Monday, August 16, 2010

How green is God? A reply to Lionel Windsor

Is my God greener than Lionel's?
I've just come across a talk written by Lionel Windsor, whom I know and respect from my MTC days. It was published at some stage in the last 12 months by AFES's SALT Magazine under the title, "Is God green?". It can be found in five parts: #1, #2a, #2b, #3a, #3b. Having recently written a similar kind of piece for the same publication, it was interesting to note how much overlap our pieces had. His was longer, more conversational and an easier read but I'd say we agree on about 90% of the theological and ethical content.

We agree on the goodness of creation distinct from human usefulness, on the depth of human sinfulness and its effects on ecological health,* on the distinction between treating symptoms and treating the underlying disease, on the centrality of Christ and his death and resurrection for any theological discussion of treating this disease, on the universal (not merely human) scope of Christ's redemptive action, on the church as the first fruits of a redeemed humanity, on the anticipatory nature of Christian discipleship, on the impossibility of our actions "saving the world", on the significance of eschatology and God's future judgement and renewal in ecological ethics, on the aptness of yearning and active waiting, on the endurance of love and the passing away of the present form of the world,** on the cruciality of gospel proclamation and probably on much else as well.
*I think his analysis of the links between ecological destruction and human sin could be extended into social structures that give our greed, pride, apathy and so on extra momentum, and make some of these issues "built in" to the way we collectively and habitually do things.
**I would phrase certain sections of his talk quite differently and also emphasize the continuity of the resurrected body with the corpse - that it is this body that is resurrected and transformed, not some replacement for it - and so also expect a measure of continuity between the renewed creation and the old. Though since Lionel is happy to speak of creation being perfected and makes reference to Paul's seed analogy in 1 Corinthians 15, I don't think we're really too far apart here.


Our differences (such as I can discern from a single article and I apologise if I've misread him) seem to revolve around two issues. First: the relationship of ecological catastrophe to divine judgement. Lionel says,
"[T]he judgement day will not come before God is ready. So if you think that the human race will wipe itself off the face of the map through environmental disasters, then that is actually an arrogant attitude. Final judgement is God's job. Right now, God is keeping the world until he is ready to judge. We can’t wipe ourselves out because God will not let that happen until he is ready to judge us!"
He seems to imply that divine judgement is limited purely to the final judgement, whereas I think that the unveiling of God's wrath against human folly is already evident today in our being handed over to the consequences of our own greed and stupidity as discussed in Romans 1. Thus, ecological catastrophe can already be understood as manifestation of God's judgement in allowing us to experience the destructive effects of our search for invulnerability. We taste our own medicine and find that it is poison; we have to lie in the bed we have made. So, Lionel's contrasting of ecological catastrophes with divine judgement in order to avoid misunderstanding of eschatological judgement masks their present connection. I suspect, however, he may well be entirely happy with this nuance.*
*UPDATE Lionel has clarified that he was here only referring to final judgement and quite rightly pointed out that he discusses my concern in part 2a. My apologies for not re-checking my point.

But there is a further claim being made here, even about the day of eschatological judgement, namely, that human actions will have no part in bringing it about (even inadvertently). To my mind, the fact that the timing of the day of judgement is in the hands of God and so is hidden from human knowledge (two common scriptural themes) doesn't necessarily mean that God might not use human instruments in bringing about an end to human history. God's actions are frequently mediated by imminent agents and the images used of ultimate judgement are, I take it, largely metaphorical, such that its actual shape is not known in advance, only its inevitability and decisiveness (amongst other things). But Lionel seems to see final judgement as God's exclusive prerogative without any human instrumentality (apart from Christ the judge, of course).

And this means that Lionel is confident that, try as we might, we can't wipe ourselves out. I am not so sure. Certainly, we can so damage the living systems on which we thoroughly rely that our civilisation and way of life falls apart (whether quickly or slowly). Indeed, we can do this through the speedier nuclear option as well as the slightly delayed ecological route. Can we entirely "wipe ourselves out", presumably meaning the extinction of the human race as a whole? At a practical level, I don't see that it beyond our present power and theologically I see no promises that this cannot happen. This doesn't mean we thereby escape judgement, or that all hope is lost, because even if we entirely destroy ourselves, God can raise the dead. Suicide is no way out, either individually or collectively. The closest I think we see to a scriptural expectation of humanity's continued existence until final judgement is Paul's comment in 1 Corinthians 15 that "we shall not all sleep, though we shall all be changed" (a comment also applicable to babies, by the way). However, even this is not decisive as I think Paul's point is that death is not a necessary route to the kind of transformation of which he speaks. That Paul does not mention the possibility of the self-destruction of the entire human race may have more to do with a pre-industrial imagination not yet shaped by the staggering increase in human agency that has come in the modern era than with a divine promise of the imperishability of our species.

But the point is a minor one, and I don't place much weight on it. It is enough that we certainly have the power to wound ourselves grievously, to decimate the possibility of life on earth and shatter or erode the conditions under which our society is possible. And while these may not have ultimate significance, their penultimate import is weighty indeed.

The second, and I suspect more important, difference concerns the relation of the good to the best, or of deeds of love with words of love. Lionel paints a moving picture of composting out of love for neighbour, or even lobbying the G8 for the same reason. But then he places such activity in direct competition with "speaking the word of the Lord to others", and implies that doing one means the inability to do the other. They are competitors to my limited time and energy:
"But what is the greatest labour in the Lord? Compost heaps take time. Lobbying G8 leaders takes even more time. And we don’t have an unlimited time here on earth. Sure, these are good ideas, but how do I decide what is the most urgent thing? The primary, the greatest labour in the Lord? Isn't it to speak the word of the Lord to others? Isn't it to share Jesus with your friends and family?"
But I say, why either/or? Why not both-and? The good need not be the enemy of the best. The promotion of the gospel is not a zero sum game between words and deeds. Both are necessary; neither is sufficient. There is no conflict between loving God and his word of life for all and loving my neighbour in a dying world.

And so, despite much in common, I suspect that Lionel and I end up with somewhat different estimations of the place of ecological responsibility in Christian discipleship. My subheading was of course tongue in cheek, as though it were a matter of competition. But the differences between us are nonetheless of (penultimate) importance, since Christians have too often been too quick to sidestep the gospel invitation to love our ecological neighbours, or to relegate such matters to mere optional extras.

With these points mentioned, I warmly recommend you read his piece as a cogent introduction to an evangelical ecological theology.

20 comments:

Ian Packer said...

Thanks, Byron - it may be a small point of disagreement but it was worth teasing out.

I would hate to think of any scenario like Cormac McCarthy's 'The Road' - which may not be the End but quite a drawn-out 'end'

Anthony Douglas said...

...and you're both studying in the UK at the moment - coincidence abounds. Not sure if he's reading this, but I'll send him the link - it'd be a worthwhile conversation!

byron smith said...

Thanks Anthony - I've emailed him myself as well. I had been intending to write to him before posting to give him a chance to correct any glaring errors. I'm afraid this slipped off my list of things to do at the end of last week and I'd already scheduled this to go up today some days ago. I've been fairly busy recently and have been scheduling a number of posts written some time ago to cover. This is also why I'm still behind on catching up with some old discussions that are still running.

byron smith said...

Ian - I don't think The Road is impossible (from the film - haven't yet read the book - it seems like a post-nuclear exchange, but this is never explicitly spelt out), though I do think it is somewhat unlikely, whereas a slow decline, or running series of non-all-embracing crises punctuated by periods of relative calm is, I think, highly likely over the coming decades.

In any case, The Road is not particularly interested in the mechanism by which our world turned into that world, but seems to be a thought experiment of the ways in which love and loyalty might survive such a harsh environment. That is itself an interesting question, however, my interest is in a more contemporary (and less theoretical) one: how can love, loyalty and ethical sanity survive the gradual erosion represented by persistent and growing fears (and guilt and impotence) associated with chronic ecological and resource threats?

Ian Packer said...

Yes, true - what I was thinking of was more the capacity for us to wreck our world and still continue on (albeit in a fairly miserable state at least) prior to the Last Judgement. Hence we ought to be VERY concerned about how we live witout inmagining that "God will not let us destroy ourselves" so "let's not worry to much about climate change or our dependence upon oil".

The "long emergency" is upon us.

byron smith said...

Ah yes, I see. The Road represents an extreme example of the presently revealed wrath of God that hands us over to the destructive consequences of our own stupidity and idolatry yet without calling "game over".

Lionel Windsor said...

Hi Byron,

Thanks for your gracious and well-written post! I've been on holidays recently, but I noticed that you'd written some posts relating to ecology and the gospel and I'm very much looking forward to reading them in preparation for updating my own series. I've found many valuable insights in your previous material, and I'm sure that these posts will also be a great read too.

For now, here's my quick response (in 2 parts) to your reply to me!

Firstly, it's comforting to know that two Christian brothers reading the same Bible have come to similar conclusions in many areas. As for your take on the differences between us: overall, I think you've both made some good points, and also made some unfair criticisms.

I'll start with my most defensive-sounding point. You say about me, "He seems to imply that divine judgement is limited purely to the final judgment." I think this is very unfair. The whole of of my post "2a" was an exposition of the idea of the curse, in which I stressed the link between human sin and God's active judgement with its ecological consequences. For example, I say, "In Genesis 3:17, God curses the relationship between the man and the entire creation". I agree wholeheartedly that divine judgment is both temporal and final. In the part of talk 3a which you quoted, I am speaking only about the final judgment, but I never say (nor imply) that this is the limit of God's judgment. And to respond to the rest of your paragraph, I'm not saying that any environmental catastrophe is impossible, but rather I'm ruling out the ultimate anthropological catastrophe: i.e. the absolute apocalyptic extinction of humanity.

You say, "the fact that the timing of the day of judgement is in the hands of God and so is hidden from human knowledge (two common scriptural themes) doesn't necessarily mean that God might not use human instruments in bringing about an end to human history". I think this is probably quite a fair point, and looking back over my talks I probably don't take this possibility into account enough in what I'm saying. However, it's important to realise that the piece of my talk which you've quoted isn't a bare assertion; it's an exposition of the implications of 2 Peter 3:3-7, in which the final judgment is said to involve the same kind of divine unilateral action as the creation of the world and the flood. This is emphasised by the divine passive of verse 7, which speaks of the heavens and earth "kept" until the day of judgment. The point I'm making is that, in the light of 2 Peter 3:3-7, pessimistic ecological catastrophising is not only incommensurate with faith in God, it is (ironically) exceedingly arrogant! If you disagree with my exposition, I'd be interested to read why; perhaps you could point me to your own "take" on this passage. I might well change my mind on this one.

Lionel Windsor said...

(continued...)

The second quotation from my talks ("But what is the greatest labour in the Lord...") comes very close to the end of my series. Again, I believe you've unfairly caricatured me in saying that I'm talking about a "zero sum game between words and deeds". It's important to note that much of my series is promoting a "both-and" approach to words and (ecological) deeds. In this final few paragraphs I'm not negating everything that I've said previously, but rather I'm reminding my audience/readers of a further perspective, which I think is vital to hear (albeit with a bit of sermonic hyperbole). Yes, the good need not be the enemy of the best. Yes, there should be and usually is no "conflict" between loving God and loving our neighbour (ecological or otherwise). But sometimes, and in some circles, there is in fact a conflict; sometimes priorities need to be asserted and remembered. Theologically, the word of God comes before our deeds, and must be given priority. Perhaps this a difference between us, and if so, I suspect you're right that it's the more important one.

Anonymous said...

