Why be green? Ecology and the gospel III
Part One: God the materialist
Part Two: The renewal of all things
Part Three: Three steps towards heaven on earth
Part Three: Three steps towards heaven on earth
Therefore, if the greatest moral challenge of our day is whether we will turn to Christ or anti-Christ, whether we will embrace life or remain in death, whether we will walk in faith, hope and love or remain imprisoned in their opposites, then we can only do so as creatures. Ecological responsibility is not an alternative or distraction from the life of faith, hope and love, but one non-negotiable aspect of it. Ecological concern is not the gospel nor does it stand in competition with the proclamation of the gospel. Rather, it is bound up in the proclamation of the gospel as one of the many spheres of life in which we need to repent and turn from the idolatry of consumerism and greed. How can we preach the good news of liberation from sin without also proclaiming and pursing a life that turns from selfishness and respects the goodness and integrity of God’s world? How can we love our neighbours without considering their well-being as a whole: spiritual, mental, emotional, social, physical and ecological? How can we pray that God’s will would be done on earth as it is in heaven and not pay attention to the earth for which we pray?
For those already inclined to ecological activism, the gospel provides a more sustainable basis in faith, hope and love, rather than the all too common motives of fear and guilt. For those who are apathetic, the scriptures warn us lest we join the destroyers of the earth (Revelation 13.18), and they invite us into freedom from thoughtless consumption and into concern for the least, who are usually the ones to suffer first and most from ecological disasters.
So, as creatures of the Creator, disciples of the risen Christ, filled with the Spirit who brings life and new life, what are we then to do? I would suggest three initial steps.
First, be thankful. Christian ethics starts in joy, not fear. It flows from peace, not anxiety. It is a liberation to do what is best, not being forced to do the minimum out of guilt.Second, repent of consumerism. We are not defined by what we buy. We do not need the latest fashion or the shiniest gadget. You don’t need meat every meal or international travel every holiday. God gives us every good thing to enjoy, and so there is no need to hoard. We can learn contentment, which is grounded in step one: thankfulness. Smashing the hollow idol of endless consumption is not only good for the planet, but also necessary for the soul.
Third, embrace life. We belong to the earth. We are each members of something bigger than ourselves, bigger even than humanity: a creation awaiting its Sabbath rest in God. And so keep learning about the world, opening your eyes to the wonder, mystery and beauty around us. Find out what is happening to our planet. Mourn for what is being lost and become involved in movements that seek to nurture life.
Human actions continue to disfigure God’s creation, closing down possibilities and even threatening the viability of society. God doesn’t promise to stop us from destroying ourselves, but the good news of the risen Jesus reveals that he can bring new life even in the most deadly of ends. That is news worth sharing, news worth living.
These three posts were written as an article for AFES's SALT Magazine and are re-posted here with permission.
Posts
15 comments:
Thanks for the posts Byron. I'm really resonating with your passion for Christians to live an ecologically relevant love-for-God and love-for-neighbour (including our non-human neighbour creatures).
Hi Byron,
I like what you have written in these three posts.
In particular, I liked the way you root humankind as part of the created order .
I don’t know whether you have read Phillip Sampson’s 6 Modern Myths, but in the chapter on the environment he has this to say,
“… the biblical authors are at pains to emphasize that human beings are, like the rest of creation, dependent creatures, not transcendent masters. Genesis 1:24-31 unambiguously puts humans alongside other creatures rather than above them. Animals, including "creeping things," were made on the same day as humankind; the command to humans to "multiply and fill the earth" is paralleled by the command to fishes to "multiply and fill the waters," and by that to birds. Humans and animals equally were made from the earth, have the breath of life, and were given plants and fruit to eat rather than one another. We originally cooperated in partnership with the nonhuman world and exercised dominion within a creation unified in declaring the glory of God (Gen 1:30; 6:17; 7:22). God created us in his image and made us stewards of the earth, dependent not autonomous, having dominion but not arbitrary power or mastership.
The other point worth making is Revelation 21/22 makes clear that in the new heavens and new earth to come, “our home of righteousness”, God comes down to dwell on earth amongst His people.”
Our only difference, and I don’t wish to minimise it, is how we read the current concern over climate change and how best to respond to possible catastrophes.
Thanks Ben! And good to discover your blog at the same time. :-)
David - Thanks for that excellent quote, which brings together many of my concerns in these posts. And I'm glad we have a lot of common ground here. I'm entirely with you on the point about Rev 21-22 and discussed it here amongst other places.
