Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Well good evening everyone. We are continuing now with our study of this introduction to Christian ethics and we are in week seven which I have entitled money ethics. We have already looked at several ethical subcategories.
We have looked at in our third week we looked at life ethics which included abortion reproduction and genetics. In our fourth week we looked at death ethics which was Brother Bert's class. He taught on suicide, euthanasia, and capital punishment.
Week five we looked at war ethics regarding pacifism, just war theory, personal protection, and defense. And last week we looked at sexual ethics including marriage and divorce, fornication, adultery, and polyamory, and alternative lifestyle issues such as homosexuality and transgenderism.
I do want to make a small correction to something I said last week. I said when I when I defined fornication I defined it a little more broadly than maybe I should have. I included a lot under the banner of fornication.
I would say that the the word pornea which means sexual immorality can have a broad scope but typically fornication is defined as sexual interaction before marriage or outside of the bond of marriage and I defined it a little more broadly and I just want to tighten that up a little bit.
Typically when we talk about people fornicating in the English that refers to people having sexual relations outside of the bond of marriage and so I want to keep that sort of within that within that framework and is there can fornication be expanded out possibly but but it's in its simplest terms we need to keep it in that.
And so tonight we're going to be moving into an area that has a lot of debate and discussion and a lot of disagreement and I will not be surprised if some of you perhaps have some differing opinions on some of the things that we're going to talk about but I want to remind you that some of these things are not hard and fast rules but rather are principles that we are seeking to understand and I want to remind you also that when we talk about ethics and we talked about this in classes I think class 2 we talked about the dual idea of virtue and principle.
The virtue is that which is good so virtue represents goodness and the principle is the practical application of that virtue so so we say the practice of that goodness so for instance if a virtue is that life is sacred that's a life is good then then the principle would be murder is wrong right because murder is the is the is violating the virtue right that's the principle that we get out of that and we could we could move that into a stronger or a different idea say you know if if private property is good then stealing is wrong and that's going to sort of go along with what we're going to talk about tonight because part of what we're going to talk about tonight in regard to money ethics or might we might say the ethics of economics and that might have been a better title for the class economic ethics is the question of does the Bible assume the right of personal property.
Is that a virtue that the Bible describes. Well I would argue that it is because we are told in the eighth commandment thou shall not what not steal. The eighth commandment thou shall not steal which assumes the virtue of private property because if if private property wasn't a virtue then it wouldn't be wrong to steal.
You see how that works. You see how the principle and the virtue become how we begin to analyze our ethical situation. Well tonight we're going to look at three parts. I always break my class into threes.
It's just a habit of mine. Maybe it's part of being a good Baptist. I always have three points. We're gonna look at three things. We're gonna look number one at poverty as a virtue and I should put a question mark after that.
And if you're writing notes you can certainly feel free to add a question mark because I want to. It's really a question. Is poverty a virtue. So that's that's our first one. The second one is we are going to look at three specific economic systems which are socialism communism and capitalism.
But we'll get to those when we get there. And then finally we're going to look at the biblical understanding of work and vocation. The biblical understanding of work and vocation. But before we move forward because I always forget and I want to not forget let's pray father I thank you for this opportunity to study this opportunity to teach and I pray Lord that as I seek to teach that I would teach in accordance with your word and your will that you would keep me from error and guide us into all truth according to your word by the power of your spirit.
And I pray this in Jesus name Amen. So we're gonna look first at poverty as a virtue. In the latter part of the 20th century with the rise of television and radio ministries the church has been confronted with the false teaching known as the health and wealth gospel.
The teachers of this movement propose that if you have enough faith you will always experience a healthy physical life and an abundant financial an abundance of financial success. This is sometimes also called the name-it-and-claim-it mindset appealing as it is to some.
But it is I would testify to you or at least I would argue to you I would believe I believe that the health and wealth movement or the name-it-and-claim-it movement is a heretical movement. And the reason why I make that claim is because it teaches what I believe is a very dangerous understanding of the expectation of the gospel that if one believes the gospel and they have enough faith that that faith will have the byproduct of health and wealth or what we might call abundant prosperity.
That and and honestly those who those who believe it often call it the prosperity gospel because they believe in this idea of prosperity. Well there is another in just like we often talk about the two ditches right we'll say there's a if you're going down the road there's a ditch on either side.
Well on one side you have the health and wealth ditch. Well on the other side there is something that I am calling the poverty gospel. So if on one side the health and wealth we call the prosperity gospel on the other side there is a ditch which I'm identifying as the poverty gospel.
And here's on the TV you'll see these are two extremes. The health and wealth gospel says that the sign of faithfulness is abundance. If you are faithful you will have an abundance. But the poverty gospel says the sign of faithfulness is lack.
You might say I've never heard that. Well it's not real popular in America. But there are those who believe it. There are those who believe that the demand on every Christian is voluntary poverty. In fact throughout church history there have those have been those who have claimed that Christianity requires an abandonment of any personal wealth.
Think about the monastic movement. What. What is the monastic movement where men would go into monasteries and they would take vows to become monks. And what was one of the vows that they would have to take a vow of poverty a vow to live without any creaturely abundance without any creaturely comfort.
That this idea that to get close to God to truly serve God to truly enjoy the benefits of faithfulness to God one had to have lack. Right. He had to have poverty. And I argue or at least I'm going to argue that both of these are two extremes of wrong thinking.
Yes sir the what now nuns. Well yes the Roman Catholic Church does have its monasteries. And it has its places. Like like you're thinking of like the habits or not habits what they wear. That the what are the nuns where the nuns live.
What are they called. Yeah there's a word for it. Is it not a real. I don't think. Okay maybe it is maybe. But. But I'm thinking you know you know what's you know. Huh. Convent. Thank you. A convent. You know what's on my mind is the sound of music.
You remember the sound of music. Well the the the the woman who lived there with it with the other sisters. Right. And so the convent. Thank you for the helping me with that word. The most commonly cited passage in regard to the poverty gospel teaching is the passage where Jesus speaks to the rich young man.
If you want to open your Bible I want to actually look at this passage. We're going to go to Matthew 19 looking at verses 16 to 22. Matthew 19. Verses 16 to 22 and it says. And behold a man came up to him saying teacher what good deed must I do to have eternal life.
And Jesus speaking said to him why do you ask me what is good. There is only one who is good. If you would have life keep the commandments. Verse 18 he said to him which ones. And Jesus said you shall not murder you shall not commit adultery you shall not steal you shall not bear false witness honor your father mother.
And you shall love your neighbor as yourself. Now time does not allow me tonight to get into the intricacies of that Jesus does give him a very interesting response basically calling him to fidelity to the law and specifically the second table of the law which would be the treatment of others.
We talked about the the Ten Commandments being table one is how we respond to God love. You know having other guys for Lord. Don't make any idols. Not use words. They've been vain. The second table of the law.
Do not murder. Do not steal. Do not commit adultery. Those are the that's the second table of the law. And Jesus tends to focus on that here and we could we could discuss why and another time. But the key here is the response of the rich young man.
It says in verse 20 the young man said to him all these I have kept. What do I still lack. It's interesting thing that when the man is confronted with the law of God he sees himself as one who is virtuous he sees himself I've kept.
I've never committed murder. I've never lied. Apparently because he said he never bared false what I've kept. All these commands what do I lack. Jesus said to him if you would be perfect go sell what you possess and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven and come follow me.
When the young man heard this he went his way sorrowful for he had great possessions. Now I want to just add real quick. The immediate follow-up is verse 23. And Jesus said to his disciples truly I say to you only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven.
Again I tell you it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God. So here is the passage which is almost universally used by those who would demand a poverty gospel.
They would say that see if you want to follow Jesus you have to sell everything that you have. You have to give away everything that you have and come and follow Jesus. But I want to give you a few thoughts from this passage and I'll put them up on the board for you.
First thing Jesus does indeed tell this person whoever he is. Jesus does indeed tell this person to sell all that he has. And I put the second thing this is indeed a person who is owned by his wealth and that is something we have to consider.
Why did Jesus command this young man to give away what he had. Well we see in the very next line is that the young man loved his possessions and when it came to choosing between Jesus and his prosperity his possessions he chose his possessions.
So he was indeed owned by his wealth. Jesus knowing his heart knew where his heart lied. Number three. Jesus knows how to get to the root of our idolatry which really is the issue here. Number four this is a situation which deals with an individual's issues.
It is not a universal command and that and number four is key to this. This indirect interaction between Jesus and the rich young ruler is not a universal command. There are several people that Jesus interacts with who could be seen as being people of wealth.
I would just right away say it's likely that Nicodemus was a man who had at least some financial wealth. He was that he was a religious man. He was a man of good stature and good reputation. We know that Jesus also had interactions with others who had wealth and it was not a universal command that all of them would give away everything that they have.
So it's important to understand the individuality of this command. Number five. There are certainly others in this man's condition who need to do as Jesus commanded him. And so I would never tell a person that it's not incumbent upon them to to sell what they have if what they have is their God.
But that's hard for me to know because I'm not Jesus. I don't know the hearts of men. But there are times where people seem obviously in love with the things of the world. And it would be a good idea to point out the fact that yes it seems as if you in fact are in love with what the world provides and the Bible says that's a dangerous thing.
So those are a few thoughts that I just wanted to share from that passage and and and specifically verses 23 and 24 where he says only with difficulty will a rich man enter the kingdom of heaven. I do point out that Jesus isn't lying there.
He is saying something true that great wealth does have the power to become great idolatry. And I will share an anecdotal reality anecdotally in my life going out and sharing the gospel. I tend to find this again.
You may have a completely different experience. My experience does not make the rule. I'm just simply sharing my experience and yours may differ. But I tend to find when I am interacting with people who have nothing or very little that they tend to be more willing to hear a gospel message than people who have an abundance.
Because people who have an abundance don't feel like they have a need now again that meant you your mileage may vary. That's in that you're right as they say you may have experienced differently. I've never dealt with a lot of people who had a lot of money.
But the people that I I basis on is like when I go out into the when I go out into communities as I'll go and walk neighborhoods and hand out gospel tracks and talk to people. When I go to certain neighborhoods in certain communities that may feel a little less affluent.
Maybe just by virtue of how old the houses are how things look people tend to be more welcoming than when I go to houses where there tends to be more affluence. In fact I'll often get a do not solicit yeah no don't knock on my door kind of unwelcoming.
And again that could be an experiential thing but Jesus does make the point. He says it's with difficulty that a rich man will enter the kingdom of heaven. Why. Because possessions have the power to possess us.
I think that's the simple rule is that possessions have the power to possess us. And so we have to be at least cognizant of the fact that while I don't believe the poverty gospel is correct there is a sense in which prosperity if it is our focus and our seeking after always is prosperity then it can become quickly idolatry.
Now I want to share with you a different passage and why. I think this idea of poverty as a virtue is not biblical necessarily. And this is from the book of Acts. If you want to turn over to the book of Acts chapter 16 and go to verse 13.
In Acts chapter 16 we have the story of the Apostle Paul meeting a woman named Lydia. Very familiar with this story. Probably it says. And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to the riverside where we suppose there was a place of prayer and we sat down and spoke to the women who had come together.
One who heard us was a woman named Lydia from the city of Thyatira a seller of purple goods who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized and her household as well she urged us saying if you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord come to my house and stay.
And she prevailed upon us. Now there's several little key things in this passage that we learn. I'll put them up on the board again. It's a thought number one Lydia is a woman of substantial wealth. It seems based on the fact that she sells purple goods and purple goods were expensive and based on the fact that she had a house capable of housing guests.
And later according to church history in the book of Acts and other places how hosting a church. So not only did she have a household capable of hosting guests but she had a household that would be able to host a house church.
So the assumption is Lydia is a woman of prosperity. In fact I have heard prosperity gospel preachers who will use Lydia just like the poverty gospel will use the rich young ruler and say see here Jesus told him to sell everything.
That means you have to sell everything. And on the other side you have the prosperity gospel people who will say see Lydia was a prosperous financial or a businesswoman. And so therefore God wants you to be a prosper prosperous financial business person.
Well that doesn't fly either. It doesn't just because Lydia was affluent doesn't mean we're all going to be affluent. That's not the case. She was affluent become before becoming a Christian. But here's the thing we don't see.
We do not see the Apostle Paul calling her to repentance of her affluence. We don't see him calling her to repentance of her of her wealth. In fact number two Lydia's wealth is used for supporting traveling believers and hosting a church.
Number three Lydia is nowhere commanded to abandon her wealth for poverty. And number four there are others like her who use their wealth for good and were therefore never commanded to abandon it. Nicodemus Joseph of Arimathea.
And even though I mentioned these in the notes the women who traveled with Jesus you remember that passage in the Gospels which says that the women were actually the ones who often met the financial needs of Christ in his ministry.
Now how is that. Well the only way it could be was if these women were had some form of financial prosperity they had some form of financial success to be able to support Jesus in his ministry. And I bring this up because here is an important reality if every Christian were impoverished there would be no Christian business owners.
There would be no Christian philanthropists or givers. There would be no Christian ministries that would be flourishing because there would be no one to give money to those. I remember one time I'll never forget this.
It was at a conference Dr. R .C. Sproul was speaking so it was many years ago before he died. I remember sitting in the audience and he was giving an appeal for giving. Now you all know R .C. Sproul he was not a he was not a man who was a health and wealth preacher by any stretch of the imagination but he wasn't afraid to ask people to give.
If he wasn't afraid to say hey our ministry has a need we're wanting to do this thing and we're going to need some gifts and this way set and I can't quote directly but I can give you the gist of it. He said we need partners to give to our ministry and we need some partners who can give over a million dollars.
And I was like oh yeah I'm not the partner I'm not the guy you're asking but I know that he knew that there had to be some people who were listening whether they were there in the audience or whether they were hearing this via internet or radio.
He had to know that some of the people who support his ministry had the capacity to give that amount and they were able to do so because they had been prospered in some way by God. And so I think about missionaries.
What do missionaries rely on. Missionaries rely on people giving. What do you have to what do you have to be. What do you have to do to be able to give. You have to have you have to you have to be able to have something to give something right.
And so the idea that we're all to simply give everything away not have anything not not do any kind of storing up or saving to be able to do that I think is a misunderstanding of what the what the Bible teaches.
It's a it's a it's an extreme. You have again the two extremes the two ditches. Another thing about the poverty gospel is the danger in a poverty gospel is that it creates a form of salvation by works because it can lead to believing that there is virtue and discomfort and therefore a Christian can never enjoy the blessings and the benefits of God's creation.
They have to always be impoverished uncomfortable and in lack to have any kind of genuine spirituality. And probably the most problematic issue in the poverty gospels that it removes as I said the possibilities of Christians building businesses becoming employers and establishing companies which can benefit others.
Many of you are familiar with Christian businessmen who have benefited many people's people like Truett Cathy who started the Chick-fil-a franchise and he did so as trying to be a Christian businessman.
JC Penney who were familiar with JC Penney stores. JC Penney was originally the store was originally called the Golden Rule store was the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
And so there is a benefit of having Christian businessmen Christian community leaders. And there's a sanctifying presence in an ungodly world when when you have these men and women who have this prosperity when you have your Lydia's in the world.
So when it comes to this first issue of prosperity as a virtue I ask this question can a Christian be both faithful and wealthy. I think the answer is yes. Even though the Bible says it's hard it can be.
But the second thing is can all Christians handle the temptation of wealth. And the answer is no. Yeah. So I think there's again that line can it be done. Yes. Truett Cathy JC Penney. It can be done and can be done.
Well and but that doesn't mean that everyone can handle that. Yes sir you had your hand up. Yeah. It's interesting too that you mentioned the Old Testament because if we do walk through the Old Testament there certainly are many people in the Old Testament who had prosperity but then they also had their their share of difficulties.
Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. So that takes us to the end of our first point and that is the question of the as I said the question of is poverty a virtue. I would say poverty is not necessarily a virtue. Poverty is not necessarily a virtue.
You can be faithful and be wealthy. And I think that I think the other thing and I don't have this passage. Maybe Bert you might remember this off the top of your head but there's the passage that says Lord do not give me poverty.
That I'm that I might steal and give me wealth that I may not seek you what you have it. Okay. Proverbs 30 verse 8 through 10 and that's what it says. Basically right. I don't want to be so poor that I feel the need to steal and I don't want to be so wealthy that I don't seek after God.
Right. So so that proverb almost almost screams for a blessed middle class the blessing of the of the of the benefit of the middle class. Right. And so when it comes to financial ethics I think that there's there's benefit and looking at it with a balanced perspective.
But now we get into the next question and that's the question of okay if we believe that's true if we believe that that there's there's there's an there's a virtue and and having your needs met and not being impoverished.
But but but going about the world having our needs met doing the things that we need to do to meet our needs. The next question is is there a system that the Bible supports that would inherently be virtuous towards the meeting of individual needs.
And so we come to the question of economic systems. Economic systems. And the three are socialism communism and capitalism. There are other economic systems. We do not have time to go through every one.
And even underneath these systems there are sub systems subcategories such as like laissez-faire capitalism and things like that the different different types of capitalism. You have free market capitalism things like that.
And so we do not have the time to dive into all of those. But I have some thoughts about these that I want to stress as Americans we live in one of the most prosperous nations around the world. When considering the poverty gospel in our previous section one might consider that even the poorest Americans are often better off than a large part of the rest of the world.
Many Americans live in air-conditioned homes drive cars carry cell phones own personal computers. And it's been said that the average American dishwasher consumes more calories in a day than the average person living in the third world more food travels through the the dishwasher being washed out into the sewage.
And I think that there's likely some truth to that. I saw a picture from the 80s. I think this this past week it was a picture of Boris Yeltsin. Boris Yeltsin bleep Prime Minister of Russia right am I remembering that.
Correct. But he was he had visited America and he was. He was walking through an American grocery store. Remember this. You saw it huh. Yeah. And but he said he was amazed and he lamented how his people in his country had nothing compared to this all of the variety and all of the abundance available to them.
I have a friend Matthew Henson I think he's the one who posted that he said this. He said if you've ever passed one grocery store to get to another grocery store he said you're better off than so much of the world.
You don't even realize it that you have the choice to get to bypass the Winn-Dixie to go to the Aldi or to bypass the Publix to go to the other store you you don't realize just how blessed we are. And even though we're currently facing probably one of the most severe bouts of inflation that I can remember in my short lifetime it's still a an amazing place that we live that at any moment any one of us could simply get into a car go over to a grocery store and buy food and it's in abundance.
So we asked the question what is the reason for the higher standard of living which has existed in the United States. And many would attribute the success of the American standard of living to our economic system.
And America is supposed to be even though we're gonna argue in a sense that it's not always it's supposed to be seen as an example of what is known as capitalism. Some might argue free market capitalism.
But as I said there's some different views on how we understand that but at least an understanding of capitalism. And that simply stated is the idea that people have the right to produce and sell goods according to the principle of supply and demand.
That's what capitalism is. It is that people have the right to produce and sell goods according to the principle of supply and demand. If a person produces a product which is in great demand they can charge more.
And if there is a larger supply than there is a demand the price goes down. And so the the balancing act of capitalism is trying to keep the supply meeting the demand but not to be overly supplied. That way you can keep the prices where they're beneficial and yet competitive.
One of the virtues often proposed by proponents of capitalism is that it promotes three things. I don't have these on the board but I'll write them for you. It promotes liberty individualism pardon me and equality now.
I know yes sir I know that there are people who are probably not fans of capitalism who are losing their minds right now when I say that capitalism produces liberty individualism and inequality. But understand what we are seeing in many places and where we don't see these things is we're not seeing capitalism on display.
We are seeing other forms of economics making their way in. Like for instance when monopolies have their way and they come in and they they make it impossible for there to be any genuine market. Oh goodness what's the word I just lost competition.
Any genuine market competition through monopolies. Or when the government makes it impossible for the small business to be able to do something because they they tax them at a rate that is impossible for them to achieve but the higher bigger businesses can do that.
And so there are all kinds of issues that come into play. But ultimately when I say that it promotes liberty equality and individualism is based on this idea. Capitalism is based on the idea that any man with a good idea and the discipline to work hard can become a success.
That's the the idea of any man with a good idea and the discipline to work hard can become a success because he's free to work hard produce a product and live off the wages that that product produces.
That's the idea behind capitalism. Now other economic systems have been employed around the world with varying degrees of success and failure. And as I said the two most commonly known are socialism and communism.
Socialism is defined as an economic and political system where the ways of making a living are owned by the workers who run them and the people who depend on them. So socialism is based on the idea that factories offices the means of production are owned by the workers that there is not a owner who has the power but that the ownership is shared.
That's the idea of socialism is that the workers are the essentially the owners. Communism is different in that communism is a system where all property is public and people work and are given things by the government according to their needs.
So in this in this system it's not owned by the workers but rather it is owned and run by the government. And a good example of this is I watched a video of something that occurred in Russia. Remember I mentioned Russia earlier.
Well this was a more recent video where the current Russian leader Vladimir Putin was very unhappy with the way a company was being run in his country and he simply went in and and got rid of everyone and and changed everything because he had the power he had the authority to go in and simply make that change.
It wasn't owned by them and had the power the government could do whatever the government wanted to and so the Russian leader simply made his change. Now the motto of communism is from each according to his ability to each according to his need.
From each according to his ability to each according to his need. So mark you have certain abilities. You know I know one thing you can paint because you did some painting for me once. So you have an ability to do painting.
