Should we re-connect with the earth?

Environmental problems are not only caused by direct selfishness, ignorance and the greed of humans but also that the world, the nature itself, is cursed against us. This is explained in the poetic Genesis 3 account of the sinfulness of humans in the garden. Here the perfect relationship between nature, God and humans is destroyed by disobedience to a simple rule from God. The result is God curses the ground (literally the dirt).

We all know this in our experience, nature doesn’t always work with us, it jars with us, even when we try hard to work with it. Sometimes it is beautiful, glorious (spring warmth in the coastal Australian bush, insects dance though the olive green, the salt spray in the air, the sand between bare toes and the expanse of blue above). But often it seems harsh, untrustworthy, monotonous, cruel and indifferent to our suffering (If you have been a lost bushwalker, you will know this feeling acutely). If can be a friend that turns easily.

Humans use differing ways to deal with this duality. Living in a city is one of the most obvious ways. In a city structure humans collectively deal with nature’s dyamics by creating space separated, or compartmentalised, from it. A few select individuals deal with one element of nature on a big scale (like harvesting water for all or building a seawall to prevent the incoming tide) but living together in a city no one has to deal with all of it at once and a lot of us don’t have to deal with much of it at all (we buy food without killing anything, light our rooms without the sun, and travel without physical exercise).

But I wanted to argue that it was good for humans to be connected to nature. That it was helpful (and possibly godly) not to lose grasp of the natural world. That we should attempt (even in the cities) to keep connected with it.

I still don’t think I have a complete knockdown proof answer but I have started putting the threads together. The latest is from sermons I have been listening by Kirk Patson on Eccesiasties.

If I understand it right, Kirk’s take on the verses (Ecclesiastes 1:4-7) that talk about the water cycle and the wind are not meant to show us that life is meaningless but rather that it is temporal (misty). The cycles are not described to say “see it’s all a waste of time” but rather “the natural cycles are amazing beautiful gifts, they don’t gain anything but they are so important and they teach us about God”.

Kirk’s big point is that you can view the world in gain or gifts (apparently he uses this lens a fair bit in his OT work) and the cycles are a great way to keep in touch with, and an example of how we are to relate to, God. That is, in thankfulness that he has given us so much beauty that doesn’t need to have a profit or loss at the end. That life doesn’t have to have an economically positive result. So in his thinking you can’t waste time, or be inefficient or spend too little time on something. You just can receive what God has given you, good or bad.

So one more thread for me. It is important to be connected to God’s natural world (fallen as it is) as it is full of gifts we should receive with thanks. It teaches us of God’s wisdom, focusing our minds from the economic rationalism/gain mentality of human wisdom to something much more satifsying, something worth being thankful for.

surf clubs go green - churches????

At work I am on the press release list for Penny Wong (don't ask it's complicated).

This week they announced funding for green projects (up to $10K per club) especially for surf life saving clubs http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/wong/2008/mr20081001.html

no major thought here except that it would be great if this was extended to churches as well. Hmmm. Maybe christians aren't as good at lobbying as clubbies are but I wouldn't have thought so......

"yeah this is what I believe (pointing to a page from a spiritual sayings booklet)....... Just what Jesus said. See this is just a bit of Matthew 7"

"ok ok. Is this like a karma thing. Like you are meek or poor now but in the next life you will be blessed?"

"kinda. people have different takes on matt 7 but the main thing is Jesus is talking about his kingdom where everything is upside down. It is the low who are honored. Jesus is saying to follow him means living very differently than the rest. After all, he shows that himself being god yet being spat on, abused and eventually killed. but yeah it's also about how when his followers are resurrected they will have something much better in the next life"

"like when they are just spirits in the next life"

"no Christians believe in a physical resurrection. They'll have bodies"

puzzled "but where are all the people who have come back"

"well the bible says it is like sleeping until the right time. We believe in a physical resurrection because Jesus had a physical body when he was resurrected."

"he went up into heaven didn't he?"

"yeah he went up into the cloud and is now the king of the world in heaven"

"yeah right" giving me a 'you don't really believe that, do you' look

After an awkward pause..."why what do you think happens when you die?"

"nothing"

"oh"

This is the conversation I had a work yesterday. I'm in blue. I've tried to write down what was actually said (not what I wish I said). just add a whole lot of "ummms" in there too to make it authentic.

It may not be convincing but I think what I said was accurate to the bible. I could write the rest of this blog note on how i should have explained things so I didn't end up sounding like someone holding onto irrational truths. But I don't know. Whats the other option? To believe that there is nothing out there at all and that we and the world are atoms randomly assorted into something that works (at least this time). When you die the atoms are just re-arranged again.

If you don't follow that then I guess you believe that there is something after death or at least outside of this life and so you probably won't find what I said that weird.

Part-time Christians

I'm a teacher at a Christian school. I have many Christian colleagues and I have Christian bosses.

I am amazed by the quality of some of my colleagues. I work with some terrific people, all of whom would be a great asset to a church. I work with people who are competent, warm, intelligent, personable and dedicated to serving the Lord.

As I move towards full-time ministry (Lord willing), I just want to poach them.

I look at one man and think, "Come plant a church with me and be an elder, I need your wisdom." In fact, I could write a ministry dream-team from my friends and colleagues- I know some seriously gifted people.

I was speaking with one of them today about how hard he finds giving extra time to his church, due to his work and family commitments.

So, would he go part-time for the gospel?

Would you? Would you give up one-fifth of your income to give a day to your church, or another mission you have from the Lord. How could you use your gifts if you had one more day per week outside your paid work? What needs do you see at your church that you could fill? What needs do you see in your community that you could fill?

If you are a boss, would you help your Christian employees go part-time for the gospel? Having part-time staff can be an inconvenience, is it one that you're prepared to bear for the good of the gospel? Will you approach talented Christians on your staff and ask them to consider it?

Swearing

Hmmm... warning- my most sensitive (or judgemental!) friends shouldn't read on! There are swear words...

Dan.

When talking with teenagers, I've found they make a big deal of swearing. Firstly, they swear a lot, and secondly, they assume I care a lot.

I've tried to impress upon them that simply saying 'shit' isn't the highest thing on God's "Things to be Angry About" list... It's not necessarily the use of a particular swear word that brings judgement, instead, it's a lifestyle of not giving a shit about God that brings His right judgement.

Normally, I'm not up for playing the "Look how cool a Christian I am, I can swear" card, however, I've found that explaining it like that really gets the point across. Our sin isn't a naughty thing we do, it's that we live our lives with our back and bums pointing to God.

I found this video today, where a dad recounts his conversation with his teenagers about swearing. It's thoughtful and accurate, but depends a lot on the kids' prior Christian knowledge. I'm struggling to think of how to explain it to 60 teenage boys at a time- especially when most wouldn't call themselves a Christian.



Got any thoughts?

the devolution of life

Been a lot of arguing in my local paper at the moment about creationism v atheistic evolution. Some bad arguments on both sides. I was thinking about it here are some thoughts:

Natural Selection works like this:
1) lots of genes
2) competitive environment
3) survival of the fittest
4) more suitable species developed, unhelpful/uncompetitive traits discarded, gene pool reduced

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realise that this results in a reduced diversity of genes as time goes on.

So as the theory goes another process is needed (on top of Darwin’s Natural Selection) to increase the gene pool – this is mutation (the hope in the random but improved new genes will be introduced into the system). Now I don’t want to get into the merits of whether or not this is a feasible scenario, I’ll leave that to others that understand mutation better than I.

We need a process to show how evolution is going to progress. But why? Why are we convinced life/nature is progressing? Why do we expect that species are being improved or progressing.

The species of the world are going extinct much sooner than we are seeing new species (ie genuine new evolved, not just western discovered) pop up. When we look back in the fossil record we see a vast array of creatures big and small, many complicated, that are not here today. When we look even at human populations we see that humans are becoming more homogenous not progressing to new diverse heights.

So here is what I think may be a more logical simple theory – there was a big diversity originally but now we are recessing/de-devolving from that point on though Natural Selection

“This smells like creation theory to me!!!” I hear you say. It’s not seriously, I am not convinced of creationism yet though I am pretty well convinced that Genesis 1 is poetic in genre. This not necessarily a Christian theory (though obviously it fits) any more than it could be a form of nihilistic view convinced things are heading towards a depressive destruction.

I think that we may have got the industrialisation of western society confused with the natural worId. Certainly humans seem to be able to function differently as they build on the learning of generations beforehand (whether this is for the better, or not, is the essay topic of leftie student’s dreams). I am wondering if we have been tricked into thinking that nature is following the same path (by whatever process – at first Lamarkism, now natural selection with beneficial mutation).

So I’ll leave it there, as for the local paper – it seems to me most of this sort of modernist arguing will probably be irrelevant soon anyway. Thanks to postmodernism, if I want to believe in de-evolution, that’s fine as long as it works for me.

sorry - will it lead to forgiveness?

Today is the day K-Rudd will apologise to the Stolen Generation of Aboriginals. I don't really have deep and meaningful thoughts to write about this except that I think it is brilliant.

Despite claims to the contrary, I don't think it is a very complicated issue. There are so many terrible things that were done to the original inhabitants of this land that were State sanctioned. The government should apologise for them.

I once did some thinking about forgiveness. Although I forget the wording exactly, the process has to look something like this: first the perpetrator needs to recognise and admit that they have done wrong and seek forgiveness, second the wronged person has to have the desire to forgive. Only then can the two affect real peace.

I guess what we seeing today is the first part - it has taken a long time. It may take a long time for the second part too, if at all. I don't know how the logistics of an aboriginal response would work. I guess from the statements of some groups already, different victims of the stolen generations will react differently.

My prayer is that many will take the unbelievable step of offering forgiveness back - not because they should or because it is fair (it's not) but to show they are of stronger character than those that enacted such horrible policy and to begin to heal a gaping wound of the nation.

Looking forward to the telecast at 9am!
Cheers