The latest WWF biannual Living Planet Report warns of ‘large-scale ecosystem collapse’ by 2050 because the earth can no longer keep up with the demands that are being placed upon it. What should the response of the church be to this? And what, if anything, should be distinctive about the response of the emerging church?
It seems to me that the theological basis of a constructive response to the environmental crisis lies in the understanding of the ‘church’ as an expression of authentic humanity. The church is essentially the product of God calling into existence a new creation in the midst of a world perpetually marred by idolatry, arrogance, injustice and violence. The paradigm derives from Abraham, whose calling was a reiteration of the original creational blessing on humankind and the mandate to be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth (Gen. 12:2-3, 7; 17:1; 28:3-4; cf. 1:28); but it modulates throughout the biblical narrative, through the New Testament story of suffering, renewal, and vindication, culminating in John’s final galvanizing vision of a new heavens and a new earth.
As new creation, as authentic humanity, as a creational microcosm, as a world-within-a-world, the church is defined by three modes of being in relationship:
1. The church is the place of God’s presence: the creative God is central, as one who is worshipped, who is holy and just, who is made angry by human rebellion, by the corruption of the created world, who opposes the pretensions and wickedness of the nations, who redeems a people. For Israel this presence was represented essentially by the temple; for the church it is mediated through the Spirit.
2. The church is called to social righteousness: an authentic humanity demonstrates in itself justice, fairness, compassion, love, forgiveness, etc. For Israel this righteousness was defined and monitored by the law; for the church it is grounded in forgiveness and the writing of the law on the people’s hearts; it is an expression of the fact that God reigns over his people - we are not subject to other powers, whether cultural, political or spiritual; we are free to be slaves of righteousness.
3. The church embodies in itself a relation to the created environment: just as Israel inherited the goodness of the promised land, so the church as the renewed family of Abraham has inherited in dispersed fashion the world (Rom. 4:13). I would suggest that this is where we must begin to construct a credible theological and missional response to the world’s increasing alarm over the state of the environment.
The people of God is only ever a creational microcosm imperfectly. So although we are called in the first place to be that new humanity - to be God-centred, to be righteous, to live well on the earth - we never escape from our failings and ineffectiveness. In our inadequacy, however, we can also be a sign of something better than what we are: we point beyond ourselves to the God who redeems and will make all things new.
So my question is this: How can the church effectively demonstrate what it means to be new creation in its dispersed relation to the earth? How do we live as a world-within-a-world, a people amongst peoples, in respect of the third mode of being? And how do we imaginatively leverage that imperfect existence so as to be a visible, public sign of authentic humanity that challenges, inspires, gives hope?
Let me put this rather more provocatively. Let me suggest that the Spirit of God is calling his people to an awakening of the prophetic imagination in community so that the story of the creative God can be told well - with integrity and power - during the coming crisis of the environment.
See also ‘Human footprint too big for nature’ on the WWF website.
Four Responses
It’s important that we recognize that humanity has only achieved this systemic destructive capacity in the past ~ 250 years with the rise of carbon-derived energy. There’s hope to be found here — Christians have pursued authentic humanity for nearly two millennia without it. Now that we’ve realized how completely we have enslaved the earth, we must set it free.
Four responses:
1. The church must cultivate lifestyles that do not depend upon dinosaurs.
2. We must suffer with the world and admit fault.
3. We’ve got to begin speaking the language of creation and destruction.
4. And we’ve got to embark upon the mission of God in its fullest sense.
We’re to live as a people who honor our creative God among fellow humans so twisted that they actively (perhaps ignorantly) destroy themselves and other creatures. As a church, we must find ways to subvert these structures, learning to live sustainably and peacefully in a culture that rejects both. At the same time, it’s our duty to prophetically engage the systems and authorities that enable and encourage this ecopression.
But here’s the trouble — many of us still contribute to the problem! Above all, we can’t “set ourselves apart” by breaking away. The church must suffer with the world, acknowledging that we’re a part of the problem and will face the same consequences for our negligence as everyone else. As Lynn White argued in his touchstone essay, “The Historic Roots of our Ecologic Crisis,” Christianity is a prime contributor to the problem, but the church must be a part of the solution.
Species extinction fits perfectly into God’s story of creation, fall, Israel, cross, the inaugurated kingdom, and the kingdom-to-come. It’s important that we locate it in this context. This crisis is a result of humanity-gone-wrong, creation fallen, and life destroying itself. Jesus entered into this broken world and conquered death to breathe life back into the groaning creation. He offered us but a glimpse of what the completion of the Genesis project will look like.
Today, we must submit to his kingdom and take up this mission of holistic restoration, telling the story everywhere we go and bringing it to life. We don’t have a map from “here” to “heaven,” but as Tom Wright argued in the “Future of the People of God” lectures, we’re to improvise. This could mean ditching our cars, reducing our energy consumption, buying green energy, begin recycling and precycling (choosing goods based on their socioecological impact), and any number of other things.
But all of this hinges upon our reverence toward God, our respect for his beautiful spirit-filled world, and our willingness to take up Jesus’ mission of helping creation to fulfill its potential until he comes to finish the job.
Shalom.
[ Aside: There’s a similar conversation going on at http://www.OrganicJesus.org. ]
Let us be human
Good stuff - I’ve always thought ‘Let us be human’ summed it up, and if you click on the phrase you’ll reach some talks I’ve given on the topic. I’ve written something about how the prophetic imagination should be employed here.
Yes and No
My gut-reaction answer to this issue would be that the crisis is real, but not as immediate and universal as it has been suggested, and we should give God and his creation a bit more credit than this. I have a problem with a sovereign God that creates something that can so easily be ruined by his people. Yes, there are concerns about environmentalism and lack of Christian involvement in addressing those important issues, but No, we should not buy into the hype and excitement that often accompanies such stories that are motivated by generous research grants and pseudo-science.
For a very common-sense approach to this important issue, I highly recommend Michael Crichton’s speech Fear, Complexity, & Environmental Management in the 21st Century which he presented about a year ago at the Washington Center for Complexity and Public Policy.
I also recommend his excellent book State of Fear.
what if?
Chatting with a friend at Greenpeace recently I said “As with most people I don’t worry too much about the ‘ecological crisis’. After all the present situation is one that has been created by our activities over the last couple of hundred years.” He made one comment: ‘You claim to be a follower of Jesus, have you never thought of how God views what we are doing to His world - and you an amateur conservationist”.
In Africa and the few areas of Asia that still have some forests, native tribes practice a type of seminomadic lifestyle supported by hunting, gathering, and ‘slash and burn’ agriculture. They have done so for millennia. The forests were not much affected. Climate change was something that happened slowly over tens of thousands of years. Plenty of time for native species to adapt or move on.
Nowadays, many of these tribes are shifting to the cities. The forests have been taken over by agriculturalists following close on the heels of the poaching and timber mafias. The few remaining forests are being decimated.
In fact, the whole world’s population is shifting to the cities. The human race has lost touch with the land that gives us life. Everywhere, businesses accumulate land and exploit the land for the maximum output at the least possible investment.
We don’t worry about the results on the land as long as our supermarkets are well stocked and prices remain affordable. The land has become invisible.The same could be said for many things, electrical energy, gas (petrol), building materials, steel, and so on are not areas of concern, and unless prices rise we just don’t think about it at all.
The one environmental issue that we do get a bit concerned about is pollution and that is only because we do have to feel the consequences in our landfills, in the air we breathe and in the water that we drink. The easy way out is what we always prefer and you would be surprised at how much toxic waste gets exported to the third world for disposal. That’s the stuff that’s too nasty to dump anywhere near ‘civilised’ people.
The results of our selfishness are the steady destruction of the ecological balance of the world. Down the road we will pay a heavier price as pollution, deforestation and global warming take hold. Crichton is wrong!
That process has already started. Take the lowly mosquito; a silent and versatie vector for various nasty diseases, this tiny insect is working its way ever northward as winters get milder. The result now is a few cases of West Nile Virus attacks sporadically here and there. Unfortunately, these will be followed by Japanese Encephalitis, Dengue, Malaria, Chikungunya… and other little horrors for which there are no known cures.
Starting with God’s word, the creation imperatives lay out the present situation rather too well. Gen. 1:28 “Multiply…subdue it and have dominion”. We have, in our fallenness, persevered without a care for the condition of the land.
The issue for me today is to start obeying God’s commandments in the light of what history and science teach. But, neither history nor science are very encouraging for they leave me with a sense that our best intentions can cause more harm than good. Interventions on behalf of nature very often backfire resulting in unforeseeable bad consequences. Human interventions in anything are disaster-prone!
Today, what effect will it have if I take Jesus’s teachings on the kingdom to heart and start living as a citizen of the kingdom of God? Some of His basic teachings are:
1. To identify with the have-nots.
2. To not accumulate wealth or possessions.
3. To freely share whatever I have.
4. To be more concerned about others welfare than my own.
5. To not build up buffer stocks against whatever may happen tomorrow.
6. To consume only what is absolutely necessary for today.
7. To use all of the talents that God has given me to the best of my ability.
8. To love and accept responsibility for all mankind without discrimination while ignoring worldly and genetically determined imperatives.
9. To personally stand for justice and to support systems and laws that promote justice in its narrowest and broadest senses.
10. To pay taxes and to demand accountability from the leadership on behalf of God’s kingdom.
Jesus’s teaching of these principles automatically brought him into conflict with both the politicos and the religious. There is no mammon to be had for anyone in God’s kingdom, it won’t even trickle down! Therefore, there is a big element of risk involved, especially if a growing proportion of Jesus’s followers start taking His kingdom teachings seriously.
For our environment, if I can live by the principles of the kingdom, the results will be at least neutral (we won’t make matters any worse) but more probably will give the world of nature some breathing space and maybe help to see something of a recovery.
Live to serve : Serve to live
Modelling authentic humanity
Virgil, isn’t the creation narrative precisely about how easy it is for humanity to ruin everything?
I am not in a position to judge the science, but clearly we are doing long-term damage to the environment - indeed we have already done too much damage. Do we have to wait for the more apocalyptic scenarios to materialize?
More importantly, for the church the point may not be primarily the negative one of addressing the problems but the more positive challenge: how do we model an authentic relation to the rest of the created world? It is intrinsic to an authentic humanity and, therefore, to the mission of the church that we model the presence of the creative God who calls people to himself, that we model social justice, and that we model a respectful relationship to our environment. These are positive callings, not remedial.
I wonder simply whether the church should not be preparing itself for a critical prophetic role with regard to the state of the planet in coming decades. If that is the case, we have to do so on the basis of a manifest spiritual and moral integrity. But how? How do we tell that story?
it's the relationships
isn’t the creation narrative precisely about how easy it is for humanity to ruin everything?
I do not believe that the creation narrative is about how we ruin the actualy physical creation. The creation narrative — I believe — is about how we ruin relationships. We have become experts at it, unfortunately. The story of creation is about relationships being created and broken…and subsequently restored in Christ. Afterall he did say “Behold, I make all things new.” We are in that new and perfect creation now: A new heaven, a new earth and New Jerusalem.
I also do not believe that we are doing long-term damage to the environment. As Chrichton clearly demonstrates, the environment is infinitely more resilient and complex than we realize and it was created in such a way that it can withstand tremenduous stresses and environmental disasters. The planet already survived several cataclysmic events, such as meteorite crashes, mass volcano eruptions and one (or more) severe ice ages. All this happened thousands or millions of years before man was even around.
To suggest that a creature with 60 or 80 year lifespan can accurately measure and quantify its action on the environment on a long-term basis is simply unreasonable in my opinion. We are giving ourselves too much credit and too much power :)
Now..with that said, I am not suggesting that there are no environmental problems that are real. I am all in favor of pursuing a better car, cleaner energy, means to create less pollution and trash. But let’s do so in a reasonable way, not at someone else’s expense or by imposing draconian government regulations on markets. Modern SUVs are cleaner and more enviro-friendly than most small cars that were around just 10 years ago. So what is the problem then?
I personally think it’s dislike of success and free markets. Is it just a coincindence that most if not all environmentalist groups are linked to socialist and communist groups?
broaden that brush
Accepting that whatever be the causes, the world’s ecologies are going through more or less of troubles, the only thing we seem to disagree on is whether man is responsible for the worsening ecological scenario or not.
Let that continue to be debated, though from what little I do know, there’s not much doubt in my mind.
The questions still remain: Are our lifestyles in line with kingdom teaching? What does the Lord require of us - is there anything that we can do as individuals and as collections of people, doing what we can for the environment?
I happen to be a businessman, definitely not communist or even socialist leaning. So your characterisation that “…it’s dislike of success and free markets…” doesn’t quite fit and neither do i see a connection. In fact, most of the organisations that you are referring to work on very successful business models, non-profit though they may be!
Live to serve : Serve to live
SUVs personify capitalism
I think we are both saying the same thing in just a different way. I am certainly in agreement that man (more often than not) is having a negative effect on the environment, but that is unfortunately necessary for progress. The positive side of progress is that as a society emerges from an industrial age it becomes more aware of its own impact on the world and the environment and it willingly makes decisions to minimize that impact as much as possible. The rivers that were once dead in the U.S. in the early 1900s are now cleaner than ever before and fish are returning in huge numbers. After the industrial revolution the world did not end…pollution did not win and we did not destroy civilization. :)
What fires me up about this is the leftist rethoric (not from you or andrew) that sounds just like the good old Communists I grew up with in Romania. In essence it seems to be an attempt to dictate how my life should be lived, and as a libertarian I strongly oppose it. I specifically bought a Mazda 3 a few years ago because it has great gas mileage, but I assure you that if I want to drive an SUV I will do so without asking for anyone’s permission, especially since SUVs today pollute as much as any other car on the road.
