1
The Trinity and the Invisible Hand
By Steven R. Richards
The three aspects of the Trinity might seem to be at different points of view when it comes to
economics, and particularly, the issue of inequality. However, upon deeper study it turns out that
the Trinity is very consistent. We find the Father in the Old Testament (OT) with kings as a
given at the top of the food chain, and inequality largely accepted. In the Gospels we see Jesus
delivering a message which seems at odds with that position in the many messages warning the
rich and elevating the poor, though still not offering much equality. The Holy Spirit appears at
ease with various levels of inequality, judging from the empirical results.
This essay muses that the Trinity is trying to help us, working with creation as best they can,
given how imperfectly we were originally created. This paper postulates that human self-interest
is the means utilized all along the Christian narrative as it shapes the world via economic activity
in its various permutations and political dimensions. We even go so far as to say that Capitalism
was given to us to help mankind. Taking things even further, this paper argues that the Trinity
worked specifically through the churches of Britain, firmly planting Capitalism during the
Enlightenment, into the 19th century, and beyond. God created Capitalism? Such a statement
generally receives responses ranging from puzzled looks, to laughter, to vehement disagreement.
This paper argues that this gift has, quite possibly, turned out not as hoped for – Capitalism may
be running amok.
We repeatedly refer to self-interest underlying human, and therefore, economic activity. Selfinterest is an undercurrent throughout the Bible, starting in Genesis, where even before Cain
killed Abel, Eve was eating apples, presumably for some self-interested purpose. Continuing in
2
the same vein we find any manner of self-centeredness exhibited in the New Testament (NT), so
much so that Jesus spends considerable efforts (like the prophets in the OT) trying to warn
against all kinds of greediness. Bringing us to the present when Adam Smith’s identification of
self-interest and the Invisible Hand is the basis for Capitalism’s underpinnings and results;
presumably concomitant with much of the economic inequality we observe throughout history.
Such inequality does not appear particularly troubling to the Trinity, or perhaps it is just trying to
deal with the imperfections of its creation. Christ gives us a seemingly great cure for economic
inequality, though we dismiss it as one of those things He said that no one really expects to
follow. Like plucking out an eye, few take seriously His instruction to sell their possessions and
give the money to the poor (Matt 19:21). Given mankind’s reception of that idea maybe the
Trinity is working on a plan that fits better with our self-interested spirits.
We have no way of knowing what the Trinity is really up to, outside our faith and pages upon
pages left to us by history’s most learned minds. In this paper we will fancifully ruminate on the
various views of the Trinity: the Father’s, which we glean from the Old Testament, the Son’s, as
we can reasonably derive from an analysis of the Gospels, and the Holy Spirit’s, mostly via a
review of economic thought and action since the Enlightenment. Bringing us to the present
through an analysis of the views of Adam Smith and his contemporaries, alongside Anglican
contributions from the time, including Bishop Butler, John Wesley, Malthus, and others. All
leading up to, and ending with the outcomes of the industrial revolution and John D. Rockefeller
himself, who, though not a theologian, probably thought he was doing the Lord’s work and
certainly personifies economic inequality.
It is difficult to come up with a systematic Christian view toward the morality of economic
inequality, as the Bible seems to paint the acceptability of extremes. In the OT we find Solomon,
3
David, and other kings in economic systems that incorporate slavery – and there is no greater
extreme of inequality than that between slave and monarch. Did the Father sanction such
economic inequities? It would be difficult to argue otherwise, at least during OT times.
Similarly, we find in the NT a Roman system which would have likely viewed questions of
economic inequality with bewilderment. Even Jesus didn’t call for such equality – he simply
predicted a reversal of fortunes.i The Holy Spirit seems to speak volumes if one takes current
economic outcomes to be any indication, and assumes the Trinity is not impotent to make its
desires manifest. In short, the Spirit seems not to mind a great deal of economic inequality. Of
course, Satan has the world as his dominion, so we are told, so maybe it’s out of the Trinity’s
hands altogether. This paper will assume this is not the case – and that the Trinity has had, and
continues to have, an “Invisible Hand” in the mix.
Economic Inequality
Economic inequality is difficult to define. Mathematical models don’t adequately describe the
behavioral impact that large amounts of income or wealth inequality present to an economy or
society. Perhaps economic inequality is best thought of as a moral sentiment and is therefore
more analogous to Justice Potter Stewart’s definition of obscenity: “I know it when I see it…”ii
More akin to what Adam Smith discusses in Theory of Moral Sentiments (TMS), and further
develops in his seminal Wealth of Nations (WN), it is more about emotions than statistics.
Economic inequality, in the modern sense of the phrase, is not new. Henry George in his
Progress and Poverty, writes in 1879…iii
“The present century has been marked by a prodigious increase in wealth-producing
power. The utilization of steam and electricity, the introduction of improved processes
4
and laborsaving machinery, the greater subdivision and grander scale of production, the
wonderful facilitation of exchanges, have multiplied enormously the effectiveness of
labor.”
“Some get an infinitely better and easier living, but others find it hard to get a living at
all. The "tramp" comes with the locomotive, and almshouses and prisons are as surely the
marks of "material progress" as are costly dwellings, rich warehouses, and magnificent
churches. Upon streets lighted with gas and patrolled by uniformed policemen, beggars
wait for the passer-by, and in the shadow of college, and library, and museum, are
gathering the more hideous Huns and fiercer Vandals of whom Macaulay prophesied.”
“This fact – the great fact that poverty and all its concomitants show themselves in
communities just as they develop into the conditions toward which material progress
tends -- proves that the social difficulties existing wherever a certain stage of progress has
been reached, do not arise from local circumstances, but are, in some way or another,
engendered by progress itself.”
Most commentators talk about days past, when things were better. It is not easy to get a precise
time when things were better, though most would likely point to the 1950’s or 1960’s perhaps.
The 1970s, 80’s, 90’s? Economically speaking there were serious issues with all and the choices
made by economic policymakers have led to where we are today. From the Cold War, to the
Great Society, to “Stagflation”, to “Voodoo Economics”, to leveraged buyouts, to the great
recession, economics is bumpy.
The most obvious disparity is between “rich and poor” though, again, definitions are illusive.
Today’s politicians seem to focus most on the 1%’ers versus the middle class. Though what
5
really galls people are the .01%’ers - hedge fund managers, CEO’s, for instance.iv Interestingly
though, entrepreneurs seem largely immune from this damnation. Few begrudge the richest man
in the world: Bill Gates. Warren Buffet doesn’t seem to raise much ire either; probably because
they are giving so much of their money away, and are “self-made”. Steve Jobs and Mark
Zuckerberg? They seem to get a pass too, as do most athletes and show biz folks.
The point? It’s not how much money someone has, nor how much they make. It’s something
deeper, and harder to define. Peter Orzag recently pointed out that maybe it’s not so much the
difference between the mailroom worker salary and the CEO’s, but rather the difference between
the average salaries at different firms like Apple versus McDonalds.v Recently, Thomas
Piketty’s book Capital in the Twenty-First Century takes a view that wealth begets wealth, and
that the rich earned their money the old fashioned way: they inherited it. This seems particularly
troubling and irritating, not to mention easily targeted – as evidenced by inheritance, gift and
estate taxes long in existence.
What seems largely put aside in the debates is the disparity between the “middle class” versus
those below the poverty line. Then there are the homeless, which seem to get relatively little
sympathy as compared to the middle class by politicians – or most anyone else for that matter.
Our “moral sentiments” only go so far. How about the West’s poor vs the Third World’s? For
the most part, the debate in the U.S. anyway stops at its shores – there is virtually no discussion
about economic inequality at global levels.
All of these differing degrees, in various locales, show how difficult economic inequality is to
objectively “get” or deal with. Even more so when many of the poorest of the poor walk around
with bigger smiles than the wealthiest. Increases in productivity and the labor force, in
conjunction with capitalist principals, have generated the highest standards of living ever known.
6
Yet, per Mick Jagger, satisfaction is hard to get.
This must be perplexing to the Trinity. How is it they have given us so much and yet we seem to
derive so little marginal utility out of the extra income, the extra car, the extra TV, the extra
house, and so on.
The Father’s Take
Self-Interest and economic inequality are well documented in the OT. Tales of David and
Bathsheba, the Israelites and the golden calf, virtually the entire human race in Noah’s day,
Sodom and Gomorrah, too many to count. The prophets communicated God’s displeasure with
much of what was going on; but generally speaking, attention to economic inequality seems to be
of little importance in the overall narrative.
