Nature of the Issue

When we look at the world around us and see a billion neighbors in poverty. Consider some of these statistics: thirty

thousand children die a day of hunger and preventable diseases; thirteen million people die every year from infectious and

parasitic diseases we know how to prevent; in 2002 37% of the people in low-income countries1 over the age of fifteen could

not read (in Burkina Faso it was 82%); 1.2 billion live in almost absolute poverty trying to survive on a dollar or less a day,

and another 1.6 billion people are very poor attempting to live on two dollars or less a day.2 Added to this fact of global

poverty is the fact that Western nations are much richer. Consider these statistics concerning the per capita GNP in 2003:

Switzerland was $39,880, the United States was $37,610, while India was $530 and Ethiopia was $90.3

Why does this situation exist? What are the causes of poverty? Is it because of laziness, or oppressive governments,

or the wrong type of aid from the Western nations, or subsidized farming, or Western corporations, or the materialistic

tendencies of the West, or Capitalism itself? What is the best way to alleviate poverty? What should our response as

Christians be? Is the solution increased government aid both at home and abroad, or less government involvement, or is it the

job of the church? What would economic justice look like in the real world?4

The topics of wealth, poverty, and economics are complex and there are divergent perspectives on these issues in the

church and in the world.

First, when applying the Bible to ethical decisions there are hermenutical issues involved because of the following:

issues addressed in Scripture are not always identical to today, moving from the Old Testament to the New Testament, the

relationship between the particularity of the text and its universality, and the handling of complex issues with multiple

biblical principles and paradigms.5

Second, one’s worldview and one’s approach to ethics effects the way one views these issues (whether teleological in

the consequentialist ethic of ethical egoism or utilitarnism, or deontological in the principle ethics of those who emphasize

reason on the one hand and those who emphasize scripture on the other).6

Third, when we approach this issue, we are dealing with judgments about the facts or empirical realities surrounding

wealth, poverty, and economics. A) Often our differences have to do with differing accounts of the situation at hand. We

sometimes accept certain positions based on a selection of the facts, which greatly influences our final position. B) We often

interpret the data differently. C) Our impressions of the situation play a significant role in our moral decisions.7

  1  
 Fourth, within the Christian tradition there are different motifs for making decisions: the deliberative motif (reason is

seen as a supplement or synonymous in the task of making ethical decisions), the prescriptive motif (which looks to explicit

rules, principles, or moral actions from Scripture in making ethical decisions), and the relational motif (ethical decisions are

made as a direct response to the leading of God in a spontaneous way).8

Fifth, we are fallen (even our thinking is affected by the fall9) and finite. Because of this, we are not completely

objective.10 We are often influenced by social mores, ideologies, and vested interest.11 This makes our work harder as people

seeking the good.

We will explore and evaluate different economic systems that Christians have proposed and evaluate whether they

are compelling biblically, theologically, rationally, and whether they promote justice and elevate poverty. I will then argue

for my position, that of a guided market system of economics, and conclude with the way that the church can address the

issue today as the church and also in the wider culture at large.

Various Positions on the Issue

Free Market Capitalism

I. Arguments

For many, capitalism is a sort of economic swearword. It is associated with greed, exploitation, and self-interest.

Images like these often come to mind: greedy executives associated with corporations such as Enron, the financial crisis of

2008-9, oil companies that wreak havoc on the environment, sweat shops in China, wasted resources, and ugly advertising. It

is often blamed for every social problem. Here is how one person put it: “‘The history of capitalism is a history of slavery,

child labor, war, and environmental pollution.’”12 Is this really the case? Is capitalism merely about self-interest? Ann Rand,

the Russian born novelist and philosopher espoused the consequentialist ethic of ethical egoism. She took Adam Smith’s

philosophy to the extreme. She called greed a virtue because it is the foundation of a free economy, and she saw Christian

philanthropy as the astringent enemy of capitalism.13

  2  
 Christians often confuse a caricature of capitalism with the real thing and often ignore basic facts about economics.

Rich Karlgaard, the Christian publisher of Forbes magazine, has complained that listening to a priest or a pastor speak on this

topic “‘is like hearing a eunuch lecture on sex: He may have studied the topic but really knows little about the mechanics.’”14

Christian capitalists argue that it aligns nicely with a Christian worldview. For a capitalist system to flourish the

market economy needs not only competition, but also rule of law and virtues like self-sacrifice, a commitment to delayed

gratification, stable families, cooperation, and a willingness to risk based on a future hope.15 Contrary to popular opinion,

capitalism is not about greed.

What is a market economy? Ron Sider explains: “[it] is an economic arrangement in which the bulk of the wealth

and means of production are privately owned and most wages and prices are set by supply and demand.”16 Although the key

ingredients are competition, private property, and the pursuit of rational self-interest,17 the main reason why market

economies work is because they allow wealth to be created: “[w]ealth is created when our creative freedom is allowed to

prosper in a free-market environment undergirded by the rule of law and suffused with a rich moral culture.”18 This creativity

is a reflection of the fact that we are made in the image of a creative God, the imago dei,19 and responsible wealth creation is

part of the dominion mandate in Genesis 1 and a way of honoring God.20

Capitalism utilizes utilitarian arguments in its approach. It affirms that it is the best system available to us.

