Seekonomics

I've been having this discourse with my friend Charles B about a Christian view of economics. As usual when I talk to Charles he comes up with a lot of interesting material. That is why I asked him my original question. It started off as specifically about John Calvin's impact on capitalism and particularly his view of loaning at interest. We never quite got the answer to the original question nailed down, but it opened up other intriguing avenues. See below.

Original message from Simo to Charles:

Charles,

Often in my reading I've come accross statements that say in effect: Calvinism set the stage for modern Capitalism. I'm sure you have seen this too.

My questions are why and how.

In my reading I've come accross three possible connections:

1. The reformation made people generally more responsible i.e. Business men were good stewards, employees were hard working and honest.
Sounds good to me.

2. Calvinist believed that observable temporal blessing, seen in financial gain, was evidence of Eternal election.
This is weird. It's like a back door prosperity gospel, but I bleieve it could have happened.

3. Calvin's teaching on Interest or Usury differed from what had been formerly taught in the Church. Followers of his teachings didn't think it was unethical, as former generrations had, to lend at interest.
This is what I'm most interested in. I was wondering if you had ever studied on it. I would like to know what the Bible teaches about lending. What Calvin taught about lending. The difference. And how his view effected the History of Western Society.
Maybe Calvin took a wrong turn.

Charles response to Simo:

Hi Simon, This is an excellent topic! However, I don't really have an answer, but it's something I've wondered myself. What I find amazing is how uncritical we are about the Reformers. The reformers were as political as they were religious. They had specific ideas on how they wanted to democratize the Church and Empire. Recall, Charles V was a stalwart defender of Rome and Papacy. Free cities like Geneva also had merchant classes who wanted to freedom from the yoke of princes, and so made natural alliance with the protestant cause. So, there were many interests at stake, and I think the politics of that time influenced many theological confessions and treatises. I do not think either Luther or Calvin were objective in this respect. They wanted to establish free churches which were not driven by Roman bishops but by lay and low clergy. I many ways the Reformers did open the doors to capitalism, free markets, republics, and nation-states--sic., the modern era. Likewise today's commentators often appeal to this line of Reformed thought (the protest of Empire and Papacy) in order to justify market societies, science, democracy, and even secularism. To me this is gross isogesis. However, expecting men to seperate their cultural presuppositions (which we are not generally conscious about) from biblical exegesis is unrealistic. Thus, when dealing with various subject matter, it is always smart to differentiate between what is "essential" from "indifferent". A lot of the political and economic ideas of the Reformation where predispostions shaped by their struggle with ceasarpopism. Here are some of my opinions regarding your points:

1. The reformation made people generally more responsible i.e. Business men were good stewards, employees were hard working and honest.
Sounds good to me.
>> Protestant work ethic. Work and time was revolutionized by the Reformers. Prior to the Reformation time was organized around festive masses, i.e., the liturgical calendar. Often liturgical seasons suspended work and normal time for periods of several weeks. For instance, Christmas was celebrated not just for 3 days (like today...if you get a 3 day weekend from work) but from Christmas to Epiphany, or the 12 days of Christmas. Fesitvals were very long compared to modern vacation time. And, in Europe there is still this practice--short workdays, extended holidays, festal weeks, etc. By abolishing festal days, the Reformers inadverdently surrrendered huge segments of the calendar year to the secular, and this allowed the material to rule over the spiritual. In the medieval this was the reverse.
2. Calvinist believed that observable temporal blessing, seen in financial gain, was evidence of Eternal election.
This is weird. It's like a back door prosperity gospel, but I bleieve it could have happened.
>> Gosh. Assyria was rich. So was Babylon. I don't think there's a necessary tie. God took wealth away from Job. Jesus said blessed are the poor. Lazarus and the rich man, etc.. I agree with your here.
3. Calvin's teaching on Interest or Usury differed from what had been formerly taught in the Church. Followers of his teachings didn't think it was unethical, as former generrations had, to lend at interest.
>>> Don't know much about this. As with #2 I wonder if Calvin wasn't influenced by his audience. Protestants tended to get backing from merchants and free cities. Don't know. I further suspect there is more to biblical economics the libertarianism. Libertarianism runs against the emphasis that Reformers placed on covenant and covenantal relations. WE tend to turn Protestantism into an excuse for egoistic individuals. A covenant is not a simple contract between two individuals. It has a corporate and timeless dimension. But even in the OT there a laws limiting the freedom of property. However, this is through the extended family, not state. This is where Leftwing christians go wrong... Property was owned in a covenantal manner, and I think this is how we might want to begin when looking at biblical economics. Start with inheritance rights of families... Got to go back to work!!! didn't have as much time as I wish to talk about this rich subject. I think there is much room to re-evaluate Gary north and the christo-libertarian crowd. Awesome questions. I've been asking myself the same, but haven't had time to go really deep. Thanks Simon! sincerely,charles

Charles then proceeded to send me several interesting links.

I think the most interesting on is the following on Distributism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

Here are the other links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_orthodoxy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Localism_(politics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Traditionalism
http://www.mutualist.org/
http://r3volutionphase2.com/

My current thoughts:

I think it is undeniable that the Old Testament Theocracy was economically Distributist. The ownership of the "means of production" the land was distributed by families. And there were several laws about protecting these family land rights. Even if through poverty a family lost their land later someone from that family would be able to retrieve it. Some of the hardest warnings in the OT are against those who would violate land rights and boundaries. Even King Ahab couldn't practice Eminent Domain and get away with it.

However I'm not sure if a similar system could be restored today. The concept is kind of frightening . My inner Ron Paul can't handle it because of the prospect of privately owned means of production being taken away and redistributed.

Perhaps it would have to start voluntarily and small scale.

I would love to here anyone else's thoughts on these topics.