Since the close of the apostolic
age, the orthodox church has fought red in tooth and claw in her efforts to
protect and preserve of the canon of the Old and New Testament Scriptures. In the late first and early second centuries A.D.,
the early church fathers fought against the heretic Marcion, who rejected the
entire Old Testament and large portions of the New. The orthodox Western Father, Tertullian,
devoted five entire polemical books to the Marcionite heresy.[1] Additionally, another point of antithesis was
seen in that, “The church fathers objected to Marcion’s separation of salvation and nature.”[2] Since then, church history has witnessed many
battles for the Bible’s purity and integrity.
God’s special
revelation in Scripture is only half of the story, however. As the Belgic
Confession of Faith puts it, God’s Self-disclosure encompasses two volumes,
or two books, the Scriptures and the wonder of his natural revelation in the
created order. “The creation, preservation, and government of the universe,
since that universe is before our eyes like
a beautiful book in which all creatures, great and small, are as letters to
make us ponder the invisible things of God...”
[3] Unfortunately, though, few Christians and
churches, which ferociously fight for God’s book of special revelation, give
his second book, natural revelation, any defense. The irony is that, “The Bible helps us
understand our privilege and responsibility for environmental stewardship—for
creation care.”[4] With the early church fathers, Christians
today must scathe the dualistic, hardline separation between ‘salvation and
nature,’ because the dichotomy is
utterly foreign to the Scriptures. To
make a positive, proactive step forward, therefore, the church must recognize that
the root problem in our neglect and abuse of the natural order is caused and
perpetuated by sin, repent of our destructive negligence toward creation, and
reorient our outlook on God’s natural revelation, seeing it rightly, as it is
presented to us through the lenses of special revelation, the Scriptures.
Christendom, Christianity, and the
Ecological Crisis
Ecology
is the study of the interrelationships of organisms and their environments.[5] To more or less degrees, and with lesser or
greater concern, that our world is suffering an ecological crisis is a given in
modern culture. In recent decades a
number of scholars have shared Lynn White, Jr.’s claim that “Christianity bears
a huge burden of the guilt.”[6] White’s thesis regarding the Christian view
of nature can be summarized in four points: (1) it establishes a dualism
between man and nature; (2) it is grossly anthropocentric; (3) man is not
understood as part of nature, and (4) it insists that it is God’s will that
mankind exploits nature for its own end.[7]
Christian scholar
Stephen Bishop agrees in part; however, he makes a crucial qualification. Bishop draws the careful distinction between
biblical Christianity and so-called Christendom, what he considers the
dominant, historic Western worldview.
This worldview is marked by several destructive presuppositions:
Dominance over nature, nature as a resource, high technological progress, and
consumerism.[8] “It is only in so-called Christendom that
this reverence and respect for the earth has disappeared...Biblical Christianity
is totally opposed to the exploitation of the earth. Christendom, though, in an attempt to
denounce paganism, confused the commission to have dominion with the concept of domination.”[9] More than that, only biblical Christianity
can rightly recognize and diagnose the root problem, provide a proper pattern
for response, and a radical reorientation toward the remedy for our ecological
crisis—the whole earth’s redemption.
Rightly Recognizing the Roots of the
Ecological Crisis
The
biblical story begins with the triune God, who for his own glory and out of his
goodness creates the cosmos, calling the material world “good” each step of the
way; all of which culminates on the sixth day with the creation of mankind. When finished, God appraises his cosmic work
as “very good.”[10] From the earth itself, God creates mankind in
his own image, appointing him as God’s vicegerent, to serve both him and the
creation by its reverent “cultivation.”[11] So, as goes mankind, the deputy-king, so goes
the world.
Next
in the narrative is the episode of humanity’s fall, wherein they revolted
against the loving rule of God their King, and the consequences that
followed. Webber explains the gravity of
the lapse.
Evil is not simply the absence of
good, nor is it merely erroneous choice.
Evil is revolt, disobedience, resistance. It is a human (and demonic) refusal to carry
out God’s purposes in history. It is a
deliberate, intentional and violent rejection of God. It is a choice to unfold culture (and
creation) away from God under a submission to the enemy of God, Satan, the
father of all that is sin, destruction and death in the world.[12]
The fall of mankind had radical
implications for the created order, over which man was to experience harmony,
mutual benefit, through his God-given commission to ‘cultivate and keep.’
Just as the sphere
of humanity, God’s primary domain, rebelled against its King, so also the earth
and environment, man’s primary domain, would now be in perpetual rebellion
against its disposed king, man. As
Bishop observes, “Perhaps the most significant thing, though, is that the earth
is cursed because of humanity.
Humanity’s fall resulted in the earth’s fall...Where once humanity once
lived in harmony with the earth, they are now opposed.”[13] The ground’s accursedness reflects the
general alienation of people from the world due to sin.[14] Additionally, magisterial Reformer John
Calvin, reflecting on Romans 8:20—22, remarks how in the fall man’s sin
“perverted the whole order of nature in heaven and earth.”[15] God’s original purposes for both humanity and
the creation are inseparable. Likewise,
human sin—as the primal and perpetual cause—is inseparable from the judgment
and suffering of the natural order. Sin,
from the fall into the future, is the root cause of our ecological crisis.
Thankfully, for man and his world, sin does not have the last word.
Repentance as the Right Response to the Ecological
Crisis
Unlike
all other philosophical and religious systems, which merely exhort people to
try harder for their failings, biblical Christianity has a radically different
starting point—repentance. As seen
above, the ecological crisis is first a theological crisis, a religious
crisis. Our relationship and attitude
toward God (regardless of how pure or perverted one’s understanding of him is)
is inexorably intertwined with our relationship and attitude toward creation;
the former conditions the latter. White
rightly understands the religious nature of the ecological problem. “Human ecology is deeply conditioned by
beliefs about our nature and destiny—that is, by religion.”[16]
According to the biblical story, unrepentant sin toward God issues in a rupturing
of the natural order. Consider Hosea
4:1—3.[17]
Hear the word of the LORD, ye
children of Israel: for the LORD hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the
land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the
land...Therefore shall the land mourn, and every one that dwelleth therein
shall languish, with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven;
yea, the fishes of the sea also shall be taken away (KJV).
The allusion to the creation
account in Genesis should not be missed here.
The land, beasts, fowls, and fishes mentioned by the prophet sum up the
spheres that man was originally given to serve through cultivation and
protection.
In all such
similar texts, the people are then exhorted to repentance, a radical turning
from their sin in relation to God, their fellows, and the earth from which they
were taken.[18] “The earth is the LORD'S, and the fullness
thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein” (Ps. 24:1), and like Israel,
we should “bless the LORD [our] God for the good land which he hath given” us
(Deut. 8:10), but we do not. Economic
growth and greed have driven modern society to the point of idolatry. No longer do we worship the earth as god;
conversely, “We are in danger of sacrificing the earth to the god of Economos.”[19] Therefore, because our ecological crisis is
ultimately a religious problem, and biblical Christianity is the only correct
story for understanding the problem, repentance for our neglect and abuse of
creation is the second step toward a right direction for creation care.
A Radical Reorientation toward Biblical
Creation Care
Despite
man’s rebellion, God still cares deeply for the whole of creation and is
fulfilling his mission to rescue it, both human and non-human aspects. Bringing our outlook in harmony with God’s
creational purposes will take more than repentance; the third necessary step is
a reorientation, seeing the creation through new eyes. We need to think deeply about the meaning of
such doxological passages such as Romans 11:36, wherein St. Paul declares “For
of him, and through him, and to him, are all things.” God in Christ is the Alpha and Omega of “all
things,” the entire cosmos. Christ is
the Object and Subject of the whole created order. That presupposition must shape our vision for
creation care.
Throughout
Scripture, God’s goodwill and redemptive purposes for all of creation are
plainly set forth. After the flood, God
established his covenant not just with man but with “every living creature that
is with you, for perpetual generations” (Gen. 9:12). There are several points in Torah, which
reveal God’s general care for the non-human creation. Two of these laws particularly stand
out. The Sabbath Year, and the sabbath
of Sabbath Years, the Jubilee. Concerning
the former, every seventh year the land was to be granted a rest and lie fallow
(Lev. 25:1—5). This law rested on the grounds that the land did not belong to
the people but belonged to the Creator-Sustainer-Redeemer God of Israel, Yahweh
(v. 23). Therefore, as his people,
Israel—and Christians today—are to work toward the re-creation, sustainability,
and redemption of the earth, which has suffered along with humanity under its
curse.
