A Christian Environmental Ethics - Part Three

in

This post is Part Three of a series on Christian environmental ethics. Part One emphasized the goodness of creation and the unique stewardship responsibility of humans within the created order. Part Two outlined the impact of sin on the world, particularly through the cursing of creation.

All of creation was good, as God described. However, because of Adam’s sin, God cursed creation to remind humans of the impact of their sin and point toward their need for a redeemer. Additionally, humans have, on many occasions, continued to sin by being poor stewards of creation, which can be seen in some of the pollution and many of the human-caused ecological disasters in the world.

In Scripture, Romans 8 points toward the final redemption of all things, when the curse will be lifted. This is both a present and future reality. In other words, redemption has a right-now aspect and a not-yet aspect. As Paul write in 1 Corinthians 13:12,

“For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.”

Redemption is the work of Christ in the world. Even from the beginning, Christ has been deeply involved in every aspect of creation.

He [God the Father] has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

He [Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.  And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. (Col 1:13–20)

Christ created all things. He holds all things together. He will reconcile all things to himself, making peace by the blood of his cross.

We can see Christ’s work of redemption and reconciliation in his life. The vast majority of Christ’s miracles demonstrate a pushing back of the curse. The only two possible exceptions are the withering of the fig tree and the changing of water to wine at the wedding at Cana, but both of those can be explained as still demonstrating a positive influence over the created order.

The lesson we can pull from this is that we should be working right now to combat the effects of the curse. This includes such things as healing people, helping the poor, and minimizing pollution. Good stewardship includes working for a healthier ecosystem.

Revelation provides a picture of what the New Heavens and New Earth will look like:

“Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.  He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” (Rev 21:1–4)

Here are two things to note from this text:

1.   History is moving from the garden to a city. This means that human development and population of the earth is expected. Untouched wilderness may be a good, and may be something we can enjoy, but it isn't the goal for all of creation.

2.   The final restoration of the created order––the removal of the curse––is the work of God and not the work of humans. It is something God has planned from the beginning.

Drawing these concepts together, we can see that the ultimate work of restoring the environment will be done supernaturally by God. However, just as Christ worked to reverse the effects of the curse on the earth, so should we. This will include finding ways to be environmentally friendly. Being environmentally friendly, in many cases, is a part of whole-life stewardship.

Eight Twenty Eight - A Love Story

in

I started following the story of Ian and Larissa Murphy a few years ago when John Piper's ministry, Desiring God, allowed them to guest blog and used their story to illustrate the concepts behind his helpful book, This Momentary Marriage.

If the Murphy's story isn't emotionally moving to you, then you have a heart of stone. It was amazing to see the story in brief several years ago, but their recent book Eight Twenty Eight: When Love Didn't Give Up retells the story in greater depth. This is a story of love that transcends romantic love, moving to the level of self sacrifice that is a testament to the power of God working in the hearts of believers.

Ian and Larissa went to college together. They fell in love. Soon they were going to get engaged. However, their pedestrian romance took a sudden and dramatic turn when Ian was in a horrific car accident. 

For weeks after the accident, no one was certain Ian would live. If he did survive, he would be left with severe brain damage and be physically handicapped for life.

Most normal women in their early twenties would have mourned the loss and eventually moved on. This story tells of Larissa not giving up, but clinging to her love of Ian and the hope of his recovery. It also talks about the work of an entire community in supporting Ian's family and Larissa and helping them cope and eventually overcome.

Ian will never make a full recovery in this life. Although there has been some recovery of physical and mental capacities, the trauma of that accident will forever impact how Ian lives. He will always require special care. By choosing to marry Ian, Larissa made a life-long commitment to serve someone in difficult and sometimes humiliating ways.

This makes the decision of a talented, educated young woman to stay and marry a man that will require significant, life-long care astounding.

Ian recovered significantly before they got married. Though he was not the same as he was before the accident, this books provides accounts that show he was really there, behind the handicap. Still, the self-sacrifice is amazing.

I am certain their marriage isn't perfect. None are. Larissa and Ian give some hints to places they have failed, though they don't talk about all the struggles in detail. This is fine, since knowing all of the dirt wouldn't make this story any more authentic. At its core, this is a story of an agape love imperfectly manifested, but about as well as can be done in this earth.

This book was an encouragement to read. God is working through and perhaps especially because of Ian's accident. God is also working through Larissa's response.

Take the time to read this book. It is worth the investment, but have a box of tissues nearby.

Note: I received a gratis copy of this book from the publisher, but there was no requirement of a positive review. The analysis above is entirely my own.

A Christian Environmental Ethics - Part Two

in

This is Part Two of a series, arguing toward a Christian environmental ethics. You can read the first part here, which discusses Creation as the start of a paradigm for a Christian approach to ecology.

------------------------------------

When God created the world, everything started off well. God describes the sum of his creation as very good. Adam and Eve had the job of subduing and ruling over the created order. But, if you’ve been around church much in your life, you know that the story doesn’t stop there. In the garden of Eden, Adam and Eve had everything they needed, but Adam chose to sin.

The snake gets Eve to question God’s command. She eats the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Adam eats the fruit, even though he knew he wasn’t supposed to. And sin comes into the world through human action.

The serpent is cursed to crawl on the ground and eat dust. We get the first expectation of a redeemer in Gen 3:15. Childbirth becomes hard for women. But there is some more information in Genesis 3 about the effects of human sin:

And to Adam he said,

“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
    and have eaten of the tree
of which I commanded you,
    ‘You shall not eat of it,’
cursed is the ground because of you;
    in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
    and you shall eat the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your face
    you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
    for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust,
    and to dust you shall return.” (Gen 3:17–19)

 There are two ideas that will help us understand the effects of the Fall in this passage:

1.   The ground is cursed – The ESV says, “because of you.” The KJV says, “for thy sake.” The two phrases mean almost the same thing, but slightly different. Clearly the cursing of the ground is because of Adam’s action, but it is also for Adam’s benefit.
2.   Work becomes hard – Adam still has the responsibility to cultivate and keep the earth, but it will become hard. The good creation will now resist the attempts of humans to improve it.

So, because of the Adam’s sin, not only did spiritual death come into the world, but the ground itself was cursed. It was cursed to help communicate the reality of human sinfulness to humans, to point out that something is wrong with the world. Romans 8 helps us understand this:

 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. (Rom 8:19–23)

We should recognize that things are not the way they ought to be in the world. Creation itself has been “subjected to futility” because of Adam’s sin and will only be set free from that when heaven and earth are restored. In the meanwhile, the frustrate creation reminds us that things are not the way they are supposed to be.

This is the stage that best describes where we are in the history of the world. Although redemption has begun through Christ’s work, it hasn’t come to bear on the created order in a holistic way. We are living with the effects of the sin of Adam and Eve and with the effects of other human beings as well. Not all human impact on the created order is sinful, but some of it is.

During this time that we are living, while we are waiting for the restoration of all things, we should live in order to steward the creation well. This was God’s vocation for Adam and he never rescinded it. However, just like the manager of a company, we will have to give an account for our stewardship.  Creation belongs to God, he has merely entrusted us with it. We should be working to improve it and to push back the effects of the Fall.

In the next part of this series, I will cover the third phase of God’s metanarrative: Redemption. This is God’s work to lift the curse, both by providing a way of salvation for those that believe and by removing the effects of sin from the Creation.

Coming Back Home to Wobegon

in

If you grew up in the suburbs going home is no big deal. You probably never knew every one of the folks in your neighborhood. It is even less likely that you knew most of the people that lived in a several mile circle around you. So, for the indigenous suburbanite, going home means visiting your parents in the house you grew up in.

It’s another thing to go home if you grew up in the country. That’s what it’s like for me to go home. Once we get off the main highway onto the winding roads through the hills of Western Pennsylvania the memories start coming back.

First it’s the little town that I used to stop at to get gas and eat. Then it’s the huge hill with a Country Music radio station at the top with a hotel and restaurant across from it. I ate at the restaurant once and the food was lousy. It looks like it has changed owners a few times since then. I don’t care to risk the food again.

