Search Results for:

Is Distributism a Viable ‘Third Way’: An Interview with Kishore Jayabalan

An economic theory of ‘distributism’ is often presented as a Christian ‘third way’ between capitalism and socialism. But is it? Does it have an adequate view of economics? How does its anthropology inform his vision?

In this interview, public policy communicator Kishore Jayabalan offers an overview and critique of distributist assumptions. Kishore Jayabalan is director of Istituto Acton in Rome. He organizes the institute’s educational and outreach efforts in Europe.

Here are some excerpts from our interview:

What are some of the basic questions that distributism surfaces?

The most basic question, in my opinion, is whether there is a specifically “Christian” model of economics, or whether there is a certain autonomy to economics as a human endeavor or subject of study.  As a 2,000+ year-old religion, Christianity has survived and will continue to outlast many kinds of political and economic arrangements; it is therefore “transpolitical” in Fr. Ernest Fortin’s phrasing. 

This would also seem to speak to Christianity’s uniqueness, even as a vision of the ‘political.’

While there is no doubt that there is such a thing as Christian anthropology and a Christian way of looking at and interpreting the world, Christianity is quite different than Judaism and Islam. For example, it does not rely on extremely detailed prescriptions about how Christians are to live in the world.  I’d say that Christianity is more concerned with how we live materially and spiritually in systems such as capitalism and socialism than with the systems themselves, with how one should rule rather than who should rule. 

Indeed, this would seem to be widely recognized in Catholic social teaching

Yes. I am reminded of what John Paul II says: “The Church’s social doctrine is not a ‘third way’ between liberal capitalism and Marxist collectivism, nor even a possible alternative to other solutions less radically opposed to one another: rather, it constitutes a category of its own.” (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, n. 41) and “The Church has no models to present; models that are real and truly effective can only arise within the framework of different historical situations, through the efforts of all those who responsibly confront concrete problems in all their social, economic, political and cultural aspects, as these interact with one another.” (Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, n. 43)     

Distributists seem to also be surfacing questions about what is the best way to protect individual liberty and private property.

Distributists tend to argue that mass industrial capitalism eventually gives way to socialism, and that only a properly “distributist” model can prevent monopolies and concentrations of power.  They must, however, rely on state power to keep economies from becoming too “large”, to keep things “small” or “local.”  Whether this prevents, rather than encourages, the growth of State power is the big question.

So, with this in mind, who are some of the historical and contemporary representatives of a Christian distributism, and what do you find to be unique about their contributions?

Distributism is generally thought to have begun with the writings of G.K. Chesterton and Hillaire Belloc at the beginning of the 20th century; E.F. Schumacher, author of Small Is Beautiful, is another early representative.  More recently, the theologian John C. Médaille has taken up the cause of “neo-distributism,” which is more of a critique of the current state of capitalism from a free-market perspective in the name of distributism.  What is unique about their contributions is that they tend to come from serious Catholics and offer moral criticisms of modern industrialism and what it does to agrarian, religious life.  This is opposed to the socialist and communist critiques, which sought to argue that capitalism does not ensure equality.  Distributists do not often complain about the gap between rich and poor, but rather the concentrations of power that tend to benefit the rich at the expense of the poor, however.  The old distributists also blamed nearly all of the ills of modern society on the Protestant Reformation and Jewish financiers, something which the neo-distributists have discarded for quite obvious, political reasons.

Why do you think distributist premises are so appealing to some?

Distributism is appealing because it recognizes that there is more to life than economics and especially the production and consumption of material goods.  Liberal commercial societies have produced all kinds of wealth and opportunity, but from a Catholic perspective, we know that these are not the ends of life, but rather the means to ensure a just society and eventually to help us lead holier lives.  It’s also true that large corporate interests and big government collude to reduce competition and that there is something wrong with our current economic system.  It’s always tempting for humans to think that the past was better, that progress is delusional, that we’ve lost our way.  But the question is whether the past was as noble was we think it was, and whether some kind of return to a pre-modern way of life is possible or even desirable.

What do you find to be the biggest mistake about distributist economics?

I think the biggest mistake distributism tends to make is in assuming that smaller is necessarily better or more “beautiful,” and that the State can guide the economy towards such “smallness.”  It may well be in some cases, it may well not be in others – we simply don’t know in the abstract. 

Can you offer an example?

