The Gospel of Nature...
John Burroughs wrote, in 1900, The Gospel of Nature, in which he said:
The other day a clergyman who described himself as a preacher of the gospel of Christ wrote, asking me to come and talk to his people on the gospel of Nature. The request set me to thinking whether or not Nature has any gospel in the sense the clergyman had in mind, any message that is likely to be especially comforting to the average orthodox religious person. I suppose the parson wished me to tell his flock what I had found in Nature that was a strength or a solace to myself.
What had all my many years of journeyings to Nature yielded me that would supplement or reinforce the gospel he was preaching? Had the birds taught me any valuable lessons? Had the four-footed beasts? Had the insects? Had the flowers, the trees, the soil, the coming and the going of the seasons? Had I really found sermons in stones, books in running brooks and good in everything? Had the lilies of the field, that neither toil nor spin, and yet are more royally clad than Solomon in all his glory, helped me in any way to clothe myself with humility, with justice, with truthfulness?
It is not easy for one to say just what he owes to all these things. Natural influences work indirectly as well as directly, they work upon the subconscious, as well as upon the conscious, self. That I am a saner, healthier, more contented man, with true standards of life for all my loiterings in the fields and woods, I am fully convinced.
That I am less social, less interested in my neighbors and in the body politic, more inclined to shirk civic and social responsibilities and to stop my ears against the brawling of the reformers, is perhaps equally true.
It appears that William Wordsworth had some thoughts along these lines, as well, as has a writer with which I am unfamiliar - Prentice Mulford.
CORRECTION:
In the introduction to a collection of Mulford (found here), the editor wrote:
Man is born natural and civilisation makes him artificial. He is born in touch with Nature and life under the open sky and in the green fields. Civilisation draws him to courts and towns. Mankind is born to liberty and equality: civilisation makes him either a tyrant on the one hand or a slave on the other. The thought underlying this gospel, whether preached by Christ or by Rousseau, or today by Edward Carpenter in his Civilisation, its Cause and Cure, contrasted as the characters of the preachers will appear, is essentially the same.
Why were the Scribes and Pharisees hypocrites? Why, except because they had turned from the spirit to the letter, from Nature to artificiality?
I love this line of thought and will certainly be reading these essays/books.
How about you? Have you read Burroughs, Wordsworth or Mulford (or others) on this topic of the Gospel of Nature? Do you have thoughts, yourself, on the Good News of the Creation? How have I missed these writings before now?
58 comments:
Man's being in a garden didn't prevent our Fall, and the first murderer was a farmer.
To be clear, I believe that the creation reveals the nature of our Creator -- and it is worth noting in passing, that, in Romans 1, where Paul asserts this very thing we also find a condemnation of those who reject the natural functions of their bodies -- and I believe that we can learn much about God from nature, so long as our conclusions are shaped primarily by Scripture: Christ didn't just teach us to consider the lilies of the field, He explained what they teach us, and His explanation is authoritative.
But it's one thing to see nature as a medium of divine revelation, it's another thing to see it as inherently divine. It's one thing to be a good steward of nature, another thing to be its slave. It's one thing to affirm that God created a good universe, but it's another thing altogether to deny that it has been corrupted by the Fall.
I find "back-to-nature" movements to be dangerous politically because they feed into the all-encompassing religion of the state that promises to tear down the institutions of civilization and remake society in the revolutionary's image.
(And before anyone suggests I'm exaggerating: I'm not sure that the second thing you quoted is from Mulford directly, but rather appears to be from an introduction written by Ralph Shirley, in a book containing Mulford's essays. Either way, the author not only compared Christ and Rousseau, he explicitly compared Christianity and the French Revolution, and did so favorably.)
But more than that, such movements are dangerous spiritually because they are rooted in pagan rejections of orthodox Christianity. They substitute for Christianity a different and incompatible narrative, where the Fall isn't caused by disobedience to God but by the development of civilization, and where savalation doesn't come through the redeeming death and resurrection of Christ but through a rejection of civilization and "artificiality" in favor of primitivsm and "authenticity."
If one appeals to nature to explain further the Gospel of Jesus Christ, more power to you. But if a Christian begins to adhere to a "gospel of nature" when it is fundamentally a competing claim of good news, he should reject that pseudo-gospel for what the Bible clearly teaches.
Any love that becomes a god immediately becomes a demon, even a love for God's creation.
and I believe that we can learn much about God from nature, so long as our conclusions are shaped primarily by Scripture
Well, as you note, Paul in Romans says that nature itself is clear testimony of God - apparently regardless if there is any scripture to shape our conclusions. I agree with Paul, in that regard.
For since the creation of the world, God's invisible attributes, God's eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made...
God's nature is "clearly seen" through nature, the Creator has been revealed through Creation clearly. I agree.
it's one thing to see nature as a medium of divine revelation, it's another thing to see it as inherently divine.
I agree. I don't think anyone here is saying that "That tree is itself a GOD."
It's one thing to be a good steward of nature, another thing to be its slave.
I agree. I know of no one who wants to be enslaved to nature, but rather we ought to live by the Creator's rules inherent within the Creation.
It's one thing to affirm that God created a good universe, but it's another thing altogether to deny that it has been corrupted by the Fall.
You think God's Creation itself has been corrupted? That trees are oceans or streams are corrupted themselves? I don't agree with that. If you are saying that WE (humanity) have corrupted Creation with our pollutants, I would agree, but I don't think the Created World itself is corrupted.
I find "back-to-nature" movements to be dangerous politically because they feed into the all-encompassing religion of the state
Most back to nature movements of which I'm aware are fairly individualistic - "I need to get back to living simply within the realm and boundaries of God's Creation."
As Burroughs noted:
That I am less social, less interested in my neighbors and in the body politic, more inclined to shirk civic and social responsibilities and to stop my ears against the brawling of the reformers...
Now, those who move closer to creation who are asking our community and our gov't to live responsibly are doing a good thing. I would hope that my gov't would create and enforce Clean Air and Water laws. That is a good thing, just as creating laws about robbery or murder.
I, myself, find "back-to-nature" movements dangerous spiritually because they tend to assume a distribution of problem-solution opposite to that which is, in actuality, the case. To wit: as Bubba stated, people in those types of movements tend to view civilization as corrupting, and so the problem is outside onself, whereas the solution is inside oneself--"getting back to nature," looking within yourself, the "authenticity" that he mentioned. But in truth, as we know, the problem is actually inside ourselves--the sinful nature caused by the Fall that still clings even to the redeemed--and the solution is outside ourselves--not in civilization, to be sure, but in Christ's redeeming work. It's helpful to have those in the proper order, and "back-to-nature" movements too often have it backwards.
AJ Harbison
<><
The Listening Blog
Thanks for the thoughts, AJ.
...people in those types of movements tend to view civilization as corrupting, and so the problem is outside onself, whereas the solution is inside oneself--"getting back to nature," looking within yourself, the "authenticity" that he mentioned...
It is possible, I suppose, that it is all too common to want to blame The System, The Others (but not me) for the problems we face - problems of pollution, irresponsible behavior, destructive policies, etc. And I'm sure that may be a motivating factor for some.
For others, though, there is the realization that the way WE are living ("WE," including "me") is destructive, harmful to God's creation and created order. And so, in desiring to live more in harmony with the Creation, they are seeking to live more in harmony with the Creator.
This is a good thing, in my way of thinking.
Dan, Paul writes in Romans 1 that God's "invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity," so that no one can claim ignorance of God's law, but it doesn't follow that the gospel of salvation can be known from nature alone, rendering redundant the duty of evangelism. (How are men to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher?) Nor does it follow that Scripture isn't therefore authoritative in how we understand nature.
About the fallen state of nature, you write:
You think God's Creation itself has been corrupted? That trees are oceans or streams are corrupted themselves? I don't agree with that. If you are saying that WE (humanity) have corrupted Creation with our pollutants, I would agree, but I don't think the Created World itself is corrupted.
The corruption of the natural world through the mere existence of sin is implicit in the punishments that accompanied man's exile from the garden: death and toil, both in the field and in childbirth. The principle is made even clearer by Paul.
I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. - Rom 8:18-23, emphasis mine
Creation is groaning and will be freed, at the end of history, from the bondage of decay: it is currently in that bondage now. Even beyond the presence of explicit pollution, the Bible is clear that the universe is not now what God planned: created good, it has since fallen into decay and will one day be redeemed.
Just as it is the gnostics and not orthodox Christians who teach that the material universe is wholly evil or illusory, it is the hedonists who preach a universe that is wholly good.
What we have here in the back-to-nature movement isn't a variation of Christianity, much less an actual fulfillment of Christianity, but rather a different and ultimately incompatible worldview.
Both Christianity and Islam advocate almsgiving, but there are signficant, insurmountable differences between the two faiths. Likewise, the slender overlap between back-to-nature environmentalism and the Christian concept of the stewardship of nature should not fool a person into thinking the two can be reconciled.
What we have here in the back-to-nature movement isn't a variation of Christianity, much less an actual fulfillment of Christianity, but rather a different and ultimately incompatible worldview.
I'd suggest that would depend upon the particular back-to-nature movement. Just as fundamentalists can range from Islamic fundamentalists who wish to kill those who disagree with them to those who wish to get back to the fundamentals of the Christian faith, there are a wide range of back-to-nature movements.
It would be unfair to say that a relatively normal Amish person (who believes in returning to living a life fundamentally like the early Christians) is the same as a deadly radicalized Islamic extremist.
Similarly, one should not paint all Creation lovers with one brush.
I cringe when I see "Creation" capitalized alongside the Creator.
That said, if a "Creation lover" believes that the ultimate problem is sin rather than civilization, I have no serious theological issue with him. If he believes the solution isn't living "more in harmony with the Creation", but rather forgiveness through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, I have no serious theological issue with him.
But if he rejects these basic tenets of Christian orthodoxy, I would say that his worldview is indeed incompatible with Christianity. I admit that his worldview could contain any number of other ideas, but that doesn't diminish the fundamental incompatibility with our mutual faith.
Dan,
Other writings in a similar vein, GK Chesterton's summary of the life and work of St. Francis of Assisi.
Thanks, Mark, I appreciate it.
I like this:
[Humanity] is born natural and civilisation makes him artificial. [We are] born in touch with Nature and life under the open sky and in the green fields. Civilisation draws [us] to courts and towns.
And
Why were the Scribes and Pharisees hypocrites? Why, except because they had turned from the spirit to the letter, from Nature to artificiality?
I like the way that sounds. It rings true to me. But is it?
ARE we “born natural,” inclined towards nature? Towards enjoying the wilds of creation?
Is “civilization” a learned appetite, an acquired taste instilled by our upbringing? By our desires for the physical comforts and earthly delights afforded by civilization as we progress in age?
I don’t know that I know the answer to that question definitively. It certainly seems to me that most children have a love of nature – of camping, hiking, being “out” and enjoying the world that is more pronounced than in many adults. But that’s just my hunch, a gut feeling.
Dan, what you quote doesn't suggest only that man begins life loving nature and only later acquires an appreciation for civilization: it suggests that civilization is a corrupting influence.
Man is born natural and civilisation makes him artificial... Why were the Scribes and Pharisees hypocrites? Why, except because they had turned from the spirit to the letter, from Nature to artificiality?
The cause of this turning is fairly explicitly attributed to civilization itself: the Scribes and Pharisees were immoral hypocrities because they were artificial, and they were artificial because civilization makes man artificial.
Does that ring true to you as well?
I definitely think there is some artificiality in civilization. Further, there seems to be a bias against civilization in Genesis, don't you think?
From Adam's toiling to Cain the civilized farmer's offering being unacceptable to the flood to Babel being specifically criticized for using man-made bricks - civilization relies more on its own efforts than on God.
God seems to be a God that frees slaves from the bondage of civilization and provides manna and quail and water for them in the wilderness.
I bet one of the reasons Jesus used the lilies of the field and the birds of the air is because of their total dependence upon their Creator.
As to the Fall, it seems to me that if human hearts were truly aligned with God and if God did create this world and called it good, then we'd want to work to do what we can to be obedient to the first recorded command of God in Genesis - to be good and nurturing stewards of all creation.
Jesus suggests in the Sermon on the Mount that we aren't obedient and don't seek God's will on earth because of our fears and worries.
What would it be like if we would just try to do what God wants rather than worry that it doesn't fit into our systematic theologies?
Well, that's what I'm asking. IS civilization a corrupting influence? My hunch is that it tends to be.
Do you have an opinion?
Civilization is a natural part of being human. It is in our nature to live in groups and develop laws.
Our hide is thin so we need shelter, our claws are useless so we need spears. We are terrible runners so we need wheels and horses etc. Our teeth are fragile so we need to farm. All the things that make up a civilization are a natural extension of our desire to survive. What can be more natural then wanting to survive?
As far a nature and the effects of human civilization goes I say don’t worry about it. God has is covered
Gen 8:22
"As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat,
summer and winter,
day and night will never cease."
Hey, Roger. Great thoughts. I like, especially, the reminder of Babel.
While I don't think it part and parcel of coming together in cities, towns, nations... civilization, there certainly has been a tendency towards mischief when we come together in huge numbers. And, I think, oftentimes, not necessarily deliberately causing mischief, but more as a function of large numbers of people bundled together with free will to make their own choices.
I'm also reminded of God's words to Israel when they asked for - demanded - a king to rule over them. God said, "If you get a king, he'll create a big army, he'll tax you endlessly, he'll draft your sons and daughters to do his work. You'll be sorry..."
As far a nature and the effects of human civilization goes I say don’t worry about it. God has is covered...
The Bible also warns that God will "destroy those who destroy the earth..."
So, perhaps we OUGHT worry about it at least a little. It's not our creation to destroy.
All the things that make up a civilization are a natural extension of our desire to survive. What can be more natural then wanting to survive?
Nothing at all. The question I'm wondering is if civilization tends to encourage policies/ways of living that indeed help us to survive OR if it tends to encourage policies/ways that are self-destructive?
Dan:
Well, that's what I'm asking. IS civilization a corrupting influence? My hunch is that it tends to be.
It wasn't clear that's what you were asking, but thank you for clarifying. My answer is, civilization isn't corrupting.
I'll say more than that: I don't think your "hunch" is a reflection of a Christian worldview. It's pagan.
Civilization doesn't corrupt: sin does.
The foundational building block of civilization -- the family, and marriage itself -- was instituted before the Fall, neither of the two covenants involve a rejection of civilization, and the final destination for the redeemed isn't a return to the garden, but to a city: the new Jerusalem, where countless saints "come together in huge numbers."
The sin of Babel wasn't building a tower by hand, but rather defiance to God. Noah built his ark by hand, did he not? The Ark of the Covenant, the Tabernacle, Solomon's Temple: these things didn't pop out of the ground, did they?
This hunch of an equivalence between primitivism and moral innocence is simply not biblical.
Do you wish to make everything in to an argument? Have at it. No, thanks, on my part.
You say:
Civilization doesn't corrupt: sin does.
Is it not permissible to talk in more than one idiom at a time? Can one not speak of the corrupting nature of gangsta rap music, for instance, or of the corrupting nature of drug usage, without being accused of ignoring sin?
I can think of several clearly corrupting aspects to civilization:
Pollution is a corruption of the creation, for instance, and pollution is often exacerbated by civilization. Traditional nomadic tribal cultures pollute very little, by comparison.
Civilization has too often (in the modern world) led to the introduction of the personal auto, which have contributed to pollution, which have contributed to death and destruction, which have contributed to sprawl and great expense, which in turn have contributed to pollution and to break down of community. Or at least the argument can be made. All of these are corrupting influences of civilization, I'd suggest.
Is the ultimate problem sin? Well, sure, okay. But that is not what I was asking. I was asking: Is civilization a corrupting influence?
I'd say, at least to some degree, clearly, yes it is.
Let's take it for granted that civilization pollutes more, per capita, than a tribe of primitive savages. It also produces more -- usually much, much more -- and is capable of managing the messes we make and responding to natural disaster. A tsunami hits who knows how many primitive tribes along the coast of the Indian Ocean, and we send aircraft carriers. A hurricane hits the Gulf Coast, and how many nomadic tribes send aid? How many are even aware of what happened?
Let's also concede that people die from automobile accidents. How many have been saved by ambulances or by people driving their sick and injured friends to the hospital? How many millions of others have been saved by other developments of civlization, from the MRI to the X-ray to antibiotics to simple hygiene? Shall we compare life expectancy of the civilized and the primitive? Infant mortality rates?
Even if you want to argue that civilization is corrupting in some other idiom than in the way sin corrupts, your measure seems tremendously biased, intended to enumerate the costs with no regard for the benefits and therefore no measure of the net results.
But, to be clear, I'm not trying to pick an argument; I'm just objecting to your hunch and criticism of civilization as I understand them. Perhaps your position isn't clear. If you want to make clear that you're using an idiom where civilization is corrupting only in the same way gangsta rap is corrupting, maybe you shouldn't quote people who suggest that the Christ's gospel is liberation from civilization, and that civilization is the root cause of the Pharisees' hypocrisy.
"Do you have thoughts, yourself, on the Good News of the Creation?"
While you're reading, don't forget to skim Calvin's Institutes (Book 1 has a whole chapter on the General Revelation) We Calvinists have had these ideas all sorted out for centuries. ;)
(By the way, I can't see a way to argue that civilization is not a corrupt and corrupting influence. It's created by human beings, so even those things that Bubba points to as "good" are still totally depraved, just like the human beings that make up civilization.)
Since any effort to "get back to nature" would also be human in origin, Alan, would you agree that such efforts would also be totally depraved?
Or, any effort to "get back to the Bible" Or any effort to strive to follow in Jesus' steps or any effort to have a revival?
Danged corruption!
But wait, wouldn't efforts to live lives more aright according to God and God's creation still be a good thing, even if our efforts may fail?
Hmmmm... Maybe so.
To be clear, Dan, I'm not conceding Alan's point that, since civilization is a human creation, it's totally depraved. I affirm total depravity insofar as I believe that all of us -- Christ excluded -- are depraved, but not that every human action is depraved or that every aspect of humanity is totally depraved. I don't believe that every facet of civilization is depraved simply because it's human.
But if Alan wants to say that every aspect of civilization is totally depraved because it's human, so too must every aspect of any human attempt to "get back to nature."
But let me ask, Dan, on net balance, do you believe that civilization itself is a "good thing"?
I believe it to be a mixed bag.
Perhaps we might need to define "civilization," as it is a big term and perhaps vague...
an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.
I'm with the Amish in that I don't believe in rejecting "advancements" or technology out of hand but neither do I think we ought to blindly accept each new innovation and aspect of civilization that comes along.
Rather, advancements in culture, science, industry... in civilization ought to be held at arm's length, considered conservatively, weighed and accepted or rejected deliberately, as opposed to laissez faire accepting each new thing that comes along. Questions should be asked, like, "
Why do we need this?
What are the implications of this "advancement?"
Is it necessary?
Is it helpful consistently?
What are the side effects?
etc.
So, do I consider civilization a good thing? It would depend upon what aspect of civilization you're talking about.
Pollution, I think to be a bad thing.
Everyone having a personal auto can be a bit of a good thing at first blush, but if you consider the side effects (pollution, sprawl, depletion of oil, loss of community, loss of exercise), I think in whole, the personal auto has some positive benefits but that they don't outweigh the negatives.
Loss of community, I think to be a bad thing.
Education I think to be a good thing, generally (with some bad mixed in).
Advancements in medicine are a mixed bag, but often good and the good outweighs the bad, in my mind.
And so on.
I am not personally advocating dumping civilization (as if we could). I'm advocating approaching changes conservatively and cautiously and wisely. I'm advocating living in harmony with Natural Laws as much as possible, which in my way of thinking includes living in harmony with nature as much as possible.
Rather, advancements in culture, science, industry... in civilization ought to be held at arm's length, considered conservatively, weighed and accepted or rejected deliberately, as opposed to laissez faire accepting each new thing that comes along.
...writes Dan, on his blog, with no apparent trace of irony.
Certainly, Dan, I would not argue that civilization is an unqualified good, but the benefits so thoroughly and obviously outweigh the costs that I find your tepid defense of civilization -- repeatedly calling it a "mixed bag" -- to be less than encouraging.
I saw a bumper sticker the other day. It said, "Honk if you're Amish."
Ha!
I honked for the joy of it.
I agree that civilization is a mixed bag.
I think it's worth our while to examine and consider and struggle with the implications of our technology - for humans have and continue to use them for harm as well as good.
I think it is sin in the guise of fear that keeps us from relying on God. Adam didn't trust God's abundance and providence in the garden and we repeat this sin all the time when we rely on civilization and human efforts and leave God out of our considerations.
Why not try to embrace and use to the betterment of humankind the fruits of our labor (i.e., technology) resulting from using our God given gifts? As long as they help and do not hurt creation, it would seem to be a great way to participate in God's good creation.
Unfortunately, what we thought was good sometimes turns out to be bad. We need to be okay with saying we made a mistake (like with DDT) and move on.
This is an interesting discussion.
I often think about moving to a small town, possibly a farm town, something away from the congestion and noise of the more populated areas. I like simple, but I like stuff. I don't need either. I have a sense that at some point, I'd need to return to the thriving metropolis, but only for a visit.
I don't think in terms of corruption of the "civilized" areas since there's corruption everwhere.
If we return to nature, nothing would change unless we isolate ourselves from others where only our own corruption would be a factor. (This ignores the corruption of nature, wherein animals and insects and poisonous plants are up to no good) We could assume our every move is in concert with God's Will, because there's no one to tell us otherwise but our own consciences. Eventually, we could learn to tune it out completely. Perhaps.
But then, we couldn't help the poor or anyone else for that matter. We couldn't spread the Word. We couldn't gather as a community to worship. We couldn't dance cheek to cheek. We couldn't harmonize. Who would celebrate our birthdays or milestones with us? Who would know we've celebrated anything? How long would it take before we'd stop caring where we crap or when we bathe or what we eat? How do we continue caring about anything when we've divorced ourselves from everything?
This is just rambling on the extreme of leaving civilization. Carry on.
But then, we couldn't help the poor or anyone else for that matter. We couldn't spread the Word. We couldn't gather as a community to worship. We couldn't dance cheek to cheek. We couldn't harmonize. Who would celebrate our birthdays or milestones with us? Who would know we've celebrated anything? How long would it take before we'd stop caring where we crap or when we bathe or what we eat? How do we continue caring about anything when we've divorced ourselves from everything?
Sounds a bit extreme. Of course, people could do no good in a return to a simpler life, but it's not a given at all. After all, the Amish still care for the poor, still worship and bathe and are clean.
There is nothing to suggest that simple living would force folk to become neanderthals. And perhaps something to suggest the opposite may be true.
Marshall said:
This ignores the corruption of nature, wherein animals and insects and poisonous plants are up to no good
I find this notion of God's Creation itself being corrupted interesting. Animals, insects and plants (poisonous or not) are not "corrupt," when they seek food or use their defense mechanisms. They're merely being the thing they were created to be.
I would tend to think it takes free will in order to be corrupt, to make bad choices. Trees and rocks and animals, they're just living as they were designed to live.
Interesting.
Bubba said (in response to my comments about holding technology at arms' length):
...writes Dan, on his blog, with no apparent trace of irony.
As you will note that I said, "I don't believe in rejecting "advancements" or technology out of hand but neither do I think we ought to blindly accept each new innovation and aspect of civilization that comes along."
I do not reject technology out of hand, but rather, try to discern if it is a good thing that can be helpful without too many negative repercussions. Nothing ironical about my position and my actions.
Now, having said that, might I continue to contemplate the whole computer thing (after having held it at arms' length for many years before embracing it) or the internet thing (after having held it at arms' length for even more years) and decide that they're not beneficial enough to justify? Sure. But right now, I'm convinced enough of the benefit of the computer and internet to use them.
So, I'm not sure what you find ironic about that.
"I affirm total depravity insofar as I believe that all of us -- Christ excluded -- are depraved, but not that every human action is depraved or that every aspect of humanity is totally depraved."
Then Bubba, you do not affirm total depravity. It doesn't mean what you think it means. That's fine, I'm just pointing out the doctrine has been around for a very long time, the phrase has a specific meaning, and you're using it in the opposite way. That's what the "total" part of total depravity means. I'm sure there's another equally good phrase for what you mean.
"But if Alan wants to say that every aspect of civilization is totally depraved because it's human, so too must every aspect of any human attempt to "get back to nature."
