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

Human Goodness and the Perfectibility of Society

Humans were created good in the very beginning. They were good in every way. After God created the whole universe, including Adam and Eve, he looked at it all and observed it was all “very good.” (Gen 1:31) But the first humans made a choice to defy God’s command and they ate of the forbidden fruit. As a result, everything in creation was touched by a curse to remind humanity that the way the world is is not the way the world was meant to be. (Gen 3:16–19)

It didn’t take very long for sin to show itself in human society in powerful ways. One generation after Adam’s sin, one son murdered another in a fit of jealousy over God’s affections. (Gen 4:8) A few generations later Lamech uses his freedom and power to unjustly kill a man as disproportionate revenge for wounding him (Gen 4:23-24). Not too many generations, Scripture records, “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (Gen 6:5)

Despite the wickedness of humanity and the corruption of creation, God preserved eight of his people on a boat constructed because of Noah’s faithful obedience to God’s command. After the flood, God released those eight people and the animals back onto the earth and made a covenant with both the humans and the rest of creation not to destroy it again. (Gen 9:8–17) But despite God’s grace, the old story repeated itself over and over again. Humans fell into patterns of sin that included oppression, violence, and greed. These are patterns that seem to repeat themselves down to the present day.

And yet, despite their continual disobedience, humans remain good in God’s sight. So good, in fact, that he came himself in the form of a human with the name of Jesus.

Jesus came to restore the goodness of humans and to bring salvation from sin, but the process of redemption is ongoing. Though all creation witnessed moral perfection in the person of Jesus Christ, all of creation continues to live under the effects of Adam’s sin. Even those who have been redeemed by Christ’s blood on the cross still regularly fall short of the moral goodness that God demands.

One of the central purposes of government is restrain evil. As the apostle Peter notes, we are to understand that “governors [were] sent by [God] to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.” (I Pet 2:14)

The government is necessary as a means to prevent the powerful from oppressing the weak. Among the things necessary for a healthy society are the rule of law and enforcement of property rights. These are proper roles for the government.

The worst documented humanitarian abuses in the world have occurred when government has moved from the role of attempting to restrain evil to creating a perfect society. According to C. S. Lewis, this impulse is common among many forms of modern government, as he noted in his essay, “Is Progress Possible?,”

“The modern State exists not to protect our rights but to do us good or make us good–anyway, to do something to us or to make us something. . . . We are less [government leaders’] subjects than their wards, pupils, or domestic animals. There is nothing left of which we can say to them, ‘Mind your own business.’ Our whole lives are their business.”

The pursuit of social improvement requires that government become engaged in social interaction. In order to move from obedience to the law to moral improvement, there must be an allegiance to the power of the government.

In modern forms of government that are seeking to perfect (or at least enhance) the moral fabric of society, that allegiance is often sought in the name of superior information, which often goes under the name of science. If government is to improve society and improvement is measured by science, then good must be scientifically measurable and the theories of advancement offered by science must be obeyed absolutely.

As C. S. Lewis writes, “I dread government in the name of science. That is how tyrannies come in. In every age the men who want us under their thumb, if they have any sense, will put forward the particular pretension which the hopes and fears of that age render most potent.”

If science is seen as the means to determine policy, then a party need merely control the direction and flavor of scientific research and publishing to change the direction of society and reinforce control. This is what is happening now in China. It is what happened through the German propaganda during WWII.

Human sin is exactly the reason why therapeutic structures of society are bound to be unhelpful, because it gives the state or community to continue to shape and reshape human behavior according to whatever the contemporary consensus is and by whatever means are socially approved. It seems like tenderness, but, as Walker Percy once wrote, “tenderness leads to the gas chamber.” Sin corrupts everything and ensures that even movements begin with good intentions don’t usually end there.

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

Wipf and Stock

Buy on Amazon

Holiness and the Culture War

What if we’ve been thinking about the culture war all wrong?

There are multiple ways to be wrong about the culture war, but I’ve come to believe that many of us are thinking about it counterproductively.

Some people deny that there is a culture war. Somehow the changing moral compass of society, which is now attempting to “cancel” people for holding centuries ago positions that were held by the vast majority of people a decade ago. An essay written more than three decades ago, and on which someone’s view has changed, is enough to cost a senior executive a job. There is a culture war and no amount of compromise will ever be enough to stay within safe boundaries.

Other people see the culture war as primarily a political battle. If we can elect the right politicians we can get the right rules and everything will be well with the world. This perception has become a cancer among many believers with orthodox theology, who have sold out their public credibility to lobby and defend the indefensible time and time again.

