Reading and Discussion Questions for McFague and DeWitt

Sallie McFague - Excerpt - Chapter Two - "Consider the Lilies of the Field" from Super, Natural Christians - 

Discussion Leader:  Seth Banks

Reading Questions:

1.  Why should Christians be worried about Nature?  (see especially pages 26 and 38)

2.  Why is incarnational theology so important to McFague? (see especially p. 31)

3.  What does she mean by the loving eye and the arrogant eye?  What is the subject-subject model?

4.  What references does she make to Jesus and what purpose do they serve in her argument?

5.  Does McFague hold that there is intrinsic value in nature?  If so, how does one come to appreciate it?

6.  How do feminist thought and the arts come into her text?

7.  Why is "attention" so important to McFague?

Discussion Questions

1.  McFague says, we need to "consider ourselves travelers in the world of nature we do not know, apprentices who need to listen to the others in that world" (42). Within our competitive culture, is there time to be an "apprentice" of nature?

2.  McFague says that the love of Jesus can represent our connection with Nature. Jesus’ famous saying, "loving your enemy" can be interpreted as loving nature. Is this a legitimate argument both inside and outside the parameters of the Christian religion (41)?

3.  In order to truly love nature, we must not assume a model of hierarchical dualism (subject-object) (38). We must say, rather, "I am a subject and live in a world of many other different subjects" (38). Does this have heretical implications for Christians?

4.  McFague says our patriarchal culture is a good example of the arrogant eye; it looks out for the interests of the males. Women are subordinate to males just as nature is to humanity. If there is, in fact, a strong connection between these two issues, do you think the "root of our problem" lies within the realm of Humanism?

5.  Is it possible to love something that is of no use to you? Have you ever loved something that was of no use to you?

Calvin DeWitt - "The Three Big Questions

Discussion Leader: Lewis McClary

DeWitt uses many scriptures suggesting there is a biblical basis for the idea that Christian should adopt a caretaker (stewardship) ecological stance. In addition DeWitt says selfish, wanton, exploitation (domination) is specifically categorized by scripture as unacceptable behavior, which will be punished by God in certain cases.  

DeWitt combines scripture and logic to make a powerful argument. For the sake of argument, lets examine DeWitt’s work from a standpoint that assumes we are Christians that believe the Bible is Divinely inspired, and we would cheerfully follow all New Testament teachings at the least. We will then examine DeWitt’s cited scriptures and his use of logic.   Finally, we will attempt to answer the questions: 

(1) Does the Bible indeed say what DeWitt says it does? 

(2) Does this mean Christians should be ecological caretakers as DeWitt purports? 

(3) Does this mean brutal exploitation is a sin?

DeWitt’s three big questions are:  1.  Is Christ Lord of creation?  2. Is creation a lost cause?  3. Whom are we following when we follow Jesus Christ?

1.  Does DeWitt’s use of scripture (Col 1:15-20, II Corinthians 5:15-20) successfully tie Christ to creation? [Note: pay attention to Ta panta.  It  means all things.] If so, does this imply that Christians should carefully study creation stories in order to better understand Christ’s will for human behavior? Again, if so, does this imply since we should be studying one part of the "Old Testament" shouldn’t we then use all of it as well? Hence, is not DeWitt’s use of scriptures from both the "Old" and the "New Testament" is justified?

2.  In the discussion of "Is Creation a Lost Cause" has DeWitt been convincing in asserting: (a) Creation is God’s (Christ’s) cause therefore it cannot be a lost cause. (b) The resurrection rules this out? (c) "Being saved out of creation is not a biblical idea?" (Rev. 11:18, John 3:16, Psalm 19:1, Acts 14:17, Romans 1:20, Ps: 104:10-1)

3.  What is the point of DeWitt’s discussion "Whom are we following when we follow Jesus Christ?" (Philippians 2:5-8)

4.  DeWitt discusses Dominion and Care taking. (Gen. 1:26-28, Deut. 17:18-20) Does scripture forbid brutal domination? [pay attention to Radah could mean ruled or have dominion] (Ezk. 34:2-4, 11, 13, 15-16, 18-19)

5.  DeWitt talks about "Two kinds of dominion, the bad- domination, and the good- stewardship." Gen. 1-11 mostly described the bad? But Gen 2:15, meant keep the garden. Shamar means to keep, the Lord bless you and keep you, loving, caring, sustaining keeping. (Numbers 6:24) Abad means serve? (Josh 24:15)

6.  DeWitt points out the Garden of Eden was planted by God (Gen. 2: 8) and man was supposed to be a caretaker, and therefore loving stewardship is a Christian duty. (Rom. 3:23, 7:7-25, I Peter 3:15) Has he applied these scriptures properly?

7.  How would you rate DeWitt’s use of scripture and logic? If brutal exploitation is a sin, then shouldn’t Christians avoid doing so themselves and condemn the practice of it?

Anderson - If you are interested in looking up the biblical passages mentioned on-line,  there are several sites that make this possible and even allow you to compare translations.  These are:

http://www.bible.gospelcom.net/passage/  - click on passage lookup

http://bible.crosswalk.com/ParallelBible/

 http://www.OliveTree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm (By holding down the control key, you can add and delete Bible versions)

If you are looking for Greek texts as well as translations in a number of languages, check http://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm