(246)S11E4/4: The False Prophet of Corporatism - Christian "Embezzlement"
Welcome back to the Fourth Way podcast. For today's episode, it's time for us to once again peer into the teachings of the false prophet, the Wayward Church. Before jumping in, I do want to put one caveat in here. While church history has many branches spread throughout the world in time and history, I'm going to be tracing back the history here of the church as it came through Europe. Now I recognize that there were many ancient and faithful traditions in various parts of Africa and Asia, and I, by no means, intend to imply that the church is the European church.
Derek:However, as it is my tradition and what I'm familiar with, I am offering European church up here as one example for critique of the false prophet in this episode. Now in my opinion, there is not much more dangerous than the wayward church, except for perhaps the state. That's probably why the book of Revelation seems to link the false prophet and the beast together, the self proclaimed mouthpiece of God, the institutional church, and the self proclaimed hand of God, which holds the sword, the state. They so often go hand in hand scratching each other's backs. The two often merge into a hideous, amalgamated monstrosity of oppression and destruction.
Derek:Now this season, we've already seen the false prophets impact on a smaller scale in the way that religion and authority enable leaders to abuse women and get away with it. We also took a look at how the church as a false prophet fostered and perpetuated racial injustice. In this episode, we are going to expand our view of the beast's puppet as we take a look at the false prophet in light of corporate propaganda. Now it's interesting that in the book of Revelation, you get not only the false prophet and the beast together or what many believe are false religion and the state, but you also get a glimpse of what this power hungry mutation leads to. Beasts have voracious appetites and need to be fed.
Derek:Revelation 18 talks about the excessive luxury of fallen Babylon with strong implications that the merchants were prospering off the oppressive power that Babylon wielded. The language of excess, oppression, and subsequent judgment is reminiscent of Ezekiel sixteen forty nine through 50, and the prophet stated reason for why God judged Sodom and Gomorrah. Ezekiel says, now this was the sin of your sister, Sodom. She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned. They did not help the poor and needy.
Derek:They were haughty and detestable things before me. Therefore, I did away with them as you have seen. So manipulation, violence, and excess often go hand in hand. Meaning that the wayward church, the state, and businesses often find that they have a relationship of great complementarity. Now I know it's in vogue right now to be down on the church, and I get it.
Derek:Really, I do. But I I want you to know before going into this that I don't at all dislike the church. This isn't a call here in this episode to jettison Christianity or the church, but rather a call to purify it. And one of the ways I think that we can be confident in doing this is to recognize that we're not seeing anything today from the church that hasn't been seen before, many times before. And we're not seeing something that we shouldn't expect to see.
Derek:I mean, Jesus told us to have our eyes open for this kind of thing. And the book of Revelation portrays perfectly the symbiotic relationship of the wayward church, the state, and the business. Or I guess I could say empires that have cycled through history in a repeating pattern. If you want a more artistic take on how things work here, check out the movie, The Book of Eli, which I've referenced numerous times throughout my podcast. But it's a great picture of how something good can be sought by multiple parties who want to wield the good in an oppressive self serving way.
Derek:The point is that the church today isn't uniquely evil, and neither are states and merchants uniquely evil today. That's because humans aren't uniquely evil today, but have the same tendencies that they've always had when wielding information, violence, and wealth, all different forms of power. If you wanna go to a doctor to have a disease, and you have a disease that they've never heard of before and you get the disease named after you, chances are you're probably not gonna fare too well. And that's because the doctors don't know what to expect or how to treat it. But if you go to the doctor and you have something that they've heard of before, even if it might be terminal, they'll at least know how to extend your life and and give you the greatest comfort that you can have, if not, save your life.
Derek:The disease that the wayward church has today is an ancient disease, and it's one to which the Bible gives remedy and prediction. There's hope. In this episode, then I want to briefly explore the ways that the false prophet has presented itself over the last two millennia, particularly in regard to wealth and business and the dangers inherent in financial power. My hope is that by pulling out explicit examples of the false prophet from history, we'll then be able to more clearly identify it and fight it today in an environment where it's much harder for us to see clearly since we're so steeped in the culture. So let's go back 2,000 in time and start with the teaching of Jesus and the New Testament preparation for the church.
Derek:It's not too easy thing to look at the Bible for an affirmation of any particular view that one wants. And this is true both in terms of what the Bible addresses and the degree to which it addresses it. For instance, while we may find some reflections on business practices in the Bible, those businesses obviously didn't have the same structure and reach that many businesses do today. While there may be certain general principles that we can draw about financial practices for individuals or families, we also have to be careful not to conclude more than we're given. Second, we have to be careful not to pull only pieces of the Bible which affirm our assumptions without looking at the whole range of scripture.
Derek:Now to the second point, it's unfortunate that today's episode is just a small sliver of the season, and the New Testament aspect of this episode is just a sliver of that particular episode. So I'm not gonna be exhaustive here as to what the Bible teaches. I'm going to do my best to relay what I feel is a bare overview and provide you some resources in the show notes and make my points as best I can in this short space. So definitely don't just take my word on it in this episode. You're gonna need to dig deeper and do the legwork yourself to really round out your perspective on this.
