Something I've been wrestling with lately is the relationship between religion and politics. Particularly, my own background is both Christian and conservative, and there are certainly many people in the same category. Many of the same people espousing principles of liberty also publicly declare their faith in God.
Are the two notions, conservatism and Christianity, truly connected? Is there an inherent bias toward certain political dogmas among traditional Christians? Even more specifically, is the economic system of free-market capitalism truly the most moral of secular options the religious man might support?
I see two major points of contention within this question: the principles of each concept and the desired results of those principles put into action. First, the ideas behind capitalism and Christianity lead to some intellectual difficulties, as I understand them. Capitalism (in the general free-market vein of understanding) hinges on and champions the individual's ability and right to choose what goods he desires and what he will give up to acquire them. Rational actors are the driving force behind the economic theory, and the best society, it is argued, is the one that lets them, generally, make up their own minds.
Here's where the problem starts. Christian orthodoxy states that mankind is fallen and prone to sin and selfishness. While men are redeemed in this world through Christ, sin does not fully disappear until all things are remade, and thus, even a group of people made entirely of Christians would suffer from sinful acts. Sin often incorporates selfishness and passion, overcoming man's rational capabilities. As Paul writes in Romans 7:15, "I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do." It is possible for even the Christian man to succumb to desires that, morally and rationally, do not serve his or his fellow man's best interest.
Knowing, then, the depravity (total or otherwise) of man, should the Christian support a system that most freely allows humans to act on whatever desires they might have? Of course, economics do not dictate what all laws and social structures should look like, so there would still be some form of limitation on what men can do (murder would probably still be illegal/punishable in even the most libertarian utopia). Yet, it seems concerning to say that man is evil and in need of redemption and that he should be afforded as much liberty as possible in the same breath.
Second, the goals of capitalism and Christianity are potentially at odds. Capitalism's end is, through the workings of the market, innovation, and competition, the increase of wealth for all individuals (inasmuch as each individual is able to reap benefits from their work, products, etc.); everyone desires and should be able to acquire "capital." Christianity, on the other hand, exhorts its faithful to become more Christ-like; as with capitalism, it's right there in the name. This involves the casting aside of worldly desires and following God's will above all else.
You can see where I'm going with this. If the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil (1 Timothy 6:10), why would the Christian want everyone to have more money? At the very least, it would seem to invite temptation toward greed and jealousy. So, then, how can these worldviews be reconciled?
The best I can come up with so far in answering these questions: nothing's perfect. More than that, we shouldn't expect anything besides God to be. Regarding the first question, my belief has long been that there is no infallible system of government or economics or anything involving human beings. Men will always do awful, illogical things, no matter how much freedom or constriction they are under. That said, it could be argued that a philosophy of liberty minimizes harm. When various forces (individuals, government and its branches, and so on) are pitted against each other in as even a playing field as possible, they may hold each other in check. Theoretically, if government cannot wield tyrannical power over people without significant risk of losing its power altogether, then that tyranny is limited. If people cannot harm each other without significant risk of being harmed right back, then that harm is limited. But the word remains "limited," not "eliminated." All attempts by mankind to eliminate mankind's problems fail and often create even worse scenarios. Support free markets through right reason, but never expect them to be a panacea for society's ills.
As for the second question, I think we have to be careful how we define "wealth." In capitalism, the goal is not merely the increase of available currency that individuals possess, but the general upgrade of their standard of living through the encouragement of innovation. Christians are called to be charitable, and this includes easing people's physical burdens as well as spiritual. So, a system purporting to make physical life easier for everyone would seem right in line with Christian principles. However, the Christian must be very, very careful not to let that notion be an excuse for sinfulness. The Christian might justify his greed by saying, to himself or others, that he prioritizes money so that he can make life more comfortable for his family and have a larger amount of potential charitable donations. Again, depravity abounds, and we humans can effortlessly perform the mental gymnastics to rationalize almost anything. After all, it was the poor woman with two coins that Jesus praised, not the rich men who wanted everyone to know how much they were giving (Luke 21:1-4). Just having wealth to give or even actually giving that wealth is not necessarily true charity.
Going back to the temptation idea, I think any situation is rife with potential for sin. Greed and jealousy afflict the poor and rich alike. Even if everyone were poor or everyone were rich, evil would find a way in. The Christian's duty is not to encourage people to seek more or less wealth, but to challenge everyone to be thankful and charitable no matter their situation. In this way, I think the Christian can be a capitalist, assuming, as with anything, the right motivations are behind it.
Of course, all the mental exercise in the world won't resolve eternal dilemmas. Not I nor anyone else can uncover the perfect combination of political beliefs and spiritual attitudes. The only thing I would ask any reader is this: be wary of getting so wrapped up in an idea that you forget your own frailty. You don't have to be a Christian to realize people are influenced by both reason and passion, and both can be used for good or ill. Assuming only the good will come out in specific circumstances is very dangerous. Let's do our best, but never stray too far from the fact that we are only human.
