Sunday, April 22, 2012

Earth Day: 'Worshipping the Creation Rather than the Creator'

The problem with ‘Earth Week’ (or day), as it is ‘framed’ today, is basic; it is shaped and informed by an naturalist understanding of the universe (and thus earth). It is based upon assumptions that believe that all reality is reducible to material; here is a succinct summary of this perspective, provided by James Sire:
1. Matter exists eternally and is all there is. God does not exist.
As in theism and deism, the prime proposition concerns the nature of basic existence. In the former two the nature of God is the key factor. In naturalism it is the nature of the cosmos which is primary, for now, with an eternal creator-God out of the picture, the cosmos itself becomes eternal—-always there though not necessarily in its present form, in fact, certainly not in its present form. Carl Sagan, astrophysicist and popularizer of science, has said it as clearly as possible: “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” (James W. Sire, “The Universe Next Door,” 54)

The consequence of living as if there is no God is to fill that void with [an]other god; that is, material “creation” itself becomes God, but not without us. In other words, man becomes the center of the universe, and the earth becomes his sustenance — ‘Mother Earth’. This way of thinking is not ‘new’, it is not progressive or ‘cutting-edge’; it is as old as the ‘Fall’ itself (see Gen. 3 and the ensuing story [the rest of the scriptures, esp. the OT]). In fact the LORD admonishes his people, contrary to the ‘natural way of thinking’, not to lift up ‘nature’ as if that is all there is; He says:
15“Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, 16beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, 17the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, 18the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth. 19And beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, things that the LORD your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven. 20But the LORD has taken you and brought you out of the iron furnace, out of Egypt, to be a people of his own inheritance, as you are this day. ~Deuteronomy 4:15-20
The negative of what Yahweh admonishes His people “not to do” (in the passage above) is the “natural orientation” of Fallen man. It is to worship the creation rather than the Creator (cf. Rom. 1); and this is what ‘Earth day (week, year)’ actually pivots upon.

Christians should not confuse stewardship of God’s creation with being ‘Green’. And really the only, and most basic reason for this, is what I have been trying to distinguish in my previous narrative; and that is, that ‘being Green’ is informed by an ‘worldview’ that is incompatible with the ‘Christian trinitarian’ perspective. The ‘Green’ approach “starts” out with the assumption that there is no God; the Christian, or what I like to call, ‘the Red’ approach, assumes just the opposite —- that there is a creator God, and He has revealed Himself to us in Christ.

In my view, it is irresponsible for Christians to take up the mantle of the ‘Green approach’, and assume that there is compatibility simply in the name of being ‘good stewards’. We need to be good ‘Stewards’ indeed, but in the name of Christ; and not simply by adopting the approach offered by the ‘unbelieving world’ (Christologically this is akin to the adoptionist heresy known as Ebionitism), and thus ‘Christianizing’ the pagan way of doing and thinking things.

**My next post will be on how to think about this stuff through the analogy of the incarnation (or Christologically); Colossians 1 is key for the Christian understanding at this juncture. If Christ is supreme over all creation, both as Creator and Redeemer, then as Christians it behooves us to think this issue out of that paradigm. Really this whole discussion orbits around that classic discussion between the relationship of nature and grace; the answer to that question must be centered in the life of Christ and how His hypostatic union (the relationship between his divine and human natures) should inform our approach to being stewards of this ‘creation’ or ‘recreation’ through Him. Instead of ‘Green’ I think Christians should call themselves ‘Red’, because without the shedding of God’s blood in Christ all we really have is ‘Black’ — which is what I think ‘Earth Day’ and its approach should really be called [not 'green']. Anyway, more to come.**

15 comments:

