Comments (23)

• fundamentalist

  "Hence, for Mises, the Christian Church, despite continuing attempts to come to terms with the world and to carve out a reasonable social ethic, is stuck because of its necessary groundwork in Jesus' Gospels, which Mises regards as ranging from silly to downright dangerous."

  As much as I admire Mises for his economics and defense of liberty, It's painful to read his ideas on Christianity. For some reason, his brilliance in other areas simply vanishes when he approaches religion in general, but especially Christianity. He seems completely unaware of the field of hermeneutics, which is the science of interpretation. Taking Jesus' words out of context and being completely ignorant of the Jewish culture in Jesus' day, Mises does battle with a straw man of his own making. In analyzing Christianity, Mises applies to Christianity the very same fallacies that he finds so repugnant in socialist analyses of capitalism.

  Mises writes "Jesus regards himself as the prophet of the approaching Kingdom of God, the Kingdom which according to ancient prophecy shall bring redemption from all earthly insufficiency, and with it from all economic cares."

  Mises apparently knows nothing about the Jewish and Christian teachings on the Kingdom of God. The ultimate fulfillment will be in the "Millenial Kingdom" spoken of in Revelation in which Christ will rule over the whole earth. But people will have work in that kingdom just as we work today. The rule of Christ will not create a perfect world, but just rule and an end to warfare. When Jesus encouraged disciples not to worry about earthly things, he was using, hyperbole, a rhetorical technique very popular with rabbis of his day. He was encouraging listeners to place more emphasis on spiritual things. If Mises had read the writings of Jesus' apostles, such as Peter, John and Paul, he would have seen how they interpreted Jesus' sayings. They encouraged hard work so that Christians would have enough to provide for their families and a little left over to help the less fortunate.

  Mises: "It is the only explanation, too, of his disciples' "communism" … "

  The early church did not practice communism. Individuals willingly sold their private property to help the less fortunate. The church never demanded that people sell possessions; it was totally voluntary.

  Mises: "Christ's disciples lived in daily expectation of Salvation…."

  Spiritual salvation, not material/physical. Did Mises not read some of Jesus' last words, that his kingdom is not of this world.

  Mises: "The expectation of God's own reorganization when the time came and the exclusive transfer of all action and thought to the future Kingdom of God, made Jesus' teaching utterly negative. He rejects everything that exists without offering anything to replace it."

  That's not even close to the truth. Jesus made it clear to his followers in the parable about the bride groom and several others that a long period of time would pass between his first and second comings and that his followers were to continue to work faithfully until his return. Paul warned Christians against idleness, told fathers who didn't provide for their families that they were worse than unbelievers and encouraged churches not to feed lazy men who refused to work. Did Paul and the other apostles misunderstand Jesus, or did Mises?

  Mises: "Hence his passionate attack upon everything that exists. Everything may be destroyed because God in His omnipotence will rebuild the future order…. The clearest modern parallel to the attitude of complete negation of primitive Christianity is Bolshevism."

  This is just pure foaming at the mouth nonsense!

  Mises: "Jesus's words are full of resentment against the rich, and the Apostles are no meeker in this respect. The Rich Man is condemned because he is rich, the Beggar praised because he is poor…. "

  Until the advent of capitalism, the primary methods for gaining wealth were war, theft, kidnapping and ransom, and political favors. Many of the wealthy had gained their wealth by oppressing and stealing from the poor. Jesus could not have hated the rich for being rich, because many of the great saints of the Old Testament were extremely wealthy, such as Abraham. The Old Testament, which Jesus affirmed as being the word of God, held up material wealth as one reward for being faithful to God. Jesus and the apostles did not criticize the rich for being rich, but for their wicked actions in getting their wealth and for what they did with their wealth once they had it. Neither does he praise the beggar because he was poor. That's such a shallow, superficial reading of the passages that I'm amazed someone of Mises' intelligence would write such things.

  The New Testament is very clear, and even grade school children understand that wealth and poverty have nothing to do with pleasing God, although it seems to have been too difficult for Mises to grasp. Jesus encouraged the materially poor to rejoice in their spiritual riches and not to seek to become rich. He encouraged those rich in material things to value spirital riches more and to share their material wealth with those less fortunate. As for the story of the rich man who died and went to hell and the poor beggar who went to paradise, even a casual reading of the gospels shows that their wealth and poverty had nothing to do with their destinations in the after life. The fact that the rich man ignored the beggar demonstrates that he did not value spiritual things and was ignoring God's instructions to help the poor. In other words, the rich man was in rebellion against God. The poor man, on the other hand, trusted and worshipped God. That's why he went to paradise, not because he was poor. Even little children understand that.

