The Bible and Christian Ethics (Regnum Studies in Global Christianity) 1506477143, 9781506477145

Citation preview

The Bible and Christian Ethics David Emmanuel Singh & Bernard C Farr (Eds)

REGNUM STUDIES IN GLOBAL CHRISTIANITY

The Bible and Christian Ethics

(Previously GLOBAL THEOLOGICAL VOICES series)

Series Preface In the latter part of the twentieth century the world witnessed significant changes in global Christian dynamics. Take for example the significant growth of Christianity in some of the poorest countries of the world. Not only have numbers increased, but the emphasis of their engagement has expanded to include ministry to a wider socio-cultural context than had previously been the case. The Regnum Studies in Global Christianity series explores the issues with which the global church struggles, focusing in particular on ministry rooted in Africa, Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe. Not only does the series make available studies that will help the global church learn from past and present, it provides a platform for provocative and prophetic voices to speak to the future of Christianity. The editors and the publisher pray particularly that the series will grow as a public space, where the voices of church leaders from the majority world will contribute out of wisdom drawn from experience and reflection, thus shaping a healthy future for the global church. To this end, the editors invite theological seminaries and universities from around the world to submit relevant scholarly dissertations for possible publication in the series. Through this, it is hoped that the series will provide a forum for South-to-South as well as South-to-North dialogues.

Series Editors Ruth Padilla DeBorst Hwa Yung, Bishop Wonsuk Ma Damon So Miroslav Volf

President, Latin American Theological Fraternity, Santiago, Chile Methodist Church of Malaysia, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia Executive Director, Oxford Centre for Mission Studies, Oxford, UK Research Tutor, Oxford Centre for Mission Studies, Oxford, UK Director Yale Center for Faith and Culture, New Haven, MA, USA

REGNUM STUDIES IN GLOBAL CHRISTIANITY

The Bible and Christian Ethics

Edited by David Emmanuel Singh Bernard C. Farr

Copyright © David Emmanuel Singh and Bernard C. Farr 2013 First published 2013 by Regnum Books International Regnum is an imprint of the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies St. Philip and St. James Church, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6HR, UK www.ocms.ac.uk/regnum 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 The rights of David Emmanuel Singh and Bernard C. Farr to be identified as the Editors of this Work has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher or a license permitting restricted copying. In the UK such licenses are issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1P 9HE.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN - 978-1-506477-14-5

Typeset by Words by Design Cover design by Words by Design Cover painting, ‘Freedom in the Shadow of the Cross’, by Jae-Im Kim, used by kind permission of the Overseas Ministries Study Center, New Haven, CT, USA. Jae-Im Kim, a Korean, was OMSC’s Artist in Residence in the 2009-10 academic calendar year.

The paper used for the text of this book is manufactured to ISO 14001 and EMAS (Eco-Management & Audit Scheme) international standards, minimising negative impacts on the environment. It contains material sourced from responsibly managed forests, certified in accordance with the FSC.

The publication of this title is made possible through the generous financial assistance of The Commission on Theological Education of Evangelisches Missionswerk in Deutschland (EMW, Dr. Verena Grüter), Hamburg, Germany

Distributed by 1517 Media in the US and Canada

Contents Preface

vii WORDS AND WORKS

The Ethics of the Hebrew Bible Eryl W. Davies

3

The Holy Spirit in Word and Works: A Study in John 14 to 16 Vinay Samuel

10

Social Transformation in Nehemiah Kenneth D. Tollefson

15

RESPONSE TO POVERTY Biblical Teaching and Assisting the Poor John D. Mason

23

Jubilee Tithe: Sharing Means of Livelihood with the Poor John Goldingay

51

ECONOMIC JUSTICE Biblical Perspectives on Wealth Creation, Poverty Reduction and Social Peace and Justice Daniel Bitrus

65

The Biblical Perspective of Transformational Business Makonen Getu

72

A Biblical Paradigm for Economic Justice Stephen Mott and Ronald J. Sider

84

Do We Know What Economic Justice Is? Nuancing our Understanding by Engaging a Biblical Perspective Andrew Hartropp Borrowing and Lending: Is There Anything Christian About Either? Carl E. Armeding

118 128

FAMILY The Biblical Understanding of the Husband-Wife Relationship Larry and Nordis Christenson

143

The Child at Risk: A Biblical View Carl E. Armeding

151

Insights into Child Theology through the Life and Work of Pandita Ramabai Keith J. White Theology and Children: Towards a Theology of Childhood Adrian Thatcher

157 168

ENVIRONMENT The Land and the Environment in the Purposes of God: A Biblical Reflection with Special Reference to Romans 8:18-30 Chris Sugden

179

The Old Testament and the Environment: A Response to Chris Wright Gordon Wenham

183

The New Testament Teaching on the Environment Ernest Lucas

197

The New Testament Teaching on the Environment: A Response to Ernest Lucas Richard Baukham

213

Preface

For more than a quarter of a century the journal Transformation has published papers at the interface of Christian thought and action. Indeed in its earliest years Transformation had as its subtitle “An International Journal of Christian Social Ethics” and provided a platform for leading Christian thinkers and activists to engage with pressing social and ethical issues in widely varying contexts. Thus the first issue of Transformation in January 1984 published papers from Kenya on “The Church and Polygamy” by David Gitari, from India on “The Use of the Bible in Social Ethics” by J. H. Wright, “Seeking Theological Agreement” by John Stott, and the Wheaton ’83 Statement “The Church in Response to Human Need”. This was immediately followed by a second volume on economics and justice with papers on “Justice in International Economic Relations with Less Developed Countries” by Evert Van Der Heide, “Towards a More Just Economic Order: The Case for Free Trade” by Rachel Steare, “Quinchuqui: A Case Study on Rural Poverty in Ecuador” by Laura Glynn, “In the Mission of the Church in Light of the Kingdom of God” by C. René Padilla, and book reviews of “Equality, the Third World and Economic Delusion” (reviewed by Donald Hay), “The Denigration of Capitalism: Six Points of View”, “Protestantismo e Repressao (Protestantism and Repression)” (reviewed by Gerardo Viviers), and “La Fiesta de Liberacion de Los Oprimidos (The Liberation Feast of the Oppressed: A Rereading of John 7:1-10:21)” (reviewed by Richard Foulkes). In quick succession there were volumes addressing issues in human rights, Christ and culture(s), conflict and liberation, race, caste and social structures the nuclear war, drawn from Honduras, Nicaragua, South Africa, India, North America, the Philippines, the Soviet Union, Europe, and wherever Christians were facing up to biblically-based reflection on the ethical dimension of Christian living. Gradually the emphasis of Transformation shifted from a focus on Christian social ethics to setting this interest within a missional context but the flow of significant papers continued. So, for example, the second volume in 2010 had papers on “The emergent Church, socio-economics and Christian mission” by Kim Hawtrey, and “Do we know what Economic Justice is? Nuancing our Understanding by Engaging Biblical Perspectives” by Andrew Hartropp, and in the first volume of 2009, papers on “Refugee Realities: Refugee Rights versus State Security in Kenya and Tanzania” by Edward Mogire and “Transformational Leadership Behaviours and Empathy with Action” by Mary Miller. The editors of this volume were therefore faced with an embarrassment of riches of both depth and breadth. In the end we chose five themes well suited to

viii

Jesus and the Incarnation

showing how Christians continue to shape the Christian thinking on ethical issues within their varying contexts. We have left aside the fundamental issue of whether Christian ethics can vary by context (can there be ‘Contextual Christian Ethics’ whereby right Christian action can be context-dependent to some or any degree?) and to allow the voices to speak for themselves. The themes we chose are: Words and Works, Response to Poverty, Economic Justice, Family, and Environment. This still left the invidious task of choosing papers for the book. There are many others that could, perhaps should, have made it. We encourage readers to explore these riches further by accessing Transformation online where all volumes are available via the OCMS website. We are confident however that all the papers contribute to understanding how Christian thought is shaped in contexts which pose their own challenges to Christian living. Bernard C. Farr and David Emanuel Singh December 2011

WORDS AND WORKS

The Ethics of the Hebrew Bible

Eryl W. Davies Dr. Eryl W. Davies is Reader in the School of Theology and Religious Studies at Bangor University, Wales, U.K. Introduction The ethics of the Hebrew Bible has, until comparatively recently, remained a much neglected area of biblical scholarship. When Christopher Wright published his widely read book on the ethics of the Hebrew Bible in 1983, he felt no need to apologize in his Preface for adding yet another volume to the literature, since ‘the subject of Old Testament ethics has scarcely any literature to add to’.1 One reason for the neglect of the subject in the past has no doubt been the sheer amount of material that needs to be discussed, analyzed and evaluated. Moral considerations feature prominently in Israel’s laws and are evident in many of the denunciations leveled by the prophets against their contemporaries. Several of the narratives contained in the Hebrew Bible raise profound ethical questions, and moral issues frequently recur in the sayings of the wise and in various passages in the Psalms. The task of providing a comprehensive framework within which this complex and often unwieldy material can be organized and understood has, not surprisingly, proved a daunting and intimidating prospect for many biblical scholars. Moreover, it was recognized that a full treatment of the subject would require an analysis of Israel’s ethical values through many generations and this, in turn, could not be undertaken without a detailed account of Israel’s social and political history. The task of writing an ‘ethics of the Hebrew Bible’ was made all the more problematic by the fact that a variety of ethical viewpoints concerning particular moral issues were probably held by different groups within Israel even within the same period. Consequently, the Bible seemed staunchly to resist any attempt to subject it to a tidy, systematic treatment, and some scholars were forced to concede that the writing of an ‘ethics of the Hebrew Bible’ was an impractical, if not impossible, task.2 But perhaps the main reason for the neglect was the fact that biblical scholars, by training and inclination, tended to be theologians, historians, 1

C.J.H. Wright, Living as the People of God: The Relevance of Old Testament Ethics (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press 1983) 9. See, also, his recent volume, Old Testament Ethics for the People of God (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 2004). 2 J. Barton, ‘Understanding Old Testament Ethics’, JSOT 9 (1978) 44; C.S. Rodd, ‘Ethics (Old Testament)’, in R.J. Coggins and J.L. Houlden (eds.), A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (London: SCM Press, 1990) 208-.9.

4

The Bible and Christian Ethics

archaeologists or philologists rather than ethicists, and many were wary about entering into a domain with which they were not particularly familiar. As James M. Gustafson commented, ‘those who are specialists in ethics generally lack the intensive and proper training in biblical studies, and those who are specialists in biblical studies often lack sophistication in ethical thought’.3 In view of the neglect of the subject over the years, the recent resurgence of interest in the ethics of the Hebrew Bible is warmly to be welcomed. The subject is now being recognized as an independent discipline in its own right and is no longer subsumed – as it has been in the past – under the umbrella of ‘theology’.4 Of course, the volumes that have been written on this area do not profess to include every aspect of this complex subject, and there is general agreement among biblical scholars that the presentation of the ethics of the Hebrew Bible must be selective, since no volume (however long and detailed) can hope to examine all the relevant issues. Consequently, some scholars have focused exclusively on the legal material,5 while others have been concerned to outline the ethical import of the biblical narratives,6 or the moral pronouncements of the prophets7 or those contained in the Wisdom literature.8 But whichever genre has been the focus of attention, biblical scholars have had to decide on the particular methodological approach which is to be adopted. Basically, they have been faced with two options, namely, the historical-critical and the literary-critical approach.9 Historical-Critical versus Literary-Critical Approach Scholars who favour the historical-critical approach believe that it is possible to reconstruct the ethical beliefs and practices of the ancient Israelites on the basis of the biblical text. In effect, the Hebrew Bible is viewed as a window through which the perceptive reader can observe the social world and daily experiences of the people of Israel and Judah and thus come to some understanding of the manner and mores of the peoples of biblical times. According to this view, the task of the biblical scholar is to describe the type of community that produced 3

J.M. Gustafson, ‘The Place of Scripture in Christian Ethics: A Methodological Study’, Interpretation 24 (1970) 430. 4 Cf. W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, ii (London: SCM Press, 1967) 31679. 5 Cf. W. Harrelson, The Ten Commandments and Human Rights (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980). 6 Cf. G.J Wenham, Story as Torah: Reading the Old Testament Ethically (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000). 7 Cf. E. W. Davies, Prophecy and Ethics: Isaiah and the Ethical Traditions of Israel (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981). 8 Cf. J. Blenkinsopp, Wisdom and Law in the Old Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983). 9 See, further, E.W. Davies, ‘The Bible in Ethics’, in J.W. Rogerson and J.M. Lieu (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006) 733-5.

The Ethics of the Hebrew Bible

5

the ethical norms found in the Hebrew Bible and to illuminate the historical, political and social context in which those norms were originally formulated. The historical-critical approach is therefore interested not so much in the text itself as in the social reality to which it supposedly bears witness.10 It is now increasingly recognized, however, that such an approach is not without its problems. In the first place, many scholars have questioned whether the biblical account can be regarded as a simple, straightforward reflection of ancient reality, and reservations have been expressed as to whether the Hebrew Bible can be regarded as an accurate record of ‘how it really happened’ (to use the famous phrase of von Ranke). All too often, it is argued, the historicalcritical approach has had an air of appearing to know things we are actually very unsure about, and it has tended to state as fact what was merely speculation and hypothetical reconstruction. Moreover, alongside a progressive loss of confidence in the historical value of the Hebrew Bible there has been a question regarding its comprehensiveness, for there is a growing recognition that it reflects merely the ethical values and norms of the learned and educated class in ancient Israel, and that very little can be known about the moral beliefs and practices of the ‘ordinary’ Israelites. In view of these difficulties, it is perhaps not surprising that many recent scholars who have examined the ethics of the Hebrew Bible have focused on the literary-critical approach, arguing that ‘story’ rather than ‘history’ should be the main focus of scholarly attention.11 It is important to note that adherents of the literary-critical approach do not seek to devalue or berate the historicalcritical approach; it is merely that they recognize its limitations. They believe that this approach has probably taken us about as far as we are able to go and that it is now time to move on and explore the text from a different perspective. Thus, for example, whether the stories relating to David reflect actual events in the life of the monarch is regarded as a secondary (and perhaps even irrelevant) consideration; the important point is that there is much ethical food for thought in these narratives irrespective of their historical veracity. It is sometimes said that whereas the historical-critical approach was concerned to recover or reconstruct the world ‘behind’ the text, the literary-critical approach is focused on the text itself, and the world ‘in front of’ the text – that is, the reader and the reader’s role in analyzing its inner dynamics, its structure, form and recurrent features. Even the literary-critical approach, however, is not without its difficulties. Such an approach calls for a careful and nuanced reading of the biblical text, for some of the key ethical terms that appear in the Hebrew Bible – ‘righteousness’, ‘holiness’, ‘loving-kindness’ – have a variety of connotations, and what such concepts may mean in one literary context may be quite

10

The historical-critical approach is well exemplified in the work of E. Otto, Theologische Ethik des Alten Testaments (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1994). 11 For the literary-critical approach, see M.E.Mills, Biblical Morality: Moral Perspectives in Old Testament Narratives (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001).

6

The Bible and Christian Ethics

different from what they mean in another.12 Moreover, the various literary genres within the Hebrew Bible contain ethical principles which sometimes appear contradictory, and scholars who adopt the literary-critical approach must be sensitive to the unresolved tensions that exist between the various ethical demands. Nevertheless, the literary-critical approach seems to the present writer to be the most promising avenue for future research in this area, for it allows us to attend to the rich possibilities of the text and an examination of the motives and actions of the various characters in the biblical narratives. The Basis of the Ethics of the Hebrew Bible Discussions of the basis of Israelite ethics have usually focused on the law.13 God’s commands were regarded as binding for the people of Israel, and those commands were expressed in concrete form in the Decalogue (Ex. 20: 1-17). Ethical living required obedience to certain prescriptions and obedience to God was regarded as one of Israel’s highest duties. The danger of over-emphasizing the law as the basis for Israelite ethics, however, is that biblical morality can too easily be reduced to a set of rules, prohibitions and regulations. A much richer picture of biblical ethics emerges once we realize that Israel’s morality was not simply a matter of obedience to an external moral code. I have argued elsewhere that the moral norms encountered in the Hebrew Scriptures arise out of imitation of God’s character as well as out of obedience to God’s will.14 The notion of ‘imitating Christ’ has figured prominently in discussions of the ethics of the New Testament,15 but the concept of imitatio Dei has not received the prominence it deserves in discussions of the ethics of the Hebrew Bible. The clearest expression of this principle is found in Lev. 19:2, which forms part of the so-called ‘Holiness Code’: ‘You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy’. This refrain, which implies that God is not only the source of ethical commands but the pattern of ethical behaviour, is repeated often in Leviticus (cf. 11:44; 20:7, 26; 21:8). Similarly, the prophets conceived of God as possessing certain moral qualities and believed that these same qualities should be reflected in the behaviour of the Israelites towards each other. Thus, for example, Isaiah, at the time of his call, encountered the holy God in the sanctuary (Isa. 6), and this 12

Cf. E.W. Davies, ‘Ethics of the Hebrew Bible: The Problem of Methodology’, Semeia 66 (1994) 44. 13 Cf. H. Lalleman, Celebrating the Law? Rethinking Old Testament Ethics (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2004). 14 E.W. Davies, ‘Walking in God’s Ways: The Concept of imitatio Dei in the Old Testament’, in E.Ball (ed.), In Search of True Wisdom: Essays in Old Testament Interpretation in Honour of Ronald E. Clements (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999) 99-115. 15 Cf. E.J. Tinsley, The Imitation of God in Christ (London: SCM Press 1960); O. Merk, ‘Nachahmung Christi’, in H. Merklein (ed.), Neues Testament und Ethik (Freiburg: Herder, 1989) 172-206.

The Ethics of the Hebrew Bible

7

encounter set the tone of much of his subsequent preaching and determined the way in which he was to interpret God’s demands. God’s holiness was the central standard by which Israel’s life was to be judged, and the iniquities that were present in Judah were largely due to the fact that the people had neglected the presence of the holy God in their midst (Isa. 1:4; 30:9-11; 31:1). The Psalmists also frequently reflect on God’s character and imply that this should form the basis of the ethical life of those who worship him. Psalms 111 and 112 are particularly significant in this regard, for the attributes of God set forth in the former are regarded in the latter as being reflected in the life of the true believer.16 Another possible basis for the ethics of the Hebrew Bible which has figured prominently in recent discussions is the concept of ‘natural law’.17 The Hebrew Bible evinces patterns of behaviour that reflect commonly held standards of morality and these standards are evidently based on reason rather than revelation. In this regard, the ‘foreign nation’ oracles contained in Am. 1:3-2:5 have been viewed as particularly significant, for it is evident from Amos’ indictment that even nations who have no knowledge of God can be held accountable to him, for they – as much as Israel – were capable of making ethical decisions and assessing the probable consequences of their actions.18 Of course, the term ‘natural law’ must be used with some reservation, since it might imply the highly developed philosophy of natural law encountered in later Western thought. Nevertheless, the possibility that a ‘natural law’ type of ethic might undergird some of the biblical material may well open up significant new perspectives in our understanding of the ethics of the Hebrew Bible and force us to question some of the presuppositions which have hitherto been regarded as axiomatic. For example, the tendency to regard the ethics of the Hebrew Bible as exclusively revelatory may need to be reconsidered, for it may well be that Scripture bears witness to principles of right conduct that are discoverable through rational calculation. Relevance On the whole, few scholars who have written on the ethics of the Hebrew Bible have considered its relevance for contemporary ethical decision-making.19 The issue of relevance, if considered at all, has all too often been regarded as an 16

The two psalms are generally regarded as forming a pair by virtue of both form and content, and they may well be the product of a single author. For a discussion, see W. Zimmerli, ‘Zwillingspsalmen’, in J. Schreiner (ed.), Wort, Lied und Gottesspruch, ii (Wurzburg: Echter Verlag, 1972), 105-13. 17 Cf. J. Barton, ‘Natural Law and Poetic Justice in the Old Testmament’, JTS n.s. 30 (1979) 1-14; J. Barr, Biblical Faith and Natural Theology (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1993). 18 Cf. J. Barton, Amos’s Oracles against the Nations (Cambridge: CUP, 1980). 19 A notable exception is B.C. Birch and L.L. Rasmussen, Bible and Ethics in the Christian Life (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1976).

8

The Bible and Christian Ethics

optional afterthought rather than as something integral to scholarly engagement with the text. Scholars have readily provided a descriptive account of the ethical values of biblical times and the way in which the people of ancient Israel understood them, but they have generally given little or no thought as to how such values might impinge on modern socio-ethical issues relevant to contemporary communities of faith. Such considerations, it is often argued, have no place within the academy, for the scholar who is concerned to interpret the biblical text should be concerned with ‘what it meant’ rather than with ‘what it means’ (to quote Stendahl’s famous distinction).20 This lack is a matter of regret, for there is always the danger that the study of the ethics of the Hebrew Bible will become a mere academic exercise with little relevance for contemporary discussion and debate. It is essential that the scholarly community and the community of faith enter into sustained and meaningful dialogue with each other, for a biblical scholarship which remains aloof from the concerns of the church will, of necessity, become isolated, introverted and self-serving. Of course, some biblical scholars who have raised the issue of relevance have taken a decidedly negative stance and have questioned the applicability of the Hebrew Bible to contemporary ethical concerns. After all, it is argued, there are plenty of issues of current concern about which Scripture says nothing – abortion, euthanasia, global warming and genetic engineering – to mention just a few. On the other hand, many of the provisions that are recorded in the Hebrew Bible can no longer be regarded as binding in our own secular, pluralist society, and the fact is that even those committed to the authority of Scripture do not always obey its commands – such as the injunctions proscribing eating meat containing blood (Gen. 9:4) or the laws prohibiting work on the Sabbath (Ex. 20:9-10). The problem of applying the Bible to the exigencies of the present age is therefore twofold: on the one hand, many of the laws and customs recorded in the Hebrew Bible no longer seem relevant to contemporary communities of faith; on the other hand, many of the problems that do arise in the complex, technological age in which we live are such that the Bible offers little or no guidance by which they can be resolved. It is all too easy, however, to over-emphasize these difficulties. In the first place, it should not be forgotten that although the Hebrew Bible is silent concerning many issues of contemporary concern, it does contain teaching on a whole raft of ethical matters that are still relevant in the twenty-first century – its teaching concerning care for the poor and vulnerable in society, and its strictures concerning justice and fairness, for example, are as relevant today as they were when they were first adumbrated. Further, although there are injunctions in the Hebrew Bible that may appear irrelevant to contemporary society, it may be possible to seek out the underlying principles contained in the biblical text and reapply them in appropriate ways to matters of current concern. The issue of tithing – providing the sanctuary with a tenth of one’s 20

K. Stendahl, ‘Biblical Theology, Contemporary’, IDB 1 (1962) 418-32.

The Ethics of the Hebrew Bible

9

produce – may provide an interesting case in point, since many Christians have adopted this principle as an ideal by which to measure their giving. Such an interpretative strategy is admittedly not without its problems, but it is argued that by rooting out the underlying principles of Scripture, the reader can remain true to the spirit of the biblical text while at the same time making it relevant and applicable in the modern world. Conclusion In this brief survey we have been able to outline just some of the pertinent issues relating to the subject of the ethics of the Hebrew Bible. Much research remains to be done in this important field of biblical study, and it is to be hoped that the renewed interest shown by biblical scholars in this area during the last twenty years will continue into the foreseeable future.

The Holy Spirit in Word and Works: A Study in John 14 to 16

Vinay Samuel Rev. Dr. Vinay Samuel was the Executive Director of the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies and is now heading the Oxford Centre for Religion in Public Life Introduction In the chapters 14 to 16 of John's Gospel the key theme is the work of the Holy Spirit in relation to an unbelieving and hostile world and in relation to the disciples of Jesus. The Holy Spirit is described as counsellor (14:15, 26; 15:26) and the Spirit of truth (14:17; 16:13). The stress is on the Holy Spirit's work as the Spirit of Truth. The Holy Spirit's work in relation to the world is to convince and judge the world of its guilt in relation to Christ. The Spirit does this as the prosecuting spirit of truth. In relation to the disciples, the Spirit is the comforter who will not leave them orphaned but is preeminently the Spirit of truth who leads them into all truth. The Spirit's work is to confirm, interpret and build on the words of Jesus. The teaching of Jesus becomes the text of the Holy Spirit. There is also recognition of the role of the Holy Spirit in enabling the disciples to perform “greater things” than Jesus. The gift of the Spirit will enable the disciples to do miracles. The study of the passage will highlight the emphasis of the Gospel writer in relating the work of the Holy Spirit to word and works. The Spirit of Truth The Spirit's relation to truth became important in the context which the Fourth Gospel was addressing. It was a context of plurality of religious claims. While a metaphysical oneness of truth was seen as self-evident, no particular religious tradition, narrative or dogma was accepted as universally applicable unless it was promoted through military power. Such a context of competing truth claims and bias towards relativising any such claims is addressed by the Gospel writer with the teaching of Jesus concerning the role of the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Truth. Human society and culture have no place for truth as the Bible defines it. In the Hindu-Buddhist culture in which I have lived you do not question the context of any belief against a standard truth. You do not attempt to reveal the truth behind any myth or religious narrative. You accept them as they are and where necessary point to other truths both to relativise any claim to universal

The Holy Spirit in Words and Works

11

truth by one, and also to draw out the common ground of all religious narrative. Such a view of truth will spread with Modernity and the Market. Most truths will be accommodated, diluted and distorted. There will be hardly room for a truth which applies to all people and is above all contexts. Law Suit of Cosmic Dimensions The passage deals with the work of the Holy Spirit in a world which is hostile to Christ's disciples and which rejects the truth of Jesus' teaching. The Holy Spirit is a counsellor, an advocate and the Spirit of Truth. The Spirit is described as engaged in a lawsuit of cosmic dimensions (16:8). Earlier the Gospel focuses on Jesus' legal battle with an unbelieving world: “this is the verdict: Light has come into the world but men loved darkness instead of light.” (3:19). Jesus is described as having come to judge the world (9:39). The Father has entrusted judgment to the Son (5:22). The battle is not only with the world in general but is also specifically with the unbelieving Jew (8:42- 58). Jesus reveals the unbelieving Jews' origins in the devil, the father of lies as evidenced in their inability to recognise truth, let alone understand and accept it. The Jews counter-attack by accusing Jesus' origins. He is a Samaritan and is demon-possessed. The law suit shifts to another level in 12:3. The 'ruler of the world' is judged. The lawsuit now reaches cosmic dimensions. From Chapter 13 the focus is on the Holy Spirit seen as prosecuting counsel, who argues his case against the world which rejects his teaching. In relation to the unbelieving, Christ-rejecting world, the Spirit takes on the role of the prosecuting attorney out to prove the world's guilt. The defendant is the world; the cosmos - a moral order in rebellion against God. It is a world which God loves (John 3:16) and considers redeemable. The teaching of John's Gospel pictures the world as without faith, full of hatred and in active rebellion against God. Contemporary cultures are also marked by violence, bitterness and hatred. In many areas of the world violence and hatred are directed at the disciples of Jesus. In the above passage, the main cause for the world's hatred is identified as the fact of the Incarnation. In Jesus, God has become visible in the world. He takes the world on. He becomes part of the world and yet remains free from its corruption and sin. The world cannot stand to be reminded of the possibility of truth, grace, goodness and purity in human history. The incarnate response represents that possibility visibly and so by his very presence judges the world and rejects its assumption about the nature of truth and goodness. The disciples who represent such a Jesus are understandably the objects of hatred and vilification. The hatred of the world is principally directed at Jesus, as the teaching and life of Jesus contradicts what the word stands for and judges it. The Disciples of Christ are not the primary target, though they do enough to earn ridicule and caricature. They become the target as they represent the possibility of universal truth, of goodness, of love for neighbour, of a unity that overcomes humanmade barriers and of the reality of the transcendent in the midst of history.

12

The Bible and Christian Ethics

The Spirit and the World The Holy Spirit is described as the Spirit of Truth in relation to the world. In essence and action the Spirit is characterised by truth. It is truth about Jesus (John 16:14). It is truth that Jesus is God's truth and grace. The Spirit will testify about Christ to the world. The word marturesai (15:26) could be better translated as “will make an accusation” against the world. The work of the Spirit is to expose and identify the sins of the world. This is as visible a work of the Spirit as the Spirit's work in demonstrating the works of God. In 15:26, the Spirit's accusation against the world is supported and reinforced by the “witness” of the disciples. Their existence and continuance in faith is part of their 'witness' which accuses and judges the world. Their proclamation of the Gospel is the witness they bear. Their unflinching and sacrificial faith announces that in history a people can maintain their identity and character as the people of God. They can resist the attacks and distortions of the world. The Spirit's testimony against the world is integrally linked to the testimony of the people of God. The Spirit's testimony is neither unhistorical nor magical. It takes flesh in the people of God. In 14:17, Jesus teaches that the world cannot accept the Spirit of truth “as it neither sees him nor knows him.” The world sees Jesus, knows him and rejects him. The Spirit is invisible to the world and the world can close itself to the Spirit as it cannot see its reality or relevance. But the witness of the Spirit as seen in the life of the community of God's people is palpably real. It is visible and relevant and cannot be avoided. The world can either accept or reject. It cannot bypass it. The Spirit judges the world of sin, righteousness and judgment (16:8-11). There are no definite articles for these words. They focus on values and standards operating in the world. The ideologies that shape the world and the system and structures that make it work are the object of the Spirit's judgment. The Spirit exposes the ideas and structures of the world as sinful against the backdrop of a community of Jesus' disciples who live out the teachings of Jesus and uplift him before the world. The Spirit of Truth and the Disciples The Spirit shapes the lives of the disciples through the revealed truth (15:26; 16:13). The Spirit illumines the words of Jesus in the light of the future. The Spirit provides the eschatological framework for the words of Jesus. This protects the word from apostasy as the disciples apply the word to their present and it also protects the disciples from spiritual sterility and coldness. The transmission of the truth of Jesus and the teaching of Jesus through the community of disciples is monitored, corrected and facilitated by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit enables the disciples to apply the words of Jesus to their future. As the disciples live out their life in the world, the Spirit applies the words of Jesus to their contexts. The words of Jesus become life-giving in the

The Holy Spirit in Words and Works

13

context but never get trapped in a given context as it is the Spirit who directs their application to a context and their transmission into the future. The Holy Spirit creates the world of the Bible for any context. In the Gospels, truth and the words of Jesus are inseparable. Words are not seen as reflecting an eternal reality out there. Such an assumption of absolute truth as beyond all human words and narratives is a philosophical concept not shared by New Testament writers. The Gospel narrative, the biblical narrative itself is regarded as the truth. However that narrative is dynamically related to the Holy Spirit, who not only inspires the writing of scriptures but continues to be related to their usage by the people of God. The Spirit uses the biblical narratives to create a biblical world. This world of biblical narrative becomes for the disciples, the stable, meaning giving, life-directing world. The Spirit enables biblical narrative to be both applicable to a given context and maintain its universality and integrity throughout history. The biblical world is available universally in all cultures and through all history. The common enterprise of the people of God in different cultures is the study of the world of the bible as we enter it from our particular cultures. Our particular insights demonstrate the power of the biblical world to judge and transform all our particular worlds. Powerful insights and truths invisible to one culture become accessible through disciples from another cultural background. The Holy Spirit creates the biblical world in the community of Jesus' disciples. Biblical scholars are necessary to reconstruct with integrity the historical biblical world. Pastors and congregations are necessary to create that world in contemporary history. They become the contemporary, contextual theologians. The biblical world which nurtures and empowers a contemporary congregation is a critically important gift we bring to the world. Our contemporary worlds and cultures, whether they be Hindu, Latin American, Buddhist, Islamic, traditional, modern or post-modern are in a state of continual change. Contextualising the gospel or scripture into these worlds is always a hazardous task. It is necessary to make the Gospel relevant to different contexts and cultures. I would like to suggest an alternate model of making the Gospel relevant to different contexts. It is time we recognised the dynamic nature of the world of biblical narrative especially as it is expressed by a community of disciples who recognise the role of the Holy Spirit in making that world dynamic and empowering. It is into such a world of biblical narrative that is drawn from the Bible, shaped by the Holy Spirit and lived out by a community of believers that we must apply our contemporary contexts. They must be brought into that world and evaluated. The values, principles, systems and structures of the world need to be judged within the framework of the world of the Bible which the Spirit creates in the church.

14

The Bible and Christian Ethics

The Spirit, the Disciples and ‘Greater Works’ In John 14:12, Jesus teaches the disciples that any disciple who has faith in him can do 'greater things' than the miracles which Jesus had performed before the disciples. Jesus goes on to link the ability of the disciples to do these greater works to the gift of the Holy Spirit to the disciples, following Jesus' return to the Father. In his conversation with Philip, Jesus appeals to his teaching as the evidence of his relationship with the Father. The appeal to Jesus' miracles as confirming his oneness with the Father is seen as secondary “at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves” (14:ll). For Jesus, the disciples' convictions were better founded on faith in the teaching of Jesus rather than the evidence of the works of Jesus. Therefore, while the passage goes on to confirm that the gift of the Holy Spirit will enable the disciples to perform great miracles, the Holy Spirit's description as the Spirit of Truth is stressed. The world rejects the Spirit because it cannot accept the truth the Spirit brings and demonstrates. The Holy Spirit is the Teacher who teaches truth to the disciples (14:26; 16:13). It is this truth which is their resource in the world and their weapon against an unbelieving world. The disciples must be empowered by the truth which the Spirit of truth brings and witness to that truth. The works they will perform will not be the principal weapon the Spirit uses against the world. The works they perform are to strengthen their own faith and confirm the truth of Jesus to them. The miracles of Jesus in John's Gospel are signs of his identity as the Son of God. They announce that Jesus is God become flesh. In John, the disciples' works are not given that role. It is the love which the disciples have one for another that is offered to the world as a testimony (15:11, 17; 17:23). It is possible that John's Gospel does not stress the works of the Holy Spirit through the disciples in relation to the world as it depicts the world as cynical and full of hatred of anything that comes from Jesus. The world shaped by its rejection of Christ will not be impressed with works alone. It is obvious that in John's Gospel the stress is on the Spirit's use of truth, the truth about Jesus, the truth lived out by the disciples against an unbelieving world. Conclusion The above study of the relation between the work of the Holy Spirit to the whole of Jesus and the works of the disciples highlights the need for a recovery of the stress on the Johannine teaching of the Spirit of Truth for the contemporary church. The Spirit's creation of the world of biblical narrative in the community life of the disciples as the evidence the Spirit uses to convince, convict and convert the world needs to be accepted and lived out in our contemporary world and cultures.

Social Transformation in Nehemiah

Kenneth D. Tollefson Dr. Tollefson is Emeritus Professor of Anthropology at the Seattle Pacific University, U.S.A. The Book of Nehemiah is a story about the total transformation of a rundown settlement suffering from economic exploitation and communal apathy. This story relates how a dispersed and disorganized people banded together to find a measure of meaning and security. The story describes how leadership can challenge and encourage people to assert themselves in a united struggle to restore their dignity and self-esteem. This struggle was neither simple nor easy. It involved a radical revision in beliefs and behaviour. It meant going to the roots of their problems, restructuring their society, and reordering their priorities. A Radical Leader (1: 1-2:20) The Book of Nehemiah describes a personal confrontation with a formidable problem. The city of Jerusalem was in ruins: defenceless, impoverished and vacated-a mere shadow of its former existence. The people could readily identify their problem, a 'broken wall and burned gates'. That ghastly image of the holy city affected the security and seclusion of a Jewish palace official in Persia. The deterioration of the Jewish capital, the citadel of Nehemiah's faith, the roots of his ethnic heritage, and the hope of his future-all this undermined his illusory lifestyle and brought him face-to-face with the reality of the decadence of his people and their intolerable situation. The broken wall and burned gates were symptomatic of the shattered life of Nehemiah and his nation-estranged from their land, their covenant, and their God. The story poignantly depicts Nehemiah's mental and spiritual anguish: he wept, mourned, fasted, and prayed (1:4). In seeking a resolution, Nehemiah journeyed back through the sacred history of Israel to the holy mountain of the covenant. And there, in the rubble of a broken covenant, he made his humble confession to God and renewed his personal participation in it. Out of that lifetransforming experience, Nehemiah caught a vision of a restored city with a discouraged and despised people (Deut. 30: 1-5). Nehemiah confronted the predicament of their broken wall and burned gates with a radical commitment. This visionary of the power of God was not content with patching up the wall with posts and pilings. To treat the symptom of their poverty only, a broken wall was to miss the basic cause of their malady: a

16

The Bible and Christian Ethics

broken law. His anguish of spirit forced Nehemiah out of his shell of complacency and self-righteousness and in turn opened up his life to a new interpretation of the community of God and his participation in it. This vision simultaneously undermined his old perspective and exposed him to a new level of existence, a creative new beginning. It produced a dynamic blueprint for social transformation (1:5-9). The story of Nehemiah is an historic case study of what it means for people to respond to the providence of God. All of us, like Nehemiah, are confronted with formidable social problems which God wants to see alleviated-hunger, poverty, or social injustices. Frequently, God uses personal experiences, newspaper articles, or television commentaries to catch a person's attention and to issue a personal call to mend the broken walls of economic poverty and social injustices in our churches, in our neighbourhoods, and in our world. Ultimately, individual responses will gravitate towards one of two poles of reaction. One is illustrated by the life of Nehemiah who became humble, broken, inspired, and empowered to significantly alleviate the problem. The other is illustrated by Sanballat, who became proud and resolved to oppose and to exacerbate the problem. Nehemiah used his time, his skills, and his resources to build the wall (3:l-7:5). Sanballat used his time, his skills, and his resources to destroy it (4:1-6:14). A Radical Programme (3:l – 7:4) The Nehemiah story suggests that any programme for mending broken walls in any community will be complex and risky. Solutions include poor peasants and powerful potentates, personal sacrifices and wealthy grants, and programmes of social justice and of group co-operation. It involves more than piercing together old bricks; it involves restructuring old relationships, archaic laws, and economic constraints. Mending the wall at Jerusalem included a change in Persian foreign policy, a redistribution of Jerusalem's wealth, and a new commitment to support the temple and covenant. The situation was desperate-solutions seemed hopeless. The forces of opposition were truculently entrenched. However, the story suggests another dimension. It places the Jerusalem predicament squarely within the providence of a powerful God who could change the imperial mind of an emperor, challenge the domination of the elite, and persuade peasant farmers to fight their poverty. When the people took the Jerusalem predicament to God, God inspired a man with a plan. And God used that man and his plan to acquire a Persian building permit, a requisition for building materials, and a safe military escort (2:7-10). In turn, Nehemiah used his administrative skills to mobilize the people for action. He wisely worked through local leaders whenever possible, divided the work force into manageable units, and motivated the labourers to protect their personal interests – their homes, families and sources of income: All participants were enabled to achieve vital objectives: the king furnished

Social Transformation in Nehemiah

17

materials and gained a fortified city; the people contributed their labour and acquired a secure city; the wealthy gave of their means and received an enterprising city. This was by no means a cheap accomplishment. All solutions to community problems involve change, and disrupt individual habits and social customs. Progress in the Jerusalem predicament was accompanied by military threats, political conspiracy, crippling factions, and personal harassment. These persistent assaults drained community resources, compounded the work, and split the community (5:l-13). In spite of mounting pressures, Nehemiah never lost sight of his top objective-a restored wall and law. In the midst of the foray, Nehemiah exhorted the people that it was God's work-God's presence and power would prevail. Nehemiah reminded the people that they were fighting for their freedom and their faith. With his most important value clearly in view, Nehemiah would pause, whenever the situation dictated, to pursue pressing local problems in their pressure-packed community. The people needed to resolve their local differences and to unite their efforts to achieve a measure of community. They were enabled to transcend their local exploitation, greed, and injustices by buying into a revolutionary concept of community-a 'Covenant of Brotherhood'. It included a pledge of assistance to needy neighbours. It led to the release of slaves, to interest-free loans, and to prosperity without inflation (56-13). Their pledge of mutual support addressed the spectre of future adversity with the promise of mutual assistance-a kind of community security. A Radical Commitment (7:5 – 10:39) Most modem projects of planned change involve some type of physical or economic development-an irrigation project, a health centre, or a marketing technique. Then, when the project is completed, the agent of change returns home. Rather than escaping to his plush Persian palace apartment, Nehemiah remained in Jerusalem to revitalize an anaemic society. Physical changes are frequently fragile and futile. Usually superficial, they rarely touch the critical areas of meaning and motivation. Like the restored wall of Jerusalem, they provide little more than a community shell. The wall could better sustain life within the city, but it could not restore life to the city. The compelling need for Jerusalem was a new bonding mechanism which could unite the people around a meaningful centre of being- a 'sacred canopy'.1 They needed a common cause and commitment big enough to compel and command their lives. They needed a revitalized covenant to address the problems that plagued their society. The people were estranged from their covenant; they were adrift on a sea of detached values. As an enlightened and capable administrator, Nehemiah wisely incorporated their immediate needs into the long term project to revitalize the covenant (7:l1

Peter Berger, The Sacred Canopy (New York: Doubleday, 1967), p. 25.

18

The Bible and Christian Ethics

9). He appointed guards to secure the city gates, a mayor to govern the city, and a citizens' watch to defend the city. In the process, he demonstrated effective leadership as an agent of change. He addressed his people's immediate needs and so freed them up to work on long term solutions. He sought power in order to share power, so that he could ultimately turn the power over to the local people.2 While the people were more secure behind their wall, they remained separated from their covenant. Without it, their ethnic, religious, and cultural roots would continue to decay. The major task of any society is to provide its members with 'meaning and motivation for living (along with) a sense of the ‘worthwhileness’ of the human ventures.3 Nehemiah had resolved his commitment to the covenant while in Persia (14-9). Until the citizens of Judah were willing to come to terms with their historic covenant, their present values, traditions, and symbols would continue to become antiquated. Meanwhile, they would remain culturally confused, ethnically estranged, and morally marooned from their covenant-the social, philosophical, and theological grounding of their society. The method Nehemiah used to bridge the gap between their broken wall and broken law was the use of genealogies. Genealogies provided an historical hinge to connect their Egyptian Exodus and the Babylonian captivity with their return to Jerusalem, and subsequent efforts to rebuild. Genealogies provide a cognitive map of social reality and give a legitimate and reliable history of the experiences, leaders, and customs of the past. Genealogies combine people, events, and places into a cherished record of common history that unites people around that which is unique and significant. The genealogies encouraged the people to review and evaluate contemporary life in the light of their past. The contrast was striking; the result, gratifying. In the process of clarifying their genealogical roots, the people had caught a vision of their ethnic and religious significance. And as a consequence the people were moved to give a liberal offering to the work of the Lord (7:7072). At the beginning of the Nehemiah story, the people felt ‘despised and shamed’ (1:3). However, the recent accomplishments in resolving their internal differences, in defeating their external enemies, and in achieving their common objectives, had not only astonished their enemies but also bolstered their selfesteem. These experiences opened up their minds for a new definition of who they were, and a new model for their social behaviour. Their newly acquired identity was attributable to the patience and persistence of Nehemiah’s leadership, which would not quit under pressure. Nehemiah was committed to the people and the project (5: 14-19).

2

Allan Homberg, The changing Values and Institutions of Vicos in the Context of National Development,' American Behavioral Scientist, v. 7, no. 7, 3-8. 3 John Bennett and Melvin Trumin, 'Some Cultural Imperatives,' Cultural and Social Anthropology, in Peter Hammond, ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1964), 195.

Social Transformation in Nehemiah

19

In the midst of their struggles, the people called upon the Lord (4:4,4:9, 4:14). And God proved himself to be reliable and faithful even as he had promised in the covenant. The people responded with a new interest in the law of the Lord by requesting a public reading. It has been said that growth and decay are an integral part of living. Technology and customs become antiquated through development and change. Whitehead suggests that ‘the art of free society consists first in the maintenance of the symbolic code, and secondly, the fearlessness of revision…. Those societies which cannot combine reverence to their symbols with freedom of revision must ultimately decay.’4 Religious revitalization is no social luxury; it is an absolute necessity. Once significant changes began to occur in the economic, social, and political institutions of Jerusalem, the people became intrigued enough by the beliefs and behaviour of Nehemiah to reconsider seriously the role of the covenant in the life of their society. Nehemiah was no spineless religious hypocrite; he lived his faith in spite of threats and opposition. When the law of the covenant was publicly read and clearly explained to the people, the result was electrifying. The leaders were stunned (8:9). For even as Nehemiah had earlier confronted his barren commitment to their historic covenant, so now the people expressed their remorse and found new life within a restored covenant (8:9). As Ezra read from the law, the people experienced a radical confrontation between their present lifestyle and the lifestyle described in sacred scriptures. The glaring discrepancy between their present behaviour and the prescribed behaviour contained in the covenant caused the people critically to evaluate themselves. This introspection burst the bonds of their religious apathy and self-righteousness, opening up their lives to a new level of religious commitment. Social psychologist Lewin suggests that all ‘successful change includes… three aspects: unfreezing… the present level, moving to a new level, and freezing group life on the new level’.5 Chapter eight of Nehemiah describes the dynamic process whereby the people open up their lives to the teachings of the covenant. Chapter nine describes the painful process whereby the people work their way out of their apathy and self-righteousness. Chapter ten describes the public process whereby the people record their radical commitment to live within a covenant of brotherhood as the community of God. A Radical Reform (11:l – 13:31) The ultimate value of any reform is its ability to make a positive change in the behaviour of the people. Six major problems in the Jerusalem community were population redistribution, the need to survey the rural area, corruption of the priesthood, celebration of project completion, institutional changes, and 4

Warren Bemis and Philip Slater, The Contemporary Society (New York: Harper and Row, 1968), 70. 5 Kurt Lewin, 'Frontiers in Group Dynamics,' Human Relations (1947, No. 1), 35.

20

The Bible and Christian Ethics

programme monitoring. In his book on community development, Roberts warns that 'organizational development is a continuous process.6 The ultimate success of the Jerusalem reform was dependent upon the resolution of these six problems. First, the dilapidated and depopulated city of Jerusalem was resettled by appealing to the principle of the tithe to motivate one-tenth of the people to move back to the city (11: 1-2). Second, the new administration conducted a rural census of the local leaders and kinship groups in the surrounding rural region to provide needed vital statistics for local administration and Persian supervision (11:3-36). Third, in order to reform the temple services, the new reform purged the priesthood (12:l-26). Fourth, the people united in their acknowledgements of God's participation in the project by ceremonially dedicating the wall and gates to Him (12:27-47). Fifth, the progress of the new reforms was attested by the changes in daily routine: giving tithes and offerings, offering appropriate sacrifices, and consecrating appropriate religious personnel (12:44-47). Sixth, Nehemiah stayed in touch with the project until the community had the chance to work through the unanticipated problems inherent in change projects (13:13-31). Lewin warns agents of change that frequently, change toward a 'higher level of performance is… short lived; that after a “shot in the arm”, group life soon returns to the previous level’7 Internal weakness, economic conditions, and external pressures caused the Jerusalem community to revert to former practices. Therefore, it was necessary for Nehemiah to monitor the project until such time as it could stand on its own merits (13:6-28). Conclusion Only radical projects of planned change will ultimately succeed because they go to the roots of the problem devise just programmes for change, draw upon committed leaders, and stay with the project until its completion. This is the type of leadership and strategy that can transform the world. There is insufficient funding in government budgets or world banks to institute effectively the kind of change needed to resolve community problems around the world. Nevertheless, a cadre of committed Christian agents of change could set a series of community revitalization movements going that could in turn stimulate widespread changes and demonstrate such vital Christian concern and love that whole continents would be changed. This Nehemiah type of Christian response to peoples' needs integrates the social action programmes inherent in the Great Commission (Luke 4:16-20; John 17:18) with the evangelistic thrust of the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 13). In the Kingdom ministry, physical and spiritual needs are simply two sides of the same coin. 6

Hayden Roberts, Community Development: Learning and Action (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1979), 131. 7 Lewin, op. cit., p. 34. 8. R. J. Coggins, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 136.

RESPONSE TO POVERTY

Biblical Teaching and Assisting the Poor

John D. Mason John D. Mason was Professor of Economics and Christian Ethics at Gordon College, Wenham, Massachusetts Introduction From the very beginning of recorded history, societies have struggled with the same problem: how to assist the poor.1 In the competition among economic systems and ideologies over the centuries, the most critical question asked of any society has been whether it was able to resolve effectively the 'problem' of its poorer citizens. Indeed, it is primarily this issue that Karl Marx attacked in the nineteenth century; and it has fuelled the search for a better alternative to capitalism in the period since. In the economically undeveloped societies of today, assisting the poor quite properly involves two things: establishing the foundations for sustained economic growth; and designing redistribution .policies, to protect citizens in case of income loss-or other conditions which attack their continued economic viability. The economically developed societies have felt a greater freedom to concern themselves more aggressively with redistribution policies (the 'welfare state'). In these societies, however, it has not been easy to design a set of programmes that successfully helps the poor become economically viable and independent; and some observers have argued that such societies are no freer of a concern for economic growth, in their efforts to assist the poor, than the more economically undeveloped societies. In this essay I want to draw biblical conclusions which are more directly relevant to 'welfare state' type redistribution policies than to the foundational structures should not be seen however as under-emphasizing in any way the fundamental importance of economic growth in an overall programme to assist the poor. The great challenge facing societies today is to maintain a delicate balance between policies that encourage effort and risk taking- and thus result in more economic growth-and policies that offer protection to citizens from the arbitrary adversities of life. In order to achieve this delicate balance, we need technical information about the incentive properties of programmes and taxes, and how behaviour responds to these. How can unemployment assistance be structured so as not to subsidize excessive idleness? Are there sufficient job opportunities for those 1 See F. Fensham, 'Widow, Orphan, and the Poor in Ancient Near Eastern Legal and Wisdom Literature', Journal of Near Eastern Studies 21:129-39 (April, 1962).

24

The Bible and Christian Ethics

who are unemployed, as well as for those who would like to better their station? Do universal children's allowances offer a more effective and efficient means of preventing poverty than assistance provided once poverty has been experienced? Is the rising incidence of out-of-wedlock teenage pregnancy a result in part of the structure of assistance programmes? A number of other questions along these lines could be posed. But better technical information alone is insufficient. Whether a particular society is a democracy, whereby the electorate must to some .extent approve the redistribution programmes; or a more totalitarian setting, in which the citizens can frustrate policy by their lack of co-operation (true also of democracies); attention must be paid to the shared sense of moral obligation held by the broader citizenry. Should unemployed citizens be allowed to remain idle for extended periods if adequate jobs exist? Is the existence of unwed pregnancy which results in public assistance an acceptable phenomenon? When assistance programmes are not consonant with the shared sense of moral obligation within society, intractable problems will inevitably result. Effective assistance of the poor, then, means that societies must pay more attention both to matters of programme design and to the shared sense of moral obligation held by the majority of citizens. This latter issue is my primary concern here. More particularly, I intend to search the roots of a major tradition affecting moral obligation today, the Scriptures of Judeo-Christianity. I draw my biblical material almost entirely from the Pentateuch, working from the conviction that Yahweh provided to early Israel the structures to help that society assist its poorer citizens effectively; and that the later prophetic material, as well as the New Testament, builds upon this earlier foundation rather than replaces it-calling upon individual Jews and Christians, as well as entire societies, to conform themselves to the sensitivities embedded within the Pentateuchal provisions.2 First, we will consider the socio-economic context of early Israel, as well as the basic provisions for assisting the poor that characterized this early society. Then I propose to examine the standard for assistance in early Israel, as well as 2

A rather substantial set of theological presumptions is embedded within this project that cannot be discussed here. I see myself arguing the point made well by C. Wright: 'That is, we assume that if God gave Israel certain specific institutions and laws, they were based on principles which have universal validity. That does not mean that Christians will try to impose by law in a secular state provisions lifted directly from the law of Moses. It does mean that they will work to bring their society nearer to conformity with the principles underlying the concrete laws of Old Testament society, because they perceive the same God to be both Redeemer and law-giver of Israel, and also Creator and Ruler of contemporary mankind.' [An Eye for an Eye: The Place of Old Testament Ethics Today (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1983), 162. See also: J. Goldingay, Approaches to Old Testament Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1981); J. Barton, 'Approaches to Ethics in the Old Testament' in J. Rogerson (ed.), Beginning Old Testament Study (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982) 113-30.

Biblical Teaching and Assisting the Poor

25

the crucial issue of the legal status of the provisions for assisting the poorwhether the provisions were nothing more than voluntary moral obligations for non-poor members of society, or whether they were legally enforceable laws binding upon the community. Several biblical implications for contemporary societies will be developed at that point. My major conclusions are these. Reciprocal obligations existed between the poorer members of society, in need of assistance, and the larger community (and particularly the more well-to-do citizens). Those receiving assistance were obligated to the community to work when possible, even in the actual receiving of assistance (e.g. gleanings) and to live modestly; idleness was condemned strongly. The community was responsible to assist all of those who were poor due to arbitrary circumstances-including the able-bodied as well as the dependent. Though both able-bodied and dependent members of society were to receive assistance, the form of assistance for each was different, with provisions for the dependent taking more the form of charity. The standard for assistance was specified as sufficiency for need, a level that would prevent impoverishment from having harmful long-term consequences. As Yahweh had been compassionate with Israel in delivering her from slavery to a land flowing with milk and honey, so the provisions for those individuals and families impoverished due to arbitrary adversity should be characterized by compassion. The general character of these provisions can be described as 'compassionate stewardship'. Socio-Economic Setting of Early Israel There is considerable socio-economic distance between an economically undeveloped, largely agrarian economy, built around extended family and clan obligations and an early Middle Eastern cultural setting, and the economically developed societies of the twentieth century.3 It is unlikely, therefore, that the actual institutions for assisting the poor in early Israel could be transported unchanged to the twentieth century to serve the same ends! However, the earlier institutions and institutions today might have the same intentions. This requires a careful understanding of the broader socio-economic setting of early Israel, and not just a listing of the provisions, so that the intentions of the provisions can be understood more carefully. The Pentateuch narratives and legislation give us a picture of a subsistence economy, primitive in economic terms, based on agriculture.4 Productive 3

On the social and economic background of early Israel see especially: C. H. J. DeGeus, Tribes of Israel (Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1976), which is organized around testing Noth's amphictyony thesis and provides a great deal of very helpful socioeconomic information in doing so; N. Gothvald, Tribes of Yahweh (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1979), which sets out to be a sociological analysis of early Israel; and the now standard R. DeVaux, Ancient Israel (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965). 4 Gottwald describes early Israel as '…an egalitarian, extended family, segmentary tribal society with an agricultural-pastoral economic base.' Gottwald, op. cit. (note 3 above),

26

The Bible and Christian Ethics

property (primarily land) was held privately by extended-family units; but these property rights were attenuated by specific obligations to the community. For example, normal productive activity on a piece of land was to cease one year out of seven, and the resulting natural growth was to be available to the owners and other members of the community. Furthermore, any one piece of land was not to be alienated more than fifty years from the extended family of original ownership (Lev. 25). As we have noted, the basic social unit was the extended family (beth'ab or 'house of the father') consisting of a father/elder, mother, unmarried children, married sons with their wives and children, any servants, and possibly a few sojourners (or aliens): all of which could amount to fifty members (if not fifty fighting men- I Sam. 8:12) but also could be quite small (e.g. Naomi and Ruth). Of almost comparable social importance was a larger unit, the mishpahah, or what Gottwald calls a 'protective association of extended families’.5 The most likely development of a mishpahah would be the aging of an extended family, as each of the sons becomes the head of his own beth'ab, with grandchildren and (less frequently) great-grandchildren. The members of different beth'avoth would be brothers at the patriarch level and cousins of different degrees at the lower levels.6 Israelites married within the mishpahah, members of a mishpahah could exact retribution or redeem a member sold into slavery, and local justice was performed by the elders of the beth'avoth within a mishpahah (elders at the gate). DeGeus writes, 'The mishpahah was the principal form of organization and social grouping in ancient Israel, and… for landowning Israelites it practically coincided with the town.'7 A mishpahah could consist of twenty to fifty beth'avoths and thus would possibly comprise a small village or extended neighbourhood of a larger town. (For the purposes of this paper, the social units

389. In contrast to more traditional accounts of early Israel as pastoral nomads-because they had come in to a settled state in Palestine from wandering through the regions to the south and east of their new country-Gottwald considers them transhumant pastoralists (294), reflecting his thesis that the origin of lsrael was not from external invasion but internal revolt against Canaanite overlords. If the biblical account is to be believed (and this paper is so inclined) the Israelites would have brought with them into Palestine a most recent history of pastoral nomadism, but a much longer history before that from Egypt of settled agriculture and small crafts (Ex.1: ll-14 notes they were subjected to construction labour and all kinds of labour in the field). 5 Gottwald, op, cit. (note 3 above), ch. 28. 6 In addition to (and based in part on) the sources listed in note 3 above, see L. Stager, 'The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel', BASOR 260:l-36 (Nov. 1985), for a very helpful and brief review of the evidence on the likely everyday life and realities in early Israel. 7 DeGeus, op. cit. (note 3 above), 144.

Biblical Teaching and Assisting the Poor

27

beyond the beth'ab and mishpahah-the tribe and federation of tribes are of less importance and will not be considered.)8 Though the larger share of the output no doubt was consumed by the beth'ab producing it, the existence of laws regulating market activity (Lev. 19:35-36) attest to some exchange of goods and services.9 Furthermore, there must have been sufficient labourers seeking employment (most likely the sojourners mentioned so often in the texts, as well as citizens who either had free time from their own land or more likely had sold their land in order to pay debts), since we find provisions governing this relationship (Lev. 19:13, Dt. 24:14-15). Finally, laws are given to regulate interest rates and repayment schedules of loans (Ex. 22:24-25, Dt. 15:l-ll), which means that there must have been some sort of capital market (and probably specie) as well as some surplus beyond subsistence. 'From the complaints of the prophets during the first millennium B.C., we know that by their times numerous market transactions for labour as well as goods and services were occurring and that the stipulated provisions regarding these were not being honoured. Israel, then, was primarily a land-based subsistence economy, with a fringe of market-based earnings and growing commercial and capital markets. To this account, we must add two more things: inheritance practices, and transfer obligations of the larger community for care of the Levites and poorer members of society. For, inevitably, some would do better than others. In such a combination of subsistence and market-based sources of income, an inevitable element of chance in the economic outcomes would eventually develop.10 Substantial variation in income would occur due to varying weather conditions and other natural events (insect, disease, and predator damage). In addition, sickness and injury would be frequent enough to hinder productive activity. (However, the existence of a larger beth'ab as the productive unit would mitigate the harmful effect of this class of difficulties.) 8

Wolff gives the number twenty and Gottwald fifty. See: H. Wolff, Anthropology o j the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), 215; Gottwald, op. cit. (note 3 above), 267ff. 9 Israel was located on the main trading route between Egypt and nations to the north and east, so it is not at all unusual that market activity beyond subsistence farming developed quite early in her history. Archaeological findings from ancient Jericho, a city existing several millennia prior to settled Israel it is believed, offers suggestions of trading activities with other cities of Asia Minor and areas to the north and east. On the other hand DeVaux notes that extensive commercial activity developed late in Israel's history in Palestine with early commerce being local in nature only. See DeVaux, op. cit. (note 3 above), 78-79. 10 It is known from extra-biblical material that Mesopotamia and Egypt had rather elaborate economic arrangements for centuries prior to the settlement of Israel. Assuming Abraham and his entourage brought with them knowledge from Mesopotamia of the arrangements there, and that Moses was schooled in similar arrangements in Egypt, then it seems quite likely that at least the rudiments of a more complex economy were in place awaiting economic growth and the specialization (and thus market activity) this allows.

