Is Investing Evil?

I came across a thought provoking article by Jay Michaelson entitled Steve Jobs, #occupywallst, and Usury. In it, he questions whether lending money (called "usury" back in the early days of Christianity) is immoral.

The history of prohibitions against usury is in itself quite interesting. Jewish law (the Old Testament) clearly is against the practice of Jews lending money for profit to other Jews. But in the New Testament, Jesus didn't have an awful lot to say about the practice. From what I can tell, Jesus was OK with lending money but recommended that his followers not expect or demand to get money back that they lend out:

And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great - Luke 6:34-35

There's also an odd parable that shows up in both Matthew and Luke that seems to suggest earning interest is in fact a good thing:

For the kingdom of heaven is like a man traveling to a far country, who called his own servants and delivered his goods to them. And to one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one, to each according to his own ability; and immediately he went on a journey. Then he who had received the five talents went and traded with them, and made another five talents. And likewise he who had received two gained two more also. But he who had received one went and dug in the ground, and hid his lord's money. After a long time the lord of those servants came and settled accounts with them. So he who had received five talents came and brought five other talents, saying, 'Lord, you delivered to me five talents; look, I have gained five more talents besides them'. His lord said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful servant; you were faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord.' ... Then he who had received the one talent came and said, 'Lord, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and gathering where you have not scattered seed. And I was afraid, and went and hid your talent in the ground. Look, there you have what is yours.' But his lord answered and said to him, 'You wicked and lazy servant, you knew that I reap where I have not sown, and gather where I have not scattered seed. So you ought to have deposited my money with the bankers, and at my coming I would have received back my own with interest. Therefore take the talent from him, and give it to him who has ten talents.' - Matthew 25:14-29

The ongoing Occupy Wall Street protests are shinning a light again on Wall Street excesses, which is why Michaelson examines one key aspect of our financial system -- investing money. Michaelson tries to differentiate between investing (something good for the economy), and usury which is bad.

Which got me thinking a lot about the subject.

Investing is key to our capitalist system. It takes savings (the difference is what we earn from our labors and what we expend to survive) and funnels that money to others that can best utilize it to improve human existence. For instance, taking my earnings (someone who has no medical training) and using it to support a medical researcher while he develops a cure for cancer. How do I benefit from my 'investment'? Maybe I should be provided access to that cancer treatment for free. But how would that be managed? If I invested $10 while someone else invested $10,000, would I still get the treatment for free or just 10% of what the other guy got. For that little money I'd probably just get the side effects and not the cure.

In a capitalist system, currency is the representation of value that in this case would equalize everyone's investment value. If the cure is successful, the guy who invested $10,000 might get $20,000 back (doubling his money) while I would get a proportional $20 back. Then we can each use that value towards purchasing the cancer treatment.

Michaelson would call this "investing" and a good thing.

But what about the guy who takes my money and then seeks out and invests in the most promising cancer treatments for me? If the cancer treatment hits big, and he takes a share of that $20 return from me for his or her efforts (say $5), is that bad? Isn't that the role Wall Street plays? Michaelson calls the fact that the middleman is making money by simply moving money around usury and labels it as bad.

On the surface, I agree with Michaelson that there is lending that is good for us and there is lending that is bad. Good lending helps improve our lives and give us the ability to save so that some day we can retire and live off our investments instead of working until the day we die. But is it right for Wall Street insiders to get rich taking advantage of investors because they have more knowledge about the current financial systems, or through lying or outright fraud? Many did just that in the recent housing bubble. This becomes a moral issue of the individual people involved. There is no easy way to legislate morality - passing laws to regulate how investments occur. The immoral few will simply adjust their actions to get around the new law -- and still get rich -- while the moral majority gets punished with extra hassles, fees, and limitations to their financial growth and security.

Morality is more of a societal issue than a legal one. We are all responsible for insuring it thrives throughout our economy -- calling out anyone we see doing immoral acts.

