Is there a Christian economics?

[Owen Jones]

Not to sound to carpish, but I don't believe everyone is entitled to his views, and if mine are anti-Christian I ought to be censored. In this particular case, I accept the kind sentiment from Andreas and all is forgiven.

Just to set the record straight on one point, people don't give their money to the government. It is taken from them by threat of force.

As for pensions, no one in their right minds should rely on them. Corporations go bankrupt and their pensions are wiped out. The huge scheme of pension fund socialism in the U.S. is unsustainable. It's a ponzi scheme and if any private insurance company engaged in the kind of accounting that the government used, all of its officers would be put in jail.

But this begs the question of what a truly Christian economics would look like.

[Owen Jones]

Let's see if this works...

[Effie Ganatsios]

Owen wrote :

"As for pensions, no one in their right minds should rely on them. Corporations go bankrupt and their pensions are wiped out. The huge scheme of pension fund socialism in the U.S. is unsustainable. It's a ponzi scheme and if any private insurance company engaged in the kind of accounting that the government used, all of its officers would be put in jail. "

I am aware of the health system in the US - one of the worst in developed countries - but not everyone is aware that both Australia and Greece have public pension systems.
This is not charity and it is not welfare. In Greece it means you and your employer paying a considerable percentage of your monthly salary into a health fund that provides free medical care and an old age pension. It is not a perfect system but it provides security, not because other people pay more tax so that you can live, but because this money is yours and believe me it really is. The monthly dues are often a lot more than the pension received. 40+ years for perhaps 10,20, or at most 30 years. Not a bad deal for the government, especially if we take into consideration those that never make it to 65.

[Father David Moser]

This thread continues the discussion of Christian Economics found in the "Aliens and Beings from other plants (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4087)" To see the previous comments please visit that thread and then post your reply here.

Fr David Moser

[Owen Jones]

May I try an overview first? The modern state and the economic policies of the modern state are based on an inversion of Christian eschatology. So in a sense, the modern welfare state is based on an immanentized or secularized Christian world-view.

As for the facts of American health care, the reports about it in the European press are wholesale lies and propaganda designed to cover up failings in socialized medicine. In Canada and Britain, there is a long waiting list for medical services. In, short, because it is a government owned and managed system, it is required to ration its resources. There are no such waiting lists for medical care in the U.S. If you need your gall bladder out, you get it, same or next day. There is no reason why anyone in America does not, or cannot get the same high quality medical treatment as the most wealthy person. At the very worst, if you have an expensive illness, it's going to mess up your credit. They can't take your house or garnish your wages due to medical bills. All emergency room treatment is guaranteed. That means it is illegal to turn you away. The cost of emergency room treatment is therefore about 5 times that of a visit to a regular medical doctor or clinic, because the people who can pay are subsidizing the bills of the people who misuse the system, which is done by millions of people who take their children to the emergency room when their kid has a cold. They don't care about bad credit, many of them, because they already have bad credit. So this is one example of how government mandates mess up the system and make it far more costly than it would be otherwise. Most communities in America, but especially communities with a high percentage of low-income people have government subsidized health care clinics where there is some cost but it's nominal. As for hospitalization, welfare patients are taken and do not pay anything. Medicare takes care of it. Anyone over 65, wealthy or not, gets 100% hospitalization. This severely distorts the system because it covers everyone, not just the poor, and therefore drives up hospital costs dramatically because of the demand for services. But the proponents of medicare do not want to limit it to just those who can't pay anything or have no insurance, because then it becomes a welfare program, and they don't want it perceived to be a welfare program. And they want it to be a stepping stone to universal government coverage.

The fact is that the U.S. system, despite all of the government subsidies and mandates, is by far the best system in the world, providing by far the best care overall for the most people, where anyone, regardless of income, can expect excellent and immediate medical help. All of the government mandates and requirements to have health insurance only drive up the costs dramatically. And there is a cultural problem by getting people to believe they are entitled to rolls royce medical coverage. Most people would be better off having a large deductible and self-paying any medical expenses up to that point. This would dramatically reduce costs overall. Most doctors and hospitals are willing to let people pay any out of pocket costs over time.

But the moral implication of the idea that medical care is a right and an entitlement is that people simply do not look out for their own health, or take responsibility for their own health, if they believe that it is the government's responsibility. The same is true for people's souls. I am responsible for my own soul. I can't turn that responsibility over to someone else. If a Church guarantees me salvation because I pay indulgences, we would call that heresy. The same is true for my body. It is my duty and responsibility to take care of it, and not assume that I can behave irresponsibly toward it with the vain belief that somebody is always going to be there to bail me out.

[Moses Ibrahim]

I think Fr. Serpahim Rose (if I'm not mistaken) when asked about insurance and financial issues would say that his insurance was up in heaven! (something to that effect) :)

[Owen Jones]

Indeed, Christian pastors in the early 19th century decried the invention of insurance policies as the death of morality. But let's just look at the pragmatic cost which is easier to quantify than the moral cost. I first went to a Chiropractor in 1976. I paid $8. He took cash. Within a couple of years, the chiropractors had successfully lobbied the Congress to mandate that insurance carriers include chiropractic in their coverage. The next time I went to a chiropractor it cost me $18!

My best personal friend is, in fact, the lobbyist for the American Chiropractic Association. He has successfully lobbied, for example, to permit chiropractors to be licensed to work in VA hospitals. And, of course, they are paid by tax money.

[Nina]

Since the pensions are mentioned here is an interesting news from today's headlines:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080305/ap_on_bi_ge/retiree_health_care

[Owen Jones]

In the U.S., government pays for 1/2 of all health care costs, approx. $1 trillion per year out of the $2 trillion total. 36% is from private insurance, and 15% is self-pay.

[Owen Jones]

Nina, this is a totally bogus article that you cite. All hospitalization for anyone over 65 in the U.S. is free, regardless of whether you have private insurance or are able to pay. We have a new entitlement program that now underwrites prescription drugs for the elderly.

Nursing home insurance, if you buy it soon enough, is very cheap. Most medical bills come in the last year of life, and are consumed by nursing home bills or home care. One of the problems in the system is that the government heavily subsidizes institutional care, but does not subsidize home care which is much cheaper.

What the article does is cite the average cost, while falsely implying that the person is going to have to pay that out of pocket, which is almost never the case. What they are trying to do is scare consumers into buying their retirement products.

[Nina]

Nina, this is a totally bogus article that you cite.

Dear Owen,

How can Yahoo -where I linked it from- and New York Times -where I saw it first today- present bogus news? It is also today's headline and it is not that it is old.

How can an Associated Press' journalist write a bogus article? If you did not notice:


By EILEEN ALT POWELL, AP Business Writer

In addition a study from Boston College (a prestigious Roman Catholic college) is mentioned. I am confused. Anyway, I read this thread and this headline caught my eye when I was skimming through New York Times today (link (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Retiree-Health-Care.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=retiree&st=nyt&oref=slogin)) and although I am not interested in such issue, I thought to link it here since it is recent development.

Although I can see your point about marketing the services of a particular financial company, and you are right that (and as I learned in the media class I took) media in collaboration with business sometime achieve a lot by implanting the seed of fear. However as I have read from a couple of Fathers (who say things along the lines of what Moses mentions above) we must place our hopes and trust in God.

[Owen Jones]

It is always best to read the press with a certain skeptical caution.

[Herman Blaydoe]

How can Yahoo -where I linked it from- and New York Times -where I saw it first today- present bogus news? It is also today's headline and it is not that it is old

Right. Just like "I saw it on TV so it must be true"?

Read That Hideous Strength by C. S. Lewis and see how even "respected" media could be easily manipulated.

[Andreas Moran]

I once had an argument with a Cypriot friend about house insurance. She said she did not insure her house because she left things in God's hands. I replied that this was irresponsible because if the house burned down or whatever, she would become a burden on someone or other to house her. Since God had placed her in a well-paid job, she could easily afford the very modest annual premium for house insurance and God expects us to be responsible. We asked Father Zacharias about this. He said we should insure our houses and to say, oh I leave it up to God, is to tempt Him and evade personal responsibility. 'After all, he added, 'we insure the monastery.'

As to health care, it is true that we should engage in some personal preventive health measures. On the other hand, there's nothing you can do to stop getting cancer (and other serious diseases, I'm sure). Health care in England is not of the best by any means, though it does depend to some extent on where you live. Sheffield is a great place to be ill! As far as I can see, health insurance here is limited to more routine things. When my first wife was treated at the cancer hospital in Sheffield (one of only a handful in England), I asked the doctor if health insurance (which we didn't have) would have had any role in her treatment. He laughed: 'not for what all this is costing', he said. I asked if there was any further treatment we could find anywhere - in the US or Germany. 'Whatever it's possible to do we can do here', he said. And none of it cost me a penny. The system in France seems much better. All I know about the US is that my nephew feels he must pay the $800 a month insurance premium to protect himself and his family.

[Nina]

Right. Just like "I saw it on TV so it must be true"?

Read That Hideous Strength by C. S. Lewis and see how even "respected" media could be easily manipulated.

:D I took media course and I know these things and some more, as I mentioned. However I like NYT. Plus Herman how do you pick and choose what to believe, or reject from respected media? If NYT is not respected, which one is it? I like Wash.Post as well, but in general the news are all over the same.

[Herman Blaydoe]

:D I took media course and I know these things and some more, as I mentioned. However I like NYT. Plus Herman how do you pick and choose what to believe, or reject from respected media? If NYT is not respected, which one is it? I like Wash.Post as well, but in general the news are all over the same.


Read everything with a very healthy dose of skepticism
Look for corroboration from multiple sources
Make sure those multiple sources aren't circular
Assume it is wrong until "proven" right to your satisfaction
Realize even "respected" media gets things wrong
Make the media earn your respect

[Andreas Moran]

If these measures are so necessary, we must assume either a great deal of incompetence on the part of the journalists or interference from media proprietors - perhaps both. I infer from the posts of Owen and Herman that the USA doesn't have a free press in the sense of reporting news fully, accurately, and impartially. I'm not sure that the media here is much better. I learn more about what's happening in the world from what my mother-in-law sees on Russian TV.

