Here's another big word for you: anthropocentrism. It means to view the world as though humanity (Gr. anthropos) is the centre of it all. Evangelical Christians (like myself) are notoriously anthropocentric.Take for example our favorite verse, John 3:16 (ESV) 16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."
The way we read this is usually like so: "For God so loved humanity, that he..." But is that what it says? I'd say no! For God so loved the world. The New Testament word here is kosmos which refers to the observable created order; God sent Jesus because He loves ALL of his physical creation. That means trees and tigers, earthworms and elephants, hamsters and humans.
God didn't send Jesus to die for me (not only is that anthropocentric, it's egocentric!), He sent Jesus to redeem all of creation (which, thankfully, happens to include me).
As we saw in my last post, Romans 8 tells us that all of creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth (ever been in a delivery room!?! That's a vivid metaphor). Creation suffers under the curse of sin and God's plan is not to send humans to heaven when they die and then let the rest of creation perish. God's plan is to recreate the world into the place He originally intended it to be.
Understand this: heaven is not our home. Heaven is a pit-stop on the road to a New Heaven and a New Earth (Is. 65:17; Rev. 21:1). I don't know if there will be dogs in heaven but there were a whack-load of animals in Eden and I'm guessing a recreated "Eden" won't be any different!
So what does this have to do with my previous post? Everything.
Jesus inaugurated His Kingdom and we, as His followers, are to continue His work until He comes again to bring it to completion/perfection. If His task was nothing less than the redemption of the whole of creation then this, too, is our task.
Yes, Conservative Evangelicals, I am saying that it is part of our God ordained mission to care for plants and animals (insert shocked gasps).
No, I'm not getting all "PETA" or "Greenpeace" on you. If you know me you know that I have no problem shooting and eating animals. I have no problem cutting down trees and using them for firewood or to build something with. I hunt and camp frequently... in fact, that's part of why I care deeply about this.
The fact is that the Bible does give us a theology of zoology. The Bible gives us a theological framework for environmentalism. For some reason we don't like using these words, so we usually call it stewardship... but we also usually ignore this topic all together.
[ I blame American dispensationalists but they're pretty easy to blame ] :)
There's a lot more I'd like to say and explore so please join me over the next number of weeks and leave your input.
So, what do you think?
What scriptures speak to our stewardship of the animal and plant world?
What do you think that passage from Romans 8 means to us?
What do you agree/disagree with so far?
21 comments:
You've accused me of "shameless self-promotion" in the past, so go ahead and do so again :-) I wrote about this idea a while back. You can find my thoughts at http://bryanens.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/let-them-have-dominion/
Thanks, Bryan. I hope you didn't take my previous accusation too seriously :)
Yeah, we seem to be coming from pretty much the same angle. It does seem odd that those who have no "divine" mandate are the ones most active in Stewardship while we who DO have the mandate sit on our hands.
I don't know, do we as Christians lag behind because we don't want to get caught up in something "trendy" like environmentalism?
But if it is OUR mandate, shouldn't we be shamed into action rather than inaction?
I'm with Bryan. I don't really buy into global-warming (and I happen to think that Al Gore is a bit of a tool... Nobel Peace Prize? ... I have no words...) and all that. But, really, we can't get distracted by all that. What's that got to do with it? If we have a mandate we have a mandate. Right?
whether or not I took your previous comment too seriously or not, I'm definitely NOT above shameless self-promotion! I think you've hit the nail on the head, though. We're being a bit...no...we're being a LOT on the lazy side if we think that God didn't call us to take care of what he's given us!!
So when we use the word "stewardship" in regards to our biblically mandated task to care for our world, are we then watering it down?
But on the same hand for many, stewardship is an unattainable concept. Whether it's a lack of interest or understanding. Do we then need to phase out the term 'stewardship' because of it's seeming unrelateability (I think I just made up a word) to Christians in our society? Should we adopt the careful language of 'biblical environmentalism' instead? Or should Christian leaders such as yourself be teaching more on the subject of stewardship? Is it the churches fault that Christians today do not understand or care?
