So. I have finally encountered “the rub” in N.T. Wright’s Surprised by Hope: the bit about economics.
Allow me a few “preface” points. First, I realize that this is not the heart of Wright’s argument. (I love this book very much and consider it lifechanging.) Second, what I have to say is a personal statement: please keep that in mind. Third, I am no expert in these matters. What I offer here is merely the best sense I can make of my own gleanings and meditations. Fourth, I make no claims to 100% sound logic or clear thinking. It’s late, I never really understood all those danged symbols, and the brain doesn’t work that straightly anyway. If you can point out my errors, miscalculations, or misjudgments, I will truly be most grateful.
To proceed, the quote:
The Cold War years enabled the United States to build up its persona as God’s answer to communism. Many conservative churches there still live by the belief that what’s good for America is good for God—with the result, for instance, that if their country needs to produce more acid rain in order to keep up car production, then God must be happy with it and anyone who talks about pollution or is disappointed that the president didn’t sign the Kyoto protocol is somehow anti-Christian or is simply producing a “baptized neosocialism,” as one reviewer accused me of. Rampant belief in the rapture lends strong support to this, as we saw earlier: Armageddon is coming, so who cares what state the planet is in? The irony is that those American churches that protest most vocally against the teaching of Darwinism in their schools are often, in the public policies, supporting a kind of economic Darwinism, the survival of the fittest in world markets and military power.
– N.T. Wright, Surprised by Hope, pages 219-220.
[1] I am not an economist. To be honest, I’ve disliked economics for a long time, despite the fact that my father taught it to me in high school. (Sorry, Dad. I love you, I promise.)
[2] My father (the economist) taught me long ago that just because a person gets one thing right, doesn’t mean that they’re white as bleach.
[3] The common accusation against conservative Christians is this: they have fallen to the temptation of dualism (that is, thinking merely in terms of “right” and “left”). This is true. Far too often human beings are lazy in their discernment and thinking. Instead of weighing every issue, they side with what is familiar, what rings true. (Is this ideal? Of course not. I won’t even claim it’s inexcusable. However, it is inevitable. No one person can weigh every single issue fairly and come out with a fair answer. We should do our best, of course, but it means we ought to be fair in our condemnation of others who fail in this manner. “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”)
[4] I’d like to suggest that Wright (and possibly others who follow/parallelize his critique) misjudges “conservative churches.” Now, given that he is more experienced with the broader world than I, I admit that it could simply be a case of “being sheltered.” That said, the “conservative churches” that I have been a part of do not fit into Wright’s description. My parents taught me from an early age that “Republican” did not equal “white knight in shining armor.” They may have disliked Bill Clinton, but they did not consider Bob Dole an ideal candidate. And while they did oppose the Kyoto Protocol, they did so not merely because left-wing environmentalists like David Suzuki promoted it; rather, they opposed it because its science was far from certain.
[5] May I level a modest accusation? I will, with or without your permission. I believe that Wright unfairly implies that those who oppose the Kyoto Protocol are close-minded. And I believe that similar unfair implications often lie behind attacks on “capitalism” and the “free market.” Is the “free market” abused? Most definitely. But may I also remind you that many other good things—including the written word, non-totalitarian government, and even (*gasp*) the church—have been similarly abused?
[6] My primary point (resting, perhaps in a muddle fashion, on the previous points) is this: I believe that conservatism is often unfairly condemned. Is it perfect? Of course not. Any conservative worth his or her salt would admit that immediately. And I’m not upset that Wright or others may have problems with conservatism in general. After all, if we conservatives cannot listen to criticism, then we are indeed close-minded.
[7] I believe there is good to be found in the writings of F.A. Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, and Gary North. I also believe that any who treats those writings as solid, unshakeable gospel is a fool. (And I know for a fact that the “free market economists” I know would never do such a thing.) Furthermore, I believe there is much good in “free market economics” to be gleaned, and I’m rather tired of hearing it maligned. Is capitalism perfect? Of course not. No system is, nor ever will be. That’s the beauty of humanity: it can never be systematized.
[8] As I wrote earlier, these points may be muddled. I am not a philosopher, a theologian, or an economist. I am merely a layman, trying to sort this out and make some sense of how these theories can actually be lived out in this world. As such, I’m not looking for a label or to label anyone else. I merely ask, “Can someone please stand up and tell me that there is something worth saving in ‘free market’ economics?” Because until Cavanaugh, Wright, or someone else is willing to do so, I can’t listen to them: they’re merely making the same mistake they accuse others of making.