[Paul Cowan]

If these measures are so necessary, we must assume either a great deal of incompetence on the part of the journalists or interference from media proprietors - perhaps both. I infer from the posts of Owen and Herman that the USA doesn't have a free press in the sense of reporting news fully, accurately, and impartially.

Yes, Andreas. This is very true. Just ask Peter Parker. He was a superhero (Spiderman) and never got a fair shake from his own newspaper editor. Regardless of how much "good" he did, he was portrayed as a villian.

Now Superman on the other hand since he was a reporter and not just a photographer was able to write more truth than Mr. Parker's editor.

Even Batman got a bad wrap at first until he made friends with the police. SO I guess it is all who's view or perception of reality you choose to read. Personally, unless I read it from you all or friends around the water cooler at the office say something, the world could blow up and I would not know about it. I don't "do" media. I think they are all a bunch of, well, they have their own agenda.

Paul

[Owen Jones]

I did not mean to suggest that the press in America is not free, or controlled by some conspiratorial elements, only that journalism is sloppy business.

As for the "free" medical care in Britain, it isn't. People pay taxes for it.

As for an $800 a month family medical insurance bill, well, I don't know the person's income or circumstances, but you can do a lot better, especially if you are disciplined enough to save to cover your deductible. With a higher deductible you can get a decent family policy for about $300 per month that will cover emergency rooms, doctor's visits with a small co-pay, and prescriptions with a co-pay, as well as hospitalization that will cover all but catastrophic illness.

And this is if the person is self-employed. Many of not most employers offer health insurance, or half the cost of health insurance. Of course, this is not free either because one way or another it's coming out of your salary. Nothing is free, whether it is paid by an employer or the government. You are still paying for it out of your pocket, only indirectly. The problem is that the government doesn't trust people, so they take your money and dole it out based on what they think you need, driving up costs, and keeping their cut. The question is, even if it were for good motives (and it isn't: it's all about buying votes and having more power), is it right to compel people by force to support other people? And what about the moral and spiritual implications of people becoming more and more dependent on the state for their well being. Pretty soon, they stop even thinking for themselves.

[Father David Moser]

To bring this topic into a little more focus, let me ask if there are any citations either patristic or biblical or even liturgical which would indicate what characteristics a Christian economy might show.

I do not doubt that such characteristics as almsgiving, compassion for the poor, care and respect for all members of the society can be found - but I would be curious as to how the tradition of the Church assembles those various characteristics into a moral or even practical picture of "Christian economics"

Fr David Moser

[Kypreos]

There are 5 major corporations that own the media (television, radio, publishing/newspapers). That is a lot of control in so few hands. Their interest is to make money, not tell the truth. The largest stake holder in the media is General Electric. They dwarfed the other companies with $163.4 billion dollars in revenue for 2006.

Coincidentally, General Electric is one of the world’s top three producers of jet engines, supplying Boeing, Lockheed Martin and other military aircraft makers for the powering of airplanes and helicopters. They have numerous big money military contracts.

The war on terror has been good to them. There are companies that are making a lot of money in this economy at the expense of the people. The economy is suffering, the people are hurting, but THEIR PROFITS KEEP ON SOARING!

I am a city worker, i have full insurance. I have GHI, and Blue Cross Blue Shield for hospitals (considered very good insurances). Even with such fine insurance, a two day hospital stay cost me almost $3000.

It is not the few petty social programs that service the poor that has plunged our country into debt.

"Based on the work of Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard public finance lecturer Linda J. Bilmes, the American Friends Service Committee (http://www.afsc.org/) (AFSC) recently determined (http://support.afsc.org/site/PageNavigator/DefundRefundPetition) that the Iraq war costs $720 million per day, $500,000 per minute – enough to provide homes for nearly 6,500 families, or health care for 423,529 children in just one day." taken from http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=237655

(Sorry Father David - I didnt see your post till after I posted mine)

[Antonios]

To bring this topic into a little more focus, let me ask if there are any citations either patristic or biblical or even liturgical which would indicate what characteristics a Christian economy might show.

I do not doubt that such characteristics as almsgiving, compassion for the poor, care and respect for all members of the society can be found - but I would be curious as to how the tradition of the Church assembles those various characteristics into a moral or even practical picture of "Christian economics"

Fr David Moser

Dear Father David,

Any discussion must consider an event that occurred 2000 years ago:
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." (Matthew 19:21)

The economic goal of the Holy Trinity is selfless love.

By His parables, we also learn about God and His Kingdom:

WORK AND WAGES
* Master and Servant (Luke 17:7-10)
* The Servant Entrusted with Authority or The Faithful and Unfaithful Servants (Matt. 24:45-51; Luke 12:42-46)
* The Waiting Servants (Luke 12:35-38; Mark 13:33-37)
* The Laborers in the Vineyard or The Generous Employer (Matt.20:1-16)
* The Money in Trust or The Talents (Matthew 25:14-30; Luke 19:12-27)
* The Lamp (Matt 5:14-16; Mark 4:21; Luke 8:16, 11:31) and The City Set on a Hill (Matt. 5:14b)
* The Body's Lamp (Matthew 6:22 f.; Luke 11:34-36)
* The Discarded Salt (Matt 5:13; Mark 9:50; Luke 14:34 f.)
* The Patch and the Wineskins (Matt. 9:16 f.; Mark 2:21 f.; Luke 5:36-39)
* The Householder's Treasure (Matthew 13:52)
* The Dishonest Steward (Luke 16:1-12) Revised!
* The Defendant (Luke 12:58 f.; Matthew 5:25 f.)
* The Unforgiving Official or The Unmerciful Servant (Matthew 18:23-35)
* The Rich Fool (Luke 12:16-21)
* The Wicked Vinedressers (Matthew 21:33-41; Mark 12:1-9; Luke 20:9-16)
* The Two Builders (Matthew 7:24-27; Luke 6:47-49)
* The Two Debtors (Luke 7:41-43)
* The Hidden Treasure (Matthew 13:44)
* The Pearl of Great Price (Matthew 13:45)

How does all this relate and compare with the current global economic model, and what do we do with this knowledge?

In Christ,
Antonios

[Olga]

Render unto Caesar what is due Caesar, and render unto God what is due God.

[Antonios]

Render unto Caesar what is due Caesar, and render unto God what is due God.

But, alas!, what is Caesar's and what is God's???

[Antonios]

I cant believe charging interest (or "usurey" like it's called in the Scriptures) fits into the Christian economic model.

[Effie Ganatsios]

Since the pensions are mentioned here is an interesting news from today's headlines:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080305/ap_on_bi_ge/retiree_health_care

I don't think I am going to go searching for factsheets concerning American Health Care but the above article is in line with what I have read about this subject.

Our former Prime Minister Howard's words in a campaign speech I watched on TV : Australian health care's objective is a midway position between America's harshness and Europe's pampered state. I paraphrased because I am writing from memory although the harshness and pampered state are the exact words, plus the midway position between these two extremes.

Mr. Howard, one of America's most loyal supporters, surely wasn't spreading lies and propaganda, was he?

I have read that drug companies are those that have the largest profits of all other companies. Is this also a lie?



A utopia would be somewhere where all who can work would - work is great therapy for almost everything.

A place where old people and those in need would not have to worry about getting sick and having enough money to buy medicine or even just surviving because they don't have enough money to buy food.
A place where a person was respected no matter what job he did.

A place where lawyers were practically non-existent...........smile here!!

I admit though that every system can be cheated and safeguards against fraud need to be established. Disability pension fraud for example is a growing industry in some countries.

A christian economy in my opinion would have to include the following :

- first and foremost LESS government interference in our daily lives

- each person is employed in productive work i.e. jobs that actually produce something

- we are all resonsible for those in real need i.e. young girls who find themselves responsible for a baby, women who need to raise children by themselves, people with chronic diseases, disabled people, etc. As I said those in real need, not those who take advantage of a system that pays you to stay home. In some countries it is more profitable to stay at home than it is to work. In Australia I saw families (mostly immigrant Muslims) with over 3 kids living on welfare. There is no incentive to work because these families get more money milking the government.

The method to be employed for the above would have to be taxes that are used for the benefit of the citizens of the country.

- anything a country produces cannot be used to harm other people

- just international laws should be established and all countries should abide by those laws.

The ideal would be to live as Christ taught us to, unfortunately not everybody is a Christian nor do they belong to other religions that preach peaceful co-existence with all. That's why we need just laws and those that enforce them.

The above is full of holes. Feel free to point them out.
This thread is really interesting and we will all gain something from it.

Effie

[Effie Ganatsios]

I am a city worker, i have full insurance. I have GHI, and Blue Cross Blue Shield for hospitals (considered very good insurances). Even with such fine insurance, a two day hospital stay cost me almost $3000.


Kypreos, I have normal public health insurance that is part of my overall health insurance policy. One I paid dues to for nearly 30 years. I'm not on a pension yet but will get the basic pension (the amount you receive depends on the number of years you have worked) when I am 60.

A few years ago I broke my ankle in 3 places. (I also broke my leg at the same time but I didn't need surgery for that). I had to have an operation and then a subsequent removal of whatever they put in my ankle a year later. I did not pay one cent for anything, not the operation, not the initial blood work, not for medicine, not for heart tests etc. I stayed in hospital for 8 days, and the hospital care was excellent. A couple of years ago my son needed emergency care and a subsequent hospital stay of 4 days. He paid nothing!

Admittedly our health insurance payments are very high and luckily these have been the only times my family has needed hospital care, but there are people who are in and out of hospital and I don't believe they pay anything either.

Those on pensions pay a small percentage of the overall cost for prescription medication. Whatever medicine you buy without a prescription is paid in full of course. In addition to health insurance payments we also pay normal tax, so the government gets quite a lot of money out of each and every citizen of this country.

The priviliged class in this country is the public sector employees. They have high salaries, high pensions and get an enormous superannuation amount when they leave - one that they have only paid a tiny amount for. This is changing though because of EU orders, and that's why these people are currently on strike all over the country.

Fairness and the idea that all people are equal regarding government services would be a good point to include in the list in my previous post.

[Effie Ganatsios]

Owen wrote : "In Canada and Britain, there is a long waiting list for medical services. In, short, because it is a government owned and managed system, it is required to ration its resources. There are no such waiting lists for medical care in the U.S. If you need your gall bladder out, you get it, same or next day. "

I don't know about Canada and Britain, but this is also true for Greece. You have to wait your turn for routine operations in public hospitals, but not for emergency operations. You can however have an operation - any operation - done in a private clinic and you can then get a partial refund of the money you have spent from your health insurance agency. This is admittedly one of the negative things about our health system.

Effie

[Effie Ganatsios]

If these measures are so necessary, we must assume either a great deal of incompetence on the part of the journalists or interference from media proprietors - perhaps both. I infer from the posts of Owen and Herman that the USA doesn't have a free press in the sense of reporting news fully, accurately, and impartially. I'm not sure that the media here is much better. I learn more about what's happening in the world from what my mother-in-law sees on Russian TV.

It's strange that you would say that Andreas. My uncle in Australia has diabetes and is on medication. He also has cable TV with Greek TV stations. On one of these he saw a news report about a certain diabetes drug and how dangerous it was, so he thought he would check and see what his doctor had given him. It was the drug mentioned in the news report. He stopped taking it and asked his doctor if what they were saying was true. His doctor hemmed and haaed a little and then said that he would be happy to change his medication.

As with the media and everything else, be as innocent as doves and as wise as serpents. Double check everything that it is possible to, especially the news on TV and in newspapers. A good rule would be to believe 20% of what you read and maybe 5% of what you hear in TV news reports.

[Effie Ganatsios]

This is how our lives are today :

"Today God must spend quite a lot of time weeping over us.

We too have built great cities but they are not cities of peace where God is honored and life is celebrated as a holy gift. Instead, we oppress one another and we rush to war when mere oppression isn’t enough to preserve our power and control.



We are too busy to tend our own families and too irresponsible ourselves to be adequate role models for our youth. And so without guidance, our children are left to fend for themselves. Too many fall along the way and we abandon them to wallow in drugs and despair and to drown in the cultural sewage we’ve allowed to engulf our lives.

We ignore our poor and elderly, the dispossessed, the mentally ill, the stranger in our midst. We are too busy pursuing our own 15 minutes of fame! We have no time to spare to help others, to visit the sick, to comfort the despairing, to guide the lost, to resettle the dispossessed, to show hospitality to the stranger. Abraham entertained angels but we do not even know who our neighbors are! We do not even see the homeless. The pains and trials of those “not of our class” or “not of our race” are “not our problem”!"

"Life itself is progressively cheapened. People who cannot defend themselves —the unborn, the severely disabled— are treated as things to be managed (or disposed of) by others. In our greed for personal wealth and power, we trash the environment, God’s glorious creation and the web of life that He designed to sustain us all, as if it were merely our property over which we have a right to do as we please."



I got this from a link Nina posted : http://www.serfes.org/spiritual/september2007.htm

A country of peace where God is honored and life is celebrated as a holy gift.

What would this be like?

[Max Percy]

But this begs the question of what a truly Christian economics would look like.

I think "economics" is an abstraction that attempts to describe and predict human behavior. As such, I do not think there is a "Christian" economics. There are Christians whom behave in particular ways, either more or less loving, either more or less wisely, and either more or less in conformity with the Gospel in a particular situation. Policies like health care or anything else in a democracy are always compromises and so are always the ground floor rather than aspirational for Christians.

I have always wondered what would happen if Christians formed cooperative banks and tried to lend/invest money to one another in a way that was more in conformity with the Gospel than the present system. But there is probably a reason that it has not happened.

[Owen Jones]

I think Max is getting more to the heart of the question here. And I am not sure that the Fathers can give us explicit direction. The early Church's "economics" were abandoned as the early Church's eschatology was abandoned and the Church expanded. And in the Empire, the Church made many compromises with pagan culture. So we have to use our rational minds here and try to extrapolate from Christian teachings and try to absorb the mind of the Fathers in addressing social/economic issues, and, yes, deal in the real world of compromises. I do think we need to avoid utopian dreams as our starting place. St. Basil perhaps offers an example, since he was instrumental in developing what we would call today "social services" for abandoned babies, the poor, the sick. (I think it is noteworthy that during Basil's day it was still common practice to abandon unwanted babies to die from exposure -- this in a supposedly Christian imperium).

My major contention is that huge government social welfare schemes, and socialism in general, have for a long time been very popular among a certain segment of Christians as somehow an implementation of the Gospel, but I am a skeptic on this. I also sense that there is much knee jerk anti-Americanism among many foreign Orthodox, and among many American converts to Orthodoxy, as if somehow if we could only transform America from this dog-eat-dog, super-individualist empire, then we would have a much more fertile ground for the growth of Orthodoxy. This is all mythology.

[Owen Jones]

“By almsgiving, I do not include what is maintained by injustice, for this is not almsgiving, but savageness and inhumanity. What profits it to strip one man and clothe another?”

This is from St. John Chrysostom's sermons on wealth and poverty. I am not claiming that this is the first and last word on the subject of economics. But I quote it to serve one point I'm trying to make, that robbing from the rich to give to the poor through the power of the state is not justified by Christian theology. A voluntary charity is the norm.

[Andreas Moran]

I have always wondered what would happen if Christians formed cooperative banks and tried to lend/invest money to one another in a way that was more in conformity with the Gospel than the present system. But there is probably a reason that it has not happened.

It has happened and has been happening since 1844. In that year, the Rochdale Pioneers, eight textile workers, formed a co-operative. Workers were exploited by businessmen who had a monopoly of the shops in Rochdale; they adulterated the food they sold: water mixed in to the butter, sand in to flour, and so on. The co-operative fought this by setting up its own shop and sold pure produce. The Co-operative Movement, allied with the Christian Socialists, developed the idea. The 'Co-op' is now a large enterprise including supermarkets and banking and other services. The Co-op Bank has a strictly ethical investment policy.


I did not mean to suggest that the press in America is not free, or controlled by some conspiratorial elements, only that journalism is sloppy business.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here, Owen. The press is clearly controlled by its proprietors and reflects their views and those of their friends.


As for an $800 a month family medical insurance bill, well, I don't know the person's income or circumstances, but you can do a lot better

My nephew is an accountant by training so I assume he has some idea of how to arrange these things.


As for the "free" medical care in Britain, it isn't. People pay taxes for it.

Of course - governments only have the money they raise in taxes.


The question is . . . is it right to compel people by force to support other people?

There can be no other answer than 'yes'. The real question is, what you mean by support - what does the state have to do to justify this coercion? Clearly, the state must support its citizens by providing those things which are for the common good: laws, defence, and so on. All we are talking about is how much support. I think a civilised state so regulates matters as to prevent exploitation of the weak by the strong and does so in a humane way.


And what about the moral and spiritual implications of people becoming more and more dependent on the state for their well being. Pretty soon, they stop even thinking for themselves.

Is this an expression of prejudice or is it based on facts? I was dependent on the state for my education at all levels. (My father was a railway worker and there was no way education could have been bought.) I was dependent on the state for the medical treatment my first wife had. I am not aware that I have suffered morally or spiritually as a result of this level of dependence on the state, and , so far as I can tell, I have not stopped thinking for myself. Even Soviet citizens of my father-in-law's generation did not stop thinking but they did have any sense of self-reliance and initiative taken from them.


It is not for lack of miracles that the Church is stagnant; it is because we have forsaken the angelic life of Pentecost, and fallen back on private property. If we lived as they did, with all things common, we should soon convert the whole world without any need of miracles at all.
St John Chrysostom.

If the Holy Gifts in the Eucharist are given equally, can we not seek to do the same with all the other gifts God has provided?

[Andreas Moran]

one point I'm trying to make, that robbing from the rich to give to the poor through the power of the state is not justified by Christian theology. A voluntary charity is the norm.

And if there be a want of rich volunteers?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

There is a book called Wealth & Poverty in the Teachings of the Church Fathers by Fr James Thornton. This book contains a lot of material from the Fathers on this topic along with surrounding commentary by the author. I also recall another book done by Holy Cross Press on philanthropic work in Byzantium.

The Fathers were concerned about wealth & Christian living but I do not believe they meant this in a programmatic way. Rather, general guidelines for the life of a Christian were provided which we must apply with discernment in the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

In terms of this discussion though what makes it so complex is the added question of the relation of the Church to the state. Responsibility, care for the people, etc. This is found in many Patristic instructions to rulers. But this is along the lines of personal virtue rather than instructions on a specific kind of government.

True, monarchy was the assumed form of government for many of the Fathers and many of them accepted this on a kind of ecclesiological basis: ie monarchy is the best pattern for Christ like living as far as this world is concerned. But still I do not think this was meant in an absolute way nor does it relate to specific economic policy.

All I can think of is that following the understanding of leadership as found within the Church (remember that Church leadership: bishops, abbots, etc were far more socially involved in providing for their people than they are now- just see all of the letters of petition from St Gregory the Theologian to the civil authorities) the Fathers favoured an active sense of responsibility by government. So in this sense they would have allowed for 'interference' by government for economic reasons.

However this would always have been balanced by just as an acute sense of the evils of what they often referred to as despotism. So that there could also be a kind of interference which would be evil.

In other words I think the Patristic position on economics would always have stressed a kind of balance.

Lastly however I think that this discussion could deal more fully with modern economic theory which in turn has been influenced by modern utopian thinking. What this involves is restructuring the whole basis of economic relationships according to some hoped for higher standard.

I think this last question would be interesting to discuss from a Patristic perspective. It certainly came up many times in the 20th century what with the attempts at revolutionary change.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Owen Jones]

Andreas:

Ah hah! And that is always the argument that is made, that the rich are not by nature charitable, and so we must get the state to intervene in order to help the poor. But St. John Chrysostom is not primarily concerned about the harm done to people by being poor, other than that it causes them to be despondent. He is more concerned about the soul of the rich man who is lacking in charity, and who spends his wealth on conspicuous consumption. The modern Christian however seems to be less concerned about the souls of the rich, in fact, wants to punish the rich, and is more concerned about eliminating poverty as a social policy. This is for psychological reasons. The Christian will feel better if he thinks he has done something to help the poor man by alleviating his poverty, thinking little about the soul of the poor man, and thinking nothing at all about the soul of the rich man. So the Christian says, gee, I do not have the money myself to alleviate even one man's poverty, and, gosh, I've got a family to support, so I will support a kind of politically activist solution and therefore save my conscience from any guilt by utilizing the power of the state to force the rich man to be charitable.

How is any of this truly Christian?

other points:

It may be self-evident to you that government programs are paid out of taxes, but that is not in fact the common public opinion on the subject. The common, widespread public opinion, foisted on people by government, is that government services are "free." Why not, therefore, demand more free services, if they are simply -- free? What's the harm in that? But they aren't free. They involve taking from some people to give to other people. So if that is what people want to do, fine, but let's just be honest about what's really going on.

"I think a civilised state so regulates matters as to prevent exploitation of the weak by the strong and does so in a humane way."

St. John Chrysostom is saying that to strip one man to clothe another is "inhumane."

I know you take great pride in thinking for yourself, but the vast majority of people do not seem to enjoy this luxury, and in fact are easily swayed by passionate arguments. As an example, the idea that government social benefits are "free."


"It is not for lack of miracles that the Church is stagnant; it is because we have forsaken the angelic life of Pentecost, and fallen back on private property. If we lived as they did, with all things common, we should soon convert the whole world without any need of miracles at all."

This is an argument in favor of the monastic ideal, not an argument in favor of state socialism. It is directed at Christians, not the state.

[Nina]

I cant believe charging interest (or "usurey" like it's called in the Scriptures) fits into the Christian economic model.

Antonios you are right and I have read in several Fathers (even recent ones) that they support what you say.


Do lend, but avoid taking interest from the poor.

Interest or usury is considered to be among the greater sins as we see in the 14th Psalm.

It is safer before the all-seeing God and before His just judgment not to take from those that do not have, than to take interest. Then choose the safer course.

Because of interest people come to increased misery and poverty. Christian duty commands us to provide for the needs of our neighbor, and not to increase them, and to help him, not to ruin him. Keep, then, from ruining your neighbor under the appearance of helping him, and when you lend to him do not receive anything above what was given. Whoever takes interest from the poor perpetrates a great inhumanity and has lost the final spark of conscience.

When a debtor comes to such destitution and poverty that he genuinely has nothing with which to pay back his creditors, Christian love demands that the creditor either be patient, or, what is better, even to forgive the debtor his debt. Christian! He who took a loan from you is truly your debtor, but you are God's debtor. He is indebted to you for material things, but you are indebted to God for sins. His debt is very small against your debt of sin, it is as it were nothing. Then when you beg God to forgive you your ten thousand talents, forgive your neighbor his hundred pence. Spare the poor that God may spare you. Be a man merciful to men, that you may pray to God without pangs of conscience, God, be merciful to me a sinner! (Lk.18:13) Do not put a man like yourself into prison, who is perhaps even better, lest you suffer the same thing that servant in the Gospel suffered.
pp.132-133 St. Tikhon of Zadonsk in Journey to Heaven

[Andreas Moran]

Ah hah! And that is always the argument that is made, that the rich are not by nature charitable, and so we must get the state to intervene in order to help the poor. But St. John Chrysostom is not primarily concerned about the harm done to people by being poor, other than that it causes them to be despondent. He is more concerned about the soul of the rich man who is lacking in charity, and who spends his wealth on conspicuous consumption. The modern Christian however seems to be less concerned about the souls of the rich, in fact, wants to punish the rich, and is more concerned about eliminating poverty as a social policy. This is for psychological reasons. The Christian will feel better if he thinks he has done something to help the poor man by alleviating his poverty, thinking little about the soul of the poor man, and thinking nothing at all about the soul of the rich man. So the Christian says, gee, I do not have the money myself to alleviate even one man's poverty, and, gosh, I've got a family to support, so I will support a kind of politically activist solution and therefore save my conscience from any guilt by utilizing the power of the state to force the rich man to be charitable.

How is any of this truly Christian?

It isn't, not much, and these are not notions to which I would subscribe. I think it unfairly characterises a view such as I hold that there is a desire to 'punish the rich'. It is simply that in a complex modern state, we have to accept that only government can do uniformly what private charity used to do but could not now do as comprehensively as the state can do it. It is true that many on the political left would see state provision as merely a social policy. I don't see it that way because that is not Christian.


It may be self-evident to you that government programs are paid out of taxes, but that is not in fact the common public opinion on the subject.

How do you know this? But if it is so, there must be a greater need for state education!


"I think a civilised state so regulates matters as to prevent exploitation of the weak by the strong and does so in a humane way."

St. John Chrysostom is saying that to strip one man to clothe another is "inhumane."

There is no logical linkage between these two. St John Chrysostom advocated more equality. Of course it makes no sense to think of making the poor rich and the rich poor!


I know you take great pride . . .

How do you know? Can you point out to me what I have written that leads you to say this? I'd like to know so I can avoid showing such great pride again.


but the vast majority of people do not seem to enjoy this luxury, and in fact are easily swayed by passionate arguments

How do you know this? But if it is so, there must be a need for a state education as good as the one I was given.

I don't think the monastic ideal is apt to convert the whole world.

[Owen Jones]

Forgive me. I usually try to avoid personal comments.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Interest or usury is considered to be among the greater sins as we see in the 14th Psalm.

I wonder. "Interest"ing that the Diaspora Jews (the authors of the Psalms) did not feel limited by this Psalm in the Middle Ages. They controlled the banks and did most of the lending since the Christians did not allow themselves to charge interest. It was, of course, a two-edged sword. Once a local ruler became too indebted, he would start a pogrom against those "Christ-killing Jews". No Jews, no debt.

Moslem countries are having a similar issue, but of course they don't let the Jews in to begin with, so instead of charging "interest" they charge "fees".

And what are we to make of: "I took the ten talents you gave me and made 10 more..." Investment is obviously not anti-Christian...

[Nina]

And what are we to make of: "I took the ten talents you gave me and made 10 more..." Investment is obviously not anti-Christian...

Herman, I do not know if you are making a connection between interest and investment. Maybe you are not. But just for fairness' sake these two words are completely different. And Saint Tikhon explicitly mentions usury and interest, obtained from the poor.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Herman, I do not know if you are making a connection between interest and investment. Maybe you are not. But just for fairness' sake these two words are completely different. And Saint Tikhon explicitly mentions usury and interest, obtained from the poor.

What is "interest" if it isn't a return on investment?

[Nina]

What is "interest" if it isn't a return on investment?

Herman when we give to our neighbor who is in financial difficulty or needs some financial help, I do not think it is investment. It is help.

[Andreas Moran]

Owen Jones: Forgive me. I usually try to avoid personal comments.

I don't mind. I was being a bit sarcastic! My point really is that to be meaningful our arguments have to be supported in some way. Generalised personal assertions don't get us very far. I know nothing about political and economic philosophy and so I can only comment from my own experiences, and they have led me to be thankful for many of the things which this country used to provide and still does to an extent.

I am anxious that all of us in the developed world are being dragged into an ever more sinful style of life by commercial exploitation. I don't mean obvious oppression such as used to exist in Victorian times but being seduced into a life of consumption that is not only bad for us but leaves billions of Lazaruses at our gates. I was reflecting on what life was like when I was little. we had no fitted carpets, central heating, car, telephone, washing machine, fridge, freezer, supermarkets, holidays abroad, etc , etc , etc. Married couples waited years to buy furniture. All the evidence is that for all our material gains we are not only no happier but less so. More specifically, if state benefits were stopped for pregnant teenagers, would I be any better off? Would the government give us all a rebate on the tax saved? We know the answer to that! An Orthodox friend of mine sort of fasts during Lent but what he does do is curb consumption. He only buys what he strictly needs. There's a lot more to think about this Lent than the food we should avoid.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Herman when we give to our neighbor who is in financial difficulty or needs some financial help, I do not think it is investment. It is help.

As individuals, Christians should always be ready to help others with no expectation of return. However, giving someone money as an investment with the expectation of something in return is not anti-Christian, nor is it necessarily usury, which is usually defined as an EXORBITANT rate of interest. Investment can also be a way to help people, don't you think?

There is a wonderful example of how this works, I believe, in the novel Great Expectations by Charles Dickens? I don't have a copy handy to provide specifics at present, I shall see what I can scare up.

[Nina]

As individuals, Christians should always be ready to help others with no expectation of return. However, giving someone money as an investment with the expectation of something in return is not anti-Christian, nor is it necessarily usury, which is usually defined as an EXORBITANT rate of interest. Investment can also be a way to help people, don't you think?

There is a wonderful example of how this works, I believe, in the novel Great Expectations by Charles Dickens? I don't have a copy handy to provide specifics at present, I shall see what I can scare up.

Here is an e-copy of Great Expectations (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1400) .

I believe that St. Tikhon is speaking about something else. And you are talking about something else. Usury and interest is when taking advantage of the neighbor. Investment is something else in my opinion. I lend because I feel like helping my neighbor and I feel like not deserting him on the time of need and because that is the right thing to do. I invest because... there are many reasons. And the outcome from the investment can be used for charity. However it depends where I invest. I might choose to invest in a company that produces bullets, in a strip club and the likes which promote and cause others to sin. Or I might invest in purchasing an apartment and rent it out.

[Andreas Moran]

Or I might invest in purchasing an apartment and rent it out.

Interesting! (Sorry for the pun!) Interest is payment by time for the use of money. Rent is payment by time for the use of property. Spot the difference!

[Effie Ganatsios]

. I also sense that there is much knee jerk anti-Americanism among many foreign Orthodox, and among many American converts to Orthodoxy, as if somehow if we could only transform America from this dog-eat-dog, super-individualist empire, then we would have a much more fertile ground for the growth of Orthodoxy. This is all mythology.

America and what happens in it is something that is of little interest to most non-Americans.

It is only when it tries to enforce it's "democracy" and economic system on other countries that the trouble starts.

I wasn't even aware that America was the subject of this thread. Christian economics is the subject. Can we survive in an economy that is founded on Christian ethics? Is such an economy viable? What would be the ground rules for such an economy?

I have put forth a few suggestions, even though they are not very well thought out but the first that came to mind.

Can people live and work together according to the words of Jesus? Would such an economy be capable of surviving in this day and age? I read that in the first few years after Christ's death and resurrection Christians tried to live in communities where everything was owned commonly by everyone - the first example perhaps of communism as it should be? What happened of course was that soon those who were lazy stopped contributing and others found themselves working hard to support those who didn't work at all. Soon people started complaining and this experiment in living and working together for the good of all, failed.

[Nina]

Interesting! (Sorry for the pun!) Interest is payment by time for the use of money. Rent is payment by time for the use of property. Spot the difference!

When you receive interest you receive something more than you gave to a neighbor in financial difficulty. When you receive rent, your provide property to a tenant and receive something in exchange.

[Andreas Moran]

I was thinking of commercial lending rather than lending to a neighbour. We wouldn't charge our 'neighbour' interest on a small, temporary 'get by' loan, would we?

[Nina]

I was thinking of commercial lending rather than lending to a neighbour. We wouldn't charge our 'neighbour' interest on a small, temporary 'get by' loan, would we?

We must specify it then. Since lending to a neighbor is specified by St. Tikhon of Zadonsk and that is what we must do according to Bible and Fathers. In other instances we must make the proper distinction and specification.

[Andreas Moran]

Is it wrong to receive interest? I get a bit of interest on my savings at the bank.

[Effie Ganatsios]

There was a reference to St. Basil in one of the messages :


St. Basil did organize kitchens that supplied food for the poor, and various other services of value to the needy. But who did he get to manage these various endeavours? Monks who had spent years in monasteries under obedience, practising and perfecting love for their brothers, chastity, humility, etc. in an endeavour to be as like Christ as possible. Only when this was accomplished did he allow them to leave their monasteries and take charge of the soup kitchens, hospices, etc.

I remembered reading the above somewhere and finally found it through Google :
http://www.goarch.org/print/en/ourfaith/article7103.asp


"St. Basil set Christian perfectionism as the goal of monastic life. The monks were to practice Christian virtues together, especially love; to practice obedience to a spiritual father; to practice chastity and poverty, and share the common goods of the monastery. After they achieved Christian perfection, they were allowed to come back to the world and help others to achieve Christian perfection. Thus, the monks had the mission of "social workers" as well. St. Basil's institutions, especially his Basileias, which was at the same time an orphanage, a "kitchen for the poor," and a school for the illiterate was in practice run by monks. This was St. Basil's way of utilizing the monastic movement to benefit the mission of the Church in the world. "




We are not monks of course, but obviously education is very important. People in charge should be chosen for their honesty and their values. People we can respect and trust.

I was getting quite depressed thinking about this subject because I just couldn't see how we could possible ever have a Christian economy. But then I thought about the hundreds of thousands of good people all over the world who, anonymously, share whatever they have with their fellowmen. These are the people who will save the world, in fact, have been saving it from itself down through the ages. These people don't blame the poor for somehow being responsible for the state that they are in.

They say "There, but for the grace of God, go I" and do something, anything, to improve matters.

[Antonios]

I always admired the teaching in the Quran that it is unlawful to charge someone interest on a loan. Of course, this may not be the normal practice in the Islamic world today, but I always had respect for this teaching.

[Andreas Moran]

I think it's common - you can have an Islamic mortgage here.

[Antonios]

I think I have heard of such a policy. You don't pay much interest, but if you try to change lenders, you are subject to decapitation!

[Andreas Moran]

I think I have heard of such a policy. You don't pay much interest, but if you try to change lenders, you are subject to decapitation!

That might be regarded as an oppressive term under the Consumer Credit Act!

[Nina]

Let us not interpret "covetousness" as consisting merely in the lust of
what is another's. For even what seems "ours" is another's. For
nothing is ours, since all things are God's, to Whom we ourselves belong.Tertullian, c. 200 AD

[Andreas Moran]

Quotation:
Let us not interpret "covetousness" as consisting merely in the lust of
what is another's. For even what seems "ours" is another's. For
nothing is ours, since all things are God's, to Whom we ourselves belong.

Tertullian, c. 200 AD

Hey! That guy must've been a dirty commie!

[Owen Jones]

Two things about this quote. First, the explicit context is that he is affirming the Christian condemnation against covetousness, but as with most Christian teachings, there is always another, higher standard to seek and strive for, and in this case he is arguing that we should not use the condemnation of covetousness as an excuse to think of our own possessions as belonging only to us and as somehow sacrosanct, since it is easy for us to make this logical, but spiritually invalid leap. And of course there are still some Christians who view their material things as belonging to God, and simply something that has been given to them for safe keeping, as a steward. This is the standard attitude for all of us, I should think, and when we approach our own possessions from that perspective, it changes our actions.

But the underlying issue it seems to me is compulsion. There is no virtue, in fact it is "inhumane" as St. John Chrysostom says, to steal from one person who has in order to give it to someone who lacks. And I would add, it is particularly barbaric to give the state that power through the barrel of a gun, and the threat of jail. With freedom goes responsibility, but you cannot lock everyone up who is irresponsible with their freedom, and, of course, depending on the criteria, we all deserve to be locked up. The modern state supplants God as the arbiter, judge and jury of our sins, and imposes harsh sentences on people deemed to be not sufficiently attuned to the popular will, or the needs of the "community." There is nothing Christian at all about this. It is a heresy of Christianity.

As for America, it is news to me that America is of little interest to people outside of America, and there are certainly many posts on Monachos about the sins of America. There are hundreds of millions of people who would come here if they could, in order to enjoy more political freedom and economic opportunity. And some oppressed people still look to America as a source of hope. And there are many who see America as either the Great Satan, or as a domineering empire that is continually a threat to other nations, societies and cultures. But none of this is what I would call disinterest.

There are, within this context, a number of challenges. How do Orthodox Christians in America live and think? Are we just going through the motions as Christians while really wedded to a very consumer-oriented, materialistic society? If we are going to be counter-cultural, is that because we love Christ, or because we hate America? If we are going to be counter-cultural, how is that manifest? By wearing beards?

And then there is the distinction to be made between crass or vulgar materialism that simply involves making and spending money, which is not a unique problem to America by any means, and so-called philosophical materialism, which is also a global phenomenon, something which impacts Europe probably on a greater scale than the U.S. The latter is a much greater problem, since crass materialism will always be around. But unless and until the Church is capable of countering philosophical materialism, we can rant all we want about the crass form. We have simply reduced Christianity to a matter of personal opinion, consumer taste.

[Owen Jones]

The concern for the poor in modern times seems to be based on the belief that inequality is evil, and the causes of inequality are sinful and we must therefore attack these sins, and, at the same time, work to ameliorate the resulting inequalities. This seems to me a quite different motivation than the Patristic teachings on wealth and poverty, in which the soul of the person is what is really at stake, not his condition. But of more interest is what I see as an obvious contradiction between Christian concern over inequality of material conditions in the world, vs. a virtually cavalier attitude, one might say, regarding spiritual inequalities. We are quite happy to consign most of the human race to a permanent hell -- how's that for inequality -- but we cannot accept that some people in the world remain poor. Go figure.

[Max Percy]

The concern for the poor in modern times seems to be based on the belief that inequality is evil, and the causes of inequality are sinful and we must therefore attack these sins, and, at the same time, work to ameliorate the resulting inequalities. This seems to me a quite different motivation than the Patristic teachings on wealth and poverty, in which the soul of the person is what is really at stake, not his condition. But of more interest is what I see as an obvious contradiction between Christian concern over inequality of material conditions in the world, vs. a virtually cavalier attitude, one might say, regarding spiritual inequalities. We are quite happy to consign most of the human race to a permanent hell -- how's that for inequality -- but we cannot accept that some people in the world remain poor. Go figure.


I think it also has to do with the ways in which people are degraded and are dehumanized by serious poverty. To paraphrase Dorothy Day- Those who are poor end up being poor in everything- manners, education, interior resources, etc... serious poverty tends to erode the person.

[Owen Jones]

Well, this is mostly the modern myth of poverty. I note with interest that St. John Chrysostom refers to the tendency of poverty to demoralize the poor, or lead to despondency. But his underlying point is that every human being suffers, only in different ways, and the real issue is what we do with our suffering, and that our primary concern ought to be for peoples' souls. The wealthy man's soul suffers far more, or is at far greater risk, in his opinion, and therefore the problem of poverty in and of itself is not the issue, or the social causes of poverty, or the need to eliminate poverty, but the need for the rich man to be more generous with his wealth, or to eschew wealth acquisition altogether, as an eschatalogical sign.