Religion has traditionally been a countervailing force against immoral tendencies in us humans. But I see the effectiveness of religion diminishing as less Americans actively participate in a church, and the ones that do migrate towards evangelical churches that focus more on things like preparing for the end times then helping a neighbor in need.

Is usury bad? I guess I'd have to say no. Investing has helped improve our lives so that living past our 40s is no longer such a miracle and we worry more about whether we have enough money to pay the cable bill then whether we'll be starving to death next week.

Are the rich evil? Again I'd have to say no as a generalization. There are just good people and bad people at all stratas of our society. We just need to develop better ways of rewarding good behavior and punishing bad ones.

Is There Life After Death?

One of the key tenants of Christianity is the belief in an afterlife. But after thousands of years of human existence, is there any evidence that some part of us continues on after death? The scientist in me wants to see some proof.

Over the past 40 years, the occurrence of near-death experiences (NDEs) has increased due to higher heart-attack survival rates. This has driven more interest in the subject within scientific circles. Two studies published in Europe over the past 10 years suggest that consciousness does continue to exist after the body dies.

In 2001, The Lancet, published the results of a 13-year study of near-death experiences (NDE's) observed in 10 different Dutch hospitals. They found that 18% of the 344 patients who died reported experiencing consciousness and out-of-body experiences after they were clinically dead. And, more importantly, they were able to rule out as the source of NDEs some of the physical mechanisms that have been thought to cause these experiences -- like loss of oxygen to the brain (anoxia) or drugs being used.

A second, study conducted at the University of Southampton in the UK and published in Resuscitation in 2007, also concluded that 10-20% of cardiac arrest survivors experienced NDEs where their consciousness continued on after death. The lead researcher in this study, Dr. Sam Parnia, has kicked off a larger and longer term study into the phenomenon called the AWARE study that includes hospitals all around the world, including two here locally in Atlanta. The first results of that study should be published next year.

So while still preliminary, science does seem to be providing evidence that our consciousness continues on after our deaths. What does that mean from a religious standpoint?

Christianity tells us that our spirit is unique - that is was created at the time of our conception and that after death it goes to either Heaven or Hell based upon our actions here on Earth. Further, many believe that our spirits end up in a kind of holding pattern until the end times when Jesus returns. The experiences described during near-death experiences all point to our spirits going someplace which is peaceful and full of light. Stories of ghost sightings and the ability for psychics to "commune with dead spirits" would also suggest that our spirits are unique forms of energy that retain their separate existence after death.

But the scientist in me cannot fully buy the concept of energy constantly being created out of nothing and then taken out of the universe's pool of energy after we die to go somewhere else. Science has shown that energy is the foundation of everything. The physical mass of the universe was created out of energy during the big bang, and (as Einstein proved) can be converted back into energy under the right conditions - like over the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. More recent theories state that time is just another form of energy as well. So it makes more sense to me that some part of the universe's existing energy is collected into our bodies at birth and is then released back into the universal energy supply after our deaths. Following this line of thought, "God" is really the energy of the Universe and we are "made in God's image" by taking some of that energy in to form our physical bodies at the time of our birth.

Or maybe I've just been watching too much History International.

Christianity is Not the Religion of Jesus

I've come to the conclusion that the Christian religion that has been passed down to us has very little semblance to what Jesus and his disciples originally taught. Needless to say, this has caused a bit of a religious "identity crisis" in my life.

First off, Roman Catholicism (and all it's protestant offshoots) is based upon the preaching of Paul of Tarsus - a man who never physically met Jesus. He's the one who traveled the Roman empire and converted the "gentiles" to his religious beliefs. While probably based somewhat on Jesus' teaching, Paul modified the message to fit his needs -- causing it take on a more Roman form. For instance, some scholars believe that he blended in Mithraic beliefs and traditions that existed in his home town of Tarsus. As Paul's message spread throughout the Roman world, it continued to merge with the pagan mystery religions that were popular at the time to the point where it lost most of its original identity. That's why we celebrate Christmas on December 25th and believe in a virgin birth.

