HEEBEE-JEEBEES

from Midwest Conservative Journal by The Editor

The shiver that just went up your spine might have been caused by the fact that Rowan Williams and a number of other theologians are in New York discussing the economy:

Theology’s contribution to economic decision-making goes beyond simply raising the question of “common good”; it also offers a framework into what is being assumed – human motivations — promoted through economic practices, said Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams during a Jan. 28 lecture at the 2010 Trinity Institute.

“If we find, as a good many commentators and researchers have observed in recent years, that working practices regularly reward behavior that is undermining of family life — driven or obsessional, relentlessly competitive and adversarial — we have some questions to ask,” he said.

Williams’ lecture “Theology and Economics: Two Different Worlds?” opened day two of the Trinity Institute’s 40th National Theological Conference –”Building an Ethical Economy: Theology and the Market Place,” exploring the intersection between economics and theology, held at Trinity Wall Street in New York’s financial district Jan. 27-29. The conference officially began Jan. 27 in the evening with a Holy Eucharist, where Williams celebrated and Archbishop of Burundi Bernard Ntahoturi preached.

“Economic activity is something people do, one kind of activity among others; and as such it is subject to the same moral considerations as all other activities. It has to be thought about in connection with what we actively want for our humanity,” Williams said.

In exploring the intersection between economics and theology, the conference seeks to explore questions and themes including: “Is capitalism a belief system?”; “What is wealth and how should it be measured?”; “constructive models of economics and consumerism”; and “envision ways to build an economy that is both ethical and just.” The conference includes presentations, panel discussions followed by Q&A sessions and theological reflection groups.

Over the past few years, Williams said, he has repeatedly noted that the word “economy” is at its root a term for “housekeeping,” which has implications as to where the discourse belongs.

“A household is somewhere where life is lived in common; and housekeeping is guaranteeing that this common life has some stability about it that allows the members of the household to grow and flourish and act in useful ways,” he said. “A working household is an environment in which vulnerable people are nurtured and allowed to grow up (children) or wind down (the elderly); it is a background against which active people can go out to labor in various ways to reinforce the security of the household; it is a setting where leisure and creativity can find room in the general business of intensifying and strengthening the relationships that are involved.

“Good housekeeping seeks common well-being so that all these things can happen; and we should note that the one thing required in a background of well-being is stability,” he said.

“‘Housekeeping theory’ is about how we use our intelligence to balance the needs of those involved and to secure trust between them,” Williams said. “A theory that wanders too far from these basics is a recipe for damage to the vulnerable, to the regularity and usefulness of labor and to the possibilities human beings have for renewing (and challenging) themselves through leisure and creativity.”

The same kind of damage, Williams said, results in an economic climate where everything is reduced to the search for maximized profit and unlimited material growth.

“The effects of trying to structure economic life independently of intelligent choice about long-term goals for human beings have become more than usually visible in the last 18 months, and one reason for holding this conference is the growing force of the question ‘what for?’ in our global market. What is the long-term well-being we seek? …” he said.

On one level, there’s nothing particularly harmful about any of this. At the end of this conference, these people will issue a report no one who matters will read containing recommendations no one who matters will pay any attention to. No harm, no foul.

But there’s an underlying assumption here that ought to concern thinking people. Namely, that there is a way for economies to act “ethically” or “justly,” we Christians can determine what that way is and that once we do, we are obliged to work for it.

Which means that the government needs to pass laws to force the economy to be “just” and that we non-politicians need to support politicians who agree.

I think you can see the difficulty. The idea of determining exactly what constitutes a perfectly “just” and “ethical” economy is perfect fodder for the Anglicans because it means that they can talk forever without actually coming up with an answer.

And even if they did, how on Earth would they implement it? By passing laws? If it were possible to pass(more importantly, if men had the desire to pass) laws to make all bad stuff go away, the Bible would never have been written because it would never have needed to be written.

When Dr. Williams says, “If we find, as a good many commentators and researchers have observed in recent years, that working practices regularly reward behavior that is undermining of family life — driven or obsessional, relentlessly competitive and adversarial — we have some questions to ask,” he indicates that he hasn’t gotten his mind around something most intelligent people figured out a long time ago.

Economies are not nice, never have been and never will be.

Most people figured that out before they graduated from college. Does your job require you to work long, driven, obsessional, competitive and adversarial hours, much of these away from your family? You probably make a lot of money.

Me, I’m not any of those things. I work at the Webster Groves Public Library and I don’t make jack. But that’s everyone’s deal. You take into account how much money a job pays, what that job requires of you and what you want from life. And you proceed accordingly.

Want a wife and a family of your own? Those cost money. Maybe what you’d like to do doesn’t pay very much and so you may have to take a job that you don’t particularly care for.

And even if you do work at a job that you don’t hate all the time, you still might not be out of the woods. This is my work schedule this week. Monday through Thursday, I work from 1:00 PM until 9:00 PM. Tomorrow, I’ll work from 8:30 until 4:30, have Saturday off and work Sunday afternoon.

But this week’s Sunday shift only happens every eight weeks or so; usually, my weekend would be clear. Next week, the Monday through Thursday schedule will be the same, I’ll have Friday off, I’ll work Saturday and have Sunday off.

Which is not exactly conducive to week-night Bible studies or similar church activities I’d like to participate in. But I knew that going in and took the job anyway.

What’s your point, Johnson? My point is this: does the Webster Groves Public Library owe me a decent life outside the library? No. All that it owes me is what it has agreed to pay me for my services to it.

Nothing more.

Dr. Williams’ implied notion that we can fiddle with economies in order to make them more “just” is bone-crushingly stupid. It is easier to make the sun rise in the west than it is to make economies consistently and thoroughly “just” or “ethical,” however my gracious lord of Canterbury defines those terms.