On the Peculiar Way Christ Saved the World

Click here to read.

Human Suffering and the Reality of a Loving God

There are two kinds of Christians: those of experiential faith, and those of theoretical faith. Those in the former category encounter God directly, and know - not merely believe - that He exists, even if they encounter things that are troubling and contradict their preconceptions of God.

If you are like most Christians, you fall in the latter category; in other words, you are not a mystic. For you, God’s existence is a persuasive theory, not a personally-experienced truth. You may have been swayed by the arguments of philosophers like William Lane Craig, but you have yet to attain the direct insight of mystics like St. Seraphim of Sarov. 

As a corollary, your faith has probably been shaken at least once in your life by the reality of human suffering.  This is understandable; any theoretical Christian with a shred of compassion will acknowledge that such heartrending manifestations of suffering as the dying child can be a huge stumbling block to one’s faith. Indeed, I would prefer the atheist whose compassion for others drove him to disbelief to the theoretical Christian whose indifference to suffering explains why he has remained steadfast in his faith in spite of it.

From a strictly rational perspective, however, suffering cannot be taken to be a stand-alone reason to doubt God's existence.

Click here to read more.

The “D” Word: Why Dogmas Matter

“I don’t have a problem with religion, I just don’t like dogmas.”  Statements like this are reflective of the growing disdain that people have for religious doctrine.  Even many traditional Christian believers seem reluctant to use the word “dogma”, as they are aware of its negative connotations. For many, this term has come to signify a belief that can’t be proven, and to which only close-minded people can subscribe. In this short essay, I’m going to address this view from a (not necessarily exclusively) Eastern Orthodox perspective.

Click here to read more.

How Monasticism Testifies to God’s Reality

Over the years, I have become acquainted with various logical arguments for the existence of God—some I find more convincing than others. Of course, the strongest evidence comes from direct experience, for God is a person to be mystically encountered, not an abstraction to be logically deduced. This should not be taken to imply that logic has no role to play a role in one’s spiritual life. On the contrary, logic can be used to convince someone that such an experience is worth pursuing in the first place.

The strongest argument for me—an argument not normally used to evidence God’s reality—happens to be a simple one: the existence of monasticism. 

Click here to read more.

Sola Scriptura and the Secularization of America

During her confirmation hearing last September, Notre Dame law professor, Amy Coney Barrett, was openly interrogated about her faith. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) brazenly uttered the now infamous words, “the dogma lives loudly within you,” and went on to explain why that is “of concern” to her. This is but one manifestation of a new trend—one that many Christians correctly regard as ominous. How did we get to this point?

I am going to argue that the current state of affairs is the partial result of developments that transpired 500 years ago. My contention is that those who sought to reform Christianity in the West ironically set in motion a process that has increasingly diminished its influence on society.

This essay will focus on one of the foundational principles of the Protestant Reformation: sola scriptura. It is the doctrine that the Bible, alone, holds religious authority for the Christian.

Click here to read more.

Why We Fast

The Nativity fast (which is less strict than the Lenten fast) begins on Saturday, and I’ve personally found it helpful to meditate on the words of St. John of Kronstadt when preparing for it:

“Fasting is a good teacher. (1) it soon makes everyone who fasts understand that a man needs very little food and drink, and that in general we are greedy and eat a great deal more than is necessary. (2) Fasting clearly discloses all the sins and defects, all the weakness and diseases, of our soul…(3) It shows us the necessity of turning to God with the whole heart of man, and of seeking his mercy, help and saving grace. (4) Fasting shows us all the craftiness, cunning and malice of the bodiless spirits, whom we have hitherto unwittingly served, and who now malignantly persecute us for having ceased to follow them.

Those who reject fasting forget from what the fall into sin of the first men proceeded – intemperance – and what means to counter sin and the tempter were indicated to us by our Lord, when he himself was tempted in the desert – he fasted forty days and nights. They do not know – or do not wish to know – that a man most frequently falls away from God through intemperance.”

On Scripted Prayers

...if your soul wishes to pray in its own and not in other men's words, give it freedom." - St. Theophan the Recluse ("The Art of Prayer")

In a recent conversation, a Jehovah's Witness friend of mine raised the issue of "scripted prayers" (e.g., the Lord's Prayer).  She subtly suggested that those who offer such prayers are the hypocrites referred to in Chapter 6 of St. Matthew's Gospel.  The following verses appear to be of greatest relevance to her implicit claim:

Verse 1: “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.”

