Why Should Christians Practice Creation Care?

One of the most basic questions that we must wrestle with when engaging in any activism, political or otherwise, is why it matters. I firmly believe that Christians should be engaged in positively caring for creation, but that belief is meaningless unless built on a solid foundation. This post will explore some reasons Christians should work to care for the environment.

Creation Belongs to God

Perhaps the most important reason to participate in creation care is that all of creation belongs to God. Psalm 24:1 states, “The earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein.” When we care for creation, we are showing that we value something that belongs to God. Just as we might honor a parent by caring for the car we were loaned, we should honor God by caring for his creation that we are privileged to live in.

One of the most prevalent defenses of poor environmental stewardship is the idea that humans have a right to use their resources in a way that pleases them. Private property rights are vital to a healthy, economically just society. However, Christians should understand that property is always a stewardship under God’s ownership of creation. Humans have been given a very special place in the created order, but that does not permit us to be wasteful of God’s resources or intentionally harm what God has made.

In fact, beyond simply ensuring that we do not harm God’s creation, we should also encourage others not to harm God’s creation. Since creation belongs to God, the proper use of it is a duty for Christians and a means that we can show that we live under an authority other than our own.

Part of Dominion Over Creation

A second reason for Christian engagement in creation care is that Christians are uniquely equipped to strike the balance on the proper utilization of creation because they more properly know the Creator. The balance between use and abuse of creation is important. It is what keeps populations from turning a forest into a desert on one hand or preventing human flourishing on the other.

Creation care is one way of giving evidence of human dominion over creation. In Genesis 1:26 and 28, God gives humans authority over creation. Psalm 8:5–8 explains that the dominion God has given to humans is quite an honor; it includes authority over the rest of creation. Humans have been given authority over creation that is subordinate to, but representative of God’s authority.

If Christians really believe that God has given humans as special place in creation as rulers, then that place includes both the rights and duties of authority. Humans have the right to utilize creation to survive and to flourish. However, good rulers also take the welfare of their subjects into consideration. Thus, the same mandate that gives humans license to use creation for their benefit also requires humans to take the good of creation into account.

Restoration Reflects the Gospel

A third reason for Christians to participate in creation care is that improving the environment can represent the restoration of the gospel. It is important to be precise on this point. The gospel is not primarily concerned with people picking up trash, but the act of picking up trash is a microcosm of what the gospel does. In one sense, when Christians care for creation, we show what the gospel looks like in the physical world.

In Pollution and the Death of Man, Francis Schaeffer writes, “The church ought to be a ‘pilot plant,’ where men can see in our congregations and missions a substantial healing of all the divisions, the alienations which man’s rebellion has produced.”[1] As he describes it, local congregations and denominations should be showing what it looks like for the gospel to be worked out practically, so that the God-human division, the human-human division, and the human-nature division are shown to be healed.

Christians have a unique contribution to the restoration of the proper relationship between humans and the created order because we recognize the value of it without worshiping it. The church should be an example of what the New Heavens and New Earth will be, to the best it can be achieved.

Seeking the Common Good

A fourth reason Christians should engage in creation care is that a healthy environment is universally recognized as a sign of the common good. Novels and movies use scenes of environmental degradation to indicate political and social blight. In Cormac McCarthy’s book, The Road, the landscape is depicted as a burnt-out wasteland, which gives readers a sense of the hopelessness of the whole story.[2] In the story of Israel’s exodus from Egypt and journey to the promised land, there is a strong contrast between the desolation of the wilderness and the richness of the promised land.

Jeremiah 29:7 points toward God’s vision for his people’s pursuit of the common good: “But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.” It is not too much of a stretch to shift from the “good of the city” to the “well-being of the environment in which people live.” Just like Israel during their exile into Babylon, Christians are called to seek the good of their communities in multiple ways, including pursuing creation care.

Personal Benefits from Environmental Health

A fifth reason to engage in creation care is that it often leads to personal benefits either directly or indirectly. A healthy environment is good for everyone but many of the practical ways that humans can reduce their impact on the environment also return benefits to the individual seeking the reduction.

For example, since we know that driving produces pollutants that can build up and harm the environment, reducing excess driving is one way of caring for creation. At the same time the driver reduces the number of miles she drives, she also reduces the money that she spends on fuel and car maintenance leading to a personal benefit. Even more directly, if the driver decides to walk or bike to destinations, then she gains the benefit of exercise. Similarly, when a household commits to putting on an additional layer of clothing in the winter and turning the heat down a few degrees, they both reduce the pollution emitted to the environment for their heating needs and reduce their expenses.

Many of the environmental problems in the West are tied to overconsumption, excessive travel, and a focus on convenience. By curtailing some of these extras, individuals have the potential to benefit their financial and physical well-being, as well as reduce their impact on the environment.

Topic of Cultural Concern

A sixth significant reason for Christians to engage in creation care is that it is a topic of significant concern in the surrounding culture. The church is not called to respond to every fad in the surrounding culture. However, the continued concerns in the world about the health of the environment seem to warrant a response.

The primary mission of every Christian and the local church should always be the gospel of Jesus Christ. As discussed above, creation care provides a means for Christians to show what the gospel looks like. Care for the environment can be a vital part of contextualizing the gospel message.

Tim Keller defines contextualization as “giving people the Bible’s answers, which they may not at all want to hear, to questions about life that people in their particular time and place are asking, in language and forms they can comprehend, and through appeals and argument with force they can fell, even if they reject them.”[3] The world is asking questions about how to deal with damage done to nature in the past and in the present.

Christianity has answers, through the gospel message of Scripture, to explain what the desired goal of environmentalism should be. Therefore, Christians are missing an excellent opportunity to demonstrate gospel-fueled restoration to the surrounding culture when they ignore creation care.

Topic of Concern for Christian Youth

A seventh reason to engage in creation care is to show children growing up in the church that Christianity offers a sufficient, comprehensive worldview. Periodically, Christian news outlets publish articles exploring why so many young people who were raised in the church walk away from their faith when they gain some level of independence. This is a legitimate concern for many parents and church leaders. It raises questions about how effective the church has been in communicating the gospel to the next generation when they seem to be walking away from Christianity in large numbers.

One possible cause for this trend is that Christian parents and the church have not been effective in demonstrating the plausibility of the Christian worldview.[4] The dominant thinking of culture has shifted to emphasize the importance of individualistic choice of a religious tradition. Young adults are even less likely to hold to traditional family beliefs unless they have adopted them on their own merits.[5] It weakens the plausibility of Christianity in the eyes of young people when believers do not appear to have an answer to major issues within the culture. As the church seeks to reach its own children, it shows young people the sufficiency of Scripture and the all-encompassing nature of the gospel.

Opportunities for Evangelism

An eighth reason to participate in creation care is that it may provide opportunities to cooperate with non-Christians in a common cause. For many Christians, one of the biggest challenges to sharing our faith is that we do not spend enough time around non-Christians in social settings. Our opportunities for evangelism are often limited to the grocery store line, the sidelines of a kid’s soccer game, and water-cooler conversations. Christians should be grateful for these forms of contact, but we should also seek deeper engagement with our neighbors that can allow for casual conversations that turn into evangelistic conversations.

The relative absence of gospel-centered Christians from environmental movements, as well as the overt hostility of some environmental movements toward Christianity, has allowed organizations primarily concerned with care for the environment to be dominated by non-Christians. One reaction is to see the organizations and their adherents as enemy agents. That strategy has been implemented by many conservative, orthodox Christians for the past century in the West.[6]

Instead of resulting in a purified church, showing the pure gospel light to the world around, attempts to separate from non-Christian organizations has largely led to Christians losing an opportunity to influence the trajectory of culture. It has also led to fewer interactions between believers and non-believers, which has allowed sub-cultures to flourish that fundamentally misunderstand the gospel or be ignorant of its meaning.[7] Environmental activism is a field that has been largely dominated by non-Christian influences, which makes it a primary place for Christians to engage with the lost, verbally proclaim the gospel, and provide a small-scale demonstration of what gospel restoration looks like.

Environmental Problems are Worse for the Poor

A ninth reason for Christians to be engaged in creation care is that it provides a means for caring for the poor indirectly.[8] When Paul summarizes the decision of the Jerusalem council about his ministry and the gospel he was preaching, he notes that they urged him to “remember the poor.” (Gal 2:10) While social ministries cannot replace the gospel, they are a key part of showing what gospel redemption looks like in the world. Creation care is beneficial to the poor because the impact of environmental degradation is typically hardest on those with the least economic resources.

Images of poverty often coincide with environmental squalor. For example, entire communities exist in many countries to live near and dig through landfills. The Recycled Orchestra, made up of impoverished children from Cateura, Paraguay brought this reality to the public eye several years ago. Clean water, clean food, and clean air are problems for poor communities that are often pushed to the least healthy areas on the edges of cities. As environmental conditions get better, so do the lives of the poor.

