Some Thoughts about Practicalities of Building Consecrating Economies

From time to time we think about the Law of Consecration and discuss the Saints in the early days of the Church and how they couldn’t live it, and we wonder how to live it today and what would be required to build Zion and the New Jerusalem.  It’s so easy to get caught up in the idealistic part of it and imagine how awesome it would be, isn’t it? 

The older I get and the more I think about it, the more I realize that idealizing it actually gets in the way of thinking it through and figuring out how to solve the problems involved. 

It seems like living a life of consecration and building Zion requires a very fine balance between a number of opposing principles. We have to know what they are and master them to get anywhere on this.   There has to be a balance between the individual and the communal, between the material and the spiritual. The idealistic doctrines and the hard economic realities must either mesh harmoniously or be held in a useful tension.  There’s also the matter of finding a way to make it work across different types of economies at different stages of development, in different areas of the world, with different cultures and law systems governing work and ownership and so on.  This is a complex challenge.

It seems to me that it is something that is learned line upon line, and consecration is a culmination of principles. I also think that the way consecration as an economy would be lived now in a modern economy is different than how the Saints tried to live it in the 1800s, simply because the type of economy we live in has changed. 

Consider just one factor—land. In an agricultural economy, consecrating a farm one owns is one thing, but when one’s livelihood comes from employment at a business one doesn’t own, what does consecration look like? A job can’t be consecrated because the employer would probably say it was never a permanent possession. Instead, one would have to consecrate one’s salary.

Maybe we should pull back a little on that and consider how the principle of consecration might mesh with that of self-reliance.

Self-reliance is about providing for one’s own needs and the needs of one’s family. To that end, we seek to obtain a good education and obtain work in a field that provides enough and hopefully a surplus. We pay our tithing, store food and build up an emergency fund for a rainy day. I think we are also expected to get out of debt. Also, budgeting helps with living within our means.

The storing of food and funds for a rainy day suggests that saving is permitted and even expected.  But then we also run into interesting questions. If one is to consecrate one’s surplus, where does one’s responsibility to provide for future expenses begin or end?  If a person always passes on their surplus to the Church, then how does one pay for large future expenses (car replacement, child’s education, medical expenses, house, retirement)?  Or should consecration of surplus happen after putting by savings for the future? 

I have no hard-and-fast answers. Maybe part of consecration is working these things out for ourselves.

Let’s think about the idea of surplus for a bit. Surplus is whatever is left over that isn’t needed. In order for us to know what is surplus, we have to get an idea of what we really need. The tool for this is the budget.

Budgets are beautiful things. Many people tend to think of them as a strait jacket, but what they are is a tool for analyzing spending, discovering your spending priorities, and dealing with financial challenges and future needs.  They help us uncover inefficiencies in our spending.  The power to reallocate funds from category to category helps us deal with emergencies, roll with the punches, control our money instead of letting it control us, and plan ahead. I really think using a budget is a skill that scales in all kinds of interesting directions. Used to the full, it can help us know whether we are materially self-reliant or not, moment to moment, rather than just at the end of the month when it’s time to balance the accounts.  All those little categories represent little bits of our material stewardship.

Let’s think about stewardship a little.  The principle of stewardship is that God is the owner and we are his stewards, so everything we have is part of that. Eventually we will have to give an account of our stewardship (material and spiritual), so we have an eternal interest in working hard, maximizing our efficiency, growing in capability, preserving what we have, and learning to make wise decisions.  Keeping and maintaining a budget is a fabulous tool for seeing how financial decisions have consequences over time.  It reveals inefficiencies. It reveals where our money priorities have been in the past, which is an invitation to evaluate and make changes if needed. 

Here’s another question I have. When it comes time to build the New Jerusalem, I wonder about how its economy will work. Obviously it will require faithful, consecrating people. The faithful people must provide for themselves, so I assume they will have jobs. In order for there to be jobs, there must be businesses and entrepreneurship.  Perhaps they will own the businesses.  But for there to be businesses, there must be demand, so there must be a solid customer base.  Where do these customers come from?

Perhaps the customer base doesn’t have to be in the New Jerusalem itself. Maybe it can be elsewhere.  But for Zion businesses to have a good customer base, the products must be superior enough and/or cheap enough among all the choices available that customers gravitate toward those businesses. (Oh look! Supply-side management! Manufacturing! Economies of scale!) Another factor that makes this tricky is that command economies tend to fall apart, so creating artificial demand or supply is not going to work.  And then there’s the can of worms of hiring faithful members without running afoul of anti-discrimination hiring laws.  Members will have to be work to be the best possible job candidate to be hired on.

Another question I have pertains to how interconnected economies are today. And yet there is a scripture that speaks of Zion becoming independent of all other creatures. Does that independence apply at the individual level, or at the level of economies? Is it possible to be interconnected and yet independent on an aggregate level?

I don’t pretend to know all the factors that have to be in place, but these are a few things that run through my mind.  What about you? 

Isaiah 23 and the prophecy against Tyre

Isaiah 23 is a prophecy against the city of Tyre, which was a rich commercial port.  I’m going to point out a few interesting things and puzzling things about this chapter.

1 The burden of Tyre. Howl, ye ships of Tarshish; for it is laid waste, so that there is no house, no entering in: from the land of Chittim it is revealed to them.

2 Be still, ye inhabitants of the isle; thou whom the merchants of Zidon, that pass over the sea, have replenished.

3 And by great waters the seed of Sihor, the harvest of the river, is her revenue; and she is a mart of nations.

4 Be thou ashamed, O Zidon: for the sea hath spoken, even the strength of the sea, saying, I travail not, nor bring forth children, neither do I nourish up young men, nor bring up virgins.

5 As at the report concerning Egypt, so shall they be sorely pained at the report of Tyre.

6 Pass ye over to Tarshish; howl, ye inhabitants of the isle.

7 Is this your joyous city, whose antiquity is of ancient days? her own feet shall carry her afar off to sojourn.  (Isaiah 23:1-7)

If the prophecy is about Tyre, why are all these other places mentioned—Tarshish, Chittim, Zidon, and Sihor?  I suppose those other places had ports that depended upon Tyre to buy their goods, or received the goods they needed from Tyre. You can imagine that if your market for your goods disappeared, you’d be distressed. Likewise, if your main supplier disappeared, you would be very worried.

“she is a mart of nations” – Tyre was like a Wal-mart for countries. 

Verse 4 is very interesting to me. It implies that some of these people needed a reminder that the sea—the way they transported or received their goods—was not as important as their families.  The sea might provide a living, but wasn’t the entity that birthed their children, or taught them, or nurtured them. They might have been so focused on making money, that they forgot their families were the important thing.  This is like an ancient wake-up call for workaholics, isn’t it?

The next section tells us who decided this destruction should happen and why.

8 Who hath taken this counsel against Tyre, the crowning city, whose merchants are princes, whose traffickers are the honourable of the earth?

9 The Lord of hosts hath purposed it, to stain the pride of all glory, and to bring into contempt all the honourable of the earth.

10 Pass through thy land as a river, O daughter of Tarshish: there is no more strength.

11 He stretched out his hand over the sea, he shook the kingdoms: the Lord hath given a commandment against the merchant city, to destroy the strong holds thereof.

12 And he said, Thou shalt no more rejoice, O thou oppressed virgin, daughter of Zidon: arise, pass over to Chittim; there also shalt thou have no rest.

13 Behold the land of the Chaldeans; this people was not, till the Assyrian founded it for them that dwell in the wilderness: they set up the towers thereof, they raised up the palaces thereof; and he brought it to ruin.

14 Howl, ye ships of Tarshish: for your strength is laid waste. (Isaiah 23:8-14)

The Lord decided to bring that destruction in order to humble the proud and the rich. Humbled people are more likely to repent, and the Lord wanted to save them, but their riches had created a feeling of self-sufficiency that precluded that kind of humility.  Sudden destruction and financial set-backs would humble them.

The principles still apply today. Too comfortable circumstances tend to make us more hard-hearted and deaf to the Lord’s appeals.  Financial set-backs tend to humble us.  How much better is it to humble ourselves regardless of our circumstances!

The next part has some puzzling elements:

15 And it shall come to pass in that day, that Tyre shall be forgotten seventy years, according to the days of one king: after the end of seventy years shall Tyre sing as an harlot.

16 Take an harp, go about the city, thou harlot that hast been forgotten; make sweet melody, sing many songs, that thou mayest be remembered.

17 ¶And it shall come to pass after the end of seventy years, that the Lord will visit Tyre, and she shall turn to her hire, and shall commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the world upon the face of the earth.

18 And her merchandise and her hire shall be holiness to the Lord: it shall not be treasured nor laid up; for her merchandise shall be for them that dwell before the Lord, to eat sufficiently, and for durable clothing. (Isaiah 23:15-18)

The puzzling thing here is the idea that Tyre would sing as a harlot, turn to her hire, and commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the world—all of which has a very negative connotation—but at the same time the Lord would visit Tyre and her merchandise would be holiness to the Lord (consecrated), and her merchandise would be for them that dwell before the Lord—all of which as a very positive connotation and implies following the law of consecration.

What are we to make of this?  The question we might ask ourselves is, is it possible for people committing fornication to follow the law of consecration?  Probably not.  Even the early Saints of this dispensation had a hard time with consecration, so it doesn’t make sense for people committing sins of immorality to succeed at it.

This means there is an alternate meaning for fornication in this instance.  I suspect Isaiah uses it as a particularly crude way of referring to “doing business” because of the way business contracts and agreements tend to be temporary and continue only so long as both parties want them to.  Kind of a gross comparison, but that makes it a little easier to see what Isaiah is trying to say here.  

So, I think Isaiah’s message is that though Tyre would be forgotten for a generation or two after destruction, eventually Tyre would rebuild itself and regain its commercial status.  It would sing as an harlot (advertise enticingly to get business) and regain status as a center of commerce.  And the Lord would visit it.  This might mean the Lord would favor the city, or it might mean that the Lord would have many believers there.  At any rate, the people of Tyre would have learned an important lesson, and instead of hoarding their wealth, they would consecrate it to the Lord, and that wealth would be used to help the poor.

The overall lesson from this chapter for us today is that financial crashes and destruction are a wake-up call, an opportunity to humble ourselves, reexamine our priorities, and repent.  Then, in the rebuild, if we can keep from setting our hearts on riches and instead consecrate, we will be part of bringing Zion again.