Mustela nivalis

The Bible is “an anti-socialist document”. This is one of the quintessential conclusions of Gary North’s multi-volume economic exegesis. However, how does this assertion equate with some biblical statements, especially in the New Testament, which are rather critical about “the rich”?

Let’s take the famous story of the rich man who is told by Jesus to sell everything he has, give the money to the poor, and to follow him. Under these conditions the rich man, who originally wanted to follow Jesus, declines. Then Jesus says the well-known words: “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19:24) So it seems that Jesus/God doesn’t like the rich very much. At least not as much as the poor.

However, there is a proverb (13:22) in the Old Testament which seems to directly contradict this dictum: “A good person leaves an inheritance for their children’s children, but a sinner’s wealth is stored up for the righteous.” Meaning that a) it IS possible to be rich and “good” in the eyes of God and b) in the long term, maybe the very long term, the righteous will inherit everything, and the sinners will be disinherited. In history that is, in this world, not the next.

There are clear indications in the Gospels that Jesus adheres to this proverb. Think of the parable of the prodigal son: the initially unrighteous son loses all his money, but when he returns to the father, crushed and repentant, he is rewarded, spiritually but also materially. Think of the parable of the talents, which, in the version told by Matthew, ends with: “For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.” Obviously, “having” something does not here only mean material goods. But it does include them.

So, on the one hand, the rich will have a hard time entering the kingdom of God. On the other, the righteous will become rich. How to solve this conundrum? The easy way would be to point out that the rich man that prompted Jesus’ words about camels and needles was a) young and b) a “ruler”. In other words, he had not worked for his riches, but had received the equivalent of modern day tax money. Incidentally Jesus does not ask every rich man he meets to “sell everything and give it to the poor”, only this one man.

So there is some merit in the this-individual-rich-man argument, however it is a little too easy: Jesus talks about “someone who is rich” in general, for whom it is near impossible to enter the kingdom of God, not “this particular man”. A more comprehensive solution is that Jesus recognises that with additional riches come additional responsibilities. This is what is also meant in the conclusion of the parable of the talents, mentioned above. The richer we become, the more responsibilities we assume. Responsibilities towards God and his people that is. Because if God is not recognised as being at the top of the hierarchy, someone else will assume that position. For many really rich people, that someone tends to be either their crony in government or they themselves. This is basically the message in all parables where a rich man comes up short, e.g. the parables of the rich fool (Luke 12:13-21) and of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). It’s never the fact that they were rich that condemned them. It’s that they thought they were sovereign in their decisions and did not need to heed God’s commandments or the finiteness of their lives. A stance that becomes easier to assume the wealthier one is materially. Thus the growing difficulty to pass the “needle test” the richer one is.

However, this solution is not yet entirely complete. Why, if the righteous will inherit the earth, is it “almost impossible” for “the rich” to enter the kingdom of God? Gary North thinks that this dichotomy “points to a world-transforming Christian revival in the future that will change the theological confessions of the very wealthy.” (G.N., The Covenantal Structure of Christian Economics, 2015, p. 229.) In other words, Jesus’ dictum applies to most of the rich in his day and today. However, sometime in the future the proverb shining through some of Jesus’ parables will negate Matthew 19:24, North asserts. This would indicate a true and lasting revival expected by those Christians who are, like Gary North, “postmillennialists”. They expect that mankind will experience a long phase of blessings in history prior to Jesus’ second coming and judgment, as a reward for individual and institutional adherence to God’s commandments. That is why the postmillennial outlook is optimistic.

If however the camel-needle-dictum has permanently overturned proverb 13:22, “then the wealth of the just is laid up for the sinner.” (G.N., ibid, p. 230) And this would then remain so for the rest of history. This is the basic position of “amillennialists”, which seems to be the default position of most of the remaining European Christians nowadays, consciously or not.

This is the fundamental reason why the Christian faith is in retreat all over Europe and the West as a whole. Christians have given up “the good fight” because in their heart of amillennialist hearts they believe that “the wealth of the just is laid up for the sinner” – so why bother? Why indeed. As I have said in earlier posts, there are strong indicators for a direct connection between long term adherence to Christianity and the rise of individual freedom and general wealth in history. If we don’t reconnect freedom to its historical spiritual foundation, it is very likely doomed. However, Christianity needs to break free of its current amillennialist “slave morality”, to coin a Nietzschean phrase. A morality which, as Gary North shows, is not necessarily inherent to it.

Looking at this analysis from the libertarian side, North offers libertarians a way to counter the rather powerful “moral depravity” accusation levelled against libertarians: “In a libertarian world, the rich will lord it over us all”. The counter argument North offers comes at a price: Libertarians would have to give up the notion of “sovereign individual” and follow Jesus. Which at the moment, to be honest, looks like a sure recipe for even more marginalisation.

However, libertarians should certainly consider Christian “postmillennialism”. The moral, one could say spiritual, strength of some non-Christian and atheist/humanist movements today is largely down to their own brand of postmillennialism: promising a better future for all, in some cases even a kind of heaven on earth, if only everyone adheres to their commandments. Christianity is already a historically proven main contributory factor of the development of freedom and general wealth. Once Christians and libertarians recognise this, once they rediscover their common roots, and once they (re)discover postmillennialism for themselves, they can again become a force to be reckoned with for the benefit of mankind – and for the glory of God.