A lot of churches love using the holiday season to rail against the *evils* of materialism. While I think an overemphasis on material possessions is probably unhealthy, I think a lot of people make it out to be worse than it is. An addiction to the accumulation of material goods is no different than addictions to other things; in the end, they are all simply attempts to fill a hole in our lives that can only be filled by things that are more substantive: faith, hope, love, etc.
I don’t think working on breaking ourselves free from addictions does anything in itself. As we reduce the hold of addictions A, B and C on our lives, addictions D, E, and F come in to take their place, unless, at the same time, we make a parallel effort to live our lives for the things that are eternal.
Consumerism is not bad. There is inherent social good from people having choices and making the effort to make good choices.
Materialistic demand is also not bad. Demand drives innovation which drives economic growth which leads to a better society.
During this Christmas season, instead of pretending that we’re being more holy by not shopping as much, buy, but buy intelligently and with purpose. Don’t go deeper into credit card debt just because you feel like you have to buy people X, Y, and Z gifts; going into debt to buy people gifts is stupid and irresponsible. If you have enough money to give generously, support good art, meaningful causes, innovative businesses, etc. By doing that, I believe we can actually do good through shopping.
Comments 6
<>
read John Owen’s “Overcoming Sin & Temptation” - he talks about mortifying (purging) of sinful nature in us, but unless we truly transform, like you say, other sins will pervade us, even though we might think we’ve “overcome” the previous addictions.
Posted 13 Dec 2007 at 10:29 am ¶Moral responsibility? Or just responsibility? Or maybe the title ‘Your contribution this Christmas season is to BUY’ might work too?
:)
Posted 13 Dec 2007 at 10:55 am ¶It’s meant to provoke people a little. The anti-materialism crowd likes to make this a spiritual issue; I think one could make an argument to justify shopping as a morally good activity.
In the end, I don’t think it’s about whether materialism, consumerism, etc. is good or bad. When you truly know Christ, there is freedom. Praise God that we are saved by grace and not by our behavior or by works.
Posted 13 Dec 2007 at 7:17 pm ¶Actually, I enjoyed your title as you have it. I may not have read it if it wasn’t as bold.
Nice.
Posted 13 Dec 2007 at 7:20 pm ¶What do you mean by “buy intelligently and with purpose”? If I remember correctly from previous blog entries, you aren’t a big fan of deliberately buying fair trade as that distorts the market, reduces competitive incentives, etc.
What would you think is the modern day equivalent of gleaning? If we are supposed to sacrifice some (although not all) economic efficiency to enable others to support themselves, isn’t that the very definition of market distortion?
These are real questions — I’m not trying to play “gotcha”!
Kristen, Friend of Rachel
Posted 14 Dec 2007 at 10:07 am ¶Yeah, I’m still not sold on fair trade. What I mean is more that sometimes people do what’s easiest (buy bestselling items, buy from monstrous chain stores) instead of something that could be more thoughtful and impactful. For example, a small independent jewelry store gains more from your decision to shop there than a large chain jeweler would. Not that I believe chains are inherently bad–I believe they force independent shops to be more competitive. Or another example is that I could have bought my sister an iPod shuffle for $79 but instead, I bought her a one year membership to an art museum.
I don’t think everything in the Bible necessarily has to have a modern equivalent. Everything was written in a particular context of time, culture, environment, etc. I think gleaning was probably a necessary practice in Old Testament times because their economies were much less mature and robust. But with modern capitalism, there are a lot more ways to help those less fortunate than us that aren’t pure charity. Access to capital is one example–interest rates in pre-capitalist economies were unbelievably high. Being able to borrow money at 8% is ridiculously cheap and is almost like free money when compared to historical lending rates. That is only possible because of complex modern financial markets. I also believe the aggregate net benefit to society from more liberal economies gives people more financial resources to be charitable. Is it better to have a society where the only option for the poor to sustain themselves is through gleaning or one where easier access to capital and education provide upward mobility in a way that was never before possible? I think a lot of people forget that the concept of upward mobility was unheard of prior to maybe a couple centuries ago. There was no way people could even dream of moving out of the economic class that they were born into. I believe the need for gleaning as a mandated practice to help the poor has become obsolete and irrelevant.
Ok, I’ll stop there even though I could probably go on for a while… :)
Posted 14 Dec 2007 at 2:41 pm ¶Post a Comment