There have been several occasions on this site when I’ve taken the opportunity to express a bit of disgust or alarm with environmentalism. When I do that, I typically get an email or comment asking why I am opposed to protecting the environment. Because I usually only mention these things in the A La Carte section I have never taken the opportunity to explain myself. I want to do that today, even if only briefly.
Let it be known I am not opposed to protecting the environment. In fact, I think it would be wonderful if we saw Christians taking a leading role in protecting the environment and in promoting faithful stewardship of this earth. God created this earth for us to enjoy and expects that we will rule and subdue it. But He does not desire that we destroy it through mismanagement or a lack of care and concern. He has entrusted it to us and we would do well to take note of this.
Sadly, though, the environmental movement is dominated by unbelievers. In fact, environmentalism is fast becoming a religion in its own right. It has many of the elements of a religion, many of which even bear a passing resemblance to aspects of Christianity. Here are a few of the ways environmentalism has religious overtones: there is a deity (most often the earth itself), a heavenly state (the earth in its natural state before humans came along), a fall into sin (when man began to destroy the earth, particularly through industrialization), sinners (human beings), penance (carbon offsets and credits), redemption (a return to the earth’s heavenly or natural state when man finally gets it right or when man is eradicated). It has its leaders and sages, men like Al Gore (or in Canada, David Suzuki). It demands full adherence and scorns those who disagree, even suggesting that such people do not deserve a voice in public discourse. It is becoming a worldview unto itself and a worldview built upon a Darwinian understanding of the world’s origins. It may acknowledge some kind of deity beyond the earth itself, but certainly not the God of the Bible. In short, it is a religion and, like all false religions, an idolatrous one. It is the religion of choice for many and perhaps even most people in our culture today.
It is for this reason that while I respect those who want to protect the environment, I often cannot support those who do so from within this environmentalist worldview. These people understand that we are the greatest problem on the earth (which, actually, is something I have to agree with) but also believe that we can fix our own problems. Some propose that, because we are the problem, we should deliberately eradicate ourselves for the good of the earth, though none of these people have the courage to lead the way as trailblazers for their ideology. But most environmentalists propose legislation and other measures that can, they feel, save the world. As they do this, though, they ignore the far greater peril of the pollution within their own souls. They do not learn that the cause of the world’s problems is the human problem of sin. Even in their proposed measures to save the earth they further corrupt their souls and further show their sinful hearts.
I am all for tending to the earth. I know that God entrusted it to us and did not give us a world that is merely habitable, but a world that is stunningly, breathtakingly beautiful and one that was absolutely perfect for us. Sadly, we ruined the perfection and continue to do so. As Christians we should have the highest view of the earth, seeing it as a gracious and generous gift of God. We should be first in line to protect it, to tend to it, and to attempt to reverse whatever damage we have done to it. Yet we must not fool ourselves into believing that we can save it in and of ourselves. The earth is not neutral or inherently good. Not anymore. We ruined it and have to be prepared for it to continue to decay, just as you and I will do. As our bodies rot and decay, so too does the earth. So while we tend to it, we do so from a perspective that realizes that this earth is only our temporary home. When the Lord returns He will redeem it, He will rebuild it, and restore it to its original perfection.
In all our actions to preserve the beauty of creation, we must ensure that we point to the real problem, which is the sin that humans brought into the world. We would be remiss if we attempt to save the earth but all the while neglect souls. Tending the earth can be a powerful metaphor for tending the human soul. The decay of the earth is caused by the decay of the heart. So as we tend to the earth, let’s use it as an opportunity to point others to their own hearts. And all the while, let’s heed Russell Moore’s admonition: “Let’s take care of the earth, protect the natural order. But let’s remember that the world is not ultimately rescued by politicians or musicians or filmmakers or scientists. The world is saved by blood, not Gore.” If we point people to Gore but not to the blood, we have made, at best, only temporary rather than eternal gain.
Comments (35) »
1. Kristi
July 13, 2007
11:24 AM
Hey Tim, great post. I have just recently in the past 4-5 years had more conviction to take better care of my body, my family’s bodies, and the world around me. Randy Alcorn’s Heaven has helped me notice the prevailing myth that so many of us sadly believe, which is, “God is going to destroy this earth anyway, so who cares what we do with it now…” Actually God is going to redeem this earth (like you quoted at the end); things we have here may be present on that newly restored earth, so we should not pretend like they will not exist and take poor care of them. Every time I have thrown away a plastic bag, something really does hit a nerve, and I think, “This is just not right.”
I heard Nancy Pearcy speak a few months ago, and she said Christians should be the frontrunners of redeeming our culture, so much so that the unbelieving world is shocked. This gives motivation to meeting the challenge to promote the true source of healing and restoration - the blood of Jesus which brings us completeness in our state of brokenness. I do think it is possible to have “cities on a hill” that shine because of the blessing God brings to pockets of families/churches/communities where the people are trusting God and the Holy Spirit has come upon them… but the whole world will not be perfect all at once until God comes to redeem it. Nonbelievers, “green” and not, will often say this doctrine is why we aren’t getting any better, but you are right. We have to look at the reality and what God’s word tells us.
