Towards a More Biblical View of Matter Towards a Theology of Work
C. S. Lewis has remarked that if he had not turned to Christ from atheism, his other alternative was Hinduism. This comment is striking because he made it in the 1930’s, long before eastern religions and philosophies had come to be the influence they are today. Lewis perceived that only these three alternatives are possible: No God; Christ is God; All is God. My plea in this essay is to identify the most plausible of these three views that would bring about the right perspectives on work. In rather paradoxical ways, both the atheistic and Hindu views deny hierarchy in matter. Atheism is reductionistic and therefore sees nothing other than matter in the entire universe. Hinduism, on the other hand, elevates all of matter to the level of the divine. It will be clear as we go along that views that deny hierarchy in the nature of matter eventually end up introducing hierarchy in work and thus ultimately affect our attitude to work.
It is not an accident that the Bible begins with a not-so-religious theme – a world of matter! It seems to be preoccupied, not with the creation of the spirit-world, but with a world of matter to be ruled over by humans. A correct theology of matter and the material world must precede a correct theology of work within the confines of that world. The theology of matter as laid down for us in the Bible is thrown into relief as we contemplate the two competing views of matter.
The Atheistic Perspective
The view that matter is all that exists – the atheistic perspective – does not actually do matter a great deal of honor. This view does present the world’s diversity in all its glory, but it lacks a unifying framework that provides the basis for the harmony and interdependence we see in nature. The atheistic perspective cannot explain the beauty of the world because humans, who alone are capable of appreciating this beauty, are “nothing but molecules in motion,” in the words of the late Cornell astronomer, Carl Sagan. No specific purpose or meaning to the mosaic of the universe exists, except in a purely utilitarian sense – manipulation for the use of humankind. The reason for looking after nature is purely utilitarian again, and is stated as the survival of the human race.
The Pantheistic Perspective
The New Age view holds that all reality – including the divine and the spirit -- is of one essence; thus, there need be no distinction within the different manifestations of matter – say between vegetables and humans. The world of matter we inhabit and we, the inhabitants, are all seen to be extensions of the divine essence. Thus, because the world is one with us in every sense, we need to look after our environment. Here again, nature is deified and is considered outside the pale of responsible manipulation. In elevating matter to the divine, popular Hinduism encourages devotees not only to worship forces of nature but also to worship implements of work. September 17 is an important date in the calendar of the engineering community in India (of which for many years, I was a part), when the community celebrates a festival called Vishwakarma Puja. This celebration involves worship (Puja) of the machines and other instruments. Unfortunately, those who worship these instruments are not necessarily the ones who wield them most efficiently!
I must hasten to clarify the phrase responsible manipulation. Because of the hierarchy in creation, we have the capacity to order and reorder matter in order to achieve productivity and efficiency. However, we are to do it in a way that reflects the character of the Creator. In Gen 2:15, the two verbs (in the NIV) work and take care can be translated more accurately (but not in the English idiomatic sense) as serve and guard or keep. The idea is that we must do so in respect of nature and not in a commercial sense.
In Contrast, the Trinitarian Perspective
The Trinitarian understanding of creation straddles the truths in the two opposing views mentioned above. The real diversity in God – Father, Son and Holy Spirit as distinct persons - endorses the reality of the diversity in the universe. Similarly, the unity in the perichoresis, or total interpenetration within the Trinity, guarantees the underlying harmony and interdependence in the created order. Unity and diversity in the effect – creation -- requires unity and diversity in the Cause – the Creator. Thus, the Nature of Ultimate Reality underwrites the nature of created reality:
First, the doctrine of the Trinity emphasizes the real diversity in nature. At three points in the account of creation in Genesis 1, God divides existing reality – darkness from light, waters above the expanse from those below the expanse, dry land from the oceans. He calls light as day and darkness as night, dry land as earth, waters as seas. We can therefore conclude that the variety in creation is real, not illusory.
Second, diversity in nature is not one of purposeless confusion triggered only by the evolutionist’s infamous dictum: matter + time + chance. Behind the mosaic of variety is the ordered, purposeful, and aesthetic design of unity, harmony, and beauty. It is not without reason that the evolutionist has been piqued by beauty --“The sight of a peacock’s feather makes me sick,”(Darwin).
Third, the words transcendence and immanence upon the lips of the theologian acquire fundamental meaning when rooted in reality. Because of the sense of otherness within the Trinity – the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, the Spirit is not the Father – the doctrine of the transcendence of God is implicit within the Godhead without it needing to depend upon creation to be actualized. Similarly, perichoresis ensures the immanence of the Creator in his creation.
When workers ascribe to popular views of matter, their views of the world and work are flawed. They tend to either deify or idolize work in two wrong types of ways. Either they worship instruments of work – so common in India – but do not conscientiously commit themselves to work, or they talk about work itself being worship and end up as workaholics.
Results of an Atheistic Perspective on Matter
First, one construes matter as a byproduct of a huge cosmic accident. Science has to make five major philosophical assumptions about the material world for its inception and development; however, none of these assumptions would really be possible in an unintelligent or purposeless world.
There is a real world.
The world functions in a reasonable way.
Humans have enough reason to comprehend the world.
Behind every finite event, there must be a cause.
The same cause must produce the same effect under the same conditions.
Second, one’s approach to the world is not selfless. Whether regarding the environment or work, the motive is selfish – for the sake of descendants - and pragmatic. Accountability to a Creator-God does not figure in the thinking of the technocrat who takes this outlook.
Third, one pursues unbridled growth with purely materialistic and economic considerations. Failure to believe in a Creator-God obviates the need for accountability in the management of His creation – the only standards are then pure unbridled consumerism!
Results of a Pantheistic Perspective on Matter
First, one fears the responsible manipulation of the material world. Advanced civilizations that cradled polytheistic or pantheistic views of matter could not birth modern science and technology.
Second, one adheres to a fatalistic approach to the world and carries a slothful and lackadaisical attitude to work. If matter is divine, we have to be under its authority, in some way. So, even the position of the planets – the basis for astrology – could influence our decisions. Thus we begin to lose a sense of moral responsibility. The next step is fatalism.
Third, one idolizes the instruments of work. Stewardship is only possible with a hierarchy in the world of matter -- humans presiding over it as responsible stewards under their Creator.
How Perspectives on Matter Affect Work
Our view of the material world affects our outlook on work. If we adopt a deified idea of the world, we sink not only into idolatry but also into a patent disregard of the world. If we take the other idolatrous approach and believe the world is the only reality there is, we recklessly plunder our resources in the absence of the One to whom we are accountable.
Conclusion
The world of matter is God’s gift to humankind. We have a responsibility to manage it -- not only in the present world, but in the new heavens and the earth as well. A sound theology of matter has to be the bedrock of any involvement of God’s people in God’s world.
