Consumerism - Part II

Alienation.

Consumerism, as a system of economic organization which creates profound social and personal effects, is fundamentally alienating. In "Being Consumed: Economics and Christian Desire" William Cavanaugh points out three things that Consumerism alienates us from:

Producers - those who make our stuff and grow our food. Those people across oceans who stitch our shirts and cultivate our coffee. Those who work in factories, most of the time under terrible conditions, to produce our junk.

Products - Cavanaugh points out that Consumerism even detaches us from the products themselves as it is oriented to always more. One can not be satisfied with the products that one has rather one must always buy and buy and buy. The author also points out that this can be read as an alternative to Christian ascetism which also wants to be detached from products, but for a different reason.

I use the word Alienation in the same way Jacques Ellul used it in The Ethics of Freedom - which I urge everyone to read at some point.

Consumerism - Part I

It has been pointed out to me that despite the title of this blog I have yet to discuss consumerism. Here I hope to introduce what will be a series of posts on consumerism, especially as it related to theology.

Consumerism I use as a concept is developed out of a critique of what once called Materialism. Materialism was a kind of value-system where people 'desire' material goods more than out of need but out of desire. The problem with Materialism as a discourse is that, in my mind, it seems to ignore the economic system and social consequences of materialism and simply focuses on only one aspect of it.

Consumerism is more systematic. It is more than just an individual's one time sin - it is cyclical vice that fuels the political order of society. Where 'investment' was valued by the early Calvinist settlers of the US, purchasing has become eroded to immediate gratification based on bad debt (money that is not there). More than that the influence of Consumerism is part of the global social order. The world economy is based on the consumption of goods by the World's richest cultures, but it is not only consumption but conspicuous consumption.

I realize I have said a lot, and it may seem a bit confusing, but these article on Consumerism seems to illustrated my distaste of it.

But the real purpose of this blog is not criticize consumerism as such, but to provide a theological alternative to it. I find myself agreeing a lot with Being Consumed: Economics and Christian Desire by Cavanaugh.

I use the terminology of 'liberation theology' to evoke that specific theology which begins by acknowledging that the class position of a reader of the Scriptures and of the Church should effect our theology and praxis. My proposal is that whereas traditional Liberation Theology came from the perspective of the poor, and to liberate them from their oppression, that as North American's we should come from the perspective of the average consumer who needs to be liberated from false desire, indifference,brand identification, loneliness bred from the breakdown of community, greed and participation in the oppression of the Global Economy or politico-poetically called "Empire" and other things related to consumerism. Instead a theology concerned with Consumer Liberation will look to community, simplicity, solidarity, liturgy and Spirituality as things to be restored.

Now one thing I must make clear: I believe it is God who liberates. It is only in Christ can people truly become free. I think that our readings of Scripture has been shaken by the affleunce we have, and the consumerism we practice, I think it is still possible to participate in Christ.

The right idea from the wrong place

I have been thinking about a post on Marriage I read some time ago defending Marriage from an Eastern Orthodox liturgical point of view. It reminded me of an interview with Graham Ward I read a while back in which the subject of bodies,sexuality, Marriage and Judith Butler were brought up. It is a good read. But one thing I realized is in a lot of the discussion of marriage, gender, sexuality etc. I tend to find myself drifting to a somewhat litrugical understanding in my ways of thinking. Considering the emphasis on the sacramentality of marriage, which relates to the sacramentality of the church, in both of the previous positions (Eastern Orthodox and Ward's own) mentioned I wonder how to approach any discourse on marriage without referencing it's sacramentality.

I mean most of the people I hang out/ worship with do not have the same sacramental understanding as I do. The one even accepted the label of 'sacramental anarchist'. Yet they believe in the 'sanctity' of marriage. I agree that marriage is sacred like they say but I see no real reason for them to believe that. Thus they seem to have, as the title suggests, the right idea from the wrong place. I don't believe I should attack them, or bring it up, but I do see issues that might need to be worked out in the future.

This post was inspired by this one.

De-Institutionalizing Ideas

Below, sometime ago, I have written about the institutionalization of hospitality as seen by Ivan Illich. In his book "The Rivers North of the Future" he discusses how it became evident to him that it is off immediate importance to work within the framework of institutions and that culture because of how systematic it was. As I have been reflecting on this top this past weekend I have one very simple piece of advice for those working in institutions:

Make friendships. Real Friendships.

If you are a pastor at a church get to know on a good level some of denominational staff. Not only that but for the people you are serving make sure that some of the relationships go deeper than just a pastor-congregant relationship. It is only in these friendships can change actually occur. Illich went so far as to label these friendships as the new form of prophesy. Do I agree? I am not sure exactly but I know real, lasting friendship is one of the primary means to be human in a beaurocratic techno-societies.

re-traditionalization

I came upon an interesting post over some time ago which used the concept of "traditionalization".

"According to Ogbu U. Kalu, during an era where Japan was trying to modernize its industry, there was something called “traditionalization,” or patterning Japanese industrial practices consistently with traditional Japanese mores (Kalu, 9)."

The idea came up in my own personal reflections. Today I spoke at an Intentional Community forum called SharedSpace in which I discussed how I entered into Intentional Community. I explained how my family's experience both in the Apostolic Christian Church and the Banat Swabian persecution. I also referenced my time in my Churches youth group and the emphasis on Service and Mission.

I realized, although I did not use this particular language, that I re-traditionalized both my family heritage and youth group experience into something which seems completely new and foreign to both, yet connected quite intimately.

