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.

The Christian Mind and Christian Worldview Education

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

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

He goes on:

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

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

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

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

Catechesis and Christianity

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

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

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

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

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

Catechesis and Christian Worldview Education

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Toward Reinvigorating a Christian Mind

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

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

Wipf and Stock

Buy on Amazon

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

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

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

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

Perception, Reality, and Failed Epistemology

Someone shared a post on Facebook. It’s one of those half-thoughtful pieces of writing from a website that make its living getting clicks that lead to them betting paid for the ads that dominate every page.

In this case, the article was more substantive than most, because it dealt with the way photos can manipulate public perception. In this case, they show a series of images in the article (it isn’t actually one of those annoying slide shows) of people apparently too close together in a line, except a different angle shows that the people are really about 6 feet apart. Then there are people that are “obviously” sitting closely together, but another photo shows they are actually a reasonable distance apart.

The purpose of the article is to show that images can mislead. And it does demonstrate that photographic evidence can misrepresent the actual circumstances. Good enough, as far as it goes.

However, the title and the first line of the article reveal a radical failure in epistemology (i.e., how we know things) that I believe is too common and is problematic. The fact that the article got through whatever editing process shows that someone actually thinks that reality—not simply our perception of it—is flexible.

Failure in Epistemology

The title of the article is wordy in that attention-grabbing inconclusive way: “Photographer Takes Pics of People in Public From 2 Perspectives and It Shows How Easily the Media can Manipulate Reality.” Unlike many titles it actually communicates the gist of what the post tries to argue. But the assertion that you can actually “manipulate reality” is the problematic phrase.

The article opens, “Everyone knows that reality is subjective. Our perception may change in an instant depending on how much and exactly what we know.”

The second sentence is exactly correct. Our perceptions will change radically depending on the facts that we are given. But “perceptions” in sentence two functions as a synonym for “reality” in sentence one. That is an epistemically horrifying statement, which is reinforced by the miserable generalization in the first line that “Everyone knows that reality is subjective.”

Given that this is a click-baity website post, I’ll forgive the Valley Girl tone of the piece. In fact, I am thankful for this little piece of unsophisticated folk-epistemology, because it reveals what I believe to be a commonly held perspective.

Reality is Fixed, Perception is Subjective

The authors of the article in question understand the rudimentary fact that reality is fixed, even though they state the opposite. “Everyone knows that reality is subjective” makes no sense as a statement in article whose point is that camera angles and lenses can be used to misrepresent true reality. Reality isn’t subjective, it is objective. The camera angles show how the misunderstanding can evolve.

But the subjectivity of reality, as it were, is a basic tenet of contemporary epistemology. It shapes the way many social sciences present their findings. It is the foundation of so many movements that center around identity.

“My perception is reality,” is the battle cry of social media, which has largely shaped our view of the world.

Early in the Corona Virus pandemic a medium sized Twitter-mob was mobilized by a video claiming that a white woman was racist, because she covered her face and moved away from an African-American man (we presume, based on who posted it and claimed to film it) who was filming her and began coughing in her vicinity. His caption stated that she was a racist and provided the video to prove it.

Knowing nothing about the person who took the video or the woman in the video, I have little to go on. She may, in fact, be a KKK member on weekends. But that video provided no evidence of it. In fact, all that is showed was that an exceptionally nasty individual was attempting to ruin someone else’s life by making accusations without evidence.

The video showed someone covering her face and moving away from someone who was coughing. It isn’t clear where or why that would qualify as a racist act in the middle of a pandemic.

At the point when we understood very little of how the virus spreads, it was wise for someone to cover their face and move away from someone coughing, when the subway was mostly empty and there was plenty of room to spread out.

But the “reality” of the Twitter-mob was shaped by their false perception created by the words over the video. She was a racist because (a) she was white, (b) because the videographer said so, and (c) because she moved away from someone when there is significant concern over life-threatening airborne pathogens. That was the scenario that lead to hundreds of people commenting on the video about the bodily harm they would like to inflict on the woman, how much they hate white people, racists, and anyone who might think to disagree.

Many of these people have been conditioned to believe that perception is reality. Thus, when the national news posts a picture of an activist beating a drum in the face of a teenager in a MAGA hat and tells us that the boy is harassing the elderly activist, there are some people that truly believe that, despite other photos, video evidence, eye witness testimony, and personal statements from the activist that contradict that initial reading. Perception is reality, especially if that perception supports my prior assumptions.

Or, consider the nakedly false assertion by Planned Parenthood and its supporters that the Center for Medical Progress’s undercover videos that exposed them selling dismembered parts of babies is deceptively edited. This narrative is conclusively believed because it has been asserted by a favored group (who is deeply invested in arguing that point), despite the posting of the full, unedited videos online for anyone to verify. For many people, perception, especially if it supports the right conclusions, is reality and nothing can shake that.