  Mises: "But much as the Church might wish to do so, it is stuck with the Gospels, which are "indifferent to all social questions on the one hand, full of resentment against all property and against all owners on the other."

  Mises must have read the Gospel of Thomas, not the four gospels in the New Testament. The Catholic Church has always upheld the sanctity of private property. And the Protestant Reformation gave us the first capitalist state in the Dutch Republic because the godly founders of the republic insisted on enforcing the Biblical ideal of private property rights.

  Mises: " "The Church's achievement," asserted Mises, was to "render them [the social ethics of Jesus] harmless..."

  Or is it just possible that Mises doesn't have a clue as to what Jesus really taught and the Church has always followed Jesus' teachings correctly?

  Mises: "...it is the resistance which the Church has offered to the spread of liberal ideas which has prepared the soil for the destructive resentment of modern socialist thought."

  At some times the Church has hindered progress, no doubt. But we're talking about 2,000 years of history and thousands of actors. To condemn all of Christianity for the errors of some would be like condeming all economics because of the errors of Marx or Keynes. As Rothbard and others have pointed out, liberal economic thought began with the Catholic scholastics and reached a peak with the scholars at the Catholic school in Salamanca Spain. Their writings laid the foundation for the Dutch Republic to institute laissez faire economics. Until the 20th century, Protestant Christianity has been the chief proponent and missionary for classic liberalism. Even the Catholic Church didn't become anti-liberal until after the Reformation and then it was more a revolt against all things Protestant.

  Mises: "A living Christianity cannot, it seems, exist side by side with Capitalism."

  Someone should have told the godly founders of the Dutch Republic, such as Grotius. They saw Christianity as the foundation for capitalism, as did most Protestants in England and the US until recently.

  I don't know what Mises' religious experience in Austria was, but I'm guessing that he is reacting to the socialism taught by Christians in the early 20th century. It is true that most Christian scholars had become devoted socialists by then, and claimed to find socialism in the Bible. But had Mises been half the scholar in religion that he was in economics, he would have known that in his day people who called themselves Christians did not believe in the god of the Bible nor in the Bible itself. So-called "higher criticism" had begun in Germany in the late 1800's as an effor to destroy traditional Christianity. German "theologians" taught that the Bible was full of errors and it was their job to rid it of those erros and discover the truth. They claimed to search for the "historical" Jesus as opposed to the "mythical"Jesus of the Bible. Those same "scholars" abandoned historical Christianity, especially belief in the God of the Bible and Jesus as God. In their place, they substituted socialism. For the German "scholars" salvation was not spiritual but material, not heavenly but earthly, not in the future but right now, and socialism was the only means to that salvation.

  Mises writes like someone blinded by hatred, who has allowed emotions to cloud his judgment. Being Jewish, he probably has every right, what with the frequent bloody pograms against Jews in Europe. On the one hand, it's good to see that Mises was actually human. His brilliance at economics and defense of liberty makes hims seem infallible. Still, it's sad to see his irrational, ugly side.

  By the way, anyone who wants to understand the true, historical Jesus, the Jewish Jesus, find a copy of Alfred Edersheim's "Life and Times of Jesus Messiah." Edersheim was also Jewish, but lacking the hatred for Christianity that Mises displays.

  Published: February 8, 2008 8:04 PM

• fundamentalist

  "Mises asserted that "for us and for humanity there is only one salvation: return to the rationalistic liberalism of the ideas of 1789."

  I guess that's why I prefer Hayek to Mises on a lot of issues. Hayek was right that the enlightement gave birth to modern socialism with its fake rationality.

  Published: February 8, 2008 8:19 PM

• Matt

  Mises and millions of others left Christian Europe to free themselves of the consequences of forced religion, the Inquisition being just one out of hundreds of bloody examples.

  Let us revere the good sense of our founding fathers for a secular society here in the United States. Should we ever revert back to a theocracy as many would like us to, capitalism could not save us for it would prior have been totally destroyed.

  Mises knew what he was talking about, he lived through the nightmares .When he discussed Religion he did it like a gentleman he new Reason and Faith are incompatible.

  
  

  Published: February 8, 2008 10:29 PM

• Matt

  Yes I know now it's "knew".
  To err is human to be perfect is impossible
  and therefore not desirable.

  Published: February 8, 2008 10:47 PM

• hqppylee

  Reason and Faith are compatible and complimentary.

  Published: February 9, 2008 12:00 AM

• Per-Olof Samuelsson

  If the Kingdom of God is not of this earth, what the hell is it doing on this earth?

  It would be much better if the Christians retired to their Kingdom of Heaven and let the rest of us get on with our lives.

  Published: February 9, 2008 3:51 AM

• Inquisitor

  Fundamentalist, perhaps Mises had been influenced by Rand at this stage. His critiques of Christianity are strongly reminiscent of hers.

  Published: February 9, 2008 4:31 AM

• jeffrey

  There is an excellent account of the slow evolution in Mises's view on Christianity in Hulsmann's bio.

  Published: February 9, 2008 5:34 AM

• P.M.Lawrence

  I have long found the 38th of the 39 Articles of Religion of the Church of England instructive - both parts, not stopping at the semicolon. It goes like this:-

  XXXVIII. Of Christian men's goods which are not common.

  The riches and goods of Christians are not common, as touching the right, title, and possession of the same, as certain Anabaptists do falsely boast; notwithstanding every man ought of such things as he possesseth liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his ability.

  Published: February 9, 2008 5:53 AM

• newson

  my church education more or less finished at sunday school, but i do recall "the parable of the talents". an endorsement of meritocracy, and productive investment? maybe it's a good counterpoint to the social justice/marxian line that many of today's churches espouse. i'm open to expert opinion.

  Matthew 25:14-30

  14"Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. 15To one he gave five talents[a] of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work and gained five more. 17So also, the one with the two talents gained two more. 18But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money.

  19"After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.'

  21"His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'

  22"The man with the two talents also came. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with two talents; see, I have gained two more.'

  23"His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'

  24"Then the man who had received the one talent came. 'Master,' he said, 'I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.'

  26"His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

  28" 'Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. 29For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

  Footnotes:

  1. Matthew 25:15 A talent was worth more than a thousand dollars.
  

  Published: February 9, 2008 6:29 AM

• Per-Olof Persson

  Jesus never existed. Christianity is a fake.

  http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

  Published: February 9, 2008 6:47 AM

• fundamentalist

  happylee: "Reason and Faith are compatible and complimentary."

  Exactly! Anyone who knows anything about the history of science knows that modern science developed because Godly men believed that God is rational and created a rational world that we can understand through reason. Most of the early scientists were devout believers. Newton, for example, was a great theologian.

  Inquisitor: "Fundamentalist, perhaps Mises had been influenced by Rand at this stage. His critiques of Christianity are strongly reminiscent of hers."

  That could be, but I would bet on Nietsche being his great influence.

  jeffrey: "There is an excellent account of the slow evolution in Mises's view on Christianity in Hulsmann's bio. "

  I can't wait to read Hulsmann's bio. I still think Mises was a great man. I can't understand why he didn't apply the same skill at analyzing theology that he applied to economics. Hulsmann's bio provides an excellent example of how Mises should have treated Christ. Hulsmann examined the philosophical and scientific context of Mises' day, read what others had written about him, and tried to determine who the real Mises was and what he meant when he wrote. Can you imagine how different a bio of Mises would be if it were written by a rabid Marxist? That's how Mises' understanding of Christ strike me.

  PM Lawrence: "I have long found the 38th of the 39 Articles of Religion of the Church of England instructive..."

  That was the church position on property until the late 1800's. A few fringe groups, like the Anabaptists, thought communism was Biblical, but it was never the position of the main Protestant groups or of Catholicism until very recently. Only after they had abandoned orthodox Christianity did they become socialist.

  newson: "...i do recall "the parable of the talents". an endorsement of meritocracy, and productive investment?"

  A lot of people take it as an endorsement. I wouldn't go quite that far myself. Jesus often used the common practices of his day to teach spiritual truths. That doesn't mean he endorsed those practices, but he didn't condemn them either. You won't find much endorsement of capitalism in the NT, but you won't find any criticism of it either. On the other hand, the OT is chock full of capitalism, especially Proverbs. The founders of the Dutch Republic saw that clearly and the Dutch often referred to themselves as the New Israel.

