St. Maximos' Hut

to ProfessorBainbridge.com

Presumably at America's most (and least) religious colleges and universities. List and article here.

I suppose we didn't need experts to tell us this:

Experts say the college experience has a dramatic impact on student spirituality. An ongoing $1.9 million study at the University of California-Los Angeles has shown that most students have found few outlets on campus to foster their spiritual development.

Excellent discussion on why many major novelists (and others) find atheism "useful" over at Mere Comments. Read the comments too for gems like this:

It's always seemed odd to me that people can profess not to believe in God while making clear, at the same time, a deep personal resentment of Him. I don't believe in Thor - I really, truly "disbelieve" in him - and consequently I cannot imagine being angry at him; I can't wax passionate about Thor's failure to slay the great world-encircling sea-serpent, not for a moment. Yet many who deny the existence of God AND of evil are very quick to launch into a diatribe condemning God for allowing evil, and declare their disbelief in Him in a tone seemingly calculated to try to hurt His feelings!

In the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom we pray "A Christian ending to our life, painless, blameless, peaceful; and a good defense before the dread Judgement Seat of Christ, let us ask of the Lord"

A friend's mother died this week, with just such an ending, surrounded by her family, with Fr. Michael in attendance, and, astoundingly given her weakened condition, with a surprisingly vigorous prayer just before she passed away. Her memorial service was last night, her funeral today. Fr. Michael sang the prayers at the memorial service in Greek (the family is Greek) - he has a beautiful voice and the sounds were just right.

Thanks to Andy for inviting me to join this very interesting conversation. A few words by way of introduction...

I’m a political scientist who works at the intersection of economics and politics. Most of my prior work has examined the way central bank independence and international capital mobility influence the ability of elected leaders to use macroeconomic policy for political purposes. I am currently working on two projects: on examines the link (or absence, thereof) between foreign aid and economic growth, the second examines what might called the industrial organization of religions “firms.” Specifically, I’d like to see if who “hires and fires” local pastors influences church growth.

I came to the University of Michigan a year ago after six years at NYU, one at Princeton as a post-doc, and three at Georgia Tech. I received my Ph.D. from Rutgers in 1993 (if memory serves me).

I was (in a somewhat rebellious way) a devout Catholic as a youth but spent most of my “adult” life as an agnostic. I put my faith in Christ while attending a Christian & Missionary Alliance Church in the greater Princeton area several years ago and have been attempting to balance an active ministry life and my academic career ever since. My wife Laurie and I were part of a small team of people that helped start a church in lower Manhattan (Mosaic Manhattan) and we now attend one of the fastest growing mega churches in the country (Northridge Church), where I play bass and guitar in the churches worship band. (Andy, I'll provide links to these places at some point, but it didn't work the first time I tried and I'll have to play with it when I have more time).

I'm doggedly post-denominational and don't feel comfortable under any category, but most of my colleagues think of me as an evangeligcal. I like C.S. Lewis' notion of a "Mere Christian" . I know Lewis was clearly not advocating people avoiding denominational commitments - to use his metaphor I'm happy out in the hallway.

I look forward to learning a lot from the impressive and diverse group of thinkers contributing to this discussion.

Our final (at least for now) new member is Prof. William Clark of the University of Michigan. He'll introduce himself shortly. For now, let me just be the first to welcome Bill, who, like Tom Bogart, is blessed with an amazing ability to communicate complex economic concepts with clarity. Bill has also been involved in forming at least one church and I hope he'll share some of that experience with us as well.

What if a law school includes mission-driven courses? Can a desire to have faculty rotate through such teaching assignments satisfy opponents of non-religion-neutral hiring that a faculty member's beliefs are relevant to the hiring decision?

An interesting discussion here.

Hat tip: Mirror of Justice.

Our discussion of whether there is a difference between "Christian economics" and regular economics reminded me of Timur Kuran's Islam and Mammon: The Economic Predicaments of Islamism.

There is something called "Islamic economics" and Prof. Kuran does a good job of dissecting and explaining it. The book, a collection of previously published essays, is a tad repetitive at times because each essay does some of the same background work, but very well written and clear.

PJ's post on the AEA sparked me to think about the proper role of associational freedom. (Juan Non-Volokh, the mysterious anonymous member of The Volokh Conspiracy, also has chimed in on PJ's point. and drawn a lot of comments.)