28

The Bible and Christian Ethics

The particular Hebrew words describing 'poor' persons in early Israelite society-primarily 'ebyon and 'ani, but also dal – imply that the primary reason for different economic outcomes in early Israel was not that some people lacked ambition. Impoverishment would be associated in most cases with adverse circumstance.11 It is easy to imagine a hard-working beth'ab quite arbitrarily falling victim to (for example) insect damage that would seriously diminish the yield, and thus impoverish the family, if some sort of community assistance were not forthcoming. It would be difficult for an individual or family to exercise a strong preference for idleness; the combination of subsistence conditions, close social relations, and the general impetus of the Mosaic legislation (which, as we will see, required work from anyone who could work), together would serve as a deterrent. One additional background characteristic of early Israel must be considered: her implicit administrative or political structure. At the lowest level 'administrative oversight' resided with the elder of the beth'ab. In Dt. 16:9-17, the elder is charged to make sure that the widows, orphans, and sojourners of his area were invited to share in the various feasts. The father/elder was to exercise administrative oversight over those for whom he reasonably could be considered responsible. Job argues as much in several of his defenses, noting how he cared for the weaker/poorer individuals for whom he felt responsible (Job 31:16ff.). Another example was Judah's right to consign Tamar to death or to spare her life for her adultery (Gen. 38).12 The next level of administrative/political oversight was the gathering of the elders of the beth'avoth making up a mishpahah (the elders at the gate). Today this gathering would most likely be called a judicial body, but for the small rural communities of early Israel, administrative and judicial functions were not divided. Before Israel had a king this gathering represented the primary form of primitive state.13 Boaz came to the elders at the gate to request a ruling with regard to his right to marry Ruth (Rt. 4:lff.); it was here that the widow would appeal if her brother-in-law failed to marry her and provide an offspring 11

These Hebrew words ('ebyon, 'ani, dal) clearly represent citizens who were deserving of community compassion, according to the texts. The Old Testament does speak of those who were poor due to laziness, with most English translations speaking of 'sluggards' or idlers' (main Hebrew word is atsel, but see also remiyyah); these terms are found primarily in the Proverbs and not in the narratives dealing with the first several centuries of the settled Israelite nation. 12 Christ's parable of the workers called to the fields at various hours of the day (Mt. 20: l-16) speaks forcefully to this issue. The landowner (elder?) took compassion upon men desirous of work (v. 7), allowing them to enter his field, and then paid each man the standard (subsistence) wage-sufficient to support the worker and his family for that day. 13 Occasional state-like functions were exercised beyond the local community. Entire tribes were enlisted on occasion, typically under the leadership of one of the 'judges' to engage in military actions. The various judges, in addition to their military duties, also spoke for Yahweh and thereby served a central unifying function which transcended the local community. But for most of the routine state-like functions the local community was indeed the most important administrative/political setting.

Biblical Teaching and Assisting the Poor

29

in order to take possession of her deceased husband's patrimony (Dt. 25:5-10); it was here that Job sat to consider the cases of the poor and needy (Job 29:717).14 With the advent of the monarchy, there developed more permanent state functions beyond the local level though the extent of these should not be exaggerated, given the relatively poor state of mobility and communication. A system of courts was established to which appeals could be made, including appeal ultimately to the king.15 Various public works were undertaken, including defence installations in several strategically located cities in addition to the more famous temple and palace construction in Jerusalem. A standing army was established which, along with the various public works, necessitated a system of taxes.16 And, so, a more hierarchical and national governing order emerged with the monarchy. But the responsibility of this larger state did not change. Those responsible for national policy were to exercise 'administrative oversight' according to the Law of Yahweh, just as the elders in the local communities did. The king was admonished to read the Law daily, and to conduct himself modestly just as any other citizen (Dt. 17:16-20). Such limitations upon the power of the monarch represented a sharp break from the situation in surrounding nations of that era (and, unfortunately, did not characterize Israel's own history under a monarch). Community Assistance to the Poor With this background, it is now possible to consider the nature of the community's normative response, when families and individuals found 14

Considerable evidence exists to substantiate the administrative and judicial roles played by the community of elders. See particularly: H. Boecker, Law & the Administration of Justice in the Old Testament & Ancient East (Minneapolis: Augsburg,, 1980); K. Whitelam, The Just King: Monarchical Judicial Authority in Ancient Israel, JSOT Supp. Series 12 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, Dept. of Biblical Studies, Univ. of Sheffield, 1979), especially ch. 2, 'The Administration of Justice in PreMonarchical Israel'; R. Wilson, 'Enforcing the Covenant: The Mechanism of Judicial Authority in Early Israel', in H. Huffman, et al. (eds.), The Quest for the Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor of George E. Mendenhall (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 59-75. Though most biblical and extra-biblical mention of the gathered elders refers to judicial-type functions, it is clear there would have been other functions as well. Local communities would have engaged in the construction of such public works as cisterns and walls and gates, and hence the elders would have been responsible for the proper administration of these works. 15 See R. Wilson, 'Israel's Judicial System in the Pre-exilic Period', Jewish Quart. Rev. LXXIV: 229-48 (Oct. 1983), and his argument that whatever centralized legal system was developed most assuredly would have been weak. The power of the monarch and his reforms probably lacked much influence beyond his own tribe at most. 16 See especially R. DeVaux, op. cit. (note 3 above), as well as M. Lind, 'The Concept of Political Power in Ancient Israel', Annual of the Swed. Theol. Inst. 7:4-24 (1968-69).

30

The Bible and Christian Ethics

themselves in difficult economic circumstances. The following specific provisions provide most of the biblical content for the programmes observed below and will be discussed in a number of different contexts: 1. A zerointerest loan will be available, and if the principal has not been repaid by the end of six years the balance will be forgiven (Ex. 22:25, Lev. 25:35-38, Dt. 15:l-11); 2. Israelites committed to slavery for debt-repayment are to be released at the end of six years (assuming the debt has not been fully repaid before then, so that release comes sooner-Lev. 25:47-53) (Ex. 21:l-11, Lev. 25:39-43, Dt.15:12-18); 3. An Israelite forced to sell his land for debtrepayment, if the debt has not been repaid by the end of forty-eight years, will have the balance of the debt forgiven and the land returned, to him or his successors (Lev. 25:8-34); 4. Each field is to be left fallow every seventh year with the natural growth available for the poor (Ex. 23:l0-11, Lev. 25:l-7); 5. The gleanings and corners of fields are to be left for the poor, and especially the widows, orphans, and sojourners (Lev. 19:9-10, 2322, Dt. 24:19-21); 6. The third-year tithe will be available for the widows, orphans and sojourners, in addition to the Levites (Dt. 1428-29, 26:12) In addition to these specific provisions the more well-to-do members of society were admonished generally to care for the poor and needy, in ways such as sharing feast days with widows, orphans, and sojourners (Dt. 16:ll-14). This is seen clearly in the Pentateuch passages like Ex. 22:21-24, Dt. 15:11, and 24:lO-15; it is affirmed throughout the Old Testament in passages referring to the 'poor and needy' ('ebyon and 'ani), such as Job 29:11ff., Ps. 72, and Jer. 22:16; it is implicit in God's whole treatment of Israel, rescuing them from slavery in Egypt and providing them a land with wells they did not dig and vineyards they did not plant, even when because of their disobedience they were undeserving (Dt. 6:lO-13, 8:7 to 9:6)-a description not particularly applicable to the poor in the passages considered above. Indeed this general admonition is a major part of the obligatory 'administrative oversight' that the elders (and higher administrative/political officials) were to exercise. In understanding these provisions, it will be helpful to use a distinction that has been made for centuries in English and American welfare practice: that between the able-bodied and dependent. 'Able-bodied' Israelites were members of economically viable (propertied) extended-families (beth'avoth), which typically would have contained several able workers as well as some aged and possibly some disabled members. The 'dependent' poor in Israel then would include members of economically weak beth'avoth (those with only disabled or sick workers), needy individuals who were not part of a larger beth'ab (particularly widows with child-care and domestic responsibilities, such as Ruth and Naomi), and the sojourners. Sojourner families were likely to include able bodied workers, but their lack of citizenship and property at least early in Israel's history would have left them unable to find much economic opportunity, and, hence, vulnerable to poverty.

Biblical Teaching and Assisting the Poor

31

Provisions for the able-bodied17 The zero-interest loan was probably a short-term business loan without collateral to the able-bodied land owner, similar to what is still practised in numerous farm communities today. The Pentateuch provision, however, contains a clear element of grace in the zero-interest provision, as well as the seventh-year forgiveness of the unpaid balance;18 it is a 'compassionate loan'. A beth'ab facing difficult circumstances, either because of a poor previous harvest or complications with the current year's crops would need outside assistance. If family members could not find suitable employment outside their farm, assuming they had the time to spare, then a loan would be necessary. It seems rather unlikely that such a loan would be available to anyone other than an economically viable (propertied) beth'ab, since otherwise there would be little means to raise the money to repay it.19 The most likely source of the loan would be a more well-to-do beth'ab of the same mishpahah, particularly in an isolated village which might be comprised entirely of the member families of the mishpahah.20 The most likely source of the loan would be a brother of the elder of the adversely affected beth'ab, and if that were not possible then an uncle on the father's side (Num. 27:9-11). If the closer relatives were not able or willing to make the loan, then the appeal would be to the wider membership of the mishpahah – and ultimately outside the mishpahah. Ideally a more wellto-do elder would initiate the loan proceedings, which would fulfill the highest intentions of the Law (Job. 31:16 perhaps); but it seems more likely that the disadvantaged elder would have to initiate the proceedings himself. 17

R. North's Sociology of the Biblical Jubilee (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1954) has been helpful in stimulating this attempt to give the biblical material as plausible a socio-economic rendering as possible. In no way however should North's work be implicated in the precise conclusions being drawn here. 18 There has been considerable debate over whether the seventh (sabbatical) year was a universal year for all fields and loans, which would tend to give the provision far more sacral and therefore symbolic importance, or whether it applied to each field and loan separately (e.g. each loan having a seven year repayment period regardless of when it was initiated). North, ibid., concludes that the only plausible conclusion is a separate treatment for each transaction (p. 115ff.). Childs agrees that this seems the most realistic conclusion; see B. Childs Exodus (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974), 482. 19 Of the three citations for this practice, Lev. 25:35-37 and Dt. 15:l-11 seem to fit the case suggested here quite well; Ex. 22:25 appears to be more general, inclusive of any case of borrowing to meet economic need, and not specifically tied to the practice posited here. At Dt. 24:10-13, with reference to a man, and at Dt. 24:17b, with reference to a widow, loans were made with clothing as collateral; it appears the practice here resembles 'pawn shop' type loans rather than what appears to be the more substantial commercial loans referred to at Lev. 25:35-37 and Dt. 15:l-10. 20 Gottwald, op. cit. (note 3 above) notes that the mishpahah would stand as co-signers with the disadvantaged elder, which suggests the loan would have been made by someone outside the mishpahah (p. 264); although later (p. 292) he notes that the most likely source of such assistance would come from within the mishpahah, unless a local famine or other occurrence were to impoverish an entire area.

32

The Bible and Christian Ethics

Let us assume that the loan obligation would run at most six full years from the point of initiation, after which any unpaid principal would be forgiven.21 What would most probably happen would be repayment after several years; only rarely would any balance remain unpaid beyond six years-and even then it would be a small amount (assuming the family did not experience repeated bouts of adverse circumstances). If this reconstruction is correct, there would have been few cases of forgiven unpaid balances, and rather small amounts in these few cases. Such a situation would not call for any special attention or comment in biblical or extra-biblical documents. In other words, the absence of written evidence attesting to the practice of loan forgiveness-which has caused some observers to conclude that these provisions were more sacral and symbolic than real (and possibly composed at a much later date than 1200-1000 B.C., in order to express a normative ideal)-may tell very little about whether these provisions ever were honoured in practice. Indeed, they could have been practised for years with little attention paid them. During the loan period members of the indebted beth'ab would have to work extra hours and enjoy less income than otherwise. The community (and more particularly, the beth'ab making the loan) would bear the cost of the missing interest and loss of the use of the loaned surplus-money that otherwise could have been stored or used in exchange for items the loaning beth'ab would have liked. The indebted beth'ab bears the cost of loan repayment, though without a heavy interest obligation, and with the knowledge that if difficult circumstance persist, the unpaid balance ultimately would be forgiven. Welfare-related gift-giving is found in numerous primitive economic settings.22 Why then did early Israel use a loan provision, rather than the interpersonal gift-giving found elsewhere-or even a community-administered welfare system similar to that in contemporary societies? The loan provision is far more complex than reciprocal gift-giving. Moreover, the implied work obligation which always is a part of community-administered welfare assistance would be rather easy to monitor in that socioeconomic setting. Why then the loan? The Scriptures are silent, and we can only speculate. But we do have the advantage of hindsight in having witnessed the inadequacy of contemporary, community-administered welfare programmes that do not involve loans. To grasp this more clearly, consider for purposes of illustration the community-based assistance programmes in the United States, which provide 21

North argues (op. cit., note 17 above) that only the seventh year installment was to be forgiven, rather than the total remaining balance (p. 183ff.). No doubt he perceives the latter as too radical to be true. It is possible to demur however. Short-term business or consumption loans today do not stretch beyond several years at most, and this would seem to be even more true in a setting with an undeveloped capital market and shortened life-expectancy-the situation in early Israel; thus if any unpaid balance remained beyond six years under normal circumstances it would have been rather small. 22 See R. Posner, 'A Theory of Primitive Society, with Special Reference to Law' Journal of Law & Economics. XX1II:l-53 (April, 19801, 10ff..

Biblical Teaching and Assisting the Poor

33

grants (cash, food vouchers, access to medical assistance) for certain categories of individuals deemed unable to earn sufficient income (typically women with childcare responsibilities and no man present). Liberal observers argue that this approach tends to 'stigmatize' recipients, drawing inappropriate attention to them (e.g. by requiring them to produce food vouchers at special check-out counters), as well as to humiliate them by repeatedly forcing the revelation of personal information in order to qualify for assistance. The obvious remedy is to make qualification for assistance less humiliating, and in the provision of assistance to insulate recipients from broader community awareness of precisely who is 'on welfare'. Conservative observers react by arguing that U.S. welfare programmes, being too readily available, create unhealthy dependency upon them, and that 'stigmatization' is necessary in order to shame the recipients off welfare. In the context of this debate, then, the biblical institution of a compassionate loan provides assistance to the able-bodied without either unnecessarily stigmatizing them or creating conditions ripe for excessive dependency upon the assistance programmes. A loan recognizes that the weaker family unit remains a productive component of the community which can, with time and some reduced consumption, vey probably take care of its economic responsibilities. Use of a loan protects against the development of excessive dependency upon assistance. A loan requires less community concern to monitor; the loan obligation serves as a pressure to work harder rather than to shirk.23 The compassionate aspects of the loan indicate the community's acknowledgement that the weaker family had little control over its difficulties, and that the community is willing to assist. In other words, a compassionate loan is good for the social-psychological health of the adversely affected beth'ab, as well as for economic efficiency within the community – even though it appears initially to be harsher treatment than a more charitable alternative. If adverse conditions became particularly severe or persisted over a number of years, the affected beth'ab would be unable to repay the initial loan and most probably be forced to incur further indebtedness. The ideal resolution, in terms of the spirit of biblical legislation, would be an additional compassionate loan, again without any collateral. This might be difficult to arrange, however, for at least two reasons. On the one hand, more well-to-do beth'avoth would be less willing to make such loans, fearing non-repayment of the entire principal by the end of the sixth year (Dt. 15:7-9). On the other hand, the adversely affected

23

The necessity to discern between those poor who are idlers and those who are hurt arbitrarily is not lifted entirely from the community by use of a compassionate loan. If a creditor were to observe shirking and then complain to the elders at the gate about insufficient repayment, the community would then have to decide whether the weaker beth'ab were really an 'ebyon (or 'ani or dal), or instead an atsel (sluggard). See note 11 above.

34

The Bible and Christian Ethics

beth'ab would feel reluctant to approach others repeatedly. Some other provisions would seem to be necessary. The alternative which overcomes both of the difficulties just noted is a loan with collateral, backed either by the land of the beth'ab (very much like a contemporary mortgage) or by placing some member or members of the beth'ab into bond-slavery. It is unclear in Scripture which of these would have been pursued first.' The modem sentiment against slavery and our familiarity with mortgages as commonplace would suggest bond-slavery to be the last resort.24 This may not have been the case, however, given the virtually sacred importance of maintaining one's patrimony, as well as the fact that slavery took a benevolent form, similar to indentured servitude in the early years of the European experience in America. In fact-as we shall see-it seems likely that bond-slavery may have been the initial and most frequent alternative.25 As with the compassionate loan, the major share of secured loans would most probably have been repaid prior to reaching the debt-forgiveness period. The bond-slavery case appears to fit the compassionate loan provision exactly.26 There is no provision regarding repayment of a loan secured by land collateral. But a provision is given to regulate forced sale of one's land which would occur if a secured loan could not be arranged or if repayment of a landsecured loan were not possible and foreclosure took place. Since the forgiveness period governing repurchase of' one's land is so much longer than the seventh year release controlling bond-slavery, bond-slavery may have been the more frequent recourse. If the adversely affected beth'ab were reasonably large, it may well have been able to spare at least one member who would be obligated to work for another beth'ab until the loan obligation were repaid but no longer than six years. And, so, I am arguing that the compassionate loan without collateral was the primary (ideally the only) provision necessary for the able-bodied, propertied Israelites who were placed in difficult economic circumstances. The 'secured' loan was a contingent or secondary provision, necessary because of hardheartedness by more well-to-do members, or the weaker family's reluctance to approach others for a compassionate loan. The language used in Scripture about the two types of provisions suggests that the compassionate (unsecured) loan tends to be associated more with 24

Wenham argues as much re Lev. 25:39; see G. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979, 322. 25 As with the compassionate loan it is presumed that the first appeal would be to one's actual brothers, then to an uncle, and only then to other members of the mishpahah. If a secured loan were secured from a beth'ab other than one's close relatives, these relatives were supposed to join the indebted beth'ab in seeking to redeem a bond-slave (Lev. 25:47ff.). 26 The Lev. 25:3943 passage dealing with this situation mentions the jubilee year as the year of forgiveness, whereas the Ex. 21:l-11 and Dt. 15:12-18 passages both list the sabbatical year. Longevity considerations clearly would seem to give a bias to the more frequently mentioned shorter period.

Biblical Teaching and Assisting the Poor

35

apodictic ('thou shalt') commands, whereas the loans secured either by one's land or one's body are associated more with casuistic ('if this occurs, then…') construction. This supports my proposition that the Israelites were ordered to make compassionate loans, but if slavery or potential alienation of one's patrimony occurred then contingent provisions would regulate such arrangement.27 The Hebrew term used at Dt. 15: l-10 to describe the disadvantaged Israelite is 'ebyon; at Lev. 25:35-37 a male Israelite is mentioned, though the term used there is muk (to become poor). In both cases it is presumed that the reference is to the elder of a beth'ab. Because the compassionate loan seems to be associated exclusively with the term 'ebyon (See fn 23) it is tempting to conclude that this particular word for 'poor' refers primarily to an economically viable beth'ab. Thus, the companion term 'ani (which some interpret as being synonymous with 'ebyon), would in fact describe all other individuals or families who were poor and deserving of assistance. This distinction then may well represent that between the able-bodied and the dependent. Such a distinction would help to explain why the two words are used together so often. If this interpretation holds then the fallow-year provision, whereby the natural growth of a field left idle every seventh year becomes available to the poor, is a provision for the able-bodied because the term used at Ex. 23:l0-11 is ‘ebyon.28 That seems plausible. For unlike the provisions for gleanings, which are made available to the dependent poor (as we shall see later), harvesting the natural growth may well be more demanding and thus require the efforts of able-bodied workers. Moreover, the fallow-year is symbolic of God's larger provisions for Israel, both in the wilderness as well as in the provision of a nation with vineyards planted by others. This last point suggests that any Israelite should have access to the land in the fallow year, and not just the ablebodied; though free access to gleanings would not be available for the ablebodied, the fallow-year provision would be – and thus the use of ‘ebyon at Ex. 23:10-11.

27 The apodictic-casuistic distinction was suggested by Albrecht Alt [Essays in Old Testament History &Religion (London: Basil Blackwell, 1966) as the means by which to differentiate between truly Yahwistic commands and laws borrowed from surrounding Canaanite societies. More recent scholarship has questioned various elements of Alt's analysis rather severely. The application of the two-fold categorization proposed here is not that of Alt's, for both forms are presumed to be Yahwistic. 28 See S. Kaufman, 'A Reconstruction of the Social Welfare Systems of Ancient Israel' [in W. Barrick & J. Spencer (eds.), In the Shelter of Elyon, JSOT Supp. Series 31 (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1984), 277-861, and his argument that a 7th year fallow cycle probably was unlikely. Using evidence from similar societies, he suggests that fields would lie fallow far more frequently than every seventh year, and thus the 7th' year provision simply was a protection.

36

The Bible and Christian Ethics

Provisions for the dependent Treatment of the provisions for the dependent poor need not consume nearly so much space. Every society has recognized the importance of assisting those who, for whatever reasons (childcare responsibilities, disablement, age), cannot realistically be expected to work for remuneration in order to subsist. The dependent poor would include widows and orphans, who were not part of a larger beth'ab, the sojourners (ger), who frequently would own no property and belong to no protective Israelite beth'ab, and thus would be without solid means to assure sufficient income; and possibly also some beth'avoth with disabled or sick members, to the extent that they would not be able to carry out productive activity. Provisions for the dependent members of the community are charitable for the most part (though with work expectations, where this would be possible), in contrast to the loan provision applicable to the ablebodied. Apart from general admonitions to the larger community to care for the widows, orphans, and sojourners (such as Ex. 22:21-24 and Dt. 16:11, 14) two explicit provisions apply to these individuals too: the right to glean and harvest corners of the fields; and access (with the Levites) to the third-year tithe. The third-year tithe is restricted only to widows, orphans, and sojourners; the right to the gleanings is granted to the widows, orphans, and sojourners (Lev. 19:10, 2322, Dt. 24:19-21), and also to the poor called 'ani (Lev. 19:9-10, 23:22)which again raises the question of precisely who the 'ani are in distinction to the 'ebyon and other poor groups. The resolution suggested here, that the 'ani describes the poor who deserve assistance and who are not part of an economically viable beth'ab (the 'ebyon), would then include the widows, orphans, and sojourners but also would extend beyond them. The Lev. 19:9-10 and 23:22 passages seem to refer to grain fields. The Dt. 24:19-21 passage explicitly mentions grain, olives, and the vineyard (similar to the fallow-year provision of Ex. 23: ll). The grain harvest was conducted from April through June, with barley preceding wheat; the grape harvest ran through the summer months to October; the olive harvest took place in late October and November. In other words, there was a fairly continuous annual flow of gleanings from mid- spring through late fall for the dependent poor who were able to go to the fields and gather them. This provision is a form of pure charity. No payment from the recipient of the gleanings is expected, even though much effort has been expended by the owner and any employees and servants to plant, trim and prepare the crops for harvesting, and then to cut the grain and beat the olive trees, allowing the gleaners simply to pick up the fruit from the ground. At the same time, however, there clearly is a work expectation for the gleaners (who must work behind the reapers), and they would have had to come to the fields most days at the appropriate times (which demands punctuality and discipline). And so this provision can be considered qualified charity. The third-year tithe provision represents pure charity and probably was restricted to those who could not be expected to conduct the effort necessary

Biblical Teaching and Assisting the Poor

37

for gleaning; or perhaps it was available for the dependent when the gleanings were not sufficient or available. The Dt. 14:28 passage appears to instruct the land-owners to deposit the third-year tithe in the town, which suggests centralized administration.29 If it is assumed that different beth'avoth supplying the tithe were on separate tithe cycles, which is the most economically plausible rendering – and consistent with assumptions above regarding the sabbatical year (consisting of the seven years subsequent to a compassionate loan or initiation of bond-slavery) – then there would be an amount available every year for relief of this type. Remembering the debate over contemporary welfare systems, such as that in the U.S., we have to ask: were the disadvantaged Israelites shamed or stigmatized in any way? Certainly the spirit of the legislation is that this should not have been so-we gather this from the frequent motive clauses associated with such provisions, whereby God would intervene in cases of improper treatment of the poor (e.g. Ex. 22-23). But the reality may well have been different. Boaz instructed his servants not to molest Ruth as she gleaned in his fields (Rt. 2:9, 16), which suggests that gleaners were susceptible to less-thandesirable treatment by the reapers. Able-bodied males that ventured into the fields to glean may have been submitted to verbal abuse, if no more. This could explain why the provisions restricted them to the fallow-year fields, if the reconstruction proposed here is correct. Community members would have been aware of who was receiving community assistance, in the close living conditions of that time. This awareness, however, should not have been used destructively. After all, God had delivered these people out of slavery and brought them into a land flowing with milk and honey, undeserving though they were. Standard for Assistance Differing scholars, seeking insight for contemporary I society in the Bible, have discerned sharply variant I general standards. Some have argued that the appropriate standard is whatever outcome natural processes (such as the market) generate, modified only by private charity, because there are no explicit biblical commands to redistribute income. Others have discerned a standard of virtual equality of economic outcome, drawing from passages such as Ex. 16:18, Ezek. 47:14, and 2 Cor. 8:13. What I want to do here is to keep in mind the actual assistance provisions we have just looked at, and inquire into the standard that most probably governed their administration. For example, when able-bodied beth'avoth (extended families) requested loans, what I would

29 Talmudic provisions give more detail of this type of provision, involving charity wardens or overseers. See: M. Katz, Protection of the Weak in the Talmud (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1925); A. Levine, Free Enterprise & Jewish Law: Aspects of Jewish Business Ethics (New York: Yeshiva Univ. Press, 1980), especially ch. 9, 'The Role of Government in the Free Enterprise Economy'.

38

The Bible and Christian Ethics

the allowed size of the loan be? When dependent members actually did request part of the third-year tithe, what amount of assistance would be meted out? The answer to this question about standards will come from two sources: first, the specific passages attached to the assistance provisions and second, a more general inference from Yahweh's treatment of Israel. The answer is 'sufficiency for need', but with a fairly liberal interpretation of need, aiming in the direction of economic equality. At Dt. 15:8 the law requires a more well-to-do member of the community to loan the poorer brother 'sufficiency for his needs'. At Lev. 25:35, speaking to similar circumstances, the standard is a level of support similar to that which would be provided to a stranger or sojourner: a standard at least meeting, if not exceeding, that required for subsistence. At Dt. 14:29, recipients from the thirdyear tithe were to be given an amount of food sufficient to satisfy them. Quite clearly, then, the passages immediately connected with the provisions for lowincome assistance suggest 'sufficiency for need'.30 But this does not fully answer the question we asked, since both 'sufficiency' and 'need' are such elastic notions. Unless we qualify it further, our specification has ruled out only insufficiency at one end and equality at the other. (Of course, in an extreme case when the entire community lacked economic means, sufficiency for needs would mean economic equality which may have been the situation at Ex. 16:18.) We need also to take into account the socio-economic setting of Israel, as well as the broader relationship of Israel to Yahweh. As we saw earlier, the poorer members of society would be neither idlers nor sluggards, but as hardworking as other members of the community. This reality suggests a more liberal interpretation of sufficiency. Furthermore, the basic nature of the low-income provisions, as we saw, would protect against shirking. And so the interpretation of sufficiency could be more liberal without encouraging opportunistic behaviour. Clearly, the spirit of the legislation (see especially Lev. 25:36-38) entails such an interpretation. Passages such as Ex. 22:21, Lev. 25:38, and Dt. 24:18,22 deal with legal stipulations regarding poorer individuals; and each carries the argument further in support of an expansive interpretation of sufficiency, because each describes the fundamental nature of Yahweh's relationship with Israel. He rescued them from slavery in Egypt; he continued to nurture them in the wilderness and eventually delivered them into their own land. In other words, since, Yahweh 30

Passages taken from other parts of Scripture which also deal with provisions for poorer community members suggest standards ranging from sufficiency for needs to complete economic equality. At Ex. 16:18 the manna was supplied daily in amounts sufficient for the needs of the day. In the Acts 2:4247 and 4:32-35 passages describing the early Christian community in Jerusalem the standard appears to be sufficiency for need (2:45, 4:35). Luke 3:10-11, regarding clothing and food provisions, can be seen as either sufficiency or economic equality. At I. Jn. 3:17 the implication is sufficiency for need. 2 Cor. 8:13-14 states clearly that the end result over time should be economic equality.

Biblical Teaching and Assisting the Poor

39

had been so liberal with them; they also should be liberal in their dealings with poorer members of the community. The phrase 'compassionate stewardship' seems an apt description of what was required. Gottwald's treatment of the mishpahah reinforces the conclusion drawn here. One of the salient functions of the mishpahah is 'to protect the socio-economic integrity of beth'avoth threatened with diminution or extinction'. The mishpahah: did not intersect with and impinge upon the family… but it heightened and brought to prominence the centrality of the family… Instead of qualifying the power and importance of the family, as a clan would necessarily do, the protective association of families maximized and guarded the integrity and viability of the member families.31

If there were such a concern for the socio-economic integrity of the beth'ab, it makes it more plausible that the standard would be 'liberal sufficiency for needs'. It also suggests that action would be taken prior to impoverishment, as far as possible, and would not simply be reaction to an established situation of impoverishment. The biblical standard is, wherever possible, the prevention of dangerously low income rather than relief in the midst of it. A lot of modern work in Christian social ethics tends to view economic equality as the norm, and so further comment may be helpful. The narratives describe the land as being divided into roughly equal shares when Israel entered Palestine (Num. 26:52-56), but it is doubtful if these shares would have been equal in productive capacity. This means that eventually they would yield unequal economic outcomes. Indeed, the jubilee provision of Lev. 25 both recognizes this and seeks to correct for it-even if only every forty-nine years. The broader historical record of Israel from the time of Abraham to the settlement in Palestine presents us with a picture of differing economic fortunes but does not condemn the fact of the differences as such. An appeal to the remainder of Scripture only reinforces this conclusion. It is clear that a few passages, such as I Sam. 30:21-25 (assuming the practice had applicability beyond a military setting), Ezek. 47:14, and 2 Cor. 8:13, present a standard of economic equality. But there is a much larger body of material that allows for some economic inequality and gives no sharp condemnation of it, when this could have been expected (especially in the teachings of Jesus, who was so sharp in his condemnation of other existing practices). This leads to the conclusion that Yahweh is less concerned about economic equality than about an egalitarian bias in the midst of economic inequality (and especially so in cases where members of society experience arbitrary adversity). Let us summarize the essence of an appropriate standard. Assistance to the poor was intended to maintain each family unit as an economically viable and contributing component of the community; so that the family would have the confidence that if it worked as it should, and otherwise remained a faithful member of the community, then the community would not allow economic 31

N. Gottwald, Tribes of Yahweh (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1979), 315-16.

40

The Bible and Christian Ethics

difficulties to debilitate the family so that it could not continue to be viable and contributing. Birth epitomizes this standard gracefully and efficiently: 'The entire social order was structured in a way that attempted to prevent those in need from being permanently locked into their poverty.'32 The important element of this standard-liberal sufficiency for need-is the confidence or hope that the family unit would have: a confidence that should free them to develop and use their talents to the long-term benefit of the family and the community. Legal Status of these Provisions But if one purpose of our exploration is to inform contemporary social policy, we need to investigate still further. We must ask: what was the legal status of these provisions? Some observers have claimed that they were merely moral obligations, to be fulfilled by the voluntary response of those who were more well-to-do, and have argued that income redistribution was not an obligation of the Israelite community in the biblical narratives. This issue lies at the heart of much current debate, both among those who claim the Bible as normative and among those who do not. Was it possible for the more well-to-do beth'avoth to be forced by the community to make zero-interest loans or to forgive the unpaid balance of these loans in the sabbatical year? Could farmers be required to allow dependent members of society to glean? Could bond-slaves appeal to the community if they were not released at the end of six years; and could citizens be mandated to contribute to the community-administered welfare storehouse? Let us first consider the arguments for treating these provisions as moral obligations only. Loewenstamm argues that 'the vey formulation of these laws raises the doubt as to their actual implementation, or whether they were regarded as moral precepts…. It does not grant the poor a legal right, but merely approaches the rich with a religio-ethical appeal.’33 Similarly, Phillips argues: In contrast to the formal legal corpus of Ex. 21:12-22:7 (Mt. 22:16), with its specifications of precise legal offences and appropriate sanctions to be enforced through the courts, the laws of humaneness and righteousness are not, in a technical sense, laws at all, for they envisage no legal action for their breach and 32

B. Birch. What Does the Lord Reauire? The Old Testament Call to Social obedience (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1985), 61. My use of this quote may be other than Birch intended, for he elsewhere writes: 'Equal access to community resources according to need formed the cornerstone for an economics of equality which is spelled out in radical terms during Israel's early life as a covenant community' (ibid. 57-8) - a standard I cannot accept, as noted. 33 S. Loewenstamm, 'Law' in B. Mazar (ed.), The World History of the Jewish People, v. 111 Judges (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1971), 2 4 M 7. On the other hand, he notes: 'The legal aspect is more evident in laws that deal with the poor as a class and assure them of some sustenance, such as the laws of gleanings, the overlooked sheaf and the poor man's tithe (Lev. 19:10,23:22, Dt. 21) 247.

Biblical Teaching and Assisting the Poor

41

specify no penalties. Rather, they are addressed directly to the recipient and envisage unquestioning obedience. Their basis is an appeal to his sense of moral responsibility for those who are not in a position to protect themselves and to his sense of justice.34

A motive clause has been attached to a number of these provisions (Ex. 22:23-24. Dt. 15:9. 24:15) which states that if the more well-to-do members of the community fail to obey these laws, then the poorer Israelite can appeal to Yahweh. Some have attributed the existence of such motive clauses to the legal unenforceability of social laws, which make an extra moral urging It also has been suggested that since there is no specific legal relief attached to the low income provisions, they must have been primarily moral (and philanthropic).36 In the case of texts like Ps. 72:l-4, 12-13 and Jer. 22:16, passages which charge the king to protect the rights of the poor and needy, it has been argued that the admonition is simply for the king to act privately as an example for others, and that these passages are not grounds for the monarch to act with the power of the state to redistribute income or resources by force.35, 36 Reasonable as these arguments seem, and important as it is not to extend the reach and implications of biblical law too freely, it is possible to arrive at a different conclusion: that the provisions could and would have been enforced legally-at least on a number of occasions. Consider for example the compassionate loan, the institution deemed most likely to have had only voluntary significance. Suppose that a loan had been agreed and that either regular payments had not been made, or the seventh year payment had not been paid. The creditor would then become responsible to investigate the situation 34 A. Phillips, 'Prophecy & Law' in R. Coggins, et al. (eds.), Israel's Prophetic Tradition: Essays in Honour of Peter R. Ackroyd (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 217-32. 35 'In general, the motive clauses cited above are attached to unenforceable rather than policeable laws.' R. Uitti, 'Israel's Underprivileged and Gemser's Motive Clause', Society of Biblical Literature, 1975 Seminar Papers, v. 1 (Chicago: Palmer House, 1975), 7-13. Uitti also notes that the use of motive clauses with regard to the underprivileged is but a small fraction of the total use of the motive clause. He does not conclude that the presence of the motive clause therefore means such provisions are legally unenforceable, but only the suggestion that they may be difficult to enforce. 36 See H. Gilmer, The If-You Form in Israelite Law (Missoula, Montana, Scholars Press, 1975), and his argument that provisions of the type considered here (humanitarian ifyou forms) 'are not laws in the strictly juridical sense, for they do not describe a case subject to legal action (what is), nor do they prescribe penalties (what shall be)' (p. 46). One wonders what the legal action or penalty would be other than an order by the elders to 'loan the money' or 'forgive the unpaid balance'. In the recorded case of a breach of the levirate law (Dt. 25:5-10), a perhaps not too dissimilar situation from the one being considered here, the relief is simply legal embarrassment. In his paper on the levirate provision, Davies speaks of 'no punishment save that of the indignity of being exposed to public humiliation' and 'a measure of social opprobrium', See E. Davies, 'Inheritance Rights and the Hebrew Levirate Marriage, Part 2' , Vetus Test. XXXI:257--68 (July, 1981), 261 - 2.

42

The Bible and Christian Ethics

sufficiently either to seek repayment or to be satisfied that his charity was required. If he sought repayment, the issue most probably would have been brought before the elders at the gate, who then would decide the merits of the complaint. Since the low income provisions are clearly a part of the law it is presumed the elders would have given them serious consideration. If the indebted beth'ab was found to have worked the expected amount and lived simply (in order to repay the loan), and was still unable to repay it, the elders would no doubt have admonished the creditor strongly, or possibly have offered to help share the burden of non-repayment-or both. If, on the other hand, the indebted beth'ab had been sluggish or consumed at too high a level, the elders no doubt would have ordered repayment in some way-perhaps by requiring collateral in the form of labour or land. It would seem that passages such as Job 29:12,16 and 31:13,16- 21 fit situations vey much like this (see also Prov. 22:22 and Amos 2:6, where the poor are found at the gate). The less likely case is that the disadvantaged party would initiate legal proceedings, either protesting the failure of a more well-to-do beth'ab to make a compassionate loan in the first place, or protesting about the creditor's attempts to force repayment once the loan was made. Possibly the institution of the 'hue and cry' could have been used in such cases;37 possibly a non-indebted friend of the disadvantaged beth'ab would act as an advocate before the elders (e.g. 2 Kings 8: l-6). If the situation of Rt. 2:9, 15, where Boaz instructed his harvesters not to trouble Ruth, reflects a frequent hazard gleaners had to face, it suggests that the gleaning provision for dependent Israelites was subject to little legal oversight. On the other hand, the fact that the third year tithe was gathered in a central place and then dispensed to those in need seems clearly to require a community-administered operation, for which the elders would have had to establish proper criteria as to who should receive assistance and how much. Infringements upon these criteria would most probably have been cause for some form of legal redress. What of the third-year tithe? The question is whether Israelites would have been forced to deliver their portions to the community. The biblical record does not offer direct evidence of this, but inferential evidence can be found in Talmudic material: The directors [of the town charitable fund] had the right to force contributions… by anyone who could afford at all to give charity and had lived in the community for a period not less than one month (Baba Batra 8a). The amount of the contributions to be paid by one was estimated by the board of directors. If one

37

See H. Boecker, Law & the Administration of Justice in the Old Testament & Ancient East (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1980), 49-51.

Biblical Teaching and Assisting the Poor

43

refused to pay the full amount assessed, they levied an attachment to his property (Baba Batra 8b).38

At several places in the Old Testament reference is made to the 'rights' or 'cause' of the poor: Ex. 23:6, Dt. 24:17, 27:19, Job 36:6, Ps. 140:12, Prov. 29:7, 31:9, Eccl. 5:8 (by clear implication), Is. 10:2, Jer. 5:28,22:16. These words have unmistakable legal significance39 and obviously include the types of provisions which have been examined above. They refer both to the 'ebyon and the 'ani which means (you will remember) that legal rights adhere to both the able-bodied and the dependent.40 In his article on 'The Rights of the Underprivileged', Patrick argues that the Mosaic provisions dealing with the under-privileged grew out of actual legal proceedings and court rulings, with the result that here 'we have real law governing precisely defined legal relationship’.41 Daube understands the biblical social legislation in a similar way: to have grown out of earlier practices, even before the exodus. He argues that the earlier practices tended to favour more well-to-do beth'avoth that could afford to redeem poorer relatives. But in the Mosaic legislation the state intervenes on behalf of the poor (he cites Ps. 72: 14).42 38

M. Katz, Protection of the Weak in the Talmud (NY: Columbia Univ. Press, 1975), 81. A R. Brooks [Support for the Poor in the Mishnaic Law of Agriculture: Traclate Peah (Chico, Calif.; Scholar's Press, 1983)) notes: ‘Each householder must designate an amount food proportionate to his own wealth…. The effect of the tax, then, is to narrow the gap between the richest and the poorest Israelites’. (41) See also I. Twersky, 'Some Aspects of the Jewish attitude towards the Welfare State', in Studies In Jewish Law & Philosophy (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1982). 39 Two Hebrew words are used for 'rights' or 'cause': the predominant word is mishpal. which is used elsewhere to refer to laws and judgments of God; at Ps. 140: 1'2 {with mishpat), Prov. 29:7, 31 :9, and Jer. 22:16 the word is din and means most likely ‘righteous judgment’ or ‘legal claim’ (TDOT v. III, pp. 190-91; TWOT v. II, 752-55,. 947-49. 40 With regard to Ps. 72,2 judge the poor with mishpat) and Jer. 22:16 (he pled the din of the poor and needy} – passages which, as noted above, some interpret to mean the king's private actions only - the use of such clear legal language suggests either that the king was to intercede (as a community elder) in a legal action to uphold the ‘rights of the poor or that he was to use the power of his office to affect the rights of the poor. See 1 Chr 18:14. 41 D. Palrick, 'The Rights of the Underprivileged’, Society of Biblical Literature: 1975 Seminar Papers. v. 1 (Chicago: Palmer House, 1975) 1-6.. His subsequent book Old Testament Law (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985)] may have qualified the assessment, for he writes: 'Most of Deuteronomy's slave provisions are idealistic and would have brought the institution to an end if enforced. The Jubilee Year in the Holiness Code is thoroughly utopian. Such idealistic and Ulopial1 rulings would not have made their way into the lawbooks if the lawbooks were designed for practical application in judicial cases' (p. 199). 42 D. Daube, Studies in Biblical Law (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1947), 45. Daube further concludes that the legal attempt was rather utopian ['No Hebrew

44

The Bible and Christian Ethics

Putting all these arguments together, it seems likely that the Israelite provisions for assisting the poor would have been legally enforceable forms of income distribution in a number of cases. The clear fact is that the provisions for the impoverished were part of the Mosaic legislation, as much as other laws such as those dealing with murder and theft. Since nothing in the text allows us to consider them as different, they must be presumed to have been legally enforceable. Concluding Discussion Summary Early Israel, then, possessed a reasonably sophisticated set of assistance programmes43 characterized by 'compassionate stewardship' – a stewardly concern for efficient administration of her scarce resources. This explains the use of a loan for the able-bodied poor and work expectations for those dependent poor who could work. It also explains the legal obligation upon wealthier members of the community to assist in such a way as to prevent poverty from becoming so debilitating that the affected individual or family could no longer contribute meaningfully and productively to society (and thus become a liability). The community was to make a compassionate response, in recognition of the arbitrary nature of economic adversity (for otherwise hardworking individuals and families). This explains the zero-interest loan with a seventh-year cancellation of any unpaid principal, and a standard of assistance that could be described as 'liberal sufficiency for need', as the main provisions for the able-bodied poor. So far we have not paid much attention to the jubilee provision (Lev. 25), whereby no piece of land was to be alienated from its original extended family owners for longer than fifty years. The long term period involved44 carries this particular provision beyond the pale of short-run assistance to impoverished members of the community, which government was high-minded and strong enough to put poor people with no connections in the positions enjoyed by the members of wealthy clans' {p. 46)J and that this . explains the use of motive clauses whereby the poor can appeal to God and he completes the legal requirement. 43 In contrast to an earlier work in this genre by N. Soss, ' Old Testament Law and Economic Society', Jml. of Hist. of Ideas XXXIV 323-44 (July-Sept., 1973), who concludes that these provisions and others not here considered must be seen as utopian and thus practical and actually used. In fairness to Soss, he gives each provision its most literal meaning, such as a universal sabbatical year and hence fallow year), whereas this paper has attempted to give a more plausible socio-economic rendering to such Institutions. S. Kaufman, ‘A Reconstruction of the Social Welfare System of Ancient Israel' [in W. Barrick & J. Spencer (eds.). In the Shelter of Elyon, JSOT Supp. Series 31 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984)), argues a position closer to that developed here. 44 Similar to the assessment of the compassionate loan provision, it is presumed that if this institution existed in the early years of Israel’s occupation of Palestine (and thus had

Biblical Teaching and Assisting the Poor

45

is our concern here. The jubilee institution can be viewed, therefore, as having more to do with the necessary conditions for maintaining a social environment that was both just and conducive to economic growth. Most probably this institution was designed to accomplish two things. First, it appears to be concerned with the dangers of concentrated productive property; and so it may have something to teach us today about competition policy or inheritance laws, but not about low income assistance. Second, the jubilee institution assured each extended family unit of a privately-owned productive base but every 48th year, or about every second generation. The relevance of this function to our- policies today, in a nonagrarian economy, would most probably involve the provision of a sound 'human capital' base (i.e. a good education) for each citizen, as the best way to maintain a secure, privately-owned productive base. This second function draws attention once again to the importance of the community exercising protective 'administrative oversight' so as to prevent the existence of impoverishment. As we have already seen, the provisions for the poor carry reciprocal obligations. The poor are expected to work where possible in the receipt of any community assistance, and the community is expected to offer compassionate assistance. Implicit in the work-expectation facing the poor is the reasonable expectation that suitable work can be found. And so a part of the protective administrative oversight that the elders of a community were to exercise was probably the responsibility of guaranteeing that sufficient work existed for the poorer members; Mt. 20:l-16 may well be a good example of this. A programme of protective administrative oversight of the elders properly governing their community-has wider implications than the subject area of this essay. These implications today would embrace the proper management of the economy so as to maintain low levels of unemployment and inflation, as well as keeping conditions ripe for economic growth. They would also include a programme for educating the members of the community so that arbitrary and adverse economic circumstances would not be as devastating.45

actual economic and not just sacral or symbolic content), most occasions of forced sale would have been settled by repurchase sometime before the 49th year, ,and only a few cases would necessitate any forgiveness of the unpaid portion of the debt (or repurchase price): and in the few cases involved the amount of money would have been small. That is, there would be little occasion for much historical comment on the actual practice of Jubilee to the extent that the institution was being honoured property. 45 A representative sample of the U.S. population, which has been tracked carefully for over fifteen years, gives rises to the following observation: 'After differences in current income, savings and all other variables were controlled, those with college degrees experienced one less undesirable event, on average, than those with an 8th grade education… Apparently something about the skills acquired in school or possibly about the other characteristics of those who completed more schooling (e.g. perseverance or IQ) makes better-educated people more successful at avoiding undesirable life events.’

46

The Bible and Christian Ethics

An important biblical theme that has been touched on only indirectly in this paper is the general concern for work-and like several other tangential themes raised here it cannot be treated in adequate detail. Work has both positive and negative roles attached to it in Scripture. Positively, work can be creative and provide meaning, as well as the needed material substance, to life. God worked in creation (so much that he rested) and Jesus spent the greater part of his earthly existence in manual work. Negatively, work can be demeaning and non-creative. Even the most rewarding work is to cease at least one day of each week; and certain types of work (e.g. work which creates idols, or a harsh form of slavery, or terribly demeaning work when this is the labourer's only option) are not to be allowed.46 If the elders of the community were to govern the community to assure opportunities for work (and hence economic growth), they were also responsible to make sure that no members of the community were idlers. That is, a concern for assuring sufficient work in the community is also a concern to prevent any poorer members from shirking. Contemporary implications Having explored the likely structure of assistance to the poor in early Israel, and having uncovered the intentions that characterize these biblical provisions, we can then examine assistance provisions for the poor in contemporary societies, in order to discern whether they embody the same sensitivities. To draw specific policy implications would require application to one national setting, and then an extensive discussion of the history and structure of that setting. This cannot be done here. Instead we will explore several general emphases of the biblical provisions, using the framework of poverty assistance in the United States for occasional examples. These emphases are: the importance of reinforcing the extended family as a private economic base to protect against poverty; the use of a compassionate loan in providing public assistance; reasonable work expectations for assistance recipients, with reciprocal obligations upon managers of the economy to assure sufficient work opportunities; liberal standards of provision; the attempt to minimize the shaming or stigmatizing of those who are poor due to arbitrary adversity. Assuming that there is a general public framework of laws (for example, competition policy) and the provision for certain public goods (such as, and especially, a sound education for each citizen), it is fundamentally important next to stress the necessity of a private economic base for each family and individual and to seek to maintain this base as much as possible. It is G. Duncan et al.., Years of Poverty, Years of Plenty: The Changing Economic Fortunes of American Workers and Families (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1984), 26-27 46 The most comprehensive work on this theme is G. Agrell, Work, Toil and Sustenance (Lind: Verbum, Haken Ohlssons Forlag, 1976) which unfortunately does not ask the question being asked here of whether the community has an obligation to assure sufficient work for its members. See in this regards also W. Brueggeman, The Land (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977).

Biblical Teaching and Assisting the Poor

47

undesirable that people should actively rely upon public provision of income beyond the benefits generated by the general (public) framework, even though it may be necessary (as we have seen) to counter certain adverse circumstances. To be 'on the dole' or 'on welfare' or 'drawing unemployment' inevitably marks out those involved in ways that are demeaning, and will probably have adverse behavioural effects upon the recipients when received for long periodsregardless of how much compassion goes into the design and administration of these programmes. Scripture attests to all this and addresses the issue in two fundamental ways: practically emphasizing the importance of extended families, and then explicitly granting these families private property. It will not do to argue that the Scripture merely accepts the typical social reality in the ancient Near East of the extended family and makes this normative. In those days, the typical 'political' reality involved militarily strong and often arbitrary central power; and yet the ideal of the scriptural call was for no king or standing army (1Sam. 8 and 12), and what some have described as a radical democracy;47 and were these people to select a king, he should limit his power (Dt. 17:14ff.). The typical 'economic' reality of that day found a great deal of productive property concentrated in the hands of the religious and state authorities, and yet Scripture decrees ;hat the Levites were to be severely limited in their ownership of productive property (Lev. 25:32-34, Num. 18:20,35:1-8). The extended family, however, was embraced and reinforced, as clearly a very effective institution for the protection against impoverishment among individual members of the family; it offered a setting in which the proper degree of compassion and responsibility could be administered more effectively than through extra-familial institutions. It must be noted that implicit in the affirmation of the extended family is an equally strong (if not greater) commitment to the importance of the nuclear family. Privately-held property, whether for personal or productive use, offers generally more potential for creativity and personal freedom, and promises generally more efficient use of productive resources. These lessons have been and are being learned by twentieth century nations such as China and the USSR, who having nationalized virtually all property are now feeling their way back to greater degrees of private ownership and control in order to encourage individual effort and realize greater efficiency and productivity. Though certain constraints upon the use of private ownership are necessary, and find expression in Scripture, the clear biblical bias is for private assignment over public assignment.48 In addition to the personal freedom and creativity encouraged (desirable ends in themselves), private assignment generally enhances the potential for greater economic growth; economic growth in turn 47 See M. Lind, ‘The Concept of Political Power in Ancient Israel’, Annual of the Swed. Theol. Inst. 7:4-24 (1968-69). 48 The productive property of Canaan was divided among the Israelites to extended families. Yahweh was the Ultimate owner of the property and held them accountable for its proper use (Lev. 25).

48

The Bible and Christian Ethics

supplies more and better jobs, and thus becomes the means by which most nuclear and extended families can provide for themselves without outside assistance. Public policy should therefore be consciously designed to reinforce the social and economic health of the extended family. Obviously the cohesion and healthy functioning of the extended family depends upon far more than various adjustments in public policy-indeed, in a sense public policy in the twentieth century has been running to keep up with family changes-but there are a number of steps which could be taken to provide incentives to maintain the stability of nuclear and extended families. As an example, within the U.S.A., the state of Wisconsin recently has required the parents to bear part of the support when a young, unwed daughter with a child applies for public assistance. Similarly there has developed in the U.S. almost universal support for searching out absent fathers and requiring them to contribute to the support of their children. A number of other initiatives of this type could be contemplated. For example should the young, unwed daughter with child be allowed (as a general rule) to live separately from her parents and receive public assistance? Might there be ways to encourage children (perhaps by tax inducements) to care for aged or infirm parents more than they do at present? In the wake of the development of the western welfare states since the 1930s, such measures have a ring of toughness to them. So did the Apostle Paul's admonition to grandchildren in Ephesus (I Tim. 5). But the toughness is designed to maintain the basic building block of a society. Social welfare agencies at their best remain bureaucracies, lacking in the potential to express sacrificial love. A society needs a base of healthy families, and social policy must help preserve them even when it requires seemingly tough rules. The use of a compassionate loan for able-bodied families and individuals has rarely been considered for the public sector, although it has been used frequently to various degrees in private dealings. The public alternative for intact families has typically been some form of unemployment assistance for periods of foregone earnings, and cash or in-kind assistance (children's allowances, welfare, and so on) for employed but low-income families. Several nations have been wondering whether some of the unemployed have remained on assistance for excessive periods, and if so whether this is a result of too few jobs or too easy administration of assistance. At least one observer has recommended a form of compassionate loan as an alternative to unemployment insurance in the U.S., making a portion of the benefits a low interest loan for the first six months of unemployment (to be repaid once work is resumed); if the period of unemployment extended beyond six months then the assistance would change to grant that would not have to be repaid.49 We need add little here to what we have already said about the reciprocal obligations upon the poor and those responsible for administrative oversight in 49

See M. Feldstein, ‘Unemployment Insurance: Time for Reform’, Harvard Business Review 53:51-61 (March/April 1975)

Biblical Teaching and Assisting the Poor

49

the economy. As the elders of an early Israelite community may have found work repairing walls or water supplies when there was insufficient work in the private sector, so contemporary 'elders' are obligated to assure adequate work opportunity. This is a task of great complexity in the modern, interdependent economies of the world today, involving attention to such issues as international trade policy and domestic monetary policy as well as whether and how to create specialized retraining programmes or work opportunities. We cannot realistically treat it adequately in a few paragraphs here. As the ablebodied had to repay loans and the employable but dependent poor had to glean in the fields of early Israel, so the employable poor today should be expected to work before receiving assistance. Such a general admonition does not answer the difficult practical questions of whether those drawing unemployment assistance should be required to take 'just any job'; or at what age of their children single mothers should be required to take employment outside the home; but it does echo the biblical emphasis upon reasonable work expectations.50 If work opportunities were available, and if realistic and rigorous work expectations were implemented systematically in the administration of public assistance, then the standards for assistance could be raised to levels providing liberal sufficiency for needs, without courting the danger of attracting numerous applicants for assistance. As with each of the implications being examined here, there are a host of technical issues which would have to be addressed before we could begin formulating actual policy. A basic one is whether we should be offering cash assistance as opposed to in-kind help. In early Israel the able-bodied were eligible both for compassionate loans (cash) and access to the fallow-year fields (in-kind); the dependent were confined primarily to in-kind assistance (gleanings, and access to a portion of the thirdyear tithe-which in early Israel most likely would have been foodstuffs, but at a later date could have been cash). Clearly the biblical account is not troubled by in-kind assistance. One presumes that 'liberal sufficiency for needs' would have meant different levels in early Israel, depending upon average consumption standards of a local area; in the difficult setting of the wilderness a daily quotient of manna and quail (the same thing day after day!) was liberal sufficiency. In other words, there may well be room in a large, regionally diversified society today for local economic variations rather than a national standard; although the standard remains 'liberal sufficiency' for needs. From the little evidence we have (Ruth 2: 9, and hints gleaned from the prophetic complaints about mistreatment of the poor), we can presume that the poor in early Israel were shamed and stigmatized. At least for those poor who were the 'ebyon and 'ani-deserving of assistance because they were victims of arbitrary adversity, 50

Of the various works published recently in the United States calling for work expectations, the one I find catches best the scriptural concern for proper stewardship and compassion: L. Mead, Beyond Entitlement: The Social Obligation of Citizenship (New York: Free Press, 1986).

50

The Bible and Christian Ethics

this was wrong and should be addressed by the elders (Job 29 and 31, Ps. 72). Policing it today would be no easier than in early Israel. Children can be excessively cruel in their treatment of peers who are different, and thus need parental correction; in just the same way the elders and laws of a society must exhibit vigilance in addressing the inevitable reality of shaming and stigmatizing. Where the structure of assistance programmes can protect against this, for example by creating as much physical privacy as possible for citizens applying for help, protection should be given. The contemporary policy implications come as a package. If there are liberal standards for assistance, without adequate work opportunities or work requirements and practical reinforcement of the family, there will be dangers of excessive and irresponsible reliance upon public aid. If there are work requirements without work opportunities or liberal financial assistance, the situation will only invite bureaucratic abuse, as assistance providers bend the rules in order to reflect some compassion. These contemporary realities attest once again to the socio-economic plausibility and completeness of the biblical framework. Our obligation before the awesome God of all creation, who is also the loving God who desires a personal relationship with each one of us, is to be faithful and complete in our attention to Scripture, and not to pick and choose among his provisions, imposing our own criteria for what is worthwhile and not his. Finally, we neglect at our peril the fundamental importance of maintaining a viable private socio-economic base. Public assistance is necessary in a world constrained by selfish behaviour; private charity never has been sufficient. But public assistance is a secondary provision, and works best when it builds upon a healthy private sector of families, churches, and business enterprises which are providing the values, virtues, jobs, and intra- and extra-family assistance that are foundational to the health of any society.

Jubilee Tithe: Sharing Means of Livelihood with the Poor

John Goldingay Dr. John Goldingay is David Allan Hubbard Professor of Old Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, U.S.A. God sometimes guides by enabling us to see how Scripture speaks with fresh power in new contexts. The emergence of the Jubilee 2000 movement provided a noteworthy instance. Somebody saw that the jubilee vision in Leviticus 25 pointed to the canceling of punitive third world debts to Western banks and governments, and this caught the imagination of millions of believers and others. The Word of God demonstrated its power, in bringing to conception a new political and economic reality to mark the beginning of the third millennium. The battle for the cancellation of these debts is not over, but nevertheless the question arises where we go beyond that. The cancellation reduces a thirtyyear-old slope in the economic playing-field, but it does not take us back to the position at the beginning of the 1970s, still less does it remove the slope that was already there back then. We in the West continue to use a hugely disproportionate amount of the resources available for nourishment, education, and health care in the world, and thus deprive ourselves of the joy that often characterizes parts of the world that are not overwhelmed by their wealth. In due course that has to change, either through God’s discipline, or through our initiative. I suggest that tithing may provide believers with a way of beginning that process. The Significances of Lending The Old Testament prohibits Israelites to lend to each other at interest. ‘Interest’ is usually neshek – literally a ‘bite’; some passages also use the words tarbit or marbit – literally ‘increase’ – with similar meaning. Older English translations understand the words to refer to ‘usury’ (i.e., excessive interest, however that may be defined), but I think this is mistaken. The texts forbid any lending at interest. Many English translations also introduce the ideas of interest or usury into the use of the verbs nasha’/nashah and related nouns, though in themselves these verbs simply refer to lending. But the first passage in the Bible that refers to lending, Exodus 22:25 (22:24 in Hebrew Bibles), tells people not to behave like lenders (nosh’im) when they lend (lawah) money to people. It looks as if lawah refers to lending in general, in the way an ordinary person might lend something to a friend, while nasha’/nashah refers to

52

The Bible and Christian Ethics

something more formal or commercial, which by its nature would be likely to involve interest. Exodus 22 forbids Israelites to impose interest on poor members of ‘my people’ when making a loan. The reference to the poor indicates that the text does not refer to commercial loans. One can imagine successful Israelite farmers borrowing to (e.g.) enlarge their herds, but the Old Testament does not refer to such loans. It rather presupposes a situation in which (e.g.) a farmer’s harvest has failed and he needs to borrow to feed his family and/or sow for the next year. It implies the motivation that these are ‘my people’: so be careful how you treat them. The exhortation about not behaving like a lender shows how it is quite possible for creditors to keep the regulation prohibiting lending at interest yet still treat debtors oppressively. The Old Testament refers to this as a personal issue, a community issue, a national issue, and an international issue. In no case need it imply charging excessive interest, or even charging interest at all. 1. Individual lenders are not to take the necessities of life as pledges, such as an ox or ass, or a garment, or a millstone – or a baby (Deut. 24:6,17; Job 22:6; 24:3,9). One oppressive lender is a man who insists on taking away a widow’s children (so that they can work for him) because of the family’s debt (2 Kings 4:1). 2. A story about community controversy in Nehemiah 5 concerns oppressive lending: it may refer to charging interest or to other tough actions such as foreclosing on loans. It alludes to two reasons for debt, crop failure and imperial taxation. The two stories also make clear the results of default. One may forfeit fields, orchards, and houses, and/or one may end up in ‘slavery’. But that conventional term is misleading, since the person’s position resembles temporary indentured labour, in a sense simply employment instead of the normal arrangement whereby one works for oneself on one’s own land or in one’s own business. It has little in common with the chattel slavery imposed on the ancestors of many African Americans. 3. The way imperial taxation thus burdens individuals and leads to debt was anticipated in the way national taxes burdened people when Israel was an independent state. When Israel asked for stronger central government, the prophet Samuel warned them of the burden such government would be on them (1 Samuel 8:10- 17). 4. Internationally, Habakkuk 2:6-7 warns or promises that a major power that has behaved like a creditor accumulating pledges from weaker and poorer countries will in due course become the victim of its debtors. The tables will be turned. A second passage in Moses’ teaching expands on the point in Exodus, referring to the poor person as ‘your brother’ and referring to the need to ‘revere God’. It also includes reference to lending food, which makes more explicit the kind of predicament, of poor harvest, that the texts are concerned to regulate. The passages urges the aim of letting your brother live with you as a resident alien – that is, someone who can maintain himself even though he has had to forfeit his land (Leviticus 25:36-37). People who are doing well are expected to lend freely to the needy and to accept payment in the form of labour, or of the eventual repayment of the debt in money that the person had earned through labour. So the debtor would seek to work his way back to

Jubilee Tithe

53

solvency by committing himself to indentured labour for a set period or to paid employment in relation to someone who did have land. A third passage in Moses’ teaching makes explicit that people must not impose interest on any form of loan, in money or in kind (Deut. 23:19 [23:20 in Hebrew Bibles]). That passage also makes explicit that Israelites are permitted to impose interest in lending to a foreigner (Deut. 23:20 [21]), as one does not have to remit a foreigner’s debts in the sabbath year (15:3). This is an example of a number of obligations that did not apply to foreigners. It did not imply usury was acceptable in relation to foreigners; the First Testament says nothing explicit about usury. This exemption with regard to foreigners has been of considerable influence in encouraging Jewish people to be involved in the commercial world, though we do not know its original background or significance. Perhaps it allows commercial loans to (e.g.) local Canaanites or foreigners involved in trade. Perhaps it refers to resident aliens who choose not to take up full membership of Israel. Or perhaps it is a purely theoretical rule – permitting loans at interest to Israelites (should this be ‘foreigners’?) is a way of underlying the prohibition on loans at interest to nearly all the people that anyone would be asked to make a loan to. Historically, it may be that none of the material in Exodus, Leviticus, or Deuteronomy goes back to Moses. The question of the origin and relative dating of different parts of Moses’ teaching is a complex one that is unlikely ever to be resolved. A few decades ago there was some scholarly consensus on the matter, but that has now collapsed. Therefore, it seems necessary to work with the material as it stands without any particular theory about dating, while recognizing that the material developed, perhaps over nearly a millennium from Moses’ own day to the Persian period. Beyond Moses’ teaching, Proverbs 28:8 promises that people who augment their wealth by lending at interest ‘gather it for people who are kind to the poor’ – i.e., they will not see the profit themselves. It is a personal experience of that which Habakkuk envisages for the leading world power of its day. Psalm 15 asks the question, ‘Who may sojourn in God’s tent’ – i.e., stay in God’s presence. Its answer includes the general requirement of a life of integrity and truthfulness, and also some concrete expectations such as avoiding slander, keeping oaths, refusing bribes—and not lending money at interest. The prophet Ezekiel speaks in similar terms in listing obligations that people should fulfill if they wish God to treat them as righteous, such as worshiping by means of images, defiling their neighbours’ wives, robbing people—and lending at interest (Ezekiel 18:8, 13, 17). Ezekiel implies that people were not fulfilling these obligations, and later makes explicit that the well-to-do in Jerusalem have committed many of the wrongs he lists, including this one (22:12). Exodus 22 begins ‘If you lend’, but it presupposes that you will do so. To refuse to lend would contravene other exhortations regarding concern for the needy. The point is explicit in Deuteronomy 15, which urges people to lend generously to poor members of their ‘family’. Righteous people do well in life and, therefore, are in a position to give and to lend and thus to be a blessing

54

The Bible and Christian Ethics

(Psalm 37:25-26). Things go well for the person who deals generously and lends (Psalm 112:5). The New Testament confirms the stance of the Old. As with Moses’ teaching, so we do not know how much of Jesus’ teaching goes back to Jesus himself, and I leave aside this question in the conviction that the Christian development of Jesus’ teaching in the New Testament Scriptures is also normative for the Christian community, just as the Israelite development of Moses’ Teaching in the Old Testament scriptures is normative for both Jewish and Christian communities. The New Testament refers to lending on interest only in the context of a parable, about a man entrusting his assets to his servants (Matthew 25:27; Luke 19:23). One cannot infer an ethical position from such parables, which start from realities of life in order to make a point about something else. Jesus does urge his followers to lend to whoever asks for a loan (Matthew 5:42) and makes explicit that this applies even to enemies and applies even if you do not expect to gain in any way from the act (Luke 6:34-35). 4 Maccabees, a Jewish work from about the same period, which some Christians came to treat as nearcanonical, claims that when people start conforming their lives to Moses’ teaching, even if they are by nature greedy they start lending to the needy without charging interest (2.8). Christians have reckoned that Jesus’ teaching was more radical than Moses’ but I cannot see this is so. Moses’ teaching about loving one’s neighbour offers no exemption if one’s neighbour is one’s enemy and specifically requires one to help one’s enemy (Exodus 23:4-5). It would also imply that one should not hold back from lending because the needy person was one’s enemy. For the sake of argument we may grant that (e.g.) if I want to buy a car or develop my company, someone has the right to charge me interest on a loan. But we have come to think about lending in primarily commercial terms, and Scripture invites us to change that. The focus of the scriptural material is on the predicament of needy people, and lending is a way you care for the needy, not a way you make money. The haves share with the have-nots by lending. Lending is a means of being a blessing. It seems self-evident that we have treated countries in the two-thirds world on a commercial basis when we should be thinking about them on a need basis. That in turn suggests that we have to think about whether we want to view people outside our communities or nations as aliens or as like members of the family. The scriptural material gives membership of one’s family priority over the question of how good or bad the relationships are between lender and borrower. I suggest we see other nations as our brothers and sisters. It might be that the believing communities would think about such questions in a different way from the rest of the world, though the success of the jubilee movement outside the church suggests that ordinary unbelievers often rise to a challenge.

