Now to business. Today we had the inaugural lecture on “The Ethics of Capitalism,” starring Michael Sandel. But first….
Worship. Wallis again took the pulpit (he is preaching all week) and focused on the story of Lazarus and the rich man. In his interpretation of the story, Wallis considered the lack of relationship between the rich man and Lazarus (the poor man) as a major sin in the story. He read a lengthy quote from Levinas which is always good. Overall, his point was good but kind of basic.
Sandel made a number of interesting points. Before anything, I suppose I should mention his teaching style. Sandel tends to lecture for a while and then engage people in the audience by offering an ethical situation and asking people to comment for or against. He had people with mikes walking around so everyone could hear. It was very well done.
Some basic points that Sandel made:
From the 1980s there was a basic feeling of Market Triumphalism leading to the idea that government was the problem to the issues of the world and the market was the solution. This held to the idea that the market was the primary instrument of the common good (whoops!)
Here is a scary thought: The biggest change in the past twenty or so years was the expansion of the market and the values of the market into areas that are normally governed by other values – i.e. schools, hospitals, prisons, security, etc…. The danger in this shift is that certain values and norms that are higher than market values are lost, i.e. helping a child to score higher in tests because it is the result of the child learning and comprehending information vs. helping a child to score higher in tests because it will result in a monetary bonus. Sandel suggested that perhaps the incentive of the market undermines the values of humanity (the intrinsic good). When goods are bought and sold then they become commodities.
Hold those thoughts…..
The other speaker I heard was E. J. Dionne who suggested that capitalism works only when the wealth is distributed in a fair and just way. Thus the government must regulate in order to keep the market honest and fair to all involved. He didn’t seem to offer much more than some flowery language.
So…… there are goods that are above the goods of economics, and capitalism can help to encourage those goods when regulated. And relationships are important. So what is the church to do? Perhaps start with encouraging relationships. Then the church (broadly construed) should articulate the “goods” that are a part of humanity, higher than the goods of the market and act as a watch-dog on the local level to protect those goods. From there, I’m still thinking…
8 comments:
Hi jonathan--I've been in a state of flux recently about how Christians should understand the market.
I'm not in love with market ideals. But I consider myself an economic conservative for three reasons;
1--it affords people the basic dignity of keeping as much as possible of what they make, rather than assuming they are incapable of making good decisions with their money;
2--it allows Christians to steward the maximum of the money they are blessed with in the service of their understanding of the Kingdom (very baptist, huh);
3--anytime the state poses a moral agenda and forces people to buy into it, it is bound to fall short of Kingdom ideals and so Christians are forced to support an agenda that is not truly theirs.
We can say what we like about market forces undermining higher goods, but do you really think the halls of state legislatures or Congress (or the white house or scotus) are these places where the higher goods can be seen more clearly? Are folks in positions of power like this really more likely to make decisions for everyone's benefit? Even if they're sincerely trying, what are the odds they get it right? Very low, at least as I understand human nature.
Anyway, my points to ponder. Enjoy Chautauqua--my wife is from that part of the world and it is beautiful in the summertime.
Michael,
I appreciate your thoughts... here is what I'm thinking in response.
1. I'm not sure that Free Market Capitalism does afford us basic dignity. Adam Smith assumes that humans cannot be moved by altruism or charity toward a good, and that we are always motivated by self-interest. While this may be a common experience, I do think this is a fairly cynical view of humanity.
2. I'm not sure Capitalism really allows stewardship either. Capitalism depends on an ever widening market to ensure growth... in other words, consumerism... which makes great demands on our money. If Capitalism is so good for stewardship, why is tithing constantly shrinking while the nineties saw such economic growth?
3. Sandel's critique is not partisan. He attributes part of the problem to Reagan/Thatcher, but notes that Clinton/Blair solidified the idea that the Free Market was the solution to the problem.
The point isn't that congress or the white house are the places where the higher good can be seen more clearly, but that more and more American Culture goes to Free Market Values for solutions to problems that are not economic. Free Market Values aren't Christian Virtues and so Christians need to be aware of this and start to develop language and practices which allow them to 'live in charity' and also to define the good according to the Bible and their tradition in an economic system that only sees profit as good.
