Biblical Economies and Mammon

Mammon in America

You cannot serve God and Mammon (Luke 16:13)

Given the economic downturn in which we find ourselves, the enormous concentrations of wealth that have recently occurred, the emergence of an underclass and all the suffering this entails, the purchase of our politicians by big money, the great importance Scripture ascribes to economic justice, and the near-absolute indifference and/or ignorance of many Christians regarding biblical principles of economics, it would be helpful to see what light the Bible and the Christian tradition can shed on our present economic circumstances.

Among other things, three fundamental points will be made: First, all economic relationships are aspects of personal relationships among human beings. Second, biblical economics entailed redistribution of wealth and limits on accumulation. Third, those who created wealth should receive its benefits. These three ideas will be presented in terms of Scripture, and then in relation to the formation of the modern system, and finally, the relevance of this for the church and political action.

The Scriptures of the Old and New Testament present three economic systems: that of Egypt, Israel, and the “economics” of Jesus which fulfilled that of Israel. Let me begin with that of Egypt.

First, political and economic power was concentrated in the person of the Pharaoh. For example, in the time of Joseph, Pharaoh had the authority to give Jacob and his family the “best of the land of Egypt” (Genesis 45:18), and in the time of Moses, the authority to order the slave masters to increase the work of the Hebrew slaves (Exodus 5:6-9), to command the population of Egypt to slaughter male Hebrew children (Exodus 1:22), and the authority to set the people free had he wished. Further, as one reads the early chapters of Exodus, one can see that Pharaoh was supported by his army, his wise men, priests, officials, and the foremen who directed the work of the Hebrew slaves. This system concentrated power in the hands of a few, and by means of raw power, enslaved the Hebrews and others as well. According to Genesis 47:21, even the Egyptians became the servants of the Pharaoh. Against this overwhelming power, God acted to set his people free. In the words of Exodus 3:10, “Come, I will send you [Moses] to Pharaoh that you may bring my people, the children of Israel, out of Egypt."

Further, as is clear from the text, the economic lot of Israel was bitter, hard toil. It was this misery that moved the Lord to rescue his people from the hand of the Egyptians. "I have surely seen the affliction of my people who are in Egypt and have heard their cry because of their taskmasters. I know their sufferings, and I have come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land to a good and broad land, a land flowing with milk and honey” (Exodus 3:7-8). Here we see God’s will for economic life clearly stated, a life in which God’s people had access to land, and further, the work on this land was not to be the bitter, hard toil of slavery.

Of particular interest is the account of Genesis 47:13-26. Here, at a time of famine, Joseph enables Pharaoh to acquire the private holdings of the Egyptians themselves. Desperate for food, the population sold their livestock to Pharaoh, followed by their land, and finally, their very bodies. “So Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh, for all the Egyptians sold their fields, because the famine was severe on them. The land became Pharaoh's. As for the people, he made servants of them from one end of Egypt to the other” (Gen 47:20-1). The only exception to this liquidation of personal assets and resultant enslavement was the priesthood, for they lived on salary, a salary paid by Pharaoh himself.

As a result of this alliance, there was a correlation between Egypt’s religious system and Pharaoh’s political and economic power, including the process whereby lands were expropriated and people enslaved. As is well known from other sources, the Pharaoh was a god, and the religious system of Egypt validated royal power and legitimized Egypt’s social and economic order. Doubtless, the priests promoted the royal ideology and were in turn rewarded. Since the pharaoh was both the god and the representative of the god, Yahweh’s defeat of Pharaoh and his armies was understood by all as a defeat of the gods of Egypt. In the words of Yahweh, “For I will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and I will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the LORD [Yahweh]” (Exodus 12:12).

Throughout all this, it was understood that the economic realities of the Hebrew people were an aspect of personal relationships, that is, it was human beings, or God himself, who decided who suffered economically and who benefited. It was Pharaoh who enslaved them, it was Yahweh, under the leadership of Moses, who set them free and gave them a new land where they would be materially blessed.

In contrast to the Egyptian system, the early Hebrew religious, social, and economic system contained three important elements. First only Yahweh was divine and only Yahweh was king. As a result, no one, in contrast to the Egyptian theology, was a god who possessed divine authority over the land and its people. For this reason, when Israel first became a nation, there was no king, and when the people asked for a king, God understood their request as a rejection of his kingship. As Yahweh said to Samuel, "Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them" (1 Samuel 8:7) Further, the Lord told Samuel to warn the people about the dangers of kingship. The essence of the warning was that Israel would return to the Egyptian model, with economic wealth concentrated in the hands of the king and his officials, and then, like their ancestors in Egypt, the people would cry to God, “but the LORD will not answer you in that day” (1 Samuel 8:18).

Second, the land was apportioned among the tribes, clans, and families, and Scripture describes this distribution in some detail (Joshua 13:8-19:51). Land meant access to work and a livelihood. Having a “land flowing with mild and honey” was not enough. The land had to be distributed, and once the land was apportioned, God ordained laws that ensured that land lost through debt or hardship could not permanently pass out of the family. In the fiftieth year, land was to be returned to its original owners. In this way the “normal” injustice that overtakes economic processes was countered by a redistribution of wealth to preserve the original allocation. This is the well-known Jubilee legislation of Leviticus 25, summed up in verse 23, "The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine. For you are strangers and sojourners with me.” This countered the “normal” process of expropriation and foreclosure that occurs in periods of economic difficulty. In this way, those who worked the land would benefit from its produce, rather than having it fall under the control of others. Because of the Jubilee legislation, there were build-in limits on accumulating wealth since it could not be amassed by taking it from others. There were also laws protecting Hebrews from slavery, laws prohibiting the oppression of wage earners, and many laws ensuring that the poor, the widowed, the orphans, and the aliens (those who had not originally been allotted land) were not deprived of God’s bounty.

