What Kind of Value Does Creation Have?

The amount of energy Christians invest in creation care should depend greatly on the value of the created order. Understanding how God values his creation should be at the heart of a Christian vision for environmental ethics. Scripture reveals that creation has more than instrumental value; it has a purpose other than simply supporting human life. But attempts at assigning intrinsic value to creation have a tendency to lead to indecision in important ethical questions and even nature worship in extreme cases. Instead of intrinsic value and in addition to instrumental value, creation has inherent value, which is value that is determined by its proper relationship to the value giver, according to how well it fulfills its purpose. Creation’s inherent value is maximized when it fulfills the purpose for which it was created.

Value of Creation in the Old Testament

The Bible opens up with a description of the Triune God’s creative act, by speaking all of creation into existence. Seven times God declares the goodness of creation in the first chapter of Genesis. The first six times Scripture declares that what God has just created is “good” (Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25), while the seventh time Scripture declares the whole of creation “very good” (Gen 1:31).

A cursory look at Genesis 1 may raise a further question whether creation was good because God declared to so or whether it had value because of its very nature. The text is helpful in answering this question. Each time the pattern repeats itself in Genesis, we see that “God saw that it was good.” In other words, God observed the goodness of what he created. It was not good simply because he arbitrarily declared it so, but because of some characteristic it had. In this case, its goodness is based on its proper relationship to the Creator.

Another natural question that comes from reading Genesis 1 is why God deemed creation “very good” after the sixth day. One argument is that God was especially pleased with the finalized creation because it included humans made in his image.[1] That view is possible, but a more natural reading of the text in its context indicates that God’s satisfaction with the whole of the created order, in which satisfaction he rested on the first Sabbath (Gen 2:1–3). There is a unity between non-human and human creation, with the distinction between their value residing in the image of God resting uniquely on humans.

In Genesis 3, non-human creation is cursed because of Adam’s sin. “Thorns and thistles” interfere with human flourishing, but the goodness of creation is not destroyed by Adam’s sin or by God’s curse. The continued value of creation in God’s eyes is affirmed by the institution of a covenant between God and all of creation (not just humans) in Gen 9:12–17, when God promises not to destroy the entire earth through flood again.

Scripture also gives evidence that God delights in his creation, despite the effects of sin in it. Psalm 104 offers a poetic vision of God’s continued sustenance of his creation. One striking pair of verses indicates that part of God’s creative purpose was for his creatures to play: “Here is the sea, great and wide, which teems with creatures innumerable, living things both small and great. There go the ships, and Leviathan, which you formed to play in it.” (vv. 25–26) Whatever Leviathan is, God created it to play in the sea. This has profound implications for leisure, but also for ways that God may receive joy from his handiwork.

God’s rebuke of Job in Job 39–41 also gives testimony of God’s care for his creation. Part of God’s challenge to Job in response to his complaint is to ask whether Job could provide for all of creation. God asks, “Can you hunt the prey for the lion, or satisfy the appetite of the young lions?” (39:39) In this passage God reveals that he is intimately involved in sustaining creation, even down to providing for individual animals.

Value of Creation in the New Testament

God’s particular providence for his creatures is clear in the New Testament, as well. For example, Matthew’s Gospel records Jesus saying, “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.” (Mt 10:29) The obvious point of the passage, when read in context, is God’s intended providence for his people, but the text leaves no doubt that he cares for all his creation, not just humans.

John 3:16 also includes a subtext of God’s care for his creation, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” The primary focus of God’s saving work is the redemption of fallen humans, therefore when this passage is preached, it is usually assumed that “the world” refers to all the people, but the Greek phrase is actually to cosmos, or the whole creation.[2] To be clear, the restoration of creation is not like the salvation of humans; creation did not sin and therefore will not be saved in the same sense that humans will. Nevertheless, Christ’s death will lift the curse from the non-human creation as well as paving a path for redemption for his elect.

Christ’s role in creation is critical in understanding its value. In John 1, after declaring the deity of Christ and his coeternal existence with the Father in verses 1 and 2, the apostle declares that Christ created all things. However, the connection is even more intimate. In Col 1:15–20 Paul describes an ongoing connection between the divine Christ and his creation. Christ is the “firstborn of all creation,” by which Paul meant that he is the preeminent being within creation, an interpretation that is made clear by Paul’s assertions in verses 15 and 16 that Christ created all things. But Christ did not merely create and leave the world to function on its own, he became part of creation by taking human flesh, which is part of what the Christ-hymn in Colossians is explaining. Additionally, all things “hold together” (v. 16) in Christ, which refers to the sustaining work of Christ in creation. And Paul clearly declares that Christ will “reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross” (v. 20). The implications are significant for creation care and the value of creation because of Christ’s participation in its formation, his sustenance of it, his identification with it, and finally his future reconciliation of it as one of the results of his death on the cross.

God will eventually renew all of creation because of the value he places on creation. There are differing views of the means by which God will renew all of creation, whether by destroying the present creation and re-creating it entirely or by purging the sin from it and refurbishing the present creation. However, the vision that Scripture casts for creation is one where the effects of sin are eliminated. In Romans 8:18–23, Paul explains that the created order is longing for the redemption of humans, with the implication that when sinful humans are glorified, the curse of Genesis 3 will be lifted from creation. Thus, Revelation 21 records a vision of the New Heavens and New Earth, where there is no longer any suffering or sin. Whatever process God sovereignly uses to take away the curse from creation, it is clear that the renewal of the whole cosmos is part of God’s ultimate plan for creation

Both the Old and New Testament show that God values creation. We have seen that Christ identifies with creation closely, as evidenced by the incarnation and his continued sustenance of the created order. It is necessary to development an environmental ethics that balances the goodness of creation with the special role of humans to establish some sort of vocabulary or set of categories that can help us communicate a biblical vision for creation. The following sections will address two common categories of value used for creation and offer a third that helps navigate resource usage by humans and God’s valuation of creation.

Instrumental Value

Instrumental value is the most common category for describing the worth of something. By definition, instrumental value is the utility of an object to a subject.[3] Instrumental value is highly dependent upon the situation and the position of the subject. The same object may have incredibly high instrumental value in one situation and almost none in another. For example, a $100 bill has almost no value to someone shipwrecked on a deserted island. The value ascribed to an object largely depends on the opinion of the individual or group making that judgment at a given time.

Creation has instrumental value. Humans eat plants and animals to survive. Homes are built from stone and wood. Trees provide shade. Fossil fuels provide much of the electricity of the world. Water is useful for cleaning, for sustaining life, and for recreation. Mountains can be useful for providing aesthetic pleasure when people admire them. The instrumental value of any of these things is dependent upon how people value them at a given time.

However, it is not enough to say that creation has only instrumental value. God values parts of creation that have no useful purpose, like Leviathan playing in the sea or the sparrow on the wing. As stewards, humans have authority to utilize creation, but its usefulness does not exhaust its value.

Intrinsic Value

To counter an overemphasis on the instrumental value of nature, some environmentalists argue that creation has intrinsic value. Philosopher C. I. Lewis defines intrinsic value as “that which is good in itself or good for its own sake.”[4] This category of value certainly elevates the worth of creation beyond its usefulness to humans, but it creates significant problems at the same time.

