Get E-Mail Updates

Obama's Ethic of Responsibility

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

In a recent interview with Barbara Walters, President-elect Obama said,

... When people are pulling down hundred million dollar bonuses on Wall Street, and taking enormous risks with other people's money, that indicates a sense that you don't have any perspective on what's happening to ordinary Americans. ...
[O]ne of the things I hope my presidency helps to usher in is a return to an ethic of responsibility. That if you're placed in a position of power, then you've got responsibilities to your workers. You've got a responsibility to your community. Your share holders. That if -- there's got to be a point where you say, 'You know what, I have enough, and now I'm in this position of responsibility, let me make sure that I'm doing right by people, and, and acting in a way that is responsible.' And that's true, by the way, for members of Congress, that's true for the president, that's true for cabinet members, that's true for parents. I want all of us to start thinking a little bit more, not just about what's good for me, but let's start thinking about what's good for our children, what's good for our country. The more we do that, the better off we're going to be.

His words struck me for four reasons. First, it's clear how they resonate with Jesus' words about much being expected from those given much. (Spiderman didn't originate the idea, but he was smart enough to pick it up!) The whole Bible affirms this correlation between advantage and accountability to God for how the advantage is used: wealth or power or special talent or privilege or extraordinary success do not exempt their recipients from responsibility, but increase their responsibility.

Second, it's clear how out of sync President-elect Obama's sentiments are with the kind of "economic fundamentalism" that says, "What's mine is mine and I'm not gonna share it," and with the kind of religious fundamentalism that equates morality with sexuality. The President-elect seems to believe that there is a morality to salaries and positions and how they're used, and that morality is not only an issue for the bedroom but boardroom.

Third, I'm struck by how conservatives and progressives could come together on an issue like this, especially because the president-elect was not advocating (contrary to the fears of some) socialism, but "an ethic of responsibility." It may be that if participants in capitalism can't find a way to sustain this ethic, its fatal flaw has now been demonstrated, and its days are numbered. Might progressives and conservatives be able to join forces to promote "an ethic of responsibility?"

Finally, I was impressed by the way the president-elect was suggesting that government alone cannot solve our current crises. This ethic of responsibility and the concern it implies for the common good and not just "what's good for me" -- these habits of the heart are needed in Congress, in the White House, and in the Cabinet -- but also on Wall Street, on Main Street, and around the family dinner table.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to hear something like this from a president-elect. After all, it's common sense. But common sense seems to be less common than its name might suggest. There was a lot of talk about hope and change during the election, and these words from the president-elect gave me hope about the kind of change we really need.

Brian McLarenBrian McLaren (brianmclaren.net) is a speaker and author, most recently of Everything Must Change and Finding Our Way Again.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: calledme

12-03-2008 @ 2:32am

Wow. The guy won't take office for a month and a half and already the judgment and denunciation start? I'm assuming y'all donate generously to charity so as not to get crosswise with Jesus' statement that "..for the measure with which you judge will be the measure with which you are judged."

There's really no justification for generalizing people -- "the rich people I know are very giving"; not long ago Neal Cavuto on Fox News commented, re: the subprime mortgage crisis, that "it's always risky to lend to minorities and the poor." Generalizing makes it easy to discount individual qualities -- like very bad rich people and very good minorities and poor people.

I'm also puzzled by the negative criticism, given that the way it's being presented makes it look like it's based on "I"ve made my mind up so the facts are what agree with me." It borders on vicious.

Tell the folks living in boxes under the interstate overpass in Mobile, AL that they are so lucky to be poor in America. Or present that to Native Americans on reservations where unemployment is 80%. Or the man in the small New Mexico town who is too proud to ask for help when he's hungry, and only eats well when neighbors tell him to help himself to their garden produce.

No political system is inherently good or bad -- it's either depending on the character of the folks who represent it. That's where the responsibility ethic comes in -- being willing to back up beliefs with behavior that shows a concern not just for self but for others.

What to do, then, with the early Christian church in Acts where all things were shared in common and everyone was provided for and those who had plenty and contributed to the more needy believers didn't see themselves as put-upon or cheated.

Except maybe for Ananias and Sapphira -- but they died.

by: xfree9

12-03-2008 @ 3:00am

I don't think anybody is virtuous simply by the fact they are rich or poor. That would be defining somebody based on the amount of property ("stuff") they have.

I have a similar question to those Christians who want to enforce their ethics on the rest of society: why do you insist on imposing values on people who do not agree that your values are correct?

And I'm sure you are right that we read the BIble with an American lens, but I don't think that's wrong because we are Americans. The Romans had a "Roman lens" and the Jews had a "Jewish lens" on which the Bible was read. It's not that we should impose the meaning on Scripture, but that it is helpful to inform our application in our world.

by: erbe

12-03-2008 @ 3:42am

"The very wealthy people I know are quite generous, and pay their workers quite well."

Please give us some facts and figures. Like how much gross personal income your wealthy friend earned and then how much did each of his workers get to report as their gross income from their employment by him?

by: erbe

12-03-2008 @ 4:06am

If making money is the goal of capitalism than I suggest that the South American drug dealers are some of the world's most successful capitalists. And then we have legitimate pharmaceutical companies that have made a lot of money promoting what turned out to be unsafe drugs. And then there is Wall Street to show us where unshackled and unregulated capitalism reached both the apex and abyss in twelve short months or less. Ah yes, greed is good.

by: canucklehead

12-03-2008 @ 6:28am

Bravo, ando!

by: canucklehead

12-03-2008 @ 6:30am

why bring Bush and Cheney into the discussion?

by: erbe

12-03-2008 @ 12:26pm

Just think of the example the CEO could set. Of course, most employees would know that when you make a million or 200 million a year you could probably live quite comfortably for maybe a year or two without a paycheck. Well, 99.9% of the world's population could, you would always find someone who couldn't make it on a million a year.

by: jeffp

12-03-2008 @ 2:35pm

Your sarcasm aside, Obama has no credibility on ethics in finances and should not be lecturing on the subject.

