Theologians and Economists: Creation Implications

[Series Index]

Today we turn a corner in our discussion of theologians and economists. Most economists (academic ones, anyway) live and work in positive economics … they study the world as it is and attempt to model how economic realities work. Theology is largely a study of normative behavior … we want to discern how we ought to behave. When we engage this task with regard to economics, we have entered into normative economics. Positive economics can't answer "ought" questions but can often give useful information about what happens if we behave in certain ways. So if we want to discuss normative economics from a theological perspective, where might we begin? How about at the beginning?

Something peculiar happened a few millennia ago in the Ancient Near East. Cosmologies of these ancient cultures were quite similar. The gods emerge from some primordial stuff, form the world, and then create human beings as servants subject to the gods' capricious whims. But then the Hebrews came along.

The Hebrew cosmology taught that there was only one god without origin and by whom everything else was created and given its function. It taught that human beings, far from being slaves to capricious gods, had been crowned with glory and honor … made rulers over the works of God's hands, and everything was put under their feet. (Psalm 8) God gave humanity dominion over the Earth and instructed them to fill it… to bring it to its full potential. (Gen 1) We are told that human beings were to "care for the garden." (Gen 2) When we take in the full sweep of the biblical narrative, we see that the story begins in a garden and ends in a city

Several things can be gleaned from this astonishing new story:

  • God is the owner and sustainer of all that exists. When it comes to material things, we have two roles we may adopt: steward or foregoer. Human beings are accountable to the owner for using the owner's (God's) creation.
  • God does not provide all that we need in the form that we need it. We participate in our own provision. We transform matter, energy, and data from less useful to more useful forms.
  • As "gardeners," we are neither parasites destroying the Earth nor forest rangers protecting the Earth from all disturbance. As Darrell Cosden says, the Earth is our habitat and our work's subject.
  • As we move later into the Christian narrative, it becomes clear that redemption is not about rescuing individuals from eternal suffering. Redemption is converting the world into the shalom-filled vision God originally initiated and recovering humanity's role within that world. Personal salvation is about being saved into the movement that prays and works for "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done" as we actively wait for the consummation of the new creation.

We will move to other texts in the next posts, but what other implications do you see for normative economics coming from Judeo-Christian cosmology?

[Previous] [Next] [Index]


Comments

8 responses to “Theologians and Economists: Creation Implications”

  1. In the biblical narrative, God never creates anything fully finished. Everything is in process. It has potentiality.
    We have a tendency to utilize this potentiality for our own aggrandizement. God will tend to disrupt us when we do so.
    The Jews were probably the first to have a directional rather than cyclical view of time. Though it zigs and zags, history has a direction and a purpose.

  2. Yes! The notion of linear time and the ability to shape the future toward an end was critical to the emergence modern economies.

  3. your distinction between normative and positive economics is really helpful!
    perhaps the Judeo-Christian persepective will guide us in two areas:
    1. Critizing economics structures and systems that are vastly unsustainable (is full sustainability even possible with sin still around?), unjust, and don’t allow proper Christian lifestlyes and churches.
    2. Envisioning ways for us to redeem whatever economic system we participate in for the glory of God.

  4. Another implication for normative economics from Christian thought would also be that God’s creation is not only or always about us as human beings.
    During the days of the creation narrative, notice God’s tending to the needs of life that is not human. Follow the narrative through Job, and you find one that God’s accusatory diatribe to Job mentions among other things God’s care for animals humans couldn’t really domesticate, and God’s attention to lands that are too harsh for humans to populate. Those chapters generally impresse upon the reader how little humans really know or care about the world they inhabit when compared with God.
    So I think Judeo/Christian cosmology lays this out there as a corrective to human confidence about our role as stewards. It’s as if God is saying, ‘You may think yourself stewards, but its too big a job do alone and for this reason you aren’t the only ones tending the farm.’

  5. JMorrow,
    Not to mention God’s concern in Jonah for all the cows!

  6. Ryan
    Amen.
    JMorrow
    I don’t think the problem is that we see ourselves as stewards. Its worse. We see ourselves as God. 🙂
    God created humanity in his image. We decided to return the favor. 🙂
    Travis
    Your inclusion of the cows warms my Midwestern heart. 🙂

  7. Rick McGinniss Avatar
    Rick McGinniss

    Ok, I’ll give it a shot … and please correct me if I am off-base.
    One implication of normative economics informed by Judeo-Christian cosmology is that “people not working and not being able to prosper from that work is a moral evil.” Therefore, one goal (as Christians?) should be to promote structures and policies (even specifical businesses and business-owners?) that enable and encourage people to work and to enjoy financial and material prosperity from that work.
    (Benevolence and simplicity in the realization of prosperity are certainly to be valued & encouraged, but they are implications of other aspects of our worldview – not specifically our cosmology).

  8. I think that has merit. The tricky issues is often what we mean by work. A stay at home parent is not employed but is still doing valuable work. There is also volunteer work. But I think the idea that people being blocked from income generating work are not being able to prosper from their work are things we work against.
    Good stuff! Thanks.

Leave a Reply to Michael W. KruseCancel reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading