Population Control and the Moral Order of the Created Order

In a previous post I worked through some of the worldview of Edgar Chasteen, a one-time Southern Baptist professor of Sociology who advocated for compulsory birth control. Along the way he put some spectacularly anti-human ideas on display, including advocacy of abortion, regret over medical advances reaching the developing world. He also advocated for an individualistic morality including a sexual ethic redefined around the therapeutic. In short, he got a lot of stuff wrong.

However, in his book, The Case for Compulsory Birth Control, there is a paragraph of that shows he recognizes there may be light behind the clouds. It’s a moment when it seems he realizes the horror his worldview is capable of. He writes:

“The control of population size is of the utmost urgency, but we must understand that control is only a means to an end––that end being survival, both of humanity and humanness. I say this because some of those currently recommending population control measures have obviously forgotten it. Their proposals read like a catalogue of horrors. While they might preserve life, they would destroy the reasons for living. To survive, we would have to abandon most of the virtues and values which sustain us.” (192)

The man affirms the legalization and promotion of the killing of children in the womb through elective abortion, so it isn’t like this gives him a crown to toss at Christ’s throne, but it is telling that he recognizes that there must be a point to morality, a purpose toward which ethical action is aligned.

For Chasteen that end is humanness and survival of the species, which is a fairly low bar. But he recognizes that certain actions would take away that humanness.

And yet, Chasteen’s ethics allow no basis for preserving humanity or humanness. He summarizes his metaethics by this statement: “An action is moral only when prompted or hindered by what is right as defined by the individual conscience.” There is, therefore, no reason for survival of the species or a nebulous notion like “humanness” to be retained based on his summary of ethics; it’s all about what each individual feels is important.

Chasteen’s argument plays out in much the way C. S. Lewis describes in The Abolition of Man. Lewis writes,

“The Innovator attacks traditional values (the Tao) in defense of what he at first supposes to be (in some special sense) ‘rational’ or ‘biological’ values. But as we have seen, all the values which he uses in attacking the Tao, and even claims to be substituting for it, are themselves derived from the Tao.” (41)

Those trying to change morality often do so by declaring one “big idea” of utmost importance:

“The Innovator may place economic value first. To get people fed and clothed is the great end, and in pursuit of it[,] scruples about justice and good faith may be set aside. The Tao of course agrees with him about the importance of getting the people fed and clothed. Unless the Innovator were himself using the Tao he could never have learned of such a duty.” (42)

In the case of Chasteen, the “big idea” is survival of humanity, but justice toward the unborn and good faith toward particular humanity is less important than that end. And yet, the end is derived from outside his system of ethics. There is no basis from within Chasteen’s individualistic, subjectivist morality for concern about the preservation of humanity.

Lewis demonstrates what this looks like in his novel, That Hideous Strength. One of the leading villains argues:

“Existence is its own justification. The tendency to developmental change which we call Evolution is justified by the fact that it is a general characteristic of biological entities. The present establishment of contact between the highest biological entities and the Macrobes [i.e., supernatural beings] is justified by the fact that it is occurring, and it ought to be increased because an increase is taking place.” (295)

Furthermore, Filostrato (a villainous character) asserts:

“In us organic life has produced Mind. It has done its work. After that we want no more of it. We do not want the world any longer furred over with organic life, like what you call the blue mould––all sprouting and budding and breeding and decaying. We must get rid of it. By little and little, of course. Slowly we learn how. Learn how to make our brains live with less and less body: learn to build our bodies directly with chemicals, no longer have to stuff them full of dead brutes and weeds. Learn how to reproduce ourselves without copulation.” (173)

And, then:

“Nature herself begins to throw away the anachronism. When she has thrown it away, then real civilization becomes possible. You would understand if you were peasants. Who would try to work with stallions and bulls? No, no; we want geldings and oxen. There will never be peace and order and discipline so long as there is sex. When man has thrown it away, then he will become finally governable.” (173)

It may not be necessary to throw away sex itself, as long as sex can through technical means make the natural purpose of sexual intercourse unavailable or punishable. That was the goal of the Population Control movement, it is the goal of parts of the environmental movement, and it is a dangerous goal to have shaping moral decisions.

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

Wipf and Stock

Buy on Amazon

Chasteen did not attain the degree of rejection of the Tao that Lewis’ character did in That Hideous Strength, but he is well along the path, based on his 1971 book. More significantly, society is well along the pathway to the abolition of humanity, and we ourselves can easily be carried along with it if we don’t watch our step.

There are reasons why sexual ethics has become the primary fulcrum of our society and that there is increasing pressure to reduce human population. There is implicit within those arguments a denial of God’s goodness and the moral order of the created order. But the goodness of sex and humanity cannot be established apart from the moral order of the created order, thus the movement is parasitic and transitory. We need to recognize it, remain free from the errors of its thinking, and communicate a better way to our friends, family and neighbors through the gospel of Christ.

A Look at One Case for Population Control

In the deep, dark corners of the Southern Baptist Convention’s theological past is a sociologist who taught at a Missouri State Convention affiliated college, wrote for the Christian Life Commission (the precursor to the ERLC), and advocated for abortion, forced sterilization, and legal penalties for exceeding an approved number of children. Since that point, his college disassociated from their denomination and Chasteen went on to form a non-profit organization dedicated to affirming the equal validity of all religions. Just how Baptist or even Christian Chasteen is or ever was is up for debate. There is little in his 1971 book or his various websites that can connects him to anything like Christian orthodoxy.

