In Search of the Common Good - A Review

At the end of Ecclesiastes, Qoheleth warns his audience, “Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh.”

This was, of course, a favorite quip among seminarians who both loved the quest for knowledge and, at the same time, found it wearying.

In that vein, I did not read Jake Meador’s book, In Search of the Common Good, for more than a year after I received it. There are a number of books on my shelf that address similar issues. As the subtitle indicates, Meador is trying to help his readers understand what it means to be a faithful Christian in a fractured world.

Though there are myriad of books that are promoting faithful Christianity in our modern world, Meador’s book is a welcome addition. Not only is it a good addition to my library and a useful tool for my own research, but it would be a good place for many people to start in on the conversation.

The book begins by considering the problem, at least in the US: We have too little community and too little sense of shared experience with each other. This is a common theme that is recognized by Rod Dreher, Wendell Berry, Ben Sasse, Arthur Brooks and many more. Our lack of a sense of belonging to a community or a place helps explain a great deal of the dis-ease of our time. Among the problems that community could help solve and that are now overwhelming what remains of community are a loss of meaning, a loss of wonder, and a loss of good work. It is entirely possible to disagree with some of the particulars in Meador’s argument here, but there is substantive force even if one does not agree fully. We have lost our way.

As a result, Meador calls readers back to what he calls the practice of community through a vision of the Sabbath and fulfillment in worship of the creator, participation in a community with works, and a thoughtful return to meaningful work. The book concludes by discussing civic virtues and by pointing toward our final hope in heaven. Both are important parts of faithful living.

Meador writes well and uses thoughtful illustrations, which makes this a pleasure to read even for those that have covered the ground extensively before. For those that are new to the discussion, In Search of the Common Good, may well raise a sense of longing for something that is missing from so many of our lives and which the church ought to be able to provide. Meador gives a reminder that the common good is not something that we snatch from the center and devour in our own home. Rather, it is like a symphony that is only enjoyable when all the instruments lend their voices together to make the whelming wave of music.

This is a good book that would be worth examining with a group of friends, a small group at church, or a series of neighbors. All the answers are not contained within the pages of this relatively short volume, but there are some practical examples along side the theoretical discussion. Most significantly, no careful reader will walk away from this without a deeper sense that there is a vision here that, if made real, would be lovely to be a part of. This is the sort of volume that makes the reader long for something good, wholesome and true.

In Search of the Common Good: Christian Fidelity in a Fractured World

By Meador, Jake

Buy on Amazon

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

Bavinck: A Critical Biography - A Review

Herman Bavinck is one of the more interesting theologians of the modern era. In the English-speaking world he has, to a great degree, been overshadowed by the legacy of Abraham Kuyper. In fact, it is entirely possible that those who have read and resonated deeply with Kuyper have actually never heard of—or have only heard of in passing––a man whose theological legacy is greater than Kuyper’s, if he was less accomplished politically. Kuyper is helpful in many ways and worthy of study, but in many ways, we are in a day that needs Bavinck even more. Thankfully, the works of Bavinck are becoming more readily available in English and the amount of secondary literature is also exploding, including a recent biography.

James Eglinton’s recent biography of Bavinck will prove to be a classic for years to come. It is a critical biography, which means that it goes beyond the facts that every adoring fan would like to know into the ups and downs of Bavinck’s life. The conclusion that a reader will come to is that while Bavinck was certainly not a perfect man, he seems to have been a good man.

Bavinck is an intriguing figure. He came from a family engaged in denominational struggle—which had significant social and political implications in the day—and which ended up on the less preferred side. His father was a leader in a group that had splintered off the more main stream branch of the Dutch Reformed church. This left Bavinck with less social cache than many of his contemporaries, and yet his natural abilities and effort carried him to significant places, including a seat in parliament, a long-standing role in the Anti-Revolutionary Party, and a high level of esteem in theological circles.

For many people, such achievement would be closely accompanied by a string of compromises. However, that does not seem to be the case with Bavinck.

In some ways, reading the biography of Bavinck as a fan can be frustrating. He is not a larger-than-life figure who dazzles everyone along the way to success. Bavinck was deeply in love with a girl whose family would not allow them to marry. He pined for her and did not win the day. Bavinck turned down several career advances for one reason or another. At points it seems that he was simply indecisive, which is hardly the typical characteristic of a hero. Though he led the Anti-Revolutionary Party after Kuyper, he lacked the personality to hold it together and the part lost political ground under his leadership. All of this would seem to make Bavinck someone whom history would forget.

And yet, what rises from the pages of this biography is a portrait of a good man and an honest man. This is accompanied by the deep, resonant theology that many contemporary Christians have been feasting on. That theology is very important because it is robustly orthodox in the face of the acid of modernity. Bavinck intentionally studied theology among modern liberal theologians to know it better. He came out a lover of God who held more tightly to the great truths of the faith and who was prepared to defend those truths against the most hostile attacks. However tentative Bavinck may have been in his personal and career decisions, there is a well-reasoned boldness in his theology which cheers the heart and inspires the soul of today’s reader.

Bavinck’s theology causes the Jesus-loving heart to soar, but his consistent character is compelling. In a day when so many theological heroes are being discarded for their often-legitimate sins, Bavinck shines in some important ways. For example, one of his pointed observations of America was that, especially in the South, there was a significant, sub-Christian racism, where some Christians openly argued against the humanity of blacks. Bavinck also fought to disentangle missions from colonialism, recognizing the one as an important Christian duty and the other as a sin. In many ways Bavinck was ahead of his time.

This is a compelling book about a compelling man. Bavinck’s story would be interesting even if it were told by a less able writer. But Eglinton has managed to produce a work of art because he tells an engaging story in an engaging manner. Though it is an academic biography it is a good one. Above all, it is a good book. It will make good reading for someone who has not studied Bavinck’s theology and it deserves a broad reading beyond those deeply interested in the contours of Dutch Reformed theology.

Bavinck: A Critical Biography

By Eglinton, James

Buy on Amazon

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

On Sin and Our Duty to Fight It

8 And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire. (Matt 18:8–9)

There are two extreme positions on sin that both misunderstand the gospel. First, that sin is no big deal because Jesus’ atoning death paid for it all for those who believe. Second, that sin is so terrible that we need constantly be in fear of the fires of hell.

Being a Christian is to always be in a two-front war. When God commissioned Joshua after Moses death, he said, “Only be strong and very courageous, being careful to do according to all the law that Moses my servant commanded you. Do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, that you may have good success wherever you go.” (Josh 1:7)

There is a reason why Jesus describes the way of salvation as a narrow gate. In Matthew 7:13–14, Jesus said, “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”

We are always pulled between at least two directions—sometimes they are temptations—neither of which honors God. Our task is to thread the needle, which we can only do with Jesus’ help.

So, if you are in the camp of people that believe sin is no big deal because you’ve signed a special deal with God by praying a prayer or whatever, this passage is for you. In Matt 18:8–9, Jesus teaches here that sin is so significant that physical deformation and suffering in this life is better than the natural outcome of sin.

But, if you are in the group of people who believe your sin is so huge that nothing could ever take care of it, then we’ll get to the joyous good news of the gospel in just a minute, so hang on tight.

When Jesus speaks of cutting off a hand or gouging out an eye, he is being hyperbolic––he is exaggerating. He isn’t actually telling anyone to self-mutilate, but I think he is quite earnestly explaining how bad sin is. Jesus also isn’t telling his audience, in this case his disciples, that if they cut off an appendage, then they can stop the sin for which they deserve hell.

This begins to make sense when we consider how dangerous our sin is.

The Nature of Sin

In this passage, Jesus is really telling us that sin is bad. It’s really bad.

Herman Bavinck describes sin as,

“appallingly many-sided, with untold moral dimensions, at its heart it is a religious revolt against God and thus appropriately summarized as lawlessness. . . . Sin is never an arbitrary matter, merely a whimsical displeasure of a jealous God. Sin is knowingly breaking God’s command and flows from a heart that rebels against God.”[1]

Sin is both an actively corrupting force within in us and a negator of God’s goodness outside of us. Sin always takes God’s good creation and turns it away from God’s good purposes.

