Jesus, Capitalism, and Civilization

I read a book not so long ago that lumped Christianity, capitalism, and corporations together. This bugged me since I know that the first has nothing to do with the second or third, but it is understandable given that here and now, the three do often seem to coexist as a sort of unholy triumvirate. This is not unintentional. In 1956, “under God” was added to the pledge of allegiance to set capitalism apart from “godless” socialism. Good god-fearing people were, according to this simplistic worldview, capitalists. And capitalism takes the form of large multi-national corporations, who, following the example of Jesus, take their worthless crap (Coca Cola, McDonald’s, Levi’s, and Nikes) to the “ends of the earth.”
But is capitalism in anyway Christian? The very word means belief/focus in money. Socialism, on the other hand, mean belief/focus in the community. One has the attainment of wealth for the good of the individual in mind; the other has the good of all members of society in mind. Which of these sounds more like the teachings of Jesus? (hint: the latter).

Does this mean we should be Marxists? No, Marxism doesn’t work for one main reason: it neglects the doctrine of sin. People are self-interested. This isn't good, but it's how things are right now, and probably how they've always been. It can work on a small scale among people of a similar worldview, but inevitably the next generation always abandons the goals set forth by the previous generation. Somehow, they weren't inspired by the same ideals as their parents; I can't say why. Perhaps, like so many parents, they simply took their worldview for granted and never directlty taught their children why one way is better or kinder or more just.

Nonetheless, how can we as Christians fit within a capitalist matrix? By subverting it. I don't mean bombing, or open revolt, or even Tea Parties, but working within the system to change it, to make it more communal. The economic system we have come to know has become increasingly individualistic and selfish. Pensions are all but gone, real wages are down, perks are all but eliminated. We work our lives away for nearly nothing, and then spend our "retirement" bagging groceries. Christians need to take their place at the head of businesses, but need to subvert the system by eliminating destructive greed from the equation. (In case it's unclear, all greed is destructive.) Christians in positions of power need to listen to Jesus and not the so-called prophets of capitalism. They need to look out for the well being or workers and the poor; they need to consider the interests of others before their own. In other words, an economics of love has to come before any other economic commitment, if such commitments are even possible.

It seems to be that such things need to be pragmatic, rather than dogmatic. We need to embrace systems that works. But what does it mean for a system to work? It doesn't mean increasing the wealth of stock holders and boards and CEO's. It means looking out for everyone. When Jack Welch made $900 million in a single year, that could have created 9000 jobs at $100,000 each. Which of these would be better for the economy? Which option is more just? We need to move beyond the stupid compartmentalized thinking that is the legacy of modernity and begin to recognize how connected things really are. What's good for Main St. will be what's good for Wall St, but not necessarily vice versa. By this I mean that instead of a trickle down system where wealth never really leaves the portfolios of the rich, a trickle up system will create more stability and stimulate the economy because people will have more real spendable income. (Trickle down theory is part of a brilliant mythology created by the powerful that makes regular working class people actually argue on behalf of those who exploit them. It's akin to a starving person arguing that they should give food to a fat person and hope for scraps. What a great irony!)

Any future shape that the economy takes though will have to have more than the well-bing of the middle class in mind, it must also take the environment into account. Arguments that taking the environment seriously will adversely affect the economy are stupid are short-sighted. It is like saying that a house will cost too much to build to code. It will cost a lot more to rebuild the house once it has collapsed, not to mention that people will be inside when it collapses. In the same way, preventing pollution will be a lot easier than cleaning it up later. Then there is the cost in life, both animal and human. We will soon be seeing victims of rising ocean levels due to global warming, but what about poisoned water and air? What is the legacy that we wish to leave our children? Do we want them to inherit a world devoid of green space, animals, and clean water? Jesus told us to pray "on earth as it is in heaven." I'm sure that when we said this, he did not have in mind that heaven is a toxic trash heap devoid of life.

What is Atonement?

Atonemnet is simply at-one-ment. It is to be at peace, or in harmony. It is friendship. What does it mean for the faith of Jesus? In terms of Jesus’ own teaching, it doesn’t mean much, at least not in the way that we think about it contemporarily. Despite the current majority opinion, Jesus did not come to die on the cross so that God would be capable of forgiving sins. What an uncharitable and irrational idea. The God of the universe—the One who created all things!—who is in essence Love cannot forgive apart from bloodshed? Nonsense! Such a theology hinges on just one verse, a very irrelevant verse at that, which has almost no historical usage and is surely not representative of even an ancient Jewish understanding.

Understood as satisfying God’s divine “need” for vengeance, atonement played no role in Jesus’ mission. In fact, Jesus’ mission undercuts this idea of atonement. Multiple times he forgave people. In none of those instances was blood involved. Prior to his ministry John the Baptist offered a baptism that symbolized repentance—the condition (or appropriation) of forgiveness. Forgiveness was recognized as coming through repenting of one’s sin, not through killing of any kind. Killing animals and offering them to God is nothing more than leftover pagan superstition that infected the Jewish tradition. While those are very harsh words, it is important that they be harsh, that God is not linked to such absurd barbarity.

The Scriptures even point out that such sacrifices are displeasing to God, though not unanimously. For example, Psalm 40:6 tells us: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have opened; burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require.” God doesn't require rituals-- especially rituals that are harmful to any of God's creatures--but ears that hear and a heart that is open. Likewise, the Psalmist also writes in Psalm 51:16-17 “You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.” What God truly wants from us is repentance. God wants us to stop doing evil and continually do good. We do not need to shed blood, not now and not then. We do need to make reparations, however. When we have wronged another, we need to try and repair the damage that we have caused. We don't do this because of fear that God will cast us into hell if we don't, but because love reconciles. This reconciliation is what atonement is all about. Harmony is God's plan, is God's desire. Peace is atonement.