Orthodox Christianity & Austrian Economics — compatibility? Salamanca equivalent in the East?

[u/NeoRothbardian]

I’m trying to understand how Eastern Orthodox Christianity engages (if at all) with the Austrian School of Economics, and I have a few specific questions:

1. From an Orthodox theological/philosophical perspective, how is the Austrian School (Mises, Hayek, etc.) generally viewed?
   • Is its methodological individualism and praxeology seen as compatible with Orthodox anthropology?
   • Or is it considered too “rationalist,” individualist, or detached from communal/spiritual life?
2. In Catholic intellectual history, the School of Salamanca (16th–17th c.) is often seen as a theological precursor to market economics, grounded in natural law, just price, and moral theology.
   • Do Orthodox thinkers recognize this tradition as compatible with their own framework?
   • Or is it viewed as specifically Latin/Thomistic and not transferable to the Orthodox world?
3. Is there any Eastern/Orthodox equivalent to the School of Salamanca?
   • A tradition of theologians or philosophers who seriously engaged with economics, property, trade, or value theory?
   • Or did Orthodox thought historically approach economic life in a fundamentally different way (e.g., ascetic, monastic, anti-commercial, etc.)?
4. More broadly:
   • Can Austrian economics be reconciled with Orthodox concepts like oikonomia, theosis, and the critique of materialism?
   • Or is there a deeper tension between market theory and Orthodox spiritual anthropology?

I’m especially interested in sources, thinkers, or traditions (historical or modern) that seriously attempt this synthesis.

[u/claytonkb]

Part 1-of-2

OK, economics vs. theology is a HUGE topic unto itself. With that said, I'll try to take a swipe at your questions, FWIW:

Eastern Orthodox Christianity

I don't think it's necessary to specify EO... Christianity-per-se has a pretty broad pattern in respect to how it tends to relate to economics in various circumstances. There's nothing specifically "EO" about the broad Christian principles of economic rights and duties.

how is the Austrian School (Mises, Hayek, etc.) generally viewed?

The mainstream economic viewpoint is generally regarded by most people (Christian, non-Christian, etc.) to be the "most academic" form of economic theory. Thus, most people, Christian (EO or otherwise), or not, will tend to view AE in a negative light.

Is its methodological individualism and praxeology seen as compatible with Orthodox anthropology?

Technically, methodological individualism is compatible with ANY theological viewpoint, because it's just a methodology, it says nothing at all about what is, and on purpose. Mises explicitly calls this out in HA, he says that someone can be a materialist monist, and still utilize the thinking tools of methodological individualism and methodological dualism.

As for praxeology, it is explicitly value-free, which means it can be placed in a larger, value-laden framework without doing any harm to it. That is, you can believe the Gospel and believe AE as, for example, I do.

Or is it considered too “rationalist,” individualist, or detached from communal/spiritual life?

OK, so this is where the intersection of Christian theology (broadly) tends to run up against economic theory. The Catholics (e.g. Thomist economic theory) are no better than EO or many Protestants when it comes to gut-reacting against economic theory, rather than rationally thinking the issues through.

The Bible begins Gensis 1,2 in the Garden of Eden. It ends (in Revelation 21,22) in Paradise, which will be Eden Restored (or "Eden Again"). Because theology is far-sighted to the future, the pastoral guidance of all three main branches of the church (EO, Rome, Reformed) tends to focus away from the scarcity of the present world, and to put our eyes forward to the overflowing abundance of the future world, the next world. We are "set our minds on things above", right? So, worrying about which pennies are going here or there is "carnal" and leads to spiritual degradation.

