DSimmer.com: My Take on Eugene McCarraher's Take on Capitalism and the Culture of Death
Christopher
· 10 months ago
First of all, I'll have to say, reading Mr. McCarraher's responses in the interview was a little like trying to argue with a certain Galloway resident, Butter: "Um, I have no idea what you just said." Take for instance:
"Talking about abortion is a way of not talking about the autonomous individual, the latest ideological guise of libido dominandi, discussion of which would topple quite a few idols and not just reproductive choice."
or
"Consumerism is the work ethic of consumption, the transformation of leisure and pleasure into duties."
What?
Given that I probably didn't understand about half of what he was saying, for the most part I was pretty troubled by what I did read. Here's a few major points:
Capitalism. Its true, Jesus did not institute capitalism (Sorry Hillsdale). However, capitalism is not responsible for the past centuries and and millennia of horror, its human depravity. People on all parts of the political spectrum need to understand that there is not a single political or economical system that will circumvent the nature of fallen men to sin. The reason the company "...cut your medical benefits or cut your job or left your town a mess...." is because it was run by sinful men, not because any particular economic scheme was in place.
While Mr. McCarraher suggests that, as you quote "Christians should be pioneering a whole new economics...." I really don't see how this would work. I see two basic camps of economics, in the first, where money, industry and charity -- the term I'm going to use for providing for disadvantaged individuals and families-- is primarily in the control of private individuals, in the second, charity and the rest is primarily in the hands of the government. The first I'd call Capitalism, and the second I'll have to call Socialism, but that really isn't fare because of all the negative connotations, but I just don't know a more convenient term (Social Democracy perhaps?)
Apart from a theocracy, the church operates independently within either one of these. Our goal and duty as Christians, in the world, not of it, is to do the best we can in helping the needy within whatever system happens to be in place.
With that in mind, I'd like to share why I think Capitalism allows Christianity to do just much better than "Socialism."
My vision is for the church to be the primary source of social provision, because, basically, the government is terrible at spending money (or doing anything really) efficiently. Anyone how has had any contact with the DMV knows how inefficient the government bureaucracy is at little things like giving us stickers to put our license plates. And they should be in charge of taking care of people? Ask the Canadians about how awesome socialized health care is.
If the church is to be the primary source, then it just makes sense to me that the very best system is that which gives the church, as a private entity the most power and autonomy in the use and acquisition of funds. That suggests capitalism to me. A quick search for church giving statistics puts the giving of Christian households at a steady (and lame) 2-3%, after tax. When after-tax income went up, giving went up, when after tax income went down, giving went down. The three-fold solution is plain: first, vote for a government that will lower taxes as much as possible (and trim any government spending that is necessary) raising the after-tax income and thus tithing, and second, church leaders need to stop slacking in regards to admonishing parishioners to actually tithe (ie 10%). Its a minimum, not a goal for rich people. Third, the church will then need to take its responsibility as primary caregiver very seriously. This is not monthly trips to the soup kitchen!
To me, the economy of life is that which lets the church (and secular charities) thrive at doing its job.
(Aside: Let alone the positive effect capitalism has on industry: thriving business equalls more jobs, thus less poor people, thus more wealthy and middle-class people to help those who are poor.)
The rest of my disagreement stems from what I perceive as a general misunderstanding of Christian culture. These are scattered points, but I'll highlight a few:
Consumerism:
I just don't get his stance on consumerism. Consumerism is the word that we traditionally use for probably the most common American form of idolatry: stuff! It's secular hedonism, the reason that churches can't convince people to give more than a measly one-twentieth of their income. It's the worship of self and all the things that give us earthly pleasure, rather than the God who invented earthly pleasure in the first place. Consumerism is independent of economic systems: we want capitalism so we can buy more stuff at lower prices, we want socialism so the government will give us free stuff.
Abortion:
Does he really think that the broad Christian horror at 1.5 million babies killed each year is "sentimentality?" People are more horrified at abortion than other forms of death because of the sheer number killed yearly so completely out-weighs any other death statistic, even taken as totals for the past century.
"....as Christians our most urgent duty is the affirmation of life." Our most urgent duty is to save lost souls. Do issues like abortion, the death penalty or war really matter, eternally?
The economy:
In all he seems ignorant of how various economies work. He rips on Gross Domestic Product, but does he know that GDP is how Socialism, not Capitalism, measures the economy? Does he know that much of the entrepreneurial courage, Ruskinian craftsmanship and localism he champions are actually hallmarks of small market capitalism, not the emerging national global socialism he roots for and which we are seeing today? Does he remember how well things went in the USSR?
"Useless people called stockholders..." Hmm, that's anyone who has a retirement account, just about. Stocks aren't an evil invention of the Bourgeoisie, they're the staple of any good retirement plan, which working people have too, and a great way to get the money to start a small business without taking out a huge loan. If you're successful, buy back the stocks!
I agree whole heatedly with your interpretation:
"When did we, as Christians, cease being different? When did it become our role to slightly Christianize the structures and systems of the world? We have done a very poor job of living a doctrine of subversive peace and love."
But that suggests to me the rebirth of the church as the primary source of social welfare, not a church led reformation of the secular economy.
Dean Simmer
· 10 months ago
I agreed wholeheartedly with your last statement. I also think it's important to remember that McCarraher is responding to two questions: "What do we need to do to affirm life?" and "how do we disinfect ourselves of the pervading love of domination, which corrupts everything we are and create?" Keeping these questions in mind does clear up some of the cloudy academic rhetoric he uses (which is very Butterlike, as you mentioned).
It seems his primary issue is the stark contrast between Christianity and individualism. And it's this individualism that drives America, regardless of political affiliation. Think about it. "Don't touch my money! It's mine, I earned it." "Don't judge me for driving SUVs! It's my car loan, I can do what I want!" "I can parent how I want..." "Don't touch my fetus, I made it, let me decide what to do with it..."
Individualism in many ways is just refined selfishness. Sure, Hillsdale will tell us otherwise, but selfishness has no value in Christianity. "The American Dream" seems to be (in today's incarnation) a 2+ acre lot in the suburbs with a two car garage, 2-3 children, financial flexibility and a good school system. Add "Christian" into that dream and it seems to add a nice, medium-sized church into that equation. Joel Osteen, anyone?
Recently a friend shared a discussion he had with a local car dealership that sells Bentleys. The dealer told my friend that, despite the "economic downturn," the common buyer of a Bentley vehicle is a pastor. What with an MSRP of 170k+, that's...Christ-like?
Another thought re: individualism and government control. What many conservative Christians have failed to realize is that they consistently argue for personal freedom/liberties in some areas (worship, gun ownership, prayer in schools) while arguing against them in other areas (FCC control, abortion perhaps, assisted suicide), provided the other areas are outside of their morality. To an outside observer, the perception of hypocrisy must come into play. Not only that, but many Christians in Reformed circles argue for a theonomic government, a view which I strongly disagree with, but a top-down Jesus state won't work either, especially since there is no Biblical backing for America being a "new Israel."
What I am trying to say is that we, as Christians, have spent 1700+ years trying to make our governments more like Jesus, all the while failing to remember that Christ didn't pick up a sword. Richard Hays, a professor at Duke Divinity, writes "If the church manifests the righteousness of God, it does so in just the way Jesus did: through suffering and death for the sake of others."
"For the sake of others" is the phrase that continues to linger with me. 401ks, personal freedom, wealth, liberty: all too often, it is "for the sake of me." That, I think, is the main point McCarraher is arguing and it is surely my own point of view.
Christopher
· 10 months ago
I'll try to keep my response shorter than the original post this time.
I see the two major tracks of modern Christian politics as two different ways of passing the buck, conservatives rely on moral legislation to take the place of the responsibility of living noticeable different moral lives and leading secular society to a moral high ground by example, and liberal Christians look to social legislation to take care of people's needs rather than getting out there and doing it themselves. As Christians, I believe we should covet the responsibility to be moral and service leaders, and should move for a government which, in general, only involved in the essentials. I suppose that would be a kind of Libertarianism, I suppose.
With that, I also want to work to return churches to their previous (c. 1900) place as pinnacles of society and the spear head of community leadership. That would require a move toward close urban community, rather than suburbanism (the source of the individualism talked about, I want to say), and within that, urban outreach.
I've been thinking for a while about the presence of "Individualism" in modern society. I don't know where it came from (like I said, I suspect Post-war suburbansim) but it seems that somewhere along the way, it supplanted personal responsibility, a deep seated sense of being responsible "...for the sake of others." In short (for real this time), I want to say that the "Rugged Individualist" of American legend is more like what I'd want to see Christians become, individually independent, but individually responsible as well.
As a PS, I'd like to suggest you read "Till We Have Built Jerusalem" http://tinyurl.com/af8y88 It's kind of architecturally focused in some areas, but the body of the text deals with community and traditional urbanism in relation to personal responsibility and Christianity (there's a good deal on the rule of St. Benedict in there). If you have time, I think you would enjoy it. Your Corktown project would fit right along side what the author is writing about.
Dana
· 9 months ago
I hope I'm not sorry for sticking my neck out here (did you see my *statement* necklace? tee hee) and inserting my opinion, especially since I have not read Mr. McCarraher in detail. But I do want to mention a thought in relation to your comment about theonomy.
I can agree on some points that Christians need to act more responsibly within our culture/society. I also dont appreciate all Reformed Christians or All Theonomists. I know some personally and their personalities can be offensive. Nevertheless, rightly understood Reformed Christianity is far more Biblical than any other Christianity, and especially better than cults, modern American evangelicalism, Roman Catholicism, and any Seeker-sensitive New-Age Mumbo Jumbo (aka The Shack) being promoted these days. etc. What I really want to say is that all governments are theonomies in a sense, because a government run by law reflect its god (higher power) in its laws and judicial system- that is its moral code, if you will. So, in light of your enthusiasm for making a difference in the world.,, make sure that those who control the money you take are serving the God of the Bible. He expects to be known from His Word alone and for His laws to be honored in every area of life. Love, Dana
Dean Simmer
· 9 months ago
Thanks for the comment.
"Reformed Christianity is far more Biblical than any other Christianity" is a broad-reaching statement. According to whom? Who interprets the Bible? What about the 2-3 centuries before the Bible was fully-compiled? Why do many reformed thinkers/preachers argue for a rejection for any church tradition when for the first several hundred years of Christianity, they didn't have "the Scriptures" as we now know them?
I'm hoping Marty replies to this thread, because he has had a lot of good things to say about this recently.
Also: "make sure that those who control the money you take are serving the God of the Bible." What about Caesar? Caesar stood in direct contrast to Christ as himself the "son of the gods." It seems that every "Christian" government we've had has done as much wrong as good. Killing Native Americans? Enslaving an entire race? Or earlier in history: The Crusades? The Commonwealth?
I've got more to say on the topic but I have to run to work. Will share more in the next day or two.
D.Cous.
· 9 months ago
A very interesting post and discussion, thanks for putting this up.
I'm mostly on board with Christopher's thoughts (much less so with McCarraher's), so I only have a little (if anything) to contribute, but I'd like to weigh in all the same.
Not surprisingly, people speak very often of 'Capitalism vs. Socialism' as if the two are competing systems, and I don't think that's an entirely accurate way to describe them. Socialism is indeed a system. It has distinct and specific methods, and clearly stated goals. Judged against those goals, it's also historically been shown to be very difficult to implement effectively. Capitalism, on the other hand, isn't really a system. It's not a scheme. Rather, it's the name given to the set of behaviors exhibited by relatively free people under certain conditions. In short, it's just human nature. If you drop people off on a desert island and leave them alone for a hundred years, when you come back, if they haven't all been wiped out, they'll be buying, selling, lending, and borrowing. It's just what people do. We don't live under a 'Capitalist' regime, we live under a regime that allows us a relatively large amount of personal freedom, with which we choose to "do" capitalism.
So, I think McCarraher is partially right: as Christians, we should be distinct and identifiable from the population at large, due to how we behave. If you want to call that "pioneering a whole new economics," so be it, but I don't think that implementing Socialism is the right way to do it. I don't personally think that Socialism is compatible with basic human nature, even when that nature has been improved upon by a submission to Christ. I just don't think that having a government that takes away peoples' goods and is "compassionate" with them (by its own standards) is the same thing as having people be genuinely compassionate. I don't even thinks its an effective proxy for it.
McCarraher has something of a point about "Consumerism," but I don't much care for that term, either. It makes it sound like some new cultural trend, which I don't think it is. (I'm not sure, but I think Christopher and I may differ on this point.) It's just greed, which is a completely normal, historically constant, and yes, regrettable feature of human nature. So, yes. Christians should be less stuff-oriented. This is a basic tenet of the Gospel message (and Christ managed to talk about it without using the word "Consumerism").
I do think that Christians should work for social justice for our brothers and sisters, and yes, that means participating in democracy when that luxury is available to us (for many, it isn't). I think that many Christians in the U.S. have done a fairly bad job at picking our battles, and it's never too late to admit that. Sadly, the way that all of our social beliefs have been bundled together and latched onto by the two main political parties typically means that Christians either have to vote in favor of abortion, or in favor of war and/or capital punishment, either explicitly or implicitly. In the end, our adherence to the party line has (in my opinion) led to the party shaping our views at least as much as the other way around.
Dana
· 9 months ago
Hoping that we're really on the same page, but cant find it, I reply....
