If God wills...

In a country where I lived and worked for several years one often heard the phrase “Khudo khohad,” which equates to the Arabic phrase “Insh Allah.” We could translate this phrase along the lines of “If it is God's will.” In the culture where I lived, this phrase was frequently used to absolve oneself of responsibility for planning or for the outcome of one's actions. After all, the individual is not really in control, so what does it matter what one does? If God wants it to happen it will. If he doesn't, it won't. End of story.

This attitude permeated the culture in many ways, resulting in a fatalistic worldview. Why should one plan or work toward a better tomorrow when the future lies beyond one's control anyway? Why feel accountable for one's actions when we know that all things are really in God's control and not our own. If something happened, it must be God's will. If it doesn't happen, it obviously wasn't. Other factors come into play in this particular cultural context which only sharpen the fatalism, because in many ways people really do lack control over their world. One man had worked hard to build a couple rooms on his house for his family, only to have the whole property taken from him by the government overnight and bulldozed to make way for a prestigious government project. Although he received some minor compensation, all his efforts to plan, work and save for his family were reduced to naught without any opportunity for him to counteract it. In such a world fatalism seems to be a realistic worldview, but it isn't a very helpful one.

This mindset is quite contrary to the Western worldview in which I was raised. American culture teaches us that we can change our lives, that we are in control of our destinies, that we can make a difference in the world. This mentality runs through many Protestant churches as well. But does it sync with the teachings of Scripture? What do we do with a passage like James 4:13-17.

Instead you ought to say: “If it is the Lord's will, we will live and do this or that.”

This sounds a lot like saying “Khudo khohad” to me. Should we as Christians in fact be fatalistic? Does the sovereignty of God render our activity pointless?

I have wrestled with the question a lot in my life, at times actively, at other times passively. I come from a Reformed theological background, which emphasizes the sovereignty of God. But I look at the world and find that God exercises this sovereignty in baffling ways, allowing things to occur that must surely grieve God's heart. Other Christians claim to see God's sovereign hand in natural disasters and other tragedies, claiming that they are God's punishment for certain sins. This mentality stems from an Old Testament worldview, but isn't entirely incompatible with a strong view of God's sovereignty. However, I cannot accept that God acts in this way. It strikes me as far to capricious and arbitrary (especially since these claims always seem to relate to certain types of sin. I've never heard anyone say that hurricane Katrina was the punishment for the greed and consumerism of Americans, for example.)

If we adopt too strong a view of sovereignty, we become passive chess pieces in some divine game. We may think we have a say in the course of the game, but we don't really. Or if we allow for some individual freedom but insist on God having a clear and decisive plan for each person's life, we can spend our energy worrying constantly whether we are in or out of God's will. I grew up with this mindset. I understood that my goal in life was to fulfill God's plan for it. I understood that this plan would be clear to me if I simply prayed and sought wisdom. But experience has shown that sometimes God's will is rather unclear. In fact, God's plan seems to me more like a broad directive than a specific agenda for each day, week, month or year. Before I worried that if I stepped outside of God's will, if I moved off that clearly defined path he had laid out for me, I would basically be trashing my life. Now I see God's will more like the markers that illuminate the edge of the highway. Yes, there are areas I don't want to go, but there is a broad swath of possibilities that are fully within “God's will.” And don't even get me going on the idea that God has a “perfect someone” for each of us to marry.

I keep running up against this question of God's sovereignty and the extent to which what I do really matters. I don't think Scripture teaches us to our actions and decisions have no real meaning. But can we change the course of events, or are all things so completely determined that our choices have no real significance? I would not want to live in such a world, nor would I consider such a God particularly worthy of worship. I don't think God wants us to be mere automatons.

Interestingly, I found a new way to think of this after watching the movie MiB3. (I must say that I never imagined having my theology influenced by Men in Black!) In that movie, agents K and J meet Griffin, a fifth-dimensional being who sees multiple timelines simultaneously. To Griffin, all futures are possible until the point that an event occurs which then eliminates some of them, while opening up new alternatives. Because Griffin exists multi-dimensionally, none of the outcomes is fixed or determined, but he can see all of them as real because he can see what would happen should any particular event occur. What if God is in some manner like Griffin, only more so? What if God's sovereignty doesn't mean that an exact course is already fixed for each of us, but that God knows the ultimate outcome (the full restoration and redemption of the creation) and in God's multi-dimensional existence can simultaneously see all possible paths to that endpoint, without dictating that any particular one of them should occur?

I find that I need room in my theology for my actions and decisions to count, so that my life has meaning beyond simply preparing me for some heavenly future. I don't believe that God created me and placed me in this world simply so I could learn some lessons in preparation for eternity. I believe God calls me, and all people, to be co-creators, or at least co-workers in the process of bringing the kingdom to come on earth as it is in heaven. If one emphasizes too strongly God's sovereignty one can eliminate this element of human cooperation and render human life as a fully pre-determined set of events without real significance. One can also end up with a God who is distant and unmoved by the events of this world. Otherwise, surely God would act to rectify the injustices and sufferings of God's creation. If we believe that God does act, but through God's people without specifically compelling them to act, then we must allow room for flexibility in the working out of the divine will.

In a blog such as this I can only begin to touch on this deep topic. I have on my shelf a book I first read many years ago in seminary by Clark Pinnock and others entitled The Openness of God. This book caught my attention the first time I read it and it may be time for a second read. I know that it was not well received by many evangelical theologians because it directly challenges some long-held theological positions, but the questions the authors raise and the suggestions they make offer an alternative way to understand this tension between divine sovereignty and human action. If only Pinnock had had MiB3 to watch!

I have no nice conclusion to this post, because the issue remains open for me. I do not reject God's sovereignty, but I need to understand it in a way that allows for real, meaningful human action and freedom. I don't want to be reduced to saying “If God wills” and absolving myself from responsibility or action. On the other hand, I do want to recognize that my actions and plans still rest within the larger framework of God's actions in the world. That provides, as it were, a safety net, because I can have confidence that God remains in control even when I make the mistakes that I inevitably will.

Energy Independence -- at what cost?

I believe we have a moral responsibility to care for the created world. Creation care, as I have written earlier, is part of our worship of God the Creator. As such, I advocate for the development and use of sustainable energy forms, among other things. I see the growing impact of climate change on our world—most particularly on the poorest regions of the earth-- and cannot continue to live complacently a high-consumption American lifestyle. In the past few years I have, with mixed feelings because it also impacts my budget, welcomed the increase in the price of gasoline and other petroleum-based products. As these fuels become more expensive, they make alternatives more desirable and cost-effective. This benefits the environment and has the potential to create new economic growth in sustainable energy.

Now I read (in articles such as this in The Atlantic) that advances in technology, combined with the higher price for petroleum and therefore the higher economic return on the investment, have driven significant new discoveries of oil and natural gas within the United States as well as in other regions. Within a very short time frame we have gone from a scenario in which oil would become in increasingly short supply to one in which the supply has suddenly become quite abundant, or at least potentially so. In fact, some argue that the United States could become not only oil self-sufficient but even an oil exporter in the next several years.

