God and Advanced MammonCan Theological Types Handle Usury and Capitalism?

DAVID BRAT Chair, Department of Economics and Business Randolph-Macon College

This essay looks at the economic and theological intersections of definitions of usury in the economic system of capitalism. It challenges seminarians and the church to examine their roles in addressing the problem of usury.

he concept of usury is charged and loaded with many potential interpretations. As a semi-

nary graduate and as a practicing economist, I find the concept so loaded with possible

interpretations and rmsinte^etations that it is difficult to begin a project with so wide a

scope. I have my own view on usury. It roughly follows both orthodox positions in theology and eco-

nomics, and that alone may be of interest to some. How can that be? I consider myself to be a fairly orthodox Calvinist (in theory, not practice) and I am also a fan of Adam Smith and the market system he so eloquendy elaborated over 200 years ago.11 am a political conservative, but reader, do not lose faith immediately if you consider yourself more progressive or enlightened. In Kantian fashion, I intend to relay the basics of faith and economic doctrine within the bounds of reason alone, at least with respect to usury. Now, while I realize that even reason itself is out of fashion in many philosophy departments across the nation, I have to believe that most of my seminary colleagues, pastors, and students have not fallen so far astray. I assume that we are not post-human. I am assuming that reason is with us, and that we share quite a common moral language when all is said and done. With those preliminary remarks as guideposts, let us get to usury. The definition of usury has varied and changed drastically over time and across regions. An entire essay could be spent on these distinctions, and many of these distinctions are covered by other authors in this issue of Interpretation. Even in the biblical texts, crucial distinctions are made between those in the fold (brothers and sisters) and outsiders. In addition, usury can be simply charging interest, or it can be charging too high an interest, or it can be even broader in scope, I do not think these are the distinctions that ultimately matter at present Most business people and citizens do not know the term "usury." So why is the religious community continually fascinated by such a topic? The answer, I think,

1 Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (ed. Edwin Carman; 5th ed.; London: Methuen and Co., Ltd., 1994).

USURY

Interpretation 169

is that it ultimately involves much larger questions, assumptions, and perhaps allegiances. The answer to usury is likely a good proxy for the answer to where one stands on capitalism. And there, my friends, we have a good story, because that is the story of our day. Capitalism is the major organizing force in modern life, whether we like it or not It is here to stay. If the sociologists ever grasp this basic fact, their enterprise will be much more fruitful. We set alarm clocks to follow the schedule of the market Children leave their families to follow the job market We often weigh our social worth by looking to market wages, salaries, and consumption patterns. We spend much more time on market activity than God activity. Thus, Calvinism. I will make one more preliminary remark so as to try to keep my readers' attention for the remainder of this piece. How about this claim? Capitalist markets and their expansion in China and India have provided more for the common good, more "social welfare," than any other policy in the past ten years. In fact, you can add up all of the welfare gains from public policy in the United States and abroad, and they will not approach the level of human gains just described. Incomes in China and India have risen from $500 a year per person to over $5,000 a year per person over the past twenty years or so. This is due to market capitalism. Over two billion people now have food to eat and some minimal goods to go along. So, as a seminary student concerned with human welfare, I naturally wanted to learn about these free markets. In the aggregate, free markets work. But when it comes to particular issues like usury, a lot of theological types want to revert to systems of planning and control. But freely determined prices are the backbone of free markets. We do not get these great outcomes if we restrict prices at every turn. I will cut to the chase and describe usury as it is practiced by businesspersons today and as it is interpreted by theologians, pastors, and other academics at present I think the most glaring error made by the interpreter class (academics and clergy) at present concerns one colossal category. Let us start with the obvious story and then get deeper and more complex as needed. Section one of the essay will address what I call the major "category" error. Section two will pick up on some major issues that require treatment, then I will conclude. To start, here are the typical lines a seminary student might hear from their thought leaders: Usury is bad. Usury is morally bad. Usury is the charging of interest payments for simply borrowing money. Usury is frowned upon in the Bible. Liberation theology might be required here. Usury is specifically forbidden in many biblical texts. Our modern culture of capitalism exploits the poor by conventions such as usury. Many grow rich by usury. The poor are hurt by usury. Therefore, usury is bad. We should get rid of usury. (Who is this we?) Now the critical turn: Usury should be regulated. The government should make laws that forbid outrageous

170 Interpretation

APRIL 2011

interest charges. I'm calling my congressman to do this. The church should take a stand on this exploitation. The church should write some statements on usury. The church should hire lobbyists to work on behalf of the poor who suffer under usury. Sound familiar? This is a caricature, but I think there is something to it. In summary, usury is not something to be studied. It is something to be condemned. I never saw a supply and demand curve in seminary. I should have.

CATEGORY ERRORS-WE THINK USURY IS BAD

Where are the obvious category errors above? The most obvious is the assumption that because we are Christians, the society's use of usury stands judged under Christian values. Curiously, the church is currently loathe to judge anyone for anything. Sin is not in vogue. But when it comes to capitalism, judgment is at hand. Seminarians, pastors, and academics are notorious for talking and thinking in terms of "we"we think this and we believe that. We, of course, are a Christian community and I am a part of that community, and we do in fact need to make moral judgments as a community. However, public life is not so simple at present Do we control public life? In the story above, usury is judged and not only is it judged, but also public policy is next on the agenda. To get right to the heart of the issue, the Jews have over 600 laws on the books, and Jesus said that one might sink in the ocean if one messed with those laws. Should we move to pass all of those laws through Congress? The liberally educated gasp can be heard from afar. There is obviously a tremendous gulf between biblical statements made to faith communities and their direct application to secular law today. Seminaries go out of their way to show the complexities of exegesis, but when it comes to hot-button issues such as usury, rationality often flies out the window. Can Christians force others to follow their ethical teachings on social issues? Note that consistency is lacking on all sides of this issue. The political Right likes to champion individual rights and individual liberty, but it has also worked to enforce morality in relation to abortion, gambling, and homosexuality. The Left likes to think of itself as the bulwark of progressive liberal individualism, and yet it seeks to progressively coerce others to fund every social program under the sun via majority rule. Houston, we have a problem. Coercion is on the rise. What is the root word for liberalism? (Answer: liberty) For those in a hurry, let me offer a two-paragraph summary, and then I will go into more detail for those who may enjoy the extended commentary. A famous economist named Hayek has argued that we should not necessarily think of the economy primarily in terms of goods and services and money flows.2 Instead, the economy more closely resembles a super computer which can solve an infinitely complex information problem. In brief, over 300 million individuals make up our national economy. Each person is unique and their preferences vary tremendously across a very wide range of

2 F. A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism (ed. W. W. Bartley III; Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1991), 6.

USURY

Interpretation 171

goods and services and lifestyles. How do we know what to produce, for whom and at what price? Please answer that question right now. Likely you do not have an answer, because the answer is infinitely complex. However, as Adam Smith explained, an order has emerged as if an invisible hand has guided us to the answer, and the market mechanism produces prices and goods that match our wants.3 How? Supply and Demand. If you are lost already, that is okay, but you have some work to do. See
Economicsfor Dummies.4

Usury is one small piece of this market mechanism and information puzzle. Interest rates are set by the market, by supply and demand for money. As a Christian, can I charge interest and be okay with God? Well, as a Calvinist, the answer would be found by asking God. God is the source of morality and ethics. In brief, I think that God tells us that if we intend to love and help our neighbor by such an action, then the answer is "yes"; to harm, "no." More on this later, but if individuals lived under this simple system, the wodd would be pretty good. But, the key is that morality and judgment ultimately occur at the individual level in our tradition (i.e., the Reformation) and an analysis of the morality of any action would ultimately rely upon the facts and intentions in each individual case. The individual is responsible for knowing God's will via revelation, reason, church, and faith. We will have an impact on our culture, but we are not the culture. Outside of the tradition, morality is not coherent. Alasdair Maclntyre sums it up fairly well in the tide of his book: Whose justice? Which Rationality?5 Does the church have an answer to this broader social question? Will it write up a Church Statement on Justice and Rationality to go along with the Anti-Usury Statement? This is very much needed. Why no statement? You are precisely the audience that can answer this question. As long as the church is silent on this issue, it will have no impact on our broader culture. The church needs to regain its voice and offer up a coherent social vision of justice and rationality. Soon. The Bible and then Calvin is a good start. Rule of Law is in the middle. Capitalism will be in the final chapters. For the longer version, we have to start with some history and a review of how we arrived in our current muddle. Most liberals, nineteenth-century and modern, would surely recoil at the suggestion that we legislate the entire Torah as legal code. But why? The liberal tradition has argued quite strongly for some time that individuals should be free to choose their own God and religion. The first amendment to the US. Constitution makes this very clear. All of the framers can be called liberal, in this traditional sense. One can make strong arguments that, in fact, the liberal tradition comes direcdy from the Judeo-Christian tradition. Harvard was founded for church and Christ Rights language originated uniquely in Western Europe in the thirteenth century. Before then, the church fathers argued that the Christian religion and faith should never be forced or coerced. Faith is freely chosen. And even moral actions right up through Kant6 are moral in so far as they are freely chosen. Clearly, one must be free in order to make a moral decision. Right God does not want religious robots. God wants individuals

Adam Smith uses the metaphor in Book IV, chapter II, paragraph IX of The Wealth of Nations. Sean Masaki Flynn, Economics for Dummies (Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley, 2005). Alasdair Maclntyre, Whose Justice? Which Rationality? (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989). 6 Immanuel Kant, Groundingfor the Metaphysics of Morals (trans. James W Ellington; 3d ed.; Indianapolis: Hackett, 1993), 6:213-14.
4 5

172 Interpretation

APRIL 2011

to choose Godfreely.It must also be noted that the framers and other leaders, including George Washington and Adam Smith, all assumed that the Judeo-Chnstian tradition would be the undedying moral foundation for this liberal experiment in government Corresponding to this freedom, the US. founders framed a constitution that guaranteed what today are called "negative rights." Individuals were to be free to pursue their own goals. They were not allowed to interfere in the goals of others. King George did that, and it did not work out well at all. Adam Smith advised the king not to mess with the colonies, but the king did not listen. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were enshrined as the basic liberal rights, and a bill of rights was established to define more fully this framework and to ensure basic protections, from the government. Rights from God, defended from the government Really. Private property was clearly established. Ninety percent of the population was rural and this basic social contract fit thetimes,with notable exceptions (i.e., slavery). Basically, one fed one's family, and if times got tough, moved to extended family or relied upon the voluntary chanty of one's church or neighbors. Life was tough, but it was relatively better than any other place in the wodd. Society became more and more complex as the industrial revolution worked its magic and modern life emerged in fits and starts. In the middle of US. history, the agrarian interests of the South clashed with the manufacturing of the North, and the issue of slavery simultaneously came to a head. The liberal vision had anticipated this clash, and the founders were intellectually aware of their omission and error, but the revolutionary penod was challenge enough and the oversight would cost the country another war. The Civil War tore the country apart, and we know the history. By the turn of the century, the economy was moving full steam ahead. By Wodd War I, we had established a Federal Reserve banking system, and we had voted for the establishment of a national income tax via the sixteenth amendment By Wodd War , President Franklin D. Roosevelt had dramatically increased the size and scope of the federal government with his New Deal The country continued to add government programs, and President Johnson's "War on Poverty"in the 1960s added layers of government protections for the poor via the welfare system. Since the 1960s, the political parties have battled back and forth over the size and scope of government, and currendy, we are all conscious of the ongoing battles between Right and Left on what used to be called the nighdy news. We did all of this. Note, the we is now the nation, not the church. The process is majonty vote by representative democracy, with U.S. Supreme Court decisions along the way. We voted to extend voting rights to all citizens. We voted to establish a national income tax. We voted for higher and higher taxes to pay for social programs, and until recendy, we seemed to have a faidy stable social contract along these lines. However, severe cracks are emerging in the body politic The Left and Right both have
7

7 John Rae, Life of Adam Smith, (1895) ch XXVI1 "The American Question and Other Politics," Library of Economics and Liberty, http //wwweconhborg/library/YPDBooks/Rae/raeLShtml Accessed December 4, 2010

