Prayerwalking

Tonight, I finally started something I’ve been meaning to for a couple of years now. I tend to work late, so my building on campus is pretty quiet when I leave, usually just the custodial staff and a few grad students working on their chemical reactions. Tonight, I began prayerwalking my building. I started on the top (5^th) floor and walked the entire hallway and dropped to the 4^th floor below, praying all along.

What did I pray about?

Personal Finance

With all of the hullabaloo in Washington over the debt ceiling, it reminds me of yet another area where our educational system fails our students, and ultimately our country. For the most part, we don’t teach students how money works.

We assume that money is merely an application of math, but it is a system just like Euclidian math, or grammar or stoichiometry are systems for doing tasks. Unless you take an elective or are a banking/finance or related major, you are not exposed to how our monetary system works, how wealth is created and destroyed, how the different areas of the economy have constructive and destructive interference patterns just like light or waves, and so on.

Dominion vs Stewardship, Chapter 2

Yesterday, I talked about dominion and rule in Genesis 1. It is time to look at Genesis 2, Adam in the Garden.

According to my friend, there is some evidence in the Hebrew phraseology that indicates that Genesis 2 is not a retelling of Day 6, but a subsequent event on one of the following days. (That topic is too huge to even begin covering in a single blog post, because there are a lot of controversial implications. I’ll wait to go there until his book is finished and published, and tell you where you can read up on it then.)

What is interesting is that in Genesis 2, when God charges Adam with the maintenance of the Garden, He uses a very different word, shamar. It means to nurture, protect, guard and so on. This passage does convey the stewardship idea that contemporary Christians have associated with Genesis 1 and 2.

The fact that Genesis 1 and 2 use such very different terms for what appears to be the same task, is actually evidence for my friend’s case that they are in fact, different events. In Genesis 1, God creates a wild Creation in need of conquering, taming and ruling by humans (‘pre-historic hominids”?) (‘adam’ in Hebrew). In Genesis 2, He creates a lush, pastoral garden in which to put the first fully modern human couple (‘Adam’ and Eve), where He can begin to build a relationship with them. Thus, His focus is different, so they are in a different environment, a pre-tamed one.

Why the difference? I am completely speculating here. Perhaps, in giving the first humans capable of spiritual responsibility the best opportunity in which to get to know Him and choose whether to love Him or not, a pleasant Garden was more conducive to that than the harsh world:  God’s Garden in which to nurture His people.

Once they chose their own sovereignty over His even when the deck was stacked towards making the best choice, then the consequence was expulsion back into the kabash, radah world from which they had been pulled/spared. Because God gave them every reason to choose Him and they didn’t, it is consistent with God’s desire in Scripture to give all some clear opportunity to make a conscious choice to follow Him so that if we choose not to, we will have no excuse.

While this scenario is speculation on my part, it seems to be consistent with what I understand of the Hebrew in Genesis 1-3, and the English translations. It isn’t the typical interpretation, so I am interested in thoughts from those who have studied the passage with more expertise and scholarship than I.

What are the implications for us today? I see several. First, it is a reminder that by only knowing the Scriptures in our tongues, we lose some of the richness of the original, having to depend on the translators to convey the original meaning properly through the evolutions of both Hebrew/Greek and the translated tongues.

Second, given that God gave us both the Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture, they must both be correct, so inconsistencies must rest with our interpretations of either or both books.

Therefore, third, it is exceedingly wise to maintain humility about our understanding of theology and science, both, which implies that we should do a lot of listening to others’ interpretations and the whys of their interpretations before either subscribing or opposing them, or, refining them.

Fourth, we need to major on the majors and minor on the minors. If we are too wrapped up in our pet interpretations, and they are shown to be wrong, will that damage our faith or enrich it? Which do we want more—to be right or to know the Living God? That answer will reveal a lot about our teachability.

A final take home for me is that though I have read Genesis 1-3 many times, there is still much I have no clue I’m even missing. We simply do not realize how subconsciously we read our interpretation into the text and it blinds us to what God may really be saying. It isn’t until we hear someone give a different perspective that it even occurs to us that there might be a different one, regardless of whether it is wrong or right or somewhere in between.

This principle of humility in one’s interpretation is illustrated in II Peter 1:20-21: “Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

Does this mean we must be tentative and self-conscious when discussing the Bible? No! There is a difference between arrogance and confidence, between timidity and humility. Again, we turn to Peter, “But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.” I Peter 3:15-16

I look forward to learning more and more to know Him ever better. In that spirit, feel free to offer your insights, with gentleness and respect,…and the reasons behind them!

SDG

Dominion versus Stewardship

“So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.’”                                  Genesis 1:27-28

I, and many contemporary Christians have interpreted the ‘dominion passage’ as to basically refer to the idea of good stewardship, that the harsh ruling connotation of the words was just that, modern connotations of a more pastoral intention by God.

A Christian colleague of mine in the biological sciences has been studying the original Hebrew of Genesis, in preparation for a book he’s writing. He presented some of his thoughts to our faculty group recently. I learned from him that in fact, the original Hebrew is correctly translated, connotations and all.

According to him, the word for subdue is kabash. Yes, in the sense of putting the kabash on an idea. It does mean subdue as in putting down an enemy or a rebellion. This has an even more profound implication:  that Creation is harsh and an enemy in need of being subdued. But wait, it gets better—God declares that this harsh, untamed Creation is good, and that humanity’s charge to tame it is very good!

This awareness of the Hebrew has rocked my image of God. If you’ve read this blog for very long, I have often commented that our definitions of the words ‘goodness,’ ‘holiness,’ and ‘righteousness’ are far too tame. Yet here again is another indication that God is no mere benevolent grandfather in the sky, but something far wilder, far more…, well more, than we can possibly imagine. He is no urbane metrosexual, but a living Being of Power, who demands we conform to His image, refusing to conform to ours, even delighting in shattering our views of Him because they are too small.

Then the word for rule (‘rule over the fish in the sea…”) is radah. This means to rule as a king. It has a royal connotation to it. In order to interpret it properly, we need to look at what God demanded of kings. Look up all of Psalm 72 on your own (homework), but here are the first seven verses:

Endow the king with your justice, O God,

   the royal son with your righteousness.

May he judge your people in righteousness,

   your afflicted ones with justice.

May the mountains bring prosperity to the people,

   the hills the fruit of righteousness.

May he defend the afflicted among the people

   and save the children of the needy;

   may he crush the oppressor.

May he endure as long as the sun,

   as long as the moon, through all generations.

May he be like rain falling on a mown field,

   like showers watering the earth.

In his days may the righteous flourish

   and prosperity abound till the moon is no more.

If this is indeed the kind of behaviour God expects from a king, then radah in Genesis 1:28 does convey the idea of lifting up, taming for better use, almost in the sense of bringing out the perfect gem hidden in the rough stone. Therefore, taken together, God’s commands for us to kabash and radah the Creation form a vastly richer picture of what our work on Earth is meant to be. It is no mere idyllic scene, neither is it merely survival of the fittest, but a great work, with meaning, purpose and reward.

{For a more thorough article on the Hebrew words, read this.}

As Christians, we need to stop making apologies for God as if He’s some quirky or misunderstood uncle. We need to understand what He says about Himself and get to know Him, proclaiming rightly all of His character. He says that He will offend people, that they will stumble over Him, and consequently set themselves over against Him.

But how can we give them the opportunity to make that choice in an informed manner if we ourselves don’t know Him? He is not a tame God. He commanded us to tame nature, and that He would tame us. Yet, instead we often try to have nature tame us (i.e. radical environmentalism) and then we try to tame God. That is the heart of paganism.

SDG

Vibrant Dance: Not Just Origins

The first plenary on Wednesday was by Deborah Haarsma from Calvin College, on “Not Just Origins:  Engaging Science in the Life of Your Congregation through Creation Care, Worship and Education.” It was designed to give the audience take home ideas for applying science to the various ministries of the local church—outreach, worship, and discipleship. As Haarsma pointed out, science and faith intersect on more than origins. As stewards of Creation, what we learn about it through science, illuminated by the practice of our faith inspired by the Spirit, should impact how we take care of the parts of the world with which we have influence.

Creation Care:

Many Biblical commands have a scientific component: care for the poor, sick, young, old (i.e. “least of these”), species extinction, deforestation/agricultural issues, pollution, sea level rise, natural evil, AIDS, global access to health care resources, cloning, etc.

Many Christians, when faced with this laundry list, ask, ‘what can the church do?’ The first answer is ‘not everything.’ However, every one of these issues is complex and neither end of the political spectrum has ‘the answer.’ Politics and media love sound-bite solutions, but the church uniquely understands that human issues are extremely complex, and should be equipped to bring a compassionate voice to minister to multiple parties.

Take deforestation/agriculture for instance. Third world farmers are trying to improve their standard of living and would like to do so quickly so they can enjoy the benefits we now take for granted. It is not reasonable, much less compassionate for us as the first world to dictate to them environmental policy for sustainability and biodiversity. Their justified response is that who are we to talk—we already raped our landscape, and can afford to go back and fix things. They are just trying do to more than survive. What the developed world needs to do is to come alongside with solutions to accomplish both purposes and get our hands dirty with them to help lift them up in a way that preserves the beauty and biodiversity, potentially helping them to capitalize on their unique biodiversity rather than just copying what works somewhere else.

The first step for us as believers is of course, is to pray. Second, get educated on an issue, really educated. Too often we shoot off our mouths on topics we have only a 30 second news bite understanding of things and we react. It is appropriate to respond rather than react. Start by reading 2-3 books on a particular topic that is on your heart. Prayerfully read from different perspectives to get a sense of the various issues involved and different takes on them, without neglecting those outside of Christendom.

A second step is to partner with ministries of denominational groups who address science issues. For most issues, there is already someone working as Christ’s hands there. Don’t start from scratch; help multiply what they are doing.

Remember, Creation Care is the application of stewardship-a response could result in changes in lifestyle, not just a collection of ideas. Don’t make it political. By reading even one competent book on a subject will make you more informed than pretty much everyone else, yet it is still only one book. Humility with a teachable spirit is key here, too.

Worship:

Science and faith should not be primarily about controversy or apologetics. In fact, most Biblical references to the natural world are in the context of worship and understanding God’s character—the ‘sense of the divine’ we experience when we look at the natural world. Therefore, we should encourage Christians to enter all fields of science. As Kepler said, we get to “think God’s thoughts after Him.”

There some pitfalls Haarsma warned against. 1) Don’t make a sermon a science lesson. Instead, weave it into one’s preaching/teaching. Use science in illustrations. She gave the following example—when describing the Holy Spirit as breath, describe what happens in lungs when we breathe air. Also, nature is a revelation about God—i.e.-a supernova explosion as a demonstration of God’s power. We can use science to discuss loving the poor with appropriate technology. Focus on God. Use science to illustrate points.

Science stretches the imagination. Seeing the wonders of nature inspires worship. One site to use as a reference/for inspiration—www.seasonofcreation.com She also recommended www.biologos.org/blog/categories/worship.

Science itself speaks of nature in neutral language. Some scientists will use atheistic language, yet Christians will speak of nature as God’s creation. It helps to understand the vocabulary. Science and technology reveal parts of nature that we cannot detect with our unaided senses and illustrate God’s attributes even more dramatically. Haarsma offered the idea of using science illustration/terms in congregational prayer that worships God as Creator.

Ptifall #2: Scientific explanations do not replace God and conversely, do not worship the god-of-the-gaps—i.e.- praising God mainly for things that science can not explain. The danger here is that when a scientific explanation is found, faith is reduced/damaged. Instead, praise Him for all of Creation, both what science can and cannot explain currently.

Haarsma pointed to Psalm 104, which sees things occurring both ‘naturally’ and by the Hand of God, and what’s more, does so interchangeably. Above all, she begged repeatedly and emphatically, “Please, PLEASE, do not praise God for your scientific ignorance!” (Pitfall #3!)

Education:

Other ways to include science in congregational life include going on a nature walk after a church picnic and ending with a song of praise, host a star party after evening worship where a local astronomer can set up their telescope and show what is in that season’s sky, use scientific images in sanctuary banners, work with local health care resources, convert vacant lots near church to gardens/parks, and so on. 

Regardless, always connect activities back to Biblical principles. Showing an informed interest in science will help break down barriers to the Gospel. It can also help equip our youth to better hold on to their faith when in college science classes. It gives us more opportunities to let Christ’s light shine to the world and gives opportunities to praise God for the Glory displayed in nature. Of all people, it is the Bride of Christ who should be the best steward of Creation.

Haarsma concluded with the admonition from Micah 6:8—“Do justice, and love mercy.”

RJW note:  I have very much merged my thoughts and extrapolations with Haarsma’s in this post, more than in others. The nature of the topic and length made it a bit pedantic to keep them fully separate. One thing I do want to add is a strong caution that some of these areas are sufficiently controversial that sincere believers are deeply emotionally connected to different sides of an issue, and just bringing up some topics can trigger strong responses. I recommend before embarking on a science-inclusion campaign that church leadership spend several months preparing a congregation for this, through occasional messages, notes in bulletins, emails, etc. Even bringing the topic of science up can invoke reactions because of the strong anti-science bias even on some elder boards. This is not meant as a discouragement, but an encouragement of a critical area of ministry—moving God’s people from darkness to light, milk to solid food. There will likely be growing pains, so extravagant love and grace are needed.

Similarly, particularly in environmental related issues, there is much that is popular but scientifically uncertain or even disputed or debunked. As you are getting started, stick to principles rather than concrete recommendations and as you learn more, gradually shift. Science is dynamic, and some ‘discoveries’ made one day are shown the next to have significant holes. Think about how often the medical journals report something as healthy or dangerous only to have it reversed in the next study.

For example, one area of which I am highly skeptical is that of the CFL lightbulbs. My experience is they rarely last significantly longer than traditional bulbs. Also, their manufacturing is much more involved, taking more resources to make them, use much more hazardous materials (primarily mercury) which are disposal hazards, are typically made in parts of the world where manufacturing standards are not as environmentally friendly, which makes them more dangerous than incandescent bulbs for the manufacturing environment, and the price difference is not offsetting for the supposed benefit. It is important to consider the ‘cradle-to-grave’ impact of ‘green’ technology, not just the user’s impact. I have a lot of hope in the new LED light bulbs. They are cheaper, more versatile, simpler, and less hazardous. Their key drawback now is brightness. In time, this should be corrected. In the meantime, I’m stocking up on incandescent bulbs before they are banned in 2012. There are similar issues regarding the electric and hybrid cars. Start with awareness and principles, love and grace, glorifying God, and see where He leads on specifics.

SDG