Respect for Planet Earth

[BigRedBus]

Something that is very apparent to me is the extent to which SDA philosophy has often not moved beyond the mid 20th century. One of the ways this manifests itself is our collective attitude towards environmental issues. These issues once tended to be regarded as an irrelevance but they started to enter the public’s consciousness about 30 years ago… and the church simply hasn’t caught up.

Environmental and conservation issues are something you just don’t hear preached in our churches. But take a look at where we are… many natural resources are clearly finite, but we are using them up at an alarming rate. Pollution is changing our ecosystem forever, yet we continue polluting faster than the damage can be reversed.

Given the SDA’s heavy emphasis on creationism, wouldn’t you expect to hear more about this? If you believe that God created our planet (and most SDAs do), surely how you treat it is very relevant. If you believe that the planet has only been lent to your generation, and that you have a responsibility towards keeping it habitable for future generations, surely that attitude ought to be integrating with your religion – it’s hardly incompatible, is it?

Or do we believe that because the Bible doesn’t explicitly mention “green” issues, we need not concentrate on them ourselves?

Or do we believe that it really doesn’t matter, because Jesus is coming soon and that’s going to sort out all the problems we’ve caused?

Or is there some other reason why we are so far behind in our thinking?

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Environmental and conservation issues are something you just don’t hear preached in our churches.

And this is true in non-SDA circles as well. It's interesting to see how the average conservative views such issues.

BFA

 

[StormyOne]

BRB, most christians hang their hat on the idea that the earth is cursed because of sin, and the belief is that when God returns he will recreate the earth after its been cleansed from sin.... so why worry about the condition of the earth when its going to be remade? I think that sums up that position...

 

[BigRedBus]

BRB, most christians hang their hat on the idea that the earth is cursed because of sin, and the belief is that when God returns he will recreate the earth after its been cleansed from sin.... so why worry about the condition of the earth when its going to be remade? I think that sums up that position...

I can see why people might believe this, but it does come across as a selfish irresponsible attitude. And then to blame it on an imperfect world is like blaming a crime on the victim!

I guess these people would have to be utterly convinced that their own dogma is correct, because what they are really saying is that their own certainty about the manner and timing of future events overrides any need to take care of things now. If they are right, all well and good. But if they are wrong, what will their great-grandchildren have to say about it? They are the ones who will be left with the mess.

It all seems counter intuitive to the wider principles of Christianity.

 

[Avonia]

Or is there some other reason why we are so far behind in our thinking?

Humans should be at the forefront of the environmental movement - because Earth is our home. As Senti points out, we are the only species that works hard for our own destruction.

I really appreciate this post BBR, and I think of the environment in the largest sense - everything around us. We also don't honor other resources - like the potential to live healthfully, happily, and peacefully. Heaven truly waits on us - I wonder how long until we decide to do something about it.

I do think there is a tipping point where it's too late to live together well on a planet that can still support us well. If that happens, there will be cataclysmic shifts, and whomever is left will have to learn the lessons previous generations did not - but learn them the hard way. This would be a long, difficult chapter. I'm hoping we don't have to write it.

It is for this reason that Senti works so hard to help people understand the system they are a part of. Without this awareness, we are just doing patchwork.

 

[BigRedBus]

Humans should be at the forefront of the environmental movement - because Earth is our home.

Agreed... a good planet is hard to find, so we'd better take care of the one we've got.

I do think there is a tipping point where it's too late to live together well on a planet that can still support us well. If that happens, there will be cataclysmic shifts, and whomever is left will have to learn the lessons previous generations did not - but learn them the hard way. This would be a long, difficult chapter. I'm hoping we don't have to write it.

...and you don't have to look hard to see the geo-political tremors happening already. It doesn't take much imagination to realise where this could go in the future. There is bound to be fighting over whatever is left.

One day it will all become starkly obvious what's happened and worse still, obvious that there's no way back. The oldest people still living would surely be asked why our generations knew it would come to this but still did so little. The churches would not be in a good position either... they would have to admit they contributed to the problem by allowing religious dogma to take precedence over generic Christian principles.

 

[AzA]

For a contrary perspective, may I invoke George Carlin? I find his segment on the environment to be worth a quarterly review.

After all, it is clear that Earth has no objection to species becoming extinct. We also have no idea whether or not new species are emerging, because we don't know all the species that are here already. Do we imagine that we are Earth's last and best? Would the planet stop thriving without us? I can't imagine why it would. Or why it would be any less God's creation without us than it is now without the dinosaurs or the dodo.

