11.14.05
Posted in faith, politics at 11:02 pm by
Contrary to what Homer Simpson will tell you, the solution to all the world’s problems isn’t beer. Of course, nor is it the cause of all the world’s problems. Actually, beer doesn’t have anything to do with the post I’m setting out to write this evening. It’s really just a nod to my title and the Simpsons.
What I would like to talk about, however, is capitalism. I think many of you rightly guessed from my last post that I’m not really opposed to the free market. In fact, I think it’s a pretty friggin’ cool idea. In principle, the free market should generate wealth for the hardest working and give back to the community. And, as many would agree, this system isn’t really working well any longer.
So, the question was raised, what do we do about it? Well, I’ll admit I probably haven’t got a complete or satisfying answer. If I did, I’d probably be out running around evangelizing that answer, and probably having lots of followers. Instead, I’m here in my office writing about Homer Simpson, beer, and capitalism. So, take my thoughts for what they’re worth. (Of course, it occurs to me that you’re sitting there reading me blather on about Homer Simpson, beer, and capitalism…so you probably haven’t got the answer either.)
I think, to answer the question, how do we fix these holes in capitalism, we first must understand the nature of the problem. My most fundamental stumbling block with capitalism as a system is that the end goal of capitalism is not fundamentally the Kingdom of God. Shocker, I know. The end goal of capitalism is to generate wealth.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I think wealth is pretty cool. I’d love to be wealthy someday. I think it’d be great. And, further, I don’t think there’s anything essentially wrong with wealthy people. However, any system that does not have the end goal of bringing in the Kingdom is going to fall short of the mark.
Capitalism tends to instill in its adherents the idea that the gaining of things denotes success. Now, this might not be an essential component of capitalism, but like it or not, greed is an offputingly common byproduct of the system. Greed, though, has no place in the Kingdom of God.
So, how do we fix capitalism? Hmmm. I’m just not sure. I suppose when I’m pressed I’d have to admit that I’m not sure that ‘fixing the problems of capitalism’ is what people should be doing. I don’t know that even a fixed capitalism is the direction that the Children of God should be pursuing with reference to their Kingdom work. Such a view makes me think that capitalism is some sort of vehicle of social salvation. I simply cannot believe that to be the case.
That’s not to say that the tenents of a national socialism would be any better at bringing the kingdom. I suppose, I just see the two as fundamentally neutral–both fallen to be sure–but fundamentally neutral ways of ‘doing’ society. In that framework, it doesn’t make much sense to say that one is ‘better’ than the other. The minute we claim that, is the same minute we start to settle for the status quo, and things start to go to shit, quickly.
So, I suppose, to me the idea of ‘fixing capitalism’ or ‘fixing socialism’ is a bit foreign. I think that, rather, Christians should go about fixing the Church so that it stops holding up either capitalism (or for a much smaller contingent of Churches, socialism) up as some sort of God. Even to say that capitalism is a ‘better’ system than most seems a bit foreign to me…better or worse in reference to what? I mean, if we’re moving in the wrong direction (and I’d say that the Fundagelicals often are by being slaves to consumerism) it doesn’t much matter who’s better or who’s worse.
Our government, and oh is it ever hard to admit this, is not, nor should it be, the primary vehicle of the Kingdom of God. The Church is that vehicle. That’s my beef with folks like Haggard, and that’s why I find it so difficult to answer the question!
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/11/14/the_answer_to_all_the_world_s_problems/trackback/
Posted in faith, politics at 11:02 pm by
Contrary to what Homer Simpson will tell you, the solution to all the world’s problems isn’t beer. Of course, nor is it the cause of all the world’s problems. Actually, beer doesn’t have anything to do with the post I’m setting out to write this evening. It’s really just a nod to my title and the Simpsons.
What I would like to talk about, however, is capitalism. I think many of you rightly guessed from my last post that I’m not really opposed to the free market. In fact, I think it’s a pretty friggin’ cool idea. In principle, the free market should generate wealth for the hardest working and give back to the community. And, as many would agree, this system isn’t really working well any longer.
So, the question was raised, what do we do about it? Well, I’ll admit I probably haven’t got a complete or satisfying answer. If I did, I’d probably be out running around evangelizing that answer, and probably having lots of followers. Instead, I’m here in my office writing about Homer Simpson, beer, and capitalism. So, take my thoughts for what they’re worth. (Of course, it occurs to me that you’re sitting there reading me blather on about Homer Simpson, beer, and capitalism…so you probably haven’t got the answer either.)
