Ethics and Culture is a blog by Andrew J. Spencer. (@SpenceSpencer01)
As we navigate thousands of decisions about consumer goods, entertainment, and even volunteer opportunities, we would all benefit from spending a bit more time to ask whether what we are considering fulfills the main purpose of life: to glorify God and enjoy him forever.
Read MoreFive links worth following this week: Two reviews of a new book by Richard and Christopher Hays. An Alan Jacobs review of two annotated Wind and the Willows. Gavin Ortlund talks about fundamentalism. A great gospel work going on in Philly.
Read MoreAs news circulates that a Fairfax County Circuit Court judge recently use chattel property laws to make a decision about the fate of frozen embryos, we have another opportunity to consider the morality of various forms of artificial reproductive technology.
Though Oliver O’Donovan’s book, Begotten or Made?, was initially published in 1984, many Christians are unaware of any writing on these topics. As an ethicist, I have been asked more than once about the morality of in vitro fertilization (IVF), with the tacit assumption by the questioner that of course it was morally licit, please explain why. O’Donovan argues convincingly that it is most cases not moral. If anything, O’Donovan is too open to the possibility of a morally legitimate IVF, but his argument is rigorous and eloquent.
Begotten or Made? was originally a set of lectures. At the time they were commissioned, IVF was still a novel technology. O’Donovan deals less with the technique of artificial reproduction than he does with the theology behind it. His reasoning is sound, even as the technology has changed somewhat. By penetrating through the concreteness of the technique of IVF into the ideas that enable it, O’Donovan wrote a treatise that has stood the test of time.
O’Donovan begins by considering the purpose of medicine, which ought to be healing. He notes, “Christians should at this juncture confess their faith in the natural order as the good creation of God.” (15) This is important because it differentiates the process of healing from the process of making something. Much of the technology around artificial reproduction was designed to circumvent nature rather than to restore it.
In the second lecture, O’Donovan deals with what we now call transgenderism. He notes that this is another technology that is primarily oriented toward thwarting nature rather than healing. As such, it cannot be a form of medicine in any meaningful sense. This discussion was meant to show where divorcing reproduction from intercourse between a male and female. O’Donovan’s early thinking has turned to be prophetic. O’Donovan’s treatment of this issue remains one of the clearest, most succinct discussions of a raging topic. The book is worth reading simply for this chapter.
The third lecture explains why involving a donor in the procreative process is inherently immoral. O’Donovan deals with the moral deficiencies of replacing one of the parents within the family with (potentially) a stranger. Notably, he also deals carefully with potential objections raised by the Old Testament levirate marriage, which he argues is distinct. One aspect of this chapter that needs further development (due to its increasing popularity, rather than O’Donovan’s lack) is the renting of wombs through surrogacy.
Lecture four wrestles with the personhood of the embryo. Contemporary medical ethics requires the subject’s consent for experimentation, but an embryo obviously cannot give consent. And yet, so much of the reproductive technology—from freezing embryos to genetic modification—is experimental and has at least some risk of damage or death. At worst the personhood of an embryo is ambiguous, which should cause us to be much more cautious in putting it at risk.
The final lecture wraps up the arguments, making the case as lucid as possible using a fairy tale. One of the most significant aspects of moral reasoning about artificial reproductive technologies that rises from this concluding chapter is that even many of those that participate in such techniques likely do not consider the moral implications of it. The clinical nature of IVF, for example, eliminates the mutual relationship and cooperation normally required for natural conception. It is, on the whole, something different than natural procreation.
The book is slender. This new edition, with a foreword by Matthew Lee Anderson, and a new afterword by the author, is only a little over one hundred pages. It is carefully argued and likely a bit dense for those not familiar with this sort of moral reasoning. The book, however, is well worth the time it takes to read it. Davenant Institute has done a remarkable service in producing a second edition of an increasingly important book.
God of All Things thus deepens our experience of the world as we study and live. Its short chapters and engaging prose are suitable for a wide audience. The many connections with real, physical object lessons have deepened my appreciation of God’s efforts to ensure that the message of his greatness is available for all.
As stories go, it’s reasonably entertaining. It’s no wonder this book is popular—it hits all the key notes of our zeitgeist. Climate anxiety, empowerment of children, wealthy people are evil, and wonder at the world.
Sometimes when you wake from an incredibly heavy sleep with extremely vivid dreams it can be disorienting. You look around at your room and wonder how you got there, as if you have just arrived on an alien planet.
Western culture feels like that in recent years. The loudest voices of our world expect us to affirm statements that would have been viewed as non-sensical a few years ago. Someone, “I am a man trapped in a woman’s body,” has gone from a psychosis to a source of pride.
Ideas do have consequences, but what are some of the ideas and who are some of the thinkers that helped pave the way for us to get to this point.
Carl Trueman’s earlier book, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, is an excellent example of thorough research and clear presentation. (I had a review written of it, but my computer ate it and I couldn’t bring myself to rewrite it yet.) The primary weakness of that volume was that it showed the jumps in concepts of the self that paved the way for the sexual revolution, but it failed to show how the ideas of Marx, Reich, and Freud were genetically connected to those cultural shifts. There seemed to be a trajectory, but Trueman didn’t connect all the dots. The second weakness of that volume was that it was so dense and academic that its audience was limited to those who had done a great deal of background reading already. Honestly, that limitation isn’t as much a weakness as simply a description of the type of work Trueman produced on that occasion. There is a place for that sort of book, but it left many of its readers (including me) wishing I could really share that with my friends and fellow church members.