Jubilee Tithe

55

The Significances of Jubilee Sometimes we come to perceive the significance of Scripture by an analytical, linear, left-brain process. We use our minds to work out the principles behind biblical teaching and to see how to apply them to today. But sometimes we see Scripture’s significance by jumping to a more intuitive, right-brain, imaginative, visionary, prophetic insight. The Holy Spirit can work both ways, and both appear within Scripture itself. The jump from Leviticus 25 to Jubilee 2000 was an imaginative, visionary leap, not a linear step. As such it was in keeping with the way the jubilee vision fired people within biblical times. The explanation of the jubilee in Leviticus 25 begins from the requirement that farmers observe a sabbath year, so that once every seven years they sow no crops in their fields. People thus acknowledge that the land belongs to God. So once in a while they leave the land alone (as the weekly sabbath acknowledges God’s right to time and leaves that chunk of time alone). The requirements of Exodus 23:10-11 had already turned this religious instinct into a practice that could benefit the needy, who were to be allowed to gather what grows naturally in the sabbath year. Deuteronomy 15 and Leviticus 25 take up that concern for the poor and on the basis of it develop imaginative and radical visions of how to deal with situations of poverty that arise as Israel becomes a more complex society. Theologically they start from the nature of Israel’s exodus faith and ask what that implies for such situations. They also link with the vision of the prophets and suggest how prophetic principle could be expressed as practical policy. Leviticus 25 comes at the end of the ‘holiness teaching’ that begins in Leviticus 19. Like Deuteronomy, Leviticus as a whole constitutes a Godinspired dream of a new foundation for Israel’s life as a people, a new style of life for Israel. The book presupposes that the people will not live the life that Exodus faith requires and will find themselves in exile, but that this need not be the end of their story. God will give them another chance after exile (see Leviticus 26). Leviticus 25 is the only place in Scripture that describes the jubilee year (it is also mentioned briefly in Leviticus 27 and Numbers 36:4). The jubilee was to happen every 49 years – perhaps Leviticus is being more realistic than Deuteronomy with its freeing every seven years. The word ‘jubilee’ comes from the Hebrew word for the blowing of a trumpet, because that was the signal that this year was starting (25:9-10). The jubilee involved ‘proclaiming release’ (deror). That expression is the one that Jeremiah 34 uses for what happened in the seventh year. In both the sabbath and jubilee years things were to go back to square one in some way. In general, when someone got into economic difficulty, first obligation to help rested within their extended family. Their nearest relative is under moral obligation to come to their aid in these circumstances and thus to act as their ‘redeemer’ – ‘restorer’ might be a better translation. The aim was to get things back to square one. In the sabbath year people who had been forced by hardship to hire themselves to someone as workers were to become free. In the jubilee year people who had been forced by hardship to rent their land to

56

The Bible and Christian Ethics

someone else were to receive their land back. An underlying principle is the assumption shared by the Navajo and other Native Americans, that you cannot own land. You can own buildings, which you make, but land belongs to God. Leviticus recognizes that human selfishness means people would resist the jubilee principle. They would be tempted to try to make a profit out of other people’s need. They would not want to lend money if they were not going to be able to make their profit, and would try to get round the regulations. The regulations thus remind them to keep God in mind, to ‘revere God’. In some ways the regulations are impractical in that one cannot see how they could be implemented, but they are practical in recognizing that the value of the ‘lease’ on land will diminish as the jubilee draws near. They thus try to think through the practical outworking of the vision and to take account of the perspective of lender as well as borrower. Now it may be that throughout its history Israel did leave the land fallow one year in seven as Exodus says, but there is no reference to this in the Old Testament. Nor is there any reference to Israel ever observing the sabbath-year freeing of people who were working for other people because of debt, in the way Deuteronomy 15 says. The nearest to an exception (significantly) is a story in Jeremiah 34:8-17 about it not happening. There is no indication that the jubilee year was ever implemented. Nor is there any reference to people lending without interest, while there are many passages that imply that people did lend at interest. In any group, the regulations or exhortations that leaders give do not necessarily tell us anything about how life was. This might only resemble the way the church has not usually implemented the Sermon on the Mount, though that analogy indicates that Israel may not have been simply being disobedient. When Jesus told people to cut off their hands, he probably did not mean it. There are other examples of teaching in the Torah that was not implemented, and the implication may be that the people knew that this was a vision rather than a policy. We misunderstand the Torah when we think of it as a law book. It is more like a vision. This does not mean it was not to be taken seriously, any more than Jesus’s comment about cutting off hands. It means Scripture is offering us a vivid picture; you have to work out how to put it into practice. The awareness that it is a vision rather than a piece of law may help us to handle the fact that as a literal practice it would have its disadvantages: for instance, it could end up penalizing people who work hard and rewarding the lazy. While Moses’ Torah or teaching includes regulations that look designed for quasi-legal literal implementation, other material looks more like concrete embodiments of a style of life. We would miss the point if we took it legally – we might fulfill the law’s letter but not its visionary demand. The problems the jubilee vision was designed to handle appear in Nehemiah 5:1-13, where we have seen that Moses’ teaching about lending was being ignored in the context of pressures issuing from the failure of harvests and the demands of taxation placed upon people by a foreign government. Those have forced people to borrow money against the surety of their land, their children’s freedom, and their own freedom. Even if they regain their freedom in the

Jubilee Tithe

57

seventh year, they are very unlikely to be able to regain self-sufficiency as a family if they have lost their land. They will never be able to escape the poverty trap. Nehemiah insists that the well-off return property and land and cease foreclosing (or charging interest) on loans. There is no reference to the jubilee, but it is a jubilee-vision that Nehemiah implements. The function of the requirements in Leviticus 25 for us (like the function of the story in Nehemiah 5) is to stimulate the theological and ethical imagination. No Old Testament law binds us as law, because we do not live by law. But the whole Old Testament is designed to shape the life of the people of God (2 Timothy 3:15-16: in speaking of ‘Scripture’ it is referring to the Old Testament, of course, because the New Testament did not exist). It shapes us by portraying God’s vision for human life by suggesting ways in which this could be worked out in practice in different contexts, and challenging us to discover what that this will look like in our own context. Apart from Nehemiah 5, we know of three occasions in scriptural times when people did take the jubilee vision and applied it in fresh ways in their context. First, in Isaiah 61 the prophet testifies to having been called by God ‘to proclaim release to captives’. This is the one other place where that word ‘release’ comes in the Old Testament. The captives are the people of Judah who are oppressed and depressed as a result of the devastation of Jerusalem and the decimation of its population. The whole people and the whole land are in a position like that of individuals who have become impoverished through bad harvests and have lost their land or freedom, and the chapter applies the ‘release’ image to them. Second, the Qumran ‘Melchizedek’ prophecy (11Q Melchizedek) explicitly puts together Leviticus 25, Deuteronomy 15, and Isaiah 61 and promises that in the last days (which the Qumran community believed were imminent) people will be released from their sins. Third, Luke 4 tells the story of Jesus following the Qumran prophecy in declaring that the last days have arrived and that he is bringing about another embodiment of the ministry described in Isaiah 61. The context of his ministry suggests that the ‘release’ of which he speaks is release from illness, demonic oppression, and guilt. The image of a special occasion when release is proclaimed is thus one capable of being applied to different contexts when believers of vision see people in bondage and see this is God’s moment for their release. The Jubilee 2000 movement saw the new millennium as another such moment. It saw that jubilee was not essentially eschatological or ‘spiritual’ or Christological. The indebtedness of third world countries puts them into another form of bondage, different from that in Leviticus, Nehemiah, Isaiah, 11Q Melchizedek, and Luke. The visionaries who gave birth to the Jubilee 2000 idea invited us to hear God calling us to see here another way in which the image of ‘release’ can be realized in the world. God did not require Israel to apply the jubilee vision outside the people of God, but it would make sense if God now does want that, as the renewed Israel is to reach out to the entire world. As Leviticus envisioned, the cancellation of debts puts everything (or rather, something)

58

The Bible and Christian Ethics

back to square one rather than leaving people permanently oppressed by debts from which they can never recover. The jubilee gives people a new start. The Significances of Tithing The Bible talks about tithing more often than it does about jubilee, but it does so in a way that instructively parallels its references to jubilee and release. From Genesis to Malachi and on into the New Testament tithing is a norm, but the significance of tithing is understood in a number of different ways. The practice hardly changes, but its aim and its meaning are worked out anew in different contexts and connections. The implication would be that tithing remains a norm today, but that we may need to discern afresh what God wants to do through tithing. I want to relate that to jubilee and to the situation Jubilee 2000 addresses. Tithing starts in Genesis 14 (translations vary over whether they use the word ‘tithe’ or the word ‘tenth’, but in Hebrew it is the same word). Abram has gone off on a risky expedition to fight with forces that have taken Lot as a prisoner-of-war. He has returned not only with Lot but also with much booty. Some of Abram’s allies come to see him on his return, and one of them is the king of Salem, Melchizedek, who is also ‘priest of God Most High’. He blesses Abram, and Abram gives him a tenth of his booty. Like sacrifice in Genesis 4, and the leaving of the ground fallow in the sabbath year, evidently tithing is not a special revelation from God but a human instinct or a part of general revelation. Special revelation comes in due course in the way in which God harnesses these natural human instincts and instructs people to express them. Abram knows that tithing is a human thing to do, as faithfulness or love or justice or worship or prayer is a human thing to do. People are made that way. He can assume that this king of Salem understands this, too. When God gives you something, you recognize where it came from by giving some of it back to God. Tithing next appears in the story of Jacob. Jacob is on his way out of the land of promise, on the run from the brother whom he has swindled of his rights as firstborn. God appears to him and promises to keep him safe and bring him back to the land. ‘Well’, says Jacob, ‘if you are going to look after me and give me food and clothing and bring me back here in prosperity and peace, then you can be my God, and I will give you a tithe of all that you give me’. We know the calculating nature of Jacob, grabber by name as well as by personality, and there is surely an irony here. ‘You give me everything, and I will give you a tenth.’ Tithing can be a means of indulging in our instinct to calculate, a means of being selfish. Yahweh’s own first instruction about tithing comes in the verses that close off Leviticus (Leviticus 27:30-33). They constitute a warning about how we may try to evade the demand of tithing. Tithing applies to produce and to animals, and the way you tithe animals is by giving up every tenth animal that passes under the shepherd’s staff. But what happens if your best sheep happens

Jubilee Tithe

59

to be the tenth? Can you substitute a less flourishing sheep for that one? You cannot. No substitutions are allowed. What happens to tithes? The next passage on tithing (Numbers 18:21-32) gives one answer. Tithing is a means of seeing that the ministry is supported. Tithes go to the clan of Levi, whose task is to look after the services at the sanctuary and who have no land to work. So the tithe of the rest of the clans’ work and land goes to the Levites. Deuteronomy also affirms that tithes go to the Levites (Deuteronomy 12) but it adds a special provision for every third year (14:22-29; 26:12- 13). The calendar is thus divided into seven-year periods in which there are two ‘regular’ years, a ‘third’ year, two more ‘regular’ years, another ‘third’ year, then a sabbath year, after which the cycle starts again. In the ‘third’ year, the tithes are to benefit not only Levites but also immigrants, orphans, and widows, who are in the same position as Levites in having no land from which to gain their livelihood. Now this might seem an impractical provision. What are these needy groups supposed to do for the two intervening years? We have noted that questions such as this arise with a number of the policies set forth in the Torah, not least the jubilee regulations, and they may show that these are more Godgiven dreams than God-given policies. People have to work out how to realize the dream. In Joshua to Kings, there is only one reference to tithes, and it is a solemn one. If you insist on having kings, Samuel warns Israel, you will pay for it – literally (1 Samuel 8:15-17). Kings will take a tithe of your grain and vines and sheep for their staff. Perhaps Samuel means they will appropriate the tithes that are due to the ministry and to the needy, or perhaps he means they will add a second tithe to the first, to pay for the cost of having a monarchic state. Either way it is bad news. It is an indication that tithing can be a means of the leadership oppressing ordinary people. Unsurprisingly, there are indications in the Old Testament that people often failed to tithe (e.g., Nehemiah 13:10-12), but there is also a reminder that the practice of tithing can be a substitute for real commitment. Amos 4:4 implies that people were faithful in tithing as they were faithful in worship, but their giving was not matched by a commitment to faithfulness within the community. Some believers lived in fine homes, had good incomes, and enjoyed a cultured life, but they thus benefited from the fact that the way society worked made other believers much more poorly off (e.g. Amos 5:1013; 6:4-6). They could afford to tithe and still be very well-off, and thus their tithing had become one of the ways they avoided God’s lordship of their lives. So tithing can have a variety of significances, and God had different things to say about tithing in different contexts. The question is, what might tithing mean now? Jubilee Tithing The organization World Vision suggested these ten urgent millennial issues. The world’s people have livable incomes: People have enough food; All

60

The Bible and Christian Ethics

children have primary schooling; All people have clean water; Poor nations’ debts to richer nations be cancelled; We develop peace-building programmes at the community level; Girls grow up as equals of boys; The earth’s resources be used in a way that opens up a sustainable future; Child exploitation be ended; People have freedom of belief. According to World Vision, the material cost of handling these questions is only a fraction of world expenditure on arms; the question is whether we can raise the moral will to handle the questions. I suggest that Christians are now called to tithe their income and to direct their tithes to causes that will provide nourishment, education, basic health care, and health education, for people in the two-thirds world. I suggest that this is the purpose that God wishes tithes to fulfill at the beginning of the third millennium. In the Christian dispensation the gospel came to belong to the world and not just to the chosen people. It was a logical extension of this that we should apply the jubilee to the world and not only to our fellow believers. It is the next logical extension of this principle of God’s care for the whole world that tithes should be applied for the benefit of peoples ‘left behind’ by economic rules. The object is not the relief of immediate pressing needs but ongoing development that can encourage the realization of people’s physical, intellectual, and spiritual potential to something nearer the realization possible in the West. At the moment people who tithe do so primarily for the benefit of the congregations they themselves belong to. I have heard it suggested that tithing is an essentially selfish exercise: it is the way we ensure we receive goods we desire such as people to pastor us or heating/air conditioning in church. In this sense it is not giving to God at all. I suggest that if we tithe to maintain our churches and their ministry, this should be a second tithe, following on the tithe that benefits peoples who are needier than us. Judaism came to understand the instructions about tithing in Deuteronomy 14 and 26 to require a second tithe once every three years, while the Worldwide Church of God used to require of its members a double tithe every year. These practices probably involve misunderstanding of the instructions in the Torah, but the idea of a second tithe may nevertheless be helpful. Believers in the West should first tithe their income for the sake of the two-thirds world. They might then tithe again to pay their pastors and keep their churches ambient. To tithe in this way would, of course, imply a significant reduction in our standard of living, and that is part of the point. We need to reduce the amount we spend on ‘necessities’ such as education, healthcare, housing, transport, and saving for retirement, in order to reduce the gap between what we have a right to and what we possess. Unbelievers often take the lead in concern for the twothirds world. Theologically and morally we should be able to expect believers to be the first to want to stop appropriating an excessive share of world resources, and to be looking for ways of doing so. I do not know how to quantify the reduction we should seek for ourselves, or how to quantify what our income would be if it were to be ‘fair’. I do not know whether tithing will be enough of a gesture to hold God back from acting in punitive discipline on the West for our misappropriation. But I suggest that the biblical practice of

Jubilee Tithe

61

tithing gives us something to work with that would make a significant difference to us and to the two-thirds world. There might be at least four ways in which it could do that. First, such tithing would in itself bring about a significant redistribution of resources. Second, in the West our lives as believers are characterized by a series of commitments for ourselves. These include high educational standards in school, university, and graduate education, ever-increasing expenditure on healthcare, comfortable and gracious housing, driving and flying many miles, and saving so that we can live in the same way when we retire. It is our appropriation of a disproportionate amount of the world’s resources that enables us to do that, but one of the striking features of our lives is that believers generally look no happier with their lives than unbelievers are. By reducing our expenditure on these ‘necessities’ that have not produced the happiness we expected, we could discover that we can live a fuller life on less. Third, it would not be surprising if the church’s calling was to model the fact that human life finds fulfilment and happiness elsewhere than in the abundance of the things we possess. Fourth, if we tithed in order to contribute to a better distribution of resources, we might find that God will pour out a blessing on us because we are honouring God (Malachi 3:8-12).

ECONOMIC JUSTICE

Biblical Perspectives on Wealth Creation, Poverty Reduction and Social Peace and Justice

Daniel Bitrus Rev. Daniel Bitrus is with the Church of Christ in Nigeria Each of the three components of this topic could have very well been treated under a section of its own. Allow me to break down the topic in the following order: the right Christian attitude to work; the biblical perspective on wealth creation and poverty reduction; a call for the promotion of social peace and justice as a prerequisite to effective development. Let me now deal with these points one by one. The Right Christian Attitude to Work I am convinced that unless we have the right attitude to work, we could spend the whole day talking about wealth, poverty, social peace and justice ‘until the cows come home’ without hitting the nail on the head. Here are some key thoughts on the Christian attitude to work. Many people, including some that profess to be Christians, have a variety of negative attitudes to work. Some feel that work is something to be avoided or at best tolerated, a necessary nuisance. There are those who see it only as a means of earning a living. Yet others see it as an unfortunate consequence of the fall. They see physical labour as the result of the curse on man as a punishment for his sins. There is another attitude towards work that has a subtle semblance of spirituality but is unacceptable. It holds that work is simply a useful sphere of witness. ‘To be sure, the Christian should be a witness to Christ in every situation, but it is very inadequate to see the workplace as having no Christian significance in itself, but only as a well-stocked lake to fish in’ (Stott, 1990, p. 165). John Stott asserts that ‘…according to Scripture work is a blessing not a curse and it is the creation, not the fall which has made us workers’. He goes on to say ‘Those who are trying to develop a Christian mind on work, however, look first to creation. The fall turned some labour into drudgery (the ground was cursed, and cultivation became possible only by toil and sweat), but work itself is a consequence of our creation in God’s image. God himself is represented in Genesis 1 as a worker…. So from the beginning men and women have been privileged stewards of God, commissioned to guard and develop the environment on his behalf’ (Stott, 1990, pp. 165-166). It is important to note that work is intended by God to give human beings fulfilment in life. This is primarily because we have been made as creative

66

The Bible and Christian Ethics

creatures after the image of our creator who himself is a worker. That is the essence of what God meant when he said to man, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it’ (Genesis 1:28). We cannot subdue the earth without getting involved in creative and meaningful work. It is equally important to note that ultimately, work is not intended to benefit only the worker, but also the community. The Bible constantly relates the productivity of the soil to the needs of the society. Therefore, God gave the Israelites a ‘land flowing with milk and honey’ (Exodus 3:8) for their good and for the sustenance of their poor, the widows and the orphans as well as the aliens. Paul instructed the Ephesians that instead of stealing, one should work with his own hands, in order that he may have something to share with those in need (Ephesians 4:28). We can see that the Bible regards work as a community activity carried out by the community for the good of the community – this on top of the fact that it gives the individual the sense of worth and job satisfaction. All this is in line with the divine purpose of God who desire that human beings should be coworkers with himself in managing and developing his creation. That was why he did not create planet earth to be reproductive on its own – without the subduing and developing activity of human beings. John Stott puts it eloquently when he says, ‘so there is a corporation in which indeed we depend on God, but in which (we say it reverently) he also depends on us. God is the creator; man is the cultivator. Each needs the other. In God’s good purpose creation and cultivation, nature and nurture, raw materials and human craftsmanship go together.’ Without keeping these truths in perspective we will not adequately fulfill our role in society and on planet earth. We will not effectively work for the proper harnessing of our God-given resources for the common good of our suffering communities. Therefore, it is important to hold the right attitude to work. The Biblical Perspective on Wealth Creation and Poverty Reduction One stands amazed at the variety of subjects that Scriptures address quite adequately. When we speak about wealth creation and poverty reduction, the Bible is full of models from which basic guiding principles can be drawn. The term ‘wealth’ needs to be defined in the context of our discussion. The Oxford Learners Dictionary defines wealth as a ‘large amount of money, property, etc.’ or ‘the state of being rich’ (Oxford Learners Dictionary, 1995, p. 138). But for the purpose of the subject under consideration, wealth here is to be understood as money or property that is in a quantity that enables one to meet the basic needs that make for a comfortable life. It does not necessarily mean becoming rich. It refers to the generation of resources that enable people who are poor to be lifted to a higher level. There is a sense in which it may be impossible to completely eradicate poverty from any society. If anyone disputes this claim, how would he or she explain the meaning of the words of our Lord when he said, ‘The poor you will

Biblical Perspectives on Wealth Creation

67

always have with you….’? (Mark 14:7). That is why our subject stops at poverty reduction rather than poverty elimination or eradication. Let us examine what the Bible has to say about wealth creation and poverty reduction: Think for a moment about life in ancient Israel. Its people lived in small towns and villages. They farmed plots of ground in the fields around their town or tended flocks in the nearby pastures. Sometimes, husband and wife may have worked side by side. At other times, they probably did different tasks. Perhaps the man drove the oxen (hard physical work) or threshed the grain, while the wife went to the market to sell the produce. The children meanwhile, spent part of their time helping their father in the field, the rest with their mother in the market. The whole issue of the father ‘going out to work’ and the mother ‘staying home to raise the kids’ did not arise; and it still isn’t relevant today in primarily agrarian societies (Erlandson, 1992, 211).

The Old Testament has examples of people who were quite enterprising to the point that they accumulated some wealth. Job was a wealthy man. Abraham and Lot were quite wealthy. The joy of it is that they did not allow their wealth to go to their heads. On the other hand whether someone becomes rich in the process of whatever enterprising activity they carry out or they generate sufficient money and acquire enough property to give them a fairly comfortable life – what principles do we glean from the Scriptures that will help us in our contemporary world? The book of Proverbs gives us a glimpse of the art of wealth creation and poverty reduction. In the last half of Proverbs 31, that is verses 15-18, we read of the wife who had a noble character. Douglas Erlandson says, ‘Here we have a description of a woman who is a diligent merchant and entrepreneur, apparently able to earn sufficient money to buy land that she will then work to increase her profits. In a phrase, she’s running a family business’ (Erlandson, 1992, 212). A careful study of the example of this woman will give lots of guiding principles on micro-enterprise development. I hasten to add that her husband must not be seen as an idler. The statement that ‘Her husband is respected at the city gate, where he takes his seat among the elders of the land’ (Proverbs 31:23) could imply that ‘The elders of the gate adjudicated disputes, much like judges do today. If not a full-time occupation, it was certainly time consuming and probably without financial compensation’. What would have been the fate of this man if the wife was not as enterprising? From the example of the wife of a noble character as seen in Proverbs 31, we can see that the kind of microenterprise development that is transformational in nature and effect must be gone into with total commitment and dedication. Such an enterprise may be multi-dimensional, for this woman was engaged in trading but expanded her enterprise into property development and agriculture. She did not selfishly stick away her money in the bank, leaving the family to starve. She provided food for her family. This implies that she did not neglect her nuclear family to the preference of her paternal, maternal or

68

The Bible and Christian Ethics

extended family. Although she worked long hours, one can deduce that she did not neglect the need to take sufficient rest else she would have not achieved what she did without breaking down. Our elders say, ‘If you want your dreams to come true, stay away from sleep’. This is not to say that we must not sleep at all, but that we must not love to spend long hours sleeping. We must work out a system that best suits our situation in terms of a good balance between work, rest and leisure. As has been noted earlier, God provided Israel with a land that was full of milk and honey, not for their enjoyment selfishly alone, but to be shared with the poor, the orphans and aliens. The same idea of not neglecting others in need is repeated in several places in the Old Testament (Deut. 15:7, Psalm 82:3, Prov. 21:13, Jer. 22:16) and carried over into the New Testament. Paul, writing to Timothy says, ‘If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel’ (1Timothy 5:8). The leadership of the early church, after endorsing the mission of Paul and Barnabas to the Gentiles, urged them not to neglect the poor (cf. Gal. 2:10). The same was the challenge of Jesus to the rich young ruler (Matthew 19:21). The biblical principle we get from all this is that after we have undertaken any micro-enterprise activity and generated ‘wealth’ we must not neglect other members of our family or the poor in our society. This does not necessarily mean that we should constantly give hand-outs to the needy. We should find ways of helping that will not create dependency. It is said that if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a meal; but if you teach a man to fish, you feed him for life. The best type of assistance to the poor is one that eventually helps them with the equipment and the know-how on some trade, craftsmanship, or any relevant micro-enterprise that is within their capability. In this regard, there are many examples of success stories in different parts of Africa that need to be multiplied. One can site an example from Zimbabwe as reported by World Vision International. It is the case of Mufakose Glad Tidings congregation that grew from 400 to about 800 members in three years. They were able to build a magnificent church building, a two-storey building with a wing that is used for a training school. How could they do this by October 1995 when three years prior to that they had only 62 of them employed? How did they now end up with every household head in the over 300 member congregation having an income-earning job? First, through the work of the pastors and elders of the church who preached on the importance of work and sought out employment opportunities for their members. Second, through the loans and business training provided by Zambuko Trust to members of the church, enabling them to expand their small businesses and employ other church members. The funds the church used on the building came from special offerings designated for the purpose. The regular tithes and offerings allowed the church to carry out its normal ministries, including providing for the widows and orphans in its community. The church’s regular evangelistic services and demonstrated concern for all people in the community

Biblical Perspectives on Wealth Creation

69

have caused its dramatic growth. And the work of Zambuko Trust has played a key part in enabling the church to find its own wholistic ministry (Maphenduka and Reed, 1996, 78).

This is a good example of transformational development realized as a result of an effort in building the kingdom of God through micro-enterprise development. As wealth was created, poverty was reduced. Such an approach to ministry is wholistic in that it seeks to reach the total human being. Not just to save the soul for the hereafter, but also to make the gospel relevant to the here and now. That is the perspective we gather from the Holy Scriptures. Time and space will not allow me to go much wider and deeper than I have so far attempted to go. Let us now take a look at the last part of our discussion. A Call for the Promotion of Social Peace and Justice as a Prerequisite to Effective Development It is sad to note that most African countries are referred to as underdeveloped countries. This is because through civil strife, ethnic clashes, political thuggery, rivalry and war etc. we break down and destroy what we have put up by way of development. Even where there is no physical war, there is so much unrest and insecurity that peace is not experienced in the society. There is so much injustice and lack of fair play in our laws, systems and practices that the gap between the rich who usually happen to be in a tiny minority and the poor who are the big masses, is wide. Corruption in high and low places, corruption among the law enforcement agents and the judicial systems, make it futile for people to try and seek redress through the legal systems. In many cases, jungle justice is openly practiced even in this twentyfirst century. The injustice and lack of peace have a lot to play in widening the gap between the rich and the poor. I agree with Prof George Kinoti when he says: [P]overty means injustice. It is unjust for a man to live in great luxury while his neighbour lives in abject poverty. It is unjust for a few Africans to live in great luxury while majority of their countrymen are oppressed by hunger and disease. And it is unjust to have such a wide gap between the West and Africa, particularly when Africa has forcibly contributed so much to the West in terms of natural resources and labour. (Kinoti, 1994, 19).

There can be no meaningful development in an atmosphere of insecurity and war. When there is no peace and where there is injustice people lack the motivation and willpower to be engaged in useful economic activities that will help to better their lives. The state of hopelessness produces poverty of a high order. The opposite leads to prosperity. In fact the Hebrew word shalom and the Greek work irene mean both peace and prosperity. The biblical concept of life is for it to be an indivisible whole:

70

The Bible and Christian Ethics Prosperity includes spiritual, moral, intellectual, social and material well-being. Material prosperity does not mean a life of luxury. It means enjoying a decent standard of living, which requires adequate food, clothing, shelter, water, health and education. The Bible clearly favours a life that is neither oppressed and demeaned by poverty nor devoted to wealth and luxury (Kinoti, 1994, 34).

There is no better agent that would bring about the much needed peace and justice in our societies than the church of Jesus Christ. ‘The Christian church… is unique: she is in a position to respond to both the spiritual and the material nature of man. She is, or should be, more concerned with people and their wellbeing than with things’ (Batchelor, 1993, 154). The church must not forget its prophetic and advocacy role. She should provide enough empowerment for her membership to work for the attainment of peace and justice in the society. Without these ingredients there cannot be effective, meaningful and lasting development. Some weak, unstable, ignorant and corrupt politicians would like us to believe that there is or there should be a dichotomy between religion and politics. They hold that church leaders must stick to preaching spirituality only without the mention of politically related issues like justice and even corruption. While we must denounce partisan politics from the pulpit, to perpetrate or encourage a dichotomy between politics and religion is neither scriptural nor safe. The Bible is full of examples of the people of God denouncing the evil practices of men and women in all walks of life. The advocacy role of the church is a God given responsibility. This is the essence of the ministry of Christ as prophesied by Isaiah (61:1) and read by our Lord himself in the synagogue at Nazareth. ‘The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour’ (Luke 4:18-19). There can be no better support for a wholistic ministry than this. When Jesus told his disciples, ‘As the Father has sent me, I am sending you’ (John 20:21) he was passing onto us the mantle of his calling, which includes ‘release’ to the ‘oppressed’. As we denounce injustice and promote peace, we will be preparing the grounds for effective development. Conclusion Allow me to conclude this presentation with a thought from the words of George Kinoti on why Christians must work for peace and prosperity in Africa. We must work for it because: God wills peace and prosperity for the African people; Christians are an integral part of society; the human dignity of Africans is important; Christians have unique contributions to make; obedience and compassion (are our motivating factors). As the church in Africa plays her role in enabling her people to discover and utilize their God-given talents and abilities, they will realize their fullest potentials and experience a better livelihood. In the end, the gospel will be

Biblical Perspectives on Wealth Creation

71

relevant and the kingdom of God will be multiplied. This leads to a number of questions for further discussion: Is there a place for money-making enterprises in the church in view of the fact that the Bible tells us to lay up for ourselves treasures in heaven? Since Jesus said that the poor we shall have with us always (Mark 14:7), is this to suggest that poverty is such a virtue that we should consciously try to practice? What lessons can the church in Africa apply from the incarnation of Christ in developing an incarnational model of ministry to the poor and oppressed? Should the church stay away from politics especially since politics is said to be a dirty game? Bibliography Adams, Stephen P. (1996), Reinventing Your Career (Chicago: Northfield). AEAM (1987), ‘Partnership in Development’. Papers of the Second Consultation on the Role of Evangelical Fellowships and Organizations in Relief and Development in Africa, Nairobi. Batchelor, P. (1993), People in Rural Development (Carlisle: Paternoster Press). Erlandson, D. (1992), The Job Shuffle (Chicago: Moody Press). Kinoti, G. (1994), Hope for Africa and What the Christian can do (Nairobi, AISRED). Maphenduka, E. and Reed, L. (1996), ‘Holistic Lending by Zambuko Trust, Zimbabwe’, in Yamamori et al. (eds.), Serving with the Poor: Cases in Holistic Ministry (Monrovia, Calif.: Marc). Stott, J. (1990), Issues Facing Christians Today (London: Collins, Marshall and Pickering).

The Biblical Perspective of Transformational Business

Makonen Getu Dr. Makonen Getu is Vice President of International Business Development for Opportunity International Context: The World that Was and Is In the beginning of the book of Genesis, the Lord gives us a description of the beautiful world He created, how He created it and why. We learn that God laboured to bring about a balanced world filled with beautiful creatures, fauna, water, rivers, mountains, plants and air so that we human beings would live peaceful, abundant, healthy and joyful lives in communion with Him, one another and our environment. He placed us in the garden full of the things we needed to live an abundant life. But then we rebelled against his order and chose to live our lives not according to His will but according to our own will. We sinned. We broke our ties with Him and his order until he showed us his mercy by sending His only begotten son, the Lord Jesus Christ, to die for the sin we committed and reconcile us unto our creator and regain all that we lost when we sinned. Although Jesus died for all humankind, many of us chose to continue living according to our own will and rejected His new offer to reinstate us unto Himself. What has our continued rebellion against God done to the world that was – the world He created? Of all his creation, God made only human beings in His image with a creative capacity. As He commanded us, we subdued the earth to make the things we needed to sustain ourselves. We increased in number, wealth, knowledge and mobility. We multiplied and inhabited every corner of the earth. In our century the attainment of sophisticated technology and means of communication accompanied by high level of international and national division of labour, has increased the wealth of nations to unprecedented proportions enabling people to lead comfortable and decent lives particularly in the Western world. On the other hand, we also observe an increased poverty of nations, moral decay, greed, insecurity, and untold human devastation and environmental degradation. We have improved technology; cultivated more land; manufactured more goods and services; improved means of communication, housing, education and health facilities. However, these improvements are far from being accessible to the overwhelming majority of humanity across the globe. Over 3 billion people live on $2 per day. An average of 35-45 per cent of the population in Africa, Asia and Latin America live in abject poverty.

The Biblical Perspective of Transformational Business

73

Over 40 million people live with HIV/AIDS infection and are dying at the rate of 60 per minute. To cite an example: Malawi is a country with 10 million people and has a per capita income of £106 while the UK with a population of 60 million enjoys a per capita income of £14,153. The life expectancy in the two countries is 39 and 78 years respectively. The health expenditure per annum is £32 million in Malawi and £73 billion in the UK. The doctor ratio is one for every 45,000 in the former and one for every 480 people in the latter. This is a typical scenario of disparities between developed and developing countries. The gaps between nations and between social groups are still as wide if not wider. The world we have made, the world that is, stands in stark contradiction to the world that God made, the world that was. Enterprise has played an indispensable role in the shaping of societies from time immemorial and continues to do so. Business stands at the core of social formation and global change. The nature of business and its motive forces determine the course of social change as the way people produce, consume, exchange, distribute and manage impact on the way people live their lives and set up their national policies and structures. In view of this, it can be stated that transformational businesses are likely to contribute to the promotion of transforming societies. What is Transformation? The term ‘transformation’ simply refers to any substantial change from one thing to another or from one stage to another. The term in itself does not immediately imply a Christian connotation. It has both secular and faith-based applications. For example, I read in a newspaper an advertisement about a computer course. It went something like this: ‘Come and attend this course tailored to meet your needs. It will transform you and you will be guaranteed a rewarding career’. For Christians, the term ‘transformation’ is used to describe a situation of spiritual re-birth, i.e. putting off the old and putting on the new person. It is about moving away from walking in the flesh to walking in the Spirit. ‘Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God’ (John 3:3). Transformation is about constantly renewing the mind and living in communion with God, one another and the environment under his ordinances. It is about allowing the mind of Jesus Christ to be in us and rejecting the mind of this world. It is about dying with Christ from the basic principles of the world, i.e. ‘Having a new mindset, one that has a turn-around mentality’ and can withstand the assault directed to it by various worldly enticements (Eph. 4:23; Phil. 2:5; Col. 3:20; Jones, 1995, 165 and Zacharias, 1996, 184). ‘The mind is constantly exposed to the pressure and influence of this world. The only effective weapon the mind has at its disposal to fight back the influence of foolish thinking and doing is continued renewal through the word of God. We then are able to replace false thoughts and beliefs with the truth and to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ’ (Marshall, 1975, 24) The

74

The Bible and Christian Ethics

critical role of the mind in our transformation is made evident by the biblical instruction: ‘Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God’ (Romans 12:2). Why is the mind so important in transformation? In the course of history so many battles have been fought for one or another reason and/or reasons. However, ‘the battle in the world is in the final analysis a struggle for men’s hearts, minds and souls’ (Hyde, 1996, p. 10) According to Marshall, the mind is the battleground for the universe. It is a ground for the battle continued between God and Satan. The struggle to dominate the mind is the struggle to dominate man himself, as what goes on in the mind substantially determines what kind of a person we become (Marshall, 1975, 3). ‘The thoughts of our hearts are the real litmus test of our character. What makes a difference is what takes place in our minds’ (MacArthur, 1994, 232). The Bible says, ‘For as he thinks in his heart, so is he’ (Proverbs 23:7). The big question is: who influences our mind? Yes, spiritual transformation is the mother of all transformation as it determines our values, attitudes, relationships and actions. But it is not only that. It is wholistic in nature and involves increased relative abundance, empowerment and service. It includes social, political and behavioural changes deeply rooted in biblical grounds experienced by individuals, families, communities and nations. So what does transformational business mean? Transformational business could be described as an economic activity conducted by creative and industrious men and women under the ordinances of God following biblical imperatives and values in pursuit of the creation mandates (family and work) the great commission (making disciples and teaching) with the ultimate goal of serving God’s people and extending his kingdom (Chewing, 1989, 19-21). Specific Characteristics of Transformational Business This part of the paper is devoted to listing and discussing the distinctives of a transformational business related to wealth generation. As such, the focus will be on the inner-being – internal behaviour of a Christian business. In the process of generating wealth, how does a Christian business perceive itself and how does it conduct its governance, management, and operations? Transformational business recognizes the place of God in business After creating man; male and female, in his own image, in His own likeness, God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it’ (Gen. 1:28). He then planted a garden and put them there with instructions to tend (keep) it. The land, seas, rivers, and the creatures were to be fruitful in the production of material wealth to meet the physical needs of human beings through the application of human labour and mind. And from that time humankind has continued with his activity of generating wealth. So doing business and generating wealth through it is being creative and

The Biblical Perspective of Transformational Business

75

responsive to God’s order of creation. He made the earth and all the things in it and we honour Him by utilizing the resources to create wealth. In that sense, we become co-creators manifesting that we are made in His image. Being a primary source of wealth generation, business then becomes a creative human response to God’s order of creation. God is honoured and pleased when His children demonstrate creativity, productivity and fruitfulness that result in increase and growth as he is a God of multiplication. ‘The creation of wealth is part of God’s plan for mankind’ (Swarr & Nordstrom, 1999, 18). God is even more honoured and pleased when he sees that His place in business is well recognized. The marketplace attributes the making of wealth to the acumen, creativity and courage of human beings. They create wealth and it belongs to them. They do not even recognize the resources and their ability to create as God-given. Transformational business recognizes the role played by individuals in making wealth, but makes the primary attribution to God. The general dictum is that human beings have come to this earth with nothing and will leave with nothing. All the resources at the disposal of human beings and the wealth they have made and are making have been given by God and belong to Him. ‘The earth is the Lord’s and all its fullness, the world and those who dwell therein’ (Psalms 24:1). Above all, God is the one who gives human beings ‘power to get wealth’ (Deut. 8:18) and causes them to ‘inherit wealth and fill their treasuries’ (Prov. 8:21). Unlike their marketplace counterparts, transformational businessmen and women recognize that the wealth they have is God-given created by the power that He has blessed them with. They recognize that the earth is constructed to yield bountiful riches under human physical efforts, intelligence and responsible care (Gen. 2:15). All wealth on earth belongs to God. We are not owners of it. We are only stewards of it (Monsna, 1995; Hay, 1989). ‘Both riches and honour come from you, and you reign over all. In your hand it is to make great and to give strength to all.’ (1Chr. 29:12). Transformational business people, therefore, see no rationale for taking pride in their wealth and feeling that they have made it by their own might, but are humble and grateful to God to whom power belongs and from whom it is released. The place of God in business and wealth generation is well recognized and that is honouring and pleasing to Him as His name is glorified. Material wealth (money) is good but God is best The secular world holds material wealth (money) as the main source of improved well-being and satisfaction. Money is treated as the ‘king’, the ‘all powerful’ and its pursuit tends to be an end in itself, the omega of life. Money is loved, idolized and is allowed to lead one’s life. The underlying philosophy is that the more wealth and or the more money one possesses, the happier and more contented one becomes. The general perception is that money brings better life, satisfaction and peace. Transformational business recognizes that material wealth (money) is good and is a blessing from God (Storkey, 1986, 71-72). It recognizes that money

76

The Bible and Christian Ethics

plays a significant role as ‘a medium of exchange, a store of value, a unit of account and a standard of deferred payments’ (Wall, 2001, p. 211). But it also sees danger in striving to serve both money and God with the same vigour and focus. ‘You cannot serve God and mammon’ (Luke 16:13). Serving God and serving wealth accumulation are mutually exclusive goals. Jesus challenges us to choose what is more important, what is best, and tells us what that is: ‘Seek first the kingdom of God first and His righteousness and all these things [food, water, and clothing] will be added unto you’ (Matt. 6:33). We should work to enrich the soul, the indestructible part of our being, and not the body that perishes. He says, ‘For what is a man profited if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?’ (Matt. 16:26). Transformational business recognizes the danger involved in serving both God and mammon because the focus in accumulating more money/physical riches is likely to distract Christians from what is primary onto what is secondary. While the effort to increase wealth is good, it will tempt people to crave money and love material wealth more than God (at least in deed if not in word), putting him and the treasures of heaven second to making money. In this respect, wealth could easily become a barrier which keeps people out of God’s kingdom because ‘Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also’ (Luke 12:34). Transformational business therefore recognizes that it is he who fears the Lord that abides in satisfaction (Proverbs 19:23). The fear of the Lord will be health to the flesh and strength to the bones (Proverbs 3:7-8). The word of God says, ‘Better is a little with the fear of the Lord than great treasure with trouble’ (Proverbs 15:16). In 1Timothy 4:8 we read: ‘Bodily exercise profits a little, but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come’. Full well-being is attained not only through abundant material wealth but primarily through increased spiritual wealth. ‘Riches and honour are with me, enduring riches and righteousness. My fruit is better than gold, yes than fine gold, and my revenue than choice silver’ (Prov. 8:18-19). Material wealth is good but God is best. Unlike their secular counterparts who put a lot of trust, confidence and hope in material wealth as the provider of security, transformational business people hold that material wealth is temporary, withering like grass and not be counted on, and put the unchanging and all-powerful ‘God who richly furnishes us with everything to enjoy’ (1 Tim. 6:17), as the only trustworthy and reliable place of security. Profit-making is biblical If God is a God of increase and growth as well as a God of business, He is also a God of profit. Profit is what leads to wealth generation. No wealth increases without making new money. Material fruitfulness comes as a result of multiplication. There will be no multiplication without profit. Profit is, among other things, a function of good governance, management, cost efficiency and productivity. Because of its relatively more direct correlation with labour,

The Biblical Perspective of Transformational Business

77

profit-making has been a target of criticism by various radical schools of thought. The Marxist economists, for example, treated it as surplus value and, therefore, as the source of labour exploitation and held that this was aggravated with the improvement of technology and increased productivity which resulted in the reduction of labour time the workers needed to spend for earning their wages. The Bible recognizes the role of rent, interest and profit in increasing wealth. It legitimizes these practices and sees no wrong in those earning and those paying. The landowner has the right to charge rent from the tenant for the use of his land. Those who lend money have the right to charge interest on their capital from their borrowers. Those who own factories and produce goods and services by using employed labour have the right to earn profit. Jesus said, ‘You should have put my money on deposit with the bankers so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest’ (Matthew 25:27). In the parable of the minas (Luke 19:11-27) and the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30), Jesus demonstrates how good doing business and making profit is. In view of this, it can be said that there is no biblical rationale for the fact that Christian businessmen and women sometimes seem to suffer from the tendency of feeling almost guilty about their effort to make profit, the interest and price they charge and the wages they pay. Transformation brings liberty from such bondage of ambivalence. What is not biblically acceptable is when in the process of profit-making and accumulation, Christians stray from the faith and become selfish, greedy, dishonest, corrupt, bitter and isolated, just as their marketplace counterparts are in an effort to trying to maximize profit at all costs. ‘Those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition’ (1Tim. 6:9-11). Transformational businessmen and women hate dishonest gain (Exodus 18:21) and avoid charging stinging or excessive/exploitative interest rate (a righteous person ‘…does not lend at usury or take excessive interest’ (Ezekiel 18:8) and giving wages that are below the level workers deserve (Luke 10:7). They keep clean accounts and avoid dubious dealings. They exercise frugality and prudence and pay what is due to others. They choose to be engaging in businesses that are ethically right and socially constructive. They exercise love and impartiality and treat their human resources, customers and suppliers fairly and with dignity. Their overall guiding principle is to make profit with the highest level of stewardship, accountability, integrity, transparency and responsibility whatever the cost (Mullin, 1983; Sider, 1990; Prior, 1965). They do not allow profit-making to take precedence over God since they recognize that, ‘The highest commitment one can make is to God – the very ground of every moral value… God’s will is what finally matters’ (Kirkegaard, 1999). The march for maximizing profit has also contributed to increased consumerism, which has in turn influenced the type and rate of production and consumption. The marketplace offers goods and services that sell faster and wider are produced and sold regardless of their relevance and ethical implications. This is not of course good stewardship over God’s resources.

78

The Bible and Christian Ethics

Unlike their marketplace counterparts, transformational businesses produce and sell goods and services that are lasting, relevant and ethically right so as to maintain the highest level of stewardship and accountability to God. Professional excellence and biblical transformation go together Christian businesses often tend to have relatively lower regard for any effort to achieve the highest possible level of professional excellence. It is often seen as a secular thing and almost as a sin. Under the pretext that Christians should be content with whatever level they are at, they tend to allow professional negligence and complacence to creep in. Yes, it is biblical that Christians are content in whatever circumstances they find themselves in. But it is not unbiblical to invest in and strive for professional excellence. ‘Let it be to the edification of the church that you seek to excel’ (1Cor. 14:12). Biblically, we are instructed and encouraged to excel in the vocation the Lord has placed us for his glory. What does all this mean? It means that the business is directed by a clearly defined and value-based vision, mission and policy accompanied by regular self-evaluation and reflection. It also means that management operates within the context of a welldeveloped strategic business plan and employs up to date standards, tools, systems and equipment accompanied by the necessary skills training to ensure that high quality of goods and services are produced and delivered so as to attain the highest level of customer satisfaction. Professional excellence is a key to business success and wealth generation. On the other hand, it would be unbiblical if all that Christian businesses do is seeking and investing in professional excellence alone. The common tendency among Christians seems to perceive ‘business as business’ and to separate it from spiritual engagement. The latter is seen as a spiritual matter and not a marketplace matter. The feeling is that it is costly (in time and money) and will affect profitability. The profitability and transformation goals tend to be seen as conflicting goals. While this may seem true in the short-run, the long-term effect of any investment in transformation is to increase the level of commitment, productivity, integrity, accountability and stewardship, which are the key factors in achieving profitability. Transformational business recognizes that professional excellence (profitability) and biblical transformation are mutually complementary and invests in the spiritual life of its work place. What does this mean? It means that the business has a clearly defined transformational policy accompanied by a clear implementation strategy and adequate allocation of financial and human resources. It also means that the business uses the Bible as source of business knowledge and applies biblical criteria in recruiting board and staff members, conducts regular devotional events and biblical studies, incorporates transformation indicators in the performance appraisals and forms strategic alliance with the local church. All this amounts to spiritual unity and depth causing the business and the people in it to have closer and deeper relationship with God. When people are

The Biblical Perspective of Transformational Business

79

professionally excellent and biblically transforming, the business prospers and wealth increases. Servant leadership is an essential part of Christian business The term servant leadership has begun to appear as a common vocabulary in the business management literature. It relates to ten characteristics: listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of people and building community. This is about following the example of Jesus Christ: ‘…the son of man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many’ (Matthew 20:28). God loves, treats and values all equally without any partiality because he is impartial in nature. He expects business leaders to be the same towards the people he has brought under their care. He expects them to respect, value, encourage, disciple, nurture, release and empower the sheep. ‘Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by constraint but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; nor as being lords over those entrusted to you but being examples to the flock’ (1 Pet. 5:2-3). When people are able to criticize and be criticized freely and constructively without fear and intimidation and consequences, when they are consulted and involved in decision- making and planning processes, and when their potential is unleashed through appropriate skills training, when their socio-economic needs, including family issues, are attended to, their creativity, productivity and commitment is enhanced resulting in increased business performance and wealth generation. Transformational business recognizes and applies the ten characteristics of servant leadership not for the sake of popularity and profitability alone but also for the glory of God. The Great Commission Mandate All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age (Matthew 28:18-20).

The preceding section dealt with the generation of wealth. It was discussed that business was a God-ordained activity undertaken by creative people as part of the creation mandate. A number of specific distinctives characterizing the transformational way of generating wealth through business were suggested and discussed. The focus was on the inner-being of transformational business; how Christians ought to see wealth generation and how they do (‘create’) it. This section will shed light on transformational business as it relates to the great commission mandate. The focus will be on the utilization of the wealth

80

The Bible and Christian Ethics

generated by transformational businesses – their interaction with and response to the world ‘outside’ them. In 1998 it was estimated that Christians across the globe owned over $10 trillion (Sider, 1998) which according to World Bank’s estimate made 25 per cent of the global gross domestic product (World Bank, 1999). This is big money and implies a big role? Where does the money go? How is it utilized? How should Christian businesses utilize their wealth as part of their response to the great commission? This paper will focus on the last question. Business is mission Just as we tend to separate professional excellence/ profitability from biblical transformation, we seem to separate business from the great commission. There is the widespread perception that the great commission is all about evangelizing and that it is done only by full-time missionaries, pastors and evangelists. The role of business people seems to be relegated to the provision of financial support to the church and/or ‘professional’ missionaries (McLoughlin, 2001). However, there are at least two ways in which transformational business people could do mission work as they pursue their business. One way of witnessing is by deed and life style. They can become salt and light by the way they run their businesses, conduct themselves and relate to others in the market place. When they are seen to be doing the right things and do them successfully, people begin to ask, ‘How do they do it?’ ‘What makes them tick differently?’ And when people hear that the answer is ‘because of Jesus’ that becomes a great testimony in itself. The best way of testimony is living believably and doing things credibly. The other way is the direct sharing of the gospel to customers, suppliers, staff members and other contacts by business people and their personnel as and when appropriate. When Jesus said, ‘go’, he ‘…is not calling a select set of disciples who can leave their present location to serve him on the foreign mission field or to lay down their marketplace career to go into missions full time. He is actually calling all his disciples to make more disciples and to do it “as they go”’ (ibid). Moreover, business creates jobs and opportunities as well as goods and services needed for the wellbeing of individuals, communities and nations. Business and mission are mutually inseparable. Giving is ultimate All God has done and is doing is giving. He made the earth and all the things in it and gave it to us. He gave us his only begotten son who gave his life for our sins and give us eternal life – a sacrificial gift. He gives us daily bread, protection, refugee, healing and all that we ask for and do not ask for. He looks after our interests. God is a great provider. Giving is God’s ultimate desire for us. God wants us to imitate him in our giving. ‘…do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another…. Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ…. As we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith. Let

The Biblical Perspective of Transformational Business

81

each one of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others’ (Gal. 5:13, 6:2,10 and Phil. 2:4). While the marketplace tends to encourage individuals to accumulate more by withholding more than is right, the biblical perspective encourages people to give, rather than to hoard (Prior, 1965 and Sider, 1990). ‘The purpose of God has always been for God’s people to respond to his blessing by passing on the blessing to others’ (Swarr & Nordstrom, 1999, 32-38). There are many areas where giving can be directed as the world, as we have made it is full of needs. Wherever it is directed giving creates opportunities among those who lack it. Under normal conditions, the poor are able people just like their rich counterparts. ‘The poor and the rich have this in common, the Lord is the maker of them all’ (Proverbs 22:2). What makes the difference between them is the difference in opportunities. To paraphrase President Mandela what people lack is not ability. What they lack is opportunity. I work with an organization called Christian Transformation Resource Centre where the vision is ‘to see strong local churches that are self-sustaining, effectively witnessing the whole gospel’ by ‘equipping Christian development organizations in their task to strengthen the local church by the empowerment of its members through transformational micro-enterprise programmes’. The international development industry has identified microenterprise as one of the key means of alleviating poverty in developing countries as such interventions address production, commerce, trade and service in the informal sector which usually employs about 60-70 per cent of the labour force. The World Bank estimates that there are about 500 million poor micro entrepreneurs who could be in business and generate wealth given access to credit opportunities. The micro-enterprise service providers (secular and Christian alike) across the globe are currently capable of serving about 30 million only. Most of those participating in these programmes have been able to lessen the grinding effect of material, social, political and spiritual poverty. The poor have been enabled to sustain/create employment, to earn income, to eat more and better food, to build better houses, to send children to school, to pay for medical services, to participate in decision-making and political processes, and to come to Christ and see light. However, the service providers, particularly the Christian ones, are limited by lack of funding, inadequate capacity and unfavourable macroeconomic environment. The Christian micro-enterprise development could be a potential area where transformational businesses in the West could direct their giving. What can be given? What is needed? The obvious gift is financial donation to lending micro-enterprise development institutions for on-lending to the poor and to capacity building institutions for equipping implementers. But it is not only money that can be given. Transformational businesses can also give technical assistance, management and other skills training; they can share experiences, visit and encourage, adopt micro entrepreneur groups or individuals and counsel/pray for, share information and literature, etc.

82

The Bible and Christian Ethics

Advocacy/lobbying is mission By the very place they hold in society, businesses in the West are in a position to exert effective pressure on policy makers and politicians. Transformational businessmen and women could devote time and energy to represent the concerns of the poor around them (national and international alike) as and when appropriate (Sider, 1990). The issue here is that Christians cannot afford to go undisturbed by the hunger, afflictions, wounds and injustices the poor in the world we have made are suffering from. As imitators of Christ we need to love and stand for justice (Isaiah 61:8) and for a world in which the captives are set free (Luke 4:18). Representing the cause of the poor and lobbying for the improvement of their conditions is another form of giving as this takes one’s compassion, energy and time. This kind of engagement comes as a result of entering the world of the poor; identifying with them with empathy as our Lord Jesus Christ did. As such it becomes a form of mission and kingdom building activity. Another area of lobbying activity relates to representing those who are labouring in contexts that are hostile (‘creative access countries’) to the gospel. In such places Christian development workers, missionaries and local churches are often exposed to overt and/or covert harassment and persecution. Transformational business people could lobby in contextually appropriate ways for improved conditions whenever and wherever possible. Giving is receiving Seen at the outset, giving might be seen as having less of what one owns (money, time, energy). In actual fact, however, giving is receiving. It happens in two ways: From God, the giver of what is given as the well as the power to give, and from those who are given, the recipients. The Bible says, ‘The generous soul will be made rich, and he who waters will also be watered himself’ (Proverbs 11:25). ‘He who has pity on the poor lends to the Lord, and he will pay back what he has given’ (Proverbs 19:17). So giving in God’s kingdom is not losing or having less. There is no decrease, but increase. It is rather a means of receiving more. ‘Give and it will be given unto you’ (Luke 6:38). Giving doesn’t occur only in the form of material reward. It also causes the giver to inherit eternal life. ‘…Go sell what you have and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven…’ (Matthew 19:21). The other way of receiving reward comes from the people who are given. This happens in the form of love, respect, appreciation, prayer and exposure to the life stories of recipients rendered to the givers. In this situation giving becomes a two-way process. Very often, those who give tend to think that the poor would have little or nothing to give. The fact of the matter is, however, that they have a lot to give. When donors visit the poor they are helping in the field, and hear the appreciation, prayers and life stories of the people they visit and see the way they live and eat with them, they return changed positively forever. They become more compassionate, prayerful, appreciative, informed and positive.

The Biblical Perspective of Transformational Business

83

Bibliography Chewing, C.R. (ed.) (1989), Biblical Principles & Business: The Foundations (Colorado Springs: Nav- Press). Hay, D.A. (1989), Economics Today: A Christian Critique (Leicester: Appolos). Hyde, D. (1966), Dedication and Leadership (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press). Jones, B.L. (1995), Jesus CEO. Using Ancient Wisdom for Visionary Leadership (New York). Kierkegaard, S. (1999), Provocations: Spiritual Writings of Kierkegaard compiled and edited by Charles E. Moore (Farmington: Plough). MacArthur, F.J. (1994), The Vanishing Consequence (Dallas: Word). Marshall, T. (1975), Free Indeed: Fullness for the Whole Man, Spirit, Soul and Body (Auckland: Orama Christian Fellowship Trust). McLoughlin, M. (2001), Back to the Future of Missions: The Case for Marketplace Ministry (Youth With A Mission, Marketplace Ministries, A Ministry of YWAM BC Society). Monsna, G. (1995), ‘Biblical Principles for Economic Theory and Practice’ in Stackhouse, M.L. et al (ed.),On Moral Business: Classical and Contemporary Resources in Economic Life. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Mullin, R. (1983), The Wealth of Christians (Cape Town: Oxford University Press). Prior, K.F.W. (1965), God and Mammon: The Christian Mastery or Money (London: Hodder and Stoughton). Sider, R. (1990), Rich Christians in An Age of Hunger (Dallas: Word). Sider, R. (1998), ‘Take the Pledge: A Practical Strategy for Loving the Poor’, Christianity Today, September 1998. Swaar, S.B. & Nordstrom, D. (1999), Transform the World: Biblical Vision and Purpose for Business (The Center of Entrepreneurship and Economic Development, University of Nations). Wall, N. (2001), The Complete A-Z Economics Handbook (London: Hodder & Stoughton). Zacharias, R. (1994), Can Man Live Without God? (Dallas: Word).

