My brother Jeff, who is a professor of finance, had the good fortune a few years back to have an astrophysicist take one of his MBA classes. Whenever this student expressed confusion over any part of the course's content, Jeff could shoot back, "Come on, this isn't rocket science!"
Sometimes I feel like saying the same thing to naysayers who complain that it is unrealistic to expect today's students (of whatever age) to comprehend, much less embrace, the classical and Christian heritage of our civilization. One gets the impression from these folks that any event that transpired before the 1960s is completely inaccessible to the fragile minds of today's youth. (Exceptions to this rule are the lessons that Germans are wicked because they killed Jews, and that Southerners are wicked because they owned slaves.)
Evidence to the contrary can be found in my house at the moment. My six-year-old son approached me the other day and said, "Daddy, I think I would rather live in Athens than Sparta." After I nearly choked in surprise, I asked him why he preferred Athens, and he said that voting on things would be fun, but that he didn't want to be a soldier.
What led to this impromptu discussion? It was simple: I gave him a solid, age-appropriate book (Susan Wise Bauer's Story of the World) to read, and let him take it at his own pace. He seems to be retaining the information; just yesterday, while he was trying to explain to his four-year-old brother why an hour is longer than a minute, I asked him who were the first people to divide an hour into sixty minutes, and he said without hesitation, "The Babylonians." I'm pretty sure he hadn't read that part of the book in weeks.
Essentially, my six-year-old is already more culturally literate than a great many high school and college students, all because of one book. He's bright, but I haven't seen any evidence that he's any sort of genius. You're going to have a hard time convincing me that my college students don't have the capacity to learn who won the Punic Wars or the differences between Romanticism and Realism.
This stuff isn't rocket science.
12 October 2009
01 October 2009
A Culture of Debt = A Non-Christian Culture
I have on my bookshelf at home a volume from the 1980s titled Usury: Destroyer of Nations. The author, a professing Christian, takes a very hard line against the taking of interest on any loan. He extends this analysis even to such things as income from the renting out of real estate or other durable goods. He bases his argument on various passages from the Old and New Testaments condemning the taking of interest on loans to "your brother who is in need" and commanding believers to "owe no man anything." Most of his attack on interest is directed toward lenders, but he makes it clear that he thinks borrowers are often at fault, too.
I do not dismiss this argument out of hand--I think we ignore the spirit, and even the letter, of Old Testament laws at our peril--but I am not convinced this position is correct. It appears fairly clear to me that the restrictions on lenders in these Biblical passages pertain to charity loans, and that commercial loans are not "on the table." If someone borrows money to finance a profit-making enterprise, it seems only just that the lender of that capital should share in those profits in the form of interest on the loan. So I do think there is a legitimate place for debt and interest, along with the things that go with it (such as banks) in a Christian society.
Still, the tenor of the Bible's statements about debt in general give the overriding impression that debt is never the optimal way to accomplish our goals. When we borrow, we are presuming upon the future in a way that James would probably frown upon. Thus, even in commercial situations, it is better to invest out of savings or the selling of equity when possible. When we borrow for consumption, except in emergencies for the bare necessities, we express a dissatisfaction with what God has allotted us in the present; we want to enjoy the fruits of tomorrow's labor today. And anyway, much debt-funded consumption is driven by the desire to fill the holes in people's lives that result from an alienation from God.
I could expand upon and support these ideas at length, but that would be boring. My point is that I'm pretty certain a predominantly Christian culture would be characterized by low levels of business debt and even lower levels of personal debt. Oh yes, and in my dream world there would be little or no government debt as well. In such an environment the financial crisis we had last year would literally have been impossible.
I applaud Dave Ramsey and other Christian counselors who teach debt elimination as a high priority in personal finance. It is a real shame that so many other forces in our culture combine to lure families, businesses, and the government into taking on more debts. Many people point fingers at corporations' aggressive advertising and the like, and we should certainly be outraged when products are fraudulently represented to potential customers.
A bigger problem, in my opinion, is our banking system's dangling of artificially cheap credit--thanks a lot, Ben Bernanke--in front of people. This practice stems from an even deeper misconception, widespread in academic and policy-making circles, about the nature of prosperity: the idea that we get wealthier by consuming more. This erroneous belief leads to endless efforts to "stimulate" the economy by encouraging higher spending funded by higher debt levels.
Exhibit A: the "Cash for Clunkers" program. What exactly was this program, praised to the skies by everyone from Nancy Pelosi to Larry Kudlow, all about? First, the federal government BORROWED billions of dollars (it was only supposed to be $1 billion at first, but like every other government program, it ended up costing several times that) to encourage people to trade in their old, paid-off cars and BORROW more money to finance the purchase of new cars. The old cars, most of which were in perfectly good working order, were then DESTROYED.
End result: a short-term bump in a few economic statistics in exchange for a higher national debt, higher monthly bills for low-income people who got lured into this deal, and higher prices across the board in the used-car market because so much supply was destroyed. That doesn't seem like a good deal to me.
OK, Christians--left, right, and center. Can we get on the same page here and agree that policies self-consciously designed to get American families to go deeper into debt are not consistent with the teachings of the Bible? If we really want to move our society in the right direction, we simply have to break free from the ideology that promotes this slavery.
I do not dismiss this argument out of hand--I think we ignore the spirit, and even the letter, of Old Testament laws at our peril--but I am not convinced this position is correct. It appears fairly clear to me that the restrictions on lenders in these Biblical passages pertain to charity loans, and that commercial loans are not "on the table." If someone borrows money to finance a profit-making enterprise, it seems only just that the lender of that capital should share in those profits in the form of interest on the loan. So I do think there is a legitimate place for debt and interest, along with the things that go with it (such as banks) in a Christian society.
Still, the tenor of the Bible's statements about debt in general give the overriding impression that debt is never the optimal way to accomplish our goals. When we borrow, we are presuming upon the future in a way that James would probably frown upon. Thus, even in commercial situations, it is better to invest out of savings or the selling of equity when possible. When we borrow for consumption, except in emergencies for the bare necessities, we express a dissatisfaction with what God has allotted us in the present; we want to enjoy the fruits of tomorrow's labor today. And anyway, much debt-funded consumption is driven by the desire to fill the holes in people's lives that result from an alienation from God.
I could expand upon and support these ideas at length, but that would be boring. My point is that I'm pretty certain a predominantly Christian culture would be characterized by low levels of business debt and even lower levels of personal debt. Oh yes, and in my dream world there would be little or no government debt as well. In such an environment the financial crisis we had last year would literally have been impossible.
I applaud Dave Ramsey and other Christian counselors who teach debt elimination as a high priority in personal finance. It is a real shame that so many other forces in our culture combine to lure families, businesses, and the government into taking on more debts. Many people point fingers at corporations' aggressive advertising and the like, and we should certainly be outraged when products are fraudulently represented to potential customers.
A bigger problem, in my opinion, is our banking system's dangling of artificially cheap credit--thanks a lot, Ben Bernanke--in front of people. This practice stems from an even deeper misconception, widespread in academic and policy-making circles, about the nature of prosperity: the idea that we get wealthier by consuming more. This erroneous belief leads to endless efforts to "stimulate" the economy by encouraging higher spending funded by higher debt levels.
Exhibit A: the "Cash for Clunkers" program. What exactly was this program, praised to the skies by everyone from Nancy Pelosi to Larry Kudlow, all about? First, the federal government BORROWED billions of dollars (it was only supposed to be $1 billion at first, but like every other government program, it ended up costing several times that) to encourage people to trade in their old, paid-off cars and BORROW more money to finance the purchase of new cars. The old cars, most of which were in perfectly good working order, were then DESTROYED.
End result: a short-term bump in a few economic statistics in exchange for a higher national debt, higher monthly bills for low-income people who got lured into this deal, and higher prices across the board in the used-car market because so much supply was destroyed. That doesn't seem like a good deal to me.
OK, Christians--left, right, and center. Can we get on the same page here and agree that policies self-consciously designed to get American families to go deeper into debt are not consistent with the teachings of the Bible? If we really want to move our society in the right direction, we simply have to break free from the ideology that promotes this slavery.
26 September 2009
What is the Relationship Between Religion and Culture?
I often tell students that they need to study the Western cultural tradition, among other reasons, because it displays more Christian influence than any other world culture. I doubt that anyone in a Faulkner University classroom would ever challenge that statement. However, students and/or faculty at other institutions might very well take exception to my assertion in multiple ways. Obviously, anyone who thinks Christianity and its influence aren't worth studying wouldn't consider their role in Western civilization a selling point.
Some people might also challenge my statement on a more fundamental level by arguing that the notion of Christianity (or any religion) influencing a culture is absurd. Religion, they may say, is a manifestation of culture, not the reverse. They might advance this position from a materialistic perspective, saying that the technological and economic level of development in a society determines any religious values the people might adopt. Or they could define "religion" narrowly as formal ritual and ceremony, and say that these "superficial" practices are only expressions of more deeply held values. I'm sure there other ways to attack my assertion that just aren't coming to mind right now.
I hold to the position that people's thoughts determine how they act, or as Richard Weaver famously stated, "Ideas have consequences." I furthermore believe that people's ideas are, as Ludwig von Mises says, "ultimate data." In other words, there is no scientific way to ascertain precisely how people come to believe what they believe. At some point in trying to determine causation in human affairs, all we can say is, "So-and-so had an idea." This is a tremendous problem for materialist philosophers and others who claim that Man is completely a product of his environment.
Culture is the sum total of the beliefs and actions of everyone in a given society. (Of course, culture is not monolithic. Within a society there can be various subcultures, but I am speaking in general terms.) When a large enough group of people believe in a certain religious idea, e.g. that the God who holds everyone's eternal destiny in His hand frowns upon murder, that belief will affect the culture in a concrete way, namely that fewer murders will occur than would have in the absence of such a widespread belief.
Therefore, Christian doctrines have the potential to make a huge impact on a culture. As Jesus said, "By their fruits [actions] ye shall know them [their beliefs]." The same is true of the beliefs of other religions and philosophies: Islam, Buddhism, communism, etc.
None of this is to deny that culture can influence people's religious beliefs and practices. Had I been born in a village in the hill country of Thailand, I would very likely be a Buddhist instead of a Christian. Culture and religious belief can reinforce each other in subtle ways.
For example, in a recent issue of Chronicles magazine, church historian Philip Jenkins noted the complex relationship between secularization and falling fertility rates worldwide, but especially in the West. Abandoning the Faith makes one less likely to have children because the long-term sacrifices involved in childrearing become less palatable in the absence of Biblical mandates concerning the building of God's Kingdom. But it is also true that not having children makes one less likely to remain in (or return to) the Church in middle age because the desire to give one's children a religious and ethical upbringing is a powerful incentive to be involved in a local congregation. Without that incentive, more people "backslide" than would have otherwise.
The upshot of all this is that Christians must seek to influence the culture while guarding against the likelihood that the culture will influence us in ways that are incompatible with our faith. Not all of these influences are as obvious as internet pornography; many are quite subtle and may pass unnoticed. In future posts I hope to point out some of these while proposing classical and Christian alternatives.
Some people might also challenge my statement on a more fundamental level by arguing that the notion of Christianity (or any religion) influencing a culture is absurd. Religion, they may say, is a manifestation of culture, not the reverse. They might advance this position from a materialistic perspective, saying that the technological and economic level of development in a society determines any religious values the people might adopt. Or they could define "religion" narrowly as formal ritual and ceremony, and say that these "superficial" practices are only expressions of more deeply held values. I'm sure there other ways to attack my assertion that just aren't coming to mind right now.
I hold to the position that people's thoughts determine how they act, or as Richard Weaver famously stated, "Ideas have consequences." I furthermore believe that people's ideas are, as Ludwig von Mises says, "ultimate data." In other words, there is no scientific way to ascertain precisely how people come to believe what they believe. At some point in trying to determine causation in human affairs, all we can say is, "So-and-so had an idea." This is a tremendous problem for materialist philosophers and others who claim that Man is completely a product of his environment.
Culture is the sum total of the beliefs and actions of everyone in a given society. (Of course, culture is not monolithic. Within a society there can be various subcultures, but I am speaking in general terms.) When a large enough group of people believe in a certain religious idea, e.g. that the God who holds everyone's eternal destiny in His hand frowns upon murder, that belief will affect the culture in a concrete way, namely that fewer murders will occur than would have in the absence of such a widespread belief.
Therefore, Christian doctrines have the potential to make a huge impact on a culture. As Jesus said, "By their fruits [actions] ye shall know them [their beliefs]." The same is true of the beliefs of other religions and philosophies: Islam, Buddhism, communism, etc.
None of this is to deny that culture can influence people's religious beliefs and practices. Had I been born in a village in the hill country of Thailand, I would very likely be a Buddhist instead of a Christian. Culture and religious belief can reinforce each other in subtle ways.
For example, in a recent issue of Chronicles magazine, church historian Philip Jenkins noted the complex relationship between secularization and falling fertility rates worldwide, but especially in the West. Abandoning the Faith makes one less likely to have children because the long-term sacrifices involved in childrearing become less palatable in the absence of Biblical mandates concerning the building of God's Kingdom. But it is also true that not having children makes one less likely to remain in (or return to) the Church in middle age because the desire to give one's children a religious and ethical upbringing is a powerful incentive to be involved in a local congregation. Without that incentive, more people "backslide" than would have otherwise.
The upshot of all this is that Christians must seek to influence the culture while guarding against the likelihood that the culture will influence us in ways that are incompatible with our faith. Not all of these influences are as obvious as internet pornography; many are quite subtle and may pass unnoticed. In future posts I hope to point out some of these while proposing classical and Christian alternatives.
24 September 2009
Quote of the Day
While reading aloud with my wife last night, I ran across this deliciously ironic passage from T. H. White's The Once and Future King:
"If it is difficult to explain about Guenever's love for two men at the same time, it is almost impossible to explain about Lancelot. At least it would be impossible nowadays [1940], when everybody is so free from superstitions and prejudice that it is only necessary for all of us to do as we please. Why did not Lancelot make love to Guenever, or run away with his hero's wife altogether, as any enlightened man would do today?
"One reason for his dilemma was that he was a Christian. The modern world is apt to forget that several people were Christians in the remote past, and in Lancelot's time there were no Protestants--except John Scotus Erigena. His Church, in which he had been brought up--and it is difficult to escape from your upbringing--directly forbade him to seduce his best friend's wife. Another stumbling block to doing as he pleased was the very idea of chivalry or of civilisation which Arthur had first invented and then introduced into his own young mind. . . . He believed as firmly as Arthur did, as firmly as the benighted Christian, that there was such a thing as Right."
To be honest, until I read this passage, I thought White's take on the Arthurian legends was too goofy to enjoy fully. I may need to reconsider that opinion.
"If it is difficult to explain about Guenever's love for two men at the same time, it is almost impossible to explain about Lancelot. At least it would be impossible nowadays [1940], when everybody is so free from superstitions and prejudice that it is only necessary for all of us to do as we please. Why did not Lancelot make love to Guenever, or run away with his hero's wife altogether, as any enlightened man would do today?
"One reason for his dilemma was that he was a Christian. The modern world is apt to forget that several people were Christians in the remote past, and in Lancelot's time there were no Protestants--except John Scotus Erigena. His Church, in which he had been brought up--and it is difficult to escape from your upbringing--directly forbade him to seduce his best friend's wife. Another stumbling block to doing as he pleased was the very idea of chivalry or of civilisation which Arthur had first invented and then introduced into his own young mind. . . . He believed as firmly as Arthur did, as firmly as the benighted Christian, that there was such a thing as Right."
To be honest, until I read this passage, I thought White's take on the Arthurian legends was too goofy to enjoy fully. I may need to reconsider that opinion.
23 September 2009
Welcome!
This blog is dedicated to the exploration and discussion of the classical and Christian heritage of the Western world. We'll look at art, philosophy, history, literature, music, architecture, and anything else that comes to mind.
Our society is at the end of its rope in a number of ways. We need to dig ourselves out from under the rubble of modernism and postmodernism, which have led to destruction of meaning and loss of confidence. A return to our heritage of faith and reason must be part of any cultural renewal.
Our society is at the end of its rope in a number of ways. We need to dig ourselves out from under the rubble of modernism and postmodernism, which have led to destruction of meaning and loss of confidence. A return to our heritage of faith and reason must be part of any cultural renewal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)