This was written in 2007 for a class I was taking on the Church and Social Change. I have never posted it online because I received negative feedback on the thesis because it did not adhere closely enough to established political options available in our society (the subtext seemed to be that I failed to “take a side” in the way my professor wanted me to). Re-reading it in light of what has happened in our country in the last 15 years, it seems to me that this holds insights I would like to share. Most importantly the core theme and metaphor of the paper: We are the Body of Christ, and all functioning bodies have a right and a left side. And in the Church and the Body Politic of Society, we need to realize that we need each other from all sides, and we need to stop demonizing those who are not in “our” side of the Body. As the original subtitle of this paper stated: "Why the Church needs to get beyond Polemics to resist the rise of Global Corporate Consumerism".
I write this paper as a person who inhabits at least two distinct social worlds. First, I write as someone who was raised in, and inhabits, the world of upper-middle socio-economic, "conservative", suburban, culture. Second, I write as someone who has spent years of work and ministry in lower socio-economic, "liberal", urban culture, and I have gone to seminary with many who would consider themselves spokespeople for this social reality. As someone who is somewhat fluent in the language and issues on both sides of this divide (although, admittedly, moreso with the former than the latter), I want to say that I am profoundly worried about the polemical discourse that both sides use against one another, and the palpable lack of concern that each side has for the other. In particular, I worry because the polemical nature of the argument: (a) violates the core principles and insights that each side holds; (b) destroys the organic unity, power, and love that makes the Body of Christ effective; (c) lays society open to invasion and pillage by the rising force of Global Consumerism.
In this paper, I would like to argue that for the sake of Christ, His Church, and the world He came to save, we have to move beyond the false alienation of Right and Left to a real co-operation of Right and Left, if we are to effectively deal with the challenge of Global Consumerism. Furthermore, while the core insights of the Right and the Left come from the heart of the Gospel and an orthodox Christian anthropology, their application in actual political practice has been reduced to using their labels as mere fronts for the pursuit of political power for power's sake. It is analogous to Alasdair McIntyre's critique of moral theory in general *1. He argues that the current conflicting schools of moral theory have all chosen part of an ancient unified theory of moral virtue, and have held up their various parts as the end-all, be-all of moral theory, while despising the complementary insights of all other theories.
In a similar way, I would like to argue that the conflicting "Right versus Left" dichotomy is part of our society's post-enlightenment hangover, where we have chosen parts of a unified vision for a healthy society, and have elevated each part to the end-all, be-all of political theory, and then have proceeded to beat each other up with the respective parts we have chosen. The core values of the Left and Right come from a common source: a unified vision of the Reign of God. However, with the dissolution of this vision into conflicting (and mutually condemning) parties, we have opened the door for a truly unified, truly global, truly false counterfeit for the Reign of God: Global Consumerism.
But why is this paper relevant to a class in urban ministry? It is relevant because the growing reality which I will describe as Global Consumerism is, by definition, a reality that can only survive and thrive in urban and suburban environments, with peculiar and inter-connected systemic effects on both. An urban environment, with the ease of infrastructure, transportation, and supply that it creates, is a necessary prerequisite for a Consumer Society *2. Furthermore, the types of education, activity, and mobilization which are necessary for the Church to resist Global Consumerism will have to cross ethnic, cultural, and environmental boundaries to be effective. In fact, since it is precisely antagonism, hate, and factionalism that allows for the Church to be divided-and-conquered by Consumerism (so it can market to, and make money off of, all sides in the debate) *3, I will argue that only a renewed vision of Love, Wholeness, and Shalom within the Body of Christ can combat it effectively.
I. The Core Genius of the Left and the Right:
In an age when most take it as axiomatic that the political Left and Right have no common ground, and when politics and religion have been so conflated that theological liberalism is equated with Left-wing politics, and theological conservatism is equated with Right-wing politics (and it seems that most participants are just fine with this), we must ask the question: Is there any common ground to stand on? First of all, we must ask if it is wise to reduce all ministry and theology to merely moral and political concerns. Is the whole reason that God became human in Christ, preached love, suffered death, and rose again- was His whole reason to found a political party, and promote an ideological agenda *4? Are some postmodern theorists right in saying that all discourse is nothing but competing claims to power *5? Or is there something to life beyond political power and control? Let us assume (and this is a big assumption which will dominate the rest of this paper, which is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss) that there is something Real beyond mere political power and control. Let us assume that there is such a thing as a holistic Reign of God, in which perfect Love and Shalom dwell forever, and that this Kingdom includes both social justice and equality in this age, and also transcends this age, and goes beyond a merely materialist conception of "the good life" *6.
If there is such a thing as this "both-and" Kingdom, then let us assume there is something more than the "either-or" offered to us in popular political discourse. In fact, I believe that the core vision, or genius, of the Left and the Right are both dimensions of a larger, more holistic vision of Society, which includes social justice, interpersonal harmony, self-giving love, and peace. It is the Shalom of the Reign of God. To begin to grasp these dimensions let us look at some thoughts offered to us by two thinkers who are often considered to be on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum. First of all, Martin Luther King offered us two stark options for society in the title of his 1967 book "Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos Or Community?". His two options are the integrative shalom found in the values of the Kingdom, (Community) or the disintegrative destruction offered to us in systemic injustice, racism, and hatred (Chaos) *7. Chaos or Community represent the two logical, final trajectories for human societies: Love or Enmity.
Years later, after his stint in prison for Watergate and subsequent conversion, Republican political theorist Chuck Colson came up with what some term "Colson's Law" *8. Briefly stated, Colson says that two broad social forces control the fabric of society: one external, one internal; one communal, one personal. One force is the personal conscience of individual citizens, and the other force is forceful coercion of systemic power, especially in the form of legislation and police action. Colson says, to use King's terms, that these two forces work in tandem to move a society from chaos to community. The more a society is made of people with individual social conscience (who, for instance, make decisions with the good of society in mind and not selfish consumption), then the less society has to rely on public coercion to keep society from chaos. To use the analogy of a body, coercion is like an external cast that has to be put on a body to help it heal from a broken arm. Conscience is like the internal healing processes of that body. When the internal processes work well (i.e. individual consciences making good decisions), and the problem is healed, there is no longer a need for the cast (i.e. public coercion through legal and police action). But, the cast cannot be removed until the limb is healed properly. Roman Catholic moral philosopher Peter Kreeft has combined both the "Left" and the "Right", both King and Colson, into the following diagram *9:
It seems to me that the core genius of Leftist politics stems from the insight that Coercion is a necessary force for the creation and maintenance of a good society, while the core genius of Right-Wing politics is that conscience is a necessary force for a healthy society as well. Instead of realizing this balance, most of us seem to beat each other over the head with one or the other (under different names) and proclaim that our half of the solution is the whole solution.
For instance, the Left emphasizes the usefulness of Governmental power, especially in the forms of legislation and mass action to alleviate social ills. They point to all of the good that governmental power has been used to achieve, especially in civil rights and women's rights in the last century. On the other hand, the Right emphasizes a legitimate fear of Governmental power, following Lord Acton's dictum that "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" *10. They point to all of the leaders and governmental systems that have become corrupt through pursuit of power, following a pattern from the Greek city-states, through the Totalitarian socialist and communist regimes of last century, to more current abuses of political power "at home" and abroad.
Stemming quite logically from this, the Left tends to emphasize social responsibility (cf. Hillary Rodham Clinton's book "It takes a Village to Raise a Child"), while the Right tends to emphasize personal responsibility (cf. the rise of home schooling among many conservatives). As a result the Right tends to favor free market economics which assumes free responsible choices are made by consumers and producers, while the Left tends to favor government intervention in economic affairs to make sure everyone is playing fair. And thus the Right tends to emphasize moral absolutes for personal moral agents to make responsible choices, while the Left tends to react against certain seemingly arbitrary "moral absolutes" chosen by the Right (for instance, why pick out issues of sexuality and gender, rather than poverty and racism, as the pre-eminent moral issues of our time?). In reaction, the Left tends to assert a radical pluralism for personal moral values, and tends to favor a state-enforced inclusivity (cf. Affirmative Action Legislation; Anti-Hate Speech Legislation). This is not to say that the "Neo-Conservative" Right does not use legal means to coerce its vision of morality out of society. It does. But I would argue that this is fundamentally out-of-line with the core genius of Right-Wing social theory.
It is at this point, in fact, that I feel that both sides have devolved into actions and policies which are fundamentally out-of-line with their core ideals, and more in-line with seeking political power for power's sake. But as regards this core vision of Community and Shalom, which is shared by thinkers as diverse as King and Colson, I think it is easy to see why we require both public coercion and private conscience, both social responsibility and private responsibility, to create it. Perhaps the reason why political discourse has become so argumentative and hateful, and ultimately anemic and impoverished, is because both halves have dismissed the other as irrelevant.
II. What Polemics are doing to the Body of Christ:
One of the best insights from Leftist Liberation theology is that, by its nature, all theological discourse is political *11. This is because by the very nature of the God we proclaim, we either validate or call into question the very structures of society in which we live. We place our society, our political system, and our economics, under judgment by the King of Creation. And, provided that we remember that theology can never be merely reduced to politics (it includes much, much more), then this insight is immensely helpful.
It is helpful especially if we remember that older theologians and political theorists (often one and the same!) used to refer to society as "the body politic". For instance, people as diverse as Spanish Dominican Native-American rights advocate Francisco De Vitoria (c.1486-1546), and the Conservative Puritan Mayflower Pilgrims (1620), both spoke of a "body politic" which was ordained by God with the social responsibility to create a just society, in which individuals could flourish and become what God made them to be *12. With this organic, bodily phraseology it brings to mind that society is more than just an atomized group of individuals who have decided to live together under a "social contract".
Rather, we are fundamentally part of a single organism, which is society, and in which we are individual cells. Thus, anything believed, proclaimed, and done by any group of cells has an effect on the whole. But at the same time, the health of the whole organism does depend on the health of the individual cells– the individual consciences– which make it up. Our theology impacts our lives, and our lives impact the Body which we belong to. In fact, to use decidedly Christian terminology, we are all either actively, or potentially, part of Christ's Body, of which He is the Head and Source. As His Love "infects" the Body, it spreads from one cell to another, from one organ to the next, until the cells are brought to new life and incorporated into Him.
And, Christ is no amputee. Christ has a Right and a Left, and He wills to reach out and change the world through both of His hands. The problem is that, currently, it seems that His Right is off doing personal conversion and moral renewal, while His Left is out doing social justice and reconciliation, and neither will admit that the other has a legitimate place in the Body. And, in my experience, the polemics are so bad that the Body can scarcely function as a whole, and some members seem on the brink of rotting off with the Leprosy of hate and fear.
This whole situation defeats the central insights of the Left, because the Left is supposed to value pluralism, inclusion, and tolerance. And it seems like too often, through sneering, snide comments, ad-hominem attacks, and outright hate, the Left demonstrates that they are only inclusive of those who act and think like them, and tolerant of those they deem worthy of toleration. And, of course, the Right returns the favor with gusto. This too, blatantly refutes the core genius of the Right. For an ideology which values personal responsibility and absolute moral values (such as truth and love), the irresponsible ad-hominems and loathing frequently hurled at the Left are completely out of line. And for those on both sides who openly and explicitly admit that Christ is the Head of the Body Politic, this is completely out of line, out of Love, and out of Truth. It makes the Body divided, sick, impotent, and powerless to fight the real fight against the real powers and principalities with whom the Body, armored with Truth and Love, must do battle *13.
In fact, I believe the current situation pleases the Enemy, because while we spend time demonizing one another and falsely calling each other the enemy (instead of realizing each other as fellow members who need us as badly as we need them to bring balance and wholeness to the Body). Thus, the Enemy sneaks in between our partisan political battles, and markets to both sides, making a huge profit both ways, and making both dependent to the media-driven consumer economy which they rely upon to pursue their ideological battles. 2000 years ago the Apostle Paul (or one of his disciples) wrote that "our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places" *14.
But, as Walter Wink has noted, we have largely lost the concept, and the corresponding language, of spiritual warfare *15. We live in an age when we regard the material realm as reality par excellence, and we have a real problem ascribing reality to anything that is non-empirical. Even our own ideas and ideologies are often deconstructed into mere epiphenomena that reflects our empirical situation in life, so that our discourse is little more than language games which are used by one group to gain power over others *16. The effect is that thinkers on all sides of these issues have problems thinking that "powers and principalities" are real entities to be contended with. They cannot conceive of these as trans-personal malevolent Spiritual Beings (in a more conservative Christian sense, as per Peter Kreeft17) nor as trans-social ideological forces that gain a systemic life of their own (in a more liberal Christian sense, as per Walter Wink).
