Book Review: Acres of Diamonds

Acres of Diamonds: All Good Things Are Possible, Right Where You Are, and Now! By Russell H. Conwell and Robert Shackleton (Lexington: Feather Trail Press, 2009; originally published in 1915. 92 pp)

Born in Massachusetts, Russell Conwell attended Yale University and Albany Law School. Conwell founded Temple University and pastored The Baptist Temple in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

An Inspiring Story 

For some reason, the simplicity of the standard “success story” conjures the hopeful sentiment that such accomplishments could occur in any life. Truthfully, most successful stories begin with an idea, a notion of which all human beings are equally capable. In Acres of Diamonds, Russell Conwell utilizes positive and negative narratives in order to inspire productivity in his community.

In Defense of Wealth 

Simply speaking, Conwell is pro wealth. While many theologians and ethicists warn society about the dangers of increasing riches, Conwell believes that Christians possess an ethical duty to be rich. He writes:

“Money is power, and you ought to be reasonably ambitious to have it. You ought because you can do more good with it than you could without it. Money printed your Bible, money builds your churches, money sends your missionaries, and money pays your preachers, and you would not have many of them, either, if you did not pay them… The man who gets the largest salary can do the most good with the power that is furnished to him. Of course he can if his spirit be right to use it for what it is given to him” (13).

Viscerally, such statements seem disconnected with reality. Many people would love to make as much money as possible but do not possess the opportunities to do so. However, when charitably considered, Conwell’s philosophy seems sensible to a certain extent.

First, Conwell’s opinions resemble pro-business theological arguments. Many Christians affirm profit, arguing that it is an integral piece of the marketplace puzzle. However, profit ought not to be an end; profit ought to be made with the purpose of serving others. How is this position different than Conwell’s where he suggest that the rich can do more good in the world with money? It isn’t.

Russell Conwell

In many ways, Conwell’s theory resembles the first two bullet points in John Wesley’s economic theory: one, gain all you can; and two, save all you can. Once made rich by gaining and saving, a Christian is capable of doing good deeds in the world. This notion of good resembles Wesley’s “give-all-you-can” principles minus the all-you-can part.

The Problem of Systemic Injustice 

Nevertheless, Conwell’s position on wealth is untenable because it disregards the concept of systemic injustice. Certain people who possess the desire and talent to succeed in business will never find the opportunity. In Conwell’s mind, such poverty is attributed to a lack of belief or a lack of trying. Given our economic system, it is important to remember the role of profit and to do good things when in positions of power. But, Christians also ought to campaign against systemic injustice in order to provide opportunity for those with a will but without a way.

Acres of Diamonds inspires people to pursue wealth. I am not convinced this position is correct. Conwell’s writing carries the foundations of prosperity gospel, a worrisome theology which focuses on wealth creation as evidence of faithfulness. Acres of Diamonds is an influential work and therefore ought to be studied. However, if you are uninterested in the relationship between theology and economic theory, avoid this book.

Verdict: 2.5 out of 5

---

Posted by: Donovan Richards

Affiliate Links:

Book Review: Christianity and the Social Crisis in the 21st Century

Christianity and the Social Crisis in the 21st Century: The Classic That Woke Up the Church by Walter Rauschenbusch; edited by Paul Raushenbush (New York: HarperOne, 2008. 400 pp)

Walter Rauschenbusch was the leading proponent of the Social Gospel Movement whose mission was to reform society to meet the social needs of the poor through the ministrations of the institutional church. PBS recently called him “one of the most influential American religious leaders of the last 100 years.”

Paul Raushenbush, great-grandson of Walter Rauschenbusch, was associate dean or religious life and the chapel at Princeton University and current religion editor at the Huffington Post. He has served as an associate minister at the Riverside Church in New York City and has been involved in ministry to street youth in Seattle and Sӑo Paulo, Brazil.

An Allegory of the 19th Century 

Walter Rauschenbusch begins the fifth chapter of Christianity and the Social Crisis with a poetic allegory of the 19th Century. Upon the end of that century, Rauschenbusch imagines the 19th century descending into “the vaulted chamber of the Past”, where previous centuries congregate to discuss the perils and pieties of their respective eras. With unprecedented material success accumulated in the wake of the Industrial Revolution, the 19th Century metaphorically pats its own back. Interjecting, the 1st Century enquires whether or not the 19th Century has solved the problem of hunger. Hearing this question, the 19th Century lowers its head realizing that another hundred years have passed without any progress on the core issues of human suffering.

By this metaphor, Rauschenbusch pursues the notion of a social gospel. Christianity and the Social Crisis in the 21st Century is an updated edition of Rauschenbusch’s original publication titled, Christianity and the Social Crisis which graced best-seller lists 100 years ago. Inventively, Walter’s grandson, Paul has included responses at the end of each chapter from influential theologians.

The Social Aspect of the Gospel 

In Christianity and the Social Crisis, Walter Rauschenbusch begins with a reappraisal of the gospel. Since Christianity had for centuries emphasized the personal salvation of human beings, Rauschenbusch reassesses this principle citing the gospels.

While he refuses to completely ignore the future salvific aims of Jesus, Rauschenbusch asserts that Jesus carried revolutionary social aims. He writes,

“Whoever uncouples the religious and the social life has not understood Jesus. Whoever sets any bounds for the reconstructive power of the religious life over the social relations and institutions of men, to that extent denies the faith of the Master” (42).

Historically speaking, the aims of Jesus were social in nature. When he spoke of the Kingdom of God, he did not mean a heavenly future exclusively; Jesus also situated the Kingdom of God in the present, an attainable society toward which disciples must work.

The Failure of the Church 

Given this position, Rauschenbusch decries the classic self-serving and individualistic tendencies of the Church. Instead of focusing on social justice, the church looked inward. Rauschenbusch warns,

“The Church was able to offer the most enticing eternal rewards to those who gave to her. Thus she discouraged the giving of aid from man to man and encouraged the concentration of giving on herself. To some extent this systematized charity, and an ever larger percentage of the gifts never reached the poor” (152).

In other words, by linking eternal rewards to service of the church and by lining the church coffers with money instead of giving alms to the poor, the Church neglects the social aims of Jesus and replaces them with a hollow theology of personal salvation and increasing monetary power. Clearly, Rauschenbusch possesses a low view of the Church institution.

The Social Crisis 

Walter Rauschenbusch

Without the church acting in accordance with the marginalized of society to pursue social reconstruction, the economic reality of the early 1900s is harsh, to put it nicely. With capitalists holding monopolies on private property, the majority of Americans carry the work of their hands as their only economic bargaining chip.

Throughout Christianity and the Social Crisis, Rauschenbusch illustrates many depressing scenarios for the economically powerless. Speaking in terms of which I am acutely aware, he notes,

“I can conceive of nothing so crushing to all proper pride as for a workingman to be out of work for weeks, offering his work and his body and soul at one place after the other, and to be told again and again that nobody has any use for such a man as he” (195).

Such words resonate in our current setting with many recent college graduates encountering the worst job market in decades.

The Church, the State, and the Social Utopia 

With these harsh realities in mind, Rauschenbusch believes that an alignment of the church with social reconstruction offers opportunities to unlock a social utopia. A man of pristine optimism, Rauschenbusch suggests,

“Theology must become Christocentric; political economy must become anthropocentric. Man is Christianized when he puts God before self; political economy will be Christianized when it put man before wealth. Socialistic political economy does that” (301).

This view, later defined in Christian-communistic terms, suggests that the Church acts as a partner with other social institutions. Together, all can work toward the social utopia where people do not suffer from want or need.

What about Communal Evil? 

Nevertheless, Rauschenbusch’s belief in the goodness of humanity blinds him to the possibility of communal badness. In a response to the final chapter of Christianity and the Social Crisis, Jim Wallis argues,

“It is fair to say that [Rauschenbusch] not only failed to anticipate any of [Communism’s sordid] history but also generally missed communism’s potential for collective evil. His almost utopian dreams for the future, at the height of the progressive era and at the beginning of the century, reveal a naïveté about human nature and sin that was characteristic of the time” (344).

Although many Evangelicals find Rauschenbusch’s Christology to teeter dangerously on the edge of heresy, I am not too concerned with Rauschenbusch’s views on the divine nature of Jesus. From a perspective at the dawn of a new century, the glaring mistake in Rauschenbusch’s ideology is his optimism. Given the opportunity to operate society from collective principles, the communist methodology to date has failed precisely because of humanity’s capability for collective evil.

The Crisis Continues 

Walter Rauschenbusch recognizes the failure of the 19th century. Even though many hailed the wealth accumulated in that century, Rauschenbusch knows that further work must be done to accomplish the social aims of the gospel. With beautiful prose and timeless arguments (for the most part), Rauschenbusch recognizes the importance of social aims in Christianity. Christianity and the Social Crisis in the 21st Century is a must read for all Christians and could even inform the opinions of those who do not hold Christian beliefs.

Verdict: 4.5 out of 5

---

Posted by: Donovan Richards

Affiliate Links:

Book Review: Good News to the Poor

Good News to the Poor: John Wesley's Evangelical Economics by Theodore W. Jennings, Jr. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1990. 236 pp)

The current Professor of Biblical and Constructive Theology at Chicago Theology Seminary, Theodore W. Jennings, Jr. earned his A.B. from Duke University in 1964 and both his B.D. and Ph.D. from Emory University in 1967 and 1971 respectively. Jennings has served as a local pastor and taught for three years at the Methodist Seminary in Mexico City. He has served as a consultant with the United Methodist Church on issues related to commitment to the poor. His research interests include Christian doctrine, biblical theology, gay studies, contemporary late modern philosophy and deconstruction.

The Relationship between Wealth and Piety

Similar to ancient Israel, a dominant thread in current Christian thought is the belief that poverty is a result of sin, a doctrine known as prosperity theology. Whether a person possesses low socio-economic status due to slothfulness or an addiction to some vice such as alcohol, drugs, or gambling, Christians assume that growth in piety equals growth in the bank account. Although John Wesley’s followers fall into this problematic assumption, Theodore Jennings argues that Wesley’s theology denies this faulty premise.

Exploring Jennings’ book, Good News to the Poor, I will argue that Wesley opposes the increase of riches, proposes a preferential option for the poor, and suggests solidarity with the poor through wise stewardship. Then, I will question Wesley’s premises by asking if it is necessary to increase capital in order to optimally steward property for those in need.