To have intrinsic value, an object would need to have value if nothing else existed.[5] For example, if a tree has intrinsic value, then it would be valuable if it were floating in space before the creation of the world and—if this were possible—without the presence of God. Lewis, an atheist, argues that nothing has intrinsic value, because there must always be someone to ascribe value to an object.[6] Christians, recognizing the eternal existence of the Triune God in perpetual communion will recognize that God fills the category of intrinsic value quite well. However, when the category of intrinsic value is used in contemporary environmental discussions, it is sometimes meant in the sense that creation would have value even apart from the existence of a divine creator.[7]

At its worst, believing that creation has value in and of itself can lead to panentheism (the belief that the divine is present in matter) or pantheism (the belief that creation is itself divine). Much of liberal theology through the past century has tended toward a diminution of the distinction between creation and God, so the use of the term intrinsic value with the possible misconceptions is not surprising.[8] The close, though unnecessary, relationship between these theological errors and environmentalism has been a significant contributor to orthodox Christians not engaging in creation care in a biblical manner.

We must be clear that describing creation as having intrinsic value is not always a marker of nature worship; the definition offered by an author matters. For example, Francis Schaeffer uses the term intrinsic value to refer to creation in Pollution and the Death of Man, where he qualifies the value of creation as being derived from its relationship to God, not its self-existence.[9] What Schaeffer needed was another term that allows for non-instrumental value for creation. The term inherent value would have provided what he needed.

A more practical problem arises from assigning intrinsic value to creation, because it makes decision making about environmental priorities impossible. Sahotra Sarkar, writing on philosophical arguments for biodiversity, argues that attributing intrinsic value to biodiversity removes grounds for moral obligation because obligation stems from relationship, which is no longer necessary. Even accepting there is moral obligation, intrinsic value puts all of nature on par, so that there are no grounds preserve an endangered species at the expense of another plentiful species because both are equally valuable. Sarkar offers a definition of intrinsic that sounds more like the next category of value we will discuss.[10]

Inherent Value

Inherent value is sometimes used interchangeably with intrinsic value,[11] but the vocabulary of C. I. Lewis is again helpful. Lewis carves out a category of inherent value where the value of an object is determined by its relationship to the valuer.[12] Another way of saying this is that an object has inherent value that corresponds to its fulfillment of its intended purpose. Inherent value is subjective value, but it is properly determined by God. For Christians, creation has inherent value when it is fulfilling God’s purpose for it.

This middle category of value between the absolutes of intrinsic value and the utilitarianism of instrumental value provides both a means for creation to be stewarded for non-utilitarian reasons and for something that has non-utilitarian value to be utilized when needed. Animals were made by God to glorify him and have inherent value. Humans can eat animals (Gen 9:3), but that does not give humans the right to kill animals wantonly or mistreat them. Because animals have inherent value, in addition to their instrumental value, we should treat them compassionately and consistently with their purpose.

Purpose of Creation

To summarize John Edwards’ philosophical treatise, The End for Which God Created the World, we know that God created the world for his own glory. In his tightly-reasoned argument, Edwards argues that God values objects according to how well they fulfill the purpose for which they were created.[13] Leviathan glorifies God when it plays in the ocean, because that is the purpose for which it was created. Humans, whether eating or drinking, glorify God by living according to the proper order of the universe. (Cf. 1 Cor 10:31) The degree to which creation is allowed to exist according to God’s design within the created order determines its inherent value.

Psalm 19:1 reminds readers, “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.” Creation certainly is useful for supporting human life, but it also has a cosmic purpose in revealing the character of God. (Rom 1:19–20) The character of God is glorious. Creation testifies to that. When the goodness of creation is distorted to mask the glory of God—when it is polluted or worshipped—its inherent value is diminished.

Summary

Creation has value because of its relationship with the Creator. Christ made all things and sustains all of creation. His love for all of creation is so significant that he died on the cross, was buried, and raised three days later to redeem, restore, and reconcile all of creation to himself for his own glory. Much of creation has instrumental value, but it also has inherent value. We glorify God in how we utilize creation by doing so with gratitude to the Creator and by honoring the created order in the manner in which we use it.

[1] Elmer Towns, Theology for Today (Mason, OH: Cengage Learning, 2008), 555.

[2] Derek Carlsen, “Redemption versus the Fall,” Christianity and Society 14.4 (2005): 45–50.

[3] C. I. Lewis, An Analysis of Knowledge and Valuation (La Salle, Ill.: Open Court, 1946), 392

[4] Lewis, An Analysis of Knowledge and Valuation, 382.

[5] Robert H. Nelson, “Calvinism without God: American Environmentalism as Implicit Calvinism,” Implicit Religion 17, no. 3 (2014):259.

[6] Lewis, An Analysis of Knowledge and Valuation, 432.

[7] Earth Bible Team, “Guiding Ecojustice Principles,” in Readings from the Perspective of the Earth, ed. Norman Habel (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2000), 44–47.

[8] Roger Olson, The Story of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press Academic, 1999), 550.

[9] Francis Schaeffer, Pollution and the Death of Man in The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer (Downers Grove, IL: Crossway, 1983), 5:32.

[10] Sahotra Sarkar, Biodiversity and Environmental Philosphy (Campbridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 45–60.

[11] E.g., Mark Liederbach and Seth Bible, True North: Christ, the Gospel, and Creation Care (Nashville, TN: B & H Academic, 2012), 35–50.

[12] Lewis, An Analysis of Knowledge and Valuation, 391.

[13] Jonathan Edwards, Dissertation on the End for which God Created the World, in The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 1 (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2003), 94–119.

Richard Baxter on Churches Meeting When Forbidden

The following is an excerpt from The Practical Works of Richard Baxter, the fifth volume, in his Christian Ecclesiastics, where he details answers to nearly 200 questions dealing with Christians and matters of conscience.

Richard Baxter

Baxter, an English Puritan, was obviously writing in a different day under a different set of laws, but I think that his response to these two questions is pertinent and helpful at this present time. I disagree with a few of the particulars (e.g., that it might be ok for the government to restrict meetings smaller than ten), but the general intent is, I think, well-considered and generally helpful as we process living under temporary restrictions driven by COVID-19.

Of particular value, I think, is the explanation Baxter offers regarding ceasing to hold services under orders of the magistrate due to “a time of pestilence.” He writes, “If the magistrate for a greater good, (as the common safety,) forbid church assemblies in a time of pestilence, assault of enemies, or fire, or the like necessity, it is a duty to obey him.”

As I understand it presently, that is the condition we are under. I do not like the requirement, but I think that, as long as there is a universal ban against large assemblies, we will do well to honor the orders to forebear meeting. This is not a change in position from my earlier post, which called for grace and prudence as congregations decide whether to meet or not, but a reflection of the changed circumstances. The earlier post was written when bans were not in effect and congregations were making decisions based on prudential data.

Baxter on Meeting When Forbidden By the Government

Question 109: May we omit church assemblies on the Lord's day if the magistrate forbid them?

Answer 1. It is one thing to forbid them for a time upon some special cause as infection by pestilence fire war &c and another to forbid them statedly or profanely.

2. It is one thing to omit them for a time, and another to do it ordinarily.

3. It is one thing to omit them in formal obedience to the law; and another thing to omit them in prudence, or for necessity, because we cannot keep them.

4. The assembly and the circumstances of the assembly must be distinguished:

(1.) If the magistrate for a greater good, (as the common safety,) forbid church assemblies in a time of pestilence, assault of enemies, or fire, or the like necessity, it is a duty to obey him. 1. Because positive duties give place to those great natural duties which are their end: so Christ justified himself and his disciples violation of the external rest of the sabbath. “For the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath.” 2. Because affirmatives bind not ‘ad semper,’ and out-of-season duties become sins. 3. Because one Lord's day or assembly is not to be preferred before many, which by the omission of that one are like to be obtained.

(2.) If princes profanely forbid holy assemblies and public worship, either statedly, or as a renunciation of Christ and our religion; it is not lawful formally to obey them.

(3.) But it is lawful prudently to do that secretly for the present necessity, which we cannot do publicly, and to do that with smaller numbers, which we cannot do with greater assemblies, yea, and to omit some assemblies for a time, that we may thereby have opportunity for more: which is not formal but only material obedience.

(4.) But if it be only some circumstances of assembling that are forbidden us, that is the next case to be resolved.

Question 110: Must we obey the magistrate if he only forbid us worshipping God in such a place or country or in such numbers or the like?

Answer: We must distinguish between such a determination of circumstances, modes, or accidents, as plainly destroy the worship or the end, and such as do not.

For instance,  1. He that saith, You shall never assemble but once a year, or never but at midnight; or never above six or seven minutes at once, &c. doth but determine the circumstance of time: but he doth it so as to destroy the worship, which cannot so be done, in consistency with its ends. But he that shall say, You shall not meet till nine o’clock nor stay in the night, &c. doth no such thing.

So 2. He that saith, You shall not assemble but at forty miles distance one from another; or you shall meet only in a room that will hold but the twentieth part of the church; or you shall never preach in any city or populous place, but in a wilderness far from the inhabitants, &c. doth but determine the circumstance of place. But he so doth it as tends to destroy or frustrate the work which God commandeth us. But so doth not he that only boundeth churches by parish bounds, or forbiddeth inconvenient places.

3. So he that saith, You shall never meet under a hundred thousand together, or never above five or six, doth but determine the accident of number. But he so doth it as to destroy the work and end. For the first will be impossible and in the second way they must keep church-assemblies without ministers, when there is not so many as for every such little number to have one. But so doth not he that only saith, You shall not meet above ten thousand, nor under ten.

4. So he that saith, You shall not hear a Trinitarian, but an Arian; or you shall hear only one that cannot preach the essentials of religion, or that cries down godliness itself; or you shall hear none but such as were ordained at Jerusalem or Rome, or none but such as subscribe the council of Trent, &c. doth but determine what person we shall hear. But he so doth it as to destroy the work and end. But so doth not he that only saith, You shall hear only this able minister, rather than that.

I need not stand on the application. In the latter case we owe formal obedience. In the former we must suffer, and not obey.

For if it be meet so to obey, it is meet in obedience to give over God's worship. Christ said, “When they persecute you in one city, flee to another:” but he never said, “If they forbid you preaching in any city, or populous place, obey them. He that said, “Preach the Gospel to every creature, and to all nations, and all the world,” and that “would have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,” doth not allow us to forsake the souls of all that dwell in cities and populous places, and preach only to some few cottagers elsewhere: no more than he will allow us to love, pity, and relieve the bodies only of those few, and take none for our neighbours that dwell in cities, but with priest and Levite to pass them by.

Boredom and Heresy

One the central questions at the heart of debates over modern theological liberal Christianity and orthodox Christianity is the definition of the term Christian. The wide variance between the definitions tends to confound dialog because liberals (I will consistently use this term theologically, in a descriptive sense) have a radically different understanding of the word’s meaning than do orthodox believers.

There were, of course, points in the historic Christian faith at which boundary lines were drawn based on ongoing debates. Those early moments resulted in our statements of orthodoxy, such as the Nicene Creed, which contains the kernel (though not the totality) of orthodoxy.

These creedal statements that define Christian orthodoxy were often surrounded by heated debates as leaders and theologians parsed through Scripture with a critical mind. This has led some to conclude that they were arbitrary statements and that some sort of arbitrary (likely political) power was the determining factor in setting the boundaries of orthodoxy. That, of course, fuels much of contemporary theological revisionism, because Christian doctrine shifts from the faith once and for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3) to oppressive imposition of the ideas of a bunch of patriarchal dead guys.

In this case, I tend to agree with Dorothy L. Sayers, the modern mystery writer and a significant mind of the first half of the 20th century. In her essay, “Creed or Chaos?,” she writes,

“Teachers 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.”

Compare Sayers’s perspective with that of the so-called father of the social gospel, Walter Rauschenbusch, who argues in his book, A Theology for the Social Gospel,

“The dogmas and theological ideas of the early Church were those ideas which at that time were needed to hold the Church together, to rally its forces, and to give it victorious energy against antagonist powers. To-day many of those ideas are without present significance. Our reverence for them is a kind of ancestor worship.”

There is certainly some similarity between the two. Both Sayers and Rauschenbusch recognize that there was often drama when the doctrines of orthodoxy were outlined and that resolution was needed for cohesion. The difference comes in that Rauschenbusch has very little respect for the formulations arrived at by the councils, whereas Sayers understands them to have been largely successful at arriving at an expression of the truth. Thus, Sayers regularly called believers back to orthodox Christian belief, while Rauschenbusch associated doctrinal orthodoxy with a form of “ancestor worship.” Rauschenbusch is  spiritual father of John Shelby Spong, who argued that Christianity must change or die.

Beneath this discussion is a radically different perspective on the ability of lay-people to grasp Christian doctrine. Both Rauschenbusch and Sayers recognize that many Christians are relatively uninformed about Christian doctrines, which results in doctrinal deviations.

According to Rauschenbusch, “When people have to be indoctrinated laboriously in order to understand theology at all, it becomes a dead burden.” This is a dubious statement, but it shapes the trajectory of Rauschenbusch’s attack on Christian orthodoxy.

This comes several pages after his assertion that,

“[The business of theology] is to make the essential facts and principles of Christianity so simple and clear, so adequate and mighty, that all who preach or teach the gospel, both ministers and laymen, can draw on its stores and deliver a complete and unclouded Christian message.”

The second statement is actually quite helpful. Theology certainly should be clear and simple as much as possible, but to eliminate teaching doctrine as a function of the church because some doctrines are complicated seems counter intuitive.

There is an implicit assault on the intelligence of laypeople in Rauschenbusch’s theology. He assumes that people are simply too intellectually dull to understand Christian doctrine. As a result, he argues, “If we seek to keep Christian doctrine unchanged, we shall ensure its abandonment.”

Rauschenbusch decided he would like to avoid the abandonment of Christian doctrine by changing it. I suppose that is one way of cutting out the middleman. No need to make the laypeople leave doctrine, when you can simply eliminate all the inconvenient parts that matter. This is a way of dumbing down the faith because you don’t think people are smart enough to understand doctrine.

Sayers, however, has a much more positive view of laypeople. She, too, recognizes that many laypeople are ignorant of Christian doctrines, but that is not entirely their fault.

She writes,

“It is not true at all that dogma is hopelessly irrelevant to the life and thought of the average man. What is true is that ministers of the Christian religion often assert that it is, present it for consideration is though it were, and, in fact, by their faulty exposition of it make it so.”

This is exactly what Rauschenbusch does and he encourages others to do the same.

Again, Sayers rejects the need to modify Christianity to make it relevant,

“If the average man is going to be interested in Christ at all, it is the dogma that will provide the interest. The trouble is that, in nine cases out of ten, he has never been offered the dogma. What he has been offered is a set of technical theological terms that nobody has taken the trouble to translate into language relevant to ordinary life.”

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

Wipf and Stock

Buy on Amazon

The Christian mind is shaped by the wonder of God’s goodness and the nature of the world he has made. One of the central elements of the Christian mind is an interest in those things outside of ourselves. Sayers understands the Christian mind, while Rauschenbusch did not.

Rauschenbusch’s assumption was that his disinterest in orthodox Christian doctrine and inability explain it to others did not subvert the value of it. The wonder and mystery of a wholly other God whose existence and work are unlike our daily experience makes Christianity so much more relevant and exciting.

Sayers gets at the heart of the problem: ignorance and lazy teaching. Laypeople are not stupid; they have often simply never had teachers who took the time to explain Christian doctrine in terms that they understood. Teaching is a bridging strategy to make truth plain.

Instead of creating heresy as we give way to boredom, faithful Christian teachers need to explain the most exciting story that ever was: Christianity. That story is carried by the doctrines that modernists think people too bored, lazy, or stupid to understand.

The role of theologians and pastors is not to reshape Christianity into something that we find interesting, but to uncover the exciting truths within orthodox Christian theology. Once that happens, based on my experience, the doctrine sells itself.

Media Intake, Praiseworthiness, and Fear in a Pandemic

Toward the end of his theologically rich exhortation to the Philippians, Paul penned these important words to the church in Philippi that have been given as a gift to us a couple of millennia later:

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. (Phil 4:8)

When Paul wrote these words he was in prison (Phil 1:7), likely in Rome, and certainly feeling the pressure of his captivity and uncertain fate (Phil 4:12–14). He was writing to a church in a culturally hostile situation, facing an unknown future, with their leader facing potential execution.

Paul was writing to a group of people who had every reason to dwell on everything that is wrong with the world and run through a million hypothetical futures as they waited for decisions from others or news from distant parts of the Roman world.

In other words, this is a great example of God inspiring a human author to write a message that would be applicable to humans in every age of this world, and especially in our current time.

“Always On” Information

One of the miracles of our age is that we have all the information in the world available at our fingertips at every moment of the day.

To quote Adrian Monk, “It’s a gift and a curse.”

The news streams in constantly on multiple channels and the talking heads on those channels have to find a way to fill those hours of time in a way that will keep people tuned in and keep the advertisers spending millions of dollars.

This is a recipe for stress, worry, and maybe even panic.

View fullsize

Pillars of Creation. Public Domain. https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/2022/052/01GF423GBQSK6ANC89NTFJW8VM

It also provides opportunity for confusion as networks look for different opinions, the situation changes, and people look at the issue from different angles. When news anchors and talk show hosts—who usually know nothing about the issue they are discussing—riff for an extended period about things they are ignorant of, a lot of unfounded opinion has a way of making its way into people’s homes and can be interpreted as fact.

Non-experts battle experts for airtime. People seek positions that support their biases. Meanwhile we are desperately curious, stuck at home with little diversion, and hopeful for something that shows an end is insight.

It may be that we need to rethink our media absorption strategy.

Look for the Durable and Good

If the COVID-19 shutdown teaches us one lesson, I hope it is that we should spend our time thinking about true, honorable, pure, and excellent things.

Paul’s admonition to the congregations in Philippi is good advice for us all at all times in our media saturated age, but especially so when we our normal occupations are not available.

If you find yourself scrolling through social media and reading your tenth COVID-19 article for the day, then put down your phone, turn off your computer, and pick up a good book. If you recognize that you are watching the fourth hour of your favorite network’s coverage of this issue, with little new information other than different perspectives on the body count, then it’s time to turn the TV off and head toward Scripture.

As Neil Postman astutely noted in his book, Amusing Ourselves to Death, information takes the form that it is presented in. Television is, by definition, a transient medium that you have to experience in real time. Websites demand new traffic, which requires updated content with new numbers, slightly different perspectives, and combative arguments. Headlines are pitched with exaggerations, unfair generalizations, and misrepresentations in them to get you to click or stay tuned to bring the numbers up.

Look for something that is durable and good.

When your life is over, there is very little chance you will look back on the hours of cable news you read in these days and think they helped you grow spiritually. There is little chance that one more human-interest story from the crisis will really have made you a better person.

However, memorizing a passage of Scripture, reading another book of the Bible, studying an edifying book, picking up the work of literature you’ve been putting off, or doing something with your family will all be worthwhile.

Find a way to use this time for something that will have a lasting positive effect.

A Range of Options and Need for Discipline

Everything about the internet isn’t bad. It’s great that many knowledge workers can continue to do their jobs remotely. It’s a wonderful thing that we can connect with friends, families, and neighbors through instant communication. There are millions of valuable resources that are available for free (or a minimal charge) right now. We just need to be disciplined enough to put the candy (i.e., infotainment about the pandemic) down to pick up solid things.

We have a range of options, we just need to exercise them.

For example, I previously released a list of resources for the week leading up to Resurrection Sunday that would be helpful as a distraction in this time. Some of them can be ordered quickly. Others can be found online.

There are sermons from sound pastors available online for you to watch or listen to. Be discerning, but there is a lot of good material out there. Pick something that will expand your knowledge.

Conference lectures, academic presentations, and other instructional content has flooded the internet. Now is your chance to learn about Astrophysics, Classical Theism, or a million other topics.

We typically talk about starting a Bible reading plan at the beginning of the year, but now would be a good time to kick off. The most durable thing to think about is the eternal Word of God; consider investing some time into your Bible knowledge.

The challenge for us is not a lack of information, but a lack of discipline in focusing on the things worth learning. It’s important that we make the best use of our time, focus on spiritual disciplines, and avoid media that leads us into sinful worry and despair.

Our interests may differ, but the mandate from Paul is clear to focus on durable things that are excellent, praiseworthy, and commendable.

On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal - A Review

In February 2019, a member of the U. S. House of Representatives released a bold new plan to take over the U. S. economy in the name of “climate justice.” Modeled after, and of greater scope than, FDR’s New Deal plan, the proposal was called “The Green New Deal.”

The proposal obviously caused a big stir, not least because the first released edition of the FAQs for the proposal including information about the difficulty of eliminating “farting cows.” After the online mockery of some of those more drastic proposals ramped up, the claim was made that this was an early draft and not the final version. An edited version with more professional prose was later released, but thankfully, the original version was not memory holed (not yet anyway).

The elimination of farting cows is funny, but more concerning is the call by to “retrofit every building in America,” among other things. This shows the sheer scope of the economic control desired by proponents of the so-called Green New Deal: They want the ability to remodel your home, modify your church, and rebuild your business after their own desire.

This sounds alarmist. To a degree it is, but the actual claims of proponents of the so-called Green New Deal make it clear than nothing but a total transformation of every aspect of the economy and social life in our country will satisfy them. Naomi Klein, an activist who has written journalistically in favor of socialism and the environment, released a book in late 2019, which both supports the Green New Deal program and illuminates the level of control desired.

Klein’s Case

On Fire claims to present The Burning Case for a Green New Deal according to the subtitle. Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of this book is that it fails to make a case. For those readers who are deeply concerned about environment and the impact of global warming, but also curious as to why granting total control of the economy to socialists would be beneficial, will find that this book under-delivers on its basic claims.

To be fair, this volume is a collection of slightly revised opinion pieces (some were published as journalism) and political speeches that Klein has previously published in other outlets since 2010. There is little cogency in the argument, and, truthfully, little more than assertion throughout. This is a book that is more likely to galvanize the will of the already convinced than it is to convince anyone to jump on the bandwagon. For a book that claims to make a case for a sweeping and potentially devastating economic revolution (if historic examples of socialism are any indication), there is very little research and very few arguments made. A topic this important deserves better work.

Klein is a rabid proponent of socialism, as evidenced by her earlier published works. This book does not advance significantly from her published arguments in This Changes Everything.

