You know, I think, functionally, I still operate with a Dispensational ethic. In other words, the way I look at the world really is colored by the idea that it is going to hell in a hand-basket, and so the most important thing I can do is proclaim the Gospel and snatch souls out of this fire destined kosmos (cf. II Pet 3). This is in contrast to what is usually portrayed as a creational ethic, which Covenant theology is often associated with. Who sees 
creation’s original purpose (telos) as something continuous between the original creation and its recreation/redemption/restoration in Christ. The implication, then, is that everything is redeemable — e.g. not just people — which means things like: art, culture, environment, etc. etc. These are all things, in this schema that will carry over into the eschaton of the New Heavens/Earth.
And yet, in some ways I think both of these can be viewed as true and thus not mutually exclusive one from the other. In other words, the “world” is going to hell; but it has also been redeemed. In other words, the key (as far as ethic) is still the redemption of people; which parleys, I think, really between both views. In other words, starting with man as “image bearer of God,” and the attendant roles of stewardship and dominion over all of creation; art, culture, environment, etc. etc. is certainly redeemed, but not apart from people given their “image bearing” stewardship over all of creation.
So the reality remains, the “world” is going to hell in a hand-basket; and there is a continuity between the “now and the not yet” of this creation and the constantly in-breaking of re-creation in Christ. My point, “people” remain the key to any kind of ethical out-look we might appropriate as we engage the world with the Gospel; primarily the idea of people “being or becoming in Christ!” So I think, really, a proper perspective says focus on saving people (or Evangelism or the ‘Great Commission); and then saving the rest of creation (through our priestly duty of proclamation cf. Rom. 15.16) will follow. In short, what this means is that we don’t become ‘Christian’ environmentalists, artists, culturists, etc.; but that we simply walk and live Christianly seeking Jesus first in all that we do (which means putting others first through the Gospel and out of the Gospel), and what is already (the recreation of the kosmos) in Christ, will become consummate when the “not yet” and the “already” merge in the revelation of the son’s of God!
Just thinking out-loud again, I have this nasty habit which this blog only enables π . . .
I realise it is only a turn of phrase, but, of course, the world is NOT going to ‘hell’ at all, since it is actually waiting its redemption, and the revealing of the sons of God. The problem with Dispism, but not only Dispism, is that it has seen our future off-planet, sitting on clouds playing harps; this, the incipient anti-materialistic aspect of xty that have passed over into protestant theology and church life, has been responsible for the strength of the ‘dominion is power to do what we want’ view, over against the surely more biblical ‘dominion is the power to look after things’, that has brought Xty into disrepute.
I agree, we are not out to make Christian environmentalists, however. Let the Gospel have its work in people.
Yes, SG, and this really is the problem with Dispyism; and I’m only using the title of the post with tongue-in-cheek since I’ve repented of dispy thinking. Nevertheless, I can still see how it impacts the way that I think. And when I say the “world” is going to hell, I think this is true in the sense that the Bible/NT sometimes uses “world” i.e. as a belief system antithetical to the “Father” (cf. I Jn 2 for example etc.). In that sense, this “world” is going to hell; which is what Revelation is all about. But beyond quibbling about such things, I certainly agree with you.
Dipys (classic esp.) have not thought out the relation between this world and the one to come well at all. Ironically they think rather neo-Platonically (Amillers “can” do that too if not careful). But there are more critically minded dispys out there, to be fair (I know plenty of them, and like to think that I used to be one of them . . . which of course has led me out of dispyism π ).
Bobby,
At some point you lost me. What of Romans 8:18ff, with the telos of the creation being tied to that of the redeemed, “people”? I need more clarity on the kosmos going to hell in a basket.
(Btw, when are you going to settle on a blog theme? π )
Landed on your blog by chance…now i know where to spend time. Great blog Bobby.