  1. I think the arch bishop of the Greek orthodox church in Istanbul would disagree about being green and being a trinitarian theologian. He is one of the most trailblazing christian environmentalists.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think that too often, when Christians adopt popular labels, either to be relevant or because they genuinely support the cause in question, they fail to decisively and confessionally(?) distance themselves from the worldly influences the movement is married to or was born from, so that they appear to support same. I'm a "conservative", less a "republican". If being a "conservative" implies bowing to anything beneath the Lord, someone please inform me so that I can set the record straight. To my understanding "green" is an extention of popular culture that makes government action the salvation of the world, where-as individual responsibility, concerning the area of natural resources I call "conservation". We can all turn off lights when we leave the room, and teach children to do same. We can all place refuse in correct collections to recycle or dispose, and teach our children as well. We can refuse to buy from companies that polute, we can all clean up our plates and teach our children to not waste what the Lord has given us. I don't think the present movement does anything to turn hearts toward God. Everyone looks to government to pass laws and enforce them, to save the world.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I love your historical explorations into Calvinism and have learned much, that is where I think you thrive, but sometimes your theological forays into popular culture seem extremely sheltered and simplistic. Do you really think the way you frame Jesus is the only answer for the environmental destruction that is taking place in the world? I wonder what Chinese companies and the huge corporate monoculture farms, the oil companies and car companies, the fracking practices in order to get natural gas, yeah I wonder when Jesus and the hypostatic union is going to convince these businesses to stop. Maybe that jesus frame work is completely ridiculous to these people, what then do states/governments do about the problems, just wait until ? What when,, yeah it's not really a conceptual problem or a question of how to frame the green movement its a question of will, the will of governments to stop being bought and controlled by corporations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kenny,
      You wrote "....the will of governments to stop being bought and controlled by corporations".
      Kenny, government is a corporation, with the additional power of the sword, the power of life and death, the power to confiscate the vineyard of Ahab's choosing, and the power of freedom or shackels. It is peopled by fallen humans, with fallen motivations and fallen wisdom to receive counsel from fallen scientists in economics, health, military scientists and even fallen environmental scientists. Yeah, we Christians must give a priority to protecting the environment for our children, but we can not give a blank check to every claim of environmental scientists, especially claims that are widely disputed. You mentioned China. That is the beauty of the prosperity of the west brought in part by relatively free markets. When people reach a certain level of security, they can afford to look around and say, "this place is a mess. We need to clean this up for our grandchildren." Emerging markets have no such luxury, and totalitarian states could care less, but to pay it lip service. IF business is hamstrung by laws that increase starvation and human suffering, those laws will fail. On the other hand, if government is just looking for opportunities to hold corporations up for a bribe, as is very often the case, then government bureaucrats and their corporate sponsors are the only ones to gain. But then, you already knew all of this.
      Peace

      Delete
    2. Governments are not corporations. Governments are God given graces to keep sin in check and order society, corporations are a collections of individuals who come together to render goods and services for profit. Governments have the responsibility to bring about justice in society while corporations responsibility is to follow the laws in the pursuit of profit. Everyone is fallen and everything is fallen as well, yet all institutions have to be responsible and try to be just. the Science is there to suggest that the path that both of these institutions are on is destructive, the green MOVEMENTS can be a good corrective and dialogue partner. To not dialogue with someone and hear what they have to say is the height of hardheartedness and pride.

      Delete
    3. Dialogue,yes. But every time chicken little runs out and cries "the sky is falling and those evil corporations are causing it", millions take that as gospel truth, and look to governments to rectify it. Governments are organic bodies, and as such they have one tendency, and that is to grow. One is either growing or dying. A bureaucrat has a family to feed, and a wife to keep at home, children to send to college. so he looks for ways to increase his stock. Global warming is huge. We have to put an end to the American love affair with the automobile. We have to stop using incandescent lights, we have to stop burning coal to generate electricity. We have to spend billions on corporations to develop alternative energy. I have some friends generating electricity by running lemmings on a tread mill. We need a grant for $50 million. I'm sure my friends and I can turn out the vote for you in November.

      NASA needs funding. I'm sure with a trillion trillion trillion stars out there and the universe expanding every decade, there must be intelligent life out there. Lets go discover it. I just need $100 billion.
      People are attracted to whatever field interests them, but once there, if they want to advance, they have to, by-and-large buy into the narrative that particular industry supports. You want to be an anthropologist? Don't doubt macro-evolution!
      I'm saying, if the State Department and the Pentagon said "let's go to war against the Pablapoltrians, because studies prove that we have to go to war because the Pablapoltrians are trying to destroy us, and everyone agrees."
      I'm certain Kenny that because the Pentagon was involved, you would say "stop!". You would naturally be suspiscious. But for most liberals, the military and the police are the only aspects of government that they distrust. Every other aspect of government is designed to make their life better. All you gotta do is name it and claim it!

      Delete
  4. @Kenny,

    The metropolitan or archbishop is Orthodox; they have problems with making the Creator/creature distinction. But beyond that, I never wrote anything that suggested that a Christian shouldn't be an 'environmentalist'; my post was against metaphysical materialism/naturalism and the ethics that result from this 'worldview'.

    If I thought my understanding of Jesus was as relative and thus marginal and particular as you assert; then I would junk my view. But I don't think it's any of those things, so I won't; and in fact I think it has universal force (e.g. the logic that ensues from the Incarnation and the homoousion person of Jesus Christ). And so this will and should inform Christian ethics. I don't care what Red China thinks about Jesus and the ethics that inhere with his life; I expect them to think from the atheistic naturalism that they embrace, in general, and thus worship creation rather than the Creator. That seems less simple and sheltered, and much more Pauline, than you seem to think. But I understand; the foolishness of the cross and thinking from Christ is not a popular or sophisticated mode of considering things in our modern and post modern milieu. Yet, I feel much more comfortable with thinking from Christ and him crucified, and presuming that this has universal implications for EVERYTHING (since creation is the 'Theater of God's glory' ... full of the pleroma of God in Christ etc).

    So I'll wait to hear how you frame things and think up a way of world peace outside of Christ, Kenny. Until then, I don't know, really, what you're griping about.

    @Duane,

    Yes, they call what you're describing 'The Social Gospel'. I don't have a problem with being a good steward of God's creation, but it needs to be grounded from a Christic frame of reference. I don't know how else to think of such things; alas, I am Christian!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you really know if This Arch Bishop does indeed have the Creature/creator problem. like, did you every read any of his works or know anything about him? Seriously, your dismissals and gross over generalizing are a bit tiring.

      Why does environmentalism "need to be grounded from a Christic frame of reference" ? why is this a necessity? how do you justify this claim?

      What in fact does it mean to be a "good steward" in the 21st century of the creation, did you get this idea from the pages of the OT which never conceived of the atomic bomb and high pressure gas drilling, and deep water oil drilling, how does a book that has ethics for society completely unlike ours relate to today, I think it really easy to say "good steward" but then not really mean too much by it. Seriously, maybe Green ideas are what you really mean since you might be surprised to learn that many of the ideas that you connect to pagan creation worshipers are the basis for what you call good steward. So in this I calling B.S. I'm saying Bobby you are B.S.ing your way through these issues and easily dismissing what you probably should look into a bit more deeply, Seriously James Sire for a post on the green Movement, what are we like 5 yrs old or freshman at multnomah.

      Delete
  5. Be a god and choose the accompanying ethic by which we'll condemn our brother. The first law: “Love not, lest ye be loved”. Go, gather unto yourself all that you can see or either take that which was earned by others. View your godliness in your providence or see your salvation in your preservation. Trust in my word and you shall be free from your obvious ignorance. Then we shall rule with an rod of iron. Thus saith the man. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kc,

      You caught the simple gist of my post, thanks.

