Is Evangelicalism
Worth a Bailout?
Reconsidering the
Fiscal–Faith Dynamic
“It is inherent in the methodology of
economics to ignore man’s dependence on the natural world”[1]
– E.
F. Schumacher
Introduction
Five years after the global financial collapse
the initial shock has past, but ramifications linger. The eurozone continues to
wallow and anti-establishment sentiments lurk.[2]
Simultaneously, “January 2013 was the 335th consecutive month
with global temperatures warmer than the 20th century average”[3] and total sea ice volume has decreased 75-80%.[4]
Undergirding these economic and natural crises is the worldview of the global
west. What is Evangelicalism’s relation to this current state of affairs? Is Evangelicalism
complicit or does it have anything worth saying to the current situation? This
paper, risking generalization, posits that the concurrent arcs of Evangelicalism
and capitalism depict a symbiotic unholy union, originating in Evangelicalism rise
amidst bourgeoning capitalism. Doomed from the outset by unsustainable
oversights, the evangelical-capitalist harmony ruptured from within. However, Evangelicalism
is not completely bankrupt; an environmentally conscious re-imagining of core
evangelical theology may yield future economic hope.
A
Brief Historical Reflection
As early as the middle ages, significant
Christian accommodations to capitalism are evident, yet fully developed capitalism
took much longer to mature.[5]
Freedom and sufficiently secure property rights were necessary developments to
sustain industry.[6] Industry,
in turn, was a prerequisite for an economic system of production and
distribution determined by supply and demand, as regulated by the motive of profit.[7]
These factors finally aligned in England, the first country to industrialize.[8]
Evangelicalism began and grew
alongside industrial development. As a broad movement, four commonalities best define
Evangelicalism: belief in supernatural experiential conversion, the Bible as a
revelation from God, importance of missions and personal evangelism, and the
saving character of Jesus’ death and resurrection.[9]
These beliefs found traction in the Victorian era. Commenting on the
psychological anxiety of the period, Deborah Gorham states, “Having produced
industrial capitalism, the Victorians sought refuge from it."[10]
Richard Bushman, considering the Great Awakening in New England, notes a
similar trait; an increased desire for material wealth caused clashes with
authority, yet the disturbance found resolve in the psychological appeasement of
guilt, offered in God’s grace.[11]
Bushman argues, “The idea that the law could not condemn if God justified
contained the deepest meaning of the Awakening.”[12]
In essence, a culmination of the reformation schism - between grace in
justification, and behaviour in sanctification - occurred. Contemporarily this
rift appears to have reached its nadir in the economic decisions of the 21st
century, as bailouts offer tangible grace for ghastly ethical behaviour, while
consequence remains aloof.
Addressing this accusation of
psychological appeasement, Mark Noll refers to Bruce Hindmarsh’s alternative
perspective that psychological stability resulted from the promise of a direct
experience of divine grace in a populace coming to terms with increased personal
agency.[13]
Robert Wauzzinski does not doubt the stability, but argues it is rooted in a
deep-seated syncretism between Evangelicalism and industrialism. Optimism
prevailed because “Evangelical-revivalism had come to a truncated view of human
sin. Concomitantly, the scope of the Evangelical worldview was increasingly
internalized and personalized, leaving it impotent to discover economic
alternatives.”[14] In
this truncation, industrialism filled the rest of the worldview; Evangelicalism
offered the “supernatural, theological, moral and metaphysical categories”[15]
while “industrialism comprised naturalistic, materialistic, ‘scientific,’ and
mechanistic components.”[16]
This unceremonious marriage is evident as “Revivalists and industrialists came
to need each other; the former needed money, the latter legitimation.”[17]
For example, George Whitefield worked in a “free-market ethos” adopting
growth-based models of “save as many souls as possible.”[18]
It was a marriage not meant to last.
The
Spectrum
Craig Gay’s work With Liberty and Justice for Whom? articulates the contemporary divide
within Evangelicalism, between right “liberty” capitalists and left “justice”
critics. Whereas, “prior to 1890, economic individualism, success orientation,
a strong work ethic...were advocated by almost all Protestant churchmen – both
theologically liberal and theologically
conservative,”[19]
the present situation is a spectrum begun by the “‘left’ – that is, among those
who identified capitalism as an economic system essentially at odds with
Christian theology and ethics.”[20]
Gay adds the sociological insight that the spectrum also corresponds to “class”
divides, as those earning money via an education advantage, and a corresponding
gradual secularization, principally make up the left.[21]
The spectrum, however, largely still lies within liberalism; therefore, divisions
are degrees to which capitalism or statism are to blame for economic woes.[22]
A brief survey will assist in understanding the theological-political
differences within this spectrum.