I think the difference between Wheaton's policy and the AEA policy is that Wheaton's primary purpose is a Christian education. Some of the JNV commentators asked how "Christian economics" differed from non-Christian economics. In so far as we're talking the direction of demand curves and so on, the answer would be not at all. But if we're talking about defining the institutional mission as promoting a Christian educational philosophy and ensuring that the faculty all buy in to it, support it, and are prepared to counsel students outside the classroom appropriately, then it seems to me that there is a large difference.

I teach at a secular, private school. I don't hide my faith (my office has icons, admittedly mixed in with folk religion artifacts from Guatemala and Mexico) but it would never occur to me to initiate a conversation about it with a student. That, presumably, is not what teaching at Wheaton is like (and perhaps PJ can enlighten us further - some Wheaton students, including a PJ fan, have comments on JNV's post).

The AEA, on the other hand, is engaging in a bit of mission creep when it expands its activities from economics to policing the content of job announcements. Moreover, the effect of the AEA's policy, if it were effective at deterring schools from requiring religious beliefs as a condition of employment, is to reduce the diversity of options available to students by making institutions more homogenous. The effect of Wheaton's criteria is to give a prospective economics student the choice of a Christian school or a secular one. (Some related thoughts are available in a recent working paper of mine on the issue of whether law schools constitute expressive associations independently from universities, available here.) That makes a difference in my view.

Update: There's more on this at Mirror of Justice.

Robert raises an important issue. Today's media accounts of rebuilding show that interest groups are already making claims on the disaster relief for projects that benefit only a few. For example, in "Can a Rebuilt New Orleans Retain its Unique Character?" in the WSJ (link requires subscription), we learn that "civic leaders, real-estate developers and government officials are quietly discussing plans to remake the Crescent City into something better than it was before the devastation."

Here's the laundry list:

With as much as $200 billion in federal aid possible for the region, much of it aimed at New Orleans, once pie-in-the-sky redevelopment plans suddenly appear possible. A light-rail system, new schools, a mile-long riverfront park, museums and other cultural facilities are just some of the ideas that hometown boosters have long promoted as elixirs for the neighborhoods that remained cut off economically and geographically from the city's tourist and convention-business goldmine.

If we end up taking money from taxpayers in the rest of the country to build a light rail system in New Orleans, we have surely gone beyond what even a Samaritan with tax power might have thought possible.

Politicians are quick to condemn those who price "gouge" after a disaster. How about some moral condemnation for those who rent seek?

Last week the news media flooded (no pun intended) us with stories about the horrible conditions in New Orleans. This week's flood is a torrent of promises by politicians to take other people's money and give it to the hurricane's victims. Federal government promises now total $60 billion -- about $30,000 per capita among the two million people in the storm zone.

A cornerstone of neoclassic economics is that there is an optimal amount of just about every good, service or activity. Are we surpassing the optimal amount in this case?

I'm especially wary that we are going about this in the wrong way. Human suffering needs to be eased, but are these promises likely to worsen things by rebuilding in a vulnerable place and letting people know that they don't need to take adequate precautions? Are coerced "contributions" from taxpayers beginning to crowd out voluntary charitable activity?

The Good Samaritan parable speaks to our duty to help the helpless. But the Good Samaritan paid for things out of his own pocket and gave his own time. He didn't tell the government to tax the priest and the Levite to force them to pay their fair share.

The Financial Times had a wonderful review of a new show of ancient Persian treasures to be displayed at the British Museum in the coming months. (Link here, requires subscription.) It sounds grand and I wish I was there to see it. But the review (in last weekend's edition) is troubling in one important regard, its view of "tolerance."

Headlined "Enlightened Empire," the review is a song of praise to the Persian Empire. Here's a typical quote

Evidence shows the Persian empire to have been a tolerant one. "Archives describe the worship of other gods and when kings travelled abroad they paid lip service to local gods. It was clear that local religions were allowed to flourish." [quoting the curator, John Curtis.]

Sounds grand, although the review takes an uncritical look at modern Iran, which is not quite as tolerant as the ancient Persians (that's not mentioned much). It isn't the only virtue, however, and defining tolerance as not claiming the truth is incompatible with Christianity.

Is tolerance measured by a religion's willingness to acknowledge other, perhaps logically incompatible ones as worthy of kingly worship (even if only "lip service")? This wasn't some precursor of the 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause, after all. The practice suggests, at least, that the recognition of "local gods" was possible because their status was not incompatible with the Persian gods. By this standard, however, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (and all other monotheistic religions) are "intolerant" since they do not recognize any other gods.

And what does the review's praise for Persian religion tell us is desirable in a religion? Tolerance, seemingly to the point of making no strong claims to the truth.

Tolerance is a virtue - no one should be forcing anyone else to worship in any particular manner. But tolerance shouldn't mean not proclaiming the truth.

Read more here.

God surely doesn't inflict natural disasters that indiscriminately harm the good and not-so-good alike if only because this isn't a push button world. I.e. God doesn't push a hurricane button to smite New Orleans. I think the Book of Job conclusively establishes that there is no 1:1 correspondence between our godliness and our reward on earth. There's stuff we just can't understand. But we do know that He is a good God who loves mankind.

Eugene is clear that he doesn't think Christians generally, or religious people generally, think this but that there are a bunch of people who call themselves Christian (or whatever) who do.

But the answer clearly is "no."

Wheaton College, where I am employed, is an explicitly Christian school, and requires a commitment of faith from all its employees. We are now hiring for a tenure track position in our Business and Economics Department. One of the normal places to advertise our opening would be in JOE, Job Openings for Economists, a listing sponsored by the American Economic Association (AEA). In fact, on the JOE web page one finds the following statement. "All members of the American Economic Association have a professional obligation to list their job openings in JOE."

However, later on the same web page they say "Listings that indicate discrimination on the basis of religion are not permitted even if the employer is eligible to discriminate on the basis of religion under Sec. 703(e) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." And Wheaton does fall in that category; we are legally allowed to impose religious standards as conditions of employment. Our job advertisement contains an explicit statement about our faith position and the requirement that employees adhere to that commitment.

So, we have an interesting problem. Several members of our department belong to the AEA. We would like to fulfill our professional obligations,and would also like to make known our job opening to as wide an audience as possible. But evidently the AEA regards colleges that require a religious commitment "beyond the pale" in terms of acceptable conditions of employment.

I would argue that private institutions, like Wheaton College,which wish to organize their educational mission around a particular world view (in our case the Christian faith) should have every right to do so. I find it interesting that the American Economics Association either believes such discrimination immoral, or that it leads to the production of bad economics. I suspect it is the former. But I question whether it is wise to rule out commitments to eternal verities as an appropriate criteria for organizing one's life and one's association with others. We live in a world with numerous claims about what constitutes truth. A society that allows individuals and organizations to make particular truth claims and to organize themselves around such claims is a much healthier (and diverse) one than a society that rules out such claims as organizing principles. I would much prefer a world where private organizations could choose their belief structure and then be allowed to impose those on anyone who chose to join them.

Andy's comments on "price gouging" seem very reasonable to me.

If I understand correctly, price gouging occurs when a gas station gets its tank filled up at $2.00 per gallon on Monday and instead of charging its customers $2.20, which will cover its operating costs, it charges $3.00 on Tuesday because the wholesale price of gasoline has jumped by $0.80 from one day to the next. Suppose it continued to charge $2.20. In this case, customers would soon be lining up to get its gas, which sells for 80 cents less than its competitors' -- quickly emptying its tank. The big winners would be the lucky/savvy drivers who discovered the good deal. This sounds generous, but is it generosity to the right people? Do lucky/savvy people deserve generosity?

I find the public's fascination with gasoline pricing odd. This is one of the most competitive industries imaginable. Buyers have very good knowledge about prices -- which are posted prominently -- and there are several competitors within a stone's throw of each other on most commercial strips. Usually, the price per gallon differs by a few cents from station to station. (Although in the last week or so, I've noticed the variance in prices widening considerably, with differences reaching 10 or 15 cents a gallon.) Having a big, thirsty family, I often spend as much per week on milk as I do on gas. The price of milk varies from store to store by as much as a dollar per gallon. Time for an investigation?

Here in the Nation’s Capitol, gasoline prices reached skyward this holiday weekend. We might ponder the question of price-gouging and its theological implications. Indeed, a number of “traditional” Catholics are divided on this question, as if one of the more colorful and vitriolic articles entitled Opposing the Austrian Heresy (Angelus, January 2005) is indicative. (Lew Rockwell and The Mises Institute, beware!)

However, I'll avoid this hot potato in light of thoughts on the nearly empty streets this weekend here in D.C. and down Richmond, Virginia. As Labor Day sales have failed to inspire driving to the malls and trips have been curtailed, it may well be that there is a blessing, at least a spiritual blessing, at work. (Ephesians 1:3)

Reflecting on my part of the world, we actually know or interact with few of our neighbors. Hereabout, a high degree of mobility, even among our myriad “environmentally conscious” (at least from bumper sticker declarations) neighbors, folks are just too busy running from event to event to bother with social discourse, much less the kind of community activities that seemed to loom large in my formative years. One even has to make “play dates” among children and coordinate their social calendars to maintain any sort of extracurricular contact among children of non-driving age. (Of course, once they drive, they are given cars and run off in search of their own social engagements, wholesome or not.

