Wisdom and the Coronavirus

I don't recall having read Alistair Roberts prior to this post, but he provides an excellent summary of the nature of wisdom based on the biblical wisdom literature along with some worthy applications. I highly commend it.

It was hard to pick a single snippet to highlight when so much in the post is good, but here is one:

"One of the dismaying features of too many Christian contexts is their narrow fortress mentality, their failure to interact receptively with and learn from insightful non-Christians, and the way that their thinking is so driven by political and ideological antagonism and entrenchment."

Read the whole thing.

Hat Tip: The Aquila Report

"Promoting ... the Good Name of our Neighbor"

Ask most Christians about immorality on the internet and discussion will likely turn immediately to the prevalence of sexually explicit material. This is not an entirely wrong response, as internet pornography is reported to be big business, and sexual obsessiveness damages both individuals and relationships. However, the response also results from an unfortunate reduction of morality to matters involving sex in the minds of many religious conservatives. In fact, one might suggest that among Christians one finds more promiscuous -- and casually indifferent -- violations of the 9th Commandment (bearing false witness) than of the 7th (adultery).

People seem naturally to get their backs up at accusations of violating the 9th Commandment, as no one likes being called a liar (even when it happens to be true). In fact, during an earlier era of American history, a man who called another a liar might find himself shortly thereafter squaring off at 10 paces. Nonetheless, the Westminster Larger Catechism (question 144) explains our duty with regard to the 9th Commandment rather expansively:

"The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own; appearing and standing for the truth; and from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things whatsoever; a charitable esteem of our neighbors; loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name; sorrowing for and covering of their infirmities; freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces, defending their innocency; a ready receiving of a good report, and unwillingness to admit of an evil report, concerning them; discouraging talebearers, flatterers, and slanderers; love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth; keeping of lawful promises; studying and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report."

The same catechism proceeds with the next question to summarize forbidden sins, but just the list of positive duties would seem to provide enough to shut down much of what happens on social media.

My wife and I were discussing this last night, and in the course of that discussion she brought up a valid and disturbing point: how can we expect church members to acknowledge the 9th commandment in the way that they engage social media when they are being discipled under the authority of ministers who routinely commit the same sins?

Now, I should hasten to add that we were not discussing matters related to anyone in our congregation -- or even the presbytery of which our church is a part. Nonetheless, the fact that we are Presbyterians means that we are in a denomination and tradition that holds to governing structures and processes we believe to be grounded in Scripture and adapted in our Book of Church Order. Yet, I see things written by ministers of our denomination (and similar ones) that are brazenly false. That is to say, I am not talking about matters that are open to varying interpretations; I am talking about clear falsehood. Because it is on the internet, the spreading of falsehood is public sin.

Whether the falsehood results from mental incompetence, a failure to make simple investigation, or willful moral deficiency, it is still false. Sadly, in many instances, sessions and presbyteries do not seem to care about counselling and, if necessary, disciplining their ministers who are guilty of this sort of sin. The practical result of this is that men stand in the pulpits of churches to preach the good news of Christ when some among their listeners know about their public sins against the truth. This is a matter of disgrace for the church.

it has been said that the American Constitution's First Amendment was not needed to protect speech about cute puppies. Protection of speech is required to protect the right to controversial speech. Similarly, we rarely violate the 9th Commandment regarding those we like: we fail in our duty more often when we disagree with someone or have some other reason for wanting to tear them down.  The conversation that my wife and I were having concerned the reaction of others to Aimee Byrd's recent book. I have not read it: Lanette has read it and provided 4,000 words of notes about its contents to a Facebook group. Thus, she knows the book pretty well.

Of course, Ms. Byrd's book is controversial, and there is plenty of room for discussion and disagreement with her conclusions and applications. I am not here to defend Ms. Byrd, in part because I have not read the book and am not therefore competent to do so, and in part because I am sure she was prepared for controversy given the subject matter and is more than capable of defending herself. However, much of the discussion on the internet features more heat than light, and by heat I mean illegitimate name calling, ad hominem attacks, and false and misconstrued information about Ms. Byrd's arguments and character. These are serious sins, and when ministers routinely commit them they should be counselled appropriately and brought to repentance.

It's not the differing conclusions; it's the reasoning

How should Christians talk about the Coronavirus? I am not sure we have been doing a terribly good job at it.

Last weekend, many states began the partial re-opening of economic activity. In many instances, that resulted in little change to the way people have been going about their business. While activists on left and right argue loudly about what should or should not be done, the mushy middle seems to have found consensus that caution remains in order. While that disappoints the activists on either side, in this instance it seems wise. Those in the middle who apparently have no leader nowadays seem to be acting in a way that fails to comport with the political disintegration that afflicts the country.

The small church that I attend opened its doors with spread out seating and continued streaming the service. For reasons I will describe momentarily, I watched on a computer. When I attend again personally will be based on my best understanding of the level of risk living in an area where the infection rate has been relatively modest but continues to increase, albeit slowly at present.

Anyone entering this fray should be aware of their own biases, and I believe I have an understanding of my own, which are affected by political predilections and interactions based on my employment, but most of all by health status. By most measures, I am actually currently in better health than I have been in for many years, going back to when I was younger but not as physically active. However, a health condition requires me to take medication that keeps me in remission while compromising my immune system. Thus, if I got this, it probably would not be a good time.

I am not paranoid about this -- my dog is enjoying daily walks in the nearby park, and I make frequent quick trips to the grocery store. I just stay away from anyplace I would expect to find crowds or gathered groups. In terms of the hot button questions of opening the economy or not, my views tend toward the more cautious side, but it does not bother me that others disagree -- my wife and I do not fully agree (though she is of course respectful of my personal situation) -- and our marriage has somehow remained happy even though she has to tolerate my nearly constant presence while I have worked from home these last two months. So, it remains possible in America to have differing opinions and still walk together.

Thus, I do not worry about differing conclusions. What strikes me as shocking is the reasoning with which people get there. It is one thing to weigh the relative merits of public health impacts versus economic damage (though I will note in passing that very few making these arguments possess either the skill or the effort needed to assess the economic impact of more widespread morbidity and death: what would it mean to the economy if what has happened to the meat processing industry was occurring in many more industries had they not shut down). What strikes me most is an increasingly dismissive attitude toward the lives that could be lost. I most note those who take pro-life positions on other issues that quickly dismiss concerns for the sick and the elderly as mere collateral damage that should not be bothered with.

It is not that the sick should imagine the world revolves around them. But, are Christians regarding their plight in a way that shows brotherly love toward fellow believers, as well as kindness toward those outside the household of faith?

The questions facing the nation are not easy, and Christians should expect that among us there will be a spectrum of understandings. I have my own views, but they are leavened with a considerable amount of uncertainty -- perhaps I am learning humility in middle age. The novelty of our situation finds wisdom in admitting that there is much that we do not know about the ramifications of our decisions. All of that said, while circumstances may require hard, even unpopular, decisions, they never permit us to leave the Second Great Commandment at the church house door.