Review of Evangelical Ethics: A Reader

The recent anthology, Evangelical Ethics, from Westminster John Knox Press seemed promising. There has been no such collection focusing on scholarship from Evangelical Christian sources in wide circulation in recent decades. This is not due to a lack of ethical writing, but no one has previously taken up the mantle of chronicler to produce a volume. This lays a groundwork of expectation for the recent release from David Gushee and Isaac B. Sharp.

What Kind of Evangelical?

Unfortunately, this book suffers from excessive editorial interference. In the introduction, the editors acknowledge there are different understandings of Evangelicalism.

This dates back to the sociological versus doctrinal understandings that have formed a fissure between so-called progressive Evangelicals and conservative Evangelicals. The main qualification for the sociological understanding of Evangelical is claiming the title and being from a historically Evangelical tradition.

Often there is a residual discussion of the centrality of the gospel, but the many times the personal impact of the gospel is obscured by an emphasis on social activity. For conservative Evangelicals, the qualifications for the title are primarily doctrinal.

Doctrinally centered Evangelicals ask question like: Is Scripture understood to be the supreme norm? Is the gospel, including its impact on individual salvation, central to the life of the Christian? These are the primary concerns.

Gushee and Sharp acknowledge the division and then largely dismiss those who hold to a doctrinal understanding of Evangelicalism.

As a result, the most clearly identifiable Evangelicals in the list of included authors are Carl F. H. Henry and Francis Schaeffer. The selection from Henry is from The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism, which was chosen to illustrate how Henry had an interest in social ethics. A valid selection and a good one. Schaeffer’s selection is from How Should We Then Live. This, too is a worthy selection, though the introduction notes that his tone is “declinist” and that it seems to center on the issue of abortion, as if that was unwarranted in 1976 with Roe V. Wade a distant memory of three years previous .

Emphasis on Social Ethics

The volume is structured to minimize the significance of personal ethics. In fact, the only social issues considered in any depth in this text are economics and race. These are two worthy issues, but by avoiding personal ethics including abortion and sexual ethics, a false portrait is painted.

The image represented is also one of support for only one position on the issues discussed, as if there had been no ongoing conversation with differing views. Additionally, the issue of environmentalism is largely ignored, which is not representative of the last several decades of Evangelical thought, whether progressive or doctrinally centered.

Missing Voices

Instead of selecting texts that represent Evangelicalism as it is, the editors have selected texts that represent Evangelicalism as it is in their idealized world.

As such, minorities are significantly over-represented. This is not to discount the voice of those minorities, but if the major voices of a movement are mainly white men, then a reader that purports to describe that movement should represent the reality not the rosy vision of the chroniclers. The selections in this volume amount to historical revisionism.

The book is only about 160 pages. Most readers are at least twice that length. There was no lack of source material, so it is unclear why the volume turned out so unbalanced.

Missing from the relatively slim volume are John Stott, Oliver O’Donovan, Daniel Heimbach, the Feinberg brothers, John Jefferson Davis, John Frame, Cornelius Van Til, Wayne Grudem, Arthur Holmes, Stanley Grenz and others. Instead, a crowd of individuals who have largely rejected the inerrancy or infallibility of Scripture, which has typically been a hallmark of Evangelical theology.

In other words, this is a misrepresentation of the actual history and content of Evangelical ethics. If, as the title implies, the intent was to provide representative samples of the field, then it has largely failed.

Mixed Voices

That being said, some of the essays included are powerful. John Perkins’ testimony of being beaten and through that experience seeing the need for white men to hear the gospel is powerful. Nicholas Wolterstorff’s essay on the holistic power of the gospel for changing and redeeming the world is helpful.

Both the essay by Henry and the one by Schaeffer fairly represent a significant segment of doctrinally faithful Evangelicalism. There is some quality, but it is such a corpus permixtum that the volume has lost its center in Evangelical identity.

Certainly this highly massaged image will please those hoping to pull the Evangelical movement away from their traditional reliance on Scripture and interest in orthodoxy. That is exactly why the volume drew praise on the back cover from Lisa Sowle Cahill, who is theologically liberal. If the goal is to try to “redeem” the perception of Evangelical ethics from an emphasis traditional concern for doctrinal orthodoxy, then this book is a masterpiece.

Tragedy of homogeneity

One of the most beneficial aspects of my seminary education, both at the graduate and postgraduate level, have been the opportunities to read opposing viewpoints and figure out what makes those thinkers believe what they do. In other words, it is good to read people you don’t agree with.

This is why I read what David Gushee writes, as a general rule. He is generally sound in his reasoning even when I find his premises or conclusions unacceptable. Here I think he, along with Strong, have deprived future progressives of the benefit of an accessible, curated volume of primary sources that reflect historical reality.

The editors have thus increased the likelihood that some progressive Evangelicals and more liberal thinkers that read this volume will remain in the echo chamber of their own tradition and remain unexposed to conservative theologians. This minimizes the potential benefit of what could have been a significant volume for the long term.

Evangelical Ethics: A Reader (Library of Theological Ethics)

$29.38

By David P. Gushee, Isaac B. Sharp

Buy on Amazon

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

Environmental Stewardship - A Review

It is a rare thing to be well-read in a discipline and to come across a book that is strikingly different. The experience is refreshing, but it happens only exceptionally.

Wipf and Stock released a new translation of a book by J. Douma, a Dutch ethicist, this year. His volume, Environmental Stewardship is sufficiently distinct from other treatments of the topic that it was a pleasure to read and genuinely novel.

Although the book was released in English in 2015, it was originally published in 1988. This means that Douma’s volume is not “current” in the sense that it includes all of the latest literature. It is academically valuable, however, because it introduces a number of German and Dutch sources that are not often considered in English writing on the topic of Environmental Ethics.

Additionally, because Douma was outside of the main discussions of Environmental Ethics in the United States, he provides a strongly alternative perspective that is neither right nor left of others, but different. This makes the reader rethink existing paradigms because he approaches the same old issues from a unique perspective. Still, Douma’s perspective is both well-reasoned and biblically faithful.

Summary

The book has five chapters. In Chapter One Douma surveys the issues of Environmental Ethics and begins to consider who could be at fault for the problems in the environment. Douma interacts with Lynn White’s famous thesis, which is that Christianity is to blame for the world’s environmental ills. However, Douma also interacts with the earlier and apparently more strident critique of Claus Jacobi, another Hollander. Douma’s critiques of both men are strong and much more helpful than many others who have interacted with them. In particular, Douma notes that White’s thesis is really that the ecological crisis is the product of a democratic culture. He is the first to make that assertion, but it rings true. Douma also notes that technology is most strongly critiqued only when it has a negative impact on the environment. In contrast, however, often technology is very good for the environment. Douma is shaking his finger at the hypocrisy of many environmentalists.

In Chapter Two Douma explains the biblical case for environmental stewardship. He undermines the dominion concept and offers an authentic stewardship model. There is no doubt Douma sees humans as part of yet unique within the created order. The correct attitude toward nature is neither anthropocentric nor cosmocentric but theocentric. Yet Douma’s theocentricity recognizes the special place humans have as alone being made in the image of God. Douma argues for a critical understanding of the cultural mandate. Humans are to cultivate the garden, but to do so with a long future in view.

The third chapter outlines Douma’s proposed solution to the environmental issues of the day. He calls for a right attitude to be inculcated in people, such that technology is embraced for its beneficial properties and personal restraint is exercised well. He argues for a common sense approach to improving environmental conditions instead of a romantic plea for a return to a previous day. Those days weren’t better for a number of reasons. In this chapter Douma moves quickly through a number of issues from nuclear power to animal rights. Douma is dealing with attitudes, which means the nearly thirty years between his writing and the present do not undermine the value of his proposed solutions.

The final two chapters deal with the particular issue of genetic engineering. Chapter Four discusses it in general, while the final chapter discusses it in relationship to humans. Douma is careful to note the potential consequences of genetic engineering. Many of those consequences will not become apparent until long after the first steps have been taken. In principle, however, Douma is not opposed to genetic engineering, though he insists it should be done for the right reasons, with particular controls, and within limits. He discusses in detail some of the risks and benefits of genetic testing for early diagnosis and potentially creating designer children. Some of what Douma foresaw as potentially adverse conditions from genetic engineering has come to pass. So too have many of the positives. Still, Douma’s perspective is worth reading despite its dated content.

Conclusion

This book is worth reading because it is so far outside of the stream of environmental ethics that it reopens settled questions and has the potential to improve dialog. For the scholar writing on the topic of environmental ethics, Douma’s footnotes and bibliography are a goldmine of sources from well off the beaten path.

This book is part of an answer to a growing concern in my mind of the need of a well-written, deeply considered environmental ethics that is consistent with an evangelical theology. In general, Douma provides that. At worst, Environmental Stewardship should enhance the conversation by reopening “settled” questions by forcing consideration from a new angle.

Environmental Stewardship

$18.00

By J. Douma

Buy on Amazon

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

Is There Really Anti-Christian Bias?

Are Christians a persecuted minority or just a bunch of whiners? The answer you get to that question depends on who you ask. In some cases the answer is that both are true. In other cases the reality is that Christians overreact to other people’s dislike of their positions. However, according to sociologist George Yancey, there really is an anti-Christian bias in the United States, though it does not yet amount to persecution.

Both because of the question he picks up and the manner in which he answers it, Yancey’s latest book may be one of the most significant popular level books published this year. This is a book that will be a helpful resource for many pastors and laypeople for years to come.

