Critiquing: #038 — Lockdown livestream – Tom answers questions on Facebook Live

June 11, 2020 | Content Source: Ask NT Wright Anything – Premier

• Pandemic Response — Religious Faith — Racial Issues — Christian Community — Social Distancing

---

Episode Assessment:

		Commentary
Degree of Accuracy	B+	The content is factually accurate, particularly in referencing NT Wright’s new book and current events like the COVID-19 pandemic and racial tensions. Wright’s responses are based on well-established theological perspectives, ensuring that the information aligns with mainstream Christian thought. However, some statements could benefit from additional empirical data or references to scientific studies to strengthen the factual basis.
Degree of Coherence	B	The episode maintains logical coherence, linking the topics discussed to broader theological themes. Wright effectively connects personal experiences and theological insights to current events, providing a unified narrative. However, some transitions between topics could be smoother to enhance overall coherence.
Absence of Fallacies	B-	There are few logical fallacies; however, some arguments could be more robust in addressing counterpoints. For instance, Wright’s responses sometimes rely on appeals to authority without fully addressing opposing viewpoints, which could be seen as a minor logical fallacy. Strengthening the argumentation with more direct engagement with counterarguments would improve this metric.
Degree of Evidence	C+	The evidence provided is primarily anecdotal and theological, with less empirical support for some claims. While Wright’s theological interpretations are valuable, incorporating more statistical data or case studies related to pandemic responses or racial issues would enhance the evidential basis. This would provide a more comprehensive and convincing argumentation framework.
Degree of Testability	C	The arguments are largely theological, making them less testable by empirical standards. Many claims are based on personal beliefs or interpretations of religious texts, which are inherently subjective. Incorporating testable hypotheses or referencing studies that examine the impact of religious practices on community health during the pandemic would improve the degree of testability.
Rational Confidence	C+	The confidence in the arguments presented is moderate, aligning with the degree of evidence but lacking in empirical substantiation. While Wright’s arguments are compelling within a theological framework, their reliance on faith-based assumptions limits their broader applicability. Strengthening the evidence base would enhance the rational confidence in the claims made.

Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:

1. Degree of Evidence

The episode primarily relies on theological interpretations and anecdotal evidence rather than empirical data.

“Where is God in the middle of this? God is on the front line in doing the dangerous stuff out there helping the helpers, the carers, the nurses, the doctors and administering the last rites to people who need it and praying with the dying and so on.”

This quote exemplifies the reliance on theological assertions without providing empirical evidence to substantiate the claims. To strengthen the argument, incorporating data on how religious faith impacts healthcare workers’ resilience or psychological well-being during the pandemic would provide a more robust evidence base.

2. Degree of Testability

The arguments made are largely theological, making them difficult to test through empirical means.

“So, in general, in terms, without obviously being able to cover everything that’s in that booklet, where do you see God in the midst of all of this craziness? Well, I think the answer to where do we see God always, if you’re a Christian, has to come and be filtered through the question of Jesus himself.”

The theological nature of this statement makes it challenging to test or validate empirically, which impacts the degree of testability. To improve this, Wright could reference studies on the psychological effects of religious belief during crises, which would provide a more testable framework for his assertions.

---

Formulations of Major Arguments

Argument 1: Pandemic and Divine Presence

Premises:

1. The pandemic is a significant global event causing widespread suffering.
2. People often seek understanding and meaning during times of crisis.
3. Christians believe that understanding Jesus’ teachings and actions can provide insight into divine presence and response to suffering.
4. Jesus’ life and teachings emphasize God’s active involvement in human suffering and compassion.

Conclusion:

Therefore, Christians can find comfort and guidance by interpreting the pandemic through the lens of Jesus’ response to suffering, seeing it as an opportunity for divine presence and action.

Counter-Argument:

While the theological perspective offers comfort and a sense of divine presence, it lacks empirical evidence. A secular counter-argument emphasizes the importance of scientific and medical responses to the pandemic, focusing on human agency and collective action rather than divine intervention. The role of God or divine presence remains a matter of personal belief and is not universally applicable or testable. Empirical evidence supports the effectiveness of public health measures, scientific research, and community solidarity in mitigating the impact of the pandemic. Thus, relying solely on theological interpretations may detract from the practical, evidence-based actions necessary to address such global crises effectively.

Argument 2: Role of the Church in Social Issues

Premises:

1. The church has historically played a significant role in addressing social issues and promoting social justice.
2. Racial tensions and social injustice are prominent contemporary issues that require active engagement.
3. Christian teachings emphasize equality, reconciliation, and the inherent dignity of all individuals.
4. The church’s mission includes advocating for social justice and addressing systemic inequalities.

Conclusion:

Therefore, the church should actively engage in addressing racial tensions and promoting social justice, aligning with its theological principles and historical role.

Counter-Argument:

A secular perspective might argue that while religious institutions can play a role in social justice, effective change often requires secular policies, legal frameworks, and grassroots activism. The church’s involvement should complement rather than replace these efforts, ensuring that actions are inclusive and based on universally accepted human rights principles. Empirical evidence shows that systemic change is often driven by policy reform, legal action, and community organizing, which may be supported by but not reliant on religious institutions. Thus, the church’s role should be seen as part of a broader, multifaceted approach to social justice.

