Conference Papers & Current Trends

Discussion of Rational Choice Theory

Round 1: Viewpoints from across the Spectrum

Latin Americanist-Historian Views: Rational Choice

Edward T. Brett, Professor of History at Laroche College, Pittsburgh

Read Gill's rejoinders

I base my critique on Anthony Gill's chapter, "The Economics of Evangelization," in the forthcoming book, Religious Freedom and Evangelization in Latin America, ed. by Paul Sigmund. I realize that Gill may have addressed some of my concerns in his broader study, Render Unto Caesar, which I have not read.

My problem with Gill's chapter is not based so much on whether or not Rational Choice theory is a valid theory. It is based on the fact that Gill, in my opinion, ignores historical realities which do not fit into his system.

I am also concerned that his approach reduces religion to pure economics--the equivalent of buying and selling commodities (for example he talks of religious markets regulated and deregulated) and I think this shortchanges religion by leaving out the moral dimension.

To be more specific:

  1. Gill does not differentiate between the various religious players. He treats them all generically. He seems to have interviewed only evangelical Protestants. Consequently, he does not differentiate between their mindset and that of Catholics and mainline Protestants. One would think from his paper that Catholic missionaries and clergy have the same modus operandi as Pentecostals. They don't; neither do more traditional Protestants. On page 1, for example, his "image of the missionary" may be correct for evangelicals, but to apply it to Catholics after 1968, one would have to add the option for the poor.
  2. This option, of course, developed from Vatican II and Medellin. Yet Gill doesn't even mention these. How can one do a serious article on a topic of this nature and totally ignore Vatican II and Medellin?
  3. Indeed, Gill seems to be in a pre-Vatican II time warp. He states that the Catholic Church began to involve itself with the poor only after the Evangelicals began to make large scale conversions. I think such large scale conversions took place in the late 1970s and the 1980s. But Gaudium et Spes, which was the seed for the church's option for the poor and which spawned Medellin, came prior to this Protestant success. Thus, Gill seems to be chronologically out of order here.
  4. Gill gives too much credit to the "Protestant challenge" to Catholicism. Any historian of the Latin American Catholic church in the 20th century would probably agree that the Catholic hierarchy was much more fearful of communist influence and expansion in Latin America and that this fear caused church leaders to focus more on the poor. This is not to say that Catholic leaders were not concerned with the "Protestant challenge." They were, but this was by far secondary to communism.
  5. If Gill's thesis is correct, then how does one explain the post-Medellin cooperation between progressive Catholics and mainline Protestants on issues of social justice? Gill seems to have no recognition of ecuminism in post 1960s Christianity.
  6. Gill doesn't differentiate between the pre- and post Vatican II Catholic mindset. This causes him to neglect social justice as a factor in Catholic work with the poor and oppressed, and, as I said above, this social justice factor is rooted in Gaudium et Spes which came from Rome, not Latin America Catholic bishops.
  7. On page 2, Gill states that Monopolistic (Catholic) religion neglected the poor due to the economic necessity of funding a large bureaucracy. I think the extreme shortage of priests, especially after the liberals came to power, had more to do with this neglect.
  8. The author's contention (page 15) that Protestant efforts to convert the upper class in the 1890s to 1910s failed because "the elite were solidly educated in Catholic doctrine" is incorrect. What are his sources for this? At that time the elite class (with the exception of a small conservative remnant) were unconcerned with Catholic doctrine. They were concerned with economics and that meant stripping the church of its property. The liberals didn't attend church; if anything they were anticlerical and the elites in power at this time were the liberals.
  9. Gill says that CEBs are an attempt to fight Pentecostal success. Althouth there is some truth to this, it is too simplistic. If that were the primary reason for establishing CEBs, then why has the Vatican and the conservative members of the hierarchy been so suspicious of them? Why have they tried to shut them down or replace them with charismatic groups? In truth, there were many reasons for creating CEBs, most of which do not fit into Gill's religious economec thesis.

Thus, although Gill's may be a noble effort, I think he needs to pay more attention to historical factors, which seem to go against his thesis. Certainly he can not just ignore them. Secondly, he would do well to realize that sometimes the church makes reforms primarily for moral reasons. Economics is not always the bottom line for all change.