Review:
Part One suggested that modern man, who looks down on ancient or contemporary societies
which believe in the supernatural, is himself caught in the grip of the worst myth of all.
The ancients at least believed there were gods; modern man believes there are no gods at
all. Life is explainable from within the world of sense experience. He lives in what Peter
Berger calls "a world without windows." The assumption is that in most of life
it is possible for us to find our way without any help from outside. Indeed, it is held
that there is no one "outside" or, if there is, He cannot communicate with us.
We began to look for evidence of this perspective by considering that political science is
thought to operate without any reference to religious influences or factors. We continue,
now, with other areas in modern life where the great myth is evident.
ECONOMICS
Everyone knows that economic life in Old Testament Israel was strictly regulated by the
Mosaic Law. Taking interest from a fellow Israelite was forbidden; land, with some
exception, could not be sold in perpetuity; and explicit regulations existed for
indentured servants as well as slaves. That the first fruits of each harvest belonged to
the Lord was only one of the indications that economic life was, from the beginning to
end, intertwined with and dependent upon the law of the Lord for his people.
For well over a thousand years in the Christian era, but particularly through the end of
sixth century, the church looked at economic activity as essentially sinful. Ordinarily
Christians, of course, could not avoid involvement in economics, but the guilt involved
could be neutralized by the penance of the "religious" in the monasteries and
nunneries. It is beyond the scope of this article to trace the origin of this viewpoint.
What is important here is to realize how thoroughly economic affairs were controlled by
religious factors.
Today, of course, no such factors bind the economy. The rise of western capitalism in the
Renaissance is marked fundamentally by the concept that economics is now autonomous.
Hobbes described this view in the words, "No moral rule beyond the letter of the
law," (see footnote 1). With the advent of a money-oriented economy, the manorial
system broke down. Goudzwaard explains:
"Labor, land, and capital became separate elements of production, each of which
could be bought or hired by means of money. Man chose this world solely as his own, also
with respect to its economic dimension, and in his conquest of this world he would
tolerate no other standards that those of his own making." (see footnote 2).
No self-respecting secular textbook on economics would today suggest that Biblical
norms are in any way binding upon the study or practice of economics. An unparalleled
improvement in living standards under western capitalism has been taken as irrefutable
evidence that this is the right way to do economics. Only recently, as problems of
pollution, inflation, unemployment, and raw materials shortage have escalated, has Western
man begun to wonder where his economic theories are leading. But there is, so far, no
visible tendency to disavow the autonomy of economics.
MANAGEMENT THEORY
One element within the field of economics if that of personal management, an important
aspect of business administration. Management is widely assumed to be a matter of
technique. One masters the study of motivation and manipulation of human workers and one
can manage. There is nothing religious involved.
Ironically, nations with a non-Christian background have been better able to see the
fallacy involved here than Americans have. At a management seminar held in Seattle by the
Sony Company, the seminar leader explained that Japanese management policies were based on
Buddhist principles. Americans would insist that their management policies are
"scientific" and "neutral." Nothing could be farther from the truth.
The assumption of freedom from religious influence in personnel management masks a
commitment and a subjection to some aspect of a created world system which stands in place
of the Creator (Romans 1:25). This might be the profit motive, or a personal power trip,
or whatever, but it is certainly not religiously neutral. And since people inevitably
become like the "gods" they serve, we must not be surprised if American
management techniques lead to problems they cannot solve.
By contrast, R.C. Sprout’s recent book, Stronger Than Steel, (see footnote 3),
traces the fascinating story of Wayne Anderson and his implementation, at the Pittron
Steel Foundry, of management practices which grew directly out of his Christian conversion
and convictions. Their spectacular and growing success was interrupted when the business
was sold and the new owners insisted that Anderson must either change his management
approach or lose his job. There are many other instances in modern American business where
management is done in the light of Biblical norms, but the overwhelming majority of
instruction and practice of management is still performed in terms of the modern myth that
business is autonomous with regard to religion.
One parenthetical comment needs to be made here. It sometimes happens that experts in
management theory advocate what seem - at least in part - like biblical principals, but do
so on the theory that since they work well, they are the best path to success. This is a
pure pragmatism, and while it does often lead to improvements in personnel relations, it
does at a heavy price. Biblical norms are founded on the two great commandments that we
are to love God with all our hearts and our neighbor as ourselves. When the principles of
personal inter-relationships are divorced from that foundation and practiced as a means to
make more profit or avoid labor problems, they can backfire. It is never safe to attempt
to "use" God for the accomplishment of our selfish and sinful purposes. The
Israelites discovered this to their sorrow when they looked into the holy Ark of the
Covenant. The attempt to use Biblical principles of personnel management without basing
them on a commitment to God and neighbor can be very dangerous indeed.