The Danger of Wealth

Theodore Jennings’ appraisal of John Wesley’s evangelical economics begins with the premise that Wesley acutely understands the danger of wealth for a sanctified Christian life. In contrast to many Christians who believe that wealth and power signifies divine favor, Wesley finds that wealth and power possesses a corrosive force for individuals, institutions, and sovereign nations. Jennings notes,

“In sermon after sermon, Wesley hammers home the theme that the increase in possessions leads naturally to the death of religion” (35).

Combating the natural propensity for people to sensationalize the need for increased riches, Wesley demystifies the pursuit and warns Methodists that such quests lead to perilous eternal consequences for the soul.

A Preferential Option for the Poor

Photo by Trey Ratcliff

The demystification of wealth, then, couples with a preferential option for the poor (Jennings uses this language although Wesley would not). If the pursuit of wealth carries dangerous eternal ramifications, it follows that a life lived in relationship with the poor aligns with Wesley’s evangelical economics. More than a theoretical principle, the preferential option for the poor is a tangible deed for Wesley. Jennings writes,

“Wesley was, if nothing else, the theologian of experience. This did not mean for him a concentration upon isolated moments of interior religious excitement, but rather the immersion in lived experience, in the texture and duration of sensory involvement. If you want to know what love is, you live the life of love and reflect on the vicissitudes of this journey through time. Similarly, if one is to know something of poverty one must spend the time and energy to be with the poor and to appropriate what is encountered there” (53).

Aligning his theory with practice, Wesley actively participated in the lives of the poor. He visited the sick; he took a collection for the poor during his sermons; he developed a “lending stock” that functions similarly to modern-day micro-finance institutions; and he sold inexpensive versions of his writing targeting the poor specifically.

In all these ways, Wesley enlivened his critique of wealth and prosperity by acting with and on behalf of the poor.

A God-Given Right to Stewardship

Having bolstered his critique on wealth and power by acting in solidarity with the poor, Wesley confirms the stark contrast of his economic ethic from the status quo by affirming the notion of stewardship and the redistribution of wealth. Influenced heavily by the early Christian communities in Acts, Wesley rejects the popularized notion of private property developed by John Locke. Wesley believes that everything in creation is the sole property of God.

Wealth, then, is not a God-given product of labor, but a resource for stewardship. Jennings states,

“Wesley’s view of stewardship is a blow at the root of the economics of greed, which continues to dominate our planet. For Wesley, the only legitimate claim to the earth’s resources is based not on industry or capital or enterprise or labor, but on the needs of our neighbor. This is the heart of evangelical economics” (116-117).

Under this premise, gaining riches equates to stealing God’s property.

To summarize, Jennings arranges Wesley’s theology in order to clarify that Wesley vividly believed in the danger of wealth and power. Therefore, Wesley actively aligns his economic ethic with the plight of the poor. Lastly, his view on riches and the poor leads him to reject private property believing that ownership resides with God alone and that humans possess the obligation of stewarding God’s resources wisely.

Give a Fish or Teach to Fish

Despite Jennings’ clear and concise rendering of Wesley’s evangelical economics, I question the practicality of the pursuit. Even though I find the arguments compelling, I wonder whether or not they provide optimal results. More precisely, does Wesley’s evangelical economic theory represent a method that lifts the poor out of poverty or does it merely recognize the plight of the poor? Clearly, Wesley wanted to actively participate in works of mercy that benefit the poor but did these deeds result in actions of charity or actions that solved the root issues of poverty?

This question, essentially, asks whether it is better to give a person a fish or to teach a person how to fish. If Wesley believed in the former, then his system encounters the danger of continual needs for assistance. If Wesley believed in the latter, his system suffers from tension because it requires capital in order to successfully alleviate poverty.

In fact, Wesley’s “lending stock” offers an excellent example of a scenario where the scalability of its success relies on increasing riches. Clearly, wealth and power is a dangerous pursuit. Life is littered with stories of Godly people losing their way as they climb the socio-economic ladder.

Photo by Esparta

Capital is a necessary function of alleviating poverty; just look at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. But, Wesley would condemn the wealth and affluence of Gates (and I, too, would certainly condemn some of Gate’s practices at Microsoft) despite the clear example his foundation provides in poverty alleviation.

Given Wesley’s premises, it almost seems like Christians ought to thank God for providing society with damned souls capable of gaining prodigious amounts of capital and a concern for poverty alleviation. I’m not sure if I’m willing to accept that scenario.

Clearly, John Wesley vehemently rejects the notion that wealth equals piety and poverty equals sin. Wesley recognizes the danger in increasing riches; he promotes an active relationship that takes the side of the poor; and he suggests that Christians steward God’s resources with the poor in mind. Nevertheless, the success of stewardship and active relationships with the poor requires a certain amount of capital.

Either we praise God for those who increase riches at the expense of their soul for the sake of the poor, or we cut off the potential of alleviating poverty by merely resulting to charity from each family’s minimal surplus. Such a question, in my mind, points to tensions in Wesley’s premises. We ought to help the poor, but I contend that increasing riches could provide benefits for the poor.

Good News to the Poor provides ample food for thought for our current understanding of economics. I urge those interested in theology and economic theory to read this book despite its logical fallibilities.

Verdict: 3 out of 5
---
Posted by: Donovan Richards

Affiliate Links:

Film Review: Sin Nombre

Sin Nombre directed by Cary Fukunaga (Scion Films, Canana Films, and Creando Films, R, 96 min)

Starring Paulina Gaitan, Edgar Flores, and Kristian Ferrer.