Again, perhaps I misunderstand, but I don't think you mean what you think you mean, because the answer to your question is, "Of course." That's why the notion is called "total depravity."
However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to live as the Bible teaches us, but with our eyes wide open to those things which are corrupting influences, including civilization. It means that we must be particularly suspicious of human activity because of our penchant for sin. The world too is fallen, as Genesis tells us, but the aspect of sin in the creation is different than the nature of sin in us, since we, unlike every other part of creation, are God's children. One acknowledges the sin in creation, but doesn't blame a dog for peeing in the neighbor's yard and think that's the same sort of sin as a human being stealing from a neighbor. ;)
Or in other words, "In the world, but not of it" is a phrase we Reformed folks like to use.
Perhaps my use of a particular theological term that has a precise meaning isn't helpful, but total depravity does not mean that one cannot do any good things ever. It just means that *every* human action, thought, and association is tainted by sin, and is imperfect, not as good as it could be, etc.
BTW, let's not stereotype the Amish as some sort of mystical group. In particular, the incidences of rape, child abuse, and other domestic violence are as high in their communities (or higher) than the public at large. Stereotyping a group for its perceived good aspects is just as ignorant as stereotyping a group based on its perceived negative ones.
So then don't be too proud of the accomplishments of civilization. Even the good aspects are tainted by sin.
Or to put it all more simply, how would a group of "miserable worms" (as Calvin would say) spontaneously create civilization without sin? We are corruptible and corrupting. So then how could we create even one facet of human civilization, being the miserable sinners that we are, that somehow spontaneously is itself sinless? Even the Church isn't perfect.
BTW, let's not stereotype the Amish as some sort of mystical group.
Wouldn't think of it. I'm well aware of many of their shortcomings, as I am also aware of their good side.
I was just responding to the bit silly insinuation that if we "went back to nature" that we'd quit bathing, stop caring for the poor and poop on the floor and such.
Hey Dan. I've got several works by Burroughs and Muir if you're interested. Burroughs was as famous as Muir; they were contemporaries. Burroughs wrote about more common nature that he found in NY state, not usually the spectacular nature sites like Yosemite that Muir wrote about. Burroughs was at the minimum an agnostic, while Muir found in nature evidence of God's handiwork.
Thanks, Kevin, that'd be great. I was familiar with Burroughs name but had not read anything by him before this.
And I'd gathered that he was at least at a minimum agnostic. I wonder about this Mulford, he seems to be more in the vein of Muir.
Dan, if all you're advocating is "simple living" in a manner similar to the Amish, perhaps you shouldn't quote people whose issues with civilization go back literally millennia. People who trace the hypocrisy of the first-century Pharisees to the artificiality of civilization have a problem with a tiny bit more than just the internal combustion engine. If you don't want people to get the wrong idea that you reject civilization altogether, maybe you shouldn't write that such radical nonsense "rings true."
Bubba, the only one who has said anything about rejecting civilization altogether is you. I can't help if you are reading things into what has been written that aren't there.
Burroughs writes of what he has learned from nature. He makes no calls to abandon civilization.
Mulford writes of some of the problems of Civilization - some of which you yourself acknowledge, at least a little.
So, Yes, these quotes about what we can learn from nature and about some of the trappings of civilization ring true to me. I have not called for abandoning civilization, nor has anyone else here.
I am sorry you heard me or these two wise writers saying something that I or they didn't say.
Do you have any comments to make about what anyone has actually said?
The editor of that collection of Mulford's wrote that the Pharisees were hypocritical because they were artificial, and that artificiality is caused by civilization. Not the civilization as it is now, with mass production and telecommunications, but civilization as it existed two thousand years ago, in a backwater province of the ancient Roman empire.
To say that Jesus criticized the Pharisees, not because of their sin, but because of the effects of civilization, is a truly radical claim -- far more radical than your stated position that we should be deliberate about what technology we should embrace -- and yet you quoted that very passage a second time to tell us that you think it rings true.
I am directly addressing what Ralph Shirley wrote and what you wrote in praising it.
Sooo... here's what Shirley wrote that I quoted:
Man is born natural and civilisation makes him artificial. He is born in touch with Nature and life under the open sky and in the green fields. Civilisation draws him to courts and towns. Mankind is born to liberty and equality: civilisation makes him either a tyrant on the one hand or a slave on the other.
You disagree, then, with his assessment that civilization has a corrupting influence on humanity?
Fair enough. If that's what you're thinking, I disagree. I think civilization does have a corrupting influence. I think the nature of building bigger and more and "better" often has a negative impact upon the individual and the society.
I think, as at the tower of Babel, that it often separates humanity from the Creation and the Creator.
I think it often leads to a trusting in the wisdom and ingenuity of humanity ("We can keep exhausting our finite fossil fuel resources exponentially, even though there are many negative repercussions! We can even base a whole global economy upon the assumption that we can keep consuming a finite resource infinitely! How can we do this? Because WE're ingenious. We'll think of somethin', just you wait and see!") rather than trusting in God and Nature and ourselves together that is more inherent in growing our own foods, making our own stuff, relying upon living within the Natural Laws of creation.
That's what I'm getting out of these quotes, not the suggestion that we should abandon civilization.
Dan, that's not all you quoted. You quoted this paragraph, twice:
"Why were the Scribes and Pharisees hypocrites? Why, except because they had turned from the spirit to the letter, from Nature to artificiality?"
After quoting that the second time, you added, "I like the way that sounds. It rings true to me."
I was not aware that the Pharisees drove SUV's or were otherwise dependent on the consumption of non-renewable fossil fuels, and if that was all you were criticizing, you picked a really odd quote to make that point.
Yes, it DOES ring true. Jesus his own Self said similar things - that the pharisees were hewing to the letter of the law and missing the weightier matters of life.
They lacked grace and the Spirit and instead pounced on the picayune and minutiae.
I don't know that the writer was indicating the pharisees were specifically embracing civilization and that was the problem (I don't get that out of what he was saying), but rather that by focusing on the minutiae of their human-established rules and regulations (also part and parcel of civilization) that they were denying the spiritual, grace-ful, natural ways of God.
That's what I got out of it, anyway. The pharisees as allegory.
But then, as you know, I don't take each line of everything I read literally...
Sooo... here's what Shirley wrote that I quoted:
Why were the Scribes and Pharisees hypocrites? Why, except because they had turned from the spirit to the letter, from Nature to artificiality?
You disagree, then, with his assessment that civilization (as represented by the image of Pharisees, with their nitpicking rules and regulations) has a negative, corrupting influence on humanity?
Dan, I agree that Jesus criticized the Pharisees for focusing on the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law, but He didn't attribute that behavior to the artificiality that comes from civilization.
If you want to argue that Shirley was invoking the Pharisees allegorically, feel free, but doing so requires you to read into his words what isn't there. I would prefer that, if you going to read allegory into Shirley's criticism of the Pharisees, you would be a little more proactive in making that explicit and that you would refrain from snarky little comments about how I'm not sticking to precisely what was written and nothing more.
"Do you have any comments to make about what anyone has actually said?" Shirley didn't actually suggest that his criticism was allegorical, so my reading appears to be more straight-forward than yours, not less.
Finally, about this question:
You disagree, then, with his assessment that civilization (as represented by the image of Pharisees, with their nitpicking rules and regulations) has a negative, corrupting influence on humanity?
I'm not sure the Pharisees are representative of civilization, nor do I think that their hypocrisy and corruption is the result of civilization's influence: I don't put any stock in the myth of the noble, innocent savage.
But it seems to me that, in asking the question, you implicitly agree that civilization "has a negative, corrupting influence on humanity."
Funny, I thought you were at least ambivalent on the subject, saying that civilization was a "mixed bag." You haven't affirmed that civilization is a net positive, but you find truth in all sorts of claims that it's a net negative.
I don't know that it's a net positive. My opinion (and that's all it would be for any of us) is that it's a net negative. Still, that isn't to say I'm suggesting doing away with civilization (as if we could even do that - we can't).
Consider:
One million people die each year from car wrecks. Another three million from air pollution (to which the personal auto contributes significantly). Tens of millions upon millions are injured and incapacitated.
"BUT," one may ask, "What about ambulances? Don't they SAVE lives? Maybe even more lives than are lost in car wrecks and by pollution! If we do away with the problems caused by cars then we'll also lose the benefit of ambulances!"
No. Only in a total black and white world. It's not a matter of
1. Do we do away with cars and all their destruction
OR
2. Do we keep cars so that we can have ambulances?
Things need not be that drastic. Instead, what if we created policy (personal and societal) that encouraged responsible use of the technology? What if we, through various means, encouraged much less driving, much slower driving, much safer driving (ie, driving in a personally responsible manner) and yet still keep ambulances for when they're needed?
It need not be an either/or game.
In pursuing a life MORE in balance with nature (which equals, in my mind and I think in the minds of these writers a life more in balance with God's Way) we can still embrace technology and "civilization" but is it not only logical to do so wisely?
No one here disagrees with this notion. It is simply sound reasoning, at least at the abstract level.
What I object to as not logical and selfish/harmful/sinful is the unthinking acceptance of each new trinket and toy that civilization gives us.
We ought to ask questions: IS the personal auto (for instance) a good thing on whole? CAN we accept that particular technology and do so in a responsible way? What if EVERYONE embraces this technology - if what is relatively harmless for one person becomes widespread, is it still relatively harmless?
And so on.
This, I believe, is what these back-to-nature types tend to be suggesting. It certainly is what I'm talking about.
The opinion that civilization itself is a net negative for humanity is not remotely rational. It's an absurd position that no one should pretend to take seriously.
Some of what you say, Dan, is reasonable enough, debatable as your claims can be, but not that.
As a starting point, the opinion that civilization itself -- not just a particular technology or cultural more, but civilization in toto -- is a net negative is such a horrifically misguided starting point that it's not really mitigated by your more moderate (and somewhat inexplicable) position that we shouldn't abandon civilization altogether.
