Tag: capitalism

Is The Parable of the Workers Socialist

Are we being taught economic theory in this? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Sometimes, people present the parable of the workers in the field in Matthew 20 as if Jesus is espousing socialism. After all, everyone gets paid the same. Right? There’s no differentiation in wages. I was reading that recently and started looking at it and yes, I have heard other people bring out these arguments, but I figured I needed to as well.

First, let’s look at the parable.

“For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2 He agreed to pay them a denarius[a] for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

3 “About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4 He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5 So they went.

“He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. 6 About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’

7 “‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.

“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’

8 “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’

9 “The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’

13 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

16 “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

At the start, for one thing, this parable is not meant to teach business practices or economics. Seriously, if any business worker did this, he would find himself out of business quickly. After all, if I knew this guy did this, I would wait until the last hour to get hired, put in an hour’s work, get a day’s pay, and I would have spent the day prior and after just doing what I want. Word would get out.

However, that being said, the parable doesn’t even have a socialist background in any way. We can say the workers all got paid the same. No one was greater and no one was lesser in pay. Right. But why? The owner tells us.

“Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money?”

So in this, the owner owns the money himself. If he wants to pay the last workers that much, he can do that. Not only that, if anything, the ones who worked all day sound like the socialists in the parable with them saying, “We worked harder. We are owed more money.”

I don’t support minimum wage laws. No one is owed a job by anyone. What you are owed is what you agree to work for, in this case, a denarius. The people in this story think they are owed more than they agreed to. They think they have the right to tell the landowner what to do with his money.

They don’t. He tells them it is his money. He can spend it how he sees fit. If he wants to give to the last workers a denarius, he can do that because it is his money. Now if he did pay the workers who worked all day less than a denarius, they could have gone to the courts with him breaking a contract, but he didn’t. There was no basis for such a charge.

Ultimately, the point of the parable is not to teach economics. It’s to teach about grace in the Kingdom of God. Still, from an economic perspective, this is not a socialist story. It is a capitalist one.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Is This Quote Marxist?

Does the Bible line up with Marxism? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So there’s this collection of memes going around the internet where you’re supposed to play a game and decide if the quote comes from Marx or the Bible. Naturally, there’s no citation given. I can understand that during the “game”, but one would hope that at the end, all the references would be given.

Alas, such is not the case.

So let’s go through these quotes which all turn out to be from the Bible.

No reference of course, but yes. Don’t rob the poor. That’s not only Christian, that’s capitalist. Capitalism is the free exchange of goods without force, theft, or fraud. If any system robs the poor, it’s Marxism. Economic controls make it harder for the poor to earn and have income in the long term and taxation doesn’t hurt the rich nearly as much as it does the poor.

Quote #2:

This is Proverbs 22:16 and again, what’s the problem? Proverbs give general principles and this is one of them. God has a special heart for the poor in Scripture and so mistreatment of the poor is not allowed. Giving to the rich would be a way of trying to buy the favor of a rich man and get his honor. Now if you had a friend who was rich, this doesn’t mean you can’t buy him a gift of some sort, but it would mean you should be giving to the poor too.

By the way, conservatives typically do give more to charity, as is shown in Arthur Brooks’s The Conservative Heart. There’s less emphasis to give to the poor if you just think the government will do it for you.

#3:

This is from Proverbs 29:7. The righteous care for the poor. The wicked doesn’t. It would be a mistake to read the Constitution into this as it was not written with an American Republic in mind, but again, what’s the problem here? We should care about the poor. Most capitalists would agree. We’d even say that’s why we’re capitalists. The best way to help the poor is to enable them to rise up out of poverty. Thomas Sowell has repeatedly stated that few people stay in the same income bracket their whole lives. Those at one point in the bottom 20% will not always be there.

#4

This is found in James and is a way of warning against trying to buy the favor of the rich. Big shock. Rich people can be evil. For that matter, so can poor people, but rich people often have greater means to do evil.

This is why it’s important to realize that before Adam Smith ever wrote a book on capitalism, he wrote one on ethics. Capitalism is not meant to be done apart from ethics.

