So it is really amusing to hear through the grapevine that Moody Press has just published a book that discusses me and my underwear choices. Apparently chapter 8 of the recently released book Good Intentions uses a poorly (barely) paraphrased version of my “Justice Bra” article from the God’s Politics blog as an extended illustration (to read, enter my name in the “search inside this book” function on Amazon). Now it is one thing to use my own voice to write a somewhat tongue-in-cheek article about buying a bra, but it is a tad creepy to have two (male) economists open a chapter by stating “Julie Clawson needed a new bra.”
The book hadn’t crossed my radar yet (not like I read much out of Moody Press these days), but I found it intriguing that its basic concept is similar to the book I am currently writing for IVP. Both books address relevant issues of our day and attempt to give a Christian response (the issues aren’t all the same though). I’ve only read excerpts of Good Intentions, but from what I can gather our perspectives and conclusions are rather divergent. The Good Intentions promo carries the tagline “few things are more dangerous than good intentions” which gives a good indication as to it’s perspective on people who care about stuff like the environment. The description of the book states that because the Bible is about “morality” it is difficult to apply scriptural principles to economics, so we instead need to apply economic theory to the Bible to understand how best to live. I obviously have an issue with that sort of thinking, believing instead that Biblical morality should be what determines our economic systems in the first place. But it’s not surprising to still find Christians who believe that free-market capitalism was invented by God and should be worshiped as the fourth member of the Trinity.
From the parts I read regarding my “Justice Bra” article, I found that the authors fell into the typical trap common in that line of thinking. To them there exist only two options when it comes to things like sweatshops – either people get paid pittance in an often abusive situation or they have no job at all. Their argument is that people like me seeking “fair and just” products are actually hurting the workers because by demanding the end of sweatshops we are putting people out of jobs. They argue that it is better for the people to have a job rather than not and therefore I am being unjust in buying a “justice bra” and not some $8 piece of crap at Wal-Mart. But they are assuming a false dichotomy here and really missing the point those of us calling for justice make. There is no reason why people should have to choose between a crappy job and no job at all. The idea is that since the cruel sweatshop jobs shouldn’t exist because they are immoral, they need to be reformed into jobs that treat the workers with dignity and pay them fairly. It is about redeeming the system, not destroying it. A good, decent, and safe job needs to be an option – the primary option – for workers everywhere. And if an economic system exists that doesn’t allow for the possibility of such jobs, I have a hard time understanding how Christians should be encouraged to participate in it.
But then again as I see it, rubber-stamping the status quo as “biblical” is far more dangerous than anyone’s good intentions to “act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with their God.”