A Biblical Paradigm for Economic Justice1

Stephen Mott and Ronald J. Sider Rev. Stephen Mott is Pastor of Cochesett United Methodist Church and Dr. Ronald J. Sider is Emeritus Professor of Theology and Culture, Eastern University, Philadelphia and is President of Evangelicals for Social Action Introduction Values shape economics. Economic thinking combines empirical analysis and normative beliefs. Whether or not persons realize it, some normative system of values partially determines every economic decision. Economic thinking, in fact, combines three components: normative beliefs, empirical analysis, and a political philosophy.2 Fundamental beliefs about things like the nature of persons, history, the creation of wealth, and the nature of just distribution guide economic decisions. So do complex analyses of economic data and economic history. Each time one wants to make a specific economic decision, it can be argued, one cannot stop and rethink all one’s normative beliefs on the one hand and undertake elaborate socio-economic analyses on the other. One needs a road-map, a handy guide, so one can make quick but responsible decisions about economics and politics. Such a road-map, often called an ideology or a political philosophy, is ‘a pattern of beliefs and concepts (both factual and normative) which purports to explain complex social phenomena with a view to directing and simplifying socio-political choices facing individuals and groups’.3 Marxist communism, democratic capitalism and social democracy have been the three dominant political philosophies of the twentieth century. Christians, like everyone else, require a political philosophy or ideology. But they dare not adopt an ideology uncritically or they risk violating their most 1

A version of this paper is also published as a chapter in the forthcoming book tentatively entitled Empowering the Poor: Toward a Just and Caring Economy, ed. David P. Gushee (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000). The authors want to thank two graduate assistants, Joan and Chris Hoppe-Spink, who helped to gather materials and proofread. 2 See further Ronald J. Sider, ‘Toward an Evangelical Political Philosophy…’, Transformation, July-September, 1997, 1–10; and for a brief discussion of the use of a biblical paradigm, Christopher J.H. Wright, ‘The Use of the Bible in Social Ethics’, Transformation, January-March, 1984, 10. 3 Julius Gould quoted in J. Philip Wogaman, The Great Economic Debate: An Ethical Analysis (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1997), 10.

A Biblical Paradigm for Economic Justice

85

basic confession that Jesus is Lord of all – including economic and political systems. That means that Christian truth must determine the shape of a Christian’s ideology. Since analysis of the world and normative beliefs are the two essential components that shape any ideology or political philosophy, a Christian must construct his or her political philosophy by combining the most accurate, factual analysis that is available with normative Christian truths. Where should Christians go for these normative principles and ideas that guide their thinking about economic systems? The fall has not destroyed all knowledge of truth and goodness given by the Creator to all persons made in God’s image (e.g., Romans 1:18–25); therefore, some Christians look to natural law as a source for the norms needed to guide economic and political life.4 Sin, however, has profoundly distorted our total being, including our thought processes. Therefore in this study we turn to the revealed truth of the Bible as the primary source for our normative framework. The Bible provides norms for thinking about economic issues in two basic ways: the biblical story and the biblical paradigm on economic justice. The biblical story is the long history of God’s engagement with our world that stretches from creation through the fall and the history of redemption to the culmination of history when Christ returns. This biblical story offers decisive insight into the nature of the material world, the dignity and character of persons, and the significance and limitations of history. For example, since every person is a body-soul unity made by God for community, no one will ultimately be satisfied with material abundance alone or with material abundance kept only for oneself. Since every person is so important that God became flesh to die for her sins and invite her to live forever with the living God, economic life must be ordered in a way that respects this God-given dignity. We need to explore systematically these and other implications of the biblical story for economic life. The Bible also provides norms in a second way. It is true that there is no biblical passage with a detailed systematic treatise on the nature of economic justice. But throughout the Bible, we find materials – commands, laws, proverbs, parables, stories, theological propositions – that relate to the key normative issues that economic decisions involve. For example, should everyone own productive capital or just a few? Is justice only concerned with fair procedures or does it include a fair distribution of income? In what sense is equality the goal? What about the creation of wealth? Should we care for those unable to provide for themselves? Every book of the Bible offers material relevant to these kinds of questions. The same is true of the various types of justice that different thinkers over the years have sought to define. Some of the most important are: procedural justice which specifies fair legal processes for deciding disputes between people; commutative justice which defines fair 4

See, for example, John Courtney Murray,We Hold These Truths: Catholic Reflections on the American Proposition (Kansas City: Sheed and Ward, 1960). J. Budziszewski has recently published a more popular statement: Written on the Heart: The Case for Natural Law (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997).

86

The Bible and Christian Ethics

means of exchange of goods (e.g., honest weights and measures); distributive justice which specifies a fair allocation of a society’s income, resources and power; retributive justice which defines fair punishment for wrongs committed; restorative justice, which is an aspect of distributive justice specifying fair ways to correct injustice and restore socioeconomic wholeness for persons and communities. As there are no lengthy systematic discourses on these topics, but much relevant biblical material, we must construct a biblical paradigm on economic justice by looking carefully at all the relevant canonical texts from Genesis to Revelation. These texts represent many different literary genres, from history to poetry to prophetic declaration. And they were written over many hundreds of years and addressed to people in cultures differing dramatically from most of the varied civilizations extant at the beginning of the third millennium A.D. In order to develop a faithful biblical paradigm on economic justice, we must in principle first examine every relevant biblical text using the best exegetical tools to understand its original meaning and then secondly, construct an integrated, systematic summary of this diverse material in a way that faithfully reflects the balance of canonical teaching. In this paper, unfortunately, space does not permit examination of every relevant passage. But we seek to include important, representative texts. Mistakes, of course, are possible at any point, either in our specific exegesis or our overall summary. But our aim is fidelity to the text and to the balance of canonical teaching. To the extent that critics – friendly or hostile – can help us approach closer to that goal, we will be grateful. The interpretative task, of course, does not end when one completes even the most faithful biblical paradigm. We should not take biblical mechanisms like the return of land to the ‘original tenant’ every fifty years (Lev. 25) and apply them mechanically to a very different culture and economy. A literal, mechanical application may neither fit our different settings nor even address many of our urgent questions. There is not a word in Scripture about the merits of a flat rate tax, the activity of the International Monetary Fund, or the activities of trans-national corporations. We must apply the biblical framework paradigmatically, allowing the biblical worldview, principles, and norms to provide the normative framework for shaping economic life today. Our goal in this paper is to present a faithful biblical paradigm on economic justice. We offer this summary of biblical teaching in the hope that all Christians, starting with ourselves, will allow biblical revelation rather than secular ideas of the political left, centre or right to provide the decisive normative framework for their thinking about economic issues. We also hope the biblical paradigm on economic justice will even prove attractive to those who do not claim to be Christians.

A Biblical Paradigm for Economic Justice

87

The Biblical Story The biblical story of creation, fall, redemption, and eschaton teaches us many things about the world, persons, and society that are foundational for Christian thinking about economic justice. The world Because it is created out of nothing (ex nihilo) by a loving, almighty Creator, the material world is both finite and good. The material world is not divine. The trees and rivers are not, as animists believe, divinities to be worshipped and left as unchanged as possible. Biblical faith desacralizes the world, permitting proper use of the world’s resources for wise human purposes. Nor is the material world an illusion to be escaped, as some Eastern monists claim. It is so good in its finitude (Gen. 1) that the Creator of the galaxies becomes flesh and even promises to restore the groaning creation to wholeness at his second coming (Romans 8:19–23). Although not as important as persons who alone are created in the image of God, the non-human creation has its own independent worth and dignity (Gen. 9:8–11). Persons therefore exercise their unique role in creation as caring stewards who watch over the rest of the created order (Gen. 2:15). The biblical vision of the world calls human beings to revel in the goodness of the material world, rather than seek to escape it. It invites persons to use the non-human world to create wealth and construct complex civilizations – always, of course, in a way that does not destroy that creation and thereby prevent it from offering its own independent hymn of praise to the Creator. The nature of persons Created in the image of God, made as body-soul unities formed for community, and called to faithful stewardship of the rest of creation, persons possess an inestimable dignity and value that transcends any economic process or system. Because our bodies are a fundamental part of our created goodness, a generous sufficiency of material things is essential to sustain that goodness. Any economic structure that prevents persons from producing and enjoying material well-being violates their God-given dignity. Because our spiritual nature and destiny are so important that it is better to lose even the entire material world than lose one’s relationship with God, any economic system that tries to explain persons only as economic factors or that offers material abundance as the exclusive or primary way to human fulfilment contradicts the essence of human nature. Any economic structure that allows capital to shamelessly exploit labour, thereby subordinates spiritual reality to material reality in contradiction to the biblical view of persons.5 For persons invited to live forever with the living God, no material abundance, however splendid, can satisfy human longing. Because human beings are body-soul unities,

5

John Paul II, Laborem exercens, section 13.

88

The Bible and Christian Ethics

definitions of human rights should include both freedom rights and socioeconomic rights. People are made both for personal freedom and communal solidarity. The God who cares so much about each person that the incarnate Creator died for the sins of the whole world and invites every person to respond in freedom to the gift of salvation, demands that human economic and political systems acknowledge and protect the dignity and freedom of each individual. Any such system that denies various freedoms to individuals or reduces them to a factor of production subordinated to mere economic goals violates their individual dignity and freedom. Since persons are free, their choices have consequences. Obedient, diligent use of our gifts normally produces sufficiency of material things (unless powerful people and/or inadequate opportunities oppress us). Disobedient, lazy neglect of our responsibilities normally increases the danger of poverty. Totally equal economic outcomes are not compatible with human freedom or with material sufficiency. The first few chapters of Genesis underline the fact that we are also created for community. Until Eve arrived, Adam was restless. Mutual fulfillment resulted when the two became one flesh.6 God punished Cain for violating community by killing his brother Abel, but then allowed Cain to enjoy the human community of family and city (Gen. 4).7 As social beings, we are physically, emotionally, and intellectually interdependent and have inherent duties of care and responsibility for each other. Authority, corporate responsibility, and collective decision-making are essential to every form of human life.8 Therefore, economic and political institutions are not merely a consequence of the fall. Because our communal nature demands attention to the common good, individual rights, whether of freedom of speech or private property, cannot be absolute. The right to private property dare not undermine the general welfare. Only God is an absolute owner. We are merely stewards of our property, called to balance personal rights with the common good.9 Our communal nature is grounded in God. Since persons are created in the image of the triune personal God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, ‘being a person means being united to other persons in mutual love’.10 Any economic system that emphasizes the freedom of individuals without an equal concern for mutual love, cooperation and responsibility, neglects the complex balance of the biblical picture of 6

Hans Walter Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), 29. Flesh here represents human beings in relationship and solidarity with others. 7 Cf. Ecclesiastes 4:8. 8 Richard J. Mouw, Political Evangelism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 45. 9 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 2a2ae. 66, 2, 7 in Aquinas, Selected Political Writings, ed. D’Entrèves (Oxford: Blackwell, 1948), 169, 171; cf. 1a2ae. 94, 5, 127. 10 Economic Justice for All: Pastoral Letters on Catholic Social Teaching and the U.S. Economy (Washington: National Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1986), 34 (section 64).

A Biblical Paradigm for Economic Justice

89

persons. Any economic system that exaggerates the individual right of private property in a way that undermines mutual responsibility for the common good defies the Creator’s design for human beings. The biblical view of persons means that economic injustice is a family problem. Since we are all ‘God’s offspring’ (Acts 17:29; cf. all of vv. 24–29), we all have the same Father. Therefore all human beings are sisters and brothers. ‘Exploitation is a brother or sister treating another brother or sister as a mere object.’11 That is not to overlook differentiation in human society.12 We do not have exactly the same obligations to all children everywhere that we have to those in our immediate biological family. But a mutual obligation for the common good of all people follows from the fact that all persons are sisters and brothers created in the image of our Heavenly Father. Human rights specify minimal demands for how we should treat people to whom God has given such dignity and worth. Human institutions cannot create human rights. They can only recognize and protect the inestimable value of every person which flows from the central truths of the biblical story: every person is made in the image of God; every person is a child of the Heavenly Father; every person is loved so much by God that the eternal Son suffers crucifixion because God does not desire that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9); every person who accepts Christ, regardless of race, gender or class, is justified on exactly the same basis – namely, unmerited grace offered through the cross. Since that is the way God views people then that is the way we should treat each other. Statements of human rights spell out for individuals and communities the fixed duties which implement love for neighbours in typical situations of competing claims. Rights extend the gaze of love from spontaneous responses to individual needs to structured patterns of fair treatment for everyone. Vigorous commitment to human rights for all helps societies respect the immeasurable dignity and worth that the Creator has bestowed on every person. Stewardship of the earth Persons alone are created in the divine image. Persons alone have been given the awesome responsibility of exercising dominion over the non-human creation (Gen. 1:28). This stewardly dominion, to be sure, must be that of the loving gardener who thoughtfully cares for and in a sense serves the garden (Gen. 2:15). It dare not be a destructive violation of the independent worth of the rest of creation. But God’s earthly stewards rightly cultivate and shape the earth placed in our care in order to produce new beauty, more complex civilizations, and greater wealth.

11

Wogaman, Great Economic Debate, 43. See for example, James W. Skillen, Recharging the American Experiment: Principled Pluralism for Genuine Civic Community (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), especially ch. 4. 12

90

The Bible and Christian Ethics

Creation of wealth The ability to create wealth is a gift from God. The one in whose image we are made creates astounding abundance and variety. Unlike God, we cannot create ex nihilo; we can only retrace the divine design. But by giving us minds that can study and imitate his handiwork, God has blessed human beings with awesome power not only to reshape the earth, but to produce new things that have never been. The Creator could have directly created poetry, plays, sonatas, cities and computers. Instead, God assigned that task to us, expecting us to cultivate the earth (Gen. 2:15), create new things, and expand human possibilities and wealth. Adam and Eve surely enjoyed a generous sufficiency. Just as surely, the Creator intended their descendants to probe and use the astoundingly intricate earth placed in their care to acquire the knowledge, power, and wealth necessary, for example, to build vast telescopes that we can use to scan the billions of galaxies about which Adam and Eve knew nothing. In a real sense, God purposely created human beings with very little so that they could imitate and glorify their Creator by producing vast knowledge and wealth. Indeed, Jesus’ parable of the talents sharply rebukes those who fail to use their skills to multiply their resources.13 Just, responsible creation of wealth is one important way persons obey and honour the Creator. The glory of work God works (Gen. 2:1–2). God incarnate was a carpenter. St. Paul mended tents. Even before the fall, God summoned Adam to cultivate the earth and name the animals (Gen. 2:15–20). Work is not only the way we meet our basic needs. In addition, it is both the way we express our basic nature as co-workers with God and also a crucial avenue for loving our neighbours. Meaningful work by which persons express their creative ability is essential for human dignity. Any able person who fails to work disgraces and corrodes his very being. Any system that could but does not offer every person the opportunity for meaningful work violates and crushes human dignity. The Lord of economics There is only one God who is lord of all. God is the only absolute owner (Lev. 25:23). We are merely stewards summoned to use the wealth God allows us to enjoy for the glory of God and the good of the neighbour. We cannot worship God and mammon. Excessive preoccupation with material abundance is idolatry. No economic task, however grand, dare claim our full allegiance. That belongs to God alone who consequently relativizes the claims of all human systems. God’s righteous demands for justice judge every economic system. As the lord of history, God works now with and through human co-workers to

13

One should not interpret the parable to refer exclusively to material wealth. It calls people to use their gifts and resources creatively and boldly to advance God’s reign – which, of course, includes material well-being.

A Biblical Paradigm for Economic Justice

91

replace economic injustice with more wholesome economies that respect and nurture the dignity and worth of every human being. The importance of history Modern secular thinkers absolutize the historical process even while they say it is meaningless. Even if life is absurd, our time here is all we have. Medieval thinkers sometimes belittled history, viewing earthly existence merely as a preparation for eternity. The biblical story affirms the importance of history while insisting that persons are also made for life eternal. It is in history that the Redeemer chooses to turn back the invading powers of evil by launching the messianic kingdom in the midst of history’s sin. It is in history that persons not only respond to God’s call to eternal life, but also join the Lord’s long march toward justice and righteousness. And it is because we know where history is going and are assured that the Redeemer will return to complete the victory over every evil and injustice that we do not despair even when evil achieves sweeping, temporary triumphs. So we work for better economic systems knowing that sin precludes any earthly utopia now but rejoicing in the assurance that the kingdom of shalom that the Messiah has already begun will one day prevail and the kingdoms of this world will become the kingdom of our Lord. The tragedy of sin Nothing on God’s good earth has escaped sin’s marauding presence. Sin has twisted both individual persons and the ideas and institutions they create. Rebelling against their Creator’s instructions, people either exaggerate or belittle the significance of history and the material world. Exaggerating their own importance, they regularly create economic institutions – complete with sophisticated rationalizations – that oppress their neighbours. Workable economic systems must both appeal to persons’ better instincts which sin has not quite managed to obliterate and also hold in check and turn to positive use the pervasive selfishness which corrupts every act. Sin, power, and justice One of the important ways that God has chosen to restrain and correct evil, including economic injustice, is through the use of power by human beings.14 Power is the ability to realize one’s own will in a communal action even against the resistance of others.15 Power itself is not evil. It is essential to human life and precedes the fall. It is God’s gift to each person so that they can act in freedom as a co-worker with God to shape their own life and that of their community and world. By using power, we make actual our possibilities of

14

See further, Stephen Charles Mott, A Christian Perspective on Political Thought (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), ch.1. 15 Max Weber, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretative Sociology, ed. G. Roth and C. Wittick, 4th ed. (New York: Bedminster, 1968), v. 2, 926.

92

The Bible and Christian Ethics

being, which God presents as a particular gift designed for each life.16 God wants persons to have power to control the material necessities of life. God gives power over wealth and property for human enjoyment (Eccles. 5:19). The special attention which Scripture gives to the plight of the widow, the orphan, the poor, and the resident alien reflects the awareness in Scripture that when persons lack basic power, evil frequently follows. Thus in the centre of Job’s declaration of the injustices to these groups is the statement: ‘The powerful possess the land’ (Job 22:8, NRSV; cf. Job 35:9; Eccles. 4:1). In the real world since the fall, sinful actions against others pervert the intention of the Creator. Sinful persons and evil forces which thwart the divine intention greatly restrict the ability to act in accordance with one’s created being. This fallen use of power to impede the Creator’s intentions for the lives of others is exploitative power. Exploitative power allows lust to work its will.17 ‘Alas for those who devise wickedness and evil deeds upon their beds! When the morning dawns, they perform it, because it is in their power. They covet… they oppress….’ (Micah 2:1–2, NRSV). Unequal power leads to exploitation. The biblical understanding of human nature also warns us about the potential for evil afforded by sharp differences in power among individuals and groups in society. John Calvin described a ‘rough equality’ in the Mosaic Law. In commenting upon the canceling of debts in the sabbatical year, he wrote, In as much as God had given them the use of the franchise, the best way to preserve their liberty was by maintaining a condition of rough equality [mediocrem statum], lest a few persons of immense wealth oppress the general body. Since, therefore, the rich, if they had been permitted constantly to increase their wealth, would have tyrannized over the rest, God put a restraint on immoderate power by means of this law.18

A Christian political philosophy and economic theory accordingly must be based on realism about human nature in light of the universality of sin. Powerful forces prey upon the weak. Human selfishness resists the full costs of communal obligations. Individual egoism is heightened in group conflict, and sin is disguised and justified as victims are blamed for their own plight.

16

For this perspective on power in the writings of Paul Tillich and James Luther Adams, cf., for example, Tillich, Love, Power and Justice: Ontological Analyses and Ethical Applications (New York: Oxford University, 1954), esp. 35–53; Adams, ‘Theological Bases of Social Action’, in Adams, Taking Time Seriously (Glencoe, IL: Free Press,1957), esp. 42, 50. 17 Aristotle stated that all people do what they wish if they have the power (Pol. 1312b3, cf. 1313b32). 18 John Calvin, The Harmony of the Last Four Books of Moses, 8th Commandment, on Deut. 15:1, following the translation of Harro Höpfl, The Christian Polity of John Calvin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 158. Mediocris would seem to mean here ‘avoiding the extremes’.

A Biblical Paradigm for Economic Justice

93

An intervening power is necessary to limit exploitative power.19 Power can demand and produce political and economic change that corrects exploitation. Power produces changes which guarantee basic human needs and resist the forces that deny them. Intervening power is creative as it defeats exploitative power and reestablishes the creative power God wills for each person. The source and model is God, who in common grace and in special grace restores persons’ creative power by overcoming the forces which pervert the creation. God exerts power as the defender of the poor. Yahweh does ‘justice for the orphan and the oppressed’ (Ps. 10:18, NRSV) by ‘break[ing] the arm [i.e., power] of the wicked’ (v. 15) ‘so that those from earth may strike terror no more’ (v. 18). God’s normal way of exerting power is through human creatures, who are God’s lieutenants on the earth. Sometimes, when human justice fails and there is ‘no one to intervene’, God acts in more direct and extraordinary ways (Isa. 59:15–18). But God’s intention is for human institutions, including government, to be the normal channels of God’s intervening power. Justice determines the proper limits and applications of intervening power. Justice provides the right structure of power. Without justice, power becomes destructive.20 Power, on the other hand, provides fibre and grit for justice. ‘I put on justice… I championed the cause of the stranger. I broke the fangs of the unrighteous, and made them drop their prey from their teeth’ (Job 29:14, 16– 17). Biblical justice relates to both power (cf. Ps. 71:18–19) and love (Ezek 34:16, 23–24; Ps.146:7). As Martin Luther King stated, ‘…power without love is reckless and abusive and… love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice.’21 One criterion of the legitimacy of power is whether it is being used for justice. The deliverance from Egypt was carried out by power (‘outstretched arm’) with great acts of justice (Exodus 6:6–7; 7:4). As in the stories of the judges, so in the exodus God ‘is acting in history as the one who uses his power to see that justice is done’.22 Power is used against power.23 God upholds the poor and needy (Isaiah 41:17) by God’s ‘just power’ (vv. 10, 20). God works ‘justice to the fatherless and oppressed’ by breaking the arm (power) of the 19

Rahner correctly sees this use of power as justified as the consequence of the sin to which it answers. Karl Rahner, ‘The Theology of Power’, in Rahner, Theological Investigations (Baltimore: Helicon, 1966), 395. 20 Paul Tillich, ‘Shadow and Substance: A Theory of Power’ (1965), in Tillich, Political Expectation, ed. J.L. Adams (New York: Harper, 1971), 118. 21 Martin Luther King, Jr., Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? (Boston: Beacon, 1967), 37. 22 John Goldingay, ‘The Man of War and the Suffering Servant’, Tyndale Bulletin 27 (1976), 84. 23 Exodus 15:6, 12 in light of v. 9. Justice as deliverance from exploitative power is seen also in 2 Sam 18:31: ‘The Lord has given you justice [špt] this day from the power of all who rose up against you’. The word often translated as ‘deliverance’ in English (e.g. the NIV in this verse) is the Hebrew word for ‘doing justice’.

94

The Bible and Christian Ethics

evildoer to eliminate the source of oppression (Ps. 10:15–18). In our sinful world, intervening power is essential to correct exploitative power. Thus far, we have seen how the biblical story provides important insight into the nature of the world, persons, history, the creation of wealth, sin and power. All this offers important elements of a biblical framework for thinking about economies. But we need more. We need a more detailed understanding of justice, equity (and equality), God’s attitude toward the poor and the role of government in fostering economic justice. For that we turn to a more detailed analysis in order to develop a biblical paradigm on economic justice. A Biblical Paradigm Justice identifies what is essential for life together in community and specifies the rights and responsibilities of individuals and institutions in society. What does the Bible tell us about the nature of justice? Earlier, we noted several different types of justice. It is clear from biblical material that procedural justice is important. Legal institutions should not be biased either toward the rich or the poor (Deut. 10:17–18; Lev. 19:15; Ex. 23:3). Everyone should have equal access to honest, unbiased courts. Similarly, scriptural teaching on honest weights and measures (Lev. 19:35–36; Amos 8:5; Prov. 11:1) underlines the importance of commutative justice in order that fair, honest exchange of goods and services is possible. Distributive justice There is less agreement, however, about the nature of distributive justice. Are the resources of society justly distributed, even if some are very poor and others very rich, as long as procedural and commutative justice are present? Or does a biblically informed understanding of distributive justice demand some reasonable standard of material wellbeing for all? Calvin Beisner is typical of those who define economic justice in a minimal, procedural way: Justice in economic relationships requires that people be permitted to exchange and use what they own – including their own time and energy and intellect as well as material objects – freely so long as in so doing they do not violate others’ rights. Such things as minimum wage laws, legally mandated racial quotas in employment, legal restrictions on import and export, laws requiring ‘equal pay for equal work’, and all other regulations of economic activity other than those necessary to prohibit, prevent, and punish fraud, theft, and violence are therefore unjust.24

Carl Henry provides another example. In a fascinating chapter on the nature of God and social ethics, he argues that modern theological liberalism’s submerging of God’s wrath in God’s love has led to a parallel disaster in 24

E. Calvin Beisner, Prosperity and Poverty: The Compassionate Use of Resources in a World of Scarcity (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1988), 54.

A Biblical Paradigm for Economic Justice

95

society. Both in God and society, love and justice are very different and should never be confused. The state should be responsible for procedural justice, not love. In dire emergencies (the Great Depression, for example), it may be proper for the government to assist the poor and jobless, but normally voluntary agencies like the church should perform such acts of love or benevolence. ‘In the New Testament view’, Henry argues, ‘the coercive role of the State is limited to its punitive function.’25 Henry is surely right that the biblical God is both searing holiness and amazing love. The one dare not be collapsed into the other. But does that mean that love is not connected with economic justice? Does it mean that economic justice exists, as Beisner argues, as long as procedural justice prevents fraud, theft, and violence? Others argue that the biblical materials point to a much closer relationship between justice and love. If justice is understood to be in continuity with love, it takes on the dynamic, community-building character of love. Rather than having primarily a minimal, punitive and restraining function, justice in the biblical perspective has a crucial restorative character, identifying and correcting areas of material need. The debate over whether human rights include economic rights is an extension of the debate over the continuity of love and justice. Are human rights essentially procedural (freedom of speech, religion, etc.) or do they include the right to basic material necessities? To treat people equally, this second view argues, justice looks for barriers which interfere with the opportunity for access to productive resources needed to acquire the basic goods of society or to be dignified, participating members in the community. Justice takes into consideration certain handicaps which are hindrances to pursuing the opportunities for life in society. The handicaps which justice considers go beyond individual physical disabilities and personal tragedies. Significant handicaps can be found in poverty or prejudice. A just society removes any discrimination which prevents equality of opportunity. Distributive justice demands special consideration to disadvantaged groups by providing basic social and economic opportunities and resources.26 Is there biblical data to help us decide how to define distributive justice? Again, there is no systematic treatise on this topic anywhere in the Scriptures. But there is considerable relevant material. This is especially true in the Old Testament which, unlike the New Testament, usually addresses a setting where God’s people make up the whole society, not just a tiny minority. (Therefore it is strange for Carl Henry to make his case for a minimal, procedural definition of justice on the basis of the New Testament alone, rather than the full canonical revelation.) Several aspects of biblical teaching point to the broader – rather than the narrower, exclusively procedural – understanding of justice.27 Frequently the 25 Carl F.H. Henry, Aspects of Christian Social Ethics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 160. 26 Cf. William Frankena, ‘The Concept of Social Justice’, in Social Justice, ed. R. Brandt (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1962), 18–21. 27 Cf. further Mott, A Christian Perspective on Political Thought, 77–88.

96

The Bible and Christian Ethics

words for love and justice appear together in close relationship. Biblical justice has a dynamic, restorative character. The special concern for the poor running throughout the Scriptures moves beyond a concern for unbiased procedures. Restoration to community – including the benefit rights that dignified participation in community require – is a central feature of biblical thinking about justice. LOVE AND JUSTICE TOGETHER

In many texts we discover the words for love and justice in close association. ‘Sow for yourselves justice, reap the fruit of steadfast love’ (Hosea 10:12).28 Sometimes, love and justice are interchangeable: ‘…[It is the Lord] who executes justice (mišpat) for the orphan and the widow, and who loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing’ (Deut. 10:18, NRSV; cf. Isa. 30:18).29 JUSTICE’S DYNAMIC, RESTORATIVE CHARACTER

In the Bible, justice is not a mere mitigation of suffering in oppression, it is deliverance. Justice involves rectifying the gross social inequities of the disadvantaged. The terms for justice are frequently associated with yešûcâ, the most important Hebrew word for deliverance and salvation: ‘…God arose to establish justice [mišpat] to save [hôšîac] all the oppressed of the earth’ (Ps. 76:9; cf. Isa. 63:1).30 ‘Give justice to the weak’ and ‘maintain the right of the lowly’ are parallel to ‘rescue the weak and the needy and snatch them out of the power of the wicked’ (Ps. 82:3–4).31 Justice describes the deliverance of the people from political and economic oppressors (Judges 5:11),32 from slavery (1 Sam. 12:7–8; Micah 6:4), and from captivity (Isa. 41:1–11 [cf. v. 2 for sedeq]; Jer. 51:10). Providing for the needy means ending their oppression, setting them back on their feet, giving them a home, and leading them to prosperity and restoration (Ps. 68:5–10; 10:15–18).33 Justice does not merely help victims cope with oppression; it removes it. Because of this dynamic, restorative emphasis, distributive justice requires not primarily that we maintain a stable society, but rather that we advance the wellbeing of the disadvantaged.

28

Our translation. Cf. also Isa. 30:18; Jer. 9:24; Hos. 2:19; 12:6; Micah 6:8. 30 Our translation. Cf. Ps. 40:10; 43:1–2; 65:6; 71:1–2, 24; 72:1–4; 116:5–6; 119:123; Isa. 45:8; 46:12–13; 59:11, 17; 61:10; 62:1–2; 63:7–8 (LXX); and frequently with pill_t for ‘deliver’: Ps. 31:1; 37:28, 40. 31 Cf. Job 29:12, 14; Prov. 24:11. 32 ‘Triumphs’ in the NRSV translates the word for ‘justice’ (sed_q_h) in the plural – i.e., ‘acts of justice’ (cf. the NIV, ‘righteous acts’). 33 Cf. Ps. 107; 113:7–9. 29

A Biblical Paradigm for Economic Justice

97

GOD’S SPECIAL CONCERN FOR THE POOR

Hundreds34 of biblical verses show that God is especially attentive to the poor and needy. God is not biased. Because of unequal needs, however, equal provision of basic rights requires justice to be partial in order to be impartial. (Good firefighters do not spend equal time at every house; they are ‘partial’ to people with fires.) Partiality to the weak is the most striking characteristic of biblical justice.35 In the raging social struggles in which the poor are perennially victims of injustice, God and God’s people take up the cause of the weak.36 Rulers and leaders have a special obligation to do justice for the weak and powerless.37 This partiality to the poor provides strong evidence that in biblical thought, justice is concerned with more than fair procedures. The Scriptures speak of God’s special concern for the poor in at least four different ways.38 (1) Repeatedly, the Bible says that the Sovereign of history works to lift up the poor and oppressed. Consider the Exodus. Certainly God acted there to keep the promise to Abraham and to call out the chosen people of Israel. But again and again the texts say God also intervened because God hated the oppression of the poor Israelites (Ex. 3:7–8; 6:5–7). Annually at the harvest festival the people of Israel repeated this confession: ‘The Egyptians mistreated us…. Then we cried out to the Lord, the God of our fathers, and the Lord heard our voice and saw our misery, toil and oppression. So the Lord brought us out of Egypt’ (Deut. 26:6–8). Or consider the Psalms: ‘But the Lord says, “I will now rise up because the poor are being hurt” ’ (12:5). ‘I know the Lord will get justice for the poor and will defend the needy in court’ (140:12). God acts in history to lift up the poor and oppressed. (2) Sometimes, the Lord of history tears down rich and powerful people. Mary’s song is shocking: ‘My soul glorifies the Lord… He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty’ (Luke 1:46, 53). James is even more blunt: ‘Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you’ (James 5:1). Since God calls us to create wealth and is not biased against the rich, why do the Scriptures warn again and again that God sometimes works in history to destroy the rich? The Bible has a simple position. It is because the rich sometimes get rich by 34 Literally! See the collection (about two hundred pages of biblical texts) in Ronald J. Sider, For They Shall Be Fed (Dallas: Word, 1997). 35 Cf. Norman H. Snaith, The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament (London: Epworth, 1944), 68, 71–72; James H. Cone, God of the Oppressed (New York: Seabury, 1975), 70–71. 36 This is not to ignore the fact that there are many causes of poverty – including laziness and other sinful choices (see Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, ch. 6). God wants people who are poor because of their own sinful choices to repent and be changed by the power of the Holy Spirit. 37 Ps. 72:1–4; Prov. 31:8–9; Isa. 1:10, 17, 23, 26; Jer. 22:2–3, 14–15; Dan. 4:27. 38 The following section is adapted from Ronald J. Sider, Genuine Christianity (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 137–141.

98

The Bible and Christian Ethics

oppressing the poor, or because they have plenty and neglect the needy. In either case, God is furious. James warned the rich so harshly because they had hoarded wealth and refused to pay their workers (5:2–6). Repeatedly, the prophets said the same thing (Ps. 10; Jer. 22:13–19; Isa. 3:14–25). ‘Among my people are wicked men who lie in wait like men who snare birds and like those who set traps to catch men. Like cages full of birds, their houses are full of deceit; they have become rich and powerful and have grown fat and sleek…. They do not defend the rights of the poor. Should I not punish them for this?’ (Jer. 5:26–29).Repeatedly, the prophets warned that God was so outraged that he would destroy the nations of Israel and Judah. Because of the way they ‘trample on the heads of the poor… and deny justice to the oppressed’, Amos predicted terrible captivity (2:7; 5:11; 6:4, 7; 7:11, 17). So did Isaiah and Micah (Isa. 10:1–3; Mic. 2:2; 3:12). And it happened just as they foretold. According to both the Old and New Testaments, God destroys people and societies that get rich by oppressing the poor. But what if we work hard and create wealth in just ways? That is good – as long as we do not forget to share. No matter how justly we have acquired our wealth, God demands that we act generously toward the poor. When we do not, God treats us in a similar way to those who oppress the poor. There is not a hint in Jesus’ story of the rich man and Lazarus that the rich man exploited Lazarus to acquire wealth. He simply neglected to share. So God punished him (Luke 16: 19–31). Ezekiel contains a striking explanation for the destruction of Sodom: ‘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. … Therefore I did away with them as you have seen’ (16:49–50). Again, the text does not charge them with gaining wealth by oppression. It was because they refused to share their abundance that God destroyed the city. The Bible is clear. If we get rich by oppressing the poor or if we have wealth and do not reach out generously to the needy, the Lord of history moves against us. God judges societies by what they do to the people at the bottom. (3) God identifies with the poor so strongly that caring for them is almost like helping God. ‘He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord’ (Prov. 19:17). On the other hand, one ‘who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker’ (14:31). Jesus’ parable of the sheep and goats is the ultimate commentary on these two proverbs. Jesus surprises those on the right with his insistence that they had fed and clothed him when he was cold and hungry. When they protested that they could not remember ever doing that, Jesus replied: ‘Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me’ (Matt. 25:40). If we believe his words, we look on the poor and neglected with entirely new eyes. (4) Finally, God demands that God’s people share God’s special concern for the poor. God commanded Israel not to treat widows, orphans, and foreigners the way the Egyptians had treated them (Ex. 22:21–24). Instead, they should love the poor just as God cared for them at the Exodus (Ex. 22:21–24; Deut. 15:13–15). When Jesus’ disciples throw parties, they should especially invite the poor and disabled (Luke 14:12–14; Heb. 13:1–3). Paul held up Jesus’

A Biblical Paradigm for Economic Justice

99

model of becoming poor to show how generously the Corinthians should contribute to the poor in Jerusalem (2 Cor. 8:9). The Bible, however, goes one shocking step further. God insists that if we do not imitate God’s concern for the poor we are not really God’s people – no matter how frequent our worship or how orthodox our creeds. Because Israel failed to correct oppression and defend poor widows, Isaiah insisted that Israel was really the pagan people of Gomorrah (1:10–17). God despised their fasting because they tried to worship God and oppress their workers at the same time (Isa. 58:3–7). Through Amos, the Lord shouted in fury that the very religious festivals God had ordained made God angry and sick. Why? Because the rich and powerful were mixing worship and oppression of the poor (5:21–24). Jesus was even more harsh. At the last judgment, some who expect to enter heaven will learn that their failure to feed the hungry condemns them to hell (Matt. 25). If we do not care for the needy brother or sister, God’s love does not abide in us (1 John 3:17). Jeremiah 22:13–19 describes good king Josiah and his wicked son Jehoiakim. When Jehoiakim became king, he built a fabulous palace by oppressing his workers. God sent the prophet Jeremiah to announce a terrible punishment. The most interesting part of the passage, however, is a short aside on this evil king’s good father: ‘He defended the cause of the poor needy, and so all went well. “Is that not what it means to know me?” declares the Lord’ (v. 16; our italics). Knowing God is inseparable from caring for the poor. Of only to a concern for the needy as some radical theologians do. We meet God in prayer, Bible study, worship – in many ways. But if we do not share God’s passion to strengthen the poor, we simply do not know God in a biblical way. All this biblical material clearly demonstrates that God and God’s faithful people have a great concern for the poor. Earlier, we argued that God is partial to the poor, but not biased. God does not love the poor any more than the rich. God has an equal concern for the well-being of every single person. Most rich and powerful people, however, are genuinely biased; they care a lot more about themselves than about their poor neighbours. By contrast with the genuine bias of most people, God’s lack of bias makes God appear biased. God cares equally for everyone. How then is God ‘partial’ to the poor? Because in concrete historical situations, equal concern for everyone requires special attention to specific people. In a family, loving parents do not provide equal tutorial time to a son struggling hard to scrape by with ‘D’s’ and a daughter easily making ‘A’s’. Precisely in order to be ‘impartial’ and love both equally, they devote extra time to helping the needier child. In historical situations (e.g., apartheid) where some people oppress others, God’s lack of bias does not mean neutrality. Precisely because God loves all equally, God works against oppressors and actively sides with the oppressed. We see this connection, precisely in the texts that declare God’s lack of bias: ‘For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the almighty, the terrible God, who is not partial and takes no bribe. He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him

100

The Bible and Christian Ethics

food and clothing’ (Deut. 10:17–18). Justice and love are virtual synonyms in this passage. There is no suggestion that loving the sojourner is a benevolent, voluntary act different from a legal demand to do justice to the fatherless. Furthermore, there is no indication in the text that those needing food and clothing are poor because of some violation of due process such as fraud or robbery. The text simply says they are poor and therefore God who is not biased pays special attention to them. Leviticus 19 is similar. In v. 15, the text condemns partiality: ‘You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great’. The preceding verses refer to several of the Ten Commandments (stealing, lying, blasphemy [v. 11]). But special references to the poor are in the same passage. When harvesting their crops, God’s people must leave the grain at the edge of the field and not pick up the grapes which fall in the vineyard: ‘You shall leave them for the poor and the alien’ (v. 10). This is a divine command, not a suggestion for voluntary charity, and it is part of the same passage that declares God’s lack of bias.39 Precisely because God is not biased, God pays special attention to the poor. Consequently an understanding of justice that reflects this biblical teaching must be concerned with more than procedural justice. Distributive justice which insists on special attention to the poor so they have opportunity to enjoy material well-being is also crucial. JUSTICE AS RESTORATION TO COMMUNITY

Restoration to community means restoration to the benefit rights necessary for dignified participation in community. Since persons are created for community, the Scriptures understand the good life as sharing in the essential aspects of social life. Therefore justice includes restoration to community. Justice includes helping people return to the kind of life in community which God intends for them. Leviticus 25:35–36 describes the poor as being on the verge of falling out of the community because of their economic distress. ‘If members of your community become poor in that their power slips with you, you shall make them strong… that they may live with you‘ (Lev. 25:35–36 [our translation]). The word translated as ‘power’ here is ‘hand’ in the Hebrew. ‘Hand’ (y_d) metaphorically means ‘power’.40 The solution is for those who are able to correct the situation and thereby restore the poor to community. The poor in fact are their own flesh or kin (Is. 58:7). Poverty is a family affair. In order to restore the weak to participation in community, the community’s responsibility to its diminished members is ‘to make them strong’ again (Lev. 25:35). This translation is a literal rendering of the Hebrew, which is the word ‘to be strong’ and is found here in the causative (Hiphil) conjugation and therefore means ‘cause him to be strong’. The purpose of this empowerment is ‘that they may live beside you’ (v. 35). According to Psalm 107, God’s 39

See further, Stephen Charles Mott, ‘The Partiality of Biblical Justice’, Transformation, January-March, 1993, 24. 40 Hans Walter Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), 68. The NIV translates: ‘…becomes poor and is unable to support himself…’.

A Biblical Paradigm for Economic Justice

101

steadfast love leads God to care for the hungry so they are able to ‘establish a town to live in; they sow fields and plant vineyards…. By his blessing they multiply greatly’ (vv. 36–38, NRSV). Once more the hungry can be active, participating members of a community. The concern is for the whole person in community and what it takes to maintain persons in that relationship. Community membership means the ability to share fully within one’s capacity and potential in each essential aspect of community.41 Participation in community has multiple dimensions. It includes participation in decisionmaking, social life, economic production, education, culture, and religion. Also essential are physical life itself and the material resources necessary for a decent life. Providing the conditions for participation in community demands a focus on what are the basic needs for life in community. Achieving such justice includes access to the material essentials of life, such as food and shelter. It is God ‘who executes justice for the oppressed; who gives food to the hungry’ (Ps. 146:7 NRSV). ‘The Lord… executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing’ (Deut. 10:18, NRSV). ‘Food and clothing’ is a Hebraism for what is indispensable.42 Job 24, one of the most powerful pictures of poverty in the Bible, describes the economic benefits that injustice takes away. Injustice starts with assault on the land, the basis of economic power (v. 2). It moves then to secondary means of production, the donkey and the ox (v. 3). As a result the victims experience powerlessness and indignity: ‘They thrust the needy off the road; the poor of the earth all hide themselves’ (v. 4, NRSV). The poor are separated from the bonds of community, wandering like wild donkeys in the desert (v. 5). They are denied basic needs of food (vv. 6, 10), drink (v. 11), clothing, and shelter (vv. 7, 10). Elsewhere in Job, failure to provide food for the needy is condemned as injustice.43 Opportunity for everyone to have access to the material resources necessary for life in community is basic to the biblical concept of justice. As we shall see at greater length in the following section, enjoying the benefit rights crucial to participation in community goes well beyond ‘welfare’ or ‘charity’. People in distress are to be empowered at the point where their participation in community has been undercut. That means restoring their 41 Rights are the privileges of membership in the communities to which we belong, cf. Max L. Stackhouse, Creeds, Society, and Human Rights: A Study in Three Cultures (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 5, 44, 104–05. 42 C. Spicq, Les Épîtres Pastorales, Études Bibliques (Paris: Gabalda, 1969), 190 (on 1 Tim. 6:8). 43 Cf. Job 22 where injustice includes sins of omission – i.e., failure to provide drink for the weary and bread for the hungry (v. 7; cf. 31:17), as well as the exploitative use of economic power (v. 6a). In 31:19 the omission is failure to provide clothing. Cf. the important modern statement of benefit rights by Pope John Paul XXIII, in his encyclical, Pacem in Terris, where he says that each person has the right ‘to the means necessary for the proper development of life, particularly food, clothing, shelter, medical care, rest, and finally, the necessary social services’. Pope John XXIII, Pacem in Terris, 11, in Papal Encyclicals,v.. 5: 1958–1981, ed. C. Carlen (s. l..: Consortium, 1981), 108.

102

The Bible and Christian Ethics

productive capability. Therefore restoration of the land, the basic productive resource, is the way that Leviticus 25 commands the people to fulfill the call to ‘make them strong again’ so ‘they may live beside you’ in the land (v. 35). As the poor return to their land, they receive a new power and dignity that restores their participation in the community. Other provisions in the law also provide access to the means of production.44 In the sabbatical laws, the lands remain fallow and unharvested so that ‘the poor may eat’ (Exod. 23:10–11). The means of production were to be given over to the poor in entirety every seven years, recognizing, as Walter Rauschenbusch correctly noted,45 that the entire community had rights in the land. We also see this general right of all the people to be fed from the land in the laws which allow people to eat grain or fruit as they walk through someone else’s field or orchard (Deut. 23:24f.). Similarly, the farmer was not to go back over the first run of harvesting or to harvest to the very corners of the field so that the poor could provide for themselves (Deut. 24:19–22; Lev. 19:9–10). There are also restrictions on the processes which tear people down so that their ‘power slips’ and they cannot support themselves. Interest on loans was prohibited; food to the poor was not to be provided at profit (Lev. 25:36f.). A means of production, like a millstone, was not to be taken as collateral on a loan because that would be ‘taking a life in pledge’ (Deut. 24:6, RSV). If a poor person gave an essential item of clothing as a pledge, the creditor had to return it before night came (Exod. 22:26). All these provisions are restrictions on individual economic freedom that go well beyond merely preventing fraud, theft, and violence. The law did, of course, support the rights of owners to benefit from their property, but the law placed limits on the owners’ control of property and on the quest for profit. The common good of the community outweighed unrestricted economic freedom. The fact that justice in the Scriptures includes benefit rights46 means that we must reject the concept of the purely negative state, which merely protects 44

Cf. further, Mott, ‘The Contribution of the Bible to Economic Thought’, Transformation, June-September/ October-December, 1987, 31. 45 Walter Rauschenbusch, Christianity and the Social Crisis (Boston, Mass.: Pilgrim, 1907), 20. 46 Those who resist the recognition of economic rights sometimes argue from a distinction of a justice proper from a general justice which is voluntary. The economic materials of the Bible are then said to belong to the latter (see, for instance, the writings of Ronald H. Nash [e.g., Freedom, Justice and the State (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1980), pp. 37, 75]). The confinement of economic responsibility to a general, voluntary statement of social obligation does not hold up before the biblical materials. Distributive justice in its specific or proper sense of deciding between conflicting claims about the distribution of social benefits is involved in passages such as Jeremiah 5:28: ‘They judge not with justice the cause of the fatherless, to make it prosper, and they do not defend the rights (mišpat) of the needy’. Another objection to our discussion of benefit rights comes from theonomists who argue that the kinds of texts we have used are not part of the civil law because no sanctions are provided. This objection misses the paradigmatic, and thus incomplete, nature of biblical law (Deut.

A Biblical Paradigm for Economic Justice

103

property, person, and equal access to the procedures of the community. That is by no means to deny that procedural justice is important. A person who is denied these protections is cut off from the political and civil community and is not only open to abuse, but is diminished in his or her ability to affect the life of the community. Procedural justice is essential to protect people from fraud, theft and violence. Biblical justice, however, also includes positive rights, which are the responsibility of the community to guarantee. Biblical justice has both an economic and a legal focus. The goal of justice is not primarily the recovery of the integrity of the legal system. It is the restoration of the community as a place where all live together in wholeness. The wrong to which justice responds is not merely an illegitimate process (like stealing). What is wrong is also an end result in which people are deprived of basic needs. Lev. 19:13 condemns both stealing and withholding a poor person’s salary for a day: ‘You shall not defraud your neighbour; you shall not steal; and you shall not keep for yourself the wages of a labourer until morning’. Isaiah 5:8–10 condemns those who buy up field after field until only the rich person is left dwelling alone in his big, beautiful house. Significantly, however, the prophet here does not denounce the acquisition of the land as illegal. Through legal foreclosing of mortgages or through debt bondage, the property could be taken within the law.47 Isaiah nevertheless condemns the rulers for permitting this injustice to the weak. He appeals to social justice above the technicalities of current law. Restoration to community is central to justice. From the biblical perspective, justice is both procedural and distributive. It demands both fair courts and fair economic structures. It includes both freedom rights and benefit rights. Precisely because of its equal concern for wholeness for everyone, it pays special attention to the needs of the weak and marginalized. None of the above claims, however, offers a norm that describes

14:28 – see below, p. 31). Furthermore, civil apparatus is provided for the third-year tithe in that it is to be stored in a central place, in the towns (Deut. 14:28). Micah 2:4–5, with its references to measuring and dividing the allotment of the land and casting the lot, is a prediction of a future redistribution of the land by Yahweh. This new distribution will be administered by ‘the assembly of Yahweh’ (Albrecht Alt, ‘Michah 2, 1–5 G_s Anadasmos in Juda’, in Alt, Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. 3 [Munich: Beck, 1959], 374). Theonomist theory also does not correspond to actual biblical practice (e.g., Nehemiah’s enforcement of the prohibition on interest and of tithes for the Levites despite the lack of civil apparatus for these provisions in the Law [Neh. 5:7; 11:23; 12:44–47; 1310–14]). What is decisive against the effort to remove benefit rights from justice proper is that the justice required of the ruler has the same characteristics as that required elsewhere. Justice involves deliverance. ‘May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor!’ (Ps. 72:4). 47 Eryl W. Davies, Prophesy and Ethics: Isaiah and the Ethical Traditions of Israel (Sheffield, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 16, 1981), 69, 116.

104

The Bible and Christian Ethics

the actual content of distributive justice. The next two sections seek to develop such a norm. Equity as adequate access to productive resources Equality has been one of the most powerful slogans of our century. But what does it mean? Does it mean equality before the law? One person, one vote? Equality of opportunity in education? Identical income shares? Or absolute identity as described in the satirical novel, Facial Equality?48 As we saw earlier, equality of economic results is not compatible with human freedom and responsibility. Free choices have consequences; therefore when immoral decisions reduce someone’s earning power, we should, other things being equal, consider the result just. Even absolute equality of opportunity is impossible unless we prevent parents from passing on any of their knowledge or other capital to their children. So what definition of equality – or better, equity – do the biblical materials suggest? CAPITAL IN AN AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY

The biblical material on Israel and the land offers important clues about what a biblical understanding of equity would look like. The contrast between early Israel and surrounding societies was striking.49 In Egypt, most of the land belonged to the Pharaoh or the temples. In most other near-Eastern contexts a feudal system of landholding prevailed. The king granted large tracts of land, worked by landless labourers, to a small number of elite royal vassals. Only at the theological level did this feudal system exist in early Israel. Yahweh the King owned all the land and made important demands on those to whom he gave it to use. Under Yahweh, however, each family had their own land. Israel’s ideal was decentralized family ‘ownership’ understood as stewardship under Yahweh’s absolute ownership. In the period of the Judges, the pattern in Israel was, according to one scholar, ‘free peasants on small land holdings of equal size and apportioned by the clans’.50 Land was the basic capital in early Israel’s agricultural economy, and the law says the land was divided in such a way that each extended family had the resources to produce the things needed for a decent life. Joshua 18 and Numbers 26 contain the two most important accounts of the division of the land.51 They represent Israel’s social ideal with regard to the land. Originally, 48

Leslie Poles Hartley, Facial Justice (Hamish Hamilton, 1960). See Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions, trans. John McHugh (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1961), v. 1, 164. 50 H. Eberhard von Waldow, ‘Social Responsibility and Social Structure in Early Israel’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 32 (1970), 195. 51 See the discussion and the literature cited in Mott, Biblical Ethics and Social Change, 65–66; and Stephen Charles Mott, ‘Egalitarian Aspects of the Biblical Theory of Justice’, in the American Society of Christian Ethics, Selected Papers 1978, ed. Max Stackhouse (Newton, Mass.: American Society of Christian Ethics, 1978), 8–26. 49

A Biblical Paradigm for Economic Justice

105

the land was divided among the clans of the tribes so that a relatively similar amount of land was available to all the family units. The larger tribes got a larger portion and the smaller tribes a smaller portion (Num. 26:54). By lot the land was further subdivided among the protective association of families (mišp_hâ), and then (Joshua 18–19) the extended families (b_th-’ av). The criterion of the division was thus equality, as is stated directly in Ezekiel’s vision of a future time of justice. In this redistribution of the land, it is said to be divided ‘equally’ (NRSV, literally, ‘each according to his brother’, Ezek. 47:14). The concern, however, was not the implementation of an abstract ideal of equality but the empowerment of all the people. Elie Munk, a French Jewish Old Testament scholar, has summarized the situation this way: ‘The point of departure of the system of social economy of Judaism is the equal distribution of land among all its inhabitants’.52 The concern for empowerment was not merely for the first generation but for all subsequent generations. Several institutions had the purpose of preserving a just distribution of the land. The law of levirate served to prevent the land from going out of the family line (Deut. 25:5). The provision for a kinship redeemer meant that when poverty forced someone to sell his land, a relative was to step in to purchase it for him (Lev. 25:25). The picture of land ownership in the time of the Judges suggests some approximation of equality of land ownership – at least up to the point where every family had enough to enjoy a decent, dignified life in the community if they acted responsibly. Albrecht Alt, a prominent Old Testament scholar, goes so far as to say that the prophets understood Yahweh’s ancient regulation on property to be ‘one man – one house – one allotment of land’.53 Decentralized land ownership by extended families was the economic base for a relatively egalitarian society of small landowners and vinedressers in the time of the Judges.54 The story of Naboth’s vineyard (1 Kings 21) demonstrates the importance of each family’s ancestral land. Frequent Old Testament references about not moving ancient boundary markers (e.g., Deut.19:14; 27:17; Job 24:2; Prov. 22:28; Hosea 5:10) support the concept that Israel’s ideal called for each family to have enough land so they had the opportunity to acquire life’s necessities. ‘Necessities’ is not to be understood as the minimum necessary to keep from starving. In the non-hierarchical, relatively egalitarian society of small farmers depicted above, families possessed resources to earn a living that would have 52

Elie Munk, La Justice Sociale en Israël (Boudry, Switzerland: Baconnière, 1948), 75. Albrecht Alt, ‘Micah 2:1–5 G_s Anadasmos in Juda’, Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1959), v. 3, 374. 54 In his study of early Israel, Norman Gottwald concluded that Israel was ‘an egalitarian, extended-family, segmentary tribal society with an agricultural-pastoral economic base… characterized by profound resistance and opposition to the forms of political domination and social stratification that had become normative in the chief cultural and political centres of the ancient Near East’. The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel 1250–1050 BC (London: SCM Press, 1979), 10. 53

106

The Bible and Christian Ethics

been considered reasonable and acceptable, not embarrassingly minimal. That is not to suggest that every family had exactly the same income. It does mean, however, that every family had an equality of economic opportunity up to the point that they had the resources to earn a living that would enable them not only to meet minimal needs of food, clothing, and housing but also to be respected participants in the community. Possessing their own land enabled each extended family to acquire the necessities for a decent life through responsible work. THE YEAR OF JUBILEE

Two astonishing biblical texts – Leviticus 25 and Deuteronomy 15 – show how important this basic equality of opportunity was to God. The jubilee text in Leviticus demanded that the land return to the original owners every fifty years. And Deuteronomy 15 called for the release of debts every seven years. Leviticus 25 is one of the most radical texts in all of Scripture,55 at least it seems that way to people committed either to communism or to unrestricted capitalism. Every fifty years, God said, the land was to return to the original owners. Physical handicaps, death of a breadwinner, or lack of natural ability may lead some families to become poorer than others. But God does not want such disadvantages to lead to ever-increasing extremes of wealth and poverty with the result that the poor eventually lack the basic resources to earn a decent livelihood. God therefore gave his people a law to guarantee that no family would permanently lose its land. Every fifty years, the land returned to the original owners so that every family had enough productive resources to function as dignified, participating members of the community (Leviticus 25:10–24). Private property was not abolished. Regularly, however, the means of producing wealth was to be equalized – up to the point of every family having the resources to earn a decent living. What is the theological basis for this startling command? Yahweh’s ownership of everything is the presupposition. The land cannot be sold permanently because Yahweh owns it: ‘The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine; for you are strangers and sojourners with me’ (Lev. 25:23). God, the landowner, permits his people to sojourn on his good earth, cultivate it, eat its produce, and enjoy its beauty. But we are only stewards. Stewardship is one of the central theological categories of any biblical understanding of our relationship to the land and economic resources.56 Before and after the year of jubilee, land could be ‘bought’ or ‘sold’. Actually, the buyer purchased a specific number of harvests, not the land itself (Lev. 25:16). And woe to the person who tried to get more than a just price for the 55

For a survey of the literature on Lev. 25, see R. Gnuse, ‘Jubilee Legislation in Leviticus: Israel’s Vision of Social Reform’, Biblical Theological Bulletin 15 (1983), 43–48. 56 See the excellent book edited by Loren Wilkinson, Earthkeeping: Christian Stewardship of Natural Resources, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), esp. 232– 37.

A Biblical Paradigm for Economic Justice

107

intervening harvests from the date of purchase to the next jubilee! ‘If the years are many you shall increase the price, and if the years are few you shall diminish the price, for it is the number of the crops that he is selling to you. You shall not wrong one another, but you shall fear your God; for I am the Lord your God’ (Lev. 25:16–17, RSV). Yahweh is Lord of all, even of economics. There is no hint here of a sacred law of supply and demand that operates independently of biblical ethics and the lordship of Yahweh. The people of God should submit to God, and God demands economic justice among his people. The assumption in this text that people must suffer the consequences of wrong choices is also striking. A whole generation or more could suffer the loss of ancestral land, but every fifty years the basic source of wealth would be returned so that each family had the opportunity to provide for its basic needs. Verses 25–28 imply that this equality of opportunity is a higher value than that of absolute property rights. If a person became poor and sold his land to a more prosperous neighbour but then recovered enough to buy back his land before the jubilee, the new owner was obligated to return it. The original owner’s right to have his ancestral land to earn his own way is a higher right than that of the second owner to maximize profits. This passage prescribes justice in a way that haphazard handouts by wealthy philanthropists never will. The year of jubilee was an institutionalized structure that affected all Israelites automatically. It was the poor family’s right to recover their inherited land at the jubilee. Returning the land was not a charitable courtesy that the wealthy might extend if they pleased.57 Interestingly, the principles of jubilee challenge both unrestricted capitalism and communism in a fundamental way. Only God is an absolute owner. No one else has absolute property rights. The right of each family to have the means to earn a living takes priority over a purchaser’s ‘property rights’ or a totally unrestricted market economy. At the same time, jubilee affirms not only the right but the importance of property managed by families who understand that they are stewards responsible to God. This text does not point us in the direction of the communist model where the state owns all the land. God wants each family to have the resources to produce its own livelihood. Why? To strengthen the family (this is a very important ‘pro-family’ text!) – to give people the freedom to participate in shaping history and to prevent the centralization of power. One final aspect of Leviticus 25 is striking. It is more than coincidental that the trumpet blast announcing jubilee sounded on the day of atonement (Leviticus 25:9). Reconciliation with God is the precondition for reconciliation with brothers and sisters.58 Conversely, genuine reconciliation with God leads 57 See in this connection the fine article by Paul G. Schrotenboer, ‘The Return of Jubilee’, International Reformed Bulletin, Fall, 1973, pp. 19ff.. (esp. 23–24). 58 See also Eph. 2:13–18. Marc H. Tanenbaum points out the significance of the day of atonement in ‘Holy Year 1975 and Its Origins in the Jewish Jubilee Year’, Jubilaeum (1974), 64.

