An Example Of My Frustration

Before I begin looking at E.F. Schumacher's Small is Beautiful, I thought I would share an example of what frustrates me about today's economic analysis applied to non-traditional fields.

A number of years ago I picked up a copy of the book, The Economics of Life, by Gary Becker and his wife Guity.  For those not familiar with Professor Becker, he won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1992 and is known for his penchant for applying the theories of market behavior and economic incentives to traditionally non-economic daily life events.

All of this made me eager to pick up the book.  One of the first essays in the book is about religion, where Prof. Becker provocatively argues that having many denominations and sects having to compete for members makes religious groups better.  He writes:

   "In a competitive environment, born-again Christians, Orthodox Jews, fundamentalist Moslems, and other groups attract members only if they meet spiritual and moral needs better than mainline religions.  Most people believe individuals have the power to determine their lifestyles even when they grow up under difficult circumstances.  They expect religious preaching to reaffirm their need to take responsibility for their behavior.  With mainline religions failing to stress the need for people to exercise self-control and responsibility, they are losing members to fundamentalist groups with more traditional teachings.  ....  Different denominations and sects compete for members through spiritual guidance and other appeals.  Competition is good for religion, as it is for ordinary commodities, because religious groups are forced to learn how better to satisfy members' needs than they do when they have a monopoly position."

Prof. Becker's critique is strongest when centered on state-sponsored religion, arguing essentially that a religion whose position in society is guaranteed by law and that is not dependent for funding on the people that belong to it will be less motivated to focus on the needs of those people than when that religion must compete with others for members and money.  For support, Prof. Becker compares "religiosity" in Sweden (where the Lutheran church has a privileged position and religiosity is low) to the United States (with its "open market" approach to religion and "high" religiosity).  Similarly, Prof. Becker argues that the growth of protestant sects in South America demonstrates deficiencies in how the Catholic Church in those countries have been addressing the needs of its people.

Now there are positive things to be said about Prof. Becker's thesis.  And one can find similar insights within religion itself.  For example, Christ tells us (Matthew 6:24) that "no one can serve two masters. He will either hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other."  Certainly, where a church is being funded by a government it might, consciously or unconsciously, shape its message to fit the government's needs.  And one of the lessons of Christ's method when He was on earth is to deal with people where they are, which by its nature means being attentive to their needs, spiritual or otherwise, at the given time.

But what is frustrating about Prof. Becker's piece is that it feels like it was written without a recognition of what makes religion different than the rest of consumer culture.  For while religion is about meeting man's needs -- his deepest needs -- religion (or at least the Christian religion) doesn't leave the definition of what those needs are or how they should be met up to man himself.  Thus, while an "open market" for religion may be better than state control, it isn't clear that the "open market" (and the consumerist culture it promotes) is ultimately good for religion.   After all, any serious student of religion can recite the troubling trends being seen in the Western world, despite relatively high levels of religious freedom:  declining church attendance; declining religious vocations; and diminishing support for traditional doctrines that stand in conflict with current cultural mores.  Ask someone why they left one church and joined another and you might be surprised by the answer they give.  Although some may indicate it was due to a sincere desire to follow the Truth wherever it leads them, I suspect most would give far more worldly answers:  music wasn't to their liking; better daycare programs at the new church; maybe a point of doctrine, but often because what was being preached wasn't to the individual's personal liking.  So while there is merit to Prof. Becker's thesis, a strong case could be made that market-style competition can also be very detrimental to serious religious belief. 

Not knowing Prof. Becker I cannot comment on why those aspects do not appear in his piece at all.  But I suspect it has something to do with the fact that he is ultimately an economist, and not a student of religion.  And that is what I find most frustrating about economic reasoning being applied to non-traditional fields.  Particularly, given that economic analysis (despite what economists will argue) implicitly applies a specific value system to its analysis of problems and the solutions it suggests.

Comments

[David]

I like what you say: Christianity "doesn't leave the definition of what [man's deepest] needs are or how they should be met up to man himself." That is true. But doesn't the Church rely on man freely assenting to this? And, for better or worse, doesn't this assume a "free market of ideas" in which the Truth attracts strictly on the basis of being true? I am arguing that religion on the "open market" should present no fundamental stumbling block.

[JACK]

David,

First, I'm thrilled someone actually has read this blog! It's been so long since I have turned to it, maybe I will resume the original effort.

I don't disagree with what you said. As I said, the part of his argument saying the open market is better for religion than monopoly is, I think, true.

Instead, my criticism was more focused on what the passage seemed to suggest about the nature of religion itself. To be fair to Prof. Becker, this may not be what he intended to communicate, but there is a consumerist tone to the piece.

Yes, I would say that the Church makes a claim about what it is and means for one's life (and what one's life means), yet it does risk everything on man's freedom, inviting man to verify for himself through experience that the claim is in fact true and thus ultimately assent to it.

If that is what Prof. Becker intended to suggest, I don't have a disagreement.

But experience indicates for me that man often needs to be educated in awareness of who he is, what he desires and how he truly interacts with reality. Quite often we substitute schemas, and reductions and images. So whereas I use the term "man's deepest needs" to mean what truly man wants when you get to the core, the truth of him, as he is made. But we know that, culturally, many of us use "needs" and "desires" to refer to something less, something more surface, even if maybe still a good. Something more like the schemas and images I mentioned above. And thus the notion of the "open market" being good for religion because it will motivate religion to adjust to meet those needs raises the question for me. If Prof. Becker means something more like the latter than the former with that, then it's just a far too consumeristic understanding of religion for me. One, frankly, that you do see played out in a lot of churches to bad effects.

Does that help?

[David]

Yes.
When I reread what he said I got the message that you "keep the customers satisfied" by preaching what they want to hear. And, by gosh, if its what they want to hear then it must be traditional!

Alex Vitus linked to your Integrity website which is how I got here.