The thesis of Chasteen’s book is “that unless we act now to legislate a limit of two children per family, we have little hope of solving the other problems that beset us.” (vii) That problem Chasteen describe as an insidious disease: “The cancer of runaway population growth has eaten away both heart and soul of the body politic. We are on the verge of anarchy with only our will to survive and our determination to act staying our fall.” (33)

For Chasteen, every problem was driven by overpopulation. He writes, “If, as a nation and as individuals, we can summon the intelligence and the courage to bring population growth under control, we will find ourselves still faced with problems of race relations, crime, alienation, apathy, environmental degradation, and so forth, but with one big difference. The problems will then be capable of solution, whereas now they are not.” (33)

Chasteen echoes Paul Ehrlich’s popular book, The Population Bomb, in his concern for the growing number of individuals on the planet. His book, The Case for Compulsory Birth Control, was written while the Rockefeller commission was composing their report, which was commission and subsequently rejected by Nixon. Like Chasteen, the Rockefeller commission affirmed eugenic policies, widespread birth control funded by the government, and the expansion of access to abortion. Unlike Chasteen, the Rockefeller Commission only advocated for voluntary sterilization.

The entire tenor of Chasteen’s book is anti-human. He expresses concerns that “Death rates in the industrializing nations began to drop while birth rates remained at their previously high levels.” (25) Which leads to complaints that Americans shared medical technology with developing nations with a false sense of compassion and without permission.

Argues Chasteen:

“America has shared its medicines with the world, thinking that by doing so it was saving millions of people from early death, and so it was. . . . [However,] we were operating on a foundation of mistaken morality which made keeping people alive and end in itself. We inoculated, immunized and sprayed, and we felt good about our actions. . . . Motivated by benevolent ignorance of social forces and human desires, America played unintentional havoc with the destinies of nations and peoples. . . . In some parts of the world death rates were cut in half in only a decade, and sometimes without the consent or knowledge of the governments affected.” (26–27)

There is more, but it does not get much better.

At the root of Chasteen’s ethics is an individualistic, subjectivistic presumption: “An action is moral only when prompted or hindered by what is right as defined by the individual conscience.” (187)

In light of that naked assertion, Chasteen argues, “What this means is that a new rationale for sexual responsibility and exclusiveness is needed.” (187)

Chasteen demonstrates a full-throated adoption of the sexual revolution:

“Contraceptive technology has made it possible to separate sexual intercourse from conception, making it possible (and necessary) for us to rethink the philosophy of sex worked out before contraception. A very simple formula can be stated:

coitus – contraception = procreation

coitus + contraception = expression” (184)

He celebrates the individualism and autonomy of human sexuality because sex became disassociated from procreation, so that a woman on chemical birth control “can express her sexuality as she expresses her opinion––because of the meaning it has for her as an individual.” (184) He makes a similar argument for males who have had vasectomies.

Chasteen makes clear what contraception has done for sexual ethics in contemporary society:

“Contraception makes it possible to view sex as voluntary, interpersonal behavior rather than a necessary act of survival. Sex becomes a special method of communication between male and female. Sex thus loses its exclusively biological meaning and becomes more social. Like all social relationships, sex can be made constructive or destructive, depending upon the attitude and behavior of those involved. Sex can become a dialogue between two people in which comes to understand and appreciate the other. It can be an expression of the mutual dependence to human existence. Sex can be an enriching and compassionate human encounter or simply another opportunity for exploitation, satisfying a biological urge but destroying humanity socially and spiritually. It’s up to us.” (189)

There are a lot of strands to unwind in Chasteen’s writing on the subject, but he makes explicit the arguments that are assumed in our culture regarding the purpose of sex. The autonomous self is the champion of Chasteen’s moral vision, with no reference to the Christian faith, historical or otherwise. It is the individual alone who determines what is right. (A belief that undermines Chasteen’s plea that his perspective is the correct one, but whatever.)

Several lessons can be gleaned from reading books like Chasteen’s, The Case for Compulsory Birth Control.

1.       There were good reasons for the Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention. Chasteen advocates for multiple anti-Christian positions that are untenable with anyone remotely committed with the content of Scripture. The convention had to rid itself of the cancer of those like Chasteen to survive as a gospel-focused entity.

2.       The population control movement, which is now growing because of concerns over climate change, has its roots in a dark movement that has to find a way to mourn the decrease in suffering due to premature death. It has not, as far as I can tell, found a way to do so, it has simply tended to skip over the assumption that it would be better if the superfluous people didn’t survive past their age of usefulness.

3.       Beware people who see one big social problem as the key to all other problems. A big idea like overpopulation, systemic racism, or climate change can be used as a way to blind listeners to the moral evil being proposed on one front for the perceived good result on another. Society is complicated. Solving climate change won’t fix poverty. Eliminating systemic racism won’t reduce our carbon footprint. Limiting population growth will not eliminate crime. It is impossible to attain a good society through persistent evil.

Eschatological Discipleship - A Review

Trevin Wax is one of the most incisive cultural commentators in the evangelical community. He has a talent for moving past pearl clutching about trends in pop culture by asking foundational questions about the ideas that animate to moral activity in entertainment and society. His 2018 book, Eschatological Discipleship is an overt presentation of the theological analysis that is evident in the background of Wax’s popular books and blogs.

Eschatology is the oft neglected and frequently abused topic in Christian systematic theologies. As Wax notes, discussions of the end times in seminary courses tend to be stuck on the end of the course syllabus and often are the first to get axed when discussions of soteriology and ecclesiology run long at the beginning of the semester. More often, the term eschatology is understood to mean endless debate about the nature and timing of the rapture, the intrigue of the mark of the beast, and various theories on the millennium.

This book gets beyond the most common pitfalls of eschatological debate to focus on the core issue of eschatology as it is woven throughout Scripture. In particular, Wax emphasizes the idea of eschatology as a source for telos; it is the theological topic that provides the best evidence for the meaning of life. In other words, eschatology is not primarily about charts and timing, but about providing a lodestar of eternal purpose to navigate life in ever-changing times.

In Eschatological Discipleship: Leading Christians to Understand their Historical and Cultural Context, Wax does something few treatments of the topic do: he offers an analysis of the eschatologies of worldviews that compete with Christianity. His analysis of the eschatology of the Enlightenment, the Sexual Revolution, and Consumerism are unique in their revelation of the unspoken, but evident meaning encoded in those rival systems of meaning. This book provides a framework for discussing the often-obscured theologies of those movements.

Wax begins the book with a chapter defining the term eschatological discipleship. He argues, “eschatological discipleship is spiritual formation that seeks to instill wisdom regarding the contemporary setting in which Christians find themselves (in contrast to rival conceptions of time and progress) and that calls for contextualized obedience as a demonstration of the Christian belief that the biblical account of the world’s past, present, and future is true.” (p. 41) This definition makes clear Wax’s aim, which is to present a theological argument that unquestionably leads to obedience.

In three chapters, Wax presents a biblical theology of eschatological discipleship, beginning with the Old Testament, then focusing on the Gospels and Acts, and concluding with a survey of the topic in Paul’s letters. It becomes evident through this survey that all of Scripture encourages Christians to ask, “What time is it?”, so they can understand their culture and how they should live in their particular context to the glory of God.

Chapter Five presents the idea of eschatology within non-Christian thought, which leads the way into the helpful analysis of the next three chapters. In the sixth through eighth chapters of the book, Wax performs a critical analysis of the eschatology of the Enlightenment, the Sexual Revolution, and Consumerism, which all compete with Scripture to dominate the worldviews of Christians in our age. In the final chapter, Wax shows how his presentation of eschatological discipleship can enhance the practice of evangelical theology and equip every church member to better respond to the confused theologies around them.

Trevin Wax is one of the most gifted writers among evangelicals. This academic book is no exception. The prose is clear and the arguments careful. He manages to raise concern about the real problems within the dominant culture of the West without calling for withdrawal or reflexive combativeness. Eschatological Discipleship is a specimen of Christian scholarship in its most helpful form: theologically precise and readable.

Those who have read other books by Wax will likely see the connection between another of his recent books, This is Our Time: Everyday Myths in Light of the Gospel, and this volume. Eschatological Discipleship makes clear the theological framework that This is Our Time presents in a practical, popular format. The close connection between the two books offer an example for Christian scholars for how to translate scholarship for broad consumption and how to most efficiently steward their research by pitching their arguments to multiple audiences.

Eschatological Discipleship is a useful resource for pastors and scholars seeking to understand the contours of contemporary culture better. Theologically informed laity will likely find this book an accessible and informative volume, too. This is a book that will have enduring value for its analytical content and exemplary argumentation.

NOTE: This article was originally posted at the B&H Academic Blog, which has since been archived due to a change in strategy.

One Child - A Review

China’s one child policy offered promise of economic blessing, but has resulted in sociological disruption leading to economic problems, leaving trauma and tragedy in its wake. This is an example of a government trying to plan its way to prosperity.

In a 2012 book, One Child: The Story of China’s Most Radical Experiment, journalist Mei Fong explores the impacts of the technocratically-driven population policy instituted by China several decades ago.

One Child is an engaging book. Fong writes clearly, tells captivating stories, and systematically arranges the book in a way that makes it an enjoyable and informative read.

One of Fong’s main goals in writing One Child is to demonstrate that the infamous policy of Communist China is not the blessing that some have argued it to be. She writes,

“It took me a while to realize that, contrary to popular thinking, the one-child policy had very little to do with China’s double-digit economic growth of the past thirty years, and will actually be a drag for the next thirty.” (9)

Fong came to realize that people are both consumers and producers. Although she does not articulate the idea clearly in her book, it seems that she also recognizes that the economy is not a pie of a fixed size. That is, having more productive citizens does not mean that the same wealth must be distributed to more people more thinly. It means that more people will produce more wealth, which can be available to many people. The economy is not a zero-sum game.

The tragedy of the one-child policy is manifold. Fong notes that the policy has created a class of non-citizens in China who, because they were the extra child born over the limit, cannot be registered and cannot get health care, an education, or jobs. They are the hei haizi, “black children,” undocumented and ignored.

One of the more frightening aspects of the one-child policy has been the eugenic emphasis. Fong argues, “Chinese authorities were never shy about stating this aim of the one-child policy: fewer births, higher-quality births.” (28) The right people should be able to procreate to create the right sort of citizen. The result of such policies is always horrific abuse of human rights.

Fong tells the story of one factory worker pregnant with her second child. She believed she was qualified for an exemption, but the local officials disagreed. They demanded an exorbitant fine, which her family could not pay, and was subsequently forced to have an abortion. Fong writes,

“Feng, meanwhile, was made to sign an agreement she voluntarily consented to the abortion. On June 2, she was injected with a substance to kill the fetus. She later said, ‘I could feel the baby jumping around inside me all the time, but then she went still.’” (61)

Furthermore, “In some parts of the country, pregnant women without birth permits were marched off in handcuffs to undergo forced abortions.” (70) In the 1990’s, the policy expanded to punish behaviors that could be more or less linked to unsanctioned births, “Women were fined for living with a man out of wedlock; for not using contraception, even if it didn’t lead to pregnancy; or simply for not attending regular pregnancy checkups. In Jiangsu, women had to line up twice monthly for pregnancy tests and publicly pee in cups.” (73)

Contributing to this, there was “a wage incentive for birth-planning officials, which was tied to how many sterilizations and abortions they were able to achieve. . . . [According to one former official,] ‘Some girls were forced to get surgeries even though they weren’t pregnant at all.’” (75]

The enforced abortion regime is one of the most horrific aspects of the policy that Fong records. Interestingly, she herself is a proponent of abortion and considered terminating her first pregnancy, which later ended in miscarriage, which only makes the horror of her stories more apparent.

