God's Economics: Pope Benedict -- and Jim Wallis -- Go Where Many U.S. Politicians Fear to Tread

Right, capitalism doesn't exist in primitive societies. Most historians conflate commerce and capitalism. They are not the same thing. Even in communist countries people have to exchange goods. Capitalism is a particular way of organizing the market that emphasizes the rule of law, property rights, and freedom. Two main characteristics are production for the masses as opposed to production for the wealthy, which is what traditional markets are geared toward, and impersonal exchange.

That interpretation is not suggested by the Greek, either. Besides, God did not judge the Rich Fool by the standards of the community, but by his own law, which we can find in the Bible. The standards of the community caused most people in Israel to want to murder Jesus.

The cultural information about the prodigal son adds color to the story without changing the meaning. The cultural info for the Rich Fool changes the interpretation dramatically. The first principle of hermeneutics is to take the natural meaning first and only resort to a less natural meaning for language if the passage itself gives clues that you should, clues like the use of poetry or hyperbole.

The Law of Moses taught capitalism, not socialism.

No, it assumed capitalism. But the Law also made it clear that everything belonged to God and was subject to His dictates; that capitalism as such was highly regulated (at least by American libertarian standards), and the Prophets railed against the abuse of such. The idea that I can do what I want regardless of the well-being of anyone else was foreign to the Biblical writers. On top of that, Middle Eastern culture is more collective than ours; in Jesus' Parable of the Rich Fool, part of the problem was that he didn't consult with his neighbors to consider what he should do with his windfall.

Just as our foreign policy primarily reflects a committment to force as the prime instrument of change in our nation's "vision" of the world, so our economic policies reflect the desires of special economic interests.

Wallis and Pope Benedict will be flayed by the conservative press as socialists, liberals and all the nasty labels we've become acquainted with over the past twenty years. However, they are correct in saying that it will take a massive social movement to change the way this nation views it's role in the world, and how it cares for (or doesn't care for) those who are the least and the lowest in our society.

There is ample blame to go around, notwithstanding party affiliation. Politics as usual will perpetuate the system which supports military contractors and multinational corporations at the expense of the individual. Republicans and Democrats alike are guilty of playing to the special money interests, while millions here and across the world are suffering, and our young men and women fight and die in their immoral and pointless conflicts.

Would it be too much to ask that Christians take the lead in living Jesus' command to us to love our enemies, and care for the least of those among us? Of course, that doesn't buy votes in Congress or fill already bulging pockets of multi-millionaires, so it won't fly...only when His kingdom is established will we truly be free of the scourge of money, poverty, war and injustice. Nevertheless, it is His challenge to us to act in His name!

Pray for Peace and Dare To Act!

PS, I'm finishing "This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly" by Reinhart and Rogoff. The book shows that the recent crisis is not unique, but very normal for hundreds of such crises across several centuries. The cause is bad economics on the part of politicians.

Crises such as the latest one are so common through centuries and across nations that to attribute them to simple immorality is odd. To make that point you would have to show that people are more moral during good times and suddenly lapse into immorality just before a crisis. I doubt that is possible.

Two main characteristics are production for the masses as opposed to production for the wealthy, which is what traditional markets are geared toward, and impersonal exchange.

At some point, however, the mercantile class was bound to become its own quasi-aristocracy. It's no wonder that its largest firms banded together and lobbied Congress for special favors, cementing that status.

That interpretation is not suggested by the Greek, either. Besides, God did not judge the Rich Fool by the standards of the community, but by his own law, which we can find in the Bible. The standards of the community caused most people in Israel to want to murder Jesus.

The law of the Bible was quite communitarian in outlook -- in fact, it was built that way in part of distinguish itself from other nations. And you have to go back to the Hebrew, not necessarily the Greek (perhaps Matthew might get it the best).

The cultural information about the prodigal son adds color to the story without changing the meaning. The cultural info for the Rich Fool changes the interpretation dramatically.

Actually, parables exist to make only one point about God. With the Prodigal Son, it was that He would welcome back someone who totally embarrassed him. And besides, what are the two Great Commandments?

The prophets railed against the wealthy, the nobility, who stole the property of the poor. Theft and murder has been the typical mode of operation for the nobility since the beginning of time. But that is not capitalism and never has been. Capitalism existed in Israel under the Judges, then never again until the 16th century in Western Europe. Even Marx placed the advent of capitalism in the 16th century.

Now, I find that a little hard to believe. I mean, folks had to have a means of exchange even then. It may be true that you didn't have mass capitalism until the 18th century in Europe, but here's the question: Does that mean that capitalism doesn't exist in primitive societies?

That's not interpretation; that's reading your own politics into the Bible. There is nothing in the text that might suggest such an interpretation. A better interpretation is that the Rich Fool lacked concern for the poor, which was evidence of his lack of concern for spiritual matters.

No, I'm reading it in the culture in which it was written. You can't always get the true gist of a Scriptural passage by simply reading it in English, which is why people go to the Holy Land.

Another example: The parable of the Prodigal Son. Now, Jesus' audience understood that when he told his father to give him his share of the inheritance (in essence, he was saying "I wish you were dead").

Crises such as the latest one are so common through centuries and across nations that to attribute them to simple immorality is odd.

Which tells you something about the corruption of man -- that it keeps happening.

So what are you saying, that people cycle between corruption and virtue on a regular basis?

Two main characteristics are production for the masses as opposed to production for the wealthy, which is what traditional markets are geared toward, and impersonal exchange.

At some point, however, the mercantile class was bound to become its own quasi-aristocracy. It's no wonder that its largest firms banded together and lobbied Congress for special favors, cementing that status.

That interpretation is not suggested by the Greek, either. Besides, God did not judge the Rich Fool by the standards of the community, but by his own law, which we can find in the Bible. The standards of the community caused most people in Israel to want to murder Jesus.

The law of the Bible was quite communitarian in outlook -- in fact, it was built that way in part of distinguish itself from other nations. And you have to go back to the Hebrew, not necessarily the Greek (perhaps Matthew might get it the best).

The cultural information about the prodigal son adds color to the story without changing the meaning. The cultural info for the Rich Fool changes the interpretation dramatically.

Actually, parables exist to make only one point about God. With the Prodigal Son, it was that He would welcome back someone who totally embarrassed him. And besides, what are the two Great Commandments?

DHFabian all I can say is amen to your thoughtful comment on the poor. Sadly the public at large seems to demonize the poor here. I see this on usually a daily basis myself being poor. It always makes me sad to see people who claim a belief in Jesus and then go on to denigrate the poor. by blaming them for being poor. Trust me no one chooses to be poor.

Crises such as the latest one are so common through centuries and across nations that to attribute them to simple immorality is odd.

Which tells you something about the corruption of man -- that it keeps happening.

The poor don't have a voice; they've been pushed out of the public discussion. censored out of the news media. People can and do die right here in America as a result of poverty. Good people must find the courage to speak on behalf of the poor, for the poor.

There is much that individuals and organizations can do to help turn things around, but government must return to playing a central role in this -- only government has the means and funds to address the poverty crisis in the US. We've heard all the mantras about jobs being the answer, and all the promises of massive job creation. Bottom line: Not everyone can work, and there aren't nearly enough jobs for all who need them. Welfare "reform" is utterly disconnected from this reality.

We need to restore a legitimate, non-punitive welfare system, such as those found in the more advanced (and successful) nations, and we need to restore the need-based entitlement to aid. We can afford it simply by reallocating existing funds. AFDC, the largest welfare program, used a mere 6% of the federal budget at its highest, in the 1970s. Now, the US has engaged in serial wars since the end of WWll. We could save billions by discontinuing our wars of choice. Further, we could reverse all the corporate welfare that currently costs billions of dollars per year. Simply end the handouts to the rich. This would easily cover the costs of creating a legitimate welfare system.

That, however, is beside the point. Too many Christians resist paying taxes because they forget that they are citizens of a certain nation and have duties and responsibilities -- which we don't often remember. (Rather, we focus primarily on rights.)

So what are you saying, that people cycle between corruption and virtue on a regular basis?

'While the pope is not stealing lines from Marx

Actually that's not historically accurate. Marx got most of his ideas from the founder of modern socialism, the athiest Frenchman Saint-Simon (see Hayek's "Counter-revolution in Science). The basis of socialism is the idea that mankind is born innocent with no tendency toward evil. Evil appeared with the notion of private property. If we can eliminate private property, all evil will disappear. Marxism has a redemptive element and paradise common to most religions.

Marx's economics came from Adam Smith's misguided concept of the labor theory of value, and the medieval idea that wealth is limited and one man cannot gain except at the expense of another.

The Law of Moses taught capitalism, not socialism. Moses and Jesus always required that people give of their own property to the poor, which requires that you have some property to give. Socialism is the most anti-Christ system every developed. Capitalism came from Church theologians of the 16th century Spanish school at Salamanca. Socialism came from the atheist enlightenment.

