I supported Obama, but not this...

As most of your know, I supported the election of Barack Obama during this past election. I felt that evangelicals could, in good conscience, vote for either Obama or McCain. For reasons why I felt evangelicals should vote for Obama, read this. For reasons why I felt evangelicals should vote for McCain, read this.

One of the main reasons that I said evangelicals should vote for McCain is that he has been consistently Pro-Life. I believe that a vast majority of Christians (of all denominations) who voted for McCain did so because of the abortion issue. For them, this crucial issue (protecting the lives of the unborn) trumped all other issues. While I did not agree that abortion was the single most important issue in this past election, I am sincerely sympathetic to this stand. After all, it is a devastating realization when one understands that there are over one million abortions each year. This is truly a travesty of justice.

So, I definitely believe that the center of the “Pro-Life” issue is a strong opposition to abortion. However, it also includes such issues as war, poverty, hunger, disease, an unjust legal system, and the environment. All these issues are a part of a holistic and consistent “Pro-Life” agenda. Therefore, Christians who see “Life” issues beyond the core issue of abortion law (i.e., Roe v. Wade) voted for Obama, believing that these many issues lead this way.

At the same time, it deeply troubled us that Obama was such an outspoken proponent of abortion-on-demand. We understand that he wants to honor a woman’s right to choose, because women have had their rights terribly trampled on for so very long. But we insist that women’s rights do not trump the unborns’ right to life. This is a difficult issue, but Christians, at our best, are a people who stand up for the needs of the oppressed and for those who do not have the ability to speak for themselves. We are to act for justice as we walk humbly with our God. The unborn are the most oppressed people in our society – their very lives are in danger due to an extremely unjust law in our land.

Prior to the election, Barack Obama spoke to Planned Parenthood (see the video below). He made a promise to them that they will expect him to keep. He said, “The first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing I’d do.”




For all the good that President Obama can do as an agent of change in our country, this one decision would be a devastating mistake.

The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) will do away with state laws on parental involvement, on partial birth abortion, and on all other protections. FOCA will compel taxpayer funding of abortions. FOCA will force faith-based hospitals and healthcare facilities to perform abortions. Americans United for Life has analyzed FOCA and says that it is a “radical attempt to prematurely end debate over abortion.” Obama has said, time and time again, that he would like "to see an end to the culture wars." This is a very good suggestion, which Christians should embrace. We need to get past inflammatory rhetoric and partisan bickering. We need to seek cooperation as we seek the common good. However, with this issue, it seems that President Obama thinks that "ending the culture wars" means stopping debate in its tracks and forcefully eradicating every state and federal law on abortion — laws that the majority of Americans support. This is not open dialog and non-partisan politics. It is more of the same old partisan power-grabbing, only this time it's coming from the Left.

I oppose FOCA, which would establish the right to abortion as a fundamental right (like the right to free speech) and potentially wipe away every restriction on abortion nationwide. Please read the expert analysis by Americans United for Life (AUL) and sign the Fight FOCA petition at www.FightFOCA.com.

Fight the Freedom of Choice Act

"The Freedom of Choice Act," which Senator Obama has promised Planned Parenthood would be the first thing he would sign as President is dangerous legislation and it must be exposed.

Please help stop FOCA by signing the Fight FOCA Petition.

___

Fight FOCA Petition

I oppose the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), because:

• FOCA is a radical attempt to enshrine abortion-on-demand into American law;
• FOCA seeks to sweep aside existing, protective laws that I and the majority of Americans support;
• FOCA will prevent states from enacting protective measures in the future.

___

The Fight FOCA petition will be sent to key members of Congress upon the re-introduction of the Freedom of Choice Act in the 111th Congress, and to President-Elect Obama.

Gary Haugen and International Justice Mission featured in The New Yorker

International Justice Mission’s work is featured in the January 19 issue of The New Yorker – now available online and on newsstands.

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Samantha Power spent more than two years researching IJM’s casework in four countries.

Power thoroughly investigates many facets of IJM President Gary Haugen’s life, the mission and diverse viewpoints on anti-trafficking methodology. Ultimately, she provides the powerful evidence – by citing compelling IJM casework examples – of the life-changing and far-reaching outcomes of the work that you make possible.

Read Power’s article and go behind the scenes of IJM’s work (pdf).

With a circulation of more than one million, The New Yorker is one of the nation’s most influential news sources, and the article unveils on the world’s stage IJM’s passion for, and commitment to, strengthening rule of law on behalf of the global poor.

-Pamela Livingston, Vice President, Communications, International Justice Mission

Missional Community - A Flowchart for a Church

Click on the image for an enlarged version.
See also: The Problems of Departmental Divisions in the Church

The Problems of Departmental Divisions in the Church

I’ve been thinking about how local churches are organized, and I found myself troubled by the divisions that have been made for ministry. We create departments for the major areas of ministry (for instance, our church has "Worship, Community, and Mission"). It has taken me a few days to figure out what’s been troubling me. Here it is…

When I think of the “Church” (that is, a local manifestation of God’s People, not the “church universal”), I think of the people who are set apart for a purpose: to be God’s redemptive community on earth, especially in a specific locale.

This people are a Missional Community, living in the midst of people and loving and serving them with a view to be a redemptive blessing in their lives. Our redemptive work is the proclamation of the Gospel to our culture.

This “incarnational view” of church informs what we should be doing with our local congregations. each church is to be the incarnation of the body of Christ for their local community. The ministry is to be indigenous to this community, made up of people in this community to reach people in this community with the good news of Christ.

So, what are we supposed to do? We are to be a “Missional Community.” It boils down to this.

So, when we split up (in a very modernist way) our ministry into separate spheres (Worship, Community, Mission, etc.), we are pulling apart that which needs to be a cohesive unit.

I cannot imagine “community” without it being “missional.” I cannot imagine “mission” without it being by a community and for a community. And I cannot imagine “worship” outside the definition of Romans 12:1, where our lives are lived out sacrificially for others, as our “spiritual act of worship.”

In my view, the departments of the church need to serve the one purpose of Missional Community. This will ruffle some feathers in our churches, but the church’s departments all feed the overall purpose: to create and sustain a Missional Community.

The “Worship Department” is really just those in charge of the musical portion of our gathering time, where we come together to praise God.

The “Proclamation Department” is really just those in charge of preaching the gospel of joining in the Missional Community of the Church and instructing those involved in the Missional Community how to live out that calling.

The “Global Missions Department” extends our mission beyond our locality to those areas of the world that need our help to be reached.

The “Kids,” “Youth,” and “College” Departments proclaims the gospel of joining in God’s Mission to the younger generations, giving them purpose for their lives.

The “Adult Department” nurtures in adults the yearning to be Missional in Community.

The “Care Department” intervenes when members of the Missional Community are hurting.

But the overall goal is to create a cohesive ministry of people working together to live out the gospel in the midst of the people we are trying to reach. When we are a Missional Community working for the redemption of all things for the blessing of those in our cities, we are being the incarnation of Christ for their sakes.

We need to think about the implications of isolating up our ministry into these three separate divisions: Worship, Community, and Mission.

This post is mirrored at Missional Tribe.

My Top 10 Albums of 2008

Here’s a list of my favorite albums that I first heard in 2008 (I say this because some of these albums predate 2008, but for me, they are 2008 albums because this is when I listened to them).

1. O.S.I. - Free

The second album from Kevin Moore (ex-Dream Theater keyboardist) and Jim Matheos (Fates Warning’s Guitarist) continues the excellence of their first album, yet they succeed in moving things forward.

Mike Portnoy (Dream Theater) returns to play the drums.

A very unique sound – they seamlessly mix electronics with symphonic prog with just a touch of metal.




2. Frost* - Milliontown

An extremely listenable symphonic progressive rock album. Melodies are the centerpiece, with progressive rock changes in time signatures. For fans of classic Genesis, a must.

Also, shades of latter-day Peter Gabriel, but more melodic.

Especially good is "The Other Me," and "Black Light Machine."

Frost* has just released a new album (Experiments in Mass Appeal), which is not nearly as impressive as this first offering.



3. Ayreon – 01011001

When you listen to one of Arjen Lucassen’s Ayreon albums, you are in for an amazing treat: It is like going to the theater and experiencing an epic science fiction movie.

He immerses you into a story with sound effects and hard-driving rock with influences from Pink Floyd, Genesis, Dream Theater, Alan Parsons, and Metallica, depending on the song you’re listening to.