This could be the best thing to happen to not only our country but much of the world in quite some time. If we could eliminate our dependance on oil from the Middle East, Venezuela and other countries, we would no longer be investing our money and resources supporting petro-dictatorships. It doesn't take much to recognize that the largest oil-producing countries also have some of the worst political and human rights situations in the world (think of Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran). As long as we depend on their oil, we will support those in power in these countries because we cannot afford to rock the boat too much. But if we and other countries no longer depended on them, they would suddenly lose the funds that keep them in power. That might in fact be very destablizing for those countries and their people, and possibly for the world as a whole, but it would at the least mean we wouldn't have to keep paying tribute to governments whose behavior violates many of the principles that we as Americans claim to hold most dear.

Producing oil and gas domestically could also be environmentally positive in that, if we were to enact and enforce strict environmental legislation, we could create a situation in which they would be produced with the least negative impact on the environment possible. We don't have that control in other countries. We can have it here, although the power and influence of the oil and gas industry makes me doubt we will be as stringent in this area as we ought.

At the same time, oil independence could be the worst thing to happen to our country and our world, for a couple key reasons. First of all, most of the new oil and gas being produced comes from the practice of fracking. This practice, in which steam and other chemicals are introduced into deep wells to fracture the rock, thereby releasing the petroleum and gas locked within, has opened vast new deposits of petroleum to production. But it has also raised some serious questions about the long-term effect on the environment. North Dakota has been undergoing an oil boom for some time due to this process. It has brought great wealth and economic opportunity to the state, but at an uncertain cost. Farmers have complained of their farmland becoming toxic in some manner. Wells and water sources may have become contaminated. The link between fracking and these effects remains hotly contested, but the oil and gas industry is doing their best to stifle the discussion with reassurances that fracking is completely safe. If they are so certain that it is, then why not allow more open debate and discussion, as well as unbiased analysis of the effects? We will make a very poor exchange indeed if we purchase our short-term energy independence at the cost of the long-term destruction of our environment, especially the environment that produces much of our food.

In addition, oil independence reduces the incentive to pursue and promote alternative, sustainable energy sources. Why should we concern ourselves with those when it appears that we have a supply of oil that will last far longer than anyone imagined a short time ago? Despite the advances made in alternative energy sources in the past decade or more, they still cost more per energy unit than oil and gas at current market prices. If oil supply continues to increase – even if demand also increases – oil will still remain less expensive than alternatives. Nonetheless, while acknowledging that we will continue to need petroleum-based energy for quite some time, we cannot continue to use these types of sources as we have for so long without significant harm to our environment and, ultimately, to ourselves and our children. Unfortunately, I think far too many people are content to continue living the status quo as long as possible.

I would love to see us have a healthy discussion of these issues as a society, including but not limited to the political realm. What kind of future do we want for ourselves and our world? What price are we willing to pay for our own comfort and convenience now as opposed to the sustainability of our world and our country for future generations? I fear that such a conversation will not take place, at least not openly and publicly, because so many special interests are at play and they are the ones with the wealth and power to control the conversation, be it through the information we receive or through the political discussions in Congress and state legislatures. What role do we as Christians have to play in this? How can we engage in the conversation and bring a theology of creation care into it?

A Legacy of Shame

Recently Danielle at From Two to One wrote a powerful article describing a visit she and her husband made to an old slave fort in the country of Ghana. I won't try to retell her story; you must read it yourself in her own words. Her tale has remained in my mind since I first read it, disturbing my efforts to ignore unpleasant truths. One detail that she shared sticks out particularly: that over the dungeon where the captured Africans were held, abused, tortured and dehumanized until they were sold and shipped away, the white masters of the fort and the territory had their chapel. Danielle writes:

As they [the white masters] sang worship songs to the Almighty God, the captives who had been beaten and raped and tortured shouted for mercy and rescue.

How, I ask myself, could people who call themselves by the name of Jesus Christ engage in such behavior? How could they so casually worship God while under their very feet were hundreds of humans whom they had abused, raped and tortured and whom they were going to sell into lives of slavery to serve the economic interests of other white Europeans?

I asked my wife this question and she gently reminded me that humans have a remarkable ability to justify their behavior, often by dehumanizing others. The white masters didn't feel any sense of guilt because to them the black Africans were not really fellow humans. They were fundamentally inferior, even inhuman. Therefore it was not immoral to treat them as beasts. Worse still, these people who considered themselves Christian in some sense of the word turned to the book of Christians, the Bible, for justification of their actions. This book which speaks of God's love for humanity, which describes the great lengths to which God has gone to restore humanity—all of humanity—to harmony with the divine as it was intended, was read in such a way as to support the dehumanization, abuse and degradation of people created by that same God.

The painful truth is that one can read the Bible in that manner.

In fact the Bible has often been used to justify the mistreatment of various groups of people throughout history. One can cite verses in which slavery appears to be normal and acceptable. One can cite verses in which God commands one group of people to annihilate entire cities and other groups of people. One can cite verses in which a woman who has been raped must marry her rapist. One can cite verses to argue that women are subordinate to men. The list could continue. What troubles me is that I so rarely hear anyone in my circles speak of how they are bothered by these verses or how they are interpreted to justify and support the exclusion or abuse of entire groups of people. In the past year I have found a growing number of voices who do speak openly of this, but I'm still not hearing it from the pulpit, at least not very often.

Instead I continue to hear voices that call for the submission of women as the biblical model. I hear voices that would have us deny equality to women, homosexuals, immigrants and other groups. These voices cite the Bible as their authority, often pointing to specific texts as support. How does one interact with a text that can be so freely used to support the subjugation of other members of God's creation? How is it that the message of redemption, liberation, restoration and renewal are so often drowned by the voices of exclusion and privilege? What am I to do with this book that has been used to condone some of the most inhumane behavior humans have committed?

I'm not sure we really have learned much since the time when the white British and Dutch masters ruled that slave fort in Ghana. Yes, we no longer buy and sell slaves openly as we did then, but we continue to tolerate slavery. We continue to use the Bible to justify our exclusion of women and others from full participation in society. We may not be just like those slave masters, but are we really so different? Am I really so different? How do I in my reading of the Bible and in living out my faith support either explicitly or implicitly the abuse of others? How do I need to think, read and act differently to stop participating in these acts of injustice?

I appreciate the many voices I have found that are speaking up openly and powerfully on these questions. Thank you Danielle, not only for this thought-provoking post but for your consistent advocacy for those who are marginalized, excluded, abused and cast off. If we are not to remain blissfully ignorant or complacent of the evils which our faith has been used to justify, we must learn to see, read and think differently. I would hate for my legacy to be looked at with the same scorn and shame that we now look back at those slave traders.

Equality is a Moral Issue

In our world today God's name and identity are still defaced. They are slandered by poverty, by injustice, by corruption, by disease, and by human exploitation and suffering. And God's name is defiled when his people willingly and apathetically accept the status quo, lacking the vision to lift up God's holiness, goodness and justice in a crumbling world.

                                                     Richard Stearns in The Hole in Our Gospel

I continue to be troubled by statements I heard earlier this year (about which I wrote previously) to the effect that inequality and poverty are simply the reality of our world which we must live with. In fact, the person who made these statements argued that in fact inequality is good, that we wouldn't want to live in a world where everyone is the same. But this confuses equality with being identical. Just because people are equal doesn't mean they are all the same. Equality recognizes and affirms distinctions in people, in their characters and personalities and in their gifts and abilities. But equality denies that those differences should allow one person to have authority or privilege over another simply because of a particular characteristic. For example, why should I have the right to utilize an excessive amount of the world's resources simply because I happen to have been born in the United States? Why should the fact that I happened to be born with an X and a Y chromosome make me acceptable for certain roles, while my wife and other friends who have two X chromosomes are not, by virtue of that fact? Obviously there are real differences between a person who lives in the United States and one who is raised in a poor country in the world, just as there are biological differences between men and women. But these differences do not justify inequality.

The fact that inequality does exist in the world doesn't mean we should be content with it or accept it as an unchangeable condition. We can choose how we will respond to the advantages and benefits given to us by virtue of our background. We can determine that, because we happened to be born in the United States and therefore had access to great opportunities and privileges not currently available ot the larger portion of the world's population, that we therefore have the right to take full advantage of that position, whether we consciously choose to exploit the rest of the world or not. We can say that we have a right to keep all our money and resources and use them for our own benefit (perhaps, if we feel generous, doling out a small portion to the needs of the world's masses). After all, inequality is just a fact of life and while we may feel sorry for the poor of the world, well, in the end that's just the way the world is.

I can choose as a white man that my biological sex and my skin color entitle me to privileged treatment. I can fight vigorously against any attempts to encroach on my power and privilege and complain vociferously whenever any portion of it is taken away from me. I can insist on my right to keep my hard-earned money and use it for the benefit of my children and those who are like me, preserving the privilege that I received for the next generation. I can maintain a wall between men and women that designates certain, limited environments as the acceptable spheres for women to conduct their lives. Sure, I affirm them as equal, as long as they don't try to actually live that out too fully. After all, inequality is just the way the world is.

Or maybe I could recognize that inequality reflects the fallen nature of this world. I could acknowledge that the power, privileges and benefits I have do not come to me so that I can keep them for myself, but so that I can surrender them. I can give away power and privilege. I can affirm the dignity and worth of others. I can invest the resources God has given me (however great or small they may be) so that others might have more opportunities and choices and over time experience greater equality.

I've been reading Richard Stearns' book The Hole in Our Gospel, which is a bit of a biography but even more a call for the church of Christ to embrace God's call to act on behalf of the poor, marginalized and oppressed of this world. In the book Stearns points to Paul's words to the Corinthian church in his second letter as a reminder (among many others in Scripture) that God cares deeply about equality—that in fact equality is “a justice issue or, stated more bluntly, a moral issue in which those of us who have plenty seem willing to allow others to have nothing.” In his letter Paul writes:

“Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there may be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need.”

God calls us to work to eliminate inequality, using any benefit we may have to serve those who are in some manner disadvantaged. Stearns and Paul both address the issue of economic equality, but the issue of equality goes far beyond economic equality. If those of us who have privilege and power cling to it when we could and should be giving it away, we may some day find that the tables have turned on us despite our efforts and our own unwillingness to treat others as equals now will in that day come back to haunt us.

I acknowledge with great sadness that inequality does exist in our world. One would have to be blind not to see this. But I refuse to accept that this is simply the way things are, much less to affirm that somehow inequality is a good thing. Equality is, as Stearns states, a moral issue and as a disciple of Jesus Christ, who affirmed the dignity, worth and equality of all people, I want to work and speak for equality in the name of Christ. To do otherwise would be to deny the very name of the God I claim to serve.

The Role of Government

A lot of people I know are talking these days about the proper role of government, many of them arguing that the US government should not involve itself in caring for the poor and needy and other matters of social justice. Many people I know believe that the smallest government possible is the best one (although ironically they seem willing to allow government to interfere in certain matters that strike me as intensely personal). Today's article by Jim Wallis provides a good alternative perspective on the proper role of government. Rather than commenting more myself, I encourage you to follow the link and read what he has to say.

Is it moral to eat bananas?

I took a break from blogging the last two weeks. The first ten days or so I was entirely disconnected from the on-line world. And it was so great, so refreshing. I need to make a point of doing this regularly – except that my job requires me to be on line, so I guess I'll have to schedule it for vacation periods.

Lately I've been contemplating whether eating bananas is morally tenable. This may sound like a strange question, so allow me to offer an explanation. During my time off line I read Julie Clawson's book Everyday Justice. I discovered Clawson's blog not too long ago and really like her perspective on justice as a central part of the life of faith. In this book she looks at how some of our daily choices have global impact and challenges the reader to consider what steps she or he could take to begin to live a more just life.

I came away from this book both encouraged and challenged. I am encouraged because I see that steps my wife and I have taken recently – as well as some choices we have long practiced – correspond to her suggestions. We've made some healthy steps to living justly. We're seeking to reduce our consumption, purchase more local and healthy foods, live more simply, reduce or eliminate pesticides and chemicals from our daily lives and many other steps. We've actively recycled for years. Not doing so, especially in a city such as ours where we can recycle so many things through the city's curbside recycling program – seems immoral. We are growing in our awareness that the life of faith includes caring for the other members of God's creation as well as for the non-human aspects of creation. Readers of this blog have followed my journey this year as I've grown in this awareness.

But reading Clawson's book reminded me that there's still far more I can do. I appreciate that Clawson doesn't write to lay a guilt-trip on the reader. She encourages each of us to begin making small changes in our lifestyle, recognizing that most of us cannot radically change our entire lives overnight. She also recognizes that there are limits to what each individual or family can and is willing to do. Repeatedly Clawson asks us to consider who pays the true cost for the various products we consume. She didn't leave me feeling guilty, but did give me plenty of ideas to consider for further changes.

Which brings me back to my question: is it moral for me to eat bananas? There are various facets to this question. The first concerns the manner in which bananas are grown. As Clawson examines in her book (though not specifically concerning bananas), I need to consider whether the bananas I consume were grown and sold to me in a way that values the dignity of the growers. Or is that super-low price at the local supermarket reflective of the meager amount that the farmers were paid, while the multinational fruit company made large profits? I must also consider whether in the process of growing the bananas the farmers used toxic pesticides (by compulsion or otherwise) which harmed themselves and their local environment. Who is paying the true cost of those bananas? If in my desire to pay a low price I am forcing the farmers to pay a high one, then eating those bananas could be an immoral act.

There are various ways to avoid passing the cost of my bananas to the growers, but these involve fair-trade and organic farming. We often try to purchase organically-grown bananas at our local store, which is a positive step, one I believe Clawson would affirm. But I'm still left with a nagging doubt, because no matter how much benefit the grower sees for my organically-grown bananas, I live in a place where bananas do not naturally grow. In fact I live a long way from such places. Which means any bananas sold in my local store have traveled a long way to get here. This means that lots of fuel has been used to transport them, contributing to global climate change and environmental degradation. My purchase of fair-trade, organically-grown bananas may be a more ethical choice and bring more benefit to the growers, but it still comes with a price tag that I am not immediately paying. But if I stop purchasing bananas altogether and many others chose to do so as well, we could eliminate the market for such bananas and therefore the source of income for banana growers, leaving them unemployed. What is a banana-eater to do?

I don't have an answer to this question, and Clawson doesn't offer one either. I don't fault her for this, because it reminds us that ethical decisions are multifaceted and rarely have simply solutions. I will try to purchase organically-grown bananas and look for those that have traveled less distance, but I cannot say that I will never purchase regular bananas from the supermarket. I am thinking more about the impact of my purchases though, which I consider to be a healthy first step. Living justly is not a matter of a few simple adjustments. It requires rethinking and reorienting our entire lifestyle, which takes time and deliberate effort. I encourage you to read Clawson's book and consider what steps you can take to begin to live your life more justly.  

