Vaclav Havel and the Power of the Powerless

There are at least two types of tyrannical political order. The first is one that is implemented by brute force with soldiers or police patrolling everywhere looking to enforce the ruler’s will on a frightened population. The second type of tyranny is one enforces by the people on the people. There is always a coercive force, but it does not require constant patrols by soldiers, because people (whether they believe in the tyrannical policies or not) enforce them or call in the authorities to do so.

Of the two types of tyranny, the second is the more awful. There will always be some toadies in an oppressed culture that will jump over to the other side and work with the oppressors in the first type of tyranny, but the vast majority of people will outwardly comply, but inwardly hope for and be prepared to assist a rebellion. Resistance is cheered, even in small things. This is a totalitarian system of government.

In the second form of tyranny, internal cultural forces demand absolute compliance and offer little hope of freedom. It requires the deletion of civil society—those groups that exist for non-political purposes and which hold societies together—and their replacement with government authorized programs. The second form of tyranny induces citizens, even those who do not explicitly favor the government’s policies, to enforce them through social pressure and, sometimes, by calling in the government’s enforcers. There is little room for people to live in dissent. Vaclav Havel calls this second form a post-totalitarian system.

In Vaclav Havel’s essay, “The Power of the Powerless” he describes what it means to live in a society in which dissent is impossible. He is speaking of his experience in Czechoslovakia, where he was a significant member of the resistance that eventually contributed to that nation being freed from communism.

Havel describes a simple act by a greengrocer, who one day refuses to put the approved Party sign in his windows. He does not believe that “Workers Unite” has any particular significance in a political system designed to entrap everyone in a miasma of misery. He may have already declared his allegiance in various public and semi-public ways through participation in Party activities, without ever believing the concepts. But one must go along to get along.

And yet, though many of the customers will not particularly care about the sentiment “Workers Unite,” because it has no real meaning, the minor resistance of the greengrocer in no affirming the approved common sentiment will be deemed a rebellion. In a post-totalitarian society, social auto-totality will lead to conformity, as word will spread and reach the authorities who will by force ensure compliance, often by removing the right to work. It may not be physical force that is brought to bear, but commercial and social pressure.

The crime of the greengrocer was simply to stop living the lie. He had never truly believed the slogans, like most of the population, but had simply done what was needed to get by. In that moment when he chose to stop putting up slogans, stop voting in farcical elections, and, perhaps, even positively voice an opinion at a political meeting, the greengrocer will have begun to live in the truth, but society will not allow it.

Havel writes as one who has experienced a post-totalitarian system under Communist rule. He worked against the system, though the system did not acknowledge him, and eventually became the prime minister of Czechoslovakia after the end of the Communist oppression ended.

We, however, are seeing the beginning of a very different regime of oppression that is being brought to bear on society more gradually and yet no less insidiously. At present, there is still room to live in the truth, but there are an increasing number of voices looking to make the lie the only possible way of life.

Consider, for example, the rush to ignore differences in sexual expression and the demand to support various forms of LGBTQ lifestyles. One may think those good or not, but participation in much of society is now becoming dependent on active, public affirmation of those lifestyles. There is no room for neutrality or even quietly thinking, along with many of the voices in human history, that this is an unhealthy lifestyle. Instead, employers require affirmation of “diversity” along arbitrarily invented lines, which necessarily exclude diversity of thought, or, really, any thought at all. To refuse to wear a rainbow ribbon on the culturally approved day or affirm the latest evolution in sexual ethics is a form of open rebellion, much as the green grocer’s refusal to post the sign, “Workers Unite.”

At times there is force of law behind these edicts, as with the states that are attacking bakers and florists that decline to participate in same-sex wedding celebrations, but much of the punishment for violating societal norms is meted out by regular people. This is an auto-totality. In Western culture, it is likely to get worse before it gets better.

Havel’s concerns are certainly different than those we face in the auto-totality, but the methods used by the contemporary culture to gain and maintain control are similar to those used by the Soviets in oppressing the people of Eastern Europe. Havel’s essay, “Power to the Powerless,” is informative because it provides a roadmap for those who disagree with the consensus that is being hammered over society to maintain their integrity and not live the lie.

The hope of the resistance should be to create an existential revolution, so that people see and pursue a radically different way of thinking and knowing. That is, the resistance needs to demonstrate that an alternate, moral reality exists and live in a way that points people toward it.

As Havel writes,

“Above all, any existential revolution should provide hope of a moral reconstitution of society, which means a radical renewal of the relationship of human beings to what I have called the ‘human order’, which no political order can replace. A new experience of being, a renewed rootedness in the universe, a newly grasped sense of ‘higher responsibility’, a new-found inner relationship to other people and to the human community – these factor clearly indicate the direction in which we go.”

Havel wrote his ideas on living in truth to fuel an existential revolution leading to moral reconstitution when the fall of communism still seemed unlikely. As the storm clouds of our present auto-totality continue to deepen, we may find it necessary to tighten the boundaries of our contrast communities, rebuild the moral structures within them, and live with greater integrity to demonstrate the plausibility of our moral vision for the world.