And it all flows together in an amazing seamless story. Ayreon's best album remains The Human Equation, but this album is still an amazing accomplishment.



4. Genesis – Live from Cleveland

I got the actual recording of when I saw Genesis play at Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland.

After all these years, Genesis still “have it.” The best band of all time. It was a remarkable concert.

The mass-market live album of this tour is called Genesis Live Over Europe 2007.



5. DeeExpus Project – Half Way Home

I was introduced to this band during a break at this past summer’s 3 Rivers Progressive Rock Festival by the organizer of NEARFest. He played it on his car’s stereo for a bunch of us who were tailgating between shows.

DeeExpus Project actually “out-porcupine-trees” Porcupine Tree with this album! (see #7 below)

"Greed" is the best song of the year. But "PTTee" (an ode to the greatness of Porcupine Tree, especially their album Deadwing, one of the best of all time) comes in a close second. Pointless Child is haunting and beautiful - with harmonies singing of a despairing relationship.



6. Coldplay – Viva La Vida or Death and All His Friends

Coldplay is the best thing on the radio. Period.

This album establishes that with no doubt in my mind.

Legendary producer Brian Eno (former keyboardist for Roxy Music and producer for U2's "Joshua Tree") brought out the very best in the band.



7. Porcupine Tree – Fear of a Blank Planet

PT’s latest offering is another amazing display of Steven Wilson’s genius.

Porcupine Tree is the most popular prog band today ("Fear of a Blank Planet” debuted at #59 on the U.S. Billboard album chart), and there’s a reason for it: Excellence in writing, performance, engineering, and production. Wilson is the one of the best producers (and the band is filled with some of the best musicians) in the business.

This concept album speaks to the emptiness of suburban youth culture, very poignant and moving.


8. Simon Collins – U-Catastrophe

The son of Phil has arrived with this album.

Wow.
It’s like listening to Genesis for the 21st Century. Hard-driving epic rockers and heart-felt melodies.

Guest artists include dad Phil on a wonderful drum-duet instrumental piece (“The Big Bang”) that is worth the cost of the CD in and of itself, as well as Genesis guitarist Steve Hackett on the excellent “Fast Forward the Future.”



9. Red – End of Silence

Who says Christian artists are lame?

Red’s “End of Silence” silences those critics.

This is as good as any hard rock going today, and with deeper meaning.



10. Neal Morse – Lifeline

Neal’s latest offering is vintage Morse (the former leader of Spock’s Beard, he left after the excellent album, "Snow").

The best parts are when he lets out all the stops with epic Prog songs, like “So Many Roads” which tells the story of how we have so many choices in life – either to walk with God or away from God.

The title track tells the story of Neal's life of seeking fame and fortune but God broke in and threw him a "lifeline." It's a Cliff's Notes version of the story he told on "Testimony."

The Emerging Church: Swinging the Pendulum too Far?

Is Right Practice the Antidote to Easy Belief-ism?

Michael Wittmer’s first book is one of my favorites of all time. In Heaven is a Place on Earth, Wittmer maps out a biblical worldview by combining a proper understanding of the imago Dei with the biblical story of Creation-Fall-Redemption.

His follow-up book is called Don’t Stop Believing: Why Living Like Jesus is not Enough. In it, he tries to strike a balance between conservative evangelicalism and the emerging church. His premise is that the evangelicalism of the 20th Century pressed too far one way, and that “postmodern innovators” (his term for the leaders in the emerging church movement) are overreacting by swinging the pendulum too far the other way. He states that his book is a “friendly warning” to the postmodern innovators of the emerging church. He states,

“I am thankful for their emphasis on authentic Christian living. Their vision for what the church can become is both exhilarating and challenging. My only concern, and the point I will press in this book, is that their quest to correct abuses of previous generations must not lead them to err on the opposite extreme. Perhaps our parents overemphasized right belief more than good behavior, but that must not become an excuse to teach good behavior at the expense of right belief. If we continue down this road, it may not be long until our liberal method leads to liberal conclusions. Authentic Christianity demands our head, heart, and hands. Our labor for Christ flows from our love for him, which can arise only when we know and think rightly about him. Genuine Christians never stop serving, because they never stop loving, and they never stop loving, because they never stop believing.” (pp. 19-20)

Wittmer’s book is a welcome addition to the conversation. Whereas D.A. Carson’s book Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church was poorly researched and reactionary without truly understanding the movement, Wittmer is actually conversant with the emerging church. He understands it, and thus he can authentically deal with one of the major issues for evangelicals who want to embrace the emerging church: The tension between belief and practice.