Everywhere capitalism has gone, poverty has decreased. An example of this is Hong Kong, which was a British Colony from

1842 to 1997.21 It started as a fishing village and now is an economic superpower. This is not unique to Hong Kong; it has

been replicated throughout Asia. Ron Sider states: “expanding market economies have significantly reduced poverty in

Asia.”22

Capitalism affirms low taxes because to charge high taxes to the rich to feed the poor is stealing. It is not the job of

the government to redistribute wealth from one citizen to another and is different from general taxation of legitimate

government functions. It is to take voluntary generosity out of the picture (2 Cor. 9:7). In fact, welfare often has the

opposite effect. It is degrading to the recipients and creates addictive dependency. Welfare is a disincentive to work.23 In

the United States, for example, “[w]hen job programs began their massive expansion, the black youth unemployment rate

began to rise. Between the years 1951 and 1980, black twenty- to twenty-four-year-olds experienced a 19 percent increase in

unemployment. For eighteen-and nineteen-year-olds, the increase was a remarkable 72 percent.”24

Market capitalism is against some noble ideals. It is against a “living wage” (minimum wage) because it is a form of

price fixing that tries to distribute wealth before it’s been created; it argues that it actually leads to unemployment and less

  3  
entry-level jobs into the workforce because employers can not just afford something because the government changes a law

(e.g. in France where there are high minimum wages they have higher unemployment than places like the US with low

minimum wages). It is against “fair trade” because it is only because of the artificially high prices that farmers become or

remain part of the coffee market, even though it may not help them in the long run.25 It is against “aid” that rich countries

give to foreign poor countries. The United States overproduction of a crop, like cotton, is dumped on a poor country like

Senegal. The problem is that it suppresses the farming of that crop in these poor countries. It would be better if the United

States kept their crops and allowed the poor countries to compete fairly in a free world market. Government to government

aid (like the 1% increase that Bono’s ONE Campaign advocates) often is wasted or used to sustain crooked dictators who

keep their countries in poverty.26

There are several myths concerning capitalism.27 Two of them, the zero-sum game myth and the usury myth are

explained in detail in the endnotes below.28

II. Critique

First, even though market capitalism has increased wealth around the world, at least a quarter of the world’s

population lack the capital to participate in any major way in the global economy. In agricultural societies, land remains the

basic form of capital. Money and education are far more vital in modern capital-intensive, knowledge-intensive economies.

Approximately a quarter of the world population have virtually no land, very little money, and almost no education.29 The

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) confirms this fact: “‘Although global integration is a powerful force in

reducing poverty, 2 billion people are in danger of becoming marginal to the world economy.’”30 Therefore, market

capitalism does not take into account egalitarian justice (in terms of equal access) and too much emphasizes a merit form of

justice that can leave out the least in society.31

Second, insidious cultural decline appears to follow the expansion of the market. Materialism, consumerism,

individualism, and pollution increase with the market economy. A focus on making money becomes more important than

God, neighbor, marriage, and parenting. Materialistic consumerism is fueled by advertising techniques to persuade us that

joy and happiness come through material things. Television is highly influential in this regard. For example, in Brazil

desperately poor woman will forgo buying clothes and shoes to purchase Avon’s “Anew” skin cream that costs thirty dollars

a jar.32 The market corrupts culture by rewarding depraved conduct. For example, if there is a demand for pornography or

  4  
dishonest advertisements, the market bountifully recompenses the makers to the corruption of the character of both the

consumer and the producer. There is also a tendency for the market to dominate all of life. For example, people can be

viewed as products (e.g. in the choice of a spouse, nannies can be hired to so as to “save” valuable time, etc.). The market

also compensates those who choose pollution and quick profits over slower profits combined with environmental

responsibility.33

Third, taxes cannot be considered stealing. We choose representative government and the reason the tax system

exists is because we support it. It is not stealing (cf. Romans 13:1-2, 6-7).34

Fourth, it fails to apply biblical principles such as justice (e.g. fair wages in James 5:4) and mercy (Micah 6:8). As

Ron Sider says “It is false to think that a market economy, if freed from all government interference, would create what the

Bible means by justice.”35

The Guided-Market System

I. Argument

This position argues for a moderated capitalism. The guided-market system seeks a balance of three Biblical

principles: freedom, justice, and responsibility, that market capitalism lacks. Freedom was the vision of the Jubilee year

(Lev. 25:8-55), freedom from economic and social captivity. Individual and corporate justice was the call of the prophets

(Mic. 6:8; Amos 5:24) and Jesus himself (Mt 23:23). Responsibility is a call to be faithful stewards of what God has

entrusted to us. We are to care for his creation, provide justice, and bring liberty to those he has made.36

Freedom and justice in the economic system means that at the one end, the powerful are not permitted to exploit the

powerless (e.g. the American economy supported the institution of slavery, and then eventually child labor) and thus, limit

justice, and at the other end, it is not to be so tightly controlled that it commands what will be produced and who will receive

it and, thus, limit freedom. For an economic system to be just, all people’s best interests in society must be considered.