This is a general principle and yes, the rich do tend to have power over the poor and if you borrow money from someone, you are their servant to an extent.

How this is supposed to be something Marxist is not explained.

I am quite sure the person who shared this has not sold their computer and given it to the needy yet. At any rate, this was said to one person in particular, the rich young ruler, since money was his idol. After all, if everyone did this, eventually, we would have new needy and new rich people. It would just be a reversal.

This is also true. If you desire to be rich above all else, that is a path of destruction. There is nothing wrong with wanting to have money in itself and wanting to be financially secure, but if you blur ethical lines to do that, you have a problem. Rich people with good hearts can do a whole lot of good. Rich people with wicked hearts can do a whole lot of bad, such as someone like, I don’t know, Engels, regularly giving of his wealth that he had to finance someone named Marx. His philosophy has been one of the most destructive of all.

It is. It is not the root of all evil, but much evil is done because of the love of money. This can even include if you’re the government and think you need to take away money from other people and give it to others. If I empty out your bank account in theft and give all the money to the poor, I have used the money for something good, but I have done an evil because it was not my money to use in that way. Somehow though, if the government does that, it’s okay.

This is Hebrews 13:5 which also says to be content with what you have. Again, what is the situation here? As a capitalist, I agree with this.

This is from Luke’s version of the Sermon on the Mount, which is giving a reversal. In the day of Jesus, it would have been thought that the rich had the blessings of God, since, well, they were rich. Jesus says it is otherwise.

Ultimately, the problem with all of these is the assumption that if you are someone who cares for the poor and doesn’t glamourize wealth, you should be a Marxist. It doesn’t work that way. Too many leftists think that if you don’t agree with them on the ways to help the poor, then you don’t care about helping the poor. If I care about treating your hiccups and my suggestion is to get an axe and cut off your head, it would be silly to say if you disagree that you don’t care about solving the problem. You just don’t think that’s the most efficient way. (Although to be fair, if I did do that, you certainly would no longer have hiccups!)

Capitalists are in favor of helping the poor. We just don’t think the government is the way to do it. That doesn’t mean we oppose all government safety nets, but we much more support private individuals giving freely of themselves to help those in need. If all Marxism meant was caring for the poor, no one would really object. It is how they think we should care for the poor that is a real issue here.

I really think most people should just read at least Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in one Lesson. 

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Does Acts 2 Teach Communism?

Was the early church a Communist movement? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In Acts 2, we read about the early church.

42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

There are a number of people that look at this and think that this sounds like something Communistic. Don’t they have everything in common? Don’t they sell all their possessions?

However, there are differences.

For one, if a group of people decide to come together and do this on their own without any force, that is not Communism. Communism is done with the government leading the way. Here, there is no central government that is leading the way for the people.

Second, they sold property and gave to those who had need. Not everyone was equal financially because some people had need and some didn’t. The text also says that they met in their homes. That means that some people had homes to meet in. We can also be sure that some things were not in common and understood not to be, such as they weren’t into wife sharing or something similar.

Third, as a Preterist, I contend there’s a reason these people were selling property in Jerusalem. They were sure Jesus was coming some time as He promised to judge the place and bring about destruction. Land values won’t really matter at that point.

Fourth, later on in the text, we see other people selling their land and giving it to the cause. As we see in Acts 4:

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

36 Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”), 37 sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Here, we see the same thing going on. People still have land and people are still selling it and goods are being distributed to people who have need. This is also something the people are entering into willingly.

In Acts 5, we have the chilling case of Ananias and Sapphira.

Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6 Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

7 About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”

“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”

9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”

10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

Now this seems like a harsh punishment? Lying about money? What’s the big deal. This was a fledgling church movement and nothing was really done privately. People would find out what happened and if these two got away with it, everyone else could as well. Greed quickly comes into a church and tears it down. Not only that, these people were grabbing honor as if they had given everything when they had not.

Yet note that this is said to be their property. They could do with it what they wanted. They weren’t forced. When they sold it, the money was theirs. If they wanted to, they could have kept some of the money for themselves and just been honest with the apostles about it. Sure, it would have likely been seen as shameful behavior, but it would have been honest.

Next, in Acts 6, Greek widows say they are being overlooked when it comes to the distribution of food as Hebrew widows are getting more. Again, you have people in need and who are they really? They are the people in that society most likely to be unable to provide for themselves. Again, this is not exactly a commune.

Finally, this is the only place we see this happening in the New Testament. It doesn’t show up in any of the churches outside of here. As I contend, there’s a reason that it only happens in Jerusalem.

Now I don’t think Communism is an effective way to care for the poor and capitalism is far better, but that is another post. I could be hypothetically wrong on that and still right on the point about the early church. For now, those wanting to say Communism works better are not going to be benefitted by looking at the early church.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)
Support my Patreon here.

A Response To “Jesus Was A Liberal”

Does the Bible show a liberal Jesus? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I don’t often go into political ideas here, but when it comes to Scripture, I’m more likely to make an exception. I am a conservative up front, yet I found this page I saw through Facebook recently quite troubling. It was a lot of the bad reading of Scripture that I’ve expected to see and the sad part is I’m sure the authors think it’s totally convincing as do many of the readers.

So let’s get into it. Will I as a Christian right-winger hate these twenty verses? Let’s find out.

“Very truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.” John 13:16.

What we are told is that Christian right-wingers like to have class distinctions. After all, we favor stealing from the poor and giving to the rich and forget the middle class. Well, no. Jesus is not saying anything about a classless society. In fact, in the very passage, he says it is right that his disciples call Him Lord and Master. In the same way that He is their Lord and Master, they ought also to serve one another.

Something people on the left regularly seem to get incorrect is the idea of intent. They think that if they have good intentions, then the results will be good. Conservatives don’t see that. We realize that the road to hell can be paved with good intentions. We’re not interested in where someone’s heart is when they come up with a plan to help the poor. We’re interested in if it works.

LBJ’s war on poverty has been going on for fifty years. It has not been working. We need something different.

As for government programs, my wife and I have to rely on some of those right now due to her disability. I don’t like that. Neither does she. I’m one of the poor spoken of, and I’m a conservative because policies of the left only make it harder for us. The right doesn’t want to give me the same outcome as everyone else. They want to give me the same opportunity. I’d rather have that.

Next one is this passage.

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” Matthew 7:1-2

We all knew this one would show up. Of course, the writer of the piece then goes on to complain about the attitudes of Christians towards anyone who isn’t a rich white male. Naturally, the author can’t help but make a judgment about those she disagrees with. Jesus is making a statement about judging without evidence. Hypocritical judging is the problem.

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? Luke 6:41.

Of course, the anti-judgmental writer wants us to realize that we talk about the sanctity of marriage, but go on to cheat on our spouses and seek gay sex and other such things. Well to be fair, yes. There are hypocrites out there. How does that prove the idea is wrong? It doesn’t. As for myself, the writer can rest assured by listening to those who know me that I am a man who honors my wife and does not cheat on her or anything like that. In fact, I have said that if the world does not honor the sanctity of marriage, it’s because the church helped lead the way.

So no. Once again, this is not a verse I hate.

Blessed are the peacemakers,
    for they will be called children of God. Matthew 5:9

The writer uses this to show how conservatives are the first to go to war. Well sometimes, we think war is a necessary evil. The Old Testament that Jesus believed in and affirmed contained many examples of righteous warriors. No one should like war. No one should delight in war, but unfortunately not every evil person out there responds to peace and love. Sometimes restoring the peace means eliminating those who war against it.

26 Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Matthew 6:26

This is supposed to make Jesus look like a hippie, but conservatives oppose government aid. Well not necessarily. Even a number of conservatives have no problem with a safety net. I don’t. We should be able to help those who through tragedy have fallen on hard times. Of course, I do think that larger responsibility should go to the church.

What Jesus is talking about is living in a society where you lived from day to day. There weren’t grocery stores where you could buy food in bulk and refrigerators where it could be hold. You also didn’t have safety-deposit boxes at your bank to make sure nothing happened to your wealth. In this case, a person was to trust on God, but at the same time there is no call to stop working.

Many people on the left look at how many people are being cared for and consider that a success. I don’t. I consider it a success when we take someone who has fallen and empower them so that they no longer need our support. More people needing support indicates more of a problem.

When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” John 8:7

Somehow, this is meant to show we have a war on women. Actually, I think people who are pro-abortion are really engaging in a war on women. Something that makes women unique is their ability to give birth. Destroying the baby in the womb (Which could about 50% of the time be a woman being killed by the way) is a way of going against the femininity of the woman. I really think the author is making a major stretch with this one.

If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? 1 John 3:17

The writer asks us how we can see the verse and not support programs that give government aid and support tax cuts for the rich. It’s really simple. We don’t think many of these programs work and they in fact only enable what we don’t want to see. We think the war on poverty has been a failure and just throwing money at a problem won’t solve it. We believe the rich are the ones who can invest the most in society and when we enable them to do that, the economy is built up. Note also that this is about individuals giving to those in need. It’s not about having the government do it.

Suppose you are a rich person and I come and rob you at gunpoint, take all your money, and give it all to a homeless shelter. Have I committed a crime? Yes. You can say I did something good with the money, but I still did something wrong. I didn’t give my money. I gave yours. It’s just as wrong when the government does it as when we do it.

What is noble is if you’re that rich person and you give that money to the homeless shelter. It is not noble to take money from others and give it away and claim you’re a person of charity. That is a way of saying you can do whatever you want as long as you have good intentions.

Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness. Matthew 9:35

How does this one work? Well since Jesus healed diseases, we should support government health-care. Yeah. It’s a major stretch. Jesus gave freely of himself. Government health care is not doing that. We freely admit we have a problem, but the solution is not to look to the government to be our savior. I favor other options such as allowing states to compete with one another for health care. Let people compete with one another.

In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness. Matthew 23:28

This is said to describe conservatives to a T. Let me just remind the writer that she earlier pointed to Matthew 7:1-2. Apparently, she’s allowed to do it but no one else is.

14 In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves,and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” John 2:14-16.

Ah. Now we see what makes Jesus really angry. Capitalism! Yes. It wasn’t seeing people living in oppression under Rome. It wasn’t seeing sin all around him. It wasn’t knowing that people were sick and demon-possessed. It was that capitalism! Nothing gets Jesus angry like capitalism! (You know, the Jesus that according to Luke 8:1-3 was supported by wealthy women)

No. Jesus’s anger here was quite likely because this area of the temple was a holy spot meant for worship and it was instead being used a marketplace. Jesus didn’t oppose a marketplace. He instead opposed having a place for worship become a place for making money. There are better places for that.

Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God. Matthew 19:24

Why is it this way? Because the rich often think they don’t need anything more and think they already have the favor of God. The ministry of Jesus changed this. The early church did consist of people who were wealthy and they were never told to sell all they have and give it all away. They would often use their wealth for the good of the community still, such as allowing their houses to serve as churches. We should all be wary of the love of money and watch ourselves from it, but having money is not a sin. It is a sin when the money has you.

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Matthew 22:37-40.

Yes. We are to love our neighbor, therefore we should support redefining marriage and anti-poverty programs. I’ve already said why we don’t support the latter. The former we don’t support because we don’t think there’s any behavior there we should celebrate and affirm. We in fact think we’re in line with Jesus who upheld the moral standards of the Old Testament and in Matthew 19, said that God made us male and female and then said the two shall become one flesh. Note which two he spoke of. He spoke of male and female.

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. Matthew 6:5.

Of course, the writer wants to compare us to the Pharisees again. Note this is the same writer who emphasized Matthew 7:1-2. No further reply is needed.

If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. Matthew 12:7

Jesus did preach mercy, but the writer wants us to ask why we ban abortion and seek the death penalty and want to charge children as adults in crimes. The writer apparently didn’t notice the last part. Let’s look at it.

“Condemned the innocent.”

What crime did the baby in the womb commit to deserve death, other than existing at the wrong place and time? For the death penalty, that is for people who are guilty. It would need to be someone beyond a shadow of a doubt. For children as adults, it’s because many times they are old enough to know what they’re doing and committing crimes of a far more serious nature.

