“You shall not
steal.”
~ Ex 20:15
Methodist minister and blogger Morgan Guyton wrote an
April 22, 2014 post in his blog
Mercy Not
Sacrifice called
“Six
Ways that Capitalism Fails the Church.”
He takes a common tack among modern Christian writers, from the pope to
popular evangelicals of both the right and the left, that capitalism is bad for
Christianity, if not inimical to our faith.
He could not be more wrong. In fact, capitalism is the only biblical
economic system.
The seventh commandment is: “You shall not steal” (Ex
20:15). This is the basis for
capitalism. Without the seventh
commandment, there is no civilization, but only barbarism, the law of the
jungle, and the ethical principle of “might makes right.” By contrast, God’s Law recognizes private
property as not only a nice thing, but a commandment to be obeyed. Respect for private property lays down the
capitalist economic system. No other
system respects the seventh commandment.
By divine revelation, private property is a given, and it
follows that non-aggression against that private property is God’s Law. And by definition, property can be freely used
by the owner in whatever way he does not aggress against his neighbor. As we would like to maintain our own property,
so we should do unto others (Luke 6:31).
The seventh commandment is the basis of the rule of law at home and of treaties
abroad, of respected borders and is manifested in Scripture by stone markers
laying out property lines (e.g. Prov 22:28).
It is the foundation of trade, in which property-owners barter with one
another, or use a common medium of exchange (money) to affect mutually-beneficial
transactions.
This is capitalism.
Nothing more, nothing less.
But there are rules in capitalism. “You shall not steal” precludes fraud. For selling something under false pretenses
is not only theft, it is also a breaking of the eighth commandment prohibiting “false
witness” against one’s neighbor (Ex 20:16).
Compelling the buying or selling of something at bayonet point is a
violation of the fifth commandment against murder (Ex 20:13), that is, aggression against one’s
neighbor in his body. Scripture is
replete with trade and price negotiations (e.g. Gen 23:4-16). In capitalism, a transaction only happens
voluntarily when both buyer and seller reach a mutually acceptable deal. Scripture is also laden with prohibitions
against fraud in the marketplace (e.g. Prov 11:1, prohibiting rigged scales – a
tool for unscrupulous merchants to cheat customers based on false weights and
measures).
Capitalism, like every other form of economics, is a
result of the Fall. In the Garden of
Eden, there was no scarcity. All
resources were available in abundance.
Some argue that land was scarce, as two people could not occupy the same
ground at the same time, but I argue that the same could be said of the air we
breathe. And even though two people
cannot share the same breath of air at the same time, this does not make air
economically scarce, a commodity to be bought and sold or rationed by a state
or a tribal leader. In the Garden of
Eden, there was no competition for scarce resources, including productive land,
as all creation was declared by God to be “very good” (Gen 1:31). All was perfect and in abundance.
After the Fall, we see the economic problem emerge (Gen
3:17-19). Adam is told that the ground
is cursed, getting food was to be painful, thorns would interfere with his
labor, and that he would work to make bread “by the sweat of [his] face,” that
is, he would have to live by his labor mixed with the resources of the soil. Here we see the classic economic transition
from a “Robinson Crusoe” scenario to an economic community of people owning
property, discovering the division of labor, and engaging in productive free trade
so as to enrich everyone.
So in a nutshell, capitalism is simply living in a world
of scarce resources by obeying the seventh commandment.
Articles like the Rev. Guyton’s piece perform a
shell-game sleight-of-hand by properly criticizing human sin, dishonestly, and
fraud, but falsely labeling those things “capitalism.” But once again, capitalism is simply private
property and its voluntary trade.
Capitalism is simply the seventh commandment in action.
In each of his six citations of “capitalism” and its
“failures”, it isn’t capitalism that is failing, but rather sinful man. For there are God-pleasing ways to use one’s
property, and God does not compel, but rather entreats. God loves us, but He also allows that love to
be unrequited. God is not a rapist. Human beings are not robots. God allows men to have property, and to make
choices regarding that property. The
ethics of the decisions we make concerning our property are not an indictment
against property itself any more than the fact that there is violence in the
world is proof that the fifth commandment, the ethical assertion that life is
sacred, has failed the church. The
problem is not God’s Word, the problem is us.
The problem is sin.
Moreover, if capitalism “fails the church,” this implies
that a non-capitalist economic system might be a more attractive
alternative. This was Marx’s view. He believed that private property and free
trade is exploitive, and that by abolishing private property and free exchange,
and by reconditioning mankind to no longer be motivated by profit, then a
return to Edenic life was not only possible, but inevitable. And as a transition to this Paradise
Restored, Marx believed that a period of state socialism was necessary. In socialism, the state takes property from
the one who has, and redistributes it to the one who has not.
But the seventh commandment remains: “You shall not steal.” The fact that the stealing is done by an
elected or appointed henchman, the fact that violating the God-given paradigm
of private property is being carried out officially for some pie-in-the-sky hope
for something good down the road, not only doesn’t excuse it, but turns the
state into a false god. And this is
exactly what we have seen in communist countries that accept this Marxist dogma
of a restoration of Eden without Christ and the cross, seeing an alternative
pathway to redemption instead by a hammer and sickle. According to Marxist (communist and socialist)
ideology, the problem is not sin, but capitalism.
Guyton repeats the error of Marx and recapitulates the communist
and socialist critique of private property, which is itself a critique and
repudiation of God’s Law.
Another economic alternative to capitalism is fascism,
which is not the complete abnegation of private property, not state ownership
of the means of production as in Marxism, but rather it is state control of
these means. It attempts to split the
baby of private property between the owner and the state. It tries to reap the vast human benefits of
voluntary trade and the innovations and incentives provided by the price system
and the profit motive, while holding onto state central economic planning and
skimming the profits for the benefit of the state (and its “cronies,” hence the
term “crony capitalism”), in wealth and power.
But this is just more of the same. Under fascism, there is no real respect for
the seventh commandment.
Modern western states function under a “mixed” economy –
which is sometimes portrayed as capitalism (with “reasonable” state regulation),
when in fact, it is actually more of a mix between socialism and fascism. Some economic sectors are completely
socialized, such as government roads, “public” schools, parks, military, police,
judges, Social Security, welfare, etc.
Other sectors are private, but subject to government regulation and
central economic planning, such as health care, insurance, transportation,
utilities, etc. Even one’s private home
and income are subject to ever-increasing taxation and regulation as to how
they can be used. Very few parts of the
economy are truly privatized. Even labor
is subject to federal and state regulation and multiple price controls.
Guyton acknowledges that in addressing the question, “Has capitalism failed?”
one must define the term. And while he
does acknowledge that capitalism may well be defined as “the free market system
itself,” he goes on to criticize the “worship of the market.” And here is where he begins a series of
self-contradictions, wrongly labeling what he calls “worship of the market” as
“capitalism” and then knocking down this straw man that he has created. He criticizes many things by calling them “capitalism”
when they are not capitalism at all.
He writes: “It’s possible to navigate the free market
system without worshiping the market.
The problem is that passive participants in the capitalist market do end
up making it their god insofar as they allow the market to determine the value
of the created objects in our world in place of God.”
But in no place in Scripture does God assign “the value
of the created objects.” Value is a
subjective and temporal matter, not an objective and eternal matter. Oranges cost more after a freeze because the
supply is less than the demand.
Computers are more powerful and cheaper today because of innovation and
changing technologies. The costs of slide
rules and oil lamps have changed radically because our world has changed
radically. Prices adjust organically to
these changes. To the ancient
Israelites, yokes and swords and potter’s wheels were high-demand objects,
whereas in our day, the vast majority of people will never own any of these
things. The same variation exists for
labor. The demand for blacksmiths and
telegraph operators isn’t what it used to be.
