Why NOT Celebrate Memorial Day?

Memorial Day is a special day in which many Americans remember men and women who gave their lives and shed their blood for our freedom and for the freedom of other nations threatened by tyrannical powers.  Yet there is an increasing number of Americans who are being educated and indoctrinated with the notion that the birth and existence of the United States of America as a sovereign nation cannot be morally justified.  Does the United States of America have a right to exist; and, are its fallen dead really heroes?

According to those who question the moral legitimacy of the United States, we ought to question the morality of the British-French-Spanish-Portuguese colonialism in North America and other continents beginning in the 16^th century.  Colonialism, they argue, resulted in the eviction of native tribes from their homes in North America, Africa, Australia, and other continents.  In the 18^th century, were the American patriots morally justified in defying British rule to establish the United States through the American Revolution?  How about the blood spilt by both the North and the South, by Republicans and Democrats alike, to determine whether to abolish or defend slavery, respectively?

 

All of this makes for provocative discussion.  So, why not go further back in history, before the beginning of colonialism?  Here, we may want to question the morality of the tribal cultures that waged war against each other and dispersed from the Middle East (the Tower of Babel? Genesis 11: 1-9) into Africa, East Asia, and North and South America to establish and defend their territories.  And, as we question the morality of human behavior in early human history, maybe we should ask about the origin of moral standards in the first place. If humans simply evolved from a line of the more rational and intelligent primates, then who is to say that there are any right or wrong standards for moral behavior?

What we may have to admit is that making moral judgments about human history is impossible unless we consider the records of “His story?”  The Story of God’s creation and dealings with humankind as recorded in His special revelation, the Bible?  In “His story,” we read that our ancestors’ first injustice wasn’t colonialism, or oppression of ethnic minorities, or war, or the industrial revolution and the use of fossil fuels.  Instead, it was the moral choice to disregard the lavish provisions and moral principles provided by a loving Creator God as explained in Genesis 3.  This is the account of the first sin (rebellion against God) in the Garden of Eden. 

But, God did not give up on fallen mankind in spite of our miserably poor stewardship of His abundant provisions for life on Earth.  Instead, God unfolded His master plan in which Jesus Christ, His Son, would come from Heaven to purchase us back from the slavery of sin so that we, by faith in His righteousness, might share in His Eternal Life. 

The cost of God’s purchase of our eternal souls from eternal damnation was very great.  The psalmist (Psalm 49: 7-9) explains that it is impossible for humans to save themselves from the curse of sin and death:

No man can by any means redeem his brother
            Or give to God a ransom for him—
For the redemption of his soul is costly,
            And he should cease trying forever—
 That he should live on eternally,
            That he should not undergo decay.

The costly price paid by Jesus Christ for our redemption from sin was His own life and His shed blood.  Before Jesus died for all mankind, He was subjected to the greatest injustice endured by any human being or tribe.  His most innocent and pure life was taken by force from another garden (not Eden, but Gethsemane) where He had been praying.  Jesus was then subjected to inhumane accusation and abuse in an illegitimate trial-by-night.  There, He was condemned to a cruel death and crucified on a Roman cross.  But, on the third day, Jesus arose as Victor over sin and death so that, by faith, we too might share in His Eternal Life.

So, as we consider whether or not to be grateful for those who have given their lives for our freedom, it is certainly right to realize that America was brought into existence through much suffering and struggle. And this struggle was indeed among fallen men and women who each believed their cause was the right one—even if their only cause in some cases was selfish material gain.  But, many Americans sacrificed because they believed that the Judeo-Christian moral code offers the only basis for establishing human rights and moral responsibility.  On this moral foundation from God, America is justified in establishing through our Constitution that all humans are endowed with inalienable rights from heaven, including the opportunity for a meaningful life, liberty, and the right to pursue happiness.


True human liberty is ultimately from God through the death and resurrection of Christ and can only be realized by faith in God and in “His story”--in His Word.  But, on this Memorial Day, many who doubt the legitimacy of America and its rightful existence do so because they also deny the rightful lordship of Christ in their lives.  Rather than accept the fact that it was our sin and injustice deep in our depraved hearts that contributed to the inhumane and ugly death of the most Innocent Man, Jesus, on the cross, we seek to justify ourselves by our own good works.  Rather than admit that without Christ’s forgiveness, we deserve condemnation, instead we are quick to criticize our Founding Fathers and all who have loved and died to protect America and other nations against evil actors on the world stage.  Rather than accept the finished work of Christ for our justification, we seek to justify ourselves by identifying with well meaning causes such as seeking justice for minorities or saving planet Earth from climate change.

Today is Memorial Day.  Let’s humbly remember our fallen, dead heroes who gave the ultimate price for our freedom.  Let’s also remember the death and resurrection of the most Innocent Man in all of history, the God-Man, Jesus Christ, who suffered the greatest injustice of all for us so that we might understand our place in human history—in “His story.”

Black History 2 Reparations or Reconciliation?

My junior high and high school history classes in the early 1960’s were enriched by our celebration of the American Civil War (or War Between the States).  My imagination was captured by books, TV programs like The Rebel, and a series of centennial stamps.  Because of the notable character qualities of Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson, the South drew my allegiance and I was saddened that they were defeated.

Then, I grew into manhood in the era of Alex Haley’s Roots which chronicled the life of the noble African native Kunta Kinte and his offspring through several generations of American history.   I began to realize that human glory and valor had distracted me from the untold suffering, humiliation, and death brought about by the institution of slavery, and the terrible cost of the Civil War that destroyed the lives and families of so many Americans.  I cannot imagine being a descendant of slaves wondering how my ancestors had suffered from being uprooted from  homeland and family in Africa, transported to a foreign land, and then be confined to labor on a plantation as the property of another human being.