This weekend I read a summary of nearly two decades of research done by a biologist at my university. With others, he has monitored animal activity in the area of Chernobyl over that span of time. In that area, where humans no longer live in large numbers and do not hunt en-masse or destroy foliage for housing or fuel, animals are thriving. Many are, in fact, over-breeding. No doubt nature will eventually balance out these numbers with some new predator or disease. The animals are fine. The plants are fine. The humans don't do well there, and their children need better sources of iodine. (The latter is something we can do something about.)

Carlin suggests a reasonable caution in his segment: that we distinguish between the health of Earth and the health of humankind. Earth doesn't distinguish between a forest and a volcanic wasteland. It's we that distinguish between them. Just as it's we who distinguish between the value of an orca and the value of a human who has "trained" it, between the value of a dog vs a stingbug. Our value judgments aside, there is a difference between working to extend the conditions that are best for our species and claiming to know what is best for the planet overall.

But it also seems obvious (to me) that we can manage our present domain with much greater care than we do. Even though our good is not necessarily the Earth's good, when we behave, that often means peace for everything else that lives here. Our industrial shift changed everything -- and we haven't been the best neighbors since.

There may be some cognitive dissonance here because our theology and much Christian environmentalism remains largely anthropocentric.

 

[BigRedBus]

An interesting take, Aza. Indeed, the planet can survive without mankind much better than mankind could survive without the planet. And so it's the planet holding the real power, not us.

And yes, I have to admit I am mainly concerned over the survival of my own species above any other. But actually, I think one of the best ways for mankind to ensure its own survival is to respect and co-exist with the other species we share the ecosystem with. What's bad for them now will somehow end up being bad for us in the long run.

 

[Avonia]

BRB - this is a really good thread. Thanks for taking it on.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

BRB, most christians hang their hat on the idea that the earth is cursed because of sin, and the belief is that when God returns he will recreate the earth after its been cleansed from sin.... so why worry about the condition of the earth when its going to be remade? I think that sums up that position...

I agree. I do think that the concept that "God will recreate the earth" is a big part of the Christian perspective on environmental issues. It is interesting to me, though, that Christianity may not take this line of reasoning in other areas.

For example, Christianity wouldn't suggest that--because most of us will eventually die anyway--we shouldn't protect unborn life.

Christianity wouldn't suggest that--because sin is inevitable--we should just enjoy it and let God sort it all out in the end.

It is fascinating to ask questions and explore people's thoughts and to learn more about why people think the way that we do. I am realizing that all of us (in varying degrees) reach conclusions that are based in part on something that is true and in part on justifying the reality we prefer.

BFA

 

[AzA]

I think one of the best ways for mankind to ensure its own survival is to respect and co-exist with the other species we share the ecosystem with. What's bad for them now will somehow end up being bad for us in the long run.

I absolutely agree. And sometimes the lag between poor action and dodgy consequence isn't very long at all. One of the reasons why thyroid and other cancers spiked in Chernobyl after the accident was that children were drinking milk produced by cows who were eating radioactive grass. Our action filtered through the system pretty quickly and our children have suffered for it over the last 20 years.

I don't think we can even rely on the patience of time anymore.

But the real reason that what's bad for them becomes bad for us is that we're not above nature; we are part of it.

 

[AzA]

BRB -- just came across another book you might enjoy looking at:

A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith Based Decisions by Katherine Hayhoe and Andrew Farley

Hayhoe is a geoscientist, and Farley, her husband, is a minister.

 

[Joe67]

Rom 8:22

22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
KJV

Isa 26:19-21
19 Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.

20 Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and shut thy doors about thee: hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast.

21 For, behold, the LORD cometh out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity: the earth also shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain. KJV

This is our hope. Without this hope, our faith is vain and we are still in our sins. Jesus of Nazareth is delivering his people from their sins. His name was enrolled in the human record as Jesus, the son of Joseph and Mary.

Thinking to save the earth (and to financially profit in this activity) puts us with the nations, who are healed by the leaves from the tree and their bodily exercises (but not fully), and they are not sufficient to give us peace with God, and to make us kings and priests unto our God by the blood of Jesus and to sing the praises of the worthiness of him who sits on the throne and the worthiness of the lamb.

Bodily exercise profits for a little while, but godliness is beneficial in this life and gives hope for the life to come. Godliness comes to us through the sacrifice of Jesus of Nazareth and the justification with God through Jesus' blood. Through Jesus' blood and its sanctifying power of grace we also are enabled to love our enemies unto the loss of all things, even our physical existence. Thus the kingdom of God is fulfilled on earth as it is in heaven.