Christians Have Been Blamed for Environmental Degradation

A tenth reason for Christians to pursue creation care is that Western Christianity has frequently been blamed for environmental degradation. The most famous proponent of this myth is Lynne White, whose essay, “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis,” form the basic foundation for the understanding of many non-Christians about the relationship between Christianity and creation.[9]

 White’s thesis is that the Christian doctrine of creation, which he represents as being dualistic, has shaped Western Civilization. He argues that western Christian theology devalues creation, and that the idea of dominion, as presented in Genesis has enabled the abuse of the environment through the rise of modern science and the Industrial Revolution.

White’s argument does not stand up to careful scrutiny. However, one of the best ways Christians can counter White’s anti-Christian thesis, which is popularly believed by many environmentalists, is to demonstrate the Christianity has the best answer to contemporary environmental problems.

Summary

There are likely many more reasons for Christians to be concerned about creation care. However, these ten reasons should be enough to set aside concerns that caring for the environment is an extra that Christians can ignore if it is not convenient. These reasons should also help show that opposition from non-Christians or improper pursuit of environmental health should not be a roadblock to engagement in creation care for the common good.

[1] Francis Schaeffer, Pollution and the Death of Man in The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer (Downers Grove: Crossway, 1982), 5:47.

[2] Cormac McCarthy, The Road (New York: Knopf, 2001).

[3] Tim Keller, Center Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 89. Emphasis original.

[4] Barna Group. “Six Reasons Young Christians Leave Church.” Barna.com. https://www.barna.com/research/six-reasons-young-christians-leave-church/ (accessed 1/13/19).

[5] Alan Noble, Disruptive Witness (Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 2018), 36–41.

[6] For example, James Wanliss, Resisting the Green Dragon: Dominion, not Death (Burke, VA: Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, 2010), 25–79.

[7] For example, Corinna Nicolaou, A None’s Story: Searching for Meaning Inside Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 2016), 3.

[8] Michael Rhodes and Robby Holt, Practicing the King’s Economy: Honoring Jesus in How We Work, Earn, Spend, Save, and Give (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2018), 220–30.

[9] Lynn White, “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis,” in Ecology and Religion in History (New York: Harper and Row, 1974), 15–31.

Cultural Catechesis

"Together our mind-molding media constitute a nonorganized religion of missionaries who are evangelizing religious people out of their primitive superstitions like poverty, chastity and obedience and into the missionaries' new, 'enlightened' religion of greed, lust and pride (that is, money, sex and power); out of peace with neighbor, self and God and into peace with the world, the flesh and the devil." - Peter Kreeft, How to Win the Culture War, pg 53.

How much time per week does the average Bible-thumping, confessional evangelical Christian spend in church activities?

Even for those who are at church every time the doors are open this is probably 5-6 hours per week. A small percentage of those individuals will be heavily invested in daily Bible reading, listening or watching to sermons from biblically faithful preachers, and reading good books. But as the hours of catechesis into faithful Christianity grows, the number of people in the population declines exponentially.

The Christian Mind of C. S. Lewis: Essays in Honor of Michael Travers

Wipf and Stock

Buy on Amazon

The average time spent being catechized by scriptural influences will be much lower when you count in the quarterly attenders who claim to be “born again,” but whose engagement with the body of Christ has been choked out by travel soccer leagues, frequent business trips, weekend travel, or brunch. There are certainly exceptions, but many people who vocally claim to be Christians on their Facebook wall probably sit through one 1-hour service per week at best and often much less.

Now, consider how much time those same Christians spend listening to talk radio, watching television news, reading articles (or at least headlines) of websites, or select the proper meme to reflect the appropriate level of outrage at the current flashpoint in the culture war.

Who are most people receiving most of their catechesis from?

Let’s be honest. Who are most of us receiving most of our catechesis from?

The answer is fairly obvious: Even our most faithful church attenders are often being catechized more thoroughly by their media intake than by the word of God.

Is our future bound up in whether Sean Hannity or Rachel Maddow are correct about the trajectory of our world? Can Jim Cramer help us know how to store up heavenly treasures?

And, again, as Paul writes to the Philippians: “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.” (Phil 4:8)

If we hold the Gospel to be of first importance, we will think about the true, honorable, just and excellent more than the battles around us. If we do that, the sources and time spent on our catechesis will likely change dramatically.

C. S. Lewis on Christianity as a Means to an End

The genius of C. S. Lewis is, perhaps, most clearly evident in his devotionally rewarding, theologically rich, and whimsical book, The Screwtape Letters. Those brief snippets of supposed letters from a senior devil to a junior one get at many of the issues that were wrong with Christianity in his day, which happen to be remarkably similar to those that are wrong in our day.

In Letter 25, Screwtape writes to Wormwood:

“The real trouble about the set your patient is living is that it is merely Christianity. . . . What we want, if men become Christians at all, is to keep them in the state of mind I call ‘Christianity AND.’ You know––Christianity and the Crisis, Christianity and the New Psychology, Christianity and the New Order, Christianity and Faith Healing, Christianity and Psychical Research, Christianity and Vegetarianism, Christianity and Spelling Reform. If they must be Christians let them at least be Christians with a difference. Substitute for faith itself some Fashion with a Christian colouring.”

Depending on who reads that paragraph the object to the right of the “And” will vary. It could be social justice, anti-racism, prosperity, comfort, political conservatism, or doctrinal orthodoxy (when pursued for its own sake). In other words, this isn’t a “left” or “right” issue, it is one that can impact all Christians and often the “And” is adopted in the name of making Christianity purer and more proper.

In Letter 23, we get prelude to the “Christianity And” discussion:

“We do want, and want very much, to make men treat Christianity as a means; preferably, of course, as a means to their own advancement, but, failing that, as a means to anything––even to social justice. The thing to do is to get a man at first to value social justice as a thing which the Enemy [God] demands, and then work him on to the stage at which he values Christianity because it may produce social justice. For the Enemy will not be used as a convenience. Men or nations who think they can revive the Faith in order to make a good society might just as well think they can use the stairs of Heaven as a short cut to the nearest chemist’s shop. Fortunately it is quite easy to coax humans round this little corner. Only today I have found a passage in a Christian writer where he recommends his own version of Christianity on the ground that ‘only such a faith can outlast the death of old cultures and the birth of new civilisations.’ You see the little rift? ‘Believe this, not because it is true, but for some other reason.’ That’s the game.”

To be clear, Lewis prized actual social justice. Many casual readers of Lewis would be surprised at just how much he wrote on particular social issues of his time in a wide range of periodicals. In some areas he was quite advanced for his time and in other areas he sounds like the dinosaur he claimed to be. But the man was always arguing toward truth from Christianity. He was not attempting to use Christianity as a means to gain something else. This prevented him from falling into the trap of “Christianity And.”

The temptation in reading a moralist like Lewis is to look at what he wrote and say, “Boy, he gave those other guys a good drubbing. Wait until I post this quote on social media.”

The proper response to reading Lewis on these issues, especially in The Screwtape Letters, is to ask that more significant question, “In what ways have I fallen into the trap that Screwtape outlines.” If we are honest, we’ll probably find that we have been at least somewhat guilty at some point. As we pursue holiness, our task is more to knock off the rough edges of our own sanctification than to point out the problems of the other folks.

---

The Christian Mind of C. S. Lewis: Essays in Honor of Michael Travers

Wipf and Stock

Buy on Amazon

Defeater Language and Critical Thinking

The habit of reflexively affirming current evolutionary theory is inculcated into new generations of students, too. For example, in a section on protein structure in a college biochemistry textbook we read:

Keep in mind that only a small faction of the myriads of possible [protein] sequences are likely to have unique stable conformations. Evolution has, of course, selected such sequences for use in biological systems.

Note that jaunty ‘of course.’ Yet we don’t have anywhere near sufficient experimental evidence for the book’s conclusion. The authors’ confidence isn’t based on empirical knowledge––it’s feigned knowledge. An unembellished second sentence would read plainly, ‘Such sequences are used in biological systems.”

Gratuitous affirmations of a dominant theory can mesmerize the unwary. They lull people into assuming that objectively difficult problems don’t really matter. That they’ve been solved already. Or will be solved soon. Or are unimportant. Or something. They actively distract readers from noticing an idea’s shortcoming. ‘Of course,’ students are effectively prompted, ‘everyone knows what happened here––right? You’d be blind not to see it––right?’ But the complacency isn’t the fruit of data or experiments. It comes from the powerful social force of everyone in the group nodding back, ‘Of course!’

When references to it can be dropped from explanations with no loss of information, when proffered evidence for it boils down to a circle of mutually nodding heads, alarm bells should blare that the theory is a free rider.

---Michael Behe, Darwin Devolves, 24-25.

Whether one agrees with Behe’s theory of intelligent design or not, this passage from his 2019 book, Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA that Challenges Evolution, is worthy of consideration for those that claim to seek truth.