So what determines something’s value – be it material or
labor? It’s a matter of supply and
demand and how badly an individual wants something. To a coffee drinker, it may be entirely
reasonable to pay $4.95 for a latte, but he might not be willing to pay ten
cents for a cup of tea. Others would not
be willing to pay a penny for a cup of coffee, because they don’t drink it. A coffee shop owner takes all of this into
account, and sets a price that will enable him to stay in business and hopefully
prosper, and at the same time, he serves his neighbor by providing beverages
for customers who voluntarily make purchases.
If his product or service is not worth the price, he will adjust his
prices accordingly, or may go out of business.
Competing businesses provide feedback, and incentivize the shop owners to
work hard to please their customers based on value and desire to do
business. And customers can opt to buy
coffee or tea, or may opt to save their money for something else.
None of this is evil.
None of this “fails the church.”
This is the biblical and civilized way for human beings to live together
peacefully in society. Anything else is
aggression. A bank robber enriches
himself by fear and intimidation. A
government-granted monopoly has no concern for pleasing customers. A fascist system sets the price of coffee
regardless of what is best for buyer and seller – and being necessarily
authoritarian and bureaucratic, is also unable to flex efficiently between
shifts in supply and demand (e.g. a fad for drinking tea instead of coffee, a
freeze in the areas where coffee is grown, a sudden glut in dairy products,
rising costs of heating and air conditioning, etc.). It is doomed to fail even under the best of
intentions with the brightest minds calling the shots.
The six “failures” cited by Guyton have nothing to do
with capitalism.
His first critique is: “Capitalism fails the church when
discipleship becomes an industrial complex.”
He cites “a monster Christian publishing industry” that “desperately
needs to sell its books and videos in order to grow.” He cites a shift in Christian culture from
true discipleship to a desire for “results” and an emphasis on “stewardship
campaigns.”
But this has nothing to do with capitalism. The problem is not the freedom to trade. The problem is not that the state doesn’t own
the means of production. The problem is
not that there isn’t enough government regulation or central planning. He is actually complaining about the way
people use their God-given freedom. The
problem is not the God-given freedom (which manifests itself economically by
the free market), but rather with human sin.
If people believe the Holy Spirit isn’t “good enough,”
this is a sin problem, not an economics problem. If people don’t understand discipleship in a
capitalist-leaning economy, the problem would not be fixed by changing to a communist
economy.
In fact, godly stewardship presumes capitalism. It depends on “cheerful” givers (2 Cor 9:7) voluntarily
sharing their time, talent, and treasure with the church and in giving alms
(Matt 6:2). In a non-capitalist system,
there isn’t the freedom to support a church or a chosen charity – and it may
even be considered “criminal” to do so.
Such matters are planned by the state and overseen by bureaucrats for
the supposed common good, precisely to avoid “misuses” of freedom and resources
of the type complained about by the Rev. Guyton. In a non-capitalist system, Christian book
publishers are simply shut down. I don’t
think this is a good alternative, and I don’t believe this would fix the
discipleship issue complained about by the author.
In fact, some have tried to argue that Christianity and
Marxism are compatible, that the “social gospel” is a way to gainsay capitalism
while looking after the poor as we are commissioned to do by our Lord. Some critics of capitalism point to the
sharing of resources in the early church (Acts 4:32) and even Marx’s maxim: “From
each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” is biblical
(Acts 4:34). The crucial difference is
that Christian sharing with each other and with the poor is voluntary. There is no state mechanism to compel “gifts”
to the poor. They are freely given. And as is the case with Adam and Eve, freedom
can be used properly or improperly. And
yet, God does not remove their freedom.
They must live with the consequence of their choices, but God never
removes their ability and free will to disobey Him. All attempts to create Utopia at the point of
a gun have ended in abysmal failure, in gluts and shortages and poverty and
concentration camps for dissidents.
Guyton’s critique of capitalism implies that Christians
ought not support economic freedom and should examine the alternatives. The twentieth century is a hard lesson and a bitter
warning as to where such restrictions against freedom lead.
His second thesis is: “Capitalism fails the church when
consumerism becomes a moralistic obligation.”