Trueman’s more recent book, Strange New World: How Thinkers and Activists Redefined Identity and Sparked the Sexual Revolution, fills the gap for a more popular level work that expresses many of the same ideas. Strange New World also takes on the feedback of some of the reviews of Rise and Triumph and makes a bit tighter argument. In this case, Trueman makes it clear that he isn’t arguing there is a clear connection between the different thinkers or that the average ideological activist has actually read enough of Marx or whomever to actually be an expert. However, Trueman shows how each of these progressive thinkers broke new ground and prepare the way for the corrosive effects of the sexual revolution.
There is explanatory power in this book. It has a similar flavor to it as C. S. Lewis’ The Abolition of Man or Richard Weaver’s Ideas have Consequences. Both of those men wrote those books eight decades ago. Trueman has much more information that points to the fact that they largely got things right, and it is destroying Western culture and the humans that reside within it.
Trueman notes, “To put it bluntly, the modern cultural imagination sees the world as raw material to be shaped by the human will.” (95) And, prior to that, he observes, “We might say that the death of God is also the death of human nature, or at least the end of any cogent argument that there is such a thing as human nature. If there is no God, then men and women cannot be made in his image and are not therefore required to act in accordance with that image.” (62)
This is modernity. It is the sort of liquid modernity that Zygmunt Bauman discusses. It is the sort of caustic thought-world that Alan Noble writes about in Disruptive Witness and to which he provides a helpful solution for in You are Not Your Own. Trueman shows how the changes in sexual norms in culture have come about through the trajectory of modern, Western thought. Strange New World is one of a chorus of helpful voices that help to explain what’s wrong with the world we inhabit.
This is a book that could be used for an upper-level student in High School, especially as a source for an advanced book review or paper. It has a place in a study of worldview or sexual ethics in an undergraduate or graduate course. This is also a book that thoughtful pastors and laypeople who are reasonably well read can work through and benefit from tremendously. Strange New World should be read widely and often as we try to navigate an increasingly anti-human and disorienting world.
Readers may also benefit from watching a series of lectures Trueman put together for Grove City College, which summarize some of the main points of his book.
In June of 2021, nearly 15,000 messengers from Southern Baptist Churches from around the country voted overwhelmingly to commission an independent, 3rd party investigation into the handling of sexual abuse allegations by the Southern Baptist Executive Committee officers for the period of 2000 to the present.
It should be clear that the investigation was not into accusations of abuse by the SBC’s Executive Committee officers, but that members of the Executive Committee had handled accusations about local churches poorly and in some cases potentially bullied or manipulated those who claim to have been abused in a local church.
One particular accusation in the past few years turned into a lawsuit against the SBC with a former LifeWay (an SBC entity) employee who made a public accusation of abuse that was misrepresented as a consensual affair. The fallout of that misrepresentation was public abuse (with names hurled that should be unthinkable for confessing Christians) leading to her resignation from LifeWay. The misrepresentation was compounded by an unwillingness to correct the misrepresentation in the SBC-controlled newspaper long after the misrepresentation was identified, which contributed to the abuse hurled at the woman. After a change in leadership, the report was corrected and an apology issued, but a great deal of financial, emotional, and spiritual damage had already been done.
This case, a Houston Chronicle article detailing over 700 cases of sexual abuse in SBC churches over a period of 20 years, along with evidence of serial abuse by individuals who had bounced from local church to local church, often as paid staff, raised concerns that the SBC was doing too little to curb abuse. All of this came at a time when sexual harassment and abuse were a particular public concern in society, but there is little question that concern about abuse is more than a secular movement being imported into religious clothing. These sins should not be tolerated among Christians! (1 Cor 5:1–2)
Given the loose association between churches affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, there has been resistance to many movements of reform on the basis of our polity and local church autonomy. It is true that some actions are not possible for the SBC. However, as Keith Whitfield has argued:
“We’ve hidden behind false fronts and convenient excuses. Appeals to the autonomy of Southern Baptist churches have derailed various proposals, like creating a Southern Baptist offenders' registry. While our polity may render some proposals nearly impossible to carry out, the appeal to autonomy doesn't justify inaction. Rather, we must use our autonomy to covenant with one another, “to stir one another to love and good deeds” (Heb. 10:31). Our family of churches must find a meaningful and culture-shaping mechanism that leads us to commit to best practices as we strive to prevent abuse in our churches and entities.”
There is little doubt that many critics of the SBC will be dissatisfied with the efforts to curb abuse within the association of churches. This is largely because they misunderstand the nature of the SBC. However, the fact that the demands of some critics cannot be satisfied should not prevent the organization from taking what steps are appropriate within our context. After all, if the SBC can disfellowship a church for ordaining a female pastor or affirming ungodly forms of sexual practice, then the SBC can disfellowship churches for failing to deal with gross sin in their midst. There are likely additional steps that can be taken to prevent or, at least, minimize serial sexual abuse that can be facilitated at the national level without violating basic Baptist polity.
The June 2021 meeting of the SBC seemed to be a turning point toward addressing concerns over sex abuse in our churches, given the overwhelming vote by the messengers, who are the sole members of the SBC and its entities.
Getting the independent investigation underway has proved difficult for the Executive Committee because of concerns over legal and financial exposure due to the investigation. One contentious aspect of that motion as approved by the messengers was the request that the Executive Committee waive attorney-client privilege for the investigation.
Waiving attorney-client privilege is, indeed, a big step. On the one hand, it provides unimpeded access to documents that may be legally damning, but which could have been kept out of the public eye because they were protected by the confidential relationship between an attorney and her client. There is legal and financial risk to waiving this privilege, which may include the Executive Committee’s insurance company refusing to pay out on settlements related to cases whose evidence is exposed by this waiver. Additionally, evidence may become publicly available (as through the investigator’s report) that would have otherwise have been hidden to litigants or prosecutors. If there has been wrongdoing, it may well be exposed and bring penalty that could have been prevented by non-disclosure.
