and foundational principle that no one should be above the law. In other words, the Law should be King, rather than the King serving as the Law!

The Sinfulness Of Mankind

In our discussion of the rule of law we introduced the truth that all mankind is sinful (see Rom. 3:10-12, 23), which means that all are prone to evil and also prone not to see things in a truthful, right, and just manner. This not only suggests the need for the rule of law (including the need for protection of the citizenry by law enforcement and military, Rom. 13:4), it also suggests the helpfulness of having checks and balances built into a system of government.

Though the way the Unites States has gone about this is not the only or even necessarily the perfect way, it certainly has been a reasonably good way to achieve this. What I am referring to is the presence of three branches of government (Executive, Judicial, and Legislative) that can keep each other in check, and also the means the citizenry has of removing and replacing leaders through the avenues set up in our democratic republic.

As we engage the public square, we must seek to preserve these checks and balances since we know that even the best of leaders have a propensity for evil.

The Importance Of Freedom

Standing behind the point just made, as we talked about the ability to remove and replace leaders, is the need for an informed citizenry to have input into the process of the public square, to be able to have access to accurate information about that process, to be able to voice input and criticism, and to exercise basic rights (such as freedom of religion).

What is more, as Christians we know that no one can be forced to become a Christian in any true sense. Truly placing one’s faith in Christ must be a movement of one’s own heart and not something that is forced by outward coercion (cf. Rom. 10:13-17; Philemon 14). As such, we should also advocate freedom so that we can continue to bring the truth into the arena of ideas that we might persuade people to embrace Christ. For many reasons, then, Christians, as good citizens, should seek to preserve freedom.

The Inevitability of Worldview

Since freedom is very important for all our society, the Christian should be the first one to stand up for the right of others to express freely their opinions and practice their worship—even if persons have different viewpoints or religions.

However, this does not mean that a particular worldview standing behind our laws and constitution cannot be defended. It is true that the Judeo-Christian worldview has informed the constitution and direction of this country for most of its history. That does not mean we should force everyone to have the same worldview. It does mean that aspects of that worldview that stand behind the nation’s laws should be preserved—such as the importance of freedom as seen in the Bill of Rights; the importance of the sanctity of human life; advocacy for the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, and so on.

Though the purpose is not to establish a theocracy, it is realized that the laws of the land that are informed by this worldview are better for the citizenry and for individuals than, for example to adopt those of another worldview—say Islamic Sharia Law. Since worldview does inform what we think to be right and true (e.g. Rom. 12:1-2) and many aspects of different worldviews contradict (esp. for example our constitution vs. Sharia Law), decisions have to be made as to which direction we should go.

Though we understand that we are not seeking to legislate people into the kingdom, we also understand that the Judeo-Christian worldview that stands behind our constitution is worth preserving and worth advocating in the public square as what is best for all (cf. Dt. 10:12-13).

The Helpfulness Of Historical Perspective

Finally, part of the biblical worldview includes the importance of passing on wisdom from generation to generation—wisdom based upon God’s absolute truth (e.g. Dt. 4:1-10; 6:4-9; Proverbs 6:20-23). In part, this means learning from those who have gone before us.

Those who founded this country and framed the Constitution understood this. They were students of government philosophy for centuries prior to them. They did not merely look at their own time and try to reason from it what ought to be done. Instead, they sought also to step out of the limited view of their own generation and to glean insight from many who went before them in order to think about how the country’s government should be put together.

In the mid twentieth century C. S. Lewis, in an essay, warned against chronological snobbery. In other words, he cautioned against thinking that something is better simply because it is new or something is unworthy of our attention because it is old. To step out of our own time, Lewis argued, is to learn from others and to see things in a larger perspective and not to be trapped by too narrow a perception.

We have forgotten this in the twenty-first century. We define justice, as well as what is best for society, based upon Twitter and Facebook feeds with a little bit of news here or there thrown in. As Christians we must be open both to the absolute truth of the ages in the Bible—and how it informs our public square involvement—as well as what we can glean from those who have gone before us and what they have learned about how to apply such truths.

As we continue on in this blog in future posts and discussions, we will do our best to be informed by these foundational truths. In our next post we will attempt to build upon this foundation as we discuss the importance of family life to the public square.

---

[1] One of the most helpful resources I have seen on this subject is a work published in 2009 to celebrate the 500^th anniversary of the birth of the Reformer, John Calvin: David W. Hall, Calvin In the Public Square: Liberal Democracies, Rights, And Civil Liberties. One of the many truths Hall uncovers is the impact of the Protestant Reformers upon those who helped give shape to this country in its early days.