RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

Markets, Morality, and the Common Good

by John Gehring 03-20-2009

Not long ago, those who demonized government and preached the gospel of free-market fundamentalism with evangelical zeal had few worries. The titans of corporate America were glorified on the cover of Fortune, “trickle-down” economics justified obscene wealth disparities, and a bullish Wall Street even gave working stiffs a piece of the action.

But things fall apart. Decades of deregulation, crass decisions at the highest levels of business and government, and a consumer culture that celebrates materialism are catching up with reality. One in 10 Americans –  nearly 28 million — now depend on food stamps. Catholic Charities USA reports that 62 percent of its agencies have seen an increase in middle-class clients seeking help. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities predicts that the ranks of the poor, now at 36 million, could soon increase by as many as 10 million if the unemployment rate hits nine percent.

The financial crisis is also a moral crisis that requires a profound shift in values. Our nation’s diverse religious communities have a proud tradition of speaking prophetically about economic justice, and the need to temper the cruel vagaries of the market with collective responsibility to care for our neighbors. Catholic social teaching, in particular, has a long history that warns against putting profit before human dignity. Amid another global economic collapse in 1931, Pope Pius XI affirmed a positive role for government and the obligation to pay workers a living wage. At a recent meeting of the Confederation of Italian Labor Unions, Pope Benedict XVI stressed that finding solutions for the global financial crisis requires “a new synthesis between the common good and the market, between capital and labor.” Franklin D. Roosevelt drew heavily from Catholic social thought in shaping the New Deal. This social justice heritage can help us think anew about applying these values to current economic challenges.

Disgraced Wall Street baron Bernard Madoff and the banking executives dragged before Congress recently would not want to meet the Hebrew prophets Jeremiah and Isaiah, who thundered against the greed of powerful kings enjoying lavish lifestyles while so many suffered around them. Those who trumpet a holy trinity of tax cuts, unfettered markets, and a savage brand of corporate capitalism serve narrow ideologies hard to square with the teachings of Jesus, who preached “good news to the poor” and kicked the money-changers out of the Temple. While the American ethos of “rugged individualism” and self-reliance often chafes against Judeo-Christian notions of solidarity with the poor, the scope of the economic crisis offers an historic opportunity to rebuild our economy to serve all Americans, not simply the privileged few.

Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. recognized that the next frontier of the civil rights movement required bearing witness to the scourge of poverty plaguing the richest nation in the world. His “Poor People’s Campaign” brought together whites, blacks, and Latinos united in the belief that the moral measure of any society is found in how we treat the least among us. A culminating march on Washington calling for an economic “bill of rights” fizzled after King’s assassination in 1968. People of faith will revive this unfinished legacy in April with the Mobilization to End Poverty, an event organized by Sojourners that will bring together Christians, Jews, and Muslims for lobbying days on Capitol Hill. President Obama, who pledged to help cut poverty in half within a decade, has been invited to speak at the event.

The late Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis remarked that we can have democracy or great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but not both. The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans now own 20 percent of total national income. Nearly 40 percent of U.S children grow up in poverty. These are moral and political failures unworthy of a great nation. Our country has always been strongest when we are united by a sense of common purpose and a commitment to shared prosperity. If the American dream is more than an empty slogan, it’s long past time to make economic justice for all a reality.

John Gehring is a senior writer for Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. This article was originally published by Religion News Service. Reprinted with permission by the author.

Categories: Economics
Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • In this post: a bit more about--
    --the need to ground one's economic and political arguments in concrete history (parts of the first few paragraphs were already posted, a few new additions here);
    --a consideration of why we in the West might have such distorted (and non-historical views of socialism);
    --Reagan and the Sandinistas;
    --and a bit about George Orwell, Big Brother, double-think/double-speak, and "the devil"....

    "Definitions", or “ideas in theory”, are not the whole picture. If there is something about socialism itself, inherently, that would lead to the authoritarian regimes which anti-socialists commonly think of as “socialist” (Cuba, the USSR, etc.), well, then, it should be admitted, or at least looked into.

    However, I would argue that this is where the “historical particularities” of each particular case matter. Let me explain.

    Take the "Paris communes" for example; or take the "soviets", that is, the "councils", of immediately post-revolutionary Russia (before the Western-backed counterrevolution and before the Stalinists took over); or take the Sandinista movement (before the US started attacking them). If there is something about that kind of socialism that inevitably leads to authoritarian centralization, then, as I said, it should be admitted, or at least investigate.


