Loading...In my previous post I gave a brief overview of the doctrine of predestination, especially as developed by the great 16th century Protestant Reformer John Calvin and his followers. I ended the post by indicating – surely this is a surprise for many people – that one of the most interesting and formative understandings of modern capitalism is that its has it can be traced back in its origins to Protestant views of predestination. How does that work exactly?
The key text is Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, tr. Talcott Parsons (NY: Scribner, 1958; German original, 1920). Weber (= VEY-ber) was an important German intellectual often credited as being the founder of modern Sociology as an academic discipline.
He begins his book with an intriguing question about modern economic systems that, till then, had never posed: why [in his time, the early 20th century] are there more capitalist ventures, capitalists, and trained capitalist laborers in Protestant countries than in Catholic ones? And in countries of mixed populations, why are there more Protestant capitalists than Catholic?
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Fifty years ago, a minor computing magazine ran a cartoon with a bearded hippie in sandals smoking a joint at his office desk. One supervisor comments to another, “There goes the Protestant work ethnic.” The next month, the magazine apologized for the typo and unintended implications. But there is some of that in Weber.
A slightly off-topic thought: In yesterday’s Podcast (June 2, 2016), you noted how ludicrous it would be for Pilate, who disdained Jewish practices, to be successfully lobbied to release the body of a minor crucified rebel. It strikes me that the much more likely way Joseph of A would get the body would be to slip the Roman soldiers a few denarii (or lepta). Just sayin’.
Good point! But, well, it would be if they soldiers didn’t mind getting crucified themselves for those denarii they earned!
Fascinating thesis, and the mechanism makes sense: if your destiny is fixed, you start looking for signs you are among the chosen. That form of predestination was historically real, not a straw man. People lived in that anxiety, some in despair.
But notice where assurance is sought. In Weber’s version, the believer looks inward, for evidence in himself: his diligence, success, prosperity. This inward search was recognized within the tradition itself as pastorally dangerous, not the heart of the doctrine.
A Christ-centered reading tries to correct this. It grounds assurance outside the self, in what Christ has done. Not: “Can I find evidence in myself that I am chosen?” But: “Has Christ been given, and am I called to trust him?”
That difference matters, because his engine runs on the inward search. The drive to work and accumulate is fed by an assurance that never arrives, never settled there. What he describes, then, is what happens when that consolation fails to land.
So Weber may be illuminating about the social effects of a particular Protestant anxiety. But that’s reception, not content: what one historically powerful version of election produced, not whether that version is the best account of election.
Protestantism/capitalism are correlated, but Weber misunderstood the causal-mechanism. His explanation centers on predestination. While intriguing, a better explanation lies in Protestant anthropology/distrust of concentrated authority. Reformers rejected centralized religious power because all people (including popes/bishops/rulers) were susceptible to corruption. This flowed from doctrines like human-depravity and belief that no individual/institution could be trusted with unchecked authority.
The logic that challenged papal supremacy naturally encouraged social/political decentralization. If fallen humans cannot be trusted with absolute religious power, why trust with absolute political/economic power? Rather than relying on enlightened rulers/bureaucratic planners, Protestants favored dispersed authority/checks&balances.
Capitalism fits naturally here. Markets dont assume human goodness; they assume people pursue selfish interests-therefore create structures where competing interests restrain one another. What Thomas Sowell calls the “constrained vision” of human nature: institutions should be designed around human limitations not idealized expectations.
Many elements Weber highlights (vocation/duty/hard-work/destiny) existed before Protestantism without producing modern-capitalism. What was more distinctive about Protestantism was skepticism toward centralized authority/realistic view of human nature. Capitalism is less the product of predestination and more the expression of broader Protestant commitments to decentralized power/checks on corruption.
This sounds very Pauline (None righteous!). For your book- I think Paul influenced modern-capitalism more than Jesus.
Yes, very interesting thesis. Well thought through but probably makes most sense to those who actually believe in predestination. I can sort of see the logic and presumably if you were a businessman and tried your hardest to succeed but didn’t, then that was God’s way of telling you that you weren’t among the chosen. But the burning question is what did they do with all the money they made?
Used it to make more money! For their emotional, not physical, comfort.
If they were good Protestants, they tithed. Their churches benefitted from success and encouraged the cycle. Make more, give more. I’ve heard a few Protestant clergy endorse that view. The pastor that sticks out in my mind encouraged parishioners to invest in one of the pastor’s Ponzi schemes.
