is there any guilt in that? OR what is wrong with my bracelet?
Well after being punked on my own blog and having many a laugh, this entry may seem a bit of a downer. But it is something that has been a nagging issue for some time now. It is the question of cooperate sin and personal responsibility. The basic question is this; if one assumes that there is such a thing as corporate sin then is there any personal guilt that comes from that sin. For example, I would go out on a limb and say that within our country there are major corporations that are guilty of paying unfair wages and creating unfair and unsafe work places. I would also say that this action is morally wrong, it is sin. And that we as a society help to support this kind of sin when we buy that companies product. The problem here is that I feel as if I have no choice but to support what is evil when I go out to buy clothes, food, gas or pay taxes. If I have no other option but to support what is evil am I then guilty? Are we all guilty?
I could spend all my time researching which companies have fair trade policies, pay fair wages and take care of the environment, along with a laundry list of other things that make a company or government 'good' but should I really spend so much time doing that?
Then there is the person of Jesus. I believe that as a person and fully divine being, he was morally perfect. But that brings up its own questions concerning this topic. If you are put in a position where every choice entails supporting evil then is there no guilt from choosing the lesser of evils or did Jesus somehow never end up in that situation? In what way was Jesus the perfect activist? Did he buy his clothing, wine or bread from one seller verses another because of how that person treated his slaves? How about the taxes that he paid to a government that was clearly evil?
An interesting and perhaps needlessly complicated example of this tension came up while hiking with some of my good friends. I fully support cancer research and doing all that we can to find the cure. I find cancer to be clearly evil. So one of the things that I did to help me remember to pray for a close friend with cancer and support research was to buy a Live Strong bracelets. I felt fine about my bracelet. At least until we started talking about Nike and how they likely support sweatshops and unfair wages in foreign countries. Nike also makes the Live Strong bracelets. So the obvious question that arises is, by my supporting Nike for a cause that I believe is very good am I also supporting a cause that I believe is very evil? Am I guilty of sinning for this?
Or am I just over thinking all this way too much? I really do want to live a life that reflects God's priorities and I also want to move away from actions that support or outright commit sins against a perfect God. I just don't want to spend so much time thinking that I never act.
posted by Jon at
11:22 AM
12 Comments:
Hmm. Good question. Definitely fodder for an in-depth discussion. At the same time, I wonder if it really matters. God is entirely good, perfect and holy - a state wholly unattainable by anything any human can ever do, correct? Because as humans we are inherently less than "entirely good, perfect and holy," no single good act or lifetime of good acts can clean any of the muck out of or off of us...apart from the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Right? However, I hear your point. I've struggled with trying to make godly choices in the area of consumption [of food and goods, for example], choices that promote justice, equality, fair wages, safe working environments, and environmentally sound practices. But I haven't come to a conclusion yet - I researched sweatshop labor and found information about a handful of clothing manufacturers. So do I just boycott them? Do I research every single clothing manufacturer, food & produce company, entertainment corporation, in hopes of sifting through the less holy corporations to find those that ARE holy? Since no human is infallible, what's my holy-o-meter? That is, if nothing is TOTALLY perfect, how less-than-perfect am I shooting for? Did Jesus really only choose the perfect thing? When invited to a meal, did he refuse to eat the animal that was raised in less than healthy living conditions? Did he refuse to dine with the man who had hit his wife? (I'm obviously making up these scenarios for the sake of the question.) Where does grace enter into the picture? Where does freedom enter in? Where does trusting God to be Himself enter in - bigger than any one choice or myriad choices - and finally right all the wrongs and establish His kingdom in His time?
Okay, that's enough of me for now. Thanks for inviting discussion. It's fun to think and talk about these things. Whether or not a clear conclusion comes.
peace out.
This is a great question. I think I am a little happy just to know that Christians discuss these things now. I think, as you mentioned, it's probably impossible to avoid all the countless, endless downfalls of our capitalist society without just giving up and moving to the jungle somewhere. I still, however, feel guilty every time I go into the mall, despite the fact that it makes me feel happy to find a nice-fitting pair of jeans. I suppose that's just part of being a partial result of our culture. I guess lately for these reasons I am pretty critical of America, the American Dream, American culture, the U.S. government and on and on. I think we are increasingly pushing our cultural expectations on the rest of the world and that's really depressing to me. I was just writing on my blog how I hope that in 20 years people can still travel to places and experience something other than Coca-Cola culture 24-7. Let's hope.
I guess that was sort of a tangent, but just some thoughts.
