The Grass is Always Greener

It’s very easy for Christians today, appalled at the rampant economic injustice and violence that is being perpetrated, and appalled above all at the indifference of most Christians to it, to get themselves worked up into a rage of righteous indignation.  How could we get into such a mess?  How could Christians let such horrible things happen?  There must be some profound heresy at work here, or some deep structural sin; it’s all the fault of capitalist ideology, perhaps.  I speak, of course, of myself as much as of anyone.  And of course, I don’t want to retract one word of it–we are surrounded by appalling injustice, appalling injustice that Christians should be addressing rather than abetting, and it is important that we analyze the underlying causes, historical and ideological, and repent of them.  Nevertheless, it is helpful to keep a bit of historical perspective, perspective that might lead us to give up in despair because we are such a wicked people, but which may have the more salutary effect of helping us see hope and even progress amidst our current wickedness. 

Some of our current problems have been recurrent features of every age, and so there is no need for apocalyptic gloom at the singular depravity of our age; rather, a call to ordinary (though still radical) repentance, sanctification, and waiting upon the Lord.  Some of our past injustices, including some very profound ones indeed, we have since overcome, so much so that it now seems self-evident to us that they are unacceptable, just as self-evident as it seemed to our ancestors that they were perfectly acceptable.  This spiritual progress can give us great encouragement when faced by our current besetting sins, because we can recognize that they are not insurmountable–Christ is sanctifying history, and will sanctify it.

I’ve had all this brought home to me in a bit of “light reading” I’ve been doing lately: The House of Rothschild, by Niall Ferguson–an exhaustive history of the family-run banking behemoth that dominated European finance–indeed, world finance–for nearly a century.  Ferguson is a maddeningly amoral historian, seeming to admire anyone who contributes to the cause of progress, and caring very little for the means by which they did it (see my review of his book Empire for more on this).  He clearly admires the Rothschilds a great deal, as financial geniuses, and is untroubled by the fact that most of their activities would’ve made Goldman Sachs look like Saint Francis.  Indeed, it is somewhat amusing–he at times goes to considerable lengths to exonerate them from various fictitious accusations against them that were popularized in their time, but in the course of doing so, manages to unearth a seedy underbelly of bribery, manipulation, and trickery that was simply the norm for their activities.  These folks thought nothing of bribing public officials to gain lucrative financial contracts, and then turning around and using their position of strength in the market to make huge additional under-the-table profits off the participating governments.  They thought nothing of using their inside political information to outmaneuver all their competitors and establish an unbeatable monopoly position, or of encouraging misinformation to create panics or buying frenzies in the market off of which they could profit.  War profiteering was their specialty, and they sometimes helped encourage the continuation of wars to ensure a continuation of profits.  In other words, all the charges that books like Confessions of an Economic Hit-Man or The Shock Doctrine level against modern multinationals, these guys were guilty of thrice over.  These guys were the quintessential disaster capitalists, economic hit men, Wall Street fat cats. 

Of course, I wouldn’t quite take this as a parable of “there’s nothing new under the sun” because the Rothschilds were, in many ways, a novelty, the first of these financial mighty men to walk the earth.  They were the originals of the decadent species that has now proliferated around the earth.  But, we can learn from them that things now are perhaps not quite so bad as they seem.  At worst, corruption now is comparable to the corruption that characterized European courts in the 19th century.  At best, we have actually improved a bit.  Like I said, these guys make Goldman Sachs look like Saint Francis, and although you can be sure that the seediest of Goldman’s dealings are buried deep beyond the reach of any Congressional Investigation, I think it would be fair that N.M. Rothschild and Sons would never be able to do now, with the laws and accountability structures we have now (deeply flawed as they are) what they could do then. 

There is a second lesson also from the story of the Rothschilds.  As I said above, there are two ways in which we may take encouragement from the past–there are injustices we see around us now that we can discern as age-old enemies, and there are injustices from the past that we have now overcome.  What I just mentioned was an example of the first, but I was struck by an example of the second when reading about the Rothschilds.  

It is, of course, silly to have to mention it, absurd that it should even have been striking to me; after all, it is cliched by now to say it: Christians were terrible to Jews.  But I don’t know how many of us really want to own up to the fact.  We’re so tired of liberals using the Holocaust as a weapon against Christianity that we barricade ourselves against the charges altogether, we sweep all that injustice under the rug.  The Holocaust, we say, was an aberration–it can’t be chalked up to the legacy of Christianity, but to a bunch of mad Darwinian Germans.  Very well, but the longer legacy remains.

The Rothschilds, unsurprisingly, were Jews, and grew up in the Frankfurt Jewish ghetto.  Ferguson’s point is not to dwell on this background, but bits of it couldn’t help emerging from the narrative, and it was shocking to confront the fact of just how discriminated against and repressed the Jews in 17th and 18th-century Germany were.  And of course, the reason Ferguson doesn’t dwell on it was because there was nothing unusual about the Frankfurt situation–this was simply how Jews had to live in most Christian countries–cramped into tiny houses, with their movements restricted, mocked by passersby, without citizenship rights.  And what’s striking about all this from my perspective is that this was not happening in modernity like the Holocaust–when we can chalk it all up to loss of faith, but in a deeply pious age in Lutheran Germany.  There were godly Christian ministers preaching faith and love from their pulpits, even while endorsing (or at the very least turning a blind eye to) the cruel repression of the Jews, and this went on for centuries.  

By comparison, the astonishing ability of modern Christians to blind themselves to the oppression they are supporting in the Third World no longer appears so astonishing.  After all, most of our victims are out of sight, out of mind, but the harsh treatment of the Jews was going on in every city in Christendom, right outside the churches.  So perhaps when we are tempted to extol the virtues of our medieval and Reformation past, and lament our modern apostasy, we should remember that there are a few moral advances to be thankful for the in the modern age.  

6 thoughts on “The Grass is Always Greener

  1. Jeff Irwin

    If there is less injustice in the banking system now (and i believe you are right about that) and this trajectory keeps up, what does this mean for central banking instituions such as the Federal Reserve a few years down the road?


  2. Jeff Irwin

    At the heart of my question is an assumption that democracy and capitalism (as practiced) aren’t really that compatible, and that one must overshadow the other. I’m not sure what the average person understood about the banking system back when the Rothschild’s were running the show, but I would have to guess that they were quite ignorant of all that went on. Since those days, it is my perception that average folks are starting to see how decisions made by financial institutions affect them downstream. And it’s become increasingly clear to me that these decisions often have a greater effect on our everyday lives than policies and laws enacted by the visible, elected government. I think that the invisible government is slowly becoming manifest and once enough of the population realize who’s really boss, they will want such institutions (The Fed, IMF, World Bank) to become more directly accountable to the democratic process. If we do get there, do you think the people will decide to salvage or reform these institutions or scrap them entirely and come up with something different? And if so what would work better? And what does the gospel have to say about all this?


  3. Brad Littlejohn

    Hey Jeff,Ah, I see. This is definitely an intriguing line of questioning. I think you are right to say that democracy and capitalism are not very compatible; if the people have worked so hard to keep their lives from being dominated by dictators in the State, why would they want their lives dominated by behind-the-scenes dictators on Wall Street? The financial crisis, I think, has woken many people up to the fact that the interests of these shadow-dictators are not the same as the interests of ordinary people, and also that ordinary people don’t have much power to do anything about the situation. Personally, I’m deeply skeptical that any processes of reform can really take root in the US as we see it today–the political divisions are too deep, and the the populace is too weak-willed and unstable. I think that unless we tip back into an additional financial crisis and recession (which may well happen), then this Wall Street Reform bill will get passed, and will make little difference but will make everyone feel better, and then people will move on to new scapegoats and the status quo will continue. The Fed and the big banks will continue to make many of the most important decisions behind the scenes and without real accountability, though everyone will be a bit more careful and disciplined about it (or perhaps just more sneaky) for a few years. I doubt we’ll see any major shift in how these institutions are set up in the near future.As for your further questions, "What would work better? And what does the gospel have to say about all this?"– I’m afraid I have no time for a proper answer, and won’t, because I’ll be traveling for the next week and a half. The nutshell answer, I think, is that we need to get back to a more community scale, more localist economic and political institutions. There’s a limit to how much that can and should happen in a vast interconnected modern world, but we have to find significant ways of making it happen, because Mammon is powerful enough and dangerous enough when we don’t concentrate it in massive trans-national institutions that defy any outside control or even understanding. So, chew on that and suggest your own answers for now. 🙂


  4. Jeff Irwin

    Thanks alot Brad, that was helpful. Just wondering if you could mention a book title or two (when you get back from your travels of course) that would give me a bit more insight into this community scale economy you mentioned.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s