Discipleship, Economics and Atheism
The
law of supply and demand is the bedrock principle of economics. Most often the
idea is expressed as a simple function of price: When price decreases, supply
decreases while demand increases. When price increases, supply increases while
demand decreases. Common experience confirms what economists teach. Every
worker wants a job that pays more, for example, so that supply of labor
increases as wages increase; just as every consumer wants to pay less for
tennis shoes, so that consumers buy more tennis shoes marked down than at
regular price. One consequence of the law of supply and demand is that of
shortage and surplus: When the price of a good exceeds the market-clearing
price, a surplus results, and when the price is below the market-clearing
price, a shortage results. Everyone wants the most bang for the buck.
The truth of all this holds not just for
tangible goods, but for most anything imaginable that could potentially enhance
human well-being. As economist Roger Arnold has noted,
[A] good is anything from which individuals receive utility or
satisfaction. In everyday conversations, the word good usually applies to
something tangible that is bought or sold in a market. But there are more goods
in the world than just the tangible items sold in markets. Friendship and love
are both goods, although neither is tangible and neither is bought and sold in
a market...[1]
What
about the Christian life, or as some have called it, "the good life"?
Clearly a majority of people, in America at least, consider being a Christian
somewhat valuable. With various levels of zeal we support Christian causes,
read Christian books, attend Christian churches, defend Christian causes.
Professing Christians are everywhere you look. At the same time, skeptics and critics
point out that in behavioral terms Christians are scarcely distinguishable from
anyone else: Indeed, statistically we are no less likely than anyone else to divorce,
have children out of wedlock, get caught in a financial scandal, or commit a
violent crime.
Why
the inconsistency? Perhaps economics can provide further insight. If the church
is experiencing non-stop numerical growth with little spiritual growth to show
for it, the problem may have to do with what Dietrich Bonhoeffer referred to
contemptuously as "cheap grace." That is, the advertised price for
following Christ is simply too low and consequently everyone wants in on the
deal. But the Christian life is not cheap. It cost Jesus an agonizing death to
provide us access to eternal life and communion with himself, the same Jesus
who directed that each of his disciples would have to "take up his
cross" in order to follow him. It should not surprise us, then, that Jesus
compared the life of discipleship to a costly all-out war or an expensive long-term
building project, and then urged us to "count the cost" before
presuming to be his disciples: "So likewise, whoever of you does not
forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple" (Luke 14:33).
On
this point I believe the skepticism of our atheist friends may prove
illustrative. Atheists are quite unwilling, after all, to acknowledge Jesus as
Savior and Lord, let alone as God incarnate. Now most often this aversion to
faith is passed off as a strictly intellectual matter – Christian theism is
incoherent, there is no evidence for it, and so forth – so that atheism is said
to be more rational than Christianity. But the argument could be made that
atheism is not so much intellectually
but rather economically rational.
That is, if genuine faith costs a person everything, atheism (often defined as
simple "lack of belief") would be the rational outcome of simply refusing
to pay such a high price for faith. From that perspective casual Christianity is
no more, or less, rational than atheism. Supposing that there is no God makes as much sense as supposing that Christ places no demands upon us.
[1]
Roger Arnold, Microeconomics, South-Western,
2001. At the moment I don't have access to my old college text from which I originally took this quotation, so I don't know the page number. But Arnold has made similar
statements elsewhere.
Comments
That argument was soundly disproved, however,by Andrew Greely in a study he did., He was a priest and sociologist.His research figures significantly in my book.
this is not the study by Greely but it is a study by him on
Supply side explanations for religious change
the secular types they wre getting cleaver by making supply side arguments agaisnt religion, it;s not important nt just a joke