Eschatology and global warming
|
There’s a nice article by Matt Frei on the BBC website that looks at the contrasting stances taken by Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University and Eastern Mennonite University, both in Virginia, over the issue of global warming (‘Evangelicals and Global Warming’). The crux of the dispute is illustrated by the following quote from the article:
It highlights again the pressing need for a good eschatology - one that does not simply force us to choose between two conflicting New Testament visions, as John Dominic Crossan does in his recent God & Empire when he argues that ‘the Book of Revelation is the Christian Bible’s last and thus far most successful attempt to subsume the radicality of God’s nonviolence into the normalcy of civilization’s violence’ (230). In many ways it’s an excellent book, but it illustrates the problem that always arises when we try to force the square peg of the biblical narrative into the round hole of an entrenched ideological prejudice. Perhaps I might humbly recommend instead my own The Coming of the Son of Man. But that’s another matter. Or is it? Anyway, the question I want to ask here is this: Does the Bible really equip us to deal with the problem of global warming - whether or not it is the direct product of human activity? Are we not just scraping the bottom of the biblical barrel looking for scraps of a response to what is overwhelmingly a scientific and political issue? Note: this is not so much a question of whether the church should respond constructively, though that is certainly up for discussion. It is primarily a question about what resources we have available to us - and in particular, what biblical resources - as we struggle to define a constructive response. |
Comments
Management or Justice
Brian, I think the idea that we are the stewards of nature is one of the first ideas we need to get rid of. I don’t want to misinterpret what you said, but the idea that nature is (or should be) under our control or management is what I think got us into this. Even a Christian, Francis of Assisi acknowledged in The Canticle of Brother Son that the elements of creation are our sisters and brothers who abundantly supply our needs. We should be thankful for it, respect it and understand our reliance on it, rather than maintain illusions of stewardship over it.
However, Nature is like an alien in this strange world that we are creating. Creatures are being imprisoned in their rapidly dwindling habitats. Some species are widowed and orphaned by having their habitats, their means of support, totally destroyed. Our atmosphere, water, and energy supply, have been abused for the selfish gain of others, primarily by the rich who have manipulated the world’s economic and legal systems to do this. Nature staggers around blindly in a world rapidly changing, but without sight it has no means of adjusting fast enough.
If we can see the world through the eyes of Francis of Assisi (and I believe God’s eyes), the idea of stewardship is transformed into justice, and justice is one thing our scriptures say tons about. We are to respect and privide for (not manage) the aliens, widows, and orphans among us. And we can not forget that Jesus came to make the blind to see and set the prisoners free.
But first we have to see nature the way God sees nature. And I don’t know if any Middle Eastern scriptures help us there.
Richard
Re: Management or Justice
Hi Richard,
I can see your point around the stewardship thing and how that might have got us into trouble. Perhaps the stewardship idea only works in a perfect world (which in the story is in fact the case). Maybe dropping the word would be good. My understanding of the concept would be similar to the way you expressed it. I like the brother and sister idea and the interdependence it implies. I also agree with the ideas around injustice. I suppose by exploring the Near Eastern texts (in a extremely limited and piecemeal way!) I was trying to point out that an appreciation for creation is part of the narrative. Perhaps the narrative is better expressed in St.Francis. I’m just not sure the difference is as great as we make it out to be. I’m also not arguing that everything in the biblical narrative is a helpful approach to the ecological crisis. I think what I’m hoping, and to an extent believe, is that there are pointers in the narrative which we can identify with, which can become part of our story today. I agree with all you said, but still feel the narrative has something to offer. I think you might have been implying that when focussing in on the justice issue?
Brian
Re: Eschatology and global warming
A biblical solution?
In What (again) is an emerging theology?
you place emphasis on:
5. A theology that at its heart is a reading of scripture.
and
1. …a community that is in self-conscious continuity with the biblical people of God [emphasis mine]
This is valid in this context, because if we want hope or guidance we can look at God’s dance with humanity so far.
But honestly … our Bible is useless when it comes to environmental guidance. I think we need to be honest with ourselves and admit that when God was dishing out saints and scriptures, the Jews drew the short straw when it comes to environmental issues. (No offense to Jews intended, they gave us Moses, the prophets, Jesus …)
Andrew, you say that you want to know “what biblical resources” (emphasis yours) we have available to us. Easy answer - a few stories which it is possible to disfigure until you have some ugly caricature that is neither biblical with any integrity nor really environmental either.
