February 15, 2006

HOW THEN CAN I DO THIS GREAT WICKEDNESS?:

Stewardship and Economics: Two Sides of the Same Coin (Jordan Ballor, 2/15/06, Acton.org)

Perhaps the most important point to recognize is the common foundation for our respective understandings of stewardship and economics. The two are related linguistically by their common Greek origins, and related theologically by their biblical usage. [...]

The Bible uses these terms frequently, sometimes to refer to the providential work of God in redemptive history. But even in these cases, the more mundane analogue is another biblical use of the terms, regarding the everyday maintenance of a household in the Ancient Near East.

Joseph, for example, acted as the steward of Potiphar’s household when he first arrived in Egypt (Genesis 39:2–6). Jesus tells the parable of the shrewd οικονόμος (manager) in Luke 16:1–15, who used his position over worldly wealth not as an end in itself but rather with eternal consequences in mind. Jesus concludes by saying, “No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money” (v. 13).

These few examples display the shared biblical origin of the terms economics and stewardship. Economics can be understood as the theoretical side of stewardship, and stewardship can be understood as the practical side of economics. [...]

Far from being a discipline that explains all of human existence, in the biblical view, as we saw in the case of the shrewd manager, economics is the thoughtful ordering of the material resources of a household or social unit toward the self-identified good end. Thus, if we hold a biblical view of economics and stewardship, we will not be tempted to divorce the two concepts but instead will see them as united.

On a larger scale, then, economics must play an important role in decisions about environmental stewardship. Economics helps us rightly order our stewardship. The fact that some advocates for political action on global warming are now attempting to propose economic arguments for their position is a positive step toward reconciling these two often estranged concepts.


Sadly, those who believe in economism make the mistake of treating economics as an end rather than a means, which makes them just as dangerous as the environmentalists.

Posted by Orrin Judd at February 15, 2006 8:36 PM
Comments

Check This Out:
Cheney: 'I'm the Guy Who Pulled the Trigger'

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184957,00.html

Posted by: lj at February 15, 2006 9:16 PM

Last night on Fox, Kondracke was practically foaming at the mouth because Cheney didn't say it was his fault. The NPR info babe was spinning so hard and fast, I thought she'd screw herself into the floor.

The beauty of it is that Brit didn't let them get away with their usual distorted statements, but said several times, "that isn't true" and wouldn't let them continue. It's enough to make a grown (wo)man cry.

Posted by: erp at February 16, 2006 10:59 AM
« AND THEIR OTHER OPTIONS WERE...?: | Main | SO SADDAM WAS LYING, TOO?: »