Byron, I find your first application particularly helpful: joy, peace and freedom to love NOT fear, anxiety and guilt. Thanks for putting it so succinctly.
Byron, sorry it has taken me a while to get back to you but I’ve been on holiday, and then occupied with other things.
I’m continuing the discussion that started here
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=28189019&postID=8279782844945310852
My most formative years theologically were spent heavily involved in a large AFES group in Sydney for five years, followed by four years at Moore Theological College.
Thanks for informing me about your background. Here’s some brief info about me. I spent about 4 years in an AFES group as well, which is where I learnt to read the Bible as an adult. Right now I am working down in Melbourne and attending a local church out in the eastern suburbs. I’ve done a 1 year grad dip at Ridley college, but this did not include Greek so I’d appreciate it if this discussion could stay in English :-)
Also, just so you have a better idea of my environmental values: I enjoy nature. My wife and I often take holidays and day trips in the Dandenong ranges just outside Melbourne. I recycle all my cardboard and plastic, I drive a small 15-year old car, and I turn off the lights when I leave a room. I try to avoid buying anything unless I really need it and lag quite a long way behind most of my friends in terms of up-to-date gadgets.
1 John 2 - "World" (kosmos) in Johannine literature generally doesn't mean the created order, but the rebellious human order.
While it is true that John uses the word “world” to mean more than just the natural world, I do not think he means any less than that. For instance John 1:9-10; 9:32; 13:1; 16:28; 17:24; 21:25. The word “world” includes the natural order as well as the human order.
It may be possible to dismiss 1 John 2:17 and 1 Cor 7:31 on the grounds that these verses are just about human society passing away. But when taken together with the other texts I listed (eg. Luke 21:33; Ps 102:25-26; Is 51:6; Rev 21:1; Heb 12:26-27), I think it is clear that the Bible actually teaches that the whole natural order will pass away.
I do not think it is legitimate to appeal to apocalyptic style to discount what 2 Peter 3 is saying. The language may be dramatic, but if you believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture it still conveys real meaning. (This reminds me of a debate I’ve been having with some universalists on another blog, who argue that Rev 20:11 doesn’t actually teach eternal punishment because Revelation is a book with dramatic language). 2 Peter 3 teaches that “all these things” (the heavens and the earth) will be dissolved by fire to make way for a new heavens and a new earth.
In your post about 2 Peter 3, you argue that the flood is the paradigm for understanding judgment day (verses 5-7). I think that this actually favours my “total destruction/total reconstruction” view rather than your “renovation” view. The account of Noah’s flood describes the total destruction of the earth and everything on it (eg. Gen 6:13; 7:21-23). The earth is returned to its original, water-covered state (cf. Gen 1:2) signifying the complete undoing of creation. 2 Pet 3:5-6 supports this interpretation. Note also how Peter makes a distinction in these verses between “the world that then existed” and “the heavens and earth that now exist”.
my theological method here is that our primary access to God's future is the resurrection of Christ, the first fruits of God's renewal … It was a restoration and transformation … containing both continuity and discontinuity, as a seed has both continuity and discontinuity with the plant that grows from it. The renewal of all things may well follow this same pattern of death and resurrection.
I agree wholly with this starting point – that the resurrection of Christ is the pattern for what God will do for the whole creation. But this takes me to a conclusion that seems to differ substantially from yours. My reading of 1 Cor 15 sees Paul putting much more emphasis on the discontinuity, while not denying the continuity. “What you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel … So is it with the resurrection of the dead”. The plant that grows from a seed looks nothing like the original seed. The difference between our present bodies and our resurrection bodies is of a magnitude comparable to the differences between human bodies, animal bodies, and fish bodies (v. 39).
The source of the 2 bodies is totally different: the first one is from dust, the second from heaven. I might be wrong, but I think that Paul is implying a difference in very essence, or ontology in these verses (44-49). He goes so far as to say that our new bodies will not be “flesh and blood” – a statement that I have always found quite startling.
So, firstly, if the whole creation is to be renewed in the same way as our bodies, then it will not be a renovation or restoration, as you seem to suggest.
And secondly, “Made from dust, we are bound to the earth…” (your SALT article) is telling only half the story. Our dust bodies dwell here temporarily but our minds and hearts are to be set on a different reality, one which has already begun and in which we already participate through Christ (eg. Col 3:1-2; Heb 11:13-16; Matt 6:19-21; Php 3:19-20; 1 Pet 2:11).