The Power of the Powerless: Citizens Against the State in Central Eastern Europe: Citizens Against the State in Central Eastern Europe

By Havel, Vaclav

Buy on Amazon

The Humane Economy of Wilhelm Ropke

To some people, free market economics is the worst social evil of our age that is responsible for every other social evil. What causes Racism? Capitalism. Child abuse? Free market. Objectification of women? The market economy. War? Economic liberty. Poverty? The same. Bad hair days? Definitely capitalism, too. You get the idea.

On the other hand, there are others for whom free market economics are akin to the good news of Jesus Christ. Andrew Carnegie did, after all, write a book called, The Gospel of Wealth, which largely extols the market economy. There are others to this day who see capitalism as not merely permissible by God, but actually required by a correct reading of Scripture.

In reality, liberty, including economic freedom, is a necessary condition for human flourishing, but it isn’t a sufficient condition. The free market economy the cleanest dirty shirt we’ve got. Like any human system, it has sinful people involved, so it is subject to abuse and distortion. Unlike other human economies that have been envisioned, it has the best means to keep people’s natural tendencies toward evil and oppression in check.

One of the most careful proponents of a free market that I’ve read in Wilhelm Röpke. He was a German who emigrated to Turkey in 1933 because of his resistance to the National Socialist regime. Early in his life he was inspired by socialism, later by the Austrian school of economics, and finally landed on a position that encourages a free market with targeted and limited government interventions. Röpke argued for what might be described as a humane capitalism. Röpke was one of the main thinkers that inspired the creation of the West German economic system after World War II, which helped to shape its balance between social welfare and free market, a system that resulted in West Germany rapidly recovering and developing into an economic power, with East Germany lagging behind, mired in socialism.

Röpke’s classic book, A Humane Economy, is an important book for socialists and libertarians to read so they understand both the needs for and perils of a free market.

One of Röpke’s concerns is over “mass society.” It was the enmassment of human activity that Röpke had witnessed in the rise of fascism in Europe before the war. Like other forms of socialism, the National Socialists ceased to recognize people as individuals or small units, and pursued global solutions with a faceless homo economicus as the actor. This faceless stand in for humans sometimes makes a good generalization, but it fails to take into account the goodness of owning a business, of small firms being able to compete in a grand economy, and of individual craftsmanship. At the extremes, unfettered capitalism and socialism lend themselves to aggregating humans into the faceless mass. Röpke was just as opposed to corporate monopolies as he was to state monopolies. Unlike some contemporary neoliberals, Röpke recognized that the power of the state was essential in preventing any sort of monopoly from forming.

What makes Röpke particularly significant is that he honestly represents the damage that redistributive programs like welfare can have as they encourage inflationary economics and can reduce the incentives to engage in meaningful economic activity. At the same time, he demonstrates that well-designed welfare systems can be essential to provide a safety net and can actually prevent the worst cases of abuse by the state and by corporate entities. Röpke is exactly the sort of thinker that will make people on both poles of contemporary social and economic debate uncomfortable, which is one of the best reasons to listen to him.

Another important aspect of Röpke’s perspective is that he emphasizes the necessary balance between collectivism and individualism. Both ideas in the extreme are debilitating to society. Röpke writes, “Man can fulfill his nature only by freely becoming part of a community and having a sense of solidarity with it. Otherwise he leads a miserable existence and he knows it.” A more apt criticism of most forms of socialism and the contemporary economy in the United States could not be written. In socialism, one is forced to assimilate with the mass, to contribute as the authorities deem necessary and to receive in exchange only that which the collective deems warranted. In late post-industrial capitalism, one tends to be isolated from the collective, set to gain what one can earn on her own, and catechized to believe that individual freedom is something of a summum bonum. To some degree, at least, Röpke seems to offer a golden mean.

In A Humane Economy there is resistance both to state totalitarianism and the totalitarian utilitarianism of some economics. But he is unquestionably opposed to the ravages of Communism. Röpke argues:

“Totalitarianism gains ground exactly to the extent that the human victims of this process of [social] disintegration suffer from frustration and non-fulfillment of their life as a whole because they have lost the true, pre-eminently non-material conditions of human happiness.”

He continues,

“What the free world has to set against Communism is not the cult of the standard of living and productivity or some contrary hysteria, ideology, or myth. This would merely be borrowing Communism’s own weapons. What we need is to bethink ourselves quietly and soberly of truth, freedom, justice, human dignity, and respect of human life and the ultimate values. For these we must set our course unerringly; we must cherish and strengthen the spiritual and moral foundations of these values and vital goods and try to create and preserve for mankind such forms of life as are appropriate to human nature and support and protect its conditions.”

This sort of attitude is what makes Röpke so helpful. He recognizes the horrors of socialistic economics, but also sees the abyss that is a purely materialistic utilitarian capitalism. Röpke reminds us that at the heart of the economy is the human. We are not graphs and statistics alone. Those things can be helpful, but they are not enough. We need to be more humane by treating people around us like humans. Economics can only function when it is constrained by virtue.

