While theologians debate whether or not the practice of tithing - donating ten percent (or more) of one's income to churches and charitable groups - is a biblical responsibility of Christians, Americans have pretty much made up their minds on the subject. Their views are discernible through their behavior.
I don't want to suggest that anti-consumerism, in all its various forms, is the proper Christian response to contemporary American culture, but I find very interesting this defense of consumerism offered by Marxist Brendan O’Neill. He praises consumerism as a useful vehicle for civilizing the world, while condemning it for not going "far enough in remaking the world in man's image."
What today’s anti-capitalists loathe most is the consumer society, with its incessant advertising and wicked temptation to buy, buy, buy. On Buy Nothing Day, at the end of November, anti-capitalist protesters on London’s Oxford Street and elsewhere advised shoppers to detox from consumerism because everything we buy has an impact on our planet. Meanwhile, serious psychologists claim that consumerism makes us ill: it gives us affluenza, apparently. Geddit?
Marx loved the consumer society. Indeed, he described it as a civilising moment of capital. In the Grundrisse, he wrote: “In spite of all his pious speeches, (the capitalist) searches for means to spur (the workers) on to consumption, to give his wares new charms, to inspire them with new needs by constant chatter, etc. It is precisely this side of the relation of capital and labour which is an essential civilising moment.” It is striking that what a bearded communist described as civilising 150 years ago - the chatter and charms of consumerism - is now written off by anti-capitalists as dangerous and corrupting.
Of course Marx wanted to destroy capitalism because he thought it didn’t go far enough in remaking the world in man’s image and organising society according to human needs and desire. Today’s sorry excuses for Marxists and anti-capitalists think capitalism has gone too far in its development of the forces of production and encouragement of consumerism. I’m with Marx. Let’s replace capitalism with something even more dazzlingly cocky and human-centric. But let’s first deal with the Luddites, locavores and eco-feudalists who have given anti-capitalism a bad name.
Bill Moyers recently sat down with author and political theorist Benjamin Barber to discuss his belief that American capitalism threatens to destroy American democracy. Barber develops this thesis in his book CONSUMED: How Markets Corrupt Children, Infantilize Adults, and Swallow Citizens Whole. The interview provides many launching points for constructive dialogue but, as a Christian, I am drawn to one in particular.
BENJAMIN BARBER: . . . I was called on Black Friday by a lot of radio and TV stations.
BILL MOYERS: Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving [when so many people go shopping].
BENJAMIN BARBER: “Tell us what's going on? What’s wrong with American consumers?” Which is kind of what you and I have been talking about. But the trouble is we’re looking the wrong way. It’s not what’s wrong with American consumers, it’s what’s wrong with American capitalism, American advertisers, American marketers? We’re not asking for it. It’s what I call push capitalism. It’s supply side. They’ve got to sell all this stuff, and they have to figure out how to get us to want it. So they take adults and they infantilize them. They dumb them down. They get us to want things.
As a Christian, I agree that we ought to remain sensitively aware of the evil caused by social structures (economic, political, legal, etc.) as distinct from evil caused directly by individuals. Ron Sider’s Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger was instrumental in leading me toward this conclusion. But I believe also that we would err grievously if we were to disregard the evil within each of us, as we devote more attention to addressing structural evil. To the extent Benjamin Barber urges us to ignore our own corrupt nature, I believe he leads us astray, away from a comprehensive answer to the social ills he describes.
Please allow us the pleasure of introducing the 2008 Class of Truth and Grace Ventures’ Servants Quarters program. We hope that these very brief introductions help lead to the creation of many more meaningful and mutually edifying relationships down the road.
Nar, a graduate of Amherst College and the fourth of five children from Cambodian-Chinese immigrant parents, presently serves with energy and passion as the Local Outreach Coordinator of The Falls Church.
A native of Falls Church, Nefret just graduated in May ‘07 from William and Mary and then faithfully followed a call to serve the children of Southeast DC as a AmeriCorps VISTA Volunteer.
Pursuing her lifelong dream to be a teacher, Kim moved from Michigan to Northern Virginia this year, only to learn that God had a different plan. She now joyfully serves as the Middle School Youth Director at Vienna Presbyterian Church.
After two years of teaching third grade in Herndon, Virginia, Emily made the move to live in intentional Christian community with two friends in a Spanish-speaking immigrant neighborhood in Arlandria. By day, Emily is the program assistant at an after-school learning center in South Arlington.
Jamilia joins us as she nears the end of her second year serving, tirelessly and ably, as the Executive Director of Southeast DC Partners, a suburban and urban partnership aimed at bringing reconciliation and renewal to the children and families of Southeast DC.
Carlous, teaming with the Coalition for Christian Outreach, Tom Skinner Campus Ministries and the Skinner Leadership Institute, uniquely offers the Howard University student community a range of opportunities for serious discipleship, leadership development, community service, racial reconciliation and evangelism.
Nick, the son of two former pastors in the United Church of Christ and a philosophy graduate of Grove City College, joins us in our first attempt to extend the Servants Quarters program beyond its traditional boundaries. In particular, while he is a dedicated servant in his church and among his neighbors, Nick works for a for-profit firm rather than a non-profit Christian ministry, and thus is ineligible for Servants Quarters monetary assistance.
