‘Leisure time’, as something enjoyed by everyone not just the wealthy is a fairly recent phenomenon. In Biblical times, when the majority of the population lived at a ‘subsistence level’ as farmers, herdsmen, fishermen and so on, ‘leisure’ wasn’t really a problem. In fact, it has been said that the idea of a Sabbath day of rest was unique in antiquity in relieving people of the necessity and expectation of working every day.

The importance of ‘Rest’ and the urgency of ‘Time’
There are two competing Biblical themes relating to how a believer should regard leisure. One is the notion of ‘rest’, as typified in the concept of ‘Sabbath’, which combines rest from labour with worshipping God. The other is the awareness that ‘time’ is a non-renewable resource, which should be used carefully. The ‘Parable of the Talents’ (Matthew chapter 25, verses 14-30) for example, cautions a person against wasting what they are given in an unproductive way. The Jewish ‘Wisdom’ tradition, particularly the book of Proverbs, places a high value on productivity and condemns laziness and idleness.

What seems to be needed is a balance between rest that is needed and using time productively. Rest that enables a person to recharge and take time out to concentrate on what really matters, i.e. worshipping God, is considered valuable by Biblical writers – and is proscribed in the Law of Moses as the ‘fourth commandment’. But there are also warnings that devoting too much time to leisure can mean we never achieve our potential. Nobody knows exactly how much time they have, and so it is important to use that time wisely.

Leisure activities
In terms of how to spend leisure time, particularly in reference to TV, films and the like, there are some relevant Biblical passages which can be applied.

For example, Philippians chapter 4, verses 8-9 contains the following injunction: “Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.” This has a reverse implication that Christians should not be thinking about (or watching) things that are ignoble, wrong, impure, unlovely, shameful and so on…

The apostle Paul also encourages Christians to be mindful that the choices they make in life may cause difficulties for other Christians. Referring to a debate over whether it was acceptable to eat meat sacrificed to idols, he writes: “For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, won’t he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.” (1 Corinthians 8, verses 10-13) The last verse could be rephrased as: “if what I watch causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never watch TV again, so that I will not cause him to fall.”

Christians are, in Paul’s view, free from the demands of the Law, but this then means that each individual believer has to take responsibility for what they do. He sums this up by saying: ““Everything is permissible” – but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible” – but not everything is constructive.” (1 Corinthians 10, verse 23)

In conclusion, the Biblical tradition places a high value on rest. But what people choose to do in order to ‘rest’ is important. Human beings have a limited amount of time available to them, and even ‘rest’ time is perhaps best used through doing something ‘beneficial’ and ‘constructive’ if possible.

Why do Christians think alternative therapies are wrong? ie Acupuncture, Reiki, Reflexology, Chinese medicine, herbal remedies etc?

The reluctance of many Christians to engage in ‘alternative medicine’ stems from a number of different sources, the most basic of which is a distrust for witchcraft and sorcery. There are, however, definite differences of opinion on whether alternative medicine is harmful, or ‘un-Christian’.

Theologically there is little to warn against in alternative medicine, and certainly any comments on non-Christian alternative medicine would also apply to Christian claims of healing, or the efficacy of prayer. There is considerable doubt about whether these treatments work, although some such as acupuncture do seem to have some evidence-based research to prove their effectiveness.

To understand why some Christians object to it requires an understanding of the Christian worldview. In its formative years, Christianity struggled to define itself against both a ‘parent religion’ (Judaism) and a surrounding culture which was predominantly heterodox pagan (ie there were many forms of paganism). The result is a religious tradition, which is both wary of the ideas of other religions and cautious about unorthodox ideas. Christianity is not alone in having this limiting outlook; it is a common feature of most large religions.

Christians may disregard alternative remedies because they are often linked to Eastern religions such as Buddhism, or draw on ideas found in Eastern religions, such as the ‘chi’ life force. In addition there are strong Biblical admonitions against divination and soothsaying, which rules out several practices such as astrology.

The various ‘charismatic’ movements of the twentieth century have also raised interest in ‘spiritual warfare’, a catch-all term for demonology, prayer, exorcism and charismatic gifts such as prophecy. Christians who believe in demons and demon-possession frequently link alternative therapies with demonic activity. From an objective point of view, it is interesting how ‘Satanism’ as a cultural occurrence really only established itself in the late 1970s and early 1980s, some two decades after Christian revivalists began preaching on demonic activity. It may be the two are sociologically linked, with the interest in demons among religious adherents preceding the use of demonic imagery among people who wanted to define themselves against the religious majority.