I think that the story of Adam and Eve eating the fruit of the tree can be validly interpreted as a violation of nature to satisfy our own appetites and curiosity. You can then add in some McLaren and show how this is continued by Cain becoming an agriculturalist and murdering his hunter-gatherer brother. But what next? How do we respond? IMHO, Christian scriptures and tradition just don’t care. It will take an open cannon and generations of people that do care to change this. Nuff said.
Towards a solution
But why do we care where our scriptures come from? In the same post you make the point
14. A generous theology that is inclined to discover meaning and truth outside of itself.
God thinks that the environment is so important that he has put it near the centre of many other great religious traditions. Christian theology focussed on some important (and sometimes unimportant) things, while some other religions were getting ready for something vital that would only become apparent much later. (Of course, there is lots that we can offer them but right now we need to look at the plank in our own eye)
An analogy: the Christian environmental lifeboat is sinking. God encouraged the development of religious traditions outside of the Middle East, which are very good at building boats. They are offering us some urgently needed boat building technology, but the church (in my experience) is suffering from “Not Invented Here” syndrome, and looks with suspicion and fear at anything that looks slightly different from the theology that has brought our planet to the edge of environmental collapse.
I’m not talking about some kind of merged religion. Simply that the church begins to listen to God where God speaks, not where the church chooses to listen. And that in solving our theological problems we ask people that already solved them, not just people like us looking for a solution.
Step 1: we need to admit we have a problem that we can’t control. Jerry Falwell aside - Done.
Step 2: believe in a higher power - Done
Step 3: turn our lives over to him and accept the solutions he provided two thousand years before we even needed it - …
Steps 4-12: I think we have a heck of a lot of hard work, amend making, and apologising to do.
Re: Eschatology and global warming
Regardless of one's take on the 'stewardship' question (whether or not humans should consider it their responsibility to 'run the Earth'), I think most will agree that it's quite possible for humans to screw things up, and to do so on a large scale. I think this, in essence, is what global warming says.
To the extent that God's moral law is woven into the fabric of reality, pillaging and raping the Earth will (eventually) make us fall under what could theologically be labelled as "God's wrath". That is to say, we will reap what we sow—if we sow destruction out of our boundless greed, we will reap destruction because of our boundless greed. Our general inability to believe that other humans, animals, and Creation itself exist, not for us, but for themselves and for the glory of God, is what needs to be remedied.
While the biblical story may not have a 5-step plan to 'fix' nature, there are plenty of pictures/stories that are told to help the people of God imagine life in God's good Earth. I'm thinking primarily about the Creation stories (Genesis 1 and 2) and Isaiah's visions (Isaiah 11).
The Agape Community has done (I think) a good job of prophetically embodying New Creation, free from the selfish patterns that we have typically imposed upon our world. They live communally, use solar power, grow their own food, drive veggie oil-powered cars and advocate for nonviolence. There are many such communities popping up left and right, and these are exactly what the world needs to see more of.
I'm sure more could be said, but that'll do for now.
Cheers,
-Daniel-
Re: Eschatology and global warming
Andrew - you have a mischievous sense of humour. Anyone would think from your comment that the only good alternative to “two conflicting New Testament visions” was your own!
Thomas Ice is notorious for his promotion of a populist eschatology which encourages irresponsibility to creation. But what is the eschatology of Eastern Mennonite Uiversity, Harrisonburg, Virginia? We don’t know, because the report doesn’t say, except that it sounds far more responsible than that of Ice/Falwell & co. Let’s not dismiss it as one of two conflicting and equally expendable visions before it has been heard. It may be the ‘good’ version. The Mennonites have a practical expertise in conflict resolution on the basis of a lived-out theology of non-violent involvement in creation. Let the theology have its say.
What I haven’t understood from ‘The Coming of the Son of Man’ is in what way it offers a vision any different from those we have always been called on to practise: in which a future “new heaven and a new earth” - Revelation 21:1 - by no means encourages an irresponsible attitude to our natural environment now. Love of neighbour inescapably means responsible lifestyle and use of natural resources, where irresponsibility in one part of the world can have disastrous consequences in other parts of the world. Love of God reinforces the imperative of love of neighbour, and also points us to care for creation as a whole as a gift of God.
Beyond this, every action by the church which is an outworking of a holistic spirituality, in which the natural world, humankind and spirit are seen as interconnected aspects of creation, is a prophetic sign of the new order in the creation to come. It may be only partial and temporary now, but it points powerfully to a more complete future, and brings the future age into the present in real and tangible ways.