Eating to Live

Some people eat to live, others live to eat. I fall into the first category. Although I enjoy eating – far too much so in fact – I don't view it as one of life's great pleasures. I am not a foodie. I'm not a gourmand and I'm not really that creative nor do I joy experimenting with food. I enjoy my food fairly basic and simple. Don't bother trying to sell me on that gourmet fancy burger for an exorbitant price. Just give me something nice, basic and savory at a fair price and I'll be quite happy. 

My view on food causes my wife great distress. She falls into the second category above: one who lives to eat. She would love to have a husband with exotic tastes and not only a willingness but a passion for culinary exploration. Sadly I have greatly disappointed her in this area. And our children are no better than I. Poor lady. She's probably got a gourmet chef inside her just waiting to be unleashed all these years and she's been chained by a husband and family who wouldn't appreciate the chef even if she were set free.


For my wife's sake as well as my own health, I am trying to expand my culinary appreciation, if not my passion for food. I try to receive gratefully and appreciatively the new dishes she prepares, although I know I fall far short of offering her the praise and affirmation that she really craves. It's tough when most often I'd be quite happy with something very simple and non-creative. I am truly a fortunate man that she tolerates me in this area, but how does one create enthusiasm and passion for something that one finds largely a matter of indifference?


As I get older though, I am finding I need to pay more attention not only to what I eat but more importantly how much I eat. I have to discipline myself to not mindlessly graze on snack food while I am working at my computer or doing other things around the home. (Since I work out of our house, the kitchen is essentially always accessible to me – not such a great thing.) When we lived overseas I did not have such an issue with this. My lifestyle was much more active and I had less access to snack foods that I didn't need. But returning to the US has not done well for my waistline.


Ultimately I know that I must take responsibility for my diet and lifestyle habits. However, I must add my voice to those speaking out against the way our society treats food. The issues with fast food are well known and widely discussed. But the fast food restaurants are not the only ones guilty of pushing an unhealthy lifestyle. Most restaurants are guilty of this. Yesterday evening my family and I went to the Texas Roadhouse at the invitation of my parents. They served great food. I have no complaints in terms of quality. But I do have a complaint in terms of quantity – not that it was too little, but that it was too much. We simply didn't need all the food that comes with a standard meal. My wife and I chose to purchase one entree and split it between us, adding an extra side to round out the divided meal. This proved to be a very nice solution, though even at that it was probably more calories than either of us needed. But what would we have done had we been single, or could not come to agreement on a shared entree? (The latter is most often our challenge.) Why do restaurants push such large portion sizes? Couldn't they offer smaller portions for a smaller price?

We are blessed in this country with an overabundance of food – and it's killing us. I bemoan the rising food prices as much as the next person, but maybe they are a hidden blessing. If we cannot afford as much maybe we won't eat as much, although so far it doesn't appear to really be slowing us down. I don't think that being responsible in eating requires that a person become vegetarian or vegan, although I can respect those choices. It does require that we eat in greater moderation. I know there are a lot of good books and blogs on this topic, with better insights and reflections than I have to offer. As for myself, I am going to strive to eat smaller portions and to expand my culinary appreciation so that I can enjoy more of what's good for my body. I probably won't ever become the foodie my wife would like me to be, but I hope we can find a healthy balance together.

Small Steps to a Healthier World

Over the past two days I've shared about my growing understanding of the impact our lifestyle choices make upon our environment and our own health and raised questions about the response (or lack thereof) on the part of a significant portion of the Christian community. Today I want to tell about some of the steps my family and I have taken in response to what we are learning.


Before I do that, I want to state clearly that I do not intend our responses to be prescriptive for others. Each family and individual lives in a unique set of circumstances and what is a reasonable and wise step for one person may not be possible or reasonable for another. I do encourage each person to consider what changes she or he may make that would change the negative impact of our lifestyles on ourselves and our planets. No single one of us can change everything, but each of us can take concrete steps that together can have a significant influence.


After reading about the damage chemicals do to our environment and our bodies, we decided to look for alternatives to using toxic chemicals around our home. We do this in order to have a positive impact on the larger environment, but even more so because we don't want our home to be a place that poisons us. My son and I both suffer fairly strongly from sinus allergies. If we can change things in our home to reduce those effects, that alone would make it worthwhile.


This past month we started replacing our household cleaning products with products from a company I am very excited about: Seventh Generation. (www.seventhgeneration.com) At the moment I am very enamored with this company. I love that they strive to make products that are naturally-derived and which reduce or eliminate the toxic impact on the environment. I like that their products allow me to not worry about touching any residue left behind after cleaning. I also like that they are seeking to develop sustainability throughout their supply chain. They aren't perfect yet, by their own admission, but they are starting with the right goal in mind. We currently use their bathroom cleaning supplies, their dish detergent (both for hand-washing and dishwasher) and their laundry soap. Given our son's negative reaction to many ingredients in most laundry detergents, we are very hopeful and optimistic that Seventh Generation's “Free and Clear” line of products, free of all dyes, perfumes and masking agents, will work well for us. In addition to ordering on-line through the company's website or through Soap.com, I've found their products at our local Target, a local whole-foods grocery store and I've even heard that some of their products are available at Wal-mart! We are also using their recycled paper products for our bathroom and cleaning.


Before sharing the next step, I must confess that I have Prius envy. More accurately I should say I had Prius envy. I really wanted to buy a Prius so that I could have a more environmentally-friendly car. This desire arose not only from a concern about greenhouse gases, but even more from a simple economic reason—with the price of gas climbing steadily, I want a car that's going to get good mileage. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, even a used-Prius was beyond our price range, so we settled for the most fuel-efficient vehicle we could reasonably afford—a Ford Focus. I look forward to the day when I can improve on its fuel efficiency, but I'm grateful for what it has. In the meantime, after some discussion with my brother, who is a resource economist, and with others, I've lost my shine on the Prius and other electric vehicles. I love the idea of getting away from petroleum-based internal combustion engines, but when I looked at the Prius and other such vehicles in terms of their life-cycle impact on the environment, I realized that they are not nearly the environmental champions they are marketed to be. The production and disposal of their batteries raises significant environmental concerns, concerns that the companies do not yet seem to be addressing. So the current electric car model does not strike me as being a sustainable, long-term option, although it may be a step in the right direction.


One of the biggest challenges is responding to the flood of plastics in our world. I would, in my idealistic perspective, like to rid my life of all plastics. But this is not really feasible. Even the director of the film I referenced doesn't claim that it is. So I must ask myself how and where I can eliminate plastics from my life. One small step I took was to stop buying beverages in disposable plastic containers. (Though even this is not a hard-and-fast rule. If I have no other viable option in a particular situation I will drink from such a container. But I will do all I can to put it in the recycling stream afterwards.) Each member of our family now has a stainless steel water bottle for taking drinking water with them. These bottles should last far longer than plastic, are safer for our health and can be more easily recycled at the end of their lifespan. It's not a world-changer, but it's a small step in the right direction.


I don't really think of myself as an environmentalist. I don't live off the fruit of the land. I don't even grow my own garden. I'm not terribly inclined in that direction anyway and living in southern Arizona gardening is a particularly tough challenge. I enjoy a good can of cola/pop/soda (pick your regional variant) and yes, I do even eat at McDonald's or other fast food places sometimes. I will continue to look at ways I can live with a smaller, healthier impact on my environment, but as I said at the outset, we cannot change everything.


How about you? What steps have you taken or could you take to reduce your impact on the environment and create a healthier world for yourself and others?

What's Our Responsibility?

Yesterday I raised the question:


What if the way we live is killing us and destroying the future of our planet?


I asked this question of myself in light of watching the film Plastic Planet and reading the book Silent Spring. These two media items address two specific areas of how our lifestyle and behaviour affects our environment and ultimately ourselves. I know that there are many more perspectives from which my question could be addressed. The whole issue of climate change comes to mind. Quite some time ago I shared some thoughts on that specific topic after watching the film An Inconvenient Truth. I wrote:


"Some argue that God has given us dominion over creation and interpret this to mean that we can do whatever we want with it. I don’t think that is sound biblical theology. God has given us responsibility to be good stewards of creation. Precisely because we are made uniquely in God’s image we bear the burden of making wise and responsible decisions about how we will live, especially as it impacts other humans and the rest of the natural world. The inconvenient and uncomfortable truth is that we, particularly as Americans, have chosen a lifestyle that is making the continuation of life increasingly difficult and which deprives a large portion of the inhabitants of this planet of the opportunity to meet even the basic needs of life. Why are we as believers so resistant to altering our lifestyle in order to be both better stewards of God’s creation and to be better servants towards those in the world whose situation is far worse than our own?"


When I listen to the conversations going on around me at my church, on Facebook and in other venues, I hear two basic responses. The first is apathy and ignorance. People don't know about the impact of their lifestyles and do not want to know. I can understand this because it takes time and effort to become an informed consumer and, worse still, it takes a willingness to make changes based on what one learns. 


I am troubled still more by the other basic response, the one that denies that our lifestyle has such a negative impact and that I am responsible to change my behavior to mitigate that impact. As I mentioned in that earlier post, I think this response comes from a faulty or inadequate theology, one that equates dominion with the right to exploit and destroy the earth in pursuit of our own perceived well-being. The theology behind this views this earth as a temporary place, a way-station on the way to heaven. Our goal is not to shepherd this earth with a view toward the future, but to make use of it to sustain us until we can get out of here and move on to heaven. I used to have a similar view, but as I shared in Monday's post, I'm beginning to see things from a different perspective, one that desires and works for the fulfillment of God's Kingdom on this earth, working toward the time when earth and heaven shall be one and the created order shall be restored and redeemed to the full beauty that God intended it to have. When we take this perspective, then we become not users and dominators of the earth, but care-takers and shepherds.


Kathy Escobar's post, which I commented on in my Tuesday post, points out another flaw with treating our environment as disposable. When we act this way, we do so because we want to keep what we have. We want to protect our power and privilege, regardless of the impact it may have on others on our planet, either in the present or the future. When I dump chemicals on my lawn so it can be beautiful I'm doing it for my present, temporary pleasure. When I choose to buy disposable products because they are cheaper or more convenient to me, I am thinking of myself and my convenience. I'm not taking into account the impact my actions will have on my own self down the road, or on my children, or their children, or on the people across the globe who are also impacted by my decisions.


What if we began to think about our lifestyle from a different perspective; from a perspective that doesn't look primarily at the short-term cost-benefit to myself, but at the long-term impact on not only myself but on others? Would that fit better with a Jesus-centered life?


Tomorrow I will share a few changes I along with my family have made to live differently in light of what we're learning.

Debt Ceilings and Living Responsibly

The political storm surrounding the debt ceiling has given much food for thought concerning responsible living. Both parties accuse the other of irresponsible spending and have demonstrated little willingness to compromise. Republicans blame the Democrats and the Democrats blame the Republicans. No one seems to accept that both parties are responsible for the mess we're in, that the overspending that has brought us to this point has been going on for years. Of course to admit that would be to admit that we have built our entire lifestyle around consumption. We have established a mindset that we deserve it all and we deserve it now, regardless of whether we need it or can truly afford it. If government has grown used to spending more than it earns, ultimately it has done so because we the people have asked more and more of it while wanting to give it less and less of our money. It seems that what most people want is a solution that will allow them to continue living this lifestyle without pain or sacrifice. From what I hear people say around me and on TV, from what I see reported in the news, people are wondering how long it will take to get through this time of difficulty so that we can get back to living the “good life” again.

What if living the good life is precisely what has brought us to this brink of collapse? What if we all accepted that we don't have to have it all and we certainly don't have to have it all now? A friend of mine posted a link on Facebook to an article in an Australian newspaper. This article pointed out that we do not hear the word austerity used in any discussion of how to bring the country out of this difficult time. We're not willing to live responsibly, if responsible living means giving up all those nice extras that we believe we deserve.

I do not want to see our country go into default on its debt. That would not be responsible. But I wonder whether, if it does, the ensuing collapse might in the long run be good for us and for the world. Would it force us to live more simply? It would certainly be painful and the effects would be far-reaching. But even as I fear the possible consequences, I can see how they might produce a beneficial result in the long run. (I am not advocating for default nor do I intend to indicate support for either political party's preferred solution here.)

As I reestablish myself and my family in this country after a period of living overseas, I am trying to determine what it means for us to live responsibly. What things do we truly need and what things would simply be nice to have, should we be in a position to acquire them? How can we live such that we free up as much of our resources as possible to share with those in other parts of the world who live in much more difficult circumstances? I don't have definite answers to these questions, but I have written three principles to help guide me in my decisions: 1) Strive to live with less, 2) Strive to give more to others and 3) Strive for a healthy, sustainable lifestyle (environmentally, financially, emotionally, spiritually, etc.) These principles don't define every choice in every situation, but they give me a framework to help me as I make decisions.

I'd like to think that the current political impasse will result in fundamental changes to our consumer culture. But realistically I doubt they will. However the issue is resolved, I fear that we will simply continue to try to maintain an unsustainable lifestyle until we really do reach a point of collapse. Maybe this will not be the case, but personally I want to try and live responsibly so that other people, both the poor of the world now and those who will come after me, might be able to live balanced lives as well. If a little austerity on my part can help that happen, then it will be well-invested.

Two Roads Diverged in the Middle of the Wood

This summer my family and I returned to the US from our work overseas for a couple months of rest and refreshment. At least that was how we envisioned it when we came back. The past two years have been very successful in terms of our work with minority language groups. However, that progress has cost us greatly as a family. We have struggled to meet the needs of our children as they move into their teenage years. We do not advocate building family life around the goal of making our children happy, but at the same time we do need to be aware of their needs and not sacrifice them on some false altar of ministry.

During our time in Arizona over the past month it became increasingly clear that we needed to make a radical change in order to keep our family healthy. We thought we had another year to work out the next step, but certain needs have pushed that time frame into the immediate present. Because of this we decided that we should relocate to the US for the next few years while our children complete high school. During that time my wife and I will continue our work with minority language groups, but will do so remotely. This will present a number of challenges, but will allow us to provide our children with the support they need during these important years. Living among the people groups also had challenges and the price was paid most heavily by the children. Now we will focus more on them while moving the work ahead on a slower path.

I wrestled a lot with this decision, because we have invested heavily over the past few years to establish our work. At first I felt that the only choice we had was to sacrifice our family by remaining in location and continuing to work as we had been, or to sacrifice the work by leaving the location and focusing on our family. Neither was a desirable option to me. I spoke at length with my pastor about this and he, without pushing me to any decision, challenged me to open my hand and not cling to what I felt was God's plan for me. He told me to let go and let God direct me/us in the next step. I had been paralyzed by fear, fear of the unknown and fear that our needs would not be adequately met if we made any major change. I also feared the impact on my identity. Who would I be if I were not doing the work I enjoy?