The finiteness of the human experience requires that we absorb certain assumptions on faith. William Clifford famously claimed that accepting something as true with insufficient evidence was morally wrong. His exaggerated bid for empiricism, however, is simply impossible. We simply lack the time, energy, and objectivity to evaluate all truth claims exhaustively.

And yet, there are times when falling into the habit of accepting a consensus understanding of something can be decidedly unhelpful. At times, advances in technology and society are held back because “everyone knows” that something is true. Everyone knew that darker skin meant an inferior person through much of the early modern period. There was apparent evidence in the “primitive” quality of African culture, for example. But more often, the point was assumed in Western cultures rather than proved in more than a cursory way.

Cursory proof often takes the form of appeals to consensus to fill in limited available information, creating the image of a comprehensive and convincing argument. As Behe points out, these arguments are often much less convincing when they are presented without the logical “defeaters.”

Words like “obviously,” “of course,” and “clearly” can be useful rhetorical terms. There are points at which the evidence is so consistent that one can claim that something “clearly” indicates something else. But these are also dangerous terms that can be used to defeat sound arguments without engaging them.

When an expert in the field states that “clearly” something must be true. Or that “obviously” this leads to that, they might be skipping some important evidence. Or––a popular tactic among revisionist biblical scholars––“the best scholars argue” for a particular position they are often trying to subvert a really contentious debate by presenting a certain way of thinking as “best” when it simply agrees with their position. Orthodox biblical scholars sometimes do the same thing, of course, dismissing valuable readings from revisionist scholars without fully considering them simply because the individual does not approach the Bible as an authentic testimony to God’s working in history; that presumption does have significant impacts on the resultant reading of Scripture, but—as the saying goes—sometimes a blind squirrel finds a nut.

In any case, it’s worth thinking about the way arguments are put on display and the amount of defeater language that is used. It should raise red flags in our minds when we read “obviously,” “clearly,” or “certainly” in places where they are not needed. It may be that the author is conveying a greater amount of confidence than the evidence warrants.

Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution

By Behe, Michael J.

Buy on Amazon

Playing with FIRE - A Review

The Financial Independent, Retire Early (FIRE) movement has gone from a fringe group on a tightly networked series of blogs to a broader, more socially acceptable movement of people that are looking for a way out of the hustle and bustle of the modern economy.

In reality, the movement has been around for decades, with one of its earliest proponents being Vicki Robin, who collaborated with her partner, Joe Dominguez, to write Your Money or Your Life in 1992.

There are now multiple variations of FIRE, but the gist of the FIRE movement is to seek passive forms of income through various investments that will enable someone to live without having to rely on income from a regular, salaried job. In its most common form, FIRE leads its adherents to become frugal, saving a large portion of their incomes and investing them.

In the “traditional” FIRE movement frugality serves two purposes: (1) It enables one to save an invest a large portion of one’s income to create a source of future, passive income. (2) It reduces the overall living expense that one has, thus also shrinking the investment income one needs to truly retire early.

There are numerous stories that are regularly published by FIRE advocates that record the success of individuals that have been able to retire in their early thirties or forties. There are cases where individuals have been able to retire in their twenties, too.

Of course, there are also a number of reports of people who have attempted FIRE that have had to step back into the workforce for a variety of reasons, including the high cost of living in their chosen home, medical expenses, and others.

In 2019, recent convert to the FIRE movement, Scott Rieckens, decided to make a documentary of he and his wife’s beginning steps toward FIRE. The film includes a number of interviews with many of the key voices in the FIRE movement. Alongside the documentary, he also released a book that contains mostly the same information, with some more in-depth examples.

For those wondering what the FIRE movement is, both of Rieckens products are helpful. This provides a basic understanding of what FIRE is all about. It also provides a window into the motivation of many, like the Rieckens family, for pursuing FIRE: to have more time for family and leisure activities.

As something of a personal finance junkie, I’ve read a lot of the internet material on FIRE. It is a truly intriguing financial philosophy, but one that has particular dangers, especially for Christians.

Movie/Book Review

The Playing with Fire documentary and book, however, are not particularly compelling apologies for the movement. The concept, as presented by Rieckens, is more about the decision to be “counter-cultural” than it is about the mechanics of FIRE. Also, notably, the Rieckens’ vision for FIRE is to step out of the workforce in an arbitrary timeframe of 10-years, meanwhile holding onto the basic framework of a middle-class lifestyle. Additionally, Playing with Fire describes the early stages of the quest for FIRE, rather than presenting a vision of what the FIRE lifestyle looks like ten years after stepping out of the workforce or what it looks like to work through the years it takes to get to one’s FIRE number.

The book and documentary do include interviews from individuals who have been FIREd for an extended period of time, but in the attempt to tell a compelling story about the decision to become FIRE Rieckens neglects to sufficiently reveal why one should strive for it. The reason the Rieckens family gives is to have more time to care for their toddler daughter (which Mrs. Rieckens states will be their only child), though the math of a 10-year FIRE horizon shows that the decision is being made on the hope of seeing more of the child’s teenage years, rather than the time-intensive formative years.

In the end, individuals that already have done their research on the FIRE movement will find little of new value in Rieckens’ products. The FIRE concept is, after all, exceptionally simple. And, those who are pondering FIRE may come away with more questions than answers.

For those that aren’t aware of the FIRE movement, it’s a well-constructed documentary and the book is accessible prose. Renting the film from a streaming service may well be a decent way to spend an evening on the couch at home, but it is a beginning point, not an ending point.

Playing With Fire

Starring Pete Adeney, Brad Barrett, Jonathan Mendonsa, Vicki Robin, Jl Collins

Buy on Amazon

Is Socialism Ecologically Friendly?

There is an odd correlation in some of the public square between socialism and the ecological movement. The so called “Green New Deal” is a major example of this, where a proposal has been created to install socialism in the United States for the sake of the environment. This belief in the environmental friendliness of socialism didn’t begin with thoughts of the recent proposals, but the logical connection between the two is dubious, at best.

The first time I came across the argument that socialism was the best solution to the environment was in Naomi Klein’s popular book, This Changes Everything. It was a shoddy book by an activist who writes journalistically, but given the popularity of Klein’s sales and the increasing popularity of the combination of economic control and ecology she proposes, it seems to resonate with a number of people.

Among Klein’s basic proposals is a Universal Basic Income (UBI), which has supporters on both among free market advocates and those who desire more centralized economic control. She claims UBI “makes it possible for workers to say no to dirty energy jobs but also because the very process of arguing for a universal social safety net opens up a space for a full-throated debate about values.” (Klein, 2014: 461) Given that in her recent book, On Fire, Klein offers a definition of “green jobs” that include daycare workers, it isn’t clear exactly what a “dirty energy job” is and why it should be resisted. (Klein, 2019: 268)

But the deeper issue is that there is often no clear connection between socialism and improving the environment, the very grounds on which the so-called Green New Deal is supposed to stand.

As the Washington Post revealed in this profile of Saikat Chakrabarti, who has been one of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s political handlers, the so-called Green New Deal was originally not about the environment, but about imposing socialism on society:

Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” Ricketts greeted this startling notion with an attentive poker face. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

This was readily apparent to many who read the summary of the so-called Green New Deal proposal and noted that it took a great deal of time to get to anything that was supposed to benefit the ecosystem.

The conflation of radical redistribution with eco-friendly is not unique to political formulations of ecology, though. In his book, Religion and Ecology: Developing a Planetary Ethic, queer-theorist Whitney Bauman proposes (1) free higher education (and transferring student loan debt to the U.S. government), (2) global, universal health care, and (3) an increase in leisure time as key remedies for environmental ills, the method for which is not clearly defined. (Bauman, 2014:  147–148) The idea is to get people disengaged from economic activity so they take on the attitudes of “polytheistic nomadism” and have space to imagine a world that is truly environmentally friendly.

The message seems to be that by granting economic power to a central elite––an oligarchy that we will democratically choose, of course––people will stop working so hard and have time to consider the lilies.

There is no question that this sounds terrifically appealing on a Friday afternoon after a long week of work. And, of course, there is some helpful truth within the ideas, which allows people to focus on the legitimate good(s) proposed without considering the damage it would take to get there or what it would do to society.

As a Christian and a non-libertarian advocate for a Free Market economic condition, I believe that debt from higher education (and a whole bunch of other consumer sources) is too high, that we need to reevaluate and structurally improve our health care system at many levels, and that the harried pace of modern life are damaging to the human psyche. I am also of the opinion that we need to think carefully about our individual and corporate impact on the environment and continue to make adjustments at all levels.

However, I can’t support proposals like the so-called Green New Deal because of some of the fundamental flaws in the worldview.

Can Socialism Self-Regulate?

More significantly, I cannot support movement toward socialism on environmental grounds, because centralized control of the economy has not consistently led to a positive outcome for the environment. For the sake of this discussion, I will accept the traditional definition of socialism, which is that the government owns (or substantially controls) the means of production. (There are competing and historically naïve definitions in existence, so such a definition is warranted.)

