Book Review: The Advancement: Keeping the Faith in An Evolutionary Age

Bush, L. Russ.  The Advancement: Keeping the Faith in An Evolutionary Age.  Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2003.

L. Russ Bush (1944-2008) was a Southern Baptist professor, apologist, and philosopher. He served Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary as Professor, Dean of Faculty, and Vice-President. In 2006, he was appointed Dean of Faculty Emeritus and the first Director of the L. Russ Bush Center for Faith and Culture. His commitment to biblical inerrancy and his astute academic publications surrounding it safeguarded biblical inerrancy as Southern Baptist Convention doctrine. He is remembered for his passion to integrate theology and culture, in hopes that the culture could be successfully evangelized for the gospel of Jesus Christ.

In an effort to address the prevailing culture of modernism and moral relativism, Bush published his treatise entitled The Advancement: Keeping the Faith in An Evolutionary Age. This eight chapter book exposes the philosophical flaws of naturalism, revealing its logical inconsistencies and antireligious sentiments. Finding the terms “modern” and “postmodern” ambiguous and dissatisfactory, Bush utilizes the title “the Advancement” to describe the secularism’s aim of technological and scientific progress and its decline in religious and moral development (4). His text is an impressive, progressive apologetic against naturalism and for God and His intelligent design. A brief summary and critique of the text will be given, including suggestions for future discussions in theology.

Chapter 1, “The Worldview of the Advancement,” describes modernism and its forsaking of its spiritual, specifically Christian, origins. Bush compares the basic tenets of the Advancement to those of Christianity, highlighting Christianity’s central themes of stability in nature, spiritual warfare, and change as a consequence of divine intervention to counter the Advancement’s themes of inevitable progress, physical struggle, and Darwinism (15).

Chapter 2, “The Rise of Advancement Science,” is a dramatic telling of the rise of the Advancement, tracing its development from the scientific revolution inspired by the Copernican controversy to the emergence of uniformitarian thought and the evolutionary worldview of the modern day.

Chapter 3, “The Advancement of the Theory of Knowledge,” forms a major portion of Bush’s apologetic, in which Bush exposes the fallacies and inconsistencies of modernism’s claims regarding knowledge and truth. He demonstrates that a worldview without God (or at minimum, an intelligent designer) loses its validity as a result of its own claims (i.e., the arguments utilized against religion can be utilized as even more sufficient evidence against science). Chapter 4, “Modern Theistic Alternatives,” discusses theology’s failed attempt to integrate modernism into its doctrine and the error laden theologies such integration produces.

Chapter 5, “What is Naturalistic Evolution?,” details “Seven Assumptions of Evolutionary Biology and “Ten Axioms of Modern Scientific Thought,” discussing the underlying theories that constitute naturalistic evolution and modernism (65-76). Chapter 6, “Why Not Naturalistic Evolution?,” exposes the weaknesses of the Advancement’s position, including “Five Simple Objections to Naturalistic Evolution” (80-83).  Chapter 7, “Why Not Advancement?,” uncovers the illusionary nature of the Advancement, suggesting that the implications of the modernistic worldview discredit their own theses. Bush concludes his text with the eighth chapter, “What then are we to believe?” in which he argues for Christian-based theism and defends Christ’s claims referencing C.S. Lewis’ “trilemma.”

Bush’s critique of the Advancement is indeed warranted; the logical inconsistencies of modernistic thinking are apparent to objective readers educated in matters of philosophy and theology. The Advancement is mostly reader friendly, though not as accessible as W.E. Brown of Liberty University suggests in his review. Bush’s writing style requires familiarity with academic tone and style and proficiency in following somewhat complex rational arguments. This writer is not suggesting that the laity would not appreciate this text; in fact, the common reader would benefit greatly to grasp Bush’s arguments and employ them in conversation with scientifically minded modernists and postmodernists. Still, The Advancement remains complex enough to remain off the shelves of popular booksellers and sufficiently formal to intimidate many laypersons. While intellectual proficiency ought not to be a charge against Bush, one must remember that the battle against the Advancement is most often fought in the trenches of daily life between coworkers, colleagues, and friends. Wise Christian leaders will arm the masses rather than the intellectual elite.