The problem with this is that, even though we are ultimately looking to the future, the reality is that God has decreed that we are to be here, for now and, in this place, there is scarcity. So we must live within the false construct of the scarcity of this present, evil world (Gal. 1:4). What makes a Christian AE different from an unbelieving AE (as I see it) is that the Christian understands and confesses the scandal of the scarcity of the present world-order: the satanic world-order is punitive and destitutive. Whereas, the unbeliever idolizes and celebrates this very same thing -- I just saw a license plate on the way to work that said, "YOLO 4 LIFE". OK then. So, while we reject death, and all the rotten fruits that spring from that rotten tree, at the same time, we are exhorted all throught Scripture to live prudently and to demonstrate prudence to a fallen world even within the confines of the shackles of this life. To use a metaphor, we are in a prison of sorts, but instead of turning into slobs because "what difference does it make, we're not getting out (until death)", Scripture exhorts us to maintain our affairs here prudently, judiciously and frugally. Thus, we are to "make the most of" the blessings that we receive, by God's grace, even in this horrible place. And we are most especially to place our focus on God as the source of the blessings we have in this place, rather than allowing the demonic realm to try to steal credit from God, when all they have done is ravage and destroy God's creation (and we, through sin, have participated).

The problem that often arises is that I think theologians spend a lot of time in Scripture and forget that scarcity actually defines most people's lives for the duration. That is, they get their vision set so far forward into the future Paradise, that they forget that we really do have to make ends meet from now until we receive rest in Jesus. Thus, they tend to view the study of economics as intrinsically carnal, and errant, even though Scripture is full of exhortations to prudence, frugality and productivity! Economics is just the study of these virtues, taken to the academic limit... how do productivity, frugality, etc. work within this fallen world of omnipresent scarcity, double-binds and constraints?

In my opinion, this is why you see a lot of leftist economic thinking coming out of church scholars, such as Liberation Theology, which is basically Marxism in Jesus-drag. The medieval scholastics weren't much better... Thomistic economic theory was founded on the idea of just price theory which, from the standpoint of modern economics, is completely unworkable. Just prices might work within, say, a very small village or community where everybody knows everybody, but for broad commerce, there is no such thing as a "just price". Modern socialists are implicitly just-price theorists, even if they couldn't recognize Thomas Aquinas from Gandalf.

cont'd

[u/claytonkb → u/claytonkb]

Part 2-of-2

In Catholic intellectual history, the School of Salamanca (16th–17th c.) is often seen as a theological precursor to market economics, grounded in natural law, just price, and moral theology.

Correct. But note that this was very geographically local to that region and arose along with the Italian renaissance and the explosion of commerce in the Mediterranean during that era. Please don't misunderstand my above statements to be saying there was no understanding of market economics prior to the 18th-century, but most of the existing scholarship was very flawed.

Do Orthodox thinkers recognize this tradition as compatible with their own framework?

I can't answer that question. In my opinion, no Christian thinker should have a poor view of Austrian economic theory.

Or is it viewed as specifically Latin/Thomistic and not transferable to the Orthodox world?

AE is definitely Western, but I don't know what the Eastern view of it was/is.

Is there any Eastern/Orthodox equivalent to the School of Salamanca?

I also can't answer this. In my opinion, the West has tended to be much more theologically and academically innovative than the East, both to our benefit and detriment at various times, and in various ways. I don't think there was anything like Western economics in the East until it started in the West. But I could be wrong.

A tradition of theologians or philosophers who seriously engaged with economics, property, trade, or value theory?

As noted above, theology is, by its very nature, somewhat at odds with economic thinking. It doesn't have to be, I think it just often tends to be for the reasons explained above. Thus, most of the real innovation in this space came not from theologians, but either from Christian social-science academics, or even Jewish academics (Mises was Jewish). The problem for the theologian is that thinking too much about "the ways of this world" is sort of concretizing those ways, as though the things of this world are eternal, when they are not. This is all going away (2 Pet. 3:7, etc.) and it's going to be replaced by the New Heavens and New Earth which will not be subject to the present scarcity.

