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

Lord_Voldemort

Julie makes some awful accusations about a lot of companies, but she doesn't tell us who is doing these awful things, or what proof she has that they are going on. If she isn't willing to name names, there isn't a thing any of us can do about any of it, left, right, or sideways.

LV

MikePC

It was one blog post. What do you want, a dissertation? Heaven forbid you actually take the time to do some research of your own. I suppose child slavery or human trafficking aren't worth the effort it would take to do a few Google searches?

At any rate, as I understand it, Clawson's forthcoming book answers precisely the questions you have raised, so I guess if you can't be bothered to find out for yourself, you'll just have to wait till it's released.

UPDATE: sorry, I didn't scroll down and see that she had already posted some details. Guess you don't have to wait after all.

SisterMarie

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.

jesse3

"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."
--Speaking of naming names. Who are any of these people named here? Why don't I recognize any of the alleged persecutors or persecuted?

DITE

"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."

No they don’t. In every circle, people that help the poor are praised.

"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."

Wait, freak out the government? I thought the government was the good guy? You’re saying there is a way to help the poor without government benevolence? Interesting.

"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?"

Name companies and products.

"These Christians lived out their beliefs and seemingly had profound impact until the Romans started pressuring them to abandon their values."

So you’re telling me that things were good until government coercion made them bad?

JamesM

"No they don’t. In every circle, people that help the poor are praised. "

Oh, I guess you have conveniently forgotten how the term "Socialist " is bantered around by pundits on Fox News in reference to some of Obama's policies. It is clear that in our society (North America/USA) calling somebody Socialist is tantamount to questioning their patriotism. (We won't go into the "fascist" label that has been assigned by some conservatives to Obama and his policies. To bring up the "F" word on this blog is equivalent to shutting down dialogue-- unless of course it is the Conservatives using the label ont he Progressives. But that's okay ;-)

Oh yeah, I forgot. What I said just simply isn't true. I must be suffering from the same delusion as Julie.

MikePC

"No they don’t. In every circle, people that help the poor are praised. "

There's a difference between "standing with the poor" (which is what Clawson said) and "helping" the poor. Recall Dorothy Day's observation that "When I feed the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist."

"Name companies and products."

For real? You've never heard of sweatshops? You've never heard of companies that exploit their workers? Google these for starters then: Wal-Mart, Nestle, Texaco, M&M/Mars, Monsanto, Yum Brands...

1Grace

Boycotts do not seem to work . Disney Land was boycotted because of their connection to gay rights . I have seen People who were in organizations that boycotted Wal Mart in there shopping .

I do think God wants us to be smart consumers . And the living green message makes sense in as far as it takes better care of the planet . Also More money not spent on "stuff" the more that can go to helping those without even the basics ,
Being independent in regards to not owing money, this makes sense for government also , doing that to the glory of Christ so you can give more freely to those in need makes more sense to me then boycotting DisneyLand .

BlueDeacon

That may have to do with personal decisions than any organized campaign. I have not even been in a Wal-Mart since 2001 and in fact the next year gladly covered an ongoing story about some folks trying to keep one out of their neighborhood. (It did not go in but not because of its unpopularity.)

That said, we can't always say that boycotts don't work -- it depends on the context. The economic sanctions on South Africa due to apartheid actually did work because people there were truly afraid of losing money, and a lot of people in the country itself realized that the system needed to be abolished.

xfree9

"It did not go in but not because of its unpopularity."

That's too bad. In my area, Wal-Mart is a tremendous blessing to the poor in because they have low prices on the same services that are priced much higher by others. It's not located conveniently for suburbanites (it has gained a pejorative term in the area unfortunately), but is located conveniently for the poorer in the county. I was there today for the first time in about a year and was thankful that one company in the county was not only prospering and doing well, it was providing a service to the community by keeping prices low.

bal002

But you have got to wonder who(people and environment) is being exploited at the production end. To keep those prices low.

xfree9

Why is that the de facto presumption? I'm not claiming Wal-Mart is an angelic corporation.

MikePC

Because it actually is the case. This is not a presumption. It is a fact. If you want details, rent the documentary "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices".

xfree9

Why would I take for granted that an agenda-driven documentary about a company would actually be accurate? How can I be sure they don't simply cherry-pick their numbers and anecdotes?

I'm not saying Wal-Mart is flawless, but most of its critics don't take into consideration the whole picture and the service Wal-Mart is to society. There are many people in my county who cannot afford medicine that Wal-Mart permits them to afford.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

MikePC

deleted

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.)