Money

Last time we spelled out the fundamentals of the economy: specialized labor, trade, and currency (money).

1 Timothy 6:10

"For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs."

This verse is often misquoted as "money is the root of all evil", but it clearly love of money (elsewhere greed is identified as a form of idolatry).

The Kingdom of Israel (as spelled out in the Old Testament) made use of currency (the shekel). Through most of history, money was in the form of precious metals (gold, silver, and copper or bronze).

Many people today bemoan the move off of the gold standard (where paper currency is tied to physical goods, usually blocks of gold) (Ron Paul, I'm looking at you).

However, it is important to realize currency is simply the "working fluid" of the engine of the economy. It's like only putting 1 quart of oil in your engine, because 1 is such a good number - being neither prime nor composite.

A growing economy needs more money to keep transactions going smoothly. This is also the source of inflation (increase in the cost of goods). As more money chases a limited number of goods, prices increase. As long as inflation is predictable, it can be handled. As long as it is low, it can be handled. Unpredictable inflation is a serious problem, unpredictable high inflation can be deadly.


The real problem is that money is also a proxy for power.

Money is related to time, but not exactly comparable. Wages are paid out per hour of labor, but everyone gets the same amount of time (168 hours per week).

If you imagine power and influence coming through the use of one's time (getting people to agree with you), then money allows you to achieve the same purpose in little or no time.

This allows some people more influence in proportion to their money.

Now, this is ratio thing. If I am a millionaire, and everyone else is only millionaires then we are all equal. But if I am a billionaire, and everyone else is millionaires - I have an edge. We see this in the rising cost of political campaigns. People will spend millions (I seem to recall the last presidential election approached a billion from all sides) for these jobs. Callous people believe this is an investment which will be paid back, but not necessarily so. Once you have enough money, you can effectively view power as the end, and money as the means (power becomes a "good" which can be bought, rather than an investment with a return).

This is a problem outside of economics. It is a political, and ultimately, theological problem.

Fun Econ

(In college 200 level courses where called Fundamentals of subject, so we called them Fun)

Fundamentally, economics is about the management of scarcity. You only have so much goods, and time, and you need some plan for utilizing them. That's it.

The basic input to the economy is work, human labor. Now, God created work in the beginning, before the Fall. So work is good. However, the Fall has cursed it. For now, work is unpleasant and people need some motivation to work.

The measure of effective work per person is called "productivity". When economists talk about "productivity increase" they mean the same amount of people are doing more work, or fewer people are doing the same amount of work.

The bare minimum is "sustenance farming". This is where everyone produces everything they need. There is little or no trade, and no opportunity for specialization. With low population density, life can actually be pretty relaxed (I recall hunter gatherers had the shortest work day). Productivity is very low, since everyone must each learn every possible task. Also, individual talent is not utilized to the fullest (if I am good at growing plants, but poor at managing animals - I still spend time doing both).

Specialization requires trade (I produce only goats, and I need wheat). And trade works much better with currency (money). I have a cow and want shoes. I can't use 100 shoes, and I don't want to give up the cow for less. I can sell the cow to a third party for money, and use some to buy shoes.

Capital is the means of production (it can also refer to large investments of money). This might refer to land or animals, factories, etc.

Production can be of durable goods (things that last, perhaps further means of production - a factory that produces factory parts), or consumables (things used up; food, paper towels). There is also service - things like waiters and cooks, accountants, etc. And energy (gasoline, electricity).

A "good" is anything produced for the economy. It is usually reserved for physical items, but might be used for anything. There are no "bads", but any production has waste outputs and often "externalities" (negative side effects which fall on third parties).

Christian Economics

Because it deals with people, economics is a "soft science". The science is in the formulas and mathematical principles which can analyze trends and give some predictions for the future based on policies.

However, it cannot be separated from theology.

This comes into play with ideas like morality (what activities are right and good and should be encouraged), teleology (purpose), and anthropology (theory of man).

One of the big assumptions is that people are rational when it comes to economic decisions.

This ignores the fact that sin is irrational.

I recall after one of the recent bubbles, Alan Greenspan reported that he was surprised that greed could cause people to make bad decisions.

On the opposite side, there are those who believe that any notion of property, or that some might have more than others is inherently evil.

I am not so much interested in the ideal, as what Christianity has to say about economics in the presence of sinful actors.

ASC and Gene Therapy

A fascinating article from Science Daily:

"They used synthetic proteins called zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs) to target a corrective gene at a specifically defined location in the genome of the X-CGD iPS cells. The iPS cells were then carefully screened to identify those containing a single copy of the corrective gene properly inserted only at the safe site. The researchers observed that some of the gene-corrected iPS cells could differentiate into neutrophils that produced normal levels of hydrogen peroxide, effectively 'correcting' the disease."

Taking defective blood stem cells, and patching their programming!

Hypocrisy

One of the classic complaints against Christianity is "the church is full of hypocrites".

Let's overlook the obvious problem with this statement (you are turning down God's offer of forgiveness and eternal life in Heaven - because some people who claim they will be in Heaven are jerks).

First, I must say, if a local church is full of hypocrites, you should avoid that church.

