Christianity and Environmental Stewardship

[Turduckin]

I'm interested in hearing from Christians. For the sake of this argument I ask that the following assumptions be granted.

1. 
   [/list=1]
   1. Earth's resources are being used at an unsustainable rate.
   2. Human activity is largely responsible for creating ciritical imbalances in the equilibrium between populations and resouces
   3. Succeeding generations will inherit a more degraded environment with less available resources - iow they will be poorer - because of our actions.
      [/list=1]
      Six times in Genesis, God looked at Creation

      and saw that it was good

      . The 7th time, Genesis 1:31
      

      God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.

      Question:
      If God thought the Earth was so good, why don't more Christians speak out against the abuse of "God's Creation"?

 

[Zero]

Welcome, newcomer.
Who the hell can tell what a god thinks is 'good'?

And related reading...try Baxter's "Manifold Time" and "Manifold Space". Awesome reading related to usage of resources.

 

[Cris]

Turduckin,

Hi and welcome to sciforums.

why don't more Christians speak out against the abuse of "God's Creation"?

I’m not sure that they don’t. In my experience Christians tend to put down mankind at every opportunity since they are convinced he can do little good since he is basically a sinner.

I suspect that if you point out this abuse of God’s creation then they are very liely to readily agree with you.

 

[Jenyar]

The image of Christians as fanatical women without eyebrows clutching flap-eared Bibles or men with self-righteous smirks proclaiming the sin of mankind are stereotypes, just as environmental greenpeace hippies or atheists are. They do exist, but so do we. Anybody who describe things as they are will be branded a pessimist and appear to "put down mankind" as you say. The current state of our environment could just as well have been the result of the best intentions, as of selfishness or greed. It's doing a good thing in excess that usually ruins everything...

Environmental activism in the name of God would not help any more (or be more popular) than plain environmental responsibility. The Christians I know who are involved with the environment are people who are actually instating policies and trying to sway people in charge who see more money in dead trees than live ones. Activism isn't the only way to change things.

Would everybody have been happier if the Bible stated "...and it was flawed"? So that we could be the ones to restore nature to its proper harmony without having to claim responsibility as well.

The fact is, we are responsible. God said it was good. That doesn't mean it doesn't need protection and attention and that there aren't right and wrong ways of doing things.

From Genesis through Exodus and onwards it is shown that God expects us to take care of the earth and animals, because we are dependent on it for survival. Whether fact or fable, Noah could have saved his family and bugger the animals. Nature would have been capable of taking care of itself if people hadn't interfered (although maybe what Noah did was preserve essential parts of the gene pool). Our exploitation of nature is just as much a sin any other, maybe even more so because nature has no voice to protest - no free speech or strikes or lengthy courtcases to defend itself. What envionmentalism shows is the power and necessity of perception, the need think further than our our noses and that responsibility towards life is not very different than responisibilty to ourselves.

 

[Turduckin]

I’m not advocating Christian Environmentalism. My underlying motivation for this question was my observation that, in spite of what the Bible teaches about Creation and our role in it, most Christian philosophy downplays the importance of Creation.

In fact, most Christians seemed to be as alienated from Creation as non-Christians. Albrecht Ritschl felt that “God is not to be found in nature, which is red in tooth and claw and speaks ambiguously of it’s Creator” Dietrich Bonhoeffer noted “God’s works do not bare witness of God themselves, but bear witness to God because his Word bears witness to them. God acknowledges that they are his works and so claims their witness to him from his own Word.”

Here are two Christian thinkers who apparently never really meditated on Romans 1:18-20, and then never went out into Creation seeking what it would teach them. They deny General Revelation and place Scripture above it, thereby denying both Scripture and the Holy Spirit.

My fear is that Christians are so busy hoping for the new heaven and new earth of Revelation, that they are willing to throw this one away. After all, if Dad’s going to buy a new car anyway, I don’t have to worry about taking care of the old one when I borrow it. I can wreck it and be done with it.

 

[prozak]

Jewish religions are anti-Environmental.

 

[James R]

How so, prozak?

 

[prozak]

Separation of logical selective process from nature.

 

[James R]

Still not enough information there for me to understand what you're talking about. Sorry.

 

[Jenyar]

Turduckin,

I share your concern. I'm thinking of the passage where the beauty of nature is compared to Solomon's wealth. God takes care of nature - you don't see nature trying to change it's social status or picketing for their rights. We simply assume they haven't evolved to rebel. I wonder we humans did. But I digress... Christians have an obligation to take care of God's creation. Stewardship of the earth is a commandment if you look at Genesis - taking care of nature shows obedience and appreciation to God. It should be in every Christian's thoughts. But why only Christians?

I think it's important not categorise people and then assign them duties as we see fit. It's self-righteous and probably hypocritical. What is more important is that I figure out for myself what's right and create an awareness in people. I have heard people compare radical environmentalism with religion, and I can understand why, but that kind of labelling is unproductive. Lead by example, and compel people to change rather than forcing or manipulating them to.

The destruction of the environment is an interesting case study on another level. For it to have reaches these proportions, it had to have started a long time ago. But it wasn't visible then. The one's who could see what pollution and industry could lead to were regarding as doom prophets and ignored in favour of short term benefits and visible profits. If you look at mass deforestation and depletion of natural fuels they are still being ignored. Only as the consequences are becoming visible even to the most ignorant of people, is the urgency of action being understood.

What if crime, poverty, pollution and wars are also signs of degeneration? The bible calls them 'the signs of the times'. People blame God for being cruel and not doing something. I don't think that's right. Blaming serves no purpose. We are becoming aware of envronmental catastrophy - our carbon fuels will only last another 80 or 90 years at best - we shouldn't ignore what's happening politically.

 

[prozak]

I prefer to study society historically, and note what changes occurred because of the introduction of what ideas - including Christianity.

 

[Jenyar]

So what's your analysis of the different religions, prozak? Is it even possible to extrapolate which changes occurred because of which events? Do you think Christianity would have started if Jesus did not exist?