abraham kuyper and economic teleology

7/30/2019 Abraham Kuyper and Economic Teleology

1/7

Introduction: Architectonic Critique and Context

A properly thorough architectonic critique of the present neo-liberal economic system would

necessarily involve an investigation of many extra-economic elements. Since sociological, political,

philosophical and theodramtic elements all contribute to the present economic architecture, the full1

critique of the economic aspect cannot occur in isolation without risking the presentation of a myopic

view. However, with this risk of myopia recognized, it is still suitable to specifically address economics

itself since the bulk of the critique is, at least hypothetically, economic.

Teleology Revisited: Confessional and Economic Concerns

It will certainly seem unnatural to some to introduce teleology into the Kuyperian framework.

After all, Kuyper, Dooyeweerd and many others have maintained a separation between the Reformed

social theory from Catholic social teaching with its roots in Aristotle and Plato.2

This concern should not be taken lightly. The recent increase in cooperation between Kuyperians and

Catholics on a practical level has not shifted the fundamental theoretical disagreements. Therefore,3

teleology will be preliminarily restructured to be compatible with the Kuyperian framework before it is

applied to the economic problem as the central tool of critique.

Another concern is the role of teleological arguments in economics. Since the scientific

revolution, teleological elements have been relegated to metaphysical rather than scientific questions and

therefore are not intuitively appropriate for a discipline as scientific as modern economics. Most4

analysis of the validity of one economic theory over another may be traced back to arguments about the

relationship of theory to empirical data and vice-versa.Of course, this dualism between the natural and the moral is not tolerable to Kuyperians who

confess Christs unifying lordship. However, the moral and teleological critiques in the history of

economics are unavoidable. As Roy Clouser has shown, no theories, including theories relating to

economics, are morally neutral. For example, one of F.A. Hayeks complaints against Keynesianism5

1Kevin Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology. (Louiville, KY 2005). The

term theodramatic refers to a way of viewing the world through the theatrical metaphor in which God is the playwright and

creation is the stage. In this light, economic exchange might be viewed as a sub-plot, with a small place within the broader

theological dramatic narrative.2

Although Kuyper said that the robustness of catholic social teaching was something for Reformed people to aspire to (MichaelNovak, Markets & Morality 2002).

3See, for example, Michael Novaks Human Dignity, Personal Liberty: Themes from Abraham Kuyper and Leo XIII. (Grand

Rapids, Vol. 5, No. 1 Spring 2002), 1-3. Also, Stephen V. Monsma, Pluralism and Freedom: Faith-Based Organizations in a

Democratic Society. (Rowman & Littlefield, 2012), 128-138.

4Milton Friedman, The Methodology of Positive Economics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1966.5Roy Clouser, The Myth of Religious Neutrality: An Essay on the Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories . (Notre Dame:

University of Notre Dame Press, 2005), 4.


2/7

was its collectivist impulse. Keynes in turn expressed moral aversion at the plebeian impulse of thrift.6 7

These moral arguments are essentially teleological. Hayeks complaint is that Keynesianism drives

toward the endof collectivism. Keynes aversion to thrift was not irrational, but was driven by what he

viewed as the chaotic end of an economy so constituted. Nowhere is Keynes utopian ideal for a

planned economy more evident than in this workThe Economic Possibilities of our Grandchildren.Again, it is clear that a teleology necessarily exists, but it is not informed by the truth of Christianity.

So how might a Kuyperian allow for morality to play a part? There is no neutral position.

Kuypers answer to which morality? is simple: the confessional morality required by the Christianity o

the Bible. But Christianity seems to be often at a loss: there is a disconnect between the largely8

deontological ethics of the historic Reformed faith and the teleological vision necessary for economics.

The Necessity of Teleology

The teleological question for economics is about the good over the right. As Max L.Stackhouse has said, these questions are at the very heart of philosophical theology. The problem is

this: the right and the good must both be fulfilled and joined together for a full justice, but in human

thought as well as in human actions, they rarely are. 9

At every scale, economics is about choices between many goods. The deontological element in

the economic choices and contracts that people make is critical but not exhaustive. Teleology can help

fill in the missing information: for example, by guiding us on which contracts to take, or how monetary

policy can be structured. Those kinds of questions cannot be answered with dont do it or with

however you feel. We do not want to conduct monetary policy based on ad hoc decisions rather, it

must be guided by a teleological vision. There must be a different kind of approach that can includeends within the theoretical moral framework, without dissolving into raw utilitarianism.

