Craig White has done praiseworthy work in seeking to identify the peoples of the world from the obscure and often-neglected genealogical tables of the Tables of Nations in Genesis. Unfortunately, his views about race in general bear closer relation to the discreditable and damnable racism of the Jim Crow American South, with its paranoid fears of racial amalgamation than to the genuine and enlightened biblical views on ethnicity present in such texts as Acts 10, Galatians 3, Isaiah 56, or Psalm 87 and 117. However, while I wish to deal at length with these issues at a later time, they are important to consider because such ultrareactionary racism is what underlies his theories on the proper economy for a nation. And those specific ideas are of interest because they demonstrate the genuine roots of his agrarian and ‘sustainable’ ideals for nations.
We ought to note that Craig White is far from alone in this vision. In fact, as it would happen, the present King Bhomipol of Thailand is noted for his vocal support of a sustainable economy and for his opposition to borrowing and speculating and the destruction of natural resources for private profit, a practice difficult to prevent because of widespread corruption in Thai society. In fact, it is not surprising that Craig White’s own ideas about the ideal economy are not far from those agrarian anti-globalists like King Bhomipol and many others: “For God has vastly different values. His economic values include no debt, no interest rates, a minimum standard of living, no working oneself to death for meagre pay and high taxes; and a slow, steady, sustainable level of growth [1].”

Often unstated and implied in such a view (though it is directly stated in White’s work, available upon request) is a hostility to contemporary forms of capitalism and a desire to return to earlier and “simpler” economic conditions. What is invariably left out is a detailed discussion and elaboration of what minimum standard of living is desired or acceptable (presumably for others) and what sort of growth is sustainable. Nor is it explained how a subsistence agrarian-based economy is supposed to avoid borrowing. There is a nest of contradictions within this ideal, even if much truth is expressed in it. Let us therefore deal with the shibboleth of sustainability believed by many and expressed here by Mr. White in two ways. Let us first untangle some of the difficulties in what is meant by these words which mask deeper tensions and contradictions, and then let us let God speak for Himself as to His ideal economy, based upon His word.

Let us begin by underlying what sort of vision for an economy is viewed in contrast to the modern horrors of overworked factory workers in third world countries or low-paid and debt-ridden service economy automatons in the ‘developed’ world. The ideal expressed by King Bhomipol, which would probably be agreed to by Mr. White, is a vision of fairly simple agriculture, with small villages farming enough for their own needs and a small surplus, farming a variety of crops and avoiding plantation monoculture. Urbanization, if it is to exist at all, is envisioned as being mainly for the purposes of limited trade or governmental purposes, along with perhaps a sprinkling of culture supported by elites and historical palaces or castles or plantation houses or other elite architecture, along with historical monuments and a traditional culture that supports traditional elites and avoids or minimizes the presence of democratic institutions that threaten change and instability. Perhaps it would not be phrased so baldly, but after some haggling and probing, this is the sort of vision that would probably be seen as being God’s design for society.

I do not know if Mr. White has come from a small farming background. I speak from personal experience as loathing it. I loathed the sores and itching from plants I was allergic to, the hard work of throwing bales of hay or cleaning manure from stalls in a barn, or getting baked by the brutal summer sun while sitting in a trailer pulled by a tractor for harvesting corn and hay on a reasonably sized 130 acre family farm. I also hated being looked down on in every town and suburb my family visited as an uneducated and uncultured rube because of the farm clothes one has to wear, or coming from a family that was clearly not wealthy. I hated the poverty and the grinding nature of the work, and even more than this the disrespect from others. This experience is not limited to farming families from the United States. I have seen the same problems in Thailand as well. No one likes to be treated the way that small farmers do, taken advantage of by political and economic elites, told to be content with their poverty while everyone else enjoys the fruits of their labors, and blamed for all of the problems of uneven economic development for their modest efforts at bettering their own miserable lives.

There are very few options that allow for reasonably profitable farming on a large scale, and even survival is difficult in a day and age of wild weather extremes and laws designed to benefit the wealthy and screw everyone else over as rapidly and completely and unpleasantly as possible. Yet, even were a better legal order to be established, it would not make farming an enjoyable or rewarding experience. In particular, as anyone with any knowledge of farming would be able to understand, there are two choices as to farming successfully. Either farming must be capital intensive or labor intensive. If capital intensive, it is going to require large amounts of money for tractors, fertilizer, and automated processes. It would probably also require a fair bit of borrowing and debt at the outset, and would probably not be judged as sustainable agriculture by King Bhomipol or Craig White or anybody else. But the labor-intensive agriculture, depending on animal manure and avoiding environmentally destructive pesticides or fertilizers or carbon dioxide-spewing machinery, offers its own problems. For one, labor-intensive agriculture requires a cheap labor source, and that means either large (and rather poor) families or a permanent economic underclass that serves as a labor source for wealthier landowners, or both, as in the case of sharecropping.

