—The Christian alternative?⤒🔗

In a previous article, An Introduc­tion to A Christian Perspective on Eco­nomics (Reformed Perspective, July 1982), I noted that the question "Free en­terprise or government control?" was one of the important outstanding eco­nomic issues that we as Christians should seek to answer. In the meantime, with, for example, the government's pur­chase of BP Canada and the possible large-scale investment in the financially troubled Dome, the debate on the degree of state ownership goes on as actively as ever. The Auditor-General's recent reve­lation that 306 federal crown corpora­tions employ more people than the gov­ernment proper and his description of this group as "a hole in the taxpayer's pocket" and as "an enormous iceberg, floating lazily in the foggy Atlantic; si­lent, majestic, awesome," is likely to in­crease the level of debate.

Moreover, in the current depressed economic circumstances many voices are raised demanding even more direct gov­ernment action to increase employment, to reduce interest rates, to prop up trou­bled industries to save jobs, and to en­courage new industries, i.e., to pick and support the "winners." Christians are not immune either froth the urge to sug­gest that the government "do some­thing." In the November issue of Reformed Perspective, for instance, author after author pointed out that not enough was being done to save the environment and protect us from the various toxic substances. Thus, the extent of govern­ment ownership and control is an issue as relevant as ever — an issue that Chris­tians also must come to grips with.

I have argued previously that au­thors like Tom Rose and Hebdon Taylor failed to prove their contention that free enterprise is obviously the Christian al­ternative. I was most interested, therefore, when I came across a new book called Free Enterprise — A Judeo-Chris­tian Defense. Its author, Harold Lindsell, categorically claims (p. 51) that "free enterprise as known and practiced in the Western world ... is derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition which, in turn, locates its authority in the Old and New Testaments."

However, after reading the book, I was disappointed. Although it does many things, I believe that the book does not do what its title promises: provide a Christian defense of free enterprise.

If that is so, why review this book publicly? First, if I am wrong, setting out my criticism may serve as a discus­sion focus to help clarify the position of Lindsell and others. Secondly, if free en­terprise can, indeed, not be defended as the Christian alternative, it is important that Christians recognize this. If the Bi­ble does not unambiguously support free enterprise, claims that it does are likely to cast doubt upon the total Christian message.

In reviewing the book, I will focus on the question, "Does Lindsell provide a Christian defense of free enterprise?" I will put forward two points. First, Lindsell incorrectly simplifies the argument to a choice between unrestricted free enter­prise, on the one hand, and communism, on the other. Consequently, a lot of his arguments are not valid as a defense of free enterprise. Secondly, the Scriptural proofs put forward by Lindsell show only that the Bible accepts free enterprise — not that we must support it.

A Simplified Argument←↰⤒🔗

a. Extreme distinctions←↰⤒🔗

First, then, I believe that Lindsell's argument is seriously weakened by his extreme black/white definitions of free enterprise and socialism. The chart on this page sets out how I previously described the various economic systems. While the chart shows three columns, reality is probably better illustrated by a continuous line with extreme free enter­prise on the one end, totalitarian systems such as communism on the other end, and various forms of the mixed economy in between.

Lindsell in his book, however, ex­presses the view that "there are basically only two economic systems" (p. 47). He focusses only on that form of socialism set out in the third column of the chart and, disregarding the existence of other totalitarian states, takes communism as representative of all forms of socialism. He rightly condemns communism as based on the views of Karl Marx — athe­ism, dialectic materialism, class struggle, and "democratic centralism" — but unreservedly applies this condemnation to all possible forms of socialism.

b. Utopian socialism←↰⤒🔗

He does mention, in passing, the "utopian" socialists who hope to reach the objective of communal ownership and control by the use of "ballots rather than bullets," and who do not share the Marxian basis. He appears to be thinking primarily of the nineteenth century col­lectives, which, he says, have now disap­peared due to the failure of socialism to work in practice. The fact that the Hutterites, who also believe in communal ownership, still prosper in Canada has apparently escaped his attention. Since Lindsell believes that the only form of so­cialism which offers a serious challenge to free enterprise is the Marxist variety, he concludes that "it is useless to con­cern ourselves with utopian socialism."

c. The mixed economy←↰⤒🔗

Lindsell discards from consideration also the central column of our chart, the mixed economy. He recognizes that some of the nations of the world, such as Brit­ain and Sweden, those known as welfare states, have a mixed economy which combines some socialism and free enterprise. He concludes, however (p. 47), that "this sort of hybrid system is ulti­mately nonviable, for it violates the basic principles of both free enterprise and socialism and cannot long survive the in­evitable struggle for supremacy by these competing and antithetical ideologies." This conclusion, however, is unsup­ported.

d. Free enterprise←↰⤒🔗

His quick rejection of the mixed economy is the more puzzling in that he espouses a very strict definition of free enterprise. Free enterprise, according to Lindsell (p. 16), is based on the "intrin­sic right of people to the ownership, con­trol and use of private property" and "carries with it the right of those who have goods or services for sale to set whatever price they wish for the sale of what they have to offer." In discussing the role of government (p. 105), he de­tails a series of government excesses without any suggestion as to any legiti­mate government activities. The reader must conclude, therefore, that Lindsell accepts no government restriction of any kind to the right of private ownership and no government involvement in and control of the economy.