by: savvyguy

12-03-2008 @ 3:35pm

you may not believe tjhis calldme but there are a lot of government programs already for the poor people you describe. i realize that does not relieve me of my responsibilities but you may want to look into the delivery system of your favorite politician to see how his experience in street organizing paid off. is chicago the place to be? will the chicago model be our solution. is chicago where the ethic of responsibility began? give "H" a chance to perform. yes, i will. he is my president.
as long as the politicians keep milking the populace the poor will suffer. it's not the religious population that keeps the poor "down". it's the politicians.

by: erbe

12-03-2008 @ 4:08pm

"it's not the religious population that keeps the poor "down". it's the politicians." ...

along with their rich and influential friends.

by: usatrini10

12-05-2008 @ 7:39am

What is interesting to me is Pres. Elect Obama's "morality" in economics but lack thereof in real moral issues such as abortion. And if Obama wanted to do good works in private, he wouldn't run for Public Office. There are too many laws that require transparency of POTUS. And, here's the link for the Washington Post on Obama and his family relations. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008...
I find it a little disingenuous that one espouses an ethic of responsibility but practices little when it comes to his own family? This gentleman has been a community activist, a State Sen, and a US Senator and has no idea where his aunt is living or her status in this country?? hmm, likely story.

While I am certainly no defender of greed in this country, I come from a country dominated by social justice from the public policy perspective and let me tell you it's not all that it's cracked up to be. In full disclosure I truly struggle with this notion of a gospel preferential to the physically poor by attacking those who "pull down millions". Are we saying here then that Jesus' ministry had a preference to those in physical and economic poverty and this is the model we should follow?

continue to struggle with this doctrine:(

by: Mark Baker-Wright

12-02-2008 @ 6:31pm

Nitpick: It's "Spider-Man" not "Spiderman"

You may now commence with real comments.

by: DITE

12-02-2008 @ 6:33pm

"ethic of responsibility"Yay! Ethic of responsibility! How does that translate into actual policy? Not important. This is not a time to think about things like policies that will lead to economic growth. This is the kind of rhetoric that will save our economy/country!"Second, it's clear how out of sync President-elect Obama's sentiments are with the kind of "economic fundamentalism" that says, "What's mine is mine and I'm not gonna share it," This is true only in the conversations at your dinner parties. The American people are quite giving. The pursuit of one's self interest has allowed America and other free market economies to be the best safe havens for the world's poor."It may be that if participants in capitalism can't find a way to sustain this ethic, its fatal flaw has now been demonstrated, and its days are numbered."This is a terrible sentence. Also, I don't know what the fatal flaw of capitalism is and why its days are numbered.

by: xfree9

12-02-2008 @ 6:44pm

Many "Christian Capitalists" have been saying that capitalism will only work when people share an "ethic of responsibility." I'm not concerned with the salaries of CEOs, for if they all worked for nothing the wages of ordinary workers and the costs of the products made by the company would not be affected much.

What I hope Obama can do is inspire us to have that ethic without government forcing an arbitrary system of "fairness" defined by a small group of politcians whose ethics are questionable (depending on the politician). Obama has the charisma, and he has the charm to be a leader who values an ethic of equality and fairness to all.

Let's punish the fraudulent and let the reward of those who do business fairly be their profit.

by: xfree9

12-02-2008 @ 6:47pm

I agree, DITE. The very wealthy people I know are quite generous, and pay their workers quite well. And I think McLaren was saying that IF the mentality of capitalists is "what's mine is mine and I ain't gonna share it," then that's the fatal flaw of capitalism. I don't think that's the mindset, though I'm sure it is of some, but the price of freedom is that you can't always ensure that others won't do what you wish they wouldn't do.

by: Katie_4

12-02-2008 @ 7:26pm

I didn't read it as an argument for an ethic of responsibility as policy. But an ethic of responsibility can guide policy-making (as well as possibly create an environment in which less policy is needed.)

Look at the economic stimulus. Guided by some sort of ethic of responsibility one might think it important to provide for the poor during this time of economic stress. Which could lead to including a temporary increase in food stamp benefits and unemployment insurance in stimulus legislation. Interestingly, good economic policy/theory would also lead to the same outcome, as those are the two actions that economists (both liberal and conservative) have said have the largest stimulative effect on the dollar. I think it can be argued that lacking an ethic of responsibility (at least to some degree) might lead a policy-maker to not only pass policy that doesn't help the poor, but also doesn't follow sound economic theory.

I think the point trying to be made regarding capitalism is that if holding ourselves to a high standard of responsibility in our care for people and all of creation proves impossible to sustain through the capitalistic theory, then therein lies its fatal flaw. It's interesting there are such staunch defenders of capitalism (or any economic system for that matter). It doesn't have to be a personal attack, but a questioning of what works best and how do we continue to improve upon a system. Get rid of it or don't. The root of the problem is that it's currently not working. Change it/try to make it better and see what happens. If it works, great. If it doesn't, then maybe it might be time to try something else. But at least try to address the problem instead of just standing there clinging to ideology and theory. I think that is what Brian McLaren might have been getting at.

Finally, I think many people are referring to the inherent sense of competition as the flaw of capitalism. Competition over limited resources always renders someone a loser, by definition. And I think many of these people don't want to see losers. And for some, instead of making everyone a winner (which seems unlikely and impossible due to limited resources), they'd rather just end the game.

by: littleroundtop

12-02-2008 @ 7:43pm

"Competition over limited resources always renders someone a loser"

I see this point , but socialism over limited sources does the same , but it makes everyone the looser . Plus stops any incentive for those to take a risk to increase those resources .

by: littleroundtop

12-02-2008 @ 7:47pm

"Many "Christian Capitalists" have been saying that capitalism will only work when people share an "ethic of responsibility"

This makes logical sense . But of course it should be expaned to all in the captialistic system . CEO's also . The Founding Fathers spoke to this issue , how freedom of choice , our political system , only will work with a moral and religious people . Socialism always looks better to a people who feel the morality and justice of the system has failed and is out of reach . Thinking then the system will be better . For a short while I guess it will be .

by: liberalinlove

12-06-2008 @ 12:54am

Are we saying here then that Jesus' ministry had a preference to those in physical and economic poverty and this is the model we should follow?
Yup!
Well if you read your scripture, you may find that Jesus, our Good Shepherd, did come because of these people. Read Ezekiel 34. While He is not opposed to wealth, he did tell Nicodemus, to sell all he had and give it to the poor, in order to be perfect in the letter of the law. And he does tell the Pharisee's that washing the cup, or outward expressions of religious fidelity does nothing to make one righteous, but giving what is in the cup to the poor, makes one righteous. So social justice is biblical, but so is wise stewardship. The bible is pretty clear, a man must work to eat. Responsible government is should be fair to all including the wealthy.

by: 2cello

12-02-2008 @ 7:51pm

I think there are many good points here.