Third, all the laws were bound together with God in covenant, a compact between God and his people and sealed with a solemn ceremony which involved the shedding of blood and the eating of a meal as seen in Exodus 19-24. In other words, worship, the relationship with God, could not be divorced from the covenant which regulated all of Israel’s religious, social, and economic relationships.

Again, it was understood that economic relationships were an aspect of personal relationships, whether or not the people kept covenant with each other and Yahweh. Further, the Hebrew system, as presented in Scripture, differed from the Egyptian system in that the Hebrew system apportioned and redistributed resources so that the Hebrews would possess land and work, and maintained that distribution through fidelity to the personal commitments of the covenant. Or, to phrase the matter somewhat differently, in the Egyptian system the Hebrews did not determine who received the results of their labor. That was determined by the Pharaoh. In the Hebrew system, however, those who worked the land determined what was done with the results of their labors since they were the owners of the land.

The economic order established by God in ancient Israel differed from socialism or communism in that the primary units of production were privately owned and administered subject to law. The purpose of private property in Israel's agrarian society, however, was to ensure that the population as a whole, and not just a few, had access to the means of life. In this regard, the Hebrew system differed from capitalism in that the laborers themselves owned the land where they worked, and could thereby determine what was done with the fruits of their labor. In capitalism, however, most workers do not determine what is done with the results of their labor. Those decisions are made by the owners, and by and large, ownership is concentrated in a few hands. Further, in Israel, the livelihood of the economically vulnerable was protected by law, there were periodic redistributions of wealth, limits on aggressive accumulation (1 Kings 21, for example), and efforts were made to include the poor and the alien in God’s bounty. In general, capitalism as an economic system lacks these commitments.

Needless to say, this vision of an economically redemptive society was not maintained as can be seen in the prophetic denunciation of Israel’s sins against God’s economic order. The prophets also proclaimed a new redemptive order, a messiah, who would restore Israel to God’s intended purposes. Jesus fulfilled these hopes, including Israel’s economic hopes, and this leads us to the economic order founded by Jesus.

In the original revelation to Israel, God’s people were blessed materially by conquest, the distribution of the land, and keeping covenant with God and each other. For Jesus, the means were the spiritual conquest of Mammon leading to a sharing of resources motivated by love. In his words, “you cannot serve God and Mammon” (Matthew 6:24), where “Mammon” was the name of a Syrian god of riches. Jesus embodied that love and he called his followers to do the same. For certain persons, such as the rich young ruler, Jesus called his followers to “Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me" (Luke 18:22). Others, like Zacchaeus (Luke 19:8-9), entered the Kingdom by their generosity and returning what they had unjustly taken, but they did not give up all they owned. Or others, like Peter, left his fishing business to follow Jesus, but he did not give up his house (Matthew 8:14, Mark 1:29). Further, the example of Jesus and his teaching, such as the teaching of Luke 12:15-21, was a warning against those who amassed great wealth.(1)

Regardless of the specific call, the economics of Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament revelation in regard to material matters just as his life and teaching fulfilled all other aspects of the revelation to Israel. In the words of Jesus, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17). This means that the Old Testament redistribution of resources, and the legislation on the use of land, the treatment of the poor, and the importance of those who work receiving the benefits of their labor, were not denied by Jesus, but rather, affirmed and completed by love which keeps the law and yet exceeds it (Matthew 5:20). The difference is that Jesus, by his cross and resurrection and the decent of the Spirit, gave his disciples such love and forgiveness that they were empowered to put the economics of Jesus into practice. Again, economic decisions were understood as an aspect of personal relationships, the way people, out of thankfulness to God, or in rebellion against him, treated each other with their possessions.

When the New Testament was formed, the Christians were a tiny minority without significant political or economic power. As a result, with the formation of the early Christian communities as witnessed in Acts and the Epistles, there was no effort to implement Christian economic norms as public policy, nor was there an effort to publicly abolish the ancient economic order. The order, however, was transformed from within, for in Christ Jesus there was "neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). This spiritual transformation had practical consequences. In regard to workers, James issues a fierce warning to the rich not to exploit their workers (James 5:1-4). Slaves in the Roman empire were not slaves as known in the American experience. Slaves, for example, could own property and worked in many capacities such as administrators and poets. In regard to slaves, Paul urges masters not to threaten their slaves and to treat them justly and fairly since both masters and slaves have a Master in heaven (Ephesians 6:9, Colossians 4:1). In his letter to Philemon, Paul urges Philemon to receive back his slave, Onesimus, "no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother" (Philemon 1:16). For their part, slaves are enjoined to obey their masters and do their work well (Ephesians 6:5-8, Colossian 3:22-24). By the time of Constantine, however, Christians became a political force within the empire, and began to implement some degree of Christian norms leading to the medieval order as will be discussed below.

If the teaching and practice of Jesus on wealth is separated from the Old Testament revelation, his teaching and practice simply becomes charity. Charity is important, but charity alone represents a severe distortion of the biblical teaching on economics. Both Testaments must be understood in relation to each other in order to grasp the biblical teaching on economic life. Marcion, in the second century, divided the Old and New Testaments and his teaching was condemned by the church. Jesus gave and gives a new heart, but he does so as fulfillment of the Old Testament covenant law. The fundamental principles of Old Testament law still hold true. If applied to a nation's economic system, they would require legal forms applying to all, and not simply charity by isolated individuals.

