Defeater Language and Critical Thinking

The habit of reflexively affirming current evolutionary theory is inculcated into new generations of students, too. For example, in a section on protein structure in a college biochemistry textbook we read:

Keep in mind that only a small faction of the myriads of possible [protein] sequences are likely to have unique stable conformations. Evolution has, of course, selected such sequences for use in biological systems.

Note that jaunty ‘of course.’ Yet we don’t have anywhere near sufficient experimental evidence for the book’s conclusion. The authors’ confidence isn’t based on empirical knowledge––it’s feigned knowledge. An unembellished second sentence would read plainly, ‘Such sequences are used in biological systems.”

Gratuitous affirmations of a dominant theory can mesmerize the unwary. They lull people into assuming that objectively difficult problems don’t really matter. That they’ve been solved already. Or will be solved soon. Or are unimportant. Or something. They actively distract readers from noticing an idea’s shortcoming. ‘Of course,’ students are effectively prompted, ‘everyone knows what happened here––right? You’d be blind not to see it––right?’ But the complacency isn’t the fruit of data or experiments. It comes from the powerful social force of everyone in the group nodding back, ‘Of course!’

When references to it can be dropped from explanations with no loss of information, when proffered evidence for it boils down to a circle of mutually nodding heads, alarm bells should blare that the theory is a free rider.

---Michael Behe, Darwin Devolves, 24-25.

Whether one agrees with Behe’s theory of intelligent design or not, this passage from his 2019 book, Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA that Challenges Evolution, is worthy of consideration for those that claim to seek truth.

The finiteness of the human experience requires that we absorb certain assumptions on faith. William Clifford famously claimed that accepting something as true with insufficient evidence was morally wrong. His exaggerated bid for empiricism, however, is simply impossible. We simply lack the time, energy, and objectivity to evaluate all truth claims exhaustively.

And yet, there are times when falling into the habit of accepting a consensus understanding of something can be decidedly unhelpful. At times, advances in technology and society are held back because “everyone knows” that something is true. Everyone knew that darker skin meant an inferior person through much of the early modern period. There was apparent evidence in the “primitive” quality of African culture, for example. But more often, the point was assumed in Western cultures rather than proved in more than a cursory way.

Cursory proof often takes the form of appeals to consensus to fill in limited available information, creating the image of a comprehensive and convincing argument. As Behe points out, these arguments are often much less convincing when they are presented without the logical “defeaters.”

Words like “obviously,” “of course,” and “clearly” can be useful rhetorical terms. There are points at which the evidence is so consistent that one can claim that something “clearly” indicates something else. But these are also dangerous terms that can be used to defeat sound arguments without engaging them.

When an expert in the field states that “clearly” something must be true. Or that “obviously” this leads to that, they might be skipping some important evidence. Or––a popular tactic among revisionist biblical scholars––“the best scholars argue” for a particular position they are often trying to subvert a really contentious debate by presenting a certain way of thinking as “best” when it simply agrees with their position. Orthodox biblical scholars sometimes do the same thing, of course, dismissing valuable readings from revisionist scholars without fully considering them simply because the individual does not approach the Bible as an authentic testimony to God’s working in history; that presumption does have significant impacts on the resultant reading of Scripture, but—as the saying goes—sometimes a blind squirrel finds a nut.

In any case, it’s worth thinking about the way arguments are put on display and the amount of defeater language that is used. It should raise red flags in our minds when we read “obviously,” “clearly,” or “certainly” in places where they are not needed. It may be that the author is conveying a greater amount of confidence than the evidence warrants.

Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution

By Behe, Michael J.

Buy on Amazon

Playing with FIRE - A Review

The Financial Independent, Retire Early (FIRE) movement has gone from a fringe group on a tightly networked series of blogs to a broader, more socially acceptable movement of people that are looking for a way out of the hustle and bustle of the modern economy.

In reality, the movement has been around for decades, with one of its earliest proponents being Vicki Robin, who collaborated with her partner, Joe Dominguez, to write Your Money or Your Life in 1992.

There are now multiple variations of FIRE, but the gist of the FIRE movement is to seek passive forms of income through various investments that will enable someone to live without having to rely on income from a regular, salaried job. In its most common form, FIRE leads its adherents to become frugal, saving a large portion of their incomes and investing them.

In the “traditional” FIRE movement frugality serves two purposes: (1) It enables one to save an invest a large portion of one’s income to create a source of future, passive income. (2) It reduces the overall living expense that one has, thus also shrinking the investment income one needs to truly retire early.

There are numerous stories that are regularly published by FIRE advocates that record the success of individuals that have been able to retire in their early thirties or forties. There are cases where individuals have been able to retire in their twenties, too.

Of course, there are also a number of reports of people who have attempted FIRE that have had to step back into the workforce for a variety of reasons, including the high cost of living in their chosen home, medical expenses, and others.

In 2019, recent convert to the FIRE movement, Scott Rieckens, decided to make a documentary of he and his wife’s beginning steps toward FIRE. The film includes a number of interviews with many of the key voices in the FIRE movement. Alongside the documentary, he also released a book that contains mostly the same information, with some more in-depth examples.

For those wondering what the FIRE movement is, both of Rieckens products are helpful. This provides a basic understanding of what FIRE is all about. It also provides a window into the motivation of many, like the Rieckens family, for pursuing FIRE: to have more time for family and leisure activities.

As something of a personal finance junkie, I’ve read a lot of the internet material on FIRE. It is a truly intriguing financial philosophy, but one that has particular dangers, especially for Christians.

Movie/Book Review

The Playing with Fire documentary and book, however, are not particularly compelling apologies for the movement. The concept, as presented by Rieckens, is more about the decision to be “counter-cultural” than it is about the mechanics of FIRE. Also, notably, the Rieckens’ vision for FIRE is to step out of the workforce in an arbitrary timeframe of 10-years, meanwhile holding onto the basic framework of a middle-class lifestyle. Additionally, Playing with Fire describes the early stages of the quest for FIRE, rather than presenting a vision of what the FIRE lifestyle looks like ten years after stepping out of the workforce or what it looks like to work through the years it takes to get to one’s FIRE number.

The book and documentary do include interviews from individuals who have been FIREd for an extended period of time, but in the attempt to tell a compelling story about the decision to become FIRE Rieckens neglects to sufficiently reveal why one should strive for it. The reason the Rieckens family gives is to have more time to care for their toddler daughter (which Mrs. Rieckens states will be their only child), though the math of a 10-year FIRE horizon shows that the decision is being made on the hope of seeing more of the child’s teenage years, rather than the time-intensive formative years.

In the end, individuals that already have done their research on the FIRE movement will find little of new value in Rieckens’ products. The FIRE concept is, after all, exceptionally simple. And, those who are pondering FIRE may come away with more questions than answers.

For those that aren’t aware of the FIRE movement, it’s a well-constructed documentary and the book is accessible prose. Renting the film from a streaming service may well be a decent way to spend an evening on the couch at home, but it is a beginning point, not an ending point.

Playing With Fire

Starring Pete Adeney, Brad Barrett, Jonathan Mendonsa, Vicki Robin, Jl Collins

Buy on Amazon

Is Socialism Ecologically Friendly?

There is an odd correlation in some of the public square between socialism and the ecological movement. The so called “Green New Deal” is a major example of this, where a proposal has been created to install socialism in the United States for the sake of the environment. This belief in the environmental friendliness of socialism didn’t begin with thoughts of the recent proposals, but the logical connection between the two is dubious, at best.

The first time I came across the argument that socialism was the best solution to the environment was in Naomi Klein’s popular book, This Changes Everything. It was a shoddy book by an activist who writes journalistically, but given the popularity of Klein’s sales and the increasing popularity of the combination of economic control and ecology she proposes, it seems to resonate with a number of people.

Among Klein’s basic proposals is a Universal Basic Income (UBI), which has supporters on both among free market advocates and those who desire more centralized economic control. She claims UBI “makes it possible for workers to say no to dirty energy jobs but also because the very process of arguing for a universal social safety net opens up a space for a full-throated debate about values.” (Klein, 2014: 461) Given that in her recent book, On Fire, Klein offers a definition of “green jobs” that include daycare workers, it isn’t clear exactly what a “dirty energy job” is and why it should be resisted. (Klein, 2019: 268)

But the deeper issue is that there is often no clear connection between socialism and improving the environment, the very grounds on which the so-called Green New Deal is supposed to stand.

As the Washington Post revealed in this profile of Saikat Chakrabarti, who has been one of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s political handlers, the so-called Green New Deal was originally not about the environment, but about imposing socialism on society:

Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” Ricketts greeted this startling notion with an attentive poker face. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

This was readily apparent to many who read the summary of the so-called Green New Deal proposal and noted that it took a great deal of time to get to anything that was supposed to benefit the ecosystem.

The conflation of radical redistribution with eco-friendly is not unique to political formulations of ecology, though. In his book, Religion and Ecology: Developing a Planetary Ethic, queer-theorist Whitney Bauman proposes (1) free higher education (and transferring student loan debt to the U.S. government), (2) global, universal health care, and (3) an increase in leisure time as key remedies for environmental ills, the method for which is not clearly defined. (Bauman, 2014:  147–148) The idea is to get people disengaged from economic activity so they take on the attitudes of “polytheistic nomadism” and have space to imagine a world that is truly environmentally friendly.

The message seems to be that by granting economic power to a central elite––an oligarchy that we will democratically choose, of course––people will stop working so hard and have time to consider the lilies.

There is no question that this sounds terrifically appealing on a Friday afternoon after a long week of work. And, of course, there is some helpful truth within the ideas, which allows people to focus on the legitimate good(s) proposed without considering the damage it would take to get there or what it would do to society.

As a Christian and a non-libertarian advocate for a Free Market economic condition, I believe that debt from higher education (and a whole bunch of other consumer sources) is too high, that we need to reevaluate and structurally improve our health care system at many levels, and that the harried pace of modern life are damaging to the human psyche. I am also of the opinion that we need to think carefully about our individual and corporate impact on the environment and continue to make adjustments at all levels.

However, I can’t support proposals like the so-called Green New Deal because of some of the fundamental flaws in the worldview.

Can Socialism Self-Regulate?

More significantly, I cannot support movement toward socialism on environmental grounds, because centralized control of the economy has not consistently led to a positive outcome for the environment. For the sake of this discussion, I will accept the traditional definition of socialism, which is that the government owns (or substantially controls) the means of production. (There are competing and historically naïve definitions in existence, so such a definition is warranted.)

At a fundamental level, it seems illogical that central planners will self-police environmental issues to the degree that advocates of socialism hope. When the local, state, and federal government are independent entities, they have both standing and incentive to enforce environmental regulations and seek damages from corporate entities that pollute. However, once the various levels of government and production are simply branches of the same massive entity, it is not clear they will have the political will to essentially self-enforce regulations.

Of course, the counter argument is that it isn’t a totalitarian socialism that is being proposed but a “democratic” socialism. However, when a few thousand people are being affected by a chemical spill for the benefit of the rest of the population, it doesn’t take too long to imagine how majoritarian democracy could choose to neglect that tiny minority. It also becomes less and less clear how people will be able to vote in their long-term best interests when their immediate good in regulated by the tiny minority in power, but that is a discussion for another day. It might be more helpful to look at historical examples to see how ecological health has fared under socialist economies.

Historic Impact of Socialism on the Environment

Historically speaking, socialistic systems have not been particularly good for the environment. In his book, The Art of the Impossible, Vaclav Havel describes the environmental blight caused by socialism the former Czechoslovakia. Similarly, historically, the levels of pollution in East Germany were several times that in West Germany during the reign of socialism. Then, you have the ongoing environmental blight and gross pollution present in today’s China, which has made some capitalistic reforms, but is still recovering from their economic communism. During Moa Zedong’s rule, his government created a famine by exterminating sparrows because he thought them to be pests, thus disrupting the ecosystem. The list can go on significantly and include the ongoing environmental meltdown in Venezuela. It is also worth noting that the so-called “good” socialism of the Scandinavian countries is rated near the bottom of the Sustainable Development Index. (For the record, these countries are not socialistic.)

But, some might argue, communism isn’t real socialism and what the so-called Green New Deal is proposing will be environmentally better. First, since the so-called Green New Deal is being compared favorably to FDR’s New Deal of the early 20th century, we can consider the impact that farm subsidies have had on the environment. One of the chief concerns about farming is topsoil depletion, which is significantly accelerated due to monoculture. The rise of agribusiness and the propensity toward monoculture of crops have been enabled and accelerated by FDR’s Agricultural Adjustment Act, which was a precursor to the modern farm bills. The industrialization of farming has only accelerated topsoil depletion. It is unclear that any new proposals from the so-called Green New Deal programs will do much better.

Conclusion

While there is a groundswell movement on the political left to link the concentration of economic power in the Federal government and environmental health, it is unclear that such a movement will have a positive outcome for the environment. In fact, there is good historical evidence that exactly the opposite will occur. We certainly need economic reform, but it might be better to think local, compassionate, and personal instead of looking to socialism.

Should Southern Baptists Use Creeds?

The Southern Baptist Convention is a confessional network of autonomous local congregations who have generally clustered around mutual affirmation of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 as a minimum statement of theological belief that permits cooperation, though there are churches that are in cooperation with the SBC (based on CP giving) that do not affirm the BF&M 2000. Many Southern Baptists are clear that they see the Baptist Faith and Message as a confession, which loosely binds, rather than a creed, that more clearly delineates and binds. Thus, affirmation of the BF&M is not required for churches or pastors to affiliate with the SBC.

The BF&M is a helpful document for this particular moment, because it defines the currently debated boundaries of SBC cooperation. It has limitations in two directions: (1) It largely assumes the earlier theological formulations that define orthodoxy, and which are outlined in the ecumenical creeds and other official products of ecumenical councils. (2) Language changes, which means that certain phrases can be filled with new meaning or disputed in their meaning, so that future clarification will be warranted. In other words, there will come a time that the BF&M will need to be revised to ensure it properly delineates the doctrinal categories of the SBC of that present moment.

One way that we can lengthen the time between needed revisions to the BF&M is to do more work in teaching orthodox doctrine through historical formulations, particularly building on the ecumenical creeds.

The use of creeds in worship gatherings and teaching ministries in SBC churches rubs some members the wrong way. Earlier generations, in particular, have built their identity on being “confessional” not “credal” due to the concept of individual soul liberty. There is value in that objection, but I believe that there is warrant to increase our use of creeds in our congregations without diminishing the role of the conscience in arriving at conclusions through careful of study of Scripture.

Within the context of learning and teaching theology, the creeds that were affirmed by the ecumenical councils are faithful summaries of the Christian faith. They do not supplant the careful study of Scripture, but they certainly provide guardrails that can help keep us from drifting into error. As I understand them, the creeds are some of the ways that we connect to the tradition of faithful Christians and prevent our own culture’s assumptions from overrunning the message of Scripture. This makes them invaluable in this time when information from unlimited sources threatens to overrun our churches.

Basis for Didactic Use of Creeds

The presence and use of creeds within SBC life is growing. In my opinion, that is generally a good thing for at least four reasons.

First, recognizing faithful affirmation of statements of faith (like creeds and confessions) as basics of Christian belief connects us to our Baptist heritage.

As Chuck Kelley, Richard Land, and Albert Mohler wrote in the introduction to the LifeWay study on the Baptist Faith and Message in 2007,

“Baptist churches and associations of churches have adopted statements of belief to teach, defend, and perpetuate the faith ‘that was delivered to the saints once for all’ (Jude 3). These statements, most commonly known as confessions of faith, are intended to clarify and publish the most basic beliefs that frame our faith, our witness, and our worship. In the beginning years of the organized Baptist movement, these statements were often intended to demonstrate that Baptists were fully orthodox as Christian believers. Later, such statements were used to establish identity, confront false teaching, and instruct Christians in the faith.” (The Baptist Faith and Message, 5)

Southern Baptists hold the BF&M to be a document that frames our corporate identity, but as noted, that identity is also within the orthodox tradition. The orthodox tradition has been defined, historically, as including acceptance of (though not dogmatically so) the historical creeds of the church. And, though we tend to describe our confession as a voluntary document, that has not been entirely consistent with the Baptist tradition broadly, or the Southern Baptist tradition more narrowly.

As Chute, Finn, and Haykin (all historians and professors in and from an SBC context) note:

“For at least the past century, some Baptists have adopted a negative posture toward confessions. They suggest that any prescriptive use of confession is ‘creedalism,’ or the elevation of a merely human standard above Scripture and an infringement on individual liberty of conscience. While this view is popular in some circles, it reflects a misunderstanding of Baptist history. As Timothy George argues, ‘The idea that voluntary conscientious adherence to an explicit doctrinal standard is somehow foreign to the Baptist tradition is a peculiar notion not borne out by careful examination of our heritage.’” (The Baptist Story, 327)

By affirming the BF&M 2000 as the defining confession of our cooperative network of churches, we are essentially treating it as a creed. As B. H. Carrol asserts: “There was never a man in the world without a creed. A creed is what you believe. What is a confession? It is a declaration of what you believe.”

In practice, the BF&M 2000 functions as a creed. It is minimalistic (e.g., it holds open diverse eschatological possibilities, multiple arrangements of church government, and a host of other secondary and tertiary documents). However, it is sufficient for a significant body of baptistic Christians to gather around and cooperate within without excessively binding the conscience of anyone.

In the spirit of the Reformational principal, sola Scriptura, we hold Scripture as the final authority over all faith and practice over the BF&M or any other human declaration. (If the BF&M is the frame of our beliefs, Scripture provides the portrait that the frame outlines.) This practice is consistent with the declaration on the SBC’s webpage that we are “all within the framework of historic biblical orthodoxy,” which statement seems to presume some non-scriptural standard outside of the BF&M that we can be judged by. That is to say, the BF&M necessarily assumes a broader stream of orthodoxy of which the SBC is a part. Using historical creeds like the Nicene Creed supports the BF&M rather than denigrates it by putting it in its context.

Second, evangelical churches (broadly defined) are bleeding young people that are searching for a faith that is rooted deeply in the past. I have seen multiple young Baptists drift into Roman Catholicism because they feel it has deeper roots in history. This is a practical concern, but one that has a theological solution.

While mistaken in their belief that the Roman Catholics are the real church with the deeper tradition, the impetus of those leaving Baptist churches and other evangelical churches is logical as we anticipate the growing cultural storm. In light of growing pressure to affirm counter-scriptural trends in culture, using a statement of faith adopted in the year 2000 is a much less robust shield than in a faith that is described as rooted in the confession of a man who knew Jesus in 33 AD. Churches serve their people well when they help them

Based on this reasoning, I use the historical creeds of the church to teach my children and I share them with Christians in Baptist churches because it connects us to the great cloud of witness that has gone before us. When I read the Apostle’s creed, I am reading the confession that Augustine affirmed, as have millions of faithful Christians in the interim. When I recite the creed, I am joining in a doxological practice that missionaries, martyrs, and ministers have shared for generations.

There is strength in the continuity we can share with those that have come before us. The creeds help us to understand that continuity. Given the ravages of the ecumenical movement of the mid-20th century, I understand reservations toward that sort of universal confession, but I believe it will be important in the coming years. The Nicene Creed is not enough, because it doesn’t take into account theological errors raised since it was authored, which is why the BF&M 2000 is an important document. Connecting people to the historic creeds is a way of showing theological continuity of our present confession with the ancient faith that we believe we are properly representing.

Third, the development of the creeds helps us understand the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy. Within the church, pastors and other leaders should be teaching the basis of our doctrinal belief, because it is vitally important to building a robust doctrinal foundation in a post-modern world.

As Dorothy L. Sayers wrote, with characteristic wit,

“Teacher and preachers never, I think, make it sufficiently clear that 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. And heresy is, as I have tried to show, largely the expression of opinion of the untutored average man, trying to grapple with the problems of the universe, trying to grapple with the problems of the universe at the point where they begin to interfere with daily life and thought.” (“Creed or Chaos,” in The Whimsical Christian, 41)

I think Sayers is right. Especially as an ethicist, I believe that we have to understand doctrine in light of the context in which it was expressed (not invented). By rooting our faith, which is founded on Scripture, in the Christian tradition through its connection with the historic creeds, we combat the error that Sayers identified in the 1940s in the rapidly secularizing British culture. To build an ethics that will weather the storms of this life and a faith that will not be carried away, we need to show people that our contemporary orthodoxy is a historical orthodoxy, which was drawn from Scripture in light of particular theological errors that continue to resurface.

Exposing people to ancient creeds that connect faith today to the doctrines delineated more than a millennia ago strengthens the faith of contemporary saints, even as it helps rule out of bounds some doctrinal innovations being promoted by ignorant and malicious teachers in our age. People need to know what good looks like to be able to recognize and avoid bad theology.

Fourth, studying and making people aware of the historical Christian creeds helps prevent the error of believing we can have “no creed but the Bible.”

I am sympathetic to those who try to live by the “no creed but the Bible” statement, but the good intent behind it can lead to significant error because it assumes that we can, without falling into error, read Scripture rightly. For example, “no creed but the Bible” is the essential belief of the Campbellite movement, which has led to their affirmation (in many cases) of baptismal regeneration. When diced in a particular way, Scripture can be seen to support that doctrine, though I believe it to be clearly inconsistent with the holistic message of Scripture.

I affirm the sufficiency, authority, and perspicuity of Scripture. At the same time, I also recognize that there are patterns of thought endemic to my age that will tend to lead to into particular errors. Exposing people to historic creeds helps guard against the blindness of our own age.

As C. S. Lewis wrote in his introduction to Athanasius’s On the Incarnation:

“Most of all, perhaps, we need intimate knowledge of the past. Not that the past has any magic about it, but because we cannot study the future, and yet need something to set against the present, to remind us that the basic assumptions have been quite different in different periods and that much which seems certain to the educated is merely temporary fashion. A man who has lived in many places is not likely to be deceived by the local errors of his native village: the scholar has lived in many times and is therefore in some degree immune from the great cataract of nonsense that pours from the press and the microphone of his own age.”

Church History in general and the creeds specifically are helpful in preventing us from falling into errors of our own age. Lewis is overly optimistic in believing that we won't fall into the opposite error of unquestioningly believing ancient sources, but his point that evaluating our understanding in light of historic thinkers, particularly when we are dealing with timeless truths, is right on the mark.

There are, I am sure, other reasons that I could list for utilizing the creeds as we study Christian doctrine, but these four provide a solid framework. I am hopeful that the creeds that have bounded orthodoxy for generations continue to grow in their use. It will link together faithful believers across traditions and bolster the faith of the members of our congregations trying to stand firm in our cultural moment.

On Our Moral Duty to Wear Masks

During recent weeks, world events have driven people to ask important questions about religious liberty, the role of the state, the nature of the common good, and the balance between individual freedoms and duties. As we’ve all sat in our homes with minimal chance to venture out, there have been gigabytes of data invested in the writing and reading of thoughts about the present, the future, epidemiology, and our longing for the delivery of our most recent online purchases.

One of the more recent questions that has arisen as many states and localities look forward to lifting their restrictions is: Should we wear masks in enclosed public spaces?

Unfortunately, for some, this has been turned into a political question related to a sense of submission and control, but at its heart, it is a question of neighbor love and concern for life. It is that angle—the concern for the preservation of life—that I will examine, ignoring the tangled web of frustration, argumentation, and misrepresentation.

Simply put, at the present time we have a moral duty to properly wear masks in enclosed public spaces.

Efficacy of Masks

Masks are worn because they help to slow the spread of viruses due to coughing, sneezing, speaking, and breathing from the nose and mouth. Essentially, even homemade masks help filter out the virus particulates that may be carried by our breath.

According to the CDC’s website,

It is critical to emphasize that maintaining 6-feet social distancing remains important to slowing the spread of the virus.  CDC is additionally advising the use of simple cloth face coverings to slow the spread of the virus and help people who may have the virus and do not know it from transmitting it to others.  Cloth face coverings fashioned from household items or made at home from common materials at low cost can be used as an additional, voluntary public health measure.

There was confusion early on in the pandemic, particularly as people tried to acquire necessary medical supplies and sought to use masks to protect themselves, which led to contrary guidance.

Confusion has been increased because the World Health Organization, which has to attempt to cross cultural barriers and a wide range of socio-economic conditions, is ambivalent on wearing masks to limit the spread of COVID-19. Most of their cautions have to do with the misuse of masks (e.g., repeatedly touching them to adjust them), wearing soiled masks that cannot be cleaned, or that wearing a mask would give a false sense of security leading to people not observing other significant precautions. Given that the WHO recommendations have to somehow support possible solutions in majority world countries as well as highly industrialized countries, it is not surprising there are a range of competing concerns that may be largely contextually driven.

It also does not help that there are intentional efforts to spread misinformation, to divide the nation, and to make simple, empirical decisions seem to be politically motivated. There are so many people writing about this issue that it is entirely possible to continue to search until we find an opinion we like and then point to that as decisive. Our best bet, though it will certainly be imperfect, is to go with the officials appointed by our government to do this research on our behalf and make recommendations. We should, unless it causes us to sin, obey authorities placed over us and use the best wisdom we can about less clear decisions.

Through all of this, we should remember that cloth masks, or simple surgical masks, are not particularly effective at preventing getting the infection. In fact, if you wear mask incorrectly (e.g., are constantly adjusting it, or think it functions as a shield for germs and don’t take normal precautions), wearing a mask may increase your likelihood of picking up germs.

Masks in public, as proposed and sometimes mandated during the current pandemic, are not primarily about protecting yourself. They are intended to prevent being a source of the infection. COVID-19 is unlike other common respiratory diseases in that it has, in some cases, a relatively lengthy asymptomatic period in which a person can also be contagious. There is a long period of time where we may be infected and contagious and have no idea, which makes COVID-19 different than many other respiratory diseases.

The moral duty in the case, is not simply to wear a mask, but to do so responsibly while maintaining other appropriate hygienic precautions, like frequent handwashing and maintaining personal space. We do this for the good of others, not (primarily) to prevent getting it ourselves.

Obedience to Authority

If a legitimate authority mandates that we wear masks, we should wear them properly if we are able. Rom 13:1-7 is fairly clear that we ought to submit to government authorities (or store owners, when on their property, or church leaders, when in their sphere of influence). If you are in a locality that requires masks, then you really don’t need to read the rest of this long article, because it is your moral duty to wear a mask properly, as long as you are able, in those situations mandated by the legitimate authority.

There are reams of explanation by Christians from many ages of Church History explaining that we need not obey authorities if it requires us to violate our conscience. However, apart from really odd reasoning (wearing protective gear obscures the image of God? If so, what do clothes do and what should we do with that?), belief that personal comfort is an absolute good, or some sort of belief that somehow not wearing a mask is subverting a conspiracy for social control, I have not seen much that argues that protecting the lives of others violates conscience.

An obvious caveat to this is that some people do feel an inordinate sense of anxiety due to some significant trauma if they wear a mask. That isn’t most people. But our duty is to ensure we obey authority and not to enforce the rules on others.

Risks of Infection

The likelihood of getting any virus is dependent on the concentration and duration of our exposure to those particles and the fighting ability of our immune system. Assuming equally healthy people, the person who is exposed to the greater number of virus particles for the longest time is more likely to get sick than someone with a lower exposure.

This is why many of the recommendations center on eliminating virus particles (e.g., by washing hands and sanitizing surfaces) and diluting the concentration (e.g., 6 feet distance, occupancy limits, etc.). There is also a time factor in the equation, so that reducing the time we spend in enclosed spaces reduces our risk of getting or spreading the disease, barring excess exertion that makes us breathe especially hard.

These are all probabilistic factors that we do not yet fully understand the exact values of, but reducing exposure is a critical means of lowering the chance the disease is transmitted.

No sane person wants to get the disease and we should take reasonable precautions to avoid it.

However, we also have a duty as Christians to minimize the potential that we spread the disease. Wearing a mask is primarily about preventing the spread of COVID-19.

This is particularly important since current estimates indicate that about half of the people who have the disease remain asymptomatic, there is a lag between becoming contagious and feeling symptoms even in bad cases, and asymptomatic people are capable of spreading the disease. In other words, we can feel perfectly fine and be spreading COVID-19.

Risk of the Disease

It is not clear at this point exactly how deadly COVID-19 is. Everyone admits that the death rates have been skewed upward because of the limited availability of the tests (especially early on when only those very ill could get the tests) and the number of asymptomatic people who are never tested.

However, COVID-19 tends to affect vulnerable populations more significantly. The elderly and those with underlying medical conditions often fare poorly. These are the sorts of people that our society tends to value less, but who Christians should be particularly ready to protect.

Even relatively healthy and youthful individuals who get the disease have described it as being severe. Experiences vary, often depending on the degree of exposure and the immune system’s response. In the most severe cases, people can require ventilators to supplement the body’s natural respiratory function.

It was concern over the availability of ventilators that initially led to the lockdowns in many states and cities.

Some areas, especially those that are populated most densely, have seen significant spread of COVID-19. Other areas, especially more rural parts of the country, have seen few cases.

This has fueled frustration in some less affected areas, which have faced strict restrictions with little visible impact. Those frustrations are increasing as low-density areas are being treated like high-density areas in a way that seems unfair and is damaging to the economy. There is some validity in the frustration; many of the lockdown measures were imposed broadly when narrower targeting would have been sufficient. (I am very thankful not to be one of the people trying to make these decisions right now.)

Presently, the restrictions on travel and commerce are helping to stop the transmission of the disease. However, the increasing frustration and significant economic harm being caused by the restrictions are pushing decision makers to lift those restrictions.

This is exactly the point of time when the tendency will be to relax the protective measures like wearing masks and maintaining personal distance. This is also exactly the point in time when those measures will be most important.

In the current condition, having stayed in contact with our families or very small clusters of friends, we have essentially proved that we have clusters of people who are no longer infected with COVID-19. All to the good.

However, when we begin to more freely associate and travel increases, we will be back to square one, unless we continue some of the basic precautions like maintaining physical distance from one another, washing hands frequently, and wearing masks to protect others.

There is no guarantee that we can prevent from getting the disease. We should protect our health reasonably, but as Christians we should be particularly concerned about protecting the health and lives of others. Our continued adherence to the recommendations of the CDC and other recommendations and regulations of our state and local authorities is part of our moral duty to protect others.

Especially those of us who come in contact with a broader public should be much more careful in preventing our spreading the disease unknowingly and inadvertently. This is exactly the reason properly wearing a mask in enclosed, public spaces is a moral duty right now.

Duty to be Cautious with Life

Most Christians are familiar with the 6th commandment, which prohibits murder. (Ex 20:13)

Contrary to much of the recent online discourse, accidentally spreading COVID-19 to someone who later dies is not murder. Neither is desiring to responsibly engage in economic activity and expression of disdain for healthcare workers or for the vulnerable populations around us.

But Christians have a duty to protect life beyond avoiding maliciously killing others. Christians also have a duty to be careful of life. Humans, even the ones we don’t like, are all made in God’s image and are precious to him.

As John Frame writes in his Medical Ethics,

The general principle of respect for human life also forbids any kind of physical harm (Exod. 22:12–36). God even forbids his people to put others in danger of such harm. (I believe that this is part of what God had in mind by legislating “cities of refuge” in the Old Testament [Num. 35:22-28; Deut. 19:4ff.].) Accidental killing is a crime, because we ought to be supremely careful with human life. . . . The moral obligation to be supremely careful with human life and not to take it accidentally is the fundamental principle of medical ethics: primum non nocere––“first, do no harm.”

He later refers to this as the “doctrine of carefulness,” which I think is an apt description of an obligation to avoid even the careless harm to others.

The doctrine of carefulness is the reason why we follow OSHA regulations at the worksite. It is the reason why we drive at a reasonable speed when there are kids playing soccer on the side of the road, even if we have to go slower than the posted speed limit.

The doctrine of carefulness is the primary driver behind wearing masks properly under the current conditions in enclosed, public spaces.

When we wear a mask, we are protecting the lives and health of others. The worker in the store has to stay inside the enclosed, recirculating building. The other members of our church are breathing in the air we have exhaled. Based on the CDC explanation, mask wearing minimizes their risk, even if it does not significantly protect the mask-wearer.

My Risk or Their Risk

The person who is receiving the risk is a critical element of this argument. In other words, am I putting myself at risk or another person?

If I choose to go skydiving or rock climbing I am taking risk upon myself that is unnecessary. Within certain parameters (i.e., we have an obligation not to be foolhardy to the point of suicidal risk) that is permissible. I can take risk upon myself.

Thus, for me to care for an infected individual is morally permissible, even if I don’t have all of the preferred protective gear. I should be careful, but I assume that risk.

I do not have the right to force that risk on other people, however, according to the doctrine of carefulness.

If I choose not to wear a mask, at this point in the pandemic, I may have been infected and I may therefore be pushing risk on other people that is unnecessary. That is unjust and immoral.

Obviously, it may be that I have been isolated for several weeks and finally returning to the grocery store. It may be that in that situation I have next to no potential to have the infection to spread to others. In that case, if there is no authoritative requirement (the store does not require it and governmental orders have been dropped) to wear a mask, then I am not bound to.

Most of us, however, will be out and about on a regular basis in the coming weeks as the restrictions are lifted. COVID-19 will inevitably spread more rapidly for a period of time after normal social and economic activities are restored. As we go back to stores and back to work, even on an intermittent basis, we will no longer be sure that we are “clean and free” of COVID-19. At that point, even if we believe we do not have the disease because we feel fine, we should choose to wear a mask properly in enclosed, public spaces out of love for our neighbor, to protect his or her life. We have no right to put our neighbor at risk any more than necessary.

There is, I think, in many circles a false sense of security and minimization of the real risk of COVID-19 because the drastic actions taken to reduce the spread have worked. Many people, therefore, do not know someone directly who has suffered from it and have not seen how dreadful it is. By the account of those who are seeing the work of the disease, it is significant and potentially deadly.

Particular Duties of Christians

Christians should likely be among the most cautious of people regarding this infection. Apart from sports, churches are often among of the largest gatherings of people in our communities. We come together a few times a week after we have been separated and gone out into the world, to various businesses and places of work.

Churches, therefore, are likely to be among the main ways that the disease will be spread. Not only do we gather and scatter, but we also often sing, which seems to be a particularly effective way of spreading the disease. Shouting and singing both encourage deeper breathing and, because of the extra force to make the sounds, tend to aerosolize the particulates more, which increases the likelihood that they spread.

Therefore, once we return to gathered worship (may the day come soon), especially inside, we are among the most likely to spread the disease and become infected. As a result, we have a greater chance of imparting risk to those we come in contact with. We should choose, therefore, to bear the mild inconvenience of wearing a mask to protect the lives of our neighbors.

Let us be known as the people who value life even over comfort and personal freedom.

Reasonable steps may include, and I think should include, choosing to wear a mask properly in enclosed, public spaces (beyond church) even after the CDC recommendation has been lifted or the local ordinances are dropped.

Masks and Christian Liberty

Some may argue that the stronger brother (mask wearer) should bear with the weaker brother (non-mask wearer) in this regard, when it comes to social interactions. In other words, I should be able to have the liberty to choose not to wear a mask if I don’t want to. That argument has the actual pattern reversed.

First, we have a duty to obey the authorities of those placed over us unless it causes us to sin. If there is a mandate to wear a mask, then we should wear one if able. Wearing a mask is not sin, even if we chafe at the restriction. If the leadership of a local congregation chooses to require a mask, then we should voluntarily do so.

However, if others in the congregation ask us to wear a mask, we ought to agree to it, even if we don’t like it. We should yield to them as the weaker brother, in this case.

As Paul describes eating meat sacrificed to idols in 1 Cor 8, it is our obligation to yield our rights to others. In this case, we ought to yield our perceived right not to wear a mask to those who feel that a mask is necessary for safety. Aside from the risk we are imparting on the other individual, our refusal to wear a mask is likely to force others to violate their conscience by not attending church. As Paul writes, “But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.” (v. 9)

The meat eater must bear with the abstainer, not the other way around. In this case, the bolder action is to avoid the mask, therefore it is the mask abstainer that should yield.

On the other hand, if the congregation agrees not to wear a mask, then they should not look down on those that choose to avoid gathered worship until they feel comfortable. We should not attempt to force people to violate their conscience, even through social pressure, which is Paul’s point.

We have no right to expect others to choose the same level of risk that we accept for ourselves or others. We have no right to expect someone to violate their conscience by risking the spread of the disease. Those that choose to accept the risk should do so voluntarily and be prepared to bear whatever consequence results, but it should be mutually accepted.

Masks and Absolute Morals

One obvious question that arises from this discussion is whether the duty to wear a mask is absolute. How is it that we now have a duty to wear masks, but in January people would have thought us strange for wearing one? Has God’s truth changed? (After all, Scripture says nothing about COVID-19, etc.)

The answer is that absolute truth applied to a changing circumstance leads to a different action.

Sex is not sinful in and of itself. However, consenting sex outside of marriage is sinful. The circumstances are part of the moral calculus.

We have a duty to protect life. When our child is bleeding out in our back seat, that may lead us to violate the speed limit. When there are children playing soccer near the road, that may lead us to go well under the posted speed limit. The duty is the same, but how we live it out changes.

At the present time, the risk—especially the unknown risk—of COVID-19 is such that properly wearing a mask in enclosed, public spaces is morally warranted.

There will be a day at some point in the future that that will no longer be the case. As Christians, demonstrating love for neighbor, we should be among the more cautious when it comes to life. It does us little credit when people who claim the name of Christ demand autonomous personal freedoms without consideration for the vulnerable. We should be willing to sacrifice our comfort and convenience for the sake of the health and lives of others.

The moral absolute here is the duty to be careful with life. That does not mean absolute prevention of risk, but it does mean that we should work to minimize it, especially during a time of relative crisis like this.

We won’t know when the exact moment that it was no longer necessary to wear a mask until some time after it comes. To err on the side of caution is the morally prudent course of action.

Masks as a Historical Practice

Somehow, obscured in the politicization of this issue, people seem to be missing the fact that donning a mask has been a consistent practice recommended for visiting immunocompromised people for years. Perhaps I’m just unaware, but I’ve never heard or read anyone who objected to protecting the life of their child during cancer treatments by wearing a mask.

The duty to wear a mask was always conditioned upon the circumstance. The efficacy of masks has been assumed when dealing with visiting cancer patients, but suddenly it is being questioned now that the request is being made outside the sick ward.

The most reasonable arguments for this are that people aren’t going to wear the masks right, and will assume that the mask keeps everyone totally safe. Therefore, we shouldn’t wear masks.

People can be stubborn and ignorant, but repeated communication should help convince people that physical distance, hygiene, and proper mask wearing are three distinct (but related) measures to reduce spread of COVID-19.

Inability to Wear a Mask

If for some reason someone cannot wear a mask, then they should not wear a mask.

Churches should, within reason, work to accommodate those who cannot have a mask on. However, it may be that, since our buildings were not constructed for a respiratory pandemic, that accommodation may include being treated differently than those who can wear a mask. Different conditions may warrant different treatment.

People that cannot wear a mask can fulfill their duty to protect others through hygiene, maximal isolation, and maintaining distance as rigorously as possible.

We should do our best to bear with those who, for whatever reason, cannot take the same precautions for our health. This may include ensuring those individuals do not have to come in contact with infected individuals by running their errands, etc.

The simple fact that some cannot wear a mask should not prevent us as individuals from wearing masks or congregations from requiring them of everyone who is able. The goal is to minimize risk as much as reasonable, not to pretend we can entirely eliminate it.

At the same time, people who can wear a mask, but don’t want to ought to wear a mask. “It makes me feel hot and fogs my glasses” are not moral arguments against wearing a mask. (Trust me, I’ve worn a mask for an extended period of time during this and it’s no fun.)

Conclusion

Obviously, this is an ever-changing situation. If, for whatever reason, it becomes clear that properly wearing a mask in an enclosed, public space actually infects more people we should not do it. Our duty is to be cautious with life, not to wear a particular article of clothing.

When the CDC recommendations are relaxed, we should consider our own risk of being infected and be cautious about reducing our efforts to put our neighbor at risk. Leaders of churches should be especially cautious, as they will be setting the rules that will protect or endanger their congregations and the local communities. As I noted, churches are among some of the most high-risk activities that exist in our communities when it comes to communicable, respiratory diseases. It’s one thing to threaten someone with the common cold, it’s another thing to put them at risk of COVID-19. And, by putting those that attend at risk, we also put our communities at risk because of the particularly insidious nature of the disease.

We have no obligation to police our neighbor’s Facebook feed to see if they are wearing a mask. Our obligation is to ensure we are not spreading the disease, not to ensure others are not doing so. We should take appropriate care of our own health and lives, which may include avoiding corporate worship if the congregation refuses to take reasonable precautions. However, our goal should not be to shame or divide the congregation, but to reflect a consistent concern for life in a responsible, spiritually mature way.

At the end of the day, we will all give an account to God for our moral choices. Those that are in Christ will be covered by his blood, but our goal should be, as much as reasonable, to fulfill our duties as outlined in Scripture as much as possible for God’s glory. In this case, that requires us to take caution with the lives of our neighbors, which presently includes properly wearing masks in enclosed, public places.

Unmasking Moral Disagreements

One of the challenges of living within the diverse community that is a local congregation is that people will come to widely different conclusions about what is good and right, especially on questions that Scripture doesn’t speak directly to or that involve rapidly evolving data.

Aside from the more egregious examples, which often are due to radically different understandings of Scripture, there are often a wide range of lesser issues that have moral implications and on which disagreement is not grounds for complete disassociation.

Right now, as people grapple with floods of conflicting information about how to deal with a novel virus, there are different perspectives on whether to wear masks, whether to ignore guidelines limiting the size of gatherings, etc.

Some have clearer moral answers than others. For example, given the currently available data, it is fairly clear to me that wearing masks properly in enclosed spaces is a moral duty to protect those around me. There are some that disagree, some for honest, well-meaning reasons. Others have poorer reasons but are unlikely to be convinced of a change of mind based on any argumentation.

This is a time to reason well, look out for our neighbor, but also to show as much grace as we can to those that disagree.

Managing Moral Disagreement

How do we engage with other believers that disagree with us on contested moral topics?

Scripture is timeless truth, it is God’s gift to us that should form our moral conscience and direct our lives.

Paul’s letter to the church at Rome recognizes that Christians are likely to encounter people inside and outside the church who have differing perspectives on moral matters. His advice is simple: “If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.” (Rom 12:18)

This is hard to do. When your neighbor plays music too loud, it is hard not to want to be rude back.

Sometimes it is even harder when there are moral questions in play and we have a close personal connection and concern for their well-being.

Do we have a duty to try to convince someone of our moral position?

The answer, I think, is that it depends.

There is a reason why the author of Proverbs 26:4-5 gave us this little chestnut:

“Answer not a fool according to his folly,
    lest you be like him yourself.
Answer a fool according to his folly,
    lest he be wise in his own eyes.”

This has been pointed out as an apparent contradiction in Scripture by some skeptics, but it is just an example that shows that sometimes we have a duty to speak and at other times we do not.

Certainly, when we see someone about to devastate their life with sin we have a duty to speak to them to try to convince them to head toward the truth. As James urges his readers:

“My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.” (5:19-20)

Sometimes we have a duty to speak, but we ought to do so consistently with the significance of the moral concern and our relational proximity to the one we are addressing.

By analogy, we would take much more significant action if we saw our next-door neighbor about to accidentally spray weed killer in his eye rather than a stranger in another town about to get himself with water from his hose. Proximity and danger make a difference as to the appropriate response.

In a similar way, we might strongly believe that a particular TV show is morally corrosive, but our response to knowing a fellow Christian is absorbed in that show is different than if they are considering a contract to become an adult entertainer or discussing the logistics for adultery. Our cousin’s Facebook friend whom we’ve never met is not the primary concern of our efforts in discipleship and holding up signs condemning people at a gay pride parade is unlikely to do any good.

In areas of concern that are less likely to lead to imminent harm, wisdom should have us speaking clearly to minimize that harm. We may have to repeat ourselves to be heard.

In areas that are questionable, we ought to speak to those nearest and especially to those who are likely to listen to us. We state our case, move on, and do not violate our conscience.

When it comes to moral matters in the church, we have a duty not to stir up dissent. (Titus 3:9) It’s fine to raise concerns, but once we’ve had the first round of discussions, it does little good to keep hammering away to try to score a win by getting our own way in the debate.

Many conflicts in the church would be resolved if people were a bit more concerned with their own holiness and a bit less concerned with other people’s holiness. This is what Jesus was speaking of in Matthew 7:1–5. Of course, that passage has been abused to shut down all forms of contrary advice in some circles. None of us can ever claim to be without a log yet we have a duty to speak in some cases, but the duty to self-examine clearly needs to be considered before we rush to speak.

Masks and the Church

So what do we do when we believe mask wearing is a moral duty and other people refuse to do so?

Sometimes we just have to get used to watching people be wrong. Most of us social conservatives have found ways to live and work with people that have radically diverse opinions on many other issues, and some of these pandemic issues are no different.

The prudent path seems to be voice our opinion as carefully as we can and then let the discussion move on. We do, however, have an obligation not to participate in something that offends our conscience.

The ultimate aim of wearing a mask is to limit our ability to spread the disease. It is for the good of our neighbor, not for our own protection. We are showing concern for our neighbor by limiting our comfort and freedom for their good. Unfortunately, since most homemade or simple surgical masks are ineffective at preventing the wearer from getting infected, mask wearing only works if it is done widely in appropriate settings.

Therefore, if we are part of a congregation that does not mandate measures to reduce the spread of the disease, and we believe that we have a moral duty to limit its spread, then we have a moral obligation not to participate in activities that encourage the spread of the virus. In other words, in this situation, it would be appropriate to continue to livestream or participate in other ways that do not require us to violate our conscience. If we get infected because of a lack of care by those around us, then we have the potential to spread the disease and are not fulfilling our moral duty. If a church decides to conduct services without requiring measures designed to reduce the spread of COVID-19, they should recognize they are obligating some of their congregants to stay away.

But the mask wearers have no duty police those that choose not to wear a mask. Make your case and then take appropriate action. Don’t stalk people’s Instagram accounts to make insulting comments about distance and mask wearing. And, certainly, don’t allow yourself to hope they get someone sick so you can say, “I told you so.” Masks will only be necessary for a season. In a couple of years, the controversy will be a distant memory. It isn’t worth immolating friendships or division of the church over this issue, even if it is worth remaining apart for a time.

And the non-mask wearers should not look down on those who see mask wearing as a moral duty. If mask wearers won’t come to a gathering of people that aren’t taking precautions, recognize that they are following the course they believe is necessary to be faithful to Christ in this life. Imputing motive (e.g., by calling mask wearers cowards) is not Christlike, especially when there is strong evidence that wearing a mask may be an effective way of showing neighbor love. This is what 1 Corinthians 8 is all about. However, if you are asked to wear a mask at church or in another gathering, you should do so, even if you feel it to be unnecessary. As the Apostle Paul explains, liberty is always sacrificed and never demanded.

Conclusion

These same principles apply with our choices in entertainment, the consumption of alcohol, and other things that have nothing to do with a pandemic. We provide counsel to people based on our proximity and the possible harm. In cases of lower harm, if our advice is not taken, we make the choice that protects our conscience, and, as much as possible, accommodates the conscience of our brother or sister.

Especially as misinformation—intentional and unintentional—continues to spread around an evolving situation, we have to navigate these fields with humility. That doesn’t mean that we don’t correct the obvious conspiracy theories or falsehoods, but it does mean that some people are simply going to arrive at incorrect conclusions. In fact, it is possible that our conclusions, which are also driven by available data, may be incorrect.

Grace will help ease the situation in the short term and bring us back together in the long term. In the end, God will adjudicate the rightness or a moral action, and Christ’s blood will cover the deficiencies of the ones in error.

The Christian Mind and Christian Worldview Education

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

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

He goes on:

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

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

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

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

Catechesis and Christianity

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

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

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

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

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

Catechesis and Christian Worldview Education

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Toward Reinvigorating a Christian Mind

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

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

Wipf and Stock

Buy on Amazon

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

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

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

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

Scams and Christian Education: Inflated Credentials and Fraudulent Accreditation

A while back I encountered a book by a self-published author that was presented as very helpful and offered for free, but when I picked it up, it was such a basic and low-content product that it might do more harm than good. It showed a real lack of expertise in the content and in style. That isn’t too uncommon for self-publication, but it is sometimes interesting to see how an author got to the point of self-importance that caused them to want to publish something absent expertise.

To find out more, I read the author’s biography. This is something I’ve gotten used to doing as a serial book reviewer. Before I read a book, I tend to ask myself why this author is the person who has something to say on this particular topic. There are gems that can be found by people who have no clear qualifications or experience on a subject, but they are rare. I don’t consider it my responsibility to find and expose those gems.

What drew my attention in this case was that the author listed an advanced degree from an institution I’ve never heard of. It was a doctorate of some variety in biblical studies. (The author’s website actually lists a degree the institution does not offer, but that is a topic for another post.)

Not being a known institution of higher learning may reflect more on my ignorance than the quality of the education, but my interest was piqued. So, I searched for the institution online. And I found it. It has a very elementary website with a number of missing elements (e.g., the institutional history claims to be under development), typos in menus (e.g., “Distance Learning” became “Distant Learning”), and interesting language about accreditation, which led me on my quest. The issue went beyond careless typos into blatant dishonesty.

What I found is a profoundly deceitful example of trying to ape the world’s standards dishonestly. It was an attempt to inflate credentials for the individuals. For the institution, it was an opportunity to make a little money by offering a knock off imitation of a product very much in demand. It is likely that the primary target audience of the institution’s sham degrees is people overseas who want an American education at a developing world price.

Basically, what I discovered in following this trail was a Diploma Mill designed to inflate credentials and put of a false front of credibility. More significantly, the false front was deepened by relying on an unrecognized “accreditation agency” whose approval is self-designated and, therefore, virtually meaningless. It was a Diploma Mill certified by an Accreditation Mill: a double deception destined to dishonor the name of Christ.

Background on Accreditation

Maintaining accreditation can be a difficult process. Not everything in the accreditation process is really helpful or cost effective, but overall, it does provide some assurances of institutional integrity and quality that protect students and faculty from various forms of abuse. I say this as someone who has worked on accreditation reaffirmations for several institutions.

In the United States, accreditation is unlike many other countries. The federal government authorizes the Council for Higher Education Accreditation and US Department of Education to set standards and vet the agencies that accredit programs and institutions. CHEA and USDE both accredit accreditors. Neither accredits specific programs or even whole institutions.

There are six regional accrediting agencies that oversee the accreditation of institutions along distinct geographic lines. If you are looking at schools in the U.S., this is generally the mark of a degree that will have value in the marketplace after graduation. Regional accreditors certify the quality of an entire institution and do not accredit specific programs.

In addition, there are specialized accreditors that approve specific programs at an institution. For example, there are two accreditors for nursing programs recognized by CHEA and/or USDE. Those agencies are focused on nursing and will come into an institution (which is likely accredited by a regional accreditor) to check the specifics of the nursing programs. They will not look at the English major (for example) when they come to visit. If you are shopping for programs in a distinct professional discipline, it is often very beneficial for your program to be accredited by one of the recognized specialized accreditors. You can get a degree in nursing (for example) from an institution that is only regionally accredited and does not have a specialized accreditation, but that may have negative implications for hiring or licensing.

To be clear, a good education can be attained apart from accreditation. There may come a time when accreditation of orthodox, faith-based institutions in the U.S. will not be possible. However, at the present time, degrees from regionally accredited institutions are the baseline standard in the marketplace. Employers expect you to have a degree of a certain quality from an institution certified by an authorized accreditation agency. In certain fields (like engineering, seminary degrees, nursing, and other professional fields), specialized accreditation is also necessary for the degree holder to enter the workforce in their chosen specialty.

Diploma Mills

Other than hiring practices and licensing requirements, CHEA and USDE derive their significance from being gate keepers to federal aid money. Institutions that are accredited by CHEA or USDE recognized accreditors can (but don’t have to) allow their students to get subsidized student loans, federal grants, or other government authorized aid. Part of the reason for the rise in significance in accreditation was to ensure that GI Bill money and other Federal student aid money was being spent on real, value-added educational programs.

However, as educational opportunities have proliferated, undergraduate degrees have become more of an entry ticket into more stable professional employment. (There are signs that this is changing, which I generally see as a good thing.) This has made it more important for people to have “the piece of paper” that states they completed a specific degree. Enter the Diploma Mill.

A Diploma Mill is an organization (or individual) representing itself as a legitimate educational institution with degree granting authority, but which does little or nothing to validate the recipients of that degree have the knowledge, skills, or experience that the degree normally implies in common usage.

For many people, going to school to obtain a degree is a schedule and/or financial impossibility. It becomes very tempting for institutions to pop up to offer easy access to get degrees. In the worst cases, these “institutions” are simply people with a nice printer that will spit out a personalized piece of parchment with a legitimate sounding school name on it for a few hundred dollars. In less egregious cases, there are actual institutions that offer real classes, but the amount of work required to complete courses is far below reasonable expectations or the amount of credit they grant for experience is well above normal limits. Often the faculty at these institutions have degrees from other Diploma Mills (even the one they teach at), so have never been exposed to experts in the field.

These, and the variants between, are all referred to as Diploma Mills. Most of these institutions make no claim to accreditation, it is up to the buyer to figure out the potential market value of the offered degree. The price seems too good to be true and the product much needed. Most of the time, the product is cheap because it is fake.

To be clear (and fair to some good actors), there are non-accredited institutions that offer legitimate educations. In some cases, there are ideological arguments for not seeking accreditation. For example, some Fundamentalist Christian schools believe that seeking accreditation requires a compromise of the principle of separation from sin. We can debate the merits of that position, but it is a legitimate one. In other cases, an institution may simply not have existed long enough to have accreditation. An institution cannot get accredited until it has a track record of operation for the accreditor to evaluate. Accreditation is also a costly process, so some young or financially struggling institutions that are academically sound may not be able to afford it. Not having accreditation, however, should be plainly stated with an explanation somewhere in the institution’s literature and website. The simple lack of meaningful accreditation does not make an institution a Diploma Mill, but it bears further investigation.

Accreditation Mills

The rabbit hole that I followed based on the author biography, however, revealed a third type of institution: a school that asserts it is “Fully Accredited” with a link to an “accreditor” that is not recognized by either CHEA or USDE. The accreditor, in this case, is actually an “Accreditation Mill.”

Simply put, an Accreditation Mill is an organization that claims to offer a value-added certification of the quality of the degree from an institution but does little to ensure its quality. It offers the appearance of legitimacy, without the necessary diligence to ensure it.

In the world of educational deception, Accreditation Mills are generally more morally insidious than bald-faced Diploma Mills. Accreditation Mills are tools used by illegitimate degree conferring institutions to maintain the appearance of validity without doing the work needed to have it.

In the best light, a struggling institution may purchase their “accreditation” from an Accreditation Mill to stay alive. It’s hard to attract students to a school that is not accredited. However, purchasing that accreditation is an act of deception intended to give the appearance of legitimacy to an otherwise low to no value degree. It is, necessarily, a form of dishonest misrepresentation.

Institutions that represent themselves as “Accredited” or, worse, “Fully Accredited” by an “accreditor” that is not recognize by USDE or CHEA are using people’s general ignorance as a tool to legitimate them. It is, at the heart, a fundamentally dishonest and despicable practice.

A Problem of Standards and Legitimacy

Out of curiosity, I moved from the website of the Diploma Mill in question to the “accreditor” from whom the institution received their status as “Fully Accredited.”

As a side note, no institution or program should ever claim to be “Fully Accredited.” (Just as a woman cannot be a little bit pregnant, but is either pregnant or not.) In legitimate regions of higher education, there is accreditation or no accreditation. An institution may have findings against their accreditation status, but they are still either accredited or not. Some legitimate institutions mistakenly publish themselves as “Fully Accredited” due to ignorance in their administrations, but that term should be a flag to ask further questions.

In the case under investigation, the institution claims to be “Fully Accredited,” but the “accreditor” is not certified by either the USDE or CHEA, nor are they pursuing any official status. The claim is a false front design to deceive the ignorant about the market value of the degrees.

If you know what to look for, it can be easy to pick out this misrepresentation. In this case, helpfully, the organization is pretty plainly a low-grade confidence scheme. The “accreditor” has a link from their main page offering to explain their “legal status.” Their website advertises them as a registered 501c3, showing a recent filing as a non-profit entity in Florida (despite being based in Missouri). Above that document there is a strongly worded paragraph that warns visitors they are a legitimate organization and that they have sued and will sue anyone who publicly describes their disreputable activity as…disreputable. They object to the term “accreditation mill” and “diploma mill.”

Most dishonest people don’t see themselves as bad guys.

Below their Florida entity registration area host of mean letters they have paid lawyers to send to bloggers and review sites to attempt to have the evidence of their perfidy scrubbed. [Incidentally, I am not putting these frauds “on blast” by name because I don’t feel like wasting my time on exposing them, and dealing with frivolous complaints, when the type of fraud is much more significant and widespread that this one Accreditation Mill.]

The organization also attempts to mislead visitors to the website by having a “US Government” link on their main page, which has links to documents that in no way connect them to the U. S. government in any meaningful sense. Oddly, the jobs page provides links to several positions at public universities (including an LGBT diversity coordinator, which is odd for an organization that “accredits” KJV loving institutions) that are outdated by several years and well out of the reach of anyone who graduates from a school “accredited” by this organization. And, to top off the wonder of the train-wreck, they list a Gmail account as one of the primary emails for the site.

For those who explore the links, there are a large number of warning flags.

Even more telling, perhaps, is that there are typos in the accreditation standards on their website. For example (and sic), “Institutions muse provide a time requirement…” Such an obvious typo in one of the few standards the “accreditor” has seems sketchy, to say the least. Not to mention that the accreditation standards are so far below any accepted standards of quality as to be meaningless.

The whole thing is a fraudulent shell game. It is a dishonest ruse.

Why Is This Bad?

The ruse works because most people who are seeking a degree do not understand how accreditation works. It intentionally trades on general ignorance of what accreditation means

The ruse is damaging for several reasons.

