Theology of Money Interview

The interview for Danny, Helen, and Lindsey:

Danny: Okay, I'll get more specific in a minute, but overall, what did you think of the chapter? Could you understand Goodchild's point? If so, what was it?

Helen: Take it away.

Lindsey: You, like, actually wrote questions. That's very prepared.

Helen: Okay I thought that the article was overall interesting. That it was something I hadn't really thought of before, like, money through a theological lens, if you will. And I think his point, I think like you said, he was doing a thing where like went into extreme details about random stuff, and then was like, at the end of the section "Oh, so basically this is what that all means."

Lindsey: But he would also talk about like, Jesus believed 'this'. But 'this' has nothing to do with our timeframe now. Like, why are you telling us this?

Helen: I think the aim of his book was to like philosophically analyze a connection between money and wealth and religion and theology, and how they're intertwined.

Danny: Yeah, I mean, obviously I don't know how the rest of the book plays out, but the introduction at least was kind of an overall scope of: 'here's Jesus and his point of view on money, here's money and how it related to religion of the time, and then here's more shit that I'm going to talk about...' and I don't know, it got a little convoluted.

Lindsey: Well I can only imagine what the rest of the book is about. 'Cause, he went into so much detail in his introduction, like...it was very dense. I can understand what Professor Berry was talking about.

Danny: Yeah. Um, okay good. So, why do you think Goodchild included all the parts about the teachings of Jesus? He made it very clear later in the introduction that the theology of money is separate from a religion like Christianity, so why not just skip to and start with the section on the Bank of England, which I thought was more relevant to the rest of the chapter?

Helen: Um, I think it helped with the theology part of the essay. It was an interesting way to, I mean that was like the beginning, it was an interesting way to get people thinking about religion in relation to money and wealth. It isn't something that I would necessarily think about. So I think if he started with the Bank of England part, it would've been less...I wouldn't have thought much from a theological perspective.

Lindsey: Yeah, more like from a historical perspective.

Helen: Yeah, so I think that kind of got the reader thinking about religion. I mean it wasn't really necessary because then he explains, like, 'Oh well this doesn't really have anything to do about it,' but it allowed me to consider it. You know what I mean?

Danny: Yeah.

Lindsey: He was just very repetitive. I feel like he could've taken one page and really hit all the key points with Jesus, but he went on for like six pages, and I was like, "I know, you already discussed this." I couldn't even focus on what he was trying to say halfway through because he had already said it like six times, and I was like, "I understand what you're trying to say. Let's move on now."

Danny: Yeah. And I felt like that was a common theme the entire chapter. He just drolled on about certain things. About the economics of money, and the truth behind money, and the theology of money, and theology in general, and then in actually two sentences he goes, 'So here's what I'm saying.'

Helen: It was helpful in the end.

Danny: Yeah, right! I found myself very lost in the details, I don't know about you guys, and then he would sum it up and I'd be like, "Oh, there's your point! Like, I couldn't get there myself but you got there for me."

Helen: Hah, yeah, like, "Thanks, bud."

Lindsey: I mean, he had really good points. One of them that I thought was really cool was like, "The quest for wealth is one practical activity that unites the diverse people of the contemporary globalized world." Like, when you think about that, it's very true. But he could've made an entire section just about that, and people's search for money and their drive to become more financially stable . But he connected it to so many things that he made it, like, overwhelming.

Danny: You know maybe he goes into that later in the book, maybe he doesn't, because that's just not even what his book is about, but I agree with you. There were so many interesting points. I highlighted all the things that I thought were important, but there were certain things I also highlighted lines that I thought were really cool. Like, "The establishment of the Bank of England inaugurated the period when credit effectively functioned as money. Since metal coins had always been tokens of value, the creation of money as credit does not so much change as reveal the essence of money." That's pretty cool. That was at the beginning of the Bank of England section, and he then spends 200,000 pages discussing how the Bank of England was formed, how it propelled this and that, like Amsterdam and the other parts of Europe that adopted that thing, but that's cool! How this one institution literally changed how money is used.

Okay, so, there was a lot of talk about truth in the chapter: truth in relation to religion, truth in relation to money, and the definition of truth in general. Why do you think he discussed this so intently?

Helen: Well truth and honesty are a big part of religion, as well as it is, well, he kept talking about the truth of money and wealth. That's the only connection that I can see, because, like, with wealth there's usually greed associated with it, like when you're writing about it or talking about it. So the fact that he was really into the truth aspect connected it to the theology.

Lindsey: I mean, I think, just like...I didn't really understand initially where he was going with the truth, but I think, over the course of the 26 pages, he finally, somehow, made a point on truth. It was the fact that like, it's like a common understanding between theology and wealth, and that you have to be truthful, in essence, about what you're doing, saying.

Danny: Yeah. This is less a comment on the truth, but, it's in the same section, kind of related to it. He says on page 12, "Financial value is essentially a degree of hope, expectation, trust or credibility." I wrote in my margins, like, "That sounds strikingly similar to how we view faith." Like, hope, expectation, trust, and credibility.

Lindsey: You put your faith in money without even seeing like, where it goes.

Helen: That's a good point.

Danny: So I guess I thought the talk about truth was like, was just a very dense explanation of that. How people put their faith in money, why they have faith in general.