Although Jesus proclaimed that his Kingdom was not of this world, an order beyond the capacity of other kingdoms, it did and still can, influence the kingdoms of this world. In the political sphere, it leads to an understanding of power as service, where those in power serve those “under” them. In the economic sphere, it means economic sacrifice, where wealth is transferred for the sake of the dispossessed, and in so far as it fulfills Israel’s economic vision, provides and maintains the steady incomes that support an abundant life.

Before addressing the present context more concretely, it would be good to say a few words about the beginning and the end of economic life -- the Garden of Eden and the Messianic banquet mentioned in Revelation 19:17-19. First, in Scripture, Adam represents the whole of humanity. When God placed Adam in the garden, he revealed that his desire that the whole of the human race be blessed with the bounty of Eden. When sin entered the world, this blessing was thwarted but not defeated. Christ, the new Adam, by his healings and teaching on the use of resources, began to redeem the whole of humanity, restoring God's intended blessings to all people. At the moment, this blessing is not yet triumphant, but it is given in Christ, and in the end, it will surely prevail. The Holy Eucharist sums up this great hope, being the New Passover, signaling entrance into a land of milk and honey and looking forward to that great day when God will bring his people home and sit at table with them in the wedding feast of the Lamb. That vision is God's intention for the whole of humanity, and those who give their lives to Christ, and even people of good will, can know something of this vision and put it into practice. In light of the foregoing, let us now say a few things about the present economic order.

The present economic order evolved from the medieval economic order. To a significant degree the medieval order was influenced by the biblical revelation and rested upon two assumptions. First, it was held that economic interests were subordinate to the real business of life, which was salvation, and second, economic transactions were, at bottom, moral relations between persons and groups and thereby bound by moral laws revealed by God.(2) In other words, economic relationships were an aspect of personal relationships governed by moral law. Within that context, efforts were made to limit the acquisitive impulse. Usury was prohibited and a merchant’s profits were considered wages and should not exceed a reasonable remuneration for his labor.(3) Society was understood as an organism, and although there were gross inequalities, it was understood that all sectors had rights and obligations, including economic concern for the poor. Taking advantage of the weak by expropriation during difficult economic periods was especially offensive. Further, the quest for excessive wealth was considered one of the most dangerous of sins. In sum, in the medieval period, it was understood that economic relations were personal interactions regulated by moral laws given by God, and further, that some degree of redistribution and limits on wealth reflected the truth of the Christian religion.

Beginning in the 16^th century and gathering steam in the West with each passing century, a view emerged which, according Karl Polanyi in his masterful work, The Great Transformation, had never been held in the history of the human race.(4) According to this view, the market, operating independently of human interference, that is, unrelated to personal relationships, should be “free” to create and distribute wealth. Further, endless accumulation on the part of the capitalist, and not the distribution of wealth, was seen as a virtue rather than a vice. It was assumed that this “virtue,” by the magic of the marketplace would, in the end, work for the benefit of all as described in Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. This strange, new theory led to a radical moral reversal. What had been vices in the medieval and biblical view became, in the modern period, vices, and conversely. In the words of R.H. Tawney, "The medieval theorist condemned as a sin precisely that effort to achieve a continuous and unlimited increase in material wealth which modern societies applaud as a quality, and the vices for which he [the medieval theorist] reserved his most merciless denunciations were [in the new order] the more subtle and refined of the economic virtues."(5)

Needless to say, this idea was resisted by the church, its opponents appealing to Scripture and 1500 years of Christian teaching.(6) Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, however, their objections were swept away by the ideology and implementation of the new order. One of its early proponents was Joseph Townsend who, in his book, A Dissertation on the Poor Laws (1786), used a biological model to describe and prescribe economic realities.(7) This conception, later adopted by Malthus, and through him by Darwin, was used to argue that laws providing for the poor should be suspended. In this view, helping the poor only allowed them to propagate so that, sooner or later, they would multiply beyond the available food supply creating an even greater problem. Thus, Darwinism entered into economic theory and began its long and godless reign.

Locating economics in the created order, whether the invisible hand of Adam Smith or the self-regulating biological system of Townsend, and isolating this order from the personal and moral sphere was, from the point of view of Christian theology, a heresy. Theologically, in light of the Nicene Creed, the Father is the Creator who creates the grounds for economic life, and the Son is the Word of God teaching us how to love with our possessions. The ideology of the free market compartmentalized the Father and the Son so that the Father who orders creation so that his creatures will be blessed with food and work (Genesis 1:29, 2:5, 9, 15-17) has no relation to the Son who teaches us how to use the blessings of the created order in the service of the Kingdom. From the point of view of Christian theology, this perspective denies the internal relations of the Father and Son within the inner-triune life, and as a consequence, is a modern heresy.

The irony of this heresy, however, is that this ideology was and is simply false. The market never has, and does not now, operate independently of personal relationships. All economic relationships are aspects of personal or social relationships adjudicated by politics. The market was created by politics and it is maintained, managed, and transformed by political action. The purpose of these political relationships is to channel the blessings of the land to specific persons or groups, and these groups, by and large, have benefited while others have suffered. Let me give some examples.