  Mises admired the French Revolution, and some claim that the American Revolution inspired the French. But neither would have happened without the Dutch Revolution against Spain. The Dutch gave the world the ideas of freedom of religion and equality of all people under the law. Grotius, the father of international law, was a devout believer and excellent theologian. I believe that John Locke got most of his ideas on liberty from the time he spent in the Dutch Republic. And Adam Smith refers to the Dutch Republic constantly in Wealth of Nations as the highest example of liberty.

  French Protestants wrote the first tract in history that justified overthrowing monarchs who abused their power. Those Hugenot's then had to flee to the Dutch Republic to escape murder at the hands of French Kings.

  Without the godly men of the Dutch Republic, we might still be slaves under absolute monarchs, oppressed by the nobility. It's really odd to me that educated people today don't understand, or choose to ignore, this history. Christianity gave birth to liberty; that's an historical fact that no honest historian can deny. But modern atheists chose murder their mother and claim that they birthed themselves through the power of their own reasoning, which Hayek call fake reasoning in his "Fatal Conceit."

  Published: February 9, 2008 10:56 AM

• Inquisitor

  The reason I mention Rand is because he was at a point closely associated with her. Of course, the best way to know would be to read his biography.

  Published: February 9, 2008 4:29 PM

• Som

  Fundamentalist,

  While I'm not familiar with all aspects of Christian history or theology, I think it's a stretch to say that it was Christianity that gave birth to liberty.

  From what I recall, the ancient Greeks were preaching the importance of liberty and property as the highest law of the land long before the coming of Christ. Still, I think Christianity played a very important role in changing how liberty was revived in societies and in spirit, and I'm thankful for the noble Christians that saw the truth and justice with liberty. It's also worth noting, as far as I know, that the scriptures do not seem to have too much of a problem with a "just" monarchy (although considered foolish, but not seen as fundamentally unjust) and the only "anarchistic" Christian society that I know of in history is Medieval Iceland, and in the Old Testament of the society right after the ten commandments was laid down.

  Ultimately I think for liberty to be revived, it takes unconditional love for liberty and its sanctity as holy justice, which most of the great religions imply it is (do not steal, do not kill, do not attack or harm, as these as commandments are directly from God)

  Published: February 9, 2008 5:20 PM

• Eliza

  "...the scriptures do not seem to have too much of a problem with a "just" monarchy (although considered foolish, but not seen as fundamentally unjust)...."

  Oh yes, I remember that; it's one of the best bits of the Old Testament. The Israelites ask for a king and God lays out for them what kings and governments are really about:

  
  Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah; and they said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations....And Samuel prayed unto Jehovah. And Jehovah said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee; for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not be king over them...howbeit thou shalt protest solemnly unto them, and shalt show them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.

  And Samuel told all the words of Jehovah unto the people that asked of him a king. And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: he will take your sons, and appoint them unto him, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and they shall run before his chariots; and he will appoint them unto him for captains of thousands, and captains of fifties; and he will set some to plow his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and the instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be perfumers, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your men-servants, and your maid-servants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your flocks: and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king whom ye shall have chosen you; and Jehovah will not answer you in that day.

  And they all lived unhappily ever after.

  Published: February 9, 2008 6:43 PM

• fundamentalist

  Som: "From what I recall, the ancient Greeks were preaching the importance of liberty and property as the highest law of the land long before the coming of Christ."

  That's true. I was speaking of modern liberty from the tyrannical monarchs of the world in the early modern period.

  But didn't the Greeks intend liberty for just the nobility? It seems to me they were very class oriented and valued liberty for just the upper classes.

  And who proclaimed liberty before the Greek? The Israelis in the OT period of the judges. The leadership wanted a king so that they would be like their neighboring nations. God warned them that it was a bad idea and kings would oppress them, but the people insisted on giving up their liberty. Sound familiar?

  Som: "...scriptures do not seem to have too much of a problem with a "just" monarchy..."

  That's true. The only government God actually created and blessed was the patriarchal society of Israel at the time of the exodus, and it was very light-handed government. He blessed good kings, like David, and cursed evil kings. It seems that God doesn't really care about the form of government, only how just it is.

  Published: February 9, 2008 9:07 PM

• fundamentalist

  Rothbard: "Conservatism was born in bitter reaction against the French Revolution. From that day to this, all branches of conservatism unite in hostility to that Revolution, which they castigate as the precursor of the Bolshevik Revolution and of the other totalitarian evils of the twentieth century."

  Hayek has a different take on the origins and meaning of conservativism in "Fatal Conceit" and I think Hayek is closer to the truth. He says it was a reaction against the fake reasoning of the enlightenment, which led to socialism. Conservatives wanted to "conserve" liberty, property and traditional Christian morals that the enlightenment was trying to destroy.

  Published: February 9, 2008 9:27 PM

• P.M.Lawrence

  Eliza, fundamentalist, your comments show the problem with taking things out of context. You can get that context by reading the last part of the Book of Judges, which shows that affairs had already degenerated; the point is brought out by a constant refrain, which goes something like "in those days there was no King in Israel, and every man did as he thought fit in his own eyes" (poorer translations make it "clearer" - but less accurate - as "...did what he wanted"). Samuel's warning was of the price to be paid; only, things were already broken by then, so more was already being paid.

  It's a salutary lesson for what has to be taken into account in making any anarchist arrangement viable, i.e. not degenerating into something worse than a mild state would give, despite the flaws of statism being inherent and always worse than a functioning anarchism. There was also the issue of falling prey to outside states if a home grown state wasn't there to fend them off, which is a sort of catch 22 that encourages states - not mere envy of others who have them, but fear of falling under theirs. It's why the Kuingdoms of Hawaii and Madagascar only formed after outside influences started to be felt, rather than much earlier (and it didn't save them in the end, any more than it saved Israel).

  Fundamentalist, you have been misinformed about the classical Greeks. You are describing the thinking of the oligarchic elements. Most Greeks believed in liberty for all Greek adult males in their own city state apart from identified political opponents (not for criminals, slaves, women, barbarians or resident Greeks from other cities).

  Published: February 10, 2008 5:06 AM

• fundamentalist

  PM Lawrence: "Most Greeks believed in liberty for all Greek adult males in their own city state..."

  How do you know? Have you seen polls from the period? If I recall, liberty was for citizens only, and you had to be a land owner to be a citizen.

  Published: February 10, 2008 10:28 PM

• P.M.Lawrence

  "How do you know? Have you seen polls from the period?" - no, just philosophical and historical material.

  "If I recall, liberty was for citizens only" - yes, and that group generally was "...all Greek adult males in their own city state apart from identified political opponents (not for criminals, slaves, women, barbarians or resident Greeks from other cities)"; I was being specific. People they wanted liberty for, got citizenship too (unless political opponents stopped them). It's almost a tautology.

  "...you had to be a land owner to be a citizen" - no. It varied from state to state. For instance, in Athens's heyday many Athenian citizens survived on paid jury work or as rowers on galleys. However, most people wanted enough land for personal independence, and the land question was a chronic problem in the Greek world.

  Published: February 11, 2008 12:03 AM

• TLWP Sam

  I agree, Ancient Greece seemed like a society of head-butting angry men who sought greatest in war. At least in Ancient Rome, women could engage in almost as many activities as men.

  Published: February 11, 2008 12:49 AM

• fundamentalist

  PM Lawrence: " Samuel's warning was of the price to be paid; only, things were already broken by then, so more was already being paid."

  You have to distinguish between the spiritual condition of the people and the organization of government. When the writer says "every man did as he thought fit in his own eyes," he referred to the spiritual condition of the people, not to a break down in society. In God's eyes, the answer to the problem would have been a voluntary return to worshipping God and following his moral guidelines, not the enforcement them by a powerful state. He makes this clear in his warning about the oppression of kings and the fact that God viewed the desire for a king as a direct rejection of himself by the people.

  Published: February 11, 2008 8:08 AM

• P.M.Lawrence

  'When the writer says "every man did as he thought fit in his own eyes," he referred to the spiritual condition of the people, not to a break down in society' - no, fundamentalist, he is referring to both; that refrain follows each of several accounts of specific incidents that illustrate both, set out in an allusive way that reminds educated readers (i.e. just about all the intended audience) with parallels and antiparallels with other Old Testament stories, e.g. the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah.

  Published: February 12, 2008 12:00 AM