Right
The right, often proponents of
Reaganomics, Friedmanomics, or “pure capitalism,” defend their positions with
concepts of individual freedom and liberty. Jeffery Sachs is a contemporary
example of this type of growth based, fair opportunity, economic theory.[23]
This position is often defended by “Christian progress” historiography, such as
that done by Rodney Stark. For example, “English capitalism could develop as it
did only because the English enjoyed unparalleled levels of freedom. It was no
coincidence that the nation with the longest tradition of individual liberty was
the nation where invention and industry thrived.”[24]
Accordingly, Christianity, freedom, and capitalism are essential for
modernization.[25]
Center
The center position realizes
capitalism’s strengths, but is wary of unrestrained capitalism. “Those in the
center are primarily interested in determining just how much state intervention
is necessary to correct the market failures that they feel have plagued modern
societies and created situations of relative economic inequality and
injustice.”[26] A
contemporary example is Richard Bayer, as he offers a modified and nuanced
free-market economy.[27]
Left
The left is often defined by its belief
in the importance of the state for achieving justice. Free-market Keynesian
economics and moderate-socialism typify this category. “The evangelical left’s
basic criticism of capitalism is that it represents a comprehensive
sociopolitical-economic system in which a small business elite exploits and
oppresses the majority of people in modern societies.”[28]
Thus, themes of justice are drawn upon in reaction to the oppression. Dambisa
Moyo is a contemporary proponent of this “just” growth theory.[29]
Gay, reflecting upon this spectrum, deconstructs
the defence of the various positions. He notes liberty, as claimed by the
right, is often only freedom of the individual while not considering the
collective.[30]
Further, justice, as claimed by the left, is mainly defined as equal
distribution rather than fair opportunity.[31]
Thus, Gay states, “both the left and right fail to appreciate fully the
character of modern capitalism. The left fails to appreciate the remarkable
ability of capitalism to create wealth and hence alleviate poverty, and the
right fails to appreciate the ability of capitalism to dissolve traditional
culture and hence exacerbate spiritual poverty.”[32]
Gay’s alternative is capitalism in which liberty limits oppression through
balancing social, political, and economic power; love trumps justices; and implementation
of Sabbath regulates greed.[33]
At this point, many Evangelicals
would agree that a more consistent application of these ideas ought to be the
next step. However, a further complication is the mode of application, as there
is no single agreed upon mode. Richard Niebuhr’s classic spectrum articulates
the options: are Evangelicals to acquiesce, oppose, transcend, transform, or be
in paradox with culture as they attempt to apply their ideas regarding
capitalism?[34] Alternatively,
some might desire a “biblical paradigm,” such as Lucien Legrand’s concept of a prophet-king
tension, exhibited by Israel, as a means of offering a Christian perspective to
capitalism.[35]
Others, however, might invoke a “Jesus” paradigm, such as speaking
prophetically to the culture from a sub-culture/minority position.[36]
Frustratingly, these approaches did not prevent the current economic upheaval, as
two decades have passed since Gay’s work. Has Gay’s advice simply gone unheard,
or is there something deeper occurring?
A
Materialist Insight
Far-Left
The collapse of the eastern block
occurred almost twenty-five years ago; nevertheless far-left alternatives have
not disappeared, instead they increasingly challenge the liberalist assumptions
governing the above spectrum. Magazines such as Geez and Adbusters
propagate radical alternatives; and movements such as “Occupy” have shaped
political discourse worldwide, popularising the “99% vs. 1%.” Liberation
theology continues to exist, despite Gay’s charge that it is “almost completely
devoid of transcendence as traditionally understood.”[37]
Furthermore, anarchist writers are being heard; such as Noam Chomsky, who re-interprets
entire histories for instance the Cold War as a North-South oppression.[38]
Other radical leftist, materialist thinkers deriving ethics from the
Judaeo-Christian story, such as Slavoj Žižek
and Peter Rollins, are gaining a voice within Emergent Christian circles, while
criticising psychological appeasement.[39] The prevalence of these
views begs the question, “what ought to be gleaned from these voices of
dissent?”
The far-left makes clear that materiality
is missing from, and central to, the entire economic discussion. The environment
has been the unspoken assumption; when considered, the environment makes
serious claims against Evangelicalism and capitalism. Against Evangelicalism,
it might be heard crying, “my guardian, my guardian, why have you forsaken me?”
and to capitalism, “Let me produce this day
your daily bread, for tomorrow you will ask again!” Thereby challenging Evangelicalism
to break down its silos of thought, as economics cannot be divorced from
environmental consideration. In the same way, grace must remain connected to ethics
to prevent reductionist psychological appeasement.