108

The Bible and Christian Ethics

inevitably to a transformation of all other relationships. Reconciled with God by the sacrifice on the Day of Atonement, the more prosperous Israelites were summoned to liberate the poor by freeing Hebrew slaves and by returning all land to the original owners.59 It is not clear from the historical books how much the people of Israel implemented the jubilee.60 Regardless of its antiquity or possible lack of implementation, however, Leviticus 25 remains a part of God’s authoritative Word. The teaching of the prophets about the land underlines the principles of Leviticus 25. In the tenth to the eighth centuries B.C. major centralization of landholding occurred. Poorer farmers lost their land, becoming landless labourers or slaves. The prophets regularly denounced the bribery, political assassination, and economic oppression that destroyed the earlier decentralized economy described above. Elijah condemned Ahab’s seizure of Naboth’s vineyard (1 Kings 21). Isaiah attacked rich landowners for adding field to field until they dwelt alone in the countryside because the smaller farmers had been destroyed (Isaiah 5:8–9). The prophets, however, did not merely condemn. They also expressed a powerful eschatological hope for a future day of justice when all would have their own land again. In the ‘latter days’, the future day of justice and wholeness, ‘they shall all sit under their own vines and under their own fig trees’ (Micah 4:4; cf. also Zechariah 3:10). No longer will the leaders oppress the people; instead they will guarantee that all people again enjoy their ancestral land (Ezekiel 45:1–9, especially vv. 8–9). In the giving of the land, the denunciation of oppressors who seized the land of the poor, and the vision of a new day when once again all will delight in the fruits of their own land and labour, we see a social ideal in which families are to have the economic means to earn their own way. A basic equality of economic opportunity up to the point that all can at least provide for their own basic needs through responsible work is the norm. Failure to act responsibly has economic consequences, so there is no assumption of equality. Central, however, is the demand that each family have the necessary capital (land) so that responsible stewardship will result in an economically decent life.61 59

For the meaning of the word liberty in Lev. 25:10, see Martin Noth, Leviticus (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965), 187: ‘Deror, a “liberation”… is a feudal word from the Accadian (an)duraru – “freeing from burdens” ’. 60 The only other certain references to it are in Lev. 27:16–25, Num. 36:4 and Ezek. 46:17. It would be exceedingly significant if one could show that Isa. 61:1–2 (which Jesus cited to outline his mission in Lk. 4:18–19) also refers to the year of jubilee. De Vaux doubts that Isa. 61:1 refers to the jubilee (Ancient Israel, 1:176). The same word, however, is used in Isa. 61:1 and Lev. 25:10. See John H. Yoder’s argument in Politics of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 64–77; see also Robert Sloan, The Acceptable Year of the Lord (Austin: Scholar Press, 1977); and Donald W. Blosser, ‘Jesus and the Jubilee’ (Ph.D. diss., University of St. Andrews, 1979). Sharon H. Ringe, Jesus, Liberation, and the Biblical Jubilee (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), pp. 36– 45, supports Luke 4:18–19 as a jubilee text. 61 On the centrality of the land in Israel’s self-understanding, see further Christopher J.H. Wright, An Eye for an Eye: The Place of Old Testament Ethics Today (Downers

A Biblical Paradigm for Economic Justice

109

THE SABBATICAL YEAR

God’s law also provides for liberation of soil, slaves, and debtors every seven years. Again the concern is justice for the poor and disadvantaged (as well as the well-being of the land). A central goal is to protect people against processes that would result in their losing their productive resources or to restore productive resources after a time of loss. Every seven years the land is to lie fallow (Exodus 23:10–11; Leviticus 25:2–7).62 The purpose, apparently, is both ecological and humanitarian. Not planting any crops every seventh year helps preserve the fertility of the soil. It also was God’s way of showing his concern for the poor: ‘For six years you shall sow your land and gather in its yield; but the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow, so that the poor of your people may eat’ (Exodus 23:10–11). In the seventh year the poor were free to gather for themselves whatever grew spontaneously in the fields and vineyards. Hebrew slaves also received their freedom in the sabbatical year (Deut. 15:12–18). Poverty sometimes forced Israelites to sell themselves as slaves to more prosperous neighbours (Lev. 25:39–40).63 But this inequality and lack of property, God decrees, is not to be permanent. At the end of six years Hebrew slaves are to be set free. When they leave, masters are to share the proceeds of their joint labours with departing male slaves: ‘And when you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty handed; you shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your wine press; as the Lord your God has blessed you, you shall give to him’ (Deut. 15;13–14; see also Exodus 21:2–6). As a consequence, the freed slave would again have some productive resources so he could earn his own way.64 The sabbatical provision on loans is even more surprising (Deut. 15:1–6) if, as some scholars think, the text calls for cancellation of debts every seventh year.65 Yahweh even adds a footnote for those with a sharp eye for loopholes: it is sinful to refuse a loan to a poor person just because it is the sixth year and financial loss might occur in twelve months:

Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1983), esp. chs. 3 and 4. Walter Brueggermann’s The Land (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), is also a particularly important work on this topic. 62 De Vaux, Ancient Israel, 1:173–75. 63 Leviticus 25 seems to provide for emancipation of slaves only every fiftieth year. 64 See Jeremiah 34 for a fascinating account of God’s anger at Israel for their failure to obey this command. 65 Some modern commentators think that Deuteronomy 15:1–11 provides for a one-year suspension of repayment of loans rather than an outright remission of them. See for example C.J.H. Wright, God’s People in God’s Land (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 148, and S.R. Driver, Deuteronomy, International Critical Commentary, 3rd. ed. (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1895), 179–80. But Driver’s argument is basically that remission would have been impractical. He admits that v. 9 seems to point toward remission of loans. Also Gerhard von Rad, Deuteronomy (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966), 106.

110

The Bible and Christian Ethics

Be careful that you do not entertain a mean thought, thinking, ‘The seventh year, the year of remission, is near,’ and therefore view your needy neighbour with hostility and give nothing; your neighbour might cry to the Lord against you, and you would incur guilt. Give liberally and be ungrudging when you do so, for on this account the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake (vv. 9–10, NRSV).

If followed, this provision would have protected small landowners from the exorbitant interest of moneylenders and thereby helped prevent them from losing their productive resources. As in the case of the year of jubilee, this passage involves structured justice rather than mere charity. The sabbatical release of debts was an institutionalized mechanism to prevent the kind of economic divisions where a few people would possess all the capital while others had no productive resources. Deuteronomy 15 is both an idealistic statement of God’s demand and also a realistic reference to Israel’s sinful performance. Verse 4 promises that there will be no poor in Israel – if they obey all of God’s commands! If the wealthier had followed Deuteronomy 15, small landowners would have been far less likely to lose their productive resources. But God knew they would not attain that standard; hence the recognition that poor people will always exist (v. 11). The conclusion, however, is not permission to ignore the needy because hordes of paupers will always exceed available resources. God commands precisely the opposite: ‘Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, “Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbour, in your land” ’ (v. 11). Jesus knew, and Deuteronomy implies, that sinful persons and societies will always produce poor people (Matt. 26:11). Rather than justifying neglect, however, God intends that this knowledge will be used by God’s people as a reminder to show concern and to create structural mechanisms that promote justice. The sabbatical year, unfortunately, was practiced only sporadically. Some texts suggest that failure to obey this law was one reason for the Babylonian exile (2 Chron. 36:20–21; Lev. 26:34–36).66 Disobedience, however, does not negate God’s demand. Institutionalized structures to prevent poverty are central to God’s will for his people. Does the biblical material offer a norm for distributive justice today? Some would argue that the biblical material on the land in Israel only applies to God’s covenant community. But that is to ignore the fact that the biblical writers did not hesitate to apply revealed standards to persons and societies outside Israel. Amos announced divine punishment on the surrounding nations for their evil and injustice (Amos 1–2). Isaiah condemned Assyria for its pride and injustice (Isa. 10:12–19). The book of Daniel shows that God removed pagan kings like Nebuchadnezzar in the same way he destroyed Israel’s rulers when they failed to show mercy to the oppressed (Daniel 4:27). God obliterated Sodom and Gomorrah no less than Israel and Judah because they neglected to 66

See de Vaux, Ancient Israel 1:174–75, for discussion of the law’s implementation. In the Hellenistic period, there is clear evidence that it was put into effect.

A Biblical Paradigm for Economic Justice

111

aid the poor and feed the hungry. The Lord of history applies the same standards of social justice to all nations. That does not mean, however, that we should try to apply the specific mechanisms of the jubilee and the sabbatical release to late twentieth century global market economies. It is the basic paradigm that is normative for us today. In modern economies it would be inappropriate to try to apply the specific mechanisms of the jubilee and sabbatical release of debts. Land, for example, has a very different function in an industrial economy. Appropriate application of these texts requires that we ask how their specific mechanisms functioned in Israelite culture, and then determine what specific measures would fulfil a similar function in our very different society. Since land in Israelite society represented productive power, we must identify the forms of productive power in modern societies. In an industrial society the primary productive power is the factory and in an information society it is knowledge. Faithful application of these biblical texts in such societies means finding mechanisms that offer everyone the opportunity to share in the ownership of these productive resources. If we start with the jubilee’s call for everyone to enjoy access to productive power, we must criticize all socio-economic arrangements where productive power is owned or controlled by only one class or group (whether bourgeois, aristocratic, or proletarian) – or by a state or party oligarchy. Indeed, we saw that the prophets protested the development of a different economic system in which land ownership was shifted to a small group within society. And we must develop appropriate intervening processes in society to restore access to productive resources to everyone. The central normative principle that emerges from the biblical material on the land and the sabbatical release of debts is this: justice demands that every person or family has access to the productive resources (land, money, knowledge) so they have the opportunity to earn a generous sufficiency of material necessities and be dignified participating members of their community. This norm offers significant guidance for how to shape the economy so that people normally have the opportunity to earn their own way. But what should be done for those – whether the able-bodied who experience an emergency or dependents such as orphans, widows, or the disabled – who for shorter or longer periods simply cannot provide basic necessities through their own efforts alone? Generous Care for Those Who Cannot Care for Themselves Again the biblical material is very helpful. Both in the Old Testament and the New Testament, we discover explicit teaching on the community’s obligation to support those who cannot support themselves. The Pentateuch commands at least five important provisions designed to help those who could not help themselves:67 1) The third year tithe goes to poor widows, orphans and 67 See especially John Mason’s excellent article, ‘Assisting the Poor: Assistance Programmes in the Bible’, Transformation, April-June, 1987, 1–14.

112

The Bible and Christian Ethics

sojourners as well as the Levites (Deut. 14:28–29; 26:12). 2) Laws on gleaning stipulated that the corners of the grain fields and the sheaves and grapes that dropped were to be left for the poor, especially widows, orphans, and sojourners (Lev. 19:9–10; Deut. 24:19–21). 3) Every seventh year, fields must remain fallow and the poor may reap the natural growth (Ex. 23:10–11; Lev. 25:1–7). 4) A zero-interest loan must be available to the poor and if the balance is not repaid by the sabbatical year, it is forgiven (Ex. 22:25; Lev. 25:35–38; Deut. 15:1–11). 5) Israelites who become slaves to repay debts go free in the seventh year (Lev. 25:47–53; Ex. 21:1–11; Deut. 15:12–18). And when the freed slaves leave, their temporary ‘master’ must provide liberally, giving the former slaves cattle, grain and wine (Deut. 15:14) so they can again earn their own way. In his masterful essay on this topic, John Mason argues that the primary assistance to the able-bodied person was probably the no-interest loan. This would maintain the family unit, avoid stigmatizing people unnecessarily, and require work so that long-term dependency did not result. Dependent poor such as widows and orphans received direct ‘transfer payments’ through the thirdyear tithe. But other provisions such as those on gleaning required the poor to work for the ‘free’ produce they gleaned. The widow Ruth, for example, laboured in the fields to feed herself and her mother-in-law (Ruth 2:1–23). It is important to note the ways that the provisions for helping the needy point to what we now call ‘civil society’. Not only did Ruth and other poor folk have to glean in the fields; more wealthy landowners had responsibilities to leave the corners of the fields and the grapes that dropped. And in the story of Ruth, Boaz as the next of kin took responsibility for her well-being (Chapters 3, 4). The texts seem to assume a level of assistance best described as ‘sufficiency for need’ – ‘with a fairly liberal interpretation of need’.68 Deuteronomy 15:8 specifies that the poor brother receive a loan ‘large enough to meet the need’. Frequently, God commands those with resources to treat their poor fellow Israelites with the same liberality that God showed them at the Exodus, in the wilderness, and in giving them their own land (Ex. 22:21; Lev. 25:38; Deut. 24:18, 22). God wanted those who could not care for themselves to receive a liberal sufficiency for need offered in a way that encouraged work and responsibility, strengthened the family, and helped the poor return to self-sufficiency. Were those ‘welfare provisions’ part of the law to be enforced by the community? Or were they merely suggestions for voluntary charity?69 The third-year tithe was gathered in a central location (Deut. 14:28) and then shared with the needy. Community leaders would have to act together to carry out such a centralized operation. In the Talmud, there is evidence that the proper community leaders had the right to demand contributions.70 Nehemiah 5 deals explicitly with violations of these provisions on loans to the poor. The political 68

ibid. 7. See ibid. 8, for some examples; cf. also the earlier discussion of Beisner and Henry. 70 ibid. 9. 69

A Biblical Paradigm for Economic Justice

113

leader calls an assembly, brings ‘charges against the nobles’, and commands that the situation be corrected (Neh. 5: 7; cf. all of 1–13). Old Testament texts often speak of the ‘rights’ or ‘cause’ of the poor. Since these terms have clear legal significance,71 they support the view that the provisions we have explored for assisting the poor would have been legally enforceable. ‘The clear fact is that the provisions for the impoverished were part of the Mosaic legislation, as much as other laws such as those dealing with murder and theft. Since nothing in the text allows us to consider them as different, they must be presumed to have been legally enforceable.’72 The socio-political situation is dramatically different in the New Testament. The early church is a tiny religious minority with very few political rights in a vast pagan Roman empire. But within the church, the standard is the same. Acts 2:43–47 and 4:32–37 record dramatic economic sharing in order to respond to those who could not care for themselves. The norm? ‘Distribution was made to each as any had need’ (Acts 4:35). As a result, ‘there was not a needy person among them’ (v. 34). The great evangelist Paul spent much of his time over several years collecting an international offering for the impoverished Christians in Jerusalem (2 Cor. 8–9). For his work, he found a norm (2 Cor. 8:13–15) – equality of basic necessities – articulated in the Exodus story of the manna where every person ended up with ‘as much as each of them needed’ (Exodus 16:18; NRSV).73 Throughout the Scriptures we see the same standard. When people cannot care for themselves, their community must provide a liberal sufficiency so that their needs are met. A role for government Thus far we have seen that the biblical paradigm calls for an economic order where all who are able to work enjoy access to appropriate productive resources so they can be creative co-workers with God, create wealth to bless their family and neighbours, and be dignified participating members of their community. For those who cannot care for themselves, the biblical framework demands generous assistance so that everyone has a liberal sufficiency of basic necessities. But what role should government play?74 Certainly government does not have sole responsibility. Other institutions including the family, the church, the schools, and business have crucial obligations. At different points in the biblical text it is clear that the family has the first obligation to help needy members. In the great text on the jubilee in Lev. 25, 71 Mason (14, n. 39) comments: ‘Two Hebrew words are used for “rights” or “cause”: the predominant word is mishpat, which is used elsewhere to refer to the laws and judgments of God; at Ps. 140:12 (with mishpat), Prov. 29:7, 31:9 and Jer. 22:16 the word is dîn and means most likely “righteous judgment” or “legal claim” ’ (TDOT v. 3,190–91; TWOT v. 11, 752–55, 947–49). 72 ibid. 9. 73 For a much longer discussion of both the passages in Acts and Paul’s collection, see Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, 79–89. 74 Here we want only to address the question as it relates directly to economic justice.

114

The Bible and Christian Ethics

the first responsibility to help the poor person forced by poverty to sell land belongs to the next of kin in the extended family (Lev. 25:25, 35). But the poor person’s help does not end with the family. Even if there are no family members to help, the poor person has the legal right to get his land back at the next jubilee (25:28). Similarly, 1 Timothy 5:16 insists that a Christian widow’s relatives should be her first means of support. Only when the family cannot, should the church step in. Any policy or political philosophy that immediately seeks governmental solutions for problems that could be solved just as well or better at the level of the family violates the biblical framework which stresses the central societal role of the family. But is there a biblical basis for those who seek to exclude government almost completely from the field of the economy? The state is not some evil to be endured like an appendectomy.75 According to Romans 13, the state is a gift from God designed for our good. Hence John Calvin denounced those who regarded magistrates ‘only as a kind of necessary evil’. Calvin called civil authority ‘the most honourable of all callings in the whole life’ of mortal human beings; its function among human beings is ‘no less than that of bread, water, sun, and air’.76 Government is an aspect of community and is inherent in human life as an expression of our created social nature. This perspective is contrary to the social contract theory at the base of liberal political philosophy, in which warring individuals put aside their independent existence by contracting to have a society to whose government, when formed, they transfer their individual rights. Governmental action to empower the poor is one way we implement the truth that economic justice is a family affair. Sin also makes government intervention in the economy necessary. When selfish, powerful people deprive others of their rightful access to productive resources, the state rightly steps in with intervening power to correct the injustice. When other individuals and institutions in the community do not or cannot provide basic necessities for the needy, government rightly helps. Frequently, of course, the state contributes to social cohesion by encouraging and enabling other institutions in the community – whether family, church, non-governmental social agencies, guilds, or unions77 – to carry out their responsibilities to care for the economically dependent. Sometimes, however, the depth of social need exceeds the capacity of non-governmental institutions. 75

Ronald H. Nash, Freedom, Justice and the State (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1980), 27. 76 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. J. McNeill (Philadelphia: Westminster, Library of Christian Classics 20–21, 1960), 4.20.3, 4, 22 (1488, 1490, 1510); cf. Höpfl, The Christian Polity of John Calvin, 44–46. Similarly for Luther, government is an inestimable blessing of God and one of God’s best gifts; cf. W.D.J. Cargill Thompson, The Political Thought of Martin Luther, ed. P. Broadhead (Brighton: Harvester, 1984), 66. 77 The state molds the process of mutual support among the groups (Reinhold Niebuhr, The Nature and Destiny of Man. v. 2: Human Destiny (New York: Scribner’s, 1964), 266).

A Biblical Paradigm for Economic Justice

115

When indirect approaches are not effective in restraining economic injustice or in providing care for those who cannot care for themselves, the state must act directly to demand patterns of justice and provide vital services. The objective of the state is not merely to maintain equilibrium of power in society. Its purpose is not merely to enable other groups in the society to carry out their tasks. The state has a positive responsibility to foster justice. The nature of justice defines the work of government so fundamentally that any statement of the purpose of government must depend upon a proper definition of justice. That is why our whole discussion of the biblical paradigm on the economic components of justice is so important. ‘The Lord has made you king to execute justice and righteousness’ (1 Kings 10:9; cf. Jer. 22:15–16). And these two key words (justice and righteousness) as we have seen, refer not only to fair legal systems but also to just economic structures. The positive role of government in advancing economic justice is seen in the biblical materials which present the ideal monarch. Both the royal psalms and the Messianic prophecies develop the picture of this ideal ruler. Psalm 72 (a royal psalm), gives the following purpose for the ruler: ‘May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor’ (v. 4, NRSV). And this task is identified as the work of justice (vv. 1–3, 7). In this passage, justice includes using power to deliver the needy and oppressed. Oppressors of the poor separate from the state those who need to be crushed. State power, despite its dangers, is necessary for society because of the evil power of such exploiting groups. ‘On the side of the oppressors there was power’, Ecclesiastes 4:1 declares. Without governmental force to counter such oppressive power there is ‘no one to comfort’ (Eccles. 4:1). Whether it is the monarch or the village elders (Amos 5:12, 15), governmental power should deliver the economically weak and guarantee the ‘rights of the poor’ (Jer. 22:15–16; also Ps. 45:4–5; 101:8; Jer. 21:12). Prophecies about the coming Messianic ruler also develop the picture of the ideal ruler. ‘With righteousness he shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth; he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked’ (Isa. 11:4, NRSV). This ideal ruler will take responsibility for the needs of the people as a shepherd: ‘He shall feed them and be their shepherd’ (Ezek. 34:23). Ezekiel 34:4 denounces the failure of the shepherds (i.e., the rulers) of Israel to ‘feed’ the people. Then in verses 15–16, the same phrases are repeated to describe God’s promise of justice: ‘…And I will make them lie down’, says the Lord God. ‘I will seek the lost, and I will bring back the strayed, and I will bind up the injured, and I will strengthen the weak, but the fat and the strong I will destroy. I will feed them in justice’ (NRSV). This promise will be fulfilled by the coming Davidic ruler (vv. 23–24). Similarly in Isaiah 32:1–8, the promised just and wise monarch is contrasted to the fool who leaves the hungry unsatisfied (v. 6). This teaching on the role of government applies not just to Israel but to government everywhere. The ideal monarch was to be a channel of God’s justice (Ps. 72:1), and God’s justice extends to the whole world (e.g., Ps. 9:7–9). All legitimate rulers are instituted

116

The Bible and Christian Ethics

by God and are God’s servants for human good (Rom. 13:1, 4). In this passage, Paul states a positive reason for government (government acts ‘for your good’ – v. 4) before he specifies its negative function (‘to execute wrath on the wrongdoer’ – v. 4). Romans 13 is structurally similar to Psalm 72:1 in viewing the ruler as a channel of God’s authority. All people everywhere can pray with the Israelites: ‘Give the king thy justice, O God’ (Ps. 72:1). Daniel 4:27 shows that the ideal of the monarch as the protector of the weak has universal application. God summons the Babylonian monarch no less than the Israelite king to bring ‘justice and… mercy to the oppressed’. Similarly in Proverbs 31:9, King Lemuel (generally considered to be a northern Arabian monarch) is to ‘defend the rights of the poor and needy’ (NRSV). ‘The general obligation of the Israelite king to see that persons otherwise not adequately protected or provided for should enjoy fair treatment in judicial proceedings and should receive the daily necessities of life is evidently understood as the duty of all kings.’78 The teaching on the ideal just monarch of Israel, whether in royal psalms or Messianic prophecies cannot be restricted to some future Messianic reign. God demanded that the kings of Israel provide in their own time what the Messianic ruler would eventually bring more completely: namely, that justice which delivers the needy from oppression. God’s concern in the present and in the future within Israel and outside of Israel, is that there be a community in which the weak are strengthened and protected from their foes. Conclusion The traditional criterion of distributive justice which comes closest to the biblical paradigm is distribution according to needs.79 Guaranteeing basic needs for life in community becomes more important than the criteria which are central in many worldly systems: worth, birth, social contribution, might and ability, or contract. Some of the other criteria of distributive justice are at least assumed in the biblical approach. Achievement (e.g., ability in the market so stressed in Western culture) has a legitimate role. It must be subordinate, however, to the central criterion of distribution according to needs for the sake of inclusion in community. The biblical material provides at least two norms pertaining to distribution of resources to meet basic needs: 1) normally, all people who can work should have access to the productive resources so that, if they act responsibly, they can produce or purchase an abundant sufficiency of all that is needed to enjoy a dignified, healthy life in community; 2) those who 78

Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue (Hamilton, MA: Meredith G. Kline, 1983), 34, citing Daniel 4:27 in support. 79 We insist, of course, as the previous discussion shows and the next two paragraphs indicate, on important qualifications to ‘distribution according to need’. The able-bodied must work to earn their own way and bad choices rightly have negative economic consequences. At the same time, of course, we recognize that bad choices are frequently rooted both in unfair structures and emotional and spiritual needs.

A Biblical Paradigm for Economic Justice

117

cannot care for themselves should receive from their community a liberal sufficiency of the necessities of life provided in ways that preserve dignity, encourage responsibility and strengthen the family. Those two norms are modest in comparison with some ideals presented in the name of equality. A successful effort to implement them, however, would require dramatic change, both in the U.S. and in every nation on earth.

Do We Know What Economic Justice Is? Nuancing Our Understanding by Engaging a Biblical Perspective

Andrew Hartropp Rev. Dr. Andrew Hartropp is Research Tutor in Development Studies, Oxford Centre for Mission Studies, United Kingdom Introduction1 The language of ‘economic justice’ or ‘social justice’ is well known today. It can safely be suggested that most people who engage in debate about economic and social issues, in most countries in the world, are familiar with this kind of language. In addition, it seems to be commonly assumed that we all know what we mean by these terms, and (a slightly different point) that there is common agreement about what ‘economic justice’ and ‘social justice’ actually are. Perhaps, however, we are wrong. Christians are not safe from this potential error. To which book(s) of the Bible do you turn – if any – when you want evidence for what God thinks about justice? To Amos or Isaiah, perhaps? Certainly they speak powerfully about justice in economic and social life; and this writer, for one, is utterly confident of the authority, reliability and relevance of all of Scripture in all matters of faith and conduct, including economics. But suppose we were to turn instead to Proverbs chapter 31, verses 10-31 – the description of ‘the wife of noble character’, as the NIV puts it. Would we be so sure that this picture of a sophisticated and successful businesswoman speaks in the same way about justice? Perhaps we would not. We might, then, be inclined to keep to more familiar (prophetic) territory, and carefully avoid the possibility that the same Bible has something approving to say about profit and entrepreneurship. If so, however, then we are wrong to assume that we know what the Bible means by ‘economic justice’: if we are prepared to look at only some of the biblical material, then we cannot possibly know what the Bible as a whole has to say about these matters. Clearly the issue of justice in economic life is central and vital in the contemporary and globalised world. Christians and churches who are committed to a gospel-centred and holistic process of human development – embracing spiritual, physical and socio-economic wellbeing – ought to be confident that such a process is entirely consistent with the justice that God

1

This article draws on the OCMS lecture given by the author on 19 February 2008, under the title, ‘What is economic justice? Biblical and secular perspectives contrasted’.

Do We Know What Economic Justice Is?

119

desires. In order to be confident in that way, however, we need to know what economic justice is. It will be argued in this paper that, unlike ordinary secular human thought, the Bible does give a coherent and harmonious understanding (or conception) of justice in economic life. (Did you know, for example, that the abovementioned ‘wife of noble character’ is one who (Prov.31:20) ‘opens her arms to the poor and extends her hands to the needy’?) The paper offers a summary of economic justice that seeks to be founded upon the biblical revelation. (Of course the summary presented here is imperfect – it is only ‘a’, not ‘the’, biblical understanding.) It also argues that Christian discussion and debate on contemporary economic topics often suffers from paying too little attention to the underlying questions of what justice really means. The paper therefore makes a plea for better nuancing – for more carefully weighed and more thoughtfully developed arguments – when it comes to issues concerning, for example, the merits and demerits of capitalism, or the virtues or otherwise of globalisation. Economic Justice Founded upon the Biblical Revelation This section of the paper will present a summary of a biblically-rooted conception of justice in economic life. But first it argues – partly in order to highlight the importance and significance of such a conception – that there is in fact no widespread agreement regarding the nature of economic justice. Rights: need or desert? Are we wrong to assume that we all know what we mean by ‘economic justice’ or ‘social justice’? It can be argued strongly that we are indeed wrong about this. There are in fact at least three different ways of thinking about, and three different approaches to, justice: rights, need and desert.2 If these three are to some extent in conflict with one another, then it cannot be said that there is common agreement about the meaning or nature of economic justice. First, the idea of a ‘right’ to something is based on something inherent in or to each human being: if someone says they have a right to clean water, it would normally be assumed that this right extends similarly, and logically, to every other human being. In other words, ‘rights’ are not related to a person’s context; instead they are fundamental to the person themselves. Thus a view of economic justice based on rights has that same feature: justice is based on something inherent in or to each and every human being. Secondly, however, if economic justice is based on need, then evidently the context becomes crucial. In any given situation or context, the needs of different people are likely to vary. For example, the physical climate makes a 2

For a fuller version of the present argument, see chapter 1 of Andrew Hartropp, What is Economic Justice? Biblical and Secular Perspectives Contrasted, Paternoster Theological Monographs (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2007). See also David Miller, Social Justice (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976).

120

The Bible and Christian Ethics

substantial difference: people in Bangladesh have somewhat different needs from those in the Arctic. Some needs are more urgent than others, and so time becomes a factor in determining need (just ask a manager of any hospital, anywhere). It follows, however, that the ‘rights’ and ‘needs’ of people will probably not be identical with one another. In turn, therefore, justice based wholly on rights will be different from justice based wholly on needs. The third candidate for the foundation for economic justice is desert. This idea is perhaps slightly more familiar in the field of legal justice: if someone has done a particular wrong to a neighbour, then the just punishment is what that person deserves. Justice is based on desert. This concept is easily, and frequently, applied to economic life, however. The notion of ‘a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work’ is firmly based on justice in terms of desert. But the idea can also be applied to those who earn somewhat higher salaries than the minimum. I read recently a national newspaper interview with a Christian man – a member of an Evangelical church – who works in the City of London, running one of the biggest accountancy partnerships in the UK, whose annual salary is £1.7m (approximately 150 times larger than the annual earnings of someone earning the national minimum wage in the UK). The partners of this firm evidently pay him this very large sum of money willingly – he does not coerce it from them or oppress them. He works extremely hard, with great skill and intelligence, puts in long hours, and must have to handle a very high degree of stress. It could be said that he deserves his handsome salary. If some armed representative of the UK government were to step in and forcibly take, say, three-quarters of this salary from this man, then it could be said that such a deed is unjust. At both ends of the wage scale, therefore, the notion of justice based on desert can be applied. Similarly, it could be said that all other economic transactions can be assessed on a desert-based notion of justice. If two firms freely, and without any coercion, agree a price for a contract, then that is a matter of justice: if one of them goes back on the deal, then they are acting unjustly. So there are three quite different ways of thinking about economic justice. They do overlap, to some extent. But they are different from one another, and they are substantially in conflict with one another. Desert is based on merit; need is based on the context; rights are based on one’s nature and dignity as a human being. It follows that what is seen as ‘just’ will often be different, depending on which basis is used. If wages are based on desert, they will be different than if they are based on the needs of the individual. And if they are based solely on rights, then it could easily be argued that each and every person should have exactly the same wage. Which approach to justice will you choose? They cannot each be wholly correct. Yet secular thought in this area seems to lack any coherent or agreed way of deciding between these three approaches, or combining them, or reconciling them. It is evident from this that ordinary secular human thought on these issues is deficient: our understanding of economic justice is clearly inadequate. Moreover, since each different approach has its own adherents and followers, then it is clear that people are, in reality, in profound disagreement about what economic justice actually is. If

Do We Know What Economic Justice Is?

121

we assume, then, that there is common agreement about the nature of economic and social justice, then we are wrong. A biblical conception of economic justice In my recent book, I argue at length that a biblical understanding (or conception) of justice in economic life consists of four main elements.3 (There is no space here to make this argument.) They are as follows: (i) Justice means appropriate treatment, according to the norms commanded by God for each particular case – norms built into the moral order of creation. Many cases of such norms are illustrated in the Scriptures, not least in the Mosaic law. It is crucial to note here that these norms, or principles, are given by God, and derive from God’s own character as just and righteous. Justice is not some human invention: instead it is defined by God himself. Note also that Christians are encouraged in the New Testament to work back from individual verses and commandments to the underlying norm or principle (e.g. 1 Cor.9:910, where Paul reasons from the requirement not to muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain to the right of preachers to have support in terms of a material harvest). So we are not bound by tightly drawn rules and regulations, but free under the Holy Spirit to learn together to discern the perfect will of God. (ii) God’s justice, in terms of economic life, involves justice to the needy. Examples of the importance of this element of justice abound throughout the Bible (as already noted). (iii) Economic justice is not only allocational, but also concerns the quality of relationships. The key point here is that biblical justice is very much involved with how people treat one another and relate to one another: it is personal and relational. In the Scriptures justice and righteousness are very ‘warm’ concepts, closely allied with faithfulness and mercy. Thus economic justice cannot be reduced merely to ‘cold’ or ‘dry’ matters of how resources are allocated (how the ‘cake’ is divided up) – which is the meaning here of the somewhat ugly word ‘allocational’. (iv) Justice in the allocation of resources means that everyone participates in God’s blessing. Although biblical justice certainly involves relationships, it does also involve issues to do with the allocation of resources. Both of these elements of economic justice are of vital importance. Therefore, how the cake is divided up is important. One of the key biblical ideas here, however, is that this is not simply a human-based (‘horizontal’) issue. God’s desire is that each member of the community should enjoy and be satisfied by – participate in – his material blessings. (See, for example, Deut.14:28-29.) But it should be noted immediately that such participation depends on mutual and reciprocal responsibilities. For example, Israelites who possessed land were required to leave the crops at the edges of the field, and the gleanings were to be harvested 3 Andrew Hartropp, What is Economic Justice? Biblical and Secular Perspectives Contrasted, Paternoster Theological Monographs (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2007).

122

The Bible and Christian Ethics

by those who had no land (e.g. Lev.19:10; 23:22) – but clearly these latter citizens had their own active part to play in this process. As with the loans required to be made to poorer fellow-Israelites (Deut.15:1-11), the underlying principle here is a ‘hand up’ rather than a ‘handout’: or, to put it another way, a hand offered to assist someone to get up and stand on their own feet, rather than a gift that is not contingent in any way on the behaviour of the poorer person. Here, then, are the four key elements of a biblical conception of economic justice. A final, and vital, point to make at this stage is that, as God’s selfrevelation in the Bible unfolds (including the revelation of what ‘justice’ means), the New Testament (NT) builds on and fulfils – rather than negates – the Old Testament. Each of the above four elements is developed, in various ways, in the NT. It must be emphasized, then, that this ‘NT fulfilment’ is Christological: it is Jesus Christ, in his person, teaching and ministry – most especially in his death and resurrection – who fulfils the OT. Those four aspects of economic justice, therefore, are fully indicative of a biblical conception only to the extent that their fulfilment in and through Jesus Christ has been comprehended and explored. Justice in production and justice in distribution One significant implication of the profound conception of economic justice revealed in the Scriptures is that such justice applies both to how economic activity is conducted and to how the fruits of that activity are shared. These two aspects – justice in production (exchange) and justice in distribution – are often in the secular literature seen as opposites. For example, the libertarian political philosopher Robert Nozick uses the language of justice with regard to economic life: but his focus is on justice in acquisition and justice in transfer – in other words, justice in the way economic activity is conducted.4 Nozick presents an ‘entitlement’ theory of justice, in which property rights are given a very strong emphasis – he is, after all, a libertarian. Essentially, economic activity, and whatever patterns of ownership result from it, is seen as just, unless acquisitions and transfers involve stealing, fraud or slavery. But the key point here is that Nozick’s emphasis is on justice in production and exchange. John Rawls, however – another political philosopher – offers an approach to economic justice which is focused on how prosperity is shared amongst a population.5 Rawls assumes an essentially free-market economic system, in which prices are freely determined by the forces of supply and demand (although the precise system of ownership is not a central matter in his theory of justice; see pp265-274). But his emphasis is on how the fruits of all this economic activity are distributed, at the end of the day, amongst the people as a 4

See Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia (Oxford: Blackwell, 1974), 151-3. Somewhat confusingly, Nozick’s term for all this is actually ‘distributive justice’, whereas it would more typically be termed ‘productive justice’ or ‘commutative justice’. 5 See John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971).

Do We Know What Economic Justice Is?

123

whole: his interest is on who is better off and who is worse off, under a range of possible ways of running this entire system. Perhaps the most distinctive contribution made by Rawls is his ‘maximin’ or ‘difference’ principle. This states, essentially, that inequalities are permitted only if they enable the maximization of the material expectations of the person in the least well off position.6 The main point to establish here, however, is that the approach presented by Rawls focuses on justice in distribution – in sharp contrast to Nozick’s theory, which focuses on justice in production and exchange. A biblically-rooted conception of economic justice, however, is sufficiently profound and rich that it has a great deal to say about both aspects of economic life. It addresses issues of both production (exchange) and distribution. This can easily by seen by a quick glance at the four principles of economic justice outlined above. Each of the first three of these speaks to matters concerning how economic activity is conducted: norms for economic behaviour exist; justice involved right treatment of the poor and needy; and justice more generally involves right relationships. In contrast to the idea that ‘business is business’ – and, therefore, ‘anything goes’ when it comes to economic dealings – these principles establish clear boundaries for behaviour in terms of the economics of production and exchange. At the same time, however, the fourth principle states the importance of everyone participating in God’s material blessings, and this clearly addresses issues of the distribution of income and wealth.7 So it should be clear that the biblical material provides a powerful framework for analysing and assessing all aspects of economic activity – something which secular approaches are apparently unable to do. But if God is just in his own character, and if there is such a thing as justice, and if we – despite our fallen nature and incomplete grasp of reality – have some intuitive sense of what justice means, then this conclusion about the power and relevance of God’s written word should not surprise us. The importance of better nuancing regarding economic justice in today’s world At the time of writing, the world economy is in the middle of a banking and financial crisis. The first nine or ten months of 2008 saw the collapse of a large number of major Western banks and financial institutions. As a result, governments put in place rescue schemes for such institutions on a scale that was virtually unprecedented. Hundreds of billions of US dollars, pounds sterling and other currencies were suddenly made available by governments and central banks in order to ‘bail out’ commercial banks and other financial bodies throughout the Western economies. Such collapses, and such enormous rescue schemes, inevitably raise questions about the justice and morality both of the current economic system and of these rescue measures. For example, 6 For a detailed account and explanation of Rawls’ complex theory, see Hartropp, What is Economic Justice? 115-125. 7 Space does not permit a detailed discussion of the implications for either productive or distributive justice; but these are discussed in Hartropp, What is Economic Justice? ch..5.

124

The Bible and Christian Ethics

how is it that such enormous sums of money can suddenly be provided to help failing banks and struggling Western economies, when many poorer countries are weighed down by debts on a far smaller scale?8 Why is the process of dealing with those crippling debts so slow and tortuous, and yet instant solutions are found when the rich are at risk? Why are the needs of the poor such a low priority, and the problems of the well-off such a high priority? Such questions arise very naturally from the kind of biblical understanding of economic justice summarised in section 1 of this paper. Justice does involve justice for the needy; and so, if the poor and needy are neglected, then there must be a strong and urgent call for injustices to be put right. There is always a danger, however, when such calls are made. The danger is that the calls and the clamour for justice are unbalanced, and that care is not taken to make a well-argued case. If such careful nuancing is absent, then the case for economic justice can actually be weakened. The trumpet call for justice can too easily consist of notes which are out of tune. As a result, some people who hear the call can too easily reject it, arguments for justice are lost rather than won, and injustice is in reality perpetuated. During the kind of financial crisis seen in 2008, for example, it would have been tempting for Christians to claim that the world’s credit system was based on sand – with suitable allusions and references to Jesus Christ’s teaching about the wise and foolish builders (Matt.7:24-27). But such claims would lack nuancing. The world’s banking and credit systems are not based on sand, but upon trust. People deposit real sums of money with banks – in good faith, an act of trust – and these are really lent out to other people. Further lending and credit ensues. These actions are real: they are not illusory or ‘built on sand’. Now it has become obvious to all concerned that terrible misjudgements have been made by Western banks in recent years. For example, many of the mortgages offered to the ‘sub-prime’ market should not have been offered. Some of the highly complex financial ‘instruments’ and ‘derivatives’ which have been created in recent years have evidently caused great difficulties for the financial institutions. Few would dispute the argument that widespread irresponsibility has been at the root of this financial crisis. But none of this means that the whole system itself is built on sand. That kind of claim is careless, overstated and unbalanced. We need better nuancing. The same can be said with regard to a recent paper in this journal, by Jonathan Ingleby.9 Dr. Ingleby begins by stating (p160): ‘We are in a battle. Mission can only truly begin when we learn to take sides. Walter Wink clams 8

The total debt burden of all the world’s least developed countries in 2003 was just under $160 billion, according to UNCTAD’s Least Developed Countries Report 2006 (http://www.uneca.org/eca_resources/news/200706unctad_launch-FACTSaboutLDCs.htm - accessed 14 October 2008.) The USA government agreed, in October 2008, to devote more than four times that amount - $700 billion - to buying up so-called ‘toxic debt’ from USA financial institutions. In the same month the UK government made available a similar amount (some £400 billion) to the UK banking system. 9 ‘Confronting the Domination System’, Transformation, 24:3-4 (2007), 160-169.

Do We Know What Economic Justice Is?

125

that Scripture describes a fundamental conflict between the forces of evil – the Domination System is his term – and the rule of God.’ (The main Scriptures cited in support are from the book of Revelation.) Dr. Ingleby proceeds to make a link with ‘globalisation’: which, he says, ‘is not simply a value free set of new economic and political arrangements with cultural consequences based on innovative technologies of transport and communication, as some would have us believe’. Instead, he says: ‘Globalisation is, at least in part, today’s Domination System’ (p162). We should note, first, what Dr. Ingleby says about globalisation not being ‘value free’. This is a very important point. It is far too easy for us to fall into the trap which says that ‘business is business’, or that one must do a certain thing out of so-called ‘economic necessity’. Such cases of particular values being smuggled in under the guise of ‘moral neutrality’ are all too common, and Dr. Ingleby is right to highlight what is going on. However, it is not necessary to proceed from that point about values to the conclusion that globalisation is (in part) today’s Domination System. Where is the nuancing here? Why is there no attempt to consider that globalisation might have both weaknesses and strengths? Might it not at least be possible that there is some ‘middle ground’ between, on the one hand, the view that globalisation is value free and, on the other, that it is today’s Domination System? As mentioned earlier, the key Scriptural basis for Dr. Ingleby’s argument is the book of Revelation, and especially chapters 12 and 13. We should certainly take these chapters seriously, and we should certainly be ready for them to speak to us and challenge us in our contemporary context. The fatal danger of thinking that we can serve Mammon as well as God has been presented to us in stark terms by the Lord Jesus (Matt.6:19-24), and Revelation drives home the same point. But if we are going to let Scripture direct us, then surely we must treat it carefully? Yet, in his use of Revelation 12 and 13, Dr. Ingleby again seems to be somewhat carefree here. On p165 he attempts ‘to sum up “the system” as I see it in a series of questions. What, as far as our society is concerned: commands universal worship? (13:12); performs great signs and deceives the inhabitants of the earth? (13:13); creates a system of visible membership? (13:16); and excludes commercially those who are not in the club? (13:17).’ He continues: ‘Despite the commercial aspects of the system they are not fundamental. Fundamental, rather, is the ethos, the “demon” of the system. “Small and great, rich and poor, free and slave” all receive the mark of the beast (13:16).’ Dr. Ingleby then makes a connection again to the contemporary scene (p165): ‘what we must not miss is that the Book [of Revelation] is describing a deadly struggle in which the Empire has its hands round the throat, so to speak, of the church, and something needs to happen quickly or the Empire will win. And, we are in the same situation today.’ Is this, however, a carefully-weighed argument? Consider the four questions (above). In what sense, if any, does contemporary globalisation command universal worship? What kind of ‘great signs’ does it perform? Does it really create a system of ‘visible membership’? (If ‘visible’ is taken by Dr. Ingleby to

126

The Bible and Christian Ethics

mean ‘invisible’ – perhaps some kind of willed allegiance to capitalism – then it is not ‘visible’.) Who is in fact excluded, commercially, from globalisation? It would be far better to suggest that there might be some senses in which globalisation may take on certain aspects, or be in danger of doing so. But even if one wanted to make that much more cautious approach, further qualifications would need to be made. Globalisation, in today’s version, essentially means a far greater degree of international economic and financial integration, compared with anything seen before. Essentially, then, globalisation is trade. But can the book of Revelation really be condemning trade as such? That is what Dr. Ingleby’s argument is at least in danger of saying. If to say ‘I’ve got to earn a living, haven’t I?’ is essentially aligning oneself wholeheartedly with the Domination System (which Dr. Ingleby appears to argue on p.165), then surely that has been the case for anyone who has ever traded, at any point in human history? The argument presented here is that better nuancing is required. Without it, any hardworking entrepreneur – whether rich or poor – is tarred with the ‘Domination System’ brush; and so is anyone who is employed anywhere in the ‘System’. Yet that outcome is neither logical nor biblical. We must be able to do better than that. A better way is to take on board a biblical understanding of economic justice, and use this both as a guide for conduct in economic life, and also to appraise critically what is going on around us. The four elements of economic justice in the framework offered in section 1 (above) provide plenty of scope both for guidance and appraisal. For example, contemporary globalisation may sometimes pay too little attention to the poor and needy. Yet, on the other hand, it can also offer great opportunities for the poor to escape from poverty. Modern-day market forces may sometimes fail to produce outcomes in which all can share in material improvement. Yet the last two or three decades have seen large increases in material wellbeing for many millions of people in less developed countries. It seems to be a mixed picture. Nor should this surprise us. Until such point as the economy actually has those four characteristics described in Revelation 13, a biblical outlook on life will lead us to expect that any human society will have both good and bad attributes. God is still the Lord of all the earth, even though the evil one has some power. Jesus Christ still upholds the universe by his word of power, despite all evil efforts to snatch the throne. Concluding Comments Does all this require us to accept that capitalism as we know it must, essentially, be accepted and tolerated as it is? Is it the only system going? Once again, if we can work at more careful nuancing, then the answer to such questions need not be ‘yes’. If capitalism and globalisation as we know them have weaknesses as well as strengths, then we Christians should be confident and bold to say so, in a prophetic way. We should also be considering how to

Do We Know What Economic Justice Is?

127

bring about a greater measure of economic justice. This is something that every Christian believer and every Christian community can be demonstrating in their own context. The focus is not on a new system, but on more justice – and, thereby, a world which is more what God wants it to be.10

10 Plenty of stimulating and biblical material exists on these topics. See, for example: Donald Hay, Economics Today: A Christian Critique (Leicester: Apollos, 1989); Michael Schluter & John Ashcroft (eds.), Jubilee Manifesto: a framework, agenda and strategy for Christian social reform (Leicester: IVP, 2005); Max L. Stackhouse et al (eds.), On Moral Business: Classical and Contemporary Resources for Ethics in Economic Life (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995); R.J. Berry (ed.), When Enough is Enough: A Christian Framework for Environmental Sustainability (Leicester: Apollos, 2007); Nick Spencer & Robert White, Christianity, Climate Change and Sustainable Living (London: SPCK, 2007).

Borrowing and Lending: Is There Anything Christian About Either?

Carl E. Armerding Rev. Dr. Carl .E Armerding was Senior Academic Adviser at the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies, founder and Director of the Schloss Mittersill Study Centre (Austria) and was President and Professor of Old Testament at Regent College (Canada) Introduction Fundamental to Christian development activity is the question of money, and how those who would follow Jesus Christ use it. In recent years, one of the more creative applications of money to needs in the developing world has been the establishment of various capital funds (alternative banks, if you will), from which those marginalized from established banking structures can borrow capital. While the activities of these micro-enterprise organizations have been widely applauded, even their existence raises questions of a biblical and theological nature. At the heart of such questions lie the ethics of lending and borrowing, a subject about which the Jewish and Christian scriptures have much to say. The problem, as has long been recognized, is that the biblical teaching doesn’t fall into neat categories, and at the very least, requires the service of some interpretive principles. It is in this context that I submit the following remarks, specifically addressing questions of money lending. Is money lending Christian? The question may sound quaint in our own day, but we need only think back to Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice to recall a day when such activities were seen as less than honourable activities for even the nominal Christian. Better to leave these kinds of things to an outside community, in this case the Jew Shylock, who had no scruples taking interest. Which leads to the point of the scruple: it was not simply lending, but taking interest, that attracted medieval Christian censure. Are not the Scriptures of the Old Testament perfectly clear on the matter? Compare, for example, Exodus 22:25; Leviticus 25:36 f., Deuteronomy 23:19 f., where usury, i.e., the lending at interest, is expressly forbidden, though it should be noted that each citation carries some qualifiers. For example, the Exodus passage limits taking usury from the poor, while the Deuteronomy passage forbids taking interest from ‘your brother’, but permits it from ‘the stranger’. We shall examine these passages in more depth, but note at the outset that any restrictions in lending in legal texts relate to the exacting of interest, not the act of sharing. That this is a serious prohibition is re-enforced in Ezekiel 18:8,13, where exacting usury appears to be a capital offence, a point to which we must again return. Beyond

Borrowing and Lending

129

the question of interest, the wisdom tradition will add words of advice to the lender and the borrower, but this is of a different order. Back, however, to the point of the article: may a Christian be involved in the business of lending money? If we go to the New Testament, especially the well-known parables in Matthew 25 and Luke 19, the tables appeared to be turned, and lending to gain interest is commended. How, then, does the faithful follower of Christ discern what is appropriate? While this article will, for the sake of space, concentrate on Old Testament texts, the approach will provide a basis for Christian reflection in light of the New Testament. The Question of Hermeneutics and Ethics Two areas of the theological spectrum call for consideration here. First, each passage must be understood in its own context, using the accepted principles of exegesis and hermeneutics. In general, however, this kind of research bears fruit only in illuminating what the text ‘meant’ (a much-criticized distinction, but useful), i.e., letting the reader know how the text in question might have spoken to the original readers of the discussion. But such study can only set the stage for the debate. Second, in the case of Old Testament texts, to say nothing of New Testament teaching, there are a range of further questions related to the broad field of ethics. The literature on the subject is understandably copious, not only because the subject we are considering seems to yield contrasting (if not contradictory) verses, but because biblical ethics has never been a matter of simply proof-texting, even when the exegesis is sound. As a preface to examining the texts, we do well to consider how ethicists have approached such evidence in recent debate. In a companion article within this issue of Transformation we have a survey of how New Testament ethicists might approach passages of both Old and New Testaments. My colleague, Dr. R. Grams, in the tradition of John Howard Yoder, comes down on the side of a radically Christian ethic, while acknowledging that there are other ways to view biblical texts and teaching from both before and after the cross. As he points out, a somewhat different approach, particularly to Old Testament teaching, was set forth by Stephen Mott and Ronald J. Sider in an earlier issue of this journal,1 where the search was for norms from the Old Testament which would define, for all times and contexts, biblical justice. Grams is not entirely happy with where Mott and Sider begin, preferring a system of ethics which takes shape in light of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, and works backward to the Old Testament. Other models are given, reflecting the various ways in which Christian ethicists have related the two testaments, but one is left with the

1 ‘Economic Justice: A biblical paradigm,’ Transformation 17.2 (April/June, 2000), 5063.

130

The Bible and Christian Ethics

conclusion that to begin with Old Testament norms is inevitably to come up with an ethic that is sub-Christian. I must confess to standing more within the tradition represented by both Mott/Sider, and Donald Bloesch,2 often associated with a Calvinistic model, in which common grace and special revelation are seen in continuity rather than contrast. As such, I would like to argue that the norms of biblical justice in the older testament must be seen as already incorporating, in clear, though admittedly seminal, form, the high standards of Christian ethics revealed in Jesus. I say ‘seminal’, inasmuch as these norms were formulated without benefit of the specific example of Jesus’ self-giving at the cross. Equally, as ‘B.C.’ legislation, they can only anticipate the radical teaching of Jesus on the poor and their relation to the kingdom, as outlined in the survey given by Grams. It is certainly true that in the call to Christian discipleship, radical commitment to these explicit ideals is raised to a new height, but surely within Israel’s covenant there is also a call to radical discipleship. Yahweh’s call to Abraham to leave Ur of the Chaldees, to wander as a pilgrim in a land he would never fully possess, and to ‘walk in the ways of the Lord, by doing justice and righteousness’ (Gen. 18:19), so that the promise to Abraham might be fulfilled, was in essence no less radical than the more complete revelation we have in Christ. One need only contrast Israel’s covenant with the life of the surrounding nations to conclude that Abraham’s family was being set apart as both a redemptive and radical model, the purpose of which was nothing less than the restoration of the creation mandate given prior to the effects of our fore-parents’ sin in the Garden of Eden. My approach, then, will be to attempt an understanding of the context of each of the passages in the Old Testament, primarily from legal and wisdom texts, that address questions of lending and borrowing, to the end that using standard grammatical-historical categories we might find biblical norms that reflect biblical justice and mercy, and thus inform us, as creatures, of God’s ethical will. These norms, from the Old Testament, can be brought to the discussion of the same issues in light of New Testament teaching, particularly but not exclusively the parables of Jesus. They, in turn, need to be seen in their own context, and the specific use Jesus made of these analogical stories, as well as his larger teaching on values that affect our approach to money, whether as borrower, lender, or consumer. Old Testament Legal Texts Admonitions, commandments and prohibitions that form part of Israel’s Pentateuchal legal codes are the foundation stones on which other Old Testament texts are built, and thus an appropriate place to begin. At the start, it needs to be recognized that Israel had two basic forms of law, one of which (commonly called by scholars apodictic law) is in the form of a direct 2

See the reference and full description in R. Grams’ article.

Borrowing and Lending

131

command, with wide or general application. The Decalogue (Ten Commandments) is the best known example of this genre, though in most ways the Pentateuchal admonitions regarding usury (e.g. Deut. 23:19) also lean toward this form. In this kind of law, punishments and rewards are either absent, as in most provisions of the Decalogue,3 or contain only a general threat of curse or blessing (cf. Deut. 23:20). Such laws differ radically from modern codified legislation, which is designed to regulate behaviour rather than, as in ancient Israel’s apodictic law, offer moral guidance. The authority of the former is based on the fear of punishment, while the impact of the latter comes from a conviction that divine guidance reflects for us creatures the way the world has been created, and is thus good for one who heeds the divine admonition. A second form of biblical law, commonly called casuistic law is closer to contemporary legislation, and consists of rules to regulate social, religious or criminal behaviour. The major distinguishing mark of this kind of law is its inclusion of specific, legally-binding, consequences attendant upon violation. Such laws (e.g., the personal injury laws of Exodus 21:12-36), though frequently expressive of universal norms (e.g., the value of life), because they are case specific to Israel’s national life, cannot be applied directly to lifesituations outside of Israel itself. It should be noted that even this distinction is not absolute, and some biblical laws seem to mix the intent of apodictic law with the forms of casuistic. This is precisely the case with regard to some of the primary texts dealing with money lending, e.g. Exodus 22:25. The passage occurs in a longer section (the so-called Book of the Covenant) that follows upon the Decalogue of Exodus 20, but breaks into primitive case-law, only to return to a mixed form in Exodus 22:21-23:19. Prior to verse 21, the punishments are explicit, and initiated by the community. From 22:21-23:19, the punishments, if present at all, consist of the threat of divine wrath, and the major ethical appeal is based on history (you too suffered these injustices) and justice (as covenant people, you must do what is right and good) rather than punishment. When considering questions of lending and borrowing, it will be important to separate these contexts. Legal Texts that regulate Lending and Borrowing A cluster of texts in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy provide primary guidance to Israel on lending and borrowing. As with other ethical issues (e.g. the death penalty), a first reading is sometimes deceptive. On the surface, many of these texts appear to prohibit taking interest altogether. A closer reading, however, reveals a situation where lending and borrowing is understood as part of an agricultural, land-based economy, but where the unique situation of a covenant people calls for regulation of these activities in a manner consistent 3

An exception is the commandment to honour parents, which adds a blessing, Ex. 20:12; Deut. 5:16. It should be noted that some scholars have argued that punishments are implied though not stated.

132

The Bible and Christian Ethics

with Israel’s mission to be a light to the nations. A consideration of some of the key passages will illustrate what I mean. A note on vocabulary: There is a rich Hebrew vocabulary for lending and borrowing, the nuances of which must of necessity be omitted here. Of particular help to the general reader are standard commentaries, together with specialized articles in the better Bible dictionaries,4 while those who can take advantage of Hebrew studies can access a rich store of word studies.5 Even more accessible to the general reader are the various English-language translations, in which the nuances of particular Hebrew word-groups are sometimes drawn out, usually from the context. Questions like whether ‘interest’ (Hebrew ne_ek) means taking any percentage on a loan, or implies rather an ‘excessive percentage’ are not always easy to answer, even for the skilled interpreter. Modern translations like the New Revised Standard Version (NRV), or the New International Version (NIV) will frequently attempt an explanation that goes beyond the literal meaning.6 Exodus 22:25-27 (Hebrew 24-26) In a section of very ancient laws appended to the Ten Commandments, various aspects of life in an ancient agricultural society are regulated. As noted above, this section combines some general principles with specific case law, in which there is both a regulation and a punishment for violation. The particular passage before us carries no legal threat to one who violates the spirit of the law, but makes it perfectly clear that a compassionate God, who hears the cries of the poor, will take note of the Israelite farmer’s behaviour. The passage itself begins with a simple prohibition of interest, with two qualifications that are familiar to any reader of Old Testament laws. First, the taking of interest is proscribed when the loan is to ‘one of my people’, presumably a fellow Israelite. This is consistent with similar passages, e.g. Deuteronomy 23:20-21 (Hebrew 19-20), where the concern is not so much general economic theory as the nature of covenant community. Here we are introduced to radical covenant community, where the internal relationship between brothers calls for a different standards. Deuteronomy 23:21 (Hebrew 20) makes this explicit: ‘you may charge a foreigner interest, but not a brother Israelite’, with the added note 4

e.g., Anchor Bible Dictionary (Doubleday), International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Eerdmans), New Bible Dictionary (Inter-Varsity Press). 5 Of special help to the English reader, who knows some Hebrew is the Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis 5 v. ed. W.A. van Gemeren (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997). The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (2 v. eds. R.L. Harris, G.L. Archer and B.K. Waltke (Chicago: Moody, 1980) is also most accessible. 6 See, for example, the readings of Leviticus 25:36- 37, where a combination of Hebrew words yields the thought ‘take interest in advance’, or ‘take excessive interest’, or ‘make a profit’, in a passage dealing with loans to relatives who are poor. It must be kept in mind that the Hebrew words, themselves, do not always give the sense of the passage, which must be discerned from the context.

Borrowing and Lending

133

that God’s blessing on life in the land is somehow contingent upon honouring such relationships. The second qualification is of equal import; the limitation on interest extends only to ‘one of my people who is needy’ or ‘poor’. The passage assumes the existence of a money lending economy, but in verse 25 the individual who is in a position to lend to his Israelite brother is enjoined not to ‘be as a moneylender’ by charging (NIV excessive) interest. Whether NIV is correct to limit the matter to an excess of interest or not, it is clear that behind the whole section lies the relief of poverty in community rather than the normal market activity. A final note concerns verses 26 and 27, which deal with taking of pledges of security. If, as many commentators believe, the pledge of verses 26-27 is related to verse 25, then we have an illustration of what might be considered inappropriate lending activity within Israel. Behind the passage is the assumption that a farm worker had fallen upon hard times, and needed help. His only security for the loan was his cloak, in which as we can see, he wraps himself at night to keep warm. Taking interest, or excessive interest, would be illustrated by the lender keeping the cloak overnight. On the other hand, the picture of a labourer, or tenant farmer, stopping by his rich neighbour to deposit his cloak before arriving at work each morning is almost ludicrous, especially if we think of the process being reversed each evening. This is hardly the stuff of modern economics, but a powerful picture of basic human concern in society. Leviticus 25:36-37 These verses, like Exodus 22:24, prohibit the taking of interest from a ‘fellow countryman’ (literally; ‘your brother’), but the context is expanded considerably. The entire chapter deals with the year of jubilee, a custom explicitly mentioned only here, in which every fiftieth year called for the remission of all indebtedness and the return of all land that had been sold. Fundamental to the jubilee concept is the idea that the land, Israel’s primary unit of capital, belonged to Yahweh their God. In the conquest, the land had been apportioned by divine lot, and according to this chapter it could never be permanently reassigned. The chapter deals with a variety of circumstances in which units of capital are acquired by some and forfeited by others. In some cases, individuals indenture themselves, while in other situations items of property, particularly land, are transferred. This provides the specific context for the proscription of interest in verse 36. Verse 35 cites the case, ‘one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself’. It is of note that he is to be given at least the same consideration as the alien or temporary resident, for whom special protection is enjoined throughout. This is no time to take advantage of a brother’s misfortune. This brother, like you, has been brought from slavery in Egypt (verse 38), and he has the right to live among his countrymen with no fear. Interest may be taken at other times and other circumstances, but under

134

The Bible and Christian Ethics

these conditions even food is not to be sold at profit (verse 37). Verses 39 ff. continue the story. Under no conditions is your brother to be treated as a slave, though you may employ him as a hired worker, but even then only until the year of jubilee. Behind the entire narrative is the Israelite concept of freedom; when Yahweh brought his people out of Egypt, everything related to slavery had to be left behind. These are free people, in a free land, and nothing, including the taking of interest, can be permitted to violate that principle. Deuteronomy 15:2 This passage has to do with canceling debts, not exacting interest, but the entire chapter is of a piece with much of the legislation already considered. Unlike the jubilee, which deals with land, Deuteronomy 15 is concerned primarily with debts, which here are to be remitted in the seventh year. Again, as in most of this ‘legislation’, there is little that can be regulated by a government or a police force, though from the history of Israel we know that judges and rulers were expected to employ these standards of compassion when discerning what constituted ‘justice for the poor’. The basic principle is that although ‘there will always be poor people in the land’ (15:11), by heeding these admonitions ‘there should be no poor among you’ (15:4). The existence of impoverished people provides opportunity to be the more openhanded and generous (15:1011). Lest the lack of a civil enforcement agency be taken lightly, God reminds the reader that the poor can always appeal to Yahweh (verse 9; cf. James 5:4), for whom a grudging or hardened attitude to poverty is sin! Deuteronomy 23:19-20 (Hebrew 20-21) This text reiterates what has already been noted in Exodus 22:25 and Leviticus 25:36-37, but adds in verse 20 the specific permission to charge interest to a foreigner. Since foreigners who lived among Israelites (the ‘sojourner’) were specifically protected under the law, the permission to charge interest must relate to normal business conducted outside the community. Although the prohibition of interest-taking from an Israelite doesn’t explicitly mention the poor, it can probably be assumed, given the parallel passages and the general import of the section. Deuteronomy 24:10-13 In this fascinating passage, embedded in a chapter marked by what we would today call enlightened human social concern, a new and fascinating limitation on usury is added. As in Exodus 22:25-27, the scenario is the using of a poor man’s cloak as security for some kind of loan. As in Exodus, the cloak is to be returned each evening, but there is more. Verses 10-11 envisage a situation where the creditor might expect to select from the debtor’s possessions an appropriate item of security. The text expressly prohibits this; instead, the

Borrowing and Lending

135

debtor chooses what he will give as a pledge, taking it out of his house to the creditor, who is forbidden entrance. When we think of the rights of seizure extended to contemporary creditors, this is an amazing piece of legislation. Whether or not any of our modern laws limiting liability find their source specifically in this piece of ancient biblical teaching, it must be admitted that what we have here constitutes a remarkably high value given to individual dignity and human rights. Legal Texts that provide Commentary Deuteronomy 28:12-13 This passage speaks of lending, but in a completely different context, that of the blessings attendant upon the covenant nation, if she kept faith with the kind of holy commandments we have already seen. Verses 11-12 promise abundant prosperity, consistent with the covenant promises repeated frequently. At the end of verse 11 and into verse 12, the blessing continues, ‘you will lend to many nations but will borrow from none’. The subsequent lines speak of Israel being the head and not the tail, the top and never the bottom. Many commentators think this entire passage projects a national existence where Israel would be an exporter and creditor to the nations, but never be dependent on others for basic imports, or capital. Whether this is true or not, it gives an interesting twist to the idea of borrowing and lending. As the wisdom literature (Proverbs 22:7) will point out, the lender is always in a superior position to the borrower. Those experiencing divine blessing will not expect to incur massive debts. This is, of course, a powerful contemporary commentary on a world in which scores of poor nations are economically crushed under the burden of overwhelming international debt. Is the disparity simply a result of the West having been more faithful to God’s order? Do poor nations stand under God’s judgment? It would be invidious to make such a facile application, for we know today that there are varied and complex reasons for the disparities, many of which can hardly be traced to the kind of criteria we see given to Israel. However, having said that, I would argue that some application can be made. For the rich nations, the principles of justice to the poor and foreigner must be the norm, and in that context we can support the jubilee movement to reduce, or eliminate, Third World debt. But for the poor nations, many of which suffer extreme poverty in the midst of a wealth of natural resources, there is every reason to work toward just and equitable administration, using the Deuteronomic legislation as a model of national righteousness. History has shown that these principles still work, and any nation ruled by these standards will experience blessing.

