From Justo Gonzalez's Faith and Wealth: A History of Early Christian Ideas on the Origin, Significance, and use of Money.
Chrysostom’s theology is built on the presupposition of a greater continuity between creation and redemption than much later theology, especially Western, had. Thus mercy and mutual service are the mark of both being human and being a Christian. The created order has been organized by God in such a way that it moves creation toward its intended goal. Human solidarity is born both out of our created similarity and out of our created differences, for both are intended to bring us together.
First we are taught love in the very manner in which we were created, for God, having created a single human being, decreed that we should all be born from it, so that we might all see ourselves as one and seek to keep the bond of love among ourselves as one and seek to keep the bond of love among ourselves. Secondly, God wisely promoted mutual love through our own trade and dealings. Notice that God filled the earth with goods, but gave each region its own peculiar products, so that, moved by need, we would communicate and share among ourselves, giving others that of which we have abundance and receiving that which we lack.
The same is true of each of individually, for God did not grant all knowledge to all, but rather medicine to one, construction to another, art to a third, so that we would love each other because we need each other. [5]
Thus Chrysostom, like Lactantius, argues that the basis for society is our mutual need. However, the emphasis differs, for while Lactantius argued that solidarity is the defense that God has given us – like antlers to the deer – Chrysostom sees the goal, not in defense or survival, but in solidarity itself. We are weak, and God has intended that it be so precisely in order that we may come together. The purpose of all trade, as well as of every contract is communication, and not vice versa. From the point of view of God's plan for creation we do not communicate in order to trade but trade in order to communicate. On this point his views contrast with those of Ambrose, who felt that long-distance trade resulted from undue desire for things that nature has not made available, and that people should be content with their region produces. (202-203)
[5] Homilie de perfecta caritate 1, Patrologiae cursus completus … series Graeca, ed. J.-P. Migne, (Paris:Garnier, 1857-91). Cf. Hom in i Cor. xxxiv 7, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, American Edition, 2 series, 14 volumes each, (New York: Christian Literature Co., 1886-1901), 1st ser.
He {God} likewise made us to stand in need of one another, that thus he might bring us together, because necessities above all create friendships. For no other reason neither suffered He all things to be produced in every place, that hence he might compel us to mix with one another … And accordingly that we might easily keep up intercourse with distant countries, he spread the level of the sea between us, and gave us the swiftness of the winds, thereby making our voyages easy. (212)
Chrysostom saw solidarity and mutual benefit coming from trade. He also seems to have grasped the idea of absolute advantage … someone can produce goods at a lower cost than others who may not be able to produce them at all. There are seemingly hints of an appreciation for the division of labor, though not in the full economic sense that Adam Smith developed the idea.
Gonzalez goes on to point out that for Chrysostom, wealth was outward-directed. Amassing wealth was destructive. Wealth is to be given to others. "Rich is not the one who has much, but rather the one who gives much." The minute one begins to accumulate wealth is the moment it begins to turn into something dark and destructive. Obviously, this idea that any wealth accumulation is bad does not fit with capitalism and modern market economies. What would Chrysostom say today?
The challenge is that we now know something the ancient world did not. In the ancient world, productivity was essentially a fixed quantity. Almost everything produced required land and labor. There were ways to augment labor with animal power and rudimentary machinery but not to a level remotely approaching what happens in industrialized societies. The only way to become more productive was to get more land and more workers/slaves. As there was a fixed amount of land (barring annexation of new land) and a fixed number of people (barring enslavement of other peoples), the economy was a zero-sum game where my advantage was at your expense. Wealth was measured largely in terms of land, crops, and herds. The amassing of this kind of wealth likely meant that the masses would do without. We can appreciate Chrysostom's aversion to amassing wealth.
But productivity is no longer a fixed quantity. By applying technology and extensive division of labor, productivity can be improved exponentially. And unlike in the ancient world, wealth accumulation is no longer about hoarding. It is about partnering with others to invest in productive enterprises. Many issues that could only be addressed by charitable redistribution can now be addressed by equipping people to specialize in labor and utilize technology, thus improving living standards and giving people something to trade with others.
Clearly, there is still the need for generosity, but what to make of this relatively new ability to influence production? While I suspect Chrysostom would still have opposed a life of lavish extravagance, it would be interesting to know how he would have processed trade and production in light of our post-Industrial Revolution realities.
Finally, how interesting it is to see Ambrose's opposition to trade, essentially accusing those who trade as greedy consumers who should buy locally instead. Sound familiar? Evidence that, in many regards, there is nothing new under the sun.
Leave a Reply