No Rising Tide?

In No Rising Tide Joerg Rieger challenges the relevance of President John F. Kennedy’s well-known statement that “A rising tide lifts all boats.” (1)  As the Occupy movements have brought to the headlines in recent months, “the gaps between the very wealthy and the rest of the population keep increasing” and “life-and-death struggles are no longer just a matter for the poorest of the poor.” (3) Even New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who Rieger identifies as “a long-time supporter of globalization who [has] great faith in the free market” has said, “We are going to have to learn to live with a lot more uncertainty for a lot longer than our generation has ever experiences.” (2)

Rieger challenges us to evaluate our assumptions about the economy and free markets.  Observing that often we believe “the authority of economics is unquestionable and often even infallible, and in the assumption that the current system is the only one that is viable” he suggests that there are parallels between economics and religion.  He cites theologian and Union Theological Seminary professor Paul Knitter as one who has gone as far as to say that the market is a religion and therefore, should be in conversation with other religions. (6)

What would that discourse look like? What would the questions be? Rieger suggests several: “On which authorities, powers, and energies do we rely? [Are they the right ones?] What is it that gives us ultimate hope, shapes our desires, and provides reasonable levels of stability?” (4)

These questions matter because in this disparate world where we live “power and influence determine who gets to shape the world, who gets recognized, and whose ideas count.”(3)  One example of an explicit theology of economics is pronounced by Michael Novak, an American Enterprise Institute scholar to whom Rieger attributes the idea that “the status quo should not be challenged since this is the way God intends things to be.”(6)  Arguing that often the relationship between economics and theology is more implicit than explicit, Rieger suggests “the principles of mainline economics are mostly taken for granted by religious communities, presupposed as part of the way things are, and virtually never discussed in critical fashion.” (10) Because the principles are embedded, “Hope, even in the midst of the most severe economic crisis, is thus built on the faith that things will eventually get between and that the reign of free-market economics will be reaffirmed.” (7)

Why don’t we talk more about “the alternative approaches to the world of economics”? (11) How can we awaken critical self-reflection of our economic positions, and initiate a movement away from market fundamentalism which promotes adherence without “consideration of changes in context or the real needs and concerns of people?” (14-15) At this point, I am not advocating one position over another; instead what I want to do is to echo Rieger that we have a responsibility to understand more about the world in which we live and the assumptions that are built into the systems and institutions that we live within.