Rethinking Christianity's support for Capitalism

It is good to have a blog, because one's views are always and constantly evolving. After some interaction with friends and introspection based on some thoughts expressed in my previous blog post on the American 2012 election, I have given some thought to my current ideology, paradigm and worldview. In my previous blog, I espoused views that endorse preference for a capitalist economy over a socialist one. After interaction, conversation and introspection, I reflected on views on socialism and asking the question are my views on socialism really Christian or are they inspired by the traditions of men?

So much of the New Testament is written about money and personal money management. Just take for example the book of Luke. Luke records many stories about money. Luke 18 - parable of tax collector and the story about the rich ruler, Luke 19 - parable of 10 pounds + Jesus cleansing the temple of the money changers; Luke 20, paying taxes and wicked tenants; Luke 21 - widow's offering. Consequently, in the scriptures one can find so many references, stories and parables about money. Yet does the scriptures either sanction socialism or capitalism? That is not as obvious.

I know that most of my views though on the relationship between capitalism and Protestant Christianity are inspired not by the Scriptures, but by the work of the German sociologist Max Weber. Weber (1930) wrote on The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (for more about this see this entry in Wikipedia), pointing out how much the Protestant ethic was compatible with and also aided the initiation of capitalism.

Weber's work is not the only one to point to the compatibility of capitalism. I have also read the biography of  John D. Rockerfeller and have seen in this evidence of such compatibility in action. Collier and Horowitz (1976) tells us how John D. Rockerfeller's worldview was influenced by his mother's Protestant teaching. Rockfeller learned how to relate to money and personal money management and accounting from his Christian Protestant Baptist beginning (Collier & Horowitz, 1976)

As such, I now question if capitalism is really compatible with true Christianity or is it only compatible with fallen or apostate Christianity? These are the questions that I now pose for others and myself, at the eve of a possibly new America, as the conservatives and the harbingers of the old American Protestant story of democracy have suffered defeat to the new America of minorities and youth.

In one regard the old story of American Protestant is not very applicable today. Protestant story works when there are stable families that care for each other. However, with America's new demographics of unstable (if it is not politically correct to say 'broken') families, poverty concerns are inevitable. There are no guarantees that families will take care of each other in the present or future. People "fall in and out" of love, and no longer decide to commit to and persevere in keeping the family together and caring for each other until death.


Within this context, the issue then is, should not the Christian support widows and orphans, with widows in this case being single parents? Our New Testament theology answers with a resounding yes (See for example, James 1:27). Hereby, it is Christian to support and help single parents and those in unstable family conditions or situations of distress. The question however arises: should that duty be done through compulsory tax deduction via the state or through philanthropy, charity and good works?


References:


Collier, Peter and David Horowitz. The Rockerfellers: An American Dynasty. New York: Holt, Rhineart and Winston, 1976.

Weber, Max. (1930). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Roxbury Publishing Company http://www.brynmawr.edu/socialwork/GSSW/schram/Weber1.pdf

Why am I a Protestant Christian?

In this blog entry, I want to share on why I have consciously positioned my stance as a Protestant Christian. For those who are unfamiliar with the term, Protestants in my understanding are Christians that protest submitting to a pope or papal authority as the final authority in matters pertaining to the Christian faith. Protestants generally hold the view that the final authority to which they must submit is God's written word which in this case is the Christian Bible. (I however always like to point out that early Christians only had the Jewish canon of scriptures for their guidance in determining doctrines and matters of the faith, and that the entire Christian canon of Scriptures came up later due to papal authority. This makes it paradoxical to be a Protestant Christian).

I am more sympathetic to the Roman Catholic Christianity and their challenges than in my early twenties. No other Christian denomination is known to carry out so much poor relief globally. At the same time, the same denomination is often haunted with a history of intolerance, violence and inquisitions. Add to that, the denomination also suffers from more modern stories of sexual scandals and pedophile leaders. While I have not always been sympathetic based on the historical works I have read, more modern news have satisfied me to conclude that the Roman Catholic church in particular no longer fits Protestant Christianity's traditional ideas of the beast. In fact, radical Islam seems a more likely candidate, which is something that is hinted in one of my previous blog entries.

Protestant Christianity has its own history of intolerance, sanctioning slavery and committing genocide of indigenous people, killing pagan practitioners of witchcraft etc. Hence Protestant Christianity like Roman Catholicism also has its sins. Despite the past, I still find that even though the messengers did evil, the message is still appealing. It appeals to my fears and to my hopes for utopia. The truth is, after evaluating other religions, only Christianity (and possibly Islam) paints the most awful picture of what might happen to you if you do not believe their message. I like to take calculated risk, but the uncertainty that death presents is not something that I think I want to gamble with.

