The Kingdom of Man in America: Economic Freedom and Prosperity in Moral and Theological Perspective

When H. Richard Niebuhr composed these words, he was responding to the theology of liberal Christians who denied the innate sinfulness of humankind. The position of liberal theologians was that corrupt social institutions were the cause of sin, and the imperfections of humankind were to be overcome not through the work and forgiveness of God, but through the actions of properly trained elites who could direct the transformation of society. Advocates of this position generally abandoned notions of God as the omnipotent Lord who opened the doors of His kingdom through the life and resurrection of Jesus Christ. After all, had not humanity progressed to a point where it could move beyond belief in God's redemption and instead focus on humanity redeeming itself? There was no need for a kingdom of God when there was the possibility of creating a kingdom of Man.

It is a tragedy that the church needed neo-orthodox theologians like the Niebuhrs, Barth, Tillich, Brunner, and Bonhoeffer to bring attention to the most fundamental teachings of sin and redemption. In a century that Michael Novak calls "history's bloodiest," an era in which "the bodies of individuals have been thrown around like sacks of bones," one might anticipate that the legacy of Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and Mao would provoke humanity into remembering the potential it possesses for grave evil.² Yet, understanding sin requires a commitment to truth and judgment, and during a century in which truth has become relativity and freedom an invitation to unfettered autonomy, little room remains for the inconvenient concept of sin. Flattered with its own success in generating new wealth and knowledge, humanity has seen little need for God, especially a God whose truth might challenge the ways of this world. People of the twentieth century have forsaken the legacy and traditions of the past with brazen confidence. And while this desire to look beyond the present to envision a new and different reality has indeed produced many important developments, by abandoning the God of truth and the truth of God, modern society has destroyed the very foundation upon which its prosperity rests.

Lord Acton's writings frequently emphasize that liberty cannot be based on the satisfaction of individual appetite. The benefits and privileges that freedom creates are wholly dependent on meeting the obligations and sacrifices that freedom requires. This perspective is captured in Acton's statement that "liberty is not the power of doing what we like, but the right of being able to do what we ought."³ Alan Keyes recently articulated a similar position when he stated that "freedom is not another kind of empty licentiousness." Freedom, in other words, does not grant people "the right to do what is wrong."⁴ Nevertheless, while a few public voices still discuss the moral foundations of freedom to which Acton was so committed, Western society has largely abandoned the idea that a selfgoverning people need special virtues. Truth and virtue are concepts that the media ignores and academic culture despises. Sadly, even many leaders within the church, an institution traditionally consulted for moral guidance, now fail to speak of ethical commitment with any certainty or conviction.⁵

In the end, liberty cannot exist apart from truth, and truth cannot exist apart from God. Christian thinkers throughout history have affirmed the importance of recognizing that knowledge cannot come merely from philosophical inquiry, but must rest in an understanding of the true God. Lesslie Newbigin writes, for example, that Augustine's famous slogan, credo ut intelligam, "I believe in order that I may know," characterizes faith "as the pathway to knowledge."⁶ It is certainly not the case that all people in a nation-state must profess allegiance to God in order for freedom to prosper.⁷ Yet, at the same time, freedom must be based on truth and obligation or else it will tumble into moral anarchy and political tyranny. The danger of modem times is that many leaders and intellectuals have rejected what the Declaration of Independence identifies as the foundation of liberty: "The Laws of nature and nature's God." Though Thomas Jefferson, the author of this phrase, was a deist who rejected orthodox understandings of biblical morality, he nevertheless understood that freedom could not exist apart from the foundation of "laws" and truth.⁸ Michael Novak makes this point when he writes simply that "Truth Matters."⁹ However, in the age of postmodern relativism and philosophical deconstructionism, where the very existence of objective truth is denied, humanity has become the ultimate arbiter of what is right and good."10 When humanity, rather than God, assumes this responsibility, "the fulfillment of duties" that Acton views as the moral foundation of political economy dissolves into little more than individual pragmatism and the "satisfaction of appetite."11

The very concept of political economy attests to the interrelationship of political and economic processes. As Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman have argued, economic freedom cannot exist without supportive political institutions; similarly, economic freedom is an essential component in preserving political freedom. Nevertheless, while many people acknowledge the link between economics and government, few speak of the moral foundation they have in common. In recent times, significant attention has indeed been given to the overall moral crisis in American culture. However, this crisis is often portrayed as a problem that is not relevant to economic concerns. The way in which people are separately characterized as cultural conservatives and economic conservatives clearly illustrates the failure of society to recognize that economics is a moral discipline. Economic production cannot simply be dismissed as a purely utilitarian practice that has no inherent moral qualities. As Acton so clearly and rightfully argues, political economy, like freedom itself, cannot prosper apart from a strong moral basis.

Economic production is not an amoral activity, but is in its essence a just and proper undertaking that honors the freedom and creativity granted humanity by the Creator. As the twentieth century has demonstrated, a free society and a free economy can produce magnificent results. However, while the benefits of these advances have been undeniable, the "mainsprings of economical production" -- the virtues of labor, patience, justice, peace, and self-denial -- have been largely destroyed by humanity's greed and inflated sense of self-worth. The true moral foundation of political economy has been weakened by what Michael Novak refers to as the "many allurements" of prosperity.12 In the midst of great wealth, knowledge, and achievement, humanity has forgotten its own creatureliness. The same confidence in humanity that inspired liberal theology's vision of an earthly kingdom has infiltrated the whole of society. The love of God is displayed powerfully in the opportunity humanity has to utilize the resources of creation in economic productivity. Yet, while humanity may assume the role of co-creator, it is still subject to the truth and will of the one Creator.

Economic prosperity has not only had the negative effect of encouraging the satisfaction of individual appetite, but it has also obfuscated the duty of charity and the relationship of the poor to political economy. Complex and extensive welfare states now exist in virtually every industrialized nation, and while many of these efforts are well intentioned, the current philosophical justification for government involvement in providing for the poor ultimately works to destroy freedom and prosperity. I am not contending that there is no place for cooperative efforts to assist the poor or that the government must in no way involve itself in social welfare activities."13 Rather, I am bringing attention to the dangerous notion that individuals have a right to public assistance. Robert Sirico writes that work can be seen "from a theological perspective, as a moral duty for those who can do it."14 Denying people the right to work and earn commensurate reward is as great a moral blight on society as allowing the poor to suffer in the face of affluence. The assumption that all people must share equally in the results of economic prosperity ignores the fact that, as free creatures, people will receive different rewards based, at least in part, on the different choices they make. Society should not return to the days of poor laws and poorhouses when impoverished individuals were immediately branded as morally inferior and in need of uplifting by the better classes. Nor, however, should society support a welfare system that discourages people from experiencing the importance of patience and labor. True self-worth comes not from a guaranteed handout, but only when one is afforded the opportunity to become a productive contributor in the shaping of creation.

The growth of the welfare state has also contributed to the destruction of charitable compassion. Studies continue to show that Americans give generously. Yet, when assisting the poor is viewed as a problem for the government, people are discouraged from experiencing the true importance of self-denial and the sharing of creation's bounty. A free nation cannot survive when individuals choose to put the self first, without regard to needs of community and society. American society has become rather schizophrenic about how it views the poor. On one hand, people believe that society has a moral responsibility, through government, to help the impoverished. On the other, individuals all too often act as if the reality of poverty need not change their sense of personal obligation. In a time of great affluence, when feelings of sufficiency apart from God emerge all too easily, people more than ever need to realize that economics is not "like eating or drinking," but is a deeply moral and spiritual activity. Producing and giving are activities that allow individuals to participate with God in the work of creation.

In the end, the only remedy for many of these societal problems is a new commitment to truth. Political and economic freedom cannot exist without a moral foundation, and the understanding of this moral foundation comes only from knowledge of God. Equally important, however, is that in an age of new and rapidly developing knowledge, society must recognize that certain things cannot be known. Humanity will never completely master this world. No discovery, social program, or economic miracle will be able to free this world and its people from the wages of sin and death. The kingdom of Man will never be, for the fullness of prosperity will come only with the reign of God's eternal kingdom.

Zachary R. Calo is a doctoral candidate in American history at the University of Pennsylvania. He is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Johns Hopkins University, having received B.A. and M.A. degrees in history in 1997 His M.A. thesis analyzed the response to poverty in eighteenth-century Maryland. With interests in Christian theological and social ethics, as well as public policy, Mr. Calo is beginning a dissertation which examines twentieth-century American Catholic thought about capitalism, poverty, and liberalism. Upon completing doctoral work in history, he plans to pursue additional studies in law and theology.