Evangelicals have placed a high emphasis on "believing in Jesus," and this “belief” has often (in a modernist world) been articulated as believing certain propositions about Jesus. According to many evangelical churches, if you can state that you believe that Jesus died for your sins and trust that he satisfied God’s wrath against those sins on the cross, you are “saved.” This is topped off with saying a “sinner’s prayer,” and an assurance that from now on, no matter what you do, you’re in… you are guaranteed your place in heaven.

The “postmodern innovators” of the emerging church have reacted to this by saying that Jesus is more interested in our actions than in what we can state to be truth. In Brian McLaren’s book The Last Word and the Word After That, the character Markus states that conservative Christians wrongly believe that “on judgment day, all God will care about is opening up our skulls and checking our brains…to see if we had the right notion of salvation by grace through faith in there somewhere.”

Wittmer states that McLaren’s answer to this incorrect understanding of faith is insufficient. Wittmer writes, “McLaren counters this extreme view by claiming that God judges people on the quality of their works rather than on what they believe.” (p. 35) Wittmer’s point: the postmodern innovators so underemphasize right belief and so overemphasize right ethics that they swing the pendulum too far the other way.

But does McLaren actually advocate “works righteousness?” No, he does not. In fact, McLaren very much advocates faith in the person of Jesus Christ. He has said, "I believe people are saved not by objective truth, but by Jesus. Their faith isn’t in their knowledge, but in God." (source) This is an excellent quote, and gets at the center of the issue.

The question that Mike Wittmer is going to have to deal with is this: Does faith in our knowledge about Jesus save us?

I believe it does not. I believe that faith in the person of Jesus is what delivers us.

But, here is where it gets very tricky: What basic facts do we need to “know” in order to place our faith in Jesus? This is what Wittmer gets into in his second chapter. Watch for my interaction with Mike Wittmer on this in an upcoming post.

Sign this Ecumenical Christian Letter to President-elect Obama

Support diplomatic efforts for a two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians

I've added my signature to the following letter that is being sent to Barack Obama for his inauguration.


Ecumenical Christian Letter to President-elect Obama

Dear President-elect Obama,

As Christians of the Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox and Protestant traditions, we are united by a Biblical call to be peacemakers and a commitment to the two peoples of the Holy Land who yearn for a just peace. As Americans, we urge you, Mr. President, to make achievement of Israeli-Palestinian peace an immediate priority during your first year in office.

The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians has gone on too long. It has caused untold suffering for both sides, created economic hardships, and provided a rallying cry for extremists.

As people of faith and hope, we believe peace is possible. Majorities of both Israelis and Palestinians continue to support a negotiated solution based on two secure and sovereign states as the best way to end this tragic conflict.

In order to achieve a durable peace, your Administration must provide sustained, high-level diplomatic leadership toward the clear goal of a final status agreement. Building on past discussions, we ask you to encourage Israeli and Palestinian leaders to make historic compromises necessary for peace.

Your commitment to working for the establishment of a viable Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel can help strengthen U.S. security and improve stability and relationships throughout the Middle East. We believe that Jerusalem – home to two peoples and three religions – has the potential to become a powerful symbol of hope and coexistence for people across the region and the world.

We know the work for a just peace will not be easy. It will require great courage and resolve, but the risk of inaction is even greater. Without active U.S. engagement, political inertia and perpetuation of the unbearable status quo will make achievement of a two-state solution increasingly difficult.

Moreover, we are concerned about the negative impact a further delay will have on the Christian community in the Holy Land, whose numbers continue to decline.

We call on all Christians and people of goodwill to join us in praying for the peace of Jerusalem and in supporting vigorous U.S. diplomatic efforts to secure Middle East peace. Mr. President, as you take up the many challenges facing the United States and the global community, we urge you to work for a better future for all the children of Abraham in the land that is holy to us all.


Noted signatories include
Richard Mouw, President of Fuller Theological Seminary, David Neff, Editor in Chief of Christianity Today, Stanley Noffsinger, General Secretary for the Church of the Brethren, Bishop Gregory Vaughn Palmer, President of The Council of Bishops for The United Methodist Church, Gradye Parsons, Stated Clerk of the General Assembly for the Presbyterian Church (USA), Metropolitan PHILIP (Saliba), Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, Chris Seiple, President of the Institute for Global Engagement, Ron Sider, President of Evangelicals for Social Action, Richard Stearns, President of World Vision, Jim Wallis, President of Sojourners.

The final letter, signed by Christian leaders and congregants from across the nation, will be delivered to President Obama during the time of inauguration. The last day to add your name is January 16, 2009.

Please add your name to the Christian Call for Holy Land Peace today and join your fellow American Christians in supporting vigorous diplomatic efforts to secure a just and lasting two-state solution.

I’m Baaa - aaack!

Some of what to expect here at Vanguard Church:




More on Integrating Faith and Work





Interactions with Mike Wittmer’s new book on the Emerging Church, Don’t Stop Believing: Why Living Like Jesus is Not Enough










Interactions with Scot McKnight’s new book on biblical interpretation, The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible











Check out (and maybe join!) the new network of missionally-minded people, Missional Tribe

Awaiting the Christ Child

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!

One of my favorite authors, Christine Sine, has produced a very meaningful video to celebrate Christmas.
Watch it here:

The Seven Deadly Sins of Evangelicals and Politics

Here, courtesy of John Ortberg at the Out of Ur blog, are the "Seven Deadly Sins of Evangelicals and Politics."

Messianism. The sin of believing that a merely human person or system can usher in the eschaton. This is often tipped off by phrases like: “The most important election of our lifetime” (which one wasn’t?); or “God’s man for the hour.”

Selective Scripturization. The sin of using Scripture to reinforce whatever attitude toward the president you feel like holding, while shellacking it with a thin spiritual veneer. If the candidate you like holds office, you consistently point people toward Romans 13: “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.” If your candidate lost, you consistently point people to Acts 4:10 where Peter and John say to the Sanhedrin: “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God.” It’s just lucky for us the Bible is such a big book.

Easy Believism. This is the sin of believing the worst about a candidate you disagree with, because when you want them to lose you actually want to believe bad things about them. “Love is patient, love is kind,” Paul said. “Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices in the truth.” But in Paul’s day nobody ran for Caesar. There was no talk radio.

Episodism. The sin of being engaged in civic life only on a random basis. The real issues never go away, but we’re tempted to give them our attention only when the news about them is controversial, or simplistic, or emotionally charged. Sustained attention to vital but unsexy issues is not our strong suit.

Alarmism. A friend of mine used to work for an organization that claimed both Christian identity and a particular political orientation. They actually liked it when a president was elected of the opposite persuasion, because it meant they could raise a lot more money. It is in their financial interests to convince their constituents that the president is less sane than Jack Nicholson in The Shining. Alarmists on both sides of the spectrum make it sound like we’re electing a Bogeyman-in-Chief every four years. I sometimes think we should move the election up a few days to October 31.

One Issue-ism. Justifying our intolerance of complexity and nuance by collapsing a decision into a simplistic and superficial framework.

Pride. I couldn’t think of a snappy title for this one. But politics, after all, is largely about power. And power goes to the core of our issues of control and narcissism and need to be right and tendency to divide the human race into "us" vs. "them."


Read the entire article here.
_

Homosexuality: Yes? No? Maybe?

Don’t underestimate the importance of the issue of homosexuality.

For the upcoming generation of Christians, this is going to be a very disturbing issue. The younger evangelicals are looking at faith with fresh eyes and listening to ideas with fresh ears. They are also growing up in both a post-Christian culture and a postmodern culture.

The post-Christian culture is less familiar with the Christian worldview. The postmodern culture is skeptical of anything that can be called an over-arching worldview. This coming generation has to deal the difficult issue of homosexuality as they also deal with post-Christendom and postmodernity. This is the world in which our young Christians are living. Most of them know someone who claims to be both gay and also a Christian. To simply state that the Bible says that homosexuality is sin will not do.

