Since I posted "Decisions in Grey" I've had further conversations with at least three additional and very thoughtful people about those decisions in the grey country. The grey country has questions like: how much alcohol is ok to drink; can I smoke marijuana; isn't our culture of recreations sex simply like like the times of biblical concubines; isn't committed living together just like a marriage anyway? From these discussions some new thoughts have emerged, most notably around how to approach the dangers of the grey country.
There is a necessary role for Christians to understand dangerous spiritual territory, because we need to engage in the world, and to do that we need to understand the landscape. The danger is, or course, that in these places of twisted paths and subtle diversions we ourselves make a choice that takes us off our path toward God. Some know the nature of these places by inadvertent exposure, some by the consequence of deliberate choice, and some because God calls them to walk alongside those who have been hurt in these places. Not all come out spiritually alive. So there are some critical questions as we look down a path, questions which require BRUTAL honesty. Brutal, because we're masters of self-deception. So if you're asking questions like "Can I get drunk in private", "Is it ok to sexually live together before committing to each other", "What about marijuana?" or any other similar question, then read on. I'm going to approach this in three sub-topics, oddly titled "Honesty about danger", "A theology of two words", and "Why did I ask in the first place?". 1. Honesty about danger There is a syndrome that goes by the term "Aspirational buying". This is where we buy all the tools, equipment, and learn the theory needed in order to undertake an expedition. We do it because we like to think we need it all (and it also looks cool to others!). Examples I've seen include a woman in a freshly ironed, brand new khaki safari suit, with all the accessories, stepping out of a small plane at a bush camp in the middle of the Okovango swamp -- while wearing high-heel shoes! I've known people so loaded with hiking equipment that they can barely manage the physical demands of a short day trip. And then there are those road cyclists with all the skin-tight fluorescent clothes, water packs and electronic gadgets, and a bike that must have cost the equivalent of a round-the-world vacation, who then barely make the cut in a cycle race. Such acquisition makes one think "I can handle anything" The Christian equivalent is "I've done the courses, I've read the books, I know what's right and wrong. Trust me, I can do this." And so they embark on the adventure. The problem comes when one is stepping into the wilderness with a theology that is learned, versus a theology that is lived. The former is aspirational theology, the latter is an ingrained practical theology tested in the fires of living in a God-relationship. Imagine reading a book about dinghy sailing and then taking your first excursion in a 30knot wind on the open ocean. Compare that with someone who's sailed from a young age, even though they know none of the terminology and use a leaky old dinghy with blown out sails. I know who I would bet on. Intellectual preparedness does little to help when thrown in the deep end. We need to be honest, brutally honest, about the dangers of exploring a chosen path. 2. A theology of two words Lets assume first that we recognize, and acknowledge the danger in the landscape of grey decisions. Then, can we agree that our created purpose, above all else, is to live a life worshipful to God. If you can't accept that you need to go find another religion, or try atheism if you like pretending. For Christians this is a foundation stone of our professed faith (we can debate what "worship" means, but for now lets go with a simple definition that worship is what reflects the worth of God's nature). From this we can look at the two words: "Am I". Simplistically, a Christian's choices need to be rooted in questions such as "Am I doing that which reflects the nature of God?" Other forms of "Am I ..." could be "Am I honouring God", or "Am I hurting others?" or "Am I moving away from God?", etc. Those two words "Am I ..." are deeply interesting. First, they show a willingness to be honest with oneself by questioning our motivations. For if our choices are not rooted in worship, then they're rooted in our own desires. Peter Kreeft, in a discussion on basic "Moral Theology and Homosexuality" puts forward three criteria for whether or not something is a good step to take, whether it reflects a worship of God's nature or not:
So when I ask "Am I ..." one needs to ask this about all three criteria. Am I doing a right act (would Jesus do this?), am I building on motives honouring to God's desires (or are they my desires), am I choosing the right context (is doing it in this place and time going to draw me or others to God, or undermine God's purposes). Here's a real example: a Christian girl came to ask me about my view on her joining the annual naked bike ride (like this one) to protest the world's oil dependency (among other things). I strongly support the intention of the protest, I greatly admire her stated motivation, yet I question the act in it's context. For example, on a very practical level riding naked through the streets in a publicised event, with the consequent inevitable and excessive photography from bystanders (kids included) and news reporters, seems to me to expose (pun intended) oneself to uncontrolled and inappropriate usage of the images of your naked body. Second, I really question whether there is any real protest value of this action. Third, I don't see how this is God-honouring or would encourage people to draw close to God ... quite the opposite in fact. So I suggested that the "Am I" questions would conclude with "I am not". So, about the theology of "Am I". Answering the questions posed means I will move from "Am I ..." to "I am ...", because I make a choice to act. This phrase "I am" is of course the name God gives himself, he is the capitalized "I AM". By this God means (among many things) that he has ultimate perspective and ultimate authority in all things (and is yet another argument for the deity of Jesus, because he says all authority is his). So when we are saying "I am" we are likewise making a claim to authority. The critical issue here is that are we making a claim to authorize an action that reflects God's nature? Or are we seeking to authorize an act independent of God's authorization? If the latter, then we are claiming an authority apart from God. That is pride in its purest form, and we know how God feels about pride. Lucifer's fall was over such pride. So lets be hyper-aware of the greatest danger of all in this troublesome Grey landscape; the danger that we take for ourselves an "I am" that is not aligned with the "I AM". I can think of no greater danger in this life or the next. 3. Why did I ask in the first place? I'll end this first with a note on responsibility. I alone, no one else, not my parents, not my friends, and not my enemies, carry all responsibility for my decisions and the inevitable consequence on myself and potentially on others. For in every choice there is always a gain and a loss: by choosing for one action I will lose another option, an in doing so steer my path, and probably the path of others. Second, a few comments on Kreeft's criteria, especially motivation or intention. For example, why am I asking my question in the grey zone? Being brutally honest, what is the outcome that I am seeking? What drives my even considering my question? Have I asked these, and can I answer them? For God gives us things to enjoy, and he provides all we need. Therefore, am I seeking to serve a pleasure or a need. For the pleasure, there are God's frameworks where pleasure is best enjoyed. For needs, God wants us to lean on him, he desires us to ask him for all we need. And then for both worshipful pleasures and real needs there is also the question "Am I asking this in the right time and place?" Thus my concluding thought is this. First, if I am seeking the pleasures he has made for me, then I need the enjoy these within the parameters of a worshipful life, and my initial question should always be on what are the worshipful parameters of this pleasure. If I am seeking provision for needs, then I need to depend on him who is sufficient to supply all I need. To do otherwise is to not live a life that reflects God's worth. That is the danger, that is the choice.
0 Comments
I have odd temptations. This one just got much, much worse. In the name of Christ people abuse the generations, and as a Christian, what should I do? My temptation is that this makes me want to wish for a special hell for some people. The main trigger for this is stupidity having multi-generational consequences. (Actually, "stupidity" may be charitable - some individuals act in deliberate deception. But I'll stay with "stupidity", and not presume intent.) Let me tell you what has just made this temptation so much worse. Its that three individuals have the potential to substantially undermine the global response to climate change, with a consequent exacerbation of human suffering among future generations that is almost impossible to describe! There have been recent appointments to positions of power of three self-identified Christians, the US senators Rubio (R-Florida), Cruz (R-Texas), and Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) as chairman of three key senate oversight committees. Now if you're not from the USA this may make no sense. I'm not from the USA, and I have no desire to be a USA citizen, so why am I being tempted? It's because Cruz now has oversight of NASA, Rubio has oversight of NOAA, and Inhofe has oversight of the EPA. These three agencies have critical roles to play in facilitating the research on climate change, and in informing the USA response to climate change. The reason that this is important is not because of what it'll do to the USA (that worries me little - what you sow, you reap). The problem is the pivotal role the USA plays in facilitating the critical global response. Time is running out prevent an irreversible global commitment leading to climate impacts of major proportions, and the USA's position is the central sticking point in achieving effective global action. Doubly worrying is that Inhofe (at least) has expressed his intention to actively engage in undermining the unprecedented and critical USA-China relationship leading into the next round of international climate change treaty negotiations. What really gets me going as a Christian is that they are doing this while using the bible to defend their actions. That they are making the Republican Party a laughing stock is neither here nor there (although there are a few Republicans that think otherwise). And the problem is not so much that they deny clear, scientific, and apolitical facts about a reality of what we are doing to the world. What's really the problem is that they have the gall to use God's name to justify their illogical (I am tempted to say despicable) actions, and with stupid (there, I said it) and irrational theology! What will future generations have to say about that? Why do Christians of today accept it? The mind boggles. Not only are they contributing to increasing the human suffering around the world for generations to come, but they are portraying Christ in such a way that it is no wonder people are increasingly running from Christianity into the arms of new-atheism and other forms of spirituality. If I was not already a Christian I would also mock Christianity for what these people are saying. I am reminded of how Jesus' condemnations were largely reserved for those who usurped the name of God for their own agendas. Meantime I have to resist my temptations, and try to live Jesus to the world. [If you want to fact-check Inhofe's twisted statements (and many outright lies), take a quick read at http://tinyurl.com/78u677p or explore http://www.skepticalscience.com/]. From vacation discussions about LGBT relationships, legal marijuana, drunkenness, saying "crap", and much more. Where does the Christian draw the line? Some issues are black as night, some white as light, and the edges are easy to see. But some Christians just want to make everything black and white. A generation ago it was about dancing and drinking and dating (at least overtly). Now the Christian community seems to have bifurcated. On the one hand there is the debate on topics like same-sex relationships and marijuana which seek to stretch the boundaries of legitimacy. On the other hand there's a resurgence of interest in quasi-legalism and strict behaviour patterns as seen in some new-Calvinism and reformed churches. Unfortunately our innate action is to base much of our moral decisions on a morality from our parents, church, school and culture of upbringing. These mores run deep ... and are mostly left unexamined! Try this: when marijuana is legal to buy, is it ok for a Christian to smoke it? If you've automatically said yes, then how do you defend it? If your immediate reaction was a resounding NO, then was that your cultural mores speaking or your thought-through and bible-based theology? For we have an age-old problem: between the bright-shining edge of clarity and depths of darkness, where do we draw the line? Consider the spectrum that includes coffee, beer, wine, liquor, anti-depressants, pain killers, filter cigarettes, marijuana, cocaine, and stronger drugs. All these alter behaviour, our biology, and our thinking to one degree or another. Where do you draw the line when there is no biblical prohibition? And broadening the scope, what about social norms around, for example, dress code or even nudity. God gave us his creation for our pleasure. He gave us each other for the pleasure of relationship. So grapes naturally ferment to makes intoxicating wine, nicotine is both a stimulant and relaxant, and conversation and sex are invigorating - Christians throughout the ages have deeply enjoyed all these, and been affected by these. Even different foods have different effects ... chocolate comforts the lonely! The question is not about those obvious situations where a decision would clearly be offensive to God (like free sex and debauchery), but about all those grey areas that are ambiguous in scripture, and which Christian culture would seek to regulate. Jesus drank wine, and presumably enjoyed it (I wonder if he ever puffed a smoke?). I presume Jesus danced and appreciated the sight of a beautiful woman. We need some thoughtfulness about how to approach this, both questioning our pre-conditioning for its biblical basis and examining our theology of, for example, marijuana (do you have a theology of marijuana?). Of course the quick and all-inclusive answer is "What does the Spirit tell me". But if we have free will and seek to exercise our partnership in God's work (not simply being a robot), then some decisions are clearly up to us. Making the problem doubly difficult is that a weakness for one person may not be a weakness for another - so generalizing rules usually fail. I suggest there are two broad criteria for grey decisions, which requires a deep honesty that can be hard to face, for we all excel at self-deception (and there's a prowling lion trying to deceive). 1) When one is in public the leading issue is whether I will cause my brother/sister to stumble. There is lots of direct and indirect guidance on this in scripture, for example 1 Corinthians 8:13 and 1 Corinthians 10:23-33. But even here all is not clear cut; sometimes my brother/sister needs to be challenged to think about their theology; to (re-)consider right living. As a generality, the question is not about offending someone (although that is a consideration), but am I causing someone to stumble? For example, the use of coarse language may provoke another to anger, or encouraging social drinking may push someone with limited tolerance into excess. If so, then as a Christian I need to exercise self-control and be more restrained. 2) In private the decision becomes more difficult. Can I get drunk alone? And when am I drunk? Is it that comfortable floating feeling after three glasses of wine? For even a single glass will affect me and its a matter of degree. So we need to think about some nuances. 2a) Our will power is not as strong as we like to tell ourselves. The slippery slope principle applies. If you think "I can handle this", well maybe you can. But remember that you've probably over-estimated your manageable limits (pride fights honesty), and its easy to go from being in control to out of control, and not even realize it. 2b) Choices that skate the boundaries of being acceptable to God risk opening the door to things that bite. For example, a propensity to addiction, or a biological reaction to alcohol. Living outside the boundaries of one's created self raises different dangers for different people. 2c) Am I enjoying God's gift of created pleasures, or seeking to avoid God's nature? Am I simply looking for ways to justify a choice I want? Much of time we cultivate a line of thinking to legitimize something on our terms. The servant-king who calls us to serve him means for us to serve within his boundaries - and putting pleasures before purpose is a path to problems. Now perhaps you expected me to say smoking marijuana is (not) ok? Or to provide a biblical sanction for some other activity, such as living together without legal marriage (I like that society recognizes common law marriage ... I wish the church did)? My first answer is that I think many of these grey "issues" are automatically branded as sin without thinking through the theology, and many could actually be gifts of God's creation. So in this way I would not be judgemental over drinking, smoking, and a host of other "trivialities" that fall foul of Christian culture. My second answer for grey decisions would be, is engaging in the activity encouraging you to be beholden to something other than God first and foremost? If so, then stop, turn around and run. My third answer is that rules should reflect God's nature, rules do not define God's nature. Thus the definitive solution to choice in the grey is to cultivate one's relationship with God on his terms. Not a god of our making (like one of those all too common gods floating around which make us comfortable), but the God who made us. My fourth and last answer is this: consider Jesus' approach. About the only people he was quick to judge were those who rationalized as Godly a behaviour that was counter to God. Foremost were the Pharisees who led people away from a relationship with God and into a slavery of legalism. But for all the "normal" sinners, he first listened to them, engaged with them, blessed them in word and deed, and instructed about the way forward. Always with the sinner his answer was grace first. Bless, belong, believe. Lead into light. For example, consider his response to Matthew the tax collector (hey, let's have dinner together), the woman at the well (so tell me about yourself), or the adulterer about to be stoned (I don't condemn you, go and sin no more). But for those who presumed God's authority, Jesus was not slow to judge. Finally, would I get drunk and smoke marijuana? No, because I value my brain to keep control of my emotions lest my unconstrained feelings lead me into offence. I will enjoy some alcohol, I would even smoke if I weren't so afraid of lung cancer (I'd love to smoke a pipe). But will I judge one who smokes marijuana? No, but I would have a conversation about their relationship with Jesus. For unlike many churches, Jesus is in the grey. I have three friends, all male, all senior in their careers, all well skilled and experienced. I've spent time with each in the last month.
They all dislike their jobs. Each have sources of significant stress from finance and family relationships. They all have significant health issues, and all know the troublesome symptom of 4am wakefulness where the brain twists and turns in inescapable worry. Weekends are a threat, for then their only escape in business is removed, and the issues loom even more stark and real. They feel trapped. They don't like themselves. I have been in that place, and I empathize, deeply. All are Christians. All seek prayer. All hear endless platitudes from those around them. “God will provide” “Trust in Him” “He will never leave you nor forsake you” “Do not worry” “There is a peace that passes all understanding” These are all equally true and equally useless as a starting point. These are theological truths to be arrived at, not to be launched from. When one feels incapacitated in the face of decision, where the necessary emotive energy is simply not there, when God feels distant, what help are these? And for those privileged to be let into a person's small circle of trust (for men, especially stressed men, do not easily open the doors on personal problems), what can we offer such a man beyond the platitudes of Christian jargon? 1. Well, obviously we must pray. But what do we pray? “God solve all this person's problems?” But Jesus also says that in this life you will have trouble, we should expect trouble. So, absent a clear word of direction from the Spirit, it seems that we can at best pray that God will bring forward the necessary strength, and ask for wisdom. 2. We can “be there for them”. This is hard for men who seem to be hard-wired to not depend on others. One avenue I find valuable is to try to help open the doors to conversation; for conversation that is based on listening has an amazing value in reducing stress and bringing clarity of perspective. Simply talking. I know that when I have been stressed, I have deeply valued the man who will honestly allow me to talk in trust – simply having someone who will listen (and my being brave enough to speak the reality of the situation) allows one to find a strength to continue. Hidden stress that is never expressed is a bubbling boiler that will at some point explode, destroying all in the vicinity. 3. We can avoid serving up an endless litany of Christian platitudes. There are few things more galling in the moment of stress than having someone who lives in a security of lifestyle, tell you in the midst of your stress, “Don't worry, God will provide”! Of course I know (theoretically) that God will provide, but try telling that to my emotions. And so forth. But there is no recipe. However, there is one metaphor that (for me, at least) helps bring some perspective. We are all farmers – literally or figuratively; we sow and we reap. Real agricultural farmers know all too well that there are good seasons and there are bad seasons. In fact, in many agricultural systems they conduct their business expecting a 1 in 3 failure of the crop, and plan accordingly. Their lot is to be wise, sow again, and trust the seasons will change. And so the farmer looks at the future and sows accordingly. But if the harvest fails repeatedly, if he comes to hate his job, if he's worn down to his last reserves, then his options are limited. First, he can continue as he has done, sow again and hope that the next season will bring a fruitful harvest, fatalistically saying “it is my lot to toil and sweat”. Second, he could give up his farming practice and find an alternative avenue of employment; one that with some measure of re-skilling builds on the abilities he has and the lessons he's learned. Or lastly, he can re-strategise, saying “I have experience and talent, I have passions of creative capacity, let me find new ways, new crops, new fields, where I can implement my skills in a way that brings me joy, and which serves a need. For it is in service that true joy is found. And the servant is rewarded for his services.” Now I agree, this metaphor is getting close to being a platitude in itself. But perhaps it's the skeleton of a way to start to think about the challenges in a new way. Will I try and push through this seemingly brick wall, will I change tack altogether, or will I regroup and attack from another angle? This is the question I would pose to God: “Will you give the insight to know the avenue of choice, surround me with wise elders, strengthen me with courage to take the necessary decisions that will alter my circumstances, sustain me in my immediate needs, and through this release me from my worry so I can invest myself in the challenge you place before me?” And then at the end I can die, saying “I toiled in the Lord's field, God provided, and there was a harvest.” Then, and perhaps only then, will I know that the hard truth of the seeming platitudes from those who surround me. I hope I remember to read this next time I'm stressed. Is my theology liberal? While acknowledging the dangers of labels, its worth asking. I'm in a stage of life where I'm (re-)examining the rationality of my theology. i.e. Why do I believe what I believe? This is something I would argue everyone should continuously engage in. Not least because we're so influenced by our upbringing, others around us, and the media, that to be honest we need to keep reasoning everything to have a strong foundation. In some respects this process has always led me to push back against the expectations of the institutional church, because some (much?) of what's pushed at us is framed irrationally in the light of the mission and reality of living a relationship with God. So at times I feel a tug toward the ideas of liberal theology. But what is liberal theology? Recently I came across this quote from Gary Dorrien's books on American liberal theology, where he says: "Fundamentally [liberal theology] is the idea of a genuine Christianity not based on external authority. Liberal theology seeks to reinterpret the symbols of Christianity in a way that creates a progressive religious alternative to atheistic rationalism and to theologies based on external authority. Specifically, liberal theology is defined by its openness to the verdicts of modern intellectual inquiry, especially the natural and social sciences; its commitment to the authority of individual reason and experience" Now I like phrases such as "a genuine Christianity not based on external [human] authority" - it appeals to the rebellious elements in me. Further, statements such as "the authority of individual reason and experience" are also very tempting because I believe God made me rational in order to reason, and to neglect to do so is an offence to what God created. In addition, liberal theology gives me a sense of power, which is always gratifying. Liberal theology is also often outspoken on social justice - a good thing in my book. Although often such "justice" seems to focus on issues such as same sex relationships or syncretism that dilutes the definitiveness of Christ. Only some strands of liberal theology show deep and committed engagement to the global social ills of poverty and oppression. Liberal theology is comforting, it creates a tiny little universe where I can decide the basis of faith to keep me calm and peaceful in my tiny little delusion. For this reason (double meaning intended) I reject much of the liberal theology movement because they root their authority in human reason. We are not given reason so that we may become God. We are given reason so that we may engage in relationship with God. Hence, while I may fight against the unthinking straitjacket of institutionalized norms and all the pressures to conform with traditional ritual and modalities simply because its, well, traditional, I am not a subscriber to liberal theology. I'm orthodox. If by orthodox one means that I believe God defines reality, and that the bible is the story of God's revealed definition. Chesterton’s expression of this is perhaps the best articulation I have ever found when he wrote in his book "Orthodoxy" that "Christianity got over the difficulty of combining furious opposites, by keeping them both, and keeping them both furious." Liberal theology instead seems to want to mix it all together and make a mud pie. I suggest true liberal theology is the one that liberates us from the orthodoxy of practice so we can re-engage with the orthodoxy of faith. (And by the way, while my attitude as expressed here might sound like I'm in the fold of the Young, Restless, and Reformed Movement of New Calvinism, I'm not. I think [New] Calvinism still has a long way to go to really discover the truth of furious opposites. Is that arrogance on my part?) Catalyzed by a tweet from Paul Baloche (here, or if its gone from twittersphere, archived here) Paul Baloche is a Christian I esteem; I play his music, I sing his songs, I've seen him play live, I read what he writes, I even use his resources with our church worship team. So seeing him tweet in support of the Keystone XL pipeline made me pause to think. Now this is not a post about Paul taking this position - I don't know him personally and I don't know his reasoning. But I do know that he has significant Christian influence, and also that the Keystone XL issue is a very nuanced and complicated issue. What would Jesus say, I wonder? It makes me wonder if Christians are looking at this (and many other) issues too 1-dimensionally – for Christians have a tendency to reducing complicated situations to single criteria - "single issue voting". The pipeline is complicated and polarised, made doubly so by the extensive media lobby activities, and further compounded by serving the tar sand mining industry. Its too complicated an issue for one blog post, but there is a bigger Christian picture that underlies each persons choice to lobby for or against. (For the record, I am firmly against, but perhaps not for the reasons you might imagine). First, lets recognize that tar sand exploitation will likely continue with or without the Keystone XL pipeline, but that's not the point. The real question is whether as Christians we should or should not be encouraging a particular path of action. Here are some quick thoughts of the inter-related issues for the Christian. a) The most obvious issue is our responsibility for stewardship of the earth (e.g. see