To add to the last one - I wouldn't say that competition is a flaw but one of capitalism's benefits. Competition and promise of reward bring ingenuity.

What I do think is the related flaw is the modern economic growth model. The two main types of private ownership, proprieterships and corporations work for growth. Corporations, however, have a particular focus on stock price growth to benefit the shareholders. The focus can become so singular as to exclude the needs of employees, the environment, long term businsess plans (as the current CEO will be long gone 25 years done the road), etc. Here is where ethical government policy is needed to put perspective back into the corporate growth model.

by: liberalinlove

12-06-2008 @ 12:46am

So he's an effective and organized organizer. Personal ambition to serve others. What an "aweful" thing. still pays $20.00 for a hair cut from the same barber he's had for a long time. Are we talking about the same person? I see this man as a servant first and then a leader. Which is what we are called to be.

by: BillSamuel

12-05-2008 @ 11:19pm

There is a responsibility, but it goes against the personal ambition for power that tends to motivate people. Someone who rejects public financing and takes hundreds of millions of dollars from monied special interests to buy an election probably isn't going to be effective in then arguing that these interests should behave responsibly. Not surprisingly, the President-elect is choosing to surround himself mostly with people representing the power interests of these people.

We have to work at the grass roots to change the whole atmosphere to one where it would be unthinkable to buy elections in order to further personal ambition. Obama has organized his entire life around personal ambition, to a degree unusual even among politicians.

by: jeffp

12-02-2008 @ 8:36pm

"What's mine is mine and I'm not gonna share it,"
Yep I remember reading about these two guys that were running for president and vice president who made lots of money but gave very little to charity.

by: savvyguy

12-02-2008 @ 9:08pm

right on jeffp; we will see what our new pres. does after taking hundreds of millions from lobbists and unknowns. lip service for responsibility is easy, implementation maybe not so easy. mclaren wants to see more giving from whom? who decides whom? the capitalists that "H" is aiming at are merely mimicking congress. the greedy politicians set the tone for ethics and respositbility. even the simplest amoung us can see the greed and lack of ethics in congress. why not do the same inhopes of obtaining the same, money and power. the capitalist system has the richest of the poor worldwide. lets define poor, please.

by: JeanM

12-03-2008 @ 5:55pm

Can you please stop referring to Obama as "H?" I always thought it was disrespectful to refer to President Bush as "W," even though his own campaign did. But, specifically, calling Obama "H" brings up the specter of "his middle name is Hussein, he's an Arab, he's a terrorist, etc, etc, etc, that was one of the low points of the campaign and some of the low rhetoric on this blog. Also it gives rise to the sneaking suspicion that you really don't regard him as "your president." JMO, of course.

by: JamesM

12-03-2008 @ 5:55pm

Well, 53% or so of the American people thinks that he does. That translated into an electoral college victory. That will probably be sufficient to be hearing from Obama on the subject of ethics in finances and many other subjects for the next four years. I for one am looking forward to hearing him speak. ;-)

by: nuclearferret

12-02-2008 @ 10:14pm

Got to admire how you worked in a jab at fundamentalism and religious morality in an article and commentary about financial responsibility. Then after taking your pot-shot, you opine how this could bring common cause to conservatives and liberals.

How do you expect to find common cause with fundamentalists when you apparently hold them in such low regard?

by: BlueDeacon

12-02-2008 @ 10:21pm

The American people are quite giving. The pursuit of one's self interest has allowed America and other free market economies to be the best safe havens for the world's poor.

That's not the point -- it's the old "charity vs. justice" dichotomy that folks still don't understand. Andrew Carnegie was "generous" with his wealth -- the libraries in my city have his name on them -- but ripped off his workers in the process. These are the people we call "robber barons."

by: BlueDeacon

12-02-2008 @ 10:27pm

Well, fundamentalists (or, perhaps more accurately, their leaders) almost by nature hold everyone else in low regard, for that matter, which is part of the problem. This blog wouldn't even exist were that not the case.

Besides, in the book of Isaiah (I don't remember the reference), there's a verse about economic injustice immediately followed by one on sexual immorality. You can't separate sin, no matter how hard you try, but the "fundies" do that quite a bit.

by: jeffp

12-03-2008 @ 7:15pm

Obviously finances are an important issue for our incoming president. What I'm saying is his moral lecturing on the issue rings hollow when you look at his giving record. Here is a guy that worked in the inner-city, lived in and has family in Africa so we know he is aware of the need, but has given little if no money to help. To have him turn around and take a moral high ground is hypocrisy. I have more of an issue with McLaren who is skilled at accusing the brethren from the high grass of subtly and then retreating to the high ground of an appeal for unity.

by: jeffp

12-03-2008 @ 7:17pm

"No political system is inherently good or bad -- it's either depending on the character of the folks who represent it. That's where the responsibility ethic comes in -- being willing to back up beliefs with behavior that shows a concern not just for self but for others."

That is exactly my point. Biden and Obama are the picture of talk with no person action to back it up.

by: erbe

12-02-2008 @ 10:37pm

"That if - there's got to be a point where you say, 'You know what, I have enough, and now I'm in this position of responsibility, let me make sure that I'm doing right by people, and, and acting in a way that is responsible.'"

Have you ever said that? Yeh, I mean you?

by: JamesM

12-03-2008 @ 7:26pm

You jump to a lot of conclusions based on incomplete data. How do you KNOW how much he has or has not given. His tax returns may not be reflective of his actual giving. After all wasn't it Christ who said to do you good works in secret and your reward will be in heaven? By the way, what right-wing talking head pundit did you get that information from anyway? I am asking because I tend to listen to left-wing talking head pundits so I would not have the opportunity to pick up on that line of attack.

What is entirely clear from your posting is that you dislike both Obama and McLaren. That is your right. But to accuse them of hypocrisy is another thing.

by: ando

12-02-2008 @ 11:46pm

So, why did so many prophets condemn economic injustices in the Old Testament? Read Isaiah 5, 58, Amos, etc. Are rich people virtuous just by the fact they're rich? Or are we putting American lenses on a Bible that was meant for people of all nations, not just our 4 percent of the world?

by: calledme

12-03-2008 @ 2:32am

Wow. The guy won't take office for a month and a half and already the judgment and denunciation start? I'm assuming y'all donate generously to charity so as not to get crosswise with Jesus' statement that "..for the measure with which you judge will be the measure with which you are judged."

There's really no justification for generalizing people -- "the rich people I know are very giving"; not long ago Neal Cavuto on Fox News commented, re: the subprime mortgage crisis, that "it's always risky to lend to minorities and the poor." Generalizing makes it easy to discount individual qualities -- like very bad rich people and very good minorities and poor people.

I'm also puzzled by the negative criticism, given that the way it's being presented makes it look like it's based on "I"ve made my mind up so the facts are what agree with me." It borders on vicious.

Tell the folks living in boxes under the interstate overpass in Mobile, AL that they are so lucky to be poor in America. Or present that to Native Americans on reservations where unemployment is 80%. Or the man in the small New Mexico town who is too proud to ask for help when he's hungry, and only eats well when neighbors tell him to help himself to their garden produce.

No political system is inherently good or bad -- it's either depending on the character of the folks who represent it. That's where the responsibility ethic comes in -- being willing to back up beliefs with behavior that shows a concern not just for self but for others.

What to do, then, with the early Christian church in Acts where all things were shared in common and everyone was provided for and those who had plenty and contributed to the more needy believers didn't see themselves as put-upon or cheated.

Except maybe for Ananias and Sapphira -- but they died.

by: xfree9

12-03-2008 @ 3:00am

I don't think anybody is virtuous simply by the fact they are rich or poor. That would be defining somebody based on the amount of property ("stuff") they have.

I have a similar question to those Christians who want to enforce their ethics on the rest of society: why do you insist on imposing values on people who do not agree that your values are correct?

And I'm sure you are right that we read the BIble with an American lens, but I don't think that's wrong because we are Americans. The Romans had a "Roman lens" and the Jews had a "Jewish lens" on which the Bible was read. It's not that we should impose the meaning on Scripture, but that it is helpful to inform our application in our world.

by: liberalinlove

12-05-2008 @ 10:54pm

Are we saying here then that Jesus' ministry had a preference to those in physical and economic poverty and this is the model we should follow?
Yup!
Well if you read your scripture, you may find that Jesus, our Good Shepherd, did come because of these people. Read Ezekiel 34. While He is not opposed to wealth, he did tell Nicodemus, to sell all he had and give it to the poor, in order to be perfect in the letter of the law. And he does tell the Pharisee's that washing the cup, or outward expressions of religious fidelity does nothing to make one righteous, but giving what is in the cup to the poor, makes one righteous. So social justice is biblical, but so is wise stewardship. The bible is pretty clear, a man must work to eat. Responsible government is should be fair to all including the wealthy.

by: erbe

12-03-2008 @ 3:42am

"The very wealthy people I know are quite generous, and pay their workers quite well."

Please give us some facts and figures. Like how much gross personal income your wealthy friend earned and then how much did each of his workers get to report as their gross income from their employment by him?

by: liberalinlove

12-05-2008 @ 10:46pm

So he's an effective and organized organizer. Personal ambition to serve others. What an "aweful" thing. still pays $20.00 for a hair cut from the same barber he's had for a long time. Are we talking about the same person? I see this man as a servant first and then a leader. Which is what we are called to be.

by: BillSamuel

12-05-2008 @ 9:19pm

There is a responsibility, but it goes against the personal ambition for power that tends to motivate people. Someone who rejects public financing and takes hundreds of millions of dollars from monied special interests to buy an election probably isn't going to be effective in then arguing that these interests should behave responsibly. Not surprisingly, the President-elect is choosing to surround himself mostly with people representing the power interests of these people.

We have to work at the grass roots to change the whole atmosphere to one where it would be unthinkable to buy elections in order to further personal ambition. Obama has organized his entire life around personal ambition, to a degree unusual even among politicians.

by: erbe

12-03-2008 @ 4:06am

If making money is the goal of capitalism than I suggest that the South American drug dealers are some of the world's most successful capitalists. And then we have legitimate pharmaceutical companies that have made a lot of money promoting what turned out to be unsafe drugs. And then there is Wall Street to show us where unshackled and unregulated capitalism reached both the apex and abyss in twelve short months or less. Ah yes, greed is good.

by: canucklehead

12-03-2008 @ 6:28am

Bravo, ando!

by: canucklehead

12-03-2008 @ 6:30am

why bring Bush and Cheney into the discussion?

by: erbe

12-03-2008 @ 12:26pm

Just think of the example the CEO could set. Of course, most employees would know that when you make a million or 200 million a year you could probably live quite comfortably for maybe a year or two without a paycheck. Well, 99.9% of the world's population could, you would always find someone who couldn't make it on a million a year.

by: jeffp

12-03-2008 @ 2:35pm

Your sarcasm aside, Obama has no credibility on ethics in finances and should not be lecturing on the subject.

by: Eric77

12-03-2008 @ 11:47pm

I agree with President-elect Obama's thoughts on an ethic of responsibility. We should all be thinking less about "me" and more about others. When God has blessed people with positions of power they should use what they've been blessed with to do good for others. What I don't understand is how Obama hopes his presidency will help to usher in this ethic. What does he plan to do that will make people more responsible? Does he think his personal life and actions will serve as a such a guiding light for others that they'll change their behavior?

On Brian's points, his second one is simply a bunch of caricatures created to make a point. Lame. His third point is valid and has been expressed in other ways such as "The problem with capitalism is capitalists, the problem with socialism is socialism." If we (meaning the vast majority of the world) want to base our economy on capitalism we must maintain a sense of responsibility to others. If we don't, capitalism will fail. And I'd agree with Brian's fourth point, that government alone cannot solve the problem of responsibility. Responsibility isn't something that can be forced on someone. It's an ethic he/she must choose to adopt. Justice is done when people voluntarily choose to do what's right.

by: Eric77

12-03-2008 @ 11:51pm

Making money is not the goal of capitalism. There is no goal of capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system. Participants in a capitalist system (i.e. you, I and everyone else) have goals, which are as varied as our personalities, desires, and beliefs.

