And It Was Very Good

Within the last 24 hours I have run into two instances of a lack of appreciation for the value of the relationship between the People of God and the non-human Created Cosmos of God. Let me start by giving a brief recap of these encounters, before I give my critique.

The first was in a brief snippet from a sermon by Mark Driscoll in which he called the blockbuster film ‘Avatar’ “The most demonic and satanic movie [he has] ever seen.” His statement seems to be in large part a reaction against the intimate link between people and nature portrayed in the film. He identifies the religious perspective of the movie to be a sort of paganism in which nature is worshiped and spirituality is defined in large part by a deep connection with a life force that connects everything. I can respect a bit of Driscoll’s concerns with the movie, it certainly expresses a new age eco-religious perspective, though I would not call it demonic or satanic and I certainly would not have used the superlative modifier of “most” before those adjectives. I agree with Driscoll that fixing our relationship with nature on our own efforts will not solve all of our problems and I fully agree that ‘Avatar’ does not have a Christian theological narrative driving it.



The second encounter was with the lyrics to a Casting Crown song called ‘While You were Sleeping’. This song starts at the birth narrative of Jesus, describing how Bethlehem “will go down in history as a city with no room for its king.” Then it references the cross, once again lamenting that a Jewish city, this time Jerusalem, “will go down in history as a city with no room for its king.” Then the song moves on to discuss the United States of America, lamenting in a parallel fashion that it “will go down in history as a nation with no room for its king.” As a part of the songs critique about the United States of America it denounces and warns like a prophetic oracle that “we are sung to sleep by philosophies that save the trees and kill the children.” Once again I can respect where Casting Crowns is coming from. There is a lot wrong with the United States (though I strongly disagree with drawing a parallel between the USA and Israel) and I think that they are right to warn us that the political philosophies (though I would say both conservative and liberal) are ethically confused.

What concerns me deeply about both of these artifacts of Christian culture is the decision to target American culture's trend towards ecological responsibility for harsh rebuke and warning. There are plenty of evil aspects of American society, but a trend towards concern over ecological health is not among them. Christians ought to abstain from the destruction of both the environment and children. It is not an either-or matter. Christians also ought to value relating well to God's creation as that is a very part of who we were designed to be (Gen 1:28; Gen 2:15).We do not need to and should not speak as if caring for and intimately relating with God's creation is at odds with the gospel.

In fact, unhealthy relationship with non-human creation (which was brought about by humanity's attempt to become like God) plays a significant role in Gen 3's understanding of why life is full of suffering despite God's goodness. After Adam and Eve eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, God explains one of the curses that comes as a result of their action:

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. (Gen 3:17b-19)

Now flash forward to Paul's encouragement to suffering Christians in Rome:

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

We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently. (Rom 8:18-25)

All of creation is good. The tragic events of Gen 3 did not undo that goodness nor the high value of God's creative work; it just introduced suffering and decay into creation by corrupting the three-fold relationship between humanity, non-human creation and God. Part of God's work to redeem the world is to liberate and renew creation (see also Rev 21:1-5).

Let me be clear that I am not saying that we will bring about the renewal of everything by our efforts at reconciling our relationship with the environment. Just as our finitude and subjectivity means that we cannot fix our relationship to God or other people on our own, we similarly cannot make right our relationship to the rest of creation on our own. However, let me give 2 reasons why the people of God in Christ ought to place a high value on working towards healthy relationship with non-human creation.

1) As a part of our transformation into the likeness of the Lord (2 Cor 3:18) should we not embrace the very values that God embraces? If the one whom we worship and call Lord values non-human creation enough to endeavor towards its liberation in the divine rescue plan, should not God's people also place a high value on non-human creation?

2) According to Gen 3, a major component of the broken condition of the world is our broken relationship with the whole created order. If we want to  live closer to how God made us and plans to re-create us in the resurrection to come, we must reconcile in the present (as much as we can) our relationship with non-human creation. The more we resist such reconciliation the more we contribute to our own suffering and the more we reject God's intention for his creation (both human and non-human). In that light, ecological reconciliation is a matter of mature Christian spirituality.

I fully believe that Driscoll and Casting Crowns understand themselves to be fulfilling a needed prophetic role in pointing out idolatrous temptations for Christians in America. However, I think they are barking up the wrong tree in this subject matter and in fact further contributing to a severe weakness in the spiritual maturity of conservative American evangelicalism.

Rejeted

The process of applying to PhD programs is proving to be a brutal one on the soul. While I did not have high hopes of getting into any of the schools that have rejected me so far (Duke University, Emory University and Boston College) it is still tough to be denied opportunities of pursuing my dream and vision of how I might fit into God's redemptive works. Every rejection is a reduction in my odds of serving as a teacher and researcher.