Photo caption: Back row: Nar, Nefret, Kim, Emily and Jamilia. Seated: Christine and Ramsey, with Carlous on the left and Nick on the right
Do you ever find that you're trusting in yourself or what you have – your talent, youth, diligence, discipline, wit, bank account? Learning to trust in the Giver, not His good gifts, is a lesson on which I’ve been forced to focus this past year. And it was this lesson that came to mind as I read an article in today’s Washington Post about local preachers’ struggle “to make the centuries-old story of the miraculous birth of Jesus Christ relevant to today’s worshipers.”
Hundreds of ministers in the Washington region will face packed churches tonight when they preach one of their most important, and challenging, sermons of the year as Christians gather to celebrate Christmas.
With high-flown rhetoric or plain-spoken bluntness, brevity or long-winded oratory, ministers will try to make the centuries-old story of the miraculous birth of Jesus Christ relevant to today’s worshipers.
It’s not easy, ministers say.
I wonder whether some of these ministers, perhaps caught up in the pressure of the moment, are trusting too much in their God-given intelligence, humor, cleverness or oratorical skills? I wonder whether they might find preaching on Christmas Eve less of a struggle if they looked to Saint Paul as an example?
When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power (1 Corinthians 2:1-5).
You may have seen the television commercial recently: Dad firmly tells the family that they can’t open their Best Buy gifts until they’ve visited Grandma, so they drive to Grandma’s house, but only to slow down the car and wave Merry Christmas before returning home to experience holiday joy, consumer electronics style. Triggered by his concern with this advertisement, Jordan Ballor at the Acton Institute blog briefly explores the question of What’s Wrong with Christmas Consumerism. (HT: The Point)
I agree with Ballor that consumption itself isn’t the problem. The ascetic, of course, will protest. “Asceticism is a way of thinking that sees money and things as evil. To the ascetic, the less you own, the more spiritual you are” (Randy Alcorn, Money, Possessions and Eternity, p.16). As Alcorn says well, Paul’s declaration that “everything God created is good” (1 Timothy 4:4) is the “theological death knell for asceticism. From a biblical perspective, everything is fair game to have and to enjoy, as long as we partake thankfully and prayerfully – unless, of course, what we partake in violates God’s Word” (Alcorn, pp.21-22). John Schneider reaches a similar conclusion in The Good of Affluence: Seeking God in a Culture of Wealth, after a wide-ranging examination of the biblical stories of creation, the exodus, the exile, the life and teachings of Christ, and the early church. Schneider argues that God’s ordered vision for humankind includes, at its core, the “deliberate institution of material prosperity and flourishing as the proper condition for human beings in the world and before God. . . . I call this condition ‘delight,’ and I believe it endures throughout the biblical story as the vision that God has for all human beings” (p.10).
If consumption itself isn’t the problem, what is?
Continue reading "What’s Wrong with Christmas Consumerism?" »
From Chuck Colson's December 13, 2007, BreakPoint Commentary:
’Tis the season of consumption! At Christmastime, it is hard to escape the steady drumbeat of advertisements urging you to buy, buy, buy, buy. Not to mention the dreadful sense of guilt until you have covered everyone on your shopping list. But Christmas is also the perfect time to put the reins on over-rampant consumerism and buck the trend: Do it by creating something.
In his book, The Suburban Christian, author Al Hsu explains how Christians have condemned culture, avoided culture, critiqued culture, and copied culture. “Mostly,” he says, “we consume culture. But all of this is a far cry from God’s intent, that we fulfill the [creation or cultural] mandate and exercise our energies to create culture.” I could not agree more.
Today's Washington Post offers this story about retailers and less conventional outlets that allow consumers to rent, rather than buy, luxury items from "diamonds to exotic cars and vintage handbags." You now have "affordable" access to "coveted brand names": $4800 to rent a vintage Hermes crocodile Birkin bag for one month; $203 to rent a Vera Wang diamond flower pendant for one week; or $7,500 per year to gain regular access to a stable of classic automobiles in Manhattan. As one luxury marketing executive observes, these options are "really more for the people who can't afford it but want to give the illusion of affording it."
These new consumption options not only appeal to our vanity, they allow us to indulge at a lower cost. And as you lower the price of something, Economics 101 tells us that demand increases. Do we really need or want this type of encouragement?
Michelle Singletary had an interesting column this past Sunday (Too Rich To Be Poor-Mouthing?), if only because it presents the unthinking response many people will give when a person of wealth suggests they have money problems: "I'll take those problems."
Ms. Singletary recounts “a throw-down between the classes” that overtook an online chat she recently hosted.
The fight -- er, discussion -- started when a participant with a household income of just over $200,000 had some budgeting concerns.He wrote: "My wife and I both have 'good gub'ment' jobs. We both earn low six figures. We have just under half a million in TSP [Thrift Savings Plan, the retirement program for federal employees]. We have two kids in private school and one on the way."
In this Sunday’s Washington Post Magazine, an American University communications professor tells of her students’ trials in dealing with a 24-hour technology fast. One called the experience “grueling pain.” Another said, “I was in shock. . . . I honestly did not think I could accomplish this task. The 24 hours I spent in what seemed like complete isolation became known as one of the toughest days I have had to endure.”
What do you think of these students’ observations? Could you handle this assignment?