The Ordinance of Labor and an Overview of Capitalism Part 2
This is the continuation of the article about the ordinance of labor and an overview of capitalism. In the previous article, we traced the Old Testament background of labor and found out that labor remains beneficial to man in view of the rewards we receive and that diverse forms of labor came into existence as the human race developed. We also found out that wealth is not viewed negatively, and we see that in the lives of the patriarchs. Moreover, the Decalogue also teaches us the balance between labor and rest.
In the New Testament, we are taught that idleness is considered contrary to godliness. In fact, labor is an evidence of faith. And then we concluded that in order to arrest distraction and boredom, the ideas of vocation and God-oriented motivation serve as curative. In continuing the labor principles from the New Testament, we will discuss five more sub-topics:
- The Complexity of the Relations of Labor to Capital
Now as we continue the study of New Testament material, John Murray mentioned that for the modern mind, the relations of capital to labor are complicated. However, to avoid the conclusion that such a dilemma is a modern phenomenon, John Murray reminds us that this issue is a common affliction in previous ages. To think that the New Testament is silent in such a serious matter is symptomatic of a mind that doesn’t accept the sufficiency of the Bible in providing us principles to guide both theory and practice on the question of labor.
At the outset, Murray reminds us that the New Testament maintains the continuity of the Old Testament when it comes to its perspective about wealth. Blaming capitalism for the evils of our time is considered imprudent. What is condemned in the New Testament is the misuse of wealth, not wealth itself. James 5:1-3 describes the identity of those who abuse wealth as “the fraudulent and extortionary rich, the cruel, the sumptuous, the voluptuous, and the extravagant, who grind the faces of the poor.”
- The Snares of the Rich
Moreover, Murray reminds us that the Bible gave us serious warnings and condemns certain vices that become snares for the rich (Mark 10:23, 25; 1 Timothy 6:17-19). I think 1 Timothy 6:9-10 deserves careful attention in this regard, for the apostle Paul warns us about the “love of money” as the “root of all evil.”
Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs (1 Timothy 6:9-10 NIV).
Here, how does a Bible commentary explain the character of this temptation:
For the love of money is the root of all evil... Of all the evils mentioned, and of others, not money itself, as silver and gold, which are God's creatures and his gifts, and may be used to, and answer many good purposes, but the love of it, and not any love of it, for there may be a lawful love of it and desire after it, so far as it is requisite to the necessaries of life, to answer the calls of Providence, the duties we owe to God and men, to serve the interest of Christ, and do good to fellow creatures and fellow Christians: but it is an immoderate insatiable desire after it, and an inordinate love of it, which is here meant, such as is properly idolatry, as when a man loves it, not only besides, but above God; serves it as if it was God, and places his trust and confidence in it, independent of God and his providence; such love of it is the source and spring of all iniquity, as above; it was the sin of Judas, and the root of all his iniquity. The phrase is Jewish. So idolatry is said to be 'the root of all iniquities' (Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible).
More than a decade ago, a fellow pastor asked my opinion on Facebook how to protect ourselves from falling to such a trap, and here is my response:
I think the central idea of the passage in 1 Timothy 6, which starts from verse 3, is the wrong notion about godliness. These people were using even the teaching ministry in the church to achieve their end, financial gain. They didn't see godliness as a worthy goal in itself, but only a means to acquire wealth. The biblical idea of wealth is different; it is a result of covenantal faithfulness. In this context, godliness is not a means, but an end, even a higher and greater end than wealth itself. At this point, I see two relationships between godliness and wealth. Since wealth is an outcome of covenantal faithfulness, we can deduce two things: first, godliness has an independent existence even apart from wealth, and; second, that remaining faithful to divine covenant results to wealth increase.”
Returning to 1 Timothy 6:10, Paul tells us that the real reason these teachers had a distorted concept of godliness was due to the love of money, philarguria in Greek and better translated as avarice, greed, or covetousness. The text therefore does not condemn money per se or the legitimate means to acquire wealth, but the excessive desire to accumulate money even resorting to illegitimate means.
Murray confirms this by saying that "the lust for wealth is covetousness, and covetousness is idolatry.” He warns us further that “not only are we at the heart of ethics; we are at the heart of religion,” and that those who use godliness as a way to gain have chosen the wrong path.
- The Evils of Capitalism
I respect John Murray as a biblical exegete. However, when it comes to economic content, I prefer to listen to an economist. Many pastors and theologians I know on social media love to talk about economics but fail to realize the limitation of their specialization, and that is why they end up talking about something they know little about. Ludwig von Mises’ description of such men is sharp and humbling to accept:
People may disagree on the question of whether everybody ought to study economics seriously. But one thing is certain. A man who publicly talks or writes about the opposition between capitalism and socialism without having fully familiarized himself with all that economics has to say about these issues is an irresponsible babbler (Ludwig von Mises, The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, 2008, p. 47).
What Murray enumerates as evils of capitalism are inaccurate, for they describe common human failures and not really an economic system. Partiality shown to the rich, compromise, the fear of men, and failure to rebuke the abuses of the wealthy are not faults of capitalism. What James confronted that “disrupted the unity and communion of the saints” are natural human shortcomings in dealing with powerful men (James 2:1-4). It is true that the fear of men distorts judgments in the court and even invades the church. Again, a distinction must be made between an economic system and people who benefit from that system. The so-called “vices of the rich—high-mindedness, oppression, voluptuosity, worldliness—” and the like are not because of capitalism, but due to the pride of life.
It is good that Murray distinguished between the abuses of the rich and wealth itself. I assumed he was referring to capitalism when he mentioned a certain “economic structure” presupposed in the Bible. He agrees to such a structure as “compatible with the divinely instituted order of society.”
Ludwig von Mises devoted the fourth chapter of his book, The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, to responding to the non-economic objections to capitalism such as happiness, materialism, injustice, and liberty. I published my summary and reflection of this chapter on blogspot.com more than a decade ago. I will just quote here the summary of Mises’ response to these non-economic objections to capitalism:
Mises did not question the validity of the happiness proposition, but he could not see its connection to the so-called "faults" of capitalism.
Concerning the materialism objection, and that capitalism causes the "decay of the arts" and produces nothing but "trash" (p. 75), Mises responded that evaluating art is not easy due to its subjective nature, and then he introduced a penetrating analysis of educated men afflicted by hypocrisy due to their lip-service given to art, and yet they despised living and promising artists. Mises argued that only prejudice blinds someone not to see that capitalism does not lack in artistic accomplishments. Nevertheless, Mises agreed that only in one respect that the argument is correct, and that is, comparable to the "immortal" structures like the "pyramids, Greek temples, Gothic cathedrals, churches and palaces of the Renaissance" (p. 78). Valid reasons are enumerated for such superiority: conservatism of the churches that kills innovation, the passing away of dynasties and aristocracies, the big discrepancy between the wealth of the capitalists and the royalties, and in terms of artistic furniture, the failure to identify that ancient furniture are "collectors' items," while the products of big businesses are for mass consumption.
In relation to the injustice objection, it is based on ignorance of scarcity as a fundamental law of economics. And since Mises does not accept the existence of either "divine or natural principle of justice" (p. 80), to him it does not make sense to appeal to this idea of justice for the distribution of wealth. The important thing is not the fair allocation of natural resources, but the growth of social institutions that give people the ability to expand production to meet human needs (pp. 80-81). Mises further refuted the 1948 position of World Council of Churches based on the erroneous idea of justice. He argued that the WCC misrepresented capitalism due to its failure to comprehend the nature of capital. And then he advanced his defense of the West against the accusation that the poverty of Asia and Africa is a result of Western misdeeds. His challenge is to examine the economic policies of backward countries, and replaced them. The chapter ended with a long of exposition about the nature of capital, production, and wage rate.
The liberty objection is difficult to discern due to its sophisticated formulation. The essence of the objection is that under capitalism, self-realization and freedom of an individual is confined only to the wealthy, and in contrast to socialism, which practices "social justice" due to the provision of "equal resources" and "equal freedom." Mises answered this objection with a detailed analysis of the origin of liberty, liberty's temporary victory, continuous challenges, contrast from socialist concept of liberty, an exposition of liberty under capitalism, and the distinction between East and West in relation to liberty.
- Equal Distribution of Wealth
Equal distribution of wealth is a popular policy in our time, and implemented in subtle ways. Murray categorically argues that such a policy is contrary to God’s design:
It is simply a fact that God has not ordained equality of distribution of gift or possession. And because this is so, it is impossible to put equality into effect. Some are more capable of increasing their possessions; they are more provident, diligent, industrious, progressive. Are we to suppose that the qualities which make for the development of natural resources are to be discouraged? Are we to engage in a leveling process that will secure uniformity and make all conform to a stereotyped average? How absurd would be the attempt, and how futile! Equality is not a fact of God's providence, and it is not a rule to be practised in the order he has instituted; diversity is a fact to be recognized and the rule to be followed. Liberty itself must take account of inequality. Unequal distribution of wealth is indigenous to the order God has established and to the natures with which he has endowed us.
- The Mutual Relations of Master and Servant
This is the concluding labor principle discussed by Murray. For him the governing principle is to establish justice and equity. However, he identified two considerations to implement this governing principle. The first is the legal contract between the employer and the employee. Nevertheless, the legal contract failed to achieve this. Murray appealed to history as his basis:
It is to be admitted that compensation in agreement with contract may be perfectly proper and equitable. But it is easy to see that, if this were the governing principle of compensation, the grossest injustices could arise, as they have arisen. Contract can be the instrument of grievous oppression. The labourer can be compelled to agree to a contract that will reward him a meagre pittance of adequate compensation simply because the alternative is to be without any labour or reward. Has not history exemplified the frequency of that abuse? Contract can be a proper method of employment and compensation. But it is only an incident; it does not itself determine what the adequate compensation is. How grand and noble is the governing principle of Scripture! 'Masters, render unto your servants that which is just and equal.' And while justice and equity may sometimes use the way of contract to protect their provisions, yet contract may just as often be the means of violating, with the semblance of fairness indeed, the very requirements of justice. Justice is the royal law of liberty.
As for the second consideration, Murray provided an extensive discussion about the institution of slavery since it was part of the social structure during the time of the New Testament. I won’t touch this subject for I consider it complicated and requires more time for the students to appreciate it.
This concludes my upcoming lecture for CVE05 Christian and Values Education for Adults class. So instead of three, I managed to limit the lesson to two articles. As for the capitalism section, I decided to simply provide the links to my old blog:
Since I already mentioned the arguments in the 4th chapter, I will just enumerate the six basic features of capitalism: mass production, mass consumption, consumer sovereignty, freedom, economic democracy, and social mobility