It was politics, beginning in the latter half of the 15^th century in England, that made it legal for village lands to be enclosed for sheep production, driving people off the lands and into the factories for the production of cloth. It was politics, the legislation of 1571 in England, that made it no longer a crime to lend money at interest, allowing capitalists to make money with their money.(8) It was politics, the legislation of 1795, which rescinded The Act of Settlement, the law which bound workers in England to labor in their parish, leading to the formation of free labor for the market.(9) As a result of this legislation, vast numbers of people were stripped of their social and economic prerogatives and crowded into cities where they worked for wretched wages. It was politics, not the market, that led to the establishment of child labor laws which removed little children from the mines and factories where they had worked like slaves. It was politics that gave workers union rights over against their employers, significantly increasing their share of the created wealth. It was politics that enabled the imperial powers to conquer entire continents from the eighteenth to the twentieth centuries, uprooting hapless populations from their traditional livelihoods and cultures and using them in the plantations and the mines of the politically created and imposed international market. It was politics, here in America in the late nineteenth century, that erected tariffs to protect America’s fledgling manufacturing from cheap British imports, thereby funneling wealth to American industry rather than British. It was politics that suppressed the labor strikes in the early twentieth century, thereby reducing workers’ wages over against corporate profits, and it was politics that strengthened labor in the thirties, and politics that help wreck labor in the 1980s and ever since. It was politics that passed legislation to regulate banks and corporations in the thirties to avoid another massive economic meltdown, and it was politics that dismantled that legislation in the 1980s and 90s, leading to another meltdown four years ago. It was politics, legislation of the mid-nineteenth century in America and elsewhere, that allowed heads of corporations to gamble with other people’s money, and if their gambles failed, to exempt them from jail time and financial liability, and if they succeeded, to take a major portion of the profits. It was politics, deregulation, that allowed the CEOs, early in this century, to gamble with mortgages and other financial instruments, and when their companies collapsed, it was politics, government, that bailed them out with taxpayer money, allowing of them to keep their jobs and incomes which, for CEOs of the top 500 S&P corporations, averaged fourteen million dollars a year.(10) It was politics that led to sizable government deficit spending in the late 1930s and 40s, giving jobs to millions of poor Americans and spending their way out of the depression, redistributing wealth by high taxes on the rich and establishing several decades of unprecedented prosperity, and it is politics that fights against that solution today for our current economic crisis. It was politics that negotiated international accords that allowed American businesses to offshore their operations for the last 40 years, robbing millions of Americans of decent paying jobs and driving them into low-income service jobs. It was unstable money and an unstable “free” market that led to the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 with the aim of managing the economy by regulating interest rates and the money supply, thereby putting the lie to the ideology of the “free market.” It was politics that stacked the Fed with bankers rather than labor leaders or consumer advocates. It was politics, protecting wealthy bond holders and lenders, that led Paul Volcker and the Fed in the late 70s and early 80s to ratchet up interest rates for 33 months straight, making it impossible for farmers, businesses, or developing countries to renew their loans, driving farmers off their family farms, leaving workers without work, plunging homeowners into foreclosure, and when foreign countries (no longer selling as much to the U.S. market) defaulted on their loans, bailing them out with austerity measures that drove millions of poor people abroad ever deeper into poverty.(11)

It was politics all along the line that created, maintained, and developed the market, and once created, the ideology was then advanced that the market should be self-regulating, apportioning wealth as it would. This view, advocated by those who profit from the politically created economic order was, of course, impossible, but even so, the idea was advanced that government should let the market decide incomes rather than redistributing wealth through such things as progressive taxation or social programs. What is obscured by this ideology is that the market had already been politically crafted to route wealth, that is, incomes, toward certain persons and groups before a single penny is raised in taxes or a single government program has been implemented.

Further, as one considers these matters, it becomes clear, and it has become especially clear in the last 35-40 years, that Mammon, the worship of money, dominates the political and economic life of the United States. The social compact after WWII, progressive income tax, strong unions, and social programs, that ushered in a period of high prosperity and a somewhat just sharing of the benefits of economic growth,(12) was undermined by politics. Beginning in the late 1970s, Democratic and Republican administrations slashed taxes for the wealthy, blocked legislation protecting labor and consumers, rescinded financial legislation that had protected the economy since the Great Depression, and allowed good paying jobs, both blue and white collar, to go overseas where cheap labor and poor environmental regulations could increase the bottom line of their corporate patrons while Americans, both blue and white-collar, were left without good paying jobs.

All this took place because American politicians were increasingly bought and sold by the powerful money interests. Simply put, by and large, elections are purchased by whoever can raise the most money. For example, in the 1996 congressional races, the candidate that spent the most money won 92% of the time in the House and 88% of the time in the Senate.(13) As one political operative put it, “The first third of your campaign is money, money, money. The second third is money, money, and press. And the last third is votes, press, and money."(14) With the decision of Citizens United, millions of dollars of secret money is pouring into the coffers of political campaigns, and the great bulk of this money comes from corporate sources, for that is where the big money is.

Political campaigns, however, are only the tip of the iceberg. Of the many millions spent each year to influence politics, only a small fraction is spent on electoral campaigns. The real spending is on lobbying since the bills Congress actually passes determine economic outcomes. In 1971, only 175 corporations had registered lobbyists in Washington, but by 1982, that number was nearly 2500. Similarly, the number of corporate PACs increased from under 300 in 1976 to over 1200 by the middle of 1980.(15) By 1986, and in only a few years time, the Republicans had quintupled their revenues from political contributions, outpacing the Democrats by nearly a five to one margin.(16) Even under Carter, a liberal democrat of the late 70s, the corporate lobbying was so intense that business defeated a host of consumer and labor bills and significantly weakened labor as a force in American politics. By the 1990s, however, the Democrats were making a comeback in the money game, and they did so by simply caving in to the lobbying power of money now running over three billion dollars a year.(17)

