Bryan Fischer is a Dolt (Moneybags Jesus Edition)

Bryan, glad to see you're still fighting the good fight to keep people entertained by your zany theology.  Let's see what joy have to say today.  Any Muslim conspiracies to uncover, or Gay Nazis to bash?  Nah, let's talk about money.

'Jesus was a capitalist to his core'

Really? Wow. You know, I've said the Nicene Creed [http://goo.gl/SOoiVh] a thousand times, and I don't recall that being mentioned as one of the essential aspects of Jesus.  "God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten not made, of one being with the Father …" nope, no mention of capitalism there.

'Despite the best efforts of liberals, including liberal “evangelicals” like Jim Wallis …'

Oooh! Evangelical "scare quotes"!

'… , to turn Jesus into a flaming socialist, his own words tell a different story. In fact, the stories that Jesus told could have only come from a capitalist's capitalist. Jesus was, in fact, a capitalist to the core.'

Be honest, Bryan — this was a paper you wrote for high school, right?
 
'For instance, in one of his most famous stories, the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30 [http://goo.gl/dJg00]), Jesus commits a number of grievous and politically wicked sins according to the worldview of progressives, who try to recast Jesus in their own image as the Karl Marx of Christendom'.

Marx was a theorist and an academic. And married. And born into a rich family. And talked about capitalism a lot, which I don't recall Jesus ever doing.  So … I'm not sure what "progressives" you've heard equating Jesus with Marx, but, if any, they're kind of goofy to do so.  (I'm sure you have citations at hand, right, Bryan?)

(And, no, Pope Francis doesn't count.)
 
'A talent was not an inconsiderable amount of money. In fact, one talent represented about twenty years of wages for the average laborer, let’s say around $600,000. So the first employee is being handed a cool $3 million to invest. In other words, the hero of Jesus’ story is a rich, rich guy. The horror! The humanity!'

Um … he's being given the talent to invest. It's not his, but his employer/master's, so, no, he's not rich.  Being given a loan (or a portfolio to manage) doesn't make you rich, though some banks would have you believe it does.
 
'In Jesus’ story, this rich businessman called his servants together and "entrusted to them his property." Hold it right there! It was his own property! He owned the means of production – it did not belong to the village or the government! The capital used in economic exchange was totally, entirely in private hands. And what he did with his wealth was clearly nobody's business but his own. He, and not some government bureaucrat, decided who would be entrusted with his economic resources.'

Ah, Bryan, you do understand that this is a parable, a story to illustrate a moral point, don't you? The point of which has nothing to do with the economic justice of what was described. I mean, I don't think Jesus said anything about the rich man as a rich man. "And that rich businessman, he was cool, because he was rich! Woohoo!"

'How can all this be? This makes the hero in Jesus' tale a criminal in the fevered imagination of social liberals, guilty of greed and exploitation, and of grave offenses against an enlightened social order.'

The rich businessman is not the hero of the tale. Have you actually <i>read</i> this parable, Bryan?  Or did you just skim the Cliff's Notes?
 
'Further, the businessman distributed the talents "to each according to his ability." Egregious sin number two, for here Jesus directly, flagrantly, flatly and unambiguously rejects the fundamental tenet of liberalism. According to liberals, Jesus should have had this man distribute his resources "to each according to his need." He should not be entrusting money to people based on ability, but rather should be extracting it from them based on ability. After all, in liberal land, the rule is supposed to be "from each according to his ability." Jesus turns that completely on its head by giving "to each according to his ability." You could look it up. Perhaps Rev. Wallis and others need a remedial grammar lesson on prepositions as well as the Bible.'

Why on earth, Bryan, do you think that this parable has anything to do with the setup? I mean, this is not called "The Parable of the Good Economic System" in any of the Biblical commentaries I've looked at.

'Even worse, the business enterprise in Jesus' story is a meritocracy from start to finish. Responsibility is awarded based on ability, not on some kind of ethnic or economic quota system. And promotion and pay raises likewise are based squarely on achievement. The man with five talents earns five more, and is given more responsibility and authority as a result. Likewise with the servant who took two talents and turned it into two more. In other words, Jesus shows zero concern for income inequality. In fact, in his story the hero actually makes income inequality worse, not better. The guy at the top went from a portfolio of $3 million to well over $6.6 million, while the sluggard at the bottom went from $600,000 to zero.'

The parable of the talents is not about how a meritocracy is a great economic system (or about it being a crappy one, for that matter). The most traditional teaching is that it is a lesson to take the gifts that God has give one and make the most of them in God's service, and that those who do so will be rewarded, whereas to not use those gifts but to hide them away will lead to punishment.

The rich businessman is not the hero because parables don't have heroes.  He stands in for God.
 
'There is not a breath here in this story of the equality of outcome as any kind of operating principle.'

Because the Bible doesn't usually teach about equality of outcome before God's justice, which is what this parable is really about.

'In fact, quite the reverse. Jesus had no intention of having everyone wind up at the same level of income, authority or responsibility. This businessman believed in equality of opportunity …'

Actually, the opportunity provided was not equal, but based on the ability of the servants.

'… but not in equality of result. Outcome was not dictated by government regulation but rather determined by individual initiative and skill. Accountability in this story does not rest with some government agency. Rather it remains in private hands, with the entrepreneur …'

He's also not an entrepreneur.  He's a man of wealth who has servants.