What is clearer in On Fire is that Klein and other proponents of the so-called Green New Deal are not merely shooting for economic control, but for a total ideological overhaul of the world’s societies. She laments the divisions in the world that have prevented the hegemony of climate activists and argues that “a Green New Deal could instill a sense of collective, higher purpose.” (26) This plan requires less journalism and more activism on the part of the media (243–44).

But, more insidiously, it requires all streams of communication to become focused on presenting this controlled narrative: Just as in the New Deal era when “Playwrights, photographers, muralists, and novelists were all part of telling the story of what was possible. For the Green New Deal to succeed, we, too, will need the skills and expertise of many different kinds of storytellers: Artists, psychologists, faith leaders, historians, and more.” (271)

This might seem less difficult, if Klein did not also actively support the intimation by revisionist Roman Catholic, Sean McDonough in his suggestion that, “Scripture is ever evolving, and should be interpreted in historical context. If Genesis needs a prequel, that’s not such a big deal. Indeed, I get the distinct sense that he’d be happy to be part of the drafting committee.” (145)

Any societal narrative must be widely repeated if there is to be coherence. Many of the failures in American society to date have been exacerbated by a lost common narrative. However, it seems a bit insidious to simultaneously propose control of the economy from the top and working to control the messaging. History shows that such a central focus on ideology is damaging to the willing and unwilling subjects of those who have gained such total control. What Klein describes is forceful propaganda designed to choke out opposition.

Although this sounds like an exaggeration, it is fairly clear the book is not making an argument in good faith. This is base-energizing propaganda designed to demonize any opposition to their control. In reflecting on Trump’s victory in the 2016 election, Klein notes,

“Never, ever underestimate the power of hate. Never underestimate the power of direct appeals to power over “the other”––the migrant, the Muslim, black people, women. Especially during times of economic hardship. Because when large numbers of white men find themselves frightened and insecure, and those men were raised in a social system built on elevating their humanity over all these others’, a lot of them get mad. And there is nothing wrong in itself with being mad––there’s a lot to be mad about.” (191)

This sort of “us vs. them” argument is written throughout the book. Often this is in the explicitly in the language of intersectionality, which in its more invidious forms privileges certain theories over others simply because of the personal characteristics of the individual or group that seems to support the theory.

At one point, Klein quips, “To change everything, it takes everyone.” (202) But clearly, Klein doesn’t include anyone who has even minimal disagreement with her in any area. If the goal were to improve the quality of the environment, there might be aspects of the Green New Deal to discuss, but this is a call for granting total control to an ideologically driven group who see their theories as a moral imperative.

Klein makes this clear, she notes, “Winning is a moral imperative. The stakes are too high, and time is too short, to settle for anything less.” (242) Of course, winning involves implementing the plan of imposing the Green New Deal through legislation. Klein writes,

“The plan is pretty straightforward: elect a strong supporter of the Green New Deal in the Democratic primaries; take the White House, the House, and the Senate in 2020; and start rolling out on day one of the new administration (the way FDR did with the original New Deal in his famous ‘first 100 days,’ when the newly elected president pushed fifteen major bills through Congress.)” (31)

All we need is single party control of the entire government to ensure that what promises to be a reasonable, balanced legislation through. Actually, Klein notes that understanding the implications of proposed policy is not a significant point of concern. She argues, “we don’t need to figure out every detail before we begin. . . What matters is that we begin the process right away.” (39) Do something, even if you don’t know who it is going to harm or how much.

But this is where the odd contradiction comes in because while arguing for total control of the centralized government and unilaterally imposing sweeping legislation, she also states that we should avoid “highly centralized, top-down transformations.” This is because,

“If we defer to central governments in that way [like wartime mobilizations] in the face of the climate crisis, we should expect highly corrupt measures that further concentrate power and wealth in the hands of a few big players, not to mention systematic attacks on human rights . . .” (36)

She lays these abuses at the feet of capitalism, of course, but what she describes sounds like the effects of single party control in socialist systems like Venezuela and the former Soviet bloc countries. Notably, socialist countries are not well known for their respect of human rights, peaceful transfer of power, or, oddly, for their positive record on the environment.

Klein casually admits to the environmental abuses of historical socialistic implementations:

“But we have to be honest that autocratic industrial socialism has also been a disaster for the environment, as evidenced most dramatically by the fact that carbon emissions briefly plummeted when the economies of the former Soviet Union collapsed in the early 1990s. And Venezuela’s petro-populism is a reminder that there is nothing inherently green about self-defined socialism.” (251)

Apparently, the control imposed by environmentally engaged socialists in upending all of society will be much gentler than previous versions of single party, socialist rule.

Of course, that claim doesn’t mesh with Klein’s claim that,

“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)

I’m trying to find a way that such total control of everyone’s individual economic choices could be managed apart from a strenuous totalitarianism, but I haven’t been able to imagine one.

Conclusion

To be fair to Klein, I’m a fan of the free market in addition to being deeply concerned about the environment. I picked up the book with the expectation of disagreement. I have previously reviewed her book, This Changes Everything, which makes the basic assertion that climate change is bad, therefore socialism is needed. I didn’t like that book, but I’ve softened in my views in some ways, matured in others, and was hopeful that perhaps she had a published a book with a better argument. I remain disappointed.

Though I have become less of a libertarian, Klein has become much more extreme. If anything, though the quality of thought has not changed, the content is more disturbing because Klein presents a direct hostility to those who think differently. In the previous book she merely ignores opposing views; in the present book she is outright nasty, including likening President Trump (of whom I’m no fan) to a “fatberg.” Mildly humorous, but rather atypical in a book by a careful thinker.

This sounds somewhat extreme, but given the unfettered ideology with no clear limits on power, a sense of unassailable moral high-ground, no clearly defined goal (lower global temperature is rather open-ended in my opinion), and a belief that everyone who disagrees is a mortal enemy in a battle over an existential crisis does not lead me to believe Klein and those who advocate for the Green New Deal are prepared, if they ever gain power, to accept losers without retribution.

Klein is correct, “To change everything, it takes everyone.” That leads me to wonder what will happen to those who don’t agree with her proposed changes.

On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

By Naomi Klein

Buy on Amazon

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

Don't Waste This Quarantine Sabbath

In Michigan we have been living under a lockdown order for about a week now. Before that we were being encouraged to minimize close contact with people in a precautionary way to help minimize the spread of this novel Corona virus.

For about the last two weeks most social activities, including school, sports, church meetings, and clubs have been cancelled. We have been, in a very unusual way, hunkered down waiting for this viral storm to pass.

My family homeschools, so the impact has not been as significant as for families that counted on others to educate and tend to their children for the day. However, they have had co-op meetings cancelled and an inability to do the normal range of external activities that break up the week.

The whole family has suffered from the loss of our usual Sunday routine of gathering with our local church to sing, pray, hug, and laugh. I have still been teaching Sunday school via Zoom and we have been offered music and sermons via video, but there is no question that this is a poor replacement for the real thing.

I have also been forced to work out of my basement office. This period of forced isolation coincides with a major project, so I’ve been working long hours in my windowless (but book-filled) cell staring at several large screen that I (with permission) borrowed from work when they forced us to leave. Coordinating big projects remotely can be effective, but it is more time consuming. In the end, I’m thankful that I have a job that will continue even during an economic downturn.

There will likely be lessons we learn about pandemic response, social responsibility, and emergency preparedness from this, but those are lessons that will frame structures and organizations in the future.

Learning from this Sabbath

Each individual and family should be asking some particular questions about their normal pace of life during this strangely enforced sabbath. What external activities have been taken away that don’t really matter that much? What family activities have been introduced that may be worth holding onto?

It may be that this current shutdown is the first time in a while that parents and children have been forced to spend much time in each other’s company.  Don’t let it go to waste.

In the United States families with kids are often harried as they run from school to sports to clubs to homework to bed to start everything over again. Anecdotally, I am aware that many nuclear families rarely sit down to supper together. They, therefore, rarely have the chance to catechize their children, because that responsibility has been farmed out to teachers, coaches, and youth pastors.

We should be using this radical change in activity level, enforced from outside (so parents aren’t the bad guys), to ask some hard questions about what matters and why we do what we do. Here are some suggestions to consider.

Questions to Ponder

First, are you using this time effectively to disciple your children or spouse? Are you all of a sudden at a loss for how to engage your children or spouse about the things that (should) matter most? If so, you are not alone, and you have been given an opportunity by God’s grace to figure out how to get better at engaging your family spiritually. This is a prime responsibility for those of us with families. A couple of meetings each week where someone else provides content is not enough. It’s worth getting this right. If you find success in increased discipleship during this time, would it be worth reordering your life to have more time for it after the quarantine has been lifted?

Second, what activities have been taken away that you really don’t miss much? Think hard about this one. Is the second ongoing sport for your son really necessary? Does it have to be travel league that pulls your family out of regular church attendance? Even if those activities are missed, are they more valuable than the family discipleship they displace?

Third, what activities have been taken away that are missed too much? A surprise cloistering like this can be emotionally difficult. I am sad for the high school and college seniors who are losing their graduation ceremony and that magic period of life where they stand on the cusp of a big-life change. I am sad for the people who were about to open their plays, had just opened a business, or had big travel plans. It is good and right to grieve some of these losses. But is our sense of loss proportionate with the eternal value of the thing lost? Emergencies like this can help reveal the idols in our lives. Take the time to consider what is being grieved and why.

Fourth, in what ways have you been ungrateful for the benefits society has to offer? Most of us take our jobs for granted until they are lost or threatened. Living in a Western capitalistic country, we take for granted that there will always be toilet paper on the shelves, until people start hoarding. We normally have opportunities to gather and worship together freely, but we seldom are sufficiently thankful for it. Use this time to ponder God’s enormous grace in putting us in a society that provides so many of our needs and wants without difficulty.

Conclusion

You may have other questions that are closer to your circumstance right now. We shouldn’t waste a crisis. Not so that we can impose our political and economic views on others with emergency powers, but so that we can ask fundamental questions about our way of life and whether it conforms to a godly vision of the world. This is a sabbath, even for those of us forced to work from home. Don’t miss the opportunity of the sabbath.

Resources for Holy Week

It seems that every Easter there are different political and social challenges that threaten to divert our focus from the Holy Week.

In the midst of all of that, Jesus is still Lord of all. That’s a vital truth and one that can be terrifically hard to hold onto.

I’ve put together a list of resources to consider for individuals, families, and local congregations.

Resurrection Letters

A recent favorite in my house is Andrew Peterson’s Resurrection Letters, Volume I and the Prologue. The 14 songs were released on two separate discs in 2018. The Prologue disc has five songs on it that focus the listener on the crucifixion, with songs commemorating Christ’s last words, God’s welcoming Christ as the good and faithful son, and a contemplative song about God resting, referring to Christ’s descent to the dead. Resurrection Letters, Volume has nine songs. The album is Christologically rich as it begins with “His Heart Beats,” an energetic celebration of the Lamb of God waking up. Then it moves through more celebratory music which help the listener remember that Christ lives, that he sustains the world, and that he is coming again to make it all right again.

Leading up to Easter, I recommend putting the Prologue songs on heavy rotation and saving the Volume I songs for Sunday morning and the weeks to follow. Peterson’s hymn, “He is Worthy,” is one of my favorite songs of all time.

The Crucifixion of Jesus

Fernando Ortega remains one of my favorite songwriters and musicians. His somewhat melancholy music is rich, homey, and often contemplative. His 2017 album The Crucifixion of Jesus can well serve as a Maundy Thursday service as his doxological music is interspersed with Scriptural readings to lead the listener through the events of the Christ’s passion leading to his crucifixion.

This is an album that warrants listening with devices put away, sitting on the couch, and focused on the goodness of God to send his son to die in our place. It is Christ honoring and worshipful.

The Final Days of Jesus

For those seeking to put the passion week in its chronological order, The Final Days of Jesus, by Andreas Kostenberger and Justin Taylor is a helpful resource. It is designed to walk through the last days of Christ before crucifixion one day at a time with careful selection of Scripture passages from the ESV and helpful commentary, maps that show the locations of the events in the gospel narrative, and charts that put passages and themes in an easy to understand key. This is an aid to family worship, individual devotion, as it feeds the soul and the mind at the same together.

The Man Born to Be King

Once known as a detective novelist (and a fine one, too), Dorothy Sayers was also a playwright. The BBC commissioned Sayers to write a series of twelve plays that use material from all four gospels to tell the story of the life of Jesus. These plays were somewhat controversial when they were aired in Britain during World War II because Sayers had the apostles and Jesus speaking in the vernacular of her day. Some called it sacrilegious, but the content is theologically solid and Sayer’s largely achieves her goal of helping people understand that Jesus really lived as a human and that his disciples weren’t icons in a painting, but flesh and blood sinners like us.

C. S. Lewis liked The Man Born to Be King so much that he read it every Holy Week between its publication in 1943 and his death in 1963. This is a classic book that is edifying and enriching. It can deepen your love for Christ this year, too.

The Jesus Storybook Bible

For those with younger children, one key resource for teaching them the overarching storyline of Scripture is Sally Lloyd-Jones’ book, The Jesus Storybook Bible. The book is beautifully illustrated so that it will appeal to young children and older children alike. The text is theologically rich, so that this is a resource that will provide an education for the parent or grandparent reading it as much as the children sitting and listening. There is also an that comes with an audio version, which is read by David Suchet (BBC’s Hercule Poirot and Focus on the Family’s Aslan). The narration is well worth the extra few dollars for the CDs. For those willing to spend more, there are animated videos that tell each of the stories, as well. They are well-done and worthwhile.

“He Descended to the Dead”

For those theologically minded individuals willing to do a bit deeper reading in preparation for the celebration of Christ’s resurrection, Matthew Emerson wrote a phenomenal book on the descent clause of the Athanasian and Apostle’s Creed. I am planning a full review of the volume later, but this book is theologically rich, clearly written, and devotionally powerful. The first three chapters help plow through the historical debate about the meaning and authenticity of the descent clause, while the remainder of the book shows why believing that Christ literally descended to the place of the dead (and not just the grave) is important for theology. “He Descended to the Dead” : An Evangelical Theology of Holy Saturday is a book that warrants reading and especially in the weeks leading up to our celebration of Christ’s susbstitutionary death, burial, and resurrection.

Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals - A Review

There have been several recent volumes published by Evangelicals on the use of historical theology within the Evangelical tradition. This comes at a time when there is a non-trivial movement of younger Evangelicals toward more “historically rooted” traditions. Examples such as Kenneth Stewart’s volume, In Search of Ancient Roots, and books like Christopher Hall’s, Living Wisely with the Church Fathers, come to mind.

According to some critics, Protestant theology has roots that reach no further back than 1517. They argue that some aspects of Evangelical theology are an even more recent innovation. This perception has been augmented by the prevalence of recency in contemporary Evangelical theologies.