35,000 Feet between Cultures

An airplane flies overhead as the characters look up in awe, dreaming of the day that they too can board a passenger plane. This scene is a brief but defining moment in Sin Nombre. It expresses the distance between the life of the viewer and the life depicted on screen.

Shot in Mexico and with dialogue in Spanish, Sin Nombre depicts the intertwining lives of two characters, Sayra (Paulina Gaitan) and Willy “El Casper” (Edgar Flores), as they escape the poverty and gang culture of Honduras.

Strikingly Different People, Strikingly Similar Pursuits

Sayra, with her father and uncle in tow, seeks refuge in the United States. With only a small amount of money to share between the three, the group stows away on the top of a train heading from Honduras through Mexico to the United States.

Meanwhile, Willy, a gang member known as “El Casper” flees his brethren after a fatal fit of rage left a homie dead. You see, Willy’s fellow gang member killed the love of his life when it was revealed that Willy shirked his duties to spend time with her.

As such, Willy finds himself on the same train knowing full well that his quest to escape his gang is an uphill battle since the price on his head is astronomical.

Through the adventures of escaping Border Patrol and vindictive gang members, Sayra and Willy grow close as they emigrate to the land of hope and plenty.

Entertainment in the Misfortune of Others

Although the plot intrigues, what really rattled me while watching Sin Nombre was the disconnect between my life and the lives of these characters. Most evidently, despite my fears regarding my economic standing, I have a roof over my head, food always a moment away from my belly, and the continual hope for job prospects.

In contrast, both characters possess little. For them, the idea of opulence is access to America and a minimum wage job. The difference is most evident in the scene where the characters dreamingly long for the possibility of flight—a phenomenon most individuals in our culture take for granted.

Sin Nombre provides compelling cinema not only through a pulse-racing plot, but also by its socio-economic implications. Those in the middle class too often get caught in the rat race comparing their lifestyles to those in higher classes. Yet in truth, the middle class is highly luxurious to the rest of the world.

Of course, watching a movie like Sin Nombre offers the danger of complacency in thinking “at least our situation is not as bad as theirs.” But I believe Sin Nombre is well worth watching to be reminded of the perils in the developing world and hopefully it urges you to consider ways in which we can make a difference.

Verdict: 3.5 out of 5

---

Posted by: Donovan Richards

Affiliate Links:

Book Review: Age of Greed

Age of Greed: The Triumph of Finance and the Decline of America, 1970 to the Present by Jeff Madrick (New York: Knopf, 2011. 480 pp)

Jeff Madrick is a regular contributor to The New York Review of Books, and former economics columnist for The New York Times. He is an adjunct professor of humanities at The Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the Roosevelt Institute and at the Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis, The New School. He lives in New York City.

The Meltdown 

In any situation, time, or place, an individual’s story is of utmost importance. On person can change the lives of a family, a community, and a country. We can learn more about ourselves and our present conditions when we hear these stories. Jeff Madrick's work, The Age of Greed, compiles the stories of a few influential individuals to explain our current economic crisis.

In this book, Jeff Madrick provides an educational view of how America has transformed from a prosperous nation to a democracy overwhelmed with the pursuit of monetary gain. Madrick argues that the current diminished state of America’s economy resides in the American individual’s primary goal of monetary prosperity.

Madrick argues that increasing self-interest gave rise to the highly unregulated financial system that produced the meltdown of 2008. Unlike current financial analysts who try to point fingers at Bush or Clinton (or a number of other scapegoats as the South Park clip below illustrates), Madrick traces the financial meltdown all the way back to the 1960s, and even to businesses today– a position I rather enjoyed.  Instead of pointing fingers without thinking about it, Madrick traces the problem back to where it began.

Margaritaville
Get More: SOUTH
PARKmore...

Since The Age of Greed is quite expansive, it is difficult to give a full synopsis. However, in an attempt to share what I loved about this book, I will summarize a few of these personal stories.

Photo by Liz West

Friedman 

First, I particularly appreciated tracing the root of our financial system to the ideologies of Milton Friedman. When Milton Friedman began teaching his economic theory in the Chicago School of Economics at the University of Chicago, a shift soon occurred in business to a new profit maximization viewpoint that Madrick argues was the beginning of the rise of the age of greed.

“To Friedman, any views that promoted government spending as a way to stabilize economies and promote prosperity were not merely wrongheaded but seen as pandering to the majority by promising more social programs. Moreover, government itself had its own greedy expansionist motives he believed. ‘Ever since the New Deal,’ as Friedman put it, ‘a primary excuse for the expansion of government activity at the federal level has been supposed necessity for government spending to eliminate unemployment’” (39).

As this quote suggests, Friedman pushed a hardline capitalist agenda. He believed that allowing people to purse their creative interests without interference was key to economic stability. I’m not entirely convinced that this philosophy was his prime motive, and Madrick would agree. He states,

“I can only attribute so biased and simplistic a notion in an intelligent man to a strong emotional desire to service his main point: to minimize government” (51).

With a sense of adventure, America desired to perform this task. But, they missed the point; instead of minimizing government to stabilize the economy via capitalism as Friedman suggested, American citizens acted selfishly to obtain more money for themselves. Oops.

