The Law of Love

The applications of love abound. The universal essentiality of the thing is incomprehensible; and yet, we must strive to comprehend it. For it is in this eternal pursuit that love increases. As we endeavour to grasp the existence of everlasting, unconditional love, we grow increasingly closer to the Heart of God. As He, being Love, reveals Himself to us, so we fall deeper in love with Him.

I begin by a simple outline of a common economic theory: that of ‘Supermarket Wages’. It is commonly recognised, indeed empirically supported, that paying workers the minimum wage possible is not, in fact, economic. If their reward only marginally outweighs the opportunity cost of work (i.e., leisure or alternative work), then they have little incentive to apply effort. Indeed, if workers are offered the minimum amount for them not to leave, why should they work any more than the minimum amount for them not to be fired?

The employer is then forced to monitor the worker’s behaviour to ensure that s/he does not ‘shirk’, or ‘skive’ when nobody is looking, thus incurring administrative costs. Economists agree that by paying workers a fixed premium (perhaps sweetened with performance-dependent perks), the company acts in its own interest; even if at first its staffing costs increase. Firstly, if the worker understands that the equivalent occupation in a competitor company will not pay as much, s/he will be incentivised to keep his/her job. Secondly, s/he will feel a sense of self-worth, and will hence be (even unconsciously) more motivated. Thirdly, if rewards depend on performance, the worker obviously acts in his/her own interest by working as hard as possible. Moreover, non-pecuniary rewards, such as prospects of promotion, will have the same affect.
In other words, you get what you pay for. If you rip off a worker, you get ripped off. Likewise, if you as a worker rip off your company, you’ll end up paying through low-wage employment, unemployment, or low self-esteem.

This is a simple example of the law of reciprocity (‘you reap what you sow’; see previous blogs). Interestingly, during the slave trade, many of its detractors argued in purely economic terms, regardless of its moral dimension. Whilst we often associate abolition movements with William Wilberforce, and the civil rights movement with Martin Luther King, there are those who agreed with the proposition of freedom simply out of self-interest.

To elucidate, apply the law of ‘Supermarket Wages’ to the idea of slavery. A slave works because s/he is compelled to do so. There is no alternative, no potential competing employer, and so the master sees no immediate reason to treat the slave with any manner of decency, or to reward his/her work. The slave works sufficiently so as not to receive a beating, and if the master is not gauging performance, will just as soon drop his/her sickle (or run away). Indeed, even some masters understood this law of reciprocity, and did in fact reward good behaviour in various ways, for instance through the prospect of ‘promotion’ to house-servant.

Hence, many abolitionists argued that the prospect of free labour would in fact be more economic. Not only would workers in poor nations flock to the prospect of paid work, all competing with each other and so attempting to outperform other workers, they would work harder once employed to keep their job. If you ‘do to others as you would have them do to you’, then – remarkably – they will do likewise.

Similarly, by repressing the potential of the black population, the United States denied itself a large part of its workforce and uncovered potential. Moreover, the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany, which gave reason for Jews to flee to other countries (such as the United States), contributed to the downfall of their enterprise. A relatively miniscule race in terms of quantity, the Jews have displayed remarkable quality, through academic and practical ingenuity, receiving more Nobel Prizes than any other two groups put together. Think of Openheimer. Einstein, for crying out loud. Hitler did indeed ‘sow the seeds of his own destruction’.

I would like now to return to the issue of slavery. During the Transatlantic Slave Trade, Christians were divided on the message of the Bible at is pertained to slavery. Whilst ‘godly’ individuals possessed many slaves, and Paul evidently condoning it in several of his letters, it seemed to contradict the basic principles of love, on which Christianity seemed to be based. Resultantly, many people (especially those who had stocks in slave-fuelled companies) argued that slavery was in keeping with their faith, whilst others disagreed.

Whilst both the moral argument (essentially, one of ‘Love’) and the economic argument (which was just as self-serving as slavery) both led to the same end (eventual abolition), it is the thought that counts, and the difference between selfishness and selflessness did not elude God’s Divine Order. What replaced slavery was a system of ‘indentured servants’, which was essentially slavery by another name.

So who was right? From our liberal paradigm, we would obviously condemn notions of forced labour, even without the backing of biblical directives. Strangely, however, most of those who publically reproached slavery on moral grounds were often those who held the biggest shares. Contradictions abound. Paul states that ‘there is neither slave nor free’ because ‘all are equal in Christ Jesus’.

I now refer to one of my first blogs, that on Divine Order and Divine Authority. We are to obey the governments in place, for any Earthly Authority is subject to Divine Authority. Slavery clearly is not part of the ‘Divine Order’. For this reason, it has never lasted as an institution. It emerges, but eventually the bubble bursts. Whether we are subjected to humans or not, it makes no difference: for we are all subjected to the authority of God.

Moreover, we are all forgiven by the Grace of Christ. Earthly dependencies have no bearing, and so are irrelevant. Jesus didn’t free the Jews from Roman bondage; rather, He gave them a means to transcend it, and enter into a new Kingdom. Any empire is fated to self-destruction (I need not invoke historical examples, for they are apparent; indeed, see blog on ‘Nation-Building’) because it is fundamentally a self-serving enterprise, and so will reap what it sows. God hates slavery; that much is undeniable. To punish the abasement of such an institution, all He has to do is stand back and let his Divine Order do its thing.

Interestingly, many of our abolitionist ‘heroes’ such as Wilberforce were not in fact advocating the immediate freedom of slaves: distinguish between abolition and emancipation, the former being the banning of the slave trade, the latter being the banning of slavery as an institution. In other words, many abolitionists proposed ‘amelioration’, whereby existing slaves would have their conditions improved, as they were not fit to face the vagaries of the ‘real world’ such as labour market competition and self-sufficiency.

We must ensure that we do not fall into the same trap of arrogance. When we as Western nations lend money to ‘those poor Africans’, are we simply re-entering into colonial systems, thereby taking up the mantle of our imperial ancestors? If so, caution is recommended, for this will not escape the vigilance of God. Are we acting out of self-interest, fulfilling what Bill Easterly calls ‘the White Man’s Burden’: a moral conviction that does not necessarily serve the interests of the purported beneficiaries? How do we measure our philanthropic ventures? By how much moral satisfaction we receive, by how much financial return we make, or by how much the people who need it most benefit? Are we like the continuously pregnant mother who cannot bear the thought of not having somebody dependent on her?

We may come to Christ on the fear of eternal damnation: allegorically, as workers we may work so as not to get fired. But as we draw closer to God, we find that suffering of any kind is irrelevant. Once the Jubilee Effect multiplies and spreads, the object of our concern surpasses earthly institutions. His Kingdom is not of this world.

Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also (and vice versa). Invest in God-mandated endeavours, and you will draw closer to Him. Draw closer to Him, and you will invest all the more, those investments being blessed and ordained by God.