http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ETBMhEzYKU
Now here is the ensuing discussion that took place between Brian and I:
Brian: "As long as the masses live in poverty so that a handful of people can live however they wish..."
I don't think this type of argument understands the causes and effects of poverty. I don't think you can blame "the current system" for such problems. Blame the lack of it.
When I heard Shaine Claiborne speak at my school, I thought "This is a guy ... Read Morewith an awesome heart for God but a poor understanding of economics".
The challenge should be to Christians to GIVE! God knows we can afford to. We are blessed to live in a system which allows us to earn so much wealth so we can give so much of it away. Don't blame "the current system". If you think liberal secularists resent Christians trying to impose morality on issues like abortion and gay rights, wait until the Christian church embraces the use of government force to ensure Christian charity. He gets it mostly right! But blaming the current system is pointless. Any system that has humans in it will fail in some way, because its parts fail.
I still don't know if I can express how worried I am that the church has decided to start blaming capitalism for the world's ills. Capitalism is a kind of earthly freedom, and the problem is that the people living under it use that freedom to their advantage without thinking of others. The solution is not a system with less freedom (at least not too much less), but for the church to witness and convict people in this matter.
I don't think Mr. Claiborne and the movement of which he is a part understand this, and I am afraid of the backlash that may occur because of that fact.
My Response: Thanks for the comments. Personally, I am not an economist, but I have seen the effects of capitalism for good and for ill. Agree or disagree with the concept of capitalism, it is, at least in America, the system in which we find ourselves. Because of my beliefs, I am unable to buy into the ideology of capitalism. I wholeheartedly disagree with it. Having said that, it presents a conflict, because the society in which I live is immersed in capitalism, there is no way around it. A compromise must be made; I believe that I can live in a capitalist society without endorsing the ideology of capitalism. There are ways to subvert the empire without "blaming the system." In other words, I can live my life in a way that does not align with capitalism, yet still survive in a capitalist society. I admire Shane for speaking out about what he feels passionately about. I also admire him for not buying into the system of capitalism. As you point out, there are potential problems with the views he is espousing as a solution. I disagree with you that Christians need to give more; that is not to say giving more won’t help, but that is not at the heart of the matter. Furthermore, I believe your statement, “The challenge should be to Christians to GIVE! God knows we can afford to. We are blessed to live in a system which allows us to earn so much wealth so we can give so much of it away,” is a hasty generalization. Which Christians can afford to give more? Your statement excludes those Christians living in poverty and assumes that all Christians are not living in poverty. I am not saying that you believe that, however, it is implicit from your statement. I believe what Shane wants Christians to do is live differently. By living differently, Christians will no longer give as “charity,” but rather as a way of life. Once the alternative lifestyle Shane is advocating is embraced, Christians will not buy into capitalism. As he aptly states, “I'm not a socialist...I always say that once we really discover how to love our neighbor as our self, Capitalism as we see it won't be possible, and Marxism won't be necessary.”
I don’t think that the church trying to use government to end poverty is a helpful thing. Rather, I think the church independent of government is capable of taking on poverty. As citizens of a particular country though, I do not find it problematic to petition one’s government about such issues. As we found out recently, our government certainly has the means to eradicate extreme poverty, combat hunger, AIDS, and other humanitarian issues worldwide. One could come to the conclusion, that the government has not done so already because there is no profit in eradicating poverty; it is not beneficial to capitalism. Thanks for the comments again, and a good discussion about pertinent issues!
Brian's Response: I hope you think I am being respectful in my disagreement. That is what I hope. And thanks for paying attention to the world outside of your own bubble - so many of us don't.
I guess I am left with questions from your response.
"Because of my beliefs, I am unable to buy into the ideology of capitalism." What is this ideology? I feel we may disagree on that, and that may lie at the root of some of our disagreement (if we really do disagree).
You asked: "What Christians can afford to give more?" I answer: many American Christians. This is what I mean, primarily: Christians who live in capitalist societies, who have accumulated wealth in these societies. Of these, I think America has both the most Christians and the most wealth beyond subsistence wages, ergo I think Christians could give more and buy selfishly less. You also said "I believe what Shane wants Christians to do is live differently. By living differently, Christians will no longer give as “charity,” but rather as a way of life."
What does this look like? Is the difference between giving as a way of life and just giving as "charity" a disagreement of kind or degree? Finally, the area in which I think we might disagree the most:
You said "I don’t think that the church trying to use government to end poverty is a helpful thing. Rather, I think the church independent of government is capable of taking on poverty. As citizens of a particular country though, I do not find it problematic to petition one’s government about such issues. As we found out recently, our government certainly has the means to eradicate extreme poverty, combat hunger, AIDS, and other humanitarian issues worldwide. One could come to the conclusion, that the government has not done so already because there is no profit in eradicating poverty; it is not beneficial to capitalism."
I am advocating the church, independent of government, tackling poverty. Not as much as I ought to, but that is the idea I expressed above. However, for the government to "address" such issues requires the government to spend money, which it gets by taxing its citizens. (To be continued...)
I question whether our government really does have the means to eradicate poverty and combat AIDS and hunger and other afflictions. We are running a deficit. Let's assume, though, that we have the money, or get it eventually. If we give this money to eradicate poverty, we eradicate it only temporarily. Poverty comes and goes in cycles. It can be traced back to someone's choice, though NOT necessarily the choices of the person living in poverty. Often, a government leader, or an unwise ancestor, or even a selfish employer squandered the money of people. Or crime or disease chased jobs away until an area has become economically dead. Even if we solve poverty now, it will probably reappear somewhere else. And the American government giving money is quite different than the church giving it. We are to be our brother's keeper, yes, but one of the reasons that the church ought to witness to the impoverished is so that the God of our church will be glorified. Who is glorified when the American government solves those problems using tax money from atheists, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and pagans?
When the church gives, it puts a face on the giving. It allows us to witness. And the personal nature of giving makes it harder for those also stricken with poverty of the soul to take advantage of the system. The government gives faceless handouts. A person who is poor through poor decision-making of their own cannot so easily take advantage of Christians who give. Solving poverty isn't just about taking wealth from one place and putting it in another. It's how that is done.
In short, I am skeptical of the power of the government to solve anything. Let the church do it and don't confuse the two.
My Response: Brian, thanks again for the comments. I respect the respectfulness of your disagreement. I hope that you find the same respectfulness in my comments. In response to your first question, you make a good point. Allow me to clarify my statement. By “ideology of capitalism,” I am referring to the myth of progress that drives capitalism. This myth would have people believe that increased industrialization and increased technology will result in increased wealth. More specifically, it assumes that this move toward increased industrialization, technology, and wealth is inherently good. Contrary to popular belief the “economic growth” produced by capitalism, as driven by the myth of progress, is not inherently good, and does not necessarily promote the standard of living. Specifically, I quote Brian Walsh and Sylvia Keesmaat, from Colossians Remixed, “An ever increasing gap between the rich and poor, rampant health problems (like cancer, obesity, heart disease), environmental degradation, racial tensions, divorce rates, urban uglification and psychological stress all are indicators of a low standard of living amidst “economic growth.” The point being, much is sacrificed for the growth of the economy. Most people look at the economic gains and societal benefits more than the sacrifices made to produce those gains and benefits. If it is good for the economy, and more wealth is an outcome, then it must in fact be intrinsically “good.”
A more personal example: consider the 20 oz soda or pop, depending on your locale, that you bought at a vending machine or convenience store today. Chances are that you threw it in the trash and did not recycle, as a recycling receptacle was not readily available. You consumed probably 360 calories, unless it was diet. You ingested high fructose corn syrup instead of natural sugar, or if it was a diet drink, you consumed another type of artificial sweetener. What are the consequences of your actions? First, let’s examine the benefits. You were able to get a quick sugar high. If it was a caffeinated drink you were able to stay awake in class or at work. If you were hungry or thirsty both of those needs were temporarily met. Whatever drink it was, it tasted good (assuming you made the right choice). You had a choice of which drink you wanted if all but one item was not sold out. You had easy access to the drink; it was “convenient.” Others benefit from the money you spent, a profit is made, the economy grows. Maybe you won something from the contest under the cap! Now let’s examine the negative consequences. If you did not recycle you are involved in the degradation of the environment, hopefully you had an option to recycle and chose it. If the soda was from a vending machine, then the amount of energy the machine consumes has an effect on the environment, and likewise, the energy consumed if it was from a convenience store.There are also direct effects on your health, perhaps not immediate, but over the course of your life some very negative effects are possible. I will not go into all of them here, but just present one or two. Some artificial sweeteners have been linked to cancer (this is not a concrete result, but a possibility). A recent study has charted the increased use of high fructose corn syrup as a substitute for real sugar, and the number of cases of renal kidney failure. There is a direct correlation between the two, the number of cases of renal kidney failure have increased at the same rate as the amount of food products that now use high fructose corn syrup rather than real sugar. My point is not whether or not these studies prove to be true, but rather, to point out that wealth takes priority over health.
The health of humanity and of the environment are both neglected when a capitalist society is driven by the myth of progress for economic growth. Allow me to further elucidate my point; as I showed in my example, industries cut corners to save and make money. The soda company now bottles in plastic containers because it is cheaper; however, when plastic is not recycled, and in many cases it is not, it is harmful to the environment. Companies are more concerned with a quick profit than coming up with a product that is healthy for the human and the earth. I could list numerous more examples (i.e. fast food restaurants, food packaging, automobiles, etc.) These companies have “progressed,” made a profit, and grown the economy, but at what cost?
To return to my point, I wholeheartedly reject capitalism, as driven by the myth of progress. Christianity and capitalism are not compatible, they are both inevitably at odds, and unfortunately much of Christianity, in America especially, has bought into it. Even more disconcerting is the fact that most Christians believe capitalism is normal, and do not see a problem with it. Consider the words of Wendell Berry, “Despite protests to the contrary, modern Christianity has become willy-nilly the religion of the state and economic status quo. Because it has been so exclusively dedicated to incanting anemic souls into Heaven, it has been made the tool of much earthly villainy. It has, for the most part, stood silently by while a predatory economy has ravaged the world, destroyed its natural beauty and health, divided and plundered its human communities and households. It has flown the flag and chanted the slogans of empire. It has assumed with the economists that “economic forces” automatically work for good and has assumed with the industrialists and militarists that technology determines history. It has assumed with almost everybody that “progress” is good…It has admired Caesar and comforted him in his depredations and faults. But in its de facto alliance with Caesar, Christianity connives directly in the murder of Creation.”I agree with you that some Christians could give more, but I do not think more is an issue necessarily of quantity in a comparative way. In other words, if Christians can give more, then I would become skeptical of their alignment with Christianity. I am not saying that wealth is intrinsically bad, but I do believe that, as I pointed out earlier, we should not buy into our culture of excess. If we have truly rejected our embrace of capitalism, and the empire of excess, then our giving will be radically different than just a quantitative more (i.e. more money).
In regards to your question on “charity,” I would say it is a disagreement of kind and degree. Specifically, I would point out that a different kind of giving, the kind I am espousing, as laid out by Christianity, implicitly calls for a different degree of giving. That can be interpreted in a number of ways, and there are various opinions as to how that would actually look. My example of what that would look like can be found in the gospels. Distinctively, it looks like loving your neighbor as yourself. That is a different kind of giving in that it is a way of life, but it is also a different degree of giving. If one is looking for a monetary example, consider the story in Luke 21.1-4, of the widow’s offering. In short, Christianity calls us to a different kind of giving, which consequentially leads to a different degree of giving.