Thank you for mentioning - albeit briefly - the "heaven is not our home" concept. This is a train I've been riding for some time & I'm glad it's gaining more general knowledge. On that note I would be curious to see what you can come up with both factually and personally.
There's certainly nothing wrong with the term "stewardship" in and of itself. It is an apt term for what we are talking about. It's only weakness is that it is too broad; are we talking about financial stewardship, the stewardship of spiritual gifts, environmental stewardship, etc?
I would be fine with "Biblical Environmentalism" but unfortunately for many people the moment you mention "environmentalism" you are automatically lumped in with hippies and Al Gore... I'm not sure which is worse :)
Absolutely, YES there needs to be more teaching on stuff like this. However, I'm always pretty hesitant to blame/find fault in the church because often people blame the church as a cop out. It's way easier to say "well the pastor never preaches about that" than it is to pick up your own Bible and wrestle with the text yourself (or preferably in community). Paul doesn't say "let your pastors work out your salvation for you but feel free to complain when they miss out stuff you need to learn about." NO, he says "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil.2:12). [And I'm not saying that you, Jared, were criticizing the church in that way... that was just a "Tim Rant"]
And I'm curious, what do you mean when you say that "stewardship is an unattainable concept"?
But I thought pastors were perfect.... :)
I agree, there is nothing inherently wrong with the term stewardship. However I do disagree that it's weakness is it broadness. I think the fault lies with whomever is using the term to be specific of which form is being presented. This was my main reason for stating that stewardship is an unattainable concept. Because teachers, whether pastors or not are quick to teach on such a subject but slow to identify which of the many areas of stewardship is being presented. Because of this many people are predisposed when they hear a sermon on stewardship to think about finances.
I agree that many are quick to find fault within the church, but I do want to point out that the blame cannot be completely shifted away from the church either. Both the church and the people within the church have a responsibility to wrestle with the texts. I do want to be very careful in this discussion because criticizing the bride is a VERY fine line to walk. "The pastor never preaches about that" cannot be an excuse for people nor can it be a blind expectation of pastors to assume their congregations are wrestling with things they aren't. Many pastors plan sermons on what they would like to preach on or what's interesting and cool and grab the attention of the listeners on a Sunday morning. Sermons are written from concept to final presentation in an office removed from the people that will be hearing it. Please do not read me to say that you, Tim are doing this. I am merely pointing out that many pastors do not listen to their congregations in this way. And because of that too many Christians have no idea what stewardship is.
There is my "Jared-Rant" in return. Please feel free to rant back.
Hey! It's the "knock-your-socks-off" blog post!! I think I better get in on this one.
All I have to say is this: WOO HOO! (Okay, I actually have more to say.) I love the fact that Christians should/can/need to care for creation. We are all created differently and have different passions. Obviously my passion is for dogs, but someone else may have a passion for cats (although I don't know why) or goats or zebras or trees or... whatever. Anyway, I know God didn't instill those passions in people so that they would feel guilty about wanting to make a difference in creation. Or rather, so they would feel guilty about having their passions in a different direction than people.
Wait, I need to clarify. I absolutely love working with people and changing lives and it is also a passion, and I think all believers should work toward changing lives for God but I just don't think that God created us all with that specific passion. We all need to teach others about Christ, but one may be passionate about being more environmentally friendly. On the other hand, another may be more passionate about evangelism, but they should still consider the environment, don't you think?
By the way, if you're ever going on a one-day hunting trip, I'd love to tag along. I like shooting things, although I've never had the chance or desire to shoot something living. More just logs and hills and non-moving things. I wouldn't shoot anything, I promise.
I agree, Lisa. Just because I don't have the "gift of encouragement" doesn't mean that I can use that as an excuse to be a total jerk to those around me. No, I should attempt to be encouraging as much as possible.
But to develop that line of thought a little more, we need to go beyond gifts/passions/abilities to the language of MANDATE.
The one that we as Evangelicals always look to is the Great Commission in Mt. 28:16-20. Here we are commanded to make disciples, to baptize them, and to teach them. This mandate is Biblically anthropocentric.