What if, however, the culture war is primarily spiritual and the stakes are not just our physical prosperity but our spiritual well-being?

This is the argument that Peter Kreeft makes in How to Win the Culture War: A Christian Battle Plan for a Society in Crisis.

Kreeft begins the book by stating nine things we must know:

1. that you are at war
2. who your enemy is
3. what kind of war you are in
4. what the basic principle of this kind of war is
5. what the enemy’s strategy is
6. where the main battlefield is
7. what weapon will defeat the enemy
8. how to acquire this weapon
9. why you will win

In nine very concise chapters, Kreeft helps readers to know these nine things. In 120 pages, Kreeft does more than many other people do in volumes dozens of times longer.

This is an important book for this day, although it was written in 2002. It is far from Kreeft’s best book, but it is one that should be read more widely because it carries a necessary message for many of today’s Christians about the war raging around us.

Kreeft obviously believes that we are in a culture war, otherwise he would not have written a book that purports to be a manual for winning one. It would be an ironic twist, much like the message of the classic movie, War Games, to argue that the only way to win the culture war is not to play. However, that is not Kreeft’s argument.

We are in a culture war. The issues of our day are primarily related to sex. Of course, the distribution of wealth is an issue, but anyone watching the news can see that in the West the controversies are primarily about sex—abortion (which is an attempt to have sex without consequences), normalizing sexual dysphoria, redefining marriage, accepting polyamory—all of these issues are about sex. Kreeft argues that sex is a major focal point because it is a point of contact between the soul and the body. This is why even in peaceful protest about racial injustice, some culture warriors feel it necessary to expand the issue from one of ethnicity to one of sexuality.

The spiritual nature of sex is, of course, hotly debated. But Scripture reminds us that to consummate a marriage is to become one flesh. The emotional damage caused by hookup culture is another reminder, though, that even those that reject the transcendent rationally experience it emotionally.

That sex is the focal point of the culture war is no surprise to anyone paying attention, but explaining the spiritual nature of sex as a driving cause for its centrality helps readers to understand the nature of the culture war. We are in a spiritual war. Few orthodox Christians would deny that. Many people, however, shy away from talking about spiritual warfare in reaction to the cheesy Peretti novels of the 80’s and 90’s, as well as attempting avoiding some of the excesses of charismatic theologies. But Scripture indicates that “we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” (Eph 6:12, ESV)

Ephesians 6 often gets interpreted as a passage to individuals, which is encouraged by the armor metaphor that Paul uses. Each individual must put on the armor of God, but one warrior cannot alone take on an entire culture. There is both an individual and a corporate aspect to Ephesians 6; we need to encourage both understandings.

And, though many Christians love their Bibles, believe that we are in a spiritual war as Ephesians 6 tells us, many of us are still fighting the culture war as if it really about bathrooms, student aid, and marriage certificates. Those are just tinsel trophies in a cosmic battle where the well-being of our souls in on the line.

What would change if orthodox Christians acted on their belief that this is primarily a spiritual battle and not a physical turf war?

First, we would accept that our political positions are not the determinant of our spiritual state. There will be Christians who, for various reasons, fall on either side of the bipolar catastrophe that is the American political system.

Second, we would be much less willing to compromise our morality to promote (not to say vote for) and excuse sin in those who claim to be our defenders in this world or promoters of our vision of the good life politically.

Third, we would recognize that the sinner on the other side of the bathroom debate should not be the target of our scorn. Even the white-suburban rioter who throws a brick through an immigrant’s window in the name of “racial justice” is not our enemy. Rather, they are a victim of the culture war having been deceived by the common enemies of all humanity: the world, the flesh, and the devil.

Fourth, we would understand that our part in the culture war is first to be sanctified. Our first priority is not to determine whether masks are a precursor to the mark of the beast or if the so-called 1% are really rigging the economy. Our first priority is not tear down statues of people we do not recognize but don’t think we like or to defend statues of people who fought for the enslavement of human persons. Rather, our first priority as Christians is to “be Holy as [God is] holy.” (1 Peter 1:16; Lev 11:44)

The fourth point is really the critical takeaway of the book. Before we can change the culture as individuals, we must first be holy. Before we can change the culture as a church, we must first embody holiness in our congregation.

This point does not excuse inaction in the political sphere, of course. We still vote, volunteer, give, and try to convince people. But before we can convince them to see what the Bible says about human relations is true, we must first be able to show them signs, at least, that the Bible has changed us. Before we can convince someone that the gospel has the power to save, we have to act like our salvation has somehow changed us into the new creation we are supposed to be. We must be holy as God is holy. That is the most important aspect of the culture war.