Actually, my position is that we CAN'T abandon civilization. It's part of what we are. Where there are people, there will be civilization of some sort and to some degree.
The question for me, then, is can we live within the bounds of Natural Law or must we always grow in self-destructive ways?
Actually, civilization as a net negative for humanity is logical and well supported by reason and evidence presented by folks more knowledgeable than I such as Jared Diamond who calls the agricultural revolution that made civilization possible the worst mistake in human history.
His 1987 article published in Discover magazine where he explores all this can be read at http://www.
environnement.ens.fr/perso/
claessen/agriculture/mistake_jared
_diamond.pdf.
While I'm not sure I agree with everything he suggests, I do think what he says is worth considering.
I'm not suggesting we time travel back to Mesopotamia and somehow keep folks from cultivating grain and domesticating sheep, goats, pigs and cow. That said, it doesn't hurt to examine the effects of civilization and ask, "What are the negative affects of civilization and how might we live more in tune with how God created us?"
Getting in tune with God's original plan before sin and civilization pushed us out of the garden should be given serious attention.
I'm going to try to write a post here soon about The Birth of a Civilization and describe Louisville's start here at the Falls of the Ohio as a starting point for considering the ups and downs of a particular civilization.
What is civilization but the people of which it is comprised? Dan, you have at one time wrote that you have faith in people, but then you call civilization a corrupting influence. I don't get that at all. It's very contradictory. In fact, the more I read the comments here, the more I believe it's absoulutely silly to even speak of civilization in such terms, as if it is an entity acting of its own accord. Civilization is just people gathered together, for all intents and purposes. The term is used to describe those great clusters of people who have created technological advances, but even tribes in jungles are civilizations. It comes from the word "civilized", but that term is a bit subjective as a tribe has to some extent become civilized compared to simply running in packs. We like to consider ourselves "more" civilized yet we share the same human shortcomings as more primitive civilizations, with the manifestations somewhat more moderated.
My point is that the whole discussion of corrupting civilizations is rather silly since we're talking about people. People are corrupt by nature, born into sin, and in always comes down to PEOPLE corrupting, not impersonal entities, like civilizations, or corporations for that matter.
As for my remarks about nature being corrupted, I was thinking about "the lion shall lie down with the lamb" which some interpret as a return to the time before the Fall of Man.
As to my other earlier remarks, my point was that with fewer people, as there would be in a smaller community away from "civilization", there are fewer to hold each other accountable. Things that might have been thought wrong may no longer be. (Think of a nudist colony or a hippy commune.) I took it to the extreme with one single person escaping to live on his own as a hermit. How that one person would live life would be based on his own terms, which would change as his life went on, and usually to a self-comforting direction.
Marshall, another possible interpretation when thinking about "the lion shall lie down with the lamb" is that, instead of metaphor of a return to the time before the Fall of Man, it's a metaphor of when God's realm is acknowledged on earth as it is in heaven and the tyrants and oppressors of human civilization and empire dwell together justly and peaceably with the oppressed.
Humans still choose their behavior in a "civilized" context or otherwise. It's just that this gathering of humans called civilization provides more temptations of relying on ones own human efforts and less on God's designs. It think this is the warning of Genesis.
The importance of community for interpretation and as a sounding board for new ideas and accountability is essential, in my view. One should note, however, that for it's first 300 years, Christianity was a small minority alternative to the temptations of empire and civilization offered in the Mediterranean world. I don't think they could have lasted without an accountable community and God's grace.
Roger,
I must reject your interpretation on one point, that being tyrants "dwell together justly and peaceably with the oppressed." There's no reason to suspect that could ever happen or they wouldn't be tyrants. Such is against their nature. Instead, tyrants will be judged in the manner we all will and will be punished for their rebellion against God as all unrepentant sinners will be.
But I agree that people living together offer accountability. This would contradict the notion of civilization being a corrupting influence as with civilization there are more laws and better enforcement than in smaller "non"-civilized groups. The most apparent downside to me with civilization is the ability to be anonymous and thus answerable only to the self, just as if one followed my extreme example and became a hermit. People thrive better with other people around. That there might be more corruption is a result of their being more people. But the smaller the group of people, the closer each one is to the corrupting influence in that group. I think there's no real difference except in numbers.
Lions and lambs don't live peaceably together, either - it's not in their nature. Neither do tyrants and the oppressed. Yet it seems to be a promise that one day our sinful nature will not be an issue in God's realm, that one day we won't oppress one another and we'll live together in peace.
I believe the smaller the group, the more accountability is present. I don't speed on the highway near as often when traveling with my mother. Our family accountability is greater than that of other groups of which I am a part. The accountability I have with my church is greater and more specific than it is with everybody under the "Christian" banner.
So it depends, then, upon the makeup of the group. If the small group is truly in line with Christian teaching, then accountability, if it is needed, will be there. If the small group is a smattering of people in the sense of a cross-section of society, then it will be a smaller representation of the larger society. Nothing changes. One hopes, when seeking out a smaller group, that is is comprised of like-minded people where, again, accountability isn't as necessary since everyone acts in pretty much the same manner.
Post a Comment