Some Thoughts on Scripture, Theology, and Climate

It doesn’t matter if the issue is economics, the environment, human sexuality, or liturgy, when we ask what the Bible says about a topic we need to asking the question of the Bible. We should not try to construct our preconceived notions out of biblical material.

For some, this is an obvious statement, but as I read theology texts and Christianesque articles on various issues from all angles, I consistently get frustrated with the authors’ well-meaning attempts at eisegesis. It is especially frustrating to someone, like me, who views Scripture as the final norm in all matters of life and faith to fight  through an attempt to contort the text to fit their perspective.

Theology and Climate Change

One recent example is a book on Systematic Theology and climate change. Recognizing that climate change is a big deal, and that I expect Pope Francis to affirm anthropogenic climate change in his forthcoming encyclical, I am still puzzling over the approach of this book.

Scripture affirms an earth-positive ethics. That is, an environmental ethics can be built that has strong support from Scripture. What Scripture doesn’t help us with is the particulars about the data that relates to climate change or what to do about it.

This is something we are going to have to watch for in the near future, as the forthcoming papal encyclical encourages growing concern for the environment. We need to be more concerned with the environment than we are. However, we also need to balance our method of response to environmental concerns so that we do not ignore our responsibility to care for the poor, advance medical technologies, and advocate for the life of the unborn.

In other words, not everything that comes under the mantle of environmentalism can be matched up with Christianity. This is true despite the fact that we can develop a thoroughgoing environmental ethics from Scripture.

More particularly, we cannot blindly jump onto a policy bandwagon when issues like climate change come into play, even if they are entirely human caused. There are elements in the platform of many climate policy advocacy groups that don’t match a Christian worldview. We need to navigate these waters very carefully.

Challenges for Contemporary Theologians

This is what makes trying to derive a theology of climate change from Scripture. The Bible doesn’t actually say anything about the specific nature of climate change. Therefore, any theology that deals specifically with climate change will have several layers of interpretation between the text and the theology.

There is nothing wrong with applying a biblical worldview to contemporary issues. In fact, I am an avid proponent of this. However, we must do so with care so that the issue does not overshadow the text. In other words, we cannot backfit a theological paradigm to our sense of justice.

Backfitting is exactly what some theologians are doing when they construct their paradigms. They build the foundation under the existing problem.

The answer to the problem, though, isn’t to stop talking about the problem. It’s to come at it the other direction. Scripture is sufficient for every question about doctrine and life. This doesn’t mean that there is a verse in Scripture to answer every question someone can ask. We shouldn’t try to make the Bible be any more exact than it is.

Instead, this means that Scripture has the information we need to construct a worldview that will allow us to receive and apply truth that comes from the world around us. God created the world in an orderly fashion, thus all truth is God’s truth.

The main idea, then, is that we need to be cautious when we claim something as a Christian position. If we do, then it really ought to be built on a carefully formulated framework derived from Scripture. After all, that is the revelation God gave us and by which we claim to judge all ideas.

Photo credit: Bible, by Adam Dimmick. Used by permission. http://ow.ly/OqNhh 

Memorial Day

According to many, today is the beginning of the summer season. It marks the time when many people break out white shoes, begin grilling in earnest, and generally celebrate the changing seasons. For many people, the most significant thing about this weekend is that they get an extra day off.

For Memorial Day, by Storm Crypt. Used by CC license: http://ow.ly/NmW3Y

That isn’t the point of Memorial Day. The holiday was originally invented as Decoration Day, a day to honor the many dead of the American Civil War by decorating their graves. After the devastation of Work War I, it was renamed Memorial Day and was shifted to honoring all American dead from all wars.

 This is the point in Memorial Day. The point is honoring the sacrifice of those who died in the service of the country. Thus, “happy Memorial Day” is something that should not be said.

 In many churches, the Sunday before Memorial Day is a time where churches publicly honor those who have served. Often they restructure their services toward patriotic themes and some sort of recognition of the holiday. In general, I am not a fan of this approach because I think it lends itself to blending Christianity with our political loyalties and risks forming, or giving the impression of, a sort of civil religion. While I am not opposed to using a portion of the service in a prayer of gratitude, it would be hard to preach an expositional sermon that is truly patriotic in theme. Additionally, singing traditionally patriotic-themed songs in church tends to point people’s minds outward instead of upward. I think there are better ways we can be faithful citizens than incorporating such elements into our services.

 However, it is another thing for Christians to participate in Memorial Day services. In reality, we have much to be thankful for. Especially as we remember the men and women who have served our country and died in that service. Although our nation is far from perfect, we do still have freedom to gather for worship together and, for the most part, to live out the convictions of our religious beliefs. Additionally, we have a degree of physical safety even today because men and women have been willing to die in service of their country.

 In short, while some people go to Memorial Day services to honor the dead through a form of civil religion, it is entirely appropriate, in my mind, to go to a community gathering to express thanksgiving to the One True God for his faithfulness and provision through those who died in our nation’s service. This isn’t syncretism; it’s community. There will be parts of the ceremony that will be more or less consistent with my worldview, but that’s okay. This is not an expression of my faith in particular, but of community remembrance.