PS - I had not considered pure environmentalism as a religion, but your post made me realize that it is. I think this">this”>this”>http://walkslowlylivewildly.com/”>this blogger is a great example of promoting taking care of the earth in practical ways but not suggesting that the earth can be restored outside of God’s hand and plan…
2. Candyinsierras
July 13, 2007
11:34 AM
Great article. As one who loves nature and abhors the misuse and trashing of the environment, I think you’ve done a great job articulating the need for Christians to take care of this incredible gift God has bestowed upon us but not buy into the Environmental Movement.
I really get concerned about the political aspects of the global warming issue, for example, and Christians who publicly sign up for the cause without doing any research.
I’m just waiting for the Christian version of the “Live Earth” concert. :) We did the Christian version of “We Are the World” years ago.
I do like a quote from Chris Rock I think. Paraphrased: “I imagine that “Live Earth” will do for global warming what “We Are the World” did for world starvation.”
3. bryce
July 13, 2007
12:01 PM
well the current heavens and the current earth are being stored up for fire according to 2 peter 3:7. but revelation 11 talks about one of the purposes for GOD’s wrath is for “destroying the destroyers of the earth.” (see revelation 11:17-19 esv)
so is it gonna burn? yes. but, is GOD gonna pour out HIS wrath on those that helped burn it? yes.
but i always like to point back to the thought that when it comes to causes i can be a part of with my time and money, the issue is always what is more important in scripture. and although i see taking care of “non-human” creation in the Word, it is much less important according to GOD than taking care of people; especially the ones who can’t fend for themselves. so that’s where my money goes: preaching the Gospel and defending the unborn and marginalized in the world; in that order.
4. Matthew
July 13, 2007
1:00 PM
Good stuff, Challies, as usual…
I am of the mind that there are, in general, two schools of thought when it comes to those having a concern for the environment: the first one being the overtly religious “Environmentalism” and the other being a more subdued “Conservationism” perspective.
Environmentalists seem to view the natural world as being preeminent in human existence, as though humans are only here to serve the world, whilst Conservationists (even non-religious ones) tend to view the planet as more of a “possession” that needs to be cared for.
Growing up in the South (in a culture of hunters, fishermen, and outdoorsmen), I can say that most of the people of that culture are, in one way or another, Conservationist - and I would even go so far as to venture that many “mainstream” Americans would concur with a more “stewardship” outlook on the environment than the naturalistic reductionism radical Leftists (whom dominate the Environmentalist camp).
Ah well, just my two cents… :)
5. Steve Camp
July 13, 2007
2:16 PM
Dear Tim:
Could you help me understand biblically your following statement: When the Lord returns He will redeem it, He will rebuild it, and restore it to its original perfection. Where is that sentiment specifically found in Scripture? I could not find any reference representing that assertion.
Scripture is clear that this universe and this earth will not simply be given a “cosmic makeover”, but will be destroyed and a new heaven and earth will be created (Rev. 21:1).
I very much like how Dr. MacArthur brings to reality that the old heaven and earth will be “uncreated” at the end of the age. As it was created—it will be uncreated. Thus Paul’s description of Christ in Colossians 1:17 “in Him all things consist” (or are held together). The uncreation will in reality be the Lord no longer holding all things together.
Thus, there will be a new heaven and a new earth; not a recycled one or a more improved upon one to its original perfection. In fact, the Apostle John says the new earth “will have no more sea.” Considering that 3/4ths of the world’s surface is currently covered by water—this will be one dramatic difference between this earth and the new earth. The new environment will no longer be water-based and will have new climate conditions.
Dr. MacArthur says it well speaking of Rev. 21:1 “The whole universe has been destroyed and God creates a new universe to be the eternal dwelling place of the redeemed… The entire universe as we know it will be destroyed (2 Peter 3:10-13) and be replaced by a new creation that will last forever. This is an OT reality (Psalm 102:25-26; Is. 65:17: 66:22) as well as a NT one (Luke 21:25; Heb. 1:10-12).
We know that all creation groans; is subject to futility by the Lord; and will one day be set free from its bondage to decay (the new heaven and new earth) (cf, Roms. 8:19-22). The myth of global warming by human causation and the eternal redemption of the planet is sadly “the new religion” for many. Al Gore’s “carbon credits” is nothing more than the environmentalist’s version of works righteousness. I.E. - It’s OK to go on “sinning” against the earth, for whatever iniquity you may have caused can be offset by purchasing carbon credits to balance your transgressions. Environmental indulgences: John Tetzel, as well as the Pope, would be proud.
As the writer of Hebrews says:
Heb. 1:10 And,
“YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH,
AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;
Heb. 1:11 THEY WILL PERISH, BUT YOU REMAIN;
AND THEY ALL WILL BECOME OLD LIKE A GARMENT,
Heb. 1:12 AND LIKE A MANTLE YOU WILL ROLL THEM UP;
LIKE A GARMENT THEY WILL ALSO BE CHANGED.
