Capitalism and Christianity – II

Jean-Francois Millet, The Gleaners

  
  In our last blog post we began our consideration of an essay entitled "Ayn Rand and Capitalism: The Moral Revolution," written by one of Ms. Rand's disciples, David Kelley. We noted that Mr. Kelley proposed a moral revolution that would rid Western culture of the principle of altruism, which he sees as a threat to individual liberty. The principle of which he speaks, of course, is rooted in Christianity. Today we venture a biblical response.
    There seems to be several underlying assumptions to Mr. Kelley's (and Ms. Rand's) philosophy. They tacitly assume that we exist as autonomous individuals, and that we create wealth by the dint of our own efforts. Therefore, presumably, we are entitled to keep what we have thus earned. We enter into economic relationships with other individuals in which we freely trade value for value.
    Significantly Mr. Kelley suggests that the right of property includes the right "to appropriate unowned goods from nature" (The Morality of Capitalism, p. 73). But where did "the goods from nature" come from? And how do we acquire the ability to produce value? "The earth is the Lord's, and all its fullness, / The world and those that dwell therein./ For He has founded it upon the seas,/ And established it upon the waters" (Ps. 24:1,2; NKJV). "And you shall remember the Lord your God, for it is He who gives you power to get wealth . . ." (Dt. 8:18). It is God "Who covers the heavens with clouds,/ Who prepares rain for the earth,/ Who makes grass to grow on the mountains. /He gives to the beast its food,/ And to the young ravens that cry" (Ps. 147:8,9). In short, everything that we possess, every natural resource, every talent and ability, we owe to God.
    And how did God intend for all of these things to be used? For the benefit of a few talented overachievers? "For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality not takes a bribe. He administers justice for the fatherless and widow, and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing" (Dt. 10:17,18). Not surprisingly then, He expects the same kind of behavior from us: "Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt" (v. 19).
    The basic moral principle here is love for one's fellow human beings: ". . .you shall love your neighbor as yourself. . ." (Lev. 19:18). What this means in terms of our obligation to the poor is stated in Dt. 15:7,8: "If there is among you a poor man of your brethren, within any of the gates of the land which the Lord you God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart nor shut you hand from your poor brother, but you shall open your hand wide to him and willingly lend him sufficient for his need, whatever he needs."
    Interestingly, ancient Israel did not have an elaborate state bureaucracy that administered extensive social welfare programs. Rather the burden for caring for the poor was placed directly on the shoulders of private citizens, viz., relatives and wealthy landowners. Farmers were to leave the corners of their fields unharvested so that the poor could come and take what they needed. Debts were forgiven every seven years, and every fifty years land was supposed to revert back to its original owners.
    In other words, the Bible does not recognize an absolute right to private property. Assets are basically held in trust. There were disparities of income and wealth, but the basic needs of everyone are to be met. Thus, while Israel did not have what we would think of today as a "welfare state," the Bible does enjoin a form of social justice that Mr. Kelley criticizes as "welfarism."
    The system did not always work as it should have, and the later prophets in Israel were stern in their denunciations of abuses. "Hear this, you who swallow up the needy,/ And make the poor of the land fail,/ Saying:/ 'When will the New Moon be past,/ That we may sell grain?/ And the Sabbath,/ That we may trade wheat?/ Making the ephah small and the shekel large,/ Falsifying the scales by deceit,/ That we may buy the poor for silver,/ And the needy for a pair of sandals -- /Even sell the bad wheat?' The Lord has sworn by the pride of Jacob:/ 'Surely I will never forget any of their works . . .'" (Amos 8:4-7). (An ephah and a shekel where weights and measures, the shekel often used to measure out gold or silver by weight. What is in view here is commercial fraud.) God, speaking through His prophet Isaiah, condemned the religious hypocrisy of Israel, saying, "Is this not the fast that I have chosen:/ To loose the bonds of wickedness,/ To undo the heavy burdens,/ To let the oppressed go free,/ And that you break every yoke?/ Is it not to share your bread with the hungry,/ And that you bring to your house the poor who are cast out;/ When you see the naked, that you cover him,/ And not hide yourself from your own flesh?" (Isa. 58:6,7).
    As we have seen from our study on the Sermon on the Mount Jesus was especially concerned to emphasize the underlying moral principles of the Old Testament law, including our obligations to the poor. Perhaps the most memorable example of this was His famous Parable of the Good Samaritan, found in Luke 10:25-37. A Jewish legal scholar had asked Jesus what was meant by the word "neighbor" in Lev. 19:18, quoted above. Jesus replied by telling a story about a man who had been robbed and left for dead by the side of the road. A couple of religious officials passed by and did nothing. Finally a Samaritan, a member of a despised neighboring ethnic group, came by, and seeing the man lying there by the road took care of him at his own expense. Jesus then asked the lawyer, "So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?," and the lawyer replied "He who showed mercy on him." Jesus said, "Go and do likewise" (vv. 36,37).
    Yes, Mr. Kelley is right. The principle of altruism and social justice are deeply rooted in Western culture. They come from the Bible. But who is right? Moses and Jesus? Or Ayn Rand? Let the Libertarians argue that no one is morally obligated to share his wealth with anyone. God's Word says otherwise. And what will we say when we meet our Maker?

