In Search of the Common Good - A Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Meador, Jake

Buy on Amazon

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

Bavinck: A Critical Biography - A Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bavinck: A Critical Biography

By Eglinton, James

Buy on Amazon

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

On Sin and Our Duty to Fight It

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Sin

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

Herman Bavinck describes sin as,

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

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

According to J. C. Ryle,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dealing with Sin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3] Augustine, Enchirideon, 40–41.

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

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

[6] Owen, Overcoming, 50.

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

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

Conspiracy Theories - A Review

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

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

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

Nature of Conspiracy Theories

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

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

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

Epistemological Authorities

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

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

Conspiracy Theories and Political Power

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

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

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

A Response

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conspiracy Theories: A Primer

By Uscinski, Joseph E.

Buy on Amazon

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

Ten Significant Books I Read in 2020

The leading candidate for cliché of the year for 2020 has to be any phrase involving the term “unprecedented.” Whatever term we use for the year, it was a different year than I’ve ever experienced.

One of the most significant differences this year is how difficult I found it to read and write at my usual pace. Part of that had to do with the pandemic. I am a supervisor who had to shift to leading my team online and remotely while trying to complete a major team project. As it turns out that is a mentally and emotionally taxing experience, that left me exhausted in the evenings looking for a movie to watch or a light and fluffy book to read. It isn’t particularly conducive to reading new and sometimes challenging books attentively and quickly.

Additionally, this year I taught and developed a lot more curriculum than ever before in my life as part of my efforts outside of work. So, I created an Old Testament course for my daughter’s homeschool and recorded half of the lectures (I still have about half to go this year). I researched a “Great Books” reading list to go along with her history reading. I also taught through an overview of systematic theology in Sunday School, wrote and presented a series on Christian Contentment, and preached several times. I have no complaints about those investments, but they did consume a bunch of time.

In another shift, I’ve been listening to Ken Myers and his Mars Hill Audio Journal this year. I had been interested for years, but never gotten into it because I have a thing for not paying subscriptions when there is so much free content, and much of it very good. But the Mars Hill discussions were a treasure this year. On the weekly Friday features, Myers often interviewed people thinking about current events. The scheduled journals are enriching and tend to be timeless, helpful discussions that lead in a whole lot of interesting directions. Ken Myers is singularly responsible for an uptick in my spending on books and also for a shift to reading older books, which is, on balance probably a good thing (if C. S. Lewis is to be believed).

Who know what next year will be like. I just signed a contract for a book on Environmental Ethics and I’m hoping to be more productive on outlets that aren’t my own blog. It’s always good to have dreams.

The Beginning of the List

In any case, here are some of the more significant books I read this year (in no particular order). If there is any obvious selection criteria, it is that the first ten listed are books I read this year that I haven’t reviewed on my own website. There are some below in my “other” list that were also very significant.

1. Gentle and Lowly by Dane Ortlund.

I read this one (along with a lot of other people this year) during the pandemic and it was a breath of fresh air. I need to re-read it again, and maybe once every year for the rest of my life. There are few books that rise to the level of Christian classic, but this is one. I mean that without any exaggeration. That is exactly why I haven’t reviewed it, because I need to re-read and more thoroughly digest it before I can share my thoughts. The essential thought of the book is that one of Jesus’ essential character traits is his gentleness. Not an earth-shattering concept, really, but in Puritan fashion, Dane Ortlund meditates on that thought through Scripture for a book-length essay. I’ve given a dozen copies away and it needs to be more widely read and distributed than it has been at this point. It is a phenomenal book.

2. The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self by Carl R. Trueman.

This is not an easy book to read. Even with a background in theology, an increasing familiarity with philosophy, and significant reading on the question of modernity in the past few years, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self was, at times, tough sledding. But the book is an important one and worth the work (especially for pastors and educators). Trueman surveys a significant portion of the intellectual history of modernity. He traces the thought of Rousseau, the Romantics, Freud, Marcuse, Reich, and others into the 21st century. There is a lot of explanatory power in this book. Most significantly, the book is expository and not polemical, which means that it may be a helpful way to engage with a non-Christian immersed in the ethos of modernity. It has significant explanatory power.

