sodium

My view is that if you really take the New Testament seriously, then the question of how Christians should govern society is moot. Governing society involves judging and resisting evil and all the things Christians shouldn't do. A Christian is supposed to render unto Caesar, not become Caesar.

Christians should really form themselves into little cults, which would operate in passive opposition to the Godless society we infidels build. Of course, in the end, it is God who decides what kind of government the infidels provide. These cults would be expected to hold their goods in common and to give to the poor, but this would be voluntary on the part of cult members, not a matter of government regulation.

If you ignore the New Testament, however, you might want to organize society on the basis of the Old. The Old Testament certainly allows for property, in fact, it even allows for slavery. However, it bans usury among members of the society. This means that money should not be lent at interest. Loaning money at interest, in the form of bank loans, bonds, and stocks, is the basis for the capitalist economy. So although communism isn't strictly required, I think this situation would tend to lead to government ownership of the means of production, basically because otherwise nothing would get done.

Toto

Still trying to figure this one out.

exile

Christianity clearly has a problem with capitalism as it depends on usury, which was deprecated by all 3 of the major Abrahamic religions. Christian monastic communities were communistic in nature, with no private property, and the Church imposed tithes (in effect taxes) on citizens to pay for, amongst other things, welfare and health care.

IMO (just speculation) capitalism took off in the West BECAUSE of a separation between the secular and the religious worldviews which enabled
men to act in their economic lives in a way at odds with Christian doctrine - perhaps because Christianity emphasises salvation by faith rather than works.

The USA, the most successful capitalist country, enshrined church-state separation and therefore had no tithe system, and taxation was regarded at best as a necessary evil. Deists and quakers were influential in the development of the constitution and the economy. In England, noncomformists and Jews dominated the financial and industrial sectors, educating their children in a way that avoided the rather anti-intellectual nature of the schools of the Anglican establishment. Free trade became the dominant ideology, up until World War I.

In contrast, the Islamic world never achieved this separation between the religious and secular worlds and hence, though ahead of the West as late as 1500 in techology and science, gradually lost ground.

Clivedurdle

Which MP do you recommend for a private members bill to get this into law.....!

rlogan

Hi Sodium.

Stocks are not loaning money at interest. They are certificates of ownership. It is important to understand that this prohibition on lending at interest requires participants in any enterprise to fully share in both the risk and in the rewards. It is not a prohibition of conducting business, but against one class of individuals facing less risk.


In lending money at interest the lender will recieve payment even if the business fails, by liquidating the remaining assets of the stockholders. Every penny of debt must be paid before a single penny is provided to the owners. Vastly less risk for the lender.


Islam has followed through with the prohibition on lending money at interest to a much greater degree. Stockholding is not prohibited. (They do not seem to have a problem with lending to the infidel though.)

gurugeorge

There do seem to be some vaguely communistic assertions in the gospels. Couldn't that be put down to the Cynic content of some of the teachings (which are present according to the 'Q' analysis)?

exile

One thing to consider was that the early Christians considered the second coming was just around the corner, possibly within the lifetime of the apostles. If one expected this to happen it would make no sense to build a fortune in the expectation of passing it on to descendants.

Who would invest or save money if we learned that an asteroid was due to strike Earth in a year's time?

S.C.Carlson

That's basically right, but this principle became the basis for a major loophole in the usury provisions, the so-called "triple contract" where the joint risk in a joint ownership arrangement can be contracted away with ancillary contracts. See http://www.gospelcom.net/rec/TF-May2000Henning.html for a full explanation, but here is the money quote:

Stephen

sodium

It's hard to know, because the OT doesn't really say why it forbids usury, and I doubt stocks existed at the time. It certainly doesn't mention the issue of risk. In general, every loan takes some risk, as the borrower might die, or the flee the country, or simply be unable to pay. So I don't find the issue of risk to be that plausible a distinction.

If he has exacted usury Or taken increase -- Shall he then live? He shall not live! If he has done any of these abominations, He shall surely die; His blood shall be upon him. (New King James, Ezekiel 18:13)

The phrase suggests something even more broad than taking interest is banned, since it is also forbidden to take increase.

A plausible interpretation of the intent behind the usury laws is as follows. From a capitalistic perspective, a person forgoes goods to which he is entitled when he lends money (either in form of stock or bond), and in return expects and deserves a profit. But from another perspective, a person behaving in this way has become a parasite. His capital extracts a tribute from the goods produced by the labour of others, and this is unfair. That is certainly how Marx saw the situation, and appears to me that the writers of the Jewish scriptures held the same perspective.

Of course, a true partnership may still be permitted, where two or more people pool resources and labour in order to make a profit for themselves. But here the important distinction is that wealth comes from labour, and not merely money, or even risk.

Of course, both the "risk" interpretation and the "labour" interpretation are similar in that they criticize usury on the basis that it expects money for nothing, and is therefore, by a certain logic, a kind of stealing. The interpretations just differ on whether risk is enough of a justification to expect a profit. But because loans often entail risk, I don't think the risk interpretation is likely to be correct.

My interpretation of the triple-contract situation is that if you believe God has forbidden a loan at interest, and you work out some elaborate system of contracts that entails loans at interest, then that system is not allowed, and it seems likely that one or more component of the system is not allowed either, although this can't be taken as certain.

UPDATE:

I should point out that I'm not claiming that the OT goes as far as Marx. It doesn't actually require state ownership of the means of production. However, I do think that banning loans at interest, and especially banning stocks would so cripple the potential for free enterprise that government would be forced to take up the slack in order to form a semi-modern economy. Most major enterprises would be government owned. We'd still have the "petty bourgeois", though.

rlogan

Stephen - well aware of it, buddy. Professed the subject for over 20 years at the university level.

Sodium - heh. Well, not interested in discussing it further. You've completely distorted what I said already (less risk being no risk) and by the looks of your post has every probablility of launching us into a PD discussion I find really boring.

Was merely addressing the distinction between usury and profit (or loss).