When I was a much younger man, I was fairly strongly influenced by a work of fiction called, In His Steps, by Charles Sheldon. It's a book published in 1897 and influenced by the Social Gospel Movement of the day. While many are unfamiliar directly with the book, they are aware of it secondarily through the WWJD phenomena. The now-rather-trite bracelets, etc, of the last few years that supposedly serve as a reminder, "What Would Jesus Do?" gets the catchphrase from Sheldon's book.
The story in the book tells of how a preacher and some in his well-to-do church were influenced by the radical notion of not taking any action without first asking, "What Would Jesus Do in this situation?" and then acting accordingly.
Although I did not know it at the time, Sheldon was influenced by prominent "social gospel" theologian, Walter Rauschenbusch. The book was his way of furthering that message.
And what was the message of the Social Gospel (much maligned in some circles today)? According to Merriam Webster, simply this:
the application of Christian principles to social problems
Other common definitions fall along these lines...
The Social Gospel was an early 20th century Protestant Christian movement which placed its emphasis on the application of Christian principles to society's problems.
Not so radical, one would think. And yet, apparently it is revolutionary, at least some might say.
I say all that by way of introducing some of Rauschenbusch's own words on the topic, from his A Theology for the Social Gospel (1917)...
The social gospel is the old message of salvation, but enlarged and intensified. The individualistic gospel has taught us to see the sinfulness of every human heart and has inspired us with faith in the willingness and power of God to save every soul that comes to him. But it has not given us an adequate understanding of the sinfulness of the social order and its share in the
sins of all individuals within it. It has not evoked faith in the will and power of God to redeem the permanent institutions of human society from their inherited guilt of oppression and extortion.
Both our sense of sin and our faith in salvation have fallen short of the realities under its teaching. The social gospel seeks to bring men under repentance for their collective sins and to create a more sensitive and more modern conscience. It calls on us for the faith of the old prophets who believed in the salvation of nations...
Theology is not superior to the gospel. It exists to aid the preaching of salvation. Its business is to make the essential facts and principles of Christianity so simple and clear, so adequate and mighty, that all who preach or teach the gospel, both ministers and laymen, can draw on its stores and deliver a complete and unclouded Christian message. When the progress of humanity creates new tasks, such as world-wide missions, or new problems, such as the social problem, theology must connect these with the old fundamentals of our faith and make them Christian tasks and problems...
On the other hand the idea of the redemption of the social organism is nothing alien. It is simply a proper part of the Christian faith in redemption from sin and evil. As soon as the desire for salvation becomes strong and intelligent enough to look beyond the personal sins of the individual, and to discern how our personality in its intake and output is connected with social groups to which we belong, the problem of social redemption is before us and we can never again forget it. It lies like a larger concentric circle around a smaller one. It is related to our intimate personal salvation like astronomy to physics. Only spiritual and intellectual immaturity have kept us from seeing it clearly before. The social gospel is not an alien element in theology...
Neither is it novel. The social gospel is, in fact, the oldest gospel of all. It is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.” Its substance is the Hebrew faith which Jesus himself held. If the prophets ever talked about the “plan of redemption,” they meant the social redemption of the nation.
So long as John the Baptist and Jesus were proclaiming the gospel, the Kingdom of God was its central word, and the ethical teaching of both, which was their practical commentary and definition of the Kingdom idea, looked toward a higher social order in which new ethical standards would become practicable. To the first generation of disciples the hope of the Lord’s return meant the hope of a Christian social order on earth under the personal rule of Jesus Christ, and they would have been amazed if they had learned that this hope was to be motioned out of theology and other ideas substituted...
The doctrine of the Kingdom of God was left undeveloped by individualistic theology and finally mislaid by it almost completely, because it did not support nor fit in with that scheme of doctrine. In the older handbooks of theology it is scarcely mentioned, except in the chapters on eschatology; in none of them does it dominate the table of contents.
What a spectacle, that the original teaching of our Lord has become an incongruous element in so-called evangelical theology, like a stranger with whom the other doctrines would not associate, and who was finally ejected because he had no wedding garment!
In the same way the distinctive ethics of Jesus, which is part and parcel of his Kingdom doctrine, was long the hidden treasure of the suppressed democratic sects. Now, as soon as the social gospel began once more to be preached in our own time, the doctrine of the Kingdom was immediately loved and proclaimed afresh, and the ethical principles of Jesus are once more taught without reservation as the only alternative for the greedy ethics of capitalism and militarism. These antipathies and affinities are a strong proof that the social gospel is neither alien nor novel, but is a revival of the earliest doctrines of Christianity, of its radical ethical spirit, and of its revolutionary consciousness.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Theology for the Social Gospel
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
What a spectacle, that the original teaching of our Lord has become an incongruous element in so-called evangelical theology, like a stranger with whom the other doctrines would not associate, and who was finally ejected because he had no wedding garment!
In practice, rather than based on tables of contents of books, I see that The Salvation Army, for one major example, has been preaching a social gospel, "Soup, Soap and Salvation", since 1865, over 30 years before "In His Steps". And they are a theological and politically (when they are political) very conservative. But the Army didn't practice it as more liberal of their brethren practice it today.
From the beginning, it was an outward personal expression of an inward change, and not one to be legislated on others. Rather, change the hearts of the individuals, and let that change the culture. Jesus did not protest the 1% of His day; he ate with them individually (think Zaccheus) and renewed their hearts and minds. From that, the 1% learned to give back ill-gotten gains. That is the example He gave us of the social gospel.
You paint with a rather broad brush the entire evangelical movement, and miss quite a bit in doing so.
I'm not sure what you mean, Doug, "Paint with a rather broad brush the entire evangelical movement..."?
What did I say about the evangelical movement?
I assume you're speaking of what RAUSCHENBUSCH said: "that the original teaching of our Lord has become an incongruous element in so-called evangelical theology..."?
I didn't paint with that brush, he did.
Although, I probably would tend to agree with Rauschenbusch, in general, that the teachings of Jesus often take a backseat (today and back 100 years ago) to a more modern and individualistic evangelism, but I didn't say it. I was just posting what he had to say 100 + years ago.
Do you disagree? Do you think modern evangelism tends to reflect more closely Jesus' actual teachings or does it resemble something different?
If so, well, you are free to think so. It is your impression vs my impression, I don't imagine I can prove my point, just my hunch - I tend to agree with Rauschenbusch, for what it's worth.
Doug, have you read "In His Steps?" If so, what did you think?
It was a favored book in the traditional circles I traveled in my youth, and it made a positive impression upon my life.
Rauschenbusch was an interesting character. He lived the life he wrote about, and was not happy being invited to Rochester to teach. This book has the best discussion of his teachings, with a nice biographical and historical sketch to give it context. He was influential on people like Reinhold Niebuhr, who was also a critic of some of the more superficial aspects of Rauschebusch's thought.
All in all, pretty good stuff. He's sadly neglected now, like Jonathan Edwards, America's greatest theologian.
Sorry, I mixed things up there, didn't I? Either way, a broad brush, from him, and by your agreement with him, by you as well.
And it's not my hunch; it's what The Salvation Army has done, and what it had been doing for over half a century when Rauschenbusch wrote that. Whether he was aware of The Salvation Army is, I suppose, a fair question, but by 1917, the Army had spread from England to the US, Australia, France, Germany, Russia, Canada and throughout Europe, North, Central & South America and portions of Africa and Asia. So it was pretty well established at the time.
Now, I will say that William Booth, the Army founder, was rebelling against what he'd see in his Methodist church, that not enough attention was being paid to the poor. That some churches don't fully live up to the whole gospel is nothing new. And for those that did not properly deal with the poor, Rauschenbusch's words would fit, evangelical or otherwise.
But Rauschenbusch's words work against themselves. "What a spectacle, that the original teaching of our Lord has become an incongruous element in so-called evangelical theology, like a stranger with whom the other doctrines would not associate, and who was finally ejected because he had no wedding garment!" And yet, while he proclaims that the Kingdom is again being "preached in our own time", the leading group at that time (nad I daresay, now as well) doing that preaching were those "so-called evangelicals". But not as some sort of political statement, but as those who were saved to serve. To serve the individual and let the culture be changed by that. Preaching Christ rather than anti-capitalism.
So yes, I think that modern evangelicalism tends to reflect more closely what Jesus actually did; work on an individual level, as with my example of Zaccheus.