1) the proponents of Reformed Christianity say that :) 2) Best way to interpret Scripture? use Scripture - the plainer to explain the murky 3) Wm Anderson's article is most insightful http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson241...
Dean Simmer
· 9 months ago
The first two points you bring up tough to reply to in a blog comment. Both assume a whole lot. On the second, I'd say check out Marty's recent blog post on the topic: http://mmuntz.blogspot.com/2009/02/some-of-othe...
3. Anderson's article is laughable at best. He uses his article to falsely reference one post from the God's Politics blog, then proceeds to base what he perceives as the theology of the "Emergent Church" off of his own misquoting of someone's article. Taking a listing of churches giving money to social justice missions and turning them into "the hard-left "communitarian" church" is dishonest.
Consider Matthew 25:31-46. This verse is a foundational one for many of those Anderson criticizes. When "interpreting Scripture using Scripture" as proposed, we find a call to care for the hungry, thirsty, naked, stranger, ill and those in prison. Micah 6:8 calls us to mercy, justice and humility before God. McLaren uses a parable (which I will paraphase):
A man walks alongside a river and hears a man screaming for help. He quickly saves the drowning man as a small crowd starts to gather. Soon, another man needs help, and another, and another. The man, and now others, struggle to pull those drowning out of the river. Finally the man shouts to someone on shore, "run upstream! We need to find out what is causing these people to be drowning in the river!"
If we're supposed to care for the poor, the sick, those in prison, why wouldn't we look to fight the causes of their ill fortunes? And what prevents us from using the systems in place to fight them?
This is the problem with Anderson and others. First off, Anderson is an economist at the von Mises Institute, so the chance that he'll agree with anything that doesn't look like free-market Austrian economics is next to nil. Secondly, he's taking what he perceives as a false political view, "socialism," and building backwards until he reaches a false theology. But has he read Campolo, McLaren, Warren, Wallis and others? Where does he draw the dramatic conclusion of a worldview of the capitalism-defeating Jesus? That's not even historically accurate, let alone the view of the two people (McLaren and Wallis) that he goes after repeatedly.
Anderson's arguments are sensationalist in style but short in fact. But of course, he'd never make a "political alliance with an academic" as he is so sure the Rev. Wallis will do. He already is one.
Marty
· 9 months ago
I’ve been thinking about this for a while, but I figured I might as well toss my own two cents in…This may be a little disorganized, so bear with me.
First, I would just point out that the Emergent Church movement is difficult to pin down because it isn't really an organized movement. Personally, I am suspicious of McClaren's answers (I actually just got to hear him speak this last weekend), but I think he asks a lot of the right questions--questions which are often brushed under a rug or taken for granted by many conservative Christians.
I would also say that I don't think that the issue needs to be (or should be) boiled down to a liberal/emergent vs. conservative/evangelical dichotomy. I think that the point that Cous raises is especially right (and I think it is one of the issues that McCarraher was trying to highlight, though I think McCarraher believes different reasons are behind it)--we almost never have a politician or party that actually holds a platform that we should be able to fully get behind as Christians. The dilemma that McCarraher raises (and I think it's valid) is that many conservative Christians are confusing a distinctly Christian view of economics and politics with an American culture which based more or less on enlightenment philosophical and political ideas.
Donal is again right that "Capitalism" is not really a system in the same way that socialism is, but many (though not necessarily all) of the philosophical arguments for free-market capitalism that I’ve run across are rooted in the idea of an autonomous individual who has the right to do with *his* property as he sees fit. Then the practical argument shows up, that the leaving the private individual with his private possessions and the free market is more effective and simply works better.
First, this view of the individual and his relationship to others is utterly unbiblical. It turns a biblical concept of stewardship and dominion typically into unbiblical domination and a coercive view of the world and others, and it turns our biblical responsibilities to ourselves and to others into personal Rights.
Second, the issue concerning the "effectiveness" of the free market cannot be left alone as if that automatically means good. I agree that it is more effective, but we need to ask, "Effective for what end?" It is more effective at making a society wealthy, granted, but is that really better? It was with good reason that the southern slave owners brought up the situation of northern factory workers--they were slaves by a different name and in a different context.
The flipside of all of this is that McCarraher’s socialism doesn’t solve the issue—that is where I disagree with him. But a Christian critique of capitalism should not have to be an endorsement of socialism (again I’m with Donal and Teague, here).
JimCasy
· 9 months ago
Just been reading up on McCarraher and thought I'd share a link. His essay "The False Gospel of Work" is a better representation of his thought and opinions than the interview above:
As McCarraher presents in this essay, I, too see capitalism as an issue of idolatry. I guess I've been a Christian Socialist since my first inklings of understanding as a youth, before I even knew what "socialism" was. Years later, after much prayer and study, I'm as convinced as ever that socialism is more suited to Christian praxis than any form of capitalism, and I also don't believe that it is a morally neutral question. If I had to pick a label to narrow my "flavor" down a bit, I'd say I am some variety of libertarian socialist.
The figure McCarraher quote in the essay - William Morris - has been a big influence on me, especially regarding the meaning of human labor. Many of Morris' thoughts seem to echo sentiments found in later papal encyclicals on Catholic Social Teaching.
In any case, I'd love to discuss these issues, but don't know where to begin. So many responses here seem to have no real definition of what they mean by "socialism" or "capitalism", let alone evidence to back up such an analysis. They lack any sense of history and echo mass media ideology.
Where should I begin (assuming you want to discuss the issue with me)?
All Comments
"Talking about abortion is a way of not talking about the autonomous individual, the latest ideological guise of libido dominandi, discussion of which would topple quite a few idols and not just reproductive choice."
or
"Consumerism is the work ethic of consumption, the transformation of leisure and pleasure into duties."
What?
Given that I probably didn't understand about half of what he was saying, for the most part I was pretty troubled by what I did read. Here's a few major points:
Capitalism. Its true, Jesus did not institute capitalism (Sorry Hillsdale). However, capitalism is not responsible for the past centuries and and millennia of horror, its human depravity. People on all parts of the political spectrum need to understand that there is not a single political or economical system that will circumvent the nature of fallen men to sin. The reason the company "...cut your medical benefits or cut your job or left your town a mess...." is because it was run by sinful men, not because any particular economic scheme was in place.
While Mr. McCarraher suggests that, as you quote "Christians should be pioneering a whole new economics...." I really don't see how this would work. I see two basic camps of economics, in the first, where money, industry and charity -- the term I'm going to use for providing for disadvantaged individuals and families-- is primarily in the control of private individuals, in the second, charity and the rest is primarily in the hands of the government. The first I'd call Capitalism, and the second I'll have to call Socialism, but that really isn't fare because of all the negative connotations, but I just don't know a more convenient term (Social Democracy perhaps?)
Apart from a theocracy, the church operates independently within either one of these. Our goal and duty as Christians, in the world, not of it, is to do the best we can in helping the needy within whatever system happens to be in place.
With that in mind, I'd like to share why I think Capitalism allows Christianity to do just much better than "Socialism."
My vision is for the church to be the primary source of social provision, because, basically, the government is terrible at spending money (or doing anything really) efficiently. Anyone how has had any contact with the DMV knows how inefficient the government bureaucracy is at little things like giving us stickers to put our license plates. And they should be in charge of taking care of people? Ask the Canadians about how awesome socialized health care is.
If the church is to be the primary source, then it just makes sense to me that the very best system is that which gives the church, as a private entity the most power and autonomy in the use and acquisition of funds. That suggests capitalism to me. A quick search for church giving statistics puts the giving of Christian households at a steady (and lame) 2-3%, after tax. When after-tax income went up, giving went up, when after tax income went down, giving went down. The three-fold solution is plain: first, vote for a government that will lower taxes as much as possible (and trim any government spending that is necessary) raising the after-tax income and thus tithing, and second, church leaders need to stop slacking in regards to admonishing parishioners to actually tithe (ie 10%). Its a minimum, not a goal for rich people. Third, the church will then need to take its responsibility as primary caregiver very seriously. This is not monthly trips to the soup kitchen!
To me, the economy of life is that which lets the church (and secular charities) thrive at doing its job.
(Aside: Let alone the positive effect capitalism has on industry: thriving business equalls more jobs, thus less poor people, thus more wealthy and middle-class people to help those who are poor.)
The rest of my disagreement stems from what I perceive as a general misunderstanding of Christian culture. These are scattered points, but I'll highlight a few:
Consumerism:
I just don't get his stance on consumerism. Consumerism is the word that we traditionally use for probably the most common American form of idolatry: stuff! It's secular hedonism, the reason that churches can't convince people to give more than a measly one-twentieth of their income. It's the worship of self and all the things that give us earthly pleasure, rather than the God who invented earthly pleasure in the first place. Consumerism is independent of economic systems: we want capitalism so we can buy more stuff at lower prices, we want socialism so the government will give us free stuff.
Abortion:
Does he really think that the broad Christian horror at 1.5 million babies killed each year is "sentimentality?" People are more horrified at abortion than other forms of death because of the sheer number killed yearly so completely out-weighs any other death statistic, even taken as totals for the past century.
