I kind of like Sarah Palin. I did, really, from the moment she burst onto the international scene as John McCain’s running mate. Of course I live in Canada so she would never have been my Vice President but still, I found in her qualities that I admired. Mostly I appreciated her common sense approach to politics and her aw shucks, hockey mom persona. It was attractive mostly by virtue of how approachable it made her, how normal she seemed. She compares very favorably in this way to the many career politicians who seem completely out-of-touch with the rest of us—men and women who have lived their whole lives in the upper tier of society and who can’t imagine life on the other side of the Forbe’s lists.

The American presidential election is almost upon us (even those of us who do not live in the United States). One of the fundamental issues in this election regards distribution of wealth. Many people have become alarmed at Obama’s statements about the redistribution of wealth. I think it is useful to provide a Christian perspective on inequality of wealth. To that end, I am posting the seventh chapter of Wayne Grudem’s book Business for the Glory of God (Used with permission of Crossway Books).

Some inequality of possessions is fundamentally good and provides many opportunities for glorifying God, but also many temptations to sin; and some extreme inequalities are wrong in themselves.

It may seem surprising to us to think that some inequalities of possessions can be good and pleasing to God. However, although there is no sin or evil in heaven, the Bible teaches that there are varying degrees of reward in heaven and various kinds of stewardship that God entrusts to different people. When we stand before Jesus to give account of our lives, he will say to one person,

“You shall have authority over ten cities,”

and to another,

“You are to be over five cities” (Luke 19:17, 19).

Therefore there will be inequalities of stewardship and responsibility in the age to come. This means that the idea of inequality of stewardship in itself is given by God and must be good.

In a similar teaching, Paul, speaking to believers, says, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil” (2 Cor. 5:10). This implies degrees of reward for what we have done in this life. Many other passages teach or imply degrees of reward for believers at the final judgment. Even among the angels, there are differing levels of authority and stewardship established by God, and therefore we cannot say that such a system is wrong or sinful in itself.

Inequalities are necessary in a world that requires a great variety of tasks to be done. Some tasks require stewardship of large amounts of resources (such as ownership of a steel mill or a company that manufactures airplanes), and some tasks require stewardship of small amounts of resources. And God has given some people greater abilities than others, abilities in artistic or musical skills, abilities in mathematics or science, abilities in leadership, abilities in business skills and buying and selling, and so forth. If reward for each person’s labor is given fairly and is based on the value of what that person produces, then those with larger abilities will naturally gain larger rewards. Since people are different in abilities and effort, I don’t think there could be a fair system of rewards for work unless the system had different rewards for different people. Fairness of reward requires such differences.

In fact, God has never had a goal of producing equality of possessions among people, and he will never do so. In the Year of Jubilee (Leviticus 25), agricultural land returned to its previous owner and debts were canceled, but there was no equalizing of money or jewels or cattle or sheep, and houses inside walled cities did not revert to the previous owner (v. 30).

Some people have seen an argument for equal possessions in 2 Corinthians 8, but there Paul did not say that God’s goal was equality. For example, he did not tell the wealthy Corinthians to send money to the poor Macedonians mentioned in 2 Corinthians 8:1-5, but only that they should contribute their fair share in helping the famine-stricken Christians in Jerusalem:

…as a matter of fairness your abundance at the present time should supply their need, so that their abundance may supply your need, that there may be fairness (2 Cor. 8:13- 14, ESV; the Greek word isots also means “fairness” in Col. 4:1, where it cannot mean “equality”).

Nor does the book of Acts teach some kind of “early communism” when it says that believers had all things in common. It is important to look at the passages carefully:

And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts … (Acts 2:44-46).

Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need (Acts 4:32-35).

These texts certainly show an amazing level of trust in God, generosity, and love for one another, all as a result of a remarkable outpouring of the Holy Spirit’s power in a time of great revival. But it is a great mistake to call this “early communism,” for (1) the giving was voluntary and was not compelled by the government, and (2) people still had personal possessions, because they still met in “their homes” (Acts 2:46), and many other Christians later still owned homes, such as Mary, the mother of John Mark (Acts 12:12), Jason (Acts 17:5), Titius Justus (Acts 18:7), many Christians in Ephesus (Acts 20:20), Philip the evangelist (Acts 21:8), Mnason of Cyprus (Acts 21:16, in Jerusalem), Priscilla and Aquila in Rome (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19), Nympha (Col. 4:15), Philemon (Philem. 2), and other Christians in general to whom John wrote (2 John 10).