This is an epistemic nightmare that has been inflicted on society by people seeking to change society—sometimes for the better–– but has come to be adopted by the majority of the culture regardless of party affiliation or place on the political spectrum. Reality is not subjective. Our perception of reality is, though.

The Fruit of Bad Epistemology

In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, we are reaping the fruit of this bad epistemology.

There is legitimate confusion about a new disease, possible preventative measures, potential treatments, etc. The confusion isn’t necessarily the result of a failure on anyone’s part, it is often driven by people drawing early conclusions from insufficient information. Sometimes its just the best guess from what we know. Leaders are trying to make decisions to protect people with very little information, which may (and does) get contradicted by new information that comes weeks or even days later. It’s an unenviable position.

But as confusing information gets promulgated to a population primed to believe that reality is subjective, it is no wonder that different groups choose their preferred understanding of reality. That is exactly what the culture has conditioned people to do.

If feeling oppressed is the essence of oppression, even apart from any evidence of personal or systemic bias, then protest over a feeling of oppression is just as legitimate as anything else. If there is conflicting information or data from different settings that supports a desired action, then we have been told we can believe that absolutely as long as it is the politically preferred version. If labelling someone as racist or pathologically afraid of a sexual minority is enough to make it true, then excluding expert testimony that is based on the best data available is permissible if it comes from someone that can be labelled as part of the non-preferred group.

A large percentage of the major intellectual institutions have invested the past decade trying to convince people that obvious physical observations about sex and gender can be overridden by the approved intelligentsia with questionable pseudoscientific studies. It’s little wonder that now, when it comes to life and death, people have come to accept that epistemology. This time it’s working against many of those who want control and may, in fact, be working against the common interests of our communities.

Society has invested a generation or more in teaching people that reality is subjective. Now that it matters, we’re reaping the fruit of that position. We are due for an epistemological revolution.

Hope for Recovery

The answer is not to revert to the very modern idea that we can absolutely know objective truth.

The closest we can get to absolute truth is divine revelation, which still requires interpretation and systematization. Absolute truth exists and we should pursue it, but we’re not going to get it this side of glory.

One of the failures of modernity was that it presented an epistemology that ignores the position of the observer. There are roots to this perspective in ancient history, but, in part, they took off because of a shift toward placing humanity at the center of all knowledge during the Enlightenment. The Modern folk-epistemology that developed out of that teaches that reality is objective and that we can know it absolutely and objectively.

Post-modernity brought some blessings in that it reminded us that we are subjective people with biases. We stand in a particular place to observe. There is no way for us to totally step outside of our own viewpoint to see things perfectly as they are. This is helpful, because modernity often steamrolls those who view thing outside the accepted perspective.

But many people take that helpful revelation of post-modernity too far and argue that their viewpoint is reality. That is the folk-epistemology evidenced in the BoredPanda article that inspired this post. Thus, the media can “easily” “manipulate reality.” That leads to an even more unlivable society than the strictures of modernity.

We need a more incredulous people who are willing to question their assumptions before grabbing the pitchforks and torches or undermining millenia-old understandings of the world. We also need more honest curators of the news that make a faithful attempt to present reality as it is, rather than trying to score clicks and political points. Until our world has a better epistemology, we are in for perpetual conflict. We may also be in danger of an enduring pandemic because of deeply faulty epistemology.

The Madness of Crowds - A Review

I was on a major university campus recently and was struck first by the affluence that surrounded me. Beyond the significant tuition payments and nice dorm buildings, there were very few “beater” cars on display. Most of the vehicles looked fairly new—something radically different than the way college kids used to drive. The university is huge, so it is really a city within a city, and both of those cities are affluent. There was a rarefied air of wealth and sophistication.

More significantly there were posters, fliers, and bumper stickers that declared opposition to “colonization,” support of various identities, and a host of other positions that reside somewhere on the left-wing of global politics.

To be clear, racism remains a significant issue in our world and must be combated. There are still misogynists and cads who use their power to abuse and undermine women. There are bullies that pick on anyone who doesn’t fit in with certain norms and attempt to demonize them.

At the same time, there are significant points where the movements that are calling for “justice” along different lines of gender, race, and identity seem to make their arguments on indefensible and sometimes self-contradictory grounds. Though they profess to be concerned about others wielding power,they seem to be altogether too prepared to swing their own billy clubs, often figuratively and sometimes literally, in the name of their preferred positions. This extra-judicial enforcement of their ideas and positions seems to undermine the nature of justice as it has been understood in most civilizations of which we have record.