On the other hand, waiving attorney-client privilege exposes issues to the light of day that would otherwise be left to fester and left unaddressed. It would leave the investigators without all the information needed to bring problems to light, uncover weaknesses in practices, which could lead to greater liability down the line. It would diminish the trustworthiness of the final, public report, because the world would be left wondering what secrets remained hidden behind the veil.
Contributing to the need to waive attorney-client privilege on this issue, the long-time general counsel for the SBC Executive Committee has been in the midst of many of the controversies within the SBC. He has, for example, been part of a plot to misappropriate money from one SBC seminary and has been subsequently banned by judicial order from serving non-profits within the state of Texas or any Southern Baptist entity. The same individual has been deeply involved with another major figure within SBC life who was eventually terminated for mishandling his stewardship of an SBC entity along with public accusations related to covering up abuse. Some of these accusations have not been corroborated, but the risk that communications related to the issue would be kept confidential due to one of the key individual’s role for the Executive Committee made this selective waiver of attorney-client privilege essential to having a transparent, independent investigation. Given that the same individual testified as a character witness for a convicted abuser using his SBC official title, and also called the concerns over abuse a “satanic plot,” there is a reasonable basis for assuming his correspondence may be important to the investigation into handling of sexual abuse.
In June of 2021, the messengers voted to have the Executive Committee waive attorney–client privilege and form a separate (not approved or appointed by the Executive Committee) task force of Southern Baptists, who would hire a firm to conduct the third-party investigation. This vote was a rare move for the Southern Baptist messengers. Unlike resolutions, which do not have normative force, the motion from the floor was a directive to the members elected to the Southern Baptist’s Executive Committee.
(For those unfamiliar with the polity, the Southern Baptist Convention exists for two days each year from the first gavel to the last gavel of the annual meeting. It is comprised of “messengers” who are sent by their local congregations to vote on issues raised at the meeting. The Executive Committee exists to oversee the budget of the Cooperative Program, improve cooperation between SBC entities, and make arrangements for the annual meeting. The Executive Committee is comprised of people nominated by the Committee on Committees and elected by the messengers of the convention.)
The expectation of many of the messengers was that at the first Executive Committee meeting after the SBC, which is normally conducted in September (~100 days after the SBC), they would vote to waive attorney-client privilege, approve the funds for the investigation, and empower the Task Force (appointed by the President of the SBC, elected by the messengers at the SBC, who is also a voting member of the Executive Committee) to do the investigation.
Many onlookers were disappointed when the Executive Committee failed to waive attorney-client privilege and approve the third-party investigation as directed, when they met in Nashville on the 21st of September. Although the Sex Abuse Task Force had been named, had identified a reputable group to do the investigation (whom the Executive Committee had tried to hire to do a private investigation without a public report prior to the annual meeting of the SBC), and had the contract prepared for approval, the investigation was stalled. A significant faction within the SBC had worked with some leaders within the Executive Committee to argue against waiving attorney-client privilege, which threatened to put the brakes on the contract and the investigative process.
Though the full reasons for the issue may never be known, much of the information the members of the Executive Committee needed to make their decision was not presented until shortly before the meeting, with insufficient time to review it. Additionally, members of the staff of the Executive Committee had contracted with legal firms to attempt to convince the Executive Committee members not to fulfill the direction of the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention by refusing to waive attorney-client privilege. However, a motion was made and approved to meet again in seven days to discuss it again.
At the second meeting, on September 14, the motion to waive attorney-client privilege was again defeated. Another motion was made to allow another 7 days to negotiate. The key to the negotiation for the Executive Committee was maintaining control of the investigation, having veto power over the material made available to the investigation, and the ability to control the content of the final report.
There are some significant risks associated with waiving attorney-client privilege, especially from a purely financial and legal angle. If the investigation uncovers illegal behavior by members of the Executive Committee in communications that were made regarding legal advice between those EC members and their attorney, then that information would be admissible as evidence in court. Legal advice and surrounding conversations involving an attorney acting in his or her legal capacity can generally be hidden behind attorney-client privilege. The individuals responsible would lose that protection with this waiver. Additionally, in civil lawsuits, potentially compromising communications would no longer be protected legally.
Compounding this legal and financial risk, institutions typically carry robust liability insurance policies to protect them from lawsuits. Waiving attorney-client privilege for a case can become grounds for the insurance company refusing to pay out for damages awarded, because the insured institution failed to defend against lawsuit with full vigor.
The biggest risks here are that the SBC Executive Committee could be open to lawsuits that, if the evidence supports, they will have pay for out of pocket. The current budget does not support those sorts of expenditures and it might bankrupt the Executive Committee or cause funds to be diverted from the Cooperative Program (i.e., away from actual missions and ministry) to keep the Executive Committee afloat.
We should note that these risks are conditional upon (a) there being evidence of wrongdoing, (b) victims of wrongdoing bringing civil suits, and (c) the insurance company electing not to cover the damages. Our best hope—and the one I really want to be true—is that there is no evidence of wrongdoing beyond what has already been settled.
A 2019 Houston Chronicle article about widespread, serial abuse within SBC-affiliated church changed the perception of the SBC inside and out. Since that issue was revealed, I have had people who were otherwise unconcerned about Baptists (or Christianity) make the connection between the SBC and abuse when they found out my connections to the SBC. There have concerns raised by laypeople within local churches (mine included) about why we should remain affiliated with the SBC based on the perception that abuse is widespread and pervasive.