The fight against the SUVs is a fight a gainst capitalism - that is quite clear to me. It has little to do with pollution or emissions, otherwise there would be hard numbers that we could look at. The SUV has become the personification of capitalism, success and financial independence and wealth. So it is only natural that it is being hated so - apparently more than I even realized. :)
Imagine
Virgil, I appreciate your personal reasons for wanting to defend capitalism, but I’m not sure that’s the point. In the first place, capitalism does not have to be environmentally destructive - it is greed or pride or fear that make any system destructive. Secondly, I am looking for the positive response. Let’s suppose that you are right and that nothing is wrong with the world - at least nothing that nature can’t fix over a few millennia. I still want to know how the ‘church’ should model authentic humanity. The argument about SUVs and Walmart, to my mind, really misses the point. The church is not here to take sides politically. It is here to be in microcosm, inadequately, and always prophetically a ‘new creation’.
So what I am looking for is an act of the collective imagination that will conceive, give form to, give substance to, what this means.
I disagree with your theological premise that all that matters is relationships. To be created is not only to be in community, it is to be in an environment, which is partly why the land was so significant for the descendants of Abraham, who were called to be a new creation.
Doesn’t the cursing of the ground as a consequence of Adam’s disobedience suggest some sort of impact on the environment? Don’t we see in Isaiah 24, for example, the idea that the created order is in some way implicated in the effects of human sinfulness? Doesn’t Romans 8:19-22 imply that the whole of creation shares in the corruption of humanity, that decay is only another aspect of the fact that the wages of sin is death? And why is the whole of creation remade in Revelation 21? Doesn’t that suggest that the renewal of humanity is inconceivable without the renewal of the environment?
I simply don’t think that as God’s people we can bracket the environment out as being theologically neutral or irrelevant. The church is called to demonstrate what it means to live well in the world. That is a critical calling (we are bound to challenge environmental abuse) but it should also be a creative, constructive calling - to be a sign of the goodness of how God intended humanity to be.
Noah restored that world...
Andrew, as my Jewish friends always like to point out, the Adamic curse has been dealt with long, long ago, which is why I am always surprised hearing especially theologians as yourself speaking of the curse as a present reality.
When Noah was born, Lamech proclaimed in Genesis 5: “This one will give us rest from our work and the toil of our hands arising from the ground which the Lord has cursed.” In the Jewish mind especially, the cessation of the curse was a settled matter: Noah delivered mankind from that curse, most likely through the flood. How it happened I have no clue - I am just pointing out what the Bible claims and how Lamech’s proclamation has always been interpreted by Jewish scholars.
With that said, I do not believe the environment is theologically neutral or irellevant, but I do believe that the argument today was largely created in a political framework whether we like to accept it or not. I WANT to breathe clean air, drink clean water and drive electric cars, but I will not do so at the expense of living in mud huts. All I am advocating is sensibility regarding this issue on all sides of the political spectrum. The “what would Jesus drive” argument will not convince people to work sensibly towards bettering our environment.
It is that why I refuse to tie the idea of universal physical corruption to environmentalism. I want to keep the environment clean because God put it in our care. It was created FOR us, and not us for it, and since I beleve Jesus already came back and there will be no “end of the world” I also do my best to protect and preserve the world for my children and my children’s children, for a moral and ethical reason, not necessarily theological. The traditional reading of Romans 8 does not jive with my understand that Paul was speaking stricly of the spiritual side of the creation, which is why he is emphasizing “UNTIL NOW” in Romans 8:22. The restoration of “all things” was at hand when Paul was writing, and the groaning of creation was not due to the Adamic curse, but for the “revealing of the sons of God” which happened at the fall of the Temple.
Again, this conversation should really go all the way back to Genesis - if we believe that what went wrong in Genesis is of physical nature then we do and should expect a physical re-creation of all things. On the other hand I believe that Genesis is about a lot more than the decay of organisms and cells, and it is about broken relationships with our creator symbolized by exctreme labor, the tabernacle, the temple, the courts and the curtains in the temple…all which have been done away with throughout history. God has been working actively through Noah, Israel, Jesus and continues to do so through us to restore and maintain the restoration of all things in Christ. That should be our primary goal, and our care for the environment should stem from our understanding of God’s active and real presence in the world today, and the reality of his Kingdom and Sovereignty.
Oh Noah he didn't
Virgil, a couple of notes on the meaning of Gen. 5:29 (‘Out of the ground that the LORD has cursed this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands’: ESV).
With all respect to your Jewish friends (you don’t think there might be some anti-Christian polemic at work there?), I don’t see anything in this verse that suggests that the curse pronounced on the ground in Genesis 3:17 is revoked. A literal translation would be something like: ‘This one comforts / consoles us on account of our work and on account of the toil of our hands, on account of the ground which YHWH has cursed (the same word as in 3:17).’ It looks to me as though this says merely that the son will relieve the ageing father of the hard work of producing food from the land: YHWH has cursed the ground so our work is painful, but Noah will help us in the work and relieve our suffering.
It is interesting that following the flood God says, ‘I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done’ (Gen. 8:21). But the word translated ‘curse’ here in the ESV is not the same word that is used in 3:17 and 5:29. It probably means something more like ‘treat with contempt’ or ‘dishonour’. The distinction is clear in Genesis 12:3: ‘him who dishonors you I will curse’. The point is not that the curse on the ground has been lifted (it remains hard, painful work to produce food) but that God will never again dishonour or ruin the land in this way, just as he will never again destroy all living creatures.
I accept that we can overstate the significance of the cursing of the ground, which may well be, in effect, a cursing of human labour rather than a cursing of the ‘environment’ as such. There remains, however, a strong link between human behaviour and the condition of the earth in the prophets that probably should not be understood as merely poetic: after all, warfare could have a devastating impact on the environment. I don’t see how creation’s ‘bondage to decay’ can be interpreted in purely spiritual terms (Rom. 8:21): Paul always uses phthora in a material sense to refer to the perishability or decay of physical things (cf. 1 Cor. 15:42, 50; Gal. 6:8; Col. 2:22). And, as I said before, there must be some reason for John’s vision of a new heaven and new earth in which there is no more wickedness, suffering and death - rather than simply of a new humanity.
Two curses?
Andrew, your explanation of the curse and post-flood promise of God implies that God cursed the ground twice in Genesis. I don’t see that anywhere; now I do believe the curse was two-fold in that it had both a spiritual and a physical aspect to it. To me it is clear that Lamech saw in Noah a sort of “deliverer” from the curse of the dirt/physical creation. That is confirmed after the flood when God says “I will never curse the ground again” which is an implicit suggestion that the curse was a done deal - it was no more.
Stretching the curse until today is unreasonable in light of the language - if God promise to never curse the ground again, then the curse had to be ground-related. Why would God, the creator find it necessary to proclaim “dissdain” for something immaterial like the dirt and ground? There is a bigger story here that God is telling us.
Also, this resolution from the curse does not seem to conflict with Christ’s mission since Christ came to deliver manking from sin, and not from physical labor. In fact, this fitst even better in the big picture of our faith, with Noah serving as a type of Christ, delivering the world in a very real way through baptism (the flood) from a very real curse of the dirt. We see Christ doing the same thing in Revelation where we see “there will no longer be any curse” declared in Rev. 22:3. This final removal of any curse is a very real and spiritual fulfillment of all things, which the tree of life being again made available to mankind (Rev. 22:2) and God’s throne being again among us.
