Theology for the Masses

From The Rise of Christianity: [1] by R. Stark:

Free-rider problems are the Achilles’ heel of collective activities. […] “Truly rational actors will not join a group to pursue common ends when, without participating, they can reap the benefit of other people’s activity in obtaining them.  If every member of the relevant group can share the benefits… then the rational thing is to free ride… rather than to help attain the corporate interest.” [2]

Do you see this being the case?  The Canonical Church certainly faced these issues and attempted to put measures in place to limit freeloading.  We see it in the Pastorals, James, Peter, etc.  In our zeal to be an Acts 2 Church, do we ever miss out of the pragmatics of the Acts 2< church?

1. Subtitle: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religous Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries. [↩]
2. Here Stark is quoting Hetchter (1987:27). [↩]

The second reason the book [of Hebrews] is felt difficult is that is concentrates on animal sacrifice… [talk on the revolting nature of animal sacrifice to our “PETA-iszed” eyes]…  But the trouble does not stop there.  The word “sacrifice” has then become a metaphor with a religious coloring, and has been used to back up all sorts of appeals: to the young, that they should go off and fight wars wished upon them by the old; to women, that they should “sacrifice” themselves for the sake of the husband or children; the Christian workers, who are asked to “sacrifice” – i.e. to accept a ridiculously low salary – because ordinary churchgoers don’t want to realistically towards their support. We have, in short, become squeamish about real sacrifices, and manipulative with metaphorical ones.

N.T. Wright, Following Jesus p. 4

There are three gut-checks that we Christians need to think hard about.  The one that stuck me the most is the last one (though I don’t want to detract from the other two).  Maybe it is because I have seen how hard Christians make it on their spiritual leaders.  These people, who have given up so much of themselves to serve others.

My wife and I have been guilty of this on occasion.  We will freely give monthly to missionaries, people in our orbit who are financially struggling, local para-ministries, and even global mico-loan organizations; but it is hard as hell for us to give to our local body of Christ.  We’ve justified it a thousand ways.  Either we were not yet members, or they were not getting us involved [1] , or we did not like what they were doing in areas X, Z, or Q.  I personally know local assemblies and local leaders of those assemblies [2] that are struggling because of actions like ours.  Funny, I am quick to condemn the members of those assemblies for not supporting the organization of the assemblies, and remained smug because of our other giving.  Realizing this, Meredith and I have recently reorganized our monthly giving.  This is my admission of being a hypocrite and challenge to those reading this to do the same and to press those you know to change their giving behaviors.

You know what?  Just forget all of the above, money, like politics, is a taboo subject in the body of Christ today.

1. damn, how self-centered is that? [↩]
2. I am trying Jake [↩]

But the basic religious economic premise was not just about being nice to poor folks. It was about the flow of God’s abundance that must move through the whole society, not get stuck in the pockets of the rich.

Read the rest: Let’s Try Biblical Economics from On Faith by Arthur Waskow

Father,

we are children who have been given much. You have blessed us with an abundance of all things: food to fill our stomachs, every kind of entertainment to distract and occupy our minds, and every opportunity to adorn our bodies with things

stuff

the trappings of our culture that we think make us beautiful.

Father,

you teach us that the day will come when we are stripped bare of everything we hold dear, everything that we tell ourselves defines who we are, all the things we tell ourselves make us beautiful. And on that day, all you will see are those things that truly define who we are, those things that truly matter because they are the things that matter to you. And you will determine if, in fact, we are truly beautiful.

Father,

may you find on that day children who care really and truly for our brothers and sisters, your beloved creatures crafted so lovingly in your own image. May you find that we were never guilty of stealing from them those things they need to express that image fully.

Teach us to strip ourselves of the finer things of our culture that we may clothe ourselves with the finer things of your kingdom culture. Give us eyes that see the beauty that your eye beholds, that we may learn how to become beautiful in your eyes.

Of course, I don’t mean your giving should make life easy for others and hard for yourselves. I only mean that there should be some equality. Right now you have plenty and can help those who are in need. Later, they will have plenty and can share with you when you need it. In this way, things will be equal. As the Scriptures say:

“Those who gathered a lot had nothing left over, and those who gathered only a little had enough.”

- Paul, writing to the assembly of Christians in Corinth, 2 Cor. 8:13-15

Meredith and I, along with some friends, will be reading through Ronald J. Sider’s Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger. I just finished reading the prologue and wanted to give my initial thoughts.

My skepticism
I get the need. I do, I really do. My problem is the solution, or lack thereof. I see certain programs that are intended to help these people who desperately need it which fail miserably and actually contribute to worsening the problem. Thus I begin the book with a weary and skeptical optimism. I have been wanting a viable solution, not just money or grain dumping. Something that lifts real people out of real problems. I have come to the conclusion that mere aid is not the way to go forward because it robs from the people the ability to create their own economy and wealth, if the aid even gets to the people in need. Additionally, what I don’t want to do is bring the God of materialism along with the God of Christianity to the Other.

If it was only an issue of money – the problems would be solved. I hear the stat of 8 billion needed to provide the whole world with clean water and how Americans spend that amount on ice cream, yogurt, or blue jeans each year. I am highly suspicious that money is all that it would take. Think about the political instability in the regions that need the clean water. I think you will find that in order to create sufficient infrastructures in a country you also need to build sufficient political and societal structures. Thus, the “if only we gave the money we spend on X to Y, then the problem would be solved” line of thinking seems to be insufficient by itself.

Getting into the ins and outs of providing clean water is not the point of this post, nor it is something that I am sufficiently knowledgeable to talk about in depth. The above paragraph is merely a container of my intuitions on the subject and I recognize that may have my facts wrong.

What I do wanna highlight are some of my thoughts going into this book. I will absolutely support something that I think will work, but I won’t just do more of the same saying “Something is better than nothing” the whole while.

Garnering my Interest

With that said, let me sketch out what Sider has to say in the prologue. He begins saying that free market capitalism lifts people out of poverty and that historically γέ Communism has failed miserably. He says,

“Communism’s state ownership and central planning have proved not to work; they are inefficient and totalitarian. Market economies, on the other hand, have produced enormous wealth. [insert stats on Asia's accumulation of wealth since adopting market economies] … When the choice is between communism or democratic capitalism, I support democratic government and market economies. That does not mean, however, that the Bible prescribes either democracy or markets. Nor does it mean ignoring the problems and injustices of today’s market-oriented economies.”

He had me after that series of statements. I had anticipated an argument centered around a return to a sort of apostolic communism ala the book of Acts. I was weary of such an approach because I just don’t see humans administering that effectively on a large scale. He hints that this willingness to adopt practices rooted in market economies is a departure from earlier editions of the book. I have not seen those, so I can’t comment on that. From the on set, Sider seems be open minded to using practices that work in real life, in the here and now. That is a sticking point for me.

How “Biblical” – and is that a bad thing?

Throughout the rest of the prologue, Sider outlines what he plans on doing in the book. The first goal in part one is get the read to recognize that here is a problem that needs to be addressed, namely that there is a large segment of the human population that do not have the means to provide for themselves and their families and there is another segment of the population, Christians, whose 16 trillion combined annual income could go towards meeting those needs. In part 2 Sider plans to argue that God measures societies by how they care for the poorest among them so that his readers may be convicted and moved into action.

He gives a thought-provoking thesis on biblical economic equality:

God wants every person and family to have an [an] equality of economic opportunity, at least to the point of having access to the resources necessary (land, money, education), so that by working responsibly, they can earn a decent living and participate as dignified members of their community.

I am interested in seeing how he builds that up with biblical support. As of right now, it smacks of modern liberal (historical liberal) economic/political thought more than “biblical” thought. I could be wrong, and I hope I am – just my first impressions. I like the idea, that is for sure.

In part three Sider wants to outline the causes for poverty. He says that “some people are poor because of misguided personal choices and others because of unfair systems.” That is a position that can get the left and the right here at home in a room talking! I am pretty much down with what he is saying there, so left me move on to the most interesting section – the fix.

Giving a way ahead

In part four, Sider seems like he will be advocating micro-loans. Micro-loans are small, usually under $500 dollars, loans that are made to poor families in various parts of the world that enable them to improve their standard of living. This is intriguing. Do they really work? Sider certainly thinks they do, giving and example of a family in India that was able to start a small business because of a micro-loan. Sider says that these micro-loans can “improve a family of five’s standard of living by about 50% within one year.”

More importantly, if this idea works, it may be a way to by-pass the problems I have with current aid programs. It bypasses corrupt leaders, empowers the people to improve their own lives, and diminishes the idea that “the white man should go and save the brown man (who obviously cannot save himself)” both ideologically and structurally.

Despite these promises, I still have questions beyond the practicality of micro-loans. Are there other ways we can or should help? Should we as a political entity pressure our government to pressure other governments into creating fair economic and political structures (there is a question I would like to see answered by someone!!!)? Then there are the details on the micro-loans. He mentions usury being charged on these loans. Is that something we affluent Christians should be charging, or is it more an issue of practicality here. How can we have an organization run if it makes no money to pay for creating and sustaining the structure which provides the service?

I look forward to reading this book and hearing the reactions and reflections from my peers on the subject. If anyone that reads this site wants to read with us, I can give you our reading schedule and shelfit page where we will be posting our reactions.

One of the themes in my Sunday school class is justice. We have looked at God’s desire for material justice [1] in the world. We have looked at such verses as Isaiah 61:8, Zech 7:8-10, and James 1:27; all of which make it crystal clear that one of our functions in this world is to work towards material justice as well as the spiritual redemption of humankind.

I get the small scale application of this issue. Well, I am lying, I kinda get it. I know how to act justly towards the individual people in my life. I might not be overly good at it, but it is something I am working towards.

I μέν see individual Christians working towards peace and material justice in individual lives as the answer to Ivan’s moral problem with God in “Rebellion,” what δέ I can’t see is how this works on a large scale. I am of the firm understanding that throwing money at the problem (and here I am most specifically thinking about aid to Africa here) only at best perpetuates the problem and quite possibly makes things worse.

Also, I am not a big fan of certain statistics used in showing the gap in material possessions between our world and the developing world. Statistics such as “X people only make $1 a day” assume that the base model for human life is a capitalistic, consumeristic model, as if to say the problem won’t be fixed until They make as much money as Us. Now, at the same time, I see the usefulness of these stats, they help shatter certain conceptions about the material conditions in which these peoples find themselves and help to highlight the need for justice in their lives. What I don’t want to do is bring the God of materialism along with the God of Christianity to the Other.

Whenever I go a thinking about a widespread, “big picture” plan of action, I keep coming the conclusion that a political solution is needed. Given the nature of certain countries’ leaders, a political solution must be predicated by a military solution. Yet, all of this seems to go against my “Kingdom of God” theology. As such, I am at a loss. I know how I would go about trying to fix the problem apart from Christian values, but when I factor those in, I am left with a myriad of contradictions.

And yet, God still demands that we help those in need, and I am to do what God demands. What I need here in an infusion of creativity and ideas. How can we help those in need in the concrete?

I get the need, I need a plan.

1. By material justice, I don’t mean equal possessions. I am talking about real and tangible justice in this world, as contrasted with waiting around for the just situation we will find in the next. [↩]

When I first began reading feminist theology, Schusseler-Fiorenza and Welch drew my attention to how language, particularly patriarchal language, shapes not only abstract theological concepts, but also the everyday, practical matters of the Christian life. Among other things, we assume male dominance in the masculine pronouns we use for God, even though we classically maintain God is neither He nor She, but Spirit.

Though I could continue to criticize the church’s use of vocabulary in the oppression of certain peoples, the ecclesiastical rhetoric I want to appraise presently is the church’s employment of the vocabulary of the Empire – particularly its economic verbage.

I often hear Christians refer to “investing” in either non-believers or people whom they are mentoring in the faith. The language of investment is procured, obviously, from the economic world referring to putting money to use in order to gain a potentially profitable return. That is, one invests in order to gain a return.

But is the return what Christian friendship is really about? It is supposed to be what I can gain from my time and effort spilled into another person? When we “invest” in a non-Christian, what we often mean is that we spend time with them in order to make them Christian! When we “invest” in a disciple, we mean we spend time with them in order to elicit the return of sanctification!

But is the return at the heart of Christianity? Is my primary agenda in befriending a non-Christian that they might buy into my product? Does this language not dehumanize and objectify our “investment”? Does this language not communicate that this whole Christianity thing is about what I can profit, or God can yield? Being friends with people outside the Christian faith is not about investment, it is about being genuine friends! Genuine friendship, for sure, involves demonstrating God’s love to the other. But this demonstration of love is not artificial and contrived; it is not about reciprocation or return. Consider my friendship with JR.

I would never say of JR that I am “investing” in him. That would entail certain things which are not inherent in sincere friendship. It would imply that I deem him spiritually below me or that he needs me in his life to be spiritually fruitful. It also implies that my agenda is to correct his spiritual imperfections, and because of my investment, I expect that he will provide a certain return. In the end, the language of investment doesn’t appear to be a natural part of genuine friendship.

But, in the end, this is not even the most dangerous aspect of investment rhetoric.

For me, the most dangerous part of the church’s employment of economic language is that we have taken the language of America’s dominant deity (economics, consumerism, materialism), and leaving it unchanged and unchallenged, we have taken it into our communities like a long lost brother. But as long as the economic rhetoric involved in America’s one true religion is warmly accepted by the church, we will never be able to counter the influence of capitalism, consumerism, materialism, or just plain-ole Mammon in our lives.

Now from where I sit, it appears we have two options. First, the church can completely rid itself of economic language. We can completely drop the language like a deflated stock. No more language of investment or any other kind of rhetoric that smacks of capitalism.

The second option, and one that requires a bit more creativity, is to continue to use economic language, but subvert it by investing it with distinctly Christian meaning. This option falls in line a bit more with what we see in the New Testament. The Gk. word we translate “fellowship” often referred to partnership in business agendas in the first century. Also, and more obvious, the word we translate “redeem” means to “buy back.” It too is an overtly economic word.

I like this second option the best, but there are two difficulties with it.

First, are we creative enough, or even powerful enough, to change the way Christian people generally employ economic rhetoric? Like Wal-Mart in a small town, economic language dominates our American landscape. Completely subverting it and changing it is a nearly impossible task. We may try, but in the end, our use of language is merely a text which is interpreted and misinterpreted by our hearers. Just because I invest economic rhetoric with new meaning doesn’t mean my hearers will observe that investment.

Second, when the New Testament writers reinvested economic language with Christian meaning, they were not using the language of the dominant deity of the Roman Empire. So, even assuming our hearers will understand our new meaning, might we be safer in simply abandoning the language altogether?

So, that’s as far as my thoughts have taken me on this topic thus far. I’m looking for some help getting past this roadblock. What do you think? The bottom line is that Jesus did not heal people for his own glory, and he even healed some who never even thanked him or his Father. It doesn’t seem like his investment in people was only about what he or his religion can get out of it. What about just showing people the love of God for its own sake?

One of the more disconcerting passages in all the Bible is the rape of Tamar, David’s daughter, by her half-brother Amnon (2 Samuel 13). As the narrative goes, Tamar is “loved” by her brother because he was tormented by her beauty. He feigns an illness to be alone with Tamar. When she brings him food to eat, he seizes her and rapes her despite her fervent resistance. After the rape, Amnon loathes his sister more than he ever “loved” her. He thrusts her away as a slave, a piece of property which was expended and now retains no value. To Amnon, she is no longer “Tamar,” she is now “this woman.” She is no longer a person who is “loved,” she is chattel to be discharged. [1]

Amnon learned this behavior from his father – that is, he learned to treat people, especially women, as property instead of humans created in God’s image. Just in the previous chapter David is finally confronted about his rape of Bathsheba and his clandestine execution of Uriah. People and their lives were mere objects to be consumed to David. He cared little for love, for family, for holiness. He cared only for consumption, and people are just another thing to be procured, retain, owned, and conquered.

What I find interesting in this whole matter is how intercourse and economics relate. As the narrative advances, we find Solomon, in the climax of his rule, with infinite wealth and thousands of sex-slaves. Women are objects to be owned – he too learned this from his father. Relationships, love, or devotion have no place in his world. Only objects exist, objects which are bought and sold, owned and operated, controlled and dominated. [2]

When economics and power become the chief agenda of a people, the objectification of others comes to dictate the landscape. This is particularly the case with sex. Sex becomes nothing more than, in our world, two consumers devouring one another, envision the other as an item whose individual purpose is to satisfy my desires without regards to the consequences of this behavior. That’s what consumerism is at its nastiest – a inexhaustible sport of stockpiling objects for one’s own agenda without considering the consequences of that consumption either for the earth, the other person, the community, or the world. It’s all about the ego.

Intercourse and economics – isn’t staggering how a person’s view on one stimulates certain assumptions about the other? When one views economics as merely a means of consumption and gaining wealth, power, and property, one will perceive sex the same way. But if economics is principally about honoring God through the giving away of one’s possessions, one will see sex differently as well. It is not about my desires, it is not about my consumption; it is about the other person, their will, their enjoyment, their desire. People are no longer objects to be owned and dominated (such as in pornography), they are people made in the Image of God! The denial of the ego in economic areas translates into the denial of the ego in the bedroom. This is why Paul lists greed right along side a bunch of sexual sins in Colossians 3. He realized the connection!

Its seems, then, that if we yearn for holiness, maybe our deity of covetousness and wealth ought to go first. If economics is linked to intercourse, imagine what else it is relates to – violence, anger, division, quarreling, pride! Maybe dispossession isn’t only about abnegation, [3] but about sanctification in all areas of life.

1. there is some credence to the thought that this objectification of women is inherent within the Torah. After all, women are listed among the property not to be coveted in the 10 Commandments. [↩]
2. Solomon’s disregard for others in favor of his own economic advancement is well documented among biblical scholars. This actually ends up splitting the kingdom after he dies, if you remember. [↩]
3. Thanks Theotica! [↩]