Don’t forget the rest of that verse: " fill the earth and subdue it."
Mission accomplished. We are now beyond that.
I readily admit that I am not as good as I should be environmentally, and enjoy the conveniences of life in our age, but try a bit, live modestly in general, plant trees here and there. It seems to me that our attitude toward creation should be one similar to what Jesus advocates we do regarding sin: Not to worry about what others are doing so much as changing our hearts and behavior to be in harmony with God and his heart.
On a personal level, I can sometimes become discouraged when thinking that my individual efforts to act “environmentally” will not make any difference to the climate crisis or save the planet. But as a Christian, such fatalism doesn’t get me off the hook. I choose to limit my personal consumption of resources and look out for the interests of others ultimately, out of obedience (if nothing else). As I see things, God never rescinded the original human mandate to care for and to steward the planet. On the final day, God will not hold me accountable for what China did, or did not do, but on how I lived faithfully.
Totally, I can, and do, get in a major funk about it. I think this is where collectivism (in the sense of a collective cause) can be such a powerful thing. When I talk with others and discover the things that they are doing, I’m encouraged to hear that so many are doing something. Whether it is enough is another question, but it is a start, and that encourages me that I am not alone.
Churches, I believe, should be a beating heart of creation care, sadly many are not, some are even aggressively hostile, which only compounds the sense of isolation.
While I focused on individual behavior and heart in my previous post, you make a good point about corporate responsibility. The Bible is certainly full of examples about how we are responsible and accountable as a people for our behavior, regardless of our personal positions if we look at the Flood, at Sodom, at Israel. Perhaps in democratic societies, that responsibility is magnified, not lessened. And, if not responsible in the greater culture, we are responsible as we are part on the body of Christ in our churches, as you state.
With limited resources, there has been a historical tension between financially supporting our calling to “go and make disciples of all nations” with and against the necessity of other financial outlays and overhead (megamillions into lavish church buildings and salaries? ), but evangelical environmentalism is a healthy way of addressing both.
You have a point, as saving the planet can be idolatrous, but no less so than desiring a life of comfort on the backs of the poor and disadvantaged. Again, I confess my love of air conditioning and driving my pickup, so I am hardly a shining example of what we should do.
What should we do? I’m not a scientist or anywhere near as knowledgeable of the environment as I should be. Somehow, I think our only hope is genuine worship. When the leaders of the world honor God in their hearts, I am optimistic for the future and think our collective wisdom will find a better way
I understand, yet to me, your statement can come across as gaslighting. It seems that when people suggest changes to society to make businesses more profitable, others become excited. But when the same is suggested to protect those in the majority world who are being affected by the climate crisis or to prevent a food chain collapse caused by the depletion of pollinators, the reaction is different. Instead of support, there are insinuations of idolatry, claims that it won’t make a difference anyway, or accusations of communism.
I realize that some people are more optimistic about the immediate future, and I genuinely admire that. I too look forward with hope to the New Creation. However, I struggle to see how such hope makes others complacent about the problems we face now. It’s like a teenager who wrecks the Ferrari his dad gave him and says, “Who cares? Dad’s buying me a new one for my birthday.”
— [EDIT] —
In 2019 Malawi’s Carbon Emissions were 0.9 metric tons per Capita compared to 5.22 and 14.67 in the UK and the US respectively. And yet:
Cyclone Freddy, one of the most powerful and longest-lasting storms ever recorded in the southern hemisphere, made landfall in southern Malawi on 12 March 2023, causing heavy rainfall, floods, and landslides. It affected 14 of 28 districts, displacing more than 500,000 people and killing over 500 as at 21 March. (Source)
Why is the West’s collective soul more valuable than the collective soul of Malawians?
When the leaders of the world honor God in their hearts, I am optimistic for the future and think our collective wisdom will find a better way.
Can you explain the relationship or summarize the relationship between certain forms of environmental activism and Marxism? I’m also not against communism, but there is a key distinction between godly and demonic versions of this. Can you expand on that as well?
True, both sides should be careful of cognitive anchoring, as the article says later on:
At the same time, significant floods and heatwaves in 2021 destroyed key crops in the Americas and Europe.[16]
We all like simple solutions and being able to point to something and say “This thing is the cause” but the reality is often more complex than that. Yes, Covid and War played a role. But I believe the evidence indicates these factors compounded what is an already precarious situation brought about by global temperature rise, melting ice caps, intensive farming and pesticide use, fossil fuel consumption, plastic waste, water pollution (domestic, agricultural, and industrial), deforestation, and worsening extreme weather patterns, and Western culture’s gregarious consumption.
Sometimes I feel like solving racism might be easier. Honestly, most of the time I don’t know, and on a bad day it all feels too little too late anyway.
As I said, in the OP, I never intended to get into the weeds on the evidence and solutions. But rather to what extent our times should shape how we engage with God’s word.
And for me it’s atheism A world free from pollution or racial discrimination isn’t so hard to imagine, but one where atheism is a relic of the past, is really something to consider.
I guess where I’ve experienced change recently, is that I no longer see these goals as mutually exclusive. I believe the Bible calls us to pursue both/and not just either/or.
Consider for example how Paul uses the gospel to resolve racial tensions in Ephesus:
For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. ~Eph 2:14-18 (NIV2011)
Was there anything I said or didn’t say that conveyed I think they are exclusive? But it seems for Paul in this passage, one without the other, saving the environment or racial harmony, without worshipping God, would be like gaining the world while losing your soul.
I think that for Christians, caring for the fate of the Earth during the near future is a matter of love and compassion, in addition to honoring humbly the fact that the Earth belongs to God and we were given responsibility for taking care of it as stewards of His world.
It is a fact that millions of people suffer because of negative environmental changes caused by humans, including the climate change. We should show love and compassion towards these people by helping where we can. Even small changes in our lifestyle may help these people, if a large enough group acts. I do not believe that God is pleased to see how uncaring our attitude is towards the suffering people - I say ‘our’ because I am as guilty as anybody.
If someone suffers and another person helps the suffering one, does it really matter if the person helping is a believer or not (yet)? Are we so hard and holy that we cannot appreciate the help given by those who do not (yet) believe?
Like helping the poor, what we do is highly contextual. Do I take a vow of poverty? Man made religion has an appearance of godliness like this. Biblical religion threads a tighter needle. I would be interested in a real summary of what can be done practically in the context of faith. Like what Grudem did with The Poverty of the Nations. A summary that can distinguish between ideological (Marxist) environmentalism and faithful stewardship of the planet.
Totally agree. I think there is a difference between what is essentially naval gazing and handwringing and serious lament and confession. The first might make us feel better in the short-term but effects little long-term change, it is the second, I think, that drives sustainable action. I’m reminded of Paul’s description of Godly sorrow:
See what this godly sorrow has produced in you: what earnestness, what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what alarm, what longing, what concern, what readiness to see justice done. ~2 Corinthians 7:11 (NIV2011)
Such a response is by and large a response driven by the Holy Spirit, and yet I’m all too quick to open my mouth and all to slow to get on my knees. Not that the two are mutually exclusive of course.
Indeed, and pushing the thought further. What of the contents of his world? Christians are quick to, and rightly so, point out God’s creativity in the natural world; the way it reveals and glorifies him. And yet, our actions and inactions are perpetuating what some are calling the Sixth Great Extinction event. It is one thing for an asteroid or ice age to clean house (something that could be providentially seen as an act of God). It is another thing for humanity to be driving such a collapse. Is it too far to say we are acting like vandals in God’s art gallery?
I think here an analogy though imperfect might be helpful. What if we looked at these issues (poverty, the climate crisis, etc.) as a chronic condition? If we did we might distinguish between actions that are treatments and those that are cures. You’ll get no disagreement from me that the gospel is the cure for the world’s ills. However, in the meantime, I believe that mercy and compassion should lead us to provide treatments that can help alleviate the symptoms too. We would not deny someone a good treatment to alleviate their short-term pain because they’ve not yet discovered where to get a cure.
Consider the Widow at Nain in Luke 7. Jesus seeing her grief could have offered her the cure for her sorrows. “Do not be afraid, I am the resurrection and the life, I have come to shut the doors on death and hades forever! In me, they’ll be no more crying, or mourning, or sadness, or pain.” But instead, “moved with compassion for her” (v13) Jesus brings the son back to life. From one perspective, a short-term solution to the problem of death for both the mother and her son.
Millions of people are suffering, the planet is suffering, do we deny any treatment whilst we wait for the cure? So sure let’s talk about what can be done and how effectively we might do it, but let’s have that conversation whilst we’re doing something.
[Edit:] I appreciate I answered neither of your questions @heymike3.
), but evangelical environmentalism is a healthy way of addressing both.