It’s not a new theology we need to be able to express this, it’s just a more careful understanding of the theological tools which are already to hand. Given this kind of interpretative starting point, the biblical foundations come more clearly to light. There is a successive recapitulation of creation in the injunctions given to Noah, Abraham and Israel at their respective commissionings to bring blessing and fruitfulness to the land/earth. Such commissionings were fulfilled in Jesus himself, who brought blessing and fruitfulness in his earthly ministry, and made blessing and fruitfulness available as a ministry to the entire creation through all of his followers by his death - which overcame the contrary powers: the curse of death and unfruitfulness.
It is only relatively recently that a theology has arisen which dualistically separates matter and spirit, and encourages a view of the future which is a counsel of despair for creation in the present (but not the evangelical theology of Wilberforce, Shaftesbury or Booth, for instance). Though having said that, didn’t the gnostics believe something similar? Maybe it’s not so recent. Maybe that is why John insisted on the importance of believing that Jesus had come in the flesh (not just the spirit). The resurrection of Jesus was in itself the beginning of the new creation, which has an outworking in life now, and not just in the future age to come. Responsibility to creation follows from the incarnation as well as the resurrection of Jesus.
In this light, it’s possible to see in the Genesis 1 mandates, the successive recapitulations of creation in the OT narrative, the care for the land in the jubilee injunctions, an extended biblical theme of responsibility to creation as a whole, where heaven and earth constantly interact (for better or worse), and the key figure in the whole situation is man himself.
Perhaps Falwell and his school of theology should consider adding a module which includes prophetic interpretation of contemporary natural disasters - not least those which have recently been afflicting the USA - based on OT parallels, from the viewpoint of a holistically inspired creation theology. They probably wouldn’t agree with the findings, but it would be interesting for them and their students.
Re: Eschatology and global warming
The emphasis on the imminence of Christ's 'Second Coming' in more traditional evangelical eschatologies is what seems most naturally linked to carelessness in regards to the Earth (because we won't be here that much longer anyway). It's also why non-Christians make fun of us. How long can something be imminent, anyway?
The advantage of Andrew's thesis is that the imminence of the parousia in the NT texts doesn't translate to any kind of imminence for the emerging church—all (or most) of what the NT writers anticipated has in fact come to pass. While we do in fact have a hope for the future (viz. a new heavens and a new earth), there is no timeline, and we could consequently be here for a looooong long time (something traditional eschatologies don't really seem to consider). In this context, care for the Earth makes a good deal of sense.
Re: Eschatology and global warming
Daniel - If the belief in the imminence of Christ’s ‘second coming’ in more traditional evangelical eschatologies is linked to carelessness in regards to the Earth (because we won’t be here much longer anyway) - that is a link formed through careless scriptural interpretation. It is not necessary to adopt a different eschatology to break the link.
The parable of the faithful servant - Matthew 24:45, and the parable of the talents - Matthew 25:14-30 make the same point: the requirement of the servants in the master’s absence and delayed return was faithfulness, not abdication of responsibility. This would apply whether you believe in a parousia which is yet to take place - a belief in Christ’s future second coming, or a 1st century parousia. (I believe in both!).
Re: Masters and servants and the environment
Andrew - it’s not reading too much into the master/servants stories if their context is taken in the usual way - not simply the period leading to the destruction of Jerusalem, but the longer period leading to the ultimate return of Christ to the earth. I’m actually taking a much simpler interpretation of the parables than you - the faithfulness of the servants refers to the faithfulness of the disciples and of Jesus’s followers through all time. This would include all aspects of faithfulness to God’s household, which includes the temple of God’s people, and the whole created world which it inhabits and for which it was designed. Matthew especially lays his version of the son of man’s coming open to such an extended possibility by the change of wording from Mark & Luke in the questions which introduce his account. (We have gone over this already).
BTW - I think you read too much into the military victory imagery in Psalm 118 as a literal context to the meaning of Psalm 118:22. I can’t see how this relates to literal military action in the 1st century.
Re: Eschatology and global warming
I have noticed an assumption in much of the rhetoric concerning global warming, both among Christians and in the secular sphere. The assumption is that global warming is evil somehow. From what I’ve gathered there area number of people who believe that the way in which humans affect the environment is morally wrong. From a theological standpoint, some people think God is mad at us for warming up the earth.
I contend that global climate change (if it is indeed human-caused) is actually morally neutral. What is of moral concern to me is the effect that such changes will have on my fellow humans. I care not for the loss of beautiful glaciers nor the continued encroachment of deserts on temperate lands. I care for the people who suffer as a result of these changes. What is interesting from this perspective, though, is that not all consequences for global climate change are bad for humans. But perhaps that is for another discussion.
As Christians, I believe our best efforts would be focused towards successfully adapting to whatever changes may come rather than trying to prevent them. Efforts to reduce carbon emissions do not seem hopeful and a major shift in human behavior may have unintended negative consequences on our environment as well. And really global warming is not significantly different than any other crisis in history. We as the people of God are called to do our best to adapt to the situations and take care of people.
—
“I do not preach universal salvation; what I say is that I cannot exclude the possibility that God would save all men at the Judgment.” ~ Karl Barth
Re: Eschatology and global warming
ndansmith,
while I agree with you that we must adopt to the climate change I do not comprehend why efforts to reduce carbon emissions may have negative consequences on our environment even through a major shift in human behavior.
Can you explain this?
if we exchange our lightbulbs with energy saving lightbulbs; use less our cars and more public transportation, produce cars that use less gas, produce cars that drive with alternative energy, produce energy with wind or solar, use video conferences instead of using airplanes to fly to meetings, eat less meat, plant new trees etc - how does this have negative consequences on our environment?
Mathias
Re: Eschatology and global warming
Well, in sum, it _may_ have an unintended effect. Here are a few ideas from your examples:
• Wind and solar energy have not been adopted en masse as of yet. We already know that wind farms can be devastating for bird populations. However, were we to seriously expand wind and solar power, we may find that these devices which take a lot of energy out of our atmosphere (as opposed to releasing chemical energy which was buried in the earth). That may in turn have undesirable effects on climate.
• Planting new trees is an apparently admirable idea. However, forests which are replanted all at once and with one kind of tree (which is the most common practice of reforestation at least in the Pacific Northwest of the US) tend to be too dense and homogeneous. This makes the new forests much more susceptible to wild fires among other things.
There could be more. Of course the point of my post was that they would be unintended, which almost certainly means we are not familiar with them now.
—
“I do not preach universal salvation; what I say is that I cannot exclude the possibility that God would save all men at the Judgment.” ~ Karl Barth
Re: Eschatology and global warming
ndansmith,
in all respect and even validness of your concerns, I think those answers obscure the problem. yes, some birds might be dying as a result of wind farms. but this is like saying we shouldn’t rescue a person dying at an accident scene, because the ambulance car on the way to get there might get involved in another accident and therefore other people might get hurt.
And of course mono culturs can have negative impacts on the environment. but why are you not talking about how to plant a diversified forest that doesn’t create those problems rather than saying planting trees can be bad and with this implying let’s just not do it?
And really, I have not yet heard of any scientific research being done that wind or solar energy would ‘take a lot of energy out of the atmosphere’. Did I miss something?
I mean of course anything we do has an impact on our surrounding. But dont you think rather than not changing at all we should try to ask how best we can do it? And we all know that at some point we will have to get away from oil anyways, since it will be running out. Why wait to change?
mathias
Re: Eschatology and global warming
We do send an ambulance, but we make sure it follows reasonable safety precautions. My perception of plans to stop carbon emissions is that they are hasty and headlong (an ambulance driving 110 MPH at night in the rain if you will).
You’ve not heard of any research being done with respect to solar and wind power removing energy from the atmosphere — that is exactly my point. We need to do that research before we commit to transforming our energy infrastructure to such a system.
I am not advocating not changing at all. I am saying that we need to be cautious about major changes in human behavior. It was a reckless major shift in human behavior (i.e. burning fossil fuels like there is no tomorrow) that got us into this mess in the first place. Also, if we find that we lack the political will to make the necessary changes, we need to be ready to adapt to the new climate. I see very little “Plan B” planning going on right now.
Re: Eschatology and global warming
It highlights again the pressing need for a good eschatology
I take it, then, that you consider Ice's eschatology as being 'not good'. Perhaps going into all of the reasons for that would be beyond the scope of this topic, but I think I would at least say that his eschatology is not an attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole. Disagree with him if you wish, but his positions have had good biblical support.
Concerning his dismissal of global warming, why should he not do so? Let us deal with reality—we all know what Algore wants, and we all know what he'll do to get it (unless you really believe he is the 'father of the internet').
For (another) example of global warming on another globe, check this out.