Bush utilizes the term “the Advancement” to replace modernism and postmodernism for he feels “Modern seems strangely old-fashioned, and Postmodern is surely a temporary name” (4).  While he may be correct that postmodern will prove to be a temporary title for the current era, in utilizing one term (“Advancement”) to describe both modernism and postmodernism, Bush unnecessarily and inappropriately unites two very different philosophical perspectives. Modernity holds that there is “objective, absolute and knowable truth” and such truth is ascertained through empiricism and the scientific method. Postmodernity, on the hand, teaches a “deconstruction of objective truth and rationality;” truth cannot be held in absolute statements, but “is a matter of perspective only; it is something that individuals and communities construct, primarily through language.” Modernism and postmodernism are two entirely separate philosophies that produce different implications and worldviews. In a pluralistic age where many individuals concoct their own adaptations of spirituality and religion by drawing elements from one religion and perspectives from another, it is feasible to conclude that there are many postmodernists who hold to modernism in relation to science and academia but hold to postmodernity in morality and law. To this point, Bush does no harm by placing modernity and postmodernism under the same philosophical umbrella. However, Bush errs in his failure to properly distinguish the two philosophies. Perhaps this is why his argument seems to ebb and flow against modernism and postmodernism as he is uncertain as to which exactly he is opposing. The primary purpose of the text, to expose the flaws of naturalism and evolutionary worldviews, is an apology against modernism.

The Advancement does well in its stance against integrating modernism with theology. Bush indicts open theism and process theology, whose affinity for naturalistic and evolutionary science influences its understanding of God’s nature rather than allowing the opposite to occur (53-64). The notion that God is in process because the earth and its human occupants are in process is the consequence of anthropocentric absurdity and a rejection of the inerrant inspiration of the Scriptures. As contemporary Christianity continues to flirt with heresies guised as alternative theologies and postmodern doctrines, Bush’s voice is a light in the darkness beckoning the children of God to return home from their prodigal tour through secular humanism and naturalism.

Put Your Actions Where Your Faith Is: Tales from Thailand #2

I am continuing in my blogs today about my Thailand experience.  I would like to share a little bit with you about a little girl with whom I deeply connected and her possible future if Christians don't put their actions where their faith is.

From Monday through Friday, our team partnered with Agape Home, an orphanage for children living with HIV/AIDS.  We divided into three teams: medical, dental, and sports/Bible camp.  I worked on the medical team with our pediatrician, providing physicals and eye exams to the wonderful children at Agape Home.  I also traveled with our pediatrician and nurse to foster homes in the area, providing them with the same services we offered at the orphanage. 

While working at the Agape Home, I especially bonded with one little girl named Pinpana.  Pinpana is 3 ½ years old and suffers from AIDS, respiratory complications, and anxiety.  Of all the children at the orphanage, Pin seemed naturally drawn to me and I to her.  My heart swelled with love and compassion for her.  I spent my downtime at the orphanage playing with her favorite toy (a fire truck, nonetheless), teaching her how to take pictures with my camera, and going for little walks.  Because of her parental abandonment, Pin suffers from attachment disorder and therefore forms attachments very quickly with those who offer her love and attention.  While I do believe I bonded with her in a unique way, I am not naïve and recognize that attachment disorder certainly affects Pin’s judgments and affections.  This is why she and the other children at Agape Home need to live in stable homes with godly, loving families.  I hope to one day provide her with such an environment.

While in Thailand, I learned that sex trafficking is its top industry.  Young women (and men) are trafficked and forced, coerced, or defrauded into prostitution.  Though illegal, corrupt police officers receive bribes and even facilitate the trafficking process.  Karaoke bars seemed to serve as the “cover” for brothels, where for twelve hours a night young women from elementary school age to early twenties are made available for rape, abuse, and molestation.  Orphans who do not experience a stable home environment under the watchful eye of consistent parents are particularly vulnerable to trafficking due to their severe attachment disorder.  They respond to even manipulative and perverted affection; once released from orphanages as young adults, these broken individuals are typically trafficked within two days.  They end up in a scene similar to the adjacent photograph, lined up outside a bar as objects for sinful pleasure

Take a look at Pinpana’s picture.  Her face is filled with the bright hope of youthful innocence, a young and intelligent little girl who truly deserves the best.  And due to advances in medical science, there is a great chance that Pinpana will develop into a healthy adult.  However, without the

intervention of Christians adopting orphans, supporting missionaries and outreach organizations, educating their friends, family members, and churches, and praying against the evil ongoing in Thailand, little girls like Pinpana are trafficked by their twenty-first birthday.

The Apostle James writes, "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world" (James 1:27).  The Psalms are laden with commands to provide justice and care for the fatherless (orphans) and widows (Psalm 10:14, 10:18, 27:10, 68:5, 82:3, 146:9 to name a few references in the Psalms alone).  In the Old Testament Law, God's command is frighteningly blunt: "You shall not mistreat any widow or fatherless child.  If you do mistreat them, and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry, and my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless" (Exodus 22:22-24).  God's heart for orphans (and widows) burns intensely with compassion, love, and justice.

The problem for many American Christians is that we think these verses and commands do not apply to us.  While we may not be involved in caring for orphans or widows, most of us do not intentionally oppress them.  Orphans simply do not cross our paths.  Someone must be looking after the orphans somewhere, after all.  And because orphans are out of sight and out of mind, tucked away in some third world country and seen only on overly emotional and cheesy infomercials, we can press onward with relative certainty that we have not disobeyed God's command to care for the fatherless because we have not directly oppressed them even if we have not directly assisted them.

Image taken from joymag.co.za

We've deceived ourselves.  The Scriptures teach us to love not only in word, but in deed (1 John 3:18), to not only be hearers of the Word but doers (James 1:23-25), and that faith without works is dead (James 2:14-18).  Do we realize that crises of the world (such as the AIDS orphans in Thailand) stand as witnesses against the Church?  If the Church (the organism, not the institution) were put on trial and Satan were the prosecutor, he could call orphans, widows, the impoverished, the oppressed, the trafficked, those persecuted and slain, single mothers, the ill and many others to the witness stand and say: "Why do you exist in the world today?  And what did the Church do for you?"  And then he would call all those who have answered the pleas for help: government organizations, secular non-profits, the Red Cross/Red Crescent, military forces, Peace Corps. volunteers, fire departments and emergency services agencies, FEMA, the Mormons, and many others and say, "Hey, when you were responding to the call for help, what was the American Church doing?  Based upon their actions and attitudes, would you say that the American Church is needed or relevant?"  And while we may object for asking leading questions, the point would be made.  I thank God that in Jesus we have an advocate and we have forgiveness of sins, but do you realize that Christ's own words can be used against us?  "Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me" (Matthew 25:45).

Listen, I've been told I'm too critical of the Church.  I've been told that the Church is Christ's bride and I need to maintain an attitude of respect and love.  And people are right.  I'm critical.  And I'm working on being less judgmental of others and I ask for your prayers in that regard. There are those who have answered the call of discipleship and obedience; for those who I have, I am thankful and inspired by you.  However, I cannot love and respect the Church without speaking to it honestly.  I look at the prophets of the Old Testament and I see that they loved the Church, but they did not speak with hesitance or reservation.  If there is a message to proclaim and a truth to be told, it must be done.  Though the voice I have may be small, I will raise it loudly to advocate on behalf of those who have no advocate in hopes that my American Christian friends would do the same.  

This is what I ask: please ask the Lord what role He has for you to play on behalf of the oppressed, the fatherless (orphans), widows, and others in need of justice.  We are all part of the Church's body and the body has many different parts, so we are all called to serve differently.  Yet, please do not use the truth that we all have different roles to play as an excuse to declare your comfort zone as your role.  The brain tells the body parts what to do, the body parts do not tell the brain.  And if Jesus Christ is the "brain" of this religious body, do not tell Him what you will do.  Ask Him your role and obey.  Anything short of such surrender is not genuine discipleship and is therefore disobedience.  May God help us all as we endeavor to serve the Pinpanas of the world and to live incarnationally in our communities.

Tales from Thailand #1: Shoes on? No service! Cleaning from the inside out...

I recently returned from a trip to Thailand, where I participated in a medical/dental/vacation Bible school project at an orphanage for HIV positive children.  I departed the United States on March 21 and returned on April 1.  I was profoundly impacted by this trip and because so many of my friends and colleagues have asked for some details, I thought I would share about the trip over the coming days in this blog.

The first full day in Thailand began with group Bible study and prayer led by Pastor Larry Fullerton.  After our study, we had some downtime before a meeting with Mike Conserva, a full time missionary to Thailand supported by my church.  After going on a walk with two of my teammates in the surrounding neighborhood, I utilized the downtime (though brief) to catch up on some homework assignments for seminary and then attended our afternoon meeting.

During the meeting, Mike shared that it is appropriate to remove one's shoes before entering another person's home or store.  I recalled my surprise to see shoes outside of shops and homes during my walk.  The streets and buildings were dirty compared to the buildings and roads at home in the United States; why bother taking off one's shoes if there is minimal care for public cleanliness?  My Western sensibilities were offended by the obvious exterior dirtiness yet the seemingly overly obsessive attention given to footwear.  I'll wear my sneakers, you clean your sidewalk.  Deal?  Despite my Seinfeldian approach to cultural differences, of course I complied with the expectation to remove my shoes when appropriate.  I did not want to offend anyone unnecessarily; I do that enough unintentionally.

For the Thai, wearing shoes indoors is disgusting and disrespectful.  The same shoes that trample garbage, urine, dog feces, dirt, car fluids, and food scraps should never touch the floors of a personal living or working space.  Despite the filth of the outdoors (which pales in comparison to other nations, especially in the Middle East), the Thai cared very much about the cleanliness of their homes and businesses.  I was staying in a major city that hired day laborers to pick up piled up trash yet the interior of their homes and businesses were remarkably clean.

On the average, the opposite seems true in America.  We deeply value clean parks, clean air, public sanitation, single stream recycling bins, and landscaping, yet our homes are often in disarray and we are frequently behind on our household chores and tasks.  We enforce littering laws while our homes are littered with messes from yesterday.  We are typically more concerned about the state of our yards than the state of our kitchens (trust me, as an EMT I've seen some beautiful yards and terrible kitchens).  Culturally, clean exteriors are preferred to clean interiors.  I know some of you are objecting because you are type A, neat freaks, but please remember I am describing cultural differences summarily and of course, there are exceptions to every rule in both Thailand and the United States.

From my experience walking around Chiang Mai, Thailand, I conclude that the exterior appearances seem to hold less significance than the internal realities.  From my experiences as an American, I find that exterior appearances are incredibly important though they might not accurately reflect the internal realities.  I think this says something about our culture; we care deeply about external presentation but perhaps not as much about inward cleanliness.  One does not need to be an astute observer to recognize this is true about America.  The politicians we elect, the celebrities we idolize, the white lies we offer, the clothes we choose to wear, the shoes we polish, the thoughts we bury and beliefs we hide all demonstrate our concern for appearances despite the truths that often contradict the masks we don.  

I am not praising the Thai for their shoe removal; they have just as many cultural problems as we do in the United States.  I am, however, suggesting that our obsession with showing our best face is problematic.  Our American culture is mostly disingenuous, egregiously neglects the soul, and clamors for wealth and success despite personal and moral failings.  We are all emperors wearing new clothes and it is becoming increasingly more obvious (click here if you don't know the story.)

Western care for the exterior deeply influences Christian conduct.  We Christians tend to give our best Christian presentation to the world and when we fail, it shows big time.  I think this is why people are often critical of Christians; they see Christians angry or struggling or frankly, screwing up big time, and they think "Aha!  See!  I knew these Jesus freaks were no different than me!  And after all that holy nonsense, they're no better than anyone else."  And they're right.  The world doesn't need more people acting like they have it together.  It needs real people with real issues who do their best to trust a real God.