"....as Christians our most urgent duty is the affirmation of life." Our most urgent duty is to save lost souls. Do issues like abortion, the death penalty or war really matter, eternally?
The economy:
In all he seems ignorant of how various economies work. He rips on Gross Domestic Product, but does he know that GDP is how Socialism, not Capitalism, measures the economy? Does he know that much of the entrepreneurial courage, Ruskinian craftsmanship and localism he champions are actually hallmarks of small market capitalism, not the emerging national global socialism he roots for and which we are seeing today? Does he remember how well things went in the USSR?
"Useless people called stockholders..." Hmm, that's anyone who has a retirement account, just about. Stocks aren't an evil invention of the Bourgeoisie, they're the staple of any good retirement plan, which working people have too, and a great way to get the money to start a small business without taking out a huge loan. If you're successful, buy back the stocks!
I agree whole heatedly with your interpretation:
"When did we, as Christians, cease being different? When did it become our role to slightly Christianize the structures and systems of the world? We have done a very poor job of living a doctrine of subversive peace and love."
But that suggests to me the rebirth of the church as the primary source of social welfare, not a church led reformation of the secular economy.
It seems his primary issue is the stark contrast between Christianity and individualism. And it's this individualism that drives America, regardless of political affiliation. Think about it. "Don't touch my money! It's mine, I earned it." "Don't judge me for driving SUVs! It's my car loan, I can do what I want!" "I can parent how I want..." "Don't touch my fetus, I made it, let me decide what to do with it..."
Individualism in many ways is just refined selfishness. Sure, Hillsdale will tell us otherwise, but selfishness has no value in Christianity. "The American Dream" seems to be (in today's incarnation) a 2+ acre lot in the suburbs with a two car garage, 2-3 children, financial flexibility and a good school system. Add "Christian" into that dream and it seems to add a nice, medium-sized church into that equation. Joel Osteen, anyone?
Recently a friend shared a discussion he had with a local car dealership that sells Bentleys. The dealer told my friend that, despite the "economic downturn," the common buyer of a Bentley vehicle is a pastor. What with an MSRP of 170k+, that's...Christ-like?
Another thought re: individualism and government control. What many conservative Christians have failed to realize is that they consistently argue for personal freedom/liberties in some areas (worship, gun ownership, prayer in schools) while arguing against them in other areas (FCC control, abortion perhaps, assisted suicide), provided the other areas are outside of their morality. To an outside observer, the perception of hypocrisy must come into play. Not only that, but many Christians in Reformed circles argue for a theonomic government, a view which I strongly disagree with, but a top-down Jesus state won't work either, especially since there is no Biblical backing for America being a "new Israel."
What I am trying to say is that we, as Christians, have spent 1700+ years trying to make our governments more like Jesus, all the while failing to remember that Christ didn't pick up a sword. Richard Hays, a professor at Duke Divinity, writes "If the church manifests the righteousness of God, it does so in just the way Jesus did: through suffering and death for the sake of others."
"For the sake of others" is the phrase that continues to linger with me. 401ks, personal freedom, wealth, liberty: all too often, it is "for the sake of me." That, I think, is the main point McCarraher is arguing and it is surely my own point of view.
I see the two major tracks of modern Christian politics as two different ways of passing the buck, conservatives rely on moral legislation to take the place of the responsibility of living noticeable different moral lives and leading secular society to a moral high ground by example, and liberal Christians look to social legislation to take care of people's needs rather than getting out there and doing it themselves. As Christians, I believe we should covet the responsibility to be moral and service leaders, and should move for a government which, in general, only involved in the essentials. I suppose that would be a kind of Libertarianism, I suppose.
With that, I also want to work to return churches to their previous (c. 1900) place as pinnacles of society and the spear head of community leadership. That would require a move toward close urban community, rather than suburbanism (the source of the individualism talked about, I want to say), and within that, urban outreach.
I've been thinking for a while about the presence of "Individualism" in modern society. I don't know where it came from (like I said, I suspect Post-war suburbansim) but it seems that somewhere along the way, it supplanted personal responsibility, a deep seated sense of being responsible "...for the sake of others." In short (for real this time), I want to say that the "Rugged Individualist" of American legend is more like what I'd want to see Christians become, individually independent, but individually responsible as well.
As a PS, I'd like to suggest you read "Till We Have Built Jerusalem" http://tinyurl.com/af8y88 It's kind of architecturally focused in some areas, but the body of the text deals with community and traditional urbanism in relation to personal responsibility and Christianity (there's a good deal on the rule of St. Benedict in there). If you have time, I think you would enjoy it. Your Corktown project would fit right along side what the author is writing about.