BUT YOU ARE THE SAME,
AND YOUR YEARS WILL NOT COME TO AN END.”
It is so some interest that the word “redeem” is only used in the N.T. for the salvation of God’s people; never in regards to the earth (Gal. 4:5; Titus 2:14). Once again, postmodernity tries to borrow language from the biblical record by taking a rich word describing our new life in Christ and dumbing it down to environmental causes.
Your follow up thoughts would be most appreciated.
Campi
6. Phil Cotnoir
July 13, 2007
4:48 PM
Tim, thank you for your post. It sounds like you have read Michael Crichton’s writing on this subject of environmentalism as religion, or maybe you two just think alike. He isn’t a Christian or anything but his insights are incredibly keen.
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/spech-environmentalismaseligion.html
7. wfseube
July 13, 2007
6:07 PM
To illustrate to you the extent to which the acolytes of the religion of Environmentalism will stoop, witness this letter, posted today on the National Review site.
Disgusting.
8. Jeri
July 13, 2007
6:55 PM
Hi Steve,
While we’re waiting for a response from Tim, who is probably off somewhere finishing up a study guide, I thought I’d offer a few thoughts. (I enjoy discussing this subject!)
I’m thinking that the idea of a redeemed earth as Tim is using it isn’t postmodern, but rather Biblical.
Peter compares the flood of Noah’s day to the coming judgment by fire. 2 Peter 3:5-7 says, “For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished (“apwleto”). But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire…”
Peter says that the world “that then existed” perished in the flood, then he refers to “the heavens and earth that now exist.” He uses the same Greek word in referring to that destruction of the earth by water as he uses in Hebrews 1:11 of the coming destruction by fire. So you can see that the Greek word for destruction here may not necessarily mean total annihilation of the earth, but seems to imply a certain type of destruction. (ESV says “laid bare”, NIV “exposed” rather than the KJV “burned up” in 2 Peter 3:10. So say the older manuscripts.)
Maybe the Scripture is saying that, like our present bodies, this present heaven and earth will certainly pass cataclysmically away but then will be renewed and glorified; somehow these same bodies we live in now, somehow this same heavens and earth.
Why would creation groan inwardly along with us?Romans 8 says it’s because our redemption is creation’s redemption, too. Our hope is the hope of creation, too. “And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved.” That may be why the Bible speaks of our redemption but not of the creation’s, per se…we are the ones who are saved, but the creation longs eagerly for that day so that it may share with us in the benefits of adoption.
Randy Alcorn’s book “Heaven,” mentioned earlier, is very helpful. Much food for thought, especially the Appendixes at the back of the book.
Blessings!
9. seeker
July 13, 2007
6:57 PM
I concur, we need to have a Christian approach to environmentalism - not one of nature worship, but one based on stewardship.
And many of the traditional approaches, including recycling and sustainable methods for everything (agriculture, consumer products, energy, etc.) are part of the solution.
10. Kathy
July 13, 2007
9:51 PM
I agree with you, Tim.
As an interesting side note, I ran across the following article that shows how mankind may affect the earth, and it isn’t in a way that is usually presented by environmentalists:
How Roman Farmers Left Their Mark on Nature
http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/070708_rome-farmers.htm
11. Steve Camp
July 13, 2007
10:35 PM
Jeri:
Thank you for sharing these thoughts—I do appreciate them greatly though we may disagree.
On a different note, I visited your website and appreciated the painful testimony you shared concerning your son. I am a blessed father of five tremendous kids ages 18-12 and don’t know the deep pain of having one of them die at a young age as your son did. But I do empathize with you. My younger brother Bob went home to be with the Lord when he was 21 though; and most recently, my older brother Norm went to be with the Lord in January of 2006. He was a faithful missionary to the Muslim people for close to 30 years. And when I was 17 I was holding my father when he went home to be with the Lord.
The passing of any family member is profound isn’t it… But hope there is for those who know Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. “To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.” “For me to live is Christ and die is gain.”
Thank you again for sharing your testimony. May the Lord continue to bring His comfort to your family.
In His Unfailing Love,
Steve
2 Cor. 3:5
12. Nath @ Reformed Geek
July 13, 2007
11:32 PM
Thank you for this post Tim. I agree with the balance that you express…
This ‘environmentalist’ attitude is creeping into the church so strongly that I even had a Christian leader tell me that the church has spent too much of its time on soul winning and that we should now turn our attention to the environment. If that kind of thinking is not from the father of all lies, then what is?
13. brian
July 14, 2007
12:29 AM
Tim,
Great thoughts. I agree with your points and I think that the issue is much bigger than just the environment - although it is the best example of widespread conversion to a worldview ‘religion’. There are a number of other causes in the contemporary worldview that are generating similar religious overtones to those you identify.
There is an ideal, an intolerance to other opinions, sinners identified by caricature, absolute doctrine, rhetoric, a way to salvation…
I find the latest anti-God sentiments with respect to atheism, the homosexual agenda, animal rights, anti-capitalism, anti-government, conspiracy theorists (to name a few) are all following the same pattern. To get attention requires devotion above reason and an us vs. them mentality. These movements have been given tools of mass communication to spread their message in ways they could never have dreamed just a few years before.
There is division instead of unity, despair instead of hope. There is association of behavior and identity and condemnation to anyone who questions. The media fans the flames of polarization with political correctness and tolerance of alternative points of view.
The environment is the ‘cause du jour’. It is something that requires mass evangelism to resolve and produces its own charismatic leaders who preach a better way. It is irrational arrogance to think that we are both the cause and the saviors of the environments changes. I read somewhere that despite $50B in research, we can all agree on global warming, but cannot confirm the cause. The cry seems to be ‘don’t confuse me with facts - my mind’s made up!’. Mankind is the ‘sinner’ and must be ‘saved’ from himself. The fact that this satisfies individual egos and generates wealth seems to go unnoticed (although I did read of an overall discontent with jet-set celebrities and politicians telling others to repent of their eco-sins).
Scripture says that we should beware of times when many claim to be world-saviors. It may be a sign of the time when men exchange reason for discontent, signs that the seasons are changing - signs Christ said would become evident before His return. If that is the case, the importance and urgency of the Gospel message becomes greater.
14. DLE
July 14, 2007
2:12 AM
Not sure I understand the trepidation when it comes to the environmental movement. If it’s a religion unto itself, is it somehow excluded from us shining the light of Christ into it? If anything, Christians should become actively involved in environmental groups in order to bring the light of Christ into a dark place. If we bailed on every “dark place” on this planet, we’d be saying no to the Great Commission—and then some.
15. Anthony P
July 14, 2007
8:34 AM
Wow Tim! What a great post. You nailed it right on.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
16. michael bells
July 14, 2007
9:01 AM
I’m not totally sure what to make of your post. On the one hand I agree with some of your cautions re “environmentalism” & you do say that we need to “tend the earth”.
But, maybe I’m reading into what you are saying, or reading what I have heard too many other Christians say & applying it to you (in which case I am sorry).
Are we too neutral on the idea of earth care?
Are we too laid back (like good Canadians)?
We agree in principle with the idea of caring for the earth / environment, but we don’t take any steps to do anything constructive. We don’t want to change our North American consumeristic lifestyle.
I think it’s time for Christians to be much more active, both on a personal as well on larger levels. i.e. politically, but also in terms of churches and the waste production that happens there.
Just some thoughts
17. RANDY HURST
July 14, 2007
9:51 AM
There are areas of thought that I have never been able to digest well from either side of the political extremes that set up camp on environmentalism.
This would similarly apply to how our study of science and scientific theory has to stackpole around one extreme or the other. If there was no room to roam in the area of research and exploration, we would still be lighting oil lamps and fearing falling off the edge of the earth.
Neither can we live in fear that we will fall off the theological planet because we accept scientific discoveries that do not fit an ancient cosmology.
That said, Tim, I have already alienated many readers of your blog. You assume that I am a liberal and a heritic from that one statement. Just because I see the Bible having been written in a prescientific “sitzen lieben” you assume that I am going to say that it has errors and can’t be trusted.
That is not my view at all. You have jumped to a prejudiced conclusion and categorization of my thoughts because your brain waves tend to run in herds. Hear me out.
The scriptures are amazingly supra scientific. They were written by folk that were limited to their own times worldview, but the spark that is inspiration allows the scriptures to be read in our modern scientificly illumined day as still full of WOW. Our view of our God who can create [and develop and massage His creation within a framework of physical laws that He formulated] such a universe should have expanded our sense of awe of Him and His creation.
If you love me you will likely love my home, my children, my ideas. You would not do well to come into my home and throw you nasty garbage in my floor…again, if you love me.
I’ll hush…but here is a link to more that might bump into your apple cart:
http://togetheroneservant.blogspot.com/2006/08/oily-onanism.html
18. wfseube
July 14, 2007
11:24 AM
Randy Hurst wrote: your brain waves tend to run in herds.
and then wrote “Hear me out.
To insult the readers of this blog by accusing us of “running in herds” and then asking to be “heard out” is pretty comical. Be assured that I didn’t read a word of the rest of your posting.
19. RANDY HURST
July 14, 2007
12:25 PM
wfseube
“Be assured that I didn’t read a word of the rest of your posting.”
Though I can see how you misunderstood my statement. I should have said “we” all tend to have herding brainwaves - ie., political parties. I also do, however, discern a chip on your shoulder. I will read your blog with much interest.
No insult intended to anyone, Really. But ironicly/sadly you did prove your own interpretation of what I said.
