The ridiculous title of this post actually just describes what it’s about.

On summer vacation this year I read C.S. Lewis’ book Perelandra, which is a kind of fantasy/sci-fi mashup that is actually set in a version the real universe. (In other words, in the world of this book, Jesus really did come to earth and die for humanity, and there is one true God (the Father), but there’s also life on other planets with other things going on.) If that sounds weird, it kind of is, but it also offers (in typical Lewis fashion) a lot to get you thinking about the spiritual nature of our universe (even if there’s not really intelligent life on mars). It’s under 200 pages and (even though I don’t agree with all of Lewis’ theological conclusions) I totally recommend it. Loved it.

Today I wanted to share this passage, in which a Satan-figure (“the Un-man”) is tempting the Eve-figure (“the Lady”) on the planet Venus (you read that right–that’s the premise of the whole book). Ransom, the book’s main character, is overhearing the one-sided discussion, which is part of the longer, extended temptation. When I read it, it struck me as an absolutely brilliant description of the way our modern media machine works, including everything from movies to TV to novels to You Tube. Lewis describes the temptation this way:

It appeared to be telling, with extreme beauty and pathos, a number of stories, and at first Ransom could not perceive any connecting link between them. They were all about women, but women who had apparently lived at different circumstances. From the Lady’s replies it appeared that the stories contained much that she did not understand; but oddly enough the Un-man did not mind. If the questions aroused by any one story proved at all difficult to answer, the speaker simply dropped that story and instantly began another. The heroines of the stories seemed all to have suffered a great deal–they had been oppressed by fathers, cast off by husbands, deserted by lovers. Their children had risen up against them and society had driven them out. But the stories all ended, in a sense, happily: sometimes with honors and praises to heroine still living, more often with tardy acknowledgment and unavailing tears after her death.

As the endless speech proceeded, the Lady’s questions grew always fewer; some meaning for the words Death and Sorrow–though what kind of meaning Ransom could not even guess–was apparently being created in her mind by mere repetition.

At last it dawned upon him what all these stories were about. Each one of these women had stood forth alone and braved a terrible risk for her child, her lover, or her people. Each had been misunderstood, reviled, and persecuted; but each also magnificently vindicated by the event.

The precise details were often not very easy to follow. Ransom had more than a suspicion that many of these noble pioneers has been what in ordinary terrestrial speech we call witches or perverts. But that was all in the background. What emerged from the stories was [more of] an image than an idea–the picture of the tall, slender form, unbowed though the world’s weight rested upon its shoulders, stepping forth fearless and friendless into the dark to do for others what those others forbade it to do yet needed to have done.

And all the time, as a sort of background to these goddess shapes, the speaker was building up a picture of the other sex [males, that is]. No word was directly spoken on the subject: but one felt them there as a huge, dim multitude of creatures pitifully childish and complacently arrogant; timid, meticulous, unoriginating; sluggish and ox-like, rooted to the earth almost in their indolence, prepared to try nothing, to risk nothing, to make no exertion, and capable of being raised into full life only by the unthanked and rebellious virtue of their females. It was very well done.

Now, this was published in 1944, when only the infant form of what we call media was rearing it’s head, so I can’t be sure it’s what he had in mind. But the parallels with the way our society uses media seem unmistakable:

• A barrage of random stories, with no apparent connection between them. Quantity, rather than quality, is what creates their power.
• Story itself as the form of communication. Narratives that convey power without having to answer for the ideas they assume and transmit.
• When the stories stir up real questions, what is offered is not an explanation, but another story, probably unrelated to the first. In other words, the temptation is specifically designed to prevent actual contemplation of the story itself.
• The main narrative: A misunderstood heroine, who people think is evil or different, but really is just brave. She’s the only one who really gets it. By “stepping out” and risking condemnation by others, she does what really needs to be done, and eventually everyone sees she’s right. If this isn’t the main story of a large part of our modern stories, I don’t know what is.
• Personal expression and self-actualization as the main goal of each story. This is related to the previous point, and clearly represents the dominant narrative of our day, especially in media directed at younger people and children.
• The construction of an image even more than an idea. This is the explicit goal of our marketing machine which is an integral part of the media. Think of something like Nike–do they represent an idea, or more an image. What idea would they represent? Just do it? Work out? If we ask, “why should I work out?” does Nike have an answer? Maybe, but isn’t more about the image Nike has built–the attractive, strong, built person, striving forward in cool looking workout clothes, slightly sweaty and on their way to winning?

You might see more in the paragraph above, but I find these points helpful in bringing the nature of modern media communication into focus.

Because to the extent that Lewis’ writing really does represent the tactics of the biblical Satan, and to the extent it matches what our media actually does, it seems justified to suspect that these forms of communication are shaped by, and doing the work of, the enemy of the gospel. If this is true, it gives us further incentive to keep a watch on ourselves that our minds aren’t shaped this temptation-based system of communication. It shows us that we need to make sure our minds are not becoming incapable of putting together details, examining arguments, and testing ideas. Much media communication seems designed to make us increasingly limited in these areas.

Instead, we need to see that understanding, trusting, and communicating the gospel requires minds shaped by the word  (especially the written word) of God–minds which will look (in some ways) the opposite of those shaped by modern media.

The other day I posted a thought on how excitement about the new creation that the Bible says is coming doesn’t make us careless or abusive with the environment. A friend posted a couple comments that got me thinking about another resource I’ve found helpful for thinking through the issue–Francis Schaeffer’s book Pollution and the Death of Man.  

This was the final question posted in response to the original post, and what led to me want to share further thoughts: “The conclusion I came to after reading your response was: just like physicians can serve God by caring for our decaying bodies, environmentalists and conservationists can serve God by caring for the Earth. Is that valid?”

In his book, Schaeffer answers this question with a resounding yes:

When the church puts belief in to practice, in relationship to man and to nature, there is substantial healing… Christians should be able to exhibit individuality and corporately that on the basis of the work of Christ, dealing with things according to the world-view and basic philosophy of the Bible, they can produce something that the world has tried, but failed, to produce. The Christian community should be a living exhibition of the truth that in our present situation it is possible to have substantial sociological healings–healings that humanism longs for, but has not been able to produce. Humanism is not wrong in its cry for sociological healing, but humanism is not producing it. And the same thing is true in regard to a substantial healing where nature is concerned.

So we find that when we begin to deal on a Christian basis things begin to change–not just in theory but in practice.

Christians, of all people, should not be the destroyers. We should treat nature with an overwhelming respect. We may cut down a tree to build a house, or to make a fire to keep the family warm. But we should not cut down the tree just to cut down the tree. We may, if necessary, bark the cork tree in order to have the use of the bark. But what we should not do is to bark the tree simply for the sake of doing so, and let it dry and stand there a dead skeleton in the wind. To do so is not to treat the tree with integrity. We have the right to rid our houses of ants; but we have not the right to do is to forget to honor the ant as God made it, in its rightful place in nature. When we meet the ant on the sidewalk, we step over him. He is a creature, like ourselves; not made in the image of God, but equal with man as far as creation is concerned. The ant and the man are both creatures.

If you read the whole book (the part Schaeffer wrote is only like 90 pages–a quick, easy read) you see that he roots these ideas in the Christian doctrine of Creation. In other words, the fact that the world in its present state is not going to last forever does not empty it of meaning or significance. As a creation of God it is valuable because he made it. As a gift of God to us it is valuable because he gave it. As the context he gave us in which to live and glorify him it is valuable because we need it and use it as a theater to show his glory.

Some Christian thinkers (like, for instance, New Testament scholar Douglas Moo) have attempted to root ideas of Christian concern over the environment to eschatology. The thinking goes that, since, in the end God will restore the earth and it will last forever, we should care for it now. Sometimes people who take that view also criticize the eschatology (teaching about the end times) we hold at Calvary (which sees the rapture happening before the tribulation,  the second coming happening before the millennium, and the earth being undone and then made anew, rather than simply renewed) as leading to abuse of the environment. But as we’re seeing, it shouldn’t.

There are two problems with using eschatology for our teaching about the environment: First, end-times beliefs are something very much “in play” within Christianity, and it is a shaky thing to tie proper care of the environment to a belief about which Christians may disagree. We’ve got to have a more solid ground than that. Second, as Schaeffer (along with Thomas Oden) shows, our beliefs about creation offer a better grounding for our beliefs about the earth. This becomes clear when we think about the Biblical teaching about the body. Like the earth, it will one day be “destroyed” and then, for those who believe in Christ, be remade new. In some sense it is “the same” body, and in some sense it is a “new” body. So, if you are a Christian, you can think of your body as existing forever. But that isn’t the reason scripture leads us to care for our bodies. We care for them because they are part of the image of God, gifts of God which are necessary for our earthly existence. In fact, the New Testament teaching that we will live forever in resurrected bodies leads us, not to pamper our bodies so that they look good forever, but to risk even bodily injury when necessary for the preaching of the Gospel and the service of Christ–if you lose and arm or a leg or a head in the service of the King, that is a worthwhile thing, because God will remake your body new. Eschatology keeps us from worshipping our bodies, and Creation keeps us from despising them. Both are necessary.

Similarly, eschatology should help keep us from worshipping the earth. It will eventually (whatever your position) be completely remade. Fire is the clear scriptural future prophesied for the earth (2 Peter 3:7). And yet, it is still God’s creation, and His gift to us, even in this fallen condition. So biblical teaching about creation keeps us from despising the earth.

Later in his book, Schaeffer goes on to challenge us about all this with a very incisive word. Check this out:

We who are Christians must be careful. We must confess that we missed our opportunity. We have spoken loudly against materialistic science, but we have done little to show that in practice we ourselves as Christians are not dominated by a technological orientation in regard either to man or nature. We should have been stressing and practicing for a long time that there is a basic reason why we should not do all that with our technology we can do. We have missed the opportunity to help man save his earth.

Not only that, but in our generation we are losing an evangelistic opportunity because when modern people have a real sensitivity to nature, many of them turn to the pantheistic mentality. They have seen that the most Christians simply do not care about nature as such.

It is true that many of us have simply reacted to what we (rightly) see as nature worship (the “pantheism” Schaeffer writes of), but doesn’t he have a great point for us in the Young Adults fellowship? We have so many cultural obstacles to the gospel in our day–things where we must oppose the views of the culture in order to be faithful to the message of Jesus. But with our views of the environment, we have this great opportunity–the Christian teaching about the earth actually shows a proper way to care for the earth and appreciate its sacredness, without becoming its servants.  Why not use these things to commend the gospel to people?