By Joe Stocker
I was invited by my dear
friend to write a response to his paper “A Biblical Defense of Capitalism" that can be found at:
http://theologyx.blogspot.com/2014/10/a-biblical-defense-of-capitalism-by-lee.html
When I first read the
title of Ed’s paper, I was pessimistic that he could make a case to defend
Capitalism because it seems to me to be an inherently selfish system where the
rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Consider these facts:
-
“In America today,
the top 1 percent owns 38 percent of the financial wealth of America. The bottom
60 percent owns 2.3 percent.
-
In America today,
one family, the Walton family of Walmart, owns more wealth than the bottom 40
percent, while the top 400 individuals in this country own more wealth than the
bottom half of the nation – over 150 million people.
-
In terms of income,
the top 1 percent earns more income than the bottom 50 percent, while the
wealthiest 16,000 Americans, who make more than $10 million a year (the top
0.01 percent), saw their income increase by nearly a third from 2011 to
2012.
-
According to the
most recent study, from 2009 to 2012, 95 percent of all new income went to the
top 1 percent. Meanwhile, since 1999, median family income declined by more
than $5,000 after adjusting for inflation.
-
Today, a
record-breaking 46.5 million people live in poverty in the United States. One
out of every four kids in this country does not know when his next meal will
come.”[i]
These facts seem to
indicate that the “invisible hand” that Adam Smith wrote about has become a
symbol of human greed? I’m not advocating a revolution, but I’m also not ready
to defend Capitalism as a shining Biblical economy. I am not prepared to go
further than Jesus, who permitted paying Taxes to Caesar.
I am looking forward to
the millennial reign of Jesus Christ and I will submit to whatever form of
economy He sovereignly ordains but until that time I am content to obey my
rulers as the Bible instructs me to. The Kingdom of Heaven reigns and rules in
the hearts of all believers now, it is both a present Kingdom in our heart, and
a real place in the future.
The primary thesis of Ed’s
paper is that “free market capitalism is the economic model most compatible
with the economic principles delineated by the authors of sacred Scripture.” I
was surprised to find that He did not recommend any economic system found in
the Old Testament, especially since that would have matched the most closely
with the thesis of being the most compatible with Scripture. For example, the
Old Testament Law required debt forgiveness and a redistribution of private
property.
“Count off seven sabbath years—seven times seven
years—so that the seven sabbath years amount to a period of forty-nine years. Then have the trumpet sounded everywhere on
the tenth day of the seventh month; on the Day of Atonement sound the trumpet
throughout your land. Consecrate the
fiftieth year and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants.
It shall be a jubilee for you; each of you is to return to your family property
and to your own clan. The fiftieth year shall be a jubilee for you; do not sow
and do not reap what grows of itself or harvest the untended vines. For it is a jubilee and is to be holy for you;
eat only what is taken directly from the fields. In this Year of Jubilee everyone is to return to their own property.”
(Lev 25:8-13)
This is a Biblical economic principal not adopted by
Capitalism, and yet we don’t find Ed advocating for it in his paper. Why not?
Historically, the Nation
of Israel had its own sovereign economic system with Saul as its first king in
1020 BC, followed by King David, and his son Solomon. The land was conquered by
the Assyrians in 722, and then the Babylonians who destroyed the first temple
in 586 BC, then the Persians, and the Greeks in 330 BC, and the Romans in 63
BC. The land changed hands a few times more and ultimately the Nation of Israel
was given back her land in 1948. If we
were to roll back the clock and consider the economic system under King David
and Solomon, could we be inspired by those Biblical systems to improve our own
even if that meant something other than Capitalism? This is a question Ed’s
paper does not raise, but should if it is going to claim having an end goal of
finding a system that is most compatible with the authors of the sacred
Scripture.
Ed writes “the weaknesses
of other economic and political systems is primarily that there is no incentive
to go above and beyond since everyone is paid at the same level.” However, this
presupposes that all motivation for hard work is monetary, whereas Jesus Christ
tells the soldiers in Luke 3:14 to be content with their pay. Paul said that he
was able to find contentment in whatever circumstances he was in (Phil 4:11).
The New Testament teaches that our motivation for work should be that we are
working unto the Lord “Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as
working for the Lord, not for human masters” (Colossians 3:23).
Collectivism
in the New Testament
The early church clearly
practiced collectivism:
“All the believers were
together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to
give to anyone who had need” (Acts 2:44-45)
The early church had a
welfare program:
“In those days when the
number of disciples was increasing, the Hellenistic Jews among them complained
against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the
daily distribution of food” (Acts 6:1)
So what would be the harm
in the Government providing a similar service on a larger scale? It has
Biblical support, after all. It would be an argument from silence to suggest
otherwise.
If our
Government is aware of a citizen who needs food or clothes, aren’t we as a
nation guilty if we don’t take action?
“If
anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no
pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with
actions and in truth.” 1st John 3:17
“Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and
faultless is this: to look after orphans
and widows in their distress”
James 1:27
I for one would
advocate for a Government that matches my own heart, one that is looking after
those citizens, my fellow
countrymen who are widowed, orphaned, or perhaps
hunted down by human slave masters (human trafficking). What I fear is that a “basic capitalism”
system advocated by Ed and others would deny funds for these types of programs.
To me, that would be a social and moral evil that we would all be guilty of. A
sin of omission. “If
anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn't do it, it is sin for
them.” James 4:17.
“Suppose
a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep
warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is
it?”
“Basic
capitalism”
I would have liked to see Ed
elaborate deeper on the limits of the proposed system coined “basic
capitalism.” For example, would there be any anti-trust authority to break up
harmful monopolies (imagine if Exxon bought Chevron and there was only a single
supplier of Gasoline in America) or imagine if there was only one electric or
water supplier to citizens and they decided to increase their profits and we
had no other sources or means to obtain an alternative? In these cases, Adam
Smith’s invisible hand needs to be slapped by Uncle Sam.
Submitting
to Authority
I would have liked Ed to
point out that although it is Biblical to submit to government, there are
certain times when it is necessary not to (for example, to submit to Hitler’s
commands to execute innocent Jews). General George Washington inspired his
troops by reading out loud “The American Crisis” (by Thomas Paine) which points
out their cause was to conquer tyranny:
“These are the times that try men's souls: The
summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the
service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and
thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered; yet we
have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious
the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness
only that gives everything its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price
upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as
freedom should not be highly rated.”
What
is the solution?
In the opening paragraph of
Ed’s essay, we are given facts to support America’s economy is faltering due to
a debt of 16 Trillian dollars, however, we are then told that we should still
stick with free market capitalism because it is the most compatible with the
Bible. The paper as a whole does make a strong case that it is the most
compatible compared to socialism and communism, but it fails to offer any
solutions how our current capitalistic system can reverse its course. If it is
so strong, then why is China’s communist economy larger than the American
economy according to the International Monetary Fund? (http://www.businessinsider.com/china-overtakes-us-as-worlds-largest-economy-2014-10)
The strongest Biblical
case the paper makes for personal property (in contrast with collectivism) is
this phrase:
“Decalogue
itself argues that in order for a person to steal or covet another person’s
items that in fact must be the possession of another, thus demonstrating that
personal property rights are inherent”
The paper fails (in my
opinion) to make a connection between the right to own personal property and
the right of the Government to tax its citizens a higher rate to pay for the
less fortunate or those who cannot work because of a disability or illness.
This is in essence what Socialism is, which could be more Biblical because of
its strong emphasis on mercy and compassion. Unfortunately the paper is largely
silent on the issue of taxation as it relates to a redistribution of wealth
through higher taxation.
When Jesus Christ came to earth, his followers
wanted him to overthrow the Roman government. Jesus declined and therefore
allowed the secular Government to continue ruling over Israel, much like how
God allowed the Assyrians, Persians, and Babylonians to rule over Israel as a
divine Judgment. This shows us that God’s primary plan is redemption of souls,
not revolutions of governments. God will use whatever means necessary,
including pagan governments to crush our hearts so that we will be drawn to our
Savior Jesus Christ. Jesus told us that if the world hated him, it will hate us
too. He told us that we would have tribulation in this world (John 16:33).
The Bible’s true purpose is to describe God’s
redemptive plan to reconcile sinners to Himself. Using the Bible to inspire
economic and political systems should secondary to accomplishing God’s primary pursuit
to rescue lost souls. We should seek to put God’s Kingdom first in our life and
then we will see clearly how to organize and construct earthly Kingdoms (Matthew
6:33) when it is in our power to do so.
The welfare state is not perfect, however to argue
against having welfare would be a moral evil. Poor people could starve to death
if there are no available employment opportunities. Yes, the current system is
being abused, however, it should be reformed and not replaced, otherwise it
would be a greater evil to have people starve to death than to have people
abuse the system.
This type of reform occurred in the Book of acts when some
widows were being overlooked in the distribution of food (a Biblical welfare
system that the early church used to take care of the widows). There was reform
needed and so Stephen was appointed to make sure that people were not
discriminated against and overlooked. So the Bible advocates reform of welfare
when it is abused, not abolishment.
Meno Lowenstein, former professor of economics at
Ohio State University defined economics as “the study of how man uses scarce
resources to satisfy his wants or needs.” An Evangelical would not limit
resources to himself, but instead, it would be extended to meet the needs of
his family, his brethren in the church, and the orphans and widows of society
who cannot provide for themselves.
The conclusion ends with “by implementing sound
Biblical principles of economics, this nation can stem the tide of financial
chaos that is presently ravishing our great land.”
This rhetoric is thundering but lacks a specific
solution. For example, if free market capitalism is the economic model most
compatible with the economic principles in the Scriptures, and if that system
is in financial chaos, then it doesn’t seem to be the solution if it is part of
the problem.