I see a system of logic trying to pierce it's way through your dialectic. You say that capitalism hinges on an individual's right to choose, i.e is depends on this right. Be careful of your cause and effect attribution. Capitalism does not hinge on anything. It is the expression and logical extension of the recognition among actors to be free to choose. You don't design capitalism, you design the political system (recognizing natural rights of freedom) and capitalism is merely the description of how individuals share value among themselves in that political system. That recognition also has a dependency: virtue. Virtue is accessible to any healthy individual, but it must be taught and it must be exercised. The death of virtue is the result of the death of standards. Standards are the cognitive expression of the recognition of reality such that we may act in a way to be most effectively human. We humans are the only living beings on this planet that must depend on thinking to survive. Thinking requires a set of standards beginning quite fundamentally with sensory input to gain knowledge (how do we know we have gained knowledge? a standard to measure against) as new beings to multileveled cognition as we develop higher levels of thinking, ultimately required for our perpetuation as a species. Look around, Issac. What is your impression of where post-Enlightenment thought has taken us, further away from standards (denying reality) or closer to recognition of standards (reality seeking)? I hold the former is true and is the nectar of tyranny, the political cousin of its economic expression: fascism. I am challenged on the need to reconcile Christian ethic (in it's many facets, but in your line of thinking, how we respond to our fellow man) to capitalism. In the Christian ethic - and I welcome any theological challenges you'd like to invoke; I'll concede this being my weak spot - I cannot recognize anything in our creed that disrupts capitalism. Mostly because a creed, a Christian creed particularly, is intentional, i.e. requires a will to act. An economic system is coincidental. Capitalism, as I've positioned it therefore is not about getting the most of anything. It's about expressing your value to your fellow man (in the form of a virtue) and your fellow man expressing with their freedom, how much they value you.
ReplyDeleteYou have chosen a very difficult topic as the realms of ever deeper concepts are required to validate any premise. You are in the realm of ethics which depends on the philosophical branches of politics (how men should organize), metaphysics (how man defines reality) and epistemology (how man gains knowledge) with the requisite rules of recognition: logic (non-contradictory identification). So you are standing on the shoulders of giants by wrestling this one to the ground. I look forward to your ever deeper ruminations as you continue to think your way through life.
Thanks for the thoughtful commentary. You're right, "hinge" was perhaps a poor choice of words. I should have distinguished more between capitalism as a descriptive concept and political systems that recognize it. I think we're basically in agreement on that point.
DeleteYour thoughts on virtue are quite interesting. I agree that it must be taught and exercised, and that it is necessary for recognizing reality. And I'm definitely with you on post-Enlightenment thought; I think our rationalist (and post-rationalist), humanist developments have made us too willing to create our own reality and ignore what is really true.
I suppose I should clarify what got me on this topic in the first place. It seemed to me a lot of Christian conservative types just assumed capitalism was correctly a part of their worldview. I wondered why this assumption existed and if it was truly the case. I guess by "capitalism" I meant less the mere description of individual action and more the view of it as a positive good (free-market theory and the like), if that makes sense. That's where I got the challenges from.
Regarding expression of value and Christianity, I think a challenge could arise there. From whence do humans derive value? Is it inherent, or does it come from ability (labor, etc.)? Is there a danger of viewing people solely buy how "useful" they are, rather than by their being created in the image of God? I don't rightly know, it's just what immediately comes to mind.
You're completely correct about the difficulty of the topic as well. I realized as I wrote this that I was quickly running into the realms you mentioned and couldn't adequately address them (my fifth paragraph briefly acknowledges this) while staying focused. I run into this kind of problem a lot when I write.
Thanks again for your feedback, I appreciate it. I'll keep thinking.
Wonderful reflections. Let me invoke your contemplations regarding your 4th paragraph of your reply. You say that there is still a reconciliation in the works in as much as you see a possible conflict between God's precept of how we are to view our fellow man (as creations of God and therefore imbued with a measure of divine value - the definition of which could be a doctoral thesis) and a capitalists viewpoint of the individual's worth being "what's in it for me-ism". I grant you then that a reconciliation is challenging. Let me offer this for you to think about and, if we are so lucky, to then read of: What's the alternative? If this is a my way or the highway encounter, then would it not logically follow that interpreting God's call in the alternative is to enslave us to the needs of others? This is what the history of politics is telling me and, personally, I reject. I don't believe God requires us to serve others at our expense but rather, the greater ethic is that our efforts to better ourselves (here again, virtue must be present or we're not talking the same thing) allows us to serve others. Your theology may have insights I cannot provide but, frankly, I've never encountered in the Gospels where this could possibly be surmised. This good for others can be expressed in innumerable ways: prophets, good will ambassadors, donors, go neighbors, even Messiahs just to name a few (of course, on the latter, the position is already taken). Jesus calls us to hear the word of God. The 2 greatest commandments is to love God and next to love our neighbors as ourselves. I can love my neighbor, pray for him, help him, rejoice in and with him, and at the same time accept him as a client, accepting his expression of value (fee) for the services I provide so that I can continue to help others in many different ways. But as I write this, I am anticipating your helping me to see where tighter thinking is still necessary should you chose to engage. Again, love the fact that you are doing this and look forward to many comments from other thinkers drawn to you work.
ReplyDelete