I can agree on some points that Christians need to act more responsibly within our culture/society. I also dont appreciate all Reformed Christians or All Theonomists. I know some personally and their personalities can be offensive. Nevertheless, rightly understood Reformed Christianity is far more Biblical than any other Christianity, and especially better than cults, modern American evangelicalism, Roman Catholicism, and any Seeker-sensitive New-Age Mumbo Jumbo (aka The Shack) being promoted these days. etc. What I really want to say is that all governments are theonomies in a sense, because a government run by law reflect its god (higher power) in its laws and judicial system- that is its moral code, if you will. So, in light of your enthusiasm for making a difference in the world.,, make sure that those who control the money you take are serving the God of the Bible. He expects to be known from His Word alone and for His laws to be honored in every area of life. Love, Dana
"Reformed Christianity is far more Biblical than any other Christianity" is a broad-reaching statement. According to whom? Who interprets the Bible? What about the 2-3 centuries before the Bible was fully-compiled? Why do many reformed thinkers/preachers argue for a rejection for any church tradition when for the first several hundred years of Christianity, they didn't have "the Scriptures" as we now know them?
I'm hoping Marty replies to this thread, because he has had a lot of good things to say about this recently.
Also: "make sure that those who control the money you take are serving the God of the Bible." What about Caesar? Caesar stood in direct contrast to Christ as himself the "son of the gods." It seems that every "Christian" government we've had has done as much wrong as good. Killing Native Americans? Enslaving an entire race? Or earlier in history: The Crusades? The Commonwealth?
I've got more to say on the topic but I have to run to work. Will share more in the next day or two.
I'm mostly on board with Christopher's thoughts (much less so with McCarraher's), so I only have a little (if anything) to contribute, but I'd like to weigh in all the same.
Not surprisingly, people speak very often of 'Capitalism vs. Socialism' as if the two are competing systems, and I don't think that's an entirely accurate way to describe them. Socialism is indeed a system. It has distinct and specific methods, and clearly stated goals. Judged against those goals, it's also historically been shown to be very difficult to implement effectively. Capitalism, on the other hand, isn't really a system. It's not a scheme. Rather, it's the name given to the set of behaviors exhibited by relatively free people under certain conditions. In short, it's just human nature. If you drop people off on a desert island and leave them alone for a hundred years, when you come back, if they haven't all been wiped out, they'll be buying, selling, lending, and borrowing. It's just what people do. We don't live under a 'Capitalist' regime, we live under a regime that allows us a relatively large amount of personal freedom, with which we choose to "do" capitalism.
So, I think McCarraher is partially right: as Christians, we should be distinct and identifiable from the population at large, due to how we behave. If you want to call that "pioneering a whole new economics," so be it, but I don't think that implementing Socialism is the right way to do it. I don't personally think that Socialism is compatible with basic human nature, even when that nature has been improved upon by a submission to Christ. I just don't think that having a government that takes away peoples' goods and is "compassionate" with them (by its own standards) is the same thing as having people be genuinely compassionate. I don't even thinks its an effective proxy for it.
McCarraher has something of a point about "Consumerism," but I don't much care for that term, either. It makes it sound like some new cultural trend, which I don't think it is. (I'm not sure, but I think Christopher and I may differ on this point.) It's just greed, which is a completely normal, historically constant, and yes, regrettable feature of human nature. So, yes. Christians should be less stuff-oriented. This is a basic tenet of the Gospel message (and Christ managed to talk about it without using the word "Consumerism").
I do think that Christians should work for social justice for our brothers and sisters, and yes, that means participating in democracy when that luxury is available to us (for many, it isn't). I think that many Christians in the U.S. have done a fairly bad job at picking our battles, and it's never too late to admit that. Sadly, the way that all of our social beliefs have been bundled together and latched onto by the two main political parties typically means that Christians either have to vote in favor of abortion, or in favor of war and/or capital punishment, either explicitly or implicitly. In the end, our adherence to the party line has (in my opinion) led to the party shaping our views at least as much as the other way around.
1) the proponents of Reformed Christianity say that :) 2) Best way to interpret Scripture? use Scripture - the plainer to explain the murky 3) Wm Anderson's article is most insightful http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson241...
3. Anderson's article is laughable at best. He uses his article to falsely reference one post from the God's Politics blog, then proceeds to base what he perceives as the theology of the "Emergent Church" off of his own misquoting of someone's article. Taking a listing of churches giving money to social justice missions and turning them into "the hard-left "communitarian" church" is dishonest.