I believe that part of God's present judgement is that he has handed us over to the consequences of our actions (Romans 1), in this case, we face the consequences of our own greed and shortsightedness, our arrogance and failure to consider the goodness of the created order. Do you dispute the fact that humans have deeply scarred the planet in a host of ways: causing extinctions, disrupting ecosystems…
I agree that humans have a tendency to cause damage to the earth – we litter, we pollute, we bulldoze forests. But I do not think that Romans 8:20-21 stands up to an interpretation which says that “God has handed us over to the consequences of our sin, which include the degradation of the earth”. God has cursed the earth and subjected it to futility directly. Even if all human activity ceased, the world would decay. Note that Paul wrote this at a time when the world’s population was less than half a billion, there was no industrial activity, and no global warming.
I think that extinctions are a sad thing, and no doubt human activity is responsible for many extinctions, but let’s not forget that 1000 species of dinosaurs went extinct before humans even existed! (assuming of course a particular understanding of origins… :-) )
My SALT article was intending to show that ecological responsibility is not in competition with the proclamation of the gospel, but as part of loving our neighbour and honoring the creator, is intimately bound up with it. How do you understand Christ's command to love our neighbour? And how do you understand the role of good works in the proclamation of the gospel?
I am not against “ecological responsibility” or loving our neighbour, and I do not perceive these things to be in competition with the gospel. However, Byron, the honest impression I get when I look through your blog is that the environment issue is something that possesses your thoughts day and night. Anyone who read your blog and took it seriously would likely become deeply alarmed or depressed. Immersing oneself in the Green movement (the only logical course of action, if things are as desperate as you describe) is likely to consume so much mental, emotional and physical energy that there will be not much left to proclaim the gospel.
My own views on this are as follows: the world already has 6 billion people and by 2050 there will be 10 billion of us. In order to provide enough food, clothing, shelter, medicine and hygiene for 10 billion people we can’t live in a fantasy world where we get all our power from windmills. China, India and other developing nations are entitled to provide basic comforts (not luxury) to their people, and they cannot do this without industrialising.
I don’t believe in raping and pillaging the earth, but precisely because I believe in loving our neighbour, I put human beings ahead of animals and trees. Interestingly, one of the reasons for the sharp spike in world food prices is because of the push for biofuels. This is just one example of how misguided, faddish environmentalism has cost lives.
It may be that the temperature has to warm – irreversibly – by a couple of degrees to support 10 billion people on this planet. But this planet is not all there is, and not all there ever will be, and so whilst I agree with you that we should do our best to keep things sustainable in the long run, I do not think that human wellbeing should be sacrificed to keep the planet in a particular state of being. We are living in the last days, the time is short, and when the day of judgment arrives the temperature will become a fair bit hotter than 2 degrees Celsius!
In Christ,
Jereth
Jereth - Sorry for missing these comments until now. Thanks for giving more of your own background. I'm afraid this reply is fairly lengthy, but I think we are getting into very interesting issues and perhaps we are not so far apart as you suspect.
I said that kosmos (world) "generally" means the rebellious human order, though it has more connotations than this. I don't agree that each of the passages you cite is necessarily referring to the creation rather than rebellious human society, but I think we are broadly in agreement. Deciding which of the connotations is foremost in 1 John 2.17 requires consideration of the context, and it seems both from verse 2 (where the "whole world" sins) and from verse 16 (where these sins are listed as "the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes, the pride in riches") that rebellious humanity is more significant in this context.
2 Peter 3 - The language may be dramatic, but if you believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture it still conveys real meaning
Yes, of course it conveys real meaning, the only question is which meaning? Do you expect to encounter an actual dragon as part of humanity's future based on the inspired words of Revelation? Apocalyptic language has communicative function, but it is rich in imagery and the details of that imagery are to be understood in ways that are usually not literal. The point of the passage in 2 Peter 3 as I currently understand it is not the complete destruction of all that is, but the impossibility of avoiding divine scrutiny, that God is going to look under every rock. There is no mention of "making way", but instead of a disclosure of all that is done on earth. It is a image of universal transparency to divine judgement.