Holiness is the primary focus and the main way in which we will change the culture. This is, of course, consistent with what Jesus told his disciples: “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?” (Matthew 16:26) Will we seek to be sanctified or make women’s sports, bathrooms, abortion laws, and the like our primary goal? Will we seek first the Kingdom of God or will we seek to live by bread alone? We need to eat, but first we need to be holy.

This is the main message of Kreeft’s book. It isn’t a message of retreat, but one of advancement along the most important front first

How to Win the Culture War: A Christian Battle Plan for a Society in Crisis

By Kreeft, Peter

Buy on Amazon

Technopoly - A Review

Neil Postman’s most well known book is Amusing Ourselves to Death. There is good reason for that, since he both explains the media ecology of the early ‘80’s, including the election of a movie star presidents, and predicts where culture will head. His predictions have proved to be largely true, which is a stunning feat. He provides no timeline for what he anticipates, but he looks at the trajectory of culture and describes where it is headed—for us, where it has headed—in the decades to come.

His book, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, is less well-known, but in many ways more powerful and prescient. Published in 1992, Postman was standing at the beginning of the internet age, when personal computers were beginning to be more widely available.

The book is not about some dystopian future where Artificial Intelligence has taken over and time traveling robots have been sent back to wipe out the people that started it all. But it is a book that helps explain what technology is, why understanding that definition is important, and what it is doing to society.

From the very beginning, Postman makes it clear that technology is all around us in ways that we no longer detect. Technology fundamentally changes the way society works and how our brains function. (This is part of Jacob Shatzer’s argument in his recent book, Transhumanism and the Image of God, which is also worth your while.) He begins with one of Plato’s dialogues, Phaedrus, which contains a story of Thamus who resists the use of written languages, especially books, because it will change the way people receive information and allow readers to gain info apart from the oral tradition. To modern readers, so many centuries beyond that technological revolution, and also well beyond the revolution enabled by moveable type on printing presses, it may seem incredible to consider what life would be like without written communication. And yet, that was a technology that has fundamentally changed society in a way that we can no longer fully comprehend because it is so ubiquitous.

The central message of Technopoly is simple, but it is important: Every new technology that gets widely adopted changes society. It would, therefore, important that we ask whether those changes are good or not and what we are giving up by adopting new technologies.

According to Postman,

“Technology is a state of culture. It is also a state of mind. It consists in the deification of technology, which means that the culture seeks its authorization in technology, finds its satisfactions in technology, and takes its orders from technology. This requires the development of a new kind of social order, and of necessity leads to the rapid dissolution of much that is associated with traditional beliefs. Those who feel most comfortable in Technopoly are those who are convinced that technical progress is humanity’s supreme achievement and the instrument by which our most profound dilemmas may be solved. They also believe that information is an unmixed blessing, which through its continued and uncontrolled production and dissemination offers increased freedom, creativity, and peace of mind. The fact that information does none of these things––but quite the opposite––seems to change few opinions, for such unwavering believes are an inevitable product of the structure of Technopoly. In particular, Technopoly flourishes when the defenses against information break down.”

Postman further notes, only a couple of pages later, that social institutions are supposed to function as control mechanisms to help people discern which information is important and which is noise. As he notes,

“Social institutions sometimes do their work simply by denying people access to information, but principally by directing how much weight and, therefore, value one must give information. Social institutions are concerned with the meaning of information and can be quite rigorous in enforcing standards of admission.”

In this information age, even the best of our institutions cannot function fast enough to accomplish this task. And, based on the violation of trust that many institutions have engaged in or been accused of, people tend not to trust some of the institutions that might possibly be able to do a fair job at keeping up with information.

Technopoly helps explain the dis-ease of contemporary culture because we are being perpetually swamped by information and it is difficult to discern what is true. We have few reliable handlers of information that we can count on to present the information in a reasonably unbiased way. Some of the gate keepers of information, including members of the media, abuse their institutional role as information handlers to intentionally mislead through shifting perceptions.

Technopoly predicted our present state and our ongoing trajectory. Postman’s book highlights the epistemic and social nightmare we live in: there is too much information and we don’t know who to trust. Postman has few suggestions for a solution (indeed, he pokes fun at himself in the last chapter for that fact), but simply having the problem exposed is helpful.

Personally, I think that part of the solution needs to be a renewal of the Christian Mind, which I have written about previously and will discuss further in this context in a future post.

Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology

By Neil Postman

Buy on Amazon

Pagans and Christians in the City - A Review

There are times when the so-called Culture War is spoken of as if it were an invention of the 1980’s Moral Majority. Since many of the participants in that movement were and are Christian Fundamentalists, and fundamentalists of any type are easy to mock, this seems to answer the question and we can simply thank God (or our gracious non-theism) that we aren’t like those people.

But culture wars, as it were, were not invented in the 1980’s. Nor were they invented in the 1960’s, nor the ‘20’s. They are a fact of human history. Wherever different cultures come together, there you will find conflict between them.

One thing that has changed in the contemporary Western conception of cultural conflict is that there have been well-meaning philosophers that have promoted the idea that we can have a shared culture that is neutral with respect to controversial aspects of what is good and right. As Robert George notes in his introduction to Pagans and Christians in the City:

“It was the distinctive claim of the most influential late twentieth-century liberal political philosophers, including most notably John Rawls and Ronal Dworkin, to be proposing theories of political morality that identified principles of justice (and suggested institutional structures and practices to implement those principles) that were neutral as between controversial conceptions of what makes for or detracts from a valuable and morally worthy way of life.”

In other words, there are those within our culture that believe that somehow the government and civil society can function without friction between competing worldviews. This is behind arguments that “you shouldn’t legislate morality” that surround the invention of same-sex marriage and restrictions on abortion, for example. But the failure of moral neutrality is obvious, since broadening legal boundaries necessarily affirms the moral good of the activities that are not restricted. If abortion is a morally repugnant form of homicide, then legislation that allows (or funds that encourage it) are not morally neutral, no matter how much its proponents might claim it is.

Cultural conflict—that is culture wars—are, therefore, inevitable. The bigger concern should be how we deal with them.

Steven Smith’s book, Pagans and Christianity in the City: Culture Wars from the Tiber to the Potomac, encourages Christians (and, perhaps, from others) to step outside of the myopic focus on contemporary concerns as first-time-in-history novelties. Christians have been engaged in Culture Wars from the very beginning, because Christianity critiques all cultures, though often in different ways.

Smith writes from within a conservative, orthodox Christian framework. His writing in the volume shows gives evidence of broad reading, as well as appreciation of some of the usual Christian voices on society and morality, like T. S. Eliot and C. S. Lewis. Those Christian humanists, especially a cluster of thinkers in the U.K. from early in the 20th century, wrestled with the destruction of Christendom—that is, an approximately Judeo-Christian cultural consensus––due to the effects of modernity on culture. Eliot argued that the options were Christianity or paganism, which are the poles that Smith follows in this book.

In this context, paganism is not to be understood necessarily as involving blood sacrifices to idols or the various overtly religious practices that one associates with ancient paganism. But contemporary culture has its gods, and those gods are not Christian. The gods of our culture also tend to be physical (health, wealth, and sexual indulgence), much like the ancient pagan gods. The difference is that instead of burning incense in the temple of a mythical being, we tend to throw our offerings at companies that promise us happiness, political action campaigns that promise free love, and organizations that will help us increase our salaries.

Summary

Smith’s book, as he explains while setting the background in Chapter One, seeks to explain how culture wars have been waged throughout Western history, how that relates to the contemporary struggles, with some implied recommendations along the way.

Chapter Two sets out to explain that all humans are religious. This is a further expansion of the definition of pagan offered in the first chapter. The religiousity of all humans is also an essential fact, because it undermines the assertions of Rawls and others that we can (and should) exclude religious reasoning from the public square. The simple fact is that even those who are atheistic and overtly “anti-religious” carry with them truth claims and foundational presuppositions that are inherently religious. By excluding overtly religious claims from public debate, proponents of neutrality are simply biasing the argument against religion.

In Chapters Three and Four Smith begins to make good on his promise to cover the early days of Christianity. He notes that the Romans were known for being religiously tolerant, but also notes that (as history has shown) the tolerance assumed that other gods could be celebrated, but mandated accession to culturally approved ceremonies, most of which were repudiated by Christians. Because Christianity demands total worship of only one God, therefore it was at odds with the cults of Rome. Although many Romans did not believe (and, indeed, the tradition of the philosophers was to debunk) the mythical aspects of Roman religion, it was expected that people participate. Just as some patriots might ostracize someone who refuses to stand for the national anthem, salute the flag, or say the pledge of allegiance, some Romans found the Christian resistance to civil religion divisive and unacceptable. In Chapter Five, Smith explores the differences between Christianity and the Roman religion that made it impossible for the two to simply “get along” as if there was no fundamental conflict. The sixth chapter further explains why persecutions periodically erupted prior to the Constantinian shift, despite the fact that Christian were, in many ways, exemplary citizens.

