Thoughtful Christianity, Part 2: Intelligent Worship and Rational Faith

Your Mind Matters: The Place of the Mind in the Christian Life, by John Stott
progress: completed

In the second half of his book, Stott gives examples of how the mind is to be engaged in Christian worship, faith, holiness, guidance, evangelism and ministry. I'll discuss each of these areas in turn.

Mindful Worship versus Mindless Worship

(c) Becky Bonham

What is the place of the mind in worship? A better preliminary question might be, What is the goal of worship? For some, it is to have an "experience," an emotional high of sorts, to transcend the moment in heartfelt praise to God. For others, emotion or experience has little to do with it; it is primarily a confession of God's greatness. For me, it is to focus on God without getting distracted by the words or the music, the sound of my voice or the wiggling of my children, or any number of random thoughts that seem to have chosen this moment to assault my consciousness. I often find myself discouraged by my attempts at meaningful worship.

Perhaps another related question would be, Who or what is the focus of our worship? Ourselves, or God? Orthodox theology? Aesthetically pleasing music? Hearts reawakened to God through praise? Or an awesome band that is able to get everyone worked up into a quasi-spiritual frenzy?

Okay, that last one was a bit sarcastic, but I was reminded of a satirical article I read on some of the shortcomings of contemporary Christian worship. Here's a snippet which is applicable to the conversation at hand:

The twin goals here are a) repetition and b) chanting quality. We don’t focus on what we’re singing, but how we’re singing it. The main thing is to get that kind of tingly, "olive oily" feeling. Don't worry if you don't get this right away. It will come as you learn to disengage your intellect. Just free yourself. Immerse yourself. Relax.

Of course there's a balance. It's not just about God, it's not just about us, but it's about us in relationship to God. Stott goes to great lengths to emphasize the importance of engaging our minds in worship.

The only worship acceptable to God is intelligent worship, worship "in truth," the worship offered by those who know whom they are worshiping and who love him "with all their mind." (44)

His emphasis is on truly knowing this God whom we worship. The Psalms are filled with concrete language and images of who He is: Creator, Redeemer, Rescuer, Friend. He hears the cries of the oppressed, he is patient with the obstinate, he is defined by steadfast love and holiness. I am sometimes struck by how many contemporary worship songs could easily be mistaken for love songs between humans, and when that is the case, I think something essential has been lost. We bring ourselves to worship, with all our needs, shortcomings, and distractions, but worship at its best will re-center us in God, which in turn will put us in our proper place, under his mercy and grace, and providential care. As ecstatic as worship can sometimes feel, those feelings can't last unless they are grounded in the character of God. This is why Stott writes,

All Christian worship, public and private, should be an intelligent response to God's self-revelation in his words and works recorded in Scripture. (47-48)

Blind Faith versus Rational Faith

(c) Becky Bonham

"It is a great mistake to suppose that faith and reason are incompatible." (49) Stott points out that in Scripture, faith is not the opposite of reason, but in fact the opposite of sight: "For we live by faith, not by sight." (2 Cor 5:7)

On the contrary, true faith is essentially reasonable because it trusts in the character and the promises of God. A believing Christian is one whose mind reflects and rests on these certitudes. (49)

Unlike Oprah and her friends, who espouse a view of faith in faith (I have faith that _______, therefore it is true), Christian faith is grounded in rational, logical truth, as presented in Scripture, and confirmed in our lives by the Holy Spirit. Stott calls it "a reasoning trust...which reckons thoughtfully and confidently upon the trustworthiness of God." (52) And of course rational, logical truth requires the engaging of our minds. I liked the sentiments of Dr. Lloyd-Jones, whom Stott quotes at length:

Faith, if you like, can be defined like this: It is a man insisting upon thinking when everything seems determined to bludgeon and knock him down in an intellectual sense. (quoted on page 54)

I like that. When I am tempted to doubt, the only thing which draws me back from the edge is a reengaging of my brain, in which I remind myself of God, who he is and what he's done. 

--

Well, I think I'll have to keep breaking this post down into parts. I've got a quiet house to myself for a limited time and should probably do something...mundane. Let's see if I can find a way to engage my mind in housework!

~Becky

Share

What Has Happened to Our Conviction? or, I'm Just Like Inviting You to Join Me on the Bandwagon of My Own Uncertainty

This is a word animation video which a friend posted on Facebook quite some time ago. It's a fun little piece which highlights yet another misuse of the intellect, or rather the lack of it, in popular culture. Along with having a cool message by poet Taylor Mali, it's also just fun to watch (animation by Ronnie Bruce):


Typography from Ronnie Bruce on Vimeo.


Share

On Being Thoughtful Christians: Using, Losing and Abusing Our Minds - Part 1

Your Mind Matters: The Place of the Intellect in the Christian Life, by John Stott
progress: completed

One of the highest and noblest functions 
of man's mind is to listen to God's Word, 

and so to read his mind and think his thoughts after him, 
both in nature and in Scripture. (31)

When I started my first year of Bible College, someone spoke in Chapel about not losing the "heart and hands" aspect of our faith while we strengthened the "head" aspect through theological study. It seemed obvious enough to me at the time, but I had no idea how tricky this would prove to be in real life, nor how many different ways that we as Christians can get off balance in this area.

On the one hand, there is a brand of theological prowess, which in the midst of substandard (or nearly nonexistent) theology, is easily mutated into cynicism. Poor teaching or a lack of teaching can contribute to this condition in the hearts of those who are hungrier than their fellows for a more thorough treatment of ideas and beliefs. Intellectual condescension causes the informed to forget that they, too, were once uninformed. Intellectual pride can convince those who are knowledgeable to think they have all of the knowledge and cannot learn from someone with less knowledge than themselves. (The application of fancy labels are handy tools, used to dismiss those who are "simple," "ignorant" or "sentimental." - I could use more specific terms, but I'm trying very hard to speak in generalities.) And all of these things - intellectual cynicism, condescension, and pride - can lead to an imbalanced perspective that views theology and doctrine as the Most Important Thing.

Others have had run-ins with such types of people and become utterly turned off to the ego and the attitude and the dogma - and along with it the thinking, the theology, and the doctrine. They can be reactionary to the point of placing personal experience above theology, sometimes going so far as to pit doctrine and Christian living against each other, as if it must be one or the other. Others adopt a black-and-white approach to biblical ideas, because it is so much easier than thinking through individual situations to discern the subtle shades of gray which may in fact be the most spiritually wise.

There are congregations where a lack of education is suspect, and there are congregations where too much education is suspect. There are churches that are too focused on theology, and there are churches that ignore it completely (interestingly, either situation is a good breeding ground for a cult to be birthed). There are "educated" believers who are profoundly ignorant, and "uneducated" believers who are profoundly wise.

I might add that I can see distorted reflections of myself in each and every one of these caricatures.

So, which is it, then? The mind or the heart? Intellect or experience? Doctrine or practice? Knowledge or zeal?

Of course the answer is yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. In the opening chapter of his tiny book, John Stott writes,

Many have zeal without knowledge, enthusiasm without enlightenment. In more modern jargon, they are keen but clueless.

Now I thank God for zeal. Heaven forbid that knowledge without zeal should replace zeal without knowledge! God's purpose is both, zeal directed by knowledge, knowledge fired with zeal. (13)

He goes on to quote a former seminary president:

Commitment without reflection is fanaticism in action. But reflection without commitment is the paralysis of all action. (Dr. John Mackay, quoted on page 14)

Always being careful to reassure his readers that his goal is not an "arid hyper-intellectualism" or a "dry, humourless, academic Christianity, but...a warm devotion set on fire by truth," (18) Stott laments the spirit of anti-intellectualism that has taken hold of both secular and Christian culture today. He points out three emphases within the church which have a tendency in this direction: the disproportionate focus on ritual, social action or experience can become "escape routes by which to avoid our God-given responsibilities to use our minds Christianly." (17) Again, he is not arguing against these things, but for them to be kept in their proper place - that is, in subjection to a thoughtful understanding of Scripture.

He takes some time to argue in defense of our minds - first of all, that we were created to think. We alone of all God's creatures were given the ability for rational thought. And for those who would argue that our minds are now fallen and therefore untrustworthy, he argues that they are no more fallen than our emotions, to which many retreat. Moreover, our minds have been redeemed, along with the rest of ourselves, and are daily being renewed. Lastly, we will be judged by our knowledge, and what we do with it.

How long will you simple ones love your simple ways?

How long will mockers delight in mockery and

fools hate knowledge? 

--Proverbs 1:22

Our minds, and our thoughts, matter.

--
I've left this post unfinished for nearly a week now, so perhaps I'll make this part one and finish up in a separate post when I have time. Next time I'll look at his examples of how the mind is to be engaged in worship, faith, holiness, guidance, evangelism and ministry. Stay tuned! ~ Becky

Share

A Fortuitous Find at the Book Fair

Well, there I was at the Scholastic Book Fair at my son's elementary school today, browsing through the piles of teenage vampire lit, Pokemon manuals and frilly pink puppy diaries, when a book of a different sort caught my eye:

Get Real: What Kind of World Are You Buying? 
by Mara Rockliff

The book is geared toward ages 9-12 and discusses the wider implications of what we're investing in when we spend our money on items such as shoes, cell phones, fast food and bottled water, to name a few. I've been browsing it for the last hour or so and it looks pretty good - and not just for the 9-12 bracket, either.

Although Rockliff is descriptive and snarky in her descriptions of how things are made, she's not over the top and her chapters are filled with practical suggestions on how to make better, more informed choices. The final chapters offer many suggestions for change, as well as inspiring stories of other teens and adults who've made a difference in their world. She also includes a graphic of a "wallet buddy," put out by The Center for a New American Dream. It's a tiny paper pouch into which you can slide your credit card, with the following message on one side:

"Every dollar I spend is a statement about the kind of world I want and the quality of life I value."

...and a list of questions to consider before using that credit card on the other side:

• Is this something I need?
• Do I already own something that could serve the same purpose?
• Can I borrow one, find one used, or make one instead of buying new?
• Was it made locally?
• Was it made with environmentally preferable materials?
• Was it made with fair labor practices?
• Will it serve more than one purpose?
• Will it be easy and cost-effective to maintain?
• Will using it require excessive energy?
• Does it come in excessive packaging?
• Can I recycle or compost it when I'm done with it?
• If I'm not still sure, can I wait a month before deciding to buy it?

I thought it was pretty cool. You can download your own copy (slightly altered*) to print out here.