Right. And Burt you have an ability you have an ability to teach. Well that's a need that society has needs. Society needs men who can paint. Society has needs of men who can teach. So you're going to give that to the society and as a result of that the society is going to meet your needs with whatever it is you do need whether it's clothes or food or shelter or whatever.
And so from each according to his ability to each according to his need. Those who promote these systems claim that capital capitalism allows far too much power to be given to those who own the wealth.
And therefore to ensure equality wealth must be redistributed. That is a key concept is the redistribution of wealth. So here's something to consider. We have three systems here. The first two systems are based upon community.
The third capitalism is based upon individuality. So you have socialism and cut and some people have a real hard time with the difference between socialism and capitalism or communism. And I'll say this socialism is communism without guns but it doesn't last long.
Socialism almost always inevitably becomes a authoritarian socialism or a a communistic form. Yes yes even though America is as I said is based on capitalism capitalism has not. It's not. We don't have a true capitalism.
Even even now even it don't no matter where you live whether it's Florida Georgia whatever because it's not all based upon supply and demand because sometimes certain supplies are artificially changed and things like that the government can come in and make decisions that affect all kinds of issues.
And supply lines can be interrupted by government choice. Like for instance let's take oil for example. There is no reason why according as far as I understand and I could be wrong about this. But as far as I understand there is no reason why America should not be oil independent meaning that we should be able to produce enough oil to supply our needs and be able to sell oil to our people based on what we can produce through Alaska and through the United States to be able to produce and manufacture and and have enough oil for what we need.
But the problem is the government has changed so many laws because of the pursuit of things like green energy and and and conservation of power things like that that they have like like the certain pipelines have been cut off.
No more no no more government allowance for that. Which means we no longer have access to that oil that we have. And we have to purchase oil from elsewhere and we become dependent upon other countries.
Right. And therefore the price goes up and it's no longer really capitalism now because the government's interfering in that ability. Is that making sense. Well I don't think we're communistic but I think there are people who desire that there are people.
I mean think about Bernie Sanders. I don't want to get too too deep into the politics today. Bernie Sanders identifies himself as a democratic socialist which means he believes that there that capitalism is the problem.
And here's the most arrogant statement I've ever heard anyone say Bernie Sanders wrote a book he sold a lot and made a lot of money. It was New York Times bestseller. Bernie Sanders was asked about that about why he had multiple houses because he has multiple homes even though he decries capitalism.
He was asked about why he has multiple homes and he said to the person well if you write a book and it's a bestseller you can have multiple homes too. So he was announcing the fact that he was through capitalism had made money but the whole thing he his whole stick is denying or decrying capitalism.
So the entire thing is it's it's it's sad to watch. It's sad to watch. But I do want to. I want to go back to a biblical principle now I'm trying to get all this back to something simple we can sink our teeth into.
I mentioned earlier calm community versus individuality. But from a biblical perspective what we have is private property versus communal property. Private property versus communal property. Capitalism is based on the idea of private property.
Communism socialism. Socialism is based on the idea of communal property on its on its basis basic level. So let me read to you. I want to read to you. This is going to be maybe the most controversial thing I'll read in this class because I'm gonna quote from Ayn Rand.
Yeah she's not a Christian. I'm quoting from her simply because of this perspective on communism. She says this there is no difference between communism and socialism except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end.
Communism proposes to enslave men by force socialism by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide. So she she believes that by taking away the individual right of private property that we are essentially putting our own neck in the noose.
Now again you may have a thousand things you don't like about Ayn Rand. But I think there is some truth to this issue. And going back to the eighth commandment the idea of stealing the Bible in my opinion does support the idea of private property.
And when we give up the right of private property and give in to a communal property like like I don't know if you've heard this but it's very popular recently there is this this phrase you'll be happier when you own nothing.
That's this that that true contentment comes from owning nothing. So that again I think is something to consider. One of the arguments for capitalism and against socialism is that capitalism inspires in initiative and ingenuity.
I remember having this conversation with a relative. I have a relative who's a who is a avowed communist. They just believe in it. They believe that capitalism is deadly and destructive. And I asked him I said in a communistic society what motivates a man to choose to be a doctor versus a ditch digger.
And he said well a ditch digger deserves just as much respect as a doctor. This is the response that the church this family member gave me. And I responded. I said it's not about respect it's about compensation.
It's not about respect. I do respect the ditch digger as much as I respect a doctor in the form of respecting a man for being a man ditch digger works hard. I respect that. But I don't compensate the ditch digger in the same way that I compensate the doctor.
And this is why so many doctors in other countries seek to come to a place where they can benefit from being doctors and lawyers and other things where they've had to put in so much. You know how long it takes to go to school to be a physician.
How long it takes to go to school to be certainly different than skilled labor which is still valuable. But the difference is the difference is met in the compensation. Right. It inspires ingenuity inspires initiative.
In capitalism there's reward for creativity innovation which is not necessarily present in other systems. Why would someone aspire to create a business and produce goods if they themselves had no benefit.
Self-interest. And this is this is key. Let me let me finish. Self-interest is an important motivator. And while ethically we might argue that self-interest is wrong it's not always wrong. We talked about this in class one if you remember we talked about the different things that cause us to come to different ethical conclusions.
Sometimes the Bible uses self-interest. Jesus talks about do not do things that will or don't worry about the one who kills the body but worry about the one who killed. Throw your body and soul into hell.
Right. Right. Like that's self interest. Like I'm concerned about my soul. There's a certain self-interest that's good. Now we shouldn't be selfish. We shouldn't be unloving or greedy. But self-interest is an important part of being able to be successful.
Yes sir. No. Yet why. Yes. And there is it. There is another side of that too where we're not fully going to dive into that. But there is a truth in which the the the hand behind a lot of this was a atheistic idea that that that the state becomes the provider the state becomes God.
And there's a dangerous side to that too. Here's a here's a nice little illustration. Some of you've probably seen this before but understanding socialism communism and capitalism in the simplest of terms and that is the economic system of two cows.
The economic system of two cows. Socialism. You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor. Now you and your neighbor both have a cow. Communism. You have two cows. You give them to the government and the government gives you milk.
Capitalism you have two cows. You sell one buy a bull and make more cows. Now that may be oversimplified. And certainly it is. But that's the difference in the community or the government determining how money is or how how trade is done or trade between people who have initiative and are seeking through their own ingenuity to to grow their own prosperity.
And I'm well aware that the simplicity of what I said and the many more economic systems that exist would cause someone to say maybe I'm being unfair because obviously I believe capitalism is the best.
And I believe it's biblical because I believe it's based on the idea of private property. So I think that that's no. Well there's no. There's no answer. It's just understanding the three. Oh which system does the Bible promote.
My that question. I would say the Bible promotes capitalism in this sense the Bible promotes the idea that that we have the right of private property. Right. In fact you remember what we think of our founding fathers.
They talk about life liberty in the pursuit of happiness. But that's not what the original writers wrote. It wasn't life liberty in the pursuit of happiness. It was life liberty property. Life liberty property because it was understood that a man who didn't own anything did not see his value and his place.
That that was part of that was part of his understanding of who he is that that his property is his property. So it's life with the right to life. That's the sixth commandment right do not commit murder.
We have the right to to liberty. Now we can argue about that because do we have the right to liberty. I think the Bible does give us a certain freedom that we are called to choose life that we may live.
Right. We're choose. We're given a certain freedom. But property is important. So what does the Bible promote. Well I would argue that it promotes a at least a basic capitalism. But let me let me go a little further because you asked and I do have it my notes here.
The Bible contains historical data for several thousand years and most of the people lived in agrarian societies which means their system of health and prosperity. And life was based upon agriculture.
Human and animal labor are the primary tools employed for agricultural production and this has been the most common form of socioeconomic organization for most of recorded human history that men had what they had based upon where they were and what they inherited and things like that.
There are some who argue that the early church was socialistic and they based this upon the early book of that early part of the book of Acts where it did say that they sold what they had and that they cared for everyone within the church for what they sold.
However I want to point out this passage in its Acts chapter 5 with Ananias and Sapphira. When Ananias and Sapphira sold their property and they lied about how much they had received for that property they were condemned for that.
But the text tells us they were not condemned for not giving the money. They were condemned for lying. In fact I'll read to you very quickly it says. A man named Ananias and his wife Sapphira sold a piece of property and with his wife's acknowledgement he kept back money for himself and brought only a part of it and laid it at the Apostles feet.
But Peter said Ananias why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land while it remained unsold. Did it not remain your own. And after it was sold was it not at your disposal.
Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart. You've not lied to men but to God. Notice what he said he said was your property. You didn't have to sell it and when you sold it you didn't have to give the money but you lied.
People think that the reason for Ananias's condemnation was his not giving the money. No. The reason for the condemnation was the lie. He didn't have to sell the property. Peter says that and he didn't have to give the money.
Peter says that the difference between socialism and what the early church dealt with is everything the early church gave was voluntary. There was no coerced giving. Now did the people sell what they had and give.
Yes. Because there was a need and there was a recognized need in the church. And I would say that today even within the church the church needs people who give. We don't get money from the government.
I tell I tell people this. Sometimes they say how is the church funded. It's funded by the church. People from the church give to the church. If everybody from the church stopped giving the church wouldn't be able to continue to function in the way that it does.
It relies on the gifts and the giving of its members. If the church didn't have that it wouldn't. We don't get anything from the government. Somebody. Well you get a tax break. Well there is a certain tax benefit that churches receive.
Not having to pay property taxes is a huge benefit. I'm not gonna lie. But no one writes a check to the church. No one sends the check from the government to the church. In fact they've offered and most churches have rejected because the government has offered things like faith-based initiatives for the starting of schools and things like that.
A lot of churches are like I'm nervous to take that money as once you start taking uncle Sam's money uncle Sam has a heavier hand on how he can control what happens. So most churches are like yeah I don't know of churches that took money from the government.
I know we didn't. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But I really I didn't know about that. So I now I do know this because we have had this offer. There is a because I get this call like once a week there's an offer for any company.
It's not just a church but any company that had employees during the pandemic can receive. I think it's $26 ,000 per employee. If you if they continued to work during the pandemic. And we have said no we don't want anything to do with that.
Is that what you're talking about. Okay. So I do know about that. I do know about that. Okay. Yeah I didn't I didn't know anybody had taken it. Yeah I know we didn't. Well as I said it's it's not an immediate control.
But you are giving over like some people would say because we have a 501 that we are under government control. But at this point we have never had anyone come in and say you can't preach this. You can't preach this because you have this tax exemption.
However if they did we would simply give up the tax exemption. Well I mean we've talked about that. Our elders have all talked about that if it came between preaching the gospel and having a tax exemption taxes.
I'm just got to go. Yeah that's not even a question. Yeah huh. Yeah. Yeah if that's what it is right. So just keep this in mind and then we take our break. All giving in the New Testament is voluntary.
2nd Corinthians 9 7 says each one must give as he has decided in his heart not reluctantly or under compulsion. So all giving in the New Testament is voluntary. Even in the early church it was all voluntary.
The church has never promoted a forced offering in that. And in that sense it's never been communistic or socialistic because that is a forced or compulsory giving. Now I want to say one last thing. I just said I was gonna say like this last thing before we take a break.
I've heard people say this phrase and maybe you've said it don't. Don't feel like I'm kicking you in the teeth. Just just listen to me. Some people will say socialism is a good system it just doesn't work practically.
I've heard people say socialism is a good system it just it just doesn't work practically. And my response is that I don't think that's true. I don't think any system which is based on forced or compulsory giving which is also known as theft is inherently good even if it works that doesn't make it right.
Very dangerous. Well you know what's funny about that socialized medicine. And again I want to get off track but I once read that there were more more MRI machines in the state of Florida than there were in all of Canada.
And the reason why is because we are more willing to do diagnostic medicine because people pay for their medicine rather than socialized medicine. And that interesting to just consider the difference there.
That's right. And that whole that's hope the whole Obamacare the danger of that as well as well as where that leads all right guys. Well we got a little bit more to do after the break we're going to talk about work and vocation.
So take five minutes and we'll be back. Let's move on to our last part and before I hope we don't lose power if anybody's watching this if this last part of the class loses because we just a tremendous storm just came in if we lose internet or lose power I'll have the rest of it recorded and I'll piece it together because I do record it back up on my my phone.
One last thing about what we were just talking about with this these systems when I say that I believe the Bible would promote capitalism I'm saying that I believe the Bible promotes private property.
I am NOT saying that every form of capitalism or even the American system of capitalism is most biblical. I'm saying that I think that certain forms of socialism and communism would be unbiblical because they have they they rob people of their personal rights of property and they force community ownership versus private ownership.
So that's where I'm coming to my conclusion. But there are there are things in capitalism which can be very ungodly as well and it can at times produce attitudes of greed and and that's not good either.
So we're going to look lastly at work and vocation. I have often heard people say that work is a product of the fall and that is not correct. The Bible teaches that Adam prior to the fall did have a vocation and this is based on Genesis chapter 2 verse 15 which you'll you'll note is before the fall.
In Genesis 2 15 it says the Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and keep it. So right there tells us that Adam had a vocation prior to the fall. Now there is some argument about that language when it says to work it and keep it because that is similar to language which is used of the priest in the in the temple and therefore some argue that Adam had a priestly duty in the garden.
There's there's more to that. I don't want to get into right now. But the point is no matter how we interpret the idea of working and keeping it certainly speaks to Adam having something to do. He had a vocation after the fall.
Work is not introduced. Work is changed. When I say it's not introduced we it was already there. But work becomes laborious and painful. Genesis 3 18 and 19 tells us that after the fall there would be labor and pain which comes at it within man's work.
But work itself is part of God's good creation and I believe it will be part of God's new creation when he creates the new heavens and the new earth. I do not believe we're going to be sitting on clouds drumming harps and and doing nothing.
I believe we will be we will continue to be creative and working in the new creation. My second thought here is that Christians are to be a working people. Christians are to be a working people. We are not to be marked by laziness.
We are not to be known as people who shirk our responsibilities. 2nd Thessalonians 3 10 says. If any one is not willing to work let him not eat. And this brings up the concept of the Protestant work ethic.
One of the principles which arose as a result of the Protestant Reformation was a particular view of vocation. Right. This on the board vocation as a calling from God. So you might have heard a person say well I was called to the ministry.
Right. Brother Bert you you're a pastor. When do you believe you were called to the ministry. Okay. And we talked about that. Right. Recognizing God's call to the ministry. Well the Protestant Reformation understood that it wasn't only the clergy who were called of God to certain things but also that all men in their vocations could do it as unto the Lord.
And so based upon certain passages like Colossians 3 17 which says that we are to do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Right. They came up with this idea that everything could be done to the glory of God.
The Encyclopedia Britannica in regard to the Protestant work ethic says this German sociologist Max Weber in the Protestant work ethic in the spirit of capitalism 1904 to 1905 held that the Protestant ethic was an important factor in economic success of Protestant groups in the early stages of European capitalism.
So again gets back to what we talked about in our last session. Capitalism at least for the reformers was seen as the biblical model because this was it grew out of the idea that God has called us whether you're a plumber you plumb to the glory of God.
If you're a shoemaker you make shoes to the glory of God. Whatever you do you do it all to the glory of God. A negative in this idea was that wealth was believed to be a sign of God's favor and thus proof of God's eternal election.
That can be bad if people believe that. But it's clear in scripture that neither wealth or poverty are necessary necessarily signs of God's election. Right. Just because you're poor doesn't mean you're not saved or not elect.
Just because you're rich doesn't mean that you are. But inherent in this system is the idea that it is not the pursuit of wealth which is sinful but the waste of it on frivolous luxuries which is sinful.
Though one could argue that the pursuit of wealth can become idolatry according to first Timothy 610 which says. For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evils. It can also remove a person from things which are of more importance things like family and church.
If the pursuit of wealth takes you away from your church and your ministry responsibilities or from your family then those things can be a problem as well. But ultimately the Protestant work ethic was the idea that pursuing your calling to the glory of God was actually or pursuing your vocation to the glory of God was to pursue your calling from God and it gave a certain nobility to work and an understood nobility to work.
