First coined by President Herbert Hoover in a 1928 campaign speech, the term “rugged individualism” describes the uniquely American philosophy of hard work, self-reliance, and just desserts. This ideology developed under Hoover’s presidency, where his policies responding to the Great Depression placed the onus on the individual’s ability to work hard and “pull themselves up by their bootstraps,” as the saying goes. After the expansion of government influence under New Deal and Great Society programs, this ideology developed a distinctly uncharitable tone by emphasizing the laziness and dependence of people benefiting from government welfare. With the convergence of Christianity and political conservatism in 20th–century America, rugged individualism has begun to influence Christian social teaching on labor and charity.
While rugged individualism and Christian social doctrine certainly share a common ground, the modern synthesis of rugged individualism and Christiantity deviates from the Christian tradition in two primary ways. First, it adopts a harsh and unforgiving tone in its messaging concerning the poor, often with the political intention of critiquing welfare programs. Jerry Falwell, founder of the Christian activist group Moral Majority, once sermonized that “our giveaway programs, our welfarism at home and abroad, [are] developing a breed of bums and derelicts who wouldn’t work in a pie shop eating the holes out of doughnuts.” In the political world, Christian icon Ronald Reagan claimed in an interview that some homeless people choose to be so. While this rhetoric on poverty is by no means representative of all American Christians, its place at the cultural forefront of Christianity reveals the individualistic and uncharitable tendencies of some American Christian political leaders.
Second, the rugged individualist perspective ignores Biblical warnings against excess wealth, celebrating economic success for its own sake and advocating for policies that protect the interests of the wealthy. Through the adoption of an American Dream-esque emphasis on economic gain, Christian individualists often celebrate wealth for its own sake, using financial success as a signal of moral virtue. Furthermore, many Christian individualists take little issue with wealth inequality, arguing that hard work must be rewarded; they see financial success as a mark of competency. In both policy and messaging, Christian individualists emphasize the value of personal wealth.
In this paper, I will first establish the conflict between rugged individualism and the Christian tradition in their messaging regarding poverty and wealth. Despite these conflicts, I will then support the aspects of rugged individualism that emphasize Christian doctrine on the value of work—rugged individualism only errs in its prioritization of economic gain. Lastly, I will apply this analysis of work to the contemporary problems of poverty and wealth, seeking to recalibrate modern rugged individualism with the Christian tradition.
On Poverty
From the teachings of Christ to modern Christian leaders, the Christian tradition offers serious criticism against the rugged individualist’s degradation of the poor. When Jesus describes the Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew, he lists the kindnesses that his subjects performed for him: “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.” He continues by saying, “Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.” In his parable on the Judgement Day, Christ remarks how the people that are generous will enter the Kingdom where the greedy and indifferent will not, conflicting with the individualist’s claim that the needy should help themselves. Rather than shaming or ignoring “the least of these brothers and sisters,” Christ calls Christians to treat them with the same respect they would have for Him. The letters in the New Testament expound on the practical aspects of this teaching. For example, the Apostle Paul writes that, “….as a matter of fairness your abundance at the present time should supply their need, so that their abundance may supply your need, that there may be fairness.” Reflecting Christ’s appeal against individualist pride, Paul speaks to the social value of mutual alleviation from poverty. Rather than self-righteously claiming what one deserves, Christians should share freely of their material possessions, relying on one another to supply each other’s needs.
Moving beyond the Biblical era, the early Church exemplified Christ’s commands towards generosity and mutual reliance by rejecting the “domination system” of the Roman Empire that rewarded power and success with exorbitant wealth. Even the early Church’s contemporary critics note their generosity: Lucian of Samosata wrote that “the earnestness with which [they] help one another…is incredible… Apparently their first law-maker [Jesus] has put it into their heads that they all somehow ought to be regarded as brothers and sisters.” Regardless of an early Christian’s personal social standing or individual wealth, they all acted as members of a familial community. As the Church expanded in the following centuries, its leadership emphasized this teaching on mutual generosity. Augustine of Hippo paraphrases the teachings of Jesus when he writes, “Christ is needy when a poor person is in need.” He challenges Christians to abandon individual desires and give up material needs when a poor person is in need. Through their dedication to Biblical teaching, the early Church and its leaders emphasized the value of mutual reliance, rejecting the individualist tendencies of human greed.
In the modern era, Church leaders have adapted the doctrine on mutual generosity towards the specific type of industrial poverty common in many developed countries. Responding to the Industrial Revolution, Pope Leo XIII wrote: “the hiring of labor and the conduct of trade are concentrated in the hands of comparatively few; so that a small number of very rich men have been able to lay upon the teeming masses of the laboring poor a yoke little better than that of slavery itself.” While this analysis cannot extend perfectly into the 21st century, Pope Leo’s words certainly ring true in modern ears: wealth inequality, within America and globally, has never been more severe. By laying the blame for this yoke of labor on the wealthy elite, Pope Leo offers sincere compassion for those who have suffered at the hands of their greed; he soberly describes the unjust results of individualist economic practices. In chorus with the Catholic perspective, Reformed theologian John Piper writes in support of mutual generosity. In response to a question about giving money to beggars, Piper responds: “The default should be yes…[you should] risk being ripped off…” In risking being ripped off, Piper calls for Christians to be radically generous. Rather than holding onto wealth with a white-knuckled grip, Christians should give freely to those in need. In unison, the most influential Christian voices in the world speak towards care and generosity for the poor.
