Buy or Rent…and What It Means for the Kingdom
Featured, Meditations — By Richard Dahlstrom on October 4, 2009 at 12:00 am
Susan K. Dailey's "Long's Peak"
A few years ago I spend some time in Colorado with my son, trying to climb Long’s Peak (and throwing up instead), and then climbing other, lesser peaks, and doing a little rock climbing. It was intended to be a sort of “vision quest” thing, a time of bonding between father and son and, while some good things happened along those lines, one of the more memorable elements of the trip was our relationship with our rental car.
We’d rented a Subaru because, after all, this was Colorado. I anticipated needing four wheel drive because the point of any sort of vision quest-type trip with a son is to conquer stuff (in our case, rock). Most rock worth conquering isn’t found in close proximity to paved roads.
Sure enough, after getting kicked with altitude sickness on Long’s Peak, we headed to the west side of the Continental Divide, and from there to the back roads in search of trailheads for peaks that held the promise of being spectacular, but in a 12,000′ sort of way.
As for the drive in, I’ll say it this way; getting there was half the fun. ”Road” was a stretch of definition as we pushed deeper and deeper into the mountains. At one point, I was certain I was driving up a dried up creek bed and must have missed a turn somewhere. The boulders we were driving over were so big we felt, at times, we were riding a bucking horse, and when the car came back to earth, we’d hear a big thud, as stone met underbelly of Subaru. ”No problem” I said to my son, smiling, “it’s a rental”.
And there you have it. ”It’s a rental” means, since it’s not ours, the problems that come to the car through abuse aren’t ours either. It’s “ours for now” to do with as we please, but of course, it’s only temporary. Our real car is back in Seattle, it’s underbelly safe from abuse because at this moment, “the rental” is our reality.
This is Eschatology 101, because eschatology is nothing more than a fancy word to describe what a person believes about the end of time, and though there are many nuances, when you boil them down, the fundamental question is this: ”Do you own or rent?”
If you rent, it means your relationship with this earth is temporary. God has given us this earth the same way the Hertz people gave me a Subaru: ”drive it hard because it’s not yours to keep anyway.” This is, at its worst, the theology of those who believe the earth is just some sort of staging ground for the grander reality of heaven, which comes later. Here’s a quote that pretty much encapsulates this view.
On the one hand, I can hardly blame the guy for believing it’s all going to burn. After all, his church is in the center of the San Fernando Valley, and if the earth is destined for destruction, humanity’s done a great job helping God towards that end in the Valley. Once a paradise of agricultural diversity, it’s now an environmental disaster, testimony to our addiction to materialism and fossil fuels, two consumptions all of us in the West are guilty to varying degrees. But MacArthur’s views are rooted, not in the tragedies of his valley, but in a misrepresentation of the Scripture.
Yes, Peter says it will all be burned with fire, but so will my house, and my car, both of which I own. The fact they’re subject to decay doesn’t negate my call to stewardship. Can you imagine not cleaning your toilet ever, and telling your guests the reason you’ve chosen this path of neglect is because “it’s all going to burn anyway”?
Instead, maybe we should recognize a couple of things:
1. How it’s going to burn, and how much of it is going to burn, is hardly the point, because the promise of the Bible is that “a new heaven and new earth” are in store for us and one gets the feeling these newbies will need to be stewarded just like the present one. So let’s drop the “it’s all going to burn” paradigm that makes us act like Subaru renters, and become owners instead, “joint heirs” who will “inherit the earth,” as Jesus said.
2. We’re called to represent now, in little ways, the future which is yet to come. As such, we’d do well to care for all living things, and for the earth itself, which is presently moaning, not because it’s going to burn up, but because we’re behaving like Orcs.
Let’s look at our eschatology this way: forget whether it’s burning today, tomorrow, or never. The truth of the matter is this: as heirs with Christ, we own the earth; we don’t rent. As owners, we have both the privilege and responsibility to steward creation, invite justice, celebrate hospitality with good feasts, and basically enjoy the hope of the future; right here; right now.
—
You can see more of Susan K. Dailey’s art here.
Tags: Creation Care, Eschatology, Heaven, Nature, Stewardship, The End Times
22 Comments
Ricahrd,
Great post. Very well said.
It’s amazing how many bible-believing Christians have the attitude espoused in the quote that you linked to. If one takes the bible as literal truth, then it’s plain that Adam was given the task of caring for Creation. Before the fall, it appears that Adam did so with enthusiasm. Why in the world would we not want to do the same?
Actually, it seems we don’t “own” or “rent”. God is the owner. But…we ARE “stewards”. A great, biblical word that we need to learn and become.
“moaning, not because it’s going to burn up, but because we’re behaving like Orcs”
A master touch.
I don’t want to be guilty of reading in to Jesus’ parables too much, but I wonder if the story of the lazy tenants in Matthew 21 applies also to our stewardship of the Earth. I tend to think it could. But even if there is no explicit “thou shalt recycle” command, the Bible has a whole book on wisdom which would decry our short-sighted attitudes towards stewardship of the planet.
My goal is not to defend MacArthur; I’m sure he would relish the opportunity to do so himself. And you make a good point in challenging the “let it burn b/c it’s going to burn” paradigm, so I certainly won’t defend it. I guess one question I’d ask is this: are the meek to inherit this earth, or the new earth? You are right in a sense to say we own the earth as inheritors with Christ, but do we tip the scales a bit too far to draw this inheritance back to the present fallen world?
Thanks for writing…
Chris,
Some ponder that this Earth will become the New Earth.
Hi Larry,
Do some ponder that this Earth will become the New Earth, as in the Earth will remain in its current form but have the unrighteous removed from it as God comes to dwell with man?
Or do some ponder that this Earth will be razed to the ground without being completely destroyed and instead will be renewed and restored as the New Earth?
I also am not here to defend John MacArthur. Not long ago he did a radio interview on his philophy of “worship music” that was so bizarre (and unbiblical) I prayed that late one night the ghost of Jimi Hendrix would appear in his bedroom and play “Amazing Grace”(how fun would that be). But I am extreamly puzzled by this article. There is no question that we are to be good stewards of the gift that God has given us (including our own bodies).
My struggle revolves around two things. One is this idea of getting truth from an analogy. It really appears like you are trying to make a case for your idea based loosly on your rental car rental analogy, which is really shakey (and by the way, I have NEVER heard Mr. MacArthur ever even elude to what you are attributing to him).
My second problem is using a false example to make a point. You said, “Once a paradise of agricultual diversity, it is now an enviromental desaster, testamony to our addiction to materalism and fossel fuels. two consumptions all of us in the West are guilty of to varying degrees.” There are several problems here. One is that you seem to be implying that the San Franando Valley is a “enviormental desaster” because of his theolgy. As if this is the only “enviormental desaster” in the country. Name me a large city in the world that was not at one time a varitable garden spot until man moved in and changed the landscape. So what would you have us do? Should we not be driving, should we all be farmers? How about if we all become Quakers? It is like you are saying that if we buy in to John’s theology we are guilty of every evil thing that has transpired on this planet.
The core issue is really the sinfulness of man, not the theology of MacArthur. And I mean the sinfulness of ALL men. Men have chosen to abuse the planet (both saved and unsaved alike), to his peril. God gave me a body, if I choose to abuse it, in the end I am the one who will not live the quality of life I really desire to live (and may even die early) as a result. But the thing that makes God so wonderful is that he is going to give me a new body inspite of my abuse of it. Isn’t grace wonderful.(And by the way James, the reason man does not do the same is because HE IS SINFUL).
The simple fact is that like our bodies (which we all abuse to varying degrees) we will get new ones (I hope, I hope, I hope).
The other observation (though small) is this: Do you not think that God did not see what foolish people we would be without making allowences for our sin and stupidity. Cant you see it, God is in heaven and just after the Exxon Valdez accident he says, “dang I didnt see that coming, I had no idea they were going to do that.” Yet that is a perfect example of Gods grace. Just after the accident enviormentalists said the cleanup would take at least 10 years a probably longer. Fact is, it was back to fairly normal state within two. What is amazing to me is that God would build into His creation an almost self healing quality. The idea of singling out Cristians as the prime source for the demize of the planet is just, well goofy.
Greg,
First of all, you made an argumemtative fallacious leap from the recognizable need to take care of the Earth and what you deemed to be the only way to do this – “everyone stop driving”. That’s my main gripe with climate change deniers. So many act like having an environmental conscious requires you to live in a hut and give up toilet paper, when really it just starts with what Richard was talking about- an understanding that this Earth is not something to just use and abuse, but was a gift from God that should be honored and cared for. If you can agree that, since our body is a temple we should take care of it so we can better use it to serve God, then why is it so hard to agree that this Earth we were given is our home and we should take care of it so we can use it to better serve God. To claim that God created the Earth as “self-healing” and we should just ignore all the damage we do to it is to completley and totally ignore science and logic, one instance of a body of water “returning to normal” does NOT apply to the WHOLE Earth and does NOT mean that God is OK with excusing our wastefulness. In my opinion, your Exxon story is a much weaker environmental analogy than Richards rental car one.
Emily,
The thing about embracing Stewardship is that people don’t need to agree about issues like climate change(at least the degree of it). The positive vision of Stewardship builds consensus.
Oh Emily, Emily, Emily, can’t we all just get along. First of all I am not a “denier”, uh well, maybe I am. First off, there a large number of reputable scientists who disagree with the “global warming” premice. As a matter of fact I just listened to a climatologist who observed that temps are actualy starting to go down. Who knew? Secondly, even if it is true, does that mean it is necessarily bad? Is the end just around the corner? Who knows? Actually its over when God says its over. Remember Jim Fixx died of a heart attack in his 50′s. And come on Emely, my illustration of the Exxon Valdez oil spill was a GREAT illustration. Throw me a bone. I mean go back and look at it yourself. Most enviormentalists at the time believed it would be 10 to 30 years before it would be cleaned up and habitat would return. But it turned around much more quickly than that. What I am saying is, that is what makes God so amazing. That he would build into our earthly system that kind of healing power. A tribute to His amazing grace and our ever ending stupidity. Peace and love.
Chris,
I’m most familiar with N.T. Wright’s views, in Surprised by Hope. He believes that the second coming of Christ occurs when the rift between God’s dimension and our is finally healed. Earth becomes Heaven and is healed of the curse of sin. I don’t recall what he does with the passage in Peter to which Peter referred.
There’s much that I find attractive in Wright’s position. However, it does have implications regarding the doctrine of Hell.
The one thing that I’m convinced of is that we know less about Heaven and Hell than we think we know.
“The one thing that I’m convinced of is that we know less about Heaven and Hell than we think we know”
Amen
Hi Greg… here are some responses to your critique:
1. Regarding your never having heard John MacArthur say that, it’s right here: http://bit.ly/dLqjE
2. you wrote: “My second problem is using a false example to make a point” – declaring that the San Fernando Valley isn’t an environmental disaster isn’t a false example. By any definition, this area is testimony to the ravages our current lifestyles have on the earth. I didn’t declare, anywhere in the article, that this area stands alone in environmental degradation, as you seem to think I implied. My only point in linking MacArthur’s location to his theology was to, somewhat tongue in cheek, suggest that it’s easier to declare something’s not worth caring for if it’s state of decay is already substantial.
3. you wrote: “It is like you are saying that if we buy in to John’s theology we are guilty of every evil thing that has transpired on this planet.” Really? That wasn’t intent at all. Rather, I was simply trying to show how our view of the earth’s temporality or permanence MIGHT possibly have an effect on our stewardship paradigm.
4. you wrote: “So what would you have us do? Should we not be driving, should we all be farmers? How about if we all become Quakers?” My response – it’s a fallen world. We all have blood on our hands, having failed to steward the earth well. The fruits of our failure are evident in health crises, water crises, and the extinction of species. What should we do? We should do something – maybe take the bus, maybe plant a garden, maybe turn the thermostat down. Your ‘all or nothing’ paradigm, implying that any discussion of environmental stewardship demands we become Luddites is a straw man. You seem to imply that, since we can’t all stop driving, can’t all eat organic, it should be business as usual.
No, God is far more patient with us than that. he doesn’t demand instant and total obedience, knowing that we’re but dust. He does demand responsiveness to conviction – and devices we erect to prevent conviction are the thing He hates the most.
Hi Richard….Her is my critique of your critique
1. I went to the sight and I am still puzzled at your response. He did not say based on his theology..”Ok because its all going to burn anyway, what say we ravage the planet”. Two things come across. The first is that, well this is a reeeeeeeeach at best. This is like the domino theory, if “A” is then “C” will be. Problem is you have not really established “B”. You used the term, “not worth caring for” in application to something he never said. The second thing is, and if I knew you know better I would say this but, it really appears that you had an ax to grind. As I said earlier, there are alot of things to quible with MacArthur (I mean alot) over, but this is pretty shakey.
2. I re-read your article several times and I did not see the transition to “tongue and cheek”. Mabye your friends know when your joking, but I don’t, you seemed pretty serious to me. Now that you mention it I understand, but it was not clear. I have noticed that most of the writing in Burnside comes from the Portland, Seattle area and you all have this earth muffin outlook. Which I actually find refreshing, I would like to think that I am a very loving, passionate and caring person, but I have noticed that the pendulam never seems to settle in the middle, just swings to wild degrees. Sometimes I get the feeling that you all live in this bubble, and anyone outside that is an earth ravaging, heartless pagen Christian who “just doesnt get it”. Besides I am not sure this is what the debate should be about anyway.
3. This was the most interesting sentence you wrote because of how it ended. By that I mean the phrase, “”I was simply trying to show how our view of the earth’s temporality or permanence MIGHT possibly have effected”. Uh, “might possibly”, and you could have added “kinda of, mabye, quite possibly”. You may well be right, but you might possibly, kind of, sort of not may not be.
4. This was the most interesting critique of all because of how bizarre it seemed. First, this idea of “we all have blood on our hands” has always been amazing to me. I mean, Really? It is odd that you would direct your article towards a theology and not at a pagen world that is really the primary culprit. I mean if you stuck most Christians on an island my guess is they would take pretty good care of it, regardless of their theology. Part of walking with Christ is being grateful for His provision and creation.
Further do you not think that during the Dark Ages when the plague was at its hight they did not believe that there was a “health crisis, water crisis, extection of the species ” crisis. My guess is they did. Yes, we are living the consequences of our extravagant behavior, I don’t know if it is to late or we can stop it, but neither do you. But until then I will continue to do my part. The other thing I noticed is a pattern you have of putting words in peoples mouths. Where did I even imply it was “business as usual”. My guess is that you saw a quote form MacArthur and wents nuts, which is easy to do, I just think it was miss placed. Thanks for the dialog, I enjoy and appreciate it. Now excuse me while I go plant a tree.
Greg,
I have a few problems with what you’ve said in response to this article. The first is that in your first response you talk about how even if we abuse our bodies (or the earth) we are going to inherit a new one so what’s the big deal? God’s going to be gracious. Paul argues against this kind of thing in Romans 6 when he says (paraphrasing) “Should I keep on sinning so that’s God’s grace will increase? Of course not!” Just because we will receive new bodies doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t respect the ones that we have right now.
Another point I would like to make. Most Christian traditions (not all) have Satan being cast from heaven and naming himself ruler of the earth (at least for a time). When we look at this it makes all the more sense for us to take care of the Earth. Satan wants to destroy and pervert God’s creation. Anything that we do to preserve God’s creation is act of worhsip to God and an act of defiance to the “powers of this world”.
Also, when you said that maybe this should be targeted at a “pagan world” who is the “primary culprit” I think you’ve missed the point. If we as Christians aren’t setting a good example then how we expect people with no connection to the Creator God to pick up the slack?
One final thing, people who want be good stewards of the Earth are not only Northwesterners with a “earth muffin outlook” as you say. You should check out my fellow statesman Wendell Berry. He doesn’t just talk about taking care of the Earth, he does it on his small farm here in Kentucky. He understands the gift we’ve been blessed with.
*Full disclosure: I am not exactly the shining example of stewardship, but I have been working at making more responsible choices: walking more, driving less, using energy efficient light bulbs for example. None of us can be perfect stewards, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
Zack,
Thanks for youre response. But once again you commit the same error. You establish “A” (what I said) the go to “C” (hey lets tourch this place) as a conclusion, again never really establishing the link, “B”. I did not say it is ok to abuse (bodies, earth ect) becasue we are going to get a new body, earth or anything of the sort. Zack, booby, I did not conclude that. My point was twofold. One: If I live in an unhealthy manner, the consequences will be mine. I will be the one out of shape (or whatever) and will pay the price ON THIS earth with increased health problems, medical bills ect. My point regarding Jim Fixx was to say that sometimes you can live a REALLY healthy life style and have a health problem. Same with how I treat the planet, and it is NOT ok to do it to either. Two, I was also trying to point out God’s amazing grace in that, 1) inspite of our sinful use of our bodies and the planet they will both be new one day. Is that great or what? I mean I might even be able to dunk a basketball (I am really short). 2) And because of God’s wonderful grace he gives our bodies and our planet a healing quality each and every day, and sometimes inspite of our abuse, again halaluah.
I agree with your second point even though, once again you try to apply it to me, and I did not even go in that direction. You make a great point but you make a link between “Christian Tradition” and me that yet you dont know me well enough to make. Application of biblical principles is tricky business.
No I did not miss the point. Of course we should be good examples, but once again, the abuses of the planet, much of which has been taking place over hundreds of years was not really purpetuated by Christians. Look back in your history, you will find very little (if any) accusations regarding Christians abusing themselves or the planet. As I stated, if you put most Christians on a island my guess is that they would treat it well. So again you are shooting in the dark.
And as to your last point, once again I did not say the it was only confined to the northwest, but mearly pointing out that the bulk of the writing in these blogs comes from the northwest. I was born and raised their, so I understand the politics better than you think. But you commit the same error the author did, you make links to people based on a pre-concieved notion, and a theological position which is applied badly. As I said earlier, biblical application is tricky business. I think my problems are as follows. When all of you talk about “treating the planet and our bodies well” each of you has a different idea of how that exactly applies. You can throw out the THEOLOGY, but how that applies to each of us may differ for different reasons.
I do appreciate the give and take. Hope your life is well.gj
Greg,
I never made a connection between not caring for your body and the “let it burn” theology. Don’t put words in my mouth. I simply stated that just because God is gracious to provide us with new bodies or a new earth doesn’t negate our responsibility to the one we have now. Yes, even if we destroy it God will be gracious. I don’t contend that. But, this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t act responsibly.
Your argument also falls apart on this point: if you abuse your body, you are clearly the one who suffers the consequences. It would be what may be considered a personal sin. But if you abuse (or even don’t properly care for) the planet you are not the only one who suffers the consequences. You may be affecting a watershed that other people depend on. Or you may be destroying a habit that other creatures depend on. You said yourself that “part of walking with Christ is being thankful for His provision and creation.” To me part of being tahnkful is taking care of it. If someone loans me a car for a few weeks and I say I’m thankful but it’s trashed when they get it back, who would really think I’m thankful?
I also don’t understand your contention with my second point. Based on what you said, I could easily draw a connection between you and a Christian tradition in the general sense (I also stated that not all Christian traditions believe that, in case you missed it).
Also, you say that “badly” applied a theological position. Please explain.
Hi Larry,
I definitely agree with your last statement. I imagine if we knew much more about Heaven we would be completely transformed, and if we knew much more about Hell we would be completely transformed.
Gee Zack, I am kind of disapointed. I thought we were having a good discussion, but you dont seem to be having as much fun.
My point is this: I have read alot of opinions (including mine) regarding what we should do (personal application), how we should do it (personal application) tied to some versus (not from you personally). I Believe that as I am open to the Holy Spirit and his leading in my life and His personal touch, he will (and does) help me apply his command to love. The application to my theology may just only apply to me and how I work it out with the Lord.
Again thanks for the dialog.gj
I may be stretching here, but that seems like a rather reletivistic viewpoint. Yes, I agree in certain things we have to make our own decisions based on where God leads us. But in all things, even care of the environment, isn’t there a standard on which we must base those decisions? Can everybody afford to buy only organic food? No. I’m a poor college kid, I definitely can’t afford that. But does that mean that I shouldn’t try to make better purchasing choices, to buy local whenever possible or to do my best not to support giant agri-business which generally has a terrible environmental record? Of course not.
You’re right, not everybody can go the whole way. But we can’t use that as an excuse not to try. Again, it’s about being responsible with what we’ve been given and what we’ve been entrusted with. Basically, I think everyone can do something, the question is if we are willing.
One more thing, I think C.S. Lewis makes a great point. And while he doesn’t mention care of the environment, I don’t think that would be an inappropriate stretch:
“If you read history you will find that Christians who did most for the present world were just those who thought most of the next…It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this.”
He seems to be saying that if we are looking forward to Heaven we will try to bring as much of Heaven as we can to our present world: through justice, peace, forgiveness, charity, and care of creation.