Environmentalism & the Church

[Rrose Selavy]

One of my fellow classmates, who is becoming increasingly known for his fits of rage, is a die-hard enviromentalist. He might not go as far as to say it is all our duty to commit suicide for the earth's sake, but he took great exception when I made the statement that everything humans do is as natural as a bird's nest. This includes Manhatten and replacement hips. Humans are a part of nature. Everything we do is natural.

So why is it that beavers get off Scott free when they build a dam where ever they feel like it, but Wally can't go around damming up any river he feels like damming? I think it might have something to do our self-awareness and our knowledge of right and wrong, and of good and evil.

The beaver will never know that its new dam has just wiped out the local turnip population. We, on the other hand, know that our actions might severely disrupt an area's pre-exhisting conditions. It is this awareness that makes us responsible for the enviroment, and it is this awareness that separates the "natural" from the manmade.

"A pre-fallen state of affairs" is based purely on theory and conjucture. We understand from the bible that there was no death, all life had a vegetarian diet, God took walks on earth, and mankind was naked. Obviously we can't go back, but I am curious as to how we would have built things if we had lasted longer in this pure state. How would have these things worked with their surroundings? How would have our differing desires affected what we produced?

It may optimistic, but I would like to think that even now, by God's grace, man would be able to build, construct, or manage something close to that which might have been able to exhist in the Garden. These moments would be fleeting as well as few and far between. Would we even be able to recognize it when/if it happened?

I think of some of the new eco-friendly architecture coming out of Europe the last several years where office buildings have vast sections of space devoted to plant life. These areas are used as part of the air filtration systems and they give the people a nice place to have lunch. The thought is that these types of buildings create happier, healthier working enviroments. This type of thinking seems to be a better blending of manmade with the "natural" than the hard divisions between the two that have been made in the past.

[chasingsophia]

"Bird's nest." Wow. Yeah.

Hehe. "Wally."

Regarding the turnips: I agree that our decisions must be weighed carefully, with the full consequences of our actions understood before -- and I'm going to use a word here that betrays my opinion -- cultivating the natural environment. Yet building a dam to produce electricity, or to keep a town from being flooded out every five years, even though the vegetation will be adversely affected, may indeed be responsible stewardship. We've been given the charge to be stewards, and that includes the responsibility to weigh the pros and cons of every decision. Creative minds should work diligently to come up with creative solutions to such problems, solutions which might allow natural vegetation to coexist with hydroelectric dams, but I think that even in the pre-Fall creation, such solutions weren't always possible.

Because even a vegetarian needs the death of some other organism in order to live.

Maybe I don't have a big enough imagination to see a creation in which there is no need for such decisions to be made.

I want to work in one of those European offices.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ May 30, 2004 11:53 PM: Message edited by: Chasing Sophia ]</font>

[Rrose Selavy]

"Maybe I don't have a big enough imagination to see a creation in which there is no need for such decisions to be made."

This is one of my many questions I hope to have answered at a future time. As a concept it seems like it could be possible. Logically I can't make it work.

"Because even a vegetarian needs the death of some other organism in order to live. "

This is why I get irritated by the few vegetarian/vegans out there who get on their moral high horse about how pacifistic their eating habits are. A plant still had to die for your nourishment, Granola Monkey!! One can go even further.

I haven't met one yet, but there is a class of ?ber-Vegan out there that will only eat fruit that has fallen off of a tree or berry bush--plant matter that is intended by the plant entity to be consumed by animals for the purposes of seed dispersal. Is this what Adam and Eve and the wolves were? It solves the problem of death for food in Eden. I find this particular lifestyle choice to be a little on the X-treme side, but impressive nonetheless. It would be difficult to maintain for a long period of time.

[Rrose Selavy]

Regarding dam building and moraly responsible architecture and engineering:

I think we can say that a dam that allows for salmon and other aquatic life to travel the river is superior that one that does not.

Not allowing farmers to irrigate their fields because it might threaten some fish's habitat is ridiculous.

In a cost/benefit analysis, I do believe that humanity's well being usually outweighs an animal's.

[derwen]

Originally posted by JJVW:
Regarding dam building and moraly responsible architecture and engineering:

I think we can say that a dam that allows for salmon and other aquatic life to travel the river is superior that one that does not.

Not allowing farmers to irrigate their fields because it might threaten some fish's habitat is ridiculous.

In a cost/benefit analysis, I do believe that humanity's well being usually outweighs an animal's.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree overall, but some additional comments.

When living in Missouri, I've heard all about the endangered species along the Missouri River because are occuring because of damming the river upstream. Since the river is channelized and much more narrow than it used to be, these animals (two birds and a fish) don't have anywhere to live, because they like the shallows.