'… who called his servants together upon his return and "settled accounts." Jesus' businessman would surely agree with the Founders who said that one of our unalienable rights is the "pursuit of happiness."'

Given that the businessman in the parable is actually a rich man, and, in the Luke parallel passage [Luke 19:12-27 http://goo.gl/0H0UuQ] he's a member of the nobility who goes off to be crowned king. So, no, I don't think he and the Founders would have all that much in common, and the only one the rich man would likely support "pursuing happiness" would be himself, certainly not his servants.

As for Jesus — I don't recall him ever talking about personal pursuit of happiness, but seeking salvation and rightness with God (which, one assumes, would lead to some sort of happiness, but not the "build a successful business with your own two hands" sort of thing).

Jesus, in fact, didn't say much about people bettering themselves materially. He doesn't tell the poor that they are blessed because they can work harder and stop being poor; he doesn't tell the hungry that they will be satisfied because with a bit of gumption they will earn enough to buy a McDonald's hamburger for dinner. 

(He does, though, tell the rich to be woeful, because they've already received what comfort they are going to get, and that those who have pursued happiness in the form of a full belly will go hungry. [Luke 6:24-25 http://goo.gl/6jDDDq])  That doesn't sound very capitalistic.

'Note that nowhere did they say that any of us has an unalienable right to the achievement or possession of happiness, only to its pursuit. The promise of America is the freedom to chase your dreams. There is no guarantee that you will catch them. That’s up to you, with God’s help. Government, in the view of the Founders as well as the New Testament, is there to create a stable and just society in which each of us, with minimal bureaucratic interference, can pursue happiness based on ability, hard work, good judgment, perseverance, education, training and ambition, all of which will vary significantly from one individual to the next.'

Though even the founders recognized that not everyone has the same shot at happiness, that tragedy or setbacks could happen, that people might be disenfranchised or disadvantaged in their "pursuit." 

And I don't recall Jesus talking much about "minimal bureaucratic interference" from government. 

'And last but not least in Jesus’ story, when the master returns and finds that one of his servants has buried the money in his backyard rather than investing it, he calls him "wicked and slothful." He does not get food stamps and unemployment benefits. And rather than taking money from the productive workers and giving it out of phony compassion to this man in the form of welfare, he takes the one talent the indolent worker has and awards it to the most productive member of his team. Jesus' businessman had no intention of rewarding or subsidizing irresponsibility. The lazy servant had no right to anything he wasn't willing to work for.'

But if you're going to grasp at the specifics of the story, the money didn't belong to the servants! So of course the rich man (not "businessman") didn't give some more of his money to the person who had mismanaged it. That's not a defense of capitalism (or a condemnation "rewarding irresponsibility"), but just common sense.

And, of course, that's actually God not giving more to someone who has squandered the gifts already provided. 
 
'What Jesus taught is that the redistribution of wealth is to be entirely voluntary, motivated by personal generosity and compassion and directed to the worthy poor. There’s no hint in Christianity of any kind of support for the involuntary transfer of wealth through government coercion.'

Actually, insofar as Jesus talks about "government coercion," his advice is … to pay taxes ("render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"). He didn't speak in favor of "involuntary" support of the poor or against it.

You're correct, of course, that he taught that people should give voluntarily — though I don't recall him ever specifying the "worthy" poor — the very pointed Parable of the Sheep and the Goats [Matthew 25:31-46 http://goo.gl/i8kkUt] says nothing about worthiness. Nor does the admonition to share clothing and food with those who have none [Luke 3:9-11 http://goo.gl/z4eyND]. Nor does the promise of Zacchaeus the Tax Collector [Luke 19:1-10 http://goo.gl/TCZwl] mention that just the "worthy" poor will get half his possessions.

But what a society does sets a moral tone as well, Bryan. Heck, you preach that all the time, about how our nation will be subject to mora judgment, be rewarded or condemned by God by how our laws are written (e.g., on abortion or gay rights).  So why would laws that codify giving to those in need not also be something that God would look on with pleasure? And if a majority feel those Biblical admonitions to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, and care for the poor mean a relatively modest transfer of money from everyone who can afford it, in order to leverage the great strength and wealth of our nation — well, that's what a democracy is all about. 

And, as I said, Jesus just said to pay your taxes, even if they have Caesar's visage on them, even if they're going to pay for Caesar's wars or Caesar's banquets or Caesar's pagan offerings or other things that you may morally disagree with.
 
'So let's sum up. In this story, capital is in private hands. The owner of the capital is free to invest it as he chooses, and to entrust his private resources to anyone he wishes. Economic gain comes through investment, risk-taking and smart choices. The enterprise is based on ability and there is no quota system of any kind in place. Achievement rather than mere effort is rewarded. Accountability rests in the hands of private enterprise rather than in the hands of government. Laziness is punished rather than rewarded, and resources are not involuntarily transferred from the producers to the non-producers but the other way round. Bottom line: Jesus, as much as liberals hate to admit it, had capitalism in his DNA.'

Bryan, you never fail to amaze me. You can take a parable talking about the gifts God has provided to us and our responsibility to use them to his purposes … and turn it into a novel by Ayn Rand. 

Jesus did speak, though, about earning and accumulating wealth and capital, as in Mark 10:17-27 [http://goo.gl/wo6N6e]

17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good — except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.’”
20 “Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.”
21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”
24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is  to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

Not much there about how capitalism (or the "pursuit of happiness") is a core principle of Christ's teaching.