As I face the painful reality that I might not get in anywhere (and the even more painful reality that faculty openings are even more scarce than PhD program openings), the emotional struggle has distracted me from the re-orientation I experienced at the funeral of Dustin Thomas. Feeling like my dream is in peril has caused me to forget all the excitement and adventure of going all in for the mission of God. Even if a faculty position is not in my future, it does not mean that my ability to serve the gospel is also removed from my future. It would just mean that I will have to find a different way to join in God's endeavor to redeem the world.

My wife will likely read this post and conclude that I am being melodramatic and overly pessimistic, for even if I don't get into a program this year she is willing to support me in taking another crack at PhD programs next year. Well she might be right about my tendency for pessimism, remembering that my service to the redemptive mission of God is not bound to becoming a faculty member is critical for my continuation of the transformation I experienced a little over a week ago. Going all in for the mission of God at the risk of poverty and suffering, that is what I am called to no matter what specific role I play amongst the people of God. Even if I am admitted to a program, my academic career must be shaped and defined by my vocation as a servant of the gospel.

Thank You, Dustin

This past weekend my wife and I travelled with some good friends to the Chicago area for a funeral. Dustin Thomas, the husband of one of our college friends, had died in a snowmobiling accident a week before his 27th birthday. I expected the weekend to mostly be about consoling our friend who had been widowed at such a young age. There was certainly that aspect in our purpose there, but it turned out to also be a significant weekend in my own transformation into the likeness of the Lord. I suspect that the Lord and Dustin both foresaw this, but I certainly did not.

One thing I knew about Dustin from the few conversations I had with him was that he was fully and authentically committed to Jesus and the mission of God. He put his service to God and others above his own comfort. The missio Dei was also the mission of Dustin.

That sentiment ran throughout the funeral service. It was the thread that connected every word of everyone who shared. It climaxed as my now widowed friend got up to proclaim, with tears running down her face, that she was not angry with God and that she wanted only glory to God to come from Dustin's death, just as Dustin would have wanted it. Of course she was hurting and I have no doubt that questions have circled through her head, but she held it all with faith in the resurrection to come. To me it was a manifestation in my friend of the same perspective that Paul encouraged the Thessalonians to take on.

Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest, who have no hope. We believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. According to the Lord's word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage one another with these words.
1 Thess 4:13-18

Through the tears and the heartache that we all shared, the Spirit transformed me. I reflected on the person I have become over the last 4 or so years and realized that instead of further making decisions based on belief in the gospel of the resurrection to come, I have been making a lot of decisions based on comfort and desire in the present. That is not to say the last 4 years have been a waste. I have had a few moments of clarity similar to this one (though not as powerful) and through my time at seminary I have learned a lot. All the intellectual growth I have gone through is helping me to understand and hopefully run with the transformation that the Spirit worked in me at Dustin's funeral. That weekend was a climax in calling that the Spirit has been working in me this whole time.

To be a Christian is to live as though the messiah really did inaugurate the renovation of the world when he breathed his last on the cross. It is to live as though that same messiah really did rise from the grave and really will someday return to finish his work, renewing the world and giving all of God's people renewed and everlasting bodies.

That means a lot of things for how we do life and I suspect it means a lot of different things for different Christians. The challenge is to let that perspective radically shape us. It means giving up the visions of success and happiness that guide the culture around us and living in the hope, sacrifice, love, and peace that depends on the resurrection to come.

I know this is all easier said than done because I have said it all before and done very little. After Dustin's funeral though, it feels like the missio Dei has taken a tighter grip on my heart. A motivation set in to imitate Dustin, to make the missio Dei be the sole mission of my life. I have a desire to a degree I have not had since my first couple years as a re-converted Christian to live like the gospel is actually true.

Please pray that this desire shapes my whole life until I find myself in Abraham's bosom or the Lord returns to renew the world.

Some Hermeneutical Thoughts - Moving Beyond Authorial Intent

In an earlier post I argued for an approach to reading (scripture) that locates meaning in the author, but also recognizes our limitations in getting into the mind of an author. Moving from there, I want to find a way to read the Bible so that it can engage with readers in contexts different from the context of the intended (or more accurately, implied) audience of the text. My desire to flesh out a hermeneutic that can do this is not only from a practical desire to have scripture influence Christians in all times and places, but also to develop a hermeneutic that sees scripture as the author of Hebrews 4:12 does, living and active.

A method with which many evangelicals are familiar is one that focuses on finding an application. This can be seen as a three step process: 1) first the original meaning (usually conceived of as authorial intent) is discerned 2) a universal/trans-contextual truth of the passage is identified and extrapolated from the text 3) the reader finds a way that this universal truth can be applied to their life. What I appreciate about this method is that it desires to root our use of scripture in the original meaning and recognizes that the original meaning was embedded in a context different from the readers. The shortcoming of this method, as I See it, is two-fold.

