Christianity starts with capitalism...

[adthemad]

I've read the Bible twice. I see no written reference of dictating: a statement such as reclaiming:

"An intelligent management of the earths' resources for the good of humanity."

please can anyone show me where capitalism and or religion has even had the balls to address this?

Ad

[naz]

I've read the Bible twice. I see no written reference of dictating: a statement such as reclaiming:

"An intelligent management of the earths' resources for the good of humanity."

please can anyone show me where capitalism and or religion has even had the balls to address this?

Ad

Well Capitalism = a free market, so why would it matter to a capitalist?

[ChaosBorders]

I've read the Bible twice. I see no written reference of dictating: a statement such as reclaiming:

"An intelligent management of the earths' resources for the good of humanity."

please can anyone show me where capitalism and or religion has even had the balls to address this?

Ad

Most purely capitalistic individuals couldn't care less.

And the Bible was written at a time when managing resources just well enough for you to eat was a pretty impressive feat. Not sure sticking in a random 'save the environment' message would have meant much to the readers.

[theopoesis]

I believe there is substantial room within the Christian Scriptures and tradition for a sustainable life on earth. However, there are a few problems with the precise way that you phrase your sentence:

"An intelligent management of the earth's resources for the good of humanity"

(1) Words like "management" imply that the earth is ultimately under our control. "Resources" imply that the wonders of creation are no less than tools to help humans advance civilization.

(2) "for the good of humanity" implies that the end goal of the earth is to benefit humanity and not to display the glory of God.

This, I believe, is the prime distinction between capitalism and Christianity in regard to the environment. Capitalism is oriented toward human desire, whereas Christian environmental thought is oriented toward God's sovereignty and sufficiency. Capitalism is based on three preconceptions that undermine sustainability:

(1) Progress: because capitalism (at least the Keynesian variety) is rooted in deficit spending to stimulate perpetual growth, there is an incorrigible and unstoppable desire for GDP growth, which means increased production or consumption. This leads to ever larger levels of deforestation, pollution, depletion of fossil fuels, and endangerment of animal and plant species.

(2) Materialism: In basic microeconomic thought, each human being (the homo economicus) is a consumer who is selfishly seeking to maximize utility from obtaining material goods. The chief end of man or woman is to consume as much as possible to maximize happiness. Here the macroeconomic problems created by the drive for progress are reduced to an individual human level, such that advertising, the media, hollywood, and the general public construe happiness as a jaguar, a plasma tv, a hot tub, and gucci accessories. To sustain this materialistic view of happiness, we must continue to destroy the environment.

(3) Free Markets: Capitalism (in its current manifestation) eliminates all economic boundaries. This creates a public goods and a free rider dilemma. These two basic political conundrums refer to the inability of a free market exchange to (a) prevent all peoples from overusing common property [this leads to problems like over-fishing or nutrient draining from farmland], and (b) an inability to prevent one "lone wolf" from disobeying the environmentally friendly consensus of others to their own profit [which leads to rogue nations like North Korea continuing nuclear testing, while modern powerhouses like the USA continue to refuse to ratify the Kyoto Protocol for fear of losing economic competitiveness with the developing southern hemisphere block]. In short, free markets do not allow for a mechanism where environmental sustainability is feasible.

Contrast this with the basic teachings of Christianity:

(1) Eschatology: We cannot progress to save the world now, and our civilizations will crumble like the tower of babel. Dust we are and to dust we shall return. Throughout history, various Biblical books (Daniel, Matthew 24, Revelation), various religious movements (anchorites, cenobites, Franciscans, Shakers, the Amish) and various theologians (Athanasius, Thomas Munzer, even Jacques Ellul) have called us to an otherworldliness that does not demand continual progress on earth.

(2) Asceticism or Charity: Throughout Christian history, the love of self and pursuit of wealth to benefit the self was considered a chief sin, concupiscence. By contrast, the Christian was called either to asceticism or to charity. We are called to deny ourselves and pick up our cross, to not store up treasures on earth where moth and rust destroy, and to give sacrificially.

(3) Christians are called to love our neighbor as ourselves, to voluntarily restrict our actions with the thoughts of others in mind, and to consider the needs of our weaker brothers and sisters.

In each area, Christian teaching and history is the exact opposite of capitalistic problems that are creating our environmental crisis.