Teleological ethics is the study of the relationship between an object and the ends it ought

pursue. It is easy to see how this applies to the problem with the more open ended ethical questions10

and ends the false dilemma of either do not do X or it does not matter how you do X. For

questions that seem singularly deontological (Should I commit murder?) teleology says you ought not

6F.A. Hayek, Enrico Barone. Collectivist Economic Planning. (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, LTD.). Though part of Hayeks

project was the separation of normative and positive economics, the moral element was still present.

7J.M. Keynes,A Short View of Russia. 1972, p 269. ...the social appeal to the hoarding instinct as the foundation of thenecessary provision the family and the future. -- again, see comment. Not necessarily a moral argument.8When addressing the German scholar Rudolph von Jhering, a social utilitarian, Kuyper accuses him not of denying God, but

departing from the Christian ethic because he removes God as the teleological agent of morality. James Bratt, trans.Abraham

Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, Abraham Kuyper, The Blurring of the Boundaries, (Grand Rapids: The Paternoster Press, 1998),

379.9Max L. Stackhouse, Covenantal Justice in a Global Era. Institute for Reformed Theology. .10From Aristotle and Plato -- http://secure.pdcnet.org/philtopics/content/philtopics_1987_0015_0002_0035_0050 // This is

actually the thrust of that Max Stackhouse quote. Its about how do you ethically reach the end/telos that you are pursuing.
http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsecure.pdcnet.org%2Fphiltopics%2Fcontent%2Fphiltopics_1987_0015_0002_0035_0050&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNF0hg5ro0dOWjDEgZGuGdT4sKVPSghttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fsecure.pdcnet.org%2Fphiltopics%2Fcontent%2Fphiltopics_1987_0015_0002_0035_0050&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNF0hg5ro0dOWjDEgZGuGdT4sKVPSg


3/7

pursue those ends. For questions that are indeterminate (Should I wear red or blue today,) teleology

says that either would be a proper end to pursue. This designation of either end is proper is different

from deontologys either action is not wrong. There is a positivity in teleology that makes ethics

involved in the Good in a way that deontology never can alone.

However, to import teleology without alteration would be to invite a foreign body into theKuyperian system. Teleology is the natural provenance of classical, medieval and scholastic revivalists.

To be able to intellectually justify the venture, one must rediscover teleology growing naturally in the soi

of Reformed presuppositions. One feature that is particularly notable in non-Kuyperian teleology is its

dualism, which divides objects between form and matter. Of course, these divisions range from radical

Platonic teleological dualism to more moderate Aristotelian teleological dualism but in either case the

divide is present. Kuyperianism cannot accommodate this teleology yet because Christianity requires a

careful unity that avoids both uniformity and dualism. Kuyper famously called uniformity the curse o11

modern life because it is fundamentally a perversion of the true unity that is only found in God. 12

Dualism, of course, is also against the Christian idea since Christ Himself, by His incarnation, is the unityof all things, metaphysical and material.13

Sphere sovereignty is able to give the conceptual link between the two kinds of theory. In the

Reformed worldview, the Kuyperian spheres reach towards self-established ends. There is a unity in14

three respects. First, both ends and means are pre-established by God himself, so there is a unity of

authorship. Second, all ends arrive with their means in tow to culminate into one end, the glory of God15

(soli Deo gloria), so there is a unity of final effect. Third, these ends are part of the organic historical

unfolding of the spheres. As a sphere instantiates by differentiating from society, it forms its own ends16

This is a unity of material that is not possible in the original, dualistic, teleological schemes. The17

Kuyperian drive for unity exposes the non-Christian error of dualism. With Kuyperian Sphere18

Sovereignty rightly recast in a new teleological light, one is left with a conceptual tool that may solve

dualistic puzzles. Economics has a very clear dualistic puzzle: the division between microeconomics and

11All dualisms run directly counter to the demands of the thought process, for it can rest on its laurels only when everything,

without exception, is subsumed under a single concept. James Bratt, trans. Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, Abraham

Kuyper, The Blurring of the Boundaries, (Grand Rapids: The Paternoster Press, 1998), 374.12Kuyper, Abraham, and James D. Bratt.Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader. Grand Rapids,

MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1998. Print. 20-2113And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. Colossians 1:17 ESV

14Abraham Kuyer, Lectures on Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1931), 90-91.15Abraham Kuyer, Lectures on Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1931), 84-8516Chaplin, Jonathan.Herman Dooyeweerd: Christian Philosopher of State and Civil Society. Notre

Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 2011. Print. 86-8717 Ibid18John Frame. Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought. (Phillipsburg: P&R 1995). 234. Van Tils rational/irrational dialectic

articulates how non-Christians are prone to false dualism. It shows that non-Christians believe individual thought is unifying the

criterion of truth. Yet at the same time this rationality exists in a universe that is based on chance or a less than perfectly ordered

God. Dualism can, in the non-Christian thought system, run unchecked because the basis for unity under God is nonexistent.


4/7

macroeconomics.19

Premonitions of Unity

It was not until the new emphasis on rational expectations and Neo-Keynesianism around 60years later that a move towards greater unity was advanced.20

Even so, the Neo-Classical synthesis continues almost unchanged even after the economic crisis, and

dualism remains. The crisis prompted many to question the fundamental architecture of the economy,

but few answers to the theoretical problem have been raised, with the most popular answer proposing

impossibilities like having more ethical people manage the money.

This is a clear place that Kuyperians can be ahead of the curve in diagnosing the problem of

conceptual dualism and working on a solution of unity through sphere sovereignty teleology. The

Neo-Classical synthesis suffers a disadvantage and an advantage. It is disadvantaged in that the

narrowly empirical research appropriate to their discipline cannot, in principle, consider alternatives untia Khunian revolution occurs because of the absence of philosophical reflection. The advantage,

however, is that the empirical problems a Kuyperian economist might offer can be recognized by the

Neo-Classicist because of the common acceptance of empirical evidence.

One place to start would be the Austrian School of economics. Although many of their

conclusions and methods might be empirically suspect and, originally, they maintained the unity of

economic theory by largely ignoring the macroeconomic aspect, there has been a recent movement in

the school to consider macroeconomic questions and their so-called micro-foundations.21

Whether the specifics of this project are successful is for people wiser than the authors to discuss, but

the method, goaland desire are appropriate to the need for unity in economics.

Actual Application of Kuyperian Teleology: Policy

Teleological Sphere Sovereignty critiques both Keynesians and libertarians. On the question of

growth, both criticisms are about individualism. Our teleological theory criticizes hyper-individualism i

Keynes focus on the short run. As John Maynard Keynes himself put it, in the long run, were all

dead.22

Discussion of long-run equilibria is irrelevant, for Keynes, because of the indeterminacy of when that

19G. Chris Rodrigo, Micro and Macro: The Economic Divide. IMF: Finance & Development. March 28, 2012. .20 Rational Expectations and Neo-Keynesian Analysis // Oliver Cayla, Jean-Louis Halperin, Eds. Dictionnaire des grandes oeuvres

juridiques. Peter Howitt, On Keynsian Economics and the Economics of Keynes: A Study in Monetary Theory. (France:

Dalloz-Sirey, 2010). http://www.econ.brown.edu/fac/Peter_Howitt/publication/Dalloz.pdf21Microfoundations and Macroeconomics and Time and Moneyby Horwitz and Garrison respectively22 John M. Keynes.A Tract on Monetary Reform (1923) Ch. 3 The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run

we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that

when the storm is past the ocean is flat again.