Derek:Anyway, from my engagement with the Bible, there are a number of important aspects that I want to pull out in regard to our episode today, in regard to the false prophet of propaganda as it relates to corporate propaganda. Now, obviously, the Bible doesn't talk about corporations in particular, at least not as we know of them. But it does talk about economic issues of both the small and large scale. On the small scale, there are family business practices. Proverbs, in particular, is filled with shrewd advice for those seeking to be wise and hardworking at their business endeavors.
Derek:And the so called Proverbs 31 woman gives us insight into family business as well. But the Bible also gives us insight to large scale businesses. It's just that those businesses in ancient times are essentially the state. The state enslaves laborers. The state wages war to gain territory and resources.
Derek:The state props up the aristocracy and enables their unjust labor practices and creates law codes with huge disparities for the haves and the have nots. Unless you think that that's not really a fair comparison to, you know, modern democracy, looking at ancient state economies and comparing them to modern day free market corporations, then I don't know that you understand how governments actually function today, particularly with lobbyists. In The United States, corporations and lobbyists control legislation, which favors the aristocracy and disadvantages laborers. There's a two tiered system of justice, one which bails out too big to fail aristocrats while prosecuting the for comparatively trivial crimes. Modern corporations take advantage of weak territories, harvest their resources, mistreat the labor force.
Derek:And when they receive pushback, they get their government's army to go in and secure their resources. Smedley Butler's War as a Rocket is a great look at this, but we can also look at the history of much of South America and the Banana Republics at various coups around the world, such as the one in Iran. And we can look at Africa and books like How Europe Underdeveloped Africa or the book Base Nation. And we can look at modern wars waged to secure economic interests, particularly oil. Now it may seem to you that the marriage of corporation and state has ended, but I assure you it is still there.
Derek:In our time, we might not have one monarch from one nation seeking to carve out physical territory for himself, but an oligarchy that seeks to vampirically drain the resources and labor of some geographical location doesn't really seem much different. So even though the Bible may not have corporations as we know them in view when it talks about empires in the state, I would argue that modern corporations functionally fill a very similar role as the empires the Bible critiques for unjust practices. In light of all this, let me pull out a few overarching concepts that we get about business, corporations, or empire and oligarchy as it pertains to wealth. Let's start with what will probably be the most contentious point here. Wealth tends to, and perhaps almost always, corrupts.
Derek:As I sit here and think really hard about those who have held wealth and maintained righteousness in the Bible, it's extremely hard to come up with examples. Abraham and Job are the only two that I can think off off the top of my head. And those two are portrayed as having significant wealth yet being largely faithful and doing positive justice to those around them. Rather than hold on to his wealth tightly, Abraham moves everything to follow God into the unknown, and he's able to put his economic security at risk by giving Lot the best land. Sure.
Derek:He lies or deceives about Sarai being his wife twice, and he abuses Hagar, but he's got a relatively short list of injustices put on display in the bible. And Job, he ends up following God even after he loses absolutely everything. We also get a few examples of implied positive wealth in the New Testament, but that wealth is almost always portrayed in the light of giving. For example, we know that Junia and Phoebe were likely wealthy because they're depicted as supporting Paul, but their wealth is noted in the context of that giving. And everything else that I can think of equates wealth and excess with corruption.
Derek:Sodom and Gomorrah are judged in part because of the corruption and their excess, as we see in the book of Ezekiel. The Israelites enter the promised land and God warns them against the corrupting power of excess, yet they become complacent and end up betraying God. David and Solomon, as well as the vast majority of subsequent kings, seem to incur at least some of their moral failings, as a result of wealth, power, and excess. The rich are constantly portrayed as oppressors and unjust throughout the Old Testament, though the wisdom literature has some advice as to how to acquire and hold riches wisely. And when we get to the New Testament, things don't change that much.
Derek:God says that you can't serve both God and money. And the book of Timothy tells us that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. You know, a lot of people try to skirt around each of these verses by zooming in without panning out. And in Matthew six, where Jesus tells us that we can't serve both God and money, many nod their heads in agreement and say, of course, that's true. But I can serve God and have a lot of money because I'll make money my servant.
Derek:Yet if we read the surrounding verses in that text, we see that we're not supposed to store up treasures on Earth, and we're not supposed to worry about tomorrow. Having excess and loving money seem to go hand in hand. In fact, when we look at Luke three and John about this proclamation of the kingdom of God that had come, he called for repentance and the bearing of good fruit. And when the people asked him, well, what does this fruit of the kingdom look like? He said that if anyone has two coats, they ought to go and share with him who has none.
Derek:Or if they had extra food, they should share in like fashion. The fruit of repentance in the coming of the kingdom of God looks like positive justice and generosity. A seeking first of the kingdom of God looks like divesting one's excess to those in need and trusting God for our provision. And what we do with neutering Matthew six, we also do with first Timothy six. The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.
Derek:So we can have lots of money as long as we don't love it. But that's not what first Timothy really says. Paul precedes the love of money verse by telling us to be content and warning that riches will cause us to fall into temptations and snares leading to destruction. And following the verse about the love of money, Paul goes on to say that we ought to flee these things associated with riches and that anyone who is rich must always be ready to distribute. So while this idea that the rich must always be ready to distribute indicates that there is a category for rich Christians, it seems that the idea of open distribution and generosity means that the wealth should be trickling out.