Consider Matthew 25:31-46. This verse is a foundational one for many of those Anderson criticizes. When "interpreting Scripture using Scripture" as proposed, we find a call to care for the hungry, thirsty, naked, stranger, ill and those in prison. Micah 6:8 calls us to mercy, justice and humility before God. McLaren uses a parable (which I will paraphase):
A man walks alongside a river and hears a man screaming for help. He quickly saves the drowning man as a small crowd starts to gather. Soon, another man needs help, and another, and another. The man, and now others, struggle to pull those drowning out of the river. Finally the man shouts to someone on shore, "run upstream! We need to find out what is causing these people to be drowning in the river!"
If we're supposed to care for the poor, the sick, those in prison, why wouldn't we look to fight the causes of their ill fortunes? And what prevents us from using the systems in place to fight them?
This is the problem with Anderson and others. First off, Anderson is an economist at the von Mises Institute, so the chance that he'll agree with anything that doesn't look like free-market Austrian economics is next to nil. Secondly, he's taking what he perceives as a false political view, "socialism," and building backwards until he reaches a false theology. But has he read Campolo, McLaren, Warren, Wallis and others? Where does he draw the dramatic conclusion of a worldview of the capitalism-defeating Jesus? That's not even historically accurate, let alone the view of the two people (McLaren and Wallis) that he goes after repeatedly.
Anderson's arguments are sensationalist in style but short in fact. But of course, he'd never make a "political alliance with an academic" as he is so sure the Rev. Wallis will do. He already is one.
First, I would just point out that the Emergent Church movement is difficult to pin down because it isn't really an organized movement. Personally, I am suspicious of McClaren's answers (I actually just got to hear him speak this last weekend), but I think he asks a lot of the right questions--questions which are often brushed under a rug or taken for granted by many conservative Christians.
I would also say that I don't think that the issue needs to be (or should be) boiled down to a liberal/emergent vs. conservative/evangelical dichotomy. I think that the point that Cous raises is especially right (and I think it is one of the issues that McCarraher was trying to highlight, though I think McCarraher believes different reasons are behind it)--we almost never have a politician or party that actually holds a platform that we should be able to fully get behind as Christians. The dilemma that McCarraher raises (and I think it's valid) is that many conservative Christians are confusing a distinctly Christian view of economics and politics with an American culture which based more or less on enlightenment philosophical and political ideas.
Donal is again right that "Capitalism" is not really a system in the same way that socialism is, but many (though not necessarily all) of the philosophical arguments for free-market capitalism that I’ve run across are rooted in the idea of an autonomous individual who has the right to do with *his* property as he sees fit. Then the practical argument shows up, that the leaving the private individual with his private possessions and the free market is more effective and simply works better.
First, this view of the individual and his relationship to others is utterly unbiblical. It turns a biblical concept of stewardship and dominion typically into unbiblical domination and a coercive view of the world and others, and it turns our biblical responsibilities to ourselves and to others into personal Rights.
Second, the issue concerning the "effectiveness" of the free market cannot be left alone as if that automatically means good. I agree that it is more effective, but we need to ask, "Effective for what end?" It is more effective at making a society wealthy, granted, but is that really better? It was with good reason that the southern slave owners brought up the situation of northern factory workers--they were slaves by a different name and in a different context.
The flipside of all of this is that McCarraher’s socialism doesn’t solve the issue—that is where I disagree with him. But a Christian critique of capitalism should not have to be an endorsement of socialism (again I’m with Donal and Teague, here).
http://www.christianvisionproject.com/2006/07/t...
As McCarraher presents in this essay, I, too see capitalism as an issue of idolatry. I guess I've been a Christian Socialist since my first inklings of understanding as a youth, before I even knew what "socialism" was. Years later, after much prayer and study, I'm as convinced as ever that socialism is more suited to Christian praxis than any form of capitalism, and I also don't believe that it is a morally neutral question. If I had to pick a label to narrow my "flavor" down a bit, I'd say I am some variety of libertarian socialist.
The figure McCarraher quote in the essay - William Morris - has been a big influence on me, especially regarding the meaning of human labor. Many of Morris' thoughts seem to echo sentiments found in later papal encyclicals on Catholic Social Teaching.
In any case, I'd love to discuss these issues, but don't know where to begin. So many responses here seem to have no real definition of what they mean by "socialism" or "capitalism", let alone evidence to back up such an analysis. They lack any sense of history and echo mass media ideology.
Where should I begin (assuming you want to discuss the issue with me)?