Jon,
I appreciate your question. This is a real issue for many people today. How do I act responsibly, in faith, with my consumer habits? I just wanted to say that I don't think that most companies' doings are simply categorized as "good" or "bad". For instance, having done some research (just a little) on how the price of Nike shoes is determined, I realized that the asking price at stores was very fair as Nike wasn't even making very much per pair of shoes sold. If anything, it would be the store that was TRYING to make a profit by marking the shoe up as high as they do. AND the wage that the workers were being paid in the country that manufactured these shoes was not anything like what I would need to be paid (in the U.S.) to make these shoes but wasn't neccesarily a bad deal for them.
All that to say that life and economics do have a degree of complexity to them that requires us to focus on our own relationship with God (trying to be obedient to what He's asking us to do) as opposed to trying to figure out what is "just" for the corporations around us.
Just a thought.
Chris
"[Peter] became hungry and watned something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, 'Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.'
'Surely not, Lord!' Peter replied. 'I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.'
The voice spoke to him a second time, 'Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.'" ~Acts 10:10-15
For the purpose of this discussion, in the text above, let's replace "eat" with "consume." Here, God is telling Peter to consume things that he had prior learned to be 'unclean' or 'evil.' As a matter of fact, Peter learned these were so by way of God's laws in the Hebrew Bible. Consider, also, that there was no "New Testament" at this time. The only Holy Text Peter had was the Hebrew Bible. Therefore, Peter did not want to consume things as evil proclaimed by God himself.
When Jesus came, though, scales were tipped and our need to follow the Law of Moses crumbled. He proved that we need not obey, "do this, don't do that." All we need is to seek Him.
The Bible also tells us that it's not what we put into our mouths (or 'consume') but what comes out that determines our hearts. I think that as long as we're seeking Christ in all we do, we don't need to be bogged down in the black, white and grey of the world's morality scale.
As a matter of fact, we are so degenerate ourselves, who are we to call evil anything at all, or good for that matter, but for Christ.
I would agree, in one aspect, that it's not a sin to consume any particular product, but the more I learn about what really goes on in the world (by reading and listening to a lot of news and taking time to understand world issues), the more my God-given compassion and conscience alerts me to injustice.
Jesus lived his life in a way that was exceptionally loving and attentive to the poor, sick and down-trodden people in society. It only follows that as his followers we should seek to live just lives that affect society in a positive way.
In college, I was exceptionally tipped to the evangelical side of the Christian scale. I felt guilty that I didn't share my faith more although it felt even more exceptionally uncomfortable for me to walk up to strangers and tell them about Jesus (which was at times the expectation). My point is that since college my views have changed a lot.
For better or for worse, I can't accept a Christianity that focuses exclusively on sharing one's personal faith because I simply don't find exclusively those tenets in the Bible. There is so much more that we sometimes miss, and I think that's kind of what Jon was getting at. It's not that it's a sin to buy a pair of Nikes, but it's also probably good for others and the world if we, for example, give money to causes that help provide good working conditions. That's a random example, there are many more proactive things to do, but more and more I think Jesus would have wanted his followers to spend a lot more time doing good in the world that wasn't exclusively "evangelical" in nature than many evangelicals (especially Americans) actually do.
I appreciate this question and very much the responses that have been given. You all are giving me an opportunity to think about things that I wouldn't otherwise spend as much time considering. I appreciate that.
I like the idea that I am too degenerate to call something unclean. [Good call Lady M.] This seems accurate and true. And I think moving myself further and further away from the role of judge is wise.
Although I find that in hanging out with those on the fringes of society that I learn more about Jesus (really spending time more with Jesus in the process), I question the interpretation of the gospels that says that Jesus was definitively dedicated to one group of people over another (e.g. the poor, the sick). And this view has become more and more popular in the last twenty years (in the groups that I hang out around--not saying this happened universally).
When I look at Christ's life on the earth I see a man to whom people came more than a man that went to people. Sick and poor people may have been a popular bunch that would come and listen to him. But his disciples, whom He went to, and who may have been rather middle class (fishermen, tax collector, etc.)obviously had focused on them a lot of Jesus' time and attention.
Although the Old Testament is clear in saying that God cares for the poor and that He gets angry when they aren't taken care of, Paul writes to say (see Galatians 6)that the law of Christ was to "bear one another's burdens"; not only the burdens of one specific group of people, but one another.
I think that our generation of American Jesus followers are prone to social justice oriented sensitivities--for whatever reason. But, let's not get carried away into making what is likely a short-coming of the American church (i.e. ministry and acceptance of fringe groups like homosexuals or the economically disadvataged) into the main point of the gospel of Jesus. Jesus came to bring God's kingdom. And that is probably foreign enough of a concept for those of us not born or raised in a monarchy.