Also, if you think we live in a country with unregulated capitalism, let me show you the U.S. Code and the Federal Register when you have a few minutes or hours or days.

by: dlowen

12-04-2008 @ 12:02am

I agree wholeheartedly. I also question the wisdom of those who would reject wise words simply because they hate the messenger. Is "moral authority" required to speak wisdom? I love Rush Limbaugh referring to the current recession as the "Obama Recession." He has not been sworn in as president and a recession that began a year ago is blamed on him.

Regarding the church as recorded in the second chapter of Acts, how powerfully would the gospel of Christ be proclaimed in our world if those who claim His name lived as such!!!

May His Holy Spirit lead us all into such a life.

by: savvyguy

12-03-2008 @ 3:35pm

you may not believe tjhis calldme but there are a lot of government programs already for the poor people you describe. i realize that does not relieve me of my responsibilities but you may want to look into the delivery system of your favorite politician to see how his experience in street organizing paid off. is chicago the place to be? will the chicago model be our solution. is chicago where the ethic of responsibility began? give "H" a chance to perform. yes, i will. he is my president.
as long as the politicians keep milking the populace the poor will suffer. it's not the religious population that keeps the poor "down". it's the politicians.

by: erbe

12-03-2008 @ 4:08pm

"it's not the religious population that keeps the poor "down". it's the politicians." ...

along with their rich and influential friends.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: Mark Baker-Wright

12-02-2008 @ 6:31pm

Nitpick: It's "Spider-Man" not "Spiderman"

You may now commence with real comments.

by: Mark Baker-Wright

12-02-2008 @ 6:31pm

Nitpick: It's "Spider-Man" not "Spiderman"

You may now commence with real comments.

by: DITE

12-02-2008 @ 6:33pm

"ethic of responsibility"Yay! Ethic of responsibility! How does that translate into actual policy? Not important. This is not a time to think about things like policies that will lead to economic growth. This is the kind of rhetoric that will save our economy/country!"Second, it's clear how out of sync President-elect Obama's sentiments are with the kind of "economic fundamentalism" that says, "What's mine is mine and I'm not gonna share it," This is true only in the conversations at your dinner parties. The American people are quite giving. The pursuit of one's self interest has allowed America and other free market economies to be the best safe havens for the world's poor."It may be that if participants in capitalism can't find a way to sustain this ethic, its fatal flaw has now been demonstrated, and its days are numbered."This is a terrible sentence. Also, I don't know what the fatal flaw of capitalism is and why its days are numbered.

by: DITE

12-02-2008 @ 6:33pm

"ethic of responsibility"Yay! Ethic of responsibility! How does that translate into actual policy? Not important. This is not a time to think about things like policies that will lead to economic growth. This is the kind of rhetoric that will save our economy/country!"Second, it's clear how out of sync President-elect Obama's sentiments are with the kind of "economic fundamentalism" that says, "What's mine is mine and I'm not gonna share it," This is true only in the conversations at your dinner parties. The American people are quite giving. The pursuit of one's self interest has allowed America and other free market economies to be the best safe havens for the world's poor."It may be that if participants in capitalism can't find a way to sustain this ethic, its fatal flaw has now been demonstrated, and its days are numbered."This is a terrible sentence. Also, I don't know what the fatal flaw of capitalism is and why its days are numbered.

by: xfree9

12-02-2008 @ 6:44pm

Many "Christian Capitalists" have been saying that capitalism will only work when people share an "ethic of responsibility." I'm not concerned with the salaries of CEOs, for if they all worked for nothing the wages of ordinary workers and the costs of the products made by the company would not be affected much.

What I hope Obama can do is inspire us to have that ethic without government forcing an arbitrary system of "fairness" defined by a small group of politcians whose ethics are questionable (depending on the politician). Obama has the charisma, and he has the charm to be a leader who values an ethic of equality and fairness to all.

Let's punish the fraudulent and let the reward of those who do business fairly be their profit.

by: xfree9

12-02-2008 @ 6:44pm

Many "Christian Capitalists" have been saying that capitalism will only work when people share an "ethic of responsibility." I'm not concerned with the salaries of CEOs, for if they all worked for nothing the wages of ordinary workers and the costs of the products made by the company would not be affected much.

What I hope Obama can do is inspire us to have that ethic without government forcing an arbitrary system of "fairness" defined by a small group of politcians whose ethics are questionable (depending on the politician). Obama has the charisma, and he has the charm to be a leader who values an ethic of equality and fairness to all.

Let's punish the fraudulent and let the reward of those who do business fairly be their profit.

by: xfree9

12-02-2008 @ 6:47pm

I agree, DITE. The very wealthy people I know are quite generous, and pay their workers quite well. And I think McLaren was saying that IF the mentality of capitalists is "what's mine is mine and I ain't gonna share it," then that's the fatal flaw of capitalism. I don't think that's the mindset, though I'm sure it is of some, but the price of freedom is that you can't always ensure that others won't do what you wish they wouldn't do.

by: xfree9

12-02-2008 @ 6:47pm

I agree, DITE. The very wealthy people I know are quite generous, and pay their workers quite well. And I think McLaren was saying that IF the mentality of capitalists is "what's mine is mine and I ain't gonna share it," then that's the fatal flaw of capitalism. I don't think that's the mindset, though I'm sure it is of some, but the price of freedom is that you can't always ensure that others won't do what you wish they wouldn't do.

by: Katie_4

12-02-2008 @ 7:26pm

I didn't read it as an argument for an ethic of responsibility as policy. But an ethic of responsibility can guide policy-making (as well as possibly create an environment in which less policy is needed.)

Look at the economic stimulus. Guided by some sort of ethic of responsibility one might think it important to provide for the poor during this time of economic stress. Which could lead to including a temporary increase in food stamp benefits and unemployment insurance in stimulus legislation. Interestingly, good economic policy/theory would also lead to the same outcome, as those are the two actions that economists (both liberal and conservative) have said have the largest stimulative effect on the dollar. I think it can be argued that lacking an ethic of responsibility (at least to some degree) might lead a policy-maker to not only pass policy that doesn't help the poor, but also doesn't follow sound economic theory.

