Great post! I’m enjoying seeing ya’ll on your travels—the girls (and your husband) look like they’re having a great time.
When you say “the world is broken”, does this mean reality is “broken”? What about the world is broken? I know this is an element of a Christian worldview, but I want to poke at the language a moment to understand what you mean by this better and alleviate assumptions.
I am not a Christian and see the world as a product of conditions, which is slightly different. It might not be what I want or expect, but it’s not “broken” or “wrong”, in my view; it simply is. Meaning: we can change it. We are not passive but active agents in a world that is what we make of it along with everything else happening at once.
So when I ask if you’re equating “the world” with “reality”, what does it mean for either of those to be broken, in your interpretation? I’m assuming they are equated, but I could be wrong (which poses more questions, but we’ll wait to cross that bridge).
Again, lovely post; we’re listening to a lot of the same music and share heartache over the protests in L.A., the plight of the immigrant in America at present. I’ve enjoyed seeing these articles on Substack, and your writing flows so nicely, of course. Thank you
I love getting to chat with friends about big questions like these! Wish you guys lived closer so we could talk about it more at length Thank you for taking the time to encourage and engage. I appreciate how thoughtfully you consider the world. My worldview is steeped in biblical teachings, so my response is the same. I wanted to include referential points as well (I’m sure you know them all), because I think Christians that choose to honor own emotional responses over what’s meant to be our guiding truth is where things can go awry.
When I say “the world is broken,” I don’t mean that reality itself is a mistake or inherently bad. I believe the world was created good by God (Genesis 1:31). But I also believe something fundamental changed with the entrance of sin into the world. In Christian theology, that moment (Genesis 3) is when humanity chose personal intellect and autonomy over God’s plan, thereby fracturing the harmony between God and His creation.
So “broken” doesn’t mean ruined beyond hope or unworthy of love and engagement. It means that what was once whole is now fractured, and what was once aligned with God’s original design is now distorted. Romans 8:22 is a good reference point, that even creation itself longs for restoration.
To your question about whether “the world” means “reality,” I’d say not quite. In biblical language, “the world” often refers to the systems and patterns that are out of step with God’s holy design. 1 John 2:16 describes it as “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.” So when I wrote “the world is broken,” I mean both the human heart (Jeremiah 17:9), our social structures, and even the natural world are all impacted by sin, so they are not as they were meant to be.
But I completely agree that we are not passive observers and we never should be. To disengage with the world just because it's not perfect would be an awful mistake. I believe God's plan doesn't pivot on brokenness but centers on restoration. Through Christ, I believe God is actively redeeming all things (Colossians 1:19–20). And we are invited to join in that work: to seek justice, love mercy, and walk humbly (Micah 6:8); to care for the immigrant and the oppressed (Leviticus 19:34 & Matthew 25:35); to be a people of peace and hope in a hurting world.
While I do see the world as broken, I don’t see it as hopeless or permanent. I see it as worth engaging with on an emotional level and still waiting for renewal, something Christ promised and Christians long for (Revelation 21:5).
Ah. That's a lot...but I appreciate your questions because it requires me to consider what I believe and why. Always a good thing to remain vigilant to the drift :)
I really am grateful for the time you’ve taken to reply and how you’re grounding your view in a larger theological tradition. Yes, it would be beneficial to be able to sit down and talk this out, I agree. There are definitely some tensions I’m sitting with in this response that I’d like to better understand in order to resolve, not to be combative or argumentative in any way. Maybe it will help me better understand your intended meaning.
When you frame sin entering the world as humanity choosing between “personal intellect & autonomy” and “God’s Plan,” I get a little stuck. Isn’t choosing to follow God’s plan still an autonomous, intellectual act? If all choices involve interpretation, how do we know when we are aligned with a divine design versus projecting one?
Similarly, I’m still unsure what the Christian worldview really means when it says the world is “fractured” or “broken” if the idea it’s failing to meet must be understood through our own limited lenses (interpretation). If we’re meant to return to an original wholeness that was lost, how could we recognize it as objective, especially if intellect must be set aside in this process? Does not all recognition require intellect and necessitate emotion?
I do not know how one would interpret what a “restored” world is when the held ideals of social structures, human intentions (human heart), and the natural world are all interpreted with such variety across time and even between authors of the various books that make up the Christian Bible.
These are just a few open questions and meanderings, not arguments.
My worldview is challenged by the Platonic idea that there exists an objective ideal ‘world’ that must be returned through divine action or human engagement or a combination of both. It’s not something I can account for, given how I understand the mechanisms of human interpretation. Should the divine speak (and it’s wholly possible it may), humans would require subjective interpretation to determine the subsequent actions necessary to fulfill the objective blueprint, rendering any objectivity subject to human interpretation (objective is no longer objective but subjective).
Does that make sense? I’m sorry if this is getting out of hand or inappropriate. It’s the rub I sense any time neo-platonic, Christian cosmologies are invoked by my friends.
Anyway, I genuinely appreciate the overlap we share in wanting to care for the world and shape it with intention. Thank you again for sharing your view so generously. If you’d prefer to continue this conversation somewhere else—offline/in person/in a direct message—or not at all, that is an entirely welcome decision, too.
Love your writing. I also enjoy engaging with it in good faith.
I have no idea how I missed this comment - I was going through old posts and just realized this. What a delay on my part!
I always appreciate the way you thoughtfully evaluate and question the world. It's important to consistently consider and recalibrate, not just for the self, but also to ask of others. I'm dashing this comment off on a family vacation, so it's woefully lacking in depth, but the considerations you pose above (the autonomous act of following God's plan, how an ideal world could stymie necessary human engagement, etc.) are things that I wrestle with as well.
I have so many seasons of doubt with the Bible and faith in itself, especially with the way Christianity has become a bloated, political thing. Most often I reconsider 1 Corinthians, when Paul writes about the folly of the cross. How the Christian faith looks foolish to those who do not believe in it (as I suppose is true of any religion or belief system).
Also, I never find your comments inflammatory. They're probing and kind, with an intellectual bent. I wish this comment was better fleshed out, but it's overdue as it is. Comment! Question! Hold me to what I say! Maybe writer's workshop made me a glutton for punishment, but I find it a gift to continue growing as a person and an academic, and hard questions are necessary to any form of growth.
Loved these photos with your sweet family & your beautiful thoughts
You're so nice - glad to share even tiny snippets, and it keeps me engaged ❤️
Great post! I’m enjoying seeing ya’ll on your travels—the girls (and your husband) look like they’re having a great time.
When you say “the world is broken”, does this mean reality is “broken”? What about the world is broken? I know this is an element of a Christian worldview, but I want to poke at the language a moment to understand what you mean by this better and alleviate assumptions.
I am not a Christian and see the world as a product of conditions, which is slightly different. It might not be what I want or expect, but it’s not “broken” or “wrong”, in my view; it simply is. Meaning: we can change it. We are not passive but active agents in a world that is what we make of it along with everything else happening at once.
So when I ask if you’re equating “the world” with “reality”, what does it mean for either of those to be broken, in your interpretation? I’m assuming they are equated, but I could be wrong (which poses more questions, but we’ll wait to cross that bridge).
Again, lovely post; we’re listening to a lot of the same music and share heartache over the protests in L.A., the plight of the immigrant in America at present. I’ve enjoyed seeing these articles on Substack, and your writing flows so nicely, of course. Thank you
I love getting to chat with friends about big questions like these! Wish you guys lived closer so we could talk about it more at length Thank you for taking the time to encourage and engage. I appreciate how thoughtfully you consider the world. My worldview is steeped in biblical teachings, so my response is the same. I wanted to include referential points as well (I’m sure you know them all), because I think Christians that choose to honor own emotional responses over what’s meant to be our guiding truth is where things can go awry.
When I say “the world is broken,” I don’t mean that reality itself is a mistake or inherently bad. I believe the world was created good by God (Genesis 1:31). But I also believe something fundamental changed with the entrance of sin into the world. In Christian theology, that moment (Genesis 3) is when humanity chose personal intellect and autonomy over God’s plan, thereby fracturing the harmony between God and His creation.
So “broken” doesn’t mean ruined beyond hope or unworthy of love and engagement. It means that what was once whole is now fractured, and what was once aligned with God’s original design is now distorted. Romans 8:22 is a good reference point, that even creation itself longs for restoration.
To your question about whether “the world” means “reality,” I’d say not quite. In biblical language, “the world” often refers to the systems and patterns that are out of step with God’s holy design. 1 John 2:16 describes it as “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.” So when I wrote “the world is broken,” I mean both the human heart (Jeremiah 17:9), our social structures, and even the natural world are all impacted by sin, so they are not as they were meant to be.
But I completely agree that we are not passive observers and we never should be. To disengage with the world just because it's not perfect would be an awful mistake. I believe God's plan doesn't pivot on brokenness but centers on restoration. Through Christ, I believe God is actively redeeming all things (Colossians 1:19–20). And we are invited to join in that work: to seek justice, love mercy, and walk humbly (Micah 6:8); to care for the immigrant and the oppressed (Leviticus 19:34 & Matthew 25:35); to be a people of peace and hope in a hurting world.
While I do see the world as broken, I don’t see it as hopeless or permanent. I see it as worth engaging with on an emotional level and still waiting for renewal, something Christ promised and Christians long for (Revelation 21:5).
Ah. That's a lot...but I appreciate your questions because it requires me to consider what I believe and why. Always a good thing to remain vigilant to the drift :)
I really am grateful for the time you’ve taken to reply and how you’re grounding your view in a larger theological tradition. Yes, it would be beneficial to be able to sit down and talk this out, I agree. There are definitely some tensions I’m sitting with in this response that I’d like to better understand in order to resolve, not to be combative or argumentative in any way. Maybe it will help me better understand your intended meaning.
When you frame sin entering the world as humanity choosing between “personal intellect & autonomy” and “God’s Plan,” I get a little stuck. Isn’t choosing to follow God’s plan still an autonomous, intellectual act? If all choices involve interpretation, how do we know when we are aligned with a divine design versus projecting one?
Similarly, I’m still unsure what the Christian worldview really means when it says the world is “fractured” or “broken” if the idea it’s failing to meet must be understood through our own limited lenses (interpretation). If we’re meant to return to an original wholeness that was lost, how could we recognize it as objective, especially if intellect must be set aside in this process? Does not all recognition require intellect and necessitate emotion?
I do not know how one would interpret what a “restored” world is when the held ideals of social structures, human intentions (human heart), and the natural world are all interpreted with such variety across time and even between authors of the various books that make up the Christian Bible.
These are just a few open questions and meanderings, not arguments.
My worldview is challenged by the Platonic idea that there exists an objective ideal ‘world’ that must be returned through divine action or human engagement or a combination of both. It’s not something I can account for, given how I understand the mechanisms of human interpretation. Should the divine speak (and it’s wholly possible it may), humans would require subjective interpretation to determine the subsequent actions necessary to fulfill the objective blueprint, rendering any objectivity subject to human interpretation (objective is no longer objective but subjective).
Does that make sense? I’m sorry if this is getting out of hand or inappropriate. It’s the rub I sense any time neo-platonic, Christian cosmologies are invoked by my friends.
Anyway, I genuinely appreciate the overlap we share in wanting to care for the world and shape it with intention. Thank you again for sharing your view so generously. If you’d prefer to continue this conversation somewhere else—offline/in person/in a direct message—or not at all, that is an entirely welcome decision, too.
Love your writing. I also enjoy engaging with it in good faith.
Safe travels to you and your family :)
I have no idea how I missed this comment - I was going through old posts and just realized this. What a delay on my part!
I always appreciate the way you thoughtfully evaluate and question the world. It's important to consistently consider and recalibrate, not just for the self, but also to ask of others. I'm dashing this comment off on a family vacation, so it's woefully lacking in depth, but the considerations you pose above (the autonomous act of following God's plan, how an ideal world could stymie necessary human engagement, etc.) are things that I wrestle with as well.
I have so many seasons of doubt with the Bible and faith in itself, especially with the way Christianity has become a bloated, political thing. Most often I reconsider 1 Corinthians, when Paul writes about the folly of the cross. How the Christian faith looks foolish to those who do not believe in it (as I suppose is true of any religion or belief system).
Also, I never find your comments inflammatory. They're probing and kind, with an intellectual bent. I wish this comment was better fleshed out, but it's overdue as it is. Comment! Question! Hold me to what I say! Maybe writer's workshop made me a glutton for punishment, but I find it a gift to continue growing as a person and an academic, and hard questions are necessary to any form of growth.