Immediately after the description of such amazing generosity in Acts 4, there is in chapter 5 the story of Ananias and Sapphira, who lied about the sale price of some land. But Peter tells them there was no need to do this:

“While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God” (Acts 5:4).

It is significant that this story occurs immediately after the paragraph that says “they had everything in common” (Acts 4:32). It reminds us that all of that generosity in Acts 4 was voluntary and was not intended to nullify the ideas of individual ownership or inequality of possessions. When Peter says,

“While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?”

he reaffirms the idea of private property and keeps us from the mistaken idea that the church was establishing a new requirement that Christians give up all private property, or that Christians all had to have equal possessions. Acts 5:4 guards against such misunderstandings.

Later in the New Testament, when Paul gives specific instructions to those who are wealthy, he does not tell them to give up all their possessions, but to be generous and to set their hearts on God, not on their wealth:

As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life (1 Tim. 6:17-19).

So we should not think of all inequalities of possessions as wrong, or as evil. In fact, inequalities in possessions provide many opportunities for glorifying God.

If God gives us a small stewardship with regard to material possessions or abilities and opportunities, then we can glorify him through being content in him, trusting in him for our needs, expecting reward from him, and being faithful to our commitments. In fact, those who are poor often give more sacrificially than those who are rich. Jesus saw a poor widow put a penny in the offering, and he told his disciples,

“Truly, I say to you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the offering box. For they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on” (Mark 12:43-44).

And James tells us,

Has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which he has promised to those who love him? (James 2:5).

Thus, the Bible does not teach a “health and wealth gospel” (at least not until heaven!). In this present age, there are inequalities of gifts and abilities, and there are also evil, oppressive systems in the world, and because of these things many of God’s most righteous people will not be rich in this life.

As for those who have large resources, they also are to be content in God and trust in him, not in their riches, and both James and Paul suggest that they face greater temptations (see 1 Tim. 6:9-10; James 2:6-7; 5:1-6). Those who are rich have more opportunities and also more obligation to give generously to the poor (1 Tim. 6:17-19) and to the work of the church (Luke 12:48; 1 Cor. 4:2; 14:12b).

Inequalities in possessions, opportunities, and abilities provide many temptations to sin. There are temptations on the part of the wealthy or those who have other kinds of large stewardships to be proud, to be selfish, to think too highly of themselves, and not to trust in God. On the other hand, those to whom God has entrusted less have temptations to coveting and jealousy and not valuing their own personal position and calling in life, to which God has called them, at least for the present time.

In addition to this, there are some extreme kinds of inequalities in possessions and opportunities that are wrong in themselves. Poverty will not exist in the age to come, and so Jesus’ statement, “the poor you always have with you” (John 12:8) is best understood to mean “always in this age.” It does not mean that poverty will last forever, even into eternity. Poverty is one of the results of living in a world affected by sin and the Fall, and by God’s curse on the productivity of the earth after Adam and Eve sinned (Gen. 3:17-19).

We should seek to help the poor and seek to overcome their poverty. John says,

If anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? (1 John 3:17).

And when Paul went to Jerusalem to confirm the validity of his teaching in conversation with the apostles there, he found that they were in agreement, and then added,

they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do (Gal. 2:10; see also Matt. 25:39-40; Acts 2:45; 4:35; Rom. 12:13; 15:25-27; Eph. 4:28; Titus 3:14; Heb. 13:16).

The emphasis in the New Testament is on helping poor Christians, especially those who are near us or who come to our attention (see 1 John 3:17; Matt. 25:39-40; Rom. 15:25- 27; 2 Corinthians 8-9). But it is also right to help non- Christians who are poor and needy, as we see in the parable of the Good Samaritan who helped someone in need from a different religious background (Luke 10:25-37). We also see it in Jesus’ teaching, where he told us,

“love your enemies, and do good and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil” (Luke 6:35; compare also Jesus’ practice of healing all who came to him, not just those who believed in him as the Messiah).

