Capitalism and John Robbins

https://lucidmarbles.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/capitalism-and-john-robbins-no-argument-from-scripture/ 

I heartily recommend this article which takes John Robbins to task. The protégé of Gordon Clark, Robbins (who died in 2008) and the Trinity Foundation have long promoted a particularly rabid form of Christian Capitalism. In addition to his Clarkian projects, Robbins worked for Texas congressman Ron Paul in the 1970's and 1980's and has connections to the Heritage Foundation. He combines his Right-wing political and economic theories with Clark's philosophical-theology labeled under the misnomer of Scripturalism.

More akin to a form of Platonic Rationalism which treats Scripture as the axiom or form, the theology and its larger system is ostensibly coherent and thus it contains a certain degree of potency for some. Coherent it may be, but it's still a paper castle and while claiming to be in line with Scripture it actually undermines it at its very epistemological foundations. The larger system – which completely goes off the rails in terms of ethics, is the unsurprising result.

The linked article was a joy to read because the author demonstrated in simple and concise terms the socio-economic problems with the Robbins libertarian argument and its unbiblical nature. One does not even have to critique the system per se. One only has to demonstrate that if the system is not the economic order of the New Testament – then Robbins claims fail all down the line.

The reality is that Capitalism is not the economic system or ethic of the New Testament. One can live under it to be sure but one must never confuse it with Christianity as Robbins did. In terms of social policy for every 'good' it has produced, at least one evil has also resulted from it – often many more. Far from being Scriptural it is a man-rooted, man-centered, humanistic system – just like the Catholic-inspired feudalism the capitalist Robbins was always ready to criticise. Robbins wasted his life giving himself to Western Capitalism and supporting its many myths. His zeal for the movement utterly blinded him to many of its realities and frankly many of its evils.

Even the Reformational legacy is not nearly as neat as many like Robbins would have it. The author of the article rightly points this out and yet much more could be said in particular about groups like the Puritans.  Capitalism certainly arose from the Renaissance milieu which includes the Magisterial Reformation. And yet it did not come into its own until the time of the Enlightenment. There's also the question of usury which has to be considered. By this I refer to its old definition which referred to charging interest (a practice at the very heart of capitalism) as opposed to its contemporary use which only focuses on abusive or extreme interest. Calvinism certainly has been associated with usury as Calvin rejected historic Christianity's prohibition of the practice – a point where Rome actually echoed (in theory) the Early Church.

Capitalism in the end is a humanist system. Robbins like his mentor gave himself to philosophy and a philosophical system, not Scripture. The end result is a rationalist form of Christianity which in Reformed circles results in Hyper-Calvinism often followed by its step-child in the form of Baptistic doctrine.

The appeals to history are really appeals to mythologised and romanticised history. This is true of both the Reformation and the legacy of Capitalism.

Robbins himself was such an acidic and unpalatable figure that few wanted to engage him. Since he represented a small (but admittedly zealous and vibrant) sector within the larger Reformed world most have found it convenient to ignore him. And yet, I think it's a mistake to do so. I've known quite a few Clarkians and have had a few of those moments when I'm talking to someone after church and they suddenly ask me if I've read Clark or Robbins. Captivated by the narrative they're on the verge of being sucked down that perilous vortex. I have little time for the Trinity Foundation (which I contend denies Biblical Trinitarianism) but its adherents float around the periphery and every once in awhile I'll read or listen to something.

And thus I was pleased to find this article. Robbins was wildly off-base and it's good to find someone else willing to say so in resolute terms.