Why I am Not an Effective Altruist

World map that scales each country according to its population. Click here to see the full-size version.

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. 

- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

---

What is effective altruism?

Effective altruism is a movement about "doing the most good." It says, we have a responsibility to help the world- and it's better to have a bigger impact- let's use math to figure out how to have the biggest impact we can.

Effective altruists have done research into different charities, and determined the top few which are the "most effective." It's a lot of work to do this kind of research- you can't get this from looking at fancy marketing materials on a charity's website; you have to actually find out what it's like on the ground, how much money are they taking in, what did they use the money for, how many people were affected, what was the actual benefit to those people (if any) compared to if the charity hadn't done anything, and so on and so on. Outside of the effective altruist movement, I've seen people typically judge charities based on what percentage of their money goes to overhead costs, and what percentage goes to their actual work- but it really doesn't make sense to treat that as the end-all-be-all of evaluating charities. I totally agree with the effective altruists on this. It doesn't really matter what percentage of an organization's money goes to overhead costs. It matters what they actually did, and how that actually benefitted people's lives.

The effective altruist movement has 3 main areas: global poverty, animal advocacy, and AI risk. I'm just going to talk about the global poverty aspect, because I'm not very familiar with the others. Basically, the math shows that if you want to help the most people for every dollar you donate, it should go to people in extreme poverty. The less money the recipients have, the bigger the difference it makes. This is intuitively true, and then they have the math to back it up. 

The effective altruist organization GiveWell has done the math. Here's their page showing their top picks. These are very good charities that really are saving lives. I'll go ahead and plug the first one there on that page: Malaria Consortium.

I'll also plug GiveDirectly, which gives money directly to people in extreme poverty. Studies have also shown this to be very effective at saving or improving people's lives.

GiveWell's top charities are estimated to be in the ballpark of 1 life saved for every $4000 you donate. This doesn't mean they give 1 person medicine and it costs $4000 and saves their life- no no, that's not what it means, let's make sure we understand what it means. It means $4000 can pay for anti-malarial medicine/ mosquito nets/ etc for a large number of people, and statistics tell us that of that large number, on average 1 person would have died if we hadn't done this. This is based on how likely it is for people to get infected with malaria, how likely it is for someone to die if they are infected with malaria, how likely it is that they actually use the mosquito net if you give them one, etc. Anyway, $4000 to save 1 person's life is a very good deal. I'm glad that GiveWell has done this work and identified these extremely good charities to donate to.

Compare this to other charities, which advertise by saying "it costs $5 for this medicine that can save a child's life!" Sure, okay, there may be some situation where that medicine makes the difference between life and death, and the medicine itself costs $5- but that does *not* mean that typically that's what happens when you donate $5 to that charity. The charity needs to build a whole system to find people who need that medicine and distribute it to them. When charities advertise "$5 to save a life!" that is really misleading and dishonest. Effective altruist groups have actually done the math, taking all of the factors into account- the *total* amount of money that the charity spends on all of its programs and overhead costs, and how many lives are saved, compared to if they had done nothing (because if you did nothing, people can still recover from sickness on their own, it's not like they all definitely would have died- just because you treated X number of people doesn't mean you saved X lives). When effective altruist groups give these numbers (in the ballpark of $4000 to save 1 life), it actually means something.

The effective altruist movement says that those of us who are financially comfortable have a moral obligation to give our money to help others. Yes! I agree with this! They typically recommend giving 10% of one's income. I like that they use 10% as the target- it's a big enough donation that it will make a difference, but still doable if you're a financially comfortable. I think it's good to have this as a target number- otherwise you have to constantly be stressed about "what's the bare minimum amount I can live on- I'm morally obligated to give away all my money beyond that bare minimum" which is no way to live.

I guess I'll admit here that I give less than 10% of my income. I hope to increase it gradually every year and get to 10% eventually. It's okay if you give less than 10%! The worst thing would be if you say "well 10% of my income would be [does some calculations] holy crap that's a huge number, no way, I can't afford to give that much" and so then you just do nothing. No! Don't do nothing! Pick a different number, a number that does feel doable for you, and give that much. 

Why not start now? Here are the links again:

Malaria Consortium 

GiveDirectly 

There are some things about effective altruism which are very good. Yes, rich people *should* donate their money! And the focus on what's actually going to help people, rather than the donors' personal feelings. And the way that it values all human lives equally- a commitment to donate wherever it will help the most people, even if it's helping them with some problem that we can't relate to at all (extreme poverty, malaria, etc).

So, I'm glad that the effective altruist movement exists. If you are an effective altruist, and you are giving a huge chunk of money to help impoverished people in developing countries, great! Keep doing that! But I personally do not follow this philosophy when I donate money/ attempt to help the world.

I don't like the way effective altruists often claim that their approach to charity is the *correct* one, because they did *math*, and that everyone else who is giving to "ineffective" charities is doing something wrong. No, I don't agree with this. Effective altruism- specifically the part about global poverty- is very good, but that doesn't mean it's the One Correct Way To Do Good In The World. 

Here's my criticism of EA: It doesn't take into consideration the way that problems in this world are connected to each other, the way that people are connected to each other, the way that we are also part of this world and these systems. It views us as objective outside observers to the problems of the world, and our money is just a bunch of money that didn't come from anywhere. 

On the contrary, I think it does matter who we are and how we are connected to other people.

Blogaround

Links not related to the antichrist:

1. The Unacknowledgeable Work of Pastors’ Wives (September) "She is expected to have the church be her primary social outlet, but every church member is a little bit her husband’s boss. Complaining about marital problems more severe than her husband’s former difficulty putting away his socks (but he’s much better now) undermines him and endangers his position in the church. Pastors have been fired because their wives complained to the wrong person(’s wife)."

2. Ukraine did not Stop the Russian Bots (October 16) I guess I missed this whole story, but apparently people on social media were saying that Ukraine's bombing of a Russian data center caused a bunch of MAGA accounts to go offline, proving that the MAGA accounts weren't real people but Russian bots. Well turns out this is not true! Don't believe everything you read on the internet!

3. ‘A hermeneutical Pandora’s box’ (October 13) "That raised the stakes. It was no longer merely 'Yes, but if we read the Bible this particular way — selecting and emphasizing these particular passages in this specific way — then we can justify injustice.' It became 'We must read the Bible this particular way — selecting and emphasizing these particular passages in this specific way, or else we will fall into sin and go to Hell to be tortured for eternity.'"

This is spot-on. Also this post reminds me, I want to read Mark Noll's book, "The Civil War as a Theological Crisis."

4. Decades after apartheid, South Africans seek justice for crimes of the past (October 17) "At least 69 people were shot by police that day [in 1960]. They had been demonstrating against the country's pass laws — which restricted black people's movements and where they could live and work."

5. They told Christian girls to submit. Now the Botkin Sisters say they were wrong. (October 19) "Let’s not forget this didn’t just happen in a vacuum. Their father shaped the message. Vision Forum gave it a platform. Churches promoted the book and film. They all taught girls to cram their hopes and dreams into a man’s plans for them, and they all bear responsibility for harming the people who took their advice seriously."

So, this didn't affect me- when I was evangelical, I never heard of the Botkin sisters, or the stay-at-home-daughter movement, or Vision Forum. I only heard about all this when I started reading ex-evangelical and ex-fundie blogs. But, apparently, the "stay-at-home-daughter movement" said that girls and women all need to be under a man's leadership, and need to dedicate themselves to serving a man. For married women, it's the husband. For unmarried women, it's the father. So, unmarried women need to stay home and serve their father. (Even as adults.) Don't go to college, don't get a job, those things are evil and worldly and will lead girls into all kinds of sin.

So anyway, I read the Botkin sisters' whole post about how they've realized that teaching was harmful and they are apologizing for it. I have a few observations:

One, over and over they reassure us, don't worry, we haven't become feminists. They still believe in strict gender roles. They still believe married women need to focus on being womanly and domestic. They still believe women can't be pastors.

So what changed is, they no longer think that unmarried women *must* stay home and serve their fathers. They believe unmarried women have other options besides that. Uh, okay.

And second, the way they reference bible verses. Throughout their whole post, they cite so many bible verses to support their point of view, and the way it comes across to me is like... It's a bit jarring to me how they pull verses from all different parts of the bible, different cultural settings, across hundreds of years, and treat all of it like it's the teaching for our lives. Like all of it is equally in authority over us.

The most jarring one was:

Yes, God loves submission to lawful, God-appointed authority. But He also loves freedom and personal responsibility. For instance, even though voluntarily becoming a bondslave is lawful (Deut. 15:16-17, Ex. 21:5-6), He says it’s better for slaves to get their freedom if they can (1 Cor. 7:21).

So for the "voluntarily becoming a bondslave is lawful" they cite Deuteronomy and Exodus- passages that were set right after the Israelites came out of Egypt, were in the process of figuring out how to be their own nation, and God gave them laws, and some of those laws were about how to practice slavery. And then for "it's better for slaves to get their freedom if they can" they cite 1 Corinthians, where the apostle Paul is writing to the Christians in Corinth, living under the Roman empire, some of whom were slaves, telling them that their status as slaves doesn't make them any less in the eyes of God, but also if it's possible to get freedom they should totally go ahead and do that.

Slavery in ancient Israel, vs slavery in the Roman empire, it's a completely different thing. But these are cited like they both simply have something to teach us about submitting to authority, and that's all.

But, I mean, yes, if you believe the bible is totally true, then for every single passage, it's just a matter of pulling out the lesson that it's meant to teach us, and all of those messages are equally binding on us. Why would it matter what part of the bible it came from?

And also, like it's just fine that these passages talk about slavery like it's no big deal. There's no... like... there's no sense that they're kind of tiptoeing around it because it's problematic that the bible condones slavery. 

Same thing for this part:

Even concubines (wives who came into a marriage without a dowry, and thus were financial dependents, unlike “true” wives who had their own capital) were permitted to leave a marriage merely if their physical needs weren’t being provided for (Ex 21:10-11). Again, in our experience, many stay-at-home daughters had to provide for their own needs but were still forbidden to leave; they were considered even more bound to their fathers than these wives were to their husbands.

Just, like, the breezy way they talk about concubines, like... For me, when I read bible verses about concubines, I feel horrified by how women were treated in ancient times, like property, like their bodies and sex lives and childbearing abilities were just things for men to use.

But I have to say, I know how it is to have so much faith in the bible, to so wholeheartedly believe that the bible is true and right, to have such complete trust, that these issues don't even register as issues, as things that should disturb me. I had so much faith, back then, I could talk about how God killed people in the bible, I could talk about all kinds of horrifying things, and I truly truly believed that it was all right because God said so, not even realizing that these things are horrifying and I should be horrified by them.

---

Links related to the antichrist:

1. Trauma after a parent’s deportation could affect Iowa children for decades (October 14) "'Not knowing if their parents will be there when they get home, not being sure of what will happen to their families. It’s a very real reality to the students that I work with, and it’s definitely a fear that’s grown within them and within their families,' Meyer said."

2. Man shot by ICE in NYC's Marble Hill said federal officers never identified themselves (October 14) "The men — who Belgal said he only later learned were ICE agents — did not appear to be law enforcement or identify themselves as immigration agents, the petition states. They did not present him with an arrest warrant, say his name or provide any other substantive explanation for the encounter as they confronted him through his partially rolled-down car window, the filing states. One of the agents pointed a weapon inside the car, leaving Belgal “terrified” for his and his son’s lives, according to the filing."

3. Trump cancels public execution, but a line may already have been crossed (October 15) "'Hegseth is, for lack of a better term, obsessed with the Crusades,' Taylor said."

4. Family of man killed by tiger criticise online content after Trump reposts video (October 14) This is not normal. A man was killed by a tiger, and the president posts the video like it's some interesting content to share on social media????

5. Obama calls Trump officials’ investigation of Ilhan Omar ‘appalling’ (October 19) "'Now the Administration is actively trying to deport Congresswoman Omar, seemingly based solely on the unsubstantiated theory that she was actually 18 when her father was naturalized, and therefore is not a citizen,' Obama wrote. 'Federal agents have raided her home, confiscated personal records, and seized her phone — all to try and uncover a nonexistent smoking gun from 20 years ago that will somehow make their case.'"

Inspiration and Incarnation: How Many Gods

Ancient artwork depicting Egyptian gods. Image source.

I've been reading the book "Inspiration and Incarnation" by Peter Enns. Right now we're in the middle of chapter 3, which is about how different parts of the bible say different (or even contradictory) things. In this post, we'll talk about whether the bible teaches there is 1 god or many gods.

Basically, there are 2 different perspectives, presented by different passages in the bible:

• There is only 1 god.
• There are many gods, but our God is the most powerful one of them, and you should *only* worship this *one*.

Blogaround

Links not related to the antichrist:

1. AI Just Crossed the Terrifying Line - Now What? (October 5, 21-minute video) Good video from Kurzgesagt explaining the Hugging Face hack. This is indeed terrifying- and there should be consequences for OpenAI. When AI agents do something illegal, it shouldn't just be "oh it went rogue"- the company that made the AI should be held responsible.

2. In China’s Universities, Students Are Majoring in Second Chances (October 12) The education system in China is a lot more rigid than what I experienced in the US. Here's an article about how one specific aspect is starting to change- it's becoming easier for college students in China to change majors.

3. Evangelicals Keep Blaming Rape Victims Because They Don’t Understand Trauma (October 13) [content note: rape] "But perhaps if we better understood what trauma looked like, we would start being able to help girls like Vera, and read between the lines when they came to us, confused."

This post makes a really good point about how feeling guilty for consensual sex is a very different thing than feeling traumatized after being sexually assaulted. Wow, yes, back when I was in purity culture, I did feel guilt about not being "pure" enough due to consensual things (kissing, etc), and also I was afraid that I could get into a situation where "one thing leads to another" and *somehow* I would have sex and it would be my fault. (Fortunately did not happen to me, but if it had, I definitely would have blamed myself.) In purity culture, these are blurred together into the same thing- but wow, turns out they are very different, and they feel very different. One is consensual and one is not.

There are a lot of warnings, in purity culture, about how you shouldn't get into a situation with "temptation"- ie, if you go to a boy's room because you're attracted to him, and you're hoping for something romantic to happen, and then he sexually assaults you [in purity ideology they don't label this as sexual assault though], that's your fault because you had the "impure" desire and you took actions to pursue that, and then things spiraled out of your control- well, that's just what happens when you don't follow the purity rules.

When I started reading feminist blogs, and I read that "consent can be withdrawn at any time" and "just because you consent to one thing doesn't mean you consent to everything", I was completely shocked. That was totally opposite to so much of purity culture teaching.

See also:
"Boys Can't Stop"
6 Ways Purity Culture Did NOT Teach Me About Consent

---

Links related to the antichrist:

1. You Can't Run From Christian Nationalism (October 8) "As Longwell says, Republican voters need a permission structure that allows them to get off the Trump train. White evangelicals need that structure to be a God-ordained superhighway with blinking neon lights citing quotable Bible verses."

On the one hand, yes. White evangelicals won't be willing to stop voting Republican, unless you can convince them that such a thing is compatible with being a good bible-believing Christian. On the other hand, I could easily build a superhighway out of bible verses, but they won't pay any attention to it, because all that stuff about devoting your life to Jesus and obeying the bible no matter the cost, it was all fake. They don't actually believe that. Those of us who really and truly believed it, we followed Jesus right out of evangelicalism.

2. Ectopic Pregnancy Deaths Have Nearly Doubled. It’s Worse in States With Abortion Bans. (September 9) 

Ectopic pregnancy symptoms often begin with abdominal pain and bleeding, which send women to emergency rooms. There, doctors use ultrasounds to locate where the pregnancy has implanted. 

However, embryos are often not visible on an ultrasound early in pregnancy. That could mean the pregnancy is ectopic, but it may also be a miscarriage or normal pregnancy that’s too small to see. Doctors can also assess whether the pregnancy is likely ectopic through blood tests over multiple days.

If the pregnancy is ectopic, the risk of rupture increases the longer treatment is delayed. In a state without a ban, a patient could decide at any point that that risk is not worth taking and opt to terminate the pregnancy.

In a state with a ban, however, that option may not exist. If doctors can confirm the pregnancy is ectopic through an ultrasound, they can protect themselves from having their decision to terminate questioned, perhaps by a zealous prosecutor. But waiting for this can delay treatment by days or even weeks. 

This is so messed-up. Signs point to a likely ectopic pregnancy, but in many cases the doctors can't say with 100% certainty, because they can't find where the embryo actually has implanted. The patient should be able to weigh the information- it's *probably* an ectopic pregnancy, and if it is and we do nothing, you could die- you can make the choice about whether you're willing to take that risk. But in "pro-life" states, you can't make that choice. If there's not definite proof it's an ectopic pregnancy, apparently we have to let you die?

And, not that it should matter, because people should be able to access abortion healthcare regardless of their reasons, but most of these are wanted pregnancies. These are not women who *want* to have abortions, they are women who want to have a baby, but terrifying and life-threatening complications have made it impossible for their embryo to actually grow into a baby.

3. ICE agents shot at man in car with his 5-year-old son (October 11) "Belgal has been transferred to a detention center in Brooklyn and spoke to his attorneys Friday, telling them he was in pain, still had a bullet in his body and wanted to see his family, the attorneys said."

Sexual Pain, Ignorance, and Purity

Scene from "Enchanted." "And when you go out, you don't wanna wear too much make-up, otherwise the boys get the wrong idea, and you know how they are, they're only after one thing..." "What's that?" "I don't know, no one will tell me." Image source.

[content note: NSFW language describing the mechanics of sex]

I have some thoughts about the good pure girls who follow all the rules, and then sex is painful. (Sort of inspired by this post, How Evangelical Women Navigate Sexual Pain Disorders: New Peer Reviewed Paper!)

Blogaround

Links not related to the antichrist:

1. Talarico (D) Is Just a Letter to Me Now (September 21, via) "On September 9, Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico went on Fox News and publicly walked back his support for trans rights. He hedged—moderated—waffled—caved—folded." Vote for him if you are in Texas. But know that he is not standing up for trans rights the way he should.

2. A Call for Mainline Christians to Reach Out to Evangelicals (September 30) "In my experience, the issue of women being subordinate in evangelicalism is seen by more mainline Christians as merely a doctrinal choice, or a theological difference, rather than as an issue of justice."

This is spot-on. In my experience, there are some churches/ Christian groups that are like "women have to submit, we don't have women pastors, that's what the bible says" and some churches/ Christian groups that are like "well in our church we have women pastors, we don't restrict women, but we understand that different Christians have different opinions on this issue." Like come on, take a stand! Where are the churches that say "restricting women is just WRONG, I don't ****ing care what the bible says"?

3. The Bisexual Problem (August 22, 2-hour-6-minute video, via) "And 'one true love' logic demands that you disavow and de-emphasize all the frogs you loved before. Your current relationship is the only real one, and all your past attractions and relationships were mistakes on the way to finding your soul mate."

This video starts out talking about bisexual representation in media, and how it's difficult to portray bisexual characters because the audience will think the character is "actually" gay or "actually" straight depending on who they end up with. Even review sites which specifically rate the queer representation in movies/tv will look at a story with a bisexual character having relationships with men and women, and say it's "queer baiting" or it's "fake." The resolution of a love triangle becomes "political" rather than just about picking a person.

And then the video moves on to talk about how the entire concept of bisexuality doesn't fit into the gay rights movement which is so focused on "born this way" and "it's not a choice." Bisexuals *do* have a choice, so under this model, it doesn't make sense to fight for bi rights. There are bisexual asylum seekers who aren't able to get asylum because judges think their situation/identity doesn't fit into the guidelines of who qualifies for asylum, even though they genuinely are at risk of violence because of their queerness.

What all of it leads to is, bisexuality just doesn't fit into the "born this way" model, and we need a new model.

4. Disney World solved a problem that could save America billions every year (October 1, via) "Singapore has also spent years building out walkable utility corridors that operate much like the Magic Kingdom’s, transmitting water, data, and energy from the safety of well-organized underground tunnels. Some of Tokyo’s largest districts store their cables and gas lines in huge concrete utility ducts, and many Parisian water lines and fiber optics are kept across the city’s centuries-old sewer system, a catacombs of waste made easily navigable by blue-and-white street signs that correspond to the avenues above. Many university campuses across the US also boast their own sprawling utilidors."

5. Raw Milk Nearly Killed 2 Kids & Authorities Did Nothing (October 1) "Meanwhile, California authorities decided not to pursue criminal charges against her, despite the clear history of Facebook posts and text messages and hospital records that prove she sold tainted milk to be given to children, and continued selling it after being informed of the children’s condition."

6. Review: Portalmania (October 6) "In over a decade of asexual blogging, here is what I know: there are many people who will share personal experiences relating to asexuality, but nearly nobody will share stories of marital rape. Marital rape certainly happens, but the telling of it does not."

(See also, The Great Sex Rescue: Marital Rape)

7. Jim Bakker, the godfather of scamvangelism, is dead at 86 (October 7) "So what’s his legacy? Saying he was a Christian hypocrite would be too easy. He’s someone who realized early on that religion could be used to fleece people—and that television was an excellent way to get his message out to the most ignorant viewers in the country. By constantly scaring them, then offering his products as the only biblical way to respond, he became wealthy."