I think the point trying to be made regarding capitalism is that if holding ourselves to a high standard of responsibility in our care for people and all of creation proves impossible to sustain through the capitalistic theory, then therein lies its fatal flaw. It's interesting there are such staunch defenders of capitalism (or any economic system for that matter). It doesn't have to be a personal attack, but a questioning of what works best and how do we continue to improve upon a system. Get rid of it or don't. The root of the problem is that it's currently not working. Change it/try to make it better and see what happens. If it works, great. If it doesn't, then maybe it might be time to try something else. But at least try to address the problem instead of just standing there clinging to ideology and theory. I think that is what Brian McLaren might have been getting at.

Finally, I think many people are referring to the inherent sense of competition as the flaw of capitalism. Competition over limited resources always renders someone a loser, by definition. And I think many of these people don't want to see losers. And for some, instead of making everyone a winner (which seems unlikely and impossible due to limited resources), they'd rather just end the game.

by: Katie_4

12-02-2008 @ 7:26pm

I didn't read it as an argument for an ethic of responsibility as policy. But an ethic of responsibility can guide policy-making (as well as possibly create an environment in which less policy is needed.)

Look at the economic stimulus. Guided by some sort of ethic of responsibility one might think it important to provide for the poor during this time of economic stress. Which could lead to including a temporary increase in food stamp benefits and unemployment insurance in stimulus legislation. Interestingly, good economic policy/theory would also lead to the same outcome, as those are the two actions that economists (both liberal and conservative) have said have the largest stimulative effect on the dollar. I think it can be argued that lacking an ethic of responsibility (at least to some degree) might lead a policy-maker to not only pass policy that doesn't help the poor, but also doesn't follow sound economic theory.

I think the point trying to be made regarding capitalism is that if holding ourselves to a high standard of responsibility in our care for people and all of creation proves impossible to sustain through the capitalistic theory, then therein lies its fatal flaw. It's interesting there are such staunch defenders of capitalism (or any economic system for that matter). It doesn't have to be a personal attack, but a questioning of what works best and how do we continue to improve upon a system. Get rid of it or don't. The root of the problem is that it's currently not working. Change it/try to make it better and see what happens. If it works, great. If it doesn't, then maybe it might be time to try something else. But at least try to address the problem instead of just standing there clinging to ideology and theory. I think that is what Brian McLaren might have been getting at.

Finally, I think many people are referring to the inherent sense of competition as the flaw of capitalism. Competition over limited resources always renders someone a loser, by definition. And I think many of these people don't want to see losers. And for some, instead of making everyone a winner (which seems unlikely and impossible due to limited resources), they'd rather just end the game.

by: littleroundtop

12-02-2008 @ 7:43pm

"Competition over limited resources always renders someone a loser"

I see this point , but socialism over limited sources does the same , but it makes everyone the looser . Plus stops any incentive for those to take a risk to increase those resources .

by: littleroundtop

12-02-2008 @ 7:43pm

"Competition over limited resources always renders someone a loser"

I see this point , but socialism over limited sources does the same , but it makes everyone the looser . Plus stops any incentive for those to take a risk to increase those resources .

by: littleroundtop

12-02-2008 @ 7:47pm

"Many "Christian Capitalists" have been saying that capitalism will only work when people share an "ethic of responsibility"

This makes logical sense . But of course it should be expaned to all in the captialistic system . CEO's also . The Founding Fathers spoke to this issue , how freedom of choice , our political system , only will work with a moral and religious people . Socialism always looks better to a people who feel the morality and justice of the system has failed and is out of reach . Thinking then the system will be better . For a short while I guess it will be .

by: littleroundtop

12-02-2008 @ 7:47pm

"Many "Christian Capitalists" have been saying that capitalism will only work when people share an "ethic of responsibility"

This makes logical sense . But of course it should be expaned to all in the captialistic system . CEO's also . The Founding Fathers spoke to this issue , how freedom of choice , our political system , only will work with a moral and religious people . Socialism always looks better to a people who feel the morality and justice of the system has failed and is out of reach . Thinking then the system will be better . For a short while I guess it will be .

by: 2cello

12-02-2008 @ 7:51pm

I think there are many good points here.

To add to the last one - I wouldn't say that competition is a flaw but one of capitalism's benefits. Competition and promise of reward bring ingenuity.

What I do think is the related flaw is the modern economic growth model. The two main types of private ownership, proprieterships and corporations work for growth. Corporations, however, have a particular focus on stock price growth to benefit the shareholders. The focus can become so singular as to exclude the needs of employees, the environment, long term businsess plans (as the current CEO will be long gone 25 years done the road), etc. Here is where ethical government policy is needed to put perspective back into the corporate growth model.

by: 2cello

12-02-2008 @ 7:51pm

I think there are many good points here.

To add to the last one - I wouldn't say that competition is a flaw but one of capitalism's benefits. Competition and promise of reward bring ingenuity.

What I do think is the related flaw is the modern economic growth model. The two main types of private ownership, proprieterships and corporations work for growth. Corporations, however, have a particular focus on stock price growth to benefit the shareholders. The focus can become so singular as to exclude the needs of employees, the environment, long term businsess plans (as the current CEO will be long gone 25 years done the road), etc. Here is where ethical government policy is needed to put perspective back into the corporate growth model.

by: jeffp

12-02-2008 @ 8:36pm

"What's mine is mine and I'm not gonna share it,"
Yep I remember reading about these two guys that were running for president and vice president who made lots of money but gave very little to charity.

by: jeffp

12-02-2008 @ 8:36pm

"What's mine is mine and I'm not gonna share it,"
Yep I remember reading about these two guys that were running for president and vice president who made lots of money but gave very little to charity.

by: savvyguy

12-02-2008 @ 9:08pm

right on jeffp; we will see what our new pres. does after taking hundreds of millions from lobbists and unknowns. lip service for responsibility is easy, implementation maybe not so easy. mclaren wants to see more giving from whom? who decides whom? the capitalists that "H" is aiming at are merely mimicking congress. the greedy politicians set the tone for ethics and respositbility. even the simplest amoung us can see the greed and lack of ethics in congress. why not do the same inhopes of obtaining the same, money and power. the capitalist system has the richest of the poor worldwide. lets define poor, please.