The sub-prime mortgage bubble that blew up in 2008 is a prime example of how good policy intentions, in this case widespread home ownership, can go awry by dictating that capital be put to “socially useful” or political desirable ends.  I often wish that distibutists devoted themselves to improving the moral and ethical tenor of the broader culture that informs market choices rather than inveighing against capitalism; it would be much more beneficial to the workings of the marketplace and help us all realize the proper end of our human existence.

You can download the full text of this interview by clicking here.

Vocational Stewardship: An Interview with Amy Sherman

In my interview with Amy Sherman, we explore some of the main themes in her latest book, Kingdom Calling, by also seeking to articulate what ‘vocational stewardship’ might look like for scholars, especially Christian philosophers and theologians.

Amy, a Senior Fellow at the Sagamore Institute for Policy Research, is not some mere academic type, preoccupied with scholarly output or simply responding to the latest trends in her area of expertise. She’s a skilled and insightful practitioner at heart; an educator and communicator who is attentive to the ‘social’ dimensions, needs and questions of life through her vocation. Her articles have appeared in such publications as Christianity Today, First Things, The Public Interest, Policy Review, Philanthropy, and Books & Culture
Here are some excerpts from our interview:
Amy, the meaningfulness and significance of vocation looms large in your writing, and most importantly, this value shapes how your life is led in the Kingdom of God. So, let’s start with this: in this season of your life, how would you describe your vocation and what does it look like for you to steward that for the good of others?

I’ve been really blessed because from a young age I’ve had a clear sense of vocational calling: that my life was going to be about the church and the poor. I didn’t always know exactly what that would look like. Over the years it has involved both direct ministry, like running an inner-city nonprofit, and indirect ministry, like researching policy questions related to poverty alleviation. My principal vocation now is that of a communicator and educator, I think. Through writing, public speaking, consulting, and training, I’m trying to be a “minister to ministries:” helping congregations and nonprofits serve their communities more effectively. My work also affords me opportunities to discover “what’s working” in communities and to shine the spotlight on those activities. So, to the extent that God has gifted me in communications, I am stewarding that skill to equip His people for effective service among the poor, to inspire believers to action on behalf of community renewal, and to raise awareness of promising practices for addressing social ills.

How has Kingdom Calling shaped you thus far?

In the course of writing Kingdom Calling, one of my regular prayers was “Lord, make me the first reader of my book.” What I meant was: this book is exhorting readers to live as the tsaddiqim, stewarding all that God has given them to advance His Kingdom. I wanted Him to show me fresh ways that I could live that out. And He answered the prayer. A light bulb came on for me regarding the devotional booklet I’d self-published back in 2000, Sharing God’s Heart for the Poor. Maybe because it’s short and cheap, it’s been my best seller! Anyway, one day I realized that over 35,000 people had been touched by the booklet, and hopefully more would continue to be as it continued to sell. So I wrote a new edition and added information in the back of it on a ministry in Guatemala that I’ve supported for over 20 years. They work alongside families in desperate poverty who live in the city trash dump. As the new edition sells, readers get exposed to this great ministry and I’m now committing half the proceeds to this ministry. 

You have a grand view of the Kingdom of God in your writing. How does that view inform your conceptualization of vocation and its significance through the church in our communities in our Father’s world?

That’s a big question and a full answer would be far too long! In brief, the four chapter Gospel—creation, fall, redemption, and consummation—has many, many implications for our vocational lives. It helps us to better understand (when compared against the truncated gospel of only ‘fall and redemption’) what it means to live missionally through our vocations. 

How does the ‘big Gospel’ focus our attention?

The big Gospel reminds us of God’s big story. He created a paradise and invited us to steward it, legitimating all kinds of work. We blew it, but God did not retract the cultural mandate from us even after the Fall. But the Fall meant that our work would be much more difficult and sometimes feel futile. Jesus’ redemption means that the restoration project is underway. Jesus’ great salvation work pushes back every aspect of the curse: redeeming the broken relationship between humans and God, humans and themselves, humans with one another, and humans with the creation itself. All of that is Jesus’ work, not just “saving souls.” And the doctrine of consummation reminds us that King Jesus will indeed renew all things and that the eternal life we’re going to live will be lived in redeemed bodies on a new Earth. So it’s not going to be about being disembodied souls floating about on clouds playing harps forever and ever!

And how does the ‘big Gospel’ shape how we work in the world?