Verse 5: “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others.  Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.” 

Verse 7: “And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.”

Her comments brought to mind a couple points worth mentioning.  If Jehovah’s Witnesses are similar to Evangelical Christians, then they prefer spontaneous (or “free-style”) prayer over the recitation of such composed prayers as the Our Father. For simplicity’s sake, we’ll call those who pray the former "free-stylers", and those who pray the latter “reciters”. Here’s the important question: Isn’t it possible for free-stylers, as well as reciters, to display a fake righteousness to others (Verse 1), to pray like hypocrites (Verse 5), or to babble like pagans (Verse 7)? If it is possible, then one cannot logically conclude from Chapter 6, alone, that reciting composed prayers is in some sense wrong or unhelpful.  Speaking personally, when I'm struggling for the appropriate words or am distracted, I've found that, as both a free-styler and a reciter, my prayers suffer. 

Beyond the Scriptures, one must understand that spontaneous prayers are not discouraged in the Orthodox Church (nor, I suspect, in the Roman Catholic Church). My sense is that some critics assume that our prayer life is monopolized by scripted prayers, when, in fact, we are expected to free-style, as well. As 19th century Russian Orthodox saint, Theophan the Recluse, put it:

As you begin to accustom yourself to praying as you should  with prayers written by others, your own prayers and cries to God will well up in you.  Never neglect these aspirations to God that manifest themselves in your soul.  Every time that they arise, be still, and pray with your own words; nor think that in so praying you do harm to prayer itself.  No: it is just in this way that you pray as you should , and this prayer ascends more quickly to God than any other.

On Unconditional Love

Here's an excerpt from a provocatively-titled article by Dr. Michael Bressem, published in pemtousia.com:

...the greatest popular myth permeating Christendom is the false idea that love should be unconditional. Somewhere every Sunday, there is a Protestant minister proclaiming from the pulpit that we should be loving our spouse, our children, and our neighbor unconditionally, because God loves us unconditionally. Yet try as you might, you will not find the word “unconditional” within any of the books of the Bible, nor will you find the concept of “unconditional love” within the writings of the Church Fathers. The problem is not just that unconditional love is a teaching alien to our Christian Tradition, but the concept is potentially destructive to our relationship with God and humanity.

First, regarding the specific argument (and I know that the author doesn't rest his or her case exclusively on it), "you will not find the word 'unconditional' within any of the books of the Bible", the first question that comes to mind is, "Is he therefore a unitarian?"

More importantly, there's an obvious distinction between unconditional love and unconditional tolerance (separate concepts which the author conflates). Punishing one’s child is (if Godly) motivated by love and intended to bring about the child’s repentance.  What changes is not the parent’s love, but the particular expression of it. Would the author agree with this (except, perhaps, on a semantic level)? Maybe. But I’m inclined to see this as shock theology, and I pray that it misleads no one.  Consider the ease with which people, deluded by pride, will end friendships and even marriages with those who supposedly failed to meet their interpersonal responsibilities (the fulfillment of which is the basis on which love should supposedly be conditioned).

Reflections on my Appearance on Ancient Faith Today

Click here to listen to my chat with Kevin Allen and fellow guest, SbDn. Basil Hinkle.  The subject of our discussion is “Faith Informing Politics”.  In this post, I offer some brief reflections on last night’s lively discussion.

Regarding my Comments on Euthanasia (a sanitized version)

As I explained early in our discussion, my decision on whether or not to support a particular public policy is determined by whether it:

(1)   Violates the rights of others;

(2)   Affects their spiritual well-being; or

(3)   Jeopardizes the stability and continuity of society.

Our subsequent discussion on euthanasia revolved mainly around Point (1).  I still hold to the view that euthanasia – an otherwise immoral act, according to the Church – does not necessarily violate the rights of others (of course, we can imagine situations in which insurance providers might opt to cover the cost of euthanasia over potentially more expensive life-saving treatments), as it directly affects no one other than the person authorizing it.