Faced with certain realities in our lives at present, the decision became quite apparent and in some sense made itself. But I still had to choose to accept it. I am still working through the impact of this on me personally, on us as a family and on our work and I hope to share some of this journey with my readers in the weeks and month ahead. Some voices argue that we should sacrifice all for the sake of the Good News, including our very family. They point to the lives of great men and women of God in the past who left family behind while pursuing their "ministry" and they hold such people up as models for us to emulate. But I question whether this is truly the "godly" choice. God is teaching me these days that if I listen to him, he can open up new paths that I might not have considered if I clung to my "ministry" at all costs. And in this new path he can continue to teach me and work through me while at the same time caring for the needs of my family. It does require sacrifice and the sacrifice is painful. But it brings blessing, at least I believe it will and have been affirmed in this choice by people I greatly respect and admire.

In the first days of working through this decision I felt great anguish over what it would cost me and the things I would have to leave behind. My focus was on the loss. But after some time God began to turn my focus toward the possibilities and opportunities that lie ahead. It doesn't mean that I won't have to give anything up or make any sacrifices. It doesn't make those sacrifices less painful or easier. But it does help me look ahead with hope and anticipation, rather than remaining stuck in the past or present in grief and sorrow. I wish sometimes that the journey of faith was a nice walk along a manicured path. It's not, because faith requires me to step into the unknown and put complete trust in a God whose ways I do not fully understand--far from it. Growing in faith is painful and exhausting. But it is also joyful and filled with hope. I invite you to continue walking on this journey with me.

Being Wealthy

I have never really considered myself to be wealthy. By American standards, I'm not particularly so. I admit that I'm also not truly poor. I have food on my table consistently and can replace my old clothes with new ones as needed. But I also don't have ability or the means to spend money freely on unnecessary things. I don't remodel my home because I'm tired of the old style and I don't have to have the latest techno gadget. Nor could I afford it even if I wanted it.

On Sunday our home group was discussing 1 Timothy 6:6-11 and 17-19. Someone commented that most of us tend to read these verses and think of others whom we know, people whom we considered to be really wealthy. These verses are directed at those people, not at us. Most of us, at least Americans, don't really think of ourselves as wealthy. We're just average people, just getting by, right? I would include myself in that category. As I said, I don't consider myself wealthy.

But the truth is that we need to read these verses with ourselves in mind, for we are the wealthy of the earth. If you are reading this blog, it means you have access to the internet, which already puts you among the elite of the globe. (Yes, I realize that internet access is rapidly expanding, but it still remains a luxury of those who have some measure of wealth in order to afford that access.) We Americans, along with all other Western and economically-advanced nations, are wealthy, even those of us who don't think we are. So when we read a verse that says "Teach those who are rich in this world not to be proud..." we need to think first and foremost of ourselves.

"But," you may protest, "I'm really not that wealthy." Compared to the majority of the world's people you are. I have friends around the world who struggle to get by on $200-300 a month and consider themselves fortunate if they can make that much. For the math challenged, that comes to $2400-3600 ANNUALLY. Most Americans make more than that in a month. Admittedly the cost of living differs from one place to another, but I can assure you that it is tough to live on $200 a month anywhere. And there are certainly people making much less than that--a lot of them. (For lots of details on this, check out this website.)

So stop and think about what Paul writes to Timothy and then think about your own use of the wealth God has given you. Ultimately we are accountable to him for the wealth he has given us. I for one want to strive increasingly to live according to Paul's admonition in verse 18, that I would use my money to do good, to be generous to those in need and to readily share with others. I want to stop trying to excuse myself on the basis that "I'm not wealthy" because, in fact, I really am.

Reflections on Philippians 2:4

I've been reading through Philippians the last couple months, taking it slowly so that I can reflect on each section. The past week I've been meditating on the first few verses of chapter two. I came to verse four, which in the NLT reads: "Don't think only about your own affairs, but be interested in others, too, and what they are doing." This verse prompted a lot of thinking.

First of all it challenged me to examine my own behavior. Do I think about the needs of those around me? Do I consider what is happening in their lives and how I might show the love of God through some act of service or a well-spoken word? Although I see progress in this area, I have to admit that I still have a long way to go in this area. I all-too-easily focus on my own affairs and get caught up in my own agenda. In doing so I miss opportunities to serve those around me. I miss hearing God's voice directing me to pay attention to the needs of others. So for me the challenge is to learn to actively look at the lives of those around me and to take concern for their needs and affairs, as this verse exhorts us.

Reflecting further though, I began to wonder whether there are any limits on this exhortation. Should we be interested in the affairs of everyone around us? Do we need to be responding to every need that presents itself or that we are aware of? This seems to me to be an unrealistic expectation. I know of people who say yes to nearly every request made of them, for various reasons. These people, while well-intentioned, often end up being overwhelmed, frazzled and eventually burned out. That doesn't strike me as a healthy lifestyle either and while it may seem spiritually commendable, it isn't sustainable.

So what does God ask of us? He obviously wants us to think of the needs of others as well as our own needs. He wants us to respond in love to the needs of those around us. My present understanding of this recognizes that we must use spiritual wisdom to know where the boundaries are. While being aware of and concerned for the needs of others, it may not always be that I am the one God would have meet those needs. Just because something is a good thing to do doesn't mean that I'm the one that should do it. On the other hand I obviously cannot and should not be self-absorbed, spending all my time, energy and other resources only on myself. To discern how God wants me to respond to a given situation, I need to be in communication with him. I also need to be aware of what is happening in the lives of those around me. If I am not paying attention, I may miss an opportunity where God wants to use me. If I am not walking closely with God, I will not hear his voice directing me. Both elements are necessary. If both are in place, then I can live consistently with God's desire that I look out both for my own needs and those of others.

Dishes and God's Grace

Our children share the responsibility of washing the dishes in our house. They alternate days, because they found it too difficult to work together. They don’t like this chore and complain about it regularly. Yesterday was Teresa’s day and after much footdragging she finally went to the kitchen and did them just before Sharilyn began preparing dinner. As she worked on dinner, she needed several items that Teresa had just washed. But when she pulled them from the drying rack, she found that they were not really clean. We discussed how to deal with this. At times we have made the children rewash individual items that they didn’t wash properly. This time we decided that she should have a second day of washing dishes to help her recognize the importance of doing the job well. This morning when I put away the rest of the dishes though, I didn’t find any other poorly-washed specimens, so it seems that her failure was limited to a few specific items that are harder to wash.

This afternoon while enjoying a cup of tea in the gentle afternoon sunshine that streamed into our kitchen, I began to consider washing up some of the dishes myself. Normally washing dishes is not my job, but occasionally I will do it voluntarily as an act of kindness and to demonstrate servanthood to my children. They have a difficult time with the thought of doing any unpleasant task they are not obligated to do. So I hope by occasionally stepping in and relieving one of them of a required task, they will see an example and choose to emulate it. So far this hasn’t been highly successful.