However, having been raised as a child in a Christian environment and milieu, while experiencing God for myself within those boundaries, I have consciously decided on the path of Protestant Christianity. Apart from the obvious reason being that I was born into a Protestant family, as an adult now, I find myself with good reasons to be a Protestant Christian as opposed to a Christian submitting to some papal authority. One notes that there are other papal Christian groups apart from Roman Catholicism such as the Eastern Orthodox Church or the Ethiopian Orthodox (also Russian and Greek and perhaps other regional variations). If I were to choose among papal Christianity, I would definitely go for Ethiopian Orthodox as a Jamaican influenced by Rastafarian ideas and racial consciousness. After all, I can find more spiritual connection to Ethiopia, which is mentioned so many times in the Bible, from Genesis down to the book of Acts.

However, I find good theological grounds to adopt a Protestant stance to Christianity, rather than submit to papal authority. In my view, no one person should be given the authority or control over the interpretation of the Bible or how Christianity must be practiced. I know that this poses a problem, as it permits the possibilities of multiple interpretations, traditions and practices. However, this very problem is necessary in order to permit the growth and spread of Christianity. Let me explain.

There is in the book of Acts and Galatians  the mention of the story of how the Jerusalem church had conflict with the Gentile churches established by Apostle Paul (See Acts 15). Apostle Paul, following revelation, made a trip to Jerusalem to hold a meeting with the credentialed apostles (the inner-circle trio that got special attention from Jesus), that is Peter, James and John (Galatians 2:9).  From that meeting, the 3 apostles (not one) made decisions that they would assume control over the Christian outreach to the Jews, while Apostle Paul and Barnabas were to be given equal authority to assume control over the Christian outreach to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:9). As such, Apostle Paul and Barnabas were given similar authority and worked in a similar capacity as Peter, James and Peter. Hence, there was no one person that was apparently elevated to be head over the church.

Hence this to me, raises the issue that earthly church government is a democratic affair, and not a monarchy. Decisions about the direction of the church must be made by at least three persons, and not one. After all, most of Christianity believes in the tri-unity concept of God, three governing as one (). It therefore makes sense to me that if there is to be a papacy at all, there should be 3 or at least 2 persons who comprise that Papacy.  Three or two witness are required to enforce a decision to be made as evident in Paul's writings (see 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19), Jesus teachings (Matthew 18:16)  as well as the Jewish Scriptures (See Deuteronomy 17:6; and even John 8:17). 

From the same story, I also perceive that if the Galilean Jewish apostles had not compromised with apostle Paul and Barnabas, then entire growth and spread of Christianity beyond Jerusalem could have been compromised. Hence, there is wisdom in not having one man vested with all the decision-making authority and the power to interpret the mind or heart of God. Doesn't even the Bible tell us that a cord or strand of three is not easily broken? Further, doesn't even the same wise book tell us that the multitude of counsel is valuable to establishing a thing?

Even the canon of Christian scriptures, which is another story altogether, is incomplete. It does not seem to me that God would have only given us 66 books. That very number is too co-incidentally close to the infamous 666 of the Anti-Christ. In addition, there are numerous books mentioned or quoted in the Bible that were not included in the canon, including the book of Enoch, which is cited at least twice by Jude and Peter (see this blog entry on that topic). Yet, Protestant Christianity, while believing in principle that they must not be limited in their interpretation of the mind and heart of God by  a pope, are yet still limiting their own reformation by sticking to the orthodox practices, traditions and even actions established by popes - including the definition of the Bible as being the 66 books canonized by papal authority, as well as celebrating festivals, occasions and times sanctified by papal authority. Hopefully, I will not be persecuted for posting this. After all, even the Roman Catholic's papal see could benefit from this insight in reforming the political or papal structure of the Roman Catholic church in keeping with the Biblical traditions that they have seemingly drifted away from.

Conversation on the Judeo-Christian Feasts

I had another discussion on the Judeo-Christian feast days with a colleague of mind. I made the point that the churches need to engage in more discussion of the santuary and the feast days and the symbollism thereof. One can not understand New Testament or Biblical prophecies without understanding these and the rest of the Old Testament.

I also made the point that I do not hear much of this discussion in churches back in Jamaica, except for the Amstrong groups and the Messianic Jewish congregations.

My colleague then responded that the topic has come up directly or indirectly in almost all of the Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) lessons over the past couple of years. I replied that it may have been raised a few times, but not much and not in detailed seminars.

I also went on to share of the need for Christians to celebrate at least one communion similiar to how the modern Jewish Passover is observed.


My friend in curiosity requested more details about how such a communion would be celebrated.

This gave me the opportunity to share that the communion in the New Testament is with a meal - a real supper, with table spread with some of the Jewish passover symbols. Here is a transcript of some of the dialgoue that ensued:


My friend: Sounds nice but I am not sure why one would want to do that. The first communion was held on Passover but they commemorate different events. That is why the symbols are not all the same and do not bear the same significance.

Me: But Jesus Lord's Supper did have a meal. And Apostle Paul did mention it, rebuking those who came and greedily ate the supper. Supper also implies having the meal at night. Churches have it in the day. So we are out of step with the symbollism.

My colleague: I wouldn't go so far as to claim that the time of night is symbolic. I would say we should be able to have it at any time of day. We probably need to ask ourselves what the purpose of the communion is and then what is the purpose of each thing that we do in achieving that purpose. It would be good to have a fellowship meal during the communion service but is not having such a meal taking away from the symbolism?


Me: Well communion implies fellowship and eating together. So it just seems a natural fit to have a meal and not just break bread and have a little sip of grape juice. In fact Paul said some persons got drunk at the Lord Supper, which implies that they had a lot to drink, and that it was not a littl sip of grape juice.


My colleague: I agree with you on both counts but I keep going back to the symbolism. What has been lost? If we have only lost gluttony and drunkenness then the change was a good one.

Me: Well...we can only know what was lost if we recreate the original symbollism or least close to it (without the sacrificing of a real lamb, which would be unlawful now). After all, the church is being restored to its original doctrines lost over centuries. Yet Reformation is only a gradual process.

My colleague: You mean a little over a century and a half? (assuming you are speaking about the SDA church) It is not always good to return to original doctrines. If people always did that then reformation would be of no effect. A mature religion/church is one that is not afraid to admit that not everything we believed in the past was right and that we might not yet know everything that we are supposed to know.

Me: No. I mean the church of the apostles and their traditions. Before Anti-semitism separated the Jewish Christians from the Gentile Christians. Agree with this though: "A mature religion/church is one that is not afraid to admit that not everything we believed in the past was right and that we might not yet know everything that we are supposed to know." As the Spirit leads us, which is gradually into "ALL truth".

My colleague: Amen...and so we continue searching for (the fullness of) truth... me gone.

(Published November 24, 2011; Revised November 26, 2011)

Religious Liberty: The cause of the Protestant

Name of Fellowship: Andrews Memorial Seventh-Day Adventist Church
Location: 29 Hope Road, Kingston 10
Date: Sabbath, June 13, 2009
Occasion/Event: "1st Divine Service" 7:45 a.m. - 9:30am.
1st service Messenger: Sherna Reid-Crosse
Theme: Religious Liberty Day

In celebration of religious liberties day, Andrews Memorial SDA Church had their Religious Liberty Director/Chair conduct the sermon.

While I was distracted during the message, Mrs. Reid-Crosse left me some words for further thought.

Once worship is forced and the freedom to worship according to conscience is suppressed, then all other liberties are under threat

It was religious liberty that gave rise to the founding of the United States and to the flourishing Protestant Church. Protestants fled England to the America's because they wanted the freedom to worship according to their conscience (White, "Seeking Freedom in a New World", p.158-163).


Thus in celebrating or having a memorial service for Religious Liberty, the Adventists are recognising their Protestant roots and celebrating the Protestant spirit that gave birth to United States of America and to the Reformation.

Apart from that realization, there is a fundamental truth - that Protestant Christians are the ones who fought for the rights of every man to worship as he chooses. Freedom of worship is the Protestant Christian's cause. Protestant should believe that G-d gave every man choice to worship him or rebel, but the choice is ultimately man's. No man must force him to worship. Thus, it is Protestant Christianity that should respect man's rights to voluntarily choose their path - the path to righteousness or unrighteousness.

This is the nature of G-d, who allows men to make their choices. The word of G-d states in Deuteronomy 30:19:

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

The L-RD respects man's freedom. He respects our freedom to choose. When he made Adam and Eve, he set two trees for them to choose from, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (destruction) or the tree of Life. However, G-d in giving men choice tells the consequences of those choices. For Adam and Eve, if they chose to obey G-d then they would live and not die. The same principle operates today. Once men choose what pleases G-d, then G-d will reward them with life. If they choose to choose what he dislikes, he will bring upon them destruction.

"Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not." (Isaiah 65:12)

"I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not." (Isaiah 66:4)

If there is one great thing that I love about Jamaica, it is our freedom. Our freedom to worship, and spread/disseminate our ideas and perspectives on the streets. May G-d continue to bless our land, which is the true land of the free. For when you are spiritually free, then you are free indeed.

I support and defend the right to worship according to conscience.

Works Cited:

White, E. G. "Seeking Freedom in a New World" The Great Controversy IADPA: (n.d.).