Derek:And we saw this distribution going on in, the early church as they all shared with one another in a common purse. Beyond these two famous verses, we see that riches are time and time again placed in a negative light in the New Testament. The rich young ruler is told to sell everything, something that we think is a call that Jesus wouldn't have for most of us because we can control our riches, unlike the rich young ruler. But, really, the rich young ruler was probably a man who was really likely more godly than us and steeped more in the teachings of the law from his birth. When Paul warns believers that some have died taking communion, it isn't a warning against general sin that was left unchecked, but rather against a specific sin that is, in part, related to those who have excess and to those who don't have enough.
Derek:The Corinthian rich and middle class were binging at the church feast, eating before the poor and eating without sharing. They were not only gluttonous with their excess, but they trivialized the Lord's Supper by their lack of reverence for it in metaphor and in practice. In metaphor, they were more focused on their self gratification than the meaning of the supper. And in practice, they were harming the very people that Jesus said ought to be helped. When we love the least of these, we love Christ.
Derek:Yet the poor brothers and sisters were being tossed to the wayside. Excess, extravagance, lack of distribution to the poor, and favoritism were all problems addressed over and over throughout the Bible, especially in the New Testament. James warns of extremely harsh judgment for those employers who seek to gain riches at the expense of their laborers and warns against preferential treatment in the church towards those who are wealthy. And Revelation marries the wealthy to the false prophet and the beast benefiting from the system of oppressive empire. Where you find riches, you almost always, if not always, find power and control.
Derek:And where you find that sort of top down structure, you will almost inevitably find violence and oppression, and even more certainly, moral compromise of some sort. We've addressed this in several real world examples throughout our season, but you should definitely check out our Benjamin Lay episode to see how this kind of thing plays out in the real world. In conclusion, when you see riches cast in a positive light, particularly in the New Testament, it's in light of wealth distribution and the helping of the community or the oppressed. But more often than not, riches are warned against and seen in a negative light. Of course, many can try to spin the stream of biblical thoughts a number of ways in order to justify our own affair with riches and comfort.
Derek:I know it's easy to do because I do it daily. But, fortunately, we don't have to just take guesses as to what the early church was taught in regard to wealth and how they viewed excess in light of biblical teaching. I often feel that it's too easy to read the New Testament with two different lenses, interchangeable lenses, and switching them out, from the revolutionary Jesus every time we get to passages with with wealth and other passages too, but particularly with wealth. How is it that almost all of the rich people and religious leaders that Jesus comes in contact with want to stone him or can't bring themselves to follow him. Yet so many of white Christian America is hunky dory with both Jesus and mammon.
Derek:Is living in middle class suburbia me living the revolutionary Jesus way? For me and those in my group, living revolutionarily like Jesus means believing God created the world and going to church and try not to do any really bad things like, you know, commit adultery or have an abortion or be gay or be a communist. But something tells me that that's not the revolution that Jesus brought. And the early church helps to elaborate on what Jesus and the apostles meant in regard to their revolutionary teachings on wealth. The early church clarifies and amplifies these teachings for us.
Derek:And when you look at the early church, up to about the beginning of the fifth century, after state power and priority really began to take its toll, you'll find that the church practice and preaching largely aligned with what we've laid out here so far. As just two examples, let's look at Saint Basil the Great and Saint John Chrysostom. Now it's important to note that both of these saints were relatively late in the game as far as, you know, the early early church goes. They were speaking half a century to a century after the state had begun showing preferential treatment to Christianity under Constantine. Now that's important to know because with the comfort and kickbacks that leaders in the church started to get after Constantine, there's much more vying for position and more extravagance and dress and playing politics that went on after that.
Derek:So to hear the voices of Basil and Chrysostom, recognizing that they're relatively late in terms of the very early church, makes their statements on wealth more powerful, in my opinion. So here is Saint Basil the Great, who lived between 03/30 and March. Quote, Fling wide your doors. Give your wealth free passage everywhere. As a great river flows by a thousand channels through fertile country, so let your wealth run through many conduits to the homes of the poor.
Derek:Wells that are drawn from flow the better. Left unused, they go foul. Money kept standing idle is worthless, but moving and changing hands, it benefits the community and brings increase. I'm wronging no one, you say. I'm merely holding on to what is mine.
Derek:What is yours? Who gave it to you so that you could bring it into life with you? Why, you are like a man who pinches a seat at a theater at the expense of latecomers, claiming ownership of what was for common use. That's what the rich are like. Having seized what belongs to all, they claim it as their own on the basis of having got there first.
Derek:Whereas if everyone took for himself enough to meet his immediate needs and released the rest for those in need of it, there would be no rich and no poor. Do you not come naked out of the womb? Will you not go naked back into the earth? So where did wealth you now enjoy come from? If you say from nowhere, you deny God, ignore the creator, are ungrateful to the giver.
Derek:If you say from God, then explain why it was given to you. When a man strips another of his clothes, he's called a thief. Should not a man who has the power to clothe the naked, but does not do so, be called the same? The bread in your larder belongs to the hungry. The cloak in your wardrobe belongs to the naked.
