Science in Christian Perspective
Dialogue
Is There a Christian Economic System?
EDWARD COLESON Spring Arbor College Spring Arbor, Michigan 49283
RICHARD V. PIERARD Indiana State University Terre Haute, Indiana 47809
From: JASA 29 (March 1977): 13-21. Where America Missed the Way
In recent years we have found ourselves in the throes of one economic
crisis after
another and some pessimists suggest it may become as serious as the
Great Depression
of the 1930's. If we attempt to bail ourselves out by massive deficit
financing,
we may easily destroy the dollar through inflation, which may in the
end be even
worse than what happened forty or fifty years ago and all that
followed therefrom.
If the global tragedy called World War II was, even in part, the consequence of
the economic blunders of the 1920's and 30's, the subject should be
of interest,
particularly, if we are moving toward "...some catastrophe corresponding,
in effect if not in form, to the ruin of 1929 and all that followed from it to
sour the very soil and to murder thirty million people."1 Since
this is not
a new problem, it appears that we have been rather negligent in not
focusing greater
attention upon it long ago.
Yet any one who suggests laissez-faire capitalism as the Christian
and constructive
answer to our present dilemma will probably be laughed out of court.
Was not Cain
a capitalist and the Good Samaritan a socialist? Still it is my contention that
the New Deal was a calamity and unnecessary, and that the philosophy
of the Welfare
State is fallacious in theory and has proven disastrous in practice (I do not
blame F. D. R. for the
long years of Republican protective tariffs which finally destroyed
our international
trade and hence made "plowing under cotton and killing little pigs"
seem necessary; I blame him only for not making a clean break with our tragic
past and starting over right). As I write, we are teetering on the
brink of disaster,
and larger doses of New Deal economics will not deliver us, but
hasten our ruin.
Let us look back in history and see how other people handled their problems in
brighter days when things went at least half way right.
As is well known, Adam Smith published The Wealth
of Nations in 1776. It would no doubt be unfair to call this classic a textbook
in Christian capitalism. It is also unfair to say, as did a prominent
evangelical
recently, that ". . . Adam Smith, optimistically holding to fixed natural
economic laws, did not realize that sin would promote greed Even a
cursory reading
of The Wealth of Nations would convince, it would seem, anyone that
Smith mistrusted
just about everybody. For instance, he tells us that "People of the same
trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the
conversation
ends in a conspiracy against
the public...3 He had no more confidence in big
business than he did in tradesmen: "The government of an exclusive company
of merchants is," he wrote,
"perhaps, the worst of all governments...4 . Although
he didn't want business men running the government, he had little confidence in
the politicians either: "The violence and injustice of the
rulers of mankind
is an ancient evil, for which, I am afraid, the nature of human
affairs can scarce
admit of a remedy."5 While many of those today who are on the
political "Right"
are anarchists, often consciously and militantly so, it should be obvious that
Adam Smith was not. He was convinced that the government should have
three functions:'
defend the frontiers with military force, if need be; provide police
and administer
justice within the state; and maintain a few services which could not easily he
supplied by business. Perhaps the best way to explain what Smith really meant
is to say that, if I were a farmer, I would have the right to produce
any quantity
of any legitimate commodity and sell it in any honest way-and the same goes for
everyone else in his respective business, trade or profession. It is
interesting
to note that while we seem to regard the task of keeping us all prosperous as
the primary assignment of government, Smith did not consider this
proper. Nevertheless,
he believed in government, although he thought it should be a
"simple frugal
affair," as Thomas Jefferson phrased it. It should be obvious
that he believed
in limited government, not out of an unbounded faith in human nature,
but because
he trusted no one very far, including the politicians. It would appear, that in
practice at least, he was not very far from the Christian doctrine of natural
depravity, although no one, to my knowledge, has classified him as an
evangelical.
I am sure he would be best described as a deist.
To understand "the obvious and simple system of natural
liberty" which
Adam Smith believed in and promoted, it is necessary to know something of the
background out of which his thinking grew. Not too far in the past
was Isaac Newton,
who overawed his contemporaries much as Einstein did the last
generation. As Bernhard7
wrote, "The majesty of Newton's conception of a harmonious universe ruled
by immutable, divine laws was expressed in Pope's couplet:"
Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night. God said, "Let Newton he!"
and there was light.
Newton, of course, was a physicist and mathematician, but closer in
time and subject
matter to Adam Smith was William Blackstonet who introduced his
famous Commentaries
on the Laws of England with the assertion that human laws have no validity, if
contrary to the Higher Law, "dictated by God Himself." Although these
words were published in 1765, a little more than a decade before The Wealth of
Nations appeared, the concept of a Higher Law, the Natural Moral Law, goes back
to Cicero, the Roman orator, and the Greek Stoics before him (and, of course,
Moses and the Prophets long before the rise of Greek philosophy). The related
concept of a "harmonious universe," to quote Bernhard
again, was popularized
by William Paley in a book published just after 1800. To Paley design in nature
presupposes an omnipotent and omniscient Designer; he and his
enthusiastic disciples
found evidences of God's handiwork everywhere. Indeed, the Royal
Society9 eventually
produced a twelve volume study showing the marvels of God's creation
in a universe
"where all things work together for good." One would judge that these
essays were mostly biology and re
lated topics, dedicated to the proposition that the great Architect
of the universe
had done His work wisely and well. However, Frederic Bastiat,10 a famous French
economist, published a book, Economic Harmonies, in 1850 which sought to prove
that there were no natural or necessary conflicts between individuals, classes,
or nations, certainly not in the long run; that all things could work together
for good, if we were wise enough, patient enough, and good enough to know and
follow what the Lord intended for us. This was a far cry from Social
Darwinism-"Be
merciful and you die"-soon to be popularized by Herbert Spencer.
It is interesting
to note that the classic free trade era in Europe after 1850 was a remarkably
peaceful period as compared with the last sixty-five years of human
history. Was
this coincidental?
Conservative Christians today are often accused of having a "do-nothing'
social policy, but this was not true of evangelicals two centuries ago. In the
midst of the half century of Wesley's popular ministry, an obscure Englishman,
Granville Sharp, met an ailing and wounded slave on the streets of London. The
unfortunate servant had been severely beaten and turned out to die. Out of this
grew the abolition movement, which freed the slaves in England in 1772, stopped
the slave trade in British ships after 1807, and freed the slaves on
the plantations
in English colonies in 1834 (this they accomplished without a war
too). In spite
of the attempts by contemporary economic determinists, such as Erie Williams,11
to prove that slavery withered away rather spontaneously (with a
little help from Wilberforce and the abolitionists) because it had ceased to be
profitable, there
is abundant evidence, as J. C. Furnas12 points out, that slave smuggling into
our South was common and very profitable up until the Civil War.
Furnas, it should
he added, had little sympathy for evangelical reformers, such as
Sharp and Wilberforee.13
The recent and highly controversial study, Time on the Cross,14 suggests that
slavery was a viable economic institution. It is interesting to note
that during
the great debates over slavery while the issue was being fought out, first at
the King's Bench (the British "Supreme Court" freed the
slaves in England
in 1772) and later in Parliament from 1787 to 1833, the question of profit did
come up, but the abolitionists insisted that "a Christian country should
be glad to give up profits which are made out of human shame and misery."15
This is capitalism with a conscience; making money is legitimate, but
when profit
making and God's Law are in conflict, as they may be in the short run, choose
the right, "For what shall it profit a man, if be gain the whole
world ....
(Mark 8:36).
When the English reformers were finally finished with slavery in
British territory
in 1834, they found plenty more that needed fixing. Perhaps the most
conspicuous
change in the next dozen years, and one that had profound economic
consequences,
was the famous Repeal of the Corn Laws. The Corn Laws were the
British "farm
program," a complicated scheme to keep out foreign grain and
maintain higher
agricultural prices than a free and open market would provide. There
was nothing
new or unusual about these economic interventions by the government;
the several
European stations had long been rigging their markets in favor of
powerful pressure
groups, a practice that Adam
Smith had condemned as being detrimental to the public welfare. A
word of explanation
is probably necessary at this point: many Americans, knowing that life was less
complicated in the 1890's, extrapolate backward in time and assume that things
must have been quite free and easy a few hundred years ago. Quite the contrary
was true. The French and Spanish governments, for instance, were past masters
at the art of controlling the economy a few centuries ago and James Michener,16
for one, believes the mighty power of Spain was destroyed in this
way, that Spain
committed suicide-a proposition we in the United States would do well
to ponder.
It was to the British version of these same economic interferences that English
reformers now addressed themselves. The Anti-Corn-Law League was organized and
the propaganda war quickly went into high gear. From the beginning the League
tried to make it clear that their "organization was established
on the same
righteous principle as the AntiSlavery Society.17 The campaign
became a holy
war: how could anyone seek to keep food needlessly scarce and
expensive when people
were hungry and even starving? "A great conference of ministers
of religion
at Manchester . . . led to a diffusion of repeal ideas from scores of
pulpits."18
The conspicuous leaders of the movement were Richard Cobden and John
Bright, both
textile manufacturers and evangelical Christians. Bright, a devout
Quaker, "refused
to separate the spheres of morality and politics,19 and got his free trade
principles from the Bible. It was this moral earnestness in an
England which still
took the Scriptures very seriously-plus the massive tragedy of the Irish Potato
Famine-which brought the Repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 and free
trade in general
in the next decade or so. It is interesting to note that the French economist,
Frederic Bastiat, became the philosopher of the League during the
campaign. Bright
and Cobden liked his harmonious economics better than that
"dismal science"20
inherited from Thomas Malthus. His doctrines fit in better with their ideas of
the goodness and wisdom of God. Cynical economic determinists have
dismissed Bright
and Cobden's pious pretensions as hypocrisy (or self delusion); after
all, manufacturers
stood to gain by open markets. This they knew and proclaimed loudly during the
controversy, but the accusation of had faith is unfair. When the
Crimean War came,
both opposed it bitterly and on principle, although they knew the war
was popular
and that this would mean political suicide for them. During the American Civil
War, Bright favored the North and worked mightily to keep England
neutral, although,
as a cotton manufacturer, he knew his self interest lay with the South.21 Although
he objected strongly to Northern protective tariffs, he felt that human freedom
was more important than free trade. And much more could be said, if
space permitted.
It is a pity that
we know so little about the accomplishments of these
Christian statesmen. We could learn much from them too: they believed
in freedom
under law (God's Law), Christian stewardship and personal responsibility. They
were also men of compassion and were concerned for their fellow men.
Perhaps the best way to sum up the accomplishments
of these Christian statesmen is to take a wee glimpse at their age as
it appeared
in 1882 in the Spectator: "Britain as a whole was never more tranquil and
happy. No class is at war with society or the government; there is no
disaffection
anywhere, the Treasury is fairly full ...."22 Now substitute
"today"
and "the U.S.A." for "Britain" and "1882" in the
above quotation. If "the proof of the pudding" is at least
partly "in
the eating," just perhaps our rude forefathers could teach us something,
if we would but listen.
REFERENCES
1Paul McGuire, There's Freedom for the Brave (New York: William Morrow and Co.,
1949), p. 266.
2Earle B. Cairns, Saints and Society (Chicago: Moody Press,
1960), p. 21.
3Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (New York: Random
House, Modern Library edition, 1937), p. 128.
4lbid., p. 537
5Ibid., p. 460.
6Ibid., p. 651.
7Richard C. Bernhard, Economics (Boston: D. C. Heath and
Co., 1954), p. 733.
8William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England
(Philadelphia: Bees Welsh
and Co., Lewis' edition, 1902), Vol. I, p. 31.
9A. Cressy Morrison, Man Does Not Stand Alone (New York:
Fleming H. Revell Co., 1944), pp. 7 & 8.
10Frederic Bastiat, Economic Harmonies (Princeton: D. Van
Nostrand Co., 1964), p. xxiv.
11Eric Williams, Capitalism and Slavery (New York: Capri
corn Books, i966-original U. of North Carolina Press, 1944), p. 210.
12J. C. Furnas, The Road to Harper's Ferry (New York: William Sloane
Associates,
1959), pp. 157-162.
13Ibid., pp. 248-262.
14Robert William Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman, Time on the Cross
(Boston: Little,
Brown and Co., 1974), p. 196.
15W. E. F. Ward, The Royal Navy and the Slavers (London: George Allen
and Unwin,
Ltd., 1969), p. 19.
16James A. Michener, iberia, Spanish Travels and Reflections
(New York: Random House, 1968), pp. 23 and 24.
17Ceorge Barnett Smith, The Life and Speeches of the Right
Hon. John Bright, M. P. (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1881), Vol. I,
p. 133.
18Asa Briggs, The Making of Modern England, 1783-1867 (New York:
Harper and Row,
Publishers, Torchbooks, 1959), p. 317.
19Asa Briggs, Victorian People (New York: Harper and Row, Colophon
Books-original
U. of Chicago Press, 1955), p. 202.
20Eduard Heimann, History of Economic Doctrines (New York: Oxford U.
Press, 1945-as
a Galaxy Bank, 1964), pp. 123-124.
21G. B. Smith, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 100-116.
22Alhert H. Flobbs.,'Welfarism and Orwell's Reversal,"
Intercollegiate Review
(Spring, 1970), p. 107.
RICHARD V. PIERARD
Many Christians wholeheartedly endorse the position that capitalism is a form
of economics whose precepts are in accordance with biblical teaching.
They contend
it is the force that made America the great nation she is today, but
unfortunately
we are abandoning the economic principles of our founding fathers for
the seductive
allurements of socialism. As evangelical publicist James Hefley
laments: "The
cherished American free enterprise system and its ideological ally,
the Protestant
work ethic" has received "the biggest black eyes" for
our current
economic ills. College students are being led astray by professors
and textbooks
that "acclaim socialism as a better system" and "argue
the advantages
over capitalism, of a socialistic system."+1
The now defunct magazine Christian Economics has perhaps been the
most forthright
spokesman for the position that laissez-faire capitalism (more
accurately, economic
individualism) is Christian. Editor H. Edward Rowe once wrote: "The right
to private property is established by all Biblical prohibitions
against coveting
and stealing . . . . Where the Scriptural concept of private property
is upheld,
men are economically free and capitalism exists."2 Brushing
aside objections
by an evangelical critic, Rowe asserted:
Those who make light of capitalism, even in subtle ways, are
undermining freedom.
Men who do not have the privilege of free exchange in the market place are not
free men. In a very profound and meaningful sense, Jesus Christ died
to purchase
freedom for enslaved men.
The spiritual freedom which is available through a personal relationship with
Jesus Christ is the basis of all freedoms in the social and economic
realm.3
In a persuasive manner the advocates of laissezfaire capitalism read
their principles
into the Ten Commandments.4 The First Commandment "you shall have no other
gods before me," it is said, downgrades the state and its responsibility
to maintain community. The only alternative to individualism is collectivism,
where man is exploited by his fellows. The Mosaic injunction against stealing
makes "the power of ownership" absolute-black or white, "I own
a thing or I don't." Any attempt at redistributing wealth in an equitable
fashion through government action or taxation procedures is
"Robin Hood justice,
in which the rich are robbed and the poor share in the loot."5
Such people have their biblical proof texts. The Lord your God "is he who
gives you power to get wealth" (Dent. 8:18) sustains the right of the rich
to be rich. "You always have the poor with you" (Mt. 26:11)
and "Blessed
are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of God" (Lu. 6:20) affirm poverty
as a part of God's moral order and suggest he will take care of their needs in
due time. The debacle of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 4:32-5:11) proves the early
church had missed the will of God in attempting to establish a
collectivist economy.
Paul's statement, "If any one will not work,
let him not eat" (II Th. 3:10) is a condemnation of the welfare
state idea.
Some claim the parables illustrate a capitalist conception of
economic life. The
sower of the tares (weeds) committed the immoral act of devaluating another's
possessions. (Mt. 13:24-30) The treasure hidden in the field portrays a person
motivated by profit to expend freely his existing wealth in order to acquire a
larger amount. (Mt. 13:44) The account of the laborers in the
vineyard acknowledges
the right of a person to do as he wishes with his property. Since the
master had
"contracted" to pay the going wage, those who worked all day suffered
no injustice. (Mt. 21:33-41) The story of the talents teaches that ability is
the reason for inequality in personal possessions. (Mt. 25:14-30)6
Such an effort to establish a Scriptural basis for laissez-faire capitalism is
bound to be selfdefeating. One can just as easily argue that capitalist values
are condemned by the Ten Commandments. Substantial portions of the Pentateuch,
poetic literature, and prophetic writings of the Old Testament deal
with the just
treatment of the economically disadvantaged. The teachings of Jesus
and the exemplarly
actions of the early church underline the importance of human
compassion and concern
for others.
In actuality, many features of the system run at cross purposes to Christianity.
Let us look at these more closely. The capitalist emphasis on individualism is
much at odds with the biblical teaching, stressing community and the
individual's
role as a part of the larger group. The Old Testament conceives of God and man
in a social relationship, and the covenants between Yahweh and his
people underscore
this theme of community. The dangers of individualism with its
glorification and
isolation of self can be seen in the repeated urgings for Israel to turn away
from the pursuit of personal wealth and power and to renew the
covenant of social
justice and communal obligations. In the New Testament we see the
selfless Jesus
dedicating himself in suffering love to the formation of a new people and the
Apostles establishing and nurturing church communities where the common good in
all aspects of life was promoted.
Contrast this with the practice of modern capitalism which fosters the kind of
individualism interested only in maximizing profits instead of that
which resists
group tyranny and is concerned with personal welfare. Rather than arguing that
the abuses of society should be corrected so underprivileged people could also
experience individual freedom, the capitalist retreats to the logic of social
Darwinism. Although American businessmen usually have explained their success
in terms of self-help, hard work, and Christian virtue rather than
the Darwinian
struggle for existence and survival of the fittest,7 Richard
Hofstadter ably demonstrates
that entrepreneurs "accepted almost by instinct" the Darwinian concepts that seemingly portrayed the condition of
their existence.
In 1889 Andrew Carnegie wrote concerning the "law of
competition" that
however much we may object to its apparent harshness: "It is
here; we cannot
evade it; no substitutes for it have been found; and while the law
may sometimes
he hard for the individual, it is best for the race, because it
insures the survival
of the fittest in every department." Or there is the revealing remark once
made by the prominent Baptist layman John D. Rockefeller before a Sunday school
group:
The growth of a large business is merely a survival of
the fittest . he American Beauty rose can be produced in the splendor and fragrance which bring cheer to its beholder only by
sacrificing the early buds which grow up around it. This is not an
evil tendency
in business. It is merely the working-out of a law of nature and a
law of God.
Moreover, capitalism places far too much emphasis upon materialissn. The goal
of life is to make money and accumulate possessions. The market place
is deified
as the controlling force in economic relationships, and people have no value as
created beings apart from their economic functions. The biblical
mandate to seek
first the kingdom of God is replaced by the quest for a complacent, comfortable
life with little or no regard for the needs of others or the
cultivation of spiritual
values.
Lacking in laissez-faire capitalism with its impersonal free market mechanism
is a genuine concern for human beings as people. The Scriptures teach
that "the
laborer deserves his wages" (Lu. 10:7), but according to an
articulate free
enterprise spokesman, Southern Presbyterian minister John H. Richardson, this
means:
The only just standard that men have to determine the worth of a man's labor is
the market's demand. In a free society reward is based upon
production, and production
is evaluated by the market, - . . His service to mankind we can only determine
by the market, while his service to God will be fully rewarded at last only by
God.9
This would harmonize well with the "iron law of wages" popularized by
the early nineteenth century classical economist David Ricardo which held that
a laborer's actual pay could not rise above the minimum subsistence level for
any prolonged period because the usual increase in population and the price of
foodstuffs would force wages back to the "natural" level,
In other words
the laissez-faire system doomed a person to perpetual poverty.
Do not forget that the same advocates of laissezfaire in Britain who
secured the
repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 were also responsible for the New Poor Law of
1834. This measure was based on the capitalistic principle that
anything, including
public charity, which interfered with the natural law of supply and demand was
undesirable. The result was the establishment of prison-like
workhouses for paupers
where families were separated, men assigned to petty, menial tasks,
and the barest
minimum of fond, clothing, and shelter provided. It was assumed that pauperism
was in most cases culpable, and indigency was due to personal
weakness, Improvement
could be effected by individual effort, if the person only had the
necessary will
and determination."' The grim, forbidding atmosphere of the work house was designed to provide that motivation. Yet, this inhuman
secular approach
to the desperate situation of the victims of industrial society hardly misses
the mark any farther than the opinion expressed by Carl Mclntire and shared by
a great many evangelicals who otherwise reject his controversial
political views:
"The best remedy for poverty is the Word of God.11
Capitalism can also be faulted for its selfishness,
that is, people are free to do with their wealth and property as they see fit.
As the well-known Christian philosopher Rousas Rushdoony puts it:
"The right
to property is a God-given right. Ownership is evidence of work and character.
Property gives power to man and the family. It is God's will, clearly declared
in Scripture, that man possess, develop, and use land and personal
property, under
God,"12
This ignores a large body of biblical teaching that wealth is given so that it
may be used responsibly, for the benefit of one's neighbor. Ownership
is relative,
not absolute, and the poor have a claim upon the affluent person's possessions.
(Dent. 15:7-8) The prophet Amos' incisive critique of the abuses of
riches underscores
the point that it is not so much the amount of one's wealth that matters as the
method in which it is acquired and utilized. Passages like Proverbs
30:8-9 suggest
that the best thing in life is a modicum of this world's goods, since affluence
and poverty alike carry the danger of idolizing material possessions.
The experience of the industrial revolution makes it quite clear we should not
expect a person of means to look out for the interests of both his neighbor and
society in general. The noted British public figure and evangelical layman, Sir
Frederick Catherwood, reminds us that the government of necessity had
to undertake
the regulation of business.
Though the tremendous power which was being developed by the
Industrial Revolution
could and did work for the good of humanity, there could he no
security that that
was what it would do unless it was brought under conscious discipline, and that
discipline could only be imposed by the assumption by the public of constantly
increasing discretionary powers.13
This selfishness is revealed by the amazing disparities in personal income that
exist in countries with capitalistic economic systems in spite of the
great wealth
they produce. For instance, the top 20% of families in the United
States receive
42% of the national income and the upper 5% get 19.6% of the total. The bottom
20% receive only 5%,14 Free market economists bitterly protest all expansion of
social services as a socialistic redistribution of wealth, yet the
amount allocated
for defense and national security matters in the federal budget consistently is
four to five times that laid out for items like education, programs
for the needy,
housing, and health. And then there is the global aspect of income
maldistribution-the
difference between the industrialized nations of the northern
hemisphere and the
developing countries of the south.
It is apparent that laissez-faire capitalism, although its
contributions are numerous,
significant, and often meritorious, must be modified or even replaced by a kind
of system that will insure a wider measure of social and economic
justice. Perhaps
this will require some form of democratic socialism, or maybe it can
be done through
a substantial revamping of our present political and economic order. I would suggest guidelines for Christian action
in this regard.
First, Christians should do all they can to make
society more righteous. They should insist that there be an adequate
minimum standard
of care for those unable to support themselves-youths, the infirm, mothers with
dependent children, the elderly. The absolute right of every able-bodied, adult
man and woman to gainful employment should be guaranteed. Equality of
opportunity
must also be upheld. All the wonderful virtues of hard work,
integrity, honesty,
and thrift are meaningless if the social system blocks an individual's movement
at the very beginning just because of race, sex, or social class standing. In
other words the Christian is obligated to take a stand on the side of justice
for all people.
Second, believers must view the government as a
positive force for the achievement of social and economic justice. It
is the only
agency with enough power to counteract the giant combines which
characterize modern
capitalism. It can force businesses to pay more attention to the human needs of
their employees, prevent them from plundering the environment for the sake of
quick, short-run profits, and guarantee the protection of consumers'
rights. Government
action is needed to insure minimum living standards and to bring about a more
equitable distribution of income.
It is not enough that Christian citizens actively participate in public life,
because even status quo conservatives advocate that. Rather,
Christians must bring
to their involvement the proper kind of values-above all, a radical commitment
to justice for all people and the recognition that "human
rights" must
at times take precedence over "property rights." They must
be flexible
and innovative, willing to experiment with different political and
economic schemes,
as they search for one that might benefit larger segments of the
population than
the present order seems to be doing.
We should not ignore the risks that exist in this. There are powerful
vested interests
who will resist any sort of change that jeopardizes their preeminent social and
economic standing. It will be difficult to sidestep the cumbersome governmental bureaucracies which grow like cancers on
the body politic, throttling and choking out imaginative approaches to helping
people. There is always the danger of swinging too far toward the opposite pole
of a depersonalizing collectivism that submerges and tyrannizes the individual
in a manner similar to what capitalism does to the poor. Still, if we wish to
"let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an everlasting
stream" and to show forth our faith by our works, we must go
forth in trust,
letting our lights so shine before men that they may see our good
works and give
glory to the Father in heaven.
REFERENCES
1James C. Hefley, America-One Nation Under God (Wheaton, IL: Victor
Books, 1975),
p. 63.
2Christian Economics, 23 (Sep. 1971), 8.
3Christion Economics, 23 (May 1971), 8. He was referring to Tom
Skinner's address
at Urbana 70.
4For examples of this see Howard F. Kershner, God, Gold and
Government (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1957); T. Robert Ingram, The
World Under God's Law (Houston: St. Thomas Press, 1962); and Irving E. Howard,
The Christian Alternative to Socialism (Arlington, VA: Better Books, 1966).
5Ingram, World Under God's Law, pp. 94, 97.
6Larry Thornton, "The Parabolic Teaching of Christ on
Economics," Central
Bible Quarterly, 13 (Fall 1970), 20-35.
7lrvin G. Wyllie, The Self-Made Man in America: The Myth of Rags to Riches (New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1954), p. 87.
8Richard Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought (Boston: Beacon Press,
1955), pp. 44-6.
9John R. Richardson, Christian Economics: Studies in the
Christian Message to the Market Place (Houston: St. Thomas Press,
1966), p. 28.
10J. F. C. Harrison, The Early Victorians, 1832-51 (New York: Fraeger, 1971),
pp. 85-6.
11Qnoted in Erling Jorstad, The Politics of Doomsday (Nashville:
Abingdon, 1970),
p. 149.
12Roosas J. Rnshdoony, Bread Upon the Waters (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1969),
pp. 28, 30.
13F. R. Catherwood, The Christian in Industrial Society (London: Tyndale Press,
1964), p. 56.
14Economic Report of the President (Washington: US GPO, 1964), p. 60.
These figures
were compiled in 1962 and no significant shift in the ratios has occurred since
then.
WHERE AMERICA MISSED THE WAY
Edward Coleson
In the spring or summer of 1933 a minister whom I know got up behind the pulpit
one Sunday morning and condemned the new "farm program" of
the Secretary
of Agriculture, Henry A. Wallace. He said that in a world where
millions of people
were cold and hungry that the policy of "plowing under cotton and killing
little pigs" was wicked. One of the members who was busy helping FDR with
the New Deal severely reprimanded his pastor. He told him to "preach the
Gospel and stay out of politics." Yet, if the practice of
artificially reducing
the production of food in a hungry world is not a moral question, there are no
moral questions. I wouldn't want to defend this policy before the judge of all the earth. Would you? Nevertheless, the
Christian socialists
in our midst have been so busy denouncing capitalist sins, ancient and modem,
that they have found no time to consider their own shortcomings.
What we see with Mr. Roosevelt's New Deal is a dramatic revival of the ancient
system of mercantilism which ruined Spain and France a few centuries ago. All
the regulations, controls, subsidies and restrictions which had once throttled
Western Europe were back and with a vengeance. Actually, the United States has
never been truly free enterprise in all its history; as James Truslow Adams' so
eloquently told us, Alexander Hamilton started us off in 1789 with a policy of
protective tariffs and favors for the few. This mistake nearly precipitated the
Civil War a generation before it happened and was an important cause
of the coming
of that tragic conflict in 1861. In spite of our aversion to imports
we did build
up a vast export trade over the years (we did not see that international trade
is simply "swapping"-that imports must equal exports over
time, if everyone
is going to get paid.) Yet in the first three decades of this century
we did export
about a fourth of our wheat, nearly two thirds of our cotton, and more than a
third of our tobacco.2 After the Crash of '29 the Republicans passed
the Smoot-Hawley
Tariff, which killed our foreign trade and the "agricultural surplus"
began to pile up. Mr. Roosevelt did the obvious: he simply plowed it
under (anyone
who thinks that is only my bias needs only to read Henry A. Wallace's
New Frontiers,
copyright 1934). F.D.R. also started an expensive system of
government controls,
subsidies, welfare and all the rest which has driven this country to the brink
of ruin and will no doubt push it over into the abyss. Yet there are
pious people-and
intelligent ones too-who believe the New Deal and modern versions thereof are
Christian. Something needed to be done in '33, but F.D.R., like Hoover before
him, did all the wrong things.
It is unfortunate that we have made so little effort to understand
the Great Depression
and why it came. Of course, Robert L. Heilbroner3 tells us that the Crash was
"an absolutely numbing intellectual shock
since . . . no one could explain why the economic mechanism was not
working."
This is needless ignorance. In January of 1933, a few weeks before
Mr. Roosevelt
took office, a number of prominent university economists in America
wrote an open
letter to F.D.R., urging him to stay on gold and reduce tariffs.
Benjamin M. Anderson,4
who was one of the signers of that letter, insisted that freer trade would have
brought immediate recovery to the nation and relief to our
impoverished farmers.
It would also have saved the "have-not" nations the virtual necessity
of going to war to secure food for their peoples. His contention that
open markets
and free enterprise would have brought instant prosperity may seem an
overstatement,
unless one remembers the spectacular German recovery after World War
II, the Economic
Miracle under Ludwig Erhard.5 No one has called what happened during New Deal
days the Roosevelt Miracle (actually prosperity returned on December 8, 1941-the day after Pearl Harbor). Just perhaps a correct economic
policy in America
would have saved us those long years of depression and the second
World War.
Today a battered and bankrupt nation must do what we should have done long ago.
First of all, we need to repent of our sins and get right with God. Secondly,
we need to revise our theory of law: our laws should be simple, direct, and a
modem interpretation of the moral law (Cod's Law). Then we should all go back
to work, including millions of Americans who should be eased off welfare (a few
should be left on relief). We also need to stop our global give-aways, except
"ambulance operations" in times of disaster; if people want
our stuff,
they should pay for it. It just cannot be Christian to pauperize people. Then
the "haves" in America should stop striving for
ridiculously high profits
and wages, quit "featherbedding" and stop limiting entry into every
trade and profession. Let's get back on sound money. Let's fire
millions of bureaucrats
and reduce taxes to a fraction of the present level. I could go on,
but I'm sure
the reader is convinced already that the proposed program of reconstruction is
impossible. Yet much of this is what the British did in the early years of the
last century. The alternative today is revolution with dictators of the Hitler
and Stalin variety. Does America have the moral fiber and the
Christian good sense
to do what must be done? I pray that we may.
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray,
and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear
from heaven,
and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. II Chron. 7:14.
REFERENCES
1James Truslow Adams, Our Business Civilization (Albert and Charles
Boni publishers,
location not given, 1929), pp. 83-97.
2Stephen Enke and Virgil Salera, International Economics (New York:
Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1947), p. 39.
3Robert L. Heilhroner, Understanding Macro-economics (Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., fourth edition, 1972), p. 2.
4Benjamin M. Anderson, Economics and the Public Welfare (Princeton:
D. Van Nostrand
Co., 1949), pp. 301-307.
5Onkel Ludi' at the Helm," Newsweek, pp. 52-57 (Oct. 7, 1963).
REBUTTAL
It should be obvious to the reader by this point in the discussion that Pierard
is a pious pragmatist; he believes in "playing it by
ear"-in a Christian
way of course. He insists that the "British evangelicals who
worked for the
abolition of slavery" were confused. The confusion is in the
minds of modern
Christians. We have so completely forgotten our past that we do not know that
there once were people who insisted that the laws of men must he based on the
moral law. If Adam Smith and William Blackstone were not that devout,
it is well
to remember that John Wesley said the same thing:
"Notwithstanding ten thousand
laws, right is right and wrong is wrong still." It is possible to build a system on principle, Christian principles, at that.
When we stand with Joshua and the Hebrews at the Mountains of
Blessing and Cursing,
it is obvious that the Bible teaches that the moral law is a sufficient guide
for the conduct of the affairs of men and nations (Deuteronomy,
chapters 27 through
30 and Joshua 8:30-35). Christ also was emphatic that He was not "come to
destroy the law" (Matt. 5:17). Therefore take your Bible and your history
book and review the New Deal and much that has happened since. Would the farm
program, NRA codes, the prohibition on ownership of gold and a
multitude of other
devious arrangements stand close scrutiny in the light of Scriptural
principles?
They were pragmatic makeshifts and have created more problems than they solved.
That is why New York City and the rest of us are faced with today's
dilemma.
Those British evangelicals, who laid the foundation for Victorian
prosperity and
power, were a long way from "social Darwinism." They
believed that God
had created a harmonious universe where all things could work
together for good,
if we would only obey Him. They were men of compassion with a strong sense of
community. The "Good Samaritans" today may be socialists, but it has
not always been so. Before our left-wing Christians help push us over
the brink,
they would do well to examine the record. They might even help to save us from
the equivalent of the French Revolution, just as those English
evangelicals saved
their country in their time of crisis.
Their achievements are not a figment of my imagination. An impressive list of
authorities, Christian and secular, can be cited to support my view. Professor
Cairns' of Wheaton College, for one, tells us that the political arm
of the Wesleyan
Revival accomplished more than any reform movement in history. Would
that we could
do as well.
REFERENCES
1Earle E. Cairns, Saints and Society (Chicago: Moody Press, 1960), p. 43.
Where America Missed the Way
Richard V. Pierard
The powerful National Association of Manufacturers declared some years ago that
our "private enterprise system and our American form of
government are inseparable
and there can be no compromise between a free economy and
governmentally dictated
economy without endangering our political as well as our economic
freedom."'
The assumption here is that individual freedom is being squashed by the growth
of a hierarchical, bureaucratic state and thus we need to return to an earlier
day when government seemingly was restricted to those few functions which were
necessary to preserve the greatest measure of individual freedom. This evokes,
nostalgically, the Jeffersonian imagery of a republic composed of self-sufficient, self-reliant small farmers
and craftsmen,
where everyone maintained their autonomy and at the same time participated in
the process of government.
Actually this ideology of economic independence as the basis of the
American political
order has been effectively negated, not so much by the growth of big government
as by the emergence of large-scale corporate enterprise.2 The natural right to
the private ownership of productive property which is implicit in the founding
documents of the American nation was strongly emphasized by early thinkers like
Jefferson as being the essential economic basis of a free citizenry.
But, modern
corporate capitalism has expropriated the property and independent livelihood
of the vast majority of farmers, artisans, and merchants, and they
have been transformed
into wage-earners who are at the mercy of vast structures over which
they as individuals
can exercise no control. The supermarket has displaced the corner grocer, the
factory has absorbed the skilled craftsman, and corporate agriculture
has virtually
wiped out the family farm. This destruction of the small individual
entrepreneur
took place under the guise of "free enterprise" and with
the overt collusion
of the government which provided the large firms with tax advantages,
subsidies,
tariff protection, and various other favors.
At the same time political power became concentrated in corporate
hands and until
recently it was seldom subject to any kind of accountability. One
need only look
at our ravaged environment-the rivers that are open sewers, the
moon-like landscape
resulting from strip mining, the smoke pall hovering over our cities and he reminded
of the rapacious unrestrained individualism of American business
enterprise. Economic
considerations take first place in political decisions, and the
guiding principle
is that private profit is the public good. The general welfare is not
a priority
consideration for the great corporation-only the maximizing of profits.
The dehumanizing nature of modern American corporate capitalism ought to compel
Christians to cry out in protest. It forces the individual into the mold of conformity
(do you remember the company that required its male employees to wear
white shirts
and ties-the "image"?) and places the free worker in the
chains of wage
slavery. The average citizen is manipulated by unscrupulous
advertising and thrust
into the never ending cycle of consumerism that keeps him spiritually
and economically
impoverished. The political crises of the Nixon-Agnew Administration and Ford's
continued insensitivity to human needs hammer home the reality that in spite of
the real gains made in the last forty years, our political system is still very
much beholden to the great corporate power interests.
It is clear to me that the socially conscious disciple of Christ must
demand fundamental
changes in our political and economic order from the top on down, and I would
suggest that the guidelines set forth in the National Urban
Coalition's intriguing
Counterbudget provide a useful starting point.3 This proposal calls for increases in federal expenditures for health care, social security,
income support for poor families, education, law enforcement,
improvement of public
services at state and local levels, housing and urban development, improvement
of mass transit facilities, environment protection, and foreign
development aid.
Significant reductions would occur in such areas as highway
construction, agricultural
subsidies, and above all national defense and military assistance. Through more
equitable taxation and reallocation of budgetary expenditures much
could be done
to improve the quality of life for all of our citizens.
We Americans have put too much weight upon the acquisition of
material possessions
at the expense of spiritual, aesthetic, and cultural values. In a way we have
been "conned" by the system through high wages and the
lavish production
of consumer goods into believing that we live in the best of all
possible worlds.
The current political scandals, the Vietnam debacle, and the energy crisis are
hopefully serving to shock us out of our complacency. They may bring us to the
realization that we live in a mutually interdependent world and that
rugged individualism
is not a viable option either for personal or national survival. Our
acquisitive
society with its stress on the relentless pursuit of profit and wealth must be
modified by a reassertion of the importance of community and concern for each
other. Possibly this type of repentance will enable America to find
her way back
to the path of national righteousness which she has missed.
For the day of the LORD is near upon all the nations.
As you have done, it shall be done to you, your deeds shall return on your own
head.
Obadiah 15
REFERENCES
1National Association of Manufacturers, The American Individual
Enterprise System:
Its Nature, Evolution, and Future
(New York: McGraw-Hill, 1946), II, 1021.
2Robert N. Bellah ably demonstrates this in his new book
The Broken Covenant: American Civil Religion in Time
of Trial (New York: Seabury Press, 1975), ch. 5.
3Robert S. Benson and Harold Wolman, eds., Counterbudget:
A Blueprint for Changing National Priorities 1971-1976 (New York:
Praeger, 1971).
REBUTTAL
A well-known Christian scholar, John H. Redekop,
reminds us that the creed of individualism must not be confused with a concern
for individual welfare. "There is little indication of any desire that the
abuses of society should be corrected so that underprivileged individuals might
also learn what individual freedom means."' That in a nutshell
is the greatest
defect of the position advanced by Coleson.
Laissez-faire capitalism, based as it is on the rationalist premises
of the eighteenth
century Enlightenment, does not adequately take into account the
human propensity
for sin. Will businessmen, each pursuing their own interests unhampered by any
external force other than the exigencies of the market and a state functioning
merely as a passive policeman, conduct themselves in an "honest way" and insure the welfare of the
total community?
I think not. Each will look out for "Number One" and if "getting
ahead" means that others will be crushed in the process, so it
will be.
It is noteworthy that those British evangelicals who worked for the abolition
of slavery went against the cherished principles of laissez-faire. They placed
the "human rights" of the AfroAmerican slaves above the
"property
rights" of the plantation owners. By obtaining legislation
halting the traffic
in slaves, they interfered with "free trade." They utilized the power
of the state to eliminate a social abuse. To identify this radical
departure from
laissez-faire as "capitalism with a conscience" makes about as much
sense as talking about "communism with a human face,"
I contend there is no such thing as a Christian economic system, but
only practices
and approaches in the social and economic realm that may be in
harmony with biblical
principles. The moment we pin the label "Christian" on a system, we
have limited God and merely sanctified our own economic views. It is extremely
difficult to draw distinctions between ordinary concerns of self-interest and
genuinely Christian motivations in a person's behavior. So, to endow something
so solidly grounded on self-interest as laissez-faire capitalism with
the exalted
status of a Christian system is peculiarly unwarranted and fraught
with perils.
What we need instead is an approach which contributes directly to the economic
and social wellbeing of all people, not one where the benefits accrue largely
to the possessors of wealth and hopefully some "goodies" trickle down
to the impoverished masses. Certainly that would be more "Christian"
than laissez-faire capitalism.
REFERENCES
lJohn H. Redekop, The American For Right (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1968), p. 108.