Saving the planet is the professed work of Hagar and her son, Ishmael, and his twelve princes. It is the ultimate goal of the covenant of bondage. They cannot do what they would but they make a profession for the sake of advantage, thus they end by destroying that which they profess they are trying to save. This is the deceitfulness of riches. This is the son of perdition. This is Mt. Sinai in Arabia, the Jerusalem that now is on the earth. Jerusalem was ever turning back to Egypt in its heart. Hagar was an Egyptian and obtained an Egyptian wife for Ishmael. This history is an object lesson of a spiritual state of heart and mind. It is from God, but God is not in it. This wisdom that is in Ishmael despises the ceremonies of Judaism, but will tolerate them for the sake of financial advantage and the praise of man, for a little while.

Joe

 

[Byfaithalone1]

There are certain attributes that God values, and I suspect that stewardship is one of them.

I believe that money is the root of all evil, and yet I have not banished the use of money. Rather, I've learned that the there are healthier and less healthy ways to respond to money. If used well, money can be beneficial for a time even if it all goes up in flames one day.

I also believe that the body is the temple of God. Even though I will one day receive an incorruptible body, I find value in maintaining the one that God has given me for now.

There are certain environmental efforts that, for me, seem to come from a similar spirit and embody similar principles as the ones described above.

BFA

 

[Joe67]

It is good to be a steward of the earth.

It is better to be an heir of the earth.

Joe

 

[Byfaithalone1]

It is good to be a steward of the earth.

I agree. For this reason, I find value in many of the ideas expressed in this thread and in some of the ideas put forward by certain environmental groups.

BFA

 

[Joe67]

I agree. For this reason, I find value in many of the ideas expressed in this thread and in some of the ideas put forward by certain environmental groups.

BFA

BFA,

The new heaven and the new earth are yet to come. The present heaven and the present earth have iniquity in them. They will pass away even though the scoffers deny and those who take the name of Jesus in vain say that it will not be for a long time, then our husband will return.

It is better to be seeking an inheritance in the new earth, when our Lord puts his foot down on the mount of olives and divides the mountain.

God forbid that we should seek to be comfortable in this present evil world, while taking the name of Jesus.

Joe

 

[BigRedBus]

It is good to be a steward of the earth.

It is better to be an heir of the earth.

Joe

What stops anyone "seeking an inheritance in the new earth" at the same time as they try their best to take care of the "old one"? I don't see the two as being mutually exclusive.

Nothing I own will last forever. But I still take care of my posessions, because I want them to remain in good condition for as long as possible. Some things I own might outlive me, but I will still take care of them for the same reason even though someone else might eventually get the benefit. And there are some things I don't "own" as such (like the cleanliness of my local community), but I still see it as my civic duty to take care of the town where I live, for example by not dropping litter or damaging street furniture. I would behave much the same even in a town where I don't live -- it's good citizenship and common courtesy. I can't see why any Christians would disagree so far...

Extending this reasoning -- I don't own the planet, but I still have a stake in its future. It won't last forever, but I can help to maintain it in good condition. I don't think anyone's trying to "save" the planet, I'm certainly not trying to -- but I do think it deserves a lot more respect than some people give it. Religion shouldn't exempt anyone from this duty -- if anything it ought to enhance our sense of responsibility.

 

[Joe67]

What stops anyone "seeking an inheritance in the new earth" at the same time as they try their best to take care of the "old one"? I don't see the two as being mutually exclusive.

Nothing I own will last forever. But I still take care of my posessions, because I want them to remain in good condition for as long as possible. Some things I own might outlive me, but I will still take care of them for the same reason even though someone else might eventually get the benefit. And there are some things I don't "own" as such (like the cleanliness of my local community), but I still see it as my civic duty to take care of the town where I live, for example by not dropping litter or damaging street furniture. I would behave much the same even in a town where I don't live -- it's good citizenship and common courtesy. I can't see why any Christians would disagree so far...

Extending this reasoning -- I don't own the planet, but I still have a stake in its future. It won't last forever, but I can help to maintain it in good condition. I don't think anyone's trying to "save" the planet, I'm certainly not trying to -- but I do think it deserves a lot more respect than some people give it. Religion shouldn't exempt anyone from this duty -- if anything it ought to enhance our sense of responsibility.

BRB,

The statement was concerning good and better.

Joe

 

[Byfaithalone1]

BRB,

The statement was concerning good and better.

Joe

Like BRB, I don't see the concepts as being mutually exclusive. Our desire to see Jesus face-to-face does not pre-empt any desire we may have to be good stewards of our time, money and natural resources. All are good ways to spend our time. A person with a desire to preserve natural resources may also have a healthy desire for the earth made new.

BFA