My boyhood wish that the South had won soon gave way to the wish that this bloody chapter of American history had not occurred.  A chapter in which both the North and the South benefited from building their livelihood on the backs of an ethnic group of human beings deemed to be inferior—and a chapter which has continued to play out in the lives of African Americans who have not had the advantages of growing up a two-parent home, receiving a good education, and having a good network of peers.   So, I can at least partly understand the call for reparations (to “pay back,” or undo past offenses) to Black Americans for the losses they and their families have incurred over many generations. 

Ta-Nehisi Coates, correspondent for The Atlantic, has written a landmark article, “The Case for Reparations.”   Coates introduces his argument by quoting Deuteronomy 15: 12-15 in which God commands that slaves be offered freedom every seventh year, and that their masters not send [them] away empty-handed…[but give them] a generous farewell from the bounty of the land, all the while remembering that you were once slaves in the land of Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you!

While some evangelical leaders today appeal to the Old Testament biblical command, many who do not profess faith in God are still moved by their God-given, inborn sense of right and wrong that enables them to feel in some indirect way the pain of injustice against Blacks.  The following Twitter exchange expresses this desire for reparation:

So let me get this straight; our [Black American] ancestors were robbed of their culture, lineage, dignity, and multiple trillions of dollars in wages over hundreds of years.  [But you still think] It’s an “entitlement” mindset for the modern descendants of those ancestors to demand to be paid?

In response to the questioner, Bob Woodson, Founder and President of The Woodson Center, tweets:

How is it (reparations) a remedy for the problems facing Black America?  What does it solve?  Reparations is a distraction, false solution, and an illusion of a cure.

I Invite Your Opinion
Rather than writing at great length about reparations when I’m just beginning to grasp the complexity of the subject, let me offer some points for discussion and invite you to respond in “Comments” below.  My points are as follows:  How will the cost of reparations be computed?  Will reparations really help?  Are reparations the right moral response?

Family separation at a slave auction.

Computing Reparations
First, consider the difficulty in computing the cost of reparations to Black Americans.  How could we establish the monetary value?  At what point in history would we choose as the starting year for the computation?  Realizing that most Black Americans today are not subject to the same harshness of their ancestors under slavery, how would this variable be factored into the cost to be paid for reparations?  For example, in his Atlantic article, Ta-Nehisi Coates writes that enslaved Africans in 1619, though torn from their homeland and transported to the colony of Virginia, “…did not initially endure the naked racism that would engulf their progeny. Some of them were freed.  Some of them intermarried. Still others escaped with the white indentured servants who had suffered as they had.”  So, are reparations also owed to enslaved whites?  Should Native American tribes who enslaved Blacks also be required reparations?

The fact that reparations are difficult if not impossible to compute does not itself provide reason for opposing the notion.  As Coates argues, “…for the past 25 years, Congressman John Conyers Jr., who represents the Detroit area, has marked every session of Congress by introducing a bill calling for a congressional study of slavery and its lingering effects as well as recommendations for ‘appropriate remedies.’”  Conyers’ bill does not require computation of reparations, but would “submit the question to study, and then assess the possible solutions.”  What do you think—should the Conyers bill be brought to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives?

Will Reparations Really Help?
Some argue that reparations to Black Americans would simply be another slap in the face in which “advantaged White’s” are perceived as “paying charity” to “inferior people” who are not capable of “making it on their own.”  And, even if reparations were not perceived in this way, what will be their effect on the social and economic status of Black Americans?  Bob Woodson believes, “It is important to recognize that the destiny of Black people is not determined by what White people do or not do; it is in our own hands… It is our values that determine our condition in life not what some oppressor has done.”  
What do you think?  Instead of trying to pay reparations, would it be more beneficial to Black Americans in the long run to use contributions and tax dollars to develop educational, spiritual, and employment opportunities for all ages aimed at restoring hope, dignity, and purpose to individuals and families?

Are Reparations Morally Right?
Here, as with any moral issue coming under the category “social justice,” we must identify an objective standard for judging what is moral.  For example, in his landmark article cited above, Ta-Nehisi Coates references a biblical command given in Deuteronomy.  Whether he acknowledges it or not, the only truly objective foundation for moral judgments is the inspired Word of God (2 Timothy 3: 16; Proverbs 1: 1-7).  Unless we all agree that Blacks and all other ethnic groups are equal and valuable, that racism or any oppression of one ethnic group by another are moral and spiritual problems, and that reparations must be weighed against the need for moral and spiritual restoration of people living today, our efforts in my judgment will fall short.

The Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel presents a view of social justice and ethnicity (or “Race”) based on the Word of God:
God made all people from one man. Though people often can be distinguished by different ethnicities and nationalities, they are ontological equals before God in both creation and redemption. “Race” is not a biblical category, but rather a social construct that often has been used to classify groups of people in terms of inferiority and superiority. All that is good, honest, just, and beautiful in various ethnic backgrounds and experiences can be celebrated as the fruit of God’s grace. All sinful actions and their results (including evils perpetrated between and upon ethnic groups by others) are to be confessed as sinful, repented of, and repudiated.

