turning away from a society where captialism is god
i’ve always found it incredibly interesting that there’s a somewhat predominant movement within christian circles where capitalism is viewed with an almost holy reverence. criticize capitalism, and it’s like you’ve criticized a piece of the very fabric of faith. the “bible” of such a mentality is usually ayn rand’s “atlas shrugged,” (full disclosure: haven’t read it) which is said to be the magnum opus of objectivism (this in itself is hugely ironic). not to mention, pure capitalism in theory - because there is no such system in reality - tends to leave behind (if not trample upon) the very people that christians are called to love and care for. of course i don’t think faith and capitalism are mutually exclusive, but i am a bit surprised and disappointed when i hear people take on this “market is king” kind of outlook.
so of course i was happy to hear what mclaren had to say about this in his book “everything must change” - in fact, much of the book is focused on dealing with this idea - which he calls theocapitalism. interestingly enough one of the best examples he gives is from jackson browne’s song, “the rebel jesus.” in the song, browne identifies as a pagan and a heathen, but then turns the analogy on its head by referring to “the rebel jesus.” mclaren writes:
“browne’s use of disturbing religious language … is significant. he suggests that there is a kind of economic orthodoxy that may allow or even encourage us to throw some dollars toward the poor, but this orthodoxy commands us never to question the systems that create and reinforce poverty. anyone who interferes - anyone who refuses to accept the locks and guns, the pride and gold the meager generosityk the carelessness about the environment, and the obliviousness to economic justice for the poor - will be banished from the inner circle of the pious and respectable, and will ‘get the same as the rebel jesus.’ … i can no longer ‘give a little to the poor’ without interfering in the business of why they are poor, an interference i believe … is right to associate with jesus.”
mclaren writes a whole section of his book on the fallacies of our current system, the shortcomings of the global economy, and how evangelical activism has in a large way be noticeably absent from these problems, so i’m not going to get deep into detail, but i do want to touch on two ideas: the idea of jesus as a rebel, and the idea of a revolution of hope.
1. the idea of jesus as a rebel
remember, the fundamentalist religious leaders of jesus’ day thought he was sacreligious, a heretic, a rabal rouser (sound familiar?) - when he was calling for equity and equality, feeding thousands of people, promoting peace and healing the sick. what if the version of jesus, of religion, of faith, that we’ve looked at through our 21st century american glasses and manipulated to fit into our system, is really all wrong? what if he IS a rebel, a rabble rouser and the things he wanted for people in his lifetime - justice, peace, fulfillment, healing - are the same things he wants for all of humanity? seems pretty obvious those things haven’t been achieved through our current, theocapitalist system. if anything, our system has helped create all these problems and injustices.
so what do we do? we revolt - but not through physical war, through idealogy and becoming a force for hope and change. sound too idealistic? i’ll go into greater depth in my next post.
March 30 2009 12:32 pm | politics and religion
March 30th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Although you’re admittedly only partway through your thoughtful examination of this topic, I thought I might chime in with a few thoughts in response to the above, if for no other reason than to get them down in writing so that I don’t forget them:
1) One of the reasons people become suspicious when they come across thoughtful critiques of capitalism is that they often taken the clothing of a false dilemma. Capitalism (at least in the form that most political conservatives cling to) doesn’t necessarily neglect anyone of any demographic, at least philosophically. Rather, it places responsibility for caring for problems in society in the hands of private individuals and corporations instead of the government. In that sense, failures to address problems of marginalization, oppression, and poverty lie directly with the citizenry and, in particular, the religious communities that are (at least in word) devoted to ridding the world of them. In a sense, then, Christian capitalists actually place more blame on themselves (albeit often unwittingly) for these problems as they are implicitly taking responsibility for them.
2)In this sense, a critique of our modern system is in some ways only a critique of how well we implement capitalism, not a qualitative measure of its philosophical merit (at least in the idealistic sense). More simply put: many of our failings are because we don’t implement capitalism well enough, not because we implement it at all.
3)Capitalism is unique in its approach to ending human suffering through the efforts primarily of private individuals and corporations. Capitalists (and political conservatives) don’t oppose government-run anti-poverty programs because they don’t believe poverty needs to be fought, but because they believe that the government is *bad at fighting it*. What many people don’t realize, however, is that the flip side of that equation is that *private individuals are better at it*, and that it is thus very much their responsibility to deal with it. This, I think, more than a marriage to capitalist ideals, is the true failing of the modern church.
4)This in and of itself doesn’t necessarily preclude the “capitalist ideal” from critique, it merely insulates it from being judged based only on how well (or poorly) it is implemented in the current state. As I’ve said before, private individuals who seek less government control over the marketplace but, at the same time, don’t take responsibility for the inevitable problems of poverty and marginalization that occur in any economic or political system are actually *bad capitalists* who either don’t understand their place in the system or are willfully ignorant of it. Either way, I think we can all agree, is tremendously unethical and stupendously immoral.
5) Finally, I wouldn’t take the ideas of Ayn Rand as the gold standard for capitalism, but for objectivism, which though a system that embraces capitalism, takes the notions of self-interest way, way over the crazy cliff. Objectivism is extremely anti-religious, (cf, the long-winded passages in Atlas Shrugged wherein Christians and other people of faith are endlessly and mercilessly villified). and I doubt very many Christians who know much about it have much sympathy for it.
