We have to recognize that a spirit of individualism and confusion has reduced us to an ethic of ‘every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost.’ This ethic, unfortunately sometimes consecrated by Christian formulas, is nothing but the secular ethic of the affluent society, based on the false assumption that if everyone is bent on making money for himself the common good will automatically follow, due to the operation of economic laws.
An ethic of barely disguised selfishness is no longer a Christian ethic. Nor can we afford to raise this to the national level and assume that the world will adjust itself if every nation seeks its own advantage before everything else. On the contrary, we are obliged to widen our horizons and to recognize our responsibility to build an international community in which the right of all nations and other groups will be respected and guaranteed. We cannot expect a peaceful world society to emerge all by itself from the turmoil of a ruthless power struggle – we have to work, sacrifice and cooperate to lay the foundations on which future generations may build a stable and peaceful international community. Every Christian is involved in this task, and consequently every Christian is obliged to seek information and form his conscience so that he may be able to contribute his own share of intelligent political action toward this end.”
From Peace in the Post-Christian Era, by Thomas Merton. Orbis Books;
4 comments:
Eric,
Please, I am not invading your post. I was invited here by JRB, who wanted me to read the Merton excerpt and comment (this all relates to comments I left at his web-site a couple of weeks ago).
Merton is a lovely writer. There is grace in his words, and gentleness. He has a saint's touch.
But I disagree with him. Two years ago, yes, I would have probably nodded my head in prayerful approval. Today, I am shaking my head instead.
There is an assumption that Christians are to be working toward the perfection of this world, or so I hear in Merton. There is nothing further from the truth, I believe. After all, we are all broken sojourners on a broken planet, circling and spinning through a broken cosmos. Broken beings cannot together create even a whole moment let alone a whole economic policy. No matter how collectivized we become, no matter how "one" or "single-minded" humanity can be, it will still be a fragmented wholeness, and our outcomes will be similarly rife with problems.
Capitalism is not perfect. But it might be the closest thing to perfect for a fallen world. It admits self-centeredness; but it also admits that selfishness will be penalized right out of the market. Competition has a way of penalizing and forcing out the bad, the intolerable, the evil. Yes, even these penalties don't come soon or often enough. But they do come.
Let us assume that the purpose of everyone's life is to help one's neighbors. OK. Sounds good. Sounds even simple and attractive: We shall all love our neighbors. But if that's the case, what are we all doing? If you're helping me and I am helping you and Jim, and Jim is helping you and Sue, and JRB is helping me and you and we him, what the hell are we all helping each other with?
Do I not instead go to help my neighbor because she has a need, a self need, even a selfish need? Do I give her a cloak because she is cold, selfishly cold? Yes, I do. In fact, I help others as they pursue their selfish courses; and they help me as I pursue mine. I am, after all, selfishly interested in eating, staying warm, staying dry. There is a reasonable, godly, and glorious selfishness.
Alas, if we were all helpers, nothing would get done; nothing could be given, or shared, or earned. To be lovers, to be helpers, we need to have an object for our love and our help, who has goals and plans and intentions other than to merely help us. Otherwise, if we are all helping all the time, paralysis will set in between all people.
If I choose to be poor, everyone around me stays poor. If I choose to be rich, hundreds of people will benefit from my wealth. Would there be a universe if God was poor? Would there be a savior in a manger if there was no gold brought there and placed at his feet? Job lost all his wealth, everything he loved, and yet, after he learns his lessons, God makes him wealthy again. Why? Does God love wealth? He might, in a fallen world. And surely King David, Solomon, Zaccheus, and Joseph of Arimithea were wealthy––Solomon even lived opulently. Was that wrong?
There is not a capitalist alive, I think, who truly embraces a complete laissez-faire attitude toward the economy. Nor have I ever heard any Christian for one second embrace an "every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost" ethos. I believe Merton is hyperbolic when he suggests otherwise. And I think Merton is wrong when he writes:
"we are obliged to widen our horizons and to recognize our responsibility to build an international community in which the right of all nations and other groups will be respected and guaranteed. ...we have to work, sacrifice and cooperate to lay the foundations on which future generations may build a stable and peaceful international community. Every Christian is involved in this task ..."