The poor don't have a voice; they've been pushed out of the public discussion. censored out of the news media. People can and do die right here in America as a result of poverty. Good people must find the courage to speak on behalf of the poor, for the poor.

There is much that individuals and organizations can do to help turn things around, but government must return to playing a central role in this -- only government has the means and funds to address the poverty crisis in the US. We've heard all the mantras about jobs being the answer, and all the promises of massive job creation. Bottom line: Not everyone can work, and there aren't nearly enough jobs for all who need them. Welfare "reform" is utterly disconnected from this reality.

We need to restore a legitimate, non-punitive welfare system, such as those found in the more advanced (and successful) nations, and we need to restore the need-based entitlement to aid. We can afford it simply by reallocating existing funds. AFDC, the largest welfare program, used a mere 6% of the federal budget at its highest, in the 1970s. Now, the US has engaged in serial wars since the end of WWll. We could save billions by discontinuing our wars of choice. Further, we could reverse all the corporate welfare that currently costs billions of dollars per year. Simply end the handouts to the rich. This would easily cover the costs of creating a legitimate welfare system.

It wasn't always that way. In fact, the state took a monopoly on money only about a century ago in the US. Until then, gold and silver were money and they were private property. Forcing people to use only paper money created by the state is immoral and a violation of property rights. Nevertheless, when the state prints its money and it goes to the people, it becomes their private property, which the state then proceeds to destroy by printing vastly more amounts of money and destroying the value of the money that people have as private property.

Actually that's not historically accurate. Marx got most of his ideas from the founder of modern socialism, the athiest Frenchman Saint-Simon (see Hayek's "Counter-revolution in Science). The basis of socialism is the idea that mankind is born innocent with no tendency toward evil. Evil appeared with the notion of private property. If we can eliminate private property, all evil will disappear. Marxism has a redemptive element and paradise common to most religions.

Marx's economics came from Adam Smith's misguided concept of the labor theory of value, and the medieval idea that wealth is limited and one man cannot gain except at the expense of another.

The Law of Moses taught capitalism, not socialism. Moses and Jesus always required that people give of their own property to the poor, which requires that you have some property to give. Socialism is the most anti-Christ system every developed. Capitalism came from Church theologians of the 16th century Spanish school at Salamanca. Socialism came from the atheist enlightenment.

The Law of Moses instructed people to respect the property of others, especially the commanments "Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not covet." Much of the law involves punishment for violating the property of others. Following the Bible, capitalism has always insisted on laws protecting people from theft, fraud, and violence. The rule of law (God's law) has always been the foundation of capitalism.

The prophets railed against the wealthy, the nobility, who stole the property of the poor. Theft and murder has been the typical mode of operation for the nobility since the beginning of time. But that is not capitalism and never has been. Capitalism existed in Israel under the Judges, then never again until the 16th century in Western Europe. Even Marx placed the advent of capitalism in the 16th century.

"in Jesus' Parable of the Rich Fool, part of the problem was that he didn't consult with his neighbors to consider what he should do with his windfall."

That's not interpretation; that's reading your own politics into the Bible. There is nothing in the text that might suggest such an interpretation. A better interpretation is that the Rich Fool lacked concern for the poor, which was evidence of his lack of concern for spiritual matters.

Just as our foreign policy primarily reflects a committment to force as the prime instrument of change in our nation's "vision" of the world, so our economic policies reflect the desires of special economic interests.

Wallis and Pope Benedict will be flayed by the conservative press as socialists, liberals and all the nasty labels we've become acquainted with over the past twenty years. However, they are correct in saying that it will take a massive social movement to change the way this nation views it's role in the world, and how it cares for (or doesn't care for) those who are the least and the lowest in our society.

There is ample blame to go around, notwithstanding party affiliation. Politics as usual will perpetuate the system which supports military contractors and multinational corporations at the expense of the individual. Republicans and Democrats alike are guilty of playing to the special money interests, while millions here and across the world are suffering, and our young men and women fight and die in their immoral and pointless conflicts.

Would it be too much to ask that Christians take the lead in living Jesus' command to us to love our enemies, and care for the least of those among us? Of course, that doesn't buy votes in Congress or fill already bulging pockets of multi-millionaires, so it won't fly...only when His kingdom is established will we truly be free of the scourge of money, poverty, war and injustice. Nevertheless, it is His challenge to us to act in His name!

Pray for Peace and Dare To Act!

"Pope Benedict XVI released an encyclical