novus•lumen

This Friday series is based on a paper I wrote for my Systematic Theology 2 class. It was a reaction piece to the book The Good of Affluence , by John R. Schneider and represents my own personal wrestling with the contemporary expression of capitalism: consumer capitalism. Here is the final paper.

The Series
1. Introduction
2. Is Affluence The Point
3. Consumerism: The End Result of Sin Marked-Capitalism
4. Globalization and the Brown Man’s Burden
5. Globalization and Moral Proximity
6. Conclusion

CONCLUSION

As I said at the beginning, I affirm the basics of capitalism and believe it is the best economic model for providing an abundant life that mirrors God’s original abundant intentions for Creation. What many fail to consider, however, is that capitalism is marked by the affects of Rebellion, like all human systems. Considering that modern day capitalism is rooted in Enlightenment classical liberal ideology, an ideology that stresses the absolute freedom, rationality, and self-interest of the autonomous self, Christians should not be surprised consumerism and the pursuit of profuse abundance (affluence) is the logical extension of such an economic system. If consumerism, then, is the final manifestation of capitalism, to what economic system should Christians turn? While we should not necessarily embrace socialism or like forms, Christians need to be sober-minded about the realities and risks of capitalism. Furthermore, we need to be honest about how we contribute to and perpetuate the injustice and oppression of the global poor through our consumption. In the end, may Christians fight for abundant living for all on earth, regardless of national origin. May we Christians take more responsibility for the ways in which we partner with the sin of consumerism that affects the world. And may we be more concerned about the vision of restoration–spiritual, social, and economic–that arrives through the Kingdom of Heaven, a true vision of abundance and shalom capitalism cannot provide.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barbario, Michael and Uchitelle, Louis. 2008. “Americans Cutback Sharply On Spending.” The
New York Times 14 January, C1.

D’Souza, Dinesh. The Virtue of Prosperity: Finding Values in an Age of Techno-Affluence. New
York: Free Press, 2000.

Fuentes, Federico. “Evo Morales Speaks.” Adbusters 75 (2008): 57-58.

Jhally, Sut. “The Dreamland of American Consumerism.” Adbusters 76 (2008): 23-24.

Mills, John Stuart, “On the Definition of Political Economy; and on the Method of Investigation
Proper to It,” London and Westminster Review, October 1836. Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy, 2nd ed. London: Longmans, Green, Reader & Dyer, 1874, essay 5, paragraphs 38 and 48.

Poutain, Dick and Robins, David. “Cool: The Rise, Fall and Rebirth of An Attitude.” Adbusters 76 (2008): 1-14.

Schneider, John R. The Good of Affluence. Grand Rapids: Wm. B Eerdmans Publishing Co, 2002.

Timmons, Heather. 2007. “New York Manhole Covers, Forged Barefoot in India.” The New York Times 26 November, A1.

White, Micah, “Redemption.” Adbusters 76 (2008): 41-42.
WordNet 3.0, Princeton University 2006. http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/

Popularity: 3% [?]

So about a month ago a high school senior whom I mentor at the church I’ve begun interning at wrote me an email. Here is a piece of it:

Oh! And I have a question for Jon, but I’ll run it by you quick too. I want to organize a dinner for our lunch ladies at school. Do you think it’d be possible to use the kitchen and tables at Fellowship? Cam and I have been chatting about it a little bit, and thought it was a good location, if it all worked out.

I positively melted!

Two graduating seniors from a local public high school wanted to love on the ladies who have served them for four years by providing a dinner at our church!

How
cool
is
that?!

So this last Thursday that desire came true…and it was such a great time! All 13 of the Grandville area lunch ladies came to our church to enjoy a 4 course meal cooked by some of the ladies of the church. Pastor John, Dan, Tim, and I dressed up in a white shirt, black pants, black bow-tie and black apron and served them their meals at decorated tables. We pulled out all the stops and had a great time serving a group of people who are generally one rung higher than the janitors on the high school social ladder!

