Christianity and Materialism

Great Debates
1

It’s pretty obvious that we live in a culture that is absolutely wallowing in stuff. Not that there’s anything wrong with that in itself, but devotion to having both a lot of toys, and the right toys, seems to be even more the essential defining American belief than it ever has.

We’re a materialistic, commercial culture (and have been throughout the postwar era, excepting a bit of rebellion against that in the '60s), but lately it seems to be getting to the point of choking out other values far more than before.

I’ve never before felt like my own life revolved around posessions as it does now, and it’s making me wonder about both myself and Christians in general.

There was also a great quote by the reviewer of the “Left Behind” series in the Atlantic Monthly (Jan 00): “‘Left Behind’ offers no strong alternative to the world’s definition of what matters; it merely appropriates and baptizes worldly standards.” I must admit that, most days, I wonder if I’m not doing the same.

Two questions:

(1) Do you think I’m seeing it like it is, or does my perspective seem a bit ‘off’ to you?

(2) What is the appropriate Christian response to the materialistic ethic of our culture?

2

RTFirefly:

In my opinion, it is, on the one hand, to be good stewards of what we own and, on the other, to resist coveting what is owned by others. As it happens, that is also the appropriate libertarian response.

“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler

3

I’m as guilty of this as the next person. I’m not as materialistic for myself as I am for my kid. I really love giving her things that make her face light up! Fortunately, (and I really do mean this) we have never had enough money to really spend without thought. So I try to give gifts with restraint.
I don’t know if it affects other people the same way, but I find myself wanting less. I am coveting (sin, sin, sin :slight_smile: ) a simple life !

4

jaws - I know the bit about having never had enough money to spend without thought; up to a year and a half ago, I was teaching at a small, struggling Christian college, with salary to match. But the past eighteen months have been good to me, and part of my concern (for myself, at least) is a reaction to that. Now that I can afford to buy a few more toys, part of me seems to want everything out there - while, at the same time, another part of me wants a very simple life.

Lib - I’m kinda worried about your posting here, because (see your last sentence) every discussion you’re in that I’ve been in lately, seems to turn into a debate over libertarianism. I’m really not after that here, and I know some questions may come up that have to do with stewardship on a societal level, which would automatically raise your hackles.

I’m not sure how to approach this: on one hand, you’ve got a right to your views, and a right to express them; on the other, I feel like I just got through taking your assumptions and beating you upside the head with them on the flat-tax thread, and I really don’t feel like I should have to win an analogous (but just different enough to be re-argued) debate over here, just to get to the point where I can raise the questions I meant to raise here.

Seeing as it’s my OP, I may just have to toss in some opening assumptions that God believes in some level of communitarianism (e.g. OT laws restricting use of private property, specifically to benefit the poor; labor laws that apply even to slaves; prophetic calls to ensure that justice applies to the poor as well as the rich).

Any better ideas? I don’t want to kick you out of the discussion, but I still want to be able to have this discussion without it turning into a discussion of libertarian philosophy at every turn.

5

“Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have.” Hebrews 13:5

I find it interesting that the writer of Hebrews told his readers to be content with what they have, considering that he was writing to people who, for the most part, were dirt poor; some had even lost their homes/business/families because of their faith in Christ.

I also feel compelled to note that the word translated as “content” comes from a Greek word tha means “enough.” As in, “Let whatever you have be enough.”

I struggle with this issue all the time, because on the one hand I want to be content with what I have. But on the other hand, I really want that summer house on the Lake of the Ozarks, that winter house in Miami Beach, that Cessna, that 2-week Caribbean Cruise, etc.

I guess it’s OK for me to be ambitious so long as I don’t get greedy. In other words, I should invest wisely and save up for those things, but I shouldn’t let a brother go hungry while I stuff every last penny I make into mutual funds.

Does that make sense?

6

RTFirefly:

Three things:

One, I naturally see the world through my libertarian glasses just as you see the world through your socialist ones. Libertarianism is an ethic, after all.