Great thoughts, Mr. Ewert. Just a couple counter-thoughts:
1) I can’t speak for Prof. Cavanaugh or Bishop Wright, but I doubt that any orthodox Christian critic of capitalism would ever say that no good has ever come out of the capitalistic West. The Holy Spirit is at work 24/7, in all cultures and at all points in history. So, naturally, when Christians live according to the Spirit in a capitalistic society, good things will happen. I don’t believe that Cavanaugh or Wright are calling for an immediate revolution. More like a Resurrection-infused reformation.
2) Granting that God can work in any “system,” the question still remains: should Christians be satisfied with the natural order of things? This is the whole point of Wright’s book, I believe. And that’s why Jubilee economics occupy the middle point of his argument. The Resurrection isn’t “about heaven”; the Resurrection remakes us entirely in the here and now. That means that Christians should expect radical changes in the way the world works. Is it natural for one man to forgive the large debt of another? Hardly. Is it natural for self-interest to drive economies? Yes, and to expect otherwise is as silly as expecting water to run uphill or for a dead man to rise again.
3) Capitalistic economics are about as abstract and systematic as you can get. I completely agree with you that humanity can never be systematized. Please tell Messrs. Hayek and Rothbard. This point has long been employed by various and sundry critics of capitalism.
4) I’m curious, by way of follow up, how you would define a functioning “free market.” The reason I ask is two-fold: 1) I’m guessing you’d agree that no such society has ever existed (and the brief moments when Hayekian economics were attempted [e.g. Thatcherian Britain] ended up as relative failures); and 2) Is it possible to have a functioning society without communal order and regulations? If yes, then I’ll let you fight it out with Russell Kirk. If no, then is society still technically “free”?
I look forward to your counter-counter-thoughts with all sincerity and post-capitalist bliss. Come on in, the water’s fine.
Thanks for the counter-thoughts: they’re quite helpful and provocative (in the best possible way).
[1] Something I failed to make clear in my post: although I disagree with Wright, Cavanaugh, and others, I am not an advocate for the wholehearted pursuit of capitalism above all else. My critiques (and defenses) should be read as partial, particularly since this is merely a blog and not an exhaustive argument.
[2] You write, “Granting that God can work in any ’system,’ the question still remains: should Christians be satisfied with the natural order of things?” My answer is, of course, “No.” But your second point doesn’t contradict anything I was ever taught (by my father) about Christian economics.
[3] I have nothing to say to Messrs. Hayek and Rothbard. I have never read them and never want to. Just because I believe that a “free market” is the best economic scheme to date does not mean that I advocate everything its thinkers teach. Along with your critics, I agree that capitalism tends to think of laborers as components instead of people. This is most definitely wrong. But it does not disqualify “free market” economics.
[4] Contra Cavanaugh, I don’t believe that Augustine’s definitions of freedom have anything worthwhile to contribute to a discussion and definition of the “free market.” I believe that a free market exists when the government permits its citizens to make their own decisions about how to spend their time and resources. Is this freedom equal with salvation? Of course not. Is this a freedom without borders? Of course not. Such “freedom” is in my mind equivalent to human “free will.” In one sense, none of us are free. In another sense, nearly every human being is free. Just because both terms are spelled the same way does not mean they mean the same thing.
[5] I don’t believe in a society without hierarchy and government. If that has been proposed by some capitalists and/or free market economists, then I heartily disagree with them. When I write and argue in defense of the free market, I’m writing against unjust tyranny, in much the same way as Wright, Cavanaugh, and others attack the unjust tyranny that exists in Third World nations. I am in full agreement with their assessments and pray for God to right these wrongs. I do not believe that attacking “free market” economics achieves anything more than argument. The problem is not with “free market” economics but how greedy men abuse their privileges.
[6] My chief goal with this post is to suggest that Wright (and others) fall into the same trap they accuse conservative churches of. I agree that many conservative Christians follow an unhelpful dualism. Yet, Wright’s quote above annoyed me: it falls into the same sort of assumptions. He assumes that conservative Christians who oppose Kyoto (for example) must be doing so for poor reasons. I suggest that there are many conservative Christians who oppose such things for very sound, very believable, very well-thought-out reasons.
Thanks. Re: #5 — Would you be willing to explain what kinds of regulations/limits/governing of the free market you’d be okay with?
Forgive the prepositional ending.
No. I’m not trying to be snappy: I just simply don’t know.