First, some people may do the work and pay for the degree from one of these fraudulent institutions and not recognize that it is making claims that are fundamentally dishonest. When businesses require an accredited degree, they mean one that has been accredited by a recognized accreditation organization. Ignorant people who get jobs based on untrue claims, even if it is not due to their own dishonesty, may face job loss. Or, they may find that they get rejected for employment because the hiring manager investigates their qualifications and writes them off as either a fool or a trickster for representing themselves as having a valid degree. In either case, the too good to be true degree that they got is really false and can cause damage down the line.

Second, counterfeit degrees devalue real degrees. Someone who invests four years going through the work of earning a 120-semester hour Baccalaureate degree deserves more credit than someone who spent a year and a couple thousand dollars doing busy work (if that much) for a Diploma Mill diploma or a degree from a non-accredited institution. Getting a degree may not mean you are a better person, but it should mean that you’ve done something recognizable and meaningful. If someone does not value the process of becoming accredited or earning a degree, then be honest and don’t pretend to have the product.

Is this Illegal?

What many of these Diploma Mills and Accreditation Mills are doing is likely not illegal.

It is dishonest to take advantage of people’s ignorance or confusion to sell them a low-quality, low-value degree, even if it is at a cut-rate price. However, in the cases I examined neither the school nor the “accreditor” make openly false statements about the value of their accreditation or their relationships with the US government.

This is simply a case of using information superiority to take advantage of ignorant people who think they are buying a product they are not.

The guy selling “Oakley” sunglasses on the streets of New York may never tell you they are actually brand name products. He allows you to draw that conclusion from the similar logo and look without making the overt statement. His conscience is clear (maybe) and he is not legally liable because, in some sense, you have deceived yourself. He just set up the conditions for it to happen.

Diploma Mills and Accreditation Mills are immoral, but they may not be illegal.

Why this Annoys Me

In this case, the author whose biography prompted this whole investigation makes a claim to hold a doctorate. I happen to hold a doctorate from an institution with both a regional and specialized accreditation. My doctorate took me years and required me to write a book-length dissertation. His dissertation was completed online in monthly installments and required a “thesis” that would be a lengthy seminar paper in most PhD programs.

The problem here is that to the average person on the street, his credentials are the same as mine. The difference is that he didn’t do the formative work to earn that title or status, and it shows in the results he puts on display.

The individual who sparked this post got my attention for offering a low-quality book, but also because he preached one of the most illogical and rhetorically poor sermons I have ever heard. The credibility of his preaching was raised in the eyes of some because of his “doctorate.” The fact that he said multiple things that were incoherent or simply factually false discredits my degree, because a religiously-based doctorate becomes associated with foolishness. When people see his errors and associate them with the education he claims, it decreases the trustworthiness of those who earned their credentials from a reputable, accredited institution.

Worse still, people who hear him are going to assume that his objectively false statements are valid because he is supposed to be an expert. Having a degree in the field about which you are speaking should ensure some credibility. In the case of this author and speaker, any credibility would be falsely assumed.

Degrees from institutions that misrepresent the nature of their “accreditation” are issuing counterfeit credentials that devalue the perceived value of degrees for those who do the work to earn them from legitimate institutions. This is dishonest and represents a failure of neighbor love.

Both the dishonesty and the degradation of my earned credentials rub me the wrong way.

Degrading Christianity and Christian Institutions

Perhaps more significantly than my personal annoyance, however, is that creating Christian Diploma Mills or pursuing an Accreditation Mill certification to misrepresent reality is a form of treachery.

Notably the Accreditation Mill that I was focused on is “faith based.” When I did a search for institutions that were “accredited” by them, the ones I clicked on all claimed to be Christian or at least to offer some sort of theological education. (This despite the fact that one of them included “State” in their name to masquerade as a public university.)

Several of these institutions issue semi-standard fundamentalist warnings that their degree was not intended to advance your “secular career.” The insinuation is that non-Christians are likely to look down on your degree simply because it comes from a religious institution.

There may be some validity in that, though it has not played out that way for institutions like Notre Dame, Baylor, and Georgetown.

However, these institutions are working toward devaluing degrees from religious institutions because they are putting forth low quality substitutes for the real thing and crying about it. In truth, overtly Christian institutions that provide excellent educational opportunities tend to have students that do well in both “secular” and faith-based fields.

There are enough cultural forces trying to put highly qualified Christians in a dhimmi status without creating a back-alley café with greasy silverware and claiming it is just as good as a highly rated New York bistro. Being a shyster as a representative of Christ is a good way to get everyone to think that all Christians (or most) are shysters.

If institutions don’t want to play by the accreditation rules, that is fine, but it degrades Christianity and legitimate Christian academic institutions when people falsely claim to produce excellence when they are pumping out excrement. This dishonors Christ because it is intentionally deceptive.

Why Is This Dangerous?

The false credentials purchased through these online programs can be dangerous because it can produce people who, to those who aren’t aware, have the letters that signal expert without the knowledge to back it up. The low-quality book and poor sermon of the “doctor” I encountered is a symptom that could have truly negative consequences in another field.

For example, one of the institutions “accredited” under this false front offers a “Doctor of Psychology” degree for about $8,000. The courses for this degree are all “accelerated” with one offering noting that it expects students to do a 6-semester hour course in 6 weeks.

This requirement is unrealistic.

Most institutions of higher learning expect, for undergraduate programs, a basic 2:1 ratio between homework and class time. They also anticipate that a given semester hour will have 50 minutes of contact per week for 15 weeks. So, a typical 3 credit course could be expected to have 2250 minutes of contact time—or classroom time for traditional education—per semester with an additional 4500 minutes of homework. For those good at math, that is an expected 6,750 minutes of total work for the average student to master the material in that course. That comes to 112.5 hours.

This 6-semester hour course, therefore, could be expected to consume at least 225 hrs of the students’ time during that 6 week period. That is 37.5 hrs per week.

What are the odds that the amount of work in this class actually matches that standard expectation for an undergraduate program? Recognize that the work for a graduate or advanced course is usually more taxing.

I didn’t register for the class (and the syllabus was not online) to find out, but I’d lay even money that this class isn’t that rigorous otherwise no one would finish the program. Even if a student crams through some material in this six-week session, how much are they likely to retain? How can someone who has crammed that much material hope to be exposed to the range of literature in the field? Education typically requires soak time.

At the end of a series of these classes, someone with a little extra time and a few thousand dollars has a piece of paper that lists a degree that could convince a patient to come listen to their advice and pay them for it. Even if they never get a job from a medical practice, someone with no real knowledge could be giving advice to people in desperate need of real help.

All of this is an issue because people rely on degrees, accreditation, and certifications to mean something. Beyond being immoral and dishonest, when bad actors intentionally misrepresent their product, it could lead to real danger.

Conclusion

Credential inflation is not something new in the Christian world. The number of honorary doctorates given by Fundamentalist Christian institutions in the 20th century could probably feed a bonfire for a decade.

Credential inflation is problematic because it reflects a desire to see oneself as more important than one really is. It is an attempt to claim a level of expertise and experience that is not legitimate. It is an attempt to gain honor from the work that others have done.

Significantly, institutions and individuals that misrepresent their own credentials are dishonoring the name of Christ by putting their own honor above the truth. It is not strictly necessary to say something untrue to lie, one can simply intentionally mislead.

As Christians we ought to be known for our adherence to truth. Pursuing inflated credentials or misrepresenting the nature of credentials offered by an institution within the body of Christ should be unthinkable. May it become so soon.

The Green New Deal - A Review

The Green New Deal (GND) will either take off or get crushed by this most recent economic crisis. On the one hand, proponents of the GND argue they can provide everyone with everything they need (and a pony) while making everything greener, safer, and happier. On the other hand, we are doing a pretty solid dryrun of the Green New Deal and most people aren’t having much fun.

Jeremy Rifkin’s book, The Green New Deal: Why the Fossil Fuel Civilization Will Collapse by 2028, and the Bold Economic Plan to Save Life on Earth, takes a swing at making a case that a centrally planned (if not centrally controlled) economy can make things better in every respect—better jobs, more money, better ecology, etc. This has been his focus for decades now.

According to his website, Rifkin serves as an advisor to leaders in the EU on their movement toward a green economy. He also lays claim to “advising the leadership of the Peoples Republic of China on the build out and scale up of the Internet Plus Industrial Revolution infrastructure to usher in a sustainable low-carbon economy.”

Of those two significant claims to authority, the second one helps shape my concerns about his proposed policy and show why the GND may not be the good deal that its proponents support.

One of Rifkin’s major claims is that fossil fuels are on the wane and that our current economic structure, which includes a significant amount of formal and informal infrastructure based on the assumptions of a certain mode of power, will be obsolete in roughly a decade. He argues that renewable energies like solar and wind will replace the bulk of coal and natural gas generation. He also argues that regulation and obsolescence will help push the internal combustion engine far to the margins for transportation.

(On a side note, one of the major Green New Deal advocates, Alexadria Ocasio-Cortez recently celebrated the economic harms done to the oil industry by the current pandemic in a tweet. She subsequently deleted the tweet and modified it to make it sound like her joy was less effusive about other people’s pain, but whatever her intent is or was, it is clear that she and other GND advocates see the current economic crisis as an opportunity to push their plans on the world.)

Inasmuch as Rifkin sees a rise in the prevalence of solar and wind generation, I think he is correct. Those technologies are quickly becoming economical. Even without the tax subsidy provided by the federal government, I would have probably installed the solar panels on my roof. Solar, in particular, is an energy source that has many more advantages than disadvantages. Wind, too, is very clean, though there are issues with migratory bird deaths, disruption of bird nesting areas, and aesthetic concerns for people who live near them. There are more kinks to work out for wind, but there is a great deal of promise, too.

The present problem is that displacing the baseload generation of traditional power plants requires a rapid development and deployment of hydrogen storage technologies (or another storage method) to be effective. In a May 2019 article on hydrogen storage notes that, “Hydrogen may be stored at elevated density in various ways but few of these have reached commercial maturity for large scale applications.” Rifkin’s promise of an all renewable future relies on that technology maturing and being put into largescale use in just a few years. I find that unlikely.