Two, as I explained there, I voluntarily removed myself from the multi-poster ambush in the flat-tax thread — for which imagined victory you claim to yourself, as beating me upside the head no less (Christianly speaking, no doubt) — in order to debate a gentleman in a thread noteworthy for its civility.

And Three, I will do you — no, make that me — the favor of getting the hell out of here.

“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler

7

Lib - you left the other thread after I had broken the back of your argument. An explanation is posted there, in case you doubt it.

You have a tendency to argue or disparage by putting ideological labels on people that you perceive as negative. I particularly liked your “Phil didn’t mean any harm. Like any liberal, he can’t help it” from another thread. It wasn’t so much insulting as an attempt to put a political spin on a discussion that had had no hint of one until that point. The comment had about as much to do with the discussion as a fish does with a bicycle. :slight_smile:

And see your post above: I’m not insulted by your calling me a socialist - I think it’s an honorable political philosophy. But it’s not mine. However, your using the term without any supporting evidence says a great deal about you.

Seeya.

8

Let me add, it’s not just Christmas that’s commercial and materialistic.

Americans just finished celebrating Thanksgiving – commemorating that the Pilgrims didn’t starve to death but did manage to wipe out the Indians. And how do we commemorate? by absolutely stuffing ourselves with far more food than is good for anyone.

Or Valentine’s Day… or Halloween… or…

9

I think Rasta got it right (I know you’ll sleep better now, Rasta, knowing that the Doc agrees with you ;)). There is nothing in Christian (or, IIRC, Jewish) theology against having money or possessions, as long as you use them wisely. If you have enough to help your fellow man, do so. If you have enough to help others and have a nice house, good food, etc. - great! It’s not so much what you have that counts, but what you do with it.

The overwhelming majority of people have more than the average (mean) number of legs. – E. Grebenik

10

rasta and Dr J - I agree that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with doing well - and I don’t feel the least bit guilty about what I have now that I didn’t used to. And, rasta, I’m glad to know I’m not the only one who’s struggling over these issues.

My wife and I aren’t going to sell all we have and live among the poor; it’s just that, in a nation, and in a world, of great disparities of wealth, I’m still kinda groping for the balance point. And in a nation with such affluence, I feel like there should be more of a conversation somewhere (in the churches, at least) on the details of questions like:
[ul][li]How do we distinguish healthy desires for, say, the occasional vacation getaway, from wanting stuff just because it’s there, and/or because we’re manipulated by the wizards of marketing to crave these things?[/li][li]Are there any good, spiritually healthy ways to deal with the messages that the advertisers throw our way?[/li][li]How can we, as Christians, help one another in this endeavor?[/li][li]Do we have any call to attempt to change society in a way that would reduce the ubiquity of advertising in our lives?[/li][li]How do we sort out, in this world of so much affluence yet so much need, what constitutes proper stewardship of our resources as individuals?[/li][li]To what extent do we need to consider the questions of stewardship as part of a larger community - as a church, or as a nation?[/ul][/li]I think you get the idea.

CK - I wasn’t thinking about the Christmas holiday per se, although it certainly is our society’s baccanal of stuff-worship. (35 years ago, Tom Lehrer commented on this in an amusing song, “Christmas Time Is Here, By Golly”; wonder what he thinks now?)

By comparison, however, the marketers haven’t been able to do jack with Thanksgiving; there’s only so much food you can put on the table at one meal. They do better with Halloween (candy, costumes, and decorations), Valentine’s Day (cards, lingerie, jewelry), etc., but given the constant pitching of cars, computers, computer toys of all sorts, stereo equipment, cell phones, etc., etc., the usefulness of these minor holidays with respect to marketing is down in the white noise, I’d guess.

These days, we swim in ads so much, we hardly register them consciously, unless they’re particularly funny or irritating. But, IMO, we absorb the message common to all of them: want stuff.

