Prompt: From Poverty to Prosperity, by Makoto Shinkai

In Genesis 12:10-20, we read that Abraham went down to Egypt due to famine. While in Egypt, we learned how God guided, provided, and protected Abraham and his family.

In Genesis chapter 13, we encounter a different stage in Abraham's life. This time as he left Egypt, his wealth increased. However, the growth of his wealth caused a different type of difficulty.

Two dominant ideas about private property

In our time, Christians are divided between two primary ideas concerning private property. Some advocate private property and are supportive of the idea of wealth increase. They say that the growth of such wealth is a result of industry and saving. And since Christians are called to be productive, consequently, our private property will also grow.

Unfortunately, some believe that private property is the root of all evil. A corollary idea is that wealth is inherently evil and has the power to corrupt someone's disposition. To increase their wealth, the rich are viewed as exploiters of the poor. These intellectuals argue that wealth should be equally redistributed among the people through the power of the State. These people think that collective ownership of property is the way to stop exploitation and the way to order society.

Moreover, some would even believe that Christians should not think about increasing their wealth, and focus instead on their spiritual wealth. For them, that is enough.

And still, others would even advance that to become followers of Christ, the calling to poverty and suffering are unavoidable. To support this idea, they cite biblical verses related to poverty and suffering and church history. The most typical example is the suffering of Christians under the Roman Empire. And they think this kind of idea is what we need in our time to comfort Christians suffering under communist and other hostile regimes.

The tension between these two ideas is not easily solved. It becomes problematic when someone emphasizes only one thing at the expense of the other. I see that both realities are affirmed in the Bible.

Returning to our narrative

So far we have seen that Abraham faced an economic threat through famine. Without the guidance and provision of God, certainly, Abraham would have suffered. However, God provided for his needs.

Our concern in this post is to see how Abraham responded in a time of relational conflict caused by increased wealth. And from his response, let us also ask ourselves about lessons we can learn in facing similar situations. And so this is the question I would like to answer:

How should you respond in times of conflict caused by prosperity?

Others would say that the kind of conflict that we see today among nations is caused by the prosperity of a few at the expense of the poverty of many. I think we need to clarify the meaning of this. And so the first lesson we learn from Abraham's story is to be cautious about external similarity.

Be not confused by the external similarity

Concerning rich businessmen, we should bear in mind that some became rich through political means and others through legitimate business activity. The former employs questionable practices and the latter either provides low cost or quality products. At face value, it is difficult to see the distinction between the wealth of the first group from the second group. From a biblical point of view, the first kind of wealth is unjust and is the source of economic turmoil, but the second kind of wealth is just and proper.

As a result of the activity of the first group of businessmen, income inequality is increasing. The gap between the rich and the poor is widening. The middle class is being phased out. That is why during the aftermath of the 2008 Housing Bubble, the socio-economic divide between the 1% and the 99% had been emphasized in many articles both online and offline. However, people tend to blame all business owners indiscriminately. They think that all businessmen exploit workers. They are confused by external similarity.

In the case of Lot and Abraham, at first, we cannot see the difference between their decision and wealth. We read that both Abraham and Lot left their native lands. In the case of Abraham, he received a definite call from God. Leaving the land of Ur is a personal and spiritual decision on his part. However, in the case of Lot, he left Ur because of his relationship with his uncle. I doubt if Lot had a deep realization of the meaning of his decision to follow Abraham. Knowing the whole story of Lot, we could say that he did not have such a realization.

In terms of wealth, the flocks of both Abraham and Lot are growing. Such growth called for a bigger land. And since the land could not support their flocks, this caused a strain on their relationship and the relationship of their workers.

And so as far as the external appearances of the decision and wealth of both Abraham and Lot, we cannot see the difference at the beginning. Only after knowing the whole story that we see the distinction. Both men left their native land and both men are wealthy, but their stories ended differently.

