It seems almost axiomatic that had Martin Luther King Jr. not been assassinated in 1968 at the age of 39, but instead lived and crusaded against the racism affecting minorities in America for decades longer, that he would have ended his days not as a beloved figure appreciated by even those who disliked his politics and/or theology, but as a 'radical liberal' dismissed by most white American Christians. Martyrdom has made Martin Luther King Jr. more acceptable to American than are his contemporaries and those carrying on his legacy on behalf of the poor and mistreated.
I wonder, however, if the same isn't true of Martin Luther as well. Has 500 years taken the 'edge' off of Martin Luther in similar fashion to what has transpired with Martin Luther King Jr?
As an example, consider the words written by Martin Luther in a 1524 sermon, "On Trading and Usury":
"Buying and selling are necessary. They cannot be dispensed with and can be practiced in a Christian manner, especially when the articles of trade serve a necessary and honorable purpose...Even the patriarchs bought and sold cattle, wool, grain, butter, milk and other goods. These are gifts of God, which He bestows out of the earth and distributes among men. But foreign trade, which brings from Calcutta, India, and such places, wares like costly silks, gold-work and spices, which minister only to luxury and serve no useful purpose, and which drains away the wealth of land and people - this trade ought not be permitted..."
At first, Luther sounds like a Free Market advocate, extoling the virtue of trade as a profession, but then he speaks of governmental controls on the trade of luxury goods, advocating an outright ban on some of these, and worrying about the affect of trade upon the 'land and people'. Martin Luther didn't live in a democratic society, nor did he experience a modern economy, so perhaps he would have adapted his views to the times. That being said, could we really expect Martin Luther to forsake his concern about purposeless luxury and his care for how our economic activity affects the 'land and people'?
Luther continued, "The merchants have among themselves one common rule...They say: I may sell my goods as dear as I can. This they think their right. Lo, that is giving place to avarice and opening every door and window to hell. What does it mean? Only this: 'I care nothing about my neighbor, so long as I have my profit and satisfy my greed, what affair is it of mine if it does my neighbor 10 injuries at once?' There you see how shamelessly this maxim flies squarely in the face not only of Christian love, but of natural law..."
Once again, the precise nature of Luther's objections wouldn't be exactly the same in a Free Market Economy, but the principle of absolute property rights (I can do whatever I want with what I own) that is championed by many Americans (and others of wealth and power around the world) seems hardly to fit with Luther's reminder that a true Christian cares about how his business practices affect his neighbor.
So, how would Luther respond to the economic injustices that he witnessed? It is only speculation, but he wouldn't likely put his trust in the 'invisible hand' of the Free Market. Luther's sermon continued with, "The best and safest way would be for the temporal authorities to appoint over this matter wise and honest men who would appraise the cost of all sorts of wares and fix accordingly the outside price at which the merchant would get his due and have an honest living...the next best thing is to hold our wares at the price which they bring in the common market or which is customary in the neighborhood...But when the price of goods is not fixed either by law or custom, and you must fix it yourself, then indeed no one can give you any other instructions except to lay it upon your conscience to be careful and not overcharge your neighbor, and seek not avaricious gain, but only an honest living."
Would Martin Luther's theology be respected by his theological descendants if they came in the same package as calls for governmental price controls, fair market rates, and above all else, conscience as a limit upon business profits?
To what end this musing? The question struck me in part because of how fiercely Pope Francis is consistently attacked for his economic views about justice for the poor or care for the environment. Were Martin Luther, or Martin Luther King Jr. alive today, would they not be treated the same way?
Two forces are at work here, both of which tend toward corruption/abuse:
1. We smooth the rough edges off of figures of the past, making them more palatable to our ears, and thus their wisdom less cogent.
2. We tend to run theology and ethics through our political and economic lens, and not the other way around.
No comments:
Post a Comment