Materialism

This has many meanings. In the philosophical sense it means the system of thought that says there is nothing but the material world. Even thoughts and emotions are nothing more than chemical interactions in response to environmental stimuli or survival mechanisms. There are many flaws in this system, but I don't want to go over them here. C.S. Lewis does a great job of discussing materialism in this sense, since it was popular in his day.

Most people think of materialism in the economic sense. It involves placing a value on material objects and is closely related to consumerism. This is the type of materialsim I am thinking about.

We live in a material-rich age. Things are the order of the day. We mass-produce, we consume. It drives our way of life. In fact, it started as an idea to relieve suffering. Through most of human history, people made necessary and long-lasting items. Because production was difficult, only the very rich could afford luxuries of possessions so you wanted items to last a lifetime. But in the Industrial Revolution machines and processes were making production more efficient. There was no longer a need for so many workers to produce things. The unhappy result was that people couldn't make a living. Whole trades disappeared and people talked of the surplus population. Then the Reformers like Charles Dickens came along and decried this view of humans as a commodity. Decision makers realized that it was better to employ these people rather than let them freeload on charity. They could be put to work making things in factories, but people would only buy so many things. So to increase demand they started advertising. Even this could only go so far, so they changed styles and the rotating fashions were begun. You couldn't possibly wear last year's items this year! Even that wasn't enough, so they consciously started making items break easier. Planned obsolescence. This worked very well. People enjoyed new propsperity from the market economy. That meant they could buy more and live more like the rich. Mass-production made it easy to give people things that only the rich could afford previously. The latest step in this scheme is the continual service contract. Not only do people create products and then create the demand for them, but they make them so they don't work unless you pay monthly. Electricity, TV, cell phones, satelite radio, etc. This way you can never finish paying for it, so you have to keep working to support the economy that makes the things that you didn't need until they sold it to you. The system is growth based and finite.

But apart from the economic aspects, materialism has an effect on the soul. All the great sages teach that we should live at peace, taking what we need and giving to those who don't have enough. A focus on possessions begins to weigh on us. It places cares on us that we were not meant to carry. The possessions own us as we spend more and more time taking care of things. The old backpacking maxim applies well: the more you carry, the more you have to carry! In hiking, this means that more weight slows you down, so you have to take more for the journey. The same is true in life when we are bogged down in possessions. The pursuit of possessions is also harmful. We fritter ourselves away chasing whims and wants simply to have. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with things in themselves. They are intrinsically devoid of moral quality. It is their use and attachment that make them good or bad.

So the question is, how do we tell when materialism has gone too far? Like many things, this is something that each person must answer. Our stations in life are a factor. Obviously, I can't live like a Hindu farmer here in America. The cost of living is just plain too high. And a construction worker has less demands for things such as clothes than a public figure, for whom image is a part of the job. So, I take Richard Foster's advice and leave this to the individual to determine. But I think there are certain principles that Christians should use in making the decision.

First, do we need it? What is it's use and lifespan? Are there unrealized costs such as long term contracts, or maintenance issues that make the true cost higher? Does it benefit us in some real way, be that physical, social, or spiritual? And lastly, does owning it harm anyone else?

This last one, I think, bears more consideration. Here in America I see good charitable people who unknowingly or through self-deception, harm others with their lifestyle. Most of the times, it is becasue the effects of our choices are so distant that we don't see them. when we overconsume public resources simply becasue we can afford them, we unknowingly take them from those who can least afford them by using them up ourselves, or by driving the prices out of reach. Take water for instance. We all share the same pool, quite literally. It is finite and renewed only by the grace of God to send the rain. When we fritter away hundreds of dollars per month to use potable water on luxuries like unnaturally lush grass we not only use up what others may need for cooking and sanitation, but also drive up the cost as public utilities are forced to raise rates to cover new and more expensive sources of water. To the gainfully employed, this may seem like buying a fancier cut of meat becasue they have been blessed with the means to do so, but would any of us knowingly shove a seven year old away from the water fountain on a hot day? When that child's parents are making the choice between water bill or grocery bill, that is exactly what we're doing.

I once felt guilty for being able to afford better than this. I wanted to live a vow of poverty to ensure that I suffered rather than others. But now, I realize that it truly is a blessing to afford some comfort. I don't have to be so ascetic. However, if the prepaid cell phone meets my needs and frees up money so I can buy a child from slavery through Samaritan's Purse, or even buy someone lunch at work, then I will make that choice, by God. In this light, to buy the iphone is at best vanity and at worst leaving the 'least of these' cold and hungry.