I think, to answer the question, how do we fix these holes in capitalism, we first must understand the nature of the problem. My most fundamental stumbling block with capitalism as a system is that the end goal of capitalism is not fundamentally the Kingdom of God. Shocker, I know. The end goal of capitalism is to generate wealth.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I think wealth is pretty cool. I’d love to be wealthy someday. I think it’d be great. And, further, I don’t think there’s anything essentially wrong with wealthy people. However, any system that does not have the end goal of bringing in the Kingdom is going to fall short of the mark.
Capitalism tends to instill in its adherents the idea that the gaining of things denotes success. Now, this might not be an essential component of capitalism, but like it or not, greed is an offputingly common byproduct of the system. Greed, though, has no place in the Kingdom of God.
So, how do we fix capitalism? Hmmm. I’m just not sure. I suppose when I’m pressed I’d have to admit that I’m not sure that ‘fixing the problems of capitalism’ is what people should be doing. I don’t know that even a fixed capitalism is the direction that the Children of God should be pursuing with reference to their Kingdom work. Such a view makes me think that capitalism is some sort of vehicle of social salvation. I simply cannot believe that to be the case.
That’s not to say that the tenents of a national socialism would be any better at bringing the kingdom. I suppose, I just see the two as fundamentally neutral–both fallen to be sure–but fundamentally neutral ways of ‘doing’ society. In that framework, it doesn’t make much sense to say that one is ‘better’ than the other. The minute we claim that, is the same minute we start to settle for the status quo, and things start to go to shit, quickly.
So, I suppose, to me the idea of ‘fixing capitalism’ or ‘fixing socialism’ is a bit foreign. I think that, rather, Christians should go about fixing the Church so that it stops holding up either capitalism (or for a much smaller contingent of Churches, socialism) up as some sort of God. Even to say that capitalism is a ‘better’ system than most seems a bit foreign to me…better or worse in reference to what? I mean, if we’re moving in the wrong direction (and I’d say that the Fundagelicals often are by being slaves to consumerism) it doesn’t much matter who’s better or who’s worse.
Our government, and oh is it ever hard to admit this, is not, nor should it be, the primary vehicle of the Kingdom of God. The Church is that vehicle. That’s my beef with folks like Haggard, and that’s why I find it so difficult to answer the question!
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/11/14/the_answer_to_all_the_world_s_problems/trackback/
Steve J said,
November 15, 2005 at 4:50 am
Brandon,
In the past you have mentioned that it isn’t the answer that’s important but the fact we ask the questions. this post seems to be pulling away from that
With capitalism and society in general don’t you find its more of a swings and roundabouts situation. i.e. in this life there isn’t a correct way of doing things. sometimes the tide will pull us where we don’t want to go and others it speed us on our way. All we can do is just try to improve what we are doing or on occasion throw the whole lot away and start again.
Life is a struggle. a constant striving to learn more, improve oursleves. Jesus didn’t give us a detailed plan of how we should behave he just said love one another and the rest will work itself out.
I sound like I’m trying to sum up what Jesus said in one sentance now. we should do that for books of the bible
check out:
http://ilx.wh3rd.net/thread.php?msgid=4328588
Steve J
Brandon said,
November 15, 2005 at 7:55 am
A good reminder, Steve.
Perhaps that’s why writing a post about how to ‘fix’ capitalism is like pulling teeth.
It’s more about how to pursue answers than it is having answers.
Zeke said,
November 15, 2005 at 9:34 am
The King will bring the Kingdom. We should be practical minded in public matters (extreme change very very very rarely brings an improved state of affairs) and radically giving in our private lives.
It’s our job to love the people of this fallen world, not try to tinker our way to utopia. That’s not to say that we can’t contribute to better government, but I’ll say this with some passion: the only government that will bring the Kingdom is the one that is installed under the direct physical leadership of Jesus, and that’s for him to do. Messiah didn’t come to overthrow Rome. Forty years or so after Jesus said “the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand,” the people he said it to were dashed to pieces by the Romans. Jesus ain’t about political change–yet. And when he becomes about change, everything will change. And the utopia that we’ve all been yearning for will come. No more poverty, no more tears, no more want. We’ll have excellent public transportation, jobs for everybody… a thousand years of peace and security.
So I guess my eschatological colors are showing.
Fred La Plante said,
November 15, 2005 at 9:37 am
Good theology, Brandon! I can hear John Wesley’s worry about the Revolutionary War and it’s affects on the church in the colonies in what your wrote. Without the Kingdom of God being the center, greed would take over. Unfortunately, it was greed on the part of the UK that was a major reason for the colonists to revolt. Is the same thing about to happen here because we have abandoned the “pursuit of the Kingdom of God” by believers? That seems to the pattern.
Brandon said,
November 15, 2005 at 11:01 am
Love you, Zeke, but I couldn’t disagree more. I don’t think we make it to the Kingdom on our own, but I do think it’s our job to do more than just love people. I suppose my reformed colors are showing, though.
Discuss.
ninjanun said,
November 15, 2005 at 12:40 pm
I think one of the problems in talking about this is the nature of individualism vs. corporate (or communal, although both those terms have been corrupted as of late). I can’t think of a better way to explain it other than our idea of sin and redemption: individualism sees sin as primarily a personal, individual problem, requiring a personal, individual response, and therefore, a personal individual to redeem sinful individuals; ie., Jesus came to save YOU from your sins, and has to be YOUR personal Lord and Savior, and all your sins will be forgiven, etc. Corporate or communal-ism understands that sin also has a communal aspect in which all individuals find themselves but may not be personally aware of how it affects them or what the far-reaching implications of that are. Therefore, the action of Christ on the cross overcomes the sins of the world not only individually, but in a corporate sense, freeing the individual from broken and sinful systems, principalities, powers, etc.
Is my ______(fill in the blank, I don’t know what to call this) bias showing?
Sorry this is off-topic a bit from your original post, Brandon, but I find this is one of the major divisions between Evangelical and more Mainline denominations, and also tends to play out along political leanings, as well.
Jacke said,
November 15, 2005 at 1:45 pm
Now, wait just a minute, here, Brandon.
I don’t know who among this group of commenters consider themselves Progressives and who consider themselves Conservative, however, I think we all identify ourselves as Christians.
Isn’t it a largely Progressive viewpoint that religion should be kept out of government? One of my beefs with Progressives has been about the separation of church and state. I view it as a protection of religion FROM state while many Progressives seem to view it as a protection of state FROM religion.
If, as a Progressive, you do not want Conservatives sticking their nose into governmental affairs when it comes to moral issues of the Conservative’s choice you can’t turn around and expect to stick your own nose into governmental affairs when it comes to moral issues of YOUR choice. You don’t get to have it both ways.
Now, am I confusing secular Progressives with Christian Progressives? If I am, then, this is a moot point, if I am not then this subject deserves discussion.
Personally, I don’t believe that American government was ever intended to bring about a paradise…that is God’s business and I agree with Zeke in that respect.
Besides, when you are JUST “loving someone” you are concerned with their welfare, with every aspect of it.
zalm said,
November 15, 2005 at 2:00 pm
Feel free to delete this comment if it goes through. I just thought I would try something simple instead of reformulating the comment I have tried to leave twice.
For some reason, b2evo thinks my comment is invalid. That seems a little harsh, but whatever.
Anyhow, here goes.
ninjanun said,
November 15, 2005 at 2:01 pm
Also, Brandon, I was wondering if you understood my definitions enough to help me out. I’m sure I’ve not got a complete hold on the “corporate” nature of things. If you could help me clarify (if you understand where I’m coming from), I would greatly appreciate it. I’m an Evangelical Southern Baptist coming out of that tradition because I’m beginning to see its inadequacies. How is Reformed theology different? I have no idea where to begin looking, and thought maybe you could give me some resources (or perhaps you could do a blog entry about it?). Thanks!
Zeke said,
November 15, 2005 at 4:07 pm
Isn’t it a largely Progressive viewpoint that religion should be kept out of government? One of my beefs with Progressives has been about the separation of church and state. I view it as a protection of religion FROM state while many Progressives seem to view it as a protection of state FROM religion.
Jacke hit the nail on the head here. Look, Jim Dobson wants to bring the kingdom too. I’m a Christian, and even politically conservative, and that guy gives me the chills.
If you, as a voter, think the government should do more for the poor then bully for you. But we need to take great care that we don’t try to make our positions Jesus’ positions. Right or left, doesn’t matter. If he didn’t take on Rome, why would he want to take on Congress? I mean, really, why?
ninjanun said,
November 15, 2005 at 4:42 pm
Jesus didn’t do a lot of things; that’s hardly a sound argument for what we should and should not do.