That a poor man is necessarily poor in other things is, IMHO, largely untrue, and is more a reflection of Victorian manners. Much has to do with expectations. If one spends any time in Calcutta, one senses that the people there are not any more demoralized and depressed than the residents of Beverly Hills. In fact, I would say far less so. And their behavior in manners and morals is far superior than the reckless, narcissistic behavior of the rich.

Dorothy Day is an example of what I call soft-core totalitarianism. Someone who wants to bring about a socialist utopia, only without violent terror as the means.

[Herman Blaydoe]

I have to agree with Owen here. Reading that quote by Dorothy Day actually sent distasteful chills down my spine. It is just wrong on many levels. I find it totally condescending and very prejudicial. It seems to assume that the "poor" are without dignity, or "manners". It is this very strange attitude that deprives the poor of their dignity, not the poverty itself. Poverty does not necessarily erode. Blessed are the poor in spirit, not eroded, not lacking.

Herman

[Nina]

Two things about this quote. First, the explicit context is that he is affirming the Christian condemnation against covetousness, but as with most Christian teachings, there is always another, higher standard to seek and strive for, and in this case he is arguing that we should not use the condemnation of covetousness as an excuse to think of our own possessions as belonging only to us and as somehow sacrosanct, since it is easy for us to make this logical, but spiritually invalid leap. And of course there are still some Christians who view their material things as belonging to God, and simply something that has been given to them for safe keeping, as a steward. This is the standard attitude for all of us, I should think, and when we approach our own possessions from that perspective, it changes our actions.


Owen, ideally you are right. But looking in the reality of my soul, I think Tertullian is more right. Since I think you also have watched Ostrov do you remember what Father Anatoly did with the boots and the blanket of Father Philaret? I think that it is a struggle to achieve the standard attitude that you mention. Tertullian is right that we covet our own things also. Like Father Philaret I also have my favorite things which are many and not only two like in his case. Any outer thing that we get attached too is another burden that does not allow us to fly freely to Heaven. Geronda Paisios says in one of the books that anything that we keep in our heart, takes the space of Christ. And he explains the example of a photo frame which we like in a store. If we do not buy it, our heart remains with it in the store. If we purchase it we hang our heart in the wall with the frame Geronda says. Some may be deluded and call it a safe keeping and some may really feel that way. You know what can be a good indicator for distinguishing if we are deluded or not in this case? Try to imagine that for some reason we have to abandon our home. Will we run out of the door without a thing? A second and more ideal and targeted scenario is the one like that of St. Anthony's, or what Christ said to the rich man. Christ told him simply to divide the things to the poor and follow Him. And although the man was righteous in keeping the Law he coveted his things much. I think this is a form of what Tertullian says and about what Christ also comments.

[Max Percy]

I have to agree with Owen here. Reading that quote by Dorothy Day actually sent distasteful chills down my spine. It is just wrong on many levels. I find it totally condescending and very prejudicial. It seems to assume that the "poor" are without dignity, or "manners". It is this very strange attitude that deprives the poor of their dignity, not the poverty itself. Poverty does not necessarily erode. Blessed are the poor in spirit, not eroded, not lacking.

Herman

Well I am sure all the distaste belongs to me as I was paraphrasing- I will try and find the quote so Dorothy does not suffer from my distortions.

While I can certainly understand why it may seem condescending I think like most "prejudices" there is truth in it. I am sure we can all think of exceptions. However, I think the perception is true. I think it is telling that the counter example had to come from India, rather than the US. There is something different about post industrialist poverty that is particularly alienating. I do not think this is a myth, at least not in my experience. I am certain that "attitudes" do not deprive poor people of anything, but deprivation deprives.

Again, of course poverty does not necessarily erode, but it is way more likely to than any other economic condition. Poor nutrition, poor housing, poor education etc... all tend towards conditions in which people are harmed. I agree though that poor expectations are also harmful. Certainly this is a statistical relationship rather than a necessarily causal one.

I think the immediate leap to spiritualizing of poverty as expressed by Herman and Owen tends towards a kind of gnosticism where the body and its needs does not matter, but only our attitude, this seems off to me.

With regard to St. John Chrysostom I wonder about who is audience was? were they the rich and powerful of Constantinople? Does that provide a context for his homily? I do not know the answer, but I wonder.

I do not know if comparing poverty to the lunacy of Beverly Hills sheds much light as the contrast is on both extreme ends of a kind of continuum. I am sure none of us would wish either extreme on our children .
Lastly, I think you are wrong about Dorothy Day's "soft-core totalitarianism" for several reasons. Totalitarianism is the consequence of the state. Dorothy Day had only suspicion of the state. Also, she was a personalist she acted only for herself trying to live in conformity with the Gospel. I do not think she had any other social program than that. In fact, she usually spoke out against social programs, again because they were reliant on the state. Further she had no desire for a utopia which are always human fantasies but for the Kingdom of God and tried to live according to the Gospel. She walked the talk. I think you may be conflating her with some kind of social liberals, which she was not and whom she was critical of. I am no expert, but if you could point to any specifics in her writings that contradicts this, I would be grateful.

I hope this is not overly polemical. I hope I cause you no offense. If I have, please forgive me.

[Owen Jones]

No offense taken, but I don't see where anyone has "spiritualized" poverty, or tried to romantisize it, by arguing that the poor are more blessed, or more spiritual, or more noble, just because they are poor. Heaven forbid. As for Dorothy Day, I'll have to take another look, but my underlying point is that just trying to help people out of poverty because of the harm it does people is not really the point of the Christian teachings on wealth and poverty. Then you have the pragmatic problem that many of the attempts do more harm than good. And I think Christians are bound by pragmatic factors just as much as anyone else is. No amount of Christian compassion can justify a method that does more harm to people than good. And the worst harm involves taking away a man's freedom that is supposedly for his own good.

[Owen Jones]

Just a quick recap of Dorothy DAy is that she was a member of the Wobblies and an advocate of so-called "non-violent" confrontation. The point of which of course is to incite other people to be violent toward your group so that you can gain social sympathy as a victim. Her approach is to blend Christian concern for the poor with political activism, which is always the death of the spirit. When Christianity becomes a movement it's dead.

[Max Percy]

Just a quick recap of Dorothy DAy is that she was a member of the Wobblies and an advocate of so-called "non-violent" confrontation. The point of which of course is to incite other people to be violent toward your group so that you can gain social sympathy as a victim. Her approach is to blend Christian concern for the poor with political activism, which is always the death of the spirit. When Christianity becomes a movement it's dead.

I think this is a caricature to the point of distortion. I think you have perhaps reversed the momentum of her life which as an adult began as a socialist and ended as a devout Catholic, hence the name of her group and newspaper in NY, the "Catholic Worker". She is presently being considered for beatification.

It strikes me that perhaps she could be more charitably considered in light of a sage observation made earlier in this thread by a clear genius whom observed:
"And in the Empire, the Church made many compromises with pagan culture. So we have to use our rational minds here and try to extrapolate from Christian teachings and try to absorb the mind of the Fathers in addressing social/economic issues, and, yes, deal in the real world of compromises."

[Owen Jones]

As we know, many devout Christians are socialist, and one of my favorite shows (I don't watch it for theological reasons!) is Kudlow & Company, and Larry Kudlow is a devout Catholic who is a big fan of "free market capitalism." So, does the Gospel, should the Gospel, draw us in one direction or the other, or neither, or what?

For the record, if I had to chose between Melissa Scott and Dorothy Day as a role model, I would chose Dorothy Day...but, I think any ideological system is anathema to Christianity. But here is the rub. All socialists are ideologues. But not all defenders of freedom are ideologues or tools of capitalist propaganda. And it is freedom where I basically take my stand.

[Max Percy]

As we know, many devout Christians are socialist, and one of my favorite shows (I don't watch it for theological reasons!) is Kudlow & Company, and Larry Kudlow is a devout Catholic who is a big fan of "free market capitalism." So, does the Gospel, should the Gospel, draw us in one direction or the other, or neither, or what?

For the record, if I had to chose between Melissa Scott and Dorothy Day as a role model, I would chose Dorothy Day...but, I think any ideological system is anathema to Christianity. But here is the rub. All socialists are ideologues. But not all defenders of freedom are ideologues or tools of capitalist propaganda. And it is freedom where I basically take my stand.

I am not sure who Melissa Scott and Kudlow and Company are but I will find out.

The double rub is: what is freedom? a more Latin maximalization of choices? or the more Greek "authority over oneself"? In a funny way I think Dorothy Day is more Greek.

[Effie Ganatsios]

I think it also has to do with the ways in which people are degraded and are dehumanized by serious poverty. To paraphrase Dorothy Day- Those who are poor end up being poor in everything- manners, education, interior resources, etc... serious poverty tends to erode the person.

This concerns the stigmatization of the poor :

"Would you see His altar also?…This altar is composed of the very members of Christ, and the body of the Lord becomes an altar. This altar is more venerable even than the one which we now use. For it is …but a stone by nature; but become holy because it receives Christ’s Body: but that altar is holy because it is itself Christ’s Body….[which] you may see lying everywhere, in the alleys and in the market places, and you may sacrifice upon it anytime…When then you see a poor believer, believe that you are beholding an altar. When you see this one as a beggar, do not only refrain from insulting him, but actually give him honor, and if you witness someone else insulting him, stop him; prevent it.[2]

[Vagrants are the] “vast heap of social refuse — the mere human street sweepings — the great living mixen that is destined, as soon as spring returns, to be strewn far and near over the land, and serve as manure for the future crime crop of the country.”[3]

The ‘problem of poverty’ has been, and is today, defined primarily in terms of the moral values of work. Those who fail to support themselves or their families through work…without a socially approved excuse at a socially approved job…are defined as deviant….Moral degradation of the poor is used as a negative symbol to reinforce the work ethic. [4]"



"Certainly, those who stigmatize the poor fail to see them in the image and likeness, and more concretely, as an icon of Christ. As icons of Christ, we cannot find Christ in others or ourselves apart from or in spite of our embodiment, but only as embodied and, thus, in the midst of suffering, pain and denigration. "

The whole article can be found at

http://www.incommunion.org/articles/resources/confronting-poverty-and-stigmatization


Confronting poverty and stigmatization : An Eastern Orthodox Perspective.