I haven’t really blogged about the church I’ve begun serving in, but I am helping re-launch the church and since the beginning of the year we have been dreaming of ways to serve our community and share the love of Christ outside of our walls. What’s amazing is that the first sort of “project” we tackled came from two 17 and 18 year olds! Again, how cool is that?!

Needless to say the ladies were blown away by the thought and care the went into the night. One lady who has worked at the high school serving food for 30 years said she has never been appreciated like this for her work. In fact, each year the staff of the high school are honored with an all staff luncheon, all them except the lunch ladies! What’s more: these 13 women not only cook for the high school (about 1700 kids), but also for the elementary students as well (another 800). So each day these women cook for some 2500 kids, all without nary a word of appreciate from the kids nor the administration.

And here come two teens who are trying to follow Jesus better and show and share the love of Christ with those who are neither appreciated nor cared for. That’s just like Jesus himself, isn’t it? Jesus noticed those who were on the margins of society, went to those who were the least and flooded their lives with love, attention and care.

I learned an important lesson that evening: the Church does not have to put on a production and reach massive amounts of people to live out the way of Jesus. The Church need only love. That’s what Ben and Cameron taught me that night, and I’m a better soon-to-be-pastor for it.

Popularity: 4% [?]

Sorry this blog has sucked the last several weeks (months?) I’ve been in the throws of seminary life with wrapping up papers, projects and dreaded exams! Tomorrow is my Greek exam, next Monday is my Systematic Theology 2 exam, and Tuesday my final Church Planting 2 project is due. Whew!

I’ve wanted to post on so many things the last several weeks, but have either become sidetracked by school projects, church responsibilities, or lost the energy to think/write. The should change next week when my last class/exam is finished May 7, and my first year of seminary is finished.

Hope you’ll come back next week where I promise you’ll find some new, juicy essays and thoughts

shlm,
-jeremy

Popularity: 3% [?]

This Friday series is based on a paper I wrote for my Systematic Theology 2 class. It was a reaction piece to the book The Good of Affluence , by John R. Schneider and represents my own personal wrestling with the contemporary expression of capitalism: consumer capitalism.

The Series
1. Introduction
2. Is Affluence The Point
3. Consumerism: The End Result of Sin Marked-Capitalism
4. Globalization and the Brown Man’s Burden
5. Globalization and Moral Proximity
6. Conclusion

GLOBALIZATION AND MORAL PROXIMITY

In light of our global economic dependence and examples of American economic oppression, what is our responsibility to the global poor? Without risking abusing Jesus’ parable, the questions of “who is our neighbor?” becomes incredibly important. Schneider says that the principle of moral proximity should govern our understanding of Christian responsibility to the poor, an idea that mirrors the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings on subsidiarity, which says the social unit closest to a social problem is most responsible and best able to bring solvency. Moral proximity says that our moral focus should normally be on the problems and issues that are nearest, that we best know and care most about the local problems. According to Schneider, moral proximity has bearing on this discussion, because most ordinary Western Christians are so far removed from the actual oppression and injustice wrought upon the developing world to warrant any condemnation or divine judgement.

In light of the reality of our global economic system, I find it incredibly difficult to dismiss the Christian responsibility to the global poor. Because our economy is inextricably linked to other countries and the goods we consume are connected to developing countries, I find it troubling that people like Schneider can suggest are we not at least somewhat responsible to those whom our economies depend. There should be a more nuanced, exhaustive discussion of our redemptive responsibilities toward those whom we are economically linked. Redemptive conversations should include questions that challenge Christian abundance and affluence, including: Why do we Americans believe we have the right to two homes when others in Mexico stuff five families in a one room shack? Why do we Americans believe we have the right to a $120,000 Lexus when people in India earn less than $2.00 a week? Why do we Americans believe we have the right to 12 pairs of shoes when gypsies in Romania don’t have a source of water in their village?