He decries people using their money not to support the
kingdom of God (seen as grudgingly throwing “a bunch of money at God”) but
instead spending the money on sports, entertainment, education, etc. “as part
of a middle-class existence that is defined by a guilt-ridden moralistic
consumerism” such as buying food that doesn’t have high fructose corn syrup or
certain kinds of milk that might be healthier.
I agree that younger generations of people have a greatly
reduced sense of stewardship and responsibility for their church and for taking
care of the less fortunate. But again,
the problem isn’t capitalism – the freedom to make choices. The problem is making choices based on a
reduced priority of God in our lives (the first commandment, “you shall have no
other gods” Ex 20:3). The problem is not
the economic system, but sin. The
problem isn’t the market, but idolatry.
This cannot be fixed by taking away economic freedom and having state
compulsion any more than Marx’s Utopia can come about through forced
redistribution of wealth. The problem of
a godless society can’t be fixed by godless communism. The problem of a lack of respect for God’s
Law can’t be fixed by we ourselves dishonoring the seventh commandment. The solution is not in the abolition of
capitalism, but in repentance. Our
freedom to make decisions is not to blame for our sin any more than the tree of
the knowledge of good and evil was to blame for Adam and Eve’s sin.
His third critique is: “Capitalism fails the church when
churches with bling build their membership on transfer growth from churches
without bling.”
I agree that the “sheep-stealing” – especially by wealthy
mega-churches with all the bells and whistles – over and against modest or even
poor churches where God’s Word is proclaimed in truth and purity – is a great
and vexing problem. But again, the
problem is not the money, but the love of money (1 Tim 6:10). The problem is not in the freedom to attend
any church, but in the human sin of selecting a church based on the color of
its screens and cup-holders rather than on the content of its doctrine and
practice. In economies that lean more in
the direction of capitalism, there is more relative freedom of religion and
freedom to worship. In societies with
less economic freedom, there is more state restriction on churches and on the
freedom of individuals to worship as they please.
If people are taken in by “bling” and by entertainment
style (self-)worship, by phony faith healing and false teachings about “name it
and claim it” theology, if people are allured by false prophets (Matt 7:15) and
by what their own itching ears long for (2 Tim 4:3), the problem is not
economic freedom, but faithlessness. And
heresy can and does happen in any economic system. When Esau sold his birthright (Gen 25:29-34),
the problem wasn’t that God allowed him to do it through private property and
economic freedom, the problem is that he did it because he was faithless and
foolish in that he “despised his birthright” (v. 34). Esau’s sin was the problem, not the mechanism
of the free market.
Fourth, the author writes: “Capitalism fails the church
when people who don’t tithe say the church should take care of the poor.”
Here the author criticizes those who believe the role of
government should diminish, and he implies that government should, in fact, be
in the business of helping the poor. He
suggests that churches “could take some of the load off of the government’s
hands.”
Here he has the problem entirely in reverse. Before the Progressive Era, before the
Federal Reserve Act (1913), before the alphabet soup agencies of the federal
government created in the twentieth century, private agencies – including
churches – founded hospitals, universities, orphanages, relief societies, and
myriads of institutions to care for the poor and needy. Today, the average American is taxed at the
rate of more than 50% of his wealth in income taxes, property taxes, excise
taxes, sales taxes, etc. at every level of government. We live in a non-capitalistic system of
mandatory Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and ObamaCare. There are differing opinions about the value
and efficiency of these institutions, but what we have today is certainly not
free-market capitalism. The average
churchgoer is not in a financial position to tithe a full ten percent, and most
churches can barely pay their bills and clergy salaries – let alone run soup
kitchens and start schools as used to be the norm.
The problem is not the capitalist paradigm, but the
non-capitalist paradigm. All charitable
giving suffers when taxes rise, when government assumes an increasingly greater
role in taking care of the poor. And
unlike churches and private charity, government gets its money through force.
Here, Guyton has it entirely backward: Socialism and
fascism have failed the church, failed society, failed the poor, and has
crushed the ability of churches to care for the poor to virtually nil.
Fifth, he writes: “Capitalism fails the church when
‘helping’ becomes a consumer product.”