Perhaps the most empirically evident demonstration of the Father’s position on self-interest is
that He seems to have imbued us with a good deal of it. Taking the logic further, if we are made
in His image, then it would seem apparent that He accepts it in us. All the while trying to teach
us:
If you see in a province the poor oppressed and justice and right violently taken away, do
not be amazed at the matter; for the high official is watched by a higher, and there are yet
higher ones over them. But in all, a king is an advantage to a land with cultivated
fields. He who loves money will not be satisfied with money; nor he who loves wealth,
with gain: this also is vanity. (Revised Standard Version; Eccles 5:8-10)
Scripture provides layers of paradoxes, but as we will continue to see, and as counterintuitive as
it may seem, He appears to use human self-interest to help us help ourselves.
7
The Son’s Take
Jesus leaves much to contemplate along these lines. The Son talks a great deal about the poor
and warns the rich, whom He seems to worry for, as their souls appear mightily at risk.
As mentioned previously, Christ gives us a prescription for curing economic inequality though
the medicine is unlikely to be taken: If the rich were to simply sell their possessions, and give
their money to the poor, as instructed (and taken up by John Wesley), problem solved. But let’s
move on…
It would seem curious how Jesus is the figurehead of capitalist economies in that most are
Christian and prosperous as Max Weber points out.vi But Jesus would seem to be an anticapitalist personified as He has more in common with the poor and homeless than titans of
industry.
Does Jesus love capitalists? Of course, He loves everybody. Furthermore, according to the
Gospels He spent considerable time with prostitutes, hated “tax collectors”, lawyers, and other
supposed dregs of His society, so certainly we capitalists would presumably make the grade.
One can conclude that Simon (Peter) was a capitalist of sorts as a self-employed fisherman.
But Jesus is quoted as saying any number of things that are at odds with capitalist outcomes. In
particular we have this troubling parable…
And he said to them, "Take heed, and beware of all covetousness; for a man's life does
not consist in the abundance of his possessions." And he told them a parable, saying,
"The land of a rich man brought forth plentifully; and he thought to himself, 'What shall I
do, for I have nowhere to store my crops?' And he said, 'I will do this: I will pull down
my barns, and build larger ones; and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I
will say to my soul, Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; take your ease,
8
eat, drink, be merry.' But God said to him, 'Fool! This night your soul is required of you;
and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?' So is he who lays up treasure for
himself, and is not rich toward God." (Luke 12:15-21)
Apparently talking about a successful farmer, the picture painted is seemingly positive,
economically speaking. The landowner is enjoying a bumper crop, so much so that he needs
new barns for storage.
But judging from the parable, God is not happy with our capitalist. He says he is a fool.
The landowner is imbued with self-interest and the story demonstrates economic inequality. He
is thinking of himself. While not going quite so far as Gordon Gekko, self-interest is expected,
even required, in Capitalism. We are usually worried about ourselves (and family) first, though
there are many exceptions like charitableness, heroism, altruism. People are both from time to
time, but “numero uno” mostly reigns one way or another. We are generally driven to get a
lower price, higher wages, or a better quality product. Self-interest beats out our concern for the
shop owner’s profit, or the boss’s desire to lower costs. Few want to feel ripped-off, even a little,
and “business is business” so the saying goes. In fact, most strive for economic inequality with
our competitors, even our neighbors, other countries – we want to get ahead. Such omnipresent,
and largely subconscious, self-interestedness is at the very roots of economic inequality and
Capitalism.
The farmer in our parable is acting reasonably from a business perspective – and he is currently
doing well. Things may not always have been so good and he may have had lean years, even
famine, locusts, and drought, what have you. Imagine what it was like at the time this parable
originated – no scientifically engineered pesticides or seeds, no automated equipment, things
9
modern agriculture take for granted. What else would he be expected to do? More profits lead
to more investment, more development, more crops, more bread, more profits; our capitalist
model exemplified!
Are capitalists fools? Is it OK to build businesses so long as you sell them and give away the
proceeds? How about investing the proceeds and capital formation?
Economics is everywhere in the New Testament, the Gospels in particular.
Likewise as it was in the days of Lot--they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they
planted, they built, (Luke 17:28)
Economic inequality appears acute from the Gospel writers’ accounts, though they don’t
complain much about how unfair the system is. Instead the rich are spoken to in ways that are
more warning than envy.
The poor are well represented - there were obviously many. They appear to be accepted as part
of society, and mostly left to fend for themselves. There is no safety net to be discerned.
