Mozambique food riots: the "true face" of climate change
This is the kind of thing I was talking about back here, namely, climate change as a multiplier of existing threats to food security. Such problems are not caused exclusively (or even necessarily primarily) by climate change, but they are likely to become increasingly common in many parts of the world. Climate change means we'll be sailing ever closer to the wind in all kinds of ways, with less spare capacity in the system to respond to shocks.
Posts
11 comments:
Byron,
I first found your blog a couple of weeks ago when somebody else pointed me here.
I recently read an article of yours that was published in the AFES Salt magazine: "Would Jesus join Greenpeace? The Gospel and Ecological Responsibility" While I can agree with some of what you wrote, I do not think that your overall theological direction is correct.
Your argument, it seems to me, hangs on the notion that God is ultimately committed to this present creation. You say that “God’s promised future… will include the renewal of all things”, citing Matthew 19:28, Acts 3:21 and Revelation 21:5.
While you are correct in affirming the value of physicality, I think you have misread the Scriptures about the ultimate value of the present creation. Your eschatological framework is unbalanced because you have not considered key texts such as 2 Pet 3:7, 10-12; Heb 12:26-27; 1 John 2:17; 1 Cor 7:31; Luke 21:33; Isaiah 51:6. These Scriptures teach that the present creation will be thoroughly destroyed on the day of judgment and replaced by an entirely new creation.
The total removal of the present creation controls how we should read Romans 8 (concerning the redemption of creation) and your 3 other texts. Matthew 19:28 speaks of a “new world”, which actually implies that it is not this world. Revelation 21:5 speaks of making all things new, but 4 verses earlier John explains that this happens via the passing away of the old heavens and earth. Therefore, the redemption or renewal of creation is not a stitching up of the present creation but a replacement of it.
You write “Made from dust, we are bound to the earth and share its destiny. Clinging to the cross and the empty tomb grounds us in the here and now as we await Christ’s return”. Not quite. Those verses I’ve pointed to above (particularly 2 Peter 3 and 1 John 2:17) indicate quite clearly that our destiny is not at all tied up with that of this earth. And 1 Cor 15:35-54 makes it clear that the resurrection moves us spiritually from the present age into the age to come. Our bodies now are “natural” and “of the dust” but in the resurrection they are “spiritual” and “of heaven”.
I would agree with you that the earth is on lease to the human race and that we will have to give an account for how we used its resources. But my reading of your article (and your blog) suggests that you have gone several steps further than this and are committed to a form of extreme environmentalism that I cannot find support for in the Bible.
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. My reading of Scriptures is that, while human sin certainly has a part in disfiguring the environment, more fundamentally the natural world is in the shape it is in because God has cursed it (Gen 3:17) and because it is God himself who has subjected it to futility and groaning (Rom 8:20).
One of my biggest concerns with the kind of environmentalism that Christians such as yourself promote is that it seems to imply (reading between the lines) that if we put in enough effort we can actually make things better. But the reality is that – living under the curse – we can’t. Just as happened with the social gospel, well meaning Christians may follow your advice and labour mightily to fix the world’s problems only to find the finish line retreating faster than they are running towards it. Eventually so much desperate effort is spent on this world that the Church is no longer fulfilling the Great Commission to preach the gospel, make disciples and prepare people for the next.
I wasn’t sure exactly where to put this critique of your Salt article; I hope that you don’t mind this appearing here.
In Christ,
Jereth
Byron,
I first found your blog a couple of weeks ago when somebody else pointed me here.
I recently read an article of yours that was published in the AFES Salt magazine: "Would Jesus join Greenpeace? The Gospel and Ecological Responsibility" While I can agree with some of what you wrote, I do not think that your overall theological direction is correct.
Your argument, it seems to me, hangs on the notion that God is ultimately committed to this present creation. You say that “God’s promised future… will include the renewal of all things”, citing Matthew 19:28, Acts 3:21 and Revelation 21:5.
While you are correct in affirming the value of physicality, I think you have misread the Scriptures about the ultimate value of the present creation. Your eschatological framework is unbalanced because you have not considered key texts such as 2 Pet 3:7, 10-12; Heb 12:26-27; 1 John 2:17; 1 Cor 7:31; Luke 21:33; Isaiah 51:6. These Scriptures teach that the present creation will be thoroughly destroyed on the day of judgment and replaced by an entirely new creation.
The total removal of the present creation controls how we should read Romans 8 (concerning the redemption of creation) and your 3 other texts. Matthew 19:28 speaks of a “new world”, which actually implies that it is not this world. Revelation 21:5 speaks of making all things new, but 4 verses earlier John explains that this happens via the passing away of the old heavens and earth. Therefore, the redemption or renewal of creation is not a stitching up of the present creation but a replacement of it.
[part 2]
You write “Made from dust, we are bound to the earth and share its destiny. Clinging to the cross and the empty tomb grounds us in the here and now as we await Christ’s return”. Not quite. Those verses I’ve pointed to above (particularly 2 Peter 3 and 1 John 2:17) indicate quite clearly that our destiny is not at all tied up with that of this earth. And 1 Cor 15:35-54 makes it clear that the resurrection moves us spiritually from the present age into the age to come. Our bodies now are “natural” and “of the dust” but in the resurrection they are “spiritual” and “of heaven”.
I would agree with you that the earth is on lease to the human race and that we will have to give an account for how we used its resources. But my reading of your article (and your blog) suggests that you have gone several steps further than this and are committed to a form of extreme environmentalism that I cannot find support for in the Bible.
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. My reading of Scriptures is that, while human sin certainly has a part in disfiguring the environment, more fundamentally the natural world is in the shape it is in because God has cursed it (Gen 3:17) and because it is God himself who has subjected it to futility and groaning (Rom 8:20).
[part 3]
One of my biggest concerns with the kind of environmentalism that Christians such as yourself promote is that it seems to imply (reading between the lines) that if we put in enough effort we can actually make things better. But the reality is that – living under the curse – we can’t. Just as happened with the social gospel, well meaning Christians may follow your advice and labour mightily to fix the world’s problems only to find the finish line retreating faster than they are running towards it. Eventually so much desperate effort is spent on this world that the Church is no longer fulfilling the Great Commission to preach the gospel, make disciples and prepare people for the next.
I wasn’t sure exactly where to put this critique of your Salt article; I hope that you don’t mind this appearing here.
In Christ,
Jereth
[sorry Byron, your blog wouldn't let me leave a big comment so I had to split it in 3 parts!]
Hi Jereth, thanks for stopping by and for your comment. You raise some important questions with wide-reaching ramifications.
First, let me assure you that my theology has been formed by careful reading of the scriptures amongst a variety of (mainly though not exclusively) evangelical communities. 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. Beware of assuming motives or influences as you seem to do towards the end of your comment.
I recently read an article of yours that was published in the AFES Salt magazine: "Would Jesus join Greenpeace? The Gospel and Ecological Responsibility"
I have republished the article (with minor revisions) in three parts on my blog here, here and here. Perhaps some of this discussion is more suited to those posts. You'll also find in those posts plenty of links to other posts on my blog to get more of a sense of where I'm coming from than is possible in a brief article where I cover so much ground in short time.
While I can agree with some of what you wrote, I do not think that your overall theological direction is correct. Your argument, it seems to me, hangs on the notion that God is ultimately committed to this present creation. You say that “God’s promised future… will include the renewal of all things”, citing Matthew 19:28, Acts 3:21 and Revelation 21:5.
Why does my argument hang on this? I thought I was giving (albeit in very abbreviated form) a whole host of theological, scriptural and ethical reasons to be concerned about ecological responsibility, including: the goodness of creation, the concept of Sabbath, the community of praise that includes the non-human, God's blessing on all life, our co-creaturehood with the rest of the earth in a community of creation (a unity also grounded in the life-giving work of the Spirit), the non-divinity of the created order on which we rely, the experience of Israel, the human calling to serve and keep the earth, a christological understanding of dominion, the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Christ, the promise of our own resurrection, the renewal of all creation and its liberation from bondage to decay, the heavenly origin though not destination of our hope, repentance from greed and the idolatry of consumerism, love of neighbour, warnings of God's judgement upon the destroyers of the earth and the confluence of ecologically responsible actions with other aspects of Christian discipleship. If there is a centrality to that one claim, can you explain where it comes from?
Your eschatological framework is unbalanced because you have not considered key texts such as 2 Pet 3:7, 10-12; Heb 12:26-27; 1 John 2:17; 1 Cor 7:31; Luke 21:33; Isaiah 51:6. These Scriptures teach that the present creation will be thoroughly destroyed on the day of judgment and replaced by an entirely new creation.
I have discussed a number of these texts in previous blog posts, for example 2 Peter 3. 1 John 2 - "World" (kosmos) in Johannine literature generally doesn't mean the created order, but the rebellious human order. 1 Cor 7.31 - Note that the apostle does not say "the created order will pass away", but "the present form of this world is passing away". The present form of our bodies are also passing away, they are mortal. Yet this doesn't mean that God will abandon our bodies to death. Furthermore, the "form" of the world that Paul particularly has on view here is the present social order of slaves, marriage and property. These are his examples.