On Wealth
Beyond generosity for the poor, the Christian tradition also explicitly warns against the dangers of excess individual wealth. Appearing in three of the four Gospels is the character of the rich young ruler. In response to this wealthy young man asking Him for advice, Christ dictates that, “If you want to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” He continues to say that, “…it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” While Jesus does not give the young ruler an ultimatum on his wealth (e.g., “sell your possessions or you won’t go to Heaven”), He does name wealth as a ruinous obstacle to genuine faith. Christ shows the rich young ruler that the essence of faith is dependence on Him, not an individualist reliance on personal wealth. Translating these warnings into best practices, Augustine writes, “The extra possessions of rich persons are the necessities of poor persons. When you possess more than you need, you possess what belongs to others.” With a directness that borders on blunt, Augustine condemns extravagant individual ownership. Just as every person depends on God for their material wealth, those who lack material wealth depend on the wealthy. This web of dependence stemming from Christ denies the individualist’s tendencies towards self-preservation and greed.
In the modern era, Pope Leo XIII directly criticizes the individualistic tendencies of the industrial upper class, just as he expressly defended the industrial lower class. Before speaking to the larger culture, he first offers personal admonishment: “Man should not consider his material possessions as his own, but as common to all, so as to share them without hesitation when others are in need.” On the rampant greed in industrial culture, Pope Leo writes: “[Christian morality] powerfully restrains the greed of possession and the thirst for pleasure—twin plagues…teaching [man] to be content with frugal living.” When the individualist emphasizes self-sufficiency and celebrates the “greed of possession,” Pope Leo responds with an appeal to frugal contentedness and radical generosity that denies the importance of individual wealth. Echoing this Catholic position, Reformed pastor Tim Keller articulates that the Bible commands a rejection of one’s individual wealth: “It’s biblical that we owe the poor as much of our money as we can possibly give away.” This vehement command of generosity directly opposes the rugged individualist idea of “just desserts,” wherein a wealthy person deserves their extravagant wealth. Rather, the wealthy are indebted to the poor; they must give as much as they can. Moving beyond simple exhortations towards generosity, both Catholic and Protestant doctrine explicitly command radical giving, emphasizing the inherent injustice in individual wealth for its own sake.
Taken together, the entirety of the Christian tradition rejects the rugged individualist’s beliefs that (1) those who lack wealth are responsible for their state of need and that (2) those with material wealth deserve their riches.
———-
While the substance of the rugged individualist position conflicts with Christian tradition, the underlying foundation nonetheless correctly emphasizes Biblical teaching on the importance of labor. In the Christian tradition, work plays an essential role in the formation of human identity. When God creates humanity in Genesis, He makes them “in [His] image, in [His] likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” God makes humanity to govern His Creation, in a reflection of His omnipotent, sovereign rule over everything. Just as He labored to create existence out of nothingness and became sovereign over His Creation, humans are called to work towards order and sovereignty And humanity is not simply called to work. We are called to work well, just as God works perfectly. After completing Creation, “God saw all that He had made, and it was very good.” As English writer and apologist Dorothy Sayers writes of Christ’s carpentry, “No crooked table legs or ill-fitting drawers ever…came out of the carpenter’s shop at Nazareth”; God’s perfectly creative craftsmanship is an essential piece of His identity. Encouraging a reflection of this excellence, Paul exhorts Christians to “work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward.” In all the work that people do, they are called to mirror the excellence of God’s perfect craftsmanship, faithfully laboring in His service. The Christian individualist position on poverty and wealth correctly emphasizes the value of this craftsmanship by placing the onus on the individual to work excellently in order to gain a reward.
More specifically, the Christian individualist perspective against the poor finds support in Paul’s second letter to the Thessalonians, where he writes that “if anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.” When misinterpreted, this Biblical sentiment certainly trends towards a distaste for those who are poorer and unemployed. The Christian individualist position on personal wealth draws on an anonymous Psalmist who writes that “you shall eat the fruit of the labor of your hands; you shall be blessed and it shall be well with you.” When separated from the rest of Biblical tradition, this verse seems to justify those who are wealthy and extravagant, because they are only eating the fruit of their labor. Looking towards modern Church leadership, Catholic social doctrine stresses the “inviolability of private property” and the value of labor in “alleviat[ing] the condition of the masses.” Essentially, laborers unequivocally deserve reward for their work. Drawing from both Biblical and traditional sources, this emphasis on monetary reward for hard work only fails when it extends into a criticism of those who do not perform productive labor. While the Protestant church lacks a similarly consolidated perspective, Protestant businessmen have used their faith as inspiration for hard work and financial success since the beginnings of modern commerce.