The Christian claim has never been that we are better than anyone else nor has it been that we have it all together.  Rather, we worship and serve a God who does have it all together.  It's a lie that we "get right" and then to go to God; we go to God to "get right."  Just like children emulate their parents, we attempt to do the same by sharing the love of a Heavenly Father.  Parents train their children to admit they did something wrong and not make excuses.  "Don't blame your brother, you shouldn't have hit him.  Now say you're sorry, I didn't raise you to act this way."  I think we Christians can do the same thing.  "Hey, I shouldn't have acted that way, I was wrong.  That's not how God teaches me to act and I was wrong.  I'm responsible and I'm sorry."  Imagine the power of such a conversation.  No high horse, no pedestal, no excuses, no blame: truth, vulnerability, hope, and faith.

Vulnerability and sincerity are much more powerful than false fronts and pious presentations.  When we begin to care more about the condition of souls, we will care less for public presentation and more for personal relationships, less for self ambition and more for the well being of others, and less for lies and more for truth.  I am challenged to live such a vulnerable life.  The irony of it all is that such inner purity will naturally overflow into one's conduct before the world.  The Thai have caught onto something: cleanliness begins in the inside and not the outside.  

More to come...

PS - I really don't like wearing shoes indoors now.  Who knows what I'm stepping in...no shoes inside at my place.  Seriously, it's dirty out there.

Miraculous: Thoughts after Sanctuary, 2/16/14

The following are brief thoughts in response to Pastor Josh Feay's sermon on the miraculous in Christianity.  Sermon was delivered at Sanctuary, Fairfield, CT, on 2/16/14.  I stand in agreement with Pastor Feay's position and add my own thoughts here.

Regardless of the theological position we maintain, we must never limit the Lord’s movement in our midst.  We cannot limit His ability to intervene in any given situation at any moment, through supernatural or natural means.  If we say to God, “You no longer speak through your people,” have we not limited a limitless God?  If we say to Him, “You must move in this situation,” have we not given God a mandate that He need not follow?  How can we who are finite say to the Infinite how He must move or how He must reply?  It is arrogance for any position to claim a monopoly on theological accuracies.  One says, “God healed me” and the other says “Medicine healed me” but are they not one in the same since all knowledge and healing comes from God?  We must not be myopic in our pursuit for the miraculous and claim that miracles must occur as we say they ought, but we also must not limit the miraculous to the usage of the natural.  Surely at any moment, the Lord can touch a tumor and it can vanish but in any moment in chemotherapy God can utilize the Christian’s joyous response while suffering to cause others to worship Him.

We must release our grip on these matters and leave our hands open in humble recognition that once we argue one position, the other position already has its rebuttal prepared.  As the children of God argue, the children of the earth perish.  Therefore, we ought to go forth offering the Lord, presenting our requests to Him with persistent boldness, offering no certainties and guarantees except that He is good and His mercy endures forever.  When the Lord presents Himself, He sovereignly does so in the way that will give Him the greatest glory in the life of the person to whom He enlightens with His grace and presence.  We must not claim to know what brings the Lord the greatest glory for only He can know such things; we are foolish if we say to God that we will build Him a house if He is satisfied with a tent (cf. 2 Samuel 7).  We go forth in great faith and warring against spiritual forces of darkness, possessing faith that sees God’s hand in all things even if we do not understand the circumstance.

Why Theology?

Taken from www.christianlandmark.com

Studying doctrine and systematic theology is challenging for me and I often wonder if it is a futile exercise.  No matter how many theologies and philosophies we develop, human finiteness prohibits us from truly understanding and explaining the Divine.  Though our attempts to explain God’s character and actions may be intellectually and even spiritually impressive, they are not sufficient to explain the mind and actions of a perfect God whose thoughts and ways are higher than created man’s (cf. Isaiah 55:9).  For instance, theologians may battle Calvinism and Arminianism or impassibility and passibility.  While one may prefer one theological position and develop a doctrine of God or systematic theology as a result, no one can claim certainty as to his position.  Therefore, I have perceived theology as an interesting and faith increasing enterprise that can only provide its students with a “best guess” as to the truth of God’s nature and actions.