I haven't read the original, but I read to my kids a children's version of In His Steps, so I'm somewhat familiar with the concepts. And when it comes to dealing with the social gospel, I think asking What Would Jesus Do, or What Did Jesus Do, is always a good question to ask.
"As soon as the desire for salvation becomes strong and intelligent enough to look beyond the personal sins of the individual..."
It is the personal sins of individuals which lead to the social problems the culture faces. This message is socialism, purely and simply. It is not the message of Christ to engage in social change by institutional or governmental means, but to simply bring as many people as possible to God through Christ. Proper adherence to the teachings of Scripture will, by itself, lead to social improvements. Capitalism and militarism are not synonymous with greed. Greedy people corrupt capitalism and militarism. The personal sins of individuals led to any corruption of either that might exist.
Marshall...
This message is socialism, purely and simply.
I'm looking, but not seeing ANYTHING in what Rauschenbusch said that suggests state ownership of the means of production.
I don't think you are technically correct on that point, not according to the English meaning of the word, "socialism."
You DO know, don't you, that one can be opposed to the negative aspects of capitalism and NOT be a socialist?
Marshall...
It is not the message of Christ to engage in social change by institutional or governmental means
Where does Christ speak against positive social change by seeking to change institutions or governments? I am pretty sure he didn't.
I have come to bring good news to the poor,
freedom for the captive,
healing for the ill,
the Day of God's good favor...
You DO recall, don't you, that Jesus came and denounced the institutional problems of the religious leaders? That he engaged in a NVDA and drove the moneychangers (who were oppressing the poor, especially) out of the Temple?
That he came saying, "YOU have heard it said... [and referred to Jewish Institutional laws], But I tell you... [and told them of a New Way - a New Kingdom]?
That he changed the Institutional Patriarchal system that was in place by talking with and including women as equal members in his group of disciples?
That he challenged the Roman empire and took away the power of their intimidation and fear by actually INVITING his followers to "take up your cross [that hated Roman tool of oppression and intimidation] and follow me..."?
I think clearly Jesus came teaching a New Kingdom, and a change from all Old Kingdoms. It is, in fact, why those in charge crucified him.
I don't really think you can make much of a case that Jesus is opposed to institutional and governmental change when they are in the wrong.
Shall we take a stroll through the weeds and thorns?
"It is the personal sins of individuals which lead to the social problems the culture faces."
Yes . . . and no. Rauschebusch's target is institutional corruption. The varieties of social injustice are little more than the effects of original sin upon human institutions, as prone to sin as individuals. This was neither a new, nor even interesting idea; St. Augustine, Abelard, St. Thomas, Calvin, Zwingli, and Luther all wrote of it. Rauschenbusch merely took the gospel and liberated it from its enslavement to bourgeois individualism.
"This message is socialism, purely and simply."
Besides the lousy grammar, no. It is a theology for the Social Gospel. Rauscheenbusch certainly flirted with various kinds of socialism, but at the end of the day couldn't bring himself even to ally himself with them. There is the Gospel, the message of new life for all through the power of the Holy Spirit in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. On the other hand, there is socialism, a program that, while certainly pursuing justice for the downtrodden, does not know the risen Christ. It would take a while, but other Christian socialists, particularly in Europe (Barth, Tillich) would also set their allegiance with socialist parties aside.
"It is not the message of Christ to engage in social change by institutional or governmental means, but to simply bring as many people as possible to God through Christ."
So . . . Christ is not Lord of one's whole life, nor is he Lord of creation? We, not the Holy Spirit, bring people to faith? The rest of our lives - our financial and economic selves; our social and political selves - are not touched by the new creation we are in Christ? Hmmm . . .
"Proper adherence to the teachings of Scripture will, by itself, lead to social improvements."
Which teachings? St. Paul in the Epistle to Philemon, urging him not to punish his slave? Not eating shellfish? Plucking out our eye if it causes us to stumble? We've been down that road enough to know it is nonsensical. Besides which, there was that whole Christendom experiment, from the fifth through the 19th centuries; didn't work out too well, really.
cont'd . . .
"Capitalism and militarism are not synonymous with greed. Greedy people corrupt capitalism and militarism. The personal sins of individuals led to any corruption of either that might exist."