There is no Christian call, there is no Christian responsibility, to build an "international community"; or even to recognize the "right of all nations". Even if there was such a call, it must end in futility. The curse of Babel remains, and it will not be undone. It especially will not be undone by those who are under that curse.
I believe there are two idols that are at war in the world, yet both will end in the same death. On the one hand, there is selfish greed, a greed that consumes and controls for identity, power, prestige. It is not ever concerned with others; it is consumed with making others envious. In fact, this is the most common idol in the land, exemplified in the questions, "Who has the most enviable life?" and Who is more important?" The marketing industry is rife with the promotion of enviability: Buy this, know this, have this, sleep with this, drive this, and OTHERS WILL WISH THEY WERE YOU; they will hate their lives, or love themselves solely for the sake of being like everyone else as they strive for the same carnal identity.
And yet there is another idol, though it is sort of the inverse of selfish greed. Call it "selfish justice." It is that concern, that passion, that movement to and for justice based not on love, but on resentment, even envy. It is that social program that looks on wealth with an envious, resenting eye, jealous that government or just plain kindness can't generate wealth like Wal-Mart or Exxon can. And it is that "justice" that exploits the envious and resenting masses in the marketplace of merchandise and ideas, "pimping" those fallen emotions for political gain: "Look at the rich, how they benefit. Vote for me, and I will be your Robin Hood."
This selfish justice, which props up the self that idolizes its own superior sense of economic parity and morality, includes those who call for hearings on the 10 percent profit margin, and meager 9 percent return, that Exxon/Mobil earned last quarter; and yet who turn a blind eye on profits made by the movie industry (for example). Warren Buffet, a billionaire Democrat (and John Kerry's economic advisor), has said that he has turned out a 31 percent per annum return for the past 25 years, with his Grade A stock trading at nearly $91,000 per share. Alas, there is no congressional hearing for his sort of capital gains. But when it is politically expedient, "Big Oil" is blamed for the world's woes (largely to defame Bush and Cheney's connections to that industry). Michael Moore, seeing a market (the anti-Bush, anti-war market) churns out an idiotic film, Fahrenheit 9/11 (which I watched attentively), in which he assails the colossus Halliburton for its evils, all the while exploiting the anti-Bush market for all its worth. Moore invested a couple of million dollars in his film, and yet it gave him a sinful return in profit. Should there be a hearing on Capitol Hill? No, of course not, because Moore is on the side of the "working people." Of course, the reality (which goes unreported) is that Michael Moore holds 2,000 shares in Halliburton. Where is the hue-and-cry? There is none among the selfishly just.
It is interesting to hear many people (I am not suggesting you speak thusly, but Merton does) who call for "cooperation" between economies, peoples, and cultures. Merton even calls for "sacrifice" along with cooperation for the betterment of the world. But Merton is not asking, nor are those who think like him, for the world to be more capitalistic. Why not? After all, capitalists are our neighbors, too. Why are they the ones (and they are the ones), who should "sacrifice"? Why are they the ones who should "cooperate"? If they are our neighbors indeed, then why should the Marxists NOT embrace Adam Smith, and forsake the religion which is Karl Marx, for the sake of neighborly cooperation? Why is it the capitalists who must move?
If Christians are in support of a secular state, adoring the wall of separation between Church and Country, then why would the church involve itself in anything other than a competitive market system? After all, Darwin insisted that competition is the very foundation of life; why should we try to engineer something so glorious, and so secular, right out of the marketplace? If competition produces great animals, if competition produces great athletes and great minds, then why should we think that it won't create great economies? Any other economic system is inherently theistic, at least in imitation: Marxist socialism assumes that there is a god-like something "outside" the market, some vista held by some committee, or some blind spiritual force of history, that can adjust the competitiveness of nature to yield something more fair, more equitable. Not only is this wishful and religious thinking, it is as foolish as introducing brown tree snakes to control birds on an island. All hell breaks loose when mankind intervenes in nature's grand systems.
I am in hearty agreement that there are injustices in the world, that God wants us to fight for justice, that He wants us to protect the vulnerable. But we are not to do this so people can lose their souls idolizing our beneficence or the wonders of a rich earthly life. We fight for justice so people escape damnation. If we leave the poor to starve, they may curse God for humanity's shallowness. If we leave the rich without conscience, they may disown God, certain they themselves are gods. And if we give the poor too much they may forget that this place is but a way-station: it is not our final home.
"Keep falsehood and lies far from me;
give me neither poverty nor riches,
but give me only my daily bread.
Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you
and say, 'Who is the LORD ?'
Or I may become poor and steal,
and so dishonor the name of my God."(Proverbs 30:8-9)
The only question is: What in fact is our daily bread? (Notice that the author of Proverbs does not say that "too much" riches will make others poor; only that it may lead to disowning God.)
So then, the fight for justice is not about the here and now: it is about not losing who one truly is among the idols that surround us on ALL sides.
That is my take. It is by no means the last word, or even the first word. It is merely the wonderings of a man barely able to make ends meet. But my way out has nothing to do with making the rich poorer.
Peace forever,
BG
Contra wrote:
"Alas, if we were all helpers, nothing would get done; nothing could be given, or shared, or earned. . . . if we are all helping all the time, paralysis will set in between all people."
Quite to the contrary, BG, if we were all helping, everything would get done. That is the fundamental vision of the Kingdom expressed in two commandments by a self-sacrificing Helper.
I've been trying to locate my fundamental criticism of your apology for capitalism here and elsewhere, and I think I've fingered it. You go to great lengths to describe why capitalism is the best manifestation of political-economic life for Christians, yet nothing, nothing, nothing Jesus taught sounded in these principles of self-promotion and success in wealth to benefit the greater good. Nothing.
Wealth may not be inherently wrong within itself, but Jesus sounds a blaring warning against the pursuit of wealth for one's self. The ends (of a rising tide lifting all boats) do not justify the means (of greed and profit seeking). Greed and profit seeking may be necessary for survival in a capitalist economy and may be useful to some good, but nothing in its necessity or usefulness makes them Christlike. Realistically and pragmatically, American Christians must operate in capitalism, but surely that does not suspend our responsibility to strive to achieve His vision for our lives.
This is the fundamental downfall of America.
Now, I'm all with you that the world cannot be made perfect. Ecclesiastes declares as much, yet Ecclesiastes admonishes us to draw near to our Lord to spite the world's corruption. Our Lord, however, has declared His intent to reconcile all people and to reconcile all people to Himself.
"Christianity" does not put us individually in the center of the universe. CHRIST allows to approach and glorify the God Who occupies that space.
"What the hell are we all helping each other with?" We're helping each other to be reconciled to the Father and to each other, presently and eternally, physically and spiritually, all of us, every single last one of us of the 10-20 billion souls who ever have breathed on this planet.
JRB,
I believe you were too hasty in what you read. If we are all helpers at once, then nothing can get done. We need leaders; we need planners; visionaries; all of which are helpers. But we can't all be helping selflessly. That is impossible. As I said, I give my cloak to help someone who NEEDS a cloak. But if she were truly self-less, she would refuse the coat and give it to someone else who needed it, and so on, ad infinitum, (if all were truly self-less helpers). There is indeed a Godly selfishness; I take care of myself so others can be free to take care of their own needs, and not mine; and so that I might be free to help others. Paul was a tentmaker because tents were needed; but it also gave him cash, so he could carry his own burdens. And the rich perhaps find nothing when Christ confronts them, and they go "empty away" as Mary declares. But I am grateful for the rich, for it is to them I turn when I am in need. I do not turn to the poor for help when I'm in peril; I turn to the wealthy. So too does the whole world. How else to explain the cries for help shouted at the rich by those who suffer devastating losses? Even Israel turned toward the rich Pharaoh, made that way in part by the efforts of Joseph. Surely those stores of wheat were a blessing? Surely the wealth of Solomon blessed his subjects? Surely it was a good thing that Joseph of Arimethea was rich enough to have a tomb for Christ's resting place? And surely it was a good thing that the prostitute wasted ointment on Christ's feet though that ointment could have been used to help others who really needed help?
