Some People Just Can't Keep a Secret!

From this week's paper. Page 6A. Why not page 1? You be the judge.

I Hope He Had Flood Insurance!

This cautionary tale brought to you by . . .

. . . reminding you that you must purchase mandatory flood insurance when you obtain financing for your home or business real estate improvements located within a federally designated 100-year or more frequent flood zone.

He's Got the Whole World in His Hand!

Surprised? Nope. But Hopeful Anyway.

Bishop Wright (of New Perspective on Paul fame, but a seemingly devout, earnest and all around good-guy evangelical for all that) passionately believes that the way to combat Platonic gnosticism ("the material world -- and our material bodies -- are evil and will be destroyed; our only hope is a spiritual heaven that transcends materialism") is by reemphasizing the Biblical teaching on the past physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus and the future physical, bodily resurrection of His followers (and, not incidentally, the redemption of the entire physical world). If the world and our bodies are worth saving and re-creating for the New Jerusalem, the logic goes, then the physical, material world we live in now and those who live in it with us must be worth caring about and working to improve. It's not just about going to heaven when we die; instead, it's about loving people NOW and working to improve the creation NOW.

Wright's thesis seems perfectly sound. The title doesn't fit, though, at least in my view. While I haven't necessarily heard the case of caring about this present world and the people in it put in these terms, I learned long ago that God cares about these things and that we ought to do so as well. My own path to seeing this truth was through a shift in my understanding of the "end times" from a premillenial, rapture-based view (think the "Left Behind" series) to a more Reformed, at least vaguely postmillenial view (God works through us to redeem creation to usher in the kingdom). The conclusions one might draw from these differing views are fairly obvious. If the world is going to get worse and worse until Jesus comes and raptures His people away, and then there will be seven years of tribulation for those who remain, there really isn't much point in working for cultural renewal now; that's just "polishing the brass on a sinking ship". All that matters now is saving souls. On the other hand, if Jesus isn't coming back until the creation has been made "kingdom ready" by the church and its people, then we'd better get busy building churches, schools, families, nations and cultural institutions that are kingdom-oriented. Bishop Wright does briefly note the role of eschatology in these matters, but he paints it as a symptom of the problem rather than the main cause.

It could be that the eschatological problem is a peculiarly American evangelical problem, which would explain why it resonates so much with me but not Bishop Wright, who is Anglican. It may be that Bishop Wright has crafted a Biblically-based way to reach folks outside of American evangelicalism with the message of the importance of cultural renewal. If so, then this book is an important achievement.

A few personal notes -- Wright lets his politics show a little here, and the picture isn't pretty. "As far as I can see, the major task that faces us in our generation, corresponding to the issue of slavery two centuries ago, is that of the massive economic imbalance of the world, whose major symptom is the ridiculous and unpayable Third World debt." (page 216). Yes, yes, I agree that the Third World debt is ridiculous, and it may well be unpayable, and I am very sympathetic generally speaking with the campaign to forgive it. But "the major task that faces us in our generation"? That's way over the top. I'd think our biggest challenges are defeating Islamic extremism and protecting basing human rights in places like China, Tibet, Sudan and North Korea.

As an Anglican and world-class theologian, Wright is part of a very broad conversation, theologically speaking. Therefore, his book takes on arguments from all over the spectrum, some of which are so beyond the pale of Biblical orthodoxy that they don't seem worth his time to me. But again, as noted above, I'm probably not his primary audience. It's good to know someone as qualified and talented as Bishop Wright is writing for whoever his audience is. It's certainly a lot bigger than mine!

If I Had $10,000 and a Strong Drink . . . .

Well, from the illustration, it appears that most find the narrow way, they just can't stay on it because of those massive burdens they are carrying. Note how close self-righteousness can get you, though!

Burn, Baby, Burn! I Love Your Big Carbon Footprint!

[F]ossil fuels such as coal and oil, have also had far-reaching positive environmental effects that a good steward should wish to consider in drawing up a global balance sheet. The first effect is to make it possible for farmers to replace beasts of burden with machines and, therefore, to cultivate land more efficiently. (Much of the developing world is now beginning to undergo this process of agricultural modernization today.) Second, fossil fuels have been turned into fertilizers that, together with new pesticides, other means of preventing spoilage, and advances in new plant species -- the so-called Green Revolution -- have produced so much more food per acre that large amounts of land have now been spared from cultivation altogether. For example, America's forests, contrary to popular perception, have been growing steadily for the past fifty years and are actually larger than they were 100 years ago. Even in the heavily populated coastal areas, small farms have returned to forest land. The result of all of this is that, despite its vast fossil fuel consumption, NORTH AMERICAN CURRENTLY SHOWS A NET MINUS IN THE AMOUNT OF CARBON DIOXIDE IT PUTS INTO THE ATMOSPHERE. In other words, North America absorbs more carbon dioxide through plants and forests than it emits through industry. No one intentionally set out to produce these consequences but human ingenuity, aimed at doing better with greater cost efficiency and lower amounts of raw materials, seems here to reflect a providential convergence of man and nature. Now that we are conscious of the effects of our activity on nature, we can set out to do even better.

. . . It is a modern scandal, then, that out of a misguided concern for the earth, some philanthropic foundations and environmental groups from developed countries, and some international agencies as well, have discouraged, or even refused to support so-called "unsustainable" agricultural practices. These practices are, in face, necessary for saving and improving the lives of the world's poor and hungry.

--pages 50-51 (emphasis added).

Lest Anything Be Left To the Imagination . . .