      Delete
  6. I would frame them in a trinitarian way just as you, I actually think this is the best starting point for a christian environmentalist. I have no grip with What you said about some of the roots of the green movement, what bothers me is that the export of your post is a subtle rejection of the (good and real) gains the "green" movement has accomplished. when you basically say these people are pagans and off worshiping the creation those statements make it hard for christians to partner with them for the common good. Your writings seem to suggest one's ontology has to be spot on (ours) before a person can be green or follow the good practical ideas of the green movement. I would suggest it's not so black and white. The arch bishop was labeled the "green Pope" because he could partner with others working for the same outcome i.e. a better place to dwell. I agree with you that some "green" philosophy is way off from my world view, but the action and outcomes that many of their ideas have for gods good earth are pretty sensible and way better for our bodies and communities. Point is, I think it is well worth working with people with crazy ideology if they are seeking outcomes similar to mine, and I'm suggesting your post is a subtle wedge for christians to remain status quo.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You don't know what I'm griping about because you can't see outside of the framework which you think everyone needs to see. My gripe is wisdom, in that american evangelical christians aren't really known on the world stage as too environmentally friendly. In fact they are probably some of the most environmentally unfriendly, due to their ideas about raptures and God destroying the earth, their constant voting for pro business and the energy party members i.e. GOP, their diving huge gas drinking SUV's to their suburban churches 15 miles away stopping on the way to eat hamburgers with the kids, you know the American Dream (5% of this population eats up the majority of the worlds resources)all while sneering at the toyota P. in front of them with the green party bumpber sticker on their car and quietly calling them hippie pagans. These are the facts of the heart for most American Evangelical Christians. And just think they can come home and read a fine blog like yours, that basically keeps them in that same box by great "theological ideas." Oh well, You'll come around like you did on the OWS Position, NT Wright, and Amil position after you think about it a bit more.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Kenny,

    Too much to respond to.

    Sure I know what you're griping about, and sure I can see outside of my framework; just like you can apparently see into mine.

    I don't think Scripture is as particularized as you do (and thus not pertinent to speak into, through its inner-logic, current day situations; that's one thing. Plus I've already written stuff like this: http://growrag.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/a-critique-of-the-what-would-jesus-do-society/ . The current post here, the one you've been commenting on was written about 3 years ago; so I have moved in my views on things in some areas (not as cloistered as you want to pin me). But you are really running wild with this post in ways that this post doesn't really ask for. The basic premise of this post is aligned with Romans 1. Are you saying, Kenny, that you don't think folk worship the creation rather than the Creator; than this does not apply anymore? That's what it seems like you're saying. I am NOT saying that the there is nothing to learn from environmentalism today, but that we need to appropriate it much more critically than from what I've observed heretofore, that we have.

    In the end though, Kenny; you have taken this post much further than I had ever intended. My basic suggestion in this post is that there are still plenty of people who worship creation rather than the Creator; THAT'S ALL!

    Did you forget that I am vegan (for the most part); don't eat processed foods (like sugar, flour etc.; and believe that 'alternative' medicine is sound contra big pharma, big medical etc. I just think that Christians need to think Christianly about being 'Green' so called; that's it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yeah I can see how I kind of went on a rant, I do indeed believe people worship the creation over the creator as Romans reads, I wasn't really disagreeing with the content of the main thrust of the post, I was just reacting to the subtle seemingly dismissal of the green movement and christians partnering with it. thats why I originally brought up the green Pope. I thought you were saying that the green movement is evil/misinformed and so are people who partner with it's ideas. My major point was that Christians can learn and be enriched in their attempts to be better stewards of the world by partnering and learning from these groups. I also got a bit annoyed at the word gripe, as if I was just trying to be diffident for the sake of it. I took it as a subtle dismissal of people who are in fact green christians and who would have some pause with the implications of some of your statements. I think that it is awesome that you are Vegan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kenny,

      I wanted to cause some pause; what's wrong with that?

      I only eat the way I do because I had cancer, but it has other health benefits too. We are more 'flexitarian' because we eat meat once a week (white meat), and on holidays I splurge ;-). But I brought this up to note that I am not against thinking 'alternative' or against the status quo (Americana etc).

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.