Biblical Economics

Do Christianity and Capitalism go hand-in-hand? Some people think so - indeed, they are so certain of it that they construct elaborate arguments purporting to defend laissez-faire capitalism by using biblical principles and biblical stories. To be quite honest, I don't think that they are very effective - all in all they actually seem rather lame.

The Rev. Allen H. Brill over at The Right Christians posted this link and will be commenting on it himself, but I found the article interesting and wanted to say a few things myself. Kerby Anderson writes:

First, the Bible says that human beings are created in the image of God. This implies that we have rationality and responsibility. Because we have rationality and volition, we can choose between various competing products and services. Furthermore, we can function within a market system in which people can exercise their power of choice.

That's kind of a stretch, isn't it? We are rational animals capable of choices, therefore a free market system that gives us choices is biblically correct?

We can also assume that private property can exist within this system because of the biblical idea of dominion. In Genesis 1:28, God says we are to subdue the earth and have dominion over the creation. Certainly one aspect of this is that humans can own property in which they can exercise their dominion.

Notice how Anderson writes that private property can exist within a biblically appropriate system. He is correct that the idea of humanity's "dominion" over the Earth does not exclude private property; but it also doesn't mandate it, either. Furthermore, it doesn't mandate any particular details of a private property system. Even communist nations allowed for the existence of some private property.

Since we have both volition and private property rights, we can then assume that we should have the freedom to exchange these private property rights in a free market where goods and services can be exchanged.

Unfortunately, the conclusion here simply doesn't follow. Yes, we can make rational choices and we can have private property (within biblical parameters), but the jump to the idea that we should therefore have free markets it completely unwarranted. All that could possibly said here is that free markets are not necessarily excluded from a biblical perspective.

Since the Bible teaches about the effects of sinful behavior on the world, we should be concerned about any system that would concentrate economic power and thereby unleash the ravages of sinful behavior on the society. Christians, therefore, should reject state-controlled or centrally controlled economies, which would concentrate power in the hands of a few sinful individuals. Instead, we should support an economic system that would disperse that power and protect us from greed and exploitation.

This is actually the closest that Anderson comes to an actual argument where the conclusion might really follow from the premises. Unfortunately, I don't think that Anderson actually believes it himself. Why? Well, I notice that Anderson doesn't also argue that Christians should reject centrally controlled politics, religion, and everything else that might "unleash the ravages of sinful behavior on society." If Anderson really did reject all centrally controlled systems in order to protect people from sin, he would have to advocate anarchism. Some Christians don't; but Anderson doesn't.

How do we know this? Because Anderson defends the existence of private property. You can't have private property in any meaningful way without the existence of centralized political authority that can regulate, define, and defend that property. There is no private property outside regulatory systems that create the notion of what property is and what sorts of rights go along with it. Ergo, Anderson doesn't advocate anarchism. Ergo, Anderson doesn't really believe that Christians should reject centrally controlled systems in order to avoid the ravages of sin. He's only saying that there because he needs to.

In fact, it is arguable that a centrally controlled system can protect people from the ravages of sin, at least to a degree. Police and fire departments, for example. At the very least there is an argument in defense of centralized systems that is about as strong as Anderson's faux-argument against them.

Read More:

• Philosophy 101
• Philosophy of Religion