And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more (Luke 12:47–48).
Jesus made it plain that the person who receives more from God owes more to God. This means that the recipient has greater responsibility than he did before. Jesus was speaking of covenant breakers. He was, therefore, speaking of negative sanctions. But the same principle governs positive sanctions. We see this in the life of Solomon. He asked God for wisdom. God gave him both wisdom and riches. These riches were rewards for his wisdom, but they were also part of the inheritance of the Davidic kingdom. Then he got stupid. He married 700 wives and 300 concubines. No other man in Israel’s history was ever that stupid. He was corrupted by his wives. He did not lose the kingdom, but his son did. Solomon’s inheritance went to the southern kingdom (Rehoboam’s two tribes) and the northern kingdom (Jeroboam’s ten tribes).
I return to the theme of the dominion covenant. The dominion covenant establishes mankind’s responsibility to exercise dominion in history.
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Genesis 1:26–28).
This is an inescapable responsibility. The very definition of mankind is tied to this responsibility. This responsibility is tied directly to mankind’s God-given authority to exercise dominion. Responsibility and authority are covenantally linked. They cannot be separated. Thus, every increase in a person’s wealth, influence, power, or capabilities is accompanied by a comparable increase in responsibility. God holds fully accountable every beneficiary of such blessings. They are accountable in history, on judgment day, and in eternity.
Man in his rebellion seeks to gain such benefits without also being burdened with the associated God-enforced responsibilities. In other words, he seeks a free lunch. But there are no free lunches. Even God’s grace is no exception. This grace was paid for by Christ at Calvary.
Covenant breakers see the benefits of responsibility as ends in themselves. But there are no ends in themselves. There are only ends for service to God. Covenant-breaking men substitute other gods: service to themselves, service to the state, service to Satan, or service to the innumerable man-imagined rivals to God. Covenant breakers get things backwards. They see the means of service to God as ends that will serve them. They want to be served. They forget this.
“Will any one of you who has a servant plowing or keeping sheep say to him when he has come in from the field, ‘Come at once and recline at table’? Will he not rather say to him, ‘Prepare supper for me, and dress properly, and serve me while I eat and drink, and afterward you will eat and drink’? Does he thank the servant because he did what was commanded? So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty’” (Luke 17:7–10).
They ignore who is in charge.
for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” So then each of us will give an account of himself to God (Romans 14:11–12).Men should seek greater responsibility in order to gain control over tools of service. Covenant breakers instead seek tools of service for better serving themselves and their goals. They seek autonomy: self-law.
Point one of the biblical covenant is God’s transcendence, yet also His presence. This is the issue of God's sovereignty. It asks: "Who's in charge here?" How does this apply to the idea of responsibility?
With ownership come responsibilities. Men are inescapably stewards of the Creator God. He offers no escape from the connection between ownership and responsibility for service to Him. Thus, the historical process that Christians call redemption is about re-gaining control over property on behalf of God. This property includes ourselves and our environment, including our social, economic, and political environment. To deny that redemption is comprehensive is necessarily to deny that sin is comprehensive. It necessarily grants to sin zones of immunity to the gospel of redemption. But there are no such zones of immunity for sin. Therefore, there are no zones in which God’s redemption does not apply.
As people accumulate wealth, they necessarily also accumulate responsibility. They may not put this wealth to effective use. They may lock it in storage and forget about it. But they cannot lock out the associated responsibilities. They may forget about these responsibilities, but this in no way reduces them. They remain in force. By ignoring them, people thereby accumulate liabilities to God. They add up over time. They come due on judgment day.
Covenant breakers want to believe that they own property “free and clear.” In other words, they want to own it autonomously. They don’t. They can’t. There is no autonomy in a created universe that is providentially upheld by God. Man’s ownership is always held representatively: “in the name of.” This is a legal responsibility. Man is God’s trustee. This is built into the dominion covenant. There is no escape.
This raises an inescapable economic question: “What is the best use of any piece of property that I own?” This raises the issue of imputed value: “Value for whom?” The correct answer is “God.” Because man is made in God’s image, he has the ability to answer this question as a creature: “What does God regard as the best use for this property in the extension of His kingdom in history?” God holds all people responsible for asking this question and then answering it correctly but always as creatures.
People have no idea about just how much responsibility they are accumulating when they gain wealth. There are rich people in every era, but the wealth of the super-rich is so enormous today that their level of responsibility is like nothing ever seen in history. Their wealth enables them to do so much. But what? How should they assess the best use of their wealth? No one can advise them because no one in an advisory capacity has ever administered such wealth. The super-rich hire bureaucrats to help them. But neither the super-rich nor their advisors are Christians. They are flying blind covenantally.
Point two of the biblical covenant is hierarchical authority. It has to do with God’s delegation of limited sovereignty to man: the dominion covenant. It asks: "To whom do I report?" How does this apply to the idea of responsibility?