Derek:The shoes you allow to rot belong to the barefoot. The money in your vault belongs to the destitute. You do injustice to every man whom you could help but do not. If you are rich, how can you remain so? If you cared for the poor, it would consume your wealth.
Derek:When each one receives a little for one's needs, and when all owners distribute their means simultaneously for the care of the needy, no one will possess more than his neighbor. Yet it is plain that you have very many lands. Why? Because you have subordinated the relief and comfort of many to your convenience. And so the more you abound in your riches, the more you are deficient in love.
Derek:End quote. Let's just say that Saint Basil would be a communist heretic today. He probably would have been assassinated by a US trained death squad in his home country while doing mass. Let's look at another heretic here, Saint John Chrysostom from, March to 04/2007. Quote, if a poor man comes to you asking for bread, there is no end of complaints and reproaches and charges of idleness.
Derek:You upbraid him, insult him, jeer at him. You fail to realize that you are too idle, and yet God grants you gifts. Now don't tell me that you actually work hard. If you call earning money, making business deals, and caring for your possessions work, I say, no, that does not work. But alms, prayers, and the protection of the injured and the like, these are genuine work.
Derek:You charge the poor with idleness. I charge you with corrupt behavior. Do you realize that as the poor man withdraws silently, sighing and in tears, you actually thrust the sword into yourself that is you who received the more serious wound? Let us learn that as often as we have not given alms, we shall be punished like those who have been who have plundered. For what we possess is not personal property.
Derek:It belongs to all. God generously gives all things that are much more necessary than money, such as air, water, fire, the sun, all such things. All these things are to be distributed equally to all. Mine and thine, these chilling words which introduce innumerable wars into the world, should be eliminated from the church. Then the poor would not envy the rich because there would be no rich, neither would the poor be depressed by the rich or despised by the rich, for there would be no poor.
Derek:All things would be in common. End quote. Those are powerful quotes from two great saints. But I wanna throw in one more quote from a guy named Salvian. Now Salvian isn't nearly as famous as Basil or Chrysostom, but he wrote a very important book entitled On the Government of God.
Derek:Now, Salvian was writing his work at a time when the barbarians were at the gates, and he was trying to explain what was happening to Rome. Now Now what's amazing is that unlike our evangelical culture today, which points fingers outside our gates and blame society for our downward spiral, Salvian writes a book which seeks to first address the log in the church's eye. Now he recognizes that the barbarians are better Christians because, and this is something that I didn't know until reading Salvian, but a lot of barbarians adhere to some form of Christianity. But he said they're better Christians than the Roman Christians. They live purer lives than the Romans who are self indulgent, licentious, hypocrites.
Derek:There are many days I feel the same way. And I know that there are other Christians that I've talked to and, you know, from reading Bonhoeffer's prison letters where Bonhoeffer and and other these other Christians that I've talked to, there are a lot of times that we feel more brotherhood with people who are non Christians because, they're doing more of the work and lifestyle that, that's revolutionary, that Christ would have done. And again, that's what Salvian is saying here. The barbarians are more godly than the Roman Christians. Now let's see an evangelical write a modern day on the government of God and call out the church like Salvian did.
Derek:I would buy that book. Now I'm working on the podcast end of it, so maybe someone can, you know, make a book. Anyway, Salveen's book is beautiful because he calls out the right people. He calls out the religious people. I think that's the same people that Jesus called out too.
Derek:Now the people who claim that the kingdom of God has come and who are to share the good news with the world, but are instead living in opposition to the gospel of the kingdom, that's who got called out. While Romans were telling Christians that Rome's fall would fall was, the Christian's fault for not worshiping the gods, and that's where you get, Augustine's city of God as a response, Salvian actually agreed with the pagan Romans in a sense. Yes. The fall of Rome is in parts the Christians' fault. But it's their fault not because they're failing to worship the Roman gods, but because the Christians are forsaking the true God that they claim to worship.
Derek:They're spitting in his face. Of course, there's a lot we could get into with Salvian, and I'll put a link to an episode that I did on his book in, in my show notes. But there's one quote that I wanna pull from him here, which gives us a little insight into this episode. Salveen says, quote, to recount first the vices characteristic of slaves, if a slave is a runaway, so are you also, rich and noble though you are. For all men who abandon the law of the lord are running away from their master.
Derek:What fault can you rightly find in the slave? You are doing as he does. He flees from his master and you from yours. But in this, you incur more blame than he, for in all likelihood, he is running away from a bad master while you flee from a good one. In the slave, you criticize incontinent greed.
Derek:This is a rare fault in him for want of means to satisfy it, but a daily one in you because of your abundance. Hence, you see that the words of the apostles censure you more than him. Nay, they censure you alone. For wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself. For thou that judgest, doest the same things.
Derek:Nay, not the same things, but far greater and more wicked. In the slave, you punish an infrequent overindulgence of the appetite, while you constantly distend your own belly with undigested food. You think theft a servile fault, but you too, oh, rich man, commit robbery when you encroach on things forbidden by God. Indeed, every man who performs illicit actions is guilty of theft. End quote.