You may find my series on heaven will give you a broader picture of my eschatological assumptions.
The total removal of the present creation controls how we should read Romans 8 (concerning the redemption of creation) and your 3 other texts. Matthew 19:28 speaks of a “new world”, which actually implies that it is not this world. Revelation 21:5 speaks of making all things new, but 4 verses earlier John explains that this happens via the passing away of the old heavens and earth. Therefore, the redemption or renewal of creation is not a stitching up of the present creation but a replacement of it.
When deciding which texts "control" how we read other texts, 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 (Here is a good quote that sums this up well). Christ's resurrection was not a "replacement", nor a "stitching up", as though God merely resuscitated a corpse. It was a restoration and transformation, a creative vindication that was also a surpassing of the "old", 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. So I am not saying that there will be simple continuity between the present created order and its completion in the eschaton, simply that God will not abandon the work of his hands. Everything requires liberation from bondage to decay but this may involve both death and resurrection (though death is not necessary: 1 Cor 15.51). The Lewis quote at the end of this post may be helpful.
This quote from Oliver O'Donovan is also quite relevant when considering the meaning of resurrection.
You write “Made from dust, we are bound to the earth and share its destiny. Clinging to the cross and the empty tomb grounds us in the here and now as we await Christ’s return”. Not quite. Those verses I’ve pointed to above (particularly 2 Peter 3 and 1 John 2:17) indicate quite clearly that our destiny is not at all tied up with that of this earth. And 1 Cor 15:35-54 makes it clear that the resurrection moves us spiritually from the present age into the age to come. Our bodies now are “natural” and “of the dust” but in the resurrection they are “spiritual” and “of heaven”.
I have discussed 1 Corinthians 15 and the resurrection body at some length here, including an argument that "physical" or "natural" are a poor translation choices for psychikon. I have discussed 2 Peter 3 here and 1 John 2.17 above.
I would agree with you that the earth is on lease to the human race and that we will have to give an account for how we used its resources. But my reading of your article (and your blog) suggests that you have gone several steps further than this and are committed to a form of extreme environmentalism that I cannot find support for in the Bible.
Tell me what you mean by "extreme environmentalism". I have rejected the term here and here.
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. My reading of Scriptures is that, while human sin certainly has a part in disfiguring the environment, more fundamentally the natural world is in the shape it is in because God has cursed it (Gen 3:17) and because it is God himself who has subjected it to futility and groaning (Rom 8:20).
I don't dispute that the created order is subject to futility, nor that it is under a curse (due to human sin, by the way: because of you in Gen 3.17). But I'm not quite sure I understand the position you're advocating. 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, destabilising of the climate, depleting soils, polluting oceans, overfishing and so on?
While you are correct in affirming the value of physicality, I think you have misread the Scriptures about the ultimate value of the present creation.
I'm not sure I said that the present creation has ultimate value, simply that God doesn't plan to abandon his good work, but to bring it to completion.
One of my biggest concerns with the kind of environmentalism that Christians such as yourself promote is that it seems to imply (reading between the lines) that if we put in enough effort we can actually make things better.
It depends what you mean by better. Can we save ourselves and bring about a utopia of peace and justice without death or decay? No. Can we avoid the worst excesses of destruction and mutilation? Yes.
But the reality is that – living under the curse – we can’t. Just as happened with the social gospel, well meaning Christians may follow your advice and labour mightily to fix the world’s problems only to find the finish line retreating faster than they are running towards it.
I've never said we ought to fix the world's problems, just love our neighbour. Is that too much?
Eventually so much desperate effort is spent on this world that the Church is no longer fulfilling the Great Commission to preach the gospel, make disciples and prepare people for the next.
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 see them as visual words, ornaments to the Christian message (as we read in Titus 2, discussed at some length here. This post is quite relevant to this whole discussion.)
As I hope I've shown, my concern is not to be an "environmentalist", but a disciple of the risen Lord committed to loving the neighbours he has given me in the power of his Spirit, who brings life to all things and raises the dead.
Grace & peace,
Byron
Thanks, Byron. I'd like to continue the conversation; I will move it over to the appropriate place on your blog. (I was not aware the SALT article had been posted here!)
Sorry for creating a mess.
Crop failures set to increase due to climate change.
Post a Comment