March 30th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
curtis - i’m so glad you commented, your comments are always a pleasure to read
- plus, i love that it was longer than the original blog post.
i’m not sure i’ve done a great job of portraying mclaren’s point. the system he calls “theocapitalistic” is in reference to our CURRENT capitalist system, and not the ideals of capitalism. he never says he is against capitalism, but is rather pointing out the ways in which the particular system/economy/government we live under is keeping people down, polluting our environment, letting corporations off the hook, promoting war etc.
this isn’t inherently the fault of capitalism, but more - as you mentioned - our fault for letting it get this way. mclaren’s book is pointing out the unjust, insensitive system we live in and what we can do about it. i feel - and i suspect mclaren might as well - that it is less about the system (socialist, capitalist, etc), and more about how we can enact change in our communities. i’m much less concerned if we do this with the help of private companies or with the help of government programs - but rather that we just start DOING IT! (this is how i’ve managed to vote for both republicans and democrats, both liberal and conservative legislation
).
here’s the problem i have with many within the “religious right” (ok, ONE of the problems :-): they’ve gotten caught up in fighting to keep things as purely capitalistic as possible, and forgotten everything else. they’ve forgotten, like you mentioned:
“that the flip side of that equation is that *private individuals are better at it*, and that it is thus very much their responsibility to deal with it. This, I think, more than a marriage to capitalist ideals, is the true failing of the modern church.”
because capitalism vs. socialism has become so politically polarizing within evangelicalism, our energies are focused on the wrong thing: arguing about economic systems instead of working on meeting people where they need to be met. i completely agree that:
“private individuals who seek less government control over the marketplace but, at the same time, don’t take responsibility for the inevitable problems of poverty and marginalization that occur in any economic or political system are actually *bad capitalists* who either don’t understand their place in the system or are willfully ignorant of it.”
it is this sub-culture that must change, this mentality that we must eradicate. no matter where we fall - whether we think less government or more government is the better option - it is still our responsibility to serve those within our communities that need our help - and even MORE so as christians, not less. interestingly, it’s partly because of the shortcomings of the church and its members that we have been forced into a position where more government aid has become a necessity. i’m much more interested in addressing THIS problem than in arguing about which economic system will better serve us.
March 30th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
You said in your post that in Jesus day when he was calling for equity and equality. Not completely true. In Matthew, chapter 15 starting with verse 24, Jesus is approached by a Canaanite woman who wanted healing, and he says “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” It was only after Jesus death, resurrection, and ascension that the Gentiles were really sought after.
March 30th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
@luke: thanks for the comment, though i’m not sure what you’re saying here. that - given your interpretation of the verse - jesus didn’t want the “gentiles” to be pursued, since that bit didn’t start till after his death? that jews and non-jews shouldn’t be equal? i don’t understand how your reference ties into issues of equality and equity.
also, looking at the rest of the passage, the woman ended up persuading jesus to heal her daughter any way, so maybe these verses aren’t as cut-and-dried as you’d make them out to be. interestingly, mclaren tackles this VERY passage in the book. he says:
“in jesus’ defense, we should note that he doesn’t say, “i was sent only to the elite people of god, the chosen ones, holy israel, not you hopeless dogs.” no, jesus identifies his fellow israelites as “lost sheep” - hardly a great affirmation or compliment. in this light, i suspect that jesus is saying something like this: ‘lady, i’m sorry about your daughter, but i have enough problems with my own jewish people … in fact, they’re plotting my assassination as we speak. so, my own people have lost their way,and i’ve been sent to them; that’s why i can’t help you.’
“her clever and persistent reply, however, seems to convert jesus, so that he gains new insight into the god-given scope of his mission. it may be that this clever woman knows the original call to abraham: god will bless abraham and make his descendants a great nation, so they will bring blessing to all nations. her statement about dogs eating scraps that fall from the table would then mean, “yes i understand that your calling is to your people. but since your people are supposed to bring blessing to the rest of us, wouldn’t it be good to let this scrap of blessing fall to my daughter.”
March 31st, 2009 at 12:08 pm
@Alexis:
Always glad to leave my thoughts, as longwinded as they might be.
I think we largely agree in terms of what the Church could do. I must say, I haven’t read the McLaren book, but I did read “New Kind of Christian”. I like how McLaren challenges Christians: he does it in a way that has a fair chance of success if he gets a good hearing, I think.
One of my few problems with him is that I always feel that he’s embedding political ideology to some extent in his writings on what the Church should do/be like.
Most of the time this doesn’t annoy me, but a few times I do remember being a bit irritated. I still have my copy of ANKC, so I’ll have to look up the specifics. I’ll have to pick up a copy of EMC as well, since I generally think McLaren has good things to say.\
In any case, I’m looking forward to more of your thoughts on the book, as I find your writing very enjoyable. Thanks for blogging!
March 31st, 2009 at 12:39 pm
@curtis - as you’ve probably read in other posts of mine, ANKC holds a special place in my heart. it was the first of mclaren’s books that i read, the first i’d really heard, in-depth, about the emergent church movement (it was assigned reading in my senior media seminar at biola, actually). college helped me move along a path of my own spiritual discovery, and this book gave me the encouragement to keep going. it helped me realize that there still could be a place for me in my own religion - away from traditional orthodoxy and mis-information and fundamentalism. i’ve fallen more and more in love w/mclaren’s writings since then - but maybe i’m biased :-).
he does insert some political ideology, and in EMC he goes into it in more depth - though i don’t think that he’s advocating for one “side” or the other, more that he’s trying to objectively determine what we should believe - both spiritually and in relation to our culture. and you can’t do that without looking at some politically polarizing issues
i wish more people would hear what he had to stay instead of dismissing him because he doesn’t fit into the right mold (see above re: orthodoxy, fundamentalism, etc :-). i often find myself so frustrated and wondering … “why can’t we all just get along?” … ::sigh::