Are Christians Bad for an Empire’s Economy? Should They Be?

by Julie Clawson 05-06-2009

Mike recently brought to my attention a letter written by Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan written around 111 C.E. concerning persecution of Christians. I found it fascinating for the insight it gave into what Christian communities were like back in the early days of the church. Pliny obviously was trying to figure out what to do with this strange bunch of heretics and was seeking advice from the Emperor as to how he should proceed in the persecutions. I found it interesting, from an egalitarian perspective, that when he wanted to find out more about these Christians, Pliny mentions capturing and torturing two slave girls who were deaconesses in the church. But beyond that what I found most fascinating were the impact Christians were having on the local economy.

Pliny mentions that once he ramped up the persecution of Christians and insisted on their following Roman customs (like venerating the emperor), certain changes occurred in the culture. He mentions that the Roman temples, once deserted, were once again being filled, and religious rites practiced. And that the market for sacrificial animals, which had all but dried up, was once again flourishing. He proudly asserts that these Christians had been reformed into dutiful citizens of the Empire.

It intrigues me that Christians simply being who they are could so impact an economic system to the point that suppliers for animals to sacrifice to idols almost died out. It took the Empire persecuting and torturing Christians in order to restore that way of life and for the economic system to revert to the way things had been. I can’t help but notice how the situation is reversed for Christians today. Instead of subverting the unjust economic systems of Empire, we have married it to our faith. For many it is our Christian duty to uphold the economic system of our government. In fact those who question the system, or even question small parts of that system, are labeled as unpatriotic and (therefore) unchristian. It is those who stand with the poor and the oppressed, who choose not to give their money to false gods and unjust entities, that face ridicule for their faith these days.

I wonder what it would take for Christians these days to have such a significant economic impact on a part of our culture that it starts freaking the government out. What if we all choose not to buy products made by slave labor? What if we choose not to invest in companies that provide brothel visits with trafficked children as incentives for businessmen? What if we only bought clothing or food for which workers were paid a living wage? Would we maybe then be known for being something other than the lapdogs of Empire? I don’t want to incur persecution, but if you are messing with the powers that be (especially the economic powers that be) then persecution is bound to follow. These Christians lived out their beliefs and seemingly had profound impact until the Romans started pressuring them to abandon their values. Are we even ready to admit that our faith has something to say to economic systems much less live out Christian values in that realm?

Julie Clawson is the author of the forthcoming book Everyday Justice (IVP 2009). She blogs at julieclawson.com and emergingwomen.us.

Categories: Economics

Nathan Bedford

Good Lord, Lord! haven't you ever heard of Google.. Trying using your knowledge of the internet before concluding that there isn't anything you can do about human trafficking, products made with slave labor, etc.

letjusticerolldown

My most frequent purchase at wal-mart is store brand organic milk. $3.34 per half gallon. In general, the profit-margin on groceries is less than 2%. So Wal-mart may make six cents on the transaction.

The milk likely comes from a US dairy. Transported by trucks with parts from around the world. Cows fed on feeds produced with equipment from around the world and supported with federal price supports. Cows milked with stainless steel manufactured in Japan. And the trail proceeds to all ends of the global system involving the exploitation of energy and resources--and the payment of workers, poor and rich.

What is your general proposal? That I make the purchase at the local convenience store? They don't sell organic milk. That I drive 20 extra miles and buy it at Target? That I don't buy it?

Why is Wal=mart a unique 'culprit?' Or am I the culprit for putting milk on the table for my children?

If you don't want the business to deliver the product that can deliver with great efficiency--what kind of business do you want?

Do you want everyone in New York City to have a cow on the rooftop that they milk and pasteurize the milk at home?

neuro_nurse

I'm waiting for the man.

MikePC

"If Wal-Mart marked everything up 30%--would you be pleased?"

Nope. That's not the point at all. What would please me is if they stopped taking their profits at the expense of sweatshop workers in China, at the expense of their employees, at the expense of tax-payers, at the expense of their local communities, and at the expense of the environment. (And yes, these are all documented facts, not merely an alternative "narrative".) I'm all for providing more affordable goods to poor people, but not if it has to come at the expense of even poorer people. Profits are fine, but not when they are taken from the common purse, at the expense of the common good, or through the exploitation of the "least of these." (And again, I'm not speaking abstractly or "narratively", this is based on hard facts.)

MikePC

deleted

MikePC

I'm not talking about abstract economic principles that "might" lead to lower prices. I'm talking about specific, actual business practices of the Wal-Mart corporation whereby they are able to offer lower prices than their competitors by passing those costs along to others: tax-payers, local communities, sweatshop laborers, and their own employees, for instance. And this is not a question of "competing narratives", these are documented facts, a matter of the public record. Check out the facts, the hard data, for yourself, before trying to just write it off with a bunch of misplaced skepticism.

xfree9

"It's unfortunate that Wal-mart didn't take the opportunity to learn from the decision that many people would prefer that it 'adapt and do things more beneficial to the local and regional community' than merely selling products at cheap prices. That would have been progress."

It surely would have been. The more cooperation and fewest amount of "strong-arming" (even legally), the better of society would be. The two Wal-Marts in my area have undergone renovation to become more "green." Guess what? If they weren't so prosperous they couldn't afford to renovate and "go green." But they had the capital to do so, and nobody forced them to do it by law. No government coercion. Public pressure perhaps, but that's a good thing.

xfree9

"Day in and day out Wal-Mart employs and delivers legitimate products/services in poorer communities; and sells products manufactured in poorer countries. And they make boatloads of money."

As they should [make boatloads of money]. Long forgotten is the value of capital accumulation. Without it nobody could save, therefore nobody could invest, therefore no commercial progress could happen. Even if you're against all of these, and you want to soak the rich, you better hope they earn a lot of money because that means more for your welfare and "public service" projects (as if offering the community a low price for a product is not a public service!).

"I would love a different system. But right now I have to give credit to a business making friends with poor folks every day."

We take it for granted that there are wealthy people in our nation, whereas most of us in the United States are in the top 5% of the world, and the top 1% of the world historically. Far too often the focus is on what "creates" poverty, when the question should be, "What creates wealth, and how do we stand aside and let the most number of people achieve such a thing?" We all started in poverty, not in wealth. Wealth is not the default position.

smfergus

It's interesting that you assume the decision was due to 'protectionist lobbying' - the majority decision of Council reflected the views of the people who live and work in the City, including but not by any means limited to local businesses.

Be assured that Wal-mart was lobbying like crazy for re-zoning. I don't see Wal-mart's lobbying efforts (or those of local business groups, or homeowners, or environmental groups, or any of the other groups who made their views known to Council and tried to persuade in favour of their position) as unethical.

It's unfortunate that Wal-mart didn't take the opportunity to learn from the decision that many people would prefer that it 'adapt and do things more beneficial to the local and regional community' than merely selling products at cheap prices. That would have been progress.

pollux1972

I live in Deep East Texas, in a city with a church on nearly every corner and many between the corners, to boot. If you want to start a firestorm around here, just ask out loud why there are hungry, poor or homeless people in our streets with churches all around. If you want to be called "Communist," Liberal," "Naive," "Socialist," or any number of other pejoratives, speak out against torture, ask people to hold corporations accountable for their choices, or suggest that, as Christians, we are called to love one another ABOVE protecting ourselves and our comfort.

I have fully experienced the labeling and hostility that Julie's post mentions. I don't consider myself "Persecuted," per se, but I am much quieter about what I feel we are called to be in this world because of the hostile attitude adopted by many of my brothers and sisters in church. Around here, were you to dare to raise questions about our country's run to preemptive warfare? You would be "unpatriotic," and a "Communist."

I wish that Christians would hold to the love for one another above political hot buttons, but I think it is clear that we drop that as soon as anyone questions the cushy lifestyle many of us have come to believe we are entitled to.

Nathan Bedford

I think that Julie's topic has become sidetracked about whether of not Walmart is a responsible business. Her original contribution was focused on the following:

"What if we all choose not to buy products made by slave labor? What if we choose not to invest in companies that provide brothel visits with trafficked children as incentives for businessmen? What if we only bought clothing or food for which workers were paid a living wage? "

What about that LA Dodger who was suspended for drug use? Oh, I forgot; that's off topic too.

letjusticerolldown

If Wal-Mart marked everything up 30%--would you be pleased?

I bought my home in 2001. A new WalMart went in by a regional mall that is 2 miles from my home. Other new restaurants and smaller strip malls and big boxes went in around it. In general, the surrounding area is low-middle income.

In 2009, the mall is closed, and 1,000,000+ s.f. of commercial retail stands vacant in this area. The WalMart is the lousiest Wal-Mart in the region.

It did not drive out the other business. The other businesses are chasing the higher incomes and the pathways laid down by developers, City and 'white flight.'

Theatres, big boxes, Kmart, half-million sf mall, restaurants, grocers, etc are all gone.

I can shop Wal-Mart--willing to follow a business model delivering goods/services a low-moderate income community needs and affords--or I can drive 12 miles to a more affluent area and pay higher prices (or shop at the nicer wal-mart there).

Day in and day out Wal-Mart employs and delivers legitimate products/services in poorer communities; and sells products manufactured in poorer countries. And they make boatloads of money.

I would love a different system. But right now I have to give credit to a business making friends with poor folks every day.

Nathan Bedford

"or they have to not hire as many workers at that same price,..."

As they say back in the sticks where I was raised, "That dawg won't hunt." I witnessed no evidence of that at my father's workplace and that excuse has been repeatedly disproved.

"Business interests like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and powerful lobbies like the American Hotel and Lodging Association have long opposed any increase in the minimum wage, claiming that it would stunt job growth and harm small businesses. But a report by the nonprofit Fiscal Policy Institute has concluded that states with minimum wages above the federal level have actually experienced faster growth in small businesses and retail jobs than states where the federal level has prevailed."

If you have patronized a McDonald's lately, you are just as likely to see a grey haired person behind the counter as you will a younger employee trying to earn enough to pay for their college tuition. We have witnessed an increasing gulf between the highest paid executives and those on the lower end of the economic ladder. Barbara Ehrenrich (sp?) has effectively documented the difficulty that those working as wait staff or as housekeepers have in providing for the basic necessities. For anyone who believes that those earning the minimum wage are overpaid, I would challenge you to try it for 6 months.

xfree9

" negative effect that the 'big box' would have on other businesses in the area"

I understand the sentiment here. When Wal-Mart came into the area I grew up in (not where I am now), some people went out of business. But why is this always a bad thing? Not only does Wal-Mart take a while to build, they often have battles to fight, a "warning sign" for those small businesses to retool, rethink, restructure. It's called progress (I think I recall this blog—so I'm not saying this about you—labeling itself "progressive"). Those businesses will find ways to adapt and do things more beneficial to the local and regional community than something that can be done at a much less expensive way.

I'm not saying it's easy, or that people don't struggle through it. But life is about struggle, and hardships are actually a good thing for character, discipline, and stewardship when we take seriously the growing demands, needs, and efficiencies of life.

Wal-Mart is not a "saint" in everything. But I find their strong arming no less ethical than a local business lobbying the council to adopt protectionist laws to keep Wal-Mart out. Protectionism is, typically, a poor economic policy.

xfree9

There are many reasons why prices are reduced. If supply rises while demand stagnates or falls, prices fall. If efficiency in the supply chain increases, prices tend to fall. If the production costs fall because the ingredients to the product are lest costly to find, dig up, and manufacture, then prices will fall.

And yes, you're right, sometimes the reason behind it is somebody is being exploited. But that is not the de facto reason why prices fall.

The "true costs," as you claim, can indeed go down for many reasons. If indeed that cost remains the same because somebody is paying the bill for my benefit (aka little children in a foreign country), then of course that is unethical.

I'll check it out at the library. I think I saw it there the other day. My only concern about this is that it's one group/person's narrative against another. I could certainly find another document or website or whatever "disproving" everything in that documentary. I'm not saying it's false, I'm just admitting that sometimes going off into a topic tends to simply raise more questions than answers. That's not a bad thing, it's just not the educational tract I'm on. But I'll give it some time.

scat

Jesse3

If you don't think the terms "socialist' and "liberal" are not meant to convey "unpatriotic" and a lack of devoltion to capitalism, you are to be credited with not listening to the vitriol on right wing radio and tv.

I am not defining the right wing position at all -- it's much too confusing, intenally inconsistent and illlogical -- which was my point. Sorry I didn't make it clearer. Some of the most compassionate, generous people I know are conservative Christians. They tend to "be" and "do" as Christ and have little interest in politics, theirs or anyone else's -- like Christ. But some of the most mean, treacherous, unstrustworthy people I have known portrayed themselves as Christians, and unfortunately that's who people notice. Some of them have a national media platform available to vent thier angst against everyone who isn't like them. I see that Joe the Plumber has resurrected the old term "queer" and of course has gotten national media coverage. While joe spouts off like that, some of the kindest conservative Chrisitans I know are attending a meeting with their lesbian daughter to support her. No cameras there!

MikePC

Try watching the documentary and deciding for yourself.

And perhaps you're familiar with the economic concept of "externalities"? When Wal-Mart offers lower-prices, they're never actually lower. All that happens is that the true costs are borne by someone other than the customer. Someone is paying the price for your savings. The question is who is paying it, and is it just for them to have to bear that burden for your sake?

BlueDeacon

I'm not claiming Wal-Mart is flawless or without blame.

But you are saying they have the moral right to do what they do, and I'm not buying that (no pun intended).

I still find it better to be employed at a low wage than unemployed.

You might want to talk about post-slavery sharecroppers about that if any were still alive.

xfree9

You obviously didn't read my previous posts. I'm not claiming Wal-Mart is flawless or without blame.

Also, I still find it better to be employed at a low wage than unemployed.

smfergus

Regarding the Vancouver Sun editorial linked above ("St. Wal-mart") - the City of Vancouver didn't agree. City Council repeatedly refused Wal-mart's applications to have the City re-zone land to allow it to open in the City. One of the main reasons was the negative effect that the 'big box' would have on other businesses in the area. (Unfortunately, we are no longer a 'Wal-mart-free zone', because the company finally bought a property in another part of the City that did not require re-zoning.)