USURY

Interpretation 173

fringe groups and, most recendy, the Libertarian Party has been picking up steam and gaining adherents, many in the tea party movement They note that as we have voted for higher and higher taxes, the initial vision of liberal Amenca has been lost Liberty is lost Now, in addition to negative nghts, we have voted for a host of "positive rights." We now have nghts to health care, welfare programs, retirement benefits, thirteen years of education, and unemployment benefits. And there is not an item you can think of that is not regulated by the Federal Government These positive rights bring benefits to many, but the new wrinkle is that someone else must pay for the benefits that are received. We have continually voted toforce some to payfor the benefits of others. That is likely the key issue and the key line in this

essay, and the one line that animates our current conversation on capitalism. A key line in ethics has been crossed. Morality, as traditionally conceived, allows the moral actor free will when making ethical decisions. It appears that we have left the realm of morality and entered the realm of power politics with the expanding role of positive nghts. Capitalism is highly dependent upon the rule of law and the clear articulation of property rights. These are very much in flux at present Today, the liberal vision is contorted beyond comprehension, and our discussion of usury must be interpreted in light of this distorted backdrop. What are we as Chnstians called to do, as we are simultaneously citizens and voters and perhaps policy makers in the U.S. political system? I want to dwell on that key line above to illustrate very cleady some of the choices we have to make. Usury is a small piece of this puzzle, but it shares the common thread discussed above. Where are moral decisions made^ Who judges? Where does religion play a role? What is the Chnstian response to an ever increasing size of government? What does God want? First, let me ask you as an individual a question. Are you willing to force someone you know to pay for the benefits for one of your neighbors^ Will you force thenP Very few Chnstians I know are willing to say "yes" to this question. It gets very uncomfortable. Some will not even answer the question, because they see where the logic clearly leads. And yet, we as Chnstians think nothing of voting for policies that do precisely this. We vote for justice. It has become easy. We vote to force others to act as we want them to act Can we do this as Chnstians^ What is the warrant for such action? How do we ground that type of decision^ I have not ever heard a good theological answer to these questions. I know about Locke's tacit consent and majonty rule8 and all of that, but if you are not willing to force someone at the micro level, those distinctions fall away. For example, some in San Francisco are willing now to regulate sugar intake and soft drink machines. One of my colleagues wants to do this at the national level, saying it is for the "common good." I observed that if my friend was sure about this, we should first start with the school where we teach. Ban Coke, Pepsi, and pizza. See how that goes. My friend's response: "Well, no, that would not work I mean ... I don't want to stand and defend it in public I just want it passed." It sounds so good at the macro level.

John Locke [1689], Two Treatises of Government (ed Peter Laslett, Cambridge Cambndge University Press, 1988)

174 Interpretation

APRIL 2011

Let me add one more definition to the picture to heighten this tension. In economics and political science, it is common to define the government as the entity that holds a monopoly on violence. This definition goes back to Max Weber,9 but it is used by recent Nobel laureates in economics10 as well. It does not mean that the State alone uses violence, but it does mean that when push comes to shove, the State will win in a battle of wills. If you refuse to pay your taxes, you will lose. You will go to jail, and if you fight, you will lose. The government holds a monopoly on violence. Any law that we vote for is ultimately backed by the full force of our government and military. Do we trust institutions of the government to ensure justice? Is that what history teaches us about the State? Or do we live in particulady lucky and fortunate times where the State can be trusted to do minimal justice? The State's budget is currendy about $3 trillion a year. Do you trust that power to the political Right? Do you trust it to the Left? If you answered "no" to either question, you may have a major problem in the future. See Plato on the regime that follows democracy.11 So now, I hope you are feeling even a bit more ill at ease. The logic above is inescapable for a Christian. If we Christians vote for what we consider to be good policies, we are ultimately voting to ensure that our will is carried out by the most powerful force on earth, aside from God. The U.S. government has a monopoly on violence, and that force underlies the law of the land. Do we have the right to coerce our fellow citizens to act in ways that follow our Christian ethical beliefs? In this context, what can we make of the concept of usury? Under the original US. social contract (i.e., the U.S. Constitution of 1789), the logic would have run as follows. The rule of law allows two people to bargain and trade with each other so long as one is not coerced by the other. That is the concept of negative rights. If one person says she will loan another person $100 for the month so long as $20 in interest payments are added at the end of the month, then that is a deal made between two persons and that is that If the borrowing party thinks that $20 in interest payments is too much, then he will simply not make the deal. Along these lines, it should be noted that in economics, all voluntary trades are beneficial to both parties and the easiest way to see this is by noting that if one were not better off, one would not take part in such a trade. Right? Right So, what is the problem with usury? Usually, the issue arises when one party is weaker than another party, or when exorbitant rates are set by lenders, or when sophisticated language is included in contracts that lay persons cannot fully understandor to make matters a bit emotional, when someone aggressively sells a product to my grandmother, and rips her off. That is clearly unfair and unjust. Right? Right Is it wrong for me to want the State to correct this injustice? No, not at all. The State can be a

Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation (New York: Free Press, 1964), 154. Douglass C. North, Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990). 11 Allan Bloom, The Republic of Plato (translated, with notes and an interpretive essay. New York: Basic Books, 1991).
10

USURY

Interpretation 175

force for good. The Rule of Law is absolutely essential to a good life. God has instituted government and leaders throughout history and throughout the Biblical narrative. However, the state is growing precisely as the church is fading as a force for good, and this does not seem to be a good trend. God asked the people of Israel: Are you sure you want a king? That is a good question to ask at this time. Thus far, I have attempted to illustrate one issue. I have tried to show how Christians need to be very careful as they think about public policy. Two sets of 'Ve" were used above to show the tensions involved. We Christians may conclude that something is unjust within our own faith traditions, but then we enter the realm of policy and politics, and we then vote as both Christians and as members of a pluralistic, secular society with immense power. At this point, liberal theory has run into severe problems. Nineteenth-century liberals set out a political order based on individual liberty, period. That has changed. Modern liberals are very conflicted at this point. They do not want the Religious Right pushing its morality on others, and so they claim "separation of church and state." However, when economic justice is involved, or when entitlements like health care are at stake, modern liberals seem to have no problem pushing their morality on others. Both camps appear to be willing to use the State's power to get their way. Is this Christian? Christians fall into both camps, and so our story has no clear solution, or does it? Can we dig our way out of this distorted liberal mess? Is there a clean, logical line for Christians to pursue that does not require us to coerce fellow citizens to action by threat of government power? I have emphasized the weakness within the liberal camp intentionally because the issue of "usury" is not generally a policy issue unless we want to impose some constraints upon its use. That is how I have framed the issue thus far. The Right would uphold standard rule of law arguments and put those who commit "fraud" behind bars, but would be less likely to interfere in markets.

MAJOR STAKEHOLDERS IN THE ARGUMENT

1. Godsposition on usury. The second issue I want to address is the morality of usury, pure and simple. Today, we are so deep into public policy that we sometimes fail to analyze the basic moral issues involved from first principles. Since I am writing to a predominandy Christian audience, I will take it for granted that God must be the final arbiter on the issue of usury. So what has God revealed for us to understand on this basic economic and social issue? Perhaps a better understanding of God's intent will get us out of the liberal contradictions above. The Old Testament: If you lend money to my people, to the poor amongyou, you shall not deal with them as a creditor; you shall not exact interest from them. (Exod 22:25, emphasis added)

176 Interpretation

APRIL 2011

If any of your kin fall into difficulty and become dependent on you, you shall support them; they shall live with you as though resident aliens. Do not take interest in advance or otherwise make a profit from them, but fear your God; let them live with you. You shall not lend them your money at interest taken in advance, or provide them food at a profit. (Lev 25:35-37, emphasis added) On loans to a foreigner you may charge interest, but on loans to another Israelite you may not charge interest, so that the Lord your God may bless you in all your undertakings in the land that you are about to enter and possess. (Deut 23:20, emphasis added) The New Testament: (The nobleman said to the servant] Why then did you not put my money into the bank? Then when I returned,, I could have collected it with interest." (Luke 19:23) But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great. . . . (Luke 6:35, emphasis added) While proof-texting is risky business, I would summarize as follows. The Bible is clear that usury should not be practiced in small religious communities where loans involving the deep familial bond of brothers and sisters occur, especially poor brothers and sisters. It is less clear on usury in general, but it is safe to say that a tension exists. I am trying to illuminate some of those tensions. The tensions become all the more acute as we move into the modern period of market capitalism. 2. The Seminary Vopukrvgr. Because space is short and I have not even started to present a solution to the problem at hand, I will use a nice modern reference to help us through a lot of material quickly. I recommend Money, Greed and God by ]ay Richards of Princeton Seminary. The book's subtitle says it all: Why Capitalism is the Solution and NOT the Problem}2 He debunks many of the modern myths that exist around the capitalism debate. I think his treatment is fair and well done. I will take a few key pieces from his work on usury to guide this review and see if we can dissolve some of the tension above by adding some context Around the twelfth century, trade began to expand and eventually banks emerged. To quote from Richards: Money changers eventually began keeping deposits for various clients, so that when two clients made an exchange, all the money changer had to do was credit one account and subtract from the other. Simple arithmetic had replaced a risky and cumbersome movement of coins.13 At some point, though, the old ban on usury started to stick out like a sore thumb. It slowly dawned on people that money lent for capital was different from money lent to a poor neighbor out of need. When banks charge interest on a loan.. ..they're charging for something. By lending the money, for