The results were predictable. The rich became enormously rich, garnering an ever-increasing share of national wealth. From 1974 to 2007, for example, the top 1% of wealthy American families increased their share of the national income pie from 9% to 23.5%. During that same period, their average household income rose by 256 percent. By 2006, their average after-tax income was 1.2 million dollars per year.(18) Those families on the bottom experienced some small gains due to an expanding economy,(19) but these minor gains were more than offset by three factors. First, more and more women went into the workplace. For married women with children under the age of six, the number who worked outside the home ballooned from 12 percent in the late 1960s to 55 percent in the 1990s.(20) Second, Americans worked longer hours. By the year 2000, Americans were working 12 weeks longer per year than they were in 1979. We now are into our second or third generation of children who have not been parented. Or rather, their parent, the source of family values, has been the television. Furthermore, the corporate media learned some decades back that mindless entertainment, including smut, sex, violence, cynicism, and greed, attracted more viewers than “wholesome” programming. Finally, Americans went into debt, massive debt, adding second mortgages to their homes and sinking themselves in credit cards. When these factors are taken into consideration, and in light of the recent depression, those on the bottom of the economic ladder have actually experienced negative growth in the last thirty years. For example, in 2003, the bottom 40% of households in America had a net worth of $2,200, less than half the $5,400 this group was worth in 1983.(21) That is an underclass.

With the collapse of the housing market, caused in part by reckless and unregulated financial speculation, things got much worse, finally breaking the dam held back by debt, more work days, and women working. The country experienced the worst economic downturn since the great depression. Predictably, the government bailed out the banks, giving them billions of tax payer money to offset the billions they had lost in bad loans, leaving the taxpayer to suffer ballooning foreclosures. In other words, homeowner money from taxes was used to bail out banks while homeowners were unable to pay their loans, with the result that the banks got their money and the foreclosed homes as well. Although the economy has strengthened slightly, unemployment remains high and family incomes suffer. From December 2007 to June 2011, real median annual household income declined by 9.8 percent.(22) In the period from 2007 to 2010, the net media worth of the American family dropped some 40 percent. And as these changes were taking place, the corporate multinationals cut 2.9 million jobs in the United States and added 2.4 million overseas between 2000 and 2009, a fact they prefer to hide.(23) Americans are suffering, and as they suffer, the rich and their hired politicians continue the looting.

I will leave aside the social indices that reflect, in part, along with other factors, this cancerous injustice. Those who are interested already know that, among so-called “developed” nations, nations such as Germany, Japan, Australia, France, Korea, and Canada, America is among the highest in income inequality as measured by the Gini-index, among the highest in food insecurity, among the worse in terms of life-expectancy, has the highest percentage in prison, and among the lowest math scores,(24) spends more on health care as a percentage of GNP than any other nation and ranks thirty-seventh in the world (just after Costa Rica) according to indices that reflect quality of health care.(25) Sadly, more and more Americans are coming to believe that the game is rigged, that Congress is dysfunctional, and that our future may well be worse than our past.

What do we need in America? Among other things, we need good paying jobs, and these jobs simply are not around in sufficient numbers to meet the needs of the population. This is not simply due to the market, but due to politics, how the market was created, maintained, shaped, and directed. And what is politics? Politics is people organized to do things to other people, and in the last forty years, the rich and the powerful have driven the poor into the ground. The words of Amos are true, as much now as then,

Hear this, you who trample on the needy and bring the poor of the land to an end, saying, "When will the new moon be over, that we may sell grain? And the Sabbath, that we may offer wheat for sale, that we may make the ephah small and the shekel great and deal deceitfully with false balances, that we may buy the poor for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals and sell the chaff of the wheat?" The LORD has sworn by the pride of Jacob: "Surely I will never forget any of their deeds.” (Amos 8:4-7)

Put simply, the amorality of the market is the rule of Mammon. Mammon cares nothing for workers, for working conditions, for employment or unemployment, for families, for the environment, for vast wealth for some and wretched poverty for others, or for the laws of God. In the last 500 years, worldwide, Mammon has destroyed innumerable communities, degraded the planet in its relentless lust for raw materials, crushed traditional cultures from rural England to the rainforests, plunged entire societies into depressions and penury, and created the conditions, as it did in the last century, for world-wide wars brought on by desperate economic conditions and the scramble for markets and resources.(26)

Looking back over this dismal history, and thinking about life in general, it can be seen that rich and poor alike are assaulted by Mammon. The collapse of the housing market, for example, was caused in part by people buying houses they could not afford. However, the difference is this: when the poor out of greed make choices, normally they and their families are affected. When the rich and political powerful fall under the power of Mammon, they lay waste the world. For that reason, Scripture, in general, attributes the sorrows of the poor to exploitation by the powerful. When God puts things to rights, this will be addressed, and for that reason, Jesus warns the rich with these words, "But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full now, for you shall be hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep." (Luke 6:24-250).

Capitalism is the most powerful engine for the creation of wealth the world has ever known, and fabulous wealth has been created and, in part, politically distributed to millions, but unless it is tamed by legislation it becomes a monster. The terrible thing about this, as will be discussed in the next few paragraphs, is that so many Christians go along with it. They actually have faith in this infernal demon.

The question now arises: How, in a “democracy,” did the voting public allow these conditions to arise? There are many factors, but one stands above all. Beginning with President Nixon, the Republican Party allied itself with the Religious Right. The Religious Right claims to represent God and country, but when it comes to Mammon, they are in love. Many preach a gospel of prosperity, and their most influential leaders, by and large, preside over multi-million dollar empires, detest redistribution, and often distort or ignore the biblical teaching on economics. Instead, they promote a form of economic Darwinism while bemoaning the teaching of Darwin in the schools.

