St. Maximos' Hut

There is an excellent column in the 8/24 Financial Times by Frederik Segerfeldt on privatization and water markets. (The full text is available only to FT.com subscribers, unfortunately.) Segerfeldt is the author of a recent book on privatization and water, Water for Sale: How Businesses and the Market Can Resolve the World's Water Crisis (Cato Institute). (I have some other comments on this column over at The Commons.)

Of interest here in The Hut are two points Segerfeldt makes:

1) "The main argument of the anti-privatization movement is that privatization increases prices, making water unaffordable for millions of people. In some cases, it is true that prices have gone up after privatization; in others not. But the price of water for those already connected to a mains network should not be the immediate concern. Instead, we should focus on those who lack access to mains water, usually the poorest in poor countries. It is primarily those people who die, suffer from disease and are trapped in poverty."

This seems like a very strong case that a Christian concern for the poor mandate support for privatization - the immediate, direct beneficiaries of privatization are the "poorest in poor countries." There are certainly other ethical obligations imposed on Christians (to donate to charities that help the poor, to participate in such charitable works, etc.), but here we have a direct, simple measure that will improve the lives of the very poorest. Yet we don't often hear (in the mainstream media) about the ethical imperative to promote such policies even as we get bombarded with Live8 style pitches for government policies (debt relief) that primarily benefit governments (and some not very nice ones at that) rather than people.

2) Segerfeldt writes "There is another, less serious argument put forward by the anti-privatization movement. Since water is considered a human right and since we die if we do not drink, its distribution must be handled democratically; that is, remain in the hands of government and not be handed over to private, profit-seeking interests. Here we must allow for a degree of pragmatism. Access to food is also a human right. People also die if they do not eat. And in countries where food is produced and distributed 'democratically', there tends to be neither food nor democracy. No one can seriously argue that all food should be produced and distributed by governments."

When I read this passage, I was reminded of a radio show I heard many years ago, while driving across West Texas. One minister recounted how another minister had told him how God had answered his prayers and healed a headache the second minister had before a major sermon. The first minister commented on how arrogant the second minister was, to demand a miracle to cure his headache when God had already provided aspirin. Surely it is arrogant for us to pray for miracles to relieve drought and poverty when God has already handed us the means to do so - markets. Again, however, we rarely hear moral criticism of those who refuse the miracle of the market and insist that God (or someone) perform the far greater miracle of making economic planning work.

We should hear more of such moral criticism.

for the Library of Economics and Liberty. Here.

Worth a visit - full text, searchable, and loads of good stuff.

And if you want to buy classic economics (and other) texts, there is no better place than Liberty Fund - inexpensive, but oh-so-nice editions of everything from Adam Smith to James Buchanan.

One area of overlap in my personal mixing of economics and faith lies in how to think about theological questions. Friedrich Hayek writes quite persuasively in a number of his works, but especially in The Use of Knowledge in Society, on how markets take the various preferences and knowledge of many individuals and produce a decentralized outcome that is better than any individual could plan on her own. Something of an analogous process seems possible with theology. Let’s assume (I am an economist) that there are 3 ways of answering a theological question or economic question.

Method 1: I make it up. Sitting alone with my choice of reference texts (the Bible, Adam Smith, whatever), I read and allow my own mind to conjure an answer in reaction to the text.

Method 2: Someone else tells me the answer. I phone up an expert (bishop, priest, economist, whomever) and the expert reveals the correct answer.

Neither of these seems satisfactory as a methodology. Self-initiated revelation is unconstrained. Given human nature (fallen, self-interested), it seems like I will soon be developing a theology of self-gratification that isn’t going to deliver any actual spiritual benefit. If I am a church leader I soon create a situation ripe for abuse – special rules, extra money for me and my friends, penance for the rest of you. In the economic sphere, my role as planner (to the extent I can actually enforce my plan on others) leads to more or less the same thing (e.g. Soviet planning and the grand lives of the party elite).

