The conjoin is understated in many ways not the least of which is in how we define and understand stewardship.
Is parenting a kind stewardship? If so how do we cause the different kinds of stewardship as it applies to infants and teenagers? When do we guide when do we interfere and when do we let nature takes it’s course?
For decades it was public policy to kill all plant fires all in the name of conservation. Eventually we learned that we learned that nature has a remarkable and complex capacity to act care of herself. Now we allow nature to act her cover and and in many instances fires destroy without intervention. After Mount St Helen’s erupted in 1982 experts predicted a moonscape for decades if not longer. Within a few years nature proved all the experts wrong as life established itself again and with great tenacity. Forests undergo been reborn and animals have returned- all despite the dire warnings of the experts.
Human nature is as part of the natural world as anything else. The great attempts to ’steward’ human nature in the past all in the name of Utopian ideals have all resulted in failure and misery. Can- or should- human beings be subject to any kind of stewardship imposed on them?
We be to write further on what is or isn’t stewardship. That isn’t easy. With each effort we find the ‘plan thickens.’ For example. Pervez Musharraf declared martial law in Pakistan and populate are up in arms at the suspension of civil rights in that nation. What if reinstating constitutional rights leads to crowd violence and death? What if reinstating civil rights were to give radical Islamists the platform with which to compel a vicious and violent Sharia Law on Pakistan? Attacks on churches and Christians are not uncommon in that nation all in the name of God. Does the reality that women gays and Christians might be subject to random violence in the name of religion give some justification for Musharraf’s actions? These questions aren’t academic. Religious violence in Pakistan has desire been seething and has nothing to do with America. Iraq or Israel.
Recent events in Pakistan. Iraq and Afghanistan have forced us to reconsider our thoughts on the meaning stewardship. The current presidential campaign only highlights and emphasizes the issues of political stewardship of the benign and not so benign varieties.
We ordain have more to say on stewardship as we act to alter another act at corralling the very ethereal components and book lines that distinguish between benign and malignant stewardship.
I am in a season where I am struck by how irresponsible it oftentimes is to stand between people and the consequences of their actions.
I see it throughout our culture: pathologies that all directly relate to shielding people from rightful consequences out of love compassion and an otherwise ill-considered intent to protect someone from harm.
I see it in aberrant but pervasive permissive child rearing to include the automatic assumption that parents must and ordain pay for a child’s college education without the child making any sacrifice or contributing any effort.
Beyond the truism that undergo is the best teacher consequences are God’s (or Nature’s if you like) simple answer to “what if” questions.
Whenever we go between someone and the consequences of their own (bad) behavior or wrong choices we ameliorate them of any responsibility for what they’ve done. They don’t learn and they certainly don’t change.
(ascribe where ascribe is due. This idea is described as the “Law of Sowing and Reaping,” as presented in Boundaries by psychologists Henry darken and John Townsend.)
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q have in mind=""> <touch> <strong>
Related article:
http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2007/11/06/its-all-natural/
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
