“I think it’s a hooded merganser- pretty sure I saw the large white splotch on its head but it flew by so fast…”

“It could have been a bufflehead- sometimes it’s hard to tell from a far distance.  Look to see if it has a thin bill or not next time.”

Ah, surveying waterfowl.  I was lucky enough to venture out to Bulls Island a couple of weeks ago with a quartet of experienced birders and they were able to cue me in on an array of useful tips like this.  I’ve amassed several bird guides and have spent hours pouring through them, only to realize that the idealized photograph of a duck on paper is not what you’re likely to perceive in the field.  On paper, the differences between hooded mergansers and buffleheads couldn’t be more clear-cut: males of the latter have rather cutesy appearances with iridescent purple/green sheen on their heads and black backs; males of the former have pompous black hoods with black backs and brown flanks.  Both have a white patch of-sorts on their head… enough to throw the novice (such as myself) for a loop when viewed from a distance.

The distinction is important to a wildlife manager as the differences between each duck go beyond their appearances.  For example, unlike the bufflehead, fish make up the primary component of the merganser’s diet.  A manager would need to ensure water quality is conducive enough to support a healthy population and variety of fish if they had to prioritize for the merganser over the bufflehead or other species for some reason.   It’s a science, and it’s pretty rare to read information on a bird of any sort from a database or guide and see a sentence such as “Not much is known about this species, including its diet.”

In fact, it’s astounding how most everything around us seems accounted for by science.  The bufflehead:

Bucephala albeola.  Wingspan: 55 cm.  Length:  32-40 cm.  Weight:  272-635 g.  Eats insects, crustaceans, and mollusks, as well as some seeds.  Dives for prey and swallows food underwater.  Nests in tree cavity or nest box, lined with downy feathers from chest of female.  Clutch size: 4-17 eggs.

The hooded merganser:

Lophodytes cucullatus.  Wingspan:  60-66 cm.  Length:  40-49 cm.  Weight:  453-879 g.  Eats fish, aquatic insects, and crustaceans (especially crayfish).  Dives underwater to catch prey.  Nests in tree cavity or nest box, lined with downy feathers from chest of female.  Clutch size: 5-44 eggs.

More than 100 species of ducks in the world, and all accounted for: Genus.  Species.  Appearance.  Weight.  Length.  Wingspan.  Breeding season.  Clutch size.  Reproduction.  Diet.  Behavior.  Vocalization.  Conservation status, etc.  Thanks to mankind’s tedious observations of duck species, we’re able to distinguish a dabbling duck (eats by upturning its tail and “dipping” for food) from a diving duck simply by watching how it takes off in flight from the water (FTR, dabblers can “lift-off” straight-up while divers skim the surface for a while).

At first, I couldn’t help but wonder if our picking-apart of every last thing harms our ability to truly appreciate the Creation.  Do our descriptions of the natural world cheapen its beauty?  (I’m reminded of the scene in the film Dead Poet’s Society when Robin Williams’ character instructs his students to rip out the introduction of a textbook that assigns quantitative formulas in an attempt to evaluate poetry.)  After much consideration, I’ve realized that I had the whole narrative wrong: our cataloging of every last thing on our planet and beyond falls completely within God’ s sovereign plan.

Have you ever stargazed, unaware of what was a cloud or what was an immense cluster of distant stars?  Such was the case a few nights ago when I took an early morning trip to the Isle of Palms, and it was an incredibly captivating experience .

A small fraction of God's glory.

The stars slowly began to emerge as I walked on the beach away from the light pollution- away from the condominiums, touristy restaurants, fishing piers and 1%’er beach homes.  About a mile out with fully-adjusted eyes and no moon above, I retired to a sand dune to take it all in.  There had to have been at least a million stars visible to my eyes, all resembling luminous grains of sand that God casually flung throughout the night sky.

With my back against a cold dune, I tried to conceive some sort of depth perception between myself and an individual star picked at random, hoping to give myself an appreciation for it as a massive ball of burning gas and not some speck in the sky.  I imagined all its little orbiting planets, wondering if any one of them were similar to one I was sitting on.  I wondered what it would be like to be aboard a hypothetical space shuttle that could travel 10 times the speed of light and how long it would take to reach said star.

