The argument that "If everyone gave away all that they have there would be no one left to help anyone since everyone would be impoverished" is simply not correct. One's capability to help the poor is not a function of how much stuff you
have, but rather depends on your wealth generation potential. If Fred gives aways $ 100,000, he still wakes up the next morning, goes to work and gets paid as much as he would otherwise. Fred's generosity in no way reduces his future potential to do more good. Kudos for Fred.
ElJeffe said:
Trying to rationalize these as anything other than selfish indulgences is doomed to failure, because they are exactly that: selfish indulgences. The only reason you go out and buy a new television is because you value that television more than you value the good that could be done by giving that money to someone needy. Period.
Truer words were never spoken.
ElJeffe said:
Which isn't to say that greed is all bad. Greed is what drives the economy. It gives people jobs. It gives people the motivation to succeed, and that success, ultimately, helps everyone by creating a more lucrative economic environment in which we can all fare better, and also, it so happens, have the money to give more to charity. Greed is good. Capitalism is good. Materialism, to an extent, is good.
But let's not delude ourselves into thinking that HDTV is sitting on our shelf as our own little attempt to drive the economy and make everyone's life richer and fuller.
Since I initiated this thread many moons ago, I have given consideration to the "greed is good" argument. It seems hard to argue that desire for wealth and a comfortable life does not drive the economy and create wealth, which in turn can help the poor. Can the
seriously committed Christian, therefore, enjoy a lifestyle of more than the "bare necessities"?
Of course not.
If our mythical Fred wants to fulfill his responsibilities as a Christian, he can certainly be in the "wealth generation" business. He can and should provide goods and services that promote the creation of wealth in our world. What he cannot do, and still be true to Jesus, is to use his income to buy himself an HDTV. Why is this? After all, by purchasing that HDTV he is participating in the growth of the global economy. The $ 5000 he spends on the TV fuels the economy, possibly creating jobs for poor people.
The key question is not whether buying the HDTV supports the economy (an undeniably good thing - I agree that materialism is, to an extent, good). It is whether this is the
best way to use the $ 5000 in light of Christ's call to help the "least of these". While I cannot "prove" it, I think it is fairly clear that this is not the best choice. There must be thousands of things that are more likely to benefit the needy than spending the $$$ on a TV. Giving it directly to an aid agency, investing in companies that are working on medical technologies (e.g. AIDS drugs for Africans), giving it to a University scholarship fund for the needy, etc.
I am not promoting a frugal lifestyle for the pleasure of self-denial. I want an HDTV as much as the next guy. I just think that we delude ourselves if we think spending $5000 on an HDTV is the best way to help the sick and starving. I am not against Christians being involved in the creation of wealth. I think we should "make as much as we can, yet give as much as we can".
