|
“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a
needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” –
Mark 10:25
“No it’s not.” –
Harvard University
OK I made up the second one, but it’s pretty much the
message of “Religion and Economic Growth Across Countries,” a report
by researchers at Harvard University. Authors Robert Barro and
Rachel McCleary conclude that a nation’s wealth is directly related
to its citizens’ religious beliefs, particularly in an afterlife.
The fear of hell, it turns out, is especially important for economic
growth.
I wonder if Alan Greenspan knows about this; he seems a
little obsessed with interest rates. In any event I’m reasonably
sure you can’t take it with you and it wouldn’t do much good in
Hades if you could, but the researchers see it differently.
Writing in American Sociological Review, Barro and
McCleary stress “Our central perspective is that religion affects
economic outcomes mainly by fostering religious beliefs that
influence individual traits such as honesty, work ethic, thrift, and
openness to strangers.” Oddly, the researchers found that while
religious belief increases wealth, high rates of attendance at
churches, synagogues, and mosques has the opposite effect.
That kind of contradiction is the stuff of migraines,
but the authors explain: “More church attendance signifies more
resources used up by the religion sector.” In other words, the
people in the pews devote so much time and money to religious
purposes that it harms the greater economy.
This will come as a shock to a few pastors I know but
let’s break it down a bit. Of the 59 countries studied, the authors
identify seven as primarily Buddhist or followers of other eastern
religions and four as Muslim. India is largely Hindu and Israel
Jewish, leaving 46 mainly Christian nations.
Since hell doesn’t exist or is essentially temporary in
eastern religions and Hinduism, fear of hell is for Christians,
Muslims, and Jews. As that supposedly has the most economic
benefit, nations that follow those faiths might be expected to be
the richest.
Israel and several Christian nations rank among the top
50 in per capita income according to the World Bank, but the richest
Muslim nation is Kuwait at number 34 – and it wasn’t in the study.
Japan, Hong Kong/China, and Singapore are on the list even without
hell.
This plays heck with the authors’ basic premise, but
what about the idea that church attendance offsets the economic
advantages of hell by using up resources?
I have another theory. Religion leaves an impact on a
culture even as devotion fades. People claim it as their own more
out of habit than from any real knowledge, allowing myths to rise to
the level of gospel truth. We can see this in our own country in
Christians who believe the devil is a guy with red skin and a
goatee, good people become angels when they die, and that “judge
not” means “accept everything.”
There are still lingering benefits like honesty, work
ethic, and thrift, just as Barro and McCleary say. It’s a sort of
religious homeopathy: dilute the original until nothing is left but
the memory, and the memory should be enough.
When people attend church they learn better, or can,
anyway. The man who inspired Jesus’ camel and needle crack thought
his wealth and good behavior bought him a ticket to heaven, but in
reality he had allowed these things to become a substitute for
faith. He refused to give up his riches, even for “treasure in
heaven.”
Money isn’t the problem; the love of money is (1 Timothy
6:10). Perhaps the devout figure this out and make do with a
smaller pile. Few want to live in poverty, but true wealth just
might make one worry less about the temporary kind.
|