Photo by Andres Ubierna

Jack Welch and GE 

Second, society in the 1980s complained that American business was sagging while Japanese business continued to rise due to low wages. So, GE’s CEO Jack Welch decided America’s problem was that,

“Japanese companies focused on quality and long-term grown while American business had focused for too long on maximizing the quantity of goods sold to reduce costs per unit” (180).

In the 1980s, the American population revolted against the quality of American craftsmanship, which was poor due to reduced production costs that raised a company’s net income. Big business was no longer entrepreneurial, and it possessed a newfound desire to

“break down old formulas and past traditions, subverting the discipline of pyramidal bureaucracies, and resurrecting an egalitarian respect between workers and their bosses. Fully valuing workers would lead to higher quality, lower production costs, and more innovative products” (181).

But, this shift never occurred; the steady increase of managerial pay as well as the lack of respect for the worker led to an increased gap between management and laborer. The age of greed, which began with Milton Friedman, actualized.

Photo by DonkeyHotey

The Path that Led to Reagan

The US emerged from the Great Depression with a very tightly regulated financial system, and for a while people liked it that way. However, by the 1970s people grew tired of this boring and safe financial system. By highlighting personal profiles like Jack Welch and Milton Friedman, Madrick recounts the economic turmoil out of which financial overreaching became the norm.

Madrick then argues that at the time Reagan became president, the government had become the principal obstacle to an individual’s personal fulfillment. Reagan states,

“‘I want to help get us back to those fiercely independent Americans...those people who can do great deeds, and I’ve seen them robbed of their independence...because of these great social reforms’” (124). 

Following Reagan (and I am skipping a large portion of the book here) a series of crises occurred including an enormous bank-led crisis and the savings and loan crisis after which the boring Depression-era regulation was gone, and the financial gloves were off, so to speak. The anything-goes financial world created two “bubbles” of which we all know and discuss: the technology bubble, and the recent housing bubble.

Vignettes 

By looking at these personal vignettes, we see some familiar ground: the career of Alan Greenspan, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Citibank, and many more. Through these vignettes, Madrick traces what led to the Great Recession. While I find his thesis somewhat unproven, I can see his point of view. He offers some intriguing secondary sources, and convincing rhetoric to prove his point. If Age of Greed wasn’t so dry, I think it would have been an absolutely enthralling read.

Verdict: 3 out of 5

Posted By: Andrew Jacobson
---
Affiliate Links:

Book Review: Falling Sideways

Falling Sideways: A Novel by Thomas E. Kennedy (New York: Bloomsbury, 2011 304 pp)

Born in New York City, Thomas Kennedy wanted to become a writer after reading Dosteovsky’s Crime and Punishment. Kennedy earned a B.A. in language and literature from City College of New York. Immediately after his undergraduate studies, Kennedy took a job as News Editor of World Medical Journal based in France. After a few years at the journal, Kennedy took a job with the Danish Medical Association. It wasn’t until 1981 that Kennedy published his first work in a literary journal. In 1985, he received his MFA from Vermont College and, then, received a Ph.D. in American Literature at the University of Copenhagen. Kennedy has won the O. Henry Award, a Puschart Prize, the Frank Expatriate Award, and two Eric Hoffer Book Awards. He lives in Denmark.

Review copy courtesy of Librarything Early Reviewers

A Nominee for the Bad Sex in Fiction Award

While I do not consider myself a prude, I often find the descriptions of sex in novels to be awkward, misplaced, and unconvincing. Of course, I would rather find authors willing to mention these taboo subjects encountered in everyday life than having them merely avoiding it. But, it seems like authors tend to lean on shock value and graphic description instead of artful representation.

Humorously, Literary Review has hosted the Bad Sex in Fiction Award for the last twenty years. Highlighting the worst in sexual encounters, the award honors the misuse of sex in literary fiction.

Thomas Kennedy’s new work, Falling Sideways, ought to be the frontrunner for the 2011 Bad Sex in Fiction Award. Inserted in most chapters and shamelessly described, sex is the central narrative feature of the book.

The Tank

Set in Copenhagen, Denmark, Falling Sideways follows the lives of employees at the Tank, an ambiguously defined company that monetized some sort of intellectual property but is currently falling on hard times.

The actions of the company are, in fact, so pointless, that Jes, the son of one character, proclaims,

“It seemed to [Jes] that almost nobody in Denmark actually did anything anymore; they all just sat in offices sending e-mails to one another or went to meetings where they sat around a table and talked about the e-mails" (105).

Downsizing Brings Out the Worst in People

With an unstable economy, the Tank’s CEO, Martin Kampman (a calculated and unemotional individual), must reshuffle the organization, trim its fat, and promote efficiency.

These swirling rumors about downsizing make most employees work in fear; they release tension through various addictive tendencies such as smoking, drinking, and sex.

As an example of one addictive tendency, Kennedy writes,

“It seemed smoking was responsible for just about all the evils of the world now. It had gotten to be embarrassing even to buy cigarettes. Maybe they would pass a law that would require you to say to the shop clerk: I am an idiot. May I have a pack of Prince Silvers, please? And if you didn’t: Sorry, madam, but you didn’t say you were an idiot. The law requires…” (89).

A Snooze in Copenhagen

Sadly, despite an intriguing premise behind the book, Kennedy’s prose and narrative structure are merely adequate. Of course, the previously mentioned insistence on bluntly depicting sex provides a hindrance to the storyline. But even more, Kennedy spends little time creating compelling characters. 