At a very basic level all of Earthkind depend on what Dylan Thomas called the GREEN FUSE.

Which is to say that the Green Domain was here first.

All sentient life forms, including us hairy primates, emerged or "evolved" from this Green Domain.

All sentient life forms are 100% entangled in the Green Domain, and 100% dependent on the Green Fuse.

byron smith said...

Thanks for your reply Lionel.

1. On temporal divine judgement
You're right - I was unfair on temporal judgement and hadn't put together what you'd said earlier in 2a with 3a. My mistake and I apologise.

2. On relative catastrophe vs absolute judgement
"I'm not saying that any environmental catastrophe is impossible, but rather I'm ruling out the ultimate anthropological catastrophe: i.e. the absolute apocalyptic extinction of humanity."
Thanks for clarifying. It is certainly the case that some Christian commentators effectively rule out even the possibility of catastrophe. A US Senator has, during Senate debate, used God's promise to Noah to argue that nothing needs to be done about rising sea levels from ACC because "God won't send another flood". We laugh at this (I hope we laugh - crying is the other serious option) precisely because it confuses categories. This is not an isolated example. While I didn't think you would hold to "God won't let us destroy the climate", the fact that many people do hold such a position means that I think it is important to make this point (that ecological catastrophe is indeed possible, even likely, on our current path - and that in many ways it has already begun).

So while you do discuss the curse in 2a, I feel that your post 3a can easily be read to imply that God won't let catastrophic climate change happen. Let me explain how I got that impression, which I realise is mistaken, but which I don't think is an unfair reading.

You begin by raising the "coming global catastrophe" that Al Gore's AIC warns about. You sketch various common responses: fear, confidence, scepticism, apathy, resignation. You don't offer further reflection or evaluation of any of them, but shift to speaking about "the future of the world", in which you say that catastrophe is ruled out by judgement. So you seem to have shifted categories between the intro and the body of your post. You begin by speaking of the future of the world in the sense of the coming decades and scientifically-based fears of the threat of climate change, but then shift to speaking of what we might call the absolute future of the world in final judgement and renewal. Although what we believe about the absolute future affects our attitude and behaviour during the relative future, the two are not the same thing. Ruling out an absolute catastrophe doesn't mean that a relative catastrophe is ruled out (as you acknowledge above). But by shifting from the latter to the former, it is quite possible for readers/listeners to be confused and to assume that in ruling out an absolute catastrophe you are dismissing concerns over the relative threat of climate change as more or less irrelevant, or even arrogant. You don't explicitly do this, and even speak of the possibility of relative catastrophe: "If global warming does cause huge storms and rising sea levels, that would be a catastrophe." But I feel the potential for confusion is there.

(cont.)

ben said...

Lionel and Byron, there was a great deal to appreciate in both your posts. Byron, thanks for the links to Lionel's articles too.

Lionel, though, I find the second part of your response here a bit confusing. I'm not sure what you mean by alluding to Jesus quoting the Torah to support your contention that verbal proclamation (over against forms of ecological or political action) is the most urgent, primary and important "labour in the Lord".

Yes, there should be and usually is no "conflict" between loving God and loving our neighbour (ecological or otherwise).

Just at the level of the quote, I don't see any explicit reference to evangelism in Jesus' doubled "greatest commandment" to love God and love neighbour. So I'm interested to know on what grounds you have construed it in this way.

I'm not sure, either, how much your assertion of the priority of evangelism is bolstered by a quote in which Jesus explicitly links (and refuses to separate – refuses even to elevate to the level of the single most important commandment) love for God and love for neighbour as integral aspects of the faithful life.

And practically, I'm not a big fan of arguments along these lines. Surely everything can be painted as a trade-off against "the most important thing" if we want to frame it that way?

Many Christians (myself included) bring up children, investing huge amounts of time, emotional energy, and money into their care and development. By God's grace we may help bring into the world 2 faithful followers of Christ, but how many people could I have converted if I had used that time, energy and money in other ways? Every dollar spent on kids, and every hour spent changing nappies, or being at the edge of exhaustion, or ferrying them around, is a dollar and an hour not spent evangelising my neighbours.

And why are social action and ecological concern so often the activities identified as needing to be put in their place vis a vis evangelism, while the evangelistic opportunity costs of child-rearing, reading, and all the other "lesser things" in life, are left alone?

byron smith said...

3. Regarding instrumentality and divine judgement
Fair point on having 2 Peter 3 as your context. I do have a take on this passage (briefly mentioned here), but haven't done a great deal of exegetical work on it and don't see this as a major issue theologically. It is more a theoretical possibility I am open to than a strict dogma. The thesis mentioned here also has some interesting things to say on this (though Mark acknowledged to me that he didn't have space or time to go into as much depth on this as he would have liked).

In general, I think many people try to put too much weight on the details of 2 Peter 3. One of my guiding theological principles regarding eschatological epistemology is expressed here. In short, the ground and determining pattern for Christian hope is the resurrection of Christ as a first fruits from the dead. This is the primary access we have to the eschatological future and pretty much all other eschatological hopes revolve around this.

What does this mean for eschatology? Well, in one sense, it makes your point theologically: God's ultimate future does not rest in human hands (Christ's resurrection was an absolute act of the Spirit). But Christ's body, before being raised by the Holy Sprit, was put to death by human hands, and this too was God's will (Acts 2.23).

4. Relation of gospel and ecological responsibility
Thanks once more for clarifying. I wasn't actually sure how to read your final paragraphs. Although you don't explicitly undo what you've said before about ecological responsibility, the only relationship you mention between the good ideas (composting and campaigning) and speaking the word of the Lord to others is that the latter is the most urgent, the primary, the greatest. And then you speak of your experience in solar energy and conclude that "the world doesn't need more solar cell research". In an absolute sense, yes, you're right. But in a relative sense, more solar cell research would be quite a good thing, even if it is not being done by Christians motivated by love.

Again, I can see this wasn't your intention, but a listener could be excused for mishearing your talk as implying the negation, or at least denigration, of Christian service to God and neighbour in a solar company.

In your defence, I realise that you do mention that "As people come to know Christ, they will put greed to death, and they will live in love for others and with regard to the good world God has made." This is an important point. In the end, perhaps my beef comes down to wondering whether this needed a little more expansion. The relation between acts of loving service and the proclamation of the word is not simply that the latter is greater, primary and more urgent.

Theologically, the word of God comes before our deeds, and must be given priority. Perhaps this a difference between us, and if so, I suspect you're right that it's the more important one.
The word of God comes before our deeds. Only God's gracious summons to an existence of love can be the source of genuine human action (however poorly the response might echo the summons). But I feel there is a false dichotomy if we conclude as a result of this that there is any kind of competition between gospel proclamation and loving service of neighbour. The two are interrelated in numerous ways: proclamation flows out of the love into which God graciously summons us; the proclamation of the gospel is itself an invitation into the life of love and the life of love is a taste of the promised fruit of the gospel.

(cont.)

byron smith said...

5. Regarding a possible conflict between loving God and neighbour
O'Donovan has an excellent chapter towards the end of Resurrection and Moral Order on this. Here is a relevant quote: "this collision does not and cannot occur in a universe where there is one God who is Creator of all things. Lying behind the anxiety is a covert Manichaeism, a belief in two first principles endlessly at war, the source of incompatible claims and counter-claims between which we are caught. But when we are warned of 'the world', we are not meant to think that there is a real alternative to God that we might love in his place. 'The world' in this sense is not the real and good world that God has made, nor any other real world, but a fantasy-world of the sinful imagination, a nothingness which will destroy us if we love it simply because it is nothingness and offers nothing on which we may nourish ourselves. [...] One God demands of us one love - for himself and for our neighbour."

The whole chapter (#11 The double aspect of the moral life) is well worth reading.

Thanks again for your response and for a talk that I very much enjoyed.

Lionel Windsor said...

Byron:

A good response to a response to a reply to a post!

You make a very fair point about my apparent confusion of absolute and relative catastrophes, and about the apparent absolute negation in my final few paragraphs of all I've said previously. These are very helpful critiques for me as I update my series.

I agree with you that "the relation between acts of loving service and the proclamation of the word" is not ultimately a conflict. Would you agree with me, though, that the relationship is not symmetrical? I.e. there is an "asymmetrical both-and" to the relationship of word and deed. Sometimes the both-and needs to be emphasised. But I believe that sometimes, the asymmetry needs to be emphasised too, and furthermore that sometimes the asymmetry needs to be highlighted in a way that sounds harsh, that makes an impact, with hyperbole, to highlight the precedence, priority and apocalyptic urgency of the gospel. Jesus does this kind of thing in Luke 9:59-60 and 14:26 - i.e. he speaks hyperbolically about the abandonment of normal creational relationships and responsibilities for the sake of proclaiming the word or of discipleship of Jesus, in light of the urgency of the gospel. We can and should occasionally do this too, especially when we see a widespread abandonment of concern for gospel proclamation around us (as I do too often). Nevertheless, I'm thinking I might need to change and update my hyperbole in the final few paragraphs so that it doesn't sound so much like a crass exercise in time management. So I value your critique here.

I'm very much looking forward to reading your own posts.

Lionel Windsor said...

Ben:

Yes, I've caused some confusion - my comment wasn't directly alluding to Jesus' use of the love commands - I was actually alluding to Byron, who I guess was alluding to the love commands. My points don't arise from this particular part of the Bible, but from other passages. Sorry about that.

You said, "And why are social action and ecological concern so often the activities identified as needing to be put in their place vis a vis evangelism, while the evangelistic opportunity costs of child-rearing, reading, and all the other "lesser things" in life, are left alone?" - the applicability of the premise of your question depends on which circles you move in. I'm currently having discussions with people in my own church about the evangelistic opportunity costs of family choices and theological study choices. Furthermore, I'm not talking with anyone right now about giving up any activities involving social action or ecological concern. So I think the question doesn't really apply to my situation. Perhaps your situation is different - if so, I guess you'll need to answer it!

David Palmer said...

Sorry, I’ve come onto this discussion late, probably too late.

I was interested to read Lionel’s longer version, but whether to describe it as a cogent introduction to an evangelical ecological theology, I’m not so sure. I’m more inclined to see it as an evangelistic tract that uses ecological concerns as a prop. In a way I’m not sure running an evangelistic argument on the basis of ecology does the ecological concerns justice, which I think is something Byron reacts against.

I certainly don’t have a problem with Lionel’s statement (whilst accepting Byron’s point that there is an ongoing unveiling of God's wrath against human folly).

the judgement day will not come before God is ready. So if you think that the human race will wipe itself off the face of the map through environmental disasters, then that is actually an arrogant attitude. Final judgement is God's job. Right now, God is keeping the world until he is ready to judge. We can’t wipe ourselves out because God will not let that happen until he is ready to judge us!

Regarding the question as to whether we can’t wipe ourselves out something over which Byron expresses doubt, to the I Cor 15 passage that Byron cites, I would add Matthew 24:30 – I would argue the implication of the whole chapter is that the earth is populated at the time of Christ’s return. I also add Matt 25:31f, 1 Thess 4:13f.

David Palmer said...

I think the point that Byron makes, emphasising

the continuity of the resurrected body with the corpse - that it is this body that is resurrected and transformed, not some replacement for it - and so also expect a measure of continuity between the renewed creation and the old.

is an important one and is well supported by a text like Rev 21:24 which brings me to a reservation concerning Lionel’s article.

I view Lionel’s stress on human sinfulness and its baleful influence on creation whilst true in itself, nevertheless fails to consider (the self evident truth) that the image of God is not totally effaced, and furthermore, if I may return to 2 Kingdom theology/natural law underpinnings, even the unbeliever knows that adultery, murder, lying, etc are wrong, and not only knows this to be so, but can actually, however imperfectly, choose to not lie, murder, etc and generally undertake good works (though not in the sense of pleasing God or deserving salvation), so that, for instance, unbelievers can have fashioned over centuries, an incredibly beautiful landscape in much of Britain, and hopefully may yet avert Byron’s climate catastrophe.

Regarding climate, I couldn’t help thinking how dated Lionel’s article had become in regard to the public perception of climate change, even after only 12 months or so – not Lionel’s fault but a salutary lesson.

However, I did enjoy/appreciate Lionel’s paper, especially as an compelling and attractive creation-fall-redemption saga!

byron smith said...

David - We can debate whether it is better described as an evangelistic talk with an eco-theology angle, or an eco-theology talk with an evangelistic edge. I don't mind, though you are correct that it is worth noting the different contexts for Lionel's piece and my own.

I would argue the implication of the whole chapter [Matt 24] is that the earth is populated at the time of Christ’s return
If that is indeed what the chapter is referring to, a much disputed issue and one I don't really want to get into here.

Matt 25 (like Matt 24) is apocalyptic in its imagery and so I'd be very hesitant to read much into details (how, for instance, is it possible for all the nations of the earth to be gathered before the throne of the Son of Man? Not sure a crowd that size would really fit somewhere with decent lines of sight to the throne. And think about how many Portaloos would be required! Ok, that's just getting silly, but you get my point.)

1 Thess 4 makes basically the same point as 1 Cor 15: that those who have died in Christ are not lost or excluded from his final victory. I'd be hesitant about overreading it for the same reasons.

But I repeat that the issue of human self-extinction is largely academic if we all agree that massive human depopulation at our own hands is possible.

I'll let Lionel reply to the comment about common grace and the possibility of (unbelieving) humans provisionally achieving some relative beautification and preservation of creation. I don't deny this possibility.

Regarding climate, I couldn’t help thinking how dated Lionel’s article had become in regard to the public perception of climate change, even after only 12 months or so – not Lionel’s fault but a salutary lesson.
How do you think public perception has changed from this time last year and what are you basing that judgement on? This is a claim you've made a number of times in our discussion, but I don't see any radical shifts, just a continuation of the oscillation of public attention the issue has received for years.

Lionel Windsor said...

Hi David, when you said, "I view Lionel’s stress on human sinfulness and its baleful influence on creation whilst true in itself, nevertheless fails to consider (the self evident truth) that the image of God is not totally effaced," - it sounds like you're just pointing out an instance of the obvious fact that a person can't say everything all the time. I believe in common grace, but (like many other things I also believe in) I didn't expound it in this particular series. (To be a little more tongue-in-cheek - if the truth is self-evident then why do you think I need to speak of it anyway? ;)

A more interesting question might be this - in general, empirically, do countries such as Britain and Australia and the USA which have been influenced by biblical ideas, on average, do a better or worse or the same job ecologically than countries which have been less influenced (such as, say, China or India?) I don't know the answer to that question, but it would be relevant to the question you raised, wouldn't it?

David Palmer said...

Hi Lionel,

I accept your point that an article can't cover everything but it was a rather long one which took a while to read through.

I think I had an impression that your basic story line was set (and here forgive me, but I was thinking 2K theology) in the spiritual kingdom whereas I see climate change more a matter that relates to the civil kingdom (Byron will hate me saying this).

I think you were mixing two separate things together, which is not necessarily bad, but you did cause me to want to say that despite the deep impact of human sin, there is much good in the world that has been and will be done, and on which I think Byron builds a lot of his hope for climate change remedy.

Byron I suspect from your comments that we stand on different theological ground as to the interpretation of those passages listed. Whilst we could discuss I don't see profit in doing so.

However I do think you set up some straw men that I have no intention of buying into.