Yet, while the Winkian and the Kreeftian concepts of "powers and principalities", differ in many respects, both at least acknowledge that immaterial Realities are Real and really control and manipulate human societies for malevolent ends. Yet, on the profoundly anti-metaphysical level that most political theory and practice resides at, these realities are either ignored as irrelevant, or not even grasped at all. The effect is that we reverse the Apostolic statement to say "our struggle is not against powers and principalities– since we are enlightened and know they can't possibly exist other than as psychological projections of personal power-plays– rather our struggle is against the blood and flesh of our political opponents". And this can be seen in popular discourse almost exclusively. Democrats do not even question the global powers and principalities that might lead us to unending conflicts in the Middle East. It is all exclusively the fault of the Administration. Republicans do not even question the powers and principalities that might lead our youth to ever-increasing levels of sexual activity, STD's, and drug use. It is all the fault of Liberal educators.
I have friends who are Republican office holders, and I have family and friends who are Liberal educators, and while I cannot speak for the whole of society, I can say from my limited experience that both sides share a common, holistic vision of the "good society", and the "healthy individual", that has much more in common than they have apart. Even on the hot-button issue of abortion, everyone I know on both sides thinks that, in a perfect society, abortion would not be necessary nor preferable. And though I have friends on both sides of the "same sex marriage" divide, both share a common vision that mature sexual love between two people should be shared in a mutual, selfless, loving, lifetime bond. The holistic vision of health, goodness, and Love is largely the same– if not identical– regardless of whether you talk to my democratic cousin who teaches in the inner-city and plays in a Punk Rock band, or if you talk to my friend who is a republican lawyer that lives in the suburbs. And yet, we have allowed the true Enemy– whether you think of that Enemy as a malevolent spirit or a malevolent ideological system-- to warp our discourse to the point that we hardly recognize each other as human, much less as members of the same Body.
III. The Core Threat of Global Consumerism:
So, what is the nature of this Enemy? The Enemy is Evil, that force which seeks to oppress, abuse, and ultimately destroy God's good creation, especially those persons who are made in God's image. The Enemy is the opposite of Love. While it may be true that the "historicized form of Love is social justice" *18, Love does not begin as social justice. Love begins in the selfless inter-sharing, inter-giving, and inter-penetration (perichoresis) of the Holy Trinity. The metaphysical basis from which all creation flows out is the God who is Love *19. And, in the creative act of God, and the subsequent experience of God's children made in His image, we may see Love as possessing at least a subjective, personal dimension, and an objective, historical dimension.
Love begins with the subjective, personal choice to regard others as valuable, and to want to give oneself for their good. Love is brought to fruition with the objective, historical act to actually do good to the other (i.e. to do something to make them healthier, more holistic). In our own creation, God regarded us as worthy to be created and worthy to give Godself to, even though God knew we would cost His Only Son. It was this creative desire to Love that led to the historical action of our creation, to bring about the good desired for us, and the historical action of our redemption, in which the Creator became one of His creatures, standing in solidarity with us in Jesus Christ, to live, and die, and rise again with us and for us.
Now, it seems to me that the Enemy has effectively bifurcated our conception of Love, so that those on the Right tend to regard it primarily as a personal choice to value others, and those on the Left tend to regard it primarily as an activity to bring about historicized social justice. The problem with the former is, that without concrete social action, subjective Love becomes mere sentimentalism. Witness the tons of ministries that advocate personal conversion to Christ and prayer for the healing of the world, but who do not actually DO anything to bring this healing about. The problem with the latter is that, without a real subjective valuation of the worth of every individual person, the pursuit of social justice becomes bloody power politics that seeks power for power's sake. Witness the secular versions of Communism and Marxism in the 20th century, which had no clear value for individual life, which were more than willing to sacrifice millions of individuals for the "greater good" of social justice (i.e. Stalin's purges, Mao's cultural revolution).
But the Enemy does not merely want to distort and segment Love, but to destroy it *20. Just as God has been at work trying to create a society (the Reign of God) in which Shalom would rule as all creatures participate in God's Love subjectively and objectively, so also the Enemy has been trying to create a demonic society in which Chaos would rule as all creatures reject God's Love subjectively and objectively. Thus the "demonic society" is one in which individuals are no longer capable of subjective Love, but see others only as means to self-chosen ends. Furthermore, this perfect society is one in which the social systems (governmental, vocational, educational, religious, etc.) destroy holistic human flourishing (materially, personally, spiritually, and socially).
The manifestations of the demonic society have varied throughout time, but have always functioned by subjugating one part of society against another so that a healthy "body" can never be achieved. Perhaps it is the subjugation of the "owner" class against the "worker" or the "slave" class (as we have seen in so many pre-modern and modern industrial societies). Perhaps it is the subjugation of the "spiritual" to the "material" (as is common in most post-Enlightenment societies). Perhaps it is the subjugation of one race or culture to another in an attempt to maintain wealth and social control (a perennial problem). Perhaps it is the subjugation of the "individual" to the "community" (as we see in so many Totalitarian regimes). Perhaps it is the subjugation of the common good to individual consumer preferences (as we see in societies governed by the logic of “Free Markets”). The methods of the Enemy change as culture changes, but the goal is the same: the destruction of God's Love and God's Beloved.
Now, as we move from an Industrial to a post-Industrial society, we have to expect that the methods of the Enemy for creating the demonic society will change as well. The rise of Right-wing and Left-wing politics came about to remedy real problems in the Industrial Age. Left-Wing politics, with its ideologies and systems of social responsibility, were developed largely to remedy the real plight of the new urban poor and the industrial working class *21. Right-Wing politics, with its ideologies and programs of personal freedom and rights, were developed largely in reaction to the real threat of Totalitarian regimes that crushed individuals around the world *22. And, unfortunately, it seems that Right-wing policies directly contributed to many of the social ills that the left stood against (such as Colonialism), while Left-wing policies lent implicit or explicit support to many of the Totalitarian regimes the right stood against.
But now that our society is moving past Industrialism to a Global Consumer Economy, what should we expect? Should we expect more of the same? Or should we expect something as different from Modern Industrialism, as Modern Industrialism was different from pre-Industrial society? I think we should expect something that is very different. Yes, global consumer society is connected to, and flows out of, its historical antecedents, but it will be as different from them as a child is from its parents. And just as ancient theories of the "Divine Right of Kings" and the "Godly Prince" became largely obsolete and irrelevant once the Nation States in the Industrial Age hit their stride, so also I believe our modern ideological divide between "Left" and "Right" will be irrelevant and impotent when Global Consumerism hits its stride. And if we want the Church to speak prophetically to the systemic evils of consumerism– instead of systematically indicting each other as evil– then we need to figure out the unique size, scope, strategies, and strengths of our Enemy in this Age.
The size and scope of consumerism is, I believe, going to become the first truly global reality that all people in every place share in. Many other cultural realities through history have been felt locally or regionally, but never fully globally. The intellectual currents of Europe and America, as far reaching as they have been, have not been fully global until the last few decades. Colonialism and Totalitarianism, although it was felt in most regions of the world, was not felt everywhere. But now due to the abundance of cheap technology, we are quickly heading to a time when one dominant culture can be beamed directly, and instantaneously, into every home, computer, TV, and phone on the planet. The technology provided by the Industrial Age, and the urbanization spurred on by it, will give birth to the first worldwide, instant, super-culture in the history of humanity *23. If trends continue, within a short time the marketing and delivery of the entire gamut of "lifestyle accessories" will soon be available to almost anyone, almost anywhere, almost instantly, provided by the marketing infrastructure of communications technology, combined with the delivery infrastructure of urban and suburban environments, with their ease of transport and social control.
The strategy of consumerism rests squarely on the moral theory that I call "hyper-utilitarianism". Utilitarianism, as popularized by John Stuart Mill, states that the "criterion of right and wrong", and the "foundation of morality", is that "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness". He defines happiness positively as pleasure and negatively as the "absence of pain", while unhappiness is positively defined as pain, and negatively as the "privation of pleasure" *24. Hyper-utilitarianism is not only that achieving pleasure and avoiding pain is good, but it is the sole goal of life, and the inherent right of every individual. Our wants become our needs, and our needs become our rights. It is profoundly materialistic and hedonistic, and denies any transcendent aspect of the human self. And both the Left and the Right, through their continual use of mass media to pander to voters, have contributed largely to this moral conception becoming the dominant morality in public discourse.
Although the best Left-wing political theorists believe what they believe because they think it will contribute to a just and healthy society, in actual political discourse the rhetoric becomes: "Vote for us, and we will make things feel better for you. We will give you more programs, more money, and a more pleasant life." And although the best Right-wing political theorists teach what they teach because they believe it will lead to healthier individuals and more personal freedom, in actual political campaigns the rhetoric becomes: "Vote for us, and we will lower taxes, so you can buy more stuff, and have more freedom, to do what you want, so you can have a more pleasant life". And what is true of political discourse is also true of pastoral and theological discourse. As far as I can tell, every wing of American Christianity is dealing with the tensions created by Church growth, "marketing" Religion, and preaching modified forms of the "health and wealth" Gospel of "your best life now!" *25. The language of personal sacrifice, individual virtue, the common good, and societal health, is almost completely lacking, replaced instead by endless rhetoric of consumption and fulfillment.
Thus, in the void of any type of transcendent meaning to political and moral discourse, we are left to inhabit a hyper-utilitarian wasteland, where the only unit of value is what we can consume to achieve pleasure and avoid pain. And this is just right for the Enemy, because by using the hyper-modern technologies of on-demand information and supply delivery, nearly everything in life can be turned into a marketable commodity. We take for granted that "things" can be marketed (such as food, clothing, home accessories, cars, entertainment equipment, etc.). This is the first stage which came along with the Industrial revolution. But, now many more things are marketable. We are getting to the point that the body itself is marketable, not only through older means such as pornography and fashion (now largely the same thing), but also through cosmetics, cosmetic surgery, and soon genetic selection of the body of your children.
With the rise of consumer pharmaceuticals and the advertising industry that surrounds them, we now can market and control our moods by what we consume. The news and the free press has become a marketable commodity, so that you can now choose which version of reality you want to live in, depending on what station you tune in to, or what podcast you download. Entire lifestyles are marketed, so that you can try them on, or take them off, at will: from the clothing, to the music, to the furniture, to the activities. If you want to "put on" your identity as a Left-wing revolutionary, or a Right-wing patriot, or a devoted Christian, all you have to do is reach in your closet and pick out your Che Guevara T-shirt, your American Flag T-shirt, or your "Jesus is my homeboy" T-shirt (with corresponding pants and shoes, of course). Everything in consumer life is mixable, matchable, and marketable, without any underlying need for personal commitment or social action.
And not only is every thing turned into a marketable unit of consumption by consumer culture, but the value of the human person only exists insofar as they are producers or consumers of goods. This is the ultimate transvaluation of the value of the human person made in God's image. We are no longer valued as human beings, but only as humans doing. I have worked with youth (and adults) in places ranging from inner-city shelters to suburban Churches, and I have found a startling commonality that cuts across all boundaries in culture: People only see themselves of value through what they do, that is, what they produce and consume. Ask someone who they are, and they will tell you what they do, their hobbies, their likes, their dislikes, what they purchase. But they often do not have a core identity, or anything approaching an inner-image of themselves (or others!) as people made in God's image. This is exactly what the Enemy wants us to think.
For, if we have no sense of personal identity, then we only exist as a subset of what we consume and produce, and only have value through our production and consumption. This in turn warps how we see and deal with everyone: From God, to our spouse, to our neighbor, to the homeless person on the corner *26. If our only value to others (and to ourselves) is what we produce and consume, then the only value that others hold for us is what they produce for us. We thus only love others on the condition that we get something out of them. And this is true of our relationship with God as well. God– if God exists at all or is even thought of– only exists as the guarantor of earthly blessing and personal prosperity.
All of this is made possible by the behavioral technology of information-age pinpoint marketing. While modern psychology seems to be a stunning failure in bringing about the type of health and wholeness touted by 20th century psychologists (the growing suicide rate would be one major indicator *27), there is one area where psychology has lived into the type of power that its early theorists claimed for it: Marketing. Once marketing moved beyond cognitively-oriented, fact-based, informational techniques, to affectively-oriented, image-based, emotive techniques in the latter half of the 20th century, we saw the growth of whole new markets for non-essential lifestyle oriented products. It is now possible for an entirely unsatisfactory product to out-sell a quality product by the sheer nature of the marketing buzz surrounding it.
Even politics is dominated by "the spin", which has little to do with actual facts. And with the growth of micro-marketing approaches– such as "cookies" that identify your computer on the internet, sensors in stores that identify your cell phone and buying preferences, and even text-marketing to your cell phone– we will witness the rise of an entirely new way to control the marketplace. This all-pervasive, all-intrusive consumer marketing culture has just begun to come to fruition. If you want to see futurist visions of it's fullness, read "Fahrenheit 451" or "Brave New World", or watch "Blade Runner", "Minority Report", or "I-Robot" *28. The goal of consumer society will be to use marketing to harvest the population with the ease and speed that a farmer can harvest a crop of wheat. And with a consumer populace that is made entirely of people who see each other, and everything else, solely in terms of production and consumption, it will be easy. It is what CS Lewis calls "The Abolition of Man" *29, and Walker Percy calls "Lost in the Cosmos" *30.
One of the other major differences between late-modern, and emerging forms, of marketing lies in the attitude toward conformity and plurality. In the late modern age, due to the lack of informational technology that could do "pinpoint marketing", and the lack of production technology that could easily customize products, late-modern marketing had to operate on a one-size fits all approach. Advertising campaigns of the 1950's are great examples of this. Everyone looks the same, acts the same, and if you want to be happy like them, then you need to buy the same product. The problem with this is that it excludes people, alienates those who cannot identify, and ultimately turns a large segment of the consumer population away from your product. But now we can pinpoint different types of consumers, and easily customize to meet their tastes. The result is that the consumer machine can "divide and conquer", by creating, and marketing to, an endless number of constructed identities.
Thus, the consumer system keeps everyone involved in an endless number of activities (which they pay for!), which in turn keeps people in groups with other people who are like them in age and interest, and separate from people who are unlike them, whom they learn to fear and dislike. This radical over-scheduling and constant busy-ness makes it increasingly hard to form quality, deep relationships with family members or other people. And the fewer quality relationships a person has, the more they have to rely on the consumer system for support.
And, if the system is able to divide old from young, male from female, ethnicity from ethnicity, country from rap, rock from punk, urban from suburban, religion from religion, Christian from Christian, Right from Left, and any other permutation, then it is good for consumerism. Because every new segment, every new fear, every new hatred, creates a new marketing niche which will consume a whole range of lifestyle products made just for them. In a global consumer society, the unifying factor is not love and peace, but hatred and fear, carefully held within certain tolerable boundaries. To be really bleak– as if this sketch is not bleak enough– I would surmise that while open warfare is bad for consumer society (it would disrupt the supply chain), hate-speech and the occasional mass-murder rampage is actually profitable for consumer society. These events sell air-time, which in turn sells commercials, and thus sells products *31. And not only that, but the fear of the "other" generated by such things, as well as the desire to protect oneself, generates market-share for all kinds of new lifestyle products designed to protect one's interests *32.
Global Consumerism is, in a word, a parasite. All parasites exist by keeping the host organism just sick enough that they cannot reject the parasite, while just healthy enough that the parasite can live happily. However, it is not a parasite that lives within us, but, like all historical manifestations of the demonic society, it is the parasite we live within. A dramatic picture of this is provided by the Watchowski Brothers movie "The Matrix", which simultaneously uses, while being used by, the marketing machine of consumer culture, to deconstruct consumerism, and show metaphorically how its "powers and principalities" reduce humanity to nothing but consumable goods *33. The deep paradox of consumerism is that, by using personal choice to masterfully magnify pluralism, carefully sculpt diversity, and addict us to the products we choose, it will achieve a level of "calculated sickness", deep dependence, and social control that the great "mass societies" and totalitarian regimes of the 20th century were not able to achieve, even with their high ideals, military power, and carefully engineered social systems.
V. Why 20the century Rightism and the Leftism lead to 21st century Consumerism:
While I believe that the emphasis on personal freedom and responsibility, coupled with social justice and communal responsibility, will be crucial to reforming society in any age, I believe the particular manifestation these values have currently in the Right and Left are on the cusp of becoming irrelevant, and will be meaningless when Global Consumerism reaches full strength. And, as eerie as my description of consumer culture is, I do not think that there is anything that can be done to stop the rise of such a society (any more than medieval monarchies could have stopped the rise of the Nation-State). The technology, infrastructure, allowance of diversity, globalism, and multinational business environment is already in place and growing stronger. And, I believe that there are key ways in which the Right and the Left contributed to the rise of such a global reality.
From the Right, the emphasis on personal choice and individual liberty, especially in economic matters, is an essential prerequisite for consumerism. The Right has constantly sought to decentralize economic control, and return economic control to the private sector (i.e. to the producers and consumers of such goods). This has allowed corporations to grow strong, and even given them the ability to form "oligopolies" (i.e. the control of an entire market by only a few companies that compete with each other according to certain mutually agreed rules, that allow for the maximization of profit by all, and the exclusion of new competitors) *34. The rise of oligopolies has been seen recently in telecommunications (through the re-merger of several of the Bell companies) as well as in the petroleum industry. In addition, the Right has been key in "privatizing" government operations, so that corporations are able to extend their reach right into the operations of government itself. This Right-wing encouragement of the growth of large corporations has led to the rise of multinational companies that already possess capital resources, infrastructure, and corporate security that exceeds many of the smaller countries they operate in. One may well wonder what will happen in the world when multi-nationals begin to exceed the capacities of even large governments to keep them in check, and they come to see civil governments as more of a hindrance, than a help, to their bottom line *35.
However, this does not mean that the Left has not done its share to spur on the rise of Global Consumerism. The rise of the large-bureaucracy centralized-government was in many ways an organizational precursor to the rise of multinational corporations. Without the bureaucratic innovations that were created by Leftist "mass societies" of the 20th century, it is doubtful that the multi-national corporation would be as formidable as it is right now. And throughout the mid-to-late 20th century, while the Left tried to pass legislation to regulate big business and protect the rights of workers, the effect has often been what we now call "out-sourcing". If the government creates policies that make one country an unprofitable environment to operate in, multinational corporations simply go to another country that will provide a better (i.e. cheaper) business environment. Communications and transport technology have now made distance largely irrelevant in the conduct of big business. Thus, for the last several decades it seems that at this stage in history no type of governmental policy– be it Right or Left– could effectively regulate the rise of multinational corporations, and thus the rise of the consumer culture that makes them profitable. If the Right makes the environment favorable for them, they grow in wealth and power. But, if the Left makes the environment unfavorable for them, they simply move elsewhere and grow in wealth and power there.
Furthermore, the typical "Leftist" emphasis on pluralism, inclusivity, tolerance without judgment, and globalization, has led to the perfect environment for consumer culture to thrive. If no option is out of bounds, no matter how strange, new, or weird it is, then every lifestyle choice is valid, and it opens up the marketing options for myriads of constructed identities, alternative realities, and their associated lifestyle products. The old social norms and boundaries crumble, to be replaced by the norms and boundaries of consumer forces. The only lifestyle that is out of bounds is what cannot be effectively marketed for consumption. The only sin is to not be productive. This ties directly in to the "hyper-utilitarian" ethic which I describe above, which both the Left and the Right are guilty of pandering to in popular discourse. And it does not help that the Church, in all her manifestations, frequently resorts to "niche marketing", and segmenting age groups, in an effort to be "relevant" to people, and offer God to them in a package they can easily comprehend, apply, then discard.
In addition, the very organ of modern society which is supposed to examine, explain, and critique social trends– the Academy– has largely been rendered mute to warn us about consumerism by over-specialization and partisan politics. The modern academy has been deeply infected by a post-Enlightenment empiricism which denies metaphysical universals. In theology, this includes an inability to speak meaningfully of "powers and principalities" (as I noted above). In fact, much theology has a real problem speaking about God, and tends to only speak about how we speak about God, and thus conflate theology into sociology36. In philosophy, this denial of universals leads to the denial of all "metanarratives" of universal meaning, and the deconstruction of all language into competing power claims *37. Thus, it leads to a pronounced myopia of both theology and philosophy, which focuses them on the specific and narrow, and renders them unable to speak prophetically to "macro-issues" which affect society. Furthermore, it seems that much of academic discourse is more than willing to fall in lock-step with popular ideological categories without questioning them. So that, rather than looking at social problems from new angles that might be more descriptive, we research and write in such a way that we harden the false "Right-Left" dichotomy. The result is that we speak out prophetically and intolerably against those we should be joining together with, while completely missing the real Enemy that is dividing and conquering us.
VI. The Answer to Global Consumerism is a Global Church:
If the answer to Global Consumerism is not ultimately found in governmental action, neither in the form of less social regulation and more personal freedom (from the Right), nor in the form of more social regulation and less personal freedom (from the Left), then what is the answer? If this analysis of consumer culture is anything close to correct, then we are looking at something more global and more pervasive than any culture ever to cross the world stage thus far. And, it appears that this global reality will be more effective than any culture in history at over-feeding humanity's physical appetite, while starving and suppressing our spiritual appetite at the same time. The best "citizens" in such a society can only be persons who have forgotten, or who cannot even comprehend, their true value as children of God. What then can save us? A new social program? A conversion experience? More legislation? A sermon series on how to live our best life now?
I think we need an Incarnational Church that is global, loving, holistic, and self-emptying, just like Him who is our Head: A truly "catholic" Church *38. I do not think Christ came to found a political party, nor to give us a system of teaching for moral benefit and personal fulfillment. I think He came to be the Head of an organism which is His Body. And I think the realization of this has implications– philosophically, theologically, rhetorically, evangelistically, pragmatically, and idealistically– which directly contradict and counteract global consumer culture.
Philosophically, such a realization means that we need to recover categories of ontology and metanarrative that transcend the empirical facts of our embodied existence *39. Not only are we embodied souls, which means that physical existence, bodily health, and social justice really mean something. But we are embodied souls, which means that sociology, social justice, and earthly politics cannot fully account for what makes life meaningful. We were made to participate ontologically in communion with a God who is immanent and transcendent, and who is the source of all meaning and being. It is this meaning that is the metanarrative of History, and into which God is writing all of our stories. Only by recovering such overarching philosophical concerns will we develop a prophetic voice that will call down the powers and principalities that manipulate society.
Theologically, we need to recognize that all of those who have joined themselves together with the Reality of Christ through a common confession and the baptismal waters are indeed one with each other in an ontological, metaphysical way that transcends culture, yet embraces true diversity. We need to realize that some of us are joined to the "Right" side of the Body, while some of us were grafted into the "Left" side of the Body. We need to realize that our common purpose– to join all of creation to Christ and help them to share in His abundant life of Shalom, Hope, and Love– comprehends, joins together, and orchestrates the actions of the Left and the Right.
Rhetorically, this will mean a radical change in the way we do political and social discourse. I think that first and foremost, recognizing each other as members of the same Body, and genuinely loving one another, would do a great deal to restore our unity as the Body. Secondly, since there will be disagreements over specific policies and different courses of action, I recommend that when we debate, we stick to issues, not sloganeering, labeling, or ad-hominem attacks. Third, I recommend that when we hear people using non-issue related speech to demean others, especially when they use it to demean those who we would be most prone to demean ourselves, then we call a halt and put an end to such rhetoric, with the full understanding that it is precisely such demeaning hate-speech that exacerbates already heated issues. Fourth, and most simply, I would recommend that opposing parties take time to eat with one another, worship with one another, and discuss issues with one another, in such a way that the Church and the world sees that there is a Love that transcends political and social issues. Fifth, and most difficult, I would urge all parties to hope the best for their opponents, and to be hesitant to believe the worst.
Evangelistically, we need to present and live a holistic gospel to a divided world. We need to stop treating Christ and His Gospel as merely a physical commodity to be consumed by society, nor as an emotional experience to be consumed by the individual. Rather, we must present a Christ who holistically heals the human condition physically and spiritually, individually and communally *40. And we must present a Christ who does this by incorporating us into a Body larger than ourselves to join with Him in the very same work of healing the world. In Christ our identity ceases to be what we do, and becomes who we are, and whose we are. We are able to escape from identifying ourselves merely as humans doing, and we can become human beings, who share in the Being of God Himself through Jesus Christ, in the power of His Spirit.
Pragmatically, this new identity will mean a new way of living. At the least, it will require, in the words of Stanley Hauerwas, that we live as "Resident Aliens" in a world that is not our true home *41. While I do not know exactly how this alien existence looks in the consumer age, I am sure it will include aspects that look paradoxical, both "Leftist" and "Rightist" (just like the ancient Christian Community looked in Acts 2-4). Perhaps it will involve living in urban and suburban neo-monastic communities, such as the Lindfarne community and other similar projects *42. In such communities, people would voluntarily choose to live in multi-family shared dwellings governed by a community "rule of life". In these communities they would share their earnings and their responsibilities, so that they could make time for deep community life (including daily prayer, communal meals, etc.), as well as outreach into the community through educational programs, social activism, and works of charity. These communities would not be isolationist, like some religious groups, but would intentionally be "healing centers" in the middle of urban consumer culture *43.
As regards economic responsibility in a consumer culture, the growing cultural reality is that our most important voting is no longer done in the ballot box, but with the credit card. The goods we buy, the entertainment we consume, and the media voices we listen to speak much louder than our political affiliation (or even our Church affiliation!). Thus, in our catechesis we need to rediscover the ancient Christian arts of discernment and wisdom. We need a Body that is intentional about which companies it supports with its monetary voting power. Every dollar spent, and each commercial watched, is a vote for what type of society we want to see come to fruition.
For some members of the Body, this realization will mean wise choices about buying habits, media consumption habits, and recycling. For others, it will also mean choosing investing strategies that seek to maximize the Reign of God, not maximize the bottom line. It will also mean learning the art of when to resist in silence and when to resist loudly. Too often when the Church loudly boycotts products and corporations, it only adds media hype and free publicity, which actually helps sales *44. Other times, when we should speak up we are silent *45. These are just a few ways that we can resist consumer culture, and we need both the Left and the Right to do them all and many more. It is my sincere hope we will figure out we need each other before it is too late, and Christianity becomes yet another product for consumption in the marketplace (as it is well on its way already) *46.