Zeke said,
November 15, 2005 at 5:19 pm
But in the case of how to interact with the government, there is no precedent in the New Testament for the church taking a high profile. Jesus didn’t, and neither did the disciples. They paid taxes and obeyed the laws unless they conflicted with preaching the gospel and confessing their belief. And then they defied the law and took their punishment graciously.
Now, to translate that to today’s life in a participatory democracy isn’t a straightforward proposition, but I think Nun that I have some pretty solid ground under me when I suggest that Jesus if he came today wouldn’t be on the campaign trail, and wouldn’t demand that we go be on it either. That’s not to say that believers shouldn’t be participants, or even activists. I just don’t feel that we should suggest openly or otherwise that the will of God is expressed in our political platforms.
Jacke said,
November 15, 2005 at 5:21 pm
Still, Ninjanun, you aren’t answering a valid question. Do you want to push YOUR moral position on social issues in politics? If so, then, if you do, why would you oppose Conservatives pushing their moral position on social issues in politics? Or do you?
This is the very issue that got me started visiting Progressive Christian blogs, in the first place. I cannot, absolutely cannot, see anything wrong with Christians having *A* voice in government, ANY Christian.
Progressives have been balking at Conservative Christians, fussing because they want “the world” to know that Conservative Christians don’t speak for them, well, Progressive Christians don’t speak for ME. My position is that there is a place for all of us to speak in America. I just don’t like the idea of Progressives pretending they have the moral high ground because they perceive *their* social issue is *holier* than my social issue, that they have a right to push *their* social issue while spreading rumors and conspiracy theories that Conservatives are trying to take over the government, in the form of dominionism, when we are merely voicing OUR opinions in politics in the same, historically valid, way that all people have voiced their opinions in American politics.
Btw, I don’t mean this to be an attack on YOU, ninjanun, it is just something that bugs the crap out of me and I see it happening right here, though I have not seen anyone here complain, specifically, about Conservatives I do see what appears to be Progressives pushing the envelope on a Christian ideal they’d like to promote POLITICALLY.
dufflehead said,
November 15, 2005 at 7:16 pm
zeke, it depends on what the death of Christ was all about. He was definitely taking on the Jewish political scene.
question from star trek:
does the good of the one out-weigh the good of the many, or is it the other way around?
Zeke said,
November 15, 2005 at 10:53 pm
Dufflehead, Jesus dealt with the scribes and Pharisees, who were not the political leaders in Israel. The Romans and Herod were.
You know what’s weird about the Star Trek reference, dufflehead? Spock said it before he died to save the many. And then he rose again… in Star Trek III (III–3rd day?).
dufflehead said,
November 16, 2005 at 1:56 am
zeke,
nope, never caught that. good eye.
i guess it depends on what you’re calling politics. the church has politics but it’s wrapped in the governments of the countries.
tomatoe tomatoe . . . hmm that doesn’t seem to work in text.
our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the powers and principalities.
a smart friend of mine gave me a perspective on the Lord’s prayer; the bit about “thy kingdom come, thy will be done”. he was saying the interpretation was “let your will be done in me that i might help bring your kingdom” (loosely)
Steve J said,
November 16, 2005 at 8:57 am
Doesn’t this bring us back to the swings and roundabouts analogy?
The church should not be interfered with by the state and as such should be distinctly separate. The State should also be a separate entity from the church as the state deals with people from all religions and non-religions.
There is no harm in people’s beliefs affecting the way they vote or believers being activists in politics but it shouldn’t be prohibitive. You shouldn’t feel unable to vote for a Muslim candidate solely because of differing religious beliefs. So as far as the state is concerned as long as balance is achieved it’s doing ok. If you feel it could be so much better, bear in mind it could also be so much worse.
We should however be doing what we can to bring about God’s Kingdom in our own lives as dufflehead has mentioned in the Lord’s Prayer
Jacke said,
November 16, 2005 at 4:57 pm
I think that the person or persons who whine about people having too much say in the government, like the supposition by the left that the “Christian Right,” for instance, has too much “influence” really just exposes fear.
For instance: When Cindy Sheehan came out and made anti-war remarks regarding Iraq, and actually Afghanistan too, there was a natural outcry against her what she was saying, well, was that outcry about wanting to remove her free speech rights? No, it was about people being held accountable for what they say.
Having free speech doesn’t mean you are immune to criticism. Having free speech rights means I can say any stupid thing I want to say (short of yelling “FIRE” in a theater, or something like that) and others having free speech rights means that they can call me stupid for what I say, if you call my remarks stupid that doesn’t necessarily mean that you are trying to shut me up, it just means you think I’m stupid.
