Written by Vesa Hautala

Effective Altruism can be puzzling for Christians when they first encounter it. What are some of the commonly perceived tensions, and can they be resolved? This post looks at three possible tensions and briefly addresses ways each one might be resolved.

Local vs. Global ways of doing good?

The ways of doing good the EA movement talks about may look different from what many Christians are accustomed to. Instead of donating to the needs of your local community and church, most in EA encourage giving overseas because it is considered more cost-effective. Instead of becoming a doctor or a missionary, common EA career advice suggests that careers in reducing global catastrophic biological risks such as pandemics, positively shaping the development of artificial intelligence, and mitigating great power conflict could be more impactful ways of doing good.

For some, this is an abstract and impersonal approach to charity. Many Christians feel strongly that charity must be relational with a special emphasis on helping our local communities. After all, Jesus and his followers helped people they personally encountered as well as people in their local communities; there are Bible passages about supporting those who proclaim the gospel (1 Corinthians 9:14) and taking care of one’s family (1 Timothy 5:8) and siblings in faith. (Rom 12:13)

However, even though there are many examples of local and relational charity in the Bible, there are also examples of the global charity, for instance, Paul’s financial collection for Jerusalem (1 Cor 16:1–4; 2 Cor 8:1–9:15; cf. Gal 2:10; Rom 15:25–31). Also, there is no biblical commandment that one’s charity must be local, nor are we forbidden from helping people far away whom we will never meet.

Until quite recently, effectively helping people on the other side of the world was extremely limited. But today we have access to reliable information about what is happening on the other side of the globe and ways to donate money or otherwise tackle problems there. Democracy, developed civil society, technology, etc. have also given people unprecedented ways to help others around the world. Since our situation is different from past generations of Christians, it is possible our ways of doing good today could look somewhat different.

A secular movement?

Another concern Christians might have about the EA movement is that it is very secular, with about 85% of people in EA identifying as nonreligious. Some Christians might feel the “EA worldview” is secular and fundamentally incompatible with Christianity. They might be concerned about how engaging in this kind of social movement might affect their faith. Others might think a movement with many non-Christians is liable to miss important ways of doing good by neglecting peoples’ spiritual needs.

The strength of this tension depends on what EA is. If EA were a secular worldview in competition with Christianity, this indeed would be a serious tension; however, the more accurate definition of EA is that of a research field and a community '“which uses high-quality evidence and careful reasoning to work out how best to help others as much as possible”. It is more like a tool that helps Christians achieve particular goals that are in tune with their faith.

As for the social aspect, if you’re reading this, know there are many Christians in EA (over 500 active by our latest count) and weekly events for Christians in EA. While we engage with the broader EA movement, it would technically be possible to engage with key EA ideas mainly within our Christian community.

Puzzling cause areas

Some popular EA cause areas might seem puzzling to Christians. Working on global health and poverty is easy to understand from a Christians perspective, but other popular EA causes like existential risk, animal welfare and improving the long term future of humanity can be harder to digest. With existential risk and longtermism the question is about their compatibility with Christians eschatology – how long a future can we expect and is it in principle possible for humanity to go extinct? With animal welfare, the perceived tension is based on the fact that the Bible and Christian tradition place greater value on the life of a human than that of an animal (see for example Matt. 12:12).

It is important to remember EA is cause neutral. Engaging with the movement does not require a commitment to any particular cause area. Differences of opinion about which causes are important are expected and accepted. Thus, it is fine to not support some popular EA cause and still be engaged with EA.

It might therefore be asked, as many Christians have asked in our blog and elsewhere: Is Christianity necessarily cause neutral? What differences do personal relationships make in having an impact? Does geographic distance matter in our charity? Should Christians be concerned about animal welfare or existential risk? Each of these complicated and important matters deserve a thorough analysis, which we provide in this site’s articles the EACH community discussion blog, and the EACH forum. EACH aims to provide a community for Christians to talk about these issues via our Facebook group and events. It is possible some of the tensions can be resolved by a careful analysis of the issues.

A Christian approach to Effective Altruism?

To summarize, it is fair to say that tensions exist, but different Christians see the strength of various tensions differently. Some perceived tensions can be lessened or completely resolved by paying attention to the underlying principles of effective altruism as opposed to common misconceptions of them. Other tensions can be solved or mitigated by a unique approach a Christian might take to effective altruism.

It may be that not all tensions can be explained away; however, we welcome you to engage in these questions with us as we find value in EA as Christians.