Depending on another human to reveal the truth simply substitutes someone else’s preferences for mine. At least if I am philosopher-king, I am more likely to like the results than if you are.

So, we turn to Method 3: a decentralized, spontaneous order. In the economic sphere we get outcomes that accurately reflect the preferences, resources, and knowledge of all. The market for doctrine comes from relying on the church as a whole to check both the authorities (Method 2) and the individual (Method 1). As Clark Carlton wrote in The Faith: Understanding Orthodox Christianity (Salisbury, MA: Regina Orthodox Press 1997), p. 176, decisions made on doctrine are made (in Orthodoxy) “on the basis of neither abstract theories nor his own limited, individual experience, but upon the corporate experience of the Church.” My understanding of theological issues is more limited than my understanding of economics, but I believe that many churches can lay claim to something of a similar process, although the weight given to particular actors may be larger or smaller (e.g. the Pope’s role in Catholicism is larger; the individual’s role in many Protestant faiths is larger). (Of course, in theology we have the additional benefit that the Holy Spirit can guide the development of the doctrine. That doesn’t seem definitive, however, since humans end up interpreting the revealed truth and so generally mucking it up as they often do.)

Certainly one of the things about Orthodoxy that hit home with me was the parallels between Hayek’s view of spontaneous orders and the Orthodox view of theological “progress” in which it takes the collective experience of the Church to define the faith. (Surely Fr. M will chime in here and give a more nuanced description of the Orthodox process – I’m clearly working on the “fool” bit perhaps more than is optimal by venturing into theological waters this deep.)

As an urban and public finance economist who has spent his career estimating the impact of a variety of things on the value of houses, I couldn't resist the prospect of building a hut. As someone who attempts to undertake both scholarly work and actual work in urban redevelopment, I understand that occasionally huts must be burnt in order to improve the situation. The other thing that I take from the story of St. Maximos (aside from the word "kavsokalybites") is that he went away in solitude for a time before returning to share with others. This is a metaphor for the life of a scholar as well as for the life of a saint.

I used to be an economics professor, but my day job is now dean of academic affairs at York College of Pennsylvania. If you really want to know more about me, you can look here.

For me, the fundamental aspect of Christianity is humility. I think that economists have rediscovered humility, despite our reputation as social science imperialists. This humility comes in the recognition that people are truly individuals with their own goals, not homogeneous social units. In my area of study, I see a strong contrast between the work of urban planners and urban economists. Planners tend to view people as passive inhabitants of the built environment, while economists see them as active participants in shaping the environment. Because our understanding is limited (resources are scarce, or else we're not talking about economics), people will surprise us with what they choose to do. Planners find this to be evidence of the imperfection of the people; economists find this to be evidence of the imperfection of their analysis.

I was using "orthogonal" to suggest that economics and religion talk about very different subjects and to suggest that I see no contradiction between looking at the world as an economist and looking at the world as a Christian.

For example, economics suggests utility maximization as a goal. In economic terms, Christianity tells me how to define my utility function. Once I've done that, I don't see a contradiction between maximzing my utility and living according to my faith, for an essential feature of my faith is the belief that living life as a Christian is what I (and all mankind) was created to do. Can't maximize utility much more than that.

Of course, not everyone accepts the same faith - and even amongst ourselves here at St. Maximos' Hut we've got a wide range of Christian denominations with some fairly deep theological differences. Economics can't tell us anything about how to resolve those differences or the even deeper ones between Christians generally and those of other faiths. An economist can tell us something useful about which religious faiths might succeed in gaining "market share" through practices that improve their success at winning converts. (You can read some excellent work on that topic, collected by the Center for the Economic Study of Religion, here.) But that is a topic for another day/post.

So my claim of orthogonality merely was a claim that there was not a contradiction between being an economist and being a Christian.

I hear the happy sound of a hut being built! Let me fetch the burning pitch, some bells, incense and a cigar.

Fr. C., here. By way of introduction, I am a native Washingtonian, who traveled to the wilds of Indiana to study history and political theory at DePauw University in Indiana. I confess to being a recovering lawyer, having taken my degree at Georgetown in 1982. I practiced for many years in the areas of international trade, intellectual property and commercial litigation, when not serving as a Naval intelligence officer. (Yes, two of the three oldest professions.) Along the way, I did a stint as a trade negotiator in the Uruguay Round of the GATT, and as part of the NAFTA debacle. Among my bar memberships is that of the august state of West Virginia, where the admissions ceremony involved spitting clean across a boxcar.

After nearly 20 years of government and private practice, I found myself taking a variety of ecclesiastic cases, mostly in the area of property ownership, and studying canon law with the late Kenneth North at the Canon Law Institute in Washington, D.C. Following Ken's entry into the larger life, I was named executive director of CLI, and began to plague presumptuous prelates, bumptious bishops, and freaky friars on matters pertaining to morals, dogma and the ongoing battle of who owns what in the church.

As proof of God’s overarching Grace and incredible sense of humor, I found myself called into vocation as a traditional Anglican priest (emphatically not within the Episcopal Church) of the Anglo-catholic persuasion. Following a Masters in Theology at the Dominican House of Studies where my work centered on the theology of preaching, and a stint in various missions in Virginia, my archbishop sent me back here to D.C. to pastor the Parish of Christ the King. As well, I am the priest-in-charge of St. Athanasius Anglican Mission in Ashland, Virginia, a militant band of Christians who took the saint’s moniker as a matter of public witness to the faith once-delivered.

As to the economic (and not as aspects of the Trinity), I like to think of it being concurrent with the faith. I suppose I am a free-market catholic. In a great article, Prof. Tom Woods notes,

the normal operation of the market tends toward an increase in the laborer’s standard of living. So benevolent an institution is the market that no one’s gain has to come at the expense of anyone else. Everyone can gain simultaneously. That being the case, it is this approach that Catholics should take when seeking to increase people’s standard of living…

But Tom puts the whole thing better than I can in Morality and Economic Law: Toward a Reconciliation at http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods25.html

But, hey, here am I with a Jesuit law degree, and a Dominican religious training. Via media anyone?

That's good.

I should note that, like PJ, I am also associated with PERC. Unlike PJ, however, I provide a link!

Update: Link fixed.

And another member of the blog identifies himself. I am P.J. Hill, a member of the Business and Economics Department at Wheaton College, in Wheaton, Illinois. In case you aren't familiar with Wheaton, it is a Christian college that is Protestant and evangelical in its faith commitments.

I also am associated with a research center in Bozeman, Montana, PERC (Property and Environment Research Center) where I spend my summers.

My spiritual journey started (at the conscious level) when, as a senior in college, I decided the good news of Jesus Christ was true. Since then my wife and I have been members of numerous churches, all Protestant, as we have bounced around the country.

Now to the topic of the blog, the relationship between faith and economics. Andy, I'm not sure that I fully agree that our Christian faith and economics are orthogonal. I agree that economics tells me about how people make choices, and my faith defines a set of constraints on my choices. But my faith position also gives me much more information about the quality of choices than economics does, since economics assumes that each individual knows their own best interest. In other words, the discipline of economics provides no mechanism of evaluating choice other than utility maximization. But my belief in a transcendent God who has revealed himself in the person of Jesus Christ leads to a way of judging my (and others) choices. That doesn't mean I necessarily want to coercively impose what I think is God's evaluation of people's choices (surely the subject of future postings), but it does move me considerably beyond the economics answer to choices of "if it feels good do it."

Well, Andy has been out here in the blogosphere all by himself long enough. It is time to populate Our Little Forum, so, with some trepidation about speaking of myself before so august a group of worthies, I'll take the plunge.

