!"#$ &'()*#+ ,-#./)+'0#+1 2"34+5 6.

37 8(34$ $")
,03.39'0 :')71 3; <3.1)*-#$'-) ,-#./)+'0#+1
!"# %&'(#'
Acton Institute

We ieau the same Bible anu follow the same }esus. We go to the same chuiches anu
even agiee on the same social issues. So why then uo libeial anu conseivative
evangelicals tenu to uisagiee so often about economic issues.

The answei most fiequently given is that both siues simply baptize whatevei
political anu economic views they alieauy believe. While this is likely to be paitially
tiue, I uon't think it is a sufficient explanation foi the views of moie thoughtful anu
sophisticateu evangelicals (which natuially, ueai ieauei, incluues you anu me).*
Even if we stait with oui natuially acquiieu political oiientation, oui engagement
with the Bible tenus to have a uialogical effect, causing us to mouify anu iethink oui
economic views in light of piinciples we uiscein fiom Sciiptuie.

Because we conseivatives anu libeials come to uiffeient conclusions, though, one
siue will be iight anu the othei wiong (oi at least moie iight anu moie wiong than
the othei). We all believe oui views on economics aie tiue, which is why we aie
justifieu in holuing these beliefs anu think those who uisagiee aie necessaiily
wiong. That is just how belief woiks.
1


But we often uon't have a sufficient uepth of unueistanuing about each othei's
funuamental economic beliefs to know why exactly we come to such uiffeient
conclusions. Too often we expiess uisagieements about policy without
compiehenuing what guiuing piinciples aie motivating oui uiffeiences of opinion.

In a shoit seiies posts I hope to sheu some light on oui uiffeiences by explaining 12
piinciples that geneially uiive the thinking of conseivative evangelicals when it
comes to economics. These aie not the only piinciples that mattei, of couise, but
these uozen often unueilie oui uisagieements (oi at least what we assume aie oui
uiffeiences).

But we often uon't have a sufficient uepth of unueistanuing about each othei's
funuamental economic beliefs to know why exactly we come to such uiffeient
conclusions. Too often we expiess uisagieements about policy without
compiehenuing what guiuing piinciples aie motivating oui uiffeiences of opinion.


1
Beiek Rishmawy, "Yes, I Bappen to Think 0thei People aie Wiong - Anu So Bo
You" http:ueiekziishmawy.com2u14u2uSyes-i-happen-to-think-othei-
people-aie-wiong-anu-so-uo-you
In this essay I hope to sheu some light on oui uiffeiences by explaining 12 piinciples
that geneially uiive the thinking of conseivative evangelicals when it comes to
economics. These aie not the only piinciples that mattei, of couise, but these uozen
often unueilie oui uisagieements (oi at least what we assume aie oui uiffeiences).

=> ?335 '.$).$'3.1 #*) 3;$). $*49@)5 (A 4.'.$).5)5 03.1)B4).0)1>

If I hau to choose only one item to highlight the uiffeience between libeial anu
conseivative evangelicals, it woulu be this one. Whethei we aie iight oi not, we
conseivatives tiuly believe we have a bettei giasp on the iuea that goou intentions
aie insufficient since they aie fiequently tiumpeu by unintenueu consequences.

The law of unintenueu consequences is the piinciple that actions of people anu
especially of goveinment always have effects that aie unanticipateu oi
unintenueu. As the Fiench Catholic economic jouinalist Fiuiic Bastiat explaineu
in his famous essay "What Is Seen anu What Is Not Seen":

Theie is only one uiffeience between a bau economist anu a goou one: the
bau economist confines himself to the visible effect; the goou economist
takes into account both the effect that can be seen anu those effects that must
be foieseen.
2


A piime example is the uebate about minimum wage laws.
S
Both libeials anu
conseivatives believe they aie aiguing in uefense of the pooi. The uiffeience is that
libeial evangelicals tenu to focus on the )*+*,-# effects (e.g., inuiviuual woikeis get
highei wages) while conseivative evangelicals tenu to focus on the effects that must
be ."'#+##/ (e.g., minimum wage incieases huit the pooi anu uispiopoitionately
affect Afiican Ameiicans).

If you'ie a libeial evangelical anu aie baffleu that a conseivative evangelical coulu
oppose an economic policy that appeais so obviously just anu moial, it's a safe bet
that it's because they believe the policy leaus to haimful unintenueu consequences.

C> D4* 04**).$ )03.39'0 #.5 "'1$3*'0#+ 03.$)E$ 941$ () $#F). '.$3
#0034.$ 7"). #@@+A'./ G'(+'0#+ @*'.0'@+)1

Some conseivatives aie stuck in the go-go 198us of the Reagan-eia while some
libeials act as if we'ie fiozen in the oppiessive pie-uieat Society eia of LB}. But both

2
Fiuiic Bastiat, "What Is Seen anu What Is Not Seen"
http:www.econlib.oiglibiaiyBastiatbasEss1.html#Chaptei 1
S
}oe Caitei, "1u Things You Shoulu Know About the Ninimum Wage Bebate"
http:blog.acton.oigaichives6S469-1u-things-know-minimum-wage-
uebate.html
libeial anu conseivative evangelicals tenu to be caught up in an even eailiei age -
somewheie between the time of Noses anu }esus.

We iightly ueiive oui moial piinciples about economics fiom the Bible. But we often
uisagiee on how they shoulu be applieu because we uiffei on applications of the
context. In my expeiience, libeial evangelicals tenu to uiiectly map the 0lu anu New
Testament fiamewoik onto a mouein context. When, foi example, the Bible iefeis to
the wealthy oi the pooi, libeial evangelicals apply those piinciples to what we
consiuei, in oui eia, to be the wealthy anu the pooi.

In contiast, conseivative evangelicals believe that we must piopeily inteipiet the
context of the Bible in oiuei to apply the piinciple to mouein times. Foi instance,
those who live in poveity in Ameiica - oui 'pooi' often have moie mateiial
wealth than the 'wealthy' people in the Bible. Conseivatives aie pione to ask, "Bow
then can we accuiately tiansfei anu apply the Biblical teims 'pooi' anu 'wealthy'
onto oui own economic system."

Similaily, in the Bible the pooi weie often pooi because they weie unjustly
exploiteu by the wealthy. The economic systems in the Bible weie often baseu on
agiicultuie anu animal husbanuiy. To iaise livestock anu plant ciops iequiieu
access to lanu. The wealthy, theiefoie, hau incentives to exploit the pooi: they
wanteu theii lanu. But what uoes it mean foi the wealthy to exploit the pooi when
the pooi have nothing of value that the iich woulu want.

That biings us to the next point . . .

H> I3 )E@+3'$ $") @33*J $") *'0" .))5 $") ")+@ 3; $") /3-)*.9).$>

Conseivative evangelicals aien't nave; we unueistanu that because human natuie
hasn't changeu. uiven the iight incentives (some) wealthy people will exploit the
pooi foi theii benefit. Wheie we uiffei fiom oui libeial evangelical biotheis anu
sisteis is that we believe that when the wealthy want to exploit the pooi, they will
moie often than not seek out anu get the help of the goveinment.

This is ciony capitalism, the ieplacement of fiee maikets with political maikets. As
Samuel uiegg explains:

In political maikets, the focus is no longei upon piospeiing thiough cieating,
iefining, anu offeiing piouucts anu seivices at competitive piices. Insteau
economic success uepenus upon people's ability to hainess goveinment
powei to stack the economic ueck in theii favoi. While the maiket's outwaiu
foim is maintaineu, its essential woikings aie supplanteu by the stiuggle to
ensuie that goveinments, legislatois, anu iegulatois favoi you at othei
people's expense. In that sense, ciony capitalism ceitainly constitutes a foim
of ieuistiibution: away fiom taxpayeis, consumeis anu businesses focuseu
on cieating wealth, anu towaius the oiganizeu, poweiful, anu politically-
connecteu.
4


Cionyism takes many foims, anu almost all of them huit the pooi. A piime example
that is often oveilookeu is occupational licensing. Some foims of occupational
licensing aie, of couise, necessaiy to piotect public safety. Foi instance, we all want
a uoctoi who is licenseu to piactice meuicine. But oftentimes, occupational licensing
is meiely a way to use the powei of the goveinment to ieuuce competition.

Take, foi example, the case of }estina Clayton. Ns. Clayton giew up in a village in
Sieiia Leone wheie eveiy giil leains tiauitional Afiican haii-biaiuing.
S
When she
was 22, Clayton moveu to Centeiville, 0tah anu founu a niche maiket among a small
gioup of 0tah paients who hau auopteu Afiican chiluien but uiun't know how to
style theii haii. When she began auveitising hei seivices, though, she was shut
uown because she uiun't have a cosmetology license. uetting such a license woulu
iequiie neaily two yeais of school anu $16,uuu in tuition.

The "wealthy" (a ielative teim that can incluue the miuule-class) can often finu ways
such as this to get the goveinment to help them exploit the pooi.

K> !) +3-) )03.39'0 /*37$" ()0#41) 7) +3-) (#(')1>

The ieason conseivative evangelicals love economic giowth is not because we love
consumeiism - it's because we love babies anu want moie of them aiounu.

Befoie we explain how that woiks, let's consiuei the consequences if theie weie to
be a long peiiou in the 0.S. with no economic giowth:

- 0nemployment anu poveity woulu skyiocket.
- The national uebt woulu inciease as tax ievenues ueclineu.
- Banks anu othei financial institutions woulu go bankiupt, leauing to housing anu
cieuit ciises.
- Bousing anu lanu piices woulu shaiply inciease.
- Foou piices woulu inciease, leauing to famine in othei countiies anu hungei in oui
own.
- Social welfaie piogiams woulu have to be scaleu back.
- Feueial anu state goveinments woulu not be able to seivice theii uebts.
- Woikeis woulu have to woik longei houis to maintain theii cuiient stanuaiu of
living.

4
Samuel uiegg, "Inequality in a Ciony Capitalist Woilu"
http:spectatoi.oigaiticlesS7418inequality-ciony-capitalist-woilu
S
}acob uolustein, "So You Think You Can Be a Baii Biaiuei."
http:www.nytimes.com2u12u617magazineso-you-think-you-can-be-a-haii-
biaiuei.html

In othei woius, as soon as economic giowth stops, economic uecline staits.

But what causes the immeuiate uecline. In a woiu: babies. As the population
incieases, moie iesouices aie neeueu to feeu, clothe, anu sheltei all of the new
people that aie being cieateu. To unueistanu why this is happens, let's consiuei a
scaleu-uown economic mouel.

Imagine a village that has 1uu people living in a state of economic equilibiium, that
is, theii economy is neithei giowing noi shiinking. Eveiyone has just enough foou,
clothing, sheltei, anu othei amenities to take caie of themselvesno moie anu no
less than enough foi subsistence living. Now let's imagine that a "baby boom"
occuis, anu 2u new chiluien aie auueu to the village. What happens to the stanuaiu
of living foi the villageis. Assuming that they ieuistiibute theii iesouices equitably,
eveiyone (incluuing the new chiluien) will only have 8S% of the iesouices they
neeu to suivive. 0vei time, they will begin to staive oi uie of malnutiition.

We can see this occuiiing touay in countiies with low economic giowth. As the
population incieases, theie aie not enough iesouices foi eveiyone to iise above the
poveity level.

Similaily, in the 0.S. we neeu to cieate aiounu 4uu,uuu new jobs eveiy month just to
keep up with the babies that aie giowing up anu enteiing the laboi maiket. If the
economy uoes not giow, theie will be no jobs foi them. In the shoit teim
ieuistiibution of iesouices (e.g., unemployment compensation, welfaie) will
pievent the unemployeu fiom going hungiy. But without long-teim giowth a
countiy's wealth becomes uepleteu, causing instability anu social bieakuown.

Bowevei, if the new woikeis uo finu jobs anu aie engaging in piouuctive laboi, the
economy will &0("1&(*2&--3 giow as these laboieis buy goous anu seivices.
Economic giowth is, aftei all, a natuial bypiouuct of piouuctivity.

Economic giowth is not a goal that shoulu be puisueu foi neithei its own sake noi a
means to achieve a mateiialist paiauise. Economic giowth is not the chief enu of
man, but meiely the blessing that iesults fiom fulfilling uou's cultuial manuate.

L> I") )03.39A '1 .3$ # M)*3N149 /#9)>

In a zeio-sum game, one peison's gain (oi loss) is exactly balanceu by the losses (oi
gains) of the othei paiticipants. If the total gains of the paiticipants aie auueu up,
anu the total losses aie subtiacteu, they will sum to zeio. It's similai to uiviuing a
pumpkin pie between five people: someone can only get a laigei slice if someone
else's poition is smallei.

Nany piogiessives in Ameiica, incluuing fai too many (though not all) libeial
evangelicals, believe economics is a zeio-sum game. They believe wealth, like a
pumpkin pie, is fixeu anu that "theie must be one winnei anu one losei; foi eveiy
gain theie is a loss." This may be tiue in some economic systems, but it uoes not
apply in fiee maikets.

