Evil in the economy

Yesterday I saw this headline in Business Week: Wall Street's Economic Crimes Against Humanity. In the article, Shoshana Zuboff assails the moral judgment of the suit and tie folks who work on Wall Street in the 'banality of evil' in which they indulged. In shocking terms for a major article in Business Week, she pounds and the personal responsibility of those involved, and not merely of the gigantic entities for which they worked. For the first time in a long time, the word evil has entered the vocabulary of capitalism. It recalled to me this insightful section from Lesslie Newbigin:

"But to say that capitalism requires a certain kind of moral foundation is to say that capitalism cannot survive permanently in a purely secular society. To quote a recent writer, 'The disinterested devotion which was vital to the creation of the capitalist world order and to the public life of industrial nations and which rested on a religious idea-system appears to be a type of moral capital debt which is no longer being serviced.' but this means that capitalism cannot be a self-sustaining system. It depends on the moral-cultural system and cannot be separated from it. But moral imperatives cannot operate merely as useful props for a profitable economic order. If they are not rooted in some belief about how the universe is in fact ordered, they collapse; and if they are so rooted, then the economic order cannot be isolated from their jurisdiction. If capitalism depends on the insights of a moral conscience, then that conscience has to have authority over the working of capitalist economics. (Foolishness to the Greeks p112).

Why is it that those whom Zuboff condemns so strongly were unaware of their banal evil? It certainly has to do with the mediation which Zuboff identifies in shielding them from those whom they exploited. But far more profoundly, the story that they had embraced - the story of limitless growth - was separated from the moral-cultural system which it rejected.

If there is to be real reform now, moral imperatives cannot be used merely as 'props for a profitable economic order.' They must be rooted in reality - which is precisely why Christians must engage in the public discourse about the purpose of society and economies. We testify to the One for whom, and by whom all things exist.

Exposing assumptions

Today I received an email from Avaaz, an activist organization, calling on me to petition the Pope to change his position on condoms:

This week, on his first visit to Africa, Pope Benedict said that "[AIDS] cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems".

The Pope's statement is at odds with the research on AIDS prevention, and a setback to decades of hard work on AIDS education and awareness. With powerful moral influence over more than 1.1 billion Catholics in the world, and 22 million HIV positive Africans, these words could dramatically affect the AIDS pandemic and put millions of lives at risk. Worldwide concern is starting to show results and a willingness by the Vatican to revise the statement - sign our urgent petition asking the Pope to take care not to undermine proven AIDS prevention strategies:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/pope_benedict_petition

The personal beliefs of Catholics and all people should be respected, and the Pope does advocate for other AIDS prevention methods such as abstinence and fidelity that can be effective when combined with condom use. The Catholic Church engages in a vast amount of social service work, including the care of those living with AIDS. But the Pope's claim that condom distribution is not an effective AIDS prevention mechanism is not supported by research. It's untrue, and if it diminishes condom use, it will be deadly.

To expose assumptions, it is helpful to use Andy Crouch's questions:

1. What does this email assume about the way the world is?
   It assumes that the "personal beliefs" of Catholics and all people should be treated as private beliefs. It further assumes that the Pope's support for abstinence and fidelity is ineffective without condom use.
2. What does this email assume about the way the world should be?
   It assumes that people should be able to have sexual intercourse without accepting the consequences of those actions.

Why does this matter for gospel entrepreneurship?
Entrepreneurs are those who see a social problem and address it in a way that creates wealth and opportunity. HIV/AIDS is clearly a social problem. And there are hundreds of organizations devoted to addressing the problem.

How is gospel entrepreneurship here different from social entrepreneurship?
The good news of Christ says that the baseline state of humanity is rebellion against the one true God, who made us for Himself. The good news does not offer freedom for license, but forgiveness through Christ and freedom to live in the way we were created to live.

What the Pope is doing is simply restating the injunction of Hebrews 13:4, "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled . . ."

Consider for a moment what would happen if these two rules were upheld. First, the primary means of HIV transmission (promiscuous sexual activity) would be eradicated. Second, the single best predictor of child poverty (being born out of wedlock) would be eliminated. The impact for education and healthcare is similarly staggering.

So why is Avaaz up in arms? It comes down to the assumptions defined above. Christians have good reason for heeding the first half of Hebrews 13:4, because the second half reads, " . . . for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous." Our convictions are grounded in a view of reality that is fundamentally different from Avaaz. Avaaz cares deeply about current human suffering, but does not see a connection between human responsibility and current - and final, eternal - suffering.

What to do?
Emails like this provide the occasion for meaningful interaction about assumptions - and about the gospel. We can easily become distracted by discussing conclusions: whether or not we should encourage condom use. But the reason we arrive at different conclusions is because we start in fundamentally different places. The pope, and Christians everywhere, now have a great opportunity to share the hope that we have - the gospel that is our starting place. Christian organizations that engage these issues need not be ashamed of their position, but have ample opportunity to explain their assumptions.

Investing time

It is often said that the one thing of which everyone has an equal amount is time. The rich have no more than the poor in a day. On this footing, at least, we are equal.

Jesus often told stories that emphasized our role as stewards, those who care for something that belongs to one greater than us. So it is worth considering our stewardship of time. Each of us is given the same amount with which to honor the Master. Do we invest that time? Or hoard it? Or squander it?

Not long ago I was writing a blurb for a piece on Tumblon explaining my decision to leave teaching in order to provide full-time care to my daughter while my wife completed her pediatric residency. I discovered that the most helpful expression to describe what I had done was this: I took a child care leave to invest three years in my relationship with my daughter. It was a calculated investment. The return on that time spent loving and nurturing my child was far greater than what I could have "earned" as a teacher.

That experience has led me to ask more often: How am I investing my time?