Liberation Theology and Capitalism Clash at Cedarville

As Christians came together at evangelical Cedarville University’s “American Dream Conference” in Ohio recently, local business leaders and students heard the case for two very different approaches to economics and the biblical foundations for each. Continuing with the goal of balance, the conference featured a showdown between significant government control and laissez-faire markets.

Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) spoke for the “cause of entrepreneurship and liberty.” After separating the classical idea of free enterprise from the now-virulent “crony capitalism” of the United States, he set out to analyze free markets on the basis of “the moral case,” the perspective of the impoverished and downtrodden. “We all now know that capitalism generates the most wealth, but we don’t settle whether or not it is good without the moral case,” he observed, “We’re not nourished entirely by material facts.” Brooks’ first moral concern was freedom. He observed that, during the New Deal, the government took up an unprecedented 15% of the GDP; now it consumes 36% of GDP; by 2038, the government is projected to take 50%. “That is not a free society,” he exclaimed, “We’re going to walk right into [tyranny]—there is no knock on the door and totalitarian thug.”

Brooks then connected human dignity with happiness. He pointed to studies that indicated people are happiest not when they are particularly wealthy, but when they have achieved some kind of “earned success.” Brooks described this phenomenon as “a key facet of human dignity.” The opposite of earned success, however, is “learned helplessness.” Here, one is listless, flaccid, and enervated. He saw socialism and misapplied Keynesian theories as disastrous to any economy. The AEI president exclaimed, “You want to hurt the poor? Crash your economy—they’re affected worse.” For Brooks and his colleagues, “[Capitalism]’s not an economic alternative; it’s a moral imperative.”

At the conclusion of the “American Dream” lectures, Lisa Sharon Harper of Sojourners debated Kings College professor D. C. Innes on politics, economics, and their interaction with Christianity. Harper started out by directing attention to Adam Smith, father of free market economics. She warned that, in the 1700s, Smith functioned in a rigid Calvinistic theology, replete with a strong moral code and an emphasis on divine predestination. “The invisible just hand of God…moved to bring about the common good,” Harper instructed. Now, free market economics have become an entirely different beast. Harper mourned, “Economics has been disembedded…from the faith…Now the market equals God. We treat it as such: omniscient, self-correcting, etcetera.”

Harper called for an end to “market economy” in favor of “God’s economy.” She proclaimed, “The Year of Jubilee was one of the centerpieces of God’s economic system.” The Sojourners spokeswoman deemed this “an economic reset button built into God’s own system.” She noted that slaves were freed, debts were forgiven, and land was returned to the original families. Most importantly, this guaranteed that “businesses can’t grow to the point of empire.”

“What we know from God’s theocracy is that unlimited business growth is not expected,” Harper surmised.

The DC-based organizer then broke into full-fledged liberation-theology themes. “Poverty compromises the images of God on earth,” Harper asserted, “Maybe the best thing for the kingdom of God is that no one be poor.” She warned that the “business of empire” takes the dominion aware from God Himself. Christ, she mentioned, came to earth with the purpose of “subverting” and “overthrowing” empires. During the Q&A session, an alumnus pressed her on her exegesis, questioning how Harper could apply part of the Old Testament Law Code so literally while ignoring other portions. Although she did not reveal her actual scriptural hermeneutic, she assured her audience that she merely attempts to apply principles rather than explicit Levitical regulations.

Professor Innes’ rejoinder pivoted on the account of Genesis and the creation mandate. “We aren’t to seek just wealth, but the worshipful enjoyment of creation.” It is therefore “ennobling” and “dignifying” to work. Innes condemned the “redistribution of God’s good gifts under coercion.” He discerned that most Americans often portray capitalism as the realm of robber barons and “a zero-sum enterprise.” He countered, “Anyone who’s bought property or had a job knows it doesn’t work like that.”

Innes believed that one’s prosperity could arise from either plunder or production. Plunder by its nature is purely competitive; business is a perpetually predatory endeavor. On the other hand, production has “a harmony of play.” Producers may be self-seeking, but have the caveat of “paying attention to your neighbor’s needs.” According to Innes, belief in the free market is not anarchy: government is needed for “economically policing the commercial streets…Government shields producers from the evils of plunderers.” Unfortunately, the King’s College instructor noticed that bad government joins in the plunder. All too often, humankind has witnessed “the many pillaging the few in the name of equality.”

The American Dream conference represented the stirring debates within the evangelical community. More importantly, it exposed students and future Christian leaders to the ideas that will guide them in their political and economic choices. The student response to the presentations was somewhat mixed, but a vast majority of the audience resonated with the view Innes expressed: “Liberty, prosperity, and moral flourishing are foundational to the common good.”