In response, the challenge is to
begin re-imagining economic systems based on a more holistic worldview. Fortunately,
not all segments of Evangelicalism have neglected the environment. There were
early prophetic critiques that economic growth had no discernible limit without
regulation by the environmental sciences.[40]
Bill McKibben, for one, has pioneered environmental thinking, specifically
around concepts of “enough” in contrast to growth.[41]
More recently, environmental thinking has begun to emerge in critiques of
consumption[42]
and attempts to place “egalitarianism and ecological integrity more actively
onto the political agenda.”[43]
However, this environmental ethos has not inhabited the church in such a way as
to revolutionize action.
A
Renewed Theology
Paul Williams asserts that theology will
subsequently shape ontology, epistemology, and politics; therefore, one must
consider the heart of evangelical theology, the atonement.[44]
Stephen Finlan, developing why atonement theories work psychologically, notes
“the belief that nothing is free, that there must be give-and-take in the
spiritual economy as there is in the material; [and] secondly, the intuition
that ritual establishes order.”[45]
Therefore, ritual must repeat to establish order, which can be observed in Evangelicalism
by the repetitive focus on guilt followed by undeserved rescue.[46]
Economic practices of the 21st century subsequently follow the
theology. Guilt based theories of atonement and capitalist transactions initially
assume give-and-take; however, both when pushed to crisis transcend this
economy, with humans always receiving more of the “take.” God’s grace will be sufficient;
similarly, unlimited growth is possible (even if bailouts are required). One relieves
psychological tension, while the other causes psychological anxiety (at least
for those whom are aware of the materialist reminder that the earth is finite).
Reflecting upon the rise of Evangelicalism
as contemporaneous with bourgeoning capitalism, one can perceive how models and
metaphors of the atonement became skewed. For example, George Whitefield’s
capitalist drive to “save as many souls as possible” necessitated he utilize the
most efficient metaphors of the atonement.[47]
Thus, he capitalized on the psychological anxiety of the period; consequently, prioritizing
guilt metaphors while demoting others. This lack of balance continues to plague
Evangelicalism; for example, the Mennonite Brethren Conference of British
Columbia continues to be divided over whether there is a “central” atonement
theory, or a spectrum of metaphors without hierarchy.[48]
Contemplating the current economic
situation has revealed this underlying issue of unbalanced atonement metaphors.
One method to resolve this is by changing the language used to communicate the
atonement, from solely personal salvation to cosmos reconciliation. It is a
pivotal change that follows biblical precedent, as the captivity letters accomplish
this expansion of language to accommodate and communicate the gospel to a
broader cosmology of “all things” (Col 1:17).[49]
Beginning with the atonement, evangelical
theology should implement an environmental consciousness in other areas; thereby
ensuring evangelical faith is not reduced to psychological appeasement. For
example, the material nature of the fall could be highlighted. A material
action, taking the fruit, had material consequences. Alternatively, the Psalms,
in Brueggemann’s opinion, ought to be rediscovered, such as Psalm 104, in which
the wicked whom do not care for the earth are threatened with death.[50]
Finally, evangelical eschatology can be informed by other traditions such as
the Eastern Orthodox, which has better preserved salvation as involving all of
creation.[51]
Is Evangelicalism worth a bailout?
No, not if that means retaining the unsustainable status quo relationship with
growth-capitalism. Is Evangelicalism worth re-imagining? Yes, once Evangelicals
have thoroughly renewed their theology, they may be better adept at developing
sustainable economic systems that bear in mind the finitude of the earth and the
limitations of human economic transactions, while retaining liberty and justice.
In this way, Evangelicalism has the opportunity to reclaim and define the
material world, instead of letting it be defined by the industrial-capitalist
ideology.
Conclusion
Evangelicalism and capitalism have had an
insidious relationship, a consequence of their synchronized rise. At their
nadir, they have been guilty of fiscal irresponsibility and unsustainable,
growth-based economics supported by spiritualised psychological appeasement.
Yet internal and external critiques have emerged, reminding Evangelicals to
consider finite “this world” relationships. Thus, Evangelicalism has the
opportunity to break from its uncritical wedlock to industrial-capitalism, re-imagine
its theology in more holistic terms, and offer positive alternatives to the
current economic and environmental crises.
[1] E. F Schumacher, Small is
Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered (London: Abacus, 1974), 36.
[2] “Italy Seeks Path Out of
Election Impasse,” Aljazeera English, February 26, 2013,
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2013/02/2013226195420564530.html (accessed
March 3, 2013).
[3] Jeff Masters, “January 2013
Earth’s 9th Warmest on Record; Category 2 Haruna Hits Madagascar,” Blog, Wunderground,
February 22, 2013,
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2354
(accessed March 3, 2013).
[4] Jeff Masters and Angela Fritz,
“Arctic Sea Ice Volume Now One-fifth Its 1979 Volume,” Blog, Wunderground,
February 19, 2013,
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2352
(accessed March 1, 2013).
[5] Rodney Stark, The Victory of
Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success
(New York: Random House, 2005), 63ff.
[6] Ibid., 153.
[7] “Capitalism,” Merriam
Webster Dictionary, 2013,
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism (accessed March 3, 2013).
[8] Stark, The Victory of Reason,
157.
[9] Mark A Noll, The Scandal of
the Evangelical Mind (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 9.
[10] Deborah Gorham, The
Victorian Girl and the Feminine Ideal (Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 1982), 3–4.
[11] Richard L Bushman, From
Puritan to Yankee: Character and the Social Order in Connecticut, 1690-1765
(New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1970), 188–194.
[12] Ibid., 194.
[13] Mark A Noll, The Rise of
Evangelicalism: The Age of Edwards, Whitefield, and the Wesleys (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 152–153.
[14] Robert A. Wauzzinski, Between
God and Gold: Protestant Evangelicalism and the Industrial Revolution,
1820-1914 (Rutherford, N.J: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1993),
219.
[15] Ibid., 218.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid., 219.
[18] Mark A. Noll, ed., God and
Mammon: Protestants, Money, and the Market, 1790-1860 (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2002), 238.
[19] Craig M. Gay, With Liberty
and Justice for Whom? The Recent Evangelical Debate over Capitalism (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), 10.
[20] Ibid., 22.
[21] Ibid.,
177ff.
[22] Ibid., 114.
[23] Jeffrey Sachs, The End of
Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time (New York: Penguin Books,
2005).
[24] Stark, The Victory of Reason,
158.
Emphasis added.
[25] Ibid., 233.
[26] Gay, With Liberty and
Justice for Whom?, 160.
[27] Richard C. Bayer, Capitalism
and Christianity: The Possibility of Christian Personalism (Washington,
D.C: Georgetown University Press, 1999).
[28] Gay, With Liberty and
Justice for Whom?, 66.
[29] Dambisa Moyo, Dead Aid: Why
Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa (New York:
Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009).
[30] Gay, With Liberty and
Justice for Whom?, 222.
[31] Ibid., 226.
[32] Ibid., 115.
[33] Ibid., 225,
231, 236ff.
[34] H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ
and Culture (San Francisco: Harper One, 2001).
[35] Lucien Legrand, The Bible on
Culture: Belonging or Dissenting (Maryknoll, N.Y: Orbis Books, 2000), 40.
[36] Ibid., 83ff; John Howard Yoder,
The Priestly Kingdom: Social Ethics as Gospel (Notre Dame, IN:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1984), 88.
[37] Gay, With Liberty and
Justice for Whom?, 9.
[38] Noam Chomsky, Hegemony or
Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance (New York: Henry Holt,
2004), 70.
[39] Amirhosainsabeti, Zizek Lecture
on Buddhism, “Buddhist Slavoj Zizek” Gangnam Style, 2013,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjhhHpCAXHM (accessed March 3, 2013); Peter
Rollins, Crack House Church, 2013,
http://www.atheismforlent.net/crack-house-church/ (accessed March 3, 2013).
[40] Schumacher, Small is
Beautiful, 23.
[41] Bill McKibben, Enough:
Staying Human in an Engineered Age (New York: Times Books, 2003).
[42] B. Goudzwaard, Hope in
Troubled Times: A New Vision for Confronting Global Crises (Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Academic, 2007).
[43] William E. Connolly, Capitalism
and Christianity, American Style (Durham: Duke University Press, 2008), xi.
[44] Paul Williams, “Lord of the
Sciences: Christianity and the Modern World” (Lecture, Christian Thought and
Culture II, Regent College, Vancouver, BC, February 19, 2013).
[45] Stephen Finlan, Problems
with Atonement: The Origins of, and Controversy About, the Atonement Doctrine
(Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2005), 80.
[46] Ibid., 82.
[47] Noll, God and Mammon,
238.
[48] J Janzen, “Deep Spirited
Friends Conversation Reveals Deep-Seated Concerns,” Mennonite Brethren Herald
(December 2010),
http://www.mbconf.ca/home/products_and_services/resources/publications/mb_herald/december_2010/pe/friends/
(accessed March 1, 2013).
[49] Legrand, The Bible on
Culture, 152ff; Brian J. Walsh, Colossians Remixed: Subverting the
Empire (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 226.
[50] Tripp Fuller and Bo Sanders, Brueggemann’s
Guide to the Bible, Homebrewed Christianity, n.d.,
http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2012/11/10/brueggemanns-guide-to-the-bible/
(accessed March 3, 2013).
[51] Steven Bouma-Prediger, For
the Beauty of the Earth: A Christian Vision for Creation Care, 2nd ed
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010), 118.
+50 footnotes!? 1. Go outside. 2. You better get an A :)
ReplyDelete