Economics 101: You are not entitled to the labor or product of any other person.
Posted on September 1, 2021 in Money, Public Policy by Nathan Cherry
Basic economics is nearly a lost skill in our current culture. But basic economics is at the heart of many policy positions.
There are many reasons to reject slavery as both unbiblical and inhuman. We could cite the creation of every person in God’s image and that slavery mars the image of God in our fellow man as just one reason. We could review history and note that Israel’s enemies often carried them into slavery after Israel lost in battle and note that God wanted Israel to be “set apart” from its enemies. And we can certainly agree on the fact that America’s desire for every person to have the freedom to chase “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” precludes slavery.
Slavery also holds a common element with socialism, communism, tyranny, and many other oppressive forms of government seeking an audience in the world today: they all make slaves of producers.
Repeat after me, “you are not entitled to the labor or product of any other person.”
An absolutely fundamental aspect to a free society is that every person is entitled to and has sole rightful ownership over their labor and production. Without this critical understanding of labor and economics, it is just a matter of time before tyranny and oppression (often masked as socialism and communism) overtakes the system.
Someone might reply that an employer has the right to the labor of the employee, but that is not the case. If I work for ABC Company, it is at-will. This means that at any time the employer or the employee can terminate the employment contract. This maintains the freedom of the employee to work where he wants and to change jobs when he so desires. The employer has no right to demand an employee remain an employee (that would be slavery).
But, and this is important, this universal truth concerning labor and production, also means that the consumer is never entitled to the labor or production of any other person. For example, if Bill creates a vaccine to eradicate cancer permanently, he is not obligated to share it with humanity. We could argue that he is being selfish. We could present moral arguments compelling Bill to share his breakthrough. In the end, however, no one is entitled to Bill’s labor or production. And, though we might vehemently disagree, if Bill chose to sell his medical miracle to the highest bidder (maybe a pharmaceutical company), who then decided to keep it locked away from the public, both Bill and the purchaser would have that right.
This same principle applies to social media platforms, utilities, commodities, smart phones, automobiles, and houses. Remember, the American creed is that we are all entitled to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Nowhere in Scripture or in the Founding Documents do we see any evidence that any person is entitledto anything specific.
The minute that we argue that anyone is entitled to the labor or production of any other person, we are arguing for both slavery and political tyranny (oppression).
Consider: You believe it is wrong for the owner of a company to have a $1 million per year income. You argue that many in the world are starving and living in poverty and even here in the U.S. many families do not have basic necessities, therefore, it is wrong for a single person to have such an extravagant income. You argue that no one needs or should earn more than $500,000 per year.
You have just determined, quite subjectively, what that person’s labor and production is worth. You have created a slave.
Look at the issue from another perspective. If your boss came to you and said your income could never go beyond X, how you would feel? You would feel trapped, as if you had a barrier stopping you from achieving your dream. Just because your dream and your employers dream are different doesn’t make one wrong and one right. Just because you have a (subjective) idea of how much a person should or should not earn, doesn’t make your idea right.
Any argument that seeks to determine conclusively how much a person can earn or own, is not only subjective and faulty from the outset, but it necessarily leads to both slavery and political oppression. It especially leads to political oppression when we demand the government get involved and pass laws limiting freedoms.
The essence of socialism and many oppressive forms of government is both greed and envy. We angrily declare that another person should not have X or Y while ignoring that we (Americans) have far more than most people in the world. Yet we refuse to reduce our lifestyle while simultaneously demanding that those with more than we have reduce theirs. It is hypocritical.
Governments do this by enacting oppressive policies that, fundamentally, enslave people and demand their labor and production. But as Christians, we must continue to reject slavery in all its forms.
Reasons why the $15 minimum wage is bad policy and has no biblical support
Posted on April 22, 2021 in Life, Money, Public Policy, Theology by Nathan Cherry
Many well-meaning Christian’s support raising the minimum wage, which could be disastrous.
The recent COVID-19 Bill that was signed into law into originally had a provision to raise the federal minimum wage to $15. That provision was removed and any such attempts to increase minimum wage appears to have died in Congress, for now. That’s the good news.
The not-so-good-news is where the support for raising minimum wage to $15 is coming from. As a talking point on the campaign trail for many liberal politicians, it is no surprise that a push from the left has moved the issue into the national spotlight. What is a bit surprising is the support from self-described evangelical Christians for the $15 an hour proposal.
Is a federal minimum wage biblical?
The argument that not paying people a “living wage” is immoral and, therefore, unbiblical, is prevalent in discussions with Christians on this topic. But, before we can label something immoral and tie it to a biblical mandate, we must first answer the question about what a “living wage” is and where it should be applied.
When we consider the idea of a living wage, we must admit that the figure is different depending on which part of the country a person lives. A single person living in Los Angeles or New York City, or even many parts of Maryland will require a higher “living wage” than someone residing in rural Kentucky or the hills of West Virginia. This creates a problem for the federal government in establishing a federal minimum wage because $15 an hour may represent a solid income in rural parts of the country; but the same $15 will keep someone in L.A. and New York City in poverty.
In my recent conversations on the topic, it was suggested that if the federal government is going to impose a minimum wage, it should include a sliding scale for part-time, full-time, seasonal; and considerations for locality should be taken into consideration. But whether this is biblical or not, is another matter altogether.
In Matthew chapter 20, Jesus told the story of a vineyard owner that hired laborers to work in his vineyard for the day. The first workers agreed to work the entire day for a denarius, which is equivalent to “a day’s wage.”[1] The owner then goes out several times during the day and continues to hire more laborers to work in his vineyard. At the end of the day, the owner pays each worker the same amount, a denarius. But the workers that started working at the first hour were annoyed that they were paid the same as the workers that began working just one hour before the end of the day.
That’s where we read these words from the owner of the vineyard to the complaining workers: “Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?” (Matt. 20:15)
Jesus appears to be making the case for business owners having the freedom to determine what they will pay, and workers having the freedom to enter employment contracts with employers without the input or interference of any outside entities. This would, on the surface, give the impression that there is no biblical mandate for a federal minimum wage and that the true minimum wage is actually $0.
Reasons to oppose a federal minimum wage entirely.
1 – A federal minimum wage will price younger workers out of the workforce. As one anxious mother told me recently, she is concerned that her teenage kids will not be able to find jobs because employers will seek higher qualified employees. She’s right. Raising the minimum wage will force small businesses to choose between more qualified workers. The result will be that younger workers with less qualifications will be priced out of the market. Minorities will be particularly hard hit by this reality.
2 – Inflation will undoubtedly follow. If the minimum wage is increased, businesses will be forced to pass some of that higher cost on to their customers. This will result in a higher cost for goods and services. The end result will be that those with the new $15 minimum wage will not be economically better than they were before. It will simply cost more to buy necessities (food and gas) and the discretionary items (vacations and clothing) that people wanted to spend money on in the first place.
3 – Big businesses will thrive while small businesses will suffer. Consider what happened during the pandemic in 2020: big businesses adapted and thrived while small businesses suffered (some from state mandate shutdowns, some from a simple lack of business). Now imagine that on a larger scale. Will Amazon and Wal-Mart really suffer from a raise in wages? Nope. But the mom-and-pop shop down the road may close because they simply can’t compete with the big box stores.
4 – Businesses will turn to automation. Technology continues to change the landscape of business nationwide. Raising the minimum wage will not just increase that, it will proliferate it. The result of that will be a loss of jobs for many of the lower income employees. Where some once had a $9 an hour job, they will now have no job at all. Reminding everyone that the true minimum wage will always be $0. Employers should be free to enter into employment contracts with people that are willing to work for the advertised wage. If I want to hire someone for $8 an hour, the government should not tell me, and the worker willing to accept the job, that we can’t make such an agreement. This stifles competition and allows big businesses to thrive, and small businesses that can’t compete will suffer.
5 – Minimum wage jobs are not supposed to be careers. Many people forget that minimum wage jobs are mainly supposed to be entry level. They are an entrance to the work force. And yes, while many choose to keep a minimum wage job long term for personal reasons (second job, flexibility, etc.), it should not be expected to be a career. People should be encouraged to seek skills that the market pays for and develop those skills to secure jobs that pay better than minimum wage. The last thing an economy needs is for adults to keep the jobs intended for younger workers entering the workforce.
6 – Raising the minimum wage to $15 will reduce income for people already making $15 an hour. If minimum wage is increased, inflation on goods and services will follow. The result will be an entire group of people that were already making $15 will, effectively, have their purchasing power reduced and experience a de factor reduction of income. The logical result will be the outcry of this group demanding a raise beyond $15 an hour. Where exactly does this death spiral stop?
The reality is that not all jobs are created equal. Some are meant to be entry level and pay less. They are also meant to be temporary.
While the Bible says a lot about stewardship and money, it doesn’t give any specific, explicit mandate related to minimum wage. This leaves us with the liberty to be good stewards, and generous employers. The federal government would do well to stay out of this discussion and allow the marketplace to function without interference.
Would Jesus Join Looters in the Street?
Posted on June 16, 2020 in Public Policy, Theology by Nathan Cherry
If Jesus overturned tables one time, does it mean He would join looters in the street today?
Our nation is captivated by the unjust police killing of an innocent man named George Floyd. People have taken to the streets to show their support for Floyd and his family, and their disgust with the law enforcement officers that perpetrated the crime. Sadly, these events have almost been overshadowed by the resulting rioting and looting in the streets of numerous cities and towns across America. The desire for justice seems to be taking a back seat to the desire to exact revenge, destroy private property and steal from neighbors in these communities.
I’ve seen more than one social media post claiming Jesus would be there, among the crowds, rioting and looting because, after all, He was the one that went into the temple and overturned tables and ran people out of God’s house; He was even armed (with a whip). But is that an apples to apples comparison or a logical fallacy?
First, we need to understand why Jesus went into the temple. If you’ve never studied the background of this historical account (John 2:13-17) you would do well to look into it; and, might I suggest, refrain from making the claim that this is proof of what Jesus would do in the current situation.
Jesus witnessed unrighteous men committing acts of theft and deception IN the temple. It would be similar to pulling up to your church and seeing that a pawn shop was being conducted in the sanctuary. I don’t mean to claim all pawn shops are places of theft and deception, but we all know that they are not known for being above board in all their transactions. As Jesus witnessed these acts of desecration in His Father’s house, He was eaten up by zeal for His Father’s house (John 2:17) and took decisive action to stop it.
The critical point to remember is that Jesus was consumed with zeal for God’s house and wanted it to remain a place of prayer and worship. At no time did Jesus protest the government. He never organized a crowd to commit acts of violence in support of His cause. In fact, the biblical text makes a few things very clear:
- The people were told to take what was theirs with them when they left.
- Jesus poured the money of the moneychangers out on the street – He did not keep it.
- There is no evidence that anyone was harmed.
- There is no evidence that any destruction of property occurred.
- It is entirely inconceivable that Jesus would do anything to bring physical harm on another person or the Temple.
While Jesus routinely called out injustice (woman caught in adultery)– particularly among the religious leaders – He never once committed an act of violence against another person. On the contrary, His “demonstrations” were often opportunities to teach His followers to be known by their peace and love for others.
In fact, when the government imprisoned His cousin, John the Baptist (an innocent man) (John 14:1-12), and then executed him, Jesus didn’t do anything. No riots, no marching, nothing. And when the mob came for Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane and His followers started to act violently (Matt. 26:47-56), with Peter cutting off a man’s ear, Jesus simply healed the man and allowed the “police” to arrest Him. He denounced the violent act and told Peter to stop. More poignantly, Jesus told Peter and His followers that “all who take up the sword will perish by the sword.” This lesson is worth consideration given our current cultural conditions.
With these biblical texts in mind, we consider further whether Jesus would join rioters and looters in the streets of present-day America.
To say that Jesus would support, or worse still, take part in illegal activity – such as looting, stealing, destroying property, harming innocent people – is to remove Jesus as the Messiah. This sin would disqualify Him from being the spotless Lamb able to take away the sin of the world. Of course, this requires us to call stealing, vandalism, assault and arson sin, which we would be correct in doing so. The circumstances around these actions do not change that they are illegal acts, and sinful. Placing the Son of God as one of the perpetrators of such acts would be to miss everything He actually did and taught during His life on earth.
Love your enemies…(Matthew 5:44).
Turn the other cheek…(Matthew 5:38-42).
Do good to them that persecute you…(Matthew 5:43-48).
Do any of these teachings sound like the words of an angry riot leader?
If you desire justice for a black man, murdered by police, then you must desire justice for every other person murdered by police. You must also desire justice for police officers murdered by rioters and criminals. Justice must be equal regardless of the skin color of the person or it is not justice. You must also desire justice for the many innocent victims of the rioters and looters: store owners, bystanders, first responders, and news media. If your justice has a skin tone, it is self-righteous and will be prone to injustice against others.
We can seek justice, and should do so, in our communities. In so doing we must recognize that as long as sin is present there will never be perfect justice. Only when Jesus rules with His perfect justice can we expect equitable justice for all. This doesn’t mean we don’t try to create a society that is just for all, it simply means our efforts will fall short. This should not lead us to violence, but to a greater willingness to talk, listen, and work together for the good of our communities.
If you want to look to Jesus as an example, and I sincerely encourage all to do so, look to His actual words and actions. Don’t superimpose Jesus into our culture today and assume what He would do; read His words, study His actions, and seek to do likewise.
Are Christians Being Persecuted During the Coronavirus Lockdown?
Posted on May 20, 2020 in Public Policy, Religious Freedom, Theology by Nathan Cherry
As lockdowns persist in many states; Christian pastors and leaders wonder if the “persecution” will end.
My daily routine hasn’t changed much since March, when lockdowns in many states first began. Because my kids are homeschooled, they are home all day every day. Consequently, their schooling has been uninterrupted and they will complete their studies for the school year this week. My wife is their teacher so she is home all day every day as well. My family has not been to a public place in two months.
I’m the only person in my office. I’m “quarantined” on a daily basis just by virtue of having no colleagues sharing my office space. Each day I go to my office, meet with clients either virtually or by phone, and continue to do my job uninterrupted. Some clients come to the office in person and, with a bit of common sense and care, no contact is made and business is completed.
Nothing much has changed for my family, with one notable exception: our church has not met as a body since the first Sunday in March.
For more than two months we have met virtually with our small group to get updates from each family, pray, sing, and follow the liturgy our church leaders release via email to the church body. Once we’ve completed the liturgy for the week, we sign off from Zoom and each family watches the sermon our pastor recorded for the week. It hasn’t been the worst experience for our family but, it’s not the same.
I miss gathering as a church body. Which is a lot coming from an introvert that would prefer to avoid talking to people. You can see why the lockdown has been easy for the introverts. But there is much I miss about gathering with my church family.
I miss seeing people we call friends each week and having the chance to talk with them before and after the service. My kids miss seeing their friends and getting to play their beloved “gaga ball” after the service. I miss meeting new people and learning about their story and why they are new to our area. Our church is very connected, and it’s not strange for one family to invite another to lunch after church. Families routinely make plans to get together. I miss that connectedness.
My wife and I miss serving with our worship team. We’ve spent the last 20 years of our lives doing music in our church, it is a passion of ours. My wife sings and has always been a vital part of our worship teams’ vocals. I play the guitar and derive great joy in using the gifts God gave me to serve Him. Not being able to serve with our worship team has been a struggle and something we miss terribly.
I miss not hearing our pastor speak in person. Our pastor frequently speaks of the Gospel message, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, and the cross. Often, as he speaks of the saving work of Christ, he is brought to tears. His emotion as he shares the Gospel is something that blesses me and makes me thankful that he is our pastor. His big personality and love for people as he walks the halls of the building talking to everyone and calling everyone by name is a blessing to our church family. We miss him. We know this has been hard for him.
I miss observing Communion with my church family. Our elders stand down front holding the elements and we walk down and receive those elements from them. I miss walking up to Mark as he hands out the bread and hearing him say, “Nathan, this is the body of Christ, broken for you.” Or, when he is handing out the juice, he will say something like, “This is the blood of Jesus spilled for your sins, Nathan.” That personal communication of the Gospel during one of the church’s most important observances is sorely missed.
Certainly, I’m not alone among Christians that are missing their church family. As believers we find tremendous joy and blessing in gathering as a local family to worship. Being kept from this weekly “family reunion” has been difficult.
But is it fair to say that we are being persecuted?
As states begin to reopen, state and local leaders are discussing how to implement reopening in a way that will not result in undoing the work of the lockdown. Part of that discussion involves churches and when it will be safe to allow large groups of people – including children and the elderly – to begin assembling again. It’s understandable that a robust discussion is taking place, after all, unlike a grocery store where you walk in, get your items and walk out without much personal interaction. Meeting as a church family has a higher degree of risk. The church sings together, sending breathe and saliva into the room. The church is prone to close contact such as handshakes and hugging, the same behavior that caused the virus to spread so rampantly in Italy. Many churches observe communion weekly, resulting in people breaking bread or crackers by hand so they can be served to people. These practices are essential parts of the church and part of what make us a faith family. But, at this time, for some, these actions could be deadly.
As many states begin to reopen, businesses are being allowed to resume business. But, at the moment, many states have continued to limit indoor church gatherings to no more than 10 people. This has resulted in accusations from pastors and Christian leaders of persecution. Some pastors have gone so far as to call for civil disobedience. Other churches have sued the government.
I would suggest that churches and Christians are not, in fact being persecuted. Many aspects of civil life are beginning to reopen, but many are not. And like some of those more at risk activities. Such as concerts and live sports, churches do not yet have the green light to resume normal activities. But they are not being singled out.
I support Scripture when it tells us to submit to the governing authorities (Romans 13). And, if a time comes when those authorities ask Christians to violate God’s Word, I will be one of the first to vocally resist the governing authorities. For now, though, I see no reason to jump to extremes and engage in civil disobedience. We may not agree with every action taken by our government, and some may be more extreme than others (depending on the state in which you live). But, at this time, we must exercise patience, faith, and perseverance.