In short, you see no written Biblical reference to your quoted sentence because your sentence reflects the very capitalistic mindset that created the environmental catastrophe. Once the distinctions between capitalism and Christianity are seen on the issue, the entire Bible can be taken as a book that offers a way of life not only that creates a sustainable world, but also that offers eternal life.

For further reading:

Laura Ruth Yordy. Green Witness.
Stephen Bouma-Prediger. For the Beauty of the Earth

Someone who would disagree with me:

Carolyn Merchant. Reinventing Eden: The Fate of Nature in Western Culture

[ChaosBorders]

(1) Progress: because capitalism (at least the Keynesian variety) is rooted in deficit spending to stimulate perpetual growth, there is an incorrigible and unstoppable desire for GDP growth, which means increased production or consumption. This leads to ever larger levels of deforestation, pollution, depletion of fossil fuels, and endangerment of animal and plant species.

I'm a little too under the weather to do any serious posting today, but I think one little clarification should be made. Keynesian economics isn't pure capitalism. As a system it is designed to stimulate spending when there is a downturn, but something people often ignore (because almost no one manages to do it) is that it is also meant to put on the brakes when experiencing rapid growth. If the principles of Keynesian economics were actually followed you would get deficit spending during downturns and recoup the money in tax revenue during periods of growth, ideally leading to a slow but steady growth of the economy.

[WinePusher]

I believe there is substantial room within the Christian Scriptures and tradition for a sustainable life on earth. However, there are a few problems with the precise way that you phrase your sentence:

"An intelligent management of the earth's resources for the good of humanity"

(1) Words like "management" imply that the earth is ultimately under our control. "Resources" imply that the wonders of creation are no less than tools to help humans advance civilization.

(2) "for the good of humanity" implies that the end goal of the earth is to benefit humanity and not to display the glory of God.

This, I believe, is the prime distinction between capitalism and Christianity in regard to the environment. Capitalism is oriented toward human desire, whereas Christian environmental thought is oriented toward God's sovereignty and sufficiency. Capitalism is based on three preconceptions that undermine sustainability:

(1) Progress: because capitalism (at least the Keynesian variety) is rooted in deficit spending to stimulate perpetual growth, there is an incorrigible and unstoppable desire for GDP growth, which means increased production or consumption. This leads to ever larger levels of deforestation, pollution, depletion of fossil fuels, and endangerment of animal and plant species.

(2) Materialism: In basic microeconomic thought, each human being (the homo economicus) is a consumer who is selfishly seeking to maximize utility from obtaining material goods. The chief end of man or woman is to consume as much as possible to maximize happiness. Here the macroeconomic problems created by the drive for progress are reduced to an individual human level, such that advertising, the media, hollywood, and the general public construe happiness as a jaguar, a plasma tv, a hot tub, and gucci accessories. To sustain this materialistic view of happiness, we must continue to destroy the environment.

(3) Free Markets: Capitalism (in its current manifestation) eliminates all economic boundaries. This creates a public goods and a free rider dilemma. These two basic political conundrums refer to the inability of a free market exchange to (a) prevent all peoples from overusing common property [this leads to problems like over-fishing or nutrient draining from farmland], and (b) an inability to prevent one "lone wolf" from disobeying the environmentally friendly consensus of others to their own profit [which leads to rogue nations like North Korea continuing nuclear testing, while modern powerhouses like the USA continue to refuse to ratify the Kyoto Protocol for fear of losing economic competitiveness with the developing southern hemisphere block]. In short, free markets do not allow for a mechanism where environmental sustainability is feasible.

Contrast this with the basic teachings of Christianity:

(1) Eschatology: We cannot progress to save the world now, and our civilizations will crumble like the tower of babel. Dust we are and to dust we shall return. Throughout history, various Biblical books (Daniel, Matthew 24, Revelation), various religious movements (anchorites, cenobites, Franciscans, Shakers, the Amish) and various theologians (Athanasius, Thomas Munzer, even Jacques Ellul) have called us to an otherworldliness that does not demand continual progress on earth.

(2) Asceticism or Charity: Throughout Christian history, the love of self and pursuit of wealth to benefit the self was considered a chief sin, concupiscence. By contrast, the Christian was called either to asceticism or to charity. We are called to deny ourselves and pick up our cross, to not store up treasures on earth where moth and rust destroy, and to give sacrificially.

(3) Christians are called to love our neighbor as ourselves, to voluntarily restrict our actions with the thoughts of others in mind, and to consider the needs of our weaker brothers and sisters.

In each area, Christian teaching and history is the exact opposite of capitalistic problems that are creating our environmental crisis.

In short, you see no written Biblical reference to your quoted sentence because your sentence reflects the very capitalistic mindset that created the environmental catastrophe. Once the distinctions between capitalism and Christianity are seen on the issue, the entire Bible can be taken as a book that offers a way of life not only that creates a sustainable world, but also that offers eternal life.

For further reading:

Laura Ruth Yordy. Green Witness.
Stephen Bouma-Prediger. For the Beauty of the Earth

Someone who would disagree with me:

Carolyn Merchant. Reinventing Eden: The Fate of Nature in Western Culture

An excellent post! I hope you will be a frequent user theopoesis.

[Slopeshoulder]

+1.
The theology of the environment, with scripture as a resource, is a very hot topic.
Want tenure? Work in this area.

[theopoesis]

I'm a little too under the weather to do any serious posting today, but I think one little clarification should be made. Keynesian economics isn't pure capitalism. As a system it is designed to stimulate spending when there is a downturn, but something people often ignore (because almost no one manages to do it) is that it is also meant to put on the brakes when experiencing rapid growth. If the principles of Keynesian economics were actually followed you would get deficit spending during downturns and recoup the money in tax revenue during periods of growth, ideally leading to a slow but steady growth of the economy.

Thanks ChaosBorders. That is a valid correction to my claims. I was imprecise at best. However, given the practical political framework within which Keynesian theory is implemented, the end result of applied Keynesianism is about the same. Especially in the US, where the House has two years between each election, it is difficult for incumbent representatives to cut back programs and increase taxes during a boom and still win re-election. Factor in the reality that two-thirds of the budget is mandatory spending (and most discretionary spending is fairly locked in as well) and there's not a lot of flexibility for Keynesian break, so to speak.

[ChaosBorders]

I'm a little too under the weather to do any serious posting today, but I think one little clarification should be made. Keynesian economics isn't pure capitalism. As a system it is designed to stimulate spending when there is a downturn, but something people often ignore (because almost no one manages to do it) is that it is also meant to put on the brakes when experiencing rapid growth. If the principles of Keynesian economics were actually followed you would get deficit spending during downturns and recoup the money in tax revenue during periods of growth, ideally leading to a slow but steady growth of the economy.

Thanks ChaosBorders. That is a valid correction to my claims. I was imprecise at best. However, given the practical political framework within which Keynesian theory is implemented, the end result of applied Keynesianism is about the same. Especially in the US, where the House has two years between each election, it is difficult for incumbent representatives to cut back programs and increase taxes during a boom and still win re-election. Factor in the reality that two-thirds of the budget is mandatory spending (and most discretionary spending is fairly locked in as well) and there's not a lot of flexibility for Keynesian break, so to speak.

Yes, but the fault there lies with our political framework, not with the Keynesian model of economics itself. Pretty much all economic models have pros and cons, and most of them also cannot be enacted very well due to politics, but a distinction between the models and attempts to just enact small parts of them should always be made. Otherwise people ignorantly insult the models themselves without recognizing that's not always where the problem is. The converse is that people will also ignore the flaws of a certain model because they focus in too heavily on the pros.

One example of the latter is the tax reduction model. (Sadly I forget the formal name of it). The idea of it is that if you reduce taxes, people will work harder and stimulate the economy, ultimately bringing in more tax revenue than if you merely kept taxes high. This actually works well to a certain extent. Reagan's tax reform was an effective one (though my economics professor thought he might have gone very slightly too far). But the problem is that according to the model itself, if you cut taxes down close to zero you would end up with near infinite revenue. This of course doesn't reflect reality and most tax cuts following Reagan have not sufficiently stimulated the economy enough to earn back the cuts. George W.'s in particular were a nightmare as far as this model is concerned.

I think all of these past models will likely be replaced in the upcoming decades by ones based on Behavioral Economics, which makes a much greater effort to incorporate psychology and what people actually do opposed to what logic dictates should happen.