Can Christianity & Capitalism co-exist?

[MikePaterson]

Faith and Capitalism BOTH make claims on the human spirit; Capitalism assumes we are rational consumers; Christianity would have us be faith-filled sharers. Christianity, one might expect from the Gospels, sees wealth and possessions as spiritual hazards; Capitalism sees them as the height of motivation and badges of achievement. Why are churches so materialistic and buildings-centred when Christ had "no place to lay his head". Pope Francis called Capitalism "dung of the devil"… do we agree? What do we DO about it?

 

[chansen]

Make angry posts on forums, it would appear.

Capitalism is the worst economic system with the exception of all others tried. It is not a saviour, and neither is Christianity. Both can be used toward good and bad ends. For every bit of sweetness and light you can find in the Gospels, someone else here can point to inane crap and hold it up like it's worth basing your life around.

The best solution for the economy is probably capitalism with some controls and social safety nets. The best we can do with Christianity is realize that it's not all perfect, or true, and learn to pick and choose the parts that are worth emulating and discard the rest. There is no one system of government, economy, or faith that is perfect and better than others in all ways. Capitalism is not completely evil, and neither is Christianity. Problem is, when you combine the worst parts of both, you get the Republican party.

 

[MikePaterson]

Christianity appears to me to include admonitions against greed as an essential original tenet. Historically it was compromised because early Christian communities benefitted from wealthy patrons. I see capitalism generating poverty, environmental disaster, oppression and ignorance. I see Christianity pretty much accepting it as a given. I'd like to see advocacy aimed at curbing the damage done even if you're right in declaring that there are no better precedents. No advocacy is essentially acceptance.

 

[unsafe]

MikePaterson your quote ----- Christianity, one might expect from the Gospels, sees wealth and possessions as spiritual hazards;

This is my view on this ----

Serving Self with wealth is a Spiritual Hazard ----All Money is Gods but not all people use their money for God's purpose -----

There are 2 types of wealth ----worldly wealth which is self driven ----and wealth that God gives us the power to obtain through relying and trusting His direction in our lives ----True Christians and God hate worldly wealth ----power and greed are the hook of worldly wealth -----Blessing others is God's use of His wealth -----so it depends on which wealth your in -------in my opinion ------God provides us with all the money we need to live comfortably and anything over that is to Bless others -----help pay for someone to have oil in their tank for winter -----supply food for families who have little ---- etc--etc --God has a use for money ----money by itself is harmless ---it is when a human picks it up it becomes what the person uses it for ---- where is your heart ----to serve self or others


Lesson 19: The Woes of Wealth Without God (James 5:1-6) ----https://bible.org/seriespage/lesson-19-woes-wealth-without-god-james-51-6

Your comment -----Christ had "no place to lay his head".

Many use this phrase to point to Jesus being poor and preaching that all people who follow Christ should be poor ------Matthew 8 v 20----Jesus was travelling and at times was not accepted in a place and would leave the place and walk to the next town --village whatever -----so at times they walked all night -----Was Jesus poor ?----and does Jesus want His Children Broke --Busted and Disgusted with life ----- not according to His word -----Jesus came so we could have life to the full till it overflows so we can be a Blessing to others in need ------Judas was Jesus Treasure and was stealing money from the purse and no one noticed so it would seem there was enough that he could steal from and have lots left over --Plus He has women funding His Ministry ---Jesus was always fed ---and had places to stay along His way ----Jesus never did without and Jesus was able to get coins from a fishes mouth ----He fed 5'000 with a small meal --and His Disciples were look after ---is that being poor and without --- ----Matthew 17:27 --- The Miracles of Jesus Christ: The Coin in the Fish's Mouth ------


If Christianity has a problem with wealth and material things that God provides His Children with ---then all Christians should sell all they have give it all to the poor and live on the streets instead of living in homes with 60'' TVs in their homes ---- Computers --I Phones ----along with play stations and a couple of vehicles sitting in the yard ----and going on trips to Disney Land or South for a vacation -----and Churches as you say -----your Quote ----- Why are churches so materialistic and buildings-centred ---- asking the poor people who attend the church for money --passing the plate taking collection every week to give to the poor -----

The Current Economic System is set up to help the Rich -----Not the Poor ------and many Christians are Hypocrites when it comes to money and wealth ----they like their stuff --their ---TV ---Cars ---Homes ---Boats---- Cottages --- but Preach-- poor is best for Christians --just not for themselves ------

God says this in His word ----

Proverbs 11GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)

The Value of Righteousness ----https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=proverbs+11&version=GW

Dishonest scales are disgusting to the Lord,
but accurate weights are pleasing to him.
2 Arrogance comes,
then comes shame,
but wisdom remains with humble people.
3 Integrity guides decent people,
but hypocrisy leads treacherous people to ruin.
24 One person spends freely and yet grows richer,
while another holds back what he owes and yet grows poorer.
25 A generous person will be made rich,
and whoever satisfies others will himself be satisfied.
28 Whoever trusts his riches will fall,
but righteous people will flourish like a green leaf.



Proverbs 19 MSG
If You Quit Listening

17 Mercy to the needy is a loan to God,
and God pays back those loans in full.

19 Better to be poor and honest
than a rich person no one can trust.


Trust God not Money ------and He will supply our needs and more so we can Give and look after others through Him not this worlds way but His way and we will not run out ------God can't fill a full cup we have to have space in the cup for God to refill it -------God works on sowing and reaping ------ Fear of lack keeps people from giving -------We can't give to the poor if we are poor ourselves ------you can't give what you don't have ------

 

[Mystic]

Capitalism makes a lot of money through competition. The issue is not wealth or its distribution, but how the rich use their wealth. Do Christian businesses use their wealth to create opportunities for the less advantaged? My community is incredibly compassionate by most standards, but we aren't doing nearly enough. Tonight I'm attending a meeting with well-to-do Christians who will be strategizing on how best to create a host of chaperoned "tiny houses" for the homeless and the poor. I say "chaperoned" because we don't want our generosity undermined by tiny house villages becoming a haven for indulging addictions. There will be strings attached to ownership.

 

[Mystic]

Perhaps, Mike's question should be reversed to read: "Practically speaking, can Protestant Christianity exist without capitalism?"
The reversal of Mike's question finds warrant in Max Weber's magisterial book, "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism," one of the most foundational books for the field of sociology. For a brief outline of Weber's thesis, see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism

So then the prior question, becomes, whose Christianity do we have in mind? And on what grounds is our understanding superior to Weber's?

 

[MikePaterson]

Whose Christianity? - Mystic's question - presupposes uniformity within each denomination. That's not been my experience of Presbyterianism, Catholicism, Anglicanism or the UCC. Even at the levels of Christology and Theology there are wide ranges of understanding and expressions of personal faith. Capitalism and Protestantism have made significant shifts since the "magisterialism" of Max Weber 110 years or so ago, Two World Wars have changed societies deeply and, for many, Christianity holds no interest at all.

 

[Delightful Life]

Whose Christianity? - Mystic's question - presupposes uniformity within each denomination. That's not been my experience of Presbyterianism, Catholicism, Anglicanism or the UCC. Even at the levels of Christology and Theology there are wide ranges of understanding and expressions of personal faith. Capitalism and Protestantism have made significant shifts since the "magisterialism" of Max Weber 110 years or so ago, Two World Wars have changed societies deeply and, for many, Christianity holds no interest at all.

Exactly,
whose Christianity

since you stated in your OP

"Christianity would have us be faith-filled sharers. Christianity, one might expect from the Gospels, sees wealth and possessions as spiritual hazards; "

So Christianity is a monoculture

chansen refers to it well in his response to your OP

Whose Christianity

I posit Christianity isn't a monoculture -- it is made up of individuals choosing to follow ('cherry picking') what parts of the myth cycle that they want to -- and people can self-identify and group themselves around a certain interpretation and call themselves that? For ease of communication & tribal identifiers

Whose Christianity indeed

The Christianity that denies that their Central Figure, the Christ's message is all aboot giving up and dying for the state?

The Christianity that believes that g_d is an insane and evil being & that Jesus & Satan are actually trying to help humanity?

The Christianity of Creflo Dollar that believes that g_d wants to shower people in prosperity?

The Christianity that sees the function of the Christian as helping their fellow human being up to and including their own death?

Again, whose Christianity -- since there are different types of Christianity, different Belief Systems, they will have different reactions to Capitalism...

And those who are trapped within their BS, who can't see outside it, can't even try to compare...

Especially when Capitalism has grown organically over time; it is super adaptive; and it, essentially, is enabling people to find out what another person values and then finding out how to give it to them. It trusts the individual to make their own choices, no paternalism. It has resulted in things that never have occurred before -- like last year, the percentage of the lowest poor -- 10% of the global population...that's something to cheer aboot.

I do agree that it is problematic to protect & keep cultures, esp indigenous cultures...and I think it is important to keep them, if not just for utilitarian reasons -- the more diversity in humanity there is, the better off humanity is...

A fun, short history

 

[chansen]

Christianity appears to me to include admonitions against greed as an essential original tenet. Historically it was compromised because early Christian communities benefitted from wealthy patrons. I see capitalism generating poverty, environmental disaster, oppression and ignorance.

That puts capitalism in direct competition with Christianity, then.

I see Christianity pretty much accepting it as a given. I'd like to see advocacy aimed at curbing the damage done even if you're right in declaring that there are no better precedents. No advocacy is essentially acceptance.

I prefer to see people advocating for the above. The Occupy movement, for example, as flawed as it was.

In the US, people are "feeling the Bern" and he is nominally Jewish. There are good messages out there, that we should look after one-another better. After being told for decades that we can't afford these things, the Panama Papers show us that we could pay for it if the wealthy were prevented from hiding assets and avoiding taxes.

But the advocacy doesn't need to come from Christianity, and it would be better if it did not come from a specific religion at all. These messages need to come from a wide cross section of people, not just the fan club of one particular book.

 

[Mystic]

Whose Christianity? - Mystic's question - presupposes uniformity within each denomination. That's not been my experience of Presbyterianism, Catholicism, Anglicanism or the UCC. Even at the levels of Christology and Theology there are wide ranges of understanding and expressions of personal faith. Capitalism and Protestantism have made significant shifts since the "magisterialism" of Max Weber 110 years or so ago, Two World Wars have changed societies deeply and, for many, Christianity holds no interest at all.

Mike, you know better than misreading me like that. The question "Whose Christianity?" clearly presumes on the contrary a multiplicity of "Christianities," of which you might be accused of choosing one that suits your political agenda. Andy your cavalier dismissal of Max Weber raises the question, have you even read the book?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

That puts capitalism in direct competition with Christianity, then.


I prefer to see people advocating for the above. The Occupy movement, for example, as flawed as it was.

In the US, people are "feeling the Bern" and he is nominally Jewish. There are good messages out there, that we should look after one-another better. After being told for decades that we can't afford these things, the Panama Papers show us that we could pay for it if the wealthy were prevented from hiding assets and avoiding taxes.

But the advocacy doesn't need to come from Christianity, and it would be better if it did not come from a specific religion at all. These messages need to come from a wide cross section of people, not just the fan club of one particular book.

This is interesting. Sanders is to speak at the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences at the Vatican. The article explains that Sanders reached out to the academy first, the pope didn't invite him... But they do see eye to eye on many issues.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/10/vatican-pope-didn-t-invite-bernie-sanders.html

 

[You just never know]

Jesus 's take on capitalism in his day was to overturn the capitalists tables and run them out of the temple. I'm thinking if Jesus was around today more than a few CEO's would have their office desks overturned.

 

[Mystic]

That's one of the many versions of Christianity. I wonder which version Mike espouses and how he justifies his bias over against others like Max Weber.

 

[Seeler]

In the US, people are "feeling the Bern" and he is nominally Jewish. There are good messages out there, that we should look after one-another better.

But the advocacy doesn't need to come from Christianity, and it would be better if it did not come from a specific religion at all. These messages need to come from a wide cross section of people, not just the fan club of one particular book.

So was Jesus (nominally) Jewish. Much (most) of Jesus message was embedded in Jewish scripture and values, just as Bernie's is. Love of neighbbour, care for the poor, share the wealth, welcome the stranger (sojourner, resident alien), forgive debts ...
I haven't read the Koran or studied Islam but it is also based on Jewish roots and I don't doubt that it shares many of the samee values.

Admittedly all three didn't always live up to their ideals.

So yes, you are right. Advocacy doesn't need to come from a specific religion at all. Many people share the same ideals and values regardless of which book or tradition they follow. And many people fail to understand or live up to those ideals.

 

[Mendalla]

Jesus 's take on capitalism in his day was to overturn the capitalists tables and run them out of the temple. I'm thinking if Jesus was around today more than a few CEO's would have their office desks overturned.

No, not really. The attack on the moneychangers was because they were operating in the temple. He didn't go down to the marketplaces and do it to the vendors there which would have been a broader attack on commerce. To my eyes, it was not an attack on capitalism or even on the money changing business, but on bringing the material world of commerce into the spiritual world of the temple.

So, he would definitely come down on those who commercialize religion (holy water, $10 a vial, will heal any illness, our guarantee) but not necessarily on the capitalist system as a whole. He would certainly preach on the importance of putting God ahead of commerce and repeat the whole money can't get you into heaven speech, but I doubt he would be actively attacking capitalism outside of where it impinged on religion.

 

[Mendalla]

No, not really. The attack on the moneychangers was because they were operating in the temple. He didn't go down to the marketplaces and do it to the vendors there which would have been a broader attack on commerce. To my eyes, it was not an attack on capitalism or even on the money changing business, but on bringing the material world of commerce into the spiritual world of the temple.