I listen to a lot of metal and hardcore music. I’m in a metal band with a couple of my friends. They aren’t the most religious people in the world, but they’re decent people. They don’t drink, smoke, or do drugs. I’m an all around music guy. I’ve been playing piano for 10 years now, I love classical music, and I love jazz etc. I’ve been singing at church since I was 8. But I would like to ask, is it ok for me to play metal? Is there anything saying that listening to metal with a bad message is a sin or whatever? Since my lead singer in the band isn’t very religious he doesn’t care as much about writing lyrics that may be a little edgy. But since I am not writing that, does that make me a bad person? I love playing metal, and I enjoy playing shows and I do not want to quit the band that I’ve developed a personal relationship with. Does God care since I am basically a very good person on the inside? There’s a quote by St. Paul saying something along the lines of “Whether you drink or whether you eat, whatever you do, do it for God’s glory.” I’m not necessarily doing that with metal, but I’m not going to let my singer say “God is bad Satan 666” or whatever the stereotypical thing is. So what I am asking is if you would give me something close to a general Christian standpoint on metal music etc. Please help me out, as you see I am very concerned.

There are of course many Christians with very firm opinions that metal (or any rock or pop music) is Satanic in influence and will place the listener’s soul in mortal danger. However, it should be pointed out that many of the scare stories perpetuated in contemporary Christian culture, including ‘backmasked’ Satanist messages hidden on records, or that rock and roll borrows rhythms from pagan or animist religions, are little more than urban legends. Often it appears that personal preference for particular types of music leads to certain sounds being labelled as ‘Satanic’.

However, there are genuine reasons for Christians to be concerned about some of the imagery and language used in modern music, not just metal. Sexual immorality, violence and nihilism are present in most types of music. Listening to these sentiments seems to go against the instruction of the apostle Paul to the Philippians that: “Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable – if anything is excellent or praiseworthy – think about these things.” (Philippians chapter 4, verse

However, it is still possible to admire the instrumentalist’s skill, lyrical deftness, or the overall musical ability of musicians who would not define themselves as Christian. Music itself is a neutral thing; the only way it is morally ‘bad’ is if it is used to convey negative emotions. In that way ‘music’ becomes the means by which sin is promoted and transmitted, but only because it has been ‘charged’ that way by the musician. In itself it is not inherently evil.

In this situation, however, being part of a group that is promoting a particular world-view does make a Christian accountable. One of the main thrusts of Christianity is that it insists that human beings are responsible for their actions. So by being a member of an ‘edgy’ metal band there is in some sense a shared responsibility for that ‘edginess’ regardless of how involved a member is in the songwriting process. It is perfectly possible that any unease felt by a Christian in that situation was the prompting of the Holy Spirit, activating their conscience about their involvement.

However, Christians are called to live as ‘salt and light’ in the world (see Matthew chapter 5, verses 13-16), with the idea that like salt they are spread throughout the world to bring flavour, cleansing or healing. (Salt in New Testament times was frequently used for medicinal and cleansing purposes, as well as for preserving and flavouring food.) There is no doubt that being friends with non-Christian metallers may be challenging for Christians, but it does provide an opportunity for reaching a hard-to-reach sub-culture with the good news of Jesus Christ. Living out faith in such a circle of friends may cause tension, but it may also provide the perfect arena for a Christian to glorify God through a positive use of musical giftings.

Thanks for your question TR.

I am getting married later this year and am wondering what the Bible actually means when it says we will become “one flesh”? I presume in God’s eyes it means more than just entering into an intimate physical relationship?

The idea that “…a man will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis Chapter 2, verse 24) follows the account of the creation of Eve, moulded from Adam’s rib (verse 22). In some sense the reuniting of man and woman in the covenant of marriage could be viewed as a return to that original state of ‘perfect’ humanity before humanity was split in two. As stated previously on freelance theology, the specific account of the creation of human beings in this way explains why there are two genders, but one race, in pre-scientific terms.

In the New Testament, Jesus refers to this creation story as an argument against divorce in Matthew chapter 19, verse 5 and Mark 10, verse 8. This is where the phrase commonly found in the wedding liturgy, “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder” is applied to the state of marriage. It is interesting that in these gospel instances, Jesus is answering a ‘test question’ about divorce put to him by the Pharisees. He is asked whether it is ‘lawful’ for a man to divorce his wife for any reason. Referring back to this passage in Genesis, Jesus is effectively saying that women are not to be regarded as possessions or accoutrements to be discarded at will.

Paul uses the verse differently in 1 Corinthians chapter 6, verse 16. In a comment on moral behaviour he argues against casual sexual relationships, in this case with a prostitute, because uniting with a prostitute causes a man to ‘be one with her in body’. Paul’s interpretation of this verse has given rise to the relatively recent idea that ‘soul ties’ to previous sexual partners can have a long-lasting effect on the spiritual health of Christians.

However, whether Paul actually thought that sex had such a permanent effect could be debated. His main aim in this passage is to convince the Corinthian believers that they should be sexually continent, because they were united to Christ and this had a physical effect as well as a spiritual effect. One of the earliest heresies to creep into the early church was the idea that because Christians’ souls were saved, any physical activity could not be sinful. This was a corruption of Hellenistic (Greek) philosophy that firmly separated the ‘divine spark’ of the soul from the physical body it was trapped in. With a more holistic view of humanity, Paul railed against this idea. This is also one of the reasons why he insists that the resurrection is experienced bodily (1 Corinthians chapter 15, verses 35-49).

In Ephesians chapter 5, verse 39, Paul quotes this verse again, as a “profound mystery” (verse 40). In a way his use of the verse again echoes Jesus’ principle. By telling Christian men that they must “love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (verse 25), he ignores the contemporary cultural idea that wives were the possession of the husband. This whole passage in Ephesians is often misquoted to demand that wives ‘submit’ (or ‘respect’) their husbands, but in reality, a better understanding of the culture at the time sees the revolutionary message that Paul presents.

Three powerless groups are listed in this passage, which continues into chapter 6: wives, children and slaves. None of them had any rights in law and were at the mercy of the head of the household. Each is encouraged to respect or obey their husband, father, or master – in reality they had little choice but to do so. The sting in this section is that the powerful head of the household was being told to love their wives ‘Christly’, or ‘as yourselves’ (chapter 5, verse 33); to ‘not exasperate’ their children (chapter 6, verse 4); and to treat their slaves with the same respect as the slaves treat them (chapter 6, verse 9). This was a manifesto of societal revolution and one that is often overlooked in current church teaching.

To conclude: becoming one flesh implies a change on a semi-mystical level, where both parties treat the other as an equal extension of themselves and perhaps, in that unity, discover the original nature of undivided humanity.

Thanks for your question, DM, and congratulations on your forthcoming marriage.

Caveat: This is a theological interpretation of one aspect of marriage, in response to a specific question. freelance theology recognises that marriages do break down, for Christians and non-Christians, for a number of different reasons.

What are curses? Are they real, and how do you make them go away? Can you make a curse on someone else go away?

A recent news story from England, reported on BBC online, relates to this in very interesting way. The city of Carlisle in Northern England has a bloody history relating to a time when the ‘reavers’ of the lawless English and Scottish borders exerted a reign of terror during the Middle Ages. [On a tangent, that’s where the English word ‘bereaved’ comes from.] During this period the Archbishop of Glasgow issued a ‘curse’ upon the reaver families in 1525.

As reaver history centres on Carlisle, a local artist carved the words of the Archbishop’s curse on a special 14-tonne stone commemorating the turn of the millennium. In early 2005 a number of people requested that Carlisle Council remove the stone because since it had been installed the city has suffered widespread flooding, a large city-centre toxic fire and had borne the brunt of the foot-and-mouth epidemic that significantly affected the agricultural economy on which Carlisle depends. To make matters worse, the local soccer team were relegated from the Football League. [Full details of this story can be found online]

Ironically, a ‘white witch’ argued against destroying the cursing stone because: “A curse can only work if people believe in it… if the council destroys it, they would be showing their belief in the curse… destroying the stone would be very bad for Carlisle because it would feed that power.” [Kevin Carlyon, quoted in a BBC Online article ‘White Witch Warns of Curse Stone Power’, 8 March, 2005]

While it is not freelance theology’s intention to endorse Wicca or paganism, there is a certain element of truth in this statement. The Bible is fairly consistent in believing that words do have power, whether ‘blessings’ or ‘curses’. Oaths and vows are treated as seriously binding. However, while curses are regarded as, in that sense, ‘real’ by the Biblical authors, there is also a clear paradigm where God counteracts a human-uttered curse: Balaam’s curse on the Israelite nation is turned to blessing (Deuteronomy chapter 23, verses 4-5; see also Numbers chapters 22-24).

Within a Christian theological framework, curses are rendered powerless. A significant aspect of the crucifixion is that it included an aspect of being cursed because Jesus was ‘hung on a tree’(see Galatians chapter 3, verse 13/Deuteronomy chapter 21, verse 23). Every curse invoked against a Christian is therefore dealt with, just as any sin or wrongdoing is dealt with, through Jesus’ death on the cross.

In terms of making curses on other people ‘go away’, in Matthew chapter 18, verse 18, Jesus tells his disciples that: “Whatever you bind on earth will be (or has been) bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be (or has been) loosed in Heaven.” This is a commission of authority to those who choose to follow Christ and it would naturally follow that curses and the subsequent effects of curses are included in this, as much as anything else.

Thanks for your question, MF.

There are many events taking place in the world all the time. Some of these are held (by some) to be miracles. How do you tell which events are miracles and which are not? What about things that don’t happen? Sometimes when something doesn’t occur that some expect to occur, that is held to be a miracle. “A tornado roared through town and not a soul was injured! It’s a miracle!” If it’s difficult to tell the miraculous events from the non-miraculous events, it’s much worse for non-events.

The problem with ‘miracles’ is that they are ultimately subjective. Even where objective studies of miraculous healing take place, the findings of said studies either confirm previously-held convictions or produce conundrums that needs to be studied further. A cynical approach to miraculous events (and non-events) would be that when something ‘good’ happens, then it’s a miracle, but when a similarly unexpected and unlikely chain of events causes something ‘bad’, then it’s an unfortunate coincidence. How involved God is in either case is a matter of personal belief, with few people wanting to ascribe ‘negative miracles’ to God.

Those Christians who rely on miracles to verify their beliefs unintentionally subjugate their belief system to subjective experience. The oft-raised unanswerable question in ‘charismatic’ Christianity is not whether God can heal, but why God sometimes does not. This is the crisis point for many Christians in the experiential tradition – the proof of God’s existence seen when God heals miraculously is reversed as proof against God’s existence when such healing does not occur.

Another way to assess the ‘miraculous’ is to look at the point behind it. The New Testament gospel accounts include many ‘miracle stories’. In the post-Enlightenment scientific age, many of these have been explained away or ‘demythologised’, but whether the stories are taken at face value or not, it is obvious that the gospel writers viewed the stories about the miraculous as pointing to something more.

Jesus’ ability to heal the sick and raise the dead indicate his authority over the effects of sin in the world; his divine power over creation is similarly revealed in the ‘nature miracles’, such as the calming of the storm on the Sea of Galilee (Mark chapter 4, verses 35-41 and parallel accounts). In John’s gospel the link is made even clearer through the use of the word ‘signs’ instead of ‘miracle’ – each mighty act prefaces or links to a discussion that Jesus has with various individuals. The ‘sign’ underlines Jesus’ authority to teach the things he taught about God.

In the contemporary world, there is an emphasis on the miraculous that encompasses the human fascination with the mysterious. The same interest was recorded by the gospel-writers as a source of frustration to Jesus, who on occasion refused to ‘perform for the crowd’ (e.g. Matthew chapter 16, verses 1-4). To ascertain whether any unforeseen event could be a miracle, the point and ultimate result of said event is worth reviewing.

Thanks for your question, ES.

Many sporting teams declare allegiance to Jesus and employ ordained staff to minister to their needs. Is it Biblical and/or ethical to pray for victory over another team in sporting contests? I ask this knowing that as a fan of Shrewsbury Town your only hope, at times, must be of supernatural intervention.

For those regular visitors to freelance theology from overseas, it is worth explaining that Shrewsbury Town are a soccer team currently residing in the fourth tier of the English league and this year finishing quite near the bottom of the division. Jon the freelance theologian spent a proportion of his childhood in Shrewsbury and supports the ‘mighty Shrews’, hence the way this question is phrased.

The question about whether it’s ethical or Biblical to pray for divine help is a good one. In many ways it is no different to the prayer of an earnest believer that they will get a job or promotion at the expense of other candidates, or that their project will find success. There are of course numerous Biblical examples of people committing their plans to God and receiving blessing as a result. In some ways, however, sport is frivolous and even the most die-hard enthusiast will be forced to admit that whatever sport is being played is ‘only a game’. Socially the rise in organised sports is a sign of indulgent affluence and increased leisure time and it could be argued (in fact it has been) that involvement in sport detracts from more important things and wastes the limited amount of time any believer has available to achieve something of eternal significance.

Having said that, sociologists have often commented on the way organised sport takes the place of tribal warfare in civilised societies. It can also be argued that some sports recreate primitive tribal religion – with the chosen few totemistically representing the tribe and warring against evil forces, represented by the ‘other’ (the outsider; those who do not belong to the tribe). The communality and shared ecstatic experience are also of interest to the student of religion as the emotions and experience bear similarity to charismatic religious experience. Sport therefore meets an emotional need in the same way that religion can, even though it does not provide the philosophical or moral insights provided by more advanced religions. The morality of sport is often to win at any cost. Playing ‘fair’ is regarded as important, but many fans will turn a blind eye to their own player’s indiscretions, while any perceived injustice in favour of the opposition will be greeted by accusations of cheating.

Christians will often be drawn towards sports because, in a way, they are usually naturally inclined towards religious activity. The question of whether you can bear allegiance to a football team and bear allegiance to Christ is one worth asking. The hate-filled chants that echo around European soccer grounds emphatically do not tally with Christ’s ethical teaching about how we should regard our enemies. The arena of sport does provide Christians with an opportunity to talk to people who are already selflessly engaged in something bigger than themselves, with some sort of religious experience (even if they are not aware that it is such an experience), so it can prove fertile ground for discussions about the meaning of life, belief, hope and faith. A non-Christian Shrewsbury Town fan will understand more about the concept of hope than an ardent materialist who never thinks beyond their own situation.

Praying for victory is perhaps unethical (although the good news for supporters of lowly teams is that the God of the Bible firmly favours the underdog). Praying for the safety of the players, that the match officials and referees will have a good game and that the best team will win leads to no ethical issues. Praying that the best team will turn out to be your team? You have to decide whether you can pray that with a clear conscience.

Thanks for your question, CB.

What is the explanation of post modernity or other theories on the HIV/AIDS in the Pentecostal churches. Pentecostals seem to stress the spiritual way of handling this pandemic instead of approaching it literally.

The spread of HIV/AIDS proves to be contentious for Christians, mainly because of the means of transmission. In the developed world, it is still largely confined to homosexual men, despite some ‘cross-over’ into the heterosexual community. It is also more common in injecting drug users who share needles.

Due to its associations with homosexuals and drug addicts, the initial reaction among fundamentalist Christians was to pronounce it as divine judgement on sinful lifestyles. There were some very unfortunate statements made that homosexuals almost ‘deserved’ to catch AIDS because they were ‘living outside the will of God.’ This opinion has generally been dropped within Christian circles in Europe, but is still sometimes heard in America.

In Africa, the situation is different and much more serious in terms of its effect on society. The devastation caused by AIDS in Africa is due to a number of different factors. Firstly, it is very common in the heterosexual community. Secondly, unlike in the developed world, contraception (‘safe sex’) is rarely practiced. Thirdly, pharmaceutical companies have protected their patents to prevent affordable life-extending drugs being available in the developing world. The combination of these three factors has led to a rapid spread of the disease and, in some places, the near-destruction of an entire adult generation.

The reaction of Pentecostal churches in Africa is different to the reaction of fundamentalists in Europe and America. Rather than being a symbol of divine judgement on sin, it is seen as being Satanic in origin. This does reflect popular Pentecostal attitudes towards sickness and disease as being ‘of the devil’.

In a way, this is true. Christian theology has always held that sickness entered the world as a result of human sin (‘the Fall of Man’); sin that was encouraged by Satan, if, as many Christians do, Satan can be identified with ‘the serpent’ of Genesis chapter 3. However, whether the origins of AIDS are seen as spiritual or not, it remains a physical disease. It exists within the body of the host, attacking the immune system and infecting others exposed to it. In that sense, it is a physical thing and needs to be dealt with in a physical way – ensuring blood-safe practices, ‘protected’ sex and so on. The best preventative method is through faithful commitment to one sexual partner, ironically the Christian ideal as found in the Bible.

If HIV/AIDS is regarded solely as a demonic or spiritual problem and nothing is done to address the physical (or literal) problem, then the disease will continue to spread, irrespective of what is said in any church.

Thank you for your question, FM – the first one from Africa to feature on freelance theology.