When California voted for Proposition 8 that defined marriage as only between a man and a woman, many were shocked. They could understand states like Ohio doing so (as we did in 2004), but liberal California? What was truly shocking was that a majority of African Americans voted for the bill. The conventional thinking in our culture is that “Gay Rights” is just the latest in the progression of “Civil Rights.” So, how in the world could those who had suffered and had been liberated by way of one of the greatest civil rights movements in history be against gay civil rights? The San Fransisco Chronicle's John Wildermuth wrote, "Californians voted their religion, not their political party, when they pushed Proposition 8 to victory and banned same-sex marriage in the state, campaign officials and political experts said."

Open, honest dialogue must take place. The biblical texts dealing with homosexuality need to be carefully examined. Hard questions will need to be asked and answered.

Why?

Because we evangelicals have been wrong before: Look at how we used to defend slavery based on Scripture, or outlawed inter-racial marriage based on Scripture, or created theocracies that killed dissenters based on Scripture (as was the case in Calvin’s Geneva), or subordinated women based on Scripture.

We might be wrong again. We had better be sure, and give a very convincing argument for what we’re sure of, for young evangelicals who are skeptical of the status quo to buy in.

How should we go about talking about it?

Maybe we need to sit down and talk with people with differing views than us. We need not fear this; when our views are challenged, it can either result in sharpening why we hold our position or it can moderate our position as we seek the Lord on what is his truth.

Tony Jones, author of The New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier and former national coordinator for Emergent Village, has taken a great risk and began a conversation with conservative blogger Rod Dreher on the issue. It was risky because Tony admits, "I now believe that GLBTs can live lives in accord with biblical Christianity (at least as much as any of us can!) and that their monogamy can and should be sanctioned and blessed by church and state." Dreher disagrees, and they have started a generous debate about it (they even have a video of the two of them talking about it).

I strongly disagree with Tony Jones on this issue, but I need to do so in a respectful way. And I need to listen and interact. Much in the same way that Rod is modeling. Recently, I commented at Bob Hyatt's facebook page inappropriately criticizing Tony for his views. Tony called me out on it, which I appreciated. I apologized for how I went about it, and he has forgiven me. It taught me a lesson: When addressing other brothers and sisters in Christ that we have strong differences with, we need to do so with grace and kindness.

For the next generation, homosexuality will be a major issue, and the heat that will rise from the frictional debate will inevitably cause some of us to say things we will later regret. Let's do what we can at the outset to enter the debates with humility and grace.

Radio Pulpits

Do this as an experiment:
Turn on your AM radio and find one or two of your local Christian radio stations. Listen for a while to the preachers there.

Because they are on the radio, they have your loyal attention. They are great at rhetoric. Rhetoric is defined in various ways – from the positive ("using language effectively to please or persuade") to the negative ("grandiosity: high-flown style; excessive use of verbal ornamentation") (Debating which radio preachers match more closely to the latter definition than the former is a discussion for another day!). Regardless of who you're listening to, most radio preachers have a weight to their words, an underlying authority. They claim to proclaim the only truth you need. They speak in a monologue seeking to convince you of how to think, how to live, and what to believe.

Once you’ve done that for a while, hit the "seek" button on your radio until you get to one of the many politically conservative radio stations in your community. As you listen to Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, or Rush Limbaugh, reflect on this: How is their rhetorical style similar to the preachers on the Christian radio stations?

They have the loyal attention of their followers. They are great at rhetoric, using grandiose language to effectively please and persuade their audience. They claim to proclaim the only truth you need. They speak in a monologue seeking to convince you of how to think, how to live, and what to believe.

They have successfully emulated the rhetorical style of the radio pulpit.

No wonder so many Christians are so enamored with these guys.

_

The Dignity of Plants?

Colson's Misunderstanding of the Goodness of All of Creation

In today's Breakpoint Commentary, "The Silence of the Yams: The Dignity of Plants?", Chuck Colson laments how a new film and the parliament of Switzerland seem to be raising the dignity of plants up to the level of human beings.

"One country appears to have taken the threat from plants seriously enough to sue for peace with the plant kingdom. That’s Switzerland. How? By enshrining the "dignity"—their word, not mine—of plants in their constitution. A molecular biologist at the University of Zürich...had to satisfy government officials that (a scientific) trial 'wouldn’t "disturb the vital functions or lifestyle" of the plants.