3. Bavinck: A Critical Biography by James Eglinton.

I’ve officially fallen down the Bavinck rabbit-hole and it’s been a good thing. This year I’ve read most of Bavicnk’s Reformed Dogmatics as I prepared for my weekly teaching of Christian Doctrines in Sunday School. I also wrote and presented a paper on Bavinck’s Reformed Ethics for ETS. Meanwhile I found Bavinck’s Christian Worldview an excellent book for our day. Eglinton is one of the premier Bavinck scholars writing today. His biography of Bavinck corrects some misinterpretations of earlier scholarship and really sets Bavinck’s intellectual project in its context. The research for this project is impressive. This will be the definitive Bavinck biography for this generation. It is worth reading as a biography, but it is also a vital entry into Bavinck-studies.

4. Conspiracy Theories: A Primer by Joseph Uscinski.

Evangelical Christians in the U.S. have a conspiracy theory problem. There are contributing causes that have their roots in the lack of discipleship and, more particularly, the failure for discipleship programs to include a proper emphasis on epistemology—how we know things. This little book by a non-Christian provides an even-handed diagnosis of the nature and dangers of conspiracy theories, which are increasingly prevalent in our social media saturated world that is rife with political divisions. I reviewed this book at TGC and although this is only a primer, I think that it would be good for pastors and laypeople to pick up and digest as they think about their attitudes toward media consumption.

5.Histories and Fallacies by Carl Trueman.

This book was released in 2010, but Crossway had a sale and I’m working on homeschool curriculum, so I picked this book up. As it turns out, it was a good selection and is going to make it into the reading list for our Sophomore critical thinking or history curriculum. Most Christian teachers end up working in history at some point as non-specialists, so a book like this where a specialist discusses discipline-specific problems can be helpful. I found it so. Trueman shows why some approaches to history seem fair, but are actually bankrupt methodologically. They sell well, but at the same time are misleading. If you teach, whether in a school, at home, or in the church, this is book that will help you read and think better.

6. Walking through Infertility by Matthew Arbo.

Arbo published this in 2018 and it has lingered on my shelf for a while in the ever-growing to-be-read pile. I pulled it off the shelf some time this year because I wanted a short book on a topic adjacent to much of my reading list that I could read through and feel like I had accomplished something. What I found in Arbo’s book was a surprisingly pastoral approach to an intensely important ethical topic. Many people in the US struggle with infertility. There are a number of contributing causes, but they are less important than the unthinking ethical landmines folks step on in order to have kids. Because the topic is so personal (it involves the sex life of married couples) and because the pressure to have kids with your DNA at just the right time is so high, few people stop to think about the implications of invitro fertilization, surrogate “mothering,” and other fertility-adjacent technologies. Arbo manages to provide a sensitive, biblical, and ethically precise book that will help Christians avoid sinning while in pursuit of becoming parents. This is a book that belongs in every pastor’s library and should be a ready reference to distribute to those struggling with the question of fertility.

7. How do We Know? An Introduction to Epistemology (2nd ed) by James K. Dew and Mark Foreman

Francis Schaeffer once commented that the biggest danger to evangelicalism is epistemology. He was right, but one of the reason the topic is often neglected is because it’s hard to find an entry point. The term itself is hard to parse until you read it in context a whole bunch of times, but how we know is vitally important. How do We Know? provides one of the best entry-level presentations of the topic I’ve found. Readers do not need a background in philosophy to get the benefit from it. As a result, this will become part of our homeschool curriculum, and I feel confident in recommending it widely.

9. Work: Its Purpose, Dignity, and Transformation by Daniel M. Doriani.

At this point I’ve read most of the recently published material on work and vocation, so I didn’t expect much new or particularly helpful in Doriani’s book. I was pleasantly surprised and this will be my go-to book on the subject for the foreseeable future. The conversation on faith and work has evolved over the past few decades and Work reaps the blessings of the years of conversations. Doriani affirms the goodness of work without falling into the trap of arbeit mach frei, which characterizes some of the more blatant attempts to unquestioningly affirm capitalism as it exists in the US while also wrestling with the doctrine of work from Scripture. Doriani is critical of both the anti-work approach and some of the more zealous trends in the faith and work debate. As a result, he presents a biblical vision for work that takes into account the various critiques offered and presents a rich discussion on the topic. This is another resource that pastors should have ready for distribution for those struggling with deep career questions.

10. Learning the Virtues, Romano Guardini.

This is an older book that I came across as a result of Ken Myers of Mars Hill Audio. It is also reflective of an effort that I’m making to read for my soul as well as my mind. I’m curating a list of volumes that I intend to read on a regular basis to point me toward healthy spiritual and mental habits. Guardini is Roman Catholic, so there are comments throughout his book that anticipate actual merit being accrued because of the pursuit of virtue. That misunderstanding of theology aside, however, the book is a sound meditation on what it means to live in the presence of God. It is the sort of book one should read a chapter at a time, perhaps in the evening, and spend a few minutes thinking about how that particular virtue can shape the reader in a more Christlike pattern. If you are struggling in dry patch spiritually, this is a book that may be a welcome relief.

Other Significant Books:

As I noted, the above ten books are listed in no particular order. As I look through the list of other volumes I read this year, there are a number of them that also belong on this list. After some thought, I put mainly books that I have read but not reviewed in the section above, since I am a bit behind in my reviewing. Some of the books below have already been reviewed but not posted and a few are also to be reviewed.

In any event, here are some other profitable books from my reading this year:

11. Back to Virtue by Peter Kreeft.

12. How to Win the Culture War by Peter Kreeft.

13. In Search of the Common Good by Jake Meador.

14. Ideas Have Consequences by Richard Weaver.

15. The Humane Economy by Willhelm Ropke.

16. The Possibility of Prayer by John Starke.

17. Christian Worldview by Herman Bavinck.

18. Breaking Bread with the Dead by Alan Jacobs.

19. Technopoly by Neil Postman.

20. Pagans and Christians in the City by Stephen D. Smith.

21. He Descended to the Dead by Matthew Emerson.

22. Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals by Gavin Ortlund.

I’ll stop there before I drag the list on any further, but there is a lot of good stuff out there and there is a lot of very good material being produced right now, too.

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

The Possibility of Prayer - A Review

The cliché trifecta of spiritual disciplines that get tossed out whenever we talk about discipleship in Christian circles are prayer, Bible reading, and attending church.

When discussing the application of Romans 12:1–2, “How do we get our minds transformed?” Pray, read the Bible, go to church. “How do we imitate Paul as he imitated Christ?” Pray, read the Bible, go to church.

If those aren’t the exact words you’ve heard for decades, they’re probably close, or you’ve recently come to Christ, or you grew up in a vastly different theological tradition. If so, just trust me, this is a thing.

There is plenty of encouragement for reading the Bible. It usually comes in a spurt around December and January every year when congregations print out Bible reading plans and encourage folks to read them. Many folks start out the year well exploring the contours of Genesis and then getting lost somewhere around February in the book of Leviticus. Like the rush of gym memberships, we do well for a little while at the beginning of the year, but life and the habits of our normal routine quickly conquer what feels like an added extra in the schedule.

At least there are resources for Bible reading. Prayer seems a much harder nut to crack.

John Starke’s book, The Possibility of Prayer: Finding Stillness with God in a Restless World, is a resource that many people may find useful in developing the spiritual discipline of prayer. The book begins with the assumption that prayer is not simply something that pastors and seminary professors—you know, the super saints—are called to do. Instead, prayer is both a duty and a privilege for all believers. He manages to make his case in a concise book that realistically anticipates the challenges for many believers to carve out time to pray.

The book is divided into two parts, each with six chapters. In part one, Starke explores the difficulties of prayer in our always-on, perpetually distracted world. The liquidity of modernity teaches us to believe that we are behind schedule and that if we simply devoted a little more time to productivity, we could get through the next project we would have a little breathing room for important, but non-essential stuff like prayer. The problem is that the breathing room never comes. Starke also works through the general difficulty of prayer. It is hard. Especially for those who have an instantaneous dopamine rush in their pockets at all times, the idea of sitting still for a few minutes to contemplate the holy and wait on the Divine seems impossible. Apart from God’s grace, it is, in fact. Starke’s argument is that prayer is hard, but that it is vitally important. The harder it gets because of cultural and personal stresses the more important it is. This theme sets up the second part of the book, which discusses the practical side of prayer.

In part two, Starke moves beyond his case for prayer into reflections on the practical side. In this portion of the book he tries to balance the more theoretical themes of practicing prayer with specific comments about the content of prayer. He successfully avoids duplicating the formula often offered—ACTS, mirroring the Lord’s Prayer, etc.—and instead works through life structures that can be vitally important to a life of prayer. This begins with seeing prayer as communion with God, rather than an opportunity to self-improve or get a shopping list before the almighty. That approach to prayer shapes the way that we pray, which opens us up to a Christian approach to meditation (not the mind-emptying approach of some Eastern varieties, but a mindful contemplation of God, his attributes, and his goodness). Prayer, however, requires solitude. That is exactly what it is hardest to obtain in our always-on world. We are addicted to the tools that are keeping us from God on a regular basis. Prayer should also include patterns of fasting and feasting. We fast from worldly goods (media and food) for the purpose of prayer and to be reminded of our reliance on God. We should end those fasts with a feast—a rich fellowship with others in celebration of God’s goodness. Starke also highlights the importance of other spiritual rhythms for developing a life of prayer, especially Sabbath and regular participation in corporate worship. It becomes apparent by the end of this portion of the book that prayer is more than what one does for a few minutes a day, but it is a pattern of life that is God-centric and deliberately distinct from the patterns of this world.