Argument 3: Impact of COVID-19 on Church Practices

Premises:

1. COVID-19 has necessitated social distancing and changes in communal practices to prevent the spread of the virus.
2. Traditional church services rely on physical gatherings, which are challenged by social distancing requirements.
3. The essence of Christian community is relational and embodied, emphasizing physical presence and shared experiences.
4. Adapting church practices to maintain community and worship is essential for sustaining the spiritual and communal life of congregants.

Conclusion:

Therefore, adapting church practices to maintain community and worship during social distancing is essential, ensuring that the relational and embodied aspects of Christian faith are preserved.

Counter-Argument:

While the importance of community is undeniable, the pandemic highlights the need for adaptability. Embracing technology and virtual gatherings can preserve community connections without compromising public health. Additionally, this period offers an opportunity to rethink and innovate traditional practices, making them more resilient and inclusive in the face of future challenges. Empirical evidence supports the effectiveness of virtual communication tools in maintaining social connections and providing support. Therefore, churches should explore and integrate these tools to ensure the safety and well-being of their congregants while continuing to provide spiritual guidance and community support.

◉ The Pandemic as an Opportunity to Assess the Promises of God:

Testing the Promises of Divine Care During a Global Crisis

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a time of unprecedented global challenge, affecting every aspect of life and presenting an opportunity for Christians to reflect on the promises of God. These promises, found throughout the Bible, offer assurance of divine care and intervention in times of need. This essay explores three significant promises: God’s promise to care for Christians as He does the lilies of the field or the sparrow, the promise to move mountains (or remove viruses), and the general promise to answer prayers. It examines how these promises can be tested, have been tested, and how their outcomes may be perceived as consistent with a secular perspective that sees no divine intervention.

Promise of Divine Care: Lower Morbidity and Mortality Rates

God’s promise to care for Christians is likened to His care for the lilies of the field and the sparrows (Matthew 6:26-30). This promise suggests that believers should experience divine protection and provision, even during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic. If this promise were operational, one might expect to see statistically lower morbidity and mortality rates among Christians compared to non-Christians.

Testing the Promise:
The morbidity and mortality rates among Christians during the pandemic can be compared to those of the general population. Statistical analysis can determine if there is a significant difference in outcomes that could be attributed to divine protection.

Observations and Results:
Data from various countries and communities, however, show no significant difference in morbidity and mortality rates between Christians and non-Christians. The virus has affected people across all demographics similarly, suggesting that the promise of divine care has not manifested in a tangible, measurable way during the pandemic.

Consistency with No Divine Intervention:
These results can be interpreted as consistent with a naturalistic view where disease affects all humans equally, regardless of religious belief. This lack of differential impact aligns with the absence of any observable divine intervention.

Promise to Move Mountains: Removing Viruses

Jesus’ promise that faith can move mountains (Matthew 17:20) implies that through faith, Christians could also remove viruses like COVID-19 from their communities.

Testing the Promise:
Christian communities could be examined for significantly lower infection rates, especially those that engaged in collective prayer and faith-based interventions aimed at combating the virus.

Observations and Results:
Despite numerous prayers and faith-based initiatives, there has been no documented case of a Christian community experiencing an inexplicable disappearance of the virus. The spread and impact of COVID-19 have followed similar patterns in both faith-based and secular communities.

Consistency with No Divine Intervention:
The continued presence and spread of COVID-19 among Christian communities suggest that the promise to move mountains or remove viruses has not been fulfilled. This outcome is consistent with a secular understanding where disease transmission follows natural laws and is unaffected by religious practices.

Promise to Answer Prayer: Pandemic Prayers

The general promise that God answers prayers (John 14:13-14) was put to the test as millions of Christians prayed for protection, healing, and an end to the pandemic.

Testing the Promise:
The effectiveness of these prayers can be evaluated by examining whether prayed-for outcomes, such as reductions in infection rates or miraculous recoveries, occurred more frequently in Christian populations.

Observations and Results:
While individual stories of recovery and resilience have emerged, there is no empirical evidence to suggest that Christian communities experienced significantly different outcomes due to prayer. The pandemic’s trajectory has been largely unaffected by the global outpouring of prayers.

Consistency with No Divine Intervention:
The general promise to answer prayers appears unmet when viewed through the lens of the pandemic. The data suggests that the outcomes of the pandemic have been driven by public health measures and natural factors rather than divine intervention, consistent with a secular interpretation.

Conclusion:

The COVID-19 pandemic has provided a unique context to assess some of the core promises of God as presented in Christian theology. The lack of observable evidence supporting lower morbidity and mortality rates among Christians, the failure to see faith-based removal of the virus, and the unmet promises of answered prayers highlight a dissonance between these theological promises and empirical reality. This analysis suggests that the pandemic’s impacts align more closely with a naturalistic worldview, where outcomes are governed by human actions and natural laws rather than divine intervention.

---

We warmly welcome you to discuss this topic further in the comments section. Your thoughts and perspectives are valuable, and we look forward to engaging in a meaningful dialogue.