As I contemplated whether to wash dishes for my daughter, I began to wonder whether I would be sending the right message today. After all, she was supposed to do them to help her learn to do a job correctly. Would my doing them show her gracious servanthood, or would it show her only that she could get away with being unthorough? I thought about the fact that she probably wouldn’t even receive my labor with thankfulness, because she rarely says thanks for any favor we do for her. Because of this I started to lean against doing anything for her. But then God interrupted my thoughts. He asked me to think about this in light of his love and grace. Does he stop showing grace to us simply because we fail to thank him for it? Does he stop loving us because we don’t respond the way we ought? Thankfully he doesn’t!

Considering this question further I realized that one of the main reasons we fail to receive grace as grace, be it from God or from others, is that we believe in our hearts that we deserve it. I operate as if I believe God must treat me with love and kindness, so when he doesn’t I’m put out and when he does I take it for granted. I see the same thing in my daughter. She doesn’t respond with thanksgiving to my acts of kindness toward her because she feels she deserves them anyway. She may not express appreciation for me washing the dishes in her place because she feels it was unfair for her to have to do them in the first place. Once again I see my relationship with God reflected in my relationship with my children.

I understood that my decision to wash or not wash should not be dependent on the likely response of my daughter. But I still didn’t have an answer to my original question concerning the balance between showing servanthood and teaching responsibility. I don’t know that one can make a hard and fast rule about this. I think it must depend on how the Spirit leads in each situation. Some parenting methods overemphasize discipline to the detriment of demonstrating loving service, while other methods overemphasize grace to the point of encouraging irresponsibility. I want to find a balance that displays both in healthy, proper measure. In the end I decided to wash part of the pile of waiting dishes. Our drying rack cannot hold that many dishes anyway, so to attempt to do them all would have meant stacking them in unwieldy towers on the drying rack. I left the items that Sharilyn had found unacceptable yesterday, so Teresa will still need to follow through on her responsibility to do those well. But maybe she will also see an example of undeserved kindness that will enter her mind and heart and eventually bear fruit. She hasn’t discovered my work yet, so her response remains to be seen.

Responding to Poverty

Many years ago, when I was still in high school, I had the opportunity to travel to Haiti with a group from my church. It was my first encounter with extreme poverty and it profoundly impacted the course of my life. In my present line of work I often encounter poor people as well. On a recent trip we passed through many remote villages where people live much as their ancestors probably lived 100 years ago or more. Driving through one such village I saw two young girls squatting by the side of the road. Their clothes and faces were dirty and my heart was moved with compassion for them. I try to imagine what it must be like for them. Do they have any hope for the future? Do they have any hope for eternity? How I would love to take them under my wing and offer them a better life.


At moments like these I return to one of the issues I have wrestled with throughout my life. What can one person do in the face of such conditions? What can I do? I cannot lift everyone in this country out of poverty. I cannot even deliver the fundamental message of hope to all of them. At times the immensity of the need overwhelms me and I am tempted to throw up my hands in despair.


Even if I had the resources, would it be truly beneficial for me to just give to everyone I see who is in need? Or by doing so am I perpetuating their poverty and instilling an attitude of dependency? In talking with a good friend about this recently, she mentioned a woman she knows who, despite being a believer, has developed this type of attitude. She expects that others will give her whatever she lacks and regularly makes requests for things. Surely this is not a healthy situation. At the same time I don't think we can just turn our backs. Scripture makes it quite clear that merely offering words of comfort counts for nothing. As James wrote:


"Suppose you see a brother or sister who needs food or clothing, and you say, 'Well, good-bye and God bless you; stay warm and eat well'--but then you don't give that person any food or clothing. What good does that do?"


And through the prophet Isaiah God said:

"Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break every yoke?
Is it not to share your food with the hungry
and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter--
when you see the naked, to clothe him,
and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?"

I want to take these words seriously, but I am overwhelmed by the immensity of the task. I could give away everything I have and still not begin to reduce the need around me. So what does God ask of me? I am learning to seek his voice every time a situation for giving presents itself. I am trying to walk in the Spirit, seeking to give freely as he leads but not feeling like I must meet every need around me. But I do want to learn to give more and more freely, not trying to determine from my own perspective whether the recipient is "worthy" or not, but simply to listen to the direction of the Spirit. Even after all these years I feel I still have so much to learn in this area. I don't think there is a simple answer or a convenient set of guidelines that one can refer to. But maybe this is part of what I am supposed to gain in the process--to learn to walk step by step with God and let him direct my actions.

Little Trials

The rest of my family is currently sick. Teresa came down with it first about a week ago. Then Dietrich and Sharilyn picked it up and they've both been down for several days now as well. That leaves me as the lone healthy person to tend to their needs. I'm not a good nurse. My wife will affirm that. God is working in me, helping me to be more compassionate, patient and kind. In fact I've been meditating lately on Col. 3:12-15. But none of that seems to matter when my family gets sick. I have to work to be thoughtful, patient and caring and easily become irritated and annoyed because their illness is an imposition on my time and energy. This time I'm particularly concerned about falling ill myself since I must leave for a nearly 2-week business trip next week. I don't want to travel while sick, so I'm doing everything I can to avoid catching this, short of leaving them all here to fend for themselves while I go stay at my parents. I mentioned that the other day and my wife didn't find it very funny. Hmmm.

Being a man (or woman) of God often isn't very glamorous. It's a matter of living in Christ amidst the daily demands of life, like taking care of sick family, shopping for groceries, or going to work. It’s easy to be a man of God when everything is going great. But it’s when things aren’t ideal that he is able to form us into his image.

Climate Change--An Inconvenient Truth

I wrote a few days ago about the initiative called Earth Hour. At that time I mentioned that I might write more about my take on global climate change. This is an important issue, one that I think conservatives, particularly conservative believers, too quickly dismiss and disparage. I think this is because many of those who promote the issue of climate change tie it into a lot of peripheral issues that deny basic Scriptural teachings, like the uniqueness of humans in the created order. But I don't think we should throw out the baby with the bathwater. While disagreeing with many (most?) of the peripheral issues that get associated with it, I agree with the basic premise that global climate change is a significant concern that demands our attention.


I recently watched Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth. While the overall message of the film was not new or enlightening, much of the data he presents was certainly challenging and eye-opening. I didn’t appreciate the parts of the film that seemed to be more about Al Gore than the issue of climate change, but that doesn’t mean that I should ignore the facts and the call to action that the film presents. I am aware that many people are skeptical about the idea of climate change and tend to mock those who call attention to it. There is a mindset that rejects the whole worldview of the environmental movement and therefore is unwilling to consider any argument it presents. 


Some argue that God has given us dominion over creation and interpret this to mean that we can do whatever we want with it. I don’t think that is sound biblical theology. God has given us responsibility to be good stewards of creation. Precisely because we are made uniquely in God’s image we bear the burden of making wise and responsible decisions about how we will live, especially as it impacts other humans and the rest of the natural world. The inconvenient and uncomfortable truth is that we, particularly as Americans, have chosen a lifestyle that is making the continuation of life increasingly difficult and which deprives a large portion of the inhabitants of this planet of the opportunity to meet even the basic needs of life. Why are we as believers so resistant to altering our lifestyle in order to be both better stewards of God’s creation and to be better servants towards those in the world whose situation is far worse than our own?


The thing that swayed me most about the film were the various facts he presents. I call them facts because they are backed up with verifiable data. The one in particular that comes to mind is the graph he shows of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. I have heard arguments that this level regularly fluctuates, rising and falling over the years. The film doesn't dispute that. In fact it demonstrates it with the data. What it also shows with the data though is that both the peak and lowest levels are growing steadily higher and that the current trend is pushing the levels to never-before-experienced heights. So while the data in any given year or situation may seem to contradict the trend toward global climate change, the overall data are steady. This was pretty convincing evidence.

At one point in the movie Gore makes reference to the glaciers and snowpack of the Himalayas, commenting that something like 40% of humanity draws its freshwater from the rivers that begin in those mountains. He calls our attention to the potential impact on that significant portion of human population should the climatic conditions change. This caught my attention because the countries in that region depend exclusively on the runoff from those mountains for water, electricity (through hydropower) and food (using water for irrigation.) If those rivers should fail to flow or even be significantly reduced, it will have a significant impact on the people of the region. Furthermore, these are poor countries. Many do not have the technology and the financial resources to avert, mitigate or compensate for a radical change in the environment. Wealthy countries like the US or the European nations would be better equipped to deal with changes resulting from climate change, but the poor countries of the earth will be in a bad situation. 


As Americans this may not overly concern us (though I believe it should.) As believers in a compassionate, merciful and loving God I certainly think it should. We may not be able to do anything to change the immediate conditions in the poor countries, but by changing our lifestyle here in America we can help to mitigate or even avert potentially disastrous climactic changes.

Some may say, “God is sovereign. These things are in his hands and the earth is going to pass away anyway.” Agreed. But God has also given us responsibility to care for the earth and particularly for its people until the day when he chooses to bring history to an end. I don’t think he asks us to live irresponsibly and selfishly in order to hasten that day. I for one will continue to look for ways to live such that my lifestyle does not negatively impact the poor of the earth. It’s the least I can do.

No Free Money

I have joked occasionally over the last several weeks about applying for bankruptcy so that I can claim my share of government bailout money. After all, I figure I can’t mismanage it anymore than these companies that are getting billions of dollars. But realistically, I find this whole bailout thing quite discouraging, even depressing. Daily I get little advertisements in Facebook inviting me to claim my share of government bailout money. It’s as easy as clicking on their website. From what these ads claim, I could have several thousand dollars in no time and with no effort.

Beside the fact that I think these websites are making fraudulent claims, I am appalled by the mentality creeping through American society that believes that people are entitled to something for nothing. I don’t believe I have a right nor a need to “free” money from the government. Where exactly do people think this money is coming from anyway? It’s not like the government just has pots of money ready to hand out to any and everyone. Maybe we need to all take a basic lesson in civics combined with a lesson in basic economics. Governments cannot create money. When they do just create money, you get inflation. They get money from taxes, which means from you, me, businesses and others. When the government spends more than that money, it is basically borrowing it from someone and will have to repay it at some point. That means that this trillion dollars the government is going to “pump” into the economy is really borrowed at the expense of ourselves and our children and possibly their children as well. So if I were to receive a bailout from the government it would really be at my own expense, or worse still at the expense of my children. Or it would be borrowed from someone else, which isn’t really any better since I would not be responsible for repaying him or her. There’s no sense of taking responsibility for oneself. Instead it seems a lot of people have the idea that they are entitled to this “free” money. Get real. There’s an old saying that “There is no such thing as a free lunch.” Apparently we believe there really is.

It seems to me that American society is exhibiting more and more the basic sin of greed and self-interest. We don’t care what impact it has on others now or in the future, as long as we can get as much as possible for ourselves now. I realize that there are still many Americans who believe in the value of hard-work, taking responsibility and making the best of what one has. But that portion of the population seems to be shrinking. Maybe I’m wrong. I certainly hope I am. But that’s not the impression I’m getting from the news and ads around me.

Earth Hour

Did you miss the latest environmental initiative--Earth Hour? If you have no idea what it is, check out this story on the BBC. According to the article, the aim of this event is to "create a huge wave of public pressure" to bring about a new climate treaty at a meeting in Copenhagen later this year.

I generally consider myself relatively friendly to green movements and try to keep an open mind on the whole question of global climate change. (Perhaps I'll write more about that another day.) But I have to agree with the critics on this one. Earth Hour strikes me as a meaningless gesture. Its effectiveness seems to me similar to that of those efforts, circulated routinely by email, to get people to not purchase gas on a specific day, so that we can "really show" the oil companies that we're serious about high gas prices. Gee, do you think they really feel the pain, when they know that we'll just have to refill our tanks the next day? Similarly, are we really making a powerful impact by turning off lights for one hour? Sure it saves some electricity, but does it really make a difference in the way we live? We're still going to use electricity. Modern society is utterly dependent on it. I know of situations where people live for months without electricity. I don't imagine that most of us in the modern world are eager to return to those conditions, because they are difficult and unpleasant. Progress is not turning off our lights. It is using them in a conscientious and economical manner.

Far more effective would be an initiative to get people to reduce energy usage on a regular basis through exchanging incandescent for flourescent light bulbs, or by implementing other energy-saving features. In fact there are movements promoting precisely such actions. But they aren't as high profile and headline-grabbing as "Earth Hour." How exactly is Earth Hour going to create a huge wave of public pressure anyway? Will politicians or energy company executives really be swayed by people turning off their lights for an hour once a year? I hardly think so. Maybe they are right, though, because modern political leaders seem to be far more easily influenced by large public displays, meaningless though they may be, than by the small but significant actions that don't garner headlines and public attention. I found it interesting that the BBC's story invites people to blog about their experience. Wait a second--doesn't blogging require computers and internet connections, all of which require electricity? Ironic, isn't it?

So last night at 8:30 my lights were on. Not all of them--just those in the rooms being used, with most of the bulbs being low-wattage flourescents. My statement won't be noticed by anyone. But it will, in a small, low-profile manner, contribute a bit to reducing energy consumption. And I can be at peace with that.

Global Food Crisis Day

One of my favorite descriptions of God found in the Scriptures is the phrase: "The Lord is gracious and compassionate." (Psalm 145:8, among numerous references.) I love that word "compassion." It's a great word. It derives from two Latin roots meaning "to suffer together." How cool is it that we have a God who is not distant and uncaring, but who suffers with us, who feels our pain and cares about our sufferings.

One of my favorite organizations chose this word for it's name: Compassion International. Compassion is dedicated to one thing, releasing children from poverty. That's a cause I can support with all my heart. Today Compassion promoted "Global Food Crisis Day," a day to call attention to the millions and millions of people around the world who cannot afford even a most basic food supply. We think times are tough in the US right now. In some ways they are. But our tough times would seem like paradise to so many people in the world. Food prices have been rising sharply around the world, which affects all of us. But it affects you far more if you only have $1 a day or less to live on and the price of flour, bread or rice just doubled. That's what happened in the last year we were living overseas and we saw the impact it had on families. Most of us as Americans can economize and still get plenty to eat. Not so for many in the world. They have no room to economize, so they do without.

God calls us to have compassion, just as he is compassionate. How can we show compassion to those who are less fortunate than us, especially when they live in far-away countries? One way is to sponsor a child through Compassion. By giving a mere $36 a month you can provide a child with food, an education and a chance for a better future. Or you can give what you are able to help provide food to the hungry. Visit Compassion's website at www.compassion.com to find out more. There are other good organizations doing similar work, but I can vouch for Compassion's integrity because I've supported them for more than 20 years.

Check out this blog (there are several posts following this one) for a first-hand account of some sponsors visiting their Compassion children in the Dominican Republic. Their stories are powerful and moving.