Matt’s Marvelous Mailbag seeks to provide marginally adequate answers to much better questions about politics, economics, social life, theology, or any potpourri you see fit to have answered. Send questions to mailbag.bereans@gmail.com.  

Another week, another round of spicy questions and burning inquiries. To the action, then.

Q: Charles asks: “What do you think has a greater impact on a person’s development: the things they read and watch or the people they interact with?”

A: Experience and data seems to suggest the latter to me. I recall one summer in particular that I worked at Marathon Petroleum, my father’s place of employment, and I found myself regularly responding to rows of employees, “Yes, Mr. Beal is my father,” or “Yup, we’re related,” or “Well, yes indeed, I did get my dashing looks and good-natured merriment from him.” All jocularity aside, the point is that most of who I am came first from my parents and then from the people I grew up with. People associate me with my parents not just because of looks but because of my mannerisms, way of speech, tone of voice, etc. I suspect many sons and daughters have had similar experiences/realizations, for better or worse. So, on the nature vs. nurture question, I am very much in the nature camp. Now, certainly, there is a role for the external things of the culture, but I think it takes a more secondary role.

One way of viewing this would be to think of someone as a set of concentric circles, the very center circle consisting of the core things that make that person unique — the rifts in their voice, the angle of their humor, and the minute distinctions in their walk. Perhaps more importantly, that circle is where their set of DNA resides and shapes some of their developmental course, regardless of who they talk to or what they read. Outside of that innermost circle I would put the various persons of contact; outside of that circle, goes the things of the culture. Put another way, I think the things we consume are more likely to shape what or how we think (our political inclinations for instance), whereas our comrades are more likely to shape who we are. I highly doubt the distinctions here are fixed and exclusive to those roles, but I am willing to accept this as a general rule. Make of it what you will.

Q: Charles also asks: “How important are denominations in the church today? Hypothetically, if you find yourself in a place with no good church that fits your background, would it be better to stream online the worship and sermons of your home church or a church of the same denomination?”

A: I am a good Protestant. For years (and on a scale ranging from playful teasing to burning at the stake) one of the hallmarks of being a good Protestant is that you never miss an opportunity to stick it to the Catholics. But, once in a while, I have to concede a point or two to the ‘ole Papists. One of the most salient criticisms I’ve ever heard from the Catholics was from Bishop Barren’s interview with Ben Shapiro in which he said, “Look, all I’m saying is that it does not reflect well for the unity of the body of Christ to have 30,000 denominations.” Yup, bullseye. Of the many vices the church could have, denominations are probably not the worst, but it should make us think for a second that it behooved Paul to address this issue with some degree of urgency in his first letter to the Corinthians. So, with that, let’s consider two points:

1. My concern with denominations is not chiefly with their mere existence. While Scripture is sufficient for our edification, it is not an exhaustive list of answers to every single question we could ever have, including on how exactly to “do church life.” In some respect, denominations are inevitable because humans are wildly diverse and tend to fall into groups that most align with their own inclinations, which, again, is not automatically a bad thing. I tend to prefer more traditional, American worship, hence why I go to a church that has a more traditional, American style of worship. Others see fit to hype themselves up on Mountain Dew and blast the roof off with an amp turned up to 1100. God bless ’em; more power to them. If they are serious in their adoration and worship, I have no qualms with that. In this respect, denominations can be a good thing when they permit diverse people with diverse tastes to worship and learn in diverse ways. Christians don’t anchor themselves around the hope of the old hymns or the sagacity of church discipline; we unite around the Gospel. Assuming the Gospel isn’t compromised, denominations can serve a useful purpose.
2. So why do I say that the Catholics have a legitimate criticism? Well, because very often those secondary points become primary points, and churches become rivalrous (see: Corinth). It’s one thing to say, “You believe in full-on predestination, and I’m more in the free will camp, but we can still fellowship together and enjoy foundational unity in the body of Christ.” It’s quite another matter to say, “You don’t believe in unconditional election? Well, you obviously going to burn like a strike-anywhere match for all eternity.” To be blunt, I think the modern area where we foul up the most in this regard is with respect to origins cosmology (i.e. – creation or big-bang). Now, to be sure, there are doctrinal issues where compromise is simply not plausible, and separation has to occur. If your local body is experiencing a resurgent bout of Gnosticism, for example, it’s time to get out of Dodge. Sometimes, it may not even be a doctrinal issue; the church could simply be filled with poison in the pews, bile in the balconies, and corruption in the choir loft. But I would seriously question at that point whether that is a division in the body or the removal of a malignant tumor. Barring cases like that, we are called to unity with a spectrum of brethren, no ‘ands’ or ‘buts’ about it. That call is an imperative, not a suggestion. I’m not saying it’s always easy, but it certainly isn’t optional. And, lest we be smug about our own struggles with this, remember that when Christ calls for his followers to count the costs of following Him, you and I may very well be a variable in someone else’s calculation.

Where does this leave us? I think what we can reasonably say about denominations is that they have the potential to be good and helpful signposts. As with any signposts, they can be broken down and twisted, leading to a mess of confusion and harm, but, if handled properly, they will remain beneficial.

