Words like globalization, capitalization, or internationalization have all been demonized in recent years. People point to the increasing rich-poor divide and the unfair distribution of food and power throughout society. Can there really be justice in a capitalist world? As far as author and professor Brent Waters is concerned, capitalization is more needed than before. In fact, he contends that "globalization is the only credible means at present for alleviating poverty on a global scale." Arguing against "naive anticapitalism," he asserts that capitalism has become the unfortunate "bogeyman" for all the problems in the world economy. Whether it is poverty or unemployment, income equality or environmental concerns, people are quick to point a finger at greedy executives, big-box companies, and the money politics that have corrupted many corners of the world. Thus, Waters tries to distance himself from such presumptions, choosing instead to see the solutions capitalism can offer, and to look at how it can create wealth for all. This is a bold move that would ruffle many conventional feathers. Fully aware of this, the author lists three levees to stem the likely tsunami of protests.
Complexity Problem: Capitalism is not the main culprit for world poverty nor greed. Instead, it is a complex set of factors that are preventing individuals from productive contribution and equitable distribution of resources.
Contextualization Problem: It is too simplistic to blame the problem in the rich-poor divide. Instead, there is insufficient contextualization and understanding of the circumstances surrounding the challenges in each region's market situation.
Ideological Problem: Where conventional thinking often puts blame on globalization and capitalization as the bogeymen for economic problems of the world.

The reasons for Waters's assertions is a belief that God created this world good and we are free to use them appropriately. At the same time, capitalization is the best and most realistic strategy to help the poor. More critically, he aims to show that globalization and Christian moral thought and practice are not related. Neither is it incompatible. He goes on to describe his thesis by first giving us a history of Globalization with 1.0 as the period from 1492 to 1800, largely driven by transportation advances and nationalism. Globalization 2.0 happens between 1800 to 2000 with the rise of communications and information technologies. Globalization 3.0 is about collaboration and cooperation with increasing scope; relative ease of participation; speed of exchange; and fluidity of capital resources. Moreover, globalization helps prevent the rise of totalitarian regimes. He highlights Philip Bobbitt's point about the 19th Century being the century of the nation-state, while the 20th Century boasts the individualistic freedom paradigm. Globalization 3.0 represents the rise of the market state. He makes a surprise remark by saying that wealth created through globalization were not gained at the expense of the poor. He uses the analogy of high tides that raise all vessels, dinghies and boats, but only the best ships remained afloat. However, the analogy fails when we look at the fact that only the rich or big corporations can afford the better vessels. The roots of his Christian ethic is 1) love for neighbour; 2) responsible stewardship; 3) Vocation; 4) Renewal of Church Mission. He spends the first half of the book showing that globalization and capitalism is a necessity for human flourishing. The next half of the book talks about it being insufficient in itself. Waters avoids overly simplistic diagnosis by looking at the contexts of markets, competition, and cooperation. Comparing capitalism and socialism, he notes the nature of "creative destructive" of being its own "gravedigger." In other words, there is an "expiry date" for capitalism, at least until new alternative comes along. His most comforting argument here is the work of the Holy Spirit through it all. God could expand, restrain, pause, or renew any of these forces. The Holy Spirit helps believers adapt to shifting times in a way that is faithful to the gospel. This includes the use of affluence for the betterment of society. This in turn leads us to the biggest reason for Waters's thesis: addressing world poverty.

If Part One of the book is about the positives of capitalism, Part Two highlights the flaws and the need for something more. Making capitalism successful requires a shift of human attitudes through enabling and motivation. Humans can only flourish when they communicate well and behave civil. There needs to be both freedom, justice, and responsible stewardship. All of these would make capitalism just and successful. It is a tall order and looks quite impossible in our broken and sinful world. I think Waters is being too idealistic and may have over-stated his case for capitalism. His intention is noble, but the expectations are flawed. In arguing for the need for capitalism, he admits that Christians in general are not comfortable with accumulating riches. The Bible points more toward contentment and beware the dangers of riches. He goes into the study of contexts to find support for capitalistic economy theory. He cautions against blanket criticism of it by arguing that modern Christian moral theology is a reaction against the excesses of Roman Empire often seen as rich and powerful. There is the assumption that the poor is poor because the rich are rich. The key thing he is arguing is basically the shift of historical contexts. We cannot simply superimpose our disdain for Roman Empire style bullying of the poor and marginalized in the past into our present. Here, I think Waters has a good argument but it does not let globalization off the hook when looking at the problem of unemployment, uneven economic distribution, and the ills of modern society. In pleading for us to understand the complex environment, he tries to bring in other contexts such as markets, competition, and the need for cooperation as other relevant factors to justify capitalism. All of these are necessary for just capitalism. Put it another way, when countries or states fail to expand markets; increase competition; and widen opportunities for cooperation, capitalism will fail to maximize benefits for all. If it sounds ideal, it is. Power differences are huge when it comes to negotiations and initiating globalization activities.

Waters in his proposal argues that the best of "just capitalism" can only win 2 and a half cheers. The other half a cheer is reserved for the place of fellowship and community belonging. I would argue otherwise, that we cannot compartmentalize community away into half a cheer. For community and fellowship cannot be considered just one half out of six. Gospel wise, it is essentially the whole people of God who would be doing all the cheering when there is justice, progress, and equality for all. Thus, community concerns must be in all parts of every cheer and all parts of every capitalistic endeavour. This too will remain a dream for now as the state of sin in this world is difficult to dislodge. I am impressed with Waters's courage to take a stand to give a positive but unpopular spin on capitalism. Do not be too quick to dismiss this advocate for globalization and capitalism. Study how Waters nuance the many perspectives of capitalism, the historical trends, the changing times, and try to see from his reasoned standpoint. While the book may not transform capitalism from its current state, this book offers a way forward to tweak it for the better.