Re: Eschatology and global warming
Jazz, if you are going to perpetuate a lie, at least perpetuate a consistent one. Al Gore never claimed he was the “father of the internet” nor, as the original lie went, that he “invented the internet.”
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
Secondly, if you think Al Gore wants to run for the presidency, you are flat wrong. If he DOES choose to run, I will come back here on that day and call myself a fool publicly for saying otherwise.
Now with that ridiculousness out of the way, please try to stick to the facts behind his claims; in other words, see if you can stick to substance and not flamethrowing.
Re: Eschatology and global warming
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/03/18390
quotes from the above…
"WASHINGTON — It's a time-honored tradition for presidential hopefuls to claim credit for other people's successes.
But Al Gore as the father of the Internet?
That's what the campaigner in chief told CNN's Wolf Blitzer during an interview Tuesday evening. Blitzer asked Gore how he was different than other presumptive Democratic challengers, such as Bill Bradley. "What do you have to bring to this that he doesn't necessarily bring to this process?"
Replied Gore: "I'll be offering my vision when my campaign begins, and it'll be comprehensive and sweeping, and I hope that it'll be compelling enough to draw people toward it…. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years."
Then came the kicker: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Huh?"
Re: Eschatology and global warming
Good for Wired Mag. So funny how they put words into his mouth that he didn’t say (which is clear from the partial transcript they provide right below). Did you take a look at the link I sent or just dismiss it out of hand? It does, you know, provide the CNN transcript in context.
Al Gore was responsible for spearheading various legislation that made the internet as we know it possible. Even the real “father of the internet”—Vincent Cerf—defended Gore in this regard.
Re: Square peg in round hole
Then the question seems to be, Andrew, if we are not really debating the truth or lack thereof behind 'global warming', then what is the basis for it being mentioned in the title? If the discussion is to be about something like stewardship in regards to nature and natural resources, all well and good. If that is so, then a bit of clarity on that would be good. If it is suppose to instead be focused on global warming, then we cannot go further then attempts to either verify or not if such an occurrence is happening, and for whatever reasons.
Re: Square peg in round hole
Then why not engage in that, jazz? Why engage in ad hominem attacks on Al Gore, questioning his motives (which you aren’t in a position to do) or passing on falsehoods? It just makes you sound insincere and like someone that shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Re: Square peg in round hole
Jazzact,
as Andrew said, I also really am not a scientist. But most people are not scientists of global warming; yet humankind (including the Church) must decide what they do about it whether they happen to be scientists or not.
Look.I did not live during the 2nd worldwar. And there are indeed scientists that have studied much much more about holocaust than I ever can and they deny it ever happened.
There are scientists ( I met one of them) that are much cleverer than I am that claim that the sun really is circling around the earth and not the other way round. And yes, there are also scientists that believe there is no global warming taking place (or that global warming is most likely not man made). But I am a human being. and I talked to a number of people that are older than I am and all of them confirmed with me that it is warmer now than they remember it ever being. Last month I went to Africa and talked to some local people about the climate. They told me that the rainseason changed and that the climate is different now than it used to be.
The absurd thing for me is that many of the people that believe there is no global warming happening (or not man made anyways) believed firlmly that Iraq posessed weapons of mass destructions. And now please don’t tell me there was no political agenda driving this ‘fact’.
the thing is: whether global warming is man made or not (and most scientists believe it is) there is no disagreement in that 1. there is global warming happening that is clearly on a much higher scale than it ever has been; and 2. greenhouse gases that clearly can be influenced by humanity make things worse. And we as christians should be first in doing something about it and not in denying it.
mathias
Re: Square peg in round hole
Mathias, if not for us having had a fairly friendly discussion in the interpretation thread, I would either laugh at your comparing me to a flat-earther, or get ,shall we say, creative in expressing my opinion or you comparing me to holocaust deniers. I figure you’re not trying to be that insulting, though, so it may be best to let it go.
As far a politicizing Iraq and WMDs, well, I would first point out that we were being told about them some time before the current President Bush was elected, we were also being told about them from many different sources in other countries, we know Hussein used biological weapons (WMDs) against people in his own country, and finally he was keeping the UN inspectors from doing their job (with the UN of course giving more of its useless resolutions).
Further, as far a politics goes, well, I would point to those who are trying to pull a Kerry (voting for the war before voting against it) now that they think they can score political points with rhetoric of defeat and running away.
Finally, let me point you to this page. It’s a long one, with many links to supporting sources. Perhaps it’s not definitive, but I could be a good place to start.
Re: Square peg in round hole
jazzact,
I didn’t compare you to anybody. My point was this: If you put me together with a scientist that denies global warming or the holocaust or the fact that the earth is circling around the sun (BTW I didn’t say a flat earth) , I will not be able to present a convincing scientific argument against this, since this person knows much more about his field than I know. What I am saying is that obviousely the fact that a single (or a small group) of scientists that knows much more than I do are convinced of something doesn’t mean it is true.
And what concerns David Morgan that you linked me to that even admits he is not a scientists and because he is drawing many of his conclusions from a certain politcal website will not be very convincing to me.
One of the main points that was made in several articles of the links was that many aspects of global warming is not a proven fact and it needs a lot more research done to it. I think this might be an accurate statement. But don’t you think that the mere chance that there is global warming taking place and the possibility that we can do something to improve our lives and those after us should prompt us to at least try it an act on the little we know? Doesn’t a doctor in an emergency room with a dying patient sometimes have to take a guess and act quickly even if he doesn’t fully understand the problem yet and the treatment he would give would more likely than not save the patient’s life?
jazzact; can we leave the question aside if global warming is man made or not and can we agree on these two things: 1. there is global warming taking place that can threaten our lives and that of future generations, 2.we can try to reduce global warming by not adding greenhouse gases.
If we could agree on this two things then we could agree to act on it the best we can.
what do you think?
m.
Re: Eschatology and global warming
Andrew, I would advocate narrative approaches in any case, from a theological and philosophical perspective. But what impacts me right now is the sense that with issues like this, these are probably the only tools we have. Along with this and in the light, if I can call it that, of recent debates on this site, I am struck too by the way these narrative tools are inevitably going to pitch us into questions about how the God who speaks in the Bible also speaks through it and, today, from it, and how we discern that speech today.
Peter has already raised a concise range of biblical considerations that are relevant to environmental questions. What I am conscious of, and feeling quite convicted about, is what we need to do between developing our appreciation of those biblical themes and getting a biblically grounded praxis. It is one thing to escape the clutches of over individualised readings of the great themes of scripture but quite another find tools that can equip us to deal with global institutions, corporations and the overbearing State.
I’m not putting this well because I am slightly overwhelmed by a question that I can hardly frame. I think it comes at several levels.
We could say, for example, that if we developed the same love for the world that we see in the recapitulated creational narratives, we might also develop practical theological insights to drive our response. And, perhaps, play catch up with all those who, without the inhibitions of our historical modes of thought, have been at these issues for decades.
Or we might, and Peter mentioned this, draw from the undergirding principles of Jubilee and recognise the driving economic forces behind our exploitation of the earth as a resource, to devise a biblically based approach to consumption at a global level. This is very much the line taken, for example, by Michael Lerner and his proposal for ethical auditing of commerce in the US. When I heard him propose this at a symposium ten years ago I was astonished to find that, without any of the language of the Bible, he was deliberately proposing he principles of Jubilee as a leasehold on the corporate right to trade and even to touch the earth’s resources.
The prophetic voice, then, declares against the economic system that the Earth is the Lord’s, but it also, in line with the worship implied in Jubilee, declares that the Lord is our Source and Provider. The challenge, then, is one of ownership in both a particular sense and in principle. I would see in this, or something like it, the narrative extension over which you and Peter have engaged so vigorously. In other words, from the particularisation of Israel and the climax of her covenantal history in Christ, directly to the general expansion or return to the global scale of consideration demanded by the creation stories. So, Israel’s history reaches its climax in the declaration that Jesus is Lord, which now speaks, as in the beginning, as The Earth is the Lord’s. The two statements almost become functions of each other. I’m thinking of passages like 1Cor 8:6, 2Cor 5:19, Col 1:16, Heb 1:2 and 2:10 here.
I’m really fumbling this, does it make any sense?
“It is primarily a question about what resources we have available to us - and in particular, what biblical resources - as we struggle to define a constructive response.”
To me this is the more general question of both content and applicability that you and Peter have debated. Graphically the issue looks a bit like two funnels joined together at the narrow end. The narrative begins with universal import, particularises at the point of Abraham and through Israel, to broaden out again to the universal. Much of the conversation between you and Peter seems to focus on that very narrow place on the whole timeline at the point where the stem of the second funnel begins to broaden again, with the issues being at what point and in what day does the broadening happen. It begins clearly enough with the redefinition of the people of God and the gentile entry to the scope of covenant, but this does not, in my view, sufficiently embrace the breadth of the start of the first funnel or the renewed creation at the end of the second. Neither does it, on the face of it, engage with the obviously broad implications of those verses earlier.
Much conservative theology, if that’s the best word for it, has a model with only one funnel. The second broadening out doesn’t happen and the stem simply changes from Jewish to Christian custody of a heavily constrained soteriology.
My difficulty in responding to your question is that while we might be able to engage in this process without questioning issues like Canon, we are not going to do it without questions about the nature of God’s speech, its duration and its continuation. Narrative tools help, but they are unlikely to substitute fully for literal ones, which leaves us with the idea of ‘God’s word’ ending in antiquity and in a way that cannot directly address a truly global world. Perhaps this is just the residual modernist in me, I already confessed the limitations of my PM credentials. It just seems to me that we have to have the debate about the way God continues to speak not in terms of media, if I can put it that way, but in terms of mode and content.
Re: Eschatology and global warming
Yes Brian, I think that the justice thread in Near Eastern texts/narratives is their strong point and can be used to develop essential aspects of an environmental theology. (And fortuitously ;-) this seems to be the point at which many other traditions are weak)
Yes Daniel, I think an essential step is to recognise that God’s moral law is woven into the fabric of reality.
Yes, Peter, I think it is possible, if we really want to, to derive a holistic theology from the narratives in Near Eastern scriptures.
But all of this huge leaves gaps:
What other aspects are required by a complete environmental theology (beyond justice)?
Why do we think God’s moral law is part of the fabric of reality, or that a holistic theology is a desirable thing? Why do we want to believe these things?
What does God’s moral law look like when it is taken out of the personal or economic realms emphasised by Near Eastern scriptures?
It seems to me that other theologies have been discussing these issues for thousands of years. I have no interest in brining over their theologies as a whole. But come on… are we 21st century Westerners so smart and so in tune with the environment and with God that we can replicate in one generation what took many generations in other areas of the world? How about we have a little chat with them to see if God can speak to us from traditions outside this fenced paddock we call Christianity.
If the grass is a little over-grazed inside our canon, we don’t need to move the fence, but how about we poke our head through the fence to the lush grass God has been saving for us for our time of need.
BTW, I think the fact that we are even talking about these things with an assumed postmodern world-view is evidence of our acceptance of the validity of non-Jewish and even non-Western texts and traditions in influencing our beliefs. Why don’t we come clean and admit that God can use all sorts of sources to talk to us?
p.s. Chris just wrote
while we might be able to engage in this process without questioning issues like Cannon, we are not going to do it without questions about the nature of God’s speech, its duration and its continuation.
… yeah, what he just said :-)
Re: Eschatology and global warming
Yeah, and next time I’ll spell canon correctly! Must have been spending too much time on the battle field thread.
Re: Eschatology and global warming
I was going to cite the parable of the vineyard (Matthew 21:33-41) as an example of a possibly environmental parable - bad stewards wanting to use the vineyard for their own ends - but I decided that it was too much of a stretched interpretation. See my commentary here.
leaping on band-wagons and the politics of fear
I haven’t contributed here for a while but I pricked up my senses when I saw this thread. This is an interesting discussion form an OST perspective but I can’t resist seizing the opportunity to generalise it.
How we got from fearing another ice-age in the 70s to fearing a self-induced catastrophe is, to me, more frightening than the consequences of global warming itself.
Here, and as much as possible in my life, I seek truth and have a good instinct for the lie. I have been detecting the stench of farmyards around this issue for some time now. Then I came across this:
http://spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/cosmoclimatology
I then read the book based on this research.
I have concluded that the media, politicians, scientists and the Business of Environmentalism has dug a very deep self-interest hole, which they will come to regret, when it comes to carbon induced global warming THEORIES.Svensmark and co. seem to have stuck a huge spanner in the tax raising and self-justifying, progress hating, development restricting, vested interest terror engine.
But:
He and his colleagues are being ignored, silenced (even ridiculed) despite decades of superb science backing him up.
We do love to whoop and holler, lynch-mob, rent-a-crowd-scream-blue-murder whenever the opportunity arises (as a species) and these days we are SO easily stirred up by the media.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe over-using resources is wise; nor do I promote mindless waste or environmental terrorism, but who are we to tell the world that they can’t have what we have, right now, just because bad science and media barons say they are big bad wolves.
I have asked this before:
Do we really think Americans are stupid? They would need to be to risk sacrificing everything they have by ignoring the carbon threat. Yet, they ignore it. Why? Is there another truth?
It is not just one globally respected institute in Denmark that is researching in this area. One little fact paraphrased from the above book:
Over the past century or so the average rise in global temperatures measured by Carbon Theorists (leading to catastrophic predictions), exactly matches the predicted rise modelled by the cosmoclimatologists. The actual rise in temperature should be double the observed rise if they are both correct.
The book demonstrates the huge holes in the Carbon Theory Terrorists models, while accomodating beautifully the observed data into their own fully tested models.
The real facts are out there! We may have to wait a while yet for the end of days.
Re: leaping on band-wagons and the politics of fear
Albannach,
I will refrain from commenting on the book and the claims of the like minded because I am not familiar with their arguments, making any comments presumptuous. However, you have made some comments that have sparked a response from me.
1. Emphasizing “theories”—as if it is self-evident that this observation alone should make one doubt claims associated with it—is highly dubious. Do you doubt gravity? Gravitational theory helps us explain why we don’t wander off into space. No one can say for sure why we don’t. How about aerodynamic theories? I assume you fly regularly. Using “theory” as a derogatory remark smacks of strategies of conservatives who war on science. (As I tell my students, if you want to write off science, please be morally consistent by never seeing a doctor again and selling all of your electronics.) “Theories” are simply our best explanations, accepted by a majority of scientists, for a given phenomena. They can be replaced—as can the theory of gravity—when another better explanation comes along.
2. “tax raising and self-justifying, progress hating, development restricting, vested interest terror engine.” What are you talking about? Seriously, do you believe in conspiratorial illuminati theories? Who gets to define “progress”? How come “progress” seems to be so often defined in relation to a specific worldview and why do the benefits of this so called progress seem to flow only to those who claim it to be “progress”? Same with “development”. Why do you accept these terms as beneficial? Have you examined your own worldview to see if it is not beholden to capitalism and, especially, whether this capitalism has been married to or become congruent with your faith? If so, how is this not idolatry?
3. Again, I can’t speak for the claims of the book, but I don’t believe any of the environmental activists I know secretly hope that so-called “underdeveloped” nations remain with high levels of poverty. They simply claim that our theories of the market do not incorporate externalities such as finite resources, which means that the likelihood of these nations experiencing our lifestyle and its consumptive habits is a virtual impossibility at this rate. Significant alterations in the capitalist system are necessary to have sustainable wealth creation outcomes.
4. “Do we really think Americans are stupid? They would need to be to risk sacrificing everything they have by ignoring the carbon threat. Yet, they ignore it. Why? Is there another truth?” Why you assume that Americans can see the larger picture and make purchasing habits in accordance with it is beyond me. It’s not even good reformed theology that accounts for a real sin nature. Secondly, most Americans start from an individualistic worldview and work outwards. Few believe they are connected in any intimate way to the larger whole, increasingly to include the whole globe (ecological crises being only one of the ways this is occurring). To suggest “Americans” know better about the carbon crisis and, in all their divine wisdom, choose to ignore it because they have grasped its full claims and outcomes and judged them to be false is, prima facie, pretty silly to me. A basic text in sociology that covers socio-cultural movements would easily demonstrate the falsity of this claim.
Re: Eschatology and global warming
Hey Andrew,
I confess to having ordered your book but it has not arrived yet. I would hope that the biblical story does add something to an understanding of the churches concern for global warming. If the biblical narrative is largely a concern how Gods people live as an alternative community in the midst of various political and social realities then I think we have some grounds for taking these issues seriously. If global warming is a reality and the end of the world a reality, then the community of God would cease to exist to. I think that is concern enough! On the other hand what would a community look like that represented Gods ideal for the world? Would it seek to care and preserve the world? I think that exploring the third eschatological horizon you speak of should point to such a concern. The new heavens and the new earth.
I think as well we might look at how Gods people throughout the biblical narrative approached creation. I can think of Gods original mandate to steward creation, Gods covenant with Noah. I wonder if Levticus and other books that sought to regulate much of economic life (which of course would look different today) should lead us to engagement? Maybe the poetic literature of the psalms which speaks often of Gods concern for creation and its role in worship could provide some concern. So I do think the biblical story nudges us to a concern for global warming. However I’m not sure it provides an ecological solution to the crisis! I think this is where you’re point about constructively engaging comes in. What are your thoughts?
Brian