Hi Jonathan--don't want you to get bogged down in a discussion (I want you to enjoy Chautauqua, after all!) but just a couple points in response. After that, you may have the last word if you wish and I'll drop it either way. :)
1--you seem to assume that because there is a system that can protect us from ourselves. I don't think so--there will be fallout from fallenness whether it is the fallenness of the many or the few. Free markets do afford those who wish to pursue Christlike stewardship the opportunity to do so wholeheartedly, which is what I mean by dignity. Capitalism certainly results in broken people, but so will any system in which flawed people participate.
2--It's always struck me that strong Baptists especially should be aware of the danger of enlarging the state. When the state begins to impose on our turf, Baptists get our backs up! What happens when the state starts using religious language (ie "justice" or "defense of marriage") to define and enforce a moral agenda, it seems especially ironic to me to see Baptists supporting it.
Anyway, my $.02, now go and enjoy beautiful Western NY. We're moving up that way in a couple of weeks!
Michael,
I am going to type this in caps because I said it last time and you didn't get it... in reference to pt 2...
NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT ENLARGING THE INFLUENCE OF THE STATE!!!
Listen... there is already moral and even religious language in the Free Market Capitalist System. Benjamin Friedman in a lecture on Tuesday called economic growth 'THE GOOD NEWS' and just in case some didn't get it... he specifically said that he chose that phrase carefully! Free Market Values are the Gospel Mike!!!! the Gospel!!!
The state is already imposing on our territory by suggesting the free market values can offer solutions to moral questions.
As to your first point.
you are correct in saying that any economic system will be flawed because humanity is flawed. But Are you suggesting that we simply shouldn't talk about what is flawed about Capitalism? Sounds like 'sin so that grace may abound' to me. Its broke, so lets leave it broke? That is a pretty privileged attitude I think, when so many in my community are living in their cars, walking 20 miles one way to get to work, not being able to afford a car.
I'll never be Christ-like, so why bother being a disciple?
the point of all of this is to think about economics from a Christian perspective, which may appreciate and uphold some aspects of capitalism, but also may be critical of others.
and if capitalism is so good for stewardship why is ABCUSA so darn poor!
Ok everyone, calm down (darin!). Mike, thanks for your comments, the conversation is a great part of the Chautauqua experience. Right now I am sitting on a porch enjoying the calm cool air and listening to a wonderful piano recital - this is what it is all about.
With all that said, here is my final thought (until I make my next post which will hopefully be soon). Capitalism is not a perfect system yet it is the system in which we all participate. I think it is the role of the church to keep the morals of Capitalism in check, however that might happen. I agree that the government cannot be trusted, nor can coperations be trusted. It is up to the churches (as well as other altrustic leaning groups) to make sure that the thrust for profit does not hurt the worker or take advantage of the consumer. It is up to the churches et al to speak the voice of the Lord when the poor get poorer and the widows and orphans (and all oppressed) are neglected by those with the resources to help - private and public. You get the picture.
I realize that this puts a large responsibility upon churches and smacks a bit of the Social Gospel, but the ethics and valuse of the Kingdom calls us to continue to work in the world.
I'm still thinking and working things out, but these are some points so far.
Peace!
Hi--first sorry for confusion--I thought Jonathan had responded to my first post, not Darin. oughta read a little closer. So, Darin--since you're not at Chautauqua, I'll carry on the conversation with you a little more if you want.
What are you proposing? Forgive me, I thought you were suggesting that we move to a higher level of government regulation.
Maybe you can tell me your working beliefs about how Christians should understand economics so we can have a more fruitful discussion. here's what I think:
My guiding principles when thinking about economics from a Christian, specifically Baptist, perspective, are these (always open to change these based on new evidence and discussions like these):
1--People deserve to keep what they earn and manage it as they see fit. As the stewardship of money is a religious issue, this is part and parcel of religious freedom to me.
2--The state exists to protect essential human rights of its citizens and provide basic services to its citizens. As such, Christians voluntarily give some money to the state for these worthy services.
3--Economic systems that take financial stewardship matters beyond the basics out of the hands of people and put them in the hands of politicians violate citizens' ability to follow Jesus (or not follow Jesus) with their money.
And we Baptists are about protecting people's rights to follow Jesus or not follow Jesus, or at least so I thought.
You wonder why ABCUSA isn't financially viable. Do you really think it's because of capitalism? What economic system would help the ABC to flourish? One where people are made to tithe to their home church? ABCUSA isn't financially valuable because many Christian stewards (rightly or wrongly) decided that investing in the denomination was poor stewardship.
I don't argue for capitalism because it works, though millions of impoverished people who receive microloans from Christian organizations to start businesses probably would.
I don't argue for capitalism because it's the gospel, regardless of what Friedman says.
I argue for capitalism because it preserves people's ability to follow Jesus with their finances, even if they choose not to follow him completely.
I actually am not far at all from the way Jonathan spells it out in his last comment. It's up to churches to remind people that they are not mere consumers and producers. It's up to Christians to rethink the Gospel far more broadly than we have ever before, and encourage all Christians to see themselves as stewards of the many gifts--financial and otherwise--that God has given us, and to give themselves in service to the world that Jesus loves in his name and as an extension of his ministry. It's up to Christians to reject a gospel that amounts to another consumer decision and embrace a gospel that crucifies each Christian with Christ and fills each Christian with his resurrection life and ministry.
It is capitalism that works against all this, but it is also the freedoms that capitalism affords that makes it possible to do this and not yield this precious job to some banal version of "justice" our politicians trot out.
MJ
Wait! Darin, you're in Chautauqua too? well, enjoy and forget about the blog comments for a while. this curmudgeonly conservative will get back to you later... :)
Mike(Michael?)
first, I'm glad that you have not let my slightly aggressive blogging persona offend or hinder you. I'm actually a nice guy, I just play a jerk in the blogosphere and I am enjoying your responses and the opportunity to think through clearly, what I am hearing at Chat...
first, I am not suggestion increased governmental access to my wallet or yours for that matter!!! Like you I do think people should be free to earn money and to use it as they see fit. I am a bit more cynical about American consumers actually being free because I am increasing convinced that we are so influenced by postmodern consumerism that we spend more time unconsiously pursuing products and the 'lifestyle' these various products suggest for us (if I drive this car I'll attract women, if I wear these jeans i'll attract women, if I use this hair product I'll attract women, if they see me with this car or this kind of suit, they will respect and admire me.) This is what I am saying about ABCUSA... I am not so convinced that we are consiously choosing not to be good stewards as much as we are being influenced and shaped more by advertising, consumerism and by extension Capitalism than we are by the gospels we say we love.
I am critiquing capitalism, or moving toward that critique, and although I find some of Marx's criticism valid and interesting, I am not community or socialist even. I do think that Friedman made some good points as does Sachs, that economic growth in the Free Market system is good for people... but I also think it carries certain dangers that need to be addressed.
Sandel's critique of capitalism, as I understand it, isn't a critique of capitalism as an economic theory. What he suggests is that we have started, as a society to use theories of capitalism to think about other areas of life, like health care, education, war, immigration, areas where other values and good apply. We have moved from utilizing a capitalist economy to becoming a capitalist society.
That is what concerns me Michael
Here is why.
Niskanen, in his lecture on Capitalism, which was traditional all the way... Milton Friedman right back to Adam Smith, assumes that humans cannot be motivated by altruism or charity, but only self-interest. Perhaps in some immediate relationships, direct family or close community relationships we can be altruistic, but otherwise we cannot or will not be. Yet it seems to me that the gospels contain one story after another of Jesus encouraging the wealthy to support the poor, in a sacrificial way. The Rich Man and Lazarus, Zacchaeus, just two examples of Jesus teaching about sacrificial financial stewardship.
Capitalism doesn't teach that. Now, we may have to learn to live with Capitalism as it is the best economic system and only one that allows us the freedom to practice stewardship as we see fit... BUT it is not Christian stewardship itself... so we need a christian critique of it, in order to utilize it... if that makes sense.
Post a Comment