If you're right, I think I'm in danger of committing the sort of democratic "change the world" fallacy, where everything you do has to have global significance. I recognize that this isn't possible for everyone (and so can't be a prerequisite for a meaningful life), or even necessarily healthy for people who adopt it, but it's hard for me to let go of, and a big part of why I'm here on nostr. At the same time, I think we should have a cosmic view of the meaningfulness of our actions. How do you reconcile those two things? I'm probably just restating the question, but puzzling over this has been a challenge for me for years.
Discussion
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.
oh, and lastly--don't
#m=image%2Fjpeg&dim=500x415&blurhash=%23GI%2340%3F%5E%24jXSogxZNy%251kVE2%251R%2B%252bbxafQW%3Ds%3A01nOR%2Br%3DR*oLj%3FR%2Bn%25IARPj%3FNFaKWUWBaeR*IURPnhNHs-RjWCR*ayIANGt7WBjZWCayofofM%7BjFs%3AW%3Ds%3AfkbHjtWV&x=46a952461fcfaa9e271156d7be4ca8f0f34b90f57d26fabde4b2cf0f10186a7a
😂💯
I agree strongly with your point about "faithful presence", while at the same time mostly failing to content myself with it. The humility and diligence that being "ordinary" requires of us is way beyond what's required to have higher (and more abstract) aspirations.
I also agree with the idea that "we need to content ourselves with it being just plain _good and faithful human work_ that helps our families and benefits our neighbors", but I also see that often becoming a reason for complacency in practice. For example, Christians often just invest in index funds without thinking about what kind of activities they are becoming complicit in.
The balance between grand vision and being "faithful in little" is so difficult I feel like I can't fit both in my head (let alone heart) at once.
Well said; no disagreement here. Darryl Hart has written about the inherent 'tension' of being 'heirs of the world' (the 'already') and yet pilgrims on our way (the 'not yet')--holding these two at once certainly creates tension, and requires patience and endurance. Same with having a grand vision and yet being 'faithful in little,' perhaps?
I think 1 Cor. 7 is instructive for this time of tension--yes, "build great things," but do it "as though not." Yes, "whatever we do, do it unto the glory of God," which means--go big, do it excellently. But in all our doing, don't let those "big ends" become or eclipse our "chief and highest end" (WLC 1). "For the present form of the world is passing away." That probably goes without saying.
Either way, "thy kingdom come!"
PS - to illustrate how much I relate, I have a very hard time singing [this hymn](https://www.trinitypsalterhymnal.org/hymns/father-i-know-that-all-my-life/) when it comes up in the "rotation," and I'm not entirely sure my aversion to it is entirely unfounded... 😅 -- I mean, what would Abraham "every square inch!" Kuyper say about this hymn? 😄
Nice, that's a good one, I hadn't heard it before.
"content to fill a little space, if thou be glorified." is brutal 😂 but in line with John B's "he must increase, and I must decrease"
I don't mean this to be a criticism, but it _was_ written by a woman in the mid 19th c., and I think that comes through a bit. It's a tad sentimental; probably a time and a place for it. But contrast that with, say, [Onward, Christian Soldiers](https://hymnary.org/text/onward_christian_soldiers_marching_as#Author) -- clearly written by a man, also in the mid-19th c., and pretty clearly with men in mind.
HYMNS! WE GOT HYMNS, HERE! HYMNS FOR HER, HYMNS FOR HIM, HYMNS FOR ALL KINDS 😄