Similar extreme assertions can also be found in some parts of the Chris­tian Heritage Party statements on this matter. In the CHP program, we read:

"Private property is a Divine providence" and "We affirm that work and Responsible Free Enterprise  were assigned to man at the time of creation."

If such statements are correct, achieve­ment of Free Enterprise is a biblical end or goal that all Christians must vigorously strive towards. Personally, I am convinced that these statements are not correct. Instead, I believe that we must be much more cautious in our application of Scripture to economic life. In my view,

Free Enterprise is not a Christian end in itself but merely a means to achieve other biblical ends or objectives.

The implication of this thesis is that Free Enterprise is something to strive for only as long as and to the extent that it achieves these other goals.

To develop this theme, I will try to do three things:

1. I will, in the remainder of this article, show why, in my view, Free Enterprise is not a biblical end in itself, i.e., the Bible does not make the case that Free Enter­prise is the Christian economic system,

2. in a second article, I will, D.V., discuss the extent to which Free Enterprise may be a means to achieve biblical goals, i.e., may be said to be biblical, and

3. in a final article, I hope to set out the limitations of Free Enterprise, i.e., show that it can only be a partial means to biblical ends.

To consider why Free Enterprise is not a biblical end in itself, I will look at three approaches put forward by those who argue that Free Enterprise is the Christian economic alternative — all three, in my view, faulty:

1. it is claimed that biblical proof texts exist which clearly prove that Free Enterprise is the Chris­tian alternative,

2. it is claimed that because Free Enterprise encourages individual freedom, it is, therefore, auto­matically biblical,

3. and finally, it is claimed that Free Enterprise is biblical because communism is antibiblical.

1. Proof Texts⤒🔗

I doubt very much that biblical proof texts exist which prove that Free Enterprise is the Christian alternative. Let's look at some examples.

For instance, Harold Lindsell, in his book, Free Enterprise — a Judeo-Christian Defense argues that "private property is given in nature by the crea­tive fiat of nature's God" and "no law passed by ... a legislature can expro­priate property from the owner." In fact, any such action, he refers to as "theft" and, therefore, contrary to the eighth commandment.

However, in Matthew 22:21, Jesus tells us to "give Caesar what is Cae­sar's" and in Romans 13:6, 7 we read, "this is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants ... if you owe taxes, pay taxes." The point is, if taxation — taking of part of some­one's duly earned property — is scrip­turally accepted, why should expropri­ation by government for just compen­sation be considered stealing?

Further purported proofs cited are the division of land in Israel and the protection of these inheritances through the Jubilee laws. That is, it is argued that since God ordained that the Israelites must all have their own land, we also must all have our own land or pri­vate property. However, these were "civil laws" — not applicable in the New Testament dispensation. J. Douma, in his book, Christian Morals and Ethics, writes (p. 28) "these laws, in­tended as they had been for the old covenant people in the land of Canaan, had no validity as integral legislation for Christians in other lands." Of course, they still have meaning for us. He says, we must seek out the substance, the essence of these laws, e.g., "God want­ed to impress upon His people that He was the Lord of the harvest, the owner of the land ... that He not only had an eye for man and his social relations but also for land and animals." How­ever, to take these laws literally as meaning that God requires us to have private property, is, in my view, quite wrong.

Consider also Acts 4 and 5, the situation in the early Christian church. Proponents of capitalism point to 5:4 where Peter tells Ananias, "didn't it belong to you before it was sold? and after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal?" However, socialists point to 4:32 "no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own but they shared everything they had." While they are wrong to interpret this situa­tion as requiring us "to hold all prop­erty in common," we would be equally wrong to use 5:4 to say that the Bible requires individual private property holdings.

As a last example, consider the CHP's claim that "private property is a Divine providence." This section re­fers in a footnote to Micah 4:4, "every man will sit under his own vine and under his own fig tree." Now I believe that the Reformed approach to reading Scripture is to stress the context. If we do that here, we see from v. 4 that this is a prophecy concerning the "last days" when "the mountain of the Lord's temple will be established as chief among the mountains." To take these promises for our final glory as a bib­lical mandate for Free Enterprise now, is, in my opinion, a dangerous taking of text out of context.

More texts could be discussed — with equally unconvincing result. In my view, the Bible merely indicates that private property is acceptable. It does not follow that private enterprise must exist, that everyone must have private property, that government own­ership of any property is forbidden or that any government involvement in the economy is wrong.

Both Christians who favor capi­talism and those who favor socialism attempt to prove their point by refer­ence to specific proof texts. But, as Clark Pinnock (prof. of theology at McMaster University) has pointed out, "if the Bible does teach this policy, it is strange that we did not discover it earlier."

Let us be careful in interpreting Scriptures. If we make extravagant un­substantiable claims about what the Bi­ble mandates about economic systems, then we run the risk that no one will believe our claims concerning the basic gospel truths — where we can be con­fident about what the Scriptures say. I, therefore, reject the proof text approach.

2. Individual Freedom←⤒🔗

The second argument that, in my view, is used invalidly to argue that Free Enterprise is a scriptural goal, is that because Free Enterprise encour­ages individual freedom, it is, therefore, automatically biblical. This argument we see, for instance, throughout Ronald Nash's book Poverty and Wealth: the Christian debate over Capitalism. Sure, I, as you all no doubt do, like freedom; but, can we claim biblical support for it? Or, is it merely libertarianism, the American way of life, or even our sinful nature?

It is biblical to insist on the free­dom to worship and serve God as He commands; more than that is, I think, nice to have but not necessarily bib­lically mandated. Moreover, I am not convinced, as Lindsell and others argue, that if some of my economic freedom is curtailed, reduced religious freedom will undoubtedly eventually follow. For example, if I am not free to build a sawmill in a residential area of Ancas­ter or to operate a liquor store to com­pete with the existing LCBO outlet, does that mean my religious freedom will soon be abridged? Current moves towards deregulation, in both the U.S. and Canada, is at least an indication that in a democracy it is possible to re­verse direction.

3. Communism is Antiscriptural←⤒🔗

The third example of faulty rea­soning to "prove" that Free Enterprise is a scriptural goal is, in my view, to argue that because communism is anti-Christian, capitalism is automatically Christian. Don't misunderstand me! I am, as I trust you all are, very much against communism and such opposi­tion is biblically founded. Note its de­nial of God and of religious freedom and its pitting of man against man in violent revolution. But, it does not follow, as night follows day, that Free Enterprise is Christian.

That kind of reasoning, naively, simplifies the situation to a two-sided coin: head — communism, tail — cap­italism. In fact, a coin is a poor illus­tration of the situation. A better picture of reality would be a line with complete state control and ownership on one end as one extreme and complete Free En­terprise and the market economy on the other end. We must recognize that we have various degrees of government intervention and ownership in between: a gradual shading of one into the other, not either-or.

Thus, in my view, neither biblical proof texts nor appeals to freedom, nor the spectre of communism, is suf­ficient to prove that striving for free enterprise is a biblical end in itself. Rather, free enterprise is, as we hope to see next time, merely a possible means to achieve biblically-given goals.