11

Wow, I did the bulleted list right. Cool! :wink:

12

One group of marketers has been able to do a lot with Thansgiving: turkey farmers. How many of you feel, well, not quite right if there isn’t a turkey on the table at Thanksgiving?

As vegetarians, Leigh-Anne and I get tired of being asked, “If you don’t eat turkey, good heavens, what do you eat at Thanksgiving?!” It’s like, “OK, imagine your Thanksgiving table. Take away the turkey. What’s left? Bingo!”

“It’s my considered opinion you’re all a bunch of sissies!”–Paul’s Grandfather

13

I suppose that if I ever really get stupefyingly (sp?) rich I’ll just have to be careful. My summer house on the Lake of the Ozarks will be something in the range of a $200,000 log cabin, instead of an all-out mansion. Ditto for the winter home in Miami Beach, although it’ll be a condo.

I’ll then adopt a policy of matching my “frivolous” purchases with an equal donation to the church. For example, if I drop $100,000 on a Cessna, I’ll drop $100,000 in the offering plate. If I blow $35,000 on a Jaguar, I’ll drop $35,000 in the offering plate.

Of course, at this stage in my life, it’s all moot, since at present I’m wondering if I can get by until payday without my $15 bottle of Allegra.

BTW, let’s not forget the example of Jesus himself. For at least two decades he had a day job, and I’d say it’s safe to assume that he used his wages from his carpentry job to rent a house, buy food & clothes, etc. Just like the rest of us. When he went into the ministry, some rich women supported him financially. “These women were helping to support [Jesus and his disciples] out of their own means.”

I guess what that means is that God expects the rich among His people to support the poor among His people. How to apply that is up to you.

14

That Scripture quote is Luke 8:3, BTW.

15

Geez, RTF, ask some easy questions once in a while, huh?

We do talk about these issues in my church. Not so much the advertising per se, but the stewardship/affluence balance certainly. The best I can tell you, I’m afraid, is that Christianity only gives general guidelines for these issues (that damn “freewill” thing, you know). The specific answers are somewhat personal. Some feel called to give up all worldly possessions and dedicate their live to helping others. I see it as a concentric circle of priorities which, starting in the center and working outward, looks like this: God, family (including self), other people, etc, etc. Money and affluence should be on the outer rings. I give a lot of my time, money, and talent to church and charity. My church spends about 35%-40% of our budget on outside missions and charity. It is, for me, a balance between self, family and others that is key. Finding that balance is the first challenge, for it is a little different for everyone. Maintaining the balance is the second challenge. It is not usually static, but changes throughout your lifetime.

Tough questions often beget long, confusing answers. I hope this one made sense.

16

Actually, Dr J, it made a lot of sense. And I appreciate your willingness to take a stab at my pile of questions in a genuine way.

I think you’re right - to a fair extent, the specific answers to questions of stewardship of one’s time and resources are necessarily going to be as individual as we are. God hasn’t yet made a one-size-fits-all way to live the Christian life, for which I’m very grateful, most days. :slight_smile:

17

RTF:

I have nothing to add to what has already been well said on personal stewardship, except perhaps John Wesley’s remark that when he was young he found he could live on £30 a year, that being his income; and when in later life his income rose to £60, £90 and so on, he saw no reason not to continue living on £30 and to give away the balance.

I think you have put your finger on one of the great issues of the first few decades of the impending century, that is, the re-allocation of global resources, the present distribution of which is grossly inequitable. Also, if the Western world as the rich relations don’t start dealing with this now voluntarily, I suspect we won’t have long to wait before the rest of the world forces us to do it anyway. Which is probably just, but a real pain in the fundament for us - and I suppose the same principles of balance and equity must apply to our own private resources too.

