Every June for the better part of two decades, nearly eight hundred people have flown into Grand Rapids, Michigan, for a four-day conference called Acton University. They are not, mostly, the people you would picture. They are seminarians and parish priests, evangelical pastors and Catholic deacons, divinity students, a scattering of business owners, and a rotating cast of international clergy flown in on scholarship from dozens of countries. The conference is held at the DeVos Place Convention Center, on the Grand River downtown. The host is the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, founded in that same city in 1990 by a Catholic priest named Robert Sirico and a businessman named Kris Alan Mauren. Its motto is “connecting good intentions with sound economics.”
The curriculum is the point. A clergyman who arrives believing, as the prophets and the gospels rather plainly state, that wealth accumulating while the poor go without is a moral emergency, sits through four days of lectures explaining that the instinct, however well-meant, rests on an economic error: that the free market is not merely efficient but morally formative, that property rights are a precondition of religious liberty, that minimum-wage laws and environmental regulation and progressive taxation are in tension with a properly Christian anthropology. He is handed the vocabulary of Centesimus Annus, John Paul II’s 1991 encyclical, marshaled toward conclusions the encyclical itself is markedly more careful about. He goes home with a reading list and a framework.
The venue is not an accident, and neither is the donor base. Grand Rapids is the DeVos family’s hometown — the Amway fortune, the foundations that have moved money through conservative Michigan institutions for half a century. The Grand Rapids Press reported in 2013 that much of Acton’s funding came from wealthy western-Michigan residents, Amway co-founder Richard DeVos among them; the Bradley Foundation alone routed more than three million dollars to the institute between 1998 and 2023. None of this is hidden. It is a think tank doing what think tanks do, with a donor base doing what donor bases do.
What makes Acton worth opening on is not the funding. It is the product. The institute’s specific contribution to American life is the manufacture of theological cover — the careful, footnoted work of making an extractive economic order sound like an application of Christian principle, and making the people who object sound like they have misread their own religion. The televangelist with the jet is the version everyone can see. The conference in Grand Rapids is the version that does the work.
This is the same argument as the last fifteen posts. The lock just got economic.
The Gospel Has An Economics, And This Isn’t It
The texts are not ambiguous, which is what makes the construction interesting. The Hebrew Bible’s economic legislation is among the most specific material in it: the jubilee laws of Leviticus 25, debts cancelled and land returned on a fixed cycle; the sabbatical-year debt release of Deuteronomy 15; the prophets — Amos on those who sell the poor for a pair of sandals, Isaiah on those who join house to house and field to field until no one else has anywhere to live. The gospels intensify it: the early church in Acts holds possessions in common, the Pauline letters call the love of money a root of evil, and the tradition spends two thousand years producing a theology in which poverty sits spiritually closer to God than wealth, from the desert fathers through the Franciscans through the Catholic Worker houses still running today. A doctrine that treats wealth as evidence of divine favor and poverty as evidence of moral failure is not a defensible reading of this material. It is a replacement for it.
Two qualifications before the diagnosis, because the argument doesn’t work without either of them.
Markets are not the subject of this post. Property, prices, exchange, and the ordinary business of making things and trading them are real institutional arrangements, defended by serious thinkers across the spectrum, and nothing here takes a position on whether markets should exist or whether they often work. Some of the sharpest critics of the doctrine under diagnosis are themselves inside Catholic social teaching, the evangelical-left tradition, and the Christian economic-justice networks — traditions that have engaged seriously with markets for over a century without producing this particular fusion. The diagnosis is not “capitalism is a theology.” It is that a specific American moral theology, assembled and funded over roughly forty years, has been deployed to make structural criticism of the extractive economy register as an offense against the religion the doctrine claims to speak for. Those are different things, and the post depends on the difference.
Wealth is not the subject either. Christian thinking about money has a serious, unbroken history, and the historical position is the demanding one: that wealth is spiritually dangerous, that the Sermon on the Mount means roughly what it says, that the gospels’ economic teaching is one of the religion’s defining ethical demands rather than an optional extra. Plenty of Christians have built ordinary wealth through ordinary work and given much of it away exactly as the gospels describe; they are not the target of a sentence here. The target is a twentieth-century doctrinal innovation, with named founders and datable institutional birthdays, that inverted the historical position — wealth as favor, poverty as fault — and used the inversion to underwrite a political-economic order the underlying texts directly contradict.
And the diagnosis is asymmetric, which the post is not going to disguise. The Prosperity Gospel, the market-as-moral-arbiter doctrine, and the machinery that produces both are projects of the political right. The Catholic Worker, Sojourners, Bread for the World, the Black church economic-justice tradition, the inside-the-tent evangelical reformers, and Catholic social teaching from Rerum Novarum in 1891 through Laudato Si’ in 2015 have done the structural-justice work continuously and are not on either side of this fusion — they are part of the answer to it. The Republican Party’s national economic argument is currently downstream of the doctrine described below. The Democratic coalition has its own deep entanglements with capital and its own failures of nerve, but it did not build a parallel economic-theology project, because there isn’t one to point to. Saying so is not anti-Christian and it is not a generic partisan reflex. It is the description of what is on the field.
