Another reflection from Environmental theology (yes, this was an assignment. I hope it's good, I haven't gotten it back yet...). It's a little lengthy, sorry. Also, the books I mention are cited at the bottom of the page. The last three paragraphs, which I have bolded, are the one's I find to be most important. So if you're interested... maybe just skip down to those.
This is Our Father’s World
Humanity is in the midst of an environmental crisis. While the crisis is universal, and logically must be due to the cumulative actions of the entire human population, direct attacks have been made against the Christian community as the cause of environmental degradation, disregard and disenfranchisement. The argument attempts to find validity in scripture, yet often relies on weak interpretation and incongruent behavior within Christianity. Most of their conclusions prove to be flawed and often point to fundamental weaknesses of all humankind, regardless of religious affiliation. The ecological complaint against Christianity is multi-fold but most advocates centralize their argument on anthropocentrism encouraged by the Christian faith. This human-centric belief is fed by an accused spiritual-material dualism and annihilisitic eschatological claims. Critics claim these aspects of Christianity are rooted in scripture. While the central arguments of Christian culpability are weak upon complete analysis, there are strings of true fault woven within Christian behaviors, past and present. Therefore, Christians must begin to analyze their actions towards the environment and how they align with core teachings of scripture.
According to critics, the anthropocentric tendencies of Christianity have caused complete devaluation of the environment. They claim Christianity holds the belief everything was created by God for the good of man. Everything created has a purpose, and that purpose it to be harnessed by man by any means. Christians, apparently, believe nature has no value outside of its benefit to humankind. Therefore, Christians assume they have God-ordained authority to exploit the ecosystem. Often cited is Genesis 1:26 where humans are divinely granted “dominion” over all creation. This, however, is where the argument begins to find its weakness. If critics claim the Bible is directing Christians to be tyrants over God’s creation, they must ignore the rest of the Bible which clearly instructs harmony with nature. Even throughout the rest of Genesis, such as Genesis 2:7 which speaks of service to the earth, there are multiple examples which attest to the oneness of humans and creation. The Bible frequently teaches the requirements of human servitude towards the earth, as in Genesis 2:5. Steven Bouma-Prediger relates all these passages and declares humans to be “both responsible persons and earthy creatures” and therefore must exhibit both leadership and companionship with the earth (64). Therefore, it is not a Christian tenet to believe humans are supreme, that role is reserved for God.
This complaint can be linked to the drastic influence culture and human nature can have on the behavior of a religion, regardless of the beliefs outlined in their scriptures. It is the ethos of modern society which leads to a universal anthropocentrism of all humans. Society is largely focused on human progress, success and prestige. Christianity does not teach selfishness, instead it teaches selflessness. The selfish manifestation of Christianity is due to instinctive, albeit sinful, human nature and the invading influence of secular culture. James A. Nash discusses this widespread human limitation claiming “the near universality of ecological problems suggests that the roots of the crisis are not in theological affirmations themselves, but rather in human character” and therefore should not be pinned on one particular religious group (Nash 89). Instead, all of humanity should analyze their selfishness in relation to how they treat the environment and they way they use, or abuse, its resources. Anthropocentrism, unfortunately, seems to be innate in human character and therefore society must carefully monitor their actions to insure they align with values such as sustainability, care, and respect for the environment. Christians, in particular, should be aware of the ecological manifestation of selfishness, which may otherwise go unnoticed against more blaring, traditional sins.
The elevation of humanity in the Christian faith, critics claim, is fueled by an encompassing dualism separating the material and the spiritual worlds. According to these analysts, Christianity places an emphasis on the spiritual realm, the individual soul and personal religion. Therefore, humankind has a reason to ignore the material creation while focusing on the spiritual priorities. Apparently, in the Christian faith, God only cares about the salvation of the human soul and not about his creation, in which humanity dwells. Bouma-Prediger summarizes the claim that “Christianity fosters a care-less attitude toward matter and the body and thus is at fault for plundering the earth” due to the priority placed on spiritual salvation over the material world (60). According to the Biblical interpretation of these critics, this dualism is further supported by the eschatology prophesied in the holy scriptures. They infer the eschatology from the Bible consists of a complete destruction of the world in the processes of saving human souls. This prophecy, according to the critics, has fostered an attitude of disregard for the material aspects of this world. Since one day the world will be destroyed, it is a waste to care for creation today. Spiritual health should be prioritized above creation’s health. Christians, therefore, have no regard for nature since it will not be redeemed in end times.