From a biblical worldview it is clear that Christians should be a working and not a lazy people because of fidelity to Christ they should be faithful and trustworthy employees. They should see their jobs as means of provision from God.
They should be thankful for them and they should do them to the glory of God. That's the simple basis of the Protestant work ethic. Now we're not ending just yet but I do want to. I'm going to read my conclusion to you.
But then we have something else I want to mention the conclusion of money ethics. Is this. How a person handles money is often seen in Scripture as a metric of his or her spiritual condition. If a person is greedy gluttonous or filled with selfish ambition this can be an indicator that he has yet to come under the Lordship of Christ.
Christians are to see money and the money that they have as a stewardship from God. What is the word stewardship mean. Hmm a management. The money that we have the money that we are able to earn the money that we achieve the prosperity that we possess is all God's.
He is the one who owns the cattle on a thousand hills. And therefore whatever we have is God having placed it in our hands to manage. We will either manage it to his glory or we will manage it in a way that brings shame upon him.
So we are called to be good stewards in this church. We used to have a ministry. We called it the stewardship committee. Now we don't use the term committee anymore. We just sort of got away from that because it was just a phrase we didn't like.
Now we simply call it the financial finance officers. We have three finance officers but used to that they were called the stewardship committee. And the reason they were called that was because it was their job to manage the money of the church.
It was their job to count. It was their job to put the money in the bank. It was their job to give a accounting record to the church for what was going on and therefore they were managers of the church's money.
Well you are managers. We are managers of what God has given to us. When we talk about private property earlier I'm gonna say something. It's maybe gonna sound like I'm contradicting myself. I promise I'm.
I'm not contradicting myself. I'm just giving a fuller orbed. Understanding whatever you own through private property ultimately doesn't really belong to you. It's what God has given you to manage because it all belongs to him.
And the ultimate money ethic is that whatever money I have whatever money I possess is ultimately mine because God has seen fit to give it to me and I am to use it for his glory. God expects that we be faithful.
What is it. What is required of a steward that he be found faithful right. So there is our basic ethic when it comes to money is that everything we own is from God. We're managing his money. Now we have a few minutes left.
I want to close with a conversation about next week. Next week is class eight which means not only will you have our final class here but also in class eight you will be given the final. I don't have it completed yet.
Last final was 50 questions. This one will probably be similar in length still working on how that's going to look but we in our last class we are going to deal with class submitted ethical dilemmas. I don't know if any of you have submitted yours yet.
These are the ones I have so far. These are the I've received five so I don't have anybody in here. Sit there's in yet. I asked to have them by today. So if you haven't sent them in if you didn't give them to me by email if you could work on them have them to me by tomorrow at least in my email so that I can I need to be able to outline what all we're going to be able to do next week.
Here are the five that we have for next week. First one is mandatory military service ethical. That was a question that somebody asked so that gets to the subject of war ethics which we discussed in class six.
I think it was so that will be a topic that we discuss next week. Number two is it ethical to present the exclusivity of Christian religion as being the only true religion of saving faith over against other religions such as Judaism Islam and all others.
We're going to talk about the ethical issues surrounding because we could say the simple answer for a believer. Yes. Of course it's ethical to proclaim the gospel but maybe there to go deeper with this question would be something like in the public square is it is it ethical to demand that only Christianity is recognized.
That's that would be a further question down that line. Number three embryo adoption. Infertile couples who are considering to adopt frozen embryos implants and give birth those embryos are a result of IVF process that other couples have gone through and made the decision to give up for adoption the remaining embryos that have that they have frozen.
So the question here is is a question about IVF and embryo adoption and I'm going to try to. I may reach out to the person who sent that question in and ask them to to maybe form because I just copied these out of the emails that I received maybe form formulate a more of a specific ethical question.
Is it is it right. Is it wrong. I think they're asking is it right to do embryo adoption. And I'm gonna I'm gonna have some more information on this when we talk next week and we are going to talk this out.
This is the most dangerous class I do class eight because I let you guys share whatever you want we can talk. You're gonna share your opinion and I say it's dangerous because sometimes people get upset when other people share their opinion they don't share it.
So hopefully you guys would come with some grace next week and be able to share with an open heart and even if we disagree be able to to bear with one another. I was asked to number four to dive more into the biblical ethics between the pro-life movement and abolitionism.
I'm actually having a conversation this week with a friend who's an abolitionist who does ministry the abolition ministry. I'm gonna ask him a few questions about that to help me clarify some things and make sure I'm explaining it correctly.
So I'll try to make that clear. And then this last one I think is a great question. How can you be pro-life and eat meat. So we'll talk about the ethics of of eating flesh because there is a question that goes along with that especially in light of the mistreatment of animals that happens today and and I think there's at least a there's at least a reality that that does happen that animals are mistreated so we can that that's that's what this is based on the question of not necessarily eating meat but is is the treatment of animals important so which is scary.
I don't want lab-grown meat. Hmm tastes like chicken. Well guys that gives you an idea though if that helps maybe jog your thoughts on what you want to ask and the more questions we have the the more we'll get to talk about next week.
So if you have some questions to add please send your questions in via email by tomorrow so I can put together our list for class 8. Any questions about what we talked about tonight. All right. Well let's pray father thank you for your word thank you for your truth.
I pray Lord that we would have a better understanding of how we are called to manage our finances in accordance with what pleases you how to be ethical in our in our pursuit of of whatever prosperity you would give to us Lord but at the same time seeking to glorify you with every ounce of everything that you provide for us.
And we pray this in Jesus name Amen.