 Additionally, this is an opportunity to illustrate to our children the cost of war. Armed conflict isn’t just a game or an adventure. When there is discussion of sending troops in to stabilize a region or as retribution, we should recognize the hellish cost of war and think many times over, counting the cost. War is hell. War is always the result of someone’s sin. War costs many people everything they have in this life and even those that return home safely often pay a steep price.

Solemnizing this day publicly teaches children something important, and can instill a sense of the deep tragedy of human sin.

My disappointment this year is that there isn't a ceremony at the local veteran's memorial, but we'll probably pass that way anyway to pay our respects.

 I hope you have an enjoyable Memorial Day. May you be productive, get a nap, and take pleasure in having time with your family. However, I hope you also take some time to contemplate what exactly is being memorialized on this day. I also hope you will pray for the coming time when such days of memorial will be no more, when suffering is at an end.

How Do Views of the Environment Develop?

I've spent the last few years studying Christian approaches to environmental ethics. In the coming months (not years) I will write my doctoral dissertation examining how theological perspectives control people's view of the environment.

In the hundreds of books, articles, newsletters, and blogs I've read, not to mention the hours of video and audio I've submerged myself in, there are some consistent themes in both religious and Christian approaches.

When developing perspectives on the environment everyone has to answer four basic questions:

1. What are the sources of authoritative information for my perspective?
2. Why does nature/creation have value?
3. What role do humans have in caring for nature/creation?
4. What is the end goal of nature/creation?

For religious approaches, particularly Christianity, these four questions relate to the doctrines of revelation, creation, anthropology, and eschatology. Non-religious approaches have to answer the same sorts of questions, though they will respond with different vocabulary.

The differing response to these four questions helps to explain how different people with access to the same data can come up with vastly different ethical conclusions. Most of the time we argue about the conclusions, when the deeper issue is how we get to those ethical conclusions.

My understanding of this reality--that these four questions frame environmental ethics--was driven home by my post last week at The Gospel Coalition. The post explained why Christians can and should participate in Earth Day activities.

Some of the comments on the post made it evident that the people so anxious to voice their opinions publicly hadn't bothered to read the post. However, many of their responses demonstrated particular answers to these four questions.

Responding to Four Key Questions

As an evangelical Christian, my governing source of authority is Scripture. This is consistent with sola Scriptura, one of the five central concerns of the Reformers. However, I also take into account relevant scientific data (experience), theological tradition, and reason. These three aspects complete the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. They all help to form my theology, which in the end must be judged by Scripture.

Creation has value because God created it and inasmuch as it is fulfilling its purpose to glorify God. This keeps me from seeing the created order as merely of instrumental value, waiting to be harvested by humans. It also keeps me from  ascribing intrinsic value to creation, which would indicate creation has worth apart from God and may stand in the place of God as worthy of worship. This is more dangerous. Instead, creation has a purpose and should be respected and aided in fulfilling that purpose.

Some environmentalists treat humans as if they are an alien species and a scourge on the earth. This is unbiblical. Instead, we ought to see humans are a unique part of creation with responsibility to steward it. Stewardship implies the responsibility to care for and tend as a gardener, but not to use wantonly. Ultimately God owns creation (as he created it) and we will be held accountable for how we use it.

Finally, my reading of eschatology from Scripture sees a renewal of all creation at the end of time. God will do a mighty work to redeem all of Creation from the curse. This encourages a positive view toward working to preserve creation now, though not in an effort for repristination. This position stands in opposition to some Christian eschatologies that anticipate a cataclysmic annihilation and subsequent recreation of earth. It also opposes an evolutionary worldview that anticipates things will go on as they are now for the foreseeable future.

Summing Up

In the end, despite the mixed response to my post (even among those who seemed to read it), I stand behind my promotion of participation in Earth Day celebrations. I have several reason why:

First, it really is important to rightly steward creation for the theological reasons I listed above. We will be held accountable for how we care for the created order, so we ought to do it well.

Second, participating in Earth Day activities is no more a pagan rite than is going to a football game, singing the national anthem, and madly cheering for your team. Some people at the football game are actually participating in worship of their team or their country. That does not mean that every spectator is. Many of the folks at Earth Day events are secularists who would reject Gaia worship as foolishness, just like a Christian.

Third, some object to environmentalism because many environmental initiatives use centralized government planning and impinge on a free market. This is largely because free market advocates have abandoned the environment. The free market only works when people are internally, morally regulated. Big government is more necessary when people lack self control. This means that free market advocates (as I am) are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy by rejecting environmental concern.

Fourth, events like Earth Day are usually filled with people that need the gospel. This should draw a faithful Christian like a light draws a moth. Seriously: People in community who are working together. If that isn't a great place to start a gospel conversation then there is no such thing.

People should act according to their conscience, illuminated by Scripture. However, I think reason should drive Christians toward more participation in common cause activities like Earth Day instead of fewer.

How Then Should We Give?

Photo courtesy:  Edd Sowden - Day Eighteen - Change - Used by Creative Commons License.

Given how often social media posts, hear radio ads, or television commercials ask me to donate money electronically, I would have assumed a generation of digital natives would be among the most generous around. There are always opportunities being presented for needs around the globe.

Additionally, the popularity of the story about the guy who raise tens of thousands of dollars for a Potato Salad on Kickstarter, gives the impression that floods of money are being sent by digitally connected people to many causes, worthy and otherwise.

The February 2015 report from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics on the results of the 2013 Consumer Expenditure Survey shows this isn’t the case. On average, people in the United States give about 2.9% of their income to charity. People under 25 give only 1.7%, while those in the 25-34 age bracket give about 1.6%. All of the media awareness has not raised the rate of giving at any age, even among digital natives.

Despite millennials being engaged in many social causes, and the increasing use of digital media to raise awareness, the result has not been a world-changing generosity toward charitable causes.

This is statistical reality, but it leads us to an important question as we experience the relative wealth of living in a developed nation: How much should we give?

Should We Tithe?

Some figures in church history would have us believe that giving 10% of our income is taught in Scripture. However, the case for carrying over the duty to tithe from the Old Testament to the New Testament is much more complicated than some allow.

For example, there seems to be more than one tithe in Scripture (E.g., Num. 18:21, 24; Deut. 14:22-27; Deut. 14:28-29). Additionally, the tithe(s) were not the extent of required giving. There are other offerings and sacrifices prescribed in Old Testament law. Since there is no clear command to give a particular percentage in the New Testament, and the tithe and offering system seems to be more clearly a part of the old covenant system of worship, it is questionable whether 10% is the amount Christians need to give.

As a matter of fact, as with most of the ethical mandates of the Old Testament, the New Testament seems to call for a higher degree of generosity. Just as Christ explained that lust is a sin like adultery (Matt 5:27-28), so he provided an example of heroic generosity instead of a duty based giving of a particular percentage (Mark 12:41–44).

Paul’s teaching in 2 Corinthians 8 is one of the key passages for determining how contemporary Christians should give.  In Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, he describes Macedonia giving generously from their poverty as an encouragement to give.

This exhortation to be generous comes after Paul’s earlier instructions in 1 Corinthians 16:1-4 to regularly set aside money in preparation for a large gift being sent to alleviate the financial difficulties of the church in Jerusalem.

In neither of these places does Paul cite a specific amount, but urges generosity according to means. The Corinthians were to do more than calculate a percentage when writing their check to the church.

Practical Lesson from Paul

There are at least three things we can learn and apply from Paul’s teaching to the Corinthians:

1.      Giving should be planned. Paul’s encouragement to the Corinthians to “put something aside” on “the first day of the week” (1 Cor 16:2) is significant as it required discipline and planning. Giving is not a reactionary donation of whatever is left after the remainder of our paycheck is spent, it is intended to be a planned economic activity.

2.      Giving should be according to our means. We mathematical modern Christians like to think this signifies a certain percentage; that way the amount goes up with our income. In reality, however, there is a minimum amount we need to survive. We should consider giving an ever increasing portion of our excess as we have the opportunity (2 Cor 8:14).

3.      Giving should be with a genuine generosity. Paul calls giving an act of grace (2 Cor 8:7). He also issues a plea not a command to the Corinthians to be generous (2 Cor 8:8). In other words, giving is to be out of an overflow of love for Christ, in view of his sacrifice for us (2 Cor 8:9), not out of a sense of duty or guilt. We should want to give.

As with any spiritual discipline, giving has the potential for legalism. Our goal should be to put resources entrusted us to work in the best way possible, which should include generous giving as well as wise investment of resources. After all, the earth is the Lord’s and everything in it (Ps 24:1). We are merely stewards of the resources God provides us.

Nonviolent Action - A Review

There are, generally speaking, three distinct understandings of war. The first is pacifism, which holds that war is never right and a nation is never right to go to war, even in self-defense. The second is just war, which argues war is a last resort, but that there are conditions under which war is justified. The third is crusade, which finds war is acceptable for ideological reasons regardless of other considerations.

Ronald Sider is a pacifist. Unlike earlier voices in his tradition, however, Sider has gone from proclaiming pacifism as normative for Christians alone (as earlier anabaptistic pacifists did) to claiming pacifism in a universal norm. While this book is about more than rationale for war, it is still no surprise that Sider ends up claiming nonviolent action is the expected response of all Christians in all situations. I disagree with the breadth of Sider’s conclusion, but there is much to learn from Sider’s perspective nonetheless.

Summary

The book is divided into four parts. In the first part, Sider recounts some of the instances in history of nonviolence apparently achieving its tactical goals. He includes Gandhi’s resistance to the British Empire, Martin Luther King, Jr., resistance to guerrillas in Nicaragua, and the overthrow of Marco is the Philippines. Each of these highlights a place where non-violence was the primary form of action used against a political threat, with a positive result.

Part II recounts the use of nonviolence on a grander political scale with the overthrow of the Soviet Empire in both Poland and East Germany. The third part covers more recent resistance movements, including the impact some Liberian women had through prayer and protest, the nonviolent tactics used in some portions of the Arab Spring, and the recent growth of peacemaker teams, which are equipped and trained for nonviolent interference in political situations.

Part IV moves from description to prescription as Sider calls for a renewed dedication and investment in nonviolent action, including training volunteers who are willing to die to nonviolently resist in conflict areas.

Analysis

Nonviolent Action will convince only those who are already inclined to believe that Christian Ethics really demands such methods which have never really been tried. First, the bulk of the book is designed to show places that nonviolent action has been tried in response to oppression and aggression. Second, Sider makes no defense for his premise that nonviolence is the only course of action for Christian ethics. Instead he argues that nonviolence is better than violence, so we need to be nonviolent. Even sympathetic readers that dislike violence should demand more careful support for a position.

Beyond the flaws in the argument, there is an unacknowledged limit of the scope considered in the context surrounding the nonviolent movements. In other words, Sider describes situations in which nonviolent action was taken and positive results achieved, then he asserts nonviolence was the ultimate cause of success. This may be the case, but Sider’s analysis is not sufficient to justify his conclusions. The fall of the communist regimes in East Germany and Poland may have been expedited by nonviolent resistance, but the communist capitulation may have had nearly as much to do with the underlying economic weakness of socialism causing a collapse.  Similarly, Sider does not consider that the nonviolent resistances of Gandhi and King may have been made possible because a world with a conscience and a will to fight stood by to watch the proceedings. In other words, nonviolence may have worked in some cases because there was an external threat of violence if things got out of hand.

Ronald Sider

Those criticisms are significant, but they do not undermine the overall value of the volume. Sider’s larger point is that nonviolent action should be the first effort and be more robustly invested in. Seeing the long term impact on combat veterans makes looking for alternative solutions when possible a more appealing alternative. Additionally, the recent events in Ferguson might have been more helpful and less polarizing had the protestors taken a stronger stance toward nonviolence. Sider’s expectation that nonviolence will really work in all situations is unrealistic, but his description of the success in some circumstances warrants further, more detailed evaluation.

A second strength is that Sider is advocating for action. The flaw in some pacifistic argument is the ostrich-like hope that if violence is ignored it will eventually go away. In some descriptions of the position, the pacifist approach boils down to a non-interventionist strategy, which has had significantly negative results historically. Instead, Sider recognizes the evil in the world and calls for action to end conflict through nonviolent resistance, even to the point of losing life. There is something worth consideration in Sider’s case.

Conclusion

This is basically a popular level book with some sociological research to support it. The conclusion outpaces the argumentation at several points, but this is still a thought provoking text. It has some significant weaknesses, but the strengths are sufficient to make it worth reading. Nonviolent Action is unlikely to become a classic text on the subject, but it makes a contribution to an important conversation in turbulent times.

Nonviolent Action: What Christian Ethics Demands but Most Christians Have Never Really Tried

$15.29

By Ronald J. Sider

Buy on Amazon

Note: A gratis copy of this volume was provided by the publisher with no expectation of a positive review.

Should Christians Pay Taxes?

As the ominous tax day approaches, the ethics of paying taxes seems like a timely topic. What should Christians think about paying taxes? Should we pay taxes if our government is doing things with the money we find morally objectionable? These are questions of growing significance.

Fortunately Scripture is not silent on this matter, and it provides us clear answers to the ethical questions about paying taxes.  Most helpful is the account of Jesus paying taxes, which is recorded in all three of the synoptic gospels (Matt 22:15–22; Mark 12:13–17; Luke 20:19–26), but there are other portions of Scripture in play, as well.

In the account of Mark 12:13–17, the Pharisees are attempting to trip Jesus up by questioning him about paying taxes to their religiously and socially hostile government. According to New Testament scholar Robert Stein, by asking this question, the Pharisees are putting Jesus in a dilemma. “If he answers yes, he will lose favor with the people, for they despise the Roman taxation. If he answers no, he will be advocating rebellion against Rome and force the Roman authorities to take immediate action against him.”[1] Jesus evades the religious leaders’ trap by demonstrating that their acceptance of the good provided by the Roman government, as evidenced by their possession of the coin which Jesus uses as an illustration, obliges them to pay taxes when they are required.[2]

The Romans had a history of oppression, including the violent suppression of a revolt in A.D. 6, which was started in reaction by the same tax in question in this passage.[3] Paying the tax was offensive to the people of Israel because the Roman tribute was used to fund their oppressor; the occupying nation who had committed the social and religious atrocity of killing worshippers in the process of performing their sacrifices (Luke 13:1) was being supported by this taxation. A radical faction of the people of Israel, the Zealots, would not pay the tax because it represented Caesar’s unjust rule over the nation.[4] Even among those who paid the tax, there was likely a deep seated resentment at the obligation to support their oppressors.