However, upon accurate analysis of the scriptures, this dualism and eschatological exhibition are not found. Instead, God is shown to care deeply for all members of his creation, not just the spirits of humans. Humanity itself is deeply rooted in creation and, therefore, there can be no separation between humans and creation. They are fundamentally one. God can show no favor for one over the other. The scriptures are also riddled with evidence of God’s care for the material creation. In Psalm 24, the psalmist sings “The earth is the Lord’s and all that is in it, the world, and those who live in it.” Clearly, this Psalm claims everything that is in the earth belongs to the Lord and therefore he must care for its whole. Those who live in the world, namely humans, are even listed secondary to the world itself. He will redeem the world in its entirety, not just human souls. Bouma-Prediger counters the annihilationist interpretation of redemption with the biblical claim that redemption will be a discovery of a new earth, a renewal of creation (69). In 1 Thessalonians 4:16 it shows God is going to descend upon the earth, not merely rescuing his people. He wishes to return to his creation. God will remain loyal to his original creation and does not want to see it destroyed. No artist would willingly burn their masterpiece after they completed it. Neither will God destroy his sole creation. He longs for it to flourish. Therefore, salvation will not entail a complete destruction, but instead redemption of the current creation. A correct interpretation of the Christian faith will find no separation between the spiritual and material, but instead a harmonious and inseparable relationship.
However, this is not to say these flawed beliefs are absent from the Christian Church. Clearly, there must be some behavioral evidence on which the critics base their assumptions. Often, Christians fall into the conclusion God cares more about the spiritual salvation and condition of our souls than for the material well-being of his creation. For example, most Christians place ministry-related jobs on a higher podium than secular careers. Even the adjectives “religious” and “secular” are evidence of Christian dualism, even though there is no scriptural basis for these segregations. Therefore, Christians must be aware of this dualism and prevent it from separating ourselves from God and from his creation.
Although the accusations of Christian ecological critics often fall short of scriptural and theological truth, they are cause for a pause and reanalysis of Christian behavior towards the environment. In truth, they present a drastic need for repentance and reevaluation of the Christian response to the environment. Humans are members of God’s creation and therefore are called upon to be responsible and active participants in the care and advocacy of the environment. Nash admits the Christian negligence of ecological devastation when he admits “Christianity has done too little to discourage and too much to encourage the exploitation of nature” and suggests a widespread repentance from members of the Christian faith (74). This repentance is extremely warranted.
Christianity’s ecological sins are two fold, as Nash explains. Christians have not been treating the earth with the respect and reverence it deserves. Being that the earth is God’s, this behavior is unacceptable and a direct act of rebellion and disregard of God’s will. Nature is the manifestation of God on earth and therefore should be cared for diligently. Our actions have been indistinguishable from the rest of humanity, even though our faith calls for stewardship of God’s world. Furthermore, though some Christians may have recognized their role in caring for the earth, they have not advocated for change. Even in the face of the environmental ruination that is facing society today, they have kept quiet about the responsibility required of Christians to maintain the earth. They have remained silent, quietly tending to their corner of the ecosystem while the rest is being subsequently destroyed by the inconsiderate actions of the remainder of humanity. Christians must realize their place as God’s caretakers and realign their actions to adequately reflect God’s passion and call to care for the earth. As the classic hymn sings, “This is my Father’s world. O let me ne’er forget that though the wrong seems oft so strong, God is the ruler yet.” Let us not forget our world belongs to our God, and although the damage is rampant and the groaning of creation grows louder, God is sovereign, and in him there is always hope for redemption.
Bouma-Prediger, Steven. For the Beauty of the Earth: A Christian Vision for Creation Care. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001. Print.
Nash, James A. Loving Nature: Ecological Integrity and Christian Responsibility. Nashville: Abingdon, 1991. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment