More incomplete thoughts...
Ever since I was a kid, I can remember the face of David Suzuki. He was one of the first scientists to help us as a culture rethink our relationship to what has come to be called “the environment”. He brought popular attention to such issues as pollution, use of natural resources, and survival of species under threat of extinction. He has contributed a great deal to our awareness and action on many important issues. Yet I have seen many of my peers elevate this refound respect for “the environment” into a statement about “Nature” – as if somehow Nature as we experience it and see it operating is in itself somehow perfect.
Our language bogs down our thinking. Christians often use the terms “creation” and “nature” as if they refer to the same thing. They do not. Some commentators in the media have referred to the recent tsunami as an “act of God.” I suppose a case can be made that it was, but I believe a stronger case can be made that it was not.
Creation was (and is) an act of God. Creation itself was an act – God’s will was perfectly expressed in the creation – “it was very good”. What God desired and what God allowed to happen were one and the same. Is the “Nature” we speak of today the same thing as the “Creation” spoken of in Scripture? Or is it not?
If we believe that Creation is simply Nature as we experience it, we are left with a god for whom any event in nature is an expression of what that god desires and what that god allows to happen. Such a god would have to be held completely responsible for any and every event in nature. Not only on a large scale, but in every instance. Such a god would be actively responsible for all of nature – as if every event in nature perfectly reflected the desire of such a god for our world. I believe this is not the case. Such a god would then want nature to revolt against humanity.
It is the underside of the slogan “God made me this way”. It is an assumption that everything that appears in physical nature is exactly what God desires. It is a mistaken phrase. For it assumes that nature (including humanity) is exactly as God desired and intended it to be. It is mistaken on two grounds. It does not understand the difference between Creation and Nature; between what God desires, and what God allows. It is a poor pastoral response to that part of humanity which suffers because of the difference between creation and nature.
“God made me this way”. If I have a genetic predisposition to cancer, can I say “God made me this way”? – as if this was God’s perfect and final desire for me? If I have a birth defect of some kind, can I take comfort from the phrase “God made me this way”, or can I use that phrase to give comfort to grieving parents? Here is your child – “God made him that way”.
How do I know the difference between that which God intended in “Creation”, and that which I now see and experience in “Nature”? I know very little, but somehow I think I must at least start to figure out the difference.
Recent Comments