Adjustments must be made to give equal opportunity to people with physical handicaps and barriers such as sex, race,

religion, age, and ethnicity must be removed. Access to an excellent education should belong to every person (egalitarian

justice) and inequalities must not be passed on to the next generation of innocent children born into institutional poverty

(need justice).37

  5  
 Responsibility in the economic system stipulates that both freedom and justice be combined to bring the most benefit

possible to society. When justice has been missing, income, education, health care, shelter must be provided charitably by

society. However, charity must not replace justice. Charity can rob people of human dignity. Justice means that we must

work towards a system that reduces the necessity of charity. In fact, private organizations could be hired to replace the state

in terms of welfare services. With more organizations competing for business, money would be used more efficiently. This

could extend to training the unemployed as well.38

II. Critique

First, a free market response would say that this position looks too much to the state for justice. The church and the

people of society as a whole should take care of those in need. Only in the last resort should the state be involved.39 Jay

Richards advocates what he calls the principle of subsidiarity. A centralized government knows less about individual

problems than those who are closer to the problem. Therefore, the people with the most knowledge have the most

responsibility in terms of overlapping circles or jurisdictions.40

Second, a centralist response would counter the negative understanding of welfare and see it as the means by which

the whole community accepts responsibility for basic and crisis needs. The welfare state exists so that no one has to be

anxious about his or her health (e.g. free health care provided in Canada and the United Kingdom), homelessness, old age,

poverty, or inequalities in education.41

Decentralist Economics

I. Argument

This approach looks to the early church in Acts 2 as its model. Reflecting the Anabaptist movement and the Christ

against culture position,42 it does not believe that we should settle for a lowest common denominator approach to economics,

because few issues are amoral; everything should be under the lordship of Christ including economics. The church as a

called out people is to be a counter-cultural transformed community of love and sharing, a community that points to the future

kingdom. Therefore, we should expect to see transformed economic relationships among the people of God. Spiritual

  6  
renewal will have economic results.43 In the Old Testament, God’s people were to be stewards, and not owners of private

property (Lev 25:23), they were to practice economic equality and social justice (e.g. after the Hebrew people entered

Canaan, they distributed the land equally; each person had the same size plot of land and a similar size of house), they were

not to charge any interest (Ex 22:25; Deut 23:19-20; Lev 25:35-38), and the land was to be redistributed (Lev 25) every

fiftieth year in the year of Jubilee. The early church built on this foundation and the teachings of Jesus about money, the

poor, and the kingdom (Lk. 6:20, 30; 12:32-34; 16:13; 18:24-25; Mt. 5:42; 6:19; 10:21, 23-31), and shared everything equally

among each other. The Old Testament Jubilee was fulfilled in the early church. There was no private property and everyone

was the no part of the same socio-economic class (Gal 3:28). The people of God are called to Christian community,

koinonia, which means to hold things in common. It means community, fellowship, partnership, and communion. Koinonia

and jubilee is the New Testament economic program.44

Applying this to economics today, it is against capitalism because of the increasing concentration of wealth in the

hands of a few, its exploitation of third world farmers for luxury products that they cannot afford, its focus on self-interest, its

lending of money at interest to third countries that cannot afford to repay, and its hoarding of resources (e.g. although only 5

percent of the world’s population, the United States consumes two thirds of the world’s resources).45 For social change to

happen, the church needs to simplify its living and follow the Biblical vision of koinonia and jubilee.46

II. Critique

This view, although compelling has some problems. First, in Acts 2 we read these well known verses concerning the

early church: “And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and

belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need” (vv. 44-45). Many Christians have read Acts through the

lense of Marx.47 As biblical scholarship has shown, although the early church was generous with one another, but many did

own property,48 any form of communism was voluntary,49 the state was not involved,50 and different socio-economic classes

were present within the church.51

Second, it two easily perpetuates economic myths about capitalism. For example, the zero-sum game myth

(believing that trade requires a winner and a loser), the materialist myth (believing that wealth isn’t created, it’s simply

transferred), the greed myth (believing that the essence of capitalism is greed), the usury myth, and the freeze-frame myth

  7  
(believing that things will always stay the same in terms of population trends and that our current “natural resource” will

always be needed).52  

Centralist Economics

I. Argument

This position affirms a Christ the transformer of culture position in that it affirms that a centralized governmental

solution as the key to the relief of our distressed neighbor. It affirms the goodness of the state (Rom. 13:1-10) and like any

human institution (e.g. marriage, family, work, and social life) just because it is prone to corruption by human disobedience,

does not overturn God’s purposes for it. In the Old Testament the free market was not left to its own (i.e. the year of Jubliee),

and there were certain relief provisions and structures in place to prevent injustice. Modern liberal democracies are larger

than they used to be because of the complexity of the world in which we live. We need a large state to maintain the style of

life we have at present. The vast majority of the poor are born into it and it is not the result of personal incompetence.