Jesus replied, “They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat.” Matthew 14:16

We’re told that because of this, we should not seek to cut programs that give food to the poor. It would probably blow this author’s mind that a researcher like Arthur Brooks found that conservatives actually give more of their income away to charity than do liberals. We have no problem with helping the poor. We have a problem with helping them in ways that don’t work.

Jesus replied, “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them. Luke 11:46

The writer wants to thank the GOP for cutting programs that help the poor. As someone who is among the poor, I do not support these programs designed to help. Usually, they come with so many conditions that it’s hard to get away. I also do not support a minimum wage increase at all. That only makes things more expensive for me. I understand the left likely has their heart in the right place, but good intentions are not enough. If the program doesn’t work, scrap it.

But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. Luke 12:48

Yes, and we agree with this. We don’t force the rich to give to the poor, but we think it would be wonderful if they did. If they don’t, then God will give take them to account. It is not right for us to commit theft in the name of a good. Those who are conservative and have wealth should indeed lead by example.

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Matthew 11:28.

The writer points to how we don’t raise the minimum wage to help with cost of living. Unfortunately, the minimum wage does not help. If it worked, it would have already done so. We have to keep raising it. Why? Because it creates more expenses. Suppose you are an employer. You can hire one of two people. One is an entry-level guy with no experience. The other is a guy with experience. Odds are you go with the one with experience.

If you had more resources, you could hire both, but you can’t because the government has forced you to do it this way. Therefore, people who need those jobs, entry level people, cannot get those jobs. They require then more often government aid. That means higher taxes. Higher taxes in turn leads to things being more expensive which in turn leads to a demand that the minimum wage go up.

Let the economy do its own thing. Stay out of it. It will work.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ Matthew 25:34-40

Once again we have the same mistake. Since the poor should be helped, the way to do it is through the government. No. The way to do it is to have people give of themselves. Theft is theft regardless of who does it or why.

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ Matthew 25:41-43

Finally, we end with this as a reminder about how we should find religion for the above. I would instead suggest the writer finds some good material on Biblical exegesis. This is all a fine example of how not to read the Bible and it’s like she thinks we’ve never read the Bible before. We have. Perhaps the writer should start by really reading it herself.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

 

Book Plunge: The Conservative Heart

What do I think of Arthur Brooks’s book published by Broadside Books? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Without a doubt, The Conservative Heart is one of the most important books I’ve ever read. Some might think it’s just because of the embodiment of good conservative principles, which is great, but also because this applies to so many areas, such as my main one of Christian apologetics. Not only that, but it leaves me with hope. It leaves me thinking the American Dream is still out there for all of us.

Practically every page contained something worth highlighting. In fact, were I to go through again doing this, it would be easier to just highlight the parts that weren’t as moving and gripping. Challenge after challenge comes to the reader about how one can best function in our society and impart hope to people who are in a difficult place. (Including myself)

Brooks starts off with what we need to be happy, and it’s simple. We have the idea of loving things and using people. The real idea is to love people and use things. Wealth is not bad. There is no evil in money. What is wrong is to have the attachment to money. In fact, Brooks contends that some wealth is necessary for true happiness. Brooks never cites it, but I think of Proverbs 30:8-9.

Keep falsehood and lies far from me;
    give me neither poverty nor riches,
    but give me only my daily bread.
 Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you
    and say, ‘Who is the Lord?’
Or I may become poor and steal,
    and so dishonor the name of my God.

We chase after so many goods that we think will bring us happiness instead of looking for memories that will bring us happiness. We also look to other gods of our age, like sex, when Brooks presents research that says that if you want to know how many sexual partners happy people tend to have, the answer is simple. One. (Looks like I’m covered.)

Brooks argues that what is needed for people is not just to give them a hand-out, but people want to do meaningful work. People don’t care about being rich usually, as long as they think they’re contributing to society. They want to fulfill a purpose and sadly, our government programs can often treat them as if they’re dependents and they need to stay down and they can’t make it. People want a hand-up more than they want a hand-out.

One program he looks at is the Ready, Willing, and Able program. This program takes people off the streets and then make them work. When they’ve completed a trial period, then they’re trained in a field of their choice and they’re taught how to make a budget and get regular drug testing. If they don’t pass the test, they get out of the program then and lose the benefits. It’s had a successful effect as well.

The idea is to see every person as having something worthy to contribute to the cause. Every time you see someone out there in the world who is in a desperate situation, you can see that as someone who could be in a place of serving the world and making it better. Don’t just see a statistic. See a person.

Brooks also points out that on the whole conservatives give more to charitable causes than liberals do. Brooks even found this as a surprise as he was expecting liberals would give more. Even after you account for income differences, conservatives are giving more of their money to charity and giving more across the board from volunteer service to blood donation.

Brooks also points out that working is a gift. He talks about being on a plane next to someone who was a CFO of a company that handles several fast food franchises. Brooks is asking about the industry and then asks, quite foolishly he’d agree, if the man ever regretted creating so many dead-end jobs.

The man gets point blank with Brooks and tells him that if you come in and work for a year, you’ll probably get promoted to an assistant manager. Go four years and you can become a store manager. Go further and you can reach further because as he says, he began his career flipping burgers.

Bottom line to get? There are no dead-end jobs.

In fact, what matters most even more than how much it pays is how much meaning the job gives the person. Can the person feel like they’re a part of the story instead of just a burden to everyone else? That is what people long for.

Now in all of this Brooks is not against a safety net. Yes. Some people will need help. It should be a success in our system that we have enough surplus that we can care for those in need, but it is not a success if we see a lot of people having to be cared for. The net is there for trapeze artists should they fall, but it’s not a great performance if we just see them fall in the net and stay there and do tricks from the net.

Brooks also contends that we have to do better getting our message out. If conservatives care, which we do, why is it assumed we don’t? It’s because a lot of us like to talk about what we’re against. We don’t tend to talk about what we’re for. Consider the minimum wage. We hear someone make a statement about the minimum wage and how it should be raised. We respond by pointing out the damage that will be done to those on the lowest rung of the economic ladder and that it won’t help them in the long run and ideas like that. Is that true? Yep. What does the other person hear? We’re against helping the poor and we have no solutions to the problem. What if we said something like this?

I agree that those on the lowest end of the economic perspective or struggling and we must help them out the best that we can and enable them to live on their own and I have no doubt you have good intentions, but your ideas just won’t work because of XYZ. I propose instead that we give tax cuts to those above so they can have more freedom to hire more people and in fact pay them more and that will include those who are on the lowest economic level.

You see? I haven’t just started there with what I’m against. I’ve started with what I’m for and then something that can be done to help out and that it will help those out. We can often get the picture that we’re just negative because it often looks like all we do is argue against something instead of for something.

Brooks also points out that if we want our movements, we need to start appealing to the people first and what they already hold to or at least want them to hold to. When King began speaking about civil rights, he spoke to the people about what they would agree with and he acted like he had a majority even before he had a majority. He spoke pointing to the transcendental values we all hold dear. That is how he convinced people. The same happened with Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Although I don’t agree with this last group’s beliefs, the homosexual movement I contend did the exact same thing.

There is much more that can be said about this book but the most important thing to be said is to read it. Study it. Learn it well. While I find it great at defending my own conservative principles, I realize the same can work at defending my own Christian principles too.

Thank you Dr. Brooks for this wonderful work!

In Christ,
Nick Peters

 

Deeper Waters Podcast 4/12/2014: Jay Wesley Richards

What’s coming up this Saturday on the Deeper Waters Podcast? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Jay W. Richards, Ph.D. of The Institute for Faith, Work &

While in the intellectual field my main love is apologetics, I have to admit that I do enjoy discussing economics. That’s one reason I’m certainly looking to the show this Saturday. My guest will be Jay Wesley Richards to talk about his book Money, Greed, and God, which is a Christian defense of capitalism. The review I wrote of it can be found here.

And according to his bio

“Jay W. Richards, Ph.D., is author of many books including the New York Times bestsellers Infiltrated (2013) and Indivisible (2012). He is also the author of Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem, winner of a 2010 Templeton Enterprise Award; and co-author of The Privileged Planet with astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez.

Richards is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle. In recent years he has been Distinguished Fellow at the Institute for Faith, Work & Economics, Contributing Editor of The American at the American Enterprise Institute, a Visiting Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and Research Fellow and Director of Acton Media at the Acton Institute.

Richards has a Ph.D., with honors, in philosophy and theology from Princeton Theological Seminary. He also has an M.Div. (Master of Divinity), a Th.M. (Master of Theology), and a B.A. with majors in Political Science and Religion. He lives with his family in the Washington DC Metro area.”

If you spend a lot of time on the internet, you will see a lot of discussions on economics. Many Christians get in these discussions and have a highly negative view of capitalism. After all, the Bible says that we are to avoid greed. Capitalism is all about the self-interest of the individual and thus is about their greed. Therefore, we should avoid it. It will also just make the poor poorer. Right?

Well, no. That’s not right. Richards in fact believes that capitalism is the more biblical economic system and that capitalism in the long run is what will help the poor. How is it then that a system that’s supposed to be about greed can be defended by an evangelical Christian? You’ll need to listen to find out.

We’ll also no doubt be discussing many contemporary issues right now. Obama is wanting to raise the minimum wage. Is that good or bad for America? Should companies like McDonald’s be required to pay a living wage? What can be done to deal with the economic crisis in our country? How did we get this way in the first place?

With the way our country is, Christians need to have some economic knowledge. After all, we would all agree as Christians that we are to help the poor, but we want to make sure that the methodologies that we’re using will really help the poor.

So join us this Saturday for the Deeper Waters Podcast as we discuss the question of economics in relation to a biblical worldview. The date will be 4/12/2014. The time will be 3-5 PM EST. The call-in number is 714-242-5180. The link can be found here.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Letters To A Young Progressive

What do I think of Mike S. Adams’s book? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I’ve often said it’s good to read people you disagree with. It’s also good to read from people you hate, and like many of you, I hate Mike S. Adams. Who doesn’t? It’s the national pastime after all. It’s also why I was thrilled to receive his book as a Christmas gift.

This had been a book I’d been wanting for a long time. I check Adams’s facebook page everyday to see what he puts up and I get a kick out of a lot of it. He’s a blunt and in your face type who’s not afraid to offend those who disagree with him. Good for him. The cause of Christ needs more like that.

The format of the book is Adams writing letters to a student in his class who he has noticed, particularly after a remark made in the class by the student. The student, Zach, is actually a conglomerate of several kinds of students that Adams has seen in his classes.

Adams also writes from experience, having once been on the side of an atheist liberal progressive who came to Christ and began to renounce his past positions. He is writing then hoping that Zach, and all students represented by Zach, will learn from his experience.

Throughout the book, you will find writing on many issues, though the most prevalent one is likely abortion, and who can blame Adams for this one? Adams is disgusted by the thought of women killing their own children in the womb and frankly, we should all be disgusted by that.

You’ll also find other topics dealt with such as handling of crime, gun control, capitalism, claims of homophobia, antagonism towards Fox News, and a modern work ethic. While Adams is often blunt with his opponents, one does not see any hostility in the letters to Zach. One instead sees a sort of kind father figure wanting to come and guide a young man on the path that he should go.

The letters are also very short which means one can easily go through them and have something to think about. Of course, this means one cannot expect to find the most total answer in every one, but one can find satisfactory starting points and the willing student is one who can search further on his own and Adams rightly recommends using books and journal articles more than internet sources and cable news programs.

There are some areas I would like to have seen more on.

First, I wouldn’t mind seeing more pushback. I did not note much resistance on the part of Zach. The reader only sees one side of the dialogue. It would have been interesting to have seen something like Greg and Ed Boyd’s “Letters From a Skeptic.”

The other aspect is that I understand letters don’t come with footnotes or endnotes, but I would have liked to have had us have some of that anyway for the sake of we on the outside. Adams makes some great points and while he does mention books, it would be nice to see more referencing of where the claims come from in case one is ever asked.

Still, this is a great book. It’s going to give the reader enough to think about and it can be read quickly. I started one day and finished the next. I got halfway through it on the first day just enjoying everything I was reading.

If this is the kind of field you’re interested in, I do recommend it.

Oh, by the way, I just want to remind everyone that I hate Mike S. Adams.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Money, Greed, and God

What do I think of this book by Jay Wesley Richards? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Economics I find to be an interesting field. I had my first entry into the field with Ron Nash’s lectures on Christian ethics. I then proceeded to read Henry Hazlitt’s book which I still consider essential reading for anyone interested in the topic. I read some of Nash’s other books on the topic as well and would listen to podcasts especially coming from the Austrian school of economics. Apologetics has been my forte, but I wanted to educate myself at least a little bit on economics.

After all, such thinking I understand improves your thinking overall. If you learn to think wise economically, you’re likely to be a wise thinker in many other fields. It requires learning to look at the big picture and think beyond the immediate effects and think instead of the long-term effects. You don’t look at just what the intentions of an action are, for those are quite normally good, but what the actual outcome will be.

When I was given a copy of this book on Kindle by a friend then, I was eager to jump into it. I found it to be an absolute delight. I generally read my Kindle at night and the book got me looking forward to the night time so I could read more of Richards’s book.

Richards starts off with a confession that once he bought into the economic worldview of socialism. He had all the reasons he needed for despising capitalism based on his education. He could also see it based on his Christianity. Doesn’t capitalism encourage greed? Does it not keep the poor poor and the rich rich?

Besides, aren’t Christians people of equality? How can one support a system that produces such inequality and keeps the gap there? Especially if this is a system that is exploiting the poor and in fact, those in third world countries.

Richards was convinced, but then problems started developing in his worldview and he looked closer at the system he had been believing and took a closer look at the capitalistic view that he had rejected and found that lo and behold, the capitalists were the ones that had the best method.

Richards does admit that the world is not perfect economically, but that’s for a good reason. People are not perfect. The problem is not capitalism. The problem is sin. Capitalism is the idea that for Richards best contains the sin problem and the greed problem and enables a society to move forward and help the poor.

It does not work to just give the poor money. Of course, every now and then, someone does need financial support, but we will not get the third world out of the third world by dumping money on them. We will not cure poverty in this country by dumping money on the poor. The way to help the poor is by enabling them to produce their own wealth.

This is simple enough to see. If you give me $1,000,000 and let me do with it what I want, I could go out and buy that much worth of books. I could be said to help the economy a little by putting more money in circulation, but to get somewhere where I am earning back for that, well I’ll still be poor. I could sell the books, but what will I do with the money?

Now let’s suppose instead that I use that money and start my own business and then through that business I start producing wealth. While it won’t be immediately, I will reach the point eventually if I work hard enough that I could surpass the $1,000,000 that you gave me. Not only that, I will likely be hiring people to work with my business so I will be helping them to earn wealth as well. Furthermore, I will be supplying a good or service for people in need so once again, I will be helping others out.

In fact, this is what we call a win-win game. If I sell you something, I get the money that I want from you. On the other hand, you get the product or service that you want from me. Each one of us gets what we want the most. I want the money more than the good or service. You want the good or service more than you want the money.

In all of this, Richards also deals with some myths that are out there and practices believed to help the poor. These include ideas such as why we should buy fair-trade products are why we should be wanting to grant people a living wage. Richards points out that these problems only damage the market and thus buyers and sellers in the long run.

He also deals with biblical objections. Wasn’t the community in Acts 2 communistic? Didn’t Jesus make many statements about freely giving that go against Capitalism? Doesn’t Capitalism in fact encourage greed and isn’t greed necessary for Capitalism? Hasn’t the church always condemned usury?

No. I won’t give you the answers that he gives. I encourage you to read them for yourself, and it should be a good read for you. This book is an easy read and does not use difficult language and terminology that is hard to understand. The examples are every day examples and Richards explains things the best way that he can.

It is with zero hesitation then that I recommend this book. This is the kind of book Christians should read before they say anything about economic theory. The reader of this book will be getting an excellent start in dealing with many of the myths in economics out there.

In Christ,
Nick Peters