DISCUSSION:  Inviting Your Comments:
Question #1 Individual Accountability:  Do you agree that everyone of us is individually responsible to act according to an objective moral code or law?  For example, how would you respond to the following statement and the Scriptures cited:
Any human deviation from obedience to God’s commands in Scripture, including our neglect to love our neighbor, regardless of ethnicity, is sin.  The Bible teaches that every person is individually accountable to God for his or her own thoughts and actions (2 Corinthians 5: 10; Romans 1: 18-2: 16).  The Bible also teaches that every person has an inborn sense of right and wrong which can lead us to repentance, confession, and forgiveness (Romans 1: 18-21; 1 John 1: 9).  This point is illustrated in Acts 3: 17-21, a portion of the Apostle Peter’s sermon preached not long after the crucifixion of Christ.  As you read it, notice how Peter’s challenge comes down to a clear invitation to individuals and their spiritual accountability to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Question #2 Responsibility for the Past:  Do you feel responsible to make reparations for the sins of our ancestors? What motivates individuals to look beyond their individual moral standing and become committed to reparations for the failings of others throughout history?  Do you agree or disagree with the following:
Grievous as human sins of the past may have been and as much as we wish we could be a part of erasing the evil of the past, those sins are not “our sins.”  We are not meant to bear the weight of conscience from sins committed by others in history.  Yet, many in both the Church and in the secular world are obsessed with paying back what is owed by the injustices inflicted throughout history.  But God’s plan through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is for redemption of humans and His whole creation is not about reparations, but all about restoration.  God spiritually regenerates and restores individuals and adds them as “living stones” into His church, the body of Christ on Earth (1 Peter 2: 4-6).   As the psalmist writes (Psalm 49: 7-8), only God can redeem us (buy us back) from the slavery of sin because only He can pay the infinite cost:

No man can by any means redeem his brother
Or give to God a ransom for him—
For the redemption of his soul is costly,
And he should cease trying forever—

Only God knows perfectly each sin of the past, and only God has the full remedy.  The Apostle Paul declares, For God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, no longer counting people's sins against them. And he gave us this wonderful message of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5: 19). 

Can we agree, human effort alone cannot eradicate injustice?

Question #3 Is there a “right way?”:  Most would agree that history is filled with gross violations of what many call “social justice.”  Although we may not agree on how to address social injustices, would you agree that we must have a moral standard or reference by which to judge what is or is not “just?”  Would you also agree that this moral standard ought to address the nature of humankind and our tendency to fall short of that standard?  If we answer the above in agreement, then can we also agree that there is a common root cause for both the actions of perpetrators of injustice and the responses of those who are objects of injustices?  Finally, if we can agree on the root cause of injustices, can we also agree on at least the general nature of a restorative plan for both perpetrators and those unjustly treated?  Consider the following excerpt from the Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel which states, based on God’s Word, that …whatever evil influences to which we have been subjected via our culture can be—and must be—overcome through conversion and the training of both mind and heart through biblical truth.

For anyone who is grieved at the injustices perpetrated against Black Americans, and for those who have been victims of perceived injustices, healing and restoration begins by repentance and confession of sin.  Our restoration and healing are made possible because Christ paid for both our sins and our griefs on His Cross (Isaiah 53).  We must rely on the authority and trust in the sufficiency of His Word (2 Timothy 3: 16).

Will reparations of past injustices solve current ones?

Once we are transformed by the grace and forgiveness of Christ, the words of Bob Woodson can become a guide to moving forward in the freedom of Christ: “…the destiny of Black people is not determined by what White people do or not do; it is in our own hands… It is our values that determine our condition in life not what some oppressor has done.”  

All of humanity, deceased and living, are offenders and have been offended.   Grave injustices still occur all around the world as statistics on current human slavery reveal.  Christ-followers need to be attentive to how they might participate or support efforts to end human slavery and other injustices through biblical means.  

Concluding Points to Consider:
We began with a citation from Deuteronomy 15: 12-15 by Ta-Nehisi Coates in his Atlantic article that slave masters not send [slaves] away empty-handed…[but give them] a generous farewell from the bounty of the land, all the while remembering that you were once slaves in the land of Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you!   Based on the spirit of this passage, what would be the nature of an approach to promote meaningful and lasting restoration of Black Americans and others suffering under real or perceived injustices?  Are you aware of organizations or programs that resemble such an approach?  Check out The Woodson Center which offers a hands up approach.

Related Articles: 
Black History: 1  Correct History Brings Light
Black History: 3  Bible and Biology Erase Racism

Social Gospel, Version 2.0 - Social Justice

Scott Allen, president of Disciple Nations Alliance, compares the current social justice movement within Protestant churches today with the Social Gospel movement in the early 20th century.  According to Allen, "advocates of the Social Gospel believed the church should be engaged in the culture, fighting against injustice and working to uplift the impoverished and downtrodden—all admirable goals. The problem was they unwittingly allowed secular assumptions to inform their theology of cultural engagement."

Fundamentalists reacted to the Social Gospel movement by emphasizing the preaching of the Gospel and individual soul salvation largely to the exclusion of involvement in social issues.  Consequently, the evangelical church was caught unprepared to deal with emerging social issues of the latter half of the 20th century with a biblical worldview--issues like racial injustice and sexual morality.

Allen applauds evangelical social justice champions for caring about social issues like poverty, racism, and the refugee crisis.  Because of this commitment, he believes the evangelical church can avoid the unfortunate sacred-secular dichotomy that resulted from its reaction to the Social Gospel movement.  

