Have a Blessed Earth Day!

On Earth Day 2013, I received a timely question from a dear friend. He asked for my thoughts on two competing ideas within Christendom (actually, Evangelicalism) today; the first is that we ought to be working to bring the Kingdom of God to Earth, whereas the second sees our role as limited to "saving drowning souls from the water." Here's my response:

J___:

The "saving drowning souls from a sinking ship" idea is a false one. It comes to us not from historic Christianity, but from 19th-century revivalism. Historically, Christians have remained uncertain as to whether the New Heavens and New Earth should be understood as entirely new creations or a redeeming of the existing ones. Either way, the exclusive attention to saving human souls for eternity future is only a very thin slice of the fully-orbed Gospel of the redemption Christ initiated at His first coming. To be sure, that the redemption that Christ came to institute includes the saving of human souls from eternal Hell and for eternal relationship with Him is a huge deal, and one in which we humans ought to take great interest. But Jesus' understanding--and that of the Apostles--was that all of creation was to share in that redemption.

The Kingdom of Heaven is not so much in Heaven (much less only in Heaven in a future existence) as from Heaven, and in the prayer He modeled for His disciples, Jesus begins with what should be the desire of all of His followers--that His kingdom would truly come to reign on Earth as it is in Heaven.

Col. 1:16-19 makes this point very clear: "For by Him (Christ) all things were created, in the heavens and on Earth... All things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together... For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fulness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on Earth or things in heaven." The same Greek word is used for "all things" throughout this passage, and the "all things" created by Him are the very same "all things" redeemed by and for Him through the blood of His cross.

There are any number of reasons--and lines of reasoning--to suggest that Christians of all people ought to be leading the way in taking care of the planet and the creatures (including other humans) that inhabit it. Ours ought to be the loveliest landscapes, gardens, and house plants, since all that God created brings glory to Him. We ought to be the ones standing up for those of God's creatures that are being harmed, exploited, or run into extinction.

Indeed, we are the ones who have the greatest logical grounding for conservation. Where the secular conservationist ends up appealing for the value of other species either for their potential benefit for mankind or in a sort of vague "just because," Christianity finds intrinsic value in all life (and in the inanimate parts of creation) because they are created by God, He values them, they bring Him glory, and He commanded us to steward them.

It is just plain hypocritical for Christians to claim to know and love the Creator while exploiting, abusing, or remaining apathetic to, His creation. This is evident to a younger generation, who want very little to do with a form of Christianity that cares only about a future eternity, but who can wholeheartedly embrace true Christianity, which recognizes that God is passionate about all of His creation in the here and now.

While the 'image of God' in which humankind was created entails a number of things (rationality, morality, creativity...), in its immediate context (in Gen. 1:26), the image of God in us is specifically tied to our dominion of the creation. We are to steward the creation the way God would, which is faithfully, compassionately, patiently, sacrificially...

I could go on and on, but maybe that's enough for now. Happy Earth Day, in the name of the Creator and Savior, Jesus Christ!

Rick

Creation, Church, and Community

My wife and I had the great privilege recently to enjoy a weekend retreat (in Texas’ hill country) during which we interacted with the topic of creation care in the life of the church. The theme of the weekend was “Creation, Church, and Community,” and the speakers were Eugene Peterson (well-known pastor, theologian, and translator/editor of The Message) and Peter and Miranda Harris, founders of A Rocha, a Christian conservation organization working in 19 countries. We were invited by Tom Rowley, A Rocha’s U.S. Director, who moved to Bend a bit over a year ago.

It was a real treat to be among passionate, like-minded folks, dedicated Christ-followers who rightly understand God’s love for His creation and His expectations of His people to join Him in caring for it.

Caring for creation is, of course, the first commandment of God to His people recorded in Scripture. This commandment was reiterated, and never rescinded. Jesus’ carried the theme through, repeatedly describing the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth—which His incarnation initiated—as vineyards and properties left by the master to the care of his stewards.

As one who has worked life-long in the field of conservation biology, I recognize (with the Harrises and others) the need to work together with those who don’t acknowledge the Creator. At the same time, I realize that it is those of us who know and worship Him who have the greatest justification for engaging in protection of this planet and the people and other living things that inhabit it. The secular naturalists with whom I often work offer reasons for caring about conservation, but those reasons are anthropocentric, short-term, and ultimately unsatisfying.

Care for the environment is, of course, a justice issue. And that is in at least two ways. First, the creation itself—the soils, water, atmosphere, and all living creatures—has great worth, and whenever we treat it with less respect than it warrants we commit an act (and betray an attitude) of injustice. Secondly, it is the marginalized and voiceless people of the majority world—those living in poverty—who directly experience the results of environmental degradation. (Whereas we have a mediated relationship with the environment—insulated by our air conditioning, gated communities, and other comforts—the global majority have an unmediated relationship with the environment.) So poor stewardship of the Earth leads directly to harm for the people God created and whose care He has entrusted to His followers.

But if God loves His whole creation, and expects His people to care for it, why has the church—particularly in America—abdicated its role of good stewardship? (Of the many countries in which A Rocha has attempted to establish Christian creation care centers or projects, it is in the U.S. that this biblical message has faced the most obstacles.) Harris shared that each nation’s church has its own barriers to effective conservation, and identified some of those specific to America and its churches. These include our characteristic materialism and consumerism (which is exacerbated by the mixed blessing of abundant natural resources and space), a business-model approach to church life, a growing skepticism toward science, and the politicization of environmental issues. I would add as factors a dubious eschatology and an equally erroneous modern understanding of the doctrines of creation and fall. More deeply, perhaps, there is (as a distinctive of American evangelicalism) a spiritualization of the gospel—a narrow focus on the saving of souls for the next life that disregards Jesus’ holistic message of the redemption of the entire creation through His in-breaking kingdom.

There is great hope though—embodied by folks like those that came together in Texas—that the church is returning to a right understanding of God’s call upon us to care for His creation. I’m excited about the work that A Rocha and others are initiating and by the increasing frequency of discussions within the church of this neglected issue. I am especially heartened by the passion of a younger generation of Christ-followers who seem to innately recognize that to claim to love God while at the same time disrespecting His creation is hypocrisy of the highest order.

Peter Harris will be a pre-conference speaker at the Justice Conference in Philadelphia in February. I also recommend his books, Under the Bright Wings (which recounts the early years of A Rocha in Portugal) and Kingfisher’s Fire, which carries the story of A Rocha to more recent times.

Justice and the Environment

So here's the Vimeo of the presentation I gave on "Justice and the Environment" at the Justice Conference in Portland, Oregon this last February. I had a very interesting and attractive powerpoint presentation showing on the screen behind me, but the cameraman chose to keep the camera on me. Apologies for that.

Rick Gerhardt: “Justice and the Environment – A Worldview Perspective.” from The Justice Conference on Vimeo.

Creation Care Summit

I'm excited about an upcoming gathering in Portland that will bring together Christians committed to following their Lord in His mandates to be good stewards of His creation. It's called the Creation Care Summit, and will take place on Saturday, April 21 at the Tigard (Oregon) campus of George Fox Evangelical Seminary. Here's a blurb from the Summit's webpage...

Wilderness International, Inc. and George Fox Evangelical Seminary are partnering to provide a forum for evangelical Christians interested in environmental stewardship to explore our Biblical call to care for Creation. Come join us for a time of learning, sharing, and encouragement. Hear from local authors, experts and practitioners on the current issues related to the care of God’s creation from a Christian worldview. Network to build partnerships. Visit the resource table area to gain additional information. Find out how you can get involved in existing Creation Care efforts or be inspired to initiate your own!

You can go here to learn more and to register. I'll be there; I hope you'll join us!

Justice Conference

Here's a new promo vimeo for the upcoming (2nd annual) Justice Conference in Portland, Oregon, February 24-25. I'll be speaking at the pre-conference on Friday on the topic "Justice and the Environment: A Worldview Perspective."

What is Justice? from The Justice Conference on Vimeo.

Creation Care and the Christian

(an Earth Day post from a few years back...)

As Christians, we are called to be true environmentalists. That is, the rational link between the Judeo-Christian worldview and the call to care about and for the planet and its component parts is straightforward and clear.

According to the Scriptures, the universe, the planet Earth, and all of its inhabitants were created by God. Psalm 24 begins this way,

The earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein, for he has founded it upon the seas and established it upon the rivers.

Moreover, God gave man (at the very beginning of human history and again later) dominion over the Earth and all of its other inhabitants. This "dominion mandate" is both descriptive and prescriptive. It accurately describes reality. Human beings, with their reasoning (an important aspect of the "image of God" with which they alone of all creatures are endowed by the Creator), do indeed have greater potential and actual impact on the global and local environment than does any other species. The biblical understanding is that this impact can be for good as well as for harm. (By contrast, some of today's most zealous environmentalists see the effect of humans on our planet as only harmful; they deny our potential for being good stewards or carrying out beneficial husbandry.)

The prescriptive aspect of the dominion mandate says that not only do humans have dominion over the planet but that they should take that dominion seriously. We are expected--and accountable to our Creator--to be good stewards of all that He has created.

While the Bible does not teach extensively on this issue (and is largely silent on the how of good stewardship), we can be certain that followers of the one true God are called by Him to care for the creation with which he has blessed us. And while being Christian does not automatically give one any expertise in environmental science, it nonetheless behooves us to be salt (a preserving influence) in our generation with regard to creation care. This means (among other things) being responsible with our individual and local resources (indeed, I would argue that we should be on the forefront of such responsibility) as well as educating ourselves so that we might offer and support reasonable, well-founded solutions to more widespread environmental issues.