Moreover, Jesus thirsted, he ate. Surely what he ate and drank could have gone to someone else? Surely he could have had more than just one fish come out of the sea, a fish that held in its mouth tax money for Peter and himself? What about other taxes, other people? Was Jesus fundamentally unfair in that moment? Was he not selfish?
I have watched the relief efforts in Pakistan's devastated earthquake zones. Relief trucks and helicopters drive through or flyover desperate gaggles of men, and they drop off white bundles of supplies. Alas, twenty bundles are dropped, but forty men scramble forward. Half the group goes without, as men run homeward toward their families, a bundle under an arm. Was it fair to drop off ANY relief packages when many will get no relief, even though they see it fall just beyond their reach?
What I am ultimately saying is this: socialism is no more godly than capitalism. There is NO godly economic system. Perhaps it would not even be remiss for me to say that I embrace a sort of Christian nihilism in these matters, or rather a Christian fatalism. I believe that our efforts at earthly justice are futile and relative; born mostly of resentment and envy and idolatry. And I am not an advocate of pure capitalism; I think of myself as something of a democratic capitalist.
Yes, Christianity does place each of us at the center of the universe: God in Christ adores us. Christ, after all, God Incarnate, did not die to place himself on center stage, he died for each of us. If Love does not seek its own, if Love does not seek to have its own way, if Love loves not itself, then Christ, being Love, is NOT at the center of His universe. We are, placed there by Him. The humbling thing is that I have NOT PUT MYSELF THERE. Hence, my gratitude shall know no bounds; my pride shall be knocked to the ground, and my soul shall quake in wonder. Christ became a servant, my servant, even a servant unto death, for me.
Now, how am I to love you the way he loved me? That's the ethical question. And that's the NEW commandment. What does it mean? How did Christ love his disciples? By fighting for economic justice for them? Perhaps. He did give the Sons of Zebedee a few netfuls of fish that no doubt made them rich for a day, two days, ten. But he did not do that for others, or so it seems. Did he fight for the right to vote in Rome; the right to bear arms, or for the installation of shelters for the homeless? Did he clothe anyone who was without clothes? Did he shut down legitimate businesses in a push for labor unions or minimum wage reform? Did he love his disciples by telling them to democratize the Church; did he show them how to vote for pastors and elders?
It is my take that when Christ tells us to love each other the way HE loves us, we are in for more than meets the eye. To love is complicated, requiring wisdom and power beyond what we expect is needed.
Of course, I admit to you that I have no expertise in these matters. I see through my glasses darkly. Christ, justice, peace, solutions: all these are a blur to me, eluding my demands for clarity, focus, sharpness.
You are a good man, dear sir.
Peace to you,
BG
BG -
Thanks for the clarification of your ideas. I may have been too hasty, and I may be in compulsive haste for all I know.
I agree with this: "There is NO godly economic system."
I also agree generally with this Ecclesiastical sentiment: "I believe that our efforts at earthly justice are futile and relative; born mostly of resentment and envy and idolatry."
I do, however, believe that we are called to the lost cause. What is impossible for men is possible for God and for some ridiculous, graceful, merciful reason, He has entrusted us with His ministry here.
Also, of course, per my long posts at our site, I agree that Christ did not set out to reform systems. He set out to transform hearts. The result, however, especially in democracies, should be that the systems reflect the changing hearts. We cannot be content to be transformed and not be transforming.
Good stuff. I appreciate your efforts to write long pieces on deep thoughts. Blogging doesn't lend itself well to that endeavor.
Post a Comment