If we cannot exercise perseverance at a relatively easy time like this, we will not be able to do so when it really matters. And rest assured, there is a day coming when it will really matter.
Maybe Being Quarantined is Just What We Needed
Posted on April 7, 2020 in Family, Life, Public Policy by Nathan Cherry
The unintended blessing of societal lockdown.
When my wife and I began having kids, I remember thinking there must be something wrong with me. I was observing all the people around me, seeing their busy schedules filled with little league, dance, committees, and other social gatherings. They were constantly coming and going; carefully arranging schedules to ensure kids were at the right place at the right time. An impressive finely tuned machine of precision schedule-keeping.
And I wanted no part of it.
I didn’t want to be away from my family several nights each week for the sake of taking part in local organizations and committees. Though many are noble, worthwhile causes, they were not my priority. Even though I grew up playing sports, I didn’t want to spend hours sitting on bleachers waiting for kids to be done with practice only to have them grow up and realize that sports are a part of their past. And I didn’t want to require a weekly meeting with my wife to coordinate schedules just to ensure everyone was in the right place, that every meeting was accounted for, all while looking forward to the weekend when we could fall asleep binge-watching our favorite shows.
Thankfully, my wife and I were on the same page and began intentionally keeping our lives…simple. Our simple life has sought to include time for resting. And over the years we have reduced our possessions to cut back on distractions and spend less. The simplicity of this life creates a contentment that allows us to enjoy small moments, and modest pleasures. And we typically have time to interact with others and lend a helping hand when we know of a need.
Currently, many people are adjusting to a “new normal” that requires less. Less driving. Less activities. Less events. Less coming and going. Less shopping and buying. Less doing and more being. It’s a simpler life.
Families are spending time playing games and taking walks around the neighborhood (at a safe distance of course). Honey-do lists are getting shorter as husbands and wives work together to get those ever-elusive projects done. Books are being read, and re-read. Conversations are being had. Time is slowing down as the hustle and bustle of life comes to a screeching halt.
I hope it continues.
Our culture has become so obsessed with entertainment in all its forms that we have almost forgotten how to enjoy the simple pleasures of life. Our lack of contentment is not just a contribution to high levels of debt and lack of margin; our lack of contentment is a driving force in our break neck pace of life that we swear we love as we complain about constantly being tired and busy. How often do people grumble about not having time to do the things they love, missing special moments, and wishing they could slow down, only to push full steam ahead week after week? Simplicity and rest are elusive.
Our forced slowdown has, if nothing else, caused us to take a step back (maybe six or seven steps) and breathe a little deeper. We are being forced, either by a virus, God, our employer or the government, to rest a little more. It might be the best thing that’s happened to many of us in a while. We’re learning new things about our spouse, creating lifelong memories with our kids, getting to know our neighbors in new ways, and finding various means of helping others in our communities.
The opportunity to live simpler and rest more may just be the chisel and hammer needed to make us the person we have always wanted to be. Our need for rest, and our restlessness, is being exposed and we have nothing but time to confront this demon that’s been lurking in our life for too long.
The term “day of rest” used to mean something to even the nominally religious. For the committed faithful it was an unbreakable weekly observance wherein nothing was done but…rest. In generations past, even those that didn’t attend church weekly revered the weekly habit of resting on Sunday and were all-too happy to partake in the practice. Our current culture’s 24/7 mantra has largely eradicated any day dedicated entirely to slowing down and resting; and many modern Christians find it difficult or unnecessary. The Creator, however, seemed to think it was a healthy part of human life, and even rested after completing His work of creation. That example may be more timely today than we realize.
A well-defined theology of rest is necessary for a well-balanced life. Understanding that “for everything there is a season” reminds us that there is a time to work, and a time to cease working. (Eccl. 3:1-8) Remembering that one day has been set apart as a sacred day of rest invites us to work diligently for an appropriate amount of time, and then rest. A lack of rest could be a contributing factor to any number of mental, emotional, or physical conditions.
A lack of rest has financial implications as well: paying more than necessary for food due to eating out more often, paying housekeepers, landscapers, and mechanics to do work we can do ourselves, paying handy-men to complete projects we can’t get to because of our schedule. How many households spend more than needed (and save less) simply due to being busy?
If you want to look back on this inconvenient time in world history and see a silver lining, look for ways to simplify your life and rest. Find possessions you don’t need and donate them. Declutter your house. End subscriptions you aren’t using. Cancel activities that aren’t as important as they used to be. Reconnect with old friends (virtually). Serve your neighbors in their need. Enjoy small moments.
This will all be over soon enough. But we can emerge from this experience calmer, more rested than we were before. Look for contentment in simplicity and take time to rest.
A Cautionary Tale for Christian Investors
Posted on March 31, 2020 in Money, Theology by Nathan Cherry
How Jesus’ parable of the talents informs our investing choices as Christians.
Investing in the market is almost a must in our current culture. The ability to be a “wise steward” of our resources by putting them to work and reaping the rewards is a helpful part of being able to retire. Where we put our money and what companies we invest in, however, is something most investors hardly consider.
The fact is, most investors charge their financial adviser with the duty of investing hard-earned money into companies that will be profitable and, thereby, grow their portfolio. For most Christians, the underlying moral fabric of the companies being invested in is of little concern. The reality that we may be funding companies that oppose our Christian values is a nearly novel concept. And yet, that may be the case.
Seeking to shed light on this tension and offer alternatives to mutual funds, stocks, and ETF’s that may be diametrically opposed to faith-based investors is the “Biblically Responsible Investing” (BRI) movement.
The BRI movement, composed of thousands of financial professionals, fund managers, and asset managers, has seen tremendous growth in recent years. Companies like Timothy Plan pioneered the BRI movement with mutual funds (and most recently ETF’s) that seek to align Christians’ biblical values with their investing. Investment firms such as Inspire Investing and Ambassador Advisors are dedicated to investing only in companies with underlying values that line up with the Christian convictions of their clients.