And finally, idealistically, I think we can urge one another in the Body Politic to seek to realize the highest ideals– instead of the lowest power tactics– of our respective ideological places in the Body. If someone finds themselves drawn to the Right, we can ask them to pursue individual rights and personal responsibility for every member of society. We can ask them to put the rights and needs of individual human beings ahead of the interests of corporations and markets. We can ask them to respect the individual rights and freedoms of people they do not agree with or understand. We can ask them to emphasize our personal responsibility to be “our brother’s keeper” as well as to take seriously our God-given roles and responsibilities as stewards of the world and resources God has entrusted to us.
Likewise, if someone finds themselves drawn to the Left, we can ask them to pursue the common good and communal responsibility. We can ask them to be clear about the nature of systemic injustices, and how they harm human flourishing for everyone in a society. We can ask them to tap into their values for diversity and inclusion to work to make society a place where everyone feels valued and respected. And we can help them emphasize our communal responsibility to make sure every child of God has access to the “daily bread” they need to grow and thrive. And with both Left and Right working together– one coming from the side of the individual, and the other coming from the side of the collective– we can engineer a society that treats persons and families and communities with the dignity and respect God made them for. We can stand against forces that would turn people into mere units of production and consumption, and help them realize their true value as children of God and members of the Body Politic.
Selected Works Cited and Consulted:
Atkinson, David J. (ed.). New Dictionary of Christian Ethics & Pastoral Theology. (Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL. 1995)
Avram, Wes (ed.). Anxious About Empire: Theological Essays on the New Global Realities. (Brazos Press: Grand Rapids, MI. 2004)
Benner, David G. & Hill, Peter C. (eds.). Baker Encyclopedia of Psychology and Counseling. Second Ed. (Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, MI. 1999)
Cone, James H. A Black Theology of Liberation. (Orbis: Maryknoll, NY. 1990)
Gonzalez, Justo L. Manana: Christian Theology from a Hispanic Perspective. (Abingdon: Nashville TN. 1990)
Gornik, Mark R. To Live in Peace: Biblical Faith and the Changing Inner City. (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI. 2002)
Gutierrez, Gustavo. A Theology of Liberation. (Orbis: Maryknoll, NY. 1973)
Harvey, David. The Condition of Postmodernity. (Blackwell: Cambridge, MA. 1990)
Hauerwas, Stanley, & Willimon, William H. Resident Aliens: Life in the Christian Colony. (Abingdon: Nashville TN. 1989)
Jardine, Murray. The Making and Unmaking of Technological Society: How Christianity can save Modernity from Itself. (Brazos Press: Grand Rapids, MI. 2004)
King, Jr., Martin Luther. Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? (Wipf & Stock: Eugene, OR. Republished 2002)
Kreeft, Peter. How to Win the Culture War: A Christian Battle Plan for a Society in Crisis. (Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL. 2002)
Kreeft, Peter. The God Who Loves You. (Ignatius: San Francisco. 1988)
MacIntyre, Alasdair. After Virtue. Second Ed. (Notre Dame Press: Notre Dame, IA. 1984)
McLaren, Brian D. A Generous Orthodoxy. (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI. 2004)
Recinos, Harold J. Good News from the Barrio: Prophetic Witness for the Church. (Westminster/John Knox Press: Louisville, KY. 2006)
Seay, Chris. The Gospel Reloaded: Exploring Faith and Spirituality in the Matrix. (Pinion Press: Colorado Springs, CO. 2003)
Smith, James K. A. Introducing Radical Orthodoxy: Mapping a Post-secular Theology. (Baker Academic / Paternoster: Grand Rapids, MI. 2004)
Sweet, Leonard (ed.). The Church in Emerging Culture: Five Views. (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI. 2003)
Volf, Miroslav. After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity. (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI. 1998)
Ward, Glenn. Teach Yourself Postmodernism. (Teach Yourself Books: Chicago, IL. 1997)
Wink, Walter. Naming the Powers: The Language of Power in the New Testament. (Augsburg Fortress Publishers: Minneapolis, MN. 1983)
Yoder, John Howard. The Politics of Jesus. Second Ed. (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI. 1972)
Endnotes:
*1 This is the subject of his entire book "After Virtue", but is most clearly and succinctly discussed in chapter 1 entitled "A Disquieting Suggestion".
*2 The connection between technology, infrastructure, and the rise of hyper-capitalism (i.e. consumerism) is touched on by David Harvey in chapters 9-11 of "The Condition of Postmodernity", as well as chapters 3-5 of Murray Jardine's "The Making and Unmaking of Technological Society".
*3 Any visit to a Christian bookstore in the Dallas area will reveal the extent to which the Christian faith has become just another marketable commodity. Wal-Mart stocks Christian authors alongside all of the other self-help books. In "The Church in Emerging Culture", Andy Crouch writes a devastating essay about the extent to which consumerism has infiltrated the postmodern Church, and what to do about it (pp. 63-104).
*4 At this point I want to differentiate here between Jesus' political actions and whether or not he came to found a separate party or ideology separate from his Body and its Gospel. Any cursory reading of the Gospels, as well as chapter 4 of Recinos' book "Good News from the Barrio", or chapter 12 of Yoder's "The Politics of Jesus", demonstrate that Jesus' life and teachings had profound political and social implications. My point is that these political ramifications can only exist in something "bigger" than them, namely the Body of Christ.
*5 I am thinking mainly of poststructural critics and deconstructionists, such as Foucalt and Derrida. A helpful summary of such thought can be found in "Teach Yourself Postmodernism" by Glenn Ward (ch. 5, 6, 7)
*6 This balanced conception of the fullness of God's Kingdom is found in the work of most Liberation Theologians, such as Gutierrez' "A Theology of Liberation" (esp. ch. 2, 10, 11), and Gonzales' "Manana" (esp. ch. 11)
*7 These two options are especially discussed in his deliberations over the "Black Power" movement in chapter II, where he analyzes whether gaining power is the goal of the civil rights movement, or using power to establish genuine community.
*8 Outlined by Peter Kreeft in chapter 4 of "How to Win the Culture War"
*9 Ibid. adapted from chart on page 46.
*10 Quoted from the Acton Institute online, 2007.05.01, http://www.acton.org/publicat/randl/liberal.php?id=75 .
*11 This insight is made, using various words, in places too numerous to count by authors such as Yoder, Gonzales, Gutierrez, and Recinos. But the best summary of theology as liberating political discourse is made on page 1 of James Cone's "A Black Theology of Liberation"
*12 Information found in the "New International Dictionary of the Christian Church", electronic edition.
*13 Cf. Ephesians 4:15-16 "But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body's growth in building itself up in love. "
*14 Ephesians 6:12
*15 This is largely the thesis of Wink's book "Naming the Powers: The Language of Power in the New Testament"
*16 This quick summary of postmodern linguistic theory is largely indebted to "Teach Yourself Postmodernism" by Glenn Ward (ch. 5, 6, 7)
*17 cf. "How to Win the Culture War", chapter 2.
*18 This is a phrase used several times by Harold Recinos to describe love in his class lectures on "Issues in Urban Ministry"
*19 While this is a common theme in orthodox Trinitarian Theology, this was particularly brought out by my reading of Peter Kreeft's "The God Who Loves You". His starting point in chapters 1-2 are summarized here, but the initial idea for this paper came from chapter 10 "God's Love in Political Theology: Why God's Love is neither Right nor Left".
*20 Cf. John 10:10 "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly."
*21 This is pointed out in "The Condition of Postmodernity" ch. 1-2.
*22 This is highlighted in the article on "Conservatism" (pp. 254-255) in "The New Dictionary of Christian Ethics & Pastoral Theology"
*23 This is one of the implicit themes running throughout Murray Jardine's "The Making and Unmaking of Technological Society".
*24 "Utilitarianism" by John Stuart Mill (1957. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pretence Hall Inc.). pp. 3-10
*25 cf. The recent book by Evangelical mega-star Joel Olsteen "Your Best Life Now". Olsteen represents a new breed of Evangelical that is not particularly conservative either politically or theologically, but who exists to grow the Church and reach everyone with a prosperity-oriented Gospel.
*26 This link between ontology (being), identity, and social relationships is explored by Miroslav Volf in "After our Likeness", chapters II and V.
*27 Early psychologists, notably Freud, made very optimistic predictions about the success of psychotherapy which have not borne fruit. According to the article "Suicide"(pp. 1182-1185) in the "Baker Encyclopedia of Psychology and Counseling", Second Edition, suicide rates have gone up across the board in the century of psychology, most notably among adolescents.
*28 All of these books and movies are chosen because they give us vivid pictures of what parts of life in consumer society might look like, although several of them do not deal with consumerism as a total reality, as I have defined it here.
*29 This is Lewis' phrase to describe the possibility that modern society, with its behavioral psychology of mass education and mass marketing, could succeed conditioning morality and conscience out of humans. It is also the title of his book on this subject, by the same name.
*30 Percy is a novelist who, according to Peter Kreeft, created the book "Lost in the Cosmos" as a "late night comedy" rendition of the ideas put forward in CS Lewis' "Abolition of Man". The themes are the same, but one is a series of essays, and the other is a series of satires.
*31 As a sad example, just look at the marketing buzz created by the recent Virginia Tech shootings. For the relatively low production cost of covering the shootings, networks were able to keep consumers glued to TV sets in a way that not even the most expensive TV show or commercial could have bought.
*32 When I say this, I think particularly of the growth industry in Evangelical publishing that is dedicated to fear generated by "The End Times", or the "Secular Agenda", or the "Gay Conspiracy".
*33 This is brought out by Chris Seay in chapter 8 of his book about "The Matrix" entitled "The Gospel Reloaded: Exploring Spirituality and Faith in the Matrix".
*34 The term "oligopoly" refers to the domination of a market by a select few companies. I ran into the term online at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly, 2007.04.30
*35 While it is highly dubious to speculate beyond the evidence directly supplied by the current social order, it seems wise to say that societal governance will change definitively in the coming consumer society. Using the past as an example, it seems possible (or even probable) that multinational corporate governance will replace modern liberal democracies in a way analogous to how liberal democracies replaced constitutional monarchies. As the power of popularly elected governing bodies and officials grew in the modern age, the role of the monarch became a mere figurehead, eventually disappearing altogether in a number of countries after a few centuries. In the same way, it may be that as corporations progressively come to control societies, elected officials will begin to take more of a figure-head role, and eventually disappear in many places, as societies come to be governed solely by the market forces of demand and supply.
*36 This insight was brought out by Dr. William J. Abraham in one of his last lectures during the 2005-2006 Systematic Theology class. He lamented that far too much contemporary theology talks about talking about God, rather than talks about God.
*37 As I have noted earlier. Cf. note 16
*38 I use the term "catholic" here not in the partisan sense of "Roman Catholic", but in the sense which the Greek word katholikos originally meant, which is "universal, spread throughout the whole world".
*39 This recovery of a "participatory ontology" that does full justice to immanence AND transcendence, to particulars AND universals, is a major theme of the Radical Orthodoxy movement, which they claim is a key to finding a way out of the distinctively "modern" issues that face Church and Society. A helpful overview of the problem is found in chapter 3 of James K. A. Smith's "Introducing Radical Orthodoxy"
*40 This type of holistic Jesus and holistic Gospel is common among the Emerging Church movement. A great representative essay on this is chapter 1 of "A Generous Orthodoxy" by Brian McLaren.
*41 The case for our status as "resident aliens", especially in not allowing ourselves to be circumscribed by political labels of "Right" and "Left" is made in chapter 2 of Hauerwas' book of the same name "Resident Aliens"
*42 Groups in the Emerging Church movement that are experimenting with Neo-Monastic community include:
The Lindisfarne Community. www.icmi.org
Community of Friends in Renewal, CFR (broadly ecumenical in intercommunion with the Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches, CEEC) http://www.comfir.org
The Iona Community (Ecumenical with Presbyterian roots) www.ionacommunity.org.uk
The Northumbria Community (with Anglican, Baptist and Catholic leaders) www.northumbriacommunity.org
The Community of Aidan and Hilda (Anglican) www.aidan.ndo.co.uk
The Taizé Community (Protestant and ecumenical) www.taize.fr
The Franciscan Order of Céli Dé, FOCD, and Sisters of Brigid and Clare, SBC (Anglican and ecumenical) www.geocities.com/celi_de/index.html
The Order of St, Columba, OSC (Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches) www.theceec.org
*43 This is a similar concept to what Mark R. Gornik lays out in chapter 5 of "To Live in Peace", in which he describes an inner-city community of transformation built around the "Three-R's plus one" of Repentance, Relocation, Redistribution, and Reconciliation.
*44 I can't help think of the 1990 boycott of Luke Skyywalker and 2-Live Crew's album which included their hit single "Me So Horny". The media firestorm caused the records to fly off the shelves!
*45 Pick any genocide, from Hitler to Darfur, and you will find a Church that has been too silent.
*46 See note 3.
No comments:
Post a Comment