But Allen is deeply concerned about the evangelical church because it has uncritically "absorbed many of the assumptions and much of the language of the social justice movement—assumptions that veer sharply from a Biblical worldview.  As a result, they find themselves unwittingly syncretized to a false religion, one that works against the very thing they purport to champion—genuine justice."

I would encourage you to read Scott Allen's complete article, “History Repeats Itself.”  Then, please respond with your thoughts and insights in "Comments" below. 

Pope Francis, the Christian Life, and Social Justice

Pope Francis used his Vatican radio address from the Feb. 23 Mass to express his concern about the “fakeness” of so many Christians.  The Pope’s rebuke was harsh and was intended to cause Catholics and evangelicals to seriously reflect on the genuineness of their faith.  At least some listeners ought to be asking themselves, “What makes a ‘good Catholic’?” Or, “What does it mean to be a ‘real Christian’?”  As one of the Pope’s evangelical listeners, I am now reflecting on Pope Francis’ broadcast while also being aware of the “gulf” between the faith of my Catholic friends and that of evangelicals like myself.

Speaking from in the chapel of the Domus Sanctae Marthae, Pope Francis said,

The Lord teaches us the way of doing: and how many times we find people – ourselves included – so often in the Church, who say, ‘Oh, we are very Catholic.’ ‘But what do you do?’ How many parents say they are Catholics, but never have time to talk to their children, to play with their children, to listen to their children.  Perhaps they have their parents in a nursing home, but always are busy and cannot go and visit them and so leave them there, abandoned. ‘But I am very Catholic: I belong to that association,’ [they say]. This is the religion of saying: I say it is so, but I do according to the ways of the world.

Pope Francis supported his challenge to the Catholic Church by referring to Jesus’ scathing rebuke of the Jewish leaders recorded in Matthew 23: 3-5.  Jesus encouraged his listeners to 

do all that they tell you to do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.  They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger.  But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men…

In perhaps his sharpest rebuke, the Pope applies the teaching of Christ when he declares, “Being Christian means doing — doing God’s will.”  On judgment day, he said, “what will the Lord ask us?  Will he say to us: ‘What have you said about me?’ No!  He will ask about the things we have done.”

Although evangelical readers will likely agree that there is a theological “gulf” between evangelicalism and Catholicism, it is hard to ignore Pope Francis’ solid Scripture-based rebuke—one that recognizes the authority of Scripture and that attempts to define the “true Christian.”   The Apostle James gives us his definition of the genuine, saving, Christian faith (emphasis mine):

What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?

If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.   – James 2: 14-17

From my perspective, Pope Francis has chosen a humble, uncluttered lifestyle and has a compassionate commitment toward the poor and needy of the world.  Therefore, unlike the Jewish Pharisees, the Pope has a legitimate right to challenge Christians to put their profession of faith into works that benefit others—family, neighbor, and all of those within their ability to assist.

Readers who are familiar with Pope Francis’ past homilies, encyclicals (letters on Catholic doctrine), and actions that promote social justice for the poor and the disenfranchised will notice the connection between the “faith that shows through works” and the Pope’s emphasis on social justice.  It is here that I believe both Catholics and evangelicals should be asking about the role of “good works” and “justice” in God’s plan of salvation.  I say this while emphasizing that whether or not my Catholic friends, or evangelical friends for that matter, have been saved is for God to Judge.  But at the same time, if the Bible is God’s revelation of the way to salvation by faith in Christ, and if Christ has commissioned believers to be His evangelists (evangel = “give the Good News,” the Gospel) (Matthew 28: 19-20), then it is essential that Christians know how to use the Bible to “point the way” to saving faith in Christ.

Thankfully, there are several fundamental core beliefs that evangelicals and Catholics share, including respect for the authority of Scripture and the claim to basic faith and trust in Christ as Savior as expressed in the historic creeds and confessions of the church.  Out of these common beliefs, evangelicals and Catholics now stand side by side to defend biblical marriage and the sanctity of human life.  However, as Albert Mohler writes in “Standing Together, Standing Apart: Cultural Co-belligerence Without Theological Compromise,” (Touchstone Magazine, July-August, 2003), “Evangelicals, Catholics, and the Orthodox do not share a common understanding of how the work of Christ accomplishes our salvation—and this is the heart of the gospel.”

It is beyond my theological knowledge and beyond the scope of this article to go into detail concerning the differences between evangelical and Catholic theology.  I refer the reader to Mohler’s article for an excellent discussion of these differences.  Suffice it to say here that evangelicals have historically recognized Christ alone as the Head of the Church (Colossians 1: 18).  And, salvation is through faith alone by grace alone through Christ alone (Galatians 3: 6-11; Ephesians 2: 8-9).  Although the sacraments of baptism and communion are important in the life of both the evangelical and the Catholic Church, they are not recognized as saving acts by evangelicals no matter in what church they are offered.

Having recognized key theological differences between evangelicalism and Catholicism, we can now revisit Pope Francis’ challenge to Christians to “prove their faith by their good works.”  On the surface, it appears that both the Pope and the Apostle James would agree…faith, if it has no works, is dead (James 2: 17).  But, the Scriptural view of the role of faith in salvation taught in the Book of James and elsewhere reveals that salvation is not merited by any works of the sinner.  Salvation is granted through saving faith alone which merits God’s grace alone through Christ alone. 

Every unsaved sinner on the way to eternal judgment is regarded as dead spiritually (Ephesians 2:1) and considered darkness (Ephesians 5: 8) and an enemy of God (Romans 5: 10).  This fact is very clear, and can be very unsettling!  Corpses cannot partake in holy sacraments.  Nor can the spiritually dead perform any good works.  Until salvation of the sinner by faith and God’s grace alone, each person is like a spiritual zombie.  But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved) (Ephesians 2: 4-5). While we were still sinners, (and enemies), Christ died for us (Romans 5: 8, 10), and He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures (James 1: 18).

Demonstrating faith in God's love and mercy

Christians are saved by faith alone, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy…(Titus 3: 5).  What then is God’s purpose for good works?  Once again, just as evangelicals differ from Catholics in our understanding of saving faith, so also we differ in understanding of the purpose of good works.  Both James and the Apostle Paul would disagree with Pope Francis regarding both the nature of good works and God’s intention for good works. 

James (James 2: 18-24) and Paul (Romans 4: 1-5) refer to the great patriarch of the faith, Abraham, to teach the intertwining roles of saving faith and good works.  Abraham’s saving faith was pleasing to God because Abraham was obediently willing to complete the good work of sacrificing his beloved son, Isaac (Genesis 22).  And, the “work” that Abraham did as he bound Isaac on the sacrificial altar and prepared to plunge the knife was regarded as a “work of faith” because Abraham believed God would raise Isaac from the dead (Genesis 22: 5).  His faith was focused on God’s mercy, power, and grace alone.

From Abraham, we learn that works acceptable to God must be performed in faith and out of love for God, not primarily out of a perceived human need.  Paul states in 1 Corinthians 13 that any work we do is worthless if it is not performed out of unconditional love for His Son, Jesus Christ.  Oswald Chambers says, “If we are devoted to the cause of humanity, we shall soon be crushed and broken-hearted for we shall often meet with more ingratitude from men than we would from a dog…”  Instead, our works must be motivated from what Christ did for us.  Paul wrote, For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor… (2 Corinthians 8: 9). 

The Scripture reveals an unexpected benefit to us when our works are Christ-love-motivated.  Speaking of the generous giving of the church in Macedonia, Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 8, …their abundance of joy and their deep poverty overflowed in the wealth of their liberality (v. 2) and, …they first gave themselves to the Lord and to us by the will of God (v. 5).

Pope Francis is right to challenge Christians to do good works, but our works must have a Christ-love motivation and a Christ’s-kingdom trajectory.  Although Jesus sees the needs of the downcast, His aim is not an end in itself to meet physical needs, redistribute wealth, and bring social justice.  Instead, Jesus wants our good works to be the means God uses to bring others into His kingdom, the “city of God,” not an “earthly city.”  Hebrews 11: 10 records that Abraham was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God.  In 1 Corinthians 2: 11 we learn that the foundation of this “city” must be Christ, For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

The “kingdom builders” God desires are first of all saved by faith alone, motivated by Christ’s saving grace alone.  Then, as redeemed children of God, they do good works, directed by a focus upon God’s “kingdom ends”—i.e. the reconciliation of our neighbor with God which can be facilitated through the means of generous works in the Name of Christ. 

According to Oswald Chambers, “Jesus Christ out-socialists the socialists.” Bernie Sanders not withstanding, no socialist leader has ever been able to control human values, wants, and aspirations to produce a Utopian state. History records failed attempts that have ended in godless misery and the deaths of millions.  Christ demonstrated that the way up is down.  He came to become the Servant of all, stooping to serve even the poorest.  Toward the end of Matthew 23, the passage used by Pope Francis in his radio broadcast, Jesus is quoted as saying, But the greatest among you shall be your servant (v. 11).  Jesus indeed came to bring “social justice” but not for an earthly, economic kingdom.  He calls His followers not merely to eradicate “income inequality” or to join with those who stir up envy and guilt toward the rich.  Instead, Jesus, the Head of the Church, is building His kingdom with a very different approach:  If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me (Luke 9: 23). 

Pope Francis’ challenge to authentic Christianity invites us to take stock of our own faith.  What words will I hear from Jesus Christ when my life is judged?  It will either be, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME’ (Matthew 7: 23); or, 'Well done, good and faithful servant’ (Matthew 25: 21).  Out of compassion for all humans, rich and poor, Jesus calls His redeemed followers who hear Him because they too are poor in our spirit (Matthew 5: 3).  We are to emulate Him in becoming what Oswald Chambers describes as “broken bread and poured out wine in the hands of Jesus for others.”  Chambers adds, “When we realize that Jesus Christ has served us to the end of our meanness, our selfishness, and sin, nothing that we meet with from others can exhaust our determination to serve men for His sake.”

How About You? 
Thank you for reading.  I’d be honored to hear from you, particularly if you have a question or if you disagree with anything I’ve written.

Has God provided you with opportunities to share unconditional love in deeds and in words toward another person who may not be able to give you anything of benefit in return except a “Thank You?”

There’s No Such Thing as Private Property

As the title suggests, I am calling for the demise of “private property” as we generally define it.  But you can relax.  I haven’t joined those who are singing the praises of socialism.  Instead, I am offering a biblical definition of private property; one that is essential for a free market, capitalist economy to operate in a just and moral fashion.  But first, let’s consider some context.

Western culture is steadily evolving; or perhaps more accurately, devolving.  At the heart of this devolution is the crumbling moral foundation of institutions that have supported civilization for several millennia.  The institutions of marriage, family, and citizenship are all being redefined based on moral relativism in place of objective truth claims from the Bible.  For purposes of this article, allow me to suggest that the definition of private property has also changed.  And I contend that this change in how we view “private property” explains why many have become disgruntled and critical of capitalism.