So the New Testament emphasis on helping the poor shows us that there is an extreme kind of inequality that is not good, a point where people are in poverty and should be helped. (Just what “poverty” is will vary from society to society and will also vary over time within any one society.)

But is there an opposite extreme of having too much wealth? In contrast to many admonitions to help the poor, there is no corresponding command in the New Testament to take some wealth away from the very rich, and there is no teaching that a large amount of wealth is wrong in itself. But there are strong warnings against spending too much on oneself and living in self-indulgent luxury:

Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you… . Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days… . You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter (James 5:1, 3, 5).

James does not here imply that all those who are rich are evil, for in this same passage he speaks of the fraud and murder committed by these rich people, implying that he is speaking about the rich who are wrongdoers (James 5:4, 6). Paul says that Timothy should tell “the rich in this present age” that they are “not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy.” Paul does not say that the rich are to give away all their wealth, but that they are “to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share” (1 Tim. 6:17-18).

Yet James clearly warns against a kind of “luxury and self-indulgence” that is wrong, that shows little or no concern for others, and that does not take seriously the stewardship obligations that God bestows along with great wealth. It seems that those who are wealthy can too easily slip beyond a level of spending on themselves that is appropriate to their place in life and spend excessively and ostentatiously on themselves while neglecting to give generously to others.

But the distortions of something good must not cause us to think that the thing itself is evil. The evils of poverty and excessive, self-indulgent wealth must not cause us to think that God’s goal is total equality of possessions, or that all inequalities are wrong. Inequalities in abilities and opportunities and possessions will be part of our life in heaven forever, and they are in themselves good and pleasing to God, and provide many opportunities for glorifying him.

Yesterday I received an interesting email from a reader of this site. He had a question about abortion and, specifically, about abortion in the case of incest and rape. Here is an excerpt of his question:

We’re not living in a theocratic nation like the Old Testament Israel. Whether we like it or not, we’re living in a democratic nation where people of varying beliefs, not God, make the laws. To what extent, then, can we impose Christian values by law? especially in case of abortion by incest and rape? I understand we can make a good argument against abortion in general without having to resort to biblical teaching. However, what about in cases of abortion by incest or rape? Are we supposed to work to ban those as well?

As a Christian, i believe abortion is wrong. And because it is based on the absolute truth of the Bible, there are no exceptions. I also reject the view that when it comes to morality one’s private views and public views must be distinguished. But i don’t know where to draw the line when it comes to abortion by incest or rape. To what extent do we ‘compromise’ (is that the right word?) or stop short when creating or voting for laws?

This is a good question and, strangely, one I had been discussing with my wife just hours before this email showed up. It is my conviction that some evangelicals and pro-lifers have given away the moral high ground by making a false and irrational distinction between children who are conceived by choice (or at least by the choice to engage in sexual intercourse) and children who are conceived by rape or incest (though, of course, most incest is also rape). If the argument against abortion was “You made a bad decision, now deal with it!” then this argument would make sense. Those who did not choose to have a child would be exonerated and could justly terminate their pregnancies. But this is not our argument. The argument from Scripture is simple: a fetus is a human being. A fetus has the same “humanness” as an adult and thus has the same right to life. A fetus is fully human. A fetus is as fully human if she is conceived by choice as if she is conceived by brutal force. Of course I affirm that rape is a horrific crime—undoubtedly one of the worst crimes a person could commit and one whose full spiritual, physical, mental and emotional impact I am sure I cannot adequately understand. But the brutality of the crime does not change the fact that is indisputable from Scripture—even a child conceived by rape is fully human.

I feel that another aspect of this reader’s question deserves a response. He asked “to what extent, then, can we impose Christian values by law?” Here I think we need to pause to distinguish between values and morals. It used to be that we spoke of morals—truths that were applicable to all people. Societal morals were built upon a Christian foundation so that society widely accepted that homosexuality was wrong, that abortion was forbidden, that truth was a virtue, and so on. These morals stood above society, giving structure and imposing themselves on all people. But in recent decades, coasting in alongside a naturalistic worldview, morals have been diminished and have been replaced by values. Where morals are absolute, values are inherently subjective. Each of us may have our own sets of values. Society dictates that you are required to respect my values while I am required to respect yours.

