Is There a \u201cChristian Economics?\u201d<\/p>\n
(*Note to would-be responders\/commenters:<\/em> If you choose to respond, please do not \u201cnit-pick\u201d or misrepresent or merely argue or use my blog as an opportunity to promote your own alternative viewpoint. Keep your response to no more than 250 words and make sure it represents a spirit of dialogue, not polemics.)<\/p>\n For good reason economics<\/em> is traditionally labeled \u201cthe dismal science.\u201d Even the best economists in the world radically disagree with each other about how best to predict a society\u2019s economic future and how best to program its distribution of goods so as to promote universal well-being<\/em>.<\/p>\n One reason for that is radically differing presuppositions<\/em> about wealth<\/em> (defined here as the \u201cgoods\u201d of a society). For example, is wealth limited or can it grow? Is distributive justice a zero-sum game or can new wealth be created? Economists disagree, but what you believe about that makes all the difference in the world. It might appear<\/em> that wealth is being \u201cgrown,\u201d but zero-sum game economists argue that is always illusion (on paper only). Zero-sum game economists argue that the only \u201creal\u201d goods are physical ones\u2014land and what\u2019s on it and in it. Everything else is \u201conly on paper.\u201d<\/p>\n There are numerous other, profound differences of presuppositions about economics and distributive justice. But this one is basic. \u201cDistributive justice\u201d is where economics<\/em> and ethics<\/em> meet. For example, if you believe wealth can be increased, you will tend to hold a different opinion about distributive justice than if you believe it cannot be increased. If wealth can be increased, then you might be less concerned about managing distributive justice<\/em> than if you believe wealth cannot be increased.<\/p>\n Still and nevertheless, even if wealth can be increased, not everyone is going to be able<\/em> to share in the wealth of society due to various kinds of disabilities such as infancy and youth, physical or mental challenges, even simple bad luck. Distributive justice<\/em>\u2014whether religious or secular\u2014is the determination of how best, if at all, for society to distribute its wealth.<\/p>\n Everyone is aware of the simple (even simplistic) \u201cspectrum\u201d of economic beliefs about distributive justice\u2014from \u201cfar right\u201d to \u201cfar left.\u201d At the \u201cfar right\u201d of the spectrum is the belief called Social Darwinism<\/em> popularized by philosopher-novelist Ayn Rand (d. 1982). Many philosophers of economics regard her Social Darwinist view called \u201cobjectivism\u201d as supported by Harvard ethics philosopher Robert Nozick (d. 2002). In this view, to which many Christians also subscribe, society ought not<\/em> to redistribute wealth. Capable individuals create wealth or discover wealth and society\u2019s \u201cweak\u201d must fend for themselves. To \u201ctake from the rich and give to the poor\u201d in any way is against nature and reason. Of course, individuals are always free to engage in acts of charity<\/em>, but society itself has no obligation to the weakest and poorest among them. Government redistribution of wealth requires enormous government machinery that inevitably detracts from individual freedoms. Also, helping the weak and the poor corrupts the gene pool and creates dependence. It also undermines incentives<\/em> to discover and invent.<\/p>\n At the \u201cfar left\u201d of the spectrum is communism<\/em> supported by philosopher Karl Marx (d. 1881) and those inspired by his social theories. According to this belief the wealth of society ought to be relatively equally distributed: \u201cFrom each according to his ability; to each according to his need.\u201d The secular argument for communism is that any other program of distributive justice inevitably leads to class warfare<\/em> and eventual anarchy<\/em>. Communism prevents class warfare and is more humane<\/em> than Social Darwinism.<\/p>\n The weaknesses of those two \u201cends of the spectrum\u201d seem obvious. Social Darwinism and its accompanying laissez faire capitalism<\/em> leads to a social underclass composed not only of those who do not care to work but also of those who are, for various reasons, unable to work (i.e., contribute to the discovery and\/or creation of wealth). Communism leads to dependence on the government and lack of incentive to discover or create wealth. Therefore, most Western economic theorists have attempted to create economic programs of distributive justice somewhere between<\/em> these two extremes.<\/p>\n Socialism<\/em> comes in varieties all of which attempt to combine systems of incentives and rewards (to encourage participation in invention, discovery and creation of wealth) with<\/em> systems of government managed redistribution of wealth<\/em>. In much of Western and Northern Europe, for example Denmark, \u201cdemocratic socialism\u201d is considered the norm. There people and corporations are taxed very highly (about fifty percent) and the democratically elected government manages the economy to redistribute wealth according to John Rawls\u2019 \u201cmaximin principle\u201d\u2014maximizing the minimum of standard of living without abolishing freedoms or incentives. One example of this is a very high minimum wage; another example is free education for all citizens from birth through graduate school. Yet, individuals and groups are relatively free, with some government regulation and oversight, to start businesses and even become wealthy. But nobody is allowed to become \u201csuper wealthy.\u201d The government provides jobs in order to keep \u201cbeing on welfare\u201d from becoming permanent. Universal employment is the ideal and the goal even if that means the government employs a very large percentage of the population.<\/p>\n Modern managed capitalism<\/em> (non-laissez faire capitalism) also comes in varieties all of which emphasize economic incentives for discovering and creating wealth, minimizing government intervention, management and welfare. Here the government functions economically<\/em> primarily as an \u201cumpire\u201d to keep corporations and individuals from becoming too powerful (e.g., forbidding corporate monopolies) while at the same time encouraging wealth-creation by, for example, taxing investment income at a lower rate than earned income. Redistribution of wealth is usually restricted to free education<\/em>, usually only at the primary and secondary levels, and to minimal welfare<\/em> for the poor, especially the disabled.<\/p>\n Democratic socialism<\/em> and modern managed capitalism<\/em> overlap a great deal, but have different impulses<\/em> which pull them toward one end of the spectrum of distributive justice or the other. However, both see the necessity of both<\/em> incentives to discover and create wealth and<\/em> some degree of government management of the economy and redistribution of wealth.<\/p>\n There are other modern theories of economics and distributive justice, but, when carefully examined, most, if not all, fall under one of these four \u201cumbrella\u201d categories.<\/p>\n It is easy to find Christian thinkers<\/em> who support all of the theories\u2014as \u201cmiddle axioms\u201d (whether they call them that or not) for implementing Kingdom ethics within the world that is not yet the Kingdom of God.<\/p>\n Some Christian thinkers strongly support communism without the Marxian atheism<\/em> which they argue is not part and parcel of communism as an economic theory. Some of them argue that communism ought to begin within the church and then spread out from there into society outside the church. Others think Christians should \u201cjump\u201d directly into the political-economic debate and even struggle and link arms with secular communists to help bring that system about through, if necessary, revolution. Their argument is that in the Kingdom of God<\/em> there will be no differentiating wealth<\/em>, so we Christians cannot be comfortable with it here and now. (Mexican liberation theologian Jose P. Miranda in Marx and the Bible<\/em>.)<\/p>\n Some Christian thinkers strongly support laissez faire capitalism<\/em> usually without calling it or even recognizing it as Social Darwinism. (Many would deny that it is based on that philosophy.) These Christians usually believe original sin and human depravity<\/em> require strong incentives to work and that government \u201cbig enough\u201d for any other economic system will inevitably trounce on individual freedoms including religious freedom. (U.S. Catholic theologian Michael Novak in The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism<\/em> and Protestant Marvin Olasky in The Tragedy of American Compassion<\/em>. These Christian thinkers believe the churches should care for the poor, not the government, although they make certain exceptions in emergencies.)<\/p>\n Note that it is possible<\/em> to be a communist with regard to how the church<\/em> should practice distribute justice within itself<\/em> and not be a communist with regard to how the social-economic order outside the church<\/em> should function.<\/p>\n Some Christian thinkers strongly support democratic socialism<\/em> as a compromise<\/em> position that takes seriously the human tendency to become dependent on government welfare programs but also recognizes that the churches cannot take care of all the poor by themselves. Many of these Christian thinkers argue that churches should practice a form of socialism within themselves with or without Christian pressure on government to help. Many of them believe Christians should speak out passionately in favor of socialism as their societies\u2019 policies of distributive justice. (Examples: Stanley Hauerwas for the church to practice a kind of socialism within itself and Walter Rauschenbusch and his contemporary heirs for Christians to pressure society to adopt socialism.)<\/p>\n Some Christian thinkers strongly support modern managed capitalism<\/em> (non-laissez faire capitalism) as a compromise that takes seriously both humans\u2019 sinful greed and<\/em> sloth. For them, the Kingdom is definitely \u201cnot yet\u201d and modern managed capitalism is the best social public policy that takes that reality seriously while at the same time taking care of the destitute (\u201cdeserving poor\u201d). Whether the church should be involved in implementing or sustaining this social system differs among Christian thinkers who support it. Most Christians who support it regard it as the United States\u2019 basic system in the 21st<\/sup> century and only seek to defend it from change into another system. But they differ among themselves about how well it works and how best to \u201cfine tune it\u201d to preserve it in a changing world and make it work better for everyone.<\/p>\n One can easily find all four of these major options <\/em>for economic distributive justice<\/em> among Christians around the world. My own view is that, in God\u2019s coming messianic Kingdom on earth, there will be no poverty but there will be differentiating wealth. Therefore, I find John Rawls\u2019s (d. 2002) justice as fairness<\/em> theory most compatible with the coming Kingdom of God and<\/em> the not-yetness of that Kingdom. For me it serves as a middle axiom<\/em> for helping me decide, for example, for whom to vote.<\/p>\n Rawls argued that under the \u201cveil of ignorance\u201d<\/em> (a hypothetical convention developing a society\u2019s social contract and policies where participants do not know their advantages and disadvantages, only that there will be such) every rational person would vote for a society that balances freedom<\/em> and what he called the \u201cmaximin\u201d<\/em> principle. There would be incentives to discover and create wealth with its resulting differentiation of wealth based on abilities and effort. But there would also be built in programs<\/em> to redistribute wealth. The \u201cmaximin\u201d principle is simply the idea that whenever a portion of the population enjoys an increase in standard of living those \u201cat the bottom\u201d automatically benefit as well<\/em>. The distributive justice system of economics is \u201cbuilt\u201d to maximize the minimum<\/em> without destroying incentives to discover and create wealth. This, of course, requires some system<\/em> of redistribution of wealth<\/em> such as a highly graduated income tax together with free education, free job training and welfare for those who cannot work. Exactly how best to implement Rawls\u2019s theory is not detailed by Rawls himself. He simply laid out the principles. I think this theory of economic justice\/distributive justice best fits<\/em> with Jesus\u2019 teachings about money and wealth, the reality that fallen people need incentives to invent and work, the not-yetness of the Kingdom of God, and the importance of working against systems that contradict and undermine the coming Kingdom of God. Personally, I think democratic socialism<\/em> (e.g., \u201cScandinavian socialism\u201d) is the existing economic system closest to Rawls\u2019 intentions and to the spirit of the Kingdom of God in its \u201calready-ness\u201d and<\/em> \u201cnot-yet-ness.\u201d It combines realism<\/em> and idealism<\/em>. It serves as the most helpful middle axiom for Christian distributive justice in the economic realm.<\/p>\n Back, however, to the church<\/em>. It is entirely possible to hold one<\/em> of the four \u201cideal types\u201d of secular economic theory and practice (distributive justice) for the social order outside the church<\/em> and a different one for the church itself<\/em>.<\/p>\n It seems to me that the church<\/em> ought to practice a kind of communism<\/em> within itself\u2014not necessarily a \u201ccommon purse\u201d (no private property at all, the church holding all property \u201cin trust\u201d for the members and assigning it according to need)\u2014but an ethos<\/em> in which everyone\u2019s private property is not really \u201cprivate\u201d but is at the disposal of whoever needs it<\/em>. Every Christian church ought<\/em> to be an \u201cintentional Christian community\u201d that practices distributive justice within itself by making sure no member suffers from loss or lack of goods needed to live a life of well-being and no member hoards wealth above and beyond what is needed for a comfortable life of well-being. Of course, the \u201cdevil is in the details,\u201d but if each church followed this basic principle to the best of its ability it would come closer to being the \u201cKingdom outpost\u201d it is meant to be.*<\/p>\n *There was a time when many Christian churches practiced something like this<\/em> but often without a set of explicit rules<\/em> for governing it and working it out in practice. For example, the church I grew up in from birth to age eleven openly called living in luxury and \u201cconspicuous consumption\u201d a sin. Member were expected to give their excess money to the church (or denomination) for support of the poor within the church and of the church\u2019s various \u201coutreach ministries\u201d (especially \u201cforeign missions\u201d). I well remember a family of the church who became relatively wealthy and drove to church on Sundays in a new luxury automobile. The pastor paid them a \u201cpersonal pastoral visit\u201d and reminded them that greed and luxury are sins and that they should sell the car, buy a less expensive one, and give the proceeds to the church. He also preached occasionally sermons against \u201cthe sin of conspicuous consumption.\u201d The wealthy family left the church. Whenever a church member fell into a poverty situation through no clear fault of their own (such as refusal to work), the church \u201ctook up a \u2018love offering\u2019\u201d to meet their needs (not their wants). No member\u2019s wealth, goods, was considered his or her \u201cown\u201d to dispose of in any way; it belonged in some sense<\/em> to everyone in the church and ultimately to God.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Is There a \u201cChristian Economics?\u201d (*Note to would-be responders\/commenters: If you choose to respond, please do not \u201cnit-pick\u201d or misrepresent or merely argue or use my blog as an opportunity to promote your own alternative viewpoint. Keep your response to no more than 250 words and make sure it represents a spirit of dialogue, not […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":58,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3159","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n