I really want to start with a comment I made over at Tradtional Catholicism. To do this, I’ll have to quote Alte, which gives the Catholic position (which, as is usual, has been carefully formulated over some centuries)

The Catholic Church defines its social doctrine according to four main principles. These principles are considered universal (i.e. Natural Law), as they are the way in which a virtuous and prosperous society is always structured. They are:the dignity of the human person, the common good,subsidiarity (the devolving of power), and solidarity (the integration of society).

Now solidarity is seen in the English speaking world as something of the left. You have solidarity with the working class, the oppressed. And the discussion moved onto politics. This is to be expected, as there is a sense of crisis in both Europe and the United States:and people are looking to the leaders for a solution to markets imploding under a burden of debt.

I disagree. I think the presidents and kings can but posture. It is the people who make the nation, and the people who will make the solution. So, editing down the response, I said.

I think that we need to look beyond politics here. We are called to glorify God in this life. It’s very clear, from the gospels, from Paul, and from the prophets, that part of this is doing good.

What we need to look at is the application. The Church cannot assume that the state will be cooperative with them. On the contrary, you can expect the State to attempt to subvert and dilute the work of the church.

We have to be local. We need to cooperate. The food bank may be in the crypt of the Cathedral, but the Presbyterians and Anglicans are in there working.

This is not Catholic doctrine. It is the Doctrine of the Gospels. It is the doctrine of all churches — if one unpacks the vocabulary. And, as in the Catholics, moving too far into social action, social justice or social gospel corrupts and subverts the commands to do good where you are.

Now, there is a need for the church to speak out: to fund analysis of situations in the world and to apply the principles within the Gospel to the new issues that arise. But we should be thinking locally. We should be thinking of what the congregations can do, not what the government can do for us.

It looks like the governmental experiment in wealth distrubution is failing. The countries that borrowed to provide security — or regulated businesses so that they had to make unwise loans for social engineering reasons — are now highly indebted and at risk of default.

It’s worth looking at what the reformers and the church fathers did. None (or not many of them) and an overwhelming socail network. Calvin did not: Geneva was not poor but neither was it rich in his day. Van Popta comments.

Calvin believed that the blessings of God must be applied to the common good of the church. In his writings he often points to the role that the rich had in society. In his commentaries on II Corinthians he writes: “Thus the Lord recommends to us a proportion of this nature, that we may, in so far as every one’s resources admit, afford help to the indigent, that there may not be some in affluence, and others in indigence.”…

In his commentary on II Corinthians 8:15, Calvin writes,

. . . [H]e has enjoined upon us frugality and temperance, and has forbidden, that anyone should go to excess, taking advantage of his abundance. Let those, then, that have riches, whether they have been left by inheritance, or procured by industry and efforts, consider that their abundance was not intended to be laid out in intemperance or excess, but in relieving the necessities of the brethren. Calvin taught, “Let us share the necessity of those whom we see pressed by the difficulty of affairs, assisting them in their need with our abundance” (2.8.46 410). It is in this context that he preached on the eighth commandment. He instructed the people that the rich had to learn how to be rich [Phil 4:12] (Sermons 193).

Some might be suprised that I am quoting Calvin here. He is supposedly the man who allowed the excesses of laissez-faire capitalism — although people who say that seem to collapse the reformation into the enlightenment. Calvin saw limits, and preached against both avarice and asceticism. For the material things of this world are to be enjoyed, but not to rule us.

Where this classical teaching can help us is the sense of locality. The wealthy are to help: true, But they are to help locally. We should have collections for the tragedies in this world and do what we can to help, true. But we should feed our familes, and our church families as well. For our wealth is not our own. We cannot be responsble for the global storm. We must act locally, where we can be effective, and keep such actions… local. For to apply what works in Dunedin to Auckland, let alone another country, is hubris.