    However, as I look at, and interpret, the historical particularities of each case, I don't see any inherent problem in the attempts at socialism themselves. Rather, what each "failure" has in common is the vicious and violent attack of anti-socialist forces, usually from without, and always vastly superior in terms of military might. In other words, I find that this "counter-revolutionary" assault by the capitalist or establishment (i.e "reactionary") forces is itself quite sufficient to explain the alleged "failures of socialism".

    First, of course, one must know the history. One must know that the US (and other Western powers) invaded the Soviet Union very soon after its revolution. One must know that the US fought an illegal and covert terrorist war against the Sandinista government. One must know these things, before one can take them into consideration, and before one can factor them in to one's evaluation of whether or not these incipient attempts at socialism failed because of something inherent to socialism, or at least partly because of powerful enemies from without.

    I think it is worth considering how capitalist interests in our country might have an interest in promoting the idea that it is socialism itself that is inherently bound to fail, rather than attributing the "failure" to the embargos, the mined harbors, the Contra terrorists, the Western-backed counterrevolutions, and all the other violent pressures that Western powers have brought to bear against incipient socialist movements. See what I mean?

    I distinctly remember Reagan gloating over his victory over Nicaragua, and his assertions that the Sandinistas were ruining the Nicaraguan economy. Really? It was the Sandinistas who were ruining the economy? Not the US-led mining of harbors, not the torching of fields, not the US-funded terrorist war itself?

    And, in Cuba (which I think may have had some “incipient” socialist elements to its revolution): can all the blame for Cuba's economic woes be laid at the feet of Cuba's dictator? Surely the trade embargo by the worlds largest economy—only miles offshore—has had nothing to do with it! Really....?

    Socialism is about providing health care, giving land to landless farmers, educating people and teaching them how to vote and to run their own country, and eradicating poverty. It is VERY difficult to do all that AND fight the most powerful nation on the face of the earth at the same time.....! Even that nation--our nation--cannot provide health care for all of its citizens—but it sure can fight a lot of wars..... Generally, war and socialism are incompatible, especially given the fact that most attempts at socialism (for what should be obvious reasons) start in rather poor countries. What hope do they have for a better socialist future if they must face hostile military intervention from their more powerful capitalist neighbors? And EVERY attempt at socialism has ALWAYS been met with reactionary violence, powerful reactionary violence. ALWAYS.

    And the USSR.... This is the arrow of choice with which anti-socialists love to shoot down socialist arguments with the deceptively simple (yet historically vague and unreasoned) argument: “What about Russia? Stalin killed millions of his own people. They couldn't even feed their own people. They had to build walls to keep people IN! Socialism obviously doesn't work!”

    So the argument goes. And that is usually about as far as it goes, too.


    And so the “socialism” of Stalinist Russia turned into its opposite. Not, I would argue, because socialism itself necessarily becomes its opposite, but because socialism was DEFEATED and was REPLACED by its opposite: dictatorship. Thus, instead of people taking responsibility for themselves, working hard, and making their own lives better, the Stalinist (and later the Maoist) "socialist" imposters encouraged the "welfare state" kind of approach to so-called "socialism": i.e. let Big Brother take care of you!

    This is what Orwell meant by "double speak": "war" became "peace". And, also, "socialism" became "totalitarianism". Its exact opposite!

    But, of course, this shouldn't suprise a Christian. The world is under the power of "you-know-who", isn't it? You know, the father of lies.....?

    But it DOES surprise me that so many Christians would swallow those lies: would uncritically accept a totalitarian regime's own claims to be “socialist”. It is especially surprising, as most Western Christians ardently believe that the Stalinists were expert propagandists. And yet, somehow, when they claimed to be “socialist”, we believed them?

    But I think the explanation is also rather obvious: we live in a capitalist country run by very powerful capitalist interests....interests that HAVE AN INTEREST in having people believe that the only alternative to capitalism is....well.... “socialism”....by which they mean “totalitarianism”. And with that, the propaganda war was one: once Americans believed that “socialist” and “totalitarian” were virtually synonymous, the capitalists's work was done. They no longer had to even try to defend capitalism (no matter how egregious the inequities it might produce), for the alternative was...quite literally....unthinkable. Un-think-able. Once words have lost their meaning, and have become their opposite, one can no longer think.
  • Just wanted to expand a bit on what “socialism” means to me, and a couple thoughts on the connection between the religious communities and socialists:

    To start with, I think you really cannot have a “socialist dictatorship”--they are, by definition at least, incompatible. Socialism is, at least in theory (at least according to people who really advocate it, as opposed to people who are against it), all about empowering the average person (“Joe the Plumber', if you will), in order to give him more say in how he lives his life, where he works, the conditions he works under, and all other aspects of his life—all in a context of solidarity with other people—people whose well-being is intimately connected to his own well-being.

    It is the idea that “we are all in this together”, and that, since the conditions of life will always mean that some will have more and others will have less (be it good-fortune, talent, strength), it is to everyone's advantage to adhere to the ethic of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. It is very much along the lines of the Christian idea that there is one spirit, yet many gifts, and the whole body (in this case, the body politic, the “demos” of the “democracy”) needs everyone, and everyone needs the whole body.

    There is no “free ride” in socialist thought. Far from it. An appreciation of work, the inherent human value of work, the joy of work, and the transformative potential of work, are at the heart of what it means to be socialist. Meaningful work, that is. Not “alienated work”, such as work-for-profit, but rather work to supply a particular need, or work to create, or work to explore and expand human potential.

    Socialist thought sees the aspect of human nature that comes through during crisis and tragedy—the spontaneous desire to help, the joy of feeling useful—and builds on that, and seeks to create a society that encourages and utilizes that aspect of human nature. Socialists would assert that it is only capitalist propaganda that would make people think that, in the absence of the whip, people would simply want to sit at home and do nothing; or that people would not respond to the needs of the community (be it food, garbage collection, or defense) ; or that people's greed and selfishness would turn community into chaos. People WANT to feel productive. People WANT to feel useful. People WANT to do things that get them admired and appreciated by other people. And for the few who really do NOT want to work? Well, then they just might not eat, either. There's nothing about socialism, nothing at all, that implies some kind of “free ride”. Nothing at all.

    Socialist thought recognizes the object truth that “wealth” is a social product—it is always created by a community, not isolated individuals. Even the greatest and most independent of entrepreneurs was raised by a family, fed by farmers, educated by teachers....you catch my drift. And there is no such thing, really, as a “new” idea, in the sense of “coming out of the blue”, independent of any social context. Every great thinker or inventor builds upon centuries of great thinkers and inventors who came before them. Wealth, ideas, language, math, science, medicine....all of these things are social products-- “social” meaning not some faceless Stalinist Collective, but rather “community”, “individuals together”. Both things: “individuals” and “together”.

    And it is the socialist belief that the political and economic system should reflect the social nature of wealth. Thus, Bill Gates may, indeed be a genius, and his contribution to society should be compensated. But is his personal, individual contribution really worth, say, a 100 million times more than the contribution of the doctor who may have saved his life, or the farmer that gave him the food he needed for his brain to work, or the teacher who taught him the math he needed to create what he did? And what about all the people who build and distribute “his” creations. Without them, the “wealth” he could produce would be precisely “zero”.

    No. Such disparity of wealth is, truly, sinful (not Gates himself, just the disparity of wealth he represents). It is what the prophets always railed against. Socialist thought, far more than the capitalist ideology, really is very much a product of the Biblical prophetic tradition of social justice. Marx himself came from a long line of rabbis (I think). It should make sense, and resonate, with Christians. Not just as an “ideal”, but as a PROJECT worth working on.

    However, given the way that the establishment clergy have historically (though not without very important exceptions) tended to side with the rich and powerful, socialist thought has also tended to be rather “anti-clerical”. In the same way, I would argue, as the Biblical prophets and Jesus himself tended to quite forcefully condemn the religious and political establishments of their day. And I think that is one of the sources of misunderstanding between the progressive religious community and the secular socialist community. To both communities' detriment, in my opinion. It is my hope that bridges can begin to be built between these two communities.

    Anyway, that was just to give you some idea of what I mean by “socialism”.
  • Agreed.
  • That doesn't mean, however, that He is; it first depends on an attitude of
    prayer and opening to God. I like to focus on the two Great Commandments: 1)
    Worship God with everything you have; and 2) Do right by your fellow man. The
    problems come when people and churches emphasize other things at the expense
    of those two.
  • All sorts of people with all sorts of different interpretations--sometimes
    diametrically opposed--claim the Holy Spirit is on their side. I personally
    just look at that fact, and, to me, it suggests that it's really human
    interpretation.

    And again--which Bible are you talking about--the Eastern Orthodox, the
    Catholic, or the Protestant?
  • Actually, absent the Holy Spirit one cannot interpret the Bible correctly anyway.
  • I agree. I don't think "monopolies" are "necessarily" bad.