This is the best part, Art. Seriously. It's chock-a-block with goodies.
Name someone who isn't greedy.
Name someone who doesn't desire power.
Name someone who, given the tools and opportunity, wouldn't lead others using violence, exploitation, and oppression, to social and political dominance and control.
"Greedy" people is redundant. It's people. You may imagine there are those who aren't greedy. I can't name one. I certainly am. I struggle with the desire for more money, more stuff, and more control via that more money and more stuff every single day. And I'm just some dude living his life out here in the country in Kane County, IL. Imagine, say . . . I don't know . . . a bunch of people who rule the country with the most powerful military machine in history, the largest economy in history, a network of equally powerful private interests who see in the expansion of national political power a means toward the end of controlling vast resources that can make them more wealthy.
Yeah, I can't imagine why anyone would think institutions could be sinful, corrupt, death-dealing.
Before you go writing stuff like this, Art, go read Rauschenebusch's whole book. It's pretty long, it's really, really dense, but it would be worth it. Trust me. Even if you disagree with it - and there are huge swaths of it with which I take issue - it can't help but change the way you think, even if you don't want it to.
And capitalism isn't about greed?
Adam Smith seems to suggest otherwise...
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.
and...
He [the individual] generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is pro-rooting it . . . he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.
Capitalism is, according to its founder, based upon self-interest and self-love, seeking one's "OWN GAIN."
Perhaps you can see why it is reasonably stated that there IS an element of greed and a sort of negative self-interest at play in capitalism. We can see it in its originator's words and we can see it at play in the real world every day.
Indeed, BECAUSE of the very sin you cite at the individual level, one can see that a system that is precipitated upon encouraging folk to seek their own self-interest (the self interest of individuals who will have an element of greed in their lives) IS a system that is planning on greed. It's just hoping/suggesting that seeking one's self-interest will somehow benefit society as a whole.
Which is not to say that I reject capitalism, just that I am striving to adjudge it with a reasonable and cautious eye. As, I believe, even Smith suggested.
Geoffrey and I responding at the same time with pretty similar comments. Of course, Geoffrey, as always, states it much more elegantly and authoritatively than I have...
Thanks.
I have neither elegance nor authority, Dan, and blush at the mere suggestion.
Art's reaction to a single line from Rauschenbusch is hardly surprising. Which is why I suggested he actually read the work in question.
Back to a point I made above. I'm taking a class which is a close reading of Romans. This past week we read he parts of chapter 5 and 6 in which St. Paul uses the typology of Adam and Christ to discuss sin, death, and salvation, their reality, scope, and efficacy for all humanity.
Part of St. Paul's argument is simple enough - death for all humanity came through the sinful act of one person. New life for all humanity is offered to all humanity through one person. The scope of the effects of Adam's disobedience is total; even apart from the power of the Law to tell us whether this or that act is sinful, the wages of sin, death, has spread to all because of that primary act of disobedience.
The power of Christ to overcome sin and death - which St. Paul calls the last enemy to be defeated, in chapter 6 - must of necessity be greater than the power of death brought about by Adam's primal act of disobedience. If it were not so, Christ would not have been God incarnate, and our preaching and teaching and faith would be in vain. God would be a liar.
The reach and scope of the lordship of Jesus Christ is total. It reaches in and through all of our life. While its sole focus is our relationship with God - for sin is nothing more than disobedience to the Divine command - if it does not heal the sinful self in all aspects, personal and social, moral and ethical, private and public, then we are saying that Adam's sin and its effects are more powerful than the salvation brought about by the Father, in the Son, through the Spirit.
The biblical roots of these ideas run deep, from the Deuteronomic preaching of Moses through the prophets to the proclaiming of the Gospel as Good News to the poor. The Magnificat of Mary, the Nunc Dimittis of Simeon each proclaim not the salvation of individual souls, but the overthrowing of those principalities and powers that are unjust. It isn't following a law, or a book, that leads to life. It is the Triune God, in the Persons of the Son, through the Spirit, obeying the Father, who is already bringing the mighty down from their thrones.
Yet more evidence that Art is a works righteousness kind of guy.