As we get closer in the memories begin to come more rapidly. Here’s the town that I used to work in during the summer. The place where a truck turned over once and we collected scattered wooden pallets. There used to be an antique store on the one side with a hardware and auto parts store in it. Those are closed now. Come to think of it, it’s a wonder they ever stayed open so long at such a distance from town.

Then to see the fast food restaurant closed in the next town, remembering stops for food on the way home from sporting events. Now I wonder where you can get a cheap burger anymore. Some houses look run down, some look a little better. Everything looks different and the same at the same time.

Once we get within a few miles of my house–the only one I lived in until I went to college–most of the houses are familiar. There’s the one with the crossed skis hanging on it. It has changed colors, but still the same. The houses next to it look a little worse for wear and they were shabby to begin with. I remember the names of most of the residents, at least the ones that lived there a decade ago. Some of them moved on, some dead, some probably still there.

I remember the times I rode my bike down that hill and walked it up the next. I remember picking up pop cans along many stretches of the road because I could earn a nickel for them. It took a while, but you could earn some money that way.

This is what it feels to be from Lake Wobegon. Instead of getting there with a little bump as you cross into Mist County--which doesn’t show up on any maps--I can get directions on my phone as long as I can get signal--which isn’t a given. The geography is different between Lake Wobegon and my hometown, but the stories all sound about the same.

Much like Garrison Keillor’s fictional town, the big news is the weather, the neighbors, and the local news. It’s a long way from Raleigh, North Carolina where terrorism, the global economy, and many social ills seem to be on the doorstep. Visits home make moving to the middle of nowhere seem like an option, at least for a little while.

But then the reality sets in. The nearest bookstore is 45 minutes away and most places like this don’t need someone with a PhD. And then, it gets old when too many people know your business and you get questions at the store, at work, and at school about why you cut a tree down. Was it rotted? Are you going to use it for firewood? How are you going to get the stump out?

The first explanation is fine, the fourth alright. By the twentieth you start to wonder whether Mrs. Granger would call the police if you told her you wanted the stump dug up as cover for the grave of the guy from the city you caught hunting on your land.

But you don’t tell her that. You just smile and talk about how it was leaning toward the house and killing the grass. And life goes on about the same as it ever did.

A Christian Environmental Ethics - Part One

in

Environmental ethics is a hot topic in the world, since concerns over climate change have led to arguments, protests and physical violence. The issue is as much economic as it is ecological, and there is an element of political power-seeking from both sides of the debate. As is typical, a Christian environmental ethics does not line up with many voices in the contemporary debate.

This is not a discussion of climate change, capitalism, the Keystone pipeline, fracking, coal-ash spills, or any particular issue. First, these are all extremely divisive and tend to distract from meaningful argument about the principals of environmental ethics. Second, I am more concerned to present a biblical approach to the environment, which will shape the beliefs behind particular decision.

The basic paradigm for unpacking a Christian Environmental Ethics has three parts: (1) Creation; (2) Fall; (3) Redemption. This is often simply a biblical theology, but it can also be used to describe a basic approach to our attitude toward the creation.

This post is Part One in a series, which will cover the understanding of Creation for an ethics of environment.

I.           Creation

The first thing to understand is that God created everything good. In the Genesis account of creation in Genesis 1, God made everything out of nothing in six days. Six times he described what he created as good. After he created Adam and Eve, he described the whole of his created order very good.

And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. (Gen 1:31)

There are a few things that we can learn from this:

1.   God created everything – Everything that exists came into existence because God made it, regardless of the timeline you accept for creation.

2.   As the Creator, God has certain rights over his Creation – It isn’t as if he made something and sold it. God spoke everything into existence, he ultimately has ownership over it all.

3.   Everything God created was good – God didn’t declare everything to be good. God saw that everything was good. In other words, the created order has a goodness due to its nature and right relationship to God, not due to a special declaration.

In the Genesis account of creation, we also learn that man was made in God’s image:

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them. (Gen 1:27)

There are several things that the image of God can mean. Theologians usually describe the image of God as one or more of the following: (1) Functional likeness to God; (2) Relational likeness to God; (3) Substantive likeness to God.

For this lesson, the key here is to look at the functional likeness to God. We are like God in that we have the function of sub-creators. He is the Creator and we continue his creative actions. This is part of the reason he created humans in his image.

