A non-systematic, hopefully non-ideological meditation on economic principles of Scripture. #2: Genesis 2:15

"The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it."  (Genesis 2:15, ESV)

Work.  Even from the beginning, before the fall, there was work.  Work is important.  As I hit my mid-life, I am far away from retirement and can't imagine not having something to do everyday, but at the same time I am reminded everytime I turn on the TV that I need to be saving for retirement.  Isn't the great goal of life, a sign of success and responsibility, to get to a place where no longer do we have to work?

It's only been within the last century or so that people looked forward to something called retirement.  People would work, then one day they would die when their bodies were used up.  There were no early bird specials, no senior cruises, no 30 years of decline and doctor visits and nursing homes and dementia.  Moses was being optimistic when he stated that 'the years of our life are seventy, or even by reason of strength eighty' (Psalm 90:10).  Very few have been fortunate enough to live this long.  Work was all that was really known, and it was work that often led to an 'early' death.

Work is rightly praised as being something important.  Yet it can be idolatrous; I knew an older man one time who was physically and mentally incapable of doing much of anything, but he would continually speak about how God put Adam in the garden to work, and by God, he was going to work until he fell over.  I think that's how he died, in fact.  For him work meant more than God, more than family, more than happiness.  This is idolatry.

Work is vital in this life, and not to be considered an evil, though it does come with 'toil and trouble' (Psalm 90:10), and much of work because of sin is 'cursed' (Genesis 3:17).  Yet work is a good thing, even from the beginning.  And so it is frustrating to look out and see people who want the money and the benefits of work without having to actually do the work.  But isn't this the American way today?  How can I do as little as possible but still get paid?  It starts from the time kids are in school; kids hope to just get by and seem offended at times that they have homework or are expected to do their best.  Certainly this carries over into their worklife; sometimes employees barely show any effort and are offended if they are asked to do anything...this happens in service jobs, blue collar jobs, or even preaching jobs.  It is important to teach that having a strong work ethic is a good thing.

But if work is well done, shouldn't it also be well-compensated?  For those willing to work hard, shouldn't there be at least a realistic hope that there is security?  I have a friend who has a good blue-collar job and recently was told that he would be furloughed for a certain amount of time.  This man has a family, he works hard, and is always willing to do his best to the glory of God.  But now, because his company CAN, they basically cause him economic problems that it will take him years to get over.  They didn't have to do this...they are a multi-billion organization and easily could have figured out a more just way of taking care of him.

And shouldn't there also be a realistic hope that one will not be impoverished even as they work?  If you work a full week, you shouldn't have to worry about where your next meal or rent payment will come from if you are responsible with your money, should you?  (Of course, this assumes that people know how to manage money to, which should not be assumed; plus, many people today have far too many wants; but that's for another post).  I get frustrated when I hear people say that the poor only have themselves to blame, that they should just get better trained if they want a better job.  But of course, in this day and age, more schooling (which is a financial burden in itself) is not always a guarantee for better wages.  And indeed, we can't all be doctors or lawyers...somebody still has to pick up the garbage, empty the bad pans, and flip the burgers.  Don't these people deserve our respect?  In a nation of plenty, shouldn't those willing to work reap at least some of the rewards of that work?

Please hear me:  I have no sympathy for those unwilling to work...as Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 3:10, 'If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.'  There are plenty of lazy, feckless people out there.  They get what they deserve.  But the importance of work needs to be taught, yet also respected and compensated.  One without the other makes people either lazy or makes society unjust.  We need both a just world but also people who work.

A non-systematic, hopefully non-ideological meditation on economic principles of Scripture. #1: Genesis 1:26-31

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so. And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
(Genesis 1:26-31 ESV)

Creation is a gift from God.  It's not something we have earned, or are entitled to, but comes by the grace of God.  Even as we think about how we have 'dominion' over the earth, this is not about making us the absolute rulers of our world.  Far too many people have used the idea of dominion to exploit the planet and its resources and inhabitants.  Indeed, the granting of dominion in this passage is not only to humans, but also to animals as well (1:30).  

And so what does it mean to consider the gift of God to us?  Gifts are best accepted gratefully, but also with the mindset that the giver means this gift to be a blessing.  And creation is a blessing.  Because God made these things to be 'very good' (1:31), this means that it is functional.  If we live as good stewards of what God has blessed us with, it means that we will never fail to have what we need in order to live.  Is this an absolute?  Of course not...disaster, drought, and the like have a way of destroying life, even to those who have properly tried to live.  But in general, creation gives us what we need because it is a gift of God.  

This should be the fundamental basis for Christian economics.  All things are a gift of God...and so how do we use them to God's glory?  Do we look to what we have been blessed with (whether born into plenty or poverty) and see such things as blessings?  Satan seeks to make blessings into tools for sin, and in economics this is no different.  The rich use their leverage to gain even more at the expense of the poor.  The ambitious look to take more from creation than is acceptable and so cause generations of harm to the planet. 

To misuse a gift, though, seems to be something that is an abomination in the sight of God.  When we refuse to be content with the 'very good' of creation, and come at it with an economic mindset that we will take all we can get, is this not the same as a child who receives a toy and thinks he deserves the entire toy store?  Creation as a gift means that it is enough.  We don't need to keep grabbing and posturing to think that we need more.  Dominion should never be taken to be license to exploit.  

Post Super Tuesday

It finally hit me this morning as I was getting around.  I had been under the impression that Trump would win most of the primaries yesterday and that Cruz, Cruz Lite, and the other no-hopes would have their usual poor showings, and the GOP would finally wake up.  Finally, I thought, the adults in the GOP would get their act together and put everybody but Trump into a Royal Rumble and the winner of that would then get to face Trump one-on-one at Republicamania.  Finally, the Trump freight train would be overwhelmed as his 35% peak was finally overrun by a united party, Cruz or Cruz Lite would grab the belt, and the GOP would go on to face Hillary in November.

But I realized that I'm wrong.  It's not Trump that scares the crap out of most of the GOP establishment...it's Cruz.  Here's a guy from Texas (electoral votes!), a minority (broadening the base!), somebody with true conservative bonafides (really, really extreme bonafides, but whatever).  He's just mean enough to fight against Hillary, and maybe win back the Presidency and 'take back America from the libruls'.  On paper, this guy should have had the nomination wrapped up yesterday and be planning for November.

But here's the thing...everybody in the GOP establishment HATES Ted Cruz.  It did not hit me until Big Chris Christie threw his support behind Trump.  Until Lindsay Graham finally endorsed Cruz (after first supporting JEB), Cruz did not have a single endorsement from the US Senate.  Sure, he has a lot of people supporting him, but nobody who works with the guy likes him. On a personal level (where so much of politics really works) nobody can stand him.  By all accounts, he's just not a very nice person.  He's not charming by any standard, he has no charisma, and people who work with him simply don't like him.  How would somebody disliked by his own people make deals as a President needs to make?

But is there more?  Is his standard of extremist conservatism even too radical for even the GOP?  Surely not...the GOP has gone off a cliff in recent years (and I have not gone with them); but it makes one think: instead of being afraid of Donald Trump, is the GOP more afraid of Ted Cruz?

This election season continues to be fascinating, even if its outcome is potentially terrifying.  Maybe Rubio will finally win something and step up to lead as the mainstream GOP hopes that he will.  But until he does, this Trump/Cruz mess is something to behold.

PS: Here's an interesting link about who endorses who.  Fascinating.  Kurt Angle supports Marco Rubio, but Ted DiBiase, Jerry Lawler, and Hulk Hogan support Trump.