Why?

Two possibilities:

1. They say they are evil, but are actually good. I don't think anyone would have a problem with this. It'd be like super-humility.
2. They say they are good, but are actually evil.

If they say they are good, they don't have a very good grasp of the Gospel (we are evil, God is good - we can get forgiveness for our evil, and get credit for God's goodness).

Ok. But what about atheists who are hypocrites?

Atheists cannot believe in anything greater than themselves. That is because everything dies with us (entropy). There can't be anything greater than ourselves, as individuals. At most, they can sponsor some sort of utilitarianism, which sees to the maximization of utility (although that has some problems).

So, any atheist who argues in favor of their belief system over any other - "because it is true" - is a hypocrite. Truth doesn't matter (under their system). Only our own purposes - which means theists can have their own purposes, and atheists shouldn't try to dissuade them.

Felix Manz - Martyr

This is another series I've wanted to work on... I've had troubles locating a copy of Fox's (or Foxe's) Book of Martyrs. Although there seems to be one online...

"Martyr" is from the Greek word "witness". The early Church was famous for witnesses who were true to the end (death by persecution). There were so many, that martyr became synonymous with death for the faith.

This is very different from those who die while killing, as in Islam. The ideal Christian martyr is peaceful and gentle, like a lamb led to slaughter.

Felix Manz is in line with our recent coverage of Baptism.

During the Reformation, there were people who pressed for more thorough reformation. These people are generally known as the "Radical Reformers". The best known of these are the anabaptists (a derogatory term from their enemies, meaning "re-baptizers").

Anabaptists have only a idealogical connection to modern Baptists. Their more direct descendants are the Mennonites and related groups (now know more for non-violence and strict separation from the world).

The anabaptists believed that baptism should follow belief, which is what the systematic reading of Scripture shows. They also believed in non-violence (particularly the avoidance of military service) - largely because, at that time, military service was connected to religious warfare.

From Wikipedia:

"Felix Manz became ... the first Swiss Anabaptist to be martyred at the hands of other Protestants."

The baptism (and religious warfare) issue is very tightly connected with Postmillenialism, which I will address in a separate post.

Hyper-dispensationalism

An interesting set of posts from AOmin (the first, which points to the second).

In the first Jamin says:

"consistent Dispensationalism is (or at least, should be) Hyper-Dispensationalism"

This is a very interesting statement. It's been a long time, but I have mentioned my own leanings towards dispensationalism. Hyper-dispy is definitely heresy, let's take a look...

Jamin sums it all up in one block of the second (older) post:

"Hyper-Dispensationalism teaches that there are two gospels in the New Testament, that Jesus and Peter taught works-righteous salvation, that all forms of water baptism are unnecessary and 'dangerous,' that the Great Commission in Matthew’s gospel is inapplicable for anyone today, and that the teaching in Paul’s epistles are the only relevant sources for doctrine in the church."

This is a remarkable statement (on the HD side, I assume Jamin is representing them accurately).

The only online source is the "Berean Bible Society".

Here we see the "other" aspects of dispy I mentioned in my post - "central interpretive motif". From fact 1:

"The reason for a right division of the Bible is because of God's two distinct purposes: (1) His purpose concerning Israel and the world according to PROPHECY, and (2) His purpose concerning the Gentiles in this present age according to the MYSTERY revealed to Paul. God doesn't want us to confuse the teaching of these two purposes. He has very graciously given us the key for a proper understanding of this. "

This definitely seems to be the root of the problem. They are assuming two purposes for God, which I don't think can be exegeted directly anywhere. God has one purpose - to glorify Himself.

Fact 2 is just wrong:

"This proves conclusively that Paul did not preach what the 12 Apostles preached."

This sets the Bible against itself. I'd need to read the academic works to see where this is coming from and how it is reconciled. It doesn't seem like it could stand for long.

Everything else seems to follow naturally from these foundational errors, leading to "fact" 7:

"That the COMMISSION the Church, the Body of Christ, is to work under, is found in II Corinthians 5:14-21 and Ephesians 3:9. The Kingdom commission of Matthew 28:19-20 and Mark 16:15-18 does not belong to God's present grace purpose."

2 Cor 5:14-21 speaks of our mission to preach the reconciliation of God and man through the death and resurrection of Jesus. Matthew 28 is the Great Commission ("go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.")

I think this sets things more in context.

The HD seem to be trying to break free from postmillenialism (the idea that the Church should be reconstructing the world into Christ-likeness). This makes sense for the original authors' timeframe (before 1940). That was in the midst of the great meltdown of postmillenialism (which peaked during World Wars I and II).

It is important to realize one can have both 2 Cor 5 and Matthew 28 without postmillenialism.

What Jesus commanded was not obedience to the Law, and theocracy. He taught the Law as a schoolmaster (which is what Paul says), to drive us to repentance. That is the "command" - "repent".

We are obedient to the command when we repent and trust that Jesus has paid the price of sin for us. We are baptized (just as the Gentiles in Cornelius' household were) as an outward sign of this obedience, which has worked an inward change.

This (HD) is an overreaction to a problem that didn't exist (as many heresies are).