Isaiah 51.6 is affirming the permanence and reality of God's deliverance, in contrast to the ephemerality of human lives and even of the heavens and the earth (i.e. the created order) Like human lives, the heavens and earth are not eternal; they are dependent upon God's sustenance and without him, wither away. I don't have a problem with that. I wouldn't build an eschatology on it though. The passage seems to be focussed on the nature of creation (in order to make a point about redemption) rather than offering a prophecy of its destiny. Or if it is to be taken as a statement of the future of the earth, then this is parallel to that of human lives. Yet from the New Testament we know that death is not the ultimate destiny of humanity, even though most will die.
Similarly Luke 21.33 is a statement primarily designed to emphasise the seriousness of Jesus' prophecies in this chapter, and coming as it does immediate after a statement of the imminence of their fulfilment (before this generation passes away), it serves to underline the inevitability of Jerusalem's destruction (which I take it is the primary focus of the chapter (see verses 5-7)). If we try to take it as itself an independent prophecy of the destiny of the entire universe (which I think would be to take it out of context), then yes, heaven and earth may well undergo some manner of destruction prior to restoration, following the same pattern of resurrection.
I read Revelation 21.1 in the light of verse 5, where "all things" are made new. Whether this means they are to be replaced or perfected is the burden of the PhD thesis I mentioned in the other thread.
So we turn to 1 Corinthians 15, where both continuity and discontinuity are on display, however, once again we need to consider the relational context in which Paul was writing and why he was using the argument he makes in this circumstance. It is not an abstract timeless tract on the nature of the resurrection, but an occasional letter addressing the needs and issues amongst the believers in Corinth. And so Paul's emphasis on the discontinuity of the resurrection body in this chapter is a defence of the coherence of the idea of resurrection in a culture that despised the body for the superiority of the soul. The Corinthians (like the Athenians in Acts 17) would scoff at the very desirability of a resurrected body. For them, the body was the problem they were trying to escape; why would the resurrection of the body be good news? And Paul's answer is a defence of the goodness of resurrection through highlighting the gloriousness of the raised body and the completion of the purposes and goals of the created body (the seed compared to the tree). So I have never denied significant discontinuity, but have simply been pointing out that it is our bodies that are raised (and transformed). When I speak of them being "renewed", this is not a lick of paint and a dust off, but their thorough transformation from shame into glory and from mortality into immortality. It is not a human renovation, but the renewal from the one who says "behold, I make all things new". It is not a return to a former pristine state, but the completion and consummation of humanity's created purpose, seen now in the risen Christ and tasted already in our lives by the Spirit.
Our dust bodies dwell here temporarily but our minds and hearts are to be set on a different reality, one which has already begun and in which we already participate through Christ
I addressed this in the article. See the final paragraph of the second post. And on the topic of being dusty, you might be interested in my discussion of human mortality and frailty in this post.
But I do not think that Romans 8:20-21 stands up to an interpretation which says that “God has handed us over to the consequences of our sin, which include the degradation of the earth”. God has cursed the earth and subjected it to futility directly. Even if all human activity ceased, the world would decay.
I was interpreting Romans 1 at that point, in order to balance and fill out an understanding of Romans 8 (and Genesis 3). But I don't think we're far apart here. We have both agreed that the ground is cursed because of human sin, and that God has handed us over to the consequences of our actions. We both agree that the world would decay without human actions. We both agree that human actions are making things worse (I would say much, much worse: yes, thousands of species went extinct prior to industrial society, but current estimates place the present rate of extinction at between 100 and 1000 times the background rate). Where we seem to differ is how to locate human action vis-à-vis divine judgement.
Your initial comment that sparked this particular aspect of our discussion was this: It is also unfortunate that you seem to have swallowed the “trendy” line that humans are ultimately to blame for the world and the environment being in a bad state.
Much seems to hang on the "ultimately" here, and there is also some potential blurring between the world and the environment being in a bad state. The "world" is in a bad state because human sin has led to the curse. The "environment" is in a bad state because the particular historical course of human sin in an industrial age means that our failures have impacts on a scale never before imaginable. I take it that the latter is the particular historical expression of the former. It is not that I am saying there was no extinction or decay prior to industrial civilisation, simply that the particular form in which we experience the degeneration of our selves and of the created order around us has shifted due to the runaway successes of industrial civilisation enabling the consequences of human actions to be orders of magnitude greater than ever before.
However, Byron, the honest impression I get when I look through your blog is that the environment issue is something that possesses your thoughts day and night.
I wouldn't call it the environment issue. First, because we do not face a single issue, but a whole raft of distinct yet interconnected problems and second because it is not just about the environment, but about our home, about our undermining of the conditions under which it is possible to have so many billions of us on the planet.