Summary and Analysis

Yancey’s recent book from IVP Books is a popularized version of his co-authored academic tome, So Many Christians, So Few Lions. In Hostile Environment: Understanding and Responding to Anti-Christian Bias, he repackages the peer reviewed statistical research with careful analysis and thoughtful applications of the lessons learned. This is a book that pastors, professors, seminary students, and any Christian seeking to live and work in our culture should read.

A key term in Yancey’s book is Christianophobia. Personally, I dislike the word because the “phobia” tag has been co-opted and misused for people that have rational objections to the position or behavior of a minority. Yancey, however, carefully defines the term and uses it consistently throughout; this makes his usage palatable. His chosen definition is that Christianophobia  is “an irrational animosity towards or hatred of Christians, or Christianity in general.”  This definition seems fair. It captures what should be a fairly narrow slice of people that act irrationally negative toward Christians.

The research Yancey presents demonstrates that Christianophobia is not nearly as rare as we might hope. In fact, Yancey has showed that in academia in particular more than half of academics believe they are justified in rejecting Christians from tenure applications or simply not hiring Christians for academic positions to begin with. Yancey asks the pertinent and obvious question: Would it be OK to say you wouldn’t hire another demographic category or deny them tenure because of their inclusion in that demographic? The answer right now, according to Yancey’s research, is that most people refuse to consider that a valid question.

Yancey is not claiming there is an active conspiracy to ruin the lives of Christians: American Christians are not experiencing persecution like that of Christ-followers in other nations. Neither is he claiming that it is impossible for Christians to get jobs, earn a living, or be in some ways accepted in society. He is, however, claiming there is often an overt and acknowledged bias against Christians in society. He also argues that in general those who demonstrate Christianophobia view anti-Christian as acceptable. In other words, there are a number of people that just don’t like Christians and they think that is perfectly fine. 

Unlike some of the other societal biases, like anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, Christians in the West rarely have to fear for their physical safety. Yancey argues this is because “those who tend to have Christianophobia are in a better position to punish Christians in nonviolent ways because they possess more social power than those who tend to exhibit overt racism, Islamophobia or homophobia.” This makes anti-Christian bias more difficult to track, yet the surveys Yancey conducted demonstrate it is a real thing and relatively widespread.

Yancey salts the chapters with comments excerpted from the surveys conducted as a part of one of his academic studies. He chose them because they were representative, not because they were the most extreme examples of anti-Christian bias. I won’t quote them here, but the bile of them is rather telling. It is worth noting that the comments were from an anonymous survey, but that may eliminate some of the sugar coating that might otherwise exclude clear expression of opinions. The frankness of many of the comments is revealing, because it demonstrates an overt dislike of Christians that would be unacceptable for any other demographic.

Analysis and Conclusion

Hostile Environment is balanced in pointing out the inconsistencies in the Christian witness in the public square. Christianity is divided with many who claim the label being largely assimilated to the ethics of the culture. Or, on the other hand, many of those who are doctrinally orthodox are often shrill and inconsiderate when making their arguments. Sometimes the bias against Christians is deserved. However, Yancey points out, that bias goes much deeper than internal problems between self-described Christians can explain.

Toward the end of the book Yancey offers suggestions on how to remain a faithfully orthodox Christian and educate people about what that really means. He also provides some practical suggestions on how to deal with anti-Christian bias. These final two chapters are perhaps the most significant of the book, though not the most eye opening. There is room for further development and discussion on these topics, but Yancey does well to begin that discussion.

Yancey’s book is a must-read.  It appears that anti-Christian bias will remain a real thing and it is becoming even more politically acceptable to publically declare discriminatory beliefs against Christians and celebrate practicing such discrimination. If the Church is going to avoid capitulating doctrinal ground because of social pressure, we must think through how we are to live. If our children are going to learn how to be faithful in society, they must know something of the resistance to their beliefs. 

Hostile Environment: Understanding and Responding to Anti-Christian Bias

$10.56

By George Yancey

Buy on Amazon

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

A Review of the Mythology of Work: How Capitalism Persists Despite Itself

Peter Fleming writes a bitter screed against a version of capitalism and the concept of work in his recent book, The Mythology of Work: How Capitalism Persists Despite Itself. His basic purpose is to prove that, “We work, pay taxes, take care of the bills and commuting costs for one single reason: not to ‘survive’ but so that the governing elite gains its priveleges for nothing. Our labour is designed to provide freedom to the rich. Our work exists in order to subsidize the costs of their existence.”

The book, then, is largely a critique of what Fleming sees as an oppressive class system, where the middle and lower classes are firmly squashed by managers and owners of capital. This is a book that demonizes work and profit. It is essentially a moral complaint, although Fleming denies that in his conclusion. It is not a cheerful book, or one that provides real hope of change. In fact, in the conclusion, Fleming seems to abandon hope that even his critique can change anything. He labels his work inoperative, because he is both benefiting from and participating in the very system that he intends to critique.

