The last chapter of Schneider’s book was really interesting, and in his epilogue, where he summarized the work of the Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto, he really got my attention. De Soto’s book The Mystery of Capital sounded really intriguing so I made a point of ordering it. Besides, he’s a South American writing on economics — it has to line up with biblical justice, right?
Just a few comments, and this review is over. Many thanks to David Bahnsen, who sent me this book in the first place. I really enjoyed it.
In Schneider’s last chapter, he discusses the communal nature of the church in Jerusalem, and the relationship of the other churches around the Mediterranean to that church. He has a good, close eye for the text, and makes a number of good observations. “This action of Barnabas obviously exemplifies what the most admirable wealthy people were doing in Luke’s account” (p. 198). “So while Luke’s scenes convey a great deal of information about the strategy that affluent members of the community employed to help the poorer members, they give us practically no information about how these actions affected their standard of living” (p. 203).
I do have one criticism of his discussion of Jerusalem economics though, and that is the omission of the looming disaster that was going to come in 70 A.D. These people were servants of Christ, the Messiah, the one who had pronounced doom over that city. And He had said that it was going to happen within just one generation. Completely aside from the blessing that was provided for the poor through this, we cannot leave out of our discussions the fact that the divestments of property in Jerusalem were occuring in a condemned city, which most of the inhabitants knew nothing about. Jerusalem was the new Egypt, and the Christians here were plundering the Egyptians. The Egyptians were buying up property that was soon to become worthless, and the Christians were consolidating their assets into a more portable form.
This was a photo-negative of the parable of the pearl of great price. This was the ultimate in insider trading. These Christians knew that real estate, along with everything else, was going to tank. Jesus had said not to go back down into the house when the crisis came, so a bunch of them started to value liquidity early. And as they did so, they took great care to provide help for those among them who were poor — because great grace was upon them all.
Schneider’s book is really strong when it comes to teaching Christians in an affluent society how to be good stewards of their hearts (centered on delight before the Lord) and of their resources (centered on gratitude and service). On this front, the book was just splendid. “Contrary to widespread opinion, it seems that there is a distinctly Christian way to be affluent” (p. 211). Yes, and amen. And this edifying theme was pretty much the theme of the entire book.
Having said so much good about it, let me end on one point of significant disagreement. When Schneider talks about how we as Christians should handle the golden egg, he is right on the money. It would be hard to make suggestions on how he could have been more balanced, more biblical, or more solid. But this agreement about the golden egg of personal finances does not mean that there has to be agreement about the political goose. Leftist lunacy wants to kill the goose so we will have lots more room to store the future golden eggs. Republicans want to place garlands of flowers around its neck and leave baskets of fruit in front of it. “Nice goose,” will get you in trouble. You have to say, “Wonder goose.” Christians of course should have nothing to do with either approach.
At the beginning of this series of reviews, I took issue with Schneider’s claims that there were 25 societies which had successfully deployed capitalism (p. 1). I don’t think it is capitalism at all, though I wish it were. And here at the end of the book, he says this: “For the culture of modern capitalism (distinct from older versions) is unusually suited to the expression of Christian virtues” (p. 211). Now I agree with him that we as affluent Christians have the opportunity and obligation to live in the way he describes so well. But I take issue with any kind of alliance with our unbelieving system of mammon-chasing (“the culture of modern capitalism”). If I have understood him correctly here, I don’t just take issue a little bit but disagree in spades. I am a Christian, and my understanding of my faith is the basis of my conservatism. But conservatism is not the basis of what the Republicrats are currently doing. The two parties mingled (it is amazing what gene splicing can do these days) constitutes nothing other than the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Money.
The fact that we can eat the meat offered in one of their temples does not mean that we have the right to sacrifice there. Or even to praise the sacrifices, and ask the priests to keep the meat coming.