This summer, our Service-Learning Center staff will be reading a number of different articles related to the work of our office. Every two weeks or so, one of our staff members will post a brief summary of an article and then pose some questions for discussion. Our hope is that next year’s staff, currently scattered from Singapore to Guatemala to Eastown, will be able to use the comment section as a forum to discuss different issues/ideas raised in these articles.
The first article on the docket is a chapter in Debra Rienstra’s book So Much More: An Invitation to Christian Spirituality entitled “The Work of Our Hands.” In this chapter, Rienstra offers some reflection on the spiritual discipline of service, exploring, among other things, service as a form of “grateful obedience” and as an act that points and works toward the Kingdom. In the chapter she also explores the relationship between sacrifice and service as well as the idea of vocation or, as she would prefer to say, vocations.
What I found most interesting about Rienstra’s chapter was one of the “paradoxes” of service that she highlights. On the one hand, as Rienstra puts it, “our behavior has enduring consequences.” People are working hard to create just governments, to discover scientific answers to disease, to reform health care and education, etc. Surely, this work being done is work for the Kingdom. On the other hand, however, we must keep in mind that our service and work for social justice is small and will not in and of itself bring the Kingdom. Rienstra writes, “...the danger is that we might get all triumphant and think that we’re doing it and not God. Humanity is evolving; we’re contributing to progress; and if we keep at it, someday angels will descend on clouds to thank us” (214).
The paradox circles around the importance of our actions: the service we do, the choices we make, the ways we live, etc., can all point to and push toward the Kingdom, yet ultimately God is the one working to establish God’s Kingdom; our works both matter and they don’t. In the end, Rienstra seems to be pushing her readers towards humility, towards acknowledging that God does not need us or our service but graciously allows us to enter into the work God is already doing to restore the world. She uses the metaphor of a child in the kitchen with his mother:
"The truth is that most of the time, we ought to concentrate our efforts on staying out of God’s way. We are probably less like secret agents and more like the little kid who wants to “help” bake cookies. He spills flour and measures things inexactly and eats a lot of the chocolate chips. Mom has to intervene to clean up the messes if any of the cookies are going to turn out. It’s a terribly inefficient operation. Yet it has value other than efficiency, in teaching the child and in the loving companionship built by a shared task. I imagine God sometimes would like to shoo us out of the way and get down to business without our help. But like a wise mother, God generously welcomes us back again and again into the kitchen.
I think the discussion of if/how/why our service matters is an interesting one. It is both humbling and relieving to know that God is the one at work in restoring the world, that it doesn’t all rest on our shoulders, and I am grateful to Rienstra for making that clear. I do fear, however, that this idea of God’s sovereignty can give Christians an excuse to not be as attentive to the work of social justice, to their personal decisions about how/where we live, shop, eat, and work. I think a certain level of responsibility and agency seems to get lost when we go too far in emphasizing God’s sovereignty instead of our own choices, but that could just be my rebelling against my Calvinist background...
What are your thoughts? What are the dangers of one side of the paradox being emphasized more than the other? What role do we actually play in realizing the Kingdom? What are some other parts of Rienstra’s chapter that you appreciated and/or took issue with? Please join the discussion with your own thoughts, comments, or questions about the article.
1 comment:
Ryan, thanks for starting the conversation.
It’s interesting because at first I was totally jiving with the whole idea that Rienstra is promoting, the understanding of being a part of a larger picture. I think emphasis on context is advantageous in how it removes us from the center of our own self-perception and weaves us into some sort of societal web. Initially I understood her point as being more holistic, sustainable, and necessary.
However, the analogy that Ryan included where the child is making cookies with their mother is not only odd – but suggests the opposite! It becomes completely self-focused, the participant seems to be an individual who benefits from the activity, but fails to actually contribute anything necessary. Isn’t this part we play in actualizing the Kingdom more complex? Creating a paradox to describe our place seems to run the risk of (as Ryan mentioned) apathy or (at least) the excuse to pay less attention to the details, and the compromise of our commitment to quality.
I’m not quite sure what to offer as substitute, perhaps just modesty in embracing the paradox that she suggests. I’m curious to hear other people’s thoughts and insight.
Post a Comment