    Again, it's been a few days, and I've lost the thread a bit, but what I think
    I was talking about was the way capitalism inevitably concentrates wealth in
    fewer and fewer hands. Over time. And not without some ups and downs along
    the way, or course. Real historical patterns, like real life, are rarely ever
    "neat".

    But, over time, I'd say that the pattern is pretty clear. I mean, isn't it?
    Really? Do you see wealth, over time, becoming more evenly distributed, or
    less evenly distributed...? The quantity of wealth as a whole may be
    increasing for everyone over time (hardly anyone lives in caves anymore), but
    it's DISTRIBUTION....? We have people earning 100 MILLION times more than the
    average working man! Do you really think that reflects their REAL value in
    any rational sense of the word "value"? Was Gate's individual, personal
    contribution to his product really worth 100 MILLION times the worth of a
    doctor who may have saved his life,or the teacher who may have taught him how
    to read and write, or the workers without whom he couldn't produce a single
    blessed thing? Or does it, rather, represent the way "money makes money", and
    "privilege" really does come with wealth, and wealth leads to "connections",
    which leads to more wealth....?

    The system is not "natural"--it is HUMAN, and it is only one way in which
    humans have come to create and distribute wealth; and it was, by and large,
    designed by wealthy humans to protect and grow their wealth (it wasn't peasant
    farmers or slaves or tradesmen who set up the banks; or who wrote the laws
    that governed inheritance and land ownership; or who decided whether or not it
    was legal to "bet" on the stock market; or who set up jails for debtors; or
    who created "corporations" and all the laws that support them; or who
    conquered foreign lands and took their gold and then "minted" coins....)

    And here is the elephant in the living room of "capitalist democracy": wealth
    ALWAYS brings with it political power.

    That's why democratic mechanisms designed to check the power of wealth are
    necessary. However, it is not sufficient to have mere "formal" mechanisms,
    like "the vote", or "representatives". Because wealth doesn't have to
    directly control the formal democratic mechanisms in order to effectively
    control the democracy. It does it by "buying" those votes; by funding
    lobbyists; by funding campaigns; by bribing; by all sorts of means. Wealth
    ALWAYS translates directly into power, political power. That's one reason it
    is called a "capitalist democracy" instead of a "workers democracy", because
    the "capitalists" really do have effective control. Yes, the non-capitalist
    class can organize either within the political system or from outside it, and
    sometimes get concessions--but it is still the capitalists who really run the
    show. How much input have working class folk really had in how Washington
    "bails out" the economy? With the capitalist Democrats, it's a top-down
    government approach, but, since it is government, there are at least some
    democratic avenues people can pursue; with the capitalist Republicans, it
    would be the "free market" approach, which translates into even MORE direct
    political power given over to the wealthy.

    Capitalism with a capital "K" ALWAYS tries to get the "populist" vote: it
    always tries to stir up small business interests and people who identify with
    the "self-made" man idea and to get them angry at "government" or "Big
    Business Monopolies"...but it does so in its own interests. It tries to stir
    up the passions of the "little guy", but it doesn't really offer him any real
    power. It just tries to get the little guy to vote for things like
    "de-regulation" so that more wealth and more power can flow even more quickly
    into fewer and fewer hands.

    Capitalism with a small "c" I'm all for: rewarding entrepreneurial spirit;
    small businesses; allocation of resources according to demand; etc. etc. The
    capitalism of Adam Smith was a capitalism designed to help the little guy, and
    to put a check on the wealthy!
    In fact, I think capitalism with a small "c" is quite compatible with the
    spirit, if not the letter, of "socialism", believe it or not. However, the
    free market really DOES lead to the accumulation and concentration of wealth
    in fewer and fewer hands; and THAT leads to what amounts to capitalist
    dictatorship (either with some semblance of democracy, as in our country, or
    without it, as in Nazi Germany, or "USSR,Inc.").

    And someone mentioned that capitalism is not a "system". (Again, sorry, I
    don't know if it was you, but it seems related to things you've been saying,
    so, here I go!) OF COURSE it's a system. It requires all sorts of laws and
    social institutions for it to work. Bartering may not be a system; but
    capitalism definitely IS. Legal institution of private property (not just
    private property, but private ownership of the means of production--which is
    not "natural", it is simply "one way" of doing things). Lending upon interest
    has to be legalized (which according to ancient Hebrew law, it wasn't).
    Banks. Currency. Prisons. All sorts of things that make it a "system".

    And the "island" analogy that someone used: people left to themselves and all
    that. Well, anthropology (not just Marxism) shows us quite clearly what
    tribes look like: what happens, naturally, in the REAL world (not the
    hypothetical world of individuals trading with each other, with no previous
    history, with no family relationships, no envirnoment, no competing
    groups--nothing "real" at all):

    At first, humans seem to come together in primitive family-based communism,
    with some degree of equality (not much to fight over anyway, in the jungle, or
    on the plains), and sometimes with a fair degree of power for women (the ones
    who had the power of birth); and, then, as productive power of humans grows,
    and a surplus of goods is established, class systems arise, to dispose of (or
    control) the surpluses: usually an exploiting class, and an exploited class
    (in broad outlines). First tribal chiefs, ruling clans, that sort of thing;
    then city states and empires with their ruling classes--and often slave-based
    economies. Then feudalism: the king takes part of the peasant's labor,
    though the peasant usually owns the land, and doesn't necessarily work "for"
    the king, just part of the time--for the peasant can actully life off his
    land, and is not dependent on the king for subsistence (just protection from
    other kings!). Then, gradually, capitalism came on the scene: same
    exploitation, but different form, and, generally, the worker is now TOTALLY
    dependent upon the capitalist for a living (to really survive) because he
    doesn't (usually) have his own land, or time to cultivate it, because he
    pretty much has to work full time to buy what everything has become: a
    commodity, an item produced for profit (as opposed to merely a "useful thing",
    like food, a rake, clothes).

    And present day capital didn't just "appear" on the scene: it DEVELOPED, and
    ACCUMULATED, in real, concrete history...much of it through direct conquest of
    most of the globe through colonialism, for one thing. Where do you think most
    of the capital in the banks came from? Small business and entrepreneurs? I
    don't think so. Try conquest, slavery, theft. That's where the really
    massive amounts of gold came from, and the truly HUGE profits. Where do you
    think the LAND came from--I mean the "private" land? Did Washington and
    Jefferson and Raleigh get it from the Indians? NO. They got it--the "title"
    to the land--from the British Crown, which stole the land. The European
    powers simple stole the land. And from that land they derived their wealth.


    Too many Americans think far to abstractly about where "wealth" actually comes
    from. They go to the bank, take out a loan...but do they think about where
    the capital behind that loan really came from? Well, it didn't grow on trees.
    And MOST of it certainly did not come from small "c" capitalists, doing an
    honest day's work.

    I'm pretty sure that really is the Big Picture. All the talk of "capitalism",
    small "c", in the abstract is just that: abstract. I don't think it stands
    up well when placed in real, historical context. People can talk all they
    want in the abstract: and capitalism does sound very good indeed, in the
    abstract. But the wealth which capitalism concentrates in very few few hands
    indeed will ALWAYS tend to undermine democracy.

    I've wondered: have you ever really sat down with a Marxist, a well-educated,
    well-informed Marxist (say, someone with the ISO, the International Sociliast
    Organization, someone who really knows their stuff), and really talked about
    what THEY mean by socialism and how they understand it? (By the way, just so
    you know, it's not, wholly, my kind of socialism.)

    I'm just saying: have you really taken "Marxism 101" from a Marxist--not a
    capitalist, or capitalist sympathizer, or from an academic trying to be
    "neutral"--but from a real Marxist?

    Again, I am truly just asking: have you? Maybe you have!

    Frankly, whenever I critically examine Marxism or talk to real Marxists (and I
    am always very critical when I do), I come away very impressed indeed.
    Marxism really does have great explanatory power. Almost too much power--I
    suspect it has some faults that its strengths make very difficult (at least
    for me) to see. And I'm no slouch. I was valedictorian of my High School
    class, and near 4.0 GPA all the way through my Master's degree in theoretical
    linguistics. And, yes, I have studied economics. And I'm no wet-behind the
    ear school-boy who hasn't seen the world either. I lived abroad for years.
    And I've worked and paid taxes for decades now.

    Which is not to say I couldn't learn a lot more, or don't lack important kinds
    of experience. I often feel overwhelmed by the complexity of economics, and
    am not particularly savvy in the ways of the world.