Now, I agree that animals should not be superior to humans in this regard, I think we should try to protect what we can. Just because the Missouri River bottoms have fertile soil doesn't mean they are intended for farming. When the river was undammed and unchanneled, it meandered all over the place, and flooded more often.

But now that we've dammed and leveed the river to keep it where we want it, when floods do occur, they're much more violent and damaging than they would be if we'd let the river do what it wants. It's pretty hard for man to "control" nature the way we try to control a river.

What does this have to do with religion, you ask? Not much, I suppose, but I thought I'd share my opinion. [img]biggrin.gif[/img]

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ May 31, 2004 12:55 PM: Message edited by: derwen ]</font>

[chasingsophia]

A few somewhat-related thoughts:

I was talking with my boss last week about the various floodplains around the KC area (North Kansas City is on one such floodplain). We talked about the "100 Year Flood" idea, how engineers and city planners create plans based on the 100 Year Flood data. He pointed out that those figures are based on data which is at best 75-100 years old, long before most of the land in the area was developed, before streets and sewer systems were built which deliver runoff almost immediately to streams and rivers, before massive landscaping changes, etc.

I also just came back from a groundwater sampling event outside of Des Moines on the Des Moines River. There's a fuel and crude oil pipeline terminal there, with a long history of "product releases" (a.k.a., "spills"). We seem to have been able to curtail the contamination of the River using a series of remediation trenches and soil-vapor-extraction systems (it's all over my head, so don't ask me to explain any more [img]tongue.gif[/img] ). It's not the "Better Living Through Technology!" that the Carousel of Progress at Disneyworld promised, but it was cool to see some good being done all the same.

[iamang77]

I don't have the brainpower for any intelligent replies tonight. Maybe sometime later, but too much is going on in my life right now (deaths, births, career changes, home changes, etc.) for me to expend any additional mental energy. But, I just wanted to say I'm enjoying the discussion...

...and a big hello to all of you from Mrs. Gork.

[rick1162]

As an environmentalist-Christian (no, that's not an oxymoron ) [img]smile.gif[/img] who has worked in this area for over 14 years, I felt compelled to comment on the this article and all your wonderful subsequent posts.

Firstly, I disagree with the article writer that only "nature" can reveal the General Revelation of God; a fine painting, a beautiful piece of music, etc., while all enjoyed subjectively, can still (should) evoke a gratitude to the Creator for the tremendous talents he has blessed Mankind with (the Denver airport not withstanding). We will all be held accountable one day for the talent He has given us. So don't bury them.

Secondly, God's general revelation will always find a way to manifest itself, no matter how messed up we make our planet (just look straight up on a clear night for an example). This does not give us license to pollute; just wanted to point out that God is sovereign is all the affairs of Men, even though we like to think we are in control of our environment. Nature, by it's very design, is extremely resiliant and functions in the long-term view, while we humans are pretty much a vaporous short-term entity.

Thirdly, (and this was alluded to in some posts), Man is every bit a part of creation as that large rock or that mountain meadow. We are a part of the web of life, as well as uniquely transcending it with our God-given intellect and soul, and the Biblical mandate to steward the property of the Great Real Estate Owner/Creator until He returns.

I think the concept that many of you are trying to articulate as it relates to environmental stewardship is one know as "Sustainable Communities" or "Sustainable Development". This is simply defined as being able to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This, I believe, is the essence of Christian Environmental Stewardship. There is a great deal of wisdom needed on our part to make this concept work, as well as prayer. Just by existing, we impact our planet and there is no escaping that. It's all in HOW we impact this ecosphere in relation to the other human souls who inhabit this blue orb that makes living out our Christian walk even more exciting and challenging.

Have we fallen down on this issue as the Church Universal? Yes. Can we repent and go and sin no more? Yes, by the grace of God! Can we be Christians who steward our earth without falling into the catagory of "environmental whackos"?

Yep, we can.

[Rrose Selavy]

Just a little musing I'd like to throw out...

God designed us with a creative mind. So then, in a perfect world where mankind never fell would we still have come up with an automobile-like contraption? I find it hard to believe that sinless humanity wouldn't want to explore distant lands over the weekend.

Welcome aboard, JF!

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ June 10, 2004 01:02 AM: Message edited by: JJVW ]</font>

[rick1162]

JJVW,

I would have to agree. It's pure speculation, but I think we would come up with an automobile in a "pre-fallen" state. Matter of fact, I think it's safe to say that Man's innate creative capacity is a hallmark of the Creator Himself, reflected back into His creation - us.

Thanks for the welcome. As one of Joe's "older" friends (Rick), I really enjoy reading this message board and am thankful for all who profer their wisdom and inquiries here. I pray that I can be an asset to the discussion!