Poverty is caused because of the failure of modern social institutions to meet their obligations. The rich feed off the poor, not

because of personal insensitivity, but because we jointly bound in a societal structure that works this way. Therefore, because

the problems of the economy are structural we need the participation of a central, democratically governed management.

Through taxation, this central government would take care of the unemployed, the sick, the elderly, and the homeless; it

would provide legal protection for the poor against the abuse of the rich, and it would redistribute the wealth of society to

those in need of housing, education, and jobs. Only the government can bring about this kind of structural change.

Therefore, we need Christians involved in political pressure groups to convince governments that they have the critical

responsibility in tackling poverty and suffering in our culture.53

II. Critique

First, this position seems to baptize a liberal approach to economics and poverty, rather than seriously engage with

the Scriptures. Second, concentrating power in the hands of a few can actually destroy freedom and create tyranny. As a

theocracy, Israel was an exception to this form of civil government.54 Third, this position seems to believe that centrally

  8  
controlled systems are more impervious to corruption than free societies (Rev. 13 views Babylon as a beast). Fourth, the

Scriptures hold responsible the individual for the plight of the poor. This position can abdicate people of their personal

responsibility because they can blame the government.55 Fifth, this view lacks a vision for the kingdom of God in the world.

Our politics are to be God’s and not Caesar’s.56

My Position

The guided-market system is the best economic system available to us if it is combined with a biblical understanding

of economic life (see end notes)57 and possessions (see Appendix 1 for a summary of the Bible’s teaching). It allows for

capitalism to flourish and create wealth (freedom), it has checks and balances in terms of justice (capitalism is held

accountable), and it holds us responsible for those in society. This position affirms biblical themes such as fair wages (James

5:4), which free market capitalism explains away, redress for past wrongs so that people can overcome inequalities of the past

(need justice; e.g. the Year of Jubilee in Lev. 25; the Bible could be seen in support of affirmative action because in Mt. 20:1-

16 God gives grace to the neediest rather than judging strictly according to merit),58 as well justice in the present in terms of

equal access to jobs, rights, housing, and pay (egalitarian justice).59 It does not seek to keep people dependent on the welfare

system as the centralist economic approach does, but seeks to educate and equip people so that they are able to enter the work

force and earn a living for themselves It sees the primary responsibility of justice and care for the poor to be in the hands of

the church (a very biblical theme), but there are still state held safety nets to catch those that the church and society misses.

Because capitalism is still affirmed, the poor have opportunity to gain dignity through work and reflect more fully the

working God who made them (although initial help may be needed in terms of microloans, and free training).

Our ethics related to poverty and wealth must have the following features. 1. The Triune God is the foundation for

ethics. Because God was rich and generous God towards us in Christ (2 Cor. 8:9), we also should be generous to others (God

as the ground of Christian ethics). Because God pours out mercy on the righteous and the unrighteous we should practice

justice to the both unbeliever and believer (God as the norm of Christian ethics). Because our hearts naturally covet idols, we

will need God’s strength and the empowerment of his Spirit to enable our will to live joyfully in submission to God’s will

(God as the power for Christian ethics).60 2. Ethics are rooted in the Christian worldview (creation, fall, redemption, and

consummation). For example, we must not downplay work or people (the goodness of creation), we must be aware of self-

deception and the way we justify things such as greed (the reality of the fall), we must affirm that even though the kingdom is

  9  
to come there is much good that can be done in the present in terms of justice and the bringing of shalom (redemption), and

we must not put our hope in utopia schemes and an overrealized eschatology, but wait patiently for complete justice at the

end of the age (consummation).61 3. Virtue Ethics are important. The heart is very important in this issue. The moral life is

not only what we do, but who we are. We need to be people who display the character of Christ and display the virtues of the

Holy Spirit such as love, kindness, and generosity (Gal 5:22-23).62 4. Principles are important. Once we understand to the

best of our ability the Bible in its historical and literary context, we will seek to apply the Bible specifically to our lives.63

Only the gospel can change us, motivate us, and free us to live out the biblical vision of generosity. Money is a gift

from God, but it is tempting to make this good thing into an ultimate thing.64 Colossians 3:5 says “greed is idolatry” and

Ephesians 5:5 says “the greedy person is an idolater.” Money and possessions can easily take the place of love for and

devotion to God, trust in God, and service and obedience to God. The Puritan David Clarkson (1621-1686) gives good

advice on being free from soul idolatry: “(1) ‘Get new natures….Cry unto God for the spirit of regeneration’; (2) ‘Mortify

your lusts’ (cf. Col. 3:5); (3) ‘Get right apprehensions of the things of this world. An overvaluing of outward things is the

birth and food of soul idolatry’; and (4) ‘Let your hearts be especially jealous of lawful comforts [pleasures which are

permitted]; these are the most dangerous snares.’”65 May we echo this Latin American prayer: “O God, to those who have

hunger give bread; and to those who have bread the hunger for justice.”66

The Church’s Response to this Issue

The church is called to be salt, light, and leaven. We are called by God to be active in every sphere of society as