[Kosta]

Regardless of what Church Fathers have taught, In Modern Society Capitalism is the norm. And it is the norm because it works. Captitalism in itself is an anti-poverty program, when the markets decide and not government, when tariffs are lifted and free trade granted, when the laws of supply and demand are observed, societies economically progress. Just look at China who are finally embracing it, That country saw the migration of 300 million people go from poverty to middleclass. While at the same time look at Venezuela, an oil rich country with billions coming in, barrel of oil at record setting prices, yet poverty abounds and no one seems to know where the trillions are going.

The Church and Her message which is the Gospel grounds the person into doing the right thing. The Christian is not supposed to invent new economic models (especially since we cant even agree on what is christian and antihristian economics). But we all know to give alms and have compassion.

Usuary may have been a taboo in the west but it was not under the Byzantine Empire. If charging interest was bad, then no one would be stupid enough to lend money, and if someone was stupid enough, he would not be lending money for long since he would go broke. If a given economic policy has made you successful, the Church is not there to condemn you, its there to ground you in morality and not let the money go to your head.

[Owen Jones]

Good summary, thanks. The term capitalism, of course, was coined by Marx as a pejorative term. There are two types of capitalism. One is ideological, in the sense that it purports to be a complete system of human advancement. Sometimes it has a Christian patina. But many capitalist ideologues see Christianity as simply a superstition to be abhorred. On the extreme end of this you get Ayn Rand. The other is simply a pragmatic means of utilizing capital efficiently -- i.e. through free transactions. Capitalism is often contrasted unfavorably with an economy that is focused on labor. The idea is that wealth is produced by the laborer, not by the efficient use of capital, and so, according to this view, the capitalist exploits the worker by extracting his value without fair compensation.

The real problem lies in the definition of progress. All ideological systems, whether capitalist, socialist or what have you, have a theory of intra-mundane progress. As Deacon Steenberg has pointed out, this all derives from the Christian experience of progress from this world to the next. All of these systems that promise progress are necessarily failures because there is no such thing as progress in the world. Some things get better, some things get worse. Things are always changing that are beyond our control. But the promise of a better tomorrow, some pot of gold just off the horizon, competes with the Christian eschatological vision quite nicely because it says you don't have to be patient, humble, faithful till then end.

[Kosta]

Good summary, thanks. The term capitalism, of course, was coined by Marx as a pejorative term. There are two types of capitalism. One is ideological, in the sense that it purports to be a complete system of human advancement. Sometimes it has a Christian patina. But many capitalist ideologues see Christianity as simply a superstition to be abhorred. On the extreme end of this you get Ayn Rand. The other is simply a pragmatic means of utilizing capital efficiently -- i.e. through free transactions. Capitalism is often contrasted unfavorably with an economy that is focused on labor. The idea is that wealth is produced by the laborer, not by the efficient use of capital, and so, according to this view, the capitalist exploits the worker by extracting his value without fair compensation.

The real problem lies in the definition of progress. All ideological systems, whether capitalist, socialist or what have you, have a theory of intra-mundane progress. As Deacon Steenberg has pointed out, this all derives from the Christian experience of progress from this world to the next. All of these systems that promise progress are necessarily failures because there is no such thing as progress in the world. Some things get better, some things get worse. Things are always changing that are beyond our control. But the promise of a better tomorrow, some pot of gold just off the horizon, competes with the Christian eschatological vision quite nicely because it says you don't have to be patient, humble, faithful till then end.

Ay yes, i dont subscribe to the portion of human(ism), but simply the economic model as you stated , the use of capital effieciently etc.

I reject both extremes, one that purports its some sort of religion and the other extreme which claims it abuses the working class. In a free market, the laborer himself can climb the economic ladder to better position and even open his own business. I reject any attempt by populists to invent a pseudo- social class, a pseudo-dichotomy where people are divided between the poor (the holy) and the rich (the evil). I also do not believe in socialism, where the government provides everything for its citizens. Such a practise turns people into domesticated pets, where the government is no longer "big brother" but "Parents". We can see this in the issue of health care. 25 years ago it was a non-issue, today people who have socialized medicine no matter how lousy it may be, are terrified of losing it. They have convinced themselves they will get sick and it is a neccesity. Same with health insurance, i'm always surprised at peoples reaction when i tell them i dont have health insurance. They shiver, they have been almost conditioned to believe sooner or later everyone will get cancer or some major illness. This one issue can truly contol people in the west, meanwhile in Africa they just want a descent living, health care doesnt even cross their mind. Can you imagine how arrogant they must think of us?

[Owen Jones]

My wife insists that we all have health insurance, when, in fact, it would be much more cost effective to self-pay. This points to the feminization of economics and politics. The wife and mother thinks in terms of security. The male thinks more in terms of risk-taking. And so our politics have trended more and more toward the state providing security to the family, i.e. the nanny state, as woman's point of view becomes dominant in politics. This is bad psychology, bad politics, and bad Christology. Christ does not promise us security in this world. Far from it.

[Nina]

This one issue can truly contol people in the west, meanwhile in Africa they just want a descent living, health care doesnt even cross their mind. Can you imagine how arrogant they must think of us?

While reading about your words, I thought about the words of an Orthodox priest from Zaire (Congo), I read some months ago:


The African people are naturally otherworldly and this is contrary to the average European. Europeans are very skilled in development, in technology, manufacturing, even in “manufacturing” ideas, but they are materialistic, while the African goes beyond the material. He’s not as interested in material things.

[...]

In Africa there is a great natural spirituality. For example, the African person is not afraid of death because, from his traditional other-worldly attitude, the African already knows that death is not the end. But the European shakes and trembles at death, even though he may be an Orthodox Christian who knows that Christ rose from the dead and who believes in the final resurrection. Still, he is afraid because he doesn’t have that inner conviction. The Apostle Paul says, “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain...I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart and to be with Christ; which is far better....” The African knows this feeling. For the African, death means that I am going somewhere else to go on with my life, but for the European, “I’m going to leave my car, my house...” (laughter).

And so, the European is captive and the African is free. Death is hard for the European and I’m sorry to have to say that, but I see it often. Europe doesn’t have a living tradition of the presence of the Holy Spirit, although the Russians do. St. John of Kronstadt, for instance, and St. Theophan the Recluse, and St. Seraphim of Sarov taught about this, but not in Europe. Westerners are bound to the material world.


Link (http://www.pravmir.com/article_72.html)

[Kosta]

Thanx Nina,

I didnt want to sound so harsh, i may have gone the top. But i believe because of various reasons many people have been scared into believeing, that without healthcare there doomed. This 'scare' seems to be escalating as the years go by. I think its right what the priest from Zaire said. For instance people i work with which tend to be young cant live without their cellphones. And if there battery dies or they forget it somewhere, they say "i feel so naked without it", or "now that i have a cellphone i dont know how i can live without it". So yes we are slaves to materialism and technology as well.

[Christophoros]

I wonder if anyone has ever evalutated, from an Orthodox perspective, the Roman Catholic economic model of distributism...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

[Owen Jones]

Distributism is an outgrowth of the romantic movement, which still predominates, in a sense, all social theory. Let's step back a minute. Christianity does not begin with a theory of something. It's something that one lives. Theoria for the Christian is not a systematic theory of anything, but rather a transformation of the intellectual/noetic faculties. This is why you do not see in Orthodoxy a school of systematic theology. Theology is not a systematic treatment of anything.

Now back to Distributism, et al. These theories are a reaction to the mass phenomenon of alienation. The intent is to overcome alienation as a mass phenomenon through implementation of a social theory. The theory is that people are alienated en masse because they have been separated from the ownership of production, and have been reduced to the level of a cog in a machine in a vast industrial enterprise that survives and thrives on the division of labor. On a more specific level, economics en masse results in WalMart forcing out family businesses. So now there is only one owner, the vast corporation, and the stockholders of that corporation are themselves alienated from the ownership of production. They too are simply cogs in a machine. It is only the top managers who have pride in ownership. The ideal for distributionists is something like the medieval guild system.

Now, the problem is that every true Christian is going to be alienated to some degree -- as it should be. The world is to some degree alien to us. Our true home is Heaven. So the purpose of the Church, the only purpose of the Church, is to introduce the believer to heaven now, and not simply say that it is something we will be introduced to when we die. It is within us, in a pregnant state as it were, and struggling to get out, but we are either oblivious to this, or we resist, because it means that the world then would have to be resisted, and this requires painful choices. We might look at the pendulum swings in Christology to exemplify this. Christ is both God and man, but our human faculties tend either one direction or the other. And so we tend to want to humanize Christ, or go to the other extreme, which is to make Christ so transcendent, so spiritual, as to be meaningless.

The monastic ideal is of course the ideal for all of us, in terms of the virtues and disciplines they practice. But then the problem becomes that the monastic ideal becomes confused with the institution, and we want to impose that on others in order to make it more widespread. An extreme example is Marxism, wherein Cuba and North Korea impose the monastic ideal at the barrel of a gun. Socialism is a milder form of state imposed monasticism. But it all gets back to alienation. State imposed monasticism seeks to eliminate the problem of alienation. If we, the Church, were doing our job, we would show by example that we have already found our true home in heaven, and are not led around by the same passionate instincts as is mankind in general. And we would demonstrate that we are at peace with ourselves and with creation, and with God, and this would be demonstrated in our "aura" if you will, and in our actions.