(*The list of questions on the current link is shorter than the above list, which I liked better.)

Share

Next Course: Books 6, 7 and 8

I've pretty much finished up with my current bookmeal books, and am now focusing on three new ones:

Book 6 - Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy, edited by Ronald W. Pierce, Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, and Gordon Fee
          I'm well into this book already, but have yet to write much about my thoughts. I'll be working to change that in the next few weeks.


Book 7 - Your Mind Matters: The Place of the Mind in the Christian Life, by John Stott
          This book addresses an issue which I have been forced to grapple with in recent years as I've encountered widely divergent views and approaches to the place of the intellect within the church and worship. I read the first chapter back in the spring (or was it last fall?) and loved it, so I've been anxious to get back to it and dig in. John Stott is yet another example of my favourite type of spiritual hero: scholarly, godly and able to speak profound truths in language that is accessible to the average joe. It's a short read (85 pp), so I'll probably tackle this first.

Book 8 - The Way is Made by Walking: A Pilgrimage Along the Camino de Santiago, by Arthur Paul Boers
          Again, I started this last year, and really enjoyed what I read so far. When I decided to do bookmeal, I knew it should be one of my books, so I set aside until then...that is, now.


(Click here for my earlier descriptions of Books 6 and 8)


It looks quite unlikely that I will finish my goal of twenty books this year, but that's okay. Life has sort of gotten in the way at times. Parenting, pregnancy, fatigue, laziness, and intermittent bouts of depression have all played a role, but the one constant has been this: when I can sit down and blog, I feel better. So, I'll press on and keep doing what I can, and enjoy the process without the stress of a hard deadline. Thanks for persevering with me!

Share

Humble Dialogue and the Willingness to Be Wrong

Amazing Grace: A Vocabulary of Faith, by Kathleen Norris
progress: complete

A friend of mine once described a comment made by his Bible college philosophy professor, one of the few educators at that school which he held in high esteem: In describing his encounters with skeptics or people of different beliefs, he would tell them that, even as a Christian, he would follow the truth wherever it took him, no matter what. No belief was too precious if the truth led him elsewhere.

At the time, I remember struggling with that statement. What exactly would he be willing to discard? Did it mean he would be willing to renounce his faith in Jesus? My friend saw it as a profound example of his integrity and commitment to the truth. I tended to see it more as a threat to the faith. What did he mean he would follow the truth wherever it took him - did he actually think the Christian faith could be wrong? Maybe his own faith was suspect.

Somewhere along the way, I had picked up the idea that a Christian must be completely confident in every aspect of her faith if she is to convince others to believe. There is no room for doubt, because that might scare people away! (Either that or other Christians might become suspicious of you.) What I hadn't thought of was whether or not it was my job to convince other people, or whether exaggerated overconfidence would be more of a turnoff than honest doubt.

Kathleen Norris challenges this modern-day temptation within the church (and Christian institutions) to know everything (or to act like we do) with examples from the early monastic tradition, in which    "I know not" was considered a wise response to individual portions of Scripture. Having an all-inclusive approach to Scripture, they were willing to acknowledge that there was a larger context to that passage (i.e., the whole of Scripture), of which they might be as yet uninformed. Humility and a reticence to produce half-baked opinions allowed them time to take in the big picture, to resist the temptation to "use scripture for his or her own ends," (337) until they were sure that their convictions fit into the whole of Scripture. Norris quotes a Benedictine sister and biblical scholar on the benefits of this approach:

'We're forced into contention with the Bible in uncomfortable, often memorable ways,' she says, 'which save us from citing just the scriptures that agree with our own preconceived ideas.' (Shawn Carruth, quoted on page 337)

Even though I've broadened my views considerably since those Bible college days, it's still hard for me to talk about the freedom to say "I know not" without offering up a few disclaimers. I'm not trying to challenge the authority of Scripture. I believe that Christians can have confidence in the Bible. It is 100% authoritative in my life. What I am challenging is whether my interpretations and hermeneutical applications of the many individual passages of Scripture are 100% authorative. I cannot be 100% confident in my own interpretation, because I am a fallible human tainted by sin. This should make room for a refreshing willingness to admit that I might be wrong, and therefore to hear with humility the differing perspectives of others. It allows me to resist prideful judgment of others with differing viewpoints. Norris writes,

To church congregations and denominations that are weary of strife, of continually arguing things out in a tense, judgmental atmosphere, it may come as welcome news to learn that they, too, are allowed to say 'I know not' with regard to the Bible, free to not use it to justify taking sides in every issue that coms along. (338)

She goes on to describe the yearning voiced to her by an acquaintance who

hoped that religious communities could provide a vision of a church, and a community, 'in which not everything has to be decided, where you don't have to take a stand on every issue before you can live together peaceably and creatively.' (338)

Sounds refreshing, doesn't it? Imagine if, instead of persecuting Galileo for his heliocentric views, the Catholic church was willing to say, we can't be 100% sure if that jives with Scripture, but the bigger picture of your life tells us that you're a man who loves God and his word, so let's agree to disagree and move forward in community until the truth is made more plainly clear. Hm. There are far too many examples of this pigheadedness-in-the-name-of-conviction in our churches today. I have modelled it far too much in my own life. 

Truth will win out in the end. It can withstand scrunity without our feeble attempts to "protect" it. And if we will make room for genuine inquiry, we might learn something and even grow in our own faith. But, as Norris points out, 

Genuine inquiry takes time. It also requires patience, trust, and the ability to listen well, qualities that are unfortunately in short supply in theological schools as well as church congregations, and to be truthful, in the human heart. I do not wish to be mistaken for an anti-intellectual when I criticize the criticizers, that is, when I suggest that the modern methods of biblical interpretation have given us more than we could have hoped for but also less than we need to sustain our faith, and the Christian church. As good and necessary as these methods have proven to be, they have furthered harsh and seemingly intractable division among Christians. (339)

It amazes me how vehemently we as Christians can argue issues that really have comparatively little to do with living the Christian life, alienating so many others in the process, and distracting ourselves from focusing on those little things, like "bearing with one another in love," "making every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace," and "do not think more highly of yourselves than you ought." Oh yeah, and "Be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry" - an especially challenging one for me, since I am prone to chatter. 

I don't pretend to know just how it's done, but I suspect a good place to start is with silence and a sincere and thorough searching of the Scriptures, not so much for an answer to vindicate a particular view as for direction to guide us ever deeper into the heart of God. For this is the purpose of God's word: not to win arguments but to transform its readers into Christlikeness. If we forget that, we are lost. 

In the end, I think it's fair to say that the professor's attitude wasn't so much a threat to "the faith" as it was a threat to mine, which was immature and untested. I am inclined to think it was the strength of a deep-seated, mature faith that enabled him to speak with such confidence about Truth - for sincere faith that makes room for honest doubt is in the end, likely to be the strongest.

I'll close with an extended quote from Shane Hipps, author of the great book Flickering Pixels: How Technology Shapes Our Faith (I just read it last year, but might have to read it again for bookmeal): 

Many [Christians] are coming to believe that robust faith lives somewhere between absolute trust and deep doubt. The colours of faith change through seasons of grief and hope, passion and despair. No one has it all figured out all the time - both Christians and non-Christians are in need of ongoing conversion. Humanity as a whole is called to participate in an unfolding process of redemption and reconciliation.

and further,

The person who is a true follwer of Jesus, a student and learner, but perhaps not yet - and maybe not ever - an orthodox believer. This category of doubting disciple didn't seem to bother Jesus; after all, his parting words to us in the book of Matthew were, 'Therefore go and make disciples...' Jesus didn't tell us to make believers. He called us to make disciples, and disciples are followers and students of the way of God. Followers learn to change their beliefs as they walk.

Let's not be afraid of doubt, disagreement, or dialogue on these things. The truth can defend itself best when we listen in love, not judgment; when we seek to save souls, not arguments; and when we humbly remind ourselves that our own understanding of things can only ever be partial - at least on this side of heaven.

He who answers before listening—that is his folly and his shame. - Proverbs 18:13

Share

Earthkeeping: Final Thoughts, on Starting Points

For the Beauty of the Earth: A Christian Vision for Creation Care, by Steven Bouma-Prediger
progress: completed

"No one made a greater mistake than the person who did nothing because he or she could not do everything."

Edmund Burke (paraphrased in BP 169)

Just in case you got overwhelmed by the hugeness of the principles listed in my last post - as I did, and I was afraid my high school students would - I tried to sum them up in the following five simple rules. Hopefully these will offer practical ways to start doing a little now while we work our way toward doing "everything."

A Few Practical Steps to Earthkeeping

1. Reduce – Learn to tell the difference between needs and wants, and make responsible choices.
2. Reuse – Donate to and shop at thrift stores, reuse packaging, repurpose what you can.
3. Recycle – Picture your trash in God’s good earth and do your best to keep it from going there!
4. Try to see the big picture – Consider how your choices/actions/inactions and lifestyle/consumption/waste affect others: people, creatures, land, ecosystems.
5. Learn to love creation – Spend time in it, see yourself as part of it, experience God through the enjoyment of it, and show him by your actions how thankful you are for the gift of it.

For further thought...

• Read Psalm 104 and meditate on the majesty of the Creator, and the goodness and the interrelatedness of his creation.
• Read Psalm 148 and observe the whole of creation in worship of its Creator.
• Check out A Rocha to discover some of the ways that Christians around the world are trying to live out their calling as earthkeepers.
• Read (Regent Professor :-) Maxine Hancock's Living on Less and Liking it More for some practical ways to simplify your life and free up your resources.
• Visit websites like Freecycle.net and TwoShirts.org and consider these creative ways to give away the stuff you don't need and get the stuff you do - for free!

I would love to hear a few more practical ideas from my readers (my stats tell me there are at least a few of you!), so send them along and I'll add them to the list.

Share

Earthkeeping: The Path Ahead

For the Beauty of the Earth: A Christian Vision of Creation Care, by Steven Bouma-Prediger

progress: 164/187

With the help of Bouma-Prediger and his insightful book, we have hopefully established the following truths:

1. We are called to be good keepers of the whole of creation.
2. Creation groans, because of us.
3. Jesus is the ultimate reconciler of creation.
4. We have a role to play in the redemption of creation.

So...what is our role?

Bouma-Prediger offers his answer in terms of the larger question of "What Kind of People Ought We to Be?" Values and virtues point the way to what sort of actions we should take (or not take). His discussion was so thorough that I found it difficult to process without putting it into my own little outline (yes, I'm that sort of person :-). The words in parentheses are the unhealthy extremes of the aforementioned virtues.

--

Integrity: Creation is diverse, good, and harmonious.

Value: Creation has intrinsic value because God made it, not just because of its usefulness.

Goal 1: Act so as to preserve diverse kinds of life.

• Respect all creatures (conceit – reverence)
• Recognize our interdependence with other creatures (self-sufficiency – addiction)

--
Finitude: Creation is finite.

Sufficiency: We have access to everything we need (as opposed to want).

Goal 2: Act so as to live within your means.

• Practice self-restraint in order to reserve and conserve (profligacy – austerity)
• Practice frugality so that others may live and flourish (greed – stinginess)

--
Finitude: Humans are finite, limited in power and knowledge, space and time

Fallenness: Humans are fallen, alienated from God, humans, ourselves and the earth

Goal 3: Act cautiously. - Survey as many consequences as possible

• Be humble – recognize that we can’t know everything, because we are finite and fallen (pride – false modesty)
•  Be honest – (deception – false honesty)

--
Fruitfulness: Creatures provide sustenance for themselves and others, and reproduce themselves

Sustainability: Creation, if cared for properly, can sustain itself

Goal 4: Act in such a way that the ability of living creatures to maintain themselves and to reproduce is preserved. - plants, animals, and humans

• Be wise in the fear of God – make sound judgments on behalf of creation (foolishness)
• Live in the hope of God’s good future for all of creation (despair – presumption)

--
Sabbath: God works and rests, and so should we and the creatures under our care

Rejuvination: Allow ourselves and our world to rejuvenate by resisting the world’s drive for constant production

Goal 5: Act in such a way that the creatures under your care are given their needful rest.

• Patiently commit ourselves of God’s way of doing things and his timing (impetuousness – timidity)
• Find peace amidst the chaos in the knowledge that God is at work, reconciling our world (restlessness – passivity)

--
Earthkeeping: God owns the earth, and we are called to be its keepers

Benevolence: God does good for the sake of others, and this is how we are called to be earthkeepers

Goal 6: Act so as to care for the earth’s creatures, especially those creatures in need.

• Commit yourself to do good on behalf of others, whether humans, animals, or ecosystems (malice)
• Learn to love the earth and its creatures, of whom we are keepers (apathy)

--
Righteousness: God is righteous and just, and calls us to be righteous and just, with special attention given to those most likely to be treated unjustly, whether humans or other creatures, trees or ecosystems

Equity: God exercises fairness in according to need (different from equality)

Goal 7: Act so as to treat others, human and nonhuman, fairly.

• Exercise justice in acting impartially and fairly (injustice)
• Be courageous in the face of difficulty (cowardice – rashness) 

While I affirm the importance of each goal, numbers 2, 3 and 7 are the most convicting to me at this point in my life, perhaps because they feel like the ones which are more immediately applicable in my daily life. Living within our means (goal 2) does not mean that as long as we can afford it (which I usually can't anyway), it's okay to consume to our heart's content (which it never is anyway). It is hemmed in by the virtues of self-restraint and frugality - what is wanted must be challenged by what is needed, for ourselves and for others. How does my consumption affect others' abilities to have their needs met? (And I'm not just talking about people here; animals, bugs and trees have needs too.)

This decision-making process regarding needs and wants is closely related to the goal of justice (goal 7), as it necessarily involves an impartial and fair assessment of the needs and wants of others. If that Thing I Want is produced by child labour, or contributes to unjust social structures, if it pollutes rivers with byproducts or involves animals living or dying in non-humane ways, or if it generally keeps me blinded to the needs of others, and feeling like an entitled individual instead of a compassionate member of God's whole creation-community, is it really worth having?

Of course we can't always know these things, and that's where goal 3 comes in: Act Cautiously. This is a tricky one, because we can choose to avoid knowing certain details, which in turn allows us to consume with a clear(ish) conscience. For example, I have avoided watching the food industry exposé Food, Inc. because I'm not sure I can commit to the conviction just yet - but it's on my to-do list! (Just trying to keep it real here, folks.) Nonetheless, as a Christian I believe it is my responsibility to pursue truth, wherever it takes me. Acknowledging that we can't know everything about the world and the consequences of our actions, we must act humbly, cautiously, gently, aware that our actions have consequences beyond our awareness. Insofar as we are able, we must ask ourselves, "What are the potential consequences of this choice?" and endeavour to make wise judgments.

The scary part for me is that it often takes me to a place of conviction that requires me to change: perhaps to spend more money buying the organic or fair trade option, or simply to go without. I'm confronted with my own greed, my tendency to place convenience above conscience, and my general sense of apathy toward many aspects of God's world.  

Well, those are a few of my raw thoughts on my own role in being a good steward of this good creation which God has entrusted to me and you. What about you? How do you live out your care and concern for God's creation in your attempt to be a faithful earthkeeper? Of if you're like me so much of the time, how do you fail? What is the path ahead?

Share

The Ultimate Earthkeeper

For the Beauty of the Earth: A Christian Vision for Creation Care, by Steven Bouma-Prediger
progress: 160/187


In my series of lectures on Earthkeeping, I covered many of the same texts that Bouma-Prediger discussed in detail in the fourth chapter of his book, entitled, "Is there a connection between scripture and ecology?" as well as a few extras. In Genesis, we looked at several themes, some of which I had previously overlooked, or which I hadn't thought through fully enough to discover all of the implications for creation care.


1. Relationality. In the creation story, we read that God created the heavens and the earth. Throughout the creation, God declares his creation to be "good." Only once, however, does he consider his creation to be "very good." Which part of creation was blessed with this superlative? In my ignorance, I would have assumed it was the creation of humans - we are pretty special, after all, being singled out in all of creation to be the bearers of God's own image. And so it was with surprise that I discovered that it wasn't any one part of creation, but in fact the whole of creation: "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good." (1:31) As glorious the celestial array, as majestic the oceans and mountains, as diverse the multitudes of plants and creatures, God wasn't fully pleased with these things until they were all created, together. Just as God himself is a community of three Persons, just as he declared it "not good" for Adam to be alone (2:18), God is not ultimately satisfied until his creation reflects the community of his own nature. We were made to live in relationship with the sun, which grows our crops; with the plants, which feed us and provide shade for us; and with the animals and other humans, who provide companionship and friendship. The harmony of God's creation (BP refers to it as "shalom") was characterised by an interconnectedness with God, and through him, with everything else he created.


2. Theocentrism. On a similar theme to the first point, I was intrigued to find that, although God blessed many of his individual creations, there was only one day that he blessed in its entirety. "And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done." (2:3) Again, it was not the sixth day, in which he created humans in his image, but the seventh day, in which he rested from his work. As BP points out, the climax of creation is the Sabbath. I've still got a lot of thinking to do to discover all of the implications of that fact. The point I want to draw out at this moment is that God is at the centre of creation, not humans. It's ultimately about him. Many mistakes have been made, I believe, because we view ourselves as the end of creation, rather than him and his glory. 


3. Responsibility. In the fall story, we see the splintering of that harmony in which God created the world. 

Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return. (3:17b-19)

As soon as Eve and Adam chose their own way over God's way, they discovered the awful consequences of that choice. Not only was their relationship with God broken, but their relationship with each other. And beyond that, the shalom of all of creation was broken: harmony and cooperation would be replaced by toil and adversity. And why? "Because of you."

4. Covenant. In the flood story, we see the further consequences of that disharmony. Humans are evil, and so God uses his own creation (ie, rain) to destroy all but a few representatives of the rest of creation. Mountains, trees, and creatures of every kind are washed away by his grief. When Noah and Company finally set foot on solid ground again, God makes a promise: 

Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: "I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth."

And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth."

So God said to Noah, "This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth."

Again, humans are not at the centre of this story, God is. Creation is saved because of his mercy, goodness and faithfulness. He declares this faithfulness by way of a covenant. Never again will he destroy creation in this way. And with whom does he make this covenant? Just to be clear, he says it six times: "This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth." God's dealings with our world encompass the whole of creation. To be sure, his dealings with humans are unique and most amazing, but the reach of his care and concern are cosmic.


These four points raise the following questions to consider with regard to the topic of earthkeeping:

1. Given the interrelatedness of humans with the rest of creation (as well as God and other humans), how should this inform our role as God's appointed keepers of creation?
2. How does our tendency to put ourselves at the middle of the story muddle our thinking about the point and priorities of creation?
3. If humans are responsible for bringing disharmony into creation, what then is our role for righting that wrong?
4. If God deals with all of creation, what is his plan for the cosmos in its entirety?

The answers are not quick or easy, but a good starting place can be found in Romans 8:18-22:

18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. 

22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 

Verse 18 tells us that, although we suffer, there is a future glorification which will render our current sufferings puny in comparison. Verse 19 tells us that creation plays a role in our glorification: it waits, eagerly. Verses 20-22 give us the reason for this anxious expectation: it is currently oppressed, frustrated, decaying. It groans. But these three verses also speak of something beyond the present reality: there is hope, liberation, and a promise of a new birth. This raises the question of the means of this liberation - how does it come about? Colossians 1:15-20 reveals that the better question is, by Whom?

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

By Whom does the liberation of creation come about? By Jesus! He is the firstborn over all creation. All things were made by him, for him, through him. He is the centre of the cosmos, and by him all things hold together. He is before all things, after all things, above all things, and by him all things will be reconciled. Jesus is the Ultimate Earthkeeper. As Randy Alcorn points out in his book entitled Heaven, whenever Jesus speaks of his work, he uses words like "reconcile, redeem, restore, recover, return, renew, regenerate, resurrect" (88) - all of which suggest a return to what was before, a return to that perfect shalom in which the world was created (if you are of the persuasion that the world will be destroyed by fire according to 2 Peter 3:10 see BP explanation of why this is most likely a misinterpretation of the Greek text, pages 77-78). 


The creation in its entirety anxiously awaits redemption. This redemption is a reversal of the curse, put into effect by Jesus' death on the cross. If you previously thought Jesus only died on the cross to save souls, you need to enlarge your imagination and expand your understanding to see just how HUGE, how utterly complete God's salvation is. I especially like the way Steven Lawson puts it, 

Whatever sin has touched and polluted, God will redeem and cleanse. If redemption does not go as far as the curse of sin, then God has failed. Whatever the extent of the consequences of sin, so must the extent of redemption be.” (quoted in Heaven, by Randy Alcorn, page 91) 

Revelation 21-22 as well as Isaiah 60 help us to see the extent of what God had planned from the beginning to redeem, restore and reconcile. Jesus died to repair all that is wrong with the world, souls, bodies, lands, creatures, ecosystems, cultures, and nations. 