The goal of these groups – aligning clients’ biblical values with investments that reflect those values – is commendable. And when clients genuinely seek to be a part of the BRI movement, it is truly a match made in heaven. There is an underlying message, however, being subtly sent out from many of the financial professionals involved in the BRI movement. That message is: “If you don’t join us, you aren’t a faithful Christian.”
Like many good, biblically based things, the temptation to infuse legalism is constantly present. Legalism is that age-old ideology which seeks to make a man-made principle into a biblical command. Think about drinking alcohol. There’s not a specific, explicit prohibition against drinking alcohol in Scripture. There’s guiding principles; such as don’t be drunk (Eph. 5:18), and don’t cause your brother to stumble (1 Cor. 8:9). But nowhere does Scripture forbid drinking alcohol. And in some places, Scripture actually encourages drinking alcohol (1 Tim. 5:23). And yet, many Christians would call drinking alcohol a sin based on the teaching of their churches and pastors. This legalism has sought to use man-made teaching to make sinful what Scripture allows through grace and a clear conscience.
Within the BRI movement is a pulse that earnestly desires to align biblical convictions with investments. There’s nothing wrong with that. The issue comes in when one adviser suggests that another adviser is not being a faithful Christian by not participating in the BRI movement, or by investing in a certain fund. Or when a financial professional tells Christian clients that if they don’t invest in BRI funds they are somehow committing a sin.
The victims of legalism span centuries.
Jesus, as always, can teach us something about investing. In Mathew’s Gospel we have the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30). This is a parable Jesus told in which an investor gave his money to 3 separate stewards and told them to be productive with his money while he was away. Upon his return, each steward would be asked to give account of how they used the investor’s money.
One steward was given 5 talents,[1]another was given 2 talents, and the third was given 1 talent. Each of them employed an investment strategy they thought their investor would appreciate. When the investor returned, he asked each of the stewards to give account of their investing strategy. The first steward, given 5 talents, doubled the investment and returned 10 talents to the investor. The second steward, given 2 talents, doubled the investment and returned 4 talents to the investor. The last steward, given 1 talent, returned the original talent to the investor, with nothing more.
The investor commended the first two stewards for doubling his money through their investment strategy. But he condemned the third steward for not earning anything more and returning nothing but his original investment. Then, the investor took the talent from the steward with just 1 talent and gave it to the steward with 10 talents.
What stands out about this parable is that we are not told how the first two stewards doubled their investors’ money. What means did they employ to accomplish this? Since a modern stock market exchange did not exist in the first century, what local proprietor or business did they invest the money in so as to double the investment before their investor called them to give account? We don’t know. Furthermore, what was the investor concerned about when he returned? Did he ask how they doubled the money? Did he ask to see a balance sheet or company charter to know about where his money was being invested? Nope. He only cared that his money had grown.
Look a little closer and we see that the condemned investor was encouraged at least put the money in the bank so it could draw interest. The bankers in Jesus’ day were often deceitful and employed deceptive business practices that took advantage of people. Sure, a person could earn some interest and make money, but at what cost? The bank was funding the Roman government, which was not exactly known for being “Christian-friendly,” and would surely not be considered “biblically responsible.” And yet the investor cares not for how his money is invested, as long as it grows.
Investing based on personally held convictions is an honorable endeavor. Being forced to invest based on the personally held convictions of another person is legalism. Mankind has long documented what happens when people are forced to abide by the conscience of someone else. The biblical teaching around conscience and freedom is ignored. The teaching around protecting the weaker brother is twisted, or abandoned altogether. It’s impossible to protect or grow the person that is constantly being beaten down and told they must comply with extra-biblical rules. Legalism is tiring. After a while, many simply give up.
There is a fine line between willingly funding what the Bible calls sin, and simply seeking to be a good steward of the resources we have been given. I can’t in good conscience walk into Planned Parenthood and hand over a check. Knowing they are the world’s largest abortion provider stands in contrast to my biblical convictions that abortion is murder. However, investing in a fund only to learn later that one company may have given money to Planned Parenthood one time doesn’t require a crisis of conscience on my part.
Christians are far more likely to make a difference by being a wise steward of where they spend their money, locally, than by trying to avoid all possibly objectionable funds in their portfolio. After all, refusing to invest in abortion while raising money for the United Way and drinking coffee at Starbucks is nothing short of hypocritical.
The BRI movement is good. Aligning portfolios and consciences is also good. Forcing people to invest based on the convictions of someone else is not good. Legalism is never good.
[1]A talent was a first century unit of money that is hard to perfectly define in modern currency terms. But it could have been valued up to $1.4 million dollars in today’s dollars.
A Faith-filled Response to COVID-19
Posted on March 19, 2020 in Life, Money by Nathan Cherry
5 Practical responses people of faith can take to make a difference.
Unless you’ve been under a rock for the last few weeks, you are aware that a global pandemic is currently dominating thoughts and headlines. But in December of 2019 when the viral disease now known as COVID-19 first became known, the shock to global health and markets was not initially recognized. Today, however, the reality that the virus will have an immediate impact is becoming clear.
Global markets have retreated from record highs to hit lows not seen since the 1980’s. Single day swings in major market indexes are so violent that it’s hard not to hold your breath. Every day it seems the DOW or the S&P 500 sets a new single day record for gains or losses. Investors nervously watch, wondering what the day will bring.
On a local level, communities are concerned about COVID-19 and the immediate health impact, as well as the longer-term economic impact. As of today, multiple school systems in multiple states have closed for 2-6 weeks. Major cruise lines are docking boats for at least 2 months. The NHL and NBA have cancelled the remainder of their seasons; while Major League Baseball has cancelled the rest of pre-season with the regular season in jeopardy. The NCAA cancelled March Madness. Churches, especially those that meet in public places such as schools, are cancelling services. Conventions, conferences, and parades have been cancelled across the country as a precaution.
Concerns over the growing economic impact of COVID-19 are legitimate. What was at one time considered a minor concern, predicted to have virtually no effect on the surging American economy, is now being reevaluated to determine just how big of an impact it will have. The assessment is a daunting task that will be nearly impossible to gauge.
It seems fear and panic rule the day. Some accuse the media and politicians of fear-mongering to hurt the president in an election year. Others accuse people of not being concerned enough and acting recklessly. Still others accuse people of having no faith.
Can there be a faith-filled response to COVID-19? Can people of faith conduct themselves in a way that evidences trust in a Sovereign God? I would suggest there is several practical ways Christians can respond to COVID-19.
1 – Be Thankful:As Americans we live in a country filled with wealth. More than most, we have the opportunity to take precautions when faced with a viral outbreak. It is unlikely that we will ever be without adequate food, water, shelter, or other necessities. Take a moment to be thankful for the wealth we have been blessed with and you will have a different perspective. Be reminded that many around the world don’t have access to food, clean water, or shelter. A viral pandemic is far more deadly in such places than it could be in the United States. Be thankful.
2 – Be A Helper:As schools close, there is a very real possibility that many kids may not have enough food. Students that rely on free breakfast and lunch at school might be hungry. You most likely have the means to help a neighbor by simply providing some food. Work with your local school, church, or community organization to provide aid to those that may feel immediate impact from a prolonged absence from school. Just because many are quarantined, doesn’t mean you can’t drop off food or other supplies and be a blessing to those in need. Also, don’t forget about the elderly. They have a far greater health risk than most, so consider ways to help and protect them.
3 – Be Reasonable:There’s nothing wrong with taking reasonable precautions concerning hygiene at a time like this. It’s not necessary to have 96 rolls of toilet paper, but being able to clean and disinfect your house is a good idea. Make sure you take reasonable precautions and use proper hygiene and social etiquette to do what you can to prevent further spread of the virus. Acting like there’s no threat is reckless and tells a watching world that you don’t care. Loving your neighbor will present itself through taking reasonable precautions.
4 – Be Wise Stewards:This might sound out of place at the moment, but with markets down, now is a great time to make wise financial decisions. Refinancing a house, investing in the stock market, making large purchases (such as a car), can be a good investment at the moment. Practically, such financial decisions can help local and national economies recover quicker from any short-term economic impact. Work with your financial professional to create a plan for making wise financial decisions at this moment in keeping with the principles of stewardship.
5 – Support Your Local Community:Speaking of local economies; now is a great time to support yours. Amazon and Wal-Mart might feel a crunch, but they won’t be going out of business anytime soon. However, local small businesses face such a possibility. You can help by spending money at locally owned and operated businesses. Eat local, shop local, tip a little extra, and look for local proprietors that would greatly appreciate your support during a slower economic time. Doing so can help reduce the possibility of a recession due to the virus shutdown.
People of faith should not be known for fear and panic. It’s okay to have legitimate concerns and take measured steps to protect ourselves. It’s not appropriate to panic and forget that our faith is not in markets and economies, but in a sovereign God that promises to never leave us or forsake us.
It is at these moments that Christians have historically risen to the challenges before them to extend a helping hand and serve those in need. Many well-known charities were founded by Christians seeing a need and being willing to fill it (The Salvation Army, Compassion International, and Samaritan’s Purse). Now is not the time to change this trend, now is the time for people of faith to strengthen their faith and make it clear that fear does not control us.
What we don’t need right now is panicked reactions and social media assaults. Resist the temptation to argue about the cause, government actions, or anything else lacing an eternal perspective. Work diligently to be the person in your community being proactive in helping others, staying healthy, and exercising wise stewardship. Your community needs you right now and the eternal impact of your actions will far outweigh the temporary fallout of COVID-19. Remember, faith without works is dead.
Can Marxism Create Greater Economic Unity Than Capitalism?
Posted on February 5, 2020 in Money, Public Policy by Nathan Cherry
The question was recently posed to me: “Is there a way to improve unity in a capitalist society like Marx claims will happen in a Marxist society?”
I was struck first by the thought that anyone with a cursory knowledge of Marx would believe he was seeking unity. The sum of Marx and his works is less about unity and more about eliminating perceived inequality to create a utopia. A place where there is no need and wants are supplied by the production of the members of society.
I suspect that the real question behind the question is seeking to ascertain whether capitalism can create a better society than Marx claims will be created via Marxism and communism. Is it possible that capitalism will result in a society devoid of inequality where class is a thing of past and the needs of the many are equal to the needs of the few? Will the capitalist ever be a perfectly unified society?
In short: no.
Before moving on, we must understand that Marx is not primarily interested in unity; he is claiming to seek equality. Marx’ complaint against capitalism is that it creates inequality. He was seeking to devise a system that would eliminate inequality and create equality. However, he’s not really interested in equality either. Marx needs to paint a rosy picture so people will accept his ideas (sound familiar?). Marx is most interested in power. He wants to consolidate power into the hands of the government in order to control everything: the means of production, money flow, wealth, education, healthcare, cultural norms, etc.
Ultimately, Marx knows that whoever controls the means of production, education, healthcare, and the money system, will control everything and everyone. Socialism and communism are primarily about power.
5 Reasons Capitalism Cannot Produce Unity:
First, inequality is necessary for society to exist and thrive. If everyone is economically equal, no one will be willing to work at the fast food restaurants, or clean houses and mow lawns. But these are necessary jobs that serve society and provide people with income, while also allowing entrepreneurs the opportunity to own and operate a business. It is through entrepreneurship and business that much wealth has been created. Many lives have been enriched by the fruits of those businesses (technology, medicine, automobiles).
The inequality created by capitalism produces competition and market forces that provide opportunity. One business fails and leaves a gap where another can take its place.
Second, economic inequality is not only necessary, it’s not bad. No one is guaranteed an economic position in life. Such a notion is a “bourgeois” idea, the very idea Marx hated so much and sought to destroy. Our economic position is largely a result of our efforts. Through hard work, dedication, sacrifice, and consistency over time, people have the opportunity to create their own economic position and future. Being “wealthy,” by any arbitrary cultural standard is not a right.
Economic equality is not guaranteed by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. To guarantee anyone a specific economic position is the very definition of elitism.
Third, no service, such as education or healthcare, is a right. These are, by definition and nature, services. And because they are not rights, no one has the authority or is in a position to force another person to provide these services. It is the opposite of freedom, to demand that another person render their services under duress, which is what we would call a government threat. The idea that an educator can be sued because a student failed should terrify every sane person. That medical professionals must carry large amounts of liability coverage is equally alarming.
If the government can force one person to render services, it can force any person to provide (or withhold) any service; this is tyranny at its worst and to be rejected in favor of freedom and liberty.
Fourth, capitalism is dependent on discrimination. Of course, culture currently tells us that discrimination is bad. However, every person discriminates on a daily basis. We choose brand of coffee over another, one type of car over the competitor, and one style of clothing over many others. IN making these choices we discriminate against those we choose not to do business with. This discrimination is both good and necessary for a free market to work. Eliminating the ability of consumers to discriminate will necessarily reduce their choices, and erase competition.
Fifth, unity is achieved by people. Regardless of their intersectionality or any other external factors, unity in a society or even a neighborhood is the responsibility of the people. The government cannot force unity via any economic system. But the poorest and the richest can walk side by side, united one banner if they choose. This is clearly seen in certain communities (such as fraternal organizations, clubs, and churches) where members serve one another regardless of their economic position or other cultural labels. No government or economic system can create unity, only people can.
Economic systems are a product of worldviews. Depending on how one sees the world, the economic system will be an attempt to create that world (society). As long as societies are constructed by imperfect people for imperfect people, no perfect society (or economic system) will ever exist. But we can make strides towards being better and creating a better society than we had yesterday. The best economic system currently in existence for this task is capitalism.
Traditional Masculinity: Why Being a Manly Man Isn’t Bad
Posted on January 22, 2020 in Family, Marriage, Sexuality by Nathan Cherry
Last week I gathered with some men at a manly place to enjoy some manly things. And there were some manly men there too. Air Force. Army. Guys that jump out of helicopters and hunt bad guys around the world.
While we reclined and enjoyed some manly recreations, we took the opportunity to discuss…masculinity.
Makes sense. A bunch of manly men in a manly environment seems like an appropriate time to discuss a hot cultural topic. I’m sure someone has already been triggered by the sheer number of times the word “manly” has been used (there’s more coming). But on this particular day, the only use of “triggered” referred to military weapons.
Anyone with a sane sense of observation will admit that “traditional masculinity” is under attack culturally. Social justice warriors and sexual revolutionaries have decided that “traditional” men are responsible for basically every evil in the world. Their objective is to change the balance of power by elevating any other group in an effort to topple men from the societal apex.
Ross Douthat, a well-known national columnist, comments on the APA’s newest research into “toxic masculinity,”: “The trouble with men, the guidelines argue, is that they’re violent and reckless, far more likely than women to end up in prison or dead before their time. But the deeper problem is they’re prisoners of ‘traditional masculinity,’ which the guidelines describe as a model of manhood marked by ‘emotional stoicism, homophobia, not showing vulnerability, self-reliance and competitiveness.’”
To put it simply, the APA is concerned that traditional ideas of masculinity, which have existed in every society for millennia are harmful. More than harmful, they are at the root of many (if not all) of society’s problems and need to be eradicated.
Let’s be fair. Men have problems. Some of what the APA concluded is within the scope of reason and sanity, not much, but some.
Men are far more violent and reckless. Men aren’t generally known to be “emotional” (not Manly men anyway). Men typically tend to be self-reliant (nope, we won’t stop to ask for directions). And it would be hard to deny that men are competitive; just ask any sports fan around the world.
But, the question to consider is whether these traits are inherently bad, or harmful to society.
It may be considered reckless to attempt to fly an airplane after building it from scratch, by hand. But I think we can all agree that the Wright brothers did the world a favor by seeking to create a machine that could cut travel times and allow quicker (and safer) global travel. No doubt members of the APA have benefited from the reckless behavior of the Wright brothers and the world is a better place for it.
Stoicism is not a quality we see among a majority of men today. It’s certainly not as common as in previous generations. We might do well to instill such a quality in our boys and help them understand that sometimes it’s okay to cry, and other times, you need to suck up the tears and keep moving. A manly balance between tenderness and strength is a quality worth cultivating.
Are we now to believe that being self-reliant is a problem? In a culture where we are asked to blame everyone around us for our problems and seek help from doctors, neighbors, and social media, perhaps a little more self-reliance would benefit us all? Too great a degree of self-reliance can lead to reckless behavior (i.e. replacing the electrical outlet ourselves without proper understanding or skill and causing a house fire, or getting electrocuted). But the proper expression of self-reliance – along with some determination – can propel a man from poverty to becoming a brain surgeon with “gifted hands.” (Just ask Dr. Ben Carson.)
Is there any value in being competitive? The man that pushes himself to work harder and achieve success needs it. The entrepreneur that dreams of creating a global business must have it. The man that wants to chase the record books to become football’s GOAT can’t accomplish his goal without it (C’mon, let’s just admit Tom Brady is the GOAT).
The problem with the APA’s blanket assessment is the accusation that these qualities are somehow inherently bad. A better conversation would begin by asking if these qualities have value and how they can be properly expressed.
The ability to be emotionally stoic in order to rescue another person is admirable. The skill of growing a business from scratch using self-reliance and competitiveness is noteworthy. Pushing the limits of physical ability to become a world-renown athlete is a dream worth pursuing.
David French rightly notes that culture is sending a confusing signal when it tells us all to “be yourself” and then concludes that who you are is “toxic”: “It is interesting that in a world that otherwise teaches boys and girls to ‘be yourself,’ that rule often applies to everyone but the ‘traditional’ male who has traditional male impulses and characteristics. Then, they’re a problem. Then, they’re often deemed toxic. Combine this reality with a new economy that doesn’t naturally favor physical strength and physical courage to the same extent, and it’s easy to see how men struggle.”
The APA thinks that teaching boys to be “traditional” men is the problem, that “gender role strain” and “gender role conflict” are the result of being “emotionally stoic, self-reliant, and competitive.” If males would simply put down their swords and pull up a chair to share their feelings, society would be a in better place. But it’s these men, the self-reliant, courageous, competitive men that helped secure the victory in WWI and WWII. It was these men that “recklessly” gave birth to flight and space exploration. It’s these men that run into burning buildings to save strangers and daily risk their lives to keep others safe.
I’m not ignoring the accomplishments of women. But today I’m focusing on men, manly men that have contributed to society in more ways than can be counted.
Yes, the idea of masculinity has been distorted, just as the idea of femininity has been distorted. To focus so much effort on redefining what it means to be a man (or woman) is to undercut the strength of any society; it’s a sign that our culture is collapsing. If you truly want to see reform in families and society, teach boys how to be men, manly men that understand proper expression of the good qualities they have been endowed with by their Creator.
I Don’t Have a Context for a Christian Kanye West
Posted on December 19, 2019 in Theology by Nathan Cherry
Many Christians are loudly supporting Kanye in his conversion. They quickly tell others not to “judge” but to simply be excited and jump on board the Kanye-conversion-bandwagon. A lot of these Christians also frequently listen to Steven Furtik and Joel Osteen. They think worship is an emotional experience that can happen in a boat while fishing just as easily as it can in a church on Sunday (so why go to church?). They support same-sex marriage and don’t like talking about hell because they’re not sure it’s a real place. That’s only because they aren’t sure the Bible is really God’s Word, but they really like Jesus. They are quick to agree that other religions can result in getting a person into Heaven and looking solely to Jesus just isn’t inclusive enough. And not being inclusive would be bad karma.
Still others that are eagerly encouraging support for Kanye and acceptance of his conversion are voices I have a great deal of respect for. They are well-trained pastors with as biblical a theology – in both teaching and practice – as you could hope to find. They actively defend against liberal theology and consistently call their churches to repent through Gospel centered preaching. They rebuke the moral therapeutic deism found in most contemporary evangelical churches. They have just one agenda: make much of Jesus and share the Gospel. Their voices ring true.
From within the same mass of Christians are two distinct voices calling everyone that will listen to be excited for Kanye and resist skepticism. Both the nominal and the orthodox are saying the same thing. That, in itself is worth mention.
What I’ve come to realize as my issue is that I have no context for a Christian Kanye.
It’s easy to dislike the guy that interrupts the awards show to make his opinion known. And it’s a no-brainer to reject the guy that says he is God. I don’t have any interest in the music of a guy that partakes in the narcissistic lifestyle of the Kardashians. This kind of person is easy to dismiss and ignore.
To be honest, I make assumptions about a guy like Kanye. I assume that if he’s married to a Kardashian, they must be in agreement concerning socio-political issues. If Kim supports the transgender movement, Kanye must be a supporter as well. I assume that if Kanye is making chart topping music in the hip-hop genre and hanging out with industry heavy-weights, he must be in agreement with them concerning abortion, pornography, homosexuality, and many other moral issues. And indeed, his previous music indicates that he is/was in line with the non-Christian liberal moral revolutionaries and their viewpoints concerning these issues.
So, when a guy like this, a guy like Kanye says he is now a Christian and starts making Christian hip-hop albums and saying he rejects pornography and abortion and all the things that were central to his life…I’m skeptical. And I’m skeptical because I don’t have a context for that Kanye. I don’t know what to do with thatguy.
Some, like the folks at Christianity Today, say the New Testament tells us not to question Kanye’s conversion. And then they go on to recount all the times in the New Testament when Christians questioned the conversion of notorious sinners. Funny thing is that no one was ever condemned or rebuked for being skeptical of the conversion of a notorious sinner (see the account of Saul in the book of Acts). In fact, it takes the witness of a faithful Christian (Barnabas) to convince Christians of Saul’s conversion (Acts 9:27). What seems clear to me from the New Testament narrative is that Christians should expect fruit as corroborating evidence of conversion. (John 13:35, Gal. 5:22-23) To say that perseverance and fruit are central to the Christian faith is the same as saying salvation is by faith alone through grace alone. It just is.
In fact, being skeptical in our current culture where easy believe-ism has led to more than one “Christian star” flaming out almost seems to be a wise virtue. After all, we live in a culture where people can say anything. But if those words aren’t backed up with evidence, and, in this case, fruit, those words are as false as the ones the snake uttered to start the sin ball rolling.
My biggest fear is that this will blow up in the face of every true Christian. I’m concerned that after all the hype and all the praise from high-profile Christians that Kanye will turn out to be nothing more than what many thought of him previously. In that scenario, the damage to the church and its reputation could be disastrous. However, I have to admit that this is my fear, my issue. It’s quite possible that I am making Jesus way too small. And I may be forgetting that Jesus uses the awkward attempts of His detractors to malign Him for His own glory. Just look at any encounter Jesus had with the Pharisees and that will be abundantly clear.
Let’s be clear about one thing: Jesus can save Kanye.
No person is beyond the saving grace of Jesus Christ. No sin, no life, is hopeless and outside the reach of the Savior. Kanye isn’t a worse sinner than anyone else. Christ died for every sin of every born-again believer – regardless of the sinner or the sin. So, this isn’t about whether Kanye can be saved because there can be no doubt that Christ can save anyone.
In the end, what I hope, more than anything is that Kanye is a truly repentant believer in Jesus that will boldly call those around him to trust in Jesus. Already we’ve seen his new album, Jesus is King debut at #1. And, on top of that, every song on the album is on the Top 100 chart. Every major media outlet has been covering this story for weeks, and internet searches for Jesus and the beliefs of Christians has spiked significantly. The cultural significance can’t be overstated. The Gospel is going places it hasn’t gone before. People that didn’t care about Jesus are searching the internet to know more.
It seems appropriate for Christians to exercise “cautious optimism” in the case of a guy like Kanye. We should be excited at Kanye’s profession of faith. We should be overjoyed that the Gospel is being heard over media outlets and in places it previously wasn’t. And we should pray for this new believer to be properly discipled and strengthened in his faith. Let’s not go and make him a pastor, author of theology books, or president of the SBC just yet. Kanye needs time to grow and mature in his faith. When the fruit of true repentance become evident, our excitement can increase.
Could Kanye be a modern-day Spurgeon ready to bring revival? I don’t know, but, if that’s true, is it a bad thing? Sign me up for Sunday Service.