The sociological impacts of the one-child are also striking. Fong details how combining one-child policies with a culture that expects children to take care of their parents puts extreme pressure on children to get into lucrative careers so they and their spouse can support their own child plus up to four parents and, potentially, grandparents as well. The emotional burden on the child who fears failing a test and being forced into factory work is obvious.

China has also instituted minimum ages for marriage. A man cannot get married before he is 22 and a woman before 20. But if school is not complete and a career not established, then marriage will logically be delayed. Subsequently, the age of marriage goes up and the window of fertility shrinks. The result is increasing infertility, which is making it more difficult for some workers to conceive and bear even the quota of children they are allowed.

Fong’s book is a helpful exposé of the regime in China. It is a reminder that government tinkering in families and biology are often ill-fated, even when they have positive motives. It is also a reminder of the horror of abortion that underlies many zero population growth or other population control movements. These are consistently pitched as “voluntary,” but once the government steps in “volunteerism” often shifts to coercion. People should be careful what they wish for.

One Child: The Story of China's Most Radical Experiment

By Fong, Mei

Buy on Amazon

Are Ethics More Important than Theology?

Why do some Christians love theology more than people? After all, from an eternal perspective, people matter more than ideas. It does not matter what you believe as long as you are doing good things in the world. Some people who do not even believe in Jesus are better Jesus-followers than Christians—these people are the real Kingdom of God.

If you read progressive Christian blogs or follow left-leaning Christian pundits on social media, you will have likely heard some of the assertions in the previous paragraph. Some form of them is repeated often enough to be recognizable at a glance.

The basic claim of those who make these claims is that practical Christian ethics is the heart of Christianity, while Christian theology is mere speculation about things that are largely unknown and mostly unknowable. Ethics is reality; theology is speculation. Therefore, ethics is more important than theology.

As a Christian ethicist, I heartily affirm the importance of Christian ethics. However, faithful Christian ethics presupposes a foundation of orthodox Christian doctrine. An authentically Christian ethics is the superstructure on a foundation of an orthodox, biblical theology. We cannot do ethics apart from theology.

In her excellent essay “Creed or Chaos?” Dorothy L. Sayers argues,

It is worse than useless for Christians to talk about the importance of Christian morality unless they are prepared to take their stand upon the fundamentals of Christian theology.

She goes on to explain that Christian morality without a doctrinal foundation quickly becomes humanism, which eventually fails to motivate right action.

Doctrine is the very heart of ethics. Unless you believe the right things, there is little hope that you will do the right things. If someone does not believe that humans have inherent value, they are unlikely seek to relieve their suffering or may justify doing harm while calling it good. Proper concern for the wellbeing of other humans is not self-generated; it arises from an anthropology that values people as made in the image of God. When anthropology fails, so does true compassion for other humans.

For example, movements that advocate for voluntary euthanasia are often couched in terms of individual autonomy and alleviation of suffering. Assisting in the suicide deaths of the old and the infirm is ethical if your anthropology presumes that humans have a right to self-determination and that human suffering is purposeless. A deep theological sentiment lies behind a pro-euthanasia ethic. Ethics springs from a foundation of those doctrines that are believed.

Jesus is clear about belief being the basis for human action. Luke records him explaining the relationship between the act of speech and the beliefs of the heart: “A good man produces good out of the good storeroom of his heart. An evil man produces evil out of the evil storeroom, for his mouth speaks from the overflow of the heart” (Luke 6:45, HCSB). Bad beliefs will lead to bad character, which will lead to bad actions.

Those who seek to affirm ethics over theology are wrong to diminish the importance of doctrine. However, a fairer critique could, at times, be that theologically sound Christians sometimes fail to live out the ethics that are demanded by their theology. Such was Carl F. H. Henry’s criticism of early evangelicalism.

The core theme of Henry’s brief volume The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism is that doctrinally orthodox evangelicals (i.e., those who held to the fundamentals of the faith) often fell into the trap of repudiating social ethics simply because social activism was associated with modernist, theologically liberal Christians. This led faithful and theologically sound Christians to reject just action to mitigate harms, though those actions would have occurred in ways that were consistent with and even demanded by a doctrine faithful to Scripture. Such failures, Henry argued, caused early evangelicals to have an uneasy conscience.

Henry’s indictment of his own theological tribe should come as no surprise, since Jesus’ words about the overflow of the heart are followed immediately by a sharp rebuke of those who have a proper faith, but fail to act on it (Luke 6:46-49). Or, in perhaps the most misunderstood verse in Scripture, James 2:14-17 reminds Christians that faith that does not lead to ethical application is dead.

The problem in these situations is not that people were concerned about right doctrine, but that they failed to act upon it. Perhaps they understood the theological propositions, but did not have a living faith to drive them to live the ethical implications of those doctrines. These critiques are reasonable. However, the assertion that doctrine is unimportant is untenable.

The assertion “ethics matters but doctrine does not” requires a presumption that theology is abstract while action is concrete. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ethics is abstract to the extent that even our good actions are tainted by sinful motivations and have unknown consequences. Theology—the study of God and his works—is concrete inasmuch as its object is known and knowable. Orthodox doctrines are not arbitrary constructions that satisfy the desire for completeness and intellectual attainment of theologians and exegetes. Most theology is done in the crucible of real-life concerns in an attempt to discern what is right and godly, which is the only possible foundation for a Christian ethics. Again, Sayers is helpful as she describes the formulation of doctrine:

Dogmas are not a set of arbitrary regulations invented a priori by a committee of theologians enjoying a bout of all-in dialectical wrestling. Most of them were hammered out under pressure of urgent practical necessity to provide an answer to heresy.

This is no less true about the doctrines that undergird human sexual ethics than it is about teachings that deal with Christology. The church has often had to specifically codify previously assumed or unconsidered doctrines in the face of innovative challenges that threaten to undermine the doctrinal core of Christianity. This does not represent a failure to love the people who hold faulty doctrine: it is a sign of faithfulness to the one who calls Christians to love people. Paul’s admonishment is to speak truth in love, not to reject truth in the name of love (cf. Eph. 4:15).

