Sporadic theological and historical musings by Edgar Foster (Ph.D. in Theology and Religious Studies and one of Jehovah's Witnesses).
Saturday, June 08, 2024
Is Greed, Avarice or Covetousness Good?
"But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people" (Ephesians 5:3 NIV).
Yet, greed, avarice, etc are enshrined into the dominant ideology of this era: capitalism/liberalism. When Paul calls it idolatry he had no idea how true that would become.
Here's an article I wrote for Church Life Journal a while back where I synthesize and summarize the patristic view of avarice, contra more modern views of political-economy (Liberal and Marxist):
Not only Gordon Gekko, but numerous evangelical neo-Protestant congregations preach the "gospel" of prosperity and health, instead of:
Matthew 10:38 – “Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me.”
Romans 8:16-18 – We are children of God, co-heirs with Christ. But first, we must suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him. The sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed to us.
Philippians 1:29-30 – To suffer in Christ is a grace.
Colossians 1:24 – “I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.”
Hebrews 12:5-8 – “The Lord disciplines the one he loves, and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son.”
Hebrews 12:11 – Discipline seems painful, but it brings righteousness.
1 Peter 2:19-21 – Suffering is equal to grace. Christ’s suffering set an example for us to follow.
Nincsnevem: I have to say that Catholics are, generally speaking, much better when it comes to representing the economic and social aspects of the gospel and the bible than many evangelical protestants, part of me thinks that it might be due to the catholic structure which makes it very difficult to ideologically capture by political/economic forces (has happened in the 1970s with American evangelical protestants, and as happens with orthodox churches tied to the state).
How well do you know Catholic social teaching? Especially "Rerum novarum" and "Quadragesimo anno"?
I think the real reason is that Catholicism is really universal, and there is a lively awareness that the "economic and social aspects of the gospel" cannot depend on the given cultural-historical-political context. The American evangelical Protestants cannot be interpreted outside of the American cultural-historical-political context, their theology and sociology are no accident that they only exist within it.
And of course, their perception is very often influenced by American political currents, e.g. the culture war, or earlier the cold war.
The Catholic conception of the state has been essentially unchanged and consolidated since the time of Dante and Aquinas at the latest. Essentially, since the Investiture Controversy, it was possible to find a middle ground between the Eastern model of Caesaropapism and Papacaesarism, which only had to be nuanced in the light of radical laicist secularism.
Dante Alighieri's conception of the White Guelphs (Guelfi Bianchi) explained in his work "De Monarchia", was officially accepted by the Church XIII. Pope Leo's 'Immortale Dei' beginning (1885) and XI. By the encyclicals of Pope Pius 'Quas primas'. This approach is a return to the foundations laid by the emperor Justinian: the correct harmony of 'sacerdotium' and 'imperium'.
The fundamental truths of Catholic social morality – independent of historical or geographical context – can be summarized as follows, from which no worldview or social system – bound to time and place – can deviate:
* The principle of personalism (personalitas): the inherent and mutually dependent rights and duties arising from the dignity of the human person – as the image of God.
* The principle of socialization (socialisatio): human persons have a shared goal of earthly (worldly happiness) and otherworldly (heavenly happiness) pursuits, relying on each other; through mutual assistance, exchange of values, and fair distribution, individuals of equal personal dignity but different physical and mental talents (skills and abilities) complement each other for mutual growth and reaching their goals.
* The principle of subsidiarity (subsidiaritas): the ultimate goal of various social organizations – from the family to the broader community of humanity – is the well-being of the human person. Therefore, these organizations serve as means, not ends. This principle fosters harmony between individuals and their communities, respecting the internal autonomy of human persons and their created communities.
* The principle of mutual assistance (solidaritas): Subsidiarity does not focus on individual selfishness. The human person steps out of themselves, driven by love, to make sacrifices for others. The highest good for humans is moral good, to which both pleasurable and useful goods are subordinate. The proper balance of subsidiarity and solidarity is beautifully expressed in the motto "one for all, all for one," aligning with Jesus Christ's teaching that "whoever loses themselves will find themselves," and "there is no greater love than to lay down one's life for one's friends."
* The principle of the common good (bonum commune): All these principles collectively lead to the common good, which is not a static state but a constant goal. It encompasses three essential elements (respect for the human person, social welfare, peace), which can only shine in the harmony of justice and mercy.
* Social participation is not merely a right but a responsibility personally associated with decision-making. Everyone should participate in this according to their place, respecting authority. The rule of law does not stand or fall on the form of the state or the extent of participation, but on whether those in power exercise it morally, in accordance with natural laws and the derived and harmonious positive laws.
In line with the above-mentioned social moral principles, the synthetic contemporary ideology establishes the following fundamental tenets for itself:
* In the past two centuries, two political perspectives have prevailed. These are categorized as right-wing or left-wing based on whether they are spirit-centered or matter-centered.
* The thesis of right-wing Hegelianism stands on an ideal monistic basis, while the antithesis of left-wing Marxism stands on a material monistic basis. Opposed to these monistic ideas, the synthetic contemporary ideology – while upholding the primacy of the spirit – advocates for a dualistic perspective.
* From an epistemological perspective, the synthetic contemporary ideology surpasses both the right-wing idealist intuitionism view ("universalia sunt ante rem" – the external world is passive in relation to the consciousness – "formal" logic) and the left-wing materialist sensualism ("universalia sunt post rem" – the consciousness is passive in relation to the external world – "dialectical" logic) by adopting the standpoint of moderate realism ("universalia sunt in re" – scholastic logic), where the external world and the consciousness interact in the process of cognition.
* According to the indeterministic perspective of right-wing ideology, the spirit is capable of anything regardless of material circumstances. According to the deterministic perspective of left-wing ideology, the spirit is completely passive, determined by material circumstances. According to the possibilist (moderate indeterministic) perspective of the synthetic contemporary ideology, the human spirit chooses from among material possibilities.
* Surpassing the thesis of right-wing liberal individualism and the antithesis of left-wing social collectivism, the synthetic contemporary ideology embraces the idea of solidarity, which is based on the harmony of person and community.
* In its economic perspective, the synthetic contemporary ideology surpasses both right-wing capitalism and left-wing communism, striving to realize a distributive economic system within a vocational corporatist society.
* In the question of the form of government, the synthetic contemporary ideology follows in the footsteps of Polybius. It aspires to achieve the mixed polity, which harmonizes monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy on a meritocratic basis, offering a successful alternative to all forms of despotism (tyranny, oligarchy, ochlocracy).
Nincs:In the past two centuries, two political perspectives have prevailed. These are categorized as right-wing or left-wing based on whether they are spirit-centered or matter-centered."
Me:this is an oversimplification there is a religious left including a self identified "Christian" left and there is also a materialist/atheist right although some of these have lately identified themselves as culturally "Judeo-Christian"
Not all that well, I've read some liberation theology, and some distributism, and subsidiarity, I really like Alaistar Macintyre's thought, I like Chesterton, and the such.
aservant. This is absolutely right, in western Europe, especially the UK, the early 20th century and post War socialist movement was largely Christian driven, in the late 19th century figures like John Ruskin were also Christian. And many right wing figures were motivated largely by Ayn Rand/Mises and Nietzsche, Rand and Nietzsche being explicitly anti-Christian.
The whole "Judeo-Christian" thing is mostly just a kind of European cultural supremacy thing, nothing to do with any of the actual principles of the bible, i.e. we like classical architecture, enlightenment thinking etc etc, I mean there's nothing wrong with that, and these things geneologically came from Christendom, but they just as much came from the Roman Empire, then came from Islam, etc. Many of the features these guys like (hierarchies, militarism, classical education, and so on) derive much more from Greco-Roman culture as realized in the Roman empire than Christianity itself.
https://biblehub.com/ephesians/4-19.htm
ReplyDeleteYet, greed, avarice, etc are enshrined into the dominant ideology of this era: capitalism/liberalism. When Paul calls it idolatry he had no idea how true that would become.
ReplyDeleteHere's an article I wrote for Church Life Journal a while back where I synthesize and summarize the patristic view of avarice, contra more modern views of political-economy (Liberal and Marxist):
https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/a-patristic-critique-of-political-economy/
Not only Gordon Gekko, but numerous evangelical neo-Protestant congregations preach the "gospel" of prosperity and health, instead of:
ReplyDeleteMatthew 10:38 – “Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me.”
Romans 8:16-18 – We are children of God, co-heirs with Christ. But first, we must suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him. The sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed to us.
Philippians 1:29-30 – To suffer in Christ is a grace.
Colossians 1:24 – “I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.”
Hebrews 12:5-8 – “The Lord disciplines the one he loves, and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son.”
Hebrews 12:11 – Discipline seems painful, but it brings righteousness.
1 Peter 2:19-21 – Suffering is equal to grace. Christ’s suffering set an example for us to follow.
Roman: Thank you. I read it and you make some interesting points.
ReplyDeleteNincsnevem: I cannot disagree with you there.
Nincsnevem: I have to say that Catholics are, generally speaking, much better when it comes to representing the economic and social aspects of the gospel and the bible than many evangelical protestants, part of me thinks that it might be due to the catholic structure which makes it very difficult to ideologically capture by political/economic forces (has happened in the 1970s with American evangelical protestants, and as happens with orthodox churches tied to the state).
ReplyDelete@Roman
ReplyDeleteHow well do you know Catholic social teaching? Especially "Rerum novarum" and "Quadragesimo anno"?
I think the real reason is that Catholicism is really universal, and there is a lively awareness that the "economic and social aspects of the gospel" cannot depend on the given cultural-historical-political context. The American evangelical Protestants cannot be interpreted outside of the American cultural-historical-political context, their theology and sociology are no accident that they only exist within it.
And of course, their perception is very often influenced by American political currents, e.g. the culture war, or earlier the cold war.
The Catholic conception of the state has been essentially unchanged and consolidated since the time of Dante and Aquinas at the latest. Essentially, since the Investiture Controversy, it was possible to find a middle ground between the Eastern model of Caesaropapism and Papacaesarism, which only had to be nuanced in the light of radical laicist secularism.
Dante Alighieri's conception of the White Guelphs (Guelfi Bianchi) explained in his work "De Monarchia", was officially accepted by the Church XIII. Pope Leo's 'Immortale Dei' beginning (1885) and XI. By the encyclicals of Pope Pius 'Quas primas'. This approach is a return to the foundations laid by the emperor Justinian: the correct harmony of 'sacerdotium' and 'imperium'.
The fundamental truths of Catholic social morality – independent of historical or geographical context – can be summarized as follows, from which no worldview or social system – bound to time and place – can deviate:
ReplyDelete* The principle of personalism (personalitas): the inherent and mutually dependent rights and duties arising from the dignity of the human person – as the image of God.
* The principle of socialization (socialisatio): human persons have a shared goal of earthly (worldly happiness) and otherworldly (heavenly happiness) pursuits, relying on each other; through mutual assistance, exchange of values, and fair distribution, individuals of equal personal dignity but different physical and mental talents (skills and abilities) complement each other for mutual growth and reaching their goals.
* The principle of subsidiarity (subsidiaritas): the ultimate goal of various social organizations – from the family to the broader community of humanity – is the well-being of the human person. Therefore, these organizations serve as means, not ends. This principle fosters harmony between individuals and their communities, respecting the internal autonomy of human persons and their created communities.
* The principle of mutual assistance (solidaritas): Subsidiarity does not focus on individual selfishness. The human person steps out of themselves, driven by love, to make sacrifices for others. The highest good for humans is moral good, to which both pleasurable and useful goods are subordinate. The proper balance of subsidiarity and solidarity is beautifully expressed in the motto "one for all, all for one," aligning with Jesus Christ's teaching that "whoever loses themselves will find themselves," and "there is no greater love than to lay down one's life for one's friends."
* The principle of the common good (bonum commune): All these principles collectively lead to the common good, which is not a static state but a constant goal. It encompasses three essential elements (respect for the human person, social welfare, peace), which can only shine in the harmony of justice and mercy.
* Social participation is not merely a right but a responsibility personally associated with decision-making. Everyone should participate in this according to their place, respecting authority. The rule of law does not stand or fall on the form of the state or the extent of participation, but on whether those in power exercise it morally, in accordance with natural laws and the derived and harmonious positive laws.
In line with the above-mentioned social moral principles, the synthetic contemporary ideology establishes the following fundamental tenets for itself:
ReplyDelete* In the past two centuries, two political perspectives have prevailed. These are categorized as right-wing or left-wing based on whether they are spirit-centered or matter-centered.
* The thesis of right-wing Hegelianism stands on an ideal monistic basis, while the antithesis of left-wing Marxism stands on a material monistic basis. Opposed to these monistic ideas, the synthetic contemporary ideology – while upholding the primacy of the spirit – advocates for a dualistic perspective.
* From an epistemological perspective, the synthetic contemporary ideology surpasses both the right-wing idealist intuitionism view ("universalia sunt ante rem" – the external world is passive in relation to the consciousness – "formal" logic) and the left-wing materialist sensualism ("universalia sunt post rem" – the consciousness is passive in relation to the external world – "dialectical" logic) by adopting the standpoint of moderate realism ("universalia sunt in re" – scholastic logic), where the external world and the consciousness interact in the process of cognition.
* According to the indeterministic perspective of right-wing ideology, the spirit is capable of anything regardless of material circumstances. According to the deterministic perspective of left-wing ideology, the spirit is completely passive, determined by material circumstances. According to the possibilist (moderate indeterministic) perspective of the synthetic contemporary ideology, the human spirit chooses from among material possibilities.
* Surpassing the thesis of right-wing liberal individualism and the antithesis of left-wing social collectivism, the synthetic contemporary ideology embraces the idea of solidarity, which is based on the harmony of person and community.
* In its economic perspective, the synthetic contemporary ideology surpasses both right-wing capitalism and left-wing communism, striving to realize a distributive economic system within a vocational corporatist society.
* In the question of the form of government, the synthetic contemporary ideology follows in the footsteps of Polybius. It aspires to achieve the mixed polity, which harmonizes monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy on a meritocratic basis, offering a successful alternative to all forms of despotism (tyranny, oligarchy, ochlocracy).
Nincs:In the past two centuries, two political perspectives have prevailed. These are categorized as right-wing or left-wing based on whether they are spirit-centered or matter-centered."
ReplyDeleteMe:this is an oversimplification there is a religious left including a self identified "Christian" left and there is also a materialist/atheist right although some of these have lately identified themselves as culturally "Judeo-Christian"
@ Nincsnevem
ReplyDeleteNot all that well, I've read some liberation theology, and some distributism, and subsidiarity, I really like Alaistar Macintyre's thought, I like Chesterton, and the such.
aservant. This is absolutely right, in western Europe, especially the UK, the early 20th century and post War socialist movement was largely Christian driven, in the late 19th century figures like John Ruskin were also Christian. And many right wing figures were motivated largely by Ayn Rand/Mises and Nietzsche, Rand and Nietzsche being explicitly anti-Christian.
The whole "Judeo-Christian" thing is mostly just a kind of European cultural supremacy thing, nothing to do with any of the actual principles of the bible, i.e. we like classical architecture, enlightenment thinking etc etc, I mean there's nothing wrong with that, and these things geneologically came from Christendom, but they just as much came from the Roman Empire, then came from Islam, etc. Many of the features these guys like (hierarchies, militarism, classical education, and so on) derive much more from Greco-Roman culture as realized in the Roman empire than Christianity itself.