So to what extent can we impose Christian values? Well, in a sense we do not seek to impose Christian values at all. Instead, we seek to impose Christian morals. We affirm that the Scripture gives us absolute standards of right and wrong and we seek to live within these boundaries. Again, these morals stand over and above us and call us all to obedience. They are vertical rather than horizontal. So we do not face our society with an attitude implying that we both hold to values and I hope that you will accept mine. Instead, we face society with the conviction that God’s morals are good and absolute. We can impose these morals on others without fear. Were a national leader to find himself in a position of being able to eradicate abortion, he could do so from a moral standpoint and do it without regret or hesitation. In such a case he has no need to concern himself with another person’s subjective values.

However, it is unlikely that such a day will come. It is unlikely that a person will ever be in a position where he can take us directly from where we are today (the celebration of abortion) to where we would like to go (the abolition of abortion). And here we can draw inspiration from moral victories of days past. I think it is most helpful to turn to a man like William Wilberforce and his battle to end slavery. Slavery was essentially a value held in days past. Society may have frowned on slavery as somewhat less than savory, but it ultimately left it to the discretion of the individual. If one person’s sense of value allowed slavery, then it was acceptable to him. But Wilberforce and the abolitionists took the moral high ground and decreed rightly that slavery was abhorrent and immoral.

One of the lessons from Wilberforce’s fight and eventual victory is that incremental victories are still victories. To borrow a cliche, Rome wasn’t built in a day; neither was it destroyed in a day. The cultural and political climate that welcomed abortion was the culmination of many societal forces. There were gradual steps away from biblical truth, gradual relaxing of traditional gender roles and small but steady changes in the understanding of human rights. It was the confluence of many forces that legalized abortion. Similarly, it is likely that it will take many years and many small, incremental changes to effect the status quo. While we must always keep the end in mind and desire nothing less than the full and complete abolition of abortion, we do not compromise if and when we accept and rejoice in incremental changes. Thus if laws were changed to forbid abortion except in cases of rape and incest, I believe Christians could support such legislation. They might do so with heavy hearts, knowing that unjust abortions would continue, but they could do so with clear consciences rejoicing in the righting of many wrongs.

Of course even here we make one exception (and allow me this brief aside, if you will). If the life of a pregnant mother is in grave danger so that both she and the fetus will surely die should the pregnancy continue, we affirm that an abortion is permissible. This is no light decision, but one that is acceptable in the light of this sinful world we inhabit. I have known people who struggled and struggled to get pregnant and who rejoiced in finding that God had finally blessed them with a pregnancy. But they soon learned that this was an ectopic pregnancy and they were forced to abort the child lest both mom and baby die. This is a heart-rending decision but one I believe we can support from Scripture. It is a sad consequence of human sin.

Abortion is so awful, so despicable, so abhorrent that I have to think it will, indeed, be abolished some day. It is my hope and even my conviction that we will someday regard it as we now regard slavery. We will shake our heads and wonder how we could ever have lived in such a society. Children will learn in school of society’s ambivalence to so great an evil and express proper shock and disgust. And I hope and pray that Christians will lead this fight and ascribe all glory to God when the battle is finally won.

For sheer entertainment value, I think American politics in general, and Presidential campaigns in particular, are about the best bang for my buck, even as a non-American. For little more than the cost of an internet connection I can spend endless hours being amused. This 2008 campaign may be the most entertaining yet. While I rarely use this blog to discuss politics (and especially when I’m as ignorant of a topic as I am with U.S. politics), today I’ll make the rare exception. Over the past few days I’ve bookmarked a whole lot of links and today will try to tie a few of them together.

Sarah Palin is undoubtedly the most electrifying and polarizing figure we’ve seen in U.S. politics for a long, long time. She has completely changed the face of election. A week ago the media could not break away from Barack Obama. Today Sarah Palin is dominating the discussion. She was the perfect foil; if anyone doubts McCain’s smarts, I’d say he has proven himself the wily veteran with this pick. This has become an Obama vs. Palin election. At least for now, McCain is taking a back seat in his own Presidential election campaign. It’s all about Sarah. Chuck Colson’s article on clashing worldviews is interesting reading. “In the life of Sarah Palin, we see the clash of worldviews playing out before our own eyes. Consider every major controversial issue in American politics and culture right now … and somehow, they touch her personally.” Everyone can either love or hate Palin; few are ambivalent.

