Archive for March, 2009

Free to Choose

Posted in justice and charity, Theology and Economics with tags , , , , , , , , on 03/10/2009 by rossemmett

The lectionary reading a couple of Sundays back was Mark 1:40-45

A leper came to Jesus begging him, and kneeling he said to him, “If you choose, you can make me clean.” Moved with pity, Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, and said to him, “I do choose. Be made clean!” Immediately the leprosy left him, and he was made clean. After sternly warning him he sent him away at once, saying to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.” But he went out and began to proclaim it freely, and to spread the word, so that Jesus could no longer go into a town openly, but stayed out in the country; and people came to him from every quarter. (italics added)

The expression “Free to Choose” is often identified with a view of economics which glorifies unfettered individual choice. The late Milton Friedman, a Chicago economist and Nobel laureate, is most frequently associated with the use of the expression, because it was the title of the PBS series he created back in the 1980s. But in this passage from Mark, we find Jesus freely choosing to heal a leper. Because leprosy made you unclean under Jewish law, a leper was unable to keep the law, and hence became a social outcast, cut off from family, friends and access to civil society. Jesus’ choice made it possible for the person to be restored to his family and community (and he immediately went out and told everyone how it happened, much to Jesus’ chagrin).

The leper knows that Jesus has a choice. He knows that Jesus can heal him, but also that Jewish law does not require it of him. And surely there were other lepers at the edge of town that day; why should Jesus choose to heal him rather than others? We can clearly get into some thorny theological issues with this story. But I’ll keep my focus on the choice for the moment.

Jesus chose freely to use resources at his disposal to restore another person to full participation in his community. Some will view Jesus’ free choice here as the opposite of the view of choice usually associated with the expression “free to choose.” After all, how many first-year economics texts proclaim that human are selfish and have unlimited wants? Suggesting that Adam Smith was the first to argue that unfettered selfishness in a market setting would promote the common good through wealth creation is de rigueur in introductory economics and, for that matter, among those who think they are thereby dismissing Smith, markets and economics. A trifecta!

Except they’re wrong about Adam Smith (and markets), but that would be a longer story to which I’ll have to return sometime. And they’re even wrong about Milton Friedman, who has a much more nuanced view of choice than the standard first-year textbook does.

Jesus’ choice to heal the leper was an act of charity.

I was tempted to say love, of course, because that’s the word we’d use today. And agape in the New Testament can be translated with either love or charity. But the theological meaning of charity carries along with love the sense of incorporating the other into one’s community. The command to be charitable to others implies my commitment to them as another member of my community. Treat them as you would yourself. Do not treat them as an outcast, as someone you would simply throw scraps of food or a few pennies to. Biblical charity is not what we think of as charity today: a way to feel good about a few causes and reduce my tax burden at the same time. No, charity is the ultimate act of welcoming someone into your community, of giving her status.

That is what Jesus did with his free choice.

If I was preaching, I’d tell you to go out and do likewise. But I’m an economist, and usually end up asking a different kind of question. Not to stop you from being charitable, but to broaden our appreciation for what is at stake.

One of the things I noticed when studying economic theory was that, in order to ensure justice, some approaches to social economic organization require society to deny people the right to be charitable. The argument is simple: if everyone is already a member of the community, and everyone has equal resources, then charity is unnecessary. Justice has already been achieved; why would you need charity?

There are two problems with the social “criminalization” of charity. First, it denies me the individual opportunity to exercise virtue in the context of a free choice. Put differently, such a society assumes I will be selfish, even though as a human being I am more than just selfish, and need opportunities to discover what that “more” involves. If I never have the opportunity to be charitable, I will never experience love. Secondly, the criminalization of charity allows the State to define who has status, to remove those who don’t have it, and to punish me for extending “status” myself to them through acts of charity.

The tension between justice and charity runs deep through every civil society. Justice may be the “the first virtue of social institutions” (Rawls), but it is not the only, or highest, virtue. When designing social institutions, we need to examine where the borderline of that tension lies. I am not afraid to say that as much as I value justice, in the end, “Love wins.”

NOTE: I want to thank Kit Carlson for including the expression “free choice” in her sermon on the lectionary readings, the sixth Sunday of Epiphany, 2009, at All Saints Episcopal Church, East Lansing, Michigan. That prompted this entry. Of course, she bears no responsibility for what I did with her expression!


Globalization & Unity in the Church

Posted in Religion and Globalization with tags , , , , on 03/09/2009 by rossemmett

Woke up this morning thinking about how globalization affects churches. Tyler Cowen has an interesting notion of the impact of globalization on culture. He argues that we see both homogeneity and heterogeneity in cultures because of globalization.

The heterogeneity argument is the one that most critics of globalization focus on: in traditional cultures we now see a diverse set of options, which threatens the indigenous values, institutions and way of life. I ate at a McDonald’s in Moscow, and could probably do the same in Mumbai, Bangkok, or Guangzhou. Latin America’s fastest growing religious group is Pentecostalism. You get the idea.

Cowen’s argument about homogeneity cuts the other way. Just as each nation now has a more diverse set of cultural values, institutions and opportunities, the set of options available to it are increasingly the same as those options available to other nations. In any major city, one can eat a restaurants representing practically any culture in the world, not just the local fare. And so it is with churches also: in any major center, almost the same church options are available regardless of where one is located. (We could talk about how the availability varies between countries with “regulated” church markets, but that will have to wait for another time.) In many cases, those churches even operate in the language of their home; thus, the “joyful noise” offered to the Lord in Accra, Ghana each Sunday morning is almost as linguistically varied as that offered on the same day in Los Angeles.

What does this say about babel and ecumenism?

If the goal is one united church, then globalization does not seem to be helping the cause: we see the proliferation of diversity rather than an increase in unity. The increasing diversity of churches in any one place may be seen as a threat to those who have been there a long time (if you live in our town, you’re a Baptist). But it also increases the likelihood that all the churches will become more attuned to the needs of their parishoners and the communities they serve. Competition has a tendency to do that. The recognition that the increasing diversity of churches isn’t going away may also lead to another result: increased cooperation among the churches in a particular location for common projects. And increased cooperation may lead to greater reconciliation among the churches. [Check out the photos of 30 Lansing area churches working together: Love in Action, pictures by Brett Maxwell from the Riv.]

In other words, globalization may promote diversity among churches in any particular location, but the acceptance of that diversity may lead to a reconciliation to our common relation as members of Christ’s body. Without giving up our own traditions, working together with Christians of other traditions helps to reconcile our differences and promote unity.

I recognize that this argument runs the theological risk of claiming that human-designed institutions can ameliorate the consequences of our sin (in this case, the building of the tower of Babel, which led to the dispersion of the people into different language groups). T. Robert Malthus ran afoul of the same theological risk in the first edition of his Essay, on which I’m sure I’ll have occasion to write more later. But for now I can only point to Romans 5:20, and say, surely where sin abounds, grace abounds much more.