The Noahic removal of the curse enforces God’s story of salvation in that it keeps Christ’s restoration and promises for us strictly in the spiritual (and more REAL if I may suggest) realm. If we only see Jesus dying for us so that we avoid physical labor in working the ground, then I believe we really are missing the story of redemption.
You didn't read my
You didn’t read my comments very carefully. God does not say that he will not ‘curse’ the ground again after the flood but that he will not ‘dishonour’ the ground again. The word is different. The ground remains cursed (Lamech’s language does not imply that Noah lifts the curse) but there will not be a devastation again comparable to the flood.
What about today?
Andrew, my apologies. Was the curse then liften in Christ’s coming when John claimed “there is no longer any curse?” Any curse is pretty inclusive language. How can there still be “any” curse today, and if so which kind of curse is active? And if curses are still in effect, when will they (if ever) be finally dealt with?
standing up
I like Samlcarr’s comment very much. To live by the ten teachings of Jesus he describes would be to live with personal integrity in the world. I wonder whether these principles extend to how one makes a living. Do the powers of this world inevitably corrupt whatever work we do so that even our best efforts contribute to the destruction of the world? If so, then resistance is futile: it doesn’t much matter what job you take. On the other hand, is it possible to work redemptively, consciously seeking to “do good” within your scope of responsibility on the job?
Andrew looks for the church collectively to arrive at a godly ecological stance. Most people spend most of their creative energies at work. Given the economic and social pressures that individuals face on the job, maybe part of the church’s task to equip people to stand up for what’s right. This means virtuous personal participation in the economy, both as consumers and as producers. Perhaps nothing will change: companies can always find somebody else to do their dirty work. But a church that actively supports the individual’s virtuous stance in the world would give people the strength to know they aren’t alone when they make those impolitic and seemingly self-destructive decisions marking them as “bad team players.”
What would Jesus drive?
A) An SUV
B)A Hybrid
C)A Bike
D)Public Transportation
E)His own two legs
F)BCD&E (oh geeze, that sounds like a food coloring)
In addition to traveling environmentally responsible vehicles, we also need to call chemical companies, factories and other polluting industries to account. Any suggestions on effective ways to limit polluter’s lobbying powers?
Would Jesus advocate mass suicide?
What would Jesus drive?
Are you serous? Posing this question is as arrogant as the answer choices presented :) Are you actually suggesting that you know what car Jesus would drive and by doing so, are you hoping that you would convince others that your environmental agenda is more valid than theirs? Or are you suggesting that it would go against the teachings of Jesus for me to drive an SUV?
Unless you are a corpse that is already decomposed, you are contributing carbon to our environment by just being alive. The most reasonable suggestion coming from the left-wing environmentalists should be that all humanity should die or disappear so that there is zero effect on the environment as a result. They are already pursuing this course of action by promoting abortions and birth control in “over-populated areas” of the world - see U.N.’s population control initiatives.
Your question should be: Would Jesus advocate mass suicide?
both wings working
Virgil, i must have missed something. When did we all swing to the left?
Live to serve : Serve to live
I bleed purple too...
We didn’t all swing to the left. :) I try to stay in the middle, but I do get disappointed when extremes from either side are presented as facts.
Did you have a chance to take a look at Chrichton’s speech?
How bout mass SUVicide? God loves people, not cars
Hi Virgil,
I’m genuinely wondering why you are posting on a thread about our environmental responsibility as beings entrusted with honoring the created earth if your best suggestion is mass suicide. Perhaps my implicit criticism SUVs as being environmentally irresponsible hit a little close to home. Obviously the question WWJD is almost always a hypothetical, because duh, Jesus didn’t drive! No arrogance was intended, but I this does not mean I don’t have an opinion, based on my understanding of what it means to be a caretaker of the earth. None of us has “arrived” in any area of Christian living — certainly not me. My neighborhood only recycles certain things, and I have yet to prioritizing signing up a the dump and making weekly trips to recycle the things my development doesn’t pick up. Jesus would probably make that a priority. But do you really think Jesus would drive an SUV given the current environmental and socio-political situation RE oil? I could be wrong, but I don’t think so. I’m not saying you are a bad person or that anyone else who drives an SUV is, but I do think the widespread use of SUVs a something of a problem that should be addressed if we want to be preservers of the environment and not just consumers.
Jesus loves diesel trucks
I did not make the “mass suicide” suggestion - extreme environmentalists imply it.
If God loves people and not cars, then why are you so concerned with what car Jesus would drive or how much time he would spend at the dump, away from the cities where the people are?
I personally think Jesus would drive a diesel semi truck - turbo charged - double stacked - because he could fill it up with affordable food at Walmart and drive it all around the world and would be able to distribute more food for the poor more easily. Try doing that with a Prius.
And whether or not arrogance was intended in your comment, I realize it was likely not intended. That doesn’t mean the comment is still not arrogant and self-righteous-sounding. Whenever you suggest that Jesus would drive whatever car you happen to drive, if you do not see the arrogance in that suggestion then I can’t make it anymore clear. :)
Respectfully
Virgil, I’m certain that even trucks can be engineered to be more fuel efficient (I hear hydrogen vehicles are promising,) and Walmart could certainly exemplify more kingdom values by providing healthcare to their hardworking American laborers, and at the same time, you and others could still travel around the country and feed the poor. But that takes a culture putting pressure on car companies to make the shift. If you’re pretty sure Jesus is coming back within five years, go ahead and take the short view and diesle onward, if you don’t have a Word on that one, consider ways to invest God’s love in your children’s children by caring for the earth AND the poor.
Also, consider that based on your comment about arrogance anything you are personally invested in and simultaneously promote makes you arrogant. One could also argue that that those things we promote but are not invested in make us hypocrits. Certainly when someone is invested in something they lose some objectivity, after all, “where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” Personally, I don’t want my heart to hang around the deisle — imagine what it would do to my lungs?
Wish you the best.
Jemila
Anti-Walmart rethoric
Jemila - I gave you a worm in “Walmart” and you bit down on it really hard! :) The fact that you did reply with ready anti-Walmart rhetoric actually reinforces my suspicions that extreme environmentalism and socialism go hand-in-hand!
The culture already had a great impact on the car industry - if the industry would be able to make a car that runs on water, I am sure they would make it. They can’t…it’s not technologically feasible; at least not yet. Hydrogen, as you mentioned looks promising, except hydrogen also has to come from coal or oil, so you are exactly right back where you started. Ethanol has the same problem in that it takes two calories of energy to create one calorie worth of ethanol. These are the numbers and math behind the science and environmentalists are asking scientists and engineers (of which I am one) to break the rules in order to satisfy political agendas.
The possibility always exists that “big oil” and Walmart are covertly keeping innovation at bay in order to continue to pollute the planet. :)
As far as I know Walmart provides high-quality health insurance to all their employees - the difference is that like everyone else, employees are expected to PAY for it. I pay for my the health insurance provided by my employer (and the employer is not Walmart) - I do not ask or expect someone else to support me financially by paying for my health expenses. Kingdom values are exemplified by first taking care of our needs (rather than asking others to do so) in order to be able to personally help our neighbor.
Bait taken
Yes, I bit on the Wal-Mart bait. I am weak; may our good Lord be merciful to me!
I do not claim to be a scientist, there I will defer to you. However, I don’t think envronmentally friendly vehicles were a top priority for Americans until the gas spike prices recently, and I do know that environmentally unfriendly corporations flex their financial lobbying muscles quite a bit in Washington, and until this is unacceptable, it will continue.
For a balanced of critique of Wal-Mart see
http://wistechnology.com/article.php?id=2470
Blessings,
Jemila
everyone wins!
Jemila,
I could not agree more - gas prices are a great motivator for new research and investments. So then, let us leave those decisions and motivation factors to the market rather than selfish politicians. :) Can we at least agree on that?
Good article on Walmart - some things are right on, others he is way off. Sam Walton’s book was required reading for me in some college business class - it will also be required reading for my kids…it’s the story of success and dedication. Walmark does some things wrong - no question about it, but it also has been one of the few factors pulling many people across the world out of poverty. Walmart alone also keeps the U.S. inflation rate down by forcing low prices on the market, making it more possible for the poor to find better jobs and also afford food and goods. Walmart is the quintessential definition of libertarian success where all those involved in the process win: owners, employees, customers and government.
Good toughs - I enjoyed our exchange, and I hope you did not take my words as harsh. The whiff of socialism brings back very bad memories for me, so please don’t take it personally.
buttons, capitalism and a prophetic voice
No offense taken. We all have our buttons and baggage and a gracious God to guide, correct and forgive us along the way. What is your experience with socialism?
I do not think the market is kind or has a conscience, nor do I think communism works; we’ve seen that. But we also see the gap between Rich and poor getting wider and wider here in American, and that’s not even talking about the environmental impact of capitalism, which is the theme of this thread. I don’t think there is a perfect system. I believe in capitalism with checks and balances. And I believe Christians are called not just to let capitalism crank on, but to be a prophetic voice in a free country; to be a conscience for politicians and society when the dollar bottom line is crushing people or the planet.
Best Wishes,
Jemila
Well, the problem is we're
Well, the problem is we’re dealing with three words: Creation, the environment, and nature.
The first two are conceptual terms. We don’t use nature much anymore. Nature is alive. But concept makes us feel intellectually in control. So we actually think we can stop climate change.
One thing that is not usually recognized, is that God does have a responsibility for Creation, not just humans. We have been living under the illusion since Adam that it is just inert matter for us to dominate… err, have dominion over.
Have we figured out yet that God was testing us to see if we could treat non-human life as well, or any better than we do our fellow humans?
Since the Church is playing catch-up on this issue, perhaps focusing on humans instead of the environment is best. After all, when the climate collapses, we’re going to need all the Christian virtue we can if this species is going to survive.
100mg Crichton q.day
Sorry for the delay Virgil, took me a while to properly work through Crichton. His critique of media hype is excellent and it should be obvious that the media will be crisis oriented for that is what sells. Real science is just too boring (and inconclusive) to hold the public’s attention.
But, I don’t feel that he has a handle on the science. Science has had a “complex systems” approach to ecology for many decades now. The mess at Yellowstone is a classic case of scientific advice being ignored. I don’t know where you stand (as an American) on Alaskan wilderness oil, but that seems to me to be a case where short-term business imperatives have won out over good ‘environmental sense’.
Even so, it is not my contention that scientists have any real answers. Simply telling governments to regulate everything or for people to shut down factories and power plants will not work. What we do need though, is a hefty dose of common sense as well as a much longer-term view on production processes than what current business cycles encourage. Limited initiatives like the Kyoto Protocol may help and should be supported.
All the scientists that I have interacted with will tentatively agree that global warming is happening, greenhouse gases are increasing and there is now incontrovertible evidence that the icecaps are melting - if not as fast as some predict, still it is a reality. Environmental modelling is getting to produce more and more precise results (e.g. take weather forecasts). When figures are plugged in to these models, various scenarios can be studied and it is these scenarios that are being reported on. None at this stage are entirely probable but the trend in all cases is rather remarkably consistent - that whether sooner or later, things are going downhill.
It would be great if the business world recognised and responded to the scientific evidence but this is the real world and most are more concerned about where this quarter’s profits will stand than with what might happen to the world 100 years down the road.
It is precisely here that the church has to take a stand. The stand taken in industrialised nations should, I think, be more of a voice of concern coupled with an active and visible search to find better ways of living rather than a path of confrontation. This is because the reach of good ideas is so much more likely to produce change rather than just getting our name into the papers as alarmists who will protest at the drop of a pin, but have nothing practical to contribute.
Where confrontation is desperately needed, we should not shy away from the issues and I see the biggest issues as being the result of unrestrained globalisation and the simple fact that poor countries cannot afford to be environmentally conscious if they want the money from large MNCs to be pumped into their struggling economies. Local businesses in the third world are also following this lead so that vast areas of the world are being polluted, forests destroyed, and the communities of people in these areas are the helpless victims. For the most part the silence is deafening.
What does get into the world press is sensational stuff like Greenpeace’s fight to stop a French cruise ship from being dismantled in India. Of course after they got their mileage from that one, any number of toxic ships have silently come to India for shipbreaking!
So, what will christians do? Will the emerging church help to lead the way? I don’t think that we have to wait for consensus and concerted action. By sharing ideas over the net, as the ec is good at doing, actions and initiatives that work on a micro level can be tried at other places. The long-term effectiveness will depend on practicality and on how well we can educate. But, led by the Spirit, we don’t need to be overly concerned about predicting our success.
We do need to get started and to stick to it for the issues involve God’s justice, God’s care for His world and God’s plan for us in this world.
Live to serve : Serve to live
Could the curse of the ground actually be man?
Could this mean God cursed the ground with man’s dominion over the earth? That it is fallen man that is the curse on all that he comes into contact with? And that God will not ‘hurt’ the soil any longer for man’s transgressions? But man will just get it directly?
What is your take on the nature of ‘curse?’ It seems YHWH may have made a shift here, from considering man’s environment as the option in which to affect the children of Adam, to one of just human society itself.
In a way, YHWH left the earth for us to curse ourselves, instead of by divine fiat. If we were given the earth to be in charge of, as our little piece of Creation to see if we can handle it as well as YHWH in greater Creation, then it flows from there. Can we create our own heaven from knowledge, like the heaven of wisdom that Adam rejected?
It also points to YHWH’s regard for non-human life. In our artificial modern lives, we have only our pets to connect us to non-human life on a regular basis. So it is more difficult for us to perceive non-human life like those ancients who took it for granted, and had a language that related to the natural world that is lost to our modern security of suburbs and grocery stores.
A subtle shift. But its interesting how our regard for the objective matter we live in still holds today.
Learning to love God's creation
One great thing about the emerging church is precisely that it hasn’t yet settled down (as a whole) to being very structurally conditioned. In the context of our present discussion, you don’t yet get the “what! you skipped Sunday Service (or bible study) to go out for a wilderness trip???” response.
Now, getting oneself physically out of the city and into the wilderness may not be everyone’s cup of tea! Yet, I strongly feel that we must at least be encouraging towards “getting in touch with nature”. I find that the majority of my companions in eco-tourism are all either agnostics or atheists, very, very few are committed christians.
It also helps to see for oneself what is happening in the forests and in the oceans that are in our neighborhood. This is the best response to sitting around believing what either the politicians, media, or scientists are feeding us as ‘truth’. I am personally convinced of the urgent need for change in how we deal with the environment largely because I have personally witnessed the decline of prime forests, wildlife populations, and the oceans near wherever I have lived over the last several years.
I have my father to thank for building in me a love for nature, not the church!
Makes one wonder…
Live to serve : Serve to live
Environmental Novice
I am a complete novice when it comes to the environment I have to say, I am researching for an essay at the moment on the media’s role in shaping public awareness of environmental issues and the like but haven’t really got much to report on it as yet (deadline fast approaching!) however I would like to put in my two cents on a few of the points discussed here.
Firstly I think it is a common but flawed idea that the interests of environmentalists and those who care for the poor are somehow exclusive. Local as well as national environmental issues will and do hit the least well of within western societies as well as our global village worst and first. Look at the Katrina aftermath, also in the USA minority communities are most likely to live near hazardous waste sites (1987 United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice). Looking globally, which countries get hit the worst by global warming here: http://www.news.wisc.edu/11878.html
In our market led economy, those who reap the rewards from our increased technological wizardry and our ability to make super use of the greasy black stuff are rarely those who are hit with the costs (the guy with the SUV probably doesn’t live by a sewage plant). Be it on local or global environmental issues this remains true.
Another point from Virgil linking environmentalist groups to leftist or communist perspectives. There is probably a grain of truth in what you say, especially when you look to the most radical of these groups, however given the close link between environmental justice and social justice this is not nessacarily surprising.
However in the main I cannot stick with you, a 1994 MORI poll indicated that twice as many British people said that they would choose to protect the environment at the expense of the economy. Not all of these people surely could be leftist communist types, bearing in mind that in order to get ellected in 1997 Labour had to shed many of their socialist policies for a more centrist position based on the market and whatnot. 1992 Health of the Planet survey found majorities in all nations surveyed (except Nigeria) chose “Protecting the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of slowing down the economy” instead of “Economic growth should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent”
This demonstrates the broad based support for environmental justice, that we in parts of the church seem still to be debating the existance of environmental threats in 2006 is strange to me. Surely the church should be taking the lead on these issues, not least the emergent church. To my mind, God got sick of waiting for the large parts of the church to act and went ahead without us, our theology needs to catch up with Gods action and our lives need to follow into line pretty sharpish.
So what does a church or a community look like who persue environmental as well as social justice? Have a look at this great project from NY for some ideas, not official “church” I don’t think but you couldn’t get more christocentric if you tried.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2883494385256707942
There are some major social and environmental problems in the world, which cannot be dealt with by driving around in a Dodge packed up with goodies from Walmart. All people need dignity, the “poor” don’t want parcel drops any more, they need a chance to build a decent, sustainable life in a world where their children can continue to thrive. The world has a finite amount of resources and we need to start thinking about how this is going to work out.
If everyone on earth lived like the average American we would need five planets resources! The environmental question goes far further than a future issue for our children, it hits us right now on questions of social justice and an unthinkable inequality between resources and distribution. The way we live in the West especially those on this discussion from Canada or USA(or the UAE), would not be possible if these resources were distributed evenly (or even close to even).
Sorry for the long and at times bitty post I hope it’s useful! I wanted to think more about the implications of a theology of environmental justice but from the discussion thus far I still we are still somewhat talking about the reason for such a priority to exist. Most of the survey info is from Contested Natures by Macnaghten & Urry.
Climate change rally in Trafalgar Square, 4 November
How should the emerging church respond to the prospect of ‘large scale ecosystem collapse’?
The EC in the UK should gather with the Stop Climate Chaos coalition in London on Saturday 4 November, for a rally ahead of the UN conference on climate change taking place in Nairobi, 6-17 November.
There will be a service at St Martin-in-the-Fields 12.30 - 13.30. The rally takes place in Trafalgar Square 14.00 - 15.00.
However, this comes with a health warning: climate change could become Tony Blair’s last bid to save the universe before bowing out of office next year, and could also become Gordon Brown’s next ‘big thing’ as an indirect way of plugging Britain’s ballooning revenue deficit.
Shouldn’t be a problem to the left of centre emerging church though - which like all other brands of church, should stand up and be counted on this issue over which the future of the planet, especially the 2/3 sector of the planet, is at stake.
A link for further details about 4 Nov can be found here. My daughter tells me I should be there, so I will probably travel up with her.
This is not good...
Peter, I just looked at the website for this group and it’s full of lies and misleading statements. I believe that if the emerging church is starting to associate itself with groups that use lying to push their agenda, then credibility will go down the drain pretty quickly. Here are some of the lies listed at http://www.stopclimatechaos.org/4.asp
1. 150,000 people already die every year from climate change (World Health Organisation) - blatant lie and manufactured statistic; I cannot see any way this group can actualy prove this claim.
2. The area of the world stricken by drought has doubled between 1970 and the early 2000s (Greenpeace) - the Sahara desert has been expanding for hundreds of years before man started to burn coal and before the internal combustion engine was invented; what/who caused that?
3. The economic costs of global warming are doubling every decade (UN) - another misleading statistic which factors in floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. All these things happened as much or more for hundreds of years. The only reason cost is higher is because the footprint of populated areas is expanding and the target of natural disasters is larger.
4. The impact of climate change on some wildlife will already be catastrophic even with little further change in the climate. Up to a third of land-based species could face extinction by the middle of the century (RSPB) - we did not need global warming to kill off the dinosaurs and thousands of other species millions of years ago.
5. 100 million more people will be flooded by end of century (FoE) - see point 3 above.
6. People in low-income countries are four times more likely to die in natural disasters than people in high income countries…Poverty and lagging development exacerbates people’s vulnerability to extreme weather - communistic propaganda - what does this have to do with global warming?
7. Water availability could decline – Over 3 billion people in the Middle East and the Indian sub-continent could be facing acute shortages of water - not news - Misleading statement; for thousands of years people in various areas have been in need of water.
8. 30 million more people may be hungry because of climate change by 2050 (Hadley Centre, UK) - another bogus fact - millions of people have always been hungry; there is no way to prove this statement wrong, so how can they prove it right?
9. There has been a 40% drop in the amount of arctic ice since the 1970s - another misleading statement. Most scientists agree that our planet is coming out of an ice age right now. Global warming is a reality, however IT IS NOT caused by human activity. I can walk outside my house here in Ohio and can see glaciar activity in the form of mounds and huge granite boulders brought here all the way from Canada by glaciers thousands of years ago. Who and what melted those glaciers back then?
10. The cost of insured damage in a severe hurricane season in the USA could rise by three-quarters to £82billion - another ridiculous fact. This is a statement about market economics and insurance statistics. Nobody is forcing me to insure my houe against hurricanes if I do not want to do so.
I could go on and on and take apart every “fact” presented by this group. All I am pleading for with you and everyone else involved in this debate is discernment and common sense. Many of those groups have been hijacked by political interest groups and socio-communist interests and they could not care less about the environment - money is the drive. I’ll try to find a study I read a while back about how many of those groups are linked fund-raising for left-wing parties and I’ll send it your way.
No pressure from Exxon then?
I always thought money was the drive behind right wing groups whose opposition to environmental protection was manipulated by oil companies. But that could be an inflammatory suggestion.
I think some of your criticisms of the Stop Climate Chaos bullet points are wishful thinking - eg that the melting of Arctic ice is caused by our coming out of an ice age. I thought scientists were agreed that the melting of Arctic ice was caused by a global rise in temperature - which can be traced to man-made carbon emissions.
I haven’t heard or read any serious argument that global warming is just a natural phenomenon for some time, so I look forward to being enlightened.
I’ll still attend the London rally though - just in case.
Exxon who? We need to look at the facts
Peter, I have no stake in Exxon Mobile, so I do not care about their interests - all I am interested in are facts, and the facts point out a reality that is being ignored by the vast majority of environmentalist groups. Also, the oil that Exxon Mobile pumps out of the ground every day goes to great lengths to provide food, clothing and heat for many people across the world. The use of oil and gasoline is one of the very few factors that have contributed to the bettering of mankind.
I do want to make a few additional points though:
1. Global warming is a reality however nobody can prove that it is a result of human activity. Just claiming that global warming is a result of human activity does not make it so.
2. The increase in solar activity is being totally ignored by envionmentalists as a potential cause of global warming, yet scientists admit that it is a significant component. A long term study discussed in this same article shows that the temperatures on Earth are directly connected to changes in the Sun’s output.
3. A recent study published in the Geophysical Research Letters shows a significant cooling of the oceans rather than warming as the enviornmentalists claim. Environmentalist computer models predict a warming of the waters, yet actual observations (not based on models) show the opposite results.
4. Global warming has been only studied for several decades and there is no long-term scientific data or trends to conclude that humans are responsible for it. Again, I ask the question: who/what contributed to the melting of glaciars throughout the midwest United States and the retreat of glacial ice all the way to the arctic circle - which took place thousands of years ago?
5. In his speech at the Washington Center for Complexity and Public Policy, Michael Chrichton exposed the “end of the world” scare tactics of the environmentalist groups, used as fund-raising motivators; he also showed how little effect mankind has on the environment and how insignificant we are in the scheme of things.
6. I also recommend reading his testimony before the U.S. Congress (Committee on Environment and Public Works) in which he points out errors, mistakes and outright lies which appeared in studies done by environmentalists.
5. As a last point, the Competitive Enterprise Institute has put together a fantastic response to Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” - I highly recommend it to anyone interested in both sides of this debate (PDF File) http://www.cei.org/pdf/5478.pdf
God bless!
Exxon Mobil
(Without the ‘e’). It wasn’t your stake in the oil company I was questioning, Virgil; rather the assumption that the only people driven by subversive aims in relation to environmental issues are left-wing radicals (according to the populist US Christian code: left-wing = bad; right-wing = good). By right-wing groups, I was of course referring to Republicans, many of whom represent the interests of oil companies and multi-national conglomerates which have an interest in stifling environmental and ecological awareness. Sadly, and tragically, this has come to home to roost in the US through the flouting of safety procedures by the British oil company BP.
You are right...
My bad in mispelling Exxon Mobil’s name. :) I really would not be able to find their stock symbol if my life depended on it!
And yes, I agree - there is manipulation and lying happening on both sides. So why then buy into what either side is claiming instead of doing an independent sort of studying and researching? The day when it will be proven that humanity is the actual cause of global warming, I will be with you at the podium pointing out the evils of “big oil” and their coverups and trying to figure out what we need to do to stop it. But that day has yet to come, and until then, I will stay in the middle and try to look at the hard numbers on both sides of this argument. Short of building a shield from the sun for the entire planet there is little we can do to stop or curb this warming.
We can watch, learn and hopefully accurately pass what we are observing to the future generations so they can make better decisions and truly develop long-term trends in order to better understand the problem.
Virgil, 'Communistic?'
Boy, Virgil, haven’t seen that term used in quite a while.
But you do make a good point. The earth will take care of itself. And it is human hubris to think that it can control the earth to its whim, that we have everything under control. We don’t, so let the earth change as it must. We will continue to support our lifestyles, and adjust if necessary. The market will solve all our issues.
Climate change is not about ‘the environment,’ nature. It is about the human environment, or habitat if you think in species terms. 12,000 years of civilization is a speck in time for the earth, if you’re not a Creationist.
If the sea levels do rise, we will just build dikes around New York City, and move inland. If the water runs out, we will use technology to get some more. If hurricanes do increase, we will fix the damage like new (see: New Orleans). Nothing is outside of our ability to survive. So let’s not set up a communist government to protect the environment. We need Neo-cons, like George Bush, to protect our freedoms by suspending habeas corpus in the war on terror.
Our economy is based on environmental stability. The stock market is based on the psychology of fear and greed. But we are so smart, that the integrity in our economy is not like it was at the beginning of the Great Depression. The billions of dollars in equity in Enron, that vanished in a day, cannot happen on a large scale. We all agree on the value of money in relation to goods. Value will be maintained despite any environmental shift. We just have to get the rest of the world to agree to live a modern lifestyle. Then its business as usual.
We are in control. Sure the satellites show that the polar ice caps have dramatically shrunk in only 30 years. But did men really walk on the moon? Or was it a conspiracy in the Cold War? All we know that works is individuals being in control, not government. Keep it loose and the freedom of the marketplace will keep us all alive.
So let’s take our emerging Christianity and just stay focused on the individual human being. After all, we are the only, and most important conscious thing in Creation. Everything else is just dry matter that we need to constantly manage. We’ve done fine for 12,000 years. Why change?
Yes, Communistic
I do find it interesting how when confronted with facts you shift your gears into “Sarcasm” hoping that perhaps that will convince me that I am wrong. It really doesn’t do anything for me or for this dialogue :)
So yes, when I hear Tony Blair talking (seriously) about a “Global Warming Tax” all I can do is laugh outloud and say “yea yeah…it’s communistic!”
My Apologies, Virgil
You are quite right. The science on climate change is based on a science that is in its infancy. Civilization has never had to use science to control something on this scale.
The climate change issue is not one about saving the planet. It is a political issue concerning control of human civilization/habitat. Most suffering in the world today, ecologically speaking, is caused by stupid wars and near-sighted economic goals. Lake Baikal in the old Soviet Union, and the drought in Ethiopia being prime examples. I think your argument is, if we keep individuals ‘loose,’ freedom will give humans the flexibility to respond, instead of narrow government goals, which cater to special interest groups.
The climate issue is, at its foundation, about maintaining our standard of living. The civilized mind is constantly on alert for threats. And all predicters point to places like Canada, as benefitting from any increase in temperatures.
In the end, it really does not matter. I agree with you on that point. If climate change is real and human-made, there is no way world civilization can reverse its course fast enough to stop it in the present (scientific) timeline. There is an illusion right now that there is a technological fix to this. This is a result of our inability to look at the whole problem, instead of breaking everything into manageable bits to make us feel in control. The whole picture of is too overwhelming to confront. Leaving out climate change, the rise of Asia geo-politically is enough to worry about, let alone the struggle for resources. As the baby boomers retire, the flood of cheap money will dry up, and the purchasing power with it, affecting our economies. We don’t need climate change to scare us out of our knickers.
So, again, the point about climate change is moote. It may sound negative to be realistic. But the Appalachians are still green, and my neighborhood will probably still look the same in a year. Change is inevitable. Best to work on our souls and be good to our fellow man. That is the only relationship we have. With even God so invisible, it is difficult to perceive of human life in connection with any other valuable life forms. We know ourselves as the dominant species because of our consciousness, and define ourselves in relation to that which is lesser and greater than us.
Tony Blair Closet communist
Virgil I can deffinately wrap this up right now, Tony Blair is most deffinately NOT a closet commie! There is a broad body of support in the scientific and political community outside of the USA for Climate Change science this is not a generally contested science other than within the upper echolons of the United States.
it's all the same
Last time there was a “broad body of support in the scientific and political community outside of the USA” for something this big, a few million Jews died in gas chambers and experimentation labs across Europe.
Again guys, I am kindly asking you to address facts, not demonstrate how a majority of scientists (and that is even a questionable statistic) can demonstrate something to be true by just being a majority.
Let me repeat - I am not denying that there is such a thing as global warming. What I am asking for is evidence to show that humans are the cause. Of all people, being a Preterist, I WANT to preserve the environment for my children and for future generations, however I am also a scientist and I will not swallow this whole just because I am being asked to.
Prophets of hope
In connection with the Trafalgar Square rally, this was an interesting idea.
It still bothers me that so much of this discussion is simply a rehashing of the mainstream political-scientific debate. The debate is very important, and there’s every reason for the church to participate in it. But where is the prophetic stance that demonstrates a right relation to the environment? Is the church really only called to run a sort of sacred sideshow to the main event? Shouldn’t our primary focus be on acting out the full scope of renewed creation? Isn’t there a need for theatre, drama, a prophetic embodiment of hope? How do we manifest the creativity of God? How would we project that on to the exterior of our public institutions?
I would suggest that the issue for the church is not so much statistics as symbolics.
I right this having spent much of the day in the dwindling rainforests of Borneo. It’s very sad.
So Peter, how was the rally?
Trafalgar Square rally
The rally happened. If you were organising it, 30,000 people attended; if you were the police, about 10,000 attended. It was very poorly compered by a Stop Climate Chaos representative, whose main achievement seemed to be to get on the wrong side of the crowd by cynical and snide comments about famous personalities who were not at the event.
Following the Stern report, I suspect there will be a political hi-jacking of the issues by some whose motives may not be entirely altruistic (Messrs Blair - for his yet to be fulfilled legacy to posterity, and Brown - to raise taxes for reasons entirely other than saving the planet).
I do, however, think there is something ‘prophetic’ about Christians working in coalitions with other groups in society - from the point of view of others in the coalitions as much as the impact, if any, it makes on the wider world. I’m also amazed to read that Andrew’s laptop was providing internet connectivity in the rain forests of Bourneo. That in itself must count as a prophetic, supernatural sign.
How different are we from Bible characters?
How seriously do we understand the Biblical characters’ understanding of nature in relation to our own?
We look sociologically at what YHWH was really saying to humans about how they should act in society and individually. But how different were these people in their understanding and relationship with the earth?
Its difficult to crack. We live in the most artificial environment ever created, and thus hamstrung by bizarre thought-structures about reality. Previous generations had to live with all the life of the earth to survive and had a real relationship with it.
Modern citizen do not have daily contact with non-human life, outside of thier dogs. They exist in what they consider objective matter. In mining the Bible to support environmentalism, it is good to remember our assumptions and lack of experience with non-human life. That is why nature, which is alive, is now ‘the environment,’ which is a dry concept.
Its a respect-for-life kind of thing. When we don’t have contact with non-human life, especially for our survival, the task of ‘saving the planet’ for human habitation degenerates into fixing the earth like a car engine. We know the components. Lets adjust it to maintain our assumptions and comforts.
It makes it an even bigger leap to save the planet just for itself, life outside of the human. Civilization is structured to dominate the earth, not be equal to it. Only humans are allowed to be equal, between themselves. Its good concept to agree to this, but our daily lives do not include non-human life. We survive because of grocery stores and money, not the chicken in the back yard.
We must also appreciate that stopping climate change is nearly impossible. Our survival system is based on mathematics (money, science, business), not the earth. No money means no food from the supermarket. Its that simple. We have no other way to feed 600 million Westerners at the moment on this scale.
Job loss to save the environment is not an attractive option. Kyoto says we must lower emissions to 1990 levels. But climate change started at 1970’s levels. So we must lower our economic activity to 1960’s levels; the time before women flooded the workforce.
Even if the 600 million Westerners could completely reverse their societies within a decade, 3 billion Asians are coming along just fine to ape out current lifestyle. Is it reasonable to believe that the Chinese Communist Party will give up its looming economic and political hegemony that is now on the horizon, just to save ‘the environment?’
These are real life realities. If the E.C. wants to be effective, it needs to see how profoundly deep this crisis is. Christianity is not too good at agreeing to discomfort or deprivation (baby boomers have no real experience with it). But the dramatic shift that is needed will entail this.
There is little sign that this has penetrated any authorities, except the scientists who constantly revise the speed upon which climate change is building. We have the illusion that we have a lot of time, and that we can control the earth like we do the small things in our lives. And without any real relationship with the life of the earth, the size of the paradigm shift needed is not likely to happen. Politicians don’t get elected making voters unemployed and shutting down economic activity. And the United States is not goint to let China take over the world without a struggle.
How do we connect this reality with theology? How should the E.C. respond to this? What is lacking right now that can still be found in the Bible if we see our own modern limits in perception? We need to consider this as we drive our cars to the grocery stores to buy coffee from Guatemala with the money generated by our abundant economy.
Asia & Climate Change
Sunwarrior I noticed some mention of the China and India question. This brings to bear an incredibly interesting point. Head over to http://tools.google.com/gapminder/ and run up a chart of income per capita against carbon emmisions per capita, sorry the direct link is below I hope it still works:
Direct Link to the Graph
As you can see 1975 emmisions per capita for china are at 1.2 tonnes per capita while India is on 0.41 and the US on 20. Fast forward to 2002 and China has risen to 2.7, India 1.2 and the US remains steady on 20.
You can look at this data in two ways, one is with alarm at the rate of increase for Chinese and Indian emissions per capita, take another look along the y axis though and you will see massive improvement in income per capita with (relat