Soon after the interview, I pondered more about Point 2 (Point 3 is perhaps a subject for future reflection).  There is certainly a salvific quality to suffering, in the midst of which our awareness of, and utter reliance on, God grows.  Further, the very experience of suffering helps to purify one’s soul.  As St. Syncletica put it, “If you are righteous and suffer, you grow to a higher sanctity.  Gold is tested by fire.”  To his credit, SbDn. Basil addressed this point quite well.

I would agree, then, that legalizing euthanasia would tempt one to forego the sanctification that suffering can bring.  It may even produce broader effects on society – knowing that there’s a legal, yet deceptive “easy way out”, people may perceive less of a need throughout their lives to seek or grow closer to God.

In short, I suppose that I did not apply my own decision-making framework consistently enough!  So, I would like to state that, after a mere 24 hours of reflection, I have abandoned what I did say was a tentative view: that I would not presently oppose the decriminalization of euthanasia.  Nevertheless, in contemplating such horrific diseases as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (i.e., Lou Gehrig’s disease), I cannot say that I hold to my new view with as much certainty or fervency as others – and I freely admit that this may be due to a weakness of faith on my part.

On Welfare and the Family

I did not get the opportunity to address an excellent question raised by host, Kevin Allen, on whether American welfare policies have undermined the family.  In my view, there is evidence that supports the idea that welfare policies have the potential to stabilize the family.  We can cite, for instance, the research of University of Minnesota professor, Shirley Zimmerman (e.g., click here, as well as here for a list of more recent publications), whose findings indicate that states that spend less per capita on public welfare had, among other things, higher teen birth rates, higher suicide rates, and higher divorce rates than those that spent more.  It is quite arguable, then, that reducing inequality is very much a pro-family policy.
Thanks to Kevin and SbDc. Basil for an exciting and civil discussion!

Does Rep. Andy Gipson Want Homosexuals Dead?

Mississippi lawmaker, Andy Gipson, was recently accused of condemning (at least indirectly) homosexuals to death by citing Leviticus 20:13:

If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

To be fair, I want to quote Gipson's response to the media backlash against his comments: 

Apparently the Huffington Post (a California-based liberal blog) ran an article falsely stating or implying that my facebook post citing Leviticus 20:13 was to "suggest" that gay people should be put to death. I reject and resent that accusation; I have NEVER condoned or requested the killing of ANY PERSON. I believe all are created in the image of God, and one of the 10 Commandments is "Thou shalt not murder." What I did intend and did say is that the Bible clearly defines homosexual conduct as morally wrong - a sin. I cited this and another scripture for the purpose of pointing out that the conduct is sin, in defense of my stance against same-sex marriage. What I find amazing is that the same people asserting the virtue of "tolerance" will tolerate all views except the view of Scripture - and, as evidenced today, will call and threaten me for referring to a Bible passage! Of course, we are all sinners, all in need of God's grace. Only Jesus Christ can provide the grace we all need, including the folks who left those hateful messages on my answering machine. I pray for them that they would see and understand the truth. 

Believe it or not, I no longer believe that Gipson was necessarily condemning homosexuals to death.  Citing Leviticus and other passages that are believed to address homosexuality is actually quite common, and I refuse to believe that everyone who engages in this practice wishes death upon homosexuals.  The context of his discussion, which was prompted by President Obama’s decision to come out in support of same-sex marriage, suggests that he was focused on proving via the Scriptures that homosexuality is a sin, not on whether it should be a punishable crime.

However, while I don’t think Gipon is implicitly arguing that we ought to make homosexuality a capital crime, I believe that he is guilty of contradicting his professed manner of interpreting the Scriptures (assuming he’s Evangelical).  If, like most Evangelicals, you subscribe to verbal plenary inspiration (VPI), believing that each and every word in the Scriptures is "God-breathed", you'll have to explain why you're not totally contradicting yourself by accepting the first statement of this verse while rejecting the second.  To me, this is a perfect illustration of the dangers of VPI, which Orthodox Christians do not subscribe to (although Richard Dawkins and his ilk prefer to lump us all together).

Orthodoxy and Capitalism: Towards a More Balanced View

The following is a brief response to Dr. Banescu's discussion on capitalism and its compatibility with Orthodoxy in The Illumined Heart, a wonderful podcast on Ancient Faith Radio.