A Humane Economy: The Social Framework of the Free Market

By Röpke, Wilhelm

Buy on Amazon

Consumer Debt and the Coming Recession

For those that pay attention to such things, the news is filled with extreme views about the current and future state of the economy. At the same moment in time, there are pundits arguing that most Americans are in abject economic misery, while others argue that life has never been better economically. One group is arguing that imminent economic doom is upon us, another tells us that things are only going up from here.

If most of us are honest, in the decade since the Great Recession, things have generally gotten better for most people. However, in many cases, people do not feel great about the economy and, at the same time, are setting themselves up for problems during the next recession.

The Inevitability of Recessions and Stock Declines

News reports predicting a coming economic recession or a significant stock market decline are correct. They have no idea when those things are going to come, but some sort of economic perturbation is pretty much inevitable.

One of the more interesting aspects of our attention economy is that when the next economic dip happens, its significance will be determined, in large part, by how people respond. For example, if people get skittish and sell during a stock market decline, that will make the stock market decline even worse. If people alter their consumer behaviors radically during a recession, that is likely to make the recession worse.

More significant than whether and when a recession is coming (it is and who knows) is how we are living day to day in anticipation of those events.

A Plea for Simple Living

There is no question that some people are struggling to meet basic necessities already. Due to a medical condition, loss of a job, a very low wage job, or bad debt choices earlier in life, many people are living paycheck to paycheck. If that is you, then feel free to check out. This post is written to the vast majority of us who are in the middle class and have some economic margin.

We once received a gift subscription to a magazine called Real Simple that amounts to an advertisement for a high-end consumeristic minimalist lifestyle. All the pictures were of perfect rooms with “simple” solutions to problems like magazine storage or whatever, but the solutions always cost hundreds of dollars. The result was an aesthetic simplicity, but that’s not how they got there. According to that style magazine, simplicity is a consumer good that is really expensive.

Simple living is less about what stuff you own and more about what activities and services you deem necessary. Simple living at its best is simply asking what aspects of life are necessary and eliminating those that don’t fit that definition. Another definition is that simple living is asking what we do that glorifies God and minimizing the extras.

When we stop asking risk vs. reward questions about our lifestyle choices, we put ourselves into the situation like the couple making $160,000 who were described as living in “modest oppression” because they “couldn’t afford” everything they wanted. Alyssa Quart’s description of the largely self-caused mental and emotional stresses of the middle class in her 2018 book, Squeezed, should serve as a warning to rational minds to make better choices.

As Christians in the American middle class, we really need to begin asking “why” questions if we are going to be effective stewards of our time, treasure, and opportunity. We have the means to get the gospel to the ends of the earth and instead we are spending our money to overflow landfills with useless plastic.

The simple life is about being focused on what adds gospel-value to the world and spending our money on that.

Avoiding Comparisons

Also in Squeezed, Quart writes, “While Americans overall may live better than medieval aristocrats could even dream of, that means nothing when oligarchs live next door, flaunting their luxurious homes.”

The funny thing about comparisons is that we tend to make them with those living above our means. Very few of us look at those who are legitimately struggling financially and go home thankful for our abundance. Instead, largely due to the mystique of television and movies in which everything is always perfect, we continually moan about the inadequacy of our resources.

There is a reason God gave us the 10th Commandment.

Did you have a nice vacation at home? Well, the other guy at work took his kids on a safari adventure. Now that vacation doesn’t look so good.

Does your daughter enjoy soccer? The neighbor down the street does, too, so they’ve invested thousands into clinics, travel teams, physical training, and other goods and services designed to get their child ahead. Suddenly the local rec league isn’t very compelling.

There isn’t necessarily anything wrong with a big vacation or pursuing excellence in sports, but those are often excesses that we try to have without making sacrifices to compensate.

The result is that many people who are making a whole lot of money are spending all of it and a little bit more.

Rising Debt Loads

One of more frightening statistics, in my opinion, is the rise in household debt to the levels prior to the 2008 recession.

The Great Recession was rough for a lot of people in large part because people were up to their ears in debt when the problem started. For a few years society seemed to learn a lesson, but now it appears that we have forgotten.

I’m not on the “no debt ever” train, for a variety of reasons. However, I do believe that we typically position ourselves better to survive economic downturns if we minimize debt and seek to eliminate it when times are good.

A lot of the debt right now is being driven by a perception that the stock market is going to keep going up and up. In the long run this is probably true, but there may be a point at which half of the money invested in the market will “disappear” just like it did in 2008 and 2009. That is never a great feeling, but it is a really terrible feeling when you know that your pay is likely to stagnate for a while, you may lose your job, and the company bonus you budgeted to pay for your vacation is unlikely to materialize. In other words, when you are up to your ears in debt, the clouds of economic doom look a lot more ominous.

Market expert is not a title I’d claim, but I remember the pain of debt-ridden people who had a high salary but large payments and weren’t seeing the economic growth they were counting on. One way to eliminate that pain is to avoid debt and eradicate it. To do that, we should consider the common causes of debt.