The Rev Dr Michael E Butler is a native Texan (never ask a man if he is Texan; if he is, he'll tell you; if he isn't, there's no use embarrassing him), but he has been living in the Provinces for about 14 years now. He has been married to Annette for 20 years this last July, has two boys, Jeremy (15) & Christopher (11).

He has a BA in psychology (archetypal/imaginal & existential/phenomenological) & an MA in theology from the University of Dallas, & a PhD in church history & Patristics from Fordham University. He is an adjunct professor in the religion department of Baldwin-Wallace College in Berea, OH, & he is the Late Vocations Program Director for the Diocese of the Midwest, Orthodox Church in America.

He started out as Roman Catholic, discovered the Uniates/Byzantine Rite Catholics while in college, & made the final leap to the Orthodox Church in 1984, when he was 23 (don't bother to do the math; he is 44 now). A few years later he was ordained a Deacon, in which capacity he served for 6 1/2 years. He was ordained a Priest on Lazarus Saturday (the day before Palm Sunday) in 1995. He has served two parishes. The first was St Demetrius Church in Jackson, MI, & the second, his current parish of St Innocent, in Olmsted Falls, OH. He readily avers that St Innocent's is better than he deserves, & he is deeply grateful for that.

He has particular interests in men's spirituality & psychology, ritual (how it works, how it works well, & why), & is a sly dog when it comes to promoting Orthodoxy.

Currently, he is learning a little Choctaw (because he is part Choctaw Indian), & spends a little time drumming, playing a Native American cedar flute, & clawing at a classical guitar, thinking that this is music. He works out at a local gym & likes to delude himself that someday he will see his abs & have abs to see. When he isn't at home, the church or the gym, you will find him a fixture at a local Panera's Bakery with a cup of hazelnut coffee.

The second annual Male Bonding Party is in the planning stages at the moment. Last year we roasted a whole goat, sampled a variety of salsas & locally brewed beers, built a sizeable fire, smoked cigars (well, others did...) & even smoked a hookah. This year's MBP will honor St Maximos Kapsokalyvites with the burning of several toy huts, in addition, of course, to having a whole roasted carcass, fine salsas, beer, cigars & hookah-smoke.

That should be enough to shock, amuse or distress those who would be my peers. Take the plunge, boys, & let's get this thang off the ground.

May Paradise consume us

Fr.M.+

Economics is the science of choice under conditions of scarcity. Christianity (and many other religions) is (at least in part) about making choices too. Are they incompatible? I don't think so - perhaps orthogonal might be a better way to describe them. Economics tells me about how people, given human nature, make choices. Christianity tells me about human nature (fallen). The economist in me sees my religious views as a set of constraints I've adopted. I give up behavior that might prove immediately gratifying (eating a steak during Lent) in return for something more worthwhile (spiritual discipline that improves my spiritual life, a reduced level of passions that enables me to focus on repentance, and so on). These two pieces of my life thus seem to fit together nicely, rather than being in conflict. But we'll see. In part, that's why we've assembled (and the others will be signing on soon, I hope).

An intriguing tale here.

Why St. Maximos?

St. Maximos Kavsokalybites lived on Mt. Athos in Greece in the 14th century. He "took up the ascesis of folly for Christ" and lived in simple huts on the mountain. He periodically burned these huts, fearing attachment to worldly possessions. You can read more about him here (scroll down).

As a fool for Christ, St. Maximos seemed a fitting patron for a site devoted, as this one is, to the intersection of faith and economics. Plus we get to use the term "kavsokalybites".

The others will introduce themselves shortly. Here's why I am here. I'm an economist and lawyer, who teaches at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. (You can read some of my work here.) I mostly teach business and property law (and sometimes on firearms regulation). My family attends St. Innocent Orthodox Church.

For the past few years, I've started doing small projects on different aspects of faith and economics. For example, I've done some book reviews for Books & Culture: A Christian Review. See here, here, and here. (Registration required, unfortunately).

This seemed like an interesting area to explore, and one where we might fill a market niche. So, here we are.