Dignity? Lifestyle? Of plants?

...Last spring, the parliament asked a panel of “philosophers, lawyers, geneticists and theologians” to determine how this requirement applies to plants. The panel’s report concluded that people do not have “absolute ownership” over plants and that “individual plants have an inherent worth.” Therefore, they concluded, “we may not use them just as we please, even if the plant community is not in danger.”

Plant community?

Unfortunately, the damage from this worldview isn’t limited to making Alpine countries look silly or creating more paperwork for researchers. While some of the sought-after parity between man and the rest of creation is achieved by raising the status of animals and plants, most of it comes through lowering our status as humans.

That’s where the real danger lies. Research that could help feed countless millions is made more difficult and even impossible because of concerns over plant “dignity.” Even worse, carrying the logic to its conclusion, the sanctity of human life becomes a matter of what you can do, not who you are—that is, someone created in the image of God. (read or listen to the entire commentary here)

I respect Chuck Colson. I've been reading his books and columns for over 20 years. He was the plenary speaker at CCO’s Jubilee Conference last year.

He is certainly right when he says, “While some of the sought-after parity between man and the rest of creation is achieved by raising the status of animals and plants, most of it comes through lowering our status as humans. That’s where the real danger lies.”

The line of thinking that Colson is espousing is correct, as long as we remember not to swing the pendulum again in the other direction by LOWERING the status of animals and plants in our effort to RAISE the status of humanity. Historically, the Christian church has been guilty of exploiting the rest of Creation, using the "image of God" (imago Dei) as our rationalization – we have basically said that animals and plants do not have dignity because they do not have the imago Dei. This is a pendulum swing too far the other way.

The biblical worldview places humanity as the pinnacle of the Creation; the only created thing with the imago Dei. Absolutely.

However, the biblical worldview also at least implies that all of Creation has “dignity” in that it all declares the glory of God.

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world" (Psalm 19:1-4).

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse (Rom. 1:20).

“You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being" (Rev. 4:11).

Further, the biblical worldview goes on to refute the idea that humanity is supposed to exploit the Creation. Rather, we have the duty of responsible dominion – instead of being lords over Creation, we are meant to be good stewards of the Creation.

As Cornelius Plantinga Jr. writes in Engaging God’s World: A Christian Vision of Faith, Learning, and Living, “In the Kingdom of God that Jesus proclaimed, dominion is never ‘lording over’; it’s more like ‘lording under’ by way of support. In the Kingdom of God, to have dominion is to care for the well-being of others. To have dominion is to act like the mediator of creation. This means that a human steward of God’s good creation will never exploit or pillage; instead, she will give creation room to be itself. She will respect it, care for it, empower it. Her goal is to live in healthy interdependence with it. The person who practices good animal husbandry, forest management, and water conservation shows respect for God by showing respect for what God has made.” (p. 31)

The first ontological distinction that has so often been made by Christians has been that humanity is the special creation of God (the imago Dei), and that all else is irrelevant. How I’d like to hear this articulated differently is this: the ontological distinction is that we are a part of the entire creation, and God is the only one that is wholly different. We, however, are the pinnacle of the creation, meant to care for the rest of Creation because we are made in God’s image. God's purpose in Christ is to redeem not only humanity but the entire created order.

"For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood shed on the cross" (Col. 1:19-20).

"The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies" (Rom. 8: 19-23)

I am a supporter of the Evangelical Environmental Network, which has an excellent way of stating these things. They especially have a great statement answering the question, “How are we to treat non-human creation? Are not people more important?”

Again, to reiterate, Colson is correct that Switzerland is not basing their concern for plants on a Christian Worldview. However, I think that a Christian Worldview could also conclude that “plants have an inherent worth.” Contrary to the conclusion of Switzerland’s parliament, humanity does have the authority to “use them just as we please.” God has placed us in dominion over the plants to use for the good of all beings, especially for humanity. If we responsibly use plants and animals for the common good, for the shalom of the entire earth, then we are righteously operating dominion. However, we must never use our authority as a rationale to exploit the creation for our selfish desires - especially for our materialistic and consumeristic desires, as so often happens.