20. John
July 14, 2007
12:35 PM
Religion requires “faith”; without faith, one does not have a religion. Environmentalism does not require faith and, therefore, is NOT a religion.
A Christian has a God-given responsibility to cherish the earth and protect it. Failing that responsibility, a Christian offends God.
21. Steve Camp
July 14, 2007
7:30 PM
Jeri:
Thanks for your email brother.
I was waiting for Tim’s response before replying to you in more detail and would have hoped he would have posted by now. But in the absence of his commenting biblically on the issue of a restored earth rather than a new created earth (Rev. 21:1), here is a brief comment to your helpful thoughts.
1. 2 Peter 3:5-7 is drawing a comparison in the phrases “that then existed” with “that exists now” between a pre-flood and post-flood world. That’s all. Peter is not speaking in some future eschaton “at the end of the age” in those verses.
2. The “destruction” examples you cited are different. One is pertaining to the the destruction that was accomplished by the flood; the other as in Hebrews 1:11 and in 2 Peter 3:10-12 is speaking of the destruction of the heavens and the earth in which they will be uncreated—-completely going out of existence; then what follows is the creation of a new heaven and earth (Rev. 21:1-2) which will be the eternal dwelling place of the redeemed.
3. The rebuilding, restoring and redeeming of the earth is not a matter pertaining to the atonement (i.e. R. Moore’s comment that “the world will be saved by blood, not Gore.”) The environment was not directly part of the atonement in Christ Jesus (cp, Roms. 3:21-26; Titus 3:4-7; Eph. 1:7-12). Nor is “gospel proclamation is the most farsighted form of environmental activism.” (Ibid.)
4. Creation does groan because of The Fall; but is a different “longing” than what we in our bodies identify with. I am not suggesting that you are stating one day all of present creation (including all beasts, foul, and fish, etc.) will be in a glorified state as our resurrected bodies will one day be. But, I believe Scripture is abundantly clear, that there will be a new heaven and a new earth the Lord will create for us to enjoy for all eternity (Rev. 21:1-3).
With so much emphasis on the environment these days from the pagan world, we must not as Christians neglect our present duty to be good stewards of all of God’s creation. And at the same time, as Christians, not to be weighed down with unnecessary concern about the future of this earth and the resources necessary to sustain life. Global warming is a myth. But the Lord being the one true Sovereign over His creation, the sustainer of all life, is a fact. Amen?
In the insightful words of my friend, Dr. John MacArthur, he says, “if you think we’ve made a mess of this planet, wait ‘til you see what Jesus does to this place one day when He comes back.”
SO let’s all:
-trade in your hybrid cars (they actually cost you more $ in the long run)
-drive an SUV, if you can afford one;
-build a campfire;
-turn up the heat;
-use air-conditioners;
-use oil and oil by-products;
-grill outside more often;
-fill up your gas tanks;
-take long trips with the family;
-smoke cigars and pipes if your conscience allows;
-and continue to fly jet airplanes.
(All for the glory of God of course.)
Hope this helps a bit more to clarify. I appreciate your thoughts and input on this important issue.
Grace and peace to you,
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5-7
22. Bill Burns
July 14, 2007
7:47 PM
I’m afraid I find myself in the same camp with Michael Bells above (comment #16). I don’t know quite what to make of your post, Tim. The first problem I find is the apparent equivocation between ‘save’ as used to describe “the” environmental movement (as if there really is one movement to be discussed), and “save” as used in the little catchphrase, “The world is saved by blood, not Gore.”
In the first instance, “save” refers to attempts to preserve and conserve, and is specifically (in the mouths & penwork of both Christian and non-Christian environmentalists) in reference to the physical world. In the second instance, the word is used to denote the spiritual work of salvation (i.e. ‘by the Blood of Christ’).
Mr. Bells is correct in raising the issue of Christian practice, as is the well-known agrarian (and Christian) writer/essayist/poet/environmentalist Wendell Berry, when he says the following:
“The ecological teaching of the Bible is simply inescapable: God made the world because He wanted it made. He thinks the world is good, and He loves it. It is His world; He has never relinquished title to it. And He has never revoked the conditions, bearing on His gift to us of the use of it, that oblige us to take excellent care of it. If God loves the world, then how might any person of faith be excused for not loving it or justified in destroying it?” - (“God and Country”)
And elswhere, in his essay, “Word and Flesh,” Berry says, equally forcefully, after debunking the notion of “saving the planet” as a red herring of sorts:
“The question that *must* be addressed, therefore, is not how to care for the planet, but how to care for each of the planet’s millions of human and natural neighborhoods, each of its millions of small pieces and parcels of land…I will say again, without overweening hope but with certainty nonetheless, that only love can do it. Only love can bring intelligence out of the institutions and organizations, where it aggrandizes itself, into the presence of the work that must be done…Love is never abstract…The older love becomes, the more clearly it understands its involvement in partiality, imperfection, suffering, and mortality. Even so, it longs for incarnation. It can no longer live by thinking…And yet, to put on flesh and do the flesh’s work, it must think.”