Significantly contributing to the apparent recency of Evangelical theology are standard works in the field, like Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology, which makes almost no reference to historical theology and required a companion volume by another author to gain a sense of the historical arc of the doctrines Grudem advocates.

The relationship between contemporary Evangelical theology and church history is the strong dependence among evangelicals and the supreme authority of Scripture over historical doctrinal formulations. Given the variegation of theology across history, arriving at a theological method that takes voices of previous ages seriously without ascribing too much authority to them has been difficult.

Gavin Ortlund’s book, Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals: Why We Need Our Past to Have a Future is a helpful book in carving out a theological method that values Scripture supremely, but also listens to the voices of the Christian past.

Summary

The book is divided into two parts. The first part, a manifesto for theological retrieval, has three chapters that advocate for including careful research into historical theology as a path forward for contemporary Christians. Ortlund first asks whether Evangelicals can use Patristic and Medieval theology. Then he argues that we need to engage in theological retrieval through the use of historical theology. Finally, he outlines some of the pros and cons of theological retrieval. This is a balanced perspective that demonstrates there is certainly a wrong way to study and use the early church, but that we cannot afford not to do so if we are to remain faithful to the faith once and for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3).

In part two, Ortlund offers four case studies in theological retrieval. First, he examines the use of theological metaphor in the writings of Boethius, Calvin, and Torrance. This would be an interesting essay in its own right as Ortlund wrestles with the creation/creator distinction, but it makes a solid case study because it reveals how engaging with minds across time can be fruitful. The next case study reaches further back into a discussion of divine simplicity through medieval and patristic theology. In the third case study, Ortlund looks at a balance between models of the atonement. Here he does good work in showing that while substitution is central, necessary, and historically embedded, it does not exclude other ways of understanding Christ’s work on the cross. Here, one of the sharpest debates between theological progressives and orthodox Christians is clarified by reading those who argued about the topic centuries before. The final case study shows some of the practical and devotional benefits of reading theology from deep in Christian history as Ortlund mines wisdom from Gregory the Great on being an effective pastor in a world with many demands.

Analysis and Conclusion

One of the more engaging aspects of this book is the way that Ortlund utilizes the ideas of both C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien to frame some of his discussions. Those familiar with the work of those two Inklings will quickly recognize how deeply embedded in the historic Christian faith they both were. As they exemplified the Christian mind through their writings, they were both drawing extensively on a wide range of patristic and medieval sources. In Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals, Ortlund shows how their imaginative portrayals of deep, historical theological truths can enrich our Christian experience. This is by no means the central thrust of the book, but it is a sub-plot that enriches the volume significantly and gives it a pastoral bent.

For those Evangelicals engaged in theological discourse, this volume provides a solid starting place for faithfully retrieving the doctrinal truths discussed in earlier ages. It does so without losing the unique gospel-focus and bibliocentricity of Evangelical theology.

This book should be included in courses on theological method. It can be a resource for pastors seeking to deepen their faith and help young Evangelicals looking for rootedness to mine the riches of the Christian faith.

This book alone does not answer the challenge of recency that many Roman Catholics and high church Protestants levy against Baptists and other free church Christians, but it does provide a way for a conversation to begin through research, preaching, and teaching that will result in a robust, organic response to those challenges.

Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals: Why We Need Our Past to Have a Future

By Gavin Ortlund

Buy on Amazon

Discernment Bloggers, Truth, and Christian Witness

One of the best attributes of the internet age is that it has eliminated the gatekeepers to public discourse. At its best, the internet enables people to bypass denominational filters, editorial boards at book publishers, and the like. Among other things, it allows for amateur theologians.

The lack of gatekeepers allows us to get access to raw information on a more regular basis. WikiLeaks can publish documents that tell a different story that official channels do. Individuals subjected to abuse without recourse can get their story out and get problematic institutional administrations removed. Pastors and laypeople without access to an official platform can engage in meaningful theological discourse.

There are a lot of positive aspects to the democratizing of information, particularly when it comes to Christian discourse. At the same time, the same democratization can have a dark underbelly.

One example of this is in the rise and proliferation of discernment bloggers. At their best, discernment bloggers highlight areas where institutional reform is needed and push dialog toward those topics with an intent to seek reforms and pursue a measurable good. It might be that a discernment platform might spring up for a season and, having dealt with the issue at hand, recede into the sunset.

In practice, however, discernment blogs often turn from meaningful discourse to perpetual gossip and divisiveness. They use several tactics to pursue popularity, which are exceedingly effective at getting attention, but tend to erode the foundations of morality and truth by those who use them.

Rather than simply relying on truth-telling as the means to communicate, discernment ministries often rely on exaggeration, decontextualization, railing, and intentional ignorance to undermine their ideological victims. What usually results is a shrill, relentless attack on the disliked party and anyone who defends them or looks like them.

Valid Beginnings

A caveat on this discussion is, of course, necessary. Some discernment bloggers started with a legitimate purpose or grievance. Usually that was to deal with a particular local or even national issue.

There are, for example, some discernment blogs that began in order to expose misogyny, clerical abuse, or subversive theological liberalism. Those are worthy issues to be opposed.

The problem is not opposing bad things, it’s that as the platform grows and, perhaps, once the original problem is rooted out and exposed, the topics of concern become broader and the quality of evidence considered for publication sometimes drops lower and lower. Mission creep is a real issue as eventually some discernment blogs have become little more than clearinghouses for ridiculous conspiracy theories. (Sometime consider the number of conservative Evangelicals who are supposed to be rolling in money from George Soros.)

The discernment platform becomes a thing in itself that takes up time and needs constant feeding. Sometimes this is even complicated by it becoming a source of income for the vigilante through advertising and sponsorships.

True Discernment

Discernment is an important attribute of mature Christians. Hebrews 5:14, in a plea for increasing spiritually maturity, states,

But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.

Beyond the methods of abuse highlighted above, the biggest problem with many discernment blogs is that they are not particularly discerning. Contrary to Hebrews 5:14, they aren’t trained in discerning good from evil, but merely railing against those they don’t like. This is more likely to be true of discernment blogs that have been around for a while, whose missions have expanded from a particular issue to an attempt to take down the world.

Any person or group whose mode of operation is to fixate on someone else’s problem is not exercising true discernment, they are just being divisive.

A gourmet––someone who is fanatical about good food––may complain loudly about bad food at a restaurant. However, a true foodie is as likely to rave about good food as to rail against a disappointing meal. Even as they complain about food at one restaurant, they are likely to tell you where you can get the true and better food in another.

People who like football may despise the opposing team, but will be able to recognize when that team is playing excellent football. A good play may not result in cheers, but it will be recognized as something legitimately good. That’s the difference between enjoying a sport and simply hating the other team.

In many cases, internet “discernment” has become nearly entirely about hurling abuse at the disfavored parties. Biblical discernment looks much different.

Persuasiveness

The purpose of discernment should not be to heap scorn and shame on someone, but to persuade them and others to repent.

Persuasion may be a dying art in our day. The so-called longtail of marketing and the accessibility of media that fits my existing opinions means that entities can spend much more energy reinforcing opinions than persuading people of them.

We might consider persuasion to be yet another casualty of the internet age.

But Christian discernment includes the attempt to persuade. The arc of church discipline from 1 Cor 5 to 2 Cor 2:5–11 is one of redemption through persuasion. In this case, persuasion came about through expulsion. But that expulsion was always in hope of convincing the offender that he was acting like an unbeliever.