At a fundamental level, it seems illogical that central planners will self-police environmental issues to the degree that advocates of socialism hope. When the local, state, and federal government are independent entities, they have both standing and incentive to enforce environmental regulations and seek damages from corporate entities that pollute. However, once the various levels of government and production are simply branches of the same massive entity, it is not clear they will have the political will to essentially self-enforce regulations.

Of course, the counter argument is that it isn’t a totalitarian socialism that is being proposed but a “democratic” socialism. However, when a few thousand people are being affected by a chemical spill for the benefit of the rest of the population, it doesn’t take too long to imagine how majoritarian democracy could choose to neglect that tiny minority. It also becomes less and less clear how people will be able to vote in their long-term best interests when their immediate good in regulated by the tiny minority in power, but that is a discussion for another day. It might be more helpful to look at historical examples to see how ecological health has fared under socialist economies.

Historic Impact of Socialism on the Environment

Historically speaking, socialistic systems have not been particularly good for the environment. In his book, The Art of the Impossible, Vaclav Havel describes the environmental blight caused by socialism the former Czechoslovakia. Similarly, historically, the levels of pollution in East Germany were several times that in West Germany during the reign of socialism. Then, you have the ongoing environmental blight and gross pollution present in today’s China, which has made some capitalistic reforms, but is still recovering from their economic communism. During Moa Zedong’s rule, his government created a famine by exterminating sparrows because he thought them to be pests, thus disrupting the ecosystem. The list can go on significantly and include the ongoing environmental meltdown in Venezuela. It is also worth noting that the so-called “good” socialism of the Scandinavian countries is rated near the bottom of the Sustainable Development Index. (For the record, these countries are not socialistic.)

But, some might argue, communism isn’t real socialism and what the so-called Green New Deal is proposing will be environmentally better. First, since the so-called Green New Deal is being compared favorably to FDR’s New Deal of the early 20th century, we can consider the impact that farm subsidies have had on the environment. One of the chief concerns about farming is topsoil depletion, which is significantly accelerated due to monoculture. The rise of agribusiness and the propensity toward monoculture of crops have been enabled and accelerated by FDR’s Agricultural Adjustment Act, which was a precursor to the modern farm bills. The industrialization of farming has only accelerated topsoil depletion. It is unclear that any new proposals from the so-called Green New Deal programs will do much better.

Conclusion

While there is a groundswell movement on the political left to link the concentration of economic power in the Federal government and environmental health, it is unclear that such a movement will have a positive outcome for the environment. In fact, there is good historical evidence that exactly the opposite will occur. We certainly need economic reform, but it might be better to think local, compassionate, and personal instead of looking to socialism.

Should Southern Baptists Use Creeds?

The Southern Baptist Convention is a confessional network of autonomous local congregations who have generally clustered around mutual affirmation of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 as a minimum statement of theological belief that permits cooperation, though there are churches that are in cooperation with the SBC (based on CP giving) that do not affirm the BF&M 2000. Many Southern Baptists are clear that they see the Baptist Faith and Message as a confession, which loosely binds, rather than a creed, that more clearly delineates and binds. Thus, affirmation of the BF&M is not required for churches or pastors to affiliate with the SBC.

The BF&M is a helpful document for this particular moment, because it defines the currently debated boundaries of SBC cooperation. It has limitations in two directions: (1) It largely assumes the earlier theological formulations that define orthodoxy, and which are outlined in the ecumenical creeds and other official products of ecumenical councils. (2) Language changes, which means that certain phrases can be filled with new meaning or disputed in their meaning, so that future clarification will be warranted. In other words, there will come a time that the BF&M will need to be revised to ensure it properly delineates the doctrinal categories of the SBC of that present moment.

One way that we can lengthen the time between needed revisions to the BF&M is to do more work in teaching orthodox doctrine through historical formulations, particularly building on the ecumenical creeds.

The use of creeds in worship gatherings and teaching ministries in SBC churches rubs some members the wrong way. Earlier generations, in particular, have built their identity on being “confessional” not “credal” due to the concept of individual soul liberty. There is value in that objection, but I believe that there is warrant to increase our use of creeds in our congregations without diminishing the role of the conscience in arriving at conclusions through careful of study of Scripture.

Within the context of learning and teaching theology, the creeds that were affirmed by the ecumenical councils are faithful summaries of the Christian faith. They do not supplant the careful study of Scripture, but they certainly provide guardrails that can help keep us from drifting into error. As I understand them, the creeds are some of the ways that we connect to the tradition of faithful Christians and prevent our own culture’s assumptions from overrunning the message of Scripture. This makes them invaluable in this time when information from unlimited sources threatens to overrun our churches.

Basis for Didactic Use of Creeds

The presence and use of creeds within SBC life is growing. In my opinion, that is generally a good thing for at least four reasons.

First, recognizing faithful affirmation of statements of faith (like creeds and confessions) as basics of Christian belief connects us to our Baptist heritage.

As Chuck Kelley, Richard Land, and Albert Mohler wrote in the introduction to the LifeWay study on the Baptist Faith and Message in 2007,

“Baptist churches and associations of churches have adopted statements of belief to teach, defend, and perpetuate the faith ‘that was delivered to the saints once for all’ (Jude 3). These statements, most commonly known as confessions of faith, are intended to clarify and publish the most basic beliefs that frame our faith, our witness, and our worship. In the beginning years of the organized Baptist movement, these statements were often intended to demonstrate that Baptists were fully orthodox as Christian believers. Later, such statements were used to establish identity, confront false teaching, and instruct Christians in the faith.” (The Baptist Faith and Message, 5)

Southern Baptists hold the BF&M to be a document that frames our corporate identity, but as noted, that identity is also within the orthodox tradition. The orthodox tradition has been defined, historically, as including acceptance of (though not dogmatically so) the historical creeds of the church. And, though we tend to describe our confession as a voluntary document, that has not been entirely consistent with the Baptist tradition broadly, or the Southern Baptist tradition more narrowly.

As Chute, Finn, and Haykin (all historians and professors in and from an SBC context) note:

“For at least the past century, some Baptists have adopted a negative posture toward confessions. They suggest that any prescriptive use of confession is ‘creedalism,’ or the elevation of a merely human standard above Scripture and an infringement on individual liberty of conscience. While this view is popular in some circles, it reflects a misunderstanding of Baptist history. As Timothy George argues, ‘The idea that voluntary conscientious adherence to an explicit doctrinal standard is somehow foreign to the Baptist tradition is a peculiar notion not borne out by careful examination of our heritage.’” (The Baptist Story, 327)

By affirming the BF&M 2000 as the defining confession of our cooperative network of churches, we are essentially treating it as a creed. As B. H. Carrol asserts: “There was never a man in the world without a creed. A creed is what you believe. What is a confession? It is a declaration of what you believe.”

In practice, the BF&M 2000 functions as a creed. It is minimalistic (e.g., it holds open diverse eschatological possibilities, multiple arrangements of church government, and a host of other secondary and tertiary documents). However, it is sufficient for a significant body of baptistic Christians to gather around and cooperate within without excessively binding the conscience of anyone.

In the spirit of the Reformational principal, sola Scriptura, we hold Scripture as the final authority over all faith and practice over the BF&M or any other human declaration. (If the BF&M is the frame of our beliefs, Scripture provides the portrait that the frame outlines.) This practice is consistent with the declaration on the SBC’s webpage that we are “all within the framework of historic biblical orthodoxy,” which statement seems to presume some non-scriptural standard outside of the BF&M that we can be judged by. That is to say, the BF&M necessarily assumes a broader stream of orthodoxy of which the SBC is a part. Using historical creeds like the Nicene Creed supports the BF&M rather than denigrates it by putting it in its context.

Second, evangelical churches (broadly defined) are bleeding young people that are searching for a faith that is rooted deeply in the past. I have seen multiple young Baptists drift into Roman Catholicism because they feel it has deeper roots in history. This is a practical concern, but one that has a theological solution.

While mistaken in their belief that the Roman Catholics are the real church with the deeper tradition, the impetus of those leaving Baptist churches and other evangelical churches is logical as we anticipate the growing cultural storm. In light of growing pressure to affirm counter-scriptural trends in culture, using a statement of faith adopted in the year 2000 is a much less robust shield than in a faith that is described as rooted in the confession of a man who knew Jesus in 33 AD. Churches serve their people well when they help them

Based on this reasoning, I use the historical creeds of the church to teach my children and I share them with Christians in Baptist churches because it connects us to the great cloud of witness that has gone before us. When I read the Apostle’s creed, I am reading the confession that Augustine affirmed, as have millions of faithful Christians in the interim. When I recite the creed, I am joining in a doxological practice that missionaries, martyrs, and ministers have shared for generations.

There is strength in the continuity we can share with those that have come before us. The creeds help us to understand that continuity. Given the ravages of the ecumenical movement of the mid-20th century, I understand reservations toward that sort of universal confession, but I believe it will be important in the coming years. The Nicene Creed is not enough, because it doesn’t take into account theological errors raised since it was authored, which is why the BF&M 2000 is an important document. Connecting people to the historic creeds is a way of showing theological continuity of our present confession with the ancient faith that we believe we are properly representing.

Third, the development of the creeds helps us understand the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy. Within the church, pastors and other leaders should be teaching the basis of our doctrinal belief, because it is vitally important to building a robust doctrinal foundation in a post-modern world.

As Dorothy L. Sayers wrote, with characteristic wit,

“Teacher and preachers never, I think, make it sufficiently clear that dogmas are not a set of arbitrary regulations invented a priori by a committee of theologians enjoying a bout of all-in dialectical wrestling. Most of them were hammered out under pressure of urgent practical necessity to provide an answer to heresy. And heresy is, as I have tried to show, largely the expression of opinion of the untutored average man, trying to grapple with the problems of the universe, trying to grapple with the problems of the universe at the point where they begin to interfere with daily life and thought.” (“Creed or Chaos,” in The Whimsical Christian, 41)

I think Sayers is right. Especially as an ethicist, I believe that we have to understand doctrine in light of the context in which it was expressed (not invented). By rooting our faith, which is founded on Scripture, in the Christian tradition through its connection with the historic creeds, we combat the error that Sayers identified in the 1940s in the rapidly secularizing British culture. To build an ethics that will weather the storms of this life and a faith that will not be carried away, we need to show people that our contemporary orthodoxy is a historical orthodoxy, which was drawn from Scripture in light of particular theological errors that continue to resurface.

Exposing people to ancient creeds that connect faith today to the doctrines delineated more than a millennia ago strengthens the faith of contemporary saints, even as it helps rule out of bounds some doctrinal innovations being promoted by ignorant and malicious teachers in our age. People need to know what good looks like to be able to recognize and avoid bad theology.

Fourth, studying and making people aware of the historical Christian creeds helps prevent the error of believing we can have “no creed but the Bible.”

I am sympathetic to those who try to live by the “no creed but the Bible” statement, but the good intent behind it can lead to significant error because it assumes that we can, without falling into error, read Scripture rightly. For example, “no creed but the Bible” is the essential belief of the Campbellite movement, which has led to their affirmation (in many cases) of baptismal regeneration. When diced in a particular way, Scripture can be seen to support that doctrine, though I believe it to be clearly inconsistent with the holistic message of Scripture.

I affirm the sufficiency, authority, and perspicuity of Scripture. At the same time, I also recognize that there are patterns of thought endemic to my age that will tend to lead to into particular errors. Exposing people to historic creeds helps guard against the blindness of our own age.

As C. S. Lewis wrote in his introduction to Athanasius’s On the Incarnation:

“Most of all, perhaps, we need intimate knowledge of the past. Not that the past has any magic about it, but because we cannot study the future, and yet need something to set against the present, to remind us that the basic assumptions have been quite different in different periods and that much which seems certain to the educated is merely temporary fashion. A man who has lived in many places is not likely to be deceived by the local errors of his native village: the scholar has lived in many times and is therefore in some degree immune from the great cataract of nonsense that pours from the press and the microphone of his own age.”

Church History in general and the creeds specifically are helpful in preventing us from falling into errors of our own age. Lewis is overly optimistic in believing that we won't fall into the opposite error of unquestioningly believing ancient sources, but his point that evaluating our understanding in light of historic thinkers, particularly when we are dealing with timeless truths, is right on the mark.

There are, I am sure, other reasons that I could list for utilizing the creeds as we study Christian doctrine, but these four provide a solid framework. I am hopeful that the creeds that have bounded orthodoxy for generations continue to grow in their use. It will link together faithful believers across traditions and bolster the faith of the members of our congregations trying to stand firm in our cultural moment.

On Our Moral Duty to Wear Masks

During recent weeks, world events have driven people to ask important questions about religious liberty, the role of the state, the nature of the common good, and the balance between individual freedoms and duties. As we’ve all sat in our homes with minimal chance to venture out, there have been gigabytes of data invested in the writing and reading of thoughts about the present, the future, epidemiology, and our longing for the delivery of our most recent online purchases.

One of the more recent questions that has arisen as many states and localities look forward to lifting their restrictions is: Should we wear masks in enclosed public spaces?

Unfortunately, for some, this has been turned into a political question related to a sense of submission and control, but at its heart, it is a question of neighbor love and concern for life. It is that angle—the concern for the preservation of life—that I will examine, ignoring the tangled web of frustration, argumentation, and misrepresentation.

Simply put, at the present time we have a moral duty to properly wear masks in enclosed public spaces.

Efficacy of Masks

Masks are worn because they help to slow the spread of viruses due to coughing, sneezing, speaking, and breathing from the nose and mouth. Essentially, even homemade masks help filter out the virus particulates that may be carried by our breath.

According to the CDC’s website,

It is critical to emphasize that maintaining 6-feet social distancing remains important to slowing the spread of the virus.  CDC is additionally advising the use of simple cloth face coverings to slow the spread of the virus and help people who may have the virus and do not know it from transmitting it to others.  Cloth face coverings fashioned from household items or made at home from common materials at low cost can be used as an additional, voluntary public health measure.

There was confusion early on in the pandemic, particularly as people tried to acquire necessary medical supplies and sought to use masks to protect themselves, which led to contrary guidance.

Confusion has been increased because the World Health Organization, which has to attempt to cross cultural barriers and a wide range of socio-economic conditions, is ambivalent on wearing masks to limit the spread of COVID-19. Most of their cautions have to do with the misuse of masks (e.g., repeatedly touching them to adjust them), wearing soiled masks that cannot be cleaned, or that wearing a mask would give a false sense of security leading to people not observing other significant precautions. Given that the WHO recommendations have to somehow support possible solutions in majority world countries as well as highly industrialized countries, it is not surprising there are a range of competing concerns that may be largely contextually driven.

It also does not help that there are intentional efforts to spread misinformation, to divide the nation, and to make simple, empirical decisions seem to be politically motivated. There are so many people writing about this issue that it is entirely possible to continue to search until we find an opinion we like and then point to that as decisive. Our best bet, though it will certainly be imperfect, is to go with the officials appointed by our government to do this research on our behalf and make recommendations. We should, unless it causes us to sin, obey authorities placed over us and use the best wisdom we can about less clear decisions.

Through all of this, we should remember that cloth masks, or simple surgical masks, are not particularly effective at preventing getting the infection. In fact, if you wear mask incorrectly (e.g., are constantly adjusting it, or think it functions as a shield for germs and don’t take normal precautions), wearing a mask may increase your likelihood of picking up germs.

Masks in public, as proposed and sometimes mandated during the current pandemic, are not primarily about protecting yourself. They are intended to prevent being a source of the infection. COVID-19 is unlike other common respiratory diseases in that it has, in some cases, a relatively lengthy asymptomatic period in which a person can also be contagious. There is a long period of time where we may be infected and contagious and have no idea, which makes COVID-19 different than many other respiratory diseases.

The moral duty in the case, is not simply to wear a mask, but to do so responsibly while maintaining other appropriate hygienic precautions, like frequent handwashing and maintaining personal space. We do this for the good of others, not (primarily) to prevent getting it ourselves.

Obedience to Authority

If a legitimate authority mandates that we wear masks, we should wear them properly if we are able. Rom 13:1-7 is fairly clear that we ought to submit to government authorities (or store owners, when on their property, or church leaders, when in their sphere of influence). If you are in a locality that requires masks, then you really don’t need to read the rest of this long article, because it is your moral duty to wear a mask properly, as long as you are able, in those situations mandated by the legitimate authority.

There are reams of explanation by Christians from many ages of Church History explaining that we need not obey authorities if it requires us to violate our conscience. However, apart from really odd reasoning (wearing protective gear obscures the image of God? If so, what do clothes do and what should we do with that?), belief that personal comfort is an absolute good, or some sort of belief that somehow not wearing a mask is subverting a conspiracy for social control, I have not seen much that argues that protecting the lives of others violates conscience.

An obvious caveat to this is that some people do feel an inordinate sense of anxiety due to some significant trauma if they wear a mask. That isn’t most people. But our duty is to ensure we obey authority and not to enforce the rules on others.

Risks of Infection

The likelihood of getting any virus is dependent on the concentration and duration of our exposure to those particles and the fighting ability of our immune system. Assuming equally healthy people, the person who is exposed to the greater number of virus particles for the longest time is more likely to get sick than someone with a lower exposure.

This is why many of the recommendations center on eliminating virus particles (e.g., by washing hands and sanitizing surfaces) and diluting the concentration (e.g., 6 feet distance, occupancy limits, etc.). There is also a time factor in the equation, so that reducing the time we spend in enclosed spaces reduces our risk of getting or spreading the disease, barring excess exertion that makes us breathe especially hard.

These are all probabilistic factors that we do not yet fully understand the exact values of, but reducing exposure is a critical means of lowering the chance the disease is transmitted.

No sane person wants to get the disease and we should take reasonable precautions to avoid it.

However, we also have a duty as Christians to minimize the potential that we spread the disease. Wearing a mask is primarily about preventing the spread of COVID-19.

This is particularly important since current estimates indicate that about half of the people who have the disease remain asymptomatic, there is a lag between becoming contagious and feeling symptoms even in bad cases, and asymptomatic people are capable of spreading the disease. In other words, we can feel perfectly fine and be spreading COVID-19.

Risk of the Disease

It is not clear at this point exactly how deadly COVID-19 is. Everyone admits that the death rates have been skewed upward because of the limited availability of the tests (especially early on when only those very ill could get the tests) and the number of asymptomatic people who are never tested.

However, COVID-19 tends to affect vulnerable populations more significantly. The elderly and those with underlying medical conditions often fare poorly. These are the sorts of people that our society tends to value less, but who Christians should be particularly ready to protect.

Even relatively healthy and youthful individuals who get the disease have described it as being severe. Experiences vary, often depending on the degree of exposure and the immune system’s response. In the most severe cases, people can require ventilators to supplement the body’s natural respiratory function.

It was concern over the availability of ventilators that initially led to the lockdowns in many states and cities.

Some areas, especially those that are populated most densely, have seen significant spread of COVID-19. Other areas, especially more rural parts of the country, have seen few cases.

This has fueled frustration in some less affected areas, which have faced strict restrictions with little visible impact. Those frustrations are increasing as low-density areas are being treated like high-density areas in a way that seems unfair and is damaging to the economy. There is some validity in the frustration; many of the lockdown measures were imposed broadly when narrower targeting would have been sufficient. (I am very thankful not to be one of the people trying to make these decisions right now.)

Presently, the restrictions on travel and commerce are helping to stop the transmission of the disease. However, the increasing frustration and significant economic harm being caused by the restrictions are pushing decision makers to lift those restrictions.

This is exactly the point of time when the tendency will be to relax the protective measures like wearing masks and maintaining personal distance. This is also exactly the point in time when those measures will be most important.

In the current condition, having stayed in contact with our families or very small clusters of friends, we have essentially proved that we have clusters of people who are no longer infected with COVID-19. All to the good.

However, when we begin to more freely associate and travel increases, we will be back to square one, unless we continue some of the basic precautions like maintaining physical distance from one another, washing hands frequently, and wearing masks to protect others.

There is no guarantee that we can prevent from getting the disease. We should protect our health reasonably, but as Christians we should be particularly concerned about protecting the health and lives of others. Our continued adherence to the recommendations of the CDC and other recommendations and regulations of our state and local authorities is part of our moral duty to protect others.

Especially those of us who come in contact with a broader public should be much more careful in preventing our spreading the disease unknowingly and inadvertently. This is exactly the reason properly wearing a mask in enclosed, public spaces is a moral duty right now.

Duty to be Cautious with Life

Most Christians are familiar with the 6th commandment, which prohibits murder. (Ex 20:13)

Contrary to much of the recent online discourse, accidentally spreading COVID-19 to someone who later dies is not murder. Neither is desiring to responsibly engage in economic activity and expression of disdain for healthcare workers or for the vulnerable populations around us.

But Christians have a duty to protect life beyond avoiding maliciously killing others. Christians also have a duty to be careful of life. Humans, even the ones we don’t like, are all made in God’s image and are precious to him.

As John Frame writes in his Medical Ethics,

The general principle of respect for human life also forbids any kind of physical harm (Exod. 22:12–36). God even forbids his people to put others in danger of such harm. (I believe that this is part of what God had in mind by legislating “cities of refuge” in the Old Testament [Num. 35:22-28; Deut. 19:4ff.].) Accidental killing is a crime, because we ought to be supremely careful with human life. . . . The moral obligation to be supremely careful with human life and not to take it accidentally is the fundamental principle of medical ethics: primum non nocere––“first, do no harm.”

He later refers to this as the “doctrine of carefulness,” which I think is an apt description of an obligation to avoid even the careless harm to others.

The doctrine of carefulness is the reason why we follow OSHA regulations at the worksite. It is the reason why we drive at a reasonable speed when there are kids playing soccer on the side of the road, even if we have to go slower than the posted speed limit.

The doctrine of carefulness is the primary driver behind wearing masks properly under the current conditions in enclosed, public spaces.

When we wear a mask, we are protecting the lives and health of others. The worker in the store has to stay inside the enclosed, recirculating building. The other members of our church are breathing in the air we have exhaled. Based on the CDC explanation, mask wearing minimizes their risk, even if it does not significantly protect the mask-wearer.

My Risk or Their Risk

The person who is receiving the risk is a critical element of this argument. In other words, am I putting myself at risk or another person?

If I choose to go skydiving or rock climbing I am taking risk upon myself that is unnecessary. Within certain parameters (i.e., we have an obligation not to be foolhardy to the point of suicidal risk) that is permissible. I can take risk upon myself.

Thus, for me to care for an infected individual is morally permissible, even if I don’t have all of the preferred protective gear. I should be careful, but I assume that risk.

I do not have the right to force that risk on other people, however, according to the doctrine of carefulness.

If I choose not to wear a mask, at this point in the pandemic, I may have been infected and I may therefore be pushing risk on other people that is unnecessary. That is unjust and immoral.

Obviously, it may be that I have been isolated for several weeks and finally returning to the grocery store. It may be that in that situation I have next to no potential to have the infection to spread to others. In that case, if there is no authoritative requirement (the store does not require it and governmental orders have been dropped) to wear a mask, then I am not bound to.

Most of us, however, will be out and about on a regular basis in the coming weeks as the restrictions are lifted. COVID-19 will inevitably spread more rapidly for a period of time after normal social and economic activities are restored. As we go back to stores and back to work, even on an intermittent basis, we will no longer be sure that we are “clean and free” of COVID-19. At that point, even if we believe we do not have the disease because we feel fine, we should choose to wear a mask properly in enclosed, public spaces out of love for our neighbor, to protect his or her life. We have no right to put our neighbor at risk any more than necessary.

There is, I think, in many circles a false sense of security and minimization of the real risk of COVID-19 because the drastic actions taken to reduce the spread have worked. Many people, therefore, do not know someone directly who has suffered from it and have not seen how dreadful it is. By the account of those who are seeing the work of the disease, it is significant and potentially deadly.

Particular Duties of Christians

Christians should likely be among the most cautious of people regarding this infection. Apart from sports, churches are often among of the largest gatherings of people in our communities. We come together a few times a week after we have been separated and gone out into the world, to various businesses and places of work.

Churches, therefore, are likely to be among the main ways that the disease will be spread. Not only do we gather and scatter, but we also often sing, which seems to be a particularly effective way of spreading the disease. Shouting and singing both encourage deeper breathing and, because of the extra force to make the sounds, tend to aerosolize the particulates more, which increases the likelihood that they spread.

Therefore, once we return to gathered worship (may the day come soon), especially inside, we are among the most likely to spread the disease and become infected. As a result, we have a greater chance of imparting risk to those we come in contact with. We should choose, therefore, to bear the mild inconvenience of wearing a mask to protect the lives of our neighbors.

Let us be known as the people who value life even over comfort and personal freedom.

Reasonable steps may include, and I think should include, choosing to wear a mask properly in enclosed, public spaces (beyond church) even after the CDC recommendation has been lifted or the local ordinances are dropped.

Masks and Christian Liberty

Some may argue that the stronger brother (mask wearer) should bear with the weaker brother (non-mask wearer) in this regard, when it comes to social interactions. In other words, I should be able to have the liberty to choose not to wear a mask if I don’t want to. That argument has the actual pattern reversed.

First, we have a duty to obey the authorities of those placed over us unless it causes us to sin. If there is a mandate to wear a mask, then we should wear one if able. Wearing a mask is not sin, even if we chafe at the restriction. If the leadership of a local congregation chooses to require a mask, then we should voluntarily do so.

However, if others in the congregation ask us to wear a mask, we ought to agree to it, even if we don’t like it. We should yield to them as the weaker brother, in this case.

As Paul describes eating meat sacrificed to idols in 1 Cor 8, it is our obligation to yield our rights to others. In this case, we ought to yield our perceived right not to wear a mask to those who feel that a mask is necessary for safety. Aside from the risk we are imparting on the other individual, our refusal to wear a mask is likely to force others to violate their conscience by not attending church. As Paul writes, “But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.” (v. 9)

The meat eater must bear with the abstainer, not the other way around. In this case, the bolder action is to avoid the mask, therefore it is the mask abstainer that should yield.

On the other hand, if the congregation agrees not to wear a mask, then they should not look down on those that choose to avoid gathered worship until they feel comfortable. We should not attempt to force people to violate their conscience, even through social pressure, which is Paul’s point.

We have no right to expect others to choose the same level of risk that we accept for ourselves or others. We have no right to expect someone to violate their conscience by risking the spread of the disease. Those that choose to accept the risk should do so voluntarily and be prepared to bear whatever consequence results, but it should be mutually accepted.