There are at least three reasons that Christians need to be better (than we have been in recent generations) at creation care. The first is simply that we are to obey God in all things, and being good stewards is one of those things he has commanded us. Another is for the sake of the environment itself, for the future generations of humans and other creatures that will need its resources. Many of the decisions our generation faces have greater potential for long-term effects on the future livability of our planet than the decisions of any previous generation. (I am not here denying God's sovereignty over such things, but affirming that that sovereignty involves the free will of the humans he created.) Third, our failure to obey the dominion mandate--the fact that Christians have not maintained a position at the forefront of creation-care issues--represents, for many in our generation, a further barrier to their considering the claims of Christianity.

Stewardship of the Earth

Besides being Good Friday on the Christian calendar, April 22nd is Earth Day (and also the birthday of our oldest, Nathan). So here's an appropriate quote written by another Christian thinker, J.R.R. Tolkien.

In The Return of The King, the wizard Gandalf is talking with Denethor, Steward of Gondor, who is despairing in the face of overwhelming odds arrayed against all that he has loved. (Shortly after this dialogue, Denethor takes his own life.)

I take Gandalf's words here to reflect Tolkien's understanding of what every individual is called to--by God--with respect to our care of creation. It certainly expresses my understanding well. Gandalf said...

...the rule of no realm is mine, neither of Gondor nor any other, great or small. But all worthy things that are in peril as the world now stands, these are my care. And for my part, I shall not wholly fail of my task, though Gondor should perish, if anything passes through this night that can still grow fair or bear fruit and flower again in days to come. For I also am a steward.

Political, Not Scientific

I'm up and running on a promised series of posts each of which is a confident and certain statement about the threat of anthropogenic global warming. This confidence and certainty are all the more startling because of my first claim (in yesterday's post), which had to do with the fact that this issue involves a great deal of debate and controversy. It is precisely because there is such a diversity of opinion--even among the appropriate scientists--about human-caused global warming that my claim to be able to make several statements with certainty should be at least provocative.

I'll trust that my first statement passed muster, that no one is really willing to argue logically and evidentially (as by a willingness to hear from every scientist) that no scientist doubts or harbors skepticism about the idea that human-caused warming is occurring at an unprecedented and dangerous rate. My second certain statement is a corollary of the first...

The global warming alarm as cast in the various media is not primarily scientific but political.

This statement likewise seems so obvious as to require little support. The issue became part of our collective awareness through a politician, not through a scientist. The issue is kept before us by politicians and by political journalists. Indeed, the only confusion on this point likely stems from the frequency with which those politicians appeal to science--"all scientists agree that anthropogenic global warming is occurring at a dangerous rate." This claim we know is untrue, and so can see it as a mere ploy, an attempt to disguise a primarily political discussion as a scientific one.

I hope that even those of you who are not scientists can as readily (as those of us who are) see that though scientific evidences ought to ground our conclusions about the validity of anthropogenic global warming, such evidences have become a minimal part of the rhetoric associated with this issue.

No Debate?

I promised to offer half a dozen statements about global warming that I can assert with confidence and certainty. Here’s the first one…

Despite vehement claims to the contrary, there is a good deal of disagreement among scientists in the relevant disciplines as to whether the central claims about anthropogenic global warming are true.

Let’s unpack this a bit. The central claims of the global warming alarmists I take to be… 1) The Earth is warming at an unprecedented and dangerous rate, and 2) the primary cause of this warming is human development and resource use. My purpose in this post is not to address (at least directly) whether these two statements are true or not. I’m not an expert in meteorology, climatology, paleo-climatology, or the like. Both statements may be true, or both may be basically false. The first might be true and the second one false. Each may be partly true and partly false. But while I won’t tell you what to conclude about the veracity of these twin statements, I can tell you a good deal about how such claims should be supported.

These statements are truth claims, statements purported to describe the way things are. Moreover, because they deal with atmospheric, planetary, and solar physics and chemistry, they would rightly be considered scientific truth claims. Now, the credibility of such claims should rest upon evidence and reason. That is, if they are to be believed by reasonable people, the preponderance of the relevant evidence should be such that these conclusions are strongly warranted. If contrary evidence exists, it should be acknowledged appropriately, and good reasons should be given why such evidence does not undercut the conclusion. All of this evidence should be dealt with within a logically sound format. Premises (that deal accurately with the evidence) should be strung together in a sound deductive argument that leads to a sure conclusion or in a strong inductive argument that yields a very high degree of probability.

Is this what we see regarding global warming? No indeed. Instead, very early in the argument, what we are told is,

There is no debate among scientists with regard to anthropogenic global warming.

Really? No, seriously? Is that all you can say?

This happens to be a claim about which I am sufficiently expert to draw a conclusion. It is thoroughly false. There is a heated and vigorous debate among scientists about the truth value of statements 1 and 2. And not only is there wide disagreement about these general claims, there is also deep disagreement about more particular claims. For example, a third claim is that carbon dioxide is a significant and controllable component of this (alleged) human-induced warming. This, too, is very much contested. And this is important because much of the proposed solution (to the problem which may or may not be actual) involves curbing our collective ‘carbon footprint.’ This, in turn, brings us to a fourth claim, that the solution to the problem is ___________ (The Kyoto Protocol or other political legislation).

If you’re tracking with me at all, you probably realize right away that, even among those scientists who generally agree with the other three claims, there is no consensus—but rather wide disagreement—about the correct solution.

We have come to give scientists a much greater level of authority and credence than they (we) deserve. At the same time, we have chosen to abdicate our right to assess a set of scientific evidence and argumentation, choosing instead to allow others to tell us what to think. And far too often, these twin failings have been exploited by those who would sell us a bad bill of goods.

Again, it may very well be that anthropogenic global warming is a real threat. If so, it’s quite problematic that in lieu of a careful treatment of all of the relevant evidence in a sound, reasonable argument, we are—early and vehemently—assured that “all scientists agree…”, an assurance that is easily demonstrated to be false.

Earth Warming

Later this week is the day designated Earth Day. Each year I like to take the opportunity that Earth Day affords to blog a bit about environmentalism. There's at least a couple of reasons for this. For one, Christians have the most reason to care about the Earth, since we recognize it as the Lord's and because God has commanded us to be good stewards of it. Nonetheless, stewardship of the environment is one of those areas in which some of those Christians who take the Bible most seriously are guilty of some of the shoddiest thinking or are guilty of ignoring the issue completely. On the other side, those most concerned about the environment are frequently those who--because of an innacurate worldview (one other than the Judeo-Christian understanding)--are incapable of arriving at right conclusions about either the problems or the solutions on environmental issues.

But this week I thought I'd address the issue that most people get emotional about when the environment is mentioned--global warming. And so my goal will be to offer about a half dozen statements about which I can be very certain with regard to the complex and controversial issue of global warming. I hope you'll read along this week.

Earth Day 09

For Earth Day (yesterday), I didn't dress up like a Siberian Tiger or a Nene (Goose) to take part in a parade. I didn't pay homage to Gaia or talk nonsense about the earth itself as a living thing.

What I did was pretty much what I do most days. I monitored wildlife in order to assess the optimal placement of wind turbines for generating cleaner energy than that upon which we are currently dependent.

Oh, but wait! At this point I also need to point out that I am not worried about anthropogenic global warming (or global climate change). As a reasonably rational being, I easily see through arguments that begin "there is no debate among scientists about..." As a scientist myself, I am well aware of the very intense disagreement among climatologists about whether the climate is changing at a rate and on a scale that should cause concern, as well as about whether what humans do has any significant effect on such things. I also recognize when issues like this one have left the realm of rational discussion in order to serve very specific political purposes. It is only when the solutions proposed are clearly far worse than the perceived problems that I start to get a bit upset. But I've gotten away from what I was saying.

I feel privileged and blessed to be able to--as my way of making a living--study the Earth and its inhabitants and to have a say in the wise stewardship of these things. Yes, I'm an ecologist (one who studies living things and their relationships with other living and non-living things). I'm also an environmentalist, if by that we mean one who feels called to care about the environment, to be conservative rather than wasteful, to be intentional and deliberate about the effects of our actions on the Earth and its inhabitants.

But relative to many who are more outspoken about these issues, I have a cogent and coherent rationale for caring about the environment. I'm a Christian, who recognizes the Earth and all life as the very good creations of a loving, transcendent God. For me, to be uncaring, unthinking, or wasteful when it comes to the creation is to dishonor the Creator.

But where I really part company with many modern environmentalists is with regard to humanity. Where they see people only as environmental problems, I recognize in our species the only hope of solutions. And that's because we are unique among God's creatures in being made in His image, as rational beings capable of caring, and of devising solutions to complex problems.

So, for very good reasons, I try to do my part (and more), and live in daily gratitude for the optimal universe and Earth that Christ designed and for the diverse and marvelous life with which He allows us to share them. In that regard, I spent Earth Day much as I do every day. I've found it's a good way to live.

Lecture on the Environment

Next Sunday evening (January 25th from 7-8:30), Kilns College will be having its spring semester kick-off event at the Kilns Bookstore. As part of that event, I'll be giving a lecture on Christianity and the Environment. It's a timely and relevant issue, of course, and one that (like an outdated lightbulb) seems to generate more heat than light.

I'm an ecologist by training and trade, and have always been somewhat of an environmentalist (the two are not the same thing, though they are often conflated in our day). Though I will undoubtedly offer some suggestions for navigating our way through some of the complexity of modern claims about particular environmental issues, that won't be my main focus. Rather, I hope to examine the biblical grounding for creation care and what that means for followers of Christ in our day and age.

