Evangelical Ethics

The second century African Christian Tertullian said, "What does Jerusalem have to do with Athens?" In other words, should philosophy be allowed to frame conversations about faith? His obvious answer was no, it should not. He might have asked the question differently, were he asking it today.
Instead of Athens and Jerusalem, philosophy and faith, Tertullian might have asked, “What does Wall Street have to do with Jerusalem?" Why should economics be allowed to set the tone of conversations about faith? What bearing does economics have on religion? In June I read an article in which a Ted Haggard, a national evangelical leader, said the term evangelical stands for pro-free markets and pro-private property. It doesn't bother me that he said that. It bothers me that he's right. The world has turned upside down when evangelical stands for pro-capitalist, pro-war, exclusively pro-American, and, in some circles, anti-poor.
Maybe most contemporary people - evangelical or not - don't remember that historically evangelicals seem to have ranked their priorities like this: Jesus first, then a bunch of other stuff. That other stuff has included the Bible, the Church, abolishing slavery, promoting women's suffrage, protecting the poor, anti-war movements, supporting unions, fighting child labor, starting schools and hospitals, civil rights, opposing abortion, caring for children, feeding the hungry. The usual stuff. Sure, way down the list of priorities, some evangelicals might be capitalists. I think I might be.
But Jesus certainly wasn't. While he didn't endorse any of our current economic systems, his teachings on money are anything but vague. His economic theory: you can't serve God and money both. Make a choice. Feed, clothe, shelter the very least of these brothers and sisters of mine. Sell everything you own, give the money to the poor, then come and follow me. Stop worrying about your clothes and your food; the God who cares for birds in the air and flowers in the fields will care for you, too.
The first Jewish followers of Jesus aimed at sharing everything and patterned their common life by a motto that Karl Marx, of all people, would later borrow: from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.
Capitalism, in and of itself, is not compassionate. Its moral center is self interest. That's why it's impossible to be a Christian and a pure capitalist at the same time. That's also why the church needs to be, as Bono put it, the conscience for the free market, not its apologist.
Since the 1970's evangelicals have become more power and money hungry. But, then again, evangelicals have always been power and money hungry. The problem is that now that hunger is self interested. There was a time when evangelicals were power hungry not for their own gain, but in order to fight the systems of injustice. They ran for office, made money, earned degrees, and embraced new technologies, all for the sake of helping others. Now evangelicals crave those things out of a sense of greed and/or entitlement.
And it’s not just the evangelical crowd. The rest of mainline Christendom in America seems happy to buy into the same old-same old.
Maybe I'm too cynical. Organizations with evangelical roots or contingents like Habitat for Humanity, Bread for the World, Christian Peacemaker Teams, World Vision, Sojourners, World Relief, and Evangelicals for Social Action, along with countless local efforts seek power in order to care for the marginalized, the brothers and sisters of Jesus. My hope, and on good days, even prayer, is that the rest of mainstream evangelicalism will join them. I don’t know if they will.