He criticizes church-based charities that are subject to
market forces, such as their stance on homosexuality. But this is the nature of freedom. If I start a charitable organization and I
announce that I am in favor of practices explicitly condemned in Scripture, I
can’t compel Christians to take part in it.
By contrast, government can, and does.
For instance, the federal government now compels Christians to pay for birth
control and abortion contrary to their consciences. While
a specific agency that sponsors needy children may lose money by adopting one
stance or the other regarding homosexuality, the free market ensures that any
vacuum that happens as a result will be filled.
This is the flexible and adaptive nature of the market. Entrepreneurs, motivated by the profit
motive, find niche markets and ways to be more efficient and to please their
customers and clients. In the case of
non-profit organizations, the “profit” is not monetary, but is what is termed
by economists as “psychic capital.”
For example, as a pastor, I am motivated to bring the
Good News of Jesus Christ to the people in my parish and to evangelize those
outside of my parish. I economize my
time and resources so as to seek “profit” – not monetary, but spiritual. In other words, if the kingdom of God will
“profit” more by my spending time writing or visiting shut-ins, over and
against spending the church’s money on signs or in spending my time doing door-to-door
“cold calls” to try to teach people the faith, it stands to reason that I will invest
my time and money accordingly in a way that increases the “profit” that I’m
seeking. This is economics 101.
The solution is to let people make choices according to
the rewards they will reap for the kingdom.
Charities will have to decide what is more important, having a stand one
way or the other on homosexuality or global warming or endorsing a particular
political party or controversial doctrinal stance – and they will have to live
with the results. The best way for an
organization to serve the church and to serve man is to be in harmony with
God’s Word and to leave the trendy political stuff to others. Again, the problem is not with freedom of
choice, but the reality is that some choices are not as wise as other
choices. The solution isn’t to take away
choice.
Finally, the Rev. Guyton argues: “Capitalism fails the
church when God is defined as a banker instead of a shepherd.”
Here, the author criticizes the idea of sin as “debt” –
although this is precisely how our Lord describes it in the Lord’s Prayer (Matt
6:12) and elsewhere (e.g. Matt 18:21-35).
Our Lord uses capitalistic illustrations in His parables explaining the
kingdom of God, such as in the parable of the talents (Matt 25:14-30) and the
parable of the laborers in the vineyard (Matt 20:1-16). Such teachings are not opposed to the
“shepherd” imagery of our Lord, as the author claims.
I think his point would be better made by recounting what
actually happened in the church, when grace became seen as a scarce product that
could be earned, bought, sold, and brokered by church bureaucrats as a
commodity. This manifested itself in the
medieval sale of indulgences and the treating of salvation as a physical good
to be obtained by labor and/or purchase.
This failure was not because of capitalism, but because Christians lost
their rightful monergistic understanding of grace.
Grace is not a substance, like gold or silver. Grace is not scarce. Economically, it is like the air we
breathe. It is not for sale. It is limitless and boundless. It is not a commodity, but rather the
disposition of our Lord toward us in forgiving our sins and restoring us to
life through faith and delivered to us in Word and Sacrament – in a true
Paradise Restored, without money and without price (Rev 22:17). And He does this by virtue of a transaction,
the ransom payment of the debt of our sins on the cross by our Benefactor,
Jesus Christ, “not with… silver or gold” (1 Pet 1:18) but “with His holy, precious
blood and with His innocent suffering and death” as confessed in Luther’s Small
Catechism.
I think Guyton’s criticisms are not only misguided, but
harmful. If people buy into the myth
that capitalism is not in harmony with Scripture, or to take it further, that
capitalism fails the church, this may encourage more people to view aggression
as a godly way for the church to exist in the world through embracing unbiblical
economic systems, like socialism and fascism, that have proven themselves
antithetical to the Lord Jesus Christ and His kingdom, the church.
Capitalism has not failed the church, sin has. And the Rev. Guyton’s “cure” is more of the
disease itself. The only godly and
biblical economic system, benefiting Christians and non-Christians alike, is
capitalism.
“You shall not steal.”