Aside from the ease of reading the book, I found little enjoyment in reading it. Moreover, not many literary themes held my attention throughout the book.

In perhaps the only interesting twist, Kennedy has created a world of anxiety, depression, and regret in a setting well known as the happiest place on earth. Yet, such an observance only bolsters a book in conjunction with deeper characters and plotlines.

Despite being a frontrunner for the Bad Sex in Fiction Award, I find little reason to recommend Falling Sideways.

Book Review: God and the Evil of Scarcity

God and the Evil of Scarcity: Moral Foundations of Economic Agency by Albino Barrera, O.P. (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005. 272 pp)

Albino Barrera teaches economics and theology at Providence College in Providence, Rhode Island. In addition to God and the Evil of Scarcity, he wrote Modern Catholic Social Documents and Political Economy (Georgetown University Press) in 2001.

It Begins with Malthus

For Albino Barrera, God and the Evil of Scarcity is essentially a response to the Malthusian understanding of theodicy.  While most consider resource scarcity and population control when Thomas Malthus comes to mind, Barrera explores Malthus’ foundational views of God that lead him to his conclusions on resource scarcity.

Simply put, Barrera understands Malthusian theodicy as a source for human mastery when he writes,

“Using natural theology, Malthus argues that God created a world of scarcity to provide people with reason and incentive to apply themselves in work and striving” (2).

In other words, the condition of scarcity – an evil for all intents and purposes – inspires the pursuit of good. Despite the insistence through Christian tradition that evil is an absence of the good and an occurrence resulting from our fallen nature, Malthus sees evil as a root cause that generates the desire for good.

Theodicy and Economic Scarcity

Rejecting this notion of theodicy, Barrera explores Thomistic and New Testament traditions seeking to better understand the reason for existing economic scarcity. For Barrera, God contains the power to provide humanity with everything it needs to flourish on earth.

Since humankind struggles with its allocation of resources, Barrera reasons that God must provide a good reason for the existence of such scarcity. Barrera notes,

“The economic statutes and ordinances that flow from such historicity become the means for God to proffer and elicit human participation in divine holiness, righteousness, and providence. Scarcity makes conformity to the Law that much more sacrificial, but that much more consequential as well” (199).

In other words, scarcity offers humanity the opportunity to sacrificially work with God in the world. As people encounter need, scarcity makes help sacrificial and more meaningful. Thus, the evil of scarcity exists not to require harder work from people in order to gain assets but to supply a cost for the apostolate work of giving to those in need.

Scarcity and My Pre-Conceived Notions

In all honesty, I found Barrera’s position on scarcity to be extremely refreshing. Before reading this book, my understanding of scarcity was exceptionally negative. At best, scarcity explained why some people owned much and others possessed little; at worst, scarcity is a deeply engrained selfishness that limits the ability for the poor to survive in a harsh world. By reframing the discussion, I found it encouraging to consider scarcity as a way for sacrificial giving to truly have meaning.

What About Excessive Population and Sustainability?

Nevertheless, Barrera’s thesis is lacking in one critical category. Whether or not Malthus carried erroneous assumptions about theodicy, the damning portion of his thought in modern life is the effect of population on the environment. With fewer people, the allocation of resources is out of mind and out of sight. However, exponential human growth requires a similar growth in resource usage. Since the earth is finite, no matter the theological value of scarcity in sacrificial giving, an unsustainably large population incurs an enormous burden on scarce resources.

While most of God and the Evil of Scarcity ignores the role of population in the discussion of scarcity and sufficiency, Barrera attempts to answer the critique in an appendix to the book. He writes,

“The universe cannot reach its external end in God if its parts (humans, in this case) are unable to operate according to the nature of their being for want of material nourishment and the other means necessary for their full actualization” (234).

In simple terms, God will not allow a population to balloon in such a way that it debilitates humanity and creation.

Sadly, such a position ignores the fact that sacrificial giving to the world’s poor will greatly burden our access to scarce resources. Moreover, this position ignores the crucial work of sustainability experts who are reconsidering humanity’s relationship with resources arguing that consumption is possible without deteriorating resources (See William McDonough and Michael Braungart, Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things (New York: North Point Press, 2002).

Scarce Words

Despite my gratitude for the new perspective Barrera offers on scarcity, namely, its existence for the sacrificial giving of resources to others, I find both the population problem and current sustainable considerations for resources help to render Barrera’s thesis problematic.

Likewise, this book feels like the reworking of a dissertation. Each page contains excessive citations and footnotes which provide clear evidence that Barrera completed his homework, yet, it creates difficult reading throughout the work.

If you are interested in the intersection between theology and economics, God and the Evil of Scarcity offers a unique perspective. However, for most people, I would not recommend this book. 

Book Review: God the Economist

God the Economist: The Doctrine of God and Political Economy by M. Douglas Meeks (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989. 272 pp.)

Currently the Cal Turner Chancellor’s Chair in Wesleyan Studies and Theology at Vanderbilt University, M. Douglas Meeks is a renowned researcher on the relation of Christian doctrine to economic, social, and political theory. Dr. Meeks earned both his B.D. and Ph.D. from Duke University and studied as a Fulbright Fellow at Tübingen University. In his previous appointment, he served as the dean and professor of systematic theology at Wesley Theological Seminary. Dr. Meeks has authored 16 books and numerous scholarly articles. He is an ordained minister in the United Methodist Church serving as the Director of Wesleyan Studies and the United Methodist Programs.