Whoa. Weber is clearly using ideology to exploit people; his entire thesis is absurd. If the only way for rich people to be saved is to give all their money to the poor, so they can get through that eye of a needle to the straight and narrow path, and the poor who receive the money are to be damned, then what is the point of capitalism? The whole thing is an example of how organized religion is used to exploit people economically. Oligarchs probably love protestant predestination ideas for greedy reasons.
The whole thing reminds me of a quote from Steven Weinberg (the scientist who was instrumental in forming the standard model of particle physics): “With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion”.
Not sure you’re attacking his actual point? He’s not arguing that rich people are saved by giving to the poor.
Agree that Weber is not arguing that rich people are saved by giving to the poor, but the “eye of needle” saying by Jesus (Matthew 19:24) seems to suggest to me that Jesus is saying the rich might have more difficulties in attaining salvation than the not-so-rich. Or, similarly, Jesus’ praise for the widow giving her 2 mites “all she had”. One could interpret those sayings as Jesus doesn’t see wealth necessarily as a sign of favor from God.
But, let enough centuries go by, and Augustine, Calvin and Weber essentially disagree with Jesus (assuming the interpretation that Jesus doesn’t equate wealth w/ God’s favor.) Offhandedly curious, does Augustine ever wrestle w/ Jesus’ pushback on wealth as a potential blocker to entering the Kingdom?
Good question. I don’t recall!
Good point, he is arguing that someone who works their way to riches means they are predestined to be saved. But his predestination contradicts the parable of the rich fool in Luke 12. It also contradicts Revelation 3:17-21, James 5:1-6 and the general idea that rich people who don’t give their money to the poor can’t get saved.
That observation reminds me of a phrase I have heard among Christians in the American South: “I am already saved!” I realize the theological context is different, but psychologically the ideas seem somewhat similar. When people face something ultimately beyond their control—God’s final judgment—they naturally seek assurance. Such beliefs may function not only as doctrines, but also as ways of coping with existential uncertainty.
I am also not persuaded that a strong work ethic can be attributed directly to Protestantism itself. Japan, for example, is often seen as highly industrious, yet it is among the least conventionally religious developed societies. This suggests that religion is not the only source of disciplined work.
Likewise, many Western European countries have undergone substantial secularization, yet I am not aware of clear evidence that this has caused a collapse in work ethic or productivity. Countries such as Germany, France, and the United Kingdom suggest that attitudes toward work are shaped by culture, history, education, institutions, and economic structures.
So I wonder whether Weber’s “Protestant ethic” might be understood less as something uniquely produced by Protestant theology, and more as a broader cultural phenomenon historically associated with Protestant societies. How would you respond?
I think he’s talking about a specific historical/cultural moment to explain the origins of capitalism, not an essential part of capitalism as it was to develop later.
Listening to this week’s podcast on the resurrection, as well as the debate between Bart and Mike, I was reminded of Husserl’s concept of intentionality—the idea that consciousness is always directed toward something, and that what we perceive is never simply “raw data,” but data already meaningful to the perceiver.
As a believer, I find this especially relevant. A Christian who believes in the resurrection does not approach the historical evidence from a neutral vacuum. The empty tomb, the appearances, the transformation of the disciples, and the rise of early Christian proclamation are already “given” within a horizon of faith, worship, scripture, and personal conviction
This doesn’t mean that Christian scholars cannot do serious historical work. But they must be unusually self-aware about the intentional structure of their own consciousness. They may sincerely examine the evidence, yet the resurrection is never just another ancient event; it is the center of their faith.
So my question is whether a believer can fully suspend that faith commitment historically, or whether even the attempt at neutrality remains shaped by the horizon one is trying to bracket. This also relates to my own study, and for now I amnot sure how to handle it
I think it is just a questoin of whether the believer wants to claim to be doing history using historical methods and criteria, or wants to assume religious beliefs as part of the inquiry or not; if the latter, it is not strictly historical analysis, but an analysis predicated on certain religoius beliefs. It’s certainly possible for Christians to say “that is all we can establish on purely historical grounds,” and then go on to declare what they personally believe and its implications for what they think happened.
Re predestination, my ex’s grandfather grew up in a strict Reformed church family (Dutch background). His father told him that he was either saved or damned, nothing he could do about it. I think he was 12 or so at the time. As an adult he switched to an evangelical denomination. As you can imagine, though, this left him with many issues in later life.
Thank you for sharing that. That is painful to read, even more because he was only a child.
