Letters

The Model Scientist?

This [Neil Gussman with Sarah Reisert, “The Model Scientist?”, November/December 2010] rings so true! In fact I think Spockish characters are more likely to be found in disciplines other than science. Science is too much fun for pure logic. Among my science friends are Ken Miller, who umpires girls’ softball in New England because he loves the game. And Francis Collins, who writes and performs corny songs at august university commencements. John Polkinghorne has to be the friendliest guy in England, eager to chat with anyone about what interests them. I have eaten gelato in Venice with Owen Gingerich while he made unSpockish comments about the people strolling by. Scientists love their work, and that breeds a carefree, fun-loving approach to everything in life. A pox on Gene Roddenberry!

Bias? Ignorance? Polemics?

The group of four reviews in your November/December issue on free enterprise economies [Lauren F. Winner, “The Most Satisfying Trade”; Stewart Davenport, “Pro-Capitalist Christendom”; Eugene McCarraher, “The Command Economy of Freedom”; Andrew P. Morriss, “The Bourgeois Revaluation”] was not as slanted to the left as I had feared. Three of the four reviewers were clearly hostile to capitalism and one sort of neutral. Nevertheless, we read such clunkers as Stewart Davenport’s assertion that the tendency to excess is inextricably built in to the capitalist system. To the contrary, the economy would probably be healthier if people were less greedy and/or foolish. Lauren Winner warns against twisting a “finely wrought historical analysis into a tendentious morality tale,” and then does just that. The less said about Eugene McCarraher’s narrow, sarcastic polemics the better.

What is really disappointing is that the discussion hasn’t progressed much for many decades. The reviewers’ critiques of free market capitalism have been made many times in the past. The carefully selected bad examples have just been updated. Of course, the same is true of some of the standard responses made in favor of a free market.

It doesn’t help that none of the reviewers have a professional background in economics. The hopeful sign is that at least a couple of the books reviewed appear to offer something constructive to the debate, despite the smoke and fury of the reviewers’ bias.

John Wilson replies:

I’m not sure why you expected the reviews to be “slanted” in the first place, nor does your characterization of the four articles jibe with my reading of them. “Three of the four reviewers were clearly hostile to capitalism, and one sort of neutral.” Really?

You write that “none of the reviewers have a professional background in economics.” I would have supposed that Andy Morriss’ training in economics was apparent from his review of Deirdre McCloskey’s Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can’t Explain the Modern World. In any case, had you made even the most cursory search, you would have discovered that among Morriss’ several advanced degrees is a PhD in economics from MIT, and you would have found a selected list of his publications, in which he has put that training to excellent use.

Most books, setting aside highly specialized works, can be profitably reviewed from a number of different angles. There are always tradeoffs, choices to be made among competing goods—a subject on which economists have taught us a good deal.

The Whites of Their Eyes

I am not a Tea Partier. I don’t listen to Glenn Beck. I usually like what Lauren Winner has to say. This book review [Book Note on Jill Lepore, The Whites of Their Eyes: The Tea Party’s Revolution and the Battle Over American History, posted on November 3, 2010] is an exception. It seems singularly lacking in critical analysis. If the Founders’ original intent cannot be known by the Right, then how can it be known by the Left, Lepore, and Winner? Even if Tea Party economic proposals cannot be read directly off the Founders’ writings, whose economic policies have more affinity with those of the Founders—the Right’s or the Left’s? These are questions worth exploring. I expect Books & Culture articles to model respectful engagement with ideas, not resort to brusque caricaturing and dismissal of views with which the author disagrees.

Cover Story

Hey, I LOVE your covers. Each one is a welcome invitation to relax with a sip of wine and read the entire issue in one sitting.

Keep up the good work.

“Progressive Christianity”

In your September/October issue, page 32, is the article “The Bully Pulpit, Revisited” by four authors [Lyman A. Kellstedt, James L. Guth, Corwin E. Smidt, and John C. Green]. I have found it most interesting and helpful. Please convey my thanks to the writers.

In their piece, they discuss how they have tried to find some way of dealing with changes taking place in the world of religion, and being able to identify them with usable terms (see third column on page 32). They selected “new liberal theology” as a useful term, and I have no quarrel with that. I am able to follow the rest of their investigation with that help. However, they might like to know about a term that has come into use in recent years across the churches—in fact, it has been picked up quickly, and there are now organizations that have grown up around the concept. The term is “Progressive Christianity” and can be found in many a book index already. I commend it to them, and, if they don’t already know it, hope it can be helpful to them.

Just a word of identification. I am a retired UMC clergyman, who spent my career in hospital chaplaincy in mental hospitals.

Thank you all again for your work with Books & Culture—I continue to look forward to each issue.

Copyright © 2011 by the author or Christianity Today/Books & Culture magazine.Click here for reprint information on Books & Culture.