Other blog posts in which you might be interested -- just click on the links:
Jesus and the Torah 
Wealth Management 
Capitalism and the Sabbath

Capitalism and Christianity – I

 
Review:
    The Morality of Capitalism: What Your Professors Won't Tell You
    Tom G. Palmer, Editor
    Jameson Books, 2011
    129 pp.; pb

 
    Recently there fell into my hands a copy of a slender paperback volume entitled The Morality of Capitalism, a collection of essays edited by Dr. Tom G. Palmer. Dr. Palmer is a graduate of The Catholic University of America as well as of Oxford, and is currently a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and an executive vice president of the Atlas Network.
    The volume in hand begins with a short introduction by Dr. Palmer, followed by an interview with Mr. John Mackey, cofounder of Whole Foods Market. The rest of the book consists of twelve essays by various authors, all extolling the virtues of free market economics. The authors come from a variety of backgrounds, as well as from several different countries, including both Russia and China.
    As might be expected from an anthology of this type, not all of the authors are in complete agreement with each other. Mr. Mackey, in particular, presents a fairly benign view of capitalism, noting that there is nothing about a free market, per se, that prevents an entrepreneur from being compassionate or humane.

Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

    This is one essay, however, which presents a more menacing aspect, and with that one we wish to focus our attention. The essay is entitled "Ayn Rand and Capitalism: The Moral Revolution," and was written by David Kelley, who is described as an Objectivist philosopher. "Objectivism" is the name given by the late Ms. Rand to her philosophy. Ms. Rand was an atheist who was vigorously opposed to any form of altruism.
    True to form, Mr. Kelley attacks the idea of "social justice" as a concept rooted in altruism, and proceeds to argue that there is nothing morally wrong with pursuing one's one self-interest. Man's highest good, he says, is his own life, and to with that end in mind he participates in the marketplace, which should be governed by the principles of freedom, equality, and justice. But that, he says, does not mean that a given individual is in any way obligated to sacrifice his own interests for the sake of others. ". . . the only social restraint that capitalism imposes is the requirement that those who wish the services of others must offer value in return." He then draws the practical conclusion: "No one may use the state to expropriate what others have produced" (p.80). By don't the poor deserve consideration? ". . .there is no ground in justice for holding the poor or the meek in any special esteem or regarding their needs as primary . . .No one can claim a right to make others serve him involuntarily, even if his own life depends on it" (p. 81). In other words, it is wrong for the government to use tax dollars to alleviate poverty. A state run social welfare program is inherently unjust.
    Mr. Kelley notes that altruism is deeply rooted in western culture, and then suggests, in the concluding paragraph of his essay, that mankind needs to break with its ethical past. "The ethical principle that individual ability is a social asset is incompatible with a free society. If freedom is to survive and flourish, we need a fourth revolution, a moral revolution, that establishes the moral right of the individual to live for himself" (pp. 82-83). In other words, what he is proposing is nothing less than the eradication of Christian morality. Significantly, he began his essay with a quote from Thomas Paine: "We have it in our power to begin the world over again" (Common Sense). Mr. Kelley's essay is a Libertarian manifesto indeed!