This is only a snippet of Berry’s thinking on environmental issues, but it goes back to what Bells was intimating (if I’m reading him correctly), and that’s the point of, ok…so Christians shouldn’t *worship* the Earth, like so many New Age and pantheistic environmentalists are wont to do. That much is clear. So, what to DO?
Be ye DOers of the word, and not only hearers…
Is it possible to move forward, as Francis Schaeffer has put it, as “co-belligerents,” in pursuit of some hill in a battle for which the goal may appear differently to each (Gospel faithfulness and fruitfulness, in the case of the Christian…”Saving” the planet for others), without defiling ourselves? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
“Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.” (Rom 14:5b ESV)
“So then each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.” (Rom 14:12-13 ESV)
23. Jason Ruzek
July 15, 2007
7:40 AM
Hi Randy,
I also feel that either bowing down before dirt or pouring mercury into streams are bad ideas. Extremes are not that hard to deal with. But in the same stream of thought you wrote,
“If there was no room to roam in the area of research and exploration, we would still be lighting oil lamps and fearing falling off the edge of the earth.”
To what are you referring?
Again you write,
“Neither can we live in fear that we will fall off the theological planet because we accept scientific discoveries that do not fit an ancient cosmology.”
And again I ask, to what are you referring and how does this fit into the post? I then wonder why you think, “I have already alienated many readers of your blog.” And go on to talk about your opinion of those who wrote the Bible.
So how does Theopneustos fit in your sitz en lieben?
And which scientific discoveries are a problem with either?
I just don’t even know what you are saying and I am not trying to be confrontational, it is just hard to have a conversation when the opening is so cryptic and, I’m sorry, implicative in it’s insults without any good internal reasons for this implication. Your comment reads as though your own sitz is driving your lieben quite apart from scripture or science.
Hoping for clarification; don’t want to be prejudiced or herd right off the theological planet, or build any more straw men of my own.
Thanks Randy,
Jason
24. James Hildegarten
July 15, 2007
10:23 AM
Sorry, but I fall easily to one side of this issue…,this world is a damaged, now temporary place that will soon be torn down and replaced. Our responsibility to it (since the Fall) consists of not doing needless damage that will affect others. Our only real duty is to spread the Word and gather God’s sheep. And if that means flying and dumping some CO2 into a condemned property, then so be it. It’s likely not do much damage in the short time until the demolition, and will result in more souls hearing the Word….souls that will be alive (in either ecstasy or agony) for all eternity. The world is temporary, souls are not.
So don’t stomp the daisies or hunt polar bears for fun, but don’t worry about using oil or recycling your cans. Every moment spent worrying about this unreal world of insubstantial shadows is a moment stolen from preaching the Word of God. One sinner saved is worth all the eagles on Earth.
25. RabbiT
July 15, 2007
11:01 PM
Perhaps it’s instructive that neither Christ in the Great Commission nor Paul or Peter in their ministries paid much attention to what some would promote as the cultural mandate. There was little effort in cleaning up the environment or redeeming culture. Instead, the invisible, aseitous God was proclaimed, who is the Creator and coming Judge, and Jesus Christ the only way.
The cultural mandate to rule creation, it seems, is not redemptive but regal, and it applies chiefly to the role of man before the Fall. Redemption comes through faith alone in Christ alone, from Adam to the last person to get saved.
While I neither advocate the pouring of mercury nor the bowing before the earth (HT: J. Ruzek), I’d say let’s lay off this distraction (and all others) and focus squarely on the mission of the NT church, to make disciples.
26. RabbiT
July 15, 2007
11:01 PM
Perhaps it’s instructive that neither Christ in the Great Commission nor Paul or Peter in their ministries paid much attention to what some would promote as the cultural mandate. There was little effort in cleaning up the environment or redeeming culture. Instead, the invisible, aseitous God was proclaimed, who is the Creator and coming Judge, and Jesus Christ the only way.
The cultural mandate to rule creation, it seems, is not redemptive but regal, and it applies chiefly to the role of man before the Fall. Redemption comes through faith alone in Christ alone, from Adam to the last person to get saved.
While I neither advocate the pouring of mercury nor the bowing before the earth (HT: J. Ruzek), I’d say let’s lay off this distraction (and all others) and focus squarely on the mission of the NT church, to make disciples.
27. Randy Hurst
July 15, 2007
11:54 PM
Hello Jason.
Ah, your response is splendid. What a kind, intelligent wit you are blessed with.
My comment was a bit out there in retrospect. A bit off topic; and could have been taken as a tad too acerbic and leaning toward “windmill-jabbery”. Somehow though, my Don Quixotic flights of rhetoric seem to boomerang with the accidental audience attached.
I read so much within the Reformed renaissance of writers that I deeply appreciate. But I am deeply perplexed by much of the anti-science, laissez-farie earth thinking that I’m reading there.