Derek:So very clearly, Salvin is telling Christians that they're indulgent hypocrites who, in their abundance, greed, hypocrisy, and sin, are doubly guilty as compared to those that they deem lower than them and are judging. Now maybe barbarians and slaves are immoral sinners, but Christians, you're doubly so. I sure wish the modern evangelical church would take a hint from Salvian here. You could just replace barbarians and slaves with liberals and democrats or whatever. The point here is that we just looked at three relatively late quotes from the church in regard to their view on wealth, poverty, altruism, etcetera.
Derek:We can amplify these voices by looking at quotes and actions from the anti Nicene church as well, the church prior to Constantine. And to get a glimpse of this, I recommend a book entitled The Patient Ferment of the Early Church, which delves at least in part to the economic views and actions of the early church. And one of the coolest pieces that I got from that book was that, we even have archaeological evidence of Christian altruism, and that we have a very early manifest of items that were captured by Romans who raided a house church. And what did they find there? Surplus of articles and clothing, which were almost certainly a storehouse of items to give to those in need.
Derek:A collection of sorts. And we get a glimpse of this too with, emperor Julian's famous quotes in from the fourth century, where he said about Christians, they support not only their poor, but ours as well. All men see that our people lack aid from us. So the early church, at a great cost to itself, tended to denounce excess and gave generously. But, of course, we know that the lived out teaching of Jesus on wealth and poverty did not last.
Derek:And Salvian gave us a glimpse into what was to come for the church. And it's being overfed and unconcerned with those in need, Rome became like Sodom and Gomorrah in a sense. It was judged and it fell. And in this post Constantinian era, the church bifurcated. We get some new things coming onto the scene.
Derek:Monasticism, for instance. Now there are a number of theories as to the rise of monasticism in Christianity, but the one that, holds the most water for me at the moment is this idea that with Constantine's marriage of the church and the state, a new role came onto the scene. Whereas God had given the sword to governments of which politicians were the experts, we now had a hierarchically recognized place for professional Christians. And while the anti Nicene church was composed of believers, all of whom were priests of God and all of whom were gifted in some ways by the spirit. Now there were bigger churches and tax supported churches.
Derek:There were hierarchies of leaders and paid officials. So while a regular old Joe or Jane was expected to go to church and baptize his kids into the sacral order of the church state, less and less came to be expected of him and her in regard to Christian living. What was it to be a Christian other than to be born a Christian? And this became more and more true as time passed and hierarchy solidified, and as the language that the church and the Bible used became more and more archaic until it was undecipherable by most uneducated peasants who failed to learn Latin. It's in this transition that we see the monastic movement arise.
Derek:As the church and state blend together and institutionalized churches caught up in political affairs became hotbeds of immorality and licentiousness, the monastic movement arises as sort of an outlet. We now have spiritual peons who go to church and fund it through their feudal labor as lords and priests walk hand in hand. We have the paid professionals whose role it is to be at the top of the hierarchy of Christianity, who hold the power in disseminating truth and running the sacral ordinances that binds one to both churches and the states. And then we have the monastics, the professional actors of Christianity. It was their job to follow the words of the Bible, to pray, to give away their wealth, to read the Bible, to commune with God.
Derek:The society was so fragmented that we see things like, you know, up until the December, that these professional Christians, the the monks and the, the priests, they were explicitly commanded to refrain from shedding blood in war or, executions. Even manslaughter could lead to a priest being disqualified from their position because they were stained by blood. Yet the Christian commoner was potentially expected to take up arms for their lord and their land as doing so was taking up arms for Christ. It was the position that they're in. To submit to these authorities was to be a good Christian, while the professional Christians recognized that to be a good Christian meant not shedding blood.
Derek:There were different moral standards for different groups of people. And wealth in this age generally looked a bit different. There wasn't a lot of access to wealth by what tended to be a majority of feudal peasants. And whatever these peasants did have was taxed by the Lord or the church with less opportunity to give out of the generosity of one's heart. Unless one was a professional Christian, a priest or a monk, the expectations for following the words of Jesus were likely very low.
Derek:The application of the revolutionary aspect of Jesus' words, especially in regard to wealth and enemy love, were relegated to a small, unique class of people, the monastics. Well, what we've laid out here so far is a generality and could look different at different times and places and with different individuals or cultures. It's a basic generality that I think holds. And it holds, in general, under Feudalism, up until around the time of the Reformation. Now the Reformation marks not only a renovation in theology, but also a time period in which economics was significantly changing.
Derek:Feudalism had been waning away, and the wealth began to trickle down and also trickle in from conquest, and wealth began to accumulate with more people. With the decline of Feudalism, the increase in urbanization, and the spread of empire and conquest, there also came another significant change, a change in ideology. Max Weber makes, an argument in his book called The Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism. He makes an argument that it was the new Protestant theology which actually caused or at least partially explains some of these economic changes and particularly the rise of capitalism and the accumulation of wealth. Now one main reason for this, Webb, Weber argues, is that whereas the church had, up until this point, partitioned holy work from menial work, as, as we had discussed already, the Protestant theology brought back the idea of the whole world as God's world and us as his priests, as Hebrews seems to lay out.
Derek:Therefore, whether you were a butcher, a baker, or a priest, your work was holy unto God. At the same time, there's a lot of asceticism in early Protestant religion. They kind of focused on on actions too. Hey. If if we're priests and then we're all called to live holy.
Derek:We're all supposed to be living sacrifices. Right? Moral standards kind of apply to us. And so the the Puritans are not only known for their entrepreneurial spirit, but for their frugality, for not spending needlessly on comforts or wants, but only on necessities. But the Protestant theology kind of twisted some of the the good which came out of the infusion of purpose into the life of even the lowliest peasant.
Derek:Reformation theology held that the idea of election, where only those who God chooses are saved, is kind of, one of the main doctrines. And so while we could say that we choose to follow God and while we might feel like we follow God, there's really no way to know that God has actually chosen us. But there could be evidence, and that's that's part of the asceticism. Right? You want to feel like you're doing good works because true believers should do good works, and that's true.
Derek:But one of the the most discernible evidences that was coming around at this time was wealth. Right? You could that could be an evidence of one doing the right thing and evidence of, therefore, of one's election. Because if God truly saved me, then I would want to work hard at whatever I endeavored at because all work is holy work, and all work is dedicated to God. And if God truly chose me and I worked hard, then I should be successful.
Derek:And if I was successful and not extravagant with my wealth, then I should accrue wealth and not be in want. So wealth then ended up being a strong indicator of one's election, even if Christians would never knowingly espouse to such a belief and say, you know, oh, yes. My my wealth proves my election. It was probably more subconscious. So whether or not such an idea was overtly taught in churches, I think Deborah makes a good observation that's at least partly explanatory.
Derek:And it ends up making a lot of sense out of The United States' obsession with meritocracy and the pull yourself up by your bootstraps mentality that's gotten, ingrained into our culture. Makes a lot of sense out of categories that we've created, like the deserving poor and the undeserving poor. Our group has an obsession with the Protestant or the Puritan work ethic and Puritan devotionals and spirituality. We view them as superhero Christians despite their political dissension, witch hunting, and slave holding. What virtue is strong enough to make someone a spiritual hero in the face of egregious evils?
Derek:Work and wealth. Let's now take these two themes that we've pulled from Christian history. First, we saw that the false prophet segmented a Christian's life by making Jesus' words applicable to one class and not to another. It watered down the priesthood of believers and made only some lives living sacrifices, the lives of the professional Christians. Second, we saw that another form of the false prophet took the accumulation of wealth as an indicator of one standing with God.
Derek:Now where does that leave Western Christianity today? If we can just keep our focus on wealth, I think I can offer up a reasonable assessment. See, what we've discussed so far are two of the best ways to ignore the biblical suspicion of and diversion to wealth. In the first case, we can redefine which groups are exempt from the commands and exhortations. And in the second case, we can redefine the perspective whole cloth.
Derek:Now I think both of these things are going on today. It might seem obvious that since we're not like the medieval church, especially we Protestants, that we really don't have this segmentation of calling that, we saw in our first example. You know, we don't believe that we should be divided into, holy Christians and kinda common Christians. Protestants believe that we're all priests and that God's whole world is called to glorify him. In what way then do we adhere to this idea that God commands, things that only apply to some Christians, to the the monastics or the priests, and not to others?
Derek:That doesn't seem to apply to us. Now I would argue that Niberian realism or something like it functions in a similar fashion today to what the ancient Roman separation of holy classes from ruling classes and commoners did. To explain this in a short space, Reinhold Niebuhr, at one point in his life, was a committed pacifist, and he's a very famous theologian in the twentieth century. However, he ended up coming to the conclusion that clinging to such a position was not viable. Now here, I don't mean that it wasn't necessarily what was good and right.
Derek:Right? Niebuhr thought that pacifism was was great, like, a great great concept. But he ended up, discarding it because he didn't think it worked in the real world. Hence, Niebuhr's move towards what was called Christian Realism. Now what Niebuhr was essentially saying was that while Jesus's words were all well and good, they were really ideals.
Derek:It's what should be, but not necessarily what can be here and now. Niebuhr concluded that while one day Jesus's ideals would be implemented and we'd all live by them, we were not expected to live by those ideals now. In fact, to live by those ideals now would be to refuse facing reality and would actually, in a lot of cases, end up doing more harm and allowing more evil to come about. In this way, while Niebuhr may not have segmented Christians into holy professional workers versus common folk, he ended up segmenting Christians into those who dwelt in the real world and those of us alive now. Those of us who would one day dwell in the ideal world of the eschaton and who would follow the ideals of Jesus.
Derek:Whereas the medieval church segmented Christians spatially into holy professionals and laity, Christian realism segments Christians temporally into holy idealists of the future and realist laity of the present. You might be saying to yourself, I never heard of this Niebuhr fellow. I'm not a Christian realist, and maybe you aren't. But a lot of Christians are. If you're a conservative Christian living in The United States, then there's a very good chance that either you or someone you know lives out realism.
Derek:Just listen to how the talk, happens during our presidential elections. I'm voting for a commander in chief, not a pastor in chief. Implication? We can toss morality to the side because, that's not really a consideration here. That would be too idealistic.
Derek:Lesser of two evils. That's realism. Right? Being able to to toss some moral good to this side and just say, well, I have to accept evil. Well, he's better than the other guy.