8. The iconic Arthur Read made his TV debut 30 years ago (October 5) "Arthur" was my favorite show, back in the day.

---

Links related to the antichrist:

1. The family of Renee Good files lawsuits over her death during Minneapolis ICE raids (October 1) "'The fact that there's been no accountability, no investigation, no expression of condolence, no change in policy is completely mind-blowing,' Brent Ganger, Good's brother, said. 'We will not wait any longer. The time is absolutely now for accountability, for the deep damage done by ICE and others. We will not be quiet. We will not go away.'"

2. How Desperate To Delete Voters Are Nativist Bigot Republicans? THIS Petty And Desperate. (October 2) "If you are a US citizen living abroad, yes, you are allowed to vote, yes, even if you no longer have a US mailing address, yes, even if you’ve been gone a long time, yes, even if you’re retired and you ain’t comin’ back, and yes, you still have time before the midterms, even in states where you have to mail back your ballot. If you need help — or if you know anyone who lives abroad who you think might, and this includes anybody you know who has a kid studying abroad this semester — then hit up Vote From Abroad and/or their special page just for students."

Wow, very cool to see a big platform like Wonkette talking about how it is for Americans abroad, like me, and plugging the Vote From Abroad website. Yes, if you are a US citizen living abroad, vote!

3. Trump approved the military's 1st firing squad execution since WWII. Why now? (October 7)

4. She got Trump's $500 check for health insurance. To her, it's a 'political stunt' (October 7) "'This reads like electioneering,' says Kathleen Clark, professor of legal and governmental ethics at Washington University law school in St. Louis, Mo. 'This reads as though it's intended to influence votes. That is prohibited by law.'"

5. Afghan wartime allies freed by the U.S. 25 years ago are now fearful and frustrated (September 10) "'What's going to happen if my current status isn't approved? What's going to happen if somebody knocks on the door?' he says, aware that the fear of being pursued has in some ways followed him from Afghanistan to America."

I'm so mad about what's going on with refugees from Afghanistan, the ones who risked their lives to help us fight the Taliban, and now the US is saying, no we don't accept any refugees. Also, the article talks about a mother who was separated from 2 of her kids during the rushed evacuation, and the 2 kids are still in Afghanistan and she hasn't been able to bring them to the US, for 5 years. Don't let those MAGAs ever trick you into believing they care about "family values."

6. KY Gov. Beshear Has Message For Anti-Trans Dems: “We Don’t Throw Anybody Under The Bus.” (September 30)

Also from Erin in the Morning: "Vote NO": Colorado's Top Medical Groups Formally Oppose Anti-Trans Ballot Prop. 135 (October 6) "It is a broad, one-size-fits-all ban that goes far beyond what voters think they’re being asked to approve. It could block necessary care for kids who aren’t transgender, including teens facing testicular or cervical cancer, endometriosis, or intersex conditions."

This book is about "enchantment" but is any of it actually *true*?

Book cover for "Hunting Magic Eels"

Hunting Magic Eels: Recovering an Enchanted Faith in a Skeptical Age, by Richard Beck, is a book about "enchantment." It's about how modern people have lost their feeling of "enchantment." Beck is a Christian, and the book is about how Christians should recapture this "enchantment."

My take on this book is, I agree with parts of it, but overall it was such a muddle, with all these different aspects of "enchantment" thrown together and discussed like they were obviously a good thing, without stopping to answer questions like, what's the point of this? is any of this actually true? is it good for Christians to believe in this kind of stuff?

Letting the Wheat and the Weeds Grow Together (another post about theistic evolution)

Scene from "Megamind": "Oh, you don't know what's good for bad." Image source.

[content note, hypothetical discussion of war, miscarriage, bad things]

Matthew 13:24-30

Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.

“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’

“‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.

“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

“‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”

I recently wrote a post, Well I believe in God and evolution but I don't call it "theistic evolution", about how I'm not on board with "theistic evolution" because to me it means "God used evolution, so there's no conflict at all between our faith and the reality of evolution." Yeah I believe in God, and evolution, but "no conflict"??? "God used evolution"? Really? We're gonna sign on to believe in a God who chose to create by using natural selection, where progress is made by heartlessly letting the "less fit" creatures die? I mean, I believe it's true, but this is not really a strong point of evidence for my religion, so let's not pretend it is.

In other words, look at all the bad things that happen because the natural world is governed by "survival of the fittest." Good things have come out of it- the beauty of nature, the existence of humans- but I can't believe God would *choose* to do it this way. Why wouldn't They choose some way that didn't depend on so many bad things happening?

Enter the parable of the weeds. The wheat and the weeds are growing together, and the servants ask if they should pull up the weeds, and the owner says no. Let them both grow together.

Good things and bad things happening, intertwined with each other, impossible to separate. And that's how it always is. A good thing that was only able to happen because of a bad thing that happened before. A good thing that causes a bad thing. It's always like that, impossible to separate.

I've heard of women who have a miscarriage, and then get pregnant again soon after, and give birth to a baby- and the timing is such that, if the miscarriage hadn't happened, they wouldn't have gotten pregnant the second time and ended up having the baby they do have. And they have complicated feelings about that- feeling sad about the miscarriage, because they already loved that unborn baby- but are they even allowed to be sad about that? They love the child they do have, and if the miscarriage hadn't happened, they wouldn't have this child. 

I think this is probably really common, and people have complicated feelings about it, and I believe what Jesus said, just recognize the good and the bad, but don't try to pull up the weeds. You don't have to have a big unifying self-consistent opinion on the question of "do I wish that hadn't happened?"

Or maybe your parents met each other after they both had to flee their homes due to war. If it wasn't for that war, you wouldn't exist. Are you supposed to feel like "I'm glad that war happened?" No, of course not, that's terrible. 

All of us must have something like that in our family tree somewhere. Some horrible thing happened, and our great great great grandfather and grandmother wouldn't have met if that hadn't happened. You wouldn't exist. Are we supposed to ... feel bad about that? No, obviously not. 

As if we're only allowed to declare something that happened was bad if there were 0 good things that happened downstream of it. Come on, that's just silly. Something bad happens to you, and what, you're required to live a sad existence forever, in order to "prove" that the bad thing really was bad? To make sure no hypothetical person tries to claim "look, it wasn't actually a bad thing- if that hadn't happened, you wouldn't have been in the right place to experience these other good things that happened after."

There's always wheat and weeds growing together.

Typically when I've heard Christians talk about this, about how bad things can lead to good things, it's platitudes and easy clichés, and I hate that. Claiming that it's all good because it's all God's plan. God let this bad thing happen to you, for grand meaningful reasons, and you're not allowed to feel bad about it, or rail at God about it. You're supposed to just "trust God." God "redeems" the bad things. God "uses them for good." I don't like this kind of language because, in my experience, it's about Christians telling you that you're not allowed to be unhappy about something that happened. It's not *really* a bad thing, because God "used it for good."

Like you're not allowed to point out that there are weeds and wheat in the field. Like you have to pretend the weeds are good because they're tangled up with the wheat.

Life is always like this, a complicated tangle of "good" and "bad" things. Evolution is like this. To ask why God would "use evolution", rather than using something that was all good- well, nothing in life is like that.

This parable that Jesus tells- I read it as an insight he is making based on his observations about the world. I don't read it like "here is an authoritative decree from God about how God is totally on top of all this and is choosing to allow it to be this way." He says, let the wheat and weeds grow together, not because there's some grand beauty in the concept of "balance" and it's "supposed" to be that way, but just as a person living in this world and trying to make sense of it. How are you supposed to feel, about terrible things that happen to you, which later put you in the right circumstance to have really amazing good things happen to you? Well, that's how it always is. You don't need to try to pull up the weeds. You don't need to choose between "I wish that hadn't happened" and "actually it's good that that happened."

This isn't really an answer to the problems I raised about theistic evolution. I'm just pointing out that the phenomenon of bad things being necessary and direct causes of good things isn't just about evolution- everything is like that. Where is God in this? Did They want it to be like this? Is it also like this in heaven?

And my point is not "there's a deep artistic beauty in how the good and bad things are mixed together, bringing balance to the Force"- no, the bad things are still bad! We still don't want them to happen! When you experience some kind of tragedy, are you comforted by the abstract concept of wheat and weeds growing together? No! This is still a problem that God has to answer for. Bad things are still bad.

But my point is, everything in life is like this, Jesus knew that too, and maybe evolution isn't all that different.

---

Probably I should also note that Jesus gives his interpretation of the parable of the weeds in Matthew 13:36-43, and it has some aspects which are different from my interpretation. The main difference is he says the weeds and wheat are people- "people of the kingdom" vs "people of the evil one." That's fine but you can also interpret them as good and bad things that happen.

---

Related

God, Soul Mates, and International Marriage