The Possibility of Prayer may not have been the best title for this work, because the content of the book goes well beyond the particular act of prayer into habits of life that lead to holiness. To be fair, these are also habits of life that enable to practice of prayer. My criticism of the title is, therefore, muted, but it is possible for someone to pick up this book expecting a more detailed how-to manual or at least a range of options with specific instructions. That is not what is offered in this book. Starke would have had to write a different book.

The book Starke did write is encouraging, Scripture-saturated, and helpful. Someone might pick up this book and find they got something different from what they expected, but they would still be getting something worthwhile.

In particular, Starke walks through a number of Psalms in the book, highlighting their importance as prayers to God. They are, in one sense, example prayers for us as we seek the words to communicate with the Almighty. Rather than simply stating that and offering a formula for praying the Psalms, Starke provides an example of how the Psalms can enrich our prayer life.

Additionally, The Possibility of Prayer, challenges the busyness of our culture—the very characteristic that seems to make prayer impossible. As we try to put together a plan for holiness in the rubble of civilization, this is the sort of book that can remind us why certain bricks are to be avoided.

The Possibility of Prayer: Finding Stillness with God in a Restless World

By Starke, John

Buy on Amazon

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

Xmas and Christmas - A Lesson from C. S. Lewis

Among C. S. Lewis’s lesser-known works is an essay, “Xmas and Christmas: A Lost Chapter from Herodutus” where Lewis does an anthropological analysis of the relationship between so much of what goes on during the December time frame and the actual purpose of the Christmas holiday. The essay does not pack the rhetorical punch of his more significant works like “The Weight of Glory” or “Meditations on a Toolshed,” but it is helpful in pointing out the strangeness of what we so often take for granted.

For example, Lewis highlights the fact that seasonal décor tends to romanticize antiquated styles, like coaches and coachmen, as if they have some relation to the actual significance of the season. This is evidenced by the practice of sending cards to one another. As Lewis wryly writes:

“Every citizen is obliged to send to each of his friends and relations a square piece of hard paper stamped with a picture, which in their speech is called an Exmas-card. But the pictures represent birds sitting on branches, or trees with a dark green prickly leaf, or else men in such garments as the Niatirbians [Lewis’s transparent play on a term for residents of Britain] believe that their ancestors wore two hundred years ago riding in coaches such as their ancestors used, or houses with snow on their roofs. And the Niatirbians are unwilling to say what these picture have to do with the festival, guarding (a I suppose) some sacred mystery. And because all men must send these cards the marketplace is filled with the crowd of those buying them, so that there is great labour and weariness.”

The worst is when one thinks they are done with their card sending, but finds an unexpected mailing from an acquaintance that demands yet another card in return. Such an unexpected piece of correspondence may even require another trip out into the mobbed marketplace.

But it isn’t just Exmas cards that are the problem:

“They also send gifts to one another, suffering the same things about the gifts as about the cards. For every citizen has to guess the value of the gift which every friend will send him so that he may send one of equal value, whether he can afford it or not.”

This droll description of the tensions of the season make for amusing copy, but Lewis is doing more than simply arguing that people are silly with their expectations of tit for tat cards and gifts. His larger point is that the commercial and social trappings of Xmas have the potential to mask the true significance of Christmas.

Lewis writes,

“Such, then, are their customs about Exmas. But the few among the Niatrirbians have also a festival, separate and to themselves, called Crissmas, which is on the same day as Exmas. And those who keep Chrissmas . . . rise early on that day with shining faces and go before sunrise to certain temples where they partake of a sacred feast.”

There is a stark difference between the excesses of Exmas and the worship of Chrissmas. Which, of course, is intended to make the reader think about his own practices during this sacred, but culturally harried time.

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.

Population Control and the Environment

Birthrates continue to drop in the West. In many countries, the birthrate among citizens in well below the replacement rate. This means that, without immigration, the population of a nation will begin to shrink rather than grow. Some believe a reduction in the overall population of humans on earth would be a good thing.

There are many reasons that people are having fewer children. Some cite economic concerns, career interests, and avoidance of the responsibilities of parenting. Others cite the prevalence of entertainment that distracts and seems to replace the need for human relationships. But some people are not having children because of concerns about the environment.

In a 2019 article in the online magazine, Outside, one author celebrated his recent vasectomy. He claims that his choice of voluntary sterilization was necessary, “because there are simply too many humans on this planet.” He argues that reducing the population is absolutely necessary, “and getting there voluntarily will be an awful lot less painful than doing it with war, famine, and natural disaster.”

Throughout much of its history, the environmental movement has tended toward negative attitudes about human reproduction. The embrace of population control as a goal by many environmental activists has served to make agreement between many Christians and non-Christian environmentalists difficult.

Christians should be concerned about efforts to reduce or control human population because they often lead to violence against the most vulnerable.

The Environment and Population Control

Historically there has been a strong connection between environmental movements and population control. At the tail end of the eighteenth century, Thomas Malthus, an English clergyman, proposed delaying marriage and other means of reducing birthrates as a way to slow population growth. One of his major concerns was that a growing population would expand beyond the capacity of the agriculture of the day. This, he feared, would increase suffering as many people would starve because there was simply too little food.

In 1967, Paul Ehrlich published his famous book, The Population Bomb, where he predicted impending environmental catastrophe if the number of humans on earth continued to rise. Tillich’s thinking was used by a congressionally appointed team, the Rockefeller Commission, to argue for government funding of abortion, sterilization, and other forms of birth control. The measures recommended were voluntary, but they were to be state sponsored.

Are Kids Bad for the Environment?

For the sake of argument, let’s assume for the moment that climate change is strongly influenced by human activity. For many environmental activists, this assumption leads to the logical conclusion that fewer humans would be proportionately better for the world.

The Cross by Michael Craven. Used by CC License. http://ow.ly/RDIe30aJ2tm

However, that conclusion does not necessarily follow without additional assumptions. In making this argument, proponents of voluntary population control are assuming that consumption patterns would continue exactly as they are now.

This is an example of an over-simplified argument leading to a seemingly inarguable conclusion. In fact, it is theoretically possible that, if consumption patterns of humans were sufficiently changed, the earth could support population growth at an even greater rate. Even accepting a strong correlation between human activity and climate change, it is unnecessary to embrace an unbiblical, negative view of humans for the sake of the environment.

The Goodness of Humanity

As Christians, we should actively oppose worldviews that denigrate the value of humans. Genesis 1:26–27 affirms that humans were made in the image of God.

The first command God gave to humanity was to be fruitful and multiple. Humanity was called to “fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (Gen 1:28, ESV)

Part of God’s original design for the created order was for it to be filled with humans, made in his image.

Humans and the Environment

Genesis 1:28 which affirms the dignity and authority of humans, is also interpreted by some environmentalists as the verse that has enabled the abuse of the environment in the West. Such an interpretation is based on the belief that filling the earth and subduing it entails misusing the earth.

Given the track record of humans in Western nations influenced by Christianity, there seems to be some merit to the connection between a biblical worldview and the abuse of creation. However, consistent message of Scripture is that humans are to be responsible stewards of the earth. Even in Gen 1:28, the assumption is that by filling and subduing the earth, the created order will flourish in a way that supports the growing number of people made in the image of God.

The Danger of Population Control

Population control is dangerous because it tends to most significantly impact the most vulnerable. The near total abortion rate of babies diagnosed with Down’s Syndrome is Iceland is one example of voluntary population control that has led to humans, made in the image of God, largely eradicated because they were considered defective.

China’s radical one-child policy, which has since been somewhat relaxed, created a significant demographic problem for the nation. Culturally boys were valued more than girls, in part because they were perceived to have more potential to earn more and support parents in old age. Therefore, couples practiced sex-selective abortions, often choosing to abort baby girls. The result is a gender imbalance, with approximately 118 boys born for every 100 girls.

Population control tends to lead to the elimination of those considered less valuable by society, whether that is due to perceived defects, sex, race, or some other characteristic. A culture that values humans as made in the image of God should resist movements that promote population control as a legitimate goal. That goal has proved costly to those who can least defend themselves.

Conclusion

As citizens of the Kingdom of God, Christians must learn to think rightly about the good of humanity and the image of God. Despite the effects of the fall, Scripture consistently affirms the dignity and value of every human being. Population control movements tend to impact the most vulnerable more significantly. Therefore, Christians should be careful not to celebrate movements that make reducing the population of humans a central goal, even when those controls are implemented voluntarily.