Jesus’ response to the question was, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” (Mark 12:17, ESV) In other words, he was telling them to pay the tax in recognition of their obligation as subjects (not even citizens) of the Roman Empire. This message is consistent with Paul’s admonition to Romans to “Pay to all what is owed them,” including “taxes to whom taxes are owed.”  (Rom 13:7) It is also in line with Peter’s instructions to submit to authorities, including governments. (1 Pet 2:13)

We should keep in mind as we read these instructions in Scripture that the government that Jesus, Paul and Peter were subjected to was not friendly to godliness. These admonitions were written more than two centuries before the Roman government became friendly to Christianity, through Emperor Constantine’s public conversion. In contrast, all three men who commanded submission to the government died at the hands of the government.

So, the answer to the original questions about paying taxes when the government is misusing the money to support evil, even our own persecution, is that even then the payment is required. This is not, however, the end of the question.

In the United States in particular, but really in any democratically organized nation, citizens have a function in determining the use and appropriation of government funds. At the national level in our form of democracy, the input of the citizens in taxation consists of election of representatives and advocacy for just policies. At lower levels of government, particularly the local level, citizens have the right to directly vote on tax levies and municipal budgets. Submission to government by paying taxes does not rule out responsible advocacy to see tax policies changed.

Our submission to government is limited by our submission to God. In our obedience to the government, Calvin writes, we “must be particularly careful that it is not incompatible with obedience to him to whose will the wishes of all kings should be subject.”[5] However, based on the examples provided by Peter, Paul, and Jesus, paying taxes to an unpopular, pagan, and violent government does not result in sin.

Here are three conclusions we can draw from this discussion as tax season approaches and as political debates over the rate of taxation and use of appropriated funds continues:

1.      Everyone should pay their taxes in accordance with the laws of the land. Objecting to policies established by the government or the use of the government funds does not, according to Scripture, relieve the Christian of the duty to pay taxes. However, this does not mean that paying as much as possible in taxes is ethically required; using exemptions, deductions and credits in the tax code to reduce your tax bill is consistent with good stewardship.

2.      Participate in the political processes of the land to promote just uses of taxes.  Since we live in a context in which active engagement in the political processes is permitted under the law, we should be engaged in advocacy for uses of tax monies consistent with the Moral Law. In other words, we should politically resist attempts to use government funds to promote vices or punish virtues. This is inconsistent with the biblically recognized role of government, which is to “punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.” (1 Pet 2:14, ESV).

3.      Be active in advocating for just forms of taxation. Again, our privilege in living in a democratically organized context gives us the ability to engage in open discussion and political activism regarding the tax code itself. We have to pay our taxes, but if we can change the tax code to make it more just, then that reflects submission to the government, as well. Reasonable, legal means of advocacy for changes to the law in order to promote the common good are well within the ethical bounds for Christians. We should work for laws that are just toward rich and poor alike, and that allow the government to punish evil and praise the good.

[1] Robert Stein, Mark, (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2008), 542.

[2] Stein, Mark, 545–46.

[3] R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002), 465

[4] William L. Lane, Mark, (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1974), 423.

[5] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV.20.32.

Is Charles Finney the Prototype for Evangelicalism?

With the recent publication of the second edition of a book from the 1970’s, Douglas M. Strong has repackaged Donald Dayton’s theory that evangelicalism is defined by faith experience and right living, rather than by doctrinal fidelity. 

 Dayton’s book uses Charles G. Finney and those closely tied to him as the exemplars of this trend. While it cannot be denied that Finney preached the gospel (or at least a form of it) widely and pointed many to Christ, there is significant doubt that Finney’s belief system is a viable foundation for a sustainable Christian faith, much less being at the heart of historic evangelicalism.

Charles G. Finney

 Finney’s intellectual hubris was his theological undoing. As a trained lawyer, and by all accounts a very intelligent man, Finney assumed that he could, without cultural influence, rightly interpret Scripture. Based on a likely limited library at his teacher’s house, Finney rejected all historical Christian teachings because he did not like the way they were argued. Instead, he committed himself to a “no creed but the Bible” approach, without the aid of theological conversation with contemporary or historical peers. This unfortunate confidence was enabled by Finney’s quick wits and premature promotion to public ministry. In truth, Finney’s belief that he could rightly interpret Scripture without any external influence affecting the outcome rests very close to what is known as the “fundamentalist fallacy.”

Misunderstanding the Atonement

 In his autobiography, Finney records his opportunity to debate with a Universalist while he was still in his ministerial training. His teacher was ill and Finney stood in, ostensibly to defend orthodoxy. Finney writes,

“I delivered two lectures upon the atonement. In these I think I fully succeeded in showing that the atonement did not consist in the literal payment of the debt of sinners, in the sense in which the Universalist maintained; that it simply rendered the salvation of all men possible, and did not of itself lay God under the obligation to save anybody; that it was not true that Christ suffered just what those for whom he died deserved to suffer; that no such thing as that was taught in the Bible, and no such thing was true; that, on the contrary, Christ died simply to remove an insurmountable obstacle out of the way of God’s forgiving sinners, so as to render it possible for him to proclaim a universal amnesty, inviting all men to repent, to believe in Christ, and to accept salvation that instead of having satisfied retributive justice, and borne just what sinners deserve, Christ had only satisfied public justice, by honoring the law, both in his obedience and death, thus rendering it safe for God to pardon sin, to pardon the sins of any man and of all men who would repent and believe in him. I maintained that Christ, in his atonement, merely did that which was necessary as a condition of the forgiveness of sin; and not that which cancelled sin, in the sense of literally paying for the indebtedness of sinners. (Charles G. Finney, Charles G. Finney: An Autobiography [Westwood, N. J.: Barbour Books], 38)”

Finney rejected the notion of election, divine calling, and substitutionary atonement in Christ’s death on the cross.

In truth, Christ’s death on the cross as a human in human form was only necessary because it is substitutionary. If all Christ did was make possible salvation in a general way, it could have as simply been done by fiat as by self-sacrifice. Without extending this post with further discussion on the atonement, it is clear that Christ came as a redeemer not as an enabler. Even taking a thematic view of Scripture, rather than pursuing a verse by verse defense, it does not seem that Finney’s perspective on the atonement is helpful. In short, even without accepting a fully Calvinistic theological paradigm, Finney’s reasoning seems better suited to win an argument against Universalism than to be considered biblically faithful.

An Unsound Foundation for Evangelicalism

 In all this, I am not making the claim that Finney was not converted, nor that he did not have a profound impact on many people. Finney preached a form of the gospel that enabled many to come to faith in Christ through repentance of sin. He was also instrumental, as Dayton and Strong rightly argue, in ending the evils of American slavery.  All of these things could have been, and were otherwise, done while still maintaining doctrinal integrity.

 By basing their image of historic evangelicalism on individuals on the fringe of orthodoxy, more subject to their culture than to Scripture, Dayton and Strong have undermined their own case.

 In fact, most of the organizations and theological movements cited in this volume have tended to cut their mooring to Christian orthodoxy in the years since Finney’s influence. Wheaton University has maintained fidelity to its evangelical doctrine. On the other hand, the Salvation Army is no longer concerned with salvation in any meaningful sense. Oberlin College, where Finney was president, is no longer distinctly Christian.

The track record of Finney’s theology demonstrates a failure to thrive in the long term. In the first generation, the theological content is assumed, in the second it is unknown, and by the third it is rejected.

This should point present day evangelicals toward the need to be active in pursuing social justice while adamant about maintaining the doctrinal orthodoxy of our Christian heritage.

Rediscovering an Evangelical Heritage: A Tradition and Trajectory of Integrating Piety and Justice

$16.00

By Donald W. Dayton, Douglas M. Strong

Buy on Amazon

A Defense of Nuclear Power

In the decade or so that I worked in nuclear power, I never found a comprehensive apologetic for nuclear power that was published in the marketplace. All of the arguments were available piecemeal or in a more unified manner from people inside the nuclear power guild, but none from someone who didn’t have a clearly vested interest in keeping nuclear plants running.

 Michael H. Fox is an emeritus professor in the Department of Environmental and Radiological and Health Sciences at Colorado State University. Here is an individual who is outside of the commercial and nuclear power world who has access to the best science about the most concerning aspects of the risk of nuclear––radiation and cancer.

 Fox’s conclusion is that compared to imminent risk of climate changes, the risks of nuclear power are worth it. He spends nearly three hundred pages making his case by considering the basic arguments for and against nuclear power, as well as the case for and against other forms of non-fossil energy.

 The beauty of this volume is that it is written at a level that can serve as an introduction, but it also ramps quickly into the explanations for the more technologically adept. With the clear structure of each chapter, I was able to skim past those explanations that I am familiar with based on my experience as an operator and instructor. By the end of each chapter, however, the progressive development of each explanation had me reading carefully to follow his explanations. Even regarding the topics that I am less familiar with––such as the mechanism of cancer development in cells––Fox’s explanations were sufficient for me to understand the more complex aspects based on his earlier explanations.

 This volume is, therefore, both a suitable introduction and a valuable reference on the topic of nuclear power.

Summary 

The book is divided into three nearly equal parts. The first part deals with Fox’s explanation of the global warming and the contribution of Carbon Dioxide from coal and natural gas. He also explains the limitations of solar power and wind power. Fox is positive toward the benefits of renewable sources of energy. However, unlike many of the rabid proponents, he is realistic about the limitations in terms of capacity and footprint required, and he recognizes the ongoing need for baseline energy generation that fossil or nuclear will provide. Thus the future is in nuclear power, if real changes are to be made to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

 The second part is a discussion of radiation and its biological effects. This is the section that plays to Fox’s strength, as he explains some basic physics, then digs quickly in to a realistic analysis of the dangers of radiation. He doesn’t hide the real risk, but he also doesn’t overplay it. The reality, as Fox explains, is that any radiation exposure increases the risk of cancer, but the amount of additional exposure due to nuclear power is negligible compared with naturally occurring background.