But does this mandate of evangelism replace the Geo-stewardship (how's that Jared?) mandate as seen in Gen.1:26-31; 9:1-17?
I don't see why it would. I don't think that this is an "either/or" situation... it's "both/and."
"Geo-stewardship". I like it!
It may be a mandate, but I also think it's fascinating that, when God gave Solomon wisdom, it says that his wisdom included knowledge about plants and animals. In 1 Kings 4:33 it says, "He described plant life, from the cedar of Lebanon to the hyssop that grows out of walls. He also taught about animals and birds, reptiles and fish." Kind of reminds me of the bards in the old stories who were teachers of all life and how they passed on that knowledge to their "disciples," of sorts. It is wise to know about plants and animals and all of God's creation.
Yeah, I agree.
Doesn't it totally remind you of stuff in Lewis and Tolkien (and Lawhead)?
I find it strange that when people read stuff like that in books like Lewis' or Tolkien's they chalk it up to "fantasy" when the reason why Lewis/Tolkien included it was because IT IS CHRISTIAN.
I dunno, it was just a thought.
What do you mean by "IT IS CHRISTIAN"? The concept of caring for the environment as a whole is a "christian" concept as presented in the ideas of Tolkein/Lewis? You know what I am seeing is that anything "environment" related is picked up pretty quickly as the mantra of younger generations, but the problem is that it....along with any other number of distractions, is just that...a distraction. Environmentalism has practically become a new "religion" in it's own right, and a pretty crafty tool of the evil one to help us justify things we are "passionate" about. (which is another word that has become terribly watered down). I am all for recycling my pop bottles/cardboard/tin cans/newspapers and clothing, but I chalk it up in the category of Manners and frugality. Clearly I am not going to litter my garbage all over the place for others to clean up, and if it is a reuseable item or one that can be made into something new, then as a responsible citizen, that is what I choose to do. But you certainly do walk a slippery slope if you begin presenting this as a tenet of what it means to be a "christian".
-Carey Thiessen
Yeah, Carey, what I'm saying is that both Lewis and Tolkien had strong emphasis on Nature in their writings and that these emphasis were a reflection of their Christian worldview.
I agree that "environmentalism" is trendy and that it is very dangerous to simply jump on bandwagons. As we see in the struggles of Israel in the OT, there is a fine line between loving and caring for creation and worshiping creation (ie. the movie AVATAR... a cool movie that degenerates into primal animism).
But that's why I point to Lewis and Tolkien. Their views on Nature/the environment were counter-cultural. Their views were critiques of the Modernism and the Industrial revolution. They wrote about it before it was "trendy" to care for the environment and they wrote about it because they saw in the scriptures that God cared for and loved creation and so should we.
Mmmm, I disagree. I think that if they are the fathers of environmentalism, then they are the fathers of the distraction. Dangerous things happen when we choose to follow the minds of men. The evil one will use any and all means to lead even the elect astray. I don't recall a "Thou shalt care for the environment" in the Torah, and I don't think that the christian worldview of (respected) christian authors, or reasoning through and scotch-taping the face of jesus on an idea makes a worthy cross to bear. Maybe that fine line is the reason that it was never given to Yahweh's people as a commandment? If we can't obey the 10 commandments as written by the very finger of Yahweh, why bother making up new ones?
I am ok with being the voice of dissention on this :o)
Carey
I'm totally fine with a well thought out disagreement too! We all sharpen each other through open discussion :)
However, I think we might be shooting over each other's heads here. In no way was I suggesting that Lewis or Tolkien were the "fathers of environmentalism." My entire premise is that stewardship of the earth (clearly the language of "environmentalism" is a stumbling block in this discussion) was commanded by God as one of the primary tasks of humanity and is seen in God's first conversation with Adam & Eve.
But maybe there is an interpretive barrier here. So far my line of thought has been tying Gen1,2,3 - Jn3 - Rom8 - Rev21&22 together. Do these not fit?
... and if we're not operating under a Christian Worldivew what are we operating under?