I had the opportunity to hear a lecture just the other night (and also in Bend, Oregon) on the very same topic. At this point, I can only promise you that I will come from and to quite different positions than did that lecturer. I'm really looking forward to it.

"All Scientists Agree..."

My regular readers will realize that I care about the environment, that I see care for the creation as a part of God's unrescinded "dominion mandate" and something in which Christians ought to be leading the way.

That said, I've never bought into the anthropogenic global warming scare. There are several reasons for this. They include (but are not limited to) the fact that the issue has been so hijacked for political purposes, the recognition that the alarmists tend to ignore the incredible design of the atmosphere (and the existence of the Designer), the existence of a wealth of contrary evidence, and others. But perhaps the most obvious reason for my skepticism about such claims is that the so-called argument takes a form that is fallacious and untrue, and one that is increasingly used (in this issue and others) in lieu of good evidence and reason. I'm thinking here of the claim

All scientists agree that...

or

There is no disagreement among scientists about...

You may right away recall at least one other issue where this claim is made, and that is with regard to evolution. Of course, anybody that's been paying attention at all realizes that there's quite a bit of controversy among scientists as to whether natural selection acting upon random genetic mutations is an adequate explanation for the diversity of life. But the claim--even if it were true--would be irrelevant to whether evolution is true. It's an example of the ad populum fallacy, and is a thinly-veiled attempt to divert attention from the actual evidence itself (which overwhelmingly and increasingly contradicts neo-Darwinism).

And the same problems exist when the claim is made with regard to global warming. Again, the claim is untrue; many experts disagree that man-caused global warming is occurring on a scale that warrants concern. But more importantly, it's fallacious, and what really matters is what the evidence says. And (if you've bought into the global warming hype, here's where you can breathe a sigh of relief), the evidence is all the other way now, and that with a vengeance. The polar ice is back to normal levels (only a year later), and there's no longer any need for you to start considering captive-breeding polar bears. But my favorite news item on the global warming front this week is this, that while British Parliament is putting the finishing touches on a costly and misguided law aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions, London is blanketed by the first October snowfall since 1922.

Global warming alarmists continue to do their best to ignore contrary evidence. Increasingly, it seems that the environment itself seems to want a say in how obvious and abundant such evidence is.

Gandalf on Stewardship

For Earth Day, let me share some words from J.R.R. Tolkien that express my understanding of what we are called to in the area of creation care. This is taken from The Return of the King (I assume it's also in the movie, but I've never seen that), and Gandalf is talking to Denethor, the despairing Steward of Gondor (shortly before the latter, in his hopelessness, takes his own life). Gandalf said...

...the rule of no realm is mine, neither of Gondor nor any other, great or small. But all worthy things that are in peril as the world now stands, these are my care. And for my part, I shall not wholly fail of my task, though Gondor should perish, if anything passes through this night that can still grow fair or bear fruit and flower again in days to come. For I also am a steward.

May you be a good steward today (and every day) of all that with which God has entrusted you!

Green Amorality

In the last post, I suggested that commitment to the Judeo-Christian worldview very logically leads to a keen sense that we are to be good stewards of the environment, of God’s creation. I also alluded to the fact, however, that Christians in our day are not generally noted for their commitment to creation care. In this post, I want to identify some reasonable concerns that Christians have with regard to environmental issues. Specifically, I will mention three different (albeit interrelated) aspects of modern environmentalism that (rightly) give Christians pause.

First, environmentalism as we know it today has largely been co-opted by those with a neo-pagan or pantheistic worldview. This is easily seen around Earth Day, whose most vocal participants openly honor “Mother Earth” or worship Gaia, the earth goddess. Thus, for Christians to join the existing environmental movement would involve closely aligning themselves with people whose religion and worldview are diametrically opposed to their own. (I find overwhelming logical and evidential warrant for concluding that pantheism—in all of its various forms—fails to correspond to the reality of this universe, but that argument will have to wait for another post.)

Similarly, the environmental movement in America has been twisted for political means, to the point that unbiased, reasonable discussions of environmental issues have become all but impossible. At the extreme, the most vocal calls for environmental activism are frequently imbedded in a larger agenda most of which is morally repugnant to Christians—an agenda that includes socialism, radical feminism, abortion activism, and the glorifying of homosexuality. But even where these elements are not involved, political biases all too frequently cloud the environmental discussion beyond hope of rational progress.

Third, the modern environmental movement has a distinctly pro-death (anti-human) aspect to it. For many in this movement, the biggest problem facing the planet is human beings. Most vocal environmentalists support abortion and euthanasia, and some (like biologist Eric Pianka) go so far as advocating deliberate reduction of the global human population. Christians are right to want nothing to do with such a culture of death.