In each of these countries, goods are produced that American Christians consume en masse: Mexico produces the Chrysler P.T. Cruiser, India produces GAP clothes, Romania gives us Puma shoes. In light of this interconnectedness, then, what responsibilities do we Christians have toward those who labor for our consumption? We are much more connected than Schneider cares to admit. Because I buy beans from Starbucks, Am I not morally connected to the farmer in Kenya who is paid barely $.40 a pound? Is that just compensation? Does that provide a decent wage and source of abundance for him and his family? If I buy clothes from GAP, am I not morally culpable for the ten year old who slaved 90 hours one week to piece together my new outfit? These are the questions Schnedier and others fail to address, questions that sit at the heart of a discussion on the theology of faith and capitalism.

Popularity: 6% [?]

A month ago I began a periodic series of posts highlighting conversations I have with a very bright, curious and astute college friend I mentor. He is a junior psychology major and loves to wrestle with the scriptures and theology, and I have the huge privilege of wrestling with him and wading through his questions, doubts, and fears. Here is an email he sent me a week ago and my subsequent response.

A few days ago, I became aware of the importance of Judgment, that YHWH will Judge us after death. Now, I know that legalism is something Jesus came to at least re-balance. But for some time now I’ve believed that Jesus came to eradicate legalism. So I guess my question is: To what extent did Jesus come to eradicate legalism? Does He want us to obey the Law merely because it is best and healthiest for us and our relationship with YHWH? That would be most consistent with the idea that Jesus came to eradicate legalism. Or does He want us to obey the Law simply because we should be obedient to YHWH? This doesn’t seem true to me. But could the truth lie in an integration between the two? A balance between obeying the Law because doing so is obedient to YHWH and good and healthy for us and our relationship with Him?

Keep reading →

Popularity: 7% [?]

This is my Confession on the Doctrine of Humanity and Sin. I wrote it for my Systematic Theology 2 class, and thought I would share it here.

Creation
I believe the Creation event was a purposeful act of God to bring into existence a Reality for His glory, reflection, and interaction, a Reality that was formed from nothing; the universe and all that exists therein was created on purpose with purpose by the Creator. This act of creation was a real time-space event that set the universe and all its processes in motion through the Will and Word of God. (Gen. 1 & 2; Col, 1:15-17)

Keep reading →

Popularity: 8% [?]

Apparently my blogging drivel inspires some people, because my fellow Scriber has dubbed my one of a handful of subversive bloggers! Here is how he defines a subversive blogger:

Subversive bloggers are unsatisfied with the status quo, whether in church, politics, economics or any other power-laden institution, and they are searching for (and blogging about) what is new (or a “return to”) - even though it may be labeled as sacrilege, dangerous, or subversive.

I’m honored (thanks Jake!) for this little act, because I’ve begun to wonder why the hell I should continue with this thing. I mean it’s been a good space at times to verbal vomit my frustrations and thoughts, but as of late the ink well’s been bone dry and I’ve found little inspiration for continuing with this thing called writing, if you can call it that.

So I guess this act of encouragement has come at the right time…

I nominate the following:

1. Jesus the Radical Pastor by John Frye, my friend and mentor
2. Real Live Preacher by RLP
3. Swinging From The Vine by fellow Scriber Makeesha Fisher
4. Calacirian by fellow Scriber Sonja
5. Internet Monk by blogging stud Michael Spencer

The rules of participation are pretty straightforward:

1. If you are tagged, write a post with links to five subversive blogs.
2. Link back to this post on JakeBouma.com so people can easily find the origin of the meme.
3. Optional: Proudly display the “Subversive Blogger Award” somewhere on your blog (images below) with a link to the post that you wrote.

And as Jake says, the award is meant to be encouragement to keep blogging, so I hope I encourage these five to for sure keep doing what they do, because they kick ass!

Popularity: 10% [?]