What would Jesus drive? What would Jesus buy?

Over at the Touchstone Magazine blog, Mere Comments, there was a post (“Blood, Gore, and Global Warming”) back in early July on Russell Moore’s thoughts on the environment that were published in the Baptist Press. Moore’s basic point is that both sides in the environmental debate need to cool the ideological religious rhetoric—you know, the kind that says, “God is on my side, not yours!” The author of the post at Mere Comments goes on to say that “[m]y family and I make disparaging remarks when we pass SUVs in the very yuppie town near us, but still, I'm not sure I'd want to invoke Jesus' authority for my dislike of the things.”

Things become much more interesting in the comments. Touchstone is a rather conservative magazine, and I suspect the readers of the blog tend to be of the conservative, patriotic, and wealthy variety. There are many, many comments saying that global warming is a total fallacy, a conspiracy devised by (insert name here) in order to (insert evil anti-American plot here). If you want to be reminded of how ignorant some people are, feel free to read these comments at your own risk. In any case, two of the comments, I felt, were worth discussing. I have not made any grammatical or spelling corrections; they are printed as they appear in the blog:

... If a person wants it, and can afford it, he can have it. ... I can think of a number of reasons why a person might want a HMMWV. First, they look really cool--although the military ones (which are considerably larger than any of the civil versions) are waaat cooler. Second, they can go anywhere (though I don't actually know anyone who takes his off-road). Third, they can haul a ton (actually, several tons). Fourth, they need to compensate for an under-developed masculine organ (or in the case of female HMMWV drivers--the majority in this area--to compensate for its total absence). Finally, consider that a person might want one because he can afford it and desires it.

... As for SUVs: I think like or dislike of them is on the same moral level as like or dislike for mustard on your french fries. Is there any excuse for making judgments about what size car/house/yard/sterio/food processor/etc. a person "needs"? All any of us need is air to breath, food and water to stay alive and freedom to worship God. Everything after that is luxury and none of us have the right or authority to say what is an Acceptable level of luxury. Leave that to betyween each man and his Lord.

These comments once again raise the topic of consumerism in America today. The assumption is that if a person wants something—and has the material means to purchase it—then that person is perfectly free to buy that object. In other words, the only consideration is whether a person has enough money to ensure that he or she does not go into debt. Hence, the consumeristic axiom in the first of these two comments: “If a person wants it, and can afford it, he can have it.” Similarly, the second comment argues that buying a car (or any other object) has no moral or ethical implications whatsoever; it is as significant as deciding what condiment to use in a meal. Moreover, the author of this comment seems to think that financial responsibility belongs to the individual: “Leave that to betyween [sic] each man and his Lord.” Individual Christians are, according to this view, not accountable to the community of believers in terms of how they spend their money. This is a decidedly modern, Western view of the human self: one that is voluntaristic, individualistic, and private. Evangelicals think that a person is accountable sexually, so why not financially? Is it really less sinful to satisfy material urges than to satisfy sexual urges? I, for one, disagree.

At the very least, these comments demonstrate how prevalent these disturbingly anti-Christian views are in the Christian church today. This is an issue, a crisis, in which each and every pastor—regardless of one’s denomination or ecclesial tradition—must decide where he or she stands. Complacency on this topic will destroy the church—and in many ways already has. Jesus spoke more about money than about any other topic in his earthly ministry. It is our responsibility, then, to ensure that we take up our crosses and follow Christ in terms of our financial stewardship—and that does not just mean giving a little to our local church and paying our taxes.

In conclusion, this issue goes far beyond the environment, though this is still very important. But the problem of global warming raises a more primal concern: financial ethics. How should followers of Christ spend their money? What does “costly discipleship” look like in terms of how we spend money? What should we drive? Where should we live? What should we buy? I steadfastly refuse to succumb to the modern worship of the Individual, which says that such questions are not the responsibility of the local Christian community. They are. And while we fail on a daily basis to follow Christ, we should not baptize our failure to live in accordance with Christ’s call just because it is difficult or out of sync with modern culture.

NB: I have started a new poll called “What would Jesus drive?” It is meant to be humorous, but that does not mean there is anything humorous about the crisis of consumerism in the church today. But I do want to have a sense of humor. I think Jesus would appreciate that.