I love it. It is God’s creation (read nature not creation). Every thing comes from random evolution except whatever you want to be created and receive special attention – like sexual diversity.
[i] Faith and Nature is an eight-session, downloadable, intergenerational, faith-formation resource focused on appreciating and living in harmony with God’s creation.[/i]
That’s what is said in the opening sentence. Reads ok to me.
I believe in a form of evolution but I agree with Einstein that God does not throw dice. I do not want to see this get off thread. I was just commenting on how creation is used by avowed evolutionists to spot light areas of interest.
Dear Dan – (Hi)
I agree – and interestingly there is quite a bit in God’s law that would encourage us to live in harmionary with what God has made (like the sabbath, for example). Two of the more interesting texts that I’ve been pondering lately come from very different parts of the canon. In Exodus 23:11 we are told that in the sabbath year lands are to be left fallow, not only so that the fields and orchards can ‘rest’ but also so that ‘the poor of your people may eat; and what they leave the wild animlas may eat (cf Lev 25:7). At the other end of the canon, in the Apocalypse a hymn of praise is sung to God who has begun to reign, bringing the time of his judgment for the dead, rewarding his servants and “destroying the destroyers of the earth (Rev 11: 18). Living in harmony with the earth and living in harmony with God’s law are not, it seems, mutually exclusive.
Einstein also said, “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. ”
Letter to an atheist (1954) as quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side (1981) edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman ISBN 0691023689
The resource may be fine as far as it goes. Surely it’s good for people (Christians included) to love the natural world, care for it, protect it wisely, etc. Who could disagree?
But with any church resource, especially one with a teaching or preaching message, it’s always worth asking the following question:
Is this resource (sermon, liturgy, sunday school lesson, whatever) something that I can imagine any decent, kind Unitarian minister, or rabbi, or Muslim cleric heartily endorsing?
If so, then there is nothing distinctively Christian about it. At best there is a vague monotheistic “spirituality” about it, but nothing of Christ in it.
That’s what Luther objected to in his debate with Erasmus — he called what Erasmus was saying at one point “Christless words, colder than ice.” Being nice and ethical and good and worshipping a creator God is fine, but lots of people are in favor of that.
If something fails that litmus test above, then that’s not a sign we shouldn’t do it (after all we do bake sales and softball games and all kinds of good things) but we need to make sure we see it as pennultimate — something of secondary importance to what we are actually there to do, which is proclaiming the good news of forgiveness in Christ and to administer his sacraments.
The series is written by Phyllis Strupp. I didn’t think the $49.00 investment would be a good “green” investment so I passed on the offer. The only green I see here are little bits of green paper flowing into someone’s pockets.
As wportbello alluded to, an interesting aspect of this is the continuing expansion of what is described as the “Anglican approach”.
First we had “scripture, tradition, reason,” which is a perhaps acceptable simplification of what Hooker actually said although routinely applied completely out of any context that Hooker would have used or accepted. Next “experience” was added to the “Anglican approach” list of principles. Of course what is meant by experience or how experience is supposed to be applied has been left pretty nebulous although I suppose it has something to do with phrases like “Where the Spirit is leading us.”
Finally we have “fun” added – maybe this is just a cutesy term. What I fear though, is it is one more step into making Anglicanism synonymous with an entirely subjective system of believe.
Pax et Bonum!
Steve
I love it. It is God’s creation (read nature not creation). Every thing comes from random evolution except whatever you want to be created and receive special attention – like sexual diversity.
[i] Faith and Nature is an eight-session, downloadable, intergenerational, faith-formation resource focused on appreciating and living in harmony with God’s creation.[/i]
That’s what is said in the opening sentence. Reads ok to me.
How about “appreciating and living in harmony with God’s law”?
Pb — you’re right. If you believe that the notion of God’s Creation excludes the idea of evolution, then you won’t like this resource.
I believe in a form of evolution but I agree with Einstein that God does not throw dice. I do not want to see this get off thread. I was just commenting on how creation is used by avowed evolutionists to spot light areas of interest.
Dear Dan – (Hi)
I agree – and interestingly there is quite a bit in God’s law that would encourage us to live in harmionary with what God has made (like the sabbath, for example). Two of the more interesting texts that I’ve been pondering lately come from very different parts of the canon. In Exodus 23:11 we are told that in the sabbath year lands are to be left fallow, not only so that the fields and orchards can ‘rest’ but also so that ‘the poor of your people may eat; and what they leave the wild animlas may eat (cf Lev 25:7). At the other end of the canon, in the Apocalypse a hymn of praise is sung to God who has begun to reign, bringing the time of his judgment for the dead, rewarding his servants and “destroying the destroyers of the earth (Rev 11: 18). Living in harmony with the earth and living in harmony with God’s law are not, it seems, mutually exclusive.
Einstein also said, “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. ”
Letter to an atheist (1954) as quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side (1981) edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman ISBN 0691023689
The resource may be fine as far as it goes. Surely it’s good for people (Christians included) to love the natural world, care for it, protect it wisely, etc. Who could disagree?
But with any church resource, especially one with a teaching or preaching message, it’s always worth asking the following question:
Is this resource (sermon, liturgy, sunday school lesson, whatever) something that I can imagine any decent, kind Unitarian minister, or rabbi, or Muslim cleric heartily endorsing?
If so, then there is nothing distinctively Christian about it. At best there is a vague monotheistic “spirituality” about it, but nothing of Christ in it.
That’s what Luther objected to in his debate with Erasmus — he called what Erasmus was saying at one point “Christless words, colder than ice.” Being nice and ethical and good and worshipping a creator God is fine, but lots of people are in favor of that.
If something fails that litmus test above, then that’s not a sign we shouldn’t do it (after all we do bake sales and softball games and all kinds of good things) but we need to make sure we see it as pennultimate — something of secondary importance to what we are actually there to do, which is proclaiming the good news of forgiveness in Christ and to administer his sacraments.
The series is written by Phyllis Strupp. I didn’t think the $49.00 investment would be a good “green” investment so I passed on the offer. The only green I see here are little bits of green paper flowing into someone’s pockets.
You lost me at [blockquote] using the Anglican approach of scripture, tradition, reason, experience -– and fun! [/blockquote]
As wportbello alluded to, an interesting aspect of this is the continuing expansion of what is described as the “Anglican approach”.
First we had “scripture, tradition, reason,” which is a perhaps acceptable simplification of what Hooker actually said although routinely applied completely out of any context that Hooker would have used or accepted. Next “experience” was added to the “Anglican approach” list of principles. Of course what is meant by experience or how experience is supposed to be applied has been left pretty nebulous although I suppose it has something to do with phrases like “Where the Spirit is leading us.”
Finally we have “fun” added – maybe this is just a cutesy term. What I fear though, is it is one more step into making Anglicanism synonymous with an entirely subjective system of believe.
Pax et Bonum!
Steve
So you don’t like the word fun. How about we change it to joy. Is that an acceptable word. Probably not.