Prosperity and the Christian Ethic

This is a long post, but it deals with many important areas of my thought.

Sam provokes this response with a question in an email:

“Tell me where you stand as both a Christian and a hyper-capitalist on those churches that preach wealth is proof of God’s grace, and that Christians can and should live the high life if possible. (See, Oral Roberts and his family, for example.) What should I make of that as a non-Christian when one of the most powerfully pro-Christian arguments has to do with it not being a religion wrapped up in money. “

Okay, so, Capitalism, wealth and Christianity.

One of my favorite preachers in Mark Driscoll, of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, says that there’s good rich people, bad rich people, good poor people, and bad poor people. Wealth doesn’t make a person good or bad, and being good or bad doesn’t make a person wealthy. Sometimes life just happens. The Bible says that the rain falls on the just and the unjust alike. Rain can be good or bad.

That said, some of what “prosperity preachers” are teaching is just good financial planning and logical economics. Inasmuch as people can focus on their long run plans for their life rather than immediate gratification, they will have greater financial stability. Also, excessive risk aversion can limit an individual’s income potential. Developing confidence and willingness to take calculated risks can increase one’s ability to recognize and take advantage of market opportunities. So when Joel Osteen writes a book encouraging Christians to get “Their Best Life Ever,” he is merely teaching these principles.

It is important that these concepts are being taught to Christians. I worked at an inner-city mission for eight years, and the temptation is very strong in that kind of situation to get into the habit of crying poor-mouth. As a result, the mission often got free, but lower quality, service. We took our vehicles to a mechanic who gave us a huge discount. After a while I stopped taking my personal car there and went to a new mechanic whom I instructed to charge me the full price. When you get a deal, there’s no guarantee.

The aesthetic ethic is strong in many Christian circles. People are being taught not so much that they ought to give to the poor as that they ought to be poor themselves. No wonder men hate church! Real men despise mediocrity and weakness. We prefer to see the best man win in a fairly executed contest. If Christians are being taught to be mediocre, they are not exercising their full God-given potential, and are robbing their fellow man of their abilities. Christians ought to be the hardest working most productive members of society. Paul makes this especially clear when he instructs Christian slaves to serve their masters as though they were serving God directly. Under the harshest, most unjust conditions, Christians have no recourse to complain.

Something needs to be made clear here about wealth. There are two roads to prosperity: the political entrepreneurial and the market entrepreneurial. When a merchant sells her customer a product in exchange for money, both parties are pleased. There is mutual satisfaction. Both say thank you. The more often a merchant sells a product, the more people she satisfies. The more customers she satisfies, the greater the volume of her business, and the wealthier she becomes. This is the market entrepreneurial road to wealth: satisfying customers. When a rival enters the market, our merchant recognizes the competition and works to lower her costs, improve her product, lower prices, and improve the shopping experience. She has to satisfy her customer even more to secure her portion of the market. As the two compete, the ultimate winners are the customers.

Contrast this with the political entrepreneur. He sets up his business in much the same manner as the market entrepreneur, except when competition is introduced to the market. When a rival appears of the scene, he does not work on improving his business, but instead works through political mechanisms to eliminate his competition. Often he will seek the privilege to be the sole firm in an industry. He may also opt to apply for government favors in the form of tax rebates, subsidies, or government contracts. Any of these will result in some form of monopolistic market power, limitation of competition, and barriers to entry by new firms. The ultimate loser in this case is the consumer. They pay higher prices and receive poorer service.

People at all levels can choose to use either of these methods to achieve success. The insurance saleswoman can focus on selling her customers only those products which will actually help them, or she can try to sell every product in her portfolio. The individual who is focused on short-term gain will try to sell everything. She is not concerned with satisfying her customer. She will get paid a big up-front commission, but be forced to deal with dis-satisfied customers later. The agent who tries to sell only those policies which will help the customer will have less business falling off the books later, and will garner better referrals for the future.

If preachers can encourage market-entrepreneurial and long-run focused action by Christians they do well. Christians ought to renounce use of the political mechanism on all counts. The gospel is not spread by force but by love. Satisfying customers is not quite love, but is much farther from force.

Yet the question of motive remains. Should Christians be encouraged to get rich? No. Should Christians expect to get rich if they behave properly in the market as outlined above? Not exactly.

Christians are supposed to be re-generate. They are supposed to have an altered human nature. People are naturally self-interested. This premise may be considered the foundation of all economic thought since Adam Smith. We say that if a person is acting in their own self-interest they are optimizing. They are rational. Periodically economics has had to return to this premise to keep from steering off-course. The Rational Expectations movement in the 70’s 80’s and 90’s was an example of this. If we want to be able to predict how people will behave self-interest ought to be our first premise. Altruism is a poor predictor. It is much more randomly distributed.

But there are a few places where we might expect to find altruistic behavior consistently. The family is a first example. Family members often act sacrificially for one another. A mom will give up hours of her day to driving her kids to soccer practice and violin lessons. A husband will take his wife to her favorite restaurant instead of his. One might argue that each of these examples has to be conditioned by the fact that the actor expects some future enjoyment from the decision that they make, and thus are still acting rationally. I would have to agree, but insist that one is much more likely to observe altruistic behavior at home than at work.

Another place we might observe altruism is at a church. Unfortunately this has not been the experience of many. I have met many, many people who were hurt by and even abused by churches and people at church. I, too have suffered at the hands of other Christians. But this behavior is not consistent with the Christian ethic as taught by Christ.

If a person proclaims themselves a Christian they are saying that they have recognized the call of Christ, their creator, on their lives. They then relinquish the right to make decisions about their lives to Jesus. They become obedient to Him. In this way their self-interested nature is replaced with a desire to serve and obey Christ. And Christ calls his followers to the peculiar ethic of caring for the least of these. This is the ultimate in altruism, to care for and meet the needs of people who can and will do nothing for you in return; to expect no future reward for your actions.

This part is confusing. Many Christians wrongly believe that there are two rewards. One is a better life on earth, the other is the promise of heaven. Neither of these is the true reward. Christ Himself is our reward, and we have Him in full when we accept His call. We accept the sacrifice He made by dying on the cross, give Him our lives, and enter into relationship with Him. Christians talk about Jesus living in their hearts, or being filled with the Holy Spirit. This is the reward. Before we do any good works we have already receive our reward in full. Thus any future good works are not performed in expectation of a reward, but solely in response to the call of Christ, the Christian ethic.

So, a Christian lives to serve others as Christ served others. But the Bible tells us that Jesus didn’t heal every sickness. Neither are we responsible to help all people. Christians are not bound by guilt to serve anyone. They are only to serve out of compassion and love. The Holy Spirit within is to direct the believer to heal whom God wills to heal, to serve whom God wants to serve, to do what God wants to do. Jesus said that He did not do anything of His own volition, but only did what He saw His Father in heaven doing. This is what produces both liberty and action in the Christian’s life. He is no longer bound to any law but response to the Spirit.

If Christians indeed are regenerate and have a new nature, they are uniquely able to act from motives other than self-interest. For this reason I say that it is the full and exclusive responsibility of the Church to care for the least of these. No one else can perform this task unselfishly. No one else can perform this task without being motivated by guilt. No one else can be imposed with this ethic. It must be accepted voluntarily. No force or political motive may enter the action, lest it become devoid of virtue.

So, if a Christian becomes wealthy by satisfying her customers, she believes that all she has belongs to her creator, and she becomes obedient to His direction for what she is to do with her wealth. It is impossible for any other individual to judge what she does with that wealth. She is steward over it and she is responsible to God alone for what she does with it. However, the Church is of one Spirit and one mind, and has been given certain rights over the Christian’s life through their voluntary membership. Among these is accountability for her actions. The Bible says we are to judge them by their fruits. If they are satisfying customers and getting wealthy we may judge that they are doing well. If they use that wealth to satisfy their lusts for worldly pleasures they neglect the Spirit’s call to care for the least of these.

The market only makes it possible to care for others who can do something for us in return. It does not provide for care of the least of these. This requires a specific and limited definition of the least of these. It is those who cannot do for themselves, or who have suffered an injustice. Widows and orphans most exemplify this definition. Thus the Bible says in the book of James that, “pure and undefiled religion is this: to care for the widows and orphans.”

In conclusion: I do not condemn prosperity preachers for their instruction in wise and profitable living. These principles are common to the Christian and the heathen alike. Christians are especially lacking in understanding of these principles, and so I welcome this instruction. It doesn’t necessarily, and often doesn’t, need to occur in a church. In fact I would prefer it didn’t, except when misunderstanding has lead to sin in which case correction is in order. However, I do not condone the same teachers’ appeals to the lusts of unregenerate human nature. Christians ought not to be motivated by these desires any more. Of course we are all at various stages of what is called sanctification, but that ought not to be an excuse. Excuses are like idols which we worship instead of the truth. They are truths of our own liking.

Also, I stand in outright condemnation of any attempt by Christians to make use of the political mechanism to achieve the mandates of the gospel. Thus, if it is the Christians’ full and exclusive responsibility to care for the least of these, there is no room for the Christian to advocate governmental policies which make unbelievers responsible for this mandate. Welfare programs ought not to exist because Christians ought to be fulfilling the need independent of the use of taxation or force. Finally, the moral aspects of the Christian ethic are also unique to Christians. That marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman in reflection of the unification of Christ with His Church is not something which can be imposed on secular society. It is unique and peculiar. Let heathens act like heathens. Let pagans behave as pagans. Let them recognize the inconsistencies in their beliefs on their own. Do not make the Christian ethic into secular law and thus oppress unregenerate humans with a heavier burden of laws than even believers are capable of without the power of the Holy Spirit. It is most unkind to do so.

Inasmuch as Christians live amongst unbelievers in a society with its own human laws, believers ought to comply with the laws of the land they live in unless they force the believer to do something immoral. Most human laws aim at being good laws. So, pay your taxes, just don’t expect them to do any good. Instead, recognize your own responsibility and unique ability to be and do good. Renounce political mechanisms, and assume full and exclusive responsibility for the least of these.

Comments