 This is the most significant argument against nuclear power and Fox handles it well. However, the scientifically ignorant will continue to persist in their argument that any risk is unacceptable. For some reason this argument is powerful against nuclear power when it isn’t for other concerns. The miniscule risk increase of cancer from living near a nuclear plant, even using the conservative (i.e., inflated) estimates required by law, pales in comparison to having a speed limit over 15 MPH.

 The third part focuses on the risks of nuclear power. Fox deals with concerns about nuclear waste, which have been overblown by opponents. He deals with the real and tragic history of the three significant accidents in the history of nuclear power. He is fair about the consequences, but also notes the real learning that has taken place and points toward the attempts by anti-nuclear groups to grossly misrepresent the consequences. Then he deals with the issue of Uranium mining, also dealing with the failings in early nuclear power to deal appropriately with the risks of pollution. That damage was avoidable and is being avoided in properly conducted mining enterprises now. Finally, Fox concludes with a chapter debunking in summary the five most significant myths used to argue against nuclear power. He does this by accepting the truth in the claims and then showing why the arguments aren’t realistic or persuasive.

Conclusion

 Fox writes well and he is honest in his assessment of risks. In other words, he presents the reality of risks on all sides, without overstating his case. I would have thoroughly enjoyed this book simply because of the robust integrity Fox demonstrates, without having to agree with him. As it turns out, I agreed with the substance of Fox’s arguments, as well. He is realistic and helpful in how he argues. He is looking for solutions to problems instead of trying to manipulate emotions and control people’s lives through excessive regulation. There are points that I disagree with Fox, typically on the political implications of his arguments, but overall the case is well made and reasonable.

 If the modus operandi of environmentalists is followed, where only people that have PhD’s in climatology have a right to speak about climate change, then Fox’s  book will have amazing convincing power. Notably, the majority of anti-nuclear advocates speak from outside of the pool of people that have expertise in the area.  Unfortunately, well-reasoned arguments like that of Fox are much less likely to gain headlines than “Fukushima is leaking, we’re all going to die and the government doesn’t care.” Indeed, that is largely the nature of a recent book which includes the Union of Concerned Scientists among its authors.

 If you have questions about nuclear power, buy this book and read it. If you are a proponent of nuclear power, buy this book and cite it in your arguments. This is, hands down, the best one stop reference on the subject I have encountered.

Why We Need Nuclear Power: The Environmental Case

$31.46

By Michael H. Fox

Buy on Amazon

Note: A gratis copy of this book was provided by the publisher with no expectation of a positive review.

Dress Colors, Social Media, and Questionable Research

Last week on Thursday, there were two hot topics on Social Media that kept many people amused (and somewhat less than maximally productive) for quite some time. The first was a debate on the color of a dress. 

Someone posted a picture on tumblr in mid-February and asked for help determining what color it is. (Here is the link, note there is some questionable language in the post.) 

Given a few weeks and a snow storm in the Southeast of the US, which gave a number of people downtime to try to discover the end of the internet, and presto!, we have a viral debate raging on social media about absolutely nothing. It's sort of like an episode of Seinfeld, only it lasted more than 22 minutes and really isn't nearly as funny.

For nerds (and I include myself in this descriptor), the science behind the confusion is pretty interesting. In fact, I found the post at Wired that explained the nature of the confusion to be enthralling. There is a scientific explanation for the perception of different colors depending on the setting.

The Social Phenomenon

More significant to my mind, though, is the way that such a benign and pointless social phenomenon has been reported in the media. Not only did it inspire Wired to write a post to cash in on the web traffic, but all of the major news network jumped on the story.

To put this in plain English, with everything going on in the world, a story about a social media debate got picked up by the news.

This reveals some of the significance of social media. It isn't just a fad that will be gone like slap-wrap bracelets (which are still around, just not as popular as when I was a kid). Social media is driving the way society thinks.

Is this the way it should be? I don't think so, but that's not the point. This particular cultural event reinforces the reality that we cannot simply ignore the phenomenon of social media or demonize it. We have to figure out how to meaningfully engage this tool without allowing it to cheapen our own way of thinking. To that end, Karen Swallow Prior has written a helpful blog at Christianity Today that details some of the potential lessons to be learned from #TheDress.

I have written previously on some of the dangers of social media, based on their potential to damage personal relationships. I have also written about reasons why Christians should (and should not) blog, which is pertinent because social media is the platform that conveys the bloggers message to a broad audience.

The answers are not immediately obvious, but a debate over dress colors and coverage of escaping llamas drew national attention and broad social media engagement. The church needs to figure out how to use this tool and how it fits into a Christian worldview.

The Research Phenomenon

A second significant issue is the way that informal reporting and researching techniques are being used to promulgate internet news. One example of this is, ironically, this post, which relies on internet searches and cultural artifacts to present a case. Recognizing this irony, and not claiming to be an actual news source, I press on with my opinion.

In a 1995 book, Telling the Truth, Lynne Cheney notes,

“From 1968 to 1988, the average sound bite for a presidential candidate on the network evening news had plummeted from 42.3 seconds to 9.8 seconds. In the 1992 campaign the length of time would become shorter still: 8.4 seconds. Meanwhile, the portion of the news taken up by correspondents’ comments rose to 71 percent, with candidates sharing the remainder of the time with voters and political experts. A study of the New York Times showed a similar trend. From 1960 to 1992, the average continuous quote or phrase from a candidate in a front page story fell from fourteen lines to six lines. In both television and print, reporters increasingly had power to turn the candidates’ words and deeds into illustrative material for the stories they wanted to tell.”

Twenty years after Cheney wrote this, the problem has not gone away. Indeed, if anything, social media platforms like Twitter have caused people, politicians included, to self-limit to 140 characters and thus strip their own comments of context. We have made it easier for someone to reframe our comments according to their own liking.

But a second significant theme is the prevalence of telling stories. In many cases the point is no longer to reveal truth, but to tell a compelling stories. This allows bloggers and media personnel to look for rapid sources of some credibility that will carry their message in a way that will get clicks and support their narrative.

Often this results in a tight circle self-reference with dubious credibility. This Tweet, captured on the day after the dress color debate went viral illustrates the research phenomenon:

#media pic.twitter.com/3juSOx4RAw

— Jake Beckman (@jakebeckman) February 27, 2015

Does this mean that the analysis is not correct? No. It may be correct. In fact, it may be so inconsequential that it doesn't matter if it is correct. After all, do we really care what color the dress is?

However, this is merely an illustration of what I believe to be a broader phenomenon that includes more significant topics. Experts are citing experts citing experts. Who knows that the chain of proof doesn't lead back to my blog, or another similar platform that also lacks credibility on a particular subject? 

We must seek truth. This means that we need to be skeptical of some of what gets conveyed as news. Just because we read it on the internet, even from a widely published source, does not mean it is credible or true. This also means we need to avoid crucifying people because of the way someone presents someone else's opinion on a blog or social media. Learning to do these things well is a critical task for Christians in the 21st century.

Christian Bioethics

The recently release book by B&H Academic, Christian Bioethics, is a good introduction to a series of very important issues that face the people in the developed world today.

Medical technologies seem to press ahead without regard to ethics. The only question that seems palatable to most people in this day is, “Can we do it?” Very few are asking the important question, “Ought we do it?”

The moral vacuum of the culture compounds this problem, as subjective concerns of emotion and desire are promoted in favor of an ethical schema that anticipates objective answers founded on God’s structuring of reality. Fortunately Ben Mitchell and Joy Riley have a more biblical approach.

C. Ben Mitchell has a PhD in medical ethics and has taught moral philosophy for a number of years in a Christian context. D. Joy Riley is an M.D., with an MA in bioethics. With a strong background in the theory of ethics and the technical arguments related to bioethics, Mitchell and Riley can speak with authority and expertise where many others would need to be more tentative.

The book is written conversationally, which makes it suitable for non-academic audiences. Indeed, the subtitle of the volume is, A Guide for Pastors, Health Care Professionals, and Families. As an academic ethicist, this was one of the things I liked least about the book, but for the primary target audience, the approach is likely to be helpful.

The book consists of four parts. First, Riley and Mitchell begin by laying a foundation for Christian Bioethics. What forms of medicine are out there and how should we view them? How does Scripture speak to contemporary cases that are not clearly addressed? These are important questions that are well answered in the first two chapters.

Next, the authors discuss the sanctity of human life as it pertains to abortion and euthanasia. They explain these things in terms that are intelligible and helpful. In the third part, Mitchell and Riley discuss the ethics of infertility and assisted reproductive technologies. They also address the issues of organ donation, transplantation, and cloning. In the final section, the authors address the issues related to anti-aging technologies and the centrality of understanding and respecting our humanity in the contemporary age.

 The greatest strength of this volume is that it is written for a popular audience. It doesn’t use a lot of technical term, though it occurs in the context of a conversation between two experts. Based on my recent experience teaching ethics to laypeople, resources like this are necessary and helpful. Another strength is that each chapter has a series of references that can be used for further study and elaboration. This is again important as the overflow of information on the internet leaves us often wondering which expert we can trust and how someone got to their conclusions.

I am not a fan of written dialogue as an approach to moral reasoning. Thus, I find Augustine’s early philosophical works rather boring and less helpful than they might be. As such, I would have preferred it had this volume taken a more straightforward approach and presented the material in normal prose instead of relying on dialogue. However, this is a stylistic preference and not a rejection of the substance of the book.

 I commend this to readers who are looking for answers to some very important ethical questions. I plan on recommending it as a resource to people in my church who have questions about this topic. It is up to date and informative. It is written with a pastoral heart and academic acumen. It should be a trusted resource for the church for the near future.

Christian Bioethics: A Guide for Pastors, Health Care Professionals, and Families (B&H Studies in Christian Ethics)

$18.49

By C. Ben Mitchell, D. Joy Riley MD

Buy on Amazon

Note: A gratis copy of this text was provided by the publisher with no expectation of a positive review.