What’s Wrong with Capitalism?
Image
Nothing is easier than to give Christian asceticism a socialist tinge. Has not Christianity declaimed against private property, against marriage, against the State? Has it not preached in place of these, charity and poverty, celibacy and mortification of the flesh, monastic life and Mother Church? Christian socialism is but the holy water with which the priest consecrates the heart-burnings of the aristocrat.
These words of Marx and Engels (Communist Manifesto, 3:I:a) suggest that Christianity may be initially quite useful for the socialist cause. Even though the abolition of all religion is ultimately a necessity in their suggested system, Marx and Engels recognize the practicality of incremental progress toward their goals. Hence, they welcome a slight retasking of Christian ideas in order to facilitate societal drift toward socialism, and ultimately toward communism.
Marx and Engels perceive that all conflict is traceable to class struggle, and that class struggle is economic at its core. Redistribution of wealth is a key to neutralizing the conflict and liberating the oppressed from their oppressors. For Marx and Engels, class struggle is an economic issue that can only be resolved politically, hence their political efforts toward an economic final solution. Capitalism represents, for them, a system that enables continuing oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. Capitalism is a great enemy to be conquered, and one that will naturally fall—if and when the proletariat realizes their great strength, unites, and acts in accordance with Marx’s and Engels’ designs.
For Christians, it is reasonable to wonder whether Marx’s and Engels’ drafting of Christianity as somewhat (and initially) useful is actually compatible with Christianity. If the Bible is the sole authority for Christian understanding and ethics, then is there a biblical discussion that should guide the church’s thinking on economics? If Scripture is God-breathed and useful for equipping us for every good work (2 Tim 3:16-17), then we should expect some economic guidance in its pages. In that expectation we are not disappointed.
The first structured economic model we discover in Scripture is that given by God to Israel in the context of the Law, or the Mosaic Covenant. Israel was to enter into the land of Canaan, enjoy the fruit of the land, give a tithe (primarily of firstfruits) to the tribe of Levi in order to facilitate the Levitical system of worship (Levi was a tribe not given a land inheritance, thus each of the other tribes were commissioned, through the tithe, to help Levi subsist). The charging of interest was disallowed by law, and there were rules governing how debts and debt-enslavements were to be handled. Families within tribes were not allowed to sell their land outside of their families, in order to maintain a level of land ownership that could accommodate the families. In this context there was substantial economic freedom, but with legal limitations on greed.
In other words, certain specific manifestations of greed were illegalized within the community of Israel. Importantly, the overarching governing principle for Israel at that time was theocracy. God was with them, leading them, and ruling them. The Law was not designed to work in a non-theocratic context, and its purpose was provisional (see Gal 3).
In the church age (which began at Pentecost, a short time after Christ fulfilled the Law), there is not such a structured and regulated approach to the legal aspects of economics. Instead, there is a focus on individual character. For example, Christians are to be free from the love of money (Heb 13:5), to look out for the interests of others (Php 2:4-5), to give freely and not under compulsion (2 Cor 9:6-8), not to discriminate based on financial standing (James 2:1-4), and to understand that all we are given is for the purpose of good deeds (2 Cor 9:8-11).
In the church model there are no specific guidelines given for economic legislation. The church is not a national entity governed by legislation. Instead, it is a living organism—a group of individual believers existing and functioning together in and as the body of Christ. The focus of the Scriptures is that believers submit to a process whereby God works in them to conform them to the image of Christ. The expectation is that believers ought to demonstrate in ongoing fashion, that continual transformation in their thoughts, speech, and deeds (e.g., Rom 12:1-2).
So how should believers view private property, individual and corporate profits, commodification of labor, and the like? It is notable that Scripture doesn’t condemn these things—in fact, money itself is never described as evil. The Bible is specific, however, about the central economic problem: “For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs” (1 Tim 6:10). Literally, the phrase could be translated “a root of all the evils.” What is so wrong with a love (or affection, φιλαργυρία) for money that it could be described as a root of all the evils?
Jesus warned, “Beware, and be on your guard against every form of greed; for not even when one has an abundance does his life consist of his possessions” (Lk 12:15). Greed takes the focus off of what life is really about, and emphasizes temporal things. Essentially, greed is a fantastically effective and attractive gateway to idolatry.
Paul warns believers that greed should not even be named among believers—there should be no hint of it among those who follow Jesus Christ (Eph 5:3). In fact, Paul adds that believers should consider themselves as dead to such things as greed—which he equates to idolatry (Col 3:5).