Replacing Capitalism with Socialism

During the past decade, the call for social justice has focused attention upon the plight of the poor, the ethnic minorities, and other groups who are considered disenfranchised.  Meanwhile, there has been a growing sense that social justice cannot be complete without major changes in two aspects that form the context of the injustices. 

First, there is the perceived need to change how material wealth is distributed.  Liberal scholars and leaders call for a shift away from free market capitalism toward some form of socialism to assure that each person gets their “fair share.”  Second, there is a perceived need to change the way in which humans interact with the environment of planet Earth.  According to this view, the Earth’s limited natural resources are too overtaxed to support the growing human population.  What’s more, natural resources are being consumed disproportionately by the rich and powerful.  To remedy these perceived duel injustices, one against the disenfranchised and the other against the Earth, the social planners have a solution which is summarized by Ralph Chaplin, (1887–1961), American writer, artist and labor activist:

It seems the most logical thing in the world to believe that the natural resources of the Earth, upon which the race depends for food, clothing and shelter, should be owned collectively by the race instead of being the private property of a few social parasites.  

Chaplin speaks for many today who believe the answer to injustice toward people, animals, and the Earth is to move from individual to collective ownership of property—i.e. to “spread the wealth evenly.”  Never mind that to bring about this massive transition and then to maintain the collective in a just manner would be a difficult task, even with strong coercion and tyranny.  Furthermore, based on the history of socialism, how can we assume that those placed in charge of managing the collective would be any more just and fair toward people, animals, and the Earth than the so-called “social parasites” they now condemn?   Ben Shapiro points out that socialism has its own moral flaws:

Socialism violates at least three of the Ten Commandments: It turns government into God, it legalizes thievery and it elevates covetousness. Discussions of income inequality, after all, aren't about prosperity but about petty spite. Why should you care how much money I make, so long as you are happy?

On the other hand, capitalism offers the promise of freedom, but also a two-edged sword.  It depends upon individuals owning private property which in turn motivates a strong work ethic and entrepreneurial spirit which often paves the road to prosperity.  But there is also the temptation toward greed and unjust practices that earn some capitalists the name “social parasites.”   As Shirley Chisholm states, “When morality comes up against profit, it is seldom that profit loses.”

Although capitalism invites injustice, it is also true that greed and injustice thrive in both the private and public sectors.  It doesn’t matter whether the material resources of Earth are privately or collectively held; corruption has no favorites.  The source of trouble is not the material resources or the sector of the economy in which they are managed.  We must go deeper to find the cause.  The trouble comes from the depraved human heart.  Two writers, one a prophet of God and the other a Russian novelist and historian, expose the truth about the nature of the human heart:

The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; Who can understand it?  -- The Prophet Jeremiah (17: 9)

…the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. -- Alexander Solzhenitzyn

Reviving Our Concept of Private Property

Because moral depravity is rooted deep within the heart of man, if free market capitalism is to be moral, I believe we must also dig deep to identify and extract the cause of injustice; and then, revive the heart with a biblical concept of private property.  In Scripture, we discover the basis for the title of this article.  According to Scripture, “There is no such thing as private property.”  Although it is possible in America and some other countries to hold legal title to property, Scripture teaches that we do not own anything.  “The Earth is the Lord’s (Psalm 24: 1) and He has given humans dominion over creation (Genesis 1: 26-28) to manage it on His behalf as His servants or stewards (Genesis 2: 15).  We are stewards but not owners of “private property.”  Therefore, biblically speaking, private property is any portion of the Earth over which an individual has responsibility to God to manage for His glory.  In this definition, “private” refers to our individual responsibility.  And although we may hold temporary legal title, the property belongs to God.

The “stewardship view” of private property is a key by which humans can open the door and allow intimate relationship with God.  We can see this truth throughout Scripture from Adam and Eve all the way to the Apostle John in Revelation.  For example, Abel’s offering was a pleasing aroma to God, but Cain’s wasn’t (Genesis 4: 3-5).  This distinction rested at least partly on how these two men submitted themselves and their “property” in their worship of God.  Later, Noah worshipped and obeyed God; and God gave him dominion over the living creatures resulting in their salvation from the flood by means of the ark he had built (Genesis 6-9).  Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation, was a nomad.  Although he had great wealth, Abraham’s grasp upon it, even upon his beloved son Isaac, was very loose compared to his tenacious pursuit of God (Genesis 12-25). 

Remembering God Is Our Provider

Four centuries after Abraham, King David typified the same stewardship view that he learned from the patriarchs, but adds an additional principle.  King David not only understood that his kingship or dominion was a stewardship granted by God, but he also understood that even his ability to acquire material wealth was from God.  Listen as David prays before the people at the dedication of the material resources for the temple that Solomon would later build (1 Chronicles 29: 11b-14):

Yours is the dominion, O LORD,
and You exalt Yourself as head over all.
Both riches and honor come from You,
and You rule over all, and in Your hand is power and might;
and it lies in Your hand to make great and to strengthen everyone.
Now therefore, our God, we thank You, and praise Your glorious name.
But who am I and who are my people that we should be able
to offer as generously as this?
For all things come from You,
and from Your hand we have given You.

King David wanted his worship of God to be a picture of how all God’s people ought to exercise stewardship of the material resources of Earth day in and day out—managing “property” as that which comes from God’s hand and which, by God’s grace, He enables us to give back to Him or to our neighbor.  The Apostle Paul reiterates this principle in 1 Corinthians 4: 7:

For who regards you as superior?
What do you have that you did not receive?
And if you did receive it,
why do you boast as if you had not received it?

The Scriptural view of private property means we view the “property” as God’s, the “private” as our individual responsibility to work and manage it as unto Him, seasoned with an attitude of humility that recognizes all we have is ultimately a gift from God.   Elsewhere, in 1 Corinthians 7: 29-31, Paul teaches us that having a continual awareness of the eminence of Christ’s return will help us to “possess property as though we didn’t possess it” (emphasis mine):

But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none;  and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess;  and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it; for the form of this world is passing away.

Notice Paul cites the relationship of husbands to wives, and the relationship of humans toward material property (ultimately the Earth) in a similar sense.  Husbands are responsible to love and nurture their wives as unto the Lord; likewise, those who buy are responsible as stewards to act as “husbandmen” to care for their property as unto the Lord.  Here, Paul teaches that God’s people are to undertake both responsibilities with a “stewardship view”—a view that aims to glorify God as Christ’s return draws near, rather than an “ownership view” that aims to multiply wealth without regard to moral and ethical responsibilities toward God and our neighbor.

Realizing Even Our Bodies Are Not Private Property

But there is a third principle that deepens the biblical meaning of private property even further.  God’s redeemed not only do not own their spouses, cars, houses, and land; they don’t even own their bodies.  The redeemed are bought by Christ’s blood from the slave block of sin.  Paul wrote,” …you are not your own?  For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body” (1 Corinthians 6: 19b-20).  Paul summarizes the biblical responsibility of the Christian toward God in a comprehensive manner in Colossians 3: 17:

Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father.

But how do we know whether we are actually “possessing as though we do not possess?”  Thankfully, God has instituted two routine tests by which we can check our attitudes and priorities when it comes to our “property”—our regular responsibility to give back to God our tithes and extra offerings; and, our weekly responsibility to set aside a day in which we celebrate God through our worship and rest from routine labor.  These observances provide a routine check on the tightness of how unselfish we are with material resources and time.

Renewed Hope for the “Free Market?”

I have provided a brief sketch of a biblical definition of private property. Now, if free market capitalists were to adopt this definition of private property, do you think they would still be considered “social parasites” by many who are disgruntled with capitalism?   The second question is, does this “stewardship view” of private property address the accusation by many that capitalism and its biblical roots are to blame for our insensitivity to disenfranchised people and to the deterioration of planet Earth?  I believe the answer to both questions is “yes” based on the account of the early church in Acts 4: 31-35 (emphasis mine):

And when they had prayed, the place where they had gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak the word of God with boldness.   And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them.   And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all.  For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales and lay them at the apostles' feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need.

Although some who advocate social justice and socialism interpret the sharing of property in common by the early church as an advocacy of socialism by Christianity, the passage does not support that notion.  Instead, notice first that these folks were born-again believers on the basis of having trusted in Christ’s redemption from their sins through His death and resurrection.  As “new creatures” in Christ, they submitted their wills in obedience to His Word under the power of the Holy Spirit.  The resultant unity of Spirit enabled them to view their material possessions as “common property to them.”  From their perspective of “possessing as though not possessing,” they were able to see with eyes of compassion the physical needs among their number and therefore to voluntarily share generously.   Many acted upon their concerns by selling their “private property” and making the moneys available to the leadership to distribute funds to those in need.

At the time of the events recorded in Acts, persecution and ostracism often severely impoverished Christian converts and their families.  Therefore, the outpouring of generous sharing among these people of faith was nothing less than an essential, voluntary expression of the compassion of the Risen Christ toward those in need.  The expression of charity (agape love) by the 1^st century church has been reproduced in countless congregations throughout the world, often going unnoticed except by the recipients.  Note also that this “voluntary sharing” distinguishes this biblical economy from a socialist model.

Yet, the Christian church is not immune from selfishness and greed as we have noted previously in “Greed, Charity, and Capitalism.”  Therefore, one of the challenges of today’s evangelical church is to provide the setting in which God’s Word is taught under the direction of His Holy Spirit to believers who are Spirit-filled and receptive to Christ’s example as One Who had “nowhere to lay His head” (Luke 9: 58).   Christ lived as an example of “possessing as though He did not possess” and cautioned against attitudes that would oppose this “stewardship view” of private property.  For example, he warned against the love of money (e.g. Matthew 19: 16-25) and contrasted those who give out of their surplus with the poor widow who freely gave all she had (Mark 12: 38-44). 

Revival by Church and Civic Institutions

The evangelical church must function as a counterculture in which individuals and families learn to implement biblical stewardship of private property.   Local schools and the local community have historically contributed to this lifestyle as I have explained in “Environmental Stewards Are ‘Grown’ within a Moral Community.” Historian Thomas Woods comments on the importance of individual responsibility and other virtues in a free market economy:

One of the market's virtues, and the reason it enables so much peaceful interaction and cooperation among such a great variety of peoples, is that it demands of its participants only that they observe a relatively few basic principles, among them honesty, the sanctity of contracts, and respect for private property. 

Arthur Brooks noted, “what America needs is not less capitalism but better capitalists.”  In my view, better capitalists are those that adopt a “stewardship view” of material possessions, one that is taught in the context of family, church, and community.  But as explained in “Dominion 101 - Spheres of Responsibility” government has the important role of maintaining the rule of law.  Rep. Paul Ryan makes this point well:

We believe that the government has an important role to create the conditions that promote entrepreneurship, upward mobility, and individual responsibility.