A better answer to a shift toward hydrogen storage might be an increase in nuclear power generation, which has small scale options that are nearing approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the US that promise a significant reduction in risk and construction costs. The latter of which is the most significant issue with nuclear, though perceived risk is often the greater issue in the mind of the public.

Beyond what I view as excessive optimism is a much more insidious element of the Green New Deal in Rifkin’s model, which is that it requires submission to an increase in personal surveillance and loss of control by individuals and families.

One of the more significant demands in Alexadria Ocasio-Cortez’s grandiose GND proposals was to “retrofit every building in America.” To most people, that sounds like a promise to put in more insulation, add some weather-stripping, and maybe add a programmable thermostat. However, Rifkin gives some context to what that retrofit would include.

Rifkin is a big fan of the Internet of Things. A lot of Americans are, in fact, though the wisdom of that remains to be seen. The Internet of Things (IoT) is when people’s home appliances, home security systems, traffic lights, etc., are all connected to the internet. This is advertised as a boon because it allows you to check on your babysitter when they are alone with your child, monitor for porch pirates stealing your Amazon packages, validate whether or not you have another gallon of milk in your home, and remotely control your thermostat or garage door while you are on vacation. For Rifkin, by putting homes and civil architecture on the IoT, algorithms and the really smart people that develop them can gain efficiency. It also means that control of your privacy and your home is transferred to the entities that control the internet.

The GND infrastructure Rifkin is arguing for is one of heightened public surveillance. He outlines a failed public-private partnership in Ottawa. “The plan is to build out Canada’s first smart, digitally connected urban neighborhood, replete with state-of-the-art sensors across a seamless Internet of Things neural system. Ubiquitous sensors will provide surveillance, collecting data on activity taking place in the homes, the shops, and the streets, with the goal of helping speed efficiencies and conveniences in commerce, social life, and governance.” (38) The plan eventually fell through because people got nervous about Google’s participation. Rifkin remains very positive about the idea—in fact it is the soul of his proposal—as long as the government retains control.

There is a willfully blind aspect to Rifkin’s proposals. As he states, he is deeply involved in China’s rapidly expanding surveillance state. The ongoing human rights violations of the Chinese Communist Party against their people has been widely reported and is largely facilitated by the technological infrastructure that Rifkin is proposing. His overwhelmingly positive attitude toward China, which continues to be one of the worst polluting nations on the planet, is mysterious and naïve. This is no tu quoque argument, because Rifkin repeatedly cites China as a prime example of a nation that gets his vision.

Rifkin makes it readily apparent he is all for controlling the flow of information. He writes, “The dark side of the internet will require vigilant regulatory oversight at the local, state, and national levels. . .” (22) In context, he’s obviously concerned with controlling hackers, as the remainder of the sentence goes on about building in redundancy into the smart grid to minimize digital disruptions. It is also entirely clear from the paragraphs surrounding this brief snippet that Rifkin’s model of regulation includes more than digital redundancy and includes significant intrusion into the use of the internet. All of this intrusion for a “conceivable” chance to “increase aggregate energy efficiency to as high as 60 percent over the next twenty years.” (23) And, of course, he states that we must shift to this new remotely monitored infrastructure “because the only other alternative is to remain trapped in a dying, carbon-based Second Industrial Revolution economy.” (23)

All of this surveillance makes it possible Naomi Klein’s vision of controlling individual economic choices, in her book, On Fire, where she argues:

“Most fundamentally, any credible Green New Deal needs a concrete plan for ensuring that the salaries from all the good green jobs it creates aren’t immediately poured into high-consumer lifestyles that inadvertently end up increasing emissions––a scenario where everyone has a good job and lots of disposable income and it all gets spent on throwaway crap from China destined for the landfill.” (284)

When you are monitoring people’s activities in their homes, on the roads, in the sidewalks, and everywhere they do to maximize their commercial lives, then it is possible to ensure they don’t slip up and order an extra shirt online.

That others aren’t cringing at the proposals embedded in the Green New Deal shows that they have either gone round the bend, presuming a beneficent ruling class in government and in corporations, or they haven’t read the published literature. As for me, I want a greener future, too, but the vision outlined by advocates of the Green New Deal make it clear that our hope for the days to come lies in radically different places.

The Green New Deal: Why the Fossil Fuel Civilization Will Collapse by 2028, and the Bold Economic Plan to Save Life on Earth

By Rifkin, Jeremy

Buy on Amazon

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

We're Not All Homeschoolers Now

When they announced that schools were closing for several weeks due to concerns over the COVID-19 pandemic, I jocularly posted on social media, “Welcome to the homeschool movement, America.” That statement was untrue and may be misleading if people take it seriously.

My statement was meant humorously, but as the lockdown promises to extend for weeks or months ahead, with parents forced to cobble something together to continue learning and keep kids from bouncing off the wall, it’s important for people to understand that they really aren’t homeschooling.

The results achieved by homebound students who are attempting to continue curricula designed for a classroom setting are likely to be worse than desired. Valiant public and private school teachers will attempt to adapt the material in many cases, but the conditions we are all working under are not ideal for anyone, much less for students forced into their homes having been accustomed to being taught in classrooms. Parents whose districts have elected to cease their child’s education are being thrown to the wolves, so to speak, to choose something that will keep their kids occupied and academically engaged. That is a process that normally takes months for homeschool families, but must be accomplished in days under the current circumstances. The results are going to be different, even if it isn’t anyone’s fault.

Homebound Education is Not Homeschool

There are several key reasons why this COVID-19 enforced homebound education is not like homeschooling.

First, contrary to the typical objection, homeschooling is usually done in community. Socialization is built into the homeschool community through cooperative classes, where parents or another adult teach a subject they are familiar with. Sometimes this is done for upper level classes that require some specialization, but often it is done at lower levels to spread the teaching interactions so that parents are interfacing with other people’s kids sometimes.

Additionally, homeschool students are often involved in community activities and sports, which are cancelled right now. In some ways, the social disruption of this lockdown is impacting normal homeschool routines similarly (though not to the same extent) as public and private school students. Parents share teaching tips, share activity suggestions in online fora, pass around resources, and commiserate. Homeschooling is typically a highly socialized activity with a strong community.

Second, homeschooling usually necessitates a parent with significant free time is available to guide, direct, and keep the student on track. Many parents have had to continue to work while trying to oversee their child’s education, which is drastically different than the typical homeschool experience. Homeschooling is a full-time job, especially with multiple kids. Many parents that have been forced into support of their homebound student don’t have that option.

Third, the curricula that homeschoolers use is usually designed for homeschoolers. The teacher’s unions are correct that homeschool parents don’t have the same qualifications as the state-sanctioned teachers, but they aren’t doing the same thing either. Over the decades that the homeschool movement has grown, numerous high-quality curricula have been developed. They are designed to be taught by a reasonably educated, but not specialized, parent. (Many of these are even cross-referenced to the common core, interestingly enough.) The activities and instructional techniques are different than classroom lessons, which suits them to application at home. The homebound student working on his public school lesson is trying to use textbooks and curricula that presume a teacher will be present to teach and guide. It’s not impossible, but the material wasn’t designed for this setting.

Fourth, families that choose to homeschool have chosen to homeschool. This changes motivation, attitude, and preparation. Even if there is a stay-at-home parent for the now-homebound private school student, that family already decided that teaching at home was not for them. Being forced into homebound education doesn’t have the same sort of emotional investment as the family that has chosen to homeschool. Parents of homeschoolers chose that option. They also likely prepared for it by reading about the necessary teaching techniques and having lengthy discussions with other families about it. There is a fundamental difference between making do and choosing to do something.

Parental engagement is one of the key predictors in student success in any model of schooling. Homeschoolers tend to have higher academic outcomes than other students in large part due to high levels of parental engagement. At the same time, students in public schools with highly engaged parents will also tend to perform better than their peers. Volition and vocation make a difference in results.

Fifth, the homeschool family chose their curriculum based on careful research into the quality, instructional design, and interests of the family. This sounds similar to point three above, but it is a variation on the theme. The curricula chosen for a classroom, whether public or private, will be evaluated based on different criteria than material designed for virtual or one-on-one use.

In addition, people doing curricula selected by their school do not have the same options to change it. Sometimes homeschool families find that a curriculum flops for them, but that usually leads them to change course, even a month into the school year, to find something that works. Much of our homeschool curriculum is interesting for the parent and the students, and we use our own interests as one factor in choosing material. We can also modify the curriculum to meet or needs if it doesn’t quite hit the mark. That customization isn’t available to the families trying to continue their school’s chosen curriculum at home.

I’m certain there are other significant differences, but these are five of the most important. I think it is critical that families that are being forced into homebound education recognize that their experience is not typical for homeschooling and that homeschool families make it clear that this is not normal for them either.

Don’t Use this to Evaluate Homeschool Results

When the current lockdown is over, whenever that occurs, we will find that some kids will have made little to no progress during the end of this year. Other children will have experienced horrific abuse.

Opponents of homeschooling are likely to use these results against the homeschool community to attempt to increase regulations and governmental supervision. They already use the rare cases of actual abuse by homeschoolers as grounds for attempting to control curricula, mandating supervision by state officials, and ending the ability of parents to supervise their children’s education.

The homeschool community needs to make it abundantly clear that, although we are generally better equipped to adapt, this present situation is not typical homeschooling. We should also make it clear that the models of education that many parents of public and private school students are being forced into are not homeschooling either.

This is an unusual situation for everyone. Whatever the results are from our current lockdowns, we should not base future regulation of the homeschool movement on results that are not representative of the means, model, or motivation of those who have chosen home education as the best choice for their families. There may be superficial similarities to homeschooling, but this isn’t normal for anyone.

Additionally, families that might later consider homeschooling their children should not use their experience or other people’s stories about this time as typical data to inform their decision.