The Cause of Debt

The problem most middle-class Americans have is that they are spending too much on things that they enjoy too little and bring too little glory to God.

Instead of comparing ourselves to our neighbors, we ought to be regularly asking of every expenditure how this glorifies God. We will certainly get things wrong from time to time, but a gospel-focused consumer mind will likely resist the urge to overspend on things that really do little good for anyone.

Once we get above a certain financial level, most debt is driven by buying more car than we need, a nicer house than necessary, services that we only use occasionally, and products that offer little benefit in the long run. Evaluate your household spending for the last year with a critical eye and this will likely become self-evident.

This means that rather than being trapped in system that makes us do bad things, we are in a culture that encourages us to do dumb things and we usually don’t invest the will power to stop.

For most of us, our debt is a problem we have created by being unwilling to limit our consumer choices to that which glorifies God.

We are setting ourselves up for misery in the future with our choices today. Why not begin making simple, better choices that will leave us happier when the next downturn comes?

Back to Virtue - A Review

If I had the opportunity to spend a week with one living scholar, I would probably spend it with Peter Kreeft. There is wisdom and breadth in his writings that would make conversation—better yet, simply listening—an intellectually and spiritually edifying experience.

Kreeft has authored a massive number of works. All of those that I have read have been stimulating, entertaining, and helpful. His work is saturated by a love for God, an appreciation for Lewis and Tolkien, and an intellectual humility that makes journeying along with him a pleasure.

Recently as I re-read his 1986 book, Back to Virtue, which, by its title, is something of a response to Alasdair McIntyre’s book After Virtue. McIntyre is, of course, doing something broad and sweeping and is engaging in diagnosing the problems of a highly relativistic society that has no common moral compass. It is mainly description, with the reader left to develop the solution on his own. Kreeft’s book provides something of a solution. A return to the virtues as they were understood in the medieval Christian tradition. (One of Kreeft’s most significant academic works is editing The Summa of the Summa, thus creating an accessible version of Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica. He is, thus, deeply familiar with the Thomistic virtue tradition.)

The book is divided into two parts. The first part lays out the case that society is unhealthy because people are generally not virtuous and, more significantly, virtue is not seen as something to be striven for. Published thirty-four years ago, these three chapters are interesting largely because they adequately describe our own day and age. The landscape has obviously changed, with the Cold War and the seeming imminent threat of nuclear war a distant memory, but his diagnosis still appears to be accurate.

In the second part, which is comprised of eleven chapters, Kreeft shifts to discussing virtue. In Chapters Four and Five, he defines and explains the four cardinal virtues and the three theological virtues respectively. Chapter Six makes the argument that the Beatitudes help confront the seven deadly sins. The Seventh through Thirteen Chapter each have a meditation on one of those sins and how the Beatitudes help counter them: pride, avarice, envy, anger, sloth, lust, and gluttony. Kreeft closes with a brief exposition of the benefits and goodness of virtue.

This book is refreshing. It is not new material, but the combination of a deep trust in the intellectual and spiritual heritage of the Christian tradition with an affirmation in its goodness makes the both pleasing and instructive to read. Kreeft reminds his readers that it’s good to be a good guy but that most people won’t agree. He writes,

“Moral traditionalists, who believe in the wisdom of the past, seem to their opponents like drab, dour doomers and damners. But they are not. They are rebels, for in an age of relativism, orthodoxy is the only possible rebellion left; and they sing as they fight. They have hope even as they pronounce judgment on our civilization. All the prophets offer hope. The patient is not dead yet.”

This brief passage illustrates the joy of reading Kreeft. He offers critique, but it is a critique with hope. His criticism of culture is not a call to destroy it, or wound those in it who disagree with us. Instead, it is a call to be the sort of person that would make a better society and then to salvage the good of civilization from within. More importantly, he still believed in 1986 it is possible, and his book makes the reader believe that he is correct.

There is no answer to the turbulence of the world around us. No simple solution will resolve the evils of society, cause racism to evaporate, erase the rift between Left and Right, or diminish poverty and all the structural ills of this world. But there is hope in the slow and steady progress toward holiness––through good, old fashioned goodness as it was defined by the saints of yesteryear and through the words of Jesus himself––if we are willing to take up the task.

Back to Virtue: Traditional Moral Wisdom for Modern Moral Confusion

By Peter Kreeft

Buy on Amazon

12 Ways Your Phone is Changing You - A Review

There is a moment of panic when you feel like you’ve lost something vitally important. It can cause a shot of adrenaline as you look around you, feel your pockets, and ask others if they have seen it. Usually after a few seconds your find where you left your phone, sitting on the counter or in the seat beside you. The crisis is averted. No big deal. Except it reveals one of the critical dependencies of our age.

Jacob Shatzer, in his book, Transhumanism and the Image of God, discusses the phone as an extension of humanity. He notes that smartphones and tablets often function as an extension of our minds, holding data, organizing thoughts, and becoming an essential means of retention and communication.