Masks and Absolute Morals

One obvious question that arises from this discussion is whether the duty to wear a mask is absolute. How is it that we now have a duty to wear masks, but in January people would have thought us strange for wearing one? Has God’s truth changed? (After all, Scripture says nothing about COVID-19, etc.)

The answer is that absolute truth applied to a changing circumstance leads to a different action.

Sex is not sinful in and of itself. However, consenting sex outside of marriage is sinful. The circumstances are part of the moral calculus.

We have a duty to protect life. When our child is bleeding out in our back seat, that may lead us to violate the speed limit. When there are children playing soccer near the road, that may lead us to go well under the posted speed limit. The duty is the same, but how we live it out changes.

At the present time, the risk—especially the unknown risk—of COVID-19 is such that properly wearing a mask in enclosed, public spaces is morally warranted.

There will be a day at some point in the future that that will no longer be the case. As Christians, demonstrating love for neighbor, we should be among the more cautious when it comes to life. It does us little credit when people who claim the name of Christ demand autonomous personal freedoms without consideration for the vulnerable. We should be willing to sacrifice our comfort and convenience for the sake of the health and lives of others.

The moral absolute here is the duty to be careful with life. That does not mean absolute prevention of risk, but it does mean that we should work to minimize it, especially during a time of relative crisis like this.

We won’t know when the exact moment that it was no longer necessary to wear a mask until some time after it comes. To err on the side of caution is the morally prudent course of action.

Masks as a Historical Practice

Somehow, obscured in the politicization of this issue, people seem to be missing the fact that donning a mask has been a consistent practice recommended for visiting immunocompromised people for years. Perhaps I’m just unaware, but I’ve never heard or read anyone who objected to protecting the life of their child during cancer treatments by wearing a mask.

The duty to wear a mask was always conditioned upon the circumstance. The efficacy of masks has been assumed when dealing with visiting cancer patients, but suddenly it is being questioned now that the request is being made outside the sick ward.

The most reasonable arguments for this are that people aren’t going to wear the masks right, and will assume that the mask keeps everyone totally safe. Therefore, we shouldn’t wear masks.

People can be stubborn and ignorant, but repeated communication should help convince people that physical distance, hygiene, and proper mask wearing are three distinct (but related) measures to reduce spread of COVID-19.

Inability to Wear a Mask

If for some reason someone cannot wear a mask, then they should not wear a mask.

Churches should, within reason, work to accommodate those who cannot have a mask on. However, it may be that, since our buildings were not constructed for a respiratory pandemic, that accommodation may include being treated differently than those who can wear a mask. Different conditions may warrant different treatment.

People that cannot wear a mask can fulfill their duty to protect others through hygiene, maximal isolation, and maintaining distance as rigorously as possible.

We should do our best to bear with those who, for whatever reason, cannot take the same precautions for our health. This may include ensuring those individuals do not have to come in contact with infected individuals by running their errands, etc.

The simple fact that some cannot wear a mask should not prevent us as individuals from wearing masks or congregations from requiring them of everyone who is able. The goal is to minimize risk as much as reasonable, not to pretend we can entirely eliminate it.

At the same time, people who can wear a mask, but don’t want to ought to wear a mask. “It makes me feel hot and fogs my glasses” are not moral arguments against wearing a mask. (Trust me, I’ve worn a mask for an extended period of time during this and it’s no fun.)

Conclusion

Obviously, this is an ever-changing situation. If, for whatever reason, it becomes clear that properly wearing a mask in an enclosed, public space actually infects more people we should not do it. Our duty is to be cautious with life, not to wear a particular article of clothing.

When the CDC recommendations are relaxed, we should consider our own risk of being infected and be cautious about reducing our efforts to put our neighbor at risk. Leaders of churches should be especially cautious, as they will be setting the rules that will protect or endanger their congregations and the local communities. As I noted, churches are among some of the most high-risk activities that exist in our communities when it comes to communicable, respiratory diseases. It’s one thing to threaten someone with the common cold, it’s another thing to put them at risk of COVID-19. And, by putting those that attend at risk, we also put our communities at risk because of the particularly insidious nature of the disease.

We have no obligation to police our neighbor’s Facebook feed to see if they are wearing a mask. Our obligation is to ensure we are not spreading the disease, not to ensure others are not doing so. We should take appropriate care of our own health and lives, which may include avoiding corporate worship if the congregation refuses to take reasonable precautions. However, our goal should not be to shame or divide the congregation, but to reflect a consistent concern for life in a responsible, spiritually mature way.

At the end of the day, we will all give an account to God for our moral choices. Those that are in Christ will be covered by his blood, but our goal should be, as much as reasonable, to fulfill our duties as outlined in Scripture as much as possible for God’s glory. In this case, that requires us to take caution with the lives of our neighbors, which presently includes properly wearing masks in enclosed, public places.

Unmasking Moral Disagreements

One of the challenges of living within the diverse community that is a local congregation is that people will come to widely different conclusions about what is good and right, especially on questions that Scripture doesn’t speak directly to or that involve rapidly evolving data.

Aside from the more egregious examples, which often are due to radically different understandings of Scripture, there are often a wide range of lesser issues that have moral implications and on which disagreement is not grounds for complete disassociation.

Right now, as people grapple with floods of conflicting information about how to deal with a novel virus, there are different perspectives on whether to wear masks, whether to ignore guidelines limiting the size of gatherings, etc.

Some have clearer moral answers than others. For example, given the currently available data, it is fairly clear to me that wearing masks properly in enclosed spaces is a moral duty to protect those around me. There are some that disagree, some for honest, well-meaning reasons. Others have poorer reasons but are unlikely to be convinced of a change of mind based on any argumentation.

This is a time to reason well, look out for our neighbor, but also to show as much grace as we can to those that disagree.

Managing Moral Disagreement

How do we engage with other believers that disagree with us on contested moral topics?

Scripture is timeless truth, it is God’s gift to us that should form our moral conscience and direct our lives.

Paul’s letter to the church at Rome recognizes that Christians are likely to encounter people inside and outside the church who have differing perspectives on moral matters. His advice is simple: “If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.” (Rom 12:18)

This is hard to do. When your neighbor plays music too loud, it is hard not to want to be rude back.

Sometimes it is even harder when there are moral questions in play and we have a close personal connection and concern for their well-being.

Do we have a duty to try to convince someone of our moral position?

The answer, I think, is that it depends.

There is a reason why the author of Proverbs 26:4-5 gave us this little chestnut:

“Answer not a fool according to his folly,
    lest you be like him yourself.
Answer a fool according to his folly,
    lest he be wise in his own eyes.”

This has been pointed out as an apparent contradiction in Scripture by some skeptics, but it is just an example that shows that sometimes we have a duty to speak and at other times we do not.

Certainly, when we see someone about to devastate their life with sin we have a duty to speak to them to try to convince them to head toward the truth. As James urges his readers:

“My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.” (5:19-20)

Sometimes we have a duty to speak, but we ought to do so consistently with the significance of the moral concern and our relational proximity to the one we are addressing.

By analogy, we would take much more significant action if we saw our next-door neighbor about to accidentally spray weed killer in his eye rather than a stranger in another town about to get himself with water from his hose. Proximity and danger make a difference as to the appropriate response.

In a similar way, we might strongly believe that a particular TV show is morally corrosive, but our response to knowing a fellow Christian is absorbed in that show is different than if they are considering a contract to become an adult entertainer or discussing the logistics for adultery. Our cousin’s Facebook friend whom we’ve never met is not the primary concern of our efforts in discipleship and holding up signs condemning people at a gay pride parade is unlikely to do any good.

In areas of concern that are less likely to lead to imminent harm, wisdom should have us speaking clearly to minimize that harm. We may have to repeat ourselves to be heard.

In areas that are questionable, we ought to speak to those nearest and especially to those who are likely to listen to us. We state our case, move on, and do not violate our conscience.

When it comes to moral matters in the church, we have a duty not to stir up dissent. (Titus 3:9) It’s fine to raise concerns, but once we’ve had the first round of discussions, it does little good to keep hammering away to try to score a win by getting our own way in the debate.

Many conflicts in the church would be resolved if people were a bit more concerned with their own holiness and a bit less concerned with other people’s holiness. This is what Jesus was speaking of in Matthew 7:1–5. Of course, that passage has been abused to shut down all forms of contrary advice in some circles. None of us can ever claim to be without a log yet we have a duty to speak in some cases, but the duty to self-examine clearly needs to be considered before we rush to speak.

Masks and the Church

So what do we do when we believe mask wearing is a moral duty and other people refuse to do so?

Sometimes we just have to get used to watching people be wrong. Most of us social conservatives have found ways to live and work with people that have radically diverse opinions on many other issues, and some of these pandemic issues are no different.