I am not implying that Lot represents the unjust businessmen of today. All I am saying is that in recognizing the similarity between the external condition of both Abraham and Lot, we should also not be confused by the apparent similarity among businessmen.

Hostility among men

Concerning the problem that arose between Abraham and Lot caused by increased wealth, in our time too we see the emergence of old and new forms of conflict that pushed the world into war in the past. These days the conflicts between the bourgeois and the proletariat, rich and the poor, capitalists and workers, the Jews and Palestinians, and the US and Russia are now typical contents in books and news articles. The bottom line in all these conflicts, they say, is about territorial expansion, and land.

Due to economic difficulties, nations want to expand their territory in search of natural resources. At least, that's what they say. The international relationship is getting worse and war propaganda is increasing. This is true in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and the South China Sea.

With the advent of financial technology and the opportunities provided by the digital space, the above territorial expansion causing geopolitical tension is no longer necessary. How I wish that people would see such vast opportunities so that they won't fall into the deceptive rhetoric of warmongerers.

Biblically, the root cause of such horizontal hostility among nations and societies is hostility towards God. If we look closely at the intellectual centers of the world, man, in a subtle way has declared a war against God and this is evident through the dominance of humanistic philosophies. That is why the spread of ideas offering biblical solutions is very important in our days to prevent plunging the world into war again. However, we should be cautious in listening to messages. Many speak about peace and reconciliation, but their actions tell otherwise.

Besides being cautious with apparent similarities, we should also discern the differences.

The first difference we have to take note of is the difference in words. Notice Abraham's words:

Let's not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers. Is not the whole land before you? Let's part company. If you go to the left, I'll go to the right; if you go to the right, I'll go to the left (verses 8-9).

Abraham's goal is clear: stop the conflict at all costs. And he is willing to pay the price to achieve his goal: giving up his superiority and right of first choice.

It is Abraham who received the call from God; Lot simply joined him. By relationship, he is also senior; he is the uncle. But Abraham was willing to give up these privileges just to achieve peace between Lot and him, and Lot's herdsmen and his herdsmen.

Indeed, this kind of conflict resolution was originally used in a family context, and situations at that time were unique. However, we can learn a principle here that I think will help in resolving conflicts today: Consider how other people think.

How about if Abraham said like this:

I am the one called by God. I am older than you. I am your uncle and you are just my nephew, and so you must follow my decision. I will choose the best part of the land, and the remaining part is yours.

What do you think would happen? Would Lot follow? Perhaps yes, but I think the hostility would remain.

In the context of today's politics, politicians do not speak this way. They say things nicely. They hide their selfish interests in sweet-coated words. The bottom line is that they don't consider how other people think. They just enforce their will claiming that it is for the "common good", and besides they have the firepower, the law, and the media to back them up. That is why hostility remains.

How about the difference in decision? We read this in verses 10 to 12:

Lot looked up and saw that the whole plain of the Jordan was well watered . . .So Lot chose for himself the whole plain of the Jordan . . .

But Moses made a comment in verse 13:

Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the Lord.

We can see at least three things in this type of difference in terms of time, perspective, and moral standard.

Concerning time, Lot considered only the short-term advantages of his decision. He failed to consider the long-term impact of his decision.

In matters of perspective, Lot simply saw the material aspect of the land; he failed to see the unseen.

This leads to another difference, morality. Lot failed to distinguish between two kinds of morality. He made a decision on the basis of economic advantage at the expense of moral standards. For him, living close to people who violate the law of God is not an important factor in making decisions. Lot's decision ended in disaster.

Similarly, in our society today, due to the dominance of the idea that in public affairs an absolute moral standard does not exist, legislators and policymakers decide without regard for what is right and just, but depend on statistics to determine the public will and on the advantages that their policies will provide to special interest groups. And since ruling parties change depending on the political climate, through time, laws and policies increase that strangle the economy and cause restlessness among the people.

And so in times of conflict caused by "prosperity", you need to discern the difference in the messages that you have been hearing especially about current events, and also to see that God's moral standard is the most important aspect in making decisions. And this will be our third and last point.

Live on the basis of God's word.

After separation from his nephew, God spoke to Abraham about the land and the promised offspring. This was the same word given to him when he left Ur and arrived in Canaan. Though tested, Abraham believed this word and made the Lord's word the basis for his life and decisions. After God talked to him, Abraham moved his tent to Hebron, and there built another altar.

You will notice that Abraham already built the first altar at Bethel. Here at Hebron, he built the second altar. This shows that for Abraham, worship and prayer were central in his life. This explains the difference between him and his nephew.

In the case of Lot, we cannot read in the Bible that he built such an altar. For him, the worship of God is not central to human life. Yes, it might be part of his life, but one thing is sure, worship and prayer did not occupy the priorities in his life. In the latter part of his life, we see him lose all his wealth, live in fear inside a cave, and fathered the Moabites and the Ammonites through his daughters. His loose moral standard caused her daughters to abandon biblical morality and follow instead the morality of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Living in our time without the word of God providing the absolute moral standard is dangerous. This will make man sovereign in deciding what is right and wrong. But the problem with this is that man's point of view is dependent either on specialists or popular demand. And this changes through time. This is why what was once considered immoral is now legalized. Without the word of God, man has no way to distinguish between right and wrong.

In matters of prosperity, how can we know if the means used are just or not without the word of God? Take for instance Isaiah 1:22:

Your silver has become dross.

This text speaks about monetary debasement. The prophet Isaiah declared that Judah was guilty of deceiving the public by debasing the money.

In the Bible, precious metals such as silver and gold were used as money both nationally and internationally. However, through the introduction of paper money, a system was invented that derives the value of paper money through its connection to precious metals such as silver and gold.

In 1981, Ron Paul, the retired US Congressman wrote a pamphlet about an overview of monetary history, Gold, Peace, and Prosperity: The Birth of a New Currency. In it, he explained how the monetary system of the world has undergone four stages of development:

• Gold Coin Standard

• Gold Bullion Standard

• Gold Exchange Standard, and

• The Managed Fiat Currency Standard

The previous three stages still maintain the connection of paper money to precious metals. But on August 15, 1971, that connection was removed, and since that time the world has been using the Managed Fiat Currency Standard. As a result, the value of paper money is no longer connected to any precious metal, either gold or silver. A great door has been opened for massive inflation and repeated economic crises, and with the passing of time, it is getting worse.

Honest money on the other hand is based on the Bible. Many economists in the past believed in it. However, since the advent of John Maynard Keynes, most economists today do not understand how it works. But an increasing number of economists are waking up, and they are looking for alternatives.

Conclusion

Israel during Moses' time left Egypt, but many of them brought Egypt into their hearts. As far as external appearance was concerned, there was no difference among them, but God knew what was in their hearts.

Among those who were sent to spy on the Promised Land, the report of the 10 spies caused the people to grumble and rebel against God. Only Joshua and Caleb believed what God said. They possessed a different spirit.

In Deuteronomy 8: 3-4, Moses reminded the Jews about the purpose of their journey and hunger in the desert for 40 years. God wanted to teach them humility, to know what was in their heart, and to teach them that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.

Likewise, in our days, whether in adversity or comfort, in crisis or economic growth, in turmoil, or peace, and in poverty or prosperity, we learn that it is wise not to be deceived by external similarity, to discern the differences among popular messages and decisions whether personal or public, and to live based on what the Bible is saying. And if ever our vision is darkened, remember that our Lord is the Light of Life and of this world; and at times if ever we fail to see the distinction among confusing voices, remember that we received an anointing from God to teach us about all things.

Grace and peace!

Note that though the insights and principles gleaned from Genesis 13 can be timeless, their application to the political, economic, and financial system is dated. When the writer wrote this piece, he was not aware of the existence of the Eurodollar market and the emergence of financial technology such as the blockchain and cryptocurrency.

Posted Using InLeo Alpha