According to J. C. Ryle,

“Sin, in short, is that vast moral disease which affects the whole human race, of every rank, and class, and name, and nation, and people, and tongue; a disease from which there never was but one born of woman that was free.”[2]

Sin is all around us, within us, and inescapable in this life.

As we think about sin, sometimes we tend to think of it in terms of being an opposite power to good. As if there is a balanced evil and good powers, like Satan and God are duking it out, and we’re just waiting to see who will win. Sin and holiness are not like the light and dark side of the Force.

Instead, many teachers throughout Church history have explained sin as the absence of good. The Westminster Shorter Catechism states, “Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.”

In his Enchirideon, Augustine writes, “For what else is that which is called evil but a removal of good? . . . For good to be decreased is evil.”[3] Therefore, when we choose to sin, we are choosing something less than the best thing available. To put it another way, we are redirecting something good from its proper course into a lesser one.

For example, sex was designed as a means of procreating and as a sign of the marriage covenant between a stable couple of the opposite sex. Sin has distorted that design in a million ways by directing it outward to images on a screen, to people not involved in the covenant, or in ways that could never fulfill the procreative type. Sex is a good thing that has been turned away from God’s good purposes in a way that distorts God’s good creation and takes away the blessings it provides.

The natural consequences of sin will always be destructive. Sin is always a tearing down of the gift that God has given us and trying to rebuild the world in our image and according to our own desires.

Again, Bavinck is helpful here: “Sin also develops an order dynamic; there is a law of sin that proceeds from suggestion to enjoyment to consent to execution and involves both our sensuality and our self-seeking.”[4]

The effects of sin are to weaken and darken the soul. John Owen notes,

“[Sin] is a cloud, a thick cloud, that spreads itself over the face of the soul, and intercepts all the beams of God’s love and favor. It takes away all sense of the privilege of our adoptions; and if the soul begins to gather up thoughts of consolation, sin quickly scatters them.”[5]

Adam’s original sin in defying God’s special command not to eat from a particular tree led to he and Eve being forced out of Eden and set this whole world into a tailspin of sin. God sent a flood to cleanse creation, which “was corrupt in God’s sight” (Gen 6:11), so he did something like a soft reboot of his creation. Pharaoh’s sin in resisting God’s command to let the Israelites go led to economic and physical misery and eventually the death of the first-born sons. Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are all filled with illustrations of how sinful every human is, with the sacrificial system given as a reminder that sin is a major problem to be dealt with. The first five books of the Bible are extremely bloody.

As the author of Hebrews reminds us, “Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” (Heb 9:22)

Given that the death of God’s only son, the firstborn of all creation (cf. Col 1:15), was necessary to take the penalty of sin, we would do well to take sin seriously. If you are struggling with reading through the Old Testament, just know that it is supposed to be a reminder of sin that points you toward your need for a savior.

Dealing with Sin

For those of you who are Christian, it is vitally important that we actively fight against sin in our lives. The primary audience of Jesus’ words is the people who have followed him, who recognize he is Messiah, and who will recognize what that really means after his death, burial and resurrection.

Because sin is so serious, we need to deal with it seriously. Perhaps the most famous John Owen quote, offered by many who have never cracked one of his books, is “Be killing sin, or it will be killing you.”[6]

Owen’s entire book, The Mortification of Sin, is a masterpiece, though reading Owen is an acquired taste. But the expanded quote gives us a deeper sense of what Owen is getting at here:

“Do you mortify; do you make it your daily work; be always at it whilst you live; cease not a day from this work; be killing sin or it will be killing you.”

Although Owen is writing an exposition of Romans 8, he is channeling Jesus’ words from Matthew here. Sin is a really big deal and we really need to fight against it. If we aren’t killing sin, sin will kill us. It will suck our spiritual vitality away. It diminishes our work for God and our joy in God.

As we wrestle with sin, we need to keep two absolute spiritual truths in tension:

1.       All of our sin is paid for in full by the blood of Christ on the cross; (1 Peter 2:24)

2.       Our continued sin grieves God. (cf. Rom 6:1)

Our inheritance is sure, but our calling to resist sin is just as certain.

So, for example, if you discover that something you do that you love leads you to sin, you should be prepared to give it up. It may be a perfectly good thing in itself and others may have no problem with it. But if it causes you to sin, cut it out of your life.[7]

Our process of sanctification is the process of killing sin in our lives. We strive, through the power of the Holy Spirit, to look like the people God has called us to be. Positionally we have Christ’s righteousness the moment we are saved, but our lives typically don’t reflect that immediately. Becoming what we truly are requires us to put sin to death.

When a day goes by and you don’t think about your sin––thinking about it so that you can kill it––then you are probably losing ground.

We are subject to temptation, when we think of holiness and our fight against sin, to think that if we have beaten a few of our more obvious faults, that we are really humming along toward heaven. But the Christian life demands that we pursue perfect conformity to God’s law. Though God is certainly pleased with our first steps toward holiness, just as a father is pleased with his child’s first steps, God is not satisfied with believers who can only take a few steps before falling down. He expects us, through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit, to continue to strive to live perfectly in Christ’s image, even in the knowledge that we can never achieve that end.[8]

[1] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Sin and Salvation in Christ, vol III, 126. Much of this definition of the nature of sin flows from Bavinck’s discussion.

[2] J. C. Ryle, Holiness, 2.

[3] Augustine, Enchirideon, 40–41.

[4] Bavinck, Sin and Salvation in Christ, 127.

[5] John Owen, Overcoming Sin and Temptation, 65.

[6] Owen, Overcoming, 50.

[7] Intermediate application: If watching football causes you to sin by neglecting God’s Word and his people: cut it out of your life. If your job puts you in situations that lead you to defraud people or take advantage of them, be prepared to quit. Cut it off. If listening to particular radio shows or constantly streaming news causes you to despise other image-bearers and wish them harm, then turn it off. There is no limit to the types of applications, because we live in a society that seems to have unlimited temptations to sin. Whatever the issue is, be prepared to cut it off.

[8] This illustration is borrowed from C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 202–203.

Conspiracy Theories - A Review

In 2016, a conspiracy theory about a ring of pedophiles led to Edgar Madison Welch storming a pizza parlor with a semi-automatic rifle to break things up. Welch was a volunteer fireman and an ordinary member of his local church. An otherwise normal, civic-minded citizen, Welch had become convinced that children were actively being trafficked by the owner of the restaurant. The so-called Pizzagate conspiracy theory had been spread online by right-wing political advocates due to the owner’s support for Hillary Clinton during her 2016 campaign. The Pizzagate conspiracy theory is one of many ideas cultivated on the political right and left that influence the way people see the world.

Conspiracy theories sprout up around struggles for power, whether in civil or denominational politics, and can lead to destructive responses. In his recent book, Conspiracy Theories: A Primer, Joseph Uscinski argues, “Conspiracy theories posit a powerful enemy whose goals may pose an existential threat to humanity. It is therefore reasonable to expect that such theories would motivate believers to take action.” (p. 5)

Most conspiracy theories are harmless, but some contribute to violent action against opposing groups. In the modern wilderness of the Internet Age, we cannot afford to simply ignore conspiracy theories because they can tear social structures apart.

Nature of Conspiracy Theories

Sometimes “conspiracy theory” is used as an epithet for contested interpretations of data to avoid considering opposing views fairly, but Uscinski offers a helpful definition: “Conspiracy theory is an explanation of past, present, or future events or circumstances that cites, as the primary cause, a conspiracy. . . . Conspiracy theories are inherently political. Conspiracy theories are accusatory ideas that could either be true or false, and they contradict the proclamations of epistemological authorities, assuming such proclamations exist.” (p. 23)

Although it is common to dismiss conspiracy theories as absurdly irrational, Uscinski justly points out that some conspiracy theories turn out to be true. Tobacco companies obscured evidence of the harms of smoking; corporations in Silicon Valley colluded to reduce the wages of engineers; the federal government used African-Americans as subjects for human experimentation in Tuskegee. There are real conspiracies that deserve investigation and exposure.

Many conspiracy theories are non-falsifiable. In other words, any evidence for or against the theory is used to strengthen it, never to undermine it. Uscinski writes, “For the conspiracy theorist, the fact that we don’t have good evidence of a conspiracy only shows that the conspirators are good at covering their tracks. . . . But because of their non-falsifiability, conspiracy theories should not be thought of as true or false, but rather as more or less likely to be true.” (p. 27) At some point, there is no evidence that will undermine the confidence in a firmly held conspiracy theory, since the denial of a conspirator is only further evidence of the conspiracy.

