Give Me a System to Believe In

I recently read an article that posited that spiritual abuse and racism go hand in hand and I couldn’t agree more. But I believe it goes further into a bedrock assumption that Evangelicals have made- that the “System” is somehow synonymous with God. To understand this we have to understand the close integration of American Evangelicalism and Capitalism.

Historical Context

It would not be an exaggeration to say that American economic ideas and religion are so intertwined as to be almost inseparable. From pretty much the outset American economists, before they were properly called economists, tied economic prosperity to sovereign wisdom and blessing. Early 19^th century economists John McVickar and Francis Wayland both saw the application of economics as more of a science in the same vein as Newtonian principle.^[1] Wayland wrote, ““By Science, we mean a systematic arrangement of the laws which God has established… the Creator has subjected the accumulation of the blessings of this life to some determinate laws.”^[2] God had established economic “laws” that had now been revealed in the free market. Later economist Francis Bowden would be even more explicit. From Benjamin Friedman, “Bowen made explicit that the basis for humans’ behavior in the economic sphere, as elsewhere, was their creation by a benevolent God operating through Newtonian laws of nature. Society, he wrote, is “a complex and delicate machine, the real Author and Governor of which is divine. Men are often his agents, who do his work, and know it not.”^[3] Even more importantly Bowden’s understanding of laissez-faire was inherently tied to his religion. Again from Friedman, “Bowen defined the concept for his readers in a way consistent with his own religiously oriented view of the discipline: “Laissez-faire; ‘these things regulate themselves,’ in common phrase; which means, of course, that God regulates them by his general laws, which always, in the long run, work to good.”^[4] The explanation of the wild expansion and seemingly endless growth America experienced until right before the Civil War apparently was the result of American economic alignment with divine principle. In other words, America was prosperous because: in its embrace of free market capitalism, it was aligning itself with the cosmic natural and divine order.

After the Civil War the embrace of capitalism went from a nationalistic and systemic good to an expression of personal moral excellence. Henry Ward Beecher an extremely popular (and wealthy) New York pastor drew direct connections between riches and morality. From Friedman, 

There must be prosperity in material things, he told his congregation, if there is to be prosperity in moral things. His reasoning closely resembled what David Hume had said about what he called refinement in the arts more than a century before. “It is impossible to civilize a community without riches,” Beecher stated. “No nation ever yet rose from a barbarous state except through the mediation of wealth earned.” Commercial prosperity was “indissolubly connected with public morals.”^[5]

This blend of prosperity, morals and religion had for Beecher a particular ring of American exceptionalism, “Nowhere else does wealth so directly point towards virtue in morality, and spirituality in religion, as in America,” he asserted; “we have been put in the van among nations.”^[6]

 As the century turned another would tie personal wealth to both public and private morality. William Lawrence, an Episcopal Bishop, would teach that material prosperity was “helping to make the national character sweeter, more joyous, more unselfish, more Christlike.”^[7] He would also state on the connection of wealth and personal morals, 

“In the long run, it is only to the man of morality that wealth comes… The reason, Lawrence concluded, was that wealth-seeking was part of man’s intended role in a world designed by a benevolent God. “We believe in the harmony of God’s universe,” he stated. “We know that it is only by working along His laws natural and spiritual that we can work with efficiency.” Conwell had argued that the foundation of godliness and the foundational principle of success in business were “both the same precisely.” Lawrence put it more simply: “Godliness is in league with riches.”^[8]

This confluence of material prosperity with moral excellence went the other way as well. Poverty in these men’s minds was both a matter of personal failure and even evidence of God’s ordination. “Henry Ward Beecher consistently exhibited little sympathy for the poor, declaring at one point, “no man in this land suffers from poverty unless it be more than his fault—unless it be his sin.”^[9]  Contemporary of Beecher Russell Conwell (founder of Temple University) was shared Beecher’s harsh view, “(from Friedman) Russell Conwell told his audiences across the country that ‘the number of poor who are to be sympathized with is very small.’ Like Beecher, he justified this seemingly heartless view on the ground that “there is not a poor person in the United States who was not made poor by his own shortcomings, or by the shortcomings of some one else.”^[10] Conwell saw even an attempt to help a poor man to be a wrong, “To sympathize with a man whom God has punished for his sins, thus to help him when God would still continue a just punishment, is to do wrong, no doubt about it.”^[11]

 Within this thinking there is even the hostility towards non-American, less than capitalistic perspectives. Beecher was skeptical of the worker’s rights and communal ideas coming from Europe. “The workingmen of Europe, whether leaders or followers, are not fit to be teachers of Americans in the matter of political economy and instituted liberty.” From Freidman (concerning Beecher),

“When it came to matters of human rights and individual liberty, Americans had nothing to learn from Europeans and much to teach them. What he objected to in particular was the claim “that it is the duty of government to be paternal, to look after the welfare of its subjects, to provide them with labor, and to see to it that they are happy.” Such ideas would only lead to “Tzarism…Caesarism…absolute monarchy.” Economic inequality, Beecher concluded, was inevitable: “there is a great law by which little being must appear to be less, and must have less, than much being, and more being must appear to be more and must have more than even much.” It was a matter of God’s will. “He has meant that great shall be great and that little shall be little. Men are distributed on a long scale; and no equalizing process will take place till you can make men equal in productive forces.” The poor must heed God’s will and reap the misfortunes of their inferiority”.^[12]

It is important to note that two ideas became indelibly wedded to American Evangelicalism: First that Capitalism (and related Capitalistic ideologies such as Laissez-faire) became natural-good, assumed revelation of God’s ordination. Secondly that inequality was not a result of systemic injustice, but a reflection of individual moral failure that failed to conform to the divine system.

The System as God

What we have just seen and what I have experienced in over twenty years as a Conservative Evangelical is a confluence between Systemic Capitalistic Ideology and our notion of God himself. Our tendencies towards authority/away from liberalism and a call for submission to ultimate authority, find their happy home in this capitalistic thought. Where we would rightly say that God is sovereign and obedience to Him is liberating, we conflate a man-made System. We may speak in ways to say that God is not synonymous with the system, but He certainly works in and through the System. The System has His attributes namely impartiality and sovereignty. The System is the ultimate arbiter and final authority. It is the System that mediates God’s will to His people. For many Conservatives if the System is not synonymous with God himself; for functional purposes it might as well be. This comes with a deep-seated assumption of laissez-faire. It is assumed by many Conservatives that the “System” (and here I’m not just speaking to economics but power structures in general) will self-correct. Here we assume that the God-system will ultimately right whatever inconsistencies or injustices that are observed. Here is the deception of laissez-faire: that an attempt to regulate, an attempt to correct, will actually hinder the ultimate justice of God Himself. To try to impose regulation is to resist the ultimate corrective act of God. We cannot impose a greater sanction than what God himself eventually will do if He wills, and to attempt to do so prematurely is to subvert His justice. 

Racial and Spiritual Consequences

This matters when we have a deep-seated trust and belief in the “system” that it is ultimately fair and rewards merit without prejudice. In this framework those who are mistreated suffer a dual injustice- not only are they the victims of injustice, but somehow the injustice must be their fault. The Divine System cannot be at fault. This is especially true for those who currently benefit from the status quo. The system that currently benefits me must be impartial and a recognition of my hard work, giftings, natural ability etc. If I currently benefit the issue cannot be with the System. The problem must not be the system, it must be with you. Therefore poverty is not a matter of laws that systemically prevented people of color from acquiring wealth, it must be a matter of moral breakdown. Where persons in spiritual systems note patterns of abuse it must not be because certain theologies lend themselves to abuse, it must be because those persons didn’t submit enough, or lacked enough faith. 

Moreover, when abuse is obvious and blatant it must be an outlier. The confluence between the arguments defending pastors and police cannot be coincidence. The arguments run the same: #notall___, let’s not blame systems for the fault of a few “bad apples”, false reporting happens (even if it is statistically miniscule), and ultimately let’s not forget the “sin” of the abused. The fault must always be individual because the problem quite frankly cannot be systemic. To acknowledge that possibility means that my relative wealth and power might be illegitimate. To question the System might ultimately mean I may lose my power and prestige, and because my self-identity is wrapped up in the legitimacy of my current comfort to question the System is ultimately a personal attack.

 Even more this takes a darker turn when the “System” produces a result that I deem unsatisfactory. For the Conservative “fair” means whatever the SYSTEM deigns to give you. Because the System is assumed impartial and sovereign whatever you get from the system is “fair”. Here is where Conservatives get dark: if there is a perceived “unfairness” in the system, then WHATEVER IT TAKES to move the system back to “fair” is justified. If “fairness” means my historically validated influence and power (even if just perceived), and if I lost that influence and power “illegally” (they cheated), then however I return the system to “fair” is sanctioned. Even if that action is on the face illegal. MY illegality is justified to correct a perceived illegality.

Recovering a Balanced Equilibrium

The first thing that needs to occur is a recognition that we have this assumption. We as Evangelicals particularly need to recognize where we have confused God with a man made economic system and presumed Biblical principles on man-made ideologies. We need to first acknowledge where our faith assumptions are simply that- assumptions. Not believing in an impartial and benevolent economic system that sovereignly assigns worth based solely on merit is a consistent and rational reaction to the observable world. It is not a “Godless descent into Marxism”. 

Secondly, for the Christian there needs to be a consistent application of our beliefs about sin. Sinful people in a fallen world create flawed, even sinful systems. Even in the Church. What is inconsistent is a belief that somewhere at some point the “system” becomes impartial and impervious to corruption. We should be critical of systems, even theological systems, as ultimately man made and prone to error both at the individual and institutional level. To do less is a failure to admit our own tendency towards corruption. 

Finally, repentance acknowledges both institutional AND individual sin, but it matters in what order we pursue it. When individual ability and morality have been so misused to defend an unjust system, we must acknowledge the systemic injustice BEFORE addressing those things. Sadly, people are STILL pointing to ability and morality to imply systemic injustice is a myth. We cannot call persons to individual repentance while ignoring the corporate responsibility we have to right systemic injustice. Anything else is just an attempt to reinforce our own self-satisfaction in a “System” that ultimately benefits us.

---

^[1] Friedman, Benjamin M.. Religion and the Rise of Capitalism . Alfred A. Knopf Publishing Group NY. 257

^[2] Wayland, Elements of Political Economy: Abridged and Adapted to the Use of Schools and Academies. An earlier abridgment, not done by Wayland himself, appeared in 1838. 3

^[3] Friedman, 264

^[4] Ibid, 265

^[5] Ibid, 292

^[6] Ibid, 293

^[7] Ibid, 296

^[8] Ibid, 296

^[9] Ibid, 298

^[10] Ibid, 298

^[11] Ibid, 299

^[12] Ibid, 299-300