I realize that Lindsell does talk about "free enterprise controlled by the Judeo-Christian ethic." That is, he ar­gues (p. 9) that "free enterprise without the spiritual component common to Ju­deo-Christian tradition is deficient." This spiritual component is altruism, the concept of neighborly love which I pre­viously noted to be one of the Biblical principles that are particularly relevant for the study of economics. Lindsell de­tails this as, for instance (p. 118), "Pro­ducers of goods and services will not lie, cheat, or steal. They will not envy com­petitors who do a better job, nor will they be covetous. Unfair economic gimmicks such as cartels and monopolies will not be used."

However, Lindsell fails to show that free enterprise limited in such a way ex­ists or can exist. Rather, he himself rec­ognizes that "what measure of free en­terprises exists in the West is largely dominated by the secular humanism of this age." He further accepts (p. 48, 74) that "man is not fundamentally good, nor is ever going to be" and (p. 92) even raises (without answering) the question, "How can one impose the Judeo-Chris­tian viewpoint on those who do not ac­cept it?"

Thus, while it would be very attrac­tive to see free enterprise controlled by Christian altruism, that is just not the case now — if it ever has been. Altruism is not inherent in free enterprise. At best, it might be possible to say that in the past, when Judeo-Christian principles were more generally adhered to, the ex­cesses caused by free enterprise were less noticeable. However, even that may be in doubt.

We are, therefore, left with Lind­sell's contention that even without altru­ism, "free enterprise, despite the fallen nature of man, is distinctly preferable to socialism!"

e. Reality rejected←↰⤒🔗

With unrestricted free enterprise as one alternative and communism as the other, Lindsell, in my view, fails to deal with the reality of the industrial Western world — that world in which we live. In Canada, as in most other countries of the Western world, governments directly and through crown corporations own a sig­nificant share of resources and means of production. Yet, a major part of the economy still functions through the mar­ketplace, although that marketplace is at many points restricted and regulated by governments. In these countries, we find legitimate socialist parties of many stripes, some of whom have governed with a certain degree of success, for example, the New Democrats in several Canadian provinces, Labour in the U.K., and So­cial Democrats in Germany. Although no doubt including Marxists in their left wings, these parties do not espouse force to obtain their goals and do not generally strive to nationalize all resources. And so, the world we live in contains many countries which have mixed economies in which the largest bone of contention is, "Which way should we move: toward more government ownership and direc­tion or toward more reliance on the mar­ket system?"

If it were true that only the two ex­treme alternatives existed, it would be true that arguments against communism would automatically be arguments for free enterprise. That is, the argument that communism must be rejected be­cause communist countries restrict free­dom of religion would automatically be an argument in favor of free enterprise. Since such an extreme dichotomy is not valid, Lindsell's vigorous attack upon communism, while providing strong sup­port for the rejection of that system, does not provide, as is claimed, a "Ju­deo-Christian" defense of free enter­prise.

Unconvincing Scriptural Proofs←↰⤒🔗

a. Human greed←↰⤒🔗

When we look at the actual Chris­tian arguments that Lindsell brings for­ward in defense of free enterprise, we en­counter first his contention that "free en­terprise is far and away the better economic system to contain human greed." If this claim were correct, Christians should certainly favor free enterprise, since greed and selfishness are clearly evidences of sin. Unfortunately, the evi­dence to prove this contention is missing.

The purported justification for this statement is that under the free enterprise system people who purchase commodi­ties are kings and queens of the market­place; the success or failure of the producer depends on his meeting the wants of the consumer in the best possible way.

How providing the consumer every­thing he wants (at least in so far as he can afford) restricts human greed, is something I fail to understand! The mar­ket system is no doubt more efficient than socialism, but to call a system that is based on man's self-interest the best to restrict that interest seems far-fetched!

b. The inalienability of private property←↰⤒🔗

A recurrent theme in Lindsell's ar­gument is his concept of the "inaliena­bility (that is, non-separability and trans­ferability) of private property." He makes the unsupported claim (p. 53) that private property, like the law of gravity, "is a given in nature by the creative fiat of nature's God." This analogy, how­ever, is deficient, since the communists have, by and large, been able to abolish this so-called natural law of property while no one has as yet managed to abol­ish the law of gravity.

