I don't know if I'm too practical a thinker or rather simply a cynic, but I can't escape this feeling of helplessness in regards to our class discussion. I know that's a fairly depressing way to start, so just bear with me for a while.
First off, I need to establish that I am a firm believer that God can do all things and that the church, those who choose to follow him, can accomplish great feats in his name. However, from a lifetime of observation, it seems like the church is not going to get anything done anytime soon with this whole "saving the earth" bit.
So far, I'm sure I'm coming across as a cynic.
Dr. Carla Sunberg raised a thought-provoking question in class discussion this week: in regards to the numerous ecological and agricultural crises in the modern world, wouldn't it be something else if the church was the group to spread awareness and bring about the necessary change? Well, yes and no.
Surely I believe that the church should become increasingly concerned about the condition of the earth. However, the blame for the destruction of the earth and the motives behind man's flippancy regarding stewardship are neither here nor there. You can believe that Christians are responsible for the current condition of the earth. You can believe that Christians have no regard for the present condition of the earth because they find reassurance in the future restoration of what they have destroyed. You can believe that humans, as a whole, are simply ignorant of the implications of their behavior, ecologically speaking. It really doesn't matter to me, but you must agree that mankind has not taken care if its home. Ergo, it makes logical sense that the church should start making mankind's mistakes known and advocate for solutions.
However, the voice of the church has not been a very persuasive one in recent times. It seems that nothing that the church backs is backed in return by the masses. For instance, as I mentioned in class discussion, the church has made its stance regarding homosexuality abundantly clear. Look where that got us. We spent so much time and energy pleading this nation to agree with us over this issue simply to discover the futility of our efforts in the end. It is also worth noting the amount of celebration that this nation witnessed over the result of the Supreme Court decision. People just don't agree with the church anymore, and it's not just in regards to legislation. The church has lost its voice, generally speaking, in regards to politics, foreign policy, ethics, education, and any number of social issues, so who's to say that the church can somehow gain an influential voice in ecology and agriculture? Hence, to back to Dr. Sunberg's question, yes, it would be nice if the church realized the immediate importance of stewardship, but no, that does not necessarily mean that its importance will become widely known in the world.
Again, I'm probably coming across as a cynic.
Perhaps, then, before the church decides that it wants to change the world, it needs to relearn, in essence, how to change the world. Before we launch a campaign against the destruction of the earth, we need to reevaluate how we go about yielding social influence. We can't expect to blatantly state our stance in this crisis and expect that others will be receptive to what we have to say; that clearly hasn't been the best approach as of late. How, then, do we go about reestablishing the impact of the church in society? I have no idea, but I'm willing to learn.
For the time being, I say that we focus less on changing the world and instead focus on changing our world. We speak where we know we are heard: within the church itself. We don't slap the world in the face with our sermons and convictions until we learn how to properly speak to the world. Instead, we unite the church under a new philosophy of stewardship that embodies a true sense of caring for the earth in which we live. I think that is a fair place to start.
So am I thinking too practically or cynically? I don't know, but, hey, at least I'm thinking. That's more than some people can say.
A lot of good stuff in here Drew! I've gotta say that I'm right there with you as far as feeling helpless in the efforts to change the world. The past few weeks really got me thinking about how much I really could do? Is it a lot? Not much? I don't know. For right now, I feel that it's my responsibility to take care of the things God has pressed on my heart and maybe that one step will affect the future in a butterfly (sort of) affect. The church definitely should be leading the charge on this new green revolution, but the only way to get to that point is through thinkers like you, so keep doing what you're doing!
ReplyDeleteDrew, I really appreciate your honesty about what is going on in class. I think that authenticity is an important part of being recognized as an agent of change. Due to the separation of Church and State being extremely emphasized the past few years, it is hard to see how the Church really helps the world out. There are ways to make change happen, but it all hinges on whether people believe we actually want to do this. Even as a Christian, I feel that the Church can do things just to look good but do the opposite thing the next day. Hypocrisy has always been a struggle with the Church due to the humans that make it up, but practicing holiness in a way that shows our love for God and our love for our neighbors is an important first step in figuring out how to change the world.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with some of what you had to say. Mainly, I wonder how you would personally define the "church". Do you mean the specific churches as in buildings with specific congregations? Do you think of the church as followers of God and one big, united, kingdom rather than a specific place or group? Depending on what you mean, your theology could vary significantly. For example, if you think of the church as a certain congregation, I would argue that some churches have made political strides such as those who SUPPORT gay marriage (just for the sake of giving an example, because I personally disagree with gay marriage like many Christians do). On the other hand, if you describe the church as all believers, then your statement may become vague.
ReplyDeleteDrew, I really appreciate what you call your "cynical" or "too practical" view. Like you said, it's better than not thinking at all. What I am wondering is what you meant about the church needing to make mankind's mistakes known. On one hand, I agree that we should be aware of what we have done in regards to the earth, but you also say that it doesn't matter who a person believes is the culprit. Is that correct? You are right--there is no value in pointing fingers just to place blame. However, it is useful to look at how a mistake happened, who made it, why it happened. I think if we just accept something went wrong and move on to trying to fix it, we risk repeating that error.
ReplyDeleteI was also wondering if the homosexuality example you used is a useful comparison in the context of Earth care. It is true that the church’s opinion made little impact to slow down this change, but that makes sense given the innocence of the act. What I mean by this is homosexuality does not seem wrong without a Christian lens. People can see the wrong in destruction of the earth factually, therefore it doesn’t compare well to the homosexuality issue.
Overall, great post and thanks for being honest.