Christians would do well to live out their faith. They would also do well to ponder Jude’s words to the church, which include a call to contend for the faith—the sound doctrine—that was given to the saints because those who rejected those teachings led others to practice bad ethics (Jude 3-4). Christianity is not merely about right doctrine, but orthodoxy cannot be rejected without a grave cost to ethics.

NOTE: This article was previously posted at the B&H Academic Blog, which has since been archived due to a change in media strategy.

Reading the Times - A Review

Most local newspapers are dying. The little paper in my city has been reduced to high school sports, complaints about the nearby nuclear plant, classified ads, and the occasional social gossip. More and more newspapers are shifting to a model of reprinting what comes through on some subscription service. This has had the effect of trivializing the news, so that local stories about small-scale, but important deeds like a teen giving her father CPR or a child finding the foundation of an old historical building while exploring the back woods disappear. In their place we get news about a smaller and smaller set of less and less real people who happen to have a large following on social media, their own TV show, and might have moderate talent in some other area of life. We end up knowing more about a rich, beautiful, spoiled person whom we will never meet than we do about our neighbor down the block.

The media by which we take in the news of the day affects the trivialization of the world, though it does not mandate it. Many people get their news from social media, which means that it tends to be ideologically slanted toward opinions shared with one’s friends. Since one of the basic presuppositions of our society is that if you associate with someone you agree with them, a bubble of reality begins to form. And, since the art of disagreeing temperately on social media is difficult to learn, opposing ideas are often avoiding or ignored rather than engaged and questioned. Comments are either strongly affirming or attacking the opinion under consideration, because to say “yes, but” or “maybe this, yet not that” is a needle that few can thread from a keyboard.

But it is our behaviors that trivialize the news. We share articles with misleading headlines, sometimes without having read the body. We look for opinions that excoriate our outgroup. The algorithm feeds our human behavior and continues to provide the material for which we have developed a taste. And we must be clear that our taste has been developed through our own actions, or, at least, through our own failures to resist the tendency of the news medium to trivialize our view of the world.

What can we do about it?

Jeffrey Bilbro’s book, Reading the Times: A Literary and Theological Inquiry into the News, provides both an apt diagnosis of the problem and some particularly helpful steps toward alleviating it. The result is a succinct, clearly-written book that is accessible to the layperson.

Bilbro’s diagnosis is not particularly innovative. He is channeling the energy of Wendell Berry, Jacques Ellul, Neil Postman, and Thoreau in arguing that the way news is presented is not good for the human condition. In application, Bilbro’s solutions are much more reliant on Berry and Thoreau (whom Bilbro has written about previously) than the other two thinkers. In any case, innovation is not what is needed, but intelligibility and digestibility.

The core of the problem, as Bilbro presents it, is not necessarily the technology or the content of the news, but rather that too much of what we get that passes as news has very little to do with our lives, even though it is designed to rattle our cage. What we get angry or excited about often has little to do with what God is concerned about:

“Perhaps we need to conduct an emotional audit and consider which issues or news items cause us to become angry, outraged, or excited: Are we grieving over what grieves God and rejoicing over what brings him joy? Or have we become emotionally invested in trivia while growing apathetic about matters of real import?”

Bilbro recognizes that a big part of the problem is the way we read the news. As a result, the fix is to change ourselves and what we value. This is a book that is timely and well suited for those looking for an off-ramp from the highway of partisan politics, misanthropy, and emotional turmoil that often goes with the news.

After a brief introduction, in which Bilbro explains that his purpose is to help us understand how to use the news to love our neighbor better, the book is divided into three parts with three chapters each. Part One deals with attention, Part Two with time, and Part Three with community. The pattern of each part is to present the modern problem in the first chapter, put out a somewhat abstract better condition in the second chapter, and then provide some realistic practices that can help transition between the two. This pattern of problem, better vision, and help to get there makes this book a novel contribution.

Bilbro does not abstain from social media, nor does he recommend that for his readers, but he provides a means to put social media use in its place. He doesn’t recommend disconnecting from news media, but being more thoughtful of who we read, when, and how. The book presents a realistic vision of living in a world that demands our participation, but threatens us through our participation at the same time.

Much of Bilbro’s writing has had a localist bent. Like his hero, Wendell Berry, he has invested a great deal of thought in how to live in this place, right now. Modernity tends to flatten the world (a la Friedman) and create a tyranny of the eternal immediate present. Bilbro points to living better with an eternal viewpoint and a local scope, which is just the opposite of the way the news pushes us to have a global scope with an immediate viewpoint. This book won’t solve all of everyone’s problems, but it is another piece in a puzzle of dealing with the malaise of modernity.

In addition to being helpful and well-written, for those engaged in the study of modernity, this book ties a lot of pieces together. The footnotes are a roadmap to a wide range of resources for deeper study and consideration. They are also a trap for an individual’s book budget. I had to read the book again (a pleasure) before writing this review because I got sidetracked for several weeks following the leads that Bilbro laid out in his notes. Several mysterious packages showed up on the porch in the interim, which I had to explain to my wife, which was local news enough around here.

Buy the book because it is good and useful. Beware that it is going to make you stop, think, and probably even change the way you look at a few things.

Reading the Times: A Literary and Theological Inquiry into the News

By Bilbro, Jeffrey

Buy on Amazon

NOTE: I received an advanced reader copy from the publisher with no expectation of a positive review.

We Need to Recover Virtue

Until a few years ago there was a lot of talk among orthodox Christians about character. Public concern for character has eroded as political tides have shifted. But throughout the history of Christianity character—that is, embodied virtue—has been a consistent focus of discipleship.

The term virtue has been less commonly discussed among Protestants than among Roman Catholics. Due to the primary focus on Scripture, Protestants have leaned toward deontological ethics. Obedience to the duties outlined in Scripture have framed the way that many Protestant Christians discuss holiness. Among Roman Catholics there is a more robust tradition of virtue ethics and the pursuit of virtue, not least because of the work of Thomas Aquinas on the subject, though one finds similar language in Augustine and others.

One common objection to virtue talk among Protestants is that it enables a drift from Scripture. Situational ethics, for example, is a version of virtue ethics that emphasizes one virtue––that of love, ambiguously defined. Situation ethics can be used to justify violation of the clear requirements of Scripture in the name of virtue. Similarly, in versions of virtue ethics (like that espoused by Blanchard and O’Brien in An Introduction to Christian Environmentalism) adherents sometimes justify obvious disobedience to Scripture (as with acts of violence and property destruction) in the name of some other virtue. The vagueness of virtue language has made this approach to ethics and discipleship unpopular especially among conservative evangelicals.

The ambiguity of virtue language and the potential for drift is real, but the price of abandoning the pursuit of virtue is taking a significant toll on the public witness of conservative Christians. A duty-based ethics, absent the guardrails of virtuous character, can fall into self-justification and casuistry very quickly. In practice it often looks like finding proxy sinners to do the dirty work. We can promote an unscrupulous politician, even if we cannot ourselves engage in similar skullduggery. More concerning that voting for one of several bad options is cheering on the misdeeds of the dark hero, which is where the motives of our hearts are revealed.

There is room for a re-engagement in virtue thinking among evangelicals. Indeed, I believe it to be absolutely necessary. Pursuit of virtue must, of course, be filled with the content of Scripture, but we must go beyond proof-texts and seeking bare duties if holiness is going to become the signature quality of evangelicals.

If we are to pursue virtue, we will likely find help from the Roman Catholic tradition, because they have more consistently maintained a focus on virtue. Some instances of this are more helpful than others, but as with any theology, we should be prepared to chew the meat and spit the bones.

Romano Guardini’s book, Learning the Virtues That Lead You to God is a helpful place to begin. The title gives away the fact that Guardini sees virtues as a way of gaining merit that can increase the likelihood of salvation or reduce time in Purgatory, but setting those important considerations aside, there is deep value in studying the virtues as Guardini presents them.

After a brief preface, Guardini considers the nature of virtue, where he lays the groundwork of virtue from Greek philosophy (particularly Plato) and argues that the pursuit of virtue is an incremental work that believers should begin with the virtues that are most familiar to them. There are sixteen meditations that follow, each on a different virtue. These are not the classical virtues, but sixteen character traits including truthfulness, patience, justice, reverence, disinterestedness, kindness, gratitude, and others. As Guardini notes in his preface, “This interpretation shall be carried out in a very unsystematic way.” The book concludes with a brief meditation on justice before God, which attempts to bring unity to the previous chapters and encourages the pursuit of holistic virtue. The conclusion is the least satisfying chapter for someone in the Augustinian tradition, because it ends on a minor key of perpetual pursuit rather than comfort in Christ.

Learning the Virtues that Lead You to God is a book that deserves to be read slowly. While we might not agree with Guardini on the purpose of a pursuit of virtue, there is a great deal of wisdom in the pages.

In dealing with Justice, Guardini notes, “All criticism should begin with ourselves, and with the intention of improving things. Then we would soon see how much goes wrong because we do not permit the other person to be who he is and do not give him the room which he requires.”

While considering reverence, Guardini writes, “In the measure in which cultural evolution progressed, and a rational understanding and technical mastery of the world increased, the religious element receded. The concept of significance and value became predominant and awakened a respectful attitude in which there was still an echo of the old awe, that feeling of reverence of which we are speaking and by which a man of proper discernment still pays tribute to greatness.”

Writing about disinteredness: “The power of personality stems from the genuineness of life, the truth of thought, the pure will to work, and the sincerity of one’s disposition.”

Wrestling with courtesy, we read: “We must emphasize another point, something that has a direct effect on people’s dealings with each other; namely, the lack of time. Courtesy requires time. In order to exercise it, we must stop and wait; we must make a detour and we must be considerate and defer our own affairs. But all this takes time, and in our age of forced deadlines, of precisely functioning machinery, of the high costs of construction, and of fierce competition, the loss of time is something useless, irrational, erroneous, and even wicked.”

These few quotes help show the flavor of the chapters and demonstrate why this is a book that deserves to be read slowly and repeatedly. We need not agree with everything Guardini says, but there is value in hearing him say it and considering it carefully for application in our own lives.

Learning the Virtues: That Lead You to God

By Romano Guardini

Buy on Amazon

The Ends Don't Justify the Means

The most destructive of ideas is that extraordinary times justify extraordinary measures. This is the ultimate relativism, and we are hearing it from all sides. The young, the poor, the minority races, the Constitution, the nation, traditional values, sexual morality, religious faith, Western civilization, the economy, the environment, the world are all now threatened with destruction—so the arguments run—therefore let us deal with our enemies by whatever means are handiest and most direct; in view of our high aims history will justify and forgive. Thus the violent have always rationalized their violence.

But as wiser men have always known, all times are extraordinary in precisely this sense. In the condition of mortality all things are always threatened with destruction. The invention of atomic holocaust and the other manmade dooms renews for us the immediacy of the worldly circumstances as the religions have always defined it: we know ‘neither the day nor the hour. . . .’

Wendell Berry published these paragraphs in 1972 in an essay called “Discipline and Hope”, but they could have been written yesterday. Maybe some of his examples would have changed, but the point is still valid.

Though Berry is still alive and the book is not quite old enough to count as an “old book” by Lewis’ definition, it is helpful to realize that about 50 years after these paragraphs were penned, the problem is still very much the same. It’s ok to be brutal to people on “the other side” because they are trying to destroy the SBC, the nation, the economy, the environment, Christianity, etc. The story is the same and so is the truth.

