Introduction to Part 2
Updated: 1/13/20
Christian Economics: Teacher's Edition
Beware lest you say in your heart, ‘My power and the might of my hand have gotten me this wealth.’ You shall remember the Lord your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth, that he may confirm his covenant that he swore to your fathers, as it is this day (Deuteronomy 8:17–18).
This passage is central to biblical economics specifically and social theory in general. It relates covenantal obedience to economic growth. It describes economic growth as a confirmation of covenant-keeping. Moses announced this to the assembled nation immediately prior to the invasion of Canaan.
This was an announcement of God’s sovereignty over the nation’s economy. It identified a temptation that would come with national success: belief in one’s own autonomy from God. Men would declare their success as the outcome of their own efforts. This is a false claim, God said. Such a claim is a denial of something. But what? God’s covenant.
What is this covenant? I have covered this extensively in Christian Economics: Student’s Edition. It is an oath-bound affirmation of five points: God’s sovereignty as Creator, man’s authority under God, God’s law, God’s historical sanctions, and the inheritance of kingdom of God in history. There are five covenants: the dominion covenant (Genesis 1:26–28), individual covenant, family covenant, church covenant, and civil covenant. All five are established by verbal oaths. God declared the first oath verbally in the name of mankind. It was a representative oath. It is binding on God and mankind. It defines mankind, which is made in God’s image and is fully responsible to Him.
The economy is not autonomous. Nothing created by God is autonomous, which is everything, past and present. This means that the universe is personal, not impersonal. Nothing in the creation is impersonal.
What about the economy? In what ways is the economy personal? How is it different from chemistry? Here are a few. First, the economy is governed by God’s covenant laws, unlike chemistry. Second, there is no hierarchical system of courts governing chemistry. Third, God does not intervene in history in order to restore moral order in chemical relationships. Fourth, God does not announce regarding the atomic weights of the elements:
You shall not have in your bag two kinds of weights, a large and a small. You shall not have in your house two kinds of measures, a large and a small. A full and fair weight you shall have, a full and fair measure you shall have, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. For all who do such things, all who act dishonestly, are an abomination to the Lord your God (Deuteronomy 25:13–16).Fifth, an economic exchange is not predictable, unlike a chemical reaction. Sixth, there is little agreement about the laws of economics, unlike widespread agreement on the laws of chemistry. Seventh, just about everyone has a strong opinion on economics, unlike chemistry. Eighth, no one is elected to high political office based on his views about chemistry.
Here is a key philosophical problem faced by humanistic defenders of the free market. They begin with individuals who make choices. This is methodological individualism. They attempt to build the intellectual case for a coherent social order as the outcome of these decisions. The problem always arises with the question of ethics: right vs. wrong. It also comes with the question of political economic policy: good vs. bad, which is ultimately an ethical issue, but may seem to be merely pragmatic. There is no way logically to get from a multitude of opinions and decisions to a unified program of action. There is no way logically to get from microeconomic evaluations to macroeconomic policy. The policy decisions are at bottom ethical. Free market economists feign ethical neutrality. Defenders of economic planning by unelected state bureaucrats then announce that they come in the name of justice. Kustice is based on morality. They get a hearing by the public and by politicians.
Free market economists attempt to counter this criticism of value-free economic theory by appealing to efficiency: reduced waste. Supposedly, everyone is in favor of reduced waste. Supposedly, this shared opinion is value-free. But it isn’t. There is no agreement on which waste should be eliminated and at what cost. There is no agreement on what constitutes waste. The economist’s concept of efficiency always has a hidden component: an appeal to better and a rejection of worse.
Critics of the free market respond: “Better for whom? Worse for whom?” They invoke social justice for the common man. They claim that state bureaucrats must intervene into the auction process in order to create new economic incentives that will motivate capitalists to change their scheduled output. Here is their argument. “The free market favors the strong, the rich, and the well educated. It discriminates against the weak, the poor, and the poorly educated. Good men must therefore intervene by means of state power on behalf of these people.” Defenders of the so-called social gospel then invoke the Bible’s trio of victims of injustice: the widow, the orphan, and the stranger. Critics of the free market claim the moral high ground. This is a politically powerful line of reasoning. The vast majority of voters want to think of themselves as people of high moral ideals.
The free market’s secular defenders counter the critics by arguing that the market really does not discriminate against the weak, the poor, and the poorly educated, but the voters rarely believe this line of reasoning. Why not? Because the free market’s defenders are explicit deniers of the morality of any kind in economic reasoning. They are trying to counter critics who take what the critics claim is the moral high ground. Economists do not claim for themselves the high moral ground. In fact, they explicitly deny that there is any such thing as moral ground in economic analysis. Economic analysis is value-free, they say. They usually lose this argument in the court of public opinion. They should lose it. It is an illogical argument. From the moment that an economist recommends any public policy, he is smuggling value-laden criteria back into economic analysis. So, there is no level playing field between the free market’s advocates and the free market’s critics. The defenders of supposedly value-free economic reasoning are at a huge disadvantage from the outset.
The critics assert that the auction is inherently immoral. It is rigged in favor of the powerful, the rich, and the well educated. It is therefore unfair to the downtrodden. The market is actually a means of “trodding” them down. The market is not neutral, they say. It is downright immoral.
The defenders remain silent on this argument. They deny that morality has anything to do with economic analysis. Then they appeal to economic efficiency. They appeal to comparative rates of national economic growth. They pretend that the statistical indexes used to calculate this are in some way morally neutral rather than expressions of ethics-laced opinions regarding what is to be counted as economic growth and what is not, such as the value of women’s unsalaried labor in their homes. The voters refuse to believe in either the possibility or the desirability of value-free economic analysis. They want justice for the downtrodden, especially when the politicians promise to force the rich to pay for this, leaving most voters unscathed.
Christian economics denies the possibility of value-free analysis of anything, let alone the central economic institution of the modern world, the market. The defender of the free market says: “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.” The Christian economist adds this: “There ain’t no such thing as value-free economic analysis.” This assertion places a huge responsibility on him. He must do two things. First, he must show how the market process is at bottom moral. Second, he must show that all economic analysis is at bottom religious. In Part 2, I attempt the first task. In Part 6, I attempt the second.