It is the same with churches and parishes. For four centuries, the territorial parish was the backbone of the Catholic church. While the 1983 Code of Canon Law stresses the parish as community above organization (canon 515), it continues to favor the territorial structure as a practical and necessary value (canon 518). The Pastor has the obligation to provide sacramental and catechetical ministry to all the Christian faithful within his territory and to collaborate in the building up of a Christian community. The faithful living within the territory of the parish have their own obligations to build up the kingdom of God by participation in worship and the life of the parish and to support its work.

Yet, the neighborhood parish or congregation is increasingly a rarity, as folks head to the exurbs to find just the right worship setting to suit their lifestyle, aesthetic, networking or other basis for choice. Call it consumer faith, the market-driven church, or any label one cares to attach. A recent study by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) at Georgetown University indicated that about a quarter of Catholics regularly attend parishes outside of their neighborhoods.

While shortages in vocations and litigation-induced fiscal considerations also have contributed to the closure of neighborhood parishes, an attachment to a locus of Christian life has diminished with high mobility.
Both the notion of neighborhood church and actual contact among neighbors may benefit from a diminished inclination to bear the cost of non-essential driving.

For the faithful, it’s more than social: it’s deeper. Catholic thinkers have marveled at the vitality of neighborhood parishes. Thomas Merton and Dorothy Day said they were attracted to the Church through regular working people coming together in unity around the Eucharist in simple neighborhood churches.

This month’s Touchstone magazine contains a wonderful letter from an Orthodox Christian, who lives close by her parish in Alaska where any number of factors keep one in the neighborhood. She writes of the challenges attendant in living in a tightly-knit community, but of the great joys and benefits of this kind of Christian life.
As well, Peter Fuerhard has a fine piece on why he sticks with his neighborhood parish rather than “church shopping”. http://www.uscatholic.org/2003/11/sb0311.htm

Perhaps the gasoline market will reinvigorate the neighborhood church, and the neighborhoods themselves.

Steyn has posted a classic column on science and atheism, writtten on the occasion of the death of DNA co-discoverer Francis Crick. How can you not love a piece that begins: "Francis Crick is dead and gone. He has certainly not 'passed on' - and, if he has, he’ll be extremely annoyed about it."
It's here.

The looting & shooting at relief workers in New Orleans have made me think about what prompts people to not engage in such behavior all the time. There are 2 main reasons we don't loot our neighbors' homes while they go out to the store:

1) it's wrong and we know it.
2) we're afraid we'll get caught.

(There are probably more sophisticated taxonomies, but I think this captures most of it.)

Most of the time we can't distinguish whether someone is not looting because of #1 or #2. And most people would say they aren't looting because of #1, since that sounds better than telling our neighbors that we'll loot their properties if we think we can get away with it.

What the Katrina-looting has revealed is that there are in fact quite a few people for whom #2 was the reason (remember, we're not talking about taking water or baby formula, we're talking stealing TVs in a city without power) rather than #1.

Is this anything new? Or is has this always been the human condition? There is certainly more easily transportable valuable stuff now than there used to be, which might make the economic calculation to loot come out differently.

I think that things have changed, however. We've got lots of examples of comparatively "free of state-provided-law" situations throughout the American West in the 19th century. We don't observe many examples of theft then (or much violence generally). John Umbeck has an excellent book on this topic, A Theory of Property Rights. PJ's book (with Terry Anderson), The Not So Wild, Wild West also does a superb job of examining property rights institutions on the frontier. (And perhaps he'll chime in on this too.)

Perhaps what is different today is related to the decline of religion's role as enforcer of moral codes. In today's "cafeteria" faiths, people feel able to pick and choose what they wish to believe. We thus get results like opinion polls showing Catholic voters in favor of legal abortion. If I reject the teachings of the church (any church) on an important issue (i.e. one that the church has itself defined a postion as correct), aren't I defining myself as not a member of that church?

It seems to me that the spread of "cafeterianism" goes far beyond Catholic voters and abortion - it is rampant generally. It is only a short step from there to saying that the prohibition on stealing doesn't apply during emergencies.