And the clincher is this: as God's appointed keepers of the earth who are called to be imitators of God (Eph 5:1), we have a role to play in that redeeming.

Share

Earthkeeping: Why Christians Don't Care

For the Beauty of the Earth: A Christian Vision for Creation Care, by Steven Bouma-Prediger
progress: 160/187

Back again - can I blame pregnancy on my long absence? Or perhaps my three kids? Certainly not laziness, I assure you! Whatever the cause(s), it's good to be back to the structure of autumn again. I have three hours to myself every playschool day, so I'm hoping to dedicate at least some of that time to blogging.


This summer, a friend who is a teacher at the local Christian school asked me if I would be interested in teaching a few Bible classes to the 9-12th graders. The current book is Genesis and she gave me free reign to pick my topic, so I suggested the topic of stewardship: What does/should the keeping of God's creation look like? Being the good sport that she is, she agreed. I was quite pleased that my passionate teaching on Revelation last year hadn't turned her off. 


I taught three classes on the subject and I think they went well. After the first class, I left wondering if the kids thought I was a little bit out there (I liked the challenge that presented). I wondered if they expected me to be a radical recycling Nazi, or a doomsday environmentalist blaming humans for all the world's problems. Of course, these fears were most likely borne of my own paranoia of being misunderstood and therefore ignored. 


But it's true that many Christians - or strains of Christians - have seemed to view the entire topic of the environment with suspicion, as if that is the domain of "liberals" and extremists. I did have a sense that before I could jump into how to care about creation I had to make a case for why we as Christians should care about creation. At the end of the first class, my friend the teacher asked me outright, why is this the case? 


That got me thinking. Where is the disconnect between God's command to rule, reign, work and take care of creation in Genesis 1-2 and the adversarial relationship with creation in which many Christians now find themselves? I wrote down a few ideas.


Why do Christians often neglect or ignore the topic of earthkeeping? 

1. It is a reactionary response: nonChristians’ views are sometimes so extreme, we can make the mistake of responding with an equally extreme view in the opposite direction. 


Case in point: many of the folks who support saving animals are the same folks who support abortion. Therefore, if you're opposed to abortion, you must obviously stand against saving the whales, right? (I hope this thought doesn't need further development.)

2. We tend to focus more on spiritual matters than material matters – souls before bodies, humans before animals, etc. 


Here is just one more way that we allow dualistic beliefs to infiltrate our actions (or inactions): spiritual = good, material = evil. This has been a recurring problem over the centuries with missionary efforts, as the salvation of souls is emphasized to the neglect of the immediate, physical needs of the bodies in which those souls are clothed. Just because an item is a higher priority than another, we are not given permission to neglect or ignore the lesser priority matters. We are called to be multitaskers, addressing many issues at once, from the Great Commission to feeding the orphans and the widows to rooting out "all bitterness, rage and anger" in our hearts. Humans are made in the image of God, but we are called to be keepers of all creatures great and small (not to mention the rivers, mountains and trees!).

3. We misrepresent what it means to “subdue” the earth – we turn dominion into domination. 


Christians are not immune from the human tendency to define authority in terms of power and domination. It completely distracts us from the real issue, the question of "What does God's authority look like?" Of course God is powerful and every knee will eventually bow in submission to Him, but our most powerful experience of His rule is in the "glorious, incomparable, unsearchable riches" of His grace, His lovingkindness, His loving care for our every need (both spiritual and physical). All these things are "lavished" on us through Jesus' death on a cross, the ultimate expression of power expressed in self-sacrificial service. Wow. 

In his book on creation care (my primary resource for these talks and Bookmeal Book #5), Steve Bouma-Prediger writes,

The proper exercise of dominion yields shalom - the flourishing of all creation. This is a far cry from dominion as domination. And Jesus, in the Gospel accounts, defines domination in terms clearly contrary to the way it is usually understood. For Jesus, to rule is to serve. To exercise dominion is to suffer, if necessary, for the good of the other. there is no question of domination, exploitation, misuse. Humans, therefore, are called to rule, but only if ruling is understood rightly. (74)

4. We’ve never been introduced to the topic from a Christian perspective 


I, for one, was not introduced to the theme of "earthkeeping" until I began my Master's Degree at Regent College (and moved to Canada from the US, I might add). Up until that point, it hadn't entered my Christian consciousness. Other themes related to creation took precedence (see #7 below).

5. Worrying about the environment (or nuclear destruction, etc) suggests a lack of faith that God will take care of us. 


Holders of this view tend to forget that God uses people to accomplish His will. If we are called as God's-image-bearers to be good keepers of the earth, what happens if we fail in our calling? 

I'll spare you the details of why this is most likely a poor translation of the Greek word for "to find," but the main point is, even if it's going to be eventually destroyed, what right does that give us to neglect and abuse it now? I like Bouma-Prediger's analogy, "Is it permissible for me to plunder your house just because some time in the future it will be torn down?" (78) We all know we will die someday, yet we eat, sleep, exercise, love, and enjoy life. 

7. We get caught up defending God as the Creator and forget to live that truth out in our daily lives – as godly caretakers of the earth.


