This Friday series is based on a paper I wrote for my Systematic Theology 2 class earlier in the year. It was a reaction piece to the book The Good of Affluence , by John R. Schneider and represents my own personal wrestling with the contemporary expression of capitalism: consumer capitalism. In light of the current economic crises and meltdown, I thought I would post this each Friday for the next 6 weeks. Enjoy the repost and I hope it helps challenge you in your thoughts and conclusions on capitalism.

The Series
1. Introduction
2. Is Affluence The Point
3. Consumerism: The End Result of Sin Marked-Capitalism
4. Globalization and the Brown Man’s Burden
5. Globalization and Moral Proximity
6. Conclusion

IS AFFLUENCE THE POINT?

“In the past two hundred years the greatest achievement of the modern West was to create a middle class, allowing the common man to escape from poverty and live in relative comfort. Now the United States is ready to perform an even greater feat: it is well on its way to creating the first mass affluent class in world history.” Capitalism, no doubt, has contributed to great advances in modern societies. Even in emerging markets like India, Romania, and Mexico, capitalism is providing the soil to cultivate great economic and social advances that promote God’s original intentions of abundance for those societies. And according to John A. Schneider, those affluence-creating advances coincide with God’s “cosmic good” for original Creation. Throughout his book, the the author claims the condition of affluence is a cosmic good and core to God’s eternal vision for Humans. He insists that God originally desired Humans to acquire and enjoy a good, affluent existence brimming with the good stuff of life, and for good reason. Genesis does paint a beautiful picture of a Garden overflowing with every kind of good fruit and vegetable, a safe environment to raise a family, and undefiled relationships with which to grow old. God created a good Earth and placed Humans in a good Garden to enjoy and provide care.

But does God want us to be affluent, to be wealthy? Or rather, does He desire to give us an abundant life? You may think I am quibbling over words, here, but I think the author missteps by claiming that affluence is the point. Instead, both the early Genesis narrative and Promise Land Exodus motifs give us a picture of abundance, not affluence. Abundance is having a more than adequate supply of something. In our case, God desired that we Humans have a more than adequate supply of food, water, security, shelter, and relationships. The same was true for His chosen people: through the Abrahamic Covenant God wanted to bless them with abundance and give them a land with more than an adequate supply of everything they would ever need. Affluence and wealth on the other hand is having a quality of profuse abundance, of wealth beyond use. It seems that the kind of economic advantage Schneider advocates is beyond what God had in mind when he created Humans, and an example from his book illustrates the point.

In advocating affluence as an original design and intent of God’s good creation, Schneider insists Mercedes-Benz is an object in which people have the right to take pleasure. Of this right he says: “I also know how much pleasure they get from the nearly perfect performance of those vehicle. I think it is very like what other friends of mine get from the pieces of fine art that they own, or from the great books that they read. Outside of base resentment, I see no reason at all to think that either form of affection is unhealthy materialism. Why not instead wish that everyone could enjoy life at those levels?” In other words, Schneider believes taking delight in a $140,000 car is a right and cosmic good. And if a person has the means by which to enjoy the tight-handling of a Mercedes through the curvy Autobahn, then should he not feel spiritually free to exercise that right?

My question is this: why do we define the enjoyment of life by a $140,000 machine? Does God really want us to take pleasure in how a car performs? Is this how Jesus defines the life of His Kingdom? This argument sounds more like a defense of the American Dream than an explanation of the life God has for Humans. Schneider begins to fail in his defense of capitalism by getting the beginning of the Story wrong: God originally created a world of abundance for Humans to enjoy and continues to define that abundance not by the affluence of sin-marked American-Dream consumerism, but by the Kingdom of Heaven. While I believe capitalism in its basic form is good and provides a framework for private property, encourages rule of law, and insists on basic human rights, we give capitalism too much credit, especially considering it is a human construct marked by sin.