Impact of the Welfare State on Living Standards

Dr. Banescu claims that social democratic countries are associated with lower living standards. However, there is an abundance of empirical research that reveals the contrary. Below is a sampling of recent findings:

1.) Leftist political institutions reduce relative poverty (David Brady, 2003, “The Politics of Poverty,” Social Forces, Vol. 82).

2.) Social-Democratic welfare states prevent income poverty (Muffels & Fouarge 2004, “The Role of European Welfare States in Explaining Resources Deprivation,” Social Indicators Research, Vol. 68).

3.) Public entitlement programs reduce both relative and absolute poverty (Scruggs and Allan, 2006, “The Material Consequences of Welfare States,” Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 39).

4.) The welfare state enhances life satisfaction (Pacek & Radliff, 2008, “Assessing the Welfare State,” Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 6)

Capitalism and its Relationship to Theism

The U.S. is unique among advanced industrialized democracies both for its high degree of religiosity and its highly capitalistic economy. Dr. Banescu assumes that these unique qualities must be causally related. In other words, there is something inherent in capitalism that enhances or sustains the level of religiosity in a country. This may or may not be true, but it strikes me as a theoretically-undeveloped thesis (as a social scientist, I could never get away with arguing that two or more variables are causally related unless I could explain that relationship theoretically).

I saw no mention of alternative explanations, such as the following two (I quote these verbatim from U.S.A. Today, which reported on a recent AP-Ipsos poll):

1) “Many countries other than the United States have been through bloody religious conflict that contributes to their suspicion of giving clergy any say in policy.”

2.) “A long history of religious freedom in the United States created a greater supply of worship options than in other countries, and that proliferation inspired wider observance.”

The posited relationship between capitalism and theism reminds me of the inverse relationship between the latter and I.Q. (of which many atheists are so fond), and I find both to be spurious. On the contrary, I believe a case can be made for a relationship between capitalism, on the one hand, and secularization and immorality, on the other (please take this with a grain of salt, though, since I don’t have time to elaborate on this argument here).

Orthodoxy and Capitalism

If I remember correctly, Dr. Banescu argues that although the Byzantine Empire behaved in ways analogous to the modern welfare state, we mustn’t forget that it was also capitalistic. Yet this is less of an argument than it is a matter of grammatical preference. After all, one wishing to enhance social democracy’s appeal could simply argue in the reverse; that is, although the Byzantine appear was capitalistic, it also behaved in ways analogous to the modern welfare state. Indeed, Nikolas Gvosdev (Emperors and Elections: Reconciling the Orthodox Tradition with Modern Politics, Troitsa Books) notes “parallels between the principles espoused by the Byzantines with the operations of the modern welfare state” (p. 130). Gvosdev goes so far as to argue that there is “a tendency within Orthodox economic thought that lends support to socialism, based on conciliarism” (p. 128).

“Creating Value”: Dispelling the Nature Myth

Imagine yourself instantly transported to a plot of land dotted with apple trees. The fruit of this land is available to all who are willing to work for it. Suppose you expend the effort to pluck two apples from one of the trees. The enjoyment of those apples is the natural consequence of, or reward for, your labor. And if someone were to come along and take an apple or both against your will, he would rightly be accused of stealing. The proponent of laissez-faire capitalism likens this to the state of affairs in a “free” market economy. One’s wealth is imagined to be the direct, natural, result of his personal efforts alone. To the very last penny, one’s wealth is believed to measure the extent of his labor with the same precision that a thermometer gauges the temperature outside. Hence, to take any portion of that wealth (i.e., in the form of taxation) would be tantamount to stealing. This explains why, of the three possible ways “of creating and obtaining value”, Dr. Banescu places taxation in the same class as stealing.

However, wealth accumulation in a capitalist economy is quite different from picking apples. In reality, “wealth is not simply the result of an individual’s efforts, but exists within the context of a larger community which has supported and protected these efforts” (Gvosdev, p. 125). Further, the government (far from being the enemy of laissez-faire mythology) is the instrument through which these efforts are supported and protected. If government policy benefits the wealthy, and if wealth production is a collective effort, why should it not also benefit the working class? The individualism that pervades our culture encourages the myth that the rich C.E.O. arrived at his position on the basis of his personal efforts alone, as if workers are no more deserving of credit than a conveyor belt.

Orthodox Christianity And Capitalism

Here's a little blast from the past - an interview with Kevin Allen, host of the Illumined Heart (on Ancient Faith Radio). I engaged both Kevin and Fr. John Whiteford in a discussion on the compatibility of capitalism with Orthodoxy Christianity. Kevin provides the following synopsis of the episode:

The previous podcast on this subject stimulated comments about whether we covered the bases on this issue fully or dispassionately enough. In this conversation, Fr. John Whiteford (ROCOR) priest and frequent conservative commentator and blogger, and Dr. Amir...(ROCOR) layman, political science lecturer, and self-described “social democrat,” talk about poverty, the welfare state, whether alms-giving is spiritually effective if government mandated, and the best way to live out the Orthodox Christian life in the world.

Hmm…why wasn’t Fr. John introduced as a “self-described” conservative, and why is social democrat enclosed within quotation marks? Oh well…

Click here to read follow-up comments.

Reflections on my Discussion with Kevin Allen and Fr. John

I, along with Fr. John Whiteford, was recently a guest on Ancient Faith Radio’s Illumined Heart podcast. The episode revisited the subject of capitalism’s compatibility with Eastern Orthodoxy (click here for the essay which prompted the invitation to appear on the show). In this short essay, I share some reflections on what was a very lively discussion. As one who is sympathetic to social democracy, I knew that I would regularly be at odds with Fr. John, a conservative. I must confess that I almost wish Fr. John was less pleasant than he is, since it would be much easier to continue disagreeing with him, as I do below.

Poverty

Obesity
Fr. John argued that the problem of poverty in the U.S. is not as severe as the Left suggests, and he points to America’s obesity rate as evidence. Rising obesity, it is assumed, necessarily means that people have more money to increase their food consumption. However, obesity does not merely indicate the quantity of food that is consumed, but also its quality. While conservatives often over-emphasize individual choices in explaining poor diets (and, to be fair, many on the Left are vulnerable to the charge of overstating structural factors), the reality is that the quality of one’s diet is significantly determined by income (along with genetics and other factors). As one writer put it, “…when a head of broccoli costs three times as much as a McDonald’s double cheeseburger, the whole notion of consumer ‘choice’ becomes suspect.” It is, therefore, no coincidence that the urban poor are disproportionately represented among the obese in our country.

Quantifying the Working Poor

After citing a statistic on the number of Americans from working class families who were living in poverty, I was asked whether that figure included the number of illegal immigrants. Even at present, I’m still not quite sure (I’ve yet to receive a response from the Working Poor Families Project, which furnished the data). Yet I’m also unsure as to whether that even matters. Working poor is working poor - “alien” or otherwise. If illegal immigration were as economically burdensome as many claim, then the government should do more than pay lip service to the need to protect our borders, as well as to punish those businesses whose willingness to recruit undocumented workers incentivizes those living across our borders to enter our country illegally.

Even if we exclude illegal immigrants from this estimate (as if sub-living wages for them are somehow more acceptable), the number would still be intolerably high. Yet as far as I’m concerned, even if one persuasively argues to the contrary, he would actually be undermining the conservative perspective. After all, the smaller this figure becomes, the more difficult it is to convincingly argue that mitigating this problem is impractical. It would do more to support my case if one were to discover that the true number of impoverished Americans from working class families is 22 thousand, rather than 22 million.

Alternative Explanations

I sampled recent scholarly research on the positive effects of social democracy on several measures of subjective and objective well-being. However, at least three factors were offered to downplay social democracy’s role in enhancing living standards. I address each of these below.

Oil and Inequality

Using the Gini coefficient as a gauge, I presented solid evidence that social democratic welfare countries (SDWCs) produce lower levels of inequality than do the more capitalistic ones. In response, it was countered that Norway’s large oil revenues (and not its welfare system) explain its lower GINI score. The obvious rebuttal, however, is that oil fails to explain the much lower Gini scores in Denmark (24.7), Sweden (25), France (32.7), to name but three countries whose welfare spending is often targeted for criticism.