Douglas Murray’s book, The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity, takes a closer look at the various neo-Marxist movements to examine their foundations and abuses. Murray stands on what would be described the “conservative” side of many of these debates, since he indicates a belief in truth that should be pursued apart from one’s self-interest. At the same time, Murray is himself an openly gay atheist. This means that he certainly does not agree with many social conservatives on issues like the redefinition of marriage, the morality of same-sex erotic relationships, and the existence of God. This makes his critique of the various identity movements intriguing and, perhaps, more powerful.

Summary

As a gay man, Murray begins with a critique of the portion of that portion of the left’s culture war. While he is openly in support of recent inventions like the Obergefell decision that arbitrarily redefined marriage, he is careful to note that within the last decade, there were multiple gay-rights organizations, including the Stonewall organization, that opposed gay marriage. A big portion of his argument here is that, although he thinks the changes are largely good, it might be more reasonable to expect people who hold to millennia-old positions on sexual morality to take a while to come around to an affirmation of a newly invented concept.

In the second content chapter, Murray examines the current presentation of the feminist movement. His point in this chapter is that the movement is largely contradictory and puts everyone in a nearly impossible situation. There are obvious statistically significant differences between men and women in general, but to note those things publicly is, for some, a high crime. Attempts to undermine bias have created processes that necessarily bias organizations and culture in ways that tend to cut the feed from under those they are intended to help. In addition, the identity-oriented science arguments of feminism (e.g., there are no fundamental differences between men and women based on genetics) come into direct opposition with the theories favored by many in the various gay movements (e.g., there are fundamental differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals based on genetics), which creates issues. The issue becomes more epistemological than political at some point.

The third content chapter wrestles with the racial justice movement, which in its best aspects has led to awareness of systemic wrongs and worked to correct them. On the other hand, the same movement has also sought to make race (one of) the most important aspects of a human’s essence and thus made it more possible for systemic bias to continue or grow. In some cases, the result has been a new systemic bias against a different set of minorities, as has been evidenced by Harvard’s discrimination against Asians in admissions. This also puts people in weird spots, so that whites have to self-deprecate to speak against racism or be perceived as colonizers. The struggle in many cases seems to be more about power than truth.

The final content chapter discusses the transgender movement. Murray expresses sympathy with individuals who legitimately struggle with a sense of discomfort with their bodies and believe they would be more satisfied presenting as the opposite sex. At the same time, he notes that the movement for trans-rights has short-circuited the processes that might guard someone from making irreversible, life-altering decisions without considering that there might be another possible cause or solution. He discusses multiple examples where people who express minimal discomfort with their sex are quickly stepped down the road toward chemical and surgical transition, without a thorough vetting. Again, there are epistemological questions about the nature of truth and whether even asking questions (“Is your feeling true and lasting?”) is perceived as harmful.

Between each of these chapters is an interlude that explores some of the underlying causes and further consequences of this rapid epistemological shift. Murray discusses the Marxist foundations of the movement, which serves to continually enhance human discomfort by undermining power structures. He notes the impact of tech, with rapid communication, the inability to have a private conversation, and the work of Google’s search manipulations to present an alternate reality. Finally, he includes a section on one of the worst aspects of these movements, which is that there is no place or possibility of forgiveness. Statements that were uncontroversial a decade ago can now be used to destroy people who are deemed undesirable. Context matters little, as long as the right things are opposed violently and openly.

Analysis and Conclusion

Murray’s book is helpful in many ways. He points to the unsustainability of much of what passes for the social justice movement. The quest for destruction of power necessarily creates an oppressive power that will likely be as bad or worse a master.

The danger of Murray’s book is that his examples of gross abuses of various identity movements to pursue hatred and destruction of the innocent may lead some to believe that we need only resist those movements. That is most likely to occur among those who don’t actually read the book, or do so only cursorily. Murray takes concerns for the persecution of gay and trans individuals seriously, but notes that the movements that claim to support them are destroying the possibility of their being accepted or the society that will be able to accept them. In attempting to shift the Overton window, these groups may rip the house off its foundations, leaving us all cold and miserable in the winter storms.

The value of this book is that it looks beyond the gross abuses of violence and power by the various identity movements to interrogate the intellectual basis and question the logical conclusions. The result is an exposé that is illuminating, even if readers do not agree with all of Murray’s conclusions. There are a few points where Murray seems to drift a bit into outrage porn, but on the whole, he takes a fairly balanced view and calmly makes his arguments. This book, of course, is likely to be panned as violent oppression by many within the various justice movements simply because it questions some of the foundations and outcomes of their movement. However, it would benefit many on the left and the right to read the book and consider their own positions.

The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity

By Murray, Douglas

Buy on Amazon

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