Second, there is ample evidence that Paul and Jesus' true disciples back in Jerusalem did not get along very well. Paul even admits so much in his own letters:

"But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face." -- Letter of Paul to the Galatians

Biblical historian Robert Eisenman even goes further to claim that there was open hatred of Paul within the early Christians of Jerusalem, with them calling Paul the "Lying Spouter".

Since Paul was often at odds with Jesus' disciples, it's fair to assume that Paul's teachings were not always in line with what the original disciples believed Jesus taught them. 

And finally, Christianity became politicized when it became the official religion of the Roman state. We now know that many variations of Christianity existed in the years after Jesus died. The Gnostics, for instance, were extremely popular in Egypt and northern Africa. The state-friendly church establishment under Constantine decided what would become "true" Christian beliefs at the Conference at Nicea, and worked to expunge any traces of Christian belief that did not jive with this "orthodox" view. Does anyone today really believe that a group of politicians can get together for a meeting and come out with something that resembles the "truth"?

So here I am. Someone who considers himself at heart a "Christian" - believing in God, and firmly committed to doing "Christian works" to improve the world I live in. But at the same time I am someone who believes that "Christianity" as it is currently being practiced is a sham.

So, am I still a Christian? If not, what am I?

September 11th Remembered

Since I was in Manhattan on 9/11, working at a doomed dotcom startup, I can't help being emotionally drawn in to media frenzy that's currently going on leading up to this weekend's anniversary.

Luckily for me, I was uptown on 38th street at the time -- close enough to be aware of what was going on but far enough away to be out of danger.

What I remember most about that day is not the tragedy that unfolded downtown. Instead, I remember the actions of bystanders like myself. That beautiful fall day in New York was filled with moments of human beauty and compassion that makes you realize that all people have good in them, if they'd only take time out of their busy days to let it out.

I remember the parade of dust-covered zombies walking up 5th avenue towards Grand Central Station, and the shop owner along the way who gave away his stock of sneakers to the women trudging uptown in high heels.

I remember the phone call I received around 10:30am from my kid's school making sure I was OK in case my kids began asking. Strangely, it was the only incoming or outgoing call that made it through to my office that entire day.

I remember the taxi driver that pulled over outside our building, opened his doors and blast his radio so that the crowd of 40-50 strangers on the street could hear the latest news reports and share their views about the unfolding drama.

I remember all the collections of food, bottled water, and supplies that were taken up for ground zero workers everywhere in the suburbs where I lived during the days immediately following the disaster.

In short, after 10 years, I remember the good things that took place -- not the bad ones.

Communal Spirituality

As mentioned in a previous post, I believe the earliest followers of Jesus lived a communal lifestyle -- pooling their wealth, working together towards a common good, and sharing the output of their work efforts.

But the Christianity that has been passed down to us today, especially the Roman Catholic version of it, is a very personal affair. We are instructed to put all our faith in Jesus and build a "personal relationship" with him. Granted, churches are places where we all congregate together and share "the good news". But for most of us, Christianity is an internal journey we take towards spiritual enlightenment.

But modern science is starting to discover that we humans are a social animal - electrochemical processes in our brains can sense and communicate with other humans in ways we don't yet fully understand. Maybe the truth of Christianity is that we are all connected together by a universal energy we call "God", and to obtain true spirituality we need to connect at a deeper level with those around us.

For this outwardly social but inwardly shy human, that's a tall order I'm going to have trouble living up to.

The Apostle's Creed

The Apostle's and Nicene Creeds are the official rules that define you as a Christian -- if you don't believe them, you're not Christian. The Nicene Creed came out of the First Council of Nicene, which Emperor Constantine convened in 325 AD. A political gathering meant to help consolidate the power of the church under Roman authority, it produced the creed as the consensus view of what became orthodox Christianity. Those who followed any other beliefs were expelled from Christianity. 

Have you ever read the creeds - I mean really read them? Do you fully believe every line? Let's take a look...