For these (and perhaps other) reasons, Christians are acting reasonably and responsibly in not associating with the environmental movement as it currently exists. While the presence (in this movement) of these amoral and anti-Christian elements makes it reasonable for Christians to avoid such alignment, it does not absolve them (us) of the responsibility of either personal or corporate environmental stewardship. If anything, it requires us both to stiffen our resolve to be the very best creation caretakers that we can be and to better understand why good stewardship makes more sense from within a Judeo-Christian worldview than from a pantheistic or atheistic perspective.




(This post originally appeared on 18 April 2007.)

The Dominion Mandate

(This post originally appeared on 17 April 2007. I repost it here during the run-up to Earth Day 2008.)

As Christians, we are called to be true environmentalists. That is, the rational link between the Judeo-Christian worldview and the call to care about and for the planet and its component parts is straightforward and clear.

According to the Scriptures, the universe, the planet Earth, and all of its inhabitants were created by God. Psalm 24 begins this way,

The earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein, for he has founded it upon the seas and established it upon the rivers.

Moreover, God gave man (at the very beginning of human history and again later) dominion over the Earth and all of its other inhabitants. This "dominion mandate" is both descriptive and prescriptive. It accurately describes reality. Human beings, with their reasoning (an important aspect of the "image of God" with which they alone of all creatures are endowed by the Creator), do indeed have greater potential and actual impact on the global and local environment than does any other species. The biblical understanding is that this impact can be for good as well as for harm. (By contrast, some of today's most zealous environmentalists see the effect of humans on our planet as only harmful; they deny our potential for being good stewards or carrying out beneficial husbandry.)

The prescriptive aspect of the dominion mandate says that not only do humans have dominion over the planet but that they should take that dominion seriously. We are expected--and accountable to our Creator--to be good stewards of all that he has created.

While the Bible does not teach extensively on this issue (and is largely silent on the how of good stewardship), we can be certain that followers of the one true God are called by him to care for the creation with which he has blessed us. And while being Christian does not automatically give one any expertise in environmental science, it nonetheless behooves us to be salt (a preserving influence) in our generation with regard to creation care. This means (among other things) being responsible with our individual and local resources (indeed, I would argue that we should be on the forefront of such responsibility) as well as educating ourselves so that we might offer and support reasonable, well-founded solutions to more widespread environmental issues.

There are at least three reasons that Christians need to be better (than we have been in recent generations) at creation care. The first is simply that we are to obey God in all things, and being good stewards is one of those things he has commanded us. Another is for the sake of the environment itself, for the future generations of humans and other creatures that will need its resources. Many of the decisions our generation faces have greater potential for long-term effects on the future livability of our planet than the decisions of any previous generation. (I am not here denying God's sovereignty over such things, but affirming that that sovereignty involves the free will of the humans he created.) Third, our failure to obey the dominion mandate--the fact that Christians have not maintained a position at the forefront of creation-care issues--represents, for many in our generation, a further barrier to their considering the claims of Christianity.

Updates

Just a few items of business, family news and such...

Nathan, our eldest (at 16) is currently in Pucallpa, Peru, playing soccer with the Southern California Seahorses. This is well inland--in the Amazon Basin--and was unaffected by the earthquake off the coast today (which was felt in Lima). My nephew, Ben, by the way, is in England with his soccer team (Wittenburg University, for whom he tends goal), getting in a few preseason games and seeing the sights.

Jasper and I are climbing Mt. Adams tomorrow and Friday (but I'll try to write another post before we leave).

You may have missed this last item, since it didn't receive much fanfare (for purely political reasons). Turns out, the annual temperature data upon which was based Al Gore's book and the resulting global warming hysteria has been corrected, and those years from the 1990's and from this millenium are not the record setters they were thought to be. Steve McIntyre of Toronto discovered the flaw in NASA's calculations, and they have since corrected the data. But by now, entire political platforms have been founded upon the premise that we're facing runaway warming. For more on this, go here. This is a must read if you get excited (or have friends who get excited) about global warming. (I have a suggestion for the title of Gore's next book--from Gilda Radner's old SNL character, RoseAnn Roseannadana--"Nevermind.")

Church and Restoration

Yesterday, my pastor, Ken Wytsma, directed us to the descriptions (in Acts 2, Galatians, and other places) of the early churches. Unlike many modern Christians, his point was not that these early churches are a perfect model for us to follow. Indeed, his minor thesis was that even the very first followers of Christ--the very first examples of local bodies of Christ--were imperfect (their specific flaws included such things as incest and legalism). Thus it is invalid to say that because the modern local church is flawed, we have no reason to associate with it. (Pastor Ken's major thesis was that the local church is God's Plan A for followers of Christ and that God has no Plan B.)

But since many well-meaning Christians do tend to cite the early churches as an ideal toward which we ought to strive, I thought I'd interact with this idea a bit more. And to do that, I want to start with an analogy.