In short, the rugged individualist position on labor stands on a strong foundation in the Christian tradition despite recent flaws in its treatment of poverty and wealth.
———-
Having established both the faults and the merits of the Christian individualist position in the context of the Christian tradition, a conflict seems apparent. Generosity and mutual alleviation constitute the bedrock of Christian social doctrine, yet Christians are also called to work well and, it might seem, to receive a material reward for such work. How can Christians be generous if productive work—and the lack thereof—justly determines material wealth?
The fundamental flaw in this question—and in rugged individualism—is that productive work does not justly determine material wealth. The Christian individualist confuses the transcendent importance of excellent work with material, earthly rewards. In sorting out this confusion, the Christian tradition first clarifies that the value of work arises exclusively from two places: its agent—the worker—and its heavenly purpose—God. The Christian tradition then offers an expansive diagnosis of the American obsession with material wealth. In this obsession, the true, divine purpose of work is replaced with the goal of earthly wealth, and the agent of work is summarily forgotten.
The Worker, Imago Dei
Using God’s Creation as a primary guide, the Bible establishes that the value of work exists in its agent, not in its product. Through their work, every person, created imago Dei, is called to reflect God’s divine creativity as expressed through His Creation. This analysis of work establishes that the “value of human work is not primarily [in] the kind of work being done but [in] the fact that the one who is doing it is a person.” Put another way, a four-year-old’s drawing of their family and an accountant’s balance sheet have equal value in God’s eyes. Both showcase, in very different ways, the human capacity for creation which reflects God’s perfect creativity. For the Christian individualist, this solves the uncharitable claim to “just desserts.” Every person justly deserves adequate reward for their labor, regardless of the economic value their work produces. The starving artist, the teacher, and the investment banker each perform equally valuable work in the eyes of God; it makes no divine sense that the banker receives a deeply unequal share of the earthly reward. Therefore, those who receive this reward have the urgent responsibility to give generously of their material wealth.
The Work, for God Alone
Beyond the agent of work, the heavenly purpose of work establishes its transcendent value as completely separate from any worldly measure of productivity. As Paul writes, “Work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men”; the Christian should take pride in their work only insofar as they honor God with it. A painting, a lesson plan, an investment portfolio: all of these can be instruments of worship to the degree that the artist, the teacher, or the banker worships the Lord as they work. The Christian should not work with the goal of personal wealth, fame, or accolades. All of these ends desecrate the sacred, God-given purpose of work.
This Biblical grounding of work offers a strident criticism of the current system for determining productive value. The wage economy, which attaches a salary directly to the productivity of a person’s vocation, “[misuses] men as though they were things in the pursuit of gain, [and] values them solely for their physical powers—[this] is truly shameful and inhuman.” Western work culture denies the transcendent value of work by replacing its heavenly goal with a financial one. As Sayers writes, “[Work] should be looked upon, not as a necessary drudgery to be undergone for the purpose of making money, but as a way of life in which the nature of man should find its proper exercise and delight and so fulfill itself to the glory of God.” By assigning even the most exorbitant monetary value to a person’s labor, the economy reduces the transcendent, heavenly importance of work into a single number. In no small way, this cheapening of labor offends God’s sovereignty by reducing an act of worship to an act of greed. It confuses cultural priorities by rejecting the two transcendent values of work, prioritizing money over both the worker and their divine purpose to work.
Specifically, in regards to money, the Christian tradition speaks loudly against the problem of greed. Money for its own sake is an idol, and a primary failing of American culture is its idolatry of money. As Paul writes to the Apostle Timothy, “the love of money is the root of evil.” Certainly, money itself is not evil; it is a necessary tool for market exchange and can effectively provide for human needs. These, however, are the sum total of its benefits. When money takes on a cultural character larger than these essential purposes—when it becomes an object of love—it commits heresy against the divine purposes of work.
In sum, the modern American culture of labor and monetary ambition directly opposes Christian doctrine by attaching wordly, sinful incentives to the God-given task to work well. Imagine if, on Sunday mornings, church elders were to move among the pews while the congregation worships, handing out crisp $20 bills to the loudest singers. The current system achieves a similar effect by associating a vapid, monetary reward to a transcendent and worshipful task. The Christian should not worship financial incentives; they should instead find their reward in work itself, just as a singer delights in their song.
———-
The Christian tradition explicitly denounces the rugged individualist position on poverty and wealth. Despite these flaws, the Christian individualist justly emphasizes the divine value of work. This emphasis extends a critique against the individualist substructure of the West which unjustly attaches a worldly incentive to the transcendent gift of work. In posture and in practice, Christians must exemplify the principles of mutual reliance and generosity, and they must strive to perform selfless, worshipful work.