Our Loving God made a One in a Billion planet as our place to live get to know Him. Even with a fallen mankind doing his best to spoil it, it is the jewel of the universe. The heavens declare the glory of our God. And His creative glory is best seen right here on this incredible blue orb with appreciative eyes made to behold it and perceive His touch. I’m assured that the new heavens (is that all of the universe or just our solar system?) and earth will be even further beyond my comprehension. This one, though, still leaves me reeling in wonder.
This post’s comments have thrown me even deeper into my quandary. I want the Lord to come quickly. But I love this place. One old timer here in the mountains of East TN told me that in heaven (among other things more biblical) God will present a slide show of His Creative Wonders and these glorious mountain vistas and peaceful valley embraces will be saved as the best for last.
The cavalier attitude toward the resources of this jewel of the universe gift stuns me. Pillaging the planet because we expect a soon departure is not good stewardship or a favorable reflection of our gratitude. I prefer to be ready for Our Lords soon return, (Maranatha!) but I also prefer to treat this temporary home that He made for our joy (that should make us feel that much more special in the context of a infinite universe), with the humble respect I do my temporal little home away from heaven.
Though I choose not proof text my every thought, and though I may deferred and created and answered my own questions to answer, I assure you my herd of thoughts has the same celestial cowpuncher. I just hope we all think through the ramifications of our interpretations before we put up their corrals.
Again, thanks for your response.
Randy
28. Jason Ruzek
July 16, 2007
7:24 AM
Hiya Randy,
Fabulous! I can get behind that, as far as it goes.
I agree that, in the same way that we are accountable for the use of our money or our giftings or our bodies, we are accountable for the use of our resources, including real estate. To treat them poorly is to do the same with all that which God has given. The difference between end-of-the-world pollutive activities and what is the resposible thing to is rarely discussed. So I appreciate your clarification.
One of my professors said that something to consider is that the desacralization of all of creation within society has been greatly detrimental to how we approach these issues, speaking to your wonderful Edwardsian view of God’s handiwork. And he was addressing Lynn White’s view from 1967 that the followers of Christ are mostly to blame for the state of ecological affairs, in that, “Christian” societies were to blame for industrialization.
Having said all that, per Rabbit’s’ insightful post, I agree that if we seek the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, all these things will be added. our very worldview changes as any person so blessed so as to be known by God is aware. We must be active in the parlimentary activities of this world, but for those who know Jesus, we must always be aware of the fact that this is only keeping fallenness penned in, legally restraining our constant push to do what we want when we want it. And this is my chief issue with much of what goes for environmentalism, that people, including the followers of Christ who should know better, think that “they” just need to be regulated and controlled and that will solve the problem.
soblahanblahandgoinonforever,
Thanks again Randy, and to you Tim for providing this wonderful forum and your great ideas,
Jason
29. afrikaner
July 16, 2007
8:31 AM
Just a few comments:
1. The environmental movement does behave like a religion - faith in humanism to solve the problems, faith in ‘mother earth’, often an underlying eastern like mysticism, or a scientific rationalism.
2. Christians aught not abandon their responsibilities of stewardship and the cultural mandate in some fuzzy belief that all that matters is the so called ‘great commission’. Yes to be truly human does mean applying the wisdom, love and grace of Christ to all of life.
3. I despair of the arrogance which says ‘just use it - what the hell - its only going to be burned up one day’. What an unloving attitude to have. If the Lord should tarry how should we be spending our grace given gifts to to His glory in all of life and for some that will mean coming up with solutions so as to avoid global warming or designing better engines, of finding alternatives to fossil fuels. etc. I thank God that humanity has been blessed with the common grace given gifts to find solutions for as drole an issue as sewerage otherwise you’d be drowing in ‘it’. If we all were driven just to the saving of as many souls as possible where would you be - no sewerage, no reticulated water, no electricty to tap away on your none computer, no aeroplanes to fly the skies to foreign lands to bring the good news to those lost.
30. James Hildegarten
July 16, 2007
9:40 AM
It’s a realistic attitude, although to those of a worldly nature it may seem cold….if you really believe the promises you wouldn’t be worried.
what a wonderful thought….for those not overly concerned with the worthless dross of this life, it seems bad or “extreme”. Guess what? Jesus was extreme. He told us to take no care for the things of this world…and that’s what he meant. Don’t be concerned with this world of tinder, it’s all unimportant in the long run. If you really care for the world we live in, you might need to prayerfully wonder if you are saved at all.
For Christians who take seriously Jesus’ radical message it sounds wonderful.
31. RANDY HURST
July 16, 2007
11:03 AM
“If you really care for the world we live in, you might need to prayerfully wonder if you are saved at all.”
Just what we need, an added criteria for salvation.
Do you wash your sheets, bathe your children, paint your church building?
Fortunately, God chose to give people a variety of roles in the kingdom. Caring for the physical needs of widows was one of the first assignments of the early church. In your estimation, Mr. Hildegarten, that was a waste of time. In your way of thinking they would have decided to “Just get ‘em saved and let them starve in the streets in their unchanged diapers”.
