User talk:Pseudo-Richard/Economic history of Christianity
General comments:
Interesting topic. I did not know anything about it as of yesterday, so please view my comments as a newcomer's view of the topic. I am writing this as I read through the article.
Overall, the writing style, presentation etc. is pretty high quality, so no need to discuss that.
1. Starting out with modern US views on prosperity seemed very strange, given that they are a very, very recent snapshot of history. I was surprised to see that.
2.The next change of gear to usury brings the history into view, but going from modern US to Henry VIII is a bit too fast backwards.
3. If Anselm was the first of the scholastics then he should be mentioned a little more upfront and the Aquinas quote was interesting. I had no idea about that, so that type of info makes me find the article informative and interesting.
4. If Calvinism really set up capitalism that would also be news to me, but I have no idea how one would prove that beyond a vague conjecture. So again, interesting material, but needs expansion. But I did read somewhere that Calvin slowed down the jewelry business in central Europe. So maybe you should mention that.
5. I found slavery section a somewhat unexpected gear shift. I was just getting interested on Calvin and how that may have lead to the Wealth of nations when there was that turn in the topic.And slavery and serfdom should probably be closer together. The article on Christianity and slavery seems like such a hot debate that this issue will probably be controversial too.
6. Colonialism is a big topic, and given that it has its own article it probably needs less space here.
7. Social justice is a topic in itself, and although it may well interact with the rest it seems to be underdeveloped here compared to colonialism. But a topic worth developing, specially since usuary is mentioned above.
8. I was surprised that the name "Francis" is not even mentioned. The vows of poverty etc.probably need to be mentioned, if you mentioned Anselm etc.
9. There are a few really sweeping statements such as "Christian rationality is the primary driver behind the success of capitalism and the Rise of the West". I am not sure how one proves that beyond conjecture. I would point out that far out people such as Shintarō Ishihara used to say that the Japanese succeeded because of their belief structure etc. I had not followed that issue for a long time, but based on this article I clicked on that page and now he says that the recent earthquake was "'punishment from heaven" because Japanese have become greedy. So all kinds of people say all kinds of things and as a reader I would like more justification about sweeping statements.
And given that the article started out with modern US views, I was surprised the modern Catholic Church issues have not been discussed. I think many people have asked how all this talk of charity fits in the paradigm of the Vatican Bank, how God's banker ended up hanging from a bridge, etc. So the issue of "money and the Church" may need a mention.
Overall I think there are a few separate issues:
A. The theological issues and attitudes such as Matthew 10:8: "freely ye received, freely give." Then the follow up on Anselm, Aquinas, Francis, etc.
B. The social issues, social teachings etc. These were indirectly affected by the theology and the attitudes therefrom.
C. Slavery, etc. and how some Christians managed to "look the other way" when necessary. It should probably be mentioned that when convenient, they still look the other way today.
D. The impact of Christianity on economic development. This is a serious academic topic, and pretty controversial, but it needs development. One long paragraph is too little I think.
E. Modern issues: E.g. preachers who say God wants you to be rich, etc. some mention of Church finances, etc. I think an estimate of how much the televangelists rake in would be interesting. Does it exceed iPad sales? It seems to be an industry by itself.
I do not think that changing the title to "Christian theology" would fit the material here. That should probably be a separate sub article in which the views of the theologians are discussed.
Overall, I found this a very interesting and thought provoking article. It will be controversial for sure, but that is the nature of the topic. So pretty nice, but a big topic that needs work. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 08:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)