Studies of religion and wealth have shown that the poor are the most religious, the rich the least.(27) For that reason, generally speaking, a significant portion of the wealthy elite really don’t care about the social agenda of the Religious Right -- the end of abortion in America, prayer in school, marriage between one man and one woman(28) -- but they need their votes because without them the wealthy would never have been able to promote their accumulation program. Spiritual issues, cultural issues, moral issues, character issues have been a staple of the Republican platform for forty years, but frankly, I have no memory of a Republican president making speech after speech against abortion. I do remember, however, that President George W. Bush made speech after speech to promote the war with Iraq. Nor have I ever heard of any massive corporate lobbying effort against media smut like the massive lobbying effort against the public option for health care, amounting to over half a billion dollars on that one issue alone. I can’t help but think that if corporate America had applied its billions to social issues, surely they would have been as successful as they have in strengthening the rule of Mammon in America.

To put it simply, the Religious Right has been conned over and over again.(29) And in exchange for their support, what do they get? Their leaders get to appear on television, meet with the powerful, and are hosted by the wealthy, who doubtless help build their universities and promote their marriage between “God” and Mammon. They are, to put it simply, the priests to American’s pharaohs. They baptize, bless, and sanction Pharaoh’s relentless lust for profit, power and wealth. And when things get dicey, as they have and will, this priesthood promotes end time scenarios popularized by such writings as the Left Behind series. Since the nineteenth century, without real biblical warrant, a continuous stream of biblical prophecy has influenced how a significant portion of the American public understands America’s foreign policy, reaching perhaps, a high point in President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq which, for some, was seen as the birth pangs of Armageddon.(30) I personally believe that Jesus will miraculously return to earth. The New Testament, however, makes it clear that no one knows when this will happen, and making his imminent return a factor in political and economic life is utterly irresponsible.

What, then, should we do in the political arena? In a pluralistic society such as ours it is often not persuasive to argue Christian principles simply on the basis of Scripture. Many people do not accept Scripture, the Bible has been variously interpreted, and many don’t believe the life and teachings of Jesus can be applied directly to the political and economic spheres, although they may have important indirect relevance. In my view, the teachings of Jesus cannot be directly applied since this teaching assumes the advent of the Kingdom, the living power of God giving believers new hearts and minds motivated by love. No political order can create a new heart and mind. Even those who claim to be Christians find it virtually impossible to really apply the teaching and example of Christ. The economic teaching of the Old Testament, however, is more applicable to the general populace because it was based upon law and a sense of justice. Law must be applied since all recognize that law curbs evil and without law there is chaos. Further, justice appeals to virtually all of us since most people have a basic sense of right and wrong. In our society, for example, we think it just that the few should not rule the many without some form of representation, leading to the concept of one person, one vote. In the economic sphere, a similar sense of justice should lead to the economics of Israel -- those who produce the wealth should determine how that wealth is used. Or, most people have a sense of equality, recognizing that justice demands some form of equality before the law, including tax law. Most of us would know that it is wrong for a corporate executive to make millions and pay a lower tax rate than his maid. Many would believe that the public has a right to know who these people are that spend millions on advertising to buy elections. Most people believe that hard work and talent should be proportionally rewarded, yet common sense justice should tell us that it is wrong for a company to reward certain employees with millions while other employees earn less than a living wage. Most of us recognize that trade with foreign countries has benefits, but when our domestic companies ship good jobs overseas without a corresponding benefit of good jobs in America, then our country has been wronged and our people cheated. Christians know that it is unjust to create a society in which a tiny percentage reaps the benefits of the society’s productive labor, but common sense can tell you that if these gross inequalities continue there will be terrible suffering and social unrest. Or, it should be apparent that a society that creates a wealthy elite and a large impoverished underclass will, sooner or later, decline politically, economically, and militarily. In light of the foregoing, here are some ideas for our reflection and support if judged worthy. These ideas appeal to common sense as well as reflecting aspects of the biblical revelation.

1. Use the political process, laws and funding, to ensure that those who work in a business, a corporation, or an enterprise, have the right to determine how the profits of that enterprise are spent. In other words, workers and management should own the business and determine how the profits are apportioned. Or, to state the matter succinctly, Israel not Egypt.(3 1)

2. Tax the wealthy at significantly higher rates than the general population. No one really earns a million dollars a year, or to put it another way, those who do “make the ephah small and the shekel great and deal deceitfully with false balances.” They do so by taking advantage of a politically crafted, unjust economic system.

3. Break up the financial enterprises that are too big to fail, and regulate financial transactions. Return to a separation of investment banking from commercial banking. Strengthen the Dodd-Frank Bill and increase the budget of regulatory agencies giving them the resources to prosecute. Once banks have been limited in size, refuse to bail out those that fail.

4. American corporations must hire Americans. Begin to progressively curb the exporting of jobs overseas by American corporations.

5. Impose tariffs on imports from nations that artificially devalue their currency against ours.

6. Reduce significantly our military spending, now almost equal to the rest of the world’s spending combined.

7. Rebuild our infrastructure and clean up our environment, thereby putting people to work, using the money from higher taxes on the wealthy and the savings from the military.

8. Limit political contributions, get rid of the Super-Pacs, and make all political contributions transparent at once.

9. Raise teacher salaries, impose classroom discipline, hire more teachers, reduce class size, feed hungry students, and eliminate ineffective teachers regardless of length of service or membership in a union.