A Global Community

With the world flattening as Thomas Friedman so famously noted, it is becoming increasingly easy to make relational connections with the worldwide community. Where in the past, the culture of foreign lands seemed distant and, well, foreign, current urban centers amalgamate a myriad of cultures. In other words, the modern age illustrates the ease in which citizens throughout the world can consider the globe as a community.

Yet, business often operates under individualistic principles. Functioning under the theory of self-interest, many companies seek to further their interests only. Is there a theological case to be made for or against these current business practices? In his book, God the Economist, M. Douglas Meeks argues against the current marketplace practices and proposes a dramatic redefinition of “economy.”

Economist Etymology

The premise behind God the Economist is an etymological study of the word “economy.” Current conceptions of the economy conjure visions of a global marketplace and transnational transactions. But, where does the word “economy” come from? Citing the etymology of the word, M. Douglas Meeks suggests that “economy” should be understood through its Greek roots, oikos and nomos or “household” and “rule or law”.

In other words, the source of the term “economy” comes from the word for the household manager. In Greco-Roman times, commerce functioned between households, not companies; the family managed the business, and the marketplace existed as a portion of familial life.

In contrast, current cultural norms bifurcate work life and home life. Given the ancient term defining the economist as household manager, Meeks offers God the Economist as a new metaphor for God. He writes,

“Many of the biblical traditions represent God as engaged in creating, sustaining, and recreating households. Household can refer to the people Israel of the church of Jesus Christ, to families to a royal court or dynasty, to a place of God’s abode, or, in the most comprehensive sense, to the whole creation. God has made Godself responsible for the households of Israel and the church, the households of nations, and the household of everything God has brought into being. The oikonomia tou theo (economy of God) applies to the life of the Christian community (Col. 1:25; 1 Cor. 9:17; Eph. 3:2; 1 Tim. 1:4) as well as to God’s work of creating salvation for the household of the creation (Eph. 1:9-10; 3:9-10). Because of the peculiar promises made by this God, the life of God is inextricably connected with the livelihood and future of these households” (4).

Stated differently, although the modern conception of economy functions remarkably well, it neglects the comprehensive and communal meaning behind the economy – managing the household. This metaphor for God argues for the importance of human livelihood, the significance of a household community above profit.

 The Household Economy as Community

Considering the household community ethic with God understood as an economist, Meeks asserts that the economy ought to perform a transformative task writing,

“it can be said that a theological correlation of the God of Jesus Christ and economy should take place in the midst of and for the sake of those who have been denied access to the household in our society and to the global household” (42-43). 

The economy ought not function as a means to ascertain personal needs; it exists as a global household where economics functions as a way in which we relate to each other and serve the poor in order to transform all of society.

The Importance of Service

As the etymology of “economist” suggests, the term defined the household servant in antiquity. The ancient economist served the interests of the household community and entered the marketplace with the household in mind.

Since Scripture frequently mentions the servant-nature of God (see 1 Cor. 1:20-32 and Matt. 6:33 among many others), it is natural to view God as the household economist who acts for the common good of the household.

Arguments Against a Self-Interested Marketplace

What does it mean, however, for businesses to elevate community above profit? Meeks contends that a dramatic shifting of the marketplace must occur.

Currently, markets function under the capitalist assumptions of Adam Smith. With an ethical system based in egoistic consequentialism, business practitioners versed in Adam Smith’s theories trade under the principles of self-interest. In other words, self-interest moderates the marketplace and increases efficiency as everyone produces goods and services at a comparative advantage.

This theory, however, is exceedingly individualistic. By nature, the person in the marketplace looks after her interests and expects everyone else to do the same. In this rubric, it is quite easy for individuals to receive the proverbial short end of the stick.

Growth for Self or Growth for Others

Stated differently, current business practices function on the principle of exchange. With scarce resources, people in the marketplace seek to exchange goods and services in order to maximize individual gain. Under this assumption, modern economists believe that exchange will foster growth for citizens worldwide.

From the perspective of a household economy, unlimited growth is not the ultimate goal. Meeks writes,

“Growth should not be based on infinite needs and acquisition leading to an ever-widening appropriation of nature for the sake of accumulation of wealth as power. Rather growth should be a deepening of human capacities for the service of human development within community” (57).

Again, the critical argument Meeks presents is grounded in the value of the household community in the market place. By inference, the individual exists for the purpose of community, not individuality.

Reconstructing Business as a Household

While God the Economist discusses the Christian principles for rethinking the definition of economy and critiques the modern conception of the marketplace, it does very little reconstruction. However, the principles in the book offer a foundation for Christian-based business operations in the current market.  

First, Christians in business must reconsider the classical view of Capitalism presented by Adam Smith. Despite the success of the self-interest system in the marketplace, its individualistic outlook on life makes the creation of community problematic.

Second, the metaphor of God as an economist presents God as a servant leader. Just as the ancient household manager performed business operations with the household in mind, so too does God serve the needs of the global household.

As a Christian in the marketplace, the principle of service is necessary in order to maximize the usefulness of profits for others. The marketplace ought to function for the good of everyone. Thus, as it becomes increasingly easy to connect with the globe, the notion of serving the worldwide community will become more important. For these reasons, I recommend this book!

Book Review: Economy of Grace

Economy of Grace by Kathryn Tanner (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005. 172 pp)

Working through the undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral levels of Yale University, Kathryn Tanner recently returned home as a professor of systematic theology at Yale Divinity School. For her previous appointment, Tanner taught at the University of Chicago. Tanner focuses her research on constructive Christian theology relating to social, cultural, and feminist theory. On top of her numerous books and articles that have been published, Tanner serves on the editorial boards of Modern Theology, International Journal of Systematic Theology, and Scottish Journal of Theology. She is a member of the Theology Committee that advises the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops and is currently researching financial markets through the Luce Fellowship.

Grace and Money

Kathryn Tanner splits Economy of Grace into three sections. In the first, she questions whether or not Christianity provides specific purchase on economic discussions. Answering in the affirmative, Tanner continues in the second section to outline a theological foundation for economics. Finally, she concludes Economy of Grace with a section promoting potential applications of a theological economy in a practical manner.

At first glance, theological and economic discussions contain little similarity. On one side resides the language of justice, faith, and health; on the other side: capital, profit, and competition. In the first chapter of her tome, Kathryn Tanner explores the relationship between Christianity and economics. While most typically view theology in the realm of the individual and economy in the realm of community, Tanner suggests that the link between the two in the simplest form is grace and money.

Without further explanation, of course, such an assertion raises the eyebrows of many theologians as the threat of prosperity theology presents itself. Nevertheless, Tanner battles these assumptions by suggesting the link between grace and money exists in the conception of distribution.

Just as theology is concerned with the distribution of grace amongst society, so too is economics with the distribution of money. Yet, the two starkly contrast since the distribution of grace operates under non-competitive assumptions.

Tanner writes,

“By setting Christian ideas of the production and circulation of goods into a comparative economy, by making that comparative framing an economic one, my intent is just to suggest that a Christian economy has everything to do with the material dimensions of life – with the economic more narrowly construed. It is clear that, set within a comparative economy, grace has everything to do with money” (29).

Unconditional Giving

Having presented the connection between theology and economics, Tanner utilizes the space in chapter two to discuss alternative forms of the economic system based on a theological lens. While efforts have been made to promote a theological economy through the ideas of inalienable property rights and gift exchange, both systems fall short of truly uniting with the notion of non-competitive grace.

A theologically-based economy must act similarly to the way God acts in relation to humanity.

Tanner adds,

“The whole point of God’s dealings with us as creator, covenant partner, and redeemer in Christ is to bring the good of God’s very life into our own. Our lives participate in that divine mission and thereby realize the shape of God’s own economy by giving that follows the same principle: self-sharing for the good of others” (85).

Scripture presents God as an unconditional giver. Everything we have is a result of God’s generosity and humanity is incapable of repaying such a gift to God. Therefore, our best approximation is to unconditionally give to others as God gives to us.

Constructing an Economy of Grace

But does this theological view of economy contain practical application or does it merely denote a utopian state? In the third chapter, Tanner attempts to apply her framework on a practical level.

In truth, Tanner admits that her economy of grace carries utopian themes. Given the current state of the global economy, it is probably impossible for non-competitive grace to achieve an economic stronghold. 

Nevertheless, non-competitive grace possesses applicable principles.

For example, capitalists seek the highest amount of profits typically by pursuing the most efficient production. The cheaper the cost of manufacturing with a maintained quality means high profits. Yet, such practices usually denote paying employees less and less. Taking this thought process to the extreme, if a company paid employees so little that they are unable to purchase the products, profits will plummet as consumption dies.

An economy of grace, however, suggests that a principle of non-competitiveness solves this inherent difficulty in capitalism.

Tanner notes,

“One should, whenever possible, promote growth strategies in which the economy grows and poverty is reduced at the same time” (96).

While capitalists can earn significant profits in the short term through diminishing wages, such practices are detrimental in the long term. An economy of grace, on the other hand, suggests that gradually raising wages and lifting the poor out of poverty benefits all of society.

A Slight Critique

While Tanner presents an intriguing vision for a theologically-based economy, I find her conclusions to be inconsistent. Although she readily admits that a pure economy of grace is utopian considering the current state of global affairs, her application of theological tenets to the current form of capitalism changes underlying assumptions minutely.

More specifically, if an economy of grace is based on non-competitive giving, a gift given in order to expect a return on investment violates the economy of grace. Tanner’s third chapter provides many examples where supposedly altruist behavior helps all stakeholders. But in my mind, such assertions betray the root purpose of non-competitive giving: the notion of self-sacrifice for the good of another.

In this way, Tanner’s attempt to reconcile a theologically-based economy with the current capitalist system equates to an argument of good ethics equals good business. What if good ethics equals bad business? Surely at some point, a manager must face a decision between ethical behavior and bottom-line profits. Does Tanner’s economy of grace answer this manager’s dilemma? I am doubtful that it can escape its utopian nature.

Additionally, Tanner’s prose is dense and unorganized. With cumbersome paragraphs and little formatting to break the monotony of the prose, Economy of Grace is a difficult read.

Nevertheless, the content of the book offers critical insight into a theological appraisal of the marketplace. If you have interest in a Christian view of economics, I recommend this book.