So, my view is that all social theories that claim to deal with the problem of alienation should be rejected, and that the Church should simply do its job, in its preaching and teaching, and in the demands we make -- on ourselves. But you still have the problem that Christians live in a society, and that God is the lover of all mankind. And so there will always be a social implication. When it comes to the means of production, etc., there is no reason why a business cannot or should not be run on Christian principles. But the Church is quite oblivious to this issue, and prefers getting involved in politics, and moralizing and lecturing people from an Olympian perspective. There have been very successful Christian businesses in the U.S., small and large, and a body of literature that helps develop this concept would be a great contribution. Unfortunately, the only genre is very protestant and is tied up for the most part in the prosperity Gospel movement, or is an offshoot of Peter Drucker's managerial theories -- for example, The Purpose Driven Life is simply borrowed from Peter Drucker.

An American example of distributism who is not totally funky in my opinion is Wendel Berry, who argues that communities can, in an economically efficient way, produce its own food locally. He is an interesting "thinker," and an exceptional poet. One of his favorite slogans is: "plant a redwood."

[Ken McRae]

I wonder if anyone has ever evalutated, from an Orthodox perspective,
the Roman Catholic economic model of distributism...

The subject of Christian economics is one that has received quite a considerable amount of attention
in the halls of Western academia, including the seminaries. One can hardly scratch the surface of the
topic without running into the towering name of Max Weber (http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/weber.htm), esteemed author of The Protestant Ethic (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/WEBER/cover.html)
and the Spirit of Capitalism (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/WEBER/cover.html). Here are two hyper-linked chapters of that book, as a sample of his thinking:

01) THE RELIGIOUS FOUNDATIONS OF WORLDLY ASCETICISM (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/WEBER/WeberCH4.html)
02) ASCETICISM AND THE SPIRIT OF CAPITALISM (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/WEBER/WeberCH5.html)

Now, I'm not saying I necessarily agree with everything Weber says, but he is, as I previously intimated,
one of the major "academics" in this particular field of enquiry. One of the primary 17th century Protestant
"divines" (and I use that term "loosely") who exerted a massive influence upon the formation of Weber's
'Protestant ethic,' (not to mention economics and politics,) was a man by the name of Richard Baxter. His
practical (ascetical) Christian writings were published in a set of 23 thick volumes. Two of those 23 volumes
are dedicated to 'Christian Economics' and 'Christian Politics;' and these two volumes can be downloaded for
free, from the Google Books website. If I did it right, the titles below are hyper-linked, and will take you to
them, if you care for a quick glance:-

03) Baxter's Christian Politics (http://books.google.ca/books?id=9G27eYgUjDgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:OCLC15160620)
04) Baxter's Christian Economics (http://books.google.ca/books?id=qFDSB0pZNw4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Christian+Economics+by+Richard+Baxter&source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&cad=3_1#PPR5,M1)

Here follows a set of three hyper-links to a few sample chapters:

05) Baxter's Directions for the Rich (http://books.google.ca/books?id=qFDSB0pZNw4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Christian+Economics+by+Richard+Baxter&source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&cad=3_1#PPA389,M1)
06) Baxter's Directions Against the Love of Riches and Worldly Cares (http://books.google.ca/books?id=5rYkJ-2g4ukC&printsec=titlepage&dq=Christian+Economics+by+Richard+Baxter&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#PPA69,M1)
07) Baxter's Directions Against Sensuality, Flesh-Pleasing, or Voluptuousness (http://books.google.ca/books?id=5rYkJ-2g4ukC&printsec=titlepage&dq=Christian+Economics+by+Richard+Baxter&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#PPA95,M1)

Many of these practical questions are very succinctly treateded in Part Four of St. Tikhon's book, Journey
to Heaven, which section is entitled: The Way of Duty. Some of the Part Four sub-headings are: 01) Duties
of Masters and Servants; 02) Duties of the Rich and Poor; 03) Duties of Lenders and Borrowers; 04) Duties
of Sellers and Buyers; 05) Duties of Employers and Employees. And as any thorough treatment of 'Christian
Economics' must cover the subject of how to run or govern a Christian Household, we could also include the
Russian Domostroi (http://books.google.ca/books?id=wyaaYcOneOwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+domostroi&psp=1&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0): or Rules for Russian Households in the Time of Ivan the Terrible, for further discussion
of the timeless principles of Christian economy.

Another seperate subject but one that closely ties into this, I feel, is that of Orthodox Ecology (http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=14-01-066-b); but time
does not permit me to address that connection, at the moment; but I feel you can make the connection
for yourselves.

[Owen Jones]

Thanks for telling me about this book by St. Tikhon. It sounds like something that should be used in parishes.

[Ken McRae]

Thanks for telling me about this book by St. Tikhon. It sounds like something that should be used in parishes.

As I say, the selections are very brief, and are but a mere indication of subjects treated at greater length in his unabridged "complete" works. Journey to Heaven strikes me as having been assembled more in the catechetical spirit; in which light, it does seem appropriate for it to receive greater attention in parish life, as an "essential" part of catechetical teaching.

Journey to Heaven is literally replete with the fertile seeds of Scripture and Tradition; but it is necessary to reiterate that it is anything but exhaustive in its treatment of the manifold applications of Christian economics, in principle; but sow its divine and apostolic seeds in fertile hearts, and they will grow deep roots and surely mature into the cedars of Lebanon.

[Christophoros]

For those interested in economics and Orthodoxy, there is an excellent short book that was just published entitled, "Beyond Wealth: Orthodoxy, Capitalism, and the Gospel of Wealth", by Kyriakos Dounetas, which critiques capitalism from a solidly Patristic point-of-view.

http://www.easternchristiansupply.biz/products.cgi/c120/c14/c142/83260

[D. W. Dickens]

This is interesting, although occasionally confusing, thread. I hate to respond in a meta-thread sense (that is not directly to any one comment, but to the thread in general).

I caution against any loyalties to any system or philosophy of economics (this could be said of politics as well). Gold standard or credit based, capitalism or socialism, are all impossibly complex choices which all have spiritual dangers. But the biggest problem is that they are judged by utilitarian standards.

Utility and spirituality are only parallel in unpredictable and usually unsustainable ways.

Perhaps it is best to avoid championing any system, but rather to acquire the Holy Spirit living out Christ's life incarnate in whatever system we find ourselves in.

The protestants I left behind are intent on finding a way to make being a Christian profitable too. I can see no good coming of that.

[Owen Jones]

Actually, most arguments made in favor of this or that economic system have a moral basis to them. Smith held the chair of moral theology at Edinburough, and his defense of what is now called capitalism contains an extended moral argument, and surely the primary arguments used in favor of collectivism are moral, not utilitarian.

What often seems missing to me in these discussions is the Christian understanding of freedom and free will. God could obviously have created us in such a way that our actions would always be in perfect accord with His will, His nature, but then we would be in a sense robots. Freedom implies the freedom to err, the freedom to do wrong, and most systems that rant against so-called "capitalism" as based on greed avoid the point that it is primarily based on the belief that any economic system that is based on freedom is morally superior to one based on coercion and compulsion.

Also, the idea of greed being somehow an exclusive trait of capitalism is, of course, quite absurd. In collectivism, the greed is simply transferred to that of the intellectuals, the bureaucrats and the politicians.

[Antonios]

Here is a nice interview entitled :
Orthodox Christianity and Capitalism — Are They Compatible (http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles-2009/Allen-Orthodox-Christianity-And-Capitalism%20-Are-They-Compatible.php)

[D. W. Dickens]

That it is utilitarian. I don't think justice can be utilitarian. That doesn't mean I can't pursue arete while living in a capitalist system, but it does mean that incentivizing presumably socially constructive behavior patterns doesn't define what society you are trying to construct.

I like capitalism as far as that goes. But then I like Mint Chocolate Chip icecream too, that doesn't make it salvific.

My main concern with capitalism is the monitization effect it's had on other parts of society. I don't like seeing management theory being brought into the parish council, or efficiency dictating parish life.

Any economic system is ultimately a tool for building a good oikos. When it isn't serving it's purpose it should be discarded, temporarily if needed and perminently if necessary.

[Ryan]

Here is a nice interview entitled :
Orthodox Christianity and Capitalism — Are They Compatible (http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles-2009/Allen-Orthodox-Christianity-And-Capitalism%20-Are-They-Compatible.php)

This seems to me to be a very typical, simplistic presentation of "capitalism" as based on "free trade", with a forced and unconvincing religious veneer. If there were no mention of Orthodox Christianity, it would strike me as almost Randian. Particularly odd is his ahistorical suggestion that the Byzantine empire was capitalist and "based on freedom". The simple presence of trade in a given society does not render that society capitalist.
The interviewer's conflation of "liberalism" and "socialism" is also rather embarrassing.

I was also surprised to see individualism held up as an Orthodox value. There seems to be a conflation of free will and "individual freedom" as a political concept, when in reality they are unrelated.

The last main question strikes me as particularly absurd- is capitalism the best system for living out our Christian morals? Hm? Since when has Christian morality ever worked through a worldly "system"? Christians have always been able to follow Christ's commandments in any society, just in different ways.

The historically distinctive feature of capitalism is the predominance of capital, wage labor, and commodities. Freedom or lack of regulation are really irrelevant to its function. In reality, capitalism has always been a "mixed economy", requiring heavy state intervention at key junctures. The "pure free market capitalism" we hear about today, despite all attempts to link it with past societies, is a utopian pipe dream invented long after capitalism had established itself.

What Mr. Banescu is talking about is an ideal capitalism. Much like socialism, it "looks good on paper." But it is just as useless to separate the ideal of capitalism from its "abuses", as it is to dream of a "pure" communism without Lenin, Stalin, etc. Marxists and free market ideologues alike put the cart before the horse- build a virtuous society, and then people will become virtuous. The only place where you can have a virtuous society that isn't necessarily full of virtuous people would be a divine-human organism: the Church!

[Owen Jones]

Wilhelm Roepke wrote a classic many years ago called The Humane Economy. The underlying point was that a free market economy ought not to work at the expense of the aesthetic dimension of life. Most of the arguments between collectivists and capitalists are over a conflicting aesthetics.