I once took an entire course (at the graduate level) in Restoration Ecology. We studied all sorts of ecosystems--streams, marshes, sand dunes, forests, islands, and such--and how to restore them to a particular (ideal) health. Now, my intent here is not to disparage such efforts or the people involved in them, and so I need to point out that much good work is needed--and is being done--in this broad area. But the problem is that most of the systems at issue are dynamic systems, ones that, in the natural course of events would not remain static but would change (in some cases never to return to the previous state again). In the normal course of things, a pond becomes a bog or marsh, which in turn fills in to become a meadow, which eventually becomes a forest. Systems may linger longer in a certain state, but change is inevitable--naturally. Thus, whenever we select a particular stage (of a stream or forest system, e.g.,) and try to restore the system to that stage, we are choosing a mere snapshot of what is naturally a motion picture. Maintaining any system at a particular stage is thus working against nature, and will require constant expense (of time, money, and energy). In my opinion, the best such efforts are those that focus on correcting easily-identified prior human mistakes (eradicating exotic predators like snakes and mongooses from island systems where they were wrongly introduced, fencing cattle out of riparian areas, eliminating the use of DDT are some positive examples).

In like manner, the local church--and even the more comprehensive (but elusive) church universal--is a dynamic system. There are certainly principles to be learned from reading about the New Testament churches, and some of those principles have to do (as Ken pointed out) with how to deal with the messiness within those local churches. But the fact is that no church throughout history has been called to be exactly what our local church in Bend, Oregon in this generation is called by God to be. We will face some of the same issues that others have faced, and we will face new problems. We will be given opportunities that others have been given, but we will also have different and novel opportunities presented us.

If I'm right, it would not only be wrong to try to replicate the church of Acts 2; it would likewise be wrong to try to replicate any particular church with which we are familiar from our own past. We should follow Scripture and the leading of the Holy Spirit, while remaining somewhat skeptical of things done only for tradition's sake.

We are responsible before God for how well we align ourselves with what He is doing in this unique generation--and that both locally, in Central Oregon, and around the world ("Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the Earth"). May we not miss our calling to be involved in God's dynamic plan by focusing too intently on a particular past snapshot of it.

Environmental Justification

I began the week by arguing that the Judeo-Christian worldview provides excellent justification for being environmentally conscious, for caring about and for the planet and its inhabitants. Now let me make explicit that I find no such warrant—no rational basis for environmentalism—in the paradigm of Darwinian naturalism.

I’m not here asking which worldview fits the evidence better. On that question the Judeo-Christian worldview wins in a walkover. Virtually all of what we know (empirically) about the universe coheres with the biblical portrayal and remains completely unexplained by Darwinian naturalism. I’m talking about such (seemingly important) things as the existence (and beginning) of the universe, its order, its design for life, the existence (and origin) of life, the presence (in life) of irreducibly-complex things (molecular motors and such) and of information (in the genetic code), and the presence in humans of consciousness and morality.

But for the sake of argument, in today’s post let’s pretend that Darwinian naturalism doesn’t have all of these evidential problems, that it is somehow equal to Christianity in terms of its explanatory scope and power. My point here is that it provides no rational foundation for caring for the environment.

If survival of the fittest is the overarching rule governing the diversity of life on this planet, then why would it matter that other—less fit—species are eliminated by the activities of human beings? Granted, the evolutionist might respond that our own survival might be dependent (in ways we don’t yet appreciate) on the existence of those other species, by maintaining as robust and diverse an ecology as possible. While I wholeheartedly agree with this particular statement, the assertion of it by the evolutionist is logically inconsistent and points out a more basic problem with his worldview.

If Darwinian naturalism is true, there is no such thing as purpose or ultimate morality. And yet any attempt to argue for care of the environment is laden with moral language (“everyone ought to recycle”) and ideas about value that are borrowed from a theistic worldview and which have no logical place in a worldview centered on Darwinism. Even to take a minimalist (selfish) tack and say that I care for the environment for the sake of my own children and grandchildren (that I might succeed in passing on my own genes) is ultimately a value idea that has no rational justification in the worldview of a Darwinian naturalist.

I happen to believe very strongly that we ought to care a great deal about and for our environment and the other life with which we share it. And I have excellent reasons for this conviction (including the reason that it is the substance of the very first command given us by our Creator). While I’m glad that many non-monotheists will take time this weekend to reflect on (and perhaps make personal resolutions about) creation care, I find in their worldview no logical justification for their participation in Earth Day.

End Times Indifference

Having identified some valid reasons that Christians have for eschewing the environmental movement, I feel the need to mention an area in which some Christians--through less sound reasoning--tend to abdicate their God-mandated role in creation care. The subject of this post then is the area of eschatology--one's view of the end times.

