Community of the Risen

Last night I watched Disney’s rendition of Robin Hood, and was struck by a few things that I had never noticed before.  First, I was struck by the economic implications of the movie.  When Little John asks Robin Hood how he feels about stealing, Robin retorts by calling stealing a “naughty word,” and that he should think of it more like “borrowing from those who can afford it.”  While they also do a good job of showing the true problem of Prince John not being the “true” king of England, it is interesting that they paint Robin Hood as a hero for stealing.  I say this because small children who watch the movie are having more than just a nice Disney movie experience; they are having their morality formed.  And I am not sure that there is great truth in the idea that we should “steal from the rich to give to the poor.”  I say this because I don’t think it gets to the heart of the problem.

The true king is gone, and a corrupt king is in place.

Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor only means higher taxes and an angrier corrupt king.  Perhaps a better movie would be Robin going after the king himself so he can no longer tax his fellow man.  But this would not make for a good children’s movie.

I don’t usually make predictions, but I have a feeling that Wright is going to hurt Obama.  It has nothing to do with Wright himself.  It has to do with what Wright said at the press conference a few days ago.  He said that politicians make decisions politically and pastors make decisions pastorally.  He went on to mention that Obama basically looks at polls and then decides how he is going to act based on those polls.  Whether it is true or not, the whole situation looks like Obama is distancing himself from Wright for political reasons, and that make people like me, who have a love for things like liberation theology, wonder how audacious Obama’s hope really is.  I know that he is a good man and that he wants change, but there was nothing worth “denouncing” in his speech at the press conference.  It’s going to hurt him in the long run because it makes it look like he acting out of fear of a drop in the polls.  Idealist candidates are always hurt when it looks like they are making decisions based on polls.

Obviously economics and theology are related.  There is no question that Jesus spoke a lot about money, a lot about resources, and a lot about how to be a good steward, and there is no doubt that economists and others have much to say about morality.  But should the two mix?  Or do they make strange bedfellows.

There are many angry economists who seem upset at theologians for doing bad math, and there are many indignant theologians who seem upset that economists simply do bad theology, but is there a way for the two to sit down at the same table and discuss this issue?  Here is, in my view, the main problem.  Theologians see economics as a means to the end of theology, while some economists see theology as a means or part of a means to understanding the market system.  For the economist, theology is just another variable or opportunity cost.  For the theologian, economics is just another theology.

And never, at least with this mode of theology, the twain shall meet.

But is there a back door?

Yes.  I think there is back door, and that is the mode of thinking that puts economics and theology side by side.  Economists begin to think theologically for theology’s sake, while theologians begin thinking of economics for economics sake.  What do I mean by this?  I mean that theologians often do not take the economy seriously enough.  They often see it as a road block on the road to God, but He can often be found in the market systems that so many theologians despise.  In the same way, those like Ayn Rand see religion as a kind of bump in the road to a more progressive and equitable society where all men work in a robust market system.  Rand has to start taking religion seriously, and the theologians have to start taking the economy seriously.