So I suppose a part-answer to part of your question would to my mind be that Christians should actively seek to further and support the significant transfer of resources from ourselves and our countries to other parts of the world where they are more needed…

I have an uncomfortable feeling that this will very shortly become a far more radical and permanent shift than just sending aid when disaster strikes or something media-grabbing comes along. I wish I could say I was looking forward to it, but if I am to be honest, I’m not. (On the other hand, I could be wrong…)

18

Not to be purposefully offensive (well, heck, maybe), but having read the NT a few times, it seems to be that Jesus was manifestly clear and very specific concerning his feelings about the accumulation of wealth by his followers. Lots of stuff about rich men not getting into heaven, and about storing up treasures on Earth versus heaven, things like that. He didn’t appear to leave a lot of wiggle-room, even ordering his disciples (who lived communally following his supposed resurrection) to rely on the charity of strangers when they went into the world, taking nothing but their robes and their staves.

Given that, why does the idea that Jesus really was opposed to the accumulation of wealth seem to cause so many Christians so much discomfort? Is it because it is so at odds with some natural instinct towards accumulation, or is there something else at work?

“It’s my considered opinion you’re all a bunch of sissies!”–Paul’s Grandfather

19

Phil, I think you’ve put your finger on something we Christians would mostly like to ignore. Because, yes, we like to have stuff, we like to have security in the way that the world measures such things, and so forth.

While I can say that the people who thunder, “This is the word of the Lord!” when they’re quoting a passage about homosexuality, sexual immorality, six-day creation, and whatnot, all of a sudden start getting into the “well, what this really means is…” gig when they’re confronted with the passages you refer to, I honestly can’t say I’m in a position to look down on them here; while I don’t do the GSIIBITSI bit in the first place, that’s cold comfort.

Bottom line is, I know I’m being asked for more than I’m giving. It’s easier to turn a blind eye to what Jesus says about wealth and posessions, or rationalize it away, than to admit it must have some sort of application to my life, and to start asking what it might be.

That I’m starting with the bare-bones questions, and haven’t really done any thinking to advance the starting point of the discussion any further, shows how good a job I’ve done in avoiding this one.

Durno - you raise some good points too. Unlike Wesley, most of us (myself included), as we earn more money, find all sorts of new things that we can’t do without.

And with respect to the global questions, our consumption, IMO, has a much less benign long-term effect on the rest of the world than most free-market apostles would acknowledge, and the people of the poorer areas of the world usually have little say when our consumption has effects that help undo the natural systems that they rely on. The churches (some of them, anyway) do speak up on such issues, but not very loudly, IMO.

20

Phil - I disagree somewhat with your interpretation of these scriptures (surprised?). I can site examples of “good” rich men in the New Testament - for instance Joseph of Aramathea - but where does that get us? Nowhere, really. The Bible deals with money and wealth quite extensively. The message remains consistent throughout and can be boiled down to “…for the love of money is the root of all evil.”. Not money, but the love of money. You said yourself in your last post that Jesus counseled against the accumulation of wealth and the storing up of earthy treasure. It’s fine to have wealth on earth, so long as it is used for the betterment of all instead of the enjoyment of a few. I would imagine that it is difficult for a rich man to follow God. Human nature is such that wealth, power and comfortable living tend to turn one’s priorities inward. Jesus did send his disciples (and Himself) out penniless. He could have just as easily given them fantastic wealth to finance their journeys. I am of the opinion that He chose the route of poverty so that the people could more readily see that this was a work of God, not a work that man accomplished on his own. Even at that, as Rastahomie pointed out, the rich helped support Jesus and the disciples. He wanted the world to see that all of their needs would be supplied and that money should neither be a source of worry nor contentment. Luke chapter 16 gives excellent counsel on dealing with worldly wealth.

In an outlandish example, if I were suddenly given Bill Gates type wealth I don’t believe I would be automatically banned from heaven. Together with the wealth, however, would come a commensurate responsibility to my fellow man. How I handled that responsibility would prove whether or not I am Christian.

Perhaps our interpretations differ, but now you know where I’m coming from.