Chapter Seven shifts from those primarily religious considerations to the cultural and political changes that led to the ascendency of Christianity. He provides a historically balanced that explains how Christianity was slowly becoming dominant in the Roman Empire even before Constantine’s conversion. The eighth chapter explores the continued existence of paganism under the canopy of a Christian society. In fact, some of the elements of paganism were increasingly incorporated into Christianity, with the reconfiguration of some pagan holidays as saint’s feasts, the increased use of images in Christian architecture, etc. Pagan influences never left the Christian imagination, as is apparent with many of the themes in Medieval and, later, Renaissance art created for and by Christians.

There is a bit of a jump in the timeline beginning in Chapter Nine, as Smith takes up questions about the shift toward secularization, which began around the time of the Renaissance (all these shifts are gradual, with few arbitrary points one can anchor a timeline on) and has continued through our day. He explores some of the shifts of modernity, including the abolition of the sacred, that have only continued to gain steam, despite the persistence of transcendent religions. Smith also summarizes some of the non-theistic pursuits of wonder and the sacred, which still infuse much of our “scientific” culture, particularly as people face the miserable emptiness of nihilism that is spawned from a desacralized world.

Chapters Ten and Eleven shift to contemporary American concerns, with Smith, who is a legal scholar by profession, shifting toward analyses of court cases in the United States, the thinking behind them, and how that reflects the struggles between paganism and the generally Judeo-Christian ethos around which our shared culture was built. The connections between the two main segments of the book are fairly obvious, as the conflicts of ancient Rome are similar to the conflicts of contemporary Western culture. Smith’s work in analyzing the legal record helps parse out some of the clearer thinking on the topic (rather than trolling social media for the wingnuts) to show how thinking has changed and where the points of cultural conflict are.
The book concludes with the twelfth chapter, which summarizes the earlier argument, but also helps to explain why, as with Roman intolerance of Christianity, there is a growing intolerance of Christian orthodoxy. As Smith notes, there is intolerance of people simply holding culturally disfavored views, “Ultimately, in fact, it is not merely the overt expression of the offending view that inflicts injury, but rather the fat that someone holds the offending view and is known to hold it.” It is clear, based on Smith’s description, that we are in for a rough ride in the years to come.

Analysis and Conclusion

This is an excellent book, which I highly recommend for a broad readership.

Smith demonstrates a breadth and depth of reading in ancient sources and modern historiography that make his analysis of early conflicts between Roman culture and Christianity balanced and informative. He has a consistent perspective, which favors Christianity, but he deals with opposing viewpoints (both contemporary and historic) in responsible ways, so that this book is more informative than polemical in tone. As a legal scholar, Smith exposes numerous cases and arguments which many readers may otherwise not encounter. His years of experience in research and teaching make those chapters of this book a goldmine of contemporary argumentation.

The weakness of this volume, such as it is, can be found in the jump between analysis of ancient Roman culture to the contemporary culture wars. Smith leaves a great deal on the table regarding cultural conflict during the period we might call “Christendom.” Those seeking a comprehensive analysis of all cultural conflict from the beginning of Christianity to now will have to find that elsewhere (though I do not know where). In the end, this is not so much a weakness as it is the nature of the book Smith wrote. The subtitle led me to expect a bit more continuity, though looking back that is an assumption I imported. Regardless, what Smith accomplishes in what he writes is phenomenal.

Pagans and Christians in the City will be most useful for theologians, political scientists, historians, and ethicists thinking about the intersection of faith and culture, church and state, or other related topics.  This would make a remarkable textbook for an upper level elective on one of those topics at the graduate level or above. The writing is clear, but the subject matter is focused and sometimes a bit technical for more general application.

This volume can also form, especially the first two-thirds of the book, the cultural analysis that often accompanies classical education, especially in homeschool and private Christian environments. It is not likely to be the right book for a class text in those settings, but would deepen an instructor’s knowledge and ability to speak intelligently and in a balanced way. Smith undermines many myths and offers substantive critique in their place.

Pagans and Christians in the City is also a pleasure to read. Smith’s prose is clear, his vocabulary is non-technical or, when technical, clearly defined. The flow of the book is measured and fairly consistent.

In short, this excellent book is a pleasure to read for scholars or hobbyists alike.

Pagans and Christians in the City: Culture Wars from the Tiber to the Potomac (Emory University Studies in Law and Religion)

By Smith, Steven D.

Buy on Amazon

NOTE: I received a gratis copy of this volume from the publisher with no expectation of a positive review.

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.

Race and Justice in Our Time

The ongoing debates over race relations always seems to generate a great more heat than light. It seems like we keep going over the same topics over and over again, the same memes get shared, the same voices are trotted out to demonstrate this point or that point.

It’s hard to know where to turn for helpful resources that are going to enrich understanding, remain faithful to biblical truth, and yet push us along toward a deeper desire for goodness. There is simply so much frustration because we keep having the same conversation after each public event that even the most careful handling of this issue is liable to offend some.

Feel free to scroll to the bottom if you’ve heard all this before. There are some resources that I’ve found helpful and appropriate to this time.

But I am encouraged. Despite the sinful excesses of the rioters, it feels like there is a different tone to the conversation this time. There are more people who are seeing—sometimes for the first time—that equality under the law does not always result in equal treatment under the law. We are also seeing people ask questions about how they have perpetuated injustice by simply not seeming to care enough to speak up when confronted with it.

Our action has to be more than a token meme here or there. It has to go beyond a week’s interest when it’s the topic about which the news is blaring. It has to be a steady emphasis on making things better in real and tangible ways.

And that is really the key. It’s not Tweeting or pumping out Facebook content that matters. It’s taking careful action to diminish the negative reality of ongoing racial discrimination. For some people, the first step is admitting that racism is still real and active in our communities. Our duty is to pursue justice in our lives as we live for Christ.

Justice as a Duty for the Godly

Micah 6:8 is a helpful verse as we think about our duty to live justly:

“He has told you, O man, what is good;
and what does the Lord require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?”

Our God is a God of justice. It is the nature of God to be holy, righteous, and just. The Trinity is all those things and love at the same time. In this verse, which is known to many, Micah is simply summarizing what the Pentateuch already reveals: We are called to be a people who promote justice because we are called to be a people who look like the God of the universe. The pursuit of justice in the world around us is not a convenient add on to the faith, it’s the heart of what obedience looks like.

In Micah 6:8, “He has told you, O man, what is good,” refers to the testimony of God’s character that was already available to Micah and his audience. This line is pointing back to the Law and telling Israel--and also Christians as inheritors of the Hebrew Bible—that to live faithfully, we need to look at God’s character, which is partially revealed through the Law. And the Law is a call to live as agents of justice in the spheres that we have influence.

To be godly is to live justly. That is the refrain of the Law. Obedience to the law does not justify, but it does promote justice as we live out imperfectly the character of God.

Make no mistake, the Law reflects God’s character and obedience is due because of God’s character. To list a few examples, that refrain accompanies the Law in Leviticus 11:44, 11:45, 18:2, 18:4, 18:5, 18:6, 18:21; Numbers 3:41, 3:45, 10:10, 15:41. There are many more examples. Some of these laws relate to proper relationship with God through ceremonial sacrifices. Many of the laws relate to proper relationship to other humans by honoring parents, leaving gleanings for the poor, and not causing the blind to stumble. They all relate to living justly according to the character of God.

Justice, therefore, is not an extracurricular activity of Christianity, it is at the core of the Christian faith. When Jesus is asked which is the great commandment in the law in Matthew 22:34–40, he states:

 “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.  On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” (vv. 37-40)

Love God. Love neighbor. The first is greater, but the second is like it. To love you neighbor is, in a very real sense, to demonstrate your love for God. To love your neighbor is to love the image of God in your neighbor. To love your neighbor is to do justice toward your neighbor.

The Golden Rule and Justice

The so-called Golden Rule is a helpful but often misunderstood aspect of living justly. And, again, it is an instruction from God, in the words of Jesus himself, that points us back to the Old Testament for much of its content. Jesus says, “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” (Matt 7:12)

Unfortunately, when I hear this passage cited it is often in the context of a call to leave others alone or simply not to intentionally make someone else’s life harder. When kids are being mean to each other we are tempted to say, “Do unto others.” By which we mean that they should stop being a pest and leave their sister be.

Non-interference with others is certainly part of the meaning of the Golden Rule, but it’s the easy half. The harder half is to actually do to others what we wish someone would do for us. There is an active call to go out of our way to do things that make someone’s life better. “Do unto others” has become such a cliché that we sometimes miss what is a really hard call to obedience, grounded in the Old Testament, which reveals God’s character. So we’re back to Micah sharing God’s word with us that we are to do justice and love kindness. This is an active pursuit of justice on another’s behalf rather than simply an avoidance of injustice as an abstinence of sin.

This is a whole-Bible issue and an all-of-faith-in-God issue, not a side issue that we should see as a secondary concern. Real justice, as God defines it, can never replace the gospel because it is a form of gospel proclamation to accompany our words. But the key here is that justice must be as God defines it.

But What is Justice?

The content of justice never changes and any claim about what is justice must be evaluated according to Scripture. This means that some things that masquerade as justice in our time are not truly just. In fact, simply because there is a statute on the books does not mean that the law is just. The nature of justice is oriented in the character of God, not in the context of our time.

But justice is worked out in the context of our time. So our task is “to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God” in the time that we have been given. We may choose to explore questions of justice in the future or the past. That may help us understand our time better, but we must always be clear that our call is to live justly in our time and to resist the injustices of our time.

The nature of justice does not change, but our context does shape what issues are significant for our time. Because context is always changing, some will accuse those pursuing justice of innovation. We will not find an exact parallel to our social questions. Racial disparities in mass incarceration, excessive force by rogue police are issues peculiar to our day. Racial bias may not have been a primary concern in more ethnically homogeneous settings.

In our age racial reconciliation and the pursuit of racial justice—the healing of decades of injustice—should be a priority in our personal lives and our communities.

What Does Justice Look Like Now?

The world is so rife with sin that it is impossible for us to bring about the kingdom of God through human effort. The good news is that God never commands us to do that. He’s going to do the heavy lifting, but he does, as we’ve seen, ask us to love our neighbor by pursuing godly character according to his word.

So, we’re called to be fair in our business dealings with others and to work for a more just marketplace. As Proverbs 20:10 notes, “Unequal weights and unequal measures are both alike an abomination to the Lord.” Justice is fair dealing, but it also means working toward reforms in the economy that due to their very structure disadvantage particular groups. In some cases, this could be by working to reform excessive licensure requirements for certain professions. For example, many states require more than a thousand hours of training to cut someone’s hair. There may certainly be some health and safety training needed, but the excessive burden puts up a barrier to the poor for a reliable career path.

This example is painless because most of us aren’t barbers worried about excessive competition, so changing those statutes doesn’t negatively impact us. But it could make a big difference to someone on the bottom of the economic ladder in our society.

The key is to begin to notice that there is a problem. Then to pursue justice through righteous means.

Race and Justice

It is the noticing part that often comes the hardest in questions of race.

Many people who are not in the majority consistently fail to notice the pervasive bias against minorities. Some people have invested a great deal of time in the past few weeks presenting the narrative that there is no pervasive bias against minorities. I once believed that myself.

But then I began to look around and see things that I had never seen before. They were always there, but I’d never noticed. Here are a few examples:

To a person, every African American I have asked about it has had an excessively negative interaction with a police officer at some point. One sedate-looking African American with a PhD with salt and pepper hair had an officer draw his gun on him before he even got to the door of his truck. There was no apparent reason.

Multiple upper-middle class African Americans have told me about being asked by police why they were running when they were in an affluent neighborhood (even their own), as if heart disease might not be enough of a reason. The real implication was that they weren’t where they were supposed to be.

None of these were fatal, and most of them were simply escalated interest, as with the question while jogging. But the simple fact is that this is an alien experience to most whites, but a common (not to say universal) one for African Americans. Most of these experiences do not show up in statistics on policing, because either the result was a traffic ticket or an awkward discussion. But the experiences are real.

There is a greater general suspicion toward people of color in retail establishments. We might expect a heightened level of concern with kids in trench coats with big pockets wandering through the music store. But when someone goes in dressed like a soccer mom with dark skin, there is little reason to suspect them of shoplifting any more than a woman with a lighter complexion. And yet, the anecdotal evidence, which will never show up as a “fact that doesn’t care about feelings” on someone’s report, builds with every person that I’ve talked to.

It’s easy to miss the real problem because people can pull out stats that lethal force has been used more often on a numerical basis and roughly equally on a percentage basis on whites than on blacks. Let’s accept that statistic as true, but also accept that some of the most important facts aren’t measured in the available data. The regular indignities of heightened surveillance don’t show up in anyone’s data. We all become data-driven when it suits our purposes and supports our narrative. But the reality, as we argue when the reported data runs against our viewpoint, is that statistics don’t tell the whole story.

The first step in working toward justice is recognizing there is injustice. In the case of race in the United States, that means stepping into someone else’s shoes, taking their concerns seriously, and listening when they explain the problem. That isn’t humiliation or subjugation, it’s just common courtesy. In the past few weeks I’ve seen some exaggeration, but a lot more honest, sorrowful explanation. It isn’t all a hoax and we should be able to see that.

Conclusion

There is a whole lot of work to do beyond recognizing there is a problem. I’m not the expert on the issue and each of us should have a different response depending on where we live, what our responsibilities are, and what opportunities we have. Our duty is to work out justice in our situation right here and right now without trying to figure out how it should have been done or could be better facilitated by another group over there.

I’m going to include several videos below that were produced by people I know well and trust.

---

This discuss is between my former pastor, Anthony Rhone and my former colleague Heath Thomas, and it is on the topic of justice. In particular justice in our context of a racialized United States.

My former pastor, Anthony Rhone, preached on the important question of who is our neighbor directly in response to the protests and riots after George Floyd’s murder. He is an excellent, biblical preacher and this is a good example of his preaching on an important topic.

Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary hosted a helpful panel discussion for pastors on shepherding a church through a racially tense time. I found this conversation gracious and practical.

Another important conversation at my alma mater about the ethics of racial injustice.

The Art of the Impossible - Speeches by Vaclav Havel

Looking back, the fall of communism in Central and Eastern Europe came suddenly and, in many cases, was completed with relatively little bloodshed. One example of this is the so-called Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, which led to playwright and dissident, Vaclav Havel, being elected president in a bloodless rebellion.

In a 1997 book, The Art of the Impossible, we are provided the texts—translated into English—of a number of Havel’s speeches from his time as president of Czechoslovakia and, a few years later, the Czech Republic. As historical artifacts, these speeches are somewhat interesting. However, as expressions of a political philosophy, the speeches are engaging and thought provoking.

After decades of resisting Soviet occupation and communist rule, Havel had the responsibility to help his country peacefully transition to a democratic, free-market political economy. The risk of this transition leading to political violence against the former oppressors is always real. Simultaneously, the temptation for the new ruling class to become just like the old ruling class was strong.

The speeches in this volume are arranged chronologically, so they have a variety of topics. There is a clear trajectory in them that shows the ways Havel’s nation was changing and the landscape of Europe was shifting to accept the former Soviet-bloc countries. Each of the chapters, however, seems surprisingly frank and open.

For example, the first speech was given on New Year’s Day in 1990, shortly after communism had been overthrown and Havel named president. He notes early in his speech, “Our country is not flourishing.” But this was not simply due to the political turmoil, but a profound misdirection of society, because,

“The enormous creative and spiritual potential of our nations is not being used sensibly. Entire branches of industry are producing goods that are of no interest to anyone, while we are lacking the things we need. A state that calls itself a workers’ state humiliates and exploits its workers. . . . We have contaminated the soil, rivers, and forests bequeathed to us by our ancestors, and today we have the most polluted environment in Europe.”

Havel could say this, of course, because he was looking at the abusive legacy of four decades of communist tyranny. However, the quick pivot toward arguing that he is going to make everything great again doesn’t come. Instead Havel emphasizes the difficulty that lies ahead and how much it was going to take to become a healthy nation.

One of the major themes in this work is responsibility. In contrast to contemporary political discourse in the United States, which typically focuses on rights. On the left, the concern is positive rights: the right to have other people work to provide something for me. On the right, the concern is typically negative rights: the right to own weapons, live faithfully, and keep a larger percentage of wealth. In a state of precarious need, Havel draws people’s attention to their duties to each other and to society in a powerful way.

Among the more interesting speeches is his speech on “The Anatomy of Hate,” given in 1990, only a few months after the fall of communism. As a man who had suffered so greatly in prison, it must have been difficult not to hate his oppressors, but Havel explains the pieces of hate in a way that makes it clear why its pull is so strong and why he resisted it. This chapter alone is worth the price of the book.

Collections of thought like this are helpful for those in generations who have not witnessed the destructive power of communism, because Havel provides examples and testimonies of how oppressive that form of socialism is and, after having experienced the “benefits” of full socialism for decades, how eager the population was to get a market economy. There is a moral difference between socialism and a market economy, and the second is preferred by people who have experienced the first.

At the same time, Havel is clear that freedom cannot exist without responsibility. This responsibility, Havel argues, is rooted in the human understanding of the existence of a transcendent power beyond our immediate understanding. Though Havel explicitly denies being aligned with any particular religion, he recognizes the common recognition within humanity that there is something that made all things, holds all things together, and is moving history toward something. In a manner similar to Solzhenitsyn’s Harvard Commencement Address, Havel calls for respiritualizing politics and daily life; the acknowledgement of something greater helps reduce the absolutizing abuses of ideology.

These speeches are surprisingly fresh and insightful, given some of them are three decades old. The landscape of world politics, particularly politics in Europe, have changed significantly, but many of the challenges Havel recognized are still evident and, indeed, still need to be dealt with.

The Art of the Impossible: Politics as Morality in Practice

By Vaclav Havel

Buy on Amazon

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.