Consider these two propositions:

1. Sloganeering is designed to stop critical thinking.
It is a clever device whereby seriously complex matters are made overly simplistic. Such a practice of sloganeering serves, almost always, to “enliven the base” of those who accept the slogan.

2. Economic sloganeering in our society is completely predictable and equally unhelpful.
On the one hand economic sloganeering in our society imagines that “capitalism” is a virtuous economic enterprise that is beyond fault or critique. This mantra permits the celebration of “rugged individualism,” the “free market,” and the illusion of “the self-made man.” It fosters, moreover, the illusion that anyone who is smart and hustles can succeed to wealth and the privileges it brings. On the other hand, our usual sloganeering makes “socialism” (an ill-defined and slippery term) the great bugaboo for everything bad from authoritarianism to free love to child abuse. With the convenient juxtaposition of “virtuous capitalism” and “evil socialism,” there is of course no critical thinking.

Critical thinking, by contrast, requires us going behind and beneath the simplistic reductionism of slogans to the complexities of real life. When we begin to do that we discover that “capitalism” is not as singularly virtuous as we had been led to believe. We are watching now before our very eyes as cronyism invites the wealthy and well-connected to line up at the trough of public funds. The old and long-standing grants to the oil industry and agribusiness, for example, are not much reported or noted. But we know enough to know that capitalism is not the free-trade idyll as is imagined. And now the rush of tariffs that stacks the cards on behalf of some favorites at the expense of others makes clear that capitalism is not an innocent exchange of goods because there are too many heavy hands on the scale of inequity.

Conversely, the great bugaboo of “socialism” reflects the deep alarm that “someone will get something for nothing,” meaning of course, that the poor and disadvantaged will get something for nothing as do the well-connected in oil and agribusiness. One of my lunch partners is an old (nearly as old as I am!) conservative who regularly rails about “something for nothing.” His zeal concerning “something for nothing” is about the “lazy indigent” who do no work, even while he has not yet computed that his own evident wealth is a legacy of a slave-owning family that was a long-standing arrangement of wealth for those who did not work, a perfect embodiment of “something for nothing.” We have been observing this as a “bail-out” in which any hint of “socialism” must be carefully avoided. But the bail-out is exactly the use of public funds for the protection of private wealth. “Mitch” calls it “an investment.” Secretary Mnuchin characterizes it as “particular assistance at specific points.” It is indeed a bail-out of selective proportion, but none dare call it socialism!

The church’s chance is to go below the slogans to the economic realities. On the one hand the work of the church is to unmask the misleading inadequacy of the slogans. Thus “capitalism” is not, in our current practice, free trade; it is rather the management and manipulation of the economy on behalf of the wealthy and the powerful. Thus “socialism,” in our current practice, is not a free hand-out to “welfare queens,” but a diversion of public moneys to benefit those already privileged. But the more important work, on the other hand, is the focus on the inescapable public realities of bodily life, namely, health, education, housing, and jobs. Focus on these bodily realities gives the lie to most of our treasured slogans:

Health is a requirement for a viable human life. It is a task the community undertakes on behalf of every member of the community. Thus the church’s question for the public discussion might be:

Which neighbor do you think should not have health care?

Education of the ongoing task every community undertakes. In addition to learning the skills to earn a living, every community has a stake in a child learning life skills to be able to participate in the political processes of the community. In the end, the debate about private or public schools is a false issue. The real issue is whether we will have children who grow up with an historical awareness of the wonder and obligations of citizenship. So we may put the question:

The child of which neighbor do you think should be denied an education that is as good, responsible, and well-funded as the education of every other child?

Safe secure housing is a requirement for viable living. We talk flippantly about “the homeless,” as though that population were a “different breed,” of course readily “a lesser breed.” In fact, “the homeless” are those who lack adequate housing. So we pose the question:

Which neighbor do you think should not have adequate secure housing?

Jobs in a dog-eat-dog economy are conditioned by a great class divide. Children of privilege grow up without ever experiencing the reality of disciplined labor. And the need of a steady supply of immigrants to do the hard work at low pay is evidence of the loss of dignity and respect for serious work. In the midst of the economic slow-down and unbearable unemployment, we have at the same time an urgent need for immigrants to do the hard work. We are left with the question:

Which neighbors should work for low pay?

Or how can it be that some work not at all and enjoy privilege and advantage, while others must work endlessly in order to survive? How might that be redressed? It is the case moreover, that to some very great extent the wealthy who manage the economy are in fact not producers of anything. Roland Boer has seen that already in ancient Israel the economic question was:

How does one enable the nonproducing ruling class to maintain the life to which its members had quickly become accustomed?
(The Sacred Economy of Ancient Israel 203)

What a combination: “ruling ... nonproducing”!!

Of course, dear reader, you have always known all of this, all about the “big four” of health, education, housing, and jobs. But the point is an important one. It is not only the identification of the “big four” of health, education, housing, and jobs. It is

Neighbor health,
Neighbor education,
Neighbor housing,
Neighbor jobs!