In either case, one faces the problem that those who perform the labor fail to receive the benefits because the system is designed for the benefit of some at the expense of the poor many. This is, after all, what undeveloped countries and their agricultural systems look like, and it is a sad reality that for many people in such countries (like Thailand) working like a drudge in a factory in Bangkok or Seoul is considered a step up from the drudgery of buffalo work in one’s home village. This ought to give pause to anyone who wants to support such a labor-intensive farming model as a ‘sustainable’ form of agriculture. If one cannot keep the kids at home and working in the village, the economic model is not sustainable, and if such farming is unappealing to someone who is as disinterested in greed as I am, it has little chance of appealing to most young people around the world in this day and age. And coerced farm labor, a la the Khmer Rouge or the Chinese Cultural Revolution or the Stalinist collectivist farming model, is not appealing for those who are dead set against left-wing political practices, as is the case with Mr. White.

There are other tensions, of course, in the view of sustainable and debt-free agriculture as proposed by Craig White that makes it unlikely that he has ever tried farming before. There never has been any sort of large-scale agricultural system that has been free of borrowing. And that is for good reason—farmers with minimal savings and a minimal standard of living are often unable to afford seed for crops, equipment, food and clothing for themselves and feed for their animals, material to repair homes and barns, and all the other supplies that are necessary even for a fairly simple life without borrowing. Historically speaking, interest rates and unsustainable debt levels were extreme for farmers, making sustainable small-time agriculture an oxymoron. For example, Roman wealthy charged farmers monthly interest, and interest has been charged on farmers since at least 5000BC or so [2]. Worse, when catastrophe comes, like a flood or drought or plague of locusts or any number of natural disasters that befall farmers, there is no income to pay back any loans. In such circumstances, it is not surprising that small farmers have rarely lasted longer than a few generations in a society throughout history, unless there have been unusually stringent legal protections on debtors and small farmers, and those are rare (though biblical).

And, as if these objections were not sufficient enough, then there is the delicate matter of hypocrisy to discuss. It is extremely hypocritical for people to preach a simple life for others when they live in palaces, receive tens or hundreds of millions of dollars for their royal families and private business, are supported by extensive and corrupt political and economic and military elites, and live in fine palaces while others are supposed to sustain one’s lifestyle by living in bamboo houses or dirt-floored hovels. Even to support corrupt monarchical establishments while preaching sustainable and simple lifestyles to others is hypocritical enough. Again, if the simple life is best, those who preach it should desire it for themselves and not merely preach it for others. If one’s standard of living cannot be copied by everyone else where it is sustainable, it ought not to be acceptable for anyone whose true concerns are sustainability. It is, after all, grossly unjust to preach a standard for others that one is unwilling to follow for one’s self.

Having addressed at least a few of the concerns that demonstrate that sustainable economies are not nearly as sustainable as they claim, let us address the core issue at heart in Mr. Craig’s attempt at defining God’s ideal economic system. Let us remember some of the key elements of Mr. White’s ideal economic system: no debt, no interest, a minimum standard of living, and slow, steady, and sustainable rates of growth.” While it is fairly easy to concede a great deal of truth in such a definition, such catchphrases often become shibboleths because they lack real content to support the empty phrases and content-free ideals. So, let us now examine what God says about His ideal economic system from His own words.

Perhaps the most extensive explanation of God’s ideal economic system can be found in Deuteronomy 28:1-14, so let us look at it and then comment on its implications: “Now it shall come to pass, if you diligently obey the voice of the Lord your God, to observe carefully all His commandments which I command you today, that the Lord your God will set you high above all nations of the earth. And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, because you obey the voice of the Lord your God: Blessed shall you be in the city, and blessed shall you be in the country. Blessed shall be the fruit of your body, the produce of your ground and the increase of your herds, the increase of your cattle and the offspring of your flocks. Blessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. Blessed shall you be when you come in, and blessed shall you be when you go out. The Lord will cause your enemies who rise up against you to be defeated before your face; they shall come out against you one way and flee before you seven ways. The Lord will command the blessing on you in your storehouses and in all which you set your hand, and He will bless you in the land which the Lord your God is giving you. The Lord will establish you as a holy people to Himself, just as He has sworn to you, if you keep the commandments of the Lord your God and walk in His ways. Then all the peoples of the earth shall see that you are called by the name of the Lord, and they shall be afraid of you. And the Lord will grant you plenty of goods, in the fruit of your body, in the increase of your livestock, and in the produce of your ground, in the land of which the Lord swore to your fathers to give you. The Lord will open to you His good treasure, the heavens, to give the rain to your land in its season, and to bless all the work of your hand. You shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow. And the Lord will make you the head and not the tail; you shall be above only, and not beneath, if you heed the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you today, and are careful to observe. So you shall not turn aside from any of the words which I command you this day, to the right or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them.”

The most obvious aspect of this conditional promise of blessings is that is conditional on the obedience of Israel to the whole package of laws and commandments. Included in the hundreds of laws of laws are many laws about business practices, including the Sabbath (giving rest to all laborers, even animals), land Sabbath, debt forgiveness, humane treatment of even slaves, prompt payments of wages, just weights and measures, avoidance of charging interest to one’s brethren, the Jubilee (returning land back to original families every 49 years to avoid the building up of large landholdings and a permanent aristocracy), including laws that forbade kings from building an expensive military establishment or hoarding gold or silver or wives for themselves or even viewing themselves above their brethren, among many other laws of a similar spirit. There is no record of any society obeying these laws during any part of human history. Even among those who claim to worship God today as part of the Church of God and obey His laws, the whole corpus of biblical law is largely unknown, much less obeyed. That is to say, there is no nation or even an organized group of people that has ever met or currently meets the standard to receive these blessings. And no economic system that departs from God’s ways can be expected to bring lasting and sustainable blessings.

Let us also note, that assuming a given nation wanted to follow God’s legal system and was in a covenantal relationship with God and received the blessings, that the blessings for that nation would be far from a “minimal standard of living” and a “slow, steady, sustainable rate of growth.” Instead, God promises a blessed increase of children, animals, food crops, and economic goods. Moreover, these blessings are both for the city and the country, demonstrating that God’s ideal society has a balance between town and country (see Zechariah 8:4-5) rather than simply being full of subsistence agrarian peasants. No slow rate of growth in a godly nation’s economy is meant here, nor in other passages that describe the millennial blessings of God (see Amos 9:13-15, for example). Rather, God wants to give an abundant life to all who believe him, from the hardworking farmer who owns his own vine and fig tree (Micah 4:4) to those of us who prefer to live in cities. God’s blessings of goods and a good life are for all, not merely for a privileged elite who does not live by the same rules as everyone else. And let us not forget that according to the Bible it is the hardworking farmer that should be the first to partake of the crops, not, as in the “sustainable” agrarian societies of this world last or not at all (see 2 Timothy 2:6).

Likewise, while we see that a country receiving God’s blessing is not a borrowing nation in debt (unlike our own society and its inhabitants), we see that when God blesses a country that it lends to others as a way of gaining increased economic power. Far from hating interest, God enjoys interest, when He or His people is the recipient of those blessings. After all, is not Jesus Christ compared to a lord who gives his servants talents and minas with the expectation that those servants profit for their master’s sake, and at least (if they are not business savvy) but their money in the bank so that their master may receive interest? Receiving interest is not something that God is opposed to either for Himself or His people, even if the godly ideal is not to owe others anything but love (Romans 13:8).

We might therefore, in light of the blessings that God has planned for all, why those who claim to desire a godly or proper economic system desire poverty and misery for others, so that the system can be “sustainable” while they desire great wealth and pomp for themselves and their elites. Why do they claim that the world cannot sustain great blessings when God promises blessings in all parts of life for those who believe and obey Him. Who are we to contradict God? If God promises sustainable blessings for all, a standard of living for all citizens beyond our wildest dreams without debt, who are we to claim that wealth can only be enjoyed by a small and privileged minority, or where the wealth of some depends on the exploitation of cheap labor sources contrary to God’s ways. After all, did not James say of the wealthy landowners in James 5:1-4: “Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coming upon you! Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver are corroded, and their corrosion will be a witness against you and will eat up your flesh like fire. You have heaped up treasure in the last days. Indeed the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you have kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the reapers have reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts. You have lived on the earth in pleasure and luxury; you have fattened your hearts as in a day of slaughter. You have condemned, you have murdered the just; he does not resist you.” Should not those who preach a sustainable and modest lifestyle be the first to model it? And should they not wish for the well being of all instead of only their own selfish interests, as God desires the well being of all?

Of course, it is difficult to know exactly what is thought of as sustainable by the vast majority of people who claim to support that sort of lifestyle. It certainly would appear as if such people are showing hostility to the people of the world who are seeking to develop their economies and their countries the only way man knows how (which is through the wholesale destruction of creation and the exploitation of people in low-wage drudgery). That said, those of us who are the beneficiaries of prior development ought not to point fingers at others while we still enjoy the fruits of those who did the same thing one or two centuries before. In the end, the only sustainable growth is that which comes from God as blessings for obedience to His ways. There is no genuine growth under any other political or economic model known to man, whether it steals from or oppresses the many or the few.

[1] Craig White, “Race, Nations and Ethnicity.” Unpublished Manuscript. 8

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interest