THE AMERICAN PARADOX: Spiritual Hunger in an Age of Plenty
By David G. Myers
Los Angeles Times, April 15, 2000

In a nation founded in part upon the notion of a separation between church and state, what role should religion play in the life of our society? A significant one, proposes social psychologist David G. Myers in his new book, The American Paradox: Spiritual Hunger in an Age of Plenty. "Ninety-six percent of Americans affirm the reality of God," he writes, "and eighty-seven percent claim religion is at least 'fairly important' in their own lives." How then do we account for the mess we're in, and what are we going to do about it?

The paradox is self-evident: "Americans," writes Myers, "have been soaring materially and, until recently, sinking socially." He points to the extraordinary level of affluence we have achieved, and to the unprecedented technological progress which assures hitherto unimaginable ease of life and longevity. He reminds us of the strides we have made toward racial and class equality since the early years of the century. On the other hand, he lists the long, familiar jeremiad of our woes, from the increasing gap between rich and poor to the problems of crime and teenage pregnancy, from our obsession with material possessions to still-climbing divorce rates and declining family values. Backed by the often startling statistics and conclusions of countless sociological studies (this is a heavily footnoted read), he also parades the staggering prevalence of mental disorders and depression, and the appalling acts of violence reported daily in the media news.

Nothing much new here, except for the scope and the unsparing accumulation of statistical detail. What is particularly useful, though, is Myers' insistence on transcending knee-jerk political positions. He surely has something to provoke everyone's ire. I watched my own liberal prejudices flare at the mention of tired old button-pushers like First Amendment rights, and blaming Hollywood and the media for everything from youth violence to extramarital sex; but I was grateful to be reminded that my heart, and often my simple common sense, is frequently in conflict with those prejudices. Those of a conservative bent will surely be similarly discomforted by Myers' positions on gun controls, for example, or sex education. Confrontational politics has led us only deeper into the mire.

Attributing a good part of society's decay to "radical individualism" on both left and right, Myers posits a middle, "communitarian" path: "Prudent restraints on individual rights," he writes, "enhance our collective well-being." He advocates "educating for a moral compass," transcending the dominant individualism and moral relativism with a new sense of values informed by the common good. A 1996 poll, he writes, "found more than 9 in 10 Americans supporting public schools teaching respect for others, hard work, persistence, fairness, compassion, and civility and politeness." Religious faith, he believes, and specifically a belief in God, can provide the underpinnings for this moral renewal: "Can we be good," he asks, "without God?"

Myers' suggestion is, of course, that we can't. "People of faith are, for whatever reasons, somewhat more traditionally moral," he argues: "more honest and law abiding and less hedonistic. " Glossing rather easily over some of the positions of the arguably less-than-Christian right, he also notably excludes some particularly intractable issues-I think of abortion, for example, or the teaching of creationism in the public schools-as he sweeps us toward a new, faith-based society where "godliness" provides the ground for "goodness." Based on his review of a number of successful collaborations between government and church organizations, Myers even speculates on "a new partnership" to bring about social change while still preserving the government's religious neutrality.

It's hard to resist the passionate conviction with which Myers proposes a recommitment to faith. Heaven knows, it's past time for us to get beyond the grasping needs of the self and our individual beliefs. I wonder, though, if the faith in God of those ninety-six percent of Americans runs deep enough to achieve the end he so desires. And he reaches his conclusion in too much of a rush to explore in any depth how we might reconcile the significant, sincere, and deeply-rooted religious differences that still keep well-intentioned people apart.