First, it operates as if truth concepts can be de-contextualized. I question that assumption, but more importantly, I am confident that our understanding of truth cannot be uncontextual. Think about it, every truth claim of which you conceive is understood in the context of who you are and how you view the world. It is inextricably linked to your subjective perspective the minute it is present in your mind. There is no conceptual meaning that is held without context. Thus, when the reader attempts to identify the trans-contextual truth, they are still viewing that from their contextualized perspective; therefore, step 2 never actually happens. Since step 2 is the crux of the 'objective' nature of the method it seems to bankrupt the approach.

Second, something about the notion of 'application' does not sit well with me. One problem is that given the inability to de-contextualize meaning as discussed above, the reader is manipulating meaning without even knowing it. The reader thinks she is objectively handling the meaning, but in reality she is shaping it the minute she thinks of it. Another problem (which is related to the first) is that the application is often overly disconnected from the authorial meaning. Since this method attempts to pull out a universal truth and hold it in a contextual-less vacuum, it leads to an applicational meaning that is too disconnected from the original context.

My hope is to find a different hermeneutical method that acknowledges both authorial intent and the contextuality of concepts. Though I am still in process with my thinking, my goal is to anchor our reading in the authorial intent of the text, but allow it to move forward into new contexts, without pretending to de-contextualize it. How does that happen?

I don't know that this approach can have a clean cut method like the one described above, but I am going to make a pathetic attempt anyways:

1) Discern what meaning the author intended (As best you can with an honest effort). As a part of that, determine what response the author intended to trigger/inspire in his audience.

2) Prayerfully think/meditate on that meaning, including the impact the author wanted it to have on their intended (or implied) audience.

3) Let that meaning move into your context. By this I do not just mean we should look for analogies between the original context and ours. I think the process should be more dynamic than that. We look at the story that is being told in the biblical narrative and identify ourselves within it; let it shape how we see the world. This will not be an application of an abstract contextual-less truth. Rather, it will be the meeting of our subjective perspectives with the authors. There are not equations and algorithms that will translate the meaning from the original context into the new in a neat nor, dare I say, objective way. Rather, the transfer will be something fluid and subjective.

The subjectiveness of this method does not mean that anything flies. Our re-contextualization must still be anchored in the authorial intent. It can and should move beyond their intent, but not too far. It has to stay true to that original contextual meaning, even while being something new. It is connected to the authorial intent, but it is dynamic. It is living and active.

To be honest, I am not exactly sure what this looks like, but I think it is headed in the right direction. It is a hermeneutic that will hopefully lead to more songs of praise than 3 step solutions. It is a method that will likely lead to a more dynamic conversation with God in the reading process than a commitment to pray twice a day. It is an approach to scripture that will likely lead to the re-shaping of our subjective perspectives than the discoveries of 'contextual-less' truths.

To give due credit, my formation on these views has in great part been influenced by Jeannine Brown's Scripture as Communication (though any flaws you find in my blog post are not necessarily shared by her). It is an excellent introduction to hermeneutics and a read that I would highly recommend.

Emergency Election Day Post

I was not planning to bring too much election politics into this blog, but some rhetoric today from those confessing to be Christians has thoroughly disgusted me. I have found too many words of hatred and slander to keep silent. Particularly, I have in mind the accusations of Obama being a terrorist. It is well known that multiple news agencies have investigated the allegations and have found no evidence of a serious relationship between Bill Ayers and Barack Obama. In the absence of any real evidence, it seems to me that the accusations, even implied accusations, are nothing but slander, an activity of which those confessing Christ as their Lord should repent.

I have also been vexed by the marriage between fiscal conservatism and evangelical Christianity. If a Christian finds herself in favor of conservative economic policies, that is fine. However, to suggest that someone who is in favor of policies that are most beneficial to the poor, the meek, the orphaned, and the widowed is somehow holding to an anti-Christian view seems nothing short of bizarre to me. I don't mean that a Christian cannot support fiscally conservative views, but to declare liberal economic policies apostasy seems disingenuous to me.

On the issue of abortion, I am in disagreement with Obama and the Democratic platform in general. I see pro-life to be the stance that favors a disadvantaged party and thus support legislating against abortion. However, this is not the only issue at stake. Christians must weigh all issues on the table. There are good reasons, congruent with Christianity, for voting Republican and there are good reasons, congruent with Christianity, for voting Democrat.

The Christian must remember that the ideology of neither party fully represents the gospel. As a result, the actions of the state will not fully manifest the Kingdom of God. This situation should not inspire a lack of hope in the Christian. Jesus, contrary to messianic expectations at the time, did not bring into being a new theocratic state. His kingdom is near, but has not yet arrived. It will not fully arrive until the resurrection of the dead and the enactment of the new creation (Rom. 8).

For now we ought to vote in the way that we think best favors the gospel, but we ought not vote in an attempt to create God's Kingdom out of our political institutions. Jesus is Lord and he will bring his kingdom. That is the foundational creed of Christianity.