When we take all that orthodoxy seriously, we see that all of our work—as farmers and teachers and architects and scientists and plumbers and bureaucrats and auto mechanics and secretaries and lawyers and cops and you-name-it, matters to God and participates in His work. We participate in His ongoing, sustaining work of creation. We participate in His work to restrain evil and corruption. We participate in His work of renewal. All our work has dignity; there is no hierarchy of “spiritual” work that is superior. And, according to the doctrine of the consummation, we can find deep meaning and purpose in our work because some of it will actually last into eternity.

It is common for ‘careerism’ to replace ‘thinking vocationally’ about one’s life. In academic or scholarly circles, something similar seems to happen: we often describe what it means to be ‘philosopher,’ a ‘social scientist’ or a ‘theologian,’ for example in non-vocational ways. For example, we tend to be mostly satisfied by knowing and describing these ‘roles’ in terms of just necessary and sufficient conditions for being such and such, professionally speaking, through one’s lens of specialization. But how might your concept of ‘vocational stewardship’ offer a corrective?

By ‘vocational stewardship,’ I mean the strategic and intentional deployment of all the dimensions of our vocational power to advance foretastes of the Kingdom of God. By foretastes, I’m referring to the marks of the future, consummated Kingdom, as we see those described in the scriptural texts that provide glimpses of the new heavens and new earth.

Do you have some examples of these ‘foretastes’?

Some examples of Kingdom foretastes are beauty, justice, wholeness, and truth. I believe people in each vocation need to consider which Kingdom foretastes they might especially have opportunities to advance. Medical professionals, for example, obviously bring the foretaste of health and wholeness while architects and artists can bring beauty. Academics also can focus on bringing beauty and on advancing truth. They can also pursue justice—such as when a historian choosing deliberately to focus on subjects that others have ignored.

Let’s further contextualize your thesis to scholars, since EPS readership mostly consist of philosophy/theology scholars and students. For example, how might Christian scholarship (especially work in the humanities) be more attentive to the ‘social’ and, indeed, help to advance foretastes of justice and shalom in and through our classrooms and communities.

Well, this is the sort of thing I was getting at in my answer just now about what a historian can do. When I think about academics stewarding their vocation, my mind runs along two kinds of tracks. One has to done with the content of what’s studied – like the historian’s choice to raise awareness of the contributions made by people that perhaps have not had their full due in the literature. Philosophers, I think, can participate in God’s work of restraining corruption when they labor to discern and expose patterns of thought or ideologies that are harmful to genuine human flourishing. They can also participate in God’s work of renewal by encouraging the cultivation of wonder and imagination in an age marked by too much irony and suspicion.

How might these endeavors jive with the ethos of ‘academic freedom’?

Academics have freedom to decide their research agenda—and they should steward that freedom well. They need to attend very seriously to their intellectual investments—avoiding studying something just because it’s a “hot topic” or the thing likely to get one a spot in an academic journal. Their research agenda should be informed by God’s priorities and the needs of the world.

So, ‘vocational stewardship’ is a way of prioritizing how a Christian scholar can approach their work. Is there an additional way to think about this stewardship?

The second track has to do with intentional choices about sharing knowledge. When we invest tons of time in research, when we tackle intellectual or theological conundrums, when we publish, who benefits? Do we know? Have we thought about how to widen the circle of our beneficiaries?

Can you offer an example of what this looks like?

Here’s a little analogy. I like to challenge lawyers to think about the legally underserved. It’s not like every Christian lawyer has to go work for International Justice Mission or the local legal aid clinic. Some really are called to Wall Street or big corporate firms. But there’s a lot of lawyers out there to meet the needs of well-paying clients, and there’s a lot of underserved folks in need of legal services. So I believe that Christian lawyers ought to be intentional to invest some of their time seeking to serve those folks. Similarly, academics should stretch their thinking a bit regarding the beneficiaries of how they are investing their talents, and mull over whether they are missing out on serving some “underserved” folks. 

 To read the full text of the interview, you can download it here.

Vocational Stewardship for the Common Good: An Interview with Amy Sherman

Amy Sherman is not some mere academic type, preoccupied with scholarly output or simply responding to the latest trends in her area of expertise. She’s a skilled and insightful practitioner at heart; an educator and communicator who is attentive to the ‘social’ dimensions, needs and questions of life through her vocation.

In this interview, we explore some of her main themes in her latest book, Kingdom Calling, by also seeking to articulate what ‘vocational stewardship’ might look like for scholars, especially Christian philosophers and theologians.

To read the full text of the interview, you can download it here.

Is Distributism a ‘Third Way’: An Interview with Kishore Jayabalan

An economic theory of ‘distributism’ is often presented as a Christian ‘third way’ between capitalism and socialism. But is it? Does it have an adequate view of economics? How does its anthropology inform his vision? In this interview, Kishore Jayabalan offers an overview and critique of distributist assumptions.

You can download the full text of this interview by clicking here.

On Ideas, Culture and Innovation: An Interview with Ross Emmett

Photo provided by BeckyJohns7 @ Flickr

How might we think about the conditions, culture, ideas and possibilities of innovation? How might our view of human persons and their culture shape the horizons for innovation, which contribute value to others? These questions and other topics are pursued in this interview with Ross Emmett.

There is great need today to articulate a substantive and coherent theology and philosophy of innovation that is attentive to multidisciplinary considerations. Perhaps this interview might help to prod further work in this area.

Prof. Ross B. Emmett (IMBA, Ph.D.), is a professor in James Madison College at Michigan State University and co-director of the College’s Michigan Center for Innovation & Economic Prosperity. His teaching deals with the central question of comparative economic governance: what is the relationship between basic economic institutions and their legal, cultural, political and moral contexts?

Here are some excerpts from our interview:

You have a helpful web series of short videos on “The Constitution of Innovation” (with handsome allusions to Hayak’s notable work, The Constitution of Liberty). Let’s begin by considering what is innovation, and what is an innovative society? Why does this matter to human flourishing?

So much of our current discussion of innovation is focused on policy. My own thinking about innovation is focused instead on the features of a society that enable people to initiate and follow through on innovation. I use the word “constitution” to refer to these features, in much the same way Hayek does. In both our cases, we harken back to Tocqueville’s “constitutional” analysis of democracy in America.

What’s your basic take-away on what is innovation?

My working definition of innovation is “people having ideas about new ways to use things to create value for others.” Rather than talk about land, labor and capital, I talk about people, ideas, and things. This also enables me to emphasize the point that innovation is human action, not the product of some impersonal process or system. And finally, if you don’t create value for others, your idea just isn’t successful (most ideas about new ways to use things fail, of course), or you’re just tinkering for your own benefit (inventing, perhaps, but not innovating).

Why does innovation matter for human flourishing?

The Acton Institute often speaks of promoting a free and virtuous society, the end of which is human flourishing. Innovation is the means by which the potential for human flourishing is expanded in a free society. I say “potential” because almost every innovation could be used in a way that diminishes human flourishing. The problem is that we don’t know in advance which innovations will do harm. You won’t believe how many innovations that we herald today as central to improving our lives that were condemned by one group or another at the time they appeared as harmful in some way. When we allow elites to restrict our access to innovations, human flourishing is diminished.

One of the main themes in your scholarship is the role of ideas in economic history. From what I know of your work, you don’t strike me as some sort of quasi ‘Hegalian’ who reduces cultural change to just ideas or worldviews. History and cultural change – even the ‘history of ideas’ – are richer and fuller than that, right?

Ideas don’t act. Humans do. We are the change agents in history. But ideas matter in two ways. First, change occurs as people have new ideas about how to use the resources we have to provide value for themselves and others, and then go out and put them into action. Of course, those ideas don’t appear from nowhere; they emerge out of our existing contexts. Like other economists, I’ve been quite interested in the role of institutions in shaping incentives, even for entrepreneurial action. So after ideas, I emphasize the role of institutions in economic change.

How do beliefs affect cultural change?

As the economic historian Joel Mokyr has said, change depends a lot upon what people believe. I often ask my classes this question: do you believe that your actions can change the future in a positive way? If one cannot answer that question positively, why would one bother trying to innovate? So our ideas about how ideas matter (got that?), matter as well.

And the role of institutions?

One of my arguments is that our institutions are embodiments of our culture’s answer to questions such as that one. The institutions that limit government, free markets, and facilitate a rich associational life encourage the kind of changes that enable human flourishing. (If our “flourishing” can’t be improved, then different institutions will emerge; or if only certain groups are allowed to flourish, then a different set of institutions will emerge, etc.) You can understand why I see a strong connection between ideas and institutions.

Given what you say about flourishing, is economics only about use of resources?

Economics has focused on resources, institutions and the like in analyzing change because economics is our primary means of explaining human exchange and trade. And humans have, always and everywhere, traded with each other. But humans have also, always and everywhere, talked with each other. One of the reasons why economics has had a hard time incorporating “ideas” into its explanations of change is because economics has a hard time incorporating talk and discussion into its theories.

How so?

Put bluntly, humans cooperate together both by trade and by talk. A free society, characterized by the institutions identified a moment ago, is one that enables both trade and talk.

Economics (whether as an area of knowledge and practice), and economic institutions, are often viewed in isolation from other areas of knowledge and relevant institutions. How do you see economic institutions functioning in a broader ecology of legal, cultural, political and moral contexts?

We have become accustomed to thinking about society as bi-polar: either markets do everything, or politics does everything. I try, as do many others, to help us realize that family, civil society, and the common law are integral parts of the institutional structure supporting markets and responsible freedom. In my own work, you see then when I begin talking about “the constitution of innovation.” To understand innovation, we have to function in a broader context than just economic policy.

To read the full text of this interview, please click here.

On Communitarianism: An Interview with Ken Grasso

Communitarianism often informs much of our Western theologies and philosophies of community, society, and notions of social harmony. How might we understand it as a movement of thought?

In this interview with Ken Grasso, we discuss the various nuances of ‘communitarianism,’ and how a robust anthropology might be a corrective to ‘political communitarianism,’ yet also help to advance a kind of ‘social communitarianism’ that is meaningful for a pluralist theory of society.

Grasso is professor of political science at Texas State University.  He has written extensively on Catholic social thought, the liberal tradition, and democratic theory.

Here are some excerpts from our interview:

As you know, ‘communitarianism’ is a rather heterogeneous movement of associated thinkers that seems united around a common conviction of what they are against: a radical individualism inspired by some variety political liberalism. What’s at the heart of this liberalism?

A vision of human beings as sovereign wills free to make of themselves and the world whatever they choose, unbound by moral ties antecedent to choice save perhaps for the duty to respect the autonomy of others.  This vision of the person issues a thin theory of society in which human social relations are understood as artificial, external, and contractual; and in which human communities are viewed as temporary aggregations of individuals united for reasons of mutual utility. 

So, communitarianism is a ‘reactive’ movement?

Communitarianism must be understood as an effort to address the modern crisis of community, the decline of community that seems to happen as an outgrowth of those socioeconomic changes that together constitute modernization.  The loss of community – and resulting sense of isolation, alienation, etc. — is one of the defining cultural experiences of modernity.  One cannot but think in this context about contemporary concerns about the erosion of our sense of civic solidarity and social connectedness, and decline of the institutions composing civil society.  

What are the historical and contemporary varieties of communitarianism that you have identified in your scholarship?

Obviously, community can mean very different things and there are many types of communitarianism.  I would say that the basic distinction in the modern world is between what might be called “political” and what might be called “social” communitarianism.  The former has historically received expression in the thought of thinkers like Rousseau, Hegel and Marx, and in American context the thought of certain of the progressives such as Herbert Croly.   It receives contemporary expression in the writings of thinkers like Robert Bellah, William Sullivan, Michael Sandel, Amitai Etzoni and Alan Wolfe. 

What defines what I’m calling political communitarianism is a vision of social life which focuses single-mindedly on the individual and the state, and whose effect is to make the state the center of social life, and the political community the locus of community.  Social communitarianism, in contrast, historically finds expression in the writings of thinkers like Althusius, Tocqueville, Durkheim and Burke as well as in modern Catholic and neo-Calvinist social thought (where it finds expression in the social teachings of the modern popes as well as in the thought of such figures as Heinrich Rommen, Jacques Maritain, Abraham Kuyper and Herman Dooyeweerd.  In post-World War II America, it finds expression in the writings of thinkers like Mary Ann Glendon, Robert Nisbet, Alasdair MacIntyre, and Jean Bethke Elshtain. 

What’s important to social communitarians?

For social communitarians, our nature as social beings finds expression in a wide variety of diverse institutions and social groups in society, as to be seen not as an aggregation of individuals united by citizenship in the political community, but as a community of communities.   From this perspective, the state is not the primary institution in which our nature as social beings finds expression, and the polis is not the locus of community.  For it, the institutions of civil society, rather than the state, are the center, as it were, of social gravity. 

