catapult magazine

in an attempt to keep the discussion on “wartime budget” going in a budgetary direction, i’m starting this discussion to talk about something mrsanniep briefly touched on over there.

she said:

my question is, couldn’t you pretty much twist that sentiment to say, “capitalism and christianity are completely irreconcilable, although, when looking at most north american christians, it’s very easy to confuse the two.”

i’m not arguing that either are perfect, both are flawed because of human greed (for power or money). but i think it’s far too easy to just completely discount either.

What about Acts 4:32— “All the beleivers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had.” The passage goes on to say how the early church testified to the resurrection with great power. It also states that there were no needy people among them, because from time to time landowners or homeowners would sell their propery and bring the money to the apostles to be distributed to those in need.

Capitalism is evident here, because the indiviuals owning private property made use of their personal resource to aid in the ministry of the gospel, and ultimately the advancement of Christianity. Socialism presents itself as well—because “No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had.” This idea of a humble equality presents itself numerous times in the New Testament and in the writings of the early Church.

A heavy responsibility rests on the individual to strike this (for lack of a better image) elusive balance. Iceland and its people are not employed and intelligent because of its system of government, but its people’s system of values. They are the ones choosing to read books—the government does not enforce this. They also choose to work. If they did not work, the country’s economy would soon crumble. These desires lie in the individual’s heart, which the culture around it shapes.

As for us in the United States, our capitalistic culture has raised us in rampant individualism (which has even invaded some of our praise choruses). Our churches in middle class America today have all but detached from this early congregation in Acts. Socialism is clearly wrong, but if American Christians could, in a sense, redefine the idea of socialism (of sorts) within this Biblical paradigm found here in Acts, pehaps we could advance the gospel with a greater, further concetrated, synergic, unified, unignorable power.

This, however, requires our individual hearts to change. Essentially, we need to rid ourselves of so many messages culture delivers in order to make full use of the best ideas capitalism and socialism alike offer us. Like mentioned before, both ideas are sinful in their purest form, but the use of the two ideas’ greatest benefits can only help propel the gospel.

I also think that Carthage must be destroyed.

Well, yes, I agree. I was actually going to bring up the example of the early Christians myself.

I suppose what it comes down to is the fact that I’m extremely uncomfortable with the idea that we’re somehow entitled to the money we possess. Do we think we deserve it? Do we think it’s ours? Do we think it’s a type of reward for our own behaviour? Why are we so loathe to part with it? How could we ever put private ownership on the same level as being compassionate to the weak and poor in our society? When I study the New Testament I see Jesus leaning more towards the latter than the former. So why wouldn’t I do the same?

Please don’t misunderstand me. I realize the socialism vs. capitalism argument is too simplistic. For the same reason, I would neither identify myself as Democract nor Republican. Likewise, I don’t consider myself a Socialist, but a socialist. It has not to do with governmental affiliation, but with attitude.

I do not believe the people in Iceland are so well-off because that is their individual choice. To a certain extent, yes. But would they even have the capability of making that individual choice if they hadn’t been given equal and quality opportunities from the very minute they were born, throughout elementary school, throughout high school, and then on through college? If the government didn’t place such high importance on education, or make it possible for every citizen, if they so desired, to take advantage of a good education, would they? When the odds are against you before you’ve even reached kindergarten, where in the world would your motivation come from? Perhaps socialism focuses too much on people as a collective whole, and not enough on the individual, but won’t enabling and empowering the masses produce stronger and more educated individuals than the other way around?

As for the reluctance to give money away—I think a certain level of mistrust of the government is healthy. But where do we draw the line? Why does it seem like the same people who are not questioning the government going to war and not questioning its use of money spent in this area, the same people who are OK with the fact that the US is going to be killing Iraqi children (more than 50% of the Iraqi population is under the age of 15), are NOT comfortable with the government using its money to look after the less fortunate children of its own country? Because the one option requires us to pay more taxes?

Do governments instill values into the hearts of its citizens, or is that an individual choice? I don’t know. But then why is the most capitalistic society in the world also the most individualistic?

I agree that our individual hearts need to change. Perhaps the beginning of this lies in being able to travel outside of our Western mindset?

I want to make one more point yet tonight. We may be uncomfortable to trust the government with a portion of our earnings because we don’t know where that money is going to. However, there are cold hard facts that socialist countries (especially Scandinavian countries) have high rates of education, low rates of unemployment, and excellent health care access for all. Do we need more than that to see that taxpayer’s money in socialist countries has a direct correlation to high quality of life?

I also want to add that I don’t think the question is of our own conscience, of whether we need to justify ourselves in front of God or in front of the government.

The problem lies in the fact that there are very real situations of poverty and suffering RIGHT NOW. i don’t really care whether a person would rather answer to God or to their government. What I care about is whether those kids I see running around in the projects every day are going to realize or be given the opportunity to become educated, and thus to empower themselves.

I don’t see that happening through individual citizens’ donations to charities of their choice. I see it happening through nation-wide government-instituted programs. I highly commend you, mrsanniep, for researching charities and then donating to them. But realize that you are more motivated than the average North American citizen.

I work with 5th-grade kids in a school on the south side of Chicago. The classroom in which we work has a bullet hole in the window (out of which one of my students pushes pencils), and across the street is an empty lot which, until very recently, was the location of one of the projects. Broken bottles and various other trash items clutter the street, and the school itself is worn out, dingy, and full of tired teachers and kids from low-income families. Did you know that 87% of children who attend Chicago public schools come from low-income families? Indeed, SARAH, where would these kids’ motivation come from?

I think of my childhood and my education—17 years in small, well-run private schools—and then I look around me at the schools on the South Side, and the chasm is so wide I can’t believe I grew up in the same country. How can I look at such things and not notice a problem with our current system? How can I not wince when I think of the billions being spent on the military . . . and the budget cuts on education?

There’s no easy solution. But I don’t think that we can depend on individuals to give their money to improve the Chicago public school system. And that’s the school system of only one city. Shouldn’t the government be providing funds so that the kids attending these schools have as much of a chance as I did?

I just haven’t been able to get this topic out of my mind—I’ve been struggling with the huge gap between the rich and the poor, both in our own country and among all the countries of the world. Why was I born to college-educated parents in small-town USA; why was I given a straight, well-constructed road to success? What I’m getting at: We don’t have a right to what we’ve been given. Our money, our homes, our resources, don’t belong to us to use however we see fit. With our wealth, with our resources, comes a great deal of responsibility, and when we hang, tight-fisted, onto our material possessions, we aren’t acting responsibly.

Granted, we don’t have a very trustworthy system in place. We can’t trust our government to use our money in the best possible way. But there must be ways that we, as Christians, can pool our resources to help one another out—to combine the ideas of socialism and capitalism and use them in the most effective way possible. As Norm said, “The use of the two ideas’ greatest benefits can only help propel the gospel.” Why couldn’t Christians set a new example, create a new way of thinking and acting (or, looking at the early Christians in Acts, follow an example set long ago)?

I don’t think the government should in no way fund programs to aid the poor and elderly (i.e. social security or welfare). I just don’t think adding government programs or relying on the government solely is efficient or a good idea. Instead, there are ways to reform existing social programs so they run more efficiently. For example, food stamps. They only cover food. Did you know that America has the fattest poor people in the world? Look at other societies and their poor tend to be undernourished. Because food stamps only buy food, people will consume all the food relegated to them because they don’t want the stamps to go to waste, regardless of actual need. Perhaps the food stamp program could be ameliorated to include other necessities, like gas? Then we’d be on the road to making transportation more affordable to the poor, thus getting them to better jobs.

And, if I’m truly more motivated than the average American, as Sarah said, than that just strengthens my argument – why would I give money to a population largely unmotivated to help themselves? Is it good stewardship to give our money to people who are completely unmotivated to better their situations and use the help they are given? Why not just flush our money down the toilet once a month? Or is it better stewardship to help those less fortunate who display a will and desire to capitalize on the help they are given and make something of opportunities presented to them? That’s where I’m coming from.

laurencer – I like charities to have a well-defined mission so I know where my money’s going and how it’s being used.

On a smaller level, however, I will give money to a homeless person on a street, buy socks for my poor neighbors after hearing them argue about not having any and send anonymous monetary gifts to individuals I know who are in financial need.

Hi Anne. I’m in financial need. Just thought you might like to know.

I guess I have a bit of distrust aimed at people who say that I should give my money to them to dole to people who have little. Why the middle man? I’ve felt that for awhile, but I think you did a good job of saying my thoughts Anne.
I’ve had this romantic concept for a really long time now, that before I die, I will find one homeless person who is willing and capable of working hard and creating a better life for themselves and do everything possible to make that happen. I’d pay for housing, food, clothing, recovery (if needed), transportation, etc. until they reach (ack I hate this word…) self-sufficiency. I’d like to know that I made a fundamental difference in one person’s life and perspective.
Then I realize how selfishly motivated this really sounds. I will find…I’d pay for this…I’d like to know….
I’m not sure if this was a discussion in another thread or in one of my classes over the past few years, but I remember a conversation about the selfishness of good deeds. How often do we do a good deed selflessly, or is it a conscious or subconscious “look at how good a person I am?” thing, or a “God is really gonna’ enjoy seeing my helping ‘the least of these’ today!”
I know it’s a bit of a turning point from the original intent of the thread, but I think it’s still somewhat pertinent.

I think your sentiments, Norbert, about the possible selfish motivations of helping other people out only confirm what I’ve been trying to say all along: the individualism of North American culture is disturbing, especially when it pervades even our charitable actions. I’m not trying to be romantic about this, I’m not trying to say that I’m arguing for some utopian communist society. I’m saying that there are people in our own country who need help, and who are not benefitting in any way as the richer and more powerful people sit around and say, “Now, would this be considered as selfless on our part, or not…. Let’s sit and think about this for a while because we CAN.” Don’t get me wrong—I think it is extremely important to examine motives. I’m just saying that I think in this situation there are greater goals that take precedence over our own individual inner turmoils.

mrsanniep, I think you’ve misunderstood my comment about your motivation. I meant it this way: you are, I assume, at a point in your life where you’re able to set aside some of the money you’ve been blessed with to help others. You are, I assume again, taking initiative in investigating charities and then donating to them. When I said you were more motivated than the average North American, I meant that most citizens who are as wealthy as you will NOT give their money away as you do. And so if they’re not motivated, will they do it on their own? Most won’t. Thus the need for a “middle man.” I was not comparing you to the segment of the population who wasn’t given the same opportunities and who, therefore, haven’t gotten as far in life as you have.

While I’m thinking about it, where does motivation come from? Is it an internal human trait whose level has a direct correspondence to our level of morality and our worth as a person? Or is it a learned trait, something that develops along with other behaviour we learn throughout our education (if we’re blessed with a good one)? If it is the latter, does that mean we have a right to just toss in the towel and declare the situation hopeless?

I think motivation in giving is the key, otherwise, where do the people who have “nothing” fall into our debate? Are they expected to give nothing? I think the Bible teaches us that everyone, rich or poor, should give all they have, like the widow in Luke 21:1-4 who, despite the fact she had nothing, gave all she had. We mustn’t forget the gift of ourselves, which is something anyone can give.

As John Wesley put it, “make all you can, save all you can, give all you can.”

Where does motivation come from? I don’t know. My first instinct was to suggest it was learned, based on my belief in total depravity. Then I realized that motivation can be both good and harmful. So. I’m not sure.

We just looked at 2 Corinthians for our biblestudy here in Chicago and it applies very directly to this topic. In the case of 2 Corinthians, Paul is the “middle man” and some in the Corinthian church don’t trust him. They blame him for pocketing some of the money etc. Paul’s response is given in a wonderful tone, but 2 Cor. 8:8-15 sounds suspiciously like socialism’s ideal for equality of material possessions. Paul says:

“Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality, as it is written: ‘He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little.’” (2 Cor. 8:13-15)

But this principle can be found in capitalism as well, can’t it? Radical capitalists believe the rich make more jobs so that the poor have opportunities to become rich as well. And Dewey believed that Americans, trained in good schools, will want to give back to the poor for the good of democracy, since the well-to-do will realize how much they’ve benefitted from the democratic system themselves. But this is more of an “end result” (pragmatic) way of thinking which doesn’t seem to gel with Paul’s attitude.

Paul’s advice to the Corinthians, who are suspicious of giving their money to him to be distributed to other churches, is that they should be willing to give just as God was willing to give so much and they shouldn’t think of him as a middle man. Paul says if we think of ourselves as part of a unified Body, our giving will be motivated differently and we won’t think in terms of middle men, poor vs. rich etc.