 
Next: What the Bible actually says about social justice.

You may also enjoy (click on link):
The Social Agenda of the Tea Party

The Social Agenda of the Tea Party

    This past week witnessed the Republican National Convention, and the official nomination of Mitt Romney as president and Paul Ryan as vice-president. The Republicans, understandably, are emphasizing the economy and Mr. Romney's financial and business expertise.
    It is worth noting that Mr. Ryan has proposed a budget that would cap spending on Medicare and Medicaid (the federal health insurance programs for the elderly and poor, respectively), but does not cut defense spending or raise taxes. A budget reflects one's values and priorities; you spend money on what you think is most important. Mr. Ryan's proposed budget presupposes a philosophy of government – one that is limited, that provides for defense but not the health and welfare of its own citizens. His proposals are sure to spark controversy and debate.
    Large numbers of American evangelicals are expected to vote for the Republican ticket in the Fall. But the Ryan budget raises some serious questions. Does the Republican Party agenda really reflect Christian values?
    What is especially reason for concern is the Republican Party's philosophical underpinnings. The more radical element within the party is known as the "Tea Party movement." The Tea Party, in turn, is vocal in its support of limited government and individual freedom. Its preferred solution to the federal debt crisis would be to cut both spending and taxes.
    Among other things Tea Party activists are critical of the idea of "social justice." Dick Armey and Matte Kibbe, leaders of the major Tea Party organization FreedomWorks, write that "Liberals don't talk about democratic socialism anymore; the prattle on about 'social justice.' They misuse the phrase. Justice means treating every individual with respect and decency and exactly the same as everyone else is treated under the laws of the land. As best as we can tell, 'social justice' translates to really wise elected officials (you know, smarter than you) redistributing your hard-earned income to their social agendas, all dutifully administered by a well intentioned bureaucrat."¹
    Much of the Tea Party's philosophy can be traced back to the late Ayn Rand, whose novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged were and remain bestsellers. FreedomWorks, in fact, distributes copies of Atlas Shrugged. This fact alone should make Christian conservatives hesitate. Ayn Rand was an atheist, and her ethical system was one of radical egoism.
    In each of Ayn Rand's novels there is a hero who delivers a lengthy speech outlining what is Ms. Rand's philosophy of "objectivism." The speeches typically contain impassioned harangues against altruism, and then go on to argue that true morality is based on self-interest. This, in turn, is used to support a libertarian view of government and free market economics.
    In Ms. Rand's view it is the enterprising individual who, through his intelligence and hard work, earns what he has, and therefore should be allowed to keep it. In Atlas Shrugged one character goes so far as to say "To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money – and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement," and then goes on a little while later to say "The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality."²

    Ms. Rand's attacks on altruism bring us to the heart of the issue. Do we have a responsibility for the well-being of others? Ms. Rand's answer is an emphatic "no." To her way of thinking she was accountable to no one but herself. She got where she was by her superior intelligence and the dint of her own hard labor. She owed no one anything. As Chuck Colson pointed out, "It is hard to imagine a world view more antithetical to Christianity."    
    "He has told you, O man, what is good;/ And what does the Lord require of you / But to do justly, to love mercy, / And to walk humbly with your God?" (Micah 6:8; NKJV).

 
Notes:
¹ Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe, Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto (New York, 2010) p. 170
² Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual (New York, 1961), pp. 93-94
³ quoted by columnist Cynthia Tucker