freeborn | ἐλεύθερος on Nostr: It's a good question. Didn't have an immediate answer, but thought about it over ...

It's a good question. Didn't have an immediate answer, but thought about it over lunch, and a little bit this afternoon.

I think there are two flavors of 'changing the world': 1) the Marxist 'everything that exists deserves to perish' borne out of of envy, greed, ingratitude, and rebellion against the 'natural order'; and 2) the very human 'let's make this better' (or restore something that has been lost) that is borne out of love for neighbor and for what is good, beautiful, and true. The former coerces (and steals and destroys), the latter persuades (and builds and attracts). I don't think there's anything wrong with the latter--the question is, I think, 'by what means?'

I also think there's nothing wrong--and much right--with having grand visions for positive change: we should be bold, we should think big. And we should work hard toward those goals. (That's right in line with Jer. 29:7.) Where we go wrong, I think, is categorizing that work as _redemptive_ work, or as so valuable that God must accept it in the new creation (you can see what I'm hinting at there, I think). Christ is the alone Redeemer of the world; and that redemption is accomplished already, and is being applied through the ministry of the Word and Spirit. We cannot add to his work of redemption, nor can we apply that work by other means than those which he has authorized (and blessed). As for the rest of what we do, I think we need to content ourselves with it being just plain _good and faithful human work_ that helps our families and benefits our neighbors. Though never pleasing to God apart from faith, what's done 'as unto the Lord' is acceptable in him.

But our work being temporary/provisional shouldn't detract from the importance of it. Building systems, tools, processes that clear the path for our neighbors to be more free, more peaceful, more prosperous--this is no small thing. Feeding a family--is no small thing. Persuading one neighbor at a time that there's a better way--this *is* changing the world. Anything else is somewhat abstract, isn't it? (Like the story of the guy who had A Heart for The World and The Lost but was rude to his own mailman.) Quite a few years ago James D. Hunter wrote a very popular book, _To Change the World_ in which he argued for "faithful presence." I never read it, but got the basic thrust of his arguments from other little works like Mike Horton's _Ordinary_. As a former 'world-changer' (that's a Teen Mania Ministries reference, for those not familiar), I've come to embrace that God 'does extraordinary things through ordinary means,' and that (as Bavinck put it) the covenant household is the 'ordinary groove of grace' through which the world is eventually changed. I suppose what I'm saying is we shouldn't think too highly of our work (setting it beside Christ's) nor too lowly of it either (e.g., the anabaptistic "it's all going to burn").

I'm not sure if that is either coherent or relevant, but those are my thoughts.