Analysis

There are deep layers of irony in this book. Fleming is careful to note some of them in his own conclusion. As noted above, he recognizes that he, as a middle class university worker, benefits from the so-called oppression of others who are in a class below him in the economic food chain.

There are other clear ironies, though. In some ways, Fleming has an exceptionally high view of human nature. He believes that the economic system would continue and human flourishing would exist if only the managers and owners of capital would be replaced by a democratic body of workers. Thus the workers, executing the daily job, could replace the vision and ordering function that managers and corporate bureaucratic methodology provides.

At one level I am sympathetic with him. In previous jobs, I have often felt that I had a better view of the problem and a better hope of devising a solution than the administrators above me. However, sometimes my best solution was the best only for a limited population. The broader corporate perspective required a different approach or there was another solution that worked best for the company as a whole, though it was less than optimal in my small sphere. There were times I think I was right, but others that I was certainly wrong because I did not have the whole picture.

Fleming’s assumption is that everything would work out alright because the workers would make good long term decisions if they were only given the power. He fails to note that in many situations this is not the case. Although corporations sometimes make frustrating choices for short term benefit, the same is true for workers. Union strikes are nearly always couched as striving for worker’s rights or some absolutely necessary good. And sometimes this is valid. Sometimes, however, strikes and discordant negotiations are designed merely to extract the most near term gain for the workers. In other words, greed is sometimes still the motivation, and sometimes the fault is on the side of the workers.

Another basic assumption in Fleming’s calculus is the inherent goodness of humans. Yet, at the same time, he sees humans as pathetically weak. He describes debt as a form of slavery and faults banks for people’s consumer debt. There certainly are (and have been) cases of predatory lending, but the kind of consumer debt that Fleming describes as slavery is largely the result of excessive spending due to a lack of self-control. Fleming seems to argue that there is a deterministic force that is driving people to make bad choices. He ignores the fact that in many cases, these are bad choices that were made voluntarily for short term gain in recognition there would be a later price to pay.

A major problem with Fleming’s view of human nature is that he wants to have it both ways. Workers would make good choices if they had the opportunity despite the reality they have made poor choices when they have had the opportunity. This seems a bit sketchy.

Another problem with The Mythology of Work is that Fleming seems to be jousting a strawman. He has constructed a caricature of neo-liberalism (a term for a free market economic perspective) which closely represents crony capitalism in his portrayal. He assumes that the socialistic U.K. context that he is operating in is somehow an ideal situation according to a neo-liberal.

As someone who resonates with neo-liberal economics, I was not offended by Fleming’s critique because he was obviously not talking about me. It isn’t clear, however, whether he recognizes there is another option out there.

I was thankful that at the end Fleming proposes some solutions that would help resolve his critique. These solutions include: 1. A guaranteed minimum income with a max 1:3 ratio to top earners; 2. More mediating institutions; 3. Government ownership of utilities and other similar monopolies; 4. A three-day work week; 5. Eating less meat; 6. Providing non-monetary incentives.

Some of these suggestions are more helpful than others. Perhaps in another post I will engage with some of them. Some of them seem doomed to fail and unrealistic. For example, the guaranteed minimum income with a max income limit assumes that diminished returns (and unearned baselines) wouldn’t significantly undermine economic flourishing in society. In other words, there are some jobs people won't do for only a little more than the lowest skilled workers make. He anticipates this criticism, and dismisses it, but he never deals with it. Simplistic solutions like this rely on assumptions about human nature that seem invalid given human history.

Conclusion

Overall this is not a cheerful book. Fleming’s view of work is so negative that it seems he doesn’t recognize any redeeming benefits to work. What if our purpose is to serve one another through faithful work? What if the real problem is not work itself, or the system, but our idolization of money and our improper valuation of work? Fleming tries to resolve the problem created when workers identify themselves by their job by eliminating work instead of correcting the attitude. In the end, while some of his critiques are helpful, this volume left me looking for a more realistic solution.

The Mythology of Work: How Capitalism Persists Despite Itself

$27.00

By Peter Fleming

Buy on Amazon

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

Some Thoughts on Scripture, Theology, and Climate

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

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

Theology and Climate Change

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

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

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

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

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

Challenges for Contemporary Theologians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Memorial Day

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Do Views of the Environment Develop?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responding to Four Key Questions

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

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

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

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

Summing Up

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Then Should We Give?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should We Tithe?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Practical Lesson from Paul

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

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

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

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

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

Nonviolent Action - A Review

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

Analysis

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

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

Ronald Sider

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

$15.29

By Ronald J. Sider

Buy on Amazon

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

Should Christians Pay Taxes?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2] Stein, Mark, 545–46.

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

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

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