12 Jay W Richards, Money, Greed and God: Why Capitalism is the Solution and Not the Problem (New York: Harper One, 2009). 13 Ibid., 140.

USURY

Interpretation 177

instance, the bank is forgoing other opportunities to use the money, and it is taking a risk in lending the money in thefirstplace.14 After the Reformation, some Reformers, such as John Calvin, were quick to modify the ancient ban on interest. And Catholic scholars eventually did so as well.. ..the Church didn't decide that usury was OK, however. Rather, it became much more precise in defining usury. Usury isn't charging interest on a loan.... it's unjusdy charging someone for a loan by exploiting them when they're in dire straights.15 What is "unjusdy charging someone" and what is it to exploit? These are the key questions for our day. 3. The Economic Position on Usury or Interest'Rate Charges. For the economist, there is no unjust charge. There is no exploitation. Why? Because economists do not do ethics, by dfinition. We do social science. The good news here is that if you ever hear an economist giving ethical advice, you should not give that advice much attention. Economists are here to describe the wodd as it is, not as it should be. In economics, there can be no price too high, because if a product sells at a high price, then clearly it was not too high. It sold. The same goes for interest rates. Equilibrium is the price that will occur if prices are allowed to adjust If a price is too high, it will adjust downward to equilibrium, automatically. Here is a short case study on this point. If a person with poor credit (high risk) wants to take out a loan, the bank has two options for that person. Say "no." Or charge a high interest rate to cover the added risk involved. Is it more just to deny the loan, or to charge a higher rate and give the poor person a loan? Or should we simply force the banker to make the loan at a lower rate? But then we are asking the banker to pay for the risk of the riskier borrower. That borrower may not like work and may sleep all day and eat snacks while watching television. Can we in good conscience make the banker, who in this case is a good hard-working person, pay for the faults of the sleeper with bad credit? Is that the knee-jerk Christian position? Let us just force people to be ethical. Let us force an ethical outcome. Let us force justice. The story could, of course, be told with a greedy banker and a nice borrower with good credit, but in that case, I would just refer the good borrower to the good banker above. In the news, the recent economic unpleasantness called the "Global Financial Crisis" was set off by weaknesses in the housing market Basically, we wanted to force low-interest loans on the banks so that the poor could magically afford houses. Sounds good. Banks made loans to anyone. liar loans. They then immediately sold those loans to the government, who then took on the risk as well, and the rest is history. The sub-prime loans are still being sorted out on Wall Street Well-intentioned policy became a nightmare. Wall Street played its role and is equally to blame, but without the "coercion" in the housing market, there would have been much less crisis. This is my view

14 15

Ibid., 144. Ibid.