Aside from our parable, making a profit is apparently not a problem for Jesus, nor is there a
problem with inequality per se as he seems to not judge the boss. vii Perhaps the most difficult,
and yet most famous lessons of the Gospels, is the discussion of the top commandments. Loving
God is most important, but right after is loving your neighbor and your enemies. viii
Much of what the Gospels speak to surrounds the haves, and the have-nots. References abound
both in direct and indirect mentions of the disadvantages the rich will have, and the great
advantages the poor will receive. Many times in the Gospels it is stated that the poor will receive
a reward in the afterlife and no matter the economic system, the following still holds true to
10
today:
For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me. (Matt 26:11)
It’s not all bad for the rich in the Gospels. There are several instances where the rich are seen in
a good light.ix But generally, being rich is seen as a disadvantage, as in the famous passage
about the camel and fitting through the eye of a needle.x Luke continues…
"But woe to you that are rich, for you have received your consolation. (Luke 6:24)
Interestingly, nowhere in the Gospels is there a mention of widespread hunger or homelessness.
What we would see if we had wandered around with Jesus would be a world with lots of
housing, roads, boats, buildings, crop filled fields, markets, vineyards, and the list goes on. We
would walk everywhere and take boats when practicable. One might be reminded of a quote of
Thoreau’s: “I have travelled quite extensively, in Concord.”
Jesus himself does not appear to have earned any kind of wage and lived simply. Resembling a
homeless person of today in terms of clothing and possessions (not counting the gold he was
given as a baby) for all we can peruse He lived on a diet of bread, fish, water and wine, with an
occasional fig. However, He was certainly not one to avoid a feast. There is no record of him
spending money nor lending or borrowing any. It is often said He was a carpenter though there
appears to be no record of him actually building anything physical.
Jesus seemed to have little problem with the economic factors of production of his day. He just
didn’t seem to think them particularly important, at least not as compared to the heavenly realm
of which He usually spoke.
It is hard to imagine our modern economy being able to exist if we put all that is stated in the
11
Gospels into practice. Being a banker makes it tough to live by the standards in the Gospel
regarding lending. For instance, Jesus was exceedingly forgiving - though He spoke of conflict
as being why He was put here. Bankers can get behind the conflict part; less so the forgiveness,
at least as it applies to debts owed their institutions.
How would Jesus view the economic system we have today? This is perhaps the wrong question
as He didn’t seem particularly against the Roman economic system of his day. His issue seems
much more about the individual participants than the system. He is mostly interested in souls.
We can conceivably see the roots of our social safety net in the Gospels; taking care of women
and children were of the utmost importance as He repeatedly reassures the poor.
In the end, it is difficult to square what Jesus had to say, with what we capitalists do for a living.
Or, at least, how. The most obvious takeaways for a modern capitalist is Christ’s warning that
chasing a buck is not to be encouraged. One should instead try to take care of one’s soul and live
in loving ways.
Another takeaway one could construe with a little editorializing, and probably the most
important from a macroeconomic point of view today: the Gospels would seem to argue for a
“downsizing“. Jesus certainly incorporates this way of thinking in his lifestyle and most of what
He says. Lastly, given His view on taxes (and tax collectors) it would seem tolerable to use the
tax system as a tool to impact economic inequality. There is no objection to taxes in the Gospels
though there is a reference to them needing to be fair.xi
The Holy Spirit’s Take
Before reviewing the notion of the Invisible Hand being that of the Holy Spirit’s, let’s first take a
look at the Book of Acts where we see an example, and consequence of self-interest
12
demonstrated:
But a man named Anani'as with his wife Sapphi'ra sold a piece of property, and with his
wife's knowledge he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it
at the apostles' feet. But Peter said, "Anani'as, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to
the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained
unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?
How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to
God." When Anani'as heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear came
upon all who heard of it. The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out
and buried him. After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing
what had happened. And Peter said to her, "Tell me whether you sold the land for so
much." And she said, "Yes, for so much." But Peter said to her, "How is it that you have
agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Hark, the feet of those that have buried
your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out." Immediately she fell down at
his feet and died. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her
out and buried her beside her husband. (Acts 5:1-10)
The Holy Spirit appears to mean business with this lesson on self-interest dispensed early on in
Acts. The rest of the NT continues to demonstrate mankind’s self-interest as a natural law of
sorts, right up there with gravity.
