Pope Francis Openly Challenged My Views on Economics on September 5
Pope Francis was in Mozambique earlier this month. He was talking with Jesuit priests on September 5. What he said was published on September 26. This is my response.
The Pope was in Africa to promote his view of theology: liberation theology. It argues for wealth redistribution by the state.
Next came a question from Bendito Ngozzo, chaplain of the Santo Inácio Loyola High School: “Some Protestant sects use the promise of wealth and prosperity to make proselytes. The poor become fascinated and hope to become rich by adhering to these sects that use the name of the Gospel. That’s how they leave the Church. What recommendation can you give us so that our evangelization is not proselytism?”What you say is very important. To start with, we must distinguish carefully between the different groups who are identified as “Protestants.” There are many with whom we can work very well, and who care about serious, open and positive ecumenism. But there are others who only try to proselytize and use a theological vision of prosperity. You were very specific in your question.
Two important articles in Civiltà Cattolica have been published in this regard. I recommend them to you. They were written by Father Spadaro and the Argentinean Presbyterian pastor, Marcelo Figueroa. The first article spoke of the “ecumenism of hatred.” The second was on the “theology of prosperity.”[3] Reading them you will see that there are sects that cannot really be defined as Christian. They preach Christ, yes, but their message is not Christian.
Specifically, he was talking about my father-in-law, but since I have always been the economist, he was talking about me. I followed his footnote. There were links to both articles in the footnote. I clicked on the first one. You can, too. Click here. We read the following:
Pastor Rousas John Rushdoony (1916-2001) is the father of so-called “Christian reconstructionism” (or “dominionist theology”) that had a great influence on the theopolitical vision of Christian fundamentalism. This is the doctrine that feeds political organizations and networks such as the Council for National Policy and the thoughts of their exponents such as Steve Bannon, currently chief strategist at the White House and supporter of an apocalyptic geopolitics.“The first thing we have to do is give a voice to our Churches,” some say. The real meaning of this type of expression is the desire for some influence in the political and parliamentary sphere and in the juridical and educational areas so that public norms can be subjected to religious morals.
Rushdoony’s doctrine maintains a theocratic necessity: submit the state to the Bible with a logic that is no different from the one that inspires Islamic fundamentalism. At heart, the narrative of terror shapes the world-views of jihadists and the new crusaders and is imbibed from wells that are not too far apart. We must not forget that the theopolitics spread by Isis is based on the same cult of an apocalypse that needs to be brought about as soon as possible. So, it is not just accidental that George W. Bush was seen as a “great crusader” by Osama bin Laden.
Rusdoony and I started Christian Reconstruction in the late 1960's. I was his recruit. Neither of us is remotely apocalyptic. We hold a view of eschatology called postmillennialism, which is anti-apocalyptic. It is in favor of slow, steady work in the fields, helping the poor, starting businesses, starting Christian schools, opposing foreign wars -- that sort of thing. Our view has always been this: shrink the state.
The article is a hatchet job. The author clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. But that didn't stop the Pope from recommending the article. The author may not have known about me, but he knows about my position: Rushdoony's. He has misrepresented this position.
CHRISTIANITY AND WEALTH
The other article focuses on Christian economics. Click here. It is about the Protestant "prosperity gospel." The article denies any connection between Christianity and prosperity. I have devoted the last 55 years to arguing the opposite. Biblical law and biblical ethics establish the free market. The free market creates wealth. The author of the article categorically denies this.
While Max Weber spoke of the relationship between Protestantism and capitalism in the context of evangelical austerity, the prosperity gospel theologians spread the idea of riches in proportional relation to personal faith. Without any social sense, and framed within an experience of individual benefit, this conception knowingly or unknowingly gives an extremist rereading of Calvinistic theologies of predestination.
The author has reversed Weber's argument. Weber argued explicitly in his book , The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, that the Calvinist doctrine of the calling leads to self-discipline, and thereby led to wealth. He argued explicitly that increasing wealth was regarded by Puritans as at least partial evidence of their salvation. If you want to find out what Weber taught, click this link. Read my article on Weber.
The author continued: "Soteriology is somehow anchored in time and place and is emptied of its traditional eschatological vision." Soteriology, which is the theologians' word for the doctrine of salvation, is indeed anchored in time and place. Paul wrote: "For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation: (II Corinthinans 6:2).
What about wealth?
References to the prosperity gospel are also seen in the daily homilies of Francis at Santa Marta. On February 5, 2015, the pope said clearly that “salvation is not a theology of prosperity” but “a gift, the same gift that Jesus had received to give.” And the power of the Gospel is that of “chasing the impure spirits to liberate them, to heal them.” Jesus “does not give the power to make great business.”
So, Jesus does not give the power to make a great business. This raises a question: Who, exactly, does give men the power to make a great business?
This week, I have been reading a series of short books by Truett Cathy. He was the founder of Chick-fil-A. From the beginning, he did not let the stores open on Sundays. One of his books has this title: Wealth, Is It Worth It? In it, he describes the biggest financial crisis of his life. The company had borrowed $10 million to build a home office. Interest rates were around 20%. Then the recession began to cut into corporate revenues.
I finally experienced a peace when the Chick-fil-A executive committee scheduled a retreat to address our financial problems. However, instead of addressing the business issues directly, we spent the entire time developing a statement that became our corporate purpose: "To glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us. To have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A."There was no magic in the words, we did come away, however, with a commitment to focus on God and other people first. And I was determined to never face another financial crisis. The next year sales increased 36% across the chain, and God opened opportunities to serve others through the creation of the WinShape Foundation (p. 117).
Chick-fil-A is now a multibillion-dollar company. It borrows almost no money. It seems to me that it is a good business model. I strongly recommend it. But the Pope does not recommend it. Anyway, the author of the article that he recommended does not recommend it. The author quoted the Pope to defend his position.
"I HAVE A DREAM!"
The article ends with this:
The prosperity gospel is a far cry from the invitation of St. Paul in 2 Cor 8:9-15: “For you know the generous act of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich” (8:9). And it is also a far cry from the positive and enlightening prophecy of the American Dream that has inspired many. The prosperity gospel is far from the “missionary dream” of the American pioneers, and further still from the message of preachers like Martin Luther King and the social, inclusive and revolutionary content of his memorable talk: “I have a dream.”
That was a great speech. Anyway, the second half of his speech was. King stole that half from a speech delivered by a black preacher at the 1952 Republican national convention. Doubt me? Hear for yourself.
The texts of the speech on the web are transcripts of what he said, not what was written down in the original. If we could read the whole speech, we could see that the second half, which is the famous half, was impromptu. It wasn't in the original. Doubt me? Watch this.
The article was correct about this: Rev. King did have social, inclusive, and revolutionary content in the first half of the speech. Let us not forget what the 1963 March on Washington was all about.
Wikipedia provides the background.
A. Philip Randolph and Bayard Rustin began planning the march in December 1961. They envisioned two days of protest, including sit-ins and lobbying followed by a mass rally at the Lincoln Memorial. They wanted to focus on joblessness and to call for a public works program that would employ blacks. In early 1963 they called publicly for "a massive March on Washington for jobs". They received help from Amalgamated Clothing Workers unionist Stanley Aronowitz, who gathered support from radical organizers who could be trusted not to report their plans to the Kennedy administration. The unionists offered tentative support for a march that would be focused on jobs.On May 15, 1963, without securing the cooperation of the NAACP or the Urban League, Randolph announced an "October Emancipation March on Washington for Jobs". He reached out to union leaders, winning the support of the UAW's Walter Reuther, but not of AFL–CIO president George Meany. Randolph and Rustin intended to focus the March on economic inequality, stating in their original plan that "integration in the fields of education, housing, transportation and public accommodations will be of limited extent and duration so long as fundamental economic inequality along racial lines persists."
The March on Washington was a Left-wing political mobilization for wealth redistribution by the federal government. That was Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream. That was why he was hired to give the closing address. From the beginning of his ministry, King was a social gospel theologian.
CONCLUSION
This is why the Pope doesn't like Rushdoony's theology, which is my theology. From the beginning half a century ago, we were open supporters of the free market in the name of the Bible. We were opponents of the welfare state, also in the name of the Bible. It is this which annoys the liberation theologians and social gospel theologians of the world. They don't go back to the Bible. This is why I wrote 31 volumes of economic commentary on the Bible before I began my four-volume summation book on Christian economics. This is what our critics refuse to do. They do not go to the Bible to explain the texts, and to develop a specific form of economics out of them. Instead, they simply call on the government to take successful people's money away from them to hand over to the poor.
The prosperity gospel that is popular in the Third World, despite its faults theologically, is in alignment with this outlook. It teaches specifically the following: individuals are responsible for their economic condition. This movement does not support the welfare state. This theology is sweeping through sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. This has upset the Pope.
I don't see any way to reconcile my view of economics and the Pope's view. He is never going to be happy with my view, nor I with his.