Capitalism does not replace Christianity

Perhaps I have already said enough here that socialism should not be encouraged, as it is theoretically proven - Dostoevsky already treated socialists as inconsequential children before they took power - as well as in their full practice - the list of examples goes by. of dozens of national tragedies - that it does not help people take responsibility for their actions. Centralizing power, decisions, and agency in one place will cause all who have significant differences of thought to join in on failure.

Christians assimilate this assertion well, since, distrustful of our own strengths, we devote our whole lives to God, so that He may be our agency. Our actions should be guided by what Christ would do in a given situation. There is no way of saying that Christ was in favor, for example, of the government in its decisions, for it was crucified institutionally by him, nor of its nonexistence, for it was also not favorable to tax evasion.

That said, the fight here concerns another extreme, which, in short, arises from the same lazy feeling of not having to worry about: capitalism is such a great blessing that it leaves us free from any attitude, thought or agency. with the next one. If capitalism is the best that has worked so far, it does not mean that it is perfect, or a direct product of Christianity. This is a lie. In addition, it helped to reduce extreme poverty to the extent that it served as a tool for disguised dictatorships to be potentiated (internally communist China only grows thanks to capitalism). There is no denying that capitalism is beneficial over other means, but we must not say that it is a perfect system, sometimes idolized as much as Christianity itself.

Capitalism may be the solution to a country's economy, not a substitute for Christianity.

Jesus multiplied the loaves and fish at a time when people were hungry. Obviously he knew that not only bread will live man, but at that moment they needed to eat, regardless of whether they deserved theologically or not. Not only did Jesus multiply the loaves he initially took - he left 7 baskets of just 7 loaves of bread - but he gave what was his, the fruit of the miracle. If He, the owner of all wealth, has donated a simple portion, what's the harm in that? Some Christians can notice.

Some people, unlike those who were just hungry, cannot work, either because of physical or intellectual disability (such as blind Bartimaeus of Mark 10). When we say that the government has to take care of them, there is a danger: our hearts will always tend to want to support more and more people, not only those who really need help, but also those who just need opportunities to grow. It is not the government's job, in my view, as it would only make it grow in this idea of ​​'social welfare'. So whose charity is it? Obviously to Christians, whether they are currently doing it or not.

C. S. Lewis has a funny quote about giving someone money:

 "Another thing that pisses me off is when people say, 'Why did you give that man money? It's very likely that he'll spend it all on drink.' My answer is, 'But if I kept it, maybe I would spend it. drinking. " (Letters to an American lady)

Indeed, the mere fact of giving alms is not a bad sight in the Bible: "In Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha, who in Greek is Dorcas, who was engaged in doing good works and giving alms." (Acts 9:36) We are often hypocrites on this subject. And again: the invisible hand of the market only works in the economy, it is not the Holy Spirit itself. We are the agents, though it is from God that good comes: "For every house is built by one man, but he that built all things is God" (Hebrews 3: 4). Moreover, this demonic extreme can make a person foolish to the point of making his wealth a greater treasure than salvation as in Mark 10: 21-22: "And Jesus looking upon him, loved him, and said unto him, go your way, sell all that you have, and give it to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me: but he grieved at that which was spoken. , went away afflicted; for he had great possessions. " Obviously, the problem with the rich young man was not wealth itself, but the difficulty of disposing of it.

The greatest benefit of capitalism, and perhaps where it arose from during the Protestant Reformation, is freedom. Without it, we cannot choose what to do, we cannot demand that things improve, and above all, we will not know that it is man, not God, responsible for the chaos of this world. Freedom is our guarantee that when we see someone who has the ability and the tools to grow, and has not taken advantage, we need not say that it is society's fault when the government fails. However, it serves not only to blame us for evil, but also to do good. I do not believe that charity is a bad virtue. Capitalism is not the solution to our moral problems, but Christ is.

In other words, we are free, which means that we should not judge those who do not do charities, so that we do not see such a practice as vanity, nor demonize this attitude, otherwise we will leave the essence of Christianity in the books of theology.


Original in: https://www.paulomatheus.com/2019/08/o-capitalismo-nao-substitui-o.html