can we ever be truly ‘safe’?
Laurence Crutchlow assures us of our safety in Christ
Laurence Crutchlow is CMF Associate Head of Student Ministries and a GP in London
We live in one of the safest eras in history — at least in the UK and Ireland. Infant mortality is low, even compared to 1980 levels.[1] Road death figures are very similar.[2] Wounds that might have led to death only 100 years ago are now simply treated with flucloxacillin.
Although new diseases emerge, treatment is better. For example, there was widespread concern about the impact of HIV during the 1980s. It was initially very difficult to manage and there were significant numbers of deaths, but antiretroviral drugs can now bring HIV viral loads to undetectable levels in most cases[3] (assuming of course that cases are identified, and that affected patients can actually access the drugs).
In the last few years, vaccines against Covid-19 were available in the UK within ten months of the first cases being detected here, and appeared to be highly effective in mitigating disease severity at very least.
Generation Z live in one of the safest times in history, but many suggest that they are the most safety conscious in history, and highly risk averse. This is not without evidence.
evidence of caution
Jean Twenge’s iGen looked at this phenomenon as early as 2017. Using data from long established surveys in the United States, coupled with interviewing young people, she builds a picture of a generation growing up more slowly than those before. Some of these trends may appear beneficial — Generation Z are less likely to binge drink, and less likely to be involved in physical fights. But there is a flipside to this, with the same generation learning to drive later, and less likely to visit places like shops on their own.[4]
The desire to ‘stay safe’ extends beyond physical issues into an expectation of emotional safety, and a resultant assumption that bodies such as schools or universities are responsible for creating a ‘safe space’. While superficially attractive, this can quickly stifle free speech. When asked about the issue, the then UK Prime Minister Theresa May said that ‘Fear of being offended must not trump freedom of speech’ when asked about the issue in parliament.[5] ‘Safe spaces’ have also been used to cause difficulties for Christians; while of course we shouldn’t go out of our way to cause offence, some aspects of our message are seen as offensive by some, and fall foul of such policies.[6]
the desire to ‘stay safe’ extends beyond physical issues into an expectation of emotional safety, and a resultant assumption that bodies such as schools or universities are responsible for creating a ‘safe space’
why might this caution be present?
Twenge’s book links many of the changes to the rise of smartphones, particularly citing the challenge of ‘likes’ on social media which can induce considerable anxiety.[7] She suggests limiting the use of such technology. Some years after writing, the challenges of actually doing this are increasingly apparent. While we can be careful in our use of social media, and limit notifications on our phones, it is difficult to jettison them altogether. It is increasingly cumbersome (and occasionally almost impossible) to undertake simple tasks like bank payments, paying for parking, or purchasing an advance train ticket or booking a GP’s appointment without access to a smartphone.
Since iGen was written, the lockdown measures during the COVID-19 pandemic have happened. The impact probably hasn’t fully worked through yet; but there seems to be a rise in mental health problems that fits with the beginning of the pandemic.[8] At least one commonly suggested cause for this was a large increase in time spend in an online, social media dominated world, with limited in-person interaction. This must surely have exacerbated smartphone related changes.
The repeated ‘stay safe’ mantra must also have had some effect on perceptions of safety; there were undoubtedly people at very high risk, but for most members of Gen Z, the risk of death from COVID-19 was very low indeed.[9]
is there anything wrong with being ‘too safe’?
When safety becomes an obsession, perspective on what is reasonable can be lost. In the UK, an 1865 law mandated that someone carrying a red flag must walk 60 yards in front of any powered vehicle. The law was probably aimed at the risks of heavy traction engines, but remained in force until 1896, well into the era of early motor cars, and was unlikely to have helped innovation or growth in the nascent car industry.
Christians do not seem to have a blanket immunity against bad things happening on earth, and nowhere does God appear to promise this
There can also be a risk that safety measures have unintended consequences. During the pandemic, I dealt with a number of patients who had taken the ‘stay at home’ message so strongly to heart that they would not come to the surgery when unwell, even when a telephone conversation made it obvious that an examination was needed.
We have also anecdotally noticed that a lot of patients came to expect prescriptions over the telephone, which seemed to increase the number of antibiotics prescribed (which is not good for managing drug resistance). This trend has taken time and effort to reverse.
A wider problem is that we can assume that if we have taken all the safety precautions we are told to, then something must be completely safe. But this is surely impossible. Some natural phenomena, like lightning strikes, might be extremely rare, but cannot be completely avoided. Other activities like sports will always carry some risk; we can reach zero risk by never participating, but this may bring different risks to our health.
should a Christian always expect to be ‘safe’?
Yes and no.
Of course it depends how we define ‘safe’.
At first glance, the Garden of Eden is ‘safe’, with trees and rivers.[10] Yet it is not entirely free from danger. The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil will lead to death. God warns Adam of this, but does not remove the possibility of Adam eating the fruit.[11] This is in considerable contrast to today, where one could well imagine an inquiry asking God why he hadn’t fenced the tree, or cut it down altogether.
The remainder of the Old Testament abound with stories showing that the world was emphatically not safe in any modern sense of the world. Just in the first book, there is a flood, an abduction into slavery and a famine.[12]
In the New Testament, Paul was shipwrecked on Malta.[13] Epaphroditus, a fellow worker with Paul, became very ill and almost died.[14] Christians do not seem to have a blanket immunity against bad things happening on earth, and nowhere does God appear to promise this.
Only when we reach the final chapters of the Bible does the narrative change. In God’s fully realised Kingdom, we will see no death, mourning, suffering or pain.[15]
So, we might answer ‘should a Christian always expect to be safe?’ with ‘yes, but not yet’.
These generalisations are only part of the picture though. We do clearly see times when an individual is kept safe by God through his intervention. Noah was warned about the coming flood and given instructions to build the ark.[16] Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-Nego were unharmed in the fiery furnace.[17] Paul survives the aforementioned shipwreck.
Paul asks for prayer against things that might obstruct God’s work — ‘wicked and evil people’ (2 Thessalonians 3:2), echoing the prayer to be kept safe in Psalm 140.[18]
It does not seem unreasonable, therefore, to pray for safety at times.
But this is all very much a ‘here and now’ perspective. Earlier we considered the last chapters of the Bible, which describe the situation when God is dwelling among and with his people, such that there is no more need for a temple, or even a separate light.[19]
So, if we can get there, we can surely say we are ultimately safe.
And for this part, the answer is wonderfully ‘yes, we are safe’. The Bible is firm in its assurance that if we have heard Jesus’ words and believed the God who sent him, we have crossed from death into life.[20] Christ died once for all,[21] such that he could sit down at the right hand of God, 22 and we can be confident he is faithful.[23]
From this end, our ‘safety’ is assured, and we can join with Paul in confidently saying that: ‘The Lord will rescue me from every evil attack and will bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom’. (2 Timothy 4:18)
so, how should the Gen Z Christian approach safety?
– don’t forget the ‘not yet’
We need to be careful how we discuss God’s promises. We are right to encourage one another in our ultimate security in Jesus. But it can be easy to forget that at least some promises are in the ‘not yet’. If we rely on a promise that is for the future being fulfilled now, the disappointment may damage our own faith and that of others. Paul uses the example of Hymenaeus and Philetus when writing to Timothy, reminding Timothy of their saying that ‘the resurrection has already taken place’ and so ‘destroy the faith of some’.[24]
– don’t forget sensible safety precautions
God is not guaranteeing our absolute physical safety at all times. So, it seems reasonable to take basic safety precautions in life. Living in societies often obsessed with safety, many of these will seem obvious. Use available seatbelts. Don’t drive when under the influence of alcohol, or when very tired report or deal with an obvious trip hazard on the ward.
This is not just about physical safety. For example, it is easy to assume that an authority figure like a church leader or doctor has the interests of those they serve at heart. The vast majority do, but cases appearing from time-to-time in the media remind us that this is not always true. Proper safeguarding and management processes therefore make sense not only in healthcare, but also in the Christian world, and can be seen as an expression of ‘love your neighbour as yourself’. (Matthew 22:39)
– don’t let these precautions paralyse us
What may start as a well-motivated extra rule or habit to keep someone safe can eventually form part of a stifling array of rules and precautions that mean the original point is lost. This can happen in a spiritual sense (remember how the Pharisees ‘fenced’ the law by generating lots of extra regulations to try to stop people breaking the original ones), or in a more practical sense (with reports that some recently retired doctors were being asked for more than twenty documents when they volunteered to return to help during the COVID-19 pandemic).
Such instances can give the original and more sensible precautions a bad name (few would argue that the Pharisees should have disobeyed the law, or that it wasn’t sensible at least to check the identity of a returning doctor). They also reveal that we are likely believing that our own efforts can ultimately make something entirely safe.
– with that in mind, carefully consider our attitude to risk
Some biblical characters clearly ran great risks for the gospel; in addition to his shipwreck Paul was imprisoned and beaten, and visited cities where he must have known this would be likely. The 72 who were sent out by Jesus himself in Luke 10 took a large risk in obeying his instruction ‘not take a purse or bag or sandals’. (Luke 10:4) But not everyone ran big risks all the time, or travelled repeatedly. Jacob didn’t travel to Egypt with his sons, and thought carefully in not sending Benjamin.[25] Paul and Barnabas quickly left Iconium when they found out about a plot against them.[26]
There clearly isn’t a ‘one size fits all’ approach. Some things clearly apply to us all. God is ultimately in control, and will keep us eternally safe. But he also gives us responsibilities, whether to provide for our families,[27] or within our workplaces or churches.
we needn’t be swept up by those who want to eliminate all risks; while we have no need to be deliberately reckless
For many students, we may be willing to take quite significant risks if single and young, with no dependents. We might be willing to travel on a short-term trip to a country with some difficulties, or run more financial risk in the amount of money we give away. That may well change markedly as a senior doctor with children and church leadership responsibilities; the chances of something going wrong on that short-term trip don’t’ change, but the consequences for others for whom we have God-given responsibilities do. This situation might well reverse later in life if retired with reasonable resources and health.
Of course, not everyone will do the same; some will feel called (and be best suited) to what might appear to others a very ‘safe’ life in the country in which they were born, serving apparently quietly in a church and healthcare context even when there are few apparent constraints. Others may follow a call to work overseas with limited resources and backup even in busy years of life with several children. Either can be assured that God is with them, and that their ultimate security remains in him; the important thing is that he is central in their decisions.
conclusion
We will all come to different decisions about the levels of risk we run. This is true for Generation Z as much as any other generation, and for everyone whether they trust in Jesus or not. What is different is the parameters through which decisions are made. Everyone has access to statistics and warnings; but the Generation Z Christian also trust in a God who may not promise total safety at all times, but does promise the ultimately security, eternal life, to those who believe and trust in him.
So, we needn’t be swept up by those who want to eliminate all risks; while we have no need to be deliberately reckless, I think we can confidently assert that ‘I can take some risks because of the absolutely security I have in Jesus’.