Epistemological Authorities

Both tribalism and the lack of epistemological authorities contribute to the increasing number of conspiracy theories. According to Uscinski, “An appropriate epistemological authority . . . is one that is trained to assess knowledge claims in a relevant area and draw conclusions from valid data using recognized methods in an unbiased way.” (p. 23) There are few commonly trusted stewards of truth and knowledge in our culture. When avoidance of bias is no longer considered a necessary goal for media outlets, academic researchers and community leaders, the groundwork is laid for propagation of conspiracy theories: everyone believes what is right in their own eyes.

Real conspiracies have contributed to the lack of epistemological authorities. For example. perverse incentives in the academy––supposed to be the last bastion of unbiased reasoning––shape the research individuals do, the language they use to report their findings, and even what results are accepted through the peer review process. For example, in Galileo’s Middle Finger, Alice Dreger details the experience of several progressive researchers who were mercilessly attacked by other progressives for producing results that did not support the accepted consensus. Such cases of overt bias undermine the authority of institutions and processes that can quell conspiracy theories.

Conspiracy Theories and Political Power

Recently the QAnon conspiracy theories have spread on the political right including among some theologically conservative Christians. Conspiracy theories grow most quickly among the highly partisan, because the theories generally involve some evil being perpetuated by one’s opponents who are seeking power to subvert the common good. As political polarization has increased conspiracy theories have become a significant part of political campaigns. For example, Bernie Sanders actively campaigned on the conspiracy theory that the top “1%” richest people in the United States have “rigged” the economy. During his campaign for the 2016 election, President Trump promoted the conspiracy theory that Ted Cruz’s father helped assassinate JFK.

A common trope is that conspiracy theories are much more common on the political right than the left. Instead, Uscinski argues the conspiracy theories of the right and left are different in content, but roughly equal in volume and tenacity. He notes, “There is nothing inherent in Republicanism, conservatism, or right-wing politics that makes people more conspiratorial in their outlook.” (p. 13)

Uscinski observes that the increase in tribalism is tending to increase the prevalence of conspiracy theories. Humans are more likely to believe their ideological opponents are working to subvert society. Tribalism also limits the epistemological authorities that have reach across the increasing divide between right and left, especially when some institutions that used to function in that capacity have abandoned the quest for neutrality.

A Response

Uscinski’s primer on conspiracy theories is informative but it lacks concrete solutions. In the final paragraph of the book he recommends teaching critical thinking, increasing political transparency, and avoiding electing politicians that overtly promote conspiracy theories. These are all good things and worth considering, but the book leaves readers to do their own research.

A reader might be tempted to shake her head at the inevitability of an ongoing increase of conspiracy theories. Some posit that the way that people interact with information on the internet has made conspiracy theories. The “other side” is guaranteed to spread conspiracy theories, so it seems appropriate to fight fire with fire. Some might think that resisting conspiracy thinking and pushing back on conspiracy theories is not worth the effort.

Despite the difficulties, resisting the spread of conspiracy theories is worthwhile. Uscinski argues that conspiracy theories are destroying our society and political processes: “One cannot make meaningful decisions in a democracy awash in conspiracy theories, and one cannot compromise with opponents if one believes those opponents are engaged in a vast conspiracy. Despite whatever electoral advantages come from conspiracy theory politics, there is a much larger price to pay.” (119) Similarly, it is nearly impossible to cooperate for global missions when members of a denomination are adamant in attacking their own institutions with non-falsifiable conspiracy theories.

But there is nothing new under the sun. Paul warns Timothy of “certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.” (1 Tim 1:6-7) The content and topics may have changed, but the problem still remains.

For Christians, it would prove good for us to turn to the epistemological authority of Scripture, in which Paul gives good advice for breaking the chain of conspiracy thinking:

“Finally, brother, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me––practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.” (Phil 4:8–9)

Conspiracy Theories: A Primer

By Uscinski, Joseph E.

Buy on Amazon

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