EMAIL THIS PAGE
PRINT
RSS
Filmmaker Michael Moore echoes this attitude in his movie Capitalism: A Love Story, calling the free market system “legalized greed.” Well, if Hollywood is correct, then a free market economy isn’t an option for the Christian. Jesus is clear on the matter: “"Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions." Greed is immoral. But is capitalism based on greed? No, and if you think so, you’ve bought into the myth. Charges of greed are misplaced. Can greed flourish apart from a free market economy? Absolutely. Wherever you find human beings, no matter their economic context, you find greed. Greed is a matter of the human heart. Now, can greed arise in the free markets? Absolutely. No denying that one. But that’s saying something very different than the claim that greed is the essence of capitalism. If this were true, how could the United States, rooted in a free market economy, be the most charitable country on earth? The outpouring of charity during recent disasters like Hurrican Katrina or the Haitian earthquake fly in the face of such charges. The basis of capitalism is not selfish greed but rather, appropriate self-interest. This distinction is vital to grasp. Self-interest is not wrong. Do you desire food and shelter? Do you wish to take care of your loved ones? I hope so. Are these greedy desires? Of course not. They represent a proper self-interest. Self-interest is simply looking out for one’s interests. Indeed, Jesus endorses self-interest. How does He tell us we ought to love others? As we love ourselves (Matthew 22:39). Does self-interest have limits? Yes. When appropriate self-interest is abandoned and we move into selfishness, we have crossed the line into sin. But that matter must be dealt with in the individual’s heart and not pawned off on the free market system. The sinful human heart is to be blamed, not capitalism. Of course, there’s much more to be said than can be in a short blog post. So if you want to think a little deeper than Hollywood sound-bytes, check out these Acton resources: |
Comments
You simply ignored the distinction between self-interest and selfishness that is the crux of the argument. Sorry but sarcasm is no substitute for substance.
That's right Brett, Jesus was a big proponent of self-interest. He was a sort of Ayn Rand of his day.
In fact, if you look in the Greek:
"Look at the birds in the sky: do you think your heavenly Father would feed them if they were not self-interested? Consider also the lilies of the field, how they grow; they're fully self-interested too. And yet the invisible hand of the free market forces dresses them better than Solomon in all his splendor. Be self-interested and all these things shall be added unto you."
Your citation of Ayn Rand is proof you can't make the simple distinction between appropriate self-interest and immoral selfishness. Rand's book is entitled The Virtue of Selfishness.
One more time: self-interest is different than selfishness. CT, do you spend money on yourself? Do you buy yourself food and clothing? What about the computer you're typing on? What about things considered luxuries--a dessert, cable tv, internet access, a nicer car, etc., etc., etc.? If so, are you now selfish? By your own standard, you'd have to consider yourself so.
Again, deal with how my distinction is wrong if you want to show that my conclusion is false.
You do realize, I hope, that no one claimed--not even ironically--that Jesus was exactly like Ayn Rand.
One of the reason why it's silly to say that "Jesus endorses self-interest" is because concerns about one's own interests are (and can be) taken for granted--so much so that Jesus went to great lengths to downplay and challenge such concerns. As but one example of this, consider the passage I ironically translated above.
Did I claim anything about Jesus being exactly like Ayn Rand? No. But you brought up Rand as a parallel so maybe you can explain your sarcastic comment about Jesus being the Ayn Rand of his day.
As to your second point, if my point is so "silly," explain what Jesus means when He says to "Love your neighbor as yourself." Does that not imply an appropriate love of self? (Notice the word "appropriate.") If not, what does it mean?
And your quotation of Matthew 6 addresses worry, not appropriate self-interest. Quoted in context: "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?"
I'll again ask the questions above that you ignored: "CT, do you spend money on yourself? Do you buy yourself food and clothing? What about the computer you're typing on? What about things considered luxuries--a dessert, cable tv, internet access, a nicer car, etc., etc., etc.? If so, are you now selfish? By your own standard, you'd have to consider yourself so."
Lastly, you continue to ignore the distinction between selfishness and self-interest. If the distinction is legitimate, my point stands.
What does one do when faced with such airtight argumentation? What can one do?
Brett’s claim that “Jesus endorses self-interest” opens my eyes to the faith. I mean, what’s more central to the faith than that archetype of self-interest, the cross of Jesus Christ?
“And he that taketh not an interest in his own self is not worthy of me.
He that loseth his life shall lose his life: and he that findeth his life for his own sake shall find it.” Mt. 10:38-39
“Whosoever will come after me, let him accept himself, remember to be self-interested, and follow me.” Mark 8:34
“And whosoever doth not consider his own self-interest cannot be my disciple.” Luke 14:27
St. Paul advanced this message:
“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
But made himself a student of Hayek and Friedman. And being found in the fashion of a self-interested man, he made profits, and became rich, living that free-market dream of American capitalism.” Philippians 2:5
Your mean-spirited sarcasm and repeated failure to answer any of my questions shows you have no interest in conversation. So unfortunately, this conversation is no longer productive.
Brothers,
If you knew me personally, you would know that I am a tremendous fan of sarcasm generally. However, I implore you, please be gracious toward one another. It seems to me that Brett is of the opinion that it is natural and somewhat necessary to look out for oneself in certain (maybe even many) situations to a certain degree. Furthermore, it seems to me that CT holds the viewpoint that really, our provision is from the Lord, and our primary focus should be toward others. Could it be that, fundamentally, you both agree, and that you are merely looking at the issue from different perspectives? Your opinions do not strike me as mutually exclusive. Surely we need to secure housing, clothing, food, etc. for ourselves, because, though we have a sovereign and benevolent God, he works through means (cf. Matt 28:19-20); really, I'm not convinced that certain luxuries, in moderation, are inherently evil. However, all too often leaders and laypersons have mistaken capitalism (and much of the greed that does come with it, whether or not it is the root--we are, after all, a fallen race) and patriotism as synonymous with Christianity. This is a tragedy. Beloved, I don't think that either of you are likely in fundamental disagreement with the other, rather just emphasizing different but complementary truths. Forgive me for interjecting, but I thought it necessary and appropriate to encourage my brothers to "let [your] speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt..."
Ryan, I appreciate your comments. Thank you. And actually, you communicate very well what I was trying to get across. But no, I don't think CT and I really agree. I raised the very issues you have but haven't had any success in getting CT to address them.
I agree that generally, our speech should be gracious. But sometimes there's a place for being harsh (e.g. Jesus with the Pharisees). There's also a place to "answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes" as Proverbs 26:5 instructs. CT has a pattern of this kind of folly and has actually been banned at the STR blog because of continued abuses. Sadly, internet dialogue allows one to say and act in ways they wouldn't if they were standing face-to-face with you.