Marquette University theologian Stephen Long describes a “theological economics” in his book, Divine Economy: Theology and the Market (2000). He does this in a particularly useful way, by providing a taxonomy of theological approaches to understanding the economy (see this review by Josh Sweeden).
First is the “dominant tradition,” which includes writers who use a “Weberian strategy” and a utilitarian ethics to justify capitalism, on grounds of personal liberty – this group includes writers such as Michael Novak and Dennis McCann. Opposed to the dominant tradition is the “emergent tradition,” which uses the same framework to oppose capitalism; this group includes Gustavo Gutierrez and Rosemary Radford Ruether. This group provides a critique of the dominant tradition, but is still founded on the same grounds as the dominant tradition, namely, scarcity (that is, the analogia libertatis).
A third group, the “residual tradition,” provides a more substantive alternative by stepping outside of the framework used by both the dominant and emergent traditions. This residual tradition draws heavily on St. Thomas Aquinas, and also includes writers such as Alasdair MacIntrye and John Milbank. This tradition denies the is/ought distinction that the other two traditions make. And this is theological economics. According to Sweeden, “Rather than being defined by scarcity, consumerism, and utility, theological economics are defined by abundance and gift.”
It seems to me that third tradition is aiming to embed ethics back in to economics, arguing that economics can never really be dislodged from the moral philosophy in which it was founded. This is a notion that meets with hostile resistance from the economics profession. But nothing worthwhile is ever easy.