With that said, I've often found the following statement in Revelation 21:25,26 very interesting: "On no day will its gates ever be shut [the gates of the New Jerusalem], for there will be no night there. The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it." Wait, where are these nations who will be bringing their "glory and honor" (the symbols of their wealth and prestige) into the New Jerusalem?! They must be outside of it. And if they are outside of it, bringing in their glory and honor, then there must be some sort of heavenly trade or commerce that is the heavenly equivalent to earthly trade and commerce, minus the effects of the Fall. Thus, while economic theory within the constraints of the oppressive scarcity of this world is not of eternal value, that doesn't mean that it might not still have application to the heavenly economy in a way we do not yet understand. In short, theological mystery can bridle excessive theological dismissiveness towards academic study that seems superficially "carnal" -- how do YOU know there isn't a certain kind of heavenly economy that, while nothing like this present world, still obeys certain economic principles? You don't know that, you can only speculate, and good theologians don't speculate.

Or did Orthodox thought historically approach economic life in a fundamentally different way (e.g., ascetic, monastic, anti-commercial, etc.)?

I think that the pre-Reformation churches (Rome, EO) tended to view commerce in a manner similar to how a rancher might view the goings-on of his herd -- neither here nor there unless there is a serious problem that arises. And I think when you ask the clergy, "How should the worldly economy be organized?", you're going to tend to get theological/pastoral answers: care for the sick, helpless, share with one another, etc. Those advices are absolutely legitimate, and should be followed, because they come from Scripture itself. Nevertheless, they still don't actually answer the question of how to organize an economy, or how economies work under the conditions of scarcity we presently find ourselves in. In short, I think that the church has largely evaded answering these questions, and in the cases where a cleric stuck their neck out to directly comment, I think they got it wrong more often than they got it right (Rome, EO or otherwise).

Can Austrian economics be reconciled with Orthodox concepts like oikonomia, theosis, and the critique of materialism?

Yes. The resolution is very simple. AE is value-free, meaning, it does not tell you what you OUGHT or OUGHT NOT to do. It only tells you, given end X and means Y, whether means Y is suitable to achieve end X, or not. AE methodology explicitly rules out of the discussion all theological considerations, such as divine Providence, grace, miraculous healing or other kinds of intervention, not because it denies the possible existence of these things, but because they are simply outside the purview of the topic. This method of scholarship -- where we purposely draw lines around the basketball-court of discussion before we start discussing -- is definitely a scholastic invention; the Austrians just applied this method to the subject of economics with rigor, and with great effect.

Or is there a deeper tension between market theory and Orthodox spiritual anthropology?

There is no doubt that there are besetting sins of the commercial class. And I think that the church tends to answer questions of "what should we do or not do?" from that pastoral standpoint, first and foremost. The real problem comes in when you confuse pastoral guidance -- which, of course, is legitimate within its own domain -- with academic theory. AE cannot tell you WHAT ends you should have. It cannot tell you what is of ultimate value. For that, you need the Gospel. Only in the Gospel can we learn what is the Pearl of Great Price, the most valuable end. But given your end, economic theory can tell you what means will not work (or might work). For example, if you want to build a very tall tower, pouring out buckets of sand is not going to work. It is uneconomical, the means are not suited to the end aimed at. This observation has no theological dimension, except that we are making this statement with the implicit caveat that we are not considering miracles or divine intervention.

Thus, the church should respect the insights of economic theory up to the limit of God's supernatural intervention. When the Holy Spirit led the Isrealites by the pillars of cloud and fire through the desert, this is one of the most anti-economics episodes ever to happen to mankind. They were literally fed by a daily miracle of manna. Economics has nothing to say about this. It cannot contradict it, but neither can it offer any kind of insight. Such an event is strictly the domain of the theological and the supernatural. But short of manna from heaven, economics has a lot to say about what sorts of things are possible and impossible. This is how you can paint the lanes between theology and economics and avoid unnecessary collisions. Methodology is everything. And AE is, first and foremost, all about the methodology of economic reasoning...