I forgot to mention one of the great political theologians of church history - William Ockham. He spent the last part of his life writing and re-writing "Against Tyrants". While neglected, part of it declared heretical, this latter can be excused because he wrote it under the protection of one schismatic pope against another schismatic pope and the rulers who supported him.
This comment has been removed by the author.
There's nothing wrong with my grammar. But there is a big problem with Geoff's ability to get the point. Really, Geoffrey. The point is your friend.
I was not describing socialism, as in "It is pure socialism." I would then have to prove that point, especially given that Dan insists on absolutism in definitions, if not Scriptural interpretation. What the proper use of the adverbs "purely" and "simply" describe is the verb "is". If the distinction eludes you, let me know.
As to Dan and definitions:
"I'm looking, but not seeing ANYTHING in what Rauschenbusch said that suggests state ownership of the means of production."
He insist that unless a situation matches this one absolutely, it cannot be socialism or have a socialist bent to it. This is, unfortunately, not even close to the truth. Just as we are not absolutely free, a policy or ideology need not be perfectly and completely socialist to be socialist.
"You DO know, don't you, that one can be opposed to the negative aspects of capitalism and NOT be a socialist?"
Hardly the point I was making, but given you brought it up, what negative aspects would you list that are not merely made up? Greed? Again, greed is not a component of capitalism. The fact that some do not succeed under a capitalist system? Also not a flaw of the system itself unless you demand that even the most lazy and/or stupid and irresponsible succeed as well.
"Where does Christ speak against positive social change by seeking to change institutions or governments?"
How nice, but I didn't say that and I definitely wasn't saying that by the comment to which the above was a response.
"You DO recall, don't you, that Jesus came and denounced the institutional problems of the religious leaders?"
No I don't recall that because He didn't. He denounced individuals who controlled institutions. Big difference. I don't know what you mean by "NVDA", but He drove out the moneychangers out of reverence for the House of God. The dealings of the moneychangers reflected nothing like a reverence for the House of God. None of the three descriptions of this event in Scripture indicate He was doing this for the benefit of the poor and oppressed.
"That he came saying, "YOU have heard it said... [and referred to Jewish Institutional laws], But I tell you... [and told them of a New Way - a New Kingdom]?"
This is not the case. Jesus was teaching them the meaning of the laws they were abusing. You make this error routinely in order to support your socialist ideologies.
more...
"That he challenged the Roman empire and took away the power of their intimidation and fear by actually INVITING his followers to "take up your cross [that hated Roman tool of oppression and intimidation] and follow me..."?"
This incredible bastardization of Scripture, as well as the intent of Christ's sacrifice, has been addressed before (last Easter, I believe) and is proven faulty by the mere fact that it was the Jewish authorities who put Christ to death. The Romans were merely the means to this end.
"I think clearly Jesus came teaching a New Kingdom, and a change from all Old Kingdoms. It is, in fact, why those in charge crucified him."
You're not thinking clearly at all. What Jesus taught is what was taught in the OT, but twisted by the hard-hearts of the people and the twisted intentions of their leaders. This is borne out by Christ occasionally pointing out those who already had a sense of the truth, if not a full understanding, such as the old woman giving her last two coins to the Temple.
"I don't really think you can make much of a case that Jesus is opposed to institutional and governmental change when they are in the wrong."
There's no evidence that He ever concerned himself with the governmental bodies of His time, but only of the souls of those who heard Him preach.
more later...
Should have known better . . .
Man, oh man, oh man oh man oh man.
Just one HUGE RESOUNDING MISREADING of Scripture: "it was the Jewish authorities who put Christ to death."
The Jews couldn't put a fly to death without the Roman's letting them.
Crucifixion was the punishment reserved for political criminals.
I know these facts get in the way of your faulty Biblical readings, Art, and whether you made these claims last Easter, or ten Whitsuns ago, they are still wrong. No amount of repetition will ever make them right.
You are repeating the blood libel here.
Which is all beside the point, since you only seemed willing to address what Dan said (and neither articulately nor well, I might add).
I've said my piece, and so have your fun proving me "wrong".
Geoffie, Geoffie, Geoffie,
It would be better for you to write on arc welding for all the good your "knowledge" of Scripture does you. It shouldn't take a theologian to tell you that the Romans were the weapon the Jewish authorities used to put Jesus to death. I'm sure even an incredible point-misser like yourself knows this but only wishes to demean. In doing so you make yourself look to be the small boy you are. Well done. When you can show that the Romans were keen on crucifying Jesus, that they were looking for ways and reasons, plotting throughout the Gospel stories to put an end to His life, why you just go ahead and do so.
This is too easy to be any fun.
"So . . . Christ is not Lord of one's whole life, nor is he Lord of creation? We, not the Holy Spirit, bring people to faith? The rest of our lives - our financial and economic selves; our social and political selves - are not touched by the new creation we are in Christ? Hmmm . . ."
Don't recall I ever said that "we" bring people to Christ. However, we are called to spread the Good News, are we not? So, we have some part to play, with the Spirit working through those who evangelize. You have a problem with this? Do you believe we are called to sit on our asses and let the "unchurched" simply guess? But then you agree with me in the final part of the above when you speak of our institutions and such being touched by OUR being new creations. So, we must first be born again and those who run organizations or political bodies must be born again. The institutions themselves do not do anything they aren't led to do by those who run them. Those institutions and governments formed for evil purpose do not exist by themselves. And capitalism, and the economic systems guided by capitalism is only as good as the people who work within it. Capitalism is NOT synonymous with greed. Only covetous losers believe that.
"Which teachings? St. Paul in the Epistle to Philemon, urging him not to punish his slave? Not eating shellfish? Plucking out our eye if it causes us to stumble? We've been down that road enough to know it is nonsensical. Besides which, there was that whole Christendom experiment, from the fifth through the 19th centuries; didn't work out too well, really."
If you have to ask, you're not much of a Christian (no surprise to me). You read a lot, but you've learned nothing. Why bother with Christianity at all, Geoffie, if you don't see the value of it in our society? It does you no good if it is such a mystery to you.
"Name someone who isn't greedy."
Besides me? I know lots of people who aren't greedy. The problem is that you don't understand the term. You likely believe that anyone with any ambition of any kind is greedy. Not so. Greed indicates the object is all the matters. Though I desire a financially better situation for myself and family, that does not indicate greed in the least. I simply work toward the best lifestyle I can achieve. It's called making the most of whatever gifts God gave me.
"Name someone who doesn't desire power."
Besides me? I know lots of people. I don't believe I've ever met anyone who sought power. To continue to advance in status at one's job or in one's church or in whatever organization is not the same as seeking power for power's sake. I get the distinct feeling that you're projecting here, little Geoffie. You obviously have some issues that could be resolved through counseling. Seek help now.
"Name someone who, given the tools and opportunity, wouldn't lead others using violence, exploitation, and oppression, to social and political dominance and control."
Besides me? I could likely name hundreds, if not more. Some might actually even be lefties. Thanks for giving me the heads up that you could never be one of them.
"You may imagine there are those who aren't greedy. I can't name one. I certainly am. I struggle with the desire for more money, more stuff, and more control via that more money and more stuff every single day."
What a sorry individual you are. I'll continue to pray for you. Seek help now. Of course this belies that sanctimonious crap about you being embarrassed by your W-2.
"Imagine, say . . . I don't know . . . a bunch of people who rule the country with the most powerful military machine in history, the largest economy in history, a network of equally powerful private interests who see in the expansion of national political power a means toward the end of controlling vast resources that can make them more wealthy."
They're called "Democrats". I don't vote for them. By the way, cynical much?
"Before you go writing stuff like this, Art, go read Rauschenebusch's whole book. It's pretty long, it's really, really dense, but it would be worth it."
That's debatable. What's more so is that it would diminish the truth of what I've said. It would not change the fact that Jesus, when preaching, was speaking to each individual who heard Him. He was teaching each of them how to be saved. There more people who truly come to Him, the less we have to worry about the institutions they operate.
Art, you have managed, in your ravings, to display such an enormous ignorance on so many matters in such a short space, I can only assume . . .
YOU DON'T REALLY CARE WHAT YOU TYPE AS LONG AS IT TICKS SOMEONE OFF. Proving yet again that this is a game to you. This isn't about what you believe, because I cannot understand what you may or may not believe, nor do I care.
Dan offers a selection from an important American theologian, and the best you can do is act like a dog and come and lift your leg, and piss all over him. Then laugh, because ignorant bullies think stuff like that is funny.