How The Doctrine Gets Built And Kept
The doctrine has a retail version and a wholesale version, and they need each other. The retail version is the one with the broadcast studio.
It has a paper trail. Oral Roberts formalized “seed-faith” in The Miracle of Seed-Faith, published in 1970 by his own association in Tulsa: give to the ministry, expect God to multiply it back, treat the gift as a planted seed and the return as a harvest. Kenneth Hagin built the parallel “Word of Faith” formulation over the same years, drawing on the earlier writing of E.W. Kenyon — speak the desired material outcome, and faith makes it real. Copeland industrialized the model into a broadcast and aviation empire; Joel Osteen sanded its hard edges off and grew it into the largest congregation in the country by preaching it as self-help with scripture attached. The mechanics are constant: faith produces material results, wealth signals favor, the gift to the ministry is the lever that triggers the blessing. The cleanest single illustration is the 2015 episode in which Creflo Dollar’s organization asked roughly two hundred thousand supporters for three hundred dollars each toward a sixty-five-million-dollar Gulfstream G650 — an appeal pulled offline within days, defended by Dollar from the pulpit as the devil trying to discredit him, and addressed to a congregation in a Georgia county where average income at the time ran under thirty thousand dollars a year. That last detail is the doctrine, not a deviation from it. Lifeway Research’s 2023 survey found seventy-six percent of American Protestant churchgoers believe God wants them to prosper financially, up from sixty-nine in 2017, with the belief that giving more produces blessing rising from thirty-eight to fifty-two percent in five years; the political scientist Ryan Burge, analyzing the same Lifeway research, found the doctrine concentrated not among the wealthy but among the poor — the people with the least to give are the most likely to believe it comes back. This is not a fringe. It is a mass-market financial product with a soundtrack.
That is the retail version. The wholesale version wears a suit and does not ask anyone for a jet.
The wholesale version is the broader American moral theology — preached as readily by economists and policy fellows as by pastors — that treats market outcomes as themselves morally meaningful. If the market produced it, it is just; if it did not, it is suspect; redistribution is theft and regulation tyranny. The foundational secular text is Milton Friedman’s 1970 New York Times Magazine essay arguing that the sole social responsibility of a business is to increase its profits, which moved a contested proposition into common sense over the following decade. The specifically theological labor — making that proposition sound Christian rather than merely Chicago-School — is what the Acton Institute was founded in 1990 to do. Heritage, founded in 1973, supplied the policy throughput; the American Enterprise Institute, founded in 1938 and reshaped into its modern form from the early 1960s, supplied the credentialed economists. Figures like Arthur Brooks at AEI and Stephen Moore at Heritage are not Joel Osteen and would be insulted by the comparison, which is exactly why it matters: the two versions look nothing alike and do the same job. One tells a man in a folding chair his tithe will come back to him. The other tells a senator that a tax code taxing capital below labor is the morally serious position. Both require the same single thing: that the older economic teaching of the religion not be allowed in the room.
Which is the third mechanism, because the omission is not passive. The jubilee, the debt releases, the prophets, the pooled possessions in Acts, the camel and the needle, the woe pronounced on the rich in Luke — this is not obscure material requiring scholarly excavation. It is central, short, and famous. A doctrine that treats wealth as favor does not engage it and lose; it declines to have the argument and substitutes a different scripture set in the same authoritative voice. Part 15 documented the selection on the moral framework — Leviticus 18 and 20 amplified, Leviticus 25 and the prophets quietly dropped. The economic theology is what fills the space the dropped texts used to occupy. The replacement is the doctrine, and its success is measured by how natural the replacement feels to the person in the pew, who has not been argued out of the Sermon on the Mount so much as never seriously shown it as economics.
Strip all of it down and a single instruction about suffering is left at the bottom, and that instruction is the fourth mechanism — the one that does the cruelty.
If wealth is evidence of divine favor, then poverty is evidence of its absence, and the absence has to be explained. The explanation the doctrine supplies is that hardship is morally instructive — that suffering is a curriculum, that consequences are how character is built, and that shielding people from the consequences of their circumstances is therefore not mercy but interference with a process that is, properly understood, for their own good. This is the quiet engine under a great deal of American political speech, and it is worth being precise about where it surfaces, because it is almost never stated as theology even though that is what it is. It is the implicit argument of every “personal responsibility” speech delivered against food assistance — the claim that the benefit produces the dependency it relieves, that the hunger was teaching something the help interrupted. It is the framework beneath the contempt directed at the unhoused, who are understood to be reaping rather than suffering; beneath the resistance to medical-debt relief, where the debt is recast as the deserved consequence of a choice rather than the price of having gotten sick in the only country that prices it that way; beneath the punitive turn in how the incarcerated and the uninsured and the undocumented are discussed, where the hardship is not a problem to be solved but a moral signal to be respected. The doctrine does not require anyone preaching it to be cruel by temperament, and most of the people who absorb it are not. That is the part worth sitting with. It works precisely because it lets decent people experience the withdrawal of help as a form of seriousness — as respect for the instructive power of consequences — rather than as the abandonment it functions as. A theology that began by explaining why the preacher deserves the plane ends by explaining why the patient deserves the bill. It is the same sentence. It is just being said about a different person, and by then it no longer sounds like the Prosperity Gospel at all. It sounds like common sense about responsibility, which is how you can tell the construction worked.
What’s Real
A few honest qualifications, because the strongest version of the argument is the one that doesn’t pretend the counter-arguments aren’t there.
There is a serious intellectual tradition arguing that market mechanisms outperform central planning, that property rights are foundational to political liberty, and that subsidiarity — keeping decisions as local as possible — is a genuine principle of Catholic social teaching rather than a libertarian smuggling operation. Those arguments are real, made in good faith by people who have thought hard about them, and a post diagnosing a doctrinal abuse does not get to wave them away. The point is narrower and harder than “markets are the enemy of the gospel.” It is that a specific construction has fused selected Christian doctrine with one contested set of economic-policy preferences, presented the fusion as the religion itself, and used it to make structural critique sound like blasphemy. The fusion is what is under diagnosis. The underlying questions about markets stay legitimately contested.
And the Christian economic-justice traditions are not rhetorical garnish. The Catholic Worker movement has run houses of hospitality since 1933. Sojourners and Bread for the World are functioning organizations with functioning programs. The Black church economic-justice tradition did much of the actual labor of the twentieth century’s most successful American reform movement. Laudato Si’ exists, is magisterial, and says the opposite of what Acton University teaches in its name. These are not just sources to cite against the doctrine; they are organizing infrastructures that already exist, have been doing the work continuously, and have been left to atrophy in the public conversation while the constructed version was resourced. They are not part of the diagnosis. They are most of the answer to it, which is why the reform list ends where it does.
What They’re Paying For
What the economic-theology infrastructure produces, in aggregate, is four things stacked together. Each is useful to someone. The combination is what the funders — the Koch network, the DeVos foundations, the Wilks brothers, the Council for National Policy, the membership organization where the megachurch programs and the policy shops have long shared a roster — are actually paying for, and the bill comes back as the policy mix the previous fifteen posts have itemized: capital taxed below labor, extraction deregulated, organized labor opposed, consumer and environmental protection opposed, anti-poverty programs reframed as moral hazard.
It is a moral vocabulary for policy preferences the cited texts do not support. A legislator who votes for a regressive tax cut and against expanding food assistance can describe both votes, on Sunday, in the language of Christian conviction, and the description never has to survive contact with Leviticus 25 or Matthew 25, because the doctrine has arranged for those passages not to be the ones in play. The voter who hears it is not being deceived about whether the legislator is religious. The voter is being deceived about whether the religion, read honestly, endorses the vote.
It is a sorting mechanism that recodes economic conflict as religious identity. The working-class evangelical and the working-class Catholic share the healthcare costs of Part 4, the housing costs of Part 7, and the retirement risk Part 17 is about to document. The doctrine ensures they understand each other, when they understand each other at all, as holding rival theologies of salvation rather than as people with one shared extraction problem. A cross-class coalition organized around who is actually taking the money is far harder to build when both halves have been told the other half has the wrong relationship to God.
It is an insulation layer that converts structural critique into sacrilege. Once the market is morally meaningful and its outcomes just by definition, antitrust enforcement against an extractive monopoly stops being a policy argument and becomes an assault on a God-given order; a wealth tax stops being a fiscal proposal and becomes covetousness with a legislative number attached. The doctrine does not have to win those arguments. It only has to make having them feel impious, which raises the cost of entry enough that most people never start.
And it is the displacement of the actual Christian economic tradition out of public earshot. The jubilee, the prophets, the Catholic Worker, Laudato Si’, the evangelical-left line running through Wallis and Sider — all of it exists, all of it is unambiguously Christian, and almost none of it reaches the audience that would have to be mobilized to change any of the policy. During the same hours those traditions are being practiced in parish basements, the people who would have to hear them are being told, by the resourced version, that the practitioners are the ones who have lost the religion.
