“God, in giving humanity freedom, lends credence to a free
enterprise system in which the primary purpose of production is to bless people
by producing goods and services that meet their needs. This is what loving our neighbors as
ourselves is all about (Matthew 22:37-40). In doing so, those around us “may see our good works, and
glorify our Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 5:16 author’s paraphrase).”
-Tony Campolo (Red Letter Revolution: What if Jesus Really Meant What He Said?)*
I’ll be honest, I’m no economist but this statement hurts my
brain. The theological gymnastics
that Campolo has attempted to pull off in linking free enterprise to God’s gift
of free will and then linking that to the greatest of the commandments (Matthew
22:37-40) is nigh impossible. But
he tries it anyway.
Admittedly, this was sort of an odd chapter in Red Letter Revolution for me. The chapter was titled “Dialogue on
Economics.” I’m not sure what I
was expecting from the authors, but I figured there’d at least be some sort of
admonition against our current economic environment in the United States,
especially as it relates to the drastically widening gap between the rich and
the poor. Granted, there was some
talk of taking care of those in need and how God is bigger than Wall Street,
etc., but for me, Campolo threw anything valuable to the wind with the quote
above.
I DO NOT think Jesus affirms the selling of goods and
services to people whom, at times, cannot afford those goods and services. This concept certainly does not hold
true to the commandment (and Torah law) of loving your neighbor as
yourself. This is a clear example
of eisegesis, of reading one’s own beliefs, thoughts, and context back into
Scripture in such a way as to mold the text to mean what one wants it to mean
rather than what it actually says in its own time and place in history. Historically, we Christians are very
good at this practice. Take, for
instance, the “biblical” justification for slavery in the South during the
1700-1800s, or the German church’s affirmation of Hitler’s Third Reich and Nazi
ideology. I’m sorry, but it takes
some very literalistic readings of Scripture and some very clever textual
eisegeting to make those concepts gel.
Perhaps what Campolo is suggesting is that in a utopian
society where everyone is relatively equal, goods and services are produced and
offered in order to meet the needs of the people, thus serving the greater
good. In this case, yes, this sort
of producing and offering of free enterprise goods and services would be a form
of loving one’s neighbor as oneself.
But this is not reality.
Sure, it can be a goal, but this isn’t even remotely the world we live
in.
The language that Campolo actually uses is that of free
enterprise, not utopia and not the language of a community bound together by
God. In the current US economic
climate “free enterprise” tends to translate as a sort of free market
capitalism. If this is not what
Campolo intended, then he should have been clearer. However, if Campolo’s statement is taken at face value,
there is overwhelming evidence in the New Testament that flies in the face of
“free enterprise” as it is manifest in our society.
The community bound together by Christ at the end of Acts 2
is a wonderful example of how we are all still unique individuals with varying
abilities, interests, skills, etc. while being joined as one for the common
good. The author of Acts states,
“All the believers were united and shared everything” (Acts 2:44, CEB). Folks in community even sold the land
and excess goods they had for the benefit of others in need. No one went without. Everyone had enough. This was not the result of free
enterprise. This was not the
logical outcome of selling goods and services. This was the illogical outcome of Pentecost; the
breathtaking power of the Holy Spirit to work within a people in such a way as
to show them something greater than themselves and their own well-being and
luxury. This is inherently a
counter-cultural and counter-capitalist concept.
My point is this: we should avoid at all cost the linking of
a capitalistic production of goods and services in the modern age with the
words of Jesus, particularly the greatest commandment. After all, didn’t Jesus also advocate
for his disciples and followers to offer both their shirt and their coat if
someone in need simply asks for a shirt?
He didn’t say, “Feed those who have the money to be fed; give drink to
those who can afford what you have produced.” Jesus didn’t go to the wealthy business owners and kindly
ask them to produce better goods or lower their prices. What he did do was tell some successful
fisherman and a tax collector, “Come, follow me.” He told a rich young man to sell all of his belongings, give
the money to the poor, and become a disciple. He warned against greed, and the dangers of attachment to
money and possessions.
Jesus’ words are utterly radical and discomforting. Our economic systems and concepts,
however hard we try, will never fit Jesus’ understanding of community. And to be sure, we should try, but we
must always confessionally acknowledge that we fall short, that we do things we
shouldn’t and we leave other things undone. God, forgive us.
In the end, may we hope and pray to actually do what Christ
declares, but may we never do as Campolo suggests: essentially, linking
capitalism with the greatest commandment.
*Claiborne, Shane and Tony Campolo. Red Letter Revolution: What If Jesus Really Meant What He Said? Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2012.