In his 2017 book, 12 Ways Your Phone is Changing You, Tony Reinke focuses on how smartphones are shaping our minds, our perceptions, and reality. As we seek to understand discipleship in this technological time, this book is a critical resource for parents, pastors, and teachers to see how this often helpful and seemingly innocuous technology is having an enormous impact.

Summary

Given the title, it is not surprising that the body of Reinke’s book consists of twelve chapters, to which he has added an introduction, conclusion, and brief epilogue. The argument is structured as a chiasm, with chapters 1 and 12 forming a pair, so that the whole book centers around two chapters that focus on identity, since identity is a question of perennial significance in the human experience.

Chapter One begins by observing that modern humans are addicted to distraction. This is not up for debate for those of us who find ourselves compelled to look at our phones constantly to see whether we’ve gotten a text, what has happened on social media, or simply because there is a dull spot in the movie we are watching. Chapter Twelve argues that because of this addiction we have lost our sense of time. That is, our present physical reality is absorbed into an ethereal “now” that causes us to neglect the world in our immediate vicinity.

The second chapter notes that our distractedness causes us to ignore the physical world around us. Surrounded by our friends, we find ourselves occupied in digital dialogue. Facing the incredible responsibility of driving a multi-ton machine down the road, we are more concerned with the chimes and chirps of our silicon companion. This is fleshed out in the eleventh chapter where Reinke observes that people are often less kind to others, both in person and online, because we ignore their humanity in the face of their digital avatar. There are real ethical consequences to our digital projection.

https://www.bdcwire.com/the-internet-fell-in-love-with-this-picture-of-the-black-mass-premiere/

Chapter Three argues that smartphones have increased our need for immediate approval. Delayed feedback is devastating. If the likes and shares don’t pile up immediately, then our digital existence is for naught. If we aren’t digitally amazing, then we are not really worth anything. Chapter Ten highlights the connection between this desire for approval and the Fear of Missing Out (FOMO) that characterizes so much of online life. We are drawn to envy and deceit as we try to match everyone else’s highly edited digital reality. This is a dangerous condition for the human soul.

In the fourth chapter Reinke highlights the impact that smartphone addictions have had on literacy. When I worked at a Christian liberal arts university, I was surprised to hear faculty discuss the number of our students who admitted they had never read a full book. I was also shocked to hear students argue that they didn’t need to learn (i.e., memorize) anything because they could always use their favored search engine. The always-on tunnel of information that the smartphone enables has made people more ignorant and less literate. This, in turn, leads to a loss of a sense of meaning, which is outlined in the ninth chapter. Stories are one way that humans have captured and transmitted the meaning of life through generations. By cutting ourselves off from the ability to read, listen to, or watch whole narratives, we cut ourselves off from the ways that meaning has been communicated in previous generations. This is tragic.

Chapter Five focuses on the way that smartphones turn us into consumers who objectify the people we watch. This is true with the explosion of internet pornography mediated by smartphone technology, but also in the way that we watch models and celebrities on social media. Chapter Eight then outlines how the objectification of humans can lead us to secret vices like pornography, gossip, and other sins of various depth. It becomes easier to participate in some of these anti-human vices because the pixelated being on the other end seems much less human to us.

Chapter Six reminds us that we are shaped by what we “like” on social media. This is true in at least two ways. First, we become like that which we fixate upon. When we absorb media, it shapes the way we think. Second, to maximize traffic, the algorithms of social media and search engines are designed to feed us what we have already shown an interest in, which only perpetuates the transformation of our informational feasting. Chapter Seven turns this to show that this tendency leads toward isolation as we get narcissistically caught up in a self-shaped reality and turn away from the people around us.

Conclusion

I was expecting Reinke’s book to be much more technophobic. In fact, he recognizes that value, convenience, and, perhaps, the necessity of smartphones in our technological age.

And yet, this book provides a significant warning of the ways that we can and are being transformed by something that has become so ubiquitous that we may be tempted to ignore its impact.

This is an important book for people to read. It is balanced and well-researched. The time-bound nature of the research will tend to limit its direct applicability over time as technologies continue to advance, but the lessons in the book are timeless.

12 Ways Your Phone is Changing You is, like Andy Crouch’s Tech-Wise Family and Nicholas Carr’s The Shallows, a book that grasps the real challenges of our day and helps us navigate through the seismic shifts in society that cannot be ignored.

In Search of the Common Good - A Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Meador, Jake

Buy on Amazon

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

On Sin and Our Duty to Fight It

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Sin

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

Herman Bavinck describes sin as,

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

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

According to J. C. Ryle,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dealing with Sin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3] Augustine, Enchirideon, 40–41.

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

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

[6] Owen, Overcoming, 50.

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

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

Conspiracy Theories - A Review

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

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

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

Nature of Conspiracy Theories

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

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

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

Epistemological Authorities

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

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

Conspiracy Theories and Political Power

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

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

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

A Response

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conspiracy Theories: A Primer

By Uscinski, Joseph E.