    But, frankly, I find that Marxism cuts (or at least seems to cut) through a
    lot of the abstract bullshit of capitalist economics. A lot of capitalist
    economics is, I believe, just smoke and mirrors. Things like strikes, and
    revolutions, and imperialist incursions into foreign countries, and
    imperialist wars, and military-industrial complexes, and 2 or 3 or 10 percent
    of the population owning 30 or 40 or 60 percent of the wealth, and real class
    struggles (when even the American government has turned its guns on its own
    people)--things like this really, as they say, "cut to the chase" and reveal
    at least some of the bare-bones realities of capitalism with a capital "K".
    Real, historical capitalism. Not the capitalism of that very good and truly
    compassionate--but seemingly historically naive--man Adam Smith. Not the small
    "c" capitalism that really is a spiritual brother of socialism.

    The Big "K" guys--they want the democratic socialists and the democratic
    capitalists to see each other as enemies (and to misunderstand each other!),
    instead of good people with possibly complementary, possibly somewhat
    conflicting, but nevertheless essentially sincere and well-intentioned views
    on how to create a better world. While we squabble, they continue to devour
    the poor, bind the captive, and turn the widow and orphan out onto the
    street.
  • In any case, taxes even for defense would still be "coercion" (but you may not
    have been the one who mentioned that...sorry, it's been a few days, and I've
    lost track of who has said what).

    I can't remember if I asked you before: how would you provide for the building
    of roads, schools, bridges, the maintainence of national parks (but those
    would probably be "socialist" to you...?), water systems, or hospitals, etc.
    etc. without taxes? It's not a rhetorical question; I'm not assuming you have
    no way to do it; I am really asking: how would you do it? I really am
    curious. Would it all be run by private, and for-profit businesses?
  • Health care should not be a "commodity" bought and sold for profit. If health
    care were bought and sold on the free market, then those without much money
    would simply not get the health care they need. Getting sick often means you
    can't work anymore. Capitalism does NOT recognize you if you do not have
    money: you "fall through the cracks"; that is, the for-profit allocation of
    resources simply does not respond to the needs of people without money.
  • Yes, I may have missed the point. Sometimes I get lost in the thread, and in
    this case I may have thought I was responding to someone else! What you are
    saying sounds quite reasonable. I think I was responding to the discussion as
    a whole: going back and forth about what the Bible "really" says. It really
    doesn't "say" anything. The whole history of Christianity demonstrates just
    how open to interpretation it is: both slavery and the abolition of slavery
    have been justified by using the Bible; both capitalism and socialism have
    been justified by the Bible. Both gay rights and the death penalty for gays
    have been justified by the Bible. I really would argue that "the Bible" (or,
    rather, any of the 3 Bibles) is not an "objective authority", at least not the
    way we usually think about "objective authority". It simply does not work as
    an arbiter of truth, because people interpret it diffently. Have you read
    "The Bible Tells Me So: Uses and Abuses of Holy Scripture", by Jim Hill and
    Rand Cheadle (Anchor Books, ISBN 0-385-47695-7). It gives lots of good
    examples of this kind of thing.
  • That's a predominant theme in much Christian broadcasting, if for no other reason than such apocalyptic thinking helps to raise funds. In fact, when it comes to the poor we're really stingy, with not just our money but also social resources -- my church is located and thus ministers in a poor neighborhood but also argues for justice so that they have a chance to change their own lives, and we've taken heat for that.
  • hammerud
    In more than 40 years in the church and Christian community I never
    have run into thinking along the lines of "we shouldn't focus on the
    poor very much." We can always find extreme examples among any group.
    I'm not sure what upsets you about this issue. Our church does what it
    can for the poor.
  • That still doesn't excuse what I consider your misuse of same. After all, fairly wealthy conservative Christians of the dispensational variety have used that phrase to say that "we really shouldn't focus on the poor very much." But God always intended the Church to be a reflection of Himself while it's here and not just be a vehicle to "save souls" -- and we can't do that while focused only on the hereafter.
  • I think you miss the point. The poster was using Jesus' words to insinuate that we shouldn't spend time on "justice for the poor," and I would suggest that such a misinterpretation has ramifications for the church's mission in general. My guess is that he is a dispensationalist, who believes that this world is basically irrelevant and that we should focus on the next -- a position I don't believe is supported by Scripture because it represents little more than evangelical escapism. God never said He would take us out of this world but promises that He will sustain us in it.
  • I totally agree that it is very important to look at context, and to argue
    about it ("argue", obviously, in the sense of "discuss reasonably with logic
    and evidence"). But that is not the whole story.

    Have you noticed that this devotion to context is not very, shall we say,
    "Biblical"?

    Time and time again I've looked back to the OT "context" of New Testament
    references to it, and time and time again I've found myself saying: "Huh?
    Well, THAT's interesting...."

    For example, there is some OT prophesy that Christians use to refer to Christ.
    The only problem is that they leave out the part about "and God will chastise
    him when he sins"; and elsewhere some alleged prophecy speaks of the "his
    sons". Anyway, I'm just saying that "context" in the Bible is a very, very
    tricky thing. The New Testament writers, like all human beings, were very
    selective in their sensitivity to "context".

    The New Testament writers take GREAT liberties when it comes to their use of
    the OT: they feel free to literalize what was figurative, and to spiritualize
    what was figurative; they paraphrase; they refer to books that are no longer
    extant; they quote dubious Greek tranlations of Hebrew words; they do all
    sorts of "messy" things. The whole shift from OT to NT is itself a lesson in
    "paradigm" shift: unclean became clean, circumcision became unnecessary,
    gentiles were "in"....all sorts of radical shifts in meaning and
    interpretation. 2000 years tends to mute the rather shocking degree to which
    age-old traditions and interpretations of scripture were transformed by
    Christian thought.

    However, Jewish use of Jewish scripture was not what modern post-scientific
    revolution Christians are used to anyway. They always took (what to us would
    seem) liberties with their scriptures: Scripture to them was a truly "living"
    thing--to be discussed, interpreted,re-interpreted, argued over.

    "Where I was going" with what I said was this: YOU determine what the words
    of scripture "mean". It is YOUR mind that interprets them. Even YOU have to
    determine what the relevant context is. Yes, not all interpretations are
    "equal"; and the relative merits of different interpretations can be
    reasonably discussed. But, then again, some of the new testament
    interpretations of the old testament scripture are, well, pretty "out there".


    Just beware: do not confuse your interpretations of what the words mean with
    "what the words themselves say". For the words do not "say" anything.
    Scripture does not "interpret itself". We interpret scripture.

    And the way sacred scripture is used, even within the Bible itself, defies
    normal "discursive" rules of interpretation. The Bible has OFTEN been used
    more like poetry than science or history. Taking liberties with context is
    fully biblical. It is very traditional.
  • I kind of "generally" agree in spirit with what you're saying about the free
    market of ideas. However, Christianity has always been the dominant religion
    here, and from the beginning there have been real Christian theocrats--the
    kind that really don't want a secular state. So, if the country as a whole
    has been more cautious when it comes to mixing Christianity in with the public
    school system than it has been with other religions, I think this may be part
    of the reason. No? But, like I said, I do think there are fanatical
    secularists too....

    Re God and the bible: Of course God and the Bible played a large part in the
    founding of the country. Almost every single person involved came from a
    Christian culture! That has nothing to do with how secular the nation was
    intended to be. It was the culture, the language. Even deists used the
    language of religion. But it is the MEANING of words that matters. It is what
    they MEANT by the religious language that matters. Remember: to John Adams,
    "Christian" meant a person who DID NOT believe in the divinity of Christ!

    Re Intelligent Design in the Classroom. I don't think many secularists are
    "afraid" of Intelligent Design. You have to respect something to be afraid of
    it. I think most simply despise it and truly see it as nonsense. Me? I see
    it as a possible hypothesis, not to be ruled out. And I think it would make a
    very good lesson in the classroom. I have trouble seeing it as "scientific"
    however, because if we are talking about God, by definition anything at all is
    possible--he could have placed the fossils there as "tricks"; he could have
    simply created the earth looking "old"; he could have done anything at all.
    For science to work, one really needs to be able to rule things out, to pin
    things down. God is rather hard to "pin down".

    A truly supernatural God is, more or less by definition, outside the purview
    of science, which is the search for NATURAL regularities, or "laws". I really
    think it gets "iffy" if you try to include God in "science".

    However, I think evidence for "intelligence" in the universe is rather clear:
    I mean, you and I are here, aren't we? And we are part of the universe,
    aren't we? Therefore the universe has within it the capacity for being
    self-aware and intelligent, doesn't it? As so often happens, when one really
    sits down and thinks about what we really mean when we say things, apparent
    irreconcilable differences sometimes dissolve. Take "mind" and "matter". If
    we say that the entire universe is matter, then we also have to say that
    matter has within it the potential to manifest as mind; that is, mind must be
    a property of matter...and the apparent contradiction disappears.