Godless World System (principalities and powers)vs. God Made Material Reality (Mountain top pinnacles and the transformation of a Caterpillar to a Butterfly). These are not to be confused. I love God. I love God’s creation. It sings in harmony with scripture.
I think Jesus knew the difference. He said to not be so concerned about our daily sustenance that it preempted our service of others, but not to ignore it all together.
To serve others is to also care for their environment, which in a world of billions of people is as large as the world itself.
32. afrikaner
July 16, 2007
6:04 PM
James (30)
I’m not sure who you are addressing in some of your comments.
I’m truly sorry that you have such a distorted theology that you can’t joy in God and all He has given us richly to enjoy. Yes we live in a world affected by the fall - with weeds, struggle of work, decay, depravity of all kinds. But God is good - He causes His rain to fall on the just and unjust alike. He provides food to all, and His providence extends to all of creation. That providence extends to His image bearers (mankind) still displaying the wonder of His grace in all that we can do as people made in His image. I praise and thank God that He is the one behind all the variety of nations, people, art, music, technologies, science, literature etc etc.
I’m truly sorry that your theology drives you to say some of the things you have written here. eg “Our only real duty is to spread the Word and gather God’s sheep. And if that means flying and dumping some CO2 into a condemned property, then so be it. It’s likely not do much damage in the short time until the demolition, and will result in more souls hearing the Word….souls that will be alive (in either ecstasy or agony) for all eternity. The world is temporary, souls are not.”
Surely our ‘real duty’ is to be living as the people of God in a fallen world. To richly enjoy and use to His glory all our grace gifts in love seeking to serve others. This is being truly human and of course cannot be fully realised until there is a new heaven and a new earth….. But in Christ those who are called according to His purposes are indeed a new creation and have the Spirit and mind of Christ to again display some what surely was intended for Adam. God’s business is that of saving a people unto Himself. Yes He uses us in that plan. But He also has graciously given us this magnificent creation to richly enjoy as well and our humanity expressed in so many ways to His glory. I hope one day you will enlarge your thinking to see the richness of an all of life theology, lived out in whatever your hand finds to do (all of life - in it’s richness, beauty etc) do it as unto the Lord.
33. RANDY HURST
July 17, 2007
5:55 PM
afrikaner.
Especially well said. Bless you for expressing this so clearly. I pray that our family in Christ takes it to heart.
Randy
34. Suzanne
July 17, 2007
11:22 PM
Scientific theories and political responses to environmental issues could be debated forever.
There are however, two issues here that command Christians’ attention. Both are justice issues.
One, is that the poor of the world will bear the full force of the negative aspects of global climate change. Scripture is clear on God’s commitment to the poor.
Two, is that the 2 or 3 generations since 1940 when most of the harm was done will be dead before the full impact of climate change is known.
We have a responsiblity to the poor and to those not yet born. These issues are global and generational. People who don’t yet have voices can rightfully demand we use ours.
35. Ed Darrell
July 21, 2007
8:31 PM
Generally, you pose some great thoughts, worth pondering. But let me pick a nit, that may get you to thinking a bit more.
If that is true now, or if it ever was, it is because so many Christians abandoned the movement. God twice told Man to conserve this planet, once to Adam and again to Noah. The most salient scripture on the environment, to me, is the parable of the talents. God didn’t give this Earth to us to use up, nor to waste. (The idea in the King James Version of humans having “dominion” over the Earth is an interesting idea; of course, “dominion” at that time meant stewardship, and required conservation. Specifically disallowed from the concept of dominion then was the idea of “waste” in English property law, which is the right to harvest the land without replanting, or the right to mine without reclamation. We need to get back to that idea.)
The American conservation movement, which is now called the environmental movement, was founded by Christians for the most part, Christians deeply concerned at human abuse of creation.
There are dozens of such people in the movement still. America has less than one out of ever ten people who are unbelievers, and the environmental movement probably doesn’t have more than double that percentage. So most environmentalists are believers, and I’ll wager you’d discover a vast majority of them are Christian.
Think about it: What serious Christian would think that stealing resources from a neighbor, or from children, would be a good idea, as unregulated and uncaring industries steal clean air and water from everyone else? It’s not the unbelievers in the environmental movement you need to worry about. The unbelievers who make the environmental movement necessary, and who have snookered Christians into joining them, those are the guys you need to worry about.
“Snookered?” Look no farther than your post. You indict Al Gore, a lifelong Christian, as establishing an unChristian religion. Who gave you the right to make such judgments, and what makes you so cocky as to think your views of scripture are more enlightened than his?
Not until the rape and scrape movement, which you pay homage to in this post by indicting those who try to protect God’s creation, can meet with people like Al Gore with humility and a willingness to learn, with a willingness to confront our own sins rather than trying to label believers as unbelievers, can we seriously believe environmentalism shouldn’t be more militant. After all, they’re calling sinners to repent. Who isn’t for that?