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of heaven and earth, 

OK, that one's easy - belief in God is definitely a prerequisite to being a Christian

and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary,

This one's a little trickier. The Jerusalem Christians, those original disciples of Jesus, believed Jesus was a prophet -- not God's son. So from a legal standpoint, none of Jesus' disciples can be considered Christian. Interesting, don't you think? 

suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried;

This one's easy as well. There seems to be enough historical evidence that these events really occurred

He descended into hell. The third day He arose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

The resurrection. Either you believe it happened or not. Pretty critical to being a Christian.

I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting.

This last segment has some interesting gems in it. Let's take the "holy catholic church" part. Are we professing our allegiance to the church as a government body to rule over us? How about "the resurrection of the body"? Notice it doesn't say spirit. We Christians are supposed to specifically believe that our bodies will rise up eventually. Which body is that - the one when I wore diapers, or the cancer stricken one I'll eventually die in?

To me what's more interesting is what is not in the creed. We don't profess anything about doing good deeds, refraining from killing people, etc. 

Bottom line is that you don't have to be a good person to be a Christian. You just have to believe that Jesus was born from a virgin mother, was resurrected from the dead, is God not man - and of course, follow everything that church leaders say.

Socialism vs. Captialism

I'm a strong advocate of a "Jamesian" view that salvation is achieved through good works as opposed to the "Pauline" view that dominates modern Christianity which advocates faith in Jesus as key to survival in the afterlife

But how is the best way to do good in the world?

There is strong evidence that the early followers of Jesus had a socialist/communist bent. Passages in the Acts of the Apostles clearly suggest that the early disciples lived a communal lifestyle:

"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." - Acts 2:44-45.

And then there's Jesus' commission for his disciples to leave their worldly possessions behind when they go out and preach from the canonical gospels: "take nothing for the journey except a staff" .

So, if I want to be a true Christian, should I be supporting communist/socialist policies?

I've been asking myself that question lately as I wrestle with the historical reality that capitalism seems to have done more to improve the life of the world's poor than communism or socialism has. The demise of the Soviet Union and the communist regime in China, the decline of the Kibbutz movement in Israel, and (more recently) the economic decline of Chavez' Venezuela serve as proof of weaknesses with communist and socialist systems.

In the United States, our experiment with socialism hasn't fared very well either. Numerous reports have come out lately about how the middle class is being wiped out and wealth is being accumulated in the hands of an elite "Robber Barron" class like we had in the 1800's. This is due to the fact that inflation-adjusted incomes for most of us have been stagnant or declining since World War II, after growing for most our our country's history. But during this post-war period, welfare programs like social security and medicare have grown  exponentially, proving that socialist policies haven't helped much here either. 

Communism and socialism don't seen to be adequate solutions to improving the plight of the world's poor. When governments try to drive the economy and distribute the wealth generated from that economic activity, we humans seem to loose our drive to succeed -- causing everyone to be worse off.

Is free market capitalism a better choice, then?

I do buy into the argument that free-market capitalism has done more to increase the overall wealth of nations than any other governmental system devised so far. Just compare the results of Western European nations to their Eastern European counterparts post World War II. 

The real question is whether we should allow successful people to be charitable on their own, or whether governments need to step in to forcibly redistribute their wealth to those that need it.

As Arthur Brooks noted in his book "Who Really Cares", people who give to charity voluntarily (and those who receive that charity) are much happier overall than those who rely on forced income redistribution by the government to solve social issues. Brooks also examined who give more to charity; pro-business republicans or socially conscious democrats. Surprisingly,  he showed that republications actually give more to charity, both with their money and their free time, than do socialist democrats that ardently support government wealth redistribution programs. Are democrats just taking the easy way out knowing that they wouldn't be charitable on their own?

So as a Christian who sincerely wants to help those less fortunate, I've come to the conclusion that socialist governmental policies do more harm than good -- parting ways with those earliest followers of Jesus. I believe our focus should be on how we can get free-market capitalists to behave more "Christian" on their own, instead of demonizing them and stealing the products of their hard work.