Our Founding Fathers understood the depravity of mankind and the danger of power in the hands of one or a few.  Therefore, the U.S. Constitution calls for a system of checks and balances, and includes a justice system to maintain accountability and rule of law.  Today, greed and corruption are common at every level of both public and private sectors.   Many are asking, “Is capitalism moral”?   Arthur Brooks answers, “Of course not. Only people can be moral.  We're not asking the right questions."  Instead, we should ask, “What economic system will most likely encourage moral behavior in us?”  For me, that system is capitalism in which individuals have a “stewardship view” that sees private property as a temporary trust to which God holds title.   As temporary title-holder, the “owner” is responsible to use it for the glory of God and for the benefit of his or her neighbor.  A free market economy in the hands of such responsible stewards will address both of the concerns of social justice advocates—provision of assistance to the poor and disenfranchised that respects the dignity of human beings, and good stewardship of the environment of planet Earth.

I welcome your comments.  The following questions may stimulate your thinking further:

1.   How would the “Rich Young Ruler” in Matthew 19: 16-25 define private property? 
2.   Does Jesus’ condemnation of the “Barn Builder” in Luke 12: 16-21 suggest that it is immoral to be rich?
3.   What does the following quote from Lewis Black tell you about Christianity versus socialism? 
Socialism appeals to me.  It's like imposed Christianity. You've got to share.
4.   In what sense do advocates of socialism express a different view of humankind than advocates of capitalism?
5.   Is a free market economy really a better system to address the needs of the poor and disenfranchised than socialism?   Which one better addresses environmental problems?
6.   How would you grade your attitude toward your “property” based on your material giving and your observance of “Sabbath rest?”

Lessons in Helping the Poor

Have you read the short story known as “A $50 Lesson” which has circulated on the internet for several years?  In this story, a young girl explains to her neighbor in the hearing her liberal progressive parents how she, if elected President of the United States, would give top priority to helping the homeless.   As we learn from reading the “original version of ‘A $50 Dollar Lesson’,” the girl’s parents are encouraged by her commitment to social justice on behalf of the homeless.  However, when the girl’s neighbor suggested a fiscally conservative solution to helping the homeless—one that could end his dependence on government aid and reinforce his dignity as a human being, her liberal parents essentially “go away mad.”  While the ending to the story may bring glee to fiscal conservatives and exasperation to liberal progressives, I believe the account falls far short of a higher purpose.

Jubilee Leadership Academy:  Restoration of the Whole Person

What if I were to tweak the “Lesson” to illustrate how a conservative approach would deliver true social justice by addressing the "whole person?"  And what's more, my altered scenario is not only possible but demonstrable.  Today, there are numerous well run assistance programs helping people financially as well as emotionally and spiritually. 

For example, Jubilee Leadership Academy*, Prescott, WA uses a farm operation, as a setting in which to transform the lives of young men.  After all, God is calling His people to help restore the poor not only materially but also in terms of personal responsibility and dignity.   And, all the while, to achieve these ends while also building bridges of understanding among people of all political persuasions, and ultimately between Creator and human kind.  With that thought in mind, please read my modified version of “A $50 Dollar Lesson.”  Hopefully, you'll find that this version replaces the barbs between liberals and conservatives with a bridge of understanding that could bring diverse political philosophies together for a common purpose:

A $50 DOLLAR LESSON*

Recently, while I was working in the flower beds
in the front yard, my neighbors stopped to chat as they
returned home from walking their dog.
During our friendly conversation, I asked their little girl
what she wanted to be when she grew up.  She said she
wanted to be President someday.

Her parents who were both liberal progressives
were standing there so I asked her, "If you were President
what would be the first thing you would do?”

She replied, "I'd give food and houses to all the homeless
people." Her parents beamed with pride!

"Wow...what a worthy goal!" I said.  "But you don't have to
wait until you're President to do that!" "What do you mean?"
she replied.  So I told her, "You can come over to my house
and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and trim my hedge, and I'll pay
you $50.  Then you can go over to the grocery store where
the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50
to use toward food and a new house."

She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me
straight in the eye and asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come
over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?

I said, "Great!  Now you’re thinking like a conservative.” 
Sometime, if you and your family would like to come with me
I’ll show you around my farm** outside of town.
I pay a staff to run the farm which provides jobs for homeless men.
In turn, the men earn an income from the sale
of fruits, vegetables, and poultry.
Many earn their way back into responsible living,
and some even stay on to work on my staff.

Her parents were both scratching their chins.

Modifying the “Original $50 Dollar Lesson” by removing the political barbs and adding an example of practical solutions to lead the homeless from dependence to independence seems pertinent to the current debate over how to address our failing welfare system and its fruit of spiraling human dependence.  As Mindy Belz writes in her article, “Greek Tragedy” [WORLD, Feb. 21, 2015], with reference to the failing economy in Greece,

… now is the time for Americans to flee our own country’s growing dependence on government entitlements.  Such “anti-poverty” benefits are a staggering growth industry that’s changing the character of our nation and its standing in the world.

Perhaps the “$50 Dollar Lesson” if properly taught, could save us billions and, more importantly, save many souls for eternity.  Who might be headed your way looking for an opportunity to rise to a challenge?

_______________
* NOTE:  I modified this original "50. Dollar Lesson" scenario to the form as presented here.
** If you are not a WORLD Magazine subscriber but wish to read about Jubilee Leadership Academy*, Prescott, WA, just contact me at silviusj@gmail.com and I’ll see that you get the complete article.