All this also reminded me of anti-work articles in a recent issue of Geez that I read. It seems ironic, on the surface, that a magazine connected to Anabaptism and Mennonites who are essentialized as hard-working farmers would advocated non-work. Yet on a deeper level they are re-traditionalizing the social and political distincteness of the Anabaptist reading, which focuses on both peace, the poor and has an anarchist tinge, of Christianity in the context of the 21st Century (I hesistate to label it anything else)

My appreciation (or appropriation) of media and cultural studies.

I appreciate media and cultural studies.

What I mean by that is not that I study it - although as someone who reads a lot of theology I come across a lot of the same thinkers and discourses. Here I want to focus on MacLuhan's "The medium is the message". I'm not going to analyze and explain but to suffice to say it is something important for Christians. The message we are trying to spread, or at least owe loyalty to, is the gospel. The gospel might be expressed differently in different circles of sub-traditions of Christianity but it is still the gospel.

But "the medium is the message" has challenged. The medium I use the most, academic theology books, usually talk about things related to or around the gospel. Yet if "the medium is the message", a belief that I think is justified, have I turned the medium of theology books into the message of the gospel? In more practical terms have I defined discipleship not as serving the Risen Christ so much as reading books?

Cultural studies plays a helpful role in this too. Where as media studies analyzes the characters and effects of media and media technology cultural studies looks at the social consequences of economic structures. It uses the metaphors of production and consumption for culture, useful metaphors in my estimation. I have to admit besides being the medium of books that which I read, and possibly define as my message as indicated above, is also tied into the economic forces of business. Grands Rapids is my cultural capital in economic terms since almost of all my favourite authors and books are published by Eerdmanns .

Have I defined my discipleship, then, as an intellectual pilgrimage through Grand Rapids?

These are questions I am dealing with.

Hermeneutics of a Sent Disciples : a proposal

I recently picked up Hermeneutics: An Introduction from the EBC library.

Here I intend to propose my own hermeneutics before I begin reading the book and then, in about a weeks time, respond to what I have read and re-formulate my hermeneutic based on what I have learned. The project is not too ambitious, but I do hope to critique and better my own hermeneutic.

The author's definition of hermeneutics is
"Hermeneutics explores how we read,understand,and handle texts, especially those written in another time or in a context of life different from our own. Biblical hermeneutics investigates more specifically how we read,understand,apply, and respond to biblical texts."

First of all let me state my belief that hermeneutics is one of the most important issues facing the Church today, specifically as Christians try to engage personally and corporately in a world of diversity, violence, injustice and confusion. The divisions between high church and low church, 'Christian realist' and 'Peace Church', first world and third world, Emergent and Established seem to be caused by how we interpret the Scriptures.

Secondly I can not say I believe in a 'pure' hermeneutic, one separate from historical and social conditions. Even the concept of 'hermeneutics' can not be separated from the recent history of Christianity,the western academy and continental philosophy. Basically what I am saying is that any possible hermeneutic is text-ured, meaning that it is formed and built under the influences of certain texts. The primary one of these texts is the Scriptures themselves but also certain philosophical and theological texts - even the unconscious influence of Schleiermacher on Christians who have never read him. Finally even the personal and communal experiences we have are like 'text's, a metaphor I find appropriate.

Thirdly if a hermeneutic is text-ured it should also have a strong memory. Not only of the tradition of the church but of the tradition's hermeneutic. In the ancient Church, in the age of the patristics, one hermeneutic was the rule of faith which was basically a general understanding of the Gospel which guided the interpretation of scripture. Other 'rules of faith' or sources of authority include the Wesleyan Quadrilateral and the Eastern Orthodox emphasis on Theoria.

Now to my hermeneutic itself -

First of all I adopt and adapt the patristic Rule of Faith. An issue with interpreting scripture through the gospel is that a primary text of the gospel is scripture itself. This new part of the the rule of faith I will call the Missio Dei. That concept already has a history of it's own, as illustrated by the wikipedia article, but I am using it here as part of my hermeneutic. Why? Where as the rule of faith interpreted as the Gospel is certainly a step in the right direction often in talking about the Gospel the references to the New Testament are abundant but reference to the Old Testament is scarce. The missio dei is an altogether better concept. Through the work of both NT Wright and Christopher Wright (which I have yet to read) the connections between the incarnation,life,death and resurrection of Christ and God's work through the old testament is profoundly connected under the Missio Dei, which is latin for the sending (of) God.

I will not go into it here but the basic belief that the sent-ness of missionaries is part of the deeper character not only of the church, or the scriptures, but of God himself. Thus the Missio Dei becomes the first part of my hermeneutic. Thus the sent-ness.

The second aspect is an adoption and adaptation of Theoria and Theosis. Both of these presuppose a God who not only acts but also reveals himself to and transforms people. Theoria is this vision of God and theosis is becoming like God (in the sense of Character). I want to build on these concepts with the ideal of discipleship. Discipleship not only acknowledges both theosis and theoria, albeit perhaps in Methodist-evangelical fashion, but also is grounded in the scriptures as a call of Christ to the apostles. Discipleship builds on the concepts of theoria and theosis as possibility by also acknowledging ecclesia in the form of community as well as the call to political discipleship. Here I can once again point out the text-ured part of this hermeneutic, as community is a value coming out of much discussion in the Emerging Church and political discipleship coming out of liberation theologies and Peace Church type thinking.

So here then is my hermeneutic: one of sent disciples.