Immediately after he spoke Adam and Eve into existence, he gave them dominion over the created order and told them to subdue it:

And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (Gen 1:28)

Then, in the more detailed account of creation in the next chapter, we see God give Adam a particular charge to develop the garden of Eden. This is not a destructive domination, but it should be a just stewardship that brings the best out of the created order, much like a farmer works his fields.

The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. (Gen 2:15)

Some translations render this as “till and dress” or “cultivate and keep.” There is an agricultural function for Adam (and later Eve) to take charge of the garden. The garden was not a place of absolute rest, but a place of work and worship. Humans were given stewardship of the earth:

The heavens are the Lord's heavens,
    but the earth he has given to the children of man. (Ps 115:16)

The picture we get in Genesis 1 and 2 is of humans given responsibility as stewards over creation. We are to have dominion over it, but always with a view that we are to give account for how we use and tend the created order.

A Recent Encounter with a Little Belgian Detective

in

For those of you that enjoy the British mystery series centering on Agatha Christie's famous slueth, this book will be a treat. After twenty-five years of playing the little Belgian detective, David Suchet has gifted his fans with an autobiographical account of his time as Hercule Poirot.

Suchet offers firsthand anecdotes of his experience with fans:

I wanted to just take a little time away from the hustle and bustle of the [filming] unit to collect my thoughts. In full costume, complete with my Homburg and cane, I walked just round the corner in to a peaceful side street to stand on my own and think about what was to come.

Quite suddenly, out of the corner of my eye, I caught a glimpse of a little old lady walking slowly towards me on my side of the street, pushing one of those square shopping trolleys with four wheels, clearly on her way home. I did not say anything at all, but when she reached me, she stopped.

'Hello Monsieur Poirot,'  she said, with her head cocked to one side.

For a moment I was at a loss to know what to say. Should I respond as Poirot? Do I respond as David Suchet? What voice should I choose?

I made my decision.

'Bonjour, madame,' I said, sticking firmly to the little Belgian's voice and manners. 

The little old lady smiled, and then a look of uncertainty spread slowly across her face.

'There hasn't been any trouble, has there?' she asked, her voice aquiver. 'I mean, there hasn't been a murder or anything?'

This is one among many entertaining nuggets throughout the book.

More enthralling to the Poirot fan, though, is the information Suchet provides about how he worked to present the character of Hercule Poirot in a manner faithful to Agatha Christie's portrayal. This included learning to walk in a mincing manner by practicing with a penny between his cheeks. Early on in the series, it also included standoffs with the production crew over Poirot's wardrobe, his mannerisms, and his lines.

When he was cast for the part, Suchet had never read a single Christie novel, though he had previously played Chief Inspector Japp across from Peter Ustinov's Poirot in Thirteen at Dinner. This meant that Suchet had to quickly study the quirky Belgian to create a convincing part.

He rapidly read many of the Poirot novels, making careful notes of the detectives behavior so he could model every movement faithfully. An amazing artifact, the handwritten list of ninety-three notes on how to portray the little Belgian are included as appendix to this recent autobiography.

In this, Suchet stands apart from many other actors. His main focus was to play Poirot and make him real. He wanted the audience to see Poirot as Christie had imagined, not as a construction of his own mind. Because of Suchet's faithfulness to the characters, the changes to the story that were made to convert the written word to an on-screen production as not as glaring as some recent movie adaptions of British fiction.

This book is a delight to read. As a fan of both the books and the movies, I enjoyed it thoroughly. There are points where Suchet, in attempting to include all his co-workers, tends to provide too much detail about particular episodes. These passages, however, are not too frequent and can be skimmed, so they do not detract from the quality of the book. This book is neither sentimental twaddle nor salacious gossip, but an interesting and lighthearted read.

------------------------------

Some shameless commerce:

Poirot and Me
$10.81
By David Suchet
Buy on Amazon

Note: I received a free copy of this book from the publisher for the purpose of reviewing it. However, I was not required to review this book positively. The opinions expressed above are my own.

Singleness and the Christian

in

Given that approximately 64% of households in the United States in 2012 were headed by unmarried adults,[1] a failure to address singleness would be a mistake. In fact, a failure to address singleness has been a significantly overlooked issue among conservative Christians that is only in recent years beginning to be addressed more thoroughly.[2]

 No One is Married in Heaven

 In an attempt to trip Jesus up and pit him against the Pharisees, the Sadducees asked Jesus about resurrection and marriage:

 23 The same day Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection, and they asked him a question, 24 saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies having no children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother.’ 25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died, and having no offspring left his wife to his brother. 26 So too the second and third, down to the seventh. 27 After them all, the woman died. 28 In the resurrection, therefore, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her.”

29 But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” (Matt 22:23–30)

So marriage is a vital institution, but it is contained to this earth. There is no marriage in heaven. As much as I love my wife and will love her more when we both live in the new heavens and earth, we won’t be married then.

Singleness is a Vocation for Some

Marriage is something that is limited to our time here on earth. And Paul makes clear that some people would do well to be single:

 6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. 8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am.9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. (1 Cor 7:6–9)

25 Now concerning the betrothed, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. 26 I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is. 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned. (1 Cor 7:25–28)

 32 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. 33 But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. 35 I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. (1 Cor 7:32–35)

A few things we can take away from Paul’s writing in 1 Corinthians 7:

1.      Getting married or staying single is not a sin, so this clearly falls under God’s will of direction.

2.      There are benefits to being single and benefits to being married. These should be weighed in the decision.

3.      All people are called to lived chastely; single people are called to abstain from sex. Purity falls under God’s will of desire.

 Another point to consider in the evaluation of singleness as a vocation is that Jesus–very God living as perfect man–was unmarried. He never sinned. He lived a perfect life. He fulfilled God’s will in every action and demeanor. He was single.

Ultimately, then, choosing to be single or to marry will follow a similar decision making process to choosing a career or choosing a spouse.

[1] Jonathan Vespa, Jamie M. Lewis, and Rose M. Kreider, America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2012 (Washington, DC: US Census Bureau, 2013), 3.

[2] See, for example: Andreas Kostenberger and David Jones, Marriage and the Family: Biblical Essentials (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2012). Chapter 5 is focused on singleness. See also: John Piper, This Momentary Marriage: A Parable of Permanence (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2009). Chapters 9 and 10 discuss singleness.

----------------

Another helpful resource from the ERLC's recent conference on this subject:

From the 2014 ERLC National Conference on "The Gospel, Homosexuality, and the Future of Marriage."

-----

Cover photo credit: http://ow.ly/ENoP7 (Licensed under Creative Commons.)

David Livingstone, Abolitionist

in

“To all our subjects who may see this and also to others, may God save you, know that we have prohibited the transport of slaves by sea in all our harbours and have closed the markets which are for sale of slaves through all our dominions. Whoever therefore shall ship a raw slave after this date will render himself liable to punishment and this he will bring upon himself. Be this known.” – From a notice, posted on a customhouse in Zanzibar on June 5, 1873, about 1 month after David Livingstone’s death.

Every biography of David Livingstone picks up on a different aspect of his life. He’s hailed as a paragon of missionaries for abandoning the colonial model of a mission station to push to the interior of Africa. Unfortunately, by most ways missionaries are measured, he was not terribly successful, with few converts in his lifetime. He is sometimes celebrated as a scientist due to his medical discoveries, particularly his pioneering of the treatment of quinine for the prevention and treatment of malaria. Often he is known as a great explorer because of his expeditions into the heart of Africa to map the territory and to attempt to find the headwaters of the Nile.

Jay Milbrandt’s recent biography, The Daring Heart of David Livingstone: Exile, African Slavery, and the Publicity Stunt that Saved Millions highlights an element of Livingstone’s life that is often little publicized: Livingstone was passionate about ending the brutal slave trade in East Africa. In fact, the closing of the slave markets in Zanzibar, highlighted in the statement above, was one of the greatest accomplishments of his career, which unfortunately he did not live to see.

Reading of Livingstone’s life is heartbreaking. He failed at several major efforts. He won the hearts of the people of Britain and America due to his discoveries and his missionary accounts. But then he lost the crowd’s applause due to his public failures, which were driven in part by his personal weaknesses. He was, at times, a poor leader. By any reasonable metric he was a terrible father whose children barely knew him, if at all. Still, his wife had every reason to despise him and yet she loved him. I have read several biographies of Livingstone before. I have at times wondered why he is such a celebrated hero. Milbrandt has done a service by highlighting Livingstone’s greatest achievement.

This is a dark book at many points. In order to illustrate the importance of Livingstone’s fight against the slave trade, Milbrandt reveals some of the gruesome details of the conditions in East Africa during Livingstone's time.

For example, in order to destabilize conditions in an otherwise generally peaceful region of Africa, slave traders sent parties in to murder as much as to capture slaves. Villages would be wiped out with a few survivors taken captive, tied together, and sent on a death march toward the coast where they would be sold to the highest bidder. Disease, starvation, and exhaustion took the lives of many of the captives before they reached their destinations.

Livingstone records something more horrifying than the direct deaths due to the brutal slave raids:

“The strangest disease I have seen in this country seems really to be the broken-heartedness, and it attacks free men who have been captured and made slaves. . . . They ascribed their only pain to the heart, and placed the hand correctly on the spot, though many think that the organ stands high up under the breast bone. Some slavers expressed surprise to me that [their slaves] should die, seeing they had plenty to eat and no work . . . it seems to be really broken-hearts of which they die.”

Their families slaughtered, the captives in the slave camps died because their freedom was gone. They ceased to live because they had nothing left to live for. Slavery was a misery worse than the physical ailments that beset them. The blackness of the evil of slavery in that context must be understood if the value of Livingstone’s life work is to be recognized.

One of the more intriguing twists in Livingstone’s fight for abolition is that it was a publicity stunt that had the most impact in stopping the brutal slave trade. Livingstone had been reported dead by some of the natives who had accompanied his expedition to find the headwaters of the Nile. In order to scoop the British papers, the New York Herald sent Henry Morton Stanley to go find the wayward explorer.

Against all odds, Stanley was successful. After a series of interviews over a period of four months, Stanley left Livingstone, unable to convince the explorer to return to civilization. Livingstone did, however, send journals and letters with Stanley, which were influential in spurring political action in Britain to lean on the African nations to end their trade in slaves.

Contributing to the building momentum toward abolition was the dynamic between Britain, who had ended slavery in the early 19th century, and the United States, who had only ended their barbaric human trafficking after a bloody and divisive Civil War. Stanley’s efforts, funded by a US paper helped to shame the British into a more forward action against the slave trade.

Stanley’s encounter also provides a less biased picture of the man who was David Livingstone. Though Stanley was not particularly religious, he wrote this about Livingstone:

“His religion is not of the theoretical kind, but it is a constant, earnest, sincere practice. It is neither demonstrative nor loud, but manifests itself in a quiet, practical way, and is always at work . . . In him, religion exhibits its loveliest features; it governs his conduct not only toward his servants. . . . Religion has tamed him, and made him a Christian gentleman.”

Stanley’s admiration for the man, despite his failings, helps explain why Livingstone’s legacy is as great as it is. It also helps to explain why his wife, Mary, risked disease and death to be with her husband, though he had frequently left her behind for years at a time during his explorations. It also explains why so many of the Africans loved the man so dearly.

As Milbrandt aptly writes, “Livingstone’s story is one of failure and falling from grace. But it is also a story of relentless commitment that brings redemption we may never know, and a story greater than we could ever image. This is David Livingstone’s legacy.”

I am thankful to Jay Milbrandt for investing his time to write this biography. He has done a good thing to draw out the victory against slavery that came through Livingstone’s work. Milbrandt illustrates the reality that many great men and women had serious failings, and that despite these failings their memories should not be cast aside forever, nor should their weaknesses be ignored.

Though Livingstone did not accomplish all he set out to do, a worthy tribute was once paid to him in a speech made by an old African man that had once met the explorer:

“A white man who treated black men as his brothers, and whose memory would always be cherished all along the Rovuma Valley after we were all dead and gone. A short man with a bushy moustache, and a keen piercing eye, whose words were always gentle, and whose manners were always kind, whom as a leader it was a privilege to follow, and who knew the way to the hearts of all men.” 

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through the BookLook Bloggers book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

The Myth of "The One"

in

One of the greatest marriage-destroying myths in the world today is the idea that there is one person that is perfectly compatible with us. In non-Christian circles, this takes the form of looking for romantic attachment that is entirely fulfilling and without conflict. Christians try to baptize this concept by searching for “The One” that God has for them, as if God has a secret matrix of relationships with a single possible combination.

Both of these ideas are wrong. Both are harmful to society and to individuals. We should seek to eradicate the idea of “The One” from our worldview. In the end, everyone will be happier if we aren't looking for something that doesn't exist.

Non-Christians and “The One”

In his book, True Sexual Morality, Daniel Heimbach describes a counterfeit approach to sex as romantic sexual morality. He writes:

“Romantic sexual morality so glorifies the importance of sentimental affection in sexual relationships that sex is justified based on feelings alone. It says couples have only to decide if they are in love, and if they are, then sex is moral whatever else might be the case.” (255)

He goes on,

“In romantic morality, marriage does not legitimize expressing romantic affection with sex; rather, expressing romantic affection with sex legitimizes marriage. Romantics think marriage is a good way to express feelings; but if feelings fade, then sex is bad and the marriage is over.” (258)

At its root, the idea that there is one person in the world with whom we are perfectly compatible relies on this concept of romantic sexual morality: It is moral to do anything for love, and marriage is the way to show the recognition that their partner is “The One.”

However, feelings fade, conflict happens, and the happiness wanes sometimes ending in divorce.

Even before divorce, though, if feelings for another person arise and they appear to be a new “The One,” the old relationship becomes wrong and the relationship with the new “The One” becomes right.

In reality, romantic emotions are an important part of marriage, but they do not define morality and they are not the substance of marriage. Emotions come and go. Keeping promises faithfully helps build stronger families and ultimately a stronger society.

When adults follow romantic emotions to search for “The One” there is often a trail of broken families and broken hearts.

Christians and “The One”

The Christian version of this myth usually involves less extra-marital sex. However, it is still destructive to people’s happiness.

The basic version of “The One” myth goes something like this:

1.      God has a special plan for your life.

2.      This special plan includes every detail and every decision, including who you marry.

3.      If you choose wisely, things will go well because God is pleased; if you make a mistake, God will be disappointed and you will not be happy.

The vision here is of God in his throne room with a chart on the wall. Person A connects to Person B. They are “The One” for each other. Person C and Person D are each “The One” for each other.

However, due to Person A being 10 minutes late to Chem 6A on the first day of class, Person C and Person B end up sitting next to each other, going to lunch, and the rest is history. Now Person B is married to Person C and Persons A and D are left without their “The One.” Thus, God’s plans are thwarted, he is displeased, and everyone is unhappy.

There are a few problems with this:

1.      By this logic, it may be the right thing for B and C to get a divorce so that the proper couples, A–B and C–D can be formed. However, divorce is not consistent with the relationship between Christ and the Church, which is how Paul depicts it in Ephesians 5. This is not a good option.

 2.      This puts too much stress on people who are considering marriage. It makes them think there is a secret will of God they need to decode. This is not taught in Scripture. There are some basic qualifications for the appropriateness of marriage, but finding “The One” is certainly not one of them.

 3.      This vision of God is paltry. He isn’t sitting in heaven hoping we get things right, with the outcome dependent on our daily choices. No, the victory has been won, Christ is risen, the new heavens and new earth are coming and he knows the date of delivery. Our choice of spouse will not send God’s plan into a tailspin.

Ultimately, marriage is about being holy not being romantic. It should reflect mutual submission, humility, and faithfulness, much like Christ’s relationship with us.

This means that we will be faithful to our spouses even when we are frustrated. This means we will continue to perform loving actions for our spouse even when romantic feelings are absent. This means we will pursue joy in God even when we don’t feel “in love” with our spouses.

In the end there is greater fulfillment to be found in faithfulness and enduring love than in chasing romance. This is true for Christians and for non-Christians.

------

This is exactly the sort of perspective we want to avoid: