Anti-Materialism
The struggle against materialism is one many of us (but for the weakness of our flesh) are happy to join. Consumption has become something of a cultural obsession, a sick habit that eats away even at those of us who admit its depravity. More deeply, ours is a culture that measures value according to consumption, in both directions: the more valuable you are, the more you should be allowed to consume (so CEOs and entertainers deserve the money they make); the more you consume, the more attention you command. Most on this blog are past denial: we confess our sickness. And at least we work hard to check ourselves against reckless buying.
But I want to suggest that another materialism has pervaded our perspective, a much more insidious philosophical materialism which only admits of a theological solution. This materialism is visible precisely in our inability to speak theologically about the world, and in our refusal to recognize higher values than the material ones. As much as we oppose the idea that material is the measure of human worth, we nonetheless rarely allow anything other than material criteria into our discussions of what is good and right. “Justice-talk” is separate from and outweighs “God-talk”–because justice, which has to do with the right ordering of human society towards the good, has been reduced to a material condition. Theology is dismissed as abstract rather than concrete, but only because we’ve been trained by modernity to think that only the material is real and that talk of God and grace is just theoretical.
The only way to counteract this deeper materialism–which is the root of all crass consumerism–is to regain a sense of theological realism. The point is not to denigrate the material as unimportant, but to re-situate it in a theological context. The point is to refuse to allow the material the last word, as if it created its own meaning. Rather, the goodness of the world comes from the God who created it, and God is truly at work in the world.
4 November 2007 |
tags: Money
![[RSS for this post]](/images/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
Brian, you sound “Milbankian” here. How do you position yourself vis-a-vis “radical orthodoxy?”
btw, I agree with your blog entry——-if (on a modest theological realism), we confess God to be the Creator, we may understand much about the world when studied from a perspective that does not open out to transcendence, but if all things are what they are because of their relationship to God as creatures, then the most decisive determination of any reality’s reality is its relationship to God.
hmm … right. I agree. The temptation to value things quantitatively is strong. Selfish gain aside, pragmatics draw us to value things that “make a (measurable) difference” for real people. As you mention, “measurable differences” are not all bad; and it does no one any good to break the meter stick in favor of the incommensurable. Synthesizing the two in terms of our relationship with God seems like a great solution – no, goal.
What happens, then, when theology becomes the subject of the materialism we seek to avoid? Is this a realistic fear (or am I missing a piece?); and, if it is, how is the position of gratitude you describe useful to (concretely) “re-situate” our thought?
This is for another conversation, but what did you think of the Cynicism to Hope conference?
Lars, what do you mean by theology being “the subject of” materialism? Do you mean a situation in which theology becomes an ideology that props up materialistic life situations? I think this is an interesting conversation and would like to understand better what the terms of the question are. Thanks!
oops. Sorry for the delay, Spencer. The week has been full.
I guess that phrase wasn’t very clear. What you suggest is an interesting area to consider; but one that is rather comfortable for us to discuss. As Brian mentioned, we’re accustomed to that kind of awareness and at least acknowledge that we need to change. My intent was to ask if we should be concerned about the motive of our theology – literally our study of God. Theology subjected to materialism is satisfied to view things through the window of its study. It makes the study the subject rather than focusing on Godself. As Brian notes, I think gratitude is a necessary first step here as it helps redirect the theologian’s focus.
Maybe the difference between this and what Brian is presenting is moot; but I feel it’s important that we are aware of this danger. Does this help clarify my intent? I’m interested to hear your thoughts.
Lars, I completely understand about delays and full weeks. No worries.
Let me make another stab at rephrasing you, and you tell me if I’ve got you right: You’re worried that turning to theology out of a need to solve a material problem (in this case, overconsumption), we are subordinating the study of God to those material concerns. In other words, we are only looking to God not as he is in himself, but only insofar as he is the solution to the problem of materialism. Such a motive for theology would still be self-centered and materialistic.
If that’s your concern, I’d say it’s a valid but not prohibitive one. In its preaching, the Church must show how God answers the problems and desires of human existence. People must know that God provides the answers to these questions. But preaching must always indicate that God exceeds these difficulties and attempt to encourage a person to move from loving God for what God does for me to loving God in himself.
I take it that this is the idea that’s more or less behind the recurring patristic notion that although faith might begin with fear, it must be perfected in the love that casts off fear (from Proverbs 1:7 to 1 John 4:18). Translated into the terms of our current concern, faith can begin with the fear that without God we will overconsume ourselves to death. But must progress onward toward a love for God which is not constantly indexed to our need for deliverance from such materialism.