This is a personal pet peeve of mine, and so I write with fear and trembling of offending some who might read this. Christians jump right into the fray of the creation/evolution debate, even dividing amongst themselves as to the specifics of that creation - literal days? gap theory? intelligent design? The passion with which they lobby governments, picket schools, and turn this topic into a political hot button, is admirable, but incomplete (some might say misplaced). The main point is that God made the world, right? He is the Creator, therefore creation is good and valuable. Passion for this truth should work itself out in a deepened worship of the Creator and a more reverent approach to creation as God's masterpiece and to our role as earthkeepers of that creation. Steve Bouma-Prediger asks, “How can we honour the Master without caring for his masterpieces?” (135) Passion for creationism that does not result in care and love for creation (as an extension of our love for our Creator) is a stillborn one, not having achieved it's proper end of life and joy and worship - of shalom.

Those are a few of the potential reasons that came to my mind. Bouma-Prediger offers a few additional ones for the Western church (pp. 80-83), including the Western church in particular's addiction to consumption and wealth, tendency toward anthropocentrism rather than theocentrism, and deification of technology as the saviour of our problems. Do you agree? Disagree? Did I miss anything?


I'd better stop there. I want to write a bit more about the Redeemer and redemption of creation, but I'll have to save it for another post.


Share

Girls and Boys and God

I've been very remiss in blogging for quite some time now. Nonetheless, I've been reading steadily. More posts will be coming soon, but in the meantime, I'm going to cheat. The following is a lengthy comment I wrote today for a blog I've recently discovered. It's not entirely cheating, because the book I mention at the beginning will be book #6 for bookmeal.

But first, a disclaimer: my comments about my experiences with pastors are from my past. I am blessed to currently be in a church with a pastor who very comfortably relates to me and has given me freedom to develop my leadership skills - amongst the women and men of our congregation.

(To read the article to which I responded, click here. And now, my thoughts:)

--

I'm in the process of reading the book, Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy, edited by Gordon Fee, among others. I have finally gotten around to actively searching the Scriptures on this topic, despite my fears of where it could take me, because I know that "how I feel" is no real reason at all.

I am a pastor's daughter married to the son of a pastor, and I have lately been smiling to myself to realise that of the eight children between these two pastors, it's a woman (ie, me) who would be the most likely to follow in their steps.

I attended a very conservative Bible college in the States and was officially turned off to the male-authority view during my senior seminar when a fellow (male) student presented his paper in support of this view. When several other students brought up the hypothetical situation of a woman who was more qualified or more trained in a theological area and whether she ought to be allowed some measure of leadership/input, he was unwilling to make allowances. Being a Bible/Theo major with an emphasis in Greek and planning to pursue Biblical languages in grad school that fall, I mentioned the fact that the professor who taught the highest-level Greek course at that school was a woman, he responded with simply: "I would choose another school." Ouch! He also glossed over the fact that the two winners of that year's Greek scholar awards were both women, amidst a classful of men. I guess one of the men who didn't do quite so well would be better-suited to teach Greek, simply by fact of their gender.

I've never minded being a part of the male-leadership model in general; in many ways it is still more comfortable to me (at least in the sense that it is more familiar). It wasn't until grad school that I personally experienced a really positive, strong model of female “leadership:” speakers who were scholarly, not just sentimental, who spoke as disciples, not specifically as women.

It was difficult to be a passionate-about-theology kind of woman in churches where the pastor feels uncomfortable being around “a single young lady.” It’s not much easier being married with 3½ kids. If anything, my theological education seems to suggest that I’m a threat, out to usurp authority and proselytize all to my liberal ways, when in fact I simply want to talk with others who care about the topics and ideas that I enjoy so much, and as it happens, the similarly-passionate are usually men.

More than anything, I have struggled with the double standard with which the male-authority model is applied: Why is it okay for female missionaries to minister in a leadership capacity to other cultures? Why is it less “dangerous” or “sinful” for mothers and Sunday School to train boys? Anyone with any recognition of the role of a godly mother in the lives of her children will recognize the power she is given in “ministering” to men – for that, of course, is what young boys eventually turn into (I know - duh!). Susanna Wesley is one famous example for which there have been so many anonymous ones over the centuries. I endeavour to be one myself. :-)

And most of all, it just seems so incongruent with the spirit of Scripture (if not always the letter, at least at first glance). Within the reasonable limits of the culture, from OT Law to the actions and words of Jesus himself and even Paul's often-brusque manner, God’s way is always pushing the envelope of cultural mores, moving toward a higher view of women. In one sense, the Bible is a snapshot of history that ended two thousand years ago, and I think there is plenty of evidence within it to encourage believers to keep moving forward, until women are truly co-inheritors (Rom 8:17) and co-priests (1 Pet 2:5, 9) with men in the riches and grace of God. Each expression of the church is in the midst of that process, some further along than others, and that’s okay too.

Lastly, I must say that no careful reader of Scripture should be able to support any application of authority that turns the word “submit” into a bad word. If Christ himself modelled it, it is a beautiful thing, characterised by sacrificial love, not power, and as Dyfed mentioned, is utterly mutual amongst believers. The best submission is that which is not spoken of at all, but lived out in mutual love. It’s what makes my marriage work, at any rate!

--

What about you, readers? Do you agree? Disagree? Share your thoughts...

Share