It’s little wonder that many evangelicals are quickly learning to love her. The little boy Piper Palin spit-shined in front of the nation is living, breathing proof of Palin’s commitment to life—probably the single most important issue to a vast number of Christians. In an age when 90 or 95 out of every 100 children with Down Syndrome are destroyed, Trig is, well, alive. That, in and of itself, is almost miraculous today. Asked about her brother’s Syndrome, Palin’s daughter Willow said, “I don’t care - he’s my brother and I love him.” Trig is exactly who God made him to be and he is a gift to that family.

But the greatest source of Palin’s appeal must be her sheer normalcy. She is exactly the kind of pit bull hockey mom you’d meet anywhere in Alaska (or Canada). She’s so unlike the majority of the politicians who strive for the White House. It seems almost a mistake that she is up on that platform.

People on the Loony Left know they hate Palin but they are struggling with how to hate her. They turned first on her children, insisting that her infant son could not possibly be her own. They smeared her for having a baby in her “old age” (as if they all had their families in their prime child-bearing years) and determined that the baby must be her daughters’. The stupendous stupidity of leveling and believing such a charge showed just how far people would stoop to attempt to discredit her. Of course the controversy was quickly resolved when the McCain campaign announced that Palin’s daughter was pregnant with a child of her own. Perhaps worst of all, she was going to keep the baby and will marry the father. While I read many articles assuring the American public that Palin was lying about being the mother of Trig, I don’t recall reading nearly so many retractions or apologies.

Things got even weirder than this. Liberal feminists (is that redundant?) began to turn on Palin. You would think women would be thrilled to see a woman who is poised to rise higher in government than any woman before her, but this was not the case. While these feminists would have cheered Hillary Clinton as President or Vice President, Palin was not exactly the woman they had in mind. Not the hockey mom, church-going mother of five who is undoubtedly a better shot than Dick Cheney! And not the woman who is a powerful figure while remaining feminine and attractive. Stand to Reason says “One of the things that bugs me about the Feminist movement is it seems to tell women that they have to act like men to be equal to them. And in the process women are no longer feminine and instead take on some of the worst aspects of masculine nature… Gov. Palin seems to have a feminine appeal while displaying her capability and strength.”

And so feminists wondered if she could possibly take care of her family while dealing with her responsibilities as Vice President. The feminists said this! Eventually there was something of a backlash and prominent feminists were forced to speak out. But the damage had already been done—we had seen another example of how far the left is willing to go to discredit this McCain/Palin ticket. They’ll gladly violate their own principles to keep McCain out of the White House. It truly was a shameful week for the press.

Interestingly, while feminists have been asking whether Palin can care for her nation and her family, Christians have been wondering the same. Is it right for a woman to take on a position of such responsibility? Is it right for her to assume a position of leadership? No sooner had Palin been announced than Voddie Baucham wrote a much-publicized article in which he said this: “My point is simple. The job of a wife and mother is to be a wife and mother. Anything in addition to that must also be subservient to it. There is no higher calling. Moreover, I believe Paul’s admonition [in Titus 2] should lead us to reject any notion of a wife and mother taking on the level of responsibility that Mrs. Palin is seeking.” Baucham believes that the pro-life party is using Palin as a pawn in a move that is distinctly anti-family. Those who know of Baucham will know that he is very conservative when it comes to the role of women (going so far in The Return of the Daughters to suggest that women should probably not go to college).

Other more moderate conservative Christians spoke up. Writing for the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, David Kotter asked, “Does Sarah Palin Present a Dilemma for Complementarians?” He answered very well, saying, “From the outset we must remember that on November 4 the voters will not elect a national minister or pastor in chief. A president is not held to the same moral standards as an elder of a church. While it is a blessing from God to have ethical or even Christian political leaders, the Bible places no such requirements on secular governments. Even though the Bible reserves final authority in the church for men, this does not apply in the kingdom of this world.” Al Mohler agrees, saying “The New Testament clearly speaks to the complementary roles of men and women in the home and in the church, but not in roles of public responsibility. I believe that women as CEOs in the business world and as officials in government are no affront to Scripture. Then again, that presupposes that women — and men — have first fulfilled their responsibilities within the little commonwealth of the family.”