Until we begin to take steps that are appropriate within our context and polity to curb sexual abuse, we will never be able to shake the accusations. The fact is that the abuse happened, we have not taken action to mitigate it, and no complaints about political motivations of #metoo, social justice, or polity will ever change that. Failing to take action makes the offensiveness of being an SBC church something other than the gospel. It sets up barriers to evangelism. Especially outside of the Bible Belt, it makes ministering as an SBC-affiliated congregation more challenging.
The first step in addressing an issue is figuring out the extent of the issue. But we have to be willing to really explore. Waiving Attorney-Client Privilege and publishing a public report are important steps in determining the nature of the problem. “Ripping the Band-Aid off” is painful, but likely the best way to move beyond the issue.
We may also find evidence of ungodly behavior among some leaders in the SBC which, if not illegal, is disqualifying from leadership. In any large organization there will always be shenanigans and insider trading, but there is already public evidence of behavior that does not belong in an organization devoted to getting the good news of the gospel to the nations. This investigation may help reveal that problem, as well, as it relates to the handling of sexual abuse.
Another advantage of having an open investigation with clear access to privileged communications is that it will functionally close the door on spurious lawsuits. If an independent, respected firm has full access to all pertinent records are determines the bounds of the issue (if any exists), then other accusations and lawsuits that may not be defensible will be much harder for accuser to pursue. If we expose some wrong doing, but the process and the final report remain behind a veil, then people who may feel wronged (and may have been wronged, if not by the SBC Executive Committee) but who do not actually have standing (because, perhaps, they had never contacted anyone) would have opportunity to sue the SBC and the SBC would have to defend afresh each individual suit. The open investigation provides both a present vulnerability (if any wrong doing is discovered) and a future defense (we’ve ruled out evidence of certain claims). So, while it may make present lawsuits more damaging, it may reduce risks from future ones.
Finally, we need to remember the reason the SBC exists. It’s not to be a self-sustaining club of Baptists, kept sacred in perpetuity and handed down to future generations. The SBC is a funding mechanism for cooperative ministry—education, disaster relief, political engagement, international missions, and church planting. As such, if the SBC ceases to live up to its calling as a Christian organization, it’s time to disband and find another better way. I believe we will come through this, but it’s always good to remember that if the SBC does not exist after this, then God will raise up another means of getting the gospel to the nations. The SBC can be effective, but it is not essential to God’s mission.
As one of the thousands of messengers that affirmed the call for an open, independent investigation, including the directive to the Executive Committee to waive attorney-client privilege, I am grateful that on October 5th the Executive Committee voted to do so. The margin of the vote was narrower than it should have been, but it is a step in the right direction.
A note of caution is in order here, though. Obviously, I am in favor of having waived attorney-client privilege. There are some members of the Executive Committee who voted no, but did so because they honestly believed it was their duty to do so. There are risks associated with the waiver. The EC members are tasked with protecting the interests of the Southern Baptist Convention and the Executive Committee of the SBC in particular. There are good reasons for having voted no, though I believe the reasons to vote yes outweigh them. I fear that some supporters of the waiver will harass well-meaning, conscience-bound individuals for doing what they believed to be right. That should not be.
We will see how the investigation plays out. It is a sad thing that the investigation is necessary, but, in my view, it is a good thing that both the process and the final product will shine light in some dark places and help the SBC move forward into the future with better practices or reallocate resources to do the mission God has called all Christians to more effectively.
Reading your Bible is a battle. There’s a reason why Paul lists Scripture as the sword of the Spirit in his discussion of the armor of God (Eph. 6:17). More even than that, Scripture reveals God’s character and is, thus, central to worshiping well (Psalm 119). That’s why reading the Bible is a battle.
God of All Things thus deepens our experience of the world as we study and live. Its short chapters and engaging prose are suitable for a wide audience. The many connections with real, physical object lessons have deepened my appreciation of God’s efforts to ensure that the message of his greatness is available for all.
As stories go, it’s reasonably entertaining. It’s no wonder this book is popular—it hits all the key notes of our zeitgeist. Climate anxiety, empowerment of children, wealthy people are evil, and wonder at the world.
Some links worth reading this week: 1. Philip Jenkins claims that empires influence religions; 2. Why we probably need less news; 3. Many elite college students have never read a book; 4. The value of the five-paragraph essay in an world with generative AI; 5. A podcast about youth sports, the family, and the future of the earth.
Full Circle reminds us of the continuity of human culture and that there is nothing new under the sun. As a result, it’s a helpful source for understanding the times so we can make the best use of our time in these evil days.
Some links worth reading this week: 1. The need for Protestant ethicists; 2. Is it ok to lie to "own the libs?"; 3. We need more historical nuance; 4. An account of rejecting personal autonomy; 5. An interview about metamodernism.
“Online church” is a temporary patch on a leaky roof. It can get someone through a rainy season, but it was never meant to last for decades. We should never try to argue that watching a livestream is a worthy substitute for church attendance. To do so is to reduce the church to something we subscribe to rather than a community we belong to.
Some links worth following this week: 1. Patrick Miller argues against school-provided screens; 2. Alan Jacobs thinks about the pursuit of the enchantment in the world; 3. Matthew Arbo makes a case for more Protestant theological ethicists; 4. An engaging discussion of Robert Caro's biography of Robert Moses; 5. Brett McCracken reviews a forthcoming documentary that riffs on Bowling Alone; 6. An interview with James Davison Hunter.
As we navigate thousands of decisions about consumer goods, entertainment, and even volunteer opportunities, we would all benefit from spending a bit more time to ask whether what we are considering fulfills the main purpose of life: to glorify God and enjoy him forever.
Here are a few links worth following this week: Brad Littlejohn writing on technology and society; my own article on the role of the local church in teaching epistemology; a tribute to a pastor who served the same congregation 61 years; Michael Kruger explains what we lose when we are no longer intellectually curious; Mary Harrington reflects on what "post-liberalism" most likely will look like.
In a previous post I worked through some of the worldview of Edgar Chasteen, a one-time Southern Baptist professor of Sociology who advocated for compulsory birth control. Along the way he put some spectacularly anti-human ideas on display, including advocacy of abortion, regret over medical advances reaching the developing world. He also advocated for an individualistic morality including a sexual ethic redefined around the therapeutic. In short, he got a lot of stuff wrong.
However, in his book, The Case for Compulsory Birth Control, there is a paragraph of that shows he recognizes there may be light behind the clouds. It’s a moment when it seems he realizes the horror his worldview is capable of. He writes:
“The control of population size is of the utmost urgency, but we must understand that control is only a means to an end––that end being survival, both of humanity and humanness. I say this because some of those currently recommending population control measures have obviously forgotten it. Their proposals read like a catalogue of horrors. While they might preserve life, they would destroy the reasons for living. To survive, we would have to abandon most of the virtues and values which sustain us.” (192)
The man affirms the legalization and promotion of the killing of children in the womb through elective abortion, so it isn’t like this gives him a crown to toss at Christ’s throne, but it is telling that he recognizes that there must be a point to morality, a purpose toward which ethical action is aligned.
For Chasteen that end is humanness and survival of the species, which is a fairly low bar. But he recognizes that certain actions would take away that humanness.
And yet, Chasteen’s ethics allow no basis for preserving humanity or humanness. He summarizes his metaethics by this statement: “An action is moral only when prompted or hindered by what is right as defined by the individual conscience.” There is, therefore, no reason for survival of the species or a nebulous notion like “humanness” to be retained based on his summary of ethics; it’s all about what each individual feels is important.
Chasteen’s argument plays out in much the way C. S. Lewis describes in The Abolition of Man. Lewis writes,
“The Innovator attacks traditional values (the Tao) in defense of what he at first supposes to be (in some special sense) ‘rational’ or ‘biological’ values. But as we have seen, all the values which he uses in attacking the Tao, and even claims to be substituting for it, are themselves derived from the Tao.” (41)
Those trying to change morality often do so by declaring one “big idea” of utmost importance:
“The Innovator may place economic value first. To get people fed and clothed is the great end, and in pursuit of it[,] scruples about justice and good faith may be set aside. The Tao of course agrees with him about the importance of getting the people fed and clothed. Unless the Innovator were himself using the Tao he could never have learned of such a duty.” (42)
In the case of Chasteen, the “big idea” is survival of humanity, but justice toward the unborn and good faith toward particular humanity is less important than that end. And yet, the end is derived from outside his system of ethics. There is no basis from within Chasteen’s individualistic, subjectivist morality for concern about the preservation of humanity.
Lewis demonstrates what this looks like in his novel, That Hideous Strength. One of the leading villains argues:
“Existence is its own justification. The tendency to developmental change which we call Evolution is justified by the fact that it is a general characteristic of biological entities. The present establishment of contact between the highest biological entities and the Macrobes [i.e., supernatural beings] is justified by the fact that it is occurring, and it ought to be increased because an increase is taking place.” (295)
Furthermore, Filostrato (a villainous character) asserts:
“In us organic life has produced Mind. It has done its work. After that we want no more of it. We do not want the world any longer furred over with organic life, like what you call the blue mould––all sprouting and budding and breeding and decaying. We must get rid of it. By little and little, of course. Slowly we learn how. Learn how to make our brains live with less and less body: learn to build our bodies directly with chemicals, no longer have to stuff them full of dead brutes and weeds. Learn how to reproduce ourselves without copulation.” (173)
And, then:
“Nature herself begins to throw away the anachronism. When she has thrown it away, then real civilization becomes possible. You would understand if you were peasants. Who would try to work with stallions and bulls? No, no; we want geldings and oxen. There will never be peace and order and discipline so long as there is sex. When man has thrown it away, then he will become finally governable.” (173)
It may not be necessary to throw away sex itself, as long as sex can through technical means make the natural purpose of sexual intercourse unavailable or punishable. That was the goal of the Population Control movement, it is the goal of parts of the environmental movement, and it is a dangerous goal to have shaping moral decisions.
Chasteen did not attain the degree of rejection of the Tao that Lewis’ character did in That Hideous Strength, but he is well along the path, based on his 1971 book. More significantly, society is well along the pathway to the abolition of humanity, and we ourselves can easily be carried along with it if we don’t watch our step.
There are reasons why sexual ethics has become the primary fulcrum of our society and that there is increasing pressure to reduce human population. There is implicit within those arguments a denial of God’s goodness and the moral order of the created order. But the goodness of sex and humanity cannot be established apart from the moral order of the created order, thus the movement is parasitic and transitory. We need to recognize it, remain free from the errors of its thinking, and communicate a better way to our friends, family and neighbors through the gospel of Christ.
Reading your Bible is a battle. There’s a reason why Paul lists Scripture as the sword of the Spirit in his discussion of the armor of God (Eph. 6:17). More even than that, Scripture reveals God’s character and is, thus, central to worshiping well (Psalm 119). That’s why reading the Bible is a battle.
God of All Things thus deepens our experience of the world as we study and live. Its short chapters and engaging prose are suitable for a wide audience. The many connections with real, physical object lessons have deepened my appreciation of God’s efforts to ensure that the message of his greatness is available for all.
As stories go, it’s reasonably entertaining. It’s no wonder this book is popular—it hits all the key notes of our zeitgeist. Climate anxiety, empowerment of children, wealthy people are evil, and wonder at the world.
Some links worth reading this week: 1. Philip Jenkins claims that empires influence religions; 2. Why we probably need less news; 3. Many elite college students have never read a book; 4. The value of the five-paragraph essay in an world with generative AI; 5. A podcast about youth sports, the family, and the future of the earth.
Full Circle reminds us of the continuity of human culture and that there is nothing new under the sun. As a result, it’s a helpful source for understanding the times so we can make the best use of our time in these evil days.
Some links worth reading this week: 1. The need for Protestant ethicists; 2. Is it ok to lie to "own the libs?"; 3. We need more historical nuance; 4. An account of rejecting personal autonomy; 5. An interview about metamodernism.
“Online church” is a temporary patch on a leaky roof. It can get someone through a rainy season, but it was never meant to last for decades. We should never try to argue that watching a livestream is a worthy substitute for church attendance. To do so is to reduce the church to something we subscribe to rather than a community we belong to.
Some links worth following this week: 1. Patrick Miller argues against school-provided screens; 2. Alan Jacobs thinks about the pursuit of the enchantment in the world; 3. Matthew Arbo makes a case for more Protestant theological ethicists; 4. An engaging discussion of Robert Caro's biography of Robert Moses; 5. Brett McCracken reviews a forthcoming documentary that riffs on Bowling Alone; 6. An interview with James Davison Hunter.
As we navigate thousands of decisions about consumer goods, entertainment, and even volunteer opportunities, we would all benefit from spending a bit more time to ask whether what we are considering fulfills the main purpose of life: to glorify God and enjoy him forever.
Here are a few links worth following this week: Brad Littlejohn writing on technology and society; my own article on the role of the local church in teaching epistemology; a tribute to a pastor who served the same congregation 61 years; Michael Kruger explains what we lose when we are no longer intellectually curious; Mary Harrington reflects on what "post-liberalism" most likely will look like.
In the deep, dark corners of the Southern Baptist Convention’s theological past is a sociologist who taught at a Missouri State Convention affiliated college, wrote for the Christian Life Commission (the precursor to the ERLC), and advocated for abortion, forced sterilization, and legal penalties for exceeding an approved number of children. Since that point, his college disassociated from their denomination and Chasteen went on to form a non-profit organization dedicated to affirming the equal validity of all religions. Just how Baptist or even Christian Chasteen is or ever was is up for debate. There is little in his 1971 book or his various websites that can connects him to anything like Christian orthodoxy.
The thesis of Chasteen’s book is “that unless we act now to legislate a limit of two children per family, we have little hope of solving the other problems that beset us.” (vii) That problem Chasteen describe as an insidious disease: “The cancer of runaway population growth has eaten away both heart and soul of the body politic. We are on the verge of anarchy with only our will to survive and our determination to act staying our fall.” (33)
For Chasteen, every problem was driven by overpopulation. He writes, “If, as a nation and as individuals, we can summon the intelligence and the courage to bring population growth under control, we will find ourselves still faced with problems of race relations, crime, alienation, apathy, environmental degradation, and so forth, but with one big difference. The problems will then be capable of solution, whereas now they are not.” (33)
Chasteen echoes Paul Ehrlich’s popular book, The Population Bomb, in his concern for the growing number of individuals on the planet. His book, The Case for Compulsory Birth Control, was written while the Rockefeller commission was composing their report, which was commission and subsequently rejected by Nixon. Like Chasteen, the Rockefeller commission affirmed eugenic policies, widespread birth control funded by the government, and the expansion of access to abortion. Unlike Chasteen, the Rockefeller Commission only advocated for voluntary sterilization.
The entire tenor of Chasteen’s book is anti-human. He expresses concerns that “Death rates in the industrializing nations began to drop while birth rates remained at their previously high levels.” (25) Which leads to complaints that Americans shared medical technology with developing nations with a false sense of compassion and without permission.
Argues Chasteen:
“America has shared its medicines with the world, thinking that by doing so it was saving millions of people from early death, and so it was. . . . [However,] we were operating on a foundation of mistaken morality which made keeping people alive and end in itself. We inoculated, immunized and sprayed, and we felt good about our actions. . . . Motivated by benevolent ignorance of social forces and human desires, America played unintentional havoc with the destinies of nations and peoples. . . . In some parts of the world death rates were cut in half in only a decade, and sometimes without the consent or knowledge of the governments affected.” (26–27)
There is more, but it does not get much better.
At the root of Chasteen’s ethics is an individualistic, subjectivistic presumption: “An action is moral only when prompted or hindered by what is right as defined by the individual conscience.” (187)
In light of that naked assertion, Chasteen argues, “What this means is that a new rationale for sexual responsibility and exclusiveness is needed.” (187)
Chasteen demonstrates a full-throated adoption of the sexual revolution:
“Contraceptive technology has made it possible to separate sexual intercourse from conception, making it possible (and necessary) for us to rethink the philosophy of sex worked out before contraception. A very simple formula can be stated:
coitus – contraception = procreation
coitus + contraception = expression” (184)
He celebrates the individualism and autonomy of human sexuality because sex became disassociated from procreation, so that a woman on chemical birth control “can express her sexuality as she expresses her opinion––because of the meaning it has for her as an individual.” (184) He makes a similar argument for males who have had vasectomies.
Chasteen makes clear what contraception has done for sexual ethics in contemporary society:
“Contraception makes it possible to view sex as voluntary, interpersonal behavior rather than a necessary act of survival. Sex becomes a special method of communication between male and female. Sex thus loses its exclusively biological meaning and becomes more social. Like all social relationships, sex can be made constructive or destructive, depending upon the attitude and behavior of those involved. Sex can become a dialogue between two people in which comes to understand and appreciate the other. It can be an expression of the mutual dependence to human existence. Sex can be an enriching and compassionate human encounter or simply another opportunity for exploitation, satisfying a biological urge but destroying humanity socially and spiritually. It’s up to us.” (189)
There are a lot of strands to unwind in Chasteen’s writing on the subject, but he makes explicit the arguments that are assumed in our culture regarding the purpose of sex. The autonomous self is the champion of Chasteen’s moral vision, with no reference to the Christian faith, historical or otherwise. It is the individual alone who determines what is right. (A belief that undermines Chasteen’s plea that his perspective is the correct one, but whatever.)
Several lessons can be gleaned from reading books like Chasteen’s, The Case for Compulsory Birth Control.
1. There were good reasons for the Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention. Chasteen advocates for multiple anti-Christian positions that are untenable with anyone remotely committed with the content of Scripture. The convention had to rid itself of the cancer of those like Chasteen to survive as a gospel-focused entity.
2. The population control movement, which is now growing because of concerns over climate change, has its roots in a dark movement that has to find a way to mourn the decrease in suffering due to premature death. It has not, as far as I can tell, found a way to do so, it has simply tended to skip over the assumption that it would be better if the superfluous people didn’t survive past their age of usefulness.
3. Beware people who see one big social problem as the key to all other problems. A big idea like overpopulation, systemic racism, or climate change can be used as a way to blind listeners to the moral evil being proposed on one front for the perceived good result on another. Society is complicated. Solving climate change won’t fix poverty. Eliminating systemic racism won’t reduce our carbon footprint. Limiting population growth will not eliminate crime. It is impossible to attain a good society through persistent evil.
Reading your Bible is a battle. There’s a reason why Paul lists Scripture as the sword of the Spirit in his discussion of the armor of God (Eph. 6:17). More even than that, Scripture reveals God’s character and is, thus, central to worshiping well (Psalm 119). That’s why reading the Bible is a battle.
God of All Things thus deepens our experience of the world as we study and live. Its short chapters and engaging prose are suitable for a wide audience. The many connections with real, physical object lessons have deepened my appreciation of God’s efforts to ensure that the message of his greatness is available for all.
As stories go, it’s reasonably entertaining. It’s no wonder this book is popular—it hits all the key notes of our zeitgeist. Climate anxiety, empowerment of children, wealthy people are evil, and wonder at the world.
Some links worth reading this week: 1. Philip Jenkins claims that empires influence religions; 2. Why we probably need less news; 3. Many elite college students have never read a book; 4. The value of the five-paragraph essay in an world with generative AI; 5. A podcast about youth sports, the family, and the future of the earth.
Full Circle reminds us of the continuity of human culture and that there is nothing new under the sun. As a result, it’s a helpful source for understanding the times so we can make the best use of our time in these evil days.
Some links worth reading this week: 1. The need for Protestant ethicists; 2. Is it ok to lie to "own the libs?"; 3. We need more historical nuance; 4. An account of rejecting personal autonomy; 5. An interview about metamodernism.
“Online church” is a temporary patch on a leaky roof. It can get someone through a rainy season, but it was never meant to last for decades. We should never try to argue that watching a livestream is a worthy substitute for church attendance. To do so is to reduce the church to something we subscribe to rather than a community we belong to.
Some links worth following this week: 1. Patrick Miller argues against school-provided screens; 2. Alan Jacobs thinks about the pursuit of the enchantment in the world; 3. Matthew Arbo makes a case for more Protestant theological ethicists; 4. An engaging discussion of Robert Caro's biography of Robert Moses; 5. Brett McCracken reviews a forthcoming documentary that riffs on Bowling Alone; 6. An interview with James Davison Hunter.
As we navigate thousands of decisions about consumer goods, entertainment, and even volunteer opportunities, we would all benefit from spending a bit more time to ask whether what we are considering fulfills the main purpose of life: to glorify God and enjoy him forever.
Here are a few links worth following this week: Brad Littlejohn writing on technology and society; my own article on the role of the local church in teaching epistemology; a tribute to a pastor who served the same congregation 61 years; Michael Kruger explains what we lose when we are no longer intellectually curious; Mary Harrington reflects on what "post-liberalism" most likely will look like.
If you ask any pastor, they will tell you that pornography is a significant problem in their local congregation among the men. In fact, some surveys indicate there is little to no difference between pornography consumption among self-described Christian men and those outside the church. Many pastors can explain how it is a barrier to having enough men qualified to serve as elders and deacons in the local church.
Additionally, a growing number of people in the U.S. describe themselves as addicted to pornography. There are debates about whether that is possible and whether the changes that some people describe due to pornography have a long term impact, but there is little question that the rise of the internet and especially the smart phone have made pornography much more available and pervasive to people of all ages and walks of life.
Samuel L. Perry’s book, Addicted to Lust: Pornography in the Lives of Conservative Protestants, is a sociological study of the admitted use of pornography by theologically conservative Protestants. His population of interest includes both those that might be described as fundamentalist and as evangelical.
Analysis and Discussion
Perry’s book is revealing in that his data show a huge oversight in many conservative Protestant congregations: specifically, according to his study, women are using pornography nearly as much as men. This is a particularly startling revelation, since most teaching on pornography that occurs within the evangelical church is particularly focused on men. Additionally, given the prevalence of male staff in evangelical churches, this may create situations where a local congregation is ill-equipped to help women struggling with pornography.
Assuming that Perry’s data is correct, his assertions from that data are often unflattering toward theologically conservative Christians. Perry argues that some basic assumptions that evangelical pastors make about pornography contribute to its use among men and the failure to address it among women. For example, the common assertion that men are “turned on” by visual stimulation while other triggers impact women are considered sexist and misogynistic by Perry. The data related to pornography use among women tends to support the argument that visual arousal is not exclusively a male trade, but he fails to adequately support a statement about different in forms of arousal between sexes. This is wound up in a general sub-thesis that Christian understandings of gender differences are incorrect, which is more assumed than argued in this volume.
Significantly, however, Perry notes that identifying pornography as a “men’s issue” is particularly harmful for the women who feel guilty about using it. Their guilt places significant psychological strain on them, which is exacerbated by feeling abnormal to be a female struggling with a “guy thing.” This, I think, is the item that is most significantly illuminating and helpful for pastors reading this volume.
Another significant assertion that is woven through this volume is that evangelicals would be better off to simply embrace and accept pornography usage as normal. He attempts to use data to show that theological conservatives are more likely to face marital difficulties due to pornography usage, not because it is actually akin to or another form of adultery, but simply because it violates the taboos of the evangelical or fundamentalist community. He does this while carefully noting that he is specifically not engaging with the literature that debates the negative sociological impacts on romance, particularly due to heavy pornography usage. Perry’s argument is that the usage rates are identical between conservative Christians and non-Christians, and some progressive Christians feel it enhances their lives, so evangelicals would be better off simply embracing the vice.
A weakness in Perry’s analysis is his engagement with primarily popular-level treatments of pornography. He does a lot of legwork to try to find cringe-worthy exaggerations and inexact statements in books intended for an audience seeking encouragement in their pursuit of holiness, who are already largely convinced of the theological underpinnings of Christian theology. This may illustrate a significant flaw in the body of literature available, since Perry apparently did not come into contact with a robust theology of human sexuality in his research.
Additionally, there are points at which Perry simply misrepresents (I assume because of understanding) the theology of those he describes. For example, by asserting that reformed Christians tend to embody pietistic idealism, which leads them to believe that, “God is chiefly concerned not with a person’s actions but with her motivations. . . . Simply put, for conservative Protestants, the obedience that God demands is not about bodily actions so much as it is about a person’s heart.” (pg 13) This is inconsistent with any reformed thinking I have ever read on sexual ethics. It appears that Perry confuses the emphasis behind motivation in discussions about sexual ethics as reflecting a greater concern (by God!) for motivation. In fact, it is that most conservative Christians already recognize that sinning with their bodies (e.g., consummating adulterous lust) is sin, but often need help recognizing the severity of lust.
Conclusion
As a work of sociology, this is helpful. Perry has done yeoman’s work in interviewing people about a very sensitive subject. Pastors, ethicists, counselors, and lay leaders within local congregations will benefit by reading this book to see what people will tell a sociologist at a state university that they are unlikely to discuss with a representative of the church. This is information worth getting access to and Perry has written a very accessible book.
Note: I received a gratis copy of this volume with no expectation of a positive review.
Reading your Bible is a battle. There’s a reason why Paul lists Scripture as the sword of the Spirit in his discussion of the armor of God (Eph. 6:17). More even than that, Scripture reveals God’s character and is, thus, central to worshiping well (Psalm 119). That’s why reading the Bible is a battle.
God of All Things thus deepens our experience of the world as we study and live. Its short chapters and engaging prose are suitable for a wide audience. The many connections with real, physical object lessons have deepened my appreciation of God’s efforts to ensure that the message of his greatness is available for all.
As stories go, it’s reasonably entertaining. It’s no wonder this book is popular—it hits all the key notes of our zeitgeist. Climate anxiety, empowerment of children, wealthy people are evil, and wonder at the world.
Some links worth reading this week: 1. Philip Jenkins claims that empires influence religions; 2. Why we probably need less news; 3. Many elite college students have never read a book; 4. The value of the five-paragraph essay in an world with generative AI; 5. A podcast about youth sports, the family, and the future of the earth.
Full Circle reminds us of the continuity of human culture and that there is nothing new under the sun. As a result, it’s a helpful source for understanding the times so we can make the best use of our time in these evil days.
Some links worth reading this week: 1. The need for Protestant ethicists; 2. Is it ok to lie to "own the libs?"; 3. We need more historical nuance; 4. An account of rejecting personal autonomy; 5. An interview about metamodernism.
“Online church” is a temporary patch on a leaky roof. It can get someone through a rainy season, but it was never meant to last for decades. We should never try to argue that watching a livestream is a worthy substitute for church attendance. To do so is to reduce the church to something we subscribe to rather than a community we belong to.
Some links worth following this week: 1. Patrick Miller argues against school-provided screens; 2. Alan Jacobs thinks about the pursuit of the enchantment in the world; 3. Matthew Arbo makes a case for more Protestant theological ethicists; 4. An engaging discussion of Robert Caro's biography of Robert Moses; 5. Brett McCracken reviews a forthcoming documentary that riffs on Bowling Alone; 6. An interview with James Davison Hunter.
As we navigate thousands of decisions about consumer goods, entertainment, and even volunteer opportunities, we would all benefit from spending a bit more time to ask whether what we are considering fulfills the main purpose of life: to glorify God and enjoy him forever.
Here are a few links worth following this week: Brad Littlejohn writing on technology and society; my own article on the role of the local church in teaching epistemology; a tribute to a pastor who served the same congregation 61 years; Michael Kruger explains what we lose when we are no longer intellectually curious; Mary Harrington reflects on what "post-liberalism" most likely will look like.
Reading your Bible is a battle. There’s a reason why Paul lists Scripture as the sword of the Spirit in his discussion of the armor of God (Eph. 6:17). More even than that, Scripture reveals God’s character and is, thus, central to worshiping well (Psalm 119). That’s why reading the Bible is a battle.