You also mentioned the possibility of simply streaming services from a church you like. While I have no opposition to the occasional indulgence of this practice (be it for sickness or travel or alarm clock failure), I fear its substitution for regular attendance furthers the very nasty and bad habits of snobbishness and hermitry; snobbishness on the one hand because it destroys any pretense of disinterested self-sacrifice for the brethren (what some distinguished men of old have called simply ‘love’), and hermitry on the other for reasons which should readily apparent.

Q: Daniel asks: “Any thoughts on the Venezuela situation? Why can’t some leaders here learn from Venezuela and what caused their major problems?” 

A: I don’t really have much to say beyond what should be common knowledge for those who eyes to see and ears to hear. It’s another failure of socialism, and it’s so bad right now that even Bernie Sanders is getting chilly feet about supporting Maduro, though he’s trying his best to avoid the tangible irony associated with him holding such a stance. What I do find somewhat interesting is that this is an issue that most of the policy elites actually are agreeing on, save for the truly blue-blooded Marxists. Also interesting, and very disconcerting if you ask me (which you have, obviously), is the reluctance of many of the new faces in the Democrat party to stand in opposition to Maduro. Occasio-Cortez, for example, has done little more than back (I) a ‘negotiated settlement’ between the revolutionary forces and Maduro which would leave Maduro in power and (II) the end of sanctions on high-ranking Venezuelan leaders. Really? People are starving en masse because of this thug, and you want to defend him (oh, and transform the economy into a system akin to what Venezuela has)? They say ignorance is bliss, but in the case of Venezuela and AOC it’s just dangerous.

As for why leaders don’t learn from their mistakes, who knows; there’s a bevy of possibilities: pride, ignorance, ideology, conspiracy, bias, hate, misdirected good intentions, a thirst for power…the list could go on. Regardless, make sure you learn for yourself so that you don’t emulate their mistakes as well.

Q: Mr. Wampapoak asks: “Being the strong proponent of religion’s role in society that you are, why is it that Christian civilization, and by your own reckoning, only certain types of Christian societies, have proved more successful than Islamic civilization? Many of the familial and societal values which you hold as integral to a functional society are shared by Islamic and traditional Christian thinking. What are the distinct values that allow success or prevent it for these different societies? Or are the religious conditions not sufficient for explaining societal success? I would argue that they are not but I would be interested to hear your thoughts.”

A: You’re certainly not the first person to ask that question. Max Weber famously attributed the economic success of many countries to the Protestant work ethic of the Reformation, and, while I think there may be something to that, it’s probably not the whole story. The ideas that have made many of these countries economically successful are not exclusively ‘Christian’ ideas. If the Islamic world was to adopt a primarily free market system with good division of labor and low regulatory costs and a limited government, it would likely start to exhibit signs of strong economic success. The most economically successful countries in the world also tend to be the freest and most Westernized countries in the world.

I don’t think it’s necessarily the Christianity of a nation that makes it successful but, rather, the generally hospitable climate to political and economic freedom that Christianity creates (or more broadly the Judeo-Christian worldview). If you accept Deirdre McCloskey’s take, ideas are the foundational driver of economic success, and the most successful economic and political ideas have generally come from Christian nations. Of course, that doesn’t mean every successful idea is ‘Christian’ with regards to who discovered it. “It’s the glory of God to conceal a matter and the glory of kings to find it out,” but the verse seems wholly disinterested as to the king’s religion. The whole idea of the book of Proverbs is that there are certain actions and lifestyles that generally lead to success, and, if you follow them, you will tend to be more successful regardless of your own personal relationship to God. The world is designed to function better in certain ways than others, and anyone can live in that reality if they choose to do so. An atheist who is charitable, hardworking, and honest will, in all likelihood, be more successful than a lazy Christian. Now, as I mentioned above, there is some evidence* that Christians tend to add some extra ‘oomph’ to their work and live more moral (and by extension successful) lives, but I can’t say that being a Christian guarantees success, for I would be endorsing the prosperity gospel and ignoring the very obvious persecution and suffering of Christians in other countries.

The final thing I should note here is that the Gospel is far more concerned with the souls of men and their relationship to God than with the success of nations. I firmly believe that God is pleased to see men and women succeed in honest ways and live happy lives, but what gain is that if you lose your soul? The very practical fact of the matter is that death comes to us all and then the judgment. The very blessed, Christian hope of the matter is that Christ has provided the redemption for us and stands as hopeful evidence for the bodily resurrection of the dead, not just to spiritual euphoria but to a very physical and vibrant life eternal. It is open to all who will hear, dear friend. What say you?

That’s all, folks. We’ll be back next week with more inquiries from mailbag.bereans@gmail.com. See you next time.

*Freakonomics had a podcast a little while ago that basically gave a solid “Yah, kinda,” to the Protestant work ethic idea, and the idea certainly isn’t dead, but I don’t think it’s sufficient. Probably a more interesting finding was Robert Woodberry’s study in the American Political Science Review that found democracy in African nations was very positively correlated with having had non-state sponsored missionaries present. Often, such missionaries were on the forefront of fighting colonial injustices and promoting the good of the people.