In my previous post when I made the reference to "good citizen" perhaps I should have said "good steward"....and what I mean is that I put my stewardship firmly in the column of manners which would then fall into the category of "do unto others". I just think it's dangerous to present the idea of "environmentalism" or "geo-stewarship" or however you want to wrap it, as a tenet or a mandate of christian faith. It is, in principle, a good idea,(or good manners) but it is certainly not a commandment as , for example, keeping the Sabbath is a commandment. Which MOST christians do not do, including me until recently.
And yes, those verses do fit for the person who is in agreement with the belief that this earth is to be our eternal home....which I am not.
As for the christian world view, all I mean by that is that I don't think that comparing our beliefs to the worldview of christian authors (or pastors, or professors) is an adequate test of biblical integrity. Christian worldview is pretty fluid. Take the teachings of Hal Lindsay on the "rapture" as an example. That was the predominant worldview held, and taught about in Bible colleges from the 50's to the 70's. But is it still the predominant worldview? Maybe for Left Behind fans. But Hal Lindsay himself has since changed his view on the matter.
Thank you Carey.
You are welcome, but Thanks for what Jared? Please dont mistake the tone of my posts for bitterness. I have not been known for my ability to wrap concepts in pretty packages....I am a lay-it-out plain and simple, very blunt person. I make no apologies for that when I am defending my faith amongst fellow believers. I ask you to humour me...Check out the "Lucis Trust" website. The openning page states "The worldwide activities of the Lucis Trust, founded by Alice and Foster Bailey, are dedicated to establishing right human relations." Pretty harmless, no? It goes on to say "The activities of the Lucis Trust promote the education of the human mind towards recognition and practice of the spiritual principles and values upon which a stable and interdependant world society may be based....". This may all sound quite harmless, unless you know who Alice A. Bailey WAS, and that Lucis trust was formerly called Lucifer Trust, and currently their Cycle of Conferences Group number one focus is EARTH STEWARDSHIP. This isn't just "greenpeacers" or Al Gore Supporters...there is a very deep spiritual side to this issue! Check out Alice A Bailey's "10 Strategies"...and then I ask you....what, if anything, would the evil one, the enemy, Satan have to gain from "christians" focussing on this issue?
-Carey
I totally agree with you, Carey, that before we support any organization we should understand their backgrounds and what they believe. There are a lot of organizations that do "good" things that are completely "anti-Christ" (ie. Shriners, Masons, etc).
However, that being said, we can't let that dictate our beliefs/behaviors as Christians. Regardless of others' behaviors and their motivations we need to act according to what we have been taught in/by the Word.
That's why I have now moved beyond stating my "thesis" (or a blogger's version of a thesis :) and am now looking at how the Bible addresses this particular topic, starting in Genesis. If it holds up, it holds up; if it doesn't, it doesn't. Either way, let's do our best to approach this from a Biblical angle.
Yes, let's approach this from a biblical angle, I am 100% in agreement with that. Let's also take a closer look at some of the books listed on the right hand side of your blog. Are the books by N.T Wright - "Simply Christian" and "The Challenge of Easter", influencing this line of thinking? Both books are published by Harper-Collins which is the publishing company that holds the copyright on the "Satanic Bible"...and the head of Harper-Collins is Rupert Murdoch, one of the world's largest producers of pornography. Is there a chance that this publishing company may have an alterior motive? Adam and Eve who walked in the garden with Yahweh HIMSELF were able to be led astray by the serpent (who was cunning above every animal of the field), and his argument was very persuasive to the two people who had the closest relationship to Yahweh EVER! How cunning it is when the evil one disguises another gospel and presents it as the eternal gospel. But only one of them is LIGHT, and the other is DARKNESS. Is there a chance, given N.T Wright's affiliations, that he may be on the wrong side of the line? That he is walking in darkness?
1Jn 1:5-7 And this is the message which we have heard from Him, and we announce to you; God is light and no darkness is in Him - none. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and we walk in darkness, we lie and are not practicing the truth. But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of His son Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin."
1Jn 2:3 "And by this we know that we have known Him, if we keep his commands."
Post a Comment