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
GLOBALIZATION AND MORAL PROXIMITY
In light of our global economic dependence and examples of American economic oppression, what is our responsibility to the global poor? Without risking abusing Jesus’ parable, the questions of “who is our neighbor?” becomes incredibly important. Schneider says that the principle of moral proximity should govern our understanding of Christian responsibility to the poor, an idea that mirrors the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings on subsidiarity, which says the social unit closest to a social problem is most responsible and best able to bring solvency. Moral proximity says that our moral focus should normally be on the problems and issues that are nearest, that we best know and care most about the local problems. According to Schneider, moral proximity has bearing on this discussion, because most ordinary Western Christians are so far removed from the actual oppression and injustice wrought upon the developing world to warrant any condemnation or divine judgement.
In light of the reality of our global economic system, I find it incredibly difficult to dismiss the Christian responsibility to the global poor. Because our economy is inextricably linked to other countries and the goods we consume are connected to developing countries, I find it troubling that people like Schneider can suggest are we not at least somewhat responsible to those whom our economies depend. There should be a more nuanced, exhaustive discussion of our redemptive responsibilities toward those whom we are economically linked. Redemptive conversations should include questions that challenge Christian abundance and affluence, including: Why do we Americans believe we have the right to two homes when others in Mexico stuff five families in a one room shack? Why do we Americans believe we have the right to a $120,000 Lexus when people in India earn less than $2.00 a week? Why do we Americans believe we have the right to 12 pairs of shoes when gypsies in Romania don’t have a source of water in their village?
In each of these countries, goods are produced that American Christians consume en masse: Mexico produces the Chrysler P.T. Cruiser, India produces GAP clothes, Romania gives us Puma shoes. In light of this interconnectedness, then, what responsibilities do we Christians have toward those who labor for our consumption? We are much more connected than Schneider cares to admit. Because I buy beans from Starbucks, Am I not morally connected to the farmer in Kenya who is paid barely $.40 a pound? Is that just compensation? Does that provide a decent wage and source of abundance for him and his family? If I buy clothes from GAP, am I not morally culpable for the ten year old who slaved 90 hours one week to piece together my new outfit? These are the questions Schnedier and others fail to address, questions that sit at the heart of a discussion on the theology of faith and capitalism.