Then I noticed the Orion constellation (which I love because I’m pretty terrible at stargazing and Orion’s belt is always easily recognizable).  My mind began working through the whole process again, awestruck at the thought of each star possibly harboring its own system of planets, but my fascination was squelched by the realization that all these stars were already accounted for by astronomers:  Betelgeuse, Rigel, Bellatrix, Mintaka, Alnilam, Alnitak, Saiph. (thanks, Wikipedia!).  I’m not even sure mankind will get the opportunity to visit Betelgeuse’s system, but we already know that if the star itself was placed at the center of our solar system, astronomers believe its surface would go beyond Mars.  The magnitude of the moment and its forcing me to realize how incredibly tiny I am is what I love so much about looking at the stars.

A meteor streaks across the sky and in a flash is gone forever.  For all the millions of named stars out there, there are an estimated 19,000 meteors a day that are intercepted by our atmosphere… and not a one of them has a name.  There is a certain consolation in knowing that.  The burning ball of space rock I see disintegrating via friction through our atmosphere is a simple flash of God’s glory, untouched by the minds and cold observatories of mankind.

Laying on the dune with my neck bent towards the cosmos, a verse soon comes to mind:

“The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.” -Psalm 19:1

I found it interesting that it took me a good 10 or 15 minutes to recall this verse.  It’s almost like God wanted me to appreciate his Creation for being the Creation, and not out of some faulty sense of religious obligation.  I am thankful for this.

Back at home, I recall another verse:

“For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities– all things have been created through Him and for Him.” -Colossians 1:16

I had the whole narrative wrong.  We’re not cheapening Creation’s beauty or God’s glory by categorizing and accumulating knowledge.  The only vile misfortune is when we herald our scientific gains solely as a human triumph.  When we do keep the whole of Creation in context, however, it brings God the full glory as it was created by and for Him.

If I step away from my own biases and try to image the universe through an atheistic lens, I still have a hard time overlooking the peculiarity that there is a living species of organisms out there that tries so desperately to understand how everything works.  It still seems like an outrageous coincidence.  Consider this quote (as obtained from a brilliant write-up by atheist Carl Sagan in quoting someone else):

“We do not ask for what useful purpose the birds do sing, for song is their pleasure since they were created for singing. Similarly, we ought not to ask why the human mind troubles to fathom the secrets of the heavens. The diversity of the phenomena of nature is so great and the treasures hidden in the heavens so rich precisely in order that the human mind shall never be lacking in fresh enrichment.” -Johannes Kepler

That screams God to me.  For all of our self-appointed and self-perceived worth due to gains in our scientific understanding, there are still countless mysteries that elude us.  God created the universe vast enough so that no matter what, we’d still be probing his mysteries and wondering.  Science is re-working itself continually… often what we think we know is proved to be partially or completely incorrect.  Just last year, scientists discovered bacteria in Mono Lake, California that built DNA by using arsenic, which challenged preconceived ideas about organisms having to use only carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, sulfur or phosphorus to perform the same task.

When God assigned Adam the task of naming all the animals, it wasn’t mindless busy work.  It was so that the first man ever could obtain an appreciation of His Creator first-hand, thereby giving God the glory.  Now, in 2011, we’re still discovering new bacteria, animals, plants, etc. and assigning names to them.  The wonder will never stop.

——

I groggily raise myself from the sand dune and begin the 2-mile walk back to the parking lot at the center of town on the Isle of Palms.  One by one the stars begin to disappear as I make my way back to the man-made glories of condos, homes, pavements, flood lights, and gas stations.

——

From a book I received for Christmas last year:  it’s an invaluable resource for the novice birder or wildlife manager with no detail of bird species spared, but I love how my mom kept everything in check:

"Enjoy all that God made for you"

Will do.

To my fellow Atlantans who lived here in the 1990′s… you’re welcome.

Red-winged blackbird in flight

11 PM in Milledgeville, Georgia found me taking the trash out at work.  I can finally begin to feel fall cloaking upon this Deep South town.  Glancing up at the night sky, I see one solitary star.  One.  Polaris, perhaps?  I suppose that’s always as good a guess as any for the layman such as myself.  Regardless, it was overwhelmingly underwhelming.  The dim orange-yellow streetlights of the downtown area had flooded the glory of billions of balls of burning gas, each of which being exponentially larger than the minute globe I’m standing on.  But still, that one star pierced though.

“How old was the light? 10,000 years?  1 million?” I thought.  “Wait, am I a heretic for even pondering that question to myself?”  The coalition of these two thoughts made me consider the attitude of Christians in regards to being stewards of God’s creation.  (And yes, I realize the irony of considering the stewardship of our own planet while pondering other celestial bodies.)

For many Christians who believe the entire universe is 6,000 years old, the care of our planet can be described as a nice sentiment at best, and an afterthought at worst.  Indeed, to them the Earth is merely a stage upon which the redemption of man takes place.  No doubt, this is one of its functions.  But it’s as much of a classroom as it is a stage.

Have you ever considered why God created our world with such an astounding biodiversity?  In the United States alone, there are 46 species of warblers, 45 species of bats and 36 species of pines.  Globally, there are over 100 species of warblers, over 1,000 species of bats, and 115 species of pines.  That’s incredible.  Sure, every living thing is vitally connected to every other living thing through a convoluted web of life and sure, as members of this great web, all species are important for the well-being of others.  But God could have easily created a barren world where humans survived off of one species of a life-giving plant that supplied all our essential nutrients.  Perhaps this plant would be watered by shallow aquifers from the ground, springing forth only briefly for people’s collection and consumption.  Indeed, He could have created a starless sky stretched over a landscape void of green landscapes and foaming rivers.

Undoubtedly, there would probably be a small handful of useful connections made between that limited natural world and God, but it wouldn’t be anything close to the opportunities we have today.  Have you ever considered the vast amount of scripture referring back to the natural world?  Is it any coincidence?  I would hardly believe it.  See the following scriptures:

“Consider the birds of the air, they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?” -Matthew 6:26

“Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise!” -Proverbs 6:6

“And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?” -Matthew 6:28-30

“I am like a vulture of the wilderness, like an owl of the waste places; I lie awake, I am like a lonely bird on the housetop.” -Psalm 102:6-7

And so on.  It’s important to note here that these observations and lessons as derived from nature go to bring better understanding of the nature of God, and thus, bring Him glory as it is His creation.  Indeed, Colossians 1:16 states

“For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.”

Furthermore, nature helps bring everyone to Christ by causing genuine awe.  Romans 1:20 says

“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

So why do we seem so eager to strip Earth, as a creation of God, of its natural resources for our own gain?

A couple of weeks ago an older Christian gentleman who happened to be a John Hagee fan caught wind that I was an environmental science major.  He asked me

“Let me ask you something.  Do you believe in global warming?”

“I believe in global climate change.” I said.

He repeated himself, to which I repeated my answer.  Then he asked me why would it matter that we save the Earth when God had already predetermined in scripture that He would destroy it one day with fire.  This would be an interesting point had I not heard it approximately 2398752094572309 times before.  I decided to give him a simple metaphor, which I will repeat here.

“Let’s say you build a habitat for humanity house for a homeless family.  You tell them that for some reason, 70 years from now, you are going to destroy it, and you’ll let them know when so they can prepare for it, but they are free to live in it during the meantime.  Chances are you would not be too happy if they trashed the place like they had no respect for you and what you did for them in building it.”

I don’t think he took to kindly to the metaphor seeing how he walked off.  Anyways, please sound off with your thoughts via the comments.  Discussion are always welcome at twenty.five.forty.

Next week will continue this thought with “Of God and Nature: Dominion”.

Image: CBS News

So, this issue deeply saddens me in terms of how some Christians are handling it.

I’m going to go ahead and get this part out of the way so there’s no misconceptions: the planned location of the New York City mosque is in poor taste.  For me it’s not so much the mosque’s geographic proximity to Ground Zero, but rather the poor timing of the planned construction.  I mean, we’re only approaching the 9th anniversary of the tragedy of September 11, 2001.  There are thousands of families who still find themselves tightly cloaked with the anguish brought about by that horrible day.  I feel sympathy for them, and quite frankly I wish the plans for this building could either be staved off for a more thoughtful time or relocated a little farther away from Ground Zero just for the sake those families.  With that said, however, I do believe the New York Muslim community should be able to construct the mosque, or more accurately, the Cordoba House community center.  Doubtless you’ve heard talking points from both sides, and I don’t aim to parrot them here.  I’d just like the world to know there are sensible followers of Christ who don’t knee-jerk react to this hot-button issue.  Here’s my take.

When the first 10 Amendments to the Untied States Constitution were ratified by the First United States Congress in 1791, the very first issue to be addressed was that of practicing religion in the United States in the first sentence of the First Amendment.  As you can tell by the number of “firsts” in the last sentence, it’s my belief that the issue was priority number one to our founding fathers.  Indeed, the first sentence to Amendment I reads as follows:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

As a political science graduate, I’ve noticed this is a sentence will be either completely ignored or completely misinterpreted by many Christians due to its implications.  This sentence, formally called the “Establishment Clause”, was composed in response to the Church of England, established as the official religion of England as well as some of the colonies.  As products of a highly rational era, the founding fathers understood the implications of a federal government promoting one religion over another.  They understood that the America had already become a composite land of peoples from a wide variety of cultural backgrounds.  They knew by preferring one religion over another they would be contradicting the very idea set forth in the Declaration of Independence that all men were equal.  They understood the potential for tyranny under a theocratic system of government.

Ever since 1791, the Establishment Clause has prevented the government from reaching their grimy hands into religion and religion from adulterating government with its passion.  We as Christians must understand that this nation was not set out explicitly as a Christian nation by our founders.  Sure, many were faithful to Christ and many notions in our founding documents exhibit these allegiances, but they had the sense to separate their beliefs from the dirty work of politics.

Many older generation Christians are still hung up on the idea of Christendom, the idea that the United States of America is a “nation divinely designed as the leader of a global spiritual empire, and in creating a Christian politics toward that end.” (Bass, 2008).  It’s the idea that America is supposed to be a “City on a Hill” of sorts for the rest of the world.

Perhaps God did intend for the United States to be a City on a Hill example for the rest of the world.  Only He knows that.  I just don’t get how someone could solemnly believe that and turn around to judge an entire group of people like it’s their job.  No, it’s not- that’s God’s job.  Remember?  I think He made it clear a couple of times in his Holy Word.  We’re called to serve and to love.  Yes, there should be a balance of truth and grace, but in my opinion Christians are leaning too heavily on the hard truth as opposed to offering grace.  In doing so, they are missing a tremendous outreach opportunity.

Think about it.  How hard is it to share message of Christ in Iraq or Iran right now?  Would you want to do it?  I thank God for the brave souls that He has sent there and what they are doing for the Kingdom, but can only imagine they face constant danger from a society there which views the Christian people as infidels.  By stirring up a media frenzy and decrying mosques from sea to sea across the country, we as Christians are not only going against the message of Christ’s love, but we are making this country an unwelcome place to Muslims, THE VERY PEOPLE WE NEED TO BE EVANGELIZING TO.  Makes no sense.

Bottom line: the United States of America is not a Christian theocracy, which may come as a shock to some.  The First Amendment gives everyone the right to practice whatever religion they’d like to wherever they’d like to without question.  Even if it is offensive.

Chick's favorite phrase, from "The Long Trip"

When I was 12 years old, the youth group from my home church ventured to extreme southwest Georgia for our first collective mission trip.  We took a small bus for the intrastate journey, but it may as well been a time machine.  Indeed, this place would give Boo Radley’s Maycomb, Alabama a run for its money.  It was the kind of town where racism was highly divisive and pulpits filled old sanctuaries with fiery images of brimstone and everlasting torture.  It should come as no surprise, then, that it’s where I was first exposed to Jack Chick tracts.  If your only encounter with these tracts was finding them nestled on top of a restroom urinal or abandoned on a counter top, consider yourself lucky.  This south Georgia church had an arsenal of them, and they wanted us to freely distribute them.

If you’re not familiar with said tracts, just imagine a slightly prejudiced fundamentalist Christian message set to turbo and delivered in comic form on 20-page tracts.  Doubtless, there are hundreds (if not thousands) of people in fellowship with Christ right now that have come to know Him at least partially though these tracts.  I praise God for these souls.  I would have to speculate, though, that most of these people probably came to this decision in the 20th century.  Times have changed.  Chick’s techniques have not.  I can only imagine how many people today may be put off by these tracts.  I’d like to pick one of them apart and examine what the lost may perceive in them.  (All of Chick’s tracts can be found on his website here.)

The first is a Jack Chick magnum opus of sorts, a grand tract simply entitled “Boo!”, published in 1991.  I can only speculate that it was intended to be distributed amongst oblivious trick-or-treaters on Halloween.  Poor kids.  Of course, they probably do like the action going on in the tract; as bizarre and misguided as some of the Chick tracts are, they are all consistently one thing: entertaining.  I don’t mean that in a sarcastic  or smarmy way.  Chick really does have a knack for threading a story along and keeping you engaged, even if you don’t agree with how he’s delivering the message or the message itself.  And although he may not be a star philosopher in some respects, he is truly a gifted visual artist.  But anyways.  The tract (which can be found here):

The basic plot to “Boo!” is that a group of high schoolers plan on hanging out on Halloween at the Camp Basil Bub (get it??) cabins, and for some reason, their redneck ringleader wants to sacrifice a cat to Satan.  Okay.  Sounds normal enough…

Notice the Haw Haw. Also, I'm not sure why Satan is depicted with a pet snake here.

So we’re introduced to Satan, who is at first simply a black silhouette who for some unforeseen reason is wearing a jack-o-lantern over his head.  And what do you know, he forgot his chainsaw.  Apparently Halloween is Satan’s birthday.  News to me.

Satan apparently finds his chainsaw and busts into their little meeting where a student identified as “Carrie” is about to sacrifice the poor cat.  But the character of Satan in this tract doesn’t want the cat.  Oh no.  He wants Carrie.  Chick spares the reader the bloody scene which ensues, in which Satan actively kills all in attendance.

'Tis the devil himself.

The law gets involved and Satan un-dons the ridiculous pumpkin on his head to reveal his true identity.  And of course, Chick depicts him as a goofy horned being.  And before I say anything else, I simply must address the “haw haw” thing.  In all the issues I take with these Chick Publication tracts, this is perhaps the most frivolous, but I can’t help but notice every utterance of that phrase.  Who laughs like that?  Is it a colloquial thing?  It may seem stupid to mettle over it, but to me the use of “haw haw haw” is a small indicator of how out of touch Chick is with reality.  In fact, so many people find it humorous that when you search for Jack plus Chick plus the letter h, it’s the fifth thing Google predicts you to search.

Harry Potter? Oh goodness no.

But I digress.  After Satan’s run-in with the law, he happens upon a church where a young man is praying and the devil decides to give him a scare.  The dude rebukes him and the devil runs away.  The next day, the young man talks to his pastor about the nature of Satan.  What follows is a monologue that seems legit in terms of the Satan part.  But after that the pastor starts rambling about the history of Halloween, spouting off points that are non-verifiable and mostly folklore.  He depicts the holiday as a time when bloodthirsty Celtics roamed the land desperate for a human sacrifice in exchange for a jack-o-lantern.  When in reality the holiday is more related to Samhain, an end-of-the-harvest holiday where Celtics thought the separation between the world of the living and that of the dead was especially thin.

How would you know?

And there again lies another Chick-real world disconnect.  Instead of spending a mere hour or so researching the history of Halloween, Chick simply formulates his own fanciful rendition of its background.  Now I do believe Halloween does glorify Satan more than it does God, obviously, but it’s not a time where more demons than normal come out and run amok on “Satan’s birthday”.  That’s absurd.

Here’s the problem with tracts in general: when used correctly, tracts can be an effective supplement to someone sharing their faith.  And perhaps that’s all Chick is intending them to be.  But what happens more often is Christians thrusting them into someone’s face and running away, expecting that do the deed.  They want to make a difference for the kingdom without putting any effort into relationship building whatsoever.  And that’s why I dislike tracts, by and large.  They are throwbacks from a bygone era.  You used to be able to simply lay the truth out there and people would respond accordingly.  Virtually all generations living today do not simply regard something as truth because someone else tells them it is (as was the case 50 years ago).  In this day and age, to more effectively nudge someone in the direction of Christ you must show love in the form of an active relationship.

What’s more, these are simply misguided tracts.  The classic blue and white “ETERNAL LIFE” tract is solid in its content through and through.  It can be a quick and efficient tool in sharing the news of Christ when used properly.  But Chick tracts tend to leave more heads scratching and fists clinching than they change hearts.

For example, take Chick’s depiction of Satan in the above tract.  He seems to miss the point that Satan is a crafty shifter who can take many forms to mislead people, whether it be through adulterated thoughts or ill-conceived emotions or desires or anything else.  He’s not an entity who will barge through a door wielding a chainsaw and donning a pumpkin on his head.  He won’t actively physically kill human beings.  He can do much more damage with a extant person who he’s misguided.  Simply put, he’s not an easily scripted being with little horns, fangs and a tail.  That’s what the world expects us to imagine him as.  Chick is playing into this preconceived notion and I can only imagine it makes the whole Christian faith seem like it’s just one which believes in goofy and fictitious characters.

The fact is, God doesn’t depend on us to get the best PR out there for Him.  But He has given us the sense to ponder the best way of reaching people in our day and time through our messages, and we should definitely take advantage of that.

Bonus reading:  Be sure to check out this hilarious Lark News satire article regarding Jack Chick.  Amazing.

]]> http://twentyfiveforty.wordpress.com/2010/08/16/haw-haw-haw-a-perspective-on-jack-chick/feed/ 0 twentyfiveforty boo2 HawHawHaw boo3 http://twentyfiveforty.wordpress.com/2010/08/14/dispatches-from-the-north-and-south/ http://twentyfiveforty.wordpress.com/2010/08/14/dispatches-from-the-north-and-south/#comments Sat, 14 Aug 2010 17:53:24 +0000 twentyfiveforty http://twentyfiveforty.wordpress.com/?p=42 ]]> “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!” 2 Corinthians 5:17

The Southern Lights over Antarctica.

Lately I’ve been reading this book I bought at Goodwill called Heroes of Polar Exploration. I’m pretty sure it’s meant for middle schoolers because the type size is somewhat large and it’s riddled with (albeit nice) illustrations. Actually, I’m sure it is. The inside flap says it was published in 1962, and keeping with non-fictional writing of its era, the author’s tone regarding the various polar explorers is hardly objective. Despite these minor setbacks, it’s a good read and I find it incredibly interesting to delve into the plight of men who ventured into a cold nothingness. While reading it, I couldn’t help but think of what a fantastic indicator it is of our great separation from God as a result of sin.

For years nations would send expeditions towards what is now extreme northern Canada in order to discover/establish a Northwest Passage to the riches in Asia. I mean, when I say years, what I mean is centuries- all for a supposedly faster, more efficient way of making a buck. For centuries, men tried and failed- and many of those were forever lost in that great white void. The Passage was first navigated in 1906 by a Norwegian man named Roald Amundsen. 1906. In other words, at a time in which the Northwest Passage was quickly becoming irrelevant and obsolete. But hold the thought on Amundsen for right now.

Many years earlier- in the 18th century, the Russian Navy sent a Danish man named Vitus Bering out in order to find a Northeast Passage to the Orient. Which is funny ‘cause last time I checked a map, Russia shared a pretty extensive border with China. Whatevs. Anyways, the first voyage Bering took found him in the Straight that currently bears his name. He sailed down the Straight and then turned around, sailing north; it is then that he saw Asia to his left side but a dense fog prevented him from seeing present day Alaska to the right. He turned around due to reservations about the building ice in the Arctic Ocean. Bering returned to St. Petersburg and was revered as a coward for not sailing farther. He eventually made a second voyage and ended up dying of scurvy that time around.

The next goal was the North Pole, i.e.- the chance to say you stood on top of the world. Many attempted it, but it was the American Robert Peary who achieved it in 1909 along with the help of Matthew Henson and a group of Inuits.

Then in 1912, as if discovering/navigating the Northwest Passage wasn’t enough, Amundsen reached the South Pole, perhaps the last great unconquered goal left on Earth besides Mount Everest. What kills me about this whole endeavor was the fact that Englishman Robert Scott was (knowingly) racing Amundsen to the Pole, only to get there one month short.

Amundsen at South Pole.

I wonder what it felt like to be Scott at that moment in time. You toil through the navigation of an unforgiving continent with the hope of being the first to reach the Pole only to find a Norwegian flag dancing wildly at your goal. That flag, that hideous flag had to feel like it was mocking him. What makes matters worse is dude buddy Amundsen, knowing Scott was on his trail, left a note designated for Scott. Talk about insult to injury. Little did Scott know as he followed the dog tracks of Amundsen’s expedition back to McMurdo Sound that he and his crew would die an untimely death there on the southern continent.

People will do crazy things to establish their sense of identity and self-worth.

Peary.

Put into perspective, possibly the most puzzling conquest is Peary’s conquering of the North Pole. For 20 years it was his expressed desire to stand momentarily “on top of the world.” It is well documented that he sought the notoriety it would bring as well. But the funny thing is- the North Pole isn’t even the top of the world. Not even close. Since the Earth is on a 23.5° tilt, when Robert Peary stood at the 90° latitude, he wasn’t near being “on top of the world.” Furthermore, that fact that he was standing at the highest latitude north is insignificant in that it (coordinate system) is only an arbitrary system devised by man to help them navigate; there’s nothing special or magical about it.

Then I got to reading about how Peary would often stop the expedition in order to avoid crossing the great chasms that would open because of ice breaking off, separating him from his eventual goal. It made me think of the whole thing and how it all relates to our sin. Ever since Adam and Eve broke their perfect and constant fellowship with God by disobeying him, it seems like mankind has been nothing but desperate to determine and spell out who they are and what their worth is an individual. Centuries ago, nations in Europe thought it would be a great idea to risk thousands of lives in the Greenland and Canadian Arctic for the chance of riches- riches that would give them prominent status amongst other nations and other people. It wasn’t enough for Amundsen to simply achieve the Northwest Passage- apparently he thought that

Henson.

achievement alone didn’t prove him worthy enough as a person- in fact, he desired this so much that he beat another man (who ended up dead) who labored just as much (if not more) for the same goal.

Then there’s Peary, who stood at the North Pole and returned home to New York only to be called a liar. I’m not even sure he got the recognition for it by the time he died. It took years to credit him for the achievement.

You have to wonder.  Some of these expeditions were forced to winter in the Arctic and Antarctic regions, where darkness dominated the landscape for nearly four months.  I wonder if they took notice of the brilliant northern and southern lights casting a masterpiece of color onto the barren white landscape, bleeding into that darkness.  That is, the very darkness that mirrored the condition of their own hearts- would they have felt the presence of God- that is, amid this fantastic display of colors displaying God’s glory that seemed to spite their expeditions? Did they sense God out there at all, as they tried to find an identity outside of Him?

Since we no longer live in perfect fellowship with God here on Earth, we strive to do anything to make ourselves feel worthy. We’re geared to want to be evaluated worthy by something other than ourselves- prior to the fall with Adam and Eve, this was fulfilled by the fact that they constantly were able to interact with God- imagine talking to the creator of the universe- face to face. It would sure make you feel a.) insignificant but b.) loved and therefore there would be no need to want to be a famous explorer or to make millions or to gain notoriety.

Thank God that unlike the chasms Peary encountered (and Henson almost fell in), we have a way to this fellowship again through Jesus Christ.

Once again, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!” 2 Corinthians 5:17