I just read this great post by my longtime friend, who I will always refer to fondly as C-Carlson, for reasons that exceed the scope of this post.

In the spirit of full disclosure, C-Carlson and I have been friends for nearly 12 years now. There are a lot of things on which we agree. There are a lot of things on which we disagree. More often than not, we are closer to agreeing than disagreeing. However, in our disagreements, I often find it hard to disagree with the spirit C-Carlson’s arguments.

After reading this post, I think we disagree.

I hate to pick things apart line-by-line, but I feel that it’s the best way to handle this.

Let me first say that, politically speaking, I’m definitely to the right of C-Carlson. That’s not to say that I’m by any means a red-meat, right-wing nutjob. I feel I’m an equal opportunity critic and pride myself on being consistently contrarian. Let’s begin …

Our frenzied pace of production and consumption is radically altering the natural systems of the globe, more quickly and entirely than any natural event could ever do, or has ever done. In one generation we have destroyed far more than all of history could ever dream, or the future will have opportunity to do.

While I appreciate the spirit of this, I think it’s unnecessarily hyperbolic. While certainly mankind is doing things that have an effect on “nature”, to argue that human behavior is more doing so more quickly and entirely than “nature” itself, seems to discount millions of years of environmental phenomena, much of which has yet to be fully documented and those that have been seem to dwarf our current conditions. Ice ages and natural disasters like earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and floods that all occurred in the pre-industrial age quite clearly overshadow the fractional climate change or deforestation or pollution that we have experienced in the last 100 years or so.

At the same time, I think there needs to be a discussion about the idea of human beings as somehow being separate from “nature”, as if humans and their behavior are “unnatural” and all other events within “nature” are natural. But that’s a discussion for another time.

The earth’s limited resources are being consumed without consideration.

Again, compared to all of human history, the amount of consumption has certainly increased on an astronomical scale, with the growth in population and the advance of technology. However, the “limited” nature of resources is something that seems relative. We don’t know the full limitations of fossil fuels, for example. That’s probably not something that will ever be knowable until they are gone. At the same time, I’d argue that there is more consideration for this consumption than there ever has been … due in large part to the current political and economic climates, which we’ll talk about more in a minute.

There is poison in our plastics, our cleaning supplies, our hygiene and beauty products, in our umbilical cords and on our toys. We have surrounded ourselves with it and have not recognized it.

Again, I think we have recognized this, and increasingly so because of the advances in technology. And as we have recognized these dangers, we have made strides to minimize or overcome them. At the same time, though, it’s a bit naive to presume that these dangers and poisons did not (and do not) exist as part of “nature” or “the natural order”.

The crux of the argument seems to culminate with this,

Capitalism decides what diseases and cures will be researched, what wars will be fought or avoided.

Now, again, I can appreciate the spirit of what’s being argued here, but I think this lacks an appreciation for the scope of the indictment being made.

Wars have always been fought or avoided based on fear or greed. Regardless of what political system controlled the armies, leaders — capitalist, socialist, communist, or otherwise — have always waged war with motives that have not always been purely altruistic. Long before capitalism become the political system du jour, wars were being waged based on the same kind of fear and greed that often fuels capitalism, and that’s being optimistic. Without capitalism, wars were (and still are) waged based on much worse notions, like ethnic cleansing, for example. Increasingly, capitalism has forced states to perform a certain utilitarian calculus to weight the costs and benefits of such an enterprise. Such consideration is something relatively new to world history.

As far as diseases go, I’d argue that capitalism has been responsible for the treatment and cure of more diseases than any other political system in history. If not for the work of large drug companies, medical research firms, hospitals, and universities, the production and distribution of drugs and the access to healthcare for millions (if not billions) of people would be a dream.

I’m not going to serve as an apologist for the many ugly consequences of capitalism, because there’s no denying that capitalism has done a tremendous amount of harm to people around the world. However, comparatively speaking, it’s a vast improvement on communism in the Soviet Union or China during the latter half of the twentieth century, the fascim of Nazi Germany during the first half of the twentieth century, the socialism of Latin America in recent years, or the brutal dictatorships of post-colonial Africa.

The bottom line is that political systems are inherently broken and sinful institutions. That’s always been true. There are no perfect political or economic systems. There are some that are better than others, and typically, systems that distribute power among the people and provide natural incentives and penalties to achieving outcomes tend to be better in just about every metric conceivable.

But if we’re looking for a system that doesn’t, at some point and in some way, cause evil things to happen, then we’re in for a long and fruitless search. It doesn’t exist.

We are spiritually empty, seeking individual fulfillment over sacrifice, community welfare, wisdom, peace, patience, and delayed gratification. Our social systems contribute to poverty, discrimination, loneliness, addiction.

I would contend that all of these vices — self-fulfillment, discrimination, addiction, poverty, etc. — are not natural outgrowths of capitalism. They are a natural result of sinful human beings and institutions at work in the world.

Our task as followers of Christ are to be at work in any and all political systems to, at least, reform, and at best, redeem those systems in such a way to accomplish the ends that Christ desires to see established.

From my perspective, the best opportunity we have to do that in recent human history has come at a time when free market capitalism is providing the capital, the markets, and the liberty to be about the redemptive tasks that Christ has called us to.

I think there’s a certain amount of fundamentalist-style separatism at work if we are to say, “We should not participate in the capitalist system because of the evil that it perpetuates.” Rather, I’d contend that we ought to look at capitalism as an opportunity to utilize the market forces and mechanics in such a way as to enable, empower, and encourage our brothers and sisters to fulfill Christ’s purposes in the world. I think we are starting to see that in some circles.

Yet we are creating sickness, creating hunger, advancing poverty. Perhaps not directly - I have refused my table, my compassion, to no one I met today. But indirectly, certainly, as we produce and consume.

From my perspective, the only opportunity we ever have to cure disease, stop hunger, or alleviate poverty is on what might be called the “micro” level. When Jesus was asked by an expert of the law “Who is my neighbor?”, he responded with the parable of the good Samaritan. Jesus answers that being neighbors means showing mercy to those people that you come into contact with that need compassion.

I don’t think that this lesson excuses us from our responsibility to think on a “macro” level about our world. But I do think its an exhortation to understand our task on a practical level. In some ways, I think that Luke 10 is the natural response to Paul’s letter to the Ephesians where he talks about our struggle not being against flesh and blood, but against, “the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” I think we often set our sights on the flesh and blood of our world and don’t acknowledge the powers and principalities at work in the spiritual realm that directly infect our institutions here on earth.

Christ has equipped us with the full armor of God to combat these powers, so rather than attacking the institutions, I’d suggest that we instead “do battle” with the “casualties” of this struggle. Satan, sin, and the evil forces in the world have already been defeated and bound through Christ’s redemptive work. We are now to be about th business of healing, redeeming, and equipping.

You know I appreciate your heart and spirit, C-Carlson. I look forward to hearing more from you. It feels like the good, old days.