So, he would definitely come down on those who commercialize religion (holy water, $10 a vial, will heal any illness, our guarantee) but not necessarily on the capitalist system as a whole. He would certainly preach on the importance of putting God ahead of commerce and repeat the whole money can't get you into heaven speech, but I doubt he would be actively attacking capitalism outside of where it impinged on religion.

To carry this thought a bit further. Jesus' teachings about economics and faith aren't really saying that we should support one economic system or another. They are saying that economics should not trump God when it comes to values. I can't really see him giving a flying flip if a society adopted a capitalist (or communist, or whatever) economic system. His statements, like one about the rich having as much chance of getting through into heaven as a camel has of getting through the eye of a needle, are not so much about what economic system to use as how to relate our secular, economic lives to our religious values. If you can be wealthy and still be humble about it and use that wealth in God's service and make that service a priority, I doubt he is going to to worry about the wealthy part.

The problem, to my eye, comes when we go beyond economics and start basing our priorities and values on those economics. If we judge people by their wealth, rather than their wisdom, or make the earning and amassing of resources (money or other) the priority of our lives rather than using those resources wisely to help ourselves and others live better lives, that's what I really see Jesus attacking.

Short version: I don't think Jesus had a problem with people making money, I think he had a problem with people worshipping and valuing money over the priorities God has set.

 

[GordW]

THe problem I see with the question of the OP is that it runs the risk of assuming that Christianity is therefore aligned with one political-economic system over another. This misses the point of the Kingdom (which is what Christianity is actually about). The Kingdom is more than any of our political-economic-social systems or theories.

And so one can ask where Christianity is compatible with MArxism, or Capitalism, or Democratic Socialism, or Leninism, or...
We can also ask where Christianity is not compatible with those various options.

The challenge is to remember that none of them are to be seen as the path to the Kingdom.

 

[revjohn]

They can.

But only if there is a reorganization of priorities.

Namely 1) money is a tool God gives us to help those who are less fortunate and 2) the love of money actually is the root of all evil.

I suspect that if we directed money down rather than up we would find a better solution.

Consider society as a walled community. All money and materials should be diverted to the areas of the wall that are weakest or lowest. Only in that way does the wall keep all within safe from whatever threat is found without. Currently money and materials are diverted away from the areas of the wall in need of repair to improve upon areas of the wall which are already strong and tall. It is a recipe for global disaster. The poor will perish first yes, but there will be no survival for the rich in the long-term.

Capitalism which directs profit to the common good instead of picking and choosing a greater good ensures that there will be enough to go around even if some don't get to pile it as high as they desire.

 

[revsdd]

Trying to fit Jesus into contemporary understandings of capitalism/socialism is pointless. Those ideological viewpoints didn't exist in the culture in which Jesus lived, and he would likely be baffled by them if he were lifted out of that context and dropped into ours. "Ideology" in the modern understanding just didn't exist in his day. You had those who ruled and those who were ruled. Those who ruled provided a sense of law and order and justice to those who were ruled. That persisted into Early Modern Europe with the idea of the lords and their serfs. If you were a serf and you could see a castle from where you stood you owed your allegiance (and your taxes) to the lord of the castle in exchange for some degree of protection. Great Kingdoms developed from the castles giving their allegiance to the even more distant monarch in exchange for the same things on a larger scale. Capitalism grew out of that system in the 13th-14th centuries, but "ideology" in the modern sense didn't really develop until the French Revolution. Other ideologies (liberalism, socialism, communism, populism, libertarianism, etc., etc.) largely evolved as responses to capitalism over the years.

 

[Mendalla]

Trying to fit Jesus into contemporary understandings of capitalism/socialism is pointless. Those ideological viewpoints didn't exist in the culture in which Jesus lived, and he would likely be baffled by them if he were lifted out of that context and dropped into ours. "Ideology" in the modern understanding just didn't exist in his day. You had those who ruled and those who were ruled. Those who ruled provided a sense of law and order and justice to those who were ruled. That persisted into Early Modern Europe with the idea of the lords and their serfs. If you were a serf and you could see a castle from where you stood you owed your allegiance (and your taxes) to the lord of the castle in exchange for some degree of protection. Great Kingdoms developed from the castles giving their allegiance to the even more distant monarch in exchange for the same things on a larger scale. Capitalism grew out of that system in the 13th-14th centuries, but "ideology" in the modern sense didn't really develop until the French Revolution. Other ideologies (liberalism, socialism, communism, populism, libertarianism, etc., etc.) largely evolved as responses to capitalism over the years.

The whole "Jesus as proto-Marxist" thing has always confused me both for this reason and because I just don't see it in his teachings. Yes, he wanted us to focus on God rather than things of this world like possessions and money, but nowhere does he call for a proletarian revolution or denounce the bourgeoisie. His revolution, if such it could be called, was a spiritual one, not an economic one.