136

The Bible and Christian Ethics

Narrative Accounts, and Prophetic Contexts: Israel’s Laws and their Application In a short paper we lack space to provide a full coverage of the non-legal sections of the Old Testament. Most of these find their inspiration from, or illustrate, some principle we have already observed in the Pentateuch. In various narrative accounts, it is obvious that indebtedness is one of the curses to be feared, and avoided, though it is often seen as unavoidable. In 1 Samuel 22:2, the account of David’s fugitive band at the cave of Adullam, the motley collection includes not only those described as ‘in distress’ and ‘discontented’, but also those who were ‘in debt’. Indebtedness is a condition that can drive men to desperation, and many a political saviour has found allies in those trying to escape debt. Again, we are reminded that in Israel’s ideal society, there would be no poor (Deuteronomy 15), but the grim reality was different. A second graphic example is found in 2 Kings 4:1-7, where a woman is left virtually destitute by the death of her prophet husband. It is clear that, had Israel been marked by the kind of humane legislation we have seen in the Pentateuch, there would have been remission of the dead husband’s debts, as well as communal concern for the widow. But again the reality is different. The well-known story of the miraculous filling of the jars with oil culminates (verse 7) with the payment of the debts, and presumably sufficient reserve to keep the woman and her children alive and cared for. Indebtedness is a mark of God’s curse, while the removal of the debt is a form of God’s blessing, expressed in this case through the prophet. Finally, in a post-exilic narrative section, we have a poignant commentary on what happened in Israel when the legislation regulating lending and borrowing was ignored. Nehemiah 5:1-13 describes a situation in which the exiles, who are pictured as having been bought back from slavery, presumably in Babylon, are now sold into slavery in the postexilic community. Exactly who was guilty, and how they related to the various social groupings, is not clear, but one can imagine a situation where those who had returned from exile found themselves at the mercy of those who had remained in the land. In any case, it was the ‘nobles and officials’ (verse 7) who had economic power, and a combination of circumstances gave them opportunity for exploitation. Reference is made to famine, and high levels of taxation, both of which often strike harder at those who are already disadvantaged. Add to that the dislocation of the exiles, and you have an ideal opportunity for unscrupulous but entrenched authority. Again, it should be noted that there is little in this story that can be seen as commentary on legitimate market economics in contemporary life. The circumstances are unusual, and insofar as they provide any model, it would best be seen in a setting like the emergence of whole nations from communism, and their re-integration into a rich European economy. Normal laws of lending and borrowing, with interest, were suspended in Germany when the entire nation undertook the gargantuan task of recreating a single economy, after years of economic and political disaster. In Israel the principles of brotherhood and common covenant history should have brought out the best, when economic

Borrowing and Lending

137

conditions were the worst. Instead, those with power used the moment to raise taxes and impose the harshest of economic conditions on those with no power to pay. The result was a wholesale mortgaging of property, and the sale of their own children into virtual slavery. Nehemiah’s response is swift, and in it we are reminded of the principles governing lending and borrowing in the Torah. The creditors are powerfully reminded that these are their brothers, to whom they have special responsibility. Equally, they are reminded of the provision that interest is not to be charged, both because of the fraternal tie, but also because the result is inequality and poverty. Finally, Nehemiah himself sets an example of ‘lending’ without interest, a model which in the end prevails. Wisdom Maxims and Parables It would require another article to comment in detail, but much of what is said about borrowing and lending, apart from legal texts, is found in some form of what is called wisdom literature. In the Old Testament, this includes specifically the books of Proverbs, Job and Ecclesiastes, together with individual psalms (e.g. Ps. 37) that exhibit wisdom thinking in wisdom language. Expanding the search to inter-Testamental literature (the Apocrypha), the primary resource is the second century Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus, or Ben Sirach). In the New Testament, the parables of Jesus are a form of wisdom saying, built as they are on some form of comparison (‘the kingdom of God is like….’), often appealing to the norms of created order. This reminds us of what constitutes the appeal of wisdom in any age draws its power from the readers’ recognition of truth, usually presented in the indicative mood. To put it another way, wisdom literature appeals simply to the way things are, which from a biblical point of view goes back to the created order. In such a world, some approaches will work, while others will inevitably fail. Building a house on sand is unsafe in any age; by contrast building on a rock ensures stability. Attempting to serve two masters is not rejected as something morally wrong, but structurally impossible. Or, to move closer to our subject, a borrower always becomes, in some sense, the servant of the lender (cf. Proverbs 22:7). With regard to borrowing and lending, much of what may be learned from the wisdom tradition has less to do with right and wrong than with what works and what doesn’t, or what is wise and what is foolish. A couple of wisdom principles regarding lending and borrowing will have to suffice. We have already noted Proverbs 22:7, in which ‘the rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is slave to the lender’ as an example of the kind of pragmatic observation which illustrates the world in which we live. God doesn’t make people to be slaves, and the Old Testament has many illustrations of divine intervention on behalf of equity and equality of opportunity (e.g. Exodus 16, the manna). But the simple fact remains: in a world where economic fortunes vary, there will be borrowers and lenders. Israel’s covenant example provides a measure of hope through a radical new kind of community,

138

The Bible and Christian Ethics

but the reality remains that even Israelites lived in a less than perfect society. Lending and borrowing is necessary, and may even be the means, as we know from our modern market economics, of increasing capital and building wealth, but let no one be naive as to its dangers. Psalm 37, like Proverbs ‘wisdom literature’, presents the contrast between the borrower and the lender in a moral dimension. This is often overlooked in contemporary economics, but the truths presented have their echo in the experience of many generations. The psalm begins with the contrast between the wicked, who appear to prosper, and the righteous, on whom fortune seems not to have smiled. The entire poem is a poignant commentary on the true nature of wealth and poverty, good and evil, and though it begins with the apparent success of the wicked, it ends with the triumph of God and his purposes. The real point of the psalm is that those who walk in the ways of the Lord need fear no evil. The wicked will in the end not prevail. The righteous may not become rich, but there is richness in being righteous, and at the end of the day, the two come together. Along the way, the contrast between good and evil is illustrated in terms of borrowing and lending, in contrasting pictures that are both unforgettable and true to experience. Verse 21 contrasts the wicked who borrow but do not repay, with the righteous who give generously. A few lines later (verse 26) we read of the righteous that ‘they are always generous and lend freely’. What a beautiful commentary on the laws of the Pentateuch, which are designed not to regulate behaviour but to set the pattern for a life of blessing. What better picture of blessing than a righteous man with his children around him, enjoying a simple meal. This is the picture we find throughout Wisdom. Some very practical advice on lending and borrowing could be added particularly from the book we call Ecclesiasticus (cf. Sirach 8:12; 18:33; 20:15; 29:1,6-7), but they would only round out the picture we have already seen. Conclusions In summary, I will draw some conclusions from the study above. Each one, though not developed as much as it might have been, is consistent with a biblical picture, and provides us with some foundations on which to build a contemporary theology of money lending and its use. 1. Borrowing and lending, though morally not neutral, are a natural part of any society. Much of the legislation we have seen presupposes that some people will need to borrow, and others will be in a position to lend (cf. Exodus 22:14; 2 Kings 4:3; 6:5; Luke 11:5ff.) Being able to lend rather than borrow, whether as individuals or as nations, is seen as a mark of God’s favour (Deut. 15:6; 28:12). Even the jubilee laws of Leviticus 25 presuppose normal commercial gain and loss, in which property and services are subject to the laws of economics. The fact that these are subject, in Israel, to a higher covenant principle doesn’t change the fact that they exist. In the New Testament, the picture is the same. Jesus had no need to explain the economic

Borrowing and Lending

139

or cultural background when he told stories of putting money to work (Luke 19:11-26). 2. The lender, in the Bible, can be seen in both positive and negative light. In a positive sense, the ultimate lender is God, who ‘lends’ his people the land, and gives them prosperity. However, like the positive image of the righteous lender in Israel, God is seen as one whose loans are often indistinguishable from gifts. The biblical ideal of a lender is one who lends freely (Psalm 37:21,26), and with justice (Psalm 112:5). Such a person, in extending kindness to the poor, is seen as ‘lending to the Lord’ (Proverbs 19:17) who, in turn, repays his loan (cf. the ‘hundredfold’ of Jesus’ parables)! This comes to its highest expression in the teaching of Jesus (Luke 6:35), where those who would be ‘sons of the most high’ ‘lend, expecting nothing in return’. Again, there may be little that informs modern banking directly, but the principle of generosity and concern for people above profit remains powerful. But the lender can also be seen in less favourable light, though interestingly the only condemnations we have seen of the borrower involve what Scripture would consider unjust use of money or power. This is clearly the situation when, as in Nehemiah 5, the poor are exploited by the rich, either through taxes or usury. Whether Joseph’s example in Egypt should be seen in the same light is less clear; it was the means God used to preserve both Egypt and the children of Israel. The ‘wicked borrower’ of Psalm 37:21 is seen as one who refuses to repay, so the fault is not in the system but the person. 3. Biblical limitations on lending with interest (usury) are specifically tied to circumstances in Israel which may have parallels in contemporary life, but cannot be applied out of context. We have seen two priorities that limited lending at interest. The first arose when the conditions of the borrowers were such that they had no possibility of repayment. This may have a powerful application in contemporary global economics, though even here it seems that the underlying reasons for poverty need sober consideration. Secondly, the principle of divine ownership, and covenant brotherhood, as reflected in Israel’s law, removes any absolute right of property and individualistic application of power. Israel’s covenant life was designed as a model for God’s original creation principles, the keeping of which would become the means of universal blessing (Genesis 18:18-19). A just and equitable society, not individual acquisition, is the goal, with harmony between God and his creation. The use of money and capital is encouraged to that end, rather than as a means of satisfying greed. We need only think of Jesus’ parable of the rich fool (Luke 12:13-21) to realize the folly of the latter. 4. Through biblical wisdom teaching, built on the experience of the ages, both borrower and the lender can learn practical ways to use money fruitfully. Much of the pain of the modern credit economy could be alleviated if individual borrowers were content to live within their present means, rather than yield to the appeal of instant gratification. ‘Feasting with borrowed money’ (Sirach 18:33) is the hallmark of the modern consumer, and it leads to the same end. Lending, when a friend is in need, is an act of mercy (Sirach 29:1), and reflects God’s priorities, whilst earning his blessing. Though it is true that the borrower becomes, in some sense, slave to

140

The Bible and Christian Ethics

the lender, the righteous lender has, as in Deuteronomy 15, the option of turning the loan into a gift. Many a follower of Jesus, in view of the mercies of his own master, has blessed the poor in this way. 5. Finally, what has all this to say to modern banking and global commerce? Though it may not provide any neat rules for regulating modern commercial activity, the biblical teaching can inform all that we do, whether as bankers or as those who live in a market economy. While much of what we have observed applies primarily to individual ethics, there are also principles for society. Our attitudes toward poverty and justice must be those illustrated by God’s own compassion and self-giving. Likewise, for those of us who acquire property, and funds, there is a responsibility for stewardship. We can avoid the fate of the rich fool, and in place of the love of money can be known as those who love God and his people. This may be the motivation for a banker to consider a career in community building through micro-enterprise development. Equally, the divine mandate may be the motivation for an equally gifted economist to devote a career to global finance, applying biblical principles and values to the marketplace of money. The one option not open to a follower of Jesus Christ is to be conformed to the world and its views, a world which is desperately searching for alternatives to the bankruptcy of ideas and ideals we see around us. Those whose minds are ‘transformed’ by the renewing power of God’s Word and Spirit will always have something to say.

FAMILY

The Biblical Understanding of the Husband-Wife Relationship

Larry and Nordis Christenson Larry and Nordis Christenson speak widely at charismatic and family life conferences. Larry Christenson was director of the International Lutheran Renewal Center in St. Paul, Minnesota Introduction In 1963 a few frustrated families in Southern California went on a retreat together. What frustrated us was our family relationships. Most of us had tried an assortment of popular prescriptions for improving our marriages, but with few noticeable results. We went off to the mountains together with what we thought was a rather novel idea: we would see what the Bible said about marriage and family life. We went at it in a pragmatic way. We read the parts of the Bible that dealt most directly with family life and relationships, primarily the New Testament passages in Ephesians, Colossians, and 1 Peter. Then we said, 'Let's make an experiment of this, the way a scientist would. We'll take these Scriptures as a working hypothesis for better family life. Our families will be the laboratory. Let's see whether the hypothesis proves true in experience.' In the months that followed, the biblical hypothesis was put to a variety of excruciatingly practical tests. The results were dramatic. In some cases, the atmosphere in a family changed almost overnight. In other regards change came more slowly. What none of us could escape, however, was the overwhelming evidence that a straightforward application of biblical teaching on family life works. This experience in family living spread to a wider circle of people and actually went on for a number of years. It involved us in a thorough treatment of the three basic questions relevant to our theme: What does the Bible say about the husband-wife relationship? What does the Bible mean in regard to the husband-wife relationship? What should we do? What Does the Bible Say About the Husband-Wife Relationship? Theologians would call this the exegetical task-determining as accurately as possible what the Bible says. In other words, how are we to understand the language of the Bible in any given passage? How were the biblical writers understood in their own time and setting? Whether this makes sense to us,

144

The Bible and Christian Ethics

whether it is relevant to our situation, whether we can or should apply it to our own lives-these are subsequent questions. First, we must pay attention to what Luther called 'the plain sense of Scripture'. The plain sense of Scripture in regard to the husband-wife relationship is not terribly complicated: 'Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church' (Eph. 5:22, 25). Stephen Clark points out the significance of these twin admonitions in his book, Man and Woman in Christ: The New Testament presents only two explicit commands for husbands and wives. It says that the wife should subordinate herself to her husband, and that the husband should care for his wife. It is helpful to realize how sketchy is the explicit New Testament teaching for what husbands and wives must do. It is also, however, enlightening to see that subordination (with its correlate, care) is the key element that the New Testament stresses. Any presentation of the New Testament teaching on husbands and wives which leaves out subordination has neglected one principle that the New Testament explicitly enjoined.1

A more nuanced answer to our first question would not add anything of significance for our consideration. It is both accurate and adequate to state that, according to the New Testament, wives are to be submissive to their husbands, and husbands are to love their wives. That is what the New Testament writers wrote; that is how they meant their words to be understood in their own time. What Does the Bible Mean in Regard to the Husband-Wife Relationship? Theologians would call this the hermeneutical task assessing the meaning that the biblical texts convey. Hermeneutical methods differ. Ours comes fairly close to the so-called Swedish school of 'biblical realism': In its purest form this historical realism is utterly indifferent to our needs and our questions. It is even consciously suspicious of them, since they threaten to lead to anachronistic distinctions… when a saying or action is said to have essential significance, then that can only signify that it seems to have had such for Jesus or Paul or for any other of the 'authors of the New Testament.2

The biblical use of submission, head(ship), and love, to characterize the husband-wife relationship, is not in common usage today. The same words may be used but they carry different meanings. The confusion is compounded because some Christian writers and theologians have adopted the secular meaning of these terms as their point of departure.

1

Stephen Clark, Man and Woman in Christ (Ann Arbor: Servant, 1980), 94-95. Krister Stendahl, The Bible and the Role of Women (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), 12-13. 2

The Biblical Understanding of the Husband-Wife Relationship

145

The question of status In popular usage, the idea of subordination is commonly linked with the idea of inferiority, particularly with reference to the marriage relationship. Virginia Mollenkott writes, 'If woman must of necessity be subordinate, she must of necessity be inferior.' The Bible, however, makes no distinction between men and women with regard to their status, or their standing before God. 'In Christ there is neither male nor female' (Gal. 3:28). They are 'joint heirs of the grace of life' (1 Peter 3:7). They participate in the same baptism. The Bible spells out the issue of status most clearly by comparing the husband-wife relationship with the relationship between God the Father and God the Son: ‘The head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God’ (1 Cor. 11:3). The Son is subject to the Father but is not inferior to the Father. Jesus said, 'I and the Father are one' (John 10:30). The Sanhedrin condemned Jesus precisely because he claimed equality with God. He did not think 'robbery' to be equal with God (Phil. 2:6). The teaching of the church through the centuries has been that the Son is equal to the Father in dignity, honour, and status, 'God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God'. The implication for the husband-wife relationship could not be put more clearly. The stigma of inferiority is as inappropriate to the wife as it would be to Christ. Status and subordination are two separate issues in Scripture. The Bible does not draw any necessary connection between them. It is possible to be subject to one who is superior: Israel was subject to the Lord; believers are subject to Christ; Abraham submitted to the priesthood of Melchizedek, who is described as his superior (Heb. 7:7). There can be subordination among equals: Christ is equal to God, yet subject to God; believers who are equal to one another, 'fellow citizens with the saints', are admonished to be 'subject to one another' (Eph. 219, 521). One can even be called to subordinate himself to someone who is inferior, as Christ submitted to Pontius Pilate. The fact that wives are told to be subject to their husbands tells us nothing about their status. If we had that statement only, we wouldn't know whether they were inferior, equal, or superior to their husbands in status. In comparing the husband-wife relationship to the FatherSon relationship, however, the question of status is settled decisively The question of headship and submission The headship of the husband and the submission of the wife are assumed throughout Scripture as the normal and proper order of things. The first chapter of the Bible describes the creation of mankind as 'male and female7, bestowing equal dignity on man and woman (Gen. 1:27). The second chapter, going into greater detail, shows God creating woman to be 'a helper fit for man'. She is brought to the man and he names her, an act expressive of headship. In the third chapter we see the Fall: the man and the woman disobey God and begin to reap the consequences of their sin. God says to the woman, 'I will greatly

146

The Bible and Christian Ethics

multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you' (Gen. 3:16). Some have interpreted this to mean that the woman's subjection to her husband came as a result of the Fall, and that in Christ that burden is lifted. But then we should also expect pain in childbirth to be lifted, which is not the case. But even more to the point, the text doesn't yield that meaning when we examine it closely. God lays upon the woman the burden of increased pain in childbearing. What follows is introduced with the adversative 'yet',3 indicating not an additional burden, but something contrasting with that burden. Two things are mentioned: 1) Your desire shall be for your husband; 2) he shall rule over you. If one argues that in Christ the husband's rule is set aside, then according to the rules of logic a woman's sexual desire in marriage should also be set aside. No one seems to be making a case for that. A more natural interpretation is that God, along with the punishment, speaks words of mercy and encouragement, something he often does when pronouncing judgment. The relationship with her husband, which existed before the Fall, will carry over and be a comfort and strength to her, the relationship being described in terms of its two essential characteristics, sexual union and headship. The cultural question Some people interpret what the Bible says about the man's headship in marriage as a cultural phenomenon. The New Testament writers, they say, simply reflect the customs of their own age and culture. When we examine the matter closely, however, the case is not that simple. In Greek culture, women were generally considered inferior to men, and were kept in seclusion in the family Macedonia and Asia Minor appear to be exceptions to this general pattern.4 In Roman culture, women enjoyed greater practical, if not legal, freedom than in Greek culture; women participated more freely in religious activities, and this aided the spread of Christianity. In Macedonia, after the time of Alexander the Great, women began to have a relatively greater measure of freedom. This was due largely to the fact that Macedonian dynasties produced an extraordinary succession of able and masterful women such as Arisonoe, Berenice, and Cleopatra. These women played a large part in civic affairs, received envoys, built temples, founded cities, engaged mercenaries, commanded armies, held fortresses, and acted on occasion as regents or co-rulers. In Asia Minor (the Western part of modern Turkey, where Ephesus and Colosse were located), women enjoyed unusual privileges and status. A practical equality between the sexes had emerged in considerable measure before the Christian era. This was especially evident in the area of religion. The 3

The Hebrew w'al in Gen. 3:16 is correctly translated in the RSV with the adverbial adversative 'yet', not as 'and' (KJV). 4 Thomas Kraabel, Status of Women in Asia Minor, unpublished monograph, University of Minnesota, 1979.

The Biblical Understanding of the Husband-Wife Relationship

147

most striking feature in the native religion and society of Asia Minor was the important part played by women. In Jewish culture, the position of women was somewhat paradoxical. On the one hand there is the well-known prayer in the synagogue service, 'Blessed art thou, 0 Lord our God, King of the universe, who has not made me… a woman'. On the other hand, there are the lofty words concerning womanhood in Proverbs 31. The paradox makes sense only if we recognize the high value that Jewish culture placed upon woman in her proper sphere of service, which was the home. Legally she had few rights, but in the home she held a place of unparalleled dignity. The 'emancipation movement' in Asia Minor may have had some effect on Jewish culture. According to one inscription there appears to have been even a ruler of a synagogue who was a woman. On the whole, however, the place of women in Jewish culture would accord with the form of family life outlined in Paul's writings, and could be seen as a source for it. Given the background of a changing role for women in Asia Minor, Paul's teaching concerning men's and women's roles would be somewhat at variance with the prevailing culture, a corrective rather than an accommodation.5 This is even more to the point when we examine the context of the scriptures themselves. Ephesians 5:22-23 is set in a larger section (4:17-6:9) dealing substantially with practices that the Apostle wants to correct. The context would suggest that he is advocating a structure of family life that was not generally being followed, or was in danger of being eroded away. It may be that he saw certain things, such as a women's emancipation movement, carrying things to extremes, and therefore introduced a word of correction. In Ephesians, the Apostle addresses words not only to husbands and wives, but also to slaves, and this has raised another kind of question. True enough, Paul says, 'Wives, be subject to your husband'. But he also says, 'Slaves, be obedient to your masters'. Therefore, to say that twentieth century women should continue to be subject to their husbands is as foolish as to make a case for the continuance of slavery. This, however, misses Paul's point. He is not discussing the relative merits of slavery and freedom; as, indeed, he is not discussing the relative merits of marriage as over against celibacy. (He discusses both of these questions in other places.) In Ephesians, he is telling people who are married, or who are slaves, how they should conduct themselves. If we say, 'We do not believe in slavery today', the parallel is not 'We do not believe in the husband's headship'. The parallel is 'We do not believe in marriage'. To draw a comparison between slavery and marriage in this context 5

An interesting sidelight is provided in connection with the apocryphal book, Acta Pauli. The author, according to Tertullian, confessed that he had committed his forgery for 'love of Paul'. By this he meant that he was tying to present Paul more favourably to the Christian women of Asia Minor than the Pastoral Letters had done. It is in works like this, rather than in the canonical scripture, that we see an attempt to accommodate to the prevailing culture.

148

The Bible and Christian Ethics

does not make a case against headship and submission in marriage, but against marriage itself. Paul does not make a case for slavery as such. He says, 'If you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity' (1 Cor. 7:21). He treats the institution of marriage in an altogether different way. It is divinely instituted and structured. The relationship of husband 1 and wife is modelled on the relationship of Christ and the church. Nothing could make the case for headship and submission more clear: 'As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands' (Eph. 5:24). As little as the church can set aside the headship of Christ, can wives set aside the headship of their husbands? This is not a mere cultural accretion. It has its source and model in an eternal, reality, the love of Christ for his Bride, the church. Neither the argument that submission implies inferiority nor the argument that headship is only a cultural phenomenon stands up under scrutiny. The Bible, without contradiction, sees the wife as fully equal to her husband, and as fully subject to him. Love Jesus said: 'You know that those who are supposed to; rule over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be the first among you must be slave of all' (Mark 10:42-44). Headship is a means of loving and serving others. That is its essential function. One who exercises headship must understand it first of all as an expression of love, a position from which to serve. This does not mean that someone in headship is under the authority of those he serves and takes orders from them. On the contrary, the particular kind of service that he gives them is the service of leadership. Ephesians 5:21 says, 'Be subject to one another, out of reverence for Christ.' Some have taken this to mean that the Bible teaches 'mutual submission' between husband and wife: in some situations the wife is in submission to her husband, while in others she exercises headship over him. The Bible certainly teaches a high degree of mutuality in marriage, but this is not the same as mutual submission. The word translated 'be subject' means to be under authority. The idea of mutual submission flies in the face both of the context and of common sense. We would have to go on and say that parents on occasion are under the authority of their children. Masters are to be in submission to their servants. And, ultimately, the church may on occasion be lord over Christ. When we look at the context, the meaning is simple and clear. Verses 22- 23 are in the nature of an 'i.e.'. Having said 'Be subject to one another', Paul goes on to mention some of the most important relationships to which this applies: wives-

The Biblical Understanding of the Husband-Wife Relationship

149

husbands, servants-masters, children-parents. His point is not that submission is reciprocal, but that it applies to a variety of relationships. As head, a husband serves his family by giving them loving, intelligent, sensitive leadership. His headship is not given for domineering and stifling his wife and children, but for leading, protecting, and providing for them. It is a service of love, probably best characterized by the word care. What shall we DO? A straightforward reading of Scripture would probably lead most people generally to agree with us up to this point: yes, that is what the Bible says, and that is what it means. The critical question is, 'So what?' Are the New Testament scriptures that deal with family life authoritative for us as Christians today? Some Christians say that these scriptures are descriptive of family life in the first century, not necessarily prescriptive for us today. The principle, as such, is certainly valid. Nobody assigns equal weight or applicability to every part of Scripture. Yet all of us also recognize some parts of Scripture as having universal, trans-cultural authority and application. The question is, what weight do we assign to these particular Scriptures? When we went on that family retreat in 1963, we took a pragmatic approach to the Scriptures dealing with family life. We did not put them into practice because they were authoritative, but in order to see whether they would work. The end result was that they became authoritative for us. We have come to believe that these Scriptures were meant to be taken as authoritative for all times and in every culture. Our experience, studying and teaching on family life in many different countries and cultures, confirms this. In the light of its own self-understanding, the New Testament deals with these questions in universal rather than particular terms. It delineates the roles of men and women in two contexts, both of which transcend any particular culture: it treats them in terms of 'first principles' or as belonging to 'orders of creation' (1 Cor. 11:3, 14; 1 Tim. 2:13-14); the roles of men and women in marriage are patterned after the model of Christ and the church, a culturetranscending figure of the highest order. Certainly the weight of history is on the side of interpreting these New Testament scriptures on family order as having universal validity. The fact that men and women in every culture, or even whole cultures, have made messes out of marriage is not an argument to abandon biblical norms: the cure for abuse is not disuse but proper use. In our day, the issue of a wife's submission to her husband seems to be particularly troublesome. In the context of Ephesians, however, the husband's love for his wife is of a piece with her submission to his headship. Those who would set aside the wife's submission in marriage must allow that others can, with as much justification, set aside the husband's love. And what then becomes of marriage?

150

The Bible and Christian Ethics

The model for marriage that is given to us in the New Testament is not a simple human possibility. Far from being a pattern of a bygone culture, the model of a husband who loves his wife as Christ loves the church. and a wife who is subject to her husband as the church is subject to Christ, is a standard that no man or woman in any culture has lived or can live, apart from the power of the Holy Spirit. In a profound sense, the New Testament scriptures dealing with family life are descriptive of a relationship between husbands and wives that becomes reality when 'God's love has been poured in our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us' (Rom. 55).

The Child at Risk: A Biblical View

Carl E. Armerding Rev. Dr. Carl E. Armerding, was Senior Academic Adviser at the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies, founder and Director of the Schloss Mittersill Study Centre (Austria) and President and Professor of Old Testament at Regent College (Canada) Introduction Our view of children often reflects our view of society, of morals, and indeed of ourselves. Do we see children as the hope of the future, the society and church of tomorrow, and a blessing given from God? Or do we view children as essentially a problem, the cause of burgeoning population with ecological disaster following in its train? Or, worse yet, a scourge on the streets, as we often hear the street children of Brazil described by those who would wish them dead? Our special concern in this issue is children at risk. Today, whether from advocates of wholesale abortion, or those who murder street children in Buenos Aires, many children in our world are at risk. It may not be the risk of death, but the risk of malnutrition, of stalking fear, of trade in juvenile sex, of abusive relationships, or a host of other tragic circumstances. In this paper, we will look briefly at what the Bible itself reflects concerning children, and especially those who are at risk. As a thesis, I want to show that the Bible fully supports the idea that the state of children in any society not only reflects that society s sickness or health, but literally determines that society s hope for the future. In the Old Testament, children occupy a very special place in the society, while in the New Testament the focus is more on the individual. In both instances, children are recognised as a gift of God, given for the benefit and blessings of both the family and the larger society. Specifically, in the teaching of Jesus, children are presented as a model for those who would come into the kingdom. 'Let the children come unto me… for to such belongs the kingdom of God (Matt 19:14; Mark 10: 14; Luke 18:16) is more than mere sentiment or appeal to childlike innocence. Children, who have not yet been exposed to some of the hard facts of a hostile environment, are innately more trusting, more ready to come to a loving saviour, and more open to God’s rule in Christ. When the Son of God visited the cities of Judah, children, unlike their elders, were always prepared to give him a hearing. We must, as Jesus added, 'receive the kingdom of God like a little child (Luke 18:17) if we hope to enter.

152

The Bible and Christian Ethics

But what about children at risk? Does the Bible have anything to say about these kinds of children? Too often we forget that the Scripture deals in life as it is, rather than simply life as it ought to be. In fact, the child at risk is a central theme of the Bible, in at least two senses, both of which I want to mention. On the one hand, various biblical passages cry out against a society in which it is possible for a child to be unwanted, and thus cast on the ash heap of abandonment or exposure. Some of the religions of the Old Testament world even permitted child sacrifice, a practice which is expressly forbidden in the Bible. These are classic cases of children at risk. But there is yet another sense in which the concept of a child at risk becomes central to biblical revelation. In some ways this is even more crucial to what the scripture is all about, as this 'child at risk' theme is closely tied to the salvation message, beginning with Adam's lost paradise and continuing on to the recovery of Eden through Christ. In this development, not only does salvation come through the birth of a child, but the child is one whose life is threatened, and whose life work could be cut off before it even begins. In the remainder of this essay, we will look at both of these themes. For the first, we will concentrate on the Old Testament where much of the teaching is found, while for the second the two testaments will be given equal prominence. Children and the Issues of Life in the Old Testament The first point to be made is that all children were wanted children. Even before birth (Exod. 21:22 ff.) the child was valued. Girls, no less than boys (Lev. 12:2,5), were welcomed and set apart to God. A threat to the life of a child, even for religious reasons, was an abomination to Yahweh (Lev. 20:2-3). To be childless was a shameful thing and bordered on a punishment from Yahweh (1 Sam. 1:2,5-8), though to bear 'children for calamity or 'in vain , presumably referring to war or disease (Isa. 65:23), was equally part of the curse. Secondly, the Old Testament celebrates and affirms the family as the structure within which children are to be born and securely nurtured. A patriarch with his family gathered around him is the ideal (cf. Joseph, Ge.n 50:23), while 'children’s children (grandchildren) are the subject of various blessings in the Psalter (103:17; 128:6), instructions in the Proverbs (13:22) and promises in the prophets (Isa 59:21; Ezek. 37:25). Even amongst slaves, the ideal was to keep the children with both parents, preserving the family unit, though it was recognised that certain economic factors needed first to be overcome (Lev. 2554). Children, then, are an evidence of blessing in the Old Testament, which pictures the ideal society as one in which both ends of the generational spectrum are well-represented (Zech. 8:4). To bear children is to receive the blessing of Yahweh (Gen 15-17; 21:7; 1 Sam. I), while to be denied children is evidence of something gone wrong; cf. Hannah (1 Sam. 1) and Rachel (Gen. 30: 1). The curse extends from the threat of childlessness to the absence of

The Child at Risk: A Biblical View

153

chi1dren because of war, famine or economic reversal (Jer. 22:30; Hos. 10:14; Lam. 15, 16; Ezek. 36:13). Jerusalem weeps for her children who have become casualties of war (Lam. 1:16). Equally tragic is the situation of parents, whose children are a gift from Yahweh, denying those children the food they need (Deut. 2854; Lam. 4:4, 10). These are the 'precious children of Zion (Lam 4:2 RSV) who are tragically forced to 'beg for food (Lam 4:4), an activity that has not escaped the eyes of the LORD of Hosts. But the ultimate obscenity is committed when, as is reported from the siege of Jerusalem in 587 BC, parents resort to cannibalising their own children (Lam. 220; Ezek. 5:lO; cf. Deut. 2855-57). These children at risk are pictured as belonging to, and loved by, Yahweh, who laments and will avenge -their plight (Ezek. 16:21; 18:4; 23:37). By contrast, the ideal Old Testament society is one in which children flourish and are free from both want and fear. They learn a trade, receive the wisdom of their elders, are taught to remember the deeds of Yahweh, and gain experience from life which stands them in good stead as they grow up (Exod. 12:26; Deut. 49-10; 6:7; 11:19-21; 12:25,28; 32:46, and the wisdom book of Proverbs). Biblical education and discipline has a clear moral element, with the 'fear of Yahweh (Prov. 1:7; 9:l0) fundamental to the peace (shalom) and prosperity that is expected to prevail when Yahweh s covenant is kept. Good and evil are not confused, as they are when the fear of Yahweh is absent (Isa. 5: 18- 23); instead children grow up knowing that the rules will be fair and life may be grasped in its wholeness. In such a society, children are not at risk; Yahweh himself is their protector, from generation to generation (Ps. 103:17; Isa. 59:21; Ezek. 37:25). The Child and Salvation Another theme basic to any study of children runs throughout both Old and New Testaments. This theme focuses on a series of children who are born with a vocation to bring salvation, within the covenant promises of Yahweh. Of special interest to a consideration of children at risk, is that each of these children is threatened with extinction. The child, then, who brings salvation, is also the child at risk. The first such child is Abel, one of the sons of promise given to Adam and Eve when the gates of Eden slammed shut behind them (cf. Gen. 3:15, 16). Although Cain is the eldest, Abel is the child whose offering is acceptable to Yahweh (Gen. 4:4) and who, there fore, reflects the fulfilment of the promise that Paradise is not forever lost. But, tragically, sibling rivalry led to sibling murder, and the child of promise became the first victim of human anger and vengeance. But, in the story, another child is born 'in place of Abel (Gen 4:25) and, though not pictured as himself at risk, becomes the bearer of salvation covenant given to the first parents. It was in his time, coincident with the birth of yet another son, Enoch, that 'men began to call on the name of Yahweh (Gen. 4:26). This is Yahweh’s answer to the despair that would otherwise have overcome both our first parents and their off spring. A child is born; men begin

154

The Bible and Christian Ethics

to call on the name of the LORD, and again there is hope. The alienation from the creation (Gen. 3:17-19) and both divine and human society (Gen. 4:14,24) is reversed. The child reminds us that we are our brother's keeper; death will be avenged, and the earth will again be fruitful. The second such child is Moses, but the story begins much earlier with Abraham. Genesis 4-1 1 portrays a steady progression of technology, matched by an equally steady downward spiral or morality. The nadir is not the world of Noah, destroyed by the flood, but rather the Tower of Babel, representative of humanity's ultimate hubris, imagining itself to be equal to God and his wisdom (Gen. 11). Following the confusion of the languages, and the scattering of mankind throughout the earth, a son is born to Terah in the line of Shem, to whom God’s call is extended. Abraham, the father of the faithful, is given the great covenant promises (Gen. 12: 1-3) by which every nation on earth will again receive the blessing of the Almighty. The story is a familiar one: Abraham and his offspring slowly begin to possess the land of promise, while step by painful step, the covenant family emerges. Yahweh reaffirms to Abraham his commission (Gen. 18: 19); by teaching his children to 'keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just , Yahweh will 'bring about for Abraham what he has promised him, i.e., the blessings of all the nations through his family. Isaac and Jacob continue the pattern; aliens in the land of promise, slowly taking possession, and slowly becoming the family through which the covenant would be fulfilled. But then, tragedy strikes. Jacob's family find themselves in Egypt, initially in favourable circumstances, which quickly deteriorate into slavery. A subtheme for our consideration in Joseph, born the child of his father’s favour, but quickly becoming the child at risk. It is this child, whose life is threatened, who becomes the bearer of the promise and the salvation of his father’s family. The promise of the covenant seems again to hang by a slender thread. This is where the book of Exodus takes up the story, and, as before, it focuses on a child at risk. Again the story is well-known; Pharaoh has decreed that all male children be put to death, the final result of which would be the ruin of Yahweh's covenant land to bring salvation through the children of Abraham. But Yahweh's plan is not so easily thwarted. Two otherwise undistinguished midwives take on the power of the Egyptian monarchy, and keep the promise alive. A few of the children at risk are spared, though the nation remains in slavery. But if God can use two midwives to frustrate the king’s plan, surely there is hope. Hopes rise in chapter 2. A man of the house of Levi marries a Levite woman, who gives birth to a son. This woman is not daunted by the king’s command, and the baby, whose life hangs in the balance, is hidden for three months. When that became impossible, the woman made a little papyrus wicker basket, waterproofed it with pitch, and committed her threatened child to his fate amongst the reeds of the Nile. The rest, as they say, is history! In the succeeding chapters of the story, the child at risk becomes the mighty Redeemer of Israel, the man whose name and fame strikes dread into the hearts of the Egyptians.

The Child at Risk: A Biblical View

155

Even the conflict, as it unfolds in Exodus, is cast in the form of a competition for the life of the child. Moses is told to confront Pharaoh with the statement, 'Israel is my first born son; let my son go, so he may worship me. But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your first born son. (Exod. 4:23) Yahweh's child is threatened by the evil power of Pharaoh's and because of Pharaoh’s stubborn refusal to give up his slaves, redemption will cost the life of his own son. As is so often true, children are the tragic pawns in a game of power between ruthless and evil men. Yahweh, of course, prevails, and the child Moses, a survivor of a threatened race, becomes the child of promise, the redeemer of his people. Again the child is the pivotal figure in the history of salvation. The story comes to a climax in the New Testament gospel, and again the child of promise is a child at risk. Matthew's account highlights this aspect of the Christmas narrative. Herod is the new Pharaoh, who left to his own evil devices would have destroyed the infant Son of God. God's covenant plan is at risk and with it the lives of all the baby boys in Bethlehem of two years old and under (Matt 2:16). Tragically, the other babies fall victim to the nefarious plot, as have so many children throughout history, whose blood stains the hands of tyrants and oppressors. But the one baby, the child through whom the promises to Abraham will be fulfilled, is miraculously preserved. But not without sorrow, as Matthew reminds us in his quote from the prophet Jeremiah, 'A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more.' (Matt. 2:18). It seems that all the fury of hell has been turned loose on these children, in one last grasping attempt to frustrate the divine intention to bring blessing on all the nations of the earth. Herod's evil scheme would keep those dwelling in darkness from ever seeing the light. But, as John's gospel reminds us, 'the darkness could not overcome that light.' The child would ultimately triumph. This concept comes to its great climax as God and Satan prepare for the last battle (Rev. 12). Again, salvation comes through the birth of the child 'a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron sceptre.' (Rev. 125). The dragon, of course, will have none of it; he must at all costs destroy this child. But the child, at the crucial moment, is snatched up to God and to his throne. The dragon can do nothing but vent his fury on the woman, a fury that continues today with her offspring. But, as vv. 10-12 remind the reader, the victory is assured; the followers of the child overcome the adversary 'by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony.' Though filled with fury, the dragon knows that his time is nearing its end. The child prevails. Summary The child is central to biblical life and biblical salvation history. Genesis to Revelation is the history of God's chosen child, culminating in the life, death and final triumph of Jesus. That is well-known, but what is the subject of little or no reflection between the child of promise and the child at risk. At every

156

The Bible and Christian Ethics

stage of redemptive history, the child of promise is also the child at risk. That, initself, should remind us that, in our own day also, children at risk are also children of promise. At the close of the Old Testament era, looking ahead to the time when further judgment would fall on the earth, it was to the children that the prophet Malachi's thoughts were drawn. The prophet Elijah, that great precursor to salvation, would soon turn the hearts of the father to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers. Today, with so many children fatherless, and so many fathers leaving their children at risk, is there not a solemn warning in the prophecy? Shall we, the fathers, turn our hearts to those children? And if we fail so to do, do we leave God with any alternative?

Insights into Child Theology through the Life and Work of Pandita Ramabai1

Keith J. White Dr. Keith J. White is Chair of Child Theology Movement, Director of Mill Grove and Associate Lecturer at Spurgeons College and Malaysian Baptist Theological Seminary Introduction It was in 1997 that I first stumbled upon the life and work of Pandita Ramabai. When I arrived at Mukti, the community founded by Ramabai I immediately sensed that I should become involved and committed to partnership with her work in general, and the amplification of her voice in India and throughout the world. In 1999, the eyes of my heart began to open to the discourse that is now known as Child Theology. Two years later, as a result of the tragedy known as 9/11, I found myself being asked to teach it, and I was asked to Chair the Child Theology Movement.2 This paper seeks to consider the common ground between these two subjects, Mukti and Child Theology, for the first time. I have proceeded on the intuitive assumption that they are intimately and integrally linked. My engagement with both is not just a matter of head, but also the heart. Pandita Ramabai’s Life and Work (1858-1922)3 Ramabai Dongre Medhavi (her full married name) came from a devout Brahmin family, and learned the Hindu way of devotion (bhakti marga) from both her parents. The spiritual, religious and cultural qualities she imbibed from them during her wandering childhood influenced the whole of her life. Having seen both her parents die from starvation, she arrived in Calcutta in 1878, where her prodigious knowledge of Sanskrit and the Hindu sacred texts gained her the titles, 'Pandita' and 'Saraswati'. When, soon after this, her husband died, she and her daughter Manorama (Mano), began a geographical, social, cultural and spiritual journey of discovery. Though she had close contact with the Brahmo Samaj, one of the strongest influences on her decision 1 This paper was presented at the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies on Tuesday, 31 October, 2006. 2 For further information on the Child Theology Movement see www.childtheology.org 3 Source for this summary: Keith J. White entry in forthcoming Dictionary of South Asian Christianity; “Pandita Ramabai” and Ph.D. thesis, University of Wales, 2003.

158

The Bible and Christian Ethics

to follow Christ was Nehemiah Goreh (1825-1895). In England, Ramabai and Mano stayed at the Community of Sisters of St Mary the Virgin in Wantage and they were baptised in the local Anglican Church. Ramabai then studied at the Cheltenham Ladies College, led by Dorothea Beale. She was a friend of Professor Max Mueller and engaged in lively theological debates, both in person and by means of correspondence, with Sister Geraldine at CSMV, Dr. Gore and Prof. Westcott. In the USA, she studied the educational philosophy of Friedrich Froebel, and wrote six grades of textbooks based on his method in Marathi. She decided to found a practical Indian model of education and residential community for child widows. American supporters (American Ramabai Association) provided the 'seed-corn' for this venture. The result was a Sharada Sadan (home of learning) established first in Bombay, and then Poona. It was forced to move to the village of Khedgaon, where it became known as Mukti (salvation). It latterly became a refuge where starving and oppressed women could find acceptance, a new way of living, and education that empowered them to serve Jesus Christ in families, professions and evangelism. Narayan Tilak (1861-1919) provided songs and psalms for culturally Indian worship in the chapel. Among the significant events associated with Mukti was the 1905-7 'revival'. Although supported by Christians and moderate Indian reformers, this radical project was harshly criticised from both quarters. Mukti exists to this day (Pandita Ramabai Mukti Mission) as an inter-denominational ecclesial community comprising schools and kindergarten, hospital, workshops, farm and chapel, serving as a nonhierarchical, non-patriarchal model of living. Ramabai also translated the Bible into Marathi that was printed on Mukti presses, devised a method of Bible translation applicable to any language, forged indigenous forms of community, worship and education and wrote several books (including, The Duties of Women, A Testimony, the High Class Hindu Woman, and Conditions of Life in the United States) incorporating radical theological and social insights. She was an Indian reformer, advocating Hindi as a national language, and the first woman to address the Indian Social Congress. Intellectually brilliant, linguistically gifted, spiritually aware, and intuitively perceptive and sensitive, Ramabai followed Jesus as her guru to the end. Given all this, her recognition in Indian and in church history is comparatively slight. One possible explanation is that as a devout female Indian Christian living in a community, a writer, educator, theologian, single mother, friend of orphans, campaigner for women’s rights and founder of an ecumenical ecclesial community, she transcends existing categories. Child Theology Child Theology is a way of studying the Bible and doing theology that takes as its starting point the example of Jesus when he placed a little child in the midst of his disciples (Matthew 18). It may be useful as a way of understanding its nature to compare it with Liberation theologies- Women’s, and Indigenous

Insights into Child Theology

159

(e.g. African, Asian etc.). There are similarities and differences, but they have in common a desire to shed fresh light on the whole of theology, church and mission by using the lens of a particular group or perspective. In the case of Child Theology, it begins with Jesus and taking what he did and said very seriously. The disciples were having a (theological) discussion about who was greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven, and Jesus introduced a child as a vital clue to what the Kingdom of Heaven is really like. This was a great surprise to them, and they do not seem to have grasped what he was trying to say until after Pentecost. Since then, the child placed by Jesus in the midst has generally not been paid much attention in the course of biblical and theological studies to this present day. Starting in this way has led a growing number of theologians, pastors and Christians working alongside children, to read the Bible, and understand Jesus and his teaching with a fresh understanding. The significance of children and children’s ministry in God’s sight has become clearer, and there is much to inform, challenge and encourage children’s workers, parents and teachers. But there are wider implications to the process: the way church and mission have developed and been understood has often been done without more than a passing reference to children. Now Child Theology is enabling biblical and theological reflection on every aspect of church and mission using as a hermeneutic principle the 'child placed by Jesus in the midst'. So Child Theology (CT) is of vital importance to all who take Jesus seriously and seek to make him Lord of their lives, whether practitioners alongside children (including parents), or pastors, church leaders, seminary teachers and ordinary Christians. This means that the process of doing Child Theology involves all of these as a matter of principle. The 'Child Theology Movement' is committed to nurturing and facilitating this process worldwide, with particular reference to the experiences of real children and young people, and the cultural and social and Christian traditions of each area where consultations are held.4 Issues arising from Child Theology For the purposes of clarity and argument these are clustered around two focal points: theological and ideological. It should not be implied from this, however, that the two are to be taken as separate or unrelated. Theology, church and mission (i) CT begins with a particular theological matter: the nature of the Kingdom of Heaven, and from this starting point it finds it is identifying an increasing range of theological issues that challenge existing textual, biblical and systematic (thematic) work and theologies. The way that theology is done and taught is 4 See White, Keith J. and Haddon Willmer, Introducing Child Theology (Penang: Child Theology Movement, 2006).

160

The Bible and Christian Ethics

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

5

increasingly being questioned by CT, not simply because that is its agenda, but also because of the discoveries arising in the process of exploring the concrete issues arising around the world. The theological component of the HCD Masters course for example engages men and women, academics and practitioners, and uses music, art, sculpture, role-play, conversation and discussion, letter-writing, poetry as tools of the process. It begins with theological reflection on existing practice and is determined to avoid 'part theology' that creates a false dichotomy between reasoned reflection in the light of Scripture, on the one hand, and practical action and justice on the other. More than 20% of the course is devoted to working on the practical implications of CT for the students’ life and work. One of the implications for God’s mission is the discovery that babies, children and young people, are chosen by God to be partners in His mission (not merely objects of 'children’s ministry', evangelism and the like).5 Children’s ministry is becoming seen as a two-way process where children are being considered as ministers and leaders (in child-sensitive ways) not as those who are taught and cared for. Then there is the matter of children and the Bible. Traditional methods of Bible presentation, reading, story-telling and teaching are being critiqued. The focal issue is how the Scriptures should be properly handled and interpreted with children and young people in mind. This leads to more general issues of hermeneutics. Another implication is a fresh exploration of the gathered Christian community (ecclesia). Children are at the heart of Jewish worship and family life, and yet tend to be detached or semi-detached in Christian communities. How does church look where children are once again at its heart, alongside Jesus? And how are families ('little churches')6 to be supported by the gathered community in their ministry to children? Indigenous theologies and contextualization continue to be of critical importance in the globalising world. The issues are well known and continuously rehearsed. One possibility that has been raised is that child theology (with particular reference to its way of developing theology) might provide a uniquely sensitive starting point and initial framework. It has the advantage that it

See Psalm 8:2. Also Keith J. White, “Rediscovering Children at the Heart of Mission” in G. Miles and J-J Wright (ed.) Celebrating Children (Paternoster: Carlisle, 2003) 1891906. This was the view of John Chrysostom. 6 See Vigen, Guroian, “The Ecclesial Family: John Chrysostom on Parenthood and Children” in M. Bunge (ed.) The Child in Christian Thought (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001) 61-77.

Insights into Child Theology

161

embraces all people of the world (everyone is either a child or was a child chronologically, and theologically every person is a child of God; whereas not everyone is a woman, Filipino or economically poor). And it is inherently about contextualised listening and exploration. It does not come with a set of beliefs, or denominational baggage, but is informed by the history of Christian life and thought worldwide.7 Contemporary ideologies and prevailing philosophies Childhood is inherently a contextualised concept and process: perhaps it is one of the best social and moral 'barometers' of a community or society’s wellbeing. CT is finding that it cannot but critique the prevailing educational philosophies and systems worldwide. (i) With children (beside Jesus) near the centre of its agenda, and seeking always to throw theological light on issues, CT sees education, nurseries, schools, and colleges operating far too often as an extension of the industrial production line for adults. They are primarily concerned with producing young adults with identified skills and knowledge, based on models of child development. In nearly every case this is at the expense of exploration, play and spiritual and emotional intelligence and formation. The stress is on the 'Not Yet' at the expense of the 'Now' (to use terms more commonly associated with the theological exploration of the Kingdom of Heaven). (ii) The Convention on the Rights of the Child: this derives largely from a model which severs the relationship between a child: seen as an autonomous individual, and a child: seen as related to a heavenly Father. The assumption is that a child is of intrinsic worth, rather than valued because of the relationship with God through Christ. (iii) Contemporary political ideologies are also coming under scrutiny. Democracy is an example, often held to be the arrival point of political systems and development. In its contemporary form it excludes children from participation, may undermine family relationships, and communities and stresses individual preferences rather than the relationships vital to the well-being and growth of children. (iv) Just as feminists have stressed and modeled the need for new forms of relationship and organisation free of the ideological tyranny of patriarchy, so CT is discovering the inadequacies of existing models of church and social institutions. If the question 7

At this time tentative plans are being considered to call together Christian leaders in Cambodia and Nepal respectively to explore the contours of indigenous theologies, church and mission starting with Paulo Freire-type circles sitting on the ground and working from the local story, issues and context.

162

The Bible and Christian Ethics

of what a child-friendly church, school, community or society looks and feels like is posed it inevitably throws a searchlight on prevailing forms of social relationship. I hope that this brief overview gives a flavour of the scope and nature of the issues arising from the first four years of the activities and dynamics of CT. And I trust that it is immediately apparent that this is not a discrete set of issues and discoveries sealed off from wider theological discourses and practice. Rather the reverse: it is scratching where the theological itches are around the world. Ramabai’s Insights So, now we come to the heart of this paper. Is it possible that a person living and working a century ago might provide insights, ideas and models that inform one of the newest forms of theological inquiry and process? Before continuing with this exploration it might be worth noting that others before me have marvelled at the way Ramabai lived life to the full within her time and place, but did not share the same social and ideological space (the 'terrain' to use Gramsci’s term) as her contemporaries. She had 'an insider’s empathy' coupled to 'an outsider’s critique' (to borrow from Meera Kosambi).8 She anticipated many of the fundamental issues that later came to the fore in politics, education, welfare and theology. Thus, in her relation to CT, we are considering one of the areas in which she showed typical prescience, rather than an exception. Theology, Church and Mission (i) Beginning with the Kingdom of Heaven (that is God’s way of doing things in our personal, family, community and societal worlds), Ramabai saw that because this 'reign' had been pioneered and inaugurated by Jesus Christ, the door was open for this way to be modelled in her time and culture. Thus, she was instrumental in establishing a community that responded to the practical and concrete realities of her age, but that transcended the ideologies and hegemonies of that age influencing or dominating the spheres of both social, and religious, power relations. Her personal testimony written not only in the book of that name,9 but also in her letters and the community that she founded, shows how she sought in her personal life, revealed and hidden, a determination to do things God’s way as revealed in the life and death of Christ. But this commitment meant that she needed to examine every Christian doctrine and creed from this committed standpoint as an Indian woman in the light of the Scriptures. In so doing, she became engaged in serious and sustained theological discussion with some of the leading theologians of her 8 9

Kosambi, Meera Pandita Ramabai through her Own Words (Oxford: OUP, 2000) 30. Pandita Ramabai, A Testimony 11th ed. (Khedgaon: Mukti Press, 1992).

Insights into Child Theology

163

day, including Dr. Charles Gore and Professor Westcott. She challenged the gender and ethnic assumptions of her time, and thus contextualised the theological discourse. She was not prepared to dismiss Hindu beliefs and traditions per se, but as with Christian traditions and beliefs, she sought to test them against the Scriptures without quenching their spirit. She was alert to textual issues (as befits one who translated the whole Bible herself), and biblical and systematic expositions with particular reference to gender, denominational and ethnic biases. A survey of the major theological issues discussed by Indian theologians since10 shows that she anticipated many of their discoveries and concerns. Her lifelong commitment to the alleviation of the oppression and suffering of child widows is an essential and critical part of that process. She did not accept a divide between the academic and reasoned apologetics of a religion, and the practical implementation of belief. Her theology is revealed by her action as well as her words. As Mahatma Gandhi commented: 'A life of service and uttermost simplicity is the best preaching. A rose does not need to preach. It simply spreads its fragrance. The fragrance is its own sermon. 'The Kingdom of Heaven is about the way things are done and said as much as about what is done and said. It looks with hope to the future 'Not yet' drawing from it encouragement and inspiration for practical steps towards that future reign in the here and now. Children, particularly girls were at the core of this endeavour throughout Ramabai’s life. (ii) The whole of Ramabai’s work and teaching was derived from Froebel, Jesus and others who stressed the agency of the students or pupils in the learning process. The teacher was not there to impart truths or list data, so much as to create the context in which the students by active exploration were able to discover truths and process information for themselves. This was put to the test in a remarkable and seminal way when some of her pupils in the Sharada Sadan in Poona asked if they could be baptised. If Ramabai agreed to their request, her whole work would be put in jeopardy, but in the final analysis their agency was the determining factor. She pointed out to them how hard it would be and then supported their decision. It was the resulting storm that precipitated her move from Poona. In her schools, the pupils of some grades became the teachers of others. In the revival at Mukti, it was the experiences of the girls themselves that shaped the agenda as much, if not more than her personal views and intentions. (iii) The work on a Bible was, as the work of R.S. Sugirtharajah11 argues, a radical attempt to empower the girls (and then women) by giving them a tool that freed them to live for Christ in every conceivable area of life without allegiance to institutions and groups other than Jesus and the Bible’s own teaching. It is significant that wherever possible, Ramabai placed a Bible or whole book of the Bible in the hands of the girls at Mukti. She was also willing 10

In my thesis. I analysed her work with particular reference to the theological issues identified by Indian theologians in M.M. Thomas and P.T. Thomas, Towards Indian Christian Theology (Tiruvella: CSS, 1998). 11 Sugirtharajah, R.S. The Bible and the Third World (Cambridge: CUP, 2001).

164

The Bible and Christian Ethics

(controversially for her time among both Christians and Hindus) for the Bible to be placed alongside Hindu sacred texts. She was prepared for the students to come to their own conclusions about the truth, and to support them in whatever conclusions they arrived at. (iv) Mukti is a living ecclesial community that still gives testimony to the intentions and vision of the founder, Ramabai. It is conceived as a kindergarten (literally a children’s garden) where an extensive range of human activities are nurtured. In the middle of that place there is a building that is used for many activities notably services. The whole of Mukti is a 'church', not just the place and the occasions when the residents gather to sing or pray. It is a place where varied denominational insights are welcomed and integrated into the whole within partisanship, and where the whole of life is seen as 'worship', not just religious ceremonies or services. No superior status is given to religious activities or formally ordained ministers over the rest of life or the lay members of this women’s community. As people today explore new ways of 'being church', where children have their proper place as modelled by the pivotal role of children in Jewish worship and teaching, Mukti provides a contextualised model that has been tested over time, resilient and enduring. (v) Ramabai was from the outset concerned that Mukti should be indigenous in its culture, clothing, way of life, worship, movement and relationships. The fact that it was here that the sitar was used for Sunday worship, and that the great Christian Marathi poet, Narayan Tilak was instrumental in providing Indian settings of the Psalms as well as some of his own Christian songs is remarkable given that the period in question begins in the last decade of the nineteenth century while Queen Victoria was Empress of India and Western missions were at the height of their endeavours including their tendency to despise culturally located and rooted music, genres and lyrics. Given that this was accompanied by deep explorations of Christian thought and theology, and was non-partisan, in that it sought only the best from each and every culture, with personnel welcomed from a variety of nations, it becomes clear that Ramabai offers a living experiment for CT as CT seeks to engage with cultures and traditions around the world with children in the midst. Contemporary Ideologies and Prevailing Philosophies In my studies of Ramabai, I was (like Meera Kosambi before me) astonished by her knowledge and grasp of the way in which discourses and ideologies form, operate and are in turn reformed into new paradigms. Although she did not use the vocabulary of twentieth century philosophers and sociologists (like Kuhn, Marx, Gramsci, Foucault, Greer and so on) there is no doubt that Ramabai understood the way in which power relations functioned in every area of life, personal and public, local and (inter) national. Her detailed knowledge of Indian religion and culture, institutionalized and structured by patriarchy, class and power, was matched by a corresponding interest in Western ideological history with particular reference to the practice of burning or

Insights into Child Theology

165

drowning witches in Europe, and the oppression of slaves and Indians in North America. (i) It comes as no surprise in the light of this that Ramabai should offer such clear-sighted critiques of prevailing educational policies and systems, while at the same time offering radical new models for their transformation. It is one of the tragedies of Indian history that her educational model was suppressed under the British Raj, and that it remains unrecognised and unclaimed to the present day. Ramabai studied various educational systems as well as trying more than one for herself (for example, the gurukul in India, and Cheltenham Ladies College in England), and lighted upon the philosophy of Friedrich Froebel after much reading and thought. One of the contemporary objections to Froebel’s system was his emphasis on play, movement, music and dance as integral to the learning process. This did not fit neatly with the emerging Protestant ethic and notion of 'school work' 'home work' and the like. It was also possible outside traditional settings such as school buildings, and preferred natural settings as well as valuing the role of mothers in the whole process. It may well be that in accepting and accommodating conventional methods and systems of education (whether in theological seminaries or Sunday Schools) Christians have swallowed a camel while being concerned with straining out gnats from the details of the system (concern with Creationism, curriculum design, streaming and the like). Ramabai felt it was worth devoting much of her life to an alternative system. It is now becoming clear that radicals such as Jerome Berryman with his Godly Play12 have much more in common with her underlying philosophy than the prevailing ethos. The circle replaces the lines of desks; dance and story are at the heart rather than rote learning; movement rather than categories of thought and discipline are the key to the process. (ii) As a challenge to the idea of an autonomous individual, Ramabai established a community in which everyone was respected and played their age-appropriate part. And, like Froebel, she saw that the respect for a child depended on an underlying philosophy or belief system in which each child has a proper place, where there is a perceived unity within creation and in which unity and its appropriate relationships a child is seen as giving and receiving (rather than deserving of rights or seen primarily as a consumer whether of information or materials). The fact that the learning process always took place in the context of a living community is of great significance. The teachers shared this life-space and modelled respect and humility guided by reverence for the Creator God and a sense of the unity of the whole universe. The purpose of education was not to produce autonomous individuals who would become a certain type of adult, but to connect the soul of each child and groups of children with the whole universe. (iii) Any philosophy of learning presupposes a view of the overarching worldviews or metanarratives. The education of children is not a discrete and self-contained entity. In Ramabai’s time, there was a major contestation 12 See for example Berryman, Jerome The Complete Guide to Godly Play. v. 1 (Denver: Living the Good News, 2002).

166

The Bible and Christian Ethics

between worldviews: the excitement of the Enlightenment as it reached India (first in Bengal); the dominance of the British Raj; the rise of Swaraj; conservative Hinduism, Christianity, and so on. She carefully considered the merits and demerits of each, and steered her own course, reflected in the life and worship at Mukti, and her own writings. Just as CT throws light on prevailing systems from the perspective of a child and young people, so Ramabai contemplated the social and political world from her commitment to girls and young women. Mukti stands, at least in its latent form, as a radical alternative way of living. It is sui generis, not partisan. It is nondenominational, welcoming the contributions of people from different cultures and backgrounds, celebrating Marathi culture, but seeks the best from other cultures; promotes excellence, but does not lapse into elitism, and so on. Ramabai was shot at from different sides as she pursued a line deriving from her determination to follow the life, teaching, example and death of Jesus as her model. She was never married to the spirit of her age. (iv) Ramabai pioneered radical new forms of relationship and challenged existing institutions all through her life. This included her out-caste marriage; her refusal to accept conventional widowhood; the lifelong commitment to her daughter Mano as a single mother; her sisterhood that included several American women; but especially the Sharada Sadans and Mukti. The latter places were determined and calculated attempts to create new forms of social space, and specifically to model these forms so that they could be read, adapted and then transferred throughout India. CT, as we have seen, challenges conventional understandings of social organisations including concepts such as status and hierarchy whether in church or state. Ramabai, therefore, provides a living example of how this might be done in context with children placed by Jesus in the midst. Despite the all too cursory nature of this exploration, hopefully it becomes clear how Ramabai’s life and work might provide insights into the nature and process of CT that are culturally and theologically aware. This paper is the first part of a process in which the links and potential can be developed. Future Possibilities In closing we note a few of the potential avenues for exploration. A simple task might be for CT to convene with Mukti a consultation based in the Khedgaon community aimed at examining the theoretical and practical links between her work and CT. This would have the merit of rooting and grounding the reflections in a real and concrete setting, and allow people to imagine a range of additional options for partnership, while also enabling them to understand and where appropriate critique the model as it currently operates. As Ramabai studies continue to develop, with the 2005 conference in Pune as a spur,13 it is 13

At the time of writing, the papers from this conference held at UBS in 2005 have still not been published.

Insights into Child Theology

167

possible that one line of enquiry will be the very subject: her contribution to the nature and process of CT. Research students may well be pointed in this direction. People and groups wishing to explore the connection may also consider the possibility of transferring aspects of Mukti into their own contexts with the added benefit of the growing body of knowledge and experience of CT. Pepe projects in Brazil, a church in Kuala Lumpur which has a Montessori School and is developing Godly Play, are some of the emerging examples of practical experiments in CT which have much to gain from further insights from Ramabai through her writings and residential living model. Inter-faith conversations may well be possible within the context of exploring the implications and relevance of Ramabai’s insistence that Hindu and Christian texts, as well as committed Hindus and Christians could exist and live happily side by side, in a mutually enriching way. Conclusion As the very notion of childhood comes under increasing scrutiny worldwide and informs discourses in a range of different disciplines including theology, sociology, child development, education, economics and political sciences, the importance of CT prompted by, and in intentional obedience to, the example and teaching of Jesus, will become steadily more appreciated within church and possibly wider society. As this happens, the life, and example, of Ramabai is likely to be an increasingly valued source of practical experience and wisdom. It is not impossible that her time is still to come as her remarkably insightful analysis and far-reaching model of life, learning and empowerment become better known in India as well as the rest of the world. Her contribution to the thinking and practical resources of those willing to hear her voice will not be restricted to CT of course, but it may be through the international process of CT that her voice is amplified. And for its part, as long as CT is true to the leading of Jesus Christ and committed to operating God’s way (the Kingdom of Heaven) it would be remiss, if not downright foolish, to ignore or spurn the legacy of this devoted disciple of Jesus.

Theology and Children: Towards a Theology of Childhood

Adrian Thatcher Dr. Adrian Thatcher is Honorary Professorial Research Fellow at the Department of Theology and Religion, University of Exeter, UK Introduction All over the world, the neglect of children is a horrendous crime against them. This paper does not tackle physical child-neglect, instead it accuses Christian theology of neglecting children. One way the church can be child-friendly is to advocate and practice lifelong, egalitarian marriage. There is overwhelming evidence that children are more likely to flourish when they are brought up by their biological parents.1 The implication is clear: the likelihood of their relative failure to thrive in family forms which are alternatives to marriage, itself becomes a strong argument for marriage. Although I believe this argument to be sound, I will not be making it here. This paper is about the position of children in theology, not in alternative family forms, and their position is not a healthy one. I shall confine myself to some particular features of the Christian tradition, negative and positive, in relation to children, which theologians, ministers and students like ourselves, are able to influence. I have a private rule that I apply to all my teaching and writing: “Reconstruct as much as you deconstruct”. First of all I’m going to do some deconstruction. It may be painful, but I think it is necessary, to own up to influences within scripture and tradition that get in the way of loving children as Christ so obviously loved them. As the prophet Jeremiah saw all too well, (Jer.1:10) tearing down is often a prerequisite for building or planting something better. So in the next section of my paper my targets are i) neglect of children in Christian theology: ii) the lack of guidance in the New Testament and elsewhere about parenting, and parent-child relations; iii) the displacement of real families by the family of Church; iv) the problem of preference [our children are more than neighbours]. The third, final and biggest section makes positive suggestions about a Christian theology of, and for, children.

1

For a recent review of literature, see Lawler 2002, 55-8.

Theology and Children: Towards a Theology of Childhood

169

Where are the Children in Christian Theology? i) The neglect of children in Christian theology: One of the disturbing features of much contemporary theology is the hiddenness of children.2 As Marcia Bunge remarks, ‘Systematic theologians and Christian ethicists have said little about children, and they have not regarded serious reflection on children as a high priority.’ (Bunge in Bunge 2001, 3). But that is true of historical theology as well. Chrysostom counts as a notable exception: (Guroian in Bunge 2001) Augustine’s attribution of original sin even to the unborn child in the womb (Stortz in Bunge 2001 99-100) remains a poison in ‘the sincere milk of the word’(1 Pet.2:2). Feminist theology, sexual theology, lesbian and gay theology, and queer theology, for all their liberatory intent, generally collude with the hiddenness of children. It is only a partial defence for these theologies to argue that their interests are elsewhere, for that is precisely the charge against them. Such theology usually blasts theology for its mind-body dualism and its neglect of the body. The new dualism is the divide between adults and children! Having (straight) sex and having children cannot be separated, as the new dualists want. Mainstream theological anthropology is equally guilty of child neglect. Stanley Grenz’s new work on the image of God – yes, on the image of God – in humanity is typical: it contains no reference to children, even in the index! (Grenz, 2001). Outside the teaching of Jesus, children are discouragingly depicted in the New Testament. The author of Ephesians contrasts ‘the full stature of Christ’ with the gullible state of childhood which Christians are to eschew. (Eph.4:14) The author of 1Timothy thinks that having children is how women overcome the gendered consequences of the fall of Eve. (1 Tim.2:15) Hugh Pyper says that in the New Testament ‘childbearing is if anything discouraged’, citing this verse as ‘the one justification for it’. (Pyper in Hastings 2000, 110) Paul’s inspirational poem about the greatest of the Spirit’s fruits, love, is less positive about the provision a land immature state of childhood: ‘When I was a child I spoke like a child, thought like a child, reasoned like a child; but when I grew up I finished with childish things.’ (1 Cor.13:11) In the same letter, he complains that when he came to Corinth ‘I had to deal with you on the natural plane, as infants in Christ. I fed you on milk, instead of solid food, for which you were not yet ready. Indeed, you are still not ready for it….’ (1Cor.3:1b-3a) ii) The lack of guidance in the New Testament and elsewhere about parenting, and parent-child relations: The remarkable teaching of Jesus about children (Gundry-Wolf in Bunge 2001) adds up to a cumulative manifesto for, and action on behalf of, children. But there is more ambivalence in the New Testament to be dealt with first. The discouragement of marriage and the warning against its attendant cares (including children?!) strikes a dissonant chord. St. Paul’s preference for celibacy has been very influential, (1 Cor.7:2538) and for the first 1,500 years of Christendom so has the warning of Jesus 2 See Jon Davies’ series of savage polemics against theologians for the crime of child neglect. Davies (1998) is a good example of the genre.

170

The Bible and Christian Ethics

(Lk.20:35) that ‘those who have been judged worthy of a place in the other world, and of the resurrection from the dead, do not marry….’ If celibacy is better than marriage then it is better not to have children than to have them. The Household Codes affirm a hierarchical order in the household, as in the Empire, and children are required to display unquestioning obedience to their parents (Eph.6:1; Col.3:20). Obedience is the standard of the discredited patriarchal order, and theology has to disentangle itself from it completely. In the Petrine Holiness Code (1 Pet.2:13-3.7), children make no appearance at all. Is this because they are valued less than in the other codes? Because the further the Church moves from the memory of Jesus and his teaching about children, the less it cares about them? iii) The displacement of real families by the family of Church: There is evidence already in the New Testament of the ‘adultisation’ of the faith. This is a twofold process. On the one hand, the vocabulary of childhood, of the mikroi or ‘little ones’, (Mt.18:6,10,14) and of the teknia or ‘little children’ (e.g. 1 Jn.2:1), is metaphorically extended (usurped?) to bring to speech the adult relation to the divine Father. On the other hand, the vocabulary of parenthood is metaphorically extended (usurped?) to bring to speech the divine relation to human adults. The unfortunate result is that the anchoring of child-language in the situation of actual children and families is easily placed. The Gospel of John is more interested in the second birth, the birth ‘from above’ (anòthen), (Jn.3:3) than in the birth of actual children. And so the displacement continues. We are to call no-one on earth our father (unless he is our priest), for there is one Father in heaven. (Mt.23:9) The church is our Mother, and we are made ‘children of God’ through our baptism. But has anyone noticed what is going on? There is a real danger that the appropriation of familial language in order to conceptualize the adult relation to God marginalizes earthly fathers, mothers and children. This has been done by a patriarchal church run by men who have been removed from the joys and responsibilities of earthly parenting, and who in the main relegate women, children and parenting to an inferior status. The whole scale adoption of familial language by the Church for theological purposes requires devices such as that of ‘the domestic church’ to re-sacralise real families, and restore to them their due spiritual dignity. iv) The problem of preference: The teaching of Jesus about children is about all children. It is not addressed in the first instance to parents. Adult priorities toward them are not specifically discussed. Thus we reach a surprising conclusion at the start of any utilization or appropriation of the teaching of Jesus in a theology for families, namely, parent-child and child-parent relationships are not addressed directly in the Lord’s teaching. Since family ties are relativized in the Reign of God, (e.g., Mk.3:21; 31-5; 10:28-31; Lk.8:20-1; 11:27-8) and there is a clear Gospel priority afforded to all children, not just some of them, how, if at all, are our responsibilities to our own children to be accounted for, articulated, given priority? Standard answers to the effect that our children are our near neighbours and are thereby included in the 2nd Great Commandment to love our neighbours as ourselves are deficient. An adequate solution to the problem of child preference is likely to draw on Aquinas

Theology and Children: Towards a Theology of Childhood

171

(despite his own gravely diminished experience of childhood). Aquinas held that ‘we ought out of charity to love those who are more closely united to us more, both because our love for them is more intense, and because there are more reasons for loving them.’ (Aquinas 1947) This solution requires a theological ontology to support it, and Aquinas gives us the clue to one. In loving our children, he says, we love ourselves, in accord with the Love Commandment. That is: there is a continuity between our being as parents and the being of our children as our children, an interdependence, even a ‘perichoresis’ (moving beyond Aquinas),that requires a Trinitarian view of Persons to substantiate it. This solution also benefits from a new doctrine, ‘kin altruism’. Kin altruism is ‘the preferential treatment people tend to give to their biologically related family members’. (Browning et.al.1997 71) But the power of the idea is that it is a natural tendency common throughout the natural world which human beings inherit. I think kin altruism is a strong contribution to the problem of child preference. The more immediate point is that there is a problem here that needs to be settled. The tradition bequeaths this problem to us. One suspects unbelievers would be appalled that Christians seriously discuss whether God wills that we should accord priority to our own children! Theology for Children Thus far I have identified some difficulties in theological thinking about children. In my final section I offer some constructive theological work on children’s behalf: I suggest i) a theology of liberation for children [whose oppression is their parents’ wrong choices]; ii) the grounding of children’s rights in God the Child; iii) the need to learn from the ‘childness’ of children (Anderson and Johnson 1995 10); iv) the situatedness of parent-child relationships within the Relations of the social Trinity; v) the theological method required for positive engagement with non-traditional families.3 i) A theology of liberation for children: In an earlier work on marriage, (Thatcher 1999) I suggested that a theology of liberation might be constructed for first world children whose parents did not put their children’s interests first. Liberation theology starts with ‘practical measures for human betterment [which] have embraced theologians as co-workers in practical expressions of Christian commitment’. (Rowland in Rowland1999 xiii) In the present case it is the betterment of children that is the primary concern. Liberation theology ‘is distinctive in its emphasis on the dialogue between Christian tradition, social theory and the insight of the poor and marginalized into their situation, leading to action for change’. (Rowland in Rowland 1999 xiii) Many children are poor and marginalized and some of them are poorer and more marginalized through their parents’ actions and inactions. When their insights into the desirability of their parents’ prospective divorces are sought, they are almost always against 3

All of these themes are developed in detail in my forthcoming book Theology and Families (2006). Details are on my website at http://www.arasite.org/ATwebsite/ Frontpage.html.

172

The Bible and Christian Ethics

them. A ‘preferential option’, originally for the poor, according to Gustavo Gutierrez, ‘represents today a point of orientation for the pastoral activities of the Church and an important guideline for being a Christian’ (Gutierrez in Rowland, (1999), 27). A preferential option for children is one way of taking forward the teaching of Jesus about them. Theology is said to be motivated by the ‘moral and spiritual challenge of… ‘“non-persons”’, those who are not recognised as people by the existing social order’. (Gutierrez in Rowland (1999), 28-9) Once the principle “children first” is established, Christian ethics, especially sexual ethics, can begin. ii) The grounding of children’s rights in God the Child: There is a remarkable breadth in the teaching of Jesus about children. It is about all children. The language of our time which is capable of such breadth is the secular language of rights. The Holy See well understands this. Kathleen Marshall and Paul Parvis, in their excellent work Honouring Children (2004) (not children honouring fathers and mothers) provide a vigorous defence of the rights of children and the importance of children’s rights to theology. The very usefulness of the language of rights of course assures its increasing misuse by various lobbyists and peddlers of absurdities. These testify to its importance. My one reservation about their work lies in the connectedness between the language of rights and theology. The answer Christian doctrine gives is: the Christ Child is the foundation of children’s rights! God became a Child. This assertion is conceptually bound to the conviction that God became incarnate in a human being. The implications of this non-negotiable element of creedal Christianity have rarely been pressed. In this respect, the teaching of Jesus is confirmed, not by his teaching about children, but by the church’s teaching about Jesus, that He is God incarnate, and so God the Child. The contingencies and exigencies of growing up, in a large family, in a politically insecure and religiously plural environment were all directly experienced by him. Even the cry of the woman in the crowd, ‘Happy the womb that carried you and the breasts that suckled you!’, (Lk.11:27b) while rebuffed by Jesus, is allowed to make the point that the Messiah too was a vulnerable embryo requiring the very suckling that adult metaphor has claimed for itself in its articulation of being fed spiritually by God. Jesus identifies himself with all children, not only because he says he does (‘Whoever receives a child like this in my name,’ he said, ‘receives me…’ (Mk .9:36-7) but because he was a child. Just as Christians claim that Jesus represents all humankind before God, it is also open to Christians to claim that God the Child represents all children before God. iii) The need to learn from the ‘childness’ of children: Herbert Anderson and Susan Johnson have introduced the concept of ‘childness’ to theology. It is premised on the continuity of being between children and adults, with the clear implication that what children already possess, adults are in danger of losing. They say: What we mean is more than being ‘like a child’. It is an enduring way of experiencing the world that continues to emerge as we move toward maturity. We will use the metaphor ‘childness’ to identify qualities of being a child that continue in adult life: vulnerability, openness, immediacy, and neediness. We do not intend to suggest that these qualities exhaust what it

Theology and Children: Towards a Theology of Childhood

173

means to be human. They are, however, necessary dimensions of an anthropology that is inclusive of children (Anderson and Johnson 1995 10). Anderson and Johnson assume ‘childness’ in their treatment of Jesus’ teaching about children. In their hands, childness is a human quality that children exemplify and adults are likely to compromise or lose. That is why adults need the example of children to remind them of what they may so easily forget. ‘Childness’ helps to present ‘a radically new and more inclusive vision of the community’. It also helps ‘to challenge our assumptions of anthropology’ and to expand ‘the norms for discipleship’. It is fully consistent with the teaching of Jesus, and it helps us to re-appropriate that teaching for ourselves by providing new insights into it. iv) The situatedness of parent-child relationships within the relations of the social Trinity: The names of two of the Persons of the Trinity derive from the parent-child relationship. The meaning of ‘Person’ in Trinitarian theology is ‘relation’. To be made in the image of the triune God is already to be ‘inrelation’, to have our being from other persons. A strong analogy is able to be made between two sets of relations – between the Father and the Son in the divine Trinity, and between parents and children in the human family, mediated by the Spirit. The inexhaustible love of the Father that the Son reveals in the divine self-giving is the basis of all Christian faith, and of any analogy between the divine Trinity and human families. When parents try consciously to love their children as God in Christ loves them and their children, these are the points of participation, situated in the quality of each relationship, the divine and the human. In the loving and the caring of human parents, God’s own loving and caring is plainly manifested, experienced, known and reciprocated around the relational circle. There is a real participation, a real sharing of the infinite divine love in the giving and receiving of human love. The ontological grounding of the human family in the depths of God self sacralizes its being. The eclipse of the social Trinity in Western thought has, as one of its consequences, the dropping away of the profound sense of family relations being held together in God through the Spirit. With Richard of St. Victor, and the Fathers of the East (at least as they are presently understood), the combined unity and plurality of God serve better the attempt to model the human family. In order to get his analogy going, Richard conceives the Spirit as ‘the Third’, insofar as the First and Second Persons required a Third to share the fullness of divine Love. (Zinn, 1975) Richard did not need a lesson on the limitations of human language in relation to the divine Being in this regard. He believed in the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son. But he was prepared to risk the human detail of lovers sharing their love with a third in order to enable the Trinitarian doctrine to resonate with human experience. It is time to take advantage of his legacy. The doctrine of the Trinity requires that the relations between the divine Persons are co-equal, symmetrical and mutual. Let there be equality, symmetry, mutuality in human relations too, where subjection and obedience are replaced by reciprocity and communion. v) The theological method required for positive engagement with nontraditional families: During the International Year of the Family (1994) the

174

The Bible and Christian Ethics

Roman Catholic bishops of the United States issued a ‘pastoral message’, Follow the Way of Love. (US Catholic Bishops, 1994) of New Testament passages about love that provides the methodological and exegetical basis for what the bishops have to say about both the constitution and ministry of the ‘domestic church’. The great identity statement ‘God is love’ (1 Jn.4:16) is pressed into service as the constitution of Christian families. While the profound meditation on the love of God in 1John 4 has a primary reference to the experience of Christians as children in God’s family, the bishops are comfortable with a broader interpretation. The chapter assumes Christian believers ‘dwell’ in God because the Holy Spirit is imparted to them and because they have acknowledged Jesus as God’s Son. (1 Jn.4:13-15). The bishops’ reading of the text is commendably and very broadly inclusive, embracing all families wherever they are and whatever form they take. They say with disarming simplicity, ‘The story of family life is a story about love – shared, nurtured, and sometimes rejected or lost. In every family God is revealed uniquely and personally, for God is love and those who live in love, live in God and dwells in them (cf.1 Jn. 4:16).’4 Families, all of them, whatever their constitution, ‘are a sign of God’s presence’. Single mothers and their children are not exposed as ‘irregular’ families, as in earlier Vatican writings– they are even praised as heroines! The intended readership of the pastoral message is not confined to Roman Catholics. It is for ‘Christian families’ and ‘all who can use it toward strengthening their families.’ They are directly told ‘What you do in your family to create a community of love, to help each other to grow, and to serve those in need is critical, not only for your own sanctification but for the strength of society and our Church…. It is holy.’ That is the kind of theology, in content and method that can make a real difference to the Church’s ministry to families and children. Bibliography Anderson, Herbert and Susan B.W. Johnson. 1995. Regarding Children: A New Respect for Childhood and Families. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press.. Aquinas,Thomas. 1947. Summa Theologiae, 2-2, q.26, a.8. Tr. Fathers of the English Dominican Province.. Benziger Bros. http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/ SS/SS026.html#SSQ26A9THEP1. Accessed 09/02/2006. Browning, Don S., Bonnie J. Miller-McLemore, Pamela D. Couture, K. Brynolf Lyon, and Robert M. Franklin. 1997. From Culture Wars to Common Ground: Religion and the American Family Debate. Louisville, Ky.:Westminster John Knox Press..

4

Earlier verses of 1 Jn.4 receive similar treatment. On the basis of the exhortation (v.11) ‘Beloved, if God so loved us, we also must love one another’, the bishops conclude ‘Thus, the basic vocation of every person, whether married or living a celibate life, is the same: follow the way of love, even as Christ loved you (cf. Eph.5:2). The Lord issues this call to your family and to every family regardless of its condition or circumstances.’

Theology and Children: Towards a Theology of Childhood

175

Bunge, Marcia J. (ed.) 2001. The Child in Christian Thought. Grand Rapids, Mich..: Eerdmans. Bunge, Marcia J. 2001a. “Introduction”. In Bunge. 1-28. Davies, Jon. 1998. “Neither Seen or Heard nor Wanted: The Child as Problematic. Towards an Actuarial Theology of Generation”. In Hayes, Porter and Tombs. 1998, 326-347. Grenz, Stanley J. 2001. The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imago Dei. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press. Gundry-Wolf, Judith M. 2000. “The Least and the Greatest: Children in the New Testament”. In Bunge, 29-60. Guroian, Vigen. 2001. “The Ecclesial Family: John Chrysostom on Parenthood”, in Bunge, pp.61-77. Gutierrez, Gustavo. 199. “The task and content of liberation theology”. In Rowland, 1938. Hastings, Adrian, Alistair Mason and Hugh Pyper, eds. 2000. The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lawler, Michael G. 2002. ‘Towards a Theology of Christian Family’. INTAMS Review 8.1: 55-71. Marshall, Kathleen and Paul Parvis. 2004. Honouring Children: The human rights of the child in Christian perspective. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press. Pyper, Hugh. 2000. ‘Children’. In Hastings, Mason and Pyper. 110. Rowland, Christopher ed. 1999. The Cambridge Companion to Liberation Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rowland, Christopher. 1999a. ‘Preface’. In Rowland, pp.1-16. Stortz, Martha Ellen. 2001. ‘“Where or When Was Your Servant Innocent?” Augustine on Childhood’. In Bunge, 78-102. Thatcher, Adrian. 1999. Marriage After Modernity: Christian Marriage in Postmodern Times. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Thatcher,Adrian. Forthcoming November 2006. Theology and Families. Oxford: Blackwell. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Secretariat for Family, Laity, Women and Youth. 1994. Follow the Way of Love (A Pastoral Message of the U.S. Catholic Bishops to Families on the Occasion of the United Nations 1994 International Year of the Family). www. usccb.org/laity/follow.shtml. Accessed 31.01.06. Zinn, Grover A. 1979. Richard of St. Victor. New York: Paulist Press.

ENVIRONMENT

The Land and the Environment in the Purposes of God: A Biblical Reflection with Special Reference to Romans 8:18-30

Christopher Sugden Canon Dr. Christopher Sugden was the Executive Director of the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies. He is Executive Secretary of the Anglican Mainstream My concern is to look at biblical passages, especially Romans 8:18-30, which speak about the environment and resources in light of New Testament Christian faith. The Kingdom of God in the Old Testament: Hope of Future Final Fulfilment Jesus proclaimed the kingdom of God. Both Matthew (4:17) and Mark (1:15) set Jesus' proclamation of the kingdom at the very start of their description of his ministry. This proclamation introduced, gave a heading to and summarized everything they were to go on and record. The kingdom of God in Jewish thought was expressed in the hopes in the Old Testament for the fulfilment of God's purposes in creation. These hopes were expressed in the hope for the renewal of creation in Isaiah 35:l-7. We will note later how these words will be picked up in Jesus' ministry: 'Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped. Then will the lame leap like a deer and the mute tongue shout for joy. Water will gush forth in the wilderness and streams in the desert.' These hopes were expressed in the hope for a new covenant in which there would be forgiveness of sin and an obedient heart towards God in Jeremiah 3 1:3 1-34. These hopes were expressed in the hope for God's Spirit to be poured on all flesh in Joel 2:28- 29. And they were expressed in the hope for resurrection in Daniel 12:2 and Isaiah 26: 19. The Kingdom of God in the New Testament: Present but Not Yet Fulfilled In his ministry, Jesus announced that he brought new relationships to every aspect of God's creation. He brought a new relationship between people and God whereby people could know God as “Abba,” “Daddy” - fulfilling the hope that “all will know me, from the least of them to the greatest” (Jer. 31:34). He brought a new relationship to people whereby those who were forgiven by God would need to forgive others in turn. And he brought a new relationship

180

The Bible and Christian Ethics

between people and the physical creation. His ministry of healing was a foretaste of the final renewal of the whole creation in the resurrection. When John the Baptist sent his messengers to discover if Jesus was the one to come, Jesus answered in terms that showed he saw himself as the fulfilment of these Old Testament hopes for the renewal of creation: “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor” (Luke 7:22). The decisive evidence that Jesus did not bring the kingdom of God was that he died on the cross under the curse of God. His resurrection must be seen against that background. The person raised from the dead was this man, who had claimed to bring the kingdom, who had been crucified under God's curse, who had risen without the end of the world coming and before the resurrection of all God's people. Jesus' resurrection was the decisive evidence that he had indeed brought the kingdom, and had brought it before the end of the world without the end of the world happening. Thus, the claim of the New Testament is that the kingdom of God is here already in quality, but has yet to be finally fulfilled. However, the decisive victory has been won. We are not locked in a conflict between good and evil whose outcome is in the balance. We know that evil and death have been finally overcome in the cross and resurrection of Jesus. What then are the implications of this framework for humanity's relation with the environment? First, the final coming of the kingdom, when Jesus returns, will see a new heaven and a new earth. Earth is not due to be abandoned in favour of heaven. The scripture indicates that heaven itself is flawed. There are principalities and powers of evil in the heavenly places (Ephesians 6:12). Heaven is rather the place of spiritual realities where there is both good and evil. Colossians suggests that God's final purpose is the union and integration of all things in heaven and on earth through Chris1 (Col. 1:20). A new earth is part of the final coming of the kingdom. Isaiah 66:22 speaks of a new heaven and a new earth; as does Revelation 21: l and Revelation 5: 10. Second, the resurrection of Jesus indicates how highly God values the material creation. The material creation will form part of the final purpose of God, suitably transformed, but if Jesus' resurrection body is our best guide, recognizable. Third, a celebration of that resurrection that looks forward to it, is the sabbath day. The sabbath not only recalls the rest that God took in making creation. It also prefigures the final rest. The Book of Hebrews speaks of those things that the Old Testament promised but could not fulfil. Among them was the sabbath. Hebrews 4:9 speaks of a sabbath-rest that remains for the people of God. The sabbath is therefore a prefiguring of the final rest; an anticipation of creation's final perfection, a day each week when we celebrate the “already” that looks forward to the “not yet.” In his essay entitled “An ironic cage: the rationalization of modern economic life” in Faith and Modernity (edited by Samuel, Sampson and Sugden, Regnum-Paternoster, 1995) Craig Gay speaks

The Land and the Environment in the Purposes of God

181

of the sabbath principle of economics which is that we should not seek to extract the last ounce of productivity out of creation. We must not insist that creation keeps on working and producing. Creation should each sabbath be able to anticipate its own final rest, perfection and completion. The sabbath in scripture is for humanity, the animals and the land. Fourth, the fulfilment of humanity's stewardship is not in a recreation of the garden of Eden but in a city. The process in the scripture is from a garden to a city (Rev. 21:1). A city is the product of human culture. People will bring into the final city of God the glory and honour of the nations (Rev. 21:24-26). It is very important to notice that the Bible does not hanker after recreating or reconstituting a former state of perfection and innocence, as though the experience of the history of earth was best forgotten. The final kingdom of God will include the perfection and transformation of what has been achieved on that very earth. Fifth, our work on earth will be rewarded (1 Cor. 3: 12). Our calling on earth is to be the image of God. Since images of God were banned in Old Testament times we cannot look in the Old Testament for a definition of the term “image”. But from ancient near Eastern sources we find that the image of God, that represented the absentee or invisible god, was the statue in the temple, of the person of the king. They imaged or represented the invisible God, and were to manage his realm on his behalf. Genesis is therefore a statement of radical egalitarianism when it proclaims that the one who represents God is not a stone, or one important person, but every man and woman, in partnership together to manage the earth, and have a shepherdly dominion over it, exercising their rule as God exercises his in a shepherdly way. Thus in the final kingdom of God, our management of the earth will find its fulfilment and reward. Sixth, in Colossians 1: 15 Paul speaks of Christ as the image of God. This is a statement both about his relation to God, and his relation to humanity. Jesus Christ is the true image of God, the one who fulfils the role of managing the creation as God willed. Thus his ministry demonstrates how we are to care for creation. He shows how to be the image of God in caring for the earth. He spoke of God's care of nature, his provision for the flowers of the field and for the birds. Jesus was for twenty years a carpenter. In his ministry he addressed the three powerful forces that affect humanity's care for the environment, power, greed and sex. And his healing miracles prefigure the restoration of creation. But Paul goes even further. In the passage in Romans 8:29 Paul says that we are to be conformed to the image of God's son. This means that in Jesus we are to be transformed into the true representation of the image of God, we are to be enabled to manage and care for the creation as God would have it managed. And we can take this a stage further. For Paul speaks of the creation “waiting in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed” (8: 19). The physical creation waits for those who are being conformed to the image of God's son, the one who showed how to image God and manage his earth. Is the creation only waiting until the return of Christ for these sons to be revealed, or

182

The Bible and Christian Ethics

is there a sense in which the creation is also waiting now for those enabled to truly manage the earth to get on with the task for its benefit? Seventh, how much of our work of stewarding the earth now will be carried across the narrow bridge from this world to the kingdom of God when it finally arrives? From the resurrection of Jesus we know that we, this earth and our work will be recognizable. But our work will be recognizable only after it has been transformed, purified and crowned by the Lord (Rev. 215-8). Paul, when drawing out the ethical implications of the resurrection in Colossians 3 indicates that we can now experience and express the values that will last forever - compassion, kindness, gentleness and patience. These are the values that belong to the resurrection life. But they are to be expressed and experienced in structures of the new heavens and new earth has important significance for our existence and value today. This has important implications for considering issues of nationality and identity today. For many, issues of identity are very closely related to issues of “blood and soil.” While we should not neglect the important role that land and family play in people's identity, we should also note that the promises to Abraham about land and descendants are fulfilled through Christ, and fulfilled in the emergence of the Christian community. For this reason Christians are not Zionists. Human identity, for Christians, is found primarily in relation to God through Christ, not in relation to land. Eighth, it will not only be the work of Christians or of the church that is carried across that bridge. “The creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay” (Rom. 8:21); the glory of the nations will be brought into the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21: 26). The new heavens and new earth will be the fulfilment not just of the work of Christians, but of the work of God in the whole creation. Conclusion We have thus focused on the fulfilment of God's work in a new earth on what will last forever, and on our identity in the light of a new heaven and new earth. We have focused on the way God in Christ cared for the environment, lived as the image of God; defined the values that will last forever, and enabled us to enter that final kingdom. And we can experience those values now in a fallen, imperfect and ambiguous world. This suggests a perspective on our relation to the land, the environment and population issues where the emphasis is not to be on the purity of our actions but on the extent of God's healing, his transformation, his redemption of our tragic circumstances and situations. The resurrection came out of a judicial unjust murder. It also reminds that the focus of the Christian faith is not on a return to a golden age of innocence in the past, but on living now the life of the final kingdom of God that will one day rule over all in a new heaven and new earth where righteousness will be at home.

The Old Testament and the Environment: A Response to Chris Wright

Gordon Wenham Dr. Gordon Wenham is Tutor in Old Testament at Trinity College, Bristol Introduction When we talk of the environment today we are not simply talking about the surface of the earth as a piece of real estate, some of which was assigned to ancient Israel and, therefore, invested with special significance. Environmental issues concern the resources we draw from the land, the plants that grow on the land, the living creatures that inhabit the earth and man’s relationship with them all. Chris Wright makes some passing reference to these issues but I am sure we would like biblical theologians to say more. Strangely, books on Old Testament theology1 and ethics say hardly anything on these topics, at least if one relies on their indices. Yet it has been observed that animals are mentioned on nearly every one of the thousand pages of the Old Testament. This is not surprising, for Old Testament people were intimately involved in the environment throughout life. The weather determined whether their crops would flourish or fail. They drew water from the local well. They depended on animals to plough their fields, transport their goods, for clothing, for food and for sacrifice. Often some of them lived in the courtyard of their houses. Yet though Old Testament people were much closer to nature than we are, they also perceived nature as potentially more hostile. They could be killed by lions or bears. If drought did not cause famine, locusts or disease could be equally fatal. By contrast modern urban dwellers are largely cocooned from the environment. We live in solid centrally heated houses supplied by well organised utility companies, depend on machines for transport, food and clothing production, and never feel threatened by other kinds of life except perhaps bacteria and viruses. Whereas in ancient times people lived in daily contact with the natural world, Westerners today only encounter it through TV or tourism or in vestigial form such as pets and gardening. But these are mere hobbies, optional extras not vital activities for human survival as they once were for nearly everyone. Thus to understand what the Old Testament says about the environment we must first project ourselves back into the lifestyle of the Bible writers. Many 1

Some discussion of this theme may be found in Knierim, R.P. The Task of Old Testament Theology, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995, 225–243; Brueggemann, W. Theology of the Old Testament, Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1998, 528–551; Clines, D.J.A. Job 1–20, Dallas: Word, 1989, l–lii.

184

The Bible and Christian Ethics

comments in the Old Testament simply illustrate their situation, and are hardly normative. However, second, there are texts in the Old Testament that clearly theorise about the environment, about plants, animals, and their relationship to humans and God. These theoretical texts must, therefore, be explored before, third, we move on to discuss the ethical comments which indicate how the Old Testament expected ancient Israelites to treat natural resources, plant and animal life. Finally, after this essentially descriptive exercise we come to the most difficult and controversial stage, that of assessing the relevance of biblical ideas to our very different world and applying them where appropriate. It is at this point that my expertise in Old Testament reaches the end of its usefulness and the knowledge and skills of others become indispensable. So, I shall end my paper by asking some questions. My paper thus falls into four unequal parts, which I have entitled: (1) the life of an ancient Israelite, (2) humans’ relationship to their God-given environment, (3) humans’ obligations towards the environment, and (4) the hermeneutical issue: does the Old Testament speak to today’s debate? The Life of an Ancient Israelite Numerous historical, archaeological and geographical studies2 as well as careful reading of the Old Testament text have given us a clear view of the lifestyle of ordinary Israelites in the period in which most of the texts were written, roughly between 1200–500 BC. The Israelite heartland, the hills of Judah and Samaria, would still have been heavily wooded when the Israelite tribes first settled there. They built their typical four-roomed houses round a courtyard and farmed the land around them. When the children grew up, the daughters married out but the sons stayed on the family estate, which they tried to enlarge by cutting down more trees. Apart from a few merchants, skilled workers, and those employed in the court, most people depended on their land and animals for survival. Figs, vines, and olives were grown on the terraced hills. Some grain would also have been planted on the terraces, and more in the valleys. Most families would have owned flocks of goats and sheep, which doubtless roamed far and wide looking for pasture. The most valuable animals were cattle which served as tractors as well as producing milk, meat and hides. By and large, the Old Testament paints a rosy picture of life in the land. Canaan is a land ‘flowing with milk and honey’. Unlike Egypt which depended on human irrigation with the foot, Canaan is fed by rain from heaven (Deuteronomy 11:11), and the grapes grow in clusters so huge that they need two men to carry them (Numbers 13:23). The patriarchs’ flocks flourished in the land (Genesis 26:14), while the Psalmist rejoices that the ‘valleys stand so thick with corn that they shall laugh and sing’ (Psalm 2

These issues are discussed in Bible dictionaries and atlases. Two full and classic treatments are Baly, D. The Geography of the Bible, London: Lutterworth, 1957, and de Vaux, R. Ancient Israel, London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1961.

The Old Testament and the Environment

185

65:14). But it was a precarious existence. Though the average winter rainfall of Israel is adequate (20 inches or more), it is variable in its timing and quantity. If it started late or ended early, crops would be poor, and if there was too little rain, there would be famine affecting both people and animals (Jeremiah 14:2– 6). Without deep wells and sprinklers nothing humanly could be done to remedy the situation. Prayer, emigration or death were the only options when stores ran out (Genesis 12:10; Ruth 1:1). Drought was not the only threat to life though. The woods were home in Bible times to numerous wild animals, such as lions and bears, which could kill humans and their livestock (1 Samuel 17:34). Survival could also be threatened by plagues of insects, such as locusts, or crop diseases (Deuteronomy 28:22,39,42). Although Mesopotamians felt threatened by over-population, ancient Israel was concerned that for lack of energetic workers they would not be able to keep the wildlife at bay (Exodus 23:29) or prevent the cultivated vine terraces being over-run by briars and thistles (Proverbs 24:30–34; Isaiah 7:23). The biblical writers were therefore fully involved with the natural environment. They knew at first hand the joys and problems of ancient Israelite agriculture. They recognised the natural fertility of the land given them by God, and saw this as one of his great blessings to them. But, on the other hand, they were well aware that their existence in the land could not be taken for granted: God could withhold the rain and that would bring national disaster, or mere sloth could bring personal ruin as the weeds gained the upper hand. Humans’ Relationship to the Environment Water and other natural resources This ambivalent situation is reflected in the texts that discuss the theology of the environment. Little is said about natural resources except water. Canaan is a ‘land of brooks of water, of fountains and springs, flowing forth in valleys and hills… a land whose stones are iron, and out of whose hills you can dig copper’3 (Deuteronomy 8:7–9). Deuteronomy expects these resources to be enjoyed thankfully: ‘you shall bless the LORD your God for the good land he has given you’ (8:10). Deuteronomy’s description of Canaan’s bounty echoes the description of Eden in Genesis in which a large river flowed dividing into four branches presumably watering the many trees that it featured. Eden also contained gold and precious stones. Ezekiel also draws on this picture of Eden when he describes the new temple as having a river flowing out of it eastwards down the Kedron valley to the Dead Sea. ‘When it enters the stagnant waters of the sea, the water will become fresh. And wherever the river goes every living creature which swarms will live, and there will be very many fish…. And on the banks, on both sides of the river, there will grow all kinds of trees for food. Their leaves will not wither 3 For a description of ancient mining see Job 28:1–11. Copper was mined at Timnah in Bible times.

186

The Bible and Christian Ethics

nor their fruit fail, but they will bear fresh fruit every month, because the water for them flows from the sanctuary’ (Ezekiel 47:8–12). Within the Bible water is often a symbol for the life-giving power of God, but in the hot dry climate of the Middle East it also inescapably reflects reality. Without water everything quickly dies. Plants Whereas earth’s natural resources are largely a topic for wonder and grateful appropriation (e.g. Job 36:27–38:38; Psalm 104), much more is said about plant life, its place in God’s plan, and people’s relationship to it. The account of creation in Genesis 1 climaxes with the creation of humans on the sixth day and in a sense all the work of the previous days prepares for this. Day three with the emergence of the dry land from the universal ocean and the growth of the first plants is a large step in preparing a habitable environment for human life. Two main kinds of vegetation are distinguished, plants and trees. Both are characterised by bearing seed and propagating according to their kind. The repeated references to seed-bearing and kinds of vegetation hint at God’s concern that life should continue and affirm that the different types of plant life are organised by him. The relevance of plants to human existence becomes explicit on day six after the creation of land animals and humans. Plants and trees bearing seed are assigned to humans to eat, whereas other plants are given to the animals to eat. The reason for the distinction is not very clear, but basically humans are assigned fruits and grain, whereas the animals are expected to eat grass and leaves. Both animals and humans are here portrayed as originally all vegetarians, an idea that was widespread in ancient cultures. It is also striking that whereas in Babylonian thinking humanity was created to provide the gods with food, in Genesis God provides food for humans. The idea that God provides fruit trees to feed humans is the starting point of the garden of Eden story. As soon as Adam has been placed in the garden ‘the LORD God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food’. Adam is then told he may freely eat of every tree save one. In this way Genesis stresses God’s bountiful provision for human need: in the beginning human beings enjoyed a more than adequate supply of high-quality food with minimum effort. However Adam and Eve’s decision to eat the one forbidden fruit led to a complete change in their situation. Fig leaves are used to cover their nakedness and they hide from God among the trees – a comic situation were its longer-term consequences not so tragic, for Adam and Eve are punished by expulsion from this rich orchard to labour on the land to grow their own food. The curse on the ground describes humanity’s plight ever since: ‘Cursed is the ground because of you in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread’ (Genesis 3:17– 19). In other words the difficulties faced by Israelite farmers go back to the first humans disobeying God’s only command to them: ‘Do not eat of that tree’.

The Old Testament and the Environment

187

Disobedience to God’s command is thus the root cause of human problems in food production. The law and the prophets continually hammer home the message that obedience to the law will ensure plentiful rains and good harvests, while disobedience will result in drought and other agricultural disasters. ‘If you… observe my commandments… I will give you your rains in their season, and the land shall yield its increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit.’ ‘If you will not hearken to me… I will make your heavens like iron and your earth like brass; and your strength shall be spent in vain, for your land shall not yield its increase’ (Leviticus 26:3–4,18–20). The fall profoundly affected eating patterns in another way. Genesis 3 is just the beginning of what has been termed an avalanche of sin. Adam and Eve’s sin is followed by Cain’s murder of his brother, Lamech’s seventy-sevenfold vengeance, and universal violence by humans and animals (‘all flesh’) fills the earth, so that God decides to ‘make an end of all flesh’. The flood follows, destroying everyone save Noah’s family and pairs of every living creature. Genesis implies that the preflood violence does not just affect human beings but animals too, so that they attack each other and people as well. But Noah’s sacrifice changes God’s attitude to the endemic sinfulness and violence fundamentally, so that he makes a covenant with all flesh never to destroy the earth again in a flood. He also permits meat-eating with safeguards to underline the preciousness of life. Humans may eat meat, as long as they avoid consuming the blood, for that is its life (Genesis 8:20–9:5). In this way, Genesis explains the situation that faced the peasant farmers of ancient Palestine. Good crops are God’s gifts to an obedient people whereas crop failure is a mark of God’s anger at human sin. It is the primeval sin of Adam that explains the difficulties faced by the ancient Israelite farmer. But this does not exhaust Old Testament thought about the significance of plants. Strong flourishing trees were admired, and often the righteous are compared to them (Psalm 1:3; 52:8; 92:12–14). In particular, the vine is often a symbol of Israel (Psalm 80:8–16; Isaiah 5:1–7). It also appears that wheat may also symbolise Israel or its tribes (Leviticus 24:5–6). It is striking that these highly valued foodstuffs which are also used in sacrifice may be identified with the chosen people: something similar happens with clean animals, i.e. those which may be eaten and often sacrificed, which also clearly symbolise Israel. The relationship between people and plants is not so intimate as that between animals and people, but these parallels do suggest there is a relationship even if weak between human and plant life, so that Isaiah can say ‘All flesh is grass… surely the people is grass.’(40:6–7) The law looks forward to a day when the nation will be so obedient that it will fully enjoy God’s blessings, that the harvests will be so huge that they will not have finished gathering in one before the next is ready. ‘Your threshing shall last to the time of vintage, and the vintage shall last to the time of sowing’ (Leviticus 26:5). This hope becomes even brighter in the eschatological vision of the prophets. They look for the restoration to the prosperity of Eden ‘The days are coming’ says the LORD, ‘when the ploughman shall overtake the reaper and the treader of grapes him who sows the seed; the mountains shall drip sweet

188

The Bible and Christian Ethics

wine, and all the hills shall flow with it’ (Amos 9:13). Isaiah looks forward to a day when: The wilderness and dry land shall be glad, the desert shall rejoice and blossom, like the crocus it shall blossom abundantly (35:1–2). We have already looked at Ezekiel’s vision of the new Jerusalem from which flows a huge river into the desert and makes the Dead Sea fresh (47:1–12). Thus in powerful images the prophets picture the perfecting of the environment so that it returns to the original peace and abundance that characterised creation at the beginning. Animals A similar pattern characterises the prophets’ handling of the animal world. It was obvious to the ancients that humans are much closer to the animals than any other part of creation, and Genesis while affirming this closeness also defines the differences between humans and animals quite carefully. For example birds, fishes, animals and humans are all termed ‘living creatures’ (nephesh hayyah). Birds and fishes, like humans, are ‘created’ (a term used sparingly in Genesis 1 for the more dramatic stages of the creative process), and they are all blessed by God and commanded to be fruitful and multiply.4 But only humans are said to be made in God’s image. ‘So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.’ It is because humans alone are made in the divine image that they are given dominion over the rest of creation, a highly controversial topic in the environmental debate, so we shall pause and try and unpack Genesis’ understanding of humanity’s status here. What constitutes the image of God has perplexed exegetes and theologians for centuries. It is something that distinguishes humans from the animals and links them with God and the angels, so all sorts of human characteristics, such as rationality, speech, moral and spiritual powers, have been identified with the divine image. While there may be truth in many of these suggestions, we cannot be sure.5 More help comes from ancient Near Eastern sources. In both Egypt and Babylon, the king was often regarded as God’s image that is his representative on earth ruling on his behalf. While this does not explain the essence of the image, it certainly clarifies its function. Because humans are made in God’s image, they represent God on earth and rule for him. Making humans in God’s image and giving them responsibility for the rest of creation are closely connected in Genesis 1:26: ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish… birds… cattle and over all the earth’. Psalm 8 puts the same ideas more explicitly and poetically: What is man that thou are mindful of him… ? Yet thou hast made him little less than God, 4

Though the land animals are not explicitly said to be created, blessed or told to multiply, I think this is just to avoid too much repetition and give a little variety. Since everything else created on days 5 and 6 is created, blessed and multiplied, the idea carries over to the animals too. 5 For fuller discussion see Westermann, C. Genesis 1–11, London: SPCK, 1984, 142– 155, and Wenham, G. J. Genesis 1–15, Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987, 29–33.

The Old Testament and the Environment

189

and dost crown him with glory and honour. Thou hast given him dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field (Psalm 8:4–7). Where the Bible differs from Egypt and Mesopotamia is in affirming that every human being, male and female, not just the king is made in God’s image. This means that every human life is sacred and must be protected (Genesis 9:6). It also means that every human being is given authority over and responsibility for the rest of creation to manage it in the way that God would. Two terms are used in Genesis to describe humans’ management function visà-vis the rest of creation. They are told to ‘have dominion’ (Hebrew radah) over other living creatures, fish, birds, cattle and creeping things and to ‘subdue’ (kabash) the earth. ‘Have dominion’ is quite a positive term for ruling. Whereas many people today have an anarchist streak, or at least an antipathy to those in authority, that was not the official outlook of the ancient Near East, who saw kings as essentially benevolent and concerned with their subjects’ welfare. Psalm 72 puts this message powerfully: Give the king thy justice, O God, May he judge thy people with righteousness and thy poor with justice! Let the mountains bear prosperity for the people, and the hills, in righteousness! May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor! (Psalm 72:1–3) To ‘have dominion’ means to be in charge of something, e.g. workers (1 Kings 4:24; 9:23). To be sure some people may abuse their authority and exercise power harshly (Leviticus 25:43), but that is clearly not the intention here. Humans are created in God’s image, and so as his representative are expected to act in a Godlike way, and God throughout Genesis 1 and 2 is portrayed as a thoroughly creation-friendly deity. Furthermore, as I shall argue below, Genesis depicts a solidarity of humans with animals that precludes an exploitation of their power over them to their disadvantage. But ‘fill the earth and subdue it’ appears to strike a different note. ‘Subdue’ is used elsewhere in two main senses. When people are subdued, they are often turned into slaves (Jeremiah 34:11,16; Nehemiah 5:5), which sounds harsh to modern ears though not necessarily to ancient ones (Genesis 47:19; Exodus 21:5).6 The other sense of ‘subdue’ means to ‘conquer’ the promised land (Joshua 18:1; Numbers 32:22,29). It may be that we have here the first hint of a very important theme in Genesis, the promise of the land of Canaan. What is clear is that subduing the land is the sequel to and probably the consequence of ‘multiplying and filling the earth’. Several times the Old Testament links depopulation of the land with it being over-run by wild beasts and reverting to jungle. For example, ‘I will not drive them [the Canaanites] out from before you in one year lest the land become desolate and the wild beasts multiply against you’ (Exodus 23:29; cf. Leviticus 26:21–22; Isaiah 7:23–24; Hosea 2:12). 6

Slavery offered security because basic needs were guaranteed by a rich employer, whereas freedom for a peasant farmer carried all the risks associated in today’s society with self-employment.

190

The Bible and Christian Ethics

For ancient Israelites, the battle with nature was real, and without sufficient workers it would be lost. But that human beings must control their environment is not a licence for unrestrained exploitation. Genesis 1 depicts God as controlling and organising chaos, creating light, land, seas and all life, but in no way is he hostile to what he creates. It is all very good. So, it follows that his appointed representatives should recognise the goodness of creation and treat it accordingly. That humans should not prey on the animals or animals attack humans is further suggested by the primeval vegetarianism of all living creatures (1:29–30). Genesis 1 thus suggests that humans’ relationship to the rest of creation should be characterised by solidarity, benevolence and control. The same positive relationship is portrayed in Genesis 2, while chapter 3 portrays its breakdown. Like humans, animals are made out of the dust of the ground, and become living beings (2:7,19). It is not said that animals have had the breath of life breathed into them as humans have, but other parallels between verses 7 and 19 imply this, as does Ecclesiastes 3:19 ‘they all have the same breath’. Indeed the animals are created as helpers for the humans; obviously in the pre-machine era humans were much more dependent on animals than they are today. The emphasis in this passage is of course on the fact that no animal exactly meets man’s needs, which are only met by the creation of woman. But we must not overlook what is presupposed, that animals are both companions and helpers of humans. Finally, the authority of humans over the animals is again asserted by Adam’s naming of them: ‘whatever the man called every living creature that was its name.’(2:19) Genesis 2 thus develops the picture of Genesis 1. It suggests that there is more to human-animal relationships than just common origin and nature. Animals are intended to be companions and helpers to humans, and to be subject to their authority. This was obviously not the case in Bible lands in Bible times and Genesis 3 shows how this state of affairs developed. The clever snake implies that it knows more than God and thus persuades the human couple to submit to its authority. This begins the eternal struggle between humans and animals focused in the danger posed by snakes: I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel (Genesis 3:15). Whereas traditional readers have tended to understand this text theologically as the proto-evangelism, the first announcement of the gospel, and liberal commentators as aetiology, why snakes bite humans, it is best to see it as both. One of the effects of the fall is hostility between humans and the animal kingdom, but ultimately the seed of Eve will triumph over the serpent’s seed thus restoring humans’ authority over the animals, which here also symbolise the powers of evil.7 More hints of the changed relationship between humans and animals are the use of animal skins to clothe Adam and Eve and the offering of animal sacrifice by Abel. Just as humans were sentenced to return to the dust as a result of the fall, so animals also experience death for the benefit 7

For a fuller justification of this approach see Wenham, G. J. Genesis 1–15, Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987, 79–81.

The Old Testament and the Environment

191

of humans. However, it is the flood story that portrays most clearly the solidarity between humans and animals as well as the conflict. The flood was triggered by an earth filled with violence in which all flesh (that is humans and other living creatures) had corrupted itself. Genesis implies that it was not simply intra-human violence such as Cain and Lamech practised, it was violence between humans and animals and possibly between different animals that God objected to. This is clear after the flood when animals as well as people who take human life are sentenced to death. ‘For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning; of every beast I will require it and of man’ (9:5). Furthermore a fear of humans is imposed on the animal kingdom and permission is given to eat meat, as long as blood is not consumed (9:2–4). But despite the intense animosity between humans and animals implied by the flood story, it does at the same time underline the solidarity between them. Noah is of course instructed not simply to save his own family but a pair of every type of animal by embarking them in the ark. The flood starts to abate when ‘God remembered Noah and the beasts and all the cattle that were with him in the ark’ (8:1). Much later God said to Jonah, ‘Should I not pity Nineveh… in which there more than 120,000 persons… and also much cattle?’ For his part Noah’s kindness towards his animal passengers is beautifully summed up in his handling of the dove. But most striking of all is that the covenant made after the flood is not made simply between God and Noah, but ‘with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth.’ ‘When the bow is in the clouds, I will look upon it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature’ (9:10,16). The solidarity between humans and animals is also demonstrated by the most important institution of sacrifice. It is Noah’s offering of animal sacrifice that turned the anger that prompted the flood into the eternal covenant just discussed (6:5, cf. 8:21). Running through sacrificial thought is the idea of substitution, namely that in some much disputed sense the animal represents the human sacrificer. This is clearest in the offering of the firstborn. Originally first-born sons were consecrated to God, but by the offering of a lamb they could be redeemed (Exodus 13:2,12–13). The food laws also imply a strong connection between the human and animal worlds. Studies have shown that the realms of birds, land animals, and humans are similarly structured in biblical thought. These structures may be described over-simply as three concentric circles. The innermost circle contained birds or animals that may be sacrificed: this circle corresponds to human sacrificers, i.e. Israel’s priests. The next circle consists of birds or animals which may be eaten but not sacrificed, the so-called clean animals such as sheep or goats: this circle corresponds to the chosen nation of Israel. Finally the outermost circle contains birds and animals that may never be eaten, birds of prey, carnivorous animals etc., the so-called unclean animals: these correspond to the Gentile nations. Thus in every act of worship and every meat meal the Israelite was reminded of the linkage between human and animal life and God’s choice of Israel. The dominant note in the rest of the Old

192

The Bible and Christian Ethics

Testament is of the solidarity, even intimacy, between animals and humans.8 A good number of personal names, Deborah ‘bee’, Caleb ‘dog’, Rachel ‘ewe’, to mention just a few, are names of animals. In Jacob’s blessing many of the tribes are compared to animals (Genesis 49). In several psalms, Israel is compared to sheep. Proverbs draws various lessons from animal behaviour, while the Song of Songs likens the lovers variously to mares, doves, gazelles, young stags, and to fawns. But the tension between humans and animals implied in Genesis 3:15 surfaces from time to time, most notably in the plagues of Egypt when the land is successively over-run by frogs, gnats, flies, and locusts as well as other disasters. In the desert, Israel was punished by fiery serpents (Exodus 8–10; Numbers 21:5–9). And the covenant curses envisage wild beasts making havoc of disobedient Israel (Leviticus 26:22). But the longterm vision is positive: once again the vision of a restored Eden with peace and harmony between humans and animals and between the different animals is held up by Isaiah. Even the carnivores will become vegetarians again in the messianic age. The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall feed; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox (Isaiah 11:6–7). Debate has raged among commentators as to how literally this passage should be taken. Animals throughout the Bible are used to symbolise people and especially nations, so is Isaiah essentially just predicting peace between Israel and her enemies in this passage? Such an interpretation certainly makes good sense of what follows which predicts all nations submitting to a second David (11:10–16). It would seem to me that at least such a politico-symbolic meaning is required here, but since violence between the animals is always seen as mirroring violence between humans, a more literal understanding is also probable. It is often thought that Mark sees a fulfilment of this prophecy in Jesus’ experience in the wilderness: 1:15 ‘he was with the wild beasts’ (and was obviously not assaulted by them) indicates the dawn of the messianic age. Thus in many ways the Old Testament vision for animals matches that of its view of plant life. Originally in God’s creation, there was peace and plenty, but this harmony was destroyed by sin, so that now life is a hard struggle to survive. Crops fail and animals eat each other. But in the messianic age there will be peace among people, peace between the animals, and food for all. Hosea brings all these together: ‘I will make for you a covenant on that day with the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the creeping things of the ground; and I will abolish the bow, the sword, and war from the land…. In that day… I will answer the heavens and they shall answer the earth; and the earth shall answer the grain, the wine, and the oil’ (Hosea 2:18–21). 8

On the Old Testament approach to animals, Janowski, B. Neumann-Gorsolke U. and Glessmer, U. Gefährten und Feinde des Menschen: Das Tier in der Lebenswelt des alten Israel, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993, contains the most useful collection of essays on the topic.

The Old Testament and the Environment

193

Humans’ Obligations to the Environment Plants The Old Testament sees humans as God’s representatives on earth, responsible for filling it with human beings and managing the other living creatures. Because they are made in God’s image, humans must act in a Godlike way towards their fellow creatures. There is solidarity between humans and animals both in nature and under the covenant that implies a mutuality of interest: since animals are helpers to humans, Genesis implies that humans should care for animals. The Bible looks forward to a restored Eden, where water will be abundant and crops flourish, and humans and animals will live in peace together. However reality is different. Drought, crop failure, attacks from animals and human beings characterised life from time to time in ancient as well as modern times. How does one live under these circumstances? How should humans react to aggression by plants, animals, and other human beings? How do the principles of solidarity with and benevolent rule of the environment affect daily life? How do biblical ideals and hopes modify behaviour? The laws of the Old Testament represent an uneasy compromise between ideals and the facts of daily life. For example, the permission to eat meat is a concession introduced after the flood, but God still insists that blood is forbidden, because to consume it would show no respect for life. Many legislative provisions in the Pentateuch must be read this way: they define not the perfect way to live, but a floor for behaviour below which no-one dare fall without the threat of punishment. There are few laws about plant life. Exodus 22: 5–6 insists on compensation to the owner where his crops are damaged by fire or grazing, but this is more a question of property rights than environmental protection. However, Deuteronomy’s (20:19–20) ban on the cutting down of fruit trees in war to prosecute a siege does sound more environmentally motivated: ‘you may eat of them, but you shall not cut them down. Are the trees in the field men that they should be besieged by you?’ When fruit trees are planted, they must be allowed to crop without being picked for three years. The fourth year’s produce must be given to God, and then from the fifth year on it may be harvested normally (Leviticus 19:23–25). This patient waiting until the fifth year will ensure that they ‘yield more richly for you’. It seems likely that the enhanced crop is seen as God’s reward for giving to him the first fruits, not an automatic result of good horticultural practice. Throughout the law there is a requirement that first fruits of all crops, firstling domestic animals, and an annual tithe should be dedicated to God. As Proverbs 3:9–10 puts it: Honour the LORD with your substance and with the first fruits of all your produce; then your barns will be filled with plenty and your vats will be bursting with wine. There are a number of rules on gleaning and fruit-picking designed to help the poor of society, but they do not shed any light on attitudes to plant life (Leviticus 19:9–10; Deuteronomy 23:24–25; 24:19–22). There is a strong prohibition against mixtures. ‘You shall not let

194

The Bible and Christian Ethics

your cattle breed with a different kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; nor shall there come upon you a garment of cloth made of two kinds of stuff’ (Leviticus 19:19, cf. Deuteronomy 22:9–11). The motivation for the mixture ban is obscure. It may be related to the emphasis in Genesis 1 that God created all plants and living creatures ‘according to their kinds’. Is it a case of ‘What God has set apart, let no man confuse’? Or has it a more symbolic value related to the stern prohibition of intermarriage between Israel and the Canaanites? The food laws certainly reminded Israel of their election to be the people of God. These mixture laws could be making a similar point: Israel is different and distinct from the nations. The law that looks most ecological in intent is that dealing with the seventh year: ‘For six years you shall sow your land and gather in its yield; but the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow, that the poor of your people may eat; and what they leave the wild beasts may eat’ (Exodus 23:10–11, cf. Leviticus 25:2–7). Here the land is portrayed as needing a sabbath (cf. 26:34–35), though the major thrust is once again on helping the poor. Most strikingly it also helps the wild animals, who more frequently are viewed as a major threat to human survival. This legislation while not comprehensive does seem to convey a gentle non-exploitative approach to the environment. Resting the land every seventh year, giving first fruits to God, helping the poor and even the wild beasts, are the reasons appealed to in order to justify these rules. The texts suggest that maximum yields will be achieved by putting God first and letting the poor share the harvest, not by overworking the land and retaining all its fruits for oneself. Animals The most striking example of human solidarity with the animals comes in the Ten Commandments, the central covenantal text of the Old Testament. The Sabbath rest is for the whole household including ‘your cattle’ according to Exodus 20. Deuteronomy is even more specific: ‘you shall not do any work… or your ox, or your ass, or any of your cattle’ (5:14). Genesis and Hosea include animals within the covenant: the Decalogue allows them to rest on the sabbath. Animals are mentioned again in the tenth Commandment against coveting. The Ten Commandments seem to grant a moral status to animals; the laws on goring oxen appear to presuppose a degree of moral responsibility. Genesis 9:5 insists an animal which kills a human must die, but Exodus seems to underline this by insisting that the guilty ox should be killed by stoning, a method of execution usually reserved for grave offences (Exodus 21:28–32). Striking for their humaneness are the laws dealing with the animals of an enemy. ‘If you meet your enemy’s ox or his ass going astray, you shall bring it back to him. If you see the ass of one who hates you lying under its burden, you shall refrain from leaving him with it, you shall help him to lift it up’ (Exodus 23:4–5, cf. Deuteronomy 22:1–4). Why does the law emphasise that the animals belong to an enemy? Presumably because no-one should need encouragement to help a friend’s

The Old Testament and the Environment

195

beast. The law seems to be suggesting that even if you do not love the owner you should still love his animal. Concern for animals’ feelings seem to underline a law forbidding the new-born to be removed from their mother in the first week of life even for sacrifice, (Leviticus 22:27–29). And, in any case, mother and young must not be killed on the same day, a bird and its eggs or chicks must not be taken at the same time (Leviticus 22:28; Deuteronomy 22:6–7). Three times the law forbids cooking a kid in its mother’s milk (Exodus 23:19; 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21). The reasons for this ban are never explained, but it could well be a combination of outrage at the apparent heartlessness of such a custom and the subversion of the natural order that it implies: milk should be used for sustaining the kid’s life not cooking it. Sustaining the life of humans, animals and plants is a recurrent element of biblical thinking and some of these laws may have a similar function: they curb practices that could jeopardise the survival of a species, e.g. killing a bird and its chicks. The ban on castrating animals (Leviticus 22:24) would seem more likely to reflect the legislator’s devotion to maintaining life than concern for animal comfort. On the other hand ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain’ is surely motivated by considerations of welfare (Deuteronomy 25:4). As I have already stated, legislation sets a minimum standard of behaviour: it does not specify the ideal. An Israelite finding a bird’s nest who took both mother and chicks would be breaking the law, but if he took neither he would not. Indeed, he might be coming closer to the lawgiver’s ideal. Proverbs 12:10 probably sums up the underlying philosophy of the Bible when it says: ‘A righteous man has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel.’ It is not simply that the righteous man wants his animal to survive, but rather he cares for its nephesh. Though ‘life’ may be a suitable translation of nephesh sometimes, here it has more the sense of ‘soul, inner self’, so that we could paraphrase it ‘a good man cares for the welfare of his animals’. In examining Genesis we saw that humans and animals shared similar origins and natures and, therefore, there was solidarity between them. Before the fall, animals and humans lived in harmony together, but this degenerated into a universal reign of violence, which had to be regulated after the flood. The prophets look forward to a restoration of the original harmony, but in the interim, the law constitutes the main means of regulating the potential violence and maintaining a semblance of order. Yet these regulations do not lose sight of the original goals of the creator. While humans’ control of animals is reasserted through these laws, there is a benevolence towards other living creatures enshrined in them that expresses the solidarity between people and animals that goes back to creation. Humans, the image of God on earth, should like their creator be concerned with the living creatures they reign over: these laws show a concern not simply that animals should survive, but that those who serve humans, particularly oxen and donkeys, should be treated with kindness.

196

The Bible and Christian Ethics

The Old Testament and the Environment Today It is obvious that we cannot transfer Old Testament laws straight over into our modern debate. Our society is so different that a literal transfer of the rules, e.g. muzzling oxen, is out of the question. We have seen that their society depended on animals much more than we do in our mechanised age, that they felt threatened by drought, famine, and wild animals, whereas we do not. The wonderful yields obtained by modern farmers would surely have seemed like Eden to ancient Israelites. Similarly wildlife, apart from insects, bacteria and the like, has been well and truly subdued, and mankind has made great progress in filling the earth. In many respects, we seem closer to the golden age looked forward to by the prophets than they were. On the other hand, if the gloomier predictions of the climatologists prove correct, we could be facing problems that will make the occasional biblical drought and famine seem trivial by comparison. The curses of Deuteronomy 28:20–24 for breaking the law will start to operate at a global scale instead of nationally. Resistant strains of bugs may wipe out crops or people despite the best efforts of modern science. How far are these threats the result of disregarding biblical principles concerning the environment? Other questions to modern practice raised by the Bible include: Should we be encouraging a more vegetarian diet (cf. origins of BSE or ‘mad cow disease’)? Is genetic modification of species imitating God’s creativity or is it showing disregard for the bans on mixing species? When does management of the earth’s resources on God’s behalf become exploitation by human greed? Should we make a distinction between the use of renewable and non-renewable resources? How far is the profit motive fostering undesirable agricultural practices? Should the biblical principles of the seventh year being fallow, dedication of first-fruits and firstlings, and tithing affect attitudes? How should human solidarity with animals affect attitudes towards them? Particularly in regard to conservation, veterinary practice, experimentation, pesticide use, hunting etc.? What is the proper exercise of human dominion in these spheres? Is the growth in human population a problem, or is it the lifestyle associated with increased wealth that is worrying? These are some of the questions that reading the Bible in the modern world raise for me. I fear there are no easy answers. We are not living in the old Eden or the new heavens and earth. Like Israel of old, we shall be forced to make compromises between our theological ideals and the situation we find ourselves in. I hope that in discussing answers to our questions that we shall not lose sight of the ethical principles and theological hopes enshrined in Scripture.

The New Testament Teaching on the Environment

Ernest Lucas Rev. Dr. Ernest Lucas is Tutor in Biblical Studies at Bristol Baptist College, United Kingdom Introduction The New Testament contains very little material that can be labelled as explicitly ‘teaching on the environment’. There are three good reasons for this. 1. The New Testament is not a work of systematic theology but a collection of what might be called ‘occasional’ writings, in the sense that each book was written for a particular audience and situation. The Gospels were written to evoke or confirm faith in Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God and the source of salvation (while only John 20:31 states this explicitly, this seems to be true of the other Gospels too). Each gives a selective account of what Jesus said and did (cf. John 20:30), and has a particular audience in mind. Most of the Letters are written to specific church situations and deal with issues relevant to that situation. Environmental matters seem not to have been an issue on anyone’s mind in the eastern Mediterranean world at the time when the New Testament writings were being written, so they do not appear explicitly in them. 2. The Old Testament forms the Scriptures of a national, political community living in its own land. Moreover, it was a community, which had a strong agricultural base to its economy. So, it is not surprising that these Scriptures contain a good deal of material about land use, treatment of animals, sharing of resources within the community, and so on, which has fairly direct relevance to modern environmental issues. The early Christian church was a multinational community, with no political power and having no identification with a particular land. Moreover, the churches to which the letters are written are all urban-based. It is, therefore, not surprising that the ethical issues dealt with are largely to do with personal and inter-personal matters. 3. Throughout the period during which the New Testament writings were coming into being, the Old Testament was the Scripture of the Christian church. Hence the teaching of the Old Testament could be taken for granted. It would only need to be repeated or alluded to in areas where there was disagreement within Christian fellowships, or between Christians and Jews. Therefore, the New Testament teaching on the environment is the Old Testament teaching, in the sense that if environmental issues had become a concern to Christians in the first century, they would have turned to the Old Testament for illumination and guidance on these issues.

198

The Bible and Christian Ethics

What all this means in practice, is that in seeking to find ‘the New Testament teaching on the environment’ we will often find ourselves doing one of two things. Sometimes we will be dealing with material that alludes to the Old Testament and seems to assume what it teaches. At other times we will be dealing with ideas and principles which we can see are relevant to environmental issues, but which are not developed in this direction in the New Testament itself. For the sake of convenience this paper will divide up the survey of relevant material in the New Testament by looking at generally recognised sections of the New Testament. Having done that, an attempt will be made at producing a synthesis. The Synoptic Gospels and Acts In this section, no attempt will be made to enter into the scholarly debate about how far we can get back behind the Gospels to the historical Jesus. The reason for not doing this is, first, that this is a paper about ‘the teaching of the New Testament’. Secondly, in practice, Christians who accept the Bible as authoritative for their faith and conduct recognise as authoritative the canonical Gospels, not a hypothetically reconstructed picture of Jesus. At first sight there is very little in the Synoptic Gospels that is of direct relevance to our environmental concerns. Here, we must not forget that Jesus accepted the Hebrew Bible as Scripture. His response to a question about divorce (Mark 10:1–9) shows that he accepted that humans were created by God, as taught in Genesis 2:4b–25. We can be sure that he would also have accepted that ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth’ (Genesis 1:1) and what that chapter goes on to say about the nature and role of humans on the earth (Genesis 1:26–30). This belief in the createdness of the heavens and the earth and all that is in them is a mark of the apostolic preaching, especially when addressing Gentiles (Acts 14:15; 17:24–28). Jesus taught that God continues to uphold and care for his creation, both human and non-human (Matthew 6:25– 30). Mark and Matthew sum up Jesus’ message as ‘the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God/heaven has come near’ (Mark 1:15; Matthew 4:17).1 This note of ‘fulfilment’, that with Jesus something long-awaited has arrived, is sounded elsewhere in his teaching. Both Matthew and Luke have the saying, ‘Blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. Truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, but did not see it, and to hear what you hear, but did not hear it’ (Matthew 13:16–17; Luke 10: 23–24). When John the Baptist sent some of his disciples to Jesus to enquire whether he was indeed the expected Messiah, Jesus said to them, ‘Go tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised and the poor have the good 1

For a good survey of the material about the kingdom of God/heaven in the Gospels, with a bibliography, see the article by C.C. Caragounis on ‘Kingdom of God/Kingdom of Heaven’ in Green, J.B., McKnight, S. and Marshall I.H. (eds.), Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Leicester: IVP, 1992, 417–430.

The New Testament Teaching on the Environment

199

news brought to them’ (Matthew 11:4–5; Luke 7:22). These words contain clear allusions to Isaiah 35:5–6; 61:1. The latter passage also occurs in Luke 4:16–30. Luke seems to use this story as the programmatic statement of Jesus’ ministry instead of the shorter one found in Mark 1:15 and Matthew 4:17. Here, in the context of a synagogue service in Nazareth, Jesus reads Isaiah 61:1–2 and then says, ‘Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing’. Once again we are confronted with the importance of the Old Testament background, as Jesus takes up the ideas about the establishing of the rule of God in all its fullness, the Day of the Lord and the ensuing age of salvation. Although the expression ‘the kingdom of God’ does not occur in the Old Testament, the idea of God as king is prominent. God is frequently spoken of as king of Israel. One way of speaking of the significance of the events at Sinai is to present it as the time when Yahweh became king of Israel: ‘There arose a king in Jeshurun, when the leaders of the people assembled – the united tribes of Israel’ (Deuteronomy 33:5, the context makes it clear that the ‘king’ is ‘The LORD’ mentioned in verse 2). The prophets continually remind Israel that God is their king. ‘I am the LORD, your Holy One, the Creator of Israel, your King’, says God through Isaiah (Isaiah 43:15). The God of Israel is also seen as the King of all the earth. Jeremiah declares, ‘There is none like you, O LORD; you are great, and your name is great in might. Who would not fear you, O King of the nations?’ (Jeremiah 10:6–7). The Psalms are full of references to Yahweh as universal king: ‘For dominion belongs to the LORD, and he rules over the nations’ (Psalm 22:28); ‘Say among the nations, the LORD is king!’ (Psalm 96:10). It was the Rabbi’s reluctance to use the name of the God of Israel, or even the word ‘God’, or to use verbal expressions of God that transformed the Old Testament phrase ‘the LORD reigns’ into ‘the kingdom of heaven’. There is a tension in the Old Testament, because it is recognised that although God is king of all the earth de jure, that kingship is only partially effective de facto – even in Israel. The prophets therefore look forward to a time when it will be made fully effective. Isaiah says, ‘On that day the LORD will punish the host of heaven in heaven, and on earth the kings of the earth… for the LORD of hosts will reign on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem’ (Isaiah 24:21,23). Zechariah looks forward to ‘that day’ when ‘the LORD will become king over all the earth’ (Zechariah 14:9). So, in the Old Testament there is a looking forward to ‘the Day of the LORD’ when the kingship of God over all the earth will be made fully effective. This will be a two-sided day, a day both of judgement upon evil and of salvation for the righteous. It is significant that when Jesus read from Isaiah 61 in the synagogue at Nazareth, as recorded in Luke 4:18–19, he stopped partway through verse 2. His ministry was to inaugurate ‘the year of the LORD’s favour’, not ‘the day of vengeance of our God’. So the tension of the Old Testament remains in the New, but in a somewhat different form. The Day of the Lord is sometimes spoken of in cosmic terms in the Old Testament. In Isaiah 34 it is the day when ‘All the host of heaven shall rot away, and the skies roll up like a scroll’ (v.4).

200

The Bible and Christian Ethics

However, as what follows shows, this is not the end of the cosmos, but the end of the nation of Edom.2 The two-sidedness of that Day is brought out in verse 8, ‘For the LORD has a day of vengeance, a year of vindication by Zion’s cause’. What that vindication means is described in Isaiah 35, the passage to which Jesus alluded in his reply to John the Baptist. This speaks not only of the healing of humans, but of a wider renewing of creation, with the desert blossoming ‘like a crocus’ (v.1–2). Taken together, Isaiah 34 and 35 seem to speak (in metaphorical terms) not of an abolition and replacement of the created order, but of a renewal and reordering of it. This seems to be true also of the ‘new creation’ language in Isaiah 65 and 66. The language used in Isaiah 65:17, taken on its own, might suggest abolition and replacement, ‘For I am about to create new heavens and a new earth; the former things shall not be remembered or come to mind’. Again, however, what follows describes a renewed and reordered earth.3 This Old Testament background enables us to see that Jesus’ announcement of the coming of the Kingdom of God has ecological implications, even if they are not made explicit in the Gospels. Jesus’ healing miracles should not be seen in a purely human-centred perspective. They are signs of the coming renewal of the whole created order. Jesus’ nature miracles have a special significance in this regard. When he stills the storm on the lake, the way he speaks and the words he uses suggest an act of exorcism.4 It is not only humans that are under the sway of evil, needing to be set free from bondage to Satan through healing and exorcism.5 2

Kaiser, O., in Isaiah 13–39, London: SCM, 1974, 357, comments that since in chapter 35 the prophet ‘clearly assumes that the geographical circumstances of the earth will continue to exist’ the picture painted in 34:4 is used ‘only as an image for the cosmic terrors associated with the day of Yahweh’. 3 Westermann, C., in Isaiah 40–66, London: SCM, 1969, 408, says, ‘The words “I create anew the heavens and the earth” do not imply that the heaven and earth are to be destroyed and in their place a new heaven and earth created…. Instead, the world, designated as “heaven and earth” is to be miraculously renewed’. Watts, J.D.W., in Isaiah 34–66, Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1987, 354, gives a more historical interpretation. He takes the ‘new heavens and new earth’ language to represent ‘the new order, divinely instituted, which chaps. 40–66 have revealed and in which the Persian Empire has Yahweh’s sanction and Israel is called to be a worshipping and a pilgrim people with Jerusalem as its focus’. 4 Anderson, H., in The Gospel of Mark, London: Oliphants, 1976, 145, says, ‘ “Peace! Be still!” are in the Greek “Silence! Be muzzled!” and the latter (cf. Mk. 1:25) features in wonder- worker stories almost as a technical term for dispossessing a demon of his power’. 5 There is not space here to discuss the issue of how the ‘Fall’ is best understood. Christians have tended to polarise around ‘ontological’ and ‘relational’ understandings of it. The former hold that there was a change in the physical being of things. The latter see the results of the Fall in terms of changes in relationships. In my view the relational view accords better both with the nature of the story in Genesis 3 and with the reality of the evidence for the natural history of the earth. The act of disobedience broke the proper relationship between humans and God. The result was a breakdown of other key relationships. Individuals are no longer at peace with themselves (Adam and Eve felt

The New Testament Teaching on the Environment

201

The same is true of the non-human creation, and Jesus’ work of liberation embraces both human and non-human creation. In his work as Redeemer, Jesus is forwarding God’s work as Creator. Jesus expresses the core of ‘kingdom ethics’ in terms of the two great commandments: ‘the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength’ and ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’ (Mark 12:29–31). Each of these commandments has implications with regard to concern for our environment. To love God must surely mean to value the creation as he values it, and to be committed to his purpose for it. Since he is working to free it from the ravages of evil, so must we. To love your neighbour as yourself is a very pro-environmental attitude. If I do not want my environment spoilt by air pollution, by-pass roads, rubbish tips, etc., then I should not wish these on my neighbours but work for them and with them to find solutions to these problems. This applies not only to neighbours in space, those who share the world with me now, but also to neighbours in time, future generations. In the Synoptic Gospels Jesus’ normal way of referring to himself is as ‘the Son of Man’. There has been extensive debate about the meaning of this ‘title’ as used by Jesus, and about its origin.6 However, there is considerable agreement that, as used in the Synoptic tradition, it is linked with the figure of ‘one like a son of man’ who appears in Daniel 7 (NB Mark 8:38; 13:26; 14:62; with parallels in the other Synoptics). In Daniel 7, this figure represents ‘the holy ones of the Most High’ and ‘To him was given dominion and glory and kingship… and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed’ (v.14). Clearly, this is the establishing of the universal rule of God. In the context of Daniel 7 this amounts to the completion of God’s creative purpose. The vision opens with imagery borrowed from ancient near-Eastern creation stories – the raging waters and the chaos monsters. Yet the ‘son of man’ and ‘dominion’ language is reminiscent of the Hebrew understanding of creation, as found Genesis 1:26–28 and Psalm 8:3–8. It was God’s intention that his ‘good’ creation should be ruled over and cared for by humans as his representatives. Because humans have refused to submit to God’s rule, and ruled in their own name, the human powers in Daniel 7 are depicted as bestial, sub-human. Their rule is destructive. When God steps in, judges them and establishes his kingdom, it is represented by a human figure, signifying the completion of his creative purpose. Once again we see that the coming of God’s kingdom does not mean the abolition of his creation, but the restoring and fulfilment of it. Such an understanding of Daniel 7 seems to be shame), or with one another (Adam blamed Eve). The harmonious relationship between humans and the rest of creation has been disturbed (the cursing of the ground). But this has given evil an entrance into the world which it would otherwise not have. This is the truth represented by the Pauline reference to the ‘principalities and powers’ and their influence over the world and humans. 6 On this debate see the article by I.H. Marshall on ‘Son of Man’ in Green, J.B., McKnight, S. and Marshall I.H. (eds.) Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Leicester: IVP, 1992, 775–781.

202

The Bible and Christian Ethics

implied in Matthew 19:28, which links the coming of the Son of Man in glory with ‘the renewal of all things’. There is similar language in Acts 3:21, where the return of Jesus is linked with ‘the time of universal restoration’. Given this clear understanding of the establishment of the kingdom of God as the fulfilment of creation, it is apposite that Daniel is the one book in the Old Testament with a clear understanding of the resurrection of the individual. The reaction of some of the Athenians to Paul’s preaching of the resurrection (‘some scoffed’, Acts 17:32) points to the significance of this doctrine. In much of Greek philosophy, there was a strong spirit-matter dualism. Salvation meant escaping from the material to the spiritual realm to exist as a disembodied, immaterial soul. As a result, matter was regarded as inferior, even evil. For the Hebrews, on the other hand, matter was an aspect of God’s ‘good’ creation. It is a commonplace of Old Testament scholarship that there is no strong spirit-matter dualism in Hebrew thought. So, when individual salvation comes into focus, it is still an embodied existence that is envisaged, though in Daniel 12:3 the imagery of ‘shining like stars’ may imply that it is a transformed body. All of this is relevant to understanding the full significance of the resurrection of Jesus. The Synoptic Gospels make it clear that it was a bodily resurrection. The tomb in which Jesus had been laid was empty. Luke’s account emphasises the materiality of Jesus’ resurrection body and its continuity with the body that was laid in the tomb. Jesus was recognisable to his friends (24:31). His body bore the scars of his crucifixion. Jesus says, ‘Look at my hands and feet. Touch me and see; for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see I have’ (24:39). Jesus then eats a piece of fish to drive the point home. Yet this is a transformed body, scars and all. It is a body that can appear and disappear at will (Luke. 24:31,36). This is the only sign we have of what the renewal and reordering of the creation might mean. So, this survey of the Synoptic Gospels and Acts shows that, when the ministry of Jesus is understood against the background of what the Old Testament says about God’s rule, the Day of the Lord and the ‘one like a son of man’, it becomes clear that there are implications for Christian attitudes towards our environment. They are only implications, because they are part of the understanding of God’s purposes that was common ground between Jesus and his Jewish contemporaries. Those purposes involved the renewal and reordering of the whole creation, not just the saving of human beings. In this, the redemptive work of Jesus plays the vital role. The Johannine Literature The phrase ‘the kingdom of God’ occurs only twice in John’s Gospel (John 3:3,5). It is closely related to new birth and receiving eternal life, and it is the phrase ‘eternal life’ (or sometimes just ‘life’) that replaces it in John. Much of what is said about ‘eternal life’ in John parallels what is said about ‘the kingdom of God/heaven’ in the Synoptics. One reason for this change of

The New Testament Teaching on the Environment

203

terminology in John might be indicated by Acts 17:7. Some people in Thessalonica accused Paul of ‘acting contrary to the decrees of the emperor, saying that there is another king named Jesus’. Clearly, while the concept of the kingdom of God was deeply meaningful to Jews, others could easily misunderstand it in purely down-to-earth political terms. Whatever the reason for this change of terminology, it seems to give John’s Gospel a more ‘spiritual’ and less ‘material’ ethos in its understanding of salvation. However, this is belied by the fact that John, in both the Gospel and the letters, very clearly rejects any matter-spirit dualism. Greeks, especially perhaps adherents of Stoicism, reading the prologue of John’s Gospel would find a great deal of common ground with what is said in verses 1–13.7 Talk of the Word, the Logos, that was divine and was active in creation and in ongoing life-giving, would be intelligible and acceptable to them. So would talk of this Logos’ role in enlightening people and bringing them to God. However, for such a reader verse 14, with its bald statement that the ‘the Logos became flesh’, would have been shocking. This intimate uniting of the spiritual and the material was unthinkable. Yet John insists on it. It is this Word made flesh that is the revelation of God’s grace and truth to us. It is the supreme way in which God is made known to us. At the other end of his Gospel John is as clear as Luke about the material nature of Jesus’ resurrection body. The tomb was empty. The body was unlike a normal body in that Jesus can appear in a locked room. Yet it is continuous with his former body because Thomas can put his finger in the nail prints and his hand in the spear wound in Jesus’ side. In the letters of John there are two key Christian ‘confessions’. One is, ‘Jesus is the Son of God’ (1 John 4:15). The other is, ‘Jesus Christ has come in the flesh’ (1 John 4:2; 2 John 7). Moreover, 1 John 5:6, with its statement that Jesus Christ came ‘by water and blood’, is probably insisting that the one who was designated as the Son of God at his baptism by the voice from heaven died a real death on the cross. If this is so, then there is clearly an anti-Gnostic polemic here. Some Gnostics taught that the divine spirit descended on the man Jesus at his baptism but left him before he died on the cross.8 Behind this was their strong spirit-matter dualism. John’s insistence on the materiality of Jesus’ resurrection body, and so presumably ours too, might seem somewhat at odds with the only glimpse he gives us of our eternal existence. This is in John 14:2–3, ‘In my Father’s house are many dwelling places. If it were not so, would I have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself’. This could be taken to imply a purely spiritual existence in heaven. In fact commentators are divided over the meaning of the ‘coming again’ in this passage. Some take it to refer to Jesus’ coming to indwell believers through the Holy Spirit, and so unite them with the Father. Others take it as a reference to 7

Dodd, C.H. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge: CUP, 1953, 263– 285. 8 Marshall, I.H. The Epistles of John, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978, 231–233.

204

The Bible and Christian Ethics

Jesus’ return at the end of the age. Still others think it refers to Jesus coming to believers when they die.9 If we do take it in an eschatological sense (whether referring to death or the end of the age), we would do best to understand it in the light of the only other picture we are given of eternal existence in the Johannine literature, in Revelation 21 and 22. Revelation 21:1 echoes Isaiah 65:17 and, like that verse, if taken on its own could be taken to mean the total destruction of the first creation and its replacement by a new creation. However, what follows suggests that this is not the case. John sees a new Jerusalem coming down out of heaven, presumably to the new earth (so our eternal existence is not in heaven). The nature of what is happening is explained in verse 5, ‘See, I am making all things new’. This suggests a renewing of the old by a radical transformation, not the abolishing of it to start again de novo.10 11 What follows confirms this. The kings and the peoples of the nations bring ‘their glory’ into it. There is continuity with the first creation, and this is a continuity to which human endeavour makes its contribution. Also, there are elements of the picture which remind us of the Garden of Eden – the river and the tree of life. God walked with Adam and Eve in that garden daily. In John’s vision God and the Lamb are permanently present in the city. So, this is the culmination of the creative purpose of God as his creatures enjoy continuous fellowship with their Creator. But, we are reminded, this has been made possible by ‘the Lamb that was slain’ (Revelation 5:6,12), the ‘Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world’ (John 1:29). It may be significant that this picture of the culmination of God’s purpose is not a simple return to the Garden of Eden, but a City of Eden. In Genesis 4 the city is a human artifact, with the first one being built by Cain. This might imply that in the New Jerusalem that has come from heaven to earth God has incorporated the best of human endeavours in the working out of his purposes. This survey shows that in the Johannine literature, as in the Synoptic Gospels, the redeeming work of Jesus cannot be separated from the achieving

9

The verb ‘come’ in verse 3 is present tense in the Greek, perhaps emphasising a continuing event (which would favour the idea of Jesus’ coming to indwell the believer, as might verse 23). However, the verb ‘take’ is future tense in the Greek, allowing the possibility that ‘come’ should also be read as future (and so allowing the reference to be to either the death of the believer or the coming of Jesus at the end of the age). See the brief discussion in Barrett, C.K. The Gospel According to John, SPCK, 1956, 381–382. 10 Beasley-Murray, G.R., in The Book of Revelation, London: Oliphants, 1974, 312 comments on Revelation 21:5, ‘The word order should be observed, “Behold, new am I making all things!” The emphasis is on the newness which God imparts to his creation, and therefore to his creatures. He is not discarding them, but granting them to know the newness of life manifest in the risen Christ, and operative even in this age in all who are in Christ’. 11 Bauckham, R., in The Theology of the Book of Revelation, Cambridge, CUP, 1993, 49, says, ‘the contrast between “the first heaven and the first earth”, on the one hand, and “the new heaven and the new earth” on the other, refers to the eschatological renewal of this creation, not its replacement by another’.

The New Testament Teaching on the Environment

205

of God’s original creative purpose. God is concerned with the renewing of the whole of creation, not with saving humans alone and discarding the rest. The Pauline Letters For reasons similar to those given at the start of the section on ‘The Synoptic Gospels and Acts’ (p. 3), the letters traditionally attributed to Paul will be treated here as a whole, without entering into the debate about the apostolic authorship of some of them. It is not surprising that Paul, a self-confessed ‘Hebrew of Hebrews’ (Philippians 3:5), should assume the Old Testament teaching about creation. In Romans 1:20 he asserts that the created world reveals something of the nature of God, its Creator, ‘Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he made’. There is an echo here of Psalm 19:1. There is also an echo of the Old Testament polemic against idolatry, which Paul characterises as worshipping and serving ‘the creature rather than the Creator’ (Romans 1:25). The background of the Old Testament creation narrative is seen in Paul’s comparison of Jesus to Adam. This is developed in some detail in Romans 5:12–21 and 1 Corinthians 15:20–28. Some scholars also see a Christ-Adam contrast behind the Christological hymn in Philippians 2:6–11.12 It is clear from this that for Paul Jesus marks a new beginning for the human race. This is also expressed by his use of ‘new creation’ language to express the state of those who are ‘in Christ’ (Galatians 6:15; 2 Corinthians 5:17). The same idea is expressed in Ephesians 2:15, which speaks of Christ creating ‘one new humanity’, which overcomes the Jew-Gentile divide. Another way in which Paul expresses the same idea is by use of the concept of ‘the image/likeness of God’. This is found only in Genesis 1:26–28; 5:1; 9:6 in the Old Testament. According to Paul, Jesus Christ is ‘the image of God’ (2 Corinthians 4:4; Col. 1:15). God’s purpose is that humans should ‘be conformed to the image of his Son’ (Romans 8:29). It is in Paul’s use of this ‘image’ concept that it becomes clear that he is not talking about God abolishing the old creation and making a new start. Rather, Paul is talking about a process of transformation of the old into the new.13 The work of the Holy Spirit in Christians means that they are ‘being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another’ (2 Corinthians 3:18). The image of ‘putting off’ the old nature and ‘putting on’ a new one, which might seem to imply instant change and total discontinuity, is immediately qualified by saying that the new nature is ‘being renewed in knowledge according to the image of its Creator’ (Colossians 3:10, cf. Ephesians 4:22–24). The implication of 1 Corinthians 15:49 is that this transformation will only be completed at the 12

Hawthorne, G.F., in Philippians, Waco, Tex.: Word, 1983, 82–83, discusses this interpretation briefly. 13 See the article by Clines D.J.A. on ‘Image of God’ in Hawthorne, G.F., Martin, R.P. and Reid D.G. (eds.) Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, Leicester: IVP, 1993, 426–428.

206

The Bible and Christian Ethics

resurrection of the body. Where will people spend eternity in transformed, resurrection bodies? There is no clear answer to this in the Pauline literature. However, it is worth pointing out a fairly common misreading of 1 Thessalonians 4:16c, 17. Paul says that when Christ returns ‘the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord’. It is sometimes assumed that the place where we shall ‘always be with the Lord’ is elsewhere, and so we go to meet him in the air, part-way on the journey to heaven. This, in fact, totally misses the point of the imagery Paul is using here. In verse 15 Paul uses the word parousia to speak of this ‘coming’ of the Lord at the end of the age. This is the word used of the visit of a ruler, or some other very important person, and his entourage to a city, when he would be met outside the city by a deputation from it, which would escort him into the city.14 Paul, therefore, is thinking of believers going to ‘meet the Lord in the air’ in order to escort him to the earth – so is that where ‘we shall always be with the Lord’? Whatever we conclude about the implications of 1 Thessalonians 4:16c–17, it is clear that, as far as humans are concerned, the redemptive work of Christ is seen by Paul as the consummation of God’s purpose for humans when he originally created them in God’s image and likeness. But is Paul interested in a broader redemption of creation? Two aspects of his thought show that he is. The first finds expression in Romans 8:18–25. There has been much debate over the details of this passage. We can only pick up on a few points.15 Some commentators have argued that ktisis here should be taken in the sense ‘the creature’ and as referring to human beings. However, both the general context and specifically verse 20a (with the phrase ‘not of its own will’) lead most to understand it in the sense ‘the creation’, meaning the sub-human creation. It seems best to take mataiotes (futility) in its natural sense of ‘something that does not function as it was designed to and so does not attain its goal’. The word phthora is used by Greek writers of dissolution and decay in the world of nature. The general picture conveyed here by Paul is that human disobedience of God means that the natural order cannot achieve its goal, indeed is falling into disorder.16 Yet there is hope. The redemption of humans by Christ is the central 14

On this see Kittel G. and Friedrich G. (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, v. 5, 859–860 and Bruce, F.F. 1&2 Thessalonians, Waco, Tex.: Word, 1982, 57. 15 Cranfield, C.E.B., in The Epistle to the Romans, v.. 1, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975, 404–420, provides a very full discussion of this passage. 16 Dunn, J.D.G., in The Theology of the Apostle Paul, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998, 100, says ‘Creation has been caught up in the futility of human self-deception. For humankind to think that it stands in relation to the rest of creation as creator to creation (“You shall be like God”) imposes futility as much on creation as on humankind itself. There is an out-of-joint-ness about creation which its human creatures share (8.22–23).

The New Testament Teaching on the Environment

207

part of a wider redemptive work, involving the whole created order. What it will mean for the rest of creation to ‘obtain the freedom of the children of God’ (v.21b) is not explained. However, the linking of this hope with ‘redemption of our bodies’ (v.23b) gives us a clue to what might be in Paul’s mind. It points us to 1 Corinthians 15:35–49 with its imagery of the seed and the plant that grows from it. This combines both continuity and transformation. The old creation is not simply abolished, but is transformed. This, of course, parallels what we have already seen to be true of the way Paul presents the transformation into a ‘new creation’ that goes on in the individual who is ‘in Christ’. Both the renewing work of the Holy Spirit in the believer, and the resurrection of the body provide the same kind of ‘model’ for understanding the ultimate renewal of the whole of creation. The other aspect of Paul’s thought which shows that his perspective regarding Christ’s work is wider than just the salvation of humans is the cosmic significance that is given to Christ in Colossians 1:15–20. In this passage the outcome of Christ’s work is cosmic reconciliation and restoration to harmony. This passage brings together creation and redemption because Christ the Redeemer is the same Christ who is the Creator and the Sustainer of the created order. Paul sees a linkage between the work of Christ in reconciling humans to God and to each other and a reconciling of ‘all things’ to God. Moreover, Christians have been given a ‘ministry of reconciliation’ which flows from Christ’s work (2 Corinthians 5:18–20). Does this have any relevance with regard to ecological issues? Given that Paul insists that Christians should use their redeemed physical bodies (even though that redemption will only be complete at the resurrection of the body) in ways that glorify God (1 Corinthians 6: 19–20; Romans 12:1), there is at least the implication that the same should be true of our use of the redeemed sub-human creation (even though its full redemption awaits ours). Peter’s Letters Some Christians appeal to 2 Peter 3:7–13 as a reason for not getting involved in environmental issues. This passage, they say, speaks of the utter destruction of the present cosmos by fire and its replacement by a new one. The implication seems to be that this physical order has no ultimate place in God’s purposes, so why should Christians bother about issues of conservation and ecology? A glance at this passage in a few modern English translations will show that there are problems of translation, especially in verse 10. Consultation of the more detailed commentaries will show that this is indeed a passage that is difficult to understand.17 Here we can only touch on a few of the major issues, and indicate But as creation shares in humankind’s futility, so it will share in humankind’s liberation from “the slavery of corruption” (8.21)’. 17 Bauckham, R.J. in Jude, 2 Peter. Waco, Tex.: Word, 1983, 298–335, provides a detailed discussion of the textual problem and the issues of interpretation in these verses.

208

The Bible and Christian Ethics

what seems to be a growing consensus on its meaning. Probably the key issue is a textual one, concerning the final word of verse 10. There is a wide variety of readings in the surviving manuscripts, the main options being: ‘will be found’, ‘will disappear’, ‘will be burned up’. There is little doubt among textual scholars that the earliest and best reading is ‘will be found’. Despite this, many English translations have adopted the reading ‘will be burned up’, presumably because it makes the most obvious sense. However, together with its later and more limited attestation in the manuscripts, this is the very reason for suspecting that it is not the original reading, but was introduced as a change to ease the sense. A second issue is the meaning of the word stoicheia in this passage. The translation ‘elements’ leads many modern readers to presume that the reference is to the elements of which all physical things are composed. This is a possible meaning. In the Pauline letters, the word is used to refer to the (hostile) spiritual powers which rule over the created order (Galatians 4:3; Colossians 2:8,20). Some see support for this meaning here too because Peter seems to be echoing Isaiah 34:4, with its reference to the ‘the host of heaven’, meaning the spiritual powers. Many take the word as referring to the heavenly bodies, the sun, moon and stars. This is a well-attested sense of the word in the second century AD. Since in both Jewish and pagan circles the heavenly bodies were often thought of as controlled by spiritual beings, the latter two meanings would probably be closely allied in the mind of the writer of 2 Peter. Because throughout this passage there is a heaven-earth pairing, and because in both of its occurrences it is preceded by a reference to ‘the heavens’, it seems more likely that stoicheia refers to ‘heavenly beings’ of some kind than to the physical elements. So, what does this passage mean? First of all, the clear echoes of Isaiah 34 are significant. They point to the fact that the writer is heir to a long tradition of figurative language about ‘cosmic events’. We have seen that this can be applied to ‘normal’ events within history which are seen as acts of God’s judgement. Hence we should be wary of reading it as a literal account of the end of the physical cosmos. The second thing we need to recognise is that the theme is God’s final act of judgement (v.7), not cosmological speculation about the end of the physical universe. Once the judgement theme is seen as primary, a good deal falls into place. Sense can be made of the reading ‘will be found’ at the end of verse 10. The verb ‘to find’ is used in the Old Testament in judicial and quasi-judicial contexts of moral and judicial scrutiny, e.g. Exodus 22:8; Psalm 17:3; Daniel 5:27. In the Bible the passive form of a verb sometimes conceals a reference to God as agent. So, the end of verse 10 refers to the judgement of the earth and all the deeds done on it by God. But to what does the earlier part of the verse refer? In the Old Testament (e.g. Isaiah 24:21; 34:5) judgement of the heavenly powers precedes, or accompanies, judgement on earth. That may be all that is in mind in 2 Peter 3, though the use of the phrases ‘dissolved with fire’ (v.10) and ‘melt with fire’ (v.12) may suggest destruction of the physical ‘heavenly bodies’ as well. However, in the Old Testament fire is used as a metaphor of judgement which does not simply destroy, but purifies,

The New Testament Teaching on the Environment

209

e.g. Isaiah 21–26; Malachi 1–4. The language of ‘dissolving/melting’ would fit in with the figurative use of the idea of fire refining impure metals. All this points to the primary reference of verses 7–12 being to the ultimate act of God’s judgement, which will purge the created order of all evil. The language used is drawn from a long tradition in which this kind of language is used figuratively of acts of God within history. How far the writer would have regarded it as literal in this case we cannot really be sure. What is clear is that the main point is that out of this act of judgement come a new heaven and a new earth (v.13). If taken strictly, the parallel with the Flood (v.5–6) suggests that while the event may be a cataclysmic one, there is still considerable continuity between the worlds before and after purifying judgement.18 There may well be an implication of continuity in the Greek word used for ‘new’ (kainos) in verse 13. Although the earlier clear distinction between kainos (new in quality) and neos (previously non-existent) was blurred by New Testament times, that distinction seems to be there in most of the occurrences of these words in the New Testament.19 So, although 2 Peter 3 is speaking of a radical transformation of the heaven and the earth, it is a renewal through transformation, not a total destruction of the old and its replacement by something quite different.20 It does not in fact stand in opposition to this theme, which we have seen runs through the Synoptic, Johannine and Pauline strands of the New Testament. It is certainly not a basis for arguing against Christian concern for, and involvement in, ecological issues. The Letter to the Hebrews The author of this letter alludes to Genesis 1 and the creation of the world by the word of God in chapter 11:3. However, in the opening verse of the letter he gives the act of creation a Christological slant by speaking of the Son as the one through whom God created the world and who is ‘heir of all things’ (1:2). Moreover, the Son ‘sustains all things by his powerful word’ (1:3). Here the Son is given the same cosmic significance as in Colossians 1:15–20. Once again creation and redemption are inter-connected, because the Son is also the one who has ‘made purification for sins’ (1:3). In Hebrews 1:1–4 the Son is presented as sharing the deity of the God of Israel. Yet in Hebrews 2 this same Son is spoken of as becoming a true human being (2:14,17). This is a genuine incarnation of God. The way the writer approaches the subject of the 18

Bauckham, op. cit. ref. 9, 49f. makes this point. Brown, C. (ed.) The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, v. 2, 669f. article on ‘New’ says, ‘In the course of time the differences of meaning between neos and kainos became blurred, even to the point of occasional synonymity. But the NT has significantly used kainos with its more qualitative sense in order to give expression to the fundamentally new character of the advent of Christ’. 20 Bauckham, op. cit. ref. 13, 326, says of 2 Peter 3:10,12, ‘Such passages emphasize the radical discontinuity between the old and the new, but it is nevertheless clear that they intend to describe a renewal not an abolition of creation’. 19

210

The Bible and Christian Ethics

incarnation is significant. He begins by quoting Psalm 8:4–6, which itself echoes Genesis 1:26–28. We are told that the incarnation happened to bring to completion the as yet unrealised purpose of God in creating human beings, that they should rule creation as God’s representatives. There is a close parallel here to what we saw to be the significance of the use of ‘Son of Man’ as a title for Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels. What was implied in Hebrews 1:3 is made clear in chapter 2:5–9. The work of redemption is also the completion of God’s purpose for his creation. It is, perhaps, because the Son becomes the perfect human being who is ‘crowned with glory and honour’ (i.e. is the image of God as humans should be) that he is ‘heir of all things’. The created order becomes his inheritance as the Son who has brought ‘many children to glory’ (2:10, i.e. to the true realisation of their humanness). For Christians there is a strong motivation here for caring for the creation. Genesis 1:26–28 presents humans as God’s vice-regents or stewards caring for his creation and answerable to him for their use of it. The implication of Hebrews 1:2 and 2:5–10 is that Christians are the trustees of the inheritance of their ‘elder brother’ and saviour until he comes to claim it. Synthesis Our survey of the New Testament has uncovered some key themes which run through all or most of the sections we have looked at. 1. The New Testament does not allow any separation between God’s purpose in creation and in redemption. We have followed a number of themes which are often thought of primarily as ways of understanding God’s work of redemption through Christ: the in-breaking of the kingdom of God, the Day of the Lord as the day of salvation and of judgement, Jesus as the Son of Man, the purpose of the incarnation. Each has been found to be wider in scope than simply the salvation of human beings from sin and death. Each has led us to see that the redemptive work of Christ is related to the fulfilment of God’s purpose for the whole of the created order, not just humans. At the very least this means that those who work for the preservation and enhancement of the goodness of God’s creation are working with the grain of God’s purposes. But it is legitimate to go beyond that and see the ‘ministry of reconciliation’ to which Christians are called to be wider in scope than it usually has been. Of course at the heart of it is the reconciling of women and men to God. It is generally recognised that this then implies the work of reconciling people to one another, Jew to Gentile, oppressor to oppressed, myself to my enemy. ‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God’ said Jesus (Matthew 5:9). Surely the work of reconciliation should also involve reconciling humans to the non-human creation, by working to bring people to exercise the dominion we do have over creation in the way we are intended to exercise it. This is a way that reflects the nature of God – with wisdom, justice and love. The last few decades have seen a new emphasis on the church’s healing ministry. This has been understood in the narrow sense of bringing healing of

The New Testament Teaching on the Environment

211

various kinds to humans. A wider view of the church’s ‘ministry of reconciliation’ would extend this to the healing of the ‘wounds’ which humans have inflicted on the non-human creation. 2. The destiny of the non-human created order depicted in the New Testament is not that of a throw-away container which God will discard when Christ finally comes to consummate the salvation of humans. Rather, the final salvation of humans is part of a wider renewal of the whole creation through transformation. As John Polkinghorne has put it, the new creation will not be the result of the annihilation of the present one and then another act of creatio ex nihilo, but will be the result of an act of creatio ex vetere.21 The only ‘models’ we have of this ‘renewal through transformation’ are those of the recreating work of the Holy Spirit in the believer and the resurrection body of Christ. In both there is an element of discontinuity (more obvious in the second ‘model’) and of continuity (more obvious in the first ‘model’). In various places in the New Testament there are hints that what humans do now can make a contribution to the new creation (e.g. Revelation 21:24, 26; 1 Corinthians 3:14; 2 Corinthians 4:16–18). Our ecological labours will not be in vain if done in the Lord (1 Corinthians 15:58). 3. The incarnation of the Word who ‘was with God and was God’ (as John puts it), who was also the Son ‘who is the outflow of the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature’ (as Hebrews put it) shows that Christianity should have no place for a strong spirit-matter dualism that denigrates the material world. God can be made known in and through it. Moreover, the doctrine of the resurrection of the body says that God will take up the material and transform it, not discard it. Our eternal destiny is not a disembodied existence in a purely spiritual heaven, but an embodied existence on a transformed earth. These key themes provide a solid biblical and theological basis for Christian concern about, and involvement in, environmental issues. This theological basis ought to act as a motivation for Christians to get involved in care for the environment. Our survey has raised some more specific motivations within this more general one. There is the ethical motivation provided by the two great commandments enunciated by Jesus. We said above that to love God implies caring for the things for which he cares, and being committed to the same purposes as he is. As our survey shows, God does care about the non-human creation. Jesus’ words about God’s care of the birds and flowers (Matthew 6:26–30) underscores this. For this reason God will not simply discard it but take it up, in 21

Polkinghorne, J., in Science and Christian Belief, London: SPCK, 1994, 167, says ‘the new creation is not a second attempt by God at what he had first tried to do in the old Creation. It is a different kind of divine action altogether, and the difference may be summarized by saying that the first creation was ex nihilo while the new creation will be ex vetere. In other words, the old creation is God’s bringing into being a universe which is free to exist “on its own”, in the ontological space made available by the divine kenotic act of allowing the existence of something wholly other; the new creation is the divine redemption of the old’.

212

The Bible and Christian Ethics

a transformed state, into the new heaven and the new earth. We also noted the profound relevance of the command to ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ for environmental matters. The ‘golden rule’, ‘whatever you wish that others would do to you, do so to them’ (Matthew 7:12) expresses one way in which this command can be made more specific. There is an evangelistic motivation, which arises from the point Paul makes in Romans 1:20 that the creation reveals something of the nature of the Creator. It is a fact that, for some people at least, ‘communing with nature’ leads to a heightening of spiritual awareness and a seeking after the Creator. The despoiling of nature leads to a loss of this ‘evangelistic’ opportunity for the creation to ‘tell the glory of God’ and to ‘proclaim his handiwork’ (Psalm 19:1). Here is one reason for the preservation of areas of ‘natural’ beauty such as National Parks for the general public to enjoy. It also applies to Sites of Special Scientific Interest where the specialist can ‘think God’s thoughts after him’. There is an eschatological motivation in the concept that we are trustees of the inheritance which Christ will one day come to claim. We rooted this concept in Hebrews 1:2, but it is also implied in Colossians 1:16, which says of Christ that ‘all things were created through him and for him’. So, we have seen that the New Testament provides us with a theological basis for concern about the environment, and some specific motivations for getting involved in the environmental issues of our day. It does not provide us with detailed principles on which to base environmental policies or give us specific guidance for particular situations. The reasons for this were explained in the introduction above. Therefore, we find ourselves having to do what the first Christians did not need to do, turn to the Old Testament to see what more detailed guidance we can derive from its teaching.

The New Testament Teaching on the Environment: A Response to Ernest Lucas

Richard Bauckham Dr. Richard Bauckham is Professor of New Testament Studies and Dean of the Faculty of Divinity, University of St Andrews, Scotland There is little from which I dissent in Ernest Lucas’s excellent survey and synthesis. I think there is much to discuss about the implications of Lucas’s material when contextualized in our contemporary context – a stage of discussion which his paper barely broaches – but I think (and I think he would agree) that such discussions need to be based on the teaching of the two Testaments of the Bible together, not on the NT alone. In my limited space, I will confine myself to some (I think important) refinements and additions to his work. The Urban and the Rural: Then and Now Lucas remarks that ‘the churches to which the letters are written are all urbanbased’, and that it is ‘therefore not surprising that the ethical issues dealt with are largely to do with personal and interpersonal matters’ (Introduction). Both statements are true, but I am doubtful about the alleged connection between them, which seems to me based on the unconscious use of a modern understanding of ‘urban.’ Most ancient ‘cities’ were by modern standards very small, and their close relationship with and dependence on the surrounding countryside was obvious and a matter of ordinary conscious awareness. Urban people were not alienated from the natural world in the way that has become normal for modern city-dwellers, surrounded by a human-made environment and human-made objects whose derivation from nature is too remote to make the connection conscious. A nice biblical illustration is Mark 15:21: Simon of Cyrene is on his way back to his home in Jerusalem after a morning spent working on, presumably, the plot of land he owned or rented somewhere outside the city. Upper class people lived in cities but usually owned large estates elsewhere. People who made money in other ways (i.e. trade) put it into agriculture and aspired to become landed aristocracy. Paul’s letters to his urban Christian communities frequently use agricultural illustrations (Romans 11:16– 24; 1 Corinthians 3:5–9; 15:36–37; Galatians 6:7–9), as does James (James 3:12; 5:7). Moreover, while the letters are (perhaps not all, but mostly) addressed to urban communities, the Gospels depict a largely rural audience for Jesus’ teaching, which is rich in reference to aspects of nature and agricultural life.

214

The Bible and Christian Ethics

Thus, to understand the vast difference between our world and the Bible’s, in terms of people’s lived relationship with the non-human creation, we must really take on board the fact that the Bible’s world is pre-industrial and that this made both living in towns and living on the land very different from both urban (increasingly post-industrial) and rural life today. Ancient literature of all kinds simply takes for granted that human life is embedded in the rest of nature and inextricable from it. But modern biblical interpretation (up to recent attempts to base an eco-theology biblically) has persistently ignored what the texts assume and say about the human relationship to nature, assuming, as modern urban and technological people do, that references to nature can only be picturesque illustrations of human life, and reading the modern ideology of human emancipation from nature into the texts. This modern ideology powerfully influenced modern biblical theology with its strong tendency to set history against nature and salvation against creation (thus forming a kind of modern equivalent to Platonism in its attempt to detach humans from nature). To read the texts ecologically we have to make the effort to think in a creationembedded way which will catch the resonances of texts for which constant and immediate relationship with non-human nature is as everyday and unremarkable as relationship with the built environment is for modern urban people. No Environmental Concern? ‘Environmental issues do not seem to have been on anyone’s mind’ in the first century (Introduction). It is probably true that people were not aware of the serious deforestation and desertification which some ancient farming was already causing, or of the extinction of species by human action, which was rare (the Syrian elephant, a third elephant species, was close to extinction by the first century, and the Roman aristocracy’s taste for using ivory on a huge scale was wiping out the African elephant population in its more northern areas, requiring the increasing import of Indian ivory instead), though historians of antiquity and classical scholars have until recently been so little interested in such matters that it would be rash to say there is no evidence of environmental concern of these types to be found. But the important point to make is that, while ancient people did not share our environmental concerns, i.e. they did not recognize themselves as a threat to nature, they were often very aware of nature as a threat to themselves. In other words, the dominant problematic aspect of the human relation to the rest of nature was for them the reverse of what it is for us. Earthquakes, shipwrecks, drought and famine, locust plagues, dangerous wild animals, animals that steal livestock or crops, extreme cold and extreme heat, undrinkable water, and so on – we need to realise how nature in such guises impacted peasants close to poverty (most ancient people) or travellers (many first century people for one reason or another) or even urban people whose food came straight from the land around the town. Nature often seemed hostile.

The New Testament Teaching on the Environment: A Response to E. Lucas

215

Whereas for us the healing of the relationship between humans and the rest of creation most obviously suggests that humans stop destroying nature, for them it most obviously suggested that nature be friendlier to humans (so, e.g. Isaiah 11:6–9). For us to identify and understand biblical texts which treat the relationship of humans and nature, it is important we recognize this sense in which they usually approach it from a different angle from ours. This makes Jesus’ stilling of the storm intelligible. Lucas correctly (unlike most biblical scholars who cannot believe the human relationship to nature was of any serious interest to the evangelists or their readers) recognizes the ecological theme of this story, but it is the greater once we recognize that the story is told in such a way as to evoke the mythic dimension of the sea as the forces of chaos, the vast resources of destructive power in nature. By commanding the sea, Jesus acts as God (who alone can order the winds and the waves), recalling God’s action in creation and anticipating the new creation (in which there will be no sea, as Revelation 21:1, using a different image, has it). (For our context it is important to notice that Jesus’ action is depicted as uniquely divine; there is no warrant here for human technological domination of nature.) It also becomes very interesting that in Romans 8, Paul rather unusually sees the problem God must deal with, not as nature’s hostility to us, but as nature’s suffering because of us (in whatever sense he means that). But there is a kind of parallel (perhaps source) in the story of the flood (Genesis 6:11–13) which finds its eschatological echo in Revelation 11:18 (God will ‘destroy the destroyers of the earth’). A Key Theme Omitted: The Worship of God by the Non-Human Creation Lucas correctly argues that the NT for the most part presumes the OT teaching about creation, without needing to repeat it. This point bears emphasis against the still influential tendency of many Christians to think of the OT as out-dated by the NT. I have argued elsewhere1 that references to animals in Jesus’ teaching are much more significant than usually recognized because they amount to a firm endorsement of the attitudes to animals found in the OT and Jewish tradition. But there is one extremely significant (for us in our context) theme in the OT’s discourse about the non-human creation that Lucas does not mention as recurring importantly in the NT: the worship of God by the nonhuman creation, portrayed in the Psalms (e.g. Psalm 148) and, with Christological and eschatological character, in the NT (Philippians 2:10; Revelation 5:13). All creatures, animate and inanimate, worship God. This is not, as modern biblical interpreters so readily suppose, merely a poetic fancy or some kind of primitive animism. The creation worships God just by being itself, as God made it, existing for God’s glory. (There is no indication in the Bible of the notion that the other creatures need us to voice their praise for 1

Ch. 4 (Jesus and Animals I: What did he Teach?) and ch. 5 (Jesus and Animals II: What did he Practise?) in Linzey A. and Yamamoto D. (eds.) Animals on the Agenda: Questions about Animals for Theology and Ethics. London: SCM Press, 1998, 33–60.

216

The Bible and Christian Ethics

them. This idea that we are called to act as priests to nature, mediating, as it were, between nature and God, is quite often found in recent Christian writing, but it intrudes our inveterate sense of superiority exactly where the Bible will not allow it.) The key point implicit in these depictions of the worship of creation is the intrinsic value of all creatures, in the theocentric sense of the value given them by their Creator and offered back to him in praise. In this context, our place is beside our fellow-creatures as fellowworshippers. In the praise in which we gratefully confess ourselves creatures of God there is no place for hierarchy. Creatureliness levels us all before the otherness of the Creator. This biblical theme is a necessary counter-balance to the hierarchical relationship portrayed in the Genesis idea of dominion over creation. It is a vital biblical resource to prevent the abuse and over-use of that dominion. I am strongly inclined to connect the four living creatures (Revelation 4–5) with this theme. If creation needs priests, here they are in heaven, the central worshippers in creation, worshipping continuously in the immediate presence of God and doing so representatively, offering all creation’s worship until the time when all creation will perfectly and fully follow them in their worship (Revelation 5:13; only then do the living creatures say ‘Amen’: v.14). If this is the role of the living creatures, then it is noteworthy that of these ‘heavenly animals’ (this is how Ezekiel and Revelation seem to depict them, as distinct from angels, who are depicted as heavenly humans’) only one has a human face. That one is our representative, but the others represent the wild mammals (lion), domestic animals (ox) and birds (eagle). (These are the three most obvious categories of non-human animals, for ancient people, and I take it that, since this is all symbolism, they are not meant exclusively of other categories of animals.) Imitating God’s Compassion for All His Creatures Lucas sees a duty to care for what God cares for implicit in the command to love God. But there is a more direct route to this end, if we read the NT not in isolation, as it was never meant to be read, but canonically and inter-textually with the OT, thus: Luke 6:36: ‘Be merciful [oiktirmones, a word almost always used of God], just as your Father is merciful [oiktirmon].’ Psalm 145:8–9: ‘YHWH is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love. [This is the classic biblical revelation of the character of God: Exod 34:6.] YHWH is good to all, and his compassion [LXX: hoi oiktirmoi autou] is over all that he has made.’ Jesus’ Messianic Peace with Wild Animals (Mark 1:13) In addition to the Gospel material which Lucas highlights as relevant to an ecological reading of the Gospels as concerned with the human relationship

The New Testament Teaching on the Environment: A Response to E. Lucas

217

with non-human nature, I have discussed at length elsewhere2 the ecological significance of Mark’s reference to the fact that Jesus in the wilderness was ‘with the wild animals’. Briefly, Jesus in the wilderness, following his baptism and appointment as Messiah, is establishing his messianic relationship with the non-human world (Satan, the wild animals, angels) before going on to fulfil his messianic commission in the human world. Of the three non-human categories, Satan is hostile, the angels friendly, but between them the animals – as we know from OT and Jewish tradition – equivocal, usually experienced as threats to humans, but in God’s purpose destined for peaceable relations with humanity in the messianic age (Isaiah 11:6–9). Jesus makes friends of these potential enemies. The very simple ‘was with the wild animals’ suggests a friendly being-with – not human domination over, not making them servants (as some postbiblical Jewish eschatology expected), but letting them be themselves, leaving them their wilderness, peaceably affirming them as creatures who share the world with us in the community of God’s creation. In his messianic person, he establishes representatively the restoration of the paradisal state that the OT expects in the messianic age. It may be useful sometimes, instead of the very abstract or generalized language in which theology and biblical interpretation tend to speak of the eschatological future of the non-human creation, if they speak of it at all, to think of the species Jesus would have encountered in the Judean wilderness (some of them now extinct in Palestine by human fault) – hyenas, jackals, desert foxes, hares, porcupines, antelopes, wild asses, ostriches, bears, and many others. These specific creatures of God, like all others, have a future in God’s new creation.

2

‘Jesus and the wild animals (Mark 1:13): a Christological image for an ecological age’, in Green J.B. and Turner M. (eds.) Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ. Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology, FS for I. Howard Marshall, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994, 3–21; cf. also Linzey A. and Yamamoto D. (eds.) Animals on the Agenda: Questions about Animals for Theology and Ethics. London: SCM Press, 1998, 54–60.

The Bible and Christian Ethics This book contains papers from the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies' quarterly journal, Transformation, on the topic of Christian Ethics. The papers were selected from volumes published over a period of 25 years during which period Transformation grew from merely being an international journal of 'Christian social ethics' to 'Holistic Mission Studies'. Here, Mission Studies is understood in its widest sense to also encompass Christian Ethics. At the very heart of it lies the Family as the basic unit of society.We see all of the other papers on the themes of word and works, poverty, justice and environment relate primarily to this theme. All the papers together seek to contribute to understanding how Christian thought is shaped in contexts each of which poses its own challenge to Christian living in family and in broader society. Cover painting, ‘Freedom in the Shadow of the Cross’, by Jae-Im Kim, used by kind permission of the Overseas Ministries Study Center, New Haven, CT, USA. Jae-Im Kim, a Korean, was OMSC’s Artist in Residence in the 2009-10 academic calendar year. David Emmanuel Singh, Research Tutor in South Asian Muslim-Christian Studies, the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies. Bernard C Farr, Senior Residentiary Fellow, the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies

regnum www.ocms.ac.uk/regnum