On another web site, I described people like you as those kids who set the little bag of turd on fire on the porch of some guy, then stood and laughed while they get poo on their shoes stamping it out.
Your comments are the equivalent of those little bags of flaming excrement. And you, Art, are little more than the giggling kid in the bushes.
Dan,
You speak as one schooled in the GKS method of point-missing. Smith is speaking not of a self-love that is selfishness, but one that is merely survival. He is speaking of self-preservation. It is the same with you when you go to work for your employer. You don't do it to benefit him. You do it to benefit yourself. If your perspective is correct, then merely eating is an act of greed. Merely sheltering yourself and clothing yourself is an act of greed. This is baloney. You've got to take off your socialist glasses when you read stuff like this. It is really fouling your understanding.
"Indeed, BECAUSE of the very sin you cite at the individual level, one can see that a system that is precipitated upon encouraging folk to seek their own self-interest (the self interest of individuals who will have an element of greed in their lives) IS a system that is planning on greed. It's just hoping/suggesting that seeking one's self-interest will somehow benefit society as a whole."
Bullshit. The system is does not encourage seeking one's own interest. It acknowledges that seeking one's own interest is most natural and is most conducive to the best outcome for the most people. History has shown this to be true. AMERICA has shown this to be true. But greed is NOT required for capitalism to succeed for everyone. Indeed, greed is something that can be done away with since everyone who wants more can create more for themselves without engaging in the types of negative behaviors to which greed can lead people.
What Smith speaks of is the basic elements of the system, stating that first it is provoked by each man's sense of survival and what is required for it. Then, each man understands that he can acquire what he needs and desires by helping another man acquire what he needs to survive. They begin to barter each other's talents so that in the end, both find satisfaction. Greed isn't even a part of this, unless as I suggested, you intend that eating itself is a sign of greed.
"The Magnificat of Mary, the Nunc Dimittis of Simeon each proclaim not the salvation of individual souls, but the overthrowing of those principalities and powers that are unjust."
They speak of spiritual principalities of the satanic variety, not earthly powers.
"It isn't following a law, or a book, that leads to life."
Duh. But one who is born again follows the Law. The Law indicates that one has been saved.
"Yet more evidence that Art is a works righteousness kind of guy."
You keep saying this but have yet to prove it. Anytime you think you can, bring it. You keep saying this, too:
"YOU DON'T REALLY CARE WHAT YOU TYPE AS LONG AS IT TICKS SOMEONE OFF."
Do you think all caps makes it more true? Making anyone angry is never on my mind when putting forth my opinions and responses. But if you get ticked, I take that as a bonus. Seek help now. (BTW. I don't "rave" either. I'm really quite calm now, even after reading your nasty comments.)
"Dan offers a selection from an important American theologian..."
Important to whom?
"...and the best you can do is act like a dog and come and lift your leg, and piss all over him. Then laugh, because ignorant bullies think stuff like that is funny."
How graciously tolerant and Christian of you to regard my contrary opinions in such a manner.
"On another web site..."
You mean yours?
"... I described people like you as those kids who set the little bag of turd on fire on the porch of some guy, then stood and laughed while they get poo on their shoes stamping it out.
Your comments are the equivalent of those little bags of flaming excrement. And you, Art, are little more than the giggling kid in the bushes."
But I only giggle at seeing you try to scrape the flaming truth off of your earth shoes. Truly, Geoff, this is the same kind of condescending nonsense your buddy Alan pukes out when HE doesn't want to try to respond to my comments. Do you guys call each other to coordinate your sartorial choices, too? So much easier to demean and insult than to actually engage. Despite the heat often rising between Dan and me, I can at least respect the fact that he keeps at it, trying to make a point, trying to explain himself as I do as well. But you'd rather run screaming like a girl. You're a fraud.
Marshall...
that seeking one's own interest is most natural and is most conducive to the best outcome for the most people.
You are free to think as you wish, Marshall. I find your case unconvincing. For myself, encouraging mutual respect, being concerned with both your own needs AND other's needs is the most conducive to the most moral/best outcomes for all people.
There is certainly such a thing as reasonable self-interest. There is also such a thing as narcissistic self-interest. I think capitalism can encourage both, but TENDS to encourage the latter.