Brent Waters is Jerre and Mary Joy Stead Professor of Christian Social Ethics at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary.

Rating: 4.25 stars of 5.

conrade
This book has been provided courtesy of Westminster John Knox Press and NetGalley without requiring a positive review. All opinions offered above are mine unless otherwise stated or implied.

In Just Capitalism: A Christian Ethic of Economic Globalization, Brent Waters argues in favor of a transition from nation-states to market-states as our current best economic option from his perspective as a Christian moral theologian. Several problems quickly arise in this text. I provide the following examples:

Problems with Waters’ Method:
1) Beginning with the introduction and extending throughout the book, statistical data is manipulated to support the author’s argument.
2) The author’s arguments are overly simplistic, as he acknowledges throughout, but urges the reader to be patient because he will eventually bring it all together in a fuller and more convincing manner. He eventually does not.
3) Examples of others’ arguments are most often on extreme ends of spectra, would likely not be used by critical thinkers today, and do not adequately address concerns of nuance lacking in the author’s own arguments. All too often it is stated that there is not enough time or space to work out much-needed nuance and the reader is simply referred to a number of other texts via footnotes.

Problems with Waters’ “Christian Moral Theologian” Perspective:
1) “Human flourishing” is defined by a particular “Christian” economic and political view that is more “of this world” in favor of the “haves” obtaining more to potentially aid the “have nots” than it is about following Jesus in the kingdom of God as it is now. It is argued that all should be able to meet their desired needs and wants, that this is impossible within any nation or community anywhere in the world, and thus global trade is necessary for “human flourishing” as defined by the author. This is simply ignorant of how many places in the world function and assumes everyone’s “wants” are going to be “good.” This also makes unnecessary the provision of God over and above our own efforts, something for which God has often chastised his people.
2) It is rightly argued that affluence is not usury (obviously, by definition) and can, given the right circumstances, be a good. However, any Christian theologian should know and take into consideration that not all are set on the same path, that we are not all called to have “more than enough” in this life, and that living according to the Way is primarily seen by taking up one’s cross, living humbly, and following Jesus’ example of sacrifice, all while relying on God and not oneself for provision. This should not be taken to mean that we do nothing, but the arguments in this book have little to do with the potential workings of God and, subsequently, a “Christian” moral theology.
3) The reader is expected to take the author’s argument that the Spirit can work through capitalism and globalization as evidence for their being the best way forward. This argument, however, has been and is used for many programs and methods Christians desire to perpetuate and need to stamp with approval—a tactic of “the end justifies the means” that ignores the fact that God can and does work in the darkest places that we cannot even imagine without justifying that darkness as “the best way forward.”

Problems with Waters’ Idealism Conveyed as Pragmatism:
1) For the author’s argument to work, all of the world’s kingdoms and nations would need to move to market-states simultaneously and be concerned with one’s neighbor in the same manner (as argued, that would necessarily entail one taking care of oneself and making sure oneself has more than enough before aiding one’s neighbor). It is accepted that not everyone will act as a Christian and that people will be hurt and oppressed in this system, even by Christians, but that it will be a smaller percentage than any other conceived way forward.
2) Any system argued against can be (and often has been) in similar fashion to the author’s idealism and come out as “the best way forward.” If everyone cared for one’s neighbor as Christian’s ought, then Socialism and Communism could both potentially work quite well (remember, we cannot deny the Holy Spirit can work through [insert preferred system], right?)—arguably even better than capitalism given its bent toward greed rather than love of one’s neighbor. That is not to mean that all capitalists are selfish, greedy individuals, but it certainly opens the door to that possibility at least as much (probably more) than to loving one’s neighbor.
3) Given the author’s concerns for the neighbor, there are several non-capitalist and non-free-market exceptions that are found to be necessary goods for the overall system to work (e.g., a socialist education system and unspecified government intervention with trade, the environment, and community are included), which should prove obvious to any reader that the ideal system does not work if it cannot work.
4) The author admits in his final chapter that if he is wrong about the environment and the overabundance of natural resources believed to exist to provide for our ever-increasing selfish desires for more and more energy/power, his entire argument falls apart. I don’t think we need to wait to see the failure.

My wife is an economist; I’m a theologian. Though I have certainly gained insight into economic theory, systems, and jargon through my wife’s teaching and working through some of that with her in light of scripture, the lens through which I read this book is primarily that of a Christian theologian and what I believe to be honest, rational thinking. I concur with Waters that globalization can be a good and that giving people the freedom of choice and open borders (borders that are often militarily—or at least by the threat of violence—established) is a good thing. However, I believe this because God has given us all the freedom of choice and that violence is contrary to the way of Jesus (Waters comes from a more Reformed theological perspective, so we likely disagree on exactly what “choice” implies, and his pro-military stance is something I obviously believe to be contrary to proper Christian moral theology). I also don’t think this is something we can force upon others via one system or another. Entering the kingdom of God is voluntary (again, Reformed folks will disagree here); likewise, the way Christians live should demonstrate the same method of volunteerism.

Regardless of the system(s) in which we live, we (Christians) are first citizens of the kingdom of God who should love our neighbor no matter the degree to which we “flourish.” The ideal human flourishing described by Waters and many others awaits us in the gift of eternal life when there will be no more fighting, separation, heartache, or tears of any kind. Given the words of Jesus, I do not believe this can or ever will happen prior to his return.

*I received a temporary digital copy for review from Westminster John Knox Press via NetGalley.