by: savvyguy

12-02-2008 @ 9:08pm

right on jeffp; we will see what our new pres. does after taking hundreds of millions from lobbists and unknowns. lip service for responsibility is easy, implementation maybe not so easy. mclaren wants to see more giving from whom? who decides whom? the capitalists that "H" is aiming at are merely mimicking congress. the greedy politicians set the tone for ethics and respositbility. even the simplest amoung us can see the greed and lack of ethics in congress. why not do the same inhopes of obtaining the same, money and power. the capitalist system has the richest of the poor worldwide. lets define poor, please.

by: nuclearferret

12-02-2008 @ 10:14pm

Got to admire how you worked in a jab at fundamentalism and religious morality in an article and commentary about financial responsibility. Then after taking your pot-shot, you opine how this could bring common cause to conservatives and liberals.

How do you expect to find common cause with fundamentalists when you apparently hold them in such low regard?

by: nuclearferret

12-02-2008 @ 10:14pm

Got to admire how you worked in a jab at fundamentalism and religious morality in an article and commentary about financial responsibility. Then after taking your pot-shot, you opine how this could bring common cause to conservatives and liberals.

How do you expect to find common cause with fundamentalists when you apparently hold them in such low regard?

by: BlueDeacon

12-02-2008 @ 10:21pm

The American people are quite giving. The pursuit of one's self interest has allowed America and other free market economies to be the best safe havens for the world's poor.

That's not the point -- it's the old "charity vs. justice" dichotomy that folks still don't understand. Andrew Carnegie was "generous" with his wealth -- the libraries in my city have his name on them -- but ripped off his workers in the process. These are the people we call "robber barons."

by: BlueDeacon

12-02-2008 @ 10:21pm

The American people are quite giving. The pursuit of one's self interest has allowed America and other free market economies to be the best safe havens for the world's poor.

That's not the point -- it's the old "charity vs. justice" dichotomy that folks still don't understand. Andrew Carnegie was "generous" with his wealth -- the libraries in my city have his name on them -- but ripped off his workers in the process. These are the people we call "robber barons."

by: BlueDeacon

12-02-2008 @ 10:27pm

Well, fundamentalists (or, perhaps more accurately, their leaders) almost by nature hold everyone else in low regard, for that matter, which is part of the problem. This blog wouldn't even exist were that not the case.

Besides, in the book of Isaiah (I don't remember the reference), there's a verse about economic injustice immediately followed by one on sexual immorality. You can't separate sin, no matter how hard you try, but the "fundies" do that quite a bit.

by: BlueDeacon

12-02-2008 @ 10:27pm

Well, fundamentalists (or, perhaps more accurately, their leaders) almost by nature hold everyone else in low regard, for that matter, which is part of the problem. This blog wouldn't even exist were that not the case.

Besides, in the book of Isaiah (I don't remember the reference), there's a verse about economic injustice immediately followed by one on sexual immorality. You can't separate sin, no matter how hard you try, but the "fundies" do that quite a bit.

by: erbe

12-02-2008 @ 10:37pm

"That if - there's got to be a point where you say, 'You know what, I have enough, and now I'm in this position of responsibility, let me make sure that I'm doing right by people, and, and acting in a way that is responsible.'"

Have you ever said that? Yeh, I mean you?

by: erbe

12-02-2008 @ 10:37pm

"That if - there's got to be a point where you say, 'You know what, I have enough, and now I'm in this position of responsibility, let me make sure that I'm doing right by people, and, and acting in a way that is responsible.'"

Have you ever said that? Yeh, I mean you?

by: ando

12-02-2008 @ 11:46pm

So, why did so many prophets condemn economic injustices in the Old Testament? Read Isaiah 5, 58, Amos, etc. Are rich people virtuous just by the fact they're rich? Or are we putting American lenses on a Bible that was meant for people of all nations, not just our 4 percent of the world?

by: ando

12-02-2008 @ 11:46pm

So, why did so many prophets condemn economic injustices in the Old Testament? Read Isaiah 5, 58, Amos, etc. Are rich people virtuous just by the fact they're rich? Or are we putting American lenses on a Bible that was meant for people of all nations, not just our 4 percent of the world?

by: calledme

12-03-2008 @ 2:32am

Wow. The guy won't take office for a month and a half and already the judgment and denunciation start? I'm assuming y'all donate generously to charity so as not to get crosswise with Jesus' statement that "..for the measure with which you judge will be the measure with which you are judged."

There's really no justification for generalizing people -- "the rich people I know are very giving"; not long ago Neal Cavuto on Fox News commented, re: the subprime mortgage crisis, that "it's always risky to lend to minorities and the poor." Generalizing makes it easy to discount individual qualities -- like very bad rich people and very good minorities and poor people.

I'm also puzzled by the negative criticism, given that the way it's being presented makes it look like it's based on "I"ve made my mind up so the facts are what agree with me." It borders on vicious.

Tell the folks living in boxes under the interstate overpass in Mobile, AL that they are so lucky to be poor in America. Or present that to Native Americans on reservations where unemployment is 80%. Or the man in the small New Mexico town who is too proud to ask for help when he's hungry, and only eats well when neighbors tell him to help himself to their garden produce.

No political system is inherently good or bad -- it's either depending on the character of the folks who represent it. That's where the responsibility ethic comes in -- being willing to back up beliefs with behavior that shows a concern not just for self but for others.

What to do, then, with the early Christian church in Acts where all things were shared in common and everyone was provided for and those who had plenty and contributed to the more needy believers didn't see themselves as put-upon or cheated.

Except maybe for Ananias and Sapphira -- but they died.

by: calledme

12-03-2008 @ 2:32am

Wow. The guy won't take office for a month and a half and already the judgment and denunciation start? I'm assuming y'all donate generously to charity so as not to get crosswise with Jesus' statement that "..for the measure with which you judge will be the measure with which you are judged."