I think that we (gen-Xers especially) are going to have to face a reality that we are prone to move from one spiritual fad to the next. And, as offensive as this sounds to me: taking care of the poor and working for social justice is a fad (it's popular in the American evangelical church).
This isn't to say that attention to others in any way (especially the poor(?)) could be a garaunteed bad thing on us. But, we know that if we seek to follow Jesus (and this will look different to each person--Romans something) and to allow His kingdom to be brought, then we're sure to find ourselves on the winning team in the end. And in the end, God wins, and that's what really matters.
Wow good comments all. I wish I could digest them all and respond accordingly. Let me at least respond to lady M and say that although I may be misunderstanding what your point is, I must respectfully disagree. My understanding of the quoted passage is that Christ is symbolizing that the gospel is no longer just for the Jews but now for all people. I believe that God is showing Peter that there are no people or groups of people that are unclean and not worthy of the saving grace of Jesus on the cross and this is a HUGE shift for Peter.
I also disagree that the Law of Moses 'crumbled' when Jesus came but that instead Christ perfectly fulfilled the Law and revealed the true heart of the Law that had been manipulated and misunderstood over time.
Finally, I agree that we should not be bogged down by moral games, but we should be very careful not to use that as an excuse to commit or promote evil when it can be avoided or reduced. I do think there are things that we can call good and things that we can call evil and to think otherwise runs the risk of moral subjectivity. Now there may be things that are hard to determine but that is far different than impossible. Hard just means we need to use our minds, God's word, each other, etc to determine how we should live and as we ask those questions we do the best we currently know how, embracing grace as we go.
Those are my thoughts and I love this discussion.
Chris,
I hate to say it, but I think you have a point about serving the poor and sick as a 'fad.' What's more, I actually work with the "poor and downtrodden" and I feel that we 'capitalize' on that fad in order to take care of that population.
However, I think the error lies not in the intention, but in the interpretation of the charge to help the poor and sick. I think we are *all* poor and sick. Each and every person. Christ was/is the only perfect man, therefore, the rest of us fall short of perfection, ailing in one form or another.
I think the crime, therefore, lies in the misinterpretation of the calling. Should we help the widows, orphans, terminally ill and homeless? Yes. Should we give them our exclusive focus? No.
Jesus is a prime example of this. His ministry proved the Pharisees, the rich and the rulers of His time to be just as ill as the lame and blind who called out to him for a healing touch.
Perhaps, then, part of the problem with our consumer-driven society isn't so much that people aren't focusing enough on helping the downtrodden (which is still a good thing), but maybe it's that we aren't praying enough for and trying to influence enough the rulers of our land-- those empowered to make substantial changes in our society and economy.
Laura-- I hear you about all the evangelical stuff. I'm become much more Calvinistic since my days at Crusade, but that doesn't mean that I don't think I need to share my faith (ie, if we're predestined, why should anyone Evangelize, God will do it any way, right?)-- it just means that I'm thankful for God using me in those situations in which He chooses to do so, because He didn't have to.
Also Chris I agree with you that Christianity in America is a fad faith and we should be cautious. However even with this fad is there really enough action to go with it? Is our faith defined by the outside world as caring too much for the poor and the marginalized? Or is it maybe that we are just talking too much about it but have yet to see enough action. And really if we are going to go off the deep end in one direction, I would prefer this to eradicating sin in our culture or the lives of those who have never placed their faith in Christ. That I believe is an impossible task that the church as been all about for too long.
Jon,
I understand the passage I quoted is about showing Peter that Jesus died for Gentiles as well as Jews, but I also think that it shows how the human mind is much smaller than God's and that He has a greater plan than we do-- in that, sometimes our cultural subjectivity prevents us from using godly objectivity.
Also, yes, I believe that there are moral rights and wrongs, but I also think there are many sides to every argument. And, being Americans, we tend to see through American eyes that are not properly equipped to see situations through the eyes of people groups elsewhere around the world.
Does that make slave labor or genocide or other crimes of humanity less injust? No. But it does help to look at situations from as many angles as possible. After all, the best defense is to know the offense and vice versa.
just thought i'd add that i'm really enjoying reading all the discussion here.
and thanks, jon, for making your blog - and so your thoughts - as accessible as you have. makes for a very welcoming and home-y blog. good job.
Jon - it's time for a new thought-provoking question, or at least something funny, don't let your growing readership down. =)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home