God’s faithful presence. We are not to be against the world and write off capitalism all together (Christ Against Culture

position), or become like the culture and have little to no prophetic voice in terms of injustice (Christ of Culture position), or

to even to legislate Biblical laws (the Christ the Transformer of Culture position). We are to be an influence for the good

wherever God has placed us providentially.67 We should focus on being the church and practicing justice and generosity as

the church, but we should not privatize our faith. We should speak out against injustice and fight for human rights, but we

must learn the limits of political action. Without seeking, in our pluralistic society, a theocratic or constantinian approach to

resolve the issues of poverty and injustice (e.g. the Christendom Group in the mid-twentieth century or the theonomy or

reconstructionist group represented by Rushdoony and Bahnsen), we can use a natural law approach by appealing to rational

arguments and examples from history to influence people and even public policy. If placed in positions of authority, we can

  10  
work toward just laws. However, the main way that we will address this issue is by applying the Biblical vision to our own

lives and the life of our church.68

The following are some applications to contemporary Christian living. First, we should educate the church on the

actual needs of the world and our biblical responsibility of stewardship. This could come in the form of sermons, book

studies, a seminary class on the topic, etc. Second, pastorally, we must have specific ways that we minister to the poor and

downtrodden through our local churches both for immediate emergency needs and longer term solutions of the poor (e.g.

food banks, educational scholarships, counseling, and life skills training). Third, we should give possessions generously as a

means to be freed from the temptation to overvalue it. Fourth, we could practice a graduated tithe as a way of applying the

biblical principle of proportionality in 1 Corinthians 16:2.69 Fifth, we should support organizations that are faithful to the

gospel and care for the poor in ways that are empowering (like those who organizations that give micro enterprise loans to the

poor).70 Seventh, we should seek to live a simpler lifestyle. As one person put it, we are to “live simply so that others can

simply live.” May God give us wisdom and enable us to obey his call to care for the poor in His world. For Christ’s glory,

Amen!

  11  
Appendix 1: The Biblical View of Possessions

The Biblical view of possessions can be summed up with this golden mean: “neither poverty nor riches” (Proverbs

30:8). In the Old Testament economy certain things were instituted to prevent extremes of riches and poverty from

remaining. For example, each person was to own their own property and piece of land, taxes and tithes were instituted, and

biblical commands encouraged voluntary generosity. The land and its produce was seen as good. Only when it is used for

personal ends rather than helping and protecting those in trouble was it seen negatively. The principle of Jubilee in Leviticus

25:23 reinforced this idea.71 The prophets evaluated the Israelites by how well they took care of the poor and powerless: the

fatherless, the widow, and the alien: “[t]hose in positions of power have no increased privilege, only increased

responsibility.”72 How would we fare today?

Jesus teaches extensively on possessions and wealth. He affirms the use of wealth for various kinds of celebrations

(e.g. he accepts invitations to dinner hosted by well-to-do leaders; Mark 2:15-17; Luke 11:37; 14:1-24; 19:5-9; and he refuses

to rebuke the woman for lavishly pouring expensive perfume on him), he speaks of the potential deceitfulness of wealth

material possessions as a an obstacle to true discipleship and the fact that it can keep people out of the kingdom (Mark 4:18-

19), he says that we must be willing to give up wealth as his disciples if circumstances demand it (Mt. 13:44-46), he teaches

that we should not accumulate unused surplus goods, property, or investments without any thought for the needy of the world

(Lk. 12:16-21), he says that we should invite the outcasts into our midst and our homes (Lk. 14:12-24), he teaches that all of

our time, talents, and treasures are to be used for kingdom purposes (Lk. 19:11-27; Mt. 25:14-30), he teaches that charity for

the poor is an expression of what is inside (Lk. 11:41-42; Mt. 23:23), he stresses that those who seek to save their physical

lives at the expense of their spiritual well-being will ultimately lose both (Mark 8:36), he teaches that personal greed can

masquerade as altruism (Mark 14:3-9), he affirms the giving of taxes (Mark 12:13-17), and lastly he teaches that it is the

percentage or amount of sacrifice that counts in God’s eyes, not the net amount (Mark 12:41-44). Some principles can be

gleaned from Jesus’ teaching. When believers realize that God will care for them through others in the church if they

unexpectedly find themselves impoverished, they can be freed to give more generously they have much. Although one can

be rich and be a Christian, he clearly teaches that there are extremes of riches and poverty that are intolerable in the circle of

his followers.73

In the early church the middle class and the upper class developed as the gospel spread into more wealthy Greco-

Roman circles (see endnotes). However, in Acts there is a real concern for the poor and a commitment to reduce the gap

  12  
between the wealthy and the poor in their congregations (Acts 4:32-5:11): “There were no needy persons among them” (Acts