}ay W. Richaius explains why fiee enteipiise uoes not iequiie that theie be an
economic losei foi eveiy economic winnei:

0ne ieason people believe this myth is because they misunueistanu how
economic value is ueteimineu. Economic thinkeis with views as uiveise as
Auam Smith anu Kail Naix believeu economic value was ueteimineu by the
laboi theoiy of value. This theoiy stipulates that the cost to piouuce an
object ueteimines its economic value.

Accoiuing to this theoiy, if you builu a house that costs you $Suu,uuu to
builu, that house is woith $Suu,uuu.

But what if no one can oi wants to buy the house. Then what is it woith.
Neuieval chuich scholais put foith a veiy uiffeient theoiy, one ueiiveu fiom
human natuie: economic value is in the eye of the beholuei. The economic
value of an object is ueteimineu by how much someone is willing to give up
to get that object. This is the subjective theoiy of value.
6


As Richaius goes on to explains, to say "economic value is subjective" is not to say,
"eveiything is ielative." Economic value is not ultimate value. Youi ultimate value in
the eyes of uou is not the same as economic value. What is subjective, as Chiistian
scholais uiscoveieu in the Niuule Ages, is that the pleasuie that people ueiive fiom
uiffeient goous is subjective anu aiises fiom vaiiability of human opinion, so that
uiffeient people esteem goous uiffeiently.

To unueistanu what this means, let's ietuin to Richaiu's example of the $Suu,uuu
house:

As the uevelopei of the house, you hiie woikeis to builu the house. You then
sell it foi moie than $Suu,uuu. Accoiuing to the laboi theoiy of value, you
have taken moie than the goou is actually woith. You've exploiteu the buyei
anu youi woikeis by taking this suiplus value. You win, they lose.

Yet this situation looks uiffeient accoiuing to the subjective theoiy of value.
Beie, eveiybouy wins. You maiket anu sell the house foi moie than it cost to
piouuce, but not moie than customeis will fieely pay. The buyei is not foiceu
to pay a cost he uoesn't agiee to. You aie iewaiueu foi youi entiepieneuiial

6
}ay W. Richaius, "The Nyth of the Zeio Sum uame" http:blog.tifwe.oigthe-myth-
of-the-zeio-sum-game
effoit. Youi woikeis benefit, because you paiu them the wages they agieeu to
when you hiieu them.

The ieason conseivative evangelicals champion the fiee maiket is not because it
guaiantees eveiyone wins in eveiy competition, but iathei, as Richaius notes,
because it allows many moie win-win encounteis than any othei alteinative.

O> P3-)*$A '. 89)*'0# '1 93*) 3;$). # 9#$$)* 3; @)*13.#+ 0"3'0)
$"#. 1$*40$4*#+ '.Q41$'0)>

Theie's an olu joke about a man who went to see his uoctoi because he was
suffeiing fiom a miseiable colu. The uoctoi tells the man, "uo home anu take a hot
bath. As soon as you finish bathing thiow open all the winuows anu stanu in the colu
aii."

"But uoc," piotesteu the patient, "if I uo that, I'll get pneumonia."

"I know," saiu the uoctoi, "I can't uoing anything about a colu. But I can cuie
pneumonia."

Conseivatives aie a lot like this uoctoi. While many libeial evangelicals believe that
the main cause of poveity is stiuctuial injustice, many conseivatives wish it weie
the main cause. Aftei all, we can uo a lot about stiuctuial injustice, but theie's much
less we can uo about changing peisonal choices.

As it ielates to economics, stiuctuial injustice coulu be uefineu as occuiiing when
outsiue foices unjustly limit some peison's oppoitunities to enact theii moially
legitimate plans. A piime example of this is the }im Ciow laws that manuateu iacial
segiegation in many paits of the 0.S. between 1876 anu 196S. This paiticulai foim
of stiuctuial injustice cieateu conuitions foi Afiican Ameiicans that tenueu to leau
to infeiioi economic oppoitunities anu limiteu the ioutes of escape fiom poveity.

Stiuctuial injustices still exist anu must be opposeu (as we'll uiscuss in point #7).
But it is eithei nave oi uishonest to pietenu that these types of injustices aie as
peivasive anu uominant in 2u14 as they weie in othei eias. We shoulu iecognize
that the victoiies we've achieveu ovei injustice, many of which aie uue, in pait, to
the woik of libeial evangelicals.

Conseivative evangelicals uo not ueny that stiuctuial injustice can still play a causal
iole in poveity. But we believe that the piimaiy causals factois tenu to be ielateu
moie to peisonal choices, bioauly uefineu, than to outsiue foices acting unjustly to
keep a peison impoveiisheu.

Implying that some people "choose" poveity stiikes many people as absuiu anu
callous. The claim has a whiff of "blame the victim" insouciance to it that is
unbecoming of a Chiistian. But when it comes to poveity, effective compassion
iequiies that we be haiuheaueu iealist. That is why we must ask, "Is it tiue that
poveity is piimaiily causeu by peisonal choices by inuiviuuals anu families."

The answei, baseu on uecaues of empiiical eviuence, seems to show that poveity is
inueeu mostly causeu by the layeieu choices maue both by inuiviuuals anu theii
paients. Befoie we examine this point, though, let's consiuei what we believe to be
tiue of poveity by applying what I call the "Noith Bakota Test."

The unemployment iate in Noith Bakota is cuiiently 2.7 peicent, well below the
natuial iate of "full employment" (which in the 0.S. is aiounu S.S peicent). In some
paits of the state you can make "$1S an houi seiving tacos, $2S an houi waiting
tables anu $8u,uuu a yeai uiiving tiucks" - well above a "living wage." Now imagine
we take an aveiage able-bouieu auult that is living below the poveity line anu move
them to Noith Bakota. We also give them a cai to uiive, an Rv to live in, wipe out
theii cuiient uebts, anu pioviue them with cash equal to S months living expenses.

Aftei 9u uays, woulu that peison still be living in poveity. If they woulu not be, then
the ieason foi theii poveity was likely stiuctuial, whethei the cause was benign
(e.g., they live in an aiea with no available jobs) oi unjust (e.g., they can't get a job
because of uisciimination). If they woulu still be in poveity aftei that time, then the
ieason is likely uue to conuitions that weie causeu by peisonal life choices.

Cuiiently, the poveity iate in Noith Bakota is 11.2 peicent the seventh-lowest
iate among the states anu almost 4 points below the national iate of 1S peicent.
That iate incluues all people, incluuing some that aie not able to woik. But what
about those who aie. Why uoes a state with ielatively low stiuctuial economic
baiiieis have any poveity at all. The ieason, say conseivatives, is likely because
choices they've maue in life (uiug use, out-of-weulock piegnancies, uiopping out of
school, etc.) pievent them fiom escaping theii conuition.

Nany libeial evangelicals heai the claim that poveity is laigely uue to "peisonal
choice" anu assume that conseivatives aie saying that the pooi aie on theii own anu
have only themselves to blame. But that is not the case at least it's not tiue of
most conseivative evangelicals. We believe that we have an obligation to aiu the
pooi whatevei the ieason foi theii poveity. We also believe that to tiuly help people
we must accuiately uiagnose the pioblem.

Foi instance, as Ron Baskins anu Isabel Sawhill of the libeial Biookings Institution
pointeu out in theii book Cieating an 0ppoitunity Society, young auults who put
euucation, woik, maiiiage anu paienthoou in the iight oiuei fiist finishing high
school (oi college), then getting a job, then maiiying, anu then having a baby face
veiy low ouus of poveity. If we ieally want to help people escape poveity, we shoulu
help not only to choose the iight path but also to become the type of people who can
make choices that will save them fiom economic tiageuy.

R> I") ()1$ 7#A $3 039@).1#$) ;3* 1$*40$4*#+ '.Q41$'0) '1 $3 '.0*)#1)
3*5)* #.5 '.5'-'54#+ ;*))539>

As it ielates to economics, stiuctuial injustice coulu be uefineu as occuiiing when
outsiue foices unjustly limit some peison's oppoitunities to enact theii moially
legitimate plans. Almost all evangelicals - whethei libeial oi conseivative agiee
that stiuctuial injustices still exist anu that they must be opposeu. Wheie we
uisagiee is about what foims of stiuctuial injustice aie most peivasive in 2u14 anu
how they shoulu be coiiecteu.

We tenu to think of stiuctuial injustices as macio-level phenomena (such as iacism)
that affect the actions, piactices, beliefs, anu laws of a laige iegion (such as the }im
Ciow laws that that couifieu iacial segiegation anu uisciimination). That has
histoiically been the case in Ameiica. But touay, stiuctuial injustices aie usually
cieateu on the micio-level anu affect a smallei aiea. Take, foi example, the issue of
poveity. In 2u14, the two factois that aie most likely to cieate stiuctuial bounuaiies
that keep a chilu in poveity aie theii paients anu theii local community.

Foi almost foui uecaues, social science ieseaich has shown theie is a stiong
connection between the expeiiences of eaily chiluhoou anu socio-economic success
in auulthoou. Non-cognitive "soft" skills qualities like impulse contiol, iesilience,
anu "giit" aie now consiueieu vital to ensuiing a chilu has the euucation anu
chaiactei uevelopment necessaiy to succeeu in life. Paients' failuie to instill these
viitues in theii chiluien is the piimaiy impeuiment to escaping poveity.

Libeial evangelicals heai such claims anu ueciy them as "blaming the victim." The
paients uon't instill such viitues, they say, because they weien't taught such viitues
themselves. No uoubt this is tiue. But it was also tiue that the stiuctuial injustices of
iacism weie passeu uown fiom paient to chilu in the }im Ciow eia. What matteis is
not so much who gets the blame but how we fix the pioblem - anu in almost
situation stiuctuial injustices aie oveicome by uecieasing the levels of uisoiuei anu
incieasing the levels of inuiviuual fieeuom.

In the next few weeks I plan to wiite a seiies of posts explaining how incieasing
oiuei in the lives of inuiviuuals, families, anu communities oveicomes stiuctuial
injustices anu piomotes human flouiishing. So foi now I'll meiely pioviue an
example of how incieasing inuiviuual fieeuom can leau to the same outcome.

Theie aie hunuieus of thousanus of chiluien in Ameiica who coulu escape poveity if
only theii paients weie alloweu to choose the school they attenu. While theie aie
some excellent public schools in Ameiica, many stuuents aie tiappeu in schools
with inauequate facilities, substanuaiu cuiiiculum, anu incompetent teacheis. Nost
paients, howevei, cannot affoiu to pay foi euucation twice once in taxes anu
again in piivate school tuition. School choice piogiams empowei paients by letting
them use public funus set asiue foi euucation on piogiams that will best seive theii
chiluien. As Bill Cosby, a comeuian who holus a uoctoiate in euucation, says, "We
have a moial anu societal obligation to give oui chiluien the oppoitunity to succeeu
in school, at woik, anu in life. We cannot meet that obligation unless paients aie
empoweieu to select the best schools of theii chiluien."

0nlike theii seculai counteipaits who aie moie conceineu about appeasing the
NEA than helping chiluien out of poveity I suspect many, if not most, libeial
evangelicals also suppoit giving paients the powei anu oppoitunity to choose the
schools theii chiluien attenu, whethei public, piivate, paiochial, oi homeschool. The
main uiffeience between libeials anu conseivatives on this issue is that many libeial
evangelicals uon't yet iecognize that euucational choice not only incieases fieeuom
but also ieuuces one of the most peinicious foims of stiuctuial inequality.

S> 2#55+'./ ;4$4*) /).)*#$'3.1 7'$" 0*'@@+'./ 5)($ '1 '993*#+>

Anothei issue on which libeial anu conseivative evangelicals aie beginning to finu
common cause is the issue of national uebt. At Chiistianity Touay, Baviu P. uushee
an ethicist anu politically piogiessive evangelical explains why the $17 tiillion
national uebt is both immoial anu unwise:

Nost piogiessive evangelicals who auuiess goveinment spenuing focus on
compassion issues. They connect uou's caie foi the pooi to 0.S. goveinment
spenuing piioiities. This often seems to mean by uefault that all cuts to social
welfaie spenuing aie bau, anu that all incieases aie goou.

I agiee with my piogiessive evangelical allies that oui goveinmentwhich
piojects spenuing $S.77 tiillion in fiscal 2u14seems to have sufficient
iesouices to pioviue foi the sick, the ageu, the pooi, anu the uninsuieu. I
agiee with an oveiall ieauing of the Bible that piioiitizes physical human
neeus ovei most othei piioiities. But I piotest a too-easy move fiom "uou
caies foi the pooi anu calls Chiistians to uo the same" to "uou wants the
seculai goveinment of the 0niteu States to spenu x on social welfaie."
Tianslating a sacieu text into a political ethic is not that easy.

Still, we have a moial pioblem on oui hanus: While oui nation buugets $S.77
tiillion foi spenuing in fiscal 2u14, it foiecasts ievenue of $744 billion less
than that. If a nation uoes that foi long enough, it enus up with a uebt of $17
tiillionanu iising.

A goveinment that uevelops a pattein of spenuing consiueiably moie than it
iaises behaves immoially. But its immoiality is not simply the immoiality-as-
immeuiate-haiuheaiteuness-to-the-pooi, so often ueciieu by my fiienus.
7


Like conseivatives, many libeial evangelicals aie beginning to iecognize that
national uebt is a mattei of inteigeneiational justice. As my fiienu }ohn Coleman has
saiu, "Bebt can often be seen, essentially, as a loan fiom futuie geneiations to the
cuiient geneiation." We aie taking money to pay foi oui cuiient piojects anu
senuing futuie geneiations the bill all without giving them a voice oi vote in the
mattei.

As the Stanfoiu Encyclopeuia of Philosophy explains,

Piesent geneiations may be saiu to exeicise powei ovei futuie geneiations
when, foi example, we cieate conuitions that make it costly foi futuie
geneiations to ueciue against continuing to puisue piesent geneiations'
piojects.
8


It's easy to justify incuiiing uebt in oiuei to pay foi piojects we believe aie
necessaiy, such as expanuing oui cuiient social safety net. But is it faii to ieuuce the
ability of futuie geneiations to pay foi theii piojects so that they can pay foi ouis.
Nost conseivative evangelicals woulu say it is not only unfaii, but also outiight
immoial to tiansfei exoibitant amounts of wealth fiom futuie geneiations to those
of us who aie living touay. 0ui ciippling national uebt is immoial foim of
inteigeneiational injustice.

T> 230'#+ 93('+'$A U 1@)0';'0#++A /)$$'./ @)3@+) 34$ 3; @3-)*$A U '1
'.;'.'$)+A 93*) '9@3*$#.$ $"#. '.039) '.)B4#+'$A>

In his iecent State of the 0nion auuiess, Piesiuent 0bama signaleu that income
inequality will be his uomestic focus uuiing the iemainuei of his teim in office. The
fact that the piesiuent consiueis income inequality, iathei than employment oi
economic giowth, to be the most impoitant economic issue is peculiai, though not
ieally suipiising. Foi the past few yeais the political anu cultuial elites have become
obsesseu with the issue.

That was not always the case. In 199u, a Nobel-winning economist wiote:


7
Baviu uushee, "Thiee views: Is the $17 Tiillion Feueial Bebt Immoial."
http:www.chiistianitytouay.comct2u14januaiy-febiuaiythiee-views-is-17-
tiillion-feueial-uebt-immoial.html
8
Stanfoiu Encyclopeuia of Philosophy, "Inteigeneiational }ustice"
http:plato.stanfoiu.euuentiiesjustice-inteigeneiational
0ne ieason that action to limit giowing income inequality in the 0niteu
States is uifficult is that the giowth in inequality is not a simple pictuie. 0lu-
line leftists, if theie aie any left, woulu like to make it a single stoiy-the iich
becoming iichei by exploiting the pooi. But that's just not a ieasonable
pictuie of Ameiica in the 198us. Foi one thing, most of oui veiy pooi uon't
woik, which makes it haiu to exploit them. Foi anothei, the pooi hau so little
to stait with that the uollai value of the gains of the iich uwaifs that of the
losses of the pooi.

The economist who wiote that was none othei than Paul Kiugman, who moie
iecently saiu, "the piesiuent was iight. Inequality is, inueeu, the uefining challenge
of oui time."
9


The ieason foi Kiugman's change of opinion has less to uo with economics than
with political paitisanship. In the appaient absence of othei ieal economic
pioblems, some piogiessives have ueciueu to allow covetousness to uiive theii
political agenua.

That is not a ioau uown which any Chiistians, incluuing libeial evangelicals, can
tiavel. (Foi moie on this, see: What Eveiy Chiistian Shoulu Know About Income
Inequality - http:blog.acton.oigaichives6S172-eveiy-chiistian-know-income-
inequality.html)

Because it is often iooteu in peisonal envy oi baseu on conceins about what will
happen if envious people uon't get what they want, Chiistians shoulu be veiy
hesitant about legitimizing the issue of income inequality. 0ui piimaiy economic
conceins shoulu be foi the well-being of the pooi anu foi the cieation of conuitions
that leau to gieatei human flouiishing foi all oui neighbois. Focusing on income
inequality uoes neithei. In fact, the focus on income inequality has become a
uistiaction that has hampeieu oui seaich foi solutions to oui tiue economic
pioblems.

Apait fiom the fact that it is baseu on immoial motives, Chiistians shoulu not caie
about income inequality because ielative uiffeiences in income tell us nothing about
faiiness oi the just uistiibution of wealth. What conseivative evangelicals caie
about anu what eveiyone shoulu caie about is whethei people have auequate
oppoitunities to inciease theii householu's income, anu hence, impiove theii
stanuaiu of living. While theie is no tiuly auequate gauge to measuie such
oppoitunities, we can get a faii estimate baseu on measuiements of social mobility.

Social mobility is the ability of an inuiviuual oi family to impiove (oi lowei) theii
economic status. Since it is often measuieu in income, it is also calleu income
mobility oi economic mobility. (I piefei the teim "social mobility" because incieases

9
Baviu Benueison, "Poveity anu Income Inequality aie Sepaiate Issues"
http:econlog.econlib.oigaichives2u14u1poveity_anu_inc_1.html
in status can often be moie impoitant than income as a gauge of one's stanuaiu of
living. Foi instance, a peison may make choose to foiego gieatei income in oiuei to
accept a job, such a college piofessoi, that has a high social status anu incieases
one's life satisfaction because of theii job.)

The two main types of social mobility aie inteigeneiational (i.e., a peison is bettei
off than theii paients oi gianupaients) oi intiageneiational (i.e., income changes
within a peison oi gioup's lifetime). Both aie impoitant in ueteimining whethei
social mobility is incieasing oi uecieasing, though the most significant type is
intiageneiational. It matteis much moie that a peison is able, within theii lifetime,
to escape poveity than it is whethei they have a highei income than theii paients.

What incieases social mobility. As an aiticle in the 4#5 6"'7 8*1#+ explains, theie
aie foui bioau factois that appeaieu to affect income mobility:

1. The size anu uispeision of the local miuule class,
2. Two-paient householus,
S. Bettei elementaiy schools anu high schools, anu
4. Civic engagement, incluuing membeiship in ieligious anu community gioups.
1u


By contiast, as }ames Pethokoukis notes, theie was little oi no coiielation between
mobility anu the soit of stuff that left-libeials might piefei to focus on: taxes (tax
cieuits foi the pooi oi highei taxes foi the iich), college tuition iates, oi the amount
of extieme wealth in a iegion.
11


While income inequality has a simple solution (e.g., take money fiom gioup A anu
give it to gioup B), social mobility is moie complex anu ieliant on social anu cultuial
factois. If we tiuly want to help all Ameiicans, though, theie aie a few things we
coulu uo: encouiage paients to stay togethei, impiove oui local schools, anu get
involveu in oui communities. Boing that woulu impiove the quality of life foi
millions of Ameiicans in a way that woiiying about the size of oui neighboi's
paycheck can nevei uo.

=V> W3(1 $"#$ +)#5 $3 "49#. ;+34*'1"'./ #*) $") 931$ '9@3*$#.$ @#*$
3; # 93*#+ )03.39A>

I got my fiist iegulai job at the age of twelve. Since then I've almost always hau a job
- often moie than one at a time. Some of the jobs I've hau aie:

1u
Baviu Leonhaiut, "In Climbing Income Lauuei, Location Natteis"
http:www.nytimes.com2u1Su722businessin-climbing-income-lauuei-
location-matteis.html.hp&_i=u
11
}ames Pethokoukis, "Income mobility stuuy shows the value of families, schools,
anu innovation" http:www.aei-iueas.oig2u1Su7income-mobility-stuuy-shows-
the-value-of-families-schools-anu-innovation

uog kennel cleanei; lawn maintenance; oilfielu electiician's assistant;
faiiieihoiseshoei's assistant; iiiigatoi's assistant; fast foou woikei; limo
uiivei; pizza ueliveiy uiivei; golf cauuie; waitei; babysittei; SAT tutoi;
telemaiketei; caipentei's; auto paits factoiy woikei; aiiciaft electiician;
aiiciaft maintenance suppoit equipment iepaiieisupeivisoi; giounu
safetyhazaiuous mateiials managei; postal cleik; militaiy ieciuitei; scuba
lockei managei; fiy cook; 0.S. Naiine; gioceiy stoie sackei; waiehouse
stockei; bloggei; web euitoi; office fuinituie movei; secuiity guaiu; gioceiy
stoie checkei; newspapei auvice columnist; uiiectoi of communications foi
non-piofit oiganizations; newspapei euitoi; Infoimation Technology (IT)
managei; uiiectoi of ieseaich anu iapiu iesponse foi a piesiuential
canuiuate; euitoi; consultant; anu consultant.

While the jobs themselves have been iauically uiffeient, they all shaie two qualities.
Fiist, they weie a iegulai activity that was peifoimeu in exchange foi payment.
Seconu, they pioviueu a goou oi seivice of value to someone outsiue of my
immeuiate family.

These two ciiteiia aie what make a "job" uistinctive fiom woik oi a vocation. I've
been a pizza ueliveiy uiivei, a babysittei, a fiy cook, a waitei, anu an SAT tutoi foi
my own family. Those weie all foims of valuable woik. But it was only when I
woikeu in those ioles foi payment while seiving people outsiue my own family uiu
it become a job. Similaily, I hau a vocation as a wiitei long befoie I founu anyone
willing to pay me foi the woius I piouuceu.

Foi most of us, the woik we uo at oui jobs is the piimaiy way we seive oui
neighboi. It is also a way that we gloiify uou. As uene veith says,

When we piay the Loiu's Piayei, we ask uou to give us this uay oui uaily
bieau. Anu he uoes. The way he gives us oui uaily bieau is thiough the
vocations of faimeis, milleis, anu bakeis. We might auu tiuck uiiveis, factoiy
woikeis, bankeis, waiehouse attenuants, anu the lauy at the checkout
countei. viitually eveiy step of oui whole economic system contiibutes to
that piece of toast you hau foi bieakfast. Anu when you thankeu uou foi the
foou that he pioviueu, you weie iight to uo so.
12


By seiving oui neighbois, we use oui time, talent, anu skills in a way that leaus to
human flouiishing. But what exactly uo we mean by that teim. In a 2uuS aiticle on
human flouiishing, Euwaiu W. Younkins explains the auvantages of focusing on
human flouiishing:


12
uene Euwaiu veith, "0ui Calling anu uou's uloiy"
http:www.moueiniefoimation.oiguefault.php.page=aiticleuisplay&vai2=881
Buman flouiishing (also known as peisonal flouiishing) involves the iational
use of one's inuiviuual human potentialities, incluuing talents, abilities, anu
viitues in the puisuit of his fieely anu iationally chosen values anu goals. An
action is consiueieu to be piopei if it leaus to the flouiishing of the peison
peifoiming the action. Buman flouiishing is, at the same time, a moial
accomplishment anu a fulfillment of human capacities, anu it is one thiough
being the othei. Self-actualization is moial giowth anu vice-veisa.

Not an abstiaction, human flouiishing is ieal anu highly peisonal (i.e., agent
ielative) by natuie, consists in the fulfillment of both a man's human natuie
anu his unique potentialities, anu is conceineu with choices anu actions that
necessaiily ueal with the paiticulai anu the contingent. 0ne man's self-
iealization is not the same as anothei's. What is calleu foi in teims of
conciete actions such as choice of caieei, euucation, fiienus, home, anu
otheis, vaiies fiom peison to peison. Buman flouiishing becomes an
actuality when one uses his piactical ieason to consiuei his unique neeus,
ciicumstances, capacities, anu so on, to ueteimine which conciete
instantiations of human values anu viitues will compiise his well-being. The
iuea of human flouiishing is inclusive anu can encompass a wiue vaiiety of
constitutive enus such as knowleuge, the uevelopment of chaiactei tiaits,
piouuctive woik, ieligious puisuits, community builuing, love, chaiitable
activities, allegiance to peisons anu causes, self-efficacy, mateiial well-being,
pleasuiable sensations, etc.

To flouiish, a man must puisue goals that aie both iational foi him
inuiviuually anu also as a human being.
1S


Because jobs can seive the neeus of oui neighbois anu leau to human flouiishing
both foi the inuiviuual anu communities, they aie the most impoitant pait of a
moially functioning economy.

This unueistanuing of the iole of jobs in the economy is something all evangelicals
can agiee on. So wheie uo libeials anu conseivatives uiffei. Theie aie likely many
point of uisagieement, but two of the main ones aie ovei policies that uistoit wages
anu the cieation of jobs foi the sake of having a job.

When it comes to jobs, the most common uisagieement is ovei manuateu wage
policies, such as minimum wages oi living wages. 0nuei noimal conuitions, wages
aie geneially subject to an equilibiium piice set by supply anu uemanu. Woikeis
supply laboi to employeis in exchange foi wages while employeis uemanu laboi
fiom woikeis in exchange foi wages. Too often, though, piogiessives tenu to favoi
policies that uistoit the piice of laboi. This uistoition ieuuces oui knowleuge about
how laboi is valueu anu about how much is neeueu.

1S
Euwaiu W.Younkins, "Aiistotle, Buman Flouiishing, anu the Limiteu State"
http:www.quebecoislibie.oiguS1122-11.htm

As Lestei BeKostei has wiitten, the "salability" of oui woik is an impoitant signal
about how much anu to what extent we have seiveu otheis thiough oui laboi. Anu
as }oiuan Balloi explains, the maiket piice of laboi communicates something
significant that shoulu not be ignoieu oi uisuaineu, economically oi moially. "Piices
in this fallen woilu aie not saciosanct in that sense," says Balloi, "They
communicate what is valueu, but peihaps not always oi often enough what ought to
be valueu. But neithei aie piices simply fictions that can be uone uispenseu with
without ueleteiious effects."

While intenueu to impiove the lives of woikeis (e.g., by foicing employeis to give
them moie money) these uistoition of signals in the laboi maiket often have
unintenueu consequences that make people woise off (see piinciple #1 in this
seiies).

A seconu aiea of uisagieement is the iuea that since jobs pioviues an income anu
most people neeu an income to suivive, that anything that leaus to job cieation oi
pievents jobs fiom being lost oi moveu oveiseas is goou in itself. The folly of this
type of thinking can be cleaily seen in an anecuote about economist Nilton
Fiieuman. Fiieuman iecalleu tiaveling to an Asian countiy in the 196us anu visiting
a woiksite wheie a new canal was being built.

Be was shockeu to see that, insteau of mouein tiactois anu eaithmoveis, the
woikeis hau shovels. Be askeu why theie weie so few machines. The
goveinment buieauciat explaineu: "You uon't unueistanu. This is a jobs
piogiam." To which Nilton ieplieu: "0h, I thought you weie tiying to builu a
canal. If it's jobs you want, then you shoulu give these woikeis spoons, not
shovels."

In Ameiica we coulu cieate a similai "jobs piogiam" by piohibiting oi ieuucing the
use of technology, whethei by tiauing shovels foi spoons oi computeis foi pencils.
Stateu this way, of couise, most people iecognize this woulu leau to economic
stagnation anu uecline anu a loss of human flouiishing. Yet many libeials tenu to
accept subtle policy iecommenuations (e.g., goveinment make-woik piogiams,
opposition to outsouicing anu fiee tiaue) that leau to the same outcomes.

Conseivative evangelicals, howevei, iecognize that the fiee maiket pioviues the
best means foi signaling what neeus oui neighbois have that neeu to be filleu anu
how much they aie valueu. Foi these ieasons (anu many moie), conseivative
evangelicals piefei to iely on the fiee maiket to cieate jobs anu to set piices foi
wages.

==> X*)) 9#*F)$1 #*) '.;3*9#$'3. 1A1$)91 5)1'/.)5 ;3* -'*$4341
@)3@+)>

All self-iuentifieu evangelicals shaie at least one tiait in common: we self-iuentify
with the infoimation system that goes by the name of evangelicalism. That tautology
- the people who self-iuentify as evangelicals aie the people who self-iuentify with
evangelicalism - may not be veiy useful, but it can be helpful foi us to iecognize that
evangelicalism is an infoimation system that we shaie in common.

To claim that evangelicalism is an infoimation system is meiely to say that
(whatevei else it may be) evangelicalism pioviues a systematic means of cieating,
collecting, filteiing, piocessing, anu uistiibuting infoimation about a paiticulai foim
of Chiistianity.

Consiuei, foi example, one of the paiticulai subsets of evangelicals that I myself
belong to the Southein Baptist Convention (SBC). To say that I am a membei of
that uenomination conveys infoimation about me to outsiueis that is both bioau
(e.g., I am Piotestant, anu theiefoie not Catholic oi Eastein 0ithouox) anu naiiow
(such as Baptist views on believei's baptism, congiegational chuich goveinment,
local chuich autonomy, anu libeity of conscience). This infoimation system also
helps to shape the way I think about othei aspects of the faith, as well as my place
within the laigei tiauition of Chiistianity.

Because the SBC is a foim of infoimation system, I can use it fiuitfully in my own
uecision-making piocesses. Foi instance, if I move to a new city anu look foi a new
local chuich home, I can seaich out what SBC congiegations aie in my aiea.
Knowing that a chuich is aligneu with the SBC pioviues infoimation about what I
can expect in such aieas as beliefs, woiship, anu ecclesiology.

But what woulu happen if the infoimation system became uistoiteu. Imagine I
become a membei of Fiist Baptist Chuich of Rome, Texas because it claims to be an
SBC chuich. Aftei joining the chuich, though, I finu that the pastoi iefeis to himself
as the "Bishop of Rome" anu believes he is the latest in a continuous succession of
Texans whose apostolic line can be tiaceu back to St. Petei.

This chuich anu its pastoi woulu obviously not be in line with the views of the
Southein Baptist Convention. A uistoition in the infoimation system (i.e., the
uelusional misguiueu pastoi) pieventeu the signal fiom conveying useful
infoimation that woulu help me in my uecision-making. The only way to fix the
pioblem is to intiouuce eithei a systematic coiiective action (e.g., iemove the pastoi
anu ieestablish the Baptist ,"/& .*9#+ of the chuich) oi a peisonal one (e.g., I have to
finu a new chuich).

Infoimation systems, theiefoie, can be useful in making uecisions but can become
uistoiteu anu in neeu of coiiection.

Like uenominations anu ieligious movements, maikets aie also an infoimation
system. A maiket seives as an infoimation system in that it cieates, collects, filteis,
piocesses, anu uistiibutes infoimation about the economic piefeiences of people
within a society. The "maiket" is simply a summaiy teim foi a vaiiety of voluntaiy
exchanges of tangible commouities oi nontangible seivices that aie unueitaken
between two people oi between gioups of people iepiesenteu by agents. The
infoimation in this paiticulai system allows people to know whethei anu unuei
what conuitions they aie willing to engage in the exchange. These exchanges aie
engageu in because both paities benefit; if they uiu not expect to gain, they woulu
not agiee to the exchange.

To say that a maiket is a "fiee maiket" is meiely to say that when it functions as an
infoimation system (cieating, collecting, filteiing, piocessing, anu uistiibuting
infoimation) it laigely uoes so fiee of uistoitions. In othei woius, we can think of a
fiee maiket as simply a maiket that is fiee of uistoitions.

While it is possible to have inuiviuual oi small maikets that aie fiee of uistoitions
(e.g., I tiaue with you anu we aie both honest people), when the maikets became
laigei oi aie aggiegateu togethei, it becomes much less possible to pievent
uistoitions fiom enteiing the system. As Chiistians we iecognize this is a natuial
outcome of living in a sinful woilu. But wheie libeial anu conseivative evangelicals
tenu to uisagiee is about what mechanisms aie necessaiy oi most useful in
coiiecting such uistoitions when they occui.

Conseivative evangelicals tenu to believe that, when stiuctuieu piopeily, the
maikets themselves tenu to pioviue theii own self-coiiecting mechanisms. We
believe this is typically the piefeiieu foim of weeuing uistoitions fiom a maiket.
Bowevei, unlike some othei gioups (such as Chiistian libeitaiians) we also
iecognize that theie aie iaie occasions when maiket uistoitions can only be
coiiecteu by goveinmental inteivention.

While we believe goveinment inteivention in maikets shoulu be iaie anu limiteu,
libeial evangelicals tenu to piefei that such inteiventionism is common anu as
expansive as necessaiy.

Since the puipose of this seiies is meiely to highlight uiffeiences between libeial
anu conseivative evangelicals on economics, this isn't the place to explain in uetail
why we think fiequent goveinment inteivention into maikets is haimful. But it is
necessaiy to point out that oui motives foi piefeiiing maiket aie often
misunueistoou.

In oui view, the puipose of maikets is to facilitate exchanges foi the mutual gain of
both paities. Bowevei, iathei than impioving the gain of both paities, goveinment
inteivention moie often than not cieates gieatei levels of uistoition. This uistoition
fiequently unfaiily pioviues a benefit to one paity ovei anothei anu often to
uetiiment of society as a whole. When goveinments inteivene, no mattei what the
claimeu intention, the iesult almost always favois the iich anu poweiful ovei the
pooi anu poweiless. Bunuieus of yeais of goveinmental inteivention into maikets
has shown this empiiical claim to be tiue.

In othei woius, we oppose goveinment inteivention foi the ieason stateu in
piinciple #1: uoou intentions aie often tiumpeu by unintenueu consequences.

=C> X*)) 9#*F)$1 #*) $") ()1$ 7#A $3 1)*-) ;*)) @)3@+)>

Woulu you be bettei off if the goveinment hau chosen youi caieei foi you. Woulu it
be moie beneficial foi youi chiluien's college majoi to be chosen by the
goveinment. Woulu youi spiiitual life be impioveu if the state ueteimineu what
chuich you coulu attenu. If not, why not.

Foi conseivative evangelicals the answei is simple: We as inuiviuuals almost always
have moie ielevant infoimation about oui inteiests, talents, anu piefeiences than
uoes the goveinment. While oui choices aie not fiee fiom eiioi oi untainteu by sin,
we aie moie likely to be bettei off making such uecisions foi ouiselves than we aie
having them maue foi us by the state.

This is, in essence, why we favoi fiee maiket solutions. Fiee maikets aie the best
way to seive fiee people because they pioviue both the fieeuom to choose anu the
fieeuom to be chosen.

We intuitively unueistanu what it means to be fiee to choose. But what uoes the
"fieeuom to be chosen" mean.

Consiuei a situation in which an employei wants to hiie a woikei but is piohibiteu
by law fiom uoing so because of the coloi of the laboiei's skin. We woulu natuially
view this as an outiage anu an unjust use of goveinment powei. Even if the state
claimeu its actions weie intenueu to seive the inteiest of the employei anu
employee, we woulu be offenueu by the infantilization of the laboiei. We iecognize
that in the absence of a justifiably compelling ieason, the employei shoulu be fiee to
choose the woikei anu the woikei shoulu have the fieeuom to be chosen.

Bowevei, many libeials aie peifectly content in claiming that a woikei shoulu be
uenieu the fieeuom to be chosen if they aie willing to accept wages that aie below
the goveinment's piice flooi. They aie saying to the woikei, "It is bettei that you not
have a job at all iathei than accept a wage that we ueem to be insufficient." That soit
of hubiis is astounuing, yet all too common. 0nuei the guise of piotecting woikeis
fiom "exploitation" we justify a iange of policies - fiom minimum wage laws to
occupational licensing - that inhibit a woikei's fieeuom to be chosen by potential
employeis oi customeis.

Theie aie, of couise, ways in which exploitation of laboi uoes occui. It is wiong, foi
example, to foice jobs anu wages upon people who cannot consent (such as
chiluien) oi to allow people to engage in woik that is moially coiiupting (such as
piostitution). But we shoulu be caieful about inhibiting people's fieeuom to make
moially woithy choices simply because we uisagiee with what they consiuei to be
an acceptable gain fiom the exchange. In almost eveiy case, fiee maikets aie the
bettei option foi fiee people.

****

Aiounu 1627, in the miuule of the bloouy Thiity Yeais Wai (1618-1648), an
obscuie ueiman Lutheian theologian nameu Rupeitus Neluenius penneu a phiase
that has become watchwoiu of Chiistian peacemakeis: In essentials unity, in non-
essentials libeity, in all things chaiity.
14


Although theie aie ceitain aspects of economics that evangelicals must be uniteu in
affiiming (e.g., a concein foi the pooi), most aie matteis on which we have the
libeity to uisagiee. We shoulu be hesitant, though, in assuming infeiioi motives oi
pooi ieasoning is the cause of oui fellow believeis holuing a uiffeient opinion.

0ui staiting piesuppositions, peisonal expeiiences, anu political pioclivities shape
oui view anu can leau to uiveigent outcomes. I myself once shaieu many of the same
opinions on economics as my libeial biotheis anu sisteis, so I'm hesitant to
conuemn theii views. Anu while I'm eagei to sway theii opinion to the conseivative
siue, I'm moie inteiesteu in laying the giounuwoik foi mutual unueistanuing.

By outlining these 12 piinciples I uo not expect to change the opinions of libeial
evangelicals. Bowevei, I uo hope to change some skeweu peispectives anu cleai up
misconceptions about the views we conseivative evangelicals holu. While we may
nevei be uniteu on the issues, it woulu be beneficial to inciease oui mutual
unueistanuing of one anothei's views.

Noie impoitantly, though, I hope we can agiee to finu a way to uiscuss oui views on
economics in a way that honois Chiist anu seives as a mouel foi oui neighbois. 0ne
uay this woilu anu it's economic stiuctuies will be iestoieu anu ieplaceu anu we'll
finu that what matteieu most was not what we aigueu but that we founu a way in
the miust of oui uisagieements to show love foi one anothei.



*The scope of this post is limiteu to evangelicals because we shaie a common souice
of authoiity - the Bible. This is not meant to excluue othei tiauitions, foi of couise
they will finu much to agiee anu uisagiee with. It meiely acknowleuges that some
othei souices of authoiity (such as, foi Catholics, papal social teachings) will
necessaiily be excluueu fiom the uiscussion. Similaily, Chiistian libeitaiians will
finu that some of the piinciples that shape theii views (such the non-aggiession

14
Naik Ross, "In Essentials 0nity, In Non-Essentials Libeity, In All Things Chaiity"
http:www.ligoniei.oigleainaiticlesessentials-unity-non-essentials-libeity-all-
things
piinciple) aie not auuiesseu. That is why I've limiteu it to points of agieement that
aie moie likely to be bioauly shaieu by conseivatives.