There's really no justification for generalizing people -- "the rich people I know are very giving"; not long ago Neal Cavuto on Fox News commented, re: the subprime mortgage crisis, that "it's always risky to lend to minorities and the poor." Generalizing makes it easy to discount individual qualities -- like very bad rich people and very good minorities and poor people.

I'm also puzzled by the negative criticism, given that the way it's being presented makes it look like it's based on "I"ve made my mind up so the facts are what agree with me." It borders on vicious.

Tell the folks living in boxes under the interstate overpass in Mobile, AL that they are so lucky to be poor in America. Or present that to Native Americans on reservations where unemployment is 80%. Or the man in the small New Mexico town who is too proud to ask for help when he's hungry, and only eats well when neighbors tell him to help himself to their garden produce.

No political system is inherently good or bad -- it's either depending on the character of the folks who represent it. That's where the responsibility ethic comes in -- being willing to back up beliefs with behavior that shows a concern not just for self but for others.

What to do, then, with the early Christian church in Acts where all things were shared in common and everyone was provided for and those who had plenty and contributed to the more needy believers didn't see themselves as put-upon or cheated.

Except maybe for Ananias and Sapphira -- but they died.

by: xfree9

12-03-2008 @ 3:00am

I don't think anybody is virtuous simply by the fact they are rich or poor. That would be defining somebody based on the amount of property ("stuff") they have.

I have a similar question to those Christians who want to enforce their ethics on the rest of society: why do you insist on imposing values on people who do not agree that your values are correct?

And I'm sure you are right that we read the BIble with an American lens, but I don't think that's wrong because we are Americans. The Romans had a "Roman lens" and the Jews had a "Jewish lens" on which the Bible was read. It's not that we should impose the meaning on Scripture, but that it is helpful to inform our application in our world.

by: xfree9

12-03-2008 @ 3:00am

I don't think anybody is virtuous simply by the fact they are rich or poor. That would be defining somebody based on the amount of property ("stuff") they have.

I have a similar question to those Christians who want to enforce their ethics on the rest of society: why do you insist on imposing values on people who do not agree that your values are correct?

And I'm sure you are right that we read the BIble with an American lens, but I don't think that's wrong because we are Americans. The Romans had a "Roman lens" and the Jews had a "Jewish lens" on which the Bible was read. It's not that we should impose the meaning on Scripture, but that it is helpful to inform our application in our world.

by: erbe

12-03-2008 @ 3:42am

"The very wealthy people I know are quite generous, and pay their workers quite well."

Please give us some facts and figures. Like how much gross personal income your wealthy friend earned and then how much did each of his workers get to report as their gross income from their employment by him?

by: erbe

12-03-2008 @ 3:42am

"The very wealthy people I know are quite generous, and pay their workers quite well."

Please give us some facts and figures. Like how much gross personal income your wealthy friend earned and then how much did each of his workers get to report as their gross income from their employment by him?

by: erbe

12-03-2008 @ 4:06am

If making money is the goal of capitalism than I suggest that the South American drug dealers are some of the world's most successful capitalists. And then we have legitimate pharmaceutical companies that have made a lot of money promoting what turned out to be unsafe drugs. And then there is Wall Street to show us where unshackled and unregulated capitalism reached both the apex and abyss in twelve short months or less. Ah yes, greed is good.

by: erbe

12-03-2008 @ 4:06am

If making money is the goal of capitalism than I suggest that the South American drug dealers are some of the world's most successful capitalists. And then we have legitimate pharmaceutical companies that have made a lot of money promoting what turned out to be unsafe drugs. And then there is Wall Street to show us where unshackled and unregulated capitalism reached both the apex and abyss in twelve short months or less. Ah yes, greed is good.

by: canucklehead

12-03-2008 @ 6:28am

Bravo, ando!

by: canucklehead

12-03-2008 @ 6:28am

Bravo, ando!

by: canucklehead

12-03-2008 @ 6:30am

why bring Bush and Cheney into the discussion?

by: canucklehead

12-03-2008 @ 6:30am

why bring Bush and Cheney into the discussion?

by: erbe

12-03-2008 @ 12:26pm

Just think of the example the CEO could set. Of course, most employees would know that when you make a million or 200 million a year you could probably live quite comfortably for maybe a year or two without a paycheck. Well, 99.9% of the world's population could, you would always find someone who couldn't make it on a million a year.

by: erbe

12-03-2008 @ 12:26pm

Just think of the example the CEO could set. Of course, most employees would know that when you make a million or 200 million a year you could probably live quite comfortably for maybe a year or two without a paycheck. Well, 99.9% of the world's population could, you would always find someone who couldn't make it on a million a year.

by: jeffp

12-03-2008 @ 2:35pm

Your sarcasm aside, Obama has no credibility on ethics in finances and should not be lecturing on the subject.

by: jeffp

12-03-2008 @ 2:35pm

Your sarcasm aside, Obama has no credibility on ethics in finances and should not be lecturing on the subject.

by: savvyguy

12-03-2008 @ 3:35pm

you may not believe tjhis calldme but there are a lot of government programs already for the poor people you describe. i realize that does not relieve me of my responsibilities but you may want to look into the delivery system of your favorite politician to see how his experience in street organizing paid off. is chicago the place to be? will the chicago model be our solution. is chicago where the ethic of responsibility began? give "H" a chance to perform. yes, i will. he is my president.
as long as the politicians keep milking the populace the poor will suffer. it's not the religious population that keeps the poor "down". it's the politicians.

by: savvyguy

12-03-2008 @ 3:35pm

you may not believe tjhis calldme but there are a lot of government programs already for the poor people you describe. i realize that does not relieve me of my responsibilities but you may want to look into the delivery system of your favorite politician to see how his experience in street organizing paid off. is chicago the place to be? will the chicago model be our solution. is chicago where the ethic of responsibility began? give "H" a chance to perform. yes, i will. he is my president.
as long as the politicians keep milking the populace the poor will suffer. it's not the religious population that keeps the poor "down". it's the politicians.

by: erbe

12-03-2008 @ 4:08pm

"it's not the religious population that keeps the poor "down". it's the politicians." ...

along with their rich and influential friends.

by: erbe

12-03-2008 @ 4:08pm

"it's not the religious population that keeps the poor "down". it's the politicians." ...

along with their rich and influential friends.