Peter observes that greed is a primary motivation for false teaching (2 Pet 2:3). So while greed often manifests itself in economic areas, it is not an economic problem. Nor is it a political problem. Paul describes in Romans 1:29 how greed is an inherent part of human depravity. It is not merely a class struggle or political issue, it is a spiritually rooted problem. It cannot be solved by political or legislative means—either with Marx’s and Engels’ system or even a more democratic one. Only by the internal and spiritual transformation of individuals by the power of God, is there progress in remedying the root problem. Of course that doesn’t mean that political systems are irrelevant or unworthy of Christians’ time and investment. But despite the proclamations of Marx and Engels, political and economic pursuits have no ability to fix the problem.
Whats’ wrong with capitalism? The same thing that is wrong with every other thing that human hands touch—it’s us. Changing the system or the governing party can’t fix what ails us. That doesn’t mean we ignore such things (thank God we can have some impact in these areas!), it just means that we need to adjust our expectations and our focus. Let’s focus on the core issue, deal with the symptoms where we can, and not confuse the root problem with its symptoms.
Christopher Cone 2014 Bio
Christopher Cone (ThD, PhD) is former President of Tyndale Theological Seminary and Biblical Institute, and serves as pastor of Tyndale Bible Church. He is the author and editor of several books and blogs at drcone.com.
Appreciate the post and the focus. Greed afflicts all things human.
There’s always a delicate balance when taking Scripture to economic philosophy. It’s easy to sell the Bible short and not derive all we can from it in this regard. It’s at least equally easy to wring principles out of it that aren’t really there—out of eagerness to give a conviction we have more solid backing.
One way to get off to a good start toward getting all the relevant truth we can from special revelation is start with the question “Where do economic philosophies come from?” Answering that question thoroughly brings all sorts of ideas onto the table that Scripture speaks very clearly to. (And one of the followup questions that arises is “What should an economic philosophy propose to do about the fact that human beings are unalterably greedy?”)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
What’s right with capitalism:
- The right to own capital / private property
- The right to take risk and earn a profit
- The right to purchase from whomever I choose
We (my wife and I) just finished 1 Kings where the story of Naboth’s Vineyard is in chapter 21. The story is telling because government wanted to seize it (of course ultimately did). In that particular case, seizure of private property is seen as sinful.
Capitalism is about free markets.
[Jim]What’s right with capitalism:
- The right to own capital / private property
- The right to take risk and earn a profit
- The right to purchase from whomever I choose
We (my wife and I) just finished 1 Kings where the story of Naboth’s Vineyard is in chapter 21. The story is telling because government wanted to seize it (of course ultimately did). In that particular case, seizure of private property is seen as sinful.
Capitalism is about free markets.
On the other hand, the OT law limited private property ownership in ways that were downright uncapitalistic. Basically land stayed with a family rather than naturally flowing to the most successful as happens in capitalism. And while the wealthy could obtain the use of more land, they did not really own it. They were renting it for a maximum of 7 years.
Anyone interested in Biblical Economics might enjoy this:
It’s long but I found it helpful.
Scroll down to “Intermediate Economics.”
http://www.trinitylectures.org/MP3_downloads.php?_ga=1.248650755.547599…
Per Greg’s comment, it is striking that the OT puts some serious bounds on wealth. Land ownership was permanent, but sales were not, except for redeeming the land of a deceased relative (e.g. book of Ruth). Kings were not to collect gold, horses, or women—basically the spoils of aggressive war and empire. No favoritism in inheritances. You could be prosperous and even rich (e.g. Boaz), but it is as if the Scriptures put some boundaries on most men’s wealth and power for their own good.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
We need to be very careful in drawing conclusions about economic policy from Israel. It goes back to the whole discontinuity thing for those of us who are dispensational. There is a fair amount to go on in the NT but admittedly most of it is descriptive and not prescriptive.
It really is a little bit tricky using OT to make a legit. case for an economic philosophy, but not impossible by a long shot. The reason is that economic philosophies arise from beliefs about human nature—as individuals and in societies. And the OT is nothing if not rich in lessons about human nature.
For example what did Marx and Engels believe about human beings as individuals and in societies? I’m a bit rusty on my Marxism, but I think it’s not too far off to say that Marx saw all inequality of wealth and/or power as an inherently inferior situation that not only ought to be corrected but that inevitably would be corrected. (I’m pretty sure he is no longer holding his breath waiting for that to happen!)
Right away you have some difficulties, because (a) Scripture everywhere assumes that some should have power and others should not, that (b) some should have more property than others, and most importantly (c) how diligent you are in your labor not only should but normally does directly influence how much property you have… or more properly, how well you thrive. These ideas are everywhere assumed in Scripture but sometimes stated directly as a matter of principle distinguishing wisdom from folly.
So Marx’s “from each according to his ability; to each according to his need” is not compatible with biblical anthropology and sociology.
With economic—and political-philosophies it’s usually possible to trace them back to their view of human nature, the nature of society, and the role of government, and once you get there it’s not all that hard to filter through a biblical grid and see what ideas survive.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Just for clarification on an above comment: The land was to rest every seven years, but was returned after 7 cycles of 7 thus every 49 years. This was the year of Jubilee. If you decided to buy the land 20 years into this time period, you would thus be buying a long term lease for 29 years and then it would be returned back to the original owner or his heirs if he had died. If you bought the land one year before the Jubilee, you would not want to pay much for it, since you would not have it very long. Though the land was returned at the end of the Jubilee, the profits that were made off the land were not returned.
JD, that’s my understanding as well. Folks have different ideas on what that system implies for ‘capitalism,’ but it’s probably more useful to consider what it implies for the alternatives. Marxian socialism for example, sees personal property as ultimately being a hindrance to the inexorable progress of humankind. Personal property is a silly notion that will eventually be obsolete. The property model in the Mosaic Covt. system actually intensifies property ownership by basically saying “That land is so yours you cannot even get rid of it if you want to!”
It’s clear that the OT is not compatible with any philosophy that sees personal property as evil. (Whether “evil” fits Marx’s view I don’t know… I kind of doubt it. But the notion that property ownership is evil is certainly out there)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
My understanding is that the year of Jubilee was about keeping the land in the proper tribe per the allotments. Not sure how much economic philosophy can be derived from it.
Leviticus 25:23 “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine. For you are strangers and sojourners with me. 24 And in all the country you possess, you shall allow a redemption of the land.”
This strikes me as something more similar to feudalism than modern private property. In feudalism, tenants had rights in the land by virtue of their relationship to their lord, who could place restrictions on alienation; with modern private property, the government exercises police/taxation/eminent domain/escheat powers over the property owners, but cannot generally place restrictions on buying, selling, leasing, etc.
A “sale” of land in Israel was really a sale of usage rights, produce, etc.
I work for a title company, and some day, I will write A Title Analyst Looks at Leviticus 25, which will surely stand beside Keller’s A Shepherd Looks at Psalm 23 as a real devotional classic. Are there any dermatologists out there willing to write A Dermatologist Looks at Leviticus 13? At this rate, we could outstrip Stormie Omartian, who recently released The Power of a Praying Landscape Artist, large print edition.
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
So, to Jim, in light of my previous post: Naboth’s reply to Ahab, “The Lord forbid that I should give you the inheritance of my fathers,” is, I think, more than, “I ain’t sellin’.” I think he’s saying it’s simply not allowed. I could be wrong there. Haven’t checked it specifically.
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
I don’t have a problem with saying the Bible implicitly condones some capitalistic ideas. Throw Marxism out. But that does not mean it endorses the wholesale and extreme capitalism that many would push for either. The capitalism of Ayn Rand is every bit as unbiblical as Marxism, probably more so.
[M. Osborne]So, to Jim, in light of my previous post: Naboth’s reply to Ahab, “The Lord forbid that I should give you the inheritance of my fathers,” is, I think, more than, “I ain’t sellin’.” I think he’s saying it’s simply not allowed. I could be wrong there. Haven’t checked it specifically.
I cited Naboth to illustrate the right of private property against government seizure.
A NT citation about private property would be Acts 5: “…. a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, …. Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? “
It might be noted, regarding the reversion of land to the tribes/clans/families in the OT, that nobody actually buys land in perpetuity today, either. Think about it for a moment. We die, and the dirt is piled on top of the casket, not put into it, no?
And regarding whether Marxism is worse, or a truly unbounded Randian “greed is good” capitalism….OK, one does away with the notion of capital altogether (read the Communist Manifesto if you doubt this) and violates “Thou shalt not Steal” and “thou shalt not covet” out of the Bible in effect, and the other assumes that there is no moral component to economics and more or less writes “thou shalt not covet” out of the Scriptures. And of course, with abortion and the well known crimes against humanity by Communists, both tend to write “Thou Shalt not Kill” out of God’s Word, too.
Which is worse? Well, Communism has been more “successful”, at least in terms of body count and scope of implementation (yay?), but to quibble over whether one group’s rejection of a few letters of the decalogue is worse than another’s in theory is….something of a hyper-academic discussion that I’d be glad to bow out of.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Discussion