The biblical doctrine of the covenant is associated with point two of the biblical covenant. The Book of Exodus is the second book of the Pentateuch. It is also the book of the covenant. We read of Moses: “Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people. And they said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient” (Exodus 24:7).
Contracts are analogous to covenants. There are four judicially enforceable covenants: individual, church, family, and state. They reinforce the general dominion covenant, which defines mankind. All four are sealed by formal oaths before God. Contracts are not. They may be sealed by signatures on a written document, but they do not possess the authority of a covenant. They are analogous to covenants, not identical with them.
A written contract specifies legal obligations of the parties. These are legal responsibilities. Signers presume that these are binding obligations in a court of law. They are, in short, legal liabilities. Because a contract increases legal liability, the signers pay attention to the details. These details specify what each party is obligated to perform. The increased precision of a written contract over a verbal agreement allows the participants to know what they must do to meet the terms of the contract. This greater precision also informs each party about what to expect. This increased precision reduces the risk of non-performance or partial performance. Economics teaches that as the cost of anything is reduced, more is demanded. The cost of enforcing performance falls with contracts. As a result, there is more co-operation.
The contract establishes mutual hierarchies. With respect to certain duties, one party is subordinate to another. But there are mutual obligations. All are subordinate to the terms of the contract. This system of mutual liabilities leads to co-operation. The division of labor is extended. Specialization increases. Per capita output increases. Above all, mutual dependence increases. The parties become dependent on each other to fulfill the terms of the contract. This mutual dependence is basic to every organization. This is why organizations exist. They extend co-operation, which in turn extends efficiency through specialization.
In my experience, this is the #1 sin by American Christians. They do not honor their contracts. They do not honor their word. They want to be paid in advance. They will promise anything. As soon as they have the money, they forget. They do not fulfill their contracts. They do not apologize. They do not consider that they have lured others into a joint venture with them. They may even hide the fact that they have not completed their contracts. I have dealt with this for 40 years. It is a pattern.
This outlook is the product of self-interest plus very bad theology. They pray to God: “Forgive us our debts” (Matthew 6:12). Next, they assume that God has forgiven them. Next, they assume that they owe their earthly creditors nothing. They may even assume that their creditors owe them both debt forgiveness and personal forgiveness. They think to themselves: “I love Jesus. Jesus has forgiven me for not repaying. I therefore owe my creditors nothing.” The Bible says that this is evil. “The wicked borrows but does not pay back” (Psalm 37:21a). The Bible teaches that the debtor who refuses to repay a business or consumer loan is a thief. A thief owes restitution to his victims (Exodus 22:4). A man who refused to repay a loan could be sold into slavery (II Kings 4:1–7). But many Christians are antinomians. They think: “That’s Old Testament law. I’m not under that.” So, they find it convenient to assume that they are off the hook. They are not.
Such behavior gains a bad reputation for other Christians. The Foundation for Economic Education in the late 1960's adopted a policy of refusing to send books on consignment to any organization with Christian in its title. The man in charge of book sales, a Presbyterian, told me that FEE had been forced to adopt this policy in self-defense. Too many Christian organizations had kept the books and had never paid for them.
A promise of performance lures others into dependence through co-operation. This is why a promise must be fulfilled. This is a moral obligation before God. This is the implication of this passage: “who swears to his own hurt and does not change” (Psalm 15:4).
Point three of the biblical covenant is law. It asks: “What are the rules?” How does this apply to the idea of responsibility?
Economic co-operation extends the division of labor. People enter into mutual obligations with each other. They trust each other to fulfill their obligations. When all of the parties to the agreement perform as promised, each of the members of the agreement can afford to specialize. They trust others in the group to perform specialized tasks in the project. Each participant can then concentrate on what he does best.
Adam Smith described the benefits of specialization in Chapter 1 of Wealth of Nations. This is the most famous passage in the history of economic theory.
To take an example, therefore, from a very trifling manufacture; but one in which the division of labour has been very often taken notice of, the trade of the pin-maker; a workman not educated to this business (which the division of labour has rendered a distinct trade), nor acquainted with the use of the machinery employed in it (to the invention of which the same division of labour has probably given occasion), could scarce, perhaps, with his utmost industry, make one pin in a day, and certainly could not make twenty. But in the way in which this business is now carried on, not only the whole work is a peculiar trade, but it is divided into a number of branches, of which the greater part are likewise peculiar trades. One man draws out the wire, another straights it, a third cuts it, a fourth points it, a fifth grinds it at the top for receiving, the head; to make the head requires two or three distinct operations; to put it on is a peculiar business, to whiten the pins is another; it is even a trade by itself to put them into the paper; and the important business of making a pin is, in this manner, divided into about eighteen distinct operations, which, in some manufactories, are all performed by distinct hands, though in others the same man will sometimes perform two or three of them. I have seen a small manufactory of this kind where ten men only were employed, and where some of them consequently performed two or three distinct operations. But though they were very poor, and therefore but indifferently accommodated with the necessary machinery, they could, when they exerted themselves, make among them about twelve pounds of pins in a day. There are in a pound upwards of four thousand pins of a middling size. Those ten persons, therefore, could make among them upwards of forty-eight thousand pins in a day. Each person, therefore, making a tenth part of forty-eight thousand pins, might be considered as making four thousand eight hundred pins in a day. But if they had all wrought separately and independently, and without any of them having been educated to this peculiar business, they certainly could not each of them have made twenty, perhaps not one pin in a day; that is, certainly, not the two hundred and fortieth, perhaps not the four thousand eight hundredth part of what they are at present capable of performing, in consequence of a proper division and combination of their different operations.
