Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Careers, Workplace and Religion
We’re all working for the Pharaoh

We’re all working for the Pharaoh

Last updated on: August 5, 2015 at 1:35 pm by Edwin Woodruff Tait

We’re all working for the Pharaoh 2015-08-05T13:35:31-05:00 Edwin Woodruff Tait

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

More of our reports and analysis from the recent Acton University conference. Read the first eight posts here:

By Edwin Woodruff Tait

The first lecture I attended at Acton, after the required series of four foundational lectures, was John Bergsma’s “Property Rights in the Old Testament I,” focusing on the Pentateuch. Bergsma, of course, argued that the Bible supports principles of private property and the free market, at times using what I found rather strained arguments. For instance, he argued that the transaction in which Esau sells his birthright to Jacob implies the legitimacy of buying and selling even intangible things, and he suggested that Jacob’s deceit of his father was an attempt (however misguided in its method) to recover what was rightfully his in the face of Isaac’s willingness to “collude” with Esau to defraud Jacob. (I had always thought that the blessing Jacob cheated Esau out of and the birthright he bought were two different things, but Bergsma seems to believe that they were the same thing.)

Central to Bergsma’s interpretation of the Pentateuch was what he called the “liturgical” aspect of property rights. Freedom from the “command economy” of Egypt, and possession of one’s own land, is necessary so that God’s people can properly worship God. Now we could argue whether this link between property and worship holds in quite the same way in the New Testament, but as an observation about the OT (clearly with implications for Christians) I found this quite profound and thought-provoking.

Less convincing was Bergsma’s claim that some degree of inequality was presupposed by the command not to covet. Now I don’t dispute that inequality between rich and poor existed, of course. What bothers me about this claim is the assumption that “coveting” is only possible if you have less than someone else. This, I think, gets close to the heart of my fundamental moral issue with much of what I heard at Acton, and what I consistently hear from Christian defenders of the free market.

Biblical stories involving someone coveting what belongs to someone else, at least the ones that come to my mind at the moment, involve a rich man desiring something that a poorer man has. Ahab coveted Naboth’s vineyard, not because Naboth was richer than Ahab but because Ahab’s fancy was tickled by this particular vineyard. Similarly, the rich man in Nathan’s parable in 2 Sam. 12 (and, of course, David in the real story to which the parable points) has far more “sheep” than the poor man whose one ewe lamb the rich man desires.

The most fundamental issue raised in Bergsma’s talk, though, was the nature of property in the OT. As Bergsma admitted, property in the OT is not really “private,” because (at least in the case of land) it belonged fundamentally to the family. This of course is the idea behind the law saying that familiar property should be returned in the “year of jubilee.” Bergsma pointed out that the Torah does prorate the value of the property based on how many years are left, showing respect for the rights of the buyer. But fundamentally, it seems to me that the concept of property found in the Torah is at odds with that of modern capitalism.

On the other hand, the OT understanding of property fits quite well with the Catholic economic and political philosophy known as “distributism,” articulated by G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc in the early 20th century. As I believe I mentioned in my first post, this is the position that I most identify with in regards to socio-economic matters.

From this perspective, “capitalism” (as defined by the distributists) and “socialism” are two sides of the same coin. Both concentrate power in the hands of a few–capitalist entrepreneurs in the one case, government bureaucrats on the other. The distributist goal, on the other hand, is to encourage the “widest possible ownership of property.” Distributists tend to agree with the Marxist critique of capitalism as “alienating” workers from the product of their labor, but their answer is radically different.

Instead of doing away with private ownership, the proper approach is to encourage more ownership. Chesterton and Belloc used the slogan, “the problem with capitalism is that there are too few capitalists.” The original “distributists” were not primarily economists, and were highly idealistic. Hence, it’s easy to dismiss distributism as a naive fantasy. However, in recent years authors such as John Medaille and Thomas Storck have revived distributism and are applying distributist principles to contemporary economic and political issues.

From my perspective, distributism is primarily about goals and secondarily about means. Hence, I found it interesting that Todd Flanders, in his lecture on distributism (also on Thursday), spoke approvingly of the goals of distributism and found common ground in that respect with his own “free-market” perspective. Flanders particularly affirmed distributism’s “humane” approach to economics, recognizing the importance of the person and the family and treating people as more than just production units. He also praised distributism’s adherence to the principle of subsidiarity and its opposition both to autonomous individualism and to “crony capitalism.”

On the other hand, Flanders questioned whether distributism could “deliver” these goals. In particular, he criticized the willingness of most distributists to call in the power of the state in order to ensure wider ownership. The valid goals of distributism, he argued, can best be met by free-market methods. For instance, one of the common distributist claims is that wages and prices ought to be regulated (preferably by guilds) so as to meet Pope Leo XIII’s call for every working man to have a wage sufficient to support a family. Flanders argued (as does Thomas Woods in his The Church and the Market) that this is economically unfeasible and would actually harm the poor.

Indeed, distributists such as Belloc and Chesterton were critical of the very concept of wages, arguing that it was better for people to own their own land, or to be joint owners of a company, rather than to be “wage slaves.” (The Mondragon Corporation, in Spain, is often held up as an example of such a “distributist business,” and Flanders in fact praised Mondragon as an example of how distributist goals may be met through free-market methods.) Flanders countered, “I’m a wage slave and I like it.”

Not everyone is cut out to be a farmer. Not everyone needs or wants to own land. Some people find more fulfillment and security in working at a specialized job and receiving a wage. Furthermore, Flanders pointed out that being a joint owner of the company for which one works actually puts one at more economic risk, because if the company folds one loses both one’s job and one’s investments. Owning stock in a company other than the one for which one works actually gives more security. (I thought this was a very strong argument.)

Flanders also argued that there is a natural tendency in the free market for wealth to become concentrated in relatively few hands. This I think was a significant admission calling into question his initial claim that distributist goals can be met through free-market means. For Flanders, this makes distributism impractical. It would require constant government intervention. And, of course, for practically anyone involved with Acton, that is an automatic disqualifier.

Click to read one of Edwin’s fundamental disagreements with the Acton philosophy.

Previous Post

July 19, 2015

Solving office politics: part 7 of an interview with Gloria Nelund

Next Post

July 22, 2015 Facing Facts About the Future of the Church in America

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Art Audio posts Bible and Work Book Review Books Budgeting Calling Common Good Community Development Conferences Discipleship Economics Entrepreneurship Ethics Faith and Family Faith and the Marketplace Faith and the Workplace faith and work History of Work and Vocation Leadership Local Church Meaning New Blogger News Prayer Relationships Seminaries Theology of Work Uncategorized Video posts Vocation Worship Resources

Select a Month April 2026 October 2025 September 2025 July 2025 April 2025 January 2025 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 May 2024 March 2024 February 2024 December 2023 November 2023 August 2023 July 2023 April 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 May 2022 April 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 June 2021 May 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 January 2020 December 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 April 2018 March 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does "Sabbath" mean?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Rest Worship Sacrifice Holy