A church can be seen as a membership association, where the members demand organizational accountability from their leaders, but the spiritual accountability of the clergy is to the wider collegiate.

I belong to two membership associations registered in the US. To my utter amazement I have over the years realized that there is no accountability whatsoever to members. The legal structures allow a cushioning that would not be allowed where I live.

I found the Atlantic Monthly article interesting, it pinpoints how difficult it is to change any statutes regulating governance.

Of course few megachurch leaders are Elmer Gantrys, but I suppose that they are incorporated in such a way that they probably are wide open for abuse and there is nothing congregation members can do.

Surely we should create systems that do not rely solely upon the morality of the CEO. European corporations also pay CEOs less, even where productivity and returns are higher. There’s something cultural going on, too, not just something about individuals. You can’t rule out the role of shareholder outcry, and “workers” are a defined group in most European countries. It is less so in America. The different laws also pay a part.

This is related to the issue I’ve been trying to get my head around in the American Evangelical Megachurch. The Strong Head Pastor model that it uses has no way of challenging a psychopath or psychopathic behavior in a head pastor. You need the right structure. For as much as EJ talked about this, he failed to understand how the structures he had did not limit the CEO very well. Mostly because shareholders don’t care about anything other than short-term gains, including if those will drive the company bankrupt.

I think this is related from this month’s Atlantic Monthly on “What the American Founders Got Wrong With the Executive”:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200901/founders-mistake

Capitalism doesn’t have to involve both parents working, or to value things above interaction and benevolence. The Dutch ancestors would be appalled by what currently passes as their conceptual progeny. But it is the logical conclusion of American capitalism today. As an American, I find it distressing.

There are several groups in America experimenting with different forms. Conservative Evangelicals are home-schooling (which has an odd history), and this requires one parent to be at home. Mormons are rarely two-income families, although the mother and wife is an economic force in creating food, managing a large household (several children) and producing various items in the house. These are not people who would ever say a bad word about Capitalism but would have strong things to say against materialism and technocracy. There are many others from a variety of points in the political and belief landscape. They are a minority, of course: the bulk of America is certainly as you describe, and I take it from your comment, Canada, too.

Capitalism is amoral, which I think is the problem. There is an interesting case that the Corporation, since it’s a “person” under law, is a psychopath. The structures need watching. Life is not just efficiency.

Sadly, your statement against current capitalism could be easily made, with little changes, against the Evangelical megachurch model.

(This comment originally got posted as written by someone else, oddly enough. So let me know if it’s just me or if you have this problem with your comments.)

The economic influences and the attributes that define capitalism often occur in conflict with nurturing well adjusted children and functional families. The dream of capitalism requires that both parents work, that children are raised predominantly by technology and that people are taught to value things as superior to productive and cooperative human interaction and benevolence.

What we have been experiencing with respect to the economic turmoil occuring on a global scale is the great leveling effect that indicates that the current model for a “free” democratic capitalist existence is unsustainable.

Politics has changed from a pastime for the rich to a job for the mediocre, where ensuring a steady income for themselves and their cronies appears to be more important than democracy and improving society. In what seems to be in an unholy alliance with media as they are unable to deliver the critical analysis that Warren does. No wonder that politicians and media are bundled together in the UK and labelled “the chattering classes”.