Without trust among businesses and within businesses, such mass production would not be possible. We would all be much poorer. Given the enormous complexity of modern society, most people would die if trust among producers ever failed in society.
Point four of the biblical covenant is sanctions. It asks: “What happens if I obey? Disobey?” How does this apply to the idea of responsibility?
Point two of the biblical covenant is authority. It is closely connected with point four: sanctions. Without sanctions, there can be no institutional authority. I have already argued that contracts improve predictability. It is time to talk about predictability.
Sanctions improve predictability. Positive sanctions are carrots. They persuade people to work harder. Negative sanctions are sticks. They also persuade people to work harder. Economists and psychologists have learned through experiments that people do not respond productively to minimal sanctions or major sanctions. They respond to sanctions in the middle. Minor sanctions are not worth adjusting our behavior. Major positive sanctions fluster us. We make more mistakes in our attempt to win big. Major negative sanctions scare people into making mistakes. We make more mistakes in our attempt to avoid big losses.
This corresponds to a discovery made on the battlefields of World War I. Resources were limited in field hospitals. To maximize the effects of these resources, a hospital adopted this policy. If a man’s wound was sufficiently minimal so that his life was not threatened, the hospital put him aside. If another man was so severely wounded that he would probably die, no matter what treatment he received, he was also shunted aside. The physicians operated only on men who might survive if they received treatment but who would die if they did not receive treatment. This practice is called triage. It led to more survivors.
Sanctions in a contract should either reward or punish parties to the contract. The goal is the same: to persuade them to perform as promised. In economic affairs, the main sanctions are profit and loss. These are numerical sanctions. They are usually monetary. A business profit is a residual after all expenses are deducted. A loss is a negative entry: something that must be paid for by funds taken out of capital reserves.
Sanctions that do not foster positive and predictable outcomes should be replaced. The double-entry profit-and-loss accounting system, which was discovered in Europe in the second half of the 15th century, encourages the discovery and implementation of appropriate sanctions.
Point five of the biblical covenant is succession. It asks "Does this outfit have a future?" How does this apply to the idea of responsibility?
People who are involved in productive activities want to increase their success. To do this, they must gain the cooperation of others. This cooperation increases the division of labor, which increases the specialization of production. This is why there is always demand at some price for people who are both productive and predictable. There are search costs for any scarce economic resource. This includes labor services. Producers are willing to pay for the labor services of high-output, high-predictability workers. They are always looking for such people to work with, either as employees or partners. So, when an individual or a group gains the reputation of being both productive and predictable, there will be offers from other productive individuals or groups. This makes it easier for the sought-after workers to generate income. This means that they can find places to serve.
If a group gains such a reputation, members can find opportunities to serve. When this reputation is maintained over several generations, the group may gain preeminence. This is ideal as a marketing strategy. But it takes generations to achieve it. To maintain this reputation over generations, the characteristic features of this outlook must become part of the group’s culture. It must be passed down from parents to children.
The longer that this culture is maintained, the greater the opportunities for members of this group. This means that others in society become increasingly dependent on the output of the members of the group. Above-average productivity creates a hierarchy. The more exemplary the output is, the greater the dependence of co-producers and also customers. This is why predictable valuable output is a tool of dominion.
One means of increasing responsibility is capital. It is a tool of production. The Christian is to view wealth as a means of dominion. It provides capital. Capital enables covenant keepers to subdue the earth to God’s glory at a lower cost. As wealth increases, so does responsibility.
Christians should not pursue wealth unless they are also pursuing responsibility. Wealth is usually regarded as an end in itself. It should not be pursued for the sake of increased consumption. To do so is a covenantal error. Wealth should be regarded as a means to an end. To regard wealth as an end is to misunderstand the dominion covenant. Wealth is primarily a tool of production. Some of it may be lawfully consumed as a reward but not all of it. If all of it is consumed, there can be no inheritance of capital.
Most people do not want any more responsibility. They much prefer leisure. But almost everybody wants more money. This is illogical. You cannot get more money without getting more responsibility. But people prefer not to admit that there is an unbreakable connection between money and responsibility.
If Christians understood this, and if they would structure their household budgets accordingly, they would begin to increase their influence in society. Thrift requires the adoption of a future-oriented worldview, one stretching down through the generations until the final judgment.
© 2022 GaryNorth.com, Inc., 2005-2021 All Rights Reserved. Reproduction without permission prohibited.