@TCR,
The “hell in the hand-basket” comment is how Classic Dispies have you often been characterized; i.e. that this earth is going to be burned up anyway, so we just need to be about “saving-souls;” i.e. we build our “Christian fortresses” and throw the Four Spiritual Laws “out” at the “world” every now and then — i.e. the “body” and “social” concerns don’t matter, according to this view. I’m saying that having grown up under this “ethic” I still suffer from hang-over at points; but then, constructively I am trying to highlight how the alternative approach (the creation ethic) and what I grew up under can be reified in ways that recognize that indeed this world is condemended (Jn 3:16ff) and is going to be destroyed and at the same time still recognize that there is continuity between this creation and the realization of the recreation. But the key, is still “people” not “causes.” I’m trying to counter the idea that Christians need to become immersed in a “social Gospel,” and instead just focus on the Gospel (who is personified in Christ) which then will lead to a proper balance of bringing salvation to all of the creation.
I have another post on “two-ages” that I should post that will make more sense of what I was trying to communicate here. This was just a stream of conscience kind of thing π .
My blog theme, yeah, I’ll try to stick with this one . . . we’ll see π OCD π .
@Michael,
Welcome to the blog!
“…nasty habit which this blog only enables.”
Bobby, I suggest changing the blog title to “Evangelical Calvinistic Enabler.” π
The tendency toward neo-platonism with dispies and even many amils is duly noted, and I regret the effect it had on me all the time. π
Great post! Yes balance is such an important thing, especially when it is so easy to fall off the edge in one direction or another. There is the “why polish the brass on a sinking ship” mentality, the “social gospel” of the some which replaces Christ with charity, and the “social gospel” (dominionism) of others which seeks power and control before Christ. Ultimately, I think you nailed it – we don’t abandon creation assuming we will soon be whisked away, nor take a top down approach that makes culture and government our priority, but rather a bottom up approach that begins with people (evangelism and discipleship) knowing that as they grow in Christ and become salt and light the world will be transformed. You don’t change culture to save people; you save people, which will result in a changed culture.
Consequentialist ethics never really impressed me as an ethical position. The “end” shouldn’t figure into any conception of the good in my opinion, I’m with Richard Mouw in his Divine Command Ethic. The “end” (however that is conceived) as the test for the goodness of an action seems to ask too much from limited humans to consider, it’s too rationalist, and there are seemingly too many unintended consequences that come from this type of Ethical theory, which can not cohere with the end. It seems if we construct our ethical theory under a deontological divine command ethic are worries (does this action relate to the constructed “end” and therefore it is good) are left with the one who commands and the end (whatever that might mean) is dependent on him. What I can know (under the D.C.E.) is that my WILL is moved by love (for the commander) to follow the/his command and that is the good however the “end” turns out.
@Steve
This blog is definitely the addiction . . . I might need an intervention π . It is always our tendency to be “imperfect,” π so platonism, aristotelianism etc. Even if we claim to simply be “Biblicists.” But that’s no cop-out, we need to always be studying to show ourselves approved . . . which means to make sure that our usage of philosophical paradigms are actually “used” and “abused” in the SERVICE of the Gospel (the ideal).
@D Crawford,
I like how you summarized it: “. . . You donβt change culture to save people; you save people, which will result in a changed culture.” Nice!
@Kenny,
I’m somewhat of a mixed deontologist, but there needs to be all kinds of qualifications put in place. Basically that since we serve a living God, that we don’t serve a Law code; and thus consequences do come into play. I think a Trinitarian relational dynamic understanding demands more than an overt Divine Command Theory, which I actually find quite rationalist.
@ Bobby
Abraham – Sacrifice my son! What about the promise of your kingdom coming from this seed?
YHWH – The D.C.E. isn’t rationalist, Abraham.
Abraham – Whatever you say, I’ll let YOU figure out YOUR CONTRADICTIONS.
I’LL do your WILL since you’re “My” LORD.
YHWH – GO DO . . .
Abraham – O.K.
@Kenny,
I don’t question that, Kenny (that’s why I said “mixed” deontologist). But I do not think anyone can actually be a consistent DCE person, nor are they to be. I would think the only folk who consistently hope to be are theonomists. I certainly believe that we need to obey God, but I also know that DCE can’t deal with the whole gamut of daily ethical/holiness issues; I think Rom 14 deals with the approach we should take on ethics.