One blog I appreciated was Amy’s (which has 173 comments and counting). Amy takes issue with the automatic assumption that a woman’s highest calling is to be a wife and mother. “Being a wife and mother is a good and noble thing, but it is not the highest thing.”

And I firmly agree with Amy and Mohler and Kotter. While Christians do want to maintain the focus on the family we have to be careful about stating categorically that a woman has no business running for Vice President. Palin’s decision is one to be made with her family and with counsel from her local church. Beyond that we, as Christians, have to trust her judgment in this kind of disputable matter. Far be it from us to declare that she cannot do both and that she cannot do both with excellence.

The timing of this campaign is interesting since we are likely to be facing an election here in Canada in the weeks to come. Palin is an unique figure and for so many reasons. Her husband is a snowmobile racer, for goodness sake. I wouldn’t be surprised if she gets a few write-in votes in our election.

The Economic Stimulus Payment is on its way. In the coming weeks Americans will be receiving a check, courtesy of the government. Eligible people will receive up to $600 ($1,200 for married couples), and parents will receive an additional $300 for each eligible child younger than 17. This is going to be quite the windfall for many families.

John Piper recently wrote a short blog post he entitled Economic Stimulus Payment & Christ in which he encouraged Christians “to be radically creative and hedonistic” with this money. “Before the check comes dream of some person or ministry which might make much of Christ because you treasured him above your next home project. The reason God created money and enabled us to earn it is so that we could show by the way we use it that money is not our treasure, Christ is. That’s why the checks are coming. So we can make Christ look great.”

Because I live in Canada, the fifty-first state of the Union, I will not be receiving this payment. However, I did have a question about it. I began to wonder, as have others, whether Christians are in some way morally obligated to spend this money (thus stimulating the economy) or whether they can legitimately give it to one ministry or another or perhaps use it to pay down some high interest credit card debt. And that opened up a few other questions. I turned to David Kotter, whom you may know as the Executive Director of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and a regular contributor to the CBMW Blog. Before turning to ministry and accepting his current position David taught economics and contributed to Wayne Grudem’s Business for the Glory of God (and this followed a stint as a finance manager for Ford Motor Company). He seemed an ideal candidate to answer a few questions about the intersection of theology and economics.

So I offer this primarily to my American readers (which is most of you, really) and hope it benefits you.

What is the purpose of the Economic Stimulus Package?

The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 is primarily intended to remedy slower growth and address short-term economic uncertainties by allowing “Americans to keep more of their money to stimulate consumer spending,” according to the White House fact sheet. The assumption is that most citizens receiving a rebate check will spend it quickly on domestic goods and services. Since every purchase funds a paycheck for someone else, the hope is that the suppliers will in turn spend part of their added income on yet more products, and so on and so forth until there is a multiplied boost to the U.S. economy.

While not explicitly stated, this law also seems to be designed to give a boost to presidential and congressional approval ratings. When economic storm clouds are on the horizon in an election year, it is helpful for politicians to be able to point to something that they have done to help. Few things improve the mood of voters like receiving an check in the mail.

Is this a workable solution to an economic problem? Or is this merely a means to a very short-term rally?

Unfortunately, this stimulus plan fits the scenario of “robbing Peter to pay Paul.” A tax rebate is just the return of money that was previously taken from someone’s paycheck. While people receiving the checks may spend more, the workers who are funding the checks will certainly spend less. Even if the money is borrowed, it is borrowed from someone who won’t be spending. This offsetting effect is why Milton Friedman was fond of saying, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.”

To use an everyday example, the price of corn has dramatically increased, and farmers have spent their growing profits on updated tractors, better hybrid seeds and other farm goods. On the other hand, people paying higher prices for food have less money to spend on other goods. The stimulus in spending in the agricultural sector is exactly offset by lower consumer spending in other parts of the economy. No free lunch here, nor with the tax rebate.

Nevertheless, there may be a small boost or short-term rally as money is taken from people who are more likely to save and given to others who are more likely to spend. According to the Internal Revenue Service, 97% of all federal income tax receipts were paid by half of the taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes above the $30,881 median in 2005. The other half of the taxpayers accounted for only 3% of tax receipts, and in fact 42 million paid no taxes or received net payments from the government in the form of funded tax credits. Under the Economic Stimulus Act, the people who paid little or no taxes will all receive maximum payments (not actually “rebates”). Higher earning taxpayers who tend to save more and pay the vast majority of income taxes will not receive a tax rebate.

In short, many people will receive a rebate from someone else’s taxes, and that makes it easier to spend more.

The government has earmarked this money specifically so Americans can pump the money back into the U.S. economy. The governments wants its citizens to spend this money and to spend it fast! Do you feel that there is a moral obligation to obey their wishes by spending this money?

The Stimulus Act does not explicitly require consumer spending with the checks, so Christians are not morally obligated to spend money quickly in order to be “subject to the governing authorities” (Romans 13:1).

But the law does rely on what the Wall Street Journal calls “The Splurge Urge.” People are more likely to spend newly found money, like an unexpected bonus or one-time tax credit, than they are to splurge with a hard-earned paycheck. For this reason, when the checks arrive Christians should avoid undue excitement and especially pray for self-control. Jesus specifically cautions, “Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness, for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions” (Luke 12:15).

Is there a possibility that believers could negate some possible good that the government is anticipating?

Christians are sojourners and exiles in this world (1 Peter 2:11). Therefore it should not be a surprise to anyone that we do not fit into the mainstream of the national economy. Our values are fundamentally different and we are accountable to God for our financial decisions. Paying off debts and saving money is wise stewardship but not the best for the aggregate economy in the short term. Sending money from a stimulus check to a missionary overseas definitely will not boost the domestic economy in the way the government hopes, but it is still pleasing to God.

Over the long term, however, Christians generally make outstanding economic citizens who “work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men” (Colossians 3:23), subdue creation in their daily jobs, avoid lavish spending, give generously and save diligently. The overall economy would improve dramatically if everyone used the tool of money in biblical ways.

How should Christians think biblically about these economic stimulus payments?

For many Christians, they are actually being entrusted by God with the earnings of someone else. For other believers, this is simply the return of their own money and should be treated like any other financial stewardship. All of the typical considerations for wise stewardship should apply as believers give, save, and spend this money.

Hopefully, many believers are already living with a “wartime” mindset and are spending less than they earn. This stimulus check is simply more resources to be used for Kingdom work. John Piper was exactly correct in encouraging believers to use these rebate checks, and all other money of which they are stewards, to make much of Christ. Piper says,

Nobody in the world will see you spend your money on yourself and conclude that Christ is your treasure. They will assume you are just like them, no matter how loudly you thank God for this boon. It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t spend it on yourself (the way we do with most of what we earn). But everything we do can look different from the world — eat, pay utilities, fill up the car, wear clothes (even thrift store clothes). And yes, we hope (somehow) that spending on ourselves in some way contributes to our being more Christ-exalting people.

As Christian voters, we should not be fooled by fiscal maneuvers that take money from one group of people and give it to another in the name of boosting the overall economy. The economy only grows if more goods and services are produced, not when money is transferred from one person to another.

Finally, we can be grateful that economic stimulus plans are restricted to this world. The One who spoke the universe into existence and owns the cattle on a thousand hills does not need a plan to boost the domestic prosperity of heaven. Jesus Christ is the ultimate treasure whose glory will infinitely outshine any pleasure we might receive from a rebate check.

There is a great deal of controversy surrounding global warming. Some insist that it is a terrifying and imminent concern that portends worldwide disaster. Others scoff at the notion, accusing those who spread such dire predictions of using global warming as part of a larger, sinister agenda. Al Gore considers global warming to be an inconvenient truth and a pending planetary emergency. In his political career he was an advocate of measures to deal with this and other environmental crises, and in his post-political career he has accelerated these warnings. An Inconvenient Truth, an immediate New York Times bestseller, and the film that was released at around the same time, are his attempt to take this message to the masses.