these lists of relevant bible verses here or here). There are actually two issues here. The first is that exploiting the tar oil sands is one of the most energy intensive and environmentally destructive (both the in situ production and pipeline impacts) approaches to obtaining fossil fuel. The question is thus "What Christian reasons do I have to justify encouraging this energy pathway over other available options". If my Christian purpose is captured by the two great commandments, then is this decision the best way forward for living with the heart of Jesus for the suffering of the world (and not just for the best interests of the USA or Canada)? Secondly, its a no-brainer that the western world is addicted to consumption. Is supporting Keystone XL and tar sands exploitation is akin to buying a pill for the pain of our global addiction to consumption and feed the desires of materiel comfort and security? Aside from any spiritual issues (see (c) below) this life style of material excess is fuelled by our over-exploitation of God's creation to get a daily fix of fossil energy. Consider the global environmental consequences of palm oil production, tropical deforestation, and fossil fuel extraction. In furthering our consumptive lives we also hold up an aspirational goal of materialism for the poverty-stricken global majority. Can I, as a Christian, in good conscience encourage such developments where the prime purpose is to fuel my addiction? On these two perspectives alone I would have trouble defending to Jesus my encouragement of Keystone XL and tar sand development. b) We are called as Christians to serve those who suffer; the poor, the weak, the ill. Now, one argument put forward for Keystone XL and the tar sands is that it reduces the need to purchase oil from middle eastern (terrorist, as some would say) nations, and from poor third world nations. In this we would build independence from external factors (implicitly meaning that we can then reduce the risks to our western lifestyle of comfort). I would argue that this is simply an argument to build buffers against that which makes me uncomfortable. As a Christian, consider the consequences of undermining the revenue stream of many third world nations, leading to further increased debt and exacerbating the near impossible escape from poverty. Of course there is corruption and abuse of power in these nations, of course it's not all nice. But is disengaging a Christian answer? What suffering do we enhance by doing so. Would a Christian not instead step into the place of suffering and engage for change? No tar sand oil, no Keystone XL: then I become forced to engage with the trouble spots of the world. c) The parable of the rich young ruler man is always one that troubles me. For what is it that Jesus might ask me to sell in order to follow him? Keystone XL and tar sand exploitation are all about strengthening the foundations of production and consumption, and in the process building my basis of power. Unfortunately this power is not benevolent, instead this power feeds and is in turn manipulated by the very machine it builds. Imagine if western nations halved their consumption and released the freed human and physical resources to help the poor. Of course this will not happen – secular human nature dominates. But that is no excuse for the Christian to not swim against the flow of easy yet globally damaging solutions. If the rich young ruler had been able to see a bigger picture, instead of having his vision filled by a desire to protect his comfort zone, would Jesus have stayed with him a little longer? d) Climate change – is as controversial a topic as one may find in the USA and Canada. Yet the rhetoric is foolishly polarised; the evidence is overwhelming. I've written on this before (e.g. here, here, or here), so suffice to say that its real, its multi-generational, and that the impacts are most felt by those already poor and suffering. So how, as a Christian, can I even begin to support an action that further feeds the CO2 production factory that the (western) world has built for themselves, and which developing nations are striving to emulate. Can I say to Jesus “we decided for Keystone XL and tar sand exploitation, and by the way I'm sorry for how this made life worse for my children, grand children, and all those poor people exposed in poverty". And so, what can I conclude? The western world, and Christians especially, need to engage in some serious reflection. Each action I choose to take, each decision I support, each outcome I lobby for, is often multi-dimensional and complex. I need to decide if it is helping or hurting those God asks me to love. For myself, the Keystone XL pipeline and tar sand exploitation ultimately hurts. But each of us needs to objectively research the issues (understanding the enveloping bias of the lobbyists that seek to sway us), and to reason before God whether we are serving his purpose in all we say and support. |
Why?
Probably the best therapy is to express yourself. Why do you think psychiatrists make you lie on the couch and talk, while all they do is murmur "hmmm", "uhuh", or "go on"? Archives
May 2017
|