I too believe the church should address these issues independent of government, as I said previously, and I will reiterate my belief that as a citizen of a country, regardless of religion, one can advocate for more government involvement in addressing these issues. Both church and government should be responsible for these issues, although I am not advocating a joint venture. Let me point out, that the US has been involved in foreign aid for years. A “percentage” of our GNP goes to foreign aid every year. I have quoted “percentage” because that figure is in fact less than 1%, it is 0.14% of our GNP, as of 2003. That is down from 0.15% in 1993. The US is dead last among major Western countries that dole out foreign aid. Given the US’s comparative wealth to the rest of the world, it is certainly feasible to give more. Denmark, Norway, Australia, Switzerland, Sweden, Netherlands, France, Finland, Canada, Belgium, Germany, U.K., Italy, Austria, Japan, New Zealand, and Ireland, all give a higher percentage of their GNP to foreign aid than the US. Studies have shown, that even an incremental increase in that percentage can have a major impact on the fight against poverty, disease, etc. You question whether our government has the means for such expenditures given our deficit; I would retort that our deficit is due to our military involvements. For example, as has been well publicized, US spending in Iraq is at least $10 billion dollars a month. I think that when the government reduces its military spending it will find the means to address these issues. I believe it is more pertinent to spend money to keep people alive, than to spend money in order to have the means to promote death. Perhaps if the US were more generous it would have fewer enemies. Allow me to quote Ron Sider on the generosity of the US, “Popular opinion suggests we are far more generous. Several polls have shown that the average American thinks the US government’s spending on foreign aid is twenty to fifty times as much as it is in reality. The United States did display national generosity at the end of World War II. At the height of the Marshall Plan (begun in 1947 to rebuild war-torn Europe) we annually gave 2.79 percent of our total GNP. But by 1960 the figure for foreign aid had dropped to 0.53 percent of GNP.” So, can the US be more generous, even in the midst of a “crisis?” I would submit a resounding, “YES!”
I find we are at odds on another point, you state, “And the American government giving money is quite different than the church giving it. We are to be our brother's keeper, yes, but one of the reasons that the church ought to witness to the impoverished is so that the God of our church will be glorified. Who is glorified when the American government solves those problems using tax money from atheists, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and pagans? When the church gives, it puts a face on the giving. It allows us to witness. And the personal nature of giving makes it harder for those also stricken with poverty of the soul to take advantage of the system. The government gives faceless handouts." I do not think that your reasoning lines up with my reading of Scripture. It seems that you are suggesting that because some of the money used to help the poor does not come solely from Christians that God is not glorified when government money is used in helping the poor. If I understand you correctly, I find that view highly problematic. First, your words stand in direct contradiction to Jesus’ teaching in the parable of the good Samaritan (see Luke 10.25-37). In that story, Jesus makes it a point to emphasize that it was not the priest or the pious that helped, but rather, what was then considered an “outsider.” God does not discriminate about who feeds the poor, takes care of the orphan, or the widow. Furthermore, I would say that God can and does work through non-Christians, and is glorified in and by their actions, just as much as the actions of Christians. See Matthew 25.37-40, especially verse 40, “And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.’” The “you” in this verse refers to the “righteous,” but righteous means, “those who innocently do good works.” I would submit to you that this is not an exclusive verse, but an inclusive verse, meaning, anyone who does these things, not just “Christians.” In conclusion, I do not think that government giving in these situations is a "faceless handout," rather I believe it can be, and is an act of love. Allow me to give you an example of how church and government can both address these issues. I recently spent some time working at an orphanage in Africa. The orphanage was run by Christians and supported by churches across the US. The orphanage had many kids with HIV/AIDS. The kids were provided with medicine to help treat their conditions. The funding for these medications did not come from the churches...it came from governments...
Thanks again for the discussion!