The truth is that it won’t matter much which side wins the culture war if the goodness of the culture is torn down to win it. Looking back, our children’s children will think we are fools and backward for a number of reasons that we can’t see and would never to think to recognize. They will look at some of the battles being fought and wonder why there was so much energy spent, when really the obvious problem was. . . .

But we can’t see what fills in that blank. And that is the nature of it. The very things that we do not question today because we can’t conceive of them being questioned will be the things that are assumed to be completely true or false (and obviously so) by a future generation.

As Christians we can see that there are many things wrong with this world and many people taking a wrong direction. But I can see the same thing in myself. The difference is that I can do something about myself and I have only limited influence on the rest of the world. My most significant influence on the world may be by living rightly in my own sphere of influence, showing people a positive way forward based on the truths of Scripture, and embodying those to the maximum extent possible. If the culture war is about goodness and truth, then so should our daily lives be.

The ends don’t justify the means. It is no good to win the culture war and lose our own souls, which is exactly we are risking. History may judge us all fools, and it may judge some on one side or the other of any issue as morally better than the others. But history isn’t the ultimate judge. God is. At the end of this life, our individual legacies will be laid before God. Our works will pass through the fire. Only those works wrought with faith, hope, and love will remain. The ends will be judged by the means.

We don’t know when the judgment is coming, but we Christians know the judge. We know his character. We have access to his standards through Scripture. We of all people should live like we know his judgment is coming, which should shape the way we fight our political battles today.

How Rigged is the Economy against Individuals?

One of the prevailing themes in contemporary American public discourse is that the economy is irredeemably rigged against the little guy. The theory runs that the richest 1% have so much money that they are keeping the rest of us down.

That is a powerful story. It feeds on examples of cases where there are excessively wealthy people who do not have financial concerns that some anywhere close to the ones that ordinary citizens have. There are legitimate cases of harassment and discrimination prevent some people from achieving their potential.

However, the more complete story seems to be that despite inequalities in wealth, the potential for people to gain moderate levels of wealth is still present, even for people with median incomes.

In the FIRE community (Financial Independence/Retire Early) one of the more common targets for net worth prior to checking out of the workforce is $1M USD. Given that about 40% of American adults claim they can’t cover an unexpected $400 expense without borrowing or selling something, some argue that breaking into a seven-figure net worth is impossible.

Considering that the median household income in 2018 was estimated to be about $63K, which doesn’t include non-cash benefits like the company portion of insurance benefits, I’m more inclined to believe the people that tend to be optimistic about economic opportunities. Thomas Stanley and Sarah Stanley Fallaw’s recent book, The Next Millionaire Next Door, tends to support general optimism.

The first and most obvious allowance we must make in the whole debate, however, is that not everyone can get to the point of having a large net worth. There are people who have disabilities or medical conditions that will prevent them from engaging fully in the workforce and whose assets are regularly depleted by needed expenses. There are others who have, due to little or no fault of their own, been left in a precarious economic position because of poor choices by others or have had to leave a situation due to abuse. And, to be fair, half the households in the United States fall below the $63K income threshold, which makes it more difficult (though by no means impossible, down to a certain level) to create a large net worth.

But many in the top half of earners are not millionaires and never will be. In fact, according to Forbes in 2019, 18.6 million Americans have a net worth over a million. That means that approximately 1 in 17 people in the US are millionaires. That’s 5.6% of the population. Not bad when you think about it, but not as much as you would think.

The Next Millionaire Next Door is a follow up to Stanley’s 1996 book, The Millionaire Next Door, and basically asks if the economic system is really so rigged that no one can get ahead. He began the work with his daughter (Sarah Fallaw), and she completed the book alone due to his untimely death in 2015. The conclusion is that the basic patterns of behavior of millionaires has not changed in a fundamental sense in two decades.

The recipe for growing your net worth into the seven figures is the same as it was in 1996 and basically the same as it ever has been. Find work that uses your talents and do it vigorously. Live below your means by avoiding “status wars” with people at and above your income level. Invest your money; don’t just let it sit in a coffee can or a savings account. Do this for an extended period of time.

The upshot is that the path to becoming relatively wealthy is extremely simple. It has a lot to do with hard work and frugality. In fact, both the 1996 book and this latest book emphasize frugality as a central element of financial success. Even in 2019, the vast majority of millionaire’s surveyed had never spent more than $300 on a watch. Most of them drive Fords, Toyotas, Hondas, or Chevy’s that were purchased used, and very few of those surveys had ever spent more than $40,000 on a vehicle. Although they can “afford” to purchase more expensive products, they chose not to because the increase in value did not match the increase in price.

Also important to note is that those who accumulate wealth tend to be much more generous with their wealth. Individuals and families that have a high income, but a very low net worth do not tend to give much away. However, those that tend to save much of what they earn at whatever income level are, statistically speaking, more generous than your average American. Many of these next-door millionaires give away more than 5% of their income per year to registered charities, in addition to gifts to family.

To some this may seem counter-intuitive. Why should the savers be better givers? However, it makes sense when we consider the question from a different angle. High spenders don’t hang onto their money, but they have been mastered by their money and take pleasure in its spending. They, therefore, have a stronger love for money because of what it can get them. In contrast, the savers have mastered their money. They see it for its good beyond immediate consumption. They are also much more likely to want to see those funds invested into their community in a way that will cultivate hope for others.

The Next Millionaire Next Door leads me to believe that the majority of the “rich” are not the ones that are featured in the tabloid news or that are constantly scrabbling greedily for wealth. Rather, many of those who have obtained wealth in our society have, in some form or fashion, heeded the principles of 1 Tim 6:8–10:

But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.

Though the political left, especially young socialists, tend to demonize those that have worked within the American economic system for decades to slowly accrue wealth, that demonization appears to be unwarranted. Those Christians who demean others, especially other Christians, for building businesses, working hard, participating in the community, giving regularly, and still managing to cultivate relative wealth are missing the fact that many of the next-door millionaires have done so by not loving money.

This is an interesting reversal. Next-door millionaires tend to be those who are generally content with food and clothing. They did not desire the wealth, but when they acquired wealth, they were good stewards of it. Statistically speaking, they give generously, live modestly, and work diligently. In fact, for most of those highlighted in this book, becoming wealthy was a secondary result of living wisely with those behaviors.

This sort of study might be helpful in overturning some negative perceptions and hostile rhetoric toward a portion of the population that has been diligent and, often, less self-interested than others in their pursuit of the good life. In this case, the good life being defined not as the unending accumulation of wealth, but of working hard, loving family and neighbor, and stewarding resources to have a reasonably secure future. In the United States that sort of lifestyle is often (but not always) rewarded with an abundance of resources over time.

Your Money or Your Life - A Review

In 1992 a little book was released that is still creating ripples today, nearly three decades and three editions later. Vicki Robin and Joe Dominguez published Your Money or Your Life not long after a major stock market crash on Black Monday 1987, as the United States was suffering under a slow-recovery recession after a decade of decadence. Your Money or Your Life is largely credited as the inspiration of the FIRE movement, which calls people to work hard, live frugally, save vigorously to achieve financial independence with the goal of being able to step away from the daily grind years before normal cultural expectations.

In true American fashion, the book is fashioned as a simple nine-step process that raises the reader’s awareness of where your money has gone, where it is going, and where you would really like it to go. The central concept of the book is that in the modern economy, humans trade time for money. And, since time is the one thing every human has a limited amount of in this life, they describe the employment relationship as one of trading life energy for money, hence the title: Your Money or Your Life.

As with many truly helpful things, the book’s premise is incredibly simple: For a great many people, raising awareness of expenses and asking a few value questions can reorient attitudes in ways that help shake of consumeristic habits and lead to a great deal more financial freedom. The concept works much better for those that are middle-income or higher, since the poor tend to already have a tight focus on their finances. But as Robins points out, many middle-income people have no idea where their money goes and are wasting a great deal of their time earning money to spend on things or experiences that give little satisfaction.

The practical advice in Your Money or Your Life is sound, which helps explain why a third revision was just released. The core is sound, though the specifics of recommendations have had to change. For example, in a low interest environment, the early advice to use bonds to fund retirement would be a relatively quick path to ruin.

Philosophically the book is all over the place. It mixes a few proof-texts from the Bible with Eastern thought, as well as some assumptions that are more American than anything else. However, by common grace there is a helpful integrity to the outlook, however quilted the underlying ideas may be.

One of the more helpful ideas that the book promotes is that all of life should be viewed as a whole. We can’t see our budget as one piece of our lives, our work as another, and our home life as something entirely different. All of them are of a piece and impact one another, as anyone who has worked alongside someone going through a divorce can attest. This isn’t to suggest that getting one thing right fixes everything, but what Robin and Dominquez point out is that viewing them all together helps us make better choices in the places we have agency. Spending money is, for many of us, one of the places we have the most agency. Therefore, the encouraging people to ask questions about how their spending reflects their values can lead to changes that open up opportunities in other areas.

Another significant element of the book is that it forces readers to rethink the nature of work. They argue,

The real problem with work, then, is not that our expectations are too high. It’s that we have confused work with paid employment. Redefining “work” as simply any productive or purposeful activity, with paid employment being just one activity among many, frees us from the false assumption that what we do to put food on the table and a roof over our heads should also provide us with our sense of meaning, purpose and fulfillment. Breaking the link between work and money allows us to reclaim balance and sanity.

There are too many eggs in the “work” basket for many of us. We define ourselves by our job and invest our best energy into tasks that may be demeaning or seem to be designed to be frustrating.

To some degree, that is the nature of an industrialized economy, which sometimes reduces tasks to repetitive minutia in the name of efficiency. Connected to this reduction is that due to the liquidity of modernity, there are few stable aspects of a contemporary human’s life. We are likely to change jobs, move thousands of miles, and undergo shifts in vocation that would have been unthinkable for the majority of human history. Work was meant to be satisfying as we create and organize, being made in the image of God. What work has become is not what it was meant to be. This is helpful truth that the authors recognize.

The book carries some significant baggage philosophically. The authors seem to assume that one of the primary purposes of humanity is to achieve a degree of autonomy. The number of cases of divorce they seem to celebrate is significant. There is an assumption that happiness can be achieved in some measure through material goods. All this and more lie beneath the surface, which should cause the Christian to read this book with care. At the same time, the advice is presented by non-Christians who argue for a distinct worldview, which makes it easier to chew the meat and spit the bones than when someone reads Dave Ramsey or another of the Christian financial gurus, where a heavy dose of proof-texts and testimonies saturated with church language can cause us to lower our guard, allowing greed to slip in when we least expect it. Your Money or Your Life is helpful, in part, because it is written from a different perspective that can be illuminating even as we filter it carefully.

For many American Christians, the lure of consumerism has led to an increase in consumer debt, a lifestyle of excess that would have shamed earlier generations of believers, and an increasing difficulty to enjoy the benefits of real wealth in one of the most affluent societies on earth. Books like Your Money or Your Life can present an alternative picture that is, in fact, closer to a biblical attitude toward money and the unity of life than many similar products from faith oriented Christian publishers offer. It’s high time American Christians began to rethink their money habits, and Your Money or Your Life is a decent place to start.

Your Money or Your Life: 9 Steps to Transforming Your Relationship with Money and Achieving Financial Independence: Fully Revised and Updated for 2018

By Robin, Vicki, Dominguez, Joe, Mr. Money Mustache

Buy on Amazon