4:34a). In the book of James, he teaches the transience of earthly riches and earthly life in general and that wealthy believers

are not to boast in their earthly possessions, but in their spiritual dependence on God (James 1:9-11), that holiness and social

concern belong together (James 1:27), that we are not to show favoritism to the wealthy (James 2:1-7), that professions of

faith are empty if they are not informed by deeds to the vulnerable and poor (James 2:14-17), that we are not to plan so well

that we become self-sufficient and leave no room for God (James 4:1-3, 13-17), and that we are to pay fair wages, live

simply, and not to oppress or kill the poor in pursuit of riches (James 5:1-6).74

Paul speaks much on possessions. In Galatians he is eager to remember the poor. In 1 and 2 Thessalonians he tells

them not to be idle and not to depend solely on others. In Corinth the wealthy expect the same treatment that they did when

pagans (1 Corinthians), but God calls them to give generously like the less wealth off have done to meet the needs of the poor

in Jerusalem (2 Corinthians); they and others eventually give generously (Romans). Christian freedom should result in

liberty in relationships and structures of accountability (Philemon and Ephesians). Christian workers should be thankful for

support from other believers but not depend on it (Philippians). Lastly, Christians with wealth should be aware of its

seduction and avoid this trap by giving generous amounts of it away (Pastoral Epistles).75

                                                                                                               
1
The per capita Gross National Income, GNI, is $735 or less. Ronald J. Sider, Rich Christians in An Age of Hunger (Nashville, TN:
Thomas Nelson, 2005), 4-5.
2
Ibid., 2-3.
3
If we as Westerners were to adopt the lifestyle of the 1.2 billion, we would have to abandon the following “luxuries”:
We begin by invading the house of our imaginary American family to strip it of its furniture. Everything goes: beds, chairs,
tables, television set, lamps. We will leave the family with a few old blankets, a kitchen table, a wooden chair. Along with the
bureaus go the clothes. Each member of the family may keep in his “wardrobe” his oldest suit, a shirt or blouse. We will permit
a pair of shoes for the family, but none for the wife or children.
We move to the kitchen. The appliances have already been taken out, so we turn to the cupboards…The box of matches may
stay, a small bag of flour, some sugar, and salt. A few moldy potatoes, already in the garbage can, must be hastily rescued, for
they will provide much of tonight’s meal. We will leave a handful of onions, and a dish of dried beans. All the rest we take
away: the meat, the fresh vegetables, the canned goods, the crackers, the candy.
Now we have stripped the house: the bathroom has been dismantled, the running water shut off, the electric wires taken out.
Next we take away the house. The family can move to the toolshed…
Now government services must go. No more postman, no more firemen. There is a school, but it is three miles away and
consists of two classrooms…There are, of course, no hospitals or doctors nearby. The nearest clinic is ten miles away and is
tended by a midwife. It can be reached by bicycle, provided that the family has a bicycle, which is unlikely…
Finally, money. We will allow our family a cash hoard of $5.00. This will prevent our breadwinner from experiencing the
tragedy of an Iranian peasant who went blind because he could not raise the $3.94, which he mistakenly thought he needed to
receive admission to a hospital where he could have been cured (taken from Sider, 1-2).
4
Dennis Hollinger, Choosing the Good: Christian Ethics in a Complex World (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002), 179.
5
Ibid., 153-62.
6
Ibid., 27-44.
7
Ibid., 175.
8
Ibid., 128-148.
9
Alvin Plantinga, “Sin and its Cognitive Consequences” in Warranted Christian Belief (New York: Oxford, 2000), 199-240.
10
Hollinger, Choosing the Good, 175.

  13  
                                                                                                                
11
First, we are influenced by social mores, nonrational traditions, passed on from generation to generation that convey a sense of
oughtness, are merely accepted, not easily changed, and are not to be challenged because they are always right and maintain the status
quo. For example, if one’s cultural mores include freedom, individualism, and hard work, that person’s empirical judgment may see lack
of personal responsibility as the cause of poverty and personal responsibility as the cure to poverty.
Second, Ideologies also affect which facts we accept and how we interpret them. An ideology “‘…presents a picture of the word that
gives legitimacy to the cultural values and goals it holds most dear. While its focus is on social-empirical reality…it colors one’s
understanding of every aspect of life.’” Ideologies deviate from scientific objectivity because they are trying to twist the truth towards a
specific goal. They do this by selecting the issues to be dealt with (i.e. are often oriented towards one issue and interpret all of reality
through that issue), and by distorting the problems and the issues treated. It reveals a world that is too simplistic and does not take into
account ambiguity and complexity. A good example is Marxism, which reduces all social problems to economic realities, the class
conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.
Third, vested interests can influence ideological commitments. This can be defined by the benefits that one receives from an existing
arrangement in society or within an institution. An example of this would be when a person votes for a certain political candidate because
they will benefit them the most financially (i.e. through lower taxes).
Fourth, our perception of reality is also influenced by disposition, personalities, or temperament. Some people have a conformist style
while others have a challenging style. Some people are by nature conservative and others are radical [Hollinger, 175, 179-185].
12
Quoted in Ibid., 1.
13
Jay W. Richards, Money, Greed, and God (New York: HarperOne, 2009), 2; Rand said the following: “‘The first right on earth is the
right of the ego. Man’s first duty is to himself. His moral law is never to place his prime goal with the persons of others. His moral
obligation is to do what he wishes, provided his wish does not depend upon other men.” For the New Intellectual (New York: Signet,
1961), 82 quoted in Hollinger, Choosing the Good, 30.
14
Quote from Richards, Money, Greed, and God, 5.
15
Ibid., 7.
16
Sider 135.
17
“The Bible nowhere condemns self-interest – rather, it calls individuals to balance their self-interest with the interests of others (Phil.
2:4)” [Scott B. Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 339.]
18
Richards, Money, Greed, and God, 8.
19
Ibid.
20
Rae, 336.
21
Richards, Money, Greed, and God, 157.
22
Sider, 17.
23
Richards, Money, Greed, and God, 55.
24
Ibid., 48.
25
Markets change like the weather and when “fair trade” prices rise with inflation and people stop buying, the future livelihood of the
farmers is at stake because they will not have time to adjust and reallocate scares resources like time, land, and labor to more valued uses
like they would have if they experienced the market as it actually is in reality (Richards, 41-42).
26
Ibid., 39-45.
27
Ibid.
28
The Zero-Sum Game Myth
This position characterizes competition as a sort of Darwinian “survival of the fittest.” It is the belief that to have a winner one
must have a loser. It is called the zero-sum game myth. This was largely so in the ancient world as the economy was mostly one of
agriculture with very little trade. Therefore, the pool of economic resources was relatively fixed, so that when one person became
wealthy, it was usually at the expense of someone else. However, today the zero-sum game view does not characterize the economy. In
modern industrial and information economies the economic pie is actually increasing (Rae, 331-332). Capitalism creates wealth.
Therefore, the rich are getting richer, but at the same time the poor can become stronger financially as well. Statistics bear this out as
well. At Gapminder.com one animation called “Gap Minder World, 2006” shows the trends in life expectancy and per capita income
from about 1974 to 2005. What one notices is that per capita income and life expectancy has gone up in many countries in the last thirty
years and total income has increased worldwide (Richards, Money, Greed, and God, 91).

The Usury Myth

For centuries all the great Christian theologians and philosophers of the church believed that charging interest, usury, was a
serious sin. Dante, in his Divine Comedy (written between 1308 and 1321) placed those who committed this sin in the seventh ring of
hell along with those who committed sodomy and blasphemy. In Exodus 22:25 God says “If you lend money to any of my people with
you who is poor, you shall not be like a moneylender to him, and you shall not exact interest from him” (cf. similar commands: Lev.
25:35-37; Ps. 15:1, 5; Luke 6:34-35; although in Deut. 23:19-20 interest to foreigners is permitted) (Ibid., 136-138). From the time of the
Israelites to the time of medieval Europe most lived off of the land and were very poor in comparison to today’s standards. Only a small
minority of rich people could lend money and, if they lent it, it was usually to meet a basic need like food. In the Greco-Roman world
money was sterile. If someone owned extra money they usually hid it. Consequently, to charge a person for borrowing what would
otherwise be doing nothing would be seen as uncharitable and to exploit a poor person by charging large interest rates would be unjust.
Therefore, because of the historical context, it was logical that usury was prohibited (Ibid., 140). Beginning around the twelfth century,

  14  
                                                                                                                
trade began to expand. Because there was so much trade, coins became scarce, long distances made transporting large amounts of coins
risky, and counterfeit money increased. Out of necessity, banks emerged in different cities. Bills of exchange replaced coins. Eventually,
banks had more deposits on hand than they needed for their daily demands. Therefore, they started to lend capital loans, realizing that
these were different from usury. Calvin, the Reformers, and eventually Catholic scholars recognized this difference as well. Usury came
to be seen as unjustly charging someone for a loan by exploiting them when they are in a desperate situation, not the charging interest on a
loan to offset the risk of the loan and the cost of forgoing other uses for the money (Ibid., 140-144).
29
Sider, Rich Christians, 138.
30
Ibid. Ron Sider states the following: “The market’s mechanism of supply and demand is blind to the distinction between basic
necessities (even minimal food needed to avoid starvation) and luxuries desired by the wealthy. According to the United Nations
Development Programme, Human Development Report 2002, the richest 5 percent of the world’s people have incomes 114 times those of
the poorest 5 percent. Left to itself, a market economy will simply supply what the wealthy can pay for – even if poor folk starve” (Ibid).
31
Hollinger, 228.
32
Ibid., 141.
33
Ibid., 142-143.
34
William E. Diehl, “A Guided-Market Response” in Wealth and Poverty: Four Christian Views of Economics, ed. Robert G. Clouse
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1984), 69-70.
35
Ibid., 143.
36
William E. Diehl, “A Guided-Market System” in Wealth and Poverty: Four Christian Views of Economics, ed. Robert G. Clouse
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1984), 87-89.
37
Ibid., 90-91.
38
Ibid., 103.
39
Gary North, “A Free-Market Response” in Wealth and Poverty: Four Christian Views of Economics, ed. Robert G. Clouse (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1984), 114-115.
40
Richards, 49-51.
41
John Gladwin, “A Centralist Response” in Wealth and Poverty, 125-126.
42
See H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (New York: Harper & Row, 1951).
43
Art Gish, “Decentralist Economics” in Wealth and Poverty: Four Christian Views of Economics, ed. Robert G. Clouse (Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity, 1984), 132-133.
44
Ibid., 134-140.
45
Ibid., 141-151; statistics taken from Sider, Rich Christians, 31.
46
Art Gish, “Decentralist Economics” in Wealth and Poverty: Four Christian Views of Economics, ed. Robert G. Clouse (Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity, 1984), 150-154.
47
Marx and Engels secularized this type of approach in their philosophy of communism in their book The Communist Manifesto (1848).
They stated that the original state of man was a primitive communism without private property. They argued that in modern capitalist
societies, the bourgeoisie seek above all else profits at the expense of the workers, continually investing in the businesses until they need
less and less workers, with the result being that the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. The consequence of this being that the workers
would revolt and then institute full communism. (Richards, Money, Greed, and God, 12). The problem is that communism never worked.
The dream turned into a nightmare. According to The Black Book of Communism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), 4;
quoted in Ibid., 21.), 85 million to 100 million human beings lost their lives to this dark experiment. Here are the death tolls by
Communist regimes in the twentieth century (a rough tally): China, 65 million; U.S.S.R, 20 million; North Korea, 2 million; Cambodia, 2
million; Africa, 1.7 million; Afghanistan, 1.5 million; Vietnam, 1 million; Eastern Europe, 1 million; Latin America, 150,000;
International Communist movement, about 100,000.
48
Cf. the reference to the home of John Mark in Acts 12:12. Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5) were not judged because they did not give
everything they owned, but because they claimed to give all; “kept back” actually refers to a very specific and rare term, nosphizo,
meaning “to swindle” or “to embezzle”; this same term is in the Septuagint (LXX) in Joshua 7:1 in reference to Achan’s sin; Luke intends
us to see the parallel [Craig Blomberg, Neither Poverty nor Riches: A biblical theology of possessions (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity,
1999), 165-166].
49
Richards, Money, Greed, and God, 23. Cf. Martin Hengel, Property and Riches in the Early Church (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 32.
50
Ibid.
51
See the following examples: Deacons were required to govern both their children and their households well (1 Timothy 3:12). The
phrase kai ton idion indicates that household includes more than wives and children, in fact slaves (cf. 1 Timothy 6). Housing
accommodating more than a nuclear family would have been available only to the wealthy. 1 Timothy 2 indicates that there were wealthy
woman in the church. Reggie Kidd, Wealth and Beneficence in the Pastoral Epistles (Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1990), 83-86.
52
Richards, Money Greed and God.
53
John Gladwin, “Centralist Economics” in Wealth and Poverty: Four Christian Views of Economics, ed. Robert G. Clouse (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1984), 181-197.
54
Gary North, “A Free-Market Response” in Wealth and Poverty, 200-202.
55
William Diehl, “A Guided-Market Response” in Wealth and Poverty, 206-207.
56
Gish, “A Decentralist Response,” in Wealth and Poverty, 218.

  15  
                                                                                                                
57
This includes the following primary principles: 1. Though tarnished by sin, the created world is intrinsically good because it is God’s
creation; 2. God is the ultimate owner of all of the world’s productive resources; 3. Human beings are stewards of these resources, charged
with their responsible and productive use; 4. Responsible wealth creation is part of the dominion mandate and a way of honoring God; 5.
Human beings are created with freedom and a need for community, making them more than autonomous economic agents; 6. Work is
inherently good, though marred by sin; 7. Human beings who are capable of working are responsible for supporting themselves and their
families; 8. The community is responsible for taking care of the poor – those who cannot support themselves; 9. Human beings are not to
exploit the economically vulnerable, but to take care of them; 10. Economic justice is the provision of access to the productive resources
necessary for self-support; 11. Distributive justice in the Bible is based on a combination of merit and need (For an expansion of these
points by Scott B. Rae see Moral Choices, 335-338).
58
Blomberg, 124.
59
Hollinger, Choosing the Good, 229-232.
60
Ibid., 64-69.
61
Ibid., 70-86.
62
Ibid., 56-58.
63
Ibid., 39-43; 135-131.
64
Tim Keller, Counterfeit Gods (New York: Dutton, 2009).
65
Brian Rosner, Greed as Idolatry (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 45.
66
Blomberg, Neither Poverty nor Riches, 119.
67
See James Davison Hunter, To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World (New
York: Oxford, 2010).
68
Hollinger, 242-254.
69
Sider, 187-190.
70
Ibid., 230-33.
71
Blomberg, Neither Poverty nor Riches, 84.
72
Ibid.
73
Ibid., 133-146.
74
Ibid., 149-176.
75
Ibid., 211-212.  

  16