Anyone who read your blog and took it seriously would likely become deeply alarmed or depressed.
That is precisely what I think a healthy response to our situation includes (though it is not limited to this). Except that I think that as Christians, what it means for us to be deeply alarmed is very different from what the world fears. We are not obsessed with thoughts of our own (or our society's) survival, though we are deeply concerned for our neighbour (especially the most vulnerable to these interlocking crises, namely, the poor and the unborn coming generations). And we are not depressed into a paralysing despair, but do mourn and lament, groaning and yearning in hope. This is the focus of my research project: how to articulate a healthy Christian response to a dire situation.
Your response, if I may be so bold as to suggest it, seems to say that since a truly dire situation would lead to certain unhealthy responses, therefore we must not be in a dire situation. I say, let us actually look at the world and see how bad things are, and then work out what a healthy Christian response to that situation is.
Immersing oneself in the Green movement (the only logical course of action, if things are as desperate as you describe) is likely to consume so much mental, emotional and physical energy that there will be not much left to proclaim the gospel.
Of course there are multiple possible logical courses of action, and none of them need rule out the priority of proclaiming the good news of Christ's death and resurrection. Indeed, it is precisely in order to bring the perspective of this good news to our ecological and resource crises that I am in the midst of a PhD and why I blog. What would a faithful response for a German Christian in Nazi Germany have been? To be kind to any Jews one happened to meet but not to get involved lest it distracted from the proclamation of the gospel? What was a faithful Christian response during the debates about the abolition of the modern slave trade? To be kind to one's slaves but avoid any legislative questions lest they distracted from the proclamation of the gospel? What would have been a faithful response for a white South African Christian under apartheid? To avoid actively persecuting blacks but avoid any protest lest it distracted from the proclamation of the gospel? All these positions were held by Christians and in each case I believe they were mistaken: well-intentioned but myopic. The gospel is proclaimed in our words, but also in our deeds. Love of neighbour is not an optional extra that we get to if we have time after preaching the gospel, but is itself both a mode of preaching and the source of verbal witness. We proclaim the good news of Christ (verbally) because we love our neighbour and also through loving our neighbour. In this sense, loving our ecological neighbours is one of the forms that Christian discipleship takes in our age. It is not a distraction from the gospel, but a faithful human response to the good news of Christ crucified.
My own views on this are as follows: the world already has 6 billion people and by 2050 there will be 10 billion of us. In order to provide enough food, clothing, shelter, medicine and hygiene for 10 billion people we can’t live in a fantasy world where we get all our power from windmills.
Did I say this?
China, India and other developing nations are entitled to provide basic comforts (not luxury) to their people, and they cannot do this without industrialising.
Did I say this?
It may be that the temperature has to warm – irreversibly – by a couple of degrees to support 10 billion people on this planet.
If you think this, then you have not yet come to terms with the problem. A couple of degrees would probably be enough to ensure that it is no longer possible to support 10 billion people on the planet. Do a little research into food security and the ways it intersects with climate, water, energy and soil and you'll see that it is precisely out of concern for how we might conceivably feed 10 billion that climate change is such a dire threat to human welfare.
But this planet is not all there is, and not all there ever will be, and so whilst I agree with you that we should do our best to keep things sustainable in the long run, I do not think that human wellbeing should be sacrificed to keep the planet in a particular state of being.
Substitute "personal health" for "this planet" and this still applies. And I agree. But I am not talking about sacrificing human wellbeing; I am talking about repenting of stupid consumption by the über-rich (i.e. us) for the sake of our soul as well as our neighbour's wellbeing. "There is enough for everyone's need, but not for anyone's greed." Gandhi's quote is still quite apt today, perhaps even more than when he first said it.
We are living in the last days, the time is short, and when the day of judgment arrives the temperature will become a fair bit hotter than 2 degrees Celsius!
And so what kind of lives ought we to live? Lives of holiness and godliness, not of greed, consumption, reckless waste, bowing down to the idol of endless growth. Lives that pay attention to our neighbour and to the suffering and destabilisation our lifestyles and corporate profits are causing. Lives that live the good news of a risen Christ who frees us from the selfishness of desperate survivalism, the paralysis of despair or the irrationality of denial. Lives that proclaim in words and deeds the victory of Christ over the powers.
Grace & peace,
Byron
The idolatry of consumerism? It's funny because it's true (more or less).
Post a Comment