Consistent with Justice: Irenaeus, Economic Justice, and Providence

While reading Irenaeus, I discovered an interesting train of thought when the bishop of Lyons turned to economics and social justice. It shows how ante-Nicaean Christians had a pretty rich engagement in the world (Rome) around them. Even as Christians, who believed they had a destiny unlike their fellow Gentiles and had been rescued from darkness, they appreciated the providential order that existed. In other words, they weren't naive and weren't "otherworldly" in the negative sense, incapable of realistic assessment. In Irenaeus, one finds a bishop who is not only spiritually rich, pastoral, and intelligent (he spent his time learning the works of heretics to refute them) but quite aware of the world around him. In a lot of ways, from Against the Heretics, Irenaeus is a model bishop.

Anyway, the section I'm going to comment on is from a larger section refuting various objections the "heretics" make. Particularly, Irenaeus rebuts the Marcionites and their attack on the Old Testament. It seems, from what follows, that Marcion sneered at the Israelites decision to flee Egypt. He considered their theft of goods on their way out as immoral. It was more proof that the demiurge (the creator god of the Jews) was unjust and vile. Irenaeus responds thusly:

"In what way, then, did [the Israelites] act unjustly, if out of many things they took a few, they who might have possessed much property had they not served them [[the Egyptians]], and might have gone forth wealthy, while, in fact, by receiving only a very insignificant recompense for their heavy servitude, they went away poor? It is just as if any free man, being forcibly carried away by another, and serving him for many years, and increasing his substance, should be thought, when he ultimately obtains some support, to possess some small portion of his [master's] property, but should in reality depart, having obtained only a little as the result of his own great labours, and out of vast possessions which have been acquired, and this should be made by any one a subject of accusation against him, as if he had not acted properly. He (the accuser) will rather appear as an unjust judge against him who had been forcibly carried away into slavery. Of this kind, then, are these men also, who charge the people with blame, because they appropriated a few things out of many, but who bring no charge against those who did not render them the recompense due to their fathers' services; nay, but even reducing them to the most irksome slavery, obtained the highest profit from them." (Book IV, XXX, 2)

 Irenaeus' point is actually quite stunning, especially when considered from today. The Israelites did not commit theft because what they took (a paltry amount) was their due from years of slavery. Somewhat anachronistically, Irenaeus rejects the absolute rights of property that ground the liberal order. It's hard to remember how this notion is a historical construct that is not the natural way of things. Instead, it doesn't matter that the Egyptians "own" these goods, for the Israelites have a right to compensation. I think such an assessment is far more sane than some absolutism that considers taking bread, when starving, theft. In an order where the vast majority are wage-slaves, Irenaeus is a breath of fresh-air. Christians shouldn't be constrained by absolute notions of property and propriety. Rather, true justice (God's justice) trumps any such faux-moral considerations. It doesn't mean that Christians ought to seek to overthrow governments or institute new regimes (something Irenaeus certainly doesn't countenance, though he eschatologically expects it from Christ as a historic premillennialist). But it doesn't mean we have to live according to the logic of Mammon-driven socio-economic orders.

But, funny enough, Irenaeus gives a subtle jab at Marcion (and thus his followers) for their own participation in a vile order (Rome). The bishop attacks this faux-moral outrage, and insinuates something worse:

"And [these objectors] allege that [the Israelites] acted dishonestly, because, forsooth, they took away for the recompense of their labours, as I have observed, unstamped gold and silver in a few vessels; while they say that they themselves (for let truth be spoken, although to some it may seem ridiculous) do act honestly, when they carry away in their girdles from the labours of others, coined gold, and silver, and brass, with Caesar's inscription and image upon it."

It takes a little background information to pick up the insult. Marcion, before he began his career as a teacher of a school, had been a pretty successful mariner or merchant (thus, he was in the service sector of the economy) in Rome. It was from his home base in the capital that Marcion amassed quite a fortune. He then spent it lavishly on the church, which made him a strong contender with the bishop (and presbyters) as patron. Marcion, when he went rogue, used this money to not only bankroll his new teaching, but lure followers. At one point Marcion almost trapped the Roman church in debt, because the church had come to depend upon his fortunes. In those days, however, the bishops of Rome were of stronger moral fiber. The current bishop decided to return all of Marcion's money (to the cent!) than to leave the church captive to a false teacher.

Thus, the jab becomes clear. How can Marcion complain about injustice when he, as a middle-man, amassed a fortune in Roman coinage? He depends upon the sheer existence of Rome to be able to run his business. Irenaeus goes on:

"If, however, a comparison be instituted between us and them, [I would ask] which party shall seem to have received [their worldly goods] in the fairer manner? Will it be the [Jewish] people, [who took] from the Egyptians, who were at all points their debtors; or we, [who receive property] from the Romans and other nations, who are under no similar obligation to us? Yea, moreover, through their instrumentality the world is at peace, and we walk on the highways without fear, and sail where we will. Therefore, against men of this kind (namely, the heretics) the word of the Lord applies, which says: 'Thou hypocrite [...] pull the mote out of thy brother's eye.'" (Book IV, XXX, 3)

How can Marcion complain? He made his fortune by depending upon the Romans. And if you were to cross-compare between the Egyptians and the Romans, the former were far more wicked! Thus, if Christians benefit from Rome, doesn't that make them more thieving than the just and oppressed Israelites? This argument depends upon a rather positive assessment of Rome. Unlike the Egyptians, Rome has set the world at peace, protecting roads and waterways (where one could be in danger of banditry or piracy). Irenaeus elsewhere is quite aware of Rome's injustice, its pagan cruelty and imperial bloodlust. But, nevertheless, Irenaeus won't look a gift horse in the mouth. God brought about Rome, and the principate, to bring temporal peace (which aids the spread of the gospel).

In this light, Marcion appears as a liberal (in the classical sense and in the theological sense). He decries "evils" in the Old Testament, or is at least uncomfortable with them, while ignoring his own complicity in "theft". It's like certain American conservatives who complain about giving "their money" to the government in taxes. They made it, why should they share? They don't reflect on the fact that their ability to make that money depends upon roads and peace, neither of which they directly paid for. And so their moral outrage is built on delusion, a childish inability to realize how things get done. Irenaeus is not stupid when it comes to the tangible benefits of living in the Roman empire. In contrast, Marcion is a hypocrite. The bishop continues:

"For if he who lays these things to thy charge, and glories in his own wisdom, has been separated from the company of the Gentiles, and possesses nothing [derived from] other people's goods, but is literally naked, and barefoot, and dwells homeless among the mountains, as any of those animals do which feed on grass, he will stand excused [in using such language], as being ignorant of the necessities of our mode of life. But if he do partake of what, in the opinion of men, is the property of others, and if [at the same time] he runs down their type, he proves himself most unjust, turning this kind of accusation against himself."

The only way Marcion can attain to his self-professed moral purity is if he didn't live in society. He had to live like a wild animal: dependent on no one, with nothing made by another who was not also dependent upon Roman society. To Irenaeus, this argument collapses upon its own insanity. There's nothing Christian (or righteous) in running away to live like a beast. It's basically impossible, it's inhuman, and, because it's not ever actually pursued, it puffs someone up as holier-than-thou. Thus, Marcion's supposed superiority over the Israelites (who were only taking their due) is a fraud. Humanity is social and thus our relation to property and goods is fundamentally social. Accusations of theft can't depend upon absolutist and individualistic ownership of things. But Irenaeus is no relativist. He goes on:

"[The meaning is] not certainly that we should not find fault with sinners, nor that we should consent to those who act wickedly; but that we should not pronounce an unfair judgment on the dispensations of God, inasmuch as He has Himself made provision that all things shall turn out for good, in a way consistent with justice" (Book IV, XXX, 3)

Irenaeus appeals to providence to ground Christians living in the world. He's not ignorant that Rome was built on bloodshed, theft, and rapine. But he's also aware that God allowed this state of things to come about. The public works of Rome bring peace, allowing men to grow and the gospel to spread. Irenaeus doesn't try to justify this arrangement, only that God had deigned it through prophecy (and he emphasizes how Daniel predicted Rome's rise as part of the eschatological conflict). Christians should see the bigger picture and not cry crocodile tears about past injustices, but instead use what is at hand to tangibly bless God and others.

An obviously relevant analogy is how racial sins or the sins of colonialism are popular haunts for the masochistic conscience. In the US, reparations is always a popular topic for whites to self-flagellate and grifters to collect on people's guilt. But from Irenaeus' vantage, this whole question depends upon God's judgements and providence. He permitted evil men to do evil and build empires of filth to accomplish some end. It doesn't mean we excuse the crimes, justify the wicked deeds, or shut our eyes to sin. Rather, we must not be trapped in a faux-moral posture that is consumed with the past. It is one thing to return something stolen to the owner, but such is a concrete act. For people to kneel down before random representatives of a race and "confess" is a form of role-playing. Real responsibility, guilt, and restorative justice are far away. It is no benefit to anyone to wallow in blood-guilt, as if Americans who lament the theft of Indian land do anything to uplift real and living Indians today (a questionable narrative anyway, as if various Indian nations had not seized land from other nations, and so on). Like Marcion, wealthy and ignorant enough to divorce himself from concrete living, most people who indulge in these fantasies don't have much experience with real impoverished people. Most of these penitents could probably pay their employees better, live more modestly, and spend less on their own desires (and perhaps more on others). But moral abstractions are much easier to weep over.

Irenaeus reveals an honest approach to questions of justice in the world. He is neither ignorant nor naive. He does not, in a false bid of piety, hand waive concrete issues in the world. Instead, no matter the history, Christians are to appreciate God's providence in their own age. It doesn't meaning excusing past crimes (usually with self-serving mythology). But it doesn't mean adhering to a fantasy of moral righteousness, as Marcion did to the Israelites of old. Man is social and justice means balancing property in relation to how men act towards one another. Such will all be sorted out when Christ returns (Irenaeus believes in a literal millennial kingdom that will one day come about). It's in that light that Christians can work for and with concrete goods, even the roads, waterways, and peace of the Roman empire. One day Christ will bring about final judgement, righting the wrongs of history. Until then, mankind (especially Christians) persist within the dispensation God has allotted.