Which neighbor? It comes down to choices that are not unlike Sophie’s Choice in William Styron’s narrative in which Sophie had to decide which child would perish and which one would live in the context of the death camps. When we go below the surface of slogans to the economic realities of daily life, the force of the slogans evaporates. The real question is how to mobilize the resources of the community for all of the neighbors. While “capitalism” and “socialism” are modern constructs, the issues are very old. It is possible le to have capitalism that is greedy or neighborly; it is possible to have socialism that is greedy or neighborly. Thus it is proper to transpose the context of the slogans into a matter of greed and neighborliness.

The prophet of Israel well understood the destructive force of a predatory economy that took the form of monopoly of property:

Ah, you who join house to house,
who add field to field,
until there is room for no one but you,
and you are left to live alone in the midst of the land! (Isaiah 5:8)

The predatory economic capacity to join “field to field” and “house to house” is of course doable. It is always, however, at the expense of the neighbor. The prophetic anticipation is that such accumulation will soon or late become sustainable. Verse 10 is perhaps a polemic against something like agribusiness. When the land is used and not loved, it will simply refuse to produce:

For ten acres of vineyard shall yield one bath,
and a homer of seed will yield a mere ephah. (Isaiah 5:10)

Such greed is unsustainable because it violates the ordering of creation that cannot finally be outflanked. Of the “vineyards” and “seed” in this oracle D.N. Premnath has observed:

It is noteworthy that verse 10 lists two of the major items of export from Palestine: wine and grain. These items were exported in exchange for luxury and strategic military items. Thus, the local economic resources went to support the elite and their lifestyle. The primary producers benefitted in no way from the fruit of their labor. The firm control of the distributive process by the ruling elite was responsible for this. The judgment speaks of depriving the rich of the very things of which they had deprived the peasants (Eighth Century Prophets: A Social Analysis 102).

The contrast between greed and neighborly justice is central to the work of Jeremiah. The prophet offers a scathing critique of the greedy policies of King Jehoiakim (Shallum):

Woe to him who builds his house by unrighteousness ...

who make his neighbors work for nothing,
and does not give them their wages (22:13).

Jeremiah knew about “wages theft.” That predatory king is contrasted with his father, King Josiah:

Did not your father eat and drink
and do justice and righteousness?...
He judged the cause of the poor and needy;
Then it was well [with him]. (vv. 15-16).

“Justice and righteousness” are not just convenient slogans. They are actual practices through which the “poor and needy” are able to participate fully in the wealth of the royal apparatus. The royal Psalm 72 makes such a policy of “justice and righteousness” a precondition for a proper economy and a stable reign:

Give the king your justice, O God,
and your righteousness to a king’s son...
May he defend the cause of the poor of the people,
give deliverance to the needy,
and crush the oppressor. (vv. 1, 4)

The bookkeepers in ancient Israel are kept honest by such poets. But when the poets are not lively, brave, and insistent, the bookkeepers will come think that the greedy pursuit of wealth is the only avenue for a safe, good life. That conclusion, however, is only possible when the poets are cowed or silenced. When the poets refuse to be silenced, matters are very different for the economy. The poets make a different critical conversation not only possible but inescapable.

The church (and its pastors) have no stake in the slogans, that is, no special investment in “capitalism” or “socialism.” The concern of the church is singularly the neighbor and the neighborhood. The “neighbor” is the only theme in economic matters that is relevant for the church.

We have known this since Moses:

You shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord. (Leviticus 19:18)

 We have known this since Jesus:

You shall love your neighbor as yourself. (Mark 12:31)

We have known this since Paul:

For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Galatians 5:14)

That leaves only the question,

“Who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:29)

The Bible is unflinching and unambiguous in its identification of the neighbor: widow, orphan, immigrant, the poor, lepers, the blind, deaf, lame … all those without viable resources or reliable advocacy. These are the proper concern of the public economy, not to be obfuscated by our familiar slogans.

“Virus time” is indeed neighbor time. We are learning, slowly, locally, and daily, that common resources can indeed be shared generously. Such generous sharing is now not labeled “socialism.” It is neighborliness. It is this common-sense sharing of public resources that is the theme of the church concerning economics. But the real test will be when the virus is over. We will have a choice to make: to return to our old greedy way of anti-neighborliness? Or to embrace in a durable way the sense of neighborliness now so evident? It is the church’s task, along with the other poets, to bear witness to this reality that subverts the bookkeepers who in normal times love austerity. The passion for the neighbor puts the gospel is opposition to such austerity. I have no doubt that how we will choose in time to come will depend upon the poets in the prophetic tradition. If the poets become silent or timid, we will rush back to parsimony. But if the poets have courage and imagination, we may choose differently. It is certain that the lips of the poets were not ordained for timidity.

Walter Brueggemann

This is the first of three articles in our second series to be published on our Church Anew Brueggemann Column. We are honored to give Walter Brueggemann a place to share personal reflections and commentary about life today as God’s children in God’s world.