I guess I get reactionary about the idea that people assume that criticism translates into an effort to silence someone with whom you disagree. Maybe I am only assuming that. But in the scenario I presented regarding Sheehan? Some Democrats accused those who disagreed with her of trying to shut her up when all they were doing was expressing their own opinion. The fear, in that case, of those who disagreed with her opinions, would be a fear that Sheehan’s statements would take root and effect the morale of the military and effect the will of Americans to complete the mission in Iraq. If one examines the polls, it would appear that that fear was legitimate since Bush’s polls numbers did drop and support for the war fell, of course, this wasn’t all due to Sheehan’s existance and voice, it has a lot to do with other factors, as well.
Please don’t take this as an excuse to argue about the legitimacy of the war in Iraq, I am simply using it as an example to make my point that ALL Americans should speak out and we should all take it on the chin if we say something stupid.
So, I guess what I would like to see, instead of an expression that the “Christian Right” has too much influence, is legitimate debate. Instead of condemnation for voicing what they feel is legitimate, tell them why you do not feel it is legitimate. Or accept that their position is legitimate but express that that legitimate issue is not where your interest lies, that perhaps you are more interested in this other legitimate issue. Does that make any sense?
If you think what I just said was stupid? I’m jest sittin’ here grinnin’!
Miranda said,
November 17, 2005 at 3:17 am
alchool so godo right now
i’m drunky but you aweosm
you cantdjldeetel this but idnuncare
weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
i knowy yiou understand
sometime syou have tod rink life away
i’m gong to rgert this in the mornting
eriyaftetnoon
luv mcygc tiakktge the bc crownd
Frank said,
November 17, 2005 at 11:53 am
an interesting point a friend of mine brought up once is that, if we were to fully live out the golden rule, it would mean 50% for me and 50% for the church. treating others how you treat yourself, etc..
I’m not completely ready to be that rigid about it, I think when God wants to be specific about percentages, he does (ie 10% titheing)
but it’s an interesting thought…
A Christian Prophet said,
November 22, 2005 at 4:02 pm
Good post. We seem to have corporations in cahoots with government sidestepping true freedom. Over on The Christian Prophet blog today the Holy Spirit speaks favorably of capitalism.
jedidiah said,
November 22, 2005 at 5:15 pm
re: jacke and ninjanun.
jesus and his early followers most certainly confronted and radically subverted the roman empire. the very terms so intrinsic to the christian faith, “gospel,” “preach” and “jesus is lord” all fly in the face of the pax romana. to see a saparation of church and state in the teachings of jesus or in the nt writtings is a total american anachronism.
re: zeke’s waiting for the kingdom to come–why wait?
Jesse M said,
November 28, 2005 at 7:52 pm
I know I’m coming in really late on this, but I think the original post came into the discussion with a bad beginning. The statement about capitalism instilling avarice and having a byproduct of greed is totally false, and that heavily effects the rest of the post. Greed was already in the human soul, and economic systems can’t affect the levels of greed. Economic conditions can, but not economic systems.
No matter what system there is, people are ALWAYS trying to get more stuff. Communism has always had massive amounts of corruption because people want more stuff and bribe and steal their way through the system to get it because there’s no other way for them to get stuff. Ditto for socialism in all it’s flavors. Corruption isn’t as high partially because people still have the ability to get stuff through work, and also because socialistic systems still provide enough stuff to keep people partially satisfied. People aren’t ready to bribe for a new car under socialist systems, but they are willing to bribe for food and clothing under Communist systems.
Capitalism deals with greed in a different manner than communism. It at least is a system that takes people’s greed and tries to make it also benefit others.
Capitalism can’t function in a lawless environment, so there have to be controls to keep people from stealing and scamming from others. Capitalism will not eradicate poverty, but it does a better job than anything else we humans have come up with. Systems that clamp down strongly on economic freedom also tend to clamp down on all sorts of other freedoms. Capitalism won’t make a Utopia, but neither does it create greedy monsters. Greedy monsters are already out there.
Absolutely - capitalism should never be lifted up as the “Christian” economic system, but it isn’t a thing that needs to be ‘fixed’ because it creates greedy, self-centered people. It doesn’t.
Adam Cormier said,
December 8, 2005 at 8:47 pm
Check it out:
www.fixingcapitalism.ca