Ever since Jesus ascended to heaven following his resurrection, his disciples have recognized that they live in the "last days," that this age of the world will end with the parousia--his second coming. The reason that Christians have universally believed in this parousia is that it is taught by nearly all the New Testament writers (e.g., Paul in I Thess. 4:15-17 and II Thess. 1:8, Peter in II Pet. 1:16 and 3:10, John in I John 2:28, James in James 5:7-8, and Jude in Jude 14) as well as by Jesus himself (as in Mt. 16:27 and Lk 22:27). Christians everywhere and throughout church history have acknowledged both the fact and the imminence of the promised return of Christ.

Besides articulating the fact of a second coming of Christ and the end of this age, the Bible identifies signs that will precede this great event. These include evangelism of the world, a conversion of Jews, a period of apostasy (in which many will fall away from the faith), an increase in wars, famines, and earthquakes, and a great persecution of the faithful.

With these signs in mind, many 19th-, 20th-, and 21st-century Christians (as well as many cultists) have convinced themselves that they were (are) living in the very last days, and that Christ is coming again in their lifetime. In our day, the most dogmatic in this belief hold to a relatively recent interpretation of Bible prophecy known as dispensationalism. This interpretation, credited to the Plymouth Brethren J.N. Darby (ca. 1830), was popularized by the Scofield Study Bible and much more recently by the Left Behind series of fictional apocalyptic novels and movies. This particular interpretation has been held by only a minority of Christians during a very small portion of the church age. Nonetheless, its modern adherents point to the reestablishment of Israel as a nation, to current unrest in the Middle East, to the moral decline of Western culture, and to other factors in order to assure themselves that "this is it!"

Such end-time beliefs are pertinent to our discussion of our responsibility to be good stewards of God's creation. To the degree that Christians are certain that ours is among the very last generation, stewardship of the earth becomes an unnecessary consideration. Why should I worry about future generations when I know that this is the last?

Let me be perfectly clear here. This view is not the prevailing one even today within Christendom. Nonetheless, there is a significant segment of the church in America where this idea is accepted uncritically. Again, no one (to my knowledge) is articulating (preaching or writing) that we should not care about the environment because we know ours is the last generation. But I and many others have encountered this eschatological certainty and its accompanying environmental indifference in many conservative, fundamentalist circles.

My purpose here is not to critique dispensationalism per se. Rather, I mean to argue against such certainty (and its practical consequences) by a common sense appeal to what history teaches us and by reference to explicit Scriptures warning against such certainty.

First, it is clear that the prophecies concerning the end times--like many biblical prophecies--involve multiple fulfillments. Thus even Jesus' own longest treatment of the end of the age (the "Olivet Discourse" of Mt. 24) applies both to events that occurred during that generation (the seige of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple by Rome in A.D. 70) and to yet-future events. Indeed, most Christians will acknowledge that the entire church age has been characterized by the "signs" of the last days (and of persecution in particular), though most also anticipate an increase in such things before the end.

For this reason, generations throughout the church age have believed--and many have had plenty of reason to believe--that they lived in the very last days. Even the Apostle Paul seems to have expected the parousia to occur during his lifetime. Certainly Christians who witnessed the (aforementioned) seige of Jerusalem could be excused for thinking they were witnessing the end of the world. In like manner, the Europeans of the fourth and fifth centuries saw the entire civilized world overrun by barbarians. Again in the ninth and tenth centuries, Christendom was largely obliterated by Vikings, Maygars, and Muslims. In each case--and by God's providence--his people stood fast and endured these overwhelming onslaughts, and eventually rebuilt, recivilized and re-evangelized the world that had so drastically changed for the worse in their respective lifetimes. I submit that many who endured the Nazi regime and witnessed the Holocaust were likewise tempted to believe that things couldn't get any worse and that surely the end had come.

The lesson from history, then, would seem to be that we are unable to say with certainty when the sovereign Creator will choose to put an end to this stage of history. Moreover (lo and behold!), one of the most explicit teachings of Scripture on this subject is just that--that we cannot know the timing of the second coming. After discussing the signs of those last days, Jesus says (as recorded in Mark 13:32),

But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

One of the very last things Jesus is recorded as saying before his ascension is "It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority." Paul assures the believers at Thessalonica that they did not need to know the exact time of the second coming (I Thess. 5:1-2), while Peter indicates that it is God's patience that causes the parousia to be delayed (II Pet. 3:9).

Scripture teaches that Christ's followers are to await with hope and longing his return and the culmination of his purposes for this creation. But over against that are the many expectations that we are to be found at our posts, going about the business to which we are called. The central message of Jesus' earthly ministry was not heaven, a future millenial reign, or even eternity. Rather, it was that his first advent--the incarnation--ushered in the kingdom of God there and then. We already live within the kingdom of God and, until he tells us otherwise, we are to be salt and light in this world. This means making disciples--helping others into that already-present kingdom--but it also means fulfilling the even older directives to be good stewards of the creation in which God has placed us. In the Lord's own words (Lk. 12:42-48),

Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom his master will set over his household...? Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions... Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.