Old Pope, New Pope

From the January-February 2013 issue of Forerunner.

When Pope Benedict XVI announced his resignation from the papacy, very few had seen it coming. The Bavarian pope cited his declining health as the main reason for leaving his office, stating, "I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry." Many knew that the 85-year-old pontiff's health had deteriorated of late, but no Vatican observer ever thought that he would step down—especially because no pope had resigned from office since 1415, when Gregory XII ended his nine-year papacy. Benedict XVI's voluntary resignation is only the third such resignation in the nearly 2,000 years since Roman bishops have ruled the Catholic Church. 

Despite few anticipating such a move, The Economist reports in a February 16, 2013, article, "The Pope's Resignation: See You Later":

Benedict had been toying with resignation for almost four years. Visiting the earthquake-stricken Italian city of L'Aquila in 2009, he left his pallium, the woollen band that is a symbol of the papal office, at the tomb of Celestine V, a reluctant pope who resigned [in 1294] to pray. In 2010 he said that a pope who became unable to do his job properly "has the right, and in some circumstances even the duty, to resign."

And so he did, retiring initially to the Papal Palace in Castel Gandolfo, and later, once its renovations are completed, to the newly refurbished Mater Ecclesiae monastery in the Vatican.

Considered by many in the media as far too conservative and boring, Benedict's papacy has been reported as having been a failure. The truth is that, overall, his pontificate was quite successful. He steadfastly defended Catholic doctrine, as would be expected from the former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (known historically as the Inquisition), the Church's doctrinal enforcement agency. He preserved his office and Church against the relativistic and progressive attitudes and ideas that so dominate today's world. Though the Vatican suffered a handful of scandals during his administration, Benedict did not allow them to soften his beliefs or approach. His holding the line against such staunch opposition obviously took its toll on his health and strength.

He has been succeeded by 76-year-old Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a native of Buenos Aires, Argentina, and the son of Italian immigrants. The new pope, the first Jesuit to wear the papal mitre, chose the name "Francis" in honor of Francis of Assisi because, he said, he is especially concerned for the welfare of the poor. Of Francis of Assisi, Bergoglio once expressed, "He brought to Christianity an idea of poverty against the luxury, pride, vanity of the civil and ecclesiastical powers of the time. He changed history." His admiration for the founder of the Franciscan Order may portend how he will frame his papacy.

By all accounts, Pope Francis is a mild-mannered, soft-spoken man of the people who is known for his sense of humor. He has "a well-earned reputation for holiness and humility," as one writer for Maclean's put it. In the dozen years that he was head of the Catholic Church in Argentina, he never lived in the ecclesiastical mansion but shared an apartment in downtown Buenos Aires with an elderly priest, heating the place with a small stove. He took public transportation and cooked his own meals. He regularly visited the city's slums and washed the feet of the poor, the sick, the elderly, or the imprisoned every Maundy Thursday. In 2011, he did this for newborns and pregnant women.

As his papacy begins, he has not changed his habits in this regard. He has a "no frills" style that endears him to the public yet exasperates his Vatican handlers. Just after being elected, he chose to take the bus with his fellow cardinals back to his hotel rather than the papal car, and the next day, he picked up his own luggage and paid the bill himself. He has refused to take up residence in the papal apartments in the Apostolic Palace, preferring to live in the Vatican guest house, though he has conceded to an "upgrade," a suite of rooms where he can conduct meetings and receive visitors. On his first Maundy Thursday as pope, he continued his practice of footwashing, washing and kissing the feet of twelve juvenile offenders in Rome.

His easy, gentle manner could make some underestimate him. Underneath his plain white cassock and iron cross is a forceful personality that brooks no argument on the tenets of his heartfelt positions. He is solidly in the conservative wing of Roman Catholic theologians, as a disciple of John Paul II and fellow of Benedict XVI. Though holding traditional views on most doctrines, he cannot be said to be a hardliner in the sense that his predecessor was thought to be. His sermons and writings often contain language that makes fine distinctions between theological dogma and measured, merciful responses in light of living in a sinful world.

One of his heartfelt positions—one that could bring him into conflict with certain parts of the Western world—is his left-leaning criticism of global capitalism, calling it a "tyranny" that values human beings solely by the goods they consume and a "cult of money" that makes people miserable. Believing that unbridled capitalism has exacerbated poverty and led to the disregard of ethics, he advocates more stringent controls over financial markets. 

What his papacy accomplishes only time will tell. Despite rumors of its decline, the Catholic Church, 1.2 billion strong, is still a force to be reckoned with, especially in Europe, Africa, and particularly in Latin America, where more than two-fifths of its adherents live. There are already a few signs that this new pope may flex the Vatican's political muscles more than the old pope did—if only in his insistence that Catholics need to live out their faith in the world—and that could make for some interesting times ahead.

Is This How to Fix a Broken Economy?

Forerunner, "WorldWatch," March-April 2009

Former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, a key economic adviser to President Barack Obama, told a Congressional hearing in January that "the economy is broken." Does anyone else find this a bit extreme? The economy is certainly performing poorly but "broken"? It may be in recession, but the American economy has climbed out of recessions many times before, even a Great Depression.

Perhaps we need to start at the beginning and relearn what an economy is. Webster's Dictionary defines economy as "thrifty and efficient use of material resources: frugality in expenditures; also an instance or a means of economizing: saving." The fourth definition listed provides "the structure of economic life in a country, area, or period." Economics is "a social science concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services." Blending these together, a sound economy would be "a thrifty and efficient structure and means of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services in a country or area."

These days, such a thing sounds as rare as a dodo bird.

Most nations want to be peaceful and prosperous. Peace usually occurs when a nation has good relations with its neighbors and, in a dangerous, violent world, a strong enough military to deter any potential adversary. Prosperity also usually requires peaceful relations with neighboring countries along with the aforementioned "thrifty and efficient structure and means of production," etc. However, this seems not to be the aim of the United States under the Obama Administration, as it has not been the aim of a majority of European nations for more than a generation.

No, America no longer seeks to maintain its military and economic power as its prime directives, but according to the words and actions of the President, to be loved abroad and to achieve fairness at home. These are the goals, not of a confident, optimistic, growing nation, but of a guilt-ridden, self-absorbed, declining state whose rulers hope that righting all the perceived wrongs will grant them a measure of self-respect and an echo of the nation's former glory. As we are witnessing, such goals do nothing more than to earn further contempt internationally and a bottomless pit of debt domestically.

To these ends, the Obama administration has opted to compound former President George W. Bush's final mistake, as he put it, "I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system." The young administration has abandoned the free market entirely, plunging the country into socialism at break-neck speed. Socialism is defined as "a system or condition of society in which the means of production and distribution are owned and controlled by the state." In Marxist theory, by the way, socialism is the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

Thus, over the last few months, the nation has taken on trillions of dollars of debt to "rescue" banks and automobile manufacturers, to try to put millions of unemployed people back to work, to shore up the mess that government-mandated relaxed rules made of the housing industry, and finally, to reward liberal groups and constituents with billions of dollars of "pork" projects. In so doing, the President has become the de facto head of banks, financial institutions, mortgage lenders, and two of America's "Big Three" automakers. In addition—as he promised to do during the Presidential campaign—he is engaged in redistributing the nation's wealth, not along the lines of merit based on hard work and diligence, but by handpicking the winners and losers based on "righting past wrongs" and "evening the score" for the downtrodden.

Despite capitalism's downsides—greed, exploitation, competition—it is a far-superior economic system to socialism. Within the bounds of Christian ethics, it not only permits but also encourages growth and prosperity. For example, while the average American gave at least lip service to Judeo-Christian principles, capitalism was responsible for the growth of U.S. per capita gross domestic product from $1,048 in 1820 to $18,317 in 1989 (using real 1985 dollars). In other words, an individual in 1985 produced 17 times more for the economy than his ancestor in 1820—growth that was mirrored in income.

Because it is based on the ownership of property, capitalism functions properly only under conditions of individual liberty. With land comes the ability to produce a product—whether vegetation, livestock, lumber, ore, etc.—a craft, or a service based on those raw materials. The product, craft, or service can then be bartered or sold to someone who needs it. Using his own labor and talents, a person can succeed as much as he desires; he has the ability to choose his own level of effort and income. In this way, each individual has ownership and control over his destiny.

Yet, socialism demands that freedoms be curtailed or removed. While advocates of socialism extol it in terms of "equality" and "fairness," socialist societies are always governed by a ruling elite that accrues power, wealth, and privilege to itself. Everyone else is forced to share what little remains. Already, Americans' power and control—the choices and liberties of "We the people"—are disappearing quickly, and a command-and-control economy and its attendant nomenklatura are taking their places.
These political, bureaucratic, and corporate "names"—and their allies in media and entertainment—are manipulating the levers of power to regulate and control every facet of government, business, education, energy, healthcare, etc. Ultimately, beyond their personal, individual lusts for power, their goal is to erase sovereignty and join other nations in world government to fulfill their utopian dreams.

So, rather than fix our "broken" economy, they are using it to advance their agenda. Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, cynically told the Wall Street Journal Digital Network on November 19, 2008: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." If it can keep the American people in a perpetual state of crisis, there is no telling what radical change this administration can effect. With only a few months of power under its belt, it has time to turn the American way of life on its head.

Biblical Finance

All the news that is fit to print these days seems to revolve around our hobbled economy. The constant drumbeat of bad financial news is so heavy and insistent that it has become oppressive and, frankly, excessive. Once again, the media are taking every opportunity to scream at us that the sky is falling—or perhaps more descriptively, that our civilization is plunging into a bottomless pit of debt—and the government has responded by going into full crisis-mode. Wall Street investors are behaving like lemmings, running en masse over the nearest cliff every time another bad report comes out. So much for the buy-and-hold strategy.

A few economists and pundits are not as gloomy as the media, the government, and Wall Street. For the most part, these more optimistic observers are of a conservative stripe, faithful to the tendency of markets to correct themselves over time. They believe that the government should keep its nose, fingers, hands, and arms out of the private sector, and stick to its Constitutional role to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." As for promoting the general welfare, the Founders would vehemently deny that they meant bailing out the banks and auto industry.

Obviously, Americans are caught between two rival and irreconcilable schools of economic thought. One side believes in increased governmental regulation, massive infusions of public monies, increased taxation, and a command-and-control economy commanded and controlled by Washington politicians and bureaucrats. The other side counters with decreased regulation, incentives for markets and businesses, decreased taxation, and allowing millions of consumers to choose how they will spend (or save) their hard-earned money. The former is essentially a European-style socialism, while the latter is trickle-down capitalism.

Neither approach is God-ordained, by any means. Both are human-devised systems of economic thought, but they begin with different premises. Socialism starts with the assumption that wealth should be divided equally among all but that the means of production and distribution of that wealth should be a function of the state. Capitalism, on the other hand, is founded on the principles of a person reaping—and keeping—what he has sown and of individual liberty. In the real world, socialism—especially its extreme form, communism—has failed every time it has been tried, while capitalism is responsible in part for the burgeoning economies of the British Empire, America in its heyday, the Asian Tigers, etc.

To repeat, neither of these systems has God's stamp of approval. What capitalism has going for it is that it incorporates several biblical principles into its basic structure, and further, it makes the most of certain elements of human nature. For instance, people like to win, to be "King of the Mountain." Capitalism unleashes the human competitive spirit, making the pursuit of wealth into something like a game—and may the best man or woman win.

However, it has downsides too. For example, perhaps its most egregious failing is that it inspires greed. Many supporters of capitalism fall for the well-known Gordon Gecko line, "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good," and they pursue the accumulation of wealth at all costs, leading to all sorts of grievous crimes in the name of profits.

This sin is certainly a factor in the present financial mess we are living through right now. Green-eyed investors gambled on bad home loans leveraged at 30 to 1. Corporations continued to expand beyond their means, even buying out struggling companies to pad their bottom lines. Thinking that the good times would never end, consumers continued to purchase whatever their hearts desired, maxing out their credit cards, signing on to new consumer loans, and taking out second mortgages. Now the piper must be paid, and the money is just not there.

What is God's take on all of this? Obviously, because of the sins involved—greed, dishonesty, theft, oppression, to name a few—He is not pleased, and in fact, we could say that the crisis itself is a predictable, inevitable judgment on the nation for breaking God's law in these areas. When men contravene a law of God, a penalty automatically goes into effect, and the only unknown factors are when and how hard it will fall. America's economic situation—not to mention what the rest of the world is experiencing too—is eliciting comparisons with at least the crisis in the early 1980s, and for some it resembles the Great Depression of the 1930s. Time will tell how severe it will be.

What does the Bible instruct us in these matters? Of course, the Bible is not an economic text, but it does include financial principles that all Christians should know and follow as well as they are able. Here are a few of them:

• God commands that we tithe (Leviticus 27:30; Deuteronomy 14:22). Contrary to the worst aspects of capitalism, God's system is based on giving, not getting. Learning this principle, a part of God's very character, begins with giving Him one-tenth of our income to fund the work of His church. Doing this also helps us to realize what is most important.
• In addition, God commands that we support the needy (Acts 20:35), particularly the widows and orphans, the disabled, the unemployed, and those who, due to circumstances out of their control, need a temporary hand up. This starts with our families, fellow members of the church, and as we are able, others in the world around us.
• God instructs us to avoid debt. "The borrower is servant to the lender," counsels wise King Solomon (Proverbs 22:7). Debt makes us subject, not just to the lender, but also to misfortune and to the unscrupulous. If we have debts, we should have a plan to pay them down as soon as possible and resolve not to incur any new ones.
• The Bible tells us to save so we can pass our wealth to our heirs. Solomon advises, "A good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children," (Proverbs 13:22). While this is not always feasible, it should be a goal nevertheless, inspiring us—contrary to our fellow American's spendthrift ways—to put a little money aside as often as we can.

The Bible contains other principles, but these are all that space allows. In times like the present, it would make a good Bible study to search the Scripture for them and meditate on their applications to our lives. Perhaps then, we can avoid the worst of the ongoing financial crisis.