So
serious were the Sabbath laws in relation to the land that the epoch-making
event of Israel’s exile from the land into Babylon is premised on the
transgression of these laws. Second
Chronicles 36:21 reads, [The invasion and exile of Judah and Jerusalem happened]
“To fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had
enjoyed her Sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate she kept Sabbath, to fulfill
threescore and ten years.” Elsewhere, in the prophets, holy Scripture holds out
the hope of the full restoration of creation.
Isaiah 65:17ff. speaks of a qualitatively new heaven and new earth that
God will bring about.[20]
Verse 23 says, “They shall not labor in
vain, nor bring forth [children] for trouble.”
This language unmistakably alludes to the fall in Genesis 3, where
mankind is cursed with vain labor and troublesome childbearing (Gen. 3:16—17). The prophet therefore promises the future, redemptive reversal of
the curse of the fall. This is good
grounds for horticultural hope!
This
horticultural-creational hope comes by the same means as humanity’s redemptive
hope, through the cosmic effects of the person and work of Jesus Christ. Although humanity’s salvation is a central
object of his work of redemption, that is not the whole story. The “world,” both human and non-human, was
the object of God savingly sending the Son (Jn. 3:16). And through Jesus’ work, God “reconciled all
things” unto himself (Col. 1:20; Eph. 1:10).
The church, as the new creational people of God, have been given that
ministry of cosmic reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:17ff.). We, then, are to go “into all the world, and
preach the gospel to every creature”
(Mk. 16:15). “For we know that the whole
creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now” (Rom. 8:22). Again, as goes humanity, so goes the rest of
creation; our consummative salvation means salvation for the non-human
creation, “Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage
of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God” (v. 21).
Therefore,
the church must begin to see the natural world not as a morally neutral object
but as a subject of God’s redemptive purposes; we must begin to look at the
earth and environment through his eyes and all that Christ has
accomplished. We must begin to exercise
a servant-like attitude toward non-human creation, showing ourselves to be true
disciples of the Servant-King Jesus that the whole world might be saved through
him. So, because of all this, even our
corporate worship and liturgies need to reflect the new creational realities in
the present age.
Two Objections
Entertained
This
high view of the importance of ecology and environmental stewardship could be
met with objections from Christians on several grounds. However, two types of objections are most
likely to be voiced. The first is a
matter of identity: As Christians we do not want to be identified with the
alarmists, ‘tree-huggers,’ or ‘dirt-worshippers.’ This objection suffers a severe
inconsistency. For instance, the
homosexual agenda has adopted the rainbow as their banner of identification,
which is God’s sign and seal of his covenant with the whole earth and all that
therein is (Gen. 9:13). Additionally, as
DeWitt observes, the Ku Klux Klan, “a racists organization...uses the symbol of
the cross in its terrorizing activities.”[21]
In neither of these cases, however, do Christians object to the use of the
symbol and its biblical significance.
Likewise, the perverted use and misappropriation of the earth and
environment by non-Christian groups cannot justify the church failing to view
the creation correctly, with all its biblical import and meaning.
Secondly,
too many Christians are duped by the prevailing Western worldview, which
regards non-human creation as having no intrinsic value and merely existing for
mankind’s utility. Following Attfield,
Bishop points out that “The notion that creation has no value except in its
instrumental value for humanity is a Greek rather than Hebrew concept, and is nowhere
to be found in the Scriptures. All
creation has rights: the right to be what God intended it to be.”[22] So, again, this objection reveals that the
Christians who make it still need the repentance and reorientation briefly
suggested above; they need to abandon the prevailing view for the biblical one.
Conclusion
Christians
must scathe the sharp dichotomy between salvation and nature, since nature is
the stage upon which the whole world’s salvation is coming to pass. The church must repent of its amoral view of
the earth and environment, and fight for nature’s preservation and purity as
God’s other “book” of revelation.
Moreover, repentance will not suffice to turn the tide of the ecological
crisis. Christians need a radical
reorientation, casting off the prevailing Western worldview and adopting a
biblical view of nature, wherein the entire non-human world has God-imputed
value. Finally, Christians can no longer
be averse toward creation care on the grounds of identification with other
green movements, because the Hebraic, biblical view of nature commands our
care.
Bibliography
Bishop, Stephen.
“Green Theology or Deep Ecology: New Age or New Creation.” Themelios 16, no. 3 (1991): 8—14.
_____________.
“Toward a Biblical View of Environmental Care.” Evangel (Summer, 1989): 8—9.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Grand
Rapids, MI: EerdmansPublishing Company, 2001.
Christian
Reformed churches. Ecumenical Creeds and
Reformed Confessions. Grand Rapids, MI: CRC Publications, 1988.
DeWitt, Calvin B.
Earth-Wise: A Biblical Response to
Environmental Issues. Grand Rapids, MI: Faith Alive Christian Resources,
2007.
Ferguson,
Sinclair B and David F. Wright. New
Dictionary of Theology. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1988.
Ryken, Leland,
James C. Wilhoit, Tramper Longman III. Dictionary
of Biblical Imagery. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1998.
Schaeffer,
Francis A. Pollution and the Death of
Man. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1992.
Webber, Robert E.
Who Gets to Narrate the World?:
Contending for the Christian Story in an Age of Rivals. Downers Grove, IL:
IVP Press, 2008.
[1]
E. Ferguson, “Marcion,” in New Dictionary
of Theology, ed. Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F. Wright (Downers Grove,
IL: Intervarsity Press, 1988), 411.
[2]
Ibid., 412. Italics added.
[3]
Christian Reformed churches, Ecumenical
Creeds and Reformed Confessions (Grand Rapids, MI: CRC Publications, 1988),
79: Article 2: “The Means by Which We Know God.” Italics added.
[4]
Calvin B. DeWitt, Earth-Wise: A Biblical
Response to Environmental Issues (Grand Rapids, MI: Faith Alive Christian
Resources, 2007), 43.
[5]
V. Eliving Anderson, “Environmental Pollution,” in ed., Carl F. H. Henry, Baker’s Dictionary of Christian Ethics (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker book House, 1973), 210. Op
cit.
[6]
Lynn White, Jr. “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis,” reprinted in, Francis
A. Schaeffer, Pollution and the Death of
Man (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1992), 139.
[7]
Stephen Bishop, “Green Theology or Deep Ecology: New Age or New Creation,” Themelios 16, no. 3 (1991): 8.
[8]
Ibid., 13.
[9]
Stephen Bishop, “Towards a Biblical View of Environmental Care,” Evangel (Summer, 1989): 8.
[10]
See, e.g., Genesis 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, and “very good” at v. 31.
[11]
Genesis 1:28; cf. 2:5. In the King James
Version, of the two hundred ninety-four times this term is translated in its
various forms, two hundred thirty-nine times it connotes servanthood: “Serve,”
(163x); “served(st),” (62x); “servants,” (4x); “serveth,” (3x); “serving,”
(2x), and “servant,” (1x).
[12]
Robert E. Webber, Who Gets to Narrate the
World: Contending for the Christian Story in an Age of Rivals (Downers
Grove, IL: IVP Press, 2008), 29.
[13]
Bishop, “Toward a Biblical View of Environmental Care,” 8.
[14]
“Land,” in eds., Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, Tramper Longman III, Dictionary
of Biblical Imagery (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1998), 487. Op cit.
[15]
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian
Religion (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001), 214, [i.e.,
Bk. II: i: 5].
[16]
As cited by Schaeffer, Pollution and the
Death of Man, 12.
[17]
For similar texts revealing man’s sin resulting in de-creation, see Is.
24:4—12; Jer. 4; Joel 1, etc.
[18]
See Genesis 1:28.
[19]
Bishop, “Toward a Biblical View of Environmental Care,” 8.
[20]
See also 2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21 – 22.
[21]
DeWitt, Earth-Wise: A Biblical Response
to Environmental Issues, 79.
[22]
Bishop, Green Theology and Deep Ecology:
New Age or New Creation, 13.
No comments:
Post a Comment