Comment from AH, United Kingdom

I’m not sure I’m entirely happy with how my question was answered, the importance of corporate worship disappeared in an air of political correctness about worship as a lifestyle, something that I severely agree with. However, my concern and what I wanted to highlight with the question was actually the fact that worship, the corporate singing version of it, plays an important part in our lining up with God and each other. Joining the angels, like the crowd in heaven. I could be wrong, I’ve been wrong before. I don’t know. I just felt that that it wasn’t really a thorough answer to my question.

A response from Jon the freelance theologian

The comment about worship being a lifestyle is not being politically correct, although it is a popular ‘buzz-phrase’ at the moment. In fact, the original answer noted that sung worship has almost always been part of the way Christians worship God. However, the equally valid point was made that it was not the only way.

The concept of having a ‘time of worship’ during a religious service can be open to misinterpretation. There is a tendency in Christianity to divide the ‘sacred’ from the ‘secular’, but Paul’s instruction in Romans chapter 12, verse 1 is to “…offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God – this is your spiritual act of worship.” This implies that worship affects every part of a Christian’s life, not just the physical things that occur during church services. Paul has been called many things over the years, but ‘politically correct’ isn’t one of them (ask any feminist theologian!).

If corporate sung worship is called just ‘worship’, that implies worship only happens at certain times on certain days, which can lead to the idea that whatever happens during the rest of the week is unimportant. Seeing the whole of life as worship to God hopefully means Christians can avoid the frequent charge of hypocrisy – that what they say on Sunday bears no relation to how they act on Monday.

Of course Christians gathering together is important. Songs and music may help Christians ‘line up’ with each other. There is a long-standing Christian tradition of corporately singing praises to God, a tradition that works so well at bringing people together that Marxists decided to copy the Christian idea and sing their own hymn, The Red Flag, together at their meetings. However, again the point must be made and it was said in your original comment, singing is only part of this. Most Christians also engage in religious rites (communion being the prime example), many speak creeds together, celebrate Christian festivals in special ways and a few choose to live in actual community together. All these activities bring Christians into line with each other and with God and they could all be viewed as acts of worship.

Got a question or a comment? Want to make a point? Email freelance theology.

I’ve heard a lot about the various forms of Christian mission today – some say that mission is merely proclaiming God’s word, yet others would say that mission is taking care of the world we live in (e.g. Green Peace). What does God’s call want us to be involved in when it comes to spreading His word and mission, and does our environmental concerns come under the umbrella of mission today?

Christianity has been an expansionist religion ever since the recorded journeys of the apostle Paul in the book of Acts. Paul’s ‘missionary journeys’ when preaching and proclamation seemed to take precedence have become the blueprints for people as diverse as the Celtic saints like Columba, David and Patrick, the Roman Catholic monastic order known as the Society of Jesus (Jesuits), evangelical protestant heroes like C.T. Studd and Hudson Taylor and trailblazing non-conformists like John Wesley. In each case the ‘missionaries’ involved have been keen to ‘take the gospel to people’, especially to foreign lands as new worlds of exploration opened up.

Certainly a number of missionary societies in evangelical protestant Christianity regard ‘mission’ in these terms – the stereotype would be to ‘proclaim the gospel and convert the heathen’. But there has been a broadening of horizons in the last half of the twentieth century, with mission seen less as ‘proclaiming the gospel’ and more as ‘showing the Kingdom’. This perhaps stems from the rise in post-modernism. The ‘modern’ world-view is characterised by expansion and conquest. The ‘missions’ of the nineteenth century that piggy-backed European political imperialism were certainly ‘modern’ in that sense and have recently been subject to much unfair retrospective criticism as a result. Post-modern mission, if it even exists, would see itself as presenting a better way of doing things; an exemplary gospel that encouraged people to ‘live like this’.

Certainly the growth of the environmentalist movement is directly linked to the emergence of post-modern culture and considerations. The environmentalist agenda often includes an interest in the ‘spiritual’, but many Christians dismiss this as ‘New Age’ and are unwilling to engage with people who may be looking in the wrong places, but are at least looking for something. It could be argued that the Church generally is locked in a modern mindset, fighting ideological battles on rational and semi-scientific grounds, which would explain why Christians missed the opportunity to introduce Christ to those people rediscovering the beauty of creation.

If Christians are serious about mission today, then a move away from ‘modern’ methods would result in a more holistic approach to mission as ‘life in the Kingdom of God’. It is fair to say that environmental concerns would come under that umbrella, simply because the Kingdom is about doing things differently, according to God’s agenda. Pollution, global warming, wanton destruction of the natural world and the extinction of species are not part of God’s Edenic ideal. Nor do they feature in any ideal habitat for human beings.