Free Market - Morality or Immorality?

In an op-ed piece in The Washington Post on February 20, Michael Gerson concluded his remarks with these words:
Suspicions about consumerism are being powerfully reinforced by economic realities along with environmental concerns. But the rejection of materialism is finally rooted in a spiritual view of human nature. Pope John Paul II warned of making "people slaves of 'possession' and of immediate gratification, with no other horizon than the multiplication or continual replacement of the things already owned with others still better." A less material orientation in life (assuming basic material needs are met) actually expands our horizons -- like an escape from the dungeon of our own desires.

It has always been a quiet fear of capitalists that the success of free markets would eventually undermine the moral basis for free markets -- that decadent prosperity would dissolve values such as prudence and delayed gratification. "Capitalism," argued economist Joseph Schumpeter, "creates a critical frame of mind which, after having destroyed the moral authority of so many other institutions, in the end turns against its own."

But capitalism may be self-correcting in this area, as it is in many others. A recession causes suffering that can overwhelm hope. It can also lead to the rediscovery of virtues that make sustained prosperity possible -- and that add nonmaterial richness to our lives. Sometimes grace can arrive through an unexpected door.

A blogger, The Cunning Realist, commented on Gerson's piece in this way:
By citing Schumpeter, Gerson lets capitalists off a bit easy. While Schumpeter's "quiet fears" are more relevant than ever, there are important differences between the school he represents and today's breed of capitalists. Robert McTeer, then head of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, shared his quiet fear in 2001: "If we all join hands and go buy a new SUV, everything will be all right...Just go out and buy something -- maybe a Navigator." Richard Fisher, his successor, said in a television interview in 2005:

Where would the world be if Americans did not live out their proclivity to consume everything that looks good, feels good, sounds good, tastes good? We provide a service for the rest of the world. If we were running a current account surplus or trade surplus, what would happen to economic growth worldwide and what would be the economic consequences? So I think we are doing our duty there.

Does it sound like McTeer and Fisher worried that "decadent prosperity would dissolve values such as prudence and delayed gratification"? That top officials at the Fed represent today's breed of capitalists is an important issue in itself.

During the Bush years, I often wondered how many on the Religious Right understood the irony in supporting an administration that unabashedly promoted an almost demonic obsession with the material world (Bush: "Go shopping"). Gerson embraces the effects of natural downturns in the economic cycle: cultural renewal, thrift, family commitment, savings, morality, frugality, and prudence. It appears some -- and I don't mean Gerson necessarily -- are rediscovering the importance of those things, and justifiably objecting to Washington's extraordinary economic measures as symbols of opposite values. Strangely, that rediscovery seems to have started in early November.

There has been a debate among some, though muted at times, on whether capitalism was moral or immoral. Certainly, we have seen evidence of abuses by individuals within the economic system, but abuses do not really define the inherent morality of the system. What think you, good reader? Can a system based on the proposition of an individual getting as much wealth as she or he can and the elevation of unfettered consumption be moral? Can a system that is based on limiting how much wealth a person can accumulate be moral? What questions should you ask to determine the morality? What criteria do you use?

Gender and Religion

The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life features this graphic that illustrates the gender gap in religion. As you can see, women measure significantly higher in each of these categories.

I would suspect that any of you who attend a mainline Christian church have noticed that the Sunday morning worship crowd at your church consistently has more women than men. I would even speculate that the same is true in Evangelical churches.

With all of this, I am still astounded at how often church groups refuse to allow women to be in positions of leadership in the church. And, yes, I know the Biblical verses used to support such a prohibition, but I have serious questions about that entire process of interpretation.

What about your church? Could a woman serve as your minister? Could a woman be in a position of church leadership? If your church called a woman to serve in such capacities, would you stay?

Cult or Not

One of the most emotionally laden terms in the study of religion is "Cult." To speak of some group as a cult is to evoke images of brain-washing, manipulation, destructive and harmful behavior, and unquestioning obedience of the follower for the leader, among others. To speak of a group as a cult brings to mind Jim Jones and Guyana and David Koresh and Waco. To accuse a group of being a cult suggests that it is guilty of the worst that religious groups can do and that its teachings are no better than the ravings of a charlatan. That is why the designation "cult" is typically not used in the academic study of religion.

That brings us to the issue of what is a cult and what is not. On the website Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance are these quotes about defining a cult:
** "...one person's cult is another's religion; all religions begin life as cults. An alternative definition is that a cult is a religion which you happen to dislike." Anthony Campbell
** "Cult is a word without much use outside the realm of religious mudslinging." Philip Kennicott
** "When someone uses the word 'cult,' it usually says more about them than the group," J. Gordon Melton, founder and director of The Institute for the Study of American Religion.
** "It's easy to tell the difference - a cult is someone else's religion. Corollary: "A fanatic is someone who believes something more strongly than you do." Jim Heldberg
** "I have often thought that the difference between a cult and a religion is an IRS ruling." Ron Barrier

One of my areas of study for my Ph.D. was sociology of religion. Thus, I have long had an interest in studying religous groups, especially what are termed minority religious groups or new religious movements.

All of this is prelude to a news story out of the Akron Ohio Beacon Journal, which can be found at: http://www.ohio.com/news/top_stories/39276907.html. A woman, who happens to be Roman Catholic, is concerned that her 18 year old son has fallen into the clutches of a cult. The son is a member of the Xenos Christian Fellowship, evidently an evangelical Christian group whose focus is youth ministry.

The opening of the news story is telling:
On a Saturday night in November, as a small group gathered for a Bible study at a Fairchild Avenue church in Kent, a woman stood along the street waving a sign: ''I Want My Son Back.''
She brought her husband and daughter, too.
''Xenos is a Cult'' and ''Tom, Don't Drink the Kool-Aid,'' said some of their signs.
Annemarie Smith, 48, a Roman Catholic from Stow, believes her 18-year-old son, Thomas, has been taken by a cult.
She has launched a religious war that has engaged the Stow police, mayor, high school and a municipal judge. She started an Internet blog and is trying to rally others to the cause.
Online, she makes allegations of alcohol abuse, vandalism and brainwashing of young children. She calls the church leader and his family ''Devil man,'' ''Devil wife'' and ''Devil son.''
Her son, meanwhile, left home to live with church friends and has received an ultimatum from his parents: ''Us or the church.''
Xenos Christian Fellowship is her target.

So, do you think the Mother is right or her son? What would you do in the same circumstances?