Lindsey: He never really came out and said 'People put their faith in money.'

Helen: It's probably something that's developed later in the chapters, but it's kind of like a blind faith thing. You put blind faith in religion and people put blind faith in money. It's just something people don't usually think about.

Danny: And like, all of that, everything in this chapter was very much like, 'Oh!' It's so hard to think about that. It's like, you have to write a book on it to understand why people don't think about it. Yeah, cool.

So, Goodchild gives the reader a long history lesson on the significance of the introduction of credited money in world that had never operated using such before, and the consequences/results therein. Do you think the history helped you understand the rest of Goodchild's explanations/arguments, why/why not?

Helen: Yeah, I think what he's writing about it our contemporary views on money, and how it works in modern day society. So, like, reading the historical aspect of it made me realize what it was like back then, and allows the reader to kind of understand what's going on right now and how it's different and why it's different. So I think it was necessary and I think it helped his argument.

Lindsey: I think it also establishes where our faith in money comes from. We put faith in credit, not necessarily hard currency, so I think to establish why we switched, not switched but expanded to hard currency and credit, you need to have a specific background for that. Which, I think he demonstrated fairly well. It was just very dense. And very historical for a theological book.

Danny: Yeah, and I'm not sure how historical the rest of the book is, but, basically, the Bank of England section starts on page seven, and on page eleven--and this is very dense writing, so, four pages doesn't sound like a lot--but on page eleven, is where I had my 'Aha!' moment. Like, "this is what he's talking about! This is why he's describing this historical context." Because, of course I found it interesting, I could see the relevance, but I was just like, "Okay, get there faster. Let's get this show on the road." But like, I wrote down my thoughts as I had this 'Aha!' moment, and I think what he was saying was: With the creation of credited money and the resulting effects on the economy (i.e. a happy dance between supply and demand), meant for society that economic activity and money in general was then more important than the previous dominating factor in life, religion. And he didn't go into how important that was, but he did say, "Capitalism, it's growth and globalization is explained by banking. Economic activity, formerly a limited segment of social life, came to predominate over all aspects of social life, including religion. And that's a big deal, I'm sure, in the seventeenth century, when religion was ever present in every aspect of life.

Okay, cool. On page 13, Goodchild says, "Since it is the condition for all social activity, the demands of sustaining the money system and wealth creation take priority over the demands for sustaining the environment, population, or religion." Do you agree with this statement in terms of today's society, why/why not?

Lindsey: Well, you can't do anything else without money.

Helen: Yeah, I agree. I mean, I think if our money system collapsed, our society would cave in, basically.

Lindsey: Which is also scary because we put most of our money on computers.

Helen: But I think if you're going to work on sustaining the environment, you need to buy things to do that, with money. So I think you're going to need to take care of, make sure the money system's working properly before anything else, because we use it before anything else.

Danny: I understand why money is so significant, I understand our society would probably cave in if our money system failed, but, why does that mean that the importance of the environment, population and religion can't be equal or just slightly less so?

Lindsey: Well, I guess you could argue that sustaining religion is more important that sustaining wealth, if you really wanted to, but I don't think you could argue for the other two. I mean, population is going to be a result of wealth. I mean, depending on how much money you have, it's how many kids you can support, and the future generations. Protecting the environment takes money, especially because of all the damage that's been done as a result of economic growth. To counteract that, you're gonna need money to fix the problem. I mean, religion isn't really tied to that, but I mean, churches use money. That's half the reason why Parishes are being shut down in big cities, because there's not enough money to fund the church, fund the clergy, that sort of thing. So, everything comes down to money.

Danny: Okay cool. Okay, last question. What was your opinion of Goodchild and the Theology of Money once you reached the end of the chapter? Did you agree with what he was saying? See merit in his argument? Did you care? How does this become significant in our day-to-day lives, other than a reflection on a way of life? Is it at all significant?

Helen: He definitely brought up interesting arguments and interesting facts I'd never thought of. I basically agreed with everything he was saying, and I think he did a good job presenting his argument. It was a little long, I think he could've condensed it a little bit. But I understand what he was saying. For me, it was just a reflection. Like, "Oh, I see that." Does it have an effect on my day-to-day life? Honestly, not really.

Lindsey: Yeah, I mean, I thought it was a very interesting topic, but I was thinking more in a sense of like how money is viewed by different religions. I mean, that's what I was thinking when I was reading it. Because, he only really used Christian theology as proof, or like evidence to support his claim, and I really wondered like, what would happen if he decided to use other religions to support his claim, or if he could support his claim with other religions. But I thought it was interesting. I thought the Church of England section was necessary, but unnecessarily long. And I feel like I would not want to, after reading that section, sit down and read the rest of the book, just because it was really dense.

Danny: I agree with Helen, I think it was very interesting, very relevant. It's probably something we should be aware of, I think he should give speeches on it, on his book--and that would be even a better way to relay the information than the book itself because it would be shorter--but like, I think that it's something people need to be aware of. I can see how it affects my everyday life, because it's a part of my everyday life, but I didn't care in the sense because I didn't see why he was telling me.

Helen: It wasn't like, he wasn't like, 'Oh, here's an issue. Here's what we need to do about it.' It was more just like, 'Here's a thing, do with it what you will.'

Danny: Okay, cool. Thanks guys.