Derek:Meaning, yeah, he does bad things, but I can accept those bad things because they're not as bad as the other guys. X issue in my party's platform is wrong, but we have to vote for them so that we can stop the evil in the other party. Our acceptance of participating in and being complicit with evil for the sake of the greater good is an acknowledgment that the ideals of Jesus can't and ought not to be followed. We're saying that Jesus lived a perfect life, but sometimes we have to embrace evil to live like Jesus must want us to. I was reading a book a few months back called Fair Play by James Olsen.
Derek:Olsen was high up in the CIA and wrote a book discussing a variety of moral dilemmas that have have to be faced by agents. While Olsen doesn't go into his personal thoughts too much in the book, he gave an interview with Al Moller on the topic and essentially justified lying, deception, and certain forms of violence and evil because it kept people, his people, Americans, safe. What choice did he have in the real world? We may not partition Christianity today like they used to into priests and monks and stuff, but we partition it all the same. There's a group who we expect to adhere to Christ's full teachings, and they are our future selves, but not today.
Derek:As far as the second theme goes, most Christians today would not say that they believe in a theology, which adheres to the notion that wealth determines one's standing with God. Just as most Christians would say that they don't believe in the ends justifying the means, though in reality, they do, I think many Christians are also wrong about their self reflection on wealth and God's favor. We may look down on overt forms of this teaching, like the Joel Osteen's and the prosperity gospel preachers. We don't believe in that kind of thing on paper. But when it comes to our politics and our actions, how we talk about and treat the poor, we belie our true position.
Derek:We cling very strongly to the myth of meritocracy, the idea that hard work equals success, the denial that circumstances matter all that much or that one can't just muster up enough effort and determination to get ahead if they really want to. In that sense, it may be more true that while we don't necessarily feel that riches determine one's closeness to God, it sure seems like poverty determines someone's proximity to the devil. By default then, our riches mean that we're closer to God than the poor, even if we may not be sitting at his right hand. As just an anecdote from my personal experience, I'm in a denomination that is very wealthy and very white. I have visited a number of churches itinerating, to do missions, and almost every elder I've ever met was a businessman.
Derek:Our views and dealings with the poor and needy were, overall, not that gracious or loving. And I don't think my anecdotal experience is abnormal as I've spoken with a number of people from a variety of congregations and denominations. I talk about a number of my experiences with the poor and some of my realizations at the beginning of season two, if you want to check out any of that. The point here is we hold a view of meritocracy, whether that's subconscious or conscious, which equates some degree of wealth and comfort with hard work and therefore a more favorable position with God. We may have jettisoned the Puritan ethic of frugality in order to justify our extravagant living and comforts, but a good Christian in the West, 1 that's fit for leadership in the church, should at least be middle class.
Derek:Much of the Western church then has ended up losing the revolutionary teaching of Jesus in regard to wealth. Whereas Jesus's disciples gave up everything to follow him, dropping their nets, their cushy tax collector gig, etcetera, our disciples learn how to justify serving two masters. Mammon is our father during the work week, and the church, our mother, has visitation rights for two hours every Sunday. But our dad's a lot more fun because oftentimes our moms nag. At this point in the episode, I think a story can illuminate well the way that the false prophet Amammon or corporatism or whatever you wanna call it has infiltrated the world and neutered Jesus.
Derek:One Sunday, I was back in Pennsylvania visiting some family, and I had the opportunity to attend my childhood church. They had a a fairly new pastor, a pastor, my age who had actually graduated from the same college that I did. I was excited to hear what he brought to the pulpit in his sermon. As my wife and I listened to the sermon, it was amazing. The pastor was preaching from Acts about how the early church was selling their possessions and sharing with each other.
Derek:He proclaimed the dangers of wealth and Jesus' revolutionary teachings. And then at the end, when it was time to apply the sermon and call the people to action based on the words of scripture, he said, now is Jesus telling you that you have too much stuff? That you should go and sell your things and give it all to the poor? No. I know you as a congregation, how generous you are.
Derek:When people are sick, you make them meals and bring them over. When someone in this church has a a new baby, you you give food. You give of yourselves to help. Seriously? That's the application of the teaching of Jesus and the early church?
Derek:We are full fledged revolutionaries when we make one meal for someone who's sick or has a newborn. I'm not saying that making meals for people isn't great. Our we do that. We love doing that. It's it's a great encouragement.
Derek:It's fun to hang out and and, meet people and, socialize. But is that really the application of Jesus's words for the early church, for the disciples? Is that how the early church, Basil, Chrysostom were were envisioning things? Like, oh, you guys you know, if you really want to, follow the words of Jesus here, make a meal for somebody a couple times a year. Man, that is not the words of Jesus for those like us who have excess, for those in the middle and upper class.
Derek:Now why might not Jesus be calling someone or everyone in that congregation to sell their things and live revolutionarily? Why couldn't he have added that? Why couldn't he said, hey. Maybe Jesus today is calling some of you to give all of your things, sell them all, and give to the poor. That wasn't even on the table.
Derek:The conclusion and call of the pastor was 100% disjointed from the scripture that he had read. How could one possibly read Jesus' words and the radical generosity of the early church and conclude, well, you guys make a meal for each other every once in a while. You're following Jesus. It was completely anticlimactic. Completely.
Derek:But the sermon is par for the course in Western Christianity. But, I mean, that's understandable. Right? I mean, how can I be effective if I were to refuse cushioning our four zero one k and saving for retirement? I mean, if I didn't do that, I'd have to worry about tomorrow.
Derek:We don't want to have to depend on others to live, I. E. Live in community. Of course not. These are these are not good things.
Derek:Forget whether or not any of us are called by Jesus to sell everything and give to the poor. We can't even countenance the idea. We can't even consider it. It's such a preposterous call. In our minds, our lavish comfort must be God's desire for us and his blessing, and we live in the real world where money runs the show.
Derek:We're realists. We're not idealists. Unfortunately, it's that sort of idealism that led George Whitefield to become a slaveholder after initially opposing it. If only he could gain more wealth, he could do good for the Lord and start an orphanage. It was wealth in the story of Benjamin Lay, which entrenched slave holding in the early Quaker community as the rich were chosen as leaders and the rich sought to gain wealth and maintain power.
Derek:Yeah. Benjamin Lay, a man who may have been the fire that kindled the eventual abolition of slaves among Quakers and The United States, he rejected lavish living and extravagance. He lived in a cave. He refused to buy sugar and other items that would make him complicit with the slave trade and make his life more comfortable. And when he died, he gave all of his money to the poor and his enemies.
Derek:In a similar vein, John Wesley did great good for God and excoriated riches. Wesley once said, quote, when I die, if I leave behind me £10, you and all mankind may bear witness against me that I have lived and died a thief and a robber. End quote. And when Wesley died, the only money found were the few coins on his person and in his dresser drawers. From such a one who successfully practiced what he preached, I think it would be worthwhile to hear him speak more at length.
Derek:In one of his sermons, Wesley said, quote, I am paying for you that are rich in this world. Do you give all you can? You who receive £500 a year and spend only 200, do you give 300 back to God? If not, you certainly rob God of that 300. You that receive 200 and spend but one, do you give God the other hundred?
Derek:If not, you rob him of just so much. Nay, may I not do what I will with my own? Here lies the ground of your mistake. It is not your own. It cannot be unless you are lord of heaven and earth.
Derek:However, I must provide for my children. Well, certainly. But how? By making them rich? Then you will probably make them heathens, as some of you have already done.
Derek:What shall I do then? Leave them enough to live on, not in idleness and luxury, but by honest industry. And if you have not children, upon what scriptural or rational principle can you leave a groat behind you more than will bury you? I pray consider, what are you the better for? What you leave behind you.
Derek:What does it signify whether you leave behind you £10,000 or 10,000 shoes and boots? I'll leave nothing behind you Send all you have before you to a better world Lend it lend it all to the Lord, and it shall be paid to you again Is there any danger that this truth should fail? It is fixed as the pillars of heaven. Haste, haste, my brethren, haste, lest you be called away before you settled what you have on this security. When this is done, you may boldly say, now I have nothing to do but to die.
Derek:Father, into thy hands, I commend my spirit. Come, lord Jesus. Come quickly. End quote. Few Christians in Christendom have had such insight and discipline as Wesley and Lay.
Derek:Their enunciation of riches allow them to live full, uncompromised lives, True lives. Real lives, one might say. Their comfort in life and assurance of salvation was the love God wrought in them for their fellow human, and their moral ethic was the idealism of Jesus Christ. It is the false prophet that teaches to us today that comfort and excess are valid Christian goals, or that we can throw off the ideal of Jesus for a lesser compromised reality. Unfortunately, while I have been able to preach against the false prophet at a distance in its previous manifestations throughout the season, I find that I myself am often the mouthpiece of the false prophet as made manifest in this iteration.
Derek:I have not sold most of my things. I have accrued. I have two coats. Heck, I have five coats, All others have none. I take my family out to eat and scorn the beggar who asks me for scraps.
Derek:I have been propagandized. And I propagandize others in order to secure my comfort in this world and to make myself feel like I'm following Christ's commands so that I have greater assurance of salvation in the next. A lot of people who are down on the church today like to make the church, that institution, that entity over there, some great evil thing. But especially when it comes to propaganda pertaining to wealth, most of us in the West find that we ourselves participate as false prophets. It's not out there.
Derek:It's in here. We are not the revolutionaries we seek, but rather those who need to be revolutionized. In the end, I can't tell you whether or not Jesus has called each of us to sell every last possession and give it to the poor. But I can tell you that what he's called you to do is probably a whole lot closer to sell everything than it is to wherever you and I are right now. Jesus was a revolutionary, and people hate revolutionaries.
Derek:Rome hated revolutionaries, and the American government, as you will find out later in the season, hates revolutionaries. I prove that I hate revolutionaries too because rather than be crucified as one and the taking up of my cross daily in all the ways that Jesus has told me to, especially as it pertains to wealth, I end up allowing the son of God to be crucified solely for an ideal life to come, not for the reality that I live in now. But, hey, we're realists. Right? But what truly is realist?
Derek:It's one who looks their creator in the face and tells him that they've manufactured a better world. There is no greater fiction than realism. That's all for now. So peace. And because I'm a pacifist, when I say it, I mean it.
Derek:This podcast is a part of the Kingdom Outpost network. Please check out the links below to find other great podcasts and content related to nonviolence and Kingdom Living.