Why else would folk advertise the way they do?
My point - and I think it is a rationally sound one - is that IF it is true what you say (that greed is an individual problem), then a system that relies upon and encourages individuals acting in their self-interest and individuals sin and are greedy, then the system WILL be corrupted with greed, just as the individual can be.
You seem to want to have it both ways, Marshall: That it's the individual (whom you believe to be absolutely corrupt, am I right?) who is greedy, but a system made up of individuals encouraged to follow their self-interests will somehow NOT be tainted by greed. I don't see how you can rationally have it both ways.
Marshall...
He insist that unless a situation matches this one absolutely, it cannot be socialism or have a socialist bent to it.
I strive to use the Standard English definitions of words when communicating in English because, well, I'm communicating in English. If you had SAID, "This message leans towards socialism, purely and simply," I would have let the point slide. Perhaps it does LEAN that way (depending on what you mean by "LEAN TOWARDS"). But you didn't say that. You stated unequivocally that "This message IS socialism."
It's not. Not using the standard English usage of the word.
Where am I mistaken?
Dan,
You're mistaken in presuming that everyone MUST define things on your terms. But, I will try to be more clear in the future. However, I do not hold that an exact match to your definition is possible even in countries who refer to themselves as socialist. As I said, it's a matter of degrees. In any case...
Greed is prevalent in every economic system. It does not define any one of them. Name one where it doesn't exist. Even the Amish must deal with greed amongst their community members.
But to say that capitalism "encourages" greed is unsupportable. It cannot because it is only a system which is only as good as the people who work within it, as is true of any other.
"For myself, encouraging mutual respect, being concerned with both your own needs AND other's needs is the most conducive to the most moral/best outcomes for all people."
This has not proved to be the wisest tack, as evidenced by early settlers. I believe it was William Bradford (I could be wrong about it being him) who wrote of the settlers initially working as a type of commune, all working for the common good, but the results being devastating in their lack of production. He then went with a more capitalistic form, each citizen having his own plot of land to care for, and the result was abundance as each worked harder to care for himself and his own, then for others who might not care to work as hard as he.
And this is the value of the capitalist system. It serves those who care to put forth the effort in a payoff that makes it all worth it. With extreme success, the Christian has plenty to offer the truly needy. But socialist and/or communal-like systems are limited by the character of the lesser people. YOU might see the value of busting ass. But that doesn't always translate to encouraging by example.
Our own capitalist system has proven that all benefit, even those who refuse to put out the effort, because the overall situation is better here than elsewhere. By now you must have seen how our "poor" compare with the middle class of European countries.
Your problem, and the problem of most who view life from the perspective of "social gospel" theology, is it looks to assign blame for the misfortunes of the "have nots" at the feet of the "haves" without comparing the behaviors that led to the station of each. There are too many examples of people coming from the have not side to the haves for capitalism to be regarded as a lesser system under which we should operate.
Said another way, what is suggested by social gospel theology is envy and covetousness by those regarded as the "downtrodden" when no one ever trod upon them in the first place.
I think Doug has a better handle on the issue with the superior agenda of the Salvation Army.
Dan wrote:
And capitalism isn't about greed?
It's one component, albeit not the summation of capitalism. Here's another good Adam Smith quote to support your claim:
But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
I prefer the term "self-interest" to "greed". Greed implies a moral condemnation.
Self-interest, or greed if you prefer, is a natural and immutable state of humanity. A prudent political and economic system therefore attempts to accommodate rather than ignore or overturn this characteristic.
Since I maintain Quark as my avatar, let me quote the 284th Rule of Acquisition:
Deep down, everyone's a Ferengi.
Yup.
Ah, "In His Steps..." I haven't thought about that book in years. I think I got it as an end of the school year gift from a Sunday School teacher back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth and Jesus wore short pants.
Anyway, that book was pretty influential. Thanks for the memory.
I must have grown up in a deprived religious environment. I never heard of it until I was taking a church history survey class in seminary. They talked about it as being really big and influential, etc.
Oh, well. All I had was the Bible, the United Methodist Hymnal, and someone's battered copy of Reinhold Niebuhr's Leaves from the Notebook of a Tamed Cynic.
Post a Comment