178 Interpretation

APRIL 2011

CONCLUSION
How do we proceed? What is the role of ovil society? What is the role of the church? What is the role for individual Christians? First, it seems to me as a Calvinist, that history is moving on, whether we like it or not We live in a modern and complex wodd that no single person can presume to understand. It seems to me, also, that this must have been and is in the mind of God. I do not think our current existence is some fluke. Technology and global markets and business are with us for good or ill. At times, religious folk tend to recoil from this overwhelming reality. The first century was certainly much simpler. But we are no longer there. We must all confront reality as it exists and manage it as best we can. The task has been and always will be a moral task. I think God moves history and conditions so that we are always challenged in new ways. I like the wodd that God has made, and I like Richard Niebuhr's depiction of the Calvinist "type" in his famous book Christ and Culture}6 Calvinists believe in Christ the Transformer of Culture. We are called to make it better, in history. Second, church folk and my liberal pals are always preaching about inclusiveness and diversity. Great I think Jesus reached out to all people and this certainly makes sense. However, a real test for liberal Christian types is whether they will reach out to capitalists! Now, there is a test for the faith. Did Jesus reach out to folks and say, "Come on in here, brother, but boy, are you wrong about everything you believe?" Or did he just say, "Come on in, and follow me?" If we are ever going to be transformers of culture, we need to get our story straight on capitalism and faith. The two can go together and they had better go together, or we will not transform anything. Third, the macro economy is hard to budge. We must choose our battles carefully. Rome was hard to budge. Jesus did not go after Rome, but a few hundred years later, Rome was a Christian empire. How did that happen? Fourth, weigh the benefits against the costs of action. Add up all church action on politics, newsletters, and action alerts, and we might be able to feed the poor instead. Perhaps, we can make the lowinterest loan that we prefer. What is the role of the church? We are the church. Fifth, preach the gospel and change hearts and souls. If we make all of the people good, markets will be good. Markets are made up of people. Supply and Demand are curves, but they are also people. Nothing else. If markets are bad, which they are, that means people are bad, which they are. Want good markets? Change the people. If there are not nervous twitches in the pews when we preach, then we are not doing our jobs.

H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1951).

USURY

Interpretation 179

Sixth, preach the hard stuff. Do not wimp out on lectionary choices. Preach what God says. I left seminary because I was not gutsy enough to give Jonah's sermon. I ran away to economics. Seminary people are supposed to be leading the way. Tell us what to do. Seventh, capitalism is here to stay, and we need a church model that corresponds to that reality. Read Nietzsche. Nietzsche's diagnosis of the weak modern Christian democratic man was spot on.17 Jesus was a great man. Jesus said he was the Son of God. Jesus made things happen. Jesus had faith. Jesus actually made people better. Then came the Christians. What happened? What went wrong? We appear to be a bit passive. Hider came along, and he did not meet with unified resistance. I have the sinking feeling that it could all happen again, quite easily. The church should rise up higher than Nietzsche could see and prove him wrong. We should love our neighbor so much that we actually believe in right and wrong, and do something about it If we all did the right thing and had the guts to spread the word, we would not need the government to backstop every action we take. Finally, I have no magic bullet when it comes to usury. It is not the major problem. We need to understand the world we live in, and then have the faith and the courage to do something about it For starters, we could tell our folks to work hard and stay out of debt in the first place. We could also follow the micro loan experience of those in poverty around the wodd. The peer pressure they put on each other in the form of moral suasion results in very high repayment rates. But that would involve judgment, and I'm not sure if that is allowed in church any more. We can also begin to educate others in the community about economics, finance, and banking. Finally, I think Jesus told us to help our neighbor when they get in a bind. But that comes last in my little story here, not first. The editors asked me to address my in-house brothers and sisters in Christ, in seminaries, and in the church. Some of what I say is tongue-in-cheek, but some is not I usually try to get right to the point, illustrate tensions around the main point, and then get back to the point I think the main point is that we need to synthesize Christianity and capitalism. Augustine synthesized Plato and Christianity.18 Thomas Aquinas synthesized Aristode and Christianity.19 Calvin synthesized all the rest, but capitalism was still coming. There is a book in here somewhere for the next Calvin. Go. God Bless.

17 "The values Nietzsche wishes to subject to a revaluation are largely altruistic and egalitarian values such as pity, self-sacrifice, and equal rights. For Nietzsche, modern politics rests largely on a secular inheritance of Christian values (he interprets the socialist doctrine of equality in terms of a secularization of the Christian belief in the equality of all souls before God)." (Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality [ed. Keith Ansell-Pearson; trans. Carol Diethe; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994], 9). 18 Forrest E. Baird, From Plato to Derrida (6th ed.; Philosophical Classics; Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2010), 283-310. 19 Ibid., 333-66.

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.