The prudent path seems to be voice our opinion as carefully as we can and then let the discussion move on. We do, however, have an obligation not to participate in something that offends our conscience.

The ultimate aim of wearing a mask is to limit our ability to spread the disease. It is for the good of our neighbor, not for our own protection. We are showing concern for our neighbor by limiting our comfort and freedom for their good. Unfortunately, since most homemade or simple surgical masks are ineffective at preventing the wearer from getting infected, mask wearing only works if it is done widely in appropriate settings.

Therefore, if we are part of a congregation that does not mandate measures to reduce the spread of the disease, and we believe that we have a moral duty to limit its spread, then we have a moral obligation not to participate in activities that encourage the spread of the virus. In other words, in this situation, it would be appropriate to continue to livestream or participate in other ways that do not require us to violate our conscience. If we get infected because of a lack of care by those around us, then we have the potential to spread the disease and are not fulfilling our moral duty. If a church decides to conduct services without requiring measures designed to reduce the spread of COVID-19, they should recognize they are obligating some of their congregants to stay away.

But the mask wearers have no duty police those that choose not to wear a mask. Make your case and then take appropriate action. Don’t stalk people’s Instagram accounts to make insulting comments about distance and mask wearing. And, certainly, don’t allow yourself to hope they get someone sick so you can say, “I told you so.” Masks will only be necessary for a season. In a couple of years, the controversy will be a distant memory. It isn’t worth immolating friendships or division of the church over this issue, even if it is worth remaining apart for a time.

And the non-mask wearers should not look down on those who see mask wearing as a moral duty. If mask wearers won’t come to a gathering of people that aren’t taking precautions, recognize that they are following the course they believe is necessary to be faithful to Christ in this life. Imputing motive (e.g., by calling mask wearers cowards) is not Christlike, especially when there is strong evidence that wearing a mask may be an effective way of showing neighbor love. This is what 1 Corinthians 8 is all about. However, if you are asked to wear a mask at church or in another gathering, you should do so, even if you feel it to be unnecessary. As the Apostle Paul explains, liberty is always sacrificed and never demanded.

Conclusion

These same principles apply with our choices in entertainment, the consumption of alcohol, and other things that have nothing to do with a pandemic. We provide counsel to people based on our proximity and the possible harm. In cases of lower harm, if our advice is not taken, we make the choice that protects our conscience, and, as much as possible, accommodates the conscience of our brother or sister.

Especially as misinformation—intentional and unintentional—continues to spread around an evolving situation, we have to navigate these fields with humility. That doesn’t mean that we don’t correct the obvious conspiracy theories or falsehoods, but it does mean that some people are simply going to arrive at incorrect conclusions. In fact, it is possible that our conclusions, which are also driven by available data, may be incorrect.

Grace will help ease the situation in the short term and bring us back together in the long term. In the end, God will adjudicate the rightness or a moral action, and Christ’s blood will cover the deficiencies of the ones in error.

The Christian Mind and Christian Worldview Education

“There is no longer a Christian mind,” writes Harry Blamires.

This is a rather bold statement at the beginning of a volume titled, The Christian Mind, but Blamires makes a fairly convincing case over the course of his pages.

He goes on:

“There is no longer a Christian mind. There is still, of course, a Christian ethic, a Christian practice, and a Christian spirituality. As a moral being, the modern Christian subscribes to a code other than that of the non-Christian. As a member of the Church, he undertakes obligations and observations ignored by the non-Christian. As a spiritual being, in prayer and meditation, he strives to cultivate a dimension of life unexplored by the non-Christian. But as a thinking being, the modern Christian has succumbed to secularization. He accepts religion––its morality, its worship, its spiritual culture; but he rejects the religious view of life, the view which sets all earthly issues within the context of the eternal view which relates all human problems––social, political, cultural––to the doctrinal foundations of the Christian Faith, the view which sees all things here below in terms of God’s supremacy and earth’s transitoriness, in terms of Heaven and Hell.“

Perhaps another way to say this is that there is too little contrast between Christians and the remainder of the world.

This is readily apparent in the world of politics in the United States where political affiliation is a pre-determining factor in which political candidates and, more significantly, which policies they will support. A progressive Christian will be robustly anti-GOP and oppose policy that sounds “conservative,” whatever the content. On the other side, there are “conservative” Christians whose definition of conservative has more to do with economic libertarianism and globalization than faithfully adhering to the orthodox teachings of the Church.

There is no Christian mind because Christian has become an adjective that describes our lifestyle brand instead of the noun that encompasses the reality we seek to fulfill.

Catechesis and Christianity

Catechesis has traditionally been a central plank of making robust Christians. It was often a function of both the local congregation, particularly the clergy, in partnership with the family.

However it was accomplished, passing on the doctrines of the faith to the next generation was considered a significant goal. At least, it was considered so on paper. What we have documented are often the idealized instances where it actually occurred (as with John Newton teaching the local urchins, etc.).

But, perhaps more significantly in the Anglo-American tradition, society typically functioned as part of the catechetical system. There was inarguably a general consensus of society that the Judeo-Christian thought-world was normative. Thus, stealing was considered universally wrong and sexual promiscuity, while often tolerated to a significant degree, was seen as below standard. The point is not that people effectively lived out a Christian life, but that there was a tacit assumption of the truthfulness of Christian doctrine and practice.

Catechesis in an environment that assumes the Incarnation was a fact, for example, has a radically different feel than catechesis in a culture where only “truths” that bring immediate comfort to the individuals are deemed worthy of consideration.

Passing on Christian doctrine and teaching children to think as Christians is difficult in our world of constant entertainment and distraction, but that is why it is so very important. The lack of a Christian mind is a failure of discipleship.

Catechesis and Christian Worldview Education

One attempt at catechesis, especially in theologically conservative circles, has been by teaching curricula on a “Christian worldview.”

There is consistently a good intent in most attempts at spiritual formation, but often the product and practice is deficient. There are likely many contributing causes, but three seem to be more significant to me.

First, a great deal of the Christian Worldview curricula significantly over-simplifies various contrary viewpoints. This is necessary at some level because to have a conversation the students and teacher need to have some common definition of what a theological liberal, a Hindu, or a Muslim is. Then, when the individual gets out into the wild, they find significant variations in the actual beliefs and much of the worldview curriculum seems to crumble.

Second, many Christian Worldview curricula reduce acceptable Christian beliefs to a very narrow stream of Christian orthodoxy. It has come to the point where there is a strong overlap between Christian Worldview education and what amounts to a particularly American brand of Fundamentalism. You’ll often find an absolute emphasis on a six-day creation with a young earth, on separation of church and state, and on the rights of the individual. None of these are outside of the streams of orthodox Christianity, but in some circles they are treated as clear boundary markers of the apostolic faith.

Sometimes, it seems our efforts at discipling our children is more concerned with transmitting our second-order opinions than reinforcing the central Christian truths of the faith. We can become more concerned that our child will become a socialist than that they will have the tools to sift through the canons of Christian orthodoxy to embody a lively faith.

Third, some Christian worldview curricula tend to make over-confident prigs out of our children. Then, when they get destroyed in a later debate over their poor assumptions and pat arguments, many reject the faith or raise up a bunker of Fundamentalism to defend their opinions. Both are unhealthy responses, and neither reflects the Christian mind.

Teaching worldview can be helpful, but it needs to be done carefully, with nuance, and often needs local teaching that can be tailored more than canned curricula.

Toward Reinvigorating a Christian Mind

If we are to reinvigorate a Christian mind, I believe it will have to be done on a small scale by careful discipleship. But it will also have to have spaces for healthy conversations and controversy in public, as well.

The Christian Mind of C. S. Lewis: Essays in Honor of Michael Travers

Wipf and Stock

Buy on Amazon

The current knee-jerk mood of our culture is unsuitable to cultivating deep thinking of any stripe. For example, a Christianity Today article advocating against the sitting president on moral grounds was met by a bi-polar response along distinctly political lines, even among people with nearly identical doctrinal beliefs. But many of the supports and rebuttals were phrased as doctrinal rebukes. Politics was the driving force behind what people thought the magazine ought to publish, rather than doctrinal concerns.

To have a Christian mind, we have to be willing to have people disagree with us in public. We have to be willing to be proved wrong. We have to be willing to have our minds changed. This doesn’t mean we need to court every conspiracy theory and spend time debunking the obvious fringe theories, but it does mean that discussions can’t begin as anathemas.

As a population of individuals called to live as salt and light in our communities––as a contrast community within a community––the first step to having a Christian mind is to be able to have a Christian conversation. This is the sort of conversation where Christian orthodoxy is central, and doxology is perpetual, but where peripheral disagreements are possible with good will.

If a robust, white-hot, doctrinally orthodox Christianity is to be the reality of our lives, then we need to explore what that means in our local communities and public. We should be able to have disagreement on implications of Christian faith in public as we ask honest questions about the thought processes that led to those implications. Our Christianity, therefore, needs to be more robust than a lifestyle brand and become the character that defines how we think and live.