Does political communitarianism represent a dead end?

Yes. It is incapable of addressing the modern world’s crisis of community because both its theory and practice are destructive of the small-scale, highly personal, solidaristic institutions which are alone capable of addressing our need for community.  At the same time, its celebration of state power is endangers liberty in its foundations.  Only in social communitarianism can we find the resources to both revitalize community and secure liberty.

  You can read the full text of this interview by clicking here.

On Communitarianism: An Interview with Ken Grasso

Communitarianism often informs much of our Western theologies and philosophies of community, society, and notions of social harmony. How might we understand it as a movement of thought?

In this interview with Ken Grasso, we discuss the various nuances of ‘communitarianism,’ and how a robust anthropology might be a corrective to ‘political communitarianism,’ yet also help to advance a kind of ‘social communitarianism’ that is meaningful for a pluralist theory of society.

You can read the full text of this interview by clicking here.
 

Ideas, Culture and Innovation: An Interview with Ross Emmett

How might we think about the conditions, culture, ideas and possibilities of innovation? How might our view of human persons and their culture shape the horizons for innovation, which contribute value to others? These questions and other topics are pursued in this interview with Ross Emmett.

There is great need today to articulate a substantive and coherent theology and philosophy of innovation that is attentive to multidisciplinary considerations. Perhaps this interview might help to prod further work in this area.

To read the full text of this interview, please click here.

Business as Moral Enterprise: Interview with Andreas Widmer

Is business an amoral, moral or immoral enterprise? How might one’s anthropology shape an answer to this question?

I recently interviewed Andreas Widmer about this topic, given his ability to think theologically about business and his seasoned experience as a business leader.

Andreas is the cofounder of the SEVEN Fund, a philanthropic organization run by entrepreneurs who invest in original research, books, films, and websites to further enterprise solutions to poverty. Among other things, he is also a Research Fellow in Entrepreneurship at the Acton Institute.

Here are a few excerpts from my interview with Andreas:

Entrepreneurship is in your bones. You are the co-founder of the SEVEN Fund, which is doing some remarkable work “to dramatically increase the rate of innovation and diffusion of enterprise-based solutions to poverty.” To start off, I want to have you address what might be aptly described as one of your life themes: business as a moral enterprise. Why is it a moral enterprise and not merely a profit-maximizing machine?

There is a misconception in our society that business is amoral, or that the pursuit of profit is mutually exclusive to conducting business with virtue. A Moral Enterprise is one that approaches business in the spirit of co-creation: as we pursue entrepreneurship, we mirror God’s image as the creator, and pursue his invitation to participate in his creative power.

Are you saying that the nature of business is a Moral Enterprise or that it is such as one approaches business in the spirit of co-creation? Both?

Business is an action, and every human action has a moral implication. Thus business is a moral enterprise. The co-creation perspective makes this even more clear – but that’s true not just for business but of other actions as well and sometimes in an even deeper sense, I’m thinking here of marriage, and specifically of the marital act of a profound participation in the creative power of God.

It’s true that CEOs are responsible for ensuring that their companies make a profit. But you know that they do more than that. How can CEOs (and, in general, business leaders) shape companies in ways that give rise to fostering ecologies of freedom, dignity, and self-responsibility within business enterprises?

It’s a widely held belief that CEOs ought to control profit. The only problem with that belief is that it’s wrong. CEOs don’t really have control over profit. What they can control is the creation of a company, a system that has a certain culture that enables profits.

Around the world, what have you seen to be as essential (if not surprising) elements of a company’s culture that enables profits?

Freedom, equality, subsidiarity, humility – these are all key ingredients in a company culture that results in all kinds of profit, not only financial profit.

What is prosperity?

Prosperity is human flourishing; the best definition of material poverty is a lack of connection to networks of productivity and exchange.  However, the greatest poverty today is not material but spiritual.

In what way is the greatest poverty today not material but spiritual?

Spiritual poverty is most visible in the lack of meaning that is so prevalent today. Relativism and nihilism are two of the most profound manifestations of that poverty. In my travels, I generally find people yearning for meaning in their life, for transcendence and purpose they can believe in. In the absence of religion, they end up following all kinds of false gods only to find themselves suffering and sorely disappointed – disillusioned. The cynicism that results from that experience is a tangible measurement of our spiritual poverty.

To read the full text of this interview, please go here.