However, I am seeing that my perspective of God borders on Neo-Platonism at times; the notion that God is too great to be known directly opposes Christianity.[1]  Platonism holds that God is considered “non-being,” for He is too great for the “unaided human mind” to conceive.[2]  Within Christianity is the truth that God has revealed Himself so that He may be known.[3]  Christianity is God revealed, not God unknown.  Such revelation is found in the Bible and in Jesus Christ.   Doctrine cannot claim to have God explained or place limitations upon Him, but doctrine is necessary to ensure that what God has revealed is faithfully preserved.  God is not “too great to be known” for in His greatness, God chose revelation.  Theological study is not man’s attempt to explain the inexplicable, but man’s response to God’s revelation.  God described David as a man after His own heart (1 Samuel 13:14); believers must seek to understand the heart of the God they aim to please.  Theology and doctrinal studies aim to explain God’s heart systematically, intellectually, and rationally.  While it may seem odd to systematically explain matters of the heart, Christian orthodoxy (right belief) and orthopraxy (right practice) require axioms by which disciples can order and center their lives.  I can embrace theology more willingly if I forsake that it offers certitude and accept that it is man’s best response to God’s revelation which produces enhanced spiritual intimacy and worship of the Creator.  Theology as solely an academic endeavor will puff up, but theology as a means to systematize what is known about God so that He may be better loved (and therefore obeyed) builds up.[4]  I admit that it is difficult to balance reverence for a holy and mysterious God and intellectual doctrinal study, but such balance is a worthy effort for it contributes to overall Christian orthodoxy, orthopraxy, and personal relationship with God Himself.

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15 KJV).

---

[1]Gerald Bray, The Doctrine of God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993): 34.

[2]Ibid.

[3]Ibid.

[4]cf. 1 Corinthians 8:1, where Paul states that knowledge puffs up but love builds up.

Why did God rest on the Sabbath?

            “So the creation of the heavens and the earth and everything in them was completed.  On the seventh day God has finished his work of creation, so he rested [or ceased] from all his work.  And God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy, because it was the day when he rested from all his work of creation.”  Genesis 2:1-3

            When I read of God’s rest or cease of work on the seventh day, I wonder why He rested.  God is perfect in all things; His strength, resilience, perseverance, and capability are limitless and flawless.  Why then did God rest?  If God is omnipotent, why rest?  And simply because He rested on the seventh day, He made His people do it too?  If I can’t run the bases well in baseball, I don’t change the rules of the sport for the remaining capable athletes.

vimeo.com

            The first hermeneutical mistake we often make is the projection of human weakness and limitation onto God.  Humans frequently require rest because we are tired, overworked, and in need of rejuvenation and recuperation.  Therefore, we “take a break.”  This projection of our frailty onto God is problematic.  The Bible tells us that God is never tired because He is perfectly almighty and everlasting (cf. Isaiah 4:28).  God was not laboring to create, He merely spoke creation into existence (e.g., "Let there be light.")  Additionally, the literary and grammatical contexts of Genesis 2 do not reflect a rest due to weakness, but a ceasing of work.  The Scriptures do not read that God needed rest, but that He simply elected to stop creating.

            The second hermeneutical mistake we make is to immediately think of the Jewish requirement to honor the Sabbath.  The Sabbath was enacted by God through Moses as told in the book of Exodus.

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy (Exodus 20:8-11, ESV).

When our minds reflect upon this teaching, we project the mandate placed upon Old Testament man as an indication that God was obligated to rest on the seventh day.  There is no Scripture to indicate that is true.  He did, however, choose to rest.

            What did God do on His elected day of not creating?  On the sixth day, God saw all that He made and declared it "very good" (cf. Genesis 1:31).  On the seventh day, He ceased creating, blessed the day, and seemingly enjoyed His creation.  There was a moment in the creative process that is often overlooked: the appreciation of accomplishment, peace with one's work and status, and thankfulness for all that one possesses and has done.  In man's obsession with itself, such balance and rest is neglected for the sake of greater progress.  My father often said to me, "Do as I say, not as I do."  Yet God does not maintain such an approach to parental role modeling.  God intervened and implemented the concept of the Shabbat (Jewish Sabbath) for His people and points to His own rest as an example of what is righteous.  The Sabbath is not a manipulation of people to force them into taking a day off because God had to do so, but it is a demonstration of God's desire for His children to appreciate their lives and find creative balance.  Cease work, enjoy what God has given the strength to accomplish, and reflect in thankfulness for the provision given.