He argues further (p. 54) that this right of private property means no less than that no "law passed by a majority or the unanimous consent of a legislature can expropriate property from the owner of that property." He claims that the commandment, "Thou shalt not steal," applies also to the government in the normal exercise of its duties. While I agree that government expropriation without fair compensation can be char­acterized as stealing, I believe that to call all expropriation stealing is going too far. That would mean that very few new roads, railways, airports, etc., could be built. In fact, it would mean that no taxes could be collected. After all, what is the difference between taking a man's money and a man's land?

However, Christ Himself in Matthew 22:21 teaches us to "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's," and the payment of taxes is taken as normal in both Old and New Testaments. Under the kings of Israel, taxes (as well as expropriation of proper­ty) were common, as we see, for instance, in Samuel's warning in 1 Samuel 8, "He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants," etc. Certainly, Solomon imposed heavy taxes to build the temple and his palaces. There is no indication that the Bible refers to this as stealing. Overall, I doubt that the inalienability of private property over against government can be substantiated on the basis of the eighth commandment.

c. Other Scriptural arguments for private property←↰⤒🔗

Lindsell's other Scriptural "proofs" appear equally questionable.

The apportionment of land (p. 56) to the people of Israel and the protection of these inheritances through the Jubilee law certainly shows the acceptance of private property in the Old Testament. But are not these Old Testament Mosaic laws now fulfilled? While it is evidence that the Bible does not reject the holding of private property, does it also mean that the Bible teaches that everyone today must own property or at least have the opportunity to do so? If so, would this not also mean that we must go back to apportioning of family inheritances and accepting the law of Jubilee? More­over, with its inherent prohibition against selling the family land, God's law for Is­rael can hardly be characterized as unre­stricted free enterprise!

In fact, evidence of government ownership and involvement in "indus­try" can also be found in the Old Testa­ment. See, for instance, the account of Solomon's activities in 2 Chronicles 8, in particular his joint trading venture to send ships to Ophir. And surely Joseph's management of the Egyptian economy can hardly be described as free enterprise!

Lindsell's "evidence" from Jesus's teachings (pp. 59-63), the parables of the tenant farmers (Mark 12:1-12, etc.), the workers in the harvest (Matthew 20:1-16), the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32), and that of the talents (Luke 19:11-32), all show that Jesus accepts ownership of private property as being quite normal. No case is made, however, that all property must be held by private individuals and that governments should not hold some or even quite a lot of property.

Similarly, the history of the early church (p. 64) and Ananias and Sapphira clearly shows that Ananias did not have to donate his property to the Church. However, to say that "it places the imprimatur of the apostles on free enter­prise" is stretching the point. Just be­cause something is allowed, does not mean it is required or even encouraged. The other references from the New Test­ament which Lindsell brings forward, while supporting the acceptability of wealth and the existence of diversity of man, provides no support for unrestricted free enterprise as the Christian economic system.

Inconclusive←↰⤒🔗

We are left, then, with the practical arguments for free enterprise as Lindsell sets out, for instance, in his chapter en­titled "Economics." Lindsell himself stresses these material advantages, e.g., p. 160, "Free enterprise (capitalism) is distinctly preferable to socialism. It will do a better job in meeting and improving the material conditions of men than so­cialism." In fact, on the last page he concludes that the book can be best summed up by the words:

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strength­en the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pul­ling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by en­couraging class hatred. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initia­tive and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for them­selves.

If that is really the theme of a book that claims to be a "Judeo-Christian de­fense" of free enterprise, where is the Judeo-Christian part in this defense?

We must conclude that, while Lind­sell's book presents a strong condemna­tion of communism, while it provides a practical defense of free enterprise, it does not do what it promises to do, and that is to provide a Judeo-Christian de­fense of free enterprises. The case that the Bible requires a Christian to support free enterprise has yet to be proven. Per­sonally, I doubt that it can be.

We can agree from a practical, neu­tral perspective that free enterprises is desirable. We must recognize, as Lindsell does, that man is fallen in sin. It follows that the excesses inherent in free enter­prise ought to be curbed. We know that God has given government to control the depravity of man (see Article 36 of the Belgic Confession). It is our task as Christians to point out to governments what these restrictions should be. Let us continue to study so that we can discuss and agree on the necessary restrictions. But let us not claim Biblical support for positions that we cannot defend and, by so doing, leave the true Christian mes­sage open to doubt.