Buy on Amazon

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

Conservatism: An Invitation to the Great Tradition - A Review

Early in 2020, many conservatives mourned the passing of Roger Scruton, one of the most articulate and consistent voices of conservativism in the 20th and early 21st century. Scruton left behind a legacy of books, interviews, and thoughtful critique of the world that were sometimes masked by the controversy inducing reactions that his non-conformist thought had in an increasingly hostile and progressive world. But Scruton was, if nothing else, consistent in offering an invitation to all parties to join him in appreciating the good, the true, and the beautiful.

One of his last books, Conservatism: An Invitation to the Great Tradition, is an outstanding example of Scruton’s careful thinking and ability to express himself. This book traces the intellectual roots of the social and political conservatism back to its roots as an opposition force to classical liberalism beginning in the Enlightenment.

In the contemporary social and political arena, especially in the United States, there has been an oversimplification of the shape and impact of worldviews. Because the US has two parties, there is sometimes an assumption that one is either “progressive” or “conservative.” Since many of the progressive policies and proposals are objectively bad and obviously unjust, this has led to conservative being defined as a reaction to those evils. But that means that “conservatism” as it is witnessed in contemporary American politics is really just a different flavor of progressivism.

In contrast, Scruton argues, “Conservatism emerged at the Enlightenment as a necessary counter to the excesses of liberal individualism, and its arguments are as valid and relevant today as they were when they first began to take shape in the seventeenth century.” This very short book, written in accessible prose, is an invitation for those who consider themselves conservative or are dissatisfied with what passes for conservatism in contemporary politics to find intellectual roots in something that transcends the battles of the talking heads in our day.

The book is divided into six chapters. Scruton begins with pre-Enlightenment philosophy. He claims that modern conservatism (rightly defined) has its roots in Aristotle, particularly in his Politics. Scruton notes, “The most important input into conservative thinking is the desire to sustain the networks of familiarity and trust on which a community depends for its longevity.” This is a radically different thing from the rabid pursuit of individual liberty that characterizes a great deal of conservative (really libertarian) thinking today.

In Chapter Two, Scruton shifts to the birth of philosophical conservatism. He considers the works of the American founders, of Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, and others. As a movement, conservatism stood in opposition to radical individualism. Chapter Three discusses the early influences of conservatism in Germany and France. Especially in light of the radical liberalism of the French Revolution, Scruton notes,

“Only where customs and traditions exist will the sovereignty of the individual lead to true political order rather than to anarchy; only in a community of non-contractual obligations will society have the stability and moral order that make secular government possible. . . . Liberalism makes sense only in the social context that conservatism defends.”

Scruton offers a surprising appreciation for Hegel in this section of the book.

The fourth chapter outlines the shift from political conservatism to cultural conservatism. In the face of political liberalism and economic displacement, there was a significant cultural movement to preserve the sense of the good, true, and beautiful that enabled the foundation of the liberal worldview. Chapter Five shows how conservatism has interacted with socialism. A key point in Scruton here is that, though there is overlap between some of the thinking between economic libertarians and conservatism, there is not a total overlap. However, socialism is caustic to social connections and, thus, has typically been opposed by conservatives whether it has taken the form of communism or a softer version of socialism. The conservative has traditionally resisted the dehumanizing aspects of excess industrialization and the dehumanizing effects of socialism simultaneously.

The final chapter outlines the present state of conservatism. He writes,

“Modern conservatism began as a defense of tradition against the calls for popular sovereignty; it became an appeal on behalf of religion and high culture against the materialist doctrine of progress, before joining forces with the classical liberals in the fight against socialism. In its most recent attempt to define itself it has become the champion of Western civilisation against its enemies, and against two of those enemies in particular: political correctness (notably its constraints of freedom of expression and its emphasis in everything on Western guilt) and religious extremism, especially the militant Islamism promoted by the Wahhabi-Salafi sect. In all these transformations something has remained the same, namely the conviction that good things are more easily destroyed than created, and the determination to hold on to those good things in the fact of politically engineered change.”

Conservatism is both critical of what passes for that movement in contemporary parlance, and corrective, in that it offers a vision of what conservatism should be. Whether one agrees that pursuing the good, true, and beautiful is a worthwhile endeavor, this book is a helpful introduction to the intellectual roots and basic contours of a significant movement in the history of the West.

Conservatism: An Invitation to the Great Tradition

By Roger Scruton

Buy on Amazon

Is Creation Care a Progressive Political Issue?

Concern for the environment in the United States tends to be identified as a progressive political position, and is often associated with deeply contentious issues like abortion, which most Christians rightly find morally repugnant. However, the identification of creation care as a progressive political issue is due more to unfortunate historical accidents than the nature of the issue itself. Outside of the United States, where political divisions are shaped by different forces, political conservatives are more likely to advocate for environmentalism publicly. Often the debate over environmental policy between political progressives and conservatives in the United States is really a debate over the role of government in pursuing the common good.

Conservation and the National Park Movement

The conservation movement in the United States has its roots in Puritan attitudes toward the common good and the value of creation. Communities in New England were built around land use patterns designed to benefit the community and ensure the productivity of the land for the long term.[1] This attitude spread throughout colonies and was later embodied in the conservation movement.