    I think something like this might be happening with the evolution debate.
    Science has, up to now, had a pretty "hard matter" view of things--matter as
    solid, mindless, etc. But science itself is coming to re-think the nature of
    matter, and more and more, something like "mind" is becoming part of the
    equation. Thus, the evolution which we do, in fact, observe in nature and
    through time, need not have wholly "mechanistic" explanations--that is,
    completely "mindless" explanations. Perhaps something like "intelligence" is
    at work, too. But it needn't be a supernatural intelligence. It could be a
    property of the universe itself. There needn't be a "creator"; there really
    could just be "the universe", intelligent, self-existent, eternal. After all,
    "God", as scientific hypothesis, if the intelligent design people want to look
    at it that way, explains nothing: it is just the box where we put what we
    cannot explain. It just means: "unexplainable". And if God explains "the
    beginning"--i.e. who or what started everything--scientifically speaking, we
    are right back where we started from: for the next obvious, scientific
    question would be: where did God come from? That's the nature of science:
    it questions. It doesn't "believe".

    God just isn't an appropriate scientific object of study. That's one reason
    it is better not to mix religion and science. They are two different
    languages, two different ways of thinking about and relating to the world. If
    one tries to use the language of science to talk about God, one starts
    sounding pretty absurd (like, "where did God come from?"); and if one tries to
    use the language of religion to talk about science, one also soon starts
    speaking gibberish (like God could have simply made all the waters from the
    flood disappear with a snap of his fingers). I think they reflect two very
    different ways our minds work: it's like poetry and discourse; or art and
    math. Better not to mix them. Both suffer when we do. Anyway, that's how I
    see it (and live it).

    Certain kinds of evolution are indisputable. Species have, in fact, changed
    over time. There is no reasonable debate possible on this. And natural
    selection, genetic drift, sexual reproduction, and genetic mutation all play a
    role in that evolution. This cannot be denied. This is certainly no mere
    "hypothesis", and it isn't really jsut a "theory", either: this is fact.
    Whether one species can become another species, or whether all biological
    complexity is explainable solely on natural grounds, may be a bit more open to
    question. I'm not sure.

    However, I hope you haven't been reading people like Josh McDowell. I
    remember reading something he wrote on evolution. It was laughable--he
    revealed an abysmal ignorance of even basic High School Biology and Physice.
    For example, he said that evolution couldn't be true because the law of
    entropy (I think that's the law--my physics is getting rusty) proved that
    complex things could not have arisen from simpler things, since the law says
    that all things tend to "run down". Well, that's the layman's way of putting
    the law anyway. But, apparently, Josh forgot about the sun. The law of
    entropy only applies to a "closed system"--that is, a system with no outside
    source of energy input. Like I said, Josh seems to have forgotten about the
    sun.... The sun's energy makes the earth an open system--and the law of
    entropy does not apply. Every time a bud breaks and a leaf starts to
    photosythesize, the power of the sun to provide the energy for "growth", and
    to overcome entropy, is demonstrated.

    Anyway, I truly hope you are not reading the likes of Josh McDowell!

    And, of course you warrant a response! You are clearly a sincere person.
  • Well, as far as the nature of the Bible, my first question would have to be:
    which Bible are you referring to? The Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholic,
    or the Protestant?

    As far as making a strong Biblical case for social justice--I'd say you
    definitely have the stronger case than the capitalist crowd! You're
    definitely right there.
  • smfergus
    It seems to me that the 'capitalists' aren't clamouring for the government to stay out of the market - viz. tax cuts, subsidies and incentives for which industry lobbies. The only complaints I hear from business are about regulation and other restrictions - often the only checks and balances there are. I don't see that 'capitalists' really want a free market.
  • Ngchen
    In terms of hindering the progress of a road system, I stand by my claim that it's possible if there aren't mechanisms to dislodge such people in extraordinary cases. After all, you can't build through my hypothetical 1 mm strip! Of course, regulation can easily become excessive. You bring up "too many cars." A part of that came from excessive zoning regulations that discouraged mixed-use neighborhoods, for instance.
  • Stein
    I strongly disagree with your view of the Bible. I believe the Bible
    *is* the inspired Word of God. Interpretation is not straightforward
    sometimes, and willful, selfish humans may twist meanings, so humility
    is required and submission to the Spirit of the living God. God speaks
    to us today in ways beyond the Bible and specific to our circumstances,
    but never in ways contradictory to the Bible, when taken wholistically
    and considered carefully.

    Thus I believe it is completely appropriate (and necessary) to ground
    our political opinions in the Bible -- they must at least be consistent
    to what it teaches. I have grounded in the Bible my opinion that
    government is needed to promote justice and prevent oppression. I
    challenge the capitalism-over-everything crowd to try to ground that
    view on Biblical principles.
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008