The Gospel for Market Participants
Andy's brief discussion of THE CHURCH AND THE MARKET raises the question concerning what the Gospel says to people participating in market economies. In many ways, I think the answer is the message is the same to people who participated in the medieval economy or any other economic structure. The Gospel warns against relying on wealth rather than God, against exploiting the poor, and so on. The big difference between market systems and other systems is the success of markets in bringing people out of poverty. That is, the concerns addressed to the wealthy relate to more people now than under other systems. The sprititual dangers of materialism and consumerism are real dangers, and affect the majority of people living in the West whereas in Jesus' day, related to a minority of the population. (This is not to argue that there aren't spriritual dangers facing those who are poor as well.)
Yet, one caveat is needed. We are wealthy by standards of consumption, but not necessarily with respect to things the wealthy were accused of by the OT prophets. The prophets accused the wealthy of exploiting the poor and of perverting the legal system for their own advantage and against the poor. We know that the relationships in market economies tend to be positive-sum games, so that we cannot conclude that the rich are rich only by exploiting the poor. We should also recognize that the typical middle-class American is not rich enough to "buy" justice. If I were arrested for a crime, whether guilty or not, I could not afford to hire the "Dream Team" that OJ hired.
Another issue has to do with actions at work. Here, what one says is probably related to one's view of vocation. For example, a Lutheran, two-kingdoms approach, would argue that there are ways of behaving appropriate to different vocations and one should act within those bounds. Even though the Gospel tells us not to judge--a judge has to judge to carry our his or her job. A person who rejects the Lutheran approach may attach other criteria on people's actions at work. (I know of no approach that would permit cheating or exploitation).
I look forward to reading more of Andy's thoughts and the thoughts of others on the subject.
Yet, one caveat is needed. We are wealthy by standards of consumption, but not necessarily with respect to things the wealthy were accused of by the OT prophets. The prophets accused the wealthy of exploiting the poor and of perverting the legal system for their own advantage and against the poor. We know that the relationships in market economies tend to be positive-sum games, so that we cannot conclude that the rich are rich only by exploiting the poor. We should also recognize that the typical middle-class American is not rich enough to "buy" justice. If I were arrested for a crime, whether guilty or not, I could not afford to hire the "Dream Team" that OJ hired.
Another issue has to do with actions at work. Here, what one says is probably related to one's view of vocation. For example, a Lutheran, two-kingdoms approach, would argue that there are ways of behaving appropriate to different vocations and one should act within those bounds. Even though the Gospel tells us not to judge--a judge has to judge to carry our his or her job. A person who rejects the Lutheran approach may attach other criteria on people's actions at work. (I know of no approach that would permit cheating or exploitation).
I look forward to reading more of Andy's thoughts and the thoughts of others on the subject.
Posted by John E. Lunn on
Wednesday November 2, 2005 at 8:36am