Christians ought to be, in fact, some of the most dedicated persuaders out there. As Paul argues in 2 Cor 5:1a,

Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade others.

The large passage that sentence is in talks about the ministry of reconciliation that Christians have been given, our role as ambassadors of the gospel of Christ, and our living compassionately among others.

Persuasion is the better part of true, biblical discernment.

Sweetness of Speech

In his Proverbs of Hell, Williams Blake states, “Damn braces, bless relaxes.”

This is true from both sides of the issue. Satan came to the Garden as an angel of light appealing to Eve’s curiosity and desire for godlikeness rather than as a tyrant seeking abject worship. He was persuasive and we all know the results.

In the same way, gospel evangelism is much more likely to be persuasive if it encourages the unregenerate to consider the beautiful truths of the gospel in light of their own darkness. Persuasion invites, ridicule repels. Evangelism of a rude, confrontational tone is much less likely to result in true (or any) conversions.

This should come as no surprise, as Proverbs 16:21 states,

The wise of heart is called discerning, and sweetness of speech increases persuasiveness.

How we say what we have to say is truly important. This is true with regard to our communication of our political opinions on social media and in person. It is also true as we seek to expose deadly sin within the body of Christ.

Persuasiveness allows the words to be sweet even if the truth packs a wallop. Many attempts at discernment in this age have distorted that paradigm: The words pack a wallop, but the truth they express is meager or twisted.

Is Rudeness an Apostolic Ministry?

Discernment bloggers often cite examples in church history of strong rhetoric that appears to have been effective to support their tone and content.

For example, Paul is somewhat hyperbolic in Gal 5:12 when he states that he wishes the Judaizers would mutilate themselves. Jesus himself is pretty harsh with the Scribes and Pharisees on multiple occasions and even uses physical violence to make his point in cleansing the temple.

Outside of Scripture, some of the greats in church history take the gloves off for a round of theological eye-gouging from time to time. I mean, someone has been able to create a database of Luther’s insults to delight the hearts of homeschoolers around the world.

My argument isn’t that there is no place for strong language and rhetorical flourishes. Sometimes a joke at the opponent’s expense is a good way to bring onlookers to your side. It may be persuasive, as long as we recognize that the one being persuaded is not the butt of the joke but those “overhearing” the debate.

The key is that the truth we are communicating needs to overshadow the means by which we communicate it. When we lose that central aspect in our discourse, we have lost the mission.

Paul and Jesus may have used harsh language toward their opponents, but they communicated a positive message, not simply a criticism of someone they didn’t like.

This goes back to the gourmet raving about the good food at a favored restaurant: “Don’t go to Jimmy’s Grill, the steaks are dry and flavorless, but Bob’s Chophouse cooks the most excellent sirloin.” In true discerning communication, there is always an attempt to point toward the good, not simply to highlight the bad.

Throwing rhetorical hand grenades is pretty easy. Building a positive and convincing position is much harder.

Conclusion

One way to identify discernment blogs is that they often have very little positive message. They feed our desire to have our views validated by constantly showing why the other side is wrong, even when we agree with 95% of what the opponent thinks. The differences may be small, but it feels good to be “better” or “more truthful” than the other guys.

Many discernment blogs also handle the truth poorly by editing the words of others and adding their own context to attempt to paint the others in a poor light. This alone should cause those with real discernment to stay away from some of these discernment “ministries.”

As we think about godly communication, the pursuit of purity in the visible church, and legitimate attempts to reveal real problems in the body of Christ, we need to think about what discernment means. A more biblical model of discernment might not be as effective at getting clicks, but it might be more effective at honoring Christ. And, after all, isn’t that what we are supposed to be all about?

Prudence and Grace in the Face of Pandemic

And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. (Heb 10:25)

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. . . .  Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.  One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind (Rom 14:1, 3-5)

Fears about COVID-19 are spreading, which is leading organizations around the globe to make difficult decisions about the common good, economic needs, and individual well-being. Christians, too, must wrestle with these basic, but difficult questions.

For example, in light of a virus that is spread largely through human-to-human contact, should we meet together on Sunday to shake hands, pass the offering plate, and share the Lord’s Supper as we gather in our classrooms and sanctuaries?

Beware those for whom the answer to this question seems obvious. On the one hand, we should avoid glib over-confidence as if there is nothing to be concerned about. On the other hand, we should not too quickly abandon meeting together to renew one another in the love of Christ. Different concerns will play into decisions about whether to gather or not, and we should be careful not to judge those too harshly that disagree with us.

To Gather

My own bias is to continue to meet with any others that are willing to come out. I do not want to forsake gathering with my brothers and sisters in Christ. I would prefer to continue to spend time with my church family, as long as we take reasonable precautions.

Among those precautions are encouraging others who are not well to stay at home, washing hands carefully and frequently, and minimizing close, personal contact to a reasonable degree. There are simple measures to take to change the way the offering is collected and to change the delivery of the Lord’s Supper that can make continued gathering safe and encouraging.

Recognize that in this decision, I am middle aged with younger children that are not as significantly affected by the disease. We also homeschool, which minimizes the danger that we pose to others, though my job puts me in contact with a range of people during the day.

Not to Gather

At the same time, there are some for whom getting COVID-19 is a factual, significant risk. It is entirely reasonable for those with compromised immune systems to remain home, especially since there is a fairly lengthy period of contagiousness while someone with the virus is asymptomatic.

Additionally, there are those for whom sickness would be a greater economic burden due to lack of paid time off. It may be wiser for someone with a greater risk exposure to listen online.

And there may be some people for whom the fear of the virus is so great that it makes being in a space like a local church a source of great stress. It should not be a misery to attend church. If someone is really that fearful, then they should stay at home.

Prudence and Grace

In this time when there is a great deal at stake and a great deal of confusion, the best policy is to begin by being prudent and gracious.

People who are not well should be encouraged to remain at home. Those with compromised immune systems should listen online. Church leaders should evaluate practices to minimize close contact and limit the risk of spread. These are all prudential measures. It may be necessary for a church to “meet online” for a couple of weeks if the area is experiencing a high level of infection.

This requires those who continue to gather to be gracious. Cancelling services due to an abundance of caution is not a failure to love Jesus; it is an attempt to love neighbors faithfully. We may not agree, but each should be convinced in his or her own conscience. Not cancelling services is not necessarily a sign that a congregation doesn’t love their neighbor; it is merely a way of recognizing the importance of corporate worship and the encouragement it offers.

In the end, this virus will pass like an inconvenient blip in the memory of most of us. But we must remember that some people are not going to make it through it. There is no reason to take undue risks to keep average attendance at a certain level. Grace and prudence are in order.

Obedience to Authority

In some cases, the government may recommend or, perhaps, require cancellation of services. This, again, is a matter of conscience. I believe that a temporary cessation of services would be wise in the face of a government order, because the intention is to preserve life and minimize spread. We should not feel obligated to meet simply to spite the government.

Romans 13:1 urges us, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.”

There are certainly limits to this, but it is unclear to me that it is absolutely necessary to resist a temporary order not to meet. In the face of real risk, and not simply religious persecution, I see a temporary cessation of in-person meetings as a reasonable accommodation, although I do not like it.

In the end prudence and grace must be measured out in equal shares again.

Conclusion

There is no simple answer to the question of what to do in light of COVID-19.

However, whatever we do should be done for God’s glory and with the love of our neighbor in mind. We should be careful not to bind each other’s consciences or see ourselves as better than others for our decision to gather or not.

Ultimately, God will judge our deeds and our motives. We should be thankful for his mercy.