Printable View
Hi All! Great idea, this board.
An interesting article from Relevant Magazine about how people view the environment. As an employee for the National Park Service, I am all to aware of God's hand being at work in everything around me--I see it every day!
Thoughts on the Article?
Here is my initial thought.
Man is the only example of God's creation that is fully aware of, and therefore responsible for his actions. Nature without man seems to get along quite nicely. When man is introduced, things can very easily get disrupted and thrown way out of balance. This is the effect of sinful man on a fallen world.
We are commanded to be good stewards of God's creation. While we may not be able to improve on nature, we can use it in more responsible and sympathetic ways. We can try to minimize our disruption and find ways to better co-exist with the rest of creation.
[img]graemlins/idea.gif[/img] This just came to me-- Joe, is it not possible that the waste and misuse of land that you deal with is a manifestation of the total depravity of man? (If it weren't so late I might have tried to work in all of TULIP into this particular discussion [img]graemlins/rose.gif[/img] ) I'm sure you have shed your blood in the difficult task of trying to clean up these areas.
Isn't there a correlation between God as creator and sustainer of the universe and man as caretaker and maintainer of this earth? God is ultimately going to restore the world to it's pre-fallen state. While man can't offer nature a complete redemption, he can do his part towards bringing back and maintaining a natural balance. Somewhere this has to act as an example of the redemptive power of salvation as well as the restoration of paradise on earth.
my dear friend joshua, i certainly agree that there is a definite corralation between God's rule of creation and man's rule as God's "vice-regents" indeed romans 8 says creation groans to be liberated into the freedom under the children of God. Man sucks and his suckiness brought destruction to God's creation. but also i think there is not just "negative" revelation to be seen in creation. Romans 1 says all men have seen God's invisible qualities his eternal power and divine nature, this include much more than his wrath and judgement. his wrath and judgement come because(or to use the NIV word "since")men have rejected the revelation of God in nature, it is not saving by any means, but it is enough to make man accountable for not glorifing God when they knew better. Paul uses powerful words here, through creation, men know God. so i think is could be safe to say Christians of all people should care for the environment it is commanded to us in Genesis and it reveals our creator. so in honor of creation and to know my creator better i think i'll go to the beach.
A few preliminary thoughts:
"According to Paul, God can reveal Himself to us through His creation."
That's not exactly what Paul meant. At least it's not the whole story. While agreeing that God is revealed in his creation, Paul certainly would never say that we can know God in any kind of saving way simply by observing creation. Paul appeals to God's revelation in nature as a damning revelation: the wicked know God, yet they revolt against Him. That is, they know enough to be guilty. The revelation in nature - like the revelation of the Law - can only condemn us, it can never lead us to repentance, nor restoration with God.
So the reasoning that as species become extinct, we will know less about God doesn't really hold up.
I thought a lot about creation in my 2+ years as a meter reader, especially the Romans 8 verse that says all creation groans, awaiting the revelation of the sons (children) of God. Man has been placed here as a testimony of what God is like to the rest of creation. We are the image bearers, the lords (little "l") of this planet, the image of the true Lord of all creation. I would think about this as I walked from house to house, and squirrels and birds would scatter, some dogs would bark angrily, others would bark cheerfully. I prayed that I would be a worthy image-bearer to the creation around me.
A note on the groaning: remember that creation was placed under the curse just as Adam and Eve were. The groaning is not necessarily "Mother Nature crying because her oceans are polluted," but rather a groaning under the death and disease, the predation, the pain in birth, and the toil which are all a part of the curse God proclaimed on creation. Pollution and resource waste probably fall under some other category, not the Romans 8 one.
Eventually I do agree with the author of that piece, though, in that man has been a bad steward. I'm an "environmenal technician," and as I go to our various worksites and bail 10 year old, rotting jet fuel from groundwater monitoring wells, I get a little sick. That's not just the toxic vapors, either (though they do deliver quite the headache!). This isn't good stewardship.
"Nature without man seems to get along quite nicely."
Hm. That makes me wonder, though, if "nature" (as I understand you, all of creation except humans) can fulfill its purpose without a steward. "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth" (Gen. 1:28 NASB). It seems that God intended for the rest of creation to be under our authority.
God definitely retains a "veto" as it were, as in His long "Were you there?" message to Job (Job chs. 38-41, some of the most beautiful poetry in the Bible for my money). "Were you there when I laid the foundations?... Have you ever in your life commanded the morning, and caused the dawn to know its place?" So while God remains the ultimate Sovereign over his creation, and "in Him we live and move and have our being," still likewise I think that nature was designed to need a steward. I think God likes gardens as much as wilderness.
I don't know a *whole* lot about the specifics of the doctrine of Total Depravity. I think it has more to do with our inability (and the correlating unwillingness) to muster any goodness in ourselves in terms of saving righteousness. But yeah, the ecological raping of the rest of creation (not to mention ourselves) is a manifestation of our rejection of our role as benevolent stewards and Divine-image-bearers. Rob said, "Man sucks and his suckiness brought destruction to God's creation." I think that kinda blurs the line that I think should be kept distinct: there is the Curse, which God proclaimed as a result of Adam's sin, and there is the ongoing havoc wreaked by sinful men.
"Isn't there a correlation between God as creator and sustainer of the universe and man as caretaker and maintainer of this earth?"
I see the correlation too, and I think you're right: God expects his redeemed people to, by grace, live up to our calling as stewards, and also to be prophetic to the unredeemed world around us, that God will hold all men accountable for how they have and have not fulfilled their designed roles as "vice-regents" (good word, Rob). This also applies to those who think it is our job to serve the rest of creation (e.g., ALF, ELF, Greenpeace, etc.).
But like you said, we can't reverse the curse.
Hm. I wonder if a measure of man's authority over nature was recinded at the Fall? As shown in "toil," nature became hostile to man's rule. Yet some measure of authority remains, as seen in the domestication of certain plants and animals. Now there's wild conjecture for ya.
I love this verse of the Christmas song "Joy to the World": "No more let sin and sorrow grow / Nor thorns infest the ground / He comes to make His blessings known / Far as the Curse is found."
Francis Schaeffer wrote about Christian environmentalism. There's a copy of his book at a local used bookstore. I'll try to grab it. But as far as Christians ignoring ecological concerns, I think the Christian silence has a lot to do with not wanting to "sound like a liberal" on the matter.
Rob,
About "negative" revelation: Don't you think, though, that ultimately, even an unbeliever's appreciation for what we call "creation" will be even further evidence against him at the final judgement?
Also, I thought of this C.S. Lewis quote:
"If we used [the universe] as our only clue [to God's existence], then I think we should have to conclude that He was a great artist (for the universe is a very beautiful place), but also that He is quite merciless and no friend to man (for the universe is a very dangerous and terrifying place)." MERE CHRISTIANITY ch. 5 paragraph 3.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ May 25, 2004 02:48 PM: Message edited by: Chasing Sophia ]</font>
I thought so!! Am I wrong that this issue seems to have been greatly ignored in contemporary Christiandom? Except for a few Norwegians, I do not remember this topic being discussed very often while getting my Bible degree. Maybe I am just not seeing it.
We can be thankful that Greenpeace and other ecological movements have picked up the slack.
"Nature without man seems to get along quite nicely."
I've been having reservations about this statment ever since I posted it, but I am unsure as to how to articulate it at the moment.
***************
Although I feel otherwise, for the purpose of my discussion "Nature" is that which is outside of man's influence. It is also not my intention to make a Nature=Good/Man=Bad statement. Both are fallen.
I have been trying to think of ways that man has possibly "improved" upon nature. This has been difficult. Natural selection seems to be pretty effective at making sure the best individuals surivive in the given habitat, as well as reducing the spread of diseases and genetic mutations.
Man is able to exhist outside of natural selection. We have developed therapies and medications which allows those to survive and reproduce who in the past would not have done so. We have devised more efficient ways of food production through breeding and genetic engineering. All these appear to be ways that we have been able to subdue the earth. Many humans do live longer and many do live more leisurely lives than we had in the past. While there are signifcant real benefits to what we have accomplished, some of the drawbacks have been pretty serious and unexpected "Mother Nature" often comes back to bite us. Hence the growing popularity of all things organic and natural.
Nature continues to be hostile to man's rule. Just as man is continually hostile to God's rule. The slave is hostile towards his master.
The difference between the two is that God's rule is perfect. Our rule will always be flawed. Therefore, when the comissioned but fallen man rules over the fallen creation some unexpected results are going to develop.
Given that situation, and please correct my many suppositions, are we not better off when our actions are more sympathetic to what is still intact of God's natural order? Are we possibly the most successful in our managment when our result mirrors a pre-fallen state of affairs?
when i first saw this topic my first thought was of Aussie as well. i think this topic is ignored at places like northwestern and most evangelicalism for the same reasons other topics such as social action and justice and poverty are ignored, which is because they have been taken up by more liberal churches. it is sad when biblical issues are ignored to avoid associating with others. oh, and joe i can't take credit for 'vice-regents' that is rick gamble's word and i also didn't mean to completely discredit 'negetive' revealtion, but to balance it, support it, with positive revelation, both of which i believe are scriptural.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What is the pre-fallen state of affairs?Quote:
are we not better off when our actions are more sympathetic to what is still intact of God's natural order? Are we possibly the most successful in our managment when our result mirrors a pre-fallen state of affairs?
I read an interesting article several years ago entitled, "The Myth of the Ecologically Invisible Native American." For some reason that came to mind today. The title pretty much says it all, that the author was contending that even those who are hailed by environmentalists as the most "at one" with nature or the most reverent toward nature weren't "ecologically invisible." When you go to the Boundary Waters, the montra is "Leave No Trace." It's not possible.
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.
"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>
"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.
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.Quote:
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.
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>
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.
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.
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.
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>
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!
I always enjoy a good piece of speculation.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ June 10, 2004 05:36 PM: Message edited by: JJVW ]</font>
Hehe. "Land speculation." Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Not only do I think we would have invented cars in pre-Fallen Earth, but I also think that in New Earth, our cars will go faster, burn cleaner (if at all), tow more weight, and the seats will tilt back just a little more. Rick, you might remember pastor Randy's sermon (well, maybe you don't - it must've been over six years ago now) on "Heaven." The thing that stuck with me was when he said that if I wanted to climb Pike's Peak in New Earth, I would climb Pike's Peak.
I think God's original intentions for Earth will someday be fulfilled when His redeemed people become the stewards they were always meant to be, when He makes all things new.
In the meantime, I still have to go to the YMCA every morning to keep from getting fat(ter).
Groan.
Surf with God,
Joe
P.S. Hi Mrs. Gorky. Is your Jimbot in good working order?
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ June 14, 2004 10:49 PM: Message edited by: Chasing Sophia ]</font>
Oh, and about sinless people traveling on the weekends:
Remember that the original weekend was just one day. It's those damn labor unions that went and got us the five day work week. What a bunch of communists.
A good capitalist will take advantage of all the free things a good communist throws out to the masses.
ROADTRIP!!
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ June 16, 2004 03:20 PM: Message edited by: JJVW ]</font>
This is called a bump.
It's performed so that the discussion doesn't fall off the bottom of the screen.
Thank you, goodnight.
[img]graemlins/smarty.gif[/img]