A Theological Norm for Taking Care of the Environment
“Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?” I have always found this passage intriguing, yet almost contradictory in its nature, until around two years ago. Growing up in Christian fundamentalism, I had an inadequate view of biblical eschatology; due to this view of eschatology, I never found a reason to take care of the environment. Everything that I was taught on biblical eschatology was interpreted through the framework of Tim LaHaye’s Left Behind dispensationalist views, which of course included some kind of nuclear missiles, huge machine guns, and the death of trillions (okay, maybe only billions) of people and animals. After this, God will one day blow up the entire cosmos, just as He spoke it into existence. I remember vividly leaving my youth group one Wednesday night when I was 15 years old, the youth pastor talked about trying to lead people to Christ, to make the world a better place, and so on, but it never made sense in my head. “Why if this world is getting dramatically worst day by day (as his theology taught) would I labor to bring a difference here and now, if it will ultimately do nothing”, I said to myself. So when Jesus said He feeds the birds of the air, I could never make sense to why He does. The only reason it could be, was of course, for me.
Things have changed; through much study and tedious laboring in the area of biblical theology as a narrative, I have adopted an eschatological view that makes sense with the whole of Scripture as a story. My theological indicative, now, is that God is not laying this world to waste; God loves this world, and one day, in the words of the prophet Habakkuk “the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.”   From this verse and the context, an adequate description of what one day, the Lord will do to the earth, is where I have derived a lot of my eschatological views (also, of course, because of themes presented in Isaiah, Daniel, Matthew, Colossians, and Revelation); this, is a theology of restoration, hope, and renewal. How do the waters cover the sea? The waters are the sea. God, speaking through His oracle Habakkuk is saying that one day, He will be all in all, yet other than the all. God is saying that He is restoring the world not through a third party means, but by the radiance of His glory. Because of this ethic of the renewal of the heavens and the earth, I strive now by God’s Holy Spirit in preparation of the full manifestation of God’s kingdom. Due to this theological indicative, I think that we, as God’s image bearer’s, have a duty to take care of the environment and furthermore, I find this to be consistent and harmonious with a biblical view of what is called a narrative-covenantal eschatology.
Stassen and Gushee in their book, Kingdom Ethics, present statistics regarding the degradation of the environment, different ethical approaches to taking care of the environment, and lastly, their theological position.
To begin, Stassen and Gushee present the reality of the problem. We, though we are called to be God’s stewards in the world, are not doing a grand job at it. The degradation of the environment is so terrible that “every day the worldwide economy burns an amount of energy the planet required 10,000 days to create.” Furthermore, because of the backlash of the mechanical industry “several forms of childhood cancers have risen sharply in the last fifteen years in the United States: brain tumors are up more than 30 percent, leukemia is up 10 percent, and testicular cancer is up 60 percent. Cancer is now the second leading cause of childhood death.” Our lack of stewardship, greed, and selfishness (which Jesus clearly condemns in Matthew 6) has caused a cancer in the planet, that we, as God’s image bearers, are responsible for.
The creation ethics presented by Stassen and Gushee were intriguing in, Kingdom Ethics. The authors present different normative ethical approaches to this matter. I will list these and briefly explain them.
The first creation ethic presented in their book is the anthropocentric approach. The anthropocentric approach places humans at the center of concern; this view is explicit and thoroughgoing in its logic in stating that God created the universe for us, and we have dominion over it. The only passion and drive for maintaining creation is for us presently and furthermore, future generations. This view states that only humans have intrinsic value and utilities such as land, air, and water, only have worth according to their utilitarian value in relation to serving human good.
The second view presented is the biocentric approach. The biocentric approach affirms that not only do creatures have intrinsic value, but also affirms they have equal value to humans. People who hold to this creation ethic normally hold to a Buddhistic, Daoistic, or Hindu worldview. This philosophy undermines biblical theism because it explicitly states that God is creation (which seems to be quite the vocabulary contradiction). This view proposes a philosophy that states God is not other-than us, rather, he is us. People with this ethic normally worship the creation, rather than the creator.
The third approach mentioned, is the theocentric approach. This view rejects both the anthropocentric and biocentric approaches. The theocentric approach puts an explicit emphasis on all of creation finding its worth and value by being within God’s community. Furthermore, it teaches that God is not just creator, but He is also sustainer, which shows that He thoroughly cares for creation. Interestingly, certain proponents of this view hold to a theological indicative which is contra revelation in Holy Writ, by stating that the earth will one day be destroyed; this conviction is derived by the second law of thermodynamics.
The fourth view presented is the process and feminist approach. This view, briefly, puts an emphasis on the transcendence of God (in the sense that He’s greater than and sovereign over the creation), but that God, is also dynamically involved in creation by developing and caring for it by moving it towards its future. It puts a thorough emphasis humans being mandated by God to care for creation.
The fifth and last view presented, is the view that Stassen and Gushee hold to, and I, furthermore, would agree with them in it. This view is entitled the covenantal perspective. This perspective, which is endorsed by scholars such as N.T. Wright, Richard Bauckham, and Jurgen Moltmann puts an emphasis on the covenant God made with all creation after the flood (the sign being the rainbow) and that Israel’s covenant with God includes duties (as the true humanity) to maintaining the non-human creation. It states that we are participants with God in the taking care of the environment and that we, being apart of God’s stewards within the world, are supposed to be a reflection of His nature in the world, which includes His care for the creation.
In conclusion, a video that I watched, New Testament scholar, N.T. Wright, proposes a thought. He gives the example of a person moving into a far away country, this person does not learn the language when we he/she is already there, the person is supposed to learn it now, so that upon arrival this person is already at home. It is so with the kingdom of God. We are now living and preparing for the full manifestation of God’s kingdom. Therefore, let us, as the people who are living by the ethic of the living Triune God, radiate with His love for His creation, by the Spirit, through the Son, and to the glory of the Father. So that in this action, people will see who He is through us, and lastly, so that we will be at home when the time comes that God’s oracle foresaw; the time when “the knowledge of the glory of the Lord will cover the earth, as the waters cover the sea.”
What do you think? Is it important to take care of the environment? Join the discussion.
Grace and peace,
Daniel.
Bibliography
Stassen, Glen, and David Gushee. Kingdom ethics: following Jesus in contemporary context. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2003. Print.
Daniel James Levy’s home blog is www.christmyredeemer.wordpress.com
No comments yet.