5/7

long-run arrives and the avoidable cost of the intervening disequilibrium. For Keynes, the individual

now is the primary ethical unit. For Kuyperians, the individual, the family, the nation and all the spheres

extend through time and have dignity. This is the biblical stance emanating from the notion of providing

an inheritance . Therefore, Keynes view is at odds with a Kuyperian vision, which would presumably23

view long run growth as a more proper end.Although libertarians might be excited about Kuyperian support for very long run growth instead

of short run meddling, the libertarian emphasis on the individual is also a problem. Opposition to

government intervention, as a function of individualism, is the entry point for libertarian support of long

run growth. A direct telos of national long run growth, with an emphasis on institutions over

hyper-individualism, is the entry point for Kuyperian support of similar policies. Therefore, while

short-run corrective shocks might make common ground between Kuyperians and Libertarians,

Kuyperian willingness to fund projects that benefit long-run growth with government money, like

education, research grants and infrastructure, means there cannot be a simply united front on economic

policy between the two parties.

Actual Application of Kuyperian Teleology: Practicing Economics

The Sphere Sovereignty of economic exchange is displayed by the rule of law upholding

economic contracts. Certainly this aspect of justice in sovereignty is one important aspect of the telos of

practical economics.

Three aspects for the individual to consider are those of Stewardship, Providence and Blessing. They

allow economic exchanges to be characterized by more than I didnt do the wrong thing. Everyexchange is an exercise in stewarding resources God has entrusted to us. By His Providence He

delivers these resources to us for stewarding and stewarding itself is a special instrument of His

Providence. And one must not forget that even the monetary gain the individual receives through this

process is part of Gods work of blessing. By His sovereignty over economics, the opportunity, the24

event itself and its rewards are all to be properly celebrated as gracious gifts.

Note that Gods divine coordination of economics is by His mysterious work of Providence and not by

a rational rule or fiat (though these play their part). In this way, the telos of individuals is ex-ante

indeterminate but ex-post guided by these three ends God is securing (Stewardship, Providence and

Blessing) by His Spirit.

23A good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children, but the sinner's wealth is laid up for the righteous. Proverbs

13:22 ESV.24You shall remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth, that he may confirm his covenant that

he swore to your fathers, as it is this day. (Deuteronomy 8:18, ESV)


6/7

Conclusion

Modern capitalism suffers from an incoherence problem born of over-pragmatism this presents an

opportunity for Kuyperians armed with a teleological economic vision to contribute to the wider

discussion on economics. Nevertheless, it is not a different economic system but a capitalismreconsidered with the right ends in mind towards which Kuyperians should devote their energy.

On the economic policy side of the situation, the priority of institutions over individuals means rejection

of both the short-run focus of Keynesianism and the individualistic focus of libertarianism. Practically,

this means that the state does not attempt to micro-manage the short-run economy with bailouts,

quantitative easing, stimulus, tax cuts and manipulative monetary policy but instead focuses on long run

growth. But at the same time, the state may actively encourage institutions that contribute to long-run

growth, like higher education and scientific research, contrary to the libertarian vision.

As far as the organic nature of real economics in itself is concerned, the movement of economic gains

and losses over the course of history is guided by God, toward an end that is for His glory. The

participation of people as in this process is guided not only by theological ethics, which help inform

individuals and institutions to make righteous exchanges, but also the broader teleological vision of a

coherent, unified end.

In this way, the freedom of economic life to sprawl organically according to Providence and the

long-run vision of government economic policy complement one another in teleological Sphere

Sovereignty. While such an end or ends might seem inappropriately indeterminate to standardteleology, the desire to bring God glory and allow the unfolding of His economic organization is certainly

legitimate as a fixed end to be pursued.

As a final note, there is nothing in this paper that suggests that economic intervention in social problems

through partially economic assistance, such as entitlement programs or welfare, are delegitimized by this

admittedly strict view of the States role in economic activity. A structure of progressive benefits for

certain classes is a related but ultimately separate matter. The desire for a more equal society combined

with a view of economics that finds the human indeterminacy of the its ends hidden in the divine

determinacy of Providence is not ultimately contradictory.

We hope we have explicated some thoughts on Kuyperian views of economics and reinvigorated some

discussion on the justification of sphere sovereignty. There is clearly more research to be done on this

conversion of classical teleology into Reformed teleology, but we hope it has been demonstrated that

the richness of the teleological moral vision is more appropriate for the rich intricacies of economic


7/7

policy questions.

abraham kuyper and economic teleology

Documents