Moving ahead to modern times we surmise that we continue to see the Holy Spirit at work.
The “Invisible Hand” is one of the most well accepted concepts in economics. Few dispute its
existence or impact, though many find it objectionable to think it is in any way part of a revealed
religious belief.
It is so ubiquitous that few bother to think about where the term comes from, nor dig below the
surface to consider the implications of its impact.
13
It is natural theology. It is revealed theology. It is Deist. It fits everywhere and transcends all
creeds – even atheists are comfortable with the term. Philosophers and churchmen then,
economists and business people now, Milton Friedman and those that have taken an Econ 101
course all know the Invisible Hand. It is universally accepted and used in the common
vernacular of our time.
Patristic and medieval scholars are familiar with the concept as its earliest uses: “invisible right
hand”, “hidden hand”, and others date back to the second century.xii
In economic circles, Adam Smith is credited with inventing the term, though William Law in
1728, almost five decades before WN, discusses the invisible hand in A Serious Call to a Devout
and Holy Life:
This is a noble magnificence of thought, a true religious greatness of mind, to be thus
affected with God's general providence, admiring and magnifying His wisdom in all
things; never murmuring at the course of the world, or the state of things, but looking
upon all around, at heaven and earth, as a pleased spectator, and adoring that invisible
hand, which gives laws to all motions, and overrules all events to ends suitable to the
highest wisdom and goodness.xiii
As far as the modern world goes, the term, concept, and application thereof was introduced by
the British through Adam Smith. Yet few Smith devotees outside academia know much of his
religious background, nor consider too deeply how Smith came up with his famous missive.
This is not a surprise as economics as currently practiced is a predominantly quantitative
“science” – and if it can’t be modeled econometrically it is considered suspect, though this stance
14
is shifting somewhat with the advent of behavioral economics.
In Smith’s day economics per se was not even considered a field of study unto itself. Smith
studied human nature, and broke it down in great detail in TMS in 1759. This work makes it
clear how self-interest is central to the human condition and economic output before WN in
1776:
The rich only select from the heap what is most precious and agreeable. They consume
little more than the poor, and in spite of their natural selfishness and rapacity, though they
mean only their own conveniency, though the sole end which they propose from the
labours of all the thousands whom they employ, be the gratification of their own vain and
insatiable desires, they divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They
are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of
life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among
all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest
of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the species.xiv
Moral sentiments, as Smith referred to them, were accepted in his day as something imbued in
mankind naturally. Leading figures of the time understood.
Smith avoids a reference to a Heavenly Father or a revealed religion like that found in the
Church of England, or, more to his Presbyterian roots: the Church of Scotland. However, it is
clear to many scholars that Smith likely was shaped by a form of natural theology at least.xv
Is the Invisible Hand tied to the Trinity? We will assume for purposes of this paper that it is
indeed the hand of the Holy Spirit, though there are many devout communities that take the
opposing view: that it is more appropriately thought of as the hand of Satan. Atheists and more
15
secular parts of society would likely take issue with either label. Maybe it’s all, or none, of the
above.
Our next question is: Why would the Holy Spirit bother? Presumably because the Trinity loves
mankind and economic progress is a way to help us.
Mankind needed help in 18th century England. After a tumultuous 1600’s, which included a civil
war and still largely medieval-like living conditions for many, we also had the beginnings of the
Industrial Revolution and migration to the cities. A summary of reports from the papers at the
time demonstrate the situation:
When the storm that was the Industrial Revolution howled through the winter of England's
soul in the 18th century, it blew humanity into the cities like maple leaves before a
November wind. And it left them, like leaves, piled in random heaps. Housing conditions
were outrageous. Ten persons per unfurnished room was common. Horse manure polluted
the unpaved streets. It was sometimes piled 14 feet high on both sides of the street in
London. Diseases like typhoid, smallpox, dysentery, and cholera ravaged almost
unchecked. Starvation was a daily reality which stalked the poorest.xvi
The influence of Enlightenment figures upon the Church of England was profound as we see
influential Anglican churchmen of their day such as John Toland, Matthew Tindal, Law, and
Butler coming to grips with Enlightenment thinking. This required reason to be front-and-center,
and in conjunction with the politics and commerce of the day. In particular, they were
responding to the increasing popularity of Deism, which exerted great influence within the
latitudinarian toleration accepted in society and supported by the aristocracy.
16
Tindal’s Christianity as Old as Creation in 1730 makes the argument that one doesn’t need to
throw the baby Jesus out with the Enlightenment’s bathwater - beliefs can be according to reason
and be reasonable. Moral virtues are implanted in us and they simply need to be stirred. This
would seem to be the allowance the Holy Spirit makes: mankind doesn’t necessarily have to
believe all that’s been revealed for the Hand to do its work. In fact, it appears to stand on the
shoulders of the doubters and the philosophers, while endorsed by the church.
The Invisible Hand concept simply allows that the self-interest of the various economic
actors/individuals, when interacting with peoples’ moral sentiments, will result in a social good
and a more optimal utilization of resources.
When Smith discusses self-interest as good for society, and, indeed founded in a metaphysical, if
not Holy design, this sounds awfully good to the society of the day and the clergy that was
preaching to them. The extent to which the Hand finds support on all sides seems to show a
certain divine action in and of itself – the Hand working on many levels.
Joseph Butler is a primary figure in this action and foreshadows Smith when he writes in Sermon
I - Upon the Social Nature of Man:
The nature of man, considered in his single capacity, and with respect only to the present
world, is adapted and leads him attain the greatest happiness he can for himself in the
present world. The nature of man, considered in public or social capacity, leads him to a
right behavior in society, to that course of life which we call virtue.xvii
Butler goes further, driving toward the issue of nexus with Smith in the outlining of sentiments
and morals which Smith seems to expand upon in TMS. To demonstrate how prescient he was,
Butler’s breakdown of how these emotions are in play are receiving present-day notice from
17
theologians affiliating with neuroscience.xviii
A high churchman and philosopher, Butler is speaking to those most able to do something with
the Hand – other churchmen, philosophers, the aristocracy, and the establishment. He is writing
to the most influential members of society - those that will eventually take the message, combine
it with the other mighty thinkers of the period, and create an economic system that works as
something revolutionary.
The Holy Spirit’s hand is presumably at work in all this. Now speaking to society’s self-interest,
the Invisible Hand is revealed to perhaps the greatest entrepreneurs and business people of any
time – ever. Such a time of economic development ushered in by the likes of these the world has
never before witnessed - and of which we are modern beneficiaries.
Smith was not a cleric per se, though an expanding field of scholarship sees him as a theologian
of sorts.xix In TMS he clearly indicates theological proclivities in this passage:
The happiness of mankind, as well as of all other rational creatures, seems to have been
the original purpose intended by the Author of nature, when he brought them into
existence. No other end seems worthy of that supreme wisdom and divine benignity
which we necessarily ascribe to him; and this opinion, which we are led to by the abstract
consideration of his infinite perfections, is still more confirmed by the examination of the
works of nature, which seem all intended to promote happiness, and to guard against
misery. But by acting according to the dictates of our moral faculties, we necessarily
pursue the most effectual means for promoting the happiness of mankind, and may
therefore be said, in some sense, to co-operate with the Deity, and to advance as far as in
our power the plan of Providence. By acting other ways, on the contrary, we seem to
18
obstruct, in some measure, the scheme which the Author of nature has established for the
happiness and perfection of the world, and to declare ourselves, if I may say so, in some
measure the enemies of God. Hence we are naturally encouraged to hope for his
extraordinary favour and reward in the one case, and to dread his vengeance and
punishment in the other.xx
It is in the Scottish Presbyterian and Enlightenment caldron that Smith further develops and
defines the Invisible Hand in the company of other Enlightenment figures like Hume and
Hutcheson. In WN he conveys the Hand in ways both secular and religious, depending upon who
was reading. Church support for the Invisible Hand, and the “virtue” of self-interest as argued
by Smith, is of great importance to its acceptance.
John Wesley continues the introduction of the Hand to the masses, simultaneously with the
aristocracy and the British establishment’s full-throated endorsement. And why not? The poor
are a scourge to Londoners. Anything that will help take care of the problem may at least be
seen as neutral. While the establishment has questions with his methods, the plight of the poor
gives Wesley a platform that extends to exponential dimensions when we include the
Methodist/Evangelical influences throughout England and onto the American continent. In
particular, we see an incorporation of Smith’s ideas into Wesley’s theology with his famous
admonition to:
“Earn all you can, save all you can, give all you can.” xxi
The Invisible Hand is off and running! Capitalism is set forth and absolutely changes the world
unimaginably. But paradoxically, while London has never seen such wealth or progress as the
Industrial Revolution ushers in, it also has never before witnessed such an expansion of
19
population and associated poverty. Economic inequality is beginning to show in ways we would
recognize today and Capitalism is a contributor to the collective conditions.
Rather quickly another Anglican cleric paints a picture of the potential downside of things.
Thomas Robert Malthus is well-known in the pantheon of economists. In An Essay on the
Principal of Population in 1798 he predicts wide spread human calamity as England’s
population swells to the point that adequate food (and other provisions) simply cannot be
supplied/produced.
Is The Spirit having second thoughts? Has it wrought an ever expanding “success” that leads to
increasing production, which leads to more and longer living people, which leads to greater
amounts of needs, which leads to more production, which leads to more, more – and then,
somehow, less happiness?
Enter the great capitalists. Kings could only envy the likes of John D. Rockefeller (a Baptist)
who is said to have thoroughly bought into Wesley’s famous dictum to certainly earn more, even
save more. He even gave away a lot. Though unlike Wesley, John D. died far from penniless. xxii
From the 1800’s it is a rather straight shot to present times. A wildly successful economic
system fueled by crude oil (fundamentally through Rockefeller’s Standard Oil) which was
virtually unheard of in the 18th century, and which helps propel industrial economies to our
current state.
Trinity Accomplishment
The results are for us all to see. The world is dramatically improved from an economic
standpoint and the standard of living transformations beyond calculation as compared to Smith’s
time. The world economic system is built upon market forces identified with the Invisible Hand,
20
with the Chinese and Indian economies just two of the latest examples of societies using Smith’s
principals for an uplifting of living standards for their millions.
Did the Holy Spirit foresee the dangers of its new economic system? One has to wonder if the
Trinity could have a do-over, would it do it the same? Did He foresee the tendencies of His
children, or how many could be supported with these economic advances? Did He know how
they would treat the rest of His creation or how this economic success for so many would lead so
many away from Him? Has the system run amok?
To the extent we have economic problems these same economic gifts likely hold the answers. If
Capitalism and self-interest got us into this state of affairs, they will likely be key to moving us
along - inequality and all.
21
Notes
i
Revised Standard Version, Matt 5:5.
ii
Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964)
iii
Robert Shiller: “Poverty” Lecture, Yale School of Management, Fall 2014.
iv
Top CEOs Make 300 Times More than Typical Workers. Economic Policy Institute.
By Lawrence Mishel and Alyssa Davis | June 21, 2015.
v
Bloomberg View – May 26, 2015.
vi
Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905).
vii
Matt 25:14 -30
viii
Matt 22:37-40
ix
Matt 27:57
x
Mark 10:23
xi
Luke 3:13
xii
Peter Harrison. ‘The Invisible Hand’ and the Order of Nature,” The Governance of Nature
Workshop, LSE, London, 27-28 October, 2010.
xiii
Law, William. A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life (Kindle Locations 5304-5307).
Mark Walter. Kindle Edition.
xiv
Smith, Adam (2013-09-03). The Theory of Moral Sentiments (Illustrated) (pp. 192-193).
Kindle Edition.
22
xv
Peter Harrison, “Adam Smith, Natural Theology and the Natural Sciences,” in Paul
Osslington, ed., Adam Smith as Theologian (Routledge Studies in Religion, (2011-02-25), Kindle
Edition.
Wesley D. Tracy, “Economic Policies and Judicial Oppression as Formative Influences on
xvi
the Theology of John Wesley,” Wesleyan Theological Journal, Volume 27, 1992: p. 30.
xvii
Butler, Joseph. Fifteen Sermons Preached at the Rolls Chapel & The Analogy of Religion
(Kindle Locations 5789-5796). Kindle Edition.
xviii
Arthur J. Dyck and Carlos Padilla, “The Emphatic Emotions and Self-Love in Bishop Joseph
Butler and the Neurosciences,” Journal of Religious Ethics, 11 Nov 2009.
xix
Osslington, Adam Smith as Theologian
xx
Smith, Adam. The Theory of Moral Sentiments (Illustrated) (pp. 171-172). . Kindle Edition.
xxi
Wesley’s Sermon on Money
xxii
Booknotes interview with Ron Chernow on Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr., June
21, 1998.