LABOR UNIONS
Another side of economic life that deserves mention is the labor union. Stimulated in
their growth on this continent by the injustices of factory and business owners,
especially during the late nineteenth century when social Darwinism was the dominant view
in North America, they have become a powerful factor in the economic life of this century.
That they have no religious connections is taken as axiomatic. Far more basic to their
ethos is the Marxist doctrine of class warfare. It may not be expressed now as bluntly as
it was in earlier years, but the confrontation involved in labor negotiations carries with
it the unmistakable atmosphere of war in all but its physical violence.
That another approach is possible is evident, for example, from the existence of the
Christian Labor Association of Canada. Founded largely by Dutch immigrants after World War
II, it is based on the conviction that a Christian cannot deal with his employer on the
basis of class warfare. The Bible tells him to serve his employer as if his employer were
Christ himself. This calls for an entirely different labor management relationship. The
CLAC pursued this avenue, ultimately winning authorization from the Supreme Court of
Ontario to be a labor union with a radically Christian perspective. Their activities have
brought them unique opportunities to witness to the relevance of Christ’s lordship
over the world of labor as well as frequently bitter opposition from the large Canadian
labor unions, whose antagonism made it perfectly clear that they thought religion had no
place in the field of labor relations.
There is an irony here as well as in the area of management theory. Because of the success
of Japanese industry since World War II, American business is beginning to seek a
cooperative rather than an antagonistic relationship with labor. This is all good, but it
is subject to the same qualification as was mentioned above. It is not the technique of
labor-relationships that is fundamental, but the motivation and the attitude involved. If
we cooperate because we love God and our neighbor, we may expect the blessing of God. If
we do so because we fear the competition of another, we run the risk of attempting to use
God rather than to serve Him.
TECHNOLOGY
Technology is another area where the modern myth is at work. Historically speaking,
technology and capitalism were twins. They were born and grew up together. During the
Middle Ages both had been severely restricted by ecclesiastical norms. These norms were
seriously distorted from the Biblical pattern by the influence of neo-Platonism on
Christian theology (exalting the spiritual and debasing the material in life). But at the
Renaissance, not only were economics and technology set free from medieval, ecclesiastical
norms, they were set free from Biblical norms altogether. The norms of justice and
brotherly love were now held to have no authority at all. Goudzwaard sums up his critique
of the industrial revolution and its resultant capitalism in these words:
"Capitalism is subject to critique insofar as, for the sake of progress it is
founded on independent and autonomous forces of economic growth and technology, that is,
forces which are considered isolated, sufficient, and good in themselves. These economic
and technological forces are indeed related to the norms of ethics and social justice, but
in such a manner that these norms cannot impede the realization of these forces and the
promotion of ‘progress.’ Their norms are consciously viewed as dependent upon
and secondary to the forces of progress: they are placed in the service of the expansion
of technology and the growth of the economy." (see footnote 4).
The consequence was that technology became an end in itself and not a means to an end.
Whatever could be done, should be done. The development of the atomic bomb illustrated
this. Many scientists, pressured by the exigencies of war, participated in the research
which led to the production of the bomb and then repented afterwards having taken any part
in the creation of so frightful an explosive. Jacques Ellul identifies the most damaging
and reprehensible quality of modern civilization as our respect for facts. "At the
present time . . . the established fact is the final reason, the criterion of truth. All
that is a fact is justified, because it is a fact. People think that they have no right to
judge a fact - all they have to do is to accept it." (see footnote 5).
Technology is not an evil in itself. It is one of the means by which we ought to pursue
the mandate God has given of having dominion over the creation. The critical factor is the
worldview that underlies a technique. As Barrett says:
"There is no such thing as a pure technique that isolates itself completely from
the insight that decides what that technique is about and what it is for. Technique has no
meaning apart from some informing vision." (see footnote 6).
And technique today is informed of the great modern myth. This is why, quite apart from
any Biblical critique of it, many thoughtful moderns are concerned. Barrett, in the book
just quoted, sees the "mind-forged manacles" of modern technology as the primary
threat to human freedom today. If the church were not drugged by it’s own deep
involvement in the modern myth, it would be far more active in exposing the danger and
offering an alternative. As it is, the church is frequently dazzled by the promise of
modern technology as to be quite unaware of the dangers of its improper use. The
electronic church, with its mind-bending and money-dredging techniques on the one hand and
its utter lack of meaningful human relationships for the vast majority of its audience on
the other, is a particularly flagrant example.
Editor: Al Greene
Alta Vista College
Footnotes:
1. Goudzwaard, Bob. Capitalism and Progress. Eerdmans, 1979,
p.15.
2. "ibid"
3. Sproul, R.C. Stronger Than Steel, Harper & Row. 1980.
4. Goudzwaard, R.C. Capitalism and Progress, p. 66.
5. Ellul, Jacques. The Presence of the Kingdom. Seabury Press,
1967, p. 37.
6. Barrett, William, The Illusion of Technique. Anchor Books,
1979, p. 88.