The Fixes Are Boring
The fixes below are economic, not theological. The post is not in the business of telling Christians what to preach; that is a project Christians have always done for themselves, and the reformers named above are doing it now. These address the tax and enforcement infrastructure that lets the doctrine’s downstream policy preferences become law. They sound impossible because the people who profit from the current arrangement have spent four decades making them sound impossible — not because they are radical, and not because they are untested. The church-and-religious-organization tax fixes were itemized in Part 15’s reform list and are referenced here rather than repeated. Roughly cheapest to hardest:
- Close the carried-interest provision. It lets private-equity and hedge-fund managers recharacterize what is functionally wage income as lower-taxed investment income. The Joint Committee on Taxation scored the most recent closing bill at roughly sixty-three billion dollars over ten years; it was introduced again in April 2026, as versions have been for over a decade without reaching a floor vote. It is one statutory paragraph and one vote that has never been allowed to happen.
- End stepped-up basis at death. The provision resets an inherited asset’s taxable basis to its value at death, so a lifetime of unrealized gains is never taxed at all — JCT puts the 2026 cost near seventy-two and a half billion dollars, roughly a quarter of all capital-gains revenue, flowing overwhelmingly to the largest estates. The smaller-bore versions floated so far were written with farm-and-small-business carve-outs precisely so they could be defeated as attacks on farmers. Write the real one; it is a single act of Congress.
- Tax capital income at the same rate as labor income. The preferential long-term capital-gains rate is not a law of nature but a statutory choice, and it is the largest structural reason the doctrine’s “the market rewarded the deserving” story has a tax code agreeing with it. Equalizing the rates removes the policy core the moral cover exists to protect. Every diluted version — a small bump, a high threshold, a sunset — was designed to be reversible, and was reversed.
- Restore top marginal rates toward their historical norm. The top rate was ninety-one percent for most of the 1950s and early 1960s and stayed at or above seventy percent until 1981, across a period of faster broad-based growth than anything since the cuts. The honest version is not 1950s nostalgia — effective rates were always lower than statutory ones — but a high-income rate structure that is actually paid, passed together with the basis and capital-gains fixes so it cannot simply be routed around. The narrow rate increases of the last fifteen years failed because they were passed alone.
- Enact a federal financial-transactions tax. A fractional levy on securities trades raises real revenue, falls hardest on high-frequency volume rather than on ordinary savers, and has been introduced repeatedly without a vote while the European Union has moved to implement versions of it. The objection is never that it cannot work; it is that the industry it touches funds primary challengers and the constituency it would help does not.
- Enforce existing antitrust authority against the extractive corporations the doctrine is deployed to protect. The legal authority has been on the books since 1890. The previous administration’s competition agenda began using it; the current one unwound most of that work. No new statute is required — the unwinding is itself part of how concentrated power defends itself — only an administration with the will to use what already exists.
- Close the financial-disclosure exemption for ministries reclassified as churches. The broader church-tax fixes — Johnson Amendment enforcement, the parsonage exemption, the “association of churches” reclassification abuse — were detailed in Part 15 and stand. The addition specific to this post: most major Prosperity ministries have reclassified as churches and therefore file no public financial disclosure at all, which makes the doctrine’s largest operations its least auditable. Disclosure is the precondition for measuring everything else.
- Resource the Christian economic-justice infrastructure that already exists. The Catholic Worker houses, the Black church economic-justice networks, Sojourners and Bread for the World, the Catholic social-teaching institutions, the inside-the-tent reformers — underfunded, structurally outmatched, and nearly absent from the conversation the constructed version dominates. This is the genuinely hard one, because no statute does it. It requires foundations, large donors, and a political coalition that spent forty years ceding economic-moral vocabulary to the other side to spend the next forty deliberately rebuilding what it let atrophy. The competing infrastructure does not have to be invented. It has to be funded.
Seven of the eight are statutory provisions or enforcement decisions — things Congress or an administration could change without inventing anything. The eighth is what the country already had, in some form, from the abolitionist movement through the civil rights movement, and stopped having for the reasons this series has been documenting. They feel impossible for one reason: the coalition that benefits has built a public conversation in which proposing them sounds like an attack on faith. It is not. It is the conversation a country is supposed to be able to have about which doctrines are doing economic work, and for whom.
Who Is This For
The moral framework of Part 15 told you which scriptures count. The economic theology of this post told you what they are allowed to mean. Between them they produce the vocabulary that lets a healthcare system that bankrupts the sick, a housing market that prices out the people who work in it, and a tax code that treats labor worse than capital be described, on a Sunday morning, as the natural order of things rather than a set of choices. The next post stops describing the framework and starts walking through what it was built to protect, beginning with the single cleanest extraction of the working life: how the pension became the 401(k), and how that one swap quietly moved the entire risk of growing old from the company to you. Different layer. Same question.
Even that's Odd 
Leave a comment