Population

According to the familiar population argument, the U.S. can’t be compared with SDWCs because the latter are much smaller in population, and thus have fewer people on whom to spend welfare (let’s ignore, for the sake of argument, that conservatives are often eager to embrace findings from comparative research that support their conclusions). One basic flaw in this argument is that it focuses on the total number of welfare recipients, rather than their share of the total population. Let’s say, hypothetically, that the number of welfare recipients in the U.S. is 30 million. Moreover, let’s assume for simplicity’s sake that they, themselves, don’t contribute - even in the smallest of ways - to America’s welfare apparatus. In one sense, 30 million is a large number (it’s roughly the size of Afghanistan). In a country like France, where an impoverished population of 30 million would constitute almost half of its total population, it doesn’t appear remotely possible that an effective welfare state could be sustained. However, as a share of America’s population, that would amount to approximately 10%, which means that there would be a much larger 277 million people among whom the financial burden of sustaining the welfare system would be divided (I entertain no delusion that all would end up sharing the burden equally, of course).

Hence, we are left without a proper explanation as to why population should matter. We may discover that Norwegians consume more cheese than Americans (I have no data on cheese consumption, mind you), though we wouldn’t entertain the possibility that cheese consumption is responsible for their different levels of inequality. This is because there is no theory accounting for why cheese consumption should matter. It seems to me that, as an explanatory factor, population is more credible than cheese consumption mostly for superficial reasons – it is merely because population is an important correlate of many things that interest social scientists that some people take it seriously, even if they can’t explain why its related to welfare spending.

Finally, what exactly is the threshold beyond which a country’s population is “too large”? While having less than half of America’s population, Japan is still quite large compared to most other countries (with over 127 million people, it’s the world’s 10th largest country). Nevertheless, its Gini score (24.9) is among the world’s lowest. So, is 127 million the cut-off point?

Ethnic Heterogeneity

SDWCs are more egalitarian than the U.S., it was suggested, because they are more ethnically homogenous. This is the only argument I’ve heard that appears to have any empirical support. There is, indeed, evidence for the claim that heterogeneity and welfare spending are inversely related (although this argument is certainly not without its critics). But what does this really say? Does this mean that heterogeneity affects the capability of sustaining the welfare spending? Or, does it simply reflect ethnocentrism, whereby the majority ethnic group is unwilling to include minority groups among welfare recipients, as many claim (perhaps it is due to my ignorance that I consider this an open question)?

Trade Unions

By and large, workers have demonstrably benefited from trade union membership; here, again, empirical research is on my side. Moreover, survey evidence reveals that a majority of Americans have over the years supported trade unions. Yet in spite of unions’ proven benefits and democratic appeal, many conservatives insist that they are a force for evil, and often point to cases in which workers are coerced into joining them. But are we to generalize from what appear to be isolated (and perhaps exaggerated) cases of abuse, and simply ignore the evidence in favor of unions? We must understand that the argument is not whether trade unions are perfect (as I pointed out, so long as we remain fallible, our institutions will always be fallible). The argument is whether a system in which unions flourish is less imperfect than one in which they do not.

The Religious Criterion in Evaluating Welfare States

In response to the parallel I pointed out between the social democratic welfare and Byzantine states, it was remarked that (a) the Byzantine Empire was Christian, whereas SDWCs are not; and (b) that this distinction somehow matters. Here, I point out two basic problems with this argument.

First, far from devaluing social democracy, it implicitly provides justification for a specifically American version of it. The inference drawn from this distinction is that the welfare state is not viewed, in and of itself, as morally problematic. It becomes an evil when the society in which it is embedded no longer practices the Christian faith. But once we reconcile this idea with the belief that Christianity is alive and well in the U.S., a conclusion that ought to trouble conservatives seems to follow: the U.S. is an especially fitting place in which to establish a social democracy, given its continued attachment to the Christian faith.

Second, one’s freedom to pursue happiness is restricted once it is conditioned upon the religious beliefs and practices of his fellow citizens. To be sure, I could not consider myself a true Christian unless I genuinely wished that everyone embraced the Christian faith. However, as far as economic justice is concerned, I could not care less about the religious climate of my society. Is the worker really to be told that he may not be paid a decent wage because his compatriots are no longer Christian?