10. Provide relief for those with bad mortgages, letting the banks get their money from homeowners buying their homes rather than directly from the government using tax money.

11. Provide relief for student loans.

12. Stay out of unnecessary wars like the recent ones that cost trillions.(32) Maintain a military, but also defend ourselves through alliances.

13. Significantly reduce the outrageous credit card interest rates to a few points above prime, and do not allow the credit card industry to solicit on college campuses.

14. Go to a single-payer national payer health care system like most of the rest of the developed world.(33)

15. Strengthen unions and other organizations that represent working people.

16. Take the necessary measures to see that workers receive a living wage.

17. Abolish the Federal Reserve, that misnamed bank of private investors who control the nation's money supply and profoundly determine economic policy without democratic oversight. Establish a central back under government control, staffed by economists representing the financial, labor, and consumer interests.

I am sure the reader can think of other ideas, all of which simply require the recognition that there is such a thing as economic justice.

In a sinful and sick world, dominated by sin, principalities, and powers, one cannot expect utopia. In fact, it is sometimes the case that the implementation of utopian ideas by force, such as prohibition in the States or communism in Russia, can lead to more harm than good. However, real progress can be made, not all societies are equal, and new and more adequate cultural, political and economic norms can be internalized. In my view, present approaches are leading us into ruin, and therefore, our society needs to return to its roots, and among those sources, are the economic ideas of the Bible.

Although, within the Christian tradition, there have been doubts as to whether and how biblical ethics can be applied to the State or the economic life of a nation, but there should be no doubt that the church is called to implement biblical ethical norms in its community life. Many Christians recognize, for example, that human sexuality should be restricted to one man and one woman in matrimony, or that Christian leaders should serve rather than exploit their followers, but it is less widely recognized that the biblical teaching on economics must be directly applied to the church. This, in my view, is one of the reasons that the biblical economics has had so little traction in the large society. Many people have never seen biblical economics in action. The church itself, in many respects, has succumbed to the rule of Mammon. For that reason, as Christians, we must first put our house in order. A number of responses are called for.

First, in line with the teaching of Jesus and the radical sharing of the Christian community recorded in Acts 2, Christians have always banded together, pooled resources, shared assets, and overcome the rule of Mammon that surrounds them on all sides. This can be seen, above all, in the classical monastic movements which have renewed the church and society for centuries with their vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Such movements are not lacking in America. For example, hundred of organizations have been inspired by the work of John Perkins who promoted the 3 Rs, relocation to abandoned neighborhoods, redistribution of resources, and reconciliation.(34)

Less radical, but no less important, churches can use their resources to establish programs and businesses that address the social and economic conditions of their neighborhoods. Through the centuries churches have always done this. While in seminary, I did my field work at the Church of the Savior, a church in downtown Washington D.C. whose members did such things as reform the welfare system of Washington and develop housing for poor people at a fair price. In other parts of the world, for example Central America where I was a missionary, cooperatives have been formed that addressed the social and economic needs of the people.

We also need a reform of church financing. There are, for example, churches organized on the Wal-Mart pattern, with a few well-paid professions, usually the clergy, receiving hefty salaries with pensions and health care, followed by the part-time workers such as accountants and secretaries who receive low wages without health care or pensions, all supported by the meager giving of the church members who buy the “product” at less than the tithe.

Or, it is commonplace for clergy to adopt the corporate approach, using their churches as steps up the ladder of ecclesiastical success, finally becoming bishops or senior pastors at large churches with high salaries and functioning like CEO’s of little corporate entities. Leadership is vital, but leadership according to the gospel rather than self-serving ambition. According to Jesus, “The greatest among you shall be your servant” (Matthew 23:11), and this applies to wages as much as anything else.

When it comes to giving to the church, Malachi 3:8-10 is often cited. In this passage the Lord commands his people to bring their full tithes and offerings to his storehouse, that is, the church, with the result that God will “open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you a blessing until there is no more need (Malachi 3:10). This passage is perfect for church revenue, motivating believers to give with the hope of getting more. Three verses earlier, however, the Lord has this to say, “Then I will draw near to you for judgment. I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired worker in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, against those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says the LORD of hosts” (Malachi 3:5). This Word of the Lord is normally omitted in sermons and teaching on tithing.

In churches all over the world there are men and women of entrepreneurial talent and leadership ability. Their God-given leadership and expertise needs to be recognized and reinforced by teaching, preaching, and practical aid. In Scripture, those with leadership ability led their followers into a new order for the benefit of leaders and followers alike. One can think of Moses who led the people out of slavery, or David who protected the nation, or Jesus who established the Kingdom of God for the sake of the lost. The purpose of Christian economic leadership is not to enrich oneself, but to establish enterprises that enables all involved to enjoy the economic blessings of the enterprise. When Joshua led the people into the Promised Land, all were given land, all became owners. When David defended the nation, all became safe. When Jesus established the Kingdom, all who entered in were blessed. True leaders are recognized as leaders by their followers, and together they act for the well-being of those they lead. In practical terms, this means that the leaders or managers of a corporation or business need to be labor leaders with managerial skills, rather than representatives of capital with managerial skills. There are already those who are working along these lines.(35) Those entrepreneurial leaders who do not represent the well-being of their followers, or steal the proceeds of their work through unjust wages, are not Christian leaders. Jesus stated the matter in these words, "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. (John 10:10-11).

Finally, in many countries, Christian contribute to public life in their capacities as citizens and public servants. It would require a change of heart, but Christians can work in the direction offered by this essay. As they do so, it needs to be recognized that Christians principles applied to economic and political life cannot be left up to the good will of individuals. Sin is too powerful and too deeply ingrained. Such principles need to be implemented by law if they are to have any lasting effect.

We need a reformation, a reformation in the churches, and it isn’t just in the economic sphere, we need a reformation in every area of church life. All of us have fallen short, and in the area of finances, a war against Mammon is often a war against ourselves since the desire for economic security lives in each of us. And of course, America needs help, but in the economic sphere, how can Christians expect other people to have a strong sense of economic justice when so many Christians are in love with American Mammon? We need the mind of Christ. That is where we need to begin. The mind of Christ is a blessing for rich and poor alike, not only in the economic sphere, but in every area of life.

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross (Philippians 2:5-8).

Endnotes

1. Restricting ourselves to references in Luke we may note the following: 1:53, 6:24-5, 8:1-15 (note v. 14), 11:42, 12:15-21, 12:32-34, 16:19-31, 18:18-27, 19:1-10, 21:1-4.
2. R.H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism (New York: The New American Library of World Literature, Inc., 1955), p. 34.
3. Tawney, p. 38.
4. Karl Polayni, Karl, Origins of Our Time, The Great Transformation (London: Victor Gollancz LTD, 1945), p. 43.
5. Tawney, p. 38.
6. Tawney, p. 133ff.
7. Joseph Townsend, A Dissertation on the Poor Laws, Foreword by Ashley Montagu, Afterword by Mark Neuman (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971), pp. 36f.
8. Tawney, p. 153.
9. Polayni, p. 83.
10. Jospeh S. Hacker, and Paul Pierson, Winner-Take-All Politics (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2010), pp. 154-5.
11. William Greider, Secrets of the Temple (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987), p. 506. Greider describes the horrific effects of this tight money in chapter 13, “The Slaughter of the Innocents,” pp. 450-94. When a delegation of state legislatures from thirteen farm states met with Volcker to plead for interest rate relief, his reply was simple, "Look,” he said, “your constituents are unhappy, mine aren’t” (Greider, p. 676). Volcker’s constituents were investors, nor farmers. That’s not the market, that’s politics and Mammon in action.
12. Kevin Phillips, Wealth and Democracy. (New York: Broadway Books, 2002), p. 137.
13. Philips, p. 324.
14. Hacker and Pierson, p. 252.
15. Hacker and Pierson, p. 118.
16. Hacker and Pierson, p. 174.
17. Hacker and Pierson, p. 114. For the years 1998-2012, the top spenders among lobbyists were overwhelming corporate. The only exception was the American Association of Retired People, holding sixth place in total spending. In first place, far and away the biggest spender, was the Chamber of Commerce. The top five were as follows: US Chamber of Commerce, $857,015,680, American Medical Assn $269,507,500, General Electric $268,810,000, Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America $219,393,920, and American Hospital Assn $219,214,136. http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s
18. Hacker and Pierson, p. 22.
19. Hacker and Pierson, p, 15.
20. Robert B. Reich, Aftershock, The Next Economy and America’s Future, (New York: Vintage Books, 2011), p. 61.
21. Hacker and Pierson, p. 32.
22. http://www.sentierresearch.com/pressreleases/SentierResearch_PressRelease_October_10_2011.pdf
23. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/corporations-pushing-for-job-creation-tax-breaks-shield-us-vs-abroad-hiring-data/2011/08/12/gIQAZwhqUJ_story.html?fb_ref=NetworkNews.
24. http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/02/19/opinion/19blowcht.html?ref=opinion
25. http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/
26. Karl Barth, one of the great theologians of the church, describes Mammon with these words,

Money is a flexible but powerful instrument which, supposedly handled by man, in reality follows its own law. In a thousand ways it can establish some opinions and even convictions and suppress others. It can also create brutal facts. It can cause the market to rise and then to fall again. It can arrest the crisis and cause another. It can serve peace yet pursue cold war even in the midst of peace. It can make ready for bloody war and finally bring it about. It can make provisional paradise here and the corresponding provisional hell there. It does not have to do all these things, but it can. It can and it does: not money as such, but the money that man thinks he possess, although in truth it possess him, and it does so because he wants to have it without God and thus creates a vacuum in which this intrinsically harmless but useful fiction becomes an absolutist demon, and man himself can only be its football and its slave. Karl Barth, The Christian Life, (Church Dogmatics IV,4 Lecture Fragments), translated by Geoffrey Bromiley (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1981), p. 224.

27. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_and_religion. The words of Jesus, "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God." (Luke 6:20, ESV). The writer of James has this to say, “Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him?” (James 2:5 ESV)
28. A most revealing and fun book to read in this connection is Thomas Frank, What’s the Matter with Kansas. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2004.
29. Nobel prize winner Paul Krugman summed up the matter with these words, “For decades the G.O.P. has won elections by appealing to social and racial divisions, only to turn after each victory to deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy — a process that reached its epitome when George W. Bush won re-election by posing as America’s defender against gay married terrorists, then announced that he had a mandate to privatize Social Security.”
30. Kevin Phillips, Kevin, American Theocracy (New York: Viking Penguin, 2006), pp. 252-54.
31. Wolfe, Richard. Democracy at Work. Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2012.
32. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090302200.html
33. http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what-is-single-payer
34. Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove, The New Monasticism (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2008), p. 31.
35. An excellent example in this regard is the Mondragon Corporation, http://www.mondragon-corporation.com/language/en-US/ENG.aspx.