You can read my initial post about Jake Meador's latest book, "What Are Christians For? Life Together at the End of the World" here.
Chapter 1, titled (and subtitled) An Immense Inheritance: A Christian Account of Nature begins by discussing the panoply of obligations into which humans are born. "Debt-free" living is impossible because we cannot "live completely free of relationships ... that have defined expectations of what is given and received between two parties... [D]ependenicies are a central part of the good life." I would have preferred that Meador have used obligations instead of debt. Debt is commonly understood as a particular form of obligation, one incurred intentionally (as by contract) or at least by a particular act (thus the law of negligence). So far as I know, the proponents of debt-free living do not deny the unconsented-to web of interpersonal obligations into which we are born. Nonetheless, it is certainly the case that, apart from the family, the full scope of the Tao of obligations gets short shrift among Evangelicals (who I presume are Meador's intended audience). The wider American society, moreover, has a difficult time conceptualizing the basis of social obligations. Persistent hectoring from the Progressive Left serves to disguise the lack of a principle for multifarious forms of social justice apart from a freely-expanding notion of the public good. Social contractarianism does the same from the Libertarian Right.
Paralleling Chapter 5 of Carl Trueman's book, Meador brings Friedrich Nietzsche to the fore but puts him into conversation with Dutch theologian Herman Bavinck to conclude that "nature possesses a certain order within itself; it even has a moral trajectory that culminates in the restoration of nature to its full and final glory by God. [Thus,] participating in this order is how we experience the good life and pass on the good life to the next generation." And, rejecting both Barthian and Van Tilian versions of fideism, Meador asserts that "[all] people are able, simply on the basis of reason [and experience, I would add] to recognize a commonly shared reality [including] somewhat intuitive norms regarding fairness, justice and so on ..."
But what, asks Meador, are we to make of the reality that humans regularly default on their unconsented-to obligations? And what of the fact that we regularly ignore the "somewhat intuitive norms" that we know? At this point Meador turns to the neglected doctrine of the simplicity of God (my vague gesture here). Without recounting his full discussion I will quote and combine selected portions below:
Because his being and his attributes are the same, we can say that God is complete in himself. God needs nothing outside of himself [and] he has no need within himself. He did not create because he had to. He created because he loves. Creation is gratuitous. It is unnecessary. It is a gift. [Thus,] it is because God, acting in love, made the world that we can be confident that the world is good [and] that the way in which God made the world to work is good. God looks at the world and loves it, which is why we can and should do the same. This world is not something we should seek to escape through conquest or bend to our will through technique, power, or control. (Emphasis added.)
An excellent conclusion to a solid chapter.
No comments:
Post a Comment