I would be very cautious about saying too quickly what Jesus “would have said” in this situation, about a later doctrine, though I feel the pull to do exactly that. But in the Gospels his anger often falls on religious leaders who close the door of the kingdom to others, while his tenderness goes toward the burdened, the frightened, and the little ones.
So when a child hears, “you may be damned and there is nothing you can do,” I cannot hear that as the heart of the gospel. Whatever election means, it should drive a person to Christ, not make Christ feel inaccessible. The direction should be: you cannot save yourself, therefore look to him. Not: perhaps he was never meant for you.
A VERY interesting thesis, indeed! I hope you will go further with this, and consider implications beyond just capitalism. For example, how does predestination thinking influence the belief of a Divine Right Monarchy, or God ordained ruling class?
This is a can of worms I look forward to digging into!
Dear Dr Ehrman-If I may ask for a little additional clarification, would you say that the disciples being ‘in’ Jesus and the Father, and the Father and Jesus coming to them, are to be seen as literal in the context of John’s theology, particularly the Farewell Discourses? As in, rather than being simply a moral union of purpose shared by the disciples, Jesus and God the Father, this concept is designed to depict a true spiritual indwelling of the transcendent God and his Word in human beings? Any illumination would be very welcome and thank you again.
Yes, I think John is portraying an actual situation, a kind of divine spiritual “possession.”
Dear Dr Ehrman
Thank you very much for this enlightening clarification. It is fascinating that this concept meshes very well with the later, more developed concept of Theosis within the Byzantine Christian tradition.
If I may ask a final question regarding the Johannine farewell discourses, why in your view does Jesus repeat himself in saying that Spirit will take from him and reveal to the disciples (John 16:15)? Is he seeking to underline this as a particularly important point? Once again, thank you.
One of the fascinating features of the Farewell discourse (John 13-17) is that ch. 14 and ch. 16 repeat the SAME topics in different words (including the one you mention). My view is that he author had two different forms of the same speech from two different sources and splced them together, creating the unusual overlap.
I read The Protestant Ethic long ago. The statistics were interesting but his conclusion seems wrong.
Today? Almost none of the wealthiest believe in predestination. They include atheists, Jews, regular Protestants and Catholics. Perhaps Orthodox religions that put a burden on followers time and money have a negative effect on worldly economic success- but they have a different definition of success.
Did Augustine’s teachings on predestination lose their influence within Catholicism? Even if Protestants came to distinguish themselves from Catholics by many being hyer-predestinationists, does that really drive Protestants to feel more “called” by God? Catholics too felt God’s calling. And Catholics too felt that God was blessing them with prosperity when their hard work brought about that prosperity. I see more of a possible connection to capitalism between a Protestant disposition of feeling more empowered as an individual to make one’s own decisions, than a Catholic disposition of being told by an authority what one’s role is within the collective organization.
It’s a good question. I’m afraid I don’t know the history of the doctrine of predestintion in Catholic circles after Augustine.
I read Weber a long time ago, and should re-read it. It makes sense, especially, when one considers that the Puritans who came to North America were Calvinists of various extremes. And they encountered (and infected) native tribes who had no concept of “personal property.” Which is why the Wampanoag, et al, shared their stuff and helped the super-Calvinist Pilgrims survive and ultimately take advantage. We know what happened next.
“Not knowing what has already been decided without your input can be very distressing indeed. Agonizing.”
This is true, but . . . knowing can be even more agonizing. What about those who strive as hard as they can but do NOT thrive? Would they not have to conclude that they were irrevocably damned? And would that not lead to utter despair, since they know that *nothing they can do* can move them into the category of the saved?
This strikes me as rather like the choice some people face of whether to get genetic testing to see if they are going to develop an incurable fatal disease that runs in their family. Some people choose to get tested, because they want to know, even if it means knowing that they will die early and horribly. But many people in that situation choose NOT to get tested, on the grounds that as long as they don’t *know* they are doomed, they can hope.
Quite apart from that, the doctrine of predestination has always seemed to me to be in direct contradiction with the central Christian message–that one *chooses* whether or not to accept Christ. And I was raised Presbyterian!
Yup and Yup!
Could our common calling be to help build a universe, as “created co-creators” (to use Lutheran theologian Philip Hefner’s term)?
(More, from something I wrote nearly 20 years ago: https://questioningchristian.org/2007/02/another_way_to_.html)
Oh man, the thought of meeting Elon up there …..
This Substack article argues that Weber was wrong about the Protestant work ethic.
https://statsandsociety.substack.com/p/debunking-the-sociological-myth-of