The first national park was created in 1872 when the Yellowstone Act was passed, declaring that a large tract of land in Wyoming and Montana was “reserved and withdrawn from settlement, occupancy, or sale under the laws of the United States, and dedicated and set apart as a public park or pleasuring-ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people.”[2] This was a monumental political accomplishment that has politically progressive roots.

The early conservation movement was identified with political progressives––a political movement that was concerned with supporting human ingenuity around the beginning of the twentieth century––especially with the public advocacy of conservationist Gifford Pinchot, a Presbyterian and the head of the Federal Forestry Division. Pinchot’s vision of conservation was largely utilitarian. He wrote, “The first great fact about conservation is that it stands for development. . . . Conservation demands the welfare of this generation first, and afterward the welfare of the generations to follow.”[3]

Pinchot’s democratic, instrumental hope for the conservation movement was directly and publicly opposed to John Muir’s vision for the preservation of lands, untainted by human development. When dealing with the Pinchot’s proposal to construct the Hetch Hetchy dam in Yosemite, Muir wrote, “These temple destroyers, devotees of ravaging commercialism, seem to have perfect contempt for Nature, and, instead of lifting their eyes to the God of the mountains, lift them to the Almighty Dollar.”[4]

The very public debate between Pinchot’s Conservation movement, which was rooted in the progressive politics of his day, and John Muir’s Preservation movement, that opposed the utilitarian understanding of nature, puts the political fault line in a different place that it falls in the early twenty-first century. One danger in assigning labels like “conservative” and “progressive” to historical causes is that issues change, allegiances shift, and ethics that are not grounded explicitly in Scripture tend to morph over time. Muir’s radical conservative attitude toward preservation of nature unspoiled by humans sounds more like a contemporary progressive position, while Pinchot’s perspective tends to align with a more conservative position today. But both positions might be deemed too progressive for some contemporary political conservatives.

Environmentalism and Progressivism in the Late Twentieth Century

The apparent division between pro-environment progressives and conservative opposition to some forms of environmentalism in the United States grew much clearer in the 1970s. In 1968, Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford biologist wrote his famous book The Population Bomb, which argues that the growing population of the earth was overburdening the ecosystem and would result in ultimate destruction of the environment and negative consequences for all of life.[5] Ehrlich explicitly tied hope for Earth’s future to availability of contraception and legalization of abortion.

In 1970, environmentalism was still a bi-partisan concern. The first Earth Day was co-sponsored by Republicans and Democrats. Republican Richard Nixon’s administration, better remembered for the corruption of the Watergate scandal, is considered to be one of the most environmentally positive administrations, marked especially by the formation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).[6]

Because of the broad concern for the environment, Nixon also commissioned the Rockefeller Commission in 1970 to study the relationship between the rising population and American prosperity. The resultant report, Population and the American Future, published in 1972, would help cement environmentalism as a progressive political issue in the minds of many American Christians because it made recommendations including government opposition of “legal, social, and institutional pressures that historically have been mainly pronatalist in character,” and “enabling individuals to avoid unwanted childbearing, thereby enhancing their ability to realize their preferences.”[7] Practical recommendations for implementing the Commission’s lofty sounding recommendations included open advocacy for legalization of abortion, government-funded distribution of contraceptives, and even capping the number of children per family. Understandably many orthodox Christians reacted negatively to these suggestions.

Nearly simultaneously, the culture wars over abortion were ramping up in the United States, with the Supreme Court handing down the contentious Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in all fifty states. The overt connections between support for abortion and advocacy for the environment converted an issue that was largely a prudential argument over how natural resources would be preserved and utilized for the common good into a hotly disputed political weapon that has come to represent a sharp progressive-conservative divide in American politics.

A Two-Party System and Political Division

The relationship between political progressivism and environmentalism is exacerbated in the United States by the established two-party political system. Though there is some variation within each major party, the platforms created by the parties tend to divide along fairly clear lines. Because socially progressive anti-natal policies, such as advocacy for abortion on demand and government mandated access to all forms of contraceptives, have become associated with environmentalism in the United States, right-leaning politicians have tended to oppose many of the pro-environmental proposals Often the basis for rejection of supposedly “common sense” environmental legislation arises because of differences of opinion about the role of the government.

Despite political rhetoric arguing that politicians who oppose particular environmental regulations are advocating for dirty water and an increase in global warming, conservative U.S. Senator Ben Sasse’s statement sums up the basis for opposition: “Everyone wants clean water but the bureaucrats at the EPA were out-of-control, writing new laws to regulate puddles and ditches from Washington. Nobody cares more about land and water than Nebraska's producers but nobody here at home voted for these absurd regulations.”[8] While not free from his own politically-charged language, Sasse notably frames his approval of the repeal of the regulations as disagreement over the nature of governance not the goal of the regulations.

The two-party system in the United States and the radical divergences between the worldviews advocated by both parties helps explain how a fundamentally conservative issue—the proper care and use of the environment––has become the field of unique concern for political progressives.

Global Conservation and Conservativism

Outside of the United States there tends to be a smaller divide between political conservatives and progressives on the issue of the environment. The Tories, more properly known as the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom, have made green politics a vital part of their center-right platform in the twenty-first century, with Prime Minister Theresa May proposing a twenty-five year plan to improve the environment.[9] The need to build coalitions between a plurality of parties to form governments reduces the binary nature of politics, as is found in the United States, opening up opportunities for cooperation despite disagreement in a way that is much more difficult in the US.

Similarly, in Germany the conservative Christian Democratic Union has agreed to work for reducing carbon dioxide emissions and other environmentally concerned policies, based on a need to form a coalition with Social Democrats, another significant political party. This pattern tends to repeat itself across Europe.

These examples raise a question about the nature of conservatism. What someone describes as conservative or what gets branded as conservativism may vary depending on the political issues involved, the sponsorships of the media outlet, and the period in time. Definitions matter as does clear thinking about the issues at stake and the actual goal of environmental policy.

Roger Scruton’s Environmental Conservativism

Sir Roger Scruton offers a particular model of conservative environmental thought. While serving at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank, Scruton offered the world a thoroughgoing conservative environmental philosophy in his book, How to Think Seriously About the Planet: The Case for an Environmental Conservativism. According to Scruton,

A conservative environmental policy does not aim at a healthy environment but at other things, which have a healthy environment as their effect. . . . The aim is to establish the conditions under which people manage their own environment in a spirit of stewardship, and in such a way as to facilitate the political actions that may be necessary to accomplish what the “little platoons” cannot embark on.[10]

There is little doubt of Scruton’s politically conservative bona fides. His conservative ideas about aesthetics, politics, and social organization were the cause of political outcry among political progressives when he was named to a voluntary position on a board of a U.K. government housing committee.[11] He advocates for limited government, a free market, and the rule of law, all of which are trademark issues of the traditional conservative movement.

Scruton’s argument is not simply that conservative thought can tolerate environmentalism, but that they are “natural bedfellows.” He writes, “Conservatism and conservation are two aspects of a single long-term policy, which is that of husbanding resources and ensuring their renewal.”[12] This represents the sort of conservativism that directly opposes forms of progressivism that radically revise human institutions and are often instrumental in policies that have long-term negative consequences for human flourishing.

Environment and the Role of Government

In part, political progressives in the United States have tended to latch on to environmental issues because they seem to be solvable with an expanded government. The EPA that Nixon created during his presidency was intended to solve legitimate, widespread concerns like the extreme pollution of rivers, such as the Cuyahoga River fire in 1969. It was one of several rivers to be so extremely polluted by industrial waste, but served as a rallying point for Earth Day in 1970 and for much of the environmental movement in the late-twentieth century.

Political conservatives, while rightly concerned for clean air and water, have observed the expansion of federal bureaucracy into issues of local concerns, as Ben Sasse observes in the quote above. Much of the contemporary rhetoric about potential solutions for climate change from political progressives has involved significant increases in centralized government regulation over individual decisions. According to conservatives, such centralized control over environmental decision often neglects to evaluate the burden of regulations, passes the cost of compliance to those least able to bear them, and fails to account for localized factors that might impact implementation of regulations.

There is clearly more to the discussion of the role of the government than this post includes. However, it is clear from this brief discussion that much of the opposition among political conservatives to environmentalism is due to differing ideals for the implementation of policies that support the common good, rather than a different goal.

Summary

Creation care is not fundamentally a progressive political issue. In fact, it should be a primary concern and more naturally belong within the platform of political conservatives. Instead of seeking common ground and developing a shared vision for the common good, many political conservatives have mistakenly abandoned advocacy for the environment because it has become associated with progressive political causes like the continued legalization of abortion on demand and the growth of a centralized bureaucratic-style government.

[1] Mark Stoll, Inherit the Holy Mountain: Religion and the Rise of American Environmentalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 54–76.

[2] National Park Service, https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/anps/anps_1c.htm, NPS.gov (accessed 12/31/2018).

[3] Gifford Pinchot, The Fight for Conservation (Garden City, NY: Harcourt Brace, 1910), 42.

[4] John Muir, The Yosemite (New York: Century, 1912), 262.

[5] Paul Ehrlich, Population Bomb (New York: Ballantine, 1968).

[6] Byron W. Daynes and Glen Sussman, White House Politics and the Environment (College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, 2010), 66–83.

[7] Commission on Population Growth, Population and the American Future (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1972), 78.

[8] Senator Ben Sasse, https://www.sasse.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/2/sasse-praises-unwinding-of-waters-of-u-s-rule (accessed 12/31/18).

[9] Her Majesty’s Government, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/

attachment_data/file/693158/25-year-environment-plan.pdf (accessed 12/31/18).

[10] Roger Scruton